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.
Red Sox vs. Indians ALDS Game 3 Gameday Thread
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 9, 2016 12:58:38 GMT -5
Game officially postponed until tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Oct 9, 2016 13:40:21 GMT -5
Buchholz apparently still scheduled as the starter for tomorrow night's game. Porcello on 3 days rest is a better option, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Oct 9, 2016 14:05:42 GMT -5
Buchholz apparently still scheduled as the starter for tomorrow night's game. Porcello on 3 days rest is a better option, IMHO. So, you'd rather go with Porcello on 3 days rest and then Buchholz, rather than Buchholz and then a rested Porcello?
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Oct 9, 2016 14:31:08 GMT -5
Buchholz apparently still scheduled as the starter for tomorrow night's game. Porcello on 3 days rest is a better option, IMHO. So, you'd rather go with Porcello on 3 days rest and then Buchholz, rather than Buchholz and then a rested Porcello? No, Porcello on Monday and then hopefully we have to worry about a starter for game 4.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Oct 9, 2016 14:36:52 GMT -5
So, you'd rather go with Porcello on 3 days rest and then Buchholz, rather than Buchholz and then a rested Porcello? No, Porcello on Monday and then hopefully we have to worry about a starter for game 4. Never understand that kind of thinking. Basically you want to reduce the chances of winning the two games in a row we need to win so you can increase (maybe) the chances of winning one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 15:11:02 GMT -5
No, Porcello on Monday and then hopefully we have to worry about a starter for game 4. Never understand that kind of thinking. Basically you want to reduce the chances of winning the two games in a row we need to win so you can increase (maybe) the chances of winning one. From another perspective, why save Porcello for a Game 4 that may never happen? If Farrell thinks Porcello on short rest gives the team a better chance in Game 3, he absolutely should start Porcello in Game 3. Win the game in front of you, no matter the cost. Worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 9, 2016 15:21:45 GMT -5
6:08 starting time on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Oct 9, 2016 15:25:56 GMT -5
Never understand that kind of thinking. Basically you want to reduce the chances of winning the two games in a row we need to win so you can increase (maybe) the chances of winning one. From another perspective, why save Porcello for a Game 4 that may never happen? If Farrell thinks Porcello on short rest gives the team a better chance in Game 3, he absolutely should start Porcello in Game 3. Win the game in front of you, no matter the cost. Worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. If your only concern is winning one game, yes. To win the series, we need to win a game Buchholz starts and a game Porcello starts. Your logic is that we should potentially weaken the odds of doing that just to increase the odds of winning one game.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Oct 9, 2016 15:43:19 GMT -5
I dont understand people clamoring to throw Porcello and Price out there on short rest... because they pitched so well in the first 2 games?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 16:17:04 GMT -5
From another perspective, why save Porcello for a Game 4 that may never happen? If Farrell thinks Porcello on short rest gives the team a better chance in Game 3, he absolutely should start Porcello in Game 3. Win the game in front of you, no matter the cost. Worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. If your only concern is winning one game, yes. To win the series, we need to win a game Buchholz starts and a game Porcello starts. Your logic is that we should potentially weaken the odds of doing that just to increase the odds of winning one game. And your logic is that the Sox should weaken their odds in Game 3 to have a better chance in Game 4. This is the wrong approach in my opinion. Yes, Porcello will need to start a game and Buchholz will need to start a game. No argument there. I'm simply saying that if Porcello on short rest is better than Buchholz on full rest, there is no reason to save Porcello for later in the series. Later in the series may never happen. So you do everything you can to win the game in front of you, then worry about the next game later. Also, pitching Porcello in Game 3 doesn't weaken the odds of Buchholz pitching well in Game 4 or Price/ERod pitching well in Game 5. I'm not sure I understand your logic there.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 9, 2016 16:29:19 GMT -5
Honestly I think the rainout is the best thing that could have happened to the Red Sox. It stalls out the Indians number 1.
Yes Bauer on short rest is a very shaky proposition for Cleveland, but Porcello, with 225 innings or so under his belt, with short rest for Game 4 isn't a great thing either. It's good that Porcello gets his rest. As far as Bauer goes, he still pitches in a hostile environment and if his control isn't as good as last time, he could be in for problems. Porcello gets to pitch at Fenway where he has pitched his best ball and he's fully rested.
Of course they'd have to get past Game 3, which is a tossup, and of course Price inspires little confidence for Game 5, particularly against a rested and certainly healthy enough Kluber, but one step at a time.
This rain out could be very fortuitous. It's certainly better than playing when it's crappy weather and runs are at a premium. The Sox offense needs to break out and in better weather and Fenway that's more likely to happen.
At this point, that's the straws I grasp at. Just hope Buchholz doesn't put the Red Sox in a hole early on tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Oct 9, 2016 17:01:26 GMT -5
If your only concern is winning one game, yes. To win the series, we need to win a game Buchholz starts and a game Porcello starts. Your logic is that we should potentially weaken the odds of doing that just to increase the odds of winning one game. And your logic is that the Sox should weaken their odds in Game 3 to have a better chance in Game 4. This is the wrong approach in my opinion. Yes, Porcello will need to start a game and Buchholz will need to start a game. No argument there. I'm simply saying that if Porcello on short rest is better than Buchholz on full rest, there is no reason to save Porcello for later in the series. Later in the series may never happen. So you do everything you can to win the game in front of you, then worry about the next game later. Also, pitching Porcello in Game 3 doesn't weaken the odds of Buchholz pitching well in Game 4 or Price/ERod pitching well in Game 5. I'm not sure I understand your logic there. No, I want to increase the odds of winning the SERIES. And your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 17:49:48 GMT -5
And your logic is that the Sox should weaken their odds in Game 3 to have a better chance in Game 4. This is the wrong approach in my opinion. Yes, Porcello will need to start a game and Buchholz will need to start a game. No argument there. I'm simply saying that if Porcello on short rest is better than Buchholz on full rest, there is no reason to save Porcello for later in the series. Later in the series may never happen. So you do everything you can to win the game in front of you, then worry about the next game later. Also, pitching Porcello in Game 3 doesn't weaken the odds of Buchholz pitching well in Game 4 or Price/ERod pitching well in Game 5. I'm not sure I understand your logic there. No, I want to increase the odds of winning the SERIES. And your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense. There is not going to be a series to win if they don't win Game 3. So I want the Red Sox to increase their chances of winning Game 3, even if it means somehow lessening their chances in Game 4. Worry about Game 4 later. In my opinion, Porcello gives the Red Sox a better chance in Game 3. Obviously, you feel differently, and it looks like Farrell does as well. So we'll agree to disagree, as they say.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 9, 2016 17:57:21 GMT -5
I dont understand people clamoring to throw Porcello and Price out there on short rest... because they pitched so well in the first 2 games? Yeah I don't get this either. I would still take my chances with Eduardo in game 4 and Porcello or Price in game 5. I'm all for Porcello backing up either Eduardo or Buchholz in either game though. Hopefully one of Eduardo or Buchholz tosses up a good enough outing to get through at least 6 innings.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 9, 2016 19:04:28 GMT -5
Never understand that kind of thinking. Basically you want to reduce the chances of winning the two games in a row we need to win so you can increase (maybe) the chances of winning one. From another perspective, why save Porcello for a Game 4 that may never happen? If Farrell thinks Porcello on short rest gives the team a better chance in Game 3, he absolutely should start Porcello in Game 3. Win the game in front of you, no matter the cost. Worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. The goal is not to play a game 4. The goal is to win the series. The classic example of this decision faced Jimy Williams in 1998 when he had the option of pitching first Pete Schourek on 5 days rest and then Pedro Martinez on 4, or Pedro on 3 days and then Schourek on 6. It's incredibly clear in that case that your odds of winning both games are hugely better if you stick with the regular rotation, since pitchers are at their best on 4 and 5 days rest and can really struggle on 3 or 6. Yet there were many -- most notably, Dan Shaughnessy -- who insisted that the Sox had to start Pedro in game 4 because "you have to win game 4 for there to be a game 5" and Pedro, even on 3 days rest, would be better than Schourek on 4. Even though both of those things are true, doing it that way would be plainly idiotic. A failure to see that shows an inability to reason that I frankly find terrifying. It's not so clear this time, but the same principles apply; the "other perspective" you speak of is technically known as "incorrect." Jimy Williams, of course, did it correctly, and got to the 8th leading 1-0. And then he took out Derek Lowe, who had just emerged as a great setup man and had gotten five outs, the last four with total domination, and brought in Tom Gordon for just his 3rd 2-inning save of the year. Which he blew.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 9, 2016 19:18:33 GMT -5
No, I want to increase the odds of winning the SERIES. And your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense. There is not going to be a series to win if they don't win Game 3. So I want the Red Sox to increase their chances of winning Game 3, even if it means somehow lessening their chances in Game 4. Worry about Game 4 later. In my opinion, Porcello gives the Red Sox a better chance in Game 3. Obviously, you feel differently, and it looks like Farrell does as well. So we'll agree to disagree, as they say. This is not a question of "feeling" or "agreeing or disagreeing." The correct thing to do here is not subject to debate. What you are doing here is identifying the wrong goal, choosing the one with the immediate payoff and consciously choosing to "worry later" about the overall consequences. Seriously, you should know that this way of thinking is seriously dysfunctional in life. You have a job interview tomorrow, and you're worrying about it all day, so your first goal is to reduce that anxiety, so you go out and get absolutely s***faced and, hey, worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. There's no question that getting dead drunk would do a better job of calming your nerves than, say, distracting yourself by watching a funny movie on Netflix. But did you make the right choice? What was your actual goal?
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Oct 9, 2016 19:24:21 GMT -5
From another perspective, why save Porcello for a Game 4 that may never happen? If Farrell thinks Porcello on short rest gives the team a better chance in Game 3, he absolutely should start Porcello in Game 3. Win the game in front of you, no matter the cost. Worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. The goal is not to play a game 4. The goal is to win the series. The classic example of this decision faced Jimy Williams in 1998 when he had the option of pitching first Pete Schourek on 5 days rest and then Pedro Martinez on 4, or Pedro on 3 days and then Schourek on 6. It's incredibly clear in that case that your odds of winning both games are hugely better if you stick with the regular rotation, since pitchers are at their best on 4 and 5 days rest and can really struggle on 3 or 6. Yet there were many -- most notably, Dan Shaughnessy -- who insisted that the Sox had to start Pedro in game 4 because "you have to win game 4 for there to be a game 5" and Pedro, even on 3 days rest, would be better than Schourek on 4. Even though both of those things are true, doing it that way would be plainly idiotic. A failure to see that shows an inability to reason that I frankly find terrifying. It's not so clear this time, but the same principles apply; the "other perspective" you speak of is technically known as "incorrect." Jimy Williams, of course, did it correctly, and got to the 8th leading 1-0. And then he took out Derek Lowe, who had just emerged as a great setup man and had gotten five outs, the last four with total domination, and brought in Tom Gordon for just his 3rd 2-inning save of the year. Which he blew. Very well said. To take the best shot at winning the whole series means weighing what gives the best chance to win each game, not just to throw everything you have at one game and hope for luck afterward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 19:56:55 GMT -5
I respect the wide range of opinions on here. That's part of the reason I visit this site as often as I do. I happen to disagree with the majority of you on this one.
Whatever Farrell's reasons for starting Buchholz in Game 3, I hope one of them wasn't because they are saving Porcello for a game that may never happen. The Red Sox are one game away from elimination. They don't have the luxury of looking two games into the future. The only question Farrell should be asking himself right now is, "Which starting pitcher gives us the best chance of forcing a Game 4?" If he thinks the answer is Porcello on short rest, but is starting Buchholz anyway, I think that is the wrong approach. It's not a shortsighted opinion, or a "dysfunctional" one. It's the opinion of the fan of a team that needs to focus on winning Game 3 before it can even begin to focus on winning the series.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Oct 9, 2016 20:14:14 GMT -5
I respect the wide range of opinions on here. That's part of the reason I visit this site as often as I do. I happen to disagree with the majority of you on this one. Whatever Farrell's reasons for starting Buchholz in Game 3, I hope one of them wasn't because they are saving Porcello for a game that may never happen. The Red Sox are one game away from elimination. They don't have the luxury of looking two games into the future. The only question Farrell should be asking himself right now is, "Which starting pitcher gives us the best chance of forcing a Game 4?" If he thinks the answer is Porcello on short rest, but is starting Buchholz anyway, I think that is the wrong approach. It's not a shortsighted opinion, or a "dysfunctional" one. It's the opinion of the fan of a team that needs to focus on winning Game 3 before it can even begin to focus on winning the series. So, do you think it would be a good idea to start Porcello with a short leash, and piece together the game with a couple innings each from Buch, ERod, Price, and Pomeranz? I mean that would probably give them the best chance of winning this game, right?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Oct 9, 2016 21:50:31 GMT -5
Got a ticket to game 4 now, hopefully we get there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 22:02:57 GMT -5
I respect the wide range of opinions on here. That's part of the reason I visit this site as often as I do. I happen to disagree with the majority of you on this one. Whatever Farrell's reasons for starting Buchholz in Game 3, I hope one of them wasn't because they are saving Porcello for a game that may never happen. The Red Sox are one game away from elimination. They don't have the luxury of looking two games into the future. The only question Farrell should be asking himself right now is, "Which starting pitcher gives us the best chance of forcing a Game 4?" If he thinks the answer is Porcello on short rest, but is starting Buchholz anyway, I think that is the wrong approach. It's not a shortsighted opinion, or a "dysfunctional" one. It's the opinion of the fan of a team that needs to focus on winning Game 3 before it can even begin to focus on winning the series. So, do you think it would be a good idea to start Porcello with a short leash, and piece together the game with a couple innings each from Buch, ERod, Price, and Pomeranz? I mean that would probably give them the best chance of winning this game, right? Price threw three of innings of relief in Game 4 of the ALCS last year against the Royals after starting Game 2 and being scheduled to start Game 6. So...yes, to answer your question. I absolutely think the Red Sox will turn to David Price tomorrow if need be. Same for ERod and Pomeranz. Again, and I can't state this enough, the Red Sox do not have the luxury of looking ahead to games 4 and 5. That's what happens when you're facing a win-or-go-home situation.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Oct 9, 2016 23:37:23 GMT -5
So, do you think it would be a good idea to start Porcello with a short leash, and piece together the game with a couple innings each from Buch, ERod, Price, and Pomeranz? I mean that would probably give them the best chance of winning this game, right? Price threw three of innings of relief in Game 4 of the ALCS last year against the Royals after starting Game 2 and being scheduled to start Game 6. So...yes, to answer your question. I absolutely think the Red Sox will turn to David Price tomorrow if need be. Same for ERod and Pomeranz. Again, and I can't state this enough, the Red Sox do not have the luxury of looking ahead to games 4 and 5. That's what happens when you're facing a win-or-go-home situation. Okay, lets say JF somehow gets dumber and does that, and they win tomorrow. Now who starts Game 4, Matt Barnes?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 10, 2016 1:39:10 GMT -5
I respect the wide range of opinions on here. That's part of the reason I visit this site as often as I do. I happen to disagree with the majority of you on this one. Whatever Farrell's reasons for starting Buchholz in Game 3, I hope one of them wasn't because they are saving Porcello for a game that may never happen. The Red Sox are one game away from elimination. They don't have the luxury of looking two games into the future. The only question Farrell should be asking himself right now is, "Which starting pitcher gives us the best chance of forcing a Game 4?" If he thinks the answer is Porcello on short rest, but is starting Buchholz anyway, I think that is the wrong approach. It's not a shortsighted opinion, or a "dysfunctional" one. It's the opinion of the fan of a team that needs to focus on winning Game 3 before it can even begin to focus on winning the series. You have been captured by Evangelical terrorists. They tell you that you must pass tests in Creation Science, Global Warming Denial, and Signs of the Imminent Apocalypse on successive days, in that order. If you fail any one of the tests, they will execute you immediately. They have given you three binders that contain all the information you might be tested on. You have a single day to study them. The tell you frankly that it will be difficult but by no means impossible to master all of the material in sufficient depth to pass all three tests. What do you do? A) Study all three subjects equally. B) Devote most of your time to Creation Science and kind of skim the other two, because if you don't pass Creation Science, you don't even get to take the others.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Oct 10, 2016 9:38:42 GMT -5
What a wild season this has been. Banking on Clay in a must-win game 3 at home. I love/hate it.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 10, 2016 10:11:42 GMT -5
I respect the wide range of opinions on here. That's part of the reason I visit this site as often as I do. I happen to disagree with the majority of you on this one. Whatever Farrell's reasons for starting Buchholz in Game 3, I hope one of them wasn't because they are saving Porcello for a game that may never happen. The Red Sox are one game away from elimination. They don't have the luxury of looking two games into the future. The only question Farrell should be asking himself right now is, "Which starting pitcher gives us the best chance of forcing a Game 4?" If he thinks the answer is Porcello on short rest, but is starting Buchholz anyway, I think that is the wrong approach. It's not a shortsighted opinion, or a "dysfunctional" one. It's the opinion of the fan of a team that needs to focus on winning Game 3 before it can even begin to focus on winning the series. You have been captured by Evangelical terrorists. They tell you that you must pass tests in Creation Science, Global Warming Denial, and Signs of the Imminent Apocalypse on successive days, in that order. If you fail any one of the tests, they will execute you immediately. They have given you three binders that contain all the information you might be tested on. You have a single day to study them. The tell you frankly that it will be difficult but by no means impossible to master all of the material in sufficient depth to pass all three tests. What do you do? A) Study all three subjects equally. B) Devote most of your time to Creation Science and kind of skim the other two, because if you don't pass Creation Science, you don't even get to take the others. D) Ask them all to close their eyes and bow our heads in prayer, then tip out the door as they do.
|
|
|