1275 replies to this topic

[smastroyin]

Wait a minute, after an off-season of talking about all the stupid shit players were doing in the clubhouse we are now worried about emasculating them? This is what I mean. You can obviously have it both ways because that's how you deal with people, but they seem to take the "let's be ultra aggressive in having background rumors and dumb shit said behind the players backs all the time and make catty comments in the press about it" combined with "when push comes to shove, we will defer to the players and try to make them happy."

I'm just frustrated at the whole experience. The entire thing top to bottom reeks of incompetence in knowing how to deal with people on every level.

Put it this way on Bard. Given the way the team has been reeling, here is a constructive comment. "They need some help back there, we need to get the ship straight, I'm going to go out and do what I can do." Leave the rest of it until another time. We all know you want to be a starter. etc. etc. The time to complain about it (and listen, you can disagree all you want, I listened to that full interview and he was complaining about being given some kind of Sisyphean task, no matter how it ends up reading in the paper) is not when the team has finally put a W on the board. Where's the "I'm just happy to have contributed to a win and help get us on track." Just for one night.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Lost in all of this is that Bard came within about an inch of blowing the lead. Gave up a bullet to Youks and a blooper that nearly fell behind Aviles. It's a fine line between hero and goat; can you imagine the reaction over Bard's temporary role had one of those fallen in?

The life of a manager in 2 batters, I'd say.

[Van Everyman]

I thought Ben and Valentine said that Bard wouldn't be used on back to back days out of the pen between his starts. Have they changed their minds already?

The team is caught between trying to win ballgames and keeping the players focused while still trying to figure it what they have given all the injuries. I know it's not pretty and you can't lay it out in a white paper. But this is what happens when you are caught in a situation like this one. You lose a game and do you try something different next time -- or go with what you said you would? Win one and do it again -- or "stick to the plan"? Until the Sox can get in some kind of rhythm, I'm sure all options are on the table.

[TheoShmeo]

Wait a minute, after an off-season of talking about all the stupid shit players were doing in the clubhouse we are now worried about emasculating them? This is what I mean. You can obviously have it both ways because that's how you deal with people, but they seem to take the "let's be ultra aggressive in having background rumors and dumb shit said behind the players backs all the time and make catty comments in the press about it" combined with "when push comes to shove, we will defer to the players and try to make them happy."

I'm just frustrated at the whole experience. The entire thing top to bottom reeks of incompetence in knowing how to deal with people on every level.

I meant emasculating Bobby, not the players. Your point was that if Bobby is their man, they should support him. A speech to that effect by Ben or LL would be well intentioned but, I think, could very well end up making Bobby look weak. And it would be pretty unusual in any event. Was that what you were suggesting?

To be clear, I think the players have, by and large, behaved like a bunch of infants.

[TheoShmeo]

Lost in all of this is that Bard came within about an inch of blowing the lead. Gave up a bullet to Youks and a blooper that nearly fell behind Aviles. It's a fine line between hero and goat; can you imagine the reaction over Bard's temporary role had one of those fallen in?

The life of a manager in 2 batters, I'd say.

And Aceves came within a few yards of giving up a walk off homer four batters later. The "should have left Bard in" crowd would have had a field day with Bobby if that had happened.

The life of a manager in 1.2 innings, I'd say.

[rembrat]

Lost in all of this is that Bard came within about an inch of blowing the lead. Gave up a bullet to Youks and a blooper that nearly fell behind Aviles. It's a fine line between hero and goat; can you imagine the reaction over Bard's temporary role had one of those fallen in?

The life of a manager in 2 batters, I'd say.

Valentine damn near blew the game before Bard even entered the fold. Morales game up a lead-off triple to Carroll thus showing why he isn't really the kind of LHP that can do R-L-R in an inning. I don't know how many more times it has to happen before Valentine acknowledges this. Rich Hill is on his way. Until then use Morales vs LHHs*.

*Looking at his career splits I'm baffled at the handedness of his batters faced. 580PA vs RHH 245PA vs LHH. His managers have consistently put him in situations to fail.

[smastroyin]

Ah, that makes more sense, sorry to mis-read you. I'm not sure, in some ways it feels like the cat is out of the bag. I wish they had just said in spring training to suck it up and give it a month, no matter what happens. But they didn't and that is probably too much to ask anyway. Perhaps I'm wrong and there is nothing they can really do other than hope the team starts winning and this stuff fades.

As to Morales, I am also baffled. Isn't his inability to consistently put down RHH the reason he went from being a promising young starter for a World Series team to "searching for a back of the bullpen role" guy in two years?

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

Lost in all of this is that Bard came within about an inch of blowing the lead. Gave up a bullet to Youks and a blooper that nearly fell behind Aviles. It's a fine line between hero and goat; can you imagine the reaction over Bard's temporary role had one of those fallen in?

The life of a manager in 2 batters, I'd say.

This is a pretty outstanding point and not only sums up the life of a manager but the life of a baseball team. There's an extremely fine line between victory and defeat, nowhere finer than in a one-run game. The Red Sox are 1-3 in one run games and I'm positive that in each of these you could find moments like the one you mention above that could have changed the outcome. A few little moments different and the Red Sox could be 8-7 now. Not great, but acceptable.

They are 2-1 in 2-run games, which also can turn on a few borderline moments. Take all of this into account and maybe the Red Sox are 9-6 right now and we all feel much better. Or, dammit, they're 2-13! In which case, if you think things are bad now, well...

It's worth taking all of this into account. People talk about firing managers and GMs and trading players -- or hailing them as heroes, all based on what oftens amounts to a series of coin flips. They don't call it a "game of inches" for nothin'!

Edited by Gene Conleys Plane Ticket, 24 April 2012 - 08:41 AM.

[judyb]

Valentine damn near blew the game before Bard even entered the fold. Morales game up a lead-off triple to Carroll thus showing why he isn't really the kind of LHP that can do R-L-R in an inning. I don't know how many more times it has to happen before Valentine acknowledges this. Rich Hill is on his way. Until then use Morales vs LHHs*.

*Looking at his career splits I'm baffled at the handedness of his batters faced. 580PA vs RHH 245PA vs LHH. His managers have consistently put him in situations to fail.

Probably just that his managers have regularly been in the position of hoping to get more out of him than they should, because they're struggling to scrape up enough pitching to survive games, since that tends to be the state of things in both Boston and Colorado more often than not.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Valentine damn near blew the game before Bard even entered the fold. Morales game up a lead-off triple to Carroll thus showing why he isn't really the kind of LHP that can do R-L-R in an inning. I don't know how many more times it has to happen before Valentine acknowledges this. Rich Hill is on his way. Until then use Morales vs LHHs*.

We've been through this. last night, the Twins had Carroll ®, Mauer (L), Willingham ®, Morneau (L), Doumit (S) due up. I'd love to hear an explanation as to how you would have approached that inning.

Albers for Carroll, Morales for Mauer, Atchison for Willingham, Thomas for Morneau, Aceves for Doumit, perhaps?

Playing matchups is great, but it cannot be done with every god damn reliever on the roster. Carroll is not a good hitter, he's exactly the kind of hitter you want Morales facing.

[rembrat]

Your example is an exaggeration. Atch had been warm from the previous innings. Atch for Carroll then Morales for Mauer. In a perfect world, you get both guys out and pitch carefully or around to Willingham then go after Morneau, if Willingham reaches. Obviously things don't go to plan in baseball and a million other scenarios could have happened. But pretending like he can't limit Morales' exposure to RHH should not be one.

Carroll is not a good hitter but right now RHH are hitting Morales to the tune of .333/.429/.389 and they've hit him .274/.373/.427 over his career. All the hoping and wishing isn't going to help him get RHH out!

Throwing your hands up and screaming "what else can he do?!" is not an option. He was hired to manage and manage he should. I think I can count on one hand how many times we've seen Bobby play the matchups like a Maddon or TLR would.

[86spike]

Your example is an exaggeration. Atch had been warm from the previous innings. Atch for Carroll then Morales for Mauer. In a perfect world, you get both guys out and pitch carefully or around to Willingham then go after Morneau, if Willingham reaches. Obviously things don't go to plan in baseball and a million other scenarios could have happened. But pretending like he can't limit Morales' exposure to RHH should not be one.

Carroll is not a good hitter but right now RHH are hitting Morales to the tune of .333/.429/.389 and they've hit him .274/.373/.427 over his career. All the hoping and wishing isn't going to help him get RHH out!

Throwing your hands up and screaming "what else can he do?!" is not an option. He was hired to manage and manage he should. I think I can count on one hand how many times we've seen Bobby play the matchups like a Maddon or TLR would.

\

if only Bobby had a reliever who has shown a good track record of being able to get tough RHH and LHH out. Someone like Daniel Bard would be sick.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Your example is an exaggeration. Atch had been warm from the previous innings. Atch for Carroll then Morales for Mauer. In a perfect world, you get both guys out and pitch carefully or around to Willingham then go after Morneau, if Willingham reaches. Obviously things don't go to plan in baseball and a million other scenarios could have happened. But pretending like he can't limit Morales' exposure to RHH should not be one.

So, you'd rather Morales face Willingham than Carroll? You are going to waste Atchison for Carroll (who they could PH for)? BV played this correctly.

Throwing your hands up and screaming "what else can he do?!" is not an option. He was hired to manage and manage he should. I think I can count on one hand how many times we've seen Bobby play the matchups like a Maddon or TLR would.

Unless you have a 20 man pitching staff, RH are going to face LH, and LH are going to face RH sometimes. The real problem here is a pen filled with guys with huge splits.

[Lose Remerswaal]

\

if only Bobby had a reliever who has shown a good track record of being able to get tough RHH and LHH out. Someone like Daniel Bard would be sick.

I'm going to guess that this doesn't look at all familar to you:

DATE OPPONENT RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB Pit BF GSc Dec. Rel. ERA
Sep 28 @ BAL L 4-3 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 9 3 - - H(34) 3.33
Sep 27 @ BAL W 8-7 1.0 3 2 2 0 0 1 2 3 25 6 - - - 3.38
Sep 25 @ NYY W 7-4 1.0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 28 6 - - - 3.17
Sep 20 vs BAL L 7-5 1.1 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 18 6 - L(2-9) H(33) 3.21
Sep 17 vs TB L 4-3 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 12 3 - - - 3.01
Sep 16 vs TB W 4-3 1.0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 18 4 - - H(32) 3.06
Sep 14 vs TOR L 5-4 1.0 1 3 2 0 2 0 2 1 21 6 - L(2-8) BlSv(5) 3.11
Sep 10 @ TB L 6-5 0.1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 6 3 - L(2-7) - 2.88
Sep 7 @ TOR L 11-10 1.0 1 5 5 0 3 2 2 0 36 8 - L(2-6) BlSv(4) 2.76
Sep 5 @ TOR L 1-0 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 14 5 - - - 2.10
Sep 1 vs NYY L 4-2 0.2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 15 4 - - BlSv(3) 2.15

Edited by Lose Remerswaal, 24 April 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[rembrat]

\
if only Bobby had a reliever who has shown a good track record of being able to get tough RHH and LHH out. Someone like Daniel Bard would be sick.

I'm actually glad that Bard is a starter because otherwise he would be currently leading the league in relief IP and appearances and his arm would be in a sling by June.

[Zupcic Fan]

Lost in all of this is that Bard came within about an inch of blowing the lead. Gave up a bullet to Youks and a blooper that nearly fell behind Aviles. It's a fine line between hero and goat; can you imagine the reaction over Bard's temporary role had one of those fallen in?

The life of a manager in 2 batters, I'd say.

exactly. I don't like Bobby Valentine, but I find the criticisms of some of his moves so far to just be silly, and even more silly some of the praise he's getting for last night's moves. Every move he made last night that worked would have caused a shitstorm of silly ranting if they didn't work. Many posters wanted Lester out one inning earlier. Then there was screaming about Bard not starting the inning instead of bringing him in after that first hit. Then there was screaming about Bard not being left in for the ninth inning.
So if the screaming line drive to Youk was 5 feet to the left, or the one out fly ball that would have been way out in Fenway thAt Aceves threw didn't mercifully stay in the park, all we'd be reading all day would be little game thread type tantrums about every single one of those decisions. Instead we get a few " great job by Bobby" comments. It's absurd. Luckily for us there are umps in these games so that most of the screaming comments are directed at them whenever there is even a relatively close pitch that is called against us, or else every single comment would be directed at every single managerial decision that doesn't work put perfectly.
It's so tiring. It doesn't bother me as much this year, though, since at least it's directed against a guy I can't stand.

[EddieYost]

Did Bobby ever explain why he didn't just put Bard in to start the 8th? I thought that was the plan all along?

[trekfan55]

Lost in all of this is that Bard came within about an inch of blowing the lead. Gave up a bullet to Youks and a blooper that nearly fell behind Aviles. It's a fine line between hero and goat; can you imagine the reaction over Bard's temporary role had one of those fallen in?

The life of a manager in 2 batters, I'd say.

Maybe worse, it was a tie game and he would have given up the lead.

Of course, he was brought in with 1 out and a runner on 3rd.

[Harry Hooper]

If the Sox were leading, I bet BobbyV would have started the 8th with Bard. Since the score was tied, however, I think he wanted to see if he could avoid using Bard until Tuesday's game.

[EddieYost]

If the Sox were leading, I bet BobbyV would have started the 8th with Bard. Since the score was tied, however, I think he wanted to see if he could avoid using Bard until Tuesday's game.

OK, I'll buy that.

[geoduck no quahog]

I don't know how one keeps using statistics in isolation of other events to justify an argument which should be more (sorry) holistic.

For example, I don't know what Morales was like in the past, but if the coaches and manager saw something in his abilities this spring that opened their eyes, it's entirely conceivable that this version of Morales is not the same Morales that consistently failed against RHH's. I'm not saying it's true or false, just that there's more to the story than history.

It's the same for everyone. We all know a well-hit ball when we see one, whether it's an out or not. We all know when someone looks terrible at the plate versus someone who's just not getting hits (and vice versa). OK, over a long period of time these things work out and reveal themselves in averages, but it's tough for pitchers, and SJH points that out. Were the pitches that Bard threw shitty pitches that lucked into outs? Or were they quality pitches? All we know from the boxscore is that the pitcher "succeeded".

And it sure looks like Aceves pitched a lot worse than his line.

My point? If an argument for or against someone relies solely on stats, we're missing the fact that ballplayers can change over time and activities on the field reveal a more widespread truth.

[trekfan55]

I don't know how one keeps using statistics in isolation of other events to justify an argument which should be more (sorry) holistic.

For example, I don't know what Morales was like in the past, but if the coaches and manager saw something in his abilities this spring that opened their eyes, it's entirely conceivable that this version of Morales is not the same Morales that consistently failed against RHH's. I'm not saying it's true or false, just that there's more to the story than history.

It's the same for everyone. We all know a well-hit ball when we see one, whether it's an out or not. We all know when someone looks terrible at the plate versus someone who's just not getting hits (and vice versa). OK, over a long period of time these things work out and reveal themselves in averages, but it's tough for pitchers, and SJH points that out. Were the pitches that Bard threw shitty pitches that lucked into outs? Or were they quality pitches? All we know from the boxscore is that the pitcher "succeeded".

And it sure looks like Aceves pitched a lot worse than his line.

My point? If an argument for or against someone relies solely on stats, we're missing the fact that ballplayers can change over time and activities on the field reveal a more widespread truth.

This is a good point.

Also, we still need to remember that the 2012 Sox had inked Bailey as their closer, Mellancon as their 8th inning setup man, and then had a collection of pitchers to mix and match for the other innings. Bailey's injury bumped Aceves to the closer role, Melancon kept his role but was useless. So Morales more or less earned the 8th inning role after a few games, maybe he loses it, maybe he doesn't. But at this point all pitchers are moving up and down spots in a bullpen where the top 2 spots have been lost.

And that flyball by Aceves is a HR in many parks and at best a wall ball double at Fenway.

[pk1627]

I love it when the mediocre card is played in April.

The pitching has sucked. If it improves, the team improves. If it doesn't, it'll be more of the same.

Bobby V hasn't really had an effect one way or another.

(null)

[JMDurron]

I now count two stupid bunts by Aviles, not counting the one that actually increased the chances of scoring an insurance run in Detroit, when an insurance run was required.

We may need a bunting thread if this keeps up.

[cannonball 1729]

I now count two stupid bunts by Aviles, not counting the one that actually increased the chances of scoring an insurance run in Detroit, when an insurance run was required.

We may need a bunting thread if this keeps up.

Eh - I thought he was bunting for a hit on that one. I can't kill him for that.

[Sprowl]

I don't see much of anything in this thread that has been in the zip code of "better discussion". From MY first post (#1 in the thread) this has been a non-stop bitch fest about BV with an occasional (and accidental) tangent into "better discussion". Honestly, I think if you're interested in isolating outcomes, dropping latin into the conversation and talking about the moves and their relative merits - this is not the correct thread. As the title says - it's about "Blaming Bobby". And this board has made clear that rational discussions about Bobby Valentine are not welcome. At least it seems that way because rembrat is still allowed to post in it.

ETA: Jake, thanks and my apologies if I have in any way offended - was not my intent. That's a reasonable position. I will allow this post to stand in rebuttal; your motives are good - the choice of locations is poor. Start a new thread and ask the dopes to keep "useless bitching" here and real analysis there.

No. That is exactly what this thread can and should be used for. Why do you think you can't have a rational discussion in this thread? It's really not that difficult of a goal to achieve. Useless bitching is exactly that. It serves no purpose.

Useless bitching isn't what we're looking for on the mainboard. I think this thread has run its course. abs and I have moved some posts into a new thread for rational discussion of Manager's Decisions.

If people feel we need a separate thread for discussion of Bobby V's management style and people skills, then by all means, start one and keep it rational.

For those who would like to keep Blaming Bobby, rants are always welcome in P&G.