sk7326

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 ...

this ain't soccer or football - home field for the most part means squat. Now this is a little weird since baseball has the most severe home field advantage (the last at-bat as well as parks of different shapes) but that does not make it less true. What is home field advantage? The ability to have a Game 5 or Game 7 at your house. So what has happened in the annals of deciding games this century: 2015: Road team won both wild card games, KC and Toronto won LDS home Game 5, Mets won LDS road Game 5 ... (home teams 2-3 overall) 2014: Royals won home wild card, Giants won road wild card, Giants won WS Game 67 on road ... (home 1-2 in season ... 3-5 overall) 2013: Rays won road wild card, Pirates won home wild card, Cardinals won home LDS Game 5 ... (home 2-1 ... 5-6 overall) 2012: Orioles, Cardinals won road wild card, Yankees won home LDS, Tigers won road LDS, Cardinals, Giants won road LDS, Giants won home LCS ... (home 2-5 ... 7-11 overall) 2011: Tigers won LDS home, Cards won LDS road, Brewers won LDS home, Cards won WS home (home 3-1 ... 10-12 overall) 2010: Rangers won LDS road (home 0-1, 10-13 overall) 2008: Rays won LCS home (home 1-0, 11-13 overall) 2007: Red Sox won LCS home (home 1-0, 12-13 overall) 2006: Cards won LCS road (home 0-1, 12-14 overall) 2005: Angels won LDS home (home 1-0, 13-14 overall) 2004: Astros won LDS road, Red Sox won LCS road, Cards won LCS home (home 1-2, 14-16 overall) 2003: Red Sox won LDS road, Cubs won LDS road, Marlins won LCS road, Yankees won LCS home (home 1-3, 15-19 overall) 2002: Twins won LDS road, Giants won LDS road, Angels won WS home (home 1-2, 16-21 overall) 2001: Mariners, Yankees, Diamondbacks won LDS home, Diamondbacks won WS home (home 4-0, 20-21 overall) 2000: Yankees won LDS road (home 0-1, 20-22 overall) So home teams are 20-22 in deciding games ... not much of an advantage. Now this does not mean teams with home field are not more likely to win than those without (I did not test that) ... of course they are, but that is because they have better records (at least the division champs do) and thus are likely better teams in the first place. Getting the team ready - healthy or whatever - trumps home field by a lot.

Was also true in 2004 - and "we hit better at home" describes 99% of the Red Sox teams ever

Rememember this year has been the celebration of the 1986 team. In 1986, the road team won 4 of the first 5 games in the World Series. In 1986 the road team made a gallant charge to stave off elimination in the ALCS. In 1986 the road team won a 16-inning series clincher in the NLCS. 1999 ALDS, 2003 ALDS, 2004 ALCS the Red Sox won Game 5/7s in the opponent's house. Two of the Red Sox Game 7 losses in World Series were at home. Getting the bye into the ALDS was crucial - the rest? just win. Road teams break through - all the time (like the 2014 Series!).

there are only two reasonable candidates - Betts is the only one without a fish in his name

also the PED thing opens up a can of worms which is not a good idea

I tend not to figure that in too much because: 1. It is hard to peg individuals without verification (and if two people did it in one season, the performance gap is still legitimate) 2. Baseball is hard

I support the idea of both deals ... If you are going burn three Top 100 prospects like the Sox did, you do it for young, controllable talent. Now - I am not sure Pomeranz for Espinoza was a great value. At the same time, Pomeranz is young and has a much earlier ETA. Espinoza is a bit of a prodigy - but it will be at least 2-3 years before you are getting 150 big league innings out of him. Now I hear a lot of whining about developing pitching talent - a trade like this (just like the original Adrian Gonzalez trade) shows that some of that is by choice. (such as out of necessity turning a top starting prospect into an elite closer) Kimbrel is - again, the right sort of guy (young, good, under contract) to get for the price they paid - a Top 100 low level SS and a Top 100 high floor, starting caliber CF. But this deal was more problematic because the marginal value of a "great" closer is just not that high. Both trades made sense for both sides. It would have been nice to have the prospects for a Sale or Quintana trade ... but flags fly forever, and certainly both players have helped (at least a little)

He has a strong approach - he can be aggressive too, they aren't mutually exclusive

that is fair - I assumed it wasn't a league like the PCL or California League where the stats are garbage.

Relievers are very important - but the variability year to year is vast and they don't pitch many innings. And most of them are failed starters. And the 9th often actually isn't that important. And most closers cash in at a near 90% clip to begin with. Kimbrel blew a game because he couldn't throw strikes - not because the 9th has a magic voodoo. That was an easy save situation I'd have expected any pitcher in that pen drawn from a hat to be able to cash in.

Smartest thing is pencil in Buchholz for 100 pretty good innings - I am not sure how they will appear, and most likely some of those innings will stink and stink in concentration. The argument against that is the severe lack of predictability. But 100 pretty good innings probably justifies a $13M contract - though the Red Sox are not getting any sort of bargain.