Who is the Biggest Problem Right Now?

[mvp 78]

If they started the uear with two prospects, it would have been ERod and BJ. HO would still be in AAA.

[cp176]

For most of this argument, I've been on Kimmi's side, but you're starting to sway me because I realize the fact that this is a bad team. It isn't really possible for a bad team to be in 1st. That is the one hole with your argument, Kimmi. Until reading this post, I had clung to the idea that we were a decent team that had just underperformed. Well, we have underperformed, but we're not quite a decent team. The only thing that has underperformed is the offense. The pitching is right on par with expectations, if you average out the whole season. This team really highlights the need and important of having an ace. But, at the same time, we have left a few too many games out there.

 

 

You are a good kid. No one is 100% right about anything. If you are willing to listen to the points of view of many different people, you never know what you might learn. Respecting someone whom you disagree with is a concept that most people just don't like. It is particularly obvious when you don't have to see the person you are talking to. Learn as much as you can, then form your own opinions. You are not letting someone speak for you - I like that.

[jd98]

The low scoring losses in May also show how very important pitching is. We pitched a good game and still lost because, and this is the important part, the other team pitched a great game. I have yet to see anybody give the opponents any credit. They are equally responsible for the outcome of the game as the Sox players. Sure many of those games were by unexpected pitchers, but the same can be said about the good games pitched by the Sox. So you can say Sox lost because they couldn't hit, but the opponents fans aren't saying that. They're saying they won because so-and-so pitched great. Both are equally valid.

[Thunder]

The low scoring losses in May also show how very important pitching is. We pitched a good game and still lost because, and this is the important part, the other team pitched a great game. I have yet to see anybody give the opponents any credit. They are equally responsible for the outcome of the game as the Sox players. Sure many of those games were by unexpected pitchers, but the same can be said about the good games pitched by the Sox. So you can say Sox lost because they couldn't hit, but the opponents fans aren't saying that. They're saying they won because so-and-so pitched great. Both are equally valid.

 

Well, I for one, have refrained from saying that because I know that when our offense is on, we can beat most any pitcher. We've beaten Felix, Sonny Gray, Garrett Richards, all in the month of May no less. Those were the rare games in May when the offense stepped up to back the awful pitching.

[jd98]

Well, I for one, have refrained from saying that because I know that when our offense is on, we can beat most any pitcher. We've beaten Felix, Sonny Gray, Garrett Richards, all in the month of May no less. Those were the rare games in May when the offense stepped up to back the awful pitching.

 

You're saying the Sox beat some good pitchers because the offense stepped up. A Seattle fan would just say 'Felix sucked tonight' and not give credit to Sox hitters. That's what I was getting at. It's a delicate balance. A team's fans tend to just look at their players in a vacuum.

 

I agree that if the Sox had scored more in May, they would be in pretty good shape, and the hitters underperforming is partly to blame for that, but not as much blame as they are getting because the other teams have players too that are partly responsible for that underperformance.

[jd98]

To look at it another way, if the offense had scored 4-5 runs per game in May, and ended up with a good record, then you could just as fairly say they won because the starting pitching overperformed, and had the SP pitched to expectations then they would have been .500 or worse. So I guess what I'm really saying is that the team is where it is because the pitching is bad, not because of a bad May for the offense. Yes it is technically true that the team would be in good shape had the offense been better in May, but that's not really a fair way to look at it.

 

Edit: Just to clarify, I think it's perfectly fine to say the Sox would be in great shape had the offense not underperformed in May. It is true. It's an 'if only' wishful thinking that everybody does. Like if you get 4 of 5 lottery numbers correct. If only you had got that 5th number. But when you start to assign blame for where the Sox are in the standings, it's not fair to put most of the blame on the offense because they underperformed in May. There's a whole lot more going on than that. That's just a small part of the reason.

Edited July 14, 2015 by jd98

[User Name]

For most of this argument, I've been on Kimmi's side, but you're starting to sway me because I realize the fact that this is a bad team. It isn't really possible for a bad team to be in 1st. That is the one hole with your argument, Kimmi. Until reading this post, I had clung to the idea that we were a decent team that had just underperformed. Well, we have underperformed, but we're not quite a decent team. The only thing that has underperformed is the offense. The pitching is right on par with expectations, if you average out the whole season. This team really highlights the need and important of having an ace. But, at the same time, we have left a few too many games out there.

 

You're at least 15 shades of wrong here. Repeating an incorrect idea over and over again does not make it correct. No one expected the pitching to be this bad. No one. A big part of that is losing both catchers. The offensive and defensive underperformance is just icing on the cake. If your opinion is that easily swayed, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.

[User Name]

To look at it another way, if the offense had scored 4-5 runs per game in May, and ended up with a good record, then you could just as fairly say they won because the starting pitching overperformed, and had the SP pitched to expectations then they would have been .500 or worse. So I guess what I'm really saying is that the team is where it is because the pitching is bad, not because of a bad May for the offense. Yes it is technically true that the team would be in good shape had the offense been better in May, but that's not really a fair way to look at it.

 

Edit: Just to clarify, I think it's perfectly fine to say the Sox would be in great shape had the offense not underperformed in May. It is true. It's an 'if only' wishful thinking that everybody does. Like if you get 4 of 5 lottery numbers correct. If only you had got that 5th number. But when you start to assign blame for where the Sox are in the standings, it's not fair to put most of the blame on the offense because they underperformed in May. There's a whole lot more going on than that. That's just a small part of the reason.

 

You're dead wrong on one account: It's not part of the reason. It's the main reason, because we all expected the pitching to have its struggles, but the offense was built to mash. The idea that you're struggling to comprehend is that this wasn't an offense that was bound to struggle for a whole goddamn month. No one expected that level of underperformance.

[Kimmi]

So who are you going to believe these days right? Who are you going to hang your hat? I would have felt a lot better then and I would feel a lot better now if they had gone out and gotten that one pitcher that everyone seems to have known then and now they we need. Goes without saying that we need that pitcher now. We might even need more than one.

 

I would have felt a lot better if they had gotten a pitcher too. I just think they felt that they had enough pitching to get to the point of calling up a youngster or making a trade.

[Kimmi]

Wow... Some of those are the ones I look at... Maybe I'm not remembering it right... Now I feel stupid.

 

No reason to feel stupid Thunder. You're a good poster who is very knowledgeable and passionate about baseball.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, I am really struggling to understand your point of view. Here is what I am processing. I am not putting words in your mouth, but I am having trouble following your argument. You are saying that this is a bad team, but that it should be in first place but for the poor offense in May. You also beleive that the pitching is poor, but good enough for this team to be in first place but for poor offensive support in May.

 

If that is a correct summary of your views, I have a couple of questions. If we were currently in first place, because the offense hit in May and we won some more games, do you think this "bad team" as currently constituted could win the division over the full season? If not, what would you change about it to keep it competitive?

 

Lastly, don't you think that there have been some games over the first half of the season where the pitching s*** the bed and lost games where the offense produced ample runs?

 

Let me first clarify. I shouldn't have said that it's a bad team. I should have said that it's a team that has overall played badly to date. It has some good offensive talent and some fair pitching talent which have both underperformed. The offense has picked things up recently, so they are currently not a problem as far as I'm concerned.

 

Yes, despite the poor pitching to date, the team would be in first place (or very close to it) if not for the poor offense in May. How many times do I have to say that?

 

I have also stated more than once that we need pitching. The pen is overworked and middle relief has not been strong. Buchholz is injured. We have 6.5 games to make up. All of that leads to needing more pitching.

 

That said, if we were currently in first place and Buchholz were not injured, I think this team that has been "playing badly" could win the division over the full season, as currently constituted, if they played up to expected levels.

[iortiz]

I think the poll won't change drastically. Outside talksox it's likely the same verdict as well. Ben and his crew have to go. Their strategy sucks.

[Kimmi]

For most of this argument, I've been on Kimmi's side, but you're starting to sway me because I realize the fact that this is a bad team. It isn't really possible for a bad team to be in 1st. That is the one hole with your argument, Kimmi. Until reading this post, I had clung to the idea that we were a decent team that had just underperformed. Well, we have underperformed, but we're not quite a decent team. The only thing that has underperformed is the offense. The pitching is right on par with expectations, if you average out the whole season. This team really highlights the need and important of having an ace. But, at the same time, we have left a few too many games out there.

 

As I just posted to a700, the team's play has not reflected the talent level of the team. I'm not trying to say that our pitching is elite. It's far from it. But even so, they have underperformed their mediocre talent. The offense is supposed to be top notch. They have underperformed their talent level.

 

It's not a bad team. It's potentially a good team that has played badly.

[Kimmi]

You're dead wrong on one account: It's not part of the reason. It's the main reason, because we all expected the pitching to have its struggles, but the offense was built to mash. The idea that you're struggling to comprehend is that this wasn't an offense that was bound to struggle for a whole goddamn month. No one expected that level of underperformance.

 

Spot on back to back posts. I knew there was a reason why I liked you.

[jd98]

You're dead wrong on one account: It's not part of the reason. It's the main reason, because we all expected the pitching to have its struggles, but the offense was built to mash. The idea that you're struggling to comprehend is that this wasn't an offense that was bound to struggle for a whole goddamn month. No one expected that level of underperformance.

 

The bolded part is the main problem. Assembling a rotation that nobody expected to be any good. You can't put together a s*** rotation then put the blame on the offense for a bad month, just because the pitching has sucked as expected. How about putting together a rotation that isn't gonna suck.

[SoxHop]

The offense was suppose to hit like crazy, but it didn't

 

The rotation and bullpen was supposed to be mediocre, but it wasn't.

 

The defense was suppose to be good, but is hasn't been.

 

There are only two pitchers left from the original starting 5, and one has or had the worst ERA in the league now or until recently.

[Thunder]

You're at least 15 shades of wrong here. Repeating an incorrect idea over and over again does not make it correct. No one expected the pitching to be this bad. No one. A big part of that is losing both catchers. The offensive and defensive underperformance is just icing on the cake. If your opinion is that easily swayed, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.

 

I certainly expected the pitching to struggle, albeit not as bad as it is and as bad as I commented on. I knew there were a lot of question marks. And, now that Hanigan has come back, overall, I've seen improvements, if not tiny steps forward. And don't act like it's a bad thing to have your opinion changed. I'm humble enough to realize when I'm wrong and correct myself, when faced with accurate and correct facts that I hadn't thought of.

[Thunder]

As I just posted to a700, the team's play has not reflected the talent level of the team. I'm not trying to say that our pitching is elite. It's far from it. But even so, they have underperformed their mediocre talent. The offense is supposed to be top notch. They have underperformed their talent level.

 

It's not a bad team. It's potentially a good team that has played badly.

 

Yes, that's how I feel. Thank you for shortening it for me.

[iortiz]

The bolded part is the main problem. Assembling a rotation that nobody expected to be any good. You can't put together a s*** rotation then put the blame on the offense for a bad month, just because the pitching has sucked as expected. How about putting together a rotation that isn't gonna suck.

 

The offense was suppose to hit like crazy, but it didn't

 

The rotation and bullpen was supposed to be mediocre, but it wasn't.

 

The defense was suppose to be good, but is hasn't been.

 

There are only two pitchers left from the original starting 5, and one has or had the worst ERA in the league now or until recently.

This.

 

This team was built horribly.

[a700hitter]

Let me first clarify. I shouldn't have said that it's a bad team. I should have said that it's a team that has overall played badly to date. It has some good offensive talent and some fair pitching talent which have both underperformed. The offense has picked things up recently, so they are currently not a problem as far as I'm concerned.

 

Yes, despite the poor pitching to date, the team would be in first place (or very close to it) if not for the poor offense in May. How many times do I have to say that?

 

I have also stated more than once that we need pitching. The pen is overworked and middle relief has not been strong. Buchholz is injured. We have 6.5 games to make up. All of that leads to needing more pitching.

 

That said, if we were currently in first place and Buchholz were not injured, I think this team that has been "playing badly" could win the division over the full season, as currently constituted, if they played up to expected levels.

Thank you for clearing all of of that up for me in a single post. I disagree with you that this team as currently constituted could win the division even if it played up to expectations. We clearly had a different set of expectations for this team -- in particular the starting pitching. My expectation for this staff was a 4.25 ERA because that had been the track record of this collection of starters (Buch, Porcello, Masterson, Miley and Kelly). A rotation with a 4.25 ERA can't cut it in today's game over a 162 game schedule and compete for a playoff spot.

 

What I don't understand is the distinction between a bad team and a team playing badly other than on limited basis for limited stretches of games. A team that plays badly for an entire year is just a bad team.

[User Name]

I certainly expected the pitching to struggle, albeit not as bad as it is and as bad as I commented on. I knew there were a lot of question marks. And, now that Hanigan has come back, overall, I've seen improvements, if not tiny steps forward. And don't act like it's a bad thing to have your opinion changed. I'm humble enough to realize when I'm wrong and correct myself, when faced with accurate and correct facts that I hadn't thought of.

 

You weren't initially wrong. That's the point.

[User Name]

The bolded part is the main problem. Assembling a rotation that nobody expected to be any good. You can't put together a s*** rotation then put the blame on the offense for a bad month, just because the pitching has sucked as expected. How about putting together a rotation that isn't gonna suck.

 

Not s***, mediocre. It, too, has underperformed. If you say you thought they'd be this bad, you're lying.

[Spudboy]

Not s***, mediocre. It, too, has underperformed. If you say you thought they'd be this bad, you're lying.

 

I don't know. Aside from Porcello I could have envisioned what we have seen now.

 

Masterson was a flier and I get that. An expensive one. He is probably cooked. Kelly showed a lively arm last year so I was tantalized. But I saw no command and no poise. So I am not at all surprised that he has sucked ass. Miley I knew absolutely nothing about until the trade was done. At that point I looked at his stats and said, okay, decent arm that can go 30 /200 + with a slightly elevated ERA in the AL. Buch I have never been sold on. Even in the first half of 2013. He just gets broken too often and he is a giant lunkhead.

 

With all that, I could have imagined this level of sucktitude from all but Porcello. Who I believe is much better than what we have seen. Read, not a 1 or a 2 but a 4 or maybe even more with further development ( which will happen ).

[Kimmi]

The bolded part is the main problem. Assembling a rotation that nobody expected to be any good. You can't put together a s*** rotation then put the blame on the offense for a bad month, just because the pitching has sucked as expected. How about putting together a rotation that isn't gonna suck.

 

It wasn't a rotation that was supposed to be good, but it was supposed to be solid enough to keep the potent offense in the majority of the games. Therefore, when the pitching holds the opponents to 4 or less runs, or even 5 runs, the offense was supposed to be able to bail them out a large majority of the time. In fact, the offense did just that during the months of April, June, and July, to the tune of a 29-12 record (.707). Not so much in May, when their record was 10-10 in such games. Not bad, but the way this team was built, the offense has to win those decently pitched games.

 

A lot of people disagree with that approach to building a team. I disagree with it. But on paper, it should have worked.

[User Name]

Again, the problem wasn't the strategy, it was the execution.

[BigPapi]

Porcello and Kelly have been the surprises.

[Kimmi]

Thank you for clearing all of of that up for me in a single post. I disagree with you that this team as currently constituted could win the division even if it played up to expectations. We clearly had a different set of expectations for this team -- in particular the starting pitching. My expectation for this staff was a 4.25 ERA because that had been the track record of this collection of starters (Buch, Porcello, Masterson, Miley and Kelly). A rotation with a 4.25 ERA can't cut it in today's game over a 162 game schedule and compete for a playoff spot.

 

What I don't understand is the distinction between a bad team and a team playing badly other than on limited basis for limited stretches of games. A team that plays badly for an entire year is just a bad team.

 

A bad team means they have no talent. This team has talent. The fact that so many of them have underperformed to the level that they have and for as long as they have is an enigma.

[User Name]

It's not an enigma. It's s***** coaching.

[Thunder]

It's not an enigma. It's s***** coaching.

 

Or is it the players? After 42 pages, we're back to the original question of this thread.

[Palodios]

Miley is about where we expected him to be, slightly worse maybe, but not surprising.

Buchholz performed better than expected.

Eduardo was a huge surprise, and has been a big win for the rotation.

 

But Kelly, Masterson, Porcello. Wow. How did a bunch of young healthy arms with a 3.50 career ERA, a 4.00 ERA, and 4.20 ERA suck so hard?