Second Guesser's Club - This one isn't for all the marbles.

Reverend · Aug 5, 2014

absintheofmalaise said:
Tonight's Boys of Summer:

Holt CF
Pedroia 2B
Ortiz 1B
Cespedes LF
Nava RF
Bogaerts SS
Vazquez C
Middlebrooks 3B
De La Rosa RHP

The upside potential of this line-up is staggering. But...

TheoShmeo · Aug 6, 2014

Why was Nava in the starting line-up last night? Will this continue?

I raised the argument in the game thread last night that JF should be looking at Betts and Bradley as much as possible with a 2015 lens on. Betts because we don't know if he can hit on this level and whether his OF defense will be good enough. Bradley because his D is so good that we need to know whether he can hit enough to keep him in the line-up. It seems to me that these guys should be in the line-up almost every day and if Betts isn't going to play, he should be in AAA.

Nava? I think we know his upside. With Cespedes, Craig, Vic, Betts and Bradley all potentially in the mix for next year, it's hard to see Nava getting regular playing time. I know he's defied the odds repeatedly, and hits righties well, but he's got a lot of guys ahead of him. Now true, Craig and Victorino are not locks to be healthy. But that's even more reason to gahter intelligence on Betts and Bradley.

Now yeah, it was just one game. But if Nava continues to get starts and Betts and Bradley continue to be on the bench, it will be hard to justify.

Regarding 3B, I get that they are giving Middlebrooks what may be his last shot in Boston to show that he's more than what he's been during his last 500 or so at bats: a near Mendoza hitter. Right handed power is indeed a rare commodity and it would suck a lot to see WIll finally raking in another city. But I'd either give up on him or run him out there almost every day (health permitting) the rest of the way. This one game on, two games off, one game on pattern doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Perhaps JF is trying to win games so guys "re-learn" how to win, along with getting something of a read on the kids. But I don't put a lot of stake in the former. That the 2012 team forgot how to win didn't have a lot of bearing on the next season, thankfully. And last season didn't carry over much into this season, sadly. Go to school on the kids, JF and Ben. Period.

joe dokes · Aug 6, 2014

TheoShmeo said:
Why was Nava in the starting line-up last night? Will this continue?

I raised the argument in the game thread last night that JF should be looking at Betts and Bradley as much as possible with a 2015 lens on. Betts because we don't know if he can hit on this level and whether his OF defense will be good enough. Bradley because his D is so good that we need to know whether he can hit enough to keep him in the line-up. It seems to me that these guys should be in the line-up almost every day and if Betts isn't going to play, he should be in AAA.

Nava? I think we know his upside. With Cespedes, Craig, Vic, Betts and Bradley all potentially in the mix for next year, it's hard to see Nava getting regular playing time. I know he's defied the odds repeatedly, and hits righties well, but he's got a lot of guys ahead of him. Now true, Craig and Victorino are not locks to be healthy. But that's even more reason to gahter intelligence on Betts and Bradley.

Now yeah, it was just one game. But if Nava continues to get starts and Betts and Bradley continue to be on the bench, it will be hard to justify.

Regarding 3B, I get that they are giving Middlebrooks what may be his last shot in Boston to show that he's more than what he's been during his last 500 or so at bats: a near Mendoza hitter. Right handed power is indeed a rare commodity and it would suck a lot to see WIll finally raking in another city. But I'd either give up on him or run him out there almost every day (health permitting) the rest of the way. This one game on, two games off, one game on pattern doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Perhaps JF is trying to win games so guys "re-learn" how to win, along with getting something of a read on the kids. But I don't put a lot of stake in the former. That the 2012 team forgot how to win didn't have a lot of bearing on the next season, thankfully. And last season didn't carry over much into this season, sadly. Go to school on the kids, JF and Ben. Period.

I suspect it was more of a break for JBJ. Even slumping non-rookies get them.

bobesox · Aug 6, 2014

A different take on playing time that may explain what is happening. Here goes - players in no particular order.

WMB - getting starts against favorable pitchers. First start against Capuano not so good. Same old Will. Frankly he should have killed Cap. Did zero.

Brock Holt - being moved around see if it affects his hitting. And defense. Is being groomed for super sub role next year. Third base is in the mix. Center field not so but using this as a chance to develop out fielding skills in symmetrical parks.

JBJ - isn't going to solve his issues this year. Perhaps different coaches may help next year.

Mookie - what if he struggles? Are the same coaches who haven't helped JBJ going to help him? JF and BC afraid of offensive struggles.

Nava - what if Cespedes really doesn't want to play right? Maybe next year starting in spring training, but not now. So it's Nava by default.

erfus · Aug 6, 2014

bobesox said:
Mookie - what if he struggles? Are the same coaches who haven't helped JBJ going to help him? JF and BC afraid of offensive struggles.

I am in the camp that if Mookie's not playing regularly, nearly every day, at the MLB level he would best be served doing so in Pawtucket. He's tearing it up in AAA but only 157 plate appearances and of course he's only 21. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of having him watch so many MLB games on the bench or playing in a L/R platoon role. I don't think he's at the "nothing left to learn in the minors" stage of his career. Pawtucket is 2 GB of Syracuse for their division lead, may as well have him get some minor league playoff experience too.

Plympton91 · Aug 6, 2014

If you're going to say that you want to encourage competition for roster spots, then you have to give playing time to the people who earned it. That means Nava against every righty and Holt everyday.

It seems to me and to several expert commentators, like Kruk Sunday night, that Bradley's problems aren't going to be solved by more reps with the same mechanics and approach. He needs his swing taken apart and put back together, like the Yankee hitting coach did with Granderson. Playing everyday right now is just going to further engrain bad habits.

Fully agree that Betts needs to be in AAA or in the starting lineup. If they need a platoon partner for Nava use Hassan again. Of course, he struck out 4 times in a game, and given Farrell's penchant for making decisions using small sample sizes, he may play as often as Lavarnway did last summer if recalled.

Dogman · Aug 6, 2014

Plympton91 said:
If you're going to say that you want to encourage competition for roster spots, then you have to give playing time to the people who earned it. That means Nava against every righty and Holt everyday.

It seems to me and to several expert commentators, like Kruk Sunday night, that Bradley's problems aren't going to be solved by more reps with the same mechanics and approach. He needs his swing taken apart and put back together, like the Yankee hitting coach did with Granderson. Playing everyday right now is just going to further engrain bad habits.

Fully agree that Betts needs to be in AAA or in the starting lineup. If they need a platoon partner for Nava use Hassan again. Of course, he struck out 4 times in a game, and given Farrell's penchant for making decisions using small sample sizes, he may play as often as Lavarnway did last summer if recalled.

And you lost me.

Dogman · Aug 6, 2014

That's fair. I missed the broadcast and I was basing my post on the insane number of dumb things Kruk has said over the years.

I suppose Kruk breaking down a swing for the LCD of fans would be something he could do well enough.

Reverend · Aug 6, 2014

Dogman2 said:
That's fair. I missed the broadcast and I was basing my post on the insane number of dumb things Kruk has said over the years.

I suppose Kruk breaking down a swing for the LCD of fans would be something he could do well enough.

Yeah, Kruk made a good point this time. Of course, if you look at the clip they showed of the amount of useless movement JBJ was doing with his foot, pretty much anyone with a basic understanding of the importance of a good foundation for power in any athletic endeavor could have looked at it and spotted it. As in, say, a stone age spear-hunter could have looked at it and said, "I know little of this thing you call 'beisball,' but that ain't right."

mabrowndog · Aug 6, 2014

Looks like it'll be a short series...

Sean McAdam ‏@Sean_McAdam 4m

Brutal rain expected late tonight in STL, all day Thurs. Thunderstorms expected, up to 2 inches rain coming. Tough to get in series finale.

Sean McAdam ‏@Sean_McAdam 3m
Both Red Sox and Cards have Sept. 15 off. Red Sox have an off-day after weekend series in KC, before series in PIT.

Al Zarilla · Aug 6, 2014

Reverend said:
Yeah, Kruk made a good point this time. Of course, if you look at the clip they showed of the amount of useless movement JBJ was doing with his foot, pretty much anyone with a basic understanding of the importance of a good foundation for power in any athletic endeavor could have looked at it and spotted it. As in, say, a stone age spear-hunter could have looked at it and said, "I know little of this thing you call 'beisball,' but that ain't right."

It wasn't just the toe tap. Kruk also jumped on his knee twist and his exaggerated open stance. Did he miss the loopy swing? I think he did. Put it all together and it results in as much of a waste of potential as Laurence Maroney's dancing around instead of hitting the hole.

The Gray Eagle · Aug 7, 2014

So: pitcher due up, man on first, 1-1 in the 8th. Farrell sends up Middlebrooks, who takes one pitch. Then Butterfield comes over to him and has some words for him, speaking right in his face in front of everyone. So now everyone knows that the bunt is on. Middlebrooks bunts anyway, a lousy one, that leads to a forceout at second.

If you were going to bunt, why not just let Kelly stay in and do it, rather than burn Middlebrooks to have him do something that he is not good at? Kelly bunts all the time as an NL pitcher. And why not take the bunt off after telegraphing it so badly with the third base coach coming down to talk to Middlebrooks like that?

That was just going out of your way to set Middlebrooks up to fail, while burning the bench.

And then, our next pinch-hitting effort: he sends Ortiz up to pinch hit with runners on second and third and no one out in a tie game in the 9th. Everyone in the stadium knows they will walk him there. That guarantees that Ortiz will not get to swing the bat at all tonight in a close game. Why would you waste Ortiz like that? And if the Cardinals tie it up, then the next inning starts with the pitcher's spot coming up, with only Butler left on the bench. (that was what was posted in the game thread, I'm not sure if that's actually accurate, but I think it is.)

At least we won, but those were still two incomprehensible pinch-hitting decisions by Farrell tonight. I just do not get it. Someone explain please.

E5 Yaz · Aug 7, 2014

PeteAbe: Middlebrooks was sent up to bunt. Asked why Kelly wasn’t left in to bunt, Farrell said Kelly was out of the game. Assume meant figuratively

Hee Sox Choi · Aug 7, 2014

E5 Yaz said:
PeteAbe: Middlebrooks was sent up to bunt. Asked why Kelly wasn’t left in to bunt, Farrell said Kelly was out of the game. Assume meant figuratively

Oh my, Farrell is an idiot. Kelly finished the inning and was still on the scorecard.

soxhop411 · Aug 7, 2014

Hee Sox Choi said:
Oh my, Farrell is an idiot. Kelly finished the inning and was still on the scorecard.

Unless Kelly told JF that he was "done"

Adrian's Dome · Aug 7, 2014

soxhop411 said:
Unless Kelly told JF that he was "done"

His arm might've been, but I find it hard to believe he couldn't go in there and lay down a sacrifice, especially given he was probably the best option available for that exact play.

Telling WMB to bunt is setting him up to fail (seems to be a somewhat common thing with Farrell and individual matchups, though.)

judyb · Aug 7, 2014

I missed it, was Kelly already icing his arm or getting treatment or something like that?

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon · Aug 7, 2014

Only thing I can think of is that ball Kelly took off the leg. Maybe they thought it would swell up if he ran hard on it?

TheoShmeo · Aug 7, 2014

The Gray Eagle said:
So: pitcher due up, man on first, 1-1 in the 8th. Farrell sends up Middlebrooks, who takes one pitch. Then Butterfield comes over to him and has some words for him, speaking right in his face in front of everyone. So now everyone knows that the bunt is on. Middlebrooks bunts anyway, a lousy one, that leads to a forceout at second.

If you were going to bunt, why not just let Kelly stay in and do it, rather than burn Middlebrooks to have him do something that he is not good at? Kelly bunts all the time as an NL pitcher. And why not take the bunt off after telegraphing it so badly with the third base coach coming down to talk to Middlebrooks like that?

That was just going out of your way to set Middlebrooks up to fail, while burning the bench.

And then, our next pinch-hitting effort: he sends Ortiz up to pinch hit with runners on second and third and no one out in a tie game in the 9th. Everyone in the stadium knows they will walk him there. That guarantees that Ortiz will not get to swing the bat at all tonight in a close game. Why would you waste Ortiz like that? And if the Cardinals tie it up, then the next inning starts with the pitcher's spot coming up, with only Butler left on the bench. (that was what was posted in the game thread, I'm not sure if that's actually accurate, but I think it is.)

At least we won, but those were still two incomprehensible pinch-hitting decisions by Farrell tonight. I just do not get it. Someone explain please.

Not having Kelly pinch hit and wasting Papi in an obvious intentional walk situation cannot be explained. The ESPN team was guffawing at both, and while that is hardly a proof of anything, they were right to guffaw. I mean it was just SHOCKING when the Cards walked the Large Father with men on second and third. As to Kelly and possibly icing his arm, I guess that's possible but a little foresight there could avoid the problem. I think.

And I will again question playing Nava for Bradley. Even if Bradley will not gain anything by more reps -- which sounds dubious to me -- why exactly are we going to school on Daniel Nava? What don't we know about him? Or is that JF thinks we need Naver's defensive prowess out there in RF and that having JB out there or Betts would just ruin everything?

Last, if this is the last look at Will, it's sub-optimal not to give Will consistent playing time. Perhaps they've already decided that he's not going to be their starter next season. But if so, why play him at all? If it's to create a trading chip, I would think more regular time would help that too. It's hard for anyone to show much when they are playing sporadically.

PS: Something of an answer on JBJ being on the bench from JF in this article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/08/06/slumping-jackie-bradley-sits-out-again/1iwAQgv9kn8mXOtwKwU3gJ/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom

“We’re trying to focus on some early work. We’re trying to shorten up his approach at the plate,” manager John Farrell said. “We felt there was a need for some maintenance.”

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon · Aug 7, 2014

So, you think Holt should be on the bench? Cespedes? And Nava?

If you're going to play JBJ, Mookie, and Will all every day, then that leaves out two of Holt, Cespedes, and Nava. Unless you want Holt playing instead of X.

Basically, Farrell is stuck with a weird roster right now. He doesn't make the personnel moves, so he can't just send Betts down.

You really want Nava stapled to the bench? A guy who puts up a .400 OBP against righties? You can't just tell the whole team, "eh, season's fucked, we're not even trying to win anymore." They're smart enough to wonder why a .400 OBP guy just isn't playing.

Cespedes is going to play at least six of seven games. That leaves JBJ, Betts, Holt, Nava, and WMB to play Center, Right, and 3B. Holt's the leadoff guy. He's going to play six of seven it looks like, maybe five of seven.

That leaves WMB, JBJ, Betts, and Nava to split up about 16-17 spots every seven games. So they're each going to play about four of seven is my guess.

TheoShmeo · Aug 7, 2014

If they are really trying to assess whether Middlebrooks is a starter, I think he needs to play with a lot more consistency.

If they are really trying to assess whether Betts and Bradley can either start or be on next year's team, I think they both need to play with a lot more consistency. In Betts' case, at least, if he's going to only play sporadically, I'd rather he be in AAA and at least get regular play in the OF.

I wasn't arguing that Nava should NEVER play. Or Holt for that matter.

But I care much more about them using the remaining games to assess guys and make judgments that will inform their roster construction for 2015 than worrying about getting a guy with .400 OBP in the line-up versus righties in a season that is already lost.

edoug · Aug 7, 2014

Farrell knew they were going to walk Papi in that situation. I think he wanted to give Xander the opportunity against struggling pitcher with the bases loaded and no outs.

Stan Papi Was Framed · Aug 7, 2014

The Gray Eagle said:
So: pitcher due up, man on first, 1-1 in the 8th. Farrell sends up Middlebrooks, who takes one pitch. Then Butterfield comes over to him and has some words for him, speaking right in his face in front of everyone. So now everyone knows that the bunt is on. Middlebrooks bunts anyway, a lousy one, that leads to a forceout at second.

If you were going to bunt, why not just let Kelly stay in and do it, rather than burn Middlebrooks to have him do something that he is not good at? Kelly bunts all the time as an NL pitcher. And why not take the bunt off after telegraphing it so badly with the third base coach coming down to talk to Middlebrooks like that?

That was just going out of your way to set Middlebrooks up to fail, while burning the bench.

And then, our next pinch-hitting effort: he sends Ortiz up to pinch hit with runners on second and third and no one out in a tie game in the 9th. Everyone in the stadium knows they will walk him there. That guarantees that Ortiz will not get to swing the bat at all tonight in a close game. Why would you waste Ortiz like that? And if the Cardinals tie it up, then the next inning starts with the pitcher's spot coming up, with only Butler left on the bench. (that was what was posted in the game thread, I'm not sure if that's actually accurate, but I think it is.)

At least we won, but those were still two incomprehensible pinch-hitting decisions by Farrell tonight. I just do not get it. Someone explain please.

I will apply Occam's Razor: Farrell is not a good in game manager.

BornToRun · Aug 7, 2014

edoug said:
Farrell knew they were going to walk Papi in that situation. I think he wanted to give Xander the opportunity against struggling pitcher with the bases loaded and no outs.

I honestly think this might be it. I'm not saying this is what was behind his decision to PH Papi but I also wouldn't flat out dismiss it.

E5 Yaz · Aug 7, 2014

"Recognizing full well that they might take the bat out of [Ortiz's] hands, but they'll probably pitch to Nava, with no guarantees," Farrell said. "And we’re into some right-handed hitters after that. We didn’t want to get in a situation where we left David on the bench if we don't get through that inning. We were limited with the opportunities for him. We couldn't pinch hit for another infielder. Will [Middlebrooks] already had been used. [We] send him up knowing we get an extra baserunner."

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/39579/takeaways-from-a-boffo-night-in-busch?ex_cid=espnapi_public

TheoShmeo · Aug 7, 2014

If you like Nava enough to have him in the line-up regularly, why wouldn't you want him hitting in that situation more than using up Ortiz with an IBB? Just for the extra baserunner? If anything, I like Nava hitting without a man on first more than I like Xander hitting with the bases loaded and the heightened double play risk. And in a game that might go into extras, I like at least trying to save David for a hitting opportunity later.

What am I missing?

Red(s)HawksFan · Aug 7, 2014

Second and third, no outs in the top of the ninth, I think the Cards are walking whoever is at the plate to set up the force at home and/or the double play. Doesn't matter if it's Ortiz or Nava at the plate. I'd have let Nava hit there, let Bogaerts hit after that, then send Ortiz up there for Vazquez. By that point, either you're looking at two on and two out, bases loaded and one out, or a run or multiple runs are in. It's not as though winning the game without using Ortiz is any kind of crime.

geoduck no quahog · Aug 7, 2014

It's not necessarily true that Nava would have been walked. It's possible that a left-hander (Choate?) could have been brought in to turn Nava around, or pitch carefully to him and then decide what to do with Vazquez or Ortiz - more likely with Ortiz waiting to hit in the 9th spot (if it ever came up). The lefty may have faced Ortiz if they decided to PH for Vazquez, burning all their catchers if the game went into extra innings.

All I'm sayin' is that there are other situations beside the one ESPN talking heads proposed.

E5 Yaz · Aug 7, 2014

TheoShmeo said:
And in a game that might go into extras ...

And this brings up yet another question: The decision to pinch-run for Ortiz in that spot. Combined with the using WMB to bunt, running JBJ there left Butler as the only non-pitcher remaining on the bench ... in a game that was still tied at that moment in the top of the ninth.

It played out fine, of course. But had the Cardinals tied the game in the bottom of the ninth, Farrell was left with the choice of having Koji hit to lead off the 10th, another pitcher hit for him, or using his last remaining bench player ... all because he sent up WMB to bunt.

It's all hypothetical nonsense, of course; but this is the second-guesser's thread

rembrat · Aug 7, 2014

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Second and third, no outs in the top of the ninth, I think the Cards are walking whoever is at the plate to set up the force at home and/or the double play.

Like JF said there was no guarantee of them walking Nava there. In that same situation, I go ahead and pitch to Nava because I know he can't handle power pitchers at all.

TheoShmeo · Aug 7, 2014

E5, I'm not a huge fan of pinch running for one of your better bats in general (horrible scars from Game 7 in 2003 remain) but Bradley was going into RF in the bottom half of the inning anyway. So JF might as well have had the benefit of Bradley's wheels on the basepaths in the top half of the inning.

But however you breakdown that inning, sending up Ortiz for a certain walk is really hard to justify.

E5 Yaz · Aug 7, 2014

TheoShmeo said:
E5, I'm not a huge fan of pinch running for one of your better bats in general (horrible scars from Game 7 in 2003 remain) but Bradley was going into RF in the bottom half of the inning anyway. So JF might as well have had the benefit of Bradley's wheels on the basepaths in the top half of the inning.

Of course. I overlooked that. But by running him for Ortiz, he's locked into that spot in the batting order. Had Ortiz run, and JBJ entered the game in the B9 with Koji, I believe JBJ could have been slotted into the 9-hole and thus be the leadoff hitter in the hypothetical T10.

Red(s)HawksFan · Aug 7, 2014

geoduck no quahog said:
It's not necessarily true that Nava would have been walked. It's possible that a left-hander (Choate?) could have been brought in to turn Nava around, or pitch carefully to him and then decide what to do with Vazquez or Ortiz - more likely with Ortiz waiting to hit in the 9th spot (if it ever came up). The lefty may have faced Ortiz if they decided to PH for Vazquez, burning all their catchers if the game went into extra innings.

All I'm sayin' is that there are other situations beside the one ESPN talking heads proposed.

I have my doubts that they'd take their closer out of the game after two batters in order to play situational match-ups against Daniel Nava. While I will readily concede that an intentional walk wouldn't have been an automatic with Nava at the plate, I think I still take my chances with him swinging away rather than waste Ortiz in a situation where he's assured to be walked. Particularly so when he as a baserunner wouldn't be the go-ahead run or even the first insurance run.

E5 Yaz · Aug 7, 2014

Completely forgot Corey Brown is on the roster. Nevermind

Second Guesser's Club - This one isn't for all the marbles.

too many flowers

too many flowers

for king and country

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

New Member

Member

too many flowers

bubble burster

Yukon Cornelius

too many flowers

Yukon Cornelius

too many flowers

for king and country

Ask me about total zone...or paint

Member

too many flowers

Member

polka king

Member

news aggravator

Member

Member

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Member

Member

polka king

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

not particularly consistent

polka king

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

polka king

Member

too many flowers

polka king