Maxbialystock

Guardians unreal right now. Helping ourselves vs. the Yankees is made better by the last 3 games and Sale tonight. As Kimmi keeps reminding us--we are in charge of our destiny and lately it looks like the pieces might be coming back together. Or as moonslav says, don't forget that 16-4 streak in August.

1 Nunez SS 2 Pedroia 2b 3 Benintendi LF 4 Betts RF 5 Moreland 1b 6 Ramirez DH 7 Devers 3B 8 Leon C 9 Bradley CF Against righty Andriese, 5 lefty bats, mostly because Sale likes Leon behind the plate. 3d game with Nunez in for Bogaerts at SS. This time with Pedroia at 2b, Devers at 3b, and HanRam at DH--I mention those three because Nunez could play/hit in place of any of them. Devers and JBJ remain in the bottom of the lineup, but it seems to work. Leon too of course--and all three have lefty bats.

I am longwinded, no question. But in my mind I lay out numbers as such as my case for support. I have, I think, made it clear that I think those "fundamentals," while they are real, are not in my judgment the cause or our problems this year, especially not when we are closing in on the AL East and 90 or more wins and the 3d best record in the AL despite weak hitting. Maybe I have overstepped on that topic, but lately I've noticed others saying just maybe Farrell isn't quite as bad as the talksox consensus (thus I am clearly in the minority) says he is. If you look at some of my other posts, I have ranted about him too--see especially his decision to leave Porcello in in his last start. I also hate that some of our pitchers are still slow to cover 1b on grounders to the right. Overall, however, you have a point. Lots of my stuff is both longwinded and pointed. Kimmi is far more gracious and accommodating.

Bosoxmal, I sure hope he isn't. Important, no question. But we got got killed by the Guardians last year because of three lousy starters, not one. They were ones with the deep rotation, remember? This year they are just as deep and can probably withstand an early win by Sale. What's more, they have hit Sale awfully well this year and before this year. Our 2013 WS win was mostly about our great pitching, but even then Lackey was as important as Lester. Lackey was the guy who held the Tigers scoreless against the Tigers and Verlander, who gave up just 1 run. Plus the bullpen was fantastic. Don't forget that in 2013 we still had Papi in his prime which meant good hitting and leading the AL in runs scored. In the postseason we got some very timely hitting, some clutch hitting, but not a whole lot of hitting. Sale can't fix our hitting, and he can't be the totality of our rotation. In fact, it may be in his case that less is more, that Farrell should not want to make him the iron man.

In fairness to ERod, I have to admit control/command of his pitches, especially the breaking balls and keeping the ball low in the zone (but not all the time) might be the real problem. In that respect, he is not alone. Porcello can't do that, neither can Pom. Heck, there are times when I think Sale can't do it.

As do we all, especially when we know he can do it.

Could be right. I cited one lousy game only because of how it happened--he started out great which he rarely, if ever, does. He loves blasting away that fast ball in the first inning, and if it works OK the 2d as well. He seems to eschew smart pitching. Besides, I'm desperate for something good to say about ERod. To me he has pretty good stuff, but only only from the neck down. He is the polar opposite of Fister.

Meh. Last year Betts, one example, prospered batting first: OPS .897, first in runs scored with 122, 2d after Ortiz in rbi's with 113 which was more than HanRam's 111 with a great OPS of .866. Besides, the Sox collective OPS's this year were better before the ASG than after. More and more I'm thinking there is an elusive (meaning I am clueless) psychological dimension to slotting hitters. Small sample size, but Devers has been incredible batting 7th with an OPS of 1.414. He batted there last night and the night before when he got out of that nasty little slump. My conclusion? I find it hard to second guess any lineup or even the idea of keeping the same one or changing them regularly. I simply cannot buy the notion that anything Farrell has done with the lineup is very good or very bad. Last year's lineup didn't need a lot of tinkering because Ortiz was so incredible and helped make everyone else better. He's gone and with him a bigger chunk of our run scoring that I thought possible.

In that case, I'm wrong and I mean it. I do indeed like debating, especially on a Saturday morning. And I suspect, based on those 30 years, you would demolish me if you wanted to. My one small rejoinder is that that lengthy first post was directed at no one in particular. It was meat on the table. And you, not me, decided to take a nibble. I did, however, use that as an excuse to expatiate further and at some length. A misread by me.

moonslav, no quarrel on that. How about last year and the year before when those three/two weren't half bad? Besides, you know my basic measurement for managers which I just repeated--wins, losses, and getting to the postseason. Them's my fundamentals.

A repeat. Disregard.

If you want to make the case against Farrell, try my fundamentals--wins, losses, and getting to the postseason. One guy calling talk radio? And you give him an entire sentence andmake him your key evidence to say "2 overpaid knuckleheads who do their job poorly?" Seriously?

I was being facetious to make a point. I think Farrell has done well with Devers, but do remember a lot of complaints recently when he sat him for two straight games. I am almost certain he was not the decider on when Devers would get to Boston. He might have had input. In any case, I thought the right decision was made. On talksox, however, there was much talk about the unnecessary delay caused by stupidly making Devers go through Pawtucket, however short the stay. I don't know whether Giradi has been good for Sanchez and Judge but both have been good and both are young. But I do know Farrell gets zero credit for anything good JBJ, Betts, Bogaerts, Beni, Devers, or Vazquez does--at least, no credit on talksox. He does, however, regularly get credit for any mistakes they make because of course he knows nothing about and just doesn't care about those crucial "fundamentals."

Really? Yankees fans whose team pays a king's ransom for players are mad at the manager for not winning more WS (the Yankees have won 27 overall)? Astounding. Maybe they're spoiled rotten, just as we might be becoming now that the 86 year drought has been semi-eradicated by not one but three WS titles. Or maybe they should be blaming the guy (Cashman) who has basically spent that king's ransom. In any case, try building the case against Girardi the same way you have built the case against Farrell. Show me the weak fundamentals, the endless mental blunders, the pervasive boneheadedness. Show me all those lousy pitching decisions. You know, all that bad stuff that makes Farrell so worthless. And, while you are at it, don't forget that I have said repeatedly that the only fair measure of a manager is overall team performance measured almost solely by wins and losses. You win, you stay. You lose, goodbye. Farrell got through 2014 and 2015 because of that totally unexpected WS win in his first year 2013--the one that followed Francona's 2011 disastrous September and Valentine's even worse 2012. He lasted through 2016 because the Sox won the AL East. Also don't forget that Francona got those two WS with two really good bats--Manny and Big Papi--some other good hitters and just enough good pitching. He does get special credit for being in charge for that mind-bogglingly great ALCS in 2004 when the Sox came back from losing the the first three games to the Yankees. Nevertheless, he was gone after the 2011 September collapse. You like fundamentals? Try those--wins and losses and getting to the postseason.

Meh. I quote: "Steinbrenner quickly became famous for his rapid turnover of management personnel. In his first 23 seasons, he changed managers 20 times; Billy Martin alone was fired and rehired five times." We're talking about the same guy, right? And do I really need to compare Mr. Dipstick to other winning AL managers--specifically the Guardians and Astros (I've already done the Yankees this year? I can, you know, and in every case I will use the same basic point: the manager whose team is presumed to have lousy "fundamentals" and who does have good pitching and lousy hitting, has the 3d best record in the AL to date. It is the only AL team with those rotten fundamentals and pretty lousy hitting which is a good bet to get 90 or more wins. I am not saying Farrell is a great manager, but am saying he probably isn't as bad as we (I'm guilty too) keep saying he is. He can't be doing everything wrong.

This morning a new thought--actually, a new character--for this Farrell discussion. Consider Joe Girardi, now in his 10th season at the helm of the Yankees, who have never shown any hesitation in dumping a manager in part because they have the biggest salaries in MLB and theoretically have provided top players every year. Girardi has already outlasted Francona of the Sox who won two WS titles to Girardi's one, and now seems likely to outlast Farrell (just that one, very lucky and undeserved WS title) as well. He is the personification of the alert, decisive manager. He even enforces those Yankees image rules about long hair (top of head and facial). He is aggressive with his bullpen. He's even great with those younger players who seem to be blossoming under his tutelage--see especially Sanchez and Judge. Farrell, on the other hand has obstructed Devers development despite his obvious potential. For starters, overruled DD and insisted Devers semi-prove himself at AAA before being allowed on his team. Then he mindlessly pulled Devers out of the lineup three separate times! He understands nothing about encouraging great, raw talent that needs to play every day to improve. Farrell seems to have mastered the worried look or at least the not sure what to do look. He doesn't even know the rule book and has been castigated for trying to change a pitcher when the rule book (and the HP ump) said, "Blaaaat. Not allowed." He's borderline clueless on pitching decisions. Even I have dumped on him for not taking Porcello out soon enough in his last start and others have raged against his pitching decisions throughout the season. Then there's the whole "weak fundamentals" thing. You know, boneheadedness run amuck. moonslav, who both watches and studies (with replays) all Sox games, assures us this season is a new low for all the Sox teams he has watched--but especially all those teams who won the AL East--in mindless baseball, running into outs, making the wrong throw or a terrible throw, you name it. Stuff good Little League teams don't do. So there they are: great manager vs. dipstick. And yet. Mr. dipstick has his team 4.5 games ahead of those same Yankees under the decisive, even masterful leadership of the Great Girardi. Even worse (for Girardi) is that the evidence is pretty strong that Girardi has the better team. Like fundamentals. Given the complete agreement by literally everyone on talksox that ours are terrible, it is a fair assumption that the Yankees fundamentals are better, maybe much better. And goodness knows the consensus on here is those fundamentals, that avoidance of sheer boneheadedness, is important. That's why they're called fundamentals. Now we all know I'm almost alone on talksox in thinking pitching and hitting are the dominant fundamentals in MLB, and for that my snivelling excuse is I wasn't raised properly and since then have been oblivious to what MLB is really all about. Funny thing, though. The Yankees overall are also better at those fundamentals too. The Yankees right now have pitching--season to date--about as good as ours (they've given up 4 more runs total in roughly 140 games), and ours is pretty good, right near the top of the AL: 2d best to the Guardians in ERA and runs scored against. And their hitting is much better, in fact, season long, 2d best behind the Astros in runs scored (we are comfortably 9th), 4th in dingers (we are dead last--the Yankees have hit 56 more), etc. We're ahead in doubles, however, despite crazy Farrell encouraging his guys to be mindlessly aggressive on the basepaths with license to run into all the outs they want. If you think I have overrated Girardi and that he is really just a putz, fine. I think I can do the same thing with Francona, who was pretty good in Boston and so far fantastic in Cleveland who went to the WS last year and finally lost in the 7th game to the Cubs.

Meh. You just might be right Farrell could consider that. Sale has struggled in Septembers. But I seriously doubt Sale would stand for it. Way too much of a competitor to allow pampering even for the best of reasons. That said, I'm sure he would not object to Farrell keeping him in his spot in the rotation after an off day, which then give him that very helpful extra day's rest and, over the season, maybe 1 or 2 fewer starts. What happened a couple times (or more) was Farrell moving him up in the rotation after the rest day to keep him on 5 days rest and no more. Using Sale a lot or too much is also driven by the rest of the rotation. Fister has really helped in thaT regard just as much as Porcello (love that new word Porcellos) has not. Pom has improved overall since that game (June 11??) when he complained publicly that Farrell shoulda left him in. ERod looked really good in his last start precisely because he was ready from the get go, mixing his pitches, hitting his spots, not overusing his fastball, etc. Even the hitting is a factor. Early in the season Sale was needed not only because he was our true ace, but also because the hitting was so bad sometimes he needed to get a shutout to keep the game winnable. Remember those early starts when he pitched great and lost?

I heard or read (closed captions) part of that. I think Remy said one ploy, after the catcher was convinced the guy on 2b had the right signal/pitch and transmitted same to the batter, was to quickly give the high and tight signal to deck the batter. I think he said it worked wonders.

mvp 78 still the man--3 in a row! Agree on the great booth tonight. The whole Sox team tonight was worthy of that booth--quality start by Pom (finally), good bullpen, and a lineup that was nasty almost from top to bottom. Devers now has 5 hits in 2 games--slump over, I think. And wasn't that no hit, no how Beni with a double and single in 5 at bats? Another big hit by Betts (to go with the 2 crucial doubles in the 19 inning monster)--might want to keep at 3d or 4th. Pedroia not bad leading off, but especially the lead off single that led to those 3 1st inning runs--a rarity these days. Nunez flat was not missed. That doesn't mean we don't need him, but it does give this team even greater depth. He can start or be inserted or pinch hit. Playing Holt becomes less and less necessary. Sox now need 10 wins in 21 games to get to 90. If the Yankees lose to Texas, they are in a bad place. I do think the Guardians and Astros are out of reach, so the Sox are most likely to finish 3d best in the AL and not to get the homefield advantage in the ALDS or ALCS. So be it. Despite last year, I am hopeful this year. As Kimmi keeps reminding us, anything can happen in the postseason,and it sure helps that pitching is our long suit. I missed whatever plays Devers made at 3b. Was his arm (I think I really mean his head) OK? Defensively, I think we are solid in the outfield and at catcher. Pedey at 33 is still good at 2b, ditto Moreland at 1b. The question marks are 3b and SS, but I am hopeful they will prove to be average. That off day yesterday sure seems to have helped.

Hmm. Looks like both managers pulled their starters. This dreadlocks guy with the two hats looks tough.,

I hear Remy's voice, but could swear I hear Eck too.

Why the heck did Farrell pull Pom after a scoreless 1st? No matter, the guy there now looks pretty darn good, does all the things Pom can't do.

Easy K by Pom because the knuckle curve finally worked. Had him guessing on the 0-2 pitch.

yeah, you said that on page 1.

Quick, when was the last time the Sox scored 3 in the first inning. 2016? 2015? It almost feels like that.