Maxbialystock

Well said, top to bottom. I personally am biased against an ace--too risky. Plus, as you say, we have 6 starters. I love the phrase, "three glaring needs" and agree with all three. At the same time, however, you provide a partial answer to 3B with 6 names and do the same with the DH issue. So let me add one new thing. I think it's foolish to try to get a big bat to replace Ortiz because he quite clearly is irreplaceable so we shouldn't even try. Nobody else in the entire AL came close to doing what Ortiz did in 2016. Instead, try to improve the rest of the lineup, especially the bottom third, which seemed to headed south in the final month or so of this season. I think the first six in next year's lineup will include Betts, Bogaerts, Pedroia, HanRam, DH combo, and Benintendi. That leaves CF, 3B, and C. I would probably stay with JBJ in CF and Leon/Vazquez at C, which gets us back to 3B. Even there, as you say, there are options. One further thought on the lineup for 2017. This year with Ortiz the Sox scored 100 more runs than the 2d best (Cleveland) lineup in the AL. So lop off 75 of the runs, the cost of going with an ordinary mortal (Pablo/Young, whoever) as the DH, and you still have a very good offense. You also make a good case for our rotation in the 2d half of 2016--it looks promising for 2017. So maybe the real "glaring need" is, quite simply, the bullpen. When they were great in September, so were the Sox--best September in MLB this year and best Sox September in a long time.

I'm the presumptive great defender of John Farrell and have no problem with Oldtimer's insistence that Farrell is partly responsible for losing 8 of the final 9 games, including all three ALDS games against Cleveland. However, in the same breath we also have to blame Farrell for the best September in MLB this year and the best the Sox have had in a long time and how that month got the Sox to 93 wins and the ALE title in what was the toughest of the six MLB divisions. I would also point out that 7 of those 9 games were close--2 run margin or less--and that 4 of the 5 final losses were by 1 run, so it wasn't as though the Sox rolled over the way they did in 2011. I myself have complained about Farrell on this thread. But, oldtimer is being completely onesided if not blind if he doesn't recognize that Farrell had to have done some good things as manager this year, which is why he will be back next year.

Probably because the Sox actually got to the postseason this year, I'm somewhat interested in the current series. To me the ALCS and NLCS both confirm the primacy of pitching--especially game 2 of the NLCS when Kershaw shut down the Cubs 1-0. In 3 games the Jays have scored 1, 0, and 2 runs, and that third game includes having to pull the Guardians starter in the first inning. Youk has a point about game 4 of the ALCS, but I still see Cleveland going to the WS. They are getting great pitching and just enough hitting. As for the NLCS, I think the Cubs take it, but I am rooting for the Dodgers.

Since this HFA discussion is ultimately about Farrell, these thoughts 1. Yes, HFA is advantageous. No one doubts that. However, so far in all postseason games it's about even-steven on home vs. visitor winning, plus someone said the long-term edge is 55-45 in favor of the home team--not a real big edge. Plus the Sox took 2 of 3 in Cleveland in the regular season, 4 of 6 overall and had almost the best road record in MLB. Yes, Cleveland did thrive at home this year, but not against the Sox. 2. The real issue is whether Farrell even cared about HFA. The critics say, "nope, he gave everyone off the final week when the Sox lost 5 of 6 after winning 11 in a row. Nobody cared, least of all Farrell, who only wanted to rest his guys, let Ortiz celebrate, etc." The critics are dead wrong. For one thing, the Sox didn't clinch until Sep 28, the second game of the final six, which Kimbrel lost by walking 4 guys. This was totally unexpected because the bullpen was terrific in September. But there is no way, no how a rationale can be made the Sox weren't trying that night. They lost, but they also won the ALE when Toronto lost. The next night was the one game of the final six when Farrell rested some guys and started Owens instead of whoever. Anyway, the Sox lost their 3d straight at Yankee Stadium. 3. The final series at Fenway was against the Jays who had everything to win/lose in that series. The evidence that Farrell also wanted to win is unassailable. Thus the Sox won the first game, 5-3, with Porcello on the mound. The Sox lost the next two, both very close, despite starting ERod and Price. Kimbrel, our $9M closer, gave up the winning run in the first game, and in the final game of the season, despite Price and using the regular lineup (as was true of the first two games), the Sox lost 2-1 when Ziegler gave up the winning run in the 8th. Some complain Price should have stayed in longer than 5 innings, but its doubtful he would have gone beyond the 7th. Moreover, carping keep forgetting that the Sox scored just 1 run in that game--the same number Price had given up. 4. That final week needs to be seen in context. In the final 1/3 (Aug-Oct) the Sox played 2/3 of their games on the road and had very few days off. Farrell could have justified giving the key players more than that one rest day (game 3 at Yankee stadium), but stayed with his regulars for the 5 of the final 6 games because, quite obviously, he wanted the HFA too. 5. Kimmi was one of the few who argued rest was the right thing for that final week. In retrospect, she may have been right. Farrell should have rested his guys more than he did. Chances are very good they were tired. 6. However, I think the real problem was that Porcello and Price simply weren't up to the postseason challenge.

Maybe he didn't for the same reason he sent Bradley--who was dead, dead, dead at the plate--for his final at bat. Players can surprise you.

Pomeranz stayed up in the zone throughout this inning. I never noticed before, but out there on the mound he looks like a great big baby.

Really? He was one heckuva lot better than Porcello and Price. We have a deep, rested, bullpen. 4 innings is enough.

I must be the only guy who is actually watching the game because what I have seen is a solid pitching effort by Tomlin of the Guardians. For one thing, I believe he has thrown a first pitch strike to almost every if not every Sox hitter. He has mixed his speeds and locations up, and he has hit a lot of corners.

Very dangerous situation here.

That, ladies and gents, is a pitcher out there on the mound for the Sox--not a thrower as both Porcello and Price are too inclined to be. He mixes up not only his pitches, but also locations, and is therefore hard to anticipate, whereas with both Price and Porcello most hitters can afford to sit on their fast balls or wait for a changeup or something to be left up in the strike zone. Neither of them could go 3 innings without give up 4 runs. Buchholz has now gone 3 and given up 0 runs. What a difference when a real pitcher is on the mound. Like most everyone else, I never thought I would say that this season.

So far 35 pitches by Buch

Occasionally, but not every pitch and not every inning.

Buchholz is throwing a lot of pitches, but so far he seems very different from Porcello and Price in that he is mostly keeping the ball low, mixing in breaking stuff, and hitting some corners. Neither of them came close to doing that.

One consistent difference in all three games is that Cleveland's starters have good control of their pitches, especially breaking balls, and the Sox starters do not. It's not just about throwing strikes, but where and when you throw them. For the most part the Cleveland pitchers made our guys hit their pitch.

I would put it differently and say Buchholz needs to show our rotation doesn't stink, which it has so far.

OK. I read the article. It's asinine, pure and simple. At least he recognizes that Porcello and Price stank it up, but then he wanders off into these fascinating theories about how/why Farrell didn't get the guys psyched up--too much celebrating, the story goes, except that we've already read that from several contributors to talksox, so my guess is that Buckley basically plagiarized the whole article. I was particularly fascinated by the statement that the Sox had simply stopped hitting in the playoffs. If so, it was a one game stoppage because the Sox scored 4 runs in game one which would have been enough to win 6 of the 11 games in the 11 game hitting streak. But it wasn't enough because of Porcello. Nobody says home field advantage wouldn't be nice, but what some of us are pointing out is that this year the Sox have not been that great at Fenway, where they won just 1 more game than they did on the road. And, in case anyone's interested, the Sox took 2 of 3 at Cleveland and 2 of 3 at Fenway. Again, where is this big difference folks are clamoring about? I say again for the umpteenth time, the huge difference in the first two games in the playoffs was the starting pitching. We had the edge in game 1, but Porcello decided he was the set up man for the home run derby and not pitching the most important game--thus far--of his career. The Guardians had the edge in game 2 because Kluber had good stuff and good command, whereas Price only had not-so-good excuses for doing what he as always done in the postseason.

You have to be kidding. That Price got through 5 while giving up just a one dinger (and one run) was semi-miraculous. Sooner or later he was going to throw one of his patented fastballs--but not too fast--near the middle of the strike zone and on a count when the hitter would look for one. And probably with a man or two on base. Plus you are blithely ignoring the fact that the Sox scored exactly one run in that game. How exactly was Price going to fix that?

Brilliant, gutsy move? Bauer was not, is not a topline starter and had already given up 2 dingers and 3 runs in 4.2 innings and Cleveland has one of the best bullpens if not the best in the AL and at that point had a 4-3 lead. Farrell could have done the same thing for/with Porcello and Price except one gave up 4 runs in 3 innings and the other 4 runs in 2 innings. Plus both of course are supposed to be topline starters.

This and the OP are rich with irony because Georom4 never defended Farrell--how could he with just 20 posts?--and regularly excoriated Terry Francona over on BDC where he used to call him "Francoma" and basically blamed him for every loss. And where in the world does he get the notion--which, I admit others seem to have--that the Sox have a huge advantage at Fenway? The fact is that this season the Sox won exactly one more game at Fenway than they did on the road. Look it up. And, as I pointed out in a previous post, in the playoffs this year the away team is winning about as often as the home team. A far more accurate predictor is the quality of the starting pitchers. While I have in fact defended Farrell a lot, I've also been unhappy with him now and then, but this year I have to give him a ton of credit for the great September finish, winning the ALE, and winning 93 games. And, don't forget, almost half of those 162 games were in the AL East which had 4 teams over .500, 3 teams in the playoffs, and right now the ALE 2d place Toronto Blue Jays looking like a good bet for the ALCS. They finished second and avoided missing the playoffs by taking 2 of 3 from the Sox at, guess where, Fenway, and against the Sox regular lineup and starting pitchers Porcello, ERod, and Price. As for the Buckley article, what a crock.

I have two quarrels with your position. The first is that, especially in the playoffs, it all boils down to pitching. You pitch well, you win. You don't, you go home. The exception to that is when you pitch well but still lose because they other guy pitched better. An alternative version of that is momentum is all about your next starting pitcher. The second is that you conveniently have drawn a line and excluded that 11 game winning streak in September as though it never happened. Yesterday, I agree, nothing went right for the Sox. But Thursday they scored 4 runs, and the bullpen was terrific, which was exactly how they won those 11 games in a row. But guess what? Porcello, our presumptive Cy Young nominee, stank it up with 3 dingers and 5 runs in just 4.1 innings. That's right, one guy, the starting pitcher, lost a game that should have been won. So that's why it's not being a pollyanna to think the Sox can win the next game. Win that one and the next one becomes a possibility. Just that simple. This does not mean the odds aren't against the Sox, only that it's a little early to declare this season dead.

Bravo. We disagree on a lot, but that's definitely the right attitude and it's a plausible scenario.

Me, I definitely wanted the home field advantage--on general principles if nothing else. I wanted the Sox to have the best W-L record in the AL. That said, I'm somewhat amazed how everything is now being blamed on having to play in Cleveland. So far in these playoff games, the two wild card games were split--Toronto won at home, but it was a tough win, 11 innings, helped by the Orioles not using their ace reliever Britton. The Giants won in Mets Stadium. Both wild card wins were the clearly result of excellent pitching, not the ballpark. In the other ALDS, Toronto has now won both games on the road at Texas, and tonight the Dodgers just beat the Nationals in Nationals ballpark. And, FWIW, overall the Sox were semi-tied with the Cubs for the best road record in MLB. To me it still boils down to pitching, not location/ballpark. Our starting pitching stunk in the first two games, and Cleveland's was OK in the first and excellent in the second.

I didn't much feel this way during the game, but someone else put it right. Very few of us expected the Sox to win the ALCS, but they did despite a rotation--and sometimes a bullpen--that threatened to ruin this season. The hitting has hit a rough spot, but also won an awful lot of games. Someone else said something else right on target, that pitching tends to take over in the postseason. The Sox did not have great hitting in the 2013 playoffs, but they did have a team ERA of 2.00, and the bullpen was even better than that. In 2016 we have so far had too unimaginably terrible starters.

Soul-searching. Got it.

A very apt and even commendable defense of Price. However, I must point out two additional, compelling facts. First and foremost, Price only lasted 3.1 innings. If Farrell believed his starter just had a little bad luck, he would have left him in. Fact two, in the two games thus far in the ALDS, the starting pitchers have given up 10 earned runs and the bullpen--which has pitched more innings--has given up 1 unearned run. Yes, the hittting was piss poor today, but Kluber is a bonafide candidate for the Cy Young and today we could all see why. He has really good stuff. Not a lot of K's, but very unhittable. Last night the hitting brought in 4 runs, and it simply wasn't enough because our starter in just 4.1 innings gave up 3 dingers and 5 runs. The story of this ALDS so far is starting pitching, pure and simple. The Guardians have it--despite their injuries--and so far we very clearly have not had it.