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.

I think this is where we are just valuing different types of risk. You’re focused on “wasting” your best reliever in a game that ends up not mattering, which I get. But there’s also risk on the other side, which is not using him early and letting the game get away from you in the first place. On the butterfly effect point, I don’t think it’s about assuming it’s positive or negative. It’s that uncertainty exists no matter when you use him. A weaker pitcher might get through the first inning clean, but that same pitcher might also get through a high-leverage spot later. Or if Taylor gives up runs in the first (creating a negative butterfly effect), he could just as easily give up runs in a tie game in the 8th. So I’m not sure that uncertainty really favors waiting. I think the part I struggle with the most is that the 86% number is based on how games typically play out with traditional usage. It’s descriptive of what happens, but not necessarily what would happen if teams used their best reliever early. If early decisions can affect how often a game becomes close late, then that distribution of leverage might change, too. I’m not sure how you would even account for that mathematically.

But if a different pitcher was used in the first inning, there’s a chance that 4-2 situation doesn’t even exist later. Like I said in my post right above this one, I love this discussion. And I’m not saying I’m correct. I’d love to dive deeper into the math, but I don’t know how you can account for the butterfly effect possibly changing the entire game path.

The problem with that argument is that it treats high-leverage moments as inevitable, when they could actually be the result of earlier pitching decisions. If a weaker pitcher gives up runs early, that could be what creates a high-leverage situation later. Using your best reliever in the first inning can prevent that entire situation from ever existing. Look, I’m a big math guy. High school math teacher actually, so I love this discussion. I’m not saying using Taylor in the first inning is for sure the right move. I just don’t think it’s obviously the incorrect move like you do.

Why is later in the game more important than the first inning? A run is a run, regardless of when you score it.

I get what you’re saying about saving him for high leverage situations, but you only get the heart of your lineup up four times, maybe five, in a game. And we completely took away one of those in each game. The first inning isn’t any less important than the 7th, 8th, or 9th. Now, if by high leverage, you don’t mean the inning, but instead you mean the situation (like multiple runners on), I won’t argue that. But you can’t guarantee that situation presents itself where Toronto’s best hitters are up with runners on late in the game.

The streak has been broken!! My son and I had a blast. Great game for my son to see with Murakami and Colson both going deep. And he got a ball. Glad I pulled the trigger last minute.

Appreciate the advice. I just bought a couple tickets in section 147. I apologize to everyone for the loss today. Haven’t witnessed a Sox win in person since before Covid.

Responding to my own post here, but it looks like I can get pretty good seats down the third base line for around $50 each. Upper deck is around $20 each. Not that big of a difference. Might just pull the trigger on the better seats to avoid the hassle of sneaking into other sections. But if anyone has any idea advice from experience, let me know.

I think I might take my son to the game. Last minute thing. What’s my best bet for tickets? Can you buy any ticket and then move to better sections?