SoxBlanco

Great job, Cordero. What the hell was that last pitch? An attempt at a change up that just came out of the hand as a fastball that sailed high in the perfect spot? It was 94 mph.

Big half inning here. Let’s get that run back.

One of Abreu/Grandal is getting a hit this time through. So let’s get at least one of Timmy/Yoan on base here.

Johan Santana is the first name that popped into my head...to answer Jason’s question.

With the way he pitches, I don’t think falling behind hitters is as bad as it might be for some other guys. Have they hit anything hard off of him today? I’d say he’s been very UNLUCKY so far.

How many people saw the lineup today and thought, “Nice, finally a good looking lineup...well other than Engel.”? (*slowly raises hand*)

Also, you’re using hindsight of the double play to say he should have elevated the ball. If it was a hard single in the hole, there’s no chance you would have said “elevate that ball.”

Were you saying that to Robert yesterday on his clutch two out hit in the 9th a couple days ago?

That awful call on the 2-1 pitch to José changed the entire inning. Also, Jose did it hard...can’t be upset with him.

Are we really facing a pitcher tonight who hasn’t pitched above A ball?

Yes, but those conversions don’t mean much because we could easily win three games in a row that would get us those “8 games” back. It’s all relative. I’m not a big fan of the whole “every game actually counts for 2.7 games” thought process.

Eloy was out there taking BP and looked healthy/strong. I think that's a good sign that he could play in game 2.

You’re exactly right. Bummer hadn’t taken off yet, and people (myself included) were worried about losing Bush.

Anybody else listening on the radio? They never received the lineup change and said that Eloy was removed from the game because of injury when they saw Delmonico come up in the 2 hole. Then when Eloy trotted out to left in the top of the second, they said the Sox are utilizing the new re-entry rule. They finally just realized that there was a lineup change and that Nicky has been in RF the whole game.

Decent attempt at covering up the fact that RR thought Maeda was a lefty.

You think a 72 win team would have a chance at an 8 seed? No way. The 81-81 Phillies would have missed the playoffs last year. The 78 win Rangers would have been the 8 seed in the AL.

Sorry to get all mathematical on you, but you have inspired me to dig even deeper into this! Let’s say the top seed has a 70% chance to win each individual game in their series. They would have an 83.7% chance to win a 5 game series and a 78.4% chance to win a 3 game series. As you can see, shrinking it to 3 games doesn’t really affect the outcome much. And if you think 70% is too generous, I calculated it again assuming the top seed has a 60% chance to win each game. In that case, the top seed would win a 5 game series 68.2% of the time and a 3 game series 64.8% of the time. Once again, there’s not much difference when you shrink it to a 3 gamer.

I don’t like your math here. Assuming the 100 win team has a 61.7% of winning each game and the 62 win team has a 38.3% of winning each game, the 62 win team would win the 3 game series 32.7% of the time. But it’s even lower than that because you can’t just say a team that is 100-62 will win 61.7% of their games. They did win that percentage of games in the regular season, but that was against a wide range of opponents. When playing a 62-100 team, their chances of winning an individual game has to be higher than 61.7%.

Using last year’s standings after 60 games and the new playoff format, the AL Wild Card teams would have had 31 and 30 wins and the NL Wild Card teams would have both had 31 wins. So nobody under .500 would have made it last year, but I’ll say one of the leagues has a 29-31 team make it this year.

Like I’ve said to other posts, I don’t disagree with what you and others are saying. I just don’t think it’ll make a difference as much as people think. In the scenario described above, the Yankees better win game 2 even if it was a 5 game series because it’s not likely they would win the next three games. I guess what I’m saying is that although I agree with the sentiment that a top seed shouldn’t have to play a 3 game series, I don’t think it will really make much of a difference. And I bet if we looked at the history of first round series of top seeds, we would see that it wouldn’t make much of a difference. In fact, a 3 game series might even help the top seed, as seen last year with the Dodgers.

Yes, but people are specifically complaining that a top seed could play 162 games as the best team only to lose in a three game series. Neither top seed would have been eliminated last year if it was only a 3 game series in the first round. In fact, the new format would have actually helped the top seeded Dodgers!

Ray Ray, is there any way to find out how many times the #1 seed in the AL or NL has won their first playoff series after being down 2 games to 1? If it barely happens, then what you are arguing against (which I think is a valid complaint) won’t really come into play. I feel like the top seeds usually win two of the first three games anyway. And when they don’t, they probably lose the series anyway. How many first round series involving a top seed will have an outcome that will be different if the series is 3 games as opposed to 5?

I don’t disagree with you at all, but this has me wondering how many times the top seed in the AL or NL has gone down 2-0 or 2-1 in the first round, only to come back and win the series. I’m guessing it has not happened very often.

Horrible thread.

The Dodgers were the only team in the entire NL with more than 34 wins after 60 games last year. I’m gonna guess the AL Central winner has 36 wins, and the second wild card has 34.