Maxbialystock

It sure looks as though Mookie is trying to pull every pitch, maybe because Boras told him to hit more dingers. That pitch was outside the strike zone and he still hit it to SS. Also a very weak attempt to steal 2b.

All true. You do need a pretty darn good bullpen. But what I like about this approach is that it's innovative and based on two pretty sound ideas-- 1. When you start with a short term reliever, you force the opposing manager to commit to a lineup which can't be based on the strengths and weaknesses of your starting pitcher. 2. By limiting the number innings, even for the long reliever, to 3 or 4 innings, you ensure none of your pitchers will fact that lineup for 3 at bats and usually for just 1 at bat. I absolute agree this would not work for everyone, but like it because it has helped the Rays survive with a weak rotation. And it's innovative, which is a rarity these days.

Overpaid, but hardly a bust. Of the relievers who have not started, Kelly's 53 are second only to Barnes's 55 innings. He has, I think, pretty good stuff, very similar to what Kimbrel has--fastball and knuckle curve-- except that Kelly's fast ball is faster. But too often it sure doesn't seem to be keeping opposing hitters off balance. His motion seems to be different from most other pitchers and maybe that allows hitters to see the ball better.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but some of us endured over half a century of the 86 year drought. It doesn't make us wiser or smarter or more insightful, but does help us appreciate--probably more than you do-- that the John Henry era is hugely different from the eras--mostly Tom Yawkey and his wife--that created that drought. Moreover, he has done it at a time when the postseason is far more competitive than before the 1994 move to include 8 teams. Prior to 1994, the Yankees won 4 in a row under Joe McCarthy and 5 in a row under Casey Stengal. Since 1994, the Yankees have won 3 in a row (1998-2000) and no one else has even won back to back WS. The Giants did win 3 in 5 years (2010-14) however. During the John Henry era, the Sox and Giants are tied for the most WS with three each.

Exactly my thought at the time. Earlier I was mad because I thought the Cleveland hitters were doing a better job going to the opposite field than were our guys. That was a really good slider by Carrasco, the kind I would want our guys to throw, and Beni stroked it beautifully. Betts on 1B made it a tad worse for Cleveland because he is our fastest going from 1B to home. Also good that no one ahead of him--Holt and Swihart--has the slows.

There can be no doubt that John Henry era both ended the 86 year curse and brought remarkable prosperity to the Boston Red Sox in the multi-team playoffs era in which no one franchise is able to dominate the way the Yankees used to. MLB went to four postseason teams in 1969 and eight in 1994 and an extra wild card team in I think 2012. Given the overall balance of MLB teams--in a typical year a 60% winning percentage means 97 wins and a likely division win and certainly a ticket to the postseason--this expansion of the postseason has made winning the WS that much more unpredictable. Simple math tells you the Yankees will never dominate MLB again the way they did when just two teams went to the postseason. This Sox team could well be the best Sox team ever, but the Cleveland series now ongoing demonstrates just how daunting the 2018 postseason is likely to be. I believe it was Kimmi on this thread who said that much depends on when you play a team and in this case the Guardians have been hot in August. Like us, they have good hitting--not as good, but good--and probably better pitching. And pretty good fielding and an experienced manager who knows how to win. Last night demonstrated, however, that the Sox are not without resources, and Price is starting today with a good shot at evening the series at 2 all. I frankly was astounded by the rally in the 4th and had intended in the 2d inning to post something to the effect, "all is lost." Thus I do believe these Sox are different from last year's version even though a lot of the faces are the same.

Pretty damning, I have to admit.

I do like what I've seen of Swihart this season. Justifies keeping him on the roster as the 3d catcher. But Kimmi is right: Leon is way better behind the plate, and that's what counts for catchers. Offense is gravy. And in our case we already have the best offense in MLB--or at least have scored the most runs and have the highest OPS. Have you not read at least two stories that Chris Sale, who is having an enormous year, has still not rejected a single pitch call from Sandy Leon? Now that's not all the result of Sandy's genius because Sale correctly prefers to focus entirely on executing pitches rather than trying to figure out what to throw.

That Indian hit a low and almost outside slider cleanly and to the opposite field, something our guys can't seem to be able to do.

Just two games, of course, but also a harbinger for the playoffs. Thru one game and five innings, the Guardians simply look like a better team. Sox have 1 hit to the Guardians 7.

Not ridiculous, but definitely good and a play Nunez would not have made.

I missed the first 3 innings. Right now it sure looks as if both hitting and pitching are problematical.

Bogey is also 2d on the team in rbi's with 77 even though Betts and Beni both have more games and more at bats. My first five hitters--in whatever order--would be Betts, Beni, Pearce, JDM, and Bogey.

A fair comment, and I agree: Francona's 2 run lead made it easy to bring in the bullpen. Cora had a tie game, not so easy to take Porcello out. But. Cora had already seen Porcello, who had a solid start, begin to unravel in the 5th and even more so in the 6th. It seems to me that, based on that alone, he should have been less patient with Porcello in the 7th. As it turns out, a good bullpen--not guaranteed--could have won that game because the Sox scored in the 9th. But Cora waited to long to bring them in. Also. Kluber had a slow start, but was doing fine in the 5th and 6th innings and got the first guy out in the 7th. Yes, he had thrown 108 pitches, but Francona might have left him in--but did not.

The game was won and lost by the two managers in the 7th inning. Going into the 7th the game was tied at 3 all. Cora left Porcello in to pitch the entire 7th, including the game-winning 2 run dinger. Francona, who stayed with Kluber after he gave up the three early runs, let him get Mookie out to start the 7th, then immediately pulled him. He then used 4 relievers to get the next 8 outs. Clearly, Francona trust his bullpen more than Cora trusts his.

What the heck was Porcello doing pitching the 7th? I only saw the bottom of the 9th, but the box says Porcello gave up 1 in the 5th and 2 in the 6th to tie the game.

You realize, I hope, that we have had our share of starters give up early runs. I honestly can't see why a decent reliever can't get safely thru inning 1 and maybe all or part of inning 2. As for the long reliever who gets inserted, he only has to go to 3 or 4 innings, depending. I entirely agree that you would need a bunch of healthy arms on the pitching staff, but even that is mitigated by having a minimum of 12 arms and the ability to rotate one or more them from the big club to AAA and back as needed. Most if not all MLB clubs do that a lot already. However, yesterday Tampa used 4 pitchers, including the one guy who went 4 innings. I don't see how you can do that consistently with just 12 pitchers even with the availability of AAA help now and then. Nevertheless, Cash has apparently made that work for just about all of this season. Brilliant.

The Ray manager has done a lot of that this season and it carries two big advantages without, as far as I can tell, any downside. 1. He forces opposing managers to commit to a lineup that can't be lefty or righty heavy--or can be at that manager's peril (unless he has a lot of switch hitters). 2. By also using several pitchers but having one of them for 3 or 4 innings, he also denies opposing lineups the opportunity to face the same pitcher three or more times and sometimes even twice. I don't think I've seen this done before, and it does seem to be working.

Really disagree. I loved leaving Pom in because it exposed--reconfirmed--his weaknesses. He has basically two pitches, a decent knuckle curve and a weakish fastball, and not very good control. But he is still on the active roster because of that insane salary. HanRam played a lot right before they dumped him. If nothing else, Cora was sending a message to DD: we do not need this guy on the postseason roster.

It very definitely helps, and thanks for the update. Slasher9 says a healthy and competent ERod could be huge, and I entirely agree. He has an excellent repertoire which is very effective when he has command of his pitches.

This game was fascinating because once again the Rays started a reliever who didn't last long and who was followed by another reliever who went 4 followed by 3 more relievers who completed the shut out. Only that 4 inning reliever faced our lineup more than once, and I think that is a key to their success. Most hitters do better the second time around against the starter and even better than that the third time around. I think the Rays manager has used that advantage--preventing opposing lineups from facing the starter 2 or more times-- for the better part of this season. Plus he does another thing. If he starts a lefty, that often means the primary reliever (3 or more innings) will be a righty and vice versa if a righty starts. Thus the opposing manager doesn't know whether to use a righty-heavy or lefty-heavy lineup. The starters--actually, short term relievers-- under this system appear to be used to get the other teams' managers to commit on their lineups. This then allows the Rays manager to pick the most advantageous "primary" reliever to go 3 or 4 innings.

Good Sox pitching all around, just what was needed along with the sneaky 4 run rally to kick things off. Sox had just 3 hits, but those, some breaks, and Price, Brasier, and Kimbrel made them stand up.

Nobody has ever said the bullpen is perfect. Whose is? Also, we all know that, given the playoff format, nothing is guaranteed. Most of us just enjoy watching this team play because, faulty bullpen or not, they are winning a lot. You appear to be unable to do that--despite your disclaimer--because you prefer to anticipate disappointment.

Agree Porcello was amazing. He has a pretty good repertoire--even without the big fastball-- and is tough when he has control of them.

Hembree gets a lot of negativity on talksox, but, when he is right he can be effective.