Kimmi

I hear you Carpin. I would be a nervous wreck if the Sox were playing in the wild card game. Elimination games are not for the faint hearted. LOL

That was the Year of the Enigma!!!

I was just reading how Pablo hit a walk off home run in the Giants last regular season game yesterday. The problem is, that win cost the Giants the first overall draft pick. LOL Poor guy can't catch a break.

In! Let's go!!!

Unfortunately for me, it is pretty much wishful thinking. I don't think anyone is really giving the Twins much of a chance. Anything can happen, but I will be shocked if the Twins win that game.

I just posted in another thread that I think the job a manager does off the field is far more important than making the in game decisions. Keep the train on the tracks, as you say. Boston has to be one of the hardest places to keep everything together. As far as the in game decisions go, I don't think he's really much better or much worse than most of the managers.

I'm with you oldtimer. It will be interesting to see how Farrell manages the pitching in the postseason. Also, I'm sure that he will continue his aggressive baserunning strategy, especially since the Astros are not one of the better teams at controlling the running game. It will be interesting to see how that impacts the games. The Astros like to run too, though they are not as successful at it as the Red Sox are. I'm looking forward to it. There's nothing as fun (and nerve wracking) as playoff baseball.

It's now sounding like the injury question marks surrounding both Pedroia and Nunez will necessitate Farrell having that 5 man bench.

I know it's oversimplification, and I said that mostly tongue in cheek. I just think if we're going to blame Farrell for losses, then he should get some credit for the wins. That said, my opinion has always been that the job that a manager does off the field is more important than his in game decisions. This team has been scrutinized a lot this season. First, the Pedroia/Machado incident. Then the Price/Eck incident. There was an argument caught on tape between Farrell and Pom. There was a lot of distraction with what to do with Pablo and his contract. The leadership on this team was questioned repeatedly, not just here but in the media. So was whether the team had the 'fire' or the make up of a championship team. Through all of that, Farrell and the team somehow held it all together and came out on top of the division. Farrell has to get some credit for that.

I will trust Farrell and management to make the right call. They have all of that data, plus data that we are not privy to, not to mention all of the non-statistical information, available to them to make the best informed decision. Of course, even the right decision doesn't always work.

Non-significant baseball > regular season football. Go Red Sox!!!

Going into September of 2011, making the playoffs was about as locked as a situation can be. Nothing is locked until it actually is.

I am 100% on board with this!

Farrell is as much a part of the reason we won as he is part of the reason we lost. Since we won far more than we lost, he must have done a good job.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. I will sometimes question the calls made by a manager, but I try to give them the benefit of the doubt because they know how to manage MLB games better than any of us do.

If Hanley can get his shoulders truly healthy, and that's a big if, I think he can be a very good player for us next year. I'm pulling for him.

We will need a bench guy like Nunez who can play virtually every day. Nunez will have plenty of at bats if he is re-signed. Pedroia factoid I read this morning: Gordon Edes 25m In season where total number of strikeouts will exceed 40,000 for 1st time, Dustin Pedroia K'd 48 times, fewest for any player with 450+ PA

I agree that Hanley will likely not beat his 2016 production. However, I think he can certainly rebound from this year.

None of the games today have any playoff implications. Just a fun, relaxing day of baseball. Go Sox!!!

I'd like to see him have a good outing, just so he has a positive to take with him into the offseason. Go Sox!!!

That's exactly where I am. Gut feelings. Do they work? LOL

I moved this to the Farrell thread, so as not to hijack the other thread. I disagree with your thinking in your first paragraph. Just because a run did not score or a play did not lead to runs, that does not mean that a play was not as significant to the outcome of the game as a run scoring play was. Price's pitching in the 7th inning last night to keep the Astros from scoring was a pretty big moment. Now, I absolutely agree that some plays have more leverage than others. That's obvious. That means that some managerial decisions have more impact than others. That said, because there is no way of knowing what might have happened in the alternate scenario, you have to go by run or win expectancy before the play happens. And the difference between leaving pitcher A in the game versus bringing in pitcher B just isn't as large as people think. There's a difference, and there is a 'right' call statistically. But that right call might be so insignificant that Farrell's judgment based on intangibles might trump the statistics. In the above mentioned case, the difference between leaving Price in to face the batter versus bring Reed in was probably very, very small. However, if Price had given up a grand slam, the decision not to bring in Reed looks huge, after the fact.

I just want to give another shout out to Pom. I can't say enough how huge I think his performance yesterday was. Also: Drew Pomeranz made 10 starts against teams that have qualified for the 2017 postseason: the Sox went 9-1 in those games (6-1, 2.62 ERA).

Oh, no doubt. I'm not talking about pulling someone who has pitched a no hitter through 5 if we're up by 3 runs or more. But if it's a 2-2 tie, and the starter walks the first batter in the 6th, then perhaps. The decision will not be cut and dry, but in general, a reliever will have better success than a starter going through the order for the 3rd time. And we have a strong pen.

You are, of course, correct.