Well, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves here. LA could absolutely win 2 games at home and even up this series. The Red Sox will, without question, be a worse team in LA. Either JD Martinez is not in the lineup (not an option), or the defense will downgrade.
The 2018 Red Sox are a great team, but the 1998 Yankees were the best team in the history of baseball, IMHO. Going down 2-1 in the ALCS meant nothing because then they won three in a row.
Of course, what makes a team the best ever?
In looking up the '98 Yankees I note that also they went 114-48, their expected “Pythagorean” record was 108-54. The 2018 Red Sox were also better than their expected record, 108-54 as opposed to 103-59. That is to be expected; teams that win a huge number of games were likely lucky by a few games. Similarly, most of the worst teams ever were unlucky by a few games.
There’s a lot of things in asking who the best team ever was:
- What was their W-L record?
- How lucky were they to get that or were they really super dominant?
- Did they win the World Series?
- Was that season a fluke or was it reasonably consistent with the team’s performance over a number of years?
- Was the team pushed to greatness by a few players or were they a deep, balanced team?
This is why I like the 1998 Yankees; they do well on all these measures. They had a tremendous record, weren’t that lucky to get it, won the World Series, were in the midst of a string of championships rather than being a one off team, and were as deep a team as there has ever been.
Word up: Anyone who thinks the Red Sox cannot win two more games is an idiot.
As to this, they’re talking about playing Mookie Betts at second.
I find it hard to believe they’d do something that dumb. I just assumed they’d play Martinez at first. Pearce is a good player but Betts would be a massive liability at second and it’s not like Pearce is Lou Gehrig, plus you’d be downgrading your defense in right field.
Moreso than Devers at third?
Agreed, totally getting ahead here. Now watch LA come back and win four straight. :D:D:D:D:D
I’m just sayin that if Boston does cruise to victory, they would have to be considered among the best. I’d agree that the Yankees of 1998 are still tops in my mind, but the Sox wouldn’t be that far behind – but that’s only if they can finish of the Dodgers. And we’re not digging LA’s grave just yet.
I agree with this: moving Betts to second would be a very risky decision, downgrading not only the outfield but also the infield as well. Dodger stadium is spacious, and you absolutely want your best outfielders to cover the warning track and foul territory. The transition from Fenway to Chavez Ravine will be an adjustment.
The Red Sox would have to win it all to be considered among the greatest (and so far they’re looking pretty good for that). Just remember the 2001 Mariners, 116-46 in the regular season, barely beat the Indians in a 5 game ALDS, 3-2, and then lost to the Yankees in the ALCS, 4 games to 1.
Of these options:
- Mookie at 2nd, JD in right, Kinsler on the bench or
- Mookie in CF, JD in right, JBJ on the bench.
- JD at 1B, Pearce on bench
#3 makes most sense to me. But it doesn’t seem to be getting much play.
Whatever Cora does, no matter how much I don’t like it, seems to work out. I don’t like how Cora has handled the pitching staff through the ALCS and into the WS, but can’t argue with the results.
I’d be interested to know who the hell you’re talking to, or about.
The Red Sox won 108 games during the regular season, they were solid favorites among statisticians and bookmakers before the series started, they’ve just won two in a row against an excellent Dodgers team, and they’re now prohibitive favorites to win the series (86% on 538.com).
Literally not a single person following baseball this year would think the Sox can’t win two more games. Not one. The person you’re referring to literally does not exist. I challenge you to find me a single person, anywhere in the world, who has said since last night that Boston can’t win two more games.
Someone who remembers 1986? :eek:
Ouch.
Cora’s moves have all worked outso far, but Kimbrel has come close to screwing the pooch a couple of times.
So, based on an admittedly small sample of games so far, do the Los Angeles Dodgers fail to manufacture runs? To me, that means: a) do they fail to advance runners who get a single or double by combinations of singles, sacrifices, or steals, b) do they fail to get runners on base with two away who then end up in scoring position (whether they make it home or not), and c) Hi, Opal!?
I include b above because in my experience, teams that are good at manufactured runs are the sort of team that doesn’t just decide to go big or go home when they end up with two away in an inning. Can’t tell you the number of times I’ve watched Cubs opponents turn a two-out hit into a run (or more) against the Cubs; I always find it irritating.
exactly. I bounce between, the beginning of the century goes to boston; to what new wacky way could be found to lose.
yogi quote: “it ain’t over, 'til it’s over”.
That would be silly.
It’s not that the Dodgers can’t win. Clearly it’s possible to come back from 2-0 down, and there’s a lot of baseball still to play. But the person I was responding to suggested that some people thought that Boston couldn’t win two more games. Looking back to 1986 and somehow concluding that the 2018 Red Sox could not win another 2 games out of 5 would be, quite frankly, idiotic.
That’s true, but the last two times he’s been back to his old self. And Kelly has been lights out as well, it must be the haircut. If the Sox can get 6 out of their starters they will be tough to score runs against.
OK, so you’re saying it’s not that the Dodgers can’t win, but that the Red Sox can’t lose? 
:smack::eek:
I sincerely believe the Red Sox can’t win two more games.
After the conclusion of Game 6.
Story is, Eric Gagne (remember him?) told Kimbrel how he was tipping his pitches, and he’s been fine since.