Maxbialystock

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.

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.