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.
6/17-6/19 Red Sox @ Twins Series Thread
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 20, 2019 23:06:29 GMT -5
Lol, I had the same reaction, but I get what he’s saying. “Great” being the sweep. But I’m willing to give them “great” for coming back after a real, real tough loss and sticking it to a really good team playing in one of the toughest home environments around. The way that ended with Rodriguez really stepping up to go 7, and the bats coming alive to completely put it away...it felt like 2018 again. No. I don't get it. Sox just beat a terrific team 2 out of 3 away from home. How is it that winning 2 of 3 away from home vs a top tier team not "great?" Winning 67% is a 108-109 win team. The caliber of team beaten away from home makes it "great."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 20, 2019 23:19:59 GMT -5
Lol, I had the same reaction, but I get what he’s saying. “Great” being the sweep. But I’m willing to give them “great” for coming back after a real, real tough loss and sticking it to a really good team playing in one of the toughest home environments around. The way that ended with Rodriguez really stepping up to go 7, and the bats coming alive to completely put it away...it felt like 2018 again. No. I don't get it. Sox just beat a terrific team 2 out of 3 away from home. How is it that winning 2 of 3 away from home vs a top tier team not "great?" Winning 67% is a 108-109 win team. The caliber of team beaten away from home makes it "great." Lol, I know. He’s just setting a high bar, so when they read these boards they don’t get too comfortable. Keeping them humble and hungry 🤣🤣. I will say, they should’ve won that second game. I think it’s fair to critique a missed opportunity like that. I’m giving them an “A” because of how they bounced back. That was championship-caliber stuff. So in a way, I’m almost glad they DID lose, because you only have so many chances like that to prove your mettle, to everyone including yourself. And they did it in style. Tthis one was very 2018 WS-like.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 21, 2019 2:55:53 GMT -5
Some people are taking this way too seriously. Since I won't repeat my rationalization of what I meant by really good versus great, I'll post something new and won't repeat (since not many like this here).
The Sox have won 2 really great games against a great team the last 4 days.
They've lost 1.5 games in the standings for the division in the process. The Yankees have scored double digit victories the past 2 games and obliterated the reigning Cy Young award winner from last year in one of these games. The bat that I supposedly wasn't supposed to be afraid of in Edwin Encanarcion has hit 2 bombs since putting on a Yankee uniform.
You have to be better than really good or maybe even great to win the division this year. I'll settle for the wild card, however.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 21, 2019 7:55:55 GMT -5
Some people are taking this way too seriously. Since I won't repeat my rationalization of what I meant by really good versus great, I'll post something new and won't repeat (since not many like this here). The Sox have won 2 really great games against a great team the last 4 days. They've lost 1.5 games in the standings for the division in the process. The Yankees have scored double digit victories the past 2 games and obliterated the reigning Cy Young award winner from last year in one of these games. The bat that I supposedly wasn't supposed to be afraid of in Edwin Encanarcion has hit 2 bombs since putting on a Yankee uniform.You have to be better than really good or maybe even great to win the division this year. I'll settle for the wild card, however. Don't take offense to this - but I think you take everything way too serious. As an example your post here is filled with "negative" after Sox beat Twinkies 2 out of 3. The Red Sox took 2 out of 3 away from home vs a terrific team. You turn that into they won 2 games in 4 days and worrying about Edwin Encanarcion? Instead of enjoying Sox took the Twins you have to compare it to the Yanks? If "you" are "okay" and "are willing to settle" for a 2nd wc, then why worry about the division? By the way you post - I don't think you are okay in settling. You're a glass is half empty poster. I feel that if the Sox had a season in which they went 161-1 and they blew one game in the 9th inning you'd make mention that they should've gotten "Ottavino" in the offseason. I'm sure you can come back at me and say if the team went 2-160 that I'd be saying how great the Sox are that we took 2 out of 3 from the Twins. I do agree with one of your older posts that they need a bullpen guy. I think the stats that eric or others may have shown in a very positive light in no way tells the entire picture. The bullpen is a concern regardless of other issues. As for other issues - I agree overall for anyone complaining. I think we definitely agree that the team is under-performing. Last year I couldn't understand much complaining - but this year they should be better. I think we agree there are legit complaints with this team this year. I agree with several of your complaints as well. But taking 2 out of 3 from Minny is great.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 21, 2019 11:36:59 GMT -5
Geez, like every "debate" around here, it comes down to "glass half full" versus "glass half empty". Is it possible that the glass is both, half full, and half empty? Isn't it possible if the glass is factually both half full and half empty, that everybody is correct in their opinion and assessment?
To cut down on all this, how about we establish new standardized guidelines for a 3 game series?
Sweep 3 out of 3, the Red Sox did awesome. Take 2 out of 3, the Red Sox did great. Take 1 out of 3, the Red Sox didn't do so great. Take 0 out of 3, the Red Sox did awful.
Perhaps if we use these standardized terms that everybody can agree to we can avoid a hundred posts debating the use of the word "good" versus the use of the word "great".
So how about we say that the Red Sox did "great" - as it's now in the unofficial guideline - in beating Minnesota 2 out of 3 and acknowledge that they had a crisp clean sterling victory in the first game, blew a game they totally should have won in the 2nd game, which is less than the desired outcome when chasing a hot first place team, and then played an admirable bounce-back game when they could have let the loss linger?
Ok, guys, carry on.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 21, 2019 12:42:30 GMT -5
Geez, like every "debate" around here, it comes down to "glass half full" versus "glass half empty". Is it possible that the glass is both, half full, and half empty? Isn't it possible if the glass is factually both half full and half empty, that everybody is correct in their opinion and assessment? To cut down on all this, how about we establish new standardized guidelines for a 3 game series? Sweep 3 out of 3, the Red Sox did awesome. Take 2 out of 3, the Red Sox did great. Take 1 out of 3, the Red Sox didn't do so great. Take 0 out of 3, the Red Sox did awful. Perhaps if we use these standardized terms that everybody can agree to we can avoid a hundred posts debating the use of the word "good" versus the use of the word "great". So how about we say that the Red Sox did "great" - as it's now in the unofficial guideline - in beating Minnesota 2 out of 3 and acknowledge that they had a crisp clean sterling victory in the first game, blew a game they totally should have won in the 2nd game, which is less than the desired outcome when chasing a hot first place team, and then played an admirable bounce-back game when they could have let the loss linger? Ok, guys, carry on. And they played 17 games in the last 16 days, going 11-6.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 21, 2019 14:11:11 GMT -5
Some people are taking this way too seriously. Since I won't repeat my rationalization of what I meant by really good versus great, I'll post something new and won't repeat (since not many like this here). The Sox have won 2 really great games against a great team the last 4 days. They've lost 1.5 games in the standings for the division in the process. The Yankees have scored double digit victories the past 2 games and obliterated the reigning Cy Young award winner from last year in one of these games. The bat that I supposedly wasn't supposed to be afraid of in Edwin Encanarcion has hit 2 bombs since putting on a Yankee uniform.You have to be better than really good or maybe even great to win the division this year. I'll settle for the wild card, however. Don't take offense to this - but I think you take everything way too serious. As an example your post here is filled with "negative" after Sox beat Twinkies 2 out of 3. The Red Sox took 2 out of 3 away from home vs a terrific team. You turn that into they won 2 games in 4 days and worrying about Edwin Encanarcion? Instead of enjoying Sox took the Twins you have to compare it to the Yanks? If "you" are "okay" and "are willing to settle" for a 2nd wc, then why worry about the division? By the way you post - I don't think you are okay in settling. You're a glass is half empty poster. I feel that if the Sox had a season in which they went 161-1 and they blew one game in the 9th inning you'd make mention that they should've gotten "Ottavino" in the offseason. I'm sure you can come back at me and say if the team went 2-160 that I'd be saying how great the Sox are that we took 2 out of 3 from the Twins. I do agree with one of your older posts that they need a bullpen guy. I think the stats that eric or others may have shown in a very positive light in no way tells the entire picture. The bullpen is a concern regardless of other issues. As for other issues - I agree overall for anyone complaining. I think we definitely agree that the team is under-performing. Last year I couldn't understand much complaining - but this year they should be better. I think we agree there are legit complaints with this team this year. I agree with several of your complaints as well. But taking 2 out of 3 from Minny is great. Nah, I mean no harm and it's sports to the first part. I don't take it too serious. I post when I can, if I can about it. I post about the division because it's relevant. Winning the division is important because of the way the wild card is set up. If it was like the old days, all I'd be talking about is beating the Rays to get that wild card. If the Sox went 161-1, I'd be doing cartwheels naked.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,687
|
Post by gerry on Jun 21, 2019 14:36:39 GMT -5
Pedro, is that a threat? Lol.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 21, 2019 15:13:27 GMT -5
Don't take offense to this - but I think you take everything way too serious. As an example your post here is filled with "negative" after Sox beat Twinkies 2 out of 3. The Red Sox took 2 out of 3 away from home vs a terrific team. You turn that into they won 2 games in 4 days and worrying about Edwin Encanarcion? Instead of enjoying Sox took the Twins you have to compare it to the Yanks? If "you" are "okay" and "are willing to settle" for a 2nd wc, then why worry about the division? By the way you post - I don't think you are okay in settling. You're a glass is half empty poster. I feel that if the Sox had a season in which they went 161-1 and they blew one game in the 9th inning you'd make mention that they should've gotten "Ottavino" in the offseason. I'm sure you can come back at me and say if the team went 2-160 that I'd be saying how great the Sox are that we took 2 out of 3 from the Twins. I do agree with one of your older posts that they need a bullpen guy. I think the stats that eric or others may have shown in a very positive light in no way tells the entire picture. The bullpen is a concern regardless of other issues. As for other issues - I agree overall for anyone complaining. I think we definitely agree that the team is under-performing. Last year I couldn't understand much complaining - but this year they should be better. I think we agree there are legit complaints with this team this year. I agree with several of your complaints as well. But taking 2 out of 3 from Minny is great. Nah, I mean no harm and it's sports to the first part. I don't take it too serious. I post when I can, if I can about it. I post about the division because it's relevant. Winning the division is important because of the way the wild card is set up. If it was like the old days, all I'd be talking about is beating the Rays to get that wild card. If the Sox went 161-1, I'd be doing cartwheels naked. Agreed. People are acting like winning a WC spot is the same as winning the division. Not only does it completely screw up your entire rotation going into the next round, it's a 1-game elimination. Chirs Sale or David Price having a bad night effectively ends your season. A bad bounce that Xander can't field ends your season. Only 1 team in the new WC era has won it all, but there have been others that have made it to the WS as well. This is why I'm not a fan of playing for a 1-game playoff. The Sox had a great series against a great team. Unfortunately, the Yankees appear to be unstoppable. I understand your point completely about good vs great. It doesn't matter if you lost 30-1 or 3-4 in 17 innings. A loss still counts as a loss. I loved how they showed poise in coming back from that loss and then coming back from two deficits the following night. Taking 2 out of 3 is good, not great. The Yankees sweeping dampens it a bit more if you're still holding onto hop for a division title. In a vacuum, the series the Red Sox had was great baseball.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 21, 2019 15:45:20 GMT -5
Nah, I mean no harm and it's sports to the first part. I don't take it too serious. I post when I can, if I can about it. I post about the division because it's relevant. Winning the division is important because of the way the wild card is set up. If it was like the old days, all I'd be talking about is beating the Rays to get that wild card. If the Sox went 161-1, I'd be doing cartwheels naked. Agreed. People are acting like winning a WC spot is the same as winning the division. Not only does it completely screw up your entire rotation going into the next round, it's a 1-game elimination. Chirs Sale or David Price having a bad night effectively ends your season. A bad bounce that Xander can't field ends your season. Only 1 team in the new WC era has won it all, but there have been others that have made it to the WS as well. This is why I'm not a fan of playing for a 1-game playoff. The Sox had a great series against a great team. Unfortunately, the Yankees appear to be unstoppable. I understand your point completely about good vs great. It doesn't matter if you lost 30-1 or 3-4 in 17 innings. A loss still counts as a loss. I loved how they showed poise in coming back from that loss and then coming back from two deficits the following night. Taking 2 out of 3 is good, not great. The Yankees sweeping dampens it a bit more if you're still holding onto hop for a division title. In a vacuum, the series the Red Sox had was great baseball. Those risks are certainly there and it is a huge risk not be the division champion. But my feelings are this: If a wild card wins the wild card playoff game, they're not quite on equal footing, but they're hardly in an impossible position. For example last year, the Red Sox kicked the Yankees' butt in the regular season and the Yanks played the A's in the wild card game. Felt like a huge advantage - until the Yankees beat Oakland and were one of the final four in the American League. It felt like the Yankees had a seat at the table and that the big division win the Sox had over them felt meaningless at that point. Then suddenly after splitting the first two games with Boston, NYY kind of looked like they might be in the driver's seat. In other words they weren't at a huge disadvantage. Fortunately the Red Sox clobbered the Yankees in Game 3 and finished them off in Game 4 at The Toilet. Point is if you win the Wild Card game, you still have a good shot at advancing - if you're going to win the whole thing, you eventually have to win on the road anyways (or in the Yankees' case - at home - haha). Likewise, as far as using up your ace in the playoff game. Yes, it's a disadvantage to burn him out, but if the team has designs on winning the World Series, they better get contributions from more than 1 pitcher. I mean, the new wild card rules would probably have hurt the late 1990s Red Sox who had Pedro Martinez and practically nobody else that you could rely on. This year the Sox have Sale and Price with viable starters in Porcello, Eovaldi, and E-Rod, so it wouldn't hurt as much. But like you say, you can be bounced in 1 game. Well, if you can't win the division, then too bad. That's how I look it. If you don't win the Wild Card game - you don't deserve it anyways. To win the World Series you have to win must-win type of games. Can't do it the Wild Card game - you probably weren't going to do it in the ALDS, ALCS, or World Series either. So yes, winning the division gives you a breather and is a bit more prestigious, but being the Wild Card doesn't have to be a death blow.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 21, 2019 16:19:42 GMT -5
Agreed. People are acting like winning a WC spot is the same as winning the division. Not only does it completely screw up your entire rotation going into the next round, it's a 1-game elimination. Chirs Sale or David Price having a bad night effectively ends your season. A bad bounce that Xander can't field ends your season. Only 1 team in the new WC era has won it all, but there have been others that have made it to the WS as well. This is why I'm not a fan of playing for a 1-game playoff. The Sox had a great series against a great team. Unfortunately, the Yankees appear to be unstoppable. I understand your point completely about good vs great. It doesn't matter if you lost 30-1 or 3-4 in 17 innings. A loss still counts as a loss. I loved how they showed poise in coming back from that loss and then coming back from two deficits the following night. Taking 2 out of 3 is good, not great. The Yankees sweeping dampens it a bit more if you're still holding onto hop for a division title. In a vacuum, the series the Red Sox had was great baseball. Those risks are certainly there and it is a huge risk not be the division champion. But my feelings are this: If a wild card wins the wild card playoff game, they're not quite on equal footing, but they're hardly in an impossible position. For example last year, the Red Sox kicked the Yankees' butt in the regular season and the Yanks played the A's in the wild card game. Felt like a huge advantage - until the Yankees beat Oakland and were one of the final four in the American League. It felt like the Yankees had a seat at the table and that the big division win the Sox had over them felt meaningless at that point. Then suddenly after splitting the first two games with Boston, NYY kind of looked like they might be in the driver's seat. In other words they weren't at a huge disadvantage. Fortunately the Red Sox clobbered the Yankees in Game 3 and finished them off in Game 4 at The Toilet. Point is if you win the Wild Card game, you still have a good shot at advancing - if you're going to win the whole thing, you eventually have to win on the road anyways (or in the Yankees' case - at home - haha). Likewise, as far as using up your ace in the playoff game. Yes, it's a disadvantage to burn him out, but if the team has designs on winning the World Series, they better get contributions from more than 1 pitcher. I mean, the new wild card rules would probably have hurt the late 1990s Red Sox who had Pedro Martinez and practically nobody else that you could rely on. This year the Sox have Sale and Price with viable starters in Porcello, Eovaldi, and E-Rod, so it wouldn't hurt as much. But like you say, you can be bounced in 1 game. Well, if you can't win the division, then too bad. That's how I look it. If you don't win the Wild Card game - you don't deserve it anyways. To win the World Series you have to win must-win type of games. Can't do it the Wild Card game - you probably weren't going to do it in the ALDS, ALCS, or World Series either. So yes, winning the division gives you a breather and is a bit more prestigious, but being the Wild Card doesn't have to be a death blow. That's not really fair. World Series winners lose game 1 of series all the time. This would be the equivalent of that. No, it's not impossible to win the next round. It just sets your rotation up in less than ideal conditions, i.e 2nd vs 1st, 3rd vs 2nd and getting your ace for only 1 game in the next round.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 21, 2019 16:31:17 GMT -5
Those risks are certainly there and it is a huge risk not be the division champion. But my feelings are this: If a wild card wins the wild card playoff game, they're not quite on equal footing, but they're hardly in an impossible position. For example last year, the Red Sox kicked the Yankees' butt in the regular season and the Yanks played the A's in the wild card game. Felt like a huge advantage - until the Yankees beat Oakland and were one of the final four in the American League. It felt like the Yankees had a seat at the table and that the big division win the Sox had over them felt meaningless at that point. Then suddenly after splitting the first two games with Boston, NYY kind of looked like they might be in the driver's seat. In other words they weren't at a huge disadvantage. Fortunately the Red Sox clobbered the Yankees in Game 3 and finished them off in Game 4 at The Toilet. Point is if you win the Wild Card game, you still have a good shot at advancing - if you're going to win the whole thing, you eventually have to win on the road anyways (or in the Yankees' case - at home - haha). Likewise, as far as using up your ace in the playoff game. Yes, it's a disadvantage to burn him out, but if the team has designs on winning the World Series, they better get contributions from more than 1 pitcher. I mean, the new wild card rules would probably have hurt the late 1990s Red Sox who had Pedro Martinez and practically nobody else that you could rely on. This year the Sox have Sale and Price with viable starters in Porcello, Eovaldi, and E-Rod, so it wouldn't hurt as much. But like you say, you can be bounced in 1 game. Well, if you can't win the division, then too bad. That's how I look it. If you don't win the Wild Card game - you don't deserve it anyways. To win the World Series you have to win must-win type of games. Can't do it the Wild Card game - you probably weren't going to do it in the ALDS, ALCS, or World Series either. So yes, winning the division gives you a breather and is a bit more prestigious, but being the Wild Card doesn't have to be a death blow. That's not really fair. World Series winners lose game 1 of series all the time. This would be the equivalent of that. No, it's not impossible to win the next round. It just sets your rotation up in less than ideal conditions, i.e 2nd vs 1st, 3rd vs 2nd and getting your ace for only 1 game in the next round. I hate to say it but the Wild Card game isn't like a Game 1. It's more like a Game 7. It's a must win. That's the pressure post-season teams face anyways. The Wild Card team is just doing it sooner. Had your ace going but couldn't win? Too bad. And I say that knowing full well the Sox are not guaranteed anything if they are a Wild Card team and have Chris Sale going. Again, I'm not arguing that being a wild card is just as good as being a division winner. I'm just saying that if you survive that wild card playoff game, you're almost on equal footing. If David Price is going against another team's ace, the Sox still have a shot. If Porcello is going in Game 2 against the other team's 2, maybe it's a disadvantage, but Sale is probably pitching again when the other team has their #3 going, so advantage Red Sox. But we all know it really only works that way theoretically. Those numbers get blurred in the reality of the games.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 21, 2019 16:53:25 GMT -5
That's not really fair. World Series winners lose game 1 of series all the time. This would be the equivalent of that. No, it's not impossible to win the next round. It just sets your rotation up in less than ideal conditions, i.e 2nd vs 1st, 3rd vs 2nd and getting your ace for only 1 game in the next round. I hate to say it but the Wild Card game isn't like a Game 1. It's more like a Game 7. It's a must win. That's the pressure post-season teams face anyways. The Wild Card team is just doing it sooner. Had your ace going but couldn't win? Too bad. And I say that knowing full well the Sox are not guaranteed anything if they are a Wild Card team and have Chris Sale going. Again, I'm not arguing that being a wild card is just as good as being a division winner. I'm just saying that if you survive that wild card playoff game, you're almost on equal footing. If David Price is going against another team's ace, the Sox still have a shot. If Porcello is going in Game 2 against the other team's 2, maybe it's a disadvantage, but Sale is probably pitching again when the other team has their #3 going, so advantage Red Sox. But we all know it really only works that way theoretically. Those numbers get blurred in the reality of the games. That's a fair point of view. The thing is though, say Price wins the one-game play in. He will only go once in the next series where the other team will have their 1 and 2 go twice. That's the disadvantage. Granted, Price vs their 3 is advantage you, unfortunately, you only get that one time.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 21, 2019 21:34:40 GMT -5
In a vacuum, the series the Red Sox had was great baseball. That's the point. It is a vacuum if we are talking about the 1 series. We were talking the 1 series. Secondly, another point you made a while ago when you spoke of going "all in." What does that mean? Or is it subjective? Do you think the Sox can improve the team while while not having top go all in? Third-- your posts make it sound like you want to give up because you're scared of Tamp Bay. You mentioned how scared you were of the TB starters. Sure. But shouldn't TB also be scared of the Sox? Unless you are certain June is October. Trade Betts? Sure it's possible. Dave D has said no one is untouchable. But you can also consider not giving up and improving the team while not having to go "all-in," right?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 22, 2019 1:45:31 GMT -5
In a vacuum, the series the Red Sox had was great baseball. That's the point. It is a vacuum if we are talking about the 1 series. We were talking the 1 series. Secondly, another point you made a while ago when you spoke of going "all in." What does that mean? Or is it subjective? Do you think the Sox can improve the team while while not having top go all in? Third-- your posts make it sound like you want to give up because you're scared of Tamp Bay. You mentioned how scared you were of the TB starters. Sure. But shouldn't TB also be scared of the Sox? Unless you are certain June is October. Trade Betts? Sure it's possible. Dave D has said no one is untouchable. But you can also consider not giving up and improving the team while not having to go "all-in," right? Kind of random and far back reaching after the last few days I've come around a bit on the team after beating the Twins. A. They're not catching the division. I don't like a 1-game play-in, period. B. The Rays have arguably one of the best pitchers in baseball in Blake Snell and a good team top to bottom. C. I don't even remember the last time I said trade Betts, but as I just said in the JBJ thread, it's about if you're falling out of contention and if you think the Red Sox can't re-sign him. Nothing to do with the player himself. I've called him every other year Betts before, because that's what he's been, but he's still a damn good player even in his "off" years. He's just not Mike Trout this year or two years prior. He was Mike Trout last year. D. I was responding to Pedro not calling it a great series. I thought it was a great series.
|
|
|