a700hitter

Uh yeah. I think you would be a pretty strong contender.

I don't think I said that.

Wasn't the good run differential the result of having good pitchers and hitters? Run differential is an outcome, not a skill. Players with good skills that perform well result in teams with good run differentials.

Pretentious? Disgusting? Why are you going there? Have there been any signs of improvement by either Lester or Beck throughout the first half? No, there have been no encouraging signs from either. The team is under .500 in their starts. I have seen nothing for me to believe that either of them will get on track. Lester's numbers regressed significantly last year. I believe that the Red Sox record in his starts last season was not very good. People expected that he would rebound from 2011, but he has not. He has declined even more drastically this season. IMO, if the Red Sox do not get a true ace, they will have trouble making the post season or going deep into the post season, because I do not think Beckett or Lester will step up to be reliable aces in the second half. That's my prediction. Call it pretentious or whatever other insult you like to apply, but that is what I expect from them.

Overall grade: D A+: Ortiz A- : Middlebrooks, Ross, Nava, Podsednik B+: Salty, Atchison, Morales B: Pedroia, Sweeney, Shoppach C: Lester, Buchholz, Beckett, AGon, Doubront, Aceves, Albers, Cook, Aviles D/F: Dice K, Punto, Front Office, Bobby V, Coaching Staff

They can absolutely win a wild card slot. The division is over. The wild card slot will be a dead end if Beckett and Lester cannot turn arounfd their seasons, and i don't see that coming. I think they need to land a closer to have any chance of getting to and going deep into October. Lester and Beckett are not aces and will continue to s*** the bed in big games.

Adequate and tall maybe a B for some people?

How does one build a team based on run differential? Would someone characterize Dustin Pedroia as a good run differential guy? I know their are metrics for this stuff, but let's remember that run differential is an indicator of how good or bad a team is. The metrics that measure these indicators estimate the indicators. I'd prefer to build my team with good pitchers first and then good hitters, and I don't apologize for my opinion that those advanced metrics are largely a waste of time.

They are different types of players. Reddick has the livelier bat, but Kalish can steal 30+ bases in a season.

If the question were "should the Red Sox be buyers or sellers", I would answer that they should be sellers. They need to move on from Beckett and Lester. They should bring in some talent and free up some money. However, this thread asks which "will" the Sox be, not "should". I think they will be neither to any significant extent. Cherries doesn't have the budget to add significant talent and IMO, he doesn't have the guts to be a significant buyer or seller. I expect little activity and lots of excuses.

I build with pitching, so no, I don't agree. Both are factors obviously, but pitching is more important. The A's offense is dead last in the league and Texas has top 5 pitching to go along with it's #1 hitting. After the A's the next five best teams in pitching are the Angels, Yankees, Rays, Rangers and White Sox. Except for the Rays who are 1/2 game behind the Orioles for the second wild card, the other 4 teams would be play off teams if the season ended today. The top 6 offenses are the Rangers, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Yankees, White Sox and Tigers. Only 3 of those teams would be playoff teams if the season ended tomorrow. The top 6 teams in pitching combine for a record of 287-227. The top 6 hitting teams combine for a record of 281-233. Yes, run differential is the best indicator next to wins as to who will be in the playoffs, but that's just a duh. IMO, Pitching is more important to being a good team than hitting.

I assume that the A grade is for awful.

The Phillies, Twins, Braves, Rays and A's have gotten to the playoffs many times in the last decade or so. The reason for that has been their pitching. Maybe they haven't won a lot of championships, but that is because they have run into opponents with good pitching in the playoffs. The teams with top pitching do make the post season more consistently than teams without good pitching. Pitching is the name of the game. To say that run differential is all that matters might be correct, but IMO the more important component of that statistic is the runs allowed portion. The pitching is more important IMO. Saying that run differential is the most important statistic is not far from saying that the most important statistic for a team is wins. Of course wins are the most important and of course run differential is the best indicator of the teams that will have the most wins, but neither indicates what is the most important component of those statistics. IMO, it is pitching, and there isn't a metric that can prove otherwise.

I am sure that he legitimately had a cold or flu. That's not what i am questioning.

At Saturday night's game he couldn't throw a strike. He looked intimidated and scared. He is a nobody and he doesn't belong on any teams roster except as the last option out of the pen. I could live with him in that role but not in a role with any real pressure or responsibility. You are entitle to your opinion. I think he stinks.

Small sample size, basically accumulated during garbage innings. They stink.

I agree with you, and I appreciate the effort you made in presenting the data, but those who are blinded by their fandom cannot be convinced otherwise by any set of stats. You and I use those stats to confirm what we already know just from watching. My answer to the prove it to me with statistical data crowd is just to sit back and watch the season unfold. The events will bear us out. I doubt there was any statistical measure that would have predicted last years September collapse. In fact the statistical data probably uniformly would have shown there was no chance of the Sox completing such a collapse. Some of us saw the signs as early as September 1st that the team was about to spiral down the drain. Everything had to break wrong for the Sox, but all the elements were in place to fail miserably. In my mind, they needed to get lucky a couple of times to not collapse, and that luck never came their way. Stats would never have led anyone to believe that they would have collapsed. Because the collapse flew in the face of all the statistical data, people were lulled into the belief that the collapse was a statistical aberration. It was not. There were fundamental flaws in that team that were never addressed, and the result has been 2012.