Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

5GoldGlovesOF,75

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,654

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by 5GoldGlovesOF,75

  1. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    I remember '71 well -- it went seven games with a 2-1 Game Seven -- a good example of hot pitchers tipping the scale: Blass, Briles and Kison were just a little better than Palmer, McNally and Cuellar.
  2. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    I always appreciate those who cite quantitative data, as long as they don't discount qualitative data. Many factors beyond just chance can determine outcomes between two good teams in the postseason. Some of those aspects can include head-to-head records, and who's hotter, healthier and hungrier; the latter Hs often combine to form the concept of momentum -- which may just be late-season additions at the trade deadline or rookie call-ups (whose young, supple muscle tissues have an advantage over more brittle veterans on cold October nights). Exhibit TB: Randy Arozarena. Many GMs talk of increasing their odds by constructing rosters "built to win in the postseason" -- so there must be something to it. For those of us who remember the '88 and '90 seasons, the Red Sox were clearly overmatched by the mighty A's. But while Boston couldn't win one single game vs. Oakland, seemingly inferior teams like LA and Cincy pulled off major upsets by dominating. How? Are we overanalyzing? Does the old adage Good Pitching Beats Good Hitting still supersede all other theories?
  3. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    If Beni goes, they're signing Rosario. Cora likes him, and he's half the cost of Ozuna.
  4. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    Well, it wouldn't make sense to look back before there were Wild Cards -- eight-team leagues where only the pennant winner advances isn't crappy at all. Maybe Bellhorn's idea of comparing fates of the hottest teams down the stretch is worth a look -- like Washington. Then again, in '07 there was Colorado, which won 21 of 22 to get to the Series -- only to get swept by Papelbon's Sox. And who could forget the Moneyball A's of '02, who won 20 in a row and then lost in the ALDS first round to the Twins (was that their last postseason win?)... while the second-place Angels went all the way (why didn't they make a movie about them?). Teams with the best overall records certainly have to be favored, even slightly, though... if only because they stayed hot all season long.
  5. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    World Series winners in the entire Wild Card Era: in 26 years -- 7 had the best record in the MLB that year and 5 more had the best record in their leagues. So 12 of 26 or 46% -- almost half the top teams -- went on to win it all. Of the remaining 14 champs, 7 were division winners and the other 7 were Wild Cards. So first place teams won rings in 19 of 26 years or 73% -- nearly three-fourths of the time. Wild Cards won 7 of 26 or 27% -- a little better than one-fourth of the time. Clubs with the best overall records that finished the deal include three from Boston ('07, '13, '18), along with the '09 and '98 Yanks, '16 Cubs and '20 LA. Bet on big markets when they're good.
  6. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    Lasorda was a lifetime Dodger -- the first guy I ever heard say the color of his blood was Dodger blue. Pitched for the 1955 world champs in Brooklyn, won a few rings managing LA in the 80s... but his best trait was as an ambassador for the sport. Personalities with the enthusiasm of Tommy Lasorda are the MVPs of life.
  7. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    Good take.
  8. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    You mean: we all know Manfred has all the facts in a secret report he won't release... but who really wants to disrupt our time of healing with the truth?
  9. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    There was never I doubt I wouldn't be, before it even happened.
  10. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    I still like the Sale trade more, adding a bonafide ace without having to deal any MLB players from an already-first-place team. That was a rare opportunity, and one -- in retrospect -- too easy to take for granted when your team is on top. Price helped stabilize the staff his first year, and played a big part turning a doormat into a division winner -- but remember, it was Porcello who won the Cy Young, and Steven Wright who was an All-Star. It's arguable that Price was worth it for three quality starts in October of 2018, but even the Red Sox admitted his contract was too-much/too-long when they agreed to pay LA to take him -- and had to throw in a Hall of Famer about to enter his prime -- to get it done.
  11. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    Guys and gals like us also realize it, especially when Bloom -- to his credit -- has been candid about the reasons the Sox aren't in the position right now to trade for a player like Snell or sign someone like Bauer. If other cheerleaders in his office would be as transparent, it'd be more respectful to fandom. I think Red Sox Nation can handle the facts -- and would be even more appreciative during a pandemic in a country so exhausted by disinformation this year.
  12. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    I like your adjective relevant. It'd be great if the MLB expands the playoff tourney again, and the Sox stay in the hunt all summer. But even if they add a couple starting pitchers that were injured last year, let's be honest -- the entire rotation would still be in question (and more than most staffs). Serious question: what would be more surprising in '21 -- a playoff contender or another cellar dweller? I'm rationally thinking somewhere in between. Posters can say it's still early as much as the Sox did in '19 (until the trade deadline died), but Spring Training is a month away... maybe.
  13. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    The Red Sox need really good players in many areas to become really good again. For optimistic realists hoping for our 2020 doormats to improve to mediocrity in another pandemic season, the timing will be much more primed for a splash a year from now. Now that Lindor is and most likely will be a Met for awhile, the best position players available this year and next year, at least -- in free agency (that will only cost money and draft picks, but not actual trade bait) -- are Story, Correa and Baez. Few clubs will be in a better position than Boston to be able and hopefully willing to add major talent.
  14. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    Until Bloom actually signs a regular who hit better than .156 last year or a pitcher who doesn't have a career losing record, I am uncertain.
  15. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    But not Sugano.
  16. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    And he was an All-Star in, you know, the Major Leagues.
  17. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    If Bloom thinks he can get Odorizzi at 13 mil per 3 years, you can bet he's opting out on a guy who wants 14 mil for 4.
  18. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    Because of that (the Sox' D-fishing-Cs)... I agree.
  19. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    Injured Sale, October '18: struck out the first two batters of the World Series... and struck out the last three batters of the World Series. In between, yelled and swore at teammates, who were afraid not to rally.
  20. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    That was the same year DLowe and Pedro were 20-game winners (which doesn't mean so much to a lot of fans these days -- though that they averaged around 7 IP per start should still matter, especially to Sox fans who had to stomach 2020). But the WAR stats for position players and pitchers doesn't show much connection as far as winning rings in such a team sport. A better debate might be what makes for more fun as a fan: watching a team consistently contend for six months of most years or a team that alternates between titles and the cellar.
  21. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    My interpretation here is that some posters imply that great players help teams get to the postseason, but don't make much of a difference once the tournament begins, and thus aren't really worth expensive longterm investments because they don't guarantee titles.
  22. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    It's interesting that the Nationals were ranked so low by record but were also one of only 11 clubs in 50 years with three star quality starting pitchers of 5+ WAR -- and the only one that won it all.
  23. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    There reason I focused on winners with superstars is because that is a huge topic of debate here -- signing or extending great players and how they correlate to trophies and banners. Of course, I'm one of those fans of this entertainment product who values the journey as much as reaching the ultimate destination (I'm selfish and want to enjoy as many journeys as I can while I can). 111 Teams in the Divisional Era (1969-2019) had at least two pitchers at 5 WAR (there were only 45 clubs with two pitchers at 6 WAR); only 6 of those teams won the World Series. So 5% of the time a team with at least two superstar pitchers wins it all. Or 95% of the time they don't... 11 teams had three pitchers at 5 WAR; only one won a ring -- 2019 Washington, with Strasburg, Scherzer and Corbin -- 9%. That also means teams lucky enough to have three Top Ten-quality starters lose their last game 91% of the time. 1969-2019 World champs with 2 pitchers of 5+ WAR: '16 Cubs, '04 Red Sox, '01 Dbacks, '85 Royals, '69 Mets.
  24. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    There were more clubs that made the playoffs or even won the pennant, but I just looked for world champs, since that's the ultimate goal. Next, I'll scan for pitchers, since a lot of us agree having a top dog on the mound in the postseason is key... although, having a "hot" dog is more important in October than a guy who maybe burned out having a great season.
  25. 5GoldGlovesOF,75
    When does tirement start?
×
×
  • Create New...