Orange Juiced

Pedro's peak stretch was the greatest the game has ever seen, when adjusted for the era in which they played. Gibson's 1968 season was insane, but that was the year that the AL batting champ (Yaz) hit just .301. Gibson's era+ that year was 258. Pedro's era+ in 2000 was 291 - a far better performance (and that's saying something, because Gibson's 1968 season was phenomenally good).

My all-time favorite baseball player is Pedro Martinez, and it's not even close for 2nd. Currently? I guess I have to say Papi. I'm hoping that Xander Bogaerts takes that title for many, many years to come though.

The Rays played very well in September, but they weren't really "so" hot. They went 17-10 (.630) in September. It's just that the Red Sox went 7-20 (.259) and the Rays picked up 10 games in a month. But yes, all those head-to-head wins were huge for them. Turns out all the Sox needed was *one* more head-to-head win over Tampa....... EDIT: If the Red Sox merely had a horrible month (say, 11-18, .407) instead of an historically bad month (7-20, .259), they win the division comfortably. All they had to be in September was horrible. But noooooooo...they had to have one of the worst months in MLB history. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

A grounder that scores a runner from third is a positive event as well by the same exact logic. You get credit for an RBI just the same but you get "penalized" with an at-bat (with no hit) on the ground out, but not the fly out. That makes no sense.

In the NL parks, I have to assume that Ortiz will play a lot of 1b. With Napoli hurting and ineffective, and Papi swinging a hot bat, and the offense generally struggling, I would think that it's imperative for him to get a lot of playing time.

Getting back to the thread topic, to me the key is finding guys that can handle the pressure of 9th inning close situations. Not everyone can do it. I don't like how managers manage their bullpen by the save stat, but you do need to have guys that can perform in those situations. It has to be harder than doing it in the 7th inning - there's just so much less room for error, because if you blow it in the 7th, there's time to recover; if you blow it in the 9th, it very well could be game over.

Right - there's no doubt that OBP is a better stat than AVG, but nobody remember's Ted Williams' OBP in 1941, but every baseball fan knows the number .406.

Yep. Which gets me wondering.... Picture the scenario: runner on 3rd, nobody out. A batter hits a medium-depth fly to right, guy tags up and scores. The scoring is F9, and give the batter an RBI, and no at-bat. Now picture the same exact scenario, except this time the batter hits a grounder to deep 2b, they throw the guy out at first, but the run scores. The scoring is 4-3, and give the batter an RBI, but he gets an at-bat, and thus that at-bat is an 0-for-1. Why does the first guy not have his out count against his batting average, but the second guy does? In each case, they drive in a run from third with an out. Why does the second guy get "punished" statistically but the first guy doesn't?

His stuff is *nasty*. His FB isn't a plus pitch, velocity-wise, but his other stuff is just downright filthy, and it makes his fastball even better. And of course, you're right - the control is impeccable.

I was just having this conversation with my son - why are RBIs a Triple Crown category, but runs aren't? I mean, runs are far more important than runs batted in. The Sox just beat the Yankees 6 runs to 1 run, not 6 RBI to 1 RBI. You could theoretically score all your runs without actually registering an RBI. I wonder how RBI became a Triple Crown category.

Anyone who buries the Yankees at this point is borderline insane. I didn't like their chances 10 days ago, but they've started to get on a roll. They're going to be a factor, make no mistake about it people.

It's just that with this definition (and perhaps others we could devise), a *better* start would not qualify as "quality" while this one does. I agree with wins...it also doesn't really take into account the actual pitching performance. A 9 ip, 1 r loss is a better performance than a 5 ip, 7 r win. Maybe they should change the name from "quality" start to something else. At least "win" is a little more objective - it's not trying to tell you who pitched up to a certain standard...just who was the pitcher of record.

I wanted them to go after the Cuban pitcher but they should definitely kick the tires very seriously on this guy.

But it's still subjective.

Agreed. But it's a totally subjective thing, and that makes for a bad stat.

There are all sorts of wonky and weird stats. Ultimately, the game is about scoring and preventing runs. The team that, at the end of the game, scores more - and, of course, thus prevents fewer - runs wins the game. Everything else is a means to that end. And therefore the only stat that truly "matters" is runs scored and runs allowed. Of course, we are intensely interested in *how* those runs are scored and what events led to them being scored (or prevented). And so we want to catalogue everything that happens in a game and make up stats for all that. That being said, the save and the "quality start" seem to be the most arbitrary and made-up of all the made-up stats that exist. I mean, take quality start. Rank these pitching lines by quality: (1) 5 2/3 ip, 0 h, 0 r, 0 bb, 15 k (0.00 era, 0.00 whip, 23.8 k/9) (2) 9 ip, 4 h, 4 r, 0 bb, 17 k (4.00 era, 0.44 whip, 17.0 k/9) (3) 6 ip, 10 h, 3 r, 3 bb, 1 k (4.50 era, 2.17 whip, 1.5 k/9) Hint: Only one of these is a "quality start". Similarly, look at the save stat. Rank these three relief performances by quality: (1) 4 ip, 0 h, 1 r, 0 bb, 10 k, BS (lost a 3-2 lead in the 6th on a pair of OF errors) (2) 1 ip, 4 h, 2 r, 1 bb, 0 k, S (entered the 9th inheriting a 7-4 lead) (3) 3 ip, 0 h, 0 r, 0 bb, 6 k (no save registered; inherited a 4-0 lead in the 7th, entering with bases loaded and nobody out; did not allow an inherited runner to score) Only one of these performances gets a save, and yet it's the worst performance of the group.

Uh...I think that, unless Uehara gets hurt, he will have the closer's role next year. Dude has been un-frickin'-believable in that role this year.

So you're taking the first option I listed, which is fine. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle of the two options...I don't see his true level as being an annual MVP-caliber player, but I also think he's pretty darned good. I just am not sure that's worth $20 million a year through age 36. But like I said, if they lose him to NY, watch him put up ridiculous numbers for the next 6 seasons.

I feel like the Sox are a bit in a no-win situation with Ellsbury. There are two ways to look at him, IMO. First, you could see him as a really talented player who has had a run of bad injury luck. You would see his 2011 and 2013 seasons as normative, and see his 2012 season as one where he was trying to work his way back from that bad shoulder injury. If you end up with the 2011/13 Ellsbury, that's a tremendous player, a 6-8 WAR player. And that's worth $20m per season. Or second, you could see his 2011 as an outlier, and think that he's basically a .295/.340/.420/.760 kind of guy that struggles with consistency and, when he gets injured, takes longer than what you'd expect to get back on the field. That player isn't worth $20m per season into his age-36 season. My concern is that if the Sox spend huge dollars to keep him, what we'll get is an inconsistent performance from here on out, similar to what we've been seeing through his career. And we'll be able to say, geez, who in the world couldn't have seen THAT coming? And if they don't sign him, Bradley struggles (which would be expected, given it would be his rookie season) and Ellsbury finally reaches that level that his talent suggests is there...but he does it for someone else (like the frickin' Yankees).

I don't see it happening (these kinds of trades rarely do). I am just thinking about what might need to happen for the Sox to land Stanton without giving up Bogaerts. It'll take something kinda similarly creative to this to get it done, IMO. But man, that lineup the Sox could throw out there (in my scenario)...holy smokes. And again, they'd still have enough starting pitching to have a really good rotation.

Yes, you are correct. My bad. But that's good - makes it even harder on them.

So would Tampa, if it came to it. Just think of the teams with excellent #1 starters. Of course, it's no guarantee that teams could successfully line up their #1 starter for that one game playoff. They might need to burn them at some point in the last few days just to get into the playoffs.

It is pretty sweet to see them that far back. But it's not just how far back they are, it's how many teams they have to leapfrog. To win the AL East, they have to pass 3 teams: Boston (11.5 games ahead of NY), Tampa (9 games ahead of NY), and Baltimore (5.5 games ahead of NY). To get a Wild Card spot, they have to pass 3 teams: Baltimore (5.5 games ahead of NY), Cleveland (4 games ahead of NY), and Kansas City (2 games ahead of NY). That's a lot of teams to jump, and they're not exactly *that* close to getting there. They have a lot of work to do, and there's not a ton of time left in the season to do it. Now watch ARod go nuts over the last 49 games to lift them to the playoffs....

I wonder if there's a way to get Stanton this offseason without giving up Bogaerts. I think the Sox would have to be very creative. Maybe bring a 3rd team in on it. And, of course, be willing to surrender multiple high-level prospects not named Bogaerts. The Sox are deep in two places now: starting pitching and near-ML-ready prospects. Most MLB clubs value both of these things, so it puts the Sox in a good position. Now, what team that is on the cusp of contention (or in contention) really could use a quality starting pitcher or two? Let's talk about the Angels. They have a huge payroll, their best power hitter (Pujols) is out for the rest of the year but they hope he'll be back mashing next season fully healthy. Their starting pitching is a huge disappointment, featuring guys like Blanton (5.52 era), Hanson (5.59 era), and Jerome Williams (4.77 era). They need starting pitching help. Their farm system is in rough shape after a handful of trades the past couple of years. But they do have some quality players and a few good prospects left. So how about something along these lines.... Sox give up: Doubront, Bradley Jr., Lester (after they exercise the option on him), and Ranaudo. LAA gives up: LHP Nick Maronde (their best pitching prospect), 3b Kaleb Cowart (their best overall prospect), Trumbo, Hanson Fla gives up: Stanton Sox get back: Stanton, Trumbo LAA gets back: Doubront, Lester Fla gets back: Bradley, Ranaudo, Maronde, Cowart, Hanson Why Boston does it: They would still have the following SP available: Buchholz, Lackey, Peavy, Dempster, Webster, Workman, DeLaRosa. Plus, they could sign a FA pitcher as well. That's still a lot of SP. I hate giving up Doubront, but I feel it would be a huge piece to this trade. They add one of the best RH power bats in all of baseball in Stanton, and solve their 1b issues moving forward with Trumbo. Suddenly there's major thump from the right side. I feel they give up an awful lot (two quality starting pitchers, and two of their best prospects), but that RH power is worth it. Why LAA does it: They desperately need starting pitching. They can pick up a DH elsewhere (Pujols goes back to 1b next year) and their lineup is still stacked. Lester + Doubront represents a huge upgrade over Hanson and, say, Blanton. Suddenly their rotation becomes: Wilson, Weaver, Doubront, Lester, and Vargas. That's as good as any in baseball 1-5. And since pitching wins championships....well, they would have upgraded their team considerably. Why Fla does it: Losing Stanton obviously hurts. But they get a SP that has had major success in the NL East (Hanson), plus he's really cheap and under control through 2015. They also add four excellent prospects - two from Boston and two from LAA. That is a pretty nice haul when all is said and done. Perhaps Boston might need to throw in another prospect (not named Bogaerts) to go to Florida to nail this down. Or Hanson is left out of the deal, Lester goes to LAA, Doubront goes to Florida instead (if they prefer him over Hanson), and another prospect goes from Boston to LAA instead. But I think a deal along these lines (even if the particulars aren't correct) could work. The Sox then re-sign Ellsbury and Saltalamacchia. For the Sox, it would mean their lineup would look like this in 2014: C - Saltalacchia 1b - Trumbo 2b - Pedroia 3b - Middlebrooks (hopefully!) SS - Bogaerts LF - Stanton CF - Ellsbury (hopefully!) RF - Victorino DH - Ortiz Lineup: CF Ellsbury 2b Pedroia DH Ortiz LF Stanton 1b Trumbo SS Bogaerts 3b Middlebrooks C Saltalamacchia RF Victorino SP - Peavy, Buchholz, Lackey, Dempster, Workman/Webster/FA signing

I agree. I was trying to help clear up the confusion. Perhaps I added to it.