2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[Palodios]

I really don't know what point you are making here.

 

I'm saying that it isn't 1960 anymore. The wildcard exists. Winning the division is an arbitrary measure, and winning 5 more games a year is better for the fans.

[jacksonianmarch]

Right, but it's not like they built their entire club with lottery picks.

[Palodios]

Right' date=' but it's not like they built their entire club with lottery picks.[/quote']

 

Absolutely, I just don't think Crawford was the best example since he was a top 50s pick.

[iortiz]

I'm saying that it isn't 1960 anymore. The wildcard exists. Winning the division is an arbitrary measure' date=' and winning 5 more games a year is better for the fans.[/quote']

 

Winning the division gives you more chances to win in the DS since you are supposed to face an inferior team in the paper.

[a700hitter]

I'm saying that it isn't 1960 anymore. The wildcard exists. Winning the division is an arbitrary measure' date=' and winning 5 more games a year is better for the fans.[/quote']So winning 5 more games a year while finishing behind the Yanks every season is better for you as a fan than winning the wild card or the Division and finishing ahead of the Yanks every season?

[Palodios]

So winning 5 more games a year while finishing behind the Yanks every season is better for you as a fan than winning the wild card or the Division and finishing ahead of the Yanks every season?

 

I'm realizing that this is more along the lines of... What is more important? Winning more games or beating the Yankees? I argue games, you argue Yankees.

[Palodios]

Winning the division gives you more chances to win in the DS since you are supposed to face an inferior team in the paper.

 

I still will argue that the team that can win the most games in the regular season isn't necessarily the best team built for the playoffs. Balanced pitching rotations can get you more wins, and get you into the playoffs, but it is your aces that win the playoffs for you. In baseball, seeding isn't usually all that important, unless there is a real juggernaut, but most of the time that team will be the Yankees.

[a700hitter]

I'm realizing that this is more along the lines of... What is more important? Winning more games or beating the Yankees? I argue games' date=' you argue Yankees.[/quote']Beating the Yanks in the standings to me is more important than # of wins, because the Yanks are the toughest competition and you need a lot of wins to beeat them in general, but I don't care if it takes 90 or 95 wins to beat them. It's all about getting to to post season and beating the Yanks for me, and Post season as the wild card will suck when they add a second wild card, so to me it will become even more important to beat the Yanks

[jacksonianmarch]

I still will argue that the team that can win the most games in the regular season isn't necessarily the best team built for the playoffs. Balanced pitching rotations can get you more wins' date=' and get you into the playoffs, but it is your aces that win the playoffs for you. In baseball, seeding isn't usually all that important, unless there is a real juggernaut, but most of the time that team will be the Yankees.[/quote']

 

The aces didnt really show up this yr. Verlander was mortal vs the Yankees and the Rangers, CC was abysmal vs the Tigers, Wilson was awful for the Rangers, Shields was terrible vs Detroit, and Cliff Lee was awful vs the Cards. It really comes down to which team can swing the sticks and which pitchers match up well with their opponents.

[iortiz]

I still will argue that the team that can win the most games in the regular season isn't necessarily the best team built for the playoffs. Balanced pitching rotations can get you more wins' date=' and get you into the playoffs, but it is your aces that win the playoffs for you. In baseball, seeding isn't usually all that important, unless there is a real juggernaut, but most of the time that team will be the Yankees.[/quote']

 

Still you'd be subtracting this favorable advantage, not a definitive one but an advantage, regardless you would play more games at home.

[Palodios]

The aces didnt really show up this yr. Verlander was mortal vs the Yankees and the Rangers' date=' CC was abysmal vs the Tigers, Wilson was awful for the Rangers, Shields was terrible vs Detroit, and Cliff Lee was awful vs the Cards. It really comes down to which team can swing the sticks and which pitchers match up well with their opponents.[/quote']

 

Yep, this year was interesting. Good playoff teams and good regular season teams are built differently. Not a whole lot, but enough to mean a difference between two or three wins here or there.

[seabeachfred]

For all the great things the ownership has done in building this financial giant of an enterprise the team management from the GM down should have done better than win 1 Division title. Finishing first once in 10 years is nothing great to crow about. It's just not. I don't care how many wins we have averaged. Both Zimmer Little had a better win percentages with the Sox than Francona' date=' but I wouldn't say either that he was a better manager than Tito. Average # of wins don't mean a whole lot.[/quote']

 

No they don't 700. What counts are titles and playoff appearences and in the last three years we've made only one and that was a three and out against the Angels in 2009, when, may I remind Ex1 we blew a three game lead after the All Star break and barely made the playoffs, losing nine of our last ten games to the Yankees. Both he and MVP can rail against my supposed whining but since 2000 we have won only one division title in those 12 seasons. I don't call that drumfire success. I also take the bent that after 86 damn years we were obligated to finally win a WS Title. Two was even better, but we've done nothing worth talking about the last four seasons where titles of any kind are concerned.

 

We're not the Chicago Cubs, KC Royals or the Houston Astros. Red Sox fans, whether old timers like EX1 and MVP 78, or decade plus converts like myself have a right to demand winning teams and some division titles here and there and consistent playoff appearances. One in three years, and a colossal failure at that, isn't what I call "golden years"s of Red Sox baseball. If that's whining EX, so be it. And the name is SeaBeach FRED!!!!!!!

[jacksonianmarch]

btw, Willingham has officially written off the sox and the rays. Looks like the sox are going into 2012 with Reddick/Kalish. That is, unless they sign Beltran.

[seabeachfred]

Oh, well if that is your only point then sure. My point is that because it is the Yankees, it is ALWAYS hard to beat them, and winning the division is a pretty unrealistic performance measure regardless of the era. I suppose we can agree on that then.

 

I think with the advent of the Wild Card, teams like the Red Sox care less about winning the division (until 2012 probably). It simply doesn't matter and really doesn't add much to their chances of winning a world series or playoff series. Both of those things take getting good games in big spots, and being on a roll at the right time.

 

You don't have to follow college sports to get what I'm talking about either. Any sport where the two powerhouses of the entire sport are in the same division/conference creates a situation where winning that division--although a really nice feather to have in the cap--is in no way a reflection of the team's competitiveness against all teams in the league. You get this.

 

Wrong EX1, winning the division does matter and if you'll jog your memory back to 2007 you can see it in clear Red Sox RED. We don't win the division, we don't get home field advantage and if you'll remember we were barely breathing in Cleveland and only Beckett's career year and outstanding performance in Game 5 of the ALCS gave us the opportunity to come back to Boston for the final two games. You can try and tell me had those games been in Cleveland we would still have won but I'm not buying it and I believe a lot of others reading this wouldn't either.

 

You talk about total wins as being a tell tale mark of success, but what psychological advantage accrues from that if you are looking up at the Yankees' rear ends year after year. To me anyway, seeing them looking at us, as it has happened this century only once, is a great boost for morale. Maybe not for you but I would bet it would for a helluva lot more Red Sox fans than it wouldn't. It also is the only way to get home field advantage, the item that won it for us our last successful season.

[jacksonianmarch]

Well, starting next yr, the division will mean a hell of a lot more.

[jung]

Well I agree that teams that are likely to succeed in the post season are going to be a bit different when compared to teams that will likely succeed in the regular season.

 

Recent results would suggest that winning the division is not nearly as important as getting into the post season and being able to succeed once you get there.

[seabeachfred]

You have spoken a great deal about how you enjoyed the seasons from previous seasons. Most fans will never get a chance to witness a Red Sox playoff game. But I certainly know that if I go to a game' date=' I'll enjoy it quite a bit more if they win. In the general scheme of things, sure, wins are meaningless, but it does matter to the fans, and is part of the experience of enjoying being a sports fan-- of any team.[/quote']

 

Palodios, let me alter this argument between two contrasting camps and simply say, yes, going to a game and watching the Red Sox win is a helluva lot better than watching them lose. That argument is iron-clad and unarguable. So maybe that should have been the acception to the argument. I got so pissed off sitting in Yankee Stadium last September seeing Lester implode in the second inning that I fled that damn place less than an inning afterward and missed the first game of the DH the next day and then showed up late to the second game that went on forever. I felt a helluva lot better when Ells slugged that three run job and we got a win out of the series. So yes, when you go to see the Red Sox seeing them win trumps all. However, we were generally talking about wins vs titles and if we eliminate individual games we attend, I believe a division title counts more for me than 95 wins and second place. There's a difference of opinion there between some of us on that score.

[jung]

Surely the one game play in changes everything. However the existence of the one game play-in part proves the point. MLB got tired of teams at the top of the division and/or with assured wild card spots setting up their rotations for the playoffs weeks in advance. Teams will want to avoid that 1 game play-in at all costs. The Red Sox may have done MLB a favor as odd as it may sound. They are living proof that a team with a big lead could still be caught even with what might look like an insurmountable lead.

[seabeachfred]

I put this before. A big market team, beyond wins, are rated under this scale:

 

No making POs - Failure.

POs - Obligation

Win DSCS - Good season

Win ALCS - Very good season

Win WS -Excellent season

 

Put the number of wins you want.

 

Way to go iortiz. It does seem so simple of some of us.

[Palodios]

Palodios' date=' let me alter this argument between two contrasting camps and simply say, yes, going to a game and watching the Red Sox is a helluva lot better than watching them lose. That argument is iron-clad and unarguable. So maybe that should have been the acception to the argument. I got so pissed off sitting in Yankee Stadium last September seeing Lester implode in the second inning that I fled that damn place less than an inning afterward and missed the first game of the DH the next day and then showed up late to the second game that went on forever. I felt a helluva lot better when Ells slugged that three run job and we got a win out of the series. So yes, when you go to see the Red Sox seeing them win trumps all. However, we were generally talking about wins vs titles and if we eliminate individual games we attend, [b']I believe a division title counts more for me than 95 wins and second place[/b]. There's a difference of opinion there between some of us on that score.

 

My opinion is that in the general scheme of things, the value of division titles is negligible. For some reason I forgot about home field advantage, but besides that, I could care less about whether the Red Sox have more regular season wins than the Yankees (or Rays).

 

Win percentage is going to make fans happier--casual and hardcore-- and happier fans mean more ticket sales, and more money for better players. Does winning an arbitrary division title make as big an impact? I would say no, but I don't have any way to get that kind of data.

[jung]

My opinion is that in the general scheme of things, the value of division titles is negligible. For some reason I forgot about home field advantage, but besides that, I could care less about whether the Red Sox have more regular season wins than the Yankees (or Rays).

 

I would have agreed completely before the one game play-in. I know they could not afford the time at the end of the season but is funny how implementation makes all the difference. If they made the play-in a 3 games series it likely would have made winning the division even less meaningful than it has been. Since it is a one game play-in it is no longer easy to make the case that the division win does not mean anything.

[Palodios]

I would have agreed completely before the one game play-in. I know they could not afford the time at the end of the season but is funny how implementation makes all the difference. If they made the play-in a 3 games series it likely would have made winning the division even less meaningful than it has been. Since it is a one game play-in it is no longer easy to make the case that the division win does not mean anything.

 

Oh, absolutely. Division titles will be crucial now. But the last decade it didn't matter.

[seabeachfred]

My opinion is that in the general scheme of things, the value of division titles is negligible. For some reason I forgot about home field advantage, but besides that, I could care less about whether the Red Sox have more regular season wins than the Yankees (or Rays).

 

Win percentage is going to make fans happier--casual and hardcore-- and happier fans mean more ticket sales, and more money for better players. Does winning an arbitrary division title make as big an impact? I would say no, but I don't have any way to get that kind of data.

 

And no one else has access to that kind of data either Palodios because this is all opinion and speculation anyway and it goes according to what we think is more important. For me I like division titles simply because it means we finished ahead of the Yankees, a team I have despised since I was seven years old. I'm 71 now, probably the oldest guy on this board. When you get a chance page through World Series results from the late 40's through the mid 50's as you'll see what I mean. When I was a kid in Queens it was always the Yankees over the Brooklyn Dodgers in the World Series, save one time. I got used to seeing that as a Brooklyn fan and I'm sick of it now as a Red Sox fan. I think that is why 2007 was my favorite Red Sox team. We won everything that year and no damn Wild Card.

[jung]

I think I liked the 2004 team better than the 2007 team. I still think I like the 67 team even better regardless of the fact that they did not seal the deal. I loved just about everybody on that 67 team and Yaz was like a man possessed though the later part of the season and into the post season. You literally had the feeling that there was this force of will all the way out there in left field that was actually controlling the flow of the game from way out there. For me rivaled some of what Jackson has done in the post season only in a different way. Mr. October had those incredible plate appearances. Yaz seemed to be willing the team forward, carrying them defensively, offensively and demanding that they elevate their play way beyond their regular capabilities.

[iortiz]

My opinion is that in the general scheme of things' date=' the value of division titles is negligible. For some reason I forgot about [b']home field advantage[/b], but besides that, I could care less about whether the Red Sox have more regular season wins than the Yankees (or Rays).

 

This is not definitive but This is not a negligible thing either. It is an advantage, no doubt.

 

Win percentage is going to make fans happier--casual and hardcore-- and happier fans mean more ticket sales, and more money for better players. Does winning an arbitrary division title make as big an impact? I would say no, but I don't have any way to get that kind of data.

 

Win +- 95 and no make the POs (unlikely) doesn't make any fan happier. Win 95 games gives you a great chance to make the POs? Yup, but fans in big market teams expect POs and even more; in the end, fans don't care if you make 90 or 95 wins; fans want to see you in POs and making a good paper once there. Win the division gives you more chances to go further once in the POs? Yes Sir, regardless since you finished first in the AL EAST is likely you made a solid season in order to face the POs. Finish first always going to be better. I think that is not necessary to go in circles about this.

[example1]

We used to do much better at this before 2002 and we should be doing better at this since 2002 than the Rays.

 

I hear this argument all the time, but here's my question:

 

Have you actually seen the Rays teams of the past 4 years? These aren't some fluke and they aren't representitive of a low revenue club. These are f***ing good baseball teams. They are the exception, not the norm.

 

It's not an excuse, but seriously, the Rays have been legit year in and year out. They've made some good trades and have signed amateur players really well. I know we should be ashamed that they compete with the Sox (and Yanks, mind you) but I got over that a few years ago. They're just good.

[iortiz]

I hear this argument all the time, but here's my question:

 

Have you actually seen the Rays teams of the past 4 years? These aren't some fluke and they aren't representitive of a low revenue club. These are f***ing good baseball teams. They are the exception, not the norm.

 

It's not an excuse, but seriously, the Rays have been legit year in and year out. They've made some good trades and have signed amateur players really well. I know we should be ashamed that they compete with the Sox (and Yanks, mind you) but I got over that a few years ago. They're just good.

 

If they are just a good team, what kind of team are we?, mostly the last 3Y <_>

 

IMO they are a very good team. Arguably in the top 4 in the AL.

[jung]

I suspect most of the comments we see about the Rays are not based on the quality of that team in an absolute sense. I think it is more about how much less money they have spent to get to where they are than teams like the Sox and Yanks.

 

Sometimes money can be a benefit, other times it can be a bit of a burden. Certainly the way the Sox have spent money in the last few years it has been a bit more burden than benefit.

[Palodios]

Win +- 95 and no make the POs (unlikely) doesn't make any fan happier.

 

This is not what I'm arguing.

[iortiz]

This is not what I'm arguing.

 

I just put a high win percentage (95/162) in perspective in order to point that even making a high win percentage doesn't make fans happier if you are not capable to make the POs and a good paper once there, that's all.