A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]They're calling the Sox "chokes" here in Houston.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Tell them if a Houston baseball team ever won anything, that might hurt. :-)
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Listening to KNBR just now, Bay Area sports radio, and a sports guy was sayng this about RS and today's comment from owner that "Even Theo won't stay forever.)  "Are the RS Crazy?  Getting rid of Tito was a stretch, but probably understandable if he has lost the clubhouse.  Getting rid of Theo makes no sense in light of what the organization has accomplished.  The Giants didn't even fire their hitting instructor this year when they were last in the NL in hitting." Sometimes when I hear something like this, I pass it on here.  I think it's interesting and also somewhat defining to know what others are thinking and saying about our team.
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]From looking outside of the market I can see where an observer could come to those conclusions.

    If we are to believe anything the actual principles have to say about the situation as it developed with Tito, as opposed to guys like Ordway and CHB, it is more understandable. The RS ownership wasn't ready to just extend Terry's contract and pat him on the back and Terry was beaten enough a man that he wasn't ready to come in and make a strong case for his retention. If people in this market see the it as a point blank firing (whether they blame one side or the other) why wouldn't outsiders who would give their right arms to have had the susscess the RS have had.

    Theo is an equally tough move. Just because the Cubs are showing interest in him I don't think their reaction should be a big raise and 4 year extension. And just how wise would it be to stand in Theo's way if he wants the Cubs job and leave him in the GM role for one year?

    But the marketplace and its media certainly have reacted harshly. That's Boston. I watched the Bruins last night and the place was all standing O's before the game in a Cup celebration and the B's were being booed on the power play down 2-1 in the third period. It is a tough market and that isn't all good.
     
  3. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Tell them if a Houston baseball team ever won anything, that might hurt. :-)
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    Trust me, I do.

    I'm also a Packer fan, so I got bragging rights there too... and this is football country here.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : His contract runs out this year. I always liked him as a manager. I think he'd be fair but tough.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    According to Cot's Baseball Contracts, Detroit manager Jim Leyland on August 8 signed a contract extension through the 2012 season:

    http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/detroit-tigers_21.html
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Here's a rundown of possible salary dumps (along with a some other notable players that may be able to be included in a deal with the Sox if we take the "dump' player) for three teams: the Angels, the Cubs and the Mets. I'll do more teams later.

    Angels:
    Wells: 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$21M
    Hunter12:$18M
    Dan Haren12:$12.75M, 13:$15.5M club option ($3.5M buyout)
    Bobby Abreu:12:$9M option ($1M buyout)
    E.Santana12:$11.2M, 13:$13M club option ($1M buyout)
    J. Weaver12:$14M, 13:$16M, 14:$16M, 15:$18M, 16:$20M
    S. Downs: : 12: $5M, 13: $5M
    Takahashi12:$4.2M
    M. Izturis12:$3.8M

    Cubs:
    A. Soriano: 12-14:$18M annually
    Zambrano12:$18M
    A. Ramirez12:$16M club option ($2M buyout)
    Dempster12:$14M player option
    M. Byrd12:$6.5M
    C- Geovanny Soto (2 arbs left)/SP Matt Garza (2 arbs left)/RP Sean Marshall ($3.1M)

    Mets:
    J. Santana: 12:$24M, 13:$25.5M, 14:$25M club option ($5.5M buyout)
    J. Bay: 12:$16M, 13:$16M, 14:$17M club option ($3M buyout)
    D. Wright: 12:$15M,13:$16M club option ($1M buyout)
    RA Dickey12:$4.25M, 13:$5M club option ($0.3M buyout)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]QUOTE]  I don't want this to run into Novemer - or look like Joseph and the coat of many COLORS. I'll adress 6-7 points highlighted:


    Our hitters bunched all their offense in a few games, our pitchers pitched poorly, almost top to bottom. Our fielding and baserunning did worse, and out decision-making was not good.


    Bunching hitting into a few monster-scoring games vs. poor pitching isn't something Boston created. It's that way for other teams as well. It's why I made a point of analyzing hitting vs. pitching venues. The RedSox hitting is over-rated, and you are assuming the variance vs. our opponents made us the better team. I agree that the team had more hitting talent on paper, but the difference is more negligible than  you might imagine.

    I also agree that fundamentally, the team was weak in many areas. That plagued them in the summer too. But the pitching was healthy then, and the ball carrys better in the summer months, which affects scoring.


    one-run losses... C. Young.  That's an easy scapegoat, but winning teams find a way to win those games They step up, not down.


    Nothing scapegoating about losing 1-run games or calling out a questionable pitching coach. I gave my reasons for Young months ago.

    The 2004 team was 16 - 18 in one-run games. Did they play like losers? Did they "step up" in those close affairs?

     I wanted a better starter or 2 Bedard types at the deadline. Not many posters agreed with me.

    Count me as one who did. I opted for both Hardin (not much choice at the time) and Bedard over hitting.

    So what? Other teams didn't have hurt players playing, or 6th starters, or players struggling?


    Show me another team that lost 4 key starters and contended. I dare you.
    Players playing at that level, with rare exception, will not produce adequately when playing hurt. 

    I said they "played like losers and lost". There's really no disputing that fact.

    There's plenty of disputing that fact. The Phillies may have been the best team in baseball this year. Did they play like losers and lost? Expecting a pitching staff of;
    Lester
    Beckett (hurt)
    Bedard (hurt)
    Weiland
    Wake (on fumes)
    Miller
    Lackey (possibly pitching with elbow issue)
    to allow the hitters any legit chance is like asking a lame horse to compete with the other healthy contestants.

    It's not by coincidence that the team was the best team in the A. L. for 4 months despite not having Buch for 2 and 1/2 of them. They started losing when they lost Beckett/Bedard. And both were obviously not ready or anywhere near 100% in Sept. (which blows Softone's coasting BS all to hell).


    Are you saying we played like winners and lost? Did we get a lot of bad breaks and bad ump calls? Did a fan reach over and grab a sure out? OR....Did we let up 2-strike key hits? Did we throw the ball away and run into untold outs on the basebaths? Did the team as a collective whole, including the GM, trainers, pitching coach, 3rd base caoch, and players almost all drop the ball when it counted?



    I'm not saying we played like winner or losers. You are the one making that claim. I'm saying that the team was deprived of pitching, and that's a recipe for disaster.

    Obviously, the pressure grew with each set back. Both you and I have spoke frequently in the past about Tito's poor deployment of players, tactics, lack of execution due to poor fundamentals, questionable choice of some coaches, blind loyalty, etc. Strong pitching and blow out scoring can mask much of this.

    It went on for too long. That's why Tito is gone. It's not the reason why the team suddenly started "playing like losers". The veil was dropped when the hitting couldn't compensate for the compromised pitching.

    Look at the Sept. team ERA and tell me who could overcome that? Which team? Which hitters?


     but we came up short as favorites.

    Again, that's perception. I'll take a "weaker"opponent against a stronger team with poor pitching most any day.

    Blame Theo. Blame injuries. Blame young. Blame bogar or tito...
    they are all part of this team.

    Quite true. I do think off-field personal played into the regression, but it didn't start in Sept. It can be traced long before then.

    Let me draw this analogy, Moon:
    You take a pounding in the stock market with a portfolio that really tanked. You can blame UR financial consultant. You can blame the market. You can even consider manipulation or inside trading as a culprit.

    So, ya look into the facts and the history of the package. And sure enough, the portfolio was sound for years. Every day the bonds/sticks went down, there was a reason.

    Was it a loser portfolio? Well, it was in that time period, but not over the last decade. The "loser"label, however you care to use it, is dangerous, just as any label is. It's born out of emotion.

    I know how you feel about the team. When you invest that much of yourself into them, and they come up short in a devastating manner,
    You are gonna feel like a jilted lover.

    Now, think about back when you played. Think about the folks who watched the games. And tell me true, who hurt more when your team lost a really tough game, you or them?
    How would you feel if they called you out for playing like a loser when you busted UR azz?

    Nobody feels worse than the players do. They let down their fans and have to take the wrap. That includes Pedey as well as Beckett.
    That includes Papi as well as Wake. They did their best. They didn't go out there to lose or try to lose.

    The Sept. obstacles became too great to overcome.
    And the problems off the field (coaches/manager/personality conflicts) became the focus of attention. All played a role, but nothing close to losing too many quality arms.

    The team is ripe for the dart board, so feel free.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I agree that the team had more hitting talent on paper, but the difference is more negligible than  you might imagine.

    We have a better hitting team than everyone we faced in September, except maybe without Youk vs  the Yanks. We had better pitching than Baltimore and Toronto, even with "4 guys out" in many of the games we lost.

    Nothing scapegoating about losing 1-run games or calling out a questionable pitching coach. I gave my reasons for Young months ago.

    The 2004 team was 16 - 18 in one-run games. Did they play like losers? Did they "step up" in those close affairs?

    Yes, actually, they did...when it counted.  In Sept, the 2004 team was 4-1 in 1 run games. They also scored 6 or more runs 20 times in 28 games. They played like "winners" ...WHEN IT COUNTED. We wona clinching 2 run game in the ALDS, and a 2 run game in game 4 vs the yanks, a 1-runner in game 5, a 2 runner in game 6...

    And, Young is part of our team that helped us "play like losers". If it's his fault we "played like losers", it doesn't change the fact that we did 'play like losers".
    Show me another team that lost 4 key starters and contended. I dare you.
    Players playing at that level, with rare 
    exception, will not produce adequately when playing hurt

    I never said anyone else we played had 4 major injuries. My point was that our replacements (Wake, Bedard, Miller, Weiland, & Aviles) did not make us a worse team on paper than many of the teams we lost to. Some of the starters and line-ups and bullpens we lost to were very bad on paper. We still should have won. That's the reason why I (and I assume you too) still had faith we'd make the playoffs despite all the injuries until the last day of the season. Even with the injuries, we were still "good enough" to do better than 7-20. We did NOT do better. We played like "losers and lost". We managed and coached like losers too.

    but we came up short as favorites

    Again, that's perception. I'll take a "weaker"opponent against a stronger team with poor pitching most any day.
     
    harness, you have flipped 180 degrees. I went game by game and showed that we did in fact have the "better pitching" in many of the games we lost to "weaker opponents"... better starter...better pen...and better line-up and fielding. You said we can't expect to win everyone of those games. Yes, we had "poor pitching", but we were "favorites", because the opponents had even worse pitching. Are you saying you'd take a worse pitchign team with a worse line-up and fielding team "anyday"?

    Look at the pitching match-ups in the Toronto series and Baltimore series. Compare the pens. We didn't need Baltimore to have 4 injuries to still have wrose pitching than us! They didn't even need 1 injury to remain worse than us.

    Even today, I'd take Beckett, lester, Wake, Bedard/Weiland, and Lackey over Baltimore's starting 5 in a 5 game series anyday, with our superior fielding and hitting as the kicker.

    1) Guthrie  9-17  4.33  1.341
    2) Britton  11-11 4.61  1.451
    3) Arrieta  10-8   5.05  1.458
    4) Simon    4-9   4.90  1.452
    5) Tillman  3-5   5.52  1.645
    5A) Matusz 1-9  10.69  2.114
    5B) Bergesen 2-1  5.70  1.495
    5C) Jakub.     2-2  5.72  1.687
    5D) Hunter    3 -3  5.06  1.413

    (I think the ones in red were the ones we faced and lost more than we won against in Sept.)

    Quite true. I do think off-field personal played into the regression, but it didn't start in Sept. It can be traced long before then.

    Yes, and I said as much when i said we were this same team in April and from may to August. We were flawed, but even with the flaws, we both felt we were better than Baltimore and Toronto and should have won more of those games and made the playoffs. We did not reach our expectations, even after injuries. We played below our expectations. To me, that translates into "we played like losers and lost".

    How would you feel if they called you out for playing like a loser when you busted UR azz?

    "bustin azz" is not always a positive when it leads to "pressing to hard" and "trying to do it all by yourself", which I feel is exactly what we did. We didn't have the calming presence of a Manny, and we made some bone-head plays on the basepaths (beyong our 3rd base coaches mistakes). We played recklessly at times and seemingly carelessly at others. I know we cared. I'm not saying our players gave up, but they didn't rise to the occasion for perhaps various reasons, injuries notwithstanding. Guys were swinging for the fences in close games. Players were picked off, ran into dumb outs, misfielded easy balls, and players who had great seasons all seemed to have their worst stretches when it mattered most.

    We might be just arguing semantics, but even our healthy and strongest players went into a funk. That "funk" looked like good players playing like "losers". maybe it is a harsh word, but I waited until my emotions subsided to think long and hard about how we played down the stretch. i think my choice of words fits the bill. I never meant to imply that our team is full of "losers". I do not think Bard and Paps are losers, but they sure picked the wrong time to blow up. Unlike others, I do not think beckett is a loser. You don't turn from a "money pitcher" to dirt overnight. He's a winner who had an unfortunate injury at the wrong time. Lester? well, it's hard to say what happened there. Go ahead and blame young, but Lester has to except some of the blame for not stepping up on several occaisons when we needed him to be our stopper. Wake was overused, but gave his best. Bedard did what he always does...got hurt. I don't blame him: I blame Theo for not expecting it. He sat through August and didn't even make a waiver deal for a 5,00 ERA innings eater.  Miller and Weiland are no worse than some of Baltimore's starters they threw out there this year.

    Our "timely hitting" lost track of time. That happens any time of the year, and I don't attribute that to being a "loser", but when it happens for a month of crunch time, i do call it "playing like a loser".

    There's a difference in calling someone a "fool" and saying "you are acting like a foll right now".


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We are going to try to improve the team in 2012. Right? If pitching is not available at a reasonable cost we should make the hitting and defense even better. Adding another sabermetric bat like Fielder has potential. For example, throw his .410 OBP into the mix with his high walk total and he is working the count and tiring the opposing pitcher along with everyone else. Getting the starter out of the game early.

    Fielder is probably not going to happen of course but imagine if he did. That high ops, high obp bat would make a huge difference going forward. He's still only 28 (edit) and is one of the top run producers in the game. We need middle of the order bats to drive runners in. It's part of the mix.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    So, assuming we let Drew, Papelbon and Ortiz go, Tek go...etc. Where do we spend the $30 mil or so saved after all transactions are done ( including pay raises for Agon and others into that mix )?

    We can shoot our wad for some $10 mil types or one $20 mil guy and a couple 5 mil guys...etc. What is the best Mix?

    1) Beuhrle/Bedard/Wheeler?
    2) Fielder/Garcia/Chen?

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Boom, Fielder will be costly. If we decide to spend big on a FA, I'd prefer CJ, even with all the risks involved. Of course, I'm not saying outbid foolishly to get CJ. If the cost is too high, then look at trade options.

    I'd love Fielder here, but how much of an upgrade will he be over Papi's 2011 numbers and at what cost? He's young. I like that, but when we play in the NL parks ... same issue.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I really hope we don't get into the Sabathia / CJ Wilson sweepstakes - save the money for next year's FA crop, which will include Cain, Liriano, Greinke, Hamels & Marcum.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Great point slo. 

    Do you think we should just plan for 2013 and make 2012 a "bridge year", as in trade Youk, let Papi and others walk?

    I'm not a big CJ fan. Too much of a Lackey risk.


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    No, I'm dead set against trading Youk - he could be a sports hernia operation away from his 2009 numbers, and it sends a terrible message to any player who signs a contract friendly to the organization.

    I want to sign Papi to a contract like we were talking about - 3 years with incentives and a buyout that actually reduces our CBT by $3M+.

    Papelbon I think you have to let him walk - you just can't pay anybody that kind of money for 70 innings / year.  I would let Bard close, and try to sign Joel Peralta, and rely on some of our young guys to fill in the bullpen roles.  I think Tazawa and Bowden could be great assets in the pen in 2012.

    I still want to sign Yu Darvish - I think he's the real deal, and I think we would catch a lot of teams off-guard by being willing to jump back into the Japanese market so quickly after the Dice-K debaucle (which in my opinion was never all that bad).

    I also think we need to trade Ellsbury this year - he's not interested in signing with the Sox long-term, and if he has any regression at all in 2012, his 2011 will be considered a career year, rather than a sign of things to come. 

    There are going to be a lot of moving parts this Winter - I look forward to seeing how it all pans out, but we were one win away from the post-season this year, so I don't think whatever we do will be a bridge to contention.  And we saw with the Sox failing to make the post-season and both the Yankees and Phillies eliminated in the first round - no matter how good your team is, anything can happen in baseball.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I really hope we don't get into the Sabathia / CJ Wilson sweepstakes - save the money for next year's FA crop, which will include Cain, Liriano, Greinke, Hamels & Marcum.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    I recently looked up the starting ptchers who made it to FA, when assessing the Beckettt extension.  The current class and the last two before had ~no top end starters under 32.  I don't know how late all the top guys were extended in the past. As impressive as the 2013 list is, I would be surprised if more than two of the top names ever make it to FA.

    Some of these guys might have been extended already. Even a Boras client in Weaver extended early.

    MLBTR "This group will thin out before the '12 season ends, of course. But imagine a free agent class with Cain, Danks, Greinke, Hamels, Liriano, Jeremy Guthrie, Shaun Marcum, Anibal Sanchez, Jonathan Sanchez, Ervin Santana, Jake Peavy, and plenty of solid innings eaters. There is something to be said for a team sitting out the upcoming offseason and trying to snag pitching in the following one."

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'm very uncomfortable about this whole Theo thing.  I wish that would be resolved quickly because I don't frankly see how we can move ahead until it is.  Good point Slo about upcoming pitching.  Cain out here is often discussed as being just as good if not better than Lincecum.  I went to a Tigers game here in Oakland at the end of the season (Verlander pitched.)  Sometimes when you watch a team, it just seems sharp, focused, crisp...in short they are not going to beat themselves.  When a team has been down a new manager will often focus on this part of the game first because it doesn't cost anything to fix.  Some coaches always seem to have this "crisp" approach--Leyland, Whitey Herzog, Dick Williams, etc.  I even like a manager to walk to the mound with a certain attitude, like he really knows what he's doing, firmly taking the ball away.  It may sound hokey, but I think it gives the impression "I'm in charge and this is the absolute right thing to do."  I want to see this with the next RS skipper.  I liked Tito but more attention to the fundamentals is needed and that alone might have won several games more in September.  Finally, I would like to comment too on something someone else said here--Philly and NY didn't get very far either.  I think the former is more of a shock in light of how they've been viewed all year.  I think this says we aren't all that far behind .
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Slo, I either liked all your ideas above or could support them except for the trade Ells one.  Yes, we could probably get a lot for him but that would just make a hole in our outfield too which would have to be filled with something coming back.  We must have him cheaply for several more years.  And was he not the most valuable player on our team this year?  How do you find a guy to do everything he did?  Having said this, I think ALL options and trades should be considered to make this team better.  Also, do we really know he doesn't want to be back here in the future?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I see the merit in trading Ellsbury while is stock is really at it's highest now (despite what silly clown was saying 1-2 and 3 years ago).

    I want Jacoby here the next 2 years, but it is near a certainty that he will walk after 2013. We'd get 2 draft picks then.

    It's a tough call, and until I see what the offer(s) are, I'll hold off judgement.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I



    The most happy person to see Ellsbury peak this year is his agent Scott Boras. 

    I can see Boras claiming Ellsbury to be the greatest creation in mankind since sliced bread.   lol

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We have a better hitting team than everyone we faced in September, except maybe without Youk vs  the Yanks. We had better pitching than Baltimore and Toronto, even with "4 guys out" in many of the games we lost.   

    My point was that our replacements (Wake, Bedard, Miller, Weiland, & Aviles) did not make us a worse team on paper than many of the teams we lost to. Some of the starters and line-ups and bullpens we lost to were very bad on paper. We still should have won.
                                                                                                                      (Moon)

    Completely disagree. The RedSox did not field a better team as you say they did.
    I'll use the lowly O's as an example.

    The pitchers the Sox sent to the mound in Sept. were a far cry from what they fielded in the summer. You can throw out the track records because it's a better than even money bet Beckett/Bedard and Lackey were not healthy.

    If you look at Sept. for Boston, you have to use the same criteria for their opponents because pitching form in Sept. is not the same as it is in April or June.
    I'll go by the O's pitchers you alluded to: Sept. #'s comparison:

    Guthrie: 3.77 ERA  1.387 WHIP   vs. Beckett: 5.48 ERA  1.348 WHIP
    Advantage Guthrie.

    Britton: 5.85 ERA  1.454 WHIP  vs.  Lester: 5.40 ERA  1.611 WHIP
    Close, but advantage Britton IMO.

    Hunter: 4.30 ERA  1.460 WHIP  vs.  Bedard: 5.25 ERA  2.000 Whip
    Advantage Hunter.

    Simon: 6.48 ERA  1.680 WHIP  vs.  Lackey: 9.13 ERA  2.028 WHIP
    Advantage Simon.

    Wakefield had the only clear-cut advantage over whoever the O's threw out there for a 5th starter, but it was negated when the team had to use Weiland/Miller.

    As for the hitting, Fenway is the great distorter.
    Look at both teams away from their respective home venues:
    O's:        .259 BA  .715 OPS
    Boston: .265 BA  .780 OPS

    Remove Youk from the equation and I say the numbers are close.

    Now, consider the ridiculous line-ups Tito had to send out in Sept. One could argue the O's had just as much depth 1-9.

    So, it looks like the O's fielded the better team, given the fact that Starting pitching is clearly the over-riding factor.

    Draw similar comparisons with Toronto, NY, Rays and the advantage against Boston would be lop-sided.


    We still should have won. That's the reason why I (and I assume you too) still had faith we'd make the playoffs despite all the injuries until the last day of the season


    No, we shouldn't have won unless the injuries didn't affect the key arms. My hope was based on Beckett/Lester/Bedard returning to form. The perception was that the team was babying the physical issues. That's why Softy said the team was in coating mode.
    The truth was: Bedard and Beckett came back to soon and were pressed onto service due to the circumstances.

    Lester was a different case altogether. When he was in the minors, the team got him away from relying on the cutter  too much. They wanted him to be a more complete pitcher.

    This changed in 2011. He got away with it (using two pitches over 4) until his velocity and command became more erratic. Then he became predictable. The blame for that is up for grabs, but I'll go with Young.


    Even with the injuries, we were still "good enough" to do better than 7-20. We did NOT do better. We played like "losers and lost". We managed and coached like losers too.

    To what degree in which the injuries played is also debatable. In this case, I willdraw the comparison to when these guys were healthy, as I don't know of any other logical analogy. And using this criteria, I'd say the injuries played a prominent role.

    I can see how UR perception would reveal "WE played like losers" given the staff tanked at one time. But it's not because they choked. There were reasons for each pitcher.

    I do agree that the coaching played a part, especially with Lester.
    Historically, pitching staffs don't go down as one if they are healthy and talented.
    More to follow.
      



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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]We have a better hitting team than everyone we faced in September, except maybe without Youk vs  the Yanks. We had better pitching than Baltimore and Toronto, even with "4 guys out" in many of the games we lost.    (Moon) My point was that our replacements (Wake, Bedard, Miller, Weiland, & Aviles) did not make us a worse team on paper than many of the teams we lost to. Some of the starters and line-ups and bullpens we lost to were very bad on paper. We still should have won. Completely disagree. The RedSox did not field a better team as you say they did. I'll use the lowly O's as an example. The pitchers the Sox sent to the mound in Sept. were a far cry from what they fielded in the summer. You can throw out the track records because it's a better than even money bet Beckett/Bedard and Lackey were not healthy. If you look at Sept. for Boston, you have to use the same criteria for their opponents because pitching form in Sept. is not the same as it is in April or June. I'll go by the O's pitchers you alluded to: Sept. #'s comparison: Guthrie: 3.77 ERA  1.387 WHIP   vs. Beckett: 5.48 ERA  1.348 WHIP Advantage Guthrie. Britton: 5.85 ERA  1.454 WHIP  vs.  Lester: 5.40 ERA  1.611 WHIP Close, but advantage Britton IMO. Hunter: 4.30 ERA  1.460 WHIP  vs.  Bedard: 5.25 ERA  2.000 Whip Advantage Hunter. Simon: 6.48 ERA  1.680 WHIP  vs.  Lackey: 9.13 ERA  2.028 WHIP Advantage Simon. Wakefield had the only clear-cut advantage over whoever the O's threw out there for a 5th starter, but it was negated when the team had to use Weiland/Miller. As for the hitting, Fenway is the great distorter. Look at both teams away from their respective home venues: O's:        .259 BA  .715 OPS Boston: .265 BA  .780 OPS Remove Youk from the equation and I say the numbers are close. Now, consider the ridiculous line-ups Tito had to send out in Sept. One could argue the O's had just as much depth 1-9. So, it looks like the O's fielded the better team, given the fact that Starting pitching is clearly the over-riding factor. Draw similar comparisons with Toronto, NY, Rays and the advantage against Boston would be lop-sided. We still should have won. That's the reason why I (and I assume you too) still had faith we'd make the playoffs despite all the injuries until the last day of the season No, we shouldn't have won unless the injuries didn't affect the key arms. My hope was based onn Beckett/Lester/Bedard returning to form. The perception was that the team was babying the physical issues. That's why Softy said the team was in coating mode. The truth was: Bedard and Beckett came back to soon and were pressed onto service dfue to the circumstances. Lester was a different case altogether. When he was in the minors, the team got him away from relying on the cutter  too much. They wanted him to be a more complete pitcher. This changed in 2011. He got away with it (using two pitches over 4) until his velocity and command became more erratic. Then he became predictable. The blame for that is up for grabs. Even with the injuries, we were still "good enough" to do better than 7-20. We did NOT do better. We played like "losers and lost". We managed and coached like losers too. To what degree in which the injuries played is also debatable. In this case, I will draw the comparison to when these guys were healthy, as I don't know of any other logical analogy. And using this criteria, I'd say the injuries played a prominent role. I can see how UR perception would reveal "WE played like losers" given the staff tanked at one time. But it's not because they choked. There were reasons for each pitcher. I do agree that the coaching played a part, especially with Lester. Historically, pitching staffs don't go down as one if they are healthy and talented. More to follow.  
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Good analysis; I think in Lester's case, there may have been a mental exhaustion component (i.e, he knew about the clubhouse rancor), or he could have been tired, or still hurt (recall Jul/Aug), or a combination of all of the above. The pitching coach appeared to give up, as well as the Mgr to a lesser degree, I'm guessing in part due to the lack of FO support. The Sep staff ERA (7.26, I believe), partly due to the bullpen, was the highest in RS history for any given month (and that's about 7400 of them), is NOT conducive to winning, (the fielding was lax, too), and despite a still good offense, albeit not all-world like earlier in the season.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    harness, you have flipped 180 degrees. I went game by game and showed that we did in fact have the "better pitching" in many of the games we lost to "weaker opponents"... better starter...better pen...and better line-up and fielding. You said we can't expect to win everyone of those games. Yes, we had "poor pitching", but we were "favorites", because the opponents had even worse pitching. Are you saying you'd take a worse pitchign team with a worse line-up and fielding team "anyday"?

    No, I haven't flipped 180 degrees.
    Opponents had the edge. UR just not acknowledging it. "Favorites" is relative to criteria.
    You can look at total pedigree and then I'd agree with you.

    Or you can look at compromised form, which was the case in Sept.

    Look at the pitching match-ups in the Toronto series and Baltimore series. Compare the pens. We didn't need Baltimore to have 4 injuries to still have wrose pitching than us! They didn't even need 1 injury to remain worse than us.

    Even today, I'd take Beckett, lester, Wake, Bedard/Weiland, and Lackey over Baltimore's starting 5 in a 5 game series anyday, with our superior fielding and hitting as the kicker.

    1) Guthrie  9-17  4.33  1.341
    2) Britton  11-11 4.61  1.451
    3) Arrieta  10-8   5.05  1.458
    4) Simon    4-9   4.90  1.452
    5) Tillman  3-5   5.52  1.645
    5A) Matusz 1-9  10.69  2.114
    5B) Bergesen 2-1  5.70  1.495
    5C) Jakub.     2-2  5.72  1.687
    5D) Hunter    3 -3  5.06  1.413

    (I think the ones in red were the ones we faced and lost more than we won against in Sept.)

    Already addressed

    Yes, and I said as much when i said we were this same team in April and from may to August. We were flawed, but even with the flaws, we both felt we were better than Baltimore and Toronto and should have won more of those games and made the playoffs. We did not reach our expectations, even after injuries. We played below our expectations. To me, that translates into "we played like losers and lost".

    Expectations are relative to perception.

    bustin azz" is not always a positive when it leads to "pressing to hard" and "trying to do it all by yourself", which I feel is exactly what we did.We didn't have the calming presence of a Manny,and we made some bone-head plays on the basepaths (beyong our 3rd base coaches mistakes). We played recklessly at times and seemingly carelessly at others. I know we cared. I'm not saying our players gave up, but they didn't rise to the occasion for perhaps various reasons, injuries notwithstanding. Guys were swinging for the fences in close games. Players were picked off, ran into dumb outs, misfielded easy balls, and players who had great seasons all seemed to have their worst stretches when it mattered most

    This I found funny. Manny hardly was a calming presence. He was a self-centered pr*ck, who beat up on wives, players and traveling secretaries. He probably laid down on the team more than once. I doubt his teammates were calmed by this.The team tired of his goof act.

    As for the on field gaffs, they have been happening all year. It didn't start in the 6th month.
    Part of it is on coaching. Part of it is on player awareness. Jake, for example, is an aggressive base-runner, and not a very bright one. He will make mistakes. That's part of the trade-off.

    The team was weak defensively on the left side of the infield. We knew this all year long.
    The mistakes became more glaring because of what was at stake, and the fact that there was no margin for error.

    We might be just arguing semantics, but even our healthy and strongest players went into a funk. That "funk" looked like good players playing like "losers". maybe it is a harsh word, but I waited until my emotions subsided to think long and hard about how we played down the stretch. i think my choice of words fits the bill. I never meant to imply that our team is full of "losers". I do not think Bard and Paps are

    losers, but they sure picked the wrong time to blow up.

    Unlike others, I do not think beckett is a loser. You don't turn

    from a "money pitcher" to dirt overnight. He's a winner who

    had an unfortunate injury at the wrong time.


    This is my whole point, Moon. These guys aren't losers. They appeared to play like that  because that's how we perceive their performance. Where we differ are the reasons.
     And there are reasons why they fell apart. Injury and highly questionable coaching pretty much covers it.

    Lester? well, it's hard to say what happened there. Go ahead and blame young, but Lester has to except some of the blame for not stepping up on several occasions when we needed him to be our stopper. Wake was overused, but gave his best. Bedard did what he always does...got hurt. I don't blame him: I blame Theo for not expecting it.
    He sat through August and didn't even make a waiver deal for a 5,00 ERA innings eater.

    I don't blame Theo for Bedard. I think he was the logical choice. I might blame Theo for unstable pitching depth in AAA, largely due to the fact that Douby and Bowden were taken out of their starting roles.

    Miller and Weiland are no worse than some of Baltimore's starters they threw out there this year.

    They sure were in September!


    Our "timely hitting" lost track of time. That happens any time of the year, and I don't attribute that to being a "loser", but when it happens for a month of crunch time, i do call it "playing like a loser".

    I don't critique hitting if I can help it. Hitters don't succeed but 25-30 percent of the time.
    And I think if you look at who took the field in Sept. and compare their numbers with the rest of the year, the disparity might not be as large as you think, especially considering how climate affects hitting. I haven't crunched the numbers. But I do think strong pitching would mask the difference.

    There's a difference in calling someone a "fool" and saying "you are acting like a foll right now".

    Not gonna touch that one.     Tongue out






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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Good analysis; I think in Lester's case,there may have been a mental exhaustion component (i.e, he knew about the clubhouse rancor), or he could have been tired, or still hurt (recall Jul/Aug), or a combination of all of the above. The pitching coach appeared to give up, as well as the Mgr to a lesser degree, I'm guessing in part due to the lack of FO support. The Sep staff ERA (7.26, I believe), partly due to the bullpen, was the highest in RS history for any given month (and that's about 7400 of them), is NOT conducive to winning, (the fielding was lax, too), and despite a still good offense, albeit not all-world like earlier in the season.
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]


    Hard to tell who called it on Lester, but I have to think Young had a large say. The fact is, Lester threw 96 MPH last year. He was at 93 for much of this year, dropping to 91 and occasionally between 94-95.

    He was progressing as a 4-pitch hurler prior to 2011, but seldom did we see the curve or change this year, relatively speaking.

    The way he looked in the finale didn't appear to be one who was gassed or affected by "clubhouse rancor". He looked like a determined pitcher who succeeded with everything riding. And he deployed 4 pitches, throwing just slightly less than 2010. I'll bet Young was up half the night studying video prior to the game. If I'm right, then that's what should have taken place throughout the season.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We have a better hitting team than everyone we faced in September, except maybe without Youk vs  the Yanks. We had better pitching than Baltimore and Toronto, even with "4 guys out" in many of the games we lost.    

    My point was that our replacements (Wake, Bedard, Miller, Weiland, & Aviles) did not make us a worse team on paper than many of the teams we lost to. Some of the starters and line-ups and bullpens we lost to were very bad on paper. We still should have won. 
                                                                                                                      (Moon)

    Completely disagree. The RedSox did not field a better team as you say they did.
    I'll use the lowly O's as an example.

    Yes, they are "lowly". We can agree on that.

    The pitchers the Sox sent to the mound in Sept. were a far cry from what they fielded in the summer. 

    Again, I agree. They were pitching like winners this summer, and losers in September. Yes, there were reasons, but it does not take away from the fact that they pitched like "losers".

    You can throw out the track records because it's a better than even money bet Beckett/Bedard and Lackey were not healthy.

    The stunk in September. Injury or not: they did. I'm not sure what the health situation was for the O's pitchers, but they should have been lit up like Christmas trees, but our batters "played like losers" vs some of the worst starters in MLB this year.


    If you look at Sept. for Boston, you have to use the same criteria for their opponents because pitching form in Sept. is not the same as it is in April or June.
    I'll go by the O's pitchers you alluded to: Sept. #'s comparison:

    Sorry, harness, but using Sept numbers to compare the starters is a toally bogus stat to use. You are using the very numbers that prove they played like losers to try and say their numbers were what they should have done, because thats what they ended up doing.

    Guthrie: 3.77 ERA  1.387 WHIP   vs. Beckett: 5.48 ERA  1.348 WHIP
    Advantage Guthrie.

    Britton: 5.85 ERA  1.454 WHIP  vs.  Lester: 5.40 ERA  1.611 WHIP
    Close, but advantage Britton IMO.

    Hunter: 4.30 ERA  1.460 WHIP  vs.  Bedard: 5.25 ERA  2.000 Whip
    Advantage Hunter.

    Simon: 6.48 ERA  1.680 WHIP  vs.  Lackey: 9.13 ERA  2.028 WHIP
    Advantage Simon.

    Wakefield had the only clear-cut advantage over whoever the O's threw out there for a 5th starter, but it was negated when the team had to use Weiland/Miller.

    Again, this is absurd. You are using after-the-fact numbers to try and prove something about what they were expected to do. The bookies knew Beckett was injured. They still made the Sox a favorite. You and I were both saying all September that the Sox would win and make the playoffs. Were you lying? Were you just wishing? I don't think so, and neither was I. We both thought that even with all the injuries, we still had a better than 7-20 team on the field. I know we weren't the same team as the summer, but we were still better than the O's and the Jays. 

    As for the hitting, Fenway is the great distorter.
    Look at both teams away from their respective home venues:
    O's:        .259 BA  .715 OPS
    Boston: .265 BA  .780 OPS

    Remove Youk from the equation and I say the numbers are close.


    Youk's numbers were not great this year even when he played. His OPs was .833 this year and Aviles had an .861 OPS in Sept.  An .065 OPS differential is huge.

    We scored 415 runs on the road this year. The O's scored 348. The Jays: 356. 

    Now, consider the ridiculous line-ups Tito had to send out in Sept. One could argue the O's had just as much depth 1-9.

    You agreed with the CC up 2nd line-up as I recall, and yes, Tito did his part to make us "play like losers". Every line-up we put out was way better than the O's. It was clear by any measurement you want to use. The O's line-ups were a joke, yet they tagged our pitchers. 

    So, it looks like the O's fielded the better team, given the fact that Starting pitching is clearly the over-riding factor.

    Let me get this straight, They "fielded a better team" solely because they beat us?

    Draw similar comparisons with Toronto, NY, Rays and the advantage against Boston would be lop-sided.

    Wrong. I broke it down game by game. Yes, there were several games we had the worse starter out there, but our offense was still better or much better than all but maybe the Yanks. We slumped when it counted. We didn't hit like winners. We didn't pitch like winners. We didn't field or run like winners...did we?

    We still should have won. That's the reason why I (and I assume you too) still had faith we'd make the playoffs despite all the injuries until the last day of the season

    No, we shouldn't have won unless the injuries didn't affect the key arms. My hope was based on Beckett/Lester/Bedard returning to form. The perception was that the team was babying the physical issues. That's why Softy said the team was in coating mode.
    The truth was: Bedard and Beckett came back to soon and were pressed onto service due to the circumstances.

    So, you were just being a "good fan", and didn't believe what you yourself was saying for weeks and weeks? I thought we both believed we were still good enough to do better than 7-20. Perhaps I was wrong about half of us.

    Lester was a different case altogether. When he was in the minors, the team got him away from relying on the cutter  too much. They wanted him to be a more complete pitcher. 

    This changed in 2011. He got away with it (using two pitches over 4) until his velocity and command became more erratic. Then he became predictable. The blame for that is up for grabs, but I'll go with Young.

    The same was true all year, but in Sept, he got shelled by some bad offensive teams.
    Did he pitch like a winner in September?

    Even with the injuries, we were still "good enough" to do better than 7-20. We did NOT do better. We played like "losers and lost". We managed and coached like losers too.

    To what degree in which the injuries played is also debatable. In this case, I willdraw the comparison to when these guys were healthy, as I don't know of any other logical analogy. And using this criteria, I'd say the injuries played a prominent role.

    I can see how UR perception would reveal "WE played like losers" given the staff tanked at one time. But it's not because they choked. There were reasons for each pitcher. 

    I have never used the word "choke". I said we played like losers and you are saying they didn't. I'll ask again, did they play like winners? Did they even play like a .500 team? No, they played like a 7-20 team. 

    Again, I am not calling a 90 win team "losers". i am merely saying we played like losers a few times this year. I really don't understand why this has become such a sticking point with you. All I'm sayting is that for a certain period of time, with certain various and obvious reasons, the Sox played like losers. Even if as you say, we should have lost because of injuries, managing, coaching, etc... that doesn't change the fact that we "played like losers and lost" in September.


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    harness, you have flipped 180 degrees. I went game by game and showed that we did in fact have the "better pitching" in many of the games we lost to "weaker opponents"... better starter...better pen...and better line-up and fielding. You said we can't expect to win everyone of those games. Yes, we had "poor pitching", but we were "favorites", because the opponents had even worse pitching. Are you saying you'd take a worse pitchign team with a worse line-up and fielding team "anyday"?

    No, I haven't flipped 180 degrees.
    Opponents had the edge. UR just not acknowledging it. "Favorites" is relative to criteria.
    You can look at total pedigree and then I'd agree with you.

    Or you can look at compromised form, which was the case in Sept.

    harness, please! At the time we were playing the O's and jays, you and I both thought we weres till good enough to win, even with the injuries. We knew beckett was coming off an ankle injury. We knew lackey and others were struggling, but we both thought that we would win and make the playoffs. Now that we lost and lissed the playoffs, you want to go back and say we were not good enough to win, should have lost and did what was expected of us. That is a flip-plain ans simple.

    Look at the pitching match-ups in the Toronto series and Baltimore series. Compare the pens. We didn't need Baltimore to have 4 injuries to still have wrose pitching than us! They didn't even need 1 injury to remain worse than us.

    Even today, I'd take Beckett, lester, Wake, Bedard/Weiland, and Lackey over Baltimore's starting 5 in a 5 game series anyday, with our superior fielding and hitting as the kicker.

    1) Guthrie  9-17  4.33  1.341
    2) Britton  11-11 4.61  1.451
    3) Arrieta  10-8   5.05  1.458
    4) Simon    4-9   4.90  1.452
    5) Tillman  3-5   5.52  1.645
    5A) Matusz 1-9  10.69  2.114
    5B) Bergesen 2-1  5.70  1.495
    5C) Jakub.     2-2  5.72  1.687
    5D) Hunter    3 -3  5.06  1.413

    (I think the ones in red were the ones we faced and lost more than we won against in Sept.)

    Already addressed

    Not really, You just posted what our guys did in September. Those numbers showed huge declines by nearly all of our starters, which proves my point, not yours. We played like winners for 4 months and losers for 2 months.

    Yes, and I said as much when i said we were this same team in April and from may to August. We were flawed, but even with the flaws, we both felt we were better than Baltimore and Toronto and should have won more of those games and made the playoffs. We did not reach our expectations, even after injuries. We played below our expectations. To me, that translates into "we played like losers and lost".

    Expectations are relative to perception.

    What were your expectations before each of these series? Like i said in the previous post, even if you put expectations aside, and we agree that we had a stinky team on the field and deserved to lose, the fact is we still "played like losers". It just means it was expected not unexpected.  

    bustin azz" is not always a positive when it leads to "pressing to hard" and "trying to do it all by yourself", which I feel is exactly what we did.We didn't have the calming presence of a Manny,and we made some bone-head plays on the basepaths (beyong our 3rd base coaches mistakes). We played recklessly at times and seemingly carelessly at others. I know we cared. I'm not saying our players gave up, but they didn't rise to the occasion for perhaps various reasons, injuries notwithstanding. Guys were swinging for the fences in close games. Players were picked off, ran into dumb outs, misfielded easy balls, and players who had great seasons all seemed to have their worst stretches when it mattered most

    This I found funny. Manny hardly was a calming presence. He was a self-centered pr*ck, who beat up on wives, players and traveling secretaries. He probably laid down on the team more than once. I doubt his teammates were calmed by this.The team tired of his goof act.

    I'm not getting into this. I still think that overall, manny had a calm approach to the game on the field. I have no issue with those that disagree.

    As for the on field gaffs, they have been happening all year. It didn't start in the 6th month.
    Part of it is on coaching. Part of it is on player awareness. Jake, for example, is an aggressive base-runner, and not a very bright one. He will make mistakes. That's part of the trade-off.

    The team was weak defensively on the left side of the infield. We knew this all year long.
    The mistakes became more glaring because of what was at stake, and the fact that there was no margin for error.

    We might be just arguing semantics, but even our healthy and strongest players went into a funk. That "funk" looked like good players playing like "losers". maybe it is a harsh word, but I waited until my emotions subsided to think long and hard about how we played down the stretch. i think my choice of words fits the bill. I never meant to imply that our team is full of "losers". I do not think Bard and Paps are 

    losers, but they sure picked the wrong time to blow up. 

    Unlike others, I do not think beckett is a loser. You don't turn 

    from a "money pitcher" to dirt overnight. He's a winner who 

    had an unfortunate injury at the wrong time. 


    This is my whole point, Moon. These guys aren't losers. They appeared to play like that  because that's how we perceive their performance. Where we differ are the reasons.

    No, your whole point is that because I said they played like losers, I am calling them losers. It is just not the same thing. I never called them losers. I have repeated it over and over after my first post saying they "played like losers". i keep asking you if you think they played like winners, but you won't answer.

     And there are reasons why they fell apart. Injury and highly questionable coaching pretty much covers it.

    Lester? well, it's hard to say what happened there. Go ahead and blame young, but Lester has to except some of the blame for not stepping up on several occasions when we needed him to be our stopper. Wake was overused, but gave his best. Bedard did what he always does...got hurt. I don't blame him: I blame Theo for not expecting it
    He sat through August and didn't even make a waiver deal for a 5,00 ERA innings eater.

    I don't blame Theo for Bedard. I think he was the logical choice. I might blame Theo for unstable pitching depth in AAA, largely due to the fact that Douby and Bowden were taken out of their starting roles.

    I blame Theo for not doing more than Bedard. he gambled on Bedard being healthy for 2 months. It wouldn't have cost much to get a 5.00 ERA innings eater with bedard, Theo chose to gamble and we lost. It's not the only reason we lost, but it was part of it.

    Miller and Weiland are no worse than some of Baltimore's starters they threw out there this year.

    They sure were in September!

    Exactly...they played like "losers" more than they did in July and August. that's my point.


    Our "timely hitting" lost track of time. That happens any time of the year, and I don't attribute that to being a "loser", but when it happens for a month of crunch time, i do call it "playing like a loser".

    I don't critique hitting if I can help it. Hitters don't succeed but 25-30 percent of the time.
    And I think if you look at who took the field in Sept. and compare their numbers with the rest of the year, the disparity might not be as large as you think, especially considering how climate affects hitting. I haven't crunched the numbers. But I do think strong pitching would mask the difference.

    The numbers were skewed by a few huge run scoring games, but we had some of those all year long. It felt like the teams from the 70's. We'd outscore teams in a series, but lose 2 out of 3.  No timely hitting. I think we did hit pretty well in Sept as compared to other months.

    We outscored Toronto 28-19, but lost 3 or 4 games.
    Later, we outscored them 22-11 and split 1-1.
    We outscored Baltimore 32-28, and lost 3 of 4.
    Later, in the last series of the year, we scored 14 runs in 3 games and lost 2 of 3.

    I think you're making a big deal out of me just saying we played like losers. Teams that lose, often play like losers. When we were winning, we played like winners. We played like winners way more than we played like losers this year, but near the end, we played like losers and lost.

    There's a difference in calling someone a "fool" and saying "you are acting like a foll right now".

    Not gonna touch that one.    
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, you make me work. I think we should both be on payroll for this discussion.

    I originally took issue with "We played like losers" label. I don't like labels.
    Did we play like winners? No. I don't like labels on either side.

    The reasons why the team performed as it did is more the sticking point.
    And I clearly stated the reasons were largely due to pitching injuries. The track record for each pitcher when healthy is undeniable.

    The odds of losing 4 main arms at key intervals in one year is probably astronomical. But it happened. That's why the team tanked.
    They didn't suddenly play like losers after 4 months without a reason.

    Were are expectations high playing teams they usually beat? Of course, because we thought we'd see a return to form by Beckett/Bedard/Lester.
    That didn't happen. A Josh Beckett when healthy will hold down most teams.
    A Josh Beckett at say 70% is no longer the Josh Beckett we assume will take the mound. He becomes a lesser pitcher with endurance issues.

    That means he can and will fall prey to any M. L. line-up. And no healthy M.L. line-up can be taken lightly. I certainly wouldn't call the O's line-up a joke.
    Their DH hit .290. They had an A.S. catcher. Hardy and Reynolds, two infielders, hit 67 home-runs and knocked in 186 RBI's. Markakis had a decent year. Jones hit .280 with 25 dingers. Keep in mind, they don't play half their games in Fenway.

    The O's scored 65 less road runs than Boston, but Boston didn't have Youk in Sept. How does that affect the difference?
    Keep in mind, Youk's replacements, Lowrie/Aviles produce about 24 runs (RS/RBI) per every 100 at bats. Youk produdes about 35 runs per 100 AB's.

    Put the O's line-up against a Bedard or Beckett at 70% - or Weiland at 100% - and they will get hit. And the team will lose. The Sept. ERA's don't  lie. Just as the pitchers with Salty compared to Tek were compromised, and the results reflected in W/L, so were the pitching numbers compromised by injury, etc.
    That means the team fielded an inferior product.

    The Run differential, as you alluded to in an earlier post, is easily skewed by a game or two where the team beats upon poor pitching. For example, We out-score Toronto 28-19 but lose 3 of 4. One of the games we trounce them 14-0. That means they out-score us 19-14 in the other three, two losses by a run.

    Later we split with them: an 18-6 pounding and then lose 5-4. Obviously, run differential doesn't tell an accurate story.

    The Rays pound the compromised staff 22-8 over 3 games. Then 24 - 14 in 4 games in Fenway. In 5 of the 7 games, the Rays scored no less than 6 runs.
    We both know a catcher can't possibly hit enough to compensate for a half-run differential. In the same way, a superior line-up that scores 5 runs a game on the average can't compensate for giving up 6-7 runs per game.
    Not unless the opposing pitcher was worse than ours.

    In the 4-game O's set, we out-score 'em 32-28, but one game was a lop-sided 18-9 win. The rest? Lost 6-5  6-4  7-5. One game again skews the picture.

    Yes the team scored 14 in the final three game-set with the birds. Isn't that about what the Sox average for the year? But the pitchers gave up 17 runs, so it really didn't matter.

    There's two ways to look at this: From the top or from the bottom.
    From the top, we expected them to pitch according to past performance.
    From the bottom, they didn't because their past performance was when they were healthy. If we knew ahead of time that their form would be so compromised, then we'd have expected the inevitable.

    I go through this all the time in horse racing, Moon. I expect certain horses to run according to form.They don't sometimes. Why? Because either they aren't healthy, or because other factors came into play that weren't envisioned.

    I don't label them either way. I just learn and use the data for future reference.
    If we center on the collapse more than the reasons for it, then addressing the issues to prevent a repeat occurrence is futile.

    A couple of notes: I never advocated Crawford to hit 2nd, but that's neither here nor there. I also came across an amazing stat:

    Zach Britton:
    Home: 11-0  2.12 ERA
    Away: 0-11   9.49 ERA.

    Now that's a rare case where home advantage completely outweighs venue.
     

Share