Complaints about replay are stupid

<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I will give <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?results=farrejo03,farrejo02,farrel010joh&utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.flagrantfan.com" target="_blank">John Farrell</a></strong> some slack here as he was frustrated about losing three of four to the Yankees. But his complaints about the new instant replay system fall flat on my ears. By my count, there have been two calls that the replay system has gotten incorrect. The one happened in the Red Sox - Yankees series where <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/annade01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.flagrantfan.com" target="_blank">Dean Anna</a></strong> did lift his foot off the base and should have been called out. MLB stated the call should have been reversed. That was one of the two. Big deal.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">On MLB Network's <i>Intentional Talk</i> program, it was mentioned that thus far 32 calls have been reversed with the replay system and 34 had been upheld. The time factor has not been that big of a deal and the only irritant is when the manager hangs around to wait to see if his people give him the thumbs up or not on whether to challenge the play. How is this slowing the game down when most of those plays would have been arguments between the manager and umpires anyway? The arguments take longer.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So the time is not a problem. Then what is? Yes, two have been botched. You would think with the system they have set up there would be no missed calls. But okay, two calls have been missed. But 32 have been overturned. That is 32 incorrect calls that would have stood if the replay system was not in place.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Two incorrect versus 32? Wouldn't that be a success under any kind of accounting? The bottom line here is that 32 calls would have been umpire goofs without the system. Is that preferable to Mr. Farrell or anyone else? I would not think so.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The entire idea of instant replay is to get the calls correct on the field. We are closer than ever before of making that happen with a margin of error of two calls. The instant replay is a big hit for me because the correct calls in games are what I want. I do not want games decided by a bad umpire decision. Now all we need is robot balls and strikes and I will be a complete happy camper. Good job, MLB. Keep it up.</span></div>

Complaints about replay are stupid

I will give John Farrell some slack here as he was frustrated about losing three of four to the Yankees. But his complaints about the new i...

+ Read more »

How did that pace thing work out for the Red Sox?

<div style="text-align: justify;">When <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?results=farrejo03,farrejo02,farrel010joh&utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">John Farrell</a></strong> took over as the manager of the Red Sox and <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/nieveju01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Juan Nieves</a></strong> came on board as the pitching coach, the <a href="http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2013/03/18/red-sox-pitchers-have-been-picking-the-pace/L94y0mhQcJDJB4rox4CrrN/story.html" target="_blank">early stories</a> out of Spring Training were that the Red Sox pitching, which had crashed and burned in 2012, was going to pick up the pace. I was one that had applauded the notion as the Red Sox pitchers were notoriously slow workers. After the season is all said and done, how did that work out? Did the Red Sox pitchers work more quickly?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">No matter what answers are found here, you cannot complain about the results. You cannot improve upon winning the World Series. So give Farrell and Nieves all the credit in the world and nobody can argue with you. All I am interested here is whether their goal was met when it came to pace.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Let's take a look:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><u>Pitcher:  2013, 2012, 2011 (in seconds)</u></div><ul><li style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lestejo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Jon Lester</a></strong>: 23.2, 23.2, 24.2</li><li style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/buchhcl01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Clay Buchholz</a></strong>: 24.2, 25.6, 26.7</li><li style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lackejo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">John Lackey</a></strong>: 22.3, ---, 23.1 </li><li style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/doubrfe01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Felix Doubront</a></strong>: 22.9, 23.9, 27.1</li><li style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/moralfr01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Franklin Morales</a></strong>: 23.5, 24.2, 25.8</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">Team: 23.4, 24.1, 24.7  - sixth slowest, first slowest, first slowest</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The final results do see a slight quickening of pace for the Red Sox over 2012. After being the slowest pitching staff for two years in a row, they tied for the sixth slowest in 2013. Buchholz and Doubront seemed to get the message the clearest and were markedly improved. Others, not so much. And pitchers like Lackey and Dempster worked with a much quicker pace (both around 20 seconds) before they came to the Red Sox. So take that as you will.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The other story line from Spring Training was pounding the strike zone more. Again, there was only slight improvement:</div><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">First pitch strikes: 60.0% (2013), 59.8% (2012), 59.1% (2011)</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Zone percentage: 44.3% (2013), 44.7 (2012), 45.1% (2013)</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Walks per nine: 3.24 (2013), 3.30 (2012), 3.33 (2011)</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">As I look at these numbers, I see where Nieves had an effect on two of his starting pitchers and a slight, but largely insignificant improvement on "attacking the strike zone." I guess the moral of the story is not to get too wrapped up in stories out of Spring Training.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The other moral of the story is not to complain about success because the Red Sox had it in abundance. </div>

How did that pace thing work out for the Red Sox?

When John Farrell took over as the manager of the Red Sox and Juan Nieves came on board as the pitching coach, the early stories out of...

+ Read more »

John Farrell's moves go bust in Game Three

<div style="text-align: justify;">Everyone will remember the obstruction call that ended Game Three. Some will remember <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/workmbr01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Brandon Workman</a></strong> being allowed to hit in the ninth inning. That decision by Farrell was curious and probably correctly questioned with <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/u/ueharko01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Koji Uehara</a></strong> in the bullpen. But none of Farrell's decisions worked out in the game--even the ones that were not questioned.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The one that stands out to me was <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/middlwi01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Will Middlebrooks</a></strong> pinch hitting for <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/drewst01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Stephen Drew</a></strong> in the top of the seventh. You really cannot find fault with Farrell's call here. Drew has been missing in action at the plate for most of this post season. His only hit in this series was that silly popup that fell between Molina and Wainwright in Game One. Drew has been a strikeout machine.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sure, you could argue that Middlebrooks has not been much better and that would be a valid point. But Drew had no chance, so you cannot fault Farrell.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unfortunately, the decision moved <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bogaexa01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Xander Bogaerts</a></strong> to short and put Middlebrooks at third and that came back to bite the Red Sox. Middlebrooks did not hit any better than Drew. Middlebrooks is probably not as good at third base as Bogaerts and Bogaerts might not have the game reactions that Stephen Drew has at short. And thus we have the bottom of the seventh.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With Bogaerts at short and Middlebrooks at third, the Cardinals started the bottom of the seventh against <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/breslcr01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Craig Breslow</a></strong> who had just been brought into the game. Breslow has not had a stitch of luck in this series thus far. The first batter Breslow faced was <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carpema01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Matt Carpenter</a></strong>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Carpenter checked his swing on a Breslow offering and the ball squirted off towards short. Bogaerts did not get a good jump on the ball and his throw to first was late. There is no sense blaming <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ortizda01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">David Ortiz</a></strong> at first for not scooping Bogaert's low throw because Carpenter would have been safe anyway.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Does Drew make that play? Probably. Does Drew react quicker than Bogaerts did? Maybe, maybe not.. But Bogaerts did not make the play and Farrell's move does not work out.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The next batter should have gone differently. It was <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/beltrca01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Carlos Beltran</a></strong> batting right-handed. And being a modern hitter, Beltran was allowed to wear this protective elbow gear while batting. I do not like them and feel such devices give the batter more comfort and an advantage at the plate. Breslow's offering was inside. Beltran made no attempt to get out of the way. Slow-motion replay showed Beltran even moving his elbow slightly into the path of the pitch.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Beltran should not have been awarded first. But he was to make it first and second with no outs. That brought <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hollima01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Matt Holliday</a></strong> to the plate and Farrell's decision bit him again. There is no doubt that Holliday hit a hard shot toward the line at third off of new reliever, Junichi Tawaza. But Middlebrooks seemed flat-footed on the play and though the shot was within a few feet of him, he could not make even a stop on the play. Both Carpenter and Beltran scored on the double that resulted. Bogaerts might have made a play on that smash.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Personally, I believe both of those plays, the one from Carpenter's check swing and the one from Holliday's smash, might have gone differently with the original infield set in place. Farrell did not get any offense from the move and seemed to get worse defense. But we are not done yet.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Flash forward to the bottom of the ninth when we get that unbelievable finish to the game on the obstruction call at third. That call never comes into play if Middlebrooks catches Saltalamacchia's throw. It looked like Craig would have been safe at third. But that would be it and there is no obstruction call.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Saltalamacchia's throw was wide. But it was catchable. Middlebrooks did not catch it. Would Bogaerts have caught it? I think so. Middlebrooks made two nonathletic plays at third. Xander Bogaerts is much more athletic than Middlebrooks. We will never know, of course, but that is my feeling on how things turned out.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Brandon Workman batting in the ninth? While the above decisions did not work out for Farrell, they at least can be defended to try to get some offense. But Workman batting for himself was indefensible. That never should have happened.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Postscript: I have a problem with the official scoring of the game. Workman's last base runner was <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/molinya01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Yadier Molina</a></strong>. He was thrown out at home. The winning run was scored by <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/craigal01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Allen Craig</a></strong>, who was Uehara's base runner. Why then did Workman get the loss? It should have been Uehara's loss. </div>

John Farrell's moves go bust in Game Three

Everyone will remember the obstruction call that ended Game Three. Some will remember Brandon Workman being allowed to hit in the ninth in...

+ Read more »