2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[VA Sox Fan]

His medication or batting stance?

 

To playing in Boston. He had the same batting stance while with Tampa didn't he?

[a700hitter]

I agree that the Sox are being unrealistic if they beleive they can get throught the year with a pitching staff as shallow as the one the currently have. Lester has to stay healthy but given his body type and medical history who can be sure. Buccholtz's stress fracture what are the chances that may re occur. Beckett always seems one false step away from either a back or ankle injury. Can Aceves continue a whole season at the pace he has pitched etc etc.

There is virtually no chance of making the post season with the staff as it is currently constructed. In past years when we had much deeper pitching, the season always tested that depth and it was never anywhere near as deep as we thought it was at the beginning of the season. Not only is the current staff thin, but it will have 2 newbie starters. That ain't gonna work out.

[Elktonnick]

To playing in Boston. He had the same batting stance while with Tampa didn't he?

 

He has slowed done a step or two. While it is true that with an open stance a batter tends to see the ball better, an open stance is fine for the young and the quick but a batter has to take an extra step to come to the ready position if you watch closely.

[FredLynn]

Playoffs are a crapshoot though. Cliche' date=' but true.[/quote']

 

The role of good pitching should not be underestimated in winning a championship. Yes, it can happen. In the last 12 years there were only 3 or 4 teams that didn't finish in the upper third in their league in ERA that went on to win a ring. The other 8 were all in the top 4 in their league. Look at the Giants of 2010: first in pitching, NINTH in hitting. In general, good pitching, good defense, and a few timely hits wins a ring.

Right now we do not have pitching that is capable of winning a ring.........IMO.

[FredLynn]

Jenks actually looks like he's dropped some weight in the picture that's in the Globe. Crawford isn't spineless' date=' just needs to adjust IMO.[/quote']

 

I was referring to his cowardice at not returning phone calls from his new boss.

For the record, I think that even without a change in stance, Crawford will put up much better numbers this year.

[a700hitter]

He has slowed done a step or two. While it is true that with an open stance a batter tends to see the ball better' date=' an open stance is fine for the young and the quick but a batter has to take an extra step to come to the ready position if you watch closely.[/quote']He had a lot of trouble with good fastballs at or above the belt. Every player has to make adjustments in his stance/swing along the way. Crawford is no exception.

[User Name]

The role of good pitching should not be underestimated in winning a championship. Yes, it can happen. In the last 12 years there were only 3 or 4 teams that didn't finish in the upper third in their league in ERA that went on to win a ring. The other 8 were all in the top 4 in their league. Look at the Giants of 2010: first in pitching, NINTH in hitting. In general, good pitching, good defense, and a few timely hits wins a ring.

Right now we do not have pitching that is capable of winning a ring.........IMO.

 

That's because generally, teams with better pitching tend to make the playoffs. Correlation does not mean causation.

[jung]

-The differential cost of exceeding the cap every year vs. only doing it in alternate years as you suggest is effectively 32.5% (50.0 - 17.5), right? So on 10 million salary you would be effectively penalized 3.25 million. A huge chunk of money, but then you have to compare that to its impact on total revenues and total expenses, including income taxes I suppose.

 

I would not recommend that the Sox simply follow the calendar and exceed the cap every other year, Bellhorn. However once they got back to 0% rate I would suggest that the FO will have much more freedom from their boss if they were not to exceed it more than every other year. If they did that their rate would never be worse than 17.5%. You are correct though. The ceiling does not go up again until 2014.

[Elktonnick]

That's because generally' date=' teams with better pitching tend to make the playoffs. Correlation does not mean causation.[/quote']

 

Sounds like a strawman!

[User Name]

Sounds like a strawman!

 

Then i don't think you know what a strawman is.

[FredLynn]

That's because generally' date=' teams with better pitching tend to make the playoffs. Correlation does not mean causation.[/quote']

 

No, thats because teams with better pitching tend to win championships. I agree that correlation does not mean causation. In this case, we are dealing with causation and not just corrrelation. Good pitching CAUSES the other team to score fewer runs, thereby increasing the chance that your team will win.

[VA Sox Fan]

Oh, I see. You think that teams should plan on being completely healthy for the entire season. Injuries happen to ALL teams. Thats just the way it is. We got injuries and failed to respond, we failed to show up and compensate for those injuries. I am not buying your assertion that we blew it because of injuries; thats a typical copout. We blew it because OUR PITCHING SUCKED.

Oh-and Christ Almighty isn't here........

 

HE is everywhere!

[User Name]

No' date=' thats because teams with better pitching tend to win championships. I agree that correlation does not mean causation. In this case, we are dealing with causation and not just corrrelation. Good pitching CAUSES the other team to score fewer runs, thereby increasing the chance that your team will win.[/quote']

 

We do agree however, that having the best pitching does not secure success. I'm not debating the fact that the better pitching you have, the better your chances, because that's a given. I'm arguing for the randomness factor of the playoffs which helped the 2006 Cardinals, 2008 Phillies and 2011 Cardinals (which had amongst the worst pitching in the playoffs their respective years) win the WS.

 

In the last 12 years, (sample you used) only five times has the team with the best overall ERA from the playoff teams have won the series. 99, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2010.

 

In fact, make that four. The 2005 Astros had a better team ERA than the White Sox.

[Elktonnick]

Then i don't think you know what a strawman is.

 

Son I minored in philosophy with a specialty in logical empiricism before you were born. And, I know you don't know a thing about that, statitistics or Markov chains while we are at it.

[User Name]

Son I minored in philosophy with a specialty in logical empiricism before you were born. And' date=' I know you don't know a thing about that, statitistics or Markov chains while we are at it.[/quote']

 

That tells me nothing. The onus is on you to present where the strawman is. This doesn't show me the strawman.

[FredLynn]

We do agree however, that having the best pitching does not secure success. I'm not debating the fact that the better pitching you have, the better your chances, because that's a given. I'm arguing for the randomness factor of the playoffs which helped the 2006 Cardinals, 2008 Phillies and 2011 Cardinals (which had amongst the worst pitching in the playoffs their respective years) win the WS.

 

In the last 12 years, (sample you used) only five times has the team with the best overall ERA from the playoff teams have won the series. 99, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2010.

 

FIVE TIMES! Thats a lot! You don't need the BEST pitching, just good pitching. Ninth in your league does not qualify as good pitching. Its mediocre pitching, and that makes it very very tough to win a ring. I would not be betting on the Red Sox winning a ring the way things now stand.

[User Name]

FIVE TIMES! Thats a lot! You don't need the BEST pitching' date=' just good pitching. Ninth in your league does not qualify as good pitching. Its mediocre pitching, and that makes it very very tough to win a ring. I would not be betting on the Red Sox winning a ring the way things now stand.[/quote']

 

There's also the confounder of the division by the way. I bet the Sox' ERA last year would have been much better were they playing in the AL West.

 

All in all, the Red Sox would need health and luck on their side would they make the playoffs, because i believe you seriously understimate what the Sox' top three brings to the table when fully healthy. The problem, in my opinion, isn't so much winning in the playoffs were they to make it, but rather getting there, and getting there healthy.

[Elktonnick]

That tells me nothing. The onus is on you to present where the strawman is. This doesn't show me the strawman.

 

Onus my ass you pompous jerk. All do is accuse and never back up or prove anything. The only that proves you are sophomoric fool. Is that plain enough for you

[User Name]

Onus my ass you pompous jerk. All do is accuse and never back up or prove anything. The only that proves you are sophomoric fool. Is that plain enough for you

 

Exactly. all you do is accuse and never back up anything. "Pompous ass". By the way, you seem to overstimate your intellect by a lot. You should learn some humility.

 

Resorting to insults is the first sign of a weak argument. Troll.

[Elktonnick]

Exactly. all you do is accuse and never back up anything. "Pompous ass". By the way, you seem to overstimate your intellect by a lot. You should learn some humility.

 

Resorting to insults is the first sign of a weak argument. Troll.

 

If anyone were to track our exchanges they would see I prove, you don't. Secondly they would see you are always the first to resort to insults. Thirdly you never backup anything you say. BTW I am still waiting for you to respond to my questions to you of over a month ago. .

[jung]

Well to answer the question more specifically User I suspect the straw man is that you are using the point that generally teams with better pitching make it to the playoffs to refute the comment about not underestimating the importance of pitching in winning championships.

 

You guys may be talking about two separate things here, one of you separating the final World Series itself from the playoffs before it and the other not. However, I don't see how you can use the point that generally teams with better pitching make it to the playoffs to refute the argument that one should not underestimate the importance of pitching in winning championships either.

 

You have to win your way to and through the playoffs to win a championship....no? You have done this with before User but I think you might be making the other guy's argument for him.

[User Name]

Well to answer the question more specifically User I suspect the straw man is that you are using the point that generally teams with better pitching make it to the playoffs to refute the comment about not underestimating the importance of pitching in winning championships.

 

You guys may be talking about two separate things here, one of you separating the final World Series itself from the playoffs before it and the other not. However, I don't see how you can use the point that generally teams with better pitching make it to the playoffs to refute the argument that one should not underestimate the importance of pitching in winning championships either.

 

You have to win your way to and through the playoffs to win a championship....no? You have done this with before User but I think you might be making the other guy's argument for him.

 

They're two separate points.

 

1) The teams with better pitching generally make the playoffs, meaning that the chances for a team with good pitching to reach the WS are higher than the other way around. It skews the sample size.

 

That is not mutually exclusive to:

 

2) Any team that makes the playoffs (including those that lucked or hit their way in) have a chance to win given the nature of the beast. Only four of the last 12 teams to win the WS had the best ERA of the playoff teams that made the WS. That means that eight out of the last twelve playoffs teams with "good" or "so-so" staffs that got hot at the same time have won the series. The 2008 Phillies had a similar staff to the one the Red Sox had last year, but with better health.

 

I don't "make the argument" for anyone. You guys interpret whatever you want. Different things.

[jung]

There are those teams that have had great pitching, the best pitching in the league and sometimes in both leagues but could not hit their way out of a paper bag. To some extent that probably accounts for teams that lead the league staff pitching stats but go home early. It is interesting that as important as pitching is in general, If you can't hit at all you just end up with a pitching staff that finishes the year at the top of the staff pitching stats.

 

I do also think it is interesting that Ortiz seems to have become something of a lightning rod in that discussion. We had great offense last year but I do understand the reluctance to cut Ortiz away. That said before the Sox went down this arbitration route I had not really been thinking about leaving this giant hole at the DH spot if Ortiz was gone. I wanted to see some of the big Red Sox bats rotated into that spot so that the player gets some rest. I really have a problem with thinking the Red Sox starting eight should just play until they drop because we have done that already. Once you get there, either the guy that started the season a stud is something less than a stud or the guy that has been ridding the pine is all you have to play the position.

 

While the Sox conditioning program took a good many hits because of the condition of the pitchers, I did not see many every day players balloon up last year. Some of them just wore out or got injured.

[jung]

By the way User thanks for the explanation...I do see the argument you were trying to make.

 

I guess what I was saying was that the original poster made such a nebulous and overarching comment "to not underestimate the value of pitching in winning championships" that I did not see where he left any room for argument. It was such a nebulous statement although there were some data points attached to it. I actually think you make a better argument with regard to the statistical data points than to the basic comment.

 

I wonder if this Jenks thing will make it impossible now for the Sox to acquire more pitching regardless of the cost. They are losing guys before the season even starts and they had so few bodies to begin with.

[FredLynn]

There's also the confounder of the division by the way. I bet the Sox' ERA last year would have been much better were they playing in the AL West.

 

All in all, the Red Sox would need health and luck on their side would they make the playoffs, because i believe you seriously understimate what the Sox' top three brings to the table when fully healthy. The problem, in my opinion, isn't so much winning in the playoffs were they to make it, but rather getting there, and getting there healthy.

 

Health plays a role, as we have seen. Most teams do not stay completely healthy. Thats rare. So we can realistically count on some key injuries next year. Thats just part of the game.

As I said, you can bash your way into the playoffs, and thats the way we have generally done it-except for 2004 when we were THIRD in ERA in the AL and in 2007 when we were FIRST in ERA in the AL. Do you think its a coincidence that those are the years that we won a ring? Funny how that worked out, eh?

[iortiz]

As I've been saying, IMO you don't need to have the best offense or the the best pitching in order to win the WS. You need a balanced team. You need a solid team. You need a healthy team. You need depth. You need discipline. You need compromise. You need professionalism. You need hungry. You need team-working. You need leadership.

 

Could sound like a cliche, but those elements gentlement, gives you rings.

 

Today, Do we have those elements? IMO This team needs to work a lot in so many areas if we really want to run as a serious WS contender team.

[iortiz]

Health plays a role' date=' as we have seen. Most teams do not stay completely healthy. Thats rare. So we can realistically count on some key injuries next year.[/b'] Thats just part of the game.

As I said, you can bash your way into the playoffs, and thats the way we have generally done it-except for 2004 when we were THIRD in ERA in the AL and in 2007 when we were FIRST in ERA in the AL. Do you think its a coincidence that those are the years that we won a ring? Funny how that worked out, eh?

 

This is true. Reason why my concern about our current pitching has been in the top of my mind since last season ended.

[User Name]

Health plays a role, as we have seen. Most teams do not stay completely healthy. Thats rare. So we can realistically count on some key injuries next year. Thats just part of the game.

As I said, you can bash your way into the playoffs, and thats the way we have generally done it-except for 2004 when we were THIRD in ERA in the AL and in 2007 when we were FIRST in ERA in the AL. Do you think its a coincidence that those are the years that we won a ring? Funny how that worked out, eh?

 

To a certain extent, there was a lot of luck involved in those two years as well. Do you think it's a coincidence that the two years they won were the two years their pitching staff stayed completely healthy?

 

Had the pitching staff stayed healthy like 2004 last year, they would have certainly been in the UPPER HALF of the league in ERA. Some of that is on the player conditioning, and hopefully, it will change.

[Palodios]

Yup, it's a 3 player deep and I'm not comfortable either. But again, IMO you would be more "balanced" with another solid SP than with another slugger.

 

History has showed us that SPs somehow get injuries and/or underperform specially in our top 3. If someone can guarantee me that they will stay healthy, I'm with you, but again, you know our injury track record.

 

Notice that all my argument rest on "they won't go over the cap"

 

On the other hand, solid, healthy and young FA SPs like Buerhle, will/are making those amounts of money. Yes, he could cost us more, but IMO, not that more much. Yes, 2013 FA class will be a better one but guess who is comming off the books... Jenks and D-K. You can use that money in order to bring another solid SP and who knows... maybe and just maybe you won't need to do that if Bard fits well this season regardless you only would need a #5 SP, who can share the load with Lackey.

 

Honestly, I think that Daniel Bard is going to be a significantly better starter than any of the second tier options. The Red Sox do need a #4 starter, but I do realistically believe that they will pick up one of the better hurlers up. It just doesn't seem like that many other teams are interested in Kuroda/Oswalt/Jackson at their prices and problems.

[Palodios]

The top tier FA pitchers are gone' date=' except for Madson, and he's a reliever. We missed out on Gio Gonzalez. The Cubs want too much for Garza. It's being reported that Oswalt, Kuroda and Jackson are out of our price range. Where does this leave us? Where is this patient wait and see approach going to take us? At this point, I am really hoping that Benny has a rabbit in his hat that we don't know about, because none of the other publicly reported options, e.g Saunders are very encouraging.[/quote']

 

As I said, the top tier pitchers weren't in this team's price range, and never were, even if Ortiz left. Gio Gonzalez would have been a huge ripoff with his terrible terrible splits. I still haven't seen any players that the Red Sox actually were after come off the market.

 

 

On another note, what about Malholm? It seems like everyone is quiet on him.