sk7326

given Puig's splits - it was a calculated risk, but a reasonable one. Rodriguez was terrific - and could very well have escaped trouble if Vasquez just took the forceout and ate the ball. While I could see getting Barnes in to face Puig, it was not an obvious decision.

Wow, did that Game 3 18-inning odyssey change the momentum of the series or what??!!!

The announcing is fine. I like Buck - and he is so much better at this than football (probably because he likes baseball more). His calls in three of the seminal baseball games of all time (the 2004 ALCS Games 4 and 5, the 2011 World Series Game 6) were great. Often he has been saddled with terrible partners. Smoltz is the best of the partners he has had, even if his expertise is narrow.

i think that is possible too - clearly it's one of those two. Amazingly - because of Eovaldi's brilliance, the bullpen should be more or less okay to go tonight. If Rodriguez and/or Pomeranz can get them through 4 innings in good shape we'll be fine.

The Vasquez bunt was fine ... it was a great play. I mean they needed to push a run across and getting to 2nd and 3rd with one out was a good idea. Now Cora made some mistakes to have the team left - Eovaldi pitching a billion innings was not idea, but the time you get to the 16th or something a pitcher was going to have to do this. I think they held Pomeranz back knowing they needed a starter today. Today is clearly a bullpen game - if Pomeranz can get through the lineup once that will be a victory.

Kinsler lost the game for us - but it's nothing that can't be fixed. Remember: 1. The Reds won Game 7 on the road after LOSING the Fisk game 2. The Red Sox STILL had a 3-0 lead halfway through Game 7 after LOSING the Buckner game 3. The Astros won the 2017 world series on the road after LOSING Game 6 4. The Dodgers won the 2018 NLCS on the road after LOSING Game 6 5. The Giants won the 2014 World Series on the road after LOSING Game 6 6. The Cardinals won the 1967 World Series in Boston after LOSING Game 6 Yeah, you have your rout after the Denkinger game (1985), or the Freese game (2011). But even more often, you just have another game to win. This was a heartbreaking game which cost me a lot of sleep. But it was one game in a series we're still leading. If we lose 3 more games it's because the Dodgers outscored us in each of the games - nothing else.

This was not Cora's finest game tactically. His aggression was laudable, but I was surprised they did not directly double switch Leon in when Rodriguez game in ... and allowed them to not use Swihart as the first guy off the bench. It seemed like they could have put off running out of hitters a bit. It was a miracle with such a desperately thin lineup they still extended the game to the 18th.

whether he was tipping his pitches or not, the balance looks so much better ... he just had not idea where his pitches were going

just as I was finished typing "pinch hit for Devers - yuck" ... woo hoo!

If he is throwing the changeup like that, sure.

I understand why Cora didn't do it - but I would have considered pinch hitting Holt there. There was a chance to break the game open.

They resemble one of our mid-2000s teams. Take a ton of pitches, playing for the 3-run homer.

Per Sean McAdam - Devers is 1 RBI behind Andruw Jones for most postseason RBIs for age 22 and younger ... so he has 83 minutes to get this done!

Devers has been their best hitter this postseason - go figure

JD will want that one back

For me the big key to the series is can the Red Sox pitchers find the plate? The 30 walks/hit batters in 5 games is not great against a real take-and-rake lineup like LA.

When you consider that the average pace in the 60s was 25% higher than league pace today. Put it this way. In 1962, the average NBA team went 46 for 108 in each game. In 1996 it was 37 for 80. There were about 20 more available misses. Russell was amazing - but relative to the league Rodman's best rebounding seasons were more nuts.

Obviously. At the same time that was an era where pace of play was extremely fast and shooting leaguewide was awful. (Bob Cousy never shot 40% from the floor) Rebounds were also very plentiful back then. You can argue that some of Rodman's best rebounding seasons were every bit as good or better.

Not many though LeBron James is one.

It's baseball in October. There are no walkovers. Still, there are more reasons to believe in the Red Sox than the Dodgers. - Strikeouts. The Red Sox don't strike out much at all. The Dodgers strike out quite a bit. The Red Sox strike out a lot of people. The Red Sox are just better at putting the ball in play. The Red Sox infield defense is shaky, but the Dodgers might not put it in play enough for it to be decisive. - Offense. The Red Sox put up almost 6 runs a game against a good Astros team, without their two headline stars being at the center of it. With Devers' emergence, the lineup has only a couple of dead spots. There is a ton of versatility. The Dodgers offense is more evocative of an early 2000s super beer-league team: Lots of walks, lots of strikeouts, lots of homeruns. The Red Sox consistency is helpful here. ON THE OTHER HAND - Walks. The Dodgers are good at not walking hitters. The Red Sox not so much. The Sox averaged 6 walk/hbp a game in the ALCS. The number shrinks to a "still-not good" 4.8 walks/hbp per game once you remove that 13 walk/hbp atrocity that was the ALCS Game 1. Alas, the Dodgers are very good at taking pitches. The Dodgers best path to winning is via the 3-run homer, and the Red Sox free passes is an open sore on that front. - Pitching. The Dodgers rotation is a little bit better - with Kershaw being able to just give more innings. Both bullpens are fine, although Jansen is much more reliable than this version of Kimbrel. The Red Sox can hit anybody - but this is a firm test. If the Red Sox can avoid the self inflicted drama and keep the ball in the ballpark, they should have enough to get by. Boston in 6.

Betts at 2B is a perfectly defensible idea. I'm just curious whether Martinez has done any work at all at 1B, and whether Cora would be okay trying it now. I do think some of the logic might change is the Red Sox are up 2-0.

Realistically LeBron, Jordan, Russell and Kareem are the clear 4 best choices here ... order is up to personal taste

He is certainly one of 3 or 4 reasonable answers

I remember it being used a lot in 2013, although definitions matter - and "shifts" as counted by STATS is rather extreme https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-infield-shift-changing-perspectives-042516

Theo, Cherington and Hoyer would have been genuinely shocked to realize this. There was the brain drain you'd expect to a degree when Dombrowski took over. But a lot of the folks stayed - and (at least Gammons wrote about this) Dombrowski was not going to tear down the good work which was already done.