Maxbialystock

I think the game last night, nailing down 2 of 3 at Chicago, the best team with the best ERA in the AL, was a defining game for this team. Not defining the whole season, of course, but where they are. Why defining? 1. Starter Owens left after 3 innings, which has happened way too often this season. But Farrell brought the right guys in at the right times--except for Hembree, who had a bad night and almost cost the game--and the Sox held Chicago to 3 runs. 2. Seven rbi's, all by different guys. That's a deep lineup, which the Sox have enjoyed all season long, even when Young was in. 3. Solid if not brilliant defense. I think of Holt as the weak link, but he made a great grab and has shown a pretty good arm now and then. Ramirez surprisingly solid at 1B. So now the Sox are 6 games over.500 and .5 ahead of the Orioles despite a rotation with too many Freddy Krugers--Owens, Buchholz, and even Price come to mind. Kimrel too even though he usually frightens the opposition. Biggest surprise is that with five youngsters--Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ, Shaw, and Vazquez--this might be the least experienced good Sox team in a long, long time, maybe ever. I give Farrell credit for keeping JBJ in the 9 slot even though he has an OPS over .800. That has to drive opposing teams nuts. But it probably won't last.

I completely disagree with the notion of what I call "the big fix." Stanton would make the hitting better, of course, but it's already very good with Holt in LF. Fernandez would almost certainly help our woebegone rotation, but right now I'm enjoying watching the Sox find ways to compensate and still win games.

Actually, you killed the thread ( a defining game?) on the Talk Sox forum by attaching it to slasher's game thread.

Can they play tonight? Lots of rain here in DC. In his last start, ER was lousy, than very good. The hope is that Sunday will be a further step in the right direction. Owens is one of the very few Sox starters I've seen who can be sent to the showers before giving up 6 or 7 runs and before throwing 100 pitches. At least one famous manager once remarked, "if you don't have control, you have nothing."

I don't want to overstate Farrell's role because my inclination is always to give the players credit. I would have fired him last year. I have defended him this year only on general principles because I don't sweat in-game decisions or even lineups. I go by wins and losses. But I wanted to note that the rotation has made the in-game decisions a little tougher than usual and think Farrell has done that part well, last night being a great example. Even there, however, the relievers had to come through--Farrell hasn't thrown a single pitch this year. My real intent was to focus on the team, which I think shows a lot of promise even with a rotation with too many Freddy Kruegers (Owens and Buchholz come immediately to mind, but also Price and Kimbrel the closer).

Last night's win over Chicago might have been. The starter stunk. It was a cold night in Chicago and, more importantly, the rubber game against the current best team in the AL with the best pitching staff. The three things I like the most about last night are (in no particular order): 1) Seven runs batted in by seven different hitters, reaffirming this is a deep lineup; 2) Solid, if not brilliant defense; 3) astute management of pitching staff to replace Owens after 3 innings and Hembree, who did his best to open the floodgates for the White Sox, which allowed us to hold the White Sox to just 3 runs. We are still way early in the season. It this were 30 or more years ago, we would be looking for the infamous Red Sox "June swoon." For a Sox team, this one is pretty young, so you have to worry about their ability to stay focused thru that brutal 162 game season of basically 6 games a week. The rotation is a real concern, but the team ERA is coming down thanks in part to a pretty good bullpen, and dare I say it, managing. And the hitting, honestly, has been amazing. Ortiz is unreal, Ramirez seems to be coming around, Pedroia is like the 2008 version, Shaw is a huge, huge improvement over Sandoval, Bradley might be the best #9 hitter in the history of MLB (an exaggeration) and a big pain for opposing pitchers and managers, Holt is plugging along, and Betts and Bogaerts haven't reached their potential yet but are sure to. Both catchers catch and hit now and then.

Perhaps. But elsewhere Farrell is chastised for playing him at all. I happen to agree he is paid to hit all of them and that Farrell should give him opportunities--not too many--to do so.

Back to Iglesias. I didn't just like him for what he did for the team, I thought and still think that great defense is the poetry of MLB--whereas pitching and batting tend to be the prose. All that said, the rationale for letting him go in August 2013 was good--the Sox already had Drew starting and Bogaerts backing him up. If getting another starter would help get to the playoffs and beyond, so be it. Last year and this year, WAR-wise, Bogaerts had been near the top of AL shortstops. Others have argued we should have kept Bogaerts and Iglesias for 3B and SS in the future. Perhaps. But I like Bogaerts at SS right now.

Tonight is a crap shoot with two relatively untried starters. Good for us that Chicago is starting a righty even if no one has seen him. White Sox fans probably think lefty Owens is good for them. Rubber game in a key semi-defining early series.

You said it better than I because you are more concise.

Meh. I'm sure you're approach is better than mine, but what I like about Farrell's lineup with Pedroia #2 and Ortiz #4 is that it seems to be working despite the fact that our leadoff man gets lots of rbi's (and runs scored) even though his OBP is under .300 and Bogaerts hasn't driven in many runs from the 3 slot. I do remember Pedroia has good stats when batting 4th. Right now I even like Bradley in 9th because he has done a lot of damage there even though it seems to put an over .800 OPS at the bottom. Eventually, I think Bradley will move up in the order even though 9th has been good for him and the team. If I did anything up top, it might be to switch Ortiz with Bogaerts. After Manny left, Ortiz used to complain he couldn't get a good pitch to hit. So far this year, I think Ortiz has been IBB'd a couple or so times because Hanley is seen to be much easier to pitch to. On the other hand, it is also apparent that Ortiz has in fact gotten plenty of good pitches to hit so far this year.

I forgot the speed part, thanks. My guess is the FO reasoning is as follows: we signed Young for two years and $13M; we also signed Castillo for more than that; neither has delivered to date; but in the near term Young makes more sense because he wasn't too bad playing 140 games for the Yankees last year; Castillo, meanwhile, will benefit from more innings and at bats down at Pawtucket until we are ready to give him another shot in Boston; longer term, if he is up to it, Castillo gets LF (or RF), and Young or Holt is traded away (even though trading away Young won't be easy).

The thing about Holt playing LF so much is that so far he has best bat among himself, Castillo, and Young even though Farrell has sometimes platooned Young into LF against a lefty pitcher. I think Holt will stay in LF as long as he has the best bat. And why not? Playing LF does not prevent him from moving to an infield position, including during games.

You can't mean that. Individual games or at bats notwithstanding, he has been great so far this year and anything but helpless. His OPS for April was .846. However, as you imply, his OPS in 15 at bats against lefties this year is a horrendous .266.

More civil, but less interesting. I try not to be uncivil--even though I am longwinded and like my rhetorical flourishes too much--but I never put anyone on ignore, and over on BDC we had some people very much worth ignoring.

The most impressive thing this year about Swihart and Castillo both is the rapidity with which they were demoted. This doesn't mean they are bad players, but does mean that the front office acts decisively when it's clearly someone isn't helping. Swihart was struggling behind the plate, as was the pitching staff, and Vazquez seemed to be ready even though the surgery was only a year ago. Young and Castillo have basically the same skills, but Young played 140 games for the Yankees last year and seemed OK. Castillo has yet to live up to expectations and clearly needs more seasoning even though he is over 25 (pushing 30?). I don't think we will see Swihart back in Boston unless Hanigan or Vazquez is injured, but we could see Castillo. Young ain't helping much, at least not yet. Kind of reminds me of the saga of JBJ. The Sox didn't try to keep Ellsbury after 2013 because he was going to be way too expensive and because they had JBJ standing in the wings--an excellent centerfielder. But he couldn't hit to save his life. He still played a lot in 2014, but a lot less in 2015 with Betts taking over in CF and Bradley going back to Pawtucket. Still, the Sox kept bringing JBJ back up for short stints, including in August 2015 after Victorino was traded. I thought nothing would come of it, but agreed it made sense because the Sox were out of the race by then anyway. And suddenly Bradley started hitting and finished the season with an OPS over .800, which he still has this year. I was astounded. The problem for Swihart is, as Kingface says, he probably can't hit well enough to be a leftfielder. The same goes for Castillo. However, so far Holt is barely adequate. A leftfielder should have an OPS over .800. My guess--only that-- is no one among Holt, Swihart, and Castillo can maintain and OPS over .800 or over. Holt gets to stay in Boston because he can also play all four infield positions.

Why does this fall on Young? There were five other righty bats in the lineup last night--Betts, Bogaerts, Pedroia, Rutledge, and Vazquez--and three good lefty bats (Ortiz, Bradley, Shaw). I am not defending Young at all. Indeed, he does not impress me at all when he just stands at the plate looking at three called strikes. But he is still just 1 of 9 and hardly the most important 1. The alternative to Young is probably Castillo, but so far Castillo has not shown much on offense or defense. And how could anyone complain that Ortiz had a great night with 3 rbi's, including the key 2-run dinger? Right now he leads the team in rbi's, but there are several others who are knocking them in as well because the Sox have a pretty deep lineup this year even though Young hasn't contributed much to it.

A surprising game so far. I figured Buchholz to go 3 innings given the first.

I agree completely that Buchholz is problematical, but, heck, we just saw Price give up 6 to the Yankees woebegone offense.

Sucked in MLB ain't the same as in the NBA or NFL. You can be mired in last place and your manager in danger of losing his job and still be playing .400 ball. Go back and look at both series. In the four against the Braves, the Sox won the first one, 1-0, hardly a cakewalk. They lost the last game. And the 2d game was 6-4 going into the 9th when the Sox scored 5 runs. In the Yankees series two of the three games were close, exciting games to watch. Speaking of sucking, are you unaware that our pitching sucks (or has sucked) with the 13th best ERA on the AL? That they gave up 7 or more runs against Cleveland, toronto, Baltimore twice, Tampa, Houston, and the Yankees? That Kimbrel was absolutely horrible in at least three games? That Price ain't worth the price (yet)? Hitting is keeping the Sox alive, and you guys are griping that Farrell is mismanaging the lineup and the pinch-hitting because Young has 16 at bats against righties. I mean, how bad can he be? I say again, I assume the manager is making good decisions as long as the aggregate decision-making (the wins vs. losses) is good. I also say again, the big decision was benching Sandoval and playing Shaw, and he got that one dead right.

Nice article. I just replayed the Vazquez dinger and it shows quite clearly that Holt was going on the first pitch. Holt is not, repeat not a risk-taker. He has two stolen bases so far. No way was he going on his own on the first pitch and in that situation (two outs, late inning, game tied). That play had to be a hit and run. I am confident that Davis did what he said he did--told Vazquez to be aggressive. That might even have inspired Farrell to call the hit and run. But I have no doubt hit and run was the play.

espn.com has the Sox roster with salaries and lists his as $2.5M. If the is being paid $6.5M/year, all the more reason to see what he can do even when the Sox are not seeing many lefty pitchers as was the case in April.

mvp78, 1. I hear you, but my point remains: Farrell knows what he is doing--certainly better than we do. Young is the 4th outfielder and was/is surely paid $2.5M/year to do more than ride the pine. The Sox were facing predominantly righty not lefty pitchers. If the Sox want to bring Castillo, who is paid even more than Young and also hits righty, back to Boston, it's worthwhile now to see what Young can do against both righties and lefties and in the field. Last season Young played in 140 games for the Yankees, so surely he has some ability against both righty and lefty pitchers. 2. The Yankees and Braves bad records are due in part to the solid play by the Sox. Two of the Yankees games were actually tough wins because even lousy teams can beat good teams, especially when a good team has a gawdawful rotation. 3. I'm not ready to give Chili Davis credit for Vazquez. The fact is that Farrell took a chance on that first pitch and it paid off. It helped that the Sox overall are known not to be first pitch hitters. About point #1 I need to add that, while it's always fun to talk and argue about the best lineup, I firmly believe that one guy normally doesn't make or break a lineup, which is why managers will often leave a player in a slump in his usual slot in the lineup. Plus this is April for crying out loud, the perfect time for Farrell to put guys in there to see what they can do. I believe he is under the gun--that if the Sox are losing in May or June, he could be out of a job. So I give him credit for playing Young because the FO and he both need to know what he is capable of this year.

Another White Sox lefty starter. Who you want in LF, Young or Holt?

Here is where I am coming from-- Farrell has a far better grasp of in-game tactics and stats than any of us. Plus he has a pretty good bench coach, Lovullo, helping him. So, quite frankly, I assume that every single in-game decision is well-informed and a good one regardless of outcome. Red Sox fans tend to assume that a bad outcome has to mean a bad decision. Last night, for example, playing Young had to be a bad decision because he didn't get a hit, score a run, sacrifice, or drive a run home. Me, I'm fine with that because I think the chances Holt would have done better are small. Moreover, it is always useful to give a bench player a game now and then. Plus the Sox are paying Young $2.5M, so it makes sense to see what he can do. From that standpoint, a bad outcome (no hits, etc) is almost as useful info as a good one. I think the only time in-game decisions are relevant is when they are considered in the aggregate and tied to the team's overall success. Before last night the Sox were 5 games above .500 for the first time since 2013. Therefore the cumulative in-game decisions are fine from my perspective. I also notice that no one, repeat no one, gave Farrell any credit when he had a hit and run on Sunday night when Vazquez came to bat with I think Holt on 1B. I think he did it mostly because he expected Betances to throw a first pitch fast ball strike because he had just come into the game. Farrell gets no credit for the dinger, or course, but should get lots for having Vazquez swinging at what was indeed a very hittable pitch. Let me hasten to add that, had Vazquez swung and missed and Holt been thrown out, it would have still been a good decision to do the hit and run.