Interesting. I'm only going by my observation. He needs to be more subtle with his glove work.
Definitely buyers. This offense can beat anybody just need to clean up the pitching a bit more.So they are buyers now, right?
I can't keep track of all the permutations that involve the Sox trading Betts, Martinez and 10D for really young prospects to drool over for a few years or adding another reasonably priced bullpen piece...
It’s also helped that the starting pitching has suddenly started to go six innings consistently.538's projections (YMMV) have our overall making the playoff odds at 53%. they were at 30% last Saturday. things obviously change quickly day to day but they have emphatically made themselves buyers this week.
it feels like the season finally started after Wojashit shut us out. that's how different it feels. the bullpen is still a tightrope act but it feels like the group of Eovaldi, Barnes, Workman, Hernandez, Taylor are a solid enough five at the top. the rotation will keep needing to not have too many short starts to keep them fresh.
Our division odds up to 6%. they were at 2% last Saturday. Yankee rotation is going through what we had in April, AND some significant injuries to Sanchez as well as maybe LeMahieu. so you're saying there's a chance...
My problem with the surrender rule is that you eliminate the possibility of truly epic, late game comebacks (if both teams desire and accept in your scenario). Those weird ones where a team is down 7 or 8 in the 9th and still pulls it off or ties in the 9th and wins in extras or is down 12 in the 5th or whatever. I know the statistical chances are worse than 0.1% in those scenarios for the trailing team, and that might justify a surrender rule, but it's so amazing when that <0.1% kicks in.At the game today. Perfect day to be at Fenway.
During the game, my son floated this idea. Under certain conditions (we worked out after six innings, and a 10 run differential, but obviously those are somewhat arbitrary benchmarks) if one team wanted to “surrender” and the other team accepted the surrender, the game would end right there.
1. There would be no obligation for the winning team to accept the surrender, though obviously it would go from a guaranteed win to a possible loss, and also forcing your pitchers to throw more innings. But maybe if you want to grind them down or if you’ve got a guy throwing a no-no or whatever, you might have reasons for declining a surrender.
2. If you’re the home team and you’re getting crushed, most fans probably have left so you’re not really hurting your audience.
3. If you’re the home team and you’re winning, well they might want to pile on even more but if you’re up 13-3 in the seventh, your fans have seen plenty of action and have gotten their money’s worth.
It sure would speed up the games and would lessen the strain on bullpens. And I don’t think this would cost much in fan support. Plus concessions typically close after seven innings so you’d not likely lose much in concession revenue.
Might be an issue with advertisers but if this becomes the norm, it just means that companies need to be strategic about their ad placement and it becomes part of negotiations.
Didn’t think this was worth its own thread but might be fun to discuss.
If not.... WATER ANYWAY!!
Definitely. I wonder how many times a team, even in a game where the conditions for surrender would be met, would even surrender. They might want to get bench guys some at bats, who knows.My problem with the surrender rule is that you eliminate the possibility of truly epic, late game comebacks. Those weird ones where a team is down 7 or 8 in the 9th and still pulls it off or ties in the 9th and wins in extras or is down 12 in the 5th or whatever. I know the statistical chances are worse than 0.1% in those scenarios for the trailing team, and that might justify a surrender rule, but it's so amazing when that <0.1% kicks in.