Maxbialystock

All good reasons.

After last night, I'm a little less confident in Swihart in LF. He's not good at setting himself to throw after catching a fly ball.

I'm wondering why Vazquez seemed to say nothing about those ball/strike calls against the first batter.

I'm getting the Orioles feed and they made no comment on the ball/strike calls for the first batter against Ross. They also normally do not show the frame of the strike zone. But I was also checking my ipad mlb.com app which does show the framework.

Ross was screwed on that first batter. Terrible calls by the ump.

Pitchers are dumb not to pitch Shaw on the outer part of the plate where he definitely looks uncomfortable swinging.

HanRam got caught stealing, but was an incredibly accurate throw.

Porcello threw 2 straight semi-fast balls (88 mph) to a guy with 16 dingers already and one was right in the middle of the zone.

JBay always has the nitty-gritty. My mlb.com app says tonight's lineup is Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz,Ramirez, Shaw, Swihart, Young, and Vazquez. Once again six righty bats against a righty starter. I live about an hour away from Camden Yards, but can't stand the rush hour traffic for a mid-week night game, to say nothing of getting back at midnight or so.

I vastly prefer college basketball for reasons you state. I too hate too many flags in the NFL but tolerate them. What I can't stand is the ridiculous number of timeouts. I like to channel surf and am pretty sure that at least half the time when I go to an NFL game they are in a commercial. I honestly don't think today's umpires are prone to make the games about themselves--mostly because of the replays, which take the wind out of the sails of both umpires and managers. Gone are the days when a manager's first instinct was to charge out onto the field. Now he waits for his guys in the back room to tell him if he has a gripe and even then all he does is ask for a replay.

I'm not saying it comes out even for any particular at bat. Heck, no. Pitchers and hitters both can get bad calls that dramatically affect an at bat. What I'm saying is that over the long haul it does all even out. Good pitchers persevere/adapt and so do good hitters. Good teams--like ours, with great hitting and marginal pitching--win and bad teams lose regardless of missed calls by the homeplate umpires.

Is it relevant to this discussion to point out that Kelly has been sent back to Pawtucket? The OP opined that Kelly got screwed by the umps, which he (the OP) found infuriating. Apparently, the Sox front office thinks the real problem wasn't with the ump but with the pitcher. I say again, umpires do not prevent good pitchers from getting hitters out nor good hitters from getting hits. They also, sadly, can't keep bad pitchers from getting torched. I remain unconvinced that, had all balls and strikes been called perfectly--by a machine or otherwise--last night, Kelly would have done any better. I am of course no expert, but one has to assume that the manager, pitching coach, and FO are.

Undeniably. But his shelf life is much shorter and, one presumes from those advocating his departure, is injury prone. Also, Iglesias was already well established as a terrific defensive SS. The question was whether he could hit. Most people think that the two positions where you can give up some hitting to get better defense are SS and C.

Terrible blunder by the FO. I read right here on talksox--heck, right here on this thread--that the problem wasn't with Kelly but with that blind, stupid umpire behind the plate. If MLB would only go with balls and strikes called by cameras and computers--thus providing great pitchers like Kelly with a pure strike zone--he would be competing for the Cy Young every year.

Probably so. One more reason to appreciate what John Henry has done for this franchise. They've won three WS after 86 years of nothing and are on their third GM and third manager and today have one of the best lineups the Sox have ever had. The pitching is a little scary, granted.

When Moncada is close, I'm fine with trading Pedroia. But right now this team, right now, is winning--leading the AL East--after two losing seasons. And Pedroia is one of the reasons why. Holt isn't. Also, if you are so confident that Pedroia will go on the DL again--maybe for the rest of the season--don't you think other teams have the same thought? Do you remember Iglesias in 2013, the absolutely brilliant defensive SS who some claimed could singlehandedly lower the team ERA by a run a game? There are still guys who say we shouldn't have traded him. Detroit got him and one assumes still love him at SS. At 26 he should give them a lot of good years. Do you remember who we got for Iglesias? Jake Peavy. My guess is that we might get another Jake Peavy for Pedroia. And, unlike 2013, we don't have two good back-ups (Drew and Bogaerts).

A good point. They do disagree, but discreetly. Hitters, on the other hand, are more than happy to make their displeasure known although some, like Bogaerts, seem to do it in a very polite manner. Plus there is only one catcher, but there are 9 batters in the lineup.

For the record, I would not object to trading Pedroia for a #2 starter, which right now is a compelling need. I do not, however, think Holt would be "fine" at 2B or anywhere near as good as Pedroia in the field or at bat. Think about the simple fact that Holt has mostly played LF and has been platooned with Young at that. Can you see platooning a secondbaseman? Because I don't think a good starter is available in return for Pedroia, I am a strong believer in not trading him. Right now it's the lineup that is winning games. Heck, to date it's maybe close to the best lineup the Sox have ever had (I have no proof of this assertion). And I think Pedroia is a key part of the lineup and the infield defense--like Derek Jeter was for the Yankees only a better fielder.

Your suggestion is impractical because MLB will never agree to it because the umpires won't. My guess,only that, is the MLB will also not want to automate calls on balls and strikes for the same reason. I personally think umpires have improved in all respects. While I agree balls and strikes and still called incorrectly, I'm less sure of the 14% number because I believe in that grey area where a pitch can be called a ball or a strike without blaming the umpire for a mistake. If we accept that grey area of, say, 1-2 inches, my guess is the percentage of missed calls goes below 10%. But even if it doesn't, I don't accept the notion that missed calls change the outcome of many games. Good pitchers can adapt to whatever the umpire is calling, and bad pitchers can't. Let's not forget that this thread began with the assumption that Sox pitchers would be beneficiaries of more strikes called--a more liberal (or more accurate, take your pick) strike zone. I personally think the Sox pitchers would not benefit as much as opposing pitchers who actually have good location and good action on the ball. Most of our guys can't throw a decent changeup. Most of our guys can't throw a breaking ball that goes anywhere near a corner--it's either way out of the strike zone or dead center. Most of our guys over-rely on the fast ball, the only pitch they can locate, so they need an umpire who will call strikes on pitches that are close. Me, I'm an advocate of a liberal strike zone because I think walks are not good for the game. This is especially true in this era when commentators and others are saying that only worthwhile measure of hitting effectiveness is OBP, on base percentage, which causes batters to wait the pitcher out. I even find myself sometimes thinking that our hitters need to build up the pitch count of the other team's starter. But in fact it's a better game when hitters are more aggressive, which is true, surprisingly, of most our hitters right now. The problem, however, is that most hitters think it is their right and almost their obligation to disagree when a strike is called anywhere near the periphery of the strike zone. Pitchers and catchers,on the other hand, are discouraged from doing the reverse--complaining when a "good" pitch is called a ball. On top of that, I don't think MLB will ever do something that adversely affects hitting and scoring. My guess is MLB headquarters doesn't mind squeezing pitchers.

Great example because I have definitely seen him make a game all about him. However, this year seems pretty subdued. Maybe last year too. But I honestly think he is the exception, not the rule. Plus his antics should have been quelled years ago if the chif of umpires or whoever at MLB had had any balls.

I think this is an ongoing issue with him this year. Despite batting 5th in an extraordinary lineup, he is 5th on the team in rbi's.

Rare is the ump who ruins games intentionally--ditto airing personal grievances against players. Those days are gone. I note too that you still want to fire Farrell and trade Pedroia. Somehow those two assertions make me think I'm the right side of this discussion.

Funny you should mention that. The NL did in NL parks. I think the game is pretty good either way--with or without a DH, a position I think was created to get more hitting. Indeed, a very solid case can be made that since the end of the dead ball era and the emergence of Babe Ruth, MLB has consistently favored hitting over pitching on the assumption that hitting and scoring bring fans to the games and/or the boob tube. Thus was the pitching mound lowered when it was clear pitchers had regained their ascendency after Ruth. Thus the DH. Thus the willingness of almost any hitter to indicate displeasure at a strike called and the unwillingness of pitchers to do the same when strikes are not called. .

I vehemently disagree that over the course of a 162 game season umpires and their mistakes will prevent good teams from winning, bad teams from losing, good pitchers from getting batters out, and good hitters from getting hits. I would remind the proponents of the pure and undefiled strike zone, enforced by technology to be accurate to the nearest millimeter, that this thread started in part because of the perception that the great Kelly was mistreated by the umps in Toronto. You know, the bad umps. Tonight it appears the Orioles have somehow convinced a new set of umpires that the great Kelly should once again be denied fair calls of balls and strikes. This has resulted in poor Kelly giving up 7 runs in 2.1 innings. I say again as emphatically as I can, it's that TV picture and associated technology that has convinced some of us that the strike zone must somehow be purified when it has had its rough edges for 140 years and those rough edges have not prevented the game of baseball from being a great game to watch. Umpires are far less confrontational than they once were--ditto managers--and that probably saves some time but I'm not so sure it makes for a better game to watch. About those replays and occasional reversals of calls. I'm not against them, but on the other hand it can get very boring watching endless replays of multiple angles to tell us--before the guys in NYC can--whether the calls were right or wrong. This is particularly aggravating when the call was right. Sometimes I'd be just as happy seeing a manager go apeshit when he thinks it was a bad call.

The difference is the umpires still make the calls. What you are advocating is that umpires not make the calls on balls and strikes. I think the game does suffer a little with those interruptions, but, as it turns out, they have smoothed out the interactions between managers and umpires and no doubt prevent confrontations, which lead to longer delays of game.