I hope the price/eck thing wasn't it. You can say what you want about it as a fan, but as the manager that was the only response that doesn't cause a mutiny and Farrell is relieved in July instead of October.
Farrell out
- Thread starter jsinger121
- Start date
While DD clearly deserves credit for the Sale, Pomerantz and Nunez trades (Ziegler and Reed trades were minor wins), I'm assuming that you're excluding the Travis Shaw trade from the mix to grade his track record as "excellent." Also, he likely overpaid for Kimbrel.
The 7-year, $217M deal for Price and a gutted farm system might become the messes that DD leaves behind for the next GM.
In all fairness, my regard for DD increases with knowledge of the possibility that it was Henry, and not him, who wanted to keep Farrell on after the 2015 season. But if DD turns around and hires Ron Gardenhire after sending Farrell packing, then he more than deserves to follow the former Red Sox manager out the door.
I completely agree with you. This manager hire will decide entirely how done I am with DD. If it's Kapler, Cora or Martinez, I'm giving him more chances. If it's Ausmus or some old retread, I'm done with him.
I wondered if someone (cough P91 cough) was going to catch twibnotes out with the Shaw deal...
I too hope for a progressive hire. Just crazy that in the last 50 years, only 3 of the many Red Sox managers are being described on this board as competent. Farrell was one of those, however confounding some of his in game moves may have been. I do think that a lot of the fault lies with DDski for not getting the big bat many screamed for last off-season, but Farrell needs to cop some of the blame for the running game / general discipline / embarrassing issues (don't need to list them all, but AppleGate - really?), as well as how injuries were managed this year what with the let's play through them mentality that killed the middle of the season for X and Moreland and maybe Hanley and Betts as well.
DDski wins if he hires someone progressive. He will be out if whoever he hires fails visibly, though it is as yet unclear whether the ownership group is fully isolating him -- Werner's quote that firing Farrell was DDski's decision is inconsistent with Henry's reported growing dissatisfaction with JF throughout this past year.
The game where all the runs were scored off the two starters?
Doesn't that point to the SP being a pretty big factor? and on the other side of that a good offense.
I wish John well. Can never forget 2013. Hope at some point they give him a Sox job. But his time had come. A poster recently made a comment that if you think he should be fired then you should come up with a name to replace. I disagree that should be a criteria if you think he should have been fired. IMO it's okay to set criteria also. I don't have to be the one that hires. But here is some of the criteria. I know there are some that want him fired but don't agree with all of the criteria either. To each his own.
1--- Don't think it is okay to run into dumb outs and pretend to call it aggressive. Being dumb is not being aggressive.
2--- Just because a player (Tazawa) helped you win a title doesn't mean that when you overuse him in the manner you did in 2016 and just hope he won't crumble when you had options. Yet your answer was to keep using him until he literally kissed dust?
3--- When Xander makes a statement in the 2nd half of 2016 that he's tired, the solution isn't to keep grinding him in the 2nd half.
4--- When Xander gets drilled on the wrist before the all-star break in 2017 in which later even Remy made mention that his swollen wrist was among the worst he had ever seen and Xander's power is completely gone, the answer isn't to get him back on the field as quick as possible and play him as much as possible.
5-- When your star pitcher (Chris Sale) has a history of fading in the 2nd half because he gets tired, the answer isn't to ignore that his slider that went flat and the fact that he basically he basically wore down. A little planning before or during the season might help instead of blindly ignoring his trend stats, movement of his pitches (slider), and (pitch) location?
I just want to add that no way I want Gardenhire. No way. No way. No way. And the Yankees are about to win. Damn I hate them.
1--- Don't think it is okay to run into dumb outs and pretend to call it aggressive. Being dumb is not being aggressive.
2--- Just because a player (Tazawa) helped you win a title doesn't mean that when you overuse him in the manner you did in 2016 and just hope he won't crumble when you had options. Yet your answer was to keep using him until he literally kissed dust?
3--- When Xander makes a statement in the 2nd half of 2016 that he's tired, the solution isn't to keep grinding him in the 2nd half.
4--- When Xander gets drilled on the wrist before the all-star break in 2017 in which later even Remy made mention that his swollen wrist was among the worst he had ever seen and Xander's power is completely gone, the answer isn't to get him back on the field as quick as possible and play him as much as possible.
5-- When your star pitcher (Chris Sale) has a history of fading in the 2nd half because he gets tired, the answer isn't to ignore that his slider that went flat and the fact that he basically he basically wore down. A little planning before or during the season might help instead of blindly ignoring his trend stats, movement of his pitches (slider), and (pitch) location?
I just want to add that no way I want Gardenhire. No way. No way. No way. And the Yankees are about to win. Damn I hate them.
Just to be clear, you put Price in the "win" column for DD? I definitely don't share that opinion.
It appears the concerns that many had about Sale's history of breaking down in September came to fruition, but he was a fantastic regular season signing.
What additional assets does he have left to trade that would have brought something back that would have been clearly better than Devers? Moncada, Kopech, Espinoza, etc. are gone already. If he gutted the farm system any further, it would be unconsionable, but at least we got another good regular season guy in Pomeranz. Smith and Thornburg haven't exactly worked out. Maybe DD thinks more of guys like Xander than he should and he missed his window to cut bait with him when the return would have been crazy high.
Listen, I'm not saying DD deserves to be shown the door, or that Farrell deserves to still be here. Just the opposite, in fact. However, I do believe that Farrell is shouldering a lot of the blame for a team that someone else put together, and at the end of the day, the roster was not as good as the other teams in the playoffs this year. That's on DD, not Farrell, and if he doesn't make significant moves, and brings in a new manager and this team ends up in the same spot, or gasp, doesn't even make the playoffs next year, DD should be the next person to go.
Farrell does deserve to take some big time blame for how he handled Sale and Xander this year. And maybe even Betts injury. Farrell grinds his players. Didn't last year the sox position players break some record for most games started/played? Then we saw Betts hit 3 home runs in his last 43 games, yet Farell still played him even the last two games. He had a knee injury we found out later. We found out recently that Xander finally admitted that he should have taken some time off after the wrist injury from July. And what we saw of Tazawa. There is a pattern here that I think sometimes gets washed away.
It's not the last 2 games that mattered for Mookie. It's the Farrell mind-set of grinding his players. IMO there was no excuse this year for what he did to Sale and Xander. And what if you don't like his base-running philosophy? What if you hated his decision the second he put in Wright to pinch run instead of Pomeranz? The second he brought out Sale to pitch the 8th - anyone listening to the radio like I was- Lou Merloni speaking in the 7th that Sale lost his location. What if you felt the stats of Sale were more important to go by rather than the name? How would you feel about who to blame then, Farrell or DD?
Hey I'm not in love with DD either. I give him a c+ these last two years and an outlook for next year. But imo John's moves have cost this team. And I'm bias - I don't appreciate his philosophy of grinding the players and running into many dumb outs and being okay with it, etc.
How should Sale have been handled differently? He averaged less than 7 innings per start. He had more than 4 days rest almost as often as he did 4 days rest (13-17). He never had an eye-popping pitch count. Pull him from close games and they might have lost them. How much less can your best starter pitch than Sale did?
Sale is nearing 30. His issue, as Farrell mentioned only last week, is how he prepares for the season. Maybe since he was acquired more than halfway through the winter he didn't get fully involved in whatever strength and conditioning the Sox use for their pitchers. Since he does fade at the end, a large part of this is up to Sale.
Betts slumped in July and August (the whole team sucked in July) and had a 944OPS in September.
Sale is nearing 30. His issue, as Farrell mentioned only last week, is how he prepares for the season. Maybe since he was acquired more than halfway through the winter he didn't get fully involved in whatever strength and conditioning the Sox use for their pitchers. Since he does fade at the end, a large part of this is up to Sale.
Betts slumped in July and August (the whole team sucked in July) and had a 944OPS in September.
While there has been a lot said about Sale and September, no one remembers April when he went 1 and 2 in five starts, getting no decisions in games in which he pitched 7 and 8 innings witout allowing a run. He also got one loss when giving up 2 runs and another when giving up 3 (two earned). He could have had a better season. Yet, his run support for the season (5.33 rpg) was better than the Red Sox average and if you take his game out of the team's yearly stats, he got about 2/3-rds of a run more than average.
I kinda find myself right here. He frustrated me, at times a great deal, and inarguably had questionable calls. I'm not going to tar and feather DD or anyone else in the FO for this this decision, but in a world where the market for new Managers is its own nightmare I have my reservations.
I think that says more about the nature of Boston as a baseball market, Red Sox fans in general, and SoSH than it does about the managers.
Well, he led all of baseball in IP and far more importantly, number of pitches per start - which matter much more than IP.
I know.
Although not all pitches are the same, depending on the game context, stress levels are different. But regardless,
when an uninjured #1 starter is going to make 32 or 33 starts, how few innings or pitches can he realistically throw?
I think this is a very good point. SoSH consensus seems to be that Farrell was better than Jimy Williams. But is it because he was actually better, or is it because his management decisions were closer to our feelings about how a team should be managed? Williams had a better record, and his uncanny ability to pull a starter two batters before the collapse, along with his ability to stitch together a dominant bullpen out of chewing gum, bailing wire, and fat guys named Guapo, went a long way towards covering for his unbelievably stupid "manager's decisions" and his seeming inability to manage a clubhouse. I'm not sure which one was the better manager - I will say that Farrell was the less frustrating of the two to watch, but that doesn't answer the question.
I had to look it up to see that Williams did in fact have a better W-L record than John Farrell - but just barely. Their Red Sox managerial winning percentages are .540 to .533 both over the course of 5 seasons, give or take. And Farrell has the WS title and the 2 AL East titles, whereas Williams' teams always finished behind the Jeter-led Yankees, even losing to them in ALCS in 1999.
I would agree with Mr Ripley's comment about the Boston market, but there were a whole lot of terrible teams in those past 50 years - with 1967 being exactly 50 years ago. The Red Sox only made the playoffs 3 times the first 20 years (1967, 1975, 1986), and then when the leagues expanded, they still only made the playoffs 8 times in the next 20 years, with 2004 the one shining example of ultimate success. It's really only been these last 15 years which the Sox have been what we might call consistent contenders, reaching the playoffs 9 out of 15 years. The managers through those good years were Little, Francona, and Farrell - the latter two at or near the top of the SOSH list.
Managerial reputation does still depend on postseason results, even in Boston.
This sounds good, but I'm not really sure if it's true. Putting Francona to one side... most of the recent guys never managed again after getting fired (Kevin Kennedy, Butch Hobson, Joe Kerrigan, Ralph Houk, and — so far, praise god— Bobby Valentine). Grady Little, Jimy Williams and John MacNamara had short, poorly-received stints after the Sox. You have to go back to the 70s to find Sox managers who hung on for more than a season or two in their next jobs— Don Zimmer, Darrell Johnson. I can't really weigh in on these two— it was before my time— but my impression is that baseball was more of an old boys network in this era with a small circle of approved managerial candidates who rotated through near-infinite 'second chances'. Nobody demonstrated a clear track record of success after Boston other than Terry Francona.
I think it's fair to say they just haven't been very good managers as a group, and that this says more about poor decision-making from ownership and management than it does about media or fan perception.
I get that we can be soulless, reactionary assholes, but how many managers do you think they loved in Chicago over the last 50 years before Maddon won it all? Or what about Mets fans and their feelings on non Davey Johnson managers?
It's not unique to Boston or just baseball for that matter for fan bases to think they can manage their teams better than whomever is at the helm.
Last edited:
It's hard to say. The question is who did the most with what they had.
Williams had a reputation of being a good instructor, etc. but I would say his greatest flaw was that he seemed to play favorites - Steve Avery, Darren Lewis, Mike Benjamin, while leaving bats on the bench and/or not really actually developing players that didn't fit his mold. As for pitching, the much maligned Joe Kerrigan was widely seen to be a huge factor in the Sox's success with pitchers. It's to Williams credit to have used him/his advice, but it's easy to imagine another manager having a similar success.
In terms of maximizing performance, those Williams teams had some great players. Sure, we were often up against prime Yankees teams, but the perennial frittering away of games so some scrappy but useless player got some time wore thin quickly, and twice that speed when regulars were banged up. Ultimately, that was my strongest impression of him - a personal bias or code or approach that ultimately fielded a sub-optimal team. Williams often seemed to lack a sense of urgency/tightness and, yes, the context of being in the same division as the Yankees mattered.
Some great players? Aside from Nomar, Pedro, and prime Lowe/Gordon, he didn’t have much talent after Mo left. The likes of Valentin, Daubach, Jefferson, the catchers, Jeff Frye / Offerman, Bragg, Lewis, Buford... sorry, there wasn’t much talent there
I think that perceived managerial incompetence was exacerbated by their occurrences in the post season - which until the last 20 year’s or so - were rather infrequent.
1967 - Jose Santiago not starting game 7
1975 - pinch hitting Cecil 0-345 Cooper for Jim Willoughby in game 7
1986 - a series of catastrophically bad decisions leading to Buckner still on the field in game 6
2003 - Gump’s failure to trust his bullpen in game 7
Nobody much cares (other than SoSH) if you screw up in May. The redhot glare of Octobre is a different story.
1967 - Jose Santiago not starting game 7
1975 - pinch hitting Cecil 0-345 Cooper for Jim Willoughby in game 7
1986 - a series of catastrophically bad decisions leading to Buckner still on the field in game 6
2003 - Gump’s failure to trust his bullpen in game 7
Nobody much cares (other than SoSH) if you screw up in May. The redhot glare of Octobre is a different story.
Also, I think the true answer is there just aren’t that many good managers period. I never even though Torre was good - Zim and Stottlemyre were the coaching stars there
I can't see inside the man's head, but I always had the impression that Williams would rather manage a 85-win-true-talent-level bunch-of-scrappers to 92 wins than manage a 98-win group to 98 wins. He seemed to value certain skill sets and the sense of overachieving via playing-the-game-the-right-way over raw outcomes. In this sense, he was very high-variance-- he could overachieve with the right group of guys ('99) but his preferences and predilections seemed to wear out their welcome pretty fast. The '01 team obviously included a lot of unsavory characters, but Williams has to bear some of the blame for residing over the all-time unhappiest clubhouse in franchise history.
Farrell strikes me as a much less idiosyncratic, more middle-of-the-road figure. Higher floor, lower ceiling. If I had to hire one or the other (er, assuming Williams was suspended in time for the past 20 years), I would go with Farrell simply as the less volatile option, given the way volatile situations tend to fall completely apart under the Boston sports media glare.
This is really interesting. Speier becoming mouthpiece for the Red Sox leadership.
He cites change in clubhouse and an eye toward future resulted in decision - Farrell out.
Mr Speier cannot write this on his own, he came up as stat geek blogger, and to this day has few personal observations or game day quotes... and now this management tome.
This is all Corporate COMMS plan roll-out. The firing presser reveals little to nothing and then a logical lay-down pointed toward the future.
Our Red Sox are far left PC, but with this execution, well managed.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/10/12/changing-clubhouse-changing-game-led-john-farrell-departure/udmlcW3yBhWJK57GJSuk2I/story.html
He cites change in clubhouse and an eye toward future resulted in decision - Farrell out.
Mr Speier cannot write this on his own, he came up as stat geek blogger, and to this day has few personal observations or game day quotes... and now this management tome.
This is all Corporate COMMS plan roll-out. The firing presser reveals little to nothing and then a logical lay-down pointed toward the future.
Our Red Sox are far left PC, but with this execution, well managed.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/10/12/changing-clubhouse-changing-game-led-john-farrell-departure/udmlcW3yBhWJK57GJSuk2I/story.html
I thought Farrell was better than the manager they had when I started watching the Red Sox-the legendary Mike "Pinky" Higgins. Bottom line is the players do the heavy lifting at the end and the amount of blame/credit given the manager is often inflated. If the Yankees had lost in three might Girardi be searching for a job after the screw up he made in game two? Should Tito now be given the heave ho for not winning with the lineup he had? And living in Nebraska, I might add that I am not anticipating NU contending with Alabama in the near future after the nice fellow running the ship is dumped at the end of the year.
I wonder if this track record is really any much different from that of other long time MLB teams, however. Each year, most teams (some would say all but 1) have disappointing endings to their respective seasons.
Sometimes managers are truly in no-win situations. Darrell Johnson was fired mid-season in 1976 after the team struggled out of the gate, a 6-15 start dooming their season. But it's unclear any manager could have done any better during the "hangover" season, especially with the team already bungling their first free agents (IIRC, Lynn, Fisk, and Burleson were basically unsigned until late that year, and expected to be traded at any time). Johnson then managed a Mariners team that was terrible even by expansion standards, as the franchise had absolutely no money to spend on players or scouting. Houk basically retired from baseball after his stint with the Sox ended; he was forced to manage the transition from the powerful teams of the late 1970's to the mid-80's Clemens era.
You are indeed correct that there was very much an "old boys" network in place during the 70's and 80's. McNamara truly epitomized the old boys network; he had 4 thoroughly mediocre (or worse) stints before being hired by the Sox in 1985. However, Darrell Johnson's Boston gig was his first managerial job after being a long time coach. Zimmer was on his second, but his first one with the Padres was very brief (and those Padre teams were just God-awful), and he was also a long time coach with the Sox prior to 1976.
The hiring of mangers is made tougher by the fact that projecting performance from past W/L record is almost impossible. Houk won 3 AL penants and 2 World Series with the Yankees (albeit 20 years before his hiring by the Sox). Meanwhile, Tito's record was pretty awful with the Phillies before being hired by the Sox. And there's the infamous Joe Torre example.
Yes, there truly were some awful hires: Kennedy, Hobson, Kerrigan and Valentine were truly the worse of the worst (although the all time title for the worst manager award is probably a split between Joe Cronin and Joe McCarthy). Fortunately, only one of them was hired by this ownership group, and that was under some truly bizarre circumstances (Lucchino was trying to do a favor to an old friend is my read of that situation, and was unfortunately allowed to get away with overruling his new GM on the matter). Whatever one thinks of Little or Farrell, their hirings were truly defensible under the circumstances. Little was hired towards the end of spring training when most candidates were already in place, had been bench coach of the team under Williams, and came highly recommended by Charlie Manuel. Farrell had a long history with the Boston pitchers and had been well regarded as pitching coach during his tenure here, and the team did actually have some success in his first year. None of the same could be said about the 4 members of the Hall of Shame mentioned above.
You're reading far too much into this. Speier is far more than a management mouthpiece or pure stat-geek, and he has developed sources in the team. Most of what Speier is saying is parsing Dombrowski's words and following up quotes and comments from both players and other sources. No different than any other sports journalist.
Nobody disliked Casey Stengel, Gil Hodges or Yogi Berra.
But your point remains. Winning papers over a lot of concerns.
I think the "underperformance" line is telling though. They did win the AL East. So if it's expressly not division finishes, and expressly not in-game management, perhaps it's managing the team over the long haul to have them rested/ready/prepared to execute in the post-season.
It also may point to underperformance devaluing players in the trade market. If regression does devalue players in the trade market, it would tie DD's hands somewhat, as he would always be selling low. I mean, who can DD potentially sell high on? Kelly? Devers? Kimbrel (or is the bloom off his season?)
It's also worth noting that Tito got a pass on managerial blunders in the years following championships.
For example, the 2008 ALCS when he brought in Timlin in the bottom of the 11th of Game 2 in an 8-8 tie. He was 42 years old and in the final season of his career. He had a horrible regular season (5.66 ERA, 1.622 WHIP) and the final month of September included a .382 BAA and 1.259 OPS. Yet Tito proceeded to sit and watch as Timlin walked 3 batters in the inning before giving up the game-winning sacrifice fly. It was the same game in which Tito left in Beckett to give up 8 ER in just 4 innings when clearly he had nothing that day. But that was Tito, loyal to a fault. If the 2004 & 2007 championships had never happened, he would have been crucified and possibly fired right then and there. Timlin shouldn't have even been on the postseason roster.
Such a difference between the 13 team, veteran laden, and this years team.
As late as September 17, Mookie and Xman are still lamenting the loss of Ortiz?
Apparently Lovullo could relate to all the players and console them when they struggled
but DiSar could not find the right balance of reassurance?
Have the players changed that much in 5 years or IS it the current culture in MLB?
I do hope this team does have players that ARE able to take more responsibility for their seasons.
Eight people are without jobs for the time being because of this firing.
I know Chili was not teaching to take 5 pitches with the bases loaded and no outs in Game 4!
I do agree the "underperformance" was part of it; not sure why that contradicts my assessment of Speier's article, but whatever.
As to the selling low/selling high, not sure there's many huge changes. The one blown save in the playoffs will not really affect Kimbrel's market value at all. Betts still would have a ton of value on the trade market, as his season was not nearly as bad as Shank and others would have you believe. Benintendi's value probably didn't change; he still looks like he's going to be a solid player for a long time. Sale's value hasn't changed, other than that he's one year closer to unrestricted free agency. Pomeranz would appear to be another candidate for "selling high", although I don't see that happening. Vazquez also solidified himself as an everyday catcher.
I would agree that the 3 players that saw their trade values decline were likely Bogaerts, Bradley, and probably Ed-Rod. Then again, noone can pin Rodriguez's injuries on Farrell, and I'm not sure JBJ's actual trade value was necessarily all that much higher to begin with.
Off topic, but this does seem like an ideal time to see what Joe Kelly would return via trade.
Again, a bit off topic, but Tito was trying to see what he could get out of an injured Beckett in a game that the Sox were actually winning 6-5 when Beckett came on for the bottom of the 5th. I do agree that he probably did leave him in a batter or 2 too long, however.
As for Timlin's usage, Lopez, Delcarmen, Okajima, Masterson, and Papelbon had already appeared. Francona's remaining options were either Paul Byrd or Tim Wakefield, or burning Lester's Game 3 start (which unfortunately was a disaster, but noone could have forseen that outcome at that time). Not sure using Timlin was necessarily worse than the other options at that point. At least it's not as clear cut a bad decision as you may think at first glance.
Last edited:
Winning pitcher in that game: David Price.
The baseball gods have a wicked sense of humor at times.
Figured I'd get called out on some of them
But that's 40+ years ago. I don't think Mets fans would be neutral about Yogi and his .497 winning percentage today, or that the Mets would be lovable losers under Casey Stengel.
This. It's also written from a Speier-type perspective -- explaining underperformance and data driven experience.
If you go to a game at Fenway early and watch Speier on the field, it is obvious that he has access and relationships with players and management. Describing him as a management mouthpiece just because one has personally pigeonholed him as a dweeb stat geek is very scant evidence. There is nothing at all in this piece to suggest that. It reads as good reporting, mixed with some reasonable speculation, with a lean toward the things we know Alex is interested in.
It's actually encouraging to have another voice writing pieces like this.
That's probably the lowest hanging fruit from that game, but some other tidbits worth mentioning:Winning pitcher in that game: David Price.
The baseball gods have a wicked sense of humor at times.
Chad Bradford got credited for a "hold", despite letting one inherited runner score and also putting the Sox tying run on base. Bradford had pitched for the Sox in 2005, and was the return for Jay Payton, after Payton publicly blew up at Francona.
The player Price replaced on the mound was Dan Wheeler, who 3 years later would pitch well mid-season for the Sox in relief, until he lost it all during the early part of the September collapse, never appearing after September 7.
But the big one you missed was the player who had 2 hits and 2 RBI's, including the RBI single that put the Rays up 8-6, on his way to putting up a 0.849 OPS that series (and he would later follow that up with a 0.934 OPS in the World Series). Yes, it's the same player who led the league in triples that season, and had 46 successful steals in 54 attempts: left fielder Carl Bleepin' Crawford.
Timlin never should have been on the roster, and in fact wasn't on the ALDS roster therefore he hadn't pitched in quite some time. But to answer your question, yes I think Wake would have been the right choice. Tito wouldn't have been backed into a corner if he had kept in Masterson longer, or especially Delcarmen who hadn't pitched in the series prior to that game.
No doubt. (Although Yogi occupies a place in NY fandom that even a sub-500 record may not affect; maybe like if Pedro managed the Sox to a .497).Figured I'd get called out on some of them
But that's 40+ years ago. I don't think Mets fans would be neutral about Yogi and his .497 winning percentage today, or that the Mets would be lovable losers under Casey Stengel.
Just a goofy question, but how did you know the pitcher was going to implode if Jimy pulled him two batters before he was going to collapse?
All of such statements, "______________ win playoff games" Whether it is goal-tending, rebounding, starting pitching, experience, free throws are silly over simplifications. It is possible to say almost any factor is the key factor.
Either you sore more than the other team or you don't Did your good hitting win or their bad pitching? Did we get a clutch hit or did their bullpen choke. Did our goalie "stand on his head" or did people fail to finish?
Chicken or egg.
take 2004 epic comeback vs the Yankees.
Playoff series are about the longball. Ortiz won game 4 , brought them back in game 5, set the tone in game 7 with HR, Bellhorn won game 6, put away game 7, Damon' Slam ended it.
Playoff series area all about starting pitching
The starters did not give the Sox a chance in games 1-3
Lowe stopped the the early runs in game 4 and dominated game 7
Pedro kept then in the game so they could comeback again at home
Bloody sock game
Playoffs are about the bullpen.
Both epic game 4 and 5 extra inning games had multiple guys come out of the pen and do the job
Foulke was the MVP
Every once in awhile I manage to post without attempting to contradict anyone. Just to keep 'em honest.
I dunno, man. I hear what you're saying, but I saw a lot of players puking on their own shoes too. This is the second elimination game were Gio Gonzalez suddenly had no control whatsoever.
What a glorious mess that game was. As rage-inducing as the last two Sox postseasons have been, I have to be thankful I'm not a Nats fan. Yikes.