Maxbialystock

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.

I entirely agree. He is getting more strikes outside the zone than is Porcello, and that ain't right. If it is going to be a liberal strike zone, which I like, it should be liberal for both pitchers. I like a big strike zone because it moves the game along.

I have to confess to not being a real Yankee-hater. To me they are the worthy rivals who are tough to beat but nevertheless beatable. There is always satisfaction in beating them, and these first two games have shown why that is true.

He's batting 6th. Bradley could move up to 7th, I like him 9th because he is effective there, either batting in runs or setting the table for the top of the order. Also, I like the idea of batting the weakest hitter 8th. I would not, however, be opposed to flip-flopping Holt and Bradley because Holt would probably be pretty good at batting 9th.

Let me make this very simple. You thrive on insulting newbies who disagree with you and even indulge in a little cyber bullying with your repeated insults. You are the one at fault, not I.

A fair point. Apparently, newbies on talksox are not supposed to have opinions or, if they do, they should only be to agree with what someone else said. I started this thread to get a discussion started and overall have been happy with the responses. But then I got my dander up when I was attacked by one guy largely because I just joined the site--a very mild form of cyberbullying. Somewhere in there came the argument that playing Young was a clear case of mismanagement, so I decided, what the hey, why not look at the numbers? And the numbers say to me that there are good reasons to play Young despite the fact that he can't hit righties (so far this season, anyway). I was astounded to discover that Betts has 97 at bats against righties and just 7 against lefties. Even Shaw, who owns righties and is owned by lefties, sees a lot of righty pitchers. Then I looked at the roster and realized that Young is more likely than the typical fourth outfielder (who is not platooned) to get at bats. He plays whenever Holt sits and whenever Holt moves to the infield. Plus the Castillo things. You call yourself "old fart," but I might be older (born 1940). I have found this thread to be rejuvenating.

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.