sk7326

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.

What is meaningful is that they are good numbers against a very high level of competition. Which probably is a better way to get to the answers people want.

A game like last proves why holds are stupid.

It might be true - but I could construct a similar fuzzy story for Betts, for Pedroia, for Bogaerts - and all have contributed more than Ortiz has ... none of this denigrates Papi's season - which has been the best Age 40 season in history (certainly in the short list). I certainly believe that a DH can be an MVP - but since offense is the only thing he can touch in terms of helping the team win, that offense has to carry a lot of weight. That is hard to do - this century only Barry Bonds and ARod delivered that kind of performance.

Britton has been wonderful - he has also had a lot of clean save opportunities. I could argue that Andrew Miller has been better this season among relievers. He probably should get a look in the rotation again. (Britton, not Miller)

Runs Allowed is a better starting point than ER since Earned Runs are - to put it kindly - problematic as a measure. Also ERA- is a rate stat, and bulk actually does matter for a season award.

agreed - i expect the bullpen will be on speed dial the third time through the order no matter who pitches

of course it is small sample - and using the postseason as a (not specifically addressing you, since i got a couple of replies here) clutch mcclutcherson end point is a bit off ... after all Price as a deadline pickup as the Jays were making their charge was flat out magnificent - i am sure several of those starts were clutch. he has had some starts which got away from him - especially third and fourth time through. But I hesitate to get too into the weeds about coming up big. After all, Jon Lester blew leads in the two do-or-die starts in his career ... A lot of Price's results last postseason involved his skipper getting greedy and wasting what were largely gems.

Betts is even more ... and Bogaerts, Bradley and Pedroia have very legitimate claims ...

1. The lack of defense 2. I am for DH's being recognized as legitimate. But the threshhold has to be high, and Ortiz - who has been completely outstanding - has not lapped the field offensively enough to make up for the lack of contribution in other areas. Plus, he has played considerably less than other candidates - due to managing his feet. To me, it's Trout or Betts ... with Altuve and Donaldson a step down but totally reasonable.

best pitcher i ever saw in the best season i saw him pitch gave up 9 runs without being able to get out of the 4th in an outing ... there has been more ace than not later in the season. the narrative about him in the post season is silly - but clearly without changing results it will follow him (like is does with kershaw).

Has been clear hit or miss - sometimes manager was asleep when he has facing batters 4th time through ... he was obviously brilliant in the highest leverage spot of his career (as we'd know) Farrell will manage more aggressively with this stuff in the postseason - he did in 2013. Nice thing the pen is in the position so that Farrell does not have to pay those 3rd and 4th time through penalties.

so i guess we have to see what happens in the future ... one thing you can guarantee is that Espinoza won't have the Age 19 season Pedro had - since Pedro pitched 177 innings that year, and that would never happen now. Sometimes it's not magic - it's something that has been true even in high school for normal folks - the real stars aren't guys who crush JV, they are the freshmen who don't can hang (not even dominate, just be competent) at the varsity level. Certainly Espinoza's career has tracked there - the ability to handle guys in a league he's super young for. It's the same reason Devers star has not waned at all despite superficially unsexy stats.

Did he? Numbers pretty similar - don't know much about whether that league is more pitcher or hitter friendly.

Price's season has been a disappointment overall ... he was not disappointing in the last 2 months, and he has been a Top 10-15 pitcher over that time. And even when he has not been that, he has been a workhorse - which was especially important as the bullpen was stumbling along. The season has been bad by David Price standards, decent by normal ones - with lots of evidence that the "bad stuff" was a fluke.