I think your conclusion that the comparison is insane is a little result-oriented. If Ubaldo gets them out of the inning and then Britton goes on to save the game later on Buck would have had lots of defenders and few attackers. And if Hanley doubled and Ortiz was stranded on third I wouldn't be close to the lone voice on this.
But the doubles rate of Hanley is well-taken - turns out he's the only player on the roster more likely to homer than double (he had the same imbalance last year, the only two years of his career where that is the case). I assumed his doubles rate was higher than that. It's a little more likely in Fenway at 5.9%, but still lower than I would have thought.
On the other hand, Ortiz only gets a meaningful at bat to tie or win the game in regulation if one of two things happen - either Kimbrel gives up a run to the bottom of the Indians lineup in the top of the 9th, or the Red Sox strand the bases loaded without scoring a run in both the eighth and ninth innings. The latter is highly unlikely, the former is less so, but still not something Farrell should be putting into his game decision calculator when what the team desperately needed then was one run. I hate the cliche about playing for a tie when at home, but I think it should be taken even farther in post-season play. That late in the game, you play for the tie whether you're home or away, since you're going to unload all your resources with much more abandon, like having Kimbrel pitch more than inning. Such thought processes should have been particularly in play for Farrell, since he was almost through the tough part of the Indian pen.
I appreciate the stat research though, and will concede that it's a closer call than I thought. Still think it would have been the right play though.