HriniakPosterChild said:
If he was at 80 pitches, maybe. But not at 100, especially with how shaky Doubront can get when he tires.
Let's Talk about the manager -- The John Farrell Thread
- Thread starter Dave Stapleton
- Start date
- Status
If he was at 80 pitches, maybe. But not at 100, especially with how shaky Doubront can get when he tires.
smastroyin said:
This just happened to Napoli, when there were men on 2nd and 3rd with one out. The result of this play when it's unsuccessful is that you have runners on 1st and 3rd instead of 2nd and 3rd.
With one out, having that trail runner on 2nd is worth ~0.23 runs. With two outs, it's worth ~0.1 runs.
So you only have to think there's a >10% chance that the runner makes it for it to be worth it to send him with one out.
Noah said:
It's also worth considering that there is also a chance the defense will go for the out at home and not get it, which leaves you with runners on 1st and 3rd with one out and a run scored at the end of the play. While the odds of that are low, it's part of what Farrell is talking about with pressuring the defense.
Thirded. He was clearly out of gas at the end of the 5th; have to go to the bullpen there. Not sure who made the call on the Nava steal in the top of the 5th either, but that wasn't cool either.
Castig and O'B said it was a busted hit and run, and possibly a Titoesque attempt on Farrell's part to get WMB focused on just making contact to break his slump.Plympton91 said:
Not really defending it, though. I don't think WMB is disciplined enough at this point for that strategy to work with him.
Not to be fanboyish, because I disagree with Farrell's decision to keep Ace in as much as the next guy, but two things to remember: He's been very good, but he's not going to be perfect, so one black mark isn't going to sour him in my eyes, and as good as this bullpen has been, and as long as the season and this run-on sentence are, I understand the desire to try to steal a few outs with a fairly large lead instead of taxing the bullpen too much in April.
That said, after Swisher's HR, he should have been yanked immediately.
That said, after Swisher's HR, he should have been yanked immediately.
I also disagreed with Farrell's decision to stick with Aceves, but I can understand it. He was up 5 runs and was looking to avoid two 4 inning relief pitching nights in a row, so he took a chance. He hit the eject button when it went sideways, before it got out of hand, and the team still won the game. Probably (very likely) the wrong decision, but he was willing to change course quickly enough to avoid giving up the entire lead.
Maybe I'm just looking for silver linings here, but I'm having trouble getting worked up over it.
Maybe I'm just looking for silver linings here, but I'm having trouble getting worked up over it.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I don't know, I could see giving Aceves a couple of baserunners to spare the heavy bullpen usage, but with him having loaded the bases and surrendering line drives like crazy in the 5th, I cannot see giving him 4 baserunners. It was also a 5 run lead, so you could go to Wright and try to squeeze some innings out of him in order to save the bullpen regulars. Bad move to have him start the 5th with some ability to rationalize it, worse move to let him get so deep into trouble. They should have had someone warm for a quicker hook.
Over the course of the season, there will be moves like this that leave us scratching our heads. Tactically, it seems obvious to pull Aceves after the Swisher HR. And the results bore that out. Strategically, it's a long, long season, and there are a number of considerations here, and we as fans don't have all the info Farrell has. For example, we don't know who's sick, or who's perhaps feeling a little "achy", or what the coaches necessarily think of Wright at this point. Someone upthread did mention the appearances and innings that some of the key arms in the pen will endure if projected over the entire season, and that is something that Farrell must manage, even at the expense of a couple of HR's.
It's possible he just screwed up. It happens; hopefully not too often.
It's possible he just screwed up. It happens; hopefully not too often.
This was a classic case of how SSS leads to flawed conclusions. Tazawa is now on pace for 81 IP with the game tonight. If he doesn't pitch the next two nights, that drops down to a pretty reasonable number at 71 IP. The ebbs and flows of reliever usage mean that every April one or two guys look overworked. It's not something to worry about.lexrageorge said:
Just want to throw a Barry Zito curveball here: so happy Valentine was so bad last year, making it a no brainer for management to pay him to get out of town so they could hire the guy they wanted. If he were just mediocre to bad, they could have let him hang around for his contract second year.
JakeRae said:
Well yes, you can't just project that way. However, it is worth noting that they are getting pretty heavy usage despite the starting pitching being very good. The only game they've needed a long man was the Lackey injury game. I'm all for booking wins when you have the chance and April wins count as much as any other, but taking some precaution at this point could pay dividends later. That said, I have no idea why Aceves was pitching to Giambi and less idea why he would have been then pitching to Reynolds.
The "stealing outs" folks I think are going to be pretty damn frustrated because Farrell was the pitching coach here and was in line with Tito on this stuff, so I doubt this will be the last night we hear about it.
The problem about last night (4/17) wasn't that he let Aceves start the inning, it was that he let Aceves start the inning without having someone ready to come in at the first sign of trouble. If Taz comes in after the walk or even after the first home run, I think everyone feels better about it.
Did anyone ask JF about the Aceves goof in the post-game presser? This incident aside, I've been impressed with the professionalism of JF and the new staff as compared to last year's "who's not talking to who" stories and the back-biting.
Aceves was at 87 pitches after five innings and his career high was 98. Farrell did get burned by not having anyone warming when the sixth inning started. But it did not cost them the game, which is good. And one obvious mistake in 14 games seems like an amazingly great ratio. I could get used to that.
CaptainLaddie said:
Actually I think he's been extremely good at knowing when to pull guys thus far. Leaving Aceves in was the first time I thought he was trying to steal outs.
CaptainLaddie said:
Didn't that have something to do with losing 3 starting pitchers in the span of a week last year? His bullpen must've gotten stressed in one hell of a hurry in the wake of that, so maybe he started stealing outs afterwards.
Nothing Tito didn't do, FWIW.
rodderick said:
And he admitted as much after the game, saying he was trying to avoid back to back nights of asking 4 innings of his bullpen.
Given the state of the rotation - not being able to count on Doubrant or Aceves for long starts - I wonder if they will give consideration to breaking up Lester and Buchholz back to back. Not sure they will have an opportunity to do so, however, until either Lackey comes back or until they have an off day (next one is April 29).
Edit: this would be in order to preserve the bullpen a bit
Edit: this would be in order to preserve the bullpen a bit
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I think it goes back further. The problem is that he apparently doesn't have guys warming up in time. This was the central, #1 complaint from multiple Jays fans I know. Just FWIW.
CaptainLaddie said:
I seem to remember the philosophy with Tito, and it very well may have come from Farrell, was that he didn't like to have guys sitting back down after warming up, or really to warm up at all if they weren't going to get into the game. The most common example of the latter being situations in which he got Papelbon up for a save in a two run game, then the offense tacked on three runs while he was warming, he'd still bring Pap in despite it no longer being a save situation.
That idea of not warming guys up "for nothing" probably extends to having guys warming before the pitcher gets into any kind of trouble. They don't want a situation where Tazawa is up and throwing before the 6th starts and Aceves gets through 1-2-3. Guess they think the risk of things going upside down for the starter before the reliever can get loose is less harmful than if the reliever warms, sits, and warms again.
Dont know if there have been any good examples of it yet.....
But if we areslamming dissapproving of him for stealing outs....then we need to give him credit when he successfully gambles and pulls it off.
Just something to keep in mind.
But if we are
Just something to keep in mind.
I remember Tito doing this a lot with Paps, and to this day, I don't get it. I understand the possible negatives on an arm that warms up then sits down, then needs to warm up again later in the same game (e.g. a starter escapes early trouble and then cruises along for a couple more innings aka "a Wakefield start") but I don't see how warming a closer and then telling him you're not needed because we just scored 5 in the bottom of the 8th puts more strain on said pitcher as opposed to forcing him ot throw 15-20 pitches to get thru a meaningless inning. Can anyone explain that to me?Red(s)HawksFan said:
Saints Rest said:
I would imagine the point is two fold.
Most important, the idea that warming up and cooling down is not the same as resting. So you might make your pitcher unavailable the next day even if you only warm him up, so you may as well pitch him.
There is also the idea that warming up without actually having him throw full speed is detrimental to his training and arm strength.
These are guesses, I'm not a physiology expert.
bakahump said:
I agree with the sentiment, but its a fool's errand. Unfortunately (or unavoidably), many are predisposed to conclude that if he "gambled," i.e., left the starter in, then he "still made the wrong move, but just got lucky." And if, for example he pulled Aceves after 5 last night, and got the same bullpen result, there would be no "credit" because "any idiot could see Aceves needed to come out." And that's the way it is in most (not all) games.
By and large, I think he's (JF) doing a great job so far. I really just thought he should've had someone warming at the beginning of the 6th. I thought Aceves faced 2 more batters than I would have expected in that situation. It was alarming in a "holy crap, how's this happening, I thought this manager wasn't braindead??" kind of a way.
I read quite a number of posts in the gamethread about the likeability of the team which strikes me as a little bit funny. Maybe I'm an ass but I think there's a pretty direct link between percieved likeability and winning. If Gonzo, Youks and Beckett are here in 2013 with a 10-4 record maybe they'd be likeable too. The winning has been largely attributable to the pitching. The pitching has been largely attributable to Farrell and Nieves working with a pretty good staff put together by the FO (and of course the players level of dedication to their craft).
I read quite a number of posts in the gamethread about the likeability of the team which strikes me as a little bit funny. Maybe I'm an ass but I think there's a pretty direct link between percieved likeability and winning. If Gonzo, Youks and Beckett are here in 2013 with a 10-4 record maybe they'd be likeable too. The winning has been largely attributable to the pitching. The pitching has been largely attributable to Farrell and Nieves working with a pretty good staff put together by the FO (and of course the players level of dedication to their craft).
I'm also just guessing, but I agree with these guesses and I'd add that if Papelbon was already warm, why get someone else warmed up and then maybe both Pap and the other guy are unavailable the next day.smastroyin said:
Also, if you warm up Papelbon and then sit him down in the top of the 9th, then some chump comes in instead and gives up a couple of runs, now you've got to get Papelbon warmed up again in a hurry, after he's already cooled off. Then he comes into the game likely with runners on base, without ideal preparation. And then his day has been warm up, sit down, hurry up and warm up, then pitch a high leverage inning. Rather than warm up, pitch a low-leverage inning. In scenario 2 he is much more likely to be available the next day.smastroyin said:
It's simpler to just let Papelbon pitch his one inning, starting clean, with less risk of the bullpen putting the lead in danger and having to use several pitchers in stressful situations.
C4CRVT said:
Yes and no. Definitely agree that winning makes a team much more likeable, but in the case of a guy like Beckett there would have still been a lot of history to overcome before fans really warmed up to him, especially given his unrepentant comments last year. He seemed to give off a public vibe of being more upset about the 'snitch' than of being sorry (even if only for PR purposes) for his part in Chicken 'n Beer-gate.
I also have some concerns about the bullpen usage and the arms of Taz, Uehara, and Bailey over the course of the season. I think that a lot of that comes from the fact that we are winning and playing in close games though. We have a lot of games where the starter is leaving the game with a 1-3 run lead, so he is going to his most dependable guys to turn those leads into wins.
However, when we aren't winning or losing by a lot, it means that Miller has only pitched 3 innings in so far, and obviously moving Aceves into the starter role takes a rubber arm out of the pen, which would be great to have to piggy-back on the Doubront starts, for instance. Hopefully the in-game situations vary enough moving forward to let more of the "lesser" arms eat innings, but so far 2/3 of our games have been decided by three innings or less. Starters have pitched about 65% of innings, or about 5.9 IP/start, so that's not too bad.
However, when we aren't winning or losing by a lot, it means that Miller has only pitched 3 innings in so far, and obviously moving Aceves into the starter role takes a rubber arm out of the pen, which would be great to have to piggy-back on the Doubront starts, for instance. Hopefully the in-game situations vary enough moving forward to let more of the "lesser" arms eat innings, but so far 2/3 of our games have been decided by three innings or less. Starters have pitched about 65% of innings, or about 5.9 IP/start, so that's not too bad.
Pokey's right: the good end of your bullpen gets taxed during winning streaks. I'm confident that the Sox are not going to win at a .733 pace all season; Bailey, Taz and Uehara will get some nights off.
You can try to steal outs as long as you do the big stall when you decide someone needs to get warm in the pen.
The entire roster has made contributions to date. Thus far, it's affirmative of many of the principles that Farrell discussed upon taking the job:
http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2013/04/notebook_club_more_good_than_lucky
http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2013/04/notebook_club_more_good_than_lucky
I get the feeling that for all the kavetching about when to pull a starter, (BTW I agree he should have had someone warming up to start the inning) that most armchair coaches here would wind up having a bullpen pitching as many innings as the starters and they'd wreck a few arms a year to boot. A few others have hit upon it before, whether or not you want to face facts, fact is the manager is privy to alot more information than any of us here. That should ring a warning bell to those who think they know what is right after the fact, and chances are you are still wrong.Red(s)HawksFan said:
On a positive note: I can't remember a Red Sox team since probably 2004 that has been so obviously rooting for each other. These guys genuinely seem to like each other, which makes it easy to root for them. On the radio the other day, it was mentioned that on last Monday, 22 members of the team went out for dinner together. I feel like it would take cash payment for 22 guys from the 2010 or 2011 team to spend five minutes together outside of the clubhouse. There's an emotional bond with this team, which is nice to see. I have to think that Farrell is playing a part in this, frankly -- he's got the respect of plenty of the guys who have been around for a while, and the newer guys must have immediately taken to him.
Cue the EEI response: Who were the three guys who didn't go to dinner on Monday?!!?
Cue the EEI response: Who were the three guys who didn't go to dinner on Monday?!!?
On the whole, I think Farrell has done a great job.
But his near total refusal to allow any of his good relievers to throw more than one inning is a major disappointment. Today he threw away a lead by not leaving Tazawa in for a second inning.
I realize that part of Farrell's thinking is that Uehara has a lot of milage on his arm and he's had various injuries. But Farrell has Uehara on a pace to pitch in more than 75 games, something he has never done before. If his goal is to keep Uehara healthy, I am not sure pitching him in 75 games is the way to go about that.
But his near total refusal to allow any of his good relievers to throw more than one inning is a major disappointment. Today he threw away a lead by not leaving Tazawa in for a second inning.
I realize that part of Farrell's thinking is that Uehara has a lot of milage on his arm and he's had various injuries. But Farrell has Uehara on a pace to pitch in more than 75 games, something he has never done before. If his goal is to keep Uehara healthy, I am not sure pitching him in 75 games is the way to go about that.
Eddie Jurak said:
He threw away the lead by giving the ball to the best reliever in the pen in a 1 run game in the 8th?
Not every decision that doesn't work out is a bad decision. The amount of usage is a separate question than whether his actions today gave them a better or worse chance to win. I think that could be a legit issue, but he put the best players in at the right times today. Can't fault him for that.
Maybe Papi was sore tonight. Many will answer that JF was right to take the long view in not pinch hitting Papi for Salty in the 10th. But if Papi felt fine, I think it was a mistake to not let him hit there. It's not as if he would have had to go into the field and one swing might have tied that game. True, Salty has HR ability also, but Ortiz has been hot since he got back. The long view is fine but every game counts.
I also don't trust Andrew Miller at all in high leverage situations. I'm not sure who else I would have used there but I was pretty much expecting at least a run when the top of the 10th started, and I'm guessing I'm not alone in that.
I also don't trust Andrew Miller at all in high leverage situations. I'm not sure who else I would have used there but I was pretty much expecting at least a run when the top of the 10th started, and I'm guessing I'm not alone in that.
Eddie Jurak said:
Does Tazawa count as a "good reliever?" I like him. He pitched two innings Wednesday in Cleveland.
I don't understand why Miller was even allowed to face Butler (results notwithstanding). He has a career wOBA of .398 & Miller not much more than a LOOGY at this point.TheoShmeo said:
The fact that he was left in with the base loaded blows my mind. A guy with a BB rate above 10 should not be in a bases loaded situation
MakMan44 said:
Miller was basically the last man standing. In that game, Taz, Uehara, and Bailey had already pitched. Mortensen and Wilson had pitched in the day game. I mean, you wanted to the knuckleballer to come in with the bases loaded?
Mort was warming, but I think that's moving deck chairs around. Maybe he gets out of the jam, but then, what, he pitches the next inning, too, for his second appearance of the day?
The Sox have simply played a ton of close games and have had to use all of their best relievers a lot. Uehara has to give up a run SOMETIME.
Yesterday's losses were on the offense. They had chances to score and didn't take advantage. Too many guys on third base with less than two outs that didn't score. That's execution by the players, not decisions by the manager. They were 1-7 with RISP in game one, 3-14 in game two. That's a good way to lose.
- Status