A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    I really don't see any reason why the Sox should have much confidence in Salty. Maybe they don't think he will be horrible! Maybe they think he is still relatively young and might at least improve some. It will be interesting to see how this shakes down in the Bobby V era.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom

    I have never been a strong believer in Salty. 

    I do think he is still young enough to improve. He turned 26 last May. 

    VTek only had 87 games under his belt by the end of the season he turned 26. At age 27 he became a FT catcher and started out with a .716 OPS that year. By age 28, he went over the .800 mark.

    VTek did not become a great game-caller overnight, and although Salty has more MLB experience than Vtek had at this age, he hasn't been with the same staff FT for an extended time.

    Here's VTek's CERA numbers his first FT year (note: sample sizes):
                        w/VTek     W/Hatt.      w/Gub      w/Web
    Team:      3.98 (1153)  3.13 (158)  6.31 (83)  3.55 (38)
    Individual:
    Martinez: 1.98 (195)   3.00 (18)
    Portugal:  6.45 (82)     3.51 (26)  6.92 (26)  1.65 (16)
    Pat Rapp: 4.73 (99)     2.67 (30)  2.65 (17)
    Wakef'ld:  5.39 (127)  0.90 (10)
    Saberh'n: 2.92 (111)  3.38  (8)
    D. Lowe:   2.54 (92)    2.45  (11)
    B. Rose:    3.94 (82)    (others combined: 9.05 in 16 IP)
    J. Wasdin  3.91 (53)   2.51 (14)
    Cormier     3.98 (52)   (others combined ~4.75 in 11 IP)

    There are really no comparable sample sizes, but I do not think anyone looking at these numbers would have thought VTek was an excellent game-caller in 1999.

    Year 2000:
    Staff w/VTek: 3.96  (1076)
    Staff w/Hatt: 5.02  (377)

    Year 2001:
    w/VTek:  3.00  (426)
    w/Hatt:  4.60  (582)
    w/Mira:  4.75  (389)

    Maybe VTek was a once in a lifetime fast learner, but Salty already has more ML experience at 27 years old than VTek had before the 2000 season.

    I hope Ben knows what he is doing, but it's nice to have Lava in case it doesn't work out.


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Guys not much to comment on yet.  I assume as ST moves on we'll have more to talk about.  As to Iggy going down, I heard two sports announcers having that conversation a couple of days ago about a NL kid who looks great in ST.  Everyone is saying he's ready but these guys said, "Yeah, but if they send him down for 21 days they get another year of control.  That's hard not to do."  So you were right about that Boom/Moon.

    Look, I don't know when Harness is coming back, but I think we better do a little ST work and get in shape.  We're all a little lethargic right now.  We need to brush up on the statistics and practice running out a few sardonic, acerbic comments.  Boom. you better put on some mail.  When he gets here he'll want us in mid-season form...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Amp, just for the record I agree with you about Lava.  For a short time frame I don't think he looked any worse than anyone else, didn't seem to embarrass himself, and fit in pretty well.  With the RS catching coach, I don't think any prospect is going to get too far off track once with the big team.  We all love watching a "natural" but brains go a long ways too, so if he can apply his to baseball, that's a plus.  As Moon has suggested, if he comes along quickly, then we have Salty to trade for other needs.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, it seems a little slow here so early in the season, so I want to toss out the following: what do you see as the questions that need to be answered in ST? 
                1)  What will happen at SS?  Will Iggy be the starter on Day1?  So
                     far Iggy seems to be holding his own.  They have him doing some
                     bunting and everyone talks great about his D.  I'd like to see him
                     start, but my hunch is they'll send him to AAA for a while.

                2)  Starting Pitching.  I think Bard is a starter, hell or high water.
                     They've crossed that bridge.  I'm hoping Doubie, Cook, or
                     Miller lands the job and Aceves goes back to the pen.  You never
                     wanted him as a starter and I've changed my mind.  He is really
                     valuable in his former role and BV might be setting that up. 
                     Yesterday BV said, "I can see he's got a great feel for both but
                     it's about what's best for the club..." or something close to that.

                 3) Bullpen.  I'm feeling good about this.  If Aceves goes back I think
                     our pen can be as strong top to bottom as last year, maybe not
                     as strong at the end but maybe stronger throughout.  Actually I
                     think our pen was pretty good last year until it started wearing
                     down because of problems with the starters.  Moon, I think you
                     spoke to this last year.  I think BV once again might be
                     a little more adept, hand on the wheel, quicker to make changes,
                     use the whole staff, encourage roles for young pitchers, etc.
                     improves our pen as the year moves along.  Just a hunch.

                 4)  How is Bi-Valve going to mesh with the team, make his imprint.
                      This question is being answered very satisfactorily even as we
                      speak in any number of ways.  I'm going to make one comment
                      that sums it up for me.  Each day when I go read about what
                      happened in ST, the articles say the players are rushing from
                      field to field and station to station and they ALL SAY "players
                      left the field dripping in sweat."  Ha.

                  5) Honestly, I'm worried about two players, CC and Youk.  As Boom
                      has pointed out, CC may have hurt his wrist last year more than
                      we know.  I think we have the people to adequately replace him
                      but in this case it's more about our HUGE investment which we
                      have all discussed here.  Regardless of our views, it would be
                      great if he could come back and earn some of that, but will he?
                      I don't think it looks good now.  Also, and I don't want to put a
                      curse on my favorite player and I know it's VERY early, but Youk
                      still doesn't seem right to me.  He played two innings today and
                      got no hits and made one error.  He never looked like himself
                      all last year and he hasn't found his stride yet.  The young kids
                      do look good at third.  I'm hoping Youk finds himself and
                      solidifies the lineup.

                      Other than general health, are there other issues?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Middlebrooks certainly looks like a 3rd baseman doesn't he. The only question is his ability to hit big league pitching but that is a pretty big question isn't it!

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, it seems a little slow here so early in the season, so I want to toss out the following: what do you see as the questions that need to be answered in ST?  

    It is slow. I tyhink the SS, 5th starter and bullpen allignment are the 3 biggest questions.

                1)  What will happen at SS?  Will Iggy be the starter on Day1?  So 
                     far Iggy seems to be holding his own.  They have him doing some
                     bunting and everyone talks great about his D.  I'd like to see him 
                     start, but my hunch is they'll send him to AAA for a while. 

    I have been a strong advocate of Iggy being our FT starter from day 1. Nothing has changed. I'd say the odds are about 50-50 right now.

                2)  Starting Pitching.  I think Bard is a starter, hell or high water.
                     They've crossed that bridge.  I'm hoping Doubie, Cook, or 
                     Miller lands the job and Aceves goes back to the pen.  You never
                     wanted him as a starter and I've changed my mind.  He is really
                     valuable in his former role and BV might be setting that up.  
                     Yesterday BV said, "I can see he's got a great feel for both but 
                     it's about what's best for the club..." or something close to that.

    With Paps and Bard gone from the pen, Aceves needs to start in the pen. Maybe as bard needs some rest later in the season, Aceves can get a few starts.

                 3) Bullpen.  I'm feeling good about this.  If Aceves goes back I think 
                     our pen can be as strong top to bottom as last year, maybe not
                     as strong at the end but maybe stronger throughout.  Actually I
                     think our pen was pretty good last year until it started wearing
                     down because of problems with the starters.  Moon, I think you
                     spoke to this last year.  I think BV once again might be 
                     a little more adept, hand on the wheel, quicker to make changes,
                     use the whole staff, encourage roles for young pitchers, etc. 
                     improves our pen as the year moves along.  Just a hunch.

    I think Bailey and Melancon and a full season from Morales & tazawa can and will make up for the loss of Papelbon. It's the loss of Bard and papelbon that worries me. I like Morales and taz to step it up, so I think we will be OK in the pen. The problem is, our pen was fantastic last year. It's a step down. Hopefully, the starters will more than make up for it. (Also many of our relief pitchers did much much better with VTek behind the plate. I hope they can adjust.)

                 4)  How is Bi-Valve going to mesh with the team, make his imprint.
                      This question is being answered very satisfactorily even as we
                      speak in any number of ways.  I'm going to make one comment
                      that sums it up for me.  Each day when I go read about what
                      happened in ST, the articles say the players are rushing from 
                      field to field and station to station and they ALL SAY "players
                      left the field dripping in sweat."  Ha.

    I think Bobby V will be a great manager for 2012. However, I am not sure he can hold that luster for more than a season.

                  5) Honestly, I'm worried about two players, CC and Youk.  As Boom
                      has pointed out, CC may have hurt his wrist last year more than 
                      we know.  I think we have the people to adequately replace him
                      but in this case it's more about our HUGE investment which we
                      have all discussed here.  Regardless of our views, it would be 
                      great if he could come back and earn some of that, but will he?
                      I don't think it looks good now.  Also, and I don't want to put a 
                      curse on my favorite player and I know it's VERY early, but Youk
                      still doesn't seem right to me.  He played two innings today and 
                      got no hits and made one error.  He never looked like himself
                      all last year and he hasn't found his stride yet.  The young kids
                      do look good at third.  I'm hoping Youk finds himself and 
                      solidifies the lineup.

    I agree with your take here, but look at it this way: we got little from these two guys last year and have better back-ups this year. Anything more we get from them this year will be a huge plus, otherwise, we stay even in LF and 3B from 2011. Not a terrible thing as long as others improve.

                      Other than general health, are there other issues?

    RF: As everyone know, I have been a big supporter of getting Cody Ross, but I realize he has slumped badly the last 2 years. The platoon of Ross & Sweeney (assuming Ross is not in LF most of the year) promises to improve our RF OPS by over 100 points, but, it is all conjecture. On paper, it looks good, but the game is played on the field.

    C: I still have huge doubts about Salty. I'd like to see Lava get his shot this year, but I doubt it happens until June or July. 

    Bard as a starter: a huge gamble. Needless in my opinion had Ben had the foresight to not offer Papi arb and used the money saved to trade for a quality 4th starter. (He probably still could have outbid the highest bidder for Papi as well.)
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Doubront has probably the best shot at #5 and can be a decent solution. Tazawa has come back pretty strong from TJ surgury and has added a little MPH. He could be serviceable as a #5. Mortensen has a real shot also. Padilla certainly could be given an early shot though as he will need to make the roster or be allowed to move on I would think. I don't think we have premium player options at #4 and 5 but we do have significant depth. 

    We can't get much worse at these spots than we had last year. I wish we made a deal for a #4 or 5 but I do think with a little luck we have some solutions. Maybe Bard excells even. It could happen. What a boost that would be. I can't see him doing it all year but even just in the 1st half it would be great. Doubront and Tazawa could give us some innings and some good starts and Mortensen is probably better than Wieland was. We might well catch some luck with some of these guys and we still have Cook, Padilla and others.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We can't get much worse at these spots than we had last year. I wish we made a deal for a #4 or 5 but I do think with a little luck we have some solutions. 

    I'm with you all the way here. Although I was happy with our offseason, I think the one thing that may come back to haunt us was not trading for a quality 3/4 type starter (like Floyd, Wandy...).

    I also have one other concern about our 4th, 5th and beyond slots as it relates to our 2011 starter depth: on the surface, it looks pretty easy to improve on the terrible numbers of our starters beyond the big 3, but their team W-L records in games these guys started were really not that bad and may be hard to improve on.

                 GS  IP   ERA WHIP Team record
    Lackey  28  160  6.41  1.62    14-14
    Wake    23  137  5.31  1.39    12-11
    Miller    12    58  5.55  1.80      9-3
    Bedard   8    38  4.03  1.55      4-4
    Dice-K    7    36  4.95  1.40      4-3
    Weiland 5    22  8.72  1.85      1-4
    Aceves   4    21  5.14  1.57      1-3

    We only had a losing record with 2 of our bottom 7 starters!

    Our overall record was 45-42 with these guys.

    I do think we can do better with Bard and "fill-in-the-blank", but how much better than 45-42 is a big question. Our 2012 bottom starters might do much better in ERA and WHIP, but only go 38-35.

    (I'm hoping Buch gets 30 starts, so that will cut into the IP of our bottom guys.)

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, I'm thinking this pitching coach is an upgrade.  How much that affects results I don't know.  I don't know to what extent they work with a catcher.  I do know even early in ST I'm reading snippets about the PC and BV's comments to and about pitchers which I don't recall hearing last year.  Things like, "He needs to go back to his previous form and motion where he had success and just throw the ball," or "He needs to feature his fastball," or "He has great offspeed stuff; he needs to throw it more."  It seems like they are very on top of how the pitchers are doing and what they need to be doing and their defense, so once again this may be an organization boost as the year moves on.  Not being critical here, I think Tito planned on his veterans and maybe didn't always want to be open about what younger guys had or could become.  Some coaches just do better developing younger players.  I hope BV is one of those.  I agree BV is a bright star who might burn out more quickly. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Our overall record was 45-42 with these guys.

    I'm not goingto take the time to do the research, but my guess is that not many teams, if any, got a winning record from their 4 slot and below.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Our overall record was 45-42 with these guys. I'm not goingto take the time to do the research, but my guess is that not many teams, if any, got a winning record from their 4 slot and below.
    Posted by moonslav59


    True, but do you think our "Gang of Seven" could repeat that W-L record in 2012 with the same peripherals?  I don't, I think they would regress to 35-52 or so.

    Of course it's not a zero-sum game where the Gang's good luck in 2011 gets transferred to Beckett (only 13 wins despite great peripherals in 2011) in 2012, but results should normalise over time so the expected increase in quality innings from Buchholz, Bard, Mr. X and Matsuzaka should make a big difference....in theory.


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : True, but do you think our "Gang of Seven" could repeat that W-L record in 2012 with the same peripherals?  I don't, I think they would regress to 35-52 or so. Of course it's not a zero-sum game where the Gang's good luck in 2011 gets transferred to Beckett (only 13 wins despite great peripherals in 2011) in 2012, but results should normalise over time so the expected increase in quality innings from Buchholz, Bard, Mr. X and Matsuzaka should make a big difference....in theory.
    Posted by Chilliwings

    Yes, very true, and I didn't mean to sound like a defeatist or alarmist.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

     Pull out the one contribution Pike made to the forum, the study of median runs. The fact of the matter is the Sox median was 4 runs, a number they hit in 28 games, the most they've hit that number in 8 years. Caused by...an inconsistent offense, bombardment in one game, scratching for runs the next. Heck, I read someone here say Beckett could have won 19 games with a little more support.
     It doesn't matter who pitches in the four or five slot, (whoever it is will be mediocre), what matters is CONSISTENT OFFENSE, which is not measured by Avg, HR's, slugging, or OPS, or even average runs scored, it's MEDIAN runs. Thanks Pike.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    We can't get much worse at these spots than we had last year. I wish we made a deal for a #4 or 5 but I do think with a little luck we have some solutions.  I'm with you all the way here. Although I was happy with our offseason, I think the one thing that may come back to haunt us was not trading for a quality 3/4 type starter (like Floyd, Wandy...). I also have one other concern about our 4th, 5th and beyond slots as it relates to our 2011 starter depth: on the surface, it looks pretty easy to improve on the terrible numbers of our starters beyond the big 3, but their team W-L records in games these guys started were really not that bad and may be hard to improve on.              GS  IP   ERA WHIP Team record Lackey  28  160  6.41  1.62    14-14 Wake    23  137  5.31  1.39    12-11 Miller    12    58  5.55  1.80      9-3 Bedard   8    38  4.03  1.55      4-4 Dice-K    7    36  4.95  1.40      4-3 Weiland 5    22  8.72  1.85      1-4 Aceves   4    21  5.14  1.57      1-3 We only had a losing record with 2 of our bottom 7 starters! Our overall record was 45-42 with these guys. I do think we can do better with Bard and "fill-in-the-blank", but how much better than 45-42 is a big question. Our 2012 bottom starters might do much better in ERA and WHIP, but only go 38-35. (I'm hoping Buch gets 30 starts, so that will cut into the IP of our bottom guys.)
    Posted by moonslav59

     So, a winning record with the 4-5 ensemble, and you can't expect much more than that. The lack of quality offense, especially in Beckett's case, was the difference in the season, 5-6 more wins for Josh, and we coast in. It was....the offense, I believe you made my case, thank you.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortMeade. Show FortMeade's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
     Pull out the one contribution Pike made to the forum, the study of median runs. The fact of the matter is the Sox median was 4 runs, a number they hit in 28 games, the most they've hit that number in 8 years. Caused by...an inconsistent offense, bombardment in one game, scratching for runs the next. Heck, I read someone here say Beckett could have won 19 games with a little more support.  It doesn't matter who pitches in the four or five slot, (whoever it is will be mediocre), what matters is CONSISTENT OFFENSE, which is not measured by Avg, HR's, slugging, or OPS, or even average runs scored, it's MEDIAN runs. Thanks Pike.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20


    I indeed came up with the need to use median runs as a measure. I also just had to take you to school on another thread on how and when to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to compare real salaries over time. You also have been schooled on the fact that you repeatedly start threads for shock value / controversy sake such as your AGon Bashing last June when he was hitting .350. The forum has enough of that nonsense already and you are an intelligent person and should be above that.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I :  So, a winning record with the 4-5 ensemble, and you can't expect much more than that. The lack of quality offense, especially in Beckett's case, was the difference in the season, 5-6 more wins for Josh, and we coast in. It was....the offense, I believe you made my case, thank you.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20

    You can believe anything you want, but it still doesn't make it right.

    Thinking our offense lost us a chance more than our pitching (and defense) is so far off the deep end, no lifeline will reach you.

    1) We went 17-13 in those games we scored 4 runs. I don't think those games is what lost us a playoff berth. (The Yanks: 15-13 in 4 run gms.) The difference? We played in 2 more than them and won those 2.

    2) We went 7-8 in games we scored 5 runs. (The Yanks went 17-8)

    3) We won 6 of 14 games that our staff let up 6 runs. (That's an example of our offense bailing out poor pitching).

    4) We won 5 of 15 games that our pitchers let up 7-8 runs.

    5) We even won 3 games that our staff let up 9+ runs.

    6) The Yanks only lost 14 games when they scored 5 or more runs: the Sox lost 15.

    7) The Yanks won just 2 games that their staff let up 8+ runs. The Sox won 5.

    Yes, we were less consistent in 2011 than years before. No doubt. Timely hitting was lacking, but timely hitting is hard to predict or plan for. We hit lefties as well as righties. Our bottom of the order was in the top 3 in MLB is offensive performance. We hit better than any other team on the road. Timely hitting comes and goes with all teams and players individually. We'll certainly win more this year if we do better in this area, but there is definitely no way we win with the same pitching we had in 2010.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I indeed came up with the need to use median runs as a measure. I also just had to take you to school on another thread on how and when to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to compare real salaries over time. You also have been schooled on the fact that you repeatedly start threads for shock value / controversy sake such as your AGon Bashing last June when he was hitting .350. The forum has enough of that nonsense already and you are an intelligent person and should be above that.
    Posted by FortMeade

     I'm not sure why you're such a liar, unless it's for shock value. I've already schooled you on the fabulous A-Gon thread, it wasn't June, he wasn't hitting .350, and it wasn't bashing, it was questioning his shoulder health. A problem he readily admits to for last year. You indicated also that you were going to bed, but the lights are still on, another un-truth from FM.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I indeed came up with the need to use median runs as a measure. I also just had to take you to school on another thread on how and when to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to compare real salaries over time. You also have been schooled on the fact that you repeatedly start threads for shock value / controversy sake such as your AGon Bashing last June when he was hitting .350. The forum has enough of that nonsense already and you are an intelligent person and should be above that.
    Posted by FortMeade


     What happened to pig-headed and dumb,dumb, dumb? Which is against the rules of decorum, btw.
     
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
     You can believe anything you want, but it still doesn't make it right.

     No, I don't have that luxury, I need facts. Like the 4-5 starters had a slight winning record, so it doesn't matter which mediocre pitchers get the ball.

    Thinking our offense lost us a chance more than our pitching (and defense) is so far off the deep end, no lifeline will reach you.

     Yet, Beckett could have won 6 more games, not by pitching better, but by getting better support, and 6 wins would have topped the Rays.

     No doubt. Timely hitting was lacking, but timely hitting is hard to predict or plan for. We hit lefties as well as righties. Our bottom of the order was in the top 3 in MLB is offensive performance. We hit better than any other team on the road.

     This is cumulative analysis, when you group it all together, it looks fine.

     Timely hitting comes and goes with all teams and players individually.

     "Timely" hitting is subjective, it can't be measured, so throw it out with the knuckleballs.

     We'll certainly win more this year if we do better in this area, but there is definitely no way we win with the same pitching we had in 2010.

      What?? Which is it? We certainly win more or less? Now look at all the offensive improvements to the club, the focus has been on the O, and for good reason.



     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

     Moon, a better way for me to state this is to say we are both looking at the same coin, you're describing the obverse side, and I'm talking about the reverse side.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosox0489. Show bosox0489's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I think the outfield hole can be filled - I'm not saying we're going to replace Ellsbury's 2011 production, but there's no guarantee Ellsbury will replace Ellsbury's 2011 production.  The truth is, if you asked me at the start of the year who would be more productive of the two, I would have said Crawford, and I'm not sure I wouldn't make the same prediction at the start of 2012.  I think what we saw in Ellsbury is the peak of his abilities combined with a completely healthy year - do we see that again in 2012?  I'm not saying dump him by any means - but trading him is our best shot to fill holes that can't be filled in FA, and maybe our best shot to get younger. I look at it this way - there are three teams that I think would absolutely kill to have Ellsbury in their lineup: the Giants, the Braves and the White Sox.  The first two because they are starved for offense, and Ellsbury gives them a variety of ways to score a run.  The White Sox are not as bad off offensively, but they have the worst CF in MLB and they trot out 8 right-handed hitters every day.  Now, if Ellsbury played for the Pirates or Royals, these teams would be in a bidding war for his talents this off-season, with young talent their currency.  So why should the price for the Sox be any different?  The return is going to depend on where else we can fill holes, and what other holes open up due to our FAs leaving.  But there are many, many scenarios I can think of that could ultimately help our ball club.  Say Ellsbury to CWS for Sale & Viciedo.  Or to the Braves for Teheran and Venters.  In either scenario, we let Papelbon walk and use the reliever to set up Bard.  In the CWS scenario, we have a big RH bat who can play OF or 3B; with the ATL scenario we have a guy who could be a #4 starter as soon as 2012.  It's a gamble, but in my mind so is hanging onto Ellsbury.  The difference with this gamble, cost-controlled early-20s players will retain their value, if more pressing needs come up. Here's another out of the box idea - spend a ton of money on the Yu Darvish posting fee, sign him to a 6 year / $50M contract, and then immediately trade him to the Marlins for Josh Johnson.  I'll bet the Marlins would bite (pun intended).
    Posted by slomag

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    "Timely" hitting is subjective, it can't be measured, so throw it out with the knuckleballs.

    Timely hitting is what you are referring to when you say we could have won 6 more games wioth Beckett. I'm glad you have agreed to "throw it out", because it is not something anyone can predict for, plan for, or build a team full of "timely" hitters.

    Tell us how you address improving our "consistency" on offense? 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    "Timely" hitting is subjective, it can't be measured, so throw it out with the knuckleballs. Timely hitting is what you are referring to when you say we could have won 6 more games wioth Beckett. I'm glad you have agreed to "throw it out", because it is not something anyone can predict for, plan for, or build a team full of "timely" hitters. Tell us how you address improving our "consistency" on offense? 
    Posted by moonslav59


     Good question, foremost is RH power, which was addressed by adding Ross and subtracting Drew, and Reddick. Having a RH power threat limits the use of situational lefties who can be murder on  lefties at critical junctures of the game. Keeping Crawford at the bottom of the order is cruciall, his low OBP and failures against Lefties means his chances should be limited. Working the count is so important to successful AB's, too many jumping on the first pitch when the starter is working into a jam, helps the pitcher and hurts the overall offense and it ability to be consistent. I wanted Werth, and thought Pence would be a good addition when we missed Werth, Ross gets it done though, watch how many balls he hits up the middle, this a key pick-up for the Sox, IMO.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Good question, foremost is RH power, which was addressed by adding Ross and subtracting Drew, and Reddick. Having a RH power threat limits the use of situational lefties who can be murder on  lefties at critical junctures of the game. 

    Agree, but how many times did a situational lefty make a difference with Drew or reddick coming to the plate? (I'm not saying it never happened, but I'd hardly say that was a major factor in our offensive inconsistency.)

    Keeping Crawford at the bottom of the order is cruciall, his low OBP and failures against Lefties means his chances should be limited. 

    Agree

    Working the count is so important to successful AB's, too many jumping on the first pitch when the starter is working into a jam, helps the pitcher and hurts the overall offense and it ability to be consistent. I wanted Werth, and thought Pence would be a good addition when we missed Werth, Ross gets it done though, watch how many balls he hits up the middle, this a key pick-up for the Sox, IMO.

    I also think we will see Salty's numbers improve if he starts less against LHPs (Shoppach kills lefties).

    Aviles hits lefties well (Scutaro was about even vs L & R).

    Youk's health is crucial to restoring that "balance".
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Although I have been highly critical of Salty, especially his issues handling pitchers, calling games and certain defensive areas, he does still have a lot of promise. His 2011 season showed 2 great months of offense sandwiched between 2 decent months sandwiched by 2 horrible months. The season was almost in perfect symmetry:

                   .945  .893
            .756                .749
    .547                               .542

    April and Sept were nearly identically terrible.
    May and August were both very good, despite the .220 BA.
    June and July were all star material offensively.

    If you project the 3 groups of 2 month sample sizes to a 700 PA season:

    Approximations:
    April/Sept: .185  18    96
    May/Aug:   .220  42  110
    Jun/July:   .305   30  100

    From May to August (projected to 700 PAs):
    ~ .260  35  105

    If he can keep this up for 6 months and improve his defense and game-calling skills, he can be a big plus for this team. One area of deep concern is his poor splits vs LHPs. It's nice to have Shoppach aboard, since he has excellent splits vs lefties.

    Here are Salty's splits:

                          2011                              Career
    vs RHPs .247/.304/.481/.786     .265/.331/.441/.772
    vs LHPs .209/.252/.383/.635     .207/.262/.341/.604

    Career vs RHPs per 700 PAs:
    .265  23  92

    My hope is that Bobby V will get away from the personal caddy platoon and go more towards a straight lefty-righty platoon. Last year, Salty had 262 PAs vs RHPs and 123 vs LHPs (about a 2:1 ratio). He should get more PAs this year (maybe 120 more), and hopefully the ratio will change. Maybe something like this: 
    vs RHPs: 400 PAs
    vs LHPs: 100 PAs

     With a 4:1 ratio compared to last year's 2:1 ratio, that alone could see his overall numbers greatly improve. Combine his improved numbers with Shoppach getting maybe 150 PAs in reserve and almost exclusively against LHPs and our catcher combination could be near the top of MLB in offensive production. (120 PAs vs LHPs and 30 vs RHPs)

    Here's Shoppach's career splits:
    vs LHPs:  .274/.373/.536/.909
    vs RHPs: .201/.286/.360/.646

    Project Kelly's career splits vs LHPs to a 700 PA season:
    .274  40   105

    If these two catchers can just match their career splits for 2012, we could be looking at this for our catching position's offense in 2012 in 650 PAs (with no Lava):

    ~ .267  26  100

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share