you know, as I'm watching this right now, Foulke is starting the bottom of the 12th, his second inning of work. The only way Foulke is going to finish this game is by losing it. Seems weird that he has an incentive that would be earned by losing the game.

As for putting the link in the title, Darren, apparently Jim has changed things so that from now on we can't do that here in Sox Therapy. It can only be done for news items, which now are only in the newsblog/Primer area.

You stink Seanez

That's rather odd. Why did Jim do that?

And how did you know that he did that?

Foulke looked fine to me. Not great, but not bad either. He got jobbed on a ball four call and then they brought in Craptain Seanez. Game. Timlin is toast btw. He's this year's Embree.
Let's bring up the young 'uns.
At least the Sox didn't use as many arms as the Jays. Is it DiNardo tomorrow?
DB

unstick.

Timlin is toast btw. He's this year's Embree.

I've written these exact two phrases in recent chatters. Great minds... see the obvious, I guess.

It is indeed Dinardo tomorrow, with a big heaping helping of Van Buren, aka the guy who hasn't pitched in a month, aka this year's MDC.

Once again, I'd like to point out that if Paps was strong enough to go 2+ IP, he was strong enough to come in to start the 8th or to replace Beckett after 1 out. Tito waited until it was too late, then leaned on him. Bad move.

Once again, I'd like to point out that if Paps was strong enough to go 2+ IP, he was strong enough to come in to start the 8th or to replace Beckett after 1 out.

But, at the start of the 8th, it was 6-2. It'd be crazy to bring in your closer at 6-2 in the 8th. Even after the first homer, it was still 6-4, and I think that +2 8ths are not prime closer time.

If the Sox had been up by just one run going into the 8th, I'd be right with you on the managing of the bullpen that inning. But in this case, there's just not time to warm up the closer in that situation, becuase you can't warm him up every time there might be a one-run game, but isn't yet.

Focus on the lack of pinch-hitting for Nixon or Gonzalez, on the wasting of our best pinch-hitter as a pinch-runner, and on Rudy "Zoolander" Seanez. (Reasons for proposed nickname: 1) he's really really incredibly good-looking, and 2) it's a walk-off!)

That's rather odd. Why did Jim do that?

I imagine it's because Sox Therapy is a blog.

Who's MDC? Mark David Chapman? Ahhh, You must be talking about mini-Manny (Delcarmen, not scotto's son.)

Timlin <u>is</u> worrisome so far. He's walked more guys than he has struck out so far (3 UIBB, 2 K's). Still, he's only faced 40 batters so far -- a bad outing or two can make a guy seem a lot worse than he is when he hasn't had time to throw some good outings. And he was great last year (unlike Embree in '04), so I (for one) don't mind giving him more opportunities for now.

if Paps was strong enough to go 2+ IP, he was strong enough to come in to start the 8th...

Papelbon looked real good tonight, you guys oughta be happy! I'd just point out that you don't normally use your closer for two innings when you're up by four runs, starting off a series on the road against a fairly tough divisional rival. That would have been a pretty dumb move. There was also no reason to be particularly concerned about replacing Beckett after the Catalanotto at-bat, because he looked fine there and was only at 88 pitches.

As to whether Papelbon should have come out instead of Timlin after the second Wells HR, I'm not sure he would have been warm. As we just saw, the earliest possible time you'd think about Papelbon was after the Adams HR. Before that it was a four-run ballgame... managers who get their closer loose up four runs in the eighth inning are going to have their closer throw 300 innings of warmup pitches by July.

So even if you do react to the Adams HR by getting Papelbon up to join whomever is already loosening (probably sensible) he only gets seven pitches of time to get loose. Is that enough time? Maybe, especially with the extra time after the home run, but maybe not. Timlin's a damn good reliever, with one out and no one on I'd normally be happy to ber on him to get them through the inning, even facing Glaus (and Overbay).

I thought his moves were fine, and to make any different moves would have necessitated hindsight.

Even after the first homer, it was still 6-4, and I think that +2 8ths are not prime closer time.

Perhaps not, but you can't always pinpoint prime closer time. A closer needs time to warm up and if you don't put him in with a 2-run lead in the 8th, you may not have the lead by the time he's warm. Papelbon also hadn't pitched in a few days, so he was pretty fresh. I'd have liked to see him earlier.

ocus on the lack of pinch-hitting for Nixon or Gonzalez, on the wasting of our best pinch-hitter as a pinch-runner, and on Rudy "Zoolander" Seanez. (Reasons for proposed nickname: 1) he's really really incredibly good-looking, and 2) it's a walk-off!)

That is a very bad nickname for very bad reasons--it would have been better if you were refering to the gasoline fight or the fact that you'd have to take crazy pills to put him in a close game. The pinch-hitting deal is troubling, but I don't think Francona had many other options. Foulke had pitched the previous 2 days (who knows why) and was probably gassed. If you have to bring someone in, Seanez is probably it.

I imagine it's because Sox Therapy is a blog.

I don't follow. Why would it be bad to be able have the title linked? Blogs almost always include links, and having them in the title is pretty convenient in many cases.

Look at the bright side

There was also no reason to be particularly concerned about replacing Beckett after the Catalanotto at-bat, because he looked fine there and was only at 88 pitches.

He had sat for a long 1/2 inning, then hit a batter and gave up a HR. I didn't think he looked fine. I do concede, though, that not going to Papelbon there is defensible, especially if he couldn't get warm in time. I'm not sure whether he could have or not.

Look at the bright side

okay.

Replacing Youkilis with Snow prolly wasn't a good idea. I don't think that Youk's needs a caddy when he's playing 1B. You could've used Snow later on to PH for Gonzales.

Did Nixon get hurt again? That's what I was thinking when I saw that Pena pinchran for him.

I don't follow. Why would it be bad to be able have the title linked? Blogs almost always include links, and having them in the title is pretty convenient in many cases.

Oh, I agree. But look at how CTR, Baseball Centrist, and the other team blogs are set up.

Darren, you should have received an invite to the Primer List. Please join and read over my last few posts. Contact me directly with any questions.

While I don't exactly like Foulke finishing games at this point (especially because of that contract clause), I don't totes agree about not putting Foulke in after Papelbon in any situation. JonBon had already pitched 7 outs and really, Foulke was their best pitcher left in the pen in a tie game.

Foulke's contract calls for him to finish 53 games (right? Because I may be wrong) and I'm sure Tito is very mindful of this. That said, Tito can replicate this move 50 more times over the rest of the year for all I care, as long as he thinks it'll help win ballgames. Foulke has closed (not saved, though I don't need to explain that in this room) just one game so far this year. He won't closed 52 more. That means he'll have to do it every 2.7 games for the rest of the season for that 2007 vest to kick in. Do you really think that'll happen? Tonight was just an extreme situation and while there might be a couple more this summer, I don't think it's anything to worry about.

Foulke has closed (not saved, though I don't need to explain that in this room) just one game so far this year. He won't closed 52 more.

I have Foulke as having finished 5 games this year. That would put him on pace to finish ~50 for the season. I didn't have a problem with his usage last night in particular. What I don't like is that in cases where Francona burns through 3-4 relievers in a non-save game, he always seems to save Foulke for the 9th, boosting his games finished totals.

If Foulke starts pitching better and Papelbon bombs or gets hurt, Foulke would probably slide back into the closer role and easily reach his 53 games finished. But he wouldn't have earned it because the incentive was put in place to make sure that he was pitching like a closer over 04-06, and he's had a year plus where he hasn't been.

by the way, Darren, was it you who expressed some interest in my book on legislative drafting? It came up in some Sox Therapy thread more than a year ago and someone wanted to know more about it. There's a link to it on my profile page under "URL". If it wasn't you, sorry for the confusion.

It was me, Toby. How is it doing? (I'll check out the link.)

That was a pretty bad loss. Today looks bad also, we're 9.25-5 'dogs- however, I DO have Doc on my fantasy team, so naturally he's already half-hurt, and thus may stink it up. There is that.

Seanez is handsome? What, in a Burt Young kind of way?

It's doing well. Lots of preorders, and some real nice reviews from people who have seen advance copies.

Can I start calling Papelbon Travis Bickle?

Toby,

I read your bio and figured you were 65. How have you had about 7 jobs in three states (well, 2 states and a district) in 15 years?

Anyway, impressive book -- do you think the general principles would be useful enough for a Canadian firm to buy it for our library?

Daryn,

Restlessness and discontent, mainly.

Seriously, though, I started working for newspapers when I was still in high school and I kept at it through college and law school. I very nearly aborted a legal career for a newspaper one. The first 5 years as a lawyer I tried different things, in part for experience and in part because I was trying to find work that I truly enjoyed. I was a pretty damn good litigator, for example, but it didn't suit me. Anyway, I finally found my niche and I've done it since and I've written a book about it.

I think the general principles in the book would have some use to anyone who drafts documents, whether it be legislation or contracts or wills or what have you. Apart from that, I think the book is generally worth buying for no other reason than the chapter on statutory interpretation, but that chapter is completely dedicated to U.S. federal case law, so it may not be of great use to a Canadian firm. Bottom line, I think the book has a place in any law library that strives to have a broad general collection, and in any law library serving lawyers who draft. If your firm's library falls into either of those categories, then I would urge you to consider it and would be delighted if you did. If it doesn't fall into either category, it would probably be a quirky indulgence. But it's still a good and lively read either way. ;-)

I'll be glad to discuss further if you like. You can contact me direct through the email connection in my profile.