Maxbialystock

2 observations on the 1st inning-- 1. Porcello is very lucky to only give up 2 dingers because 2 others could easily have gone out if they'd just had a little more altitude. He has virtually no control over where his pitches will go so he must aim for the middle of the plate and hope for the best. His curve and changeup also stink. 2. Our guys were fed nothing but 91 mph fast balls in the first inning and of course got nothing. Benintendi struck out swinging on 4 pitches (1 ball). Bogie popped up. Betts hit a liner but catchable in CF.

Whoa, Nellie. I like WAR a lot, but I also like the fact that I can confirm it by watching the players on our team, and right now JBJ--in my opinion--deserves 5th best WAR among all MLB centerfielders. We know that's about right because we can all see that he has very good range because he gets a great jump on the ball. He has an excellent arm. Plus my own secret formula--assists vs. errors--looks good: he has 3 assists and 0 errors. And his OPS right now is .765, not great, but not bad at all. Betts has the 2d best WAR among all MLB rightfielders. Do I have to recite all the reasons why I think that's about right? Of course not. Now I will also admit I have severe heartburn with Bogaerts DWAR, which is -0.6 and the worst of the 26 MLB "qualified" SS's, which I think means they've played the majority of their teams' games at SS. However, even with that execrable defensive rating, Bogie's War is 10th best among qualified SS's in MLB--not too shabby. Anyone want to where where Iglesias's .5 WAR puts him? 21st, that's where.

For those advocating the immediate release of Sandoval, consider the following simple scenario. He is still 30 and has missed a bunch of games--basically all of last year--the last 2-3 years. So he is rusty. So he very possibly could go to a contending team, get his stroke back--he was pretty good in San Francisco where he was heavier than he is now--play decent defense, and make a real contribution. And the Sox would be playing him to play for that other team.

I'm sorry, but I will have to discount that statement given it's coming from someone self-named a700hitter. If the Sox had the proverbial (Yankees, I think) Murderers Row, you would likely be saying, "if these guys are so good, why did Carl Hubbell strike them out all in a row? We need more hitting." Beyond question there is something wrong with this lineup, and it ain't the batting order. Ortiz left a bigger hole than anyone anticipated. Without him, just about all the guys in the lineup with him last year are hitting worse this year: Pedroia, HanRam, Betts, JBJ, 3b. But not Bogie, whose OPS is right now 45 points higher. So you take that and then pile on the huge difference in OPS, etc between Ortiz and Moreland, the guy who actually replaced him in the lineup because HanRam was in the lineup last year, and you have a big swing in hitting.

Exactly what I was thinking during that game. I normally treat him as #1 on the FBI UNWANTED list and was delighted when he proved me wrong for the second game in a row. A couple times he shut the Chisox down when they had guys on third--gritty, which is an adjective I normally would never apply to him.

Meh. Betts, bogaerts, and Ramirez were 1 for 12. Vazquez and JBJ batted in all 5 runs.

One thing seems apparent to me. The Orioles work a lot harder at keeping the ball down in the strike zone than our guys do. There is an article in today's washington post by dave shenin that says wstatistics say grounders are bad news for hitters and good news for the defense, so hitters are trying to get the ball in the air. Well, not our hitters, of course. No way, no how do we want to give up our MLB lead in GIDP's. I'm being unfair, of course. The idea is simply to hit the ball squarely.

To say nothing of the four dinger rule.

That was ERod's changeup, right in the geometric center of the strike zone, maybe a couple of inches below it.

All evidence tonight notwithstanding. Tonight the suckee is pitching for us.

Did I forget to say the Orioles love ERod's fast ball almost as much as he does?

Miley started with a lot of fast balls but since then has thrown a wide variety of pitches which the Sox simply can't hit squarely. So far he has outpitched ERod by a mile.

Last night's thread is closed, so I'll say it here. Pomeranz looked great last night and I have been one of his biggest critics. The 7 innings, 1 run and 8 K's were terrific, but what impressed me was how he pitched out of trouble at least twice and at least one time the trouble was created by errors. The guy showed some grit.

Hell, right now he is 6-2 with an ERA of around 2.77. Not too shabby.

Like most people, I'm inclined to let Pablo go, but I have to admit that contract argues strongly for giving him more time. He was successful and effective with the Giants. He has lost weight. And he has not played a lot of baseball since coming off and going back on the DL. I agree with mvp78 that the mostly likely scenario is Sandoval, Rutledge, and Marrero sharing time. Decision time is when Pedroia returns.

I'm the leading whiner about Sox hitting, but I have to admit last night was amazing, especially JBJ and Marrero, batting 8th and 9th, accounting for 9 of the Sox 13 rbi's. Sale continues to struggle.

I can't think of any, but I also can't disagree because I don't know enough.

That collision was entirely on Abreu. In fact, I suspect it was intended to injury either Pedroia's knee (operated on last off season) or somewhere else--the wrist, as it turns out. My opinion of Pedroia overall has not changed because I agree with him that Machado's slide was intended to beat the throw--which he almost did--and not to get Pedroia. That showed in Machado's immediate reaction after the slide and in Pedroia's response--he was neither angry nor craving payback. Thus Barnes throwing at Machado was an embarassment. Baltimore hitting Betts was not.

I actually think that "significant" doesn't often apply to any managerial decision because so much depends on that pitcher and/or that batter. That's why I cited the White Sox game yesterday because: 1) I thought leaving Price in for 5 innings made sense, ditto Kelly in the 6th, and Barnes in the 7th. Yes, Barnes gave up two runs, but the triple as a minimum was a surprise given where the pitch was thrown. I think you have to credit both Chicago batters who hit the triple and then the double, and the latter for scoring from 2b on a grounder fielded by Rutledge. I do think Price blew it in the 3d when he first walked two guys, then had the hot Cabrera at bat and gave him a pitch right down the middle which he hammered. But overall I'm happy with his 5 innings. What I'm trying to say that most of the time the manager's decisions are sensible and supportable, but either our guys don't do their jobs--yesterday it was hitting--well or the other team does their jobs better. I do think that some managers are better at managing players--personalities--than others.

For Kimmi and others who don't want to throw managers on the ash heap of history, my earlier post was not intended to argue that we don't need managers--good managers--because in fact we do. If nothing else, management of the pitching staff--who to start, how long to keep them in, who relieves and when and for how long--is a big job all by itself. I'm sure some managers are better at that than others, but at the end of the day much depends on what those pitchers actually do on the mound in any given game. Take yesterday's game in Chicago, a perfect example. It was Price's first start after missing most of two months plus ST and having just had to so-so outings at best for Pawtucket. I got the NESN feed on mlb.com and Remy was complaining for most of the 4th and all of the 5th inning that Farrell should have had someone warming up in the bullpen. But in fact Price just gave up that costly 3 run dinger in the 3d (after two walks) but otherwise had 4 scoreless innings, including the 4th and 5th, and only threw 88 pitches. I thought Kelly was the right guy to bring in next because now the Sox had the lead, 4-3, and needed 4 scoreless innings. Unfortunately, Barnes gave up those 2 runs, but the first one came after a triple that was just a great swing because it was a curveball either low in the zone or below the zone that was semi-golfed down the RF line. And the next hit, a double, was an opposite field fly/drive down the same line. Plus let's give the White Sox player who scored from 2b on a Cabrera single that Rutledge fielded some credit--he gambled he could score and it worked. After those 2 runs, the Sox still had 2 innings to score, but of course were out of gas with just 4 hits total in the game.

I think it's virtually impossible for 3B to be an important weakness. The bullpen might be, but my candidate is the one we already have--hitting. Last year the Sox had 6 of the top 40 AL hitters in OPS, and this year we have 3. Last year we led MLB in runs and the AL by 100 in runs. Now we are 14th in MLB in runs and 5th in the AL. Remember, HanRam didn't replace Ortiz in the lineup because they both played last year. Moreland replaced Ortiz, and it's just possible that subtraction has affected the whole lineup. Right now just about everyone--Pedroia, Bogie, Betts, JBJ, Leon, Marrero, etc--are worse than last year or worse than whoever they replaced. Benintendi is probably in the group, I'm not sure. This lineup has two distinct characteristics--they love to hit into double plays and they hate hitting home runs. We are #1 in MLB in the former and #29 in the latter.

I love what cp176 just wrote about reducing baseball to stats, but I also have to say the following about managing. To me the central reality of baseball, which makes it vastly different from all other sports, is the confrontation between pitcher and batter. Last night, for example, the two teams combined for 70 at bats (including the 6 walks) and 310 pitches. Ted Williams claimed the most difficult skill in all of sports is to hit a round ball with a round bat squarely, and I would argue that throwing almost as hard as you can with the accuracy of a knife thrower, but at 66 ft, not 15', is probably at least as hard. I would further argue that managers can effect that central reality only at the margins. Last night we won because Pomeranz had a great night for 6 innings, our bullpen was again terrific, and Bogie hit that 2 run dinger--and that neither manager had anything to do with that outcome. Indeed, Eckersley pointed out that Pomeranz was darn lucky when he threw a perfect home run ball to Napoli but he swung a micro micro second too soon and pulled it foul. The Sox have now won 4 straight games and are back in the race .5 games behind the Orioles and 3 behind the Yankees. And the only dicey game was probably Wednesday's game with Sale on the mound when we needed that huge 7th inning rally to come from behind. In that game--afterwards, actually--I made a big deal about how Farrell pinch hit twice during that rally to keep it going. Big deal, really? Yes, good moves, the right moves, but hardly unexpected. Plus they don't work if Moreland and Rutledge K or GIDP instead of getting singles. Or take the three games before that--all losses at Oakland--that took the Sox down to .500 and regenerated talk that Farrell was climbing the steps of the guillotine with DD playing the part of Madame DeFarge. We lost two of those games 8-3. And in the middle game, another one Sale started, we lost 3-2 in 10 innings because Hembree threw two balls and then the ever popular fastball down the middle so that Canha could hit the game winning dinger. I mean, seriously, what the hell was Farrell doing so badly to cause those three losses? Not much, I would argue. A small sample size, granted, but those 7 games to me underscore that Whitey Herzog or somebody was absolutely right when he said that the difference between a so-so manager and a good one is a great bullpen because the bullpen is the only weapon a manager almost controls because he decides who stays in, who goes in, and when. Last year when the bullpen was lousy the critics on talksox had a field day regaling one and all with comments on just how much of a nitwit Farrell was. Then September rolled around, the bullpen got way better, and the Sox had a great month, good enough to win the tough AL East. Yes, the lineup card can have an effect, so managers need to be willing to change things when it makes sense to do so. But the most effective lineups tend to be consistent ones, including platooning. I like arguing about lineups, but don't kid myself that there is a miracle cure if just the right guy/guys is/are in the right spots. Right now I kind of like that Betts leads off with the most dingers and rbi's and Bogie bats 3d with just 1 dinger and half as many rbi's. Why? Because it seems to be working. Baserunning, I would argue, is partly on the coaches, but mostly on the ability of the players to assess--in split seconds, mind you--what is happening and what is possible and then to act on it just as quickly. You can't coach that or teach that. See Daniel Nava as exhibit 1 for the prosecution. He's smart, he's experienced, he's reasonably speedy, and he is a disaster on the base paths (or was with the Sox). Bunting. Definitely an acquirable skill that is almost nonexistent on this team. Why? Because the statisticians have made a convincing case that bunting is counterproductive because it gives away outs. The bunt is a managerial tool which most teams simply take out of his tool bag, simple as that.

That lineup has been pretty consistent against righties--that is, Farrell prefers it even though it has only 3 lefty bats.

I mostly agree, but take as a good sign that Pomeranz confronted Farrell in his last outing because he was removed after 4 innings and 97 pitches.

Pomeranz must think he is ready to shine, otherwise how else to explain the fight he tried to pick with Farrell for not sending him back out when he had already thrown 97 pitches.