jung

West is so old.....

Thought Will got more of that than he did. Picked a nice pitch for him to hit though.

Nobody said Lester is sucking...he has so far made some bad pitches and if he keeps mixing in that many bad pitches, he will get hurt with them. It ain't rocket science. If he continues as he did with the last two batters of the last inning, he will be in much better shape.

Did much better with the last two batters. A little wild in the strike zone before that though. Hopefully he has settled in.

Lester needs to get the ball down. Making some bad pitches here so far.

Went to commercial for me also

That is absolutely right....athleticism is a huge part of his whole game....one of the things that makes a long term contract kinda' scary.

Thank God...that was not pretty. 3-4-5 in their order were right on Jon. That was outside to VM. More surprised that VM did not swing to protect but it really looked like a ball. Don't like it when Jon starts walking toward the dugout like that. Just let the ump make his call Jon. You pitch...he umps....just make sure you pitch better than he umps.

Hardest balls to judge in the OF are the balls hit directly at you. Just don't think Ells had a good read on that.

Oh man....that was a bad first pitch to Cabrera.

No question, the Tigers have great starting pitching. However their best will be left to pitch later in the series and some of the options that Leyland would have had will be taken out of his hands. If Verlander is at the absolute top of his game, he can be like the hockey goalie that just snuffs out the other team's offense. But he has to be at the absolute top of his game to do that. Scherzer can get close to that as well but not quite as dominating. A little deeper in the rotation and not so much. This is still going to boil down to the same things that the Sox used to generate offense in the regular season at least as far as their scoring is concerned. If they can drive up pitch counts they will make it very difficult for opposing starting pitchers to go deep into games, especially given the pressure of post season play. When you get into that Tiger's pen, you have reached the promised land. That is not to say that the Sox will not be able to eek out a run here or there along the way when facing Verlander or Scherzer. Also there is only so much high leverage, high pressure pitching that a guy can take even when he is a great pitcher. We have likely seen Verlander's best game for example. Clearly the Sox should have opportunities to eek out a few runs against Sanchez or Fister. Not saying that the Tigers will just roll over and play dead. Their starters have swing and miss stuff and throw strikes...sort of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object to some extent. As for controlling the Tigers offense, I really hope that Farrell manages these games sort of the way BB coaches football games. Take major weapons off the table and see if the opponent can beat you without them. Now the way Farrell handled Longoria suggests that he does not quite get that. Hope he learned from that lesson. If you can keep Jackson, who is not so far having a great post season, off the base paths, then the Tigers really only have one way to score. They hit for power and blub...blub...blub...trundle their way around the base paths like rampaging rhinos. To be honest, it sorta' looks ridiculous. Is that the Lions offensive line, or the Tigers line up out there? If I were Farrell I would strategize around keeping Jackson at bay and then see if the Tigers can win games with the occasional 1 run HR. I suspect they can't and I honestly hope Farrell thinks about the game that way. Turn these games into games where both teams have to scratch and claw out runs and the Tigers are at an immediate disadvantage to the Sox.

I hope we are not going to be infested with Tiger fans telling us that Cabrera is back based on a monster mistake pitch inside that Cabrera jacked over the left field fence. Cabrera is done from the waist down and therefore has no power to the opposite field. Just have to keep the ball away from him and be satisfied to give up occasional opposite field singles to him. That will put him on first base where he will become an instant road block since he can't run either.

If Cabrera were not such a mess, you would have to at least show him the pitch inside to keep him from just reaching out and covering the entire plate. But his lower body is gone. In fact he appears to be gone from just below the chest down. That being the case, it does not seem to matter if he can reach out and cover the whole plate....he can't generate any power to the opposite field. So I do think Sox pitchers will just take their chances with him. Even if he knows they are feeding him pitches outside, if he gets a single, he becomes a road block on the base paths because he can't run either. I suspect anything he sees inside even off the plate will be a horrid mistake pitch.

I will try to see what I can find for these pitches for the time frame I was referencing. Again I have to believe that total breaking balls is up but I can't believe that the curve percentages are up from where they were in the 60's and early 70's. I could buy some small increases from the mid 80's on but not the 70's and surely not the 60's. Many more pitchers had good curve ball in those decades and most threw them with more regularity than you see today. I think guys give up on it more often today than they used to because they get an ump that gives up on it and won't call it for a strike or they just don't have it on that particular day. More often than not a good curve just freezes hitters these days certainly more so than it did back in the 60's and 70's. There were not as many alternate breaking balls being thrown back then. So if you saw something other than the FB, it was curve or screwball (now gone) or change up with fewer guys throwing sliders. As I recall the slider was still called by many the nickel curve in the 60's and earlier and that name still hung on with some into the very early 70's which to some extent tells you how import the curve was then. The slider did not even have its own name yet and something that broke like that was simply referred to as something that was not quite a full curve ball, as in something that broke kinda' like a curve but not as big. There is earlier reference to something called a slider but those pitchers were actually throwing something like what we now call a cut fastball. Feller may have been the first to throw the slider with any regularity. Bob Gibson probably had the best of the nickel curves/Sliders of the 60's and it was not a pitch hitters saw every day. As such Gibson had tremendous success with that pitch. In fact it was the onrushing train that was the slider that cut sharply into the number of big breaking curve balls that pitchers were throwing in the 60's and early 70's. The slider really came on the 70's and was as important to the 70's as the curve was to the 60's. If anything the slider is responsible for the difference in the number of curves thrown today as compared to the number of curves thrown through the 60's and very early 70's. I do tend to agree that the curve may well come back to where it was in the 60's and 70's for no other reason than the amount of abuse the pitchers arm takes throwing other breaking pitches. These other breaking pitches are certainly no longer as unique as they once were and pitchers now know how tough some of them can be on your arm. The big curve is certainly a thing of beauty when thrown as good as it gets but you don't really see that as often as we did certainly in the 60's and early 70's.

I am going back way farther than that though and I am talking about the curve specifically, not all breaking balls. I have not checked for any shift in the 2000's at all. I would definitely think all breaking balls are up even going back to the 70's. In fact I would there is no question about it. I just happen to think that the curve is particularly effective because if thrown right it breaks really big and when a guy like Verlander or Lester can throw that particular breaking ball for strikes, he really has an asset. But that is also one of the things that makes it a tough decision for pitchers. Umps really have a difficult time seeing them for a high percentage as strikes. It also seems like if the catcher moves his glove at all the ump calls a ball regardless of what pitch the pitcher has thrown. But a big breaking curve can pose some difficulties for the catcher as well again given how often umps call a borderline pitch a ball if he does move his mitt. When Verlander is on he can throw his curve for strikes. Lester can throw his for strikes when he is on. I will try to see if I can find something relevant to all breaking balls on a longer time span. That might be the more relevant data point anyway. Although as I said above, I would think it a cinch that all breaking balls would be up even over a longer time span than the 2000's.

The key is actually to keep those 5th and 6th inning guys out of the game altogether while getting the opponent's 5th and 6th inning guys into the game as often and as soon as possible. You will want to watch starter success with secondary pitches. For example in general the curve ball is not as used as much by pitchers as it once was but when a guy throws it for strikes it makes getting to strike 2 and ultimately an out so much easier. Pitch counts stay down...starters get through innings faster and with much more regularity. So watch for success with secondary pitches....can the starter throw them, does the ump see them as strikes (more and more a question of chance and a real wild card) and last but most important, are they enough to keep the hitters off balance? Do they earn the pitcher easy strikes or are they just floating up to the plate...nothing pitches that are so bad that the hitter sends them zipping past the pitchers ear on their way to the outfield even though the hitter was likely sitting for a FB? or..... are they somewhere in between.....not floating up to the plate but pitches that the ump doesn't often enough see as strikes for example. Where they fall on that spectrum of goodness or badness often spells out whether your starter can make it into the late innings or will be toast by the 5th summoning fresh meat from the pen. These championship series will be decided on pitching and defense as is so often the case. Two runs will often seem like an avalanche of offense.

True but in reality, the matrices do not at this point exist that can really quantify defensive play for really any position as yet. They are getting closer. But the best they can do at this point is focus on very specific categories. Nothing really binds them together and provides you a whole picture of the defender in a really meaningful way. UZR gets as close as they can get at least today. Interestingly at Fangraphs Vic outranks Ells in RZR, OOZ and UZR. Ells has more plays over which his stats are spread, not unusual for a guy playing CF. Certainly RZR and OOZ would not offer much benefit to a guy with a better arm as they are stats mostly about being able to go and get it. There are really a good many outfielders that rank higher than Ells in those stat categories. Still and all, even in the specific categories that we have today, there is much that seems to go missing. Guys like James are probably spending more time trying to improve on defensive stats than any other category.

OK so Ells lead in zone runs which makes some sense but does not make him the top defensive outfielder in baseball.

I just there was a different Ells thread than this one. Every time somebody brings this one to the top and I read Ellsbury out at first I think it is a new thread!

Well that tore it. If I have to see that f***ing Tigers pitchers mound, post game cheer at Fenway I will hang myself. Beat these pussy cats.

I like our chances against either team but what is happening tonight is in part why I have consistently said I would perfer to see Oakland than Detroit (there I should have just smacked Detroit with the jung kiss of death right there). Seriously though, the Tigers have more starting pitching that can just come out and shut you down. That worries me more than anything the A's can throw at us. Cabrera being below par for him is helpful. However as we see, make a mistake to him and you can still be in trouble. Regardless of which team we play will be interested to see if Farrell has been cured of challenging the most dangerous hitter in the opponent's line up. My guess No...not cured yet.

Wow I would like to see those rankings. Vic might be somewhere around 5th but there is no way that Ells is the best defensive outfielder in baseball. Too many guys out there with very similar range and way better arms. No question that Ells would definitely be in the top 10 for ML defensive outfielders and I would think Vic would be there as well with Ells a bit ahead of Vic even given Vics obvious advantage in arm strength and accuracy. That said I don't think you can rank "deals" unless they are deals made in the same year. Ells is coming up in the FA market this year. I think the Sox will make him a very attractive offer. I also think they will be outbid by some team that is looking for a great ballplayer that can also be the face of their franchise. We already have a face of the franchise guy...Pedey. So I think there will e a point where the Sox will not be willing to go for Ells.

Looks like Melancon just ended the Pirates season for them. There is a shocker for ya'!

Unless you are looking for one run late in the game leaving the opponent with little time to respond I don't much believe in the productive out. Maybe another instance would be with two strikes and runners in position to move up with less than two outs. But I would be pretty selective about applauding it there as well. The specific hitter has something to do with it as well. You could have a hitter (especially in the NL) that looks like an out waiting to happen every time he steps to the plate. That might lead you to be satisfied with a productive out. But outs are rally killers and I do believe in rallies.

I could see this stuff being a tough explanation to make to a spouse Bell.