example1

Alright a700, those who have been paying attention know the score.

a700, in terms of the product on the field I prefered them signing Werth over signing Crawford. I prefered them signing one of them to them signing neither of them. I'm happy with Crawford and, as I said numerous times before the signing, look forward to watching him play. He's an exciting player and aesthetically I prefered him. I figured Werth would sign for fewer years and for less money and that the Yankees and Angels would be in on Crawford that would drive up the price. A random enormous over-pay to Werth sidetracked that from happening. Anyone who has been around here for longer than 3 weeks knows that you regularly bash this FO and their general approach to constructing a team, as well as those (like myself) who carry water for the broader vision that they have had. It wasn't until they spent an ungodly amount of money--made possible only by moves you didn't support--that you were happy. You are feeling extra gloaty right now because the move you wanted happened. If you expect that signings like Crawford and Gonzalez are going to be a regular occurance, that Theo and co., finally understand the plight of those who spend lots of money on their team and who complain when things don't go their way, I think you are in for a rude awakening. This will be THE big move for the next few years. The next time they let a good FA walk or pass on an available relief pitcher for the equivalent of the next Casey Kelly you will be complaining like you always do. I can see it now. "They passed on a pitcher like David Aardsma in a stretch drive to hold onto a minor leaguer who hasn't sniffed AA yet. Everyone thinks this Ranaudo guy is going to be an ace, well, let me tell you, I've been watching this team since before Yaz was a regular and I've seen prospects come and go. There isn't a prospect in the world that is worth what David Aardsma could bring to this team right now..." and on and on. Hence the reminder about trading Pedroia and Lester for Dontrelle. Or trading Youkilis for Helton. We have all made stupid points here, you just seem to be gloating more than is warranted than is justified by your history of missing the mark. Stopped clocks shouldn't celebrate when they are right twice daily, should they?

The part that has me irked is that a700 and I have had nearly contradictory views on what this team should do for a number of years. When all of the moves went down I felt complete vindication about my view. Somehow he did too. Hes suddenly channeling Theo even while having accused me of carrying water for the FO for years. In the past I have defended their moves because I strongly believed that the day would come when they would reallocate that money for huge purchases. I didn't complain about how they sPent my money, or accuse them of not striving to put a first class team out there. It seems awfully convenient that suddenly they make some big moves and the entire backstory and planning that made it possible is swept under the rug. Am I missing something?

The success of the farm system is a direct result of having prioritized draft picks over established veteran free agents. This often made you unhappy. I don't want to go back and replay old posts and you can undoubtedly look them up yourself if you don't remember your own past thoughts.

If we had asked you 5 years ago whether there was value in making huge commitment to developing a deep minor league system--potentially at the expense of bettering the team for the short term--what would you have said?

Unless you can provide some numbers that will quantify their performance for next season and for the lengths of their contracts then I don't see how you (or I) can pretend that we know just how wide the gap between them is. If Lee hurts his arm and Beckett approximates previous performances then the gap will be non-existent. If Beckett never pitches again then the gap will be bigger than you think in the opposite direction. My point is that there is a difference between them in their skills, but you are writing as if you were able to predict the differences in their performances in 2010 or as if any of your accumulated knowledge (which is good) is predictive of future performance. In terms of probability I think you're right, but in terms of certainty you--like the rest of us--deal in opinions rather than in certitude. That's the best we can do. I acknowledge now--and have in the past--that there is a difference. That's all that should be relevant to this discussion, unless you want to get into the context of the situation. Is your conclusion that the Red Sox should have planned to go after Lee rather than Beckett, regardless of the implications with A-Gon or Crawford? If not then the difference in skill--like the difference in how wrong one person is over another--is irrelevant. I agree with your initial point, which was a binary "Lee is better than Beckett" equation. When you talk about "not getting how much better" then you're talking about degrees of "better than" which, IMO, deserves more context than the argument you are framing here.

That's a lot of writing to respond to someone who agrees with you. Did you see me arguing with you somewhere? My point, which you gloss over by saying it happens all the time etc., is that without context none of these discussions make sense. Baseball doesn't happen in a test-tube, it happens in a number of baseball diamonds in many different cities by players of many different skill levels, salaries, and cultural backgrounds. Also (again) you made the point about comparing players in a vacuum in a thread about signing a contract. If you want to be really clear and free of context why not start a thread called "who is better in a vacuum: Lee or Beckett" and watch all 3 posts that roll in.

Sorry you took offense. None intended. I understood the context fine. I just think a discussion without context is pretty limited.

This is stupid. Dipre your argument is that you were right that Lee is better than Beckett? I think one signing cancels others and given the results--this team with 5 good pitchers and the addition of Gonzalez and Crawford--is there anything to complain about? To argue that the Sox could have let Beckett go, sign Lee, Crawford, and trade for Gonzalez seems foolish, unless you think Lee prefers Boston over Texas or new York or Philadelphia. I would rather have Beckett, Lackey, Crawford, Gonzalez than lee and an unidentified FA starting pitcher, regardless of whether they also upgraded their offense. This seems like a bunch of 20-20 hindsight, even though I also don't see any stupid posts by myself here.

A700, I appreciate your support for Ortiz but I think when we've seen Gonzalez for a year or two there will be no doubt why Gonzalez is the better hitter. Gonzalez should be the type of hitter who has very few holes, who controls ABs and who drives the ball consistently to all fields. Ortiz has obvious holes and can't hit lefties. In his best moments he and Gonzalez might be indecipherable, but Gonzalez will be that way much more consistently moving forward. I still like Ellsbury Crawford Pedroia Gonzalez Youkilis Ortiz Lowrie Drew Salty ...but I can see switching Lowrie and Salty so the catcher isn't turning over the lineup.

If Iglesias progresses the way the Sox expect him to then Lowrie is most valuable as a trade piece, probably at the deadline in 2012. For the next year and a half the Sox will hope that he can live up to some hybrid of his AA and AAA numbers. I can't find a simple way to do the math, but here's his numbers at these two high levels of competition: AAA-- .268/.350/.458/.808 (511 PA) AA-- .301/.412/.506/.918 (413 PA) Of course the AAA should be weighed more, both because it is a larger portion of the sample and because it is a higher level. I think realistically Lowrie could be a .285/.375/.465/.840 shortstop if he gets comfortable. I don't think he would be the best shortstop in the league, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were one of the best shortstops for a year or two when all is said and done in his career. That might not be with the Sox though. In any case, I'm excited to see what he can do next year and think that he will start.

I do the quick browsing at work too, but usually figure that I can't give it the reading comprehension needed to try to call out other posters for their ineptitude. If I start saying that Lowrie, Drew and Saltalamacchia are elite power hitters just take me out back and put me down please.

Should I lose respect because you didn't figure out that was referring to Gonzalez, youkilis and ortiz? I could see how that would be confusing except I used that format consistently throughout the post. C'mon plump, you are better than that.

If you read my post as disagreeing with you or arguing with you then you mis-read my intention. Sorry if I was unclear, or unintentional argumentitive. I was actually open to a discussion about why the Sox DON'T maxamize their offensive weapons the way that statistics and multi-season simulations would predict they should. In theory, the best hitters should hit as often as possible so there's no reason not to have Gonzalez leading off. Yet the Sox don't have hitters like him lead off, ever, and I'm curious about why...

All of these arguments seem like the justification for why most computer simulations would have players like JD Drew and David Ortiz batting near the top of the order. I can't say that I fault their logic, but even a statistically inclined team like the Red Sox don't do it so there should be a reason. I'm not sure if anyone has quantified the impact of speedy baserunners on the concentration of pitchers (and the impact of poorly-concentrated pitchers vs. elite power hitters), but if they have I would be interested. Dipre, any idea why the Sox wouldn't be using a lineup that reflects what the stats say would be most productive? To some degree they have stuck with the traditional model to this point. My first guess at an argument/answer is that it is one thing to have JD Drew and his numbers (from hitting 6th or 7th) penciled into the leadoff spot. It is another thing to actually have JD Drew leading off. For whatever reason, a lot of players who might be good leadoff hitters simply don't like hitting leadoff. Even with the strong argument you make about the #3 spot, I think Pedroia is the best among Crawford, Ellsbury and Pedroia, to hit in the #3 spot. Also, don't sour too quickly on the Crawford deal. There were plenty of reasons to prefer Werth over Crawford, but I think Crawford could show some really special things during his tenure with the Sox. Also, once Drew and Ortiz are gone I think he will make a lot more sense for this team. Finally, I actually think that the Sox moves this year portend possibly EXTENDING Ortiz on a reasonable multi-year deal if he is productive this season. I never thought I would be saying that, but for the right price and his proven ability to manage AL East pitching, the Boston media, and playoff atmosphere, the 2012 FA class may not offer much by way of comparison or better hitters. He may have wanted a sweet FA deal this year, but with another good year he could warrant a two or three year deal for a reasonable cost. Just some random thoughts.

Like I said before, I think the Sox may look to get out of the mindset of the #3 guy driving in a ton of runs, or at least the notion of him having to drive in a lot of runs. I like Pedroia #3 because I trust his OBP to be a more accurate representation of his skill set than Crawford's .400 OBP in the same situation. If Pedroia bats 3rd and does nothing but get on base it is just additional runs for Gonzalez or Youkilis or Ortiz to drive in. He wouldn't have to swing for the fences. Yes, it is nice if a guy can hit HRs, but I don't doubt that Gonzalez and Youkilis will get plenty of ABs with lots of men on base even if they are hitting 4th and 5th.

I suspect the notion of having your best hitter 3rd comes from the assumption that any team has only a limited number of potential candidates, and all things being equal the best hitter should be there. However, if a team theoretically had a hitter who couldn't hit a lick but got on base 100% of the time, wouldn't it only be logical to move your best power hitter behind him? If you have guys who aren't going to make outs but who can't drive themselves in, they should be lined up before the mashers... even if that pushes the mashers back beyond where they might traditionally be in the 3/4 slots. I think this is the logic about having Crawford hit 3rd too, but I like it much better with Pedroia there. Overall, this lengthens the lineup and offers a very touch stretch of alternating hitters in Pedroia/Gonzalez/Youkilis/Ortiz with either Crawford or Ellsbury on the bases. In theory, you basically give two great leadoff hitters a chance to get on base in front of Pedroia, who would function as a hybrid #2 hitter, moving the ball around, looking to work a walk or get a hit to drive in the runner. I think we would all trust him with that responsibility. With the speed of Ellsbury and Crawford, Pedroia should have a lot of RISP and should get good pitches to hit in front of Gonzalez. I have no way of knowing if this is what they will do but I like it better than moving Pedroia down further in the lineup. He, Ellsbury and Crawford are all 'top of the lineup' type players.

Having Gonzalez or Youkilis at the plate means that good things are going to happen. Not only do they get on base (i.e., not make an out) roughly 40% of the time they bat, they also regularly put a charge into the ball and are among the game's best power-hitters. There isn't any scenario in any game where I see a point in choosing to have Crawford bat instead of either Gonzalez or Youkilis. For that reason he should hit first or second. I like the arguments about Pedroia as the best #2 hitter in baseball. Strongly agree. That said, I can't help but wonder if there aren't factors we are missing with our traditional view of how the lineup should be constructed. What would be the harm in having Pedroia bat #3? I think he's a better hitter than Crawford (his OBP is consistently higher) and he has tremendous zone control. He can make things happen offensively and make productive outs. In my mind I toy around with: 1. Ellsbury 2. Crawford 3. Pedroia Three of the most electric players in the game. 4. Gonzalez 5. Youkilis 6. Ortiz Three of the best power hitters in the game. Lowrie Drew Salty Two switch hitters with power and a high OBP guy with 20HR power in between. I wonder if the benefit of having Ellsbury and Crawford hit back to back 4 times per-game rather than 3 (on average) would outweigh the gain the opposing team would have by platooning in late innings of close games. Dipre, I definitely share your concern about late inning matchups for sure, but also wonder if they would be able to find effeciency elsewhere to allow for one of the most thrilling duos at the top of an order in many, many years. I can't help but wonder, what happens if Ellsbury hits really well and deserves to hit leadoff?

I doubt Youk/Gonzo would be against rotating between the DH or 1B spot either. They are arguably the two best offensive pieces on the team, so keeping them rested and healthy should be a priority. Of course, if Lowrie has a big season he may not see why he would not just be the team's starting SS. He will have the chance to take over the SS spot full-time in 2012. If Iglesias takes it from him then this team is in good shape and Lowrie is the best sub in the league.

Lowrie should start all the time. IMO, he should play SS against righties and 3B against lefties, with Gonzalez/Youkilis playing 1B/DH to stay fresh and get Ortiz out of the equation.

The sensible parts of me has Ellsbury batting at the bottom of the order, but the hopeful part of me wants him leading off.

Fairly obscure source. I'll wait until it is confirmed. If it is true it is about as meaningless to the Red Sox and their fate as is possible. Not going to NY, not going to TEX or LAA. Random NL team is just fine as far as I'm concerned.

vs. RHP Ellsbury-CF Crawford-LF Gonzalez-1B Youkilis-3B Ortiz-DH Pedroia-2B Drew-RF Lowrie-SS Saltalamacchia-C vs. LHP Ellsbury-CF Pedroia-2B Gonzalez-1B/DH Youkilis-DH/1B Crawford-LF *Cameron-RF Lowrie-3B Varitek-C Scutaro-SS *Cameron can rotate throughout the year vs. LHP. He should play against just about every LHP, giving Drew, Ellsbury and Crawford occasional days off.

Put down your lineups. One vs RHP, one vs LHP. Explain if necessary. I'm curious what people think. Have at it.