Maxbialystock

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.

I dislike Pomeranz intensely. To me he looks soft. Plus he basically depend on 2 pitches, neither of which is outstanding. And he doesn't have great control. Nevertheless, stupidity--which you two agree on--might be a strength for him. Maybe he's too dumb to say, "I have no business in the Bigs because maxbialystock (and others) think I don't have much going for me. My manager is right, I don't deserve to stay in games when the situation is tough.

Here's a stat I invented which holds up pretty well in seeing why one team won and the other lost. Believe it or not, the winning team has a higher percentage of K's vs. BB's than the losing team. After I wrote that, I checked last night's game's box score. We had 11 K's and 2 BB's, and the Phillies has 8 K's and 3 BB's. Hence we won.

What is? Range?

Meh. What I'm seeing is a guy with control issues. Good repertoire, good fastball speed, but can't seem to place the ball where it will do the most good. Last night his strike percentage was 72%, which is excellent. But what I'm talking about is putting the ball where it can be hit, but not solidly. Last night I didn't see, for example, a lot of pitches low in the strike zone.

A great win, but I missed the last 3 innings. Semi-miraculous, given Porcello's horrendous start. Charge this win up to the bullpen and, as someone else has said already, gritty play in coming from behind.

1. It's Fenway Park. 2. It's in Boston, not Philadelphia. Both cradles for the Republic--Philly was where the 2d Continental Congress was in session--but over time Boston has become the better city, and I say that as an outsider who has never lived in or near either city. 3. It's time for summer fun, including driving to away games. 4. I feel confident they are still obnoxious at home games.

The mind does indeed boggle.

About right, except the announcers--I almost never listen. I thought the gal was that young pitcher in the minors, but I guess not. Everybody's mad at Hembree, but I thought was a good pitch--fastball outside--then turned into the grand slam. To me there is an emerging pattern, which is that somehow our best pitchers can get hit, our middle pitchers can get hit harder, and the other team's pitchers always seem to have decent control and a decent repertoire except for the bullpen.

You're right, of course. We all believe that some players focus better, but don't tighten up, in clutch situations. The problem as I see is that the opposing manager has the power to affect that, the simplest being to walk the good hitter, which we saw Ausmus (?) do at least once. Another is to bring in a specialty or other effective reliever for that specific batter. Interestingly, that's exactly what Farrell did last night the bases loaded and 1 out in the 5th. Hembree's 96 mph fastball was actually outside, but the batter still hit it hard enough to get it to the Pesky pole, which, as I recall, is still a cheap dinger but one that nevertheless counts--it was a clutch at bat in my opinion.

Since this thread is about the rotation, I thought I would insert an observation about one member of the rotation--Pomeranz. I have watched him pitch a bunch of innings and games this year and remain astonished--there is no other word for it--that he is a lefty who simply can't throw a changeup. Now I think most of us have seen the most recent version of Andrew Miller, who used to pitch for the Sox and is now I think with Cleveland. He too only has two pitches, but they are both excellent pitches--a hard fastball and a great slider--that make him very effective as a reliever. Pomeranz basically uses his so-so fastball--91 mph--and a knuckle curve that does not seem to me to break sharply downward. That's basically his repertoire, and he is a starter. He does have a changeup, I think, but doesn't throw it but maybe once a game. He might have a slider, I'm not sure. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it's really hard to get away with a so-so fast ball, ditto knuckle curve, against a lineup up of all righty bats, which is what the Tigers had yesterday. He went 4.1 innings and gave up 6 runs. Season to date, he has started 12 games with 4 quality starts and an average of 5 innings per game. Thoughts from anyone else?

Last time Sale got hammered in the 1st, but then did 5 scoreless innings, I think because he starting using his curve and changeup. Be interesting to see what he does tonight.

Up to me, I play Marrero because Rutledge's OPS is only .620 or so and I like the good defense. But maybe Rutledge has a bigger edge batting against Verlander. The hilarious--not really--part is that nobody is saying Pablo, who actually hits better from the left side (against righty Verlander).

Rutledge has the better bat and Marrero the better glove.

A lot of heroes in last night's game--bullpen, Moreland, JBJ, even Johnson, who got hammered and threw a lot of pitches by still managed to go 4.1 innings while giving up 3 runs. HanRam and Pablo pissed me off , but others came thru--as it turned out, just in time. More and more I am convinced, however, that this just might be the first Sox team in the John Henry era that relies on pitching more than hitting and is--the operative term--successful.

Me too, except, thank goodness, I didn't post during this game. But I sure had 7 innings of dark thoughts. Like most, I retain those about HanRam and Pablo.

Thanks for starting the game thread, station but especially for that lineup. Beni down to 5th and Bradley 7th. I like that. Sandoval 9th,which I also like even though he stinks so far. 5 lefty bats against a righty starter--good again. HanRam 6th--hmm. Brian Johnson starting. He's 2-0 with 14K's and an ERA of 2.57, so maybe there is hope. Zimmerman reported has his slider working again--all the more reason for those lefty bats and for moving HanRam down a notch or two.

A lot of negativity on this thread. Despite moonslav's admonitions that things will improve, I'm inclined to agree with the negativity because I think the biggest factor is the absence of Ortiz, which is unfixable. With Ortiz gone, the next best thing beyond question is Betts, which means I pretty much agree with bosoxmal. Might I add that we are in pretty uncharted waters this season--so far, anyway. Historically, a Sox team that ain't scoring a lot ain't winning. But these guys are winning--above .500 anyway--and are just 3 games back of the Yankees and in top position for a wild card slot. I mean, how bad can that be?

Wild applause. Well done. I'm not at all sure how to interpret it, but it's definitely intriguing.

I agree with you and will cite just one example. In 2013 when the Sox won it all, Buchholz had a magnificent first half of the season, got injured, and didn't figure in the second half and in the playoffs, which the Sox won with great pitching. That's why they made the deal for Peavy, who wasn't all that great. This year the pitching has been pretty good despite the absence of Price--who now seems to be regressing--and Wright,who was in full regression mode before going on the DL. And the biggest problem with the hitting is not, repeat not, the absence of Pedroia, but the absence of Ortiz. Farrell has used, what, 40 different guys at 3B? Marrero got the job because, while he can't hit,he can actually field and throw the ball. The presence or absence of Sandoval at 3B has not been a factor except in helping to determine his future disposition (stay or go). HanRam's inability to play 1B because of injury is a blessing which got Travis some games. Four of our best hitters--Betts, Bogaerts, Beni, and Moreland--have played in 56 or 55 games, most on the team. Our two catchers have caught every inning. I have been for the most part a Farrell defender, but last night I saw something that pissed me off. Price pitched a lousy game because he insisted on throwing nothing but fastballs and cut fastballs, and neither the pitching coach nor the manager was interested in doing anything about it. I am pretty sure the pitching coach went out to the mound at least twice to talk to Price, plus of course Farrell had every opportunity at the end of every inning. I have to admit, however, that a great game--short of a shutout--by Price last night wouldn't have helped. This team can't hit decent pitching, especially on the road.

Completely agree the reporters are obnoxious and relentless. My interpretation of Price's reaction, however, is that it shows he can't think or evaluate himself. Last night he went out there and threw mostly fastballs which the Yankees loved, and he got clobbered. He apparently thinks--and I use that term advisedly--he doesn't need to mix his pitches. Indeed, I would almost argue that the worst thing that could have happened as a result of his time on the DL is getting his fastball back up to 95-96 mph. Now he wants to be Nuke Laloosh, but without a good catcher to guide him.

So I have to ask: would agree this team needs at least one .900 OPS hitter? Last year we had two, Ortiz and Betts. This year we have none. I don't think Bogaerts will get there because of the power/dinger issue. And forget HanRam because all he wants to do his get his exercise at the plate by swinging as hard as he can. Benintendi is possible, but only that--and certainly not probable. Which means, I think, that if a .900 hitter is kind of important, Betts needs to be that guy and isn't. I will, however, grant you that Betts is only one of several--Pedroia, Beni, HanRam, JBJ, etc --underperformers on this team, hitting-wise.