Who is the Biggest Problem Right Now?

[sk7326]

Not only was it not solid, it was dumb. Pitching and defense win championships. The rest is all fluff. If the Red Sox defense sucked as badly as you contend then who is to blame? Obviously the GM who constructed it to support his supposedly ace ground ball throwing pitching staff is primarily culpable.

 

A great many of us had doubts about this "strategy" since there were questions about Bogaerts at short and Sandoval at third. There is no denying that Bogaerts has improved his defense considerably. Nevertheless, whether the pitching was bad or the defense worse or vice a versa, It all goes to prove what many have contended that Ben 's team was poorly constructed. His rationale was deeply flawed.

 

I will giggle uncontrollably as I note how utterly full of bunk that claim is. Going to offensive fWAR (or whatever ballpark normalized thing you like):

 

2014: LAA, Det led the league, Baltimore was 6th, Oakland 7th, Kansas City 10th

2013: Bos, Det, Oak, TB led, Cleveland 6th

2012: NY, Texas, Detroit, Oakland 2nd through 5th, Baltimore 11th

2011: Tex, NY, Det, TB 2 through 5th

2010: NY, TB, Min 3rd, Texas 7th

2009: NY 1st, LAA, Min, Bos 3rd through 5th

2008: Bos 2nd, NYY 6th, ChiSox 9th, LAA 10th

2007: NY 1st, Bos Cle 3th-4th, LAA 7th

 

So - excluding "regular season tiebreaker games" since 2007:

 

35 AL playoff teams ... exactly 4 playoffs teams were below the median (8th place or worse) in offense

25 of the playoff teams were in the top 5 in offense

[sk7326]

The problem with the FO strategy was assuming that the pitching would even be mediocre. Many of us thought it would be terrible. I predicted 13th in ERA, and that was my optimistic prediction. I'm no guru of predictions, just trying to show why the FO strategy may not have been so sound. Porcello is the only one I'm surprised by at all, and that's partly countered by having a mostly good Buchholz. It's probably even a bit fortunate that Masterson was as bad as he was. That forced ERod to be called up sooner, and he has been very good. I was dumbfounded at how bad the rotation looked given the payroll of the team.

 

You were that pessimistic about the bullpen? That seems mean.

[Elktonnick]

I will giggle uncontrollably as I note how utterly full of bunk that claim is. Going to offensive fWAR (or whatever ballpark normalized thing you like):

 

2014: LAA, Det led the league, Baltimore was 6th, Oakland 7th, Kansas City 10th

2013: Bos, Det, Oak, TB led, Cleveland 6th

2012: NY, Texas, Detroit, Oakland 2nd through 5th, Baltimore 11th

2011: Tex, NY, Det, TB 2 through 5th

2010: NY, TB, Min 3rd, Texas 7th

2009: NY 1st, LAA, Min, Bos 3rd through 5th

2008: Bos 2nd, NYY 6th, ChiSox 9th, LAA 10th

2007: NY 1st, Bos Cle 3th-4th, LAA 7th

 

So - excluding "regular season tiebreaker games" since 2007:

 

35 AL playoff teams ... exactly 4 playoffs teams were below the median (8th place or worse) in offense

25 of the playoff teams were in the top 5 in offense

 

We are talking about championships, not merely making the playoffs.

[jd98]

You were that pessimistic about the bullpen? That seems mean.

 

I was just referring to the SP when I said I thought they would be terrible. I think you knew that and are just messing with me, but it's hard to tell on the internet. I thought the bullpen was fine, but didn't seem like an asset compared to the rest of the league to affect overall ERA ranking. Like most teams, the back end looked solid, with questions in the middle. I thought they would be about average.

[sk7326]

We are talking about championships, not merely making the playoffs.

 

Pitching and defense are not remotely sufficient to make the playoffs - which is the one iron clad requirement for teams to win the championship.

[sk7326]

I was just referring to the SP when I said I thought they would be terrible. I think you knew that and are just messing with me, but it's hard to tell on the internet. I thought the bullpen was fine, but didn't seem like an asset compared to the rest of the league to affect overall ERA ranking. Like most teams, the back end looked solid, with questions in the middle. I thought they would be about average.

 

With the rotation, aside from Masterson there was not really a reason to be truly pessimistic about the guys being terrible. And since 1/3 of the innings pitched would be with the bullpen, you'd expect a good bullpen would provide some help also.

 

Also since pitching is not 100% of run prevention - there was not much evidence entering the season the Red Sox would be bad defensively.

 

The run prevention has failed - but to think it was preordained doesn't make much sense either.

[Elktonnick]

Pitching and defense are not remotely sufficient to make the playoffs - which is the one iron clad requirement for teams to win the championship.

 

The teams who win championships have offense but what sets them apart is their pitching and defense. The axiom pitching and defense wins championships has been a truism in baseball since the Cincinnati Red Stockings.

[sk7326]

The teams who win championships have offense but what sets them apart is their pitching and defense. The axiom pitching and defense wins championships has been a truism in baseball since the Cincinnati Red Stockings.

 

Because it fits on a needlepoint throw pillow in your house doesn't make it correct.

[Elktonnick]

Because it fits on a needlepoint throw pillow in your house doesn't make it correct.

 

It happens to be correct because it is true, just ask the SF Giants

[BigPapi]

It's all about run differential and the sox suck at that this year.

[a700hitter]

It happens to be correct because it is true, just ask the SF Giants

Just ask the Boston Red Sox of the 1950's and 1970's who could thump with the best teams in history, but couldn't pitch or play D.

[Elktonnick]

Just ask the Boston Red Sox of the 1950's and 1970's who could thump with the best teams in history, but couldn't pitch or play D.

 

The problem is you and I remember those teams but most of these young fans don't. Dick Stuart who was the Hanley Ramirez of his day would make Hanley look like a gold glover. He wasn't called Dr Strangeglove for no reason.

[a700hitter]

The problem is you and I remember those teams but most of these young fans don't. Dick Stuart who was the Hanley Ramirez of his day would make Hanley look like a gold glover. He wasn't called Dr Strangeglove for no reason.

I shake my head when peoiple who never saw the Big Red Machine post that they were just offense. That team could do it on both sides of the ball. They had Geronimo, Concepcion, Morgan and Bench. The best up the middle D of its day.

[jd98]

With the rotation, aside from Masterson there was not really a reason to be truly pessimistic about the guys being terrible. And since 1/3 of the innings pitched would be with the bullpen, you'd expect a good bullpen would provide some help also.

 

Also since pitching is not 100% of run prevention - there was not much evidence entering the season the Red Sox would be bad defensively.

 

The run prevention has failed - but to think it was preordained doesn't make much sense either.

 

Maybe terrible is too harsh, but I was just applying that to the rotation as a whole. For example, I would consider an individual SP with an ERA of 4.50 as bad but not terrible, but an entire staff with an ERA of 4.50 I would consider terrible. Need some good to counter the bad. There was nobody who could be counted on to be the good. Porcello seemed most likely, but he had only done it for 1 year and it still wasn't anything great. Miley/Buchholz/Kelly combined for a 4.67 ERA, 1.385 WHIP last year in 468 IP, and about half those innings were in NL. Plenty of reason to be pessimistic about the others besides Masterson.

[a700hitter]

Maybe terrible is too harsh, but I was just applying that to the rotation as a whole. For example, I would consider an individual SP with an ERA of 4.50 as bad but not terrible, but an entire staff with an ERA of 4.50 I would consider terrible. Need some good to counter the bad. There was nobody who could be counted on to be the good. Porcello seemed most likely, but he had only done it for 1 year and it still wasn't anything great. Miley/Buchholz/Kelly combined for a 4.67 ERA, 1.385 WHIP last year in 468 IP, and about half those innings were in NL. Plenty of reason to be pessimistic about the others besides Masterson.

A rotation with no #1 or 2 and one #3 is a terrible rotation even if the other 4 guys are just fine #4's and 5s.

[sk7326]

It happens to be correct because it is true, just ask the SF Giants

 

6th, 3rd and 4th in offense in those title years

13th and 4th in the other ones

 

3rd, 10th and 12th in pitching respectively

 

Power pitching helps in October - but you need a lot more for the other 6 months. Giants have been able to catch the ball consistently throughout - and that clearly has been a help.

[Bellhorn04]

It's all about run differential and the sox suck at that this year.

 

This is true.

[Elktonnick]

6th, 3rd and 4th in offense in those title years

13th and 4th in the other ones

 

3rd, 10th and 12th in pitching respectively

 

Power pitching helps in October - but you need a lot more for the other 6 months. Giants have been able to catch the ball consistently throughout - and that clearly has been a help.

 

Never said you don't need offense what I said and what has been said since the advent of the modern game that it took pitching and defense to win titles. Like all axioms it is generally true. So there are exceptions. Of the past 60 world series that I can recall. virtually every championship team had outstanding pitching and defense.

[sk7326]

Never said you don't need offense what I said and what has been said since the advent of the modern game that it took pitching and defense to win titles. Like all axioms it is generally true. So there are exceptions. Of the past 60 world series that I can recall. virtually every championship team had outstanding pitching and defense.

 

Certainly they did over those 4 to 7 games ...

[sk7326]

Just ask the Boston Red Sox of the 1950's and 1970's who could thump with the best teams in history, but couldn't pitch or play D.

 

or be the 2nd best team in baseball in a division which happened to have the 1st

[sk7326]

I shake my head when peoiple who never saw the Big Red Machine post that they were just offense. That team could do it on both sides of the ball. They had Geronimo, Concepcion, Morgan and Bench. The best up the middle D of its day.

 

Great, great everyday players who held up a largely disposable pitching staff (Gullett and Nolan were good, Darcy was OK ... so it's not a monolithic statement).

[a700hitter]

or be the 2nd best team in baseball in a division which happened to have the 1st

some years we were the 3rd best behind the Yankees and Baltimore. We hit better than them, but we could not match their pitching or fielding.

 

I'm the 1950's we finished 4th most of the time-- a few times we managed to finish 3rd.

[Kimmi]

NI honestly don't know what point you are trying to make. Did the offense slump in May? Yes. I am not going to argue against the obvious. If they hadn't slumped, maybe they would be closer in the standings. I would agree with saying maybe to that. We can't say for sure because any conclusion would have to ignore the dynamics of the game. Okay. So what point are you making if I concede these points? That this is really a good team? Because it is not and the atrocious pitching would have doomed them anyway. So please tell me the point that you are trying to make so that I can agree or disagree and we can both move on. I am sure that you are quite certain that you are making an important point, but it is escaping me.

 

No one has ever said that this is a good team. I have clearly stated more than once what my point is. I even bolded it once. You are choosing to ignore what my point is because you don't want to concede that I'm right.

[Northern Star]

some years we were the 3rd best behind the Yankees and Baltimore. We hit better than them, but we could not match their pitching or fielding.

 

I'm the 1950's we finished 4th most of the time-- a few times we managed to finish 3rd.

 

Remember that time the division finished in the exact same order five years running? What a crock.

[Kimmi]

But it is not silly for you to make that decision here, basing your opinion on a 1 month offensive slump?

 

I am not making any decisions on what should be done for the season based on the month of May. I have not suggested that we trade Hanley or Pablo or anyone else based on how they performed in May. I know better than to make a decision like that based on one month of play.

 

I have said that the offense was brutal in May and that our record in May, and therefore our record for the whole season to date, is largely due to them. That is a fact.

[Kimmi]

Not only was it not solid, it was dumb. Pitching and defense win championships. The rest is all fluff. If the Red Sox defense sucked as badly as you contend then who is to blame? Obviously the GM who constructed it to support his supposedly ace ground ball throwing pitching staff is primarily culpable.

 

A great many of us had doubts about this "strategy" since there were questions about Bogaerts at short and Sandoval at third. There is no denying that Bogaerts has improved his defense considerably. Nevertheless, whether the pitching was bad or the defense worse or vice a versa, It all goes to prove what many have contended that Ben 's team was poorly constructed. His rationale was deeply flawed.

 

If Ben's rationale was so deeply flawed, why did the large majority of baseball analysts, both traditional and sabermetric, not to mention all of the computer models that I looked at, pick the Red Sox to win the division. These guys do baseball for a living. If the rationale were that flawed, these guys would not have given the Sox their votes.

 

Some people, including many here, had doubts. They were right. Kudos to them. That still does not mean the strategy was wrong.

 

If I'm not mistaken, you picked the Sox to win the division. Why would you pick a team to win the division if you knew it was so flawed?

 

Lastly, I have not once stated that our defense sucked badly. I also have not once blamed the overall poor pitching on the defense. I did, however, state that the defense has underperformed, just as the pitching and offense have.

[iortiz]

The problem with the FO strategy was assuming that the pitching would even be mediocre. Many of us thought it would be terrible. I predicted 13th in ERA, and that was my optimistic prediction. I'm no guru of predictions, just trying to show why the FO strategy may not have been so sound. Porcello is the only one I'm surprised by at all, and that's partly countered by having a mostly good Buchholz. It's probably even a bit fortunate that Masterson was as bad as he was. That forced ERod to be called up sooner, and he has been very good. I was dumbfounded at how bad the rotation looked given the payroll of the team.

Bingo jad. You were optimistic, I thought that this rotation was going to be the worst in the last 10 Y, included 2012.

[iortiz]

I can not remember a putrid pitching like this making the POs just because had a very good offense.

[Elktonnick]

If Ben's rationale was so deeply flawed, why did the large majority of baseball analysts, both traditional and sabermetric, not to mention all of the computer models that I looked at, pick the Red Sox to win the division. These guys do baseball for a living. If the rationale were that flawed, these guys would not have given the Sox their votes.

 

Some people, including many here, had doubts. They were right. Kudos to them. That still does not mean the strategy was wrong.

 

If I'm not mistaken, you picked the Sox to win the division. Why would you pick a team to win the division if you knew it was so flawed?

 

Lastly, I have not once stated that our defense sucked badly. I also have not once blamed the overall poor pitching on the defense. I did, however, state that the defense has underperformed, just as the pitching and offense have.

 

I did pick them to win only because the division was so weak. I also said that they could just as easily finish last. I let my heart rule my head when I made the prediction. Many analysts including those on MLB radio, Jim Bowden and Jim Duquette, correctly saw the team's weakness. Many others caveated their predilections because they assumed Boston would get Hamels. They didn't realize how stubborn the Sox would be. If the sabermetricians picked Boston it just goes to show the flaws inherent in their sabermetric approach

[a700hitter]

 

I have said that the offense was brutal in May and that our record in May, and therefore our record for the whole season to date, is largely due to them. That is a fact.

And you believe that without the bad offensive performance in May this would not be a bad team? Is that your point?