User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7697 seconds
61 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Bard has been the victim of bad timing. Small samples but leadoff hitters had a .364 OBP against him and those guys were coming around to score (Adam Everett the best example). He's going to be fine.
You are right that Jenks is the big story. If he can get whatever is flummoxing him straight the Sox should be OK out there.
The way this is shaping up I feel like we are going to see Doubront and maybe Bowden by June 15th. I just don't see Wheeler and the LOOGY of the week lasting at this rate. Doubront especially seems like a guy who just is too talented to leave in Pawtucket while the Boston bullpen flops around.
And did Rich Hill run over Theo's dog in Spring Training or something? Given what we have seen from our LOOGYs he seems to be doing a good enough job to warrant a look. Lefties are just 2 for 20 against him and Okajima is toast.
Okajima shouldnt have a leash. You need to hold him directly by the collar at this point. I dont think he's got anything left to offer, but I can only partly fault them for giving him one last shot.
The best case scenario for Wheeler is starting to look like a Albers/Atchinson level of marginal usefulness (I'm actually a bit more optimistic for Wheeler than that though). But between those three, you've got a back end of the bullpen that should be decent enough. So I agree with all that the key is Jenks.
And I think its already past time to give Bowden a shot.
Thank God for contract years!
I think Oki is perfectly "capable" of putting in good performances, as opposed to say 'done' like Mike Timlin was done at the end.
And Aceves was sent down...why? To stretch out and become the 6th starter *in cae* something happens? Plus .500 teams can save closers for save situations, start inferior SS's over superior ones cause you need your super-sub, and send down a perfectly fine reliever over inferior ones just *in case*.
As for the present, I'd like to see Bowden get a shot, but Atchison doesn't do anything Wheeler can't do. They're both homer prone righties with unimpressive fastballs, except that Wheeler has a long track record of MLB success. Wheeler needs to be kept to facing right-handed hitters, and he'll be useful (yes, I know that righties hit him hard last night, but he has a history of dominant performance against RHH). Hill should probably get a shot; this team could use a real lefty specialist to pair with Wheeler and Okajima definitely doesn't look like he can be that guy.
He has options. Who do you release to keep Aceves on the roster?
Papelbon
Bard
Jenks
Wheeler
aren't going anywhere yet, though I suspect Wheeler's rope is a bit shorter.
That leaves Wake, Albers and Aceves. I think for now the Sox are better having all three in the organization and seeing things play out before letting go of someone potentially useful. Wake did a great job in a spot start the other day and Albers has pitched well.
I don't know if you've noticed but Jed Lowrie is the Red Sox starting shortstop.
Nahhhh..2-10. Not a big deal at all*. And you forgot Oki on your list. I think.
Maybe it was 3-9. I don't remember.
The point is, it's been since 2008 that the Sox won a playoff game. Tito's used up all his rope with me. The irrational devotion to vets (1). The not thinking outside the box. The saving a closer until a save situation on the road,... unless he hasn't pitched in awhile, then he'll burn him up and make him not available for the next day. And now it actually appears Bard is being saved for Holds. Though that appears to be less slavish.
(1) "Tito, is there a battle for shortstop this spring?" "What? F*** no."
*And you know..YOU KNOW if Lowrie hadn't been blasting the cover off the ball, if he were *just* batting .270, Scoots would still be the starting SS.
What vets are getting jobs that should be given to kids? As noted, Lowrie got the starting job pretty quickly and during the Francona years many kids have been promoted; Youkilis, Pedroia, Lester, Papelbon, Buchholz, Ellsbury, Saltalamacchia is being given every chance to earn the catching job. Who is being blocked? Are we going to revisit Roberto Petagine again? Is he the "young" player who Tito screwed?
I didn't mention Oki because whether it's him or someone else, you know there's going to be a lefty out there. I'd be fine not having one but I would wager that every team in baseball has one even at the expense of superior righties. I can't condemn Tito for something that every team in baseball does. I think there is a pretty strong argument to be had that Aceves being stretched out at Pawtucket is probably more valuable in the long run than having him pitch an inning once a week in Boston.
Beyond that, it's Alfredo Friggen Aceves. If the Sox season is dependent on Alfredo Aceves, we're done, pack it in, it's over.
Are you really worried that Daniel Bard doesn't get used enough? The guy was fifth in the AL in games last year and is on pace for 75 more this year. In 7 of his 14 outings so far he has entered the game with the score tied or the Sox behind. In each case they were behind it was a 1 or 2 run game so it wasn't just a " get some work" outing.
I'm not nearly as bothered as most by the "wait for the save" in extra innings on the road but fine. Again, that's something just about every manager in baseball does as a general rule.
You're right though. It's been two horrible seasons since we won a playoff game. Life as a Red Sox fan is grueling.
This is such a strawman and one that gets brought up EVERY TIME someone dares to criticize the Red Sox management. The Red Sox have a humongous payroll. The bar for them is a big higher than 'not horrible.' Even if that was the bar, it would still be well within reason for a fan to criticize some of the things that they are doing.
Dale has brought up a few specific examples to illustrate what he doesn't like about what the Sox are doing right now. It's easy to wave away any individual criticism with statements like 'that single move would not have changed them from 2-10 to 8-4' or 'if you take away all of Lowrie's good games, he's pretty bad.' But that doesn't mean the criticism is wrong.
On the Lowrie question, though, I think you've mischaracterized how quickly the change was made. Lowrie was much better than Scutaro at the end of last year and was much better in the spring. That's a lot longer than 15 minutes. Then when the season started, not only did Francona stick with Scutaro, Lowrie barely played at all during the first 12 games, putting up 19 PAs.
I likewise really can't see how switching out a veteran shortstop for a rookie after twelve games can be criticized as a slow reaction. There was, as Darren says, a perfectly reasonable case for a job-sharing arrangement. So, over 12 games, Lowrie should have started six or seven games instead of three. It's just an incredibly minor criticism.
EDIT: I'm sure someone's going to quibble with "rookie". "Non-established player" or whatever conveys the same point.
I think the Sox had (and probably still have) concerns about Lowrie's defense. In fairness he has looked pretty solid out there but there seems to be this opinion that this guy is Tulowitzki. I think we need to settle down a bit. I think the Sox wanted/needed to be convinced that his strong second half last year was the "real" Jed Lowrie. For some reason people seem to be ignoring his overall body of work in favor of his most recent performance.
As I noted in a previous thread there are reasons to trust recent performance over pre-2010 performances but you know as well as I do that trusting the most recent results is a great way to get Francoeured.
Not quite what I said but admittedly, I was going for a bit of snark. It got a bit annoying that every time the guy had a moderately decent day people would start screaming "HE NEEDS TO BE IN THE LINEUP" but the moment he goes in a slump it gets completely ignored.
I don't think the Sox will reduce payroll, or at least it isn't a goal. If they can't find anybody worth spending on it might drop. I thin they are perfectly comfortable spending right up to the LT threshold. The Sox were out in dront escalating their payroll, but pretty much everyone has followed suit. The Phillies are now spending just as much as the Sox, and there are a number of teams spending in the 140's (and that's without the Mets and Dodgers, who should be there too). I see no reason the Sox can't spend in the 160-170 range.
BTW, I would also not mind a 3 year deal for Paps. I mean it couldn't turn out any worse than the Soriano deal for the Yanks ;). Plus keeping Bard from racking up saves probably keeps his arb figure down (sorry Dan). And I've actually liked how the Sox have used Bard. They've brought him in in the 7th several times now, to get out of jams, like in Monday's game against the Angels. Runner on third whom they really needed to keep from scoring, they brought him in in the 7th. So it's not like he's the designated 8th inning guy, they've been leveraging him pretty well so far.
They were probably thinking they ought to avoid burning him out, but the horrible start by the rest of the hitters made them adjust on the fly, so desperate were they for anybody who could hit at that point.
Lowrie seems to make the plays, but my eyes see Scutaro as the better SS.
To be fair, much of his meh performance was after his wrist injury, which are notorious for players needing some time to fully recover from. So it's not like there was no reason to discount that period at least somewhat. Lowrie's pretty much always hit when healthy (and there of course is the rub).
I wonder if Papelbon is the exception to whom "contract year" - otherwise not shown to have utility in projecting baseball players - might apply. If Papelbon has been keeping parts of his game in check to protect his shoulder, he'd have good reason to take a few more risks in his contract year. But I'm entirely making that up. I don't actually know what the causes of Papelbon's qualitative inconsistency are, and they're probably much more complicated that all that.
Meh. You all and your "logic".
Sometimes my brain occupies not only "What Tito is doing now" but also "What Tito would have done if this had occured" combined with the fact that I don't think the Sox are making the playoffs this year, so it will actually be October 2012 before they get a chance to win a playoff game... making it four years between playoff wins.
So yes, I criticize Tito for things he's done, things he might have done and things that haven't occured yet. Such is the curse of my occupying all points on the space-time continuum at once.
I imagine that I will waffle on whether I want to see the Sox re-sign him or not pretty heavily as the year progresses. The combination of Bard/Papelbon out there is pretty potent. Having a strong setup/closer pairing gives the Sox a leg up when putting together a bullpen.
This sort of comes back to the question I keep asking: when will it be alright to criticize Francona? When will it be okay to blame him for anything at all? Or do the two world series wins mean he'll have this job as long as he wants it and never be criticized to boot?
How were they going to be convinced with him starting once a week?
Sometimes when people disagree with the criticism itself, you react as if people don't think you are allowed to criticize Francona, and there is a difference.
I do think that there's a very different point being made in part of your last question - "do the two world series wins mean he'll have this job as long as he wants it?" On the purely predictive question, yes. Francona looks like a competent manager who works well with his bosses and has maintained good relationships with a rotating cast of players. He's pretty young. It's going to take a real change in how Francona manages and how he works with his bosses in order for him to lose this job.
I assume you were also asking, does Francona deserve to keep this job, and at what point will he deserve to be canned? I certainly do not believe he deserves to be canned. His players have played well for him, he hasn't had any known problems with the front office, he's integrated young players into his rosters, he's platooned, he's built some good bullpens recently - that was one of the main criticisms of Francona early on - and I don't see his tactics as a major issue. He's done well, tactically, in the postseason.
I'd be interested to see actual systematic evidence for either "slowhook" or "vetfetish". I'm open to the idea that Francona leaves his starters in longer than average, but I'd like to see evidence that this tendency (a) exists and (b) has hurt the club in aggregate. I don't see a vet fetish. I'm looking back over Red Sox rosters in the hope of finding even a single example of this tendency.
It's perfectly fair to criticize Francona. I think a lot of the specific criticisms are unfair. Just considering the two most common ones;
Vets over kids - Maybe he could be quicker but a lot of kids have gotten promoted under him, both to the bigs and to important roles. You can say he only does it when guys "earn" it but why should he hand over a starting job to a guy who hasn't earned it when he's being held to the high standard of win now? Maybe I'm missing someone but I genuinely can't think of anyone who wasn't given a fair shot.
Bullpen management - My problems with these criticisms is that they are MLB wide criticisms, not Tito criticisms. I'd like to see relievers all around baseball used differently but I don't think Francona does anything incredibly unusual and stupid. Fancy Pants notes that he has been very good with the way he has used Bard this year, using him in the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th innings already.
You had some criticisms of his handling of Crawford early in the year that I think were perfectly valid. I don't know that I quite agree because Tito is in that clubhouse and I'll assume he knows better than I what Crawford's mindset is but you raised a valid question.
The vet thing I've been saying so long, I don't know why I started. I'm sure it has something to do with the rotting carcass of Tim Wakefield and whatever robot double they used of him the other night. But the Scutaro situation in the spring is the only concrete point I have of that.
As for the Slow Hook thing though...I'm pretty sure in games where I've screamed "No, pull him now! Don't wait until this guy gets on!" the batter has a .600 OBP. I'm serious. And it's not selective memory. But it's just me quibbling for the most part. It's a tendency, not a fatal flaw. Now of course, ...except for the 2008 ALCS game 2... I don't have solid evidence. I don't write it down everytime it happens.
And its mostly a regular season tendency to give a vet guy every opportunity to get a W.
It makes sense to me in the big picture way, but I yell at the TV with the rest of you every time it happens when I'm watching.
Darren, btw, pulled the ol' triple reverse Staute of Liberty play, where you pull out a Gheorghe Muresan-sized strawman, while
accusing the other guy of making the strawman arguement:
.385 .429 .462 .890
This has perhaps cost the team a game or two, this bad timing right here.
Why must the manager take the blame? There were/are questions at two positions, not including the bullpen - catcher and SS. Fancona has done fine on the SS front so far, I question the amount of playing time Varitek has gotten, but it's not like Salty has played well either. The bullpen construction so far has been based on who has remaining minor league options, nothing crazy has happened there. So that leaves who actually pitches in the games - has Francona really done much that screams 'bad move'? Any more than any other manager (as #26 notes)?
My point being, why wouldn't you just blame the shitty play of the players? Crawford has been terrible at the plate. Pedroia can't get the ball out of the infield recently. Drew seems to be declining a bit. Both catchers are a black hole. Gonzalez got off to a slow start, with little power. Every starting pitcher has had crappy to downright shitty starts. But it's all Francona's fault? What could he have done differently?
Managers ALWAYS get too much credit and too much blame but if this club fails, everyone should be held to account.
For the first time I'm feeling like that is not going to happen. I watched last night's game with an optimism I had not felt in awhile. Even when they were down I felt like "hey, losing to Haren is nothing to worry about." Seeing the rally obviously boosted my mood considerably.
Incidentally, just looking it up, last night was the first time in 2011 that the Sox had gained a game on the Yankees other than the two head to head meetings. The previous 11 non-Yankee wins had either taken place on a day the Yankees had an off day or had earned a victory.
Generally, I think a lot of the evaluation of managers should be done holistically and after-the-fact. A big chunk of a manager's job is to get the best performance out of his players, and we don't see him doing that during the season, we just see the effects. Obviously we can't identify which performances were more or less impacted by the manager, but I generally give managers some of the credit when a team overperforms and some of the blame when they underperform. It's the best way, I think, to deal with our lack of knowledge.
I'm not going to be google boy today (it's not my turn), but there are plenty of examples in ST like this one where someone criticizes Francona (Dale's #10) and is met with talk of 'this one move that you're talking about wouldn't turn the season around on it's own so it's pointless' or 'he won 2 World Series' or some such plus some dismissive comment (#11).
Dale said that "playoff wins 2009-2010" was a good metric for evaluating Francona, and the lack of success of the Red Sox under Francona had led him to give up on Francona. Jose responded that the Red Sox have been extremely successful under Francona. (He used a bit more snark than that, but it was the point.)
Jose never said the thing you said he said.The latter is not a good argument, unless the person you're arguing with is claiming that the Red Sox have not been successful enough under Francona.
The former is not a good argument if the question is, "did Francona make the right call?" It is a good argument if the question is "when will Francona deserve to be fired?" If a move he made is very low-leverage, it should have only a small amount of weight in evaluating whether he's doing a good job.
Entirely dismissing all criticism of Tito is wrong, obviously. I think you're seeing blanket dismissals in a thread where there haven't actually been any.
I wasn't saying Dale couldn't criticize Francona. All I did was point out as a rebuttal that the criticism exceeded the impact the move would have had. I think if you go through this thread you'll find that most of the back and forth has addressed the specific criticisms by providing responses that demonstrate why we do not think the specific criticisms are valid.
To be quite clear, it is fine if you think Jed Lowrie should have started over Marco Scutaro to start the season but there are two points I would make in response to that;
1. There were valid questions about Lowrie (true talent level, defense, health) that made Scutaro a reasonable starter.
2. The decision to switch to Lowrie was made quite rapidly in the grand scheme of things.
For those reasons I've found the amount of complaining about Lowrie/Scutaro to be in excess of the import of the decision.
And the dismissive comment at the end had nothing to do with Tito and everything to do with what I considered a fairly whiny comment from Dale. Maybe I could have phrased it better.
No, no. Darren is on point with, " 'as long as you're winning constantly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on all of the things that look like bad decisions. But now that you're not, it seems reasonable to bring them up'"
I didn't say I'd given up on Tito, just that I'm going to be a lot louder critcizing moves like the other night when he brough Wheeler into the Oakland game when down by 1 and Jenks, Bard and Papelbon were well-rested.
No, no. Darren is on point with, " 'as long as you're winning constantly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on all of the things that look like bad decisions. But now that you're not, it seems reasonable to bring them up'"
I didn't say I'd given up on Tito, just that I'm going to be a lot louder critcizing moves like the other night when he brough Wheeler into the Oakland game when down by 1 and Jenks, Bard and Papelbon were well-rested.
1. Aceves being sent down
Response: The Sox are going with a LOOGY so Aceves is the right guy to send down so you don't lose Wake/Albers as over the course of 162 games all three will probably be needed.
2. Closers in non-save situations
Response: Agreed in general but pointed out that every team in baseball acts this way so criticizing Tito is a bit unfair
3. Lowrie/Scutaro
Response: The Sox made the change with less than 10% of the schedule played. The ultimate impact of this would have been tremendously minor AND there were reasons to go with Scutaro to start the season.
I don't see anywhere that I said "Thou shalt not criticize Tito." Perhaps I wrote it that way but I know for certain that was not my point.
My take is that the problem is much more the bullpen itself than the management of it. Bard had thrown back-to-back days and was probably not available. That means the Sox had to get 4.2 innings out of Albers, Wheeler, Okajima, Jenks, and Papelbon. (I'm assuming they save Wake for extras, since they wouldn't want him pitching otherwise, anyway.)
Once you get two innings out of Albers, you've got to get two innings out of Jenks, Okajima, and Wheeler. I think the right call here was Jenks, hoping he has his good stuff and can go two innings, with Oki as a possible lefty specialist and Wheeler if Jenks' wheels come off. Wheeler looks like the wrong call, but he's a bad call in a universe without much good stuff in it.
The real problem, here, is that the Red Sox are carrying three pitchers who no one wants to see anywhere near a leveraged inning. Dan Wheeler looks entirely toasted, and Okajima basically the same. And Wake is Wake. The Red Sox have too few useful relievers, and almost none of their useful relievers can throw more than an inning. In retrospect, we should have seen that was going to bite them in the ass once one of their starters couldn't get through five innings.
(If it turns out Bard was available, then I'll just straight up blame Tito.)
I think the PR for Gonzalez was the right call but running for Ortiz made no sense to me. That more than the bullpen management was the decision I found lacking.
And Tim Bogar has no more business coaching third base than I have performing open heart surgery.
Bard ended up PITCHING TWO INNINGS IN EXTRAS. Why the hell wasn't he in for the 7th? And then Wake was burned for 2 outs in a game that ended up going 12 innings. The bullpen management tonight was inexcusably awful.
I could be wrong but I would assume that Francona entered the game thinking "stay away from Bard, one inning at the most" but nowhere in his calculations was "13 inning game with 3 hour rain delay after the 4th inning." I think had Wheeler done his job it would have been Wheeler-Bard-Papelbon in the 7-8-9th.
Would you have preferred Francona had Wake pitch the 10th with Papelbon cooling his heels in the bullpen?
I think you HAVE to pinch run for Gonzalez in that spot. 8th inning, two outs, down a run in scoring position. There is a high enough likelihood of a play that would score Scutaro that wouldn't score Gonzalez that you have to do it. As noted above, the Ortiz decision makes no sense to me.
The Sox kind of have to make some sort of roster move today don't they? If nothing else just to get Doubront or Bowden or someone that could pitch a medium leverage 7th inning. I would bet that Papelbon is available for a one inning close and that Jenks will set him up. Beyond that the 'pen looks a bit dicey. Wake for long duty and Wheeler for whatever you might want him for but I don't think anyone is interested in Wheeler today. This might be one where Lackey goes 120 pitches regardless of how he pitches.
So, having not seen it, I'm having a very hard time figuring out the thinking behind most of the pitching moves. You know your pen is burnt but you pull Wakefield in the 10th after 2/3 of an inning? You don't use Pap for the 9th but then use him in the 10th? Worst of all, Dice K? You put yourself in a position where you have to use Dice, pitcher who was pulled from his previous start for injury and pushed back 2 days, a pitcher who has all sorts of command trouble when he is prepared to pitch--that's who you put in the game? I'd have sooner gone to a position player, but they'd all been used up as pinchrunners.
Worse than all of this, of course, is that Dustin Pedroia is now the worst hitter in baseball. 0-6 with 4 Ks--ouch. You'd think that someone that good would not spend a month at a time looking like a pitcher at the plate. And it's just the results--his approach during these slumps is really ugly. He swings at everything he can reach and seems to start every AB down 0-2. You'd think he could pull back a bit (or the hitting coach could) and see that he needs to stop that.
Tito has a slow hook. I dont know how anyone could think otherwise. Its not with all pitchers, but guys like Lackey and Beckett esp. he gets it in his head that they are "horses" and can work through jams they have no business working through. Did it with Schilling all the time.
Oh, and a 3 year deal for Papelbon? The same Papelbon the collective Sox Therapy wanted to non-tender for 1/$11M before this season to pay for 2 Wheeler-ish bullpen arms? Strange what a 2nd pitch and 12 innings will do for a guys rep.
Yes, but I don't think his thinking before the game is particularly relevant. Once the rain delay happened, he had to plan for what to do afterward. I think he has to bite the bullet and give someone a few innings, then save Wakefield to finish up if necessary.
What happened with Jenks? I swear I saw him warming at one point, then he went back down. How was Jenks not pitching the 13th? Or, for that matter, the 7th? Are the Sox more down on Jenks than Wheeler? (Scary thought.)
It just seemed like reactive managing. He wanted to stay away from Bard, but he backed himself into a position where he had to throw him. He wanted to avoid using Papelbon or Bard in the 9th, but he ended up burning his long man. Not well done.
That's about 4 Wheeler-ish pitchers. It's two Jenks!
Yeah, that was an odd bit of programming from a bunch of folks who usually are more than enthusiastic about telling you what will be on and when.
I don't know what you want to do about Wakefield's outing. If you assume Papelbon is going to be stayed away from after working two days in a row you probably don't want to use him on a second straight day when you are losing. Once the Sox tie the game you kind of have to go to him I think.
Just some stuff from Pete Abe;
- Jenks warmed up but his arm "cramped up."
- Answering some of the questions in the chatter about Cameron being in the lineup evidently Drew was having a vertigo issue and was unavailable.
- Aceves is the scheduled starter at Pawtucket and it seems likely that he will be in Boston today.
Yeah, I can see that.
Went to bed after the Bruin game, woke up with Ellsbury up in the ninth. Tried to get back to sleep but by the bottom of the 11th I was up.
Basically, I think Tito didn't think his plan all the way through when the rain delay came. He had one plan to get 4.2 innings without using Bard, but that plan entailed completely blowing up his bullpen if it went extras. It wasn't the right plan.
Two counterarguments;
1. This is a vastly different thing if Wheeler or Okajima can do their job. Of course it was not entirely unpredictable that they would do what they did but that brings us to...
2. I wonder when Tito was told about Jenks unavailability. Jenks is supposed to be a 2 inning guy. Give him 2 innings of Jenks and this looks different.
Just throwing this out there. From what I saw I think this was the plan;
Ahead tied
Albers 5/6
Wheeler 7
Bard 8
Papelbon 9
Jenks/Okajima/Wakefield 10-??
Behind
Albers 5/6
Wheeler/Okajima 7-9
Bard/Papelbon/Jenks/Wakefield 10-??
EDIT: As I think this through I am more and more curious about Jenks. That's a big change to the way this plays out I think.
Francona is 38-42 with the Red Sox. Otherwise his record is .574 over 8 years.
EDIT: I mean, it's theoretically possible that Wheeler and Jenks have both been basically healthy all season and terrible for unrelated reasons, and then yesterday they both happened to get hurt. That seems exceedingly unlikely.
EDIT2: I guess a possible semi-exculpatory explanation would that the Sox need arms today and both Wheeler and Jenks need time off, so they're being "DL'ed" without actually having particular pressing injury problems. The issue there is, though, if they need time off, they need time off. It's not like Dan Wheeler needed to be on a major league roster, pitching in a major league game, in a high-leverage situation, last night.
I suspect the thinking was, why burn him in a game we're going to lose in nine innings?
But I agree with those that say once he went to Wake in the top of the ninth and they tied it in the bottom, you've got to let him go longer than that.
I think that would be heavily weighted against managers with good teams. Given that better teams tend to have lesser records than their overall record in one run games I would expect the same to be true of extra inning games (with ample overlap).
Given the story about Jenks (arm cramping while warming up) I think there is probably some credence to him. Wheeler I wouldn't be surprised to learn has been hurt all year. Why didn't they know? Fair question.
But I have long felt that a high percentage of pitchers "losing it" is undiagnosed injuries.
It does sound like Jenks had issues last night leading to the DL. I'd imagine if asked what was injured Wheeler would say something different than the trainer. It looks like a classic "player having a shitty time, oh look, he's injured, now we get to stash him on the DL while he figures it out instead of going through waivers" move. It happens in every sport with a DL with every team.
Also, in relation to the earlier debate, Lowrie and Scutaro are both starting today. Lowrie at shortstop, Scutaro at second base. If there was any question about the roles of these two players, it's now settled. Scutaro is a utility guy and nothing more.
Because he's not actually hurt and that was his last chance to pitch well? Because the Sox really need live arms in the pen today?
If the Red Sox were weighing the decision to DL Wheeler, then on May 4th they decided not to DL Wheeler, and they made the wrong decision. They delayed at least a day too long, because Dan Wheeler lost the game last night. If the issue isn't a real injury, then Tito and Theo gave Wheeler too much rope and it cost them a game they could have won.
I can't imagine either guy getting DFA'ed yet (or in Kevin Fatcheeks' case, at all). To me this is just to give them time to work out their issues while not blowing leads. Bud should look into this one.
Ah, gotcha. I agree. I do think Francona effed up the pen decisions last night.
I agree with this as well. It's a cozy feeling for the Sox to have a few million in dead money kicking around somewhere. It's ashtray money, bro.
Closer - Papelbon
Set Up - Bard (I suspect this is a bit more strictly going to be defined as "8th inning" in Jenks' absence)
Bridge - Albers
LOOGY - Hill
Mop Up - Okajima
Oh #### - Aceves (basically Aceves is the guy doing what Albers has been doing, pitching in situations of medium leverage that don't fall into one of the above categories)
Not saying I'd necessarily have it structured quite this way but I imagine this is what we will see this weekend.
I was thinking last night, after watching Lester implode after barely holding it together for 5 IP, about this. I think it'd be hard to document this systematically. One way would be pitch counts, but really, if I showed you a chart that said Tito left his starter in for higher pitch counts than anyone else, would that convince you? You would probably (rightly) be skeptical because that could mean he has more durable pitchers, they tend to pitch well enough to get to higher counts, etc. The other would be simply observing him every game and then trying to quantify that in some way. And when you were done with that, you'd I have chart that says "Francona left guys in longer than I personally thought he should in 67% of games." That's systematic but probably not anything that would convince anyone.
I feel pretty comfortable saying that Francona has a very slow hook. He starters often start new innings after struggling to get through the previous one. This is compounded by the fact that he tends to do things that completely burn his bullpen, putting him in positions where he is constantly trying to save his pen.
John Lackey's ERA is now over 8. He's got to go. He's killing this team. Trade him to the NL, pay 99% of his contract, and get nothing in return. I don't care. He sucks, he has a bad attitude, and he looks like he's an awful teammate constantly blaming fielders for his poor pitching. I can't stand watching this guy any more.
This is my perception too and obviously I'm a Francona fan. I wish I had some Retrosheet skills because the study I would be curious to read is how often a starting pitcher gives up a run(s) in his last inning of work. I imagine the number is quite high to begin with but if Francona (or another manager) is especially slow with the hook I would think this would be an area it would show up.
So unimpressive bullpen management all around.
I think both Girardi and Francona had defensible positions here though. Both Joba and Bard have been used a lot already and there is a long season ahead of both teams. As frustrating as it is for us as fans to see a game get away over the long haul it is possible, perhaps even likely, that both clubs will be better off for having lost last night by having saved the reliever. Obviously given the respective records the Yankees have more wiggle room than the Red Sox.
There is a lot of strategic stuff that goes on game to game that I think any competent baseball fan can do do as well, if not better, than a lot of MLB managers. It is the stuff like managing the health, egos and sharpness of players that we would fail spectacularly at.
Edited for clarity
This is weird. Franklin Morales is a good-stuff bad-results guy who's out of options. I guess they think they can fix him in fifteen minutes or whatever that meme was.
Hideki Okajima was a great reliever for two years and a good but not entirely reliable one for another season after that. He was incredibly fun in 2007. I remember this game, I think he came back from down 3-1 to ARod and struck him out on back-to-back curveballs. Something like that. I'm sure Okie will catch on with someone else - left-handed relievers don't pass through waivers - and I'll be rooting for him.
EDIT: looked over at SoSH, they think Okajima's 1.5M contract makes him unlikely to be claimed. I still think I'd bet on a claim, but I could be wrong. That's a good bit of money for a bullpen flier.
As for the game mentioned in #92, I will to my dying day believe that was the day on which 2007 turned--I don't care that it was April 20th. Okajima was a complete unknown, came in and got a save to preserve an amazing comeback against Rivera, and in the process became a fan favorite and also gave Tito the sign he could be the 8th inning guy to count on going forward. It was a monumental game in the grand scheme of how 2007 ultimately played out.
He didn't clear waivers, he was optioned. Unless he had to clear OAW, but those are usually a formality as there's mostly a gentlemen's agreement not to claim anyone on Optional Assignment Waivers (one of the few gentlemen's rules on waivers that's held up). I think OAW also are revocable. But now they're taking him off of the 40 man, so he has to pass through normal irrevocable waivers.
It was fun while it lasted, but I think he's been done since the beginning of last season. I dont know how anyone can look at Okajima pitch right now or last year and conclude that he could be a reliable reliever. Tough to put a finger on what exactly happened, but when you walk as fine a line as Oki walked, it doesnt take much in the aging department.
I don't see Morales as being a better bet, but I know little about him. I do feel confident that the Sox know what they're doing in picking relievers. Wait, confident's not the word--I mean the opposite of that.
I think Morales is a better bet purely by being younger and able to throw harder. I imagine his time with the big club is contingent on the health of Wheeler/Jenks. Rich Hill has done nothing to warrant being sent anywhere other than Boston so far and with Atchison as the nominal long man. I don't see room for him when they return from the DL.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main