SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
8/8-8/11 Red Sox @ Royals Series Thread
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 11, 2013 16:40:13 GMT -5
Point taken but I would like to say this is what we're gonna see in the playoffs. Get use to it. All of us.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Aug 11, 2013 16:44:21 GMT -5
Our pitching is what worries me more for the meantime.
Lackey-Peavy-Doubront-Lester-Dempster is a very mediocre rotation. We gotta get Clay back ASAP
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Aug 11, 2013 17:44:09 GMT -5
Really nice effort by the Red Sox this weekend. Especially when considering they had a golden opportunity to break the AL East race open. Dude if you're not mentally prepared to lose the AL east lead and have a really tight race to the last day....then I'm not sure what to tell you. Our team clearly isn't perfect but we're also clearly good enough to have one of the best records in baseball. As easy as it is to say, 'wow we could be up this many games right now had we swept' any Rays fan can say 'wow, if we had beat the dodgers we could have taken the lead in the al east.' Let's work within the confines of reality.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 11, 2013 17:49:21 GMT -5
The Royals are now 19 and 5 since the all star break, playing great baseball with the lowest ERA in the league since that time ( approximately ). We ran into a hot team, in an away park, where they are filling the stands for once even. It's going to be ok. Should've been 2-2 against them and if Gomes could've caught a routine fly in game 1 maybe even 3-1. Agree.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 11, 2013 19:07:39 GMT -5
As for Holland, yes he is filthy, but I don't buy the "it wouldn't have mattered" reasoning. I want to send the best guy we have available up at the plate in a one-run game in the 9th. I really don't understand what Middlebrooks has done to earn Farrell's loyalty over Carp (or even Holt, who would have at least made contact) when facing a right-handed fastball/slider monster like Holland. I mean, he JUST got back from a well-earned demotion and he was facing a pitcher tailor made to carve him up, and who made him look absolutely stupid on three straight sliders. Oh, but no, he can only pinch hit in a satiation where the opposing manager is going to immediately gain the platoon advantage right back by bringing in a new pitcher (which will never happen when facing a closer).
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 11, 2013 19:10:45 GMT -5
Yes, because Brock Holt of all people would hit a homer against Holland!
Stop trying to put the blame where there's none. We faced a hot team with great pitching while our pitching didn't do much. It's not on the manager and trying to make it seem so is goofy.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Aug 11, 2013 19:36:25 GMT -5
When your one through four hitters only get one hit and leave en men on base, odds are that you may lose that game. Mighty Mouse Holt will not save the day. If using Hotz as a pinch hitter is the difference, then we are sunk.
KC is playing good ball, and we could have lost some of those games against Houston and Seattle. It will be a tough finish.
Is Dustin's hand still bothering him. He hit 216 in July and is.250 so fat this month.
Lavarnway again faces on of the better pitches and does ok. Oh, I gorge Farrell should have pinch hit for him. Cubs are looking for catching next year. Theo may help Salty get pay day or find Lavarnway interesting. Ross comes back in about a week. Guess Lavarnway finishes the month in AAA
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 11, 2013 19:50:41 GMT -5
Yes, because Brock Holt of all people would hit a homer against Holland! Right, because that's exactly what I'm saying. Stop trying to put the blame where there's none. We faced a hot team with great pitching while our pitching didn't do much. It's not on the manager and trying to make it seem so is goofy.Again, not what I'm saying. Find a post where I say "if only Farrell had pinch-hit player X, the Sox clearly would have won!". Obviously that's not how managing works in baseball, which is why managers can get away with being as bad as they are. Making good pinch-hitting decision instead of bad ones might change the outcomes of a couple games in a season. The Sox also might lose the division by a game.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 11, 2013 20:01:42 GMT -5
There's a difference between saying and implying. You never said Farrell did anything wrong, but you sure enough implied it. Making good pinch-hitting decision instead of bad ones might change the outcomes of a couple games in a season. The Sox also might lose the division by a game. See, that's implying stuff and basing assumptions on pretty much nothing at all (as if Carp or Holt were better options against a shutdown reliever like Holland than WMB and his random bursts of power). Farrell isn't perfect, but I can't blame him for anything that happened in this series, nor can I imply he should have done anything differently. This one is clearly on the talent on the squad, which is funny enough where a lot people underrate what Farrell has done this year: get more out of lesser talent.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 11, 2013 20:01:50 GMT -5
Yes, because Brock Holt of all people would hit a homer against Holland! Stop trying to put the blame where there's none. We faced a hot team with great pitching while our pitching didn't do much. It's not on the manager and trying to make it seem so is goofy. The one to probably hit for was Napoli in the 8th with Carp. There was at least a runner on 1b at that time, even though 2 outs. Middlebrooks was up in the ninth and nobody on base, though yes it was another obvious scouting take on his shortcomings at the plate.. Nothing straight and he's a goner. The team must be trying to pump up his trade value over the winter or something by showing him a week or 2 and allowing Bogaerts to get reps in at 3b FT while WMB is having this stint at Boston. No other logical reason for his call up. IMO? He should be moved for anything, then Bogaerts called up and Cecchini promoted yet again, this time to Pawtucket. WMB has no future with Boston and probably little with any other MLB team due to his horrendous non ability to determine what is even close to the strike zone.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Aug 11, 2013 20:02:18 GMT -5
The Red Sox just aren't the same team on the road. Other than that one Hanrahan blown save to the Orioles, I feel like a lot of our real tough losses have come on the road. The same goes for a lot of teams though.
You can also argue the Rays should not have blown a 6-0 lead to the Dodgers either. We ran in to a red hot KC team and the Rays ran into a red hot Dodgers team so at least it evens out .
Once Clay comes back, I think we will see a completely different ball club. That also probably kicks Dempster out of the rotation - perhaps permanently. Then if we can get Carp in there more for Napoli I like our chances.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Aug 11, 2013 20:03:27 GMT -5
I won't imply it. I'll say it. Farrell cost the team at least a game in this series.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 11, 2013 20:25:09 GMT -5
Brock Holt as a pinch hitter? No thanks. But I sure would have tried Salty for Lavarnway and Carp for Middlebrooks (then put in Holt for Carp if you do make it to the bottom of the 9th). Would it have guaranteed a win for the Sox? Of course not. But it would have given them a better chance to win. Incidentally, that sounds like Farrell's job description. Hm.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 11, 2013 20:32:10 GMT -5
There's a difference between saying and implying. You never said Farrell did anything wrong, but you sure enough implied it. Making good pinch-hitting decision instead of bad ones might change the outcomes of a couple games in a season. The Sox also might lose the division by a game. See, that's implying stuff and basing assumptions on pretty much nothing at all ( as if Carp or Holt were better options against a shutdown reliever like Holland than WMB and his random bursts of power). Farrell isn't perfect, but I can't blame him for anything that happened in this series, nor can I imply he should have done anything differently. This one is clearly on the talent on the squad, which is funny enough where a lot people underrate what Farrell has done this year: get more out of lesser talent. There is a difference between saying and implying, but it's not important here. I SAID Farrell did things wrong. Carp was clearly a better option. I won't blame Farrell for the series, but yeah, he should have done some stuff differently. Also, I'm not really sure how he's "getting more out of lesser talent". It's not like a bunch of guys are having career years or anything, nor is the team overachieving it's pythag.
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on Aug 11, 2013 20:44:46 GMT -5
Tampa's bailing the Sox out again tonight so far. Regardless of the standings the Astros and Royals series were pretty poor. The Sox need to play better baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Aug 11, 2013 20:57:48 GMT -5
I won't imply it. I'll say it. Farrell cost the team at least a game in this series. The Peavy game is definitely on him.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Aug 11, 2013 20:59:56 GMT -5
Sorry, some of you guys are delusional. Farrell is a smart guy and has been in baseball all of life in the capacity as a player, coach, and administrator. Now I know you all are smart, but there is no substitute for experience and actually being there on the (battle) field. Do you think you would do better than him? Do you understand the player's capabilities and the subtle dynamics of the club house and team better than him. Sure, he may a "mistake" or appear to make one, but come now.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Aug 11, 2013 21:03:01 GMT -5
We are getting very little moneys worth on our Starting Pitchers. We have 6 starting pitchers signed up. With the exception of Doubront, they're all making $12M or more.
Clay is injured... Lackey has been pitching pretty well. Lester, Dempster and Peavy on the other hand... I'm not sure they're worth what we're paying them. The Peavy acquisition actually makes very little sense to me the more I think about it. Trading Iglesias away like that and damaging our payroll flexibility when our biggest needs are probably 1B or LF? We have all these guys on the farm that could come in and do just fine next season in a starting role.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 11, 2013 21:25:32 GMT -5
I'm not getting it, first it was: Find a post where I say "if only Farrell had pinch-hit player X, the Sox clearly would have won!". Then: There is a difference between saying and implying, but it's not important here. I SAID Farrell did things wrong. Carp was clearly a better option. If he was clearly a better option, but the Red Sox wouldn't have won it anyway, why the commotion? Plus, it's not like Farrell had Barry Bonds as an option to hit for Alex Cora against David Pauley and decided "screw that, I'm not going to use him". Carp and his "great" K rate was not much less likely to strike out than WMB. It's a top closer with nobody on base. We lost the game before that inning and that's okay. We lost a series on the road against a very hot team. I won't blame Farrell for the series, but yeah, he should have done some stuff differently. Also, I'm not really sure how he's "getting more out of lesser talent". It's not like a bunch of guys are having career years or anything, nor is the team overachieving it's pythag. Guys aren't having career years, but they are playing hard for him. And he put this team in the position to lead its division. A team outperforming its pythag isn't just good coaching, it's luck as well. Jesus, after the Valentine nightmare last season, you'd thought people would be less histrionic about coaching decisions.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 11, 2013 21:34:29 GMT -5
Sorry, some of you guys are delusional. Farrell is a smart guy and has been in baseball all of life in the capacity as a player, coach, and administrator. Now I know you all are smart, but there is no substitute for experience and actually being there on the (battle) field. Do you think you would do better than him? Do you understand the player's capabilities and the subtle dynamics of the club house and team better than him. Sure, he may a "mistake" or appear to make one, but come now. This is the oldest and weakest fallacy in the book (well, not really, but it's still pretty bad). No, I don't have the experience or knowledge the Farrell has, and no, I couldn't do his job better. I also don't know jack dilly bullcrap about filmmaking, but I'm still reasonably sure that There Will Be Blood is a better movie than Battleship.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 11, 2013 21:41:54 GMT -5
If he was clearly a better option, but the Red Sox wouldn't have won it anyway, why the commotion? Who's saying they wouldn't have won it? They probably wouldn't have either way, but Carp makes it that much less of a longshot. Because giving your team a very slight increase in their chances of winning -- 1% or 3% or 5% -- actually matters when you stretch it out over a 162 game season. And Farrell basically screws this stuff up in every game that's close enough for it to matter. Also: And he put this team in the position to lead its division. What the hell does that even mean?
|
|
|
Post by godot on Aug 11, 2013 21:50:01 GMT -5
Sorry, some of you guys are delusional. Farrell is a smart guy and has been in baseball all of life in the capacity as a player, coach, and administrator. Now I know you all are smart, but there is no substitute for experience and actually being there on the (battle) field. Do you think you would do better than him? Do you understand the player's capabilities and the subtle dynamics of the club house and team better than him. Sure, he may a "mistake" or appear to make one, but come now. This is the oldest and weakest fallacy in the book (well, not really, but it's still pretty bad). No, I don't have the experience or knowledge the Farrell has, and no, I couldn't do his job better. I also don't know jack dilly bullcrap about filmmaking, but I'm still reasonably sure that There Will Be Blood is a better movie than Battleship. Get real, it may be the oldest, because it is true. You are silly, just a second guesser, and what you say can't be verified. Gee, it is easy to appear smart if you can't be proven to be right or wrong. He has to make the decision on the spot, but you deal with he should have but we will never know and can't know if that would have been the "right" move. Was it reasonable given the situation may be a better criteria. I will grant you though that you could tell Valentine was a bad manager. By the way your "comeback" is what I would expect.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 11, 2013 22:44:03 GMT -5
Who's saying they wouldn't have won it? They probably wouldn't have either way, but Carp makes it that much less of a longshot. I was simply pointing out that you said something you claimed you didn't say. And I disagree with Carp making it "less of a longshot" enough to be worth the fuss over this. So let's disagree to agree on this one. What the hell does that even mean? It means the Red Sox lead the AL East by 3 games, and that the players playing hard for Farrell has more to do with it than other folks monday morning QBing his decisions.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 11, 2013 22:57:22 GMT -5
Get real, it may be the oldest, because it is true. You are silly, just a second guesser, and what you say can't be verified. Gee, it is easy to appear smart if you can't be proven to be right or wrong. He has to make the decision on the spot, but you deal with he should have but we will never know and can't know if that would have been the "right" move. Was it reasonable given the situation may be a better criteria. I will grant you though that you could tell Valentine was a bad manager. By the way your "comeback" is what I would expect. We do know it's the right move. Carp is at least as good a hitter in general and besides that he would have had the platoon advantage. It's really not very complicated.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 11, 2013 23:01:24 GMT -5
I was simply pointing out that you said something you claimed you didn't say. And I disagree with Carp making it "less of a longshot" enough to be worth the fuss over this. So let's disagree to agree on this one. Still no. I said it was the wrong move, because it was. I didn't say it was the deciding factor in the game, because it wasn't. I'm also pretty tired of explaining the difference between process and outcome to people determined not to understand it.
|
|
|