Maxbialystock

The definition of "thought he was ready" almost always includes AAA experience with very few exceptions. Can you name any? I agree they hoped he could improve the team, and maybe help get to the playoffs, but the risk--hence my use of the word desperation--is that he would not be ready, would flounder (see JBJ), and would go back to the minors and maybe take longer to get to Boston.

As it is, there are now 34 pages on one little old rookie leftfielder. While I too credit southpaw for making an accurate prediction, I would further say that moving up Benintendi so quickly--skipping AAA--suggests some desperation on the part of Dombrowski. I say this because this has been for most of the season a great hitting ball club. Sure, Holt has reverted to form and stopped getting the big hits, but you can't expect a great hitter in all 9 slots. On the plus side, I freely admit, now that Benintendi appears to have justified this gamble, the Sox now know what they have and so does everybody else. He is the polar opposite of Espinoza, an 18 year old lefty who shows great promise but is still just 18 and years away from the Majors. Is it worth pointing out that the Sox now have three good-hitting outfielders (assuming Benintendi can keep this up) who can all play centerfield with some skill? One of the three could become trade bait. If I had to pick one, it would be JBJ.

A fair question. They have stats, and all I have are observations and opinions. Plus I really like that Warren Spahn quote.

Meh. To me when you can't keep the batter off guard--having to worry about a good breaking ball--you put a whole lot more pressure on the fast ball and especially on the accuracy of your fast ball. Hitting different corners with a fast ball--a pitch that each and every time requires tremendous effort--is not easily done. We are talking about a couple of inches from a distance of 66 feet and you're throwing around a hundred of the suckers. If Price has a great changeup, I mean one that gets either a bad swing and an out or a swing and a miss or even a non-swing on a called strike, I sure haven't seen it very often. What are those stats based on anyway?

Not a very credible OP--sorry, bosoxmal--but a good discussion. I agree with the "no ace" judgment, but also think our rotation right now is the best it's been since the first half of 2014. Despite having watched many, many games on TV, I don't consider myself an expert on pitching. Nevertheless, it seem to this uneducated eye that other teams have starters with good breaking stuff and we do not. Price clearly relies too much on his fast ball and does not have a changeup he can rely on. The same applies to ERod. Wright's success is predicated chiefly on the fact that he has a great breaking ball and on good nights uses his fastball sparingly. I think Porcello mixes his pitches well and haven't watched Pomeranz enough to give an opinion. When Buchholz is good, he throws a lot of different pitches--fast ball, cut fast ball, changeup, curve, and I think a slider--and he puts them in the right spots. Price and ERod both have changeups, but can't reliably put them in the right spots. Kimbrel has a great fastball, but I think he would be hittable if he didn't also have that knuckle curve (or whatever you call it). And this. How many of you remember that time several years ago, before 2013, when Nava, maybe a rookie, faced Verlander with men on base and got a single off a 100 mph fastball, which of course he hit to the opposite (left) field? I am convinced Nava would have had no chance except that he was sure that pitch was going to be a fastball--I think it was a 3-2 count. That's what I think happens to our starters too often--they rely on the fast ball and become predictable. Wright is predictable too. In fact, very predictable. But that darn knuckler is still hard to hit when it is really working. But when it isn't, when it's missing and the batter can bet on the fast ball, then Wright becomes very hittable. I watched Sandy Koufax pitch, once, in Philly. Great fastball, but also a great curve that dropped off the table. And he had, finally, great control.

While I agree Dombrowski replaced LL, I think these days he doubles as the GM, who is largely invisible. I am not so sure Dombrowski is the right fixer for this team. He signed Price to the 3d or 4th highest annual salary in MLB history, and he is nowhere near that value so far. And he traded Espinoza for Pomeranz, which so far doesn't look that smart. Kimbrel and Ziegler and Young and Hill have sort of worked out, but those weren't big moves.

Wrong thread.

I don't know about starting, but Buchholz is looking better and better in relief and is probably right now our best choice for long relief. FWIW, Price has pitched more innings than any other Sox pitcher this year.

Right now the Sox have scored 86 more runs than they have given up--that's the highest margin in the AL and a small factoid that suggests, only that, that Farrell could do better than he has.

While I will defend specific in-game decisions until the cows come home, I do not disagree with the idea that Farrell has overall responsibility for wins and losses and more specifically for whether the team is performing up to its potential. I think right now there is significant doubt they are performing to their potential. I have disagreed endlessly with MVP73, but could not agree more that Farrell should not be back next year if the Sox don't make it to the playoffs.

Buchholz--note spelling--has proven in the past that, despite his speed, he is a horrible baserunner.

You know something. You have a point. He should have brought in Tazawa to serve up a couple of gopher balls. But, of course, if he had brought in Tazawa and he had given up those two dingers, you would be on his ass for taking Price out. He's getting paid $217M, you would say, he should be allowed to work his way out a jam. Plus he's nowhere near 100 pitches and it's only the 4th inning. And so on. The neat thing about blaming managers is you've got them either way if the team loses. And if the team wins, why of course the credit goes to the players. When Francona was managing in Boston,we had fans who truly believed that good managers simply did not lose games. Ever.

So far our first five hitters have 2 singles, 5 K's, and one horrendous, bases-loaded GIDP.

Errors absolutely do count when evaluating pitcher performance. I say again, without those two egregious errors, the Sox are leading right now 5-3.

It was a terrific slide which gave up almost no velocity plus he stuck his left hand out and touched the plate while going by.

I'd put him in CF. In the last 12 games, including this one, Bradley is 6 for 44 with 1 rbi. Have you watched him at the plate tonight? Talk about a lost soul. It's like we're back in the earlier segments of last year and all of the year before.

Without the errors the Sox would not be leading this game 4-3. Without Bogaerts totally horseshit GIDP in the 3d inning with the bases loaded the Sox would be leading by more than 4-3.

I think I do get it. Did you not notice that Holt's egregious error (couldn't catch a perfect throw to 3B) gave the Dodgers an extra out in the 4th inning and that all three runs in the 5th were unearned?

As promised, this is all Farrell's fault. No problems with the sieve defense or the absolutely abysmal hitting. Those don't count. What counts is the Sox are down 6-2, caused mostly by two huge errors by Holt and Bogaerts and leading to 3 unearned runs (it should have been 4 unearned runs), so it has to be Farrell's fault.

Not quite. Right now it doesn't matter who LA sends to the mound--our guys are unable to hit the ball. McCarthy left because he had a gigantic control problem, a problem, I hasten to add, the Sox did a terrible job of exploiting. Price gave up 3 earned runs. The defense, which has been gawdawful, gave up 3 on their own.

Absolutely true, and, frankly, I agree with that informal rule. I'm happy to defend specific managerial decisions but also think he should be held accountable for overall team performance.

Actually, I think the calculus is based on several factors. It might look like the Sox are in this game down just 4-2, but the hitting is absolutely abysmal and the defense is pretty awful too. Plus now the umpire ain't giving him the corners.

You might prefer Vazquez, but the entire management system of the Sox apparently does not. He can't hit. But I also think his defensive skills are overrated. I say this because to me the pitching didn't seem to improve one iota with Vazquez behind the plate. Don't take my word for it. If his catching were actually helping the pitching staff, they would have found a way to keep him in Boston.

Bogaerts in there trying to take some of the heat off Bradley by looking absurd while striking out. The ace on the mound? Someone named Chavez with a 5.24 ERA. And don't forget. This is all Farrell's fault.

Absolutely amazing. Two days in a row the Sox can't hit. We have two singles and the Dodgers, going against Price, have a homer and two doubles. Bradley is just clueless at the plate. An 0-2 count and he looks at a fast ball near the middle of the strike zone.