SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
10/30 Red Sox vs. Cardinals World Series Game 6 Thread
|
Post by soxfan06 on Oct 30, 2013 9:34:55 GMT -5
And for the record, since we are going with Gomes, I'd rather him bat behind Napoli. That way the bottom 3 of the order aren't all auto outs. Ells Victorino Pedroia Ortiz Napoli Gomes Xander Drew Ross That is what I hope for tonight. Not sure 3 righties in a row vs Wacha makes sense. I doesn't. Which is another reason why it makes no sense to start Gomes. But it is what it is. I doubt they will move Drew up with his struggles. I wouldn't hate having Xander bat 9th so he could get on base before the big boys come up.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 30, 2013 9:57:04 GMT -5
I'm feeling real nervous. Honestly I think Farrell just trusts Gomes.
He didn't even take out Gomes in favor of Berry or Victorino last game in late innings for defensive purposes. So I think its more about Farrell trusting Gomes decision making.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Oct 30, 2013 10:16:00 GMT -5
Xander should be behind Papi. kid is only 21 but i trust him to drive runs in more than anyone who hits after him.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Oct 30, 2013 10:17:07 GMT -5
In the game 5 thread I listed what happened to all of the teams that have been in our position -- coming home with a 3-2 lead and needing to win just one game. Of 39 such clubs, 32 have won their series, including 18 of the last 20. I decided to take a look at the seven clubs that couldn't seal the deal. I wondered if one of two things were true: they were the lesser regular-season club, or they hadn't significantly outscored their (eventually triumphant) opponents in the course of gaining their 3-2 edge. Because neither is true of the Sox. Although their Pyth W/L record is 1 game worse than the Cardinals (100 versus 101), they played in a league that was 2 wins tougher, so the evidence says they were the slightly better regular-season team. And they have outscored the Cards, 21-13. 1952 Dodgers, who were up 3-2 to the Yankess when their subway series (without an off day) switched back to Ebbbets field. They'd been outscored 19-16, and had one fewer Pyth win (95 to 94). 1958 Braves, who lost to the Yankees. They'd been clobbered, 98-92, in Pyth wins (and had only outscored the Yankees 20-19). 1968 Cardinals, losers to the Tigers. The lesser club by a similar margin, 103 to 96 Pyth wins. (They had outscored the Tigers, 25-17.) 1979 Orioles, beaten by the Pirates. Only had a 25-24 scoring advantage. They were the better Pyth team, though, 98 to 95. 1991 Pirates, who lost the NLCS to the Braves. They'd been outscored 14-12 (although they, too, had a Pyth edge, 95-92). 2003 Cubs, who infamously lost Game 6 (I refuse to blame it on you-know who) and then 7 to eventual WS champs the Marlins. They had outscored the Marlins 33-23, but the Marlins were clearly the better team. They had an 87 to 85 Pyth edge, but had played in a much tougher division, which had to be worth another 2 wins or so. 2004 Yankees. And they'd outscored us 40-27. Doesn't this break the pattern? No, because we had clobbered them in Pyth wins 96 to 89. (And of course we also know that our record in August and September was extraordinary.) Now, this is not scientific, because I'm not looking (yet, at least) at all of the clubs who did seal the deal. It's possible that so many of those have had one or both of these caveats that these factors actually don't matter and aren't predictive at all. But it is anecdotal. No club coming home with a 3-2 win that was both the better regular-season better club by Pyth wins, and had outscored their opponents by more than a run, has ever failed to seal the deal. Only three of these clubs had significantly outscored their opponents, and those three had Pyth win disadvantages of 7, 4 (estimated), and 7 wins. I think you're making too much, statistically, out of the Pyth wins stat in analyzing this. Under an assumption that wins and losses follow a binomial distribution, which we know is not valid (but more on that in a minute), the standard error of the 60% winning percentage of a high-90's win team (either actual or Pyth) is about 3.8%, which amounts to about 6 wins over a 162-game schedule. Thus, in order to conclude a significant difference between two teams at, say, the 95 percent confidence level, their wins would have to differ by double digits. Now the true standard error may be somewhat less than that because we know that game outcomes at certain parts of the season are correlated (teams get hot and the tendency to win increases temporarily, and conversely, they cool off and the tendency to lose increases temporarily). Even so, it would seem that to conclude a difference between two teams over a 162 game schedule with reasonably high p value you'd have to have more than a 1 or 2 win difference between teams. Your sample size of World Series outcomes is small enough that the differences you quote may just be coincidence. I suspect that you'd be much better off looking at actual or Pyth wins over the last month or two of the season to judge who was playing good baseball coming into the postseason than you would looking at full-season wins, anyway. And even then, baseball history is littered with teams who were playing well coming into the postseason and for whatever reasons, suddenly lost it.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Oct 30, 2013 10:22:38 GMT -5
I'm not sure there is any way to avoid a bunch or Righties together in the second half of the line-up.
1. Ells 2. Victorino 3. Pedey 4. Papi 5. Napoli 6. Gomes 7. Xander 8. Drew 9. Ross
I think this is how Farrell plays it. Honestly why mess with what got you here.
I'd think about moving Xander up to 6th, but I'm not sure it makes a huge difference. No matter how you slice it there are a lot of K's built in to the line up from Napoli on.
I think it's either gonna be feast or famine tonight for the sox.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Oct 30, 2013 10:55:13 GMT -5
I'm not sure there is any way to avoid a bunch or Righties together in the second half of the line-up. 1. Ells 2. Victorino 3. Pedey 4. Papi 5. Napoli 6. Gomes 7. Xander 8. Drew 9. Ross I think this is how Farrell plays it. Honestly why mess with what got you here. I'd think about moving Xander up to 6th, but I'm not sure it makes a huge difference. No matter how you slice it there are a lot of K's built in to the line up from Napoli on. I think it's either gonna be feast or famine tonight for the sox. I think your first statement is the operative one. If Farrell is comfortable with what he's doing, he isn't going to change it unless/until he feels like the team is in trouble. Heading into game 6 up 3-2 there may be concerns, but it isn't as if a tractor trailer is bearing down upon them in the rear view mirror. The times that Farrell has made changes in this postseason have been when trouble is in the team's face, not before. The annoying thing about the bottom of the lineup is that the Cards can simply put in a RH pitcher after Ortiz's spot in the order clears and not have to worry about it through the rest of the lineup, unless Drew regains an offensive pulse. It simplifies bullpen planning, for sure. There is one way around it, of course, but that involves having Nava in the lineup. One other thought: The standard wisdom in baseball is for a team to play for a tie at home, to win on the road. But the Cardinals' staff is deeper than ours and probably a little better rested overall. They may have an ENORMOUS advantage in any game that goes extras, so they may be a visiting team that defies conventional wisdom and embraces a tie game in the late innings.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Oct 30, 2013 10:57:53 GMT -5
Ellsbury get on base often please. Create havoc on the base paths one last time.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 30, 2013 11:16:29 GMT -5
Look how fat that pitch to Gomes was. Any of our players could have hit that pitch out. The percentage of fat pitches that are actually hit for HR is vastly lower than you might think. And I'm pretty sure that the frequency with which you do so is a skill that varies, because (based on pitch/fx data analysis) it was the only above-average hitting skill that Jason Bay had. He was very pitchable, but he hit fat pitches very hard a lot more often than usual. His failure with the Mets may well be because he lost that one hitting skill. If Gomes has this skill, I think it would be consistent with his hitting elite pitching better than Nava, something I may look into later today.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 30, 2013 11:24:05 GMT -5
Did any of [the seven clubs that failed to win in our situation] have Peavy slated to start for Game 7? Or a Peavy-like pitcher (other than the Yankees in 04, which, btw, terrifies me on certain levels and why I just want no Game 7. Read my mind; it's on my list of things to maybe look at today. And I already looked informally at the starting rotations in those seven series. The main thing I noticed was that virtually all of them had someone starting on short rest at some point. I'm also curious as to how many of those game 6 and game 7 matchups (in all 39 series) were repeats, and how predictive they were, if so. I don't know if this is true of anyone else, but I find this sort of historical perspective to be interesting and a nice alternative to analyzing the game before us.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Oct 30, 2013 11:42:35 GMT -5
Thinking it over, I am okay with Gomes starting over Nava in Game 6 tonight. However, I would hope that Farrell gets Nava in the game as a late inning defensive replacement (i.e. starting in the 7th inning) for Gomes whom I fear is prone to a defensive lapses. None of us want to see Farrell chanelling his inner-McNamara tonight and repeating what happened in another game 6 back in the mid-1980s.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 30, 2013 12:04:55 GMT -5
I really want this win tonight for John Lackey more than anyone else. In retrospect his treatment at the beginning of his time here was utterly unfair, and he deserves a special place in Red Sox history for the way he's fought back from it all. I won't say more than anyone else but I am all in for Lackey. He has taken all the crap that comes with faltering in Boston, gave his body for the team, gave it again by remaking himself physically and has come back to become everything we thought we were getting in year 1 and more. That level of accountability deserves a night at the top of the podium holding the trophy (a.k.a. "The World Series Cup.")
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 30, 2013 12:14:40 GMT -5
I think the entire Gomes vs Nava is one of the worst managerial decisions in the history of the World Series. Gomes has had 50 post season AB now, 43 of which were this year, and has hit at a .130 pace with a total of 1 HR. And most of those AB came against RH pitching. It was clinically stupid and sure as hell hasn't helped this team. If any of you guys want to support that go at it but I think it's an outrage which cannot be explained by conventional analysis. If as Eric says maybe he has some sort of aptitude against great pitching I've yet to see it in his post season numbers so far, where he has a HR frequency of 1 per every 50 AB currently. The most likely scenario at this point is that Farrell has a skewed opinion of Mr. Gomes which deviates due to some reason beyond his baseball acumen. It started actually after mid season where he started Gomes over Nava against a lot of RH pitching. It continues now. The numbers don't support it. It could just simply be that he was lucky enough to be inserted into the lineup when it started winning again after a slump. It could be interpersonal. It could be who knows what but it doesn't appear to be based on any sort of conventional data. And it could well cost us a championship.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 30, 2013 12:15:53 GMT -5
I really want this win tonight for John Lackey more than anyone else. In retrospect his treatment at the beginning of his time here was utterly unfair, and he deserves a special place in Red Sox history for the way he's fought back from it all. I won't say more than anyone else but I am all in for Lackey. He has taken all the crap that comes with faltering in Boston, gave his body for the team, gave it again by remaking himself physically and has come back to become everything we thought we were getting in year 1 and more. That level of accountability deserves a night at the top of the podium holding the trophy (a.k.a. "The World Series Cup.") I agree with this. No one deserves to hold that trophy up more than Lackey. He earned it.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Oct 30, 2013 12:25:09 GMT -5
I am so pumped for tonight's game! The season ends with a Lackey win and a pent up offensive outburst. Wacha is not a fraud but he is due for an adjustment to mean. I agree with Simmons on Holiday; he is the only cardinal that scares me and shouldn't see a strike. The rest of the cardinals are quadruple A allstars.
Six from Lackey, six outs from Doubrount and the most confounding under 90 12 pitches to end it.
Let's just stay classy Boston!
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Oct 30, 2013 12:29:19 GMT -5
Now, this is not scientific, because I'm not looking (yet, at least) at all of the clubs who did seal the deal. It's possible that so many of those have had one or both of these caveats that these factors actually don't matter and aren't predictive at all. But it is anecdotal. No club coming home with a 3-2 win that was both the better regular-season better club by Pyth wins, and had outscored their opponents by more than a run, has ever failed to seal the deal. Only three of these clubs had significantly outscored their opponents, and those three had Pyth win disadvantages of 7, 4 (estimated), and 7 wins. I suspect that you'd be much better off looking at actual or Pyth wins over the last month or two of the season to judge who was playing good baseball coming into the postseason than you would looking at full-season wins, anyway. And even then, baseball history is littered with teams who were playing well coming into the postseason and for whatever reasons, suddenly lost it. You can't really be predictive with this stuff beyond percent chances. Statistically, the Cards have a little bit worse than 50% chance of winning each game (since they're on the road), so maybe a 20% chance of taking the whole thing. This bears out with the 7 of 39 history (would be exactly 20% (8/40) if the Cards did win.)
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Oct 30, 2013 12:44:12 GMT -5
I know for a fact that I'm not the only one here dreaming of X pulling a Bill Maz tonight...
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 30, 2013 12:44:52 GMT -5
I suspect that you'd be much better off looking at actual or Pyth wins over the last month or two of the season to judge who was playing good baseball coming into the postseason than you would looking at full-season wins, anyway. And even then, baseball history is littered with teams who were playing well coming into the postseason and for whatever reasons, suddenly lost it. You can't really be predictive with this stuff beyond percent chances. Statistically, the Cards have a little bit worse than 50% chance of winning each game (since they're on the road), so maybe a 20% chance of taking the whole thing. This bears out with the 7 of 39 history (would be exactly 20% (8/40) if the Cards did win.) Really, what's the point of any of this analysis? If the Red Sox have a 55% chance or a 95% chance of closing this thing out... so what? Either way it's not really provable and it's definitely not actionable. There's a game or maybe two left in the season and these teams just need to win. Analysis over.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 30, 2013 13:01:36 GMT -5
I know for a fact that I'm not the only one here dreaming of X pulling a Bill Maz tonight... I'm envisioning Quintin Berry on 3rd with no outs in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Oct 30, 2013 13:20:48 GMT -5
I think the entire Gomes vs Nava is one of the worst managerial decisions in the history of the World Series. Gomes has had 50 post season AB now, 43 of which were this year, and has hit at a .130 pace with a total of 1 HR. And most of those AB came against RH pitching. It was clinically stupid and sure as hell hasn't helped this team. If any of you guys want to support that go at it but I think it's an outrage which cannot be explained by conventional analysis. If as Eric says maybe he has some sort of aptitude against great pitching I've yet to see it in his post season numbers so far, where he has a HR frequency of 1 per every 50 AB currently. The most likely scenario at this point is that Farrell has a skewed opinion of Mr. Gomes which deviates due to some reason beyond his baseball acumen. It started actually after mid season where he started Gomes over Nava against a lot of RH pitching. It continues now. The numbers don't support it. It could just simply be that he was lucky enough to be inserted into the lineup when it started winning again after a slump. It could be interpersonal. It could be who knows what but it doesn't appear to be based on any sort of conventional data. And it could well cost us a championship. But... You aren't taking into account defense in Fenway, Base-running (which Gomes is much better at) and any other thing that the sox are privy to that we aren't. There is no way that this is as big of a deal as you're making it. I would start Nava too, but it's not a no-brainer and if the sox lose it won't be because of the left-field situation. I think you've made this into some epic conspiracy in your own mind. Enjoy the ride, I'm sure Daniel Nava is That's all I'll say on this subject
|
|
|
Post by nebraska4sox on Oct 30, 2013 13:31:12 GMT -5
Dropkick Murphys playing the Anthem and Then Im Shipping Up to Boston afterwards. That can only mean good things
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 30, 2013 13:48:09 GMT -5
You can't really be predictive with this stuff beyond percent chances. Statistically, the Cards have a little bit worse than 50% chance of winning each game (since they're on the road), so maybe a 20% chance of taking the whole thing. This bears out with the 7 of 39 history (would be exactly 20% (8/40) if the Cards did win.) Really, what's the point of any of this analysis? If the Red Sox have a 55% chance or a 95% chance of closing this thing out... so what? Either way it's not really provable and it's definitely not actionable. There's a game or maybe two left in the season and these teams just need to win. Analysis over. There's no analysis here, actually. I'm just interested in the history. Which I screwed up. I missed three teams in our position that lost the series, and two that won in 7, and I included a win in 7 that was actually a team down 3-2. I'll edit the list I posted in the other thread, if anyone cares! So in fact the game 6 record is 23-20, and the game 7 record is 10-10. This is the 20th time (out of 44) that the game 6 pitching matchup is a repeat of one seen earlier. It's the 15th time it's a repeat of game 2. (There's been two repeats of game 3, one of game 1, and two of games 1 and 4 -- one being in 1912 when the Sox lost game 7 and won game 8 to beat the Giants.) Teams that won the previous matchup went 7-3. Teams that lost the matchup went 4-5, but are 4-1 since 1993. The nine teams in our position who had lost game 2 and were repeating the matchup: 1926 Yankees. They lost game 2 to the Cardinals, 6-2, when Pete Alexander beat Urban Shocker, then lost the rematch 10-2, and the series. 1931 Cardinals. Lost game 1 to the A's, Lefty Grove vs. Paul Derringer, 6-2, and game 6, 8-1. Won game 7. 1964 Cardinals. Lost games 3 and 6 to the Yankees, Curt Simmons vs. Jim Bouton, 2-1, and 8-3. Won game 7. 1992 Braves. Lost games 3 and 6 to the Pirates, Tom Glavine vs. Tim Wakefield, 3-2 and 13-4, then won game 7. 1993 Phillies. They'd lost game 2, Tommy Greene versus Greg Maddux, 14-3, then won the rematch and series, 6-3. 1993 Blue Jays. The Phillies went on to take game 2 of the WS, Terry Mulholland vs. Dave Stewart, 6-4, but the Blue Jays won the rematch and series, 8-6, on Joe Carter's walk-off HR. 1996 Yankees. Greg Maddux versus Jimmy Key; the Braves taking game 2, 4-0, but the Yankees won the rematch and series, 3-2. 1997 Marlins. The Indians' Chad Ogea over Kevin Brown in games 2 and 6, 6-1 and 4-1, but the Marlins won game 7. 1998 Yankees. The Indian's Charles Nagy versus David Cone. The Yankees lost game 2 in 13 innings, 4-1, but won the rematch and series, 9-5. So this is why I do this crap, because this is a great trivia question: Q: Name the only pitcher in history to start and win Game 2 of a post-season series, but then start and lose a deciding game 6 (which is what we want Wacha to do tonight). A: Greg Maddux. And he did it twice.And it's completely meaningless, but teams up 3-2, coming home, and having to face the pitcher who beat them in game 2 at home ... are 8-1 in the series. (The analytical conclusion drawn from that, of course, is that it's a crapshoot.)
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 30, 2013 14:13:58 GMT -5
Submitted without comment (ok, I threw up a little in my mouth after seeing Napoli and Gomes back to back). 2nd highest OBP for Sox in the series remains in the 7th hole for all the Small Sample Screamers out there):
Jacoby Ellsbury, CF
Dustin Pedroia, 2B
David Ortiz, DH
Mike Napoli, 1B
Jonny Gomes, LF
Shane Victorino, RF
Xander Bogaerts, 3B
Stephen Drew, SS
David Ross, C
John Lackey, SP
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 30, 2013 14:28:30 GMT -5
So this is why I do this crap, because this is a great trivia question: Q: Name the only pitcher in history to start and win Game 2 of a post-season series, but then start and lose a deciding game 6 (which is what we want Wacha to do tonight). A: Greg Maddux. And he did it twice.And this one is nearly as good: Q: Name the three pitchers to start and win a post-season game 1 or 2 on the road, and then stave off elimination by starting and winning game 6 on the road. A: Grover Cleveland Alexander, Lefty Grove, and Chad Ogea. Career ERA+ of 98, 94 the year the did it. Baseball. So the one thing we can say for certain about tonight's game is that if Wacha gets a decision, he's going to somewhat ruin a great trivia question. Well, beating their bullpen seems more satisfying, anyway.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 30, 2013 14:44:51 GMT -5
Submitted without comment (ok, I threw up a little in my mouth after seeing Napoli and Gomes back to back). 2nd highest OBP for Sox in the series remains in the 7th hole for all the Small Sample Screamers out there): Jacoby Ellsbury, CF Dustin Pedroia, 2B David Ortiz, DH Mike Napoli, 1B Jonny Gomes, LF Shane Victorino, RF Xander Bogaerts, 3B Stephen Drew, SS David Ross, C John Lackey, SP The thing that's frustrating about that is you've put the guy you're hoping gets a hold of one and goes deep behind the two guys who are most likely to do just that. It's actually counter-productive to bunch your HR hitters together. Two things this does accomplish: When they inevitably bring in a RHP to face Napoli through 7, you can hit Nava or Carp for Gomes. If Gomes were hitting 7th, they'd go to a LHP. It puts a guy with excellent pitch recognition behind the base-stealer. In fact, these three desirable things are mutually exclusive. So: I'm OK with this if and only if a) they have Victorino try to steal, or hit and run; and b) they hit for Gomes when the opportunity presents itself. Because if you're not planning to do (a), it should be Bogaerts, Gomes, Victorino, and if you're not planning to do (b), it should be Victorino, Bogaerts, Gomes (and if you're not planning to do either, Bogaerts, Victorino, Gomes). But I really like 1 through 4 (and 8 and 9).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 30, 2013 14:47:30 GMT -5
The 1997 playoffs and World Series were pretty screwy all around.
|
|
|