According to Baseball Reference he has had 3 PA in five years, a BA of 0.000 and an OBP of 0.333. I think the he would have a better chance of winning the Powerball.lexrageorge said:
Let's Talk about the manager -- The John Farrell Thread
- Thread starter Dave Stapleton
- Start date
- Status
lexrageorge said:
I imagine if Farrell went to Uehara in that spot in the ninth, he'd have also double-switched Salty into the game so that Koji would be hitting in Ross's spot (8th) instead. Even doing that, Farrell is praying to BABIP that the Sox score in the top of the 10th otherwise the game still ends up in the hands of Villareal or Britton.
Uehara warming up in the 9th inning of a 12-1 game? This situation is where you use Villerreal.
RedOctober3829 said:
Uehara hasn't worked since Saturday, and only that once in the last week. I imagine they just want to get him an easy inning to stay sharp.
And a day off tomorrow. Nothing wrong with giving him an inning here.Red(s)HawksFan said:
EDIT--6 pitches. He'll be fine.
While I'm happy to hear he has not always handled his bullpen in a paint by numbers way, my criticism was only directed at the way he handled yesterday's game - and in particular his own explicitly stated explanation for that strategy (i.e "“I’m holding back on Koji because if we push across a run, he’s going to close the game out,"..).joe dokes said:
Call me reactionary but it was an asinine decision made even worse by an even more asinine justification.
Remember, if the Sox get through that inning, the game becomes a one inning contest in an unbalanced matchup. While you could argue that the Giants may have had a bullpen advantage in extra innings, let's not forget that this game pit one of the worst teams in baseball against one of the best. Bullpen aside, this was the first place Sox against the last placed Giants; the team with the best offense in the majors against the team ranked 26th in run production.
Get through that inning (a highly probably scenario if he had chosen to go with the league's best reliever on the mound) and the game is a toss up at worst. Fail to get through that inning (and in all of baseball you'd have to dig deep to find a worse choice to get you there than Villareal) and the game's over.
RSN Diaspora said:
Not making too much of it since it would have been a tough call by Victorino to let it drop. However, on the road you have to play for the win, especially given the state of the bullpen, which I can't really expect Victorino to consider. If that same play was at Fenway, I agree you take the out. Also, Posey has not been swinging the bat well and has not homered in over a month with a 531 OPS and 235 SLG.
Really, I thought the strategy yesterday was pretty simple.
Use Koji to get the one out. If they take a lead, have him close it out(and there could have been a nice opportunity to ph for him also). If they don't replace him and have him ready the next day. It's not like he had worked alot recently.
This was pretty much what I was expecting.
I can understand not wanting to make him unavailable for future games in a situation when the bats looked like limp noodles. That said, getting one batter would mean he should still be available the next day.
I understand that you would have put the weak links in the game eventually, but there is a pretty big difference between bringing Villareal in with the bases empty and with the base full where even a walk creates a walk-off.
Use Koji to get the one out. If they take a lead, have him close it out(and there could have been a nice opportunity to ph for him also). If they don't replace him and have him ready the next day. It's not like he had worked alot recently.
This was pretty much what I was expecting.
I can understand not wanting to make him unavailable for future games in a situation when the bats looked like limp noodles. That said, getting one batter would mean he should still be available the next day.
I understand that you would have put the weak links in the game eventually, but there is a pretty big difference between bringing Villareal in with the bases empty and with the base full where even a walk creates a walk-off.
Just received this from a lurker by the name of williams_482
I would only add that although it may be true that Farrell is not an idiot- and I can't imagine he would ever intentionally throw a game- for all of the above listed and earlier stated reasons, that specific decision was ridiculous.
Manager showed he can work the double switch pretty good today, and put Uehara out there for some pretty important outs as well.
I thought he handled the 8th inning perfectly. Short leashes for everyone, and eventually, 4 outs for Koji.
Lefties are now hitting .301/.354/.479 off Breslow. I understand Farrell doesn't have Thornton, but there still have to be better options. I would have rather seen him leave Tazawa (neutral split) in, or if he had to bring in a lefty, bring in Morales. For all of Morales' faults, he's been death on lefties in his career and the worst thing that would probably happen is he'd walk them. Breslow is an effective weapon against righties, but he needs to stop being brought in to face lefties.
Just as a minor correction to what was an excellent submission by that lurker: Scutaro's implied OBP from the win-probability figure is twice the differential between that figure and 50%. The total probability is multiplicative, not additive (total win probability = probability of escaping the ninth x probability of winning in extras.)kazuneko said:
The leverage index is really the key to understanding this situation, and also to understanding why the "save your closer for the save situation on the road" mentality (which, admittedly, Farrell has shown he is not completely beholden to) is so ridiculously stupid.
Edit: tidied up explanation
Perfect job handling the pitching staff tonight, regardless of how it turns out. Pulled Dempster at the appropriate time. Brought Tazawa back out in the 8th to get the first out. Used Morales as a LOOGY to get Dunn, and then brought Koji in for the final out of the 8th.
Ever since the Villarreal fiasco, he's handled the staff extremely well.
EDIT--and, of course, it turns out perfectly. I mean, it's Koji.
Ever since the Villarreal fiasco, he's handled the staff extremely well.
EDIT--and, of course, it turns out perfectly. I mean, it's Koji.
I've been critical of Farrell and many of his moves this year, but he did a masterful job with the pen last night. I hope it's a sign of things to come.
Back when they made the decision for closer when Hanrahan and Bailey were done, presumably Farrell and Nieves primarily, I thought they'd go with Taz...younger, stronger, faster FB. Koji was so absolutely the right choice by them.
I thought Farrell could have attaboy'ed Dempster before he faced Viciedo (who later scored), but that would have left a difficult decision for the eighth inning.
(Which is certainly why they don't pay me to make the decisions...)
That Tazawa settled down after the triple was of course huge.
(Which is certainly why they don't pay me to make the decisions...)
That Tazawa settled down after the triple was of course huge.
rembrat said:
Playing for one run when down two in that spot was incredibly stupid. How does their frequency of bunting this season have any relevance here?
Not everything is stats in isolation. Fister had induced something like 12 ground outs to that point. I assume the bunt was to move runners along and stay out of the dp.
Try to come out of that inning with at least something on the board leading to the Tigers bullpen.
Try to come out of that inning with at least something on the board leading to the Tigers bullpen.
geoduck no quahog said:
That's likely what Farrell thought, but it ignores how wobbly Fister looked at that point after an afternoon working in the humidity.
I think the bunt could have been a DP if the throw was to 2B instead of 3B.
geoduck no quahog said:
Farrell just confirmed they were trying to stay out of the DP and move runners along. Also had a comment about Salty not seeing the ball well or something to that effect. Still don't agree with the move given it appeared they had Fister on the ropes and Salty is about your best bet to put one into the bleachers at that part of the lineup.
OttoC said:
I'd have to crunch the numbers on odds of 2 runs scoring, but total run expectancy drops from 1.46 to 1.40 and that's assuming a perfect bunt.
In reality, it's more like 1.46 to (S*(1.40) + (1-S)(.91)) where S is the success rate.
Yes, Fister is a GB pitcher and, yes, Salty has a tendency to strike out. That aside, there's very little that justifies that decision. It was insanely stupid when Salty first squared -- I thought the Red Sox got a free pass when he didn't get it down right away, but alas...
EDIT: The move is more monumentally stupid if it was quasi-reactionary to DP hitting into a couple DPs.
Drew hits righties well, too. I think the idea is to stay out of the DP with the slow-moving Salty, set up Drew with second and third, and try to get two runs. Or maybe get them to pull Fister and the PH X against a lefty brought on to face Drew.
It didn't work, and you've got to take into account Salt's ability to bunt (or not), but it's not a terrible decision in my opinion.
It didn't work, and you've got to take into account Salt's ability to bunt (or not), but it's not a terrible decision in my opinion.
We've heard Farrell mention that the team does tweak the average run expectancy tables based on game situations. With a catcher up at the plate, the 1.46 run expectancy is probably a bit optimistic. Run expectancy also does not give you the percentage of getting 1 run, which is higher with runners at 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. Whether they should have played for 1 run or for the big inning is certainly debatable, but there's always a lot more nuance to the situation than the "never bunt" crowd would have you believe.
It's a questionable decision at best given all the circumstances (concern of DP, Drew on deck, etc). But factoring in that Saltalamacchia hasn't laid down a successful bunt in four years and can't be reasonably counted on to do so on command, it makes the decision downright foolish.
I can honestly only get behind the decision to bunt if it manages to catch the defense completely off-guard and it is executed well (to the point of the hitter possibly reaching base and no one being put out). Salty blew the element of surprise by not getting the first attempt down, and then when he finally did get it down, it was a shitty bunt.
I can honestly only get behind the decision to bunt if it manages to catch the defense completely off-guard and it is executed well (to the point of the hitter possibly reaching base and no one being put out). Salty blew the element of surprise by not getting the first attempt down, and then when he finally did get it down, it was a shitty bunt.
lexrageorge said:
Odds of scoring >=1 run goes from 64% to 68% if the bunt is successful. 64% to 43% if it is not. If you are playing for one (and only one) run (like the bottom of the ninth) and have a good bunter up, then bunting a guy from 2nd to 3rd (or 1st to 2nd) is not a bad play. But most of the time it is. Especially when you are down 2 in the seventh.
Not sure why the fact Salty is a catcher is relevant. Against RHP his wRC+ is 127 which means he is well-above league average without a positional adjustment. If anything, having HIM bunt is a much worse play because A) he's actually a good hitter from the left side and B) he probably hasn't laid down more than a handful of bunts over the last 5 years.
That's why I hated the move. There are good arguments for bunting but when you have a guy who doesn't have a lot of experience doing that and who is capable of giving the Sox the lead with one swing of the bat, I don't like it. And I really don't like it after he's shown bunt once and thereby removed any element of surprise that might have existed.czar said:
I didn't love the bunt decision, or bunting in general, but the bigger issue I had first-guessing is that Salty doesn't bunt often, likely hasn't historically bunted often at any level, and likely isn't a great bunter. With a full bench including 2 extra catchers why not PH for Salty with a better bunter? As a speed guy you would hope Berry at the very least would have some bunting ability, and I'd probably have more faith in McDonald laying a good one down than Salty.
The question I was wondering is what Farrell was prepared to do if the Tigers put Drew on. Now, I think Leyland probably won't do it. You don't lightly put the go ahead run on base in the seventh inning on the road. Not for Stephen Drew. But what if he does? Now, it's Middlebrooks instead of Drew, and you're not overjoyed with that matchup right? You're happy bases are loaded, but the matchup just got worse.
Given the choice between lefty Salty up versus Fister with first and second and no out, versus WMB with bases loaded and one out, down by two, I actually don't think it's a real easy call. I prefer bases loaded, but not by enough to account for the percentage of chance of poor bunt execution. So, maybe Farrell then goes to Carp instead of Middlebrooks, and Leyland has to bring in a lefty reliever for Carp and Ells. We ok with that (and with Xander batting 9th and playing third)?
I suppose all this is silly, because putting things in position where a double can clear the bases and give the Sox a lead in the 8th is all good. I think. But when I think about Middlebrooks coming up against Fister in a big spot if Drew walks, my strong gut reaction is that I would have much rather seen what lefty Salty could do with no outs and not risjk him failing to execute a bunt.
Given the choice between lefty Salty up versus Fister with first and second and no out, versus WMB with bases loaded and one out, down by two, I actually don't think it's a real easy call. I prefer bases loaded, but not by enough to account for the percentage of chance of poor bunt execution. So, maybe Farrell then goes to Carp instead of Middlebrooks, and Leyland has to bring in a lefty reliever for Carp and Ells. We ok with that (and with Xander batting 9th and playing third)?
I suppose all this is silly, because putting things in position where a double can clear the bases and give the Sox a lead in the 8th is all good. I think. But when I think about Middlebrooks coming up against Fister in a big spot if Drew walks, my strong gut reaction is that I would have much rather seen what lefty Salty could do with no outs and not risjk him failing to execute a bunt.
I didn't really mind the bunt there, but I thought it was really inconsistent with the way they've done things all year. Plus, down by two, you need a hit to tie it, not just a bip. Many times in the past weeks were more obviously bunt situations, with better bunters at the plate and he didn't do it.
Also, im getting the impression that Nava is a really bad base runner. Seems like he should have been able to make it, though I didn't see his jump.
Also, im getting the impression that Nava is a really bad base runner. Seems like he should have been able to make it, though I didn't see his jump.
MoGator71 said:
Given the 3 DPs they had already hit into, I get the bunt idea. But they have 3 catchers now, and whether its Berry or McDonald or someone else, I would think that if you're definitely gonna bunt, put up the best bunter -- or at least someone better than Salty -- you have and give him 3 tries at it.
Plympton91 said:
The bunt was terrible and Avila grabbed it very, very quickly. I'm not sure anyone save Jacoby, and maybe not even him, would have beaten the throw.
IMO it was a really bad call by Farrell. You've got a tiring pitcher and a mediocre-to-poor bunter up there. And they gave him a free out on the lead runner. That simply cannot happen. Even if the bunt was successful it was still a very poor call by the manager, IMO. Much better to give Salty the chance to get a hit there.
rembrat said:
So pinch hit for him then. Use Carp if that's what was going on. They had Ross and Lavarnway up, so losing a catcher is no big deal.
He had options. He chose a very poor one.
Yo, dudes, that keep repeating themselves, did you miss the part where Farrell said Salty wasn't seeing the ball well?
Which leads you think he'd be able to put down an effective bunt...how?
SJH has got it. If "he wasn't seeing the ball well" is really the excuse, he shouldn't have been up there.
Which leads you think he'd be able to put down an effective bunt...how?
SJH has got it. If "he wasn't seeing the ball well" is really the excuse, he shouldn't have been up there.
That bunt he tried in 2009 was pretty awesome.
The obsession with bunting is terrible. I do buy that for guys who are decent at bunting, it's a good way to give them something to do that helps them see the ball a bit better (say, if they are slumping, not just if they are having a bad game). For guys who aren't good at bunting I think it just creates more of a problem. And the Sox have had a bunch of guys not very good at bunting trying it.
It's small potatoes compared to the overall job of keeping the club going, and Farrell should get some credit for the fact that this team has played at a nice consistent pace. However, we are left here to talk about what we can really see, which is the tactical stuff.
The obsession with bunting is terrible. I do buy that for guys who are decent at bunting, it's a good way to give them something to do that helps them see the ball a bit better (say, if they are slumping, not just if they are having a bad game). For guys who aren't good at bunting I think it just creates more of a problem. And the Sox have had a bunch of guys not very good at bunting trying it.
It's small potatoes compared to the overall job of keeping the club going, and Farrell should get some credit for the fact that this team has played at a nice consistent pace. However, we are left here to talk about what we can really see, which is the tactical stuff.
Salty bunted into a DP, except the catcher threw to the wrong base. The move blew up in Farrell's face, but the explosion should have been even louder.
Harry Hooper said:
Hmm. Maybe. Here's the possibilities using linear weights from Spiff's site:
[tablegrid= Run Expectancy Matrix ]
I'm a bit burned right now and I can't remember how to use this to figure out what percentage chance he'd have to think he had of turning the double for throwing to second for it to make sense. Is Smas here? He's good at that...
- Status