A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Daniel Nava is quietly putting up a solid year in AAA. Too bad he's LH. I think he is hitting close to .400 over the last 10 games. I'm still rooting for him! One of the greatest stories in baseball still.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Mr Moon

    I hope you don't mind if I bring up the OF defense.

    Last night Byrd dropped a ball in the 2nd and Ross failed to back up on the Middlebrooks throw, leading to an extra run.  IMO neither will hit well enough to compensate for their  play in CF or RF.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Moon, you're so right about the pitching.  That has got to be priority #1 in the future.  Several years ago I thought we were building a staff like the Atlanta staff that went to the playoffs through the 90's, the Orioles of the 70's, but it just hasn't come together yet.  I think there have to be some leaders on that staff...that's why I hoped Bud Black or last year's pitching coach at Texas could have been in the run for manager. -Critter23



    Crit, here's some more in depth details of my psoition:

    There has been much debate about where the fault lies on the Sox lack of success this year and in 2011: the offense (or unbalanced scoring) or the pitching (and defense).

    I went back and combined the total AL record of 2011 and 2012  for each game based on how many runs were scored and how many runs were allowed. This gives us the normal expectation for winning when a given team scores a certain amount of runs or lets up a certain amount of runs. I then aplied that league norm winning percentage to what the results the Sox got for each subgroup of runs scored and runs let up. The differential, in theory, will show if we should have won more or less on any given run number scored or allowed. This data can be used to assign "blame" to the offense or the defense depending on what side of the differential we fell on.

    (Side note: A winning team should do better than the norm on offense and defense. Breaking even would, in theory, lead a team to an 81-81 record, but for argument's sake, whichever side of the equation if farther from the norm-good or badly, should determine who is more at fault: the offense or the defense.)

    The pitching is assigned plus or minus wins as related to how much run support they got. The offense is assigned plus or minus wins as related to how many runs our staff allowed.

    Here's the data:

    2012 Pitching Plus/Minus
    Runs scored by offense
    Runs/AL win%11-12/Tot. Gms/Expected wins/Sox W's/ Differential
    0          .000                  2                          .000                 0                .000
    1          .102                  3                          .306                 1              +.694
    2          .219                  4                          .876                 0              - .876
    3          .364                  4                         1.456                0            -1.456
    4          .537                  2                         1.074                1             -  .074
    5          .648                   0                           .000                0                .000
    6          .693                  3                         2.079                2             -.079
    7          .804                  1                           .804                1             +.196
    8          .887                  0                           .000                0               .000 
    9          .907                  1                           .907                0             -.907
    10        .926                  2                         1.852               2             +.148
    11+     .991                  5                          4.955              4             -.955

    The only subgroup where we have more wins than the league norm expectation is when we scored 1 run, 7 runs, and 10 runs. The total combined amount of wins we gained in those 3 sub groups was 1.038 
    (in red) or just over 1 win gained by better than norm results. In games where our staff won less than expectations based on the league norm, our staff lost a total of 4.347 (in black). Ta he net plus/minus comes to ...

    MINUS  3.309 WINS

    In other words, we should have won 3.3 more games based on game by game results and the amount of runs we scored.

    2012 Offense Plus/Minus:
    Runs allowed by pitching and defense.
    Runs/AL win% 11-12/Tot. Gms/Expected wins/Sox W's/ Differential
    0         1.000                       1                   1.000              1                .000
    1           .901                       1                      .901              0              -.901
    2           .787                       3                     2.361             3             +.639
    3           .615                       4                     2.460             2              -.460
    4           .466                       3                     1.398             1              -.398
    5           .354                       3                     1.062             2              +.938
    6           .260                       5                     1.300             2              +.700
    7           .196                       1                       .196             0               -.196
    8           .120                       1                       .120             0               -.120
    9           .081                        1                       .081             0              -.081
    10         .090                        1                      .090              0              -.090
    11+      .009                        3                      .027              0              -.027

    The net Plus/Minus for our offense:

    MINUS .001 WINS (or basically status quo with the rest of the AL)

    In summary, the offense has won/lost no games for us overall. The pitching has lost 3+ games for the team.


    Now a look at 2011...

    2011 Pitching Plus/Minus
    Runs scored by offense
    Runs/AL win%11-12/Tot. Gms/Expected wins/Sox W's/ Differential
    0          .000               11                          .000                 0          .000
    1          .102               12                         1.224                2          +.776
    2          .219               15                         3.285                2         -1.285
    3          .364               17                         6.188                7          +.822
    4          .537               30                        16.110             17          +.890
    5          .648               15                         9.720               7          -2.720
    6          .693               13                         9.009               9           -.009
    7          .804                9                          7.236               7           -.236
    8          .887                7                          6.209               7          +.791 
    9          .907                8                          7.256               8          +.744
    10        .926                7                          6.482               6           -.482
    11+     .991                17                        16.847             17          +.153


    Pitching: MINUS  .556  WINS


    2012 Offense Plus/Minus:
    Runs allowed by pitching and defense.
    Runs/AL win% 11-12/Tot. Gms/Expected wins/Sox W's/ Differential
    0         1.000                      13                   13.000      13                .000
    1           .901                      15                  13.515       13              -.515
    2           .787                      15                  11.805       13            +1.115 
    3           .615                      24                  14.760        16           +1.240
    4           .466                      20                    9.320       11            +1.680
    5           .354                      23                    8.142       10            +1.858
    6           .260                      14                    3.640        6              +.700
    7           .196                      11                    2.156        3              +.844
    8           .120                       4                      .480        2             +1.520
    9           .081                     14                      1.134       2             +.866
    10         .090                       3                      .270         1             +.730
    11+      .009                        6                      .054         0              -.054

    Offense: PLUS   9.984 

    Basically, the offense accounted for all the wins we had over a .500 season. (81+9=90) 

    The pitching was a push.

    Now, for the September collapse. Who was more at fault?

    Runs scored
    R  Gms  Exp W  Sox W  Diff
    0    2         .000       0     0
    1    2         .204       0   -.204
    2    4         .876       0   -.876
    3    3       1.092       0  -1.092 
    4    5        2.685      1  -1.685
    5    4        2.592      0  -2.592
    6    0         0           0     0
    7    1         .804      1    +.196
    8    1         .887      1    +.113
    9    0         0           0     0
    10  1         .926      0     -.926
    11+ 4   4   3.964     4    +.036

    Pitching Total:  MINUS  7.030 WINS

    Runs Allowed:
    R  gms  ExpW  SoxW  Diff
    0    1        1        1        0
    1    1        .901    0     -.901
    2    0        0        0        0
    3    1       .615    1      +.385
    4    4       1.467  1      -.467
    5    1        .354   0      -.354
    6    6       1.560  1      -.560
    7    5        .980   2    +1.020
    8    1       .120    0     -.120
    9    4       .324    1     +.676
    10  1       .090    0     -.090
    11+ 2      .018    0     -.018

    Offense: MINUS .429 WINS

    Basically, the 7 games under .500 for September was all the pitcher's fault, except for under 1/2 a win turned to a loss by the offense.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Moon, I think you did make a good call on Gavin Floyd being a good target.  But I'm sorta glad right now we didn't trade Middlebrooks.SmileI agree. I did make a few non-Middlebrooks suggested trade offers for Floyd as well.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 56redsox. Show 56redsox's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    The roster is set. The season begins. Questions and concerns remain. Injuries have already begun... 60-day DL RHP John Lackey  RHP Bobby Jenks RHP Andrew Bailey  RHP Chris Carpenter OF Ryan Kalish 15-day DL OF Carl Crawford LHP Rich Hill RHP Daisuke Matsuzaka LHP Andrew Miller Not a good start to the season, but some on this list were known injury issues for quite some time. The loss of Bailey could be crucial since the pen was already a great concern after losing Paps to the Phillies and Bard to the rotation (at least for now). Some of us have had some differences over the 25 man roster choices, most notably the Iggy and Lava demotions, but there is a good chance both of those two will see significant time in Boston this year at some point.  Some have questioned the choice of a 13th pitcher to start the season. The choices have been made. Here's the opening day 25-man roster:   Pitchers (13):   RHP Alfredo Aceves, RHP Matt Albers, RHP Scott Atchison, RHP Daniel Bard, RHP Josh Beckett, RHP Michael Bowden, RHP Clay Buchholz, LHP Felix Doubront, LHP Jon Lester, RHP Mark Melancon, LHP Franklin Morales, RHP Vicente Padilla, LHP Justin Thomas. Catchers (2):  Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Kelly Shoppach Infielders (5):  Mike Aviles, Adrian Gonzalez, Dustin Pedroia, Nick Punto, Kevin Youkilis. Outfielders (4):  Jacoby Ellsbury, Darnell McDonald, Cody Ross, Ryan Sweeney. DHs (1):  David Ortiz.   The rotation will start like this: 1) Lester 2) Beckett 3) Buchholtz 4) Doubront (see statement after Bard) 5) Bard (perhaps until Dice-K returns or Cook is promoted) Closer: Aceves (until Bailey returns) Set-Up: Melancon (perhaps replaced by Bard later in the season) RP3) Morales  RP4) Albers RP5) Atchison RP6) Padilla RP7) Bowden (Out of options) RP8) Thomas (until Hill returns) There will be debates about the line-up. My guess is this is what Bobby will use as a template when CC is healthy. I expect Bobby to be more flexible than Tito.      vs RHPs     vs LHPs 1) L Ells          L Ells 2) R Pedey     R Pedey 3) L AGon       L AGon 4) L Ortiz        R Youk 5) R Youk       L Ortiz 6) L Craw       R Ross 7) S Salty       L Craw 8) L Sween*  L Shopp 9) R Aviles     R Aviles (*Ross may start vs many RHPs) While Crawford is out, I expect DMac will play LF vs LHPs and Ross will be in RF. Ross should play in LF vs RHPs with Sweeney in right. When Crawford comes back, I expect a pitcher to be sent to AAA and we will retain DMac as long as possible. I hope we can keep this thread mostly about the Red Sox and issues directly effecting the Sox. Let's keep it civil. Refrain from personal attacks, blatant misrepresentations of other posters' positions, and going off on unrelated tangents. The Sox are going to be a fun bunch to watch this year. I'm pumped up! Let the games begin.  Play Ball!
    Posted by moonslav59


     
       When Jenks and Lackey come back off the DL in 13, i really dont want them even putting a RedSox hat on......
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Mr Moon

    I hope you don't mind if I bring up the OF defense.

    Last night Byrd dropped a ball in the 2nd and Ross failed to back up on the Middlebrooks throw, leading to an extra run.  IMO neither will hit well enough to compensate for their  play in CF or RF.

    I saw that. I admit, I grossly over-evaluated Ross' defense. Byrd is normally pretty good, and everyone makes a mistake now and then. Besides Sweeney, our OF defense is horrible, our catching defense has been horrible, and our left side IF has been awful. Maybe Middlebrooks will help reverse that trend.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    When Jenks and Lackey come back off the DL in 13, i really dont want them even putting a RedSox hat on....

    Jenk's contract is over this year. He's not coming back.

    Lackey will get a chance, even if just to showcase for a trade.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    You know, Lackey may end up coming back strong. He may have been pitching hurt for years.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    Daniel Nava is quietly putting up a solid year in AAA. Too bad he's LH. I think he is hitting close to .400 over the last 10 games. I'm still rooting for him! One of the greatest stories in baseball still.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom

    Yeah, some of Pawtucket's slower starters have been warming up.  Nava's been on a pretty good run for about 15 games now and picked up his 3rd homer last night.  Before last night Iggy had 5 straight 2 hit games including one with triple and a double.  Hassan's been building momentum and picking up some doubles while maintaining a 400 OBP.  And Lava's got two multi hit games in a row ... still without the power but hopefully that will come soon.

    Plus we've got the guys who were hot right out of the gate like Gomez and Ciriaco.  Ciriaco has been hitting like a maniac and can play a number of positions.  It will be interesting to see what moves are coming.  I can't think that we'll finish out the year with these pairings intact at AAA: Gomez/Anderson, Iggy/Ciriaco.  For the MiLB outfielders, again I have to wonder who will be moved because it's hard to imagine Linares and JBJr still at their current assignments for too much longer.  Add to that our log jam of RP's and you've got a perfect recipe for lots of moves to be made.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    You know, Lackey may end up coming back strong. He may have been pitching hurt for years.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom
    I think there is reason to believe that the damage to his elbow was probably progressive and certainly contributed to his awful 2011 performance and his drop from 2009 to 2010 and it wasn't all playing in the Al East. In hindsight it was a risky move by the RS given that they saw enough in physical to ask for limited protection from what turned out to be the eventual TJ surgery.

    Much is made of his demonstrative nature on the mound when things go wrong behind him, his dislike for being pulled which if he had been winning, fans in Boston would have loved. I really don't know what to make of chicken and beer, so I just moved on from it.

    The 2010 John Lackey, while not worth the contract, would have been a welcome replacement for the 2011 Lackey and not a terrible bottom of the rotation starter.

    Call me crazy but I agree with you Boom, that Lackey may well come back and be a 200 IP guy with a high 3 ERA and 15 wins.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : I doubt that any manager helps or hurts this team as it's constituted. It has a makeshift lineup and hardly any critical production from Gonzalez. A few timely hits from him and the Sox win two or three of the games they lost. Swashbucklers in baseball are valuable only as far as their talent goes. Being ticked off in this sport is almost a surefire way to misfire. 
    Posted by expitch
    I could not agree more. I don't think Valentine was the sea change that many thought he'd be, I am not sure I would not prefer a different manager in tight spots than BV but the current W-L minus 1 maybe 2 games this season is the product of player performance, not manager decisions.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Once again, I wasn't holding BV accountable for the state of the RS but just saying he's disappointed me a bit.  Granted, with what's happened this year, I'm not sure there was much he could do.  As to Lackey, I've felt he's had a bit of a bad rap.  He can be irritating, but whether we like it or not, personal problems do affect our lives and if that arm was part of his problem the last couple of years, I get it.  I used to admire his grit when he was with the Angels.  If he comes back next year and starts 4-1 or 5-2, I think we all forget about his past performance.  Moon, you know I don't go ga-ga over stats, but your latest with O and Pitching compared/contrasted with expected league avearages (if I'm saying this right...) for me is the most telling of stats of any kind I've seen here.  How you do and should do in comparison with everyone else.  Pitching.  When you watched Texas in the playoffs last year, the pitching just jumped out at you.  We've got to get to a similar place.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    Once again, I wasn't holding BV accountable for the state of the RS but just saying he's disappointed me a bit.  Granted, with what's happened this year, I'm not sure there was much he could do.  As to Lackey, I've felt he's had a bit of a bad rap.  He can be irritating, but whether we like it or not, personal problems do affect our lives and if that arm was part of his problem the last couple of years, I get it.  I used to admire his grit when he was with the Angels.  If he comes back next year and starts 4-1 or 5-2, I think we all forget about his past performance.  Moon, you know I don't go ga-ga over stats, but your latest with O and Pitching compared/contrasted with expected league avearages (if I'm saying this right...) for me is the most telling of stats of any kind I've seen here.  How you do and should do in comparison with everyone else.  Pitching.  When you watched Texas in the playoffs last year, the pitching just jumped out at you.  We've got to get to a similar place.
    Posted by Critter23
    What do mean by "disappointed me a bit"? All managers "disappoint" someone at some time. What would you rather have Valentine do that he's not doing?

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Moon - I don't know how you think they rushed Cook based on that one start.  Did you see that gash in his leg?  I simply can't believe they sent him back out there.  And his time in AAA proved he was ready ... not necessary great, but definitely as ready as he was going to get.

    Good point, but I wasn't really claiming to know that we rushed him, only that we might have. The circumstances played a part in it as well.

    I get where you are going on the solid #3 type starter but that is how we got Lackey.  Remember our starting rotation last year?  That's not the rotation of a team that is skimping.  I don't mean to pick on poor Lackey, but my point is that chasing those guys as FA's is often a bad deal.  I'm fine trading prospects for good pitching, preferably young pitchers, but overall I'd much rather see more tinkering on the fringes of our BP and rotation to find the keepers and keep the kids moving along.  I'll take a BP full of Aceves, Tazawa's & Mortenson's even if it means we need to suffer some Andrew Miller's.  A combination of younger projects and our own prospects is a nice way to staff the back of the rotation and build a more flexible pen, IMHO.

    For some reason, we haven't produced many great pitchers from the farm in a few years. I like Barnes, but he 2 years away. We need pitching, and I'm tired of the Penny's, and Smoltz's, and Miller's, and Cooks. The Lackey deal was unfortunate. I'm with katz and boom on the thinking that we might still get value out of him yet: certainly not $15+M/yr, but nonetheless maybe a solid 4/5 man.

    Personally, I think we need a top ace starter, but I realize they are near impossible to get without changing the whole make-up of our team and/or farm. I know it is a risk to sign or trade for a solid 3 guy, but I think that is our best option for improving our team enough to have a serious shot at ring this year. I'm not willing to overpay for the chance. I am willing to look to 2013 and 2014, if there is nothing worthwhile out there this year at a reasonable cost.

    I had mentioned Gavin Floyd and Wandy Rodriguez as players on teams looking to maybe cut payroll, and so their asking price may be less than their actual value.

    One never knows what other GMs think of our young players and prospects, but who knows, maybe one of these guys really likes a Salty, or Aviles, or Iggy, or Ranaudo, and would also like some "blocked" throw-ins like Anderson, Coyle, and Nava.

    Perhaps we could trade Youk, DMac, Byrd, Ross, Punto or Shoppach for a prospect or two from another team(s) in the race and throw them in the deal too.

    If we need to sign FA's to fill the gaps, that's fine too but I really hate giving 4-5 year contracts to pitchers in their 30's.  

    I agree, and that's one reason I like getting Floyd for 1.5 years and a low luxury tax contract number.

    Maybe I am wearing blinders but there seem to be so few pitchers who aren't an enormous risk for that kind of contract.  And when we have to go to FAs to fill the gaps between our prospects and projects, I'd rather go for 1-2 year contracts.  It's never that bad to eat half-to-one year of a contract.  For all the complaining about Jenks, how much of a problem is his 2x6 when compared to the full payroll?

    Well, we could have gotten another quality relief pitcher for that or added it to Ross's or Punto's cost and got a player that could hit and field.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : I think there is reason to believe that the damage to his elbow was probably progressive and certainly contributed to his awful 2011 performance and his drop from 2009 to 2010 and it wasn't all playing in the Al East. In hindsight it was a risky move by the RS given that they saw enough in physical to ask for limited protection from what turned out to be the eventual TJ surgery. Much is made of his demonstrative nature on the mound when things go wrong behind him, his dislike for being pulled which if he had been winning, fans in Boston would have loved. I really don't know what to make of chicken and beer, so I just moved on from it. The 2010 John Lackey, while not worth the contract, would have been a welcome replacement for the 2011 Lackey and not a terrible bottom of the rotation starter. Call me crazy but I agree with you Boom, that Lackey may well come back and be a 200 IP guy with a high 3 ERA and 15 wins.
    Posted by fivekatz
    It's great to have some company on the crazy train for once!


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    People bashed Lackey for his numbers vs the AL East, when he had actually pitched well vs them the 3 previous years before the signing.

    People bashed Lackey for signs of decline before we signed him, and katz might be right, it may have been injury-related. (And, the decline was not very noticable.)

    31, the age of his first year here, is not really "past prime" for an established starting pitcher. He'll be 34 next year. That may be "past prime", but plenty of pitchers have had nice years from 34-36.

    I'm not going to project wonderful things for Lackey. Many of you may recall my month long battle with harness over John's ineffectiveness and his on-the-field antics. The injury has changed my view somewhat (see, I can change), and I am pretty sure he can contribute next year.

    I still want us to upgrade near the top of the rotation and allow John to battle for the 4/5 slot.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Tough loss.

    Bard looked good. Leaving in Bard and bringing in Albers was questionable, but at least our pitching seems to be improving.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    Tough loss. Bard looked good. Leaving in Bard and bringing in Albers was questionable, but at least our pitching seems to be improving.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Moon - would you say that total runs scored does not always show a positive? I know the Sox are at or near the top in the AL, but if you take away a half dozen + big games, it really isn't all that impressive. Obviously big games do pad the numbers, but it would seem for this year at least, it is all or nothing with the Sox offense. 8 of their 29 games, the Sox have scored 10 + runs.

    Interested in your opinion.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Moon - would you say that total runs scored does not always show a positive? I know the Sox are at or near the top in the AL, but if you take away a half dozen + big games, it really isn't all that impressive. Obviously big games do pad the numbers, but it would seem for this year at least, it is all or nothing with the Sox offense. 8 of their 29 games, the Sox have scored 10 + runs.

    Interested in your opinion.

    We certainly have too many 0-3 runs scored games for being near the top in scoring, but I still don't blame the offense, particularly because we are missing 1/3rd of it due to injuries.

    Look at it this way: Change all of our massive offensive games (8 games with 10+ runs) to 7 runs scored and that would subtract 36 runs from our total, leaving us with 123 runs scored, we'd still be better than average in MLB. That's with not doing the same adjustment to the other teams as well!

    We need more balanced scoring, but it is nearly an impossible problem to solve. You can't sign or trade for "clutch hitters", because their are none (who can sustain it for a career). Having a more balanced line-up "top to bottom" and Lefty-righty" helps, but we have actually improved in these areas since last year to no avail (so far).

    People (with softy as their leader) are screaming for a big RH'd bat, claiming the unbalnced line up is hurting us vs LHPs...

    Runs scored:
    vs RH starters: 4.85
    vs LH starters: 6.89

     OPS:
    vs RHPs: .757
    vs LHPs: .866

    Last year, softy led the charge of posters claiming our 6-9 hitters were too bad compared to others. I showed that only 3 teams had a slightly better bottom of the order than us.

    Compared to last year, here's how our line-up compares:
       2012  2011

    1  .755   .903
    2  .891   .827
    3  .766   .916
    4  .615   .861
    5  1.028 .885
    6  1.024 .695
    7  .722  .778
    8  .801  .629
    9  .446  .757

    Now, our problem appears to be our 1 and 3/4 hitters, not 6, 7, 8. 
    (Yes, our #9 hitter has been atrocious.)

    Hopefully, getting Ellsbury back in the 1 slot will help balance the line-up. I'm not counting on CC doing much better offensively than Ross/DMac/Byrd combined, but it should be a little uptick. Youk's return may help or hurt.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Ex, I'd like him to be more decisive, especially with his pitching staff.  For example, I don't think it was great leaving in Bard last night.  We had the lead.  He had gone seven.  He had never gone eight and admitted after he was tired.  He then walked two guys.  Why two?  Don't you at least take him out after one?  Is it a huge mistake?  No.  But I see decisions like that every game that surprise me because I thought he was going to be VERY decisive.  And our pitching doesn't give us a lot of room for small mistakes.

    Also, as a new guy who had backing of upper management, he opens with a lot of cachet.  Is he using it?  Not in my opinion.  The left side of our infield is not very good.  Once again, with our pitching, our defense has to be tight.  Why not bring Iggy up?  Why not bring Lava up since catching has been weak too?  Is Lava going to be worse than Salty?  I think he's in a position to get those players if he wants them.  We get Middlebrooks--after an injury.  That's working out pretty well.  Decisiveness, swagger, guts.  I thought I was going to see more of it.  Maybe some would say he's not in a position to show that now, but I think it's a perfect time.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Moon, two days after you laid out the pitching, the article in the Globe today really supports your points.  We've been giving up six runs a game for the last third of a season.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    Ex, I'd like him to be more decisive, especially with his pitching staff.  For example, I don't think it was great leaving in Bard last night.  We had the lead.  He had gone seven.  He had never gone eight and admitted after he was tired.  He then walked two guys.  Why two?  Don't you at least take him out after one?  Is it a huge mistake?  No.  But I see decisions like that every game that surprise me because I thought he was going to be VERY decisive.  And our pitching doesn't give us a lot of room for small mistakes. Also, as a new guy who had backing of upper management, he opens with a lot of cachet.  Is he using it?  Not in my opinion.  The left side of our infield is not very good.  Once again, with our pitching, our defense has to be tight.  Why not bring Iggy up?  Why not bring Lava up since catching has been weak too?  Is Lava going to be worse than Salty?  I think he's in a position to get those players if he wants them.  We get Middlebrooks--after an injury.  That's working out pretty well.  Decisiveness, swagger, guts.  I thought I was going to see more of it.  Maybe some would say he's not in a position to show that now, but I think it's a perfect time.
    Posted by Critter23
    Valentine does not set the roster. Your quarrel is with the front office.
    Valentine "decided" to leave Bard in the game. IMO, he had  good reasons for doing so.  He has made many decisions. Your disagreement with some of them does not mean that he is "indecisive." He does or doesn't do what he thinks will work or is in the long-term interest of the team, as do all managers. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Mr. moon and mr. critter, a question for ya. Would you trade Dustin Pedroia or Ells? I think I would if the trade were with Seattle and they would take Youk and Beckett too and send back King Felix. Idle minds tend to wander I guess.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : Valentine does not set the roster. Your quarrel is with the front office. Valentine "decided" to leave Bard in the game. IMO, he had  good reasons for doing so.  He has made many decisions. Your disagreement with some of them does not mean that he is "indecisive." He does or doesn't do what he thinks will work or is in the long-term interest of the team, as do all managers. 
    Posted by expitch
    And -- AFTER the game, Bard said he was tired. If he'd said that between innings when asked by McClure and Valentine, he would not have been sent out for the 8th.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    I wanted BV and I still do.  You're right about who sets the roster, but if he doesn't have any influence right now, he never will.  If Lava, for example, isn't an obvious improvement right now, then yes I have a problem with both.  As to leaving Bard in last night, what do you see that makes that a good decision in the light of who he's pitched against and how he's done in the latter innings and the walks he gives up in those innings?  I don't have a big problem with sending him out in the 8th, but as soon as he gave up a walk--boom, out of there.  I'm sure BV does what he thinks is right each time, but as fans we can second guess too.  I'm not a manager, just an observer.  So far he seems to be "managing" but not "leading."  Some managers just have the aura of "being in charge." Dick Williams, Whitey Herzog to date myself.  I thought he had that, and I hope he does or will show it in the future.  So far, I don't see that, and that disappoints me because that's why I wanted him over others.     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share