2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[NativeBostonian]

You can disagree, but the facts do not support your position. Your statement about liking Youkilis over Mueller is subjective and is related to only one player. What about Crawford vs Manny? Its a TEAM game. The 2004 TEAM was MUCH better than the 2011 spineless version, relative to the other teams in the league especially. The 2004 team finished FIRST in runs scored with 949, OPS with .832, and was third in pitching with a team ERA of 4.18. This year's spineless version finished first with 875 runs scored and an OPS of .810, BOTH WORSE THAN THE 04 TEAM, and we finished NINTH in overall ERA with an ERA of 4.20. Moreover, the 2004 team won 98 games; this year's spineless version won just 90.

Sorry. In this case you are simply wrong. Its not a matter of opinion when the facts so strongly support a different position. This is called REALITY.

 

Call me crazy, but I would take Crawford over Manny. That is the Rays version of Crawford. He may not be able to put up as significant as offensive numbers as Manny Ramirez did, but he can put up a decent amount of offense and he can field 10 times better than Manny Ramirez could.

[User Name]

If you want to compare teams against each other, it's a good idea to compare them against the league to ascertain their standing relative to said league each year.

 

OPS+ and ERA+ help clear some of the noise of the 2004-2011 comparison.

 

The 2004 Red Sox had a 110 OPS+ and 117 ERA +, but the 2011 Red Sox had a 117 OPS+ and 102 ERA+. The 2011 version also had way better defense but its pitching staff was ravaged by injuries.

 

You can make the argument that a healthy 2011 pitching staff could have been better relative to league average numbers than the 2004 staff.

 

Make of that what you will.

[NativeBostonian]

by the way, you are being blind to the offensive numbers last year. Just look at the numbers. Besides that one month they were putting up godly amount of runs.

[iortiz]

Well we all pretty much agree that we need another quality starting pitcher because I think the risk is too great with two relievers suddenly thrust into the firing line as starters. I also think we need another relief pitcher as Jenks once again looks like he isn't going to be much help. The way I see it is this:

 

1. We need another quality starter and the sooner the better, and throw in a reliever in as well,

2. We need our "Big Three" to stay on course all season and all in one piece and Bard fits well in the rotation.

3. We finally need some good health from our lineup and comebacks from Crawford and Youkilis

4. Throw in a little luck going our way. The AL East is winnable despite what my pal Pumpsie says.

 

Someone ask him of the predictions I made for last season. I think these things up above are doable.

 

Fixed.

 

If your points 1-3 true, Yes, We can win the AL East, otherwise Pumpsie is right, Next season won't look good.

 

The thing is, I don't like a lot of "ifs", "?" and "good wishes". I assume Pumpsie is what is seeing as well, reason why he is not that confident about this team.

 

Hopefully, BV can put this team in one piece.

[FredLynn]

Call me crazy' date=' but I would take Crawford over Manny. That is the Rays version of Crawford. He may not be able to put up as significant as offensive numbers as Manny Ramirez did, but he can put up a decent amount of offense and he can field 10 times better than Manny Ramirez could.[/quote']

 

The Rays version of Crawford didn't play for the Boston Red Sox in 2011.

[FredLynn]

If you want to compare teams against each other, it's a good idea to compare them against the league to ascertain their standing relative to said league each year.

 

OPS+ and ERA+ help clear some of the noise of the 2004-2011 comparison.

 

The 2004 Red Sox had a 110 OPS+ and 117 ERA +, but the 2011 Red Sox had a 117 OPS+ and 102 ERA+. The 2011 version also had way better defense but its pitching staff was ravaged by injuries.

 

You can make the argument that a healthy 2011 pitching staff could have been better relative to league average numbers than the 2004 staff.

 

Make of that what you will.

 

Well, we didn't have a healthy pitching staff in 2011.

Come on User....lets deal with REALITY, not some made-up version of the events.

[User Name]

Well, we didn't have a healthy pitching staff in 2011.

Come on User....lets deal with REALITY, not some made-up version of the events.

 

Hey i'm just throwing it out there for DISCUSSION. Besides, you didn't set any parameters for the COMPARISON.

[FredLynn]

And there is no need to use meaningless terms like "OPS+" and "ERA+".

Baseball is a simple game.

The 04 team was much better in every meaningful statistic than the 2011 team. Thats simply a fact of life.

[User Name]

Such eloquent discourse. Always a pleasure arguing with baseball luminaires such as yourself.

[FredLynn]

Hey i'm just throwing it out there for DISCUSSION. Besides' date=' you didn't set any parameters for the COMPARISON.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. It is fair game for discussion. I don't really think that those stats that you cited are as useful as simple ERA and OPS and runs scored and games won. After all, both teams used the same park as home base.

[User Name]

Fair enough. It is fair game for discussion. I don't really think that those stats that you cited are as useful as simple ERA and OPS and runs scored and games won. After all' date=' both teams used the same park as home base.[/quote']

 

They are league-adjusted, not only ballpark adjusted.

[FredLynn]

They are league-adjusted' date=' not only ballpark adjusted.[/quote']

 

Did we play in a different league in 2004?

All you really need to know in that regard is how we finished relative to that other teams in the same league. In 2004 we finished THIRD in pitching; in 2011 we finished NINTH in pitching (ERA). Variations in runs scored by teams occur year to year, for whatever reason, but positioning relative to the other teams remains a good gauge of how your staff performed that year.

[Elktonnick]

If you want to compare teams against each other, it's a good idea to compare them against the league to ascertain their standing relative to said league each year.

 

OPS+ and ERA+ help clear some of the noise of the 2004-2011 comparison.

 

The 2004 Red Sox had a 110 OPS+ and 117 ERA +, but the 2011 Red Sox had a 117 OPS+ and 102 ERA+. The 2011 version also had way better defense but its pitching staff was ravaged by injuries.

 

You can make the argument that a healthy 2011 pitching staff could have been better relative to league average numbers than the 2004 staff.

 

Make of that what you will.

 

Could have been but wasn't! Those are the facts. But in any case, as interesting as the discussion is whether the 11 team was better than the 04 team, the real question is whether the 12 team, as presently constitutted, is better than the 11 team. I say it is not. Everything is predicated on health. I believe this team is unlikely to be as healthy as the team was last year. I know it is highly speculative. But based on previous history none of the top starters nor Youklis are likely to avoid the disabled list next year. This team has litte depth, none in the rotation. For this reason as for right now this team is worse than last year's. It remains only above average. It is unlikely to win the division and will probably have a difficult time winning a playoff spot.

[Dojji]

Did we play in a different league in 2004?

 

Kinda.

[example1]

And there is no need to use meaningless terms like "OPS+" and "ERA+".

Baseball is a simple game.

The 04 team was much better in every meaningful statistic than the 2011 team. Thats simply a fact of life.

 

There's no need to use a meaningless term like OPS+ and ERA+? Come on man. That's weak sauce. Just because you arent curious enough to learn what those numbers mean or why they were devised in the first place it doesn't mean they aren't useful. They are. They were devised for the exact type of discussion you are having here.

[example1]

Kinda.

 

I wonder if any players had a 1.422 OPS in 2011 like Barry Bonds did in 2004. It was a different league.

[User Name]

That's exactly why stats like OPS+ and ERA+ was created. The current shift towards pitching has left the MLB looking nothing like the Mid-00's roid rage years.

 

Saying that the 2021 team won't stay healthy makes no sense to me. We have no way of knowing that. Isn't that why they brought a new manager, replaced part of the coaching staff and brought in a new conditioning team?

[Bellhorn04]

I think you predicted 97 wins Fred..or was it 99. I predicted 94 wins, but I think Muggah was closest to the actual number we ended up with.

Its too soon to predict wins as the Sox are not yet finished rummaging through the scrap heap of has-been pitchers. Its not unreasonable, though, to expect about as many wins as last year.

 

Pumpsie, aren't you one of the guys who says Francona was costing us 5-10 wins a year? Where's the adjustment for that?

[iortiz]

I'm not sure why we want to compare 04 with 11. Forget the offense, pitching, health, advanced stats, etc, etc. The overall 04 team was a better one since they won the WS, period. That team was balanced, solid and was a one piece engine. I'm not sure why we want to reinvent the warm water. We tend to complicate the things. Did 11-team put better advanced-ultra-stats? who cares? They didn't even made the POs. Make all the analysis you want but 11 team F.A.I.L.E.D., and that is a fact.

 

Results, gentlemen, results.... That's all that counts.

[User Name]

Excellent logic.

 

Rate the team by results. That 2006 Cards sure was better than the 2001 Yanks and Mariners, because they won it all.

[iortiz]

That's a totally different discussion. If you want to compare a WS winner vs WS winner is tough since their environments were totally different. IMO that kind of comparison turns in the end of the day subjective. Still, you can see another kind of "results" (ex. advanced ultra stats) and emit an opinion, but again, in the end of the day the discussion turns subjective.

 

Facts & Results

04 team succeed in its environment.

11 team failed in its environment.

[FredLynn]

There's no need to use a meaningless term like OPS+ and ERA+? Come on man. That's weak sauce. Just because you arent curious enough to learn what those numbers mean or why they were devised in the first place it doesn't mean they aren't useful. They are. They were devised for the exact type of discussion you are having here.

 

Do you want me to publish the definitions of those terms to prove that I know what they mean?

Just because I think that they are nearly useless when compared to OPS and ERA (and WHIP and wins/losses and stats compared to the other teams in the league that year) does not mean that I don't know what they mean.

I know what castor oil is; that doesn't mean I drink it.

[FredLynn]

Pumpsie' date=' aren't you one of the guys who says Francona was costing us 5-10 wins a year? Where's the adjustment for that?[/quote']

 

WITH that adjustment we should be able to win as many games as last year as things now stand. This team is not as good as last year's team right now. I think we are slightly weaker.

[win red sox]

WITH that adjustment we should be able to win as many games as last year as things now stand. This team is not as good as last year's team right now. I think we are slightly weaker.

 

How is this team weaker than last year's team? The offense should be better next year with a healthy Youkilis, better year for Crawford, the combo of Aviles/Sweeney should be an upgrade in right field over Reddick. Shoppach is a monumental upgrade over Varitek. Last year's starters were Beckett and Lester and that was pretty much it. A healthy Buchholz,Bard and even Doubrandt is a huge upgrade over last year's rotation and you can even add Dice-k around the all star break. The Pen maybe took a small step back, but nothing significant. The team is already better than last year's squad and the offseason is not even over. This team is capable of winning 100 games and winning the series. Of course all this depends on health.

[User Name]

That's a totally different discussion. If you want to compare a WS winner vs WS winner is tough since their environments were totally different. IMO that kind of comparison turns in the end of the day subjective. Still, you can see another kind of "results" (ex. advanced ultra stats) and emit an opinion, but again, in the end of the day the discussion turns subjective.

 

Facts & Results

04 team succeed in its environment.

11 team failed in its environment.

 

The 2004 team had zero injuries to her rotation and bullpen. Did the same happen to the 2011 team?

 

It's not so black and white. That's an incorrect analysis, plain and simple. You have to compare the teams on a neutral environment. Eliminating the subjective noise is what the "ultra advanced stats" are for.

[FredLynn]

How is this team weaker than last year's team? The offense should be better next year with a healthy Youkilis' date=' better year for Crawford, the combo of Aviles/Sweeney should be an upgrade in right field over Reddick. Shoppach is a monumental upgrade over Varitek. Last year's starters were Beckett and Lester and that was pretty much it. A healthy Buchholz,Bard and even Doubrandt is a huge upgrade over last year's rotation and you can even add Dice-k around the all star break. The Pen maybe took a small step back, but nothing significant. The team is already better than last year's squad and the offseason is not even over. This team is capable of winning 100 games and winning the series. Of course all this depends on health.[/quote']

 

Thats your opinion.

What I see right now is a 90 win team, give or take a game or two.

Lester and Beckett were healthy all year. Odds are that one of them will miss time this year. Buchholtz had back problems; they tend to be recurrent. We have an untested relief pitcher who won't be throwing more than about 140 innings this year as our #4 SP, and we have no one but Carlos Silva as a #5 (or Doubront, who has shown me nothing so far). We have no SP depth except for bums. In addition, the subtraction of Papelbon and Bard, two of our most reliable RP from the pen means that the pen is weaker too. Now we have Aceves and.......well, now we have Aceves.

This was never about scoring runs. The team will score runs. Trouble is, the other guys will score lots of runs too.

As for the Shoppach-Jason Varitek comparison: both suck. KS had an OPS of .607 last year; Varitek .723. Shoppach can't hit the baseball; Varitek can't hit or play his position.

Aviles won't be our starting RF. Reddick had an OPS of .784; Sweeney .687. Both Sweeney and Shoppach are DOWNGRADES offensively, not improvements. Both are better defensively, but we all know how that "run prevention" ******** promoted by Epstein a couple of years ago worked out.

No, this is a weaker team as things now stand. The replacement of Francona with someone competent will help, but not enough.

But just wait 'till next year, right?

[Elktonnick]

The 2004 team had zero injuries to her rotation and bullpen. Did the same happen to the 2011 team?

 

It's not so black and white. That's an incorrect analysis, plain and simple. You have to compare the teams on a neutral environment. Eliminating the subjective noise is what the "ultra advanced stats" are for.

 

Thatis a logical inconsistent argument . One can't say something "Its not so balck and white" and then say eliminating subjective noise. No environment is neutral. These measures cited above are what those who follow TQM and CQI management techniquescall process measures. Results based management is interested in outcomes. The only outcomes that count in baseball are wins. Any scientific analysis has to include proclivity to injury. In any case by any fact based analysis the 04 team won 98 games the 11 team 90 a nearly 10 percent diference. The 11 team was injured. History tells us the 12 team will be as well.

Ballplayers, as a group, reach their peak value much earlier and decline much more rapidly than people believe. A great deal of what is perceived as being pitching is in fact defense.

 

The 12 team is older than the 11 team. The defense may be weaker as a result.

[NativeBostonian]

Did we play in a different league in 2004?

I would make the argument that the AL was different in 2004 then it is now. We didn't have to deal with they Rays back then. It was a two team race. You add another team to the mix, it become a lot harder to win and get into the post season.

[Elktonnick]

I would make the argument that the AL was different in 2004 then it is now. We didn't have to deal with they Rays back then. It was a two team race. You add another team to the mix' date=' it become a lot harder to win.[/quote']

 

So the environment changed. Some teams got better others got worse. The fact remains that team played 162 games and won 98. Last years team played the same number of games but finished 8 games behind that record.

[User Name]

Thatis a logical inconsistent argument . One can't say something "Its not so balck and white" and then say eliminating subjective noise. No environment is neutral. These measures cited above are what those who follow TQM and CQI management techniquescall process measures. Results based management is interested in outcomes. The only outcomes that count in baseball are wins. Any scientific analysis has to include proclivity to injury. In any case by any fact based analysis the 04 team won 98 games the 11 team 90 a nearly 10 percent diference. The 11 team was injured. History tells us the 12 team will be as well.

Ballplayers, as a group, reach their peak value much earlier and decline much more rapidly than people believe. A great deal of what is perceived as being pitching is in fact defense.

 

The 12 team is older than the 11 team. The defense may be weaker as a result.

 

It's not inconsistent. What we're attempting to do here is find an objective answer. What is not black and white is the process. You are (as usual) interpreting what you want. Also, the age argument is invalid. It balances out because as some players get past their peak, some reach it. So that isn't so easy to identify in a black and white manner either.

 

Baseball, as a sport, is not a business, so while sometimes it is pertinent to apply business precepts to baseball analysis, it is not pertinent to apply it in this discussion. The results of a baseball season have too many confounders to be painted as black and white, which was my point.

 

Again, the 2006 Cardinals won it all, and they were not the best team in the playoffs. This is not even debatable. So can you say they were the best because of the results? That's why you need to eliminate the noise when making an analysis like this. Same for the 2003 Marlins, the 2008 Phillies and several other teams.