A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stormcrow7878. Show stormcrow7878's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    It appears to me that the team is gonna baby Josh/Bedard for the PO's, and settle for the WC You are a very dim bulb. It's been clear for weeks that management was playing for 2nd place and doing 6 man monte and "being cautious", as the favorite management line goes. The irony is that it has had zero affect on keeping any player healthy.  Doesn't mean playoff performance will mirror the bad team baseball the team has been playing since last long and compressed road trip, but it does invalidate the pampering approach to the impending post season.   
    Posted by S0ftl@w


    Well i agree 100% with what you said about not being to concerned about 1st place, and pampering. It is always interesting that teams "rest" their guys for the Post Season, and then those guys underperform. Interestingly, the Yankees are also going with a 6 man rotation. I hope this does not mean a baseball future of 6 man rotations.....yuck.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    What just became obvious to harness has been obvious to me for 3 months. I scoff at the 6 man rotation and the 100 pitch count... our pitchers are soft. Philly will anhilate this team in the WS if we even get that far.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    It appears to me that the team is gonna baby Josh/Bedard for the PO's, and settle for the WC You are a very dim bulb. It's been clear for weeks that management was playing for 2nd place and doing 6 man monte and "being cautious", as the favorite management line goes. The irony is that it has had zero affect on keeping any player healthy.  Doesn't mean playoff performance will mirror the bad team baseball the team has been playing since last long and compressed road trip, but it does invalidate the pampering approach to the impending post season.   
    Posted by S0ftl@w


    And you continue to post in the dark. Where were the REDSOX "weeks ago"?
    They didn't abandon plans to win the division while in first, bird-brain.

    The situation changed once Josh sprained his ankle/NY took a quick 2-game lead. Up until then, the FO approach was to go for the division, but not at the risk of losing guys like Youk for October.

    Now they are in a position to baby Bedard. The 6-man rotation existed to accommodate those who were showing good/decent form or had earned the right to be in the rotation. It was also a good way to give the starters an extra day rest in the dog-days. UR WAKE bias blinds you into dark corners.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Yes, the division plans were abandoned back when team was in first place by a razor thin margin during dog days. The 6 man monte and "not at expense" has been a clear punt for weeks. The 6 man rotation was not at all to accomadate Wastefield and Slackey and Miller, none who could be remotely considered "good/decent form". It was done to try and keep Beckett and Lester and Bedard healthy for playoffs and give up on any hope but a Yankee meltdown hope of backing into division. Of course, it didn't work because Beckett and Bedard are on the bed despite the pushed back and extra days monte that has been going on for weeks.

    Plant brain would be your brain size, as the cuckhold is smarter than you.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Pea-brain thought process. Abandoning first place while in first place is the statement of a fool.

    I said the "6-man monte" was to give the starters a break.
    But it was also a luxury they could afford due to their depth (until the injuries took a stranglehold).
    It was not a surrender flag. The team was winning with Miller/Wake/Lackey for months. And they were fighting for a PO birth all the while, Wilfred.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Tonight's game again exemplifies our pitching coach's ineptness. Even Remy said Bard was dropping down and throwing from the side (not over the top), thus dragging his pitches.
    Third time this season an obvious pitching flaw went undetected.
    Lackey on July 4th.
    Josh in Seattle.
    Now this.

    Biggest team Achilles heel:
    1) Pitching coach with his head up his azz...and the sequential consequences.
    2) SS position continues to find new ways to screw up in the field.
    3) BP depth after Hill went down. It was masked  when Bard/Albers/Aceves caught fire, but is now exposed again during dog-days.

    Weaknesses have a way of rearing their ugly head in PO competition.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Precisely why they are conditioned to go on short rest in October. They haven't been burnt out. Lester/Josh know what the grind is like n post season. They'll measure up.They should have plenty of gas left in the tank.
    Posted by harness

    In theory, this sounds correct, but it made me think long and hard when Tito didn't keep Lester in for one more inning vs the Yanks... a big game for us.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from WC5842. Show WC5842's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : In theory, this sounds correct, but it made me think long and hard when Tito didn't keep Lester in for one more inning vs the Yanks... a big game for us.
    Posted by moonslav59

    He was at 114 pitches.  While it was a big game, particulary for the mental nature of it. Not sure if you can justify subjecting Lester to another inning.  In the end, it did hurt as Aceves and Bard got beat.  More importantly for the Yankees it sent them out of Fenway full of confidence.  I think that victory, particulary with AJ starting could be the point in time when the Yankees "flipped" on the Championship switch.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Max has a point. Our current pitching depth is basically terrible. We do have a tough schedule. We could lose quite a few games before year end. Our hitters need to keep going strong and, to me, this team probably doesn't make it through the playoffs very far unless Buchholz is back. Buchholz has the stuff to be a difference maker. We need him badly. As a starter. We have 3 weeks. It could happen.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    Max has a point. Our current pitching depth is basically terrible. We do have a tough schedule. We could lose quite a few games before year end. Our hitters need to keep going strong and, to me, this team probably doesn't make it through the playoffs very far unless Buchholz is back. Buchholz has the stuff to be a difference maker. We need him badly. As a starter. We have 3 weeks. It could happen.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom
    Buchholz in my opinion won't be back and available as a starter in 3 weeks. The RS fate rests on the ankle of Josh Beckett and knee of Eric Bedard IMHO.

    While we have had a lively debate on the relative merits Tim Wakefield and Andrew Miller for sometime now I don't think it was in the context of the third and fourth pitchers in a post season rotation.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    Tonight's game again exemplifies our pitching coach's ineptness. Even Remy said Bard was dropping down and throwing from the side (not over the top), thus dragging his pitches. Third time this season an obvious pitching flaw went undetected. Lackey on July 4th. Josh in Seattle. Now this. Biggest team Achilles heel: 1) Pitching coach with his head up his azz...and the sequential consequences. 2) SS position continues to find new ways to screw up in the field. 3) BP depth after Hill went down. It was masked  when Bard/Albers/Aceves caught fire, but is now exposed again during dog-days. Weaknesses have a way of rearing their ugly head in PO competition.
    Posted by harness

    I don't appreciate your negativity.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : I'd say he's as close to unhittable as it gets. And putting UR ace against him in his home venue is not a wise pct. move.
    Posted by harness


    sometimes you have to do things out of necessity, depending on length of series, DEPTH of starting staff. I'm not afraid of Justin Verlander, and the Sox shouldn't be either. With that said, the percentages aren't on any opponent's side in that matchup.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'm a little surprised the CERA folks aren't picking up more on the huge catcher splits Bard has.  A disastrous outing like last night's obviously has a big impact on the numbers, but as of now here are Bard's 2011 splits:

    With Varitek
    30.1 IP
    ERA 0.89
    SO 33
    BB 3

    With Salty
    35.0 IP
    ERA 4.37
    SO 35
    BB 15

    Look at the difference in the walks.  Bard's command seems to really suffer when it's not Tek behind the plate.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : In theory, this sounds correct, but it made me think long and hard when Tito didn't keep Lester in for one more inning vs the Yanks... a big game for us.
    Posted by moonslav59


    I disagree by a wide margin. Not about your comment on Lester, but I think it's the opposite what is going on in what harness said. The pitchers have been, are being, and are not being prepared to go longer, they are trained to go 100 pitches, trained to go 7 IP max. That is not good considering the pen is starting to show its cracks. I still don't understand how or why it's ok to throw a guy 3 or 4 times in a week as a reliever, get them up in games 1 or 2 times in some weeks when they don't even come in to a game due to circumstance, but then turn right around and take another pitcher and say you can only go 100 pitches and we only expect you to throw for 21 outs..oh yeah, and we don't want you to do anything but rest the next 4 days (or 5) between that outing and your next 21-out, 100 pitch outing. Relievers have and do get abused, relievers get tired too, relievers get hurt too, and for whatever reason it's widely accepted that it's perfectly ok to throw a guy 3 or 4 times in a week (6 innings or even 4 or 5 innings) and that's ok even though the amount of pitches, amount of wear and tear is so much more on that reliever than any SP. SPs need to go longer, should be trained to go longer, USED to be trained to go longer, USED to be expected to go longer. If SPs need to be coddled, guess what, so do top-of-the-line relief pitchers like Bard, who shouldn't have gone that many pitches last night.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    A reliever can throw 200 to 250 pitches in a week by having to quickly get up and warm up and then throw their 1 or 2 inning stints, but then do it 4 times in a week. Then if they get 2 days rest, they are supposed to be ok. Uh, not logical.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    The pitch count is an endlessly circular discussion. But the industry with small varaitions had adopted it. The Rangers have an owner that was very outspoken about starting pitchers going longer and his 2010 AL championship team led the majors in bullpen IP and that was with a partial year of Cliff Lee and Cj Wilson having his best season ever. What did his team do at the deadline? Shore up its bullpen to have more depth. The realities of how the game has evolved certainly rather quickly transformed Nolan Ryan's populist views on starting pitchers not being used more and going deeper once he was a managing partner and not an outsider with strong views about the good ole' days.

    As for your example, Bard was exposed last night, just as Lester, Beckett and Lackey each have been to 130 pitch counts this season.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Right, five, but don't you think that it's possible, not saying it's going to work successfully, but that it's possible that if you are trained in such a way to go only for so long that you eventually assimilate to that logic and that maximum end. Beckett and Lester must both figure out ways to maximize themselves to possibly go the 130 pitch route without it hurting the team.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Beckett and Lester must both figure out ways to maximize themselves to possibly go the 130 pitch route without it hurting the team.

    ...or getting hurt themselves.

    Building up endurance is crucial to being able to perform in an extended outing in October.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    130 pitches is nice, but certainly not every game.  To me the bigger problem is guys like Lester and Beckett attacking the strike zone.   Instead, they tend toward the Matsuzaka approach of working around the strike zone, with the result that it takes more pitches to get outs and complete innings.  Thus neither one has even a remote shot at the Cy Young this year because they are nowhere near the top in innings pitched.  That said, I agree both are absolutely crucial to postseason success as well as season success.

    Right now, I say again, the Sox are in danger because of weak pitching, starters and bullpen.  Tonight it's Miller, the perfect Dr Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.  Backing him up are a bunch of guys who may or may not hang onto a lead or at least keep it close so the hitters can pull it out. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Anyone claiming 6 card monte and being cautions weeks ago was not punting on the division and hoping for backing in Yankee meltdown is on the same brain death as Bully #2.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHUBBIE99. Show CHUBBIE99's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    MOON, I think the 99 wins is going to be a little off. I say 94 -95 at the most.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    Anyone claiming 6 card monte and being cautions weeks ago was not punting on the division and hoping for backing in Yankee meltdown is on the same brain death as Bully #2.
    Posted by S0ftl@w

     
    Anyone claiming the 6 card monte was a surrender flag for divisional title is illuminating the essence of ignorance. The team has a good winning pct. with Wake/Lackey(healthy)/Miller be it in a 5-man or 6-man rotation. Using all 6 at times instead of 5 depicted rotational depth.

    Once injury/potential injury compromised that depth, the decision (IMO) was made to get healthy for the PO's. Just kills you that Wake has been the only starter out of ST to remain healthy. Proves your age/stature bias to be just that.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    harness, you blame the pitching coach for the ills, but I can turn right around and blame Tito for not using the right catchers with the right pitchers, something he seemed to do a better job at last year.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    130 pitches is nice, but certainly not every game.  To me the bigger problem is guys like Lester and Beckett attacking the strike zone.   Instead, they tend toward the Matsuzaka approach of working around the strike zone, with the result that it takes more pitches to get outs and complete innings.  Thus neither one has even a remote shot at the Cy Young this year because they are nowhere near the top in innings pitched.  That said, I agree both are absolutely crucial to postseason success as well as season success. Right now, I say again, the Sox are in danger because of weak pitching, starters and bullpen.  Tonight it's Miller, the perfect Dr Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.  Backing him up are a bunch of guys who may or may not hang onto a lead or at least keep it close so the hitters can pull it out. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    BINGO!

    It's not about trainingpitchers to go 7 IP. They go as far as they can within pitch count/fatigue limitations. If they were more pitch efficient, we'd be seeing Cliff Lee/Halladay reincarnates.

    As Katz alluded, the game has evolved to it's present state. Not regressed.
    It's simply tougher on the pitcher in this day and age than it's been in over 100 years of baseball.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'd take 130 pitches in a postseason game, and twice if they had to, that as a worst case scenario. The reality is that you can have a far better, efficient outing that can complete 8 innings of work in 112 to 120 pitches. It's not unthinkable, but it does require attacking the zone, and not nibbling.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share