Maxbialystock

Meh. A lot of us agreed with you, including me. I did think it was OK to keep him in the Sox system, just in case, and even to give him periodic looks with the big club, but I was not hopeful. Even this year the doubts came back and my memories of repeatedly failures in 2014 and 2015 (before he got hot in August) returned. Where I most emphatically agree with you is on the point that it's so great to be wrong when you underestimate a player.

I've said it before and will say it again. To me the only sensible criterion for evaluating MLB managers is the won-lost record and whether that corresponds to what the team is reasonably capable of. I'm pretty sure that criterion was in play last year and again this year with respect to Farrell. To me "no fire" is meaningless, especially when applied to baseball. I think you can make an excellent case that fire on the field of play is a two-edged sword because baseball is such a precise game. HanRam is exhibit 1 for the prosecution. He has plenty of fire on the basepaths but runs as though he is brain dead. Repeatedly. What makes JBJ so great in CF--to me, anyway--is how he runs precise routes to where the ball is going because he really isn't that fast. Great double plays are the result of endless practice and precision in execution, not fire. Fire to me causes errors, and precision and focus prevent them. Fire to me is worthless at bat--see again exhibit 1 for the prosecution and how HanRam seems to be swinging as hard as he can instead of trying to hit with precision. Fire to me is similarly worthless when pitching because that too requires incredible precision and focus. Rearing back and throwing heater after heater is a recipe for getting hit hard. On the other hand, MLB teams habitually congratulate each on every home run, rbi, you name it. When a starter leaves the game he is usually congratulated at some point. If he was lousy, he is commiserated with. MLB players, for all they are paid, work hard at being good teammates. And they routinely go completely ape after a game-winning hit. I mean there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between on-the-field celebrations after any game-winning rbi and one that wins the World Series. The most fired-up manager I can remember was Billy Martin, and he was a raging alcoholic whom Steinbrenner fired at least 4 times.

What the heck is meant by "no fundamentals." To me the most critical fundamentals are pitching and hitting, over which the manager has only a slight effect--except, of course for how he manages the bullpen. As for fielding, I think the only real sore spot has been 3B, over which Farrell has only so much control--for now, he is forced to use Sandoval. Besides, he's used, what 4 thirdbasemen so far? Bogaerts ain't great at SS, but no question he works really hard at it and out hits most other SS's. Moreland and Pedroia are fine if not gold glovers any more. The outfield is definitely above average. Leon has a positive DWAR at catcher, and Vazquez has a negative DWAR. Baserunning, I agree, is suboptimal, but I blame some of that on Bill James and the overall Sox philosphy that bunting, stealing bases, etc are just not productive. Getting walks, however, is, so I have to ask you whether that's why you don't like the lack of fire?

Cherry-picking is fine as long as you say you are doing it, which you are. So, I agree those numbers are promising, but think they do not refute the notion that Ortiz is badly missed. What we just might be seeing is the team adapting to his absence. With him the Sox led the AL last year in runs scored--by 100 runs! I could be wrong, but my guess is the Yankees have a shot at doing that this year even though Houston is also hitting well. But I think it's apparent the Sox ain't gonna be able to do that this year, not by a long shot. But here's a weird thought. Last year's offense was not propelling the Sox into first place until about the 1st of September, which is roughly when the bullpen was transformed into a really good one and skillfully compensated for our sorry ass rotation. The point is, to win you usually need hitting and pitching. And guess what? The Sox just won three straight in large part because of a magnificent bullpen that did 17.1 innings while giving up 0 runs. And, by the by, in those 16 terrific wins you cite in the last 23 games, the opposing team scored more than 4 runs in just 3 of those 16 wins. I say again, this Sox team is unique in the John Henry era in that it really needs pitching to win.

Depends on the baserunner and the situation, but I agree it should not be attempted without a high probability of success.

Is HanRAm really playing 1B and batting 5th tonight?

I second the second. I actually go to bed before the game ends, but unfortunately bring along the ipad. Last night I did see Beni's double just seconds after he hit it. Well, 30 seconds.

Words to conjure with: "all I ask for is a manager to not lose games." Please identify for the rest of us all the MLB managers who went 162-0 last year. No, you say, I misunderstand. You mean the games you think Farrell lost because he left a starter in too long. Well, say I, that's very definitely a matter of opinion, especially early in the season. The norm for most MLB managers is to leave a starter in until he gives up 7 runs or 100 pitches or so, depending. Wright gave up more than 5 runs just once, on April 12, his second start of the year, when he gave up 8 runs--6 in the 1st inning and 2 more in .1 of the 2d inning. I would argue that Farrell's decisions about Wright in that one game fell within the normal parameters even though Wright gave up 8,not 7 runs. The price any manager pays for taking a starter out early is using up his bullpen in what amounts to a lost cause. In fact, the Sox lost that game 12-5.

Today is also the Army's birthday, the 242d. Created by the 2d Continental Congress--in a resolution--in Philadelphia. That resolution also said infantry companies being formed from PA, DE, VA, and MD, join the forces--the Army--outside Boston. That Arm, which was of course bigger than the rest of the Continental Army and had already fought the British Army at Concord and Lexington. The Declaration of Independence came more than a year later and probably wouldn't have been signed without an Army already in being with one victory--driving the British out of Boston with artillery we had captured from the British at Ticonderoga--under our belts in March 1776. The above, restated, means that Philadelphia is where you go to talk, and Boston is where you go to make things happen.

Offensive WAR, OWAR, says our seven best hitters are, in order-- Bogaerts 2.4 Betts 1.5 Moreland 1.3 JBJ 1.2 Beni 0.8 Pedey 0.6 Vazquez 0.6 Ramirez is at 0.2 and so is Young. Rutledge is 0.1. Leon, wait for it, is at -0.3 and Sandoval at -0.2. The Yankees top seven hitters--Judge, Hicks, Castro, Gardner, Holliday, Gregorious, and Sanchez--have OWAR's that range from 3.6 to 1.2. And, FWIW, our three highest DWAR's (defensive wins above replacemnt) belong to Betts (1.2), Bradley (0.9), and Leon (0.5). OUr three worst DWAR's are Sandoval (-0.7), Bogaerts (-0.5), and Young (-0.5). Beni and Moreland are both at 0.0, and Pedey is 0.2. The above stats suggest to me that: 1. The Yankees seven best hitters--heck, their whole lineup--are just about twice as good as ours. 2. We have pretty good pitching, but theirs is better--lowest ERA in the AL to our 3d best. 3. We have better fielders in the outfield, but not in the infield. We've committed 47 errors to their 33. 4. Call the baserunning a wash even though I think our guys do some boneheaded things on the basepaths. Both teams have stolen 37 bases. 5. We are just 3 games behind the Yankees, which suggests that our manager, whoever he is, is pretty good at doing more with less.

With fulsome apologies to all the Fighting Irish, some numbers on the Sox hitting-- Offensive WAR, OWAR, says our seveb best hitters are, in order-- Bogaerts 2.4 Betts 1.5 Moreland 1.3 JBJ 1.2 Beni 0.8 Pedey 0.6 Vazquez 0.6 Ramirez is at 0.2 and so is Young. Rutledge is 0.1. Leon, wait for it, is at -0.3 and Sandoval at -0.2. The Yankees top seven hitters--Judge, Hicks, Castro, Gardner, Holliday, Gregorious, and Sanchez--have OWAR's that range from 3.6 to 1.2. And, FWIW, our three highest DWAR's (defensive wins above replacemnt) belong to Betts (1.2), Bradley (0.9), and Leon (0.5). OUr three worst DWAR's are Sandoval (-0.7), Bogaerts (-0.5), and Young (-0.5). Beni and Moreland are both at 0.0, and Pedey is 0.2. The above stats suggest to me that: 1. The Yankees seven best hitters--heck, their whole lineup--are just about twice as good as ours. 2. We have pretty good pitching, but theirs is better--lowest ERA in the AL to our 3d best. 3. We have better fielders in the outfield, but not in the infield. We've committed 47 errors to their 33. 4. Call the baserunning a wash even though I think our guys do some boneheaded things on the basepaths. Both teams have stolen 37 bases. 5. We are just 3 games behind the Yankees, which suggests that our manager, whoever he is, is pretty good at doing more with less.

Funny thing is, nothing in my post about Porcello would refute your basic point--that he can and maybe will get better this season. The sooner the better.

Nah. As someone else said, the bullpen ain't the problem and wasn't last year either.

So I have to ask this. Right now Bogaerts, who seems to me to be an average fielding SS, is actually rated near the bottom with a DWAR of -0.6. Do you think that is an accurate rating based on what you see day in and day out?

Two straight extra inning wins in which the bullpen was superb, going 11 innings with 0 runs. It's remotely possible Farrell knows what he is doing.

No disagreement about sample size, which is incredibly small. So of course there is hope. On the other hand, we know for a fact that Price's lifetime ERA is 3.24 but last year it was 3.99, which was his highest season ERA since his first year, 2009. And this year so far--granted, a small sample--his ERA is 5.09. So it very much seems to me that the burden of proof lies on those who say, "Price is just as good as he always was." Another thing about Price worries me. He seems to love his fastball almost as much as opposing hitters love it. It's his go to pitch, which means those hitters can sit on it whenever he is behind in the count. On top of that, as we saw last night, he now seems to be using other pitches--especially changeup (essential for a lefty who normally will fact 75% or more righty bats), but also curve and slider--but he can't put them where they will do some good. Those breaking balls seem to alternate between being up in the strike zone and close to the center or so far outside the strike zone they are not tempting. If you check the speed gun results usually displayed on the TV screen, you will notice that Price seems capable of consistently throwing a 95-96 mph fast ball, which is excellent. Normally, usually, he can also spot it (if not all the time). The problem is that no fastball by a starter is good enough to rely on solely for 6, 7, 8, or 9 innings. You must be able to keep batters off balance with a mix of pitches that go to the right places in the strike zone or close to it. Since he came to the Sox, I have not seen Price do that.

52 pages now on the rotation and 0 pages on the bullpen.

My HS senior year was 59 years ago and we went to class every day to the bitter end. I mean, that's what HS students do--like a job.

I could of course be wrong, but last night I thought Price's lack of control was the direct result of not over-relying on his fastball, which he is prone to do and which is why his ERA last year and this year has been high. The good news is he still went 6 innings, giving up 3, and has begun the process--my opinion--of learning how to throw other pitches (besides his fast ball) effectively.

During the game last night someone flashed a stat that said HanRam already so many 440 foot dingers this year. I keep the sound off, so I don't know what they said. But, if asked, I would have said, "can there be any doubt this guy is a swinger and not a true hitter? " I think he loves swinging the bat so hard his helmet falls off. He doesn't go to the plate to get a hit or to help the team, but to get some good exercise with those really hard cuts at the ball. Remember the other Ramirez, Manny? He looked a lot like the current one--stocky, long hair, etc. But Manny was a real student of hitting and made a huge difference in the Sox lineup, especially in combination with Ortiz.

Another amazing win. Yes, it's just the Phillies, but it still counts and, by the by, narrowed the gap to 3 games. Amazing applies especially to the bullpen, who I believe have now gone 12 straight scoreless innings in just two games, both of which the Sox won. Which leads me again to this cantankerous thought. I have said on other threads that generally managers just don't have that big an effect on most aspects of the game--they can't call many plays or make in-game adjustments the way NBA and NFL coaches can. The exception of course is how the pitching is managed and that mostly means the bullpen. The pitchers, I hasten to add, did all the work and got the outs last night and the night before. Nevertheless, I think Farrell was masterful in those two games. On to Philly and, one hopes, a deluge of hits by the Sox. Johnson tonight and Sale tomorrow night.

yesterday NPR did a story on Yankees home attendance, which has been going steadily down, mostly because of the drastic increase in seat prices in the new stadium, but also because of "all that razzmatazz." The Yankees management thinks that a trip to the ball park should be an event and a shopping trip and entertainment, only some of which is baseball. In those few movies--like Bull Durham--with scenes in minor league ball parks, it is abundantly clear the owners are trying to entertain fans with more than baseball. On the other hand, we have younger women in our office--and older ones--and they all seem to know something about sports teams. Sometimes it's MLB, sometimes the NFL, and very occasionally the NBA. All in all, I think the "product," which is what I watch almost every day on my TV or computer, is still pretty darn good. In the other two major sports, size counts, but right now the Sox seem to be doing fine with an array of midgets in the outfield and at 2B. Pitchers are bigger, of course. But MLB to me has remained remarkably stable/pure, so I can live with all the bs at the ballparks.

Are you kidding me? You're in high school?

Good stuff, thanks. I always liked Pete Abraham. As for Price, my only--repeat only--heartburn with him is how he pitches. I don't care if talks all the time to reporters or never talks to them. I just wish he wouldn't thrown so darn many fastballs. He needs to mix it up.

Lively has given up 4 runs in 14 innings (just 2 starts) and could be force to be reckoned with. The Phillies, on the other hand, are 9-27 on the road.