Maxbialystock

I get verizon fios, which includes nesn, but only for pregame and postgame, Nevertheless, it was great to see shots of Yawkey Way, which is almost as great as seeing the inside of Fenway. Great atmosphere, but horrible sight lines down the right side, surely the worst in MLB.

Truer words were never written. I still remember that tying grandslam in game 2 of the 2013 ALCS against the Tigers. That whole postseason was filled with unexpected treats.

You need to read more carefully. I said Young is the fourth outfielder, which means he can replace any of the first three, including Holt. He can also replace Holt whenever he is used in the infield. The biggest problem with my argument is that you can't defeat it. If you could, you would.

I didn't say you couldn't criticize the manager, especially on a forum like this. I simply provided some counterbalancing points. It was not intellectually dishonest to mention Lovullo because he is in fact the bench coach. Are you arguing that Farrell has a bench coach he doesn't talk to about lineups and other decisions? And did I not reconfirm and indeed emphasize that Young isn't hitting righties, which is basically your only point? I notice you stayed away from two key points because you have no counter to them--that Sox hitters have overwhelmingly face righty pitchers and that the Sox, Farrell, would have other reasons for getting Young some at bats besides letting him hit only against lefty pitchers, which proportionately he has done more than any other Sox hitter. This is indeed an open forum, but you have decided I can't have an opinion because it differs from yours, because I'm new to the site, and, dare I say it, because my arguments are more compelling than yours.

Last night was a great, great win, but hardly a beatdown. Until JBJ's double off the monster, Tanaka was in control and backed up by a great bullpen. And that Yankee triple was actually an error by our centerfielder. As for Owens, he led a charmed life last night with those four double plays, including the terrific throw by Holt. Gotta love the way these guys are playing despite the rotation.

Good for you for defending Farrell, which I mostly stopped doing last year when I thought it probably was time to fire him. This year I am defending an idea more than the man, and the idea is that managers rarely get fired for making bad in-game decisions and usually get fired for the simplest of reasons: the team is losing or not playing up to expectations. A corollary to that idea is that managers have a wealth of information and relatively abundant time to make in game decisions, on top of which most of them have bench coaches who surely are there to be a sounding board if nothing else. The guy you like, Lovullo, is currently the bench coach for Farrell and no doubt a participant in all those decisions you take exception to. On top of that, managers don't have to make a whole lot of decisions during a game as I have pointed out before. I therefore think it is illogical to assume that, just because a decision turns out badly or we don't readily see why it was made, it was a bad decision. Let me also acknowledge that Young ain't hitting righties this year--a big swing in OPS between his lefty and righty splits. So it is fair, at least on the surface, to ask why in the wide, wide world of sports Farrell--possibly with the support of Lovullo--persists in batting Young against righties. The first part of the answer has already been stated: the Sox have faced a lot of righty pitchers this month and not many lefties. How many righties? Betts leads the team in at bats with 104, and only 7 of those have been against lefties. Similar ratios apply to the other key righty bats--Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ramirez, and both catchers. Thus has the point already been made that, if Young should not be used against righties, he basically shouldn't be used at all--or, at the most, very sparingly. Let us note in passing that almost every hitter on this team actually hits righties better that lefties, which helps to explain why Farrell has stayed with pretty much the same lineup--Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Ramirez, Shaw, Holt, catcher, Bradley. Betts, it turns out, only hits righties slightly better than lefties, but almost everyone else, including the other righty hitters, hit righty pitchers way better than lefty pitchers. The two exceptions have been Swihart, now at Pawtucket and a switch hitter, and the increasingly infamous (on this board) Young. Other than the simple fact that the Sox have faced a whole lot of righty pitchers so far, there is another reason for seeing Young bat against them. He is, true, the fourth outfielder, but we should also note the ubiquity of the third outfielder, Holt, who we all know also plays 3B, SS, 2B, and 1B. Because of that, Holt is more likely than most regular outfielders to end up playing in the infield, especially since Sandoval went on the DL. This means that Young gets to hit a little more often than the usual fourth outfielder (vice a platoon outfielder) and inevitably will face righties, at least in April 2016. On top of that situation is the Castillo business. He ain't hitting and his fielding is erratic, but the Sox are paying him a whole lot of money to be down there at Pawtucket. I think they want to bring back Castillo, but only if he can contribute. So right now it seems to me to make sense to give Young a few more at bats and fielding opportunities so that the Sox can make a more informed decision about who to play in the outfield after Betts, Bradley, and Holt, remembering that Holt can always be a backup infielder, also that the Sox are paying Young $2.5M this year (after playing in 140 games last year for the Yankees). One more small point. To date Young has 26 at bats, 16 against righties and 10 against lefties. This means he has a faced a far larger proportion of lefty pitchers than anyone else on the team, so Farrell is not ignoring the fact that he is far better against lefties than righties.

Concur.

Actually, I think you are not being objective when you gloss over a very good and important decision Farrell made--to bench Sandoval even though he is paid a lot of money to ride the pine. You are also painting Young as a loser when in fact he played in 140 games last year with an OPS of .773 and this year has had all of 26 at bats. FWIW, I would have been fine with a decision to fire Farrell last year, but some hard-headed baseball executives, the same ones who had no problem firing Francona and Valentine, decided to bring him back. I respect their judgment. You apparently don't.

Gotta agree with JasonBay44. People complaining about Young are making a mountain out of a molehill. The team is hitting great and leading the AL in runs scored, so his weak hitting (26 at bats) ain't the issue. He played in 140 games last year with the Yankees and had an OPS of .773. Castillo has never come close to that, plus his fielding is erratic. Last year he had 6 errors and 5 assists. I would have no problem with Castillo getting another shot in Boston, but have absolutely no problem with the way he is being managed. Oh, and let's not forget that right now our best outfield is Betts, JBJ, and Holt. Thus Castillo, were he in Boston, would probably be sitting on the bench a lot.

A couple of minor points-- First and foremost, Chris Young is far away from being a problem. Why? Because the team is hitting and scoring up a storm even when he plays. They lead the AL in runs scored. He's a righty bat and good outfielder (probably better than Holt) who last year played 140 games for the Yankees with a .773 OPS. Second, Farrell made the decision to start Shaw over Sandoval, a much, much, much more important decision--and the right one--than inserting Young into the lineup now and then.

Vazquez has looked great behind the plate tonight.

Farrell mismanages another game. When will this nightmare end? Wrong lineup, wrong pitchers, to say nothing about letting Bogaerts get tagged out at 2b. What were he and the coaches doing during spring training if not preparing the players for all situations?

Hyperbole though it might be, there are plenty on this board who want Farrell fired right now. As for the head-scratching pitching changes and pinch-hit decisions, those are in the eyes of beholders, all of whom rely heavily on 20-20 hindsight. To wit, when the Sox lose, it had to be the manager's fault: he left a pitcher in too long, used the wrong pitcher, didn't keep a pitcher in long enough, played Young (an "unmitigated evil" all by himself), used the wrong pinch hitter or failed to use one when needed, etc, etc. This same stuff was repeated ad nauseum during the entire tenure of Terry Francona, who was so bad he only helped win two WS and ended (with a lot of help from some very good players) the 86 year curse of the Bambino. I think criticism of managerial decisions is the stuff of blog sites and of course to be expected. We all have our own ideas about what the right move should be. What I don't buy is the total conviction by some bloggers that they really do know more than the manager and are positive he is making bad move after bad move. If Farrell is as dumb as some on this board think he is, why isn't there a hue and cry among the commentators? Forget the NESN guys, I'm talking about beat reporters and espn guys and fox sports guys, etc., guys that John Henry doesn't own. Or forget Farrell and think about all those other 29 MLB managers for a moment. How many stories have you or anyone else read about a bad managerial decision that turned a win into a loss or failed to win a winnable game? Those stories are so rare we remember them, like Grady Little in I think the 7th game of the 2003 ALCS when he left Pedro in too long. But my fundamental disagreement is with those who insist it must have been a bad decision (or several decisions) because the Sox lost the game. Their premise seems to be, "good managers simply don't lose games," which is preposterous. To date, for example, the Sox have lost 9 games. Would you like to bet we could go look at those 9 game threads and not find vehement criticism of Farrell's managing?

A good game overall, especially the hitting, and in spite of the four passed balls by Hanigan, about whom Jerry Remy said repeatedly that Wright's knuckler was really jumping last night. I remember when Epstein suddenly brought Mirabelli back just to catch Wakefield. Remy also pointed out that Wright is mixing in a fair number of fastballs and curves. He finished with I think 7 innings and 1 earned run--ironically, I think the unearned run was because of Wright's errant throw to 2B on what should have been a GIDP.

The Swihart discussion is a good reminder that he caught a lot of games with Boston last year, but this year was sent to Pawtucket after playing in just 6 games. He is reportedly working in the outfield right now, and last year he was our primary catcher. Wow. Last year our primary thirdbaseman was Sandoval, but this year it's Shaw, who is hitting up a storm (and was trending that way late last year). Last year our leftfielder was Hanley Ramirez with an overall WAR of -1.8 for the season, and this year it's Holt, mostly. Ramirez, now at 1B, is comfortable, but his OPS is lower so far than Napoli's was last year, and the Sox dumped Napoli around August 1. Nevertheless, what you have to like about this year's team is that right now seven guys--Ortiz, Shaw, Pedroia, Betts, Bogaerts, Holt, and Ramirez--have 10 or more rbi's, the most being 16 rbi's. That is a tough lineup even though Betts, Bogaerts, and Ramirez are not yet hitting at their potential. This has all happened under Farrell, which to me does not mean he gets the credit, only that he is not the unmitigated evil some would paint him to be. And the pitching just might be coming around, possibly because Swihart is gone, who knows?

No one need apologize for being down on Hanley last year when he had a negative WAR. I thought he would be fine at 1b this year plus I didn't want the Sox paying another team so Ramirez could play for them. It sure would be nice if he would hit this year.

Holt always looks as though he is looking to walk.

Pedroia does indeed look like the Pedroia of old. That dinger was up enough to have gone out deeper into right. Good swing.

The OP speaks for itself. While I have no objection to firing a losing manager for whatever reason--heck the Sox FO fired Francona (didn't renew his contract) after a winning season--I simply disagree that firing Farrell right now is cut and dried. I think I made a decent case for not firing him when the Sox are .5 games out of first despite the worst rotation in MLB. There have been several on this thread who agreed with me and plenty who do not, which is fine. Disagreement is the stuff of threads and websites. I certainly made no generalizations about those who disagree. I simply object to the language from that one poster and the venom it implies. I treated it as a personal attack and responded in kind, but without the same language.

I checked weather.com. In the 50's in Boston, but going down to 39 tonight. Brrr.

I think one or more of the lineup players who played Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday could get a rest tonight. I remember Farrell (and others) liked to alternate lefty and righty batters, but so far leading off with three straight righties has worked. Keeping Shaw in the 5 slot after Ortiz would provide back to back lefty bats. Then Ramirez, then Holt, then the catcher, then JBJ. At some point, if JBJ gets his stroke back, he should move up, but right now he is not a bad fit at 9th. What is the weather like in Boston? Cold? Down here in N. Virginia it's in the low 50's.

The last refuge of small minds--gutter talk.

"Not a good in-game tactician" based on what evidence? You whiners get mad every time a starter goes bad--you would take them out in the first inning if you could--or a reliever blows a lead. I agree Lovullo did a good job last August-September, but pointed out in the OP that Farrell is doing just as good a job even though the new ace and new closer have underperformed.

Good points on Maddon because I entirely agree he provides a terrific climate--in Chicago as he did in Tampa. But the complaints on this board ain't about climate, but about specific decisions--you know, the old 20-20 hindsight trick. And, as you say, Farrell is also a player-first manager.

If you are talking about the clubhouse climate, I might agree. But then I would say the climate had to be fantastic in the clubhouse in 2013 because the Sox won it all after a losing season under Bobby V. Almost all of the same players came back in 2014 and finished in last place. Sox were lousy last year, then Lovullo took over, and many of use thought he was a change for the better. But right now, back under Farrell, they are playing better--I think because Sandoval is gone (for now) and Ramirez is happy if not hitting. Napoli is gone too. Right now six the of the Sox hitters have between 10 and 14 rbi's--the proverbial balanced lineup. I give the players credit for that and for the fact that the Sox lead the AL in doubles and runs scored. My point is that Farrell isn't hurting this team on the hitting side. As for the pitching side, he has little control over the fact that right now the Sox have the worst rotation in MLB. Could he manage the bullpen better? Maybe, but I have to note that three different times Kimbrel, the $9M closer, went into tough situations in late innings and screwed the pooch leading two losses and one blown save (that became a 12th inning win).