2023 LDS Game/Discussion Thread

[bosox188]

Starting pitching really decided all of these series. The Dodgers had nothing, especially after Kershaw got knocked around. The Braves basically only had one good pitcher all series in Strider. Orioles had terrible pitching, which everyone knew was their bugaboo heading into the postseason. The Twins were the only team I would say that had decent starting pitching in the series and still lost.

Nola is a true ace in a league with very, very few of them. He gave up a lot of homers this year so his ERA was not very good, but he's super durable, takes the hill every fifth day and gives your team a chance to win. He's the exact kind of pitcher you want in a playoff series--I'd take him over a lot of guys with better rate stats.

This 1000%, and it's such a clear and obvious distinction I can't believe how much oxygen the layoff discussion is getting (not just here but in general). Especially after the regular season in which one of the strongest themes was teams' pitchers breaking down. The Dodgers pitching issue was probably the closest to getting the discussion it deserved. And their lineup was very top heavy but not as deep as the Braves or Phillies.

The O's got through the regular season by leaning hard on their bullpen due to a weak rotation. All of those arms got cooked at some point before the season ended. The Braves only had 3 guys throw over 100 innings for them. And the Braves didn't acquire a starter at the deadline. The O's grabbed Flaherty, who's been a pitch away from a career ending shoulder injury for 2 years, because he was cheap. And he had the least to offer them in terms of eating innings to rest their pen. They took for granted that they're going to be a 95+ win team for years to come (there is no such guarantee), and they chose to hoard minor league assets that they won't have playing time for in the next 5 years, instead of getting more or better pitching support.

The regular season is not just a number you tally up at the end to see who was the best. That's not the point. I don't know, I've always thought of a season as being like reading a good story, like a hero's journey. It's a long half-year journey where teams rise and fall, they evolve, they discover things about themselves. They shape their personality as a team, they form an identity. They find out where their weaknesses are, and it's their job to figure out how to shore those up. It's a grind that's supposed to prepare them for the ultimate test and pressure cooker that is the playoffs. Nobody cares how good you were when half your games were played against mediocre to terrible teams, those are just the trials. The actual job is to slay the fucking monster at the end of the story. You can say that for all sports really. But it's particularly true for baseball, when the season is so long, with so many games played, and the nature of having to make sure you've got enough pitching left when the final chapter comes.

 

[MuzzyField]

Is that a plug for Castellanos or for the rest of the Phillies team? Or just generally an argument against Bloom, which is like shooting fish in a barrel? I can't even figure out what arguments are being made for Castellanos in this thread. All I know is that the shareholders apparently don't like him.

Oh, and this:


is some awesome, content free analysis that appears to boil down to "I like him." Which is particularly funny as the author of the post then goes on to call citing WAR lazy, as opposed to citing nothing except raw home run numbers.

The argument is the Phillies are a good TEAM and shitting on one dude with a significant contract not making the raw math work is flawed.

The Phillies roster has strengths and weaknesses like all do, but there is leadership, attitude, and chemistry with this bunch and it's a real thing. I've been watching it bloom since mid-season 2022 thanks to MLB.tv. Rob Thomson and his staff get plenty of credit as well.

They have fun and appear to like each other, while my favorite team appears to be getting a root canal even when celebrating a win.

I'm not anti-Bloom. It's fun that the front office "talent " left in charge are the insiders who pre-date Bloom and were all just apparently along for the ride and had not input or accountability for the teams performance.

 

[AlNipper49]

This 1000%, and it's such a clear and obvious distinction I can't believe how much oxygen the layoff discussion is getting (not just here but in general). Especially after the regular season in which one of the strongest themes was teams' pitchers breaking down. The Dodgers pitching issue was probably the closest to getting the discussion it deserved. And their lineup was very top heavy but not as deep as the Braves or Phillies.

The O's got through the regular season by leaning hard on their bullpen due to a weak rotation. All of those arms got cooked at some point before the season ended. The Braves only had 3 guys throw over 100 innings for them. And the Braves didn't acquire a starter at the deadline. The O's grabbed Flaherty, who's been a pitch away from a career ending shoulder injury for 2 years, because he was cheap. And he had the least to offer them in terms of eating innings to rest their pen. They took for granted that they're going to be a 95+ win team for years to come (there is no such guarantee), and they chose to hoard minor league assets that they won't have playing time for in the next 5 years, instead of getting more or better pitching support.

The regular season is not just a number you tally up at the end to see who was the best. That's not the point. I don't know, I've always thought of a season as being like reading a good story, like a hero's journey. It's a long half-year journey where teams rise and fall, they evolve, they discover things about themselves. They shape their personality as a team, they form an identity. They find out where their weaknesses are, and it's their job to figure out how to shore those up. It's a grind that's supposed to prepare them for the ultimate test and pressure cooker that is the playoffs. Nobody cares how good you were when half your games were played against mediocre to terrible teams, those are just the trials. The actual job is to slay the fucking monster at the end of the story. You can say that for all sports really. But it's particularly true for baseball, when the season is so long, with so many games played, and the nature of having to make sure you've got enough pitching left when the final chapter comes.

Exactly. You need a few arms who are aces, or time themselves to be aces, in the postseason to make it. You can really only plan for the first one.

 

[3rd Degree]

Fine, I won't use war at all. He's a slightly above average offensive player who plays terrible defense. He wouldn't start on the 2023 Red Sox, and honestly he might not even make the roster.

Sorry, but what the hell lol. It feels like you have a personal vendetta here.

 

[scottyno]

Sorry, but what the hell lol. It feels like you have a personal vendetta here.

Against who? He's pretty clearly not a good player. He had a great 2 games that doesn't change anything about how good a player he actually is. I have a vendetta against insanely small sample sizes meaning anything.

 

[cannonball 1729]

The argument is the Phillies are a good TEAM and shitting on one dude with a significant contract not making the raw math work is flawed.

The Phillies roster has strengths and weaknesses like all do, but there is leadership, attitude, and chemistry with this bunch and it's a real thing. I've been watching it bloom since mid-season 2022 thanks to MLB.tv. Rob Thomson and his staff get plenty of credit as well.

They have fun and appear to like each other, while my favorite team appears to be getting a root canal even when celebrating a win.

I'm not anti-Bloom. It's fun that the front office "talent " left in charge are the insiders who pre-date Bloom and were all just apparently along for the ride and had not input or accountability for the teams performance.

OK - I buy that. And I'm certainly open to the idea that he's someone that the Phillies needed. But I'm not sure that he's what the Sox needed. His weaknesses - defense and streakiness - are something that the Sox already struggle with in spades. And the Sox vet leader types this year - Turner, Duvall, Kike pre-trade - already played the same positions as him; in all likelihood, he replaces Turner, who did largely the same thing as Nick this year for a third of the price. I don't think the Phillies are unreasonable for spending that amount on Nick, but I'd absolutely be bummed if the Sox did the same.

Mostly, I was pushing back on the idea upthread that he's someone Bloom made a mistake by not signing him; I think Bloom made many mistakes by not signing people, but I'm not convinced that this was one of them.

 

[Ale Xander]

Against who? He's pretty clearly not a good player. He had a great 2 games that doesn't change anything about how good a player he actually is. I have a vendetta against insanely small sample sizes meaning anything.

He was an all-star 2 of the last 3 years.
He’s pretty a clearly a good player

 

[scottyno]

He was an all-star 2 of the last 3 years.
He’s pretty a clearly a good player

Scott Cooper will be thrilled to know that characterization makes you a good player. Over the last 3 years he's been a far below average player. I do like how you picked exactly 3 years though and not 2 or 4, wonder why you did that?

 

[mauidano]

“I pride myself and think of myself as a man of faith, as there’s a drive into deep left field by Castellanos and that’ll be a home run,”

Thom Brennaman approves of Castellano.

 

[3rd Degree]

Scott Cooper will be thrilled to know that characterization makes you a good player. Over the last 3 years he's been a far below average player. I do like how you picked exactly 3 years though and not 2 or 4, wonder why you did that?

His OPS+ over the last three years: 138, 96, 112, and with a career OPS+ of 113 over an 11-year career. Far below average player who wouldn't make the roster of a last place Red Sox team.

 

[scottyno]

His OPS+ over the last three years: 138, 96, 112, and with a career OPS+ of 113 over an 11-year career. Far below average player who wouldn't make the roster of a last place Red Sox team.

And 14 war over those 11 seasons. Sox literally had 4 better outfielders this year, and that doesn't count Abreu who may have been better if he'd played a full year.

 

[DeadlySplitter]

I think a lot about the 2022-23 Phillies can be summed up with "doesn't grade out well in WAR, but has translated really well to October".

The ability to hit for power against the best pitching is really magnified in October, they are bottom half defensively but have put Schwarber fully on DH duty in October, their depth isn't that good especially #4-5 starters but those guys are (now) minimized in October ... I could go on.

 

[derekson]

I think a lot about the 2022-23 Phillies can be summed up with "doesn't grade out well in WAR, but has translated really well to October".

The ability to hit for power against the best pitching is really magnified in October, they are bottom half defensively but have put Schwarber fully on DH duty in October, their depth isn't that good especially #4-5 starters but those guys are (now) minimized in October ... I could go on.

The defense is massively improved with Schwarber DHing, Marsh in LF, and Harper at 1B though.

 

[Ale Xander]

Scott Cooper will be thrilled to know that characterization makes you a good player. Over the last 3 years he's been a far below average player. I do like how you picked exactly 3 years though and not 2 or 4, wonder why you did that?

He was also an all-star 1 of the 2 years and 2 of the last 4 years. Making the ASG 50% of the time is not bad.

 

[Ale Xander]

The defense is massively improved with Schwarber DHing, Marsh in LF, and Harper at 1B though.

I hate the Phillies but I love that putting a .197 hitter at DH was the right move for them.
#modernbaseball

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

The defense is massively improved with Schwarber DHing, Marsh in LF, and Harper at 1B though.

I would still say it is likely worse than the Sox.

 

[8slim]

This 1000%, and it's such a clear and obvious distinction I can't believe how much oxygen the layoff discussion is getting (not just here but in general). Especially after the regular season in which one of the strongest themes was teams' pitchers breaking down. The Dodgers pitching issue was probably the closest to getting the discussion it deserved. And their lineup was very top heavy but not as deep as the Braves or Phillies.

The O's got through the regular season by leaning hard on their bullpen due to a weak rotation. All of those arms got cooked at some point before the season ended. The Braves only had 3 guys throw over 100 innings for them. And the Braves didn't acquire a starter at the deadline. The O's grabbed Flaherty, who's been a pitch away from a career ending shoulder injury for 2 years, because he was cheap. And he had the least to offer them in terms of eating innings to rest their pen. They took for granted that they're going to be a 95+ win team for years to come (there is no such guarantee), and they chose to hoard minor league assets that they won't have playing time for in the next 5 years, instead of getting more or better pitching support.

The regular season is not just a number you tally up at the end to see who was the best. That's not the point. I don't know, I've always thought of a season as being like reading a good story, like a hero's journey. It's a long half-year journey where teams rise and fall, they evolve, they discover things about themselves. They shape their personality as a team, they form an identity. They find out where their weaknesses are, and it's their job to figure out how to shore those up. It's a grind that's supposed to prepare them for the ultimate test and pressure cooker that is the playoffs. Nobody cares how good you were when half your games were played against mediocre to terrible teams, those are just the trials. The actual job is to slay the fucking monster at the end of the story. You can say that for all sports really. But it's particularly true for baseball, when the season is so long, with so many games played, and the nature of having to make sure you've got enough pitching left when the final chapter comes.

Grest post.

 

[joe dokes]

I hate the Phillies but I love that putting a .197 hitter at DH was the right move for them.
#modernbaseball

And the shareholders love his .343 OBP% and 474 SLG%

 

[Yo La Tengo]

I heard a great comment addressing the complaints about the playoff format: let the top 2 teams in each league decide if they want to play in the 3 game opening round. They could choose their opponent or take the lay off.

No team would ever, ever choose to play in that series voluntarily, which really undercuts the "its not fair to have a 5 day rest" argument.

 

[joe dokes]

I heard a great comment addressing the complaints about the playoff format: let the top 2 teams in each league decide if they want to play in the 3 game opening round. They could choose their opponent or take the lay off.

No team would ever, ever choose to play in that series voluntarily, which really undercuts the "its not fair to have a 5 day rest" argument.

That's great. It'll never happen, but the next time a manager hints at layoff issues, someone should ask, "would you have preferred to play a 3-game playoff series instead?"

 

[BaseballJones]

Yeah boo hoo for the top seeds - you get a free pass into the divisional series and then have home field advantage (such as it is) in that round while the other teams have to fight it out and burn pitching just to get to you.

Color me unsympathetic to the plight of the top seeds.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Also stumbled upon this great quote:

Leonard Mlodinow in his book, “The Drunkard’s Walk / How Randomness Rules Our Lives”:
“f one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this. In the lopsided 2/3-probability case, for example, you’d have to play a series consisting of at minimum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team’s having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest significant “world series” would be the best of 269 games, a tedious endeavor indeed! So sports playoff series can be fun and exciting, but being crowned “world champion” is not a reliable indication that a team is actually the best one.” (p. 70-71)

 

[joe dokes]

Also stumbled upon this great quote:

Leonard Mlodinow in his book, “The Drunkard’s Walk / How Randomness Rules Our Lives”:
“f one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this. In the lopsided 2/3-probability case, for example, you’d have to play a series consisting of at minimum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team’s having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest significant “world series” would be the best of 269 games, a tedious endeavor indeed! So sports playoff series can be fun and exciting, but being crowned “world champion” is not a reliable indication that a team is actually the best one.” (p. 70-71)

That's a nice explanation of what most rational sports observers have known forever -- the "Champion" and "the best team" are frequently not the same thing when playoffs are involved. (There's usually an "underdog" in EVERY game) And given that "the best" does not have an agreed-upon meaning, it is probably just a coincidence when they are the same. I never quite understood why so many people get all hot and bothered by it. To put it in terms that a lawyer might use -- being acquitted criminally or being found not liable civilly doesn't necessarily mean "you didn't do it." Determining a "Champion" (or having a trial) are both intended to be close-to-objective approximations of "searches for the truth."
Do those who complain about "not the best team winning" just want to go the Premier League route where there are no playoffs? Or back to the pre-1969 MLB era of just League Champs playing each other in the WS? Doubtful. For hundreds of millions of reasons.

 

[Max Power]

That's a nice explanation of what most rational sports observers have known forever -- the "Champion" and "the best team" are frequently not the same thing when playoffs are involved. (There's usually an "underdog" in EVERY game) And given that "the best" does not have an agreed-upon meaning, it is probably just a coincidence when they are the same. I never quite understood why so many people get all hot and bothered by it. To put it in terms that a lawyer might use -- being acquitted criminally or being found not liable civilly doesn't necessarily mean "you didn't do it." Determining a "Champion" (or having a trial) are both intended to be close-to-objective approximations of "searches for the truth."
Do those who complain about "not the best team winning" just want to go the Premier League route where there are no playoffs? Or back to the pre-1969 MLB era of just League Champs playing each other in the WS? Doubtful. For hundreds of millions of reasons.

Of course not. But I think there's a tipping point between not doing a regular season at all and not doing playoffs at all. No playoff system is going to always produce the "best team" as the winner, but it should provide the best games and most dramatic moments for the fans at home.

Baseball is the most evenly matched game between the best and worst teams, so a long regular season is required to separate them. Players do their best when they play nearly every day and the weather is above 50 degrees. Having a system in place that negates most of that 162 game journey, breaks the nearly every day rhythm, and extends the playoffs into days when you're nearly guaranteed to be playing in 40 degree weather is not a good one. You're not going to have the best games for the time when the most fans are watching.

 

[joe dokes]

Of course not. But I think there's a tipping point between not doing a regular season at all and not doing playoffs at all. No playoff system is going to always produce the "best team" as the winner, but it should provide the best games and most dramatic moments for the fans at home.

Baseball is the most evenly matched game between the best and worst teams, so a long regular season is required to separate them. Players do their best when they play nearly every day and the weather is above 50 degrees. Having a system in place that negates most of that 162 game journey, breaks the nearly every day rhythm, and extends the playoffs into days when you're nearly guaranteed to be playing in 40 degree weather is not a good one. You're not going to have the best games for the time when the most fans are watching.

The obvious answer is a shorter regular season. Since that is so unlikely to happen, I dont think there is another solution. Giving teams with better records the option of not "breaking up their rhythm" is intriguing.

 

[Max Power]

The obvious answer is a shorter regular season. Since that is so unlikely to happen, I dont think there is another solution. Giving teams with better records the option of not "breaking up their rhythm" is intriguing.

There is another solution. Get rid of the 3rd wild card and going back to any playoff system that existed before 2022.

My idea scenario is to cut the regular season to 154 games and go back to the 2 wild cards with one game playoffs. I know the fans of the losing team hated it, but they probably don't feel much better about getting swept in 2 games like they do now. Under that system, you'd have slightly fresher teams playing without a ton of off days and wrapping up when the weather is slightly better in the north.

 

[trekfan55]

I really don't think that a 5 day layoff is the right excuse. The Braves lost because they did not hit at all. I did not watch all the games because of work and stuff, but watching the last 2 games was telling. They had a lineup that was fierce and were not blown out in game 4. Scoring only 1 run with that lineup is not "excusable". That being said, the Phillies have a very good bullpen and Rib Thompson's usage gave me Playoff Tito vibes.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Of course not. But I think there's a tipping point between not doing a regular season at all and not doing playoffs at all. No playoff system is going to always produce the "best team" as the winner, but it should provide the best games and most dramatic moments for the fans at home.

Baseball is the most evenly matched game between the best and worst teams, so a long regular season is required to separate them. Players do their best when they play nearly every day and the weather is above 50 degrees. Having a system in place that negates most of that 162 game journey, breaks the nearly every day rhythm, and extends the playoffs into days when you're nearly guaranteed to be playing in 40 degree weather is not a good one. You're not going to have the best games for the time when the most fans are watching.

The playoffs are inherently unpredictable because of the limited number of games (that goes for all sports) and baseball is even less predictable because of some baked in factors (I think primarily that the most important players only play once every 5 games), which evens out during a season but amplifies the uncertainty in October. With an unbalanced schedule, and giving playoff spots to the top team in weak divisions, shrinking the number of wildcard teams would create a whole host of fairness/competitiveness issues that I think are worse than the current system.

Can you imagine what the NFL playoffs would look like if the top QB only started every other game? Also interesting to me that we are thrilled when a low seed knocks off a top seed in the NCAA tournament but get upset about the same thing happening in the MLB. Personally, I find the early rounds of the NBA playoffs to be incredibly boring since the results feel like forgone conclusions.

As for the weather, I'd like to include a couple of doubleheaders during the season, maybe with expanded rosters for those games, in order to wrap up the playoffs earlier.

 

[simplicio]

Also stumbled upon this great quote:

Leonard Mlodinow in his book, “The Drunkard’s Walk / How Randomness Rules Our Lives”:
“f one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this. In the lopsided 2/3-probability case, for example, you’d have to play a series consisting of at minimum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team’s having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest significant “world series” would be the best of 269 games, a tedious endeavor indeed! So sports playoff series can be fun and exciting, but being crowned “world champion” is not a reliable indication that a team is actually the best one.” (p. 70-71)

That's excellent.

I don't get the complaints about the playoff structure, honestly. The postseason is its own animal and that's what makes it fun. What could be more boring than each playoff team performing an exact mirror of their regular season performance and Atlanta beating Baltimore 4-3 in the WS? The whole point is you get your team to October by any means and then you have to play great, inspired baseball to win. Which of the eliminated teams did that?

October is the time to have Papi or Kiké or Harper become superhuman for a few weeks. It's a time to write stories, not fill out a spreadsheet.

 

[Kliq]

Exactly. You need a few arms who are aces, or time themselves to be aces, in the postseason to make it. You can really only plan for the first one.

Watching the playoffs, it's the furthest thing away from the Sox currently. Who do the Sox have that you would be pretty confident could give you a strong start in the postseason? Maybe Bello?

Watching the Texas series, I was pretty confident that Eovaldi was going to give them a good start. He's a good pitcher, he's tough and he has postseason experience.

 

[Kliq]

That's excellent.

I don't get the complaints about the playoff structure, honestly. The postseason is its own animal and that's what makes it fun. What could be more boring than each playoff team performing an exact mirror of their regular season performance and Atlanta beating Baltimore 4-3 in the WS? The whole point is you get your team to October by any means and then you have to play great, inspired baseball to win. Which of the eliminated teams did that?

October is the time to have Papi or Kiké or Harper become superhuman for a few weeks. It's a time to write stories, not fill out a spreadsheet.

I think we should rescind 2018 because Steve Pearce got hot for a few games at the end and we know that performance would never be sustainable for a full season.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I think we should rescind 2018 because Steve Pearce got hot for a few games at the end and we know that performance would never be sustainable for a full season.

Seriously, do you know what his fwar, his bwar and his fubarwar are?

 

[joe dokes]

Watching the playoffs, it's the furthest thing away from the Sox currently. Who do the Sox have that you would be pretty confident could give you a strong start in the postseason? Maybe Bello?

Watching the Texas series, I was pretty confident that Eovaldi was going to give them a good start. He's a good pitcher, he's tough and he has postseason experience.

I know it's mostly rhetorical, but your first question sort of illustrates the overall point. Based on how they were going in September, I think Sale would be a good candidate for a strong start; more so than Bello. That's October baseball, too. Who is worn out; who is getting stronger for whatever reason.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

I really don't think that a 5 day layoff is the right excuse. The Braves lost because they did not hit at all. I did not watch all the games because of work and stuff, but watching the last 2 games was telling. They had a lineup that was fierce and were not blown out in game 4. Scoring only 1 run with that lineup is not "excusable". That being said, the Phillies have a very good bullpen and Rib Thompson's usage gave me Playoff Tito vibes.

Braves and Dodgers also lost because they were missing key starters. Similarly, Rays and Orioles lost because they had overused their bullpens during the regular season and it caught up to them. And none of those teams hit at all.

 

[InsideTheParker]

The regular season is not just a number you tally up at the end to see who was the best. That's not the point. I don't know, I've always thought of a season as being like reading a good story, like a hero's journey. It's a long half-year journey where teams rise and fall, they evolve, they discover things about themselves. They shape their personality as a team, they form an identity. They find out where their weaknesses are, and it's their job to figure out how to shore those up. It's a grind that's supposed to prepare them for the ultimate test and pressure cooker that is the playoffs. Nobody cares how good you were when half your games were played against mediocre to terrible teams, those are just the trials. The actual job is to slay the fucking monster at the end of the story. You can say that for all sports really. But it's particularly true for baseball, when the season is so long, with so many games played, and the nature of having to make sure you've got enough pitching left when the final chapter comes.

This is very nice. Thank you.

 

[trekfan55]

Braves and Dodgers also lost because they were missing key starters. Similarly, Rays and Orioles lost because they had overused their bullpens during the regular season and it caught up to them. And none of those teams hit at all.

Agree, but a few timely hits by Acuña and company and this series is different, even with their missing starters. I did not see enough of the Dodgers series though.

 

[AlNipper49]

Watching the playoffs, it's the furthest thing away from the Sox currently. Who do the Sox have that you would be pretty confident could give you a strong start in the postseason? Maybe Bello?

Watching the Texas series, I was pretty confident that Eovaldi was going to give them a good start. He's a good pitcher, he's tough and he has postseason experience.

I’m with you 100%. It’s why I kind of like how the Sox are now setup. It’s too much risk to try to develop those pitchers.

You develop and buy a team that can get you to the playoffs then you buy the one or two pitching studs to win it from there.

 

[scottyno]

He was also an all-star 1 of the 2 years and 2 of the last 4 years. Making the ASG 50% of the time is not bad.

It is when you weren't actually good one of those years. In those 4 seasons he had 2 he fucking sucked, 1 where he was mediocre at best, and 1 were he was good.

 

[Kliq]

It is when you weren't actually good one of those years. In those 4 seasons he had 2 he fucking sucked, 1 where he was mediocre at best, and 1 were he was good.

You are speaking in absolutes, but relying on the certainty of dWAR calculating value adequately, which we all know is not that accurate.

 

[simplicio]

You are speaking in absolutes, but relying on the certainty of dWAR calculating value adequately, which we all know is not that accurate.

Unless you're prepared to provide a defensive metric that doesn't grade him as absolute garbage, this is kind of a silly take. (hint: it's not DRS or OAA or UZR or Rtot)

 

[LogansDad]

I have no dog in this fight, but it's a little weird that you guys have been arguing for 17 hours straight now about whether Nick Castellanos is a good baseball player.

 

[cannonball 1729]

I have no dog in this fight, but it's a little weird that you guys have been arguing for 17 hours straight now about whether Nick Castellanos is a good baseball player.

Well, we've been arguing about opt-outs for ten years....

 

[scottyno]

He was good tonight

1/24 in the NLCS