2013 Spring Training

[dsharp]

It's Britton's first offense and no one was hurt, so he'll be OK as long as he grows the hell up from the experience.

[Dojji]

As bad as Burnside was rj, he at least tried to fight. Of course, we all remember the slaughter his army suffered at Fredericksburg in Dec. of 1862, but when he was sent out west to fight on that front he did win a big battle and captured the East Tennessee city of Knoxville in the fall of 1863, then beat General Longstreet when the traitorous general tried to recapture the city. If Britton is like any union g eneral it was George Brinton McClellan who always had an excuse for not fighting, then when he did usually came up with a bad case of the shorts.

 

Good to see some Civil War stuff thrown in here. I am a big CW buff myself.

 

Burnside wasn't a bad man, and he was apparently an affable and charismatic leader, but the command of a major army was too much to ask of him, and he was insecure in his command, leading to several abrupt and rather arbitrary decisions that cost him men. And several times Burnside was let down badly by the incompetent subordinate officers the Union Army hadn't managed to weed out yet.

 

The army Grant took over a couple years later had had a baptism by fire that swept a lot of the incompetents and political appointees out of positions where they could do damage. That hardening, begun in places like Fredericsburg and probably brought to a head at the Battle of Gettysburg, combined with Grant's frankly brilliant masterstroke of continually probing Lee's left, forcing the master maneuverist to stretch his lines until he could neither maneuver nor retreat without losing Richmond, were why the war went the way it did.

 

See here's the thing Grant did that no one else did when fighting the South:

 

Most battles looked like this:

 

1: You bring up your tropps, you prepare attack Lee.

 

2: Lee establishes defensive positions until you commit to preparing to attack, which can take a long time since you have a lot of men and a huge supply train.

 

3: Lee then pulls a general and hundreds to thousands of men out of his butt from a completely random direction and attacks you on multiple fronts long before you're ready, doing massive damage and disrupting your attack

 

4: If you attack anyway, it's with troops demoralized from the surprise attack, and frequently right into the teeth of an outnumbered but highly experienced force that's very ready for them

 

5: when, not if, that attack doesn't work, you retreat beyond the Potomac and lick your wounds, and allow Lee to do the same.

 

Grant got surprised plenty by Lee, but what Grant did that no one else did, was that he failed to retreat beyond the Potomac. He'd get stumped by some new trick of Lee's, then roll out to the left of the confederate line, forcing Lee to block his path to Richmond along a new front, then re-engage, reattack, get whupped again, and repeat the whole process the next day, no matter how many men he lost. He never got by Lee, but the strategy paralyzed the last best hope of the South for most of the last year of the war.

 

Then with Lee stretched impossibly thin along very heavily fortified lines and unable to do much more than glare at the vastly outnumbering force still in front of him, Grant just waited him out while Will Sherman, George Thompson, Phil Sheridan, David Farragut, and the controversial but effective Ben Butler. rolled the South up along the other fronts where the Union had always had somewhat of an upper hand. Lee only abandoned the defense of Richmond when Richmond was an island in a see of Union flags, and by then, of course, it was far too late anyway.

 

On a completely unrelated note, I find it somewhat ironic in all this that Grant or no Grant, Lee or no Lee, the man who saw most clearly what the beginning, middle and end of that war was going to look like was probably General Winfield Scott, right at the beginning of the first campaign.

[seabeachfred]

Burnside wasn't a bad man, and he was apparently an affable and charismatic leader, but the command of a major army was too much to ask of him, and he was insecure in his command, leading to several abrupt and rather arbitrary decisions that cost him men. And several times Burnside was let down badly by the incompetent subordinate officers the Union Army hadn't managed to weed out yet.

 

The army Grant took over a couple years later had had a baptism by fire that swept a lot of the incompetents and political appointees out of positions where they could do damage. That hardening, begun in places like Fredericsburg and probably brought to a head at the Battle of Gettysburg, combined with Grant's frankly brilliant masterstroke of continually probing Lee's left, forcing the master maneuverist to stretch his lines until he could neither maneuver nor retreat without losing Richmond, were why the war went the way it did.

 

See here's the thing Grant did that no one else did when fighting the South. Most battles looked like this. You bring up your tropps, you attack Lee, Lee establishes defensive positions, Lee pulls a general out of his butt from a completely random direction and attacks you long before you're ready, you retreat beyond the Potomac and lick your wounds, and allow Lee to do the same. Grant got surprised plenty by Lee, but what Grant did that no one else did, was that he failed to retreat beyond the Potomac. He'd get stumped by some new trick of Lee's, then roll out to the left of the confederate line, forcing Lee to block his path to Richmond along a new front, then re-engage, reattack, get whupped again, and repeat the whole process the next day, no matter how many men he lost. He never got by Lee, but the strategy paralyzed the last best hope of the South for most of the last year of the war.

 

Then with Lee stretched impossibly thin along very heavily fortified lines and unable to do much more than glare at the vastly outnumbering force still in front of him, Grant just waited him out while Will Sherman, George Thompson, Phil Sheridan, John Farragut, etc. rolled the South up along the other fronts where the Union had always had somewhat of an upper hand.

 

It's ironic in all this that Grant or no Grant, Lee or no Lee, the man who saw most clearly what the beginning, middle and end of that war was going to look like was probably General Winfield Scott.

 

Well alright!!!!!!!!!! We're on the same page here and great to know you're a Civil War fan as well. Yes, Scott saw at the beginning of the war what was needed to end the rebellion. He called it the Anaconda Plan........1. Blockade the Southern Ports--2. Divide the Confederacy along the Mississippi River--3. divide it further through Georgia---4. Capture the Rebel capital of Richmond.........one and two were done pretty much by 1863, three was done by Sherman in late 1864 and four was accomplished in April of 1865.

 

(I wonder if mvp is going to disagree with me on this one too. Probably not. He will not agree either and just keep silent.)

 

What you seem to know well is that the CW was for a long time a political war, and to keep the War Democrats support Lincoln had to appoint Democrat generals like McClellan and Buell. He had to appoint some conservative Republican generals like Rosecrans and Pope, and eventually elevate a Radical Republican like Phil Sheridan. Grant, Sherman and George Thomas, probably the best general of them all, were not politial in the very sense of the word; they became Republican as the war progressed but they were not in the pocket of any of the politicos in Washington.

 

When Grant came East he brought Sheridan with him, left Sherman in charge of the Western Theatre with Thomas as one of his commanders. Within a year the rebellion was crushed..............Again, good to know you love the Civil War Dojii----and for that I will not mention Rolen or that thread again.....promise.

[Dojji]

Fair enough

 

Whoops, it was Thomas not Thomson. The Rick of Chickimauga. I was going from memory there and got that one thing wrong.

 

And yeah, the political nature of the war is hard to ignore. Political appointees were a mixed bag. Some of them were beyond awful, and had no business on a battle field. Dan Sickles got a lot of men killed in that orchard for disobeying orders and putting his men in an awful position just because he wanted to meet the enemy first. Cost him a leg too IIRC. On the other hand, Ben Butler was flawed but very successful, especially when you used him right (put him in charge of something administrative, give him an opportunity to display both his aggression and his compassion in about equal measure, and for the love of all that's holy, don't let him open his mouth!).

[Dojji]

Anyway, to get back to the point, if you wanted to know who I'd compare Britton too, it wouldn't be Burnside, it'd probably be John Pope. Burnside at least had endearing traits. Pope was a complete idiot who bragged of victory before he'd fired a shot and wound up with a conga line of humiliating defeats from the trio of Lee, Jackson and Stuart.

 

The other good candidate is John Bell "Dumb****" Hood.

[BSN07]

It's Britton's first offense and no one was hurt, so he'll be OK as long as he grows the hell up from the experience.

 

Yes it was his first offense. But it's a huge one. It's like a guy picks up a loaded gun and fires it into a crowd. Amazingly no one gets hurt. It may be the first time he's done it, doesn't mean he should't be punished. I agree that I hope he is able to learn something from this and maybe help someone in the future avoid this insanely stupid mistake.

[SoxSport]

Well alright!!!!!!!!!! We're on the same page here and great to know you're a Civil War fan as well. Yes, Scott saw at the beginning of the war what was needed to end the rebellion. He called it the Anaconda Plan........1. Blockade the Southern Ports--2. Divide the Confederacy along the Mississippi River--3. divide it further through Georgia---4. Capture the Rebel capital of Richmond.........one and two were done pretty much by 1863, three was done by Sherman in late 1864 and four was accomplished in April of 1865.

 

(I wonder if mvp is going to disagree with me on this one too. Probably not. He will not agree either and just keep silent.)

 

What you seem to know well is that the CW was for a long time a political war, and to keep the War Democrats support Lincoln had to appoint Democrat generals like McClellan and Buell. He had to appoint some conservative Republican generals like Rosecrans and Pope, and eventually elevate a Radical Republican like Phil Sheridan. Grant, Sherman and George Thomas, probably the best general of them all, were not politial in the very sense of the word; they became Republican as the war progressed but they were not in the pocket of any of the politicos in Washington.

 

When Grant came East he brought Sheridan with him, left Sherman in charge of the Western Theatre with Thomas as one of his commanders. Within a year the rebellion was crushed..............Again, good to know you love the Civil War Dojii----and for that I will not mention Rolen or that thread again.....promise.

 

Having just read Grant's original memoirs--the original Mark Twain edition--and Jean Smith's splendid biography of Grant as well, I probably can add my own observations here.

 

Grant's strategy was always to cut off his enemy's supply lines, which in those days meant destroying the railroad lines supplying the enemy. Often with Sheriden's cavalry. He did this in Vicksburg (also using the Union Navy to control river routes and to transport troops), and finally in Richmond--cutting off Lee's forces around Richmond like a giant fishhook until Lee had no place to go--and no supplies.

Sherman's strategy in the South was similar--destroy all supplies and supply routes to the enemy--hence the scorched earth policy.

Grant was an old supply officer in the Mexican War, and he understood the importance of logistics--both supplying his own troops and cutting off supplies to his opposition.

His greatest generals--the guys he trusted the most--were Sherman and Sheriden. Hancock, too. Hancock, by the way, was a Democrat, and not of much help to Grant as President after the War. But a great General.

 

His best lifetime friend--his roommate at West Point--was General Longstreet--arguably the best Confederate general. Later, he commanded Union troops when Grant was President

to put down an uprising in New Orleans. Both Grant and Longstreet were members of the Literary club at West Point (Grant was President of the club). Grant spent more time in the West Point library reading the classics, than reading his textbooks. Hence, his excellent literary style in crafting his memoirs on his deathbed.

 

Regarding the politics of the time--one must be carfeul about labels--especially conservative, democrat, republican, etc. Indeed the politics were completely the opposite to what they are today.

 

In my view, Grant was as great an American leader as Lincoln. As President, he pushed the amendments to make blacks' citizens and give them voting rights. His main weakness was he trusted his friends and business associates too much--and some took advantage of that.

[Dojji]

You know the guy that impresses me more and more the more I dig into his legacy, is President Andrew Johnson. That's a man that tends to be overshadowed by the greater men around him, but he played a huge role in the aftermath of the war in making sure it was Lincoln's policies rather than those of the Radical Republicans, that dictated the South's reentry into the Union, and probably helped ensure that everything didn't fall right back apart a few decades later. I'd like to hope that in the same situation Johnson found himself, I'd have the cojones to stand up for what's right as consistently as he did, and play it my way right up to the brink of disaster the way he did.

 

He might not have been one of our great Americans, but that was a real man, in every sense of the word.

[dsharp]

Now Franklin Morales is out with a back issue, and no anticipated return date. Sounds like he'll be 60-day DL'd, lost as a spot starter, and assures that Aceves stays with the team and likely becomes the long man/spot starter. I was really hoping we'd find a way to deal Ace.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Can we please start a "Former Presidents and Civil War ********" thread?

 

That way it won't clog up the Spring Training thread.

[seabeachfred]

Anyway, to get back to the point, if you wanted to know who I'd compare Britton too, it wouldn't be Burnside, it'd probably be John Pope. Burnside at least had endearing traits. Pope was a complete idiot who bragged of victory before he'd fired a shot and wound up with a conga line of humiliating defeats from the trio of Lee, Jackson and Stuart.

 

The other good candidate is John Bell "Dumb****" Hood.

 

Pope got the big head when he captured Island No. 10 (no longer exists) early in 1862 that opened up the Mississippi to a thrust downward to the capture of Memphis in June of that year. When brought East to temporarally take the grieving McClellan's spot, was beaten to a pulp in the Second Battle of Bull Run on August 28-29, 1862 that opened up the possibilility of Lee's invasion of the North. Pope was then sent West to fight Guardians and I believe he was in on putting down the Sioux uprising that fall.

 

As for Hood, when he was with Lee in Virginia he comported himself well as an adjunct commander. When he was sent West the water didn't agree with him or something because he suffered one defeat after another, including the loss of Atlanta which almost guaranteed Lincoln's re-election victory two months later. As for Thomas, glad you recognize him. You'd be surprised how many people who think they know about the Civil War, and do in many instances, don't know anything about George Henry Thomas, who, as it happens, never lost a battle and destroyed two Confederate armies.

[seabeachfred]

Having just read Grant's original memoirs--the original Mark Twain edition--and Jean Smith's splendid biography of Grant as well, I probably can add my own observations here.

 

Grant's strategy was always to cut off his enemy's supply lines, which in those days meant destroying the railroad lines supplying the enemy. Often with Sheriden's cavalry. He did this in Vicksburg (also using the Union Navy to control river routes and to transport troops), and finally in Richmond--cutting off Lee's forces around Richmond like a giant fishhook until Lee had no place to go--and no supplies.

Sherman's strategy in the South was similar--destroy all supplies and supply routes to the enemy--hence the scorched earth policy.

Grant was an old supply officer in the Mexican War, and he understood the importance of logistics--both supplying his own troops and cutting off supplies to his opposition.

His greatest generals--the guys he trusted the most--were Sherman and Sheriden. Hancock, too. Hancock, by the way, was a Democrat, and not of much help to Grant as President after the War. But a great General.

 

His best lifetime friend--his roommate at West Point--was General Longstreet--arguably the best Confederate general. Later, he commanded Union troops when Grant was President

to put down an uprising in New Orleans. Both Grant and Longstreet were members of the Literary club at West Point (Grant was President of the club). Grant spent more time in the West Point library reading the classics, than reading his textbooks. Hence, his excellent literary style in crafting his memoirs on his deathbed.

 

Regarding the politics of the time--one must be carfeul about labels--especially conservative, democrat, republican, etc. Indeed the politics were completely the opposite to what they are today.

 

In my view, Grant was as great an American leader as Lincoln. As President, he pushed the amendments to make blacks' citizens and give them voting rights. His main weakness was he trusted his friends and business associates too much--and some took advantage of that.

 

Sox Sport, this is getting interesting as the Civil War buffs are now coming out of the woodwork. Great post. Please, though, do not compare any president to Lincoln. He stands so far above the others that IMHO they would get nosebleeds looking up at him. Grant, though, was very pro Freedmen as was Sheridan. Until the Great Depression African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Republicans. In 1880 when Hancock lost to Garfield, it was the black vote that put Republican Garfield in office. He won the election by less than ten thousand votes

 

You know if a few more people come on this thread with Civil War stories and facts I'm going to suggest we start a separate thread on it.

[mvp 78]

Now Franklin Morales is out with a back issue, and no anticipated return date. Sounds like he'll be 60-day DL'd, lost as a spot starter, and assures that Aceves stays with the team and likely becomes the long man/spot starter. I was really hoping we'd find a way to deal Ace.

 

Don't worry, that's what they have Steven Wright for.

[dupree]

Don't worry, that's what they have Steven Wright for.

 

Yeah and Wright got lite up for 5 earned runs today. Sounds like a good middle reliever.

[Dojji]

Pope got the big head when he captured Island No. 10 (no longer exists) early in 1862 that opened up the Mississippi to a thrust downward to the capture of Memphis in June of that year. When brought East to temporarally take the grieving McClellan's spot, was beaten to a pulp in the Second Battle of Bull Run on August 28-29, 1862 that opened up the possibilility of Lee's invasion of the North. Pope was then sent West to fight Guardians and I believe he was in on putting down the Sioux uprising that fall.

 

As for Hood, when he was with Lee in Virginia he comported himself well as an adjunct commander. When he was sent West the water didn't agree with him or something because he suffered one defeat after another, including the loss of Atlanta which almost guaranteed Lincoln's re-election victory two months later. As for Thomas, glad you recognize him. You'd be surprised how many people who think they know about the Civil War, and do in many instances, don't know anything about George Henry Thomas, who, as it happens, never lost a battle and destroyed two Confederate armies.

 

You can thank Smithsonian magazine for me knowing anything about GH Thomas. And I was amazed how no one knew of the guy after I read the article about him.

 

re: Hood. To be fair, not too many Confederate officers would have done much better against the likes of WT Sherman and George Thomas. That said that leadership advantage was offset by the fact that Hood had Nathan Bedford Forrest, possibly the best tactical cavalry commander of the war, supporting his force. Apologies to JEB Stuart, but Forrest has him edged out in a few key areas, most notably his ability to act with complete independence while still serving the best interests of his CO. Stuart had that little hiccup in Gettysburg that knocks him down just a bit, and in a comparison with with Forrest, that's all it takes.

 

The point being, Hood knew more than the Union commanders he was facing even if you ignore the fact that he was fighting on home ground, his field intelligence was second to none throughout his defence of the Confederate central front, and he had the ability to use Forrest to strike at will along the union supply lines, harass their rear, menace the Union lines from multiple angles, and even snuff out opposing scouts to permit a sneak attack. And he used those advantages rather poorly on the whole and lost ground again and again despite really not being that badly outnumbered by what the Union was throwing at them. (not compared to Lee anyhow)

[VA Sox Fan]

You can thank Smithsonian magazine for me knowing anything about GH Thomas. And I was amazed how no one knew of the guy after I read the article about him.

 

re: Hood. To be fair, not too many Confederate officers would have done much better against the likes of WT Sherman and George Thomas. That said that leadership advantage was offset by the fact that Hood had Nathan Bedford Forrest, possibly the best tactical cavalry commander of the war, supporting his force. Apologies to JEB Stuart, but Forrest has him edged out in a few key areas, most notably his ability to act with complete independence while still serving the best interests of his CO. Stuart had that little hiccup in Gettysburg that knocks him down just a bit, and in a comparison with with Forrest, that's all it takes.

 

The point being, Hood knew more than the Union commanders he was facing even if you ignore the fact that he was fighting on home ground, his field intelligence was second to none throughout his defence of the Confederate central front, and he had the ability to use Forrest to strike at will along the union supply lines, harass their rear, menace the Union lines from multiple angles, and even snuff out opposing scouts to permit a sneak attack. And he used those advantages rather poorly on the whole and lost ground again and again despite really not being that badly outnumbered by what the Union was throwing at them. (not compared to Lee anyhow)

 

 

Please see the "History Buff" thread that Pal started.

[SoxSport]

Sox Sport, this is getting interesting as the Civil War buffs are now coming out of the woodwork. Great post. Please, though, do not compare any president to Lincoln. He stands so far above the others that IMHO they would get nosebleeds looking up at him. Grant, though, was very pro Freedmen as was Sheridan. Until the Great Depression African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Republicans. In 1880 when Hancock lost to Garfield, it was the black vote that put Republican Garfield in office. He won the election by less than ten thousand votes

 

You know if a few more people come on this thread with Civil War stories and facts I'm going to suggest we start a separate thread on it.

 

Grant respected Thomas, too. An older General, who I believe taught at West Point when Grant was a student there. But Thomas was a bit too slow and cautious for Grant at times.

 

Grant has a lot of parallels with Eisenhower: Both were West Pointers who came to lead the Army during War (and indeed were important in winning their Wars). Both emerged from war and became immensely popular because of their leadership roles in the war. Both were easily elected President for two terms, and served admirably as President--in my view. Both were able to do things they couldn't have done without their considerable popular support.

Along with a handful of others (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR), I regard them as among the greatest American leaders. I have always envied Eisenhower for his personality--he took after his mother, and resembled her the most of his 4 brothers.

[SoxFanForsyth]

WTF.

 

This is the worst thread ever. Period. JHC. Enough of the damn history talk.

[VA Sox Fan]

Grant respected Thomas, too. An older General, who I believe taught at West Point when Grant was a student there. But Thomas was a bit too slow and cautious for Grant at times.

 

Grant has a lot of parallels with Eisenhower: Both were West Pointers who came to lead the Army during War (and indeed were important in winning their Wars). Both emerged from war and became immensely popular because of their leadership roles in the war. Both were easily elected President for two terms, and served admirably as President--in my view. Both were able to do things they couldn't have done without their considerable popular support.

Along with a handful of others (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR), I regard them as among the greatest American leaders. I have always envied Eisenhower for his personality--he took after his mother, and resembled her the most of his 4 brothers.

 

WTF.

 

This is the worst thread ever. Period. JHC. Enough of the damn history talk.

 

Unbelievable, well, not really I guess. The lack of reading comprehension around here gets so frustrating. :dunno::thumbdown

[seabeachfred]

Grant respected Thomas, too. An older General, who I believe taught at West Point when Grant was a student there. But Thomas was a bit too slow and cautious for Grant at times.

 

Grant has a lot of parallels with Eisenhower: Both were West Pointers who came to lead the Army during War (and indeed were important in winning their Wars). Both emerged from war and became immensely popular because of their leadership roles in the war. Both were easily elected President for two terms, and served admirably as President--in my view. Both were able to do things they couldn't have done without their considerable popular support.

Along with a handful of others (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR), I regard them as among the greatest American leaders. I have always envied Eisenhower for his personality--he took after his mother, and resembled her the most of his 4 brothers.

 

Sox Sport----When I get back from my walk I will answer your post on the history thread, and I suggest you, Dojii, me and any other history buffs do the same. Seems my one trick pony friend and the Dragon Lady are taking umbridge at the goings-on here, but they are right. Let's do the history over on the new history thread that Palodios put out.

[Bellhorn04]

Unbelievable, well, not really I guess. The lack of reading comprehension around here gets so frustrating. :dunno::thumbdown

 

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Qy4iftwk5JM/THrib9Nj6XI/AAAAAAAAJLA/NfS0HocvpIE/s1600/mrmagoo-02.jpg

[VA Sox Fan]

Sox Sport----When I get back from my walk I will answer your post on the history thread, and I suggest you, Dojii, me and any other history buffs do the same. Seems my one trick pony friend and the Dragon Lady are taking umbridge at the goings-on here, but they are right. Let's do the history over on the new history thread that Palodios put out.

 

You control your emotions and name-calling about as well as a bratty 12 year old girl. STFU.

[VA Sox Fan]

Glad Jacoby is feeling better. Good start for Buch...

 

Top of the 2nd: Red Sox 1, Twins 0: Ellsbury (who missed a few days with the flu) singled and went to second on a botched pickoff. Pedroia grounded to short to move him over then Drew singled in the run.

 

Buchholz had an impressive inning: 8 pitches, 7 strikes. He recorded three quick outs.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Napoli (you know, the $5mm player) just went deep again. I believe that's his 3rd HR in 3 games.

 

Meanwhile, Adrian Gonzalez is slugging .235 with 0 HR in Arizona.

 

Not saying Napoli is a better hitter, I'm just sayin....Napoli could destroy Fenway Park and LHP.

[Bellhorn04]

Napoli (you know, the $5mm player) just went deep again. I believe that's his 3rd HR in 3 games.

 

Meanwhile, Adrian Gonzalez is slugging .235 with 0 HR in Arizona.

 

Not saying Napoli is a better hitter, I'm just sayin....Napoli could destroy Fenway Park and LHP.

 

If Mike stays healthy it's going to be fun to watch.

[jung]

All LA got out of "the trade" was a three-headed excuse machine and a second rate utility infielder. I think there is more than a chance that LA will never see the AGons that once was. That AGons would be preferred to Napoli. However he seems to be long gone and hard to find.

[SoxFanForsyth]

One of the most encouraging things I've heard this spring:

 

Bard strikes out the side in order. Hitting 97 mph.

[Bellhorn04]

One of the most encouraging things I've heard this spring:

 

Bard strikes out the side in order. Hitting 97 mph.

 

Yes.

[VA Sox Fan]

More good news:

 

Sox have 10 hits, the Twins 2. Hanrahan in for Buchholz, who was sharp. 3 IP, 2 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 4 K, 38 pitches, 31 strikes.

 

But then Hanrahan struggled again:

 

Top of the 5th: Red Sox 8, Twins 4: Rough inning for Joel Hanrahan, who put five straight batters on base (a walk and four singles) before getting a strikeout. He was relieved by Chris Carpenter, who allowed a two-run single by Ray Olmedo.

[SoxFanForsyth]

More good news:

 

Sox have 10 hits, the Twins 2. Hanrahan in for Buchholz, who was sharp. 3 IP, 2 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 4 K, 38 pitches, 31 strikes.

 

But then Hanrahan struggled again:

 

Top of the 5th: Red Sox 8, Twins 4: Rough inning for Joel Hanrahan, who put five straight batters on base (a walk and four singles) before getting a strikeout. He was relieved by Chris Carpenter, who allowed a two-run single by Ray Olmedo.

 

Hanrahan posted a 6.75 ERA in 2011 Spring Training. Then he posted a 1.83 ERA during the season.

 

He may be one of those guys who has to have that adrenaline to be effective. Kind of like Pap, who has allowed 7 earnies on 8 hits in 1.2 IP.