Maxbialystock

Kimmi makes some very good points about Kimbrel's downturn this year, but he is still the best closer when he has his best stuff, which basically means command of two pitches, the fast ball and the knuckle curve. Together they can obliterate the best hitters, but he needs to command both. When he loses control of the knuckle curve, hitters can and will sit on his fast ball and hit it hard. When he loses both, he walks guys, sometimes lots of them. I also like moonslav's point about ERod, that just maybe he has come into his own and might even be better than last year. This game underscored what can kill the Sox. Even after swamping the A's in the first two games, they couldn't score a run yesterday and had to depend on a bullpen which has proven time and again to be undependable.

I can't argue with any of that and was unaware of that 1200 AB concept, which makes sense for most players. Moncada isn't most players, but he also has had a whole lot less professional time than most players. Plus, as you say, the Cuban "suddenly I'm rich" thing.

What venting? I just took your position--that it's the manager's job (and, by inference, not the player's job) to ensure a player excels--to an extreme. I think I've already agreed that pinch-running with Wright was ill-advised, but had to throw in the fact that Wright also doesn't want to pitch in damp weather or in very hot weather even though other pitchers are expected to because it's part of the game. I kind of liked that new rule for Farrell: to treat Wright they same way he would treat his own mother. Right out of A League of Their Own, and I chose it because to me Wright looks a tad girly even though women actually play pretty good fast pitch softball. As I said when he was injured, he's 32 years old and acts like he's 50. If he were in the NL, his complaint that he couldn't possibly score from 2B on a single would be laughable. If he were to start in the WS, he might be the only pitcher ever to be walked intentionally--just so the other team could laugh at his timidity in refusing to take any lead at all off 1B. The real issue between us is your inclination to blame the manager first and the player second, and mine is the exact opposite. As I have said countless times, all managers make relatively rational decisions because they are reinforced by stats, experience, close-at-hand advisers (bench coach, pitching coach), and ample time to make key decisions. So to me the deciding factor in virtually all games is some combination of the players in the game. Thus Whitey Herzog makes sense when he says the difference between good managers and bad managers is a good bullpen. Yesterday we saw ERod pitch his heart out, and then saw the Sox bullpen and the lineup which couldn't score a run piss it away. The entire lineup was put in a position, in your words, to excel, but could not. Our high-priced closer Kimbrel was too, and he walked a guy and then gave up a game-winning double off the wall which Holt didn't field all that cleanly. To be honest, Kimbrel's ineptitude may have been merciful because that game was going to continue until the Athletics--and certainly not the moribund Sox--scored the winning run.

Interesting how people leap to Moncada's defense. Look, I know he is the #1 rated prospect in MLB. My point is that he is also a rookie and a raw rookie at that. If there is a rationale for the minors, including AAA, it is for young players to learn and work on their weaknesses before they get to the Show. As I pointed out, Sox Prospects talks at length about his speed, strong arm, swing, etc. But it also says he tends to lose focus, and we are already seeing that in spades. Bogaerts, I hasten to add, was completely focused from the day he got here. As talented as he is, determination may be his strongest suit. And Betts is in the same category--talented and determined. My guess would be that the Orioles Machado was the same way when he came up. Let's hope the determination part rubs off on Moncada, but it won't be easy because he already has some big money and a lot of adulation from the press.

A very pretty point you make. Based on what we've seen, we might also include among Farrell's bad in game tactics-- Letting Benintendi get into a game situation where he would have to avoid a tag and do injury to himself. For that matter, he should have been told beforehand not to make that spectacular catch the game before because that too would risk injury. Good managers don't let those things happen, especially to rookies. Forcing Moncada to play 3B and thereby putting him in position to misplay a routine grounder, to say nothing of allowing him to take to big a lead off 1B thereby getting him picked off by a mile. Very poor management there and certainly not in the spirit of putting his players in a position to excel. Not just forcing poor Wright to pinch run, but also making him pitch in adverse conditions--too hot, too wet, etc. How was that putting Wright in the best position to succeed? A simple rule should suffice: Farrell should treat Wright the same way he would treat his own mother. Last year expecting Sandoval to play 3B when he was clearly not in shape to play. I'm surprised the MLBPA didn't come down on him for that one. Terrible judgment. Keeping players in the lineup when they are in slumps. Many's the time we've read on Talksox that Bogaerts or JBJ or whoever should be rested because they weren't hitting. If a manager can't nurture the delicate psyches of his players, what good is he? Bringing any relief pitcher in when men are already on base. Every reliever deserves a clean inning, preferably against the bottom part of the order. Speaking of which, a closer should close, period. None of this pitching in late and close games when the score is tied or the Sox are down one. In addition, on the off chance the closer has lost his control, the manager alone is responsible for stopping the bleeding by selecting precisely the right reliever to come in and save the day. In no way should a closer be expected to perform as a professional baseball player. He is to be coddled and nurtured so that he can give his best in the least trying of circumstances. Making a starter keep pitching at the first sign of trouble. How can that be interpreted as bringing out the best in him? Mr. Wright could cite chapter and verse on this topic. Not playing Shaw when he has a hot bat. For that matter, not playing Moncada when he is clearly the greatest Sox rookie ever. Playing Young against a righty starter or reliever. Madness. Making poor Buchholz bounce back and forth between starting and relieving. This is a highly paid professional who deserves every consideration and, clearly, a full-time position in the rotation. Or as the closer. Or as the setup man. Or something.

Ziegler and Ross were warming up in case ERod had a problem in the 8th, pure and simple.

No. The bottom line is that everyone in the bullpen is a gamble and in this particular game the lineup stank to high heaven. It is a safe bet they were never going to score a run if the game when 20 innings.

This loss is on Kimbrel, pure and simple. He doesn't do anything best anymore. He has control issues at the worst times with and without a lead. And let's not forget that lineup had 9 innings and failed to get even a double, let alone a run scored. And you want to blame this on the manager?

It's a tie game in the 9th and Kimbrel is the best in the bullpen right now. That he gave up a walk and a dinger is simple confirmation that the bullpen stinks.

Maybe Moncada needs to wise up. First a bad error, then picked off 1B by a mile. Talent ain't enough if you don't pay attention.

Sox paid a lot of money for two bonehead plays in about 10 minutes--blew an easy grounder right to him and then got picked off at 1B and it wasn't even close. He's clearly a great athlete with real talent, but the write up in Sox Prospects says he has a problem focusing.

It's not even pessimism. It's realism. Baseball can be like that if a pitcher is on and/or another is off. Toronto just lost 2 straight to the Rays in the Trop. s*** happens.

Agree with all points about the game, especially the Rays runner slowing down to give Betts a shot at preventing that score by going to 2B quickly. A pretty good bet he won't forget that bonehead play anytime soon.

Actually, you have a point. The hindsight accusation was incorrect. You were just explaining how Kimbrel could have been available in the 8th. To that issue--Farrell said in the postgame he used Kimbrel the night before because he hadn't pitched in six days and needed the work. One could fairly argue that Kimbrel was so effective yesterday in the 9th precisely because he had pitched the night before and not gone 7 days between stints. I also believe in retrospect--another word for hindsight--that Tazawa wasn't that bad a choice. When he went in, I was mad. But, as I said, he threw strikes and should have gotten that first guy out. I also think that appearance might have good consequences down the road because his fork ball was working better than it has in awhile. His fast ball will only work if the forkball is also working, and by that I don't mean a forkball that bounces in front of the plate and is no threat to the hitter.

Good stuff, thanks. To summarize, you think Leon and Vazquez aren't far apart in CS%, catching the knuckler, fielding behind the plate, etc. The two big differences are: Vazquez is better at framing pitches, and Leon is a better hitter. You also think Vazquez is better at calling a game and leadership, but I have my doubts because I sure never saw it in terms of how our guys were pitching when Vazquez was behind the plate. Indeed, since Vazquez went back to AAA, the rotation has gotten steadily better--the bullpen not so much, however. Sox Prospects write-up says Vazquez has gold glove potential even though--when they wrote it--he is far from perfect defensively.

OK, let's talk defense--as hard as that can be to quantify. We already know that Leon is significantly better than Vazquez at throwing out base runners. He seems to have done OK at catching Wright's knuckler, but I don't remember whether Vazquez ever did that or how well. As for calling a game, I doubt that Vazquez is any better. I suspect he is better--but not a lot better--at preventing wild pitches and passed balls when catching other guys besides Wright. But is he really better at framing pitches, which some would argue is a very big deal because it affects how the umpires call balls and strikes? I would argue that maybe he isn't because, if he were, he would not have gone back to AAA so quickly after coming up to replace Swihart. Them's my thoughts, nothing more. Feel free to jump all over them.

About Moncada playing 3B. The Sox Prospects piece on him says that long term he is probably better suited physically to be at 3B or in the outfield. He has, for example, a strong arm. The piece also says his weakness on defense is lack of focus, which I think would also argue in favor of 3B or 2B--3B is simpler. Someone else wrote that Moncada might have a harder time adjusting to MLB pitching than did Benintendi. This makes sense to me. But it also makes all kinds of sense to bring him up now and let Farrell decide when and how to use him because this is the month, September, for doing this to all your best prospects.

Good stuff, moonslav, as always. But, as you say, "let's just see how much some GM loved one of our kids." You cited offensive stats, which suggests you value them more, which also suggests why the Sox hung onto Salty so long and why he is the starting catcher for the Tigers, who themselves are in the hunt this year. If the catcher's OPS is so important, Swihart is far more valuable than Vazquez.

That's a sensible statement, but I have to repeat: if bullpens aren't important, why did Epstein, whose team has the best record in MLB, a solid bullpen, and a very solid manager, go out and get Chapman of the Yankees? And why does every single MLB team have 12 out of 25 roster spots for pitchers alone and just 13 to cover the other 8 positions (or in the case of the AL, the other 9 positions)? Indeed, the five starters on average pitch over the half the innings, which leaves maybe 3 (no more than 4) innings on average for the 7 guys in the bullpen to cover. I personally focus mostly on the rotation and the lineup, but smart GM's give due diligence to that bullpen. Did you know that the Sox ERA in the 2013 playoffs was 2.00 and the bullpen, which gave up 2 runs in 16 games, was even better than that?

No, he is not a terrible tactician. If he were, DD would not hesitate to fire him and the Sox could never have overcome his terribleness in 2013. Kimmi and others have pointed out that the manager definitely has to manage egos and keep the team focused. Yes, they are highly paid professionals and playing a game they presumably love to play, but a MLB season is unbelievably long and made more so by all the pitcher/batter idiosyncrasies that make games almost interminable. Plus someone actually has to make those tactical decisions during the game and not leave it to a statistician or a meeting of the coaches. I think Joe Maddon is a smart manager, but also think his best attribute is creating a positive environment for his players. He is naturally upbeat and seems not to be overly intense or obsessive. While I agree relations with the press shouldn't matter much, it does seem important in Boston, and no way can press secretaries answer questions routinely handled by managers. Grilling a manager after every single ballgame is obligatory for every single team in MLB, and the Boston media in particular thrive on it.

i'm not sure that metaphor works. Either way, Benintendi stays in Boston. I just want to be sure Benintendi is completely well when he returns. Knees can be tricky, and the Sox medical team is not exactly renowned for their diagnoses. See, for example, how long it took for them to agree Swihart needed surgery on the ankle. And wasn't it 2010 when they blew it on Ellsbury's ribs? I do give them credit for waiting on Young, who seems to have returned brimming with health.

sk7326, to me bad is a relative term when talking about baseball, especially MLB. In the movie Bull Durham Costner's character points out that the difference between a solid hitter, maybe even an all-star, and a guy just making it is 1 hit per week. Assuming 26 weeks in a season, that's 26 hits, or the difference between hitting .300 and .250. Right now the Sox are fun to watch and definitely in the hunt for the playoffs. They are in your words "not bad." Their winning percentage right now is 56%. Last year in your words they were unquestionably bad. Their winning percentage was a disgusting 48%. If last year's team bad team played this year's competitive, not bad team ten games, last year's team would win 5 out of 10 and this year's team would win 5 1/2 out of ten. The year before our percentage was 44%, which still means this year's team would only have a 1 game margin in a 10 game series over the 2014 team. I happen to agree the Cardinals are the gold standard for MLB, but mostly because they have a terrific fan base for a smallish metropolitan area and because they don't try to outspend everyone else to get the best players. Instead, they seem to be very good at getting the right players, effective players who fit in. They come closer to achieving what Billie Beane is trying to achieve in the movie Moneyball than Billy Beane actually does in real life--these days, anyway. I would also agree that under John Henry the Sox have only been the 2d or 3d best franchise in MLB. To me that's fantastic, especially when the Sox are always going nose to nose--including losing players to--with the wealthiest team in MLB.

Really? You know what other teams are thinking? Is this something telepathic or do you have some hard evidence of their popularity with other teams? Don't the Sox currently have five viable MLB catchers (Leon, Holaday, Hanigan, Vazquez, and Swihart)? If Vazquez and Swihart are so coveted, why hasn't DD cut a deal? For that matter, why did DD jump at the chance to get Holaday? And why did the Sox move Swihart to the outfield if he has so much potential as a catcher? You know a lot more than I, but I have real trouble believing Vazquez and Swihart are so coveted as catchers.

Baloney. The only difference between a good manager and a bad one is a good bullpen, and the Sox right now have a lousy bullpen, which leaves Farrell with a choice of picking his poison. All managers without exception have access to all kinds of useful stats and trends, have pretty good game experience themselves, have at least two good coaches (pitching and bench) immediately available for additional insights, and usually have plenty of time to make real time decisions. This doesn't mean every decision will prove to be successful because that is not the nature of baseball, but it does mean every decision is reasonable. Did you not notice all the last minute moves around August 1 by the good teams to get the best possible arms for their bullpens? I think most people would say Joe Maddon of the Cubs is pretty good, and in fact the Cubs have a terrific record this year, best in MLB. But no way was Epstein going to pass on the chance to get the Yankees' Chapman and simply say, "we don't need not stinkin' arms in the pen. Joe will figure it out by magically knowing when to pull a starter or a reliever." As for suboptimal lineups, that too is a crock. There is zero statistical evidence that merely changing the batting order will magically produce success. Some things seem obvious, like putting the better hitters closer to the top of the order, but even that isn't sacrosanct. This year both JBJ and Benintendi have flourished batting 9th. I thought moving Betts down in the order was smart, but guess what? He led the teams in runs scored and was second in rbi's throughout the time he was batting lead off. The simple fact was/is Betts is good almost anywhere in the lineup and Shaw is not so good almost anywhere in the lineup. Platooning Holt and Young in LF seemed to me to work well, but Benintendi staying there also worked. The best way to fix a lineup is to get some good hitters.

I think this is spot on. Vazquez might have stuck in Boston despite his hitting, but in fact his defense was not all that great no matter what people say about his framing and quick throw to 2B. As a corollary to this, Swihart clearly lacked catching skills last year but was our primary catcher because he could hit and the defense wasn't terrible. Right now I would rather have Leon or Holaday as catcher than Vazquez. Leon is much better, for example, at throwing out baserunners. Holaday and Leon both have higher DWAR's than Vazquez and have played in fewer or the same number of games. And then there's the tommy john thing. What's to say it won't go out again?