Red Sox 2012 fearless prediction thread

[SoxSport]

In spite of the injuries and lack of hitting production from some of the Sox high priced regulars, their main problem continues to be pitching. They are among the bottom 5 teams in the AL in pitching, and among the top four teams in hitting. They have had a problem lately with their starters getting out of the first or second inning without getting bombed. Plus, as 700hitter points out, their bullpen has blown 11 saves already, vs 16 the whole of last season--including the September collapse.

 

Oddly enough, the Phillies have the same situation. The media incorrectedly attributes the Phillies poor start to a lack of hitting: the Phillies are among the top 5 teams in hitting in the NL, but among the bottom 5 teams in pitching. It's the pitching that's killing them--mainly due to Halladay going down and Lee's poor start.

 

The main difference right now between the Red Sox and the Yankees is pitching. The Yankees are giving up about .5 runs per game less than the Red Sox , while the Red Sox' team BA is about 7 points higher than the Yankees.

 

It's about the pitching.

[Bellhorn04]

Some are talking about regression?, ... "not that good"? hahaha he is 3.18 ERA (2.94, last year) with 90% SV (91% last year) whata hell are we talking about?, whata regression, Sounds like Lackey's one... hahahaha C'mon, he's been very good in Philly, and is only half season played, regardless his durability is out of question. It's funny how people support s***** players and pound elite players like him. His contract worth each penny, thus far. I simply do not see a decline or "regress" in coming years.

 

Remember, he is paid to save games, nothing more, nothing less, and he has 90%, for God's sake... Do not be surprised if someone come with other s***** stats in order to confuse/complicate his case.

 

Yes, we would be at very least 5 games better in the W column if he were here.

 

5 games is a crazy high number...we're only a little more than halfway through the year. If you want to add 5 games for Paps, how many would you add for our starting pitching, which everyone agrees is the biggest problem? 10 games? Then we'd have the best record in baseball, right?

 

Look, Paps was here last year and the year before when we missed the playoffs, and our starting pitching was better. So how does the math work here? This is just pulling numbers out of the air with nothing to back them up.

[SoxSport]

Yup' date=' charge that to Benny boy, oh sorry, I meant the FO. [/quote']

 

 

Methinks the Red Sox FO has too much power. The manager should have been in on these field decisions. That's Lucchino's fault. The tradeoff for picking the manager himself, and overruling the FO. It has cost the Red Sox dearly this year--so far.

[iortiz]

5 games is a crazy high number...we're only a little more than halfway through the year. If you want to add 5 games for Paps' date=' how many would you add for our starting pitching, which everyone agrees is the biggest problem? 10 games? [b']Then we'd have the best record in baseball, right?[/b]

 

Look, Paps was here last year and the year before when we missed the playoffs, and our starting pitching was better. So how does the math work here? This is just pulling numbers out of the air with nothing to back them up.

 

Probably...

 

Remember, our offense has been very good, again. Problem is that our pitching is s***ing the bed... again.

 

As I said, this team is tremendous unbalanced.

[iortiz]

In spite of the injuries and lack of hitting production from some of the Sox high priced regulars, their main problem continues to be pitching. They are among the bottom 5 teams in the AL in pitching, and among the top four teams in hitting. They have had a problem lately with their starters getting out of the first or second inning without getting bombed. Plus, as 700hitter points out, their bullpen has blown 11 saves already, vs 16 the whole of last season--including the September collapse.

 

Oddly enough, the Phillies have the same situation. The media incorrectedly attributes the Phillies poor start to a lack of hitting: the Phillies are among the top 5 teams in hitting in the NL, but among the bottom 5 teams in pitching. It's the pitching that's killing them--mainly due to Halladay going down and Lee's poor start.

 

The main difference right now between the Red Sox and the Yankees is pitching. The Yankees are giving up about .5 runs per game less than the Red Sox , while the Red Sox' team BA is about 7 points higher than the Yankees.

 

It's about the pitching.

 

This.

 

At least we would be very close, 1 or 2 games back, For example, I remember those Det and NY games where we blew in big or even yesterday's game. Plenty of examples this season. Take 4-6 games and our position would be very different.

[mvp 78]

Man, if we only got Roy Oswalt like you guys wanted.

[a700hitter]

5 games is a crazy high number...we're only a little more than halfway through the year. If you want to add 5 games for Paps, how many would you add for our starting pitching, which everyone agrees is the biggest problem? 10 games? Then we'd have the best record in baseball, right?

 

Look, Paps was here last year and the year before when we missed the playoffs, and our starting pitching was better. So how does the math work here? This is just pulling numbers out of the air with nothing to back them up.

I am not at all saying that the bullpen is a bigger problem than the starting pitching. I have thought the starting pitching would be a problem from Spring Training, when people were convincing themselves that 2 rookies in the rotation would not be a problem, because Buchholz would pitch the entire season, Lester would bounce back from an off season and we have Beckett too. Some people even thought that Dice K was a good depth option. So, I am clearly not pointing at the bullpen more than the starters.

 

The reason for my posts about the late inning bullpen is to counter the commonly accepted belief that our bullpen is doing just fine, better than expected and some people think it has been great. They come to this conclusion on the basis of the ERA. The bullpen is not great. You pay the pen to handle the late innings, and it has done a lousy job in innings 7 thru 9-- one of the worst in the league. Last year it was the best. The commonly accepted belief is just flat out wrong. You are all hung up on this 5 game thing. Who knows how many games better off we would be if we still had Aceves, Bard and Papelbon in our pen. We could argue about it all day. Our late inning bullpen in 2009-2011 covered for many deficiencies in our starting staff those years. We don't know precisely how much of our record is attributable to the starters as compared to the relievers. It is clear that neither has done their job well at all. A Papelbon in our pen would have helped without question-- maybe not 5 games over the first half, but maybe so. Over the course of the season, at this rate, it will easily be a 5 game difference.

[a700hitter]

Man' date=' if we only got Roy Oswalt like you guys wanted.[/quote']He's had 4 starts so far-- 2 very good and 2 clunkers. I think the jury is still out on Roy Oswalt.

[ellsburyforMVP]

Don't waste your time. Logic goes out the window when people have an emotional attachment to a player. Papelbon simply hasn't been that good this year. The excuse-making by Ellsbury and (surprisingly) a700 is quite funny considering they're part of the "no excuses" crowd. Papelbon hasn't been that good' date=' period.[/quote']

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/id/6373/jonathan-papelbon

 

Papelbon has allowed 12 earned runs...7 of those came in 3 outings( the phillies won 1 of those gms ) and 2 of those he came into a tied game....3 other gms that he gave up 1 run, the phillies won the game and the last game ( 2nd outing of the season )that he gave a run up in he came into the game " to get some work" As the phillies were losing and he gave up a run

 

Bottom line is, papelbon is still one of the best closers in MLB when he is in a save situation, and to think that he wouldn't have helped us win a few more of our gms is absurd?...

[a700hitter]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/id/6373/jonathan-papelbon

 

Papelbon has allowed 12 earned runs...7 of those came in 3 outings( the phillies won 1 of those gms ) and 2 of those he came into a tied game....3 other gms that he gave up 1 run, the phillies won the game and the last game ( 2nd outing of the season )that he gave a run up in he came into the game " to get some work" As the phillies were losing and he gave up a run

 

Bottom line is, papelbon is still one of the best closers in MLB when he is in a save situation, and to think that he wouldn't have helped us win a few more of our gms is absurd?...

The Papelbon negativity from some people always perplexes me. He was nothing but excellent for us. He will undoubtedly be inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame, and although it is very tough for a closer, he does have a shot at Cooperstown. People took a dislike to him because he wants to maximize his earning potential. At least he is honest about it. All the rest feel the same way.

[ellsburyforMVP]

The Papelbon negativity from some people always perplexes me. He was nothing but excellent for us. He will undoubtedly be inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame' date=' and although it is very tough for a closer, he does have a shot at Cooperstown. People took a dislike to him because he wants to maximize his earning potential. At least he is honest about it. All the rest feel the same way.[/quote']

 

People always want to look at numbers ( era/whip/etc ) ...those can be very misleading for a closer..2006 pap was amazing ( numbers wise ) with a .92 era .78 whip, but he had 6 blown svs ( 2nd most in his career )

 

This yr he is 19/21 in sv opportunities but he has a 3.18/1.09 era/whip

 

And what about "crunch time"? 27 ip in the postseason with a 1.00 era ( all 3 runs allowed in 2009 ) with a .81 whip?

 

Somehow pap has a blown sv in the 2008 postseason? Anyone remember this? Has 10.1 ip 3 hits 2bb and no runs allowed?

[a700hitter]

People always want to look at numbers ( era/whip/etc ) ...those can be very misleading for a closer..2006 pap was amazing ( numbers wise ) with a .92 era .78 whip, but he had 6 blown svs ( 2nd most in his career )

 

This yr he is 19/21 in sv opportunities but he has a 3.18/1.09 era/whip

 

And what about "crunch time"? 27 ip in the postseason with a 1.00 era ( all 3 runs allowed in 2009 ) with a .81 whip?

 

Somehow pap has a blown sv in the 2008 postseason? Anyone remember this? Has 10.1 ip 3 hits 2bb and no runs allowed?

What are people feeling in their gut when the Sox get to the late innings with a lead this year? They forget that they didn't have that kind of late-inning heartburn for the last 3 years. The late inning pen wasn't perfect, but it was a night and day difference from now.

[Bellhorn04]

Somehow pap has a blown sv in the 2008 postseason? Anyone remember this? Has 10.1 ip 3 hits 2bb and no runs allowed?

 

Yes, because you can be charged with a blown save if you let inherited runners score.

 

The funniest blown save in history was Rivera's in ALCS Game 5. He came in with runners and first and third and no outs, and because he allowed the game-tying sac fly it was a blown save.

[a700hitter]

Yes, because you can be charged with a blown save if you let inherited runners score.

 

The funniest blown save in history was Rivera's in ALCS Game 5. He came in with runners and first and third and no outs, and because he allowed the game-tying sac fly it was a blown save.

It's balanced out with all the 3 run 1 inning saves.

[Bellhorn04]

Don't get me wrong, I liked Papelbon a lot and I wish we had retained him.

[a700hitter]

Don't get me wrong' date=' I liked Papelbon a lot and I wish we had retained him.[/quote']That makes two of us, and I am sure that both of us wanted to retain him because he would make us a better team.

[Bellhorn04]

That makes two of us' date=' and I am sure that both of us wanted to retain him because he would make us a better team.[/quote']

 

Yep. They tried to save a big chunk of money at the position. And If Bailey was putting up Paps-esque numbers right now the move would look good. Like many things this year it didn't work the way they hoped.

[a700hitter]

Yep. They tried to save a big chunk of money at the position. And If Bailey was putting up Paps-esque numbers right now the move would look good. Like many things this year it didn't work the way they hoped.

I was leaving the financial aspects out of it. I was just looking for reasons why we suck. People think the pen has been good it has not. Bailey doesn't even enter into the discussion because he hasn't pitched and I was not debating whether they should have kept Papelbon. I was just discussing the effect of losing him.

[User Name]

People always want to look at numbers ( era/whip/etc ) ...those can be very misleading for a closer..2006 pap was amazing ( numbers wise ) with a .92 era .78 whip, but he had 6 blown svs ( 2nd most in his career )

 

This yr he is 19/21 in sv opportunities but he has a 3.18/1.09 era/whip

 

And what about "crunch time"? 27 ip in the postseason with a 1.00 era ( all 3 runs allowed in 2009 ) with a .81 whip?

 

Somehow pap has a blown sv in the 2008 postseason? Anyone remember this? Has 10.1 ip 3 hits 2bb and no runs allowed?

 

The problem is that he's not "2006 Pap" anymore. ERA may be misleading, but WHIP, HR/9 and H/9 aren't, and he's not doing very good in any of those departments.

 

The "Papelbon negativity" is just realism. He was trending downward, had a big contract year (as players tend to do) and now looks like he's trending downwards again. I liked Paps while he was here, and i advocated re-signing him. But at that time and that money? No way.

 

What should be perplexing is how some people here can completely s*** all over a player for a number of reasons then give another player a pass when he has similar problems just because he or she "likes" the player.

[2004 ALCS]

Leaving the financial aspect out of a contract is like leaving the vodka out of a vodka on the rocks, it's half the equation. Papelbon's on pace to be worth than less than half of the salary he's making this year.

[ellsburyforMVP]

Leaving the financial aspect out of a contract is like leaving the vodka out of a vodka on the rocks' date=' it's half the equation. Papelbon's on pace to be worth than less than half of the salary he's making this year.[/quote']

 

Really? So if he ends up 38/42 (hes 19/21 now ) in sv opportunities he won't be worth the money?

 

He can only save as many gms as he given the opportunities .... Your saying that the extra 4 svs he "could " of potentially saved in this scenario is worth half his contract?

[ellsburyforMVP]

The problem is that he's not "2006 Pap" anymore. ERA may be misleading, but WHIP, HR/9 and H/9 aren't, and he's not doing very good in any of those departments.

 

The "Papelbon negativity" is just realism. He was trending downward, had a big contract year (as players tend to do) and now looks like he's trending downwards again. I liked Paps while he was here, and i advocated re-signing him. But at that time and that money? No way.

 

What should be perplexing is how some people here can completely s*** all over a player for a number of reasons then give another player a pass when he has similar problems just because he or she "likes" the player.

 

I don't think you see where I was going there..... Pap had a great statistical season in all aspects in 2006, but he ended up with the 2nd highest amount of blown svs in a season.... But this year his numbers aren't the greatest but he's only blown 2 svs?

He's been lights out for the majority of this season, and has honestly had 3 bad outings? I think the only "realism" here is that your a hater? Because barring injury, papelbon will end up top 5 in career svs

[a700hitter]

Leaving the financial aspect out of a contract is like leaving the vodka out of a vodka on the rocks' date=' it's half the equation. Papelbon's on pace to be worth than less than half of the salary he's making this year.[/quote']Yes, the first part of that is true. Is there a discussion of his contract going on somewhere in the forum?

[2004 ALCS]

Really? So if he ends up 38/42 (hes 19/21 now ) in sv opportunities he won't be worth the money?

 

He can only save as many gms as he given the opportunities .... Your saying that the extra 4 svs he "could " of potentially saved in this scenario is worth half his contract?

 

According to WAR, he's been worth 0.6 WAR and $2.8 WAR value this year. Judging a closer by saves is even less valuable than judging a starter by wins. By contrast, Scott Podsednick has been worth 0.7 WAR and $2.9 WAR value this year and he's cost less than 1/16th as much as Papelbon.

 

Not to mention, Papelbon is on the wrong side of 30 and investing in relievers of any age for more than two years has historically been a piss poor investment.

[a700hitter]

According to WAR, he's been worth 0.6 WAR and $2.8 WAR value this year. Judging a closer by saves is even less valuable than judging a starter by wins. By contrast, Scott Podsednick has been worth 0.7 WAR and $2.9 WAR value this year and he's cost less than 1/16th as much as Papelbon.

 

Not to mention, Papelbon is on the wrong side of 30 and investing in relievers of any age for more than two years has historically been a piss poor investment.

Who cares. No one is discussing his contract.

[ellsburyforMVP]

According to WAR, he's been worth 0.6 WAR and $2.8 WAR value this year. Judging a closer by saves is even less valuable than judging a starter by wins. By contrast, Scott Podsednick has been worth 0.7 WAR and $2.9 WAR value this year and he's cost less than 1/16th as much as Papelbon.

 

Not to mention, Papelbon is on the wrong side of 30 and investing in relievers of any age for more than two years has historically been a piss poor investment.

 

I believe the topic at the time was " would papelbon of won us a few more gms over the current bullpen" ?

[2004 ALCS]

Yes' date=' the first part of that is true. Is there a discussion of his contract going on somewhere in the forum?[/quote']

 

I was simply responding to you claiming that you were trying to leave the financial aspects out of the reality of retaining Papelbon.

 

That makes two of us' date=' and I am sure that both of us wanted to retain him because he would make us a better team.[/quote']

 

I was leaving the financial aspects out of it.

 

Perhaps I'm giving you too much credit though and you think the Red Sox could have magically retained Papelbon for less than 4 years/$50 million?

[example1]

What are people feeling in their gut when the Sox get to the late innings with a lead this year? They forget that they didn't have that kind of late-inning heartburn for the last 3 years. The late inning pen wasn't perfect' date=' but it was a night and day difference from now.[/quote']

 

I suspect you are one of the few people who wasn't worried about Papelbon. What I remember of the guy was someone who let opposing runners sprint around the bases while he had to work himself out of trouble regularly. I remember him being the guy on the mound during multiple losses in September last year. He definitely made me nervous.

[ellsburyforMVP]

I suspect you are one of the few people who wasn't worried about Papelbon. What I remember of the guy was someone who let opposing runners sprint around the bases while he had to work himself out of trouble regularly. I remember him being the guy on the mound during multiple losses in September last year. He definitely made me nervous.

 

I know your not putting last September on pap's shoulders??

[a700hitter]

I was simply responding to you claiming that you were trying to leave the financial aspects out of the reality of retaining Papelbon.

Well, your response was misplaced, because i wasn't arguing about retaining papelbon. I did want to retain him, but they didn't. That argument is over and done. I was just noting that his leaving has had a negative effect on the teams record.

 

Perhaps I'm giving you too much credit though and you think the Red Sox could have magically retained Papelbon for less than 4 years/$50 million?

You have made only a few posts. Don't start off being a punk.