A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    That's why we should have another experienced catcher (proven good in CERA-related areas) on the roster from day one. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    We need Wake, Jake and Jed to catch fire and softy/GM will poof...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    m
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    bump thread back
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II


    Moon, you're right with your Ellsbury, Crawford tandem.  The way Ellsbury hits lefties, the L-R thing doesn't matter.

    Didn't you show that Pedroia's numbers drop when in the 3rd position? Maybe I'm wrong here.  Do you think this is where he should be hitting?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    We all hope he makes it and he does have a ton of potential. A lot of empirical data indicates that he should become an above average catcher in this league. It's just that in several instances he has completely imploded. Completely.

    I hope it's the expectation thing. When he was with Atlanta everyone said "top catching prospect in the game". Then he was in tremendous demand and involved in one trade rumor after another. He ends up in Texas with great hype. He completely implodes there. They had one loser after another rated higher than him in Texas. They gave up quickly, but possibly with reason? 

    Maybe it's just that he is pressing. Maybe he just needs reassurance and that is possibly what he has gotten from the Sox, being declared the starter and given the nod even against LH pitching the first 4 games. It could be great if he emerges a star. That doesn't always happen though. Craig Hansen? Many, Many others. Sometimes the fairy tale ends badly.

    I think he is worth the risk and I sincerely think he has the goods to succeed. He's certainly worth the try. I'd have to give it 50/50 potential of succeeding at this point though, as a starting level catcher for the Redsox. I think they thought this team was so good that they could be patient with him. How long will they roll him out there unless we start winning though. 

    If Tek catches tonight, don't we expect to win? Even with Dice K. We need to get to that point with Salty.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    I said in January:
    1) Crawford
    2) Pedroia
    3) Youk
    4) AGon
    5) Ortiz
    6) Drew/Cameron 7)
    SS of the day
    8) CA of the day
    9) Elles
    There is no reason to not stick with this line-up.  Another juggling of the machine will not be the answer. This is a nice line-up, except I move Cam to 5 vs LHPs and sit Papi unless he is within 150 OPS points with the other choices (Lowrie/DMac/Drew) vs that particular pitcher. I wouldn't be surprised if we never see this line-up all year.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Really? I think that's the next alternate lineup they use. I personally don't care as long as the speed stays together.

    But the season is still young, not enough of them are hitting well enough to have success in any batting order. So, I guess what I mean is that the batting order isn't the problem. The batters in it are. But this will change, it has to.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Really? I think that's the next alternate lineup they use. I personally don't care as long as the speed stays together. I was being a bit sarcastic, but Tito is irritating me enough now to get close to advocating change. The problem is that I am not sure if Theo even thinks the order is an issue. I do not think Tito will ever drop Papi from the line-up against most lefties or even put him below #6, so in that sense, I do not think we will ever see my favorite line-up vs LHPs. But the season is still young, not enough of them are hitting well enough to have success in any batting order. So, I guess what I mean is that the batting order isn't the problem. The batters in it are. But this will change, it has to. Again, I am not saying change the order because we are 0-6. I do not use small sample size to make definitive judgements. I have been saying AGon and Youk should bat 3/4 or 4/3 since the day we traded for AGon. This is not a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I have stated my reasons, supplied ample evidence to support my position, and am just voicing my opinion again.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Moon, I was at this point last year for reasons we both discussed at length. That's why I advocated his warranted promotion to the FO and giving Farrell a shot.

    When Tito had a stocked team with 2 possible HOF'ers in the rotation, he had plenty of margin for error. His assets clearly outweighed his liabilities. Now, that differential isn't anywhere near what it once was.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    I said in January: 1) Crawford 2) Pedroia 3) Youk 4) AGon 5) Ortiz 6) Drew/Cameron 7) SS of the day 8) CA of the day 9) Elles There is no reason top not stick with this line-up.  Another juggling of the machine will not be the answer.
    Posted by BurritoT



    AGREE



    Well, the O's won again. Only Texas has a better record than them. I think ur right Moonwhen ya say 95 wins will be enough to get into the playoffs. Might even be less. I never bought into the 100-win hyperbole. Not after what I saw last year - and I'm not just referring to the injuries...
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ..BABE... Show ..BABE..'s posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Well, the O's won again. Only Texas has a better record than them. I think ur right Moon when ya say 95 wins will be enough to get into the playoffs. Might even be less. I never bought into the 100-win hyperbole. Not after what I saw last year - and I'm not  just referring to the injuries I think the AL is too good and balanced to have the wildcard be over 95 wins. I still think we can win 99-100. Is 100-56 that improbable?

    Posted by moonslav59

    Yes, highly improbable. This is a very flawed team. Basically, they replaced vmart and beltre with crawford and agon, they tried to fix the bullpen which hasn't worked out to well as of yet and they have the same shoddy rotation as last year.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Boom, don't you think 95 wins will get us in? 95-61 is .609 ball. 94-62 is .603 ball. 93-63 is .596 ball. 96-60 is .615 ball. 97-59 is .623 ball. 98-58 is .628 ball
    Posted by moonslav59


    93 wins might get us in this year.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    I think it's possible that the AL East will be so competitive that no team may make 95 wins. I just don't see any magic number for wins needed to make the playoffs.
    Posted by devildavid


    I feel the same way. I think the parity in the A.L. East will be like nothing we've ever seen before.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    IMO the line-up reflects the fact that RS really did not know what do with Carl Crawford but they were enamored with his talents and knew they were a card short in the OF. I have disagreed with this point since the moment they signed Crawford. Perhaps, we may have been a "card short" in the OF next season, but not this eason.  With Ellbury and Cameron returningfrom injury, the Sox biggest need wasnot OF: it was 3B (solved by the AGon deal), Catcher (apparently not solved), bullpen (Theo took a good stab at solving it), hitting vs LHPs (didn't get any better), and possibly starting pitching (understandable that Theo went wit what he had). I know I have beaten the dead horse on this one, and I am not saying this because of Crawford's small sample size poor start. I said it all along. The upgrade from "this to that" was not worth $20M. From: LF: Ellsbury/DMac      (Maybe a combined .775 OPS) CF: Cameron/Kalish   (Maybe a combined .750 OPS) RF: Drew/Cameron     (Maybe a combined .825 OPS) To: LF: Crawford/DMac    (.850?) CF: Ellsbury/Cameron (.775) RF: Drew/Cameron     (.825) $20M to gain about.075 OPS total between LF & CF, plus some defense and speed.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Moon, with all due respect, I think 6 games is a bit premature on making a call on the 7-year Crawford deal not worth the 20 mil a year upgrade.
    There are many elements to consider. Let's just wait and see how it all pans out.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    BTW: I wish folks would stop using CERA and apply other factors... That's why I try to use the term: "CERA-related". We need a shorter term.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Yeah. CERA-RELATED is good.
    What a ball-buster. The Sox debut 2011 with a f-riggin' slump.
    This franchise will do anything to become underdogs!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : I respect your opinion, and agree that Pedroia should not hit in the 3-hole.  But Crawford is one of the best 2-hole hitters in all of baseball, IMHO, based on his work at TBR.  And he has already said that he thinks the same.  He is not a true 3-hole hitter, IMO, not in the sense of a Yaz or a Ted Williams or even a Wade Boggs. Batting Pedey in the 3-hole baffles me, sure, but that may be a sign that the FO and Tito may have no clue as to what to do against a lefty pitcher, or that they may be over-thinking the whole L-R-L-R-L structure for the batting order. To my way of thinking, Ellsbury should lead off and Crawford should follow. Regardless.  A-Gon is a classic 3-hole hitter in the mold of a young Yaz or Ted Williams. Why not put him there permanently, and let the very impressive hitters (Youk, Papi) bat after him - maybe putting Papi in the 4-hole and Youk in the 5-hole against righties and flipping them against lefties?  The real concern, though, is the bottom of the order. But this needs to play itself out. Scutaro can hit better. Can Salty? We'll see, depending on the magic that Dave Magadan can work. And, no. It is not appropriate to panic.    So what if no team has ever won the World Series after going 0-6 to start the season? The same was said about a certain team in the ALCS in 2004, down 0-3 to the dreaded Yankees, before this happened:   Yo, Derek!  The tag was late!!  Just so you know... Anyway, I am reminded of a classic moment in motion picture history:   Way too early to panic, still.  The ship can be righted, and it will be.
    Posted by summerof67


    Good going, my friend.
    You set a fine example.

    As I see it, the RedSox have never started this poorly in my lifetime. So, it's a new experience for me and many others. It presents an intriguing challenge.
    I do believe this team has the capacity to be as hot as they are cold.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Yes, harness; I remember your take on Ferrell and Tito. I thought the ideawas a good one. I still think Tito is much much better than nearly anyone else we have had since Dick Williams, but I have hesitated to be overly critical of him, because I think he is a good traditional manager and that is what Theo seems to want. I say thi because, unless Theo wants someone who breaks the paradigms I have spoken about, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't, then I don't see a need to replace Tito. The replacement might be worse.
    Posted by moonslav59



    Grady Little was a traditional manager -- going by his gut and not looking at the stats reports that he was given. Remember, that's why he was fired.

    Francona is far more advanced than that, which is why he was hired. What he doesn't do, however, is manage strictly by the numbers, which is a good thing. Remember, the players aren't robots. They're human beings, and you have to take in the human element when you manage, which Francona does.

    And humans can change from year to year. Take Ortiz. Sure his effectiveness against LHP has gone down the past two years, but he had been very good against lefties. And he talked last year about working on his approach. You can't just assume that what someone that everything is going stay static. So far this year, he's been better against lefties -- yes, small sample that you can't read too much into. But maybe he is going to bounce back against lefties.

    Young players get better, so that has to be taken into consideration too. So sometimes the human element needs to take precedence over the stats.

    Now if a player never has been good in certain situation and is a veteran, then it does reach a point where stats element should take priority. It's a balancing act.

    Critics call it coddling the players, but in any profession, you need to have confidence in what you're doing. Players can't be looking over their shoulder expecting to be yanked the first time they fail. That Francona sticks with players in slumps has paid dividends in the end. And by treating a player who had been an every day play as a platoon player could do more harm than good in the player's psyche.

    What makes Francona an excellent manager IMO is that he balances the human element with new-school statistical analysis. You simply can't manager by looking at computer printouts of stats.

    I think the analysis you do is interesting and useful. I'm a stats junkie myself. It's what I love about baseball. But you can't focus simply on the numbers and ignore other aspects.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : Few thoughts: I must admit I never thought the RS would be in play on Crawford based on what they had in the minors (LH gap power guys with wheels), his price point and their history. I still think he is a puzzling "fit" and question the superstar paycheck but  also freely admit that Theo Epstein has forgotten more avout baseball, both in terms of player evaluation and valuation than I will ever know. But I got why the RS did not want to go with hands on deck in OF in 2011. Kalish was the best of the bunch of call ups in the OF but he was not nearly ready to be an MLB OF. And knowing Martinez was leaving, the RS knew they would lose a lot of offensive firepower from the catcher. The RS names appeared to be connected with a lot of catchers this winter so I can only assume that they wanted to have more options than they have but price and circumstance led them to the Salty-Tek tandem. The RS moves this winter with A-Gon and Crawford sort of demonstrate an eye not just on 2011 (where the OF was not an issue) but for the coming years as well. While "he whose name is not worth mentioning" blasted me for posting that it appeared Epstein and the RS were willing to pay bigger $$$ for a players early decline (age 33+) if the could get prime years of (30-32) in the contract. That certainly seems to be the case in the rumored A-Gon terms and the Crawford deal. And to do these moves the RS appear to have calculated in the payrol reductions of Drew and Cameron and probably Ortiz in their thinking. So while the RS maybe could have gotten by in 2011 with their OF by the end of this season it would have been a bigger issue and the FA after this season for OF is thin. And can anyone blame Epstein for not wanting to start the year with such an old OF as Cameron and Drew would have made the?. Cameron is a off the charts great 4th OF but as a starter he was a guy fast approaching twilight and coming off of a season lost to injury. I agree with Harness that the 2011 sample sets are too small to conclude anything, otherwise one would conclude hardly anybody on this team can hit and that just isn't the case. And while I don't get CC as a $140M man, I do tend to believe the RS know what they are doing and that in time I will see the logic.  Just my takes
    Posted by fivekatz


    Toward the end of last year, I said Boston would go after CC in a big way.
    The reasons I gave, beyond them passing on VMART, were just as you described: An aging outfield at 2 positions:
    A thin FA outfield talent pool in 2012 (with Cam/Drew coming off the books).
    Also, I felt having CC would lessen the pressure on bridging Kalish or Reddick through his first year. The kids can learn a ton from him.
    I took a lot of flack for that post from some very reputable posters.

    UR take on Theo prioritizing player's prime years and dealing with mediocrity at the tail end of the contracts is extremely pertinent. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I learned CC was inked for 7 years at 20 per year. I was amazed the team would take it that far.

    I could see 4 years because that would allow the team a CRAWBURY speed tandem for the first three of them. That tandem will give this team an added dimension, which is why CC was as valuable to Boston as he was to CA. Beyond CRAWBURY, I wasn't crazy about the fit. After all, we don't play 81 games with a short RF porch.
    Paying heavily for those final 3 contractual years is mind boggling. Obviously, the FO weighed out all the factors between now and then. 

    For all we know, Henry, a brilliant businessman, might in fact be planning on selling the team after the next 4 years. And when you consider it strictlyfrom a business standpoint, it makes sense. The drafting loophole that has heavily favored High revenue teams will  soon close. That means more of a dependency on the FA market, which will favor NY. The farm may not be nearly as fruitful in 4 years as it has been.

    The opportunistic window for most of the starters is between now and 2013-14.
    In other words, this team will be peaking in several areas by then. It's a perfect time to sell, which means Henry won't be fiscally responsible for the anchor of Lackey's/CC's contracts.

    Of course, this is strictly hypothetical, but the point is, we really don't know what the intentions of this organization are by then.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    IMO the line-up reflects the fact that RS really did not know what do with Carl Crawford but they were enamored with his talents and knew they were a card short in the OF. I have disagreed with this point since the moment they signed Crawford. Perhaps, we may have been a "card short" in the OF next season, but not this eason.  With Ellbury and Cameron returningfrom injury, the Sox biggest need wasnot OF: it was 3B (solved by the AGon deal), Catcher (apparently not solved), bullpen (Theo took a good stab at solving it), hitting vs LHPs (didn't get any better), and possibly starting pitching (understandable that Theo went wit what he had). I know I have beaten the dead horse on this one, and I am not saying this because of Crawford's small sample size poor start. I said it all along. The upgrade from "this to that" was not worth $20M. From: LF: Ellsbury/DMac      (Maybe a combined .775 OPS) CF: Cameron/Kalish   (Maybe a combined .750 OPS) RF: Drew/Cameron     (Maybe a combined .825 OPS) To: LF: Crawford/DMac    (.850?) CF: Ellsbury/Cameron (.775) RF: Drew/Cameron     (.825) $20M to gain about.075 OPS total between LF & CF, plus some defense and speed.
    Posted by moonslav59
    Few thoughts:
    I must admit I never thought the RS would be in play on Crawford based on what they had in the minors (LH gap power guys with wheels), his price point and their history. I still think he is a puzzling "fit" and question the superstar paycheck but  also freely admit that Theo Epstein has forgotten more avout baseball, both in terms of player evaluation and valuation than I will ever know.

    But I got why the RS did not want to go with hands on deck in OF in 2011. Kalish was the best of the bunch of call ups in the OF but he was not nearly ready to be an MLB OF. And knowing Martinez was leaving, the RS knew they would lose a lot of offensive firepower from the catcher.

    The RS names appeared to be connected with a lot of catchers this winter so I can only assume that they wanted to have more options than they have but price and circumstance led them to the Salty-Tek tandem.

    The RS moves this winter with A-Gon and Crawford sort of demonstrate an eye not just on 2011 (where the OF was not an issue) but for the coming years as well. While "he whose name is not worth mentioning" blasted me for posting that it appeared Epstein and the RS were willing to pay bigger $$$ for a players early decline (age 33+) if the could get prime years of (30-32) in the contract. That certainly seems to be the case in the rumored A-Gon terms and the Crawford deal. And to do these moves the RS appear to have calculated in the payrol reductions of Drew and Cameron and probably Ortiz in their thinking.

    So while the RS maybe could have gotten by in 2011 with their OF by the end of this season it would have been a bigger issue and the FA after this season for OF is thin. And can anyone blame Epstein for not wanting to start the year with such an old OF as Cameron and Drew would have made the?. Cameron is a off the charts great 4th OF but as a starter he was a guy fast approaching twilight and coming off of a season lost to injury.

    I agree with Harness that the 2011 sample sets are too small to conclude anything, otherwise one would conclude hardly anybody on this team can hit and that just isn't the case. And while I don't get CC as a $140M man, I do tend to believe the RS know what they are doing and that in time I will see the logic.

     Just my takes
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    All of Wakefield's appearances have been mop-up duty. He's been poor in doing that no stress situation. Wakefield needs to go, which is completely independent of the poor start to the season.
    Posted by BaseballGM



    Let me get this straight: I gather you don't much care for Tim Wakefield.
    Is it safe to make this assumption?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    The O's are not for real. They have improved and will win more games than the old doormat teams, but they are not for real. They are not contenders, they are an improved team that is a 2011 pretender. There has always been only one place to put Crawford. Despite his continued early struggles, the lineup was set properly with Pedroia in the 2, Agon in the 3 and Youk and Ortiz behind. Ellsbury's only proper place is at the bottom to turn the lineup over better. Cameron in CF, hitting 8th, is the best overall lineup, but that isn't going to happen. Ellsbury at 8 and Scutaro at 9 is reversed from what it should be, but it's close enough as the rest of the lineup is finally what I Knew management would learn the hard way. Ellsbury should have been told he will hit 9th, back in the spring, and Crawford should have been told he will leadoff and needs to worry about nothing else but getting on base. The #3 move was a disaster, as he's trying to drive the ball instead of slapping it the other way and getting on base. If he's told to relax and just focus on getting on base from the leadoff spot, he will be the most efficient he can be. I suspect they still haven't written off the notion of moving him back to 3, which is nothing short of incompetent with the other players on this team. With Pedroia, the team only needs one base stealer and the top of the lineup to get on base, and Pedroia being able to hit balls out of the zone and execute the run and hit is the proper lineup. Ellsbury getting on base from the bottom makes the lineup turn over better, but Cameron should be used more in CF because he is a much better defender and the games almost always end up in the pen if a righty starts. Ellsbury could then be plugged in from the bench as pinch runner or hitter, for either Drew or Cameron. Crawford should be the only 140 to 150 game guy. Ellsbury, Cameron and Drew should divide the other 2 spots time, as Cameron's RH bat is needed more often to balance out the lineup. The mistake being made is thinking that Ellsbury and Crawford was some kind of an advantage in competition. It isn't. They do not compliment this lineup in the AL East. I don't see Ellsbury every sitting for Cameron, but at least putting Ellsbury at the bottom of the lineup is a drastic improvement in use of the roster. The Red Sox should near the summer trade deadline shop Ellsbury and Lackey to the NL to get out from under Lackey's contract and net back a really good young RH OF part that fits the long term future. If Lackey strings out a few decent starts, that's the perfect time to shop him and try and get rid of him.  Assuming Lester, Buchholz, Beckett, DiceK, Aceves and Doubrant are all in good health, going to the last couple of months should be fine. Atchison and other farm hands are fine as emergency spot starters over the last month or two.  Lackey is counting his money and is a bust. The data was there to show the huge value mistake in his contract. But 3 solid starting pitchers are all that is needed, so either Beckett and/or Dicek will need to step up and take care of that problem. Aceves could have helped in the close game losses. Now that he is up for a DL guy, the Red Sox still need to bring up another lefty to make a good pen even deeper. Wakefield needs to be DL'd or DFA. Big hit for Drew, and an aging out but still capable Ortiz continues to be a Yankee killer. Pen was almost perfect, thanks to Aceves and no Wakefield. AGon is about as poised a first base defender as one will see, and he's always been a gifted overall hitter. That's why he is a true superstar, unlike Crawford. It's past the CBT capture date for being able to sign AGon to an extension, so it's surprising that no extension has been agreed to as was reported. The Red Sox were hedging on the shoulder injury, so it stands to reason that they should have to pay a premium for waiting to see that AGon's health is fine and he's still performing as the young superstar that he is. Given the total payroll for 2011 and what comes off in 2012, the Red Sox will pay just about whatever premium AGon's agent demands.  Whatever they were trying to save on the CBT should go into AGon's pockets, in addition to a premium for ownership hedging. Given the absurd 6M that Agon gets from his Padres assigned contract, the extension premium will still make AGon a fair value as the new superstar face of the Red Sox. The division will come down to the Red Sox and the Yankees, unless a core starter has a long term DL. It will come down to which team gets better starting pitching, with the Yankees likely making a summer move. Epstein is handcuffed on any quality pitching acquisition mid-season moves, and will simply have to hope that Beckett, DiceK, and perhaps Doubrant and Aceves collectively get it done for the rotation year end production. The Rays offense and pen got worse, and the starting pitching did nothing more than go sideways. They will not be a 2011 contender. The O's and Jays are improved, but the first month of the season is a completely false picture of the standings at the end of the marathon. With 155 games to go, I'd say the Red Sox are still in the AL East race. The right adjustment was made to the lineup, with Pedroia, AGon, Youk in proper place. A few more adjustments should be made, but the GM is slow to make even the obvious adjustments that shouldn't even be needed in the first place. The lineup was just one of them. Go Red Sox!
    Posted by BaseballGM


    I'm gonna save that statement about the O's...just in case your posts mysteriously disappear.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    And I do not fault Francona for where he is placing Ortiz against LH (most LH) since dumping him way down in the order serves less purpose when the game is inevitably turned over to the bullpen. It isn't as though Francona isn't look at the numbers at all when he asks Drew to sit out opening day because a filthy LH is going. katz, with all due respect, I do not see that benching Drew, who is better vs LHPs than Papi, but ot daring to move Papi down makes any sense. I don't get it. When a lefty starts, usually the order gets 2-4 PAs before the pen comes in. Then they bring a righty in and maybe, just maybe, Papi might face one righty in a key situation dictated by his #5 slot. The opps can always bring back in a lefty if it's really crucial. It's just not anywhere near worth trading in 2-4 near automatic outs (vs some lefties) for the off chance that his spot in he order just may possibly get up late in the game for 1 crucial PA an the opps have no lefty releif pitcher to use. Last year Papi had just over 1 PA vs LHPs that he had a poor career record against beforehand. In those PAs, he had a .500 OPS... all while batting 5th or better. I'm sorry but I can't see how having him 5th a few times late in the game, instead of 7th or on the bench as a PH'er is going to come close to making up for this loss. My guess is that if Cam or Lowrie is playing instead of Papi, we'd get them vs the lefty starter for 2-4 PAs, then when they bring a righty in, we'd have Papi to come in and PH for a AB or more if he can PH for the DH.
    Posted by moonslav59
    Well a couple of thoughts.

    First Drew was better than Ortiz versus LH pitching before 2010 when Francona could no longer "protect" Drew from better LH pitchers as he did from 07-09. They were vitrtually the same hitters last year, with Ortiz having a slightly higher BA and SLG but lower OBP. But any way you look at it the difference between an OPS of .599 to .611 isn't enough to say one was better than the other. And as I say Francona used to use LH pitching as the way of determining JD's days off until last year when the OF was AAA guy's and Drew.

    It is early but in limited appearances versus LH Ortiz has been just fine. 3 for 9 with a HR. Personally I'd like to see what Cameron can do with the playing time for Drew and get Lowrie more ABs in Scutaros case before the RS and/or the rest of the regulars start to hit before I'd yell for Francona to move Ortiz to the bottom third of the order.

    If he used straight splits wouldn't he have to bat Crawford ninth or start McDonald against LH pitching? 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ..BABE... Show ..BABE..'s posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Well Katz , the best time for a true line-up shake-down is in desperate times. That's when even "unhappy"layers will sacrifice for the team's good. I agree hitting Pedey 3rd takes him out of his element, and distorts the line-up. One of the speed guys will have to hit 9th. I also think the fan base is better served by redefining team expectations.

    Posted by harness

    You never answered about your boy tek getting lit up for 7 runs last night.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxPatsCelts1988. Show SoxPatsCelts1988's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    95-plus wins isn't out of the realm of possibilities yet. The Sox were 12-13 last April, but by midseason were on a 96-win pace or so before all the injuries hit. They play 27 games in April. To get to at least 13-14 for April, they just have to go 13-8 after the 0-6 start -- 12-8 after today's win. For a team that should be good, that shouldn't be an impossible scenario. And there is nothing wrong with having one month under .500.  That should be the goal now for April -- to get within a game either way of .500 for the month. For instance: In 2009 (95 wins), they had months of 15-14, 13-12 and 15-13. That's half a season of being just four games over .500. In 2008 (95 wins), they had an 11-13 month. In 2007 (96 wins), they had a 13-14 month. In 2005 (95 wins), they had months of 12-11 and 14-13. In 2004 (98 wins), they had an 11-14 month. By that measure, the Sox still would be in decent shape this year if they went just 11-9 the rest of the month to finish 12-15. And the 2004 Sox weren't great the other five months. Ind addition to the 11-14 month, they had months of 16-14 and 14-12. So for three months, half the season -- and they were three consecutive months -- the Sox were 41-40.  So can we all keep some perspective?
    Posted by royf19


    Don't forget that their first 3 games were against the defending AL champs and all 6 of their first 6 games were on the road (where their record has been significantly worse over the past several seasons).

    The Orioles are legit, the Jays are still the Jays and I expect the Rays to turn it around too.  95-96 wins may very well win this division.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Until it doesn't take 95 winsto make a post season out of the AL East is safe to assume it will IMHO. Both the RS and NYY are capable of winning a lot of games where their pitching is pedestrian at best. Both have good backend in their bullpens. The O's look poised to assume the role of the Rays. In the AL Central they have at least two teams capable with the unbalanced schedules to post over 90 wins. And as far as the RS pitching goes, it is always dangerous to draw too many conclusions from April either way. Ditto for the NYY, Hughes is a lot better than he showed today by example. I agree with you Boom in as much as the line-up isn't why the RS lost their first six. With their team ERA they'd have to have averaged 9 runs a game to have won the first six. And I do not fault Francona for where he is placing Ortiz against LH (most LH) since dumping him way down in the order serves less purpose when the game is inevitably turned over to the bullpen. It isn't as though Francona isn't look at the numbers at all when he asks Drew to sit out opening day because a filthy LH is going. I personally was pleased to hear Francona say that getting A-Gon in the 3 slot was important and loved they way he phrased it as getting him to the plate in the first inning. Looking at it this way, would I think that the RS were in the race in mid-August if they trailed the O's by 4.5 and the NYY by 4? I would, so clearly the tiny sample set of total failure until today, combined with expectations that are very high do tend to taint the picture. All is just a bit better with the world after a RS win and evn more so when that win was at the expense of the EE. just my takes
    Posted by fivekatz


    To be precise, It only took 90 wins to secure the WC in 2010. The other 5 wins were gravy.

    In 2009, Boston won 95, but only needed 88 wins to reach the PO's.
    Same for 2008.


    To Roy: There's a lot of truth to UR post about considering the human element.
    Stats can't measure a player's heart.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    It is possible for this team to develop a "losing attitude" and dig a hole that they can't recover from; even with all the talent. Of course it's possible. The Sox have a long history or underperforming when favorites, but that was mostly before the newest management change. I remember thinking back in '75, that we's have a good team in a year or two. I remember thinking '86 was "too early". I remember after those two years we should have won andwe didn't. What about 2005 and 2008? Maybe a losing streak early will humble some guys and they will "get over it" and get hot when it counts.  I'm still not concerned. The rotaion will now have it's second turn. If we ae 0-10 or 2-8, I'll start to get mildly worried.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Spot on.

    76, 77, 79 - all years where the talent was there.

    If they get 10 under .500 - I think we are in deep trouble.
     
Sections
Shortcuts