What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    No, the 82 wins assumes everyone stay healthy. To win more than 82 will take near perfect health, and career years, bounce back years, and some luck.

     

    We played it half way this winter. We won't win it all this year, and we did nothing to make us better longer term either. Playing it inbetween got us neither.

    We will now have to wait until the deadline or next winter to start all over. We punted this winter. Face it.

     

    I disagree.  Several players were injured or underperformed last year and/or the year before, and the team's aggregate WAR would still put us at 82 wins, not including any contributions from relievers or bench players.  82 wins assumes an average number of injuries and/or underperformances, not everything to go perfectly.

    We may not win it all this year, but I think we have a very legitimate chance of making the playoffs.  Once you get there, it's a crapshoot.

     

     



    And in the Kimmi v Pumpsie exchange, it is Kimmi with the 1st round TKO.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    No, the 82 wins assumes everyone stay healthy. To win more than 82 will take near perfect health, and career years, bounce back years, and some luck.

     

    We played it half way this winter. We won't win it all this year, and we did nothing to make us better longer term either. Playing it inbetween got us neither. 

    We will now have to wait until the deadline or next winter to start all over. We punted this winter. Face it.

    And that one is going to hurt.

    LOL JoeyB, you gotta love Pumpsie.

    IMO, it didn't take much common sense to realize that things went so wrong last year in almost every facet of the game, that just by having a "normal" season in terms of production, injuries, and managerial competence, the Sox would get back to 85 wins.   There was already a strong core of talent returning from last season.  The 69 wins last year was not at all indicative of that talent.  It was a fluke.  We did not need everything to go perfectly this year.  We just needed everything NOT to go wrong.

    Throw in a couple of pleasant, good "breaks", like Lackey stepping up when Buchholz got injured and Papi being Papi, and you're up to 90 wins.

    That said, this team is exceeding even my optimistic expecations.  I expected the team would contend seriously for the postseason, but I did not imagine they would have such a huge division lead at any point in the season.  As I've said before, this team is synergy at its best.

    And props to you for predicting in March that the Sox would win the division.

     

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    If I were the Red Sox owner, I'd be extending John Ferrell's contract and looking for a GM from the office of the Cardinals.



    Outrageous lunacy.  Also, your posts will be deleted again soon.

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    Ortiz's number and current late season fall-off show his factual decline, which includes the fact that he's getting paid another 13 or 14M for next year, too. 

    Joe, you are drunken with where the team is, today, in the standings.



    Late season falloff?  Ortiz has a 1.03 OPS in September.

    As always you try not to let the facts get in the way of your little stories.

    If anyone is drunk here it's you.

     

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    Get this clown out of here.  His time off didn't teach him a thing.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

     

     

    No, the 82 wins assumes everyone stay healthy. To win more than 82 will take near perfect health, and career years, bounce back years, and some luck.

     

    We played it half way this winter. We won't win it all this year, and we did nothing to make us better longer term either. Playing it inbetween got us neither. 

    We will now have to wait until the deadline or next winter to start all over. We punted this winter. Face it.

    And that one is going to hurt.

     

     

     

     

    LOL JoeyB, you gotta love Pumpsie.

    IMO, it didn't take much common sense to realize that things went so wrong last year in almost every facet of the game, that just by having a "normal" season in terms of production, injuries, and managerial competence, the Sox would get back to 85 wins.   There was already a strong core of talent returning from last season.  The 69 wins last year was not at all indicative of that talent.  It was a fluke.  We did not need everything to go perfectly this year.  We just needed everything NOT to go wrong.

    Throw in a couple of pleasant, good "breaks", like Lackey stepping up when Buchholz got injured and Papi being Papi, and you're up to 90 wins.

    That said, this team is exceeding even my optimistic expecations.  I expected the team would contend seriously for the postseason, but I did not imagine they would have such a huge division lead at any point in the season.  As I've said before, this team is synergy at its best.

    And props to you for predicting in March that the Sox would win the division.

     

     



    Kimmi, like your avatar, on this thread, you come off smelling like a rose. 

    And Halifax don't look so bad neither.

     

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    Take a look at August and September, and the last half vs. the first half. And take a look at Ortiz's season HR and RBI totals as compared to years ago. End of story, he's declined. I'm the one who said to give him a 2 year contract, that would have included this year and an option for 2014. Oh well, we'll see how he does the rest of this season and all of next season. He's as good as he ever was, right, nut?



    Aug - Sept

    .275 / .369 / .500 / .869  7 HR, 24 RBI in 37 games.  That's 28 HRs and 97 RBI in 150 games.  I'll take that kind of 'decline'.

    Also, he has a 1.053 OPS in the 15 games since his 0 for 22 slump.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

     It most certainly is better than paying nearly 50 million for an aging out and delining Ortiz, Shane, S. Drew, as well as the soon to be departing Ellsbury.


    Ortiz's number and current late season fall-off show his factual decline, which includes the fact that he's getting paid another 13 or 14M for next year, too. 

    Shane Victorino has only played in 114 games, this season, due to injury from high miles. He has two years left on his 3 year 39 million dollar deal. He is in decline.

    S. Drew has only played in 114 games. His OPS+ is 4th from his best career 3 seaons, which were games where he had the constituion to play about 150 games. He is in decline and was inferior to the option of starting Iglesias, in value and talent.

    Ellsbury has 8 homers and OPS of .779 and will not score 100 runs from the leadoff spot in a good but not great offensive lineup in a hitters park because his 131 games played is the high water market for a constition that hasn't played more than 131 games in 4 years! While I didn't say that Ellsbury was in decline for 2013, like the others, I have correctly stated that paying him a big long term contract for the decline that is coming would be management malpractice.

    Joe, you are drunken with where the team is, today, in the standings. If you were emotionally sober, you would understand that John Ferrell makes the team performance go, not the delcining veterans names and the soon to be departing Ellsbury. He is the MVP of the 2013 Red Sox, which, becuase of the labor costs, correclty can't be deemed a labor or middle management success unless they either win the 2013 title or lose in close WS to a quality orgainization like the Cardinals or another massive payroll market like the Dodgers.

    If I were the Red Sox owner, I'd be extending John Ferrell's contract and looking for a GM from the office of the Cardinals.



    It's a game of numbers dude, plus an attitude makeover.  True, we are back to the Tito days, where fundamentals are stressed, but you once again to try gloss over the numbers in the hope that a 500-word post will distract people from the data.  For WAR purposes-

    • Ellsbury 5.7
    • Vic       5.4
    • Pedey   4.8
    • Papi     3.6
    • Naps    3.3
    • Salty    2.9
    • Drew    2.6

    So 4 of our top 7 position players are players you considered in decline.  The sooner you accept that you are wrong, so far, the sooner you can move on to bashing the rest of the team.

    Also, it might be time to start following the team.  You referred to a late-season falloff because you read one of the posts in here about a week ago.  You assumed that to be true, without checking it (data-check being your Achilles heal).  In his last 10 games, Papi has an 1.135 OPS, with 3 HRs and a .308 average.  He's killing the ball.

    The only reason why I didn't originally correct the poster is because I figured that you would read it and go with the thought without bothering to check it.

    Your time away has made you intellectually soft.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    No, the 82 wins assumes everyone stay healthy. To win more than 82 will take near perfect health, and career years, bounce back years, and some luck.

     

    We played it half way this winter. We won't win it all this year, and we did nothing to make us better longer term either. Playing it inbetween got us neither. 

    We will now have to wait until the deadline or next winter to start all over. We punted this winter. Face it.

    And that one is going to hurt.

     

     

    LOL JoeyB, you gotta love Pumpsie.

    IMO, it didn't take much common sense to realize that things went so wrong last year in almost every facet of the game, that just by having a "normal" season in terms of production, injuries, and managerial competence, the Sox would get back to 85 wins.   There was already a strong core of talent returning from last season.  The 69 wins last year was not at all indicative of that talent.  It was a fluke.  We did not need everything to go perfectly this year.  We just needed everything NOT to go wrong.

    Throw in a couple of pleasant, good "breaks", like Lackey stepping up when Buchholz got injured and Papi being Papi, and you're up to 90 wins.

    That said, this team is exceeding even my optimistic expecations.  I expected the team would contend seriously for the postseason, but I did not imagine they would have such a huge division lead at any point in the season.  As I've said before, this team is synergy at its best.

    And props to you for predicting in March that the Sox would win the division.

     



    It will spound self-serving, but I would like to think part of my purpose in life to have people think more objectively.  And, imo, BB is a good metaphor for life, at least for the financial part.

    So I laid out exactly what I expected the OPS of each individual RS player was, plus a collective bench.  I took the FG projections for the pitching staff.  OPS and OPSa work just as effectively for Pyth W/L as RS and RA.  The projection came up to ~ 91 wins.  Being a professional skeptic, I lowered that to 89 wins.  I asked Pumpsie to see if he saw any inconsistencies, and there were none.

    Even if you start off with last year's W/L, which is a legit method, I assumed you'd add back 10 wins for canning BV.  Add 1 win for better Pedey health, 2 wins for Drew over Aviles, 1.5 wins for a full season from WMB, 3 wins for Ellsbury, 1 win for Vic over Ross, probably one win each for Lester and Doubront improving, 1 win for Lackey over Beckett, and probably 3 wins for Dempster over Cook/Dice.

    You can do this a number of different ways, and all of them will be in the ball park of 90 wins.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

     It most certainly is better than paying nearly 50 million for an aging out and delining Ortiz, Shane, S. Drew, as well as the soon to be departing Ellsbury.


    Ortiz's number and current late season fall-off show his factual decline, which includes the fact that he's getting paid another 13 or 14M for next year, too. 

    Shane Victorino has only played in 114 games, this season, due to injury from high miles. He has two years left on his 3 year 39 million dollar deal. He is in decline.

    S. Drew has only played in 114 games. His OPS+ is 4th from his best career 3 seaons, which were games where he had the constituion to play about 150 games. He is in decline and was inferior to the option of starting Iglesias, in value and talent.

    Ellsbury has 8 homers and OPS of .779 and will not score 100 runs from the leadoff spot in a good but not great offensive lineup in a hitters park because his 131 games played is the high water market for a constition that hasn't played more than 131 games in 4 years! While I didn't say that Ellsbury was in decline for 2013, like the others, I have correctly stated that paying him a big long term contract for the decline that is coming would be management malpractice.

    Joe, you are drunken with where the team is, today, in the standings. If you were emotionally sober, you would understand that John Ferrell makes the team performance go, not the delcining veterans names and the soon to be departing Ellsbury. He is the MVP of the 2013 Red Sox, which, becuase of the labor costs, correclty can't be deemed a labor or middle management success unless they either win the 2013 title or lose in close WS to a quality orgainization like the Cardinals or another massive payroll market like the Dodgers.

    If I were the Red Sox owner, I'd be extending John Ferrell's contract and looking for a GM from the office of the Cardinals.




    Middle management got all those depth players for a reason. We agree that overall Farrell is managing this team unbelievably well, but the Players are still the ones playing the game. So with that said, Middle Management (BenC) has done an outstanding job constructing this team, which includes players and Manager. What they spend is up to the Owners. If the Billionaire owners want to spend 200M, that's up to them.

    There is no one on the face of this earth that would say Ben C didn't construct a solid team and pick the perfect Manager. This is a group of good players that fit well together to make a great team, top to bottom. I think we all agree they are doing a lot better than we thought, but maybe Ben does know what hes doing after all.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    BEST:

    1978

    1986

    1988

    1990

    1999

    2003

    2004

    2007

    2008

    2013

     

    WORST:

    1996

    2000

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    Some heavy contributors to this thread seem to be avoiding it now.

    Wonder why...

     

     

     

    I love the smell of asphalt in the morning.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    Some heavy contributors to this thread seem to be avoiding it now.

    Wonder why...

     

     

     

     

     

    I love the smell of asphalt in the morning.



    They have a tendency to disappear like farts in the wind.  It's their defining characteristic.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?


    It's a good thing the games are played between the lines.....and this has been one of the most fun season's I can remember. Certainly Victorino has made a believer out of me...Drew has also played better than I expected, Napoli has been frustrating to watch...at least from May - August but so far April and September he has been all that we could have hoped for....if he keeps hitting through October the Sox could really end this year in style. Far as pumpsie and Kimmi go it's about 250 to 0 in Kimmi's favor...pumpsie never had a chance.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    In general, this poster is on the money on roster construction, full pun intended.

    I viewed this massive payroll team as a bubble playoff team that is a championship pretender, not a championship contender. I had them in the probability wins range of 89-92 wins. They are going to win 4 to 8 games more, and have been a little better than a playoff bubble team like the Rays are this year. It's remarkable that, in a 162 game season, winning about 6 more games is the difference in a disasater season or a season that managment can defend as a good season. Such is the case for the massive payroll big market teams. 

    I view this season as the season where John Farrell established that he is one of the best managers in baseball. He has managed to put a team on the field that is consistent, regardless of whose on the DL or not, regardless of whether or not the replacements have a relatively weaker skillset. 

    I view a good season like the Yankees have, for many decades. If it doesn't end up with a title or a close loss to another strong team from the NL in the WS, the season is a failure. I think that's the correct standard for the market and payroll for the Red Sox. 

    A's and Rays are good example of small market teams with excellent middle management.

    When it comes to bigger market and budgets, the Cardinals are the gold standard of today. The Red Sox and Yankees owners might consider paying a lot of money to the Cardinals for a seminar on how to construct a roster from inside, and from outside markets. If Henry is wise on this issue, he'll put more money in his next GM and save a ton of money on his overpriced labor production. I would be looking to find the best middle management profile that the Cardinals have that would be accept a promotion and/or a substantial pay raise. 

    Being in the same division with the Yankees isn't an excuse, since there is a WC, and now there are 2 wild cards. 



    Thanks for a fascinating series of insights to spice things up.  Most everyone would agree Farrell has had a great year, but most of us think Ben C has too.  And for this reason:  when a team has turned things around so completely in just one season--according to extra bases today, this is the best Sox turnaround since 1946 and that one was created by the end of World War II--you absolutely cannot give all the credit to the manager.  To do so would be absurd.  Some credit has to go to Ben C for lowering the salary base and improving the quality of the team at the same time. 

    You also seem to have a problem giving this team credit for being a legitimate contender vice pretender despite having the best record in MLB and being headed for 95-100 wins.  The Sox have easily the best scoring machine in MLB, but their rotation ain't half bad either, especially with Buchholz apparently returning to his early season form. 

    I completely agree, FWIW, that the Cardinals GM has done a good job--they got better, if that is possible, after losing Pujols.  But that doesn't make Cashman and Ben C idiots.  Sabermetrics, moneyball, etc are all out in the open and everyone is using some of those methodologies.  In the movie Moneyball, there's a scene in which John Henry tries to convince Billy Beane to be the Sox GM, which tells me John Henry is very aware of those methods, which is way Bill James works for the Sox. 

    Here's what the rest of us think Ben C has done for the better.  1.  Huge salary dump last year of AGon, CC, and Beckett.  2. Hired John Farrell as the manager, which wasn't easy given one more year on his Jays contract.  3. Brought in middle to good talent without importing attitude issues.  These guys all mesh well.  4. Invested in the bullpen bigtime.  Hanrahan and Bailey didn't work out, but Uehara sure did.  5. Paid good money for Napoli and Victorino, whose WAR's suggest they are above average at 1B and RF.  6. Retained Ellsbury and his reverse pivot swing and great set of wheels, who has one of the ten best WAR's among AL non-pitchers.  7. Brought in a one year SS, Drew, who just might get a longer term contract with the Sox because he is the best combo of fielding and hitting at the Sox SS position in some time.  This allowed him to trade Iglesias's superb glove for a crucial starter, Peavy, which then brought back Middlebrooks' good bat at 3B.  Painful as losing Iglesias was, it improved Sox pitching and hitting.  8. Gave Pedroia a long-term contract because of what he brings to this team every day in the field and at bat.  9.  Gave himself lots of good options after this season for further improvements on this team, which has four good free agents--Ellsbury, Napoli, Salty, and Drew--which Ben C does not absolutely have to re-sign (but will likely re-sign two of them, my guess). 

    I entirely agree the Oakland and Tampa Bay GM's have been terrific in building good teams in small market clubs.  They are to be congratulated because those teams are great for the overall health of MLB.  Well done!

    But, as I've said, that doesn't mean the big money clubs are GM'd by idiots.  It just means their mistakes are more glaring because of the salaries involved.  Which leads me to Ortiz.  For an oldish DH, he commands an insane salary, one which I think no other team in MLB, including the Yankees, would have paid after the 2012 season and the problem with the Achilles.  But Ben C and his guys signed Ortiz for two more seasons despite the Achilles, and in the opinion of about everyone on this board except you and Bill-806, Ortiz has delivered this year at least.  He is easily the best hitter on the team and once again leads in IBB's, RBI's, OPS, etc.  And he is a fan favorite at a time when John Henry and his team are trying to reinvigorate the Red Sox Nation.  In contrast to the ridiculous contract the Yankees gave ARod, the Ortiz contract was sheer genius and an incredible bargain.  FWIW, I think Ben C might have noticed that after AGon's stay here Ortiz became a different and better hitter by going to LF way more than he did before.

     

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to kannaman's comment:


    It's a good thing the games are played between the lines.....and this has been one of the most fun season's I can remember. Certainly Victorino has made a believer out of me...Drew has also played better than I expected, Napoli has been frustrating to watch...at least from May - August but so far April and September he has been all that we could have hoped for....if he keeps hitting through October the Sox could really end this year in style. Far as pumpsie and Kimmi go it's about 250 to 0 in Kimmi's favor...pumpsie never had a chance.




    I thought Victorino was an expensive pick up, but he's been worth it, so far.

    I just hope his body holds up for the length of his contract.

    The guy just beats himself up out there.

     

    Gotta love Pumpsie. He just keeps swinging, never realizing he's overmatched.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    This year's team makes me want to grow a beard.  But I'm Korean so it will take me at least three years to have a beard as long as Napoli's.  So I'll pass.   LOL

     

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

    This year's team makes me want to grow a beard.  But I'm Korean so it will take me at least three years to have a beard as long as Napoli's.  So I'll pass.   LOL

     




    LOL

    I've got a goatee.

    But, if I let it grow out more, there will just be more grey hairs!

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

     

    This year's team makes me want to grow a beard.  But I'm Korean so it will take me at least three years to have a beard as long as Napoli's.  So I'll pass.   LOL

     

     




    LOL

     

    I've got a goatee.

    But, if I let it grow out more, there will just be more grey hairs!



    Good morning ThefourBs   Laughing

    How have you been?

    I think Uehara can grow a longer beard than me.   LOL

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to kannaman's comment:

     


    It's a good thing the games are played between the lines.....and this has been one of the most fun season's I can remember. Certainly Victorino has made a believer out of me...Drew has also played better than I expected, Napoli has been frustrating to watch...at least from May - August but so far April and September he has been all that we could have hoped for....if he keeps hitting through October the Sox could really end this year in style. Far as pumpsie and Kimmi go it's about 250 to 0 in Kimmi's favor...pumpsie never had a chance.

     




    I thought Victorino was an expensive pick up, but he's been worth it, so far.

     

    I just hope his body holds up for the length of his contract.

    The guy just beats himself up out there.

     

    Gotta love Pumpsie. He just keeps swinging, never realizing he's overmatched.



    We should bring back his Sox are finished posts from May and all his Lester bashing posts.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share