Irrational Simmons

Bill Simmons is never less rational than when he's talking about the Red Sox. These days, that's saying something. But let's take a look at the opening line from a column from this week:

With rookie Jon Papelbon standing on the mound during a tie Red Sox game Monday night, I called my buddy Hench just to tell him, "This is the single biggest moment of the season."

Oh really, Bill? I thought that that was when A-Rod hit the home run off Schilling a month ago. Didn't you say the season was over then? (It was one of those "symbolic" moments that the SG likes so much, you see.) But last time I checked, the Sox were still in first place, so now we need to move on to the next "biggest moment of the season." Which is when Papelbon firmly established himself as the next K-Rod, according to Simmons. Okay, Bill. We'll be anxious to keep an eye on that one.

On to the next genius line:

Former closer Keith Foulke pushed his body too far last October and hasn't been remotely the same since -- I wish people would remember this when they decide to rip him, but that's a whole other story.

Yes, that's right. The reason why Foulke has been lousy all year long is because he "pushed his body too far" during the 2004 playoffs. I guess I can applaud the "give the guy a break" sentiment in that sentence, but holy cow--talk about for all the wrong reasons. That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while.

But the line--nay, the word--that really pushed me over the edge into bloggable material was from this sentence:

Arroyo self-destructed in the seventh, blowing a five-run lead with help from Foulke (downright sad to watch) and Francona's goofy, Jamesian decision to bring in Timlin (who promptly gave up a game-tying bomb).

The key word, there, in case you missed it, was "Jamesian." As in Bill James. As in, a synonym for Moneyball (which Simmons avoided here either because it's becoming a bit hackneyed--a valid point--or possibly because the A's have made him look like such an idiot for his early season disparagement of them and the book).

The reason that this decision to bring in what you believe to be your best relief pitcher in such a critical situation (the Sox were up 5-2, 2 outs in the 7th, 2 runners on) is considered "goofy" by the all-knowing, all-Conventional-Wisdom-all-the-time Bill Simmons is because, you see, it wasn't the 9th inning. Never mind all those base runners. Never mind that it's Vernon Wells, the #3 hitter in the Jays' lineup who has 25 homers on the year. Never mind that Mr. Twenty Five Homers is the tying run. Never mind that if he retires Wells, then the Jays will be scheduled to send up their #7-9 hitters to the plate in the sacred Ninth Inning.

And actually, since it has become more acceptable of late to use closers in the 8th inning (Saint Rivera does this occasionally), I'm guessing that Simmons would even have been okay with Francona bringing in Timlin at the start of the 8th. But that is the absolute limit! Apparently. It's okay, that is, to bring in your closer in the 8th inning, but two outs in the 7th? Never! Outrageous! "Goofy"!

But getting to the point. Two outs in the 7th, tying run at the plate. Our friend Mr. Simmons does not offer an alternative suggestion concerning what Francona should have done. Should Francona have put in Papelbon? If so, why? Because Papelbon is a better pitcher than Timlin? But wait--if Papelbon is a better pitcher than Timlin, then shouldn't he be annointed The Closer and hence only available for The Ninth Inning? Or had the Red Sox not had time to do the official annointing ceremony yet? That must be it.

You see, Bill, what your column is missing here is an argument for not sending your best pitcher in that particular situation with two outs in the 7th inning. But no. Bill takes it as self-evident, because the decision backfired on Francona and Timlin gave up the game-tying home run. But this is 20/20 hindsight. Would Simmons have been okay with the decision, no criticism to offer, if the Inning box in the scoreboard behind Timlin had read "9" rather than "7" when he gave up the home run? Or does he really think that that "9" would have somehow inspired Timlin to throw better pitches? I'm not prepared to put that past him.

By the way, if anything, a more intelligent argument against Francona would have been to leave in the "sad to watch" Foulke. Because in that inning, Foulke "s!" faced three batters and gave up a single, a sac. fly, and struck out the 3rd guy. That's not exactly a brilliant outing, but it's not "sad to watch" in my book, either. Regardless, with Timlin clearly pitching better than Foulke these days (1.99 ERA to 5.91), it's ultimately not that hard to defend bringing Timlin in there.