Maxbialystock

He throws too many fastballs, doesn't have good location, and especially can't seem to keep the ball low. I agree with a700hitter--Porcello is simply a bad pitcher. 2016 was a career year very much on the order of Ellsbury's 2011 season, which he's never come remotely close to repeating.

Absolutely true. However, as I love to remind you, 7 games are the only data we have for this season. Moreover, I think most of us can make some pretty fair predictions on the immediate future if not the entire season-- 1. Pitching won't stay this good--lowest ERA in MLB and by a good margin. 2. Weak hitting will improve. It has to. The question is how much. 3. Winning percentage of 86% will go down. 4. moonslav will dazzle with stats only he can dream up--stats that suggest the future or at least tell us about the present in interesting ways.

Sadly true. We are a long, long way from October and the proof of the pudding.

Time for the lineup to produce--and for the pitching to stay the best in MLB by a pretty good margin. I see the same lineup as Thursday's if we play.

With a nod to mvp78, the above means that a team's run differential is more important than any other stat--team OPS, team ERA, team WHIP, you name it. Case in point: we are 6-1 right now, but have the 9th best run differential (+8) in MLB. If run differential is predictive, we cannot sustain 6-1 or anything near it with our weak run differential. Discuss.

Actually, if randomness means unpredictable, we should be delighted it is there because it's what makes sports in general so much fun to watch. I think this is especially true in MLB where a .600 winning percentage, which is hardly dominant, usually means winning a division. In MLB lousy, no good, rotten, stinking cellar dwellers usually win about 40% of the time. Ironically--or maybe appropriately--the fans tend to stay away from those teams' games. We just took 6 out of 7 from two teams who will likely win 40% of their games, and some of us are saying (incorrectly, I think), "we should be beating those teams at that rate."

Stunning. I never thought of it that way and agree. I follow NCAA basketball and subscribe to kenpom.com. He has a stat he calls "luck," which basically is how often that team wins close games. Last season on talksox there was a discussion about whether run differential (runs scored - runs scored against) was predictive, and it sure turned out to be. We won 93 games, but had a lower run differential than the Yankees, Guardians, and Astros--and were left in the dust in the ALDS once again. Right now our run differential of +8 is 5th best in the AL. We really do need those hitters to start coming around.

I think the SOB is guilty and am glad they caught him.

I'm older than you and only made it to the 10th. I really don't like Showalter, but like the Yankees even less. Porcello today for the Sox--finally-- if they can get the game in. I seriously doubt there is any precedent for the Sox having open dates scheduled on a Wed and a Fri.

Yup. I definitely went overboard on defending Cora in game one. And I've already said I have not seen anyone comment that we are winning despite Cora. But what I did say is that the inference is there when almost all the comments about Cora are about his mistakes. But even there I agreed the managers rarely get credit for wins.

I was not pushing for Devers to come up because he was so darn young, but he was pretty amazing when he did.

Amazing. I do the same thing, made easier when the other team is the Orioles. Machado just homered off Sabathia in the 3d to put the Orioles up 2-1. Last night was also enjoyable, especially when they got to Tanaka. Both those guys, if memory serves, gave our hitters problems last season. Plus I'm still enjoying yesterday's terrific comeback win.

Nothing to put up with. I ain't crazy, but it took me right about 50 years to achieve sanity.

Dever uber alles? I know that tune and used to hum it in a former life. Devers has talent and is fun to watch.

My original point was that Cora's conduct in game 1 was very defensible, and I still believe that. Moreover, he has made plenty of bullpen decisions since then that argue strongly he knows a heckuva lot more about which pitcher to use and when than you do. You rely way too much on 20-20 hindsight and too little on insight. I entirely agree no one has actually said the Sox are winning despite Cora, but would argue that notion is implicit in the criticism and the lack of endorsement--not by everyone, but by some. Indeed, right now the most popular statement about the Sox going 6-1 is to say that we are winning on luck, and the second most popular is to say that we should be beating teams like the Rays and Marlins because they are terrible. Me, I think Cora is a big reason why they are winning. His handling of the bullpen has been astute, ditto the rotation. Name me another Sox manager who went 6-1 at any point in any season with hitting this bad and an infield that is so-so (but a pretty good outfield). Managers, I hasten to add, have a much bigger impact on the pitching than the hitting.

Ted Williams said, probably more than once, that the most difficult skill in all sports, not just baseball, was being able to hit a round ball with a round bat squarely. Me, I think pitching is a really close second because command of pitches is so important, and you have do that in addition to having great stuff and throwing so hard you put your arm at risk (Tommy John surgery is edging toward preventive surgery for little leaguers these days). The above to me translates into a simple reality that it is not easy to build a great bullpen before the season starts. So far this season, short as it is, Carson Smith looks awful and rookie Poyner looks pretty darn good (1 runs in 4.2 innings, most by any Sox reliever), mostly because of his location (in my view). Kimbrel, our $13M closer, has pitched four innings and in three of them had two, two, and three baserunners before getting the third out. Right now I'm pretty happy with this bullpen even though it's the rotation that has been so insanely good. And it is unarguable that the pitching staff is carrying this team.

About close games. To me the key factor is something one manager has been quoted as saying--"the difference between a smart manager and a dumb one is a great bullpen." I further think that the two Carson Smith gaffes--3 run triple in game 1 and 2 run dinger in game 7--notwithstanding, the bullpen has been pretty doggone good. And it is the one thing the manager is most in control of. So, me, I give Cora some of the credit for the 6-1 record because as manager he has more control over pitching than anything else, and the pitching to date has been fantastic. This is especially true because Cora picked the two back-up starters and two surprise relievers. The hitting has been lousy, and the manager can do very little to fix that. Ditto the fielding, which has been error free but not so hot in the infield.

And my point was and is that the critics on the game thread were wrong. Smith stayed in and got 3 outs--good move by the manager. Cora was right, the boobirds were wrong--including you if you say Smith should have been pulled after the dinger.

Actually, that's a pretty good observation. I myself rarely if ever say, "wow. Cora or Farrell or Francona really did a great job in that game." I got my dander up chiefly because of the thread title. Plus, as you know, I like to argue.

Sorry, but I'm not buying the thesis that a 6-1 record against the Rays and Marlins should be heavily discounted if not completely ignored. Last year the two best AL records, Guardians and Astros, won at 63% and 62% clips. The rock bottom Tigers won 40% of their games. Statistically, that means that in a 7 game series with the Guardians and then the Astros, the Tigers win 3. So, while I am confident that Sox can't keep up a 6-1 pace, I think the good start is bonafide. As Cora has already said--thinking no doubt of the weak hitting--this team will get better.

Napoleon once said he wanted generals/marshalls who were lucky more than he wanted them to be smart. Managers are hired to be fired, and to me the only valid criteria for evaluating them are: 1) the team's won-lost record; 2) whether that won-lost record was above or below expectations. So far it is unarguable that Cora has done well on both counts. Of course, it's still early, and there is no way I or anyone can say the season will end as well as it has begun. As for yesterday, here's how I think he contributed-- 1. He kept his lineup of Mookie, Beni, HanRam, JD, Bogaerts, Devers, Nunez, JBJ, and Vazquez. After languishing for 8 innings, they came alive against the Ray bullpen. 2. He kept Price in for 7 innings, which to me was exactly right. 3. He plugged in Velazquez for 1 good inning (the 9th, the one in which we tied the game) and rookie Poyner for 2 (and the win). He also used his $13M closer, who for the 3d time in a row had 2 or 3 baserunners when he finally got his 3d out. Heck, I can't even fault him for using Smith because Carson is supposed to be able to pitch a good 8th: his career ERA is 2.29. Plus he left him in after the 2 run dinger, and he got 3 outs. 4. He plugged in Swihart to pinch run for JD after his single in the 11th. if Nunez singled, Swihart has a better chance to score than JD. Plus Swihart so far has the same OPS as JD in case he has to hit later.

Actually, I'm not. A ton of people have commented on how dumb Cora was to start JD in RF in the final game in Miami, a game the Sox won. What do you want to bet the same things were said after Carson Smith gave up that 2 run dinger yesterday in the 8th? What was Cora thinking? Couldn't he even remember what Smith did in the 8th of game 1 when Denard got that bases clearing triple?

Fair enough. However, please feel free to quote yourself in any thread thus far in which you say Cora did something good. Maybe something like, "wow. The Sox can't hit spit but they are 6-1 and leading the AL East by 2 games. Cora seems to know what he is doing in close games, of which there have been a lot." What I'm getting at is the normal catch 22 for Sox managers. If the bullpen does well, it's because they pitched well. If they don't, it's the manager's fault. You would not be the first to think that way.

Absolutely amazing game, during which I was convinced the cause was hopeless, especially when the Rays went up by 2 on the dinger off Smith. I argued that Smith's gopher ball was merciful because it ended a game that was clearly hopeless. Then the chairman of our board came in to chat, and I showed him the game on my computer screen--and, like magic, the Sox scored 2. Really tough on Price who had another great start. But he has to know what we know--he made a huge difference without getting a win. This is now twice that Carson has give up an huge extra base hit that put us in a hole in the 8th inning.

Absolutely right. The hitters need to hit and clearly are not.