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

[JimD]

Nothing wrong with debating whether the manager should have sent Peavy out for the seventh, but to call it 'indefensible' is a bit much.  Peavy's comments after the game indicated that he sees himself as good for 120 pitches, so it's fair to assume that he was likely pushing Farrell to go back out there.  It's a five-run lead so the manager acquiesces, figuring he can use even his lower-leverage relievers to get out of the inning if runners get on board.  If nothing else, it should mean the end of seeing Thornton in meaningful games.

 

[smastroyin]

As I said in the game thread, I hope Farrell took the following lessons from last night's game:
 
1)  Matt Thornton is a white flag pitcher, not a high leverage pitcher.  You might look at his ERA and say "what are you talking about smas?" but he doesn't strike anyone out anymore, and he's allowed 19 baserunners in 11.2 innings.  
2)  Don't use special defensive alignments with runners on base and a brand new reliever in the game.  Sure, Tazawa should be able to deal with it, but I would rather have my relievers focused on getting the out rather than on worrying about pitching into a shift, etc.
3)  There is never a need for Shane Victorino to bunt with Ellsbury on first.  I think he lets Victorino do it on his own, but I would stop that.  Give Ells a shot at the steal and give Victorino a chance to swing the bat.  Look what happens! 
 
I actually don't mind the Peavy thing too much.  I do mind trying to get Thornton to Cano.  It's the right thing to do based on splits, but since Thornton had nothing, I'm not sure you can give him three batters.  There really is a problem when guys can't get outs.  You can't have Breslow warming every game, and even though they ended up needing him last night anyway, we would have been annoyed if he had been burned in a 7-2 game.  That said, once Peavy allowed the two baserunners, I probably would have had Breslow ready for Cano if Thornton looked like crap, or the 8th inning if Thornton got out of it.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
[not race-based analysis ]Tazawa needs a vacation like the 2 weeks off that Okajima got near the end of the '07 season [/not race based analysis]
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=okajihi01&t=p&year=2007

 
I'd like to think that if the Sox pretty much get through the next week with a 6-7 game lead, they'll ease up on Tazawa.  Or that they clinch the division with a week to go and Tazawa can basically get a full week off.  Either way, I agree with you - it looks like he's wearing down.

 

[joe dokes]

Nothing wrong with debating whether the manager should have sent Peavy out for the seventh, but to call it 'indefensible' is a bit much.  Peavy's comments after the game indicated that he sees himself as good for 120 pitches, so it's fair to assume that he was likely pushing Farrell to go back out there.  It's a five-run lead so the manager acquiesces, figuring he can use even his lower-leverage relievers to get out of the inning if runners get on board.  If nothing else, it should mean the end of seeing Thornton in meaningful games.

 
Fair enough. And maybe trying (too much) to be devil's advocate....Farrell KNOWS he's got a shortage of dependable relievers. Maybe what we see as "stealing outs" (in the most negative way possible) is Farrell trying to get a sense of just how far he can push a particular starter.  Tito compensated for the pen in '04 by pitching Foulke til he died. I wonder what the half-life of Unhittium is, because if this team goes far, there's going to be a lot of it used.
 
Also, maybe Farrell does this because HE doesn't give nearly as much of a shit about the Yankees as WE do.  They are a team that  trailed the Sox by  8 games with 20 to play.

 

[lexrageorge]

Leaving Peavy to start the 7th:  I wouldn't quite call it "indefensible".  Farrell has mentioned the "3 jams" criteria before; Peavy had only 2 innings that could be called jams up to that point (3rd and 4th innings).  And he wasn't struggling in the 6th; he did strike out 2 batters.  The number of pitches is overrated as a criteria, and the Sox did have a 5 run lead and 95% win expectancy at that point.
 
Thornton:  They did get Thornton for this very reason, and it's on him that he couldn't get out of the inning.  You don't bring in Uehara when you have a 5 run lead just because there's 2 guys on base.  
 
Tazawa:  He hasn't been that bad recently, and did have 2 straight clean outings, and a decent outing prior to that.  Again, I can't really blame Farrell here.
 
Shift:  Call me "not a fan".  Bad move; hopefully a lesson learned.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
I think that points to Tazawa's pitching at least as much as the shift itself. I can't believe the goal was to pitch him outside, unless it was supposed to be so far outside that not even Soriano would reach for it.
 

It looked to me that outside pitches were called.  Even before the hit I was screaming inside my head about the strategy.
 
I wasn't all that concerned about Farrell until last night.  I've disagreed with several of his moves but overall I thought he was a smart manager.  Last night really made me worry about how he'd manage in the playoffs.  Tito would sometimes do things that made no sense to me, but mostly they were lineup issues as opposed to in-game decision issues.  Last night was one shitty decision after another.  They're very lucky to come away with a win.

 

[Toe Nash]

The Sox have a shortage of dependable relievers but they also have expanded rosters and a limited time to decide which guys make the postseason roster. If JF really didn't care about the Yankees or the game situation that much then why not try a fresh pitcher who needs some work like Britton (hasn't pitched in a week) or RDLR to start the inning? We know what we have in Peavy pretty much. Britton may emerge as a decent option in the postseason but him sitting on the bench won't tell us that.
 
Or if the plan was to get Thornton in why not give him a better chance to succeed by coming in to start the inning (or with just one guy on)?
 
This point has been made a million times but it's not up to the pitcher to decide whether he gets to stay in; they're always going to want to keep pitching and believe they can do it. That's the whole reason we have a manager. So I don't care what Peavy said after the game.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

When Farrell had his Q and A session at the Seminar, he also said that the starting pitcher getting 21 outs is huge. I'm not sure which post it is, but you can read it here. Knowing that I can understand him trying to have Peavy finish the 7th inning. I thought that leaving Thornton in was a bad decision.

 

[TomRicardo]

 
I think that points to Tazawa's pitching at least as much as the shift itself. I can't believe the goal was to pitch him outside, unless it was supposed to be so far outside that not even Soriano would reach for it.
 
Right now, the only relievers that Farrell trusts are Uehara, Breslow and Workman. You can point to using Workman the night before in the blowout as making him unavailable last night, but I think Farrell wanted to see him go on back-to-back nights (as he will in October), so using him the second night in low leverage made some sense.
 
Leaving Peavy in was indefensible.  That said, doing so should have cost them a couple of runs, not 6. Unless Thornton shows a dramatic reversal, I think the next two weeks will be to determine whether Britton or Morales makes the playoff roster as a second lefty.
 
[not race-based analysis ]Tazawa needs a vacation like the 2 weeks off that Okajima got near the end of the '07 season [/not race based analysis]
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=okajihi01&t=p&year=2007

 
 
If Tazawa wasn't suppose to pitch outside why was the catcher set up outside?  It was almost like they were trying to dupe Sporiano into believing the pitch was coming inside and screw up his swing.  He is a free swinger just have a normal arrangement.

 

[joe dokes]

The Sox have a shortage of dependable relievers but they also have expanded rosters and a limited time to decide which guys make the postseason roster. If JF really didn't care about the Yankees or the game situation that much then why not try a fresh pitcher who needs some work like Britton (hasn't pitched in a week) or RDLR to start the inning? We know what we have in Peavy pretty much. Britton may emerge as a decent option in the postseason but him sitting on the bench won't tell us that.
 
Or if the plan was to get Thornton in why not give him a better chance to succeed by coming in to start the inning (or with just one guy on)?
 
This point has been made a million times but it's not up to the pitcher to decide whether he gets to stay in; they're always going to want to keep pitching and believe they can do it. That's the whole reason we have a manager. So I don't care what Peavy said after the game.

 
These are valid questions. I start from the position that Farrell is a good smart manager. So I guess I try to rationalize what he does, as opposed to "he did sucky things because he sucks." (not that you did that). Besides, its more fun. 
Other have spoken about Peavy staying in. I didn't like it, but there you go. (I agree that the pitcher's comments are meaningless.)
 
My guess is that Thornton is (was?) on a playoff roster bubble, so he got the shot. The Yankees may suck, but its a somewhat stressful situation to see where Thronton is.  It has seemed to me that he reallly hasn't had a lot of faith in Britton after his earliest games. RDLR has zero shot at a playoff roster.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
I'd like to think that if the Sox pretty much get through the next week with a 6-7 game lead, they'll ease up on Tazawa.  Or that they clinch the division with a week to go and Tazawa can basically get a full week off.  Either way, I agree with you - it looks like he's wearing down.

 
 
I thought Tazawa actually looked too strong last night rather than too tired.

 

[smastroyin]

I don't think it matters if Farrell cares about the Yankees.  The Red Sox are in a pennant race and almost blew a game where they had a 5 run lead and 9 outs to record.  People would have been upset regardless.  Maybe they get more upset because of faces like Cano and Soriano and those stupid pinstripes, but it's not like people would be all sunshine and roses watching that game if it were against the Royals.  

 

[JimD]

 
This point has been made a million times but it's not up to the pitcher to decide whether he gets to stay in; they're always going to want to keep pitching and believe they can do it. That's the whole reason we have a manager. So I don't care what Peavy said after the game.

 
This is where managing relationships with actual human beings comes into play.  Acting like you don't care what a guy like Jake Peavy thinks seems like a Bobby Valentine type of attitude.  A good manager builds trust in the clubhouse by listening to the players - this was a low-risk situation to let Peavy stay in and only became a high-risk scenario when Thornton proved completely incapable.  I'm trusting that Farrell plays this inning very different from the start if it's only a one or two-run lead.

 

[j44thor]

When Farrell had his Q and A session at the Seminar, he also said that the starting pitcher getting 21 outs is huge. I'm not sure which post it is, but you can read it here. Knowing that I can understand him trying to have Peavy finish the 7th inning. I thought that leaving Thornton in was a bad decision.

 
Wouldn't that be a lot more applicable during the reg season prior to Sept 1 when you are somewhat limited in BP options.
After rosters expand it seems like you would have a better chance of getting 3 outs with just about any replacement level BP arm or two than a starter who was already over 100 pitches about to go through the order for a 4th time.
 
I have no problem giving Peavy one batter but giving him another after a walk was asking for trouble.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

 
Wouldn't that be a lot more applicable during the reg season prior to Sept 1 when you are somewhat limited in BP options.
After rosters expand it seems like you would have a better chance of getting 3 outs with just about any replacement level BP arm or two than a starter who was already over 100 pitches about to go through the order for a 4th time.
 
I have no problem giving Peavy one batter but giving him another after a walk was asking for trouble.

I should have said start the 7th instead of finish the 7th. I agree that pulling him after the walk was the thing to do there.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Acting like you don't care what a guy like Jake Peavy thinks seems like a Bobby Valentine type of attitude. 

 
Yes, but explaining to Jake Peavy that even though you care very much what he thinks, you're going to have to overrule him, is what good managers need to do. There's a middle ground between douche and doormat.

 

[joe dokes]

I don't think it matters if Farrell cares about the Yankees.  The Red Sox are in a pennant race and almost blew a game where they had a 5 run lead and 9 outs to record.  People would have been upset regardless.  Maybe they get more upset because of faces like Cano and Soriano and those stupid pinstripes, but it's not like people would be all sunshine and roses watching that game if it were against the Royals.  

 
If they were playing the Royals and had a 5 or 6 games division lead with 20 to play, Farrell would be just as upset with the outcome. Fans are 10000000000 fucktillion times more upset because it was the Yankees and I think that is reflected by some of the analysis here (not to mention a 56 pg gamethread.) 
 
If they were playing the Royals and were tied for 1st -- instead of having a pretty sizable lead -- maybe he manages more for RIGHT NOW, than with an idea (or at least my theorizing) of seeing if Thornton has any use at all.  Like i said, I tend to give him some serious benefit of the doubt (i.e., that it must be something other than just suckitude), just as I expect that he'd give me the benefit of the doubt if he was observing something I did in my job that made him scratch his head.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
If they were playing the Royals and had a 5 or 6 games division lead with 20 to play, Farrell would be just as upset with the outcome. Fans are 10000000000 fucktillion times more upset because it was the Yankees and I think that is reflected by some of the analysis here (not to mention a 56 pg gamethread.) 
 
If they were playing the Royals and were tied for 1st -- instead of having a pretty sizable lead -- maybe he manages more for RIGHT NOW, than with an idea (or at least my theorizing) of seeing if Thornton has any use at all.  Like i said, I tend to give him some serious benefit of the doubt (i.e., that it must be something other than just suckitude), just as I expect that he'd give me the benefit of the doubt if he was observing something I did in my job that made him scratch his head.

 
I think it's becoming clear to both Farrell and the fans that the team has a serious problem in terms of reliable set up men. I remember similar angst when Gagne single-handedly ruined the team's pythag down the stretch in 2007. Thornton is awful, and Tazawa is either worn out or the league has figured him out. Farrell's options for the 8th are suddenly looking unappealing.

 

[Doctor G]

Set roles and  starting clean is the ideal. Farrell  took a gamble with not a  lot to gain if he succeeded. 
He saves two outs  if Peavy  gets his guys. With 105 pitches on the board and a pitcher who had not been on the same page as his catcher  all night, this was not a good time to save your BP  12- 15 pitches. especially with Tazawa not exactly pristine with inherited runners. 
I would prefer Peavy to have 105 pitches going into the Trop than 115+.

 

[tims4wins]

 
I think it's becoming clear to both Farrell and the fans that the team has a serious problem in terms of reliable set up men. I remember similar angst when Gagne single-handedly ruined the team's pythag down the stretch in 2007. Thornton is awful, and Tazawa is either worn out or the league has figured him out. Farrell's options for the 8th are suddenly looking unappealing.

 
Where is all this talk of Tazawa being cooked or figured out coming from? To me he has been the same pitcher all year long. Since August 1, he has pitched in 15 games, 15 1/3 IP, 16 K, 2 BB, 15 H, 5 ER, 2.93 ERA, 1.11 WHIP... these numbers are all totally in line with his numbers for the season. Eerily similar actually - on the season he has pitched 61 1/3 IP, 67 K, 10 BB, 63 H,  20 ER, 2.92 ERA, 1.18 WHIP.
 
What am I missing?

 

[lexrageorge]

 
Where is all this talk of Tazawa being cooked or figured out coming from? To me he has been the same pitcher all year long. Since August 1, he has pitched in 15 games, 15 1/3 IP, 16 K, 2 BB, 15 H, 5 ER, 2.93 ERA, 1.11 WHIP... these numbers are all totally in line with his numbers for the season. Eerily similar actually - on the season he has pitched 61 1/3 IP, 67 K, 10 BB, 63 H,  20 ER, 2.92 ERA, 1.18 WHIP.
 
What am I missing?

He did give up a some inopportune hits in a couple of his August outings, which caused inherited runners to score.  Which is why it doesn't show up in ERA.
 
While it's likely nothing more than noise, the idea that Tazawa is "cooked" or similar creates much more excitement among the media and posters to this forum.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

 
I'd like to think that if the Sox pretty much get through the next week with a 6-7 game lead, they'll ease up on Tazawa.  Or that they clinch the division with a week to go and Tazawa can basically get a full week off.  Either way, I agree with you - it looks like he's wearing down.

 
I think as much as it's the innings pitched, Tazawa's head must be spinning about what his role is.  He's not a great pitcher with inherited runners.  IR% was 38 last year and is creeping up to the mid-30s this year.  And for much of the season, Farrell was pretty careful -- borderline obsessive -- to never bring him in with runners in the game.  There was a short bit in late April when relievers were dropping like flies that it was all hands on deck and he came in to pitch with runners on base for several games in a row.  But when the dust settled on that, he went a couple of months almost never coming in with runners on base.  After the ASB, everything changed.  He's come in with inherited runners in 11 of the last 20 games.  His stats aren't materially different in the two situations, although as noted, his IR% isn't great.  I think, though, that has to wear on a guy after a while.  Reliever is a really hard job as it is -- hours and hours, or even days and day, of inactivity, followed by intense activity at a moment's notice.  Adding on to that a layer that our bullpen guys other than Koji never really know what they're going to be called upon to do (other than the generic "get outs"), and it can't be easy.

 

[tims4wins]

He did give up a some inopportune hits in a couple of his August outings, which caused inherited runners to score.  Which is why it doesn't show up in ERA.
 
While it's likely nothing more than noise, the idea that Tazawa is "cooked" or similar creates much more excitement among the media and posters to this forum.

 
Right, ERA doesn't account for inherited runners, but again his WHIP from August 1 on is actually lower than his season-long WHIP. His K/9 is ever so slightly down, but his BB/9 is also down, and his K/BB is actually up. You can make an argument that he is pitching better since August 1 than he has all season. Even over his last 6 appearances, where he has only pitched 4 innings and has given up 4 runs, he has 5 Ks vs. 1 BB, and has given up 7 hits. Just a BABIP blip on the radar.

 

[smastroyin]

I'm just going to disagree. I find the write off of people's concerns as Yankee driven angst to be a total insult. That was a horrific inning no matter the opponent. So basically cut the shit with the "you only think it was the wrong move because it was the Yankees."

I would buy "you only care because the results were bad"

I would buy "you only have this angst with such a large division lead because of 2011"

I do not buy "you only think this was so bad because it's the Yankees"

 

[tims4wins]

I'm just going to disagree. I find the write off of people's concerns as Yankee driven angst to be a total insult. That was a horrific inning no matter the opponent. So basically cut the shit with the "you only think it was the wrong move because it was the Yankees."

I would buy "you only care because the results were bad"

I would buy "you only have this angst with such a large division lead because of 2011"

I do not buy "you only think this was so bad because it's the Yankees"

 
Agree 100% with this. Blowing a 5 run lead in the 7th inning when you are trying to close in on a division title (which is now more important than ever) is bad against any opponent, and given what happened in 2011, we're all on high alert for any signs of a meltdown.
 
Fortunately, as this team has shown time and again (especially last night, down to the last strike against Rivera with the bases empty), it appears to be a much more mentally tough group than 2011. This team is charging toward a division title, and each day that goes by I become more and more confident of that. Which is the polar opposite of 2011.

 

[joe dokes]

I'm just going to disagree. I find the write off of people's concerns as Yankee driven angst to be a total insult. That was a horrific inning no matter the opponent. So basically cut the shit with the "you only think it was the wrong move because it was the Yankees."

I would buy "you only care because the results were bad"

I would buy "you only have this angst with such a large division lead because of 2011"

I do not buy "you only think this was so bad because it's the Yankees"

 
Since I think I might have been the first -- or only -- Yankee centric comment.
 
Agree it was a horrific inning no matter the opponent. But I dont agree that people's reactions to the horrifc-ness aren't in part related to the fact that its the Yankees. I'm not sure how that's more insulting than the ones that you would "buy," but YMMV.
 
As I said, I think there's an element out here of "Its the Yankees we gotta do everything we can to beat them."  And I think Farrell might have treated them as just a team 8 games back in the standings and -- with a posible eye toward the future -- tried to see what he might squeeze out of Peavy or salvage from Thornton. (the answer was "less than zero" on both counts). And I think that if last night's opponent had been the Royals, the level of angst would be lower -- along the lines of "that sucked, thank God there's another game 24 hours later, we'll beat their assess tomorrow" and not "that sucked, and it really shakes my faith in the manager's ability to manage tight playoff games, and this clearly inferior team is now going to sweep the Sox."  And if the Division was tighter, he might have done things differently, regardless of the opponent.
 
Finally, I suppose if it literally "goes without saying," then I wouldn't say it, but (it goes without saying) no insults intended.
 
EDIT: Concidentally, Game 142 in 2011 was the Toronto debacle in which they gave up 5 in the 8th, but did not come back. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR201109070.shtml     The loss left the Sox at  (drum rolll)...... 85-57.
 
 

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Fortunately, as this team has shown time and again (especially last night, down to the last strike against Rivera with the bases empty), it appears to be a much more mentally tough group than 2011. This team is charging toward a division title, and each day that goes by I become more and more confident of that. Which is the polar opposite of 2011.

Loved watching last night's outcome, but the idea that mental toughness is the explanation for victory and defeat is about as implausible as its was in explaining what happened in 2011.  That team got extraordinarily unlucky with injuries, flying bats breaking up would-be double plays, terrible players hitting home runs at the wrong time, etc...  Was it mental toughness that caused Mariano's cutter to suck last night, or Cano's almost grand slam to stay in the park by six inches, or Romine to throw the ball in the dirt on Berry's steal* or Soriano to wander off 2nd base?  Where was the mental toughness when Napoli had perhaps the most pathetic at bat of the season with a chance to bust the game wide open in the third inning with the bases loaded?  Where was the mental toughness in the 7th inning - the pitchers obviously had none, but the fielding behind them was bad too: Middlebrooks with the slow tag on the Wells' steal of third, the failure to turn the double play on the Cano grounder.
 
It was a fun game to watch, especially at the end, and the good guys won, but let's not start inventing mythology as to why.
 
* Speaking of mental toughness, how did Jeter manage to let that ball get by him into the outfield?  He's usually so clutch in those situations! 

 

[DukeSox]

 
 
 
 
 
EDIT: Concidentally, Game 142 in 2011 was the Toronto debacle in which they gave up 5 in the 8th, but did not come back. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR201109070.shtml     The loss left the Sox at  (drum rolll)...... 85-57.
 
 

Wow.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I don't understand this debate. I never remove my starter after 6 innings and 100 pitches with a thin and questionable bullpen. Most everyone agrees that Thornton and Tazawa are major question marks moving forward.....do we really want to see more of them rather than Peavy?

The venom here still exists in the Farrell thread had he shut down Peavy after 6 while allowing the bullpen to blow a 5-run lead. The issue here is the relievers didn't get the job done......not when Farrell choose to use them imo. I would have had my best pitcher out there to begin the 7th as well.

 

[tims4wins]

Loved watching last night's outcome, but the idea that mental toughness is the explanation for victory and defeat is about as implausible as its was in explaining what happened in 2011.  That team got extraordinarily unlucky with injuries, flying bats breaking up would-be double plays, terrible players hitting home runs at the wrong time, etc...  Was it mental toughness that caused Mariano's cutter to suck last night, or Cano's almost grand slam to stay in the park by six inches, or Romine to throw the ball in the dirt on Berry's steal* or Soriano to wander off 2nd base?  Where was the mental toughness when Napoli had perhaps the most pathetic at bat of the season with a chance to bust the game wide open in the third inning with the bases loaded?  Where was the mental toughness in the 7th inning - the pitchers obviously had none, but the fielding behind them was bad too: Middlebrooks with the slow tag on the Wells' steal of third, the failure to turn the double play on the Cano grounder.
 
It was a fun game to watch, especially at the end, and the good guys won, but let's not start inventing mythology as to why.
 
* Speaking of mental toughness, how did Jeter manage to let that ball get by him into the outfield?  He's usually so clutch in those situations! 

 
I agree that there were tons of physical reasons why they won that game (and also why the MFY were able to come back in the first place, and also why the 2011 collapse happened), but time and again this team has come back from tough circumstances to pull out wins. That just didn't happen down the stretch in 2011. You can't pin that on talent since 2011 was probably just as talented.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
Since I think I might have been the first -- or only -- Yankee centric comment.
 
Agree it was a horrific inning no matter the opponent. But I dont agree that people's reactions to the horrifc-ness aren't in part related to the fact that its the Yankees. I'm not sure how that's more insulting than the ones that you would "buy," but YMMV.
 
As I said, I think there's an element out here of "Its the Yankees we gotta do everything we can to beat them."  And I think Farrell might have treated them as just a team 8 games back in the standings and -- with a posible eye toward the future -- tried to see what he might squeeze out of Peavy or salvage from Thornton. (the answer was "less than zero" on both counts). And I think that if last night's opponent had been the Royals, the level of angst would be lower -- along the lines of "that sucked, thank God there's another game 24 hours later, we'll beat their assess tomorrow" and not "that sucked, and it really shakes my faith in the manager's ability to manage tight playoff games, and this clearly inferior team is now going to sweep the Sox."  And if the Division was tighter, he might have done things differently, regardless of the opponent.
 
Finally, I suppose if it literally "goes without saying," then I wouldn't say it, but (it goes without saying) no insults intended.
 
EDIT: Concidentally, Game 142 in 2011 was the Toronto debacle in which they gave up 5 in the 8th, but did not come back. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR201109070.shtml     The loss left the Sox at  (drum rolll)...... 85-57.
 
 

We had no way of knowing at the time, but that game also marked the beginning of the end for Daniel Bard.

 

[ivanvamp]

In the 7th last night, the Sox blew 4 possible outs:
 
- WMB either not applying the tag in time or the ump missing the call on Wells' steal of 3b
- The potential DP grounder to Pedroia.  They got one out, but didn't get two.  Not an automatic DP, but one I think they could have made.
- The should-have-been DP ball by Soriano that was hit right where Pedroia would have been had the shift not been on.  Instead of a DP, it was an RBI single.
 
So, in effect, the relievers had to get 7 outs in that inning.  Normally, that's a recipe for disaster.  No surprise the Yanks put up some runs.

 

[Royal Reader]

. And I think that if last night's opponent had been the Royals, the level of angst would be lower -- along the lines of "that sucked, thank God there's another game 24 hours later, we'll beat their assess tomorrow" and not "that sucked, and it really shakes my faith in the manager's ability to manage tight playoff games, and this clearly inferior team is now going to sweep the Sox."  And if the Division was tighter, he might have done things differently, regardless of the opponent.
 
Finally, I suppose if it literally "goes without saying," then I wouldn't say it, but (it goes without saying) no insults intended.
 

 
I think that there is a grain of truth in this, but (at least within SoSH members as opposed to the wider fanbase) it's much less of a 'We hate the damn Yankees, and need to beat them whenever possible' but more of a subconscious overstatement of how much of a threat that the Yankees actually are.  While '04 and '07 remedied this significantly, there's still this folk memory of the Yankees as the movie monster that just won't stay dead (compounded by what happened in '11 even though that didn't involve them) and losing to New York last night in that manner would have brought a lot of the fanbase's underlying insecurities to the surface.  

 

[Doooweeeey!]

In the 7th last night, the Sox blew 4 possible outs:
 
- WMB either not applying the tag in time or the ump missing the call on Wells' steal of 3b
- The potential DP grounder to Pedroia.  They got one out, but didn't get two.  Not an automatic DP, but one I think they could have made.
- The should-have-been DP ball by Soriano that was hit right where Pedroia would have been had the shift not been on.  Instead of a DP, it was an RBI single.
 
So, in effect, the relievers had to get 7 outs in that inning.  Normally, that's a recipe for disaster.  No surprise the Yanks put up some runs.

 
I can quibble with the bolded, but I get your overall point..  Soriano took what he was given with the shift on.  
Had Pedroia been in his normal position, the batted ball result would likely have been much different.
Still, the shift was the most indefensible move made by Farrell in the inning, IMO.

 

[Doooweeeey!]

Anyone else see where Napoli was poistioned in the Soriano at bat?  Looked to me as if he was holding the runner.  Have to check the tape...
Wouldn't you want him stepping off first to cover in the hole a bit more if you're committing to the shift?  At least to give Soriano the impression that he'd have to thread the needle, or something like that. 
And if you're then worried about covering the line (no doubles), wouldn't the two competing strategies scream even more loudly "IT'S A BAD IDEA, DON'T DO IT?"

 

[Al Zarilla]

I don't understand this debate. I never remove my starter after 6 innings and 100 pitches with a thin and questionable bullpen. Most everyone agrees that Thornton and Tazawa are major question marks moving forward.....do we really want to see more of them rather than Peavy?

The venom here still exists in the Farrell thread had he shut down Peavy after 6 while allowing the bullpen to blow a 5-run lead. The issue here is the relievers didn't get the job done......not when Farrell choose to use them imo. I would have had my best pitcher out there to begin the 7th as well.

Uehara, or the best of the rest (not including starting pitchers)?

 

[mattymatty2000]

I can see both sides of the Farrell argument. If Farrell pulls Peavy after six and starts the inning with Tazawa we all might go, "What are you doing using Tazawa with a five run lead?? Peavy was pitching well, leave him alone!" In fact, I'm pretty sure I've had that reaction in a number of games this season. If JF starts the inning with Thornton facing Ichiro... actually, that might make the most sense in that if he's going to give Thornton a shot then that might be the best way to do it. But I can easily see keeping the starter in for a few more hitters there.
 
Similarly the anger over the shift is understandable, but again, it's one of those things where if it works we're all happy our manager is a genius and if it doesn't he's a moron. Can't remember which inning it was but I think it was Jeter that lined hard to the hole between first and second. Off the bat I was sure it was a hit, but surprisingly Mike Napoli was standing there, way out of his normal first base alignment. Barely had to move to make the catch. In a normal setup that's a single through the hole, so live by the shift, die by the shift. As for pitching Soriano outside with nobody on the right side of the infield? My guess is it wasn't intentional, either Tazawa was supposed to come inside (I haven't seen where Lavarnway set up) and missed, or he was supposed to go farther outside as a waste pitch.
 
The out they didn't get that really burned me was when they had Wells out stealing third by three feet but Middlebrooks hadn't set up on the bag. If you watch the replay, Middlebrooks should have set up on the bag, then he just has to lower the ball and sip his coffee while Wells slides into his glove for the out. Instead, he caught the ball two feet closer to home plate and had to reach all the way across his body while leaning over to get the tag on Wells. That's an out handed to you by the opposition and you don't take it in what turns out to be a huge inning.

 

[Plympton91]

 
I think that there is a grain of truth in this, but (at least within SoSH members as opposed to the wider fanbase) it's much less of a 'We hate the damn Yankees, and need to beat them whenever possible' but more of a subconscious overstatement of how much of a threat that the Yankees actually are.  While '04 and '07 remedied this significantly, there's still this folk memory of the Yankees as the movie monster that just won't stay dead (compounded by what happened in '11 even though that didn't involve them) and losing to New York last night in that manner would have brought a lot of the fanbase's underlying insecurities to the surface.  

 
A more rational basis for being extra upset had they blown the game last night is precisely because the Yankees are now 8 games out, and the Sox play them 7 times over the next two weekends.  Every game you win early in that set of games makes them more and more desperate--and thus a much easier opponent--later in that set of games.  If the Sox go 3-1 against them while the Rays go 3-1 over the same period, the Yankees are toast, and by next weekend they're playing out the string like Boston was last season.  In contrast, if the Yankees take 3 of 4, then they can go into next weekend with visions of a comeback in their eyes, and will be more likely to win a couple again.

 

[Reverend]

Similarly the anger over the shift is understandable, but again, it's one of those things where if it works we're all happy our manager is a genius and if it doesn't he's a moron. Can't remember which inning it was but I think it was Jeter that lined hard to the hole between first and second. Off the bat I was sure it was a hit, but surprisingly Mike Napoli was standing there, way out of his normal first base alignment. Barely had to move to make the catch. In a normal setup that's a single through the hole, so live by the shift, die by the shift. As for pitching Soriano outside with nobody on the right side of the infield? My guess is it wasn't intentional, either Tazawa was supposed to come inside (I haven't seen where Lavarnway set up) and missed, or he was supposed to go farther outside as a waste pitch.

 
I think it's worth noting that the Soriano hit wasn't hit particularly hard. Farrell has indicated that their defensive alignments are based on hard hit balls, not all batted balls. Obviously with such an approach, you're going to win some and lose some, but that's true of any approach and the analytics teams has apparently determined that in the aggregate, they'll maximize their wins versus losses with such an approach. (This of course still leaves open the question as to whether or not the approach is then exploitable which would need to be incorporated into the game theory of the approach, and if the Tazawa was not throwing the "right pitches" for the strategy.)

 

[ivanvamp]

I didn't have a problem with Peavy starting the 7th.  At that point, he had retired 7 of his last 8 batters, and was facing the 8-9 hitters in the Yankee lineup.  He had thrown just 104 pitches and normally gives you more than that, so it wasn't like it was clear he was gassed.  And the Sox had a 5-run lead.  I can totally see why he tried to steal at least a couple of outs from Peavy there.  
 
And then with two guys on, who did people want them to bring in at that point?  Any of their relievers should have been able to escape that inning with pretty minimal damage.  As I've said already, they had to get the equivalent of 7 outs though, and that's tough on anyone.  
 
I think the one big decision I would have made differently would have been to go with Breslow instead of Thornton.  But again, it was a 5-run lead and Thornton was already warming.  If you can't put him into that situation, what business does he even have on this team?

 

[OttoC]

 
I think it's worth noting that the Soriano hit wasn't hit particularly hard. Farrell has indicated that their defensive alignments are based on hard hit balls, not all batted balls. Obviously with such an approach, you're going to win some and lose some, but that's true of any approach and the analytics teams has apparently determined that in the aggregate, they'll maximize their wins versus losses with such an approach. (This of course still leaves open the question as to whether or not the approach is then exploitable which would need to be incorporated into the game theory of the approach, and if the Tazawa was not throwing the "right pitches" for the strategy.)

 
Since the maximization is a long-run strategy, is it necessarily the best thing to do in a must-win situation, i.e., an end of the season game? I would think most of the exaggerated shifts are exploitable. Wouldn't it pay Ortiz (or other left-handed batters) to try bunting down the third-base line a lot early in the season to force the opposition to rethink/refine their shift against him?

 

[j44thor]

 
I think it's worth noting that the Soriano hit wasn't hit particularly hard. Farrell has indicated that their defensive alignments are based on hard hit balls, not all batted balls. Obviously with such an approach, you're going to win some and lose some, but that's true of any approach and the analytics teams has apparently determined that in the aggregate, they'll maximize their wins versus losses with such an approach. (This of course still leaves open the question as to whether or not the approach is then exploitable which would need to be incorporated into the game theory of the approach, and if the Tazawa was not throwing the "right pitches" for the strategy.)

 
Then why haven't they used the RH shift with a runner on 1st and 3rd 1 out at all this year?
I find it hard to believe that Soriano is so unique that he is the only RH in baseball you would attempt this on.  It was a dumb decision that was so out of the norm I don't buy that it was based on analytics at all.  

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

EDIT: Concidentally, Game 142 in 2011 was the Toronto debacle in which they gave up 5 in the 8th, but did not come back. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR201109070.shtml     The loss left the Sox at  (drum rolll)...... 85-57.

 
That is downright eerie.
 
Of course, the contrasts to this year are that much more magnified given the eventual result (praise be to Napoli and BABIP), but yeah, blowing a late lead of more than 3 runs is usually cause for the tearing of hair and rending of garments around here.
 
I'll defend leaving Peavy in after the walk.  If he gets a DP against Vernon Wells instead of a single to go to 1st-and-3rd, nobody out, none of us have any complaint about leaving him in.  That's a move that works well 60-70% of the time.  Once he's given up two baserunners in two batters, you have to yank him, but I think with a 5-run lead you can give him more rope than just 1 batter.  The real problem is what happened thereafter (which is where my skepticism of Farrell would start and end).
 
As for Tazawa, I'd favor a general easing of our postseason relievers over the next few weeks.  Start letting the call-ups fuck up a few games, we have the slack to do so.  Unhittium, Tazawa, Breslow and Workman need to be dialed back, and RDLR, Britton, Morales and, yes, Thornton need to be given more rope.  Let RDLR close a few 2- or 3-run games.  We don't need an explicit vacation for any of them, maybe you some of them "you will not be in a game for the next 3 days barring an emergency" at staggered intervals.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

If JF starts the inning with Thornton facing Ichiro... actually, that might make the most sense in that if he's going to give Thornton a shot then that might be the best way to do it. 

 
You might think it might make the most sense, but Ichiro has fared better against LHP than RHP for his whole career, and it's even more exaggerated this year (.237/.284/.315 vs RHP; .336/.347/.448 vs LHP).
 
Most managers would ignore those numbers ("Yeah, but he hasn't seen my lefty!"); I'd say Farrell actually played the percentages the right way for this AB.
 
Also, as a Seattle resident who's seen a lot of Matt Thornton, I really never thought much of the Thornton pickup. It's not Gagne territory yet, but he's never been a guy I want on the mound in anything other than garbage time.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

In the 7th last night, the Sox blew 4 possible outs:
 
- WMB either not applying the tag in time or the ump missing the call on Wells' steal of 3b
- The potential DP grounder to Pedroia.  They got one out, but didn't get two.  Not an automatic DP, but one I think they could have made.
- The should-have-been DP ball by Soriano that was hit right where Pedroia would have been had the shift not been on.  Instead of a DP, it was an RBI single.
 
So, in effect, the relievers had to get 7 outs in that inning.  Normally, that's a recipe for disaster.  No surprise the Yanks put up some runs.

 
I agree with this whole-heartedly. For those who want to pin this on Tazawa, especially, look at the actual game log:
 
 

• 
  
  Ichiro Suzuki walks. FARRELL DECISION TO LEAVE PEAVY IN - OKAY, NOW YANK HIM - DOESN'T HAPPEN
  
• 
  
  Offensive Substitution: Pinch-hitter Vernon Wells replaces Chris Stewart.
  
• 
  
  2.Vernon Wells singles on a line drive to center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury. Ichiro Suzuki to 3rd. THIS WAS A PEAVY MUSH-BALL - SO NOW REALLY YANK HIM
  
• 
  
  Pitching Change: Matt Thornton replaces Jake Peavy.
  
• 
  
  Coaching visit to mound.
  
• 
  
  3.Brett Gardner singles on a line drive to center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury. Ichiro Suzuki scores. Vernon Wells to 2nd. A SINGLE TO A SINGLES HITTER - BUT LEFTY ON LEFTY SHOULD FAVOR THE PITCHER, DOESN'T WORK
  
• 
  
  With Derek Jeter batting, Vernon Wells steals (7) 3rd base. BAD DEFENSE - THIS SHOULD BE AN OUT, BUT IT'S NOT
  
• 
  
  4.Derek Jeter walks. Brett Gardner to 2nd. THORNTON LOOKING SHITTY, BUT DOES GET A COACHING VISIT - STILL JUST A 7-3 GAME
  
• 
  
  Coaching visit to mound.
  
• 
  
  5.Robinson Cano grounds into a force out, second baseman Dustin Pedroia to shortstop Stephen Drew. Vernon Wells scores. Brett Gardner to 3rd. Derek Jeter out at 2nd. Robinson Cano to 1st. THE PITCHER GOT A DOUBLE-PLAY BALL, JUST NOT QUITE HARD ENOUGH - TAZAWA IS NOW WARM AND COMES IN - EVEN IF WELLS WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN OUT, IF HE HADN'T STOLEN, HE WOULD NOT HAVE SCORED THERE
  
• 
  
  Pitching Change: Junichi Tazawa replaces Matt Thornton.
  
• 
  
  Coaching visit to mound.
  
• 
  
  6.Alfonso Soriano singles on a ground ball to right fielder Shane Victorino. Brett Gardner scores. Robinson Cano to 2nd. ASSHAT SHIFT DECISION LEADS TO NO OUT ON A ROUTINE GROUNDBALL - WTF?
  
• 
  
  7.Curtis Granderson doubles (9) on a sharp line drive to right fielder Shane Victorino. Robinson Cano scores. Alfonso Soriano to 3rd. GRANDERSON IS A GOOD HITTER - SHIT HAPPENS
  
• 
  
  8.Alex Rodriguez strikes out swinging. TAZAWA GETS A BIG K
  
• 
  
  9.Lyle Overbay singles on a ground ball to right fielder Shane Victorino. Alfonso Soriano scores. Curtis Granderson scores. Lyle Overbay to 2nd on the throw. TOTAL BABIP BAD LUCK - A GROUND BALL THAT GOT THROUGH
  
• 
  
  10.Ichiro Suzuki strikes out swinging. TAZAWA GETS A BIG K
  

 
So, somehow, the Yankees score six runs with just one XBH. Tazawa faces five batters, Ks two of them, gets two ground balls, and gives up a double. 
 
If I were apportioning blame for the disaster of an inning, it would go:
 
Farrell: 40 percent - Left Peavy in at least a batter too long, THE FUCKING SHIFT, both direct contributors to the suck - Peavy had nothing for Wells
Thornton: 30 percent - Really had nothing. Walking Jeter is atrocious there, and his job is to get Gardner out, which he didn't do. 
 
Defense: 20 percent - Should have turned the DP, I think. Should have gotten Wells stealing, certainly. 
Tazawa: 10 percent - Brought into a shitshow, got two Ks and two grounders, giving up an XBH can't happen, though.

 

[Reverend]

 
Then why haven't they used the RH shift with a runner on 1st and 3rd 1 out at all this year?
I find it hard to believe that Soriano is so unique that he is the only RH in baseball you would attempt this on.  It was a dumb decision that was so out of the norm I don't buy that it was based on analytics at all.  

 
It's player specific data they use, that much is clear, so the first statement doesn't necessarily apply. I'm not taking a side here, just reporting on what Farrell has explained as their approach to defensive alignments.
 
I do think if you don't think analytics had anything to do with the decision, then I don't know what to say, as that position would seem to reject what the principals involved have said on the matter.
 
Also, to whit--Soriano's spray chart from TexasLeaguers:
 

 
These decisions are probablistic.
 
Edit: I will add the caveat that looking at that spray chart, one wonders if the shift makes sense because of how far to the left his spray actually trends, i.e. does moving Pedroia even really help? But that's at a micro level where I just say "I dunno."

 

[joe dokes]

 
Then why haven't they used the RH shift with a runner on 1st and 3rd 1 out at all this year?
I find it hard to believe that Soriano is so unique that he is the only RH in baseball you would attempt this on.  It was a dumb decision that was so out of the norm I don't buy that it was based on analytics at all.  

 
What then?  We know he did it. And we know he must've had *some* reason.  If you rule out analytics -- which I assume includes sparay charts and the like -- then what reason would come from Farrell if he was given the sodium pentothol?

 

[absintheofmalaise]

We also know that they position the fielders based on hard hit balls, not on all BIP. So to think that they didn't use analytics makes no sense at all.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Here's one thing about the shift I've always wondered- you look at spray chart data like Rev posted but it's not in context, so how valuable is it really?  For example, it's clear that Soriano hits more balls in the infield to the left side.  But if most of those batted balls occurred when teams weren't shifting, and when a team does shift he makes a conscious effort to go the other way if the pitch selection allows him to, then the shift is less valuable.
 
Last night Soriano had 90+ feet of open space to work with.  He knew that if he just made decent contact anywhere around the normal 2B position he'd get a hit.  On the other hand he knew that unless he smoked a ball right between WMB and Drew or Drew and Pedroia he'd be out.  I really doubt that hitters don't pay attention to how defenses are playing them and try to adjust if possible.  So in that situation, with a runner on 1B so Napoli had to stay on the bag, a hard throwing pitcher on the mound and a runner on third, I can't see the argument for putting Pedroia where he was.  Having him shade up the middle on the right side of 2B would've made plenty of sense though.
 
To me it seemed like Farrell deferred to the default alignment for Soriano and totally ignored context, and that's why the decision sucked.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

Edit: I will add the caveat that looking at that spray chart, one wonders if the shift makes sense because of how far to the left his spray actually trends, i.e. does moving Pedroia even really help? But that's at a micro level where I just say "I dunno."

If I remember right, Pedroia was positioned up the middle or a hair to the first base side of second, so that would presumably be targeting the cluster of hits (with a few outs) in shallow center.