A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    0-5 is magnified when you consider the long winter wait and the hope of better things to come after 2010. It's very disheartening. What concerns me is how deep the problems (that created this start) run.

    Is it a fluke? Or is it a sign of things to come?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59'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.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I was astounded when Varitek 'forced' the runner at home....unbelievable.

    I hate to say it, but perhaps a George Steinbrenner type outburst is needed.  Unfortunately, it's not Theo's or Henry's personality.

    We'll probably all feel better after a 12-run outburst soon.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Let me get this straight: I gather you don't much care for Tim Wakefield.
    Is it safe to make this assumption?

    It's softy trying to wriggle his way onto a thread he has denounced for months.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Dice was definitely sharper in the latter stages of ST.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    ...and the mountain keeps getting bigger.
    At this rate, we'll be playing into May just trying to get to .500.

    As a old ex-moundsman and current horseplayer, I can relate to the feeling players are experiencing. Right now, they feel like they will never win again.
    They know they will, but that's how it feels.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Pedroia is not a 3 hitter. Crawford needs to go to leadoff to say, Ellsbury to 9. Lester did his job, as I expected. There isn't any excuse for every player not knowing exactly what his role and lineup spot was going to be. Before the season started, only the delusional thought that Crawford belonged in the 3 spot. Adjustments still have to be made, and, 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, and that won't be putting him at 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9. With 156 games to go, plenty of time to make the adjustments. Wakefield's ERA in a mop-up role isn't worthy of any comment. That roster spot needs to go to Aceves, so there isn't a single player who can only mop out of the pen.
    Posted by BaseballGM


    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.
     
  8. 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:
    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. 
    Posted by M1A2


    I agree, Youkilis has looked awful so far.  Ellsbury has not looked good at all either.  Either way, eventually these bats will heat up.  In addition to these two:  Crawford, Drew, Scutaro, Salty are all better hitters to this.  Pedroia has done okay while A-Gon seems to be right where the Sox want him.

    The bullpen I'm honestly not all that worried about.  It's better than last year, plain and simple.  There's better arms and more importanly more arms in there.  This isn't going to all rest on Bard.

    The starting pitching deserves 80% of the blame for this ugly start.  If I were to give grades...

    Lester- D
    Lackey- F
    Buchholz- C
    Beckett- C
    Dice-K- C+

    What's really bad is does anyone have faith in Lester today?  I love this guy as a pitcher and am certain he will turn things around but I can't get over his slow starts.  I now expect him to not do well in the next 4-5 starts.  It's just the way it is.  Either way, today is a must-win.  Make no mistake.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdaytona. Show jimdaytona's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I would imagine that Francona will something creative Friday re the batting order.

    Pedroia, Craw, Agon, Youk, Ortiz, Scut, JD, Salty, Ells.


    Sox have to be one PO'd team, maybe that will work for them against Yanks.


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The perspective of FOX baseball columnist Jon Paul Morosi:

    http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-struggles-sign-team-not-as-good-as-advertised-040611
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Pedroia is not a 3 hitter. Crawford needs to go to leadoff to say, Ellsbury to 9. Lester did his job, as I expected. There isn't any excuse for every player not knowing exactly what his role and lineup spot was going to be. Before the season started, only the delusional thought that Crawford belonged in the 3 spot. Adjustments still have to be made, and, 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, and that won't be putting him at 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9. With 156 games to go, plenty of time to make the adjustments.

    Wakefield's ERA in a mop-up role isn't worthy of any comment. That roster spot needs to go to Aceves, so there isn't a single player who can only mop out of the pen.
     
  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:
    Pedroia is not a 3 hitter. Crawford needs to go to leadoff to say, Ellsbury to 9. Lester did his job, as I expected. There isn't any excuse for every player not knowing exactly what his role and lineup spot was going to be. Before the season started, only the delusional thought that Crawford belonged in the 3 spot. Adjustments still have to be made, and, 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, and that won't be putting him at 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9. With 156 games to go, plenty of time to make the adjustments. Wakefield's ERA in a mop-up role isn't worthy of any comment. That roster spot needs to go to Aceves, so there isn't a single player who can only mop out of the pen.
    Posted by BaseballGM


    Ummmm, how many of our present relievers can currently start?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Oh, there's plenty of hope. The problem is, if this team digs a hole too deep, their normal mental approach can easily be altered. 0-6 is a challenge to quickly overcome. The team is now 0-16 counting ST.
    An 0-16 hole beyond ST becomes an early grave.

    This is either the best time to play NY...or the absolute worst.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think the loss can be summed up with the following failures, in order of damage factor:

    1. Another Marginal Starter Outing
    2. Ellsbury failing to reach base in 5 attempts (cost 3 runs)
    3. An overwroked pen
    4. Varitek's brain cramp

    However, assuming the starting pitching ends up with 3 guys pitching well for a full season, I think this debacle start will be forgotten as the Red Sox cruise into the playoffs. Spring training was not good, in the aggregate, and poor decisions created vacillation and a team with players who were not put in the best positions to succeed. Adjustments have been started, but a few others need to be made, and they will, eventually.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Yeah yeah its okay - just certain others complain that this is not just as much about entertainment as it is serious sports talk.  Just a matter of opinion and I think both are important.

    0-5 is not a big deal - just really blows.  Next thing you know they will go 8-2 over the next 10 and 8-7, as if 0-5 never happened.

    "disheartening" was the word I was looking for but I ended up with "blows'... sad really.
     
  17. 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:
    Compare his targets to that of Tek. Both make last second maneuvering, but Tek then keeps his target stationary for as long as possible. Salty's target is much too brief, IMO.

    Posted by harness

    How well did tek's stationary target work out last night?

    Oh, that's right, you only give tek the credit when they pitch well and none of the blame when they get shelled.

    Give it a rest.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    M1A, if you subscribe to CERA, Varitek just gave up 7 runs. Not good. Wakefield mopped by giving up another homer. Keep Crawford and Pedroia out of the 3 spot and move Ellsbury to the 9 spot. The starting pitching has been so bad that the pen is overloaded. They need to trade or release Wakefield and use Aceves. They could have done to Aceves in the 6th, instead of more taxing on Reyes and Wheeler in the early meltdown mode. Pretty clear that Tito got orders from Theo to go with Crawford in the 3 spot. Big mistake. This team wasn't properly prepared with proper lineup order in spring training. The good news is that this debacle is at the beginning of the season, so there is still time for Theo to adjust and admit his mistakes on setting the roster and the roles of the players on the roster.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Just read in the Globe's EXTRA BASES where Tek said he couldn't tell if Youk had touched the bag first. Youk said the same thing.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67'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 : 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. 
    Posted by fivekatz


    True dat, my good friends katz and harness.

    This is so unusual, and baffling.

    Still, why is it so impossible to believe in a better outcome? I think back to 2004 - and the name of that video: Still, we believe.


     

    Still, we believe - seven years later.  

    I believe.

    I choose to believe.

    What do the rest of you choose to do?

    Here endeth the lesson.
     
  21. 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:
    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



    Exactly! And if one play determines a game's fate against this level of competition, what does that tell you?
     
  22. 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:
    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
    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. 
     
  23. 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:
    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


    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.


     
  24. 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:
    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


    How about switching Pedroia and Crawford? 
     
  25. 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.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share