Maxbialystock

sk7326, We have little if anything to argue about.

Agree keeping Manny, despite his antics, would have been "worth it." Problem is, he wanted out because he was sure he deserved an A-Rod contract. I believed then and still believe we could not keep him for the same reason we could not keep Ellsbury.

Yes, but where I am coming from is that 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.

I don't think he is a platoon outfielder, but could be wrong. I see him as the 4th outfielder, but one who ain't no bargain at $2.5M. I agree he needs to hit or else, but last night was not a good test because the White Sox starter was dynamite as he has been all season.

Sox had 6 righty bats against Quintana, so a little hard to place the whole blame on Young. Holt would have done no better. The one lefty bat that seemed unintimidated by Quintana was JBJ. Shaw and Ortiz struggled. Sometimes you just have to give the other guy credit. Quintana has been tough all season.

Great responses because I agree there are several good choices. No need for a poll. I was surprised at the number of pitcher picks--Porcello or Wright. But in a month when the rotation was so bad, we should applaud the two who were not. They were in fact badly needed. I even like the Hanley pick. He wasn't that good at the plate, but his solid play at 1b and positive attitude were no doubt infectious.

Young is used sparingly. Castillo should return when he is better than Holt. Swihart was apparently a liability behind the plate. Right now neither can help Boston.

I don't think I'm conflating anything. Young has been used sparingly despite being the 4th outfielder and Holt being called upon to play in the infield now and then. If you are right that he should only be platooned against lefty starters, the Sox are basically paying him $2.5M basically to sit on the bench. If he is as bad as you say he is, why did the Yankees play him in 140 games last year? And,remember, this is all in the context of whether Farrell should be fired. There is no way, no how any MLB manager would be fired because he gave some at bats and innings in the field to his 4th outfielder in April. As I pointed out earlier, for all we know Dombrowski asked him to play Young a few times just to see what he can do because we know the Sox would love to bring Castillo back but only if he can help.

I nominate Pedroia who was great in the field and at bat and played the game the way it's supposed to be played, which is a great example for the younger guys. I'm sure others have different ideas, which is fine.

To remind: 1) the Sox have faced very, very few lefties as starters or relievers. Young is the 4th outfielder, and, one of the outfielders, Holt, also plays the infield, so it would be hard not to play Young occasionally against righties. Young has the highest ratio of facing lefties vs. righties of anyone on the team--10 at bats vs. lefties and 16 vs. righties. 2) despite having a huge number of at bats--16--against righties, Young has been unable to prevent the Sox from leading the AL in runs scored (by a big margin), OBP, and doubles. 3) the Sox are now 15-10 and .5 games ahead of the Orioles in the AL East despite Young's and Farrell's best efforts to keep that from happening.

Me, I don't care that much about the velocity of the fastball because those with good ones tend to use them too much. What concerned me last night is that Price faced a lot of righties and didn't use his changeup very much. Kimbrel lives on his fastball, but last night he also got in some good breaking stuff.

I think it is fair to say that JD Drew was a five tool outfielder. He could hit, hit with power, field, throw, and run the bases. I thought he was a terrific rightfielder at Fenway--good range, good arm. The Sox paid him $14M/year which back then, almost 10 years ago, was a goodly sum, especially for a 31 year old outfielder signing for 5 years ($70M). In 2006 he knocked in 100 runs for the Dodgers. In 5 years with the Sox he never drove in more than 68, but did score 84 twice. He never played in more than 140 games in a season for the Sox. Looking back, I thought the Sox did OK with him even though, like most others, I thought he missed too many games when he was here. He kind of reminds me of Ellsbury because both have had a tendency to get hurt or otherwise miss games. And both, apparently, got worse after they signed final contracts--although Ellsbury's is for 7 years and I think $154 million.

I agree with those who say the sample is small, so just let me add that so far our righty-dominated lineup is handling righty pitchers pretty well. My goodness, last night Vazquez hit a crucial 2 run dinger against a very good reliever, a righty of course, named Betances. As for Girardi, he might not like facing lefties, but his guys killed Price last night.

Some day, some how, maybe this thread will get back to the 2016 season, which I happen to think is going pretty well despite real concerns about the rotation. On the latter, I would like to know how moonslav thinks that will work out. Will it turn around? Will new guys be brought in (or up from the minors)?

In case anyone is wondering, I am not now going to claim I was the lone Farrell supporter/booster because I was not. I defended not firing him, that's all, and did so on principle and not on any great insight into whether he is a good manager or not. I would have been fine with firing him last year. I also believe that his so-called dumb decisions weren't so dumb, and I give the players the lion's share of the credit for their success so far. I also give the rotation credit for keeping things interesting and making the manager's job harder.

You are certainly right about splits against lefties. But the Sox have accumulated somewhere around 700 or 800 at bats against righties , which ain't exactly infinitesimal. They pounded more righties again tonight.

Another thrilla from manilla, this time with Vazquez the hero. Price continues to struggle, but he had a nice 7th inning.

Wow. Just wow.

In trying to explain why Farrell has played Young, I discovered two fascinating stats about this team in this so far very young season (which means things could change). The first is that opposing managers appear to be terrified of sending lefties in against the Sox as starters or relievers. Betts, for example, has faced lefties in 6% (7 of 109) of his at bats, Pedroia about the same. Even Shaw, who has seen the highest percentage of lefties, still sees righties 80% of the time. The second is that every single member of the regular lineup--Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Ramirez, Shaw, Holt, both catchers, and Bradley--hits righties better than they hit lefties. Betts, granted, only hits righties slightly better--OPS 795 vs. 714. And Ortiz hits both sides well--over .800 against lefties and over 1.000 against righties. But almost everyone else hits righties three times as well as they hit lefties--like Pedroia, whose OPS against righties is .885 and against lefties .286. Someone else might have the answer on why this is so, but I can only offer three possibilities: 1) season is young and the righty pitchers will eventually get good against our lineup; 2) lefty pitchers are a dying breed; 3) lefty pitchers are alive and well but by happenstance haven't faced us yet. Let me add about our lineup is that we rarely have more than 4 lefty batters--Ortiz, Shaw, Holt, and Bradley. Of the remaining five lineup slots, all righties, four are in the top five slots--leading off with Betts, Pedroia, and Bogaerts with Ramirez betting right behind Ortiz in the 5th slot. In other words, this Sox lineup practically demands a righty starter--except of course that all of our righty regulars hit righties better than lefties.

Actually, I think it's a least three things--OBP, SB's (with few CS's), and doubles--all of which the Sox lead the AL in. Anyone know what the Sox team RISP OPS is?

Hard to believe they will play, but I agree it would be terrific even though I hate Sunday night games.

SinceYaz, "It's a blast" is exactly the right phrase. There were glimpses of that last year with Lovullo at the helm, but this year is better. Again, I'm not sure that's because of Farrell, but think Ramirez's transformation into a firstbaseman and the absence of Sandoval have helped. This is a younger team than the championship ones and maybe that's it. Of course, sometimes I think the youngest one of all is David Ortiz. Whatever the reasons, it truly is a blast.

I think aggressiveness on the base paths partly explains the Sox leading the AL--comfortably--in runs scored. They are below the League average in dingers, but have more SB's--with an insanely high percentage, 91%, for a team--and a lot more doubles than anyone else. The cold weather might be helping--if one assumes it affects outfielders and catchers ability to throw accurately.

Managing has been downright brilliant in this game so far. Farrell made up a lineup card, basically the one he has used all month long, and handed the ball to Porcello, who has pitched with grit in view of the umpire favoring Pineda. Holt's defense in LF is growing on me. He is not intimidated by the wall and actually plays caroms well, and his arm is pretty good.

I hear you, but have to say once again that I began this thread with a somewhat lengthy explanation of why I don't think Farrell needs to be fired right now. It was not only non-antagonistic and not high-handed, it was borderline apologetic because I said would have been fine with firing Farrell last year. I have said I agree that Young ain't hitting righties. And I did not say that my arguments or evidence were necessarily right, only that those disagreeing made no attempt to defeat them. I entirely agree that I've been a little harsh and high-handed--you say obnoxious-- but believe those comments were in response to unmerited insults. I am beginning to discover that on this board insults are apparently normal, so clearly I need to adjust. Meanwhile, I continue to believe the arguments and/or opinions that Farrell should be fired right now have little merit, that the team is playing solid ball (13-10 and leading the AL in runs scored) despite the issues with the rotation, and that a good case can be made for Farrell playing Young against righties, etc.