sk7326

Calling a game is a hole - but the coaching staff can work around that in the short term. Is the pitch framing good? That is more relevant. That said, he has been very good in his AAA stance and there was a job opening. Here is the thing - it is tempting to paternistically keep going "whoa your horses, let's give him more seasoning" - but he has made the organization notice him. That in itself is a good sign.

Obviously it's early - but on the basis of one month, both Ramirez and Sandoval have been good. In actuality - every Red Sox move so far has gone about the median of what one could have expected.

His K-rate has been fine so far, but nobody is confusing him with Pedro Martinez

Miley has been awful - at the same time, he's 28 - his strikeout rate has plunged and his walk rate has skyrocketed ... both well outside of career norms. Considering that he pitched in a launching pad in Arizona (even facing the pitcher hitting), the strong likelihood is that this will settle down.

Got to be in it to win it.

Easy game if nobody is making you get any hits

That out that circled around and went down the toilet would be nice about now

If it came from the bench that is grounds for justifiable homicide

Did Farrell have a lobotomy? Can Cherington come out of the manager's box with a vaudeville cane for this?

BTW: I am not necessarily putting a ton on the manager's door - we know that managing matters a lot - but more in the "stuff we don't see" areas. (after all, both the A's and Yankees repeated titles after managerial changes in the 70s) But Baltimore created a very large window of opportunity during Weaver's time which few teams were able to sustain. It is kind of funny that Weaver and Bobby Cox are basically exact parallels in this sort of respect. An extraordinary run of consistent excellence - with a title but felt like there should have been more. Dick Williams was a great manager - but also like Billy Martin had a fairly limited shelf life. (fortunately not the creep Billy Martin was of course) From the evidence, Williams was not a great program builder - but great if you had a short window of opportunity.

The NL had more WS wins than the AL over Weaver's 15 year career by the whopping score of 8 to 7 ...

I think it is clear too that the philosophy for position players and pitchers is much different with regards to these things (as it ought to be) ...

I don't have visions of him winning a Cy Young - or even a regular turn in a good rotation. But he had 5 innings in him in a bullpen where nobody else did. Over the marathon there is intrinsic value there ... granted I doubt we'll be piling up 19 inning games. And the thing with the knuckleballer is that if he has an emergency turn - there is at least a chance it can be very good.

The tactics are undersold ... Among the earlier guys to look at splits, matchups vs pitchers (some SSS issues there, but nobody's perfect), developing young pitchers through middle relief. His views on the four man rotation might (with significant workload alteration) make more sense now than ever. A lot of those "Weaver on Strategy" insights were ahead of their time.

In some ways it is a shame that Weaver's best known for his, umm ... theatrical ejections. Because for modern baseball tactical minds, there was probably nobody better. He might not have won as many championships as others - but in a way it's like Bobby Cox. Getting your team to the rodeo as often as he did says at least as much as rings.

No, but I think you need to get to the 40 game mark to really start to say we've learned something about this team one way or the other ... and even then it's not a hell of a lot

Different sport - not games every day ... defeat is not a fact of the game ... players are used to be treated like crap from Pop Warner

I think he was done to be fair - 8 years ib Boston is 95 anywhere else.

I don't know if that's true - he protected them in the press, but in Boston what decent boss wouldn't? He basically (and Farrell) was like the boss you'd have in a normal career job. Treat grown ups like grownups. It is hard to say what of the revelations represented actual weird behavior/disrespect and how much was just stuff that would not have been an issue if the team won an additional game. The media in Boston is mostly terrible of course.

Are you sure? They seem like different cases ... Bard was tried at a starter, failed and then converted to a reliever. That he could recover starter chops was the mistake. EVERY prospect (guy with a major league ceiling) starts as a starter. Workman at this point is not a starter - but the Sox were absolutely right to try it until he proved otherwise conclusively. (it means turning a lineup over at least twice like you said, and usually a credible third pitch)

From what I gather - Rodriguez is the stuff guy and Johnson is the probability guy and Owens is a bit of both. Given where he was when the Sox landed him, Rodriguez being any sort of 2015 possibility is a remarkable leap forward. That is, Johnson is the least likely to bust of the pitchers they have - but also the least likely to be anything more than a #4 sort (which is not a dig - who wouldn't love a cheap #4).

Right now they have the run differential fundamentals of a slightly above .500 team. (obviously very little of the schedule played - I recognize that using run differential right now is flawed, but work with me) At 7-4, they have wins in the bank they don't need to worry about projection wise (the way that your past die rolls do not impact future ones). Given that, a crude projection is 83-84 wins .. which very much falls in "2nd Wild Card possibility" land. Put simply - they play this way they should be able be wait out the pitching market.

LOBs mean you are generating chances - and probably converting them too. If a team gets 15 baserunners a game, leaves 8 a game and hits into 1 double play ... THAT'S STILL SIX RUNS!! Here is the thing - Francona was not against running - he was fervently against making outs. (also why the Red Sox are generally near the bottom in sacrifice bunts) When you have versions of prime Mueller, Ortiz, Ramirez, Pedroia, Youkilis, Varitek and more ... giving your big dogs a chance to do their jobs without risking additional outs is generally sensible. If you have base stealers, straight steals make sense. Hit and runs depend on the guys - because you are taking a decision out of the hitters' hands, and you are basically punting on the possibility of a 3-run homer. Cleveland has a .281 team OBP so far. If they could (and did) run like the 1985 Cardinals - that ain't generating more runs. There is also no number of 3-run homers that can work around a team of Will Middlebrooks' statistically. Their issues are much more fundamental - and something which Francona has to just hope the guys hit their way out of. Holding baserunners I had more of an issue with - although the general philosophy of the Sox I am basically in favor of. Stolen bases are a pain, but if you get the guy at the plate out, it doesn't matter. The cost-benefit of slide steps, extra concentration on the baserunner vs focusing on the guy more likely to deliver the damage (the hitter).

I like him too - although at times you get the sense that he would not tell you that the best way to win games is "get lots of good players"

Wright was fine. 5 innings saved the staff in the sort of game which could mess up an entire weekend. He is useful for letting Farrell manage the bullpen normally.