I totally agree. Breaks the "no more than one run in any inning" streak too. Although to be fair a Donaldson HR would have done that too.Certainly must have been part of the thought process. I'm just hesitant to gift another runner into scoring position with a great hitter due up.
His rationale was that he didn't want to mess with the lineup because they were winning.Martin is awful but Gibbons is too dumb to drop him.
very interesting thanks.Putting all this together, I think Tito was stuck with some shitting options and a low win percentage no matter what he decided, to the point where playing a hunch or hoping for a ground ball didn't really move the needle very much.
Maryland?NO NO NO, I was kidding. I literally have no idea. I'm not a doctor.
Of course they also had Carrasco and Salazar for most of the season.Indians only team in MLB without 4 game losing streak, per Ernie.
They'll own Friday nightmaybe if they stretch this series long enough they night play in prime-time
eh?
I thought they were a bit fortunate to be up 3-0. I don't view either of these teams as a significant favorite. Sometimes a team goes up 3-0 because it's way better. Sometimes a team goes up 3-0 because, even when each game is a coin flip, it can come up heads three times in a row about 12 percent of the time. I think that's what happened in 2004, for example. And I think that's what's happening here.People are worried because they didn't sweep the ALCS?
Really?
After 2004, 10 teams have fallen behind 3-0. Only time no sweep was yesterdayPeople are worried because they didn't sweep the ALCS?
Really?
And how many of those 10 teams won the series? ... ZeroAfter 2004, 10 teams have fallen behind 3-0. Only time no sweep was yesterday
I edited my post. But my point stands. There's little precedent that says just because the Blue Jays prevented the sweep, that there's reason for those rooting for the Indians to worry.You're missing the point
There's no recent precedent in EITHER direction.I edited my post. But my point stands. There's little precedent that says just because the Blue Jays prevented the sweep, that there's reason for those rooting for the Indians to worry.
Except Tomlin hasn't been mediocre since his return to the Indians rotation on September 14th. Six starts, with two games with 2 ER allowed and four games with only a single ER allowed. Aside from his August meltdown, he's been a pretty consistent and valuable starter.I wouldn't say I'm worried they are going to lose the series, I don't care enough to be worried about that.
All I was doing in my post was pointing out the situation. They have a completely untested rookie today, then Tomlin who is pretty mediocre and then Kluber on short rest for the second time.
You're ruining the narrative.Except Tomlin hasn't been mediocre since his return to the Indians rotation on September 14th. Six starts, with two games with 2 ER allowed and four games with only a single ER allowed. Aside from his August meltdown, he's been a pretty consistent and valuable starter.
Citing one series in the history of baseball as reason for concern should be the dictionary definition of small sample sizeThere's no recent precedent in EITHER direction.
Unless you include 2004 in which case, 100% of the time that a team down 3-0 wins game 4, they end up winning the series.
How about a one game WHIP?Citing one series in the history of baseball as reason for concern should be the dictionary definition of small sample size
You're starting to worry meHow about a one game WHIP?
And that's always valid.You're starting to worry me
I believe the same one who before game three was talking about how the indians bullpen was three guys and a bunch of crapAnd that's always valid.
But this concept was from yesterday's NL game thread...from our very same SSSer
Often wrong, never in doubtI believe the same one who before game three was talking about how the indians bullpen was three guys and a bunch of crap
Speaking of Ron D., I am enjoying both his and Ripken's commentary. I also appreciate Ripken's comments on finer points of execution, on baserunning especially. Easy subtleties to miss for those not knowledgeable.Nice Dustin Pedroia mention there by Ron D. Not that he doesn't deserve all of them.
He also personally impacted Game 4.Speaking of Ron D., I am enjoying both his and Ripken's commentary. I also appreciate Ripken's comments on finer points of execution, on baserunning especially. Easy subtleties to miss for those not knowledgeable.
I am appreciating too, just watching Playoff Tito in action. I think he personally impacted Game 3 particularly. You can almost see the wheels turning. He really is a pro. Reminds me of what the Red Sox squandered.
Stats about what someone has or hasn't done when down 3-0 really aren't relevant any more to this series. The score now is 3-1. How many teams have come back from 3-1 down? About 10 out of 70 or so. The fact that they lost the first three before winning their one doesn't really change any of that. Whichever of the first four games that a team wins to make it 3-1, it's still 3-1 and the relevant question still is how hard is it to win 3 in a row for a 3-1 team.There's no recent precedent in EITHER direction.
Unless you include 2004 in which case, 100% of the time that a team down 3-0 wins game 4, they end up winning the series.
Stats about what someone has or hasn't done when down 3-0 really aren't relevant any more to this series. The score now is 3-1. How many teams have come back from 3-1 down? About 10 out of 70 or so. The fact that they lost the first three before winning their one doesn't really change any of that. Whichever of the first four games that a team wins to make it 3-1, it's still 3-1 and the relevant question still is how hard is it to win 3 in a row for a 3-1 team.