devildavid

No, we're winning because on average we score more runs than we give up. Both sides contribute to the equation.

There really isn't a major problem with hitting. The Sox run differential avg. is .4, which is third overall in the AL. You only need to score more runs than you allow. There is room for improvement, but the offense is sufficient to win more games than they lose.

How much blame should Farrell get for Porcello's performance so far this season?

I've been a Porcello skeptic from day one. I wish he could prove me wrong for more than just one season.

I'll just pick out a few I like who seem to sometimes get treated dismissively. Sandy Leon. He is a fine defensive catcher who comes up with his share of hits and hot streaks. I love having him and Vaz share catching duties because they are both pretty solid defensive catchers and I never feel like the team is worse off no matter who is out there. Matt Barnes. He just grinds it out and does a decent job. Not spectacular but mostly gets the job done. Jackie Bradley, Jr. He makes great fielding look so effortless and his batting hot streaks and power are impressive. Brock Holt. I know he's been hurt but I can't hold that against. I love his versatility and the way he has the ability to spark the team at times.

Another big test for Porcello tonight. Let's hope he can pitch at least as good as Pom just did. We need to see some signs of hope. Go Rick!

I thought that UZR did the same thing. http://www.fangraphs.com/library/defense/uzr/

My point was that they left Hanley in the outfield even though it was an obvious failure. It took much too long to conclude that playing the outfield was not putting Hanley in the best position to succeed. That is all on management.

All he is saying is that all hitters can go through hot and cold streaks. It doesn't mean that they lose the ability to hit or don't have talent. It happens to all hitters in the ebb and flow of a long season.

Any real problem with the baserunning has been trying to steal when it is not needed and baserunning blunders which may be caused by being over aggressive on the bases. Too many baserunners have been doubled up lately by getting too far off the bag before they are certain whether a ball will be caught or not. Base stealing can be useful at times, but the negative impact of being caught stealing should be considered as well. Sacrifice bunting is even less "productive" because it trades an out for advancing a baserunner. You have to consider the negative impact of making that out.

I think a good manager's impact shows up in overall athletic performance and execution by players on the field. To me, a great manager instills a certain philosophy in the team. It is like a general guideline that emphasizes execution, effort, and consistency. I don't know if I would describe this as fire, but more as maximizing potential of athletic performance. Each player's strengths should be brought out as best they can and weaknesses should be minimized. For example, the Hanley outfield experiment was an example of poor management. Once his deficiencies there were observed, the plan should have been immediately scrapped. Now it can be argued this was not all the fault of just Farrell, as his hand was forced somewhat. But it is still a management issue in the broadest sense. Management is always a team effort with key players being the GM and the field manager. The more closely they work in sync, the better job they can do. A GM should work with the field manger to address needs on the field and try to find players to address those needs. Much of the field manager's success hinges on the talent he has to work with. It is then up to him to maximize the potential of that talent. So winning is not really the true measure of a successful manager. It is rather a subjective evaluation of whether or not he has brought out the best in his team and they are performing near enough to their best potential. That is really all a manger can do. He can't win games by being smarter but he can get the best out of the players he has. How to judge that is subjective because it depends on your view of the talent he has and how good you think they should be performing.

I think a good manager's impact shows up in overall athletic performance and execution by players on the field. To me, a great manager instills a certain philosophy in the team. It is like a general guideline that emphasizes execution, effort, and consistency. I don't know if I would describe this as fire, but more as maximizing potential of athletic performance. Each player's strengths should be brought out as best they can and weaknesses should be minimized. For example, the Hanley outfield experiment was an example of poor management. Once his deficiencies there were observed, the plan should have been immediately scrapped. Now it can be argued this was not all the fault of just Farrell, as his hand was forced somewhat. But it is still a management issue in the broadest sense. Management is always a team effort with key players being the GM and the field manager. The more closely they work in sync, the better job they can do. A GM should work with the field manger to address needs on the field and try to find players to address those needs. Much of the field manager's success hinges on the talent he has to work with. It is then up to him to maximize the potential of that talent. So winning is not really the true measure of a successful manager. It is rather a subjective evaluation of whether or not he has brought out the best in his team and they are performing near enough to their best potential. That is really all a manger can do. He can't win games by being smarter but he can get the best out of the players he has. How to judge that is subjective because it depends on your view of the talent he has and how good you think they should be performing.

Hey, nobody's perfect. You've still have had your share of good insights on the Sox. Your experience and knowledge of Red Sox history and baseball is a very valuable resource to this board.

Trying to steal third is usually a poor choice as it risks removing a baserunner who is already safely in scoring position. Don't risk outs and potential runswhen you have no pressing reason to do so.

Another example of a poor choice trying to steal a base in last night's game. I hope it wasn't Farrell's call for Bogey to attempt to steal 3rd in the 5th inning. No need for that. Lost a chance for another batter to knock him in. Giving away outs is not good strategy.

Maybe so, but not by all that much. He always gave up a lot of hits. He is one of two players who won me over last season but I'm losing faith in a bit this season. Hanley is the other one. Maybe both of them will heat up as the summer progresses.

Unfortunately, this is the Porcello I thought he was when he came to the Sox. I gave him praise in 2016 and hoped he had moved to a higher level. But it appears it could have been a fluke, as he he is back to the very hittable pitcher he has been for most of his career. Right now starting pitching has become a weak point. Let's hope it doesn't stay that way. Porcello needs to improve and I hope Price can get in the groove after a few more starts.

I like that lineup.

From what I heard on TV, he snapped at the wrong reporters for the wrong reasons. I think the accumulation of criticism since he arrived in Boston has gotten to him. Ted Williams was over sensitive in this way as well, but he could show them all with his hitting. Price needs to focus on his game and not let the media be a distraction.

If Price wants to get at reporters, the best way is to perform on the field. Yelling at them won't change a thing.

Bogey has earned the right to get the most plate appearances. We really need Pedey back in the lineup too.

Three innings in and it is obvious that Price is not ready for prime time. Looks like a loss in the making.

Since you started it, I now feel like its ok to criticize Mookie. I was going to bring it up, but I was afraid to take the heat. I have been an off and on critic of Mookie but sometimes it is taken as bashing. I think the excitement over some of Mookie's exploits overshadow any talk of weaknesses in his game. It's probably too early in his career to accurately gauge what kind of hitter he really is. But you are correct, he has not been hitting lately.

The correct move is whatever gets the desired result. There is no one correct move in this situation. I still feel there was no pressing need to make a move.

I'm starting to think getting two of them to do very well is a long shot. ERod has problems with his knees that may never go away. Porcello is not looking good at all. Price is my only hope to regain a semblance of his old form. I hope my pessimism is wrong.