A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Never under estimate the importance of positive team players who hate losing. Complacency and entitement were a major parasite on the 2011 Red Sox. The GM hires the labor, Tito is limited in what he can do with bad attitudes. Players who approach it as a business and who do not hate losing in competition are players the next GM needs to write out of long term plans. A driving will to be the best and win are the essential elements that separate great teams from teams with core players who need contract motivation. 

    Epstein represented the face of entitlement from his entry into baseball to his exit from the Red Sox after ownership properly refused to extend his contract. Hiring PI and PR firms to research player backgrounds is completely tone deaf to what competitive sports are all about.

    The team attitude must be rebuilt around Pedroia, who should be the management designated team leader entrusted to identify problem players not committed to the work ethic required to compete at the highest level of the league. These players should not be offered contracts if they are FA, and those still under contract who are problems should be on the trade block. 

    The country club for retirees and players needs to end. The requirment of no facial hair and long hair is not going to create wins, but it will foment team professionalism and the image of a team instead of a corps of individual personalities.

    It isn't about winning titles, it is about showing respect for the uniform and the game and the way the game was meant to be played. A team sport where players play hard, with a passion for winning, and set an example that fans are proud of and opponents respect. 

    Success spoiled an organization that was lacking in the proper leadership to handle success. The good news is that leadership is now a 5 year major expense and liability of a clueless organization.

     
  2. 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]My "sources" comment was on talking about actions which have not come to pass yet and may never come to pass.


    Wanna try again? If nothing came to pass, then what was Hohler writing about? What does that say about his sources if Anytime you see "sources say" you know nothing at all is fact. 



    Hohler wrote about something that actually did happen, the Sox did fall a part.
    Posted by BurritoT

    But, according to UR logic, nothing actually came to pass. Right?
    Gee, I guess that means the collapse never occurred.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I said it about yesterdays news claiming Theo had already left Boston, which still is not official.

    the Red Sox melted - what in the hell is wrong with you - how many teams fire their manager and let their GM walk within 2 weeks of the season ending? Not many. The collpase on its own was not enough to let the manager and GM go - it was an all out debacle and the Ownership wants as much change as possible. 

    You think its just because of a bad finish? Its how it unfolded and the reasons behind it that led to the swift exits of Tito and (liekly) Theo.

    This latest round proves you prefer to argue against the obvious for the sole purpose of arguing.
     
  4. 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 :  BUNK buddy. You hypotheticals are over reaching. The team failed miserably. the leadership was lacking, and have been pushed out/let go. The picture painted by the reporters fits the evidence, and the perps aren't talking to refute it. Hohler may have changed, but I don't see evidence of that.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]


    The team tanked because the pitching allowed 6 or more runs in 19 of 27 games. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the pitching had been healthy.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT'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 : [QUOTE] My "sources" comment was on talking about actions which have not come to pass yet and may never come to pass . Wanna try again? If nothing came to pass, then what was Hohler writing about? What does that say about his sources if   Anytime you see "sources say" you know nothing at all is fact.  Hohler wrote about something that actually did happen, the Sox did fall a part. Posted by BurritoT But, according to UR logic, nothing actually came to pass. Right? Gee, I guess that means the collapse never occurred.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]


    I said you cannot believe what you read when a writer quotes unnamed  "sources" - I was talking about Theo going to the Cubs.  Yesterdays headline said "THEO IS GOING TO CHICAGO" and came across as already a done deal, we are still waiting though. 

    Hohler is writing using unnamed sources about a collapse that actually did occur, thus more or less much of what is said is true because we know this event did occur and there were reasons for it. 

    Your above remarks are in EXACT reverse of what my comments meant.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    To ease the level of debate a minute, I listen to Collin Cowherd on the way to work each day; as the last few weeks of the season unfolded, Curt Schilling was a guest two or three times--when the RS were still two games up and it looked like an impossibility they would blow it.  Each time he was on, he said and this is not a direct quote, "The RS will not be in the playoffs,  they will not make it, they look terrible, they are not doing the little things they need to do, their pitchers are not putting in the effort required or pitching smart, etc. etc."  I thought he was a little harsh but he said this repeatedly when they were still up.  The point is, I think baseball insiders could see what this average fan could not.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Pitching health is a static excuse of the Esptein administration. Every team has pitching health problems. Accountability rests solely on the GM who assembled the pitchers and those that managed and developed them. Wakefield on the roster was totally unprofessional and a disrespect for the integrity of the competition. Failure to properly staff, develop and manage pitching is the calling card of the departing entitlement GM.  Paying 3.75 Million and allowing Wakfield to endlessly seek 200 wins was grounds to terminate the GM. No question that Luchino and Henry made the correct call to deny Epstein's extension requests.  
     
  8. 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]I said it about yesterdays news claiming Theo had already left Boston, which still is not official. the Red Sox melted - what in the hell is wrong with you - how many teams fire their manager and let their GM walk within 2 weeks of the season ending? Not many. The collapse on its own was not enough to let the manager and GM go - it was an all out debacle and the Ownership wants as much change as possible.  You think its just because of a bad finish?Its how it unfolded and the reasons behind it that led to the swift exits of Tito and (liekly) Theo.

    Of course it was about a bad finish. What the hell else? What did you expect was gonna happen after Sept? Love and kisses and and a 10-year extension?
    I said to Geo back in mid-May that Tito was gone if the team didn't get into the PO's. Theo can't handle the fire from jerks like Hohler.

    You are unbelievable gullible if you think teams get along like the
    Waltons.
    Sh*t like this goes on in good times and bad. It's simply masked when things go well. The underlying reasons you think caused the collapse didn't just materialize in Sept. They were there from May thru August as well...same players, same Manager, same GM. Same team that played .667 ball.

    This latest round proves you prefer to argue against the obvious for the sole purpose of arguing.
    Posted by BurritoT

    No, it proves you swallow anything that fans the flames.
     
  9. 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]I agree 110% with Boom and Hill on this article and can't improve on their comments.  Evidently I'm "one of those posters" who believes everything I read. But some posters here aren't keeping an open mind themselves as I DID NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING I READ but I found a compelling array of reasons which in minor ways and major ways likely contributed to the downfall of this team.  As was said earlier, these reporters are with the team every day.  Where is the "sensationalism" of this article?  Posters here have been saying for a while that players were out of shape, undisciplined, making stupid errors, and not supporting their fellow players.  This article only named names which I don't think were any surprise.  What about this article do you want to disagree with?  "Dedication waned,  unity unraveled, the manager lost influence."  Tito has admitted all this already.  He said he saw it and couldn't seem to do anything about it.  Pedey said, "We let each other down in the clubhouse."  This isn't sensationalism--It's what the manager and the most respected player are saying.  Finally, I did not see the discussion of Tito's medication or marital woes as a cheap shot.  I believe the author was saying they could have been distractions in a tough year with many distractions.  Hey, if "One of his children expressed concern about a pill bottle in his hotel room," isn't it fair to inquire if maybe the health issues weren't a factor?  I too don't see this as a put down of Tito; he said himself it may be time for players to hear a new voice. Harness and Moon, I know you love the Red Sox.  Pretty much everyone here does.  But can you back off on the tone a bit.  I think this is a raw wound for you guys, maybe because you care more.  Cleaning the wound is painful but it's got to be done.  I know at least one of you thinks this is pretty much a 95% pitching problem, but these other problems need to be cleaned up too.
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]

    The dramatization of it Crit. Nothing stated was any revelation, beyond perhaps Tito's marital issues, which is Tito's business and a below-the-belt cheap shot.
    He simply sensationalized the issue to capitalize on the situation.

    There's nothing mysterious about a team tanking given the lop-sided Sept. ERA.
    The way it came down gave the press an arsenal to work with.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I resign from this particular round of debate/argument/insults with you, the fact your nealry alone on the issue of forsesaking getting names and facts to who did what is your choice. 

    The fall-out is speaking for itself: Manager let go and GM about to walk.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Harness, yes the pitching was terrible in 19 out of 27 games.  You have been a clarion for a long time about the pitching coach and his shortcomings.  At first I didn't want to believe you, but you have won me over as in other discussions.  Now I'm hearing other sources saying what you've been saying all along.  But I hope you don't think seriously that is the only problem?  You aren't telling me that all the players were up on the railing in the last, most important game of the year? That in the last weeks when pitching was wounded, that we picked up our defense and guys were hitting the cut off men?  That when timely hitting was scarce we didn't run into outs?  That pitchers got removed briskly when it was time and not left in too long (see Jim Leyland who I think uses his staff brilliantly...)?  Pitching is the biggest issue, you're right, but not the only issue.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The fall-out is speaking for itself: Manager let go and GM about to walk.

    Epstein was not going to go into his final contract year without an extension. He most surely has been seeking an extension for the last year or more. It was denied.

    Pitching injuries is not why both Tito and Epstein were effectively fired.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Nope if it was all about the injuries and everyone was happy with the way people conducted themselves the team simply would have healed over the winter with "lets get em' next year" sort of attitude. Truth it things fell apart and philosophies were splintered.  
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    PS.  Regardless of how we feel about that article, these problems are not the press's fault.  Say the press stirred it up.  They are there.  The next manager is going to have to deal with them.  When things get like this with any team in any sport, what do they do?  Hire a guy who takes charge and lays out some rules.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Players must have a leader who polices the other players. To do that, the GM must trust that leader and get those continual problem players off the team ASAP.
     
  16. 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]Harness, yes the pitching was terrible in 19 out of 27 games.  You have been a clarion for a long time about the pitching coach and his shortcomings.  At first I didn't want to believe you, but you have won me over as in other discussions.  Now I'm hearing other sources saying what you've been saying all along.  But I hope you don't think seriously that is the only problem?  You aren't telling me that all the players were up on the railing in the last, most important game of the year? That in the last weeks when pitching was wounded, that we picked up our defense and guys were hitting the cut off men?  That when timely hitting was scarce we didn't run into outs?  That pitchers got removed briskly when it was time and not left in too long (see Jim Leyland who I think uses his staff brilliantly...)?  Pitching is the biggest issue, you're right, but not the only issue.
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]


    Crit, I never said pitching was the only problem. It's the over-riding factor in the sport. And it was why the team tanked in Sept. Issues like poor fundamentals and lax coaching are nothing new to this team. They sure as hell didn't help once there was absolutely no margin for error.


    The same chemistry issues that are coming out in the press were present
    during the good times, too. What I am saying is that it's overblown and predictably so. FA hasn't started yet and the feeding frenzy is on.

    You asked me what  about the Hohler piece I had issues with. Here's some examples: (denotes pieces from the article: Inside the collapse, by Bob Hohler)

    Team sources said Francona, who has acknowledged losing influence with some former team leaders, appeared distracted during the season by issues related to his troubled marriage and to his health.


    Francona spent the season living in a hotel after he moved out of the Brookline home he shared with Jacque, his wife of nearly 30 years. But he adamantly denied his marital problems affected his job performance.


    “It makes me angry that people say these things because I’ve busted my [butt] to be the best manager I can be,’’ Francona said. “I wasn’t terribly successful this year, but I worked harder and spent more time at the ballpark this year than I ever did.

    Now tell me Crit, if it angers Tito and he adamantly denies it, why state it?
    It's like a prosecuting attorney making an accusation he know will be disallowed, but he makes it to influence the jury.
    Here's more:

    By all accounts, the 2011 Sox perished from a rash of relatively small indignities

    Does he mention the poor pitching? Of course not. If we are to believe this
    clown,   "all accounts"   claim the team perished from a rash of relatively small indignities.
    What accounts? Wouldn't you think any of these accounts would state the fact the pitching was horrid? He names nobody, because he won't find anyone who would make such a ludicrous statement.

    Wakefield also was part of the problem. Amid a seemingly interminable quest for his 200th career victory, he went 1-2 with a 5.25 ERA in September

    Who do ya think was responsible for this interminable quest? The press!
    They played it all up. Now they blame Wake. Do you know that no starter had an ERA below 5.25 in Sept? Did he bother to mention that? Hell no.
    Wake never allowed more than 4 ER's in any outing between #199 and #200...until number 200. Look how he words it: seemingly...like the way he said appears relating to Tito.

    In the face of his team’s corroded spirit, Francona became increasingly ineffectual, according to team sources.Francona was burdened not only by the frustration of coping with the least dedicated group of players of his Boston tenure, but by the likelihood that Sox owners would not exercise his contractual option for 2012.


    Francona took strong exception to the suggestion that his problems motivating the players had anything to do with his commitment to the team.


    “You never heard any of these complaints when we were going 80-41 [from April 15 to Aug. 27] because there was nothing there,’’ Francona said. “But we absolutely stunk in the last month, so now we have to deal with a lot of this stuff because expectations were so high.’’

    Again Hohler makes an accusation, then shows a quote of Tito denying it.
    Where are the quotes from team sources? Hohler simply puts the idea into the reader's mind. Now Tito, out of the job, looks like the fall guy with the denial.

    Now you know why many players won't grant this jerk an interview.
    He draws a fine line of twists and turns.
    Yes, Crit, the press is responsible for creating the tone of each piece. And collectively, they can create a pressure vacuum.
    So, who holds them accountable?

     
  17. 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]Nope if it was all about the injuries and everyone was happy with the way people conducted themselves the team simply would have healed over the winter with "lets get em' next year" sort of attitude. Truth it things fell apart and philosophies were splintered.  
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    How did people conduct themselves when Martin went after Jackson on the game of the week, in front of a live audience? How did NY finish that year?

    What was said when Bush lost his re-election bid?
    "It was the economy, stupid".

    Now, just substitute pitching for the economy, and the same truth holds.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Good analysis of the shady 'journalism' in that article, harness. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Harness and Moon, I know you love the Red Sox.  Pretty much everyone here does.  But can you back off on the tone a bit.  I think this is a raw wound for you guys, maybe because you care more.  Cleaning the wound is painful but it's got to be done.  I know at least one of you thinks this is pretty much a 95% pitching problem, but these other problems need to be cleaned up too.

    Crit, I am not saying there weren't issues in the clubhouse. When teams that are supposed to win, lose there usually are. Sometimes it's not easy to know if the "issues" caused the decline or the decline caused the "issues". I have do doubt there is some truth to some of what has been written, but I am one that is reserving judgement until more facts are in. It's not like I have never been critical of Sox players or management.

    Just because I say I do not believe the story was based on facts, does not mean it is false. It could be all correct. I'm just saying that I do not trust one writer's opinion (that's what most of his story was) until I find out more.
     
  20. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : The team tanked because the pitching allowed 6 or more runs in 19 of 27 games . We wouldn't be having this conversation if the pitching had been healthy.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]
     Yeah, I know. Two more wins and the Rays never would have made it. You can blame the pitching, which was certifiably awful. You can blame the offense too, 9 of the last 15 games they scored 4 runs or less...you can blame in game managing, batting Lavarnway behind A-Gon simply took Adrian out of the offense with two intentional walks in game #162. You can blame the players, Scut standing and watching the gapper, Big Papi trying to stretch a single into a double, lots of little turning points that had they been altered the Sox would have made it into the play-offs. But the wheels were coming off the team bus,
    and if they made it in, what teams could they have actually beaten?
     
  21. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Crit , I never said pitching was the only problem. It's the over-riding factor in the sport. And it was why the team tanked in Sept. Issues like poor fundamentals and lax coaching are nothing new to this team. They sure as hell didn't help once there was absolutely no margin for error. The same chemistry issues that are coming out in the press were present during the good times, too. What I am saying is that it's overblown and predictably so. FA hasn't started yet and the feeding frenzy is on. You asked me what  about the Hohler piece I had issues with. Here's some examples: ( denotes pieces from the article: Inside the collapse , by Bob Hohler) Team sources said Francona, who has acknowledged losing influence with some former team leaders, appeared distracted during the season by issues related to his troubled marriage and to his health. Francona spent the season living in a hotel after he moved out of the Brookline home he shared with Jacque, his wife of nearly 30 years. But he adamantly denied his marital problems affected his job performance. “It makes me angry that people say these things because I’ve busted my [butt] to be the best manager I can be,’’ Francona said. “I wasn’t terribly successful this year, but I worked harder and spent more time at the ballpark this year than I ever did. Now tell me Crit , if it angers Tito and he adamantly denies it, why state it? It's like a prosecuting attorney making an accusation he know will be disallowed, but he makes it to influence the jury. Here's more: By all accounts, the 2011 Sox perished from a rash of relatively small indignities Does he mention the poor pitching? Of course not. If we are to believe this clown,   "all accounts"   claim the team perished from a rash of relatively small indignities . What accounts? Wouldn't you think any of these accounts would state the fact the pitching was horrid? He names nobody, because he won't find anyone who would make such a ludicrous statement. Wakefield also was part of the problem. Amid a seemingly interminable quest for his 200th career victory, he went 1-2 with a 5.25 ERA in September Who do ya think was responsible for this interminable quest? The press! They played it all up. Now they blame Wake. Do you know that no starter had an ERA below 5.25 in Sept? Did he bother to mention that? Hell no. Wake never allowed more than 4 ER's in any outing between #199 and #200...until number 200. Look how he words it: seemingly ...like the way he said appears relating to Tito. In the face of his team’s corroded spirit, Francona became increasingly ineffectual, according to team sources. Francona was burdened not only by the frustration of coping with the least dedicated group of players of his Boston tenure, but by the likelihood that Sox owners would not exercise his contractual option for 2012. Francona took strong exception to the suggestion that his problems motivating the players had anything to do with his commitment to the team. “You never heard any of these complaints when we were going 80-41 [from April 15 to Aug. 27] because there was nothing there,’’ Francona said. “But we absolutely stunk in the last month, so now we have to deal with a lot of this stuff because expectations were so high.’’ Again Hohler makes an accusation, then shows a quote of Tito denying it. Where are the quotes from team sources ? Hohler simply puts the idea into the reader's mind. Now Tito, out of the job, looks like the fall guy with the denial. Now you know why many players won't grant this jerk an interview. He draws a fine line of twists and turns. Yes, Crit , the press is responsible for creating the tone of each piece. And collectively, they can create a pressure vacuum. So, who holds them accountable?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

     I read Hohler and see a completely different handling of the issues. "Team Sources" are used and not disclosed, and then in FAIRNESS, he gets and prints Tito's response, the reader then can make up his own mind if it is plausible. The sources are not likely to be identified, as they do not have the financial security to take a hit of being fired. Tito can always pick up a few coins in the booth, and re-sign with another team in the neighborhood of $3-4M. Because Tito denies something, doesn't mean it's not a cause, it just means Tito doesn't see it that way.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I know this is totally unscientific and not based on stats, but this team's collapse has given me a bad feeling in my gut that is the antithesis of how I felt about the team after the 2003 playoff loss. Back then, my gut told me that the talent assembled and the overall attitude of the team had created a rare window of opportunity to win a championship.

    I just can't convince myself that a bit better luck with pitching injuries would have made the difference in 2011. My gut tells me the problem runs deeper. A winning attitude can overcome physical impairments. Many winning teams include players sacrificing their bodies. This may be seen as foolish by some, but it can be used as a measuring stick of competitive desire. I don't need to see a team with players who love each other, but players who love to win and absolutely hate to lose. I'm afraid I don't get that feeling with this team.
     
  23. 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]I know this is totally unscientific and not based on stats, but this team's collapse has given me a bad feeling in my gut that is the antithesis of how I felt about the team after the 2003 playoff loss. Back then, my gut told me that the talent assembled and the overall attitude of the team had created a rare window of opportunity to win a championship. I just can't convince myself that a bit better luck with pitching injuries would have made the difference in 2011. My gut tells me the problem runs deeper. A winning attitude can overcome physical impairments. Many winning teams include players sacrificing their bodies. This may be seen as foolish by some, but it can be used as a measuring stick of competitive desire. I don't need to see a team with players who love each other, but players who love to win and absolutely hate to lose. I'm afraid I don't get that feeling with this team.
    Posted by devildavid[/QUOTE]

    Good points. I too felt better after 2003.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG'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 : The team tanked because the pitching allowed 6 or more runs in 19 of 27 games . We wouldn't be having this conversation if the pitching had been healthy.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    And three of the healthy pitchers, Beckett, Lester and Lackey didn't care about the team to the point where they were not supporting their teammates, the organization and their fans.

    Lester and Beckett were completely ineffective in September for a reason. They weren't in shape, period.  Pitchers get their strength from their legs and their abs/hips. If they aren't working out and are drinking beer and eating fried chicken, where does it show the most? In their legs and stomach.

    They were completely disrespectful and should be showed the door, at least Beckett and Lackey.
     
  25. 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]I know this is totally unscientific and not based on stats, but this team's collapse has given me a bad feeling in my gut that is the antithesis of how I felt about the team after the 2003 playoff loss. Back then, my gut told me that the talent assembled and the overall attitude of the team had created a rare window of opportunity to win a championship. I just can't convince myself that a bit better luck with pitching injuries would have made the difference in 2011. My gut tells me the problem runs deeper. A winning attitude can overcome physical impairments. Many winning teams include players sacrificing their bodies. This may be seen as foolish by some, but it can be used as a measuring stick of competitive desire. I don't need to see a team with players who love each other, but players who love to win and absolutely hate to lose. I'm afraid I don't get that feeling with this team.
    Posted by devildavid[/QUOTE]I understand much of what you are saying in the aftermath of the collapse feeling very different than losing a 7th game in the ALCS that was dismissed by all of RS Nation a the work of the manager.

    But what I don't agree with is the statement that "I just can't convince myself that a bit better luck with pitching injuries would have made the difference in 2011."

    I believe if their starting rotation hadn't taken such big hits they would have made the playoffs. From there as the two "best teams" in MLB in 2011 showed us in the NLDS and ALDS, the playoffs are a matter of luck.

    What the media have fed IMHO is a whirlpool of negativity. The team won 90 games while get under 110 starts for their opening day starting 5 and 28 of those made up Lackey's historically bad 2011.

    Some "stuff" needs to be cleaned up because the RS should have been able to win 4 or maybe 5 more games in September than they did. But honestly when Beckett missed two starts and Bedard three that team was in trouble.

    RS Nation went from having debating whether the glass was half empty or half full to "smash the glass" in the blink of an eye. Some of this has been fed by stories of various merit and or weight. The stories about Youk IMHO were white noise by example, the fact that the starting pitchers had so completely isolated themselves from the rest of the team a real concern and while I think the world of Francona, he owns a lot of that.

    If people can get past having been given a glimpse into "how the sausage" was made they'd see that the team has a lot of talent. Beckett, Lester and Buch make a formidable top of the rotation. The offense is a scoring machine and could get better with a better solution in RF and career norms from the LFer. Bard had an uneven year but for much of the year he was unbelievably good with inherited runners. Aceves was a revelation.

    Time for the RS to stabilize their FO, find a new manager that will leverage what the RS have built while bringing a culture shift and go about the business of tweaking a talented team.

    The blood letting needs to stop. It did not work in 18th Century and it won't work now. But there will be more because it is Boston no matter how skillfully the RS FO tries to manage through this.

    Lackey probably needs to go and that is equal parts of who he is and the market (I can't see this guy making in Boston where cat calls will abound and the media will ravage him after any bad outing). Papelbon staying is 50-50 and my guess is the odds are lower on David Ortiz who is an aging DH who appears to have a chip on his shoulder. Each event will be seen as not simply aftershocks but new epic earthquakes.

    That is what the media does and the atmosphere in Boston may be a bigger issue moving forward than any one element of the toxic stories that now abound. And nothing IMO was more toxic than whoever the unnamed FO worm who floated the sewage about Terry's health and marriage, after Tito gracefully moved on.

    That Globe piece was terrible no matter how much it has entertained the blood thirsty Boston public that has begun to feel that the city is entitled to win every year in every sport.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share