Maxbialystock

You probably know better than I, but last year I thought one of the team's pitching strengths was having three, even four long relievers: Whitlock, Valdez, and even Houck and Richards. Plus Pivetta in the postseason. Plus I thought Houck was a good choice to follow Hill in the middle game (Wed, May 25) @ the White Sox because to me that was always a very winnable game. I don't mind you saying that maybe Hill could have gone another inning, but the fact is that the Sox lost that one because the hitting disappeared and Devers made that error for one unearned run. I do agree with the overall statement that the Sox need a closer. But I'm not as sure as you that Houck is that guy. Moreover, last night's loss was the result of a total collapse by the bullpen--with Strahm the perfect example. Before last night he had gone 9 consecutive scoreless appearances (and 7.2 scoreless inning) going back to April 26. So what does he do but give up 5 hits and 4 runs (3 earned). Here's a not very important thought. I cannot remember the last time the Sox played a night game that started @ 8:10 EDT and lasted 4 hours, followed by a plane trip, Chicago to Boston, to play the next night (last night) at 7:10. So maybe the bullpen was tired, pissed, or both because four out of four of them stunk.

Great streak, however. So you have our thanks. I personally and probably stupidly think a big score today/tonight usually leads to a lot less hitting the next day/night. It could be from running the bases or maybe losing focus on swing mechanics.

The Sox have spent big and won the most WS--four--in MLB during the John Henry era. But I don't think they've indulged in bidding wars to keep players. Indeed, lots of players have left the Sox for bigger bucks elsewhere. I completely disagree that spending big for one great player changes things because you need 9 good bats/fielders and about a thousand good arms to go all the way. The Phillies signed Bryce Harper for $330M and are no better with him than they were without him. I do, however, recognize the "star power" of the best players. Fans want to see them play. Right now that certainly applies to Devers, who is terrific fun to watch despite that humungous wad of chewing tobacco. Bryce Harper, I hasten to add, has increased attendance for the Phillies, so paying him $330M may have been smart. I do not think paying Devers $330M or $350M would be worth it, but that decision belongs to Bloom and JH.

Another good win. Like others, I always worry about the next game after the Sox score a zillion runs.

You are attacking Cora based on the hypothetical notion that Whitlock would be an ace closer, and there is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. There is evidence he is a good long reliever and potentially a good starter.

I do agree that good pitching staffs, starters and relievers, can win games when the hitting isn't there. But, while I think this year's Sox staff has slightly exceeded my expectations--given the absence of Sale, et al--it is hardly a great pitching staff. The team ERA is 3.80 and ranked 9th in the AL. Relatedly, guess which AL team has the lowest ERA? Houston--2.85. They also have 10 saves to the Sox 8 saves, which to me offers the argument that a great reliever is not the be-all-and-end-all of a successful pitching staff. Indeed, as I argued up above, coming into this season Bloom and Cora actually had two bonafide, successful closers in Barnes and Robles. Of course, last year we saw Barnes crap out in the same season in which he seemed to have become the perfect closer with that deadly knuckle curve and upper 90's fastball. This year he seems to have neither. Robles had 23 saves (ERA 2.48) 3 years ago for the Angels and 10 last year for the Angels and 4 for the Sox. This year he has 2 saves and 3 blown saves. So clearly neither Barnes, ERA 6.59, nor Robles (ERA 2.65) is going to be a good closer. You have consequently argued that Whitlock needs to take that role, which, however, would reduce his innings and compel Bloom and Cora to make someone else a starter even though Whitlock has the repertoire to be an effective starter. And, in case you're interested, so far he has accumulated 3 saves and 4 blown saves in his 1+ seasons with the Sox. While we can continue to agree that the closer situation on the Sox stinks, we will not agree that the reason for this is mismanagement by Cora.

Your roommate was not alone. This year Vazquez is determined to establish himself as the worst baserunner in Sox history, but in this case we need to know what the 3b coach was signaling. I rewatched the play several times and am willing to give Vazquez a pass. It was a great throw from right field and barely beat Vazquez. Plus it's possible the catcher dropped the ball, which the ump couldn't see, nor could the replay guys in NYC.

Your roommate was not alone. This year Vazquez is determined to establish himself as the worst baserunner in Sox history, but in this case we need to know what the 3b coach was signaling.

Your favorite complaint, with which I heartily disagree. Oh, I'm not against a good closer and in fact thought we had one last year in Barnes and possibly this year in Robles. But to me this team this year has had to rely heavily on a lot of innings pitched by the bullpen, long before the closer gets a chance to seal the deal. Eovaldi has started 9 games and averaged 5.1 innings; Pivetta 8 starts, 5.1 innings per; Wacha 6 starts, 5 innings per; Hill 7 starts, 4.1 innings per. And you completely ignore how important those middle inning relievers have been to keep the Sox in a game before the closer can close. And you also ignore the harsher reality that the lineup needs to score runs. In these five straight wins the Sox have scored 5, 12, 7, 6, and 8 runs. In the five game losing streak earlier in May the Sox scored 5, 0, 2, 1, and 2 runs.

Hill got hit, but I think he's still a pretty good 5th man after Wacha, Whitlock, Pivetta, and Eovaldi. Of those four, Wacha and Whitlock have the good ERA's (1.38 and 2.43), but Pivetta and Eovaldi each have three quality starts. Pivetta and Eovaldi lead in starts with 8 each, and Pivetta has thrown the most innings, 42.2 vs. Eovaldi's 41.2. I don't have the stats, but my impression of this pitching staff is that none of them can throw the heater with impunity--and especially not Eovaldi.

Sox took 2 of 3 @ Texas and 2 of 3 vs. the Astros--and now the first game vs. the Mariners. In none of those 7 games was the score close. No closer has emerged. In the five wins the Sox scored 7, 11, 6, 5, and 12 runs--and scored just 1 and 4 runs in the two losses in which Texas scored 7 runs and Houston 13. Sox are now 19th in MLB in runs scored, also in team OPS. Sox ERA, 3.85, is 17th in MLB. Sox are 6-4 in their last 10 and the Yankees 8-2 with the Sox 12 games back with a run differential of -8 to the Yankees +72. The 162 game season is divisible by 9, which means there are nine 18-game "innings" and the Sox just started the 3d inning. Eovaldi's pummeling notwithstanding, I'm starting to like the rotation--but not the bullpen. The hitting is only mostly dead, and the defense is adequate.

A word about TBS. When the Sox were recently in Atlanta to play the Braves, that game was also on TBS, but not for me. MLB blackout restrictions are really serious. I will get this game, however, because my restrictions apply only to games vs. the Braves, Orioles, and Nationals.

Good thoughts, very well written. Fenway Park is still the only MLB park which is a lead character in a successful movie--Fever Pitch. No other movie gives the actual ballpark--inside and outside--so much attention. I thought this was a big win and the polar opposite of so many losses we have seen this season. I tuned out during the rain delay, but luckily came back and watched the 8th and top of the 9th on my cell phone. Astros look as good as ever--too bad about Odorrizi--but the Sox were better.

A good point. However, this specific Sox team tends to remain in whatever offensive hole they dig for themselves.

Exactly. I'm still mad at Brasier, but scoring just 1 run took the bullpen out of play. The game was not winnable.

I'm much more in favor of pink slips than robot umps although I believe MLB umps are unionized and therefore unpinkslippable. Last night's ump did not cause the Sox to lose that game. If the Braves could have picked one Sox batter they would want to face with the bases loaded last night, it would have been Plawecki, he of the .152 BA, .171 OBP, and .353 OPS. The called 3d strike was justice being served and a redress of the two wrongly called balls earlier in the count. If we're being honest, last night's loss was completely consistent with the way the Sox have been playing and especially losing this season.

Meh. Bad call, I agree, but at least two of the "balls" thrown to Plawecki could easily have been called strikes. Definitely a weak ump behind the plate last night.

Of course.

Last night my TBS channel was blocked because they were showing the Sox game, and MLB's blackout rules decree I can't watch the Sox playing the Orioles, Nationals, or Braves because I live in Greensboro, NC.

Wow. Cora did it: Plawecki in for Vazquez to get the most out of our ace. Rest of the lineup is same as last night-- Enrique Devers JDM Bogey Verdugo Story Cordero Plawecki JBJ

Lots of slow starts. moonslav makes the case that big changes could happen this summer, but probably not the kind we want. It could be a fire sale with the intent of getting back prospects.

Tune every heart and every voice, Bid every care withdraw; Let all with one accord rejoice, In praise of Old Nassau. In praise of Old Nassau we sing, Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah! Our hearts will give, while we shall live, Three cheers for Old Nassau.

Probably a dumb idea, but the player is great fun to watch--quick and agile in the outfield, excellent arm, very good bat. I like New York, New York more than Sweet Caroline, but the movie Fever Pitch redresses that imbalance.

While I agree OPS is a better stat than mere batting average, I just like the idea of batting less than .200. Crash Davis says 1 hit more a week gets you from .250 to .300 for a season, but that also means one less hit per week drops you to .200. According to espn stats, 149 MLB hitters are at or above OPS .600 and 158 MLB hitters have batting averages of .200 or better. So this year OPS .600 is a slightly tougher (and more comprehensive) standard.