Maxbialystock

I would put it differently and say Buchholz needs to show our rotation doesn't stink, which it has so far.

OK. I read the article. It's asinine, pure and simple. At least he recognizes that Porcello and Price stank it up, but then he wanders off into these fascinating theories about how/why Farrell didn't get the guys psyched up--too much celebrating, the story goes, except that we've already read that from several contributors to talksox, so my guess is that Buckley basically plagiarized the whole article. I was particularly fascinated by the statement that the Sox had simply stopped hitting in the playoffs. If so, it was a one game stoppage because the Sox scored 4 runs in game one which would have been enough to win 6 of the 11 games in the 11 game hitting streak. But it wasn't enough because of Porcello. Nobody says home field advantage wouldn't be nice, but what some of us are pointing out is that this year the Sox have not been that great at Fenway, where they won just 1 more game than they did on the road. And, in case anyone's interested, the Sox took 2 of 3 at Cleveland and 2 of 3 at Fenway. Again, where is this big difference folks are clamoring about? I say again for the umpteenth time, the huge difference in the first two games in the playoffs was the starting pitching. We had the edge in game 1, but Porcello decided he was the set up man for the home run derby and not pitching the most important game--thus far--of his career. The Guardians had the edge in game 2 because Kluber had good stuff and good command, whereas Price only had not-so-good excuses for doing what he as always done in the postseason.

You have to be kidding. That Price got through 5 while giving up just a one dinger (and one run) was semi-miraculous. Sooner or later he was going to throw one of his patented fastballs--but not too fast--near the middle of the strike zone and on a count when the hitter would look for one. And probably with a man or two on base. Plus you are blithely ignoring the fact that the Sox scored exactly one run in that game. How exactly was Price going to fix that?

Brilliant, gutsy move? Bauer was not, is not a topline starter and had already given up 2 dingers and 3 runs in 4.2 innings and Cleveland has one of the best bullpens if not the best in the AL and at that point had a 4-3 lead. Farrell could have done the same thing for/with Porcello and Price except one gave up 4 runs in 3 innings and the other 4 runs in 2 innings. Plus both of course are supposed to be topline starters.

This and the OP are rich with irony because Georom4 never defended Farrell--how could he with just 20 posts?--and regularly excoriated Terry Francona over on BDC where he used to call him "Francoma" and basically blamed him for every loss. And where in the world does he get the notion--which, I admit others seem to have--that the Sox have a huge advantage at Fenway? The fact is that this season the Sox won exactly one more game at Fenway than they did on the road. Look it up. And, as I pointed out in a previous post, in the playoffs this year the away team is winning about as often as the home team. A far more accurate predictor is the quality of the starting pitchers. While I have in fact defended Farrell a lot, I've also been unhappy with him now and then, but this year I have to give him a ton of credit for the great September finish, winning the ALE, and winning 93 games. And, don't forget, almost half of those 162 games were in the AL East which had 4 teams over .500, 3 teams in the playoffs, and right now the ALE 2d place Toronto Blue Jays looking like a good bet for the ALCS. They finished second and avoided missing the playoffs by taking 2 of 3 from the Sox at, guess where, Fenway, and against the Sox regular lineup and starting pitchers Porcello, ERod, and Price. As for the Buckley article, what a crock.

I have two quarrels with your position. The first is that, especially in the playoffs, it all boils down to pitching. You pitch well, you win. You don't, you go home. The exception to that is when you pitch well but still lose because they other guy pitched better. An alternative version of that is momentum is all about your next starting pitcher. The second is that you conveniently have drawn a line and excluded that 11 game winning streak in September as though it never happened. Yesterday, I agree, nothing went right for the Sox. But Thursday they scored 4 runs, and the bullpen was terrific, which was exactly how they won those 11 games in a row. But guess what? Porcello, our presumptive Cy Young nominee, stank it up with 3 dingers and 5 runs in just 4.1 innings. That's right, one guy, the starting pitcher, lost a game that should have been won. So that's why it's not being a pollyanna to think the Sox can win the next game. Win that one and the next one becomes a possibility. Just that simple. This does not mean the odds aren't against the Sox, only that it's a little early to declare this season dead.

Bravo. We disagree on a lot, but that's definitely the right attitude and it's a plausible scenario.

Me, I definitely wanted the home field advantage--on general principles if nothing else. I wanted the Sox to have the best W-L record in the AL. That said, I'm somewhat amazed how everything is now being blamed on having to play in Cleveland. So far in these playoff games, the two wild card games were split--Toronto won at home, but it was a tough win, 11 innings, helped by the Orioles not using their ace reliever Britton. The Giants won in Mets Stadium. Both wild card wins were the clearly result of excellent pitching, not the ballpark. In the other ALDS, Toronto has now won both games on the road at Texas, and tonight the Dodgers just beat the Nationals in Nationals ballpark. And, FWIW, overall the Sox were semi-tied with the Cubs for the best road record in MLB. To me it still boils down to pitching, not location/ballpark. Our starting pitching stunk in the first two games, and Cleveland's was OK in the first and excellent in the second.

I didn't much feel this way during the game, but someone else put it right. Very few of us expected the Sox to win the ALCS, but they did despite a rotation--and sometimes a bullpen--that threatened to ruin this season. The hitting has hit a rough spot, but also won an awful lot of games. Someone else said something else right on target, that pitching tends to take over in the postseason. The Sox did not have great hitting in the 2013 playoffs, but they did have a team ERA of 2.00, and the bullpen was even better than that. In 2016 we have so far had too unimaginably terrible starters.

Soul-searching. Got it.

A very apt and even commendable defense of Price. However, I must point out two additional, compelling facts. First and foremost, Price only lasted 3.1 innings. If Farrell believed his starter just had a little bad luck, he would have left him in. Fact two, in the two games thus far in the ALDS, the starting pitchers have given up 10 earned runs and the bullpen--which has pitched more innings--has given up 1 unearned run. Yes, the hittting was piss poor today, but Kluber is a bonafide candidate for the Cy Young and today we could all see why. He has really good stuff. Not a lot of K's, but very unhittable. Last night the hitting brought in 4 runs, and it simply wasn't enough because our starter in just 4.1 innings gave up 3 dingers and 5 runs. The story of this ALDS so far is starting pitching, pure and simple. The Guardians have it--despite their injuries--and so far we very clearly have not had it.

Excuse me, but didn't the Guardians have 4 runs in the first 2 innings last night and the same thing in the first 3 innings today, this time with their best starter, a real candidate for the Cy Young? Also, I guarantee you that, were our guys to look relaxed right now, you would be saying, "see, these guys don't even care. Doesn't Farrell know how to motivate?" Also, FYI, the Sox 19-8 in September, despite playing mostly road games and many consecutive games in both August and September. How did that happen?

What a crock. Two straight starters, Porcello and Price, have given these games away. Today, I entirely agree, the lineup looks tight, but that's largely due to Kluber's excellent pitching. Last night the Sox scored 4 runs, which should have won, but Porcello gave away 5, including 3 dingers. Price has always been bad in the postseason. Porcello was just bad.

It bugs me that Holt--like many other major league infielders--never seems interesting in fielding a grounder with both hands.

That's pretty accurate even though there was nothing lucky about that dinger, which was just hammered. Also, today, unlike last night, the Sox have not hit well at all.

Not really. Holt had a perfect gidp grounder and dropped the ball, but got no error because he finally picked the ball up and tagged third before the baserunner.

Here's another little factoid. After 3.5 innings (4 for Kluber and 3 for Price), Kluber has thrown 35 strikes out of 62 pitches--56%, which is a low percentage. Price, on the other hand, has thrown 41 strikes in 53 pitches, 77%. Of course, some of them have been very hittable.

I say again, Porcello and Price rely on their fastballs too much. Look at Kluber for contrast. Our guys can't hit him because every pitch, even his fast ball, has motion to it.

Today the hitting looks terrible. But last night the Sox scored 4 runs and would have won had not Porcello stunk it up with 3 dingers and 5 runs in 4.1 innings.

If they are hot it is because our two starters love that flat, very hittable fastball and eschew anything that breaks down and in or down and away. Heck, the whole darn organization loves starters with heat and not much else. Our starters are throwers, not pitchers--with Buchholz the only exception.

Porcello and Price remind me of the pitcher "Nuc" in Bull Durham, both wanting to establish their authority.

I was wrong about one big thing. Price still loves his fastball--way too much. A lefty hitter and he throws one right down the middle. Both starters so far for the Sox have thrown fat fastballs and paid the price and mixed in way too few breaking balls. Who ever is calling the pitches is just dead wrong.

That single was on the 3d exact pitch in a row in the same place. Who on the bench is calling the pitches?

Thanks for the reminder. I can get that way sometimes, but I'm with these guys today.

Helluva inning for Price. Two infield popups and a ground out to 3B. And not many pitches.