sk7326

They were punished because somebody dropped a dime on them - something which has largely not happened in other cases. Other teams have been violating these rules, but there was no way for the league to prove it. This time, there was an informant. The hard thing with the Padres case was that the Padres did not actually violate any hard rules - they violated essentially long standing practice (IIRC) which is uncool, but a lower threshhold. If the market wants to punish them, they can.

Ideally, I think I'd manage it this way * No starter will face more than 27 hitters. * Buchholz and Rodriguez on short leashes, especially after the 2nd time through the order Pomeranz and Kelly if we have not gotten to the 7th yet. Ziegler-Uehara-Kimbrel to finish Robbie Ross as a LOOGY and able to burn some innings if we are behind Tazawa as the extra guy.

Playoff rosters can be changed between series ... any injury substitution knocks out a player for the following series. That is, if, say Betts got hurt and the Sox wanted to replace him for Game 2, that puts Betts on the shelf until the World Series.

Me too. I think they were genuinely hoping Moncada could do that - which was not unreasonable. (after all the Royals carried Raul Mondesi Jr, who had played zero major league games - for that purpose) But I think all that air his bat generated told them that he needed at-bats more than they needed a designated pinch runner (which I am less sure of). I know he had some lapses on the basepaths too - but I think that was probably less important than the bat. (although I imagine that was the cherry on the sundae)

Martinez and Ortiz fundamentally changed what the Red Sox were ... even as a lifelong Sox fan, it would be hard to deny the Red Sox problematic racial history and its image as a stuffy, lily white franchise for a very long time (with few exceptions). The franchise's greatest player famously never tipped his cap (this is not to denigrate Williams at all, just using the image). But starting in the late 90s, with the Domincan Flags and the parties that Martinez starts were ... and how visible the arrogance and knowledge of how good he was while he was dealing ... and then Ortiz who came out of nowhere from a projected job-sharing arrangement in 2003 to be here for all that winning. He's not the greatest Sox player ever, but he's way up there - and has won more than anybody in the modern era. And of all the stars the Nation have sent our cheers and hugs, Ortiz was the one who hugged us back. The winning and the colour together - there definitely won't be another like him.

He made a hell of a charge for sure - a great bounceback for him.

If you carry the extra position player you want something specialized ... someone you might actually deploy in these games ... so your choices are (for type): - A pure defensive sub - Someone who can pinch run and a threat to steal - A designated pinch hitter sort (obviously would be nice if they could do multiple) But I think that is the skill set you are diving into. Unfortunately the injury to a Sam Travis (who was the best candidate if he kept growing) eliminates any real good candidates to just pinch hit. I'd probably lean to Merrero and just stick with an extra defender.

Who wouldn't? But this team has been very portable.

K's correlate better with those indicators too! That is the point - it is rare (not impossible, but rare) that there is world where weak contact is induced consistently while "no contact" is not. There is not a repeatable skill for pitching with baserunners on (aside from pitching out of the stretch) But for some discussion on weak contact ... http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/weak-contact-and-the-american-league-cy-young-race/ Verlander looks particularly good - although he has always had low BABIPs. I think it's fairly close by a lot of numbers - although bWAR (which is about runs allowed) has Kluber quite decisively - which is educational I think.

Absurd record in one run games - absurd enough to bet the under on repeating it. But - this is baseball - any of the ten teams could win it, and it would make perfect sense.

The few days off help - better than pre-Wild Card game when you had to dive right in that Tuesday.

Some of the plusses for this team: Offense - this is obvious, but the non-obvious part is good too. The team has not just hit, but has hit everywhere (granted, better at Fenway as you'd expect), and has held up very well against good pitching. This has not been all done against #4 starters. There are issues at 3B - but seriously, if Holt or Travis Shaw is your worst non-catcher hitter, that is not too shabby. Missing Bats - pitching got a lot better, and ended up with the AL's 4th best strikeout rate. This becomes more important in these short series - rallies being snuffed out by the pitcher. Deep lineups and missing bats has been a very durable formula for a champion. Bullpen - has been phenomenal in September. We know the party can't last. But even so Ziegler-Uehara-Kimbrel is a solid bridge. Kelly and Pomeranz could both be "2012 Lincecum" sort of 6 out weapons to provide even more depth. Am I picking Boston? Of course not - I have been a fan too long.

maybe - i seriously doubt Francona would have - say, burned a playoff starter for it

And the Red Sox lost the 1967 and 1975 World Series at Fenway ... the Sox completed comebacks from 2-0 down in Division series at Cleveland and at Oakland. The Red Sox in 2003 and 2004 won 3 of 4 elimination games (and obviously kicked away a fourth) in Yankee Stadium. In the 2008 ALCS the Red Sox tied the series on the road with an extremely compromised Josh Beckett. In 2007 the Red Sox saved their season with an elimination win in Cleveland. In 2013 the Red Sox went 6-2 on the road in the postseason.

The problem is those stats commingle two things: 1. Teams that have the home field vs the other 2. Team which are better than the other The fact is that a team with home field (since the wild card era where baseball changed home field to not rotate annually) over another team is quite often the better team. They would also beat that opponent on a neutral field - and quite regularly without it. The contribution of home field (whether you think having Game 1 or Game 2 has some magic, since often these series never get to the 5th or 7th game) is very very fuzzy. Now there is an advantage of course - the same reason you get a better night's sleep at home than in a hotel - but being a better team is a much larger one. The one set of numbers where you can pull this out a little is looking at World Series results - in particular World Series that got to the 7th game (which is what Home Field is) - since World Series home field is not by record. Road teams have won exactly half of the 28 times since 1946 a World Series has gotten to the 7th game. Interestingly home teams have won 9 of the last 10, reversing a 36 year trend of road teams coming through in the biggest game of the season.

The last time the Red Sox had an elimination game in Cleveland it went well. The last time the Red Sox had a deciding game in Cleveland it went well. The last time the Red Sox trailed in a postseason series on the road it went well. Really many of the franchise's proudest moments took place in the other guy's house (and indeed many of the heartbreaks were at Fenway). The electricity in Fenway for Game 4 vs Cleveland in the 1999 ALDS (the one Sox playoff game I got to go to) was unlike anything I can remember. But home field does not buy much in a short series. This is the thing about the playoffs - six months of season and trends go out the window - it's the ability to win 11 games ... basically play 3 weeks of good baseball. All of these ten teams can do that.

Not really - by a lot of markers we're a better team. And it's baseball - almost all these series are coin flips anyway. If the Giants or Mets picked of the Cubs, it would elicit a raised eyebrow - but nobody would confuse it with the Miracle on Ice or Douglas over Tyson.

There is truth there - but a healthy focused team is still the better bet. After all, the Patriots (on offense) did not play well in that game. The Red Sox have had such a history of home heartbreaks and a history of some very very proud moments on the road that it's not much to worry about. (the last time we had a deciding game in Cleveland did not go so badly)

Home field means basically nothing.

We won a lot of games with fundamentals to match - relax. We could lose - because it's baseball, and almost any "upset" is a mild one.

The Red Sox wanted Pomeranz - they thought the deal was fair. From the evidence, they are pissed off at San Diego for misrepresenting the medical data, but clearly there is nothing in Pomeranz' medicals (although not as good as before) which prompted DD to want to send him back. I think DD would have asked for Espinoza back if the new medical revelations changed the calculus significantly. Moreover - the Sox have a title to win, so if there is a way to eliminate the distraction (with a pitcher they like) then who cares? Maybe the league and the Padres huddle up with them after the season for some additional considerations - but that's all you'll get. Given Pomeranz was not shut down and actually pitched in Game 162 - he has not been forgotten or shut down yet.

xFIP has real problems (an assumption about homeruns which does not seem reasonable) For a season award - bWAR seems like the best place to start - since it is rooted in what actually happened. It also accounts for bulk which ERA- does not - and that has to matter.

most of time that team is also the better one

he is managing rest and has no real interest in home field advantage (which in baseball largely doesn't exist) - that seems obvious

it's baseball - almost no series is better than 55-45 odds in either direction ...