2006 and 2012

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

    2006 and 2012

    Both bad seasons, both bad primarily because of rotten pitching.  In both cases the Sox team ERA was/is 11th best in the AL.  2006 rotation triumphirate was Beckett, Schilling, and Wakefield (but only 20 starts and an ERA of 4.67, which would fit perfectly into the 2012 team). 

    However, the 2006 team finished 86-76, and this team is headed toward 76-86. 

    Maybe, as dannycater keeps telling us, the difference is in the manager.  Or maybe the difference is the 2006 team still had both Ortiz and Manny in their primes, backed up by Youk at 1B, Lowell at 3B, A. Gonzalez at SS, Loretta at 2B, trotternixon in RF, Crisp in CF, and Tek catching.  The 2006 team also had Papelbon and his season ERA of .92, which was maybe a tad better than Aceves's 4.56 or whatever. 

    You tell me.  Is it the manager or the players? 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    i'm not sure if you are trying to rip Tito, or defend BV. But if you think that BV's managerial style has not hurt the team, then you aren't watching the team. This is a daily event--BV as Sox Manager. He's become the story. Not once, in all the drama that occurred even on this board about Tito, did Tito become a story until after he was fired--the LL throw him under the bus incident with the divorce and prescription pills being released conveniently to make him look bad. The story was always about the Sox either winning or underperforming, not about the manager. BV "I know, but i'm not going to telllllllll youuuuuu...!"....what is he, a 7-year-old now?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    "Who cares who is starting in the KC series!" he barked.....are you kidding me? this is the guy you defend, max? Really? 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    do managers say this, "That's why guys don't want to sign here because of all the noise (media). They'd rather go to a small market team where they don't have to deal with it."...gee, BV, thanks for the inspirational statement to all that playing for the Sox is too hard for free agents. Thanks a lot for helping the team out, the GM out. Or how bout "McClure was on vacation"....classy. 
     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    Apples and Oranges. The players' player leadership was not a problem in 2006. It is the problem post Schilling.
    Posted by TrotterNixon


    Interesting.  I do agree player leadership can play a role because I always thought Frank Robinson made a big difference in the clubhouse for the Orioles.  Schilling, despite all the bs since then, would have had a lot of credibility in 2006.  I also thought Mike Lowell set a terrific example in the field that year but have no idea how he was in the clubhouse or on the bench. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    Lowell was a terrible clubhouse presence however early in his final season when he was beetching about playing time...don't forget that.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    Lowell was a terrible clubhouse presence however early in his final season when he was beetching about playing time...don't forget that.
    Posted by dannycater


    Totally irrelevant.  In 2006 he was a new guy and played hard every game on offense and defense. 

    Most veterans are likely to complain about playing time--see Youk and Shoppach this year. 

    Shoppach may have set a new AL record for griping because after going public he then went to ownership to insist on a team meeting and may have been the guy who leaked all that stuff.  You can make a case Bobby V should have played him more, but who plays is the manager's decision. 

    Youk was also very unhappy because, once he came off the DL, he expected to start every day at 3B even though Middlebrooks was hitting and fielding better than Youk. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    my point on Lowell is like anything you can be a good clubhouse presence one day, and a bad one the next based on your behavior, your open mouth to the media. Bichette and Lansing practically called Jimy W crazy (they were right), but in the defense of the Sox, Dante and Mikey Cowboy were underachieving anway. Most guys who complain are often not doing well in the first place--and rarely do you see guys who hit/play well not stay in a lineup--except for Scott Podsednik, who continues to gain my respect for playing solid baseball despite being yo-yoed and left for dead by the organization. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    Lowell was a terrible clubhouse presence however early in his final season when he was beetching about playing time...don't forget that.
    Posted by dannycater


    This is my problem with fans. He wasn't complaining ALL THE TIME.

    Once, he was asked and he was honest about wanting to play more -- and that was it. It wasn't a constant issue. So all of a sudden he's a terrible clubhouse presence?

    Right or wrong, having one bad day doesn't make a player a bad clubhouse presence. It's like Pedroia. He makes one unfortunate statement and all of a sudden he's a cancer.

    I don't buy it in either case.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    my point on Lowell is like anything you can be a good clubhouse presence one day, and a bad one the next based on your behavior, your open mouth to the media. Bichette and Lansing practically called Jimy W crazy (they were right), but in the defense of the Sox, Dante and Mikey Cowboy were underachieving anway. Most guys who complain are often not doing well in the first place--and rarely do you see guys who hit/play well not stay in a lineup--except for Scott Podsednik, who continues to gain my respect for playing solid baseball despite being yo-yoed and left for dead by the organization. 
    Posted by dannycater


    I am not defending Lowell in subsequent years.  But the title of the thread is 2006 and 2012, and in 2006 and again in 2007 Lowell set a terrific example.  He is also articulate about the game of baseball. 

    Again, without defending Lowell, I am inclined to tolerate a certain amount of griping from veterans because they have show what they can do and this is their source of income.  Lowell was gone and should have recognized it.  Youk this year was not gone, but one can also understand why Middlebrooks kept playing.  Fortunately for Youk, the griping paid off and the Sox moved him to keep peace, and Youk gets to play 3B every day and bat 2d for a contender.  In other words, sometimes griping works. 

    Nomar Garciaparra, on the other hand, was an idiot.  The Sox made him a great offer for more money by far than he ever got after he left Boston, and he decided he was worth more.  Wrong.  He griped his way out of a great situation and promptly disappeared (sort of).  He was an idiot (to me, anyway), but I fully understand why he wanted more money. Every player does.

    Back to 2006.  I would have said Manny was a negative leader, but apparently his teammates liked him, plus he didn't gripe much as long as Francona let Manny be Manny. 

    In 2012, maybe trotternixon is right.  Maybe the Sox don't have any real clubhouse leaders but instead have too much of guys like Beckett and Lackey.  From the outside it looks like Pedroia and AGon could lead.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    do managers say this, "That's why guys don't want to sign here because of all the noise (media). They'd rather go to a small market team where they don't have to deal with it."...gee, BV, thanks for the inspirational statement to all that playing for the Sox is too hard for free agents. Thanks a lot for helping the team out, the GM out. Or how bout "McClure was on vacation"....classy. 
    Posted by dannycater


    Only 832 to go. Keep whining about Valentine and responding to your own posts.....you'll be there in no time!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    Lowell was a terrible clubhouse presence however early in his final season when he was beetching about playing time...don't forget that.
    Posted by dannycater


    That tears it. Go back the Yankee forum where you belong.
    You are no Red Sox fan.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to 2006 and 2012:
    Both bad seasons, both bad primarily because of rotten pitching.  In both cases the Sox team ERA was/is 11th best in the AL.  2006 rotation triumphirate was Beckett, Schilling, and Wakefield (but only 20 starts and an ERA of 4.67, which would fit perfectly into the 2012 team).  However, the 2006 team finished 86-76, and this team is headed toward 76-86.  Maybe, as dannycater keeps telling us, the difference is in the manager.  Or maybe the difference is the 2006 team still had both Ortiz and Manny in their primes, backed up by Youk at 1B, Lowell at 3B, A. Gonzalez at SS, Loretta at 2B, trotternixon in RF, Crisp in CF, and Tek catching.  The 2006 team also had Papelbon and his season ERA of .92, which was maybe a tad better than Aceves's 4.56 or whatever.  You tell me.  Is it the manager or the players? 
    Posted by maxbialystock



    Again...  you continue to set up the "straw man / dog" argument.  It's clearly not about the manager!  This TEAM s ucks in comparison!  The pitching is worse in 2012, at least marginally.  The hitting, especially "in the clutch, & coming from behind," is infinately worse this year!!!!! THIS TEAM S UCKS!

    So, we agree on the FACTS!

    That still does not mean that bobby v. does not s uck ALSO!!!!  That still does not excuse bobby v. doing a pi zz poor job as manager!  That still does not mean that bobby v. is not a joke this year.  That still does not mean that bobby v has not added to the circus / soap opera. 

    Why do you keep avoiding the obvious, & framing the issue ONLY as you want to look at it? Is it, or is it not, possible that this team s ucks, AND bobby v s ucks too???

    Is it possible, or are they mutually exclusive IN YOUR MIND?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    I have to assume, since guys keep ignoring what seems to be the logical argument, that has a little more complexity than their "IF THIS THEN THAT" linear thinking, they are completely incapable of non linear, none-mutually exclusionary thought!?!?

    I don't know how to explain it otherwise.  The same guys keep setting up straw dogs, & knocking them down.  Safe in the assumption that they won the argument.

    Congrats :)  There is no winning that type of argument.  Only in your own head.  Nice job!  Great debate!  You won  :)
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to 2006 and 2012:
    Both bad seasons, both bad primarily because of rotten pitching.  In both cases the Sox team ERA was/is 11th best in the AL.  2006 rotation triumphirate was Beckett, Schilling, and Wakefield (but only 20 starts and an ERA of 4.67, which would fit perfectly into the 2012 team).  However, the 2006 team finished 86-76, and this team is headed toward 76-86.  Maybe, as dannycater keeps telling us, the difference is in the manager.  Or maybe the difference is the 2006 team still had both Ortiz and Manny in their primes, backed up by Youk at 1B, Lowell at 3B, A. Gonzalez at SS, Loretta at 2B, trotternixon in RF, Crisp in CF, and Tek catching.  The 2006 team also had Papelbon and his season ERA of .92, which was maybe a tad better than Aceves's 4.56 or whatever.  You tell me.  Is it the manager or the players? 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    1. Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz combined for 89 HR's and 239 RBI's.
    2. Additionally, Kevin Youkilis and Mike Lowell had 33 HR's and 152 RBI's between them.
    3. As you pointed out, Jonathan Papelbon was 4-2, with an ERA of 0.92, 35 saves and a WHIP of .776, probably one of the best years ever in the history of baseball for a relief pitcher.

    Is there any players on the Red Sox that compare to Manny and David?
    How do the closers compare?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    In Response to 2006 and 2012 : Again...  you continue to set up the "straw man / dog" argument.  It's clearly not about the manager!  This TEAM s ucks in comparison!  The pitching is worse in 2012, at least marginally.  The hitting, especially "in the clutch, & coming from behind," is infinately worse this year!!!!! THIS TEAM S UCKS! So, we agree on the FACTS! That still does not mean that bobby v. does not s uck ALSO!!!!  That still does not excuse bobby v. doing a pi zz poor job as manager!  That still does not mean that bobby v. is not a joke this year.  That still does not mean that bobby v has not added to the circus / soap opera.  Why do you keep avoiding the obvious, & framing the issue ONLY as you want to look at it? Is it, or is it not, possible that this team s ucks, AND bobby v s ucks too??? Is it possible, or are they mutually exclusive IN YOUR MIND?
    Posted by redsoxdirtdog


    What straw man? The OP was intended as the start of a discussion, not the end of it and certainly not as a defense of Bobby V.  I have defended him elsewhere, not here.

    Right now you and dannycater have a visceral response to all things Bobby and, I think, vastly overstated his ability to help or hinder the Sox.  For starters, you appear to have bought into press-driven stuff about communications, etc. If Bobby says the wrong thing, you think it is reason for impeachment. I think 90% of the stories about the clubhouse and the manager-players communications is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I think Bobby has communicated very well, but players like Shoppach and Youk didn't like what they heard. Pedroia didn't like everything Bobby said either, but that hasn't affected his performance on the field, and Bobby has made it very clear how much he appreciates how Pedey plays the game, how committed he is.  

    But I could be wrong.  Maybe Bobby has destroyed the Sox all by himself. Or maybe he is the straw that broke the camel's back,the one final thing that drove the players so nuts they don't care anymore.  So have at it.  Explain why that is true.  

    So far in this thread there are two explanations on why 2006 turned out better.  One is better offense, especially with Manny and David in their prime.  Another is better clubhouse leadership.  Why not make the case for Francona being a better manager?  

    On another thread I point out why I think players are less affected by atmospherics--who said what to the press or whoever--than we might think.  I cite the example of Jacoby Ellsbury, who after the 2010 season and being denounced publicly by Youkilis, with not a single player or coach or the manager coming to his defese, must have felt  like a pariah. The outcast of poker flats. So what happened the next year?  A career year like you wouldn't believe.  Do you honestly think Francona had anything to do with that incredible performance?  I don't.  I think all Francona did for Ellsbury was put his name in the lineup, and Jacoby did everything else.

    And I think that's mostly what any manager does.  Fill out the lineup card.  Call for a bunt now and then or intentional pass or whatever. Pull the starter, pick the right reliever, etc.  Then hope like heck the players can hit,pitch, field, run, etc. well enough to win games.      There's more to it, of course, but not a lot more.

    Or consider Andrew Miller. He has been around MLB for years and finally arrived last year with the Sox. Horrible control problems. Unfixable. Tried him as a starter, no go. Francona's fault? I don't think so. This year he is a ton better as a reliever. Thanks to Bobby? I don't think so. He just finally figured it out. I think a pitching coach told him to go back to the pitching motion he used at Chapel Hill. Plus he stopped using a windup and stuck with the stretch--this might have been because of Bobby,who commented on it in ST, but maybe not.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012 : What straw man? The OP was intended as the start of a discussion, not the end of it and certainly not as a defense of Bobby V.  I have defended him elsewhere, not here. Right now you and dannycater have a visceral response to all things Bobby and, I think, vastly overstated his ability to help or hinder the Sox.  For starters, you appear to have bought into press-driven stuff about communications, etc. If Bobby says the wrong thing, you think it is reason for impeachment. I think 90% of the stories about the clubhouse and the manager-players communications is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I think Bobby has communicated very well, but players like Shoppach and Youk didn't like what they heard. Pedroia didn't like everything Bobby said either, but that hasn't affected his performance on the field, and Bobby has made it very clear how much he appreciates how Pedey plays the game, how committed he is.   (((((((But I could be wrong.  Maybe Bobby has destroyed the Sox all by himself.)))))))))) Or maybe he is the straw that broke the camel's back,the one final thing that drove the players so nuts they don't care anymore.  So have at it.  Explain why that is true.   So far in this thread there are two explanations on why 2006 turned out better.  One is better offense, especially with Manny and David in their prime.  Another is better clubhouse leadership.  Why not make the case for Francona being a better manager?   On another thread I point out why I think players are less affected by atmospherics--who said what to the press or whoever--than we might think.  I cite the example of Jacoby Ellsbury, who after the 2010 season and being denounced publicly by Youkilis, with not a single player or coach or the manager coming to his defese, must have felt  like a pariah. The outcast of poker flats. So what happened the next year?  A career year like you wouldn't believe.  Do you honestly think Francona had anything to do with that incredible performance?  I don't.  I think all Francona did for Ellsbury was put his name in the lineup, and Jacoby did everything else. And I think that's mostly what any manager does.  Fill out the lineup card.  Call for a bunt now and then or intentional pass or whatever. Pull the starter, pick the right reliever, etc.  Then hope like heck the players can hit,pitch, field, run, etc. well enough to win games.      There's more to it, of course, but not a lot more. Or consider Andrew Miller. He has been around MLB for years and finally arrived last year with the Sox. Horrible control problems. Unfixable. Tried him as a starter, no go. Francona's fault? I don't think so. This year he is a ton better as a reliever. Thanks to Bobby? I don't think so. He just finally figured it out. I think a pitching coach told him to go back to the pitching motion he used at Chapel Hill. Plus he stopped using a windup and stuck with the stretch--this might have been because of Bobby,who commented on it in ST, but maybe not.
    Posted by maxbialystock



    for some reason I can't highlight it, but where I put parenthesis, is my knock on your continued straw man argument.

    If I have to explain myself one more time, it's not worth it, & you'll never get it.  YOU & others, keep SAYING that WE ARE SAYING "bobby v. IS THE REASON this team has failed.

    I KEEP SAYING, VERY CLEARLY that that is not my contention!  That both things could be true at once.  THIS TEAM SUCKS!  AND!!!!!!!    Bobby V. sucks too!  That he has ADDED to the problem!  There is NO disputing this.  It's not why we're losing, but he has added to the circus / soap opera.  Thus adding to the embarrassment of the organization!

    I'm not blaming him, but think he must go!

    THE STRAW MAN argument is claiming that WE BLAME IT ALL ON BOBBY!  YOU keep saying that the team is 100% to blame for THEIR PLAY, thus it CAN NOT BE bobby's fault!  Both assertions are false choices. They do not hinge on eachother.  Yet, you keep saying we blame it all on bobby v.  THUS, YOU & others are setting up a straw man argument.  You say we 100% blame bobby v, therefore we must.WRONG!!!!!!   This team sucks IMO!  Bobby V. sucks IMO!  This team would suck with or without bobby v. IMO.  Bobby V. was a lousy choice for this team, at this time  IMO.  Bobby V. has made things worse than they otherwise would have been  IMO.

    HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD I GET?

     ALL WE're saying is that ALL of these things are likely to be true.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    Are you trying to imply something about 2007 & 2013?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012 : This is my problem with fans. He wasn't complaining ALL THE TIME. Once, he was asked and he was honest about wanting to play more -- and that was it. It wasn't a constant issue. So all of a sudden he's a terrible clubhouse presence? Right or wrong, having one bad day doesn't make a player a bad clubhouse presence. It's like Pedroia. He makes one unfortunate statement and all of a sudden he's a cancer. I don't buy it in either case.
    Posted by royf19

    He was perceived to be and was brought up often about Lowell and Tito leaving him on the bench. I thought he was always a class act myself, and I never bought into the hysteria that Ortiz, Pedroia are me-me guys, but a lot of people on this forum are. and to that alltime idiot, alibi, If I'm a Yankee fan, I can guarantee you I'd be rubbing the Sox woes right in your face instead of trying to figure out ways that can get the Sox out of their rut--which despite what people think still has a lot to do with the manager's lack of people skills.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    Is no one talking about John Lackey because he hasn't been playing?

    There's the guy who needs to go. Give him a case of beer and a couple nights worth of Popeyes chicken and see if he slips out quietly.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: 2006 and 2012

    In Response to Re: 2006 and 2012:
    Is no one talking about John Lackey because he hasn't been playing? There's the guy who needs to go. Give him a case of beer and a couple nights worth of Popeyes chicken and see if he slips out quietly.
    Posted by summerof67


    We may not agree on much 67, but on that???  YOU COULD NOT BE MORE RIGHT!


    #1, #2, #3, #4 person that needs to go??  LACKEY!!!
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share