Maxbialystock

espn shows him 8th in MLB. Plus he's probably the youngest and is the only one who plays half his games in front of the green monster, which simultaneously limits his range factor and encourages misplays of caroms of the wall.

Why? An 85 game winner has a winning percentage of 52% and 96 game winner 59%. In a five game series between those teams the outcome is statistically pretty much of a toss-up.

Pitching is good, but not great. Hitting is too easily shut down. I said lose the ALDS but still hold out hope that we have played all three likely opponents--Guardians, Astros, and Yankees--and fared OK this season. Yankees killed us before the ASG but not after. Thus I have no problem with anything saying we could get to the WS.

Good points. I personally want my first four batters to include four of the following: Bogie, Beni, Betts, Pedey, and Nunez. If OldTimer is right and HanRam is fixed (see last night),maybe he can bat 4th. Remember, I also like the idea of a distributed lineup--good bats spread throughout--because of your other point that this season the OPS's have coalesced around .750 and even though Betts and Beni are at .798 and .791. Thus I also like Devers and JBJ in the bottom 3d.

You're probably right. Holt's OWAR in 55 games is a horrible -0.6, but he can back up the infield, including 1b, and the outfield. Davis is the pinchrunner and occasional OF. Nunez is an infielder or a DH and one of our better bats.

Very nicely done. Great on Hanley--I had no idea. Too hard to pick best 3 of 7 now.

Current OWAR's (and games played): Betts 3.1 (147) Bogaerts 2.8 (139) JBJ 2.4 (124) Beni 2.0 (142) Pedey 1.8 (100) Vazquez 1.5 (91) Devers 1.3 (48) Nunez 1.2 (37) Moreland .8 (140) Travis 0.0 (28) Ramirez -.1 (125) Leon -.2 (81) Holt -.6 (55) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Farrell, please note) Worth noting that Betts overall WAR jumps to 6.1, JBJ's to 3.3, Beni's to 2.6, Moreland's to 1.5. But Vazque's overall WAR drops to 1.1 and Bogie's to 1.6 and Devers's to .8.

Mostly pitching, but both in the sense that, while the Guardians pitching has given up 505 earned runs to our second best 560, they also only given up 33 earned runs to our 56. So, whatever range, etc the Guardians defense has or doesn't have, they at least don't give up a lot of unearned runs. moonslav has in the past written a lot about the importance of the defense for the pitching--they can't literally save runs. Thus Tuesday night JBJ saved 1 run with the grab over the wall,fence and Beni saved another with the great throw to nail a speedy Machado from scoring from 2b on a 2 out single. I'm not talking about that kind of defense, only the kind that doesn't commit errors or passed balls, etc.--or at least not the kind that lead to unearned runs. I would say our outfield defense is as good as any, but our infield overall is probably subpar. Catching is par or better I think.

The Guardians are 9-1 in their last 10, the Yankees 8-2, the Sox 7-3, and the Astros 7-3. Those are the likely ALDS teams and all seem to be playing well right now. The Guardians have by far the best defense (runs against), then us, then the Yankees, then, comfortably last, the Astros. Astros lead in offense (runs for),but close behind are the Yankees, the the Guardians, then us.

Moreland out for Travis with a lefty starter, but of course he can get back in if a righty shows up. HanRam at DH, probably right. And no Devers--Marrero instead. Hmmm. Pedey back at 2b and no Holt.

That's the real point about tonight. Yes,we definitely want/need the win, but more than that we need Sale to be Sale again.

I guess I misread what you wrote: "but fielding grounds balls and throws--there is little difference." Plus you said Moreland keeps getting in Pedroia's way which presumably HanRam doesn't do. Like you, I haven't seen the gold glove first baseman, but I have seen an acceptable one--about even on the DWAR scale. Plus this year we needed his bat as much or more as we needed his glove and arm and footwork at 1b--especially now that it's crunch time. Since August 1st Moreland has missed two games even though earlier he missed more games against lefty starters. The real problem--disagreement--must be that I simply ain't that picky about the defense or for that matter the base running.

You're both right. Yes, I was exaggerating. That is, I'm sure good comments were made on both plays when they were made. My point is that in last three pages we are looking at the game as whole, and in that context much is made of Devers error and Moreland's presumed misplay--that they could have cost us the game. Of course they did not. So then I jumped in with Beni and JBJ because they clearly, unmistakably each saved the game by himself. We don't get to the 11th inning without both of those plays. Also, as you have just said, the usual commentary on Beni is about all the mistakes he makes--most of which I am happy to overlook because I think his natural position is CF. Even last year, however, he made that stunning catch, I think in the Trop, over the left field wall. So me, I see the potential more than the faults, especially when he has been one of our two or three best bats when we badly needed them and this is his rookie season.

You like HanRam over Moreland? Fine. You can have him. This year I'll take Moreland every day and twice on Sunday and especially at 1B. Your observations are fine, but the numbers say I'm right. Moreland has had the bigger bat this year, which was supposed to be HanRam's mission. Instead, he has compensated by being too aggressive on the basepaths.

I am one of those saying, "show me," but I have also invited anyone to go to a specific game and point out something egregious that cost that game. Egregious is the key word because errors are part of the game therefore not normally egregious. As for the wild pitch--I agree. It cost the game, but it was also not egregious--not something boneheaded or weak fundamentals or whatever. Had that Oriole scored after Devers' error, it would at least have cost the win if not the game. But it too was not egregious. Devers is mostly in the lineup to hit and he had 2 of our 6 last night. Speaking of egregious, Beni regularly gets cited on talksox for not playing the wall right or for making a bad throw or whatever. What a dummy--all these years and he still can't play the outfield with all that speed. Naturally, since we prefer the blame game, nobody is saying, "wow, what a great throw after having to come in quickly on the grounder single to LF to nail Machado, no slowpoke, trying to score from 2d with two outs. Beni saved this game!" Nope. That was never said. Heck, I'm not even sure anyone said JBJ saved the game with that grab over the fence/wall. Instead, we dwell on a bad throw and, just as bad, failure by our experienced firstbaseman to catch or block a throw on the bounce he had to stretch for. If you watched closely as I did, last night was a semi-miraculous win when Pom did get hit now and then and did have men on base, but still went 6.1 scoreless innings (a lot for him) and when the bullpen was lights out again for 4.2 innings and five--count 'em)--different relievers and when we were 0 for 4 with RISP and finally got a very lucky run in the 11th when Brach fell apart and Showalter left him in. We won despite Gausman having a great night, going 8 and giving up nothing and because the outfield made two terrific plays to prevent two different runs by the Orioles. So, me, I'm just happy with that and frankly don't care what Devers or Moreland did when nobody scored and Barnes was up to the challenge (for a change).

Good year, no question. Good acquisition. But am I the only one on edge with every batter he faces and all those pitches he throws each inning? The knuckle curve is good, but he sometimes leaves it up. The so-so fastball works because he spots it well and picks the right times to throw it (in conjunction with the catcher of course). Last night I saw a graphic that said, season to date, about 90% of his pitches are one or the other--fast ball or knuckle curve. After one inning, I don't remember which, I checked the location of every pitch for every batter, and it was clear to me he has gotten pretty good at working those corners while also moving the location around and alternating those two pitches.

Among regular ("qualified") MLB first basemen this year, his DWAR is well above average.

I don't have a replay, but saw the replays during the game and disagree. Moreland has to make a split second decision on whether to block the throw or to keep his foot on the bag and stretch for it. He wanted the out and no doubt felt he could field it on the hop. As for what happened, I just trust that a first baseman with his experience had the glove in the right place but of course could not be certain of the bounce. I also think it's a tad strange to blame this on Moreland when Devers was the one the official scorer charged with the error. Let's not forget that Devers had abundant time on that throw, so he is the one that made that play close and the decision on whether to block or get the out had to be made.

Meaning what? Somebody died? Girardi should get fired? Hitting don't mean jack? There's a bunch of folks on talksox who think the Yankees can be tough especially since the rotation is looking pretty good (to go with the bullpen).

And thank goodness for that!

In 2004, 2007, and 2013 the Sox had really good offenses and led the league (or near it) in runs scored, OPS, etc. Plenty of dingers too. Indeed, in all three years the Sox led or were 2d in MLB in net runs scored vs. runs scored against-- In 2004 the Sox net was +180 and the Cardinals were the only ones better with + 187. Does anyone remember who we played in the WS? In 2007 The Sox led MLB with + 210, and the next three were the Yankees at +191, the Guardians at +115, and the Rockies at +110. Does anyone remember we played in the ALCS and WS that year? In 2013--you must know where this is headed--the Sox led with +197, next were the Cardinals with +187, and next were the Tigers with +172. We played the Tigers in the ALCS and the Cardinals in the WS. So, wild and crazy though this might sound, just maybe a team's net--runs scored minus runs against--is a decent barometer for postseason success. This year the Guardians lead the MLB pack with +227 (a huge differential), then come the Yankees at +175 and the Dodgers at +172, the Astros at +151, the Nationals at +144, the Diamondbacks at +143, and, finally, the Sox at +113. As of today, September 20, the Guardians have 94 wins, the Yankees 84, the Dodgers 96, the Astros 92, the Nationals 91, the Diamondbacks 87, and the Sox 87. Except for the Yankees, that's a pretty high correlation between net runs scored and wins. And, based on those other--granted, carefully selected--postseason years of 2004, 2007, and 2017, net runs scored also seems to be a decent predictor for postseason success. I find that astonishing given that this year, like most years, the winning percentages for the best team, the Dodgers is 64% and the two "worst" teams of that select group at the top, the Sox and Diamondbacks, is 58%. Both round off to winning 6 of 10 games. Indeed, the Giants, with the worst won-lost record in MLB right now, still win 4 of 10 games. Thus, if the carefully selected past is prologue, it would seem the Sox will do well just to get to the ALCS, let alone win it--whoever they play in the ALDS.

Hausman wasn't that great, but had our guys mesmerized.

Great start by Pom's, great bullpen, horrible hitting. Except for Devers, good D.

I'm not ready to focus on the full 25 or 26 man roster at this point. Besides, the lineup and most the bullpen are pretty much set with variations based mostly on whose healthy enough and who isn't. If Nunez and Pedey are well, the both probably start. And so. All those other guys are on the margins. To me the key topic is the rotation, and I agree with MVP78 there are some tough calls. I still like Fister, but now think he has to have two good starts to get back into the top 4. Sale is still #1. Pom is probably #2 at this point. My tiebreaker on Porcello vs. ERod for #3 is probably who are we playing. Some teams hit righties better than lefties and vice versa. If they kill lefties, Porcello is my #3. If they kill lefties,I might also move Fister up, but for that he has to have at least one good start before the postseason. Then there's the Price thing. He's committed to the bullpen, but what is to prevent Farrell from giving him 3 or 4 innings--situation-dependent of course--his next time out? If nothing else, he could be our best long reliever, the one guy who can save the bullpen if Farrell has to pull a starter really early.

Meh. I hope you realize the Sox only need to go 7-5 in the next 12 games to finish with 93 wins, same as last year. And let's not forget that the guy we lost was one David Ortiz, the crucial link to the great offenses of 2004, 2007, and 2013. Ortiz helped win two WS for Francona--remember him?--and another for Farrell. Without him, the hitting has unquestionably suffered, and that is most noticeable in the team's slugging percentage and number of dingers. Last year we were #1 in MLB in slugging and #9 in dingers, this year #26 in slugging and #27 in dingers, but we are still 10th in scoring. Are you saying the slugging and dingers dropped off the table because Farrell makes dumb decisions and doesn't stress fundamentals? That's a hard sell. I think that 10th in scoring, still in the top 1/3 in MLB, suggests that crazy, boneheaded baserunning might be helping more than hurting and that Farrell has adjusted pretty well to the precipitous drop in hitting with power. I would love to claim credit for Farrell for the overall improvement in defense--pitching plus fielding--because so far, with 12 games to go, the Sox have given up just 616 runs, over 100 below last year's 729. But I give most of the credit to DD for getting Sale and earlier Pom and Porcello and this year Fister. Plus Kimbrel, Reed, et al. The pitching is better for the very simple reason that the pitchers are better (Porcello being the exception of course). You are probably more of an aficionado of baseball than I, which explains why you hate weak fundamentals and I, appallingly, tolerate them--if such they are. I won't at all disagree that sometimes Farrell's decisions don't work out. I have raged against them myself. But overall I think there is a pretty good rationale for all of them and admit he has better information and more experience than I.