Jump to content
Sports Guy

Rockies vs Red Sox...Who ya got?

Recommended Posts

I know the Rockies have won umpteen games in a row and the playoffs are a crapshoot and all that, but do people really think they stand a chance?

They are nearly a 2-1 underdog, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know the Rockies have won umpteen games in a row and the playoffs are a crapshoot and all that, but do people really think they stand a chance?

They are nearly a 2-1 underdog, FWIW.

There's no way that any team is a 2-1 underdog in a short series in baseball. Well, maybe the August-September 2007 Baltimore Orioles would be. But no real team.

This is a matchup of a 90-73 team against a 96-66 team. That's, for all intents and purposes, a coin flip. Of course the Rockies have a chance. I'd guess the odds are more like 55/45 Sox. If their regular season records were true indicators of ability the Red Sox would win 54% of games against the Rockies. Of course the starting pitcher has a significant influence on that number, but still... It's nothing like 2-1 odds with any pitching matchup we'll see this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no way that any team is a 2-1 underdog in a short series in baseball. Well, maybe the August-September 2007 Baltimore Orioles would be. But no real team.

This is a matchup of a 90-73 team against a 96-66 team. That's, for all intents and purposes, a coin flip. Of course the Rockies have a chance. I'd guess the odds are more like 55/45 Sox. If their regular season records were true indicators of ability the Red Sox would win 54% of games against the Rockies. Of course the starting pitcher has a significant influence on that number, but still... It's nothing like 2-1 odds with any pitching matchup we'll see this year.

So......you're saying I would be stupid not to bet Colorado. Cause they're +180. Which translates to 36% in percentage terms.

Didn't Boston win their 96 games against tougher competition than Colorado won their 90? Boston has home field advantage, and in a short series with two off days the advantage they enjoy at at the top of the rotation is magnified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Red Sox simply had to hang on at the end of the season to clinch their division after they built that huge lead in the early part of the year. The Rockies had to go on a tear near the end of the year, pray for Milwaukee to help them out by beating San Diego, and then win a one game playoff just to be the WILD CARD. I think they're going to be ready to go and will play a great series. They've all ready won two games in Fenway from earlier this year during interleague play so that atmosphere shouldn't be surprising to them. I think they have a great shot at winning the whole thing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rox in 7.

The Rockies have had a few intrasquad games to keep fresh. It's not like they're all sitting at home and watching The Next Iron Chef. I think they'll be ready to disappoint New England. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really want to say the Rockies here but i will just be so surprised if this team can beat the more experienced Red Sox.

The Rockies will have to pitch great.....I will say the Red Sox in 6 but will be rooting hard for the Rockies to take it.

Same opinion, Sox in 6. They need a split in Boston. I think they can get to Schilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sox in 5, maybe the heroic effort by the Rockies to force game 6. I'm afraid the Rox have sat too long and lost their mojo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Red Sox will not have Youk or Papi(assuming Youk) in the games in Colorado...That could really be important. Youk probably sits which will hurt the offense and the defense.

Game 1 is very important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Orioles did offer Cruz a contract, IIRC.  I believe they offered him a 3-year deal, which seemed reasonable considering his age.  It was a bit of a surprise that he got a 4-year deal from Seattle.  There really wasn't much of an outcry over the Orioles not going 4 years.  It seemed like a prudent decision at the time.
    • I understand.  I just think he was decent here in 1990 and decent in Houston in 1991, I'm not sure why he wasn't more highly regarded by both teams.  I agree he wasn't an obvious HoFer until his late 20s.   I think Finley was great.  An OF of Brady, Devo and Finley in the 90s would have been borderline elite defensively.  But he, too, really didn't kick into gear until his late 20s and early 30s.  And while I don't think he was ever named in the Mitchell report, it wouldn't have surprised me if he was using. Glenn Davis was very good, probably tied with Will Clark and Jack Clark as the preeminent slugging first baseman in the NL in the late 80s.   
    • I don't think Schilling is a deranged lunatic.  He has some unpopular opinions that he does a poor job of expressing.  IMO, a deranged lunatic is someone who's dangerous to himself and others in society, I don't see Schilling being that guy. That said, I'd gladly have whatever "stain" Schilling has over Davis.  I'd take 26 Ty Cobbs (cue @DrungoHazewood "He wasn't that bad of a guy!  The Al Stump book was lies!") on this team if it meant we would win.
    • No but it was short lived.  He didn’t really become the obvious HOF pitcher (it’s absurd he isn’t in) until his late 20s. Finley was good but you don’t regret losing him or Harnisch.     And let’s not forget, Glenn Davis was really good for several years before we got him.
    • I voted Glenn, but honestly didn't think through SG's point of likely failed development.  I still think its Glenn though.  We could have been a much different team heading into the mid 90s.  The Chris Davis contract shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is.  In modern MLB, you've got to be able to mitigate or fix these mistakes, and be willing to eat all/some of the costs.    While the contract itself was a disaster and a waste (I think most said that at the time), the team should have moved on in any direction at this point but we are a cheap, poorly run franchise who values staying afloat rather than building a competitive team.  
    • Schilling wasn't terrible in Houston the one year he was there.  3.81 ERA, 2.87 FIP.  
    • I'm not sure I agree here.  They developed Mussina just fine, but he was pretty polished coming out of Stanford.  Gregg Olson was a high pick that was fantastic.  Ben McDonald didn't turn out to be the guy anyone thought he would be, but he was still effective.  Harnisch had improved from 1989 to 1990. I don't think Schilling was regarded in that class of those first three guys.  I don't know if they would have developed Schilling to what he became but I think he'd have had a chance to become good here.  He was good in 1990, albeit in a small sample size.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...