A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    They have been playing good baseball overall, with solid pitching. The team is rising and the Yanks have lost a couple recently, including one of CC's starts. The trend lines are good. 

    We went from last in pitching, last in hitting to around the middle of the league right now in both categories. We are definitely trending up.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from candre99. Show candre99's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    do i dare say the sox were a better team last year.
    i think we overated this team big time.
    the hitting is not very good(especially clutch).
    pitching is awful.

    they will be hard pressed to win 85 games.
    unknown pitchers are throwing 1,2,  and 3 hitters against them.

    the only constant i'm sorry to say is the manger.
    he keeps making the same mistakes over and over.
    mistakes he has made from day one 2004.
    yes they won 2 ws, but they had help.
    i don't care how the front office spins it
     04 and 07 was tainted, a couple if not more players
    were receiving extra help. 

    bye for now but u can bet i'll be back.
     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, as long as you're laughing on the inside, then good.  I guess Lackey blew up today and now we have relievers on the DL.  I guess we're lucky it's early and we have time to recover.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Bad day for John Lackey. And FWIW I don't think it mattered who the catcher was today. Lot's of hitters counts and the hitters made them count. Just one game but it just adds to a pretty ordinary RS resume for John Lackey.

    It wasn't a game he had to win but going 6-7 was IMO required. Can't wait to read why he did not think it was such a bad outing because he never does think the stinkers stink. Sometimes I read his post game comments after tough games and think he should post on BDC.

    I fully expect the board to explode with Tito stinks, Lackey stinks, Theo stinks, the team is doomed posts. It should be pretty entertaining along with the discussion that will surround Friday's starter. Wink

    Just my takes
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, as long as you're laughing on the inside, then good

    Sometimes I'm actually LOL.

    I' ve rarely been angry in my life, and certainly not over baseball.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    It's still a small sample size, but we are about a game away from being 20% through the season. Let's have a look at the big decision on who to keep at the bottom of the pitching staff numbers thus far:
    (To me, WHIP is more valuable than ERA for picthers, esp. relievers.)

    The 9 givens
    (even though some have pitched like they should be in AAA):
    Lester, Beckett, Buchholtz, Lackey, Dice-K, Papelbon, Bard, Jenks, and Wheeler.)

    The questionable last 3 slots:
    Pitcher   IP   W-L  ERA  WHIP
    Wake   17.1  0-0  4.08  0.906
    Albers    9.2  0-0  0.93 1.034
    Aceves  8.0  0-0  2.25 0.875
    Oki         6.1  0-0  5.68  1.263
    Atch       3.2  0-0  7.36  2.180
    Douby   2.2  0-0  6.75  2.250
    Reyes   1.2  0-0  16.20 2.400
    Hill         1.1  0-0   0.00  0.750

    We've already used 17 pitchers after just 1/5th of the season.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I certainly agree with you and think most people do about WHIP. This is particularly true with relievers who often get to liter the other fellows ERA with the runs they leave to be inherited.

    If Wake is making two starts in one week is he no longer on the defacto DL ?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Lackey eats more fat than innings.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHUBBIE99. Show CHUBBIE99's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]It's still a small sample size, but we are about a game away from being 20% through the season. Let's have a look at the big decision on who to keep at the bottom of the pitching staff numbers thus far: (To me, WHIP is more valuable than ERA for picthers, esp. relievers.) The 9 givens (even though some have pitched like they should be in AAA): Lester, Beckett, Buchholtz, Lackey, Dice-K, Papelbon, Bard, Jenks, and Wheeler.) The questionable last 3 slots: Pitcher   IP   W-L  ERA  WHIP Wake   17.1  0-0  4.08  0.906 Albers    9.2  0-0  0.93 1.034 Aceves  8.0  0-0  2.25 0.875 Oki         6.1  0-0  5.68  1.263 Atch       3.2  0-0  7.36  2.180 Douby   2.2  0-0  6.75  2.250 Reyes   1.2  0-0  16.20 2.400 Hill         1.1  0-0   0.00  0.750 We've already used 17 pitchers after just 1/5th of the season.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE] Moon, we already have 17 losses on May 5 there is a chance we could have 26 to 28 by june that is very alarming to me is it to you? Or is it still to small of a sample size. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Thank god the Yanks are losing recently also.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    GO PEDEY!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, we already have 17 losses on May 5 there is a chance we could have 26 to 28 by june that is very alarming to me is it to you? Or is it still to small of a sample size. 

    I know the league isbalnced now and ou schedule a tougher than most team's, but I really think this tam is too good to continue near .500 ball.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Babe-1. Show Babe-1's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Moon, we already have 17 losses on May 5 there is a chance we could have 26 to 28 by june that is very alarming to me is it to you? Or is it still to small of a sample size.  I know the league isbalnced now and ou schedule a tougher than most team's, but I really think this tam is too good to continue near .500 ball.

    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Really? They haven't given any indication of being "too good".

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I agree with katz above that you'll score runs that you might not have if you hadn't challenged the defense to make the perfect play. But a lot still depends on when and how the challenge is made.  The situation, the runner, the quality of opposition, etc.  There is a distinction between aggressiveness and recklessness, between calculation and wildness that, IMO, the Sox too often do not observe. Or, OTOH, they are not sufficiently opportunistic.  The result -- again IMO -- is that they are not a good base-running team.  
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I thought when a guy stole second it put extra pressure on the pitcher - how can you brilliant minds explain the value of our catchers again?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Has Salty thrown out a single runner yet? We continue to have other teams run on us. We are still very weak in that area.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from glumandrew. Show glumandrew's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    CS    8

    CS%   25%

    Russell Martin
    CS    3
    CS%   20%

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Pressure from a guy taking a big lead, pressure from a runner taking 2nd or 3rd base - that cannot be a positive can it?  Certainly we are entirely exposed behind the plate.

    With all the hope we have that Elles/Crawford will run silly on the base paths we should be equally as wise to know the other team can do the same damage, except they can do it with players like Vernon Wells or whoever might be on base any given inning.

    Its time to address the problems. People on the forum should be able to stop the rah-rah posts in regards to the hero's of 2004 and 2007 and state the obvious without fear of retaliation from the few remaining blind ones. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from glumandrew. Show glumandrew's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Pressure from a guy taking a big lead, pressure from a runner taking 2nd or 3rd base - that cannot be a positive can it?  Certainly we are entirely exposed behind the plate. Its time to address the problems. People on the forum should be able to stop the rah-rah posts in regards to the hero's of 2004 and 2007 and state the obvious without fear or retaliation of some. 
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]
     Did you read CS% for Salty?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    It's better than I thought but still pretty bad.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]CS    8 CS%   25% Russell Martin CS    3 CS%   20%
    Posted by glumandrew[/QUOTE]

    As of late, Salty has also started to hit the ball. I had not realized he had that many CS this year. 25% is a definite improvement.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I am not prepared to give up on him - however its the other half of the battery that cannot improve any further.  I suppose there is no way out of it for this season, its just frustrating the team did not find more alternatives at this position over the past 3 seasons.
     
  23. 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:
    [QUOTE]I agree with katz above that you'll score runs that you might not have if you hadn't challenged the defense to make the perfect play. But a lot still depends on when and how the challenge is made.  The situation, the runner, the quality of opposition, etc.  There is a distinction between aggressiveness and recklessness, between calculation and wildness that, IMO, the Sox too often do not observe. Or, OTOH, they are not sufficiently opportunistic.  The result -- again IMO -- is that they are not a good base-running team.  
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]I can't disagree with this post in as much that by example situationally; the Scutaro play at the plate was not a time to challenge the defense to execute.

    If I remember correctly there was one out. If he is held up the conservative approach puts the Angels in quite a bind. Their best option at that point would have been to intenationally walk McDonald bring the IF and OF in and pitch to Jed Lowrie hoping for a shallow OF out or a force at the plate. Lot's of ways to get that run in for the RS.

    I am not going to make the case that Bogar is the best 3B coach the RS have had in recent memory.

    But my point is that when his aggression results in runs it goes unnoticed but when it results in a out at the plate it is a matter of great angst among fans.

    The RS aren't a great baserunning team but certainly have fewer players that are liabilities than they have had many years in the past.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : I can't disagree with this post in as much that by example situationally; the Scutaro play at the plate was not a time to challenge the defense to execute. If I remember correctly there was one out. If he is held up the conservative approach puts the Angels in quite a bind. Their best option at that point would have been to intenationally walk McDonald bring the IF and OF in and pitch to Jed Lowrie hoping for a shallow OF out or a force at the plate. Lot's of ways to get that run in for the RS. I am not going to make the case that Bogar is the best 3B coach the RS have had in recent memory. But my point is that when his aggression results in runs it goes unnoticed but when it results in a out at the plate it is a matter of great angst among fans. The RS aren't a great baserunning team but certainly have fewer players that are liabilities than they have had many years in the past.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]
    Good analysis of the Scutaro situation.
    Angst for outs, ho hum for risks that result in runs. Fair or not, par for the course. But who's keeping score? It does seem that Bogar/runners have made more than a permissible number of bad judgments. Seems. You know how it is. Impressions linger.
    Let's see, the Sox have three plow horses in Ortiz, Gonzalez, and Varitek, though Tek is heady on the paths; one below average speed in Youkilis; three average in Pedroia, Lowrie, and Drew, though Drew is a smart baserunner; and two burners in Ellsbury and Crawford. IMO, this cast cannot afford to make mistakes.  Four of the nine are close to lead-footed. Three of the nine should not overestimate what their wheels can do.  The last two can at times outrun their bad judgments -- but not always,and they have to be careful not to be picked off or doubled off ( Ells ) because Boston needs their speed. If it comes to that, both of them should probably dare the opposition to make the perfect play to get them -- most of the time.    
     
  25. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : Good analysis of the Scutaro situation. Angst for outs, ho hum for risks that result in runs. Fair or not, par for the course. But who's keeping score? It does seem that Bogar/runners have made more than a permissible number of bad judgments. Seems. You know how it is. Impressions linger. Let's see, the Sox have three plow horses in Ortiz, Gonzalez, and Varitek, though Tek is heady on the paths; one below average speed in Youkilis; three average in Pedroia, Lowrie, and Drew, though Drew is a smart baserunner; and two burners in Ellsbury and Crawford. IMO, this cast cannot afford to make mistakes.  Four of the nine are close to lead-footed. Three of the nine should not overestimate what their wheels can do.  The last two can at times outrun their bad judgments -- but not always,and they have to be careful not to be picked off or doubled off ( Ells ) because Boston needs their speed. If it comes to that, both of them should probably dare the opposition to make the perfect play to get them -- most of the time.    
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]Good take. I would add that while I haven't seen enough of A-Gon to comment when sending guys home it is important to keep in mind that both Ortiz and Tek have poor technique rounding third, their size finds them cutting the bag quite wide and taking the longer route from point A to point B. Youk is pretty heady much like Tek and he is able to cut third tighter than the other two. On balance wouldn't you agree that this team physically is better equipped to run the bases than the 2004 RS by example?

    IMO the two speedsters will occasionally get picked off because it comes with the territory. So long as Ellsbury and CC are 80% plus base stealers even SABRmatricians concede 80% plus base stealing makes base stealing a favorable impact factor.

    And while in an ideal world it should never happen, over 162 the guys may get double up a few times. I do think if it had been Bill Hall last season or Coco Crisp in 2008, the introduction of the Ellsbury play to this thread would have been very different (not to say your analysis is tainted by that, just saying why it came to be a topic of so many posts here). So while it was a mistake, all players make mistakes and the weight of that is balanced by what they do right IMO.

    A far as the two base running "errors" in the Wednesday night game IMO Bogar should have held up Scutaro sooner but even though the play resulted in an out Cameron should have attempted to take 3rd. It was a freak play with a carom right to Aybar, he had to make a perfect throw even with the fortuitous bounce and Cameron was barely out. That type of aggression over 162 wins more games than it loses I think.

    This stuff garners a lot more attention in Boston than it might elsewhere and I suppose that is a good thing. 
     

Share