2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[NativeBostonian]

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.

 

How are we older? The Red Sox replaced J.D. Drew (37) with Ryan Sweeny (27), Jason Varitek (39) with Shoppach (31), Papelbon (31) with Baily (27). If anything, we are a younger team this year, not older.

[iortiz]

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

 

Are you saying that 2004 team was lucky because didn't have injuries?

 

Whata about saying that they worked better their physical conditioning/shape, not beer and chicken, discipline, professionalism, commitment, team-working, etc, etc. etc.

 

I like stats but As I said, not everything is stats. 2004 team was a one pice engine in every aspect, reason why makes it a better team.

 

2011 wasn't.

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, you can't compare them in neutral environments, since they already had their particular environments. Which environment was more favorable? nobody knows. The only thing you can do is look at the BL.

 

2004 succeeded. 2011 didn't.

 

I'm not sure why we want to compare a team which got a ring against another which didn't even made the POs.

[User Name]

Are you saying that 2004 team was lucky because didn't have injuries?

 

Whata about saying that they worked better their physical conditioning/shape, not beer and chicken, discipline, professionalism, commitment, team-working, etc, etc. etc.

 

I like stats but As I said, not everything is stats. 2004 team was a one pice engine in every aspect, reason why makes it a better team.

 

2011 wasn't.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, you can't compare them in neutral environments, since they already had their particular environments. Which environment was more favorable? nobody knows. The only thing you can do is look at the BL.

 

2004 succeeded. 2011 didn't.

 

I'm not sure why we want to compare a team which got a ring against another which didn't even made the POs.

 

I'm not talking about luck. Conditioning problems are something everyone have mentioned. It's beating a dead horse.

 

The reason why we're comparing both teams is because some posters here are seriously underestimating the talent of the 2011 team. The point of the comparison is showing how good the 2011 Red Sox really were, and how they could have "succeeded" with better conditioning and a couple of breaks going their way. Statistically (which is how you compare teams and players) the 2011 Sox were a lot better than people give them credit for, character problems or no.

 

The 2012 team will be very good as well. It is good as currently constructed. One starting pitcher and a couple of bullpen arms, and the Sox are as good as any team in the MLB.

 

The conclusion of all this being that the 2012 will contend, because it is loaded with talent, and because the correct steps were taken to correct the attitude problems for the team.

 

At least that's how i see my half-full glass.

[Elktonnick]

How are we older? The Red Sox replaced J.D. Drew (37) with Ryan Sweeny (27)' date=' Jason Varitek (39) with Shoppach (31), Papelbon (31) with Baily (27). If anything, we are a younger team this year, not older.[/quote']

 

Our key players are older. The ones you mentioned with the exception of Paps could hardly be considered stars.

[example1]

I'm not talking about luck. Conditioning problems are something everyone have mentioned. It's beating a dead horse.

 

The reason why we're comparing both teams is because some posters here are seriously underestimating the talent of the 2011 team. The point of the comparison is showing how good the 2011 Red Sox really were, and how they could have "succeeded" with better conditioning and a couple of breaks going their way. Statistically (which is how you compare teams and players) the 2011 Sox were a lot better than people give them credit for, character problems or no.

 

The 2012 team will be very good as well. It is good as currently constructed. One starting pitcher and a couple of bullpen arms, and the Sox are as good as any team in the MLB.

 

The conclusion of all this being that the 2012 will contend, because it is loaded with talent, and because the correct steps were taken to correct the attitude problems for the team.

 

At least that's how i see my half-full glass.

 

I agree with you.

 

Fortunately, the best indicator will be how the 2012 season actually plays out. I'm pretty confident that this is a really good team--much closer to the team that had the best record in the bigs for most of 2011 than the collapse team of September. Of course, we will have to wait and see.

 

Trying to convince others of this is like beating a dead horse, and it really is just a matter of opinion so I'm ready to stop trying. The team can speak for itself.

[Elktonnick]

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.

 

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. Of course it is. Whether a sport or business the management principles are the same. The palyoffs are a crapshoot making the playoffs requires the most wins in the division or the best record for non divisional winners. The only rresult that counts is wins the rest is process. BTW Any MLB that rmanage itself as solely a sport not a business won't be successful.

[example1]

Our key players are older. The ones you mentioned with the exception of Paps could hardly be considered stars.

 

And the key players can hardly be considered "old".

 

Salty: 27

Gonzo: 30

Pedroia: 28

Youkilis: 33

Crawford: 30

Ellsbury: 28

 

I don't think these guys are at such an age where we can expect their defensive performance to deteriorate.

 

Do 28 year olds decline historically? 30 year olds? Hmm.

 

This team is in its prime. The players who have like 80% of their value are in their prime and the other 20% are a combination of 35 and older and 26 and younger.

 

Overall the team will probably see more time from the younger players listed in other posts above, plus guys like Lavarnway, Bailey (27) and Melancon (26) .

 

 

No matter what your perspective, I don't see how age is a big concern on this team.

[a700hitter]

Are you saying that 2004 team was lucky because didn't have injuries?

 

Whata about saying that they worked better their physical conditioning/shape, not beer and chicken, discipline, professionalism, commitment, team-working, etc, etc. etc.

 

I like stats but As I said, not everything is stats. 2004 team was a one pice engine in every aspect, reason why makes it a better team.

 

2011 wasn't.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, you can't compare them in neutral environments, since they already had their particular environments. Which environment was more favorable? nobody knows. The only thing you can do is look at the BL.

 

2004 succeeded. 2011 didn't.

 

I'm not sure why we want to compare a team which got a ring against another which didn't even made the POs.

Some people continue to delude themselves that the 2011 team was a great team that had some horrible luck. Blaming luck is a loser's lament. I don't engage in excuses. Good luck and bad luck tend to even out over a 162 game season. Injuries are part of the game. The 2011 team didn't win for a wide variety of reasons and luck excuses none of them. The organization was dysfunctional from top to bottom-- from the owners to the GM to the managers, coaches, players and trainers. There's plenty of blame to go around. The 2011 Red Sox failure was not, as some people like to believe, a case of a great team that had some unlucky injuries and some players with bad attitudes that did not perform. It was a total organizational failure. To compare the 2011 team to the 2004 team diminishes the accomplishment of the 2004 team. The 2011 team had a lot of talent, but they were not a great team. They don't even compare favorably to the. 1972, 1977, 1978 or 1979 Red Sox teams.

[User Name]

It's like a black hole for logic.

[Elktonnick]

And the key players can hardly be considered "old".

 

Salty: 27

Gonzo: 30

Pedroia: 28

Youkilis: 33

Crawford: 30

Ellsbury: 28

 

I don't think these guys are at such an age where we can expect their defensive performance to deteriorate.

 

Do 28 year olds decline historically? 30 year olds? Hmm.

 

This team is in its prime. The players who have like 80% of their value are in their prime and the other 20% are a combination of 35 and older and 26 and younger.

 

Overall the team will probably see more time from the younger players listed in other posts above, plus guys like Lavarnway, Bailey (27) and Melancon (26) .

 

 

No matter what your perspective, I don't see how age is a big concern on this team.

 

They are older. The left side is slower. Crawford looks to be afraid of the wall and he has clearly lost a step. Defense is the key. All the data suggests that their defense will be poorer next year. They are more likely to have injuries because of that etc. Right now they aren't as good as they were last year and that team performed the worst of any during the Henry era. QED This team right now is the worst of the Henry era. That's my view and we'll see if the seasons bears my opinion to be correct.

[jacksonianmarch]

Youkilis is the only one who you can legitimately say is slowing down. He may be 33, but with his body type he might as well be 38

[Elktonnick]

Youkilis is the only one who you can legitimately say is slowing down. He may be 33' date=' but with his body type he might as well be 38[/quote']

 

Even Crawford's high school coach admits that Crawford has slowed a bit. To see that all ahd to do is watch him trying to steal second last year. Scutoro has clearly reduced range plus a weaker arm.

[Rdsxmbnt]

They are older. The left side is slower. Crawford looks to be afraid of the wall and he has clearly lost a step. Defense is the key. All the data suggests that their defense will be poorer next year. They are more likely to have injuries because of that etc. Right now they aren't as good as they were last year and that team performed the worst of any during the Henry era. QED This team right now is the worst of the Henry era. That's my view and we'll see if the seasons bears my opinion to be correct.

 

I don't buy this. On September 1, 2011 the team looked like it may very well be the BEST team of the Henry era, and one month later after an epic collapse it is the worst?

 

The talent is still clearly here, and like example said the core of this team is in its prime and set to dominate. I think they need to learn from September and not have that happen again, because the talent level is there to win another World Series if they can get their s*** together. It is my hope that the added bullpen depth, Bard's transition to starter, a new no-nonsense manager, and (hopefully) added depth to the rotation will be the necessary moves to get back on top.

[iortiz]

Some people continue to delude themselves that the 2011 team was a great team that had some horrible luck. Blaming luck is a loser's lament. I don't engage in excuses. Good luck and bad luck tend to even out over a 162 game season. Injuries are part of the game. The 2011 team didn't win for a wide variety of reasons and luck excuses none of them. The organization was dysfunctional from top to bottom-- from the owners to the GM to the managers' date=' coaches, players and trainers. There's plenty of blame to go around. The 2011 Red Sox failure was not, as some people like to believe, a case of a great team that had some unlucky injuries and some players with bad attitudes that did not perform. It was a total organizational failure. To compare the 2011 team to the 2004 team diminishes the accomplishment of the 2004 team. [b']The 2011 team had a lot of talent, but they were not a great team[/b]. They don't even compare favorably to the. 1972, 1977, 1978 or 1979 Red Sox teams.

 

We can resume 2011 team like this. We have almost the same 2011 "TEAM" now. Somethings have to change around. Some have changed. Theo is gone. Tito is gone. Our coaching staff and medical staff has gone. I still believe that this team has an elite core. I'm confident about this team as long as you bring me the goddamn SP and the extra-baseball change (attitude, team-working, professionalism, etc.) otherwise we will be in jeopardy again.

 

2011 team in the paper arguably was more talented than 2004. I actually believe that. Some called 2011 team as the best RS team ever.

 

But a completely different thing is saying that 2011 team was better than 2004 team.

[iortiz]

Crawford better come back. Youk better be in shape. Buch better be healthy. Beckett better be solid. Bard better fit well. Our BP better be consistent, etc.

[Palodios]

Even Crawford's high school coach admits that Crawford has slowed a bit. To see that all ahd to do is watch him trying to steal second last year. Scutoro has clearly reduced range plus a weaker arm.

 

Your eyes are not qualified to determine the difference in Scutaro's range. My eyes told me he was pretty good-- that doesn't mean either of us are correct. I'm not very familiar with defensive statistics, but the numbers that I'm looking at show that his range in 2011 was above his career averages.

[Elktonnick]

Your eyes are not qualified to determine the difference in Scutaro's range. My eyes told me he was pretty good-- that doesn't mean either of us are correct. I'm not very familiar with defensive statistics' date=' but the numbers that I'm looking at show that his range in 2011 was above his career averages.[/quote']

 

What I saw a guy was who couldn't go to his right very well. If he got the ball he didn't have the arm strength to gun it to first. Even on routine plays his weak arm was noticeable just barely getting most runners. One thing is indisputedable he is a year older.

[NativeBostonian]

And the key players can hardly be considered "old".

 

Salty: 27

Gonzo: 30

Pedroia: 28

Youkilis: 33

Crawford: 30

Ellsbury: 28

 

I don't think these guys are at such an age where we can expect their defensive performance to deteriorate.

 

Do 28 year olds decline historically? 30 year olds? Hmm.

 

This team is in its prime. The players who have like 80% of their value are in their prime and the other 20% are a combination of 35 and older and 26 and younger.

 

Overall the team will probably see more time from the younger players listed in other posts above, plus guys like Lavarnway, Bailey (27) and Melancon (26) .

 

 

No matter what your perspective, I don't see how age is a big concern on this team.

 

I agree with you. The average age of your star guys is 29, You can't consider that old!

[Palodios]

What I saw a guy was who couldn't go to his right very well. If he got the ball he didn't have the arm strength to gun it to first. Even on routine plays his weak arm was noticeable just barely getting most runners. One thing is indisputedable he is a year older.

 

Scutaro has had the best two seasons of his career at ages 34 and 36. His age at 37 does not concern me-- he may get injured, but so do most shortstops during the course of the season because of the demand of the position.

[Elktonnick]

Scutaro has had the best two seasons of his career at ages 34 and 36. His age at 37 does not concern me-- he may get injured' date=' but so do most shortstops during the course of the season because of the demand of the position.[/quote']

 

It concern me since we lack depth.

[Palodios]

I don't view Kuroda or Jackson or even an old injury prone Oswalt as top tier pitchers. They are IMO most definitely in the second tier' date=' and we can't afford them. [/quote']

 

I referred to them as second tier pitchers in many previous posts.

 

With regard to your optimistic outlook about Bard, we're all hoping that he transitions well to starting, but the truth is no one, not even Sox management, knows how this will turn out

 

He has good enough stuff to be better than any of the second-tier options available. I'm not expecting him to light the world on fire, but I do expect him to be better than Wakefield/Miller/Weiland.

[iortiz]

It concern me since we lack depth.

 

what about trying with Iglesias at times this year.

[Palodios]

The more I think about it, the more I think a Garza deal can definitely get done. Theo has always had "his guys" that he drools over, and simply must have. He just pulled Anthony Rizzo back to the Cubs with him. I would bet that there are some hidden gems in the Red Sox system that he really likes, and may not necessarily have that much value.

[iortiz]

The more I think about it' date=' the more I think a Garza deal can definitely get done. Theo has always had "his guys" that he drools over, and simply must have. He just pulled Anthony Rizzo back to the Cubs with him. I would bet that there are some hidden gems in the Red Sox system that he really likes, and may not necessarily have that much value.[/quote']

 

Hopefully God hears U.

[Rdsxmbnt]

The more I think about it' date=' the more I think a Garza deal can definitely get done. Theo has always had "his guys" that he drools over, and simply must have. He just pulled Anthony Rizzo back to the Cubs with him. I would bet that there are some hidden gems in the Red Sox system that he really likes, and may not necessarily have that much value.[/quote']

 

Iglesias and Ranuado seems like a pretty solid base package of guys who would potentially have a lot of value to Theo.

[iortiz]

Iglesias and Ranuado seems like a pretty solid base package of guys who would potentially have a lot of value to Theo.

 

As long we don't give up Lav, Kal and Mid, It's ok for me.

[Palodios]

Iglesias and Ranuado seems like a pretty solid base package of guys who would potentially have a lot of value to Theo.

 

Iglesias was the first that came to mind to me. He absolutely does have the potential to be a superstar because of his glove, but the last season in AAA hurt his chances badly. I would not be surprised if Theo would accept him as a top tier prospect in a trade, considering he was willing to spend 10 million dollars on him as a prospect.

[a700hitter]

He has good enough stuff to be better than any of the second-tier options available. I'm not expecting him to light the world on fire, but I do expect him to be better than Wakefield/Miller/Weiland.

That's a low bar that you are setting.

[Palodios]

That's a low bar that you are setting.

 

Better than Wakefield would have won atleast one game. Getting the team to the playoffs is more important than anything else.

[jacksonianmarch]

Iglesias was the first that came to mind to me. He absolutely does have the potential to be a superstar because of his glove' date=' but the last season in AAA hurt his chances badly. I would not be surprised if Theo would accept him as a top tier prospect in a trade, considering he was willing to spend 10 million dollars on him as a prospect.[/quote']

 

Why would Theo want Iglesias? He has Starlin Castro