Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Who starts game 7?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
72 replies to this topic

#1 Frisbetarian


  • ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫


  • 4,669 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 09:51 AM

I cannot imagine playing on a team with some of you whiny, reactionary pussies.

Look, I'm not partial to rah rah threads, and am certainly not that type of fan myself, but the tiresome griping in the posts of some of our members makes me feel the need to post something out of character.

The Red Sox are in an offensive slump - it happens in baseball. That does not make this a terribly flawed baseball team, as some of you seem to think (today anyway, funny how that changes so often). This is the team that had the best record in all of baseball. They scored more runs than all but 3 teams in baseball, and averaged almost 6 runs per game over their last 75. They allowed fewer runs than any other team in baseball. It is not a fluke that they are playing for the right to go to the World Series; they deserve to be here. This is a very good team that has been fun to watch. Baseball is a frustrating game, if you can't deal with that maybe you should try another sport.

Maybe they lose tomorrow, but baseball is a funny game and if Beckett wins that game, and they come home, well... ya never know. If they lose, I'll be pissed. But more than that, I'll be disappointed that baseball is over. I really love this game.

Personally, I'd pitch Wakefield in game 7 and have Matsuzaka ready in case he gets in trouble.

Remain calm, all is well.

Yo la tengo,
Fris

#2 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22,559 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 09:53 AM

I'd change it around, have Matsuzaka start with Wakefield ready to relieve (and everyone else, too). Tim's got experience in the pen, and would probably be more willing/understanding of the situation and history behind a move like that.

#3 Bowlerman9


  • bitchslapped by Keith Law


  • 5,032 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 09:56 AM

I'd hope Francona summons the powers of Jimy Williams. If Matsu can give us 4 scoreless, pull him before he can even get himself into trouble. If Wake can get us another 2, pull him. Get 1 inning out of Beckett/MDC/Timlin/whoever and get the ball to Oki and Paps.

We've had plenty of times when our SP had 4 brilliant innings and couldnt make it out of the 5th. Even though he would be second guessed for pulling a SP who cruised through 4 innings, I think we have to make preemptive changes instead of reactionary ones.

#4 NYCSox


  • chris hansen of goats


  • 6,349 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 09:58 AM

Daisuke backed up by Beckett. It's all hands on deck and Beckett can give them a couple of innings on two days rest.

#5 Lefty on the Mound


  • SoSH Member


  • 1,324 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:02 AM

Thanks for the reminder, Fris!

As was true in 1999 against the Indians, we have 'em just where we want them. We just need to win three games in a row, two of them at home.

This year, the role of Pedro coming out of the 'pen will be played by Wakefield. Dice-K gives us 4 good innings, Wakefield gives us three, then Oki and Pap in the 8th and 9th.

The Red Sox head into the World Series on fire while the Rockies have had over a week to cool off.

#6 Maalox


  • full of shit, and proud of it


  • 49,118 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:06 AM

Despite his struggles, Daisuke still has the potential to be overpowering for five to seven innings, and he will be fully rested. The ideal pitching progression for game 7 would be: Daisuke for six innings; Beckett for two innings; Papelbon for one inning. Maybe you give Becks only an inning, or an inning plus, then give Paps one-plus or two innings. If extra innings or if anyone fails, depth chart would be: Okajima, Schilling, Timlin, Wakefield.

That said, worry about game 5. The way they are not scoring runs, a game 5 win is far from certain even with Beckett starting.

#7 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14,353 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:11 AM

It seems that any talk that is non-positive will eventually be called out as being unreasonable and inappropriate.

Why is it wrong to talk about the game? The team? Their performance?

This is still a baseball discussion board, correct? Did I miss a change in policy to Red Sox pep rally squad?

If it's wrong to say they haven't played well in various aspects of the game, then explain why. Don't complain that people are being non-positive. And, discussing the non-positive aspects means nothing about a fan's interest, dedication, or hopes for the team's success. We are all here to talk about the team and game we love. Nothing is perfect, so that will entail plenty of good and plenty of bad. If you don't like one or the other, then ignore that content. Don't try to suppress it or throw about insults.

Many do this so it is not necessarily aimed at any individual.


As for game 7 there is no doubt in my mind that Francona is going to do what he always does -- make a decision at some point and stick with it 100% no matter what. Matsuzaka should and will start -- meaning the question is already answered, IMO, and I think it is the correct one. His arm could fall off tomorrow and I think he would still be in there.

I think his hook should be very quick. If he is removed very early then you go with Wakefield for a couple giving him a similarily quick hook. Then you go from there with your top arms. A lot will depend on the context and who has been used in the next few games.

Edited by yecul, 17 October 2007 - 10:11 AM.


#8 Tudor Fever

  • 3,407 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:13 AM

There will be some interesting pros and cons to using Beckett as a primary reliever when Game 7 rolls around. In the past, it's worked out well sometimes (Randy Johnson in Game 7 in the 2001 WS) and poorly on other occasions (Games 7 of the 1971 and 1979 WS.) If forced to choose at this point, I'd put Oki ahead of Beckett on the Game 7 depth chart.

I'd definitely start Dice-K over Wakefield.

#9 syoo8

  • 912 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:24 AM

I cannot imagine playing on a team with some of you whiny, reactionary pussies.

Guilty... as charged.

The Red Sox are in an offensive slump - it happens in baseball.

I graphed the 2007 Sox run-scoring for the regular season. It seems like we have been able to bounce back from slumps all year. (And looking at the graph, it seems really random.)
Posted Image

That being said, as someone said earlier, perhaps a combination of Daisuke and Wake, with their pitch speed differential, would be effective in game 7.

Edited by syoo8, 17 October 2007 - 10:25 AM.


#10 SouthPaw21

  • 1,220 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:26 AM

If you start Daisuke in game 7 (with Varitek catching), and then bring in Wakefield in relief, who catches Wakefield? Do you leave Varitek in or bring in Mirabelli?

#11 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,690 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:28 AM

If you start Daisuke in game 7 (with Varitek catching), and then bring in Wakefield in relief, who catches Wakefield? Do you leave Varitek in or bring in Mirabelli?

You leave Varitek in there. We won the last game in which they tried this. :rolleyes:

For a Game 7, I start Dice K and have him on the shortest leash in baseball history. I'd strongly consider using Beckett in relief on 2 days' rest; if we could do it with Pedro we can do it with Beckett. Have everyone except Schilling down in the bullpen ready to come in.

#12 Bowlerman9


  • bitchslapped by Keith Law


  • 5,032 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:28 AM

If you start Daisuke in game 7 (with Varitek catching), and then bring in Wakefield in relief, who catches Wakefield? Do you leave Varitek in or bring in Mirabelli?


Leave Varitek in. As soon as Wake starts to struggle, you replace him. Its not like Wake would be in long enough for a bunch of PB's to matter.

#13 mfried

  • 1,003 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:35 AM

You leave Varitek in there. We won the last game in which they tried this. :rolleyes:

For a Game 7, I start Dice K and have him on the shortest leash in baseball history. I'd strongly consider using Beckett in relief on 2 days' rest; if we could do it with Pedro we can do it with Beckett. Have everyone except Schilling down in the bullpen ready to come in.


Using Beckett in relief for game 7 (what an optimistic thread) is dependent on a short, effective outing tomorrow night, perhaps 75 pitches and no hint of the stiffness we've been hearing about. We're not in a position to really construct a relief plan for that game until we know what happens in games 5 or 6. I would definitely start Dice-K. Yes - his two post-season games have been disappointing, but he still shows strikeout stuff, albeit spotty command. We simply don't know what the pitcher use (Lester, Delcarmen, etc.) will be. Schilling winning over Carmona in game 6 is still a leap for my imagination.

#14 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16,859 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:37 AM

I start Matsuzaka but...if the stars are aligned, I might make a gameday change to Wakefield. It would depend on how he is feeling and the weather. Either one would have a really short leash.

I would only use Beckett in a really dire circumstance. In fact I would be tempted to use Lester to start a fresh inning or two. but my mind could change depending on the leverage. I would be much more liberal to bring in Okajima or Timlin to defuse an early inning rally and then let a long reliever start with a fresh slate. I would ask Papelbon for two if he were strong. I would not use MDC unless he has been fully rested.

#15 drtooth


  • 2:30


  • 9,167 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:38 AM

At this point I would go with Dice-K. In terms of who goes in after, it depends on where in lineup they are at. If it's at a stage where Sizemore and Hafner are up (with proper time to get warmed up),is Lester an option? It's a lot to put on a young pitcher, but he certainly would have to be ahead of Lopez in the bullpen food chain one would think.

Edited by drtooth, 17 October 2007 - 10:56 AM.


#16 LynnRoyalRooter

  • 614 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:38 AM

DiceK gets the ball but I would look to pull him once he got through the order for the 2nd time. You want to say pull him right then, sure, but I would give him 1 baserunner. If it's the middle of the inning I would go to Timlin/Oki for 1+ innings and then bring in Beckett to get to Paplebon.

Key points here
1)DiceK 2 times through the order (this should be about 4+ innings)
2)Bring in a RP first, especially if it's in the middle of an inning/there are guys on base. Don't make the mistake Torre made in 2004 by bringing in a starter in an situation that is somewhat foreign to him.
3)Don't be afraid to use Beckett in a tight game and bring him in to start an inning if possible.
4)Obviously - Paplebon for at least 5 outs is almost mandatory.
5)Do not under any circumstances use Wakefield, Lopez or Gagne.
6)Especially Gagne. I am quite serious about this point.

Edited by LynnRoyalRooter, 17 October 2007 - 10:39 AM.


#17 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,453 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:41 AM

"I cannot imagine playing on a team with some of you whiny, reactionary pussies."

I hope the players are positive about their chances, but since I'm not a player, I don't need to project positivity to my teammates or try to imbue them with confidence. There's a big difference between players and fans.

"This is the team that had the best record in all of baseball."

No, they tied with the Cleveland Indians with 96 wins.

I hope that there's a game 7, that would be great.

#18 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,381 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:47 AM

For one thing, no matter who pitches any of the next 3 games, they need to rely on the scouting reports. Be very, very careful with the fastball and this is paramount for Dice K. He threw two excellent gyro-screw-change-ups and against the lefties he needs to continue to do that, and use the cutter and slider to righties. His fastball command has been erratic as is, so he needs to attack and the leash has to be short for pretty much everyone the rest of the way.

I love to disect the games and be objective but I also think there's plenty of reason to be hopeful that's not irrational exuberance. The Sox have won 3 in a row plenty of times this year, and with 2 at home, I'm very hopeful but game 5 is obviously not a given whatsoever.

#19 BoSoxLady


  • Rules Red Sox Nation with an Iron Fist


  • 2,941 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:59 AM

I'd go with Dice-K and hope he gets through at least 5. I'd have Lester warming in the 5th if the game is close, and everyone has to be available except Beckett.

Beckett will make it happen tomorrow, and Schill will do his thing Saturday. Game 7 here we come!

#20 The Napkin


  • wise ass al kaprielian


  • 13,725 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 11:21 AM

I graphed the 2007 Sox run-scoring for the regular season. It seems like we have been able to bounce back from slumps all year. (And looking at the graph, it seems really random.)

I posted it in the "we win the east thread" and I might be a game off but I think I'm right. This team never won more than 5 in a row and never lost more than 4 in a row all year.

The really frustrating thing (to me at least) about this seris is how close it's been. We easily could be talking about a sweep here. Youks liner in game 2. Lofton's HR in game 3. Wake getting just enough of the ball last night to keep Dustin from turning an inning ending DP last night. And I'm sure there are more but I'm tired. Bah! I guess the point is yeah, they're down 3-1. But they've been in every game and have hammered CC and Carmona. Party at my house for game 7.

#21 Sille Skrub

  • 3,957 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 11:38 AM

I cannot imagine playing on a team with some of you whiny, reactionary pussies.

Well said. What a joke some the posts around here have been.

As for Game 7, I'd go with Matsuzaka on the shortest of leashes with everyone else at the ready. I feel confident about Beckett in Game 5 and Schilling in Game 6, so hopefully we will be asking this question for real in a few days.

#22 Frisbetarian


  • ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫


  • 4,669 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 11:52 AM

It seems that any talk that is non-positive will eventually be called out as being unreasonable and inappropriate.

Why is it wrong to talk about the game? The team? Their performance?

This is still a baseball discussion board, correct? Did I miss a change in policy to Red Sox pep rally squad?

If it's wrong to say they haven't played well in various aspects of the game, then explain why. Don't complain that people are being non-positive. And, discussing the non-positive aspects means nothing about a fan's interest, dedication, or hopes for the team's success. We are all here to talk about the team and game we love. Nothing is perfect, so that will entail plenty of good and plenty of bad. If you don't like one or the other, then ignore that content. Don't try to suppress it or throw about insults.

Many do this so it is not necessarily aimed at any individual.



I never said non-positive talk is inappropriate and, as far as I know, no one has (but my new super scroll button is strong, so I may have missed it). Thoughtful discussion of the game is wonderful and always appreciated. What is inappropriate, however, at least in my opinion, is the reactionary stream of conscientiousness pabulum void of analysis that pervades the board after every "big" loss. I do not have either the time or inclination to go through individual posts (especially with the search engine off) to find examples of these kinds of posts, but it would be tough to deny they exist - in great numbers. Besides, it is not my nature to call a member out on the board; I would much prefer to send a PM if I have an issue, something a number of members will attest to.

I have no desire to alienate anyone, or to tell people how to be fans. That is entirely up to the individual. I would, however, like to remind people this is a good team, and this has been a successful season no matter what happens. These are great days to be a baseball fan in Boston.

Yo la tengo,
Fris

#23 Skiponzo

  • 903 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:04 PM

I agree with Fris on everything he's posted in this thread.

I would, however, like to remind people this is a good team, and this has been a successful season no matter what happens. These are great days to be a baseball fan in Boston.


This is why I will be upset if we lose one of the next 3. I've had a terrific time watching these guys play this year and the future is so bright I gotta wear shades. I'll miss baseball when the ride ends.

As for the thread topic, as others have stated, I think it's Dice-K with a short leash and staff.

Edited by Skiponzo, 17 October 2007 - 12:07 PM.


#24 Frisbetarian


  • ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫


  • 4,669 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:19 PM

"I cannot imagine playing on a team with some of you whiny, reactionary pussies."

I hope the players are positive about their chances, but since I'm not a player, I don't need to project positivity to my teammates or try to imbue them with confidence. There's a big difference between players and fans.

"This is the team that had the best record in all of baseball."

No, they tied with the Cleveland Indians with 96 wins.


Are you trying to explain the difference between players and fans to me? Did I say that poorly thought out reactionary posts affected the games? What else do you want to teach me about baseball?

And since the Sox won the head to head season series with the Indians, they gain the tie-breaker over them. But thanks for nit-picking that.

Unless you are just being a dick, I'm missing the whole point of your post.

#25 dirtdog26

  • 46 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:35 PM

That said, worry about game 5. The way they are not scoring runs, a game 5 win is far from certain even with Beckett starting.


The speculation is always fun but I agree...let's win game five first and go from there. Obviously we can win three in a row, but it just seems like the Indians want it more.

It's so strange to see such little life out of the BoSox. I'd normally be pretty calm right now but I just get a weird vibe from the boys that I doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

#26 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,381 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:42 PM

I'm just filled with a ton of thoughts, and this thread seems to have some good karma :rolleyes:

It's a strange series where the Sox throttle 2 of the 3 best starters in the American League and yet trail 3 games to 1.

OTOH, for 20 innings, the Sox get crushed 18-2.

The Sox have piled up baserunners and got to one of the best relievers of the season in Rafael Perez, but have not scored on non-HR hits for 2 1/2 games.

It's a series that's seen some bizarre plays and weird bounces and not one has gone the Red Sox way.

Have the Sox gotten a hit with a runner on base since the 6th inning of Game 2?

1-7, the Sox should be able to feature an above average contributor, but those innings that start with Crisp or Lugo probably have resulted 0 runs.

Dice K in Game 7 and since it's Game 7, everyone but Schilling should be available.

#27 biollante


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,843 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:42 PM

Ask me this question after the Sox win games 5 and 6. Many things can happen between now and then.

I suppose that Tito will stick with Dice K unless prior to or at game day there is a better alternative.

#28 drtooth


  • 2:30


  • 9,167 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:44 PM

A little factoid to consider before we all hand the AL championship over to the Tribe. There are still 10 players left from the 2005 Indians that lost 6 of 7 to gag away a playoff spot in the final week of the season(lost all 6 by 2 runs or less). Let's see how this team handles the pressure if this thing comes back to Fenway.

2005 Tribe

Edited by drtooth, 17 October 2007 - 12:45 PM.


#29 amfox1

  • 3,366 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:57 PM

Game 7 - Sunday

Dice-K for 4 innings (no longer than that unless he is cruising)
Beckett for 2 innings (longer if it is close)
Timlin for an inning
Okajima for an inning
Paps for the save

World Series

G1 - Beckett (vs. Francis)
G2 - Schilling (vs. Jimenez)
G3 - Dice-K (vs. Fogg)
G4 - Wakefield (vs. Morales)
G5-G7 (rinse and repeat G1-G3)

* If Beckett cannot go in G1, Wakefield gets G1 and G5, Beckett gets G3 and G7 and Dice-K gets G4. Wake in Colorado is an issue because no Youkilis and no Varitek.

#30 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22,559 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:57 PM

Have the Sox gotten a hit with a runner on base since the 6th inning of Game 2?


Absolutely, which is why I'm positive in close games as our closer > their closer:

11th inning Game 2:

Drew singled to center. Varitek struck out swinging. Crisp singled to right. Lugo grounded into a double play, shortstop Peralta to second baseman Cabrera to first baseman Garko, Crisp out at second. 0 runs, 2 hits, 0 errors, 1 left on. Indians 13, Red Sox 6.



#31 pk1627

  • 1,333 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:00 PM

This question works for me because I just bought Game 7 tickets. I imagine it's got to be Daisuke. Maybe let him go twice through the order and proactively bring in the pen.

All along we had to win one in Cleveland. Still do. Then they will be desperate to win one at the Fens. HFA is huge in this series.
So, as usual, the Sox do things the hard way and it'll have to be the last of the three, and against a Cy Young contender. Beckett is going to have to be brilliant again.

Just win Game 5. Then we'll worry about the rest in Boston.

#32 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9,995 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:02 PM

The speculation is always fun but I agree...let's win game five first and go from there. Obviously we can win three in a row, but it just seems like the Indians want it more.

It's so strange to see such little life out of the BoSox. I'd normally be pretty calm right now but I just get a weird vibe from the boys that I doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


What evidence do you have to support your claim that the Indians want it more?

The Indians have beat the Red Sox the past three games and I think it has very little to do with wanting it more than the Red Sox and a lot more to do with getting better starting pitching.

This team may very well be beaten by a strong Cleveland team lead by a deep lineup, two of the best pitchers in baseball, and a good bullpen. The Red Sox will not lose because Cleveland wants it more.

Game 7 will be Matsuzaka. This Red Sox team was built needing Matsuzaka to be at least a number 3 starter in this rotation. They have to win with what they have.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 17 October 2007 - 01:04 PM.


#33 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,453 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:04 PM

"Are you trying to explain the difference between players and fans to me?"

Yes, because you wrote this: "I cannot imagine playing on a team with some of you whiny, reactionary pussies."

You're the one who brought up this whole weird concept of being "teammates," and judging whether someone would be worthy of playing on your team by what they post here.

"Did I say that poorly thought out reactionary posts affected the games?"

No, you implied that people who post negative thoughts would be bad teammates. That's just a pointless insult that isn't even true.

"And since the Sox won the head to head season series with the Indians, they gain the tie-breaker over them. But thanks for nit-picking that."

Maybe you shouldn't complain about nit-picking when you write something factually incorrect in a rant about other people's poorly thought out posts. The Red Sox don't have the best record in baseball; you wrote that they did to try to encourage people to post optimistically.

But they had the same record as the team that is now up on them 3-1, which is not in fact a reason to be optimistic. So it'd make more sense to leave that whole best-record thing out of the discussion.

Anyway, back to the cheerleading/insulting of people who aren't cheerleading enough for you, sorry if I took anything away from your motivational speech by pointing out a mistake like that.

#34 jamcass

  • 78 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:08 PM

Clevland has played better baseball than the Sox up to now. In order to get to game 7, we will have to reverse that. Given Franconna's history in '04, now that we have our back against the wall, he will pull out all the stops and use everybody and anybody who can throw the baseball to get it to game 7. So.....we could end up with a surprise starter in game 7 a la Lowe. I see Lester getting the ball for a game 7 start.

#35 Tudor Fever

  • 3,407 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:08 PM

Also, let's not forget about the incredibly bad karma that, for whatever reason, follows Kenny Lofton around. This is Lofton's 11th trip to the postseason, and he has yet to win a ring. Some of his teams have lost quickly and quietly, but others of his previous 10 playoff-losing teams have suffered some of the worst collapses in baseball history. For example:

- 1995 Indians: 100-44 in regular season, roll into the World Series, become the only team ever to lose a Series to the Atlanta Braves
- 1997 Indians: leading going into the bottom of the 9th in Game 7 of the World Series; lose the game in extras thanks to Hargrove, Mesa, and Fernandez
- 1999 Indians: blow a 2-0 lead to Sox in ALDS
- 2002 Giants: lead 3-2 in games and 5-0 in runs in Game 6 of the World Series, can't close the deal
- 2003 Cubs: up 3-1 in NLCS, Beckett pitches a gem in Game 5, Cubs complete epic loss thanks in part to Steve Bartman and Alex Gonzalez
- 2004 Yankees: nothing more needs to be said about this one

(My son, whom some of you have met, was the person who pointed this out to me.)

#36 Philip Jeff Frye


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,370 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:12 PM

The Red Sox don't have the best record in baseball; you wrote that they did to try to encourage people to post optimistically.


If the Red Sox didn't have the best record in baseball, who did? Are you saying nobody had the best record in baseball?

As for who should start Game 7, its sure hard to be excited about Matsuzaka. The only decent start he's had in two months came against a terrible Twins offense in his last regular season game. I guess you have to start him and hope he can rise to the occasion for 4-5 innings, then be prepared to go with Wakefield and/or Lester as soon as he gets into trouble. It was encouraging to see Lester pitch well last night.

As for Beckett, I guess everybody's in the pen in Game 7, but its pretty hard to see. They'd have pitched him last night if they thought they'd use him in a Game 7. Throw in the rumors that there's something wrong with him and that makes it an even longer shot.

Edited by Kevin Mortons Ghost, 17 October 2007 - 01:13 PM.


#37 curly2

  • 2,726 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:27 PM

I'd start Wakefield and (obviously) have him on a very short leash. Even though his line was similat to Dicke-K's in their start, I think Wake was really unlucky. The only ball they hit hard off him in the fifth was the homer. After that, he was done in by cheap hits and poor fielding.

If Wake gets into trouble and has to be pulled during an inning, I'd go to Timlin first, even if it's in the second. Lester showed Saturday what happens when he comes in during an inning, and we don't know about Matsuzaka. You can have Timlin get out of the inning then bring in a starter the next inning.

If you make a change to start an inning, I'd give Lester a shot. I've never bought the argument of slotting Wakefield in the rotation between two hard throwers because the knuckleball would throw off hitters' timing, but I think during a game, the switch from a knuckleballer to a hard-throwing lefty is jarring, and it helped Lester last night. If he struggles, especially with control, you get him out quickly.

I'm not writing off Matsuzaka, but I just don't have any confidence in him right now.

#38 alannathan

  • 210 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:34 PM

I'd start Wakefield and (obviously) have him on a very short leash. E


Let me be the first to take a contrarian view. How about starting Lester in Game 7. He pitched very well last night.

#39 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,453 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:40 PM

"If the Red Sox didn't have the best record in baseball, who did? Are you saying nobody had the best record in baseball?"

This year, no one team had "the best record in baseball." The best means better than the others. No one finished better than all the others this year.

It's kind of arrogant and insulting to Cleveland to say that the Red Sox had the best record in baseball when we are currently playing a team who had the same exact record that we did. Yet it's been posted here that way many times and written in the media the same way.

Both teams had the same record, the Sox are the higher seed because of a tiebreaker.

If you want to be optimistic because the Sox had "the best record in baseball," then you should also be pessimistic because we are down 3-1 to the team "with the best record in baseball."

Or maybe it'd be better to just not even talk about the whole idea, since the teams won and lost the same number of games.

#40 behindthepen


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,903 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:41 PM

Matsuzaka
Wakefield
Lester
Papelbon

in that order.

#41 Frisbetarian


  • ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫


  • 4,669 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:43 PM

"Are you trying to explain the difference between players and fans to me?"

Yes, because you wrote this: "I cannot imagine playing on a team with some of you whiny, reactionary pussies."

You're the one who brought up this whole weird concept of being "teammates," and judging whether someone would be worthy of playing on your team by what they post here.

"Did I say that poorly thought out reactionary posts affected the games?"

No, you implied that people who post negative thoughts would be bad teammates. That's just a pointless insult that isn't even true.

"And since the Sox won the head to head season series with the Indians, they gain the tie-breaker over them. But thanks for nit-picking that."

Maybe you shouldn't complain about nit-picking when you write something factually incorrect in a rant about other people's poorly thought out posts. The Red Sox don't have the best record in baseball; you wrote that they did to try to encourage people to post optimistically.

But they had the same record as the team that is now up on them 3-1, which is not in fact a reason to be optimistic. So it'd make more sense to leave that whole best-record thing out of the discussion.

Anyway, back to the cheerleading/insulting of people who aren't cheerleading enough for you, sorry if I took anything away from your motivational speech by pointing out a mistake like that.


I have no desire to get into a DoTB type point for point argument over two such trivial points, so feel free to get in the last word after I post this because I'm done with it.

First, are you saying you think reactionary people would make good teammates? Have you ever played baseball? Guys that get caught up in every situation and overreact suck to play with, and posters that post stream of consciousness without any analysis when they are upset about a loss suck to read. Does that make sense to you?

Next, how was saying the Sox had the best record in the regular season factually incorrect? Who was better? Am I missing something? Are you including playoff games?

Finally, the only person I insulted here was you because your first post in this thread seemingly had no point but to be a dick. This one is worse.

#42 DeltaForce

  • 2,902 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:48 PM

Also, let's not forget about the incredibly bad karma that, for whatever reason, follows Kenny Lofton around. This is Lofton's 11th trip to the postseason, and he has yet to win a ring. Some of his teams have lost quickly and quietly, but others of his previous 10 playoff-losing teams have suffered some of the worst collapses in baseball history. For example:

- 1995 Indians: 100-44 in regular season, roll into the World Series, become the only team ever to lose a Series to the Atlanta Braves
- 1997 Indians: leading going into the bottom of the 9th in Game 7 of the World Series; lose the game in extras thanks to Hargrove, Mesa, and Fernandez
- 1999 Indians: blow a 2-0 lead to Sox in ALDS
- 2002 Giants: lead 3-2 in games and 5-0 in runs in Game 6 of the World Series, can't close the deal
- 2003 Cubs: up 3-1 in NLCS, Beckett pitches a gem in Game 5, Cubs complete epic loss thanks in part to Steve Bartman and Alex Gonzalez
- 2004 Yankees: nothing more needs to be said about this one

(My son, whom some of you have met, was the person who pointed this out to me.)

Pardon the slight hijack, but Lofton wasn't on the 1997 Cleveland team --- the Tribe had traded him (along with Embree) to the Braves for Justice and Grissom.

Of course, this means that Lofton was on the '97 Braves, the first team to lose in the playoffs to a team it beat out in the regular season for the division (and the first team to allow a WC to get to the World Series).

It is truly remarkable that Lofton was on the '02 Giants, '03 Cubs, AND '04 Yankees.

#43 AusTexSoxFan

  • 1,994 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:49 PM

Let me be the first to take a contrarian view. How about starting Lester in Game 7. He pitched very well last night.


I like it. Lester was great last night and if you get to Game 7, I think he can give you a solid 5-6 innings. I really like that idea. Not so sure about Dice-K in a relier role. I think Timlin can give you 4 outs, Lopez another 2 and Paps 2.

I woke up this morning and looked in the paper and saw that the Red Sox still get to play a baseball game this season. That's the only way to keep myself sane at this point. We're still playing. That's what matters.

#44 Tudor Fever

  • 3,407 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 02:07 PM

Pardon the slight hijack, but Lofton wasn't on the 1997 Cleveland team --- the Tribe had traded him (along with Embree) to the Braves for Justice and Grissom.

Of course, this means that Lofton was on the '97 Braves, the first team to lose in the playoffs to a team it beat out in the regular season for the division (and the first team to allow a WC to get to the World Series).

It is truly remarkable that Lofton was on the '02 Giants, '03 Cubs, AND '04 Yankees.

Yes, my bad. Lurker bosockboy also pointed this out via PM.

However, the larger point stands. In 1997, his team was the victim of the Eric Gregg game.

#45 URI


  • stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of life


  • 10,149 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 02:18 PM

Maybe you shouldn't complain about nit-picking when you write something factually incorrect in a rant about other people's poorly thought out posts. The Red Sox don't have the best record in baseball; you wrote that they did to try to encourage people to post optimistically.


Out of curiousity, where were you when you were celebrating the 2005 Red Sox divisional championship?

#46 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,453 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 02:19 PM

"First, are you saying you think reactionary people would make good teammates?"

I'm saying that the tone of someone's posts on a message board aren't going to tell you a damn thing about whether they would be a good baseball teammate. I'm also saying that it's dumb to even bring up the point of who would be a good baseball teammate on this board, because it's not only impossible to tell, it's also irrelevant.

"Have you ever played baseball?"

Speaking of irrelevant points, as a matter of fact I have played competitive baseball. I've been on lots of teams and captained a few. It doesn't matter. I would never bring that up on a message board, but you asked. Tons of people who post here have played baseball. You probably couldn't guess which ones have and which haven't just from their posts. I don't know why you would try or why you would care.


"Next, how was saying the Sox had the best record in the regular season factually incorrect? Who was better?"

No one.

Team A and Team B each had the same record. Which had the BEST record?
SOSH: Team A is my favorite team, so therefore Team A had the best record.


I've been trying to stay out of this thread, but when people keep quoting me, I'm going to respond to that.


"Out of curiousity, where were you when you were celebrating the 2005 Red Sox divisional championship?"

We didn't win the division, we lost on a tiebreaker to a team with the same record. Tiebreakers are used when teams have the same record. If a team has "the best record in baseball," they will not be involved in a tiebreaker.


As for Game 7, if there is one, we'll start Matsuzaka.

Edited by The Gray Eagle, 17 October 2007 - 02:22 PM.


#47 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,381 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 02:32 PM

I think Dice-K should start and have him just go all-out like he did in the WBC and then bring in Lester or Wakefield depending on the match-ups. Lester really seemed much more relaxed than most of his more experienced teammates. As long as they can give him 10 minutes to warm up, this might work nicely and could force Cleveland to adjust. Innings 5-6 is where this series has been won or lost, and that's what's hard to digest. 7/9 of the game I think we can handle, but until last night we haven't featured that 2-3 inning-type reliever. Hopefully it's not too late.

Alright, enouhg about arguing over semantics. The Sox tied Cleveland for the best record and 99% of the members of this site knew how to take that line. I don't see any cheerleading going on. I think this thread was good for some levity and perspective.

#48 URI


  • stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of life


  • 10,149 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 03:51 PM

We didn't win the division, we lost on a tiebreaker to a team with the same record. Tiebreakers are used when teams have the same record. If a team has "the best record in baseball," they will not be involved in a tiebreaker.


Ahh...important distinction to make if you are hell-bent on nitpicking. By all means continue, it's very becoming.

#49 Scott Cooper

  • 1,397 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 09:17 PM

IF it goes to 7, I have to go with Matsuzaka.

shit even if he goes 4 + I don't see the need for Becket, Lester, or Wakefield.

First of all Wakefield, whom I love, scares the shit out of me in a must win game (I know game 5 of the 2004 ALCS)....

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see a rested Timlin, Oki, and Paps for 2 each then Becket on 2 days rest and or Lester.

#50 DieHard3


  • SoSH Member


  • PipPipPip
  • 8,864 posts

Posted 17 October 2007 - 09:50 PM

Win today, win tomorrow, and then see where we are.