I don't believe this was the be-all, end-all, worst loss of the season for the Red Sox. Ultimately, this was one bad inning from Nathan Eovaldi, a seeing-eye single from Mike Trout, and a singular poorly-placed pitch by perhaps the best closer in the game right now.
So be it.
But that doesn't mean there weren't issues that should have made one think, both regarding the Red Sox' lot in life after this 6-5 loss to the Angels Sunday afternoon, and, in some ways, the state of baseball in general.
Here are some thoughts on the Red Sox' 17th loss of the season that I just can't shake:
1. Let's play out the ninth inning for the Red Sox ...
Alex Cora chooses to use one of his two pinch-hitting options (Franchy Cordero doesn't count), Alex Verdugo, to face Angels closer Mike Mayers to lead off the frame, replacing Bobby Dalbec. Should Cora have saved Verdugo for the Jonathan Arauz at-bat? Maybe. But ultimately the move proved the correct one, with Verdugo getting aboard via a walk.
Marwin Gonzalez (who, by the way, is hitting .139 with runners in scoring position) strikes out, paving the way for Christian Vazquez to walk
But by using both Verdugo and Vazquez, this put the eggs in the basket of Arauz, the switch-hitter who was riding a two-hit day and is 10-for-24 with runners in scoring position for his brief major league career.
Ultimately, both Arauz and the next batter, Michael Chavis, struck out. Game over.
So, what was my biggest problem with the entire scenario? The Arauz at-bat. It bugged me.
Let's go back a few years when Joe Maddon, now the manager of the Angels, surmised that teams would start teaching their hitters how to beat shifts while coming up through the minor leagues. That clearly hasn't happened. Case in point: Arauz.
With the Angels shifting over to the right side, leaving third baseman Anthony Rendon alone on the left, playing fairly deep, the invitation was there. Just push a bunt over, or chop one to the opposite field and you will likely have the bases loaded with Chavis up and Rafael Devers sitting behind him.
Instead Arauz took three enormous left-handed swings, the final one missing Mayer's 95 mph fastball. There was no semblance of introducing situational baseball.
It made me immediately think back to an almost identical situation Arauz had in spring training, when the infielder chose to try and hit 500-foot home runs with the game on the line and the opposition leaving an entire side of the field open. Same image. Same result. Same frustration.
To entertain the notion that a player Arauz would be shifted on at all -- nevermind with two runners on and the game on the line -- a few years ago was inconceivable. But clearly there is a reason teams have gone down this road, with the Red Sox' infielder only encouraging such a strategy with this sort of approach.
2. The acceptance of four out saves doesn't seem sustainable.
It's no mystery that the Red Sox need to find some sort of certainty when it comes to locking down eighth innings in games like this. That notion was highlighted once again by Adam Ottavino, who couldn't get three outs in the eighth with the Red Sox' leading by a run, forcing Matt Barnes into the game an inning early.
It marked the fourth time Barnes -- who is giving off the same vibes as Koji Uehara and Craig Kimbrel at the height of their powers -- pitched in the eighth inning this season.
Remember the debate throughout 2017 regarding not forcing Kimbrel into four-out saves? By the end of that season, the Sox closer only pitched in the eighth inning six times. He did, however, find himself with four outings of more than just one inning in the first three months of the season, necessitating the acquisition of Addison Reed.
Overextending Barnes is the last thing Cora wants to do, and he knows that's a path that can't keep be worn out. It's why Priority No. 1 for this team is to find a solution to the eighth-inning conundrum sooner rather than later.
3. The Ohtani Debate
I kind of liked this comment from Barnes when discussing the guy who took him deep for the game-winner, Ohtani: "I personally think he's the most physically gifted baseball player that we've ever seen. I don't know that you're ever going to see somebody who can throw 101 and hit the ball 600 feet. So, I mean he's a special player. He's incredibly talented and you know hopefully he stays healthy and has a long career."
This should have made you think.
Is there anyone else who enters the conversation?
The naysayers will point to things like Ohtani's relative lack of durability, or even relatively how batting average (.262). But, put this way: This is more of a Bo Jackson conversation than one involving the likes of Trout.
Jackson could do things athletically that nobody else could. Same goes with Ohtani.
Can other position players throw a ball 101 mph? Maybe. But nobody can actually pitch in a major league game to major league hitters while carrying such an arsenal.
Can other pitchers serve as a threat with the bat? Perhaps. But not a single one of them could be presiding as one of the game's most feared offensive threats, along the lines of what Ohtani currently represents.
Think about. And after you do, you will probably come to the same conclusion that Barnes surfaced. He is the most physically-gifted baseball player we have ever seen.
