What do the Red Sox need to do to make the playoffs?

[SoxFanForsyth]

I couldn't disagree more, a700.

 

Ellsbury, Crawford, and Bailey are all All Stars. Pedroia

played through an injury and wasn't right. That's a huge hole. Buchholz has been out for going on a month after this series.

 

I'd like to see the Yankees go without Cano, Granderson, Gardner, and Mo.

 

At least the Rays HAD Longo until 4/30. Ells went down on 4/12. Crawford hasn't played a game. Bailey hasn't played a game.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. All this team needs to do is get healthy and they'll make the PS.

 

Don't believe me, though?? Well, conveniently Rob Bradford has posted an article about his conversation with a scout regarding this same issue.

 

"Which of the AL East teams is best set up to have success for the remainder of the season?"

 

With every one of the American League East teams over .500, and the Red Sox heading into a four-game series at Fenway Park against the first-place Yankees -- with a chance to readjust at some of the division's standings -- it seemed like a pertinent question to ask of an American League scout who has seen each of these teams extensively.

 

"I would have to say Boston," he said, "but this series is going to be huge."

 

Heading into this weekend, the Yankees are in first at 49-32, with the Orioles trailing by 5 1/2 games at 44-38. The Rays are seven games bak at 43-40, while the Red Sox (42-40) and Blue Jays (42-41) are bringing up the rear.

 

But some other numbers that those inside the world of Major League Baseball also take note of is run differential. That metric shows the Yankees have scored 54 more runs than they have given up, while the Red Sox are on the plus side by 50 runs. The Blue Jays also are on the plus side by 24 runs, while the Rays have scored exactly the same number of runs they have surrendered. The Orioles? A minus-28.

 

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2012/07/06/scouts-take-which-american-league-east-teams-

[a700hitter]

I couldn't disagree more, a700.

 

Ellsbury, Crawford, and Bailey are all All Stars. Pedroia played through an injury and wasn't right. That's a huge hole. Buchholz has been out for going on a month after this series.

 

I'd like to see the Yankees go without Cano, Granderson, Gardner, and Mo.

 

At least the Rays HAD Longo until 4/30. Ells went down on 4/12. Crawford hasn't played a game. Bailey hasn't played a game.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. All this team needs to do is get healthy and they'll make the PS.

 

Don't believe me, though?? Well, conveniently Rob Bradford has posted an article about his conversation with a scout regarding this same issue.

 

 

 

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2012/07/06/scouts-take-which-american-league-east-teams-

Injuries is just a whiny excuse, We came out of the blocks in last place. We've had no injuries to our starting staff of any significance. The pitching has no excuse for being at the bottom of the league. Oddly, the injuries to our OFers have not hurt our offense. Nava and Pods and Sweeney stepped in admirably to replace the production of Ellsbury and Crawford. Our offense has been second in the league. It's been the starting pitching that has been the problem. Injuries have not been the issue with them. Let's not start with excuses. going into the season, most people knew that there was very little room for error for this roster to be successful. Bard blew up spectacularly. Beckett and Lester have pitched like back of the rotation guys. Buchholz has been horrible except for his June starts. Our starting depth was expected to be Dice K. Look at the ERA's on these guys:

 

Beckett 4.06

Lester 4.33

Buchholz 5.53

Bard 5.24

Doubront 4.42

Dice K 6.65

 

There's the reason for this team's failure. Compare that to the Yankees and Tampa starters or the Angels who have 2 stoppers with ERA's under 2.50. Pitching is the reason, not injuries.

 

Edit: the biggest challenge for our offense in 2012 has been the disappearance of AGon as a premier hitter. He has become Casey Kotchman.

[example1]

A700, what threshold of injuries would a team have to sustain in order for you to acknowledge that it had an impact? I get the sense that you draw the line fairly arbitrarily, and mostly don't believe in there being a line at all.

 

In other words, if the entire starting team of the Red Sox were to go down in a plane crash, and the Sox had to replace the entire lineup and rotation with AAA guys, would that be a time where saying that injuries caused the team to not be as good? If you would acknowledge that losing the whole team would be an understandable reason for the team to not do as well, how far do you have to roll that back to have regular injuries be understandable?

 

10% of all starting players? 5%? 20%? Where would you draw the line?

 

If, by chance, the Sox entire team crashed (or, perhaps more humanely, were all injured in some other fashion beyond their control) and the Yankees had two players go down with TJ surgery, would you then say "Well the Sox did lose their entire team, but the Yankees had injuries too..."

 

I get your point: don't use injuries as an excuse. I just think you jump off the deep end when you say that it is never an excuse. There's a line where a team cannot be expected to sustain success in spite of those injuries, and most people agree that the Sox have crossed that line.

[a700hitter]

A700, what threshold of injuries would a team have to sustain in order for you to acknowledge that it had an impact? I get the sense that you draw the line fairly arbitrarily, and mostly don't believe in there being a line at all.

 

In other words, if the entire starting team of the Red Sox were to go down in a plane crash, and the Sox had to replace the entire lineup and rotation with AAA guys, would that be a time where saying that injuries caused the team to not be as good? If you would acknowledge that losing the whole team would be an understandable reason for the team to not do as well, how far do you have to roll that back to have regular injuries be understandable?

 

10% of all starting players? 5%? 20%? Where would you draw the line?

 

If, by chance, the Sox entire team crashed (or, perhaps more humanely, were all injured in some other fashion beyond their control) and the Yankees had two players go down with TJ surgery, would you then say "Well the Sox did lose their entire team, but the Yankees had injuries too..."

 

I get your point: don't use injuries as an excuse. I just think you jump off the deep end when you say that it is never an excuse. There's a line where a team cannot be expected to sustain success in spite of those injuries, and most people agree that the Sox have crossed that line.

Your questions above are ridiculous and I think you realize it. There's no threshhold at which point one would say the injuries had an impact. Injuries always have an impact. Every team has them and they have to be addressed with depth or acquisitions. To blame 2011 and now 2012 Red Sox failures on injuries is just whining.

 

Every team has injuries to one degree or another. The Yankees lost a front line starter for the entire season and their all time great closer, Mo and Joba and a starting outfielder who is an offensive catalyst and gold glove fielder. Yet, they are tearing it up. They built a team with depth to withstand injuries. Tampa is without their best player and leader, Longoria, and they have had other injuries. They have also been built deeper than the Red Sox. Of course injuries have hurt the 2012 Red Sox, but there hasn't been much effect on their offensive performance. The pitching has been the problem and there have been no significant injuries to our starters. They have no excuse. Injuries have hurt other teams, but they were built to withstand injuries. Oddly the Red Sox were built to withstand injury and under performance to their offense, which has done okay. They were built thin in the pitching ranks and everyone acknowledged that when the season started. There was no room for injury or under performance. They were vulnerable from the beginning, and now the weaknesses are cracking.

 

Let me turn around the questions and mine will not be ridiculous.

 

What injuries have caused our starting pitching to be at the bottom of the league?

 

How much higher than 2nd place would our offense rank if Ellsbury and Crawford had not been injured?

 

Has our offense been more negatively impacted by the loss of Crawford and Ellsbury or the under performance of Gonzo?

 

Injuries is a whiny excuse. We are not a good team, and we weren't a good team on opening day and we will not be a good team when the OFers come back unless the money pitchers start pitching like top of the rotation pitchers and Gonzo starts hitting like a $22 million first base slugger. The problems have been under performance and poor execution, not injuries.

[iortiz]

I think you have not seen A700's point.

 

Our major injuries have been at field players. Happens that our offense has not been our problem. Offense has been doing very good given the circumstances in the overall 1st half, more than I expected, actually. I expect that our offense will be better or at least at the same level where it was in the 1st half.

 

Our problem has been our pitching. This is not a new topic. Sure, it has improved. But it doesn't matter, it was the reason why we are in this position (4th place). Again, you can split or sugarcoat the numbers all you want, thing is that our pitching is one of the worst of the league thus far in this first half of the season, as simple as that, those are the numbers and there's the consequences.

 

Again, this is a very unbalanced team. FO did not addressed our weak side. They gambled a lot going with two experiments. We had very little margin of error in that regard, and now we are facing this nightmare.

[kapsis21]

Your questions above are ridiculous and I think you realize it. There's no threshhold at which point one would say the injuries had an impact. Injuries always have an impact. Every team has them and they have to be addressed with depth or acquisitions. To blame 2011 and now 2012 Red Sox failures on injuries is just whining.

 

Every team has injuries to one degree or another. The Yankees lost a front line starter for the entire season and their all time great closer, Mo and Joba and a starting outfielder who is an offensive catalyst and gold glove fielder. Yet, they are tearing it up. They built a team with depth to withstand injuries. Tampa is without their best player and leader, Longoria, and they have had other injuries. They have also been built deeper than the Red Sox. Of course injuries have hurt the 2012 Red Sox, but there hasn't been much effect on their offensive performance. The pitching has been the problem and there have been no significant injuries to our starters. They have no excuse. Injuries have hurt other teams, but they were built to withstand injuries. Oddly the Red Sox were built to withstand injury and under performance to their offense, which has done okay. They were built thin in the pitching ranks and everyone acknowledged that when the season started. There was no room for injury or under performance. They were vulnerable from the beginning, and now the weaknesses are cracking.

 

Let me turn around the questions and mine will not be ridiculous.

 

What injuries have caused our starting pitching to be at the bottom of the league?

 

How much higher than 2nd place would our offense rank if Ellsbury and Crawford had not been injured?

 

Has our offense been more negatively impacted by the loss of Crawford and Ellsbury or the under performance of Gonzo?

 

Injuries is a whiny excuse. We are not a good team, and we weren't a good team on opening day and we will not be a good team when the OFers come back unless the money pitchers start pitching like top of the rotation pitchers and Gonzo starts hitting like a $22 million first base slugger. The problems have been under performance and poor execution, not injuries.

 

the stat that our offense scores 2nd most runs is such a bad way of looking at it.

we are getting our runs in bunches in 5-6 games where its a 10-5 or 9-6 win against some mediocre teams. and the moment its a close game we loose it. that is why when Ells or Crawford get back they can make that difference in those close games defensively and offensively. you know it too!. the past 10 games our offense has looked terrible, no Pedey, WMB in the lineup. how do you not see that. close to 70% of our lineup has hit the DL. backup OFers werer on DL for 15 days and that too all of them.

give me 1 team that has had 6 OFers on the DL

[example1]

Your questions above are ridiculous and I think you realize it. There's no threshhold at which point one would say the injuries had an impact. Injuries always have an impact. Every team has them and they have to be addressed with depth or acquisitions. To blame 2011 and now 2012 Red Sox failures on injuries is just whining.

 

Every team has injuries to one degree or another. The Yankees lost a front line starter for the entire season and their all time great closer, Mo and Joba and a starting outfielder who is an offensive catalyst and gold glove fielder. Yet, they are tearing it up. They built a team with depth to withstand injuries. Tampa is without their best player and leader, Longoria, and they have had other injuries. They have also been built deeper than the Red Sox. Of course injuries have hurt the 2012 Red Sox, but there hasn't been much effect on their offensive performance. The pitching has been the problem and there have been no significant injuries to our starters. They have no excuse. Injuries have hurt other teams, but they were built to withstand injuries. Oddly the Red Sox were built to withstand injury and under performance to their offense, which has done okay. They were built thin in the pitching ranks and everyone acknowledged that when the season started. There was no room for injury or under performance. They were vulnerable from the beginning, and now the weaknesses are cracking.

 

Let me turn around the questions and mine will not be ridiculous.

 

What injuries have caused our starting pitching to be at the bottom of the league?

 

How much higher than 2nd place would our offense rank if Ellsbury and Crawford had not been injured?

 

Has our offense been more negatively impacted by the loss of Crawford and Ellsbury or the under performance of Gonzo?

 

Injuries is a whiny excuse. We are not a good team, and we weren't a good team on opening day and we will not be a good team when the OFers come back unless the money pitchers start pitching like top of the rotation pitchers and Gonzo starts hitting like a $22 million first base slugger. The problems have been under performance and poor execution, not injuries.

 

Did you know that in May the Red Sox were 13th in ERA and had a 1.32 WHIP, while the Yankees were ranked 14th in ERA and had a 1.35 WHIP?

 

Did you know that in June the Red Sox were 3rd in ERA and had a 1.08 WHIP (best in baseball)? The Yankees were 2nd in ERA and had a 1.18 WHIP.

 

With numbers like those, it is MUCH too simple to just say that starting pitching has been the problem. If the pitching staff can allow 4 or fewer runs in a game, the Sox should win, yet I showed in post #156 of this form yesterday that the Sox have been absolutely pathetic in low-scoring, close games. I'll repost it now:

 

The problem with this team's offense is fairly obvious. They are simply inconsistent, certainly compared to the Yankees.

 

The Sox have had 34 games where they score 3 or fewer runs. The Yankees have had 27. The Sox have had 32 games where they score between 4 and 7 runs. The Yankees have had 44.

 

What does that mean as a percentage?

 

Games between 0 and 3 runs

*Sox 41%

*Yankees 33%

 

Games between 4 and 7 runs:

*Sox 39%

*Yankees 54%

 

I think the notion that the Sox offense is 'okay' and the pitching is the problem are a bit decieving. The Sox offense is okay, sometimes. They score 8 or more runs in nearly 20% of their games, but they score 4 or fewer runs in half their games, and in those games they are 7-35.

 

They are 24 and 8 in games where they score between 4 and 7 runs, or winning at a 75%.

 

Here's their W% by runs scored:

 

RS

 

4: 37.5% (3-5)

5: 100% (5-0)

6: 70% (7-3)

7: 100% (9-0)

 

 

I don't know how to build a team that consistently scores 4 runs or more a game, but I know that one run here or there can really help and the Sox haven't done well in close games.

 

In their 12 one-run losses they have scored 3 or fewer in 11 of them. Those are games they could be winning but aren't.

 

To me, there's no doubt that adding potent offensive pieces to the lineup will help with that, and their consistency would be improved considerably if Pedroia and Gonzalez were producing at some reasonable level.

 

When you look at the actual results (in pivot table form) the differnce between the teams in close games could not be more stark, and it appears that the Sox offense just dies if the game is close. It's really quite pathetic.

 

Easy to blame the pitching, though the Sox as a staff had the best WHIP in all of baseball in the month of June, so I can't say that they have been an abject failure.

 

The Sox have scored 4 or fewer runs in 50% of their games this year, and in those games they are 7-35. Those games aren't universally blow-outs either. Many of them are close, one or two run losses.

 

Yes, having Ellsbury and Crawford and Middlebrooks and Pedroia (uninjured) would help this team be more successful. I suspect with those guys healthy they would be playing closer to their pythag record, and would be second in the league, ahead of Baltimore and Tampa, with roughly the same record as the Angels.

 

At that point it would be legitimate to blame the SP for the couple of games they trailed the Yankees, but a much bigger chunk can be explained by their inability to score runs when it matters or to win close, low-scoring games.

[a700hitter]

the stat that our offense scores 2nd most runs is such a bad way of looking at it.

we are getting our runs in bunches in 5-6 games where its a 10-5 or 9-6 win against some mediocre teams. and the moment its a close game we loose it. that is why when Ells or Crawford get back they can make that difference in those close games defensively and offensively. you know it too!. the past 10 games our offense has looked terrible, no Pedey, WMB in the lineup. how do you not see that. close to 70% of our lineup has hit the DL. backup OFers werer on DL for 15 days and that too all of them.

give me 1 team that has had 6 OFers on the DL

The guys who have filled in for the injured OFers have done just fine. I don't think Crawford would have done any better than Nava up to this point. Pods has been good and Sweeney has done the job getting on base. Those last two guys have been out for the last couple of weeks and that did hurt us on the west coast, but it is not the reason why we are in last place. If two week injuries to Pods and Sweeney are the difference between us being a good team or a bad team, the FO really did not do its job.

 

Stat guys can't have it both ways. They can't argue that teams with the best run differential are the best teams over the course of a season and then out of the other side of their mouths say that the team got the runs at the wrong time. You are arguing what, that the offense isn't clutch? That they only score against bad pitching? Well whether there is such a thing as a clutch player has been a topic of endless debate, and I am one who believes that certain players are more clutch than others, and i am not sure that Ellsbury or Crawford are any more clutch than their replacements. You lose me entirely if you are making an argument about a clutch team offense. The argument that we only score against bad pitching doesn't hold water either. That's why it is bad pitching, everyone scores against it. The Red Sox are a good offense so they score more than almost every other team against good and bad pitching. We have beat our share of good pitchers this season, so that argument holds no water either. If you want to point to a problem with our offense, it is playing first base. He is under performing in a Carl Crawford-like manner. He is supposed to be our best hitter, and he is no longer in the top half of the lineup. That's astounding. That's a problem. How do you not see that? Walking Cody Ross to pitch to Gonzo? I never thought I would see that. His under performance is a huge thing and it has nothing to do with injuries. The formula to success for the second half has little to do with health (although we need Pedey back). Here's the formula:

 

Beckett, Lester and Buchholz pitch like top of the rotation guys instead of like bottom of the rotation guys

 

plus

 

Agon hits like the player we thought we were getting.

 

It's that simple.

[a700hitter]

Did you know that in May the Red Sox were 13th in ERA and had a 1.32 WHIP, while the Yankees were ranked 14th in ERA and had a 1.35 WHIP?

 

Did you know that in June the Red Sox were 3rd in ERA and had a 1.08 WHIP (best in baseball)? The Yankees were 2nd in ERA and had a 1.18 WHIP.

 

With numbers like those, it is MUCH too simple to just say that starting pitching has been the problem. If the pitching staff can allow 4 or fewer runs in a game, the Sox should win, yet I showed in post #156 of this form yesterday that the Sox have been absolutely pathetic in low-scoring, close games. I'll repost it now:

 

 

 

The Sox have scored 4 or fewer runs in 50% of their games this year, and in those games they are 7-35. Those games aren't universally blow-outs either. Many of them are close, one or two run losses.

 

Yes, having Ellsbury and Crawford and Middlebrooks and Pedroia (uninjured) would help this team be more successful. I suspect with those guys healthy they would be playing closer to their pythag record, and would be second in the league, ahead of Baltimore and Tampa, with roughly the same record as the Angels.

 

At that point it would be legitimate to blame the SP for the couple of games they trailed the Yankees, but a much bigger chunk can be explained by their inability to score runs when it matters or to win close, low-scoring games.

I think it can be argued the other way. it is our pitching that is to blame for not being able to win games where our offense scores 4 runs or less. What is the record of other teams in those types of games?

 

As for your May ERA stat, what does that prove. We were sticking close to the Yanks in May. Now that their pitching has stepped up and ours has not, they have separated from us.

 

E1, it is never as simple as one thing. We both know that. Give me credit for not being a dolt for chrissakes. The offense has taken a hit with injuries but has managed above average performance. It could be bettr. Yes, that is true, but I maintain that the biggest offensive failure on this team is not due to injury but rather the under performance of Agon.

 

The pitching has not had injuries and is at the bottom of the league. Is it the only reason for the team's failure? No, of course not, but it is the main reason. It was the weak spot on this team when the season opened, because Cherries Jubilee and his band of clowns did nothing, zero, zip nada to address it. It is biting us in the ass big time. Is it the only reason? No, that's absurd. Is it the main reason? Absolutely. To think otherwise is absurd. Look at the ERA's of our starters. There's no stopper or number 2 guy. They are pitching like 5 number 5 guys.

[FredLynn]

Here is what Mazz said about using injuries as an excuse for the failure of this team:

 

"Injuries haven't been the problem; execution has"

 

I believe that is true. However the Sox have scored their runs, the fact remains that they are second in the league in runs scored. Offensively they have been adequate, at the very least. The disappearance of Gonzales and Pedroia have hurt the team, as has the absence of other position players-and no doubt if everyone were clicking on all cylinders we would have even more runs and we would have won more games. So yes, the injuries are a factor, just as injuries are a factor for every other ML team in baseball. To use them as an excuse is a copout, and I am not buying it, FWIW.

The pitching, while better, is still below average. We do not have any ace at all; we have a bunch of #3 SP. IMO that is a huge problem, and its one our FO has been aware of for years and done nothing to fix.

The final issue is the attitude and professionalism of this team. Every single game thread has made mention (by me) of the sloppy brand of baseball that is being played. Its really worthy of a last place team, and I don't see any discipline being meted out as a result of it. Its simply tolerated, it seems. Its possible that with a better team attitude we would still be in the hunt for first place. Attitude issues like the ones Ortiz and Pedroia have exhibited this season have a negative effect IMO on the play on the field. Until that is corrected once and for all, THIS is the kind of product Henry is going to foist on the fans.

[kapsis21]

. Here's the formula:

 

Beckett, Lester and Buchholz pitch like top of the rotation guys instead of like bottom of the rotation guys

 

plus

 

Agon hits like the player we thought we were getting.

 

It's that simple.

 

look at ex1's stat reference of pitching above, pitching has been doing fine. we do have a few hicups but they are allowing 4ER or less most of the time.

its in these close games we cannot score runs. and healthy Ells will make a huge difference.

[a700hitter]

look at ex1's stat reference of pitching above, pitching has been doing fine. we do have a few hicups but they are allowing 4ER or less most of the time.

its in these close games we cannot score runs. and healthy Ells will make a huge difference.

Believe what you want to believe. This team is not going to play .650 ball in the second half if our starters have the same ERAs in the second half as they did in the first half. I'll guarantee you that, and Ellsbury and Crawford have nothing to do with that. Don't tell me that they each just had a few bad games excuse. That is ridiculous to say over the course of half a season. They have sucked. Look at their ERA's and look at the ERA's of the starters on teams that are better than us. There is your difference.

[example1]

I think you have not seen A700's point.

 

Our major injuries have been at field players. Happens that our offense has not been our problem. Offense has been doing very good given the circumstances in the overall 1st half, more than I expected, actually. I expect that our offense will be better or at least at the same level where it was in the 1st half.

 

Our problem has been our pitching. This is not a new topic. Sure, it has improved. But it doesn't matter, it was the reason why we are in this position (4th place). Again, you can split or sugarcoat the numbers all you want, thing is that our pitching is one of the worst of the league thus far in this first half of the season, as simple as that, those are the numbers and there's the consequences.

 

Again, this is a very unbalanced team. FO did not addressed our weak side. They gambled a lot going with two experiments. We had very little margin of error in that regard, and now we are facing this nightmare.

 

I completely see A700s point. It's easy to see. He thinks pitching has been the problem. I'm saying that in May and June the Sox were either middle of the pack or at the top in overall pitching.

 

10 of their last 13 losses have involved giving up 4 or fewer runs.

 

I looked at every game this year and filtered specifically for the losses. If the Sox allowed 4 runs or fewer in a loss then I blame that loss on the offense, if they allowed 5 or more runs, I blame the loss on pitching. Of their 40 losses, here's how it broke out:

 

Who is to blame overall:

 

Offense: 19 losses with 4 or fewer runs scored (47.5%)

Pitching: 21 losses with 5 or more runs allowed (52.5%)

 

Who is to blame in April:

 

Offense: 4 (36%)

Pitching: 7 (64%)

 

Who is to blame in May:

 

Offense: 5 (36%)

Pitching: 9 (64%)

 

Who is to blame in June:

 

Offense: 8 (67%)

Pitching: 4 (33%)

 

So far in July:

 

Offense: 2 (67%)

Pitching: 1 (33%)

 

 

For the whole season, the pitching has been partially more responsible for the losses than the offense, with this fairly basic way of looking at it.

 

However, since May 17th (game #37 of 82)

 

Offense: 13 (62%)

Pitching: 8 (38%)

 

In other words, in their last 21 losses, 13 of them have been due to the offense not being able to score more than 4 runs. In their first 19 losses, 13 of them were due to pitchers not being able to win with at least 5 runs of support.

 

The pitching staff has been much, much better since mid-May, especially the bullpen. The offense has been failing more often than not in the losses since then.

[example1]

Believe what you want to believe. This team is not going to play .650 ball in the second half if our starters have the same ERAs in the second half as they did in the first half.

 

No doubt about that...

 

I'll guarantee you that, and Ellsbury and Crawford have nothing to do with that. Don't tell me that they each just had a few bad games excuse. That is ridiculous to say over the course of half a season. They have sucked. Look at their ERA's and look at the ERA's of the starters on teams that are better than us. There is your difference.

 

I think what you are missing is that the ERA in the first half was due to an incredibly bad April.

 

Here's the average number of runs allowed per-game, by month:

 

April: 5.64

May: 4.34

June: 3.63

July: 3.25

 

Over that time, we have seen Buchholz go from being shelled to pitching decently, Bard being replaced by Cook/Morales, both of whom have pitched more than admirably, we have seen Beckett return to form, Doubront continue pitching decently (maybe even get worse), and continued disappointment from Lester.

 

We have also seen a bullpen that has gone from completely hapless to one of the best in baseball after the horrible April.

 

 

I don't think you are stupid a700, I just think that the conventional wisdom looks at runs scored and thinks that the offense can't possibly be the problem. I think that peeling back a layer shows that the issue is more complex than that.

 

As far as Gonzalez being disappointment, that's a huge understatement. He and Pedroia could have provided a few wins for the club as well.

 

I just don't think it's an issue of depth. I think that Cherington has actually put together a team with plenty of depth, whether it is in the bullpen (without Bailey and Bard all season), the outfield (without Crawford and Ellsbury) or in the rotation (without Dice-K and Lackey, with Morales and Cook). Their depth seems so much better than last year, to me, that it doesn't seem like a legitimate criticism.

 

No team is going to have a replacement option for a s***** 1-3 starter. Look at Philly. They don't have some hot-shot option ready to replace Cliff Lee. They just have to tolerate it.

[jung]

The problem with the pitching stats that are being forwarded is that they are pitching stats for the staff as a whole. The absolute gorilla in the room of baseball is starting pitching, not a combination of starting pitching and relief pitching. No question that even the Sox starting pitching numbers have improved over the course of the last few months...although we have played quite an assembly of weak offensive teams over that period.

 

Even with the weakness of the offensive teams we have faced, the bulk of the improvement in pitching has been in the relief squad. As I said somewhere earlier, some on the board have looked forward to the time in the schedule when we would be playing against our direct competitors. On the one hand, there is cause for some optimism there I think. Many of them play something akin to the brand of baseball that the Sox play. We just saw what happens to the Sox in close, low scoring games.

 

Now however, we are going to see our pitching staff again face some real offenses. Lets see if we really wanted what we have claimed we have wanted when we get through this part of the schedule and lets look at those starting pitching stats again after that.

[jung]

One thing I should have added is that I do agree that starting pitching is not our only problem however I believe it to be our biggest problem.

 

The Sox have not produced timely hitting and their defense has been terrible in that it makes monster mistakes in big moments that may not be recorded as an error but still results in the other team getting extra outs and extra runs because we don't make the plays we should make.

 

If we did not get a belly full of that in Seattle and Oakland, we are just not watching.

[a700hitter]

No doubt about that...

 

 

 

I think what you are missing is that the ERA in the first half was due to an incredibly bad April.

 

Here's the average number of runs allowed per-game, by month:

 

April: 5.64

May: 4.34

June: 3.63

July: 3.25

 

Over that time, we have seen Buchholz go from being shelled to pitching decently, Bard being replaced by Cook/Morales, both of whom have pitched more than admirably, we have seen Beckett return to form, Doubront continue pitching decently (maybe even get worse), and continued disappointment from Lester.

 

We have also seen a bullpen that has gone from completely hapless to one of the best in baseball after the horrible April.

 

 

I don't think you are stupid a700, I just think that the conventional wisdom looks at runs scored and thinks that the offense can't possibly be the problem. I think that peeling back a layer shows that the issue is more complex than that.

 

As far as Gonzalez being disappointment, that's a huge understatement. He and Pedroia could have provided a few wins for the club as well.

 

I just don't think it's an issue of depth. I think that Cherington has actually put together a team with plenty of depth, whether it is in the bullpen (without Bailey and Bard all season), the outfield (without Crawford and Ellsbury) or in the rotation (without Dice-K and Lackey, with Morales and Cook). Their depth seems so much better than last year, to me, that it doesn't seem like a legitimate criticism.

 

No team is going to have a replacement option for a s***** 1-3 starter. Look at Philly. They don't have some hot-shot option ready to replace Cliff Lee. They just have to tolerate it.

You are cherry picking, E1 looking for signs of hope. I am sorry, but you can't be a sabremetrics guy and exclude certain months or weeks that you don't like. April is part of the season. Our pitchers are what they are for the first half of the season, and that is why the team sucked. If you want to point to some positive trends for the second half of the season, I am fine with that, but the tale of the first half includes April, which is a huge part of why we are in last place.

 

BTW: What do you think about our starting pitching tonight against a real offense. Beckett looks like a bucket of s***.

[a700hitter]

When they score 4 or less runs the Red Sox record is atrocious compared to other teams:

 

Red Sox 6-34 (.150)

Yankees 13-24 (.351)

Tampa 18-37 (.327)

Angels 16- 28 (.364)

Guardians 17- 29 (.370)

[iortiz]

Ouch!

[Bellhorn04]

Lester now assumes the ERA lead among the 5 pitchers with the most starts, at a sparkling 4.33. So yeah, it's hard to argue the starting pitching hasn't stunk overall.

[a700hitter]

Lester now assumes the ERA lead among the 5 pitchers with the most starts' date=' at a sparkling 4.33. So yeah, it's hard to argue the starting pitching hasn't stunk overall.[/quote']He'll give the lead back to Beckett on Sunday night.

[example1]

When they score 4 or less runs the Red Sox record is atrocious compared to other teams:

 

Red Sox 6-34 (.150)

Yankees 13-24 (.351)

Tampa 18-37 (.327)

Angels 16- 28 (.364)

Guardians 17- 29 (.370)

 

Thanks for finding that. Good work.

 

Earlier you turned the question on its head (appropriately so) and asked whether low-scoring, close games ultimately belong to pitchers or hitters, implying that they belong to pitchers. I guess I would just say that, as a rule of thumb, if pitchers could hold a team to 4 runs or less every single game, many teams would do pretty well. That's why I pick 4 runs as the standard.

 

As for the cherry picking comment earlier, I wasn't cherry picking intentionally. I was just pointing out that as things have fallen into place with a new manager and new GM and coaches, new pitchers in new roles, etc., the ERA has dropped and the team has looked better pitching-wise. Wasn't trying to cherry pick. My intent was to show that, perhaps, Bobby V figured out what he had to work with and started working with it better than he did at the beginning of the season. No intellectual dishonesty intended.

 

It occurred to me tonight as I was watching the game: the fact that you and I are arguing over whether it is the pitching or offense that has been the problem is really indicative of the larger problem that this team isn't where it should be right now. They have a long way to go if they are going to compete for anything this season or next. It may all be in their head, but if that's the case they have a lot of headway to go to get where they should.

[Taliesin]

It's always pitching. Defense and Timely hitting. In that order. You could write a thesis in an argument about O.B.P. Or any of the latest trendy sabermetric principles. Or wax poetic about the good old days when men were men. It's Pitching. Billy Beane hasn't won s***, Moneyball or otherwise. It's also chemistry. You could argue that forever too. This team is a sack of nothing signifying nothing. It's just the waxing and waning of baseball. Or in the words of Carole King...sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. I think there is a general malaise over the whole sport at the moment. It's like the whole nation has entered into a fugue state. As a fan, I went some 20 odd years without making the playoffs. Now, they can just Caribbean Island backdoor it. Have thumb injuries, back spasms, mental defects, chicken and beer, pitch counts. Which I think have been the bane of everything. It's pitching. That's it.

[Emmz]

Oh boy, another old guy with a simple-minded approach.

[iortiz]

You are cherry picking, E1 looking for signs of hope. I am sorry, but you can't be a sabremetrics guy and exclude certain months or weeks that you don't like. April is part of the season. Our pitchers are what they are for the first half of the season, and that is why the team sucked. If you want to point to some positive trends for the second half of the season, I am fine with that, but the tale of the first half includes April, which is a huge part of why we are in last place.

 

BTW: What do you think about our starting pitching tonight against a real offense. Beckett looks like a bucket of s***.

 

Yup. Last year the blame was April and Sprember. Now seems to be April, and only God knows If there is going to be another month to blame.

 

As I said, we can sugarcoat/cherry pick or split the numbers all we want for our convenience in order to make a case. The true is that our pitching has stunk in the first half of the season. Our offense has been ok in the same period of time.

 

if we do not recognize the problem, it will be there forever.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Oh boy' date=' another old guy with a simple-minded approach.[/quote']

 

lmfao

[example1]

Yup. Last year the blame was April and Sprember. Now seems to be April, and only God knows If there is going to be another month to blame.

 

As I said, we can sugarcoat/cherry pick or split the numbers all we want for our convenience in order to make a case. The true is that our pitching has stunk in the first half of the season. Our offense has been ok in the same period of time.

 

if we do not recognize the problem, it will be there forever.

 

You prefer to do surgery with a chainsaw rather than a scalpel? That's fine. I think it is worth noting that the pitching staff has come back around to being at least decent, and that the offense--which everyone wants to pat on the back and say "good job, keep going" hasn't actually been as good as it might seem.

 

When we break this down to the component parts, it is obvious. Gonzalez and Pedroia have stunk, Ellsbury and Crawford have been non existent. That's four of the top five offensive pieces on the team. Yes, other players have stepped up, but imagine how the team would do if they had all four of those guys producing AND had performances like this from Salty and Ortiz, etc.,

[jung]

And so what are we going to say when the pitching numbers have ballooned back up again because we are now actually going to be facing some teams that actually have an offense? Last night was no anomaly. Last night was just the beginning.

[example1]

That the pitching sucks AND the offense is inconsistent/untimely?

[a700hitter]

Thanks for finding that. Good work.

 

Earlier you turned the question on its head (appropriately so) and asked whether low-scoring, close games ultimately belong to pitchers or hitters, implying that they belong to pitchers. I guess I would just say that, as a rule of thumb, if pitchers could hold a team to 4 runs or less every single game, many teams would do pretty well. That's why I pick 4 runs as the standard.

 

As for the cherry picking comment earlier, I wasn't cherry picking intentionally. I was just pointing out that as things have fallen into place with a new manager and new GM and coaches, new pitchers in new roles, etc., the ERA has dropped and the team has looked better pitching-wise. Wasn't trying to cherry pick. My intent was to show that, perhaps, Bobby V figured out what he had to work with and started working with it better than he did at the beginning of the season. No intellectual dishonesty intended.

 

It occurred to me tonight as I was watching the game: the fact that you and I are arguing over whether it is the pitching or offense that has been the problem is really indicative of the larger problem that this team isn't where it should be right now. They have a long way to go if they are going to compete for anything this season or next. It may all be in their head, but if that's the case they have a lot of headway to go to get where they should.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. There is a lot wrong with this team. It's definitely not one thing. Watching Mauro Gomez playing 3rd base and Punto play 2nd is not a pretty sight in the lineup. AGon's power outage is distressing too. Add that to the pitching problems and the AAAA outfielders and it is bad news.