Maxbialystock

I continue to think the $13M was a reasonable investment whatever the outcome. He has had good stuff that has allowed him at times to be very good. His biggest liability in the past was health/endurance/innings pitched. Right now he seems to be healthy. Yesterday was a microcosm of the this season to date. He gave up 5 runs, including a grand slam, in the first two innings, then shut the Astros down for 4 innings. I think one key for him is throwing strikes, especially early in the count and especially on the first pitch. I also think he relies too much on fastballs and cutters.

I continue to maintain that fans are mostly clueless about what constitutes good or bad in-game decisions. Rare, for example, is there any mention in any game thread that the manager made a good one. Frequent, however, are complaints about so-called bad ones. I tend to give the lion's share of the credit to the players myself, but last night I did think Farrell did a commendable job with the pitching--he left Buchholz in about the right length, 6 innings, and brought in 5 other guys to take care of the rest of the 11 innings. Buchholz gave up 5 runs in the first 2 innings, and he and the rest of the staff held Houston scoreless in the next 9 innings--a high-wire act, but one which of course got no kudos from talksox.com. The other high-wire act--relying on youngsters like Bogaerts, JBJ, Shaw, Betts, and Vazquez--will continue through the season. I doubt that any other team in MLB with a winning record has so many young guys playing everyday (Vazquez only playing about half the games). That 162 game season is a grind, and this particular one includes a ton of road games in the dog days of August and September, so, me, I love it when the young Sox of May and hopefully June beat up on the weak teams because it is my guess that we will need that cushion for what is ahead. Old fans like me remember the days when the June swoon was almost obligatory. However, in recent times it was a veteran Sox team that screwed the pooch in September 2011, a season that cost Francona his job. The Sox not only had the worst September for a contender in MLB history, but some of them were enjoying beer and chicken while games were being played. I thought Lovullo was rehired with a pay raise because DD or maybe John Henry wanted him handy so they could fire Farrell. Perhaps. But two other reasons are that Lovullo's insights as a bench coach are also retained. Plus it's possible Farrell's health could suffer a relapse of last year.

Ortiz is unreal.

I can't remember, but I might have been one of the guys screaming for Davis's scalp on BDC. However, I also recognized, because it was so obvious, that the hitting was coming around in August and September.

I'm almost sick and tired of the mantra urging the FO to get another starter because it seems the only ones available are available for a reason--they are on the downside. Maybe, maybe Price is about to turn things around, but to me it's pretty obvious we should have kept Lester. At the time, however, I wasn't so sure because I tend to defer to the FO.

I apologize to one and all for this stupid thread. What I really wanted to know is how rigorous the testing is these days. In any case, I hope Youk comes along and kills this thread.

I said Ramirez in the OP, but my heart is solidly with you. Pedroia by a mile!

The NOAA weather map is ominous. The weather report says rain from 6 to 9:45.

I honestly don't regret being down on Ramirez last year. Heck, he had a significantly negative WAR and was getting a paid a lot of money. Moving him to 1B was a smart move, but I think he just decided in the offseason he was going to turn over a new leaf. The 2016 Hanley is way different from the 2015 one.

Forget DWAR for now. I'm talking about the eye test. I'll start by saying that I wish it were Bogaerts because he works so hard at it and so far has no errors, but I think his range ain't great. So my no doubt contentious pick is Hanley Ramirez because he has 0 errors and because he is still quick on his feet and, as a former SS, is more likely to have excellent range.

First, I have zero suspicions. Indeed, I don't recall any Sox player being suspended but suspect one or more has been. But I ask the question because I don't know how MLB is testing/checking this year.

Vazquez has always looked dumpy to me, but there is no denying is talent and training behind the plate. Forget the arm and the framing of pitches, I like the way he prevents wild pitches and fields bunts. That guy is focused and mobile on every pitch, and he has good instincts. All that said, I think his hitting will improve even though I'm fine with where he is now.

Do you do this for every Sox game? It kind of reminds of the algorithms Ken Pomeroy uses for college basketball only he provides predictions for every single game played by all 351 Div I teams and updates the predictions daily.

Let me hasten to add that I think there can be no question the Chili Davis has been a boon to Red Sox hitting, whether they are going opposite field or just whopping the ball. And it's working throughout the lineup. Davis has to get a lot of credit.

Sox are still percentage points behind the Orioles, so a win would definitely be nice.

To me it's all about the pitching. Even a so-so pitcher can have a good game now and then. What I like very much about our lineup right now, however, is that there are a lot of good bats. Heck, our guys are even hitting lefties! Sooner or later the hitting has to cool off a little. That's when the pitching needs to kick in.

A great bat following a great bat definitely helps. Ortiz was nothing at Minnesota and went on a tear instantly with the Sox because he batted third and Manny Ramirez batted 4th. When Manny left for LA in 2008, Ortiz's numbers, while still good, went down. That's when Ortiz started saying, "I can't get a pitch to hit." Protection, if that's the right term, is no myth. That said, Ortiz's protection--with Hanley Ramirez following him--isn't that great, but he is still hitting up a storm but also getting walked a lot.

One more time, then I will drop it. I see no need for Youk to read every thread. My idea is to simply check the number of replies after the thread has been going for, say, one day (or two days). If the number is low, move it to the scrap heap thread. That said, I truly appreciate what Youk is doing because talksox is a good website and fun to contribute to. I had no idea we only have one mod. Max

One of the half dozen best hitters who ever lived, Ted Williams, was pretty much a pull hitter, which caused Lou Boudreau to create the Williams Shift. Williams still hit for a high average, including .388 when he was 37 or 37, because he made solid contact. When he was here, 2011-12, Adrian Gonzalez showed Ortiz how effective going the other way could be. Nevertheless, Ortiz pulling the ball can still be very effective, especially when it results in solid contact.

Oh, I agree we don't need four threads on Buchholz and am fine with one for now. I also don't think we need four different threads on last night's game. However, I did have the temerity to start a thread on the rubber game win at the White Sox because I thought it was a defining game. We took 2 of 3 on the road from a good team. In the 3d game, we got 3 innings from our starter Owens, but won 7-3 while 7 different guys got an rbi. It lasted a day or two, but then was buried in the game thread, which of course is the kiss of death even though I thought it was a subject worth discussing on its own. But here's my real point. Why not encourage new threads and then bury them after a day or two in something like Kimmi's beating a dead horse thread. The criteria for burying could as simple as the number of replies per 24 hours, which is very easy to check. In the fall/winter I blog on a college basketball site that has tons of new threads after every game. But within a day or two most of them slide down the front page and move to the second page where they pretty much go out of circulation. I would have been happy if my White Sox defining game thread had died after one or two days because few saw fit to reply. That makes sense. I also like "A Realistic View at 2016" because a lot of different topics come up in there, plus it has moonslav and his stats, which are usually pretty good. That format works perfectly for talksox. So I'm flexible. But I still like a policy of encouraging new topics. I also like to express contrarian views as you might have figured out by now.

Please allow a contrarian view. I have no real knowledge of how many threads talksox can sustain, but offer the simple thought that, for the most part, more is better. Take a look at the threads below this one-- JBJ vs. Ellsbury. Fun when it started, but has now run its course. Nothing new to say, really. A realistic View at 2016. Definitely not run its course because it relies on new insights and opinions about how the Sox are doing. Red Sox Offense . . . thrilling as Good for maybe another day or two. Who are David Price's friends? Interesting at first blush, but has definitely lost its bloom. 2016 Starting Rotation. Probably last all summer, but could easily be rolled into "A Realistic View at 2016" The Official Dead Horse Topics Thread. Can always be added to. The David Ortiz Appreciation Thread. Time to let it go. Referendum on John Farrell. My thread. 307 responses. But right now it's a tired topic. Kill it and resuscitate only if the Sox spiral down. Mookie? Kill it. Pablo Sandoval. Kill it. Clay Buchholz, keep it for awhile--still plenty to argue about. Dead Money. Kill it. Missing Iggy Pop? Fun at first, needs to die. Those are just my opinions and I am certainly not qualified to decide what goes and stays. My point is simply there are plenty of new topics that should see the light of day, but this thread and your OP have encouraged us to avoid raising new topics because of the limited resources of the website. I think new topics, even dumb ones, are worth a quick look as long as you have a mechanism for pruning the ones that people aren't reading or especially not replying to.

The Orioles have historically been a very good franchise, but I don't like Peter Angelo or this team because they have failed completely to understand their place in the firmament, which is second tier, just like Tampa. And let's get personal: I sure as heck don't like them beating us. I root for the Yankees when those two teams play because the Yankees are the worthy opponent, but mostly because I want the Orioles behind us where they belong. Who needs Ortiz? We scored 13 without him last night. So what if he leads the team in most offensive categories? Are we facing another lefty tonight with Young in the lineup and Bradley batting 9th? Is there any other team in MLB, MILB or anywhere else that has a 9th batter with an OPS over .900? As important as the hitting is, I like the fact that we have a pretty consistent defense. Lots of speed and good arms in CF and RF. Good hands at 1B, 2B,and SS. Good enough at 3B. Great backstop at C with a great arm.

What leap in logic? It's a guess, an impression. To me Bogaerts is super conscientious and JBJ a little sloppy, but there is no doubt in my mind that JBJ has the better tools. You explanation--that he has had to work harder on his hitting--is at least as good as mine. We agree, I think, on the fundamental point: he could do better. We probably agree on another point: we are most fortunate to have him and not Ellsbury. He is one of the reasons, but not the most important (money was), the Sox let Ellsbury go to the Yankees. And, if it was additional work that improved his hitting, I would agree that time was well spent whatever the effect on his fielding. A so-so JBJ is still a very good centerfielder.

I'm not defending the current -.3 rating, but what I am saying is that so far this year, despite his undeniable talent in the field, JBJ has seemed to me to be not as good as last year or the year before. My suspicion, only that, is that his fielding is slacking off commensurate with his success at the plate. To me he is the polar opposite of Bogaerts who, despite his excellent hitting stats, is super conscientious about his fielding at SS. It also helps that Bogaerts knows he ain't the greatest fielding shortstop around. My guess is that JBJ thinks he is God's gift to centerfielding and can rest on his laurels. That is just a guess. I say again, his talent is undeniable. He not only has a great arm, but also a great instinct for where the ball is going. As I recall, the complaints about Ellsbury were that he had weak arm and less than great instincts about where the ball was going, but he was faster than JBJ is and was pretty good at not making errors.

I wouldn't call Ted Williams a dreadful outfielder even though Jimmy Piersall once claimed he should get paid double because he had to cover CF and LF both. Ted got pretty good at playing the caroms of the green monster. In 1942, for example, he had 15 assists vs. 4 errors. In 1951 it was 12 and 4. Plus I happen to think a great outfielder is wasted in left field at Fenway. Even the best are going to have a problem going back to the wall because it's the one thing you don't want to crash into. But the real point is that Williams didn't get to sit on his fat ass between at bats as Ortiz gets to do. 8 or 9 times a game, he grabbed that mitt and headed out to the field. And don't forget that standing out there can be a mind-numbing experience when you have a slow pitcher or one who walks people or both. My guess is the average time between pitches is close to 30 seconds, which gives you plenty of time for a couple of practice swings and still get bored waiting for the pitcher to do something. Don't forget Williams got nailed by a pitch on his right elbow right before the WS in 1946 and reportedly it swelled up like a grapefruit. Some think that affected his swing, and I'm one of them. 1946 was just one of two seasons when he was voted AL MVP. He loved big games, which is why he was so good in All-Star games. In 18 All-Star games his OPS was 1.091 against the very best pitchers in the NL (and he was 4 for 4 in the 1946 All-Star game). He was such a pure hitter with great eyesight and a very detailed knowledge of how to swing a bat. How pure? Almost 3 walks to every K says a lot, especially for a guy who hit over 500 dingers. No way that swollen elbow didn't affect his swing in the 1946 WS. I did not make it clear that to me you don't even get to the playoffs without a great team behind you. Thus it was the team John Henry assembled that got Ortiz to three WS, and it is beyond question that the synergy between Ortiz and Ramirez, batting 3d and 4th, that allowed both to excel throughout the playoffs in 2004 and 2007--as well as in the regular seasons of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. If you look at his prior year stats (1997-2002) with Minnesota, you will see Ortiz was a shadow of what he would become. And afterwards, 2008-2015, he has been excellent, but not as good as when Manny batted right behind him. Is it worth noting that in 2008, the year Manny ran away to LA, the Sox played 11 games in the ALDS and the ALCS and that Ortiz OPS was around .680? You think Manny's absence wasn't a factor? The next year, 2009, in 3 ALDS games Ortiz's OPS was .167. 2013, however, was a huge, huge year for Ortiz, but especially the playoffs when he was just out of sight--at 38 years of age, which is the same age Ted hit .388 for his last really good season, but with fewer games, no doubt a concession to age and the fact that he had to go out and play in the field.