sk7326

Final week of the season where they entered the week essentially clinching a tie for the division? There is not one team of the 30 in their position who would not have done the same thing ... play the regulars a little bit, give the starters some burn but rotate through a lot of guys. Indeed the Guardians did the same thing - that they ended up #2 was largely dumb luck.

They lost because Cleveland's starting pitching + Andrew Miller was better than Boston's starting pitching ... that's it. This is something that could have occurred any weekend against any team because baseball is a funny game. It's not like some of the bloops and bleeders in that 2nd inning in Game 2 were anything Price could have done anything about - that's baseball.

Yes. Because you expect young players to get better. But it is also a bit of a silly question since we know this will not be the roster.

It's baseball - Guardians were better. Price was awful - and in the inning which blew up, one of the ball's was hard hit, and the rest were perfect pitches that ended up in a place without fielders. Home field is an edge, but a small one - one which the Red Sox have transcended many many many times. After all, since the playoff seeding began (1998) - teams with HFA have gone 69-65 (.515). Given that in most cases the HFA went to the better team, this casts significant doubt over the size of the HFA in and of itself. It is hard to divine meaning from any of these series aside from the fact that a team won and a team lost and that is was (usually) fun to watch.

They would have - what I do not remember was the win scenario, and their focus was clearly on getting healthy ... I suspect if their guys were 100% they might have pushed harder. It was a risk - and one which was a missed extra point from possibly paying off. C'est la vie.

The players that went out there certainly did. The Patriots example is less interesting as Julian Edelman And Gronk's ailments were hard to deal with in an alternate way - and the bye was clinched (and they had blown a game they should have won in Denver during the season). Home field means considerably more in football - but the Patriots healthwise were probably not in a position to do much in Week 17 other than what actually happened.

Really 3B is the only position that needs to be addressed (and that might not even be the case) - pitching will be the priority, both the bullpen and reducing the uncertainty at the back of the rotation.

Ultimately, baseball is the flukiest of all the major sports on a day to day basis - and why the regular season is the least flukey of all (ironing out those flukes via sheer number of games). But it follows the playoffs are the flukiest of the pro sports. (NBA > NFL > NHL > MLB ... in terms of level of certainty and the likelihood the champ is in fact the "best"). The only real conclusion that comes from why they lost is that the Guardians outscored them in three games. It's no solace - but hard to call for anybody's head over it either.

Your math is wrong. The edge is not remotely that large.

indeed - such as a set rotation and rested players ... which helps more than what is still effectively very very slightly more than a coin flip.

An advantage which did not come into play in this series - or the other AL series - or what the Cubs did ...

play the percentages, hope for the best ...

Home teams win 54% of the games - tease that out over a 5 game series and the team with home field has a 50.2% to 49.8% probability of winning assuming the teams themselves were even to begin with.

Lot of truth here. That said, in the bigs there is at least more tools around so the DH is not just sitting there collecting dust between his appearances. The routine changes, but there is still the chance to watch a little video, take a few cuts. Is it a routine Ramirez can get to? fortunately he is a guy who does have a good approach and whatnot.

If only we had pooped home field advantage away as well as the Blue Jays did!

Ooh, funny - though the strawmen are strong here: 1. Lineup doesn't matter - nobody said that, but that the differences are small, and from a player psychology perspective, some guys care and some don't - and you try to accomodate the former and hopefully have enough of the latter to make it possible. Getting the right players on the field trumps exactly where they hit. You don't want Betts batting 9th, but within reason it's not a big deal. 2. Home field doesn't matter - It does help, but historically it has not been some sort of iron lock the way it is in the NBA. (or the NFL if they did best of 7s) Occasionally you get a team to sweep home games in the postseason (like the 2004 Red Sox), but it is extremely rare. Instead, teams win some, teams lose some. We know World Series teams have won exactly half of the Game 7s since 1946. Home teams lost the first five games of the 1996 World Series and went 1-4 in the 1986 World Series. What sucks is that this is baseball - good teams have 2-3 or 0-3 stretches all the time, usually against weaker competition than the playoffs. You build a team for the ballpark - but even then the results are still not much more than 6 out of 10, which is awesome, but can be scuttled in a short series very easily. After all, Toronto cut through a home field disadvantage with almost no difficulty. 3. Managers matter - and using the bullpen is the one tactical thing which does have value. At the same time, the players still have to perform. But in general, most of a manager's work does not happen during those 2.5 to 3.5 (or in the case of Sox-Yankees, 5.5) hours they are sitting in the dugout.

40 is too young to be in the same job until you die - the relationship with the superiors was not amazing, and perhaps he just wanted to do something else

Farrell had a pretty good read on his guys most of the season - they played hard for him. He ran the bullpen reasonably effectively - sometimes the pitchers sucked, but it was rare where I thought Farrell had the wrong guy out there for the specific job.

Given how much the Red Sox were beaten up between the 19-8 game, and the Ortiz game before that (and the washout which got rid of any day off) ... they were seriously running out of better ideas.

The 2013 team was better. Better starters, better bullpen and a lineup only slightly worse. They were the league's best team basically every day of the season. The 2016 team didn't achieve that magic because the pitching was garbage for about half the season. And then when that got fixed the team took off. This year's end was annoying - but this year represents nothing but progress. Was Ortiz pressing? Maybe in the playoff series - but the Guardians pitched well throughout, and Francona managed the bullpen very aggressively (like a guy who was an underdog). It happens. Ortiz has had rough series too - just not a lot of them.

There were some lucky balls - but he was also missing locations badly and leaving the ball high. The command was leaving him. The exact same thing happened in Game 5 of the Oakland series - the Sox wiggled out of that ... Grady also had history to look at it and forgot

I agree with the numbers - in a one game season you have to take every percentage point available - this was a pretty easy decision compared to other ones.

Given the rate of salary inflation (read: the industry is swimming in cash) and his durability - there is almost no chance this will truly be an albatross. Heck, it's effectively a three year deal. Any FA deal is buying decline for the most part.

Hoo boy. The team lost because it got two rotten starts when they needed zero. That's it. (and yes, I know they scored 0 runs in one of the games) This team won 93 games, won 11 in a row during their most crucial stretch of the season and lapped the field on offense with a core which is (mostly) not even 27 yet. Papi had his best season during this tour, so he was clearly distracted.

I think the Game 5 experience vs Oakland should have been the alarm