More hard evidence for the case against Francona

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

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]Wait a sec, Mitch ... I'm a little slow this morning (not enough coffee yet). When Longoria came up, there were runners at FIRST and third and two out. So you're saying they should have walked Longoria, thus moving ANOTHER runner into scoring position, to face Zobrist??
    Posted by LloydDobler[/QUOTE]

    Can't get anything past you can I.............

    Let me once again make this perfectly clear - I would not allow Longoria to beat me. Period.  No one on, ok I face him.  Bases juiced, I face him.  Not sure I can think of another situation where I pitch to him.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pass-the-hubris-please. Show Pass-the-hubris-please's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]Wait a sec, Mitch ... I'm a little slow this morning (not enough coffee yet). When Longoria came up, there were runners at FIRST and third and two out. So you're saying they should have walked Longoria, thus moving ANOTHER runner into scoring position, to face Zobrist??
    Posted by LloydDobler[/QUOTE]

    Tread lightly, Lloyd.  Mitch has the POTENTIAL to respond coherently.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pass-the-hubris-please. Show Pass-the-hubris-please's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona : Can't get anything past you can I............. Let me once again make this perfectly clear - I would not allow Longoria to beat me. Period.  No one on, ok I face him.  Bases juiced, I face him.  Not sure I can think of another situation where I pitch to him.
    Posted by andrewmitch[/QUOTE]

    What about one out, fourth inning, and a slow runner at first who is severely chaffing?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    Look - it already happened in G1

    3 more games to go

    But you watch...If Francona lets Longora beat him over the next 3 games it will be a long winter.  Maybe just maybe Francona will put up 4 fingers a bunch of times this weekend and maybe we'll see different results.  We'll know by Monday morning............

    I am putting last night down as another reason why I don't like Francona and I will state one last time, I keep walking Longoria and I never apologize for it.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from gbman87603. Show gbman87603's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    You are talking like Longoria is Albert Pujols. Longoria is a career .275 hitter, and Zobrist is a .260 hitter for his career. If you are talking about the numbers…that says it. MAYBE if it were Pujols who hits .330 for his career and you had a .260 hitter hitting behind him you walk him....but I still think you need to attack a hitter in the 2nd inning with 2 outs.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    Fair enough, Mitch. I hear where you're coming from ... Longoria is a hell of a hitter (wish we had him) and this is twice he killed us. My point is simply it's not the easy call you make it out to be, especially when you're intentionally moving a runner into scoring position for another dangerous hitter.

    Me, I'd have carefully pitched to Longoria. And I'm still fairly certain that had he walked Longoria and Zobrist taken Weiland deep, you'd have ripped Tito for that decision, too.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    Francona has been a great Coach for the Red Sox and he definitely gets one more year here even if they blow it over the next two weeks. To me it is silly to talk about ehether to pitch to Longoria in the third. Weiland had been pitching OK until that broken bat single and I doubt that even Sparky would load the bases intentionally in that situation. And also I was surprised that neither Ellsbury or Reddick were at the Wall for Longoria's ball that was ironically in the same spot that Crawford's ball had been the night before.
    But Tito has his faults and one of them is sticking with pitchers too long  . In a critical stretch like this , I am surprised Aceves isn't starting and Papelbon is called upon to pitch the 8th and 9th in critical situations. There are few Teams in our situation who would have started a rookie in last night's game who wasn't even on this year's depth chart in the Spring.  And can anyone come up with a good reason why Albers is still pitching in games that we still could win ? He is an automatic 2-3 runs every time he takes the mound .
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wolfpack13. Show Wolfpack13's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    William 93063 is one of the few people on this board that make complete sense. There isn't another manager in the league, not one, who would walk Longoria in the second inning to load the bases with a 14 year old pitcher on the mound.
    Nope I change my mind... we need to have a raffle and make anyone who posts on this board the next manager of the Red Sox! It's obvious Francona knows nothing about the game after being a part of MLB for 30 years. The fact that this is the most successful 10 year stretch in the team's existence all comes down to... what? The players? Nope you can't give them credit, because if you give them credit for winning you must give them credit for losing and AndrewMitch can't do that. It must be something else but it is certainly NOT Theo, Tito or the players. Maybe that's why Ortiz points to the sky when he gets a hit. A higher power helps the Sox win. The only thing that makes me happy when the Sox lose is to know that the Sarah Palin's of baseball on this board will be distraught. I used to think Yankees fans were the bigges whiners... my apologies.
    Dude- if Longoria doesn't homer WE ONLY SCORED 2 RUNS HOW CAN YOU WIN SCORING TWO RUNS MAYBE CRAWFORD CAN GET A HIT FROM TIME TO TIME WITH RUNNERS ON. THAT'S TITO'S FAULT TOO HE SHOULD ONLY PLAY PLAYERS WHO WILL HIT HOMERUNS THAT NIGHT. I ALSO BLAME HIM FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. SOX 2,3,4,5 pitchers and the pen all stink. That's why we've blown this lead. PERIOD. Sorry for the ALL CAPS that was terrible.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]Fair enough, Mitch. I hear where you're coming from ... Longoria is a hell of a hitter (wish we had him) and this is twice he killed us. My point is simply it's not the easy call you make it out to be, especially when you're intentionally moving a runner into scoring position for another dangerous hitter. Me, I'd have carefully pitched to Longoria. And I'm still fairly certain that had he walked Longoria and Zobrist taken Weiland deep, you'd have ripped Tito for that decision, too.
    Posted by LloydDobler[/QUOTE]

    No, I would not have ripped him if he walked Longoria and Zobrist hit a bomb.  To me, it was the right thing to do. 

    There are not many teams where you could isolate a hitter and render him useless.  The Rays and EL is one of them.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    So it's Francona's fault the pitcher left a baseball in Longoria's power zone?

    Longoria is batting .233 against righties with an ops of .332.  Why would anyone walk him when they have the RR match up.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]How can Francona continue to let Longoria beat him? There was absolutely no reason to pitch to him and let him; does Francona think Zobrist is even in the same league as Longoria? He should be walked intentionally every possible AB.  Let Francona get into the Rays heads the way Maddon gets into some of our guys. Simply pathetic.  OK - I am ready for the Francona sympathizers now - let's hear the defense........
    Posted by andrewmitch[/QUOTE]

    Francona shouldn't even have allowed Weiland another start.  The kid isn't ready "just like Hansen" when he was thrown into an impossible situation with no experience. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

     I wouldn't have walked him but I would have pitched him differently. I think the count was 1-2 and he served up a belt-high heater right over the plate. That's the mistake that was made. You can get Logoria out---especially with breaking balls---so that's the pitch I would have called.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac32. Show pinstripezac32's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to More hard evidence for the case against Francona : Francona shouldn't even have allowed Weiland another start.  The kid isn't ready "just like Hansen" when he was thrown into an impossible situation with no experience. 
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    the "just like Hansen" point has merit

    but not sure if we should blame theo or terry

    I'm sure theo was at least involved with making the call

    while also being responsible for tito's options
     
    or should I say lack of options
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona : the "just like Hansen" point has merit but not sure if we should blame theo or terry I'm sure theo was at least involved with making the call while also being responsible for tito's options
    Posted by pinstripezac32[/QUOTE]

    I'm just voicing frustration zac.  It amazes me how a kid like Weiland who obviously isn't ready for the majors continues to start over Aceves or Miller.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to More hard evidence for the case against Francona : Francona shouldn't even have allowed Weiland another start.  The kid isn't ready "just like Hansen" when he was thrown into an impossible situation with no experience. 
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    yeah, it was certainly putting the kid in a position he shouldn't have been in at this juncture of his career.  But, what were Terry's options?  Suppose he could have called on Doubront, but, for whatever reason, I assume it is something developmental, the organization has deemed him farm-bound this year.  But, I mean, really, they didn't have many options.  I think they should havestarted someone else as well.  but I am hard-pressed to figure out who (without moving Aceves from pen).
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona : yeah, it was certainly putting the kid in a position he shouldn't have been in at this juncture of his career.  But, what were Terry's options?  Suppose he could have called on Doubront, but, for whatever reason, I assume it is something developmental, the organization has deemed him farm-bound this year.  But, I mean, really, they didn't have many options.  I think they should havestarted someone else as well.  but I am hard-pressed to figure out who (without moving Aceves from pen).
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    It just makes you wonder spaceman.  This kid has less experience than so many others including Miller, Aceves and the veteran Millwood we let walk.

    Whoever made the decision to keep pitching Weiland must be drinking heavily, or just doesn't realize this is a pennant race, not a team 15 games ahead of the pack.  This is no place for the inexperienced Weiland.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona : I'm just voicing frustration zac.  It amazes me how a kid like Weiland who obviously isn't ready for the majors continues to start over Aceves or Miller.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    Miller is schizo.  He's either great or terrible. Shuts out Tex for 6 innings and then gives up 6 runs in 1.1 innings against them in his next appearance.  Plus, his win-loss record is inflated by performances against the worst teams in the league.

    I like Aceves but if he's starting who's going to pitch the 7th inning?  It's not like the guy has been wasted - he's been very productive coming out of the pen. 

    I think the team has too many issues for there to be one solution.  Last night, the pitching was bad but they weren't going to win scoring just 2 runs.  And when they do get the starting pitching (like when Lackey decided to show up the other night) and they get score enough runs to win, the relief pitching can't nail it down.

    Maybe the entire team has the clap.  That would explain general bad playing by the team.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona : It just makes you wonder spaceman.  This kid has less experience than so many others including Miller, Aceves and the veteran Millwood we let walk. Whoever made the decision to keep pitching Weiland must be drinking heavily, or just doesn't realize this is a pennant race, not a team 15 games ahead of the pack.  This is no place for the inexperienced Weiland.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    Agreed.  I don't get it.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

      In fairness to Weiland,the main reason Tampa got 4 runs off of him in the 3rd inning is because of the broken bat hit to Scutaro with 2 outs.About 99.9% of the time,that's the 3rd out and he's done with the inning and starts off clean in the 4th. 
      Yes,he still allowed the HR to Longoria,but normally Longoria wouldn't have even been hitting in that inning with 2 runners on.I think he was pitching fairly well and just encountered some bad luck.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona : Miller is schizo.  He's either great or terrible. Shuts out Tex for 6 innings and then gives up 6 runs in 1.1 innings against them in his next appearance.  Plus, his win-loss record is inflated by performances against the worst teams in the league. I like Aceves but if he's starting who's going to pitch the 7th inning?  It's not like the guy has been wasted - he's been very productive coming out of the pen.  I think the team has too many issues for there to be one solution.  Last night, the pitching was bad but they weren't going to win scoring just 2 runs.  And when they do get the starting pitching (like when Lackey decided to show up the other night) and they get score enough runs to win, the relief pitching can't nail it down. Maybe the entire team has the clap.  That would explain general bad playing by the team.
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    DirtyWater, I'm not sure but I do know enough about the game to send a kid like Weiland back to the farm in favor of "at the very least" another inexperienced kid rather than hoping for some kind of success.

    Five appearances and a 7.58 ERA during the heart of a pennant race?  What am I missing here?  Heck, we may as well give Renaudo a few starts he can't be much worse.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona : DirtyWater, I'm not sure but I do know enough about the game to send a kid like Weiland back to the farm in favor of "at the very least" another inexperienced kid rather than hoping for some kind of success. Five appearances and a 7.58 ERA during the heart of a pennant race?  What am I missing here?  Heck, we may as well give Renaudo a few starts he can't be much worse.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

      Going by that logic,the Sox shouldn't use Bard for the rest of the year because in his last 5 appearances he has pitched 4.2 innings and has given up 9 earned runs,which is just about an 18.00 ERA.He also has 3 blown saves and a loss in those 5 games. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona :   Going by that logic,the Sox shouldn't use Bard for the rest of the year because in his last 5 appearances he has pitched 4.2 innings and has given up 9 earned runs,which is just about an 18.00 ERA.He also has 3 blown saves and a loss in those 5 games. 
    Posted by mrmojo1120[/QUOTE]

    Well, not exactly the same logic mojo.  Bard, before his recent stretch, has a fairly dominant track record as a big league flame thrower.  Weiland has ... well ... no track record.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona

    In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More hard evidence for the case against Francona :   Going by that logic,the Sox shouldn't use Bard for the rest of the year because in his last 5 appearances he has pitched 4.2 innings and has given up 9 earned runs,which is just about an 18.00 ERA.He also has 3 blown saves and a loss in those 5 games. 
    Posted by mrmojo1120[/QUOTE]

    mojo, I'm happy to see you're a "hard rock" fan but I think Bards previous track record is a bit different than pitching an inexperienced rookie who now has 5 outings during a Pennant race and has a 7.58 ERA.  Weiland pitching isn't just hurting the team, it shows management has very little faith in guys who have as much, or even more experience.  How do you think these guys feel about their future watching Weiland struggle so badly while they ride the pine or continue to pitch in the minors?

    Great signal to send out by our top dogs.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share