Maxbialystock

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.

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.