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.
10/13 Red Sox vs. Tigers ALCS Game 2 Thread
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 14, 2013 2:41:25 GMT -5
I have never been a big fan of Buchholz, although I recognize that he has shown flashes of considerable talent. He just doesn't show them consistently, and right now he isn't showing them much at all. I don't understand Farrell moving him up in the rotation when it is so obvious that he is no better than the fourth best, and maybe not that, among the starters.
His stuff is not electric right now. He has lost several MPH off his fastball. His command is very inconsistent. And he seems to lack stamina. Lackey and Peavy are much better pitchers right now, and should be ahead of him in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Oct 14, 2013 4:58:17 GMT -5
Remember back when this site had positive and negative rep points you could give or take away from people? Well I went to go finish cleaning after Brady threw that last interception then went to bed because I had to get up early this morning so I missed both comebacks. If you want to add that feature back in I'll take my lumps like a man.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 14, 2013 6:14:30 GMT -5
This team is nothing without Big Papi. Amazing.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 14, 2013 6:22:33 GMT -5
I have never been a big fan of Buchholz, although I recognize that he has shown flashes of considerable talent. He just doesn't show them consistently, and right now he isn't showing them much at all. I don't understand Farrell moving him up in the rotation when it is so obvious that he is no better than the fourth best, and maybe not that, among the starters. His stuff is not electric right now. He has lost several MPH off his fastball. His command is very inconsistent. And he seems to lack stamina. Lackey and Peavy are much better pitchers right now, and should be ahead of him in the rotation. He had a 5.1 3 1 1 0 6 line (1.69 ERA, 1.36 FIP) through his first 20 hitters tonight, then gave up a single, two doubles, two homers, and a line drive out to the next six hitters, in a span of just 14 pitches and 8 swings. And he actually had an earlier, less extreme meltdown in the second, when he gave up in succession a double, two line drive singles, and a very hard-hit GBP ball in the span of 6 pitches and 4 swings. But then he turned back into Buchholz. So you're right that he hasn't been consistent with his talent, but that's not merely showing flashes of it, that's sustaining it for decent stretches (4 batters, 12 batters), then losing it completely. It's true that he's not throwing as hard as before his injury, but he is hopefully one adjustment away from being a guy who can compete with any other potential ace.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Oct 14, 2013 6:29:03 GMT -5
It felt like Rocky IV where Rocky beats that big Ruskie...
I think a lot of credit needs to go to Felix Doubront. The guy hasn't pitched in what seems like a eternity, he comes in and gets Fielder and holds the line for the following inning. If Doubront implodes there this game becomes a laugher.
The look on Fielder's face after Salty's hit said volumns. This series is going to be a war. It's on.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 14, 2013 6:32:10 GMT -5
Great baseball the last two games. It's not going to get any easier for the hitters. Tuesday is a 4 pm eastern start. Grind it out against Verlander and make the cement shoe corners field.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Oct 14, 2013 7:36:18 GMT -5
Remember back when this site had positive and negative rep points you could give or take away from people? Well I went to go finish cleaning after Brady threw that last interception then went to bed because I had to get up early this morning so I missed both comebacks. If you want to add that feature back in I'll take my lumps like a man. I'm with you -- we were babysitting our granddaughter over the weekend, so we had to get up early with her this morning, so I went to bed after the 7th and missed the festivities. I remember thinking as I went to bed "I wonder if, at 108 pitches, Scherzer comes back out to start the 8th?" Wondering if Leyland would try to steal more outs from him by using him into the hundred-and-teens. Well, apparently Scherzer told him he was gassed, so Leyland did the "smart" thing and brought in the pen. Just a note to file away for those of us who scratch our heads about managers who try to steal outs when they don't trust their bullpens. And obviously, Workman and Doubront are hidden heroes here, for holding the fort and getting 7 important outs. An interesting scoring note: The run in the 9th was classified as unearned, even though it scored with no outs. I guess the ruling is that, if the run wouldn't have scored YET without the error, it has to be classified as unearned. But that DOES mean that other things have to be assumed. If Iglesias doesn't make the throwing error Gomes stays at first. The wild pitch gets him to 2nd (I don't think you can assume the wild pitch wouldn't have occurred. I think you have to play out the inning without the error as it otherwise happened.) Now comes Salty's single, and the problem occurs. Gomes scores from 3rd on the hit in the actual game. You have to make one of two assumptions to call the run unearned: Either that the single still occurs but that Gomes would have stopped at 3rd, so that he wouldn't have scored YET, or that, with Iglesias playing back he would have stopped the ball or made the play, with Gomes either staying at 2B or advancing to 3B, but no further. Can you assume an out under different circumstances where none occured (e.g., a scorer isn't allowed to assume a double play in assigning an error)? Or can you assume a ball is stopped in the IF when in real life it wasn't? I guess I'm asking, what is the scorer allowed to assume to make the run unearned?
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 14, 2013 10:27:14 GMT -5
Great game and all.....but lets get back to the Stephen Wright thread shall we?
|
|
|
Post by theolearyfactor on Oct 14, 2013 11:55:43 GMT -5
Brady leading last minute game-winning drives and Ortiz hitting clutch post-season homeruns - I never want 2004 to end.
|
|
|
Post by baseballguy350 on Oct 14, 2013 13:08:01 GMT -5
I turned the Pats game off today after Brady threw that interception in the last minutes of the game. They came back and won. I just turned this game off. It may be OK. Don't turn your tv back on. Ever. Sincerely, Red Sox nation
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 14, 2013 14:21:26 GMT -5
An interesting scoring note: The run in the 9th was classified as unearned, even though it scored with no outs. I guess the ruling is that, if the run wouldn't have scored YET without the error, it has to be classified as unearned. But that DOES mean that other things have to be assumed. If Iglesias doesn't make the throwing error Gomes stays at first. The wild pitch gets him to 2nd (I don't think you can assume the wild pitch wouldn't have occurred. I think you have to play out the inning without the error as it otherwise happened.) Now comes Salty's single, and the problem occurs. Gomes scores from 3rd on the hit in the actual game. You have to make one of two assumptions to call the run unearned: Either that the single still occurs but that Gomes would have stopped at 3rd, so that he wouldn't have scored YET, or that, with Iglesias playing back he would have stopped the ball or made the play, with Gomes either staying at 2B or advancing to 3B, but no further. Can you assume an out under different circumstances where none occured (e.g., a scorer isn't allowed to assume a double play in assigning an error)? Or can you assume a ball is stopped in the IF when in real life it wasn't? I guess I'm asking, what is the scorer allowed to assume to make the run unearned? A flaw in the unearned run rule I'd never noticed -- thanks for pointing it out! I'm sure the run is unearned because the reconstructed inning ends with the bases full and still no one out. Scorers aren't allowed to assume different defensive positioning due to the error, just as they aren't allowed to assume the pitcher would have pitched a guy differently had, for instance, the double play still been in order. The big flaw in the rule is that when an error is made that ultimately would have ended the inning by getting to the 3rd out, runners that reach base after the should-have-been third out and subsequently score should be earned (unless the third out would have ended the game). There is already a footnote to the rule that, if there is a pitching change subsequent to that point, such runs are earned for the new pitcher but not for the team! So they are aware of the problem. But if there are two outs in the first and the SS boots the #3 hitter's grounder, the cleanup hitter hits a two-run homer, and the next eight guys reach base and score, there's no good logical reason for saying all of those runs were the shortstop's fault. The pitcher would have had to face those hitters anyway, the next inning, and when reconstructing innings to determine whether a run should be earned or not, we ignore the truth that the different game situation would have probably changed the subsequent outcomes. Instead, we just take the subsequent PA at face value, as much as possible. All the should-have-been third out does in a reconstruction is clear the bases. It doesn't wipe out subsequent PA. As you point out, last night's game points out another clause that's needed. When the reconstruction ends in the middle of the inning because a walk-off occurred, there needs to be a rundown, by base-out situation, of whether to regard the run as earned or not, based on the actual probabilities. Obviously, runner on 3rd with no outs should be an earned run. However, this sort of clause is, I think, less logically obvious than the other fix, and, I think, philosophically actually belongs with a needed tweak to the way inherited runners are assigned to pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 14, 2013 16:23:37 GMT -5
Gomes over Nava again tomorrow? Anyone else incredibly outraged over that? Gomes 0 for 9, Nava 1 for 3 with that huge bases clearing double vs Verlander. Suddenly abandoning a good platoon, which Nava is the far better end of, because Gomes has a similar "will to win" as Pedroia? Jesus Farrell.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 14, 2013 16:25:38 GMT -5
Gomes over Nava again tomorrow? Anyone else incredibly outraged over that? Gomes 0 for 9, Nava 1 for 3 with that huge bases clearing double vs Verlander. Suddenly abandoning a good platoon, which Nava is the far better end of, because Gomes has a similar "will to win" as Pedroia? Jesus Farrell. I will say I value OBP over intangibles. By a lot.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 14, 2013 16:29:33 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 6m Farrell said Napoli would be back at first base. Also indicated that Ross would catch. #redsox
All righties versus Verlander? Seems like a thoughtful move.
Edit: I know Verlander was better against lefties this year. Still, seems risky.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 14, 2013 16:34:35 GMT -5
So f*cking stupid to me sitting your second best hitter against righties (by far) against him. If you want Gomes in so badly, play him over Napoli. What, Nava's beard isn't on their level so he has a lesser will to win?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 14, 2013 16:37:33 GMT -5
At some point Napoli is gonna hit one over the fence - I hope - might as well be tomorrow with the bases loaded in the 1st inning.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 14, 2013 16:46:58 GMT -5
Gomes over Nava again tomorrow? Anyone else incredibly outraged over that? Gomes 0 for 9, Nava 1 for 3 with that huge bases clearing double vs Verlander. Suddenly abandoning a good platoon, which Nava is the far better end of, because Gomes has a similar "will to win" as Pedroia? Jesus Farrell. Did you see this somewhere. I still think Nava would've been better than Gomes yesterday, go-ahead-run-hit included. That would be insane. And why not save Gomes on the bench for when a lefty comes in? That's just nuts.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 14, 2013 16:51:17 GMT -5
Gomes over Nava again tomorrow? Anyone else incredibly outraged over that? Gomes 0 for 9, Nava 1 for 3 with that huge bases clearing double vs Verlander. Suddenly abandoning a good platoon, which Nava is the far better end of, because Gomes has a similar "will to win" as Pedroia? Jesus Farrell. Did you see this somewhere. I still think Nava would've been better than Gomes yesterday, go-ahead-run-hit included. That would be insane. And why not save Gomes on the bench for when a lefty comes in? That's just nuts. Tim Britton ?@timbritton 49m Farrell suggested Gomes will get the start in Game Three.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 14, 2013 16:52:41 GMT -5
Gomes over Nava again tomorrow? Anyone else incredibly outraged over that? Gomes 0 for 9, Nava 1 for 3 with that huge bases clearing double vs Verlander. Suddenly abandoning a good platoon, which Nava is the far better end of, because Gomes has a similar "will to win" as Pedroia? Jesus Farrell. Did you see this somewhere. I still think Nava would've been better than Gomes yesterday, go-ahead-run-hit included. That would be insane. And why not save Gomes on the bench for when a lefty comes in? That's just nuts. really though, other then the Ortiz hit the sox still hit like shit...... I dont think having nava in there would have made a difference... and if the sox play like they did the first 6 innings of the last two game it wont either
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 14, 2013 16:58:41 GMT -5
The argument that "we sucked so putting a better hitter in the lineup wouldn't matter" doesn't do it for me. Nava is left handed, he recognizes breaking balls and off-speed stuff better than others, and he doesn't K a ridiculous amount. This is contrary to Gomes, Napoli, Victorino (I'm looping him in here because he is pretty awful with his plate discipline batting right handed against righties (3/25 BB/K) and Middlebrooks. Having Nava in the 6th spot of our lineup against a righty just feels absolutely critical to me.
Also I understand Verlander was better against lefties this season, but his career splits are almost exactly even. With his resurgence lately, I wouldn't be surprised to see him absolutely mow down Gomes. I mean, I hope I'm really wrong, but I can't find a way to justify sitting Nava again. And it does seem to me like a huge slap in the face to a guy who was one of the most productive outfielders in the league. Not that Nava will say anything like that. But I will.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 14, 2013 16:58:59 GMT -5
Did you see this somewhere. I still think Nava would've been better than Gomes yesterday, go-ahead-run-hit included. That would be insane. And why not save Gomes on the bench for when a lefty comes in? That's just nuts. really though, other then the Ortiz hit the sox still hit like shit...... I dont think having nava in there would have made a difference... and if the sox play like they did the first 6 innings of the last two game it wont either Sure, but that's not the question. Just because the decision might not cost the game outright doesn't mean it's the right move. I'm not sure what we're doing if the defense of a questionable move is "well it might not matter anyways if the team plays poorly". Nava should get the start over Gomes unless Nava has some undisclosed injury.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 14, 2013 17:00:45 GMT -5
The argument that "we sucked so putting a better hitter in the lineup wouldn't matter" doesn't do it for me. Nava is left handed, he recognizes breaking balls and off-speed stuff better than others, and he doesn't K a ridiculous amount. This is contrary to Gomes, Napoli, Victorino (I'm looping him in here because he is pretty awful with his plate discipline batting right handed against righties (3/25 BB/K) and Middlebrooks. Having Nava in the 6th spot of our lineup against a righty just feels absolutely critical to me. Also I understand Verlander was better against lefties this season, but his career splits are almost exactly even. With his resurgence lately, I wouldn't be surprised to see him absolutely mow down Gomes. I mean, I hope I'm really wrong, but I can't find a way to justify sitting Nava again. And it does seem to me like a huge slap in the face to a guy who was one of the most productive outfielders in the league. Not that Nava will say anything like that. But I will. anyway, JF said he was considering it... didnt say he WILL be in the lineup... so we should hold outrage until we see the lineup
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 14, 2013 17:09:23 GMT -5
The argument that "we sucked so putting a better hitter in the lineup wouldn't matter" doesn't do it for me. Nava is left handed, he recognizes breaking balls and off-speed stuff better than others, and he doesn't K a ridiculous amount. This is contrary to Gomes, Napoli, Victorino (I'm looping him in here because he is pretty awful with his plate discipline batting right handed against righties (3/25 BB/K) and Middlebrooks. Having Nava in the 6th spot of our lineup against a righty just feels absolutely critical to me. Also I understand Verlander was better against lefties this season, but his career splits are almost exactly even. With his resurgence lately, I wouldn't be surprised to see him absolutely mow down Gomes. I mean, I hope I'm really wrong, but I can't find a way to justify sitting Nava again. And it does seem to me like a huge slap in the face to a guy who was one of the most productive outfielders in the league. Not that Nava will say anything like that. But I will. anyway, JF said he was considering it... didnt say he WILL be in the lineup... so we should hold outrage until we see the lineup Sure, but we can discuss the possibility. It's not final, but obviously we can say it's likely that it'll be Gomes after Farrell came right out and said that. And I can be outraged that he's even considering it. Also: I'd much rather see Nava running around Comerica's spacious left field than Gomes. Especially considering their right handed hitters and Lackey's fly ball tendencies.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 14, 2013 17:09:28 GMT -5
Did you see this somewhere. I still think Nava would've been better than Gomes yesterday, go-ahead-run-hit included. That would be insane. And why not save Gomes on the bench for when a lefty comes in? That's just nuts. really though, other then the Ortiz hit the sox still hit like shit...... I dont think having nava in there would have made a difference... and if the sox play like they did the first 6 innings of the last two game it wont either Nava has the 5th best OBP in the AL and gets on base more than 41% of the time, has an .894 OPS, 25 doubles and 10 HRs vs. RHP this year in 397 plate appearances. That's the kind of demonstrated plate presence that can make much more of a difference over, say, "grittiness" - even if it's a case of running up more pitches per plate appearance. And, if it even matters, his defense is better - not by a lot, but in a big OF a little can mean a lot. Also if you are relating this to the two games thus far vs. Det., Nava is your #2 hitter, production-wise over the 2 whole games. This would border on outright stupidity if it happened.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 14, 2013 17:26:01 GMT -5
really though, other then the Ortiz hit the sox still hit like shit...... I dont think having nava in there would have made a difference... and if the sox play like they did the first 6 innings of the last two game it wont either Nava has the 5th best OBP in the AL and gets on base more than 41% of the time, has an .894 OPS, 25 doubles and 10 HRs vs. RHP this year in 397 plate appearances. That's the kind of demonstrated plate presence that can make much more of a difference over, say, "grittiness" - even if it's a case of running up more pitches per plate appearance. And, if it even matters, his defense is better - not by a lot, but in a big OF a little can mean a lot. Also if you are relating this to the two games thus far vs. Det., Nava is your #2 hitter, production-wise over the 2 whole games. This would border on outright stupidity if it happened. Absolutely agree!! The gritty, good house veteran gets the nod over the small, walk-on guy who made it despite great odds. He seemingly commands less respect despite his numbers left handed. I was not sold on Nava prior to this year. He has made a believer out of me. I love his strike zone judgment & his ability to foul balls off both of which run up pitch counts. What Sanchez, Scherzer & Verlander have shown is that they have incredible, dominating stuff but that they are human if fatigued. No question they can beat our starters man to man on pure ability. We need to wear them down to get to the soft underbelly of a pen. I think that will be THE KEY if we win. Not playing Nava against a righty lowers those odds.
|
|
|