example1

Since this is a dumb-ish thread that people aren't really sticking on topic with, I'm going to ask a question and hope it gets answered. Why do the Red Sox not bunt men over when they have 1st and 2nd with nobody out? I understand generally not bunting, and overall I really like the philosophy (I cringe when I see NL teams doing it with guys on first). But with guys on 1st and 2nd and a pitcher like Joba on the mound it seems like a good time. Fly ball scores a run, passed ball, balk, etc., it eliminates the chance for a double play, may draw the infield in and allow a run to score on a grounder through a hole, or if they play back then a ball to the right side scores a run. I believe they had that situation twice in the first two innings last night and both times they didn't score. This seems especially true when the situation is such that the leadoff hitter gets a double and the second hitter draws a walk. With a patient team like the Sox I could easily forsee a walk or a meatball in the next AB. Just curious if others wonder about this as well. They NEVEr do it, I'm just curious why? Is the liklihood of scoring at least one run really higher? Can someone find me the leverage chart or the run probability chart based on situations? **EDIT: I am, of course, assuming we're talking about the bottom of the order coming up.

Certainly not to someone other than someone with Santana's background.

Really, two first pitches and two outs. Nice.

You can look back at our posts and note that most here did not think they were going to come in with the huge offer. There weren't long posts saying "I don't understand why the Yankees aren't in on this"... there were a few people who said "I think the Yankees are still flying under the radar" but few were counting them as the certain destination. Look back for yourself Dojji.

Perhaps next time they will run Joe Madden as a pinch runner.

It was over at that point already. He said talks were dead, right? And they were. So presumably the e-mail was a symptom rather than a cause, no?

Varitek's offensive "spike" does not mitigate other teams being able to turn all singles into doubles, does it? About Teixeira, it's over and done with. A franchise saving move by the Yankees, so in that sense it was a missed opportunity. I hesitate to say that they didn't make a good faith effort or that they didn't go hard after the guy. Clearly they didn't go the extra mile to beat the Yankees offer and see if they Yankees would have paid more for him. My sense, like Jacoby's above, is that once the Yankees realized how he could help their team, they were going to bid a lot for him. I also believe that Teixeira and his wife wanted to be in NY and were more than happy to both sign a huge contract when it was offered. I would hesitate to use the word failure, because ultimately it is going to come down to results. Do I think not getting Teixeira will keep the Sox out of the playoffs? No. Could Teixeira end up being the difference maker in a playoff battle between Boston and NY? Yes, but so could Victor Martinez. The difference between winning the division and "only" winning the Wild Card isn't that significant. When you play in the toughest division in baseball, it's all about getting to the playoffs. That's what we all worry about most, that's what the Rays and Yankees worry about. A season is a failure if this team with all of its resources doesn't make the playoffs when they should.

Even with discounted values given for the length of player production, do you think that Buchholz averaging between 2-3 WARP per season and Halladay getting probably 9-10 WARP over the length of his contract are equal for this team? When I multiply 2 x 6 I get 12, so conservatively their value might be equal. This doesn't count Bard. This doesn't count cost, just how many wins will they give this team over the course of their contracts. Of course, if Buchholz is able to put together ONE season like Lester's last year then he'll likely surpass Halladay singlehandedly in 2 seasons. Presumptuous? You said: "When the team is good, I am happy. When they are not good, I am not happy." while you were complaining about them and talking about rather being at a concert than watching the Sox get crushed by the Yankees. I took that to mean that you weren't happy, and I assumed your comment was commenting on that discontent. I guess everything is fine then, you're happy. Which "raw green kid" have you ever been thrilled about? I will temporarily be unhappy, but I have faith that this team has many very positive things coming up for it in the future, and will be happy again soon.

They don't need to rebuild if they don't sell all their younger players for a guy with 1.5 years left on his deal and who is entering his mid-30s. Not selling their young players means they shouldn't have to rebuild. 1) Their drafts now are really quite different from the decades that you have been following the team. They are much more aggressive and are kind of breaking the mold in terms of being willing to pay above slot for good players. I expect more out of their drafts now than anyone should have reasonably expected in the past. 2) Whether you or I know whether these guys turn into stars or not, the Sox FO should have the clearest idea. Given their ability to project the future utility of guys like Youkilis, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Bard, Delcarmen, etc., I'd say they know their stuff. 3) When you look at actual metrics like WARP (which I know you could care less about, but which others do care about) it is quite probable that someone like Buchholz will be more valuable to this team over 6 years than Halladay would be for 1.4. Bard probably projects to be more valuable over 6 years than Halladay over 1.4 too. Who else would you have added to get Halladay? 6 years of Reddick? The problem is that you don't do a very good job of evaluating when your team is good. How you could say this team isn't "good" is beyond me. They have the 3rd best record in the AL, would have the second best record in the NL, and have the 4th best record in MLB. They have the best run differential (+94) in the league, and the second best in all of baseball. They are 6th in MLB in runs allowed (1st in the AL) They are 4th in MLB in runs scored (4th in the AL) You are the grass-is-greener type, but I don't know whose grass you are looking at. In terms of having a "good" team and being happy, you should be happy. I care about this team being good now too. I watch all the games, I care. But they are good, and they will continue to be good because people who care about the present and the future run this team. Hence the addition of someone like Victor Martinez. To you, a non deal. Something not even worthy of excitement. To me, a #3 batter, a switch hitting catcher, 3 time all star who can help this team in many, many ways.

My point is that you will never be satisfied. The Red Sox have won 2 World Series since 2004. If they were to get Halladay this year and win, but lose next year and the year after, you would be bitching and moaning if they had the audacity to try to preserve/rebuild their farm system instead of trading for the next bit piece at the trade deadline in 2010 or 2011. You always want them to trade their talent for some known quantity to address some hole on the team that may or may not exist or which may or may not ultimately have a long term impact.

I think you're overstating it a bit by saying that's the only way to guarantee winning now and later. Instead of throwing money at problems you can throw prospects at problems to get players you want even more than the best available free agents. So far the Yankees have given A-Rod something like $120m and he has won ZERO titles for them. Giambi came and went with no titles, as did Abreu and Shefffield, recent versions of Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens. The Yankees have a great club and they clearly put out a good product for their fans. I just think that Sox fans are being myopic to think that the Yankee method is the only way that can produce winning results. Yes, free agents are essential to any good team, but so are home-grown talents, a deep farm system/bench, a good bullpen, etc., We're all hoping the Sox could get someone who could be around for awhile without f***ing up the core of their team. Victor Martinez is a great pickup in that respect. He may take over for Tek after Tek is done, he may move into Lowell's spot on the roster if Lowell leaves--assuming they could resign VMart. I just don't see how anyone could be overly disappointed with this Sox team over the past 6 years or so. The Yankees have their flaws DESPITE all the money they spend and they have had flaws consistently, year after year. No team is perfect but the Sox and Yanks are both very, very good franchises.

I don't know why I would see you criticizing particular moves as condemnation of Theo... other than you aiming the crosshairs directly at him. How could they have done much better at this trade deadline, AND potentially be involved in a deal for someone like Felix in the future? Similarily, how can you demand that they go for it now, and say that you won't give them a pass in the future if they do that? You want it both ways: win now, win in the future. Can you imagine where they would have been if they had followed your advice and traded Youkilis for Todd Helton a few years ago when they were struggling? Let's check in in 3 years when they are still competitive and Roy Halladay is a fading veteran and the Sox farm system is paying off dividends for the Sox.

Do they have to put a certain number of players on waivers? Why Josh Beckett?

I can understand wanting to see McCartney rather than one of the 162 games the Sox play this year. However, I really can't believe you would avoid watching a Sox-Yankees game no matter who is the starter if you didn't have anything else to do. I've seen you here at much less interesting--or hopeful--match ups. You are experienced enough to know that anything can happen in those games. I think that their attempt to land Hernandez speaks to the type of player that Theo would be willing to "sell the farm" for (not Halladay), and that it is interesting in that respect alone for those of us who try to understand the philosophy behind the decision making of this FO. Any team with as much organizational and current MLB strength as the Red Sox would be willing to hold their prospects at to get a Pedro-potential starter at such a young age. They still have a great chance to win this year and will be competitive for a long time. If they got Halladay and won the World Series would you give them a pass at the next trade deadline, or the one after that, if they decided not to overpay for a player?

I really like Eck. He's one of the few broadcasters who breaks down pitching really, really well. He predicts more 'next pitches' than just about any announcer, he speaks from the cuff and occasionally makes mistakes that are funny. As a former pitcher and someone who really enjoys the craft I find him to be very knowledgeable and entertaining.

I think being a good contact hitter is better represented by K rates (as you mentioned) and that OBP is the more useful indicator of how good a hitter is in the box, which is really what it is all about. A hitter who can foul off pitch after pitch to not strike out is useful, but if they are swinging at pitched outside the zone to foul them off then they are missing opportunities to get on base. OBP better quantifies a hitter's ability to not make outs. Looking at AVG and OBP together (subtracting AVG from OBP) gives IsoD (Isolated Plate Discipline) which is really useful in being able to tell how good a player is aside from their ups and downs with the stick. A hitter who maintains a .100+ IsoD is someone who manages to get on via-walk a substantial amount compared to others whose AVG and OBP are basically the same (low IsoD). I'd rather a guy get on base via a hit OR a walk rather than making an out. I don't feel like most teams are at liberty to pick or choose how they avoid making outs. Hits are nice, walks are nice.... Breaking down the numbers with IsoD allows us to see much more clearly what is REALLY going on with a hitter whose numbers are abnormally up or down. Hitting .218 with a .340 OBP for an IsoD of .122? If that IsoD is roughly the career average, then eye is probably still there, the issue may be with hitting the ball or it may be with bad luck. If it drops quickly then it may be an indication that something else (hand-eye coordination, reflexes, vision, etc.,) may be off. Useful to be able to ascertain... especially in these parts where people yell about the sky falling whenver there is a loss of a tough 0-4 night. Most of the other posters are right though. AVG is an antiquated stat that speaks to luck and the skill of hitting the ball in such a way as to get the hitter on-base. OBP speaks to the ability to battle at the plate and control the AB against MLB pitchers. Hitters who get on at a .400 clip tend to control their ABs better than players who only get on .330. Conversely, a hitter who bats .310 may be much worse at actually controlling ABs and having plate discipline and body control than someone who hits .260. The plate discipline should continue throughout his career... the ability to get seeing-eye singles and bloopers mixed in with your linedrives is not something that can be counted on. If you look primarily at AVG then you miss the value of the guy who hit .260 and who gets on base at a .400+ clip for the flash of the guy who hits .310 with an OBP of .330. Overall the .400+ OBP guy makes far fewer outs than the .330 guy does and gives his team much more opportunity to put runs on the board.

Well the game is over, but I'm sure we'll be hearing from a700 momentarily about how it can still be blown. All kidding aside, a nice start for Victor Martinez.