Maxbialystock

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.

Now three nice singles in two games. Devers could be back. Beni with the double, ditto.

That K for the first out? That was HanRam standing in for Nunez. Batting cleanup yet. Not a Ramirez fan. Partly the dreadlocks of course, but on some at bats I get the impression he is maybe up there to get some exercise. You know, swing so hard your helmet falls off--rinse, repeat. Actually hitting the ball hard is just kind of a bonus effect. That big single to bring Betts in the 19th inning? Not hard hit at all.

What the heck is Pedroia doing leading off instead of Nunez. Oh, that's why. 3 run dinger by Betts after the Beni double!

Top of the first was a classic Pom inning. Great knuckle curve, completely worthless because he can't throw for strikes. Consequently they sit on his fastball, so he has to pitch carefully. 17 pitches, a walk, a hard hit out, and K to finish on of course a 3-2. What kept to 17 was a hard hit first pitch fastball that Betts caught going away and going fast.

No question. But Moreland at 1b for sure as well.

Wow. Welcome back, Remy.

I don't like to brag [bs: you love it], but I did mention this possibility earlier on this thread. I opined Pedey might be at 2b, Bogie at SS,andDevers at 3b. But then I thought Nunez would DH even though it would keep HanRAm out for another game. You are dead right, though. Now is not the time to bench a great bat when hitting is our achilles.

Yeah? Talk to my wife about that. She ain't so sure. Look at my name: I endure. You're an MVP for crying out loud. These days, our deus ex machina.

Actually, I think he still had a play at 1b. Eating the ball was certainly a choice, but easier said then done when there is a whole lot of pressure. Remember, Holt rarely plays 1b,and that play is one of the tougher ones for any firstbaseman. We have seen numerous throws the other way to first base which probably should have been eaten. I don't recall any complaints about those. One reason for that is it could become a bad habit--always look, pause, and think before throwing. Devers does that a lot. Better to fire when ready.

I try not to listen any of those guys and sure don't think Eck is completely authoritative. But, when i do listen, I am impressed. He's objective and interesting. He knows a lot about the game and communicates that well. He is certainly better than any of those other guys. If NESN doesn't keep him at least until age 70, they are wrong. To me he never gets old.

moonslav, you probably know better than I about how many blunders this year vs. prior years. In an alternate answer I wrote but didn't send, I opined that those blunders (or whatever) are probably getting a whole more attention this year than in prior years. One explanation is that suddenly these guys have turned into zombies and forgotten how to play baseball. Despite the rigorous and unique professional apprenticeship required of all MLB players, to say nothing of the sheer redundancy of playing all those games, 6 a week for 26 weeks, before which everybody practices (and hones) basic skills, inattention and unprofessionalism swept thru the Sox. I'm not saying dogs living with cats, but still some pretty bad stuff. No wonder talksox has been in an uproar. We need the ghostbusters. Or maybe some of what we are seeing is because this is the first year in recent memory when baserunning--and there has been a lot of the aggressive form of it--has been so pervasive and even necessary. When Ortiz is hitting dingers and others are following suit, when the OPS's are up, and when your team is scoring 100 more runs than the next best AL league team, who the heck cares about running out grounders, stretching singles, etc? Plus the Sox baserunners historically have not been adventurous--at least in the John Henry era--because the hitting and scoring machine was usually functioning just fine. That ended when Ortiz retired. So what I am saying is that we are seeing more in part because we are looking for more. We don't have the dingers and the semi-automatic great scoring to keep us satiated. We ain't scoring and we ain't winning (enough) and the blame game is on. I did find that Holt game. It was August 21 when we lost to Cleveland when they scored on a late and bad throw by Holt. I've rewatched the video several times and cannot honestly call it a bonehead play. In fact, I thought Holt was really aggressive getting to the ball instead of the pitcher who was closer but Holt was in better position to throw to 3b. I think he paused for one of two reasons--either he didn't have a good grip on the ball, or he was thinking he doesn't make that play very often at all. In fact, I'll bet you that's the only time while playing 1b this year or last year or the year before when he had to throw from 1st to 3d on a bunt. Remember, that's the least likely position Farrell has him play. Either way I give him a pass because to me it was a tough play. It was the errant throw, not its lateness, that caused us to lose. That suggests the grip was faulty and that what we saw was just an error and not boneheadedness. I completely agree it cost us the game.

mvp 78 is the man. I think Archer has the edge, but know he has not fared well against the Sox. Pom sometimes irritates the heck out of me with those long innings, but most of the time this year he has been a battler, and that knuckle curve is pretty good. Lineup tonight could be tricky. I expect Pedey to be up to playing 2b after a DH followed by a rest day. Bogie at SS. Devers now likely at 3b. Nunez must play, but where? Probably 2b with Pedey going back to DH, but then that leaves HanRam out again because Moreland will surely play 1b against righty Archer. Outfield set, of course. Either catcher fine. Rays definitely looking to be spoilers, and their road won/loss is about as good as their home and overall they are around .500 for the year. This could easily be another tough game. But I have to say the last two games, both wins, have been a tonic for me. A lot of good things in both games, and I seriously do not care about the so-called fiasco when Leon and JBJ were part of an inning-ending double play in the 4th. Heck, I was happy because for me the sooner the better getting Fister back out there to get three outs and that game in the books. And we had a solid lead, especially with Fister on the mound. It was raining enough that the mound had to be repaired. Meanwhile, JBJ got the dinger, Bogaerts a triple, Devers two clean singles, and the night before two great and timely doubles by Betts. Doctor, I'm definitely feeling a pulse here. The Sox are 6-4 in their last 10 games. If they just split the remaining 22 games (not a tough schedule), that's 90 wins. The Yankees freight train is 5-5 in their last 10. To get to 90 wins, they need to go 15-8.

You always right good stuff, however-- Running into an out at 3b when the ground ball is in front of you isn't defacto dumb. Infield might be shifted to the right side. Grounder might not be right to the SS or 3b or they might prefer to go for the GIDP the easy way or we might have a really good baserunner like Betts who seems to know when he can do stuff like. Forgetting number of outs is definitely dumb, but also very infrequent. Risking making the 1st or last out at 3b is also very situation dependent. Sometimes it's worth it. A man on 3b can score in a lot of ways not requiring a hit. Not so a man on 2b. Not running out grounders at full speed is endemic among MLB veterans. Ortiz, the very guy many Sox fans now say is the most valuable Sox player ever, made a point of "saving himself" on obvious groundouts. Not running full out on popups is also unprofessional, but rare is the player who runs them out every time. Now taking that 1/3 lead on a popup or fly when there are 1 or no outs is not good, agreed. I'm not sure how often that happens on the Sox, however. You might know. I suspect it's not very often. About running into outs causing runs not to be scored. Hard to prove or disprove, but I agree it has to happen now and then. However, my view is that generally that's only important in a game lost by 1 or 2 runs. And, as I've tried to suggest, i'm not sure that running into outs is always bad baseball. Thus my example of Beni trying to get to 2b on a single back in game 1 of the latest Yankees series. We lost that game 6-2. We had 4 singles. We were uniformly terrible with RISP. And our starter gave up 5 runs. Beni was the least of our problems if a problem at all. I like aggressive baserunning and having men on 2d and 3d with no outs because you should be able to get both home without a hit, plus you taken away the GIDP. I realize the is a minority opinion on talksox, but so be it. I say the above with the certain knowledge that you have not only watched, but studied way more Sox games than have I. Nevertheless I just can't get my head around the idea that the Sox should be even with the Guardians if only they weren't such dummies. Not when the Guardians have better pitching and a whole lot better hitting. No when they have scored 190 more runs (in games to date) than their opponents and we have scored 81 more runs. Can those numbers really be because Farrell can't manage or because we have weak fundamentals or we have too many dummies running amuck, not taking that 1/3 lead on flies, etc?

You're right, I only analyzed one game, mostly because i remember it and because the near universal reaction on the game thread was that Beni stretching that single and being thrown out basically killed us. I think I've done a pretty good and basically factual job of showing that judgment (on the game thread) is wrong. Your saying that one play combined with bunch of conjectural bs about what might have happened does not sway me. My analysis is far more factual than yours, and, pardon me, but you cannot suppose away a 6-2 loss and blame it on Beni. No sir. I have asked no one to analyze every game--way too hard. But I have asked for an analysis of just one game to show that a boneheaded play, baserunning or otherwise, cost us that game. I am heartened by the fact that one or two others find the thesis that baserunning is causing us to lose games is unproven and likely not credible. I do find Kimmi's stats (not conjecture) on that subject informative. I like numbers and facts, so sue me.d I also like hitting and pitching stats which tell me that is primarily where games are won and lost and, best of all, we can count them and not guess at them. Ditto on the fielding. For baserunning, we now have Kimmi's stats. I don't deny Sox players have made some lousy decisions, but for the most part I accept them as part of the game--remember, 162 interminable (3.5 hours, maybe less) games in which there is actually about 10-15 minutes of real action. Modern MLB encourages inattention. The miracle is that the focus and situational awareness are usually pretty good. This is almost certainly because the pay is fantastic. Novices get half a million a year. So-so contributors like Ellsbury can get $24M a year for 7 years (if they have that one great year). Hell, in MLB you can get those great contracts and still miss tons of games, even entire seasons, and still get paid the full contract. Right now I think we are paying Pablo $15M or so this year not to play for us.