Maxbialystock

Before the sun sets on this game thread--- This Cleveland series was meaningful precisely because it was Cleveland who were 13--4 in August going into this series. In the first two games, we saw why. In the second two games, they saw why the Sox have the best record in MLB and will be a force in the postseason. Game 3 of that series should have been a big mismatch with Johnson going against Carrasco, but the lineup broke out in the 4th and never looked back. The Sox won 10-4 even though Johnson only went 4.1 innings (giving up 3 runs). Our much-maligned bullpen gave up 1 run in 4.2 innings.

I look forward to the first two games.

This continues to be a discussion. Right now I sure would like to keep Swihart because he really can catch but can also play the outfield, 1b, and maybe 3b. And he can hit. Realistically, however, the Sox have all those slots covered pretty well into the future. I agree with whoever says Swihart should be on the postseason roster ahead of Vazquez, but can't help remembering that Vazquez and Leon have been a pretty good tandem this year even with the weak hitting. We really don't need Swihart that badly for 2019. If the Sox can't get good trade value for Swihart for 2019, he would probably be an excellent backup next year and get used a lot more if only to find out, finally, how well he really can hit.

Funny how we all know what "unsung hero" means, but few if any know where the idea comes from. I would argue that the first "sung" heroes were from Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey. I think most historians agree those sagas were originally an oral and not a written creation. "Unsung" is a word we owe to Shakespeare, who was the first known writer to regularly stick that "un" at the beginning of a word and thereby vastly increased our vocabulary. Given the above, there are literally no unsung heroes on this Sox team because every single player is discussed endlessly and especially when they do something well in front of the NESN commentators and the Boston press in general. Nevertheless, the word "unsung" has a lot of connotations and in the context of the thread title entirely appropriate to invite discussion about players who get less press and less appreciation but who nonetheless contributed to a remarkable, maybe even historic Sox season. I would like to take that one step further and recognize those who perhaps deserve to remain unsung, and would begin with Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez because I think their departures--even though the Sox are still paying them lots of moola--helped this current team. We needed them gone and DD (and this year Cora) deserve our thanks. I would also nominate Swihart and Pomeranz because for most of this season I for one thought that were wasted slots on the roster. Swihart lately has made DD and Cora look like geniuses even though he is still a bit player. Yesterday was a perfect example of Cora's genius and Swihart's stunning versatility despite having played the fewest games of anyone on the roster all year. As for Pomeranz, I still don't like him, but give him and Cora credit for trying to contribute from the bullpen. All that said, I basically agree with those above who singled out Leon, Barnes, Johnson, Velazquez and maybe Holt. But especially Leon.

I knew he meant day game, but couldn't resist showing off that I lived in Europe and/or the Middle East for many years and was very familiar with the time zone differences. My bad.

What I saw today was great location.

So you're in Europe--or is it the Middle East? Back here in the USA it's daytime all over the place.

Exactly.

So I'm looking at this lineup just destroy what seemed to be excellent Cleveland pitching, and I'm thinking what must be going thru Francona's mind. What was that famous line from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? "Who are those guys, anyway?" Well, in a huge gamble by Cora, one of them is his backup catcher now playing first base with 2 hits and 2 rbi's. On top of all that, Price is just gangbusters. Or how about the line attributed to the British commander at Yorktown when he had to surrender to the Continental Army (GW and the guys) in October 1781? The World Turned Upside down. The above was of course written by someone who two days was ready to throw in the towel.

Price is pitching a heckuva game and it ain't luck. He has good command and, in part thanks to Sandy Leon, a good approach on every pitcher. I haven't seen much besides the fastball and cutter, but they are working.

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.