How Good Are The Sox Now?
- Thread starter Rasputin
- Start date
Those three games were 5/28 (10-9 walk-off loss at Toronto), 6/1 (13-9 loss at Baltimore), and 7/23 (11-9 at home to Minnesota).
First one was a Porcello start followed by a bullpen implosion involving Layne, Tazawa, and Kimbrel.
Second one was a horrible Kelly start accompanied by an equally horrible Buchholz relief appearance.
Third one was a rough Price start (5 R in 5.2 IP) in which he shockingly left with the lead, only to have Buchholz, Layne, and Hembree choke it away.
Equal parts bad starting and bad relieving. Something we really haven't seen much of since the end of July.
I think they'll be ok, too, but there's a ~25 game difference in Cleveland's record at home vs on the road, which concerns me even though the Sox were just about even on the road and at home. It's a push for Bosotn, but a definite advantage for Cleveland, which is why I wasn't sold on them tanking the HFA. It could mean the difference between being 2-0 or 0-2 heading into the other team's first home game. We'll see!
1. It's not a definite advantage for Cleveland. Honestly, I'd rather see Price pitch game 2 on the road.
2. It could also mean going 1-1. We don't know.
3. They didn't "tank" home field.
I'm just happy we don't have a play in and have the desired match-up. Can't have everything. Where would you put it?
I think #1 is a really, really good point. I have sort of been hoping for Price on the road in the playoffs, too. Rationally, I don't know why - his numbers really are not THAT different, but I just feel like maybe the whole "he can't win in the playoffs" thing will be less intense on the road. If he can throw a start at them like he did on 4/5 - yes, almost an entire season ago - then the Sox will be in fantastic shape to help him win that game. 6 innings, 10 strikeouts, 2 runs and a win. And maybe Kluber's leg falls off mid stride, too, which would help.
I'm with you on the play-in. I hate that gimmicky system and it's good the Sox did everything they could to avoid it by winning the division.
We're dead (for the WS). Stark is the only well known writer that picked the Rocks against the Sox in 2007. In six games.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/playoffs2007/columns/story?id=3076538&columnist=stark_jayson
He did say in this current article that his picking the Red Sox for this WS dooms them though.
You think it's better for the Wild Card to have the same value as a division title? This system has led to more teams being in the race longer which means more interest for fans late in the season. I see absolutely no reason to think the previous system was better for baseball.
Agree that it has been great for baseball, but if they do go through with shortening the season at some point, which was rumored earlier this season, I wouldn't mind them making it at worst a best of 3 first round. Though 5 makes more sense to reduce travel time. If they ever expand again, I would think they'd make some sort of adjustment to the WC round.
The gimmick in the WC is the one-game play-in part, not that the idea exists at all. I don't mind the two wildcards per league but would rather see them play at least a 3 game series instead of just one fluky game. I'd also schedule it so that Game 2 and 3 are a double-header so as to reduce the off-time for the division winners.
Imagine two wildcard games today, followed by the possibility of a pair of double headers tomorrow, then the winners hoping on planes to Arlington and Chicago to start the LDS on Thursday (or Friday). It would only add to the advantage of winning not only the division but the #1 seed in each league.
It can certainly be improved, but I'm still failing to see how it's gimmicky. As it stands, you win your division or you put yourself at serious risk of having one bad day end your year. That adds significant value to the division crown and, I'd argue, means the system is working exactly as intended. If you don't want to be forced into taking that chance on the play-in game, win your division.
Edit: And why shouldn't winning the division or the best record have significant advantages?
Edit: And why shouldn't winning the division or the best record have significant advantages?
This is an interesting thought. Not only would it give more of an advantage to the #1 WC - win 2 of 3 home games instead of 1 - but also more of an advantage to the #1 division winner. It would also create more games and therefore more revenue. Schedule would look like:
AL
Game 1 Tuesday night
Game 2 Wednesday early afternoon
Game 3 Wednesday night (to clear out stadium)
ALDS begins Friday for the WC team, other ALDS begins Thursday late afternoon time slot
NL
Game 1 Wednesday night
Game 2 Thursday early afternoon
Game 3 Thursday night
NLDS begins Saturday for the WC team, other NLDS begins Friday
FWIW, even if we still had the old system that was in place until 2012, there would have been play-in games in both the AL and NL this year since the Blue Jays and Orioles and the Mets and Giants finished tied in their respective leagues for the wild cards.
ESPN's David Schoenfield looks at the 'biggest myths of October baseball' including HFA. Looking at 'ultimate games' since 2006 (wild-card play-in games, division series game 5, championship series and World Series game 7), the home team's record is just 11-16 over the past decade. He also looks at how teams finish the season among other 'myths'.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/page/playoffs16_myths/the-biggest-myths-october-baseball-debunked
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/page/playoffs16_myths/the-biggest-myths-october-baseball-debunked
That's a really interesting idea. You'd have to balance out the league play though - otherwise a strong team in a weak division, playing a division heavy schedule, would be close to having a bye as the #1 seed. If the playing time was even head to head matchups (plus interleague) being the #1 seed would be a real accomplishment, perhaps worthy of a near-bye.
(Overall I'm pro wild card, but the trick is to make the penalty of being the WC bearable.)
I know you're not advocating this to actually happen, but there is no way the average fan can devote 7-8 hours in one day to baseball. With the extended commercials, even one game can easily go 3 1/2 hours. If it's a week day, no one is going to see the early game, and if it's the weekend, people have other things going on.
Other things to do? What are these other things you speak of? I'm watching every damn game.
Make them seven inning games then. Three ball walks. Two strike k's. Imaginary runners. RIght field is foul. Get hit with the ball on a throw and you're out. No leading.
No, not really.
No, not really.
Because not all divisions are created equal. There's a good chance both Toronto and Baltimore are better teams than Texas and Cleveland. As long as the schedule remains imbalanced, every team in the AL East is going to disadvantaged by the current playoff system unless somehow the balance of power in the AL shifts westward.
I'm in for imaginary runners and throwing balls at runners. Wiffle ball old school. Lol.
That's the reason for the "gimmicky system", to make winning the division an advantage.
I wasn't in favour when first proposed, but it sure makes the end of the regular season interesting, along with the possibilities of having weird 3, 4 or even 5 way ties.
It'll be cool to see it happen when it does.
I agree with best of three series for the Wild Card though, but it just makes the other teams wait to damn long though.
We could have the Wild Card be best 3/5 over here in London with the 1st game of the Division series be 2pm the day after the clinching game. Also ensure the winning wild card team has to fly coach and check in through Washington DC no matter where the game is.
But in all seriousness - well, maybe not 100% seriousness but more than the above - here's my proposal to keep the divisions relevant, move away from the 1-game distortion, avoid long layoffs with no games for division-winners and generate extra revenue to compensate those poor owners for shortening the reg season back to its traditional 154 games.
1. As mentioned above, shorten the regular season to 154 games.
2. Expand the playoffs from 10 teams to 16 (bear with me here - this isn't an endorsement of the NHL or NBA)
3. Each of the division winners will play one of the 3rd, 4th and 5th best wild card teams in reverse order.
-- The games will all be at the division-winners home park and will be set up like the finals of a double-elimination tournament where the wild card team goes in with 1 loss. I.e. in order to knock off the division winner, the wild card team must sweep a 2-game series away - the division winner must win just once to advance to the division round.
4. The top two wild card teams would play each other in a best of 3 series with the #2 team hosting the 1st game and the #1 team hosting the last 2.
5. Time between games within a series and between series would be minimised to make at least 4 starters necessary and to make bullpen usage relevant.
So this year we'd have seen Houston and NYY compete in a 1-game playoff Monday to see who would travel to Arlington to try to sweep the Rangers in the D1/W5 1st round game tonight and Thursday nights. The winner of that 1 or 2 game series would play the winner of the W1/W2 series where game 1 would be Tue in Baltimore and games 2 and 3 (if nec) would be tonight and Thur in Toronto.
In the other half of the bracket Cleveland would host Seattle (D2/W4) and Boston would host Detroit (D3/W3) tonight and if necessary tomorrow in formats similar to the Rangers series above. The ALDS would begin Sat and Sun. National League could be offset by one game to optimise tv ratings.
1. As mentioned above, shorten the regular season to 154 games.
2. Expand the playoffs from 10 teams to 16 (bear with me here - this isn't an endorsement of the NHL or NBA)
3. Each of the division winners will play one of the 3rd, 4th and 5th best wild card teams in reverse order.
-- The games will all be at the division-winners home park and will be set up like the finals of a double-elimination tournament where the wild card team goes in with 1 loss. I.e. in order to knock off the division winner, the wild card team must sweep a 2-game series away - the division winner must win just once to advance to the division round.
4. The top two wild card teams would play each other in a best of 3 series with the #2 team hosting the 1st game and the #1 team hosting the last 2.
5. Time between games within a series and between series would be minimised to make at least 4 starters necessary and to make bullpen usage relevant.
So this year we'd have seen Houston and NYY compete in a 1-game playoff Monday to see who would travel to Arlington to try to sweep the Rangers in the D1/W5 1st round game tonight and Thursday nights. The winner of that 1 or 2 game series would play the winner of the W1/W2 series where game 1 would be Tue in Baltimore and games 2 and 3 (if nec) would be tonight and Thur in Toronto.
In the other half of the bracket Cleveland would host Seattle (D2/W4) and Boston would host Detroit (D3/W3) tonight and if necessary tomorrow in formats similar to the Rangers series above. The ALDS would begin Sat and Sun. National League could be offset by one game to optimise tv ratings.
I don't, actually. If I had my way, I'd just have the 3 division winners make the playoffs...the team with the best record gets a bye and plays the winner of the other 2 in the LCS. That way the only premium is put on winning the division. Yeah, yeah, I know, if this was in place then the Sox wouldn't have won in '04, etc, and the league will never go for it because fewer teams = less $$, but at least that way you wouldn't have the wild card slots as a safety valve and it would push teams to go for the division to the bitter end.
But I like I said, it'll never happen
I thought the previous system was perfect. Three division winners plus one wild card. No silly one game play in.
Yep. If they're not going to only make it the 3 division winners, then that was my favorite way to do it. Wish they'd go back to it, but they won't.
Why is it silly?
Wild card teams should face some kind of obstacle, no? At least in order to place a premium on winning the division? Being on the road for your first series isn't anything worse than being the third division winner. The new system accomplishes this and also adds the excitement of the one game. Last night was friggin awesome. Itwould have sucked to be on the losing end as a fan of the Orioles, but if you don't like it, play better and win the division.
I could not agree more. I can't really see the downside to the one-game playoff, it is fun and manages to give division winners a really strong advantage that they earned. "One flukey game" is exactly what a wild card should earn you, and pushing everyone back so they can play 3 games is making things worse, not better. It isn't gimmicky in the slightest.
Why should a wild card team have to face an obstacle? What's so sacred about winning a division? Lots of years there's a division that sucks and a mediocre team wins it. Lots of years there are two great teams that happen to be in the same division. A team that wins a terrible division doesn't deserve an advantage over a better team that finished second in its division to a dominant team.
In 2004, the 98 win Red Sox would have had to beat a 91 win A's team in a fluky one game playoff just to advance as far as the 92 win Angels and Twins. That would have been a joke.
The object is to win as many games as possible. It shouldn't matter what division you're in. Divisions have to exist for travel purposes but there have been many instances over time where a WC team has a better record than a division winner. Not only did the WC team not have home field were they to meet, but now they have to play a single-game elimination. Thankfully that isn't the case anywhere this year. The game last night also would've been played anyways since they had the same record.
Also, the premium is on winning your division...or losing it by six games like the 2014 Giants. That allowed them to save Bumgarner for the playoff game while the Pirates fought to the end to try to win the division, burned Cole, and had to start Edinson Volquez. This is a stupid system.
Why is it so sacred to win your division? How is this complicated or any different than any other sport? Because you won the fucking division. That's why. How is this complicated? Every sport has divisions, they fluctuate yearly on competitiveness and thems the breaks. If you have a really good team and run into a buzz saw, that's sports.
No smart team looks at its division and says 'hey, our division is weak this year, let's not expend resources because we only have shitty opponents and then we can roll the dice in the playoffs". You build your team to go all the way to your best abilities and go to work.
And how are you determining that a mediocre team that wins a weak division is any worse or better than a great team that finishes second in theirs? There's a hundred mitigating factors to make that assessment. Please cite an example of a shit team that rode a weak division all the way to anWS title.
We could go back to whomever finishes with the best record in your league wins the pennant. Or back to two divisions if you like. But if you have three, which obviously makes sense, then you need a wild card and if there's a wild card that team should not have the same luxuries as a division winner. That's the point of making the final weeks mean something in most cases. It was great in the old format when the Sox had the WC locked up early and could plan accordingly but it made for boring baseball.
And I'd argue a team that loses its division by six games and still makes the playoffs should at the very least be put through a one game playoff and be subjected to burning their ace in the play in game. Even if you want to completely ignore the competitive implications it makes for boring baseball.
And yet they had a huge advantage because the team that fought to the end (as they should have given the system) for the sanctity of winning the division burned their ace doing so.
This isn't football. They play 162 games to figure out who can win the most to go to the playoffs. Why should there be another step before that, especially when it could produce a game between teams with a big win disparity?
I'd also argue the exact opposite in some cases about how a single WC produces boring baseball down the stretch. As much as it sucked, the 2011 Sox and Braves collapses produced some of the greatest drama in baseball history. If there had been a second WC then, the only thing that would have been lost was hosting the playoff game.
That's what happens once you have a wild card. With an unbalanced schedule you pretty much have to let all the divisional winners in the playoffs, but the wild card teams have already proven that they're not the best*. The purist in me says that MLB should play a balanced schedule and crown the team with the best record as winner, just like they do in soccer. Of course, that will never happen, so it might be nice to just have a one year ELO rating championship and have two end of season awards, again sort of like how soccer teams compete for multiple titles.
* best defined as their body of work over the course of the season
2006 Cardinals? (I'm on your side of this argument, but it does happen.)
(Edit: we've talked about this in other threads, and this should probably be split off -- sorry for continued off tracking)
I don't understand this argument.
There's always been relatively arbitrary distinctions in baseball ever since the upstart American League started playing the Senior Circuit.
How did you feel from 1969-1995 when there were only 2 Divisions in each League and an even higher chance that a 2nd place team with a better record would miss the postseason?
Hell, that era had some far more egregious oversights.
Take 1987, when the 96-win Blue Jays missed the postseason entirely -- no playoffs at all -- because they finished 2nd in the AL East while the 85-win Twins won the AL West and eventually the World Series.
Or, closer to home, how about 1978? All anybody remembers now is Bucky bleeping Dent. But how about the fact that we had to play a one-game playoff despite winning 99 games while the 92-win Royals cooled their heels after winning the AL West?
Last edited:
Sounds like people have a problem with how they rank the teams rather than the 1 game playoff. Also, the NBA and NHL have divisions but they play no part in the seedings.
I honestly don't even know what you're arguing anymore. The 2014 Pirates were fighting for the division, they had a WC locked up, just as the Giants did. The only "advantage" SF had was they were relatively more worse than the team leading their division so they could rest because the division was out of reach.
I fail to see the point of citing 2011 AL East. There have been dramatic finishes multiples times in MLB and sports in general, but there's no way to build that in. A one game play in guarantees it every year. If you lose it, sucks for your team, but it is what it is.
Good point but they still had to run the gauntlet. And anomalies aren't necessarily a terrible thing. I'm also not sure I'd call them a shit team. They had some significant injury issues they overcame. The team that finished that season was much more resemblant of the team that started it than the one in the middle of the season. They also were the division champs, so a bit off topic.
Yes, that's like kind of significant.
Spontaneous drama is awesome. Manufactured drama is not.
Again, they play 162 games to decide who should go to the playoffs. There doesn't need to be one more automatically.
Last night was pretty awesome, not sure if you caught the game. If you are in favor of one wild card there's very little argument to be made against two, other than just being old fashioned or paranoid about your team losing that game.
Keep yelling at that cloud though.
Yes, it was awesome because it would have been played anyways.
There's very little argument to be made against the second WC because you said so. Amazing how baseball existed forever without it and only had one for 17 years.
Baseball is great because they play 162 times to figure out who goes to the playoffs, not because the fifth place team gets a second chance.
The thing is that there's no perfect system, so we'll all probably never agree.
But even though I'm biased, I didn't think it was objectively "better" for baseball when in Game 162 the 2011 Red Sox were eliminated by an Orioles team playing balls to the wall while the 2011 Rays were getting pasted by the Yankees and then staged their incredible comeback only after the Yankees trotted out their AAA lineup and left Scott Proctor on the mound to die.
I would have rather seen a Game 163 in 2011 that featured the Red Sox and Rays and let them go at it.
I love this idea. And all 3 games should be home games for the 4 seed. Make finishing 5th a real penalty too.
Isn't the system just a derivation of what the NFL does? The top 2 seeds get a 'bye' = more rest and 2 rounds of playoffs before the Super Bowl while the lesser teams duke it out for the privilege of facing those teams. Everyone has completely bought into that system and it's obviously working well for the NFL.
It's only a gimmick in as much as any system designed to generate more interest/excitement across a broader fan base is a gimmick. That's questioning the entire business model of sports.
NFL/NBA post-season is needlessly long and actually makes the regular season less meaningful. They'd benefit from byes and a wild card single game in a first round but they'll never do it because of the revenue hit.
It's only a gimmick in as much as any system designed to generate more interest/excitement across a broader fan base is a gimmick. That's questioning the entire business model of sports.
NFL/NBA post-season is needlessly long and actually makes the regular season less meaningful. They'd benefit from byes and a wild card single game in a first round but they'll never do it because of the revenue hit.
I get that the Orioles played hard down the stretch and used 8000 pitchers a game, but they were still 69-93. If you take away the five of seven they took from the Sox the last week, they were 64-91. The Sox had ample opportunity to be better than the Rays over 162 games - they just blew it.
For as much as I dislike the play-in games...the two we just saw were pretty great.
Still don't like the system, at all, though.
Still don't like the system, at all, though.
Not really, because the entire football postseason is single elimination by necessity.