Let's Talk about the manager -- The John Farrell Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,351
RochesterSamHorn said:
In the second inning, Ross has that collision at the plate with Avila, who stays in the game. Sox have Els on second and Victorino on first, two outs, and Pedroia at the plate. I was really looking for a double steal here, seeing that your two fastest position players are on and Avila was recovering from that collision. With that double steal, the runners on second and third would have forced the Tigers infield to play in and Pedroia's ground ball may have had different results. Just sayin'....
 
Which brings up why they were in that situation in the first place.  The running on contact play with a runner on third on one out has rarely seemed to work this year, and it's especially not going to work with David Ross running. Just wait for the ball to go through.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
45,559
Here
Rudy said:
 
Which brings up why they were in that situation in the first place.  The running on contact play with a runner on third on one out has rarely seemed to work this year, and it's especially not going to work with David Ross running. Just wait for the ball to go through.
Eh, it's a close call. The worst you are going to end up with in that situation is first and third with two outs, and your two fastest baserunners in the starting lineup on the bases. They will probably just give second to Shane anyway. I like the contact play there.

As for WMB over Berry, just baffling. Saving him makes no sense, and the argument that "you're using two players" doesn't make sense, as that's the case every time Berry enters the game. WMB with a real smart play, after a perfect bunt from Ross (who had a great fucking game, and I thought was a bad decision as wel), so maybe Farrell is the Oracle.

Edit - Wait, I forgot Ellsbury didn't run on Shane's grounder. That's on him, though.
 

Orel Miraculous

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2006
1,710
Mostly Airports and Hotels
RochesterSamHorn said:
In the second inning, Ross has that collision at the plate with Avila, who stays in the game. Sox have Els on second and Victorino on first, two outs, and Pedroia at the plate. I was really looking for a double steal here, seeing that your two fastest position players are on and Avila was recovering from that collision. With that double steal, the runners on second and third would have forced the Tigers infield to play in and Pedroia's ground ball may have had different results. Just sayin'....
 
As you said, there were two outs, so the Tigers would not have pulled the infield in.  All the double steal does is risk making the third out at third base. A cardinal sin in baseball.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Rudy's Curve said:
 
I'd rather just have X and Drew though.  Middlebrooks is obviously a better defender at 3B, but X has looked fine there and Drew offers a much higher chance of a breakout against RHP.
 
Bogaerts did nothing in last night's game to dissuade Farrell from starting him again.  One for three with a walk and saw 19 pitches, the second most of anyone on the team behind Victorino who had 5 plate appearances to Xander's 4.  He also had the second highest WPA behind Napoli.  I don't think Farrell is going to make him a permanent starter before the 2014 season begins, and having him as a pinch hitter is a great weapon off the bench, so I'm not going to stamp my feet if he starts Drew and Middlebrooks on Saturday (or Sunday if necessary), but if it was my call, I'd have him in the lineup every game at this point.  His composure is incredibly impressive given his age and the circumstances, and his hit tool is just flat out sexy.
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,939
Wayne, NJ
no idea who is starting or who should start in LF
 
I keep X at third and keep Drew in for his excellent defense and the idea that Fenway is good for the LH hitter and maybe he gets a ball off the wall
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,070
Dahabenzapple2 said:
no idea who is starting or who should start in LF
 
I keep X at third and keep Drew in for his excellent defense and the idea that Fenway is good for the LH hitter and maybe he gets a ball off the wall
 
 
Maybe as some writers have noted, the comp here is how Ellsbury worked his way into the lineup in 2007. After a late season run that was more extensive than Bogaerts's, Ellsbury got into 2 games with 1AB vs. LAA in the ALDS, then didn't play at all until Game 6 vs Cleveland (when he replaced a struggling Crisp), then didn't come out of the lineup at all.
 
I think X is in til the end.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,351
Ed Hillel said:
Eh, it's a close call. The worst you are going to end up with in that situation is first and third with two outs, and your two fastest baserunners in the starting lineup on the bases. They will probably just give second to Shane anyway. I like the contact play there.
 
 
Ross was out by 20 feet though.  They keep stressing putting pressure on the defense, but 100% of ML infielders can make that throw with the infield in.  It would be a close call sending Ellsbury.  Sending Ross is guaranteeing an out.
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
Other JF thoughts:
 
Yes, I scratched my head at Middlebrooks pinch-running, at first, but there are reasonable explanations.  He was replacing X anyway, for defensive purposes.  So why burn through two players.  It helps Middlebrooks get warm in a game situation.  They were bunting anyway, and were less reliant on a stolen base in that situation.  This is all reasonable.  You may disagree, but this isn't some indictment against JF.
 
He also started Ross, who was HUGE this game.  Really helped Lester through a game where he didn't have his best stuff.  Had key hits.  A great bunt.  He was terrific.
 
And he also started X.  Imagine that 3 run inning if Middlebrooks was in.  If WMB K's or pops up meekly, I doubt they get 3.
 
Those two decisions probably won them this game.
 
John Farrell is doing a hell of a job.
 

dhellers

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2005
4,535
Silver Spring, Maryland
radsoxfan said:
Xander pinch ran for Middlebrooks in the ALDS
Middlebrooks pinch ran for Xander tonight (with Berry sitting on the bench).
 
The situations were different, but honestly it feels like Farrell is outhinking himself with some of these moves. Is the pinch running skill required that different if you're up a run vs. being down a run?  Maybe slightly, but hard to believe it's enough to completely change your strategy. Did Xander's baserunning mistake in the 2nd inning spook him? I understand if he wanted Middlebrooks to play D in the 9th, but he could have just replaced Xander after the inning.
 
And holding Berry out is just plain odd.  If he isnt going to go in there, I wish JBJ was on the roster.  Will did make a nice read to get to 3rd tonight, but I think it's still a bit confusing.
Maybe it was the equivalent of a pat on the back to WMB -- a "we still value you, so go in during an important offensive moment".  And regardless of why, it did work, WMB did get to 3rd! Is it possible this is a play that WMB has practiced?
 
More importantly: it is abundantly clear that Victorino is off. Maybe it's his mangled body, especially his wrist. But other than the double in game 3 (when sox were down 7 to 1), has he hit the ball hard at all this post season (especially this series)?
 
So, as was suggested up above somewhere, will "playoff Farrell" make an appearance, and move Shane into the lower third of the order?
Or would it be too risky to use a Nava/Gomes/Ellsbury outfield.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
HillysLastWalk said:
Other JF thoughts:
 
Yes, I scratched my head at Middlebrooks pinch-running, at first, but there are reasonable explanations.  He was replacing X anyway, for defensive purposes.  So why burn through two players.  It helps Middlebrooks get warm in a game situation.  They were bunting anyway, and were less reliant on a stolen base in that situation.  This is all reasonable.  You may disagree, but this isn't some indictment against JF.
 
He also started Ross, who was HUGE this game.  Really helped Lester through a game where he didn't have his best stuff.  Had key hits.  A great bunt.  He was terrific.
 
And he also started X.  Imagine that 3 run inning if Middlebrooks was in.  If WMB K's or pops up meekly, I doubt they get 3.
 
Those two decisions probably won them this game.
 
John Farrell is doing a hell of a job.
 
I think the WMB pinch runner scenario is a microcosm of his managerial style. Most managers in that situation go to their fastest guy available and in turn we've been conditioned to look for this but it seems like Farrell is looking past the obvious and considering 50 other things. When it doesn't work out it's negatively criticized as "trying to be cute" and when it does he is super smart. 
 

lambeau

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2010
1,175
Connecticut
Yes. Merloni insists X is actually faster, which is why he pinch ran for WMB in ALDS.
 
Kind of out of the box on Farrell's part. I can't remember inserting a slower pinch-runner--ever. Kind of cool.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,666
trekfan55 said:
Saw this om twitter today
 
 
 
Rob Bradford
 
Still does not answer why he did not use Berry.  And BTW they intentionally walk Ellsbury and basically give him 2nd base?
 
Ellsbury is the hottest hitter in the Sox lineup. Understandable that they would go after Victorino and Pedroia instead.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,562
Philadelphia
Harry Hooper said:
 
Ellsbury is the hottest hitter in the Sox lineup. Understandable that they would go after Victorino and Pedroia instead.
 
Victorino is really the key guy there.  He's scuffling so badly that he's exactly who you want to pitch to with a man on 3B and one out.  I think walking Ellsbury and giving was completely reasonable, even if he has a free pass to second.  You want to leverage the likelihood of preventing one more run from scoring and increasing the likelihood of allowing two more runs is a fine tradeoff.
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
Dahabenzapple2 said:
Daniel Nava will not see a second in RF unless Victorino ends up in traction
 
Yup.
 
And that's why you will see him and Drew, no matter what.  Remember, Detroit is a fairly poor defensive team.  The Sox are squeaking by right now, because of things like Victorino cutting off hits, quickly, so that Hunter is still standing on 1st with Cabrerra up.
 
There should be a "the little things" thread that points out and celebrates the numerous instances throughout this series.  It's part of the reason why the Sox are winning.  Of course, now I'm ready for the 10 run laugher where I don't have to sweat every pitch with a tightened sphincter.
 

KillerBs

New Member
Nov 16, 2006
953
No love for Farrell's bullpen managment last night?
 
Fairly quick hook to bring in Tazawa in the sixth (even tho he turned around Pena to his better side), Breslow to get Fielder and Wiktor, and then to Koji for 5 outs to the righty vulnerable stretch towards the bottom of the order. Close to, if not, perfect, in my judgement.
 
He got the win that was needed, even if he may have taxed the pen to the point where it may impact decisions tomorrow.  Good chance he will have a tough call tomorrow as to whether he should fire the limited bullets he has with the same usage pattern of the Big 3 again. I suppose if we are up, the answer is yes, but if we are up by only 1, let's say, does he, for example, go to Koji again for 4 or 5 outs in Game 6? 
 
Peavy is available in the pen for game 7, if there is one, but what about game 6 (2 days rest)? Do you trust him to be the ROOGY that this bullpen could use now? I would slot him ahead of Workman and Dempster, I think, in Game 7 but well behind them tomorrow night.
 
Also wonder how much time Doubront needs to get ready out there and whether pre-game prep could affect that. Do you see a scenario where if Buchholz doesn't appear to have it, you flip the script with Doubront early? The righty laden Tigers lineup would appear to make this a dubious strategy.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,787
AZ
KillerBs said:
No love for Farrell's bullpen managment last night?
 
Fairly quick hook to bring in Tazawa in the sixth (even tho he turned around Pena to his better side), Breslow to get Fielder and Wiktor, and then to Koji for 5 outs to the righty vulnerable stretch towards the bottom of the order. Close to, if not, perfect, in my judgement.
 
He got the win that was needed, even if he may have taxed the pen to the point where it may impact decisions tomorrow.  Good chance he will have a tough call tomorrow as to whether he should fire the limited bullets he has with the same usage pattern of the Big 3 again. I suppose if we are up, the answer is yes, but if we are up by only 1, let's say, does he, for example, go to Koji again for 4 or 5 outs in Game 6? 
 
Peavy is available in the pen for game 7, if there is one, but what about game 6 (2 days rest)? Do you trust him to be the ROOGY that this bullpen could use now? I would slot him ahead of Workman and Dempster, I think, in Game 7 but well behind them tomorrow night.
 
Also wonder how much time Doubront needs to get ready out there and whether pre-game prep could affect that. Do you see a scenario where if Buchholz doesn't appear to have it, you flip the script with Doubront early? The righty laden Tigers lineup would appear to make this a dubious strategy.
 
Agree on Peavy.  The fact that he could be available in game 7 on three-days rest and that he pitched 65 pitches yesterday, I think makes him all but unavailable in a non-elimination game barring extremely unusual circumstances.
 
As for the bullpen big three, Tazawa is the most rested, but unfortunately so far the least effective.  With Koji, you have to be worried about him getting close to a breaking point.  He has been so heavily used this series.  
 
Uehara:  5.0 IP, 17 batters faced, 58 pitches.
Breslow:  2.1 IP, 12 batters faced, 46 pitches.
Tazawa: 2.0 IP,  9 batters faced, 34 pitches.
 
Repeating a point in the game thread, everyone of significance but Cabrera has faced Koji now at least once, and some good batters like Hunter, Peralta and Fielder would be getting a third look at him this series if they face him again.  The PAs against him so far have been:  Jackson x3, Iggy x2, Hunter x2, Kelly x2, Fielder x2, Peralta x2, Martinez, Avila, Infante, Pena. 
 
If it means avoiding game 7 and Verlander, you do what you gotta do if that's on the table, but I really worry about Koji in anything but a three-out save situation, and even then.  The nightmare is putting him in high leverage in game 6, but then having play game 7.  A 9-2 win with Taz or Breslow closing would be just fine I think!
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,319
I think if someone doesn't view Farrell's bullpen approach last night as evidence he has a very strong grasp of leverage and schedule they pretty much are committed to not believing in him, ever.

Facing the prospect of needing two wins vs Scherzer/Verlander, with a lead, and a day off next he clearly decided by the sixth he was going to win or lose with his best three relievers. And that's exactly the right leverage approach there. Kudos.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,223
Maine
The only potential argument one could make with Farrell's bullpen decisions last night was with bringing in Tazawa to face Pena.  That allowed Pena to hit from his stronger side and resulted in a run scoring single.  But considering that the wheels seemed to be coming off with Lester, I don't know that letting him pitch to Pena would have yielded a better result.  A minor quibble and one that didn't ultimately cost them the game, so no big deal.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,000
Saturday's Lineup: Feel free to forward to John Farrell if you know him
 
Ellsbury      Easy choice
Nava            Platoon intangible guys need to recharge their batteries to maintain the magic. We all know Gomes will be in if it goes 7. Scherzer holds RHB to .494 OPS on the season.
Pedroia       Who else hits 3rd?  SLG is fine when he is at home anyway
Ortiz            Could use a big game from Papi. Quiet since Game 2
Napoli         So streaky, on a brief good streak now. Easy call over Carp, especially when you factor in defense
Salty           See Nava entry above... insert Ross for Gomes
Victorino     Looks lost. Good breaking balls from RHP kill him as RHB. Would never get replaced due to D, but dropping in the order seems warranted. Maybe hits lefty vs. Scherzer?
Drew           Sacrificial lamb. Good D and season #s vs. righties keep him in the lineup. Avoids 9 hole because lineup balance is better this way
Bogaerts     Earned another start. Better option than Middlebrooks.  Very tough matchup vs. Scherzer, but hopefully can get on base at least once
 
 
Edit: Didn't know that Farrell announced those 3 were in for sure... he's on the right track.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
And BTW they intentionally walk Ellsbury and basically give him 2nd base?
 
 
This was a decision that would have had my head exploding if I were a Tigers fan.
 
You intentionally escort Ellsbury to 2nd base with 1 out and the infield in on the premise that Victorino is NOT going to get a base hit?
 
Ellsbury gets a hit: run scored and man (eventually) on 2nd.
 
Victorino get a hit: 2 runs scored and man (eventually) on 2nd.
 
Huh?
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
radsoxfan said:
Saturday's Lineup: Feel free to forward to John Farrell if you know him
 
Ellsbury      Easy choice
Nava            Platoon intangible guys need to recharge their batteries to maintain the magic. We all know Gomes will be in if it goes 7. Scherzer holds RHB to .494 OPS on the season.
Pedroia       Who else hits 3rd?  SLG is fine when he is at home anyway
Ortiz            Could use a big game from Papi. Quiet since Game 2
Napoli         So streaky, on a brief good streak now. Easy call over Carp, especially when you factor in defense
Salty           See Nava entry above... insert Ross for Gomes
Victorino     Looks lost. Good breaking balls from RHP kill him as RHB. Would never get replaced due to D, but dropping in the order seems warranted. Maybe hits lefty vs. Scherzer?
Drew           Sacrificial lamb. Good D and season #s vs. righties keep him in the lineup. Avoids 9 hole because lineup balance is better this way
Bogaerts     Earned another start. Better option than Middlebrooks.  Very tough matchup vs. Scherzer, but hopefully can get on base at least once
 
 
Edit: Didn't know that Farrell announced those 3 were in for sure... he's on the right track.
 
I like this but I'd actually swap Bogaerts and Victorino.  You end up with Victorino and Ellsbury stacked which gives you tremendous speed on the bases (should Victorino actually, you know, get on base!).
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,070
Andrew said:
Farrell was just addressing the media and he said Napoli, Drew, and Bogaerts will all be starting. He thinks Drew is a premium defensive player and wants him at short.
 
he also pointed out something I had realized but forgot....a lesser SS does not turn the DP with Lester's "throw."
 

dhellers

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2005
4,535
Silver Spring, Maryland
geoduck no quahog said:
 
This was a decision that would have had my head exploding if I were a Tigers fan.
 
You intentionally escort Ellsbury to 2nd base with 1 out and the infield in on the premise that Victorino is NOT going to get a base hit?
 
Ellsbury gets a hit: run scored and man (eventually) on 2nd.
 
Victorino get a hit: 2 runs scored and man (eventually) on 2nd.
 
Huh?
With Ue on the mound, the difference between 1 and 2 runs is much bigger than the difference between 2 and 3.
IOW, once you are down by more than one, it is nearly hopeless. So why worry about the magnitude of this nearly hopeless.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,000
ivanvamp said:
 
I like this but I'd actually swap Bogaerts and Victorino.  You end up with Victorino and Ellsbury stacked which gives you tremendous speed on the bases (should Victorino actually, you know, get on base!).
 
Reasonable.  I put Xander in the 9 hole because I think Scherzer is a really tough matchup for him, or any RHB seeing him for the first time.  Also figured dropping Vic was a bit of an insult already, no need to put him all the way down in 9th.  
 
I'm also not sure how much of an extra advantage having your speed back-to-back really provides. I guess if they're on 1st and 2nd you can double steal, but otherwise the speed they provide is helpful regardless if they are hitting next to each other or not.
 
Looks like were not going to get Nava's .411 OBP in the 2 hole since it sounds like Gomes is playing.... Bummer. 
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,753
Mobile, AL
Why Morales? That was the definition of a high leverage scenario and called for Breslow. At least I thought it was obvious, apparently Farrell thought otherwise.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
Bad move by Farrell bringing in Morales, but an inexcusable move leaving him in to face VMart after the 4 pitch walk to load the bases. You don't get cute with the lefty-righty thing with a guy who can't throw strikes to save his life. Anyone who has watched Morales this year knew what we'd ge there. Except, I guess, the Manager.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,963
NY
Enough of the fucking bunting.  But if you're going to bunt, why let Drew get a strike on him, then ask him to bunt, and then he has to hit with two strikes?  I'm not getting his in-game decision making.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I can't imagine them carrying Morales on the WS roster, they can't trust him so why have him there.
Thornton isn't really any better but he seems to be the only option. I guess they could have Bradley as an extra OF/PR but there doesn't seem to be much point in that.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
glennhoffmania said:
Enough of the fucking bunting.  But if you're going to bunt, why let Drew get a strike on him, then ask him to bunt, and then he has to hit with two strikes?  I'm not getting his in-game decision making.
Yeah I hated this a lot.

Morales should be done. Hooking Buchholz was a good move, but putting a guy with control problems in to pitch to that fat corpse was asking for trouble and he had to be yanked before Martinez. Firing Franklin into the sun helps solve that.
 

djhb20

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2004
1,887
10025
The Morales move was both obviously coming and terrible in foresight and hindsight.

Would be nice of Ben to take him off the roster for the World Series and take it out of his hands. With no DH in the St Louis games, if like to see Bradley as another pinch hitter/pinch runner.

There's enough days off that you just don't need so many pitchers.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,959
Bone Chips said:
Bad move by Farrell bringing in Morales, but an inexcusable move leaving him in to face VMart after the 4 pitch walk to load the bases. You don't get cute with the lefty-righty thing with a guy who can't throw strikes to save his life. Anyone who has watched Morales this year knew what we'd ge there. Except, I guess, the Manager.
This is one of my two takes from tonight's game.  I had no problem with bringing him in.  But when he showed that he had no control, why leave him in to face a righty?
 
The other take for me is that Workman is a keeper.  He is the 2 or even 3 inning reliever that can bridge a shaky starter (I.e., Buchholz) to the three late-inning relievers that have done so well.  On that score, it seems as though Breslow is now the set-up man and Taz is the 7th inning guy.  Makes sense to me.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,160
Saskatoon Canada
O thought the Morales move was very bad. Farell had not fucked around and gone to the studs early all series.
 
But I can't imagine being A tIgers fab when a dealing Cy Young award winner was yanked twice and the pen gave up grand slams both times. Iy would be like if the Sox came back and won game 7 in 03 and Grady left Pedro in after 100 plus pitches in the series.
 

fenwaypaul

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,712
Boxborough MA
glennhoffmania said:
Enough of the fucking bunting.  But if you're going to bunt, why let Drew get a strike on him, then ask him to bunt, and then he has to hit with two strikes?  I'm not getting his in-game decision making.
 
I hate bunting in most situations, but if you're going to bunt, why not learn how to do it? Maybe my perception is biased, but it sure looks to me as though the Sox have been exceptionally bad at getting bunts down for at least the past 10 years. Are there stats someplace that show the percentages of bunt attempts for each team that result in base hits or successful sacrifices? Why do so many NL pitchers seem to get them down easily, while Sox hitters always seem to pop the ball up or foul it off when they try to bunt? Do they just not practice enough? Is it a skill worth devoting more practice time to improving?
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,604
It really strikes me this morning that Workman and Xander were both playing right in front of me on Hadlock Field to start this season. That Farrell and the Sox have put them in positions to help the club make the Series is simply amazing. I love it when talent is undeniable. 
 
Have to say that Farrell played the Xander-WMB-Drew quandary perfectly. 
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
PrometheusWakefield said:
Farrell can't be trusted to not use Morales in high leverage situations.  He needs to be off the roster.
 
You give any manager a LOOGY or anything resembling a LOOGY and he will use him. 
 
EDIT: Tito had Javier Lopez until Theo took him away.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,278
CT
glennhoffmania said:
Enough of the fucking bunting.  But if you're going to bunt, why let Drew get a strike on him, then ask him to bunt, and then he has to hit with two strikes?  I'm not getting his in-game decision making.
 
I have not seen any of the post game interviews on this subject, so I might be off base here, but my take was that Drew was looking to bunt on his own.  Possibly rooted in his desire to help the team while knowing that he is struggling.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
It really strikes me this morning that Workman and Xander were both playing right in front of me on Hadlock Field to start this season. That Farrell and the Sox have put them in positions to help the club make the Series is simply amazing. I love it when talent is undeniable. 
 
Have to say that Farrell played the Xander-WMB-Drew quandary perfectly. 
 
Well, it has worked but I'm unsure of how much credit should go to Farrell. It seemed like he had to have a private discussion with Ben after Game 3 in Tampa to get Bogaerts off the bench as a PH and another after Game 4 to get Bogaerts in for Middlebrooks. Farrell, if anything, has seemed reluctant to make the move to Bogaerts, stretching back to his call-up late in the season. Farrell seems to have adopted Tito's "stick with your guys" thing (which can be good) and a strong preference for "veterans". Nothing short of a catastrophic injury is getting Drew out of the lineup at this point. But Middlebrooks - who is not a veteran - seems to have lost his job to Bogaerts, which we can all be grateful for regardless of where the idea came from and who had to be convinced behind closed doors. 
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,320
Ann Arbor
Probably been covered already, but Farrell's bullpen management has been horrendously Jekyl and Hyde. Positive example: I cannot praise him enough for his willingness to go to Uehara for >3 outs (including the 5-outer Game 5). He has also done a good job of correctly recognizing batters who are susceptible to Breslow outside of the traditional L/L splits.
 
However, the bullpen is constructed such that he has two high-leverage setup arms -- Breslow and Tazawa.
 
Runners on 1st-2nd with no outs in the 6th inning of a 1-0 game is pretty freakin' high leverage. You have to use your best guys there. Sure, you're leaving yourself open to the possibility of Morales pitching in the 8th, but you won't get a high-leverage situation in the 8th unless you put out the fire in the 6th (Workman did a great job, aided by horrendous baserunning).
 
I know that might be asking a lot since most managers don't like using their 7th/8th inning guys outside of the 7th/8th (so this isn't a Farrell-specific issue), but I cannot properly elucidate how insanely frustrating it was for Farrell to have the quick hook with a fatigued Buchholz (four-seamer had dipped to 89 mph!) but then put in a pitcher who had a sizable probability of throwing gasoline onto a fire against two of the Tigers better hitters.
 
EDIT: To clarify this point, the two highest LI moments (for Tigers hitters) of the game were:
V-Mart vs. Morales (3.33)
Fielder vs. Morales (3.04)
 
The next highest LI for a RP (Buchholz took the next spot) was Tazawa vs. Cabrera at 1.87.
 
I don't want my top two LI situations (>3 is pretty damn high) going to the 4th-5th option in my bullpen.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,179
Westwood MA
Koufax said:
 I had no problem with bringing him in.  But when he showed that he had no control, why leave him in to face a righty?
 
 
He left him in to turn Martinez around as he's a better hitter as a lefty than as a righty.
 
That said, he then served up a meatball that was crushed, was a grand slam in any other park.
 
I don't want to see this guy on the roster, period, end of story.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,000
54thMA said:
He left him in to turn Martinez around as he's a better hitter as a lefty than as a righty.
 
That said, he then served up a meatball that was crushed, was a grand slam in any other park.
 
I don't want to see this guy on the roster, period, end of story.
 
Buck and McCarver kept harping on this fact thoughout the series, but it's not really true.  Victor was slightly better as a LHH this season, but his career splits are nearly identical (839 OPS vs. 828 OPS).
 
In 2010 for the Sox, he had a 1.173 OPS as a RHH and a .694 OPS as a LHH.  The guy can mash right handed.
 
I couldn't watch the game last night, so I have no feel for how badly Clay was losing it (seems like he is only good for about 80 pitches these days though). But I will admit to being surprised when I checked the game log and saw Morales was brought into such a huge spot.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,479
soxfan121 said:
 
Well, it has worked but I'm unsure of how much credit should go to Farrell. It seemed like he had to have a private discussion with Ben after Game 3 in Tampa to get Bogaerts off the bench as a PH and another after Game 4 to get Bogaerts in for Middlebrooks. Farrell, if anything, has seemed reluctant to make the move to Bogaerts, stretching back to his call-up late in the season. Farrell seems to have adopted Tito's "stick with your guys" thing (which can be good) and a strong preference for "veterans". Nothing short of a catastrophic injury is getting Drew out of the lineup at this point. But Middlebrooks - who is not a veteran - seems to have lost his job to Bogaerts, which we can all be grateful for regardless of where the idea came from and who had to be convinced behind closed doors. 
Bogaerts had all of 50 plate appearances for a .684 OPS.  Yes, he's an exciting, young player who's shown us something these playoffs.  But going into the playoffs, he hadn't really shown that he would contribute more than Middlebrooks, who's at least had a modicum of major league experience.  
 
I don't believe there's really convincing evidence that Farrell had his hand forced by Cherington.  Let's give Farrell some credit here; he started with Middlebrooks for some pretty solid reasons, and benching a guy after the vanishingly small sample of 2 or 3 games is not the easiest (or necessarily the smartest) move to make.  
 
Anyway, while it all worked out, I do agree that Morales was terrible.  It's too bad that Doubront hadn't shown the willingness or temperment to be a reliever down the stretch; I think he would be a much better option than Morales in those situations. 
 
 
I couldn't watch the game last night, so I have no feel for how badly Clay was losing it (seems like he is only good for about 80 pitches these days though). But I will admit to being surprised when I checked the game log and saw Morales was brought into such a huge spot.
 
Pulling Clay was definitely the right move.  Unlike Sherzer, who was still dealing K-inducing 95+ mph fastballs with movement when Leyland pulled him, Buchholz had no fastball left and his change and breaking pitches lost their movement.  I recall reading somewhere that pitchers sometimes go through a bit of a dead arm period 5 or 6 starts after returning from a long layoff, which unfortunately puts Clay's in mid-October.  It will be interesting to see how the rotation shakes out for the WS; I'm guessing Lackey's going to get the Game 2 start. 
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,223
Maine
radsoxfan said:
I couldn't watch the game last night, so I have no feel for how badly Clay was losing it (seems like he is only good for about 80 pitches these days though). But I will admit to being surprised when I checked the game log and saw Morales was brought into such a huge spot.
 
Pulling Buchholz was absolutely the right call.  He was starting to leave stuff hanging up in the zone just like he did in Game 2.  In fact, the ball Cabrera hit for the single that chased Clay last night wasn't all that different from the pitch he deposited in the Monster seats last Sunday.
 
I actually didn't think going to Morales in that spot was overly egregious.  Morales simply shit the bed.  Yeah, he did it in a way we could have all predicted but the guy has been pitching fairly solidly in his last dozen or so appearances.  Bringing him in to get Fielder made plenty of sense.  Leaving him in to face Martinez after throwing four straight balls is definitely worth criticizing.
 

lambeau

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2010
1,175
Connecticut
Agree with all this--Morales a horrible move, a game-losing move notwithstanding the fact that Vic Torino rescued his manager.
 
Ironically, not only was a LOOGY not necessary for VMart, but Prince's  2013 OPS:   RHP .819  LHP .819 
 
Farrell is a very calm,reassuring hand on the tiller, but he does not steer particularly well: conventional to the point of not asking,"Why am I doing this? Does Prince even have a split?"
 
 
 
 I think I would have pinch hit for Drew with Gomes on second, despite the resultant weakening of the late-inning defense.
 
It was agonizing watching Drew totally overmatched, predictably unable to put the ball in play.Yes, it worked out, but I don't like to rely on miracles.
 
Maybe McDonald on the roster in place of Morales gives you the option of pinch hitting for Drew?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.