sk7326

I think that is conflating two separate things - the human stuff is input ... humans play these games inside of our TV sets. I would never dispute the importance therein - but the output is measurable stuff, and the output is what you get paid for. Now Price's postseason output has stunk - now whether that is actually a matter of pressure or just an issue with good teams are distinct diagnoses. (the latter one, while alarming, is much more credible) After all, Price went 10-2 down the stretch as a deadline gunner for the Jays in wins they had to have - and Price was at his best this season for us down the stretch when the games mattered most for securing the division. WAR is a sum of measurable baseball output - none of the stuff in there is subjective (aside from the subjectivity of its inclusion or exclusion). Now there are different ways to separate a pitcher's contribution to a team accomplishment (run prevention) which is what differentiates the measurements. (fWAR is better for predicting the future, bWAR is better for awards) There is no doubt pressure can affect people - at the same time, those factors matter less when dealing with a profession you have been doing since you were a child - especially if you do it well. And either way, it should come out in the wash. Could Price be pressing a bit in the playoffs - yes. But he was pretty good in a lot of big games which were essential to get to the tournament. It's not binary.

both 25 and under, one with legitimate swing and miss stuff. A team will try to buy low - but their careers are not dead at all.

I think as a matter of careers - Schilling has at most intervals been a better pitcher than Price. Price's postseason struggles are what they are - I would not call it luck. Going by game logs - there is some evidence he has not been so good third time through the order against that level of competition. I think the Cleveland start had a good deal of poor fortune (his stuff looked better than Porcello's). I always go to my main issue with "clutch" - while Schilling has been a better big game pitcher than Price, I'd also submit he is just a better pitcher period.

1. Not to be nit picky, but ERA is quantification - if you want to go there 2. The mental stuff does matter - but given that this is such a competitive industry, those who wilt under pressure probably wilted in Altoona or Greenville or Chattanooga. 3. Remember the Yankees won the World Series three times in four years. They also blew series in 2003 and 2004 with home field advantage. The greatest closer who ever lived blew a save to win the World Series and another to win the AL Pennant. Does that mean the principals suddenly had issues with composure? Or was it the other team having a hot stretch. Or was it just baseball? Remember Luiz Gonzalez game winning single in the 2001 World Series was basically an outcome Rivera would have been happy with vis a vis his job. (threw a good cutter Gonzalez could not square up with good contact) The blooper fell where there were no fielders - it happens. 4. It IS a tournament between good teams - and that is the source of the pressure. These teams are all good. (and are all probably even in the mental stuff - it's why they are good) Anyone who played baseball knows that you can do the right thing and have nothing to show for it - it happens all the time. Remember, this is a sport where the best hitters still fail at their job over half the time. There is just so much "sh!t happens" noise in any single game that it is hard to get too deep into blame. That doesn't mean that it is all luck - but luck is a pretty significant driver.

At this point they are almost all saber orgs - just a matter of how (except for Arizona and they are fixing that)

They turned an almost washout into a 23 year old starter with Top 2 potential - it'd be nice to have him, but the Sox did well

Well, when did the last national TV deal kick in - that is the more relevant question here me thinks

And you might see fewer QOs as a result

I have no doubt Farrell would have done it too. He had no qualms being aggressive with Taazawa, Breslow and Uehara in 2013. Just never had the chance.

Especially with Carpenter hurt, the 2004 Red Sox were pretty clearly one of the Top 2 teams in the entire league that year - they knocked off the other Top 2 team. Hell, there is a pretty good case the 2004 Red Sox were the best team of the 21st century to date. In 2007 the Sox swept Anaheim, came from 3-1 down to pick off Cleveland. Again in the ALCS, you basically had the major's two best teams - the Sox knocked out the other Top 2 team. You would have picked the Red Sox to beat Colorado in virtually any context (home, away, in a house, with a mouse, in a boat, with a goat, here or there, anywhere) Colorado went on a crazy 20-2 stretch to make the playoffs - but the Sox were always the better side. The Sox were a freight train both times - but they did not catch fire per se - they were the best team in those cases. (and in 2013 too where they knocked off the 2nd best team in the World Series)

Really it is the Cubs starting rotation against the Guardians starters + Andrew Miller - plus whether the Guardians can score enough runs. Personally I am rooting for Cleveland - their drought is even the scrappy underdog drought story between the teams.

Lost two one run games - including one at Fenway. And ran into the buzzsaw of the Cleveland bullpen - which as it turns out, does not make us special. Farrell probably wonders what he could have done that was different - because he is a disappointed person and that's what you do. The reality is the answer is - not much. When your strategy is built around your top two starters pitching well and they don't ... it is hard for anything else to matter. But there is very little that can be done to guarantee playoff results - the Yankees won three titles and then spit the bit twice with home field advantage - I guess Derek Jeter became stupid.

Drew had a fine season here - honestly he was a shortstop version of Bradley. Defended well, and struck out and walked a ton which made him very streaky offensively.

DD was smart to keep a lot of the Red Sox infrastucture - and hopefully with Hazen's departure they limit the brain drain on that front.

The scouting system was built by management - so that seems creditworthy

The I think is to look at Dombrowski and Cherington (or anybody else)'s philosophy monolithically. They are executing ownership priorities. Dombrowski had an elderly fan who wanted to win a title before he croaks - a totally defensible aim. So he was instructed to manage the team this way - that he signed Prince Fielder against his own preferences is common knowledge. Now what we will never know is exactly what Henry wants out of Dombrowski - how much to weigh putting butts in seats and contending in the present year vs a player development machine. Now the Red Sox have created the latter since the new ownership - so if Dombrowski stays in house to replace Hazen (for instance) - you'll know how much Henry values what this franchise has done. I don't think Dombrowski will be as reckless with trades for now as with Detroit - unless Henry is okay with it. But what he has demonstrated so far - you identify your stars and then use everybody else as trade currency - is generally the right way to run a big market team. If the Red Sox made a mistake in years past it has (especially with pitchers) not being decisive enough. I do hope Dombrowski stays internal and doesn't throw out the business processes which has worked well for Boston - there was all this yammering about the Red Sox going to a more "traditional approach" but given the success of Red Sox scouting and development - there is little broken to fix there.

The same Yankees who won three titles in a row lost multiple best of 7s at home! Did they suddenly lose their clutchy McClutcherson-ness. The same principals participated in the biggest choke in baseball history. One of their actual titles (2000 IIRC) featured a 5 game losing streak to end the season. The Cardinals had a sub .500 September, ended the season 83-79 and won the whole darn thing. The 2009 Red Sox got swept out despite a lot of people who were on the 2007 title winner. Did Pedroia suddenly grow dumb or get the yips? It's baseball - good teams lose three in a row to inferior competition all the time. Indeed, it is quite rare for the league's best team to win the World Series - between pitching rotations and general luck, it is just the way it is. (remember, when Luis Gonzalez hit the walk off single in the 2001 World Series, that was him not making good contact against a basically perfect cutter)

Something DID go wrong! Cleveland outscored us three times.

And all of those playoff appearances - all you can do is give yourselves a spin ... of course the titles make it easier to be rational and zen about it

Because they ended up having two of the 10 best hitters in baseball to man the corners (or so they thought). The secret "thing which happened that the team never really recovered from" was Yook's body falling apart.

The result was that he made sure that Porcello and Price suddenly wet themselves during two playoff starts - he made sure that a few of Price's good pitches got blooped into spots fielders weren't playing. It is tempting to try to find a lot of reason for the playoff loss, when really "baseball happened". It's why the playoffs are fun sadly.

Perhaps - but really ratings will probably be mildly disappointing ... in this day and age most of the sports outside the NFL are regional in interest. The four LCS participants were all great stories - all have long championship droughts. I mean the Guardians made only their 6th World Series ever - only the White Sox have fewer among the original American League teams. And while they are going to on-paper underdogs against whomever - if they keep allowing under 2 runs a game, nobody is beating them.

UZR says to use multi-season samples to make an assessment on the player ... but the small sample can accurately depict what happened during that time. i.e. while an 0 for 10 stretch does not reflect on whether a hitter is good, it does accurately show that the 10 at bats did not go well.

His metrics got off to a slow start ... and after all, one's season defensive data is not enough to make a conclusion about the player. He had a rough start to the year - but he is clearly a plus CF.

Despite my admiration for Francona - and some level of agreement with you - I do think the relationship might have run its course too. 8 years is a long time in a place like Boston. Replacing him with one of his former coaches is sound - Farrell has been fine (better with the soft skills than the tactics, but again this year the tactics were largely good - you look at the games and it is hard to find issues with his bullpen moves, for a lot of the year the players did not deliver). I had more issues the last year or two when it looked like the coaches were not adding value. Francona has had a wonderful postseason playing to his team's strengths with the pitching staff. But we know Farrell has also managed very aggressively in big games and had quick hooks and the like. I suspect if the Sox got gifted a weapon like Andrew Miller to go with Kimbrel Miller would have not been banished to the 8th inning.