Joe we don't need more scoring we need more consistent scoring. We score 10 runs one game and struggle to score 1 or 2 the next game.   Runs scored per game:       Bos   TB   NYY  Bal  Tor 0-3   12      11   9     12     8 4- 7   5       11  14    11    15 8+     8        4   3       3      4    Wins  11    19   14   17    16 It seems to me that there isn't much difference in 0-3 runs scored between Boston and the first and second place teams. The only tangible difference is instead of scoring 4-7 runs 11 times and 8+ runs 3-4 times, the Sox scored 8+ runs 4-5 times more.  Now, look at runs allowed and see if there is a stronger co-relation: Runs allowed per game:       Bos   TB  NYY  Bal  Tor 0-3   9     14    9     14    13 4-7  12    11   15    10    11 8+    4     2     2      2      3 Wins 11  19   14   17    16 Well, lookie here! The teams withthe most  0-3 runs allowed games have the most wins (TB and Bal), in fact, the standings are in direct co-relation to the runs allowed totals.   1) TB - Tied for 1st in 0-3 runs allowed and ahead of Bal in games with 4-7 runs allowed. 2) Bal - Tied for first in games with 0-3 runs allowed. 3) Tor - Very close to Baltimore in 0-3 runs and 4-7 runs allowed. (1.5 games behind the O's). 4) NYY - Same amount of 0-3 runs allowed games as Boston, but 3 more 4-7 allowed and 2 less 7+ runs allowed games (2.5 games ahead of the Sox). 5) Boston- Last in 8+ runs allowed games (4) . Last in 6+ runs allowed games (10). Last in AL East. Small sample size? Yes!  So, let's look at 2011 totals: Runs scored:       Bos  TB  NY  Bal  Tor 0-3  55     70   49   64     70 4-7  67    65   80   80    68 8+   40   27    33   18    24 Runs allowed: 0-3  67   82    83   51    63 4-7  68   65    63   72    78 8+   27   15    16   39    21 Wins 90  91   97   69    81  Yes, the Yanks had the fewest games with 0-3 runs scored, but they also had the fewest games with 4+ or 8+ runs allowed. Now, compare the Rays and Sox: what's the biggest variable? TB scored 0-3 runs 15 more times than the Sox, but still won 1 more game. If it was mostly about consistent scoring, TB should have finished last place. The biggest differential was in runs allowed. TB had 16 more games with 0-3 runs allowed than the Sox and 11 less games with 8+ runs allowed. Some say that TB had more "timely" or "better clutch" hitting than the Sox... 2011 OPS:         Late & Close  High Leverage Boston     .750               .771 TB Rays   .687               .748 NOT! It's almost always about the pitching (and defense). Keeping the score lower puts you in more games with a chance to win. A team with 750 runs scored and 650 runs allowed will almost always win more than an 850-750 or 900-800 team. It's not that complicated to figure out why.  "Do the math."
Posted by moonslav59

  I am all for a great offense which the Sox have regularly h ad The aggregate "season total runs" nonsense. The team is 10-3 when scoring more than 4 runs. It is 3-2 when giving up 3 runs or less. It aint about the pitching. Any "ace" the Red Sox get will be a terrible value. Either the team fills the hole that Manny left or it will continue to be the loser that it has been for nearly a half a decade.
Posted by hankwilliamsjr

In Response to Re: It's never been "The Pitching" : While the RS may have made the wrong choice in resigning Beckett he was one of the key reasons the RS won the WS in 2007. And both the 2004 and 2007 teams had many key components that came from FA and trade and then extend deals. Notable high profile deals: Pedro Martinez - trade and extend Curt Schilling - trade and extend Keith Foulke - FA signing Manny Ramirez - FA signing Johnny Damon - FA signing Josh Beckett - trade and extend Mike Lowell - trade and extend in the Beckett deal Lackey's signing in hindsight given that there was a pre-existing history of elbow issues was a bad gamble. Heavens knows I can't figure out what made the RS brass think Crawford was a value at $140M. But I get why they resigned Beckett and aside from his last few starts of 2011 the signing looked good. A-Gon is in a horrid slump but it is not hard to understand why the RS did the deal and signed him. There is only so much predictability to any signing, whether it is extending your own (Buchholz is a shining example right now) or FA.
Posted by fivekatz

Why do threads started by Softlaw get responses? Doesn't everyone by now realize that Softlaw is a closet Yankee fan whose act is to be a pretend Red Sox concerned fan? It is amazing to me that most of you still fall for the act. Why not get smart and realize that you are wasting your valuable time?
Posted by Calzone65