posted at 9/1/2012 3:24 PM EDT
In response to nhsteven's comment:
Sounds like alot of ifs; unless that was your intention.
What's your point.
When a team is underachieving, you look for reasons when analyzing. So you look at the Red Sox's problems on the field and there were four main reasons:
1. Lester underachieved.
2. Beckett uncerachieved.
3. The lineup was never healthy at the same time.
4. The bullpen was in flux because of Bailey's injury.
The Sox had a multiple things go wrong, which made it hard for one area to make up for problems in another area. They had plenty of talent. If nothing went wrong -- Lester and Beckett were like last year, the lineup was healthy, Bailey was healthy (I don't think he would have blown seven saves or so like Aceves) etc. -- the Sox were a 95-win team IMO.
For each thing that went wrong, the team got weaker. Sometimes a team can make up for it. For instance, if the 4-5 starters went lights out, that could have offset Beckett and Lester's struggles. If Aceves was better that might have helped the pen more. He wasn't horrible but he wasn't great either. The Sox got a boost here and there from replacements in the lineup which helped in the short term but wasn't enough in the long term. And they never replaced the huge holes in the lineup that was left when Ortiz and MIddlebrooks went out.
So you had a perfect storm where multiple things went wrong and this is the result. Everyone wants to talk about the "toxic clubhouse" but fail to show how that was the cause of injuries or how it effected certain individual performances. Too many fans and media members like to focus on their own pet theories that they have blinders on to everything else and don't see the big picture.