jad

Ha. I don't believe I ever said or implied that good rh hitters haven't been successful at Fenway (Rice, G. Scott, Manny, etc.). It's just that taking ordinary rh hitters and putting them in Fenway as if something magical will happen doesn't work, despite the number of times it's been tried. Good hitters are good hitters wherever you put them (Manny and Ortiz will hit well wherever they are). Mediocre hitters, well, there's a reason they've been mediocre in stadiums other than Fenway.

For as long as I have been following them, the RS have found big old dumb right-handed .250 hitters irresistible, despite the evidence that the greatest and most successful hitters in Fenway have been LH-- WIlliams (who I believe lost the batting title to Pete Runnels, another left handed hitter), Yastrzemski, Boggs, and both the no. 1 and 2 hitters last year (Ortiz and Nava, languishing on the bench this year and during the playoffs in favor of another big, dumb RH hitter--Gomes). Ah those heralded names: Ray Boone, Jack Clark, ... and who could forget Mike Cameron?

If clutch existed to any meaningful extent, it would be easily documented. And it hasn't been. It's the same as what to most of us seems obvious: that basketball players get on 'hot' streaks. Of course they do ... Except they don't, and hot streaks have been shown to be indistinguishable from chance performance (right--Bird had more of them than, say, Jim Luscatof, because he has a higher fg percentage). Same goes for "protection" for hitters, which has repeatedly been shown to be mythical. And of course, the idiotic bunt sacrifice and moving the runner up (not rocket science--the most bases you can 'move the runner up with an out' in an inning is two, and unfortunately ... oh well). But so what? We watch sports for the mythology, not the reality! That's why when Gomes claims responsibility for WS wins, there will always be those who believe him. Maybe our clinging to the notion of 'intangibles' gives us the illusion that we too can 'get our minds right' and be professional athletes too. Sure. Just as I see no reason the RS can't go on a run, win all their final games, and bring another WS back this year.

You're forgetting Kelly Johnson! A force whose lifetime BA is almost 50 points higher than Drew's this year! What a coup. They should put 2015 WS tix on sale today.

Plan? Efficiency? Yes, it's cheaper to field an outfield of Jonny Gomes's than to sign Lester. And you have something left over to field a few league-minimum players as well. That, I suppose, then leaves you the headroom to sign superstars like Steven Drew, Jake Peavy, and support them with those trusty veterans like AJP and Sizemore.

Lester scratched for tomorrow night. I guess I don't understand how you 'build for the future' by getting rid of your best player. Although I do see that getting rid of Jacoby caused a huge turn-around in their record the following year ...

Oh no! Losing a 1-9 starter, who was making a mere $15million/yr. The season is lost.

I still can't believe that other teams don't want an aging, 1-8 Jake Peavy, with his luxurious contract as a bonus. He's got that tough-guy, just-win attitude so characteristic of other present Red Sox superstars (J. Gomes), a powerhouse .230 hitter, who was singularly responsible for the WS last year.

Whew. Finally someone with a sense of irony.

I don't get this. How many teams are in the market for an old, 1-7 pitcher? Probably the same number that were salivating for Preizinski (or however you spell that). And the same number who couldn't wait to get a chance at a $14mil/year .140 hitting shortstop earlier this season. Or perhaps the same teams who need a .230 hitting mediocre outfielder who will be willing to take complete credit for all their future success.

Trade Uehara?? And then what? Do the names Bailey, Hanrahan, etc. ring a bell? He's probably dollar for dollar the most valuable asset the Sox have. For the kind of money he makes, the Sox will pick up what? Another Jonny Gomes?

Are there really people arguing that a .120 hitter should be in the lineup rather than a .320 hitter? (Or did John Farrel somehow set up multiple Talk Sox accounts).

Oh ok. But you're really talking next year, right? I just can't see any team picking up a $10 Drew (they all had the opportunity to do this, and no one did), or a $15 mil Peavy. What you're saying is that the Sox can just get rid of them (even if it means paying some of this year's salary), and start again. So in that sense, yes, they can change their commitment from underperforming veterans to prospects (but it won't be free).

I gave up long before this. Anyone know why Nava was pinch-hitting? Did it have to do with the way Ortiz walked off the plate after his inglorious sac fly?

Wait. I don't understand. I realize that they have grossly overpaid some underperforming players. Exctly how does that make them 'flexible'? Who in the world would want these guys?

Youngster! You missed the Ike Delock, Gary Geiger, Don Buddin years! (But you're right--it's a completely bizarre 3 seasons, actually 4, if you count the September meltdown the year before--the record also destroys the seemingly rational narrative that could be constructed around, say, the evils of Josh Beckett and Bobby Valentine).

I have hope. If they can just win tonight, they will only need to win the next six to match their historic pace of 2012--a performance that of course resulted in a WS win the following year.

Well maybe. But a 'decent' bat is not likely to help. They got more than a 'decent' bat completely out of the blue when HOlt showed up--WOW--a .330 hitter!! (far better than anything that will show up on the market now). But what good did it do? Since no one else (with the exception of Napoli) is performing, it's a complete waste of swings. A .280 hitter is not going to turn this team around. As I believe Cherington said a few weeks ago, the only thing that can help is for players to perform as they're capable of performing, and almost none of them are.

Pitching is not the reason the RS are horrible this season. As long as you are having off-years from Ortiz, Pedroia, dismal years from Nava, Bradley, Drew, and non-existent years from Victorino, Middlebrooks, (and now Sizemore), looking at pitching seems a waste of time.

Right now, .337 with a slugging percentage higher than Ortiz. What I'd like to see is the two best hitters on the field until they show they can't hit: Bogaerts and HOlt. Drew can stay on the bench, since he's already shown that he can't hit, until he's needed, and right now, he's not needed. The 9million dollar hit isn't magically lessened by playing the guy. I realize Farrell's man crush on S.D. will prevent this. But it does seem odd that the least versatile, most expensive, lightest hitting guy is the one that seems to have the most secure position.

Hmm. What a dumb-ass. Maybe this is why they kept Farrell on as manager when they knew perfectly well I was available.

It also will put the guy who is presently your best hitter (Brock Holt!!!) on the bench, giving up about a hundred points in BA in the process. (The same sort of drop that happened with Bradley for Ellsbury, and Nava, alas, for himself.)

When hitters no. 7 and 8 (who have been doing well), are suddenly thrown into the 1 and 2 spots, because no one else seems to be able to hit, things can't be good. Maybe Farrell decided this was the only way to put the kind of pressure on them that would surely result in settling them back into the bottom of the order.

Ah yes. Winning is ALWAYS bad. Fortunately, when I started watching them in the 50s, that really wasn't a problem.

Well, you're right. The only time I watched him closely at the plate was during last year's post-season, where he looked as bad as any ML hitter I've ever seen. The other times I looked for him, he was generally on the DL or on the bench. Let's just hope he plays well enough this year so that we can go through the same 'qualifying offer' routine we did this year (am I right that you can do this for consecutive years?)