Maxbialystock

I watched over half of it and thought our guys acquitted themselves well, getting 4 of the 8 AL hits, including that key double by Bogaerts. Some criticism on espn about taking Ortiz out so early, but my guess is he was happy to do so. No errors by the Sox, but JBJ did make that off-balance throw that missed 2B by a mile. I had the sound off, so never heard the explanation of how the AL was the home team in a NL park. This also meant DH's were OK. Long ago I developed my own, no doubt ill-founded theory, that one box score item would reveal the winner: the ratio of K's to BB's. If one team's pitchers have a better ratio, that team, regardless of hits, etc, is more likely to win. Last night the NL had more hits and more opportunities, but struck out 9 times vs. 2 walks. But the AL team only struck out 5 times and had 3 walks. Of course, the AL also had two very nice dingers by the KC guys. I fell asleep around the 5th or 6th inning and later learned, as predicted by many on talksox, that Wright did not in fact get into the game.

ERA eliminates some of the luck by not counting runs caused by errors or, for that matter, passed balls. But luck is also an intrinsic part of baseball that lessens as the statistical sample gets larger, and this especially applies to the ERA. Wins and losses are another matter.

I think Illinoisredsox has it right: the problem is pitching, not LF or 2B or 3B. That said, however, the discussions about getting pitching from a trade--like when the Sox sent HanRam from the minors to Miami to get Josh Beckett, who was huge in 2007--might argue in favor of bringing up young talent either to showcase them or to discover how real the talent is.

Could someone please explain to me why ERA is luck and team dependent? To me the ERA was designed if not arbitrated by pitchers to blame their failings on the defense. For example, if an error is made with two outs, all future runs are unearned no matter how many, dingers, walks, WP's,or other hits the pitcher then gives up in that inning. For another, runs are unearned when the pitcher is making the errors causing the unearned runs. This gets really funny when the pitcher gets a perfect GIDP one hopper with men on 1B and 2B and promptly throws the ball into centerfield. I just don't see how the ERA disadvantages pitchers. To me its the absence of the unearned run that would make a pitcher's runs average (vice ERA) luck and team dependent.

FWIW, the guy running the Sox candy store is John Henry, and to date he has made money at it while bringing 3 WS titles to Boston after the 86 year drought. Theo Epstein ain't running the candy store in Chicago either, but the guy who is pays Theo an awful lot of money and right now is pretty happy with him.

Archer will shut our guys down and theirs will hammer O'Sullivan. Aaron Hill is already getting his first start at 3b against a righty while Shaw rests,probably because of that injury. First six once again are Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz, HanRam, Bradley Then Holt, Hill, and Leon. Four lefty bats in that lineup. Sox attendance is up this year at 35,727 per game--8th best in MLB. Road attendance is 5th best in MLB, so other cities like our Sox. Did fans vote based on WAR ratings? OUr 4 starters have Offensive WAR's of 3.6 (Bogaerts0, 3.5 (Ortiz), 3.2 (JBJ), and 3.0 (Betts). Pedroia at 2.1 unlikely to make the cut. Shaw and Ramirez have the same OPS, .801: HanRam's has been going up and Shaw's going down. It would be so great if the Sox could sweep the Rays. Betts has 58 rbi's and could get 110, insane for a leadoff hitter.

I also have my doubts about Shaw as a defensive 3B--too many errors, not much range.

I applaud all of you analysts who overall seem to think this was a good move. While even I can see the advantages, I also think improving the bench is a sideshow when the pitching is so bad. When Dombrowski makes a move like this, it's like Richard Gere in the movie Chicago doing that "Razzle Dazzle them" number to confuse the jury.

Meh. When the pitching is this bad and the team is still winning enough to be--right now--in the playoffs, it's pretty hard to justify firing the manager or even say he is part of the problem.

You post on lots of things and I agree with a lot of what you say. But every time you post, you also say, "Trade Pedroia. Fire Farrell. Put Buchholz on waivers." That, sir, is a mantra and a contentious one at that.

Look at your mantra down below: Trade Pedroia. Fire Farrell. Put Buchholz on Waivers. So call it three notes, but it's the same three notes every single time you post. You would do far better with Spudboy's mantra, "pitching, pitching, pitching." I frankly think trading Pedroia would not be smart and certainly wouldn't help this year--unless, of course, his departure brought back a front-line pitcher, which ain't going to happen. I am not against firing Farrell ever, just against doing it now because he ain't the problem.

Johnny one note. I watch the games too, and I just don't think we are at that point. You like to blame him for specific in-game decisions, and I think his rationale for all of them is pretty good, so I focus on the players.

Gotta love NCO's, the backbone of the armed services and what truly makes them better than those of other countries. But my objection remains: Patton, especially the one in that splendid movie, isn't the right reference point. In the movie he keeps saying that he trained those guys, but he actually did not. They were all trained in BCT and AIT and, once in theater, by their immediate leaders, NCO's like you. His two great strengths were his firm grounding in military history and tactics, made even stronger by his regimental command (light tanks--1917 French Renault) in World War I and by the slow period between WW I and WW II, and his ability and willingness to go forward and challenge his subordinate leaders. Those helped after D-Day, but he was only so-so (Bradley was better) in N.Africa and Sicily. An MLB manager is more like a platoon leader than a general, on top of which he has to deal with guys who make more money and who have a pretty powerful union. While a manager can delegate coaching and teaching, he makes most of the big decisions himself, probably with input from his coaches. He can fire and fire coaches, but would be hard pressed to fire them up.

It's what Richard Gere offered Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman.

Good win when we needed one. 7 of those 11 runs were earned, just 4 unearned. Wright did look more hittable than usual, so I'm glad my pessimistic OP was blown away by a good offensive performance against a decent Rangers lefty. Sox are currently still a wild card team even though 3d in the AL East. Toronto has won 5 straight and start a 4 game series tonight, at home, against Detroit. Go, Tigers. Sox are off today before playing 3 at Fenway against Tampa while the Orioles play 3 at Camden Yards against the Angels. The Rays and Angels are fighting it out for second worst team in the AL. Sox are 3 back of the Orioles, and the Jays are 2.5 back. Friday night it's the Rays' Archer vs. the Sox O'Sullivan. Archer has an ERA of 4.50 and a 4-11 record. O'Sullivan has an ERA of 6.61 and is 2-0.

1st inning gloating is in order. That was a great and timely dinger by Ortiz. Nothing like a lead in the rubber game against a good team.

Well, great. I guess with Wright on the mound winning tonight will be a breeze. Feel free to float at the end of the game.

You weren't having a discussion, not when your opening shot was a dismissive "nonsense." It was pretty obvious to the rest of us you were just hoping to start a small brawl and not a discussion. Now you want to start one with me by beginning with insults. Everyone on this thread who has commented on Kimbrel has said he did not lose the game, except you of course. Worse, you think your position cannot possibly be in error. Thus you are the one looking for a fight. Youk has assured us you are actually a pretty astute student of the game, but there's scant evidence that's true. As MVP78 says, the offense lost this game. If you will check the box score, you will find no loss attributed to Kimbrel, bad as he certainly was.

Rangers are definitely tough this year, and last time, June 26, Perez went 6 giving up 1 run, a solo dinger, in Texas where we lost 6-2. Monday our guys showed they can beat the crap out of lousy pitching, but last night good pitching held them to 2 runs despite getting on base a lot. We will have our ace, Wright, but Hanigan will likely be catching, and doesn't do well with the knuckler. I think it will be a good game, but am not confident we can win, especially against a good lefty. Last night we had 11 hits but were 2 for 16 with RISP. This is starting to look like some kind of fungus or bacterial invasion--RISP disease.

I honestly think the Sox lost the game in the first inning when Texas scored 2 and we failed to score with men on first and third and no one out with Bogaerts, Ortiz, and HanRam coming to bat. Yes, we tied the game at 2 later on, but then completely ran out of gas. We couldn't score in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th innings. Kimbrel giving up 4 in the 9th was simply putting our team out of its misery because this time the Rangers pitching had our collective number big time. The Sox were 2 for 16 with RISP. And didn't Shaw get nailed in no man's land yet again? That throw home by the RF actually went all the way to the catcher and was not cut off, but the Rangers catcher still had ample time to throw to 2B way ahead of brainless Shaw. For all we know the 1B coach waved him on to 2B. As for Kimbrel, he needs to make up his mind to be a complete closer, one who will go in and pitch well when a save isn't on the line. Interesting how a Yankee fan is allowed not only to offer his opinions, which is fine with me, but then to pick fights with Red Sox fans. He has done his best to turn this thread into a bitch session.

It is unforgivable to have men on first and third with no one out and have the middle of the f***ing order all pop up weakly. It looks as though they forgot the last time this guy pitched and on top of that decided not to watch and video of the guy. Now the bottom of the order comes up and gets a dinger and a triple.

Terrible umpire. Horrible. Had zero effect on the game because the Sox were hitting and Porcello recovered nicely from that first inning, so the Sox win 12-5. And you will not see a headline anywhere in Texas saying, "our Rangers got screwed by that lousy home plate umpire." Why? Because missed calls on balls and strikes do not normally keep good pitchers from getting men out and bad pitchers from getting hit.

If pigs had wings, they could fly. The Sox currently lead MLB, by 30 runs and the AL by 43 runs. They average 5.63 runs/game to the second best AL team's (Baltimore) 5.12. That's better than the bodacious 2004 lineup, anchored by Manny and Papi, that averaged 5.85 runs/game vs. second place Yankees 5.54. These guys are hitting up a storm and you guys are saying, "we need more hitting so we can win more consistently." How about, instead, "some pitching would be nice."

The point is, one guy in the lineup does not transform an offense (even though Ortiz comes close to that). Pedroia's OPS is around .800 and he got the AL MVP when it was I think around .850, so right now he is .050 short of being the AL MVP (and exaggeration) and you think he ain't hacking it.

For the first half of this season Ortiz has been our hitting star--beyond question. But a bunch of other guys have contributed--Bogaerts, Betts, Bradley, Shaw, Young, HanRam, Pedroia, Leon, and in his three latest games, all wins, Holt. He has been hot exactly when the Sox needed a spark. What does amaze me is that Betts, batting leadoff, is second on the team in rbi's. This can only happen if the bottom third of the lineup is getting on base. And it could only happen with this Sox team.