sk7326

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.

Oh dear 75 games of Dustin Pedroia 102 games of Kevin Youkilis 48 games of Mike Cameron Cora took over a team which had won 90+ games the previous 2 seasons. The Red Sox were leading edge analytics the entire time except for whatever the hell Valentine was doing. I mean the GMs would have canned a manager who didn't. I was extremely bullish on Cora - and he has been terrific. At the same time, when a 90-win team led by dudes entering their prime adds one of the league's best power hitters - that they improved is not that revelatory. And when that sort of improved team gets to play Baltimore 19 times a year - the win total can be even better than that. Now I think Cora has done a great job - I think his style is a better fit with young players than Farrell, but on the field I don't see it. (the Red Sox actually are lower ranked in baserunning value than last year)

He is very good at baseball and less good at football. Given his background, it is a safe bet that he likes baseball more - and it shows. His partners on FOX have consistently been not very good ... though Smoltz is the best one he has had.

He has done a terrific job managing the team. Tactically he is pretty good. What is weird is comparing him tactically to Francona when there isn't a ton of evidence of anything different. Neither guy sacrificed much. Francona ran when he had players who could run. Both guys handle pitching staffs well. The differences in defensive positioning are typical for the two different time frames in which they managed. Cora has shown certain strengths in a year. Francona did that and then kept the team in good shape while the key players changed. Francona was outstanding with young players, and Cora has certainly shown some goods there. (though his young players had more certainty - 2006 Dustin Pedroia sure did not look like a big league player) Francona will always have 2011 held over him - and he deserves some of the blame sure. But 2010 was one of his best managing jobs. And of course Cleveland has been excellent throughout.

The Sox haven't needed them.

in his position you have the luxury to make a decision for a good situation. Maybe that just wasn't there. There's not a ton of job openings for a DH with declining bat speed.

As I noted - fair, but since this is baseball any version of favorite really doesn't amount to much.

I think it was reasonable. Going to 2013 the Tigers were also slight favorites iirc for the same reasons. (great starting pitching, won the pennant the year previous)

(a 3-win player is a good major league starter)

Who said they were favorites? I mean - realistically the postseason and perception of the team is not different from 2013. People thought the Rays were dangerous. And then they thought the Tigers had that sort of starting pitching which was impossible to upend.