In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

And that is about the chance this team has of contending for a playoff position IMO: 22.5%. I do not think you can measure success this year in terms of wins and losses. You measure it by the moves our GM makes by the trade deadline to position the Red Sox to compete again in two years. So far Cherington has been mostly disappointing with the exception being unloading three bloated contracts in exchange for two top pitching prospects. The rest of what he has done is window dressing.

In response to Alibiike's comment:

 

 

regular season star tommorow?

In response to EnchiladaT's comment:

It's not that you can't be critical of poor spring stats as much as it is the leap you make from those stats.

I'm not saying that because of the strong start that the pitching is going to be great this year. Before spring, I said I expected the starting pitching to be better, especially Lester and Buchholz, and even if they were struggling, I'd feel the same because it is just spring.

So the same goes with poor spring stats. Just because Hanrahan or someone else has poor stats, it doesn't mean they're going to sck when the season starts. There's only so much you can read into stats good or bad.

Now if a hitter is striking out a lot and hitting weak groundouts or pop flies all the time while batting .121, then yeah that's a concern. But if he's swinging the bat well with a lot of line drives, few strikeouts while still batting .121, then I wouldn't be concerned.

Same with a pitcher. If a pitcher has no velocity, no movement on breaking pitchers and is giving up a lot of bombs and has a high ERA, then I'd be concerned. But if the velocity and movement is there and the high ERA is just from a couple of mistakes with guys on, then no, I'm not concerned.

So regardless of the stats, good or bad, there has been a lot to like so far about the starters this spring, even Lackey.

This post has been removed.

Team pitching is great so far.  3rd in WHIP, 4th at opponent AVG, 3rd at SO

In response to southpaw777's comment:

This is where I differ from many posters, and maybe I'm wrong, but this is my opinion. Beckett had 0 percent blame on Lester's problems last year and especially Buchholz's. As I pointed out, once Buchholz got over his back injury after the first six starts, he was fine (3.62 ERA). And Buchholz was fine in 2011 before he injured his back.

As for Lester, he pitched fine for four years with Beckett. As for last year, even if there were some bad habits that Lester picked up from Beckett, that's still 100 percent on Lester. Lester isn't some 15-year-old kid or even some rookie just called up. Lester is a man in his late 20s an a veteran. He's responsible for his actions, not Beckett, not anyone else but himself.

In response to royf19's comment:

 

In response to southpaw777's comment:

 

Maybe Beckett was partially to blame for some of the trouble of our other starters, ie; slow pace, attitude, etc....

 

This is where I differ from many posters, and maybe I'm wrong, but this is my opinion. Beckett had 0 percent blame on Lester's problems last year and especially Buchholz's. As I pointed out, once Buchholz got over his back injury after the first six starts, he was fine (3.62 ERA). And Buchholz was fine in 2011 before he injured his back.

 

As for Lester, he pitched fine for four years with Beckett. As for last year, even if there were some bad habits that Lester picked up from Beckett, that's still 100 percent on Lester. Lester isn't some 15-year-old kid or even some rookie just called up. Lester is a man in his late 20s an a veteran. He's responsible for his actions, not Beckett, not anyone else but himself.

 

It just appeared to me that a lot of becketts bad habits were picked up by Lester. Not saying Beckett intentionally did this, but maybe more he didnt realize, or care, how much of an influence he was...

 

In response to southpaw777's comment:

Another example could be this...If youve ever had younger siblings you know that they will mimic a lot of what you do, so whether you like it or not you HAVE to lead by example. If that means changing some of your ways for the good of your younger siblings, then you do it.

Beckett did not do this. It was painfully obvious that pitchers were starting to follow his lead. Some more than others. Im not totally blaming the bad performances on Beckett. Not at all. These are grown men and resposible for their own actions. But IMHO, i think he was given a responsibility to be the leader of the staff and he failed.

This post has been removed.

In response to southpaw777's comment:

Actually, I'm the reverse (of the bold). I have older siblings and have seen the stupid things they've done and avoided them. (LOL).

But again (the bold comment), that is true as kids. But Lester is an adult and a veteran, not a rookie, so I don't care whose bad habits he might have picked up -- that 100 percent on him. It's like if you were in high school or college and you're around friends who drink or take drugs until they're totally fried. You know right from wrong, so if you do that kind of partying and get in trouble, it's hardly going to be an excuse in front of a judge to say, "Well, my friends are to blame because that's what they're doing."

And beyond that, I think those so-called bad habits are overstated with Lester as far as it concerns last year. Yeah, he might have griped with umps too much over calls or whatever, but look at his season. He was fine the last two months of the season, and except for two really horrible starts, he was fine during the first half. His bloated ERA is traced to those three or four starts in the middle of the season, and if you listen to Farrell (even last year), that was totally due to his mechanics getting out of whack. So I don't understand how that's Beckett's fault.

In response to Polly-'s comment:

I disagree Polly.  This method works for independent outcomes. 

For example, flipping a coin.

The chances of it coming up heads are 50%.

So, what are the chances of it coming up heads 3 times in a row?

50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5%. 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

PIKE

In response to royf19's comment:

 

In response to southpaw777's comment:

 

In response to southpaw777's comment:

 

In response to royf19's comment:

 

In response to southpaw777's comment:

 

Maybe Beckett was partially to blame for some of the trouble of our other starters, ie; slow pace, attitude, etc....

 

This is where I differ from many posters, and maybe I'm wrong, but this is my opinion. Beckett had 0 percent blame on Lester's problems last year and especially Buchholz's. As I pointed out, once Buchholz got over his back injury after the first six starts, he was fine (3.62 ERA). And Buchholz was fine in 2011 before he injured his back.

 

As for Lester, he pitched fine for four years with Beckett. As for last year, even if there were some bad habits that Lester picked up from Beckett, that's still 100 percent on Lester. Lester isn't some 15-year-old kid or even some rookie just called up. Lester is a man in his late 20s an a veteran. He's responsible for his actions, not Beckett, not anyone else but himself.

 

It just appeared to me that a lot of becketts bad habits were picked up by Lester. Not saying Beckett intentionally did this, but maybe more he didnt realize, or care, how much of an influence he was...

 

 

Another example could be this...If youve ever had younger siblings you know that they will mimic a lot of what you do, so whether you like it or not you HAVE to lead by example. If that means changing some of your ways for the good of your younger siblings, then you do it.

 

Beckett did not do this. It was painfully obvious that pitchers were starting to follow his lead. Some more than others. Im not totally blaming the bad performances on Beckett. Not at all. These are grown men and resposible for their own actions. But IMHO, i think he was given a responsibility to be the leader of the staff and he failed.

 

Actually, I'm the reverse (of the bold). I have older siblings and have seen the stupid things they've done and avoided them. (LOL).

 

But again (the bold comment), that is true as kids. But Lester is an adult and a veteran, not a rookie, so I don't care whose bad habits he might have picked up -- that 100 percent on him. It's like if you were in high school or college and you're around friends who drink or take drugs until they're totally fried. You know right from wrong, so if you do that kind of partying and get in trouble, it's hardly going to be an excuse in front of a judge to say, "Well, my friends are to blame because that's what they're doing."

And beyond that, I think those so-called bad habits are overstated with Lester as far as it concerns last year. Yeah, he might have griped with umps too much over calls or whatever, but look at his season. He was fine the last two months of the season, and except for two really horrible starts, he was fine during the first half. His bloated ERA is traced to those three or four starts in the middle of the season, and if you listen to Farrell (even last year), that was totally due to his mechanics getting out of whack. So I don't understand how that's Beckett's fault.

 

I didnt say it was all his fault, just that Lester started resembling Beckett more and more. I think its valid, but also certaily not the whole reason. I think grown men who are younger can still be influenced...

 

Either way, Lester has seemed to change things, ie; mechanics, speeding up his pace, better attitude. I look for him, as well as the other starters, to have better success this year.

I respect your opinions, but we will have to agree to disagree on this.

In response to southpaw777's comment:

Sinkerball pitcher , hit 99 on the gun?

Last pitcher who could do that was Brandon Webb.  And he won a cy young.

 

In response to royf19's comment:

To add: this is especially encouraging considering the awful start Buchh had last year, and the mediocre (at best) start that Lester seems to have every year.

 

In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

That is only correct if no other pitcher enters into the equation for a top 3 spot.

I think that the formula should be written as follows: if we have a 75% chance of finding a #1, a 60% chance of finding a #2 and a 50% chance at finding a #3, then the 22.5% may represent our odds of competing (for a title, not a playoff spot.  Every team outside of the Twins has a better than 22.5% chance of making the playoffs).

But it doesnt rest solely on the shoulders of Buchh, Lester, and Lackey.

I would say, we have a 60% chance of finding a #1, an 80% chance of finding a #2 , and a 95% chance of finding a #3..

45% (ish) chance of competing for a WS.

 

 

In response to Drewski5's comment:

yeah, he seems to sit more in the 94-95 range, but has hit that high this spring. Very encouraging for sure.

And if you think 80% chance of finding a #2 is high, you have to consider the 40% chance of us not finding a #1 , helps boast this.

If we dont have a #1, the chance of us finding a #2 increases.  Because if we dont have a #1 , all pitchers are in play.  If we do have a #1 our best performing pitcher is out of the running for the #2 spot.

In response to Drewski5's comment:

The funny thing about Lester last year was that he was very good in this first two starts -- 7 IP, 1 ER and 8 IP, 3 ER. It was then he had the back-to-back bad starts then was very good over his next 13 starts -- 3.86 ERA before he had that midseason blowup.

Personally, I don't want players to have great springs. I'm fine with mediocre springs at best because I hate to see them waste hot streaks in exhibition games. (I'm about 50 percent serious and 50 percent tongue in cheek.)

The big thing all our pitchers need to avoid, especially Buchholz and Beckett, is that when they have a bad start, simply limit it to a bad start. Last year, it seemed like too often a bad start for them (and Beckett) quickly turned into a horrible start.

If they're going to have a bad start, make it 6 IP, 5 ER, not 2 IP, 8 ER.

In response to softlaw2's comment:

So to paraphrase, what's really important is the number of times they score more runs than their opponents compared to the number of times they don't.  Hard to argue with that logic.

Maybe 60% chance of finding a #1 is high.  

...I, for one, am thrilled that Beckett and his bad vibes are out of here.

I'm glad his contract is gone, but I'd like him here for his "odd year" season.

In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

I have been very vocal about not being happy with this winter's moves, but I loved the Dodger trade and have said several times that I am giving Ben a chance and time to see some results. I do think this trade deadline can be a telling factor in which way my opinion sways, but I'll probably give him until after next winter to start making definitive judgements of his overall job (although judging his draft picks will still be premature).

In response to royf19's comment:

Could not have said it better.

That is only correct if no other pitcher enters into the equation for a top 3 spot.

 

I think that the formula should be written as follows: if we have a 75% chance of finding a #1, a 60% chance of finding a #2 and a 50% chance at finding a #3, then the 22.5% may represent our odds of competing (for a title, not a playoff spot.  Every team outside of the Twins has a better than 22.5% chance of making the playoffs).

But it doesnt rest solely on the shoulders of Buchh, Lester, and Lackey.

I would say, we have a 60% chance of finding a #1, an 80% chance of finding a #2 , and a 95% chance of finding a #3..

45% (ish) chance of competing for a WS.

How about putting it this way:

The chances one of our starters does better than the American League average...

(Keeping our top 5 slotted 1 through 5, for example, if our number 1 starter does not pitch as well as the league average, we don't drop him to the 2 slot for comparative purposes. He stays in the 1 slot, and then we evaluate our #2 vs the league avg #2, etc...)

#1 starter:  30%  (assume 30+ starts)

#2 starter:  60%  (assume 30+ starts)

#3 starter:  40%  (assume 25-30 starters)

#4 starter:  50%  (assume 22-27 starts)

#5 starter:  60%  (assume 20-25 starts)

#6+ starter: 70% (assume 25+ starts)

(Sidenote: these percentages are off the top of my head. I did not do any cpmparative analysis with other AL team's projected 1-6 starters.)