How brilliant is Farrell?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to RSPCB73's comment:

    What happened to the "opposite field hitting" Ortiz learned from AGon last year? I guess once AGon was gone, there was no need to emulate success!

    Red Sox in 2013 World Series, Patriots in 2014 Super Bowl!




    And, the Tigers are mostly throwing him stuff that a hitter will tend to pull.  He's gone the other way a few times when the pitch has allowed it.  The drive to the left center field wall in Game 3.  Twice last night (one that Izzy made a great play on). 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    I could not disagree more with the naysayers, who refuse to recognize the importance of telling the runner in the dugout that the purpose of the bunt was to get him to 3B, not 2B.  How many times has any manager set that play up in exactly that way?  I say again, a planned bunt to get a runner from 1B to 3B.  Brilliant. 

    As for the Berry thing, I would simply counter that Middlebrooks was the better choice to prevent the Tigers from foreseeing the real danger of a bunt--not a runner on 2B with one out, but a runner on 3B with one out. 

    As for the play at 3B, there is no doubt in my mind Middlebrooks would have been safe in any case.  Fielder, no surprise, threw to the wrong side of the base, on top of which Pena had to backhand the ball and then sweep all the way around in a clockwise manner--very awkward for a righty.   No way he was going to put the tag on Middlebrooks in time. 

    It does occur to me that some of you guys seem to listen to Fox so that you will know what to think.  If Fox says that play was all about umpire interference, then of course it must be.  If Fox doesn't grasp the fact that this was a designed play and not simply Middlebrooks being opportunitistic, then of course it wasn't a designed play or wasn't worth mentioning.   

    Did I forget to mention that Cabrera had absolutely no problem fielding the bunt and throwing Ross out?  Farrell has wisely refrained from using the bunt until the perfect opportunity to make it really work.  Too bad Vic struck out swinging at two pitches in the dirt. 

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    I see the "They Win in Spite of Their Manager" club is still together.



    Overall Farrell has done a good job this year. He has made mistakes, IMO, and they are subject to being mentioned here. Unless, of course, you can show me where anyone critical of his management of the team during the playoffs has stated that we are winning "in spite of the manager".

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    I could not disagree more with the naysayers, who refuse to recognize the importance of telling the runner in the dugout that the purpose of the bunt was to get him to 3B, not 2B.  How many times has any manager set that play up in exactly that way?  I say again, a planned bunt to get a runner from 1B to 3B.  Brilliant. 

    As for the Berry thing, I would simply counter that Middlebrooks was the better choice to prevent the Tigers from foreseeing the real danger of a bunt--not a runner on 2B with one out, but a runner on 3B with one out. 

    As for the play at 3B, there is no doubt in my mind Middlebrooks would have been safe in any case.  Fielder, no surprise, threw to the wrong side of the base, on top of which Pena had to backhand the ball and then sweep all the way around in a clockwise manner--very awkward for a righty.   No way he was going to put the tag on Middlebrooks in time. 

    It does occur to me that some of you guys seem to listen to Fox so that you will know what to think.  If Fox says that play was all about umpire interference, then of course it must be.  If Fox doesn't grasp the fact that this was a designed play and not simply Middlebrooks being opportunitistic, then of course it wasn't a designed play or wasn't worth mentioning.   

    Did I forget to mention that Cabrera had absolutely no problem fielding the bunt and throwing Ross out?  Farrell has wisely refrained from using the bunt until the perfect opportunity to make it really work.  Too bad Vic struck out swinging at two pitches in the dirt. 

     

     



    First, the Tigers are not stupid. They fully knew about the possiblity of the bunt. Since they knew its the obligation of the manager to put players into the game who are most likely to succeed in that circumstance. That player was Berry, not Middlebrooks. Second, I doubt it was a designed play so much as heads up baserunning by Middlebrooks. Berry would have done the same thing only faster. And third, no one would have made it to third base had their catcher done his job and covered third base. He got a very late start and even then nearly tagged Middlebrooks out.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaysofYaz. Show DaysofYaz's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    I could not disagree more with the naysayers, who refuse to recognize the importance of telling the runner in the dugout that the purpose of the bunt was to get him to 3B, not 2B.  How many times has any manager set that play up in exactly that way?  I say again, a planned bunt to get a runner from 1B to 3B.  Brilliant. 

    As for the Berry thing, I would simply counter that Middlebrooks was the better choice to prevent the Tigers from foreseeing the real danger of a bunt--not a runner on 2B with one out, but a runner on 3B with one out. 

    As for the play at 3B, there is no doubt in my mind Middlebrooks would have been safe in any case.  Fielder, no surprise, threw to the wrong side of the base, on top of which Pena had to backhand the ball and then sweep all the way around in a clockwise manner--very awkward for a righty.   No way he was going to put the tag on Middlebrooks in time. 

    It does occur to me that some of you guys seem to listen to Fox so that you will know what to think.  If Fox says that play was all about umpire interference, then of course it must be.  If Fox doesn't grasp the fact that this was a designed play and not simply Middlebrooks being opportunitistic, then of course it wasn't a designed play or wasn't worth mentioning.   

    Did I forget to mention that Cabrera had absolutely no problem fielding the bunt and throwing Ross out?  Farrell has wisely refrained from using the bunt until the perfect opportunity to make it really work.  Too bad Vic struck out swinging at two pitches in the dirt. 

     

     



    First, the Tigers are not stupid. They fully knew about the possiblity of the bunt. Since they knew its the obligation of the manager to put players into the game who are most likely to succeed in that circumstance. That player was Berry, not Middlebrooks. Second, I doubt it was a designed play so much as heads up baserunning by Middlebrooks. Berry would have done the same thing only faster. And third, no one would have made it to third base had their catcher done his job and covered third base. He got a very late start and even then nearly tagged Middlebrooks out.



    I must say you and Max make sense on several points and all seem plausible. I must admit I was screaming at my tv asking where Berry was and why WMB. After all,  WMB is no faster than Bogey.  So, ok, he makes it safely to third on the bunt...great running or a genius call sent in to Farrell by maddon,  haha,. Now, we have a situation where a fly ball can get us a run. Who has the BEST chance of tagging and scoring on a medium hit fly ball, WMB or Berry??? I think Berry should have been running, no question.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dustcover. Show dustcover's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to SFBostonFan's comment:


    PC...what many posters don't seem to realize is that a good baseball team wins based on needed contributions from all members. If at the moment we really need a HR or double, then let the best clutch hitter swing away. But since Ortiz is so gifted, a trailor truck can go easily down the 3rd base line with the shift on and I believe Ortiz should bunt if the team needs runners on base. In fact, I would have some of our speedies, Ells, Vic( who is struggling), Pedey and also Middy, Nava, Salty etc. also bunt toward 3rd as Cabrera is not very mobile.

    Having Ortiz or another power hitter bunt is a matter of opinion by posters and that's why we offer our $.02. I don't think anyone should criticize a fellow fan for offering an opinion with which they disagree. Just tell us why you disagree and we'll respect your opinion and, perhaps, we'll agree with you or keep to our opinion.




    Sage advice by SFBostonFan.  If everyone on the board would adhere to this, the board would be inherently more civil and I suspect more informative and less virulent.

    Kudos to SFBostonFan for reminding us all that there is a forum for exchange of thoughts, ideas, and viewpoints that does not necessitate personal attacks.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to The4040club's comment:

    The greatest clutch hitter in baseball only has a .105 average at the moment for the alcs and just two hits.  Possibly laying down a bunt isn't a bad idea.  If ortiz continues to have the tigers's starting pitching staff as his "daddy", bunting should be considered.



    Yeah, but if not for him, we're down 3-2 now.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:


    Throughout the ALCS there has been an endless series of threads and complaints that Farrell won't make his guys bunt even though Cabrera is playing on one leg or is blind or whatever.  All ignore the fact that Cabrera has had no problem fielding bunts or slow rollers.

    But last night Farrell did call for a bunt, and not just any bunt.  It was in fact brilliant. 

    As soon as Bogaerts walked to start the 9th, Farrell sent in Middlebrooks.  At the time, most of us thought that was a silly move because Bogaerts is plenty fast.  And we all missed the point. 

    Middlebrooks had to go in for Bogaerts for the simple reason that Farrell told him about the bunt and, more importantly, that he wanted Middlebrooks to go all the way to 3B.  This was not nearly as risky as it seemed for two reasons:  1) the catcher was going to have to cover 3B if Ross laid down a decent bunt; 2) Fielder was going to have to make the cross the diamond throw to 3B. 

    In the event, you will recall that Middlebrooks did not hesitate or even look back to first when he rounded 2B.  He already knew Ross had laid down the perfect bunt to bring in Cabrera and open up 3B.  Worked like a charm.  And it was brilliant.

    I am also willing to bet that that sending in Middlebrooks with the play was completely lost on the idiots calling the game for Fox.  Am I right?



    It was not brilliant at all. Berry should have been pinch running for Bogaerts then Middlebrooks could have come in to play defensively in the bottom half of the inning. Had Berry been in the game the play at third base would not even have been close. Farrell did not have a good game last night.



    So in a one run game you wouldnt want to save Berry in case the game became tied?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    Couldn't the first base coach just whisper in the faster Bogey's ear, "run hard all the way to 3B without looking back"?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    I could not disagree more with the naysayers, who refuse to recognize the importance of telling the runner in the dugout that the purpose of the bunt was to get him to 3B, not 2B.  How many times has any manager set that play up in exactly that way?  I say again, a planned bunt to get a runner from 1B to 3B.  Brilliant. 

    As for the Berry thing, I would simply counter that Middlebrooks was the better choice to prevent the Tigers from foreseeing the real danger of a bunt--not a runner on 2B with one out, but a runner on 3B with one out. 

    As for the play at 3B, there is no doubt in my mind Middlebrooks would have been safe in any case.  Fielder, no surprise, threw to the wrong side of the base, on top of which Pena had to backhand the ball and then sweep all the way around in a clockwise manner--very awkward for a righty.   No way he was going to put the tag on Middlebrooks in time. 

    It does occur to me that some of you guys seem to listen to Fox so that you will know what to think.  If Fox says that play was all about umpire interference, then of course it must be.  If Fox doesn't grasp the fact that this was a designed play and not simply Middlebrooks being opportunitistic, then of course it wasn't a designed play or wasn't worth mentioning.   

    Did I forget to mention that Cabrera had absolutely no problem fielding the bunt and throwing Ross out?  Farrell has wisely refrained from using the bunt until the perfect opportunity to make it really work.  Too bad Vic struck out swinging at two pitches in the dirt. 

     

     



    First, the Tigers are not stupid. They fully knew about the possiblity of the bunt. Since they knew its the obligation of the manager to put players into the game who are most likely to succeed in that circumstance. That player was Berry, not Middlebrooks. Second, I doubt it was a designed play so much as heads up baserunning by Middlebrooks. Berry would have done the same thing only faster. And third, no one would have made it to third base had their catcher done his job and covered third base. He got a very late start and even then nearly tagged Middlebrooks out.



    Of course they knew Ross could bunt.  What they didn't see was the possibility of a designed play to get the runner to 3B on one bunt.    As for whether it was designed or not, I offer the following--

    1.  When you look at the replay, Middlebrooks not only doesn't slow down, he doesn't look back when he gets to 2B.  No need to because he saw the bunt and had his instructions. 

    2.  If getting to 3B wasn't the design, why send MBR out there?  Bogaerts was perfectly capable of getting to 2B on the bunt.  This is the key piece of evidence.  Middlebrooks had to pinch run because he had instructions.  Farrell had no way of conveying those to Bogaerts. 

    3.  The bunt down the 3B line was perfect for exploiting the Tigers defense and getting MBR to 3B.  Cabrera fielded it cleanly and threw Ross out,  but then Fielder had to make the cross the diamond throw and the receiver was the catcher who had to run all the way from home plate.  All of those actions were inevitable and predictable.  Also worth noting--until the catcher raced down there, 3B was uncovered because Cabrera was by then far away from 3B. 

    As for Berry, he wasn't needed.  If somehow the Tigers tied the score, Berry would still be availalble as a pinch runner for Ortiz or even to pinch hit for Victorino.  It was after all a one run game. 

    To be honest, I would have been fine if Berry had been sent in to run for Bogaerts.  But what I object to strenuously is the notion that Farrell didn't know what he was doing in the 9th inning last night.  It was a brilliant strategem, and it worked to perfection. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Couldn't the first base coach just whisper in the faster Bogey's ear, "run hard all the way to 3B without looking back"?



    Maybe.  But telling Middlebrooks in the dugout was a lot safer and surer.  Besides, Bogaerts is so far an indecisive baserunner--see the earlier inning when he went from 2B to 3B on a double.  Middlebrooks could be counted on to execute the plan once he saw the bunt was down the 3B line, which he could do well before getting to 2B.

    Another thought occurs to me.  One other distinct advantage of sending Middlebrooks to 3B was the distinct possibility Fielder would throw the ball into the stands are by the catcher.  First basemen don't throw cross diamond that much.  Youk was great at it because he was also a thirdbaseman.  Not Fielder, not by a long shot.  \

    Let's also not forget that Ross could have swung away, which is the normal Sox tactic with a man on first and no one out.  Ross already had two hits, including a double.  He didn't swing because Farrell had already figured out how to get a runner to 3B on a single bunt with little risk and a real possibility of getting him home. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    I could not disagree more with the naysayers, who refuse to recognize the importance of telling the runner in the dugout that the purpose of the bunt was to get him to 3B, not 2B.  How many times has any manager set that play up in exactly that way?  I say again, a planned bunt to get a runner from 1B to 3B.  Brilliant. 

    As for the Berry thing, I would simply counter that Middlebrooks was the better choice to prevent the Tigers from foreseeing the real danger of a bunt--not a runner on 2B with one out, but a runner on 3B with one out. 

    As for the play at 3B, there is no doubt in my mind Middlebrooks would have been safe in any case.  Fielder, no surprise, threw to the wrong side of the base, on top of which Pena had to backhand the ball and then sweep all the way around in a clockwise manner--very awkward for a righty.   No way he was going to put the tag on Middlebrooks in time. 

    It does occur to me that some of you guys seem to listen to Fox so that you will know what to think.  If Fox says that play was all about umpire interference, then of course it must be.  If Fox doesn't grasp the fact that this was a designed play and not simply Middlebrooks being opportunitistic, then of course it wasn't a designed play or wasn't worth mentioning.   

    Did I forget to mention that Cabrera had absolutely no problem fielding the bunt and throwing Ross out?  Farrell has wisely refrained from using the bunt until the perfect opportunity to make it really work.  Too bad Vic struck out swinging at two pitches in the dirt. 

     

     



    First, the Tigers are not stupid. They fully knew about the possiblity of the bunt. Since they knew its the obligation of the manager to put players into the game who are most likely to succeed in that circumstance. That player was Berry, not Middlebrooks. Second, I doubt it was a designed play so much as heads up baserunning by Middlebrooks. Berry would have done the same thing only faster. And third, no one would have made it to third base had their catcher done his job and covered third base. He got a very late start and even then nearly tagged Middlebrooks out.



    Of course they knew Ross could bunt.  What they didn't see was the possibility of a designed play to get the runner to 3B on one bunt.    As for whether it was designed or not, I offer the following--

    1.  When you look at the replay, Middlebrooks not only doesn't slow down, he doesn't look back when he gets to 2B.  No need to because he saw the bunt and had his instructions. 

    2.  If getting to 3B wasn't the design, why send MBR out there?  Bogaerts was perfectly capable of getting to 2B on the bunt.  This is the key piece of evidence.  Middlebrooks had to pinch run because he had instructions.  Farrell had no way of conveying those to Bogaerts. 

    3.  The bunt down the 3B line was perfect for exploiting the Tigers defense and getting MBR to 3B.  Cabrera fielded it cleanly and threw Ross out,  but then Fielder had to make the cross the diamond throw and the receiver was the catcher who had to run all the way from home plate.  All of those actions were inevitable and predictable.  Also worth noting--until the catcher raced down there, 3B was uncovered because Cabrera was by then far away from 3B. 

    As for Berry, he wasn't needed.  If somehow the Tigers tied the score, Berry would still be availalble as a pinch runner for Ortiz or even to pinch hit for Victorino.  It was after all a one run game. 

    To be honest, I would have been fine if Berry had been sent in to run for Bogaerts.  But what I object to strenuously is the notion that Farrell didn't know what he was doing in the 9th inning last night.  It was a brilliant strategem, and it worked to perfection. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    We will never know, most likely, whether it was just a heads up baserunning job by Middlebrooks when he saw third base uncovered or a designed play. I would guess the former because had their catcher done his job and covered third base immediately there would BE no open base. He could EASILY beat Middlebrooks to third before Middy made it there because he started out at first base. Hard to believe a catcher doing his job cannot make it to third base before a baserunner on first base can make it to third. Truth is, the catcher got a slow break to third and DIDN'T do his job. And Farrell could just as easily have told Berry what the plan was as Middlebrooks. I think it was a mistake not to use Berry in that circumstance, be it a planned two base bunt or just heads up baserunning.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     

    Another thought occurs to me.  One other distinct advantage of sending Middlebrooks to 3B was the distinct possibility Fielder would throw the ball into the stands are by the catcher.  First basemen don't throw cross diamond that much.  Youk was great at it because he was also a thirdbaseman.  Not Fielder, not by a long shot.

     





    One other thing is the Tigers had their back-up catcher in who is much more of an offensive threat than a defense first guy.  To be fair to Fielder, he not only did he have to throw across the diamond, but throw across the diamond to a moving target running away from him with catchers gear on who was not that close to the base.  NFL quarterback make that throw all the time, but it's not exactly a staple of MLB 1st basemen.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    When somebody is constantly critical of a manager, any manager, not just Farrell, it implies that they think they would be a better manager.  I find that pretty hilarious.   

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to manosome's comment:

    Bringing in Koji with one  out in the 8th and nobody on base was a panic move, not a brilliant move.



    It was neither a panic move nor a brilliant move.  It was the right move.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to manosome's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    When somebody is constantly critical of a manager, any manager, not just Farrell, it implies that they think they would be a better manager.  I find that pretty hilarious.   

     



    Bringing in Koji with one  out in the 8th and nobody on base was a panic move, not a brilliant move.

     



    Taking a cue from all the brilliant arm-chair hindsight 20/20 managers on the board, I am going to go ahead and say it was the right move, given the result.  

    Panic?  Koji has already shown thsi year that he can go old-school more-than-three-outs for the save.  Critical game 5.  Hardly panic.  Just trust in his guy ... one attribute the brilliant arm-chair managers have seemingly no clue about.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: How brilliant is Farrell?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    When somebody is constantly critical of a manager, any manager, not just Farrell, it implies that they think they would be a better manager.  I find that pretty hilarious.   



    I wish I'd said that.  Laughing

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share