Postseason Happenings 2016

[Kimmi]

Run differential is weird way to suggest the Sox are better than they are. Just look at the game yesterday. The record is skewed by blowouts. Yes, this team blows out bad pitching sometimes. Great. Woot. That in and of itself doesn't mean they should be in 1st place.

 

Not really. The ability to score runs versus the ability to prevent runs is really the bottom line. Pythagorean W-L, ie run differential, correlates pretty well with remaining season record. It matters little whether the a +20 differential came in two 10 run blowouts or 5 four run wins.

[Bellhorn04]

Run differential is a good correlator, but I don't put much trust in it. The 2002 Red Sox won 93 games with a plus 194. The 2012 Orioles won 93 with a plus 7. It's all subject to the vagaries of randomness.

[sk7326]

Run differential is a good correlator, but I don't put much trust in it. The 2002 Red Sox won 93 games with a plus 194. The 2012 Orioles won 93 with a plus 7. It's all subject to the vagaries of randomness.

 

Run differential during the season is a little screwy - since strength of schedule matters so much. But in the long run it fits better. The Orioles 29-9 record that season in one-run games was much screwier. It showed the next season where they were in many ways a better team but it did not show in the wins.

[Maxbialystock]

Back to the thread topic. Sox now go to Baltimore for two big ones, both of which are winnable.

[Slasher9]

49 GAMES TO GO.

61-52

 

currently we are in 3rd place in the division, but leading the 2nd WC spot by 0.5 games over dirty Detroit.

 

Division:

3 Games back but only 2 in the loss column.

 

 

UPDATE:

45 GAMES TO GO

 

DIVISION:

3rd in Division (1GB of both baltimore and toronto)

 

WC

2nd WC spot

2 Games ahead of Seattle

[moonslav59]

We can't

 

I am 38 - in the fandom I remember?

 

McNamara - bad

Morgan - good with the media, obviously would need help in hyper-information age ... but overall I liked him

Hobson - let's move on

Kennedy - could have been the best guy of them all, but really believed he was a great manager, which was the downfall

Williams - really good in his way

Kerrigan - Kennedy without the experience or ability to manage

Little - in some ways the right manager at the right time after the Kerrigan disaster. But ultimately the Pedro decision was unforgiveable, and he never was able to fully grasp the notion of the committee bullpen. On one level a bit underrated by Sox fans, but his biggest sin was a mortal one.

Francona - One of only two legitimate choices for the best Sox manager since 1967. Time will put him very much in the Anderson, Alston, Weaver, Herzog, Bochy level of the discussion. (I guess LaRussa - but he makes me angry). If he were your boss in your actual job (assuming he was qualified and trained) - he would be one of the best bosses you ever had.

Valentine - probably a bit underrated by his time here. But he put very little effort into this, while retaining all the ego.

Farrell - A solidly above average manager by the sorts of things you need a manager to do now. But there are definite holes, and tactically he could be better - but there are distinctly worse guys out there. I'd put him in the middle third of managers today.

 

You think this looks close to "great"?

 

Wow!

 

I said our managers have not been "all that great".

[Bellhorn04]

You think this looks close to "great"?

 

Wow!

 

I said our managers have not been "all that great".

 

You also said Francona wouldn't even make a list of the top 40 or 50 managers, which is a real head-scratcher.

[sk7326]

You think this looks close to "great"?

 

Wow!

 

I said our managers have not been "all that great".

 

I was more interested in your gross underrating of Francona than the rest. I think the Red Sox have generally been managed fine - if you define it as "not actively hurting the team". And so much of what a manager does is behind closed doors. I mean - Ned Yost and Ron Washington were comically bad managers tactically ... but they piloted teams which won back to back AL pennants. So they did some part of their job well - because it came out in the product.

 

Farrell gets me mad at times - but then in 2013 he was tactically superior to Leyland and Maddon in head to head matchups. (having the hosses is nice too)

[oldtimer]

I was more interested in your gross underrating of Francona than the rest. I think the Red Sox have generally been managed fine - if you define it as "not actively hurting the team". And so much of what a manager does is behind closed doors. I mean - Ned Yost and Ron Washington were comically bad managers tactically ... but they piloted teams which won back to back AL pennants. So they did some part of their job well - because it came out in the product.

 

Farrell gets me mad at times - but then in 2013 he was tactically superior to Leyland and Maddon in head to head matchups. (having the hosses is nice too)

 

All managers make mistakes which result in lost games. Unless a manager causes internal problems which show up as poor discipline and bad moral, he should be judged based on a full season's work and also based on the quality if players he has to work with. The season's results are numeric but discipline, and quality of players have to be judged subjectively. In Farrell's case, he presided over a meltdown and then was sick for another. The quality of the team has been good this year but with difficulties that DD has tried to resolve in the pitching staff. How well will the team need to place to allow JF to keep his job going forward? I don't know but would think making the playoffs will keep him safe.

[Maxbialystock]

I was more interested in your gross underrating of Francona than the rest. I think the Red Sox have generally been managed fine - if you define it as "not actively hurting the team". And so much of what a manager does is behind closed doors. I mean - Ned Yost and Ron Washington were comically bad managers tactically ... but they piloted teams which won back to back AL pennants. So they did some part of their job well - because it came out in the product.

 

Farrell gets me mad at times - but then in 2013 he was tactically superior to Leyland and Maddon in head to head matchups. (having the hosses is nice too)

 

This all makes a lot of sense to me, especially the behind the scenes stuff which I am usually and blissfully unaware of.

 

I think your rating of Farrell is right on target and could not agree more that he in fact out-managed two good managers in the 2013 ALCS and WS in large part because he had a really good bullpen and some guy named Big Papi.

 

You could also be right about Francona even though, when he was here, there were lots of guys on websites calling him Francoma.

 

Where I disagree with almost everyone is in my preference that managers should not be the keys to winning and losing, the players should. I am fine with the notion that good managers today are good mostly because of the behind the scenes stuff. I am also fine with discussions about in-game managerial decisions as long as they are tempered by the realization that managers have vastly more experience, data, and real-time expert advice than any of us.

[sk7326]

This all makes a lot of sense to me, especially the behind the scenes stuff which I am usually and blissfully unaware of.

 

I think your rating of Farrell is right on target and could not agree more that he in fact out-managed two good managers in the 2013 ALCS and WS in large part because he had a really good bullpen and some guy named Big Papi.

 

You could also be right about Francona even though, when he was here, there were lots of guys on websites calling him Francoma.

 

Where I disagree with almost everyone is in my preference that managers should not be the keys to winning and losing, the players should. I am fine with the notion that good managers today are good mostly because of the behind the scenes stuff. I am also fine with discussions about in-game managerial decisions as long as they are tempered by the realization that managers have vastly more experience, data, and real-time expert advice than any of us.

 

I think that is where we disagree - actively engaging in the game is what fans do. The appeal to authority here is a bit milquetoast - especially when the manager deviates from something fairly obvious. After all, Grady's decision in 2003 was wholly indefensible - even if it worked!

 

Personally, the on-field stuff is about 20% of the job to me ... which means that being meh at it is not fatal to your overall performance. That does not mean that it does not matter, and sometimes it matters a lot. Grady, Ron Washington pulling the infield at an inexplicable time in the World Series.

[sk7326]

This all makes a lot of sense to me, especially the behind the scenes stuff which I am usually and blissfully unaware of.

 

I think your rating of Farrell is right on target and could not agree more that he in fact out-managed two good managers in the 2013 ALCS and WS in large part because he had a really good bullpen and some guy named Big Papi.

 

You could also be right about Francona even though, when he was here, there were lots of guys on websites calling him Francoma.

 

Where I disagree with almost everyone is in my preference that managers should not be the keys to winning and losing, the players should. I am fine with the notion that good managers today are good mostly because of the behind the scenes stuff. I am also fine with discussions about in-game managerial decisions as long as they are tempered by the realization that managers have vastly more experience, data, and real-time expert advice than any of us.

 

The accusations with Francona resembled stuff I heard when I lived in Georgia about Bobby Cox. He did not do a lot of showy, "managery" things - like call lots of bunts, hit and runs, steals, ornate lineup shifts. But - in the long run - letting good players play is a fairly straightforward, high percentage way to be. And certainly Francona did not curtail Ellsbury's itch to run when he was here.

[S5Dewey]

The accusations with Francona resembled stuff I heard when I lived in Georgia about Bobby Cox. He did not do a lot of showy, "managery" things - like call lots of bunts, hit and runs, steals, ornate lineup shifts. But - in the long run - letting good players play is a fairly straightforward, high percentage way to be. And certainly Francona did not curtail Ellsbury's itch to run when he was here.

 

I like to refer to that as "not getting in the player's way", and it's something good managers do very well.

[moonslav59]

I was more interested in your gross underrating of Francona than the rest. I think the Red Sox have generally been managed fine - if you define it as "not actively hurting the team". And so much of what a manager does is behind closed doors. I mean - Ned Yost and Ron Washington were comically bad managers tactically ... but they piloted teams which won back to back AL pennants. So they did some part of their job well - because it came out in the product.

 

Farrell gets me mad at times - but then in 2013 he was tactically superior to Leyland and Maddon in head to head matchups. (having the hosses is nice too)

 

I agree, I did under-rate Tito, but he did "lose the team" near the end. Maybe no manager could have kept those clowns in check.

 

I do think we have had some bad managers. We've had some okay managers. We've had fewer good ones that I'd have wished for, and I still think that since I started following the Sox in 1970, we've had more bad/decent/okay than good, very good/great.

[OriginalUsername]

I was more interested in your gross underrating of Francona than the rest. I think the Red Sox have generally been managed fine - if you define it as "not actively hurting the team". And so much of what a manager does is behind closed doors. I mean - Ned Yost and Ron Washington were comically bad managers tactically ... but they piloted teams which won back to back AL pennants. So they did some part of their job well - because it came out in the product.

 

Farrell gets me mad at times - but then in 2013 he was tactically superior to Leyland and Maddon in head to head matchups. (having the hosses is nice too)

 

If Benoit didn't give up the grand slam in game two, that series is much different. I don't think anything was tactically superior.

[moonslav59]

If Benoit didn't give up the grand slam in game two, that series is much different. I don't think anything was tactically superior.

 

There were some major changes made by Tito though that were questionable:

 

David Ross squeezed out Salty.

 

Jonny Gomes squeezed out Nava, even against RHPs

 

Both appeared to work out well.

 

It kind of reminded me of how they used VTek to catch Lester just about all year long in 2009, then went to VMart in the playoffs. That one appeared to not work so well.

[SoxHop]

This team has to get to the playoffs this year...... this last part of the year it is going to get serious...... I can't wait till we play Toronto...

 

I'm still on this bus/train........... this team can be amazing.....

[moonslav59]

4 cities in 5 days/ 3 flights in 4 days and we almost won 'em all (4-1)!

 

This team has grit.

[moonslav59]

Anybody notice JBj has homered in 4 of his last 6 games?

 

He had a day off before the six.

 

[Dojji]

There were some major changes made by Farrell though that were questionable:

 

Fixed

 

David Ross squeezed out Salty.

 

I was fully down with this. Salty wasn't hitting, and if he's not hitting, Ross is the better catcher. Besides, in the postseason, a catcher's defense >>>>>> his offense.

 

Jonny Gomes squeezed out Nava, even against RHPs

 

Same thing. Nava wasn't getting it done in the playoffs and Gomes was, and neither of them were great defenders.

 

Both appeared to work out well.

 

Agreed

 

It kind of reminded me of how they used VTek to catch Lester just about all year long in 2009, then went to VMart in the playoffs. That one appeared to not work so well.

 

That year there were no good choices. You had the catcher that was always terrible and the catcher who used to be fantastic but was too old to play at that level anymore. I'll never understand why they didn't make a move for a younger catcher that season.

[Bellhorn04]

Fixed

 

 

 

I was fully down with this. Salty wasn't hitting, and if he's not hitting, Ross is the better catcher. Besides, in the postseason, a catcher's defense >>>>>> his offense.

 

 

 

Same thing. Nava wasn't getting it done in the playoffs and Gomes was, and neither of them were great defenders.

 

Agreed

 

That year there were no good choices. You had the catcher that was always terrible and the catcher who used to be fantastic but was too old to play at that level anymore. I'll never understand why they didn't make a move for a younger catcher that season.

 

Ross, of course, didn't squeeze out Salty until the last 3 games of the WS.

 

Gomes only did one thing in the entire postseason, and it didn't happen until Game 4 of the WS, but it was enough to justify the extra AB's Farrell gave him.

[Kingface]

The BP is going to determine how far this team goes. A healthy Koji, a rested Taz and a consistent Kimbrel is the key....... and dare I say it......Paps signing could be huge if it were to happen.

[Nick]

Taz can take a rest on the bench for remainder of the year....get back to me when he pitches well in a meaningful game.

[sk7326]

There were some major changes made by Tito though that were questionable:

 

David Ross squeezed out Salty.

 

Jonny Gomes squeezed out Nava, even against RHPs

 

Both appeared to work out well.

 

It kind of reminded me of how they used VTek to catch Lester just about all year long in 2009, then went to VMart in the playoffs. That one appeared to not work so well.

 

It took until it was late ... and when you actually do get to small samples, some more short sighted changes make sense ... after all there aren't many games left. Indeed the Benoit GS raised questions about the right pitcher against the right guy - granted Ortiz is good.

[Emp9]

The BP is going to determine how far this team goes. A healthy Koji, a rested Taz and a consistent Kimbrel is the key....... and dare I say it......Paps signing could be huge if it were to happen.

 

Despite Paps recent performances, I'm still curious to see what he could give us.

[sk7326]

The BP is going to determine how far this team goes. A healthy Koji, a rested Taz and a consistent Kimbrel is the key....... and dare I say it......Paps signing could be huge if it were to happen.

 

The callup period will be big to be able to audition some guys and figure out what we have. The way the team is shaking down, Price and Porcello seem reliable bets innings wise so Farrell can take a Johnny Wholestaff approach with the rest of the games. That worked for the Royals.

 

This team is a real contender. Not a flawless contender - but I'm in.

[moonslav59]

The BP is going to determine how far this team goes. A healthy Koji, a rested Taz and a consistent Kimbrel is the key....... and dare I say it......Paps signing could be huge if it were to happen.

 

I doubt Paps makes a serious impact wherever he goes.

 

To me, the difference makers may very well end up being Barnes, Hembree, Ross and Ziegler.

[sk7326]

The BP is going to determine how far this team goes. A healthy Koji, a rested Taz and a consistent Kimbrel is the key....... and dare I say it......Paps signing could be huge if it were to happen.

 

Paps has this problem that he is not good anymore

[Thunder]

Despite Paps recent performances, I'm still curious to see what he could give us.

 

The one area in the bullpen in which we are all set is closer. Kimbrel's been pretty good overall. If he loses it down the stretch, Ziegler's been pretty good overall as well, and Koji should be coming back soon, right?

[Kingface]

Paps has this problem that he is not good anymore

 

On July 22nd (less than a month ago) he had a 2.56ERA and 19 saves. I think I would take a flier on him as out 6/7th inning guy. But what do I know......