Who is the Biggest Problem Right Now?

[jacksonianmarch]

Sox are 32-28 outside of May, so it isn't like they had one bad month and lit the world aflame the other months. They're 4 games over outside of May and 9 games under in May. So we can use the same rationale. They are okay outside of May and were absolutely terrible in May. If their best stretch is okay, then they are a bad team.

[Spudboy]

I don't have a lot of faith in "experts". I find no solace in knowing that so many of them have been wrong. I'm not surprised either. Predicting the performance year to year of any athlete is dicey whether you use stats to substantiate your opinion or not. Too many of these experts get it dead wrong in every sport.

 

I'll listen to guys like Shilling or Rice because they both were very good at what they did. But I only listen to them about pitching and batting. That is what they know.

 

I also believe that the Sox idea of stocking the rotation with schlock was a flawed one. Expecting this rotation to remain competitive even when the offense was "under performing" was a really dumb idea if that is what the FO was thinking. So the idea that the best offense in baseball would carry the team was just dumb. It is common sense.

 

Even if this offense was to be strong, there was always the chance that Bogey would continue to be below average, that Betts would struggle, that Vasquez would struggle, that Castillo would struggle, that Victorino would contribute little or nothing, etc.

 

Deliberately disassembling a pitching staff and then restocking with mid to bottom of the rotation guys and reclamation projects was just not a good idea. The results prove this.

 

The key problem seems to be talent evaluation. The Sox have sucked at it, overall, for a couple of years at least. Whose responsibility is that? The GM's.

 

Projections are fine. But they are only as good as the people who are doing the evaluations. In this case, they failed.

[iortiz]

I don't have a lot of faith in "experts". I find no solace in knowing that so many of them have been wrong. I'm not surprised either. Predicting the performance year to year of any athlete is dicey whether you use stats to substantiate your opinion or not. Too many of these experts get it dead wrong in every sport.

 

I'll listen to guys like Shilling or Rice because they both were very good at what they did. But I only listen to them about pitching and batting. That is what they know.

 

I also believe that the Sox idea of stocking the rotation with schlock was a flawed one. Expecting this rotation to remain competitive even when the offense was "under performing" was a really dumb idea if that is what the FO was thinking. So the idea that the best offense in baseball would carry the team was just dumb. It is common sense.

 

Even if this offense was to be strong, there was always the chance that Bogey would continue to be below average, that Betts would struggle, that Vasquez would struggle, that Castillo would struggle, that Victorino would contribute little or nothing, etc.

 

Deliberately disassembling a pitching staff and then restocking with mid to bottom of the rotation guys and reclamation projects was just not a good idea. The results prove this.

 

The key problem seems to be talent evaluation. The Sox have sucked at it, overall, for a couple of years at least. Whose responsibility is that? The GM's.

 

Projections are fine. But they are only as good as the people who are doing the evaluations. In this case, they failed.

 

Well said Spud. Point, set, match and thread.

[a700hitter]

I don't have a lot of faith in "experts". I find no solace in knowing that so many of them have been wrong. I'm not surprised either. Predicting the performance year to year of any athlete is dicey whether you use stats to substantiate your opinion or not. Too many of these experts get it dead wrong in every sport.

 

I'll listen to guys like Shilling or Rice because they both were very good at what they did. But I only listen to them about pitching and batting. That is what they know.

 

I also believe that the Sox idea of stocking the rotation with schlock was a flawed one. Expecting this rotation to remain competitive even when the offense was "under performing" was a really dumb idea if that is what the FO was thinking. So the idea that the best offense in baseball would carry the team was just dumb. It is common sense.

 

Even if this offense was to be strong, there was always the chance that Bogey would continue to be below average, that Betts would struggle, that Vasquez would struggle, that Castillo would struggle, that Victorino would contribute little or nothing, etc.

 

Deliberately disassembling a pitching staff and then restocking with mid to bottom of the rotation guys and reclamation projects was just not a good idea. The results prove this.

 

The key problem seems to be talent evaluation. The Sox have sucked at it, overall, for a couple of years at least. Whose responsibility is that? The GM's.

 

Projections are fine. But they are only as good as the people who are doing the evaluations. In this case, they failed.

I agree completely with this.

[Kimmi]

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

 

FTR, while I picked them to win the division, I also said that the division would be so tight that the Sox could just as easily finish, depending on which team had the most things break in their favor. There were just as many non-sabermetricians who picked the Sox to finish first, so this is not about the sabermetric approach being flawed.

[Kimmi]

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

 

No, I believe that without the bad offensive performance in May, we would be in first place.

[a700hitter]

No, I believe that without the bad offensive performance in May, we would be in first place.

Wow! I couldn't disagree more emphatically. Without regard to the performance of the offense in May, this would still be a bad team, maybe not a last place team, but not a playoff contending team.

[Kimmi]

Sox are 32-28 outside of May, so it isn't like they had one bad month and lit the world aflame the other months. They're 4 games over outside of May and 9 games under in May. So we can use the same rationale. They are okay outside of May and were absolutely terrible in May. If their best stretch is okay, then they are a bad team.

 

No one ever said this is a great team. If the Sox played .500 ball in May, which they should have been able to do easily if the offense performed up to expectations, they would be 47-42, in 2nd place, and 1.5 games out of first.

[Kimmi]

Wow! I couldn't disagree more emphatically. Without regard to the performance of the offense in May, this would still be a bad team, maybe not a last place team, but not a playoff contending team.

 

Again, I have never said that this team has not been a bad team. I said they would be leading the division.

[a700hitter]

Again, I have never said that this team has not been a bad team. I said they would be leading the division.

Oh, it would be a bad team in first place. Would that have continued for the entire season in your opinion?

[Kimmi]

I don't have a lot of faith in "experts". I find no solace in knowing that so many of them have been wrong. I'm not surprised either. Predicting the performance year to year of any athlete is dicey whether you use stats to substantiate your opinion or not. Too many of these experts get it dead wrong in every sport.

 

I'll listen to guys like Shilling or Rice because they both were very good at what they did. But I only listen to them about pitching and batting. That is what they know.

 

I also believe that the Sox idea of stocking the rotation with schlock was a flawed one. Expecting this rotation to remain competitive even when the offense was "under performing" was a really dumb idea if that is what the FO was thinking. So the idea that the best offense in baseball would carry the team was just dumb. It is common sense.

 

Even if this offense was to be strong, there was always the chance that Bogey would continue to be below average, that Betts would struggle, that Vasquez would struggle, that Castillo would struggle, that Victorino would contribute little or nothing, etc.

 

Deliberately disassembling a pitching staff and then restocking with mid to bottom of the rotation guys and reclamation projects was just not a good idea. The results prove this.

 

The key problem seems to be talent evaluation. The Sox have sucked at it, overall, for a couple of years at least. Whose responsibility is that? The GM's.

 

Projections are fine. But they are only as good as the people who are doing the evaluations. In this case, they failed.

 

I happen to agree that the predictions of the "experts" and of the projection systems are something to take with a grain of salt. They are not foolproof, as nothing is when dealing with humans. However, it's not like these guys are making blind guesses either. They are baseball analysts. They do this for a living. When the large majority of them picked the Sox to win the division, there is credibility to the way the FO assembled the team.

 

You don't have to like it. I didn't particularly like it either. But that doesn't mean it was flawed.

 

It didn't work, but that also doesn't mean that, on paper, it was flawed.

 

There's always a chance that players will perform below average. But there's also just as good a chance that they will perform above average.

[Kimmi]

Oh, it would be a bad team in first place. Would that have continued for the entire season in your opinion?

 

Since June 16, we have a record of 15-9. Our ERA over that period is 4.21. We scored 5.3 runs/game over that period. When our offense scores runs, we win.

 

If the offense continues to perform up to expectations, it could. However, our pen needs help and Buchholz is injured. We need more pitching. I don't disagree with that.

[a700hitter]

Since June 16, we have a record of 15-9. Our ERA over that period is 4.21. We scored 5.3 runs/game over that period. When our offense scores runs, we win.

 

If the offense continues to perform up to expectations, it could. However, our pen needs help and Buchholz is injured. We need more pitching. I don't disagree with that.

So , it is a bad team in your opinion as currently constituted?

[Spudboy]

Oh, it would be a bad team in first place. Would that have continued for the entire season in your opinion?

 

No. Of course not.

 

The Sox would get all the necessary reinforcements at the deadline.

 

Don't you believe in Devine Intervention??????

[User Name]

The problem wasn't the plan, it was the execution. I also find the idea that they couldn't remain competitive with a strong offense to be intelectually dishonest, as the 2005 Red Sox will attest to. That said, while the pitching has sucked, no one could have predicted both starting catchers getting injured (which has invariably hurt the pitching staff), the fall of Napoli, as well as general offensive underperformance. They should have (and a lot of people harped on this) gotten at least one more pitcher, and improved their pitching depth knowing the gambles they were taking pitching-wise.

[jacksonianmarch]

You cannot enter a season expecting to need an upgrade to the top of your rotation from day 1. Dishonest were the sox FO mouthpieces clamoring for Kelly to be in the Cy Young race because his stuff was just too good. It's okay to come into a year with some holes, but you cannot enter the year with a Swiss cheese rotation. Yes, a team can bludgeon their way to victory, but you need at least some reliable production out of the rotation. I know you love the 2005 analogy, but you're also missing something about that team. Their rotation was 7th out of 14 in the AL in ERA and were one of only 5 teams to get 1000IP out of their starters. And you got 30+ starts out of 4 of your starters. I don't think anyone coming into this year saw the sox rotation as durable, especially when being headlined by one of the more fragile players of our time

[User Name]

What are you even talking about? A lot of contending teams enter their season with clear holes they upgrade internally or through the trade market. And lots of teams in the past have mashed their way to the playoffs. Their real problem was not building enough depth for this rotation, just like years past. You're overcomplicating a simple matter.

[cp176]

I happen to agree that the predictions of the "experts" and of the projection systems are something to take with a grain of salt. They are not foolproof, as nothing is when dealing with humans. However, it's not like these guys are making blind guesses either. They are baseball analysts. They do this for a living. When the large majority of them picked the Sox to win the division, there is credibility to the way the FO assembled the team.

 

You don't have to like it. I didn't particularly like it either. But that doesn't mean it was flawed.

 

It didn't work, but that also doesn't mean that, on paper, it was flawed.

 

There's always a chance that players will perform below average. But there's also just as good a chance that they will perform above average.

 

Maybe the "experts" should be held accountable if their suggestions were somewhat responsible for the way this team was assembled. bring in a new group of analysts.

[a700hitter]

No. Of course not.

 

The Sox would get all the necessary reinforcements at the deadline.

 

Don't you believe in Devine Intervention??????

The flaw in the logic of some people is that if this bad team somehow had found itself in first place at the All Star Break (by incredible timing and luck), the FO would have made pitching acquisitions at the trading deadline for the stretch run. IMO, the FO would have had a much different reaction. They would have convinced themselves that their strategy was working and that the pitching was good enough. They would have just let ride it until it inevitably blew up in the second half. Edited July 14, 2015 by a700hitter
Calrification

[SoxnCycles]

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

 

Profiles in courage. Way to go out on a limb....

[SoxnCycles]

Sox are 32-28 outside of May, so it isn't like they had one bad month and lit the world aflame the other months. They're 4 games over outside of May and 9 games under in May. So we can use the same rationale. They are okay outside of May and were absolutely terrible in May. If their best stretch is okay, then they are a bad team.

 

The division is average.

with a decent month of May, they'd be in the thick of things. They didn't need to "light the world aflame".

 

No team in the AL East played above .500 ball for the entire month.

"Average" would've done the trick, but they were much worse than that.

[SoxnCycles]

The flaw in the logic of some people is that if this bad team somehow found itself in first place at the All Star break by incredible timing and luck the FO would not feel the need to make pitching acquisitions. They would just ride it out until it would inevitably blow up in the second half.

 

You're not nearly smart enough to speak for anyone else.

 

Everyone has been saying they'd trade for help at the deadline, if they could stay in contention in the first half.

 

Are you an idiot, or just a dick?

Or both?

[iortiz]

He has u on ignore. You know it. Why do u replay to somebody who does not even care what you say.?

 

Are you an idiot or just a dick?

 

Or both?

[Kimmi]

So , it is a bad team in your opinion as currently constituted?

 

Simple yes or no answer, yes.

[SoxnCycles]

He has u on ignore. You know it. Why do u replay to somebody who does not even care what you say.?

 

Are you an idiot or just a dick?

 

Or both?

 

Stay out of it, junior.

[Kimmi]

The problem wasn't the plan, it was the execution. I also find the idea that they couldn't remain competitive with a strong offense to be intelectually dishonest, as the 2005 Red Sox will attest to. That said, while the pitching has sucked, no one could have predicted both starting catchers getting injured (which has invariably hurt the pitching staff), the fall of Napoli, as well as general offensive underperformance. They should have (and a lot of people harped on this) gotten at least one more pitcher, and improved their pitching depth knowing the gambles they were taking pitching-wise.

 

Good post UN.

[Kimmi]

Maybe the "experts" should be held accountable if their suggestions were somewhat responsible for the way this team was assembled. bring in a new group of analysts.

 

I am not talking about analysts who had any input into assembling the team. I am talking about all of the baseball analysts around the league who predicted the Sox to come in first place.

[Kimmi]

The flaw in the logic of some people is that if this bad team somehow found itself in first place at the All Star break by incredible timing and luck the FO would not feel the need to make pitching acquisitions. They would just ride it out until it would inevitably blow up in the second half.

 

Whose logic would that be?

[Kimmi]

The division is average.

with a decent month of May, they'd be in the thick of things. They didn't need to "light the world aflame".

 

No team in the AL East played above .500 ball for the entire month.

"Average" would've done the trick, but they were much worse than that.

 

Exactly.

[Thunder]

I am not talking about analysts who had any input into assembling the team. I am talking about all of the baseball analysts around the league who predicted the Sox to come in first place.

 

And who would that be exactly (just out of curiosity)? The sources that I usually seek before the season didn't have them in first, and the highest was 2nd. Everyone else was saying a solid third, not expecting the pitching to be what it has been. I believe they had the Rays in last, for lack of offense, and Jays in 4th, for a known lack of pitching.