Maxbialystock

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?

Best Sox owner ever and it isn't even close. With 30 teams and long playoffs, winning it all is much harder than during most of the 86 year drought and the Sox have won 3 WS in the John Henry era. My guess is he isn't that personable or close to the players, which is fine with me. His brain seems to work pretty good.

I'm fine with whatever the FO decides because they made the call on Benintendi and were right. If they wait on Moncada, it will be for good reasons.

As much as I would love to see Benintendi back this year, I hope the Sox will be conservative because the combo of Holt/Young ain't that bad and Benintendi has many good seasons ahead of him.

Thanks very much for the update. I was wondering.

I'm not a Dombrowski fan by any means, but I have to admit his moves have stabilized the rotation and not prevented the emergence of a pretty darn good lineup. He let Farrell bench Sandoval. He failed to fix the bullpen, but it wasn't for lack of trying. As for selling the farm--trading away prospects--I honestly am not worried. Espinoza might turn out to be an ace, but to me that is very much a long shot and I'll settle for Pomeranz now if he can keep it up. We kept Betts, JBJ, Benintendi, Moncada, Leon, Vazquez, and some others, which is plenty in my eyes. I remember our great angst at losing the greatest SS ever named Iglesias and now think he was no loss at all, especially when he is so injury-prone and something of a prima donna (something we signs of before he was traded). We lost HanRam to Miami after the 2005 season, but got Josh Beckett, who was key to the 2007 WS win. We lost Rizzo, now a star with the Cubs, but we got AGon, who was and still is very, very good. I do think giving Price the 3d or 4th largest annual salary in the history of MLB is absurd, but it seems to fit the Sox budget. Isn't he getting more per year than ARod ever did and close to what Stanton is getting?

Wild applause for those who stuck by JBJ. I was definitely down on him even though I did not think he was headed back to where he was early last year and all of 2014.

I would be ecstatic with 5 or 6 wins out west. I even agree they are doable. But every time our team gets in a winning groove, something seems to happen to throw them off. Despite a solid job today, the bullpen is a worry. Sometimes the hitting, as you say, struggles against a good starter. Of the five current starters, I think ERod and especially Wright right now are suspect.

Trash away. As the occasion arises, now and then I will probably defend his decisions. But early trashing by you is now a must.

Complete hindsight. I didn't like seeing Tazawa at all, but in the event he threw strikes to both batters which is something Sox relievers haven't done a lot of lately. His only problem was not using the forkball on the first batter when he had an 0-2 count or when he had the 1-2 count. Instead he kept throwing fastballs and the last one right over the geometric center of the strike zone, which resulted in a score-tying single to CF. He got the second guy out on two straight forkballs. By leaving Tazawa in to finish the 8th, Farrell gave Kimbrel a clean 9th to pitch--as it turned out, for the save. As for last night, Kimbrel pitched the 9th in a winnable game--the Sox were down just 4-3 and Farrell hadn't used Kimbrel before that all the way back to August 24. Given how lousy the bullpen has been recently, I would characterize Farrell's reliever decisions in this game as just about perfect.

He threw nothing but fastballs to that guy and waited until the next guy to throw two forkballs to get an out. He had an 0-2 and 1-2 count on the first batter and should have throw the fork ball either time instead of fastball after fastball. Wins aren't stupid, per se, but obviously can sometimes be misleading.

Sox win despite another bad start by Wright who gave up 4 in 4 innings. This time our bullpen gave up 2 in 5, but the Rays' gave up 3 in 4. HanRam's grand slam was the big blow, which might just have been the hit of the season to date because this win was badly needed. But Pedey had 3 hits, Bogie had the dinger, Holt had a nice hit, as did Hill, and Bradley had a super game with 3 hits and 2 rbi's. Is it possible the magnificent Tazawa got the win? What an irony.

Ziegler is reportedly out with the flu.

No way, no how can Kimbrel get an ace like Longoria out.

What a disaster this game is. Farrell has unaccountably left himself with some guy named Kimbrel to close a 2 run lead. Now is when we need a Ross or a Barnes or even an Abad. What the hell was he thinking?