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

    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.  

    Very small sample size. Interesting to note, he has done better in the 4-6 slot than the 2 slot...again in tiny sample sizes.

    Do you think this is where he should be hitting?

    No, but he's better than Crawford 3rd.
    The #3 hitter should be a very high OBP guy with power, so my choies for that slot are as follows:

    vs RHPs:
    1) Youk/AGon tie (I'd go with Youk, because he is better balanced
    3) Ortiz
    4) Pedey
    5) Crawford

    vs LHPs:
    1) Youk
    2) Youk
    3) Youk
    4) Youk
    5) Cam
    (Pedey has done poorly vs LHPs for 2 years now)

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I wonder how many on this thread called for trading some key prospects to acquire Salty nearly two seasons prior.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The issue with Ellsbury-Crawford isn't that they don't fit well in 1-2, IMO it creates a 3 back-to-back LH hitters. And while the L-R-L thing can be over played it does make the opposing managers life much easier in the later stages of a game and it is tough to lead-off with three LH versus LH pitching.

    Then you also have the fact that Pedroia has been hitting in the 2 spot for a few seasons now and enjoyed success there. Historically when things get this bad you keep trying to shake things up and hope that something clicks. The sample sets are small but ugly right now. When the club is hitting .190 something as a team and second to last in runs scored it is a lot deeper than a line-up tweak but shaking things up sometimes get things going.

    The Wakefield argument is philosophical at this point and not germane to the RS recent struggles. It is two philosophies IMO. One is that Wakefield was held on to because the RS had options on Aceves and it is better to have both guys on the 40 man roster than one on the 25 man roster. The other is that the best team would have Aceves on the roster rather than Wakefield. Both cases have merit.
     
  4. 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:
    [QUOTE]These guys are effectively playing a AAAA level team. Cleveland has maybe 2 players that would start for us. Choo and Santana. That's it. This is ridiculous. What do they have, maybe 2000 people in the stands? Just ridiculous. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]


    Exactly! And if one play determines a game's fate against this level of competition, what does that tell you?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    These guys are effectively playing a AAAA level team. Cleveland has maybe 2 players that would start for us. Choo and Santana. That's it. This is ridiculous. What do they have, maybe 2000 people in the stands? Just ridiculous. 
     
  6. 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 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.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]Right on. They are totally capable of averaging 8 runs a game for a 6 game stretch and only allowing 3 runs a game for that same stretch, which is the reverse of these six.

    By example Texas has averaged 7 runs a game and allowed just under 3 earned over 6.

    A six game losing streak naturally is magnified by the fact that it is at the start of the season. But to win 97 games (.600 ball) only have to go 97-51 the rest of the way (.630). While it is a humbling game at moments over 162 games things do seem to normalize and so while this stretch is so bad, they will have a stretch where they can do no wrong and in between they will play .600 ball IMO.

    Hope spring eternal. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    softy vowed never to come on this thread, so I guess we can add another dishonest activity to his resume.
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]harness, I went out of my way to say I felt this way the day they signed him and I was not judging in a 6 game sample size. You know me better. I was responding to katz sayin we were "missing a card" in the OF. I did not feel that way then, and I still feel that way now. I think we should have spent the money on higher need areas. It has nothing to do with 6 games. Anyways, some of the guys I wanted intead of Crawford are doing just as bad.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Yeah. I shoulda realized what you meant. My bad. I know you were against the CC expenditure from our discussion on the tail end of the Caddy thread when you schooled me in GM protocol:)

    And you know  I felt the team would go after him in a big way. I desperately wanted to see him man LF over VMART catching. And that's really the choice it came down to. I don't like the contractual terms anymore than I did Lackey's. It probably was a pretty tough decision by the FO. Perhaps the decision would have been made easier if a catcher of Mauer's magnitude were available during the winter.

    I do think Crawford will be a major asset in time, but whether or not he'll validate expenditure is and always will be hotly debated. As will Drew's contract.
    It depends upon what happens over time. What a player is "worth' is reliant on several factors. It depends on your frame of reference. If VMART/Werth are worth
    their salaries, then a case can be made for CC. And since the FA market dictates supply and demand, it's a stretch to claim that all three players were vastly overpaid.

    I do believe the team hasn't even begun to tap into the extra dimension Crawbury will add.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Another funny.  Hilarious - I guess the jokes by harness are the entertainment I seek here on the forum, and yet still people think this forum should be entertain-less.  

    I still laugh every time someone asks Softlaw "I am getting the feeling you really do not like so an so.."  Hilarious.

    Tongue out
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Amp, I'm with you on giving Salty a chance. I think that Tito has been doing that, ergo starting him against Texas even against LH pitching ( his last team ). They are showing confidence in him. Hopefully it will pay off over time.  One guy who looks pretty solid is Gonzalez. The guy looks so professional as a hitter. He doesn't seem to sing hard but the ball flies off his bat. hits to all fields. Maybe he is the guy we want hitting 3rd after all. He seems to be able to hit for average and power. Kind of a perfect #3 it seems. Ellsbury Pedroia Gonzalez Youk Crawford Ortiz Drew/Cameron Salty Lowrie/Scutaro
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    How about switching Pedroia and Crawford? 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Still not worried at 0-5, but it's getting really annoying. Annoying is the right terminology for what I am feeling about this team right now. Seems like this team is trying hard to find new ways to lose games ( here's looking at you VTek ). I'm starting to like the idea of moving Ellsbury to the 9 hole, but i doubt it will make him a better hitter. When I say better hitter, I really mean a smarter hitter. I can't stand having a lead-off guy, with the speed he has, refuse.... downright REFUSE to bunt. His OBP is .600 ( 18 for 30 on his career ) when he bunts. Some would say that's too small a sample size to make an argument and I would say to them that it's because that he refuses to bunt is a major part of my argument. We lose 5 games in a row, just happens to be the first 5 games of the season, and not a single bunt attempt from Ellsbury. Is he too good for it? Not likely.  It's not like the kids a masher or something. He's a 280 hitter who hasn't hit 10 homeruns in a season... ever. His OBP is 340 and if he bunted a third of the time his OBP would be around 380 easily, which means his BA would be over 300 and he'd have more steal attempts. We know he can steal 70... how's 90 sound to everyone? When is this kid gonna learn?!!! When is Tito or Mag gonna learn?!!! This is baseball fundamentals at it's core and they have yet to address it. The boston media has never addressed it either and they've had 4 years to question this.
     
  12. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

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

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Well, now it's five games.  Just a few random thoughts.  Katz, it's nice to see you back and get your ideas.  First, I'm not worried about this hitting.  I think when we start to click, we are going to really pound some teams.  The pitching is not there yet.  And the defense is not helping much at this point.  Can we fall into the habit of losing?  I don't think so.  The organization will not tolerate it and I don't think some of the players will.  I agree with someone here that someone needs to kick over a water cooler and rant a little here soon.  I think Tito could do that but that's not necessarily how he operates--maybe behind closed doors if he thought players were screwing off.  I think maybe Pedey and Youk could and should do it.  Who is the leader here--if it's still Tek then maybe he does it.  I think someone needs to give a little "Listen up boys, I've got something to say."  A quote I read from Pedey in the last couple of days sounded like he was getting close.

    Look, a question to all.  This is not original as one of you guys mentioned that spring training was too relaxed as is Tito's norm.  I've been hearing this for two or three years now, that we miss Brad Mills in this area.  I AM NOT trying to blame this whole thing on Tito, but just asking if we are a little too nonchalant to start the season--I've read on here more than once that they RS look like they're sleepwalking.  That is Tito's job to get them ready.  And is the lineup what it should be right now or are we just "exploring" until we get it right?  If the bottom third of the lineup is not hitting, when does the bench get a shot?  So I'm not really in a panic, I like this team and I like Tito but with a start like this, I don't think you just wait for things to get better.  I think you get a little proactive, and that's on Tito.  Will he respond and how?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I still laugh every time someone asks Softlaw "I am getting the feeling you really do not like so an so.."  Hilarious.

    I know. The list is at about half our team now... some "fan", huh?

    Haven't heard an original thought from softy since his Lugo defense days.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    BaseballGM,

    It's way too early in the season--plus Monday was off--for this bullpen to be overworked.  I'm guessing Reyes has problems throwing in cold weather, but in any case he has pitched a total of 1.2 innings in 9 days.  Wheeler has pitched 2.1 innings in 9 days. 

    Ellsbury didn't help, that's for sure.  But Youk was much worse.  He twice came up with runners on, including a man on third, and both times struck out.

    Varitek's brain cramp cost one run.  Reyes hit two batters and couldn't throw a strike to a guy trying to bunt, and Wheeler had to groove a fastball because he couldn't throw anything else.  Between them they gave up 4 earned runs in one inning.  Oh, and that "double play" ball was actually a line shot off of Youk's glove. 

    The hitting hasn't won any games, but the elephant in the room is the pitching.  It was lousy last year and hasn't--not yet, anyway--improved.  An ERA of over 8, dead last in MLB.

    So far Wakefield has been a godsend, the trash man who eats innings when the starters and other relievers have put the game out of reach.  Of 12 pitchers, he has the 3d best ERA. 
     
  16. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Yes, but 1-11 or 2-12 and 7-8 games behind is actually not as bad as 50-60 and being 20 games behind.

    Let's hope we aren't discussing this in 7 games.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    ...as I said before the season, Crawford's only spot is leadoff in this lineup. I also said that management will be forced to make lineup adjustment with Crawford...

    By "I", I assume you mean softy.

    Didn't "softy" promise never to come on this thread?

    Is "I" or "softy" the liar, or both?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    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.
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]


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

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Gonzalez looks for real doesn't he. Average, OBP and Power. He's a tremendous asset. They probably should sign him soon or they will be looking at a much tougher sign potentially. 

    I think given the strength of Gonzalez's start, and his apparent recovery from the injury, I'd probably slot him #3 at this point. He just looks so smooth with his stroke. He may well have a career year in 2011. He looks healthy and I for one was concerned abut that earlier.

    Part of the problems with this start is that we aren't getting very lucky either. Last night Ortiz hits a bullet to LF which gets caught. Tonight it was Pedroia. It's not the main reason though. We just are not playing well at all. That play by Tek was really brain dead. We just seem to be sleep walking out there sometimes. I know it's tough to see if Youk touched third but no matter what he should have allowed for that possibility. It was definitely an option from the beginning of that play onward. Tek must have seen the throw, when he stepped on 3rd while making the throw. It's just not like him at all to blow that.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think Crawford will be a great player for us but the fit was not ideal and for that kind of money it should be ideal. We managed for NESN ratings, not to win games. You know, it's real hard to play .630 ball for 156 games. We've dug ourselves a hole already.

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

    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.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Nobody is denouncing the humor element. It's more a matter of how the term "entertainment" is defined. It's a long season and humor is necessary to ease the stress many games can create.

    Juan Karlos, a very good poster, saw Law as "entertaining".
    I don't think that opinion is widely shared. But it goes to show that everybody is different.

    Getting back to the game, I don't think the Tek goof was the turning point.
    The real momentum shifter came when the Sox (Youk/Papi) couldn't capitalize on tying the game in the 5th. Normally, that's just another missed opportunity. But when ur struggling in every facet of the game, it loomed large.
     

Share