Maxbialystock

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.

Concur. Thanks for the lineup. Travis in against the lefty starter, but also Young for JBJ and Benintendi moved from 4th to 6th.

Agreed, but consider the consequences. Your success is saving John Farrell's job.

Lead article on espn's mlb site reads "Don't count on Red Sox Firing John Farrell--at least not yet." I think that probably captures the consensus of talksox--plenty of people are not happy with him, but see no alternative and do see some of the issues as outside his control. I continue to believe the won-loss record is the key stat for a manager, and that won-lost record seems to depend more on the hitting than the pitching. Thus can Sale go 7 while giving up 2 in Oakland and the Sox still lose the game in the 10th, 3-2. Thus can the Sox now win 2 in a row by scoring 12 and 11 runs respectively.

Terrific win even though I was not impressed with Porcello--again. As others have said, with Sale starting tomorrow you have to like our chances to win 3 straight. Even better is Thursday with the great Pomeranz--you know, the guy who argued with Farrell over being taken out after 97 pitches. I like Sale. He's good. But Pomeranz is the secret ace of this staff.

I'm not a Farrell fan. I just like to argue plus I honestly don't think managers have that big an effect--particularly in comparison to football and basketball coaches. Right now, though, I think Farrell maybe ain't helping and that what keeps him in Boston is the lack of a good alternative.

Are you under the impression that managers win and lose games and not players? I disagree. As someone else quoted from a former MLB manager, "the difference between a good manager and a bad one is a great bullpen." You just complimented Francona's masterful handling of the Guardians bullpen, but I looked them up. They have basically used 7 relievers who have pitched in 21, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14, and 13 innings, respectively--Miller, FYI, has pitched in 18--and whose worst ERA is 3.57, 2d worst is 2.41, and other five ERA's are all under 2. Seems to me they come pretty close to being a great, healthy bullpen. You think Farrell couldn't use a bullpen like that? Is it Farrell's fault the guys aren't hitting at anywhere near the level as last year when he was also the manager? Or 2013 for that matter? Before this season we all thought the rotation would be great with Sale, Price, Porcello (Cy Young winner), ERod, Wright, and Pomeranz only if needed. Porcello is struggling except on gopher balls. ERod is good and Sale even better. But Price and Wright are on the DL. And Pomeranz right now is our #4 starter with a player to be named later as #5. Ironically, I do hold Farrell accountable for wins and losses, but agree with the notion that maybe he stays because no one else worth using is available.

Interesting article. I've thought all along that Barnes did not need to throw at Machado because Pedroia, the injured party, said emphatically he didn't think it was an illegal or dirty slide. Many on talksox disagree with that, but Pedroia was the party involved. Anyway, Barnes screwed it up royally. Pomeranz wanting to go back out to pitch the 5th is good news, but why make a scene in the dugout when you haven't thrown more than 103 pitches in 8 starts this year and have consistently struggled when you get near that mark? Overall I think the article is balanced with good arguments on both sides--by the same writer.

I don't believe that but have to admit there are times when it looks as though that is exactly what is going on. Other times, however, it looks as though our pitching is just lousy or our guys just aren't hitting or both. A year ago we led the AL in runs by 100, but right now we are 36 behind the Yankees who lead. We started the season with what looked to be a decent rotation, but now clearly we miss Price on the DL and Wright too. Pomeranz is still starting, but every time he goes out to the mound I'm thinking "here comes Freddy Kruger, and I don't mind admitting I'm scared to death." Velazquez with his under 2 ERA in 5 starts at AAA was a bust and caused some to want to hang Farrell in effigy for even letting him go to the mound at all. This team just played at gritty two game series, which they swept, in St Louis against the NL Central division leaders. Then wham--the Oakland A's take 3 straight almost (except for the 10 inning game when Sale started for us) without breaking a sweat. Go figure.

Paris is better, but not London, Berlin, Tokyo, or Seoul.

Actually, I've been to Rome several times--stationed in Naples--and that never happened to me. But the suckers love my car in the drive way and even my wife's car under the carport.

Meh. The OPS percentages are bunched up. The 10th best is .755 and the 22d best .728--a difference of .027 or 3.7% (of .728). So anomalies should be expected whenever you try to correlate OPS with runs scored. And don't forget that RISP and GIDP can have a real impact on degrading the ability of a high OPS to actually score runs.

Delighted to be wrong--again. Reverse mojo?

To be honest, I've been impressed with the A's pitching. That combined with our return to anemic hitting could easily lead to a sweep what with Triggs going 5-2 with an ERA of 2.12. So try this on for size. Our first four hitters--Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, and Benintendi--have 3 hits among them in this series to date. g

To me the case for and against Farrell begins and ends with the won-lost record, which is now .500. The Rays just passed us for 3d place in the AL East even though we are just 4.5 games out of 1st. However, as someone else pointed out, what is the alternative to Farrell as this point?

Thank you, thank you, thank you for starting this thread, Kimmi, because I absolutely, positively was not going to--but I was getting antsy.

Hah! Pretty good call--Bogie is hitting 3d and hitting up a storm. Well done.

Well said. Absolutely true.

Not serviceable, just not a disaster. He made it thru 5 innings. Farrell only needed 2 guys to cover the other 3. Bullpen should be fine tonight for Sale. Wright, FYI, had 5 starts and an ERA of 8.25. But that knee injury, he might still be in the rotation. I believe the primary reasons for starting Velazquez are because Farrell wanted an extra day of rest for Sale and wanted to give our best AAA starter a shot because right now our rotation is short-handed. I did not watch the whole game, but did watch much of Velazquez's 5 innings. I liked that he had four usable pitches--fast ball, slider, curve, and changeup--but what scared me was that Oakland seemed to like all four too because at least two of the three dingers were on breaking balls. 67% of his pitches were strikes, which to me is par for the course, but whatever he threw was hittable. Was he telegraphing his pitches? Maybe.

I'm fine with that and with what mvp78 said. Farrell has been OK. Maybe Lovullo would have been better.

So far this season the Sox pitchers have had 40 starts. Of those, 19 have been quality starts by Sale, Porcello, or ERod. Another 2 QS's by Pomeranz and 1 by Wright, now gone. Pomeranz has started 7 games and averaged 5 innings per start with an ERA of 5.86. To me it's apparent last night was as good a time as any to see what our best minor league starter could do. Last night he was better than Porcello on April 14 when he gave up 4 dingers and 8 runs and only slightly worse than ERod is his first start this year when he gave up 4 in 5 innings with 2 dingers.