A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

  1. 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.
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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. 
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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?
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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. 
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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?
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. 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.

     
  15. 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.
     
  16. 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.

     
  17. 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.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    As far as the prowess of the two catchers versus LH pitching, given that the organization is committed to Salty, there was little chance that Tek was going to get 3 of the first 5 starts. And as far as starting the opener versus Cleveland versus Salty I can understand Tito's reluctance on two fronts. He is trying to get his young catcher going first of all and probably does not want to set up the whole personal catcher thing with Beckett and Tek.
     (katz)
    He could have played 2 of 5, or even the 1 of 5 vs a lefty not a righty. We will face plenty of righties in dueime for Salty to have his chance to get into a groove.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from softlawAAA. Show softlawAAA's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Wakefield has pitched poorly in nothing but mop-up appearances. He needs to go.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    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.



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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I certainly agree that Ellsbury could bunt more often. All that time in Arizona last year would have been well served developing that ability. Nonetheless, opposing pitchers have painted the lines on him this year. A little luck would have had him on base several more times. He's going to be fine IMO.

    Have you guys ever hit in 30 degree temperatures. It's no fun at all.

    Hopefully we start the turnaround in Fenway. Look at the numbers. It's got to get better than this!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    1. Lackey is a bust in year 2 of a 5 year ball and chain contract
    2. Salty is a Ranger castoff for a reason
    3. Despite the solo shots, Buch looked good in the high winds
    4. Papelbon is still a very good relief pitcher, even if he isn't 2007 dominant
    5. Lester started slow but will still have another solid year
    6. 2011 Jacked-up opening series Rangers are inferior to 2010 Rangers
    7. Pedroia looks fully recovered
    8. Youk isn't fully recovered but is on the road to full recovery
    9. Ortiz looks confident, even against commercial lefthanded pitching
    10.Reyes has decent lefty specialty stuff (overused of late)
    11.Aceves should replace Wakefield
    12.Crawford has no business hitting 3rd and shoud leadoff and just get on base
    13.Scutaro and Lowrie are 2nd basemen, Iglesias should start by the summer
    14.Wheeler is going to do a good job in the middle of the pen (overused of late)
    15.Ellsbury is a weak defensive CF'er who can't run with a quiet upper body 16.Cameron looks very smooth in the OF
    17.Cameron should start when Drew sits against Lefties, Not Mac
    18.Mac, Scutaro or Lowrie should pinch late for catcher in minus 1-3 R
    19.Trade for or call-up a veteran but fit decent overall catcher to replace Salty
    20.Either Dicek or Beckett's pitching well will be the key to the season
    21.Ellsbury should hit 9th to turn the lineup over better & Ped Youk & AGon 2-4
    22.Ellsbury has an ugly reverse pivot swing and needs to slap hit under the gun (0-5 and 3 K's and never hit the ball out of the infield, tonight)
    23.AGon isn't fully recovered but is a natural hitter with a terrific swing
    24.Team will have no problem scoring enough runs to win the division
    25.The team needed a solid catcher combination and better pitching and Crawford didn't address a single 2011 team need
    26.Luchino needs to shorten the leash on Epstein and make some immediate adjustments
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    hey Mr Moon

    I think Scut/Lowrie are 1 for ??? at SS so far and that one hit was a dribbler by Scut last night.  oooyyy

    I was surprised a bit to read this today. The average catcher hit only .245/.312/.374 last year
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    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
     
Sections
Shortcuts