A Realistic View of the 2025 Red Sox: Part II

[notin]

23 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

A disturbing thing I heard is that the reason the Red Sox don't bunt in extra innings on the road is because one run usually isn't good enough and they don't want to give up an out when they need a rally.

Objectively, I can see how this can make sense to management -- especially upper management calculating percentages.

Subjectively -- as in, I'm constantly subjected to watching whiffers who can't touch the ball with their bats -- I say this: there are, indeed, times when one run is not enough to win in extras...

... but there are absolutely positively with-out-a-doubtly EVERY TIME, THAT ZERO RUN IS NOT ENOUGH!

Any team that strikes out as much as the Sox should absolutely NOT bunt in extra innings of road games.  A sac bunt plus a strikeout leaves them needing only a hit or a gift from the defense to score…

[Bellhorn04]

3 minutes ago, notin said:

Any team that strikes out as much as the Sox should absolutely NOT bunt in extra innings of road games.  A sac bunt plus a strikeout leaves them needing only a hit or a gift from the defense to score…

I don't think any road team should bunt in Manfred Time.  And it fits right in with an old school maxim - on the road you play to win, at home you play to tie.  If you score 1 run in the top of the inning the leadoff man in the bottom of the inning is the winning run.

[Soxlover]

I hate bunting. 
there are times it is worth it, and keeping the infield in to keep them honest adds value.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

4 hours ago, notin said:

Any team that strikes out as much as the Sox should absolutely NOT bunt in extra innings of road games.  A sac bunt plus a strikeout leaves them needing only a hit or a gift from the defense to score…

If batters can't touch the ball when they swing, I want them all squaring -- drop a few down, then mix in a few fakes with game-winning slashes slapped past or over charging fielders. 

[vjcsmoke]

On 7/23/2025 at 5:03 AM, Hitch said:

I think we're probably where a lot (most?) of us thought we were - .500. The run before the ASG was exhilarating and catapulted us, but we're back to what we saw before that. Our schedule is brutal and I think it likely points to more .500. If we really wanted to go for it we needed to get help in immediately and boost us on this harsh run of games we are in the midst of. They didn't because I think they wanted to see who we are after this stretch. And we're showing we are what we've been all year - a young team with multiple highs and lows. 

But this isn't like other years - we're close. This is a talented team and we're just getting started.  If we can flip Gio and Chaman (and others) into pieces ready to go for us next year, we need only a few additions in FA and we're going to challenge for half a decade or more with the core we have. 

Yes. It feels like the Red Sox need a little more help to get over the hump and into the playoffs this year. What moves Breslow makes remains to be seen though. I keep reading rumors online about Duran being the center of trade talks. One such rumor would have Duran going to the Phillies in exchange for Abel and other pieces. I'm not sure if this is a good enough return but it does feel like we might need more pitching help in the starting rotation.

[moonslav59]

On 7/23/2025 at 8:19 AM, Hitch said:

100%. And still people will defend it. Bizarre. 

When you pick a fight with ownership like that, you gotta know you numbered your days.

[moonslav59]

To BOS: Joe Ryan, Mitch Keller and David Bednar

To PHI: Jarren Duran & Walker Buehler (and cash)

To MIN: Andre Painter, David Sandlin & Allan Castro

To PIT: Wilyer Abreu, Vaughn Grissom, Franklin Arias & Hayden Mullins

________________

C: Narvaez & Wong

1B: Campbell/Toro & Romy

2B: Mayer

SS: Story

3B: Bregman

LF: Campbell/Garcia & Refsnyder

CF: Rafaela

RF: Anthony

DH: Yoshida

SP: Crochet, Ryan, Keller, Giolito, Bello, Fitts>Sandoval

RP: Chapman, Bednar, Whitlock, Wilson, Weissert, Hicks, Bernardino

[mvp 78]

Naylor to SEA

[notin]

7 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Naylor to SEA

Was that with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan?

[jad]

16 hours ago, Soxlover said:

I hate bunting. 
there are times it is worth it, and keeping the infield in to keep them honest adds value.

I believe there were studies showing that bunting was not statistically effective even as early as the 60s.  It held on, I think, only because pitchers had to hit, so yes, with a guy batting .083, maybe  a bunt was a reasonable option.  But MONEYBALL (wasn't it Moneyball?) went so far as to claim the only thing that kept it going was the lure of the word 'sacrifice'.

[Bellhorn04]

Kimmi can verify this, but I think the numbers show that the only time bunting yields more runs is when there are runners at first at second and no outs.

Now, what if it's the bottom of the 10th or 11th and the road team didn't score in the top?  Should you bunt then?  I would guess the answer depends on who's up.

[moonslav59]

Big Series facing us, now. We gotta stay focused: no unforced errors.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Kimmi can verify this, but I think the numbers show that the only time bunting yields more runs is when there are runners at first at second and no outs.

Now, what if it's the bottom of the 10th or 11th and the road team didn't score in the top?  Should you bunt then?  I would guess the answer depends on who's up.

If DHam is on the 26, I'd rather just PR and try a SB.

[Hitch]

50 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Kimmi can verify this, but I think the numbers show that the only time bunting yields more runs is when there are runners at first at second and no outs.

Now, what if it's the bottom of the 10th or 11th and the road team didn't score in the top?  Should you bunt then?  I would guess the answer depends on who's up.

If we're in the bottom frame and one run wins it and we've got a guy on 2nd with no outs, I'm bunting. 

[mvp 78]

50 minutes ago, Hitch said:

If we're in the bottom frame and one run wins it and we've got a guy on 2nd with no outs, I'm bunting. 

Top of the first, nobody on, no outs and Duran on? Bunting! 

[notin]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Kimmi can verify this, but I think the numbers show that the only time bunting yields more runs is when there are runners at first at second and no outs.

Now, what if it's the bottom of the 10th or 11th and the road team didn't score in the top?  Should you bunt then?  I would guess the answer depends on who's up.

If the other manager walks the leadoff hitter to set up the double play. the proper response here is a sac bunt…

[notin]

1 hour ago, Hitch said:

If we're in the bottom frame and one run wins it and we've got a guy on 2nd with no outs, I'm bunting. 

Even if the next hitter up strikes out 35% of the time?

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, notin said:

Even if the next hitter up strikes out 35% of the time?

The other 65%?

[Bellhorn04]

19 minutes ago, notin said:

If the other manager walks the leadoff hitter to set up the double play. the proper response here is a sac bunt…

The only problem is, your best hitter might be next up, they would IBB him and set up the double play again. 

[Soxlover]

My guess is we don’t do anything huge at the deadline.

We may trade for a big salary, so the return may not need to be great.

We may trade some borderline or blocked prospects for a rental or two.

I'm hoping if we make a big deal it will be for controlled #2 SP.

[Maxbialystock]

23 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The only problem is, your best hitter might be next up, they would IBB him and set up the double play again. 

That IBB would load the bases.  

[Maxbialystock]

I've always thought bunts were a great part of the game.  They challenge batters to do something unusual (even more unusual today) and in turn make the infield behave differently.  Good bunts are almost an art form.  And Toro's throw home off a bunt was a terrific, game-saving play.

Go back to the movie Moneyball, which I definitely enjoyed.  At the end of the movie John Henry praised sabermetrics and what the A's had done in 2002--with special emphasis on how little a win cost the A's vs what it cost the Yankees.  But in fact John Henry never came close to that model because the fans don't come to see sabermetrics at work.  They want to see Manny and Big Papi swing the bat or the bloody sock guy hold the Yankees at bay or Uehara for his fantastic 2013 season (when Oritz also excelled).  We don't root for systems nearly as much as we do for heroics,  

How many times have we been told that pitchers are in dire peril when they face a lineup for the 3d time?  Yet how many times have we expected a starter to do just that when he is going well?  The Phillies have played 102 games and in 55 of those games their starter had a quality start, meaning 6 or more innings and the certainty of facing a lineup for the third time.  The Sox have 46 quality starts in 104 games.  Bello went absolutely nuts when he pitched that complete game recently--and we should have too.  

I'm not saying sabermetrics or whatever aren't useful for managers, pitching coaches, etc.  I'm just saying they are sometimes antithetical to the notion that baseball games are also theater.  To me bunts can be great theater.  

 

 

 

[Soxlover]

In theory, we should be able to trade Arias or Romero, but with so many swings and misses at fixing 2B and injury issues with Story and Mayer, maybe we keep the depth. K Campbell’s position is unknown, but 2B looks like a very long shot.

The OF remains the likeliest place to find a valuable player to trade. Even if Refsnyder retires, we still have Yoshida as an emergency LF option and possibly Romy, too, Once Jh Garcia is promoted, and to me he is the real deal, we’ll have 5 solid OFers who can all play plus D:

Rafaela CF maybe RF

Abreu RF-can play LF but why?

Duran LF/CF

Anthony LF/RF msybe CF

Garcia CF/RF/LF

Down the road: Bleis, Gonzales, Tibbs and maybe Cespedes.

I see Romy taking on Refsnyder’s role but he can’t play 1B and 2B or platoon at DH with Yoshida.

Our biggest everyday player need area is a LHB firstbaseman/ corner IF depth and back up catcher. That’s assuming Bregman returns. Not bad, really.

[FredLynn]

40 minutes ago, Soxlover said:

In theory, we should be able to trade Arias or Romero, but with so many swings and misses at fixing 2B and injury issues with Story and Mayer, maybe we keep the depth. K Campbell’s position is unknown, but 2B looks like a very long shot.

The OF remains the likeliest place to find a valuable player to trade. Even if Refsnyder retires, we still have Yoshida as an emergency LF option and possibly Romy, too, Once Jh Garcia is promoted, and to me he is the real deal, we’ll have 5 solid OFers who can all play plus D:

Rafaela CF maybe RF

Abreu RF-can play LF but why?

Duran LF/CF

Anthony LF/RF msybe CF

Garcia CF/RF/LF

Down the road: Bleis, Gonzales, Tibbs and maybe Cespedes.

I see Romy taking on Refsnyder’s role but he can’t play 1B and 2B or platoon at DH with Yoshida.

Our biggest everyday player need area is a LHB firstbaseman/ corner IF depth and back up catcher. That’s assuming Bregman returns. Not bad, really.

Well Naylor is off the board. The M's scooped him up. My guess is that cheapskate Henry isn't going to spend any (or much) of the $250M he saved by trading Devers. The FO will do what they did last year IMO: pick up some also-rans and demoralize thet team and the fans because they are not committed to winning. Same as last year; same as the year before and the year before that.

[Bellhorn04]

2 hours ago, Maxbialystock said:

That IBB would load the bases.  

I know.  It also sets up an inning-ending DP, and a force out at every base.    

The only real downside is that a walk would score a run.

 

 

[notin]

3 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The only problem is, your best hitter might be next up, they would IBB him and set up the double play again. 

It is situational.  And risky for the team loading the bases…

[notin]

Hearing whispers that with the Dodgers in town, the two teams have had a conversation about a swap involving Franklin Arias and Brandon Clarke for Dalton Rushing…

[dgalehouse]

In certain circumstances, a sac. bunt might be the correct call, but as a rule, it is not a good strategy. Even if it is executed properly and moves the runner over you are giving away one out. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 minute ago, dgalehouse said:

In certain circumstances, a sac. bunt might be the correct call, but as a rule, it is not a good strategy. Even if it is executed properly and moves the runner over you are giving away one out. 

Not always. A sac bunt is so rare in Red Sox games that a shocked opposing pitcher might field it and throw it away down the right field line, allowing the ghost runner to score on the very first AB of the inning.

At least, that scenario is 50-50 at any level of amateur ball these days. Watch high school or Legion ball, where coaches often put on the bunt sign in close games -- or daily to batters who can't make contact.

The bunters aren't very good, but unless it's a one-hopper back to the mound, panicked fielders are just as prone to make throwing errors as they are to nail a runner at a bag.

[dgalehouse]

2 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Not always. A sac bunt is so rare in Red Sox games that a shocked opposing pitcher might field it and throw it away down the right field line, allowing the ghost runner to score on the very first AB of the inning.

At least, that scenario is 50-50 at any level of amateur ball these days. Watch high school or Legion ball, where coaches often put on the bunt sign in close games -- or daily to batters who can't make contact.

The bunters aren't very good, but unless it's a one-hopper back to the mound, panicked fielders are just as prone to make throwing errors as they are to nail a runner at a bag.

Yes. When you bunt, a lot can happen, both good and bad. Like I said, sometimes a bunt is a good move, but in general, I would rather see the batter swing away.