AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    You may disagree, but I think it all starts with Starting Pitchers. In the playoffs, it's more about the top 4 starters, with the top 2 having more clout if they get to 2 starts in a longe series.

    Here's a look at the starting pitchers first. The numbers used are based on 2012-2013 stats, and I have chosen ERA- and WHIP as my criteria for comparison:

    (75 starters with 120+ IP since 2012)

    Red= top 50% of AL Starters / Blue= bottom 50% of AL Starters

    ERA-

    Detroit

    1) Sanchez 70

    8) Verlander 75

    11) Scherzer 80

    16) Fister  85

    56) Porcello 111

    Tampa

    7) Price 74

    28) Cobb  92

    30) Moore 94

    39) Hellickson 103

    71) Hernandez137

    Boston

    9) Lackey 75

    18) Buch  86

    19) Peavy 86

    34) Doubront 100

    44) Lester 106

    60) Dempster 114

    Texas

    10) Darvish 77

    14) Harrison 82

    21) Holland 89

    Oakland

    13) Colon 81

    24) Parker 91

    26) Griffin 91

    35) Milone 101

    57) Straily 112

     

    WHIP

    Detroit

    3) Scherzer  1.09

    12) Verlander 1.18

    13) Sanchez 1.19

    21) Fister 1.23

    66) Porcello 1.45

    Tampa

    4) Price 1.10

    17) Cobb 1.21

    31) Hellickson 1.28

    38) Moore 1.30

    47) Hernandez 1.34

     

    Boston

    6) Peavy 1.11

    11) Lackey 1.18

    23) Buch  1.23

    51) Lester 1.36

    57) Doubront 1.41

    69) Dempster 1.46

    Texas

    10) Darvish 1.16

    19) Holland 1.22

    37) Harrison 1.29

    Oakland

    9) Griffin 1.15

    14) Colon 1.20

    24) Parker 1.24

    32) Milone 1.29

    35) Straily 1.29

     

    Average the 2 category rankings:

    6) TB Price

    7) DET Sanchez

    7) DET Scherzer

    10) DET Verlander

    10) TX Darvish

    10) BOS Lackey

    13) BOS Peavy

    14) OAK Colon

    18) DET Fister

    18) OAK Griffin

    20) TX Holland

    22) BOS Buch

    23) TB Cobb

    24) TB Moore

    24) OAK Parker

    26) TX Harrison

    35) TB Hellickson

    39) OAK Milone

    46) BOS Doubront

    46) OAK Straily

    48) BOS Lester

    59) TB Hernandez

    61) DET Porcell

    65) BOS Dempster

    It's clear that Detroit has the best SP'ers. Boston, TB and Texas are pretty bunched together but far behind the Tigers.

    Now, the everyday players Offense & Defense listed by WAR by position:

     

     

     

     

    Catcher:

    4) BOS  3.3

    5) OAK 2.8

    10) TBR 1.4

    11) TEX 1.2

    12) DET 0.7

    1B:

    3) TBR 3.1

    4) BOS 2.8

    8) DET 1.2

    10) OAK 0.9

    12) TEX 0.7

    2B:

    2) BOS 4.0

    3) TBR 3.8

    6) DET 2.2

    9) TEX 1.2

    11) OAK 0.4

    3B:

    1) DET 7.6

    2) TBR 5.8

    4) OAK 5.1

    5) TEX 4.9

    12) BOS -0.5

    SS:

    1) DET 4.4

    2) TBR 3.6

    6) BOS 2.2

    7) OAK 1.9

    8) TEX 1.6

    LF:

    2) TBR 4.2

    3) DET 2.8

    7) BOS 1.9

    8) OAK 1.5

    9) TEX 1.4

    CF:

    2) BOS 4.4

    4) TEX 4.2

    8) TBR 2.8

    9) DET 2.6

    11) OAK 2.4

    RF:

    1) TBR 7.7

    3) BOS 5.0

    5) DET 2.2

    6) OAK 1.8

    7) TEX 1.8

    DH:

    3) BOS 3.4

    5) OAK 1.4

    8) TBR 0.4

    9) DET 0.2

    10) TEX 0.1

    ALL POSITIONS:

    1) TBR 26.1

    2) BOS 24.6

    3) DET 23.8

    7) OAK 17.3

    8) TEX 16.2

    Just the Batting:

    1) DET 85.5

    2) TBR 59.0

    3) BOS 56.5

    7) OAK 4.6

    9) TEX -14.9

    Base Running:

    3) BOS 8.4

    6) TBR 6.4

    7) OAK 4.4

    13) TEX -7.7

    14) DET -9.9

    Fielding:

    3) TBR 30.9

    4) TEX 25.1

    6) BOS 9.0

    7) OAK 2.9

    8) DET -9.0

     

     

     

     

     

    (2012-2013 combined):

     

    C:

    3) BOS 4.8

    10) DET 3.7

    11) OAK 3.5

    13) TEX 2.6

    14) TBR 2.5

    1B:

    5) DET 6.1

    6) BOS 5.0

    7) OAK 4.4

    8) TBR 3.8

    10) TEX 1.4

    2B:

    2) TBR 11.2

    3) BOS 7.9

    6) TEX 4.2

    8) OAK 0.9

    10) DET 0.5

    3B:

    1) DET  14.3

    2) TBR 12.6

    3) TEX 10.7

    4) OAK 7.6

    10) BOS 1.6

    SS:

    1) TBR  10.2

    2) DET   6.9

    3) TEX   5.5

    7) BOS  3.9

    11) OAK 2.7

    LF:

    2) TEX  9.5

    4) TBR  7.8

    5) OAK 7.5

    8) DET 3.6

    9) BOS 3.5

    CF:

    2) TEX 10.9

    3) OAK 7.9

    4) DET 7.8

    9) TBR 5.6

    13) BOS 4.5

    RF:

    1) TBR  15.3

    4) BOS  6.4

    5) OAK  6.1

    10) TEX 2.9

    14) DET -0.1

    DH:

    3) BOS  4.8

    4) OAK 4.6

    10) TBR 1.3

    14) DET -0.8

    15) TEX -1.5 

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    Great analysis but it is flawed for the playoffs. It is more about how a pitcher is throwing going into the playoffs not his past years or two years.

    Verlander is equal  to Lackey........yet

    V's ERA is up one full run this year and more in line with his carreer.

    JL's ERA is 3 runs less over his last year and more in line with his career.

    Very equal but

    JV has also given up 20 more runs than JL and more in the last month

    LOVE my  Red Sox, Bs, Cs, Pats and enjoy the ride every year. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    Great analysis but it is flawed for the playoffs. It is more about how a pitcher is throwing going into the playoffs not his past years or two years.

    Verlander is equal  to Lackey........yet

    V's ERA is up one full run this year and more in line with his carreer.

    JL's ERA is 3 runs less over his last year and more in line with his career.

    Very equal but

    JV has also given up 20 more runs than JL and more in the last month

    LOVE my  Red Sox, Bs, Cs, Pats and enjoy the ride every year. 



    verlander doesn't scare me this year. he just doesn't have the overpowering stuff this year.

    Scherzer and Sanchez are the only 2 detroit pitchers that worry me in the playoffs and with a lineup like ours i think we can do some damage against them. I think we match up favorably to the Tigers.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    Lackey is doing well, but come playoff time, I'm not so sure I'd take him over Verlander.

    Also, if you take away 2012, then Peavy's ranking goes down.

    Sox4ever

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Great analysis but it is flawed for the playoffs. It is more about how a pitcher is throwing going into the playoffs not his past years or two years.

    Verlander is equal  to Lackey........yet

    V's ERA is up one full run this year and more in line with his carreer.

    JL's ERA is 3 runs less over his last year and more in line with his career.

    Very equal but

    JV has also given up 20 more runs than JL and more in the last month

    LOVE my  Red Sox, Bs, Cs, Pats and enjoy the ride every year. 

     



    verlander doesn't scare me this year. he just doesn't have the overpowering stuff this year.

     

    Scherzer and Sanchez are the only 2 detroit pitchers that worry me in the playoffs and with a lineup like ours i think we can do some damage against them. I think we match up favorably to the Tigers.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd rather face Scherzer and Sanchez than the two TB lefties: Price and Moore.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    Moon you do a great job with the way your analysis on various issues, but I'm not sure what including 2012 stats in with this year has anything to do with how teams stack up for the playoffs. I don't get the point of combining 2012 and 2013.

    For instance with the pitching, the Sox pitching is distorted in a number of ways. First, Lester is pitching much better now, and especially from Aug. of 2012 on. And Lackey, Peavy and Dempster didn't pitch last year for the Sox. And Doubrant is a much better pitcher this year than last year.

    As for lineups, the Sox have four different starters (LF, RF, SS, 1B) along with Ellsbury missing half the year last year.

    For Detroit, they're ranked 1st at SS, but Peralta is gone for the rest of this year. So even if you were using just this year's rankings, SS would be moot.

    Obviously there are more differences in all the teams from last year to this year.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    In response to royf19's comment:

    Moon you do a great job with the way your analysis on various issues, but I'm not sure what including 2012 stats in with this year has anything to do with how teams stack up for the playoffs. I don't get the point of combining 2012 and 2013.

    For instance with the pitching, the Sox pitching is distorted in a number of ways. First, Lester is pitching much better now, and especially from Aug. of 2012 on. And Lackey, Peavy and Dempster didn't pitch last year for the Sox. And Doubrant is a much better pitcher this year than last year.

    As for lineups, the Sox have four different starters (LF, RF, SS, 1B) along with Ellsbury missing half the year last year.

    For Detroit, they're ranked 1st at SS, but Peralta is gone for the rest of this year. So even if you were using just this year's rankings, SS would be moot.

    Obviously there are more differences in all the teams from last year to this year.



    To follow up on this and what JimfromFlorida wrote, I'm not even sure that most of the current season matters, as it's most about how they're performing going into the playoffs.  Buchholz is a huge variable when talking about playoffs.  He could be up there with Scherzer/Verlander/Price, or he could be useless.  Lately, Lester looks promising and could maybe match up against the best.  But who knows?  Even performance going into the playoffs is not much of a gauge.  See Derek Lowe 2004.  

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wolfpack13. Show Wolfpack13's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    Interesting and thorough, but toss out the window for the playoffs in baseball. What analysis would show the Giants winning WS twice in last few years (same goes for Cardinals)?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    Where is softy to downplay the obvious importance of pitching in the postseason? LOL

    Anyhow, Moon, the one thing that you leave out that gets interesting is that with the additional wild card spot, which I call the "play in" game, the playoffs have another dimension: a team with one dominant starter could win that game and move forward. 

    So you could make the argument that now more than ever, you need a lights-out guy to win that game for you, assuming you don't win your division. If your lineup is better 1-4, doesn't matter if you can't take that first tame and get into a series where your depth is to your advantage. 

    Buch could emerge as such, and Lester can sometimes pitch a terrific game, but my view is the new playoff format, given this year's Red Sox team, is something for us to avoid. Our strength, if we have one with starting pitching, is the depth. 

    Ergo, we need to win the division.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Great analysis but it is flawed for the playoffs. It is more about how a pitcher is throwing going into the playoffs not his past years or two years.

    Verlander is equal  to Lackey........yet

    V's ERA is up one full run this year and more in line with his carreer.

    JL's ERA is 3 runs less over his last year and more in line with his career.

    Very equal but

    JV has also given up 20 more runs than JL and more in the last month

    LOVE my  Red Sox, Bs, Cs, Pats and enjoy the ride every year. 

     

     



    verlander doesn't scare me this year. he just doesn't have the overpowering stuff this year.

     

     

    Scherzer and Sanchez are the only 2 detroit pitchers that worry me in the playoffs and with a lineup like ours i think we can do some damage against them. I think we match up favorably to the Tigers.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd rather face Scherzer and Sanchez than the two TB lefties: Price and Moore.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    i agree. but most see the Tigers as our biggest competition getting to the WS. and i think we have a good shot againt them in a 7 game series.

    actually, in a 7 game set i think we have a good shot against ANY team in MLB. we have a very competitive team and could definitely make some noise in the PS.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    In response to royf19's comment:

    Moon you do a great job with the way your analysis on various issues, but I'm not sure what including 2012 stats in with this year has anything to do with how teams stack up for the playoffs. I don't get the point of combining 2012 and 2013.

    For instance with the pitching, the Sox pitching is distorted in a number of ways. First, Lester is pitching much better now, and especially from Aug. of 2012 on. And Lackey, Peavy and Dempster didn't pitch last year for the Sox. And Doubrant is a much better pitcher this year than last year.

    As for lineups, the Sox have four different starters (LF, RF, SS, 1B) along with Ellsbury missing half the year last year.

    For Detroit, they're ranked 1st at SS, but Peralta is gone for the rest of this year. So even if you were using just this year's rankings, SS would be moot.

    Obviously there are more differences in all the teams from last year to this year.



    roy,

    I do think 2012-2013 numbers do tell a lot about how good a pitcher is, but I agree that it is not everything. Recent trends are very important.

    To tell you the truth, I had not intended on including the '12-'13 numbers for offense, but I misteakenly left the '12-'13 filter on fangraphs when I did the position by position numbers. When I finished, I realized what I had done, and then did just 2013. I decided to just leave the numbers there anyways, but I agree they don't mean too much, especially for a team like the Sox, who have a bunch of new players.

    Here's a look at just 2nd half numbers:

    Starting pitchers (Out of 62 AL SP'ers with 30+ IP in the 2nd half)

    ERA-

    1) DET Scherzer 36

    2) DET A Sanchez 37

    3) TEX Darvish 43

    5) BOS Lester 55

    6) DET Fister 57

    11) TEX Holland 61

    12) TBR Price 62

    15) OAK Parker 70

    20) TBR Archer 76

    24) BOS Doubront 83

    32) TEX Garza 94

    33) DET Porcello 94

    37) BOS Lackey 95

    39) TEX M Perez 96

    41) BOS Peavy 99

    43) DET Verlander 102

    47) OAK Griffin 111

    52) OAK Straily 133

    57) BOS Dempster 153

    58) TBR Hellickson 163

    Positional Players with 60+ PAs in the 2nd half of 2013:

    OPS

    C

    3)B Pena .908

    5) Salty .773

    9) AJ P  .704

    11) Vogt .630

    17) J Molina .517

    1B:

    5) B Moss .825

    10) Napoli .725

    13) Fielder .690

    15) Moreland .632

    16) Loney .630

    2B:

    1) Zobrist .870

    5) Sogard .758

    8) Santiago .709

    11) Kinsler .690

    15) Pedroia .648

    17) Profar .603

    3B

    1) Cabrera 1.099

    2) Beltre .977

    4) Longoria .893

    9) Santiago .709

    13) Donaldson .668

    SS

    1) Peralta .905

    2) Drew  .819

    3) Y Escobar .778

    6) E Andrus .755

    10) Lowrie .723

    17) Iggy  .558

    LF

    2) M Joyce .920

    3) Gomes  .896

    6) Nava  .857

    10) A Dirks .761

    13) Cespedes .722

    16) Murphy .692

    22) D Kelly  .598

    25) S Smith .367

    CF

    3) C Gentry .919

    9) A Jackson .766

    10) C Young .724

    11) Ellsbury .719

    13) Crisp .677

    18) L Martin .638

    22) Jennings .495

    RF

    2) Myers .935

    4) Zobrist .870

    7) Hunter .805

    9) N Cruz .778

    11) Victorino .763

    16) A Rios .713

    17) Reddick .703

    DH

    4) D Ortiz .883

    5) VMart .865

    14) S Smith .367

     

    Team WAR by position in the 2nd half of 2013:

    C

    4) OAK 1.3

    5) DET 1.1

    8) BOS 0.7

    10) TEX 0.5

    12) TBR 0.2

    1B

    4) OAK 0.7

    8) BOS 0.2

    10) TBR 0.0

    12) DET -0.1

    13) TEX -0.4

    2B

    1) TBR 1.3

    5) DET 0.4

    7) BOS 0.4

    8) OAK 0.4

    11) TEX 0.0

    3B

    1) DET 1.8

    2) TEX 1.6

    3) TBR 1.6

    6) OAK 0.6

    14) BOS -0.5

    SS

    1) DET  1.3

    2) TEX  1.3

    3) TBR  1.3

    8) BOS 0.5

    10) OAK 0.3

    LF

    3) TBR 1.2

    4) BOS 0.7

    7) TEX 0.2

    8) DET 0.2

    12) OAK -0.1

    CF

    2) TEX 1.6

    6) DET 0.9

    7) BOS 0.9

    11) OAK 0.5

    15) TBR -0.2

    RF

    1) TBR 3.6

    2) BOS 1.8

    5) OAK 1.0

    9) DET 0.5

    10) TEX 0.5

    DH

    4) DET 0.7

    5) BOS 0.6

    8) TEX 0.1

    10) OAK -0.1

    14) TBR -0.4

     

    All Positions Combined:

    1) DET  6.6

    2) TBR  6.3

    3) BOS 5.5

    4) TEX 5.3

    6) OAK 4.5

     

    Pitching

    1) DET  23.7

    2) TEX  19.5

    3) BOS  17.3

    7) OAK  12.7

    8) TBR  12.2

     

    Fielding

    3) TBR  6.7

    4) TEX  6.2

    6) BOS  2.1

    7) OAK  -0.4

    9) DET -0.9

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    Where is softy to downplay the obvious importance of pitching in the postseason? LOL

    Anyhow, Moon, the one thing that you leave out that gets interesting is that with the additional wild card spot, which I call the "play in" game, the playoffs have another dimension: a team with one dominant starter could win that game and move forward. 

    So you could make the argument that now more than ever, you need a lights-out guy to win that game for you, assuming you don't win your division. If your lineup is better 1-4, doesn't matter if you can't take that first tame and get into a series where your depth is to your advantage. 

    Buch could emerge as such, and Lester can sometimes pitch a terrific game, but my view is the new playoff format, given this year's Red Sox team, is something for us to avoid. Our strength, if we have one with starting pitching, is the depth. 

    Ergo, we need to win the division.



    Having to use your ace to win the last game of the season or the WC game puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the first playoff series.

    Yes, we have to win the division to give us the best chance.

    It's great that we can't play the Rays in the first round. I fear the two lefties: Price and Moore.

    Ideally, we start the first series like this:

    G1 Buchholz 

    G2 Lester

    Off

    G3 Peavy

    G4 Lackey/Doubront

    (Dempster in the pen)

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Where is softy to downplay the obvious importance of pitching in the postseason? LOL

    Anyhow, Moon, the one thing that you leave out that gets interesting is that with the additional wild card spot, which I call the "play in" game, the playoffs have another dimension: a team with one dominant starter could win that game and move forward. 

    So you could make the argument that now more than ever, you need a lights-out guy to win that game for you, assuming you don't win your division. If your lineup is better 1-4, doesn't matter if you can't take that first tame and get into a series where your depth is to your advantage. 

    Buch could emerge as such, and Lester can sometimes pitch a terrific game, but my view is the new playoff format, given this year's Red Sox team, is something for us to avoid. Our strength, if we have one with starting pitching, is the depth. 

    Ergo, we need to win the division.

     



    Having to use your ace to win the last game of the season or the WC game puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the first playoff series.

     

    Yes, we have to win the division to give us the best chance.

    It's great that we can't play the Rays in the first round. I fear the two lefties: Price and Moore.

    Ideally, we start the first series like this:

    G1 Buchholz 

    G2 Lester

    Off

    G3 Peavy

    G4 Lackey/Doubront

    (Dempster in the pen)

    [/QUOTE]

    I think they changed that rule - the wildcard winner can face the division winner in the first round, even if they are in the same division.

    If we do face the Rays, we want to make sure they burn Price or Moore once in the playin.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

     

    Where is softy to downplay the obvious importance of pitching in the postseason? LOL

    Anyhow, Moon, the one thing that you leave out that gets interesting is that with the additional wild card spot, which I call the "play in" game, the playoffs have another dimension: a team with one dominant starter could win that game and move forward. 

    So you could make the argument that now more than ever, you need a lights-out guy to win that game for you, assuming you don't win your division. If your lineup is better 1-4, doesn't matter if you can't take that first tame and get into a series where your depth is to your advantage. 

    Buch could emerge as such, and Lester can sometimes pitch a terrific game, but my view is the new playoff format, given this year's Red Sox team, is something for us to avoid. Our strength, if we have one with starting pitching, is the depth. 

    Ergo, we need to win the division.

     



    Having to use your ace to win the last game of the season or the WC game puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the first playoff series.

     

    Yes, we have to win the division to give us the best chance.

    It's great that we can't play the Rays in the first round. I fear the two lefties: Price and Moore.

    Ideally, we start the first series like this:

    G1 Buchholz 

    G2 Lester

    Off

    G3 Peavy

    G4 Lackey/Doubront

    (Dempster in the pen)



    Right now, assuming Buchholz comes back strong, I'd go with Buchholz, Lester, Lackey with Peavy-Doubrant being the Game 4 choice.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    Right now, assuming Buchholz comes back strong, I'd go with Buchholz, Lester, Lackey with Peavy-Doubrant being the Game 4 choice.

    I think Peavy has to be the thrid guy, but I'm not trying to "dis" Lackey or Doubront. Thay both have done a great job this year, despite their recent slippage.

    Sox4ever

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    Wild applause once again for moonslav starting a discussion with some interesting stats.

    I do agree starting pitching can be everything--pro or con.  But right now I'm thinking the three best are Lester, Lackey, and Peavy because they have been easily the most consistent recently.  I think Doubront is going to run out of gas, Dempster is just not that good, and Buchholz is a big question mark. 

    As for the lineup, I like its versatility.  Against a righty, a lot of lefty bats, and vice versa against a lefty starter.  With Middlebrooks and Bogaerts available at 3B, I think that position will be productive, and that's what the other positions already are.   The Sox took two of three from the excellent Dodgers pitching staff--especially in their cavernous home park--basically without David Ortiz. 

    All of the above doesn't guarantee much because baseball can be counted on to provide twists and turns.  Right now I definitely like our chances, but there is some pretty good competition out there, especially in the AL East. Like us, the Rays have good pitching and good hitting, and they look pretty confident to me.  On the other hand, the Sox just finished a pretty darn good road trip to the West Coast.  Who woulda thunk they would be this good this late in this season? 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Where is softy to downplay the obvious importance of pitching in the postseason? LOL

    Anyhow, Moon, the one thing that you leave out that gets interesting is that with the additional wild card spot, which I call the "play in" game, the playoffs have another dimension: a team with one dominant starter could win that game and move forward. 

    So you could make the argument that now more than ever, you need a lights-out guy to win that game for you, assuming you don't win your division. If your lineup is better 1-4, doesn't matter if you can't take that first tame and get into a series where your depth is to your advantage. 

    Buch could emerge as such, and Lester can sometimes pitch a terrific game, but my view is the new playoff format, given this year's Red Sox team, is something for us to avoid. Our strength, if we have one with starting pitching, is the depth. 

    Ergo, we need to win the division.

     

     



    Having to use your ace to win the last game of the season or the WC game puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the first playoff series.

     

     

    Yes, we have to win the division to give us the best chance.

    It's great that we can't play the Rays in the first round. I fear the two lefties: Price and Moore.

    Ideally, we start the first series like this:

    G1 Buchholz 

    G2 Lester

    Off

    G3 Peavy

    G4 Lackey/Doubront

    (Dempster in the pen)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think they changed that rule - the wildcard winner can face the division winner in the first round, even if they are in the same division.

     

    If we do face the Rays, we want to make sure they burn Price or Moore once in the playin.

    [/QUOTE]

    But I think Joe Maddon would start Moore in the wildcard cuz Maddon knows that Price own Boston this year.  He like to gamble alot!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    Well, the problem is that Boston will not face Tigers in the ALCS if both are the top two best teams in the league.  Hopefully Scherzer pitch game 1 and 5 in the divisional round!!

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: AL Contenders: A Comparative Analysis

    MLB Postseason Schedule Championship Series American League
    • Game 1: Saturday, Oct. 8, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 2: Sunday, Oct. 9, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 3: Tuesday, Oct. 11, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 4: Wednesday, Oct. 12, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 5: Thursday, Oct. 13, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 6: Saturday, Oct. 15, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 7: Sunday, Oct. 16, game time TBA | (FOX)
    National League
    • Game 1: Sunday, Oct. 9, game time TBA |
    • Game 2: Monday, Oct. 10, game time TBA |
    • Game 3: Wednesday, Oct. 12, game time TBA |
    • Game 4: Thursday, Oct. 13, game time TBA |
    • Game 5: Friday, Oct. 14, game time TBA |
    • Game 6: Sunday, Oct. 16, game time TBA |
    • Game 7: Monday, Oct. 17, game time TBA |
    World Series
    • Game 1: Wednesday, Oct. 19, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 2: Thursday, Oct. 20, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 3: Saturday, Oct. 22, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 4: Sunday, Oct. 23, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 5: Monday, Oct. 24, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 6: Wednesday, Oct. 26, game time TBA | (FOX)
    • Game 7: Thursday, Oct. 27, game time TBA | (FOX)


    Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/baseball/mlb/09/26/playoff.schedule.2011/index.html#ixzz2d70NQK61

     

    Sox4ever

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share