Fire Bloom .

[Maxbialystock]

Yes I’m sure the last 5 games was a result of Vaz being off the team. If it is it’s to win to despite Bloom, and not, because Vaz is off the team.

 

Once again, you deliberately misconstrue what I said. Before Vazquez left the team, the Sox had a better won-lost record in games in which Vazquez did not play than in the games in which he did play. The last 5 games merely confirm what we saw in the first 103 games. That said, the differences in won-lost records with and without Vazquez are small, so I'm not sure they are conclusive. But to me they do place some doubt on how completely indispensable some on Talk Sox say he has been.

[Elktonnick]

Ahem. COVID is still with us. The hope is that its effects, primarily via vaccinations, can be lessened. But there are still plenty of us who avoid crowds, wear masks, etc

 

Before you come back at me, take a quick look at the numbers I provided--specifically, the Sox ranking in attendance. That 32,612 this year is 10th best in MLB. The year the Sox won their first WS in 186 years, their attendance was 11th best. And the very next year, 2005, it only improved to 9th, one place better than this year's.

 

Relative position within the MLB universe is immaterial, the Red Sox aren't competing with the other teams in baseball for the New England sports dollar. They are competing with the Bruins, Celtics, Patriots and even the Revolution.

 

Right now, John Henry appears to be focusing his financial resources and personal time on acquiring an NBA franchise. He recently bought the Penguins in the NHL. To be sure the Red Sox and specifically Fenway Park is the most valuable jewel in his crown. If he sees attendance and public interest in the Red Sox wane significantly because he has ignored the team, then he will authorize an increase in the budget IMO.

[Maxbialystock]

Now we have 2 backup catchers instead of one.

 

Which explains the five game losing streak the Sox have been on since Vazquez left.

 

Oh, wait.

[Old Red]

Which explains the five game losing streak the Sox have been on since Vazquez left.

 

Oh, wait.

You really think what the Sox have done the last 5 games is because Vaz isn’t on the team anymore? Like I said if it is it’s to spite Bloom, and not , because Vaz isn’t on the team. I’m real sure the players in the Red Sox clubhouse would buy into your reasoning. NOT!

[notin]

Relative position within the MLB universe is immaterial, the Red Sox aren't competing with the other teams in baseball for the New England sports dollar. They are competing with the Bruins, Celtics, Patriots and even the Revolution.

 

Right now, John Henry appears to be focusing his financial resources and personal time on acquiring an NBA franchise. He recently bought the Penguins in the NHL. To be sure the Red Sox and specifically Fenway Park is the most valuable jewel in his crown. If he sees attendance and public interest in the Red Sox wane significantly because he has ignored the team, then he will authorize an increase in the budget IMO.

 

 

There’s a more than significant overlap in the fanbases of those teams. And none of them play in the summer. I doubt there are all that many people who avoid Fenway because they prefer saving money to go to Gillette…

[Elktonnick]

You really think what the Sox have done the last 5 games is because Vaz isn’t on the team anymore? Like I said if it is it’s to spite Bloom, and not , because Vaz isn’t on the team. I’m real sure the players in the Red Sox clubhouse would buy into your reasoning. NOT!

Devers made it clear he was not happy with the Vaz trade.

[jung]

Ahem. COVID is still with us. The hope is that its effects, primarily via vaccinations, can be lessened. But there are still plenty of us who avoid crowds, wear masks, etc

 

Before you come back at me, take a quick look at the numbers I provided--specifically, the Sox ranking in attendance. That 32,612 this year is 10th best in MLB. The year the Sox won their first WS in 186 years, their attendance was 11th best. And the very next year, 2005, it only improved to 9th, one place better than this year's.

 

While COVID might be blamed in part for poor attendance it does not explain the horrific ratings numbers NESN and Red Sox games are putting up. They are getting pulverized outside of the old f***er households like mine and how many of us are asleep in the barc-o-lounger game on in the background.

[Maxbialystock]

Relative position within the MLB universe is immaterial, the Red Sox aren't competing with the other teams in baseball for the New England sports dollar. They are competing with the Bruins, Celtics, Patriots and even the Revolution.

 

Right now, John Henry appears to be focusing his financial resources and personal time on acquiring an NBA franchise. He recently bought the Penguins in the NHL. To be sure the Red Sox and specifically Fenway Park is the most valuable jewel in his crown. If he sees attendance and public interest in the Red Sox wane significantly because he has ignored the team, then he will authorize an increase in the budget IMO.

 

Meh. There is exactly one baseball team in the great Boston area and they have mostly thrived over last 120 years and certainly under the ownership of John Henry for the last 20 years. If the Sox were really competing with the Patriots, they would already have lost because the Patriots have been the best team in the NFL. So too the Celtics in the NBA in the Auerbach era--except that ol' Red had the temerity to recruit and play African-Americans which the Boston fans weren't quite ready for.

[Old Red]

Once again, you deliberately misconstrue what I said. Before Vazquez left the team, the Sox had a better won-lost record in games in which Vazquez did not play than in the games in which he did play. The last 5 games merely confirm what we saw in the first 103 games. That said, the differences in won-lost records with and without Vazquez are small, so I'm not sure they are conclusive. But to me they do place some doubt on how completely indispensable some on Talk Sox say he has been.

So because the Red Sox had a better W-L when Vaz didn’t play the the reason was Vaz. I got it, and got 3-2 since the trade confirms it all. Sherlock you are not.

[Maxbialystock]

While COVID might be blamed in part for poor attendance it does not explain the horrific ratings numbers NESN and Red Sox games are putting up. They are getting pulverized outside of the old f***er households like mine and how many of us are asleep in the barc-o-lounger game on in the background.

 

You could be right about that, but I have to ask if those "horrific ratings numbers" also occurred last year. If they don't, then this season is typical of any fan base asking, "what have you done for me lately." I'm 81 and probably older than you--and 20 years ago had an uncle who was as bad as I am--so I agree we are not the important demographic.

[Elktonnick]

The Rays have something we don't and can't match for young players.....Kevin Cash

 

There’s a more than significant overlap in the fanbases of those teams. And none of them play in the summer. I doubt there are all that many people who avoid Fenway because they prefer saving money to go to Gillette…

 

You said before. Take a look at the MLS attendance. There are several teams that regularly draw 40000. The Revs currently draw about 21000 per game . MLS attendance is up league wide. My grand sons attend MLS games regularly, not baseball..

 

I would not underestimate how quickly the Sox can fall out of favor especially if Henry does not field an entertaining team.

[Elktonnick]

The Rays have something we don't and can't match for young players.....Kevin Cash

 

Meh. There is exactly one baseball team in the great Boston area and they have mostly thrived over last 120 years and certainly under the ownership of John Henry for the last 20 years. If the Sox were really competing with the Patriots, they would already have lost because the Patriots have been the best team in the NFL. So too the Celtics in the NBA in the Auerbach era--except that ol' Red had the temerity to recruit and play African-Americans which the Boston fans weren't quite ready for.

 

The Sox competed with the Pats because they were winning. I remember a time when the Pats could not draw flies. But once they started to win the world turned just like it did for the Red Sox after they started to win.

[notin]

You said before. Take a look at the MLS attendance. There are several teams that regularly draw 40000. The Revs currently draw about 21000 per game . MLS attendance is up league wide. My grand sons attend MLS games regularly, not baseball..

 

I would not underestimate how quickly the Sox can fall out of favor especially if Henry does not field an entertaining team.

 

That applies to nearly every sports owner, including those other franchises.

 

If the Patriots are 1-10, it’s a safe bet attendance will drop. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a boon for the Bruins.

 

The Sox struggled mightily throughout all of July. Attendance did drop. But how many stayed home so they could save up for Celtics’ tickets?

[notin]

The Sox competed with the Pats because they were winning. I remember a time when the Pats could not draw flies. But once they started to win the world turned just like it did for the Red Sox after they started to win.

 

But while the Patriots were just a total ungodly dynasty, did Red Sox attendance suffer?

[jung]

You could be right about that, but I have to ask if those "horrific ratings numbers" also occurred last year. If they don't, then this season is typical of any fan base asking, "what have you done for me lately." I'm 81 and probably older than you--and 20 years ago had an uncle who was as bad as I am--so I agree we are not the important demographic.

 

Well of course 2021 was another COVID year, I don't remember the Sox losing by so much and so often in the demographic they care about last year. They are losing now in the male end of the demographic in the age cohort they should care about to things like Family Feud, Nickelodeon kids shows, Movies on Fox WITH COMMERCIALS, reruns of Eileen, CNN (maybe that one makes sense).

[jung]

But while the Patriots were just a total ungodly dynasty, did Red Sox attendance suffer?

 

 

Attendance might be hard to monitor between the two because the Pats are playing 17 times a season and the Sox are playing 162. TV ratings head to head might be a better arbiter. I don't have that number but I suspect that during this century, head to head, the Pats are likely killing the Sox.

[Elktonnick]

The Rays have something we don't and can't match for young players.....Kevin Cash

 

But while the Patriots were just a total ungodly dynasty, did Red Sox attendance suffer?

I remind you the Sox were winning. I remember a time when the Orioles packed Camden Yards. After years of Angelos neglecting to acquire quality players and Orioles attendance collapsed. If you think the same thing can not happen in Boston you are kidding yourself.

 

I remember days when the Sox regularly drew less then 10000. It could happen again.

[Elktonnick]

The Rays have something we don't and can't match for young players.....Kevin Cash

 

Attendance might be hard to monitor between the two because the Pats are playing 17 times a season and the Sox are playing 162. TV ratings head to head might be a better arbiter. I don't have that number but I suspect that during this century, head to head, the Pats are likely killing the Sox.

You all fail to recognize that there is now ML soccer. Look at what their teams are drawing in Atlanta and Seattle.

[Maxbialystock]

So because the Red Sox had a better W-L when Vaz didn’t play the the reason was Vaz. I got it, and got 3-2 since the trade confirms it all. Sherlock you are not.

 

Well, you got me there. I completely forgot that wins and losses are irrelevant to evaluating teams and, of course, players.

 

I simply kept reading that without Vazquez--great catcher, solid hitter, and leader in the clubhouse who was maybe the only reason why the Sox were even in the hunt for a distant wild card slot--the Sox would collapse.

 

So I thought I would mention how many games Vazquez might conceivably have influenced when he was on the team and then of course how the team has done since his departure.

 

More than that, I simply don't believe one position player can make that much difference, and to that end cite the incomparable Mike Trout, who has delivered the goods year after year for the LA Angels. In his first 8 seasons with the Angels, he was AL MVP 3 times, second in the voting 4 times, and 4th once (2017 when his WAR was a paltry 7.2 because he only played in 114 games). In those 8 seasons (2012-2019) the Angels got to the playoffs once (2014) and in 5 of those seasons they had losing seasons. This year and last year the Angels have had both Trout and Ohtani (last year's AL MVP) and have losing records both years.

[moonslav59]

I remind you the Sox were winning. I remember a time when the Orioles packed Camden Yards. After years of Angelos neglecting to acquire quality players and Orioles attendance collapsed. If you think the same thing can not happen in Boston you are kidding yourself.

 

I remember days when the Sox regularly drew less then 10000. It could happen again.

 

I remember when the O's and Pirates failed to sell out WS games back in the 70's.

 

Did you "fail to recognize" that?

[Elktonnick]

The Rays have something we don't and can't match for young players.....Kevin Cash

 

I remember when the O's and Pirates failed to sell out WS games back in the 70's.

 

Did you "fail to recognize" that?

What has that got to do with the price tea in China

[Old Red]

Well, you got me there. I completely forgot that wins and losses are irrelevant to evaluating teams and, of course, players.

 

I simply kept reading that without Vazquez--great catcher, solid hitter, and leader in the clubhouse who was maybe the only reason why the Sox were even in the hunt for a distant wild card slot--the Sox would collapse.

 

So I thought I would mention how many games Vazquez might conceivably have influenced when he was on the team and then of course how the team has done since his departure.

 

More than that, I simply don't believe one position player can make that much difference, and to that end cite the incomparable Mike Trout, who has delivered the goods year after year for the LA Angels. In his first 8 seasons with the Angels, he was AL MVP 3 times, second in the voting 4 times, and 4th once (2017 when his WAR was a paltry 7.2 because he only played in 114 games). In those 8 seasons (2012-2019) the Angels got to the playoffs once (2014) and in 5 of those seasons they had losing seasons. This year and last year the Angels have had both Trout and Ohtani (last year's AL MVP) and have losing records both years.

 

I think there were a lot more reasons the Sox were losing than Vaz, and any number of players could be mentioned.Over analyzing, and fake news 101 that Anyone said without Vaz the Red Sox would collapse, or anyone else on the team for that matter. I think Vaz’s teammates, and the pitching staff had a lot different opinion of Vaz, and others on here, and that’s what is the most important.

[moonslav59]

Well, you got me there. I completely forgot that wins and losses are irrelevant to evaluating teams and, of course, players.

 

I simply kept reading that without Vazquez--great catcher, solid hitter, and leader in the clubhouse who was maybe the only reason why the Sox were even in the hunt for a distant wild card slot--the Sox would collapse.

 

So I thought I would mention how many games Vazquez might conceivably have influenced when he was on the team and then of course how the team has done since his departure.

 

More than that, I simply don't believe one position player can make that much difference, and to that end cite the incomparable Mike Trout, who has delivered the goods year after year for the LA Angels. In his first 8 seasons with the Angels, he was AL MVP 3 times, second in the voting 4 times, and 4th once (2017 when his WAR was a paltry 7.2 because he only played in 114 games). In those 8 seasons (2012-2019) the Angels got to the playoffs once (2014) and in 5 of those seasons they had losing seasons. This year and last year the Angels have had both Trout and Ohtani (last year's AL MVP) and have losing records both years.

 

Max, the Sox were 40-39 when Vaz started, so obviously he was a huge plus, this year. The team had a losing record when he did not start. He's clearly a winner.

 

His clubhouse and team leadership clearly showed up every game, as his teammates came to play focused, determined and energetic, this year.

 

We were 71-51 in his 2021 starts. (21-19 others)

19-26 in 2020 (5-10 others)

62-60 in 2019 (22-18 others)

46-21 in 2018 (64-33 others)

51-36 in 2017 (42-33 others)

27-22 in 2016 (66-47 others)

 

If anything, it appears we won at a better rate with Vaz than with others, most years.

 

I won't bring up CERA disparities, right now.

Edited August 6, 2022 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

What has that got to do with the price tea in China

 

Why do you assume others don't know there "is now ML soccer in Atlanta and Seattle," and what has that got to do with baseball or the price of tea in China?

[Old Red]

Max, the Sox were 40-39 when Vaz started, so obviously he was a huge plus, this year. His clubhouse and team leadership clearly showed up every game, as his teammates came to play focused, determined and energetic, this year.[/b

 

We were 71-51 in his 2021 starts. (21-19 others)

19-26 in 2020 (5-10 others)

62-60 in 2019 (22-18 others)

46-21 in 2018 (64-33 others)

51-36 in 2017 (42-33 others)

27-22 in 2016 (66-47 others)

 

If anything, it appears we won at a better rate with Vaz than with others, most years.

 

I won't bring up CERA disparities, right now.

 

Once again the team was 40-39 when Vaz started, but what about the rest of the team? Amazing that VAz is being singled out. Not surprising, but Amazing.

[Old Red]

Max, the Sox were 40-39 when Vaz started, so obviously he was a huge plus, this year. His clubhouse and team leadership clearly showed up every game, as his teammates came to play focused, determined and energetic, this year.[/b

 

We were 71-51 in his 2021 starts. (21-19 others)

19-26 in 2020 (5-10 others)

62-60 in 2019 (22-18 others)

46-21 in 2018 (64-33 others)

51-36 in 2017 (42-33 others)

27-22 in 2016 (66-47 others)

 

If anything, it appears we won at a better rate with Vaz than with others, most years.

 

I won't bring up CERA disparities, right now.

Oh please do. Like I said it’s what Vaz’s teammates including the pitching staff thought about him. Mine, and yours opinion means nothing. The trouble with clubhouse leadership to you is that it isn’t on a analytics sheet.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Old Red

[Elktonnick]

Why do you assume others don't know there "is now ML soccer in Atlanta and Seattle," and what has that got to do with baseball or the price of tea in China?

We were talking about other choices Boston sports fans have to spend their entertainment dollar. (Try and keep up.)

In case you have not noticed ML soccer is drawing huge numbers in MLB cities such as Atlanta and Seattle. Their New England Revs team are drawing about 21 k fans per game to the Red Sox 32k per game.

 

It should not be lost on anyone that the reason MLB is trying to speed up the game and make other changes to increase action is among other things because of the threat MLS poses in their competition of the publics entertainment dollar.

[moonslav59]

We were talking about other choices Boston sports fans have to spend their entertainment dollar. (Try and keep up.)

In case you have not noticed ML soccer is drawing huge numbers in MLB cities such as Atlanta and Seattle. Their New England Revs team are drawing about 21 k fans per game to the Red Sox 32k per game.

 

It should not be lost on anyone that the reason MLB is trying to speed up the game and make other changes to increase action is among other things because of the threat MLS poses in their competition of the publics entertainment dollar.

 

I know what the conversation was about.

 

I was wondering why you assume we "fail to recognize" because we happened to not mention it. You did not say "in case you did not notice..." Instead you claimed we "failed to notice."

 

You again fail to respond to points being made. Do try to keep up.

 

[Elktonnick]

I know what the conversation was about.

 

I was wondering why you assume we "fail to recognize" because we happened to not mention it. You did not say "in case you did not notice..." Instead you claimed we "failed to notice."

 

You again fail to respond to points being made. Do try to keep up.

 

I am not going to respond to every little inane non sequitur you post.

[moonslav59]

I am not going to respond to every little inane non sequitur you post.

 

You just did, and of course you won't respond to a point that exposes your condescension.

 

(Nice try on changing the wording from "fail to recognize" to "in case you haven't noticed..." Call it nitpicking, but there is a huge difference in statements.)