2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[example1]

Can't you really just say that about any idiotic prediction? "We will see."

 

I can say the world is going to blow up in the next 20 minutes, and then just say "We will see," to anyone who questions me. Yes, theoretically it's correct, but I still sound like a babbling lunatic, don't I?

 

What is idiotic is someone reading this post:

 

I disagree that pitching is definitely about the same. I think Bard is a great addition and that Buchholz is healthy. That's a big difference. I also think Lester is likely to pitch better, and that Becketts performance wasn't just luck.

 

Before people tell me it is just wishful thinking just know in advance my response will be "we will see".

 

...and expecting any response other than "we will see". We have beat this horse to death.

 

Apparently the only appropriate answer for you (which is no surprise) would be either "I agree with everyone else here. There is no way that their top 3 pitches more inning than they did last year" or "I am actually a poster from the future, who has returned in my time traveling machine. In fact, Buchholz's back DID hold up and Beckett continued with his good pitching and to make matters better, Lester won the Cy Young."

 

"We will see" is the same as saying "the results will dictate who is right and who is wrong". Apparently you have a problem with that. Are you trying to pick fights?

[a700hitter]

We don't know if we'll be getting a pitcher and Dice-K and Lackey aren't in the back of the rotation this year. if we're not throwing Weiland or Miller than we might be ok. Let's say we get Jackson and have Bard or Aceves in the 5th spot. Are you sure now? Lackey ended up getting 12 wins even with his terrible pitching. It can't be that bad.

Jackson is a whole lot better than the garbage heap of Silva, Cook, Maine and Padilla. I have no doubt about that.

[example1]

What? Someone thinking the three of them can hold together for a whole season is optimistic' date=' but in no way idiotic. Lester (post 2007) had pretty much been the picture of health, Buchh's back issue was his first significant injury (and it was a stress fracture). The real wild card is Beckett. But it's not far-fetched or stupid idea at all.[/quote']

 

I'm not even saying that the top three will necessairly be healthy. I still expect a week or two off for multiple pitchers throughout the season. I'm just not expecting that one of their top three will be out for more than half the year. I'd be surprised if more than one of the three got over 200 IP, but that STILL leaves room for the three to be considerably better than last year.

[User Name]

I'm not even saying that the top three will necessairly be healthy. I still expect a week or two off for multiple pitchers throughout the season. I'm just not expecting that one of their top three will be out for more than half the year. I'd be surprised if more than one of the three got over 200 IP' date=' but that STILL leaves room for the three to be considerably better than last year.[/quote']

 

I was talking about a season-ending, or performance-reducing injury pretty much. Expecting 540 IP from the top three isn't stupid at all. It's not a sure thing, but it could certainly happen.

[a700hitter]

I'm not even saying that the top three will necessairly be healthy. I still expect a week or two off for multiple pitchers throughout the season. I'm just not expecting that one of their top three will be out for more than half the year. I'd be surprised if more than one of the three got over 200 IP' date=' but that STILL leaves room for the three to be considerably better than last year.[/quote']Who takes the 5th spot?

[example1]

I was talking about a season-ending' date=' or performance-reducing injury pretty much. Expecting 540 IP from the top three isn't stupid at all. It's not a sure thing, but it could certainly happen.[/quote']

 

Last year the top 3 had 467 IP combined. Anything above that represents "healthier" than 2011. I think it will happen.

[Muggah]

What is idiotic is someone reading this post:

 

 

 

...and expecting any response other than "we will see". We have beat this horse to death.

 

Apparently the only appropriate answer for you (which is no surprise) would be either "I agree with everyone else here. There is no way that their top 3 pitches more inning than they did last year" or "I am actually a poster from the future, who has returned in my time traveling machine. In fact, Buchholz's back DID hold up and Beckett continued with his good pitching and to make matters better, Lester won the Cy Young."

 

"We will see" is the same as saying "the results will dictate who is right and who is wrong". Apparently you have a problem with that. Are you trying to pick fights?

 

Pick fights? No, not at all. I was just curious as to why you posted that disclaimer along with your prediction. No biggie.

[Elktonnick]

I'm not even saying that the top three will necessairly be healthy. I still expect a week or two off for multiple pitchers throughout the season. I'm just not expecting that one of their top three will be out for more than half the year. I'd be surprised if more than one of the three got over 200 IP' date=' but that STILL leaves room for the three to be considerably better than last year.[/quote']

 

Statistically that is not likely. Several years ago Jeff Zimmerman ran a regression analysis of the probabilities of pitcher injuries. What he noted statistically speaking that once a pitcher went on the DL there was an increased probability that he would go on the DL again. It make sense logically speaking. Given both Beckett and Buccholtz's history the data suggests that they are more likely to go on the DL this year than in years past or for a pitcher who has never gone on the DL.

[example1]

Who takes the 5th spot?

 

Here's my order of preference, assuming decent Spring Training, and just off the top of my head:

 

Doubront

Aceves

Wilson

Miller

Padilla

Tazawa

Cook

Silva

 

Aceves might be the better pitcher, but like you I like him better in the pen as the swing man.

 

This is a franchise that had Jullian Tavarez eating up substantial innings out of the 5 spot a few seasons ago. I see no reason that a young SP like Doubront can't pitch well enough to win 50% of the games with that offense and defense behind him.

 

Of course, I would like it much more if they added a hands-down 5th starter, then everything would fall into place. I just don't think that makes the difference between a 100 win team and a 88 win team.

[example1]

Statistically that is not likely. Several years ago Jeff Zimmerman ran a regression analysis of the probabilities of pitcher injuries. What he noted statistically speaking that once a pitcher went on the DL there was an increased probability that he would go on the DL again. It make sense logically speaking. Given both Beckett and Buccholtz's history the data suggests that they are more likely to go on the DL this year than in years past or for a pitcher who has never gone on the DL.

 

Going on the DL and missing half the season are not part of the same regression analysis. Categorically they are two different definitions.

 

Buchholz (no 't') could go on the 15 day DL FOUR TIMES and still have more IP next season than he did in 2011. In other words, your analysis could be spot on, and they could still combine for more IP without too much difficulty.

[example1]

Pick fights? No' date=' not at all. I was just curious as to why you posted that disclaimer along with your prediction. No biggie.[/quote']

 

It's because I've been around here long enough to know that when people don't like the honest truth (that pontificating in January about events that will ultimately wrap-up in September is nothing more than hot air), it is best to just preempt the desperate attempts to get argument going by saying "the results will dicate who is right and who is wrong". It helps preserve my right to have an opinion to an honest question.

[Muggah]

It's because I've been around here long enough to know that when people don't like the honest truth (that pontificating in January about events that will ultimately wrap-up in September is nothing more than hot air)' date=' it is best to just preempt the desperate attempts to get argument going by saying "the results will dicate who is right and who is wrong". It helps preserve my right to have an opinion to an honest question.[/quote']

 

 

It's not 'hot air' if you're right about things most of the time.

[iortiz]

I thought about coming in July iortiz but seeing the Red Sox at Wrigley Field was too much of a temptation to pass up. I still regret not going there in 2006 when the Sox last played there. And please' date=' stop telling everyone I'm 77. Bad enough I am most likely the oldest guy on the board but I am only 71. Please don't rush up the count. Speaking of nicknames I came up with one for one of our new toilet-type pitchers. How does Vincente "White Coat" Padilla sound?[/quote']

 

ooohhhh my apologies Fred I thought that you were 77. My point about the age was because I believe that people of your age deserve respect.

[example1]

It's not 'hot air' if you're right about things most of the time.

 

You haven't been around long enough to be right about things ANY of the time. The only way to be shown to be right is to see how the season plays out... hence "we will see".

 

Also, it really IS hot air, whether it is you, me, a700, Peter Gammons, or Bill James. The best anyone can do is an educated guess. I'm still waiting for the Talksox poster who is right most of the time. The closest I have seen is ORS and he's wrong a lot too. After years of posting (and hoping it would be me) I have realized it isn't, and it isn't a700 and it isn't anyone else who is here. All we do is opine, sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong, and some are wrong more often than others. That's all.

[Elktonnick]

Going on the DL and missing half the season are not part of the same regression analysis. Categorically they are two different definitions.

 

Buchholz (no 't') could go on the 15 day DL FOUR TIMES and still have more IP next season than he did in 2011.

 

The analysis suggests that he is more likely to be injured. While the study didn't go into the kind of detail you suggest it does make the general point that therre is truth to individuals being injury prone. What that suggests is that Both Beckett and Buccholtz fall into that category. If you want to beieve something that's good. Everyone should have faith But there is increased probability that either Beckett or Buccholtz or both will be out.

[example1]

The analysis suggests that he is more likely to be injured. While the study didn't go into the kind of detail you suggest it does make the general point that therre is truth to individuals being injury prone. What that suggests is that Both Beckett and Buccholtz fall into that category. If you want to beieve something that's good. Everyone should have faith But there is increased probability that either Beckett or Buccholtz or both will be out.

 

If you read my other posts, you will see I don't disagree with that.

 

What you are NOT arguing is that they are likely to be out for LONGER than in previous years. You either are injured or you are not injured.

 

Historically, Beckett has had seasons where he missed more time than he did in 2011. Your argument would dicate that he should have progressively missed more time each season until he wasn't starting at all. That's not what happened.

 

I work in health insurance, essentially risk management. I know the type of analysis you are referring to. First of all, in order to be valid it needs to have a really high N (which I suspect it does). However, with a really high N the predictive power for any particular individual is likely going to drop. In other words, there can be a trend ("it appears 51% of pitchers who have a DL stint in season 1 have at least one DL stint in season 2") but it doesn't apply to all and it doesn't reflect anything about the actual time on the DL or the number of innings pitched. It just doesn't.

 

Like I said before, Buchholz could have FOUR separate injuries next year, which would back up your point and make him 'statistically' in the category you refer to. He could have a hangnail, he could sprain his ankle, he could have tightness in his quad, and he could strain his pinkey toe. If he missed two weeks with each of those injuries (thus fitting into your "more injuries" category) he could STILL pitch more innings than last year. If he pitches more innings than last year then there is a very good chance that combined they hit more than 467 IP, which is the basis of my discussion.

[User Name]

If you read my other posts, you will see I don't disagree with that.

 

What you are NOT arguing is that they are likely to be out for LONGER than in previous years. You either are injured or you are not injured.

 

Historically, Beckett has had seasons where he missed more time than he did in 2011. Your argument would dicate that he should have progressively missed more time each season until he wasn't starting at all. That's not what happened.

 

I work in health insurance, essentially risk management. I know the type of analysis you are referring to. First of all, in order to be valid it needs to have a really high N (which I suspect it does). However, with a really high N the predictive power for any particular individual is likely going to drop. In other words, there can be a trend ("it appears 51% of pitchers who have a DL stint in season 1 have at least one DL stint in season 2") but it doesn't apply to all and it doesn't reflect anything about the actual time on the DL or the number of innings pitched. It just doesn't.

 

Like I said before, Buchholz could have FOUR separate injuries next year, which would back up your point and make him 'statistically' in the category you refer to. He could have a hangnail, he could sprain his ankle, he could have tightness in his quad, and he could strain his pinkey toe. If he missed two weeks with each of those injuries (thus fitting into your "more injuries" category) he could STILL pitch more innings than last year. If he pitches more innings than last year then there is a very good chance that combined they hit more than 467 IP, which is the basis of my discussion.

 

Great post.

[a700hitter]

Here's my order of preference, assuming decent Spring Training, and just off the top of my head:

 

Doubront

Aceves

Wilson

Miller

Padilla

Tazawa

Cook

Silva

 

Aceves might be the better pitcher, but like you I like him better in the pen as the swing man.

 

This is a franchise that had Jullian Tavarez eating up substantial innings out of the 5 spot a few seasons ago. I see no reason that a young SP like Doubront can't pitch well enough to win 50% of the games with that offense and defense behind him.

 

Of course, I would like it much more if they added a hands-down 5th starter, then everything would fall into place. I just don't think that makes the difference between a 100 win team and a 88 win team.

If Aceves goes into the rotation, I think that would weaken the pen more than it would strengthen the rotation. Doubront is a long shot, but the best shot on the list. Other than Padilla, the rest of that list has virtually no chance of contributing anything of significance in my opinion. You mention Julian Tavares as an example, but by the time Taveras was pressed into duty in 2007, he had spent 14 seasons in the majors and he had been a starting pitcher for 3 seasons for some crummy teams and he did show some ability to eat innings and win as many games as he lost. He spent most of his career as a reliever and was good enough to stay in the majors for 17 seasons and stay healthy. Silva and Maine are bums. Cook is injured beyond repair. He has nothing left. Miller is a bust. Padilla is the only shot. He's the only one of the sorry bunch that might do something, but he hasn't been healthy in 3 years.

 

You are still not saying how the much the decrease in the quality of our bullpen (resulting from moving Bard) will offset the improvement Bard brings to the rotation. I don't think Melancon will be close to the weapon in the 8th inning that Bard had become. It really comes down to the delta between the improvement to the rotation brought by Bard and the decline experienced by the bullpen by losing Bard. I just don't see that as being significant.

 

Finally, I think the addition of a starter easily could be the difference between a 95-96 win team and a 90-91 win team that misses the playoffs.

[jacksonianmarch]

Melancon is not Bard. Anyone thinking he is Bard will be sadly mistaken. He's a kid with a good fastball and a plus curve. I am intrigued to see how he is going to fare when the lights are brightest. He seemed to shy away in NY, granted, he was a rookie. We'll see how he feels when he has to face Cano with a 1 run lead in the 8th

[a700hitter]

You haven't been around long enough to be right about things ANY of the time. The only way to be shown to be right is to see how the season plays out... hence "we will see".

 

Also, it really IS hot air, whether it is you, me, a700, Peter Gammons, or Bill James. The best anyone can do is an educated guess. I'm still waiting for the Talksox poster who is right most of the time. The closest I have seen is ORS and he's wrong a lot too. After years of posting (and hoping it would be me) I have realized it isn't, and it isn't a700 and it isn't anyone else who is here. All we do is opine, sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong, and some are wrong more often than others. That's all.

The last audit of TalkSox revealed that I have been right 98.7 percent of the time. The last time I was wrong was in 2006 about Pedroia, but few people thought he'd win an MVP, so I ha some company on that one.

 

FYI: I also predicted the Super Bowl score in the head the last time we ran that contest.

[jacksonianmarch]

a700, a 90-91 team will be the 5th playoff team this yr. You just need to win 90 and you're in

[a700hitter]

Melancon is not Bard. Anyone thinking he is Bard will be sadly mistaken. He's a kid with a good fastball and a plus curve. I am intrigued to see how he is going to fare when the lights are brightest. He seemed to shy away in NY' date=' granted, he was a rookie. We'll see how he feels when he has to face Cano with a 1 run lead in the 8th[/quote']People are being very selective in their analysis. Yes, Bard should be an improvement over last years 4th/5th starters, but they completely ignore the decline that the pen will experience by removing him from the pen.

[a700hitter]

a700' date=' a 90-91 team will be the 5th playoff team this yr. You just need to win 90 and you're in[/quote']Under the new alignment, you might be right.

[Elktonnick]

If you read my other posts, you will see I don't disagree with that.

 

What you are NOT arguing is that they are likely to be out for LONGER than in previous years. You either are injured or you are not injured.

 

Historically, Beckett has had seasons where he missed more time than he did in 2011. Your argument would dicate that he should have progressively missed more time each season until he wasn't starting at all. That's not what happened.

 

I work in health insurance, essentially risk management. I know the type of analysis you are referring to. First of all, in order to be valid it needs to have a really high N (which I suspect it does). However, with a really high N the predictive power for any particular individual is likely going to drop. In other words, there can be a trend ("it appears 51% of pitchers who have a DL stint in season 1 have at least one DL stint in season 2") but it doesn't apply to all and it doesn't reflect anything about the actual time on the DL or the number of innings pitched. It just doesn't.

 

Like I said before, Buchholz could have FOUR separate injuries next year, which would back up your point and make him 'statistically' in the category you refer to. He could have a hangnail, he could sprain his ankle, he could have tightness in his quad, and he could strain his pinkey toe. If he missed two weeks with each of those injuries (thus fitting into your "more injuries" category) he could STILL pitch more innings than last year. If he pitches more innings than last year then there is a very good chance that combined they hit more than 467 IP, which is the basis of my discussion.

 

Well we agree. The only point of contention is that the Red Sox have no depth to make up for one or more of their starters going down. !5 day DL can be at least three starts. Statistically the club whose openning day rotation makes the most starts has the greater probability of making the playoffs. The Red Sox have no margin for error. While three starts may not be much but there will be other times that pitchers will miss starts without going on the DL. By the way hangnails and blisters are serious injuries to pitchers and can cause them to miss a lot of innings. Toe injuries likewise can cause a pitcher serious discomfort especially if it is on his pushoff foot. Any of these can alter delivery potentially leading to more serious arm injury or simple ineffectiveness.

[iortiz]

If Aceves goes into the rotation, I think that would weaken the pen more than it would strengthen the rotation. Doubront is a long shot, but the best shot on the list. Other than Padilla, the rest of that list has virtually no chance of contributing anything of significance in my opinion. You mention Julian Tavares as an example, but by the time Taveras was pressed into duty in 2007, he had spent 14 seasons in the majors and he had been a starting pitcher for 3 seasons for some crummy teams and he did show some ability to eat innings and win as many games as he lost. He spent most of his career as a reliever and was good enough to stay in the majors for 17 seasons and stay healthy. Silva and Maine are bums. Cook is injured beyond repair. He has nothing left. Miller is a bust. Padilla is the only shot. He's the only one of the sorry bunch that might do something, but he hasn't been healthy in 3 years.

 

You are still not saying how the much the decrease in the quality of our bullpen (resulting from moving Bard) will offset the improvement Bard brings to the rotation. I don't think Melancon will be close to the weapon in the 8th inning that Bard had become. It really comes down to the delta between the improvement to the rotation brought by Bard and the decline experienced by the bullpen by losing Bard. I just don't see that as being significant.

 

Finally, I think the addition of a starter easily could be the difference between a 95-96 win team and a 90-91 win team that misses the playoffs.

 

This is what I'm fu#%^] talking about. Land the goddamn pitcher. :thumbsup:

[Elktonnick]

People are being very selective in their analysis. Yes' date=' Bard should be an improvement over last years 4th/5th starters, but they completely ignore the decline that the pen will experience by removing him from the pen.[/quote']

 

Bard should be an improvement if he is successful as a starter. However, if he is successful as a starter they won't allow him to put up the innings that an othewrwise established starter would pitch. My guess is they won't let him go much beyond 150 innings in 2012.

[mvp 78]

The last audit of TalkSox revealed that I have been right 98.7 percent of the time. The last time I was wrong was in 2006 about Pedroia, but few people thought he'd win an MVP, so I ha some company on that one.

 

FYI: I also predicted the Super Bowl score in the head the last time we ran that contest.

 

SFF and I will run the next audit. My guess is that there will be some internal controls comments.

[User Name]

SFF and I will run the next audit. My guess is that there will be some internal controls comments.

 

[Station 13]

So Wheeler was let go over 900K. f***.

[seabeachfred]

Benny Boy needs to go to Oswalt's home and walk in there with a $10 million contract and tell him he has until the end of the meeting to sign. If he doesn't sign' date=' the Sox need to tell him that the offer is off the table and they will go in a different direction and they will announce to the press that they have no interest in Oswalt. That will cause his market and leverage to shrink dramatically. An approach like this is the only chance the Sox have to land him IMO. Ben, get the hell off your couch, buy a plane ticket and go see Oswalt. One of us will drive you to and from the airport. You are not going to make this deal talking on the phone. Get going and get it done.[/quote']

 

Do you really think Benny Boy has the balls to do such a thing? I really believe this guy is risk adverse, to quote my pal Elktonnick. It's a good idea, though. At least we'd learn two things. One if the front office will finally put their money where their mouth is, and, two, whether Oswalt is really adamant about not pitching either in the AL East and the AL in general.