Kimmi

Well, that explains why I didn't know what it meant. LOL I got the wake part, but I was racking my brain trying to think of what someone would be baking so early in the morning that would result in failed thought.

If Fister can pitch like he did today, I'll take that any day of the week.

As far as adding a big bat to 'fix' our offensive woes, sure a big bat would help. However, the solution has to start with the guys that we have. If they keep looking as feeble as they have in many games, a big bat is not going to be the difference maker. In other words, the lack of a power bat is not our problem. We have enough power on this team. The problem is that the guys that we have are playing with their heads up their butts.

Signing guys like Moreland for shorter term contracts is the way to go rather than signing the big name free agents for huge contracts. I'd even pay more money per year to get a shorter length.

Personally, I was okay with Hanley's contract.

I keep waiting for this offense to produce like they should, and I keep being let down. Right now, I have zero confidence in our offense. None. On a bright note, Fister looked pretty darn good. Also, we're still in first place.

I often wonder about a manager taking a reliever out after only one inning when that reliever just dominated in the inning. If Kelly takes the side down in order on 10 pitches, why not leave him in or another inning? I know there are valid reasons for not leaving him in, but I have questioned this before.

Well, no one ever said that a manager doesn't have any impact. The impact of in game decisions is just not as significant as you think it is. I would have gone with Kimbrel once Barnes walked the first two batters because it was the % move, IMO. And even though the % difference in win expectancy is not large at all, that doesn't mean you shouldn't go with the % move. That said, keep in mind that every move has a not only a positive impact, but also a negative impact in some other way. For instance, if Kimbrel is used in the 8th and can't pitch in the 9th, then there is a negative impact in the 9th. This makes the overall impact of a manager's move even smaller. Therefore, it really is not correct to say that Farrell cost the team that win. It takes way more than one 'bad' decision to cost a win. It goes against the human way of thinking, but it's all about win expectancy and the inability to know what would have happened in the game had the other decision been made. If you're interested, here is a very good read on manager's decision making impact with some actual numbers: https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/10/21/9574081/the-impact-of-managerial-mistakes

First off, if you're going to quote me, especially in a sarcastic nature, at least do so correctly. Barnes may only have 12 Holds, which is a stupid stat, but he has been effective in those Hold situations. In other words, he is not blowing the Holds, which actually get recorded as blown saves. I don't disagree about moving Kelly to the 8th inning, but while Barnes is not always efficient, he is getting the job done for the most part.

Ha. As I was posting that, I 100% knew that someone would bring up the clutch argument in response. I almost put a disclaimer in my post about it. I have posted before that emotions and mental state have a big effect on players' performances. Was it a clutch performance? Absolutely. Is it a repeatable skill? Probably not.

For Farrell, no. That's not my point. My point is that the people who criticize Farrell for making the 'wrong' decision are not considering the other variables. It's not as cut and dry as the arm chair managers think it is.

I would not put it past Dombrowski to do something like this, and overpay in the process. He is 'all in' for the next 3 years, so if he sees adding a 3B as the difference maker, he is not going to stop one piece short. I did read somewhere that Moustakas has a terrible out of zone swing rate, no better than Pablo's. That is something to beware of.

I know that the deal with these decisions everyday. I am saying that the decision to pinch hit one batter over another is not as simple as just saying that Batter A is a better hitter than Batter B. A manager takes much more into consideration than what fans do. And they are very adept at dealing with all of the variables to consider.

It would improve the shortstop defense, but it would be a step back in the 3B defense over Marrero.

I'm sure this would be very funny if I knew what a "Wake and Bake" was. I can't see the Bogaerts/Lin combo being any better than the Marrero/Bogaerts combo.

The idea of moving Xander to 3B and acquiring a shortstop instead of a 3B could have some merit, but I think it creates more problems than it solves. 1. Xander was not good defensively at 3B, so I don't know how the move would be solidifying the infield anymore than what Marrero is doing at 3B. 2. We risk losing some of Xander's offense by moving him to 3B. He is on record as saying that the move to 3B when Drew was signed to play shortstop had a negative impact on him. From what I can tell, Xander does not want to be moved off of shortstop. 3. The idea sounds like we would be creating one or more holes to fill another. At best, I see it as a 0 net gain move.

I have posted before that I think he was the right guy for job, but because of the clubhouse management, not the in game management.

The decisions are not as simple as you make them out to be.

Price was not the problem last night. He is not pitching like an ace, but he pitched well enough to give the offense a chance. This offense is frustrating beyond words. I know they are better than this, even without Ortiz.

I love this post, and I hope this is the reason why they let Vazquez hit. I think it's important for a manager to give his players a vote of confidence like that.

Our team has really not fired on all cylinders yet. The Yankees were firing on all cylinders for most of the first two months of the season. And yet, we are still tied for 1st place having not played our best baseball.

Good point. We fans tend to forget that there is much more that goes into a decision than what we realize.

I was questioning on another site if Tanaka is only able to pitch well when there is a lot of hype surrounding the match up.

Thanks Ben!

In other words, the team won in spite of Maddon.