It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

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

    It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    When I say it was Buchholz's fault, it's sort of tongue in cheek. However, it's an interesting question. Where would we be today had Buchholz not gotten hurt in 2011.

    Even after he got hurt, the Sox won games and had 83 wins at the end of August. However, the pitching was spotty, so is it too much to wonder had he not gotten hurt that the Sox might have had one or two more wins at the end of August.

    Let's just say one more win.

    As for September, had Buchholz been pitching -- and remember, he was pitching well -- maybe the Sox win one or two more games and go 8-19 or 9-18 that month. Also, had he been pitching, maybe he helps save the bullpen, which helps in someone else's start.

    But either way, let's say the Sox win just one more game. That would give the Sox 92 wins and put them in the playoffs.

    So if the Sox make the playoffs, maybe the Sox make a run and win it all or at least reach the ALCS. If that happens:

    -- Is there chicken-and-beer stories? 

    -- Does Francona get fired?

    -- Does Epstein still leave? Whether or not you believe him, Epstein did say he wouldn't have left if Francona not been fired.

    -- Do the Sox make the Dodgers trade?

    -- Do the Sox win just 69 games last year. Remember, big parts of that record were the injuries to Middlebrooks and Ortiz, coupled with the A-Gon trade that decimated the lineup of the 3-4-5 hitters?

    And if the answer is yes to the chicken-and-beer stories, what if Beckett pitched great in the postseason, regardless of how far the Sox went, how do we view those stories and how is Beckett viewed today?

    The Sox had other injuries and issues in 2011, but the one key IMO that began a lot of dominoes falling was Buchholz's injury.

    So -- what if?

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

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    Actually I think the culprit was Doubrant...came to camp out of shape and started the season on the DL when they were counting on him to be starting depth. It was unfortunate we lost CB to injury or the year would have played out a little differently but those are the breaks.

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

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to kannaman's comment:

    Actually I think the culprit was Doubrant...came to camp out of shape and started the season on the DL when they were counting on him to be starting depth. It was unfortunate we lost CB to injury or the year would have played out a little differently but those are the breaks.



    Doubrant didn't help, but he was still an unknown. He wasn't exactly great last year. Buchholz was a proven commodity, so it's not a stretch to say he would have pitched better than whoever stepped in for him after he got hurt.

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

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    Doubrant had some very good starts last year, especially against NY...seemed to get tired in july and august. Believe me they were counting on him making the jump and instead he came to spring training in bad shape...which is another disappointing thing about him this year. They had to use Wake as the #6 starter and he just really didn't have it. There are a lot of reasons why the Sox collapsed in 2011...and we were all punished for it by the firing of Tito and the hiring of Bobby V.

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

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to kannaman's comment:

    Doubrant had some very good starts last year, especially against NY...seemed to get tired in july and august. Believe me they were counting on him making the jump and instead he came to spring training in bad shape...which is another disappointing thing about him this year. They had to use Wake as the #6 starter and he just really didn't have it. There are a lot of reasons why the Sox collapsed in 2011...and we were all punished for it by the firing of Tito and the hiring of Bobby V.



    Yes, they were expecting Doubrant to step in in 2011, but he still was an unknown. His ERA was 4.32 in 25 innings, respectable but nothing special, albeit a small sample.

    Last year, he had some good starts but he still was inconsistent and overall, mediocre at best. 

    Buchholz was/is an impact player. His ERA 3.48 when he got hurt in 2011 -- that's a difference maker.

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

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to kannaman's comment:

     

    Doubrant had some very good starts last year, especially against NY...seemed to get tired in july and august. Believe me they were counting on him making the jump and instead he came to spring training in bad shape...which is another disappointing thing about him this year. They had to use Wake as the #6 starter and he just really didn't have it. There are a lot of reasons why the Sox collapsed in 2011...and we were all punished for it by the firing of Tito and the hiring of Bobby V.

     



    Yes, they were expecting Doubrant to step in in 2011, but he still was an unknown. His ERA was 4.32 in 25 innings, respectable but nothing special, albeit a small sample.

     

    Last year, he had some good starts but he still was inconsistent and overall, mediocre at best. 

    Buchholz was/is an impact player. His ERA 3.48 when he got hurt in 2011 -- that's a difference maker.




    Losing Buchholz was a big loss that year, I couldn't believe they didn't go out and get a starting pitcher to replace him. At the time they kept saying that CB would only be down a few days ...makes you wonder about the medical staff, doesn't it. I wasn't impressed with Doubrant's start in Toronto...his command looked shakey and it didn't seem like he was throwing the ball all that well either.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    most of the players gave up in september 2011 and played like care-free frat boys....they were irresponsible and that destroyed team unity/performance...what do you think Farrell and Ben are talking about when they explain the rationale for all these new hires? they learned the hard way that cancer spreads quickly and can engulf even a winning team in no time....this is why beckett was sent in exile to LAD

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

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to georom4's comment:

    most of the players gave up in september 2011 and played like care-free frat boys....they were irresponsible and that destroyed team unity/performance...what do you think Farrell and Ben are talking about when they explain the rationale for all these new hires? they learned the hard way that cancer spreads quickly and can engulf even a winning team in no time....this is why beckett was sent in exile to LAD




    Great -- you just regurgitated the same stuff you've been writing about this for the last year and a half. Don't let it bother you that it has nothing to do with my thread.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    most of the players gave up in september 2011 and played like care-free frat boys....they were irresponsible and that destroyed team unity/performance...what do you think Farrell and Ben are talking about when they explain the rationale for all these new hires? they learned the hard way that cancer spreads quickly and can engulf even a winning team in no time....this is why beckett was sent in exile to LAD

     




     

    Great -- you just regurgitated the same stuff you've been writing about this for the last year and a half. Don't let it bother you that it has nothing to do with my thread.

     

     



    youre in some sort of alternate reality trying to explain 2011 with Clay's injury...stop dreaming

     

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

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    most of the players gave up in september 2011 and played like care-free frat boys....they were irresponsible and that destroyed team unity/performance...what do you think Farrell and Ben are talking about when they explain the rationale for all these new hires? they learned the hard way that cancer spreads quickly and can engulf even a winning team in no time....this is why beckett was sent in exile to LAD

     




     

    Great -- you just regurgitated the same stuff you've been writing about this for the last year and a half. Don't let it bother you that it has nothing to do with my thread.

     

     



    youre in some sort of alternate reality trying to explain 2011 with Clay's injury...stop dreaming

     



    It's a legitmate question. Forget September. After the slow start, the Sox, regardless of any of the crp you  mentioned, played well enough through August to have the best record in baseball (or second best, I always forget) and a comfortable lead in the AL East.

    That's a fact. No matter how much you hate Beckett and want to blame everything that went wrong in the universe on him, you can't ignore that simple fact the through Augst, the Sox were that good and playing that well. They did that with crp for starting pitcher after Beckett and Lester after Buchholz went down. So even if Buchholz was crp in September, the fact is he missed about six starts or so before September.

    He was a lot better than anyone the Sox threw out there, so it's reasonable to think the Sox migh have won one or two more games with Buchholz -- not 10 or 15 -- just one or two, which would have put the Sox in the playoffs.

    That would have changed the entire way fans looked at that season.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to royf19's comment:

    When I say it was Buchholz's fault, it's sort of tongue in cheek. However, it's an interesting question. Where would we be today had Buchholz not gotten hurt in 2011.

    Even after he got hurt, the Sox won games and had 83 wins at the end of August. However, the pitching was spotty, so is it too much to wonder had he not gotten hurt that the Sox might have had one or two more wins at the end of August.

    Let's just say one more win.

    As for September, had Buchholz been pitching -- and remember, he was pitching well -- maybe the Sox win one or two more games and go 8-19 or 9-18 that month. Also, had he been pitching, maybe he helps save the bullpen, which helps in someone else's start.

    But either way, let's say the Sox win just one more game. That would give the Sox 92 wins and put them in the playoffs.

    So if the Sox make the playoffs, maybe the Sox make a run and win it all or at least reach the ALCS. If that happens:

    -- Is there chicken-and-beer stories? 

    -- Does Francona get fired?

    -- Does Epstein still leave? Whether or not you believe him, Epstein did say he wouldn't have left if Francona not been fired.

    -- Do the Sox make the Dodgers trade?

    -- Do the Sox win just 69 games last year. Remember, big parts of that record were the injuries to Middlebrooks and Ortiz, coupled with the A-Gon trade that decimated the lineup of the 3-4-5 hitters?

    And if the answer is yes to the chicken-and-beer stories, what if Beckett pitched great in the postseason, regardless of how far the Sox went, how do we view those stories and how is Beckett viewed today?

    The Sox had other injuries and issues in 2011, but the one key IMO that began a lot of dominoes falling was Buchholz's injury.

    So -- what if?



    Roy,

    While I usually find your threads and posts refreshing, I'm not going to go into what-ifs with you.  While the team was decimated by injuries to some key players, especially the pitching staff, that was still no excuse for the team to take that deep of a dive in September.  Great teams rise to challenges.  That team sunk.

    In particular, I point to Lester.  There was one start, I think against the Yankees, where he could have altered the losing trajectory with a strong performance.  He didn't deliver.  I remember thinking after that game that the team was doomed. If the players we counted on couldn't deliver, we couldn't expect the remaining scrubs to hang in there with gritty efforts like the Paul Byrd type a couple of seasons prior.  

    Even if you think Buch's presence could have mattered a game or two to get that team into the playoffs, that team was going nowhere in a hurry.   It's a big deluded stretch to think that the concept of anything could happen in the playoffs once they got there or the idea of the playoffs being a crapshoot applied to that broken team. 

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    most of the players gave up in september 2011 and played like care-free frat boys....they were irresponsible and that destroyed team unity/performance...what do you think Farrell and Ben are talking about when they explain the rationale for all these new hires? they learned the hard way that cancer spreads quickly and can engulf even a winning team in no time....this is why beckett was sent in exile to LAD

     




     

    Great -- you just regurgitated the same stuff you've been writing about this for the last year and a half. Don't let it bother you that it has nothing to do with my thread.

     

     



    youre in some sort of alternate reality trying to explain 2011 with Clay's injury...stop dreaming

     

     



    It's a legitmate question. Forget September. After the slow start, the Sox, regardless of any of the crp you  mentioned, played well enough through August to have the best record in baseball (or second best, I always forget) and a comfortable lead in the AL East.

     

    That's a fact. No matter how much you hate Beckett and want to blame everything that went wrong in the universe on him, you can't ignore that simple fact the through Augst, the Sox were that good and playing that well. They did that with crp for starting pitcher after Beckett and Lester after Buchholz went down. So even if Buchholz was crp in September, the fact is he missed about six starts or so before September.

    He was a lot better than anyone the Sox threw out there, so it's reasonable to think the Sox migh have won one or two more games with Buchholz -- not 10 or 15 -- just one or two, which would have put the Sox in the playoffs.

    That would have changed the entire way fans looked at that season.



    That team would have crashed in the playoffs instead.  In that case, it may have been even more difficult to make the sweeping changes that ultimately needed to be made.  

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

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    When I say it was Buchholz's fault, it's sort of tongue in cheek. ...



    Roy,

     

    While I usually find your threads and posts refreshing, I'm not going to go into what-ifs with you.  While the team was decimated by injuries to some key players, especially the pitching staff, that was still no excuse for the team to take that deep of a dive in September.  Great teams rise to challenges.  That team sunk.

    In particular, I point to Lester.  There was one start, I think against the Yankees, where he could have altered the losing trajectory with a strong performance.  He didn't deliver.  I remember thinking after that game that the team was doomed. If the players we counted on couldn't deliver, we couldn't expect the remaining scrubs to hang in there with gritty efforts like the Paul Byrd type a couple of seasons prior.  

    Even if you think Buch's presence could have mattered a game or two to get that team into the playoffs, that team was going nowhere in a hurry.   It's a big deluded stretch to think that the concept of anything could happen in the playoffs once they got there or the idea of the playoffs being a crapshoot applied to that broken team. 




    I understand about going into "what ifs."

    And you're right, great teams do rise to the challenge, although when a team has a bunch of injuries, there's still can be that one injury that pushes things over the top.

    As far as Even if you think Buch's presence could have mattered a game or two to get that team into "the playoffs, that team was going nowhere in a hurry"            you might be right. However, we've seen it all the time. Teams that stumble around in September and look like crp and barely squeek into the playoffs often turn things around when the playoffs start. This was a team that for five month was playing like the best team in baseball.

    So that's why I simply brought up Buchholz. It was just one player who was playing well. And it's not so much had he played, the Sox would have made the playoffs.

    My point is what would have the ramifications had been had he not gotten hurt and the Sox did make the playoffs and got at least to the ALCS.

    Had that occurred, I've always wonder what would happened after that. I'm not even arguing geo's point on how bad Beckett was on the culture and the rest of his diatribe. For argument's sake, I'll agree with him on all that.

    But it's not some flight of fantasy that a player as good as Buchholz could have been the difference in two more wins, which would have gotten the team in the playoffs. From there, even if the team lost in the first round, how would have then next year or so been different.

    It's nothing for some posters (not you) to get their panties in a bunch. It's just a fun exercise.                  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

      It's a big deluded stretch to think

    Would you be so kind to explain what a big deluded non-stretch is? Thanks.



    It's dramatic, amplified, hyperbolic, overstated redundancy.  Is that good enough for ya?    

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

    Re: It Was Buchholz' fault -- the Big What-If of 2011

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    most of the players gave up in september 2011 and played like care-free frat boys....they were irresponsible and that destroyed team unity/performance...what do you think Farrell and Ben are talking about when they explain the rationale for all these new hires? they learned the hard way that cancer spreads quickly and can engulf even a winning team in no time....this is why beckett was sent in exile to LAD

     




     

    Great -- you just regurgitated the same stuff you've been writing about this for the last year and a half. Don't let it bother you that it has nothing to do with my thread.

     

     



    youre in some sort of alternate reality trying to explain 2011 with Clay's injury...stop dreaming

     

     



    It's a legitmate question. Forget September. After the slow start, the Sox, regardless of any of the crp you  mentioned, played well enough through August to have the best record in baseball (or second best, I always forget) and a comfortable lead in the AL East.

     

    That's a fact. No matter how much you hate Beckett and want to blame everything that went wrong in the universe on him, you can't ignore that simple fact the through Augst, the Sox were that good and playing that well. They did that with crp for starting pitcher after Beckett and Lester after Buchholz went down. So even if Buchholz was crp in September, the fact is he missed about six starts or so before September.

    He was a lot better than anyone the Sox threw out there, so it's reasonable to think the Sox migh have won one or two more games with Buchholz -- not 10 or 15 -- just one or two, which would have put the Sox in the playoffs.

    That would have changed the entire way fans looked at that season.

     



    That team would have crashed in the playoffs instead.  In that case, it may have been even more difficult to make the sweeping changes that ultimately needed to be made.  

     




    We were writing at the same time.

    You're probably right. But there was talent there that had been playing at a high level for most of five months previous to September. And like I posted above. There have been teams that looked in shambles in September then made a playoff run.

    Had that happened ... it is interesting to consider.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share