How did the Sox do it?

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

    How did the Sox do it?

    I mean last year, an old topic I know but still fresh to me.  I figured the Sox to go .500 in the regular season at best.  Once they were in the postseason, I figured the Rays had a good shot at beating us again, but especially the Tigers and especially after their first two starters pitched so well and neither was Verlander.  St Louis, not that much of a surprise.  At long last I had a little faith.

    So what happened?  In the regular season we saw the collective strength of the new Sox and their new manager.  Ortiz, Pedroia, and Ellsbury all good to very good seasons, but no surprise.  Victorino, Napoli (especially fielding), Gomes, Nava, Ross, Bogaerts, Carp, and Drew all had better seasons than expected, and almost all, except Nava, were new in Boston.   The bad chemistry of September 2011 and all of 2012 was gone.  Farrell did a lot of platooning and it usually worked. 

    The biggest surprise of course was the pitching, 3.79 ERA for the season, which is great for any team playing half their games at Fenway.  Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, and especially Lackey were all better than expected, and finally so was the bullpen.  Dempster not so great but OK for a 5th starter.  Peavy an OK fill-in for Buchholz. 

    If you doubt that good pitching beats good hitting, look at the Sox in the 2013 postseason.  The Rays, granted, weren't that great at hitting, but the Tigers and Cardinals were.  Nevertheless the Sox postseason ERA for 16 games was an insane 2.00.  Against good hitting teams.   And that ERA can be parsed further because Lester and Lackey were absolutely our best postseason starters.  Lester was best, but Lackey beating Verlander 1-0 in game 3 of the ALCS was a gigantic win.  The bullpen--Uehara, Breslow, Tazawa, Workman, Doubront, Morales, and Dempster--had an ERA of 1.28 spread over 16 games.  This meant that great starts by opposing pitchers did not always result in Sox losses, see especially Ortiz's gigantic, stupendous, never to be forgotten tying grand slam in the 8th inning of game 2 against the Tigers.  Before that moment, the Tigers pitching staff, without Verlander even getting near the mound, were dominating our lineup. 

    In the regular season, the Sox led the majors in runs scored and OPS, which was .795, but in the postseason's 16 games, the Sox OPS was a paltry .664.  Nevertheless, the Sox also led all postseason teams in runs scored and did it by and large with clutch hitting--see key dingers by Ortiz, Gomes, and Victorino, and a I probably skipped a couple of other big hits. 

    So that's how they did it.  In the regular season good hitting, much better than expected pitching, and terrific chemistry.  In the postseason great pitching and clutch hitting--against three pretty good teams, Rays, Tigers especially, and Cardinals.  Latter two teams were #2 and #3 in MLB in runs scored in the regular season, so the Sox pitching was undeniably great in the postseason, especially the bullpen. 

     

     

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    We pulled off a minor miracle winning the ALCS.  If you're a Tigers fan you have to think they should have had us down 3-0, after being up 5-1 in the 8th in Game 2, and with us scoring 1 run in Game 3.  Instead they were down 2-1.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    awesome stuff max.

    one of my most typed 1-liners:

    pitching = parades.

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We pulled off a minor miracle winning the ALCS.  If you're a Tigers fan you have to think they should have had us down 3-0, after being up 5-1 in the 8th in Game 2, and with us scoring 1 run in Game 3.  Instead they were down 2-1.

    [/QUOTE]

    I could not agree more. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We pulled off a minor miracle winning the ALCS.  If you're a Tigers fan you have to think they should have had us down 3-0, after being up 5-1 in the 8th in Game 2, and with us scoring 1 run in Game 3.  Instead they were down 2-1.

    [/QUOTE]

    A miracle provided by a broken down whiny should-be-retiree and the enabling goofy managerial call to challenge him ...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We pulled off a minor miracle winning the ALCS.  If you're a Tigers fan you have to think they should have had us down 3-0, after being up 5-1 in the 8th in Game 2, and with us scoring 1 run in Game 3.  Instead they were down 2-1.

    [/QUOTE]

    But didn't Iggy help us out?

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We pulled off a minor miracle winning the ALCS.  If you're a Tigers fan you have to think they should have had us down 3-0, after being up 5-1 in the 8th in Game 2, and with us scoring 1 run in Game 3.  Instead they were down 2-1.

    [/QUOTE]

    A miracle provided by a broken down whiny should-be-retiree and the enabling goofy managerial call to challenge him ...

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Love it, Spaceman, love it!

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I mean last year, an old topic I know but still fresh to me.  I figured the Sox to go .500 in the regular season at best.  Once they were in the postseason, I figured the Rays had a good shot at beating us again, but especially the Tigers and especially after their first two starters pitched so well and neither was Verlander.  St Louis, not that much of a surprise.  At long last I had a little faith.

    So what happened?  In the regular season we saw the collective strength of the new Sox and their new manager.  Ortiz, Pedroia, and Ellsbury all good to very good seasons, but no surprise.  Victorino, Napoli (especially fielding), Gomes, Nava, Ross, Bogaerts, Carp, and Drew all had better seasons than expected, and almost all, except Nava, were new in Boston.   The bad chemistry of September 2011 and all of 2012 was gone.  Farrell did a lot of platooning and it usually worked. 

    The biggest surprise of course was the pitching, 3.79 ERA for the season, which is great for any team playing half their games at Fenway.  Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, and especially Lackey were all better than expected, and finally so was the bullpen.  Dempster not so great but OK for a 5th starter.  Peavy an OK fill-in for Buchholz. 

    If you doubt that good pitching beats good hitting, look at the Sox in the 2013 postseason.  The Rays, granted, weren't that great at hitting, but the Tigers and Cardinals were.  Nevertheless the Sox postseason ERA for 16 games was an insane 2.00.  Against good hitting teams.   And that ERA can be parsed further because Lester and Lackey were absolutely our best postseason starters.  Lester was best, but Lackey beating Verlander 1-0 in game 3 of the ALCS was a gigantic win.  The bullpen--Uehara, Breslow, Tazawa, Workman, Doubront, Morales, and Dempster--had an ERA of 1.28 spread over 16 games.  This meant that great starts by opposing pitchers did not always result in Sox losses, see especially Ortiz's gigantic, stupendous, never to be forgotten tying grand slam in the 8th inning of game 2 against the Tigers.  Before that moment, the Tigers pitching staff, without Verlander even getting near the mound, were dominating our lineup. 

    In the regular season, the Sox led the majors in runs scored and OPS, which was .795, but in the postseason's 16 games, the Sox OPS was a paltry .664.  Nevertheless, the Sox also led all postseason teams in runs scored and did it by and large with clutch hitting--see key dingers by Ortiz, Gomes, and Victorino, and a I probably skipped a couple of other big hits. 

    So that's how they did it.  In the regular season good hitting, much better than expected pitching, and terrific chemistry.  In the postseason great pitching and clutch hitting--against three pretty good teams, Rays, Tigers especially, and Cardinals.  Latter two teams were #2 and #3 in MLB in runs scored in the regular season, so the Sox pitching was undeniably great in the postseason, especially the bullpen. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well done, Max.

    I know you are a "common sense" guy that has little use for the rah-rah guys like me, but I am glad that your faith was rewarded.  :o)   Soooooo very glad,

     

     

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We pulled off a minor miracle winning the ALCS.  If you're a Tigers fan you have to think they should have had us down 3-0, after being up 5-1 in the 8th in Game 2, and with us scoring 1 run in Game 3.  Instead they were down 2-1.

    [/QUOTE]

    But didn't Iggy help us out?

    [/QUOTE]

    Boy kim, you really know how to kick a man when he's down.

     

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    Some years nothing seems to go right and on some very few occasios everything seems to go right. Last year was the latter. From the start the hiring of the manager and his staff, to the FA signings, to players coming back from injuries, to players having bounce back yrs it all went right for the Red Sox in 2013. But probably the biggest thing was the hiring of John Farrell and the stability and leadership it brought back to the clubhouse, not to mention the character people that were brought into that clubhouse. Players like Ross, Dempster, Victorino, and Gomes were brought to team not just for what they could bring on the field, but also the leadership that was missng and greatly needed. Lets hope we are so lucky in 2014!

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    Let's not forget Nieves either.  Have to figure the new pitching coach did a nice job too.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?


    Sometimes things just break the right way for you.

    IMHO regardless of how the numbers from 2013 looked this team didn't have the best offense, the best defense, or the best pitching staff.  What they DID have was a certain team chemistry that made every player chip in just a bit harder when the game was on the line.  Nobody wanted to let the other guys down.  That attitude translated into ~10 wins in the regular season - enough for the best record in baseball and the AL East championship.

    Anyone who's ever played any sport at a championship level knows that there comes a time when you're tired and your back is against the wall, and that's when team chemistry, comeradiere, and an absolute unwillingness to lose comes into play.  That's what happened to the Sox in the playoffs. 

    This team had an anemic offense during the playoffs but a few players refused to lose.  Whether it was Lester being in command when he had to be, Okie being in command EVERY time, Ortiz' having a WS for the ages, Drew playing stellar defense in spite of the fact that he couldn't hit a lick,  or Victorino pulling victory from the jaws of defeat there were a few players who stepped up and refused to lose.  Even after the heartbreak of losing the infamous "Obstruction call" game the team pulled it together again.

    Of course they were fortunate at times.  Iggy made a key error (which doesn't make Iggy a bad player.  He just made a key error) and some of our hitters got pitches they could hit at key times.  Everyone knows that once you get to the playoffs anything can happen - and it usually does.  Championships often are won and lost over one pitch, one hit or one error and that happened in 2013.  Thinking back to things that made that difference... IVC's home run when the game was essentially over, Iggy's error, the obstruction call - these things were pivotal for teams but one team managed to capitalize on the positives and overcome the negatives and that's what it takes to win a championship.

    For Boston in 2013 it was The Perfect Storm of baseball.  A convergence of events that led to an unexpected WS Championship.  For me it was the unexpectedness that made it so great.  Not as unexpected as the Sox beating the Yankees 4-straight in '04 but much more unexpected than what happened in '07.  No doubt... it WAS a great ride.  I still look in the mirror some mornings and ask myself, "Wow, did that really happen?" 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I mean last year, an old topic I know but still fresh to me.  I figured the Sox to go .500 in the regular season at best.  Once they were in the postseason, I figured the Rays had a good shot at beating us again, but especially the Tigers and especially after their first two starters pitched so well and neither was Verlander.  St Louis, not that much of a surprise.  At long last I had a little faith.

    So what happened?  In the regular season we saw the collective strength of the new Sox and their new manager.  Ortiz, Pedroia, and Ellsbury all good to very good seasons, but no surprise.  Victorino, Napoli (especially fielding), Gomes, Nava, Ross, Bogaerts, Carp, and Drew all had better seasons than expected, and almost all, except Nava, were new in Boston.   The bad chemistry of September 2011 and all of 2012 was gone.  Farrell did a lot of platooning and it usually worked. 

    The biggest surprise of course was the pitching, 3.79 ERA for the season, which is great for any team playing half their games at Fenway.  Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, and especially Lackey were all better than expected, and finally so was the bullpen.  Dempster not so great but OK for a 5th starter.  Peavy an OK fill-in for Buchholz. 

    If you doubt that good pitching beats good hitting, look at the Sox in the 2013 postseason.  The Rays, granted, weren't that great at hitting, but the Tigers and Cardinals were.  Nevertheless the Sox postseason ERA for 16 games was an insane 2.00.  Against good hitting teams.   And that ERA can be parsed further because Lester and Lackey were absolutely our best postseason starters.  Lester was best, but Lackey beating Verlander 1-0 in game 3 of the ALCS was a gigantic win.  The bullpen--Uehara, Breslow, Tazawa, Workman, Doubront, Morales, and Dempster--had an ERA of 1.28 spread over 16 games.  This meant that great starts by opposing pitchers did not always result in Sox losses, see especially Ortiz's gigantic, stupendous, never to be forgotten tying grand slam in the 8th inning of game 2 against the Tigers.  Before that moment, the Tigers pitching staff, without Verlander even getting near the mound, were dominating our lineup. 

    In the regular season, the Sox led the majors in runs scored and OPS, which was .795, but in the postseason's 16 games, the Sox OPS was a paltry .664.  Nevertheless, the Sox also led all postseason teams in runs scored and did it by and large with clutch hitting--see key dingers by Ortiz, Gomes, and Victorino, and a I probably skipped a couple of other big hits. 

    So that's how they did it.  In the regular season good hitting, much better than expected pitching, and terrific chemistry.  In the postseason great pitching and clutch hitting--against three pretty good teams, Rays, Tigers especially, and Cardinals.  Latter two teams were #2 and #3 in MLB in runs scored in the regular season, so the Sox pitching was undeniably great in the postseason, especially the bullpen. 

     Lots of luck !!! Just was their year.  Watch out for Tigers and Dodgers this year

     

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to donrd4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I mean last year, an old topic I know but still fresh to me.  I figured the Sox to go .500 in the regular season at best.  Once they were in the postseason, I figured the Rays had a good shot at beating us again, but especially the Tigers and especially after their first two starters pitched so well and neither was Verlander.  St Louis, not that much of a surprise.  At long last I had a little faith.

    So what happened?  In the regular season we saw the collective strength of the new Sox and their new manager.  Ortiz, Pedroia, and Ellsbury all good to very good seasons, but no surprise.  Victorino, Napoli (especially fielding), Gomes, Nava, Ross, Bogaerts, Carp, and Drew all had better seasons than expected, and almost all, except Nava, were new in Boston.   The bad chemistry of September 2011 and all of 2012 was gone.  Farrell did a lot of platooning and it usually worked. 

    The biggest surprise of course was the pitching, 3.79 ERA for the season, which is great for any team playing half their games at Fenway.  Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, and especially Lackey were all better than expected, and finally so was the bullpen.  Dempster not so great but OK for a 5th starter.  Peavy an OK fill-in for Buchholz. 

    If you doubt that good pitching beats good hitting, look at the Sox in the 2013 postseason.  The Rays, granted, weren't that great at hitting, but the Tigers and Cardinals were.  Nevertheless the Sox postseason ERA for 16 games was an insane 2.00.  Against good hitting teams.   And that ERA can be parsed further because Lester and Lackey were absolutely our best postseason starters.  Lester was best, but Lackey beating Verlander 1-0 in game 3 of the ALCS was a gigantic win.  The bullpen--Uehara, Breslow, Tazawa, Workman, Doubront, Morales, and Dempster--had an ERA of 1.28 spread over 16 games.  This meant that great starts by opposing pitchers did not always result in Sox losses, see especially Ortiz's gigantic, stupendous, never to be forgotten tying grand slam in the 8th inning of game 2 against the Tigers.  Before that moment, the Tigers pitching staff, without Verlander even getting near the mound, were dominating our lineup. 

    In the regular season, the Sox led the majors in runs scored and OPS, which was .795, but in the postseason's 16 games, the Sox OPS was a paltry .664.  Nevertheless, the Sox also led all postseason teams in runs scored and did it by and large with clutch hitting--see key dingers by Ortiz, Gomes, and Victorino, and a I probably skipped a couple of other big hits. 

    So that's how they did it.  In the regular season good hitting, much better than expected pitching, and terrific chemistry.  In the postseason great pitching and clutch hitting--against three pretty good teams, Rays, Tigers especially, and Cardinals.  Latter two teams were #2 and #3 in MLB in runs scored in the regular season, so the Sox pitching was undeniably great in the postseason, especially the bullpen. 

     Lots of luck !!! Just was their year.  Watch out for Tigers and Dodgers this year

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_aAo2PIkH4

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I mean last year, an old topic I know but still fresh to me.  I figured the Sox to go .500 in the regular season at best.  Once they were in the postseason, I figured the Rays had a good shot at beating us again, but especially the Tigers and especially after their first two starters pitched so well and neither was Verlander.  St Louis, not that much of a surprise.  At long last I had a little faith.

    So what happened?  In the regular season we saw the collective strength of the new Sox and their new manager.  Ortiz, Pedroia, and Ellsbury all good to very good seasons, but no surprise.  Victorino, Napoli (especially fielding), Gomes, Nava, Ross, Bogaerts, Carp, and Drew all had better seasons than expected, and almost all, except Nava, were new in Boston.   The bad chemistry of September 2011 and all of 2012 was gone.  Farrell did a lot of platooning and it usually worked. 

    The biggest surprise of course was the pitching, 3.79 ERA for the season, which is great for any team playing half their games at Fenway.  Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, and especially Lackey were all better than expected, and finally so was the bullpen.  Dempster not so great but OK for a 5th starter.  Peavy an OK fill-in for Buchholz. 

    If you doubt that good pitching beats good hitting, look at the Sox in the 2013 postseason.  The Rays, granted, weren't that great at hitting, but the Tigers and Cardinals were.  Nevertheless the Sox postseason ERA for 16 games was an insane 2.00.  Against good hitting teams.   And that ERA can be parsed further because Lester and Lackey were absolutely our best postseason starters.  Lester was best, but Lackey beating Verlander 1-0 in game 3 of the ALCS was a gigantic win.  The bullpen--Uehara, Breslow, Tazawa, Workman, Doubront, Morales, and Dempster--had an ERA of 1.28 spread over 16 games.  This meant that great starts by opposing pitchers did not always result in Sox losses, see especially Ortiz's gigantic, stupendous, never to be forgotten tying grand slam in the 8th inning of game 2 against the Tigers.  Before that moment, the Tigers pitching staff, without Verlander even getting near the mound, were dominating our lineup. 

    In the regular season, the Sox led the majors in runs scored and OPS, which was .795, but in the postseason's 16 games, the Sox OPS was a paltry .664.  Nevertheless, the Sox also led all postseason teams in runs scored and did it by and large with clutch hitting--see key dingers by Ortiz, Gomes, and Victorino, and a I probably skipped a couple of other big hits. 

    So that's how they did it.  In the regular season good hitting, much better than expected pitching, and terrific chemistry.  In the postseason great pitching and clutch hitting--against three pretty good teams, Rays, Tigers especially, and Cardinals.  Latter two teams were #2 and #3 in MLB in runs scored in the regular season, so the Sox pitching was undeniably great in the postseason, especially the bullpen.  

    [/QUOTE]

    We pretty much stayed healthy and identified/corrected issues much more quickly than in years past.  Having two respected former pitching coaches in Nieves and Farrell while adding more team chemistry in the cluhouse was also key.  Finally, some solid platooning on the part of Farrell was also key.

    The bombing could have also driven certain players to play even harder to bring a title back home.

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    The Sox had a very good team. They were not gritty overachievers. They won decisively in a tough division. Anything can happen in the post season. The team that gets great pitching, clutch hitting and a few breaks wins it all. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox had a very good team. They were not gritty overachievers. They won decisively in a tough division. Anything can happen in the post season. The team that gets great pitching, clutch hitting and a few breaks wins it all. 

    [/QUOTE]

    and good health, by in large, other than Buch missing 3 months.  Vic and PD, also played through injuries. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    awesome stuff max.

    one of my most typed 1-liners:

    pitching = parades.

    [/QUOTE]

    Except for 2013

    ERA of our matchups-

    • StL 3.43
    • Det 3.61
    • TBR 3.74
    • RS   3.79

    The ERA+ probably makes us 3rd, but our opponents had better pitching than us.

    On offense

    • RS   5.27
    • Det 4.91
    • TBR 4.29
    • StL  4.83

    Not huge differences, but we weren't really a pitching-first team last year.

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox had a very good team. They were not gritty overachievers. They won decisively in a tough division. Anything can happen in the post season. The team that gets great pitching, clutch hitting and a few breaks wins it all. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed.  I had us down in the 89-91 win area, as did many others.  There was certainly some luck involved.  There were some players that over-achieved and inder-achieved.  Lackey was certainly unexpected, but other than him, nothing crazy.

    And if you look at 2013, we were 53-51 with some injuries, and likely about the worst managing job that I can remember.  Not just the worst strategic manager in history, but also the worst dugout manager in history.

    I've said this before, if Tito was the manager in 2012, I think we'd have made the playoffs (assuming no Punto trade).

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    Just to remind people of our injury problems last year, we lost our 2 closers for the year and when they did pitch they were not that good. We lost 2 of our top 3 starters for 3 weeks and 3 months respectively. And our other top starter pitched poorly for most of the year. We lost 2 of our top 3 offensive players for 3 weeks each and our other top 3 guy injured his thumb the first game of the year and was never quite right.

    We didn't have a ton of injuries, but the injuries we had were to our top players. It was not a perfect storm year.

    Some other reasons we won that have not been mentioned.....

    Number 2 in pitches taken per AB, including top 5 in the history of baseball I think.

    Number 2 in stolen base differential.

    Above average in both UZR and DRS defense.

    Depth.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We pulled off a minor miracle winning the ALCS.  If you're a Tigers fan you have to think they should have had us down 3-0, after being up 5-1 in the 8th in Game 2, and with us scoring 1 run in Game 3.  Instead they were down 2-1.

    [/QUOTE]

    But didn't Iggy help us out?

    [/QUOTE]

    Boy kim, you really know how to kick a man when he's down.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    but so true...

     

    and our bullpen was killer.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As DAD would say .........  "SON, just get there, anything can happen in a short series"  !!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow Bill, how do you come up with this stuff? Yer crackin' me up!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We pulled off a minor miracle winning the ALCS.  If you're a Tigers fan you have to think they should have had us down 3-0, after being up 5-1 in the 8th in Game 2, and with us scoring 1 run in Game 3.  Instead they were down 2-1.

    [/QUOTE]


    One of my favorite parts of last season. I work with a Tigers fan, and he was going crazy.

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

    Re: How did the Sox do it?

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just to remind people of our injury problems last year, we lost our 2 closers for the year and when they did pitch they were not that good. We lost 2 of our top 3 starters for 3 weeks and 3 months respectively. And our other top starter pitched poorly for most of the year. We lost 2 of our top 3 offensive players for 3 weeks each and our other top 3 guy injured his thumb the first game of the year and was never quite right.

    We didn't have a ton of injuries, but the injuries we had were to our top players. It was not a perfect storm year.

    Some other reasons we won that have not been mentioned.....

    Number 2 in pitches taken per AB, including top 5 in the history of baseball I think.

    Number 2 in stolen base differential.

    Above average in both UZR and DRS defense.

    Depth.

    [/QUOTE]

    Depth-In 2012, the non-regular rotation guys got 40 starts with an ERA of ~6.42, with an 8-23 record.  They were 11-5 last year.  Too lazy to calculate the ERA.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share