‘I’m Waiting …’

C_16_tobin

68 comments… add one

  • i’m confused!

    YF October 16, 2007, 11:14 am
  • you’re not the only one, YF.
    London Bridge is falling down?

    rz-yf October 16, 2007, 11:19 am
  • I think he means he is waiting on word from the boys in Tampa regarding Joe “The Teflon Don” Torre’s future. Wait that can’t be right…

    John - YF (Trisk) October 16, 2007, 11:19 am
  • The Tobin bridge. Sox fans. Over-reacting, etc.

    Nick-YF October 16, 2007, 11:23 am
  • Not today.
    Maybe tomorrow.

    Devine October 16, 2007, 11:50 am
  • I’ll be with you if the Yankees get rid of Torre…

    krueg October 16, 2007, 11:51 am
  • I enjoy the Tobin bridge. I just wish they’d stop constructing whatever they’re constructing on the lower, outbound level.

    AndrewYF October 16, 2007, 11:56 am
  • What’s the Tobin Bridge’s kill rate anyway? If I jump off a bridge, I want it to be over with quickly. None of this helicopter-rescue, malingering-in-the-hospital-until-they-pull-the-plug crap.

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 12:04 pm
  • Bridge-jumping starts tomorrow if the Wakefield of the second half shows up. Legitimately, as well.

    SF October 16, 2007, 12:24 pm
  • WOW FSP.

    John - YF (Trisk) October 16, 2007, 12:46 pm
  • Or if G____ who shall not be named is ever put in another game.

    Ron Newman October 16, 2007, 12:56 pm
  • Bride Jump because of a ONE game deficit? Tonight, eventhough it feels like it, is not an elimination game. In fact, if we win tonight we regain homefield advantage in that 2 of the three next games are at Fenway.
    Waiting for rain I understand, but it’s unconscionably TOO EARLY to start thinking about jumping off a bridge! I’ll chalk this post up to reverse jinxes or sleep deprivation.
    If we lose tonight, then maybe you can save me a seat on the bridge SF.

    Ed October 16, 2007, 12:59 pm
  • FSP – I’m with you! Also, excellent use of “malingering”.

    Jackie (SF) October 16, 2007, 1:11 pm
  • Ed:
    I don’t think Paul is jumping off a bridge, I think he’s alluding to the penchant for fans to ready their leap when their team is behind.
    No jumping from this fan, not until tomorrow at the earliest (if they play the game and lose, of course).

    SF October 16, 2007, 1:13 pm
  • Cleveland weather report, per weather.com:
    TODAY: Showers
    High 69°F
    Precip 40%
    Wind SE 8 mph
    Max. Humidity 67%
    TONIGHT: Scattered T-storms
    Low: 59°F
    Precip: 40%
    So, how is a knuckleball affected by rain… If the game goes forward under light precip?

    Hudson October 16, 2007, 1:14 pm
  • Note: My above comment was for humorous purposes only. I have no intention of jump off the Tobin Bridge.
    I live in Brooklyn.
    Ha! But seriously, last night was disappointing, and cause for concern but not panic. If the Sox hit the next two games like they hit Westbrook, then the series is over. But I have to believe the next two pitchers the Sox face (Byrd-Sabathia) can be gotten to.
    That said, the decision to go with Wake tonight is borderline insane. I hope I’m proven wrong and Timmy is mesmerizing, but as a percentage move, it sucks. The Indians are patient enough that they’re not going to screw around with junk tonight.
    It isn’t our only hope, but a big first inning for the Sox might be really important.

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 1:41 pm
  • The knuckleball is so unpredictable that we just can’t be sure. Wind and rain could make it ridiculous to throw for strikes. I still don’t understand why they don’t start Becks then have Wake ready to go if need be.

    Pete October 16, 2007, 1:52 pm
  • I dunno, it seems like teams that aren’t familiar with the knuckleball tend to suffer from inconsistent success against it. Wakefield has only faced this most recent batch of Cleveland hitters a couple times, so maybe Wakefield has the advantage there.
    The Yankees have seen him way to many times for him to really ever again have a good chance of success against them. I really do wonder if this could be his last start as a Red Sox.

    AndrewYF October 16, 2007, 1:54 pm
  • FenShea, I think Wake vs Byrd and Beckett vs Sabathia gives us the best chance of winning 2. Throwing Wake out there against Sabathia is suicide, whereas tonight we have a chance of winning his game.
    Though I would not be against seeing Beckett on the mound tonight, as it would allow him to pitch Game 7 on normal rest. If we get to a Game 7.

    Atheose October 16, 2007, 1:57 pm
  • My thoughts exactly, Pete. I’m all for team unity and everything, but I don’t really see starting Beckett to be a vote of no-confidence in Wakefield. Beckett has been a starter his whole career, Wakefield has performed this exact same role in the playoffs before, and well. I’d have to believe that everyone involved knows the significance of that fact, as well as tonight’s game. It’s a strange time to be stubborn on that point, unless Theo and Tito have peered deep within Tim’s soul and seen a glorious vision of the future. That’s what I’m counting on right now anyway.

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 2:02 pm
  • Why would Wakefield face Sabathia? Doesn’t the day off put Schilling in Game 5? I haven’t pored over the potential matchup flow chart, so I’m probably missing something. I agree that simply flipping Beckett and Wakefield in the order wouldn’t make much sense, but I thought the whole debate here is whether a fourth starter is even needed.

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 2:04 pm
  • How do they decide whether to play in rain or not? The Rockies-Dbacks Game 3 was played in weather I thought I’d never see in a major league game.

    Ron Newman October 16, 2007, 2:06 pm
  • Oh my bad FenShea, you’re right Schill would be on normal rest.

    Atheose October 16, 2007, 2:07 pm
  • That’s exactly it FSP. Wake has come out of the bullpen and pitched well before. And there’s no difference for him between starting and relief. Start Becks and if he gives up a quick 2 or 3 runs, you pull him and still have him on normal rest for Game 7. But the chances are good that Beck pitches better than Byrd. And if he doesn’t, do the Sox really have a chance to win? Or even if Becks gives up a few quick runs and Wake comes in pitches well, the Sox need to be able to score more than 4 runs off of Byrd. If they can’t then there’s really no use worrying about the pitching.
    Then, you’re right. You have Schill on normal rest for Game 5. Dice on normal rest for Game 6. And Becks again for Game 7 and also on normal rest. Tonight is almost a must win. The front office should be treating it as such.

    Pete October 16, 2007, 2:13 pm
  • Okay, NOW I’ve pored over the matchups. (hey, that took all of 20 seconds. boy, research is easy!)
    Wakefield v Byrd
    Beckett v Sabathia
    Carmona v Schilling
    Westbrook v Matsuzaka
    This makes sense only if it is physically impossible for Josh to pitch twice more. Which may be the case, only the explanations I’ve seen are couched in trust, loyalty and the American Way. Which is totally admirable, just like Captain Edward Smith was.

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 2:13 pm
  • Sorry for the misinterpretation, I understand now and agree Rob SF… I think tonight will be played as the weather calls for showers and thunderstorms, rather than a deluge of constant rain…. the optimist in me hopes that the humidity surrounding the thunderstorm perhaps his knuckle ball will benefit? After watching that Colorado game I don’t see how there’s not a game tonight… the weather forecast does not call for such nasty weather
    I like our chances tonight if we hammer Byrd in the first inning, taking out the crowd and instantly putting the Indians on the defensive… I also think that Wakefield will either be very effective tonight or a bust. If he has that knuckle ball working, I think the Indians will struggle with such a dangerous off speed pitch, if he’s off the Indians have proven they will sit on junk pitches and we’re reduced to hoping for a slugfest with Byrd, which scares me given how cold our offense has been for the last 15 or so innings.

    Ed October 16, 2007, 2:19 pm
  • There is truly something admirable in the whole trust thing… I hope Francona’s rewarded for it tonight, I have a good feeling about this game, unlike the nausea that began at 9:00 am last morning.

    Ed October 16, 2007, 2:22 pm
  • Wedge was rewarded for showing trust in Byrd in the ALDS. Maybe these guys are on to something.

    John - YF (Trisk) October 16, 2007, 2:32 pm
  • The more I’ve thought about it the only sensible thing is to start Beck tonight. Game 7 is looking very likely, especially if the Sox win tonight. You absolutely have to plan for that. I know I don’t want Dice going in a Game 7 right now any ways and this way he’d still get to pitch at home in Game 6. And Schilling in a decisive Game 5 makes too much sense.
    I repeat: Throw Beck. Pull him early if he falters. Wake is there. Or for any other game. He’s a fantastic change of pace guy or for extra innings. And indeed, of all nights I’d rather not see Wake pitching it’s rainy, windy ones where he has no control.
    Please, for the love of all that is holy, let them start Beck tonight. And if he can’t outpitch Byrd, even on short rest, then the series is cooked any ways.

    Pete October 16, 2007, 2:32 pm
  • Wedge wasn’t dealing with a must-win game. Having seen 2004, we can’t call tonight that. But facing Sabathia and Carmona in the next two games makes it extremely close.

    Pete October 16, 2007, 2:34 pm
  • “Having seen 2004, we can’t call tonight [must-win].”
    It isn’t a must-win, literally speaking either, but it’s scarcely less important. The Sox defied the odds in 2004, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still called “odds”.
    The really mystifying thing here is that it’s rare for a team to plan for both today’s game and a future game. Usually in the playoffs, you have to sacrifice a theoretical future game’s starter to go in a critical and more immediate one. Here, the Sox have a chance to go with an ace now and an ace later… and they’re STILL not biting!
    I’m sorry, I know this has been dealt with ad nauseum, but I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around it. I’ll be okay, I swear. [pant pant pant]

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 2:59 pm
  • Count me as one who cannot, absent a medical explanation behind Beckett sitting tonight, understand why he isn’t going. How is Beckett not a better option than Wakefield, even on short rest? The secondary element, which you can’t necessarily manage by (ask Lou Piniella) but which is still a consideration, is that Beckett would be able to start a Game Seven on full rest if he started tonight’s game.
    So: Beckett pitches Game Four on short rest, probably a better pitcher than Tim Wakefield even under those circumstances. Then, Beckett can pitch on full rest in Game Seven, a better option than Dice-K. How can the Sox not do this? Is something wrong with Beckett that they aren’t telling us?

    SF October 16, 2007, 3:06 pm
  • I’m busy all day, but the gist of the post was that the Tobin is waiting for Sox fans to begin queueing up. Not that they already are or should be, but that the time is fast approaching, and the Tobin is calling.
    I still think it was clever. Maybe too clever by half. :-P

    Paul SF October 16, 2007, 3:08 pm
  • FSP, you and I are on the exact same page. The prospect of facing Sabathia and Carmona down 3-1 is not a reality I want to face. The best way to avoid that reality is starting Beck tonight. Furthermore, the prospect of avoid a Game 7 (where you’d want Beck pitching again) is only possible if the Sox win the next three games. And, with Sabathia and Carmona going, that’s not all that promising.
    Of course, it doesn’t matter if the game gets rained out. And that to me is a slim chance but better than the FO changing their mind on anything.

    Pete October 16, 2007, 3:09 pm
  • I just want the pitching to be solid and the bats to start f*ucking hitting the f*cking ball. Is that too much to ask?

    no sleep til brooklyn SF October 16, 2007, 3:10 pm
  • I suppose Beckett could throw a couple of innings in a Game Seven, not that the Sox would do that. Dice for three/four, Beckett for two, then turn it over to the pen. I don’t want to think about Game Seven though, I want the Sox to square it up tonight and worry about it later.
    One other thing that the Sox may be thinking: if Wake can somehow sack up tonight, tomorrow’s game favors the Sox, and should they be up 3-2 going home there’s really no excuse for not winning one of two in Fenway, no matter who is pitching. So then Beckett is lined up for the Series opener. But if the Sox are thinking that far ahead I’d be both shocked and really, really angry. That would be unforgivable planning, and even if that was in their mind they’d never cop to it.

    SF October 16, 2007, 3:11 pm
  • I just want the pitching to be solid
    Four run early deficits notwithstanding, the pitching only gave up four runs total last night. With Jake Westbrook on the hill. That should be good enough for at least a tie, under most circumstances. The bats are as absolutely as culpable as Dice-K was for his efforts last night. 12 innings without a f*cking run, in the playoffs? Come on.
    I say start Ellsbury tonight in lieu of Coco, just for a change.

    SF October 16, 2007, 3:13 pm
  • SF –
    The FO is too damn smart for their own good. I suppose they see that Beck has pitched the most innings in his career this year and they don’t want to push it. But sometimes you just have to look at baseball as simply as possible. Beck starting tonight is such simple logic, they have to find some way to outthink it.
    Brooklyn –
    Damn right. If the bats don’t hit Byrd, then it won’t matter if the pitching gives up 4 runs (again).

    Pete October 16, 2007, 3:14 pm
  • So we all agree: Beckett is the choice tonight. And a lot of other Sox fans agree too. So why is the FO/Tito so dead-set against this? What don’t we know? Is it all “hunch”? This isn’t a team that plays “hunches”, at least not since Grady left.
    I am no conspiracy theorist, but what’s the logic here?

    SF October 16, 2007, 3:16 pm
  • Yeah, even though DiceK gave up only 4 runs, he was still awful! A wobbly bad start that had our bullpen up in the 5th. Bad-bad-bad. Can’t do that in the playoffs.
    If Byrd is Cy Byrd again tonight and Wake is a woeful disaster, I will be heading towards said bridge for a pity party. byob.

    no sleep til brooklyn SF October 16, 2007, 3:18 pm
  • Maybe the Sox are looking to surprise the opposition.

    Paul SF October 16, 2007, 3:19 pm
  • Well, Wake’s ERA is over a run better on the road. He didn’t pitch against the Indians all season so maybe there’s a bit of unfamiliarity.
    I am not saying that these are good reasons not to pitch Beckett, but beyond an injury risk to Josh I am just trying to figure out WHAT THE F*CK THEY ARE THINKING. Wakefield gives up five runs a game, average, for heck’s sake, against teams far worse than the Indians!

    SF October 16, 2007, 3:19 pm
  • I want Byrd to be as awful for us as he was as good against the Yankees.
    What are the odds he can be aces twice?

    no sleep til brooklyn SF October 16, 2007, 3:21 pm
  • I really think the logic is that they want to have Beckett pitch the first game of the WS. They just seem to be forgetting the minor point of WE NEED TO GET THERE FIRST.

    Jackie (SF) October 16, 2007, 3:22 pm
  • SF –
    1. Beck’s innings total this year (216 IP).
    2. The record of pitcher’s on short rest in the playoffs (winning less than 40% of the time).
    3. If the bats hit Byrd like they should, then we don’t need Beckett.

    Pete October 16, 2007, 3:22 pm
  • I don’t agree on that logic, Jackie. I don’t think they’d be that stupid to plan that far ahead. Instead, it’s more their m.o. to out-think themselves.

    Pete October 16, 2007, 3:24 pm
  • “Baseball Reference has put together a comprehensive list of all results since 1995 with pitchers going on three days of rest, and while the results are mixed, they are certainly not as concrete as the .419 winning percentage would suggest.
    For instance, of those 54 losses, 17 came in which the pitcher allowed three or fewer runs to score. One of those losses was John Smoltz’s eight-inning, one run, zero earned affair against the Yankees in the 1996 World Series. In 1997, Mike Mussina got a no-decision by hurling eight innings of one-hit ball for the Orioles in the ALCS vs. Cleveland, a game the Indians won, 1-0. Curt Schilling was a similar victim in the ’01 World Series, pitching seven innings of three-hit, one-run ball, only to watch his effort go down in a 4-3 loss to New York.
    In the World Series, there is one performance on three days rest that stands above all others. And it coincidentally belongs to one Josh Beckett (complete game, five-hit shutout vs. the Yankees in ’03).
    It’s one thing to ask Schilling to go on three days of rest anymore, but Beckett is only 27, four years removed from his crowning professional achievement. What’s changed? ”
    http://tinyurl.com/3xvz4p

    Pete October 16, 2007, 3:31 pm
  • Maybe, Pete, but there was this over at BBTF/ST:
    But this front office has made it clear (as in the regular season, when they starting resting as soon as they clinched a playoff spot, as opposed to the division) that it makes no difference to them if they lose in the WS or the ALCS.

    Jackie (SF) October 16, 2007, 3:32 pm
  • By the way, the other problem with starting Wake that no one has mentioned: Mirabelli gets the start. Granted Tek has been slumping, but he’s the only guy that put runs on the board last night.

    Pete October 16, 2007, 3:34 pm
  • Whaaaaaat? What member of their FO said THAT? And where’s the specific quote?

    Pete October 16, 2007, 3:36 pm
  • I love that we all agree on this issue here but I hate that we are all in agreement against something that seems definitely to be happening. And we’re obviously not the only ones.
    It’s as if the FO is begging to be second-guessed, so that if they end up being right, they’ll always be able to claim righteousness in future fans/management clashes. To poach from Seinfeld/Bill Simmons, it’s like the Red Sox are having their “I’m Keith Hernandez” moment.
    Is that too paranoid? Have the Sox officially driven me crazy? Maybe it’s just one of those days for me, but I guess I should have seen this coming.

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 3:39 pm
  • From Jackie MacMullan’s chat:
    “Even if Beckett were to pitch tonight, you still have to win 2 games after that. I think it makes sense to give him his regular 4 days rest and go with Wakefield. I don’t think it’s so much they are looking ahead, just trying to give Beckett the best chance to win, and that’s pitching him in Game 5.”
    ” Once Francona publicly declared before Game 3 that Wakefield would pitch Game 4 and Beckett Game 5, it was set in stone. in fact, he went so far as to say that pitching Beckett on 3 days rest would be a panic move, and that he wasn’t panicking. So, even after losing Game 3, you knew it wouldn’t happen. Beckett has pitched on 3 days rest before with success, but their feeling is Wakefield has to pitch in this series at some point, so keep everyone on their normal rest.”

    Pete October 16, 2007, 3:43 pm
  • Unnamed source, of course! ;) I don’t know what the direct attribution is, but a couple people mentioned it. Anyway, I don’t think it’s ridiculously implausible.
    The line of thinking expressed in the MacMullan chat seems reasonable to me. I wouldn’t mind seeing Beckett tonight, but I don’t hate the idea of Wake pitching as much as some people seem to. Maybe they don’t think that Beckett will have the same success on three days rest with his season IP?

    Jackie (SF) October 16, 2007, 3:52 pm
  • “Even if Beckett were to pitch tonight, you still have to win 2 games after that.”
    Yeah, and if worse came to worse, it would be pitcher #1a (well, I guess it’s just 1 now, isn’t it) for the Sox in Game 7.
    I just don’t see what they’re thinking at all. They’re replacing a Beckett start, with a Wakefield start. That’s really all it boils down to. And it’s insanely stupid.

    AndrewYF October 16, 2007, 3:54 pm
  • So I guess that settles it? Nothing more to do than sit back and watch now. The funny thing is that I came to work today prepared to attend an industry gala tonight, but hoping to get out of it somehow so I could watch the Sox. Now there’s a possibility that I might not have to attend at all, but I hope that I do, so I don’t have to watch the Sox.
    All I know is that there will be booze present, no matter where I am – the only thing in doubt is whether it will be an open bar or PBR.

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 4:02 pm
  • I just don’t see what they’re thinking at all. They’re replacing a Beckett start, with a Wakefield start. That’s really all it boils down to. And it’s insanely stupid.
    So EVERYONE agrees, SF and YF alike. WHAT IS GOING ON!??!

    SF October 16, 2007, 4:03 pm
  • Cats! Dogs! Mass hysteria!

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 4:11 pm
  • I don’t think it’s a hunch. Too many number nerds are involved.
    I have a horrible suspicion, as do others, that the FO/Tito are holding off on Beckett because they want to line up their Game 1 WS starter.
    If so, then they are just a little too clever by far.
    When Farrell and Francona made those comments about lining up their rotation for the “next 3 or so weeks” while the division was still up for grabs, I cringed. But, they seemed vindicated by winning both the division and the ALDS. This time though, I hope they deal with the matters at hand. We have to win 3 out of the next 4. Planning for the next series when you are down a game is like buying a car with the winnings from a scratch-off ticket you haven’t even scratched off yet.

    ADK-DrewC October 16, 2007, 4:18 pm
  • “Maybe the Sox are looking to surprise the opposition”
    Paul, do you mean waiting until right before game time to announce that Beckett is starting?
    Even given Beckett’s success in ’03. pitching on 3 days rest is a crapshoot; however, I don’t understand why they’re not going for the kill bt starting Beckett twice. I really expect a surprise change of pitchers here – Wake “felt pain in his shoulder warming up” perhaps?

    Andrews October 16, 2007, 4:52 pm
  • Ellsbury not in tonight.
    Ugh.

    Brad October 16, 2007, 4:55 pm
  • Andrews that would not surprise me at all. Not one little bit.

    Brad October 16, 2007, 4:56 pm
  • If the Sox do that (switch pitchers) I would take it all back, because that would be classic and sweet, like a Clark bar.
    But I’m sure that too would just invite criticism, not from Sox fans but from media types who look down on “gamesmanship”. The Sox FO really must like it when people are paying attention to them, no?

    FenSheaParkway October 16, 2007, 5:14 pm
  • A switch would be hilarious, but would it really give us a major advantage? The Indians have already faced Beckett once, it’s not like they’d be scrambling to read their scouting reports. I guess there’s an advantage in that they wouldn’t have prepared specifically to face Beckett tonight, but how much?

    Jackie (SF) October 16, 2007, 5:37 pm
  • “I guess there’s an advantage in that they wouldn’t have prepared specifically to face Beckett tonight, but how much?”
    I think just the fact that it would be Beckett rather than Wakefield is advantage enough. I still can’t believe they’re pitching a guy who has a bad back and hasn’t pitched in three weeks. It’s almost…Yankee-esque.

    AndrewYF October 16, 2007, 5:46 pm
  • What if we just send out Beckett wearing Wakefield’s uniform. I think that’s a fair compromise Tito

    Ed October 16, 2007, 6:00 pm
  • THey’re talking about whether or not Beckett should start right now on ESPN

    Atheose October 16, 2007, 6:01 pm
  • What if we just send out Beckett wearing Wakefield’s uniform. I think that’s a fair compromise Tito
    AHAHAHAHAHA thanks for the laugh Ed ;-)

    Atheose October 16, 2007, 6:02 pm
  • they’re all saying Wake is the right choice! Wow… well gentlemen and ladies, I’m off to class until 9:15ish, I hope I return to the discussion with a sizable smackdown put on the Indians. Here we go Sox.

    Ed October 16, 2007, 6:08 pm

Leave a Comment