In response to JoseLaguna's comment:

In response to athens7676's comment:

Moon...not attacking you, but I always have a problem with the "if this guy or these guys had been healthy we would have won X amount more games theory" First off, are you assuming that those players were healthy and all the other teams had to deal with the same injuries they incurred during the season? Or are you creating a scenario where NO injuries occured to ANY players. And then, while it might be probable that those injured players would have performed well, it is certainly not an automatic...for all we know Clay could have gone 0-9 with a 7+ ERA after the break had he been healthy (I'm not saying that is what I think would happen, but the point is it's ALL speculation) Durability is just as important as talent when it comes to athletes who are expected to perform over a whole season. Pavel Bure is one of the 5 best hockey players I have ever seen, but if I was starting in a team he wouldn't be in my top 100 guys (inhis prime) to build a team around, due to his lack of durability. Every team has injuries..and the Sox certainly had to handle their share, but great teams rise to the occasion. This team didn't. Everything else is just water cooler talk (you could make the argument that these threads ARE water cooler talk :0) Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk or attack you, and I hope I didn't come off that way, as I find your posts well thought out and always insightful whether I agree or disagree,


The entire starting rotation was out for the month of September as well as key players at starting positions. They were playing with an AAA lineup.




Really?

Then, who was that guy that beat TB, during a game I attended in Sept?

I could've sworn it was Beckett.