Red Sox 2012 Season Overview

[a700hitter]

Heh. The Giants do seem to have the Pats' number, but geez...

 

- SB 42: the most miraculous catch of all time by Tyree

- regular season, 2011: an amazing catch by Ballard on the game-winning drive

- SB 46: an incredible play by Manningham/Eli on the last drive, and Gronk is *thisclose* to catching the Hail Mary (watch the replay...dude on a broken ankle came within a half-yard of catching that ball)

 

So yes, they have the Pats' number, but man, three plays is all we're talking about here.

 

Still, credit to the Giants - and I mean that sincerely. Very tough team.

^ Incredible whining. Games turn on a few plays. That's what usually separates the Champion from the also rans. What was the excuse for losing to the Giants in the regular season?

[a700hitter]

Without any rational for believing it will get any better anytime soon as the guys in management and baseball operations are just clueless....complete utter idiots when it comes to the actual game of baseball.

I really thought that they would make some bold player moves after the collapse. It was my belief that they needed to turn things around in a big way to snap the fans and the clubhouse out of the shell shocked state they were in at the end of 2011. They needed to play well out of the gate to keep the press from dredging up last season. I was very surprised that they did not. After 2006, they went on a shopping spree, and turned things around. After 2003, they added Schill and Foulkes. Yet this past off season they did nothing. I guess it was because of the reckless disregard for payroll that Theo had. People said that the collapse couldn't happen again and that we added by subtracting Wakefield and Lackey. I warned that it could happen again. It happened two years in a row to the Mets (2007 and 2008), because they made no changes. I would not have been surprised if the 2012 Sox spiraled in September again. In a way, I prefer this horrible season to that gut-wrenching ending. I had a sickening headache every day in September starting a 5 O'Clock that got worse as the night went on. They didn't make any changes and the results have been as bad as they could be. Who could envision fighting for last place?

 

They were in denial about what had to be done after 2011, and I firmly believe that this 2012 on the heels of the collapse has damaged their franchise. They will see revenue drop next season. Anyone buying or selling tickets on Stub hub can tell you that demand for their tickets has evaporated. They will be hit in the pocket books next season unless they make some bold personnel moves to generate enough excitement to get people to pay inflated prices in this bad economy. If they look at their ticket sales for this season and expect it to continue, they are making a serious mistake. Demand dried up after April. By that point they had sold most of the tickets, especially the high priced tickets. If they remain clueless like they did last season, they will really feel the financial hit.

[Orange Juiced]

^ Incredible whining. Games turn on a few plays. That's what usually separates the Champion from the also rans. What was the excuse for losing to the Giants in the regular season?

 

Yes, it definitely is whining, absolutely. In every close game you can point to a few key plays. But be honest....the Tyree thing was absurd...preposterous...once-in-a-lifetime (not for the player, but for us fans...we'll never see anything like that again in our lives) event.

 

And I already said the key play in the regular season game was the Ballard catch in-between two Pats' defenders, an over-the-shoulder play down the seam. As he made the catch I think it was Aikman who said, "That was the greatest catch of his life." Yep....against the Pats....figures.

 

If the teams were reversed, given the golden horseshoe the Giants had, the Giants would have somehow come up with that hail mary at the end of this past SB.

 

(hey, isn't it nice to talk about something else besides the dreadful Red Sox?)

[italstallianion]

Yes, it definitely is whining, absolutely. In every close game you can point to a few key plays. But be honest....the Tyree thing was absurd...preposterous...once-in-a-lifetime (not for the player, but for us fans...we'll never see anything like that again in our lives) event.

 

And I already said the key play in the regular season game was the Ballard catch in-between two Pats' defenders, an over-the-shoulder play down the seam. As he made the catch I think it was Aikman who said, "That was the greatest catch of his life." Yep....against the Pats....figures.

 

If the teams were reversed, given the golden horseshoe the Giants had, the Giants would have somehow come up with that hail mary at the end of this past SB.

 

(hey, isn't it nice to talk about something else besides the dreadful Red Sox?)

 

 

A700, I think part of that Orange's point, in essence, is that if the games come down to unpredictable and absurdly lucky plays (ie David Tyree for sure) then I would bet on the Patriots in most of those scenarios. It's that those plays went the Giants way (among other reasons) why the Giants won all of those scenarios. I would still bet against David Tyree's catch happening just on pure percentages alone.

 

It's like not letting Lebron get any dunks off of you and instead he beats you by making 3 pointers. At some point you have to tip your cap and take that risk. In this case, if the umpires don't blow the play dead on Eli and David Tyree of all people makes that circus catch, I think you can tip your hat to the Gods and acknowledge the fact that Jesus Christ himself didn't want the Pats to win that game.

[Orange Juiced]

A700, I think part of that Orange's point, in essence, is that if the games come down to unpredictable and absurdly lucky plays (ie David Tyree for sure) then I would bet on the Patriots in most of those scenarios. It's that those plays went the Giants way (among other reasons) why the Giants won all of those scenarios. I would still bet against David Tyree's catch happening just on pure percentages alone.

 

It's like not letting Lebron get any dunks off of you and instead he beats you by making 3 pointers. At some point you have to tip your cap and take that risk. In this case, if the umpires don't blow the play dead on Eli and David Tyree of all people makes that circus catch, I think you can tip your hat to the Gods and acknowledge the fact that Jesus Christ himself didn't want the Pats to win that game.

 

Pretty much. But the Giants were the definition of lucky (and good...I'm not forgetting that). Consider this:

 

During the Giants' playoff run, there were 10 fumbles (not counting the one nullified by the Pats' penalty). 3 Giant fumbles and 7 opponent fumbles. Creating fumbles is a skill; recovering them, as statisticians will tell you, is essentially a 50/50 proposition. You can be in perfect position to recover it but, because of the shape of the ball, it could bounce totally away from you. So getting a fumble is mostly luck. Anyway, of these 10 fumbles, the Giants recovered *8* of them. All of the fumbles in the Super Bowl were recovered by the Giants. Any one of them goes the other way and it's almost certainly the ballgame.

 

In the two Super Bowls between the two teams, there were 5 fumbles (4 by the Giants, 1 by the Patriots), and *ALL FIVE* were recovered by the Giants.

 

In the last 3 games between the two teams, there have been 9 fumbles (6 by NY, 3 by NE), and *8* of the 9 were recovered by the Giants. Again, forcing fumbles is a skill (and NE forced more Giant fumbles than NY forced Patriot fumbles). Recovering them is mostly luck, and those numbers I just cited are so far out of whack with what is statistically normal it boggles the mind.

 

Let's look more closely at the 2011 season. First, regular season #'s:

 

Giants

- NY fumbles: 21 (1.3 per game)

- NY recoveries of NY fumbles: 13 (61.9%)

- Opp recoveries of NY fumbles: 8 (38.1%)

 

- Opp fumbles: 28 (1.8 per game)

- NY recoveries of Opp fumbles: 16 (57.1%)

- Opp recoveries of Opp fumbles: 12 (42.9%)

 

Yet look at the Giants during the playoffs:

 

Giants

- NY fumbles: 3 (0.8 per game)

- NY recoveries of NY fumbles: 3 (100.0%)

- Opp recoveries of NY fumbles: 0 (0.0%)

 

- Opp fumbles: 7 (1.8 per game)

- NY recoveries of Opp fumbles: 5 (71.4%)

- Opp recoveries of Opp fumbles: 2 (28.6%)

 

So here's what the data tells us:

 

(1) The Giants did a better job protecting the ball during the playoffs than they did during the regular season. Credit to them, that's nice work.

 

(2) The Giants did not cause fumbles at any higher rate during the playoffs than they did during the regular season.

 

(3) The Giants recovered fumbles - both their own and their opponents' - at a MUCH higher rate during the playoffs than they did during the regular season (59% recovery rate during the season vs. 80% recovery rate during the playoffs).

 

That isn't skill. That's luck. It's just the way the ball bounces. Here's one example. In the SB, the Pats were leading 17-12, and the Giants had the ball. On 2nd and 9 from the NE 47, Eli hits Nicks for a 17-yard gain down to the Pats 30, obviously a nice gain. But Nicks is stripped of the ball. There are *SIX* Patriots around him, and not a single Giant player within 5-7 yards. Not even in the picture. And yet, where does the ball just happen to bounce? Right between two Patriots into the hands of a Giant player trailing the play. Here's a picture:

 

http://thesportsswami.blogspot.com/2012/03/nicks-fumble.html

 

(not sure why that picture may not be showing up...if it doesn't, click here: http://thesportsswami.blogspot.com/2012/03/nicks-fumble.html)

 

I mean, you can't make this up. The Pats' D causes a crucial fumble, but the ball goes *directly* to the one Giant that happens to be semi-near the play, instead of bouncing towards any one of the *six* Patriot players that are swarming around the ball. That ended up being a huge play in the game b/c the Giants kicked a field goal on that drive and it gave them big momentum and made it so that a field goal wins it (which came into play on that last drive the Giants had).

 

So yes, hats off to the Giants for playing well. They had a tremendous run through the playoffs. But holy cow they had a gigantic horseshoe up their collective butts.

 

EDIT: But we should probably either end this or move it to a different forum...what this has to do with the miserable Red Sox I don't really know)

[Emmz]

You sound like a Yankee fan trying to dull the pain of losing the WS. Pats lost, that "Giants got lucky" s*** is very bitter and entitled-sounding.

 

You can say you outplayed them, or whatever, because you can even rlmake an argument with statistics to say that, but to say they were lucky to win is a slap in the face.

[Orange Juiced]

You sound like a Yankee fan trying to dull the pain of losing the WS. Pats lost, that "Giants got lucky" s*** is very bitter and entitled-sounding.

 

You can say you outplayed them, or whatever, because you can even rlmake an argument with statistics to say that, but to say they were lucky to win is a slap in the face.

 

Not if you're objective it isn't. Why? Because luck is a part of the game...everybody knows that. The 2001 Patriots had a TON of luck on their side. The tuck play, beating the Steelers with two special teams TDs (one on a blocked FG...how often does *that* happen?). Yes, the Giants played well, obviously. But pretty much everything went right for them in both Super Bowls (about the only thing that didn't was Eli's interception in SB 42, which was a deflected pass).

 

And that's ok...that's why they play the games, and it's one reason (among many) that the favorite doesn't always win.

 

It's not an "entitled" perspective I have. I recognize that the Pats got very lucky on several key plays during their 3 Super Bowl seasons. It's really okay for a Giants fan to admit the same. Really. It is.

 

EDIT: And as a PS, it doesn't dull the pain at all. It makes it worse. I'd rather have had the Giants simply be the better team, plain and simple. You get beat you get beat.

[3rdManOut]

I think what really scares me the most about the this whole situation is that we (the fans) all knew the season was a bust during Spring Training. How can we (again the fans) know more about the players then the actual management? I just don't get it. There is no way any team would want to touch any player that has worn the Sox uniform unless we gave up prospects but then that would kill us too wouldn't it?

[Orange Juiced]

I think what really scares me the most about the this whole situation is that we (the fans) all knew the season was a bust during Spring Training. How can we (again the fans) know more about the players then the actual management? I just don't get it. There is no way any team would want to touch any player that has worn the Sox uniform unless we gave up prospects but then that would kill us too wouldn't it?

 

There is no chance that we know more about the players than Red Sox management does. We might make a somewhat accurate prediction from time to time, but unless we know a certain player personally, there's no way we have more knowledge than the Red Sox do.

 

For example, who really *knew* that Jon Lester would have a 6-10 record with a 5.20 era at this point in the season? Who *knew* that Jacoby Ellsbury would miss half the season with an injury caused by a shortstop landing on his shoulder as he tried to break up a double play? Who *knew* that Dustin Pedroia would put up a sub-100 ops+?

 

I'm pretty sure that no Red Sox fan that exists would have even guessed at those three things happening, never mind "knew".

[3rdManOut]

Yes I think your right on that. It just sometimes feels that when the FO actually makes statements it doesnt really do them justice. Maybe using "knew" was too strong of a word. I know we tend to maybe over react at times (I know I am very quilty of that).

[a700hitter]

There is no chance that we know more about the players than Red Sox management does. We might make a somewhat accurate prediction from time to time, but unless we know a certain player personally, there's no way we have more knowledge than the Red Sox do.

 

For example, who really *knew* that Jon Lester would have a 6-10 record with a 5.20 era at this point in the season? Who *knew* that Jacoby Ellsbury would miss half the season with an injury caused by a shortstop landing on his shoulder as he tried to break up a double play? Who *knew* that Dustin Pedroia would put up a sub-100 ops+?

 

I'm pretty sure that no Red Sox fan that exists would have even guessed at those three things happening, never mind "knew".

Fans nor the FO knew that these things would happen, but it was pretty obvious to knowledgeable fans and baseball writers and media that the Red Sox did not have enough starting pitching to be a good team. They are not even a mediocre team. They are a bad team. The Starting pitching was thin. That was not a big secret.

[Beecke]

There is no chance that we know more about the players than Red Sox management does. We might make a somewhat accurate prediction from time to time, but unless we know a certain player personally, there's no way we have more knowledge than the Red Sox do.

 

For example, who really *knew* that Jon Lester would have a 6-10 record with a 5.20 era at this point in the season? Who *knew* that Jacoby Ellsbury would miss half the season with an injury caused by a shortstop landing on his shoulder as he tried to break up a double play? Who *knew* that Dustin Pedroia would put up a sub-100 ops+?

 

I'm pretty sure that no Red Sox fan that exists would have even guessed at those three things happening, never mind "knew".

 

I think in the end very few people will pretend they know more or even just close to as much as the Red Sox FO.

 

However, the Red Sox FO have made themselves look really amateurish this season. They were still feeding to the high expectations of contending, but actually were not willing to make any significant moves to prevent the outcome of the last few seasons. Many fans did not buy into that, though.

 

Now the Red Sox FO has only two things to admit to: either they knew this team was not good enough and they were just trying to save face, put a spin on the off-season and get fans to buy into it. But reallythey did not show any ambition towards improving, even if that would have meant admitting to a bridge year. And with not good enough I mean that if you play this season 100 times with this roster the majority of times it would have failed, since they were praying for so many "chances" to come off: Lester, Beckett AND Buchholz all playing CONSISTENTLY and GREAT; Doubront and Bard working out and when they hit their innings limit, DiceK/Cook/Morales stepping right in; the completely new bullpen to work to a tee from the off - that is a whole lot of up in the air variables to account for, and it would be stupid to expect all of them to fall into place to make this team a contender. Or they did not know that this team wasn?t good enough, then they are just not fit for the job.

 

Either way, I don?t like it, because it was certainly plain to see that there were issues and to me it is not recognizable what they were trying to right the ship with a long term perspective. To me it looks like they just hoped things would somehow work out and put a spin on it.

[Emmz]

Not if you're objective it isn't. Why? Because luck is a part of the game...everybody knows that. The 2001 Patriots had a TON of luck on their side. The tuck play, beating the Steelers with two special teams TDs (one on a blocked FG...how often does *that* happen?). Yes, the Giants played well, obviously. But pretty much everything went right for them in both Super Bowls (about the only thing that didn't was Eli's interception in SB 42, which was a deflected pass).

 

And that's ok...that's why they play the games, and it's one reason (among many) that the favorite doesn't always win.

 

It's not an "entitled" perspective I have. I recognize that the Pats got very lucky on several key plays during their 3 Super Bowl seasons. It's really okay for a Giants fan to admit the same. Really. It is.

 

EDIT: And as a PS, it doesn't dull the pain at all. It makes it worse. I'd rather have had the Giants simply be the better team, plain and simple. You get beat you get beat.

 

If you look at it that way, I guess, but 99% of the time a Pats fan says the Giants got lucky, they say it from the darkest, most bitter part of their being. Pateiots fans usually feel entitled to successes.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Yeah, who do they think they are, Steelers fans?

[mvp 78]

If you look at it that way' date=' I guess, but 99% of the time a Pats fan says the Giants got lucky, they say it from the darkest, most bitter part of their being. Pateiots fans usually feel entitled to successes.[/quote']

 

It depends on the age of the fan. As I remember the terrible 80's and 90's teams, I feel entitled to nothing. It's clear that Sox fans, especially on here, feel way more entitled to winning.

[a700hitter]

I think in the end very few people will pretend they know more or even just close to as much as the Red Sox FO.

 

However, the Red Sox FO have made themselves look really amateurish this season. They were still feeding to the high expectations of contending, but actually were not willing to make any significant moves to prevent the outcome of the last few seasons. Many fans did not buy into that, though.

 

Now the Red Sox FO has only two things to admit to: either they knew this team was not good enough and they were just trying to save face, put a spin on the off-season and get fans to buy into it. But reallythey did not show any ambition towards improving, even if that would have meant admitting to a bridge year. And with not good enough I mean that if you play this season 100 times with this roster the majority of times it would have failed, since they were praying for so many "chances" to come off: Lester, Beckett AND Buchholz all playing CONSISTENTLY and GREAT; Doubront and Bard working out and when they hit their innings limit, DiceK/Cook/Morales stepping right in; the completely new bullpen to work to a tee from the off - that is a whole lot of up in the air variables to account for, and it would be stupid to expect all of them to fall into place to make this team a contender. Or they did not know that this team wasn?t good enough, then they are just not fit for the job.

 

Either way, I don?t like it, because it was certainly plain to see that there were issues and to me it is not recognizable what they were trying to right the ship with a long term perspective. To me it looks like they just hoped things would somehow work out and put a spin on it.

 

I agree. They were either disingenuous or stupid or some combination of the two.

[a700hitter]

I think in the end very few people will pretend they know more or even just close to as much as the Red Sox FO.

 

However, the Red Sox FO have made themselves look really amateurish this season. They were still feeding to the high expectations of contending, but actually were not willing to make any significant moves to prevent the outcome of the last few seasons. Many fans did not buy into that, though.

 

Now the Red Sox FO has only two things to admit to: either they knew this team was not good enough and they were just trying to save face, put a spin on the off-season and get fans to buy into it. But reallythey did not show any ambition towards improving, even if that would have meant admitting to a bridge year. And with not good enough I mean that if you play this season 100 times with this roster the majority of times it would have failed, since they were praying for so many "chances" to come off: Lester, Beckett AND Buchholz all playing CONSISTENTLY and GREAT; Doubront and Bard working out and when they hit their innings limit, DiceK/Cook/Morales stepping right in; the completely new bullpen to work to a tee from the off - that is a whole lot of up in the air variables to account for, and it would be stupid to expect all of them to fall into place to make this team a contender. Or they did not know that this team wasn?t good enough, then they are just not fit for the job.

 

Either way, I don?t like it, because it was certainly plain to see that there were issues and to me it is not recognizable what they were trying to right the ship with a long term perspective. To me it looks like they just hoped things would somehow work out and put a spin on it.

 

I agree. They were either disingenuous or stupid or some combination of the two.

[Orange Juiced]

Fans nor the FO knew that these things would happen' date=' but it was pretty obvious to knowledgeable fans and baseball writers and media that the Red Sox did not have enough starting pitching to be a good team. They are not even a mediocre team. They are a bad team. The Starting pitching was thin. That was not a big secret.[/quote']

 

I think it turns out to be pretty clear that the move to make Bard a starter was a huge mistake. They have mixed and matched well enough to cover for that however. But otherwise.....???? Buchholz, after a bad start to the year, has reverted back to being the ultra-talented Buchholz. Since May 11, he's gone 7-2 with a 2.64 era and a 1.03 whip. He is back to what most people thought he'd be if healthy. Doubront is, I think, exactly what people thought he might be - 4.70 era, 1.47 whip...pretty solid for a 5th starter. The problem, really, has been Beckett and Lester.

 

Until this year, here was what those guys gave the Sox on average per season:

 

Beckett: 14-8, 4.04 era

Lester: 16-8, 3.33 era (from 2008-11, when he became a full-time starter)

 

And this year they've given the Sox the following:

 

Beckett: 5-9, 4.97 era

Lester: 6-10, 5.20 era

 

Since they became regular starters with the Red Sox (Beckett in 2006 and Lester in 2008), here is how the Red Sox have fared in games started by each guy:

 

Beckett: 106-78 (average of 18-13 a year)

Lester: 80-48 (average of 20-12 a year)

 

And in 2012, here's what the Sox have done in starts by these two:

 

Beckett: 7-12

Lester: 9-15

 

So normally the Sox would expect (based on a pretty established track record) to be about 13 games over .500 with Beckett and Lester going. But this year, they're 11 games *under* .500 (and on pace to be 14 games under .500 by season's end), playing at a horrific .372 clip with these two on the mound.

 

Currently, the Red Sox are 11 games behind the Yankees for the division, and 5.5 out of the Wild Card. If they were just .500 in games started by Beckett and Lester (which would be well below their normal .603) they would be just 5.5 behind the Yankees and would be tied for the Wild Card lead. If they were at their normal .603 winning percentage when Beckett and Lester pitch, they'd be 26-17 when those two pitch instead of 16-27. That would mean that they'd be *one* game behind the Yankees, and they'd be in first place in the Wild Card standings by a somewhat comfortable (though after last year, nothing is comfortable) margin of 4.5 games. They'd have a top 5 record in all of baseball.

 

And this is without making any changes to the rest of the team other than Beckett and Lester not sucking. So without putting too fine a point on it, the single biggest reason this Red Sox team is mediocre is not the manager, not the front office, not the offense, not anything but the incredibly crappy performances of two established and quality starters named Josh Beckett and Jon Lester. Again: If they give you what they normally give you the Red Sox are in excellent playoff position. We're not talking about stellar Josh Beckett or Jon Lester. We're talking about "average" Josh Beckett and Jon Lester. And average over a long period of time, so we're not talking about small sample sizes here.

 

So should the Red Sox have predicted that Lester and Beckett would suck so badly? That the team would be 11 games under .500 (.372) on days that they pitch, instead of the normal 13 games *above* .500 (.603)?

 

THAT is the problem, not "thin" pitching. It would be like the Yankees having Sabathia suddenly putting up a 6-19 record and a 5.15 era kind of out of nowhere. You never would expect that and it sure would thin out your pitching staff if your erstwhile ace had a catastrophic season like that.

[a700hitter]

I think it turns out to be pretty clear that the move to make Bard a starter was a huge mistake. They have mixed and matched well enough to cover for that however. But otherwise.....???? Buchholz, after a bad start to the year, has reverted back to being the ultra-talented Buchholz. Since May 11, he's gone 7-2 with a 2.64 era and a 1.03 whip. He is back to what most people thought he'd be if healthy. Doubront is, I think, exactly what people thought he might be - 4.70 era, 1.47 whip...pretty solid for a 5th starter. The problem, really, has been Beckett and Lester.

 

Until this year, here was what those guys gave the Sox on average per season:

 

Beckett: 14-8, 4.04 era

Lester: 16-8, 3.33 era (from 2008-11, when he became a full-time starter)

 

And this year they've given the Sox the following:

 

Beckett: 5-9, 4.97 era

Lester: 6-10, 5.20 era

 

Since they became regular starters with the Red Sox (Beckett in 2006 and Lester in 2008), here is how the Red Sox have fared in games started by each guy:

 

Beckett: 106-78 (average of 18-13 a year)

Lester: 80-48 (average of 20-12 a year)

 

And in 2012, here's what the Sox have done in starts by these two:

 

Beckett: 7-12

Lester: 9-15

 

So normally the Sox would expect (based on a pretty established track record) to be about 13 games over .500 with Beckett and Lester going. But this year, they're 11 games *under* .500 (and on pace to be 14 games under .500 by season's end), playing at a horrific .372 clip with these two on the mound.

 

Currently, the Red Sox are 11 games behind the Yankees for the division, and 5.5 out of the Wild Card. If they were just .500 in games started by Beckett and Lester (which would be well below their normal .603) they would be just 5.5 behind the Yankees and would be tied for the Wild Card lead. If they were at their normal .603 winning percentage when Beckett and Lester pitch, they'd be 26-17 when those two pitch instead of 16-27. That would mean that they'd be *one* game behind the Yankees, and they'd be in first place in the Wild Card standings by a somewhat comfortable (though after last year, nothing is comfortable) margin of 4.5 games. They'd have a top 5 record in all of baseball.

 

And this is without making any changes to the rest of the team other than Beckett and Lester not sucking. So without putting too fine a point on it, the single biggest reason this Red Sox team is mediocre is not the manager, not the front office, not the offense, not anything but the incredibly crappy performances of two established and quality starters named Josh Beckett and Jon Lester. Again: If they give you what they normally give you the Red Sox are in excellent playoff position. We're not talking about stellar Josh Beckett or Jon Lester. We're talking about "average" Josh Beckett and Jon Lester. And average over a long period of time, so we're not talking about small sample sizes here.

 

So should the Red Sox have predicted that Lester and Beckett would suck so badly? That the team would be 11 games under .500 (.372) on days that they pitch, instead of the normal 13 games *above* .500 (.603)?

 

THAT is the problem, not "thin" pitching. It would be like the Yankees having Sabathia suddenly putting up a 6-19 record and a 5.15 era kind of out of nowhere. You never would expect that and it sure would thin out your pitching staff if your erstwhile ace had a catastrophic season like that.

Just because the pitching failed in ways that were unanticipated and more drastically than anyone ever envisioned doesn't mean that the pitching wasn't thin. Anytime you pencil in two rookies in your rotation at the start of the season and one of them is not a "STRASBURG" your team is going nowhere, especially in the AL East. The Yankees tried it in 2008 with Hughes and Kennedy who were much more highly rated than Doubront or Bard and that was the only time they did not make the playoffs in 17 years. The two rookies in the starting rotation were the blaring siren that the pitching was thin. There was zero chance that they would both perform to league averages. Doubront is not a complaint. Thank goodness that he has been around league average. Otherwise, we might be the worst team in the league. Bard flamed out in record breaking spectacular fashion and they stuck with him well after it was obvoius that he couldn't do the job. Going into the season, they had absolutely no reason to think that he could be successful. His game was falling apart in Spring Training.

 

As for the argument about the so-called big 3 performing to their standard levels, how many times have the 3 of them had 30 starts in the same season? The answer is 0. There was no reason to expect that we would get 90 starts from them this year. The contingency plans for injury to the big 3 and underperformance by the rookies was Dice K returning from surgery, Cook who can't strike out people in nursing homes, a pig lik Ohlendorf. That is not a contingency plan. This was the first year that the big three will make most of it's starts-- and they crapped the bed. Just because they under-performed as opposed to getting injured does not mean the pitching wasn't thin. There was no contingency plan for injury or under performance, and those things happen almost every year. The Yankees lost their #3 pitcher before the season started. Hughes has been terrible at times. The Yankees unlike the Red Sox were much deeper in starting pitching. Look at the Texas Rangers injuries. Colby Lewis is down. Feliz has missed the entire season and Holland has had health issues, but they have been deep enough to survive. We had no one comparable to a Feldman to step in and take a spot. No, the Sox rotation was thin and it completely blew up in their faces in ways that were unanticipated as well as ways that were entirely foreseeable. If Lester and Buch had been better, this rotation was still going to implode. It just would have happened later in the season, like it did in 2011. If they go North with the same crew next season, the result will not be much different. The only question will be when it collapses.

[Orange Juiced]

I guess I don't see how you can be so sure that it'll be the same next year. It's possible, sure. But not likely, given their track records. Again, all they needed was an *AVERAGE* Beckett and Lester - and that average has taken into account their injuries, bad seasons, etc. So just an average year from those two and they are in the playoffs comfortably.

 

Cripes, just look at Lester. The Sox, ever since he became a regular starter, play .625 ball when he pitches. This year, they're at .375 in his 24 starts. If they were at .625 over those 24 starts, it would mean that the Sox' record when Lester pitches goes from 9-15 all the way up to 15-9, and THAT ALONE is enough to put them in first place in the Wild Card race.

 

That's it. Forget Beckett....they could have afforded to have a crappy Beckett, so long as Lester was pitching *normally*. Again, not spectacularly....they didn't need to rely on Lester being GREAT. They just needed a *normal* Lester and they would be in the playoffs. And going into this season what reason did you have to suspect that Lester would suck so bad?

[Orange Juiced]

Let me ask you this, 700? What would you have done to improve the starting rotation? Here's a link of the FA class of 2012 that they could have chosen from:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/?page_id=175

 

What names on that list did you want the Sox to go after?

 

If none of them, what trade was out there for the Sox to make to improve their rotation before the season started?

[jung]

The problem with just projecting a return to career numbers for Lester is that he has issues that he must resolve. It is not like his poor performance has landed in from Mars and is likely to return to Mars during the off season.

 

Lester has mechanical issues that he must resolve for one thing. He has to get back to the more consistent Lester with regard to his mechanics.

 

Also while Lackey's on the mound antics may or may not have an impact on the way he pitches it should be very clear by now that when Lester falls into a funk about am ump call or something else it does have an impact on how he pitches. He simply falls apart. That is also an issue he has not had to deal with in the past and does not have an answer for currently.

[a700hitter]

Let me ask you this, 700? What would you have done to improve the starting rotation? Here's a link of the FA class of 2012 that they could have chosen from:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/?page_id=175

 

What names on that list did you want the Sox to go after?

 

If none of them, what trade was out there for the Sox to make to improve their rotation before the season started?

I don't need to look at the link. I have said it many times that I would have done what it took to get Gio Gonzalez. He's young and he signed a 5 year extension relatively cheap. I don't want to hear that it would cost Middlebrooks. The guys that the Nats gave up are not doing that well, and they kept Harper and Strasburg. Our bumbling buffoon would have had to figure out a way to keep our top prospect.

 

I would have considered a guy like Edwin Jackson for a short term deal. He would stabilize the back of the rotation by taking his 33-35 starts and putting up innings. I would have considered Kuroda.

 

Lots of pitchers changed laundry this off season. The Red Sox did nothing. That came back to bite them.

[a700hitter]

I guess I don't see how you can be so sure that it'll be the same next year. It's possible, sure. But not likely, given their track records. Again, all they needed was an *AVERAGE* Beckett and Lester - and that average has taken into account their injuries, bad seasons, etc. So just an average year from those two and they are in the playoffs comfortably.

 

Cripes, just look at Lester. The Sox, ever since he became a regular starter, play .625 ball when he pitches. This year, they're at .375 in his 24 starts. If they were at .625 over those 24 starts, it would mean that the Sox' record when Lester pitches goes from 9-15 all the way up to 15-9, and THAT ALONE is enough to put them in first place in the Wild Card race.

 

That's it. Forget Beckett....they could have afforded to have a crappy Beckett, so long as Lester was pitching *normally*. Again, not spectacularly....they didn't need to rely on Lester being GREAT. They just needed a *normal* Lester and they would be in the playoffs. And going into this season what reason did you have to suspect that Lester would suck so bad?

A crappy Beckett and the implosion of Bard with the others performing would have had the team in the thick of the wild card race much longer, but IMO they would have imploded at the end of the season. The teams they are competing with-- Detroit, Tampa, and the Angels are much deeper in the rotation and when the gut check would come in late August and in September, our guys would have folded. Plus, the fact that 3 guys in the rotation would not be able to take us deep into games would eventually kill the bullpen. It would not have been enough and Beckett, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront and Morales will not be enough next year. Mark it down, and I invite you to come back and tell me that I was wrong. If the FO thinks that can work, they are kidding themselves.

[SoxSport]

Cafardo's pitch for the Red Sox brass this morning:

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2012/08/14/red_sox_owners_look_good_comparatively/

 

He says the Red Sox owners look good "comparatively". Trouble is, he compares them to the wrong teams. He just picks out all the bad organizations.

 

He should be comparing them to the good organizations.And here, things haven't looked good the past few years. Henry has been slow to make enough changes in an organization that has gone stale. The turf wars going on is an indicator of that. And the public managerial circus last winter was a disaster for Lucchino--not too mention Henry's public vote of confidence for CC on WEEI.

 

The problem with the brass is the higher up you go in an organization, the thicker the teflon coating.

That's true in any organization. And certainly so on the Red Sox.

 

The media has picked on the players and the manager so far. It's been more or less hands off on Cherington and the FO (in my view, the real problem for Henry) or Lucchino, or Henry. After all, near the top, there is more at stake for the media, since the media gets certain priviledges that can be revoked.

[Thunder]

All I know is that Beckett's pitching tonight. Lester has even had 2 good starts in a row. Beckett's holding us back.

[SoxSport]

If you want another sign of problems on the Red Sox, the front office is now balking at putting Bailey at the back end of the bullpen. He not only had to make too many appearances in AAA (about 9), before being declared healthy--but now they aren't sure where to put him in the bullpen. Which is another way of saying we aren't going to move Aceves from closer because that will make the FO look bad--like bringing up "defensive" Iggy to play SS.

 

So there we are, boys and girls, the dysfunctional Boston Red Sox--and its defensive front office. or should I say --offensive?

[a700hitter]

If you want another sign of problems on the Red Sox, the front office is now balking at putting Bailey at the back end of the bullpen. He not only had to make too many appearances in AAA (about 9), before being declared healthy--but now they aren't sure where to put him in the bullpen. Which is another way of saying we aren't going to move Aceves from closer because that will make the FO look bad--like bringing up "defensive" Iggy to play SS.

 

So there we are, boys and girls, the dysfunctional Boston Red Sox--and its defensive front office. or should I say --offensive?

That makes no sense. Aceves is capable of multiple inning outings. In fact, he is better in those situations. Bailey can't go multiple innings. Putting Bailey as a set up man cuts down Bobby V's flexibility.

[Bellhorn04]

If you want another sign of problems on the Red Sox, the front office is now balking at putting Bailey at the back end of the bullpen. He not only had to make too many appearances in AAA (about 9), before being declared healthy--but now they aren't sure where to put him in the bullpen. Which is another way of saying we aren't going to move Aceves from closer because that will make the FO look bad--like bringing up "defensive" Iggy to play SS.

 

So there we are, boys and girls, the dysfunctional Boston Red Sox--and its defensive front office. or should I say --offensive?

 

They are striving to make this season one continuous fustercluck from start to finish. They're now in the home stretch and I think they can pull it off.

[jung]

Last week I posted that it just gets better and better and as much as you want the last bit of disappointing off field bull to be the last of it....then here comes another bit to make your day.

 

In an effort to separate what is known now to have happened from what has been said:

Agons sent a message up to ownership complaining about V leaving Lester in the game for 11 on July 22nd. That prompted upper management to allow the players a complaining session and call a meeting between upper management and the players. This meeting has been confirmed by BC.

 

One report out of that meeting was that some of the players decided not to attend at all...apparently protesting players complaining to upper management and suggesting that certain star players had been dumping on V all season long in an effort to deflect criticism for this awful season from them. I don't believe that has been confirmed by anybody. The meeting apparently was led by Pedey and Agons.