Maxbialystock

If Anderson doesn't have that WP???????!!!!!!! To me the wild pitch is one more strong piece of evidence that Anderson wasn't ready to pitch, didn't have good stuff, didn't have good command, etc. Guess how many Snell had in 73 pitches. That's right, none. I mean, seriously, how could any pitcher in the post game interview say, "I was doing great except for the double and wild pitch that turned that inning into a disaster. If they ain't hitting it out of the park, I'm doing my job.

To me the fact that the Rays only scored one run only reinforces the notion that you stay with Snell because he was their best means of winning a low scoring game. Or have you never heard of a pitching duel? Have you even heard of Johnny Podres who shut out the Yankees in game 7 of the 1955 WS?

If Cash really said that, he is a raving idiot. As I just pointed out to Notin, how come Cash didn't follow that plan in the previous game when his starter Glasnow went five innings, gave up 4 runs, and faced--wait for it--24 batters. Cash and the Rays had a great season, especially given their payroll. But that doesn't mean Cash never makes mistakes.

Yeah, that's why Mookie broke into a grin when he saw Cash pull Snell--and why his manager smiled back at him--because Anderson in that situation was going to be much tougher than Snell. I have no doubt that the game plan was to pull Snell after he had pitched to the Dodgers lineup twice, but that's my point. Cash had zero situation awareness and did not care that: Snell was having a career night and had struck out the next three batters all six times he faced them; Anderson was tired; Anderson was not effective against the Dodgers in this World Series; Snell had only thrown 73 pitches. And while we're on the topic of Kevin Cash's genius and superior situational awareness, please explain to me how in the previous game (when the Dodgers won 4-2 and went up 3 games to 2) Cash decided to leave Glasnow in for 5 innings, 103 pitches, and 4 cotton picking runs, including 2 dingers? And what happened to the "don't let him pitch to the Dodgers lineup a third time" rule? I ask because by my count Glasnow faced 24 Dodger batters (15 outs, 6 hits, and 3 walks). Snell, having a spectacular game, was jerked after facing 18 batters.

Are you joking? Are you really saying that, short of giving up back to back dingers, Anderson was doing fine out there? He gave up a hard hit double to the same guy Snell had struck out twice in the game and then made a wild pitch. He himself said after the game he did not have good command or good stuff.

A fair point, but, based on the responses so far, I'd have to say no one on talksox (so far) is arguing to go with the computer no matter what. And that's my quarrel. Computers are here to stay, but last night Kevin Cash reminded me of the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz: "I haven't got a brain." Even worse, I'm betting the Rays President of Baseball Operations (or whatever they call him) is fine with a brainless manager as long as he does what the computer tells him to do. They Rays have their systems, and they sticks to 'em. I am of course exaggerating because I certainly don't think Kevin Cash is brainless. Nevertheless, I thought he at least implied last night that he would make the same decision again because computers know better.

German officers have/had a term--fingerspitzengefuhl--that means "finger tip feel" and refers to a commander's situational awareness of what is happening on the battlefield. I think the best football coaches, even the ones who rely heavily on computers and game plans, assistants in the press boxes, etc, have that situational awareness and that it helps them make what are often spur of the moment decisions on who to play and what formation/play should be used. Baseball used to be that way. Remember Grady Little's decision to keep Pedro Martinez on the mound in the 2003 ALCS game which allowed the Yankees to come back? Grady had lousy situational awareness and was correctly fired after that season. But to my way of thinking those kinds of human errors are the essence of sports and baseball and should be celebrated (unless your a huge Sox fan, which I am). These days MLB managers rely less and less on understanding what is happening on the field and more and more on what the computer says. Last night Kevin Cash displayed that phenomenon perfectly. And, by the way, substituting computer sense for situational awareness has worked wonderfully for the Rays. They have a codified system for acquiring players (on a very low payroll), developing them, and now orchestrating how they are positioned on the field, when and how pitching changes are made, etc. Cash confirmed this last part last night. It mattered not a whit to him that Snell was pitching the game of a lifetime (5.1 innings, 73 pitches, 9 K's, 0 walks, 0 runs, 9 K's) or that Snell had struck out the next three batters (Betts, Seager, Turner) he would have faced six out of six plate appearance. What did matter is that the computer told him that the third time through the batting order is fraught with peril--indeed, hopeless--no matter how well the starter is pitching. The computer also did not care that Anderson, the guy who came in, was tired and had an ERA of over 7 (which became 9) in this WS. And, if the computer didn't care, Kevin Cash didn't either. And neither does the Rays hierarchy. What was it Humphrey Bogart said near the end of the movie, The African Queen? "The Germans have their systems and they sticks to 'em." Let me hasten to add that all managers use computers today all the time: before games, during games, after games. So it's clearly too late to put that genie back in the bottle. Indeed, I suspect that Dave Roberts relied heavily on computer information to make six pitching changes last night (he used 7 pitchers). It's remotely possible that Kevin Cash was resentful that he couldn't pull Snell out sooner because these days that's how managers show how smart they are--they bring in a new pitcher. Only dumb managers rely on players (more than computers) to win the games. Speaking of situational awareness, I thought the Dodgers displayed far more of it than the Rays, who in one game had men on 2d and 3d and no outs when the batter hit a grounder to the third baseman. That resulted in both runners being thrown out and the batter ending up on 1B. On the other hand, whenever Mookie Betts was on base, it usually spelled trouble because he knew when to gamble, plus the Rays players routinely made the wrong defensive play under pressure.

Kevin Cash seems to think players don't win ball games; managers do. Plus he loves nothing more that to march out, get rid of the guy on the mound, and bring in a "fresh arm." What a crock. Kevin Cash lacks fingerspitzengefuhl. And the notion that the Rays lineup are the real culprits is just baloney. Bringing in Anderson was monumentally dumb because he promptly gave Mookie (the same guy Snell struck out twice) a double and then threw a wild pitch, which brought home the tying run and put the go ahead run on 3B win just one out. Rotten pitching, dumb manager, simple as that.

Gotcha. Grady little was an idiot for leaving Pedro in, and Kevin Cash was an idiot for pulling Snell--who pitched better tonight against the Dodgers than any Rays pitcher has. Also: Snell had only thrown 73 pitches; the Rays bullpen has not been all that reliable; and Snell had already struck Mookie out twice. Kevin Cash lacks fingerspitzengefuhl and seems to think that players don't win ball games; managers do. He was probably outraged that Snell was going to win game 6 for the Rays when that honor belonged to the manager.

Snell looked really tired to me. He could barely make it back to the dugout. Plus it's obvious now he threw way too many fastballs. Somewhere Grady Little is smiling.

I hated losing Iglesias too, not because I thought the Sox needed him, but because he was such great fun to watch at SS.

I usually don't root for former Sox players, but it is impossible not to root for Daniel Bard. I agree the Sox have usually let guys go for good reasons, and certainly that is true of Bard. But the Sox were also the ones who messed up his head big time--he was a terrific reliever before they made him a starter. To be honest, it's nothing short of amazing that somehow he won that mental battle and made it all the way back. I don't root for Mookie, but cannot help but admire the way he plays the game. I think the Dodgers real postseason star is that shortstop, but Mookie just brings so much to a game. If he just gets on base, he's trouble. If he's playing right field, he is about as good as there is at helping get the pitcher out of trouble. And most days he is trouble at the plate. If anything, he seems even more enthusiastic than he was in Boston. I was a pretty big Ellsbury fan, but completely agreed with getting him go to the Yankees for that insane salary and loved that he never really earned it. Never rooted for Manny Ramirez after he left. But I definitely root for the Dodgers manager for that one great, great stolen base in game 4 of the 2004 ALCS.

I'm fine with letting Betts go even though he clearly is a big help to the Dodgers. He might just be a six tool player: he can hit, hit with power, field, throw, run, and play smart. Last night was some smart baserunning, but I really liked the way (in the NLCS) he converted a possible triple (a line drive into the right field corner) into a definite single by the way the played the carom.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that much value in any player. I think Trout is better than Mookie, and he has not been able to turn Angels around--nor will he. You can maybe say a great player puts butts in seats, but the Dodgers already have great attendance. To remind: Mookie is just one of nine in the lineup and one of nine in the field; he is one of 13 position players, with the other 12 all being pitchers, which Mookie doesn't do. I gotta say, however, he has made a bunch of nice defensive plays in the postseason. They all went ape last night when he grabbed that dinger, but the one I liked was the opposing hit into the right field corner which Mookie fielded so well, then threw so well, the hitter didn't even try for 2B. I also liked that grab when he realized almost immediately that the only way to get that line drive was to stay put and jump as high as he could. In other words, money aside, I think he is a real asset for MLB (and the Dodgers of course).

True. And when he arrived at Baltimore in 1988 (age 22) he was lousy and stayed that way until Houston traded him to Philly, where he was excellent his first year there, 1992 (age 26). Thereafter, 1993-2007, he was pretty reliable when he wasn't injured. My guess is the Sox coaches did their level best to screw him up and he was lucky to escape to Baltimore, Houston, and finally Philly, where he blossomed.

A palpable hit. Nothing like some sarcasm to spice things up.

Schilling came to the Sox at the end of his career--the last stop before retiring. Clemens was drafted in 1983 and started 20 games for the Boston Red Sox in 1984 (when he was 22), so I have my doubts about the genius of the Sox pitching coaches. I think he arrived almost fully formed with a great fastball and pretty good control. Two years later he went 24-4 with a WAR of 8.8. See Notin's post on Eck. I honestly think you know your baseball, so the fact that even you can't think of any pitchers the Sox really developed suggests that they are indeed clueless.

From what I've read about Bloom's system, you have to be good at both. You have to know what to look for in young arms and you have to have a tried and tested system for helping them reach their potential.

No doubt, but being more interested in scouting than DD was is a pretty low hurdle.

No doubt you are right about the scouting, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Sox don't know diddly about developing pitchers.

Bloom sure looks like a carbon copy of Epstein--Yalie who loved baseball (but only Theo played in HS but not at Yale) and went into MLB right out of college. However, three big differences: 1) Bloom grew up in one system, the Rays, which placed a premium on developing players because buying them was out of the question--the Rays have consistently had team payrolls near the bottom of MLB; 2) Bloom literally wrote the book for the Rays system of developing players, especially pitchers, which has proven to be very successful; 3) Bloom's entire MLB experience was with the Rays, whereas Epstein worked for the Orioles and Padres before coming to Boston, which means Epstein was/is probably more adaptable. I think Chaim Bloom was a great hire, but I am less sure that he will be a good fit because the Sox are consistently profitable even when John Henry approves team salaries among the highest in MLB. Neither he nor his GMs nor the Red Sox Nation are known for their patience. Also, if Chaim Bloom intends to overhaul the Sox entire system, how receptive will all those scouts, coaches, minor league managers. etc be? The movie Moneyball exaggerated (for dramatic effect) the negative reactions of the scouts, A's announcers, and especially manager Art Howe to all the trades and moves Billy Bean made, but there was a kernel of truth in there. Heck, had I been an A's fan, I would have said Billy Bean was nuts. My guess is that Chaim Bloom, who wrote an article published in Baseball Prospectus in 1997 (when he was 14) and has therefore been a real student of the game for 23 years and an MLB professional for 15 years, already knows all of the above and will steer a course that blends the three approaches: 1) spending some real money where it makes sense, but 2) bringing team salaries down comfortably below the MLB salary cap, and 3) at the same time building a badly needed system for developing players, especially pitchers. Item 2 has already begun, and 3 has probably been initiated in some form, but so far I haven't seen examples of 1 (spending real money on players where it makes sense).

I enjoyed it too. Great start, and then the bullpen came in and leaked away that 4 run lead--the most infuriating being Barnes' gopher ball in the 9th. Thinking back to how the game evolved, I tend to agree with your randomness theory. Either team could have won. That said, the Yankees starter gave up 4 runs in 4.2 innings. The Yankees bullpen gave up no runs in 4.1 innings and one "unearned" run (extra inning runs are all unearned) in 3 innings. That was by and large part of a season-long pattern, the Sox bullpen completely outmatched. The Sox still have the worst ERA in MLB even though it's coming down a little. I think it got to 6.2 and maybe 6.3 and is now 5.9.

Houck's slider is gold tonight. I normally support umps, but tonight clearly Houck is outperforming the home plate ump.

I think Brad Stevens needs to bring in Houck because right now the Celtics defense sucks.

So far Houck's slider has been his best pitch. Celtics lead 34-24 in the 2d quarter.