Maxbialystock

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.

My thanks--again--to Station 13 for the sterling two game win streak and trying to nudge it to three.

Velazquez went 5, and Farrell needed Ross and Barnes to cover 3 innings. Big deal. He's still got 5 or 6 for tonight who didn't pitch last night. About Sales: am I the only one who noticed his ERA in April was 1.19 in 5 starts and so far in May it's 3.86 in 3 starts? Or that in his last two starts he went 6 and 7 innings? Maybe giving him an extra day of rest ain't such a bad idea. And, as I have already pointed out, the Sox right now are not exactly knee deep in starters. Sale, Porcello, and ERod are fine, but after that not so fine until Price is back.

You surprised me with the irony which I completely missed the first 3 or 4 times I read it even though you were/are not being subtle. Just a brain cramp on my part. Funny thing is, Velazquez wasn't all that bad. Oh, I'm not saying 6 runs in 5 innings is a quality start, but am saying our #2 pitcher just went 6 while giving up 4 in a game that ended up going 13 innings. The threshold for most MLB managers for pulling a starter is 7 runs, and Velazquez was 1 under that. Last time out, Pomeranz went 3 innings, and the time before that he went 4 and gave up 6. And let's not forget that until Price is activated the Sox basically have Sale, Porcello, ERod, the redoubtable Pomeranz, and a pitcher to be named later. Also, because Velazquez actually went 5 innings, Farrell only had to use 2 from the bullpen last night, leaving 5 or 6 reasonably well rested for tonight and the weekend. I am not, FWIW, saying Farrell is always right, only that some of these very obvious mistakes he is accused of don't seem all that obvious to me.

1949 when I was 8. I'd been born in Boston (Fort Banks), but left with my mom 6 months later. But that summer (1949) we visited Boston relatives on the way to Germany, and I can remember looking at Sox box scores--more than 24 hours after the fact of course--in the Stars and Strikes in Germany and especially Ted Williams's numbers. 4 years later we lived in West Springfield while my dad served 14 months in Korea, and I listened to Curt Gowdy call the games both summers, '53 and '54. And collected Topps baseball cards of course. But my Sox fandom waxed and waned subsequently because we never lived where we could get Sox games--ditto when I went into the service. 1967 is blank because of where I was and what we were doing. Everything changed after I retired and my wife and I finally settled in N. Virginia and circa 2004, maybe earlier, we got a TV package including out of area games. Since then I've watched an insane number of games. My first time in Fenway was about 10 years ago on a business trip. Terrible experience because of the execrable sight lines down the right field line. I went one more time, had the same experience, and am sure I will never go back. Fenway looks great on TV, but is easily the worst MLB ballpark I've been in. I've been to the Phillies ballpark (1961), the Royals (1986-89) (very nice, but really hot in the summer), the Orioles (2000-2015) (Camden is easily the best ballpark I've been in), and the Nationals (not as pretty as Camden, but excellent sight lines). Also Griffith Stadium (Washington Senators, 1955).

Velazquez is 28 and from the Mexican League and has a 1.55 ERA in five starts for Pawtucket. The "A's" are ranked 26th in runs scored.

Giving credit it where it's due, this has been maybe the best 2 game winning streak I can remember and certainly this season to date. It could not have come at a better time.

Excellent post above from bosoxmal, with whom I rarely agree--but that story is a gem and the explanation of foot in the bucket clear as clear can be.

A short update--revisiting the thread topic--based on two recent events. The first of course is that insane thread arguing that Ortiz should be the manager. I'm happy to say the idea is not getting much support. The second event is the now concluded 2 game sweep of the Cardinals--NL Central leaders--in St Louis. To me that series suggests this team just might be better than I thought because I thought both wins were gritty. Last night's 13 inning, 4 1/2 hour monster required Farrell to use 12 of his 13 position players and 9 of his 12 pitchers. All to good effect: after giving up 4 early runs, Porcello pitched 4 scoreless innings and a total of 6 before Farrell brought in 8 relievers who held the Cardinals scoreless for 7 innings. So, yes, I think Farrell did a good job. But my real point is that the players overall were great in this series. They won two close games on the road against a good team with very good pitching. In the second game, they came from behind (4-0) to finally tie the game in the 8th on that magnificent triple by Bogaerts followed by a gritty sac fly by Benintendi, who is in a terrible slump (0 for 26) but rose to the occasion. Moreland made a really dumb play on a bunt to enable the early Cardinals rally, but hit that double in 13th and scored the winning run on Young's pinch hit single. Zowie. Last year the Sox finished the season with 6 of the top 32 hitters--defined solely by their OPS's--in the American League: Ortiz, Betts, HanRam, Pedroia, Bogaerts, and JBJ. Right now we have 2 of the top 32, Betts and Bogaerts. Yes, we lost Ortiz, but the other 5 are back, and for the first month this year Benintendi had a high OPS. I think most of us believe Benintendi's slump will not last. My point is the same one Kimmi and others have made--this team should be able to hit and probably will hit this year. When they do, this can be a good team despite my periodic rants about lousy defense (Marrero has fixed the 3B problem, and everyone else is decent and Betts is terrific), lousy baserunning, etc. Assuming Price comes back and in decent form, that's four pretty darn good starters: Sale, Porcello, Price, and ERod. The bullpen, with occasional lapses, has been pretty good too. I personally dislike Pomeranz, but I have seen far worse 5th starters. So my other point is that just maybe Farrell has been managing well under trying circumstances and that it makes sense for DD to keep him around.

Thought I'd quote myself this morning because I've rarely been happier being dead wrong. Porcello got way better and went 6, the bullpen was fantastic--7 scoreless innings--the defense was fine, and the clutch hitting was very much in evidence. This was probably the best win all season, but I still went to bed at 11--9th inning--and didn't see the final until an hour ago. This was a win to build on. The Sox just swept 2 from the NL Central leaders in their NL park. On to Oakland.

Slick pitching by Porcello to sucker the Cards into getting that GIDP.

Wow! Great, heady play by Bogaerts to start the DP. This only underscores how dumb Moreland is.

Porcello has bought into that good cop, bad cop routine, only he goes good inning, bad inning.

Small milestone. Benintendi is over halfway to going 40 at bats without a hit. I think he just has 17 to go.

this is a surprise?

Beni,bidi, bici--isn't that what Caesar said?