sk7326

Peavy is good - I mean he used to be one of the handful or so of "true #1 starters" before his shoulder injury. He is a legit #2/#3 now ... his ball is moving like crazy tonight.

I will say the 2003 and 2004 occasions were the lowest I've ever felt as a fan of this team (OK, correction it was the Butch Hobson years because we were a legitimately bad team and franchise but you get the idea) ... 2003 because it was so close. 2004 because it was so humuliating. Yeah it made the victory 100 times sweeter, so it was good in the big picture, but that little picture sucked. I thought I was not old, but I see so many here who seem like they don't remember 2004 that fully let alone years before it. 2012 sucked in every way, and 2011 was heartbreaking. But, and I can say this with a little bit of "been there, done that" ... as Bob Ryan put it, these are the "good old days" we'll be talking about a decade from now. This has been unquestionably the best decade or so in post-Bambino Red Sox history.

I think you need to reread the 2008 one. It was TAMPA who took the 3-1 lead. Red Sox next night, 7 down, 7 outs from elimination got up off the mat, staged a miracle quite possibly as amazing as what they did Sunday, forced the Game 7 and then lost.

The Red Sox pitching edge in this series has been basically that they can turn around 9 well pitched innings more consistently than the Tigers can. The starters are not as dynamic as the Tigers so far, but if you can go starter-breslow/tazawa-uehara ... that is about as effective a 9 innings as you can ask for.

I think with Cabrera hurt and the Sox dealing ... Leyland doesn't want to give up a bat unless he absolutely has to.

It was what we noted when the Peavy trade happened. The team can wheel out a #2/#3 starter every night out - yeah having Verlander/Scherzer/Felix/Darvish would be awesome, but the Red Sox have a starter who can compete every time out. And the starters have been able to (except for the Game 2 start) get to the Breslow-Tazawa-Uehara portion of the show with minimal help. Basically, if you could script a game to be: starter-breslow/tazawa-uehara ... you'd take that every time.

This stage of the season, there aren't trap games. All of these matter - I don't think anybody is looking past any game. The Red Sox have had a coin flip go in a coin flip series. They could easily be down 3-0 ... or with one or two swings of the bat in Game 1 could easily be up 3-0. This series has been very very closely contested and no reason to think it's going to change.

More of a preference for the guys who have gotten them there. But they valued Bogaerts ability enough to have him on the 25-man. The reps still are a good thing. While yes, the team could use a jolt - it is 7-6 in runs over 3 games. His struggles are nothing special - this series has been a rock fight.

Honestly - nobody has been hitting this series. I don't see how you single out any player ... FOR EITHER TEAM. Tomorrow, while Fister is also very good, there is a chance that the Red Sox might get a few more quality looks.

Well depends on the percentage. Runner at 2nd - 0 outs is a better proposition to score than runner at 3rd one out. If you only wanted one run, perhaps the sacrifice to 3rd helped. However - you bunt him to 3rd, you basically take the possibility of any sort of crooked number off the table. By this time the Sox had started to make some decent contact on Verlander - I think there was still a chance for a multirun inning as they had turned the lineup over. They did not want to screw that up. Ellsbury OR Victorino get a hit it's a moot point.

The Drew one interested me too. That said, I am not sure how much Middlebrooks bunts in general. There was a rally to be started there I think. I could see both sides of it. I think Ellsbury WANTED to run, but Verlander's approach to holding him worked largely. I think he was uncomfortable getting a good jump. Also with Verlander throwing so hard and with a decently quick release - it was going to be hard to have that base stolen. With 2 outs, and Victorino leading off next inning, I see your point too. I think those were 50-50 sort of calls more than they were serious tactical lapses.

Both AL lineups are stronger than the Dodgers lineup. The Cards is a little less sure, but still. Pitching though - both of those sides have scads of it. Particularly need to see the Cards kids delivering in big spots.

I read that as Scherzer being a mensch - no reason to throw his manager under the bus either way. Waiting out Verlander didn't happen, but pouncing on one mistake did. Tigers have forced our best - and really, they have gotten it. Has been a helluva first 3 games.

I think it is possible - but that position has not been an issue. The offenses have been dominated in this series - and that's ok. Our team can win this way too.

Peavy this year was not great, quite a bit driven by the chest injury in the middle. Last year Peavy was a legit #2 who pitched 219 innings. Since he returned from his shoulder problems - he has not had to be babied largely. He - at this stage of his career - is a legit #3 sort of starter, which Guthrie (2 years older) until this last year and a half in Kansas City never has been. That allowed Dempster to move down to "at least we don't have to start Allen Webster" level which is valuable over a marathon. Iglesias has shown this year that he ... PROBABLY ... can be an acceptable enough hitter to be a starter. If he is really just a utilityman, then trading a utility guy for a proven #3 starter is a trade you make every single day. If he can be a legit starter - then it is more of a calculated move, the Sox dealing from a position of strength to shore up a spot. This team has won because their rotation has no soft spots. Let's put it this way - if Dempster is your soft spot in a 5-man rotation, that's pretty good.

The team's collective approach has saved them over two games. Offensively it has been horrid for most of the series - but they chased both of Detroit's starting pitchers with virtually nothing. That says something about the discipline of the attack. Yes, Leyland could have stuck with Scherzer but you have to count on any bullpen getting 6 outs with a 4 run lead. Verlander is going to be much harder to wait out ... but the Red Sox will be better, because how can they not be? If Detroit spins start after start like the first two, we'll be eliminated no matter what we do. Has been a fun series.

Buck is genuinely good ... but he has to drag a guy who is way too old to be doing this. His call on the slam was right on, and his work during the Game 6 of Rangers-Cardinals (probably the greatest baseball game since anything involving Boston-New York in 2004) was outstanding. I think Tampa gets a lot of love from these baseball types because what they have done the last few years is genuinely amazing considering their resources and the apathy of their fans. Boston wildly underachieved last year (along with a comical level of injury) - so their redemption is a little less fascinating. Ultimately not a big deal here - after all, the scoreboard is sufficient.

the fenway LF helped there, just a perfect pitch to elevate and he is just so strong.

Some of this makes sense. You have to evaluate which prospects are GOING to be part of the big league future and who you are "hoping" will be part of the big league future. Boegarts is clearly a piece for us. Marrero, Middlebrooks are "hopes" although Middlebrooks has a significant lead with all of those big league at-bats. Merrero is not really part of the future, and Cecchini could be. I agree Drew does not need to be brought back - especially since he will get some attention, he has rebuilt his career here. Does this team have a huge need? I'd actually say "not really". 1B and LF are unsexy, but what great management (Friedman, Theo/Cherington) know is that platoons can very cheaply and ably source those positions. Abreu is worth looking at, though the red flags are definitely there (scouting reports of average bat speed, already as old as Cespedes was when he got to the bigs, little history of Cuban prospects being big league ready on day 1). If you want to allocate your money for a big money 1B, you want it to go to your 2012 Adrian Gonzalez (the Red Sox signing of him was totally defensible, there was always some risk he'd slip, just not that quickly). But if we are doing a Carp-Gomes-Napoli dance to fill 1B/LF - that will not worry me one bit.

Iglesias could be a generational DEFENSIVE shortstop ... can he hit well enough, that is an open question. But I have no guilt about dealing him for Peavy. Shortstop - we had options. And when you see the plays Drew has made over the weekend, he is no slouch.

Has been a triumph of approach - Sanchez has dominated but the Red Sox have weirdly "made him work". Oh sweet walks!

True: Hitters with a .350-.400 OBP are a pain in the ass to pitchers, period. The players ARE human - and I do not dispute that there an intangibles. But they do show up in the end product - that is the whole point. If having a 50 SB guy were essential, then more good teams would have them. But they're not. They are nice to have, but line drive power and the ability to just get on base no matter what are nicer. This is not a paean against stolen bases - I like them. But getting to first base is WAY more important, and there is no such thing as clogging the basepaths with runners.

The Tigers are a dreadful defensive team although excellent in 2 places. What UZR can point out is if somebody has had a good year - but one year's data does not help much about the actual player's overall ability. Jackson had a down year - but he is an elite CF defensively. Napoli may or may not be a good defensive 1B, but he had good results this year - certainly enough to show he is at least as good as Fielder there. And yeah Infante is solid as well - though more of a utility guy who hits better than one. UZR is not perfect, just the best tool we have in the evolving area of defensive measurement. That said, there are holes. Even among outfielders there are certain flaws like fielders who play home games at Fenway where I think the field is the perfect combination of tiny (so little credit for ranging) and plenty of extra base hits to not be able to get. It has to be complemented by the scouting view.

When I was a kid, I remember Roger Craig with the Giants as a splitter guru ... now the guy in the bigs is someone like Don Cooper in Chicago who has rescued so many schlubs by teaching cutters. Or at least "see how a cutter looks" is a useful first stop for a guy who is a rescue case. UN is right that with all of the specialization, the curves still persist, although specialists are taking up the slack for any observed downturn in starter usage. Definitely the screwball has been phased out - the circle change gets the same job done with far less effort.

Stolen bases is not a strength for Bradley - but his speed is good. This is not uncommon - Bernie Williams was basically this way and he turned out OK. Stolen bases in this day and age are nice to have, but not an essential quality, even to be a good baserunner. One thing to remember too about defense is - it is one of the things that often improves through coaching - there is generally very little defensive fundamentals taught at the amateur level. Even big league fielding coaches still add a lot of value thee. Ellsbury came up a shaky "reader" who could cover up mistakes with his speed - he is much better now. No reason Bradley can't have that sort of arc - he is probably better already than Ellsbury was when he entered the league.