Position Changes Needed

[sk7326]

I think Bogaerts can handle the position. I think it may be too much to expect from him the kind of offensive production that we need in the top of the order. He can provide very nice offensive production from the bottom of the order. We need to get Pedroia, Victorino and Sizemore at the top of the lineup on a regular basis.

 

A .377 OBP is pretty good at the top of the order ... for him, it's just getting reps

[SoxSport]

What X needs is to have the media lay off him. Half those guys are promoting Drew for Boras, anyways. Bogaerts is the top SS prospect right now in MLB, and he needs some experience as the Red Sox SS. So does JBJ in the OF. X has looked OK to me so far. Let's turn off the microscopes. We don't have to do this for a living, thank heavens.

 

Fact is the Red Sox have defensive holes--especially in their backups: Carp, Nava and Gomes as the major bench along with Roberts who? and Herrera.

[mvp 78]

Herrera isn't a terrible 2b/SS. He's far worse at 3b though when you look at all the defensive metrics. He's basically out of position there.

[redsoxrules]

A .377 OBP is pretty good at the top of the order ... for him, it's just getting reps

 

Who has a 377 OBP?

[seabeachfred]

Defense is his weekness. Even in the minors.

He would be best suited for 3B

 

He might be best suited for third base in some people's opinion but he has to stay at shortstop. We have two good hitting third basemen in Middlebrooks and the upcoming Garin Cecchini and one of them in my opinion has to be moved to get both bats in the lineup. To move Bogaerts would result in putting a weak hitter at shortstop in Marrero who couldn't even crack 300 in college. We have to go with Xander at short and hope that his fielding keeps getting better and that he starts showing us that he is the hitter we all believe him to be.

[seabeachfred]

I understand that it is a small sample size, but over 100 plate appearances, Bogaerts has crushed lefties (.924 OPS) and been beaten by righties (.554 OPS).

 

Was this a trend he saw in the minor leagues? He definitely needs to make an adjustment here.

 

Well Pal, that means we should see some drumfire hitting from him the next two nights since we face lefties both times. Needless to say we need him to start hitting with authority and start driving in some runs.

[seabeachfred]

Because some people are trying to prove their "Red Sox fandom" by being insufferable douches.

 

The only insufferable douchebag I know is you. You can't read very well and misinterpret half of what Ted, Sox Sport and some of the rest of us say. And let me warn you once again shitface.....you get personal and start calling me names and I will respond in a way that will fry you f***ing ears. You want to disagree with me, fine, but keep the personal attacks out of it or I'll once again make you go cry like the big pussy you are to the mods.

[seabeachfred]

Holy crap Fred. By all means avoid sharp objects.

 

I'm not going to hit the panic button. I've been watching this team for 48 years and have seen slow starts too many times to think that the season is lost at this point.

 

I just read an article on BDC that pointed out that between May 3 and May 14, 2013, the Sox went 2-9.

 

Slumps are part of the game. This team has a bunch of talent. I see no reason why they won't start playing .600+ ball at sometimes this spring.

 

Spud, you called me and nicely told me I was full of it. Fine. Doing it that way I can take it and respect the one doing it. As long as it doesn't get personal, which one douchebag on this board still doesn't understand. I might also point out that also in 2013, we got off to a helluva lot better start so that 2-9 stretch, as bad as it was, didn't put us in a hole.

[seabeachfred]

Your theory is as plausible as any other. You don't need proof as some demand. It is a theory. There is no disputing that we are playing lke crap. These guys are talented ballplayers, so there has to be an explanation for the bad team play. Usually everyone doesn't hit or slump at the same time.

 

Right 700, it's a theory and my opinion. Trouble is there are a few douches on the board who want people to think a certain way like what comes out of their mouths is gold instead of more theoretical ******** as well.

[a700hitter]

The only insufferable douchebag I know is you. You can't read very well and misinterpret half of what Ted, Sox Sport and some of the rest of us say. And let me warn you once again shitface.....you get personal and start calling me names and I will respond in a way that will fry you f***ing ears. You want to disagree with me, fine, but keep the personal attacks out of it or I'll once again make you go cry like the big pussy you are to the mods.

LOL!! Fred, put the jackass on ignore. He posts nothing that is worth putting up with his BS. There are so many other smart insightful posters here that you will not be missing anything by not reading him. The only thing you will miss will be the headache.

[seabeachfred]

No way do I want XB off SS right now. I want him growing into the position. He's a long term stud. I'm ok with some early season growing pains.

 

Right OJ, and it would be swell if he starts hitting like we think he can and help carry the team until the rest of the group comes back.

[Navafan29]

We've almost played as many games as an entire NFL season. If we go 5-10 then I'm going to start worrying. It's not about which team wins x amount of games. It's about which team manages to stay ahead of the others and take 1st in the end. Spring training is for warming up, not the regular season.

 

I'm not worried about Bogaerts yet. He is hitting .260 in his real first year. Last time I checked, the average average for MLB players is about .255. It isn't bad, it isn't good, .255 is average. Average as in, it's about the normal batting average for a hitter. Bogaerts is hitting that, meaning he's about a normal MLB player so far, and it's only his first real year. It's a small sample size so we have no idea what he'll bat by season's end. But he's a rookie and he's already up to the level, so I'm not worried.

 

Also did SoxSport seriously just say that the Sox won the world series "pretty easily" last year? Did you not watch the playoffs? Games 2 and 3 against Detroit?

[User Name]

Batting average, like spring training, means very little in the grand scheme of things.

[SoxSport]

The only insufferable douchebag I know is you. You can't read very well and misinterpret half of what Ted, Sox Sport and some of the rest of us say. And let me warn you once again shitface.....you get personal and start calling me names and I will respond in a way that will fry you f***ing ears. You want to disagree with me, fine, but keep the personal attacks out of it or I'll once again make you go cry like the big pussy you are to the mods.

 

haha. this is better than the tweets.

[sk7326]

We've almost played as many games as an entire NFL season. If we go 5-10 then I'm going to start worrying. It's not about which team wins x amount of games. It's about which team manages to stay ahead of the others and take 1st in the end. Spring training is for warming up, not the regular season.

 

I'm not worried about Bogaerts yet. He is hitting .260 in his real first year. Last time I checked, the average average for MLB players is about .255. It isn't bad, it isn't good, .255 is average. Average as in, it's about the normal batting average for a hitter. Bogaerts is hitting that, meaning he's about a normal MLB player so far, and it's only his first real year. It's a small sample size so we have no idea what he'll bat by season's end. But he's a rookie and he's already up to the level, so I'm not worried.

 

Also did SoxSport seriously just say that the Sox won the world series "pretty easily" last year? Did you not watch the playoffs? Games 2 and 3 against Detroit?

 

LOL - to be fair, Sox never faced an elimination game and were only behind twice in any series. It was not a blitz, but it was a lot less stressful than 2007 and 2004. That said in 2013, the Sox ALDS and WS opponents were a LOT better than the 2004 and 2007 opponents.

[yankees228]

LOL - to be fair, Sox never faced an elimination game and were only behind twice in any series. It was not a blitz, but it was a lot less stressful than 2007 and 2004. That said in 2013, the Sox ALDS and WS opponents were a LOT better than the 2004 and 2007 opponents.

 

The 2013 Rays were not a lot better than the 2004 or 2007 Angels. They may not have even been better -- their Pythagorean W-L record was a few games worse than both of those Angels' teams.

 

Also, the 2004 Cardinals were a great team, maybe the best NL team of the last decade. Four bad games doesn't change that.

[sk7326]

The 2013 Rays were not a lot better than the 2004 or 2007 Angels. They may not have even been better -- their Pythagorean W-L record was a few games worse than both of those Angels' teams.

 

Also, the 2004 Cardinals were a great team, maybe the best NL team of the last decade. Four bad games doesn't change that.

 

2004 Cards were the best NL team at the apex of the "AL was miles better than the NL" part of the decade. Without Chris Carpenter, that series was a mismatch. The Rays were doing their thing in an insanely difficult AL East, tougher than either version of the AL West Anaheim won (and the 2004 West was not bad at all). You can also make a case the 2004 Sox were the best team of the decade - with the 2007 Sox being a solid contender. Both times they had a life and death series with the 2nd best team in the entire league in the LCS round.

[User Name]

The only insufferable douchebag I know is you. You can't read very well and misinterpret half of what Ted, Sox Sport and some of the rest of us say. And let me warn you once again shitface.....you get personal and start calling me names and I will respond in a way that will fry you f***ing ears. You want to disagree with me, fine, but keep the personal attacks out of it or I'll once again make you go cry like the big pussy you are to the mods.

 

Fred, keep your anger in check, lest your vagina explode like a700's already has. We don't want to have to clean up that mess too.

[User Name]

2004 Cards were the best NL team at the apex of the "AL was miles better than the NL" part of the decade. Without Chris Carpenter, that series was a mismatch. The Rays were doing their thing in an insanely difficult AL East, tougher than either version of the AL West Anaheim won (and the 2004 West was not bad at all). You can also make a case the 2004 Sox were the best team of the decade - with the 2007 Sox being a solid contender. Both times they had a life and death series with the 2nd best team in the entire league in the LCS round.

 

The Cardinals didn't have Carpenter, but Schilling's health was a huge question mark, and Pedro wasn't the Pedro of old. The Cardinals had essentially the best lineup an NL team could field with three 34+ homer hitters and lots of depth. A few balls dropping and that would have been a very different series.

[sk7326]

The Cardinals didn't have Carpenter, but Schilling's health was a huge question mark, and Pedro wasn't the Pedro of old. The Cardinals had essentially the best lineup an NL team could field with three 34+ homer hitters and lots of depth. A few balls dropping and that would have been a very different series.

 

Schilling's health was an issue - but the Sox had solid rotation edges in Games 3 and 4. The Cards lineup was good - but the Sox was one of the best of recent times. Sox played two of their worst games in that entire postseason and won both games and then sparkled in the other two. In a sense, the "a few things and it'd be different" applies to any set of games. IMO, that difference is more the difference between a sweep and a 6 game series than something too directional. Sox win that series most of times it is played (this being baseball after all, that means something like 2 out of 3) - and it is more a statement on the 2004 team's quality than the Cards. (although that was a poor NL and remained that way for a while)

[yankees228]

Schilling's health was an issue - but the Sox had solid rotation edges in Games 3 and 4. The Cards lineup was good - but the Sox was one of the best of recent times. Sox played two of their worst games in that entire postseason and won both games and then sparkled in the other two. In a sense, the "a few things and it'd be different" applies to any set of games. IMO, that difference is more the difference between a sweep and a 6 game series than something too directional. Sox win that series most of times it is played (this being baseball after all, that means something like 2 out of 3) - and it is more a statement on the 2004 team's quality than the Cards. (although that was a poor NL and remained that way for a while)

 

Yeah, the 2004 Red Sox were, without a doubt, the best team in baseball. I always told people that the Yankees going up 3-0 in that series was a bigger shock than the Red Sox winning the next 4. I just wouldn't sell the Cardinals short. No Carpenter was a big deal, but their offense had a ton of power, they ran the bases extremely well, and they played great defense. You don't win 105 games by accident.

[jacksonianmarch]

I have said this 1000 times this offseason and into the preseason. The sox had a great mix of career years and solid health last yr. Expecting the same after losing Ellsbury, Salty, and Drew is crazy.

[Bellhorn04]

I have said this 1000 times this offseason and into the preseason. The sox had a great mix of career years and solid health last yr. Expecting the same after losing Ellsbury, Salty, and Drew is crazy.

 

Couldn't be expected to repeat 2013 even if we did keep those 3.

[jacksonianmarch]

Couldn't be expected to repeat 2013 even if we did keep those 3.

 

Exactly. And losing those three made this yr your true bridge yr. It wouldn't have been tolerated too well had last yr not gone so well for you guys.

[reYoukilis]

No one knows whos going to win the WS but if the division stays tight in the early months, I can see things jelling for us in the middle to late months. Ellsbury was important for us but was he as important as Pedroia, Papi, Victorino, or Napoli? We still have those guys and if Bogaerts and Sizemore deliver, I dont see much of a dropoff.

[Palodios]

The Yankees and the Red Sox both have to worry about key players who are either aging or injury prone.

 

The Yanks have CC, Kuroda, Ellsbury, Jeter, Beltran, and Soriano who could all be big question marks midway through the season because of age and injury concerns.

The Red Sox rely heavily on Ortiz and Koji, while Pedroia and Victorino seem like big injury concerns as well.

 

Meawhile, the pesky Rays lose a crucial arm in Moore, the Jays are without Reyes and the O's are without Machado.

 

This season will come down to luck.

[yankees228]

The Yankees and the Red Sox both have to worry about key players who are either aging or injury prone.

 

The Yanks have CC, Kuroda, Ellsbury, Jeter, Beltran, and Soriano who could all be big question marks midway through the season because of age and injury concerns.

The Red Sox rely heavily on Ortiz and Koji, while Pedroia and Victorino seem like big injury concerns as well.

 

Meawhile, the pesky Rays lose a crucial arm in Moore, the Jays are without Reyes and the O's are without Machado.

 

This season will come down to luck.

 

I'm completely with you, except for Ellsbury. He may very well get injured at some point this season, but he's no bigger injury risk than your average player.

[jacksonianmarch]

Everyone gets on Ells for his injuries, but all three were s*** luck. If Beltre didn't knee him in the ribs, brignac didn't land on his shoulder, and a ball not find it's way fouled off his foot, he'd have had a clean bill of health his whole career

[Spudboy]

Everyone gets on Ells for his injuries, but all three were s*** luck. If Beltre didn't knee him in the ribs, brignac didn't land on his shoulder, and a ball not find it's way fouled off his foot, he'd have had a clean bill of health his whole career

 

Exactly.

 

And he still performed really well in the post season despite the injury last year. "Glass". Lol.

[Palodios]

Everyone gets on Ells for his injuries, but all three were s*** luck. If Beltre didn't knee him in the ribs, brignac didn't land on his shoulder, and a ball not find it's way fouled off his foot, he'd have had a clean bill of health his whole career

 

Ellsbury puts his body on the line with his play, in diving defense and headfirst steals -- that's why he gets hurt frequently. Same thing with Pedroia and Victorino. Maybe he won't have any contact injuries this season, but maybe he will. The point of my post wasn't to say that any one player is going to get hurt -- the point was to say that some of them will.