Maxbialystock

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.

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.