User Name

And since we're in 2013 and no one has tried to open a playoff game (let alone an elimination one) with their closer of all pitchers, it's safe to say that there's something inherently wrong with your assumptions rjortiz. A short-rested #2, #3 starter is a better bet to give you a decent performance than a juggling act with your entire bullpen. Where's the logic in starting your bullpen arms out of their allotted roles and then your starter out of the BP (where some guys just can't get loose that quickly or easily) instead of in their regular roles? This just seems like you're trying very hard to push an out-of-left-field idea with very little substance behind it.

Right here you are trying to make a comparison (incorrect one by the way) between the work of "every single relief pitcher" to "an average starter". That is an apple to oranges comparison. You can't take 40-50 IP of "being brought in to a situation where i can succeed" to around 160 IP of starter workload.

Considering the success they've had this year with identifying and maximizing homegrown talent production, you may wanna do a double-take on who's wrong here.

Except that that's exactly what you're doing.

You have enough anecdotal evidence about pitchers being "creatures of habit" (and that being why they have set roles) to think that it's more likely that's true than the other side of the coin. And why find out in an elimination game? That makes zero sense. Paul Maholm wouldn't be starting an elimination game. Don't insult people's intelligence. On short bursts in usually favorable situations. Apples to oranges, and "obviously" better. That's why they're starting games instead of relieving. Most of those "great" relievers are nothing more than failed starters. In the best case scenario. Because they're all going to get quick outs and pitch clean innings right? That's not how baseball works. What evidence are YOU basing the idea that they'd be able to hold on for basically an entire game, out of their regular usage pattern, in a playoff elimination game? None. You know why? No one has tried it because it's an idea that beats logic in the face with a baseball bat. Yeah, that's why you START your best available STARTER, who is your best available pitcher to START a game, instead of a relief pitcher. It's better than batshit insanity.

Are you really still banging the Lavarnway drum? I salute you sir.

Who cares? You predict s*** going wrong for the Red Sox every time you log in. Throw enough s*** at the wall and.....

You just can't compare a regular season game to a playoff elimination game. They wouldn't begin the game with a starter on a 40-pitch limit. Why should they?

You can't just extrapolate a reliever's one-inning stint performance to a starter's. That's ludicrous.

Not anecdotal evidence. It's an oft-discussed problem which even the sports talking heads have picked up on.

Trying to pitch a starter out of the bullpen afterwards makes it an even more terrible idea.

Except that you'd be: A) Taking a reliever out of his comfort zone. Your whole premise is wrong, because after probably the first two guys in the 'pen, all of the other relievers are essentially guaranteed to have worse stuff than your worst starter even in an elite bullpen. c) In an elimination game, with all hands on deck, you can pitch your starters who have the most rest, and are obviously better than the mid-bottom rung relievers of your roster. D) You essentially force your specialists into one-inning situations. E) It's just a terrible idea, because what happens if by miracle you don't get shitstomped and the game goes to extras, and then you have to warm up a .starter on short notice instead of piggybacking starters, which is the logical choice? Straws are not good to grab on to.

jung, this makes no sense at all, and it absolutely strays away from your initial point. Feel free to keep moving the goalposts, but you're clearly wrong here.

Also, i just noticed that jung said Holland is "not a power pitcher". Dude throws smoke (93.5 MPH average fastball velocity) with an 8.3 K/9. jung, i don't mean it as an insult, but you don't know what you're talking about here.

How similar is it? A starter, even on short rest, is still a starter. In that scenario you could conceivably have Buch give you five decent innings instead of having to rely on your entire bullpen from the beginning of a game.

Pitching numbers are way up this season. Every one of the top offensive teams has been shut out or has scored one run in a significant number of games. No need trying to turn that into a "weakness in approach" that the team just doesn't have. The Sox' one identifiable problem this season has been hitting lefties, which has been a consistent problem all year. The rest is selective memory.

Buchholz was a starter. So you would have still had a starter to, you know, begin the game. If you read rjortiz' initial post (i'm guessing you didn't) his suggestion is to ditch the starter altogether and to just pitch the entire bullpen.

jung, you said the Sox can't hit curveballs. The overall numbers suggest you were wrong. And saying "they can be deceiving" and picking apart a couple of starts from either pitchers having great seasons (Tillman, Weaver, Colon) or complete unknowns (Oberholtzer) proves very little. Your initial point was that a pitcher with a decent curveball can shut the Sox down, and that's just not true. And funny that you mention JJ, who the Sox shelled several times this season.

And it would still make no sense.

Even in an elimination game, a starter on short rest is better than a relief pitcher who's likely to be overworked as well for multiple innings. There's just no logical way to defend such a move.

Never. Because this is a ridiculous idea.

BB-Ref has a category for those pitchers who barely walk anyone and have around average K-rates like Fister, labeling them finesse pitchers, who the Red Sox have wrecked to the tune of a .847 OPS this season. Other than power (or really soft-tossing) lefties with good changeups, the Sox have had little trouble against finesse righties, or righties in general. What you say is just not true SFF.

According to Fangraphs, the Red Sox' second runs wRC against any pitch is the curveball, and the worst is the changeup. I don't know where you came up with this jung.

jung, what evidence do you have regarding the notion that the Red Sox, as a team, have trouble hitting curveballs?

Which is a good piece of evidence against the "good pitchers find a way to win" nonsense. You can't win if your team doesn't score.