SoxBlanco

Only 8 pitches for Grant. Let him pitch the 9th?

Well yeah, of course he won’t have a 2 ERA. Then he’d be a legitimate ace. I like him as a 3/4 type pitcher on a good team.

I know you’re always on top of it with the advanced metrics, so I’m guessing it must be something you see with that, but why are you not a believer in Davis Martin? I’ve been trying to convince my buddy that he’s legit for a couple years now. I love him, but I’m just using the eye test. Now, I don’t think he’s an ace by any means, but I think he can be a solid 3 on a contending team.

Only 22 players in all of MLB have more than 7 home runs this year. Mune and Colson have homered in the same game 7 times now.

Gordon commented on how Venable looks like he hasn’t aged since his playing days, and Schriffen responded with, “Black don't crack.”

You think pitching from the stretch vs the wind up results in the exact same outcome? I actually think both challenge results ended up helping us. Even though the Vargas call was absolutely brutal.

Bumping this because of how perfectly it worked out. Colson with a fresh count the next inning, draws a lead off walk, and leads to a six run inning. Beautiful.

Yep. Only one time in the last 12 games have we been losing after 9 innings.

Please post more things like this.

Yeah, I can still only visit the site if I’m on WiFi.

I think Taylor’s use has to be a combination of the opener strategy and a way to guarantee him innings (or get him into a routine).

I’m saying that you might not ever even experience those high pressure situations because of runs you avoided giving up in the first inning. “Might” baking the key word. It’s impossible to measure how the butterfly effect changes things.

Yeah, I hear ya. The other piece that isn’t measurable is the mental side of it. Going up early because of this strategy could lead to less pressured at bats and more runs for the Sox. Like I’d tried saying in the other thread, the butterfly effect is just not measurable. And yes, like you pointed it, that butterfly effect could be a net negative also.

I know we discussed this already, so we don’t need to go over everything again. I just want to point out that I’m not defending this strategy as optimal. I’m just saying it’s not as crazy as you made it sound. Yeah, “led” might have been a poor choice of words. I simply meant we won both games where we used Taylor as the opener. And it’s possible we would have lost one of them if we didn’t use that strategy.

Both sides of the argument are using “ifs”. There’s no way around that. With your strategy, there’s a chance Taylor doesn’t even pitch because the starter got rocked in the first inning and there was never a high leverage situation for him. But maybe with Taylor starting, the starter who comes in pitches well and that domino effect allows us to cruise to victory. I was discussing this with Ray Ray in a the other thread, and it’s a fascinating discussion. You’re not wrong in anything you are saying, and your strategy is solid. But there can be arguments made for this strategy as well. Heck, it led to two wins. Nobody knows if we would have won those games if Taylor was saved for later. We very well could have won them anyway.