Sox Get Carp

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from fl+adam,. Show fl+adam,'s posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    The biggest move(s) I would have liked to see would have been moving Salty/Lavarnway, Aceves/Morales/Bailey, Kalish(before he got hurt again),and Iglesis alnog with either Doubront or Lackey towards a top of rotation guy, possibly having to make several smaller deals for prospects and then flip them towards the big starter.  I just don't think those little deals were worth doing if the big deals were not there to make.  I think BC is doing a decent job of staying competitive without mortgaging the future.  Short of a total sell off and retool I think it was about the best he was going to do.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 



    My thoughts exactly

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:

    What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia A’s. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.

    More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means they’ll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).

     

    Good article from Hardball Times follows:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/22/1994723/is-it-better-to-be-an-elite-run-producing-or-run-preventing-team

     

     



    According to baseball-reference.com,  San Francisco had an ERA+ of 95 last year. ..

     



    And St. Louis won in 2011 with an ERA+ of 99.  The first two years after Pumpsie's article are exceptions.  Too funny.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Did you have a TOTR starter in mind? There don't seem to be any available. Reiterating a need that we likely won't be able to fill from outside the organization in every post is kind of beating a dead horse don't you think?

    Exaggerate much? The fact of the matter IS that we need great SP to win a ring, and we don't have it. I also have written that there were really no options THIS year to fill that role, so I am happy we did not surrender any prospects of significance, especially no pitching prospects. That said, I agree with Moon that Cherington seems to be playing this half way and is not going all out to get pitching prospects in exchange for some of our deadwood on the team like Ellsbury, who is likely gone after this year anyway, and possibly Salty or Lavarnway. If we are really planning for 2015 then the proper tact is to do whatever is necessary to get great SP by then. I don't see that happening.

     



    You contradict yourself you want to trade the players that are going to perform this year in order to improve pitching this season. They only way the Sox do anything this year is if the pitchers pitch like their baseball cards. By mid season reevaluate, I wouldnt want to build a team that win 3-2 yet.

     

     



    Not at all! I am suggesting we trade useful chips (ie players that are likely to perform this year) for pitching prospects that are likely to perform at a high level in 2015, not this year. If this year is a rebuilding year, lets rebuild. Playing it half way is a poor strategy.

     

     



    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     

     



    That is the point of disagreement. I do not think we can compete for a ring in 2013. If I did, then I would agree with you that we should play to win THIS year.

     

     



    Im not injecting my opinion into the matter.  Im just saying that the reason why they arent looking to flip impending free agents for prospects is because theyare looking to compete this year.  Whether you agree, whether I agree, is irrelevant.  They are trying to compete.  That is why they signed Dempster and that is why they signed S. Drew.  That is why they havent traded Ells.

     



    I disagree. I think they are hedging their bets. If they really were trying to compete this year they would have traded for or otherwise acquired an ace SP or at the very least upgraded our SP staff significantly. Assuming Cherington is not stupid, I am sure he can see that our pitching has been going downhill since 2007 and our playoff success or lack thereof has followed suit. It does not take a baseball geek to see that our SP needs an upgrade. That did not happen (nor should it have happened IMO, since there was no one readily available who was a difference maker out there who could be had for a reasonable price tag). Instead, they got players like Drew and Gomes who are unlikely to catapult us into contention for a ring. They should have followed through completely with the rebuilding strategy this year because they have essentially wasted another year until we are a relevant team again.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    bottom line is that it has been a some time since lester, clay, and lackey have been top of the rotation pitchers...if they can do it this year, the sox have a chance - like slots however, how often do you get three lemons to match up and pay off?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:

    What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia A’s. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.

    More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means they’ll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).

     

    Good article from Hardball Times follows:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/22/1994723/is-it-better-to-be-an-elite-run-producing-or-run-preventing-team

     

     



    First of all: having teams dating back to 1907 weakens the arguement.  Different game back then.  Cross generational comparisons are almost always flawed.

     

    Secondly: this just shows that teams have a very low chance of winning it all with less than average pitching.  "Great pitching" is ERA+ of 120.  I see more dots below that line than above it.

    Of course you are more likely to win w/ subpar offense than subpar pitching because a guy like Verlander (3 games in a seven game series) can carry you all the way to a championship.

    You make some points.  Pitching certainly helps.  But to imply that we arent going anywhere without great pitching is false.  We arent going anywhere without at least average pitching is a far more accurate statement and the one supported by your graph.  

    However, dont marginalize offense.  If you throw out the outliers (the teams that have had HOF top of the rotation pitchers), you need offense and pitching.

    Offense is half the battle.  And its the half thats easier to predict.  If you listed the top 10 offensive teams next year, you would probably get 7 right.  If you tried to list the top 10 pitching teams next year, youd be lucky to get 5.  

    Pitching is a crapshoot.  Offense is predictable.  Focus on your offense and cross your fingers on the pitching, because its a total crapshoot.



    I think this article speaks for itself. Its hard to debate the facts presented. It indicates that you need, generally speaking, above average pitching (not great pitching as I originally stated, though that would help) to win a ring. Even if you include the last two years in the database, that makes only FIVE teams with below average ERA+ in over 100 years that have won a ring in contrast to over 30 teams with below average OPS+. Those are the facts. Given those facts, I would submit that the proper strategy to build a team that may contend for a ring would be to get the best pitching, especially young starting pitching, as possible. So what did our FO do in that regard this year? Nothing. This offseason who did they get of significance (ie good pitching prospects) that will help build a team capable of winning a ring in 2015? There is really no point in keeping Ellsbury here if we could have obtained such a prospect; nor Salty; nor some of our position player prospects. Our starting pitching is no better this year than last, at least on paper. Therefore, there should be no reasonable expectation that the team as currently constructed is going anywhere.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:

    What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia A’s. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.

    More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means they’ll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).

     

    Good article from Hardball Times follows:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/22/1994723/is-it-better-to-be-an-elite-run-producing-or-run-preventing-team

     

     



    According to baseball-reference.com,  San Francisco had an ERA+ of 95 last year. ..

     



    Their top three SP were Cain, Baumgartner, and Vogelsong. Their ERA+ were 125/103/103 respectively. Our top three SP in ERA were Buchholtz, Lester, and Doubront. Their ERA+ were 95/90/89. Big difference.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to georom4's comment:

    bottom line is that it has been a some time since lester, clay, and lackey have been top of the rotation pitchers...if they can do it this year, the sox have a chance - like slots however, how often do you get three lemons to match up and pay off?




    Sorry Geo...if you match up these three lemons you still get a lemon :-)

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:

    What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia A’s. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.

    More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means they’ll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).

     

    Good article from Hardball Times follows:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/22/1994723/is-it-better-to-be-an-elite-run-producing-or-run-preventing-team

     

     



    First of all: having teams dating back to 1907 weakens the arguement.  Different game back then.  Cross generational comparisons are almost always flawed.

     

    Secondly: this just shows that teams have a very low chance of winning it all with less than average pitching.  "Great pitching" is ERA+ of 120.  I see more dots below that line than above it.

    Of course you are more likely to win w/ subpar offense than subpar pitching because a guy like Verlander (3 games in a seven game series) can carry you all the way to a championship.

    You make some points.  Pitching certainly helps.  But to imply that we arent going anywhere without great pitching is false.  We arent going anywhere without at least average pitching is a far more accurate statement and the one supported by your graph.  

    However, dont marginalize offense.  If you throw out the outliers (the teams that have had HOF top of the rotation pitchers), you need offense and pitching.

    Offense is half the battle.  And its the half thats easier to predict.  If you listed the top 10 offensive teams next year, you would probably get 7 right.  If you tried to list the top 10 pitching teams next year, youd be lucky to get 5.  

    Pitching is a crapshoot.  Offense is predictable.  Focus on your offense and cross your fingers on the pitching, because its a total crapshoot.

     



    I think this article speaks for itself. Its hard to debate the facts presented. It indicates that you need, generally speaking, above average pitching (not great pitching as I originally stated, though that would help) to win a ring. Even if you include the last two years in the database, that makes only FIVE teams with below average ERA+ in over 100 years that have won a ring in contrast to over 30 teams with below average OPS+. Those are the facts. Given those facts, I would submit that the proper strategy to build a team that may contend for a ring would be to get the best pitching, especially young starting pitching, as possible. So what did our FO do in that regard this year? Nothing. This offseason who did they get of significance (ie good pitching prospects) that will help build a team capable of winning a ring in 2015? There is really no point in keeping Ellsbury here if we could have obtained such a prospect; nor Salty; nor some of our position player prospects. Our starting pitching is no better this year than last, at least on paper. Therefore, there should be no reasonable expectation that the team as currently constructed is going anywhere.

     



    I liked the article and the graph, thanks for providing.  I wouldnt disagree with the first part of this.  I think the fact that only five teams have won WS with below avg pitching (whereas many teams have won w/ below average hitting) shows, primarily, that having a strong top of the rotation can hide many flaws.  It makes sense to me that a team with a subpar offense and elite top of the rotation pitching will fare better than the inverse.  Justin Verlander can pitch 3 games in seven game series.  If he is pitching like Verlander, and you are matching him w/ below average pitching in those 3 games, you're toast.  A pitcher can dominate a seven game series more than any hitter can.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jgallag1. Show jgallag1's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    The biggest thing that this would provide is consistancy. I was thinking it would be an interesting platoon as they are pretty much polar opposites. Gomes is power, lower BA and not a ton of D, where Sweeney is Average, D and 1HR a year. I see Carp as a more natural platoon mate as he and Gomes are very similar players, only one is RH and one is LH. I don't know how much the consistancy will matter, but stranger things have been known to mess up the flow of a team.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    They should have followed through completely with the rebuilding strategy this year because they have essentially wasted another year until we are a relevant team again.

    I agree, but it really hasn't been a full year wasted. The Dodger trade was in August, we extenbded Breslow, and it looks like Hanrahan might want to extend. The trade deadline of 2013 might offer opportunities to upgrade for the future and be within the one year window from the Dodger trade onwards.

    I'm with you though on this one. We did next to nothing this winter to improve ourselves for 2015 and beyond. I had hoped for at least one or two moves in that area, and then the bridge signings would have been more tolerable.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    They should have followed through completely with the rebuilding strategy this year because they have essentially wasted another year until we are a relevant team again.

    I agree, but it really hasn't been a full year wasted. The Dodger trade was in August, we extenbded Breslow, and it looks like Hanrahan might want to extend. The trade deadline of 2013 might offer opportunities to upgrade for the future and be within the one year window from the Dodger trade onwards.

    I'm with you though on this one. We did next to nothing this winter to improve ourselves for 2015 and beyond. I had hoped for at least one or two moves in that area, and then the bridge signings would have been more tolerable.



    Ditto!  the salary dump will go down as one of the best moves in Red Sox history.  If we were attempting to be competitive with the kind of signings we made it may work out if we stay healthy but we are certainly not better off for the future moon.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 



    Career batting averages:

    Josh Reddick:  .244

    Mike Carp:  .255

    Joe Charboneau:  .266

    Carlton Fisk:  .269

    Jody Reed:  .270

    Ralph Kiner:  .279

    Craig Biggio:  .281

    Tim Naering:  .282

    Carl Yastrzemski:  .285

    Reggie Smith:  .287

    Cecil Cooper:  .298

     

    So tell me again why BA is so important?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    They should have followed through completely with the rebuilding strategy this year because they have essentially wasted another year until we are a relevant team again.

    I agree, but it really hasn't been a full year wasted. The Dodger trade was in August, we extenbded Breslow, and it looks like Hanrahan might want to extend. The trade deadline of 2013 might offer opportunities to upgrade for the future and be within the one year window from the Dodger trade onwards.

    I'm with you though on this one. We did next to nothing this winter to improve ourselves for 2015 and beyond. I had hoped for at least one or two moves in that area, and then the bridge signings would have been more tolerable.



     Its very hard to predict the 2015 implications of any current move.  We are willing to spend 170M/yr.   Better off stockpiling "value and fit" assets via free agency that can be used as currency at a later date.  There are just too many unforeseens to warrant sacrificing two full seasons. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:

    What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia A’s. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.

    More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means they’ll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).

     

    Good article from Hardball Times follows:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/22/1994723/is-it-better-to-be-an-elite-run-producing-or-run-preventing-team

     

     



    First of all: having teams dating back to 1907 weakens the arguement.  Different game back then.  Cross generational comparisons are almost always flawed.

     

    Secondly: this just shows that teams have a very low chance of winning it all with less than average pitching.  "Great pitching" is ERA+ of 120.  I see more dots below that line than above it.

    Of course you are more likely to win w/ subpar offense than subpar pitching because a guy like Verlander (3 games in a seven game series) can carry you all the way to a championship.

    You make some points.  Pitching certainly helps.  But to imply that we arent going anywhere without great pitching is false.  We arent going anywhere without at least average pitching is a far more accurate statement and the one supported by your graph.  

    However, dont marginalize offense.  If you throw out the outliers (the teams that have had HOF top of the rotation pitchers), you need offense and pitching.

    Offense is half the battle.  And its the half thats easier to predict.  If you listed the top 10 offensive teams next year, you would probably get 7 right.  If you tried to list the top 10 pitching teams next year, youd be lucky to get 5.  

    Pitching is a crapshoot.  Offense is predictable.  Focus on your offense and cross your fingers on the pitching, because its a total crapshoot.

     



    I think this article speaks for itself. Its hard to debate the facts presented. It indicates that you need, generally speaking, above average pitching (not great pitching as I originally stated, though that would help) to win a ring. Even if you include the last two years in the database, that makes only FIVE teams with below average ERA+ in over 100 years that have won a ring in contrast to over 30 teams with below average OPS+. Those are the facts. Given those facts, I would submit that the proper strategy to build a team that may contend for a ring would be to get the best pitching, especially young starting pitching, as possible. So what did our FO do in that regard this year? Nothing. This offseason who did they get of significance (ie good pitching prospects) that will help build a team capable of winning a ring in 2015? There is really no point in keeping Ellsbury here if we could have obtained such a prospect; nor Salty; nor some of our position player prospects. Our starting pitching is no better this year than last, at least on paper. Therefore, there should be no reasonable expectation that the team as currently constructed is going anywhere.

     

     



    I liked the article and the graph, thanks for providing.  I wouldnt disagree with the first part of this.  I think the fact that only five teams have won WS with below avg pitching (whereas many teams have won w/ below average hitting) shows, primarily, that having a strong top of the rotation can hide many flaws.  It makes sense to me that a team with a subpar offense and elite top of the rotation pitching will fare better than the inverse.  Justin Verlander can pitch 3 games in seven game series.  If he is pitching like Verlander, and you are matching him w/ below average pitching in those 3 games, you're toast.  A pitcher can dominate a seven game series more than any hitter can.

     

     



    I agree.

    Great debate here.

    Yes, the Cards won with an ERA+ of 99, but what is the chance our starters can bring us up to near that level in 2013?

    We were at 92 last year. Yes we lost Dice-K, Cook and others, but we also lost Beckett, who at least every other year moved our ERA+ number in the right direction. 

    Hanarahan and Uehara should greatly improve an already decent pen, but I do not have much faith in Dempster, Lackey and Doubront can bring us up near 99. I'm not saying we can't do it, but I think it will take near perfect health and an improbable confluence of many pitchers pitching at or above their career norms. I'm hoping for the best, but am not encouraged by our starting staff on paper as compared to several other teams' starting rotations.

    Here's a look at just the top 13 AL team's starting 5 as listed on MLB.com depth charts:

    TBR: Price, Hellickson, Moore, Niemann, Cobb (Archer/R Hernandez)

    OAK: Anderson, Parker, Milone, Griffin, Colon (Strailey/Werner)

    LAA: Weaver, Wilson, Vargas, Hanson, Blanton

    DET; Verlander, Fister, A Sanchez, Scherzer, Porcello (Smyly)

    NYY: Sabathia, Kuroda, Pettitte, Hughes, Nova (Phelps)

    TEX: Harrison, Darvish, Holland, Ogando, Lewis (M Perez)

    TOR: Dickey, Morrow, Buehrle, J Johnson,  Romero (Happ/Jenkins)

    CWS: Sale, Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Quintana (Santiago)

    KCR: Shields, Guthrie, E Santana, WDavis, BChen (Horchevar/Smith/Mendoza)

    SEA: F Hernandez, Iwakuma, Saunders, Beavan, Ramirez (Noesi)

    BAL: Hammel, Chen, Tillman, Gonzalez, Matusz (S Johnson/Arrieta/Britton)

    CLE: Masterson, Jimenez, Myers, McAllister, Carrasco (Bauer/Kluber)

     

    Sox: Lester, Buchholz, Dempster, Lackey, Doubront (Morales/DLR)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 



    If you dont want to "celebrate" then dont comment on the thread...pretty simple concept...

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 

    Career batting averages:

    Josh Reddick:  .244

    Mike Carp:  .255

    Joe Charboneau:  .266

    Carlton Fisk:  .269

    Jody Reed:  .270

    Ralph Kiner:  .279

    Craig Biggio:  .281

    Tim Naering:  .282

    Carl Yastrzemski:  .285

    Reggie Smith:  .287

    Cecil Cooper:  .298

     

    So tell me again why BA is so important?




    In 2012, Josh Reddick had a low batting average, but he hit 32 HRs, drove in 85 runs, and won a Gold Glove and he's only 26 years old.  Damn you Billy Beane. 

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to georom4's comment:

    bottom line is that it has been a some time since lester, clay, and lackey have been top of the rotation pitchers...if they can do it this year, the sox have a chance - like slots however, how often do you get three lemons to match up and pay off?



    I think that's a little bit harsh:

    • Buch, 28, has pitched very well for the last three years barring the first half of 2012 when recovering from a back injury;
    • Lester, 29, has pitched very well for the last 5 years barring Sep 11 - Sep 12...who knows why?;
    • Lackey, 33, was very effective for 5 years through 2009.  Obviously had elbow issues as evidenced by the specific TJ clause in his contract....then was poor in 2010, historically terrible in 2011 and missed all of 2012.

    Is it reasonable to assume that all 3 will revert to their career norms/highs?  No, too many variables as with any pitcher.  But I don't think Buch or Lester returning to strong nbr 2 starters or Lackey to a decent nbr 4 is a pipe dream.

     

     

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 

    Career batting averages:

    Josh Reddick:  .244

    Mike Carp:  .255

    Joe Charboneau:  .266

    Carlton Fisk:  .269

    Jody Reed:  .270

    Ralph Kiner:  .279

    Craig Biggio:  .281

    Tim Naering:  .282

    Carl Yastrzemski:  .285

    Reggie Smith:  .287

    Cecil Cooper:  .298

     

    So tell me again why BA is so important?

     




    In 2012, Josh Reddick had a low batting average, but he hit 32 HRs, drove in 85 runs, and won a Gold Glove and he's only 26 years old.  Damn you Billy Beane. 

     


    Don't the batting average guys drive you nuts?  It's not only just one component of the critical OBP....and even OBP isn't the only stat that matters....but you know that most of the BA guys will tell you that:

    • Mike Carp is rubbish because of his low BA;
    • Josh Reddick was great in 2012 despite his low BA;
    • Wade Boggs' high BA was of low value because of his low HR total;
    • Andre Dawson's MVP BA of .287 didn't matter because he had 137 RB!!  137!

     

    Here's Wade "Flyweight" Bogg's career OBP/SLG/OPS

    .415 .443 .858

     

    Here's Carl "Super heavyweight" Yastrzemski's career OBP/SLG/OPS:

     

    .379 .462 .841
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to VeniceSox's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 

     



    If you dont want to "celebrate" then dont comment on the thread...pretty simple concept...

     




    I believe we are all permitted to comment on threads, whether pro or con.  Pretty simple concept.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 

     



    Career batting averages:

     

    Josh Reddick:  .244

    Mike Carp:  .255

    Joe Charboneau:  .266

    Carlton Fisk:  .269

    Jody Reed:  .270

    Ralph Kiner:  .279

    Craig Biggio:  .281

    Tim Naering:  .282

    Carl Yastrzemski:  .285

    Reggie Smith:  .287

    Cecil Cooper:  .298

     

    So tell me again why BA is so important?

    When a guy hits .213 and is DFA'd by a last place club, it is not a good sign, regardless of your thoughts on the importance of BA. It's not as if he hit a ton of home runs or was a defensive whiz.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    I likedthe article and the graph, thanks for providing. I wouldnt disagree with the first part of this. I think the fact that only five teams have won WS with below avg pitching (whereas many teams have won w/ below average hitting) shows, primarily, that having a strong top of the rotation can hide many flaws. It makes sense to me that a team with a subpar offense and elite top of the rotation pitching will fare better than the inverse. Justin Verlander can pitch 3 games in seven game series. If he is pitching like Verlander, and you are matching him w/ below average pitching in those 3 games, you're toast. A pitcher can dominate a seven game series more than any hitter can.

    I am not trying to minimize the value of having a team that can score runs. As that article said, most teams who win rings are above average in both OPS+ and ERA+. And many teams with great pitching do not win rings. The issue I have is that the Red Sox have known about this problem beginning in 2008 (declining quality of our rotation) and have not fixed it. Part of it is misjudging talent (Lackey, Beckett) and part of it is lack of availability of good SP. Either way, it must be fixed in order for us to win another ring, more than likely. I just don't see that much progress-especially when you look at teams like the Rays who, on a much lower cost structure, trot out excellent SP every year.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    They should have followed through completely with the rebuilding strategy this year because they have essentially wasted another year until we are a relevant team again.

    I agree, but it really hasn't been a full year wasted. The Dodger trade was in August, we extenbded Breslow, and it looks like Hanrahan might want to extend. The trade deadline of 2013 might offer opportunities to upgrade for the future and be within the one year window from the Dodger trade onwards.

    I'm with you though on this one. We did next to nothing this winter to improve ourselves for 2015 and beyond. I had hoped for at least one or two moves in that area, and then the bridge signings would have been more tolerable.



    I know that some positive steps were taken in August when we got Delarosa and Webster, but thats not the offseason, and I was more referring to that part of the year. Its six months long and all we have done so far is extend a RP. Hanrahan will go wherever the money is, no matter what he says now. Furthermore, RP are a near total crapshoot. I would much rather have seen them try to get a couple more good SP prospects for guys like Ellsbury or Salty or Lavarnway and admit that this is not going to be our year.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    They should have followed through completely with the rebuilding strategy this year because they have essentially wasted another year until we are a relevant team again.

    I agree, but it really hasn't been a full year wasted. The Dodger trade was in August, we extenbded Breslow, and it looks like Hanrahan might want to extend. The trade deadline of 2013 might offer opportunities to upgrade for the future and be within the one year window from the Dodger trade onwards.

    I'm with you though on this one. We did next to nothing this winter to improve ourselves for 2015 and beyond. I had hoped for at least one or two moves in that area, and then the bridge signings would have been more tolerable.

     



     Its very hard to predict the 2015 implications of any current move.  We are willing to spend 170M/yr.   Better off stockpiling "value and fit" assets via free agency that can be used as currency at a later date.  There are just too many unforeseens to warrant sacrificing two full seasons. 

     

     



    1) One could easily view this as a "sacrificed season" despite the $150M+ payroll.

     

    2) The value of the signed Free Agents is nebulous, and it is not a certainty that Ben will trade any of them if we are out of it by July 31st. Very sketchy.

    3) One could look at this offseason as a "sacrifice" of valuable time needed continue any plan to further improve our longterm outlook.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    They should have followed through completely with the rebuilding strategy this year because they have essentially wasted another year until we are a relevant team again.

    I agree, but it really hasn't been a full year wasted. The Dodger trade was in August, we extenbded Breslow, and it looks like Hanrahan might want to extend. The trade deadline of 2013 might offer opportunities to upgrade for the future and be within the one year window from the Dodger trade onwards.

    I'm with you though on this one. We did next to nothing this winter to improve ourselves for 2015 and beyond. I had hoped for at least one or two moves in that area, and then the bridge signings would have been more tolerable.

     



    I know that some positive steps were taken in August when we got Delarosa and Webster, but thats not the offseason, and I was more referring to that part of the year. Its six months long and all we have done so far is extend a RP. Hanrahan will go wherever the money is, no matter what he says now. Furthermore, RP are a near total crapshoot. I would much rather have seen them try to get a couple more good SP prospects for guys like Ellsbury or Salty or Lavarnway and admit that this is not going to be our year.

     



    I have said the same many times this winter. We could have traded all or most of the free agents to be or anyone else not in our longtern plans for prospects or players under team control for 3+ years. We could have signed a couple more FAs with the savings and still been pretender contenders for 2013, but at the same time been much better off going forward with even more stockpiled prospects.

    Although personally I do not think we needed to, I actually think we could have built up our future AND (through free agency) had a 2013 team close to or as good as the one we have now at the same 2013 budget we have now.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share