sk7326

They turned an almost washout into a 23 year old starter with Top 2 potential - it'd be nice to have him, but the Sox did well

Well, when did the last national TV deal kick in - that is the more relevant question here me thinks

And you might see fewer QOs as a result

I have no doubt Farrell would have done it too. He had no qualms being aggressive with Taazawa, Breslow and Uehara in 2013. Just never had the chance.

Especially with Carpenter hurt, the 2004 Red Sox were pretty clearly one of the Top 2 teams in the entire league that year - they knocked off the other Top 2 team. Hell, there is a pretty good case the 2004 Red Sox were the best team of the 21st century to date. In 2007 the Sox swept Anaheim, came from 3-1 down to pick off Cleveland. Again in the ALCS, you basically had the major's two best teams - the Sox knocked out the other Top 2 team. You would have picked the Red Sox to beat Colorado in virtually any context (home, away, in a house, with a mouse, in a boat, with a goat, here or there, anywhere) Colorado went on a crazy 20-2 stretch to make the playoffs - but the Sox were always the better side. The Sox were a freight train both times - but they did not catch fire per se - they were the best team in those cases. (and in 2013 too where they knocked off the 2nd best team in the World Series)

Really it is the Cubs starting rotation against the Guardians starters + Andrew Miller - plus whether the Guardians can score enough runs. Personally I am rooting for Cleveland - their drought is even the scrappy underdog drought story between the teams.

Lost two one run games - including one at Fenway. And ran into the buzzsaw of the Cleveland bullpen - which as it turns out, does not make us special. Farrell probably wonders what he could have done that was different - because he is a disappointed person and that's what you do. The reality is the answer is - not much. When your strategy is built around your top two starters pitching well and they don't ... it is hard for anything else to matter. But there is very little that can be done to guarantee playoff results - the Yankees won three titles and then spit the bit twice with home field advantage - I guess Derek Jeter became stupid.

Drew had a fine season here - honestly he was a shortstop version of Bradley. Defended well, and struck out and walked a ton which made him very streaky offensively.

DD was smart to keep a lot of the Red Sox infrastucture - and hopefully with Hazen's departure they limit the brain drain on that front.

The scouting system was built by management - so that seems creditworthy

The I think is to look at Dombrowski and Cherington (or anybody else)'s philosophy monolithically. They are executing ownership priorities. Dombrowski had an elderly fan who wanted to win a title before he croaks - a totally defensible aim. So he was instructed to manage the team this way - that he signed Prince Fielder against his own preferences is common knowledge. Now what we will never know is exactly what Henry wants out of Dombrowski - how much to weigh putting butts in seats and contending in the present year vs a player development machine. Now the Red Sox have created the latter since the new ownership - so if Dombrowski stays in house to replace Hazen (for instance) - you'll know how much Henry values what this franchise has done. I don't think Dombrowski will be as reckless with trades for now as with Detroit - unless Henry is okay with it. But what he has demonstrated so far - you identify your stars and then use everybody else as trade currency - is generally the right way to run a big market team. If the Red Sox made a mistake in years past it has (especially with pitchers) not being decisive enough. I do hope Dombrowski stays internal and doesn't throw out the business processes which has worked well for Boston - there was all this yammering about the Red Sox going to a more "traditional approach" but given the success of Red Sox scouting and development - there is little broken to fix there.

The same Yankees who won three titles in a row lost multiple best of 7s at home! Did they suddenly lose their clutchy McClutcherson-ness. The same principals participated in the biggest choke in baseball history. One of their actual titles (2000 IIRC) featured a 5 game losing streak to end the season. The Cardinals had a sub .500 September, ended the season 83-79 and won the whole darn thing. The 2009 Red Sox got swept out despite a lot of people who were on the 2007 title winner. Did Pedroia suddenly grow dumb or get the yips? It's baseball - good teams lose three in a row to inferior competition all the time. Indeed, it is quite rare for the league's best team to win the World Series - between pitching rotations and general luck, it is just the way it is. (remember, when Luis Gonzalez hit the walk off single in the 2001 World Series, that was him not making good contact against a basically perfect cutter)

Something DID go wrong! Cleveland outscored us three times.

And all of those playoff appearances - all you can do is give yourselves a spin ... of course the titles make it easier to be rational and zen about it

Because they ended up having two of the 10 best hitters in baseball to man the corners (or so they thought). The secret "thing which happened that the team never really recovered from" was Yook's body falling apart.

The result was that he made sure that Porcello and Price suddenly wet themselves during two playoff starts - he made sure that a few of Price's good pitches got blooped into spots fielders weren't playing. It is tempting to try to find a lot of reason for the playoff loss, when really "baseball happened". It's why the playoffs are fun sadly.

Perhaps - but really ratings will probably be mildly disappointing ... in this day and age most of the sports outside the NFL are regional in interest. The four LCS participants were all great stories - all have long championship droughts. I mean the Guardians made only their 6th World Series ever - only the White Sox have fewer among the original American League teams. And while they are going to on-paper underdogs against whomever - if they keep allowing under 2 runs a game, nobody is beating them.

UZR says to use multi-season samples to make an assessment on the player ... but the small sample can accurately depict what happened during that time. i.e. while an 0 for 10 stretch does not reflect on whether a hitter is good, it does accurately show that the 10 at bats did not go well.

His metrics got off to a slow start ... and after all, one's season defensive data is not enough to make a conclusion about the player. He had a rough start to the year - but he is clearly a plus CF.

Despite my admiration for Francona - and some level of agreement with you - I do think the relationship might have run its course too. 8 years is a long time in a place like Boston. Replacing him with one of his former coaches is sound - Farrell has been fine (better with the soft skills than the tactics, but again this year the tactics were largely good - you look at the games and it is hard to find issues with his bullpen moves, for a lot of the year the players did not deliver). I had more issues the last year or two when it looked like the coaches were not adding value. Francona has had a wonderful postseason playing to his team's strengths with the pitching staff. But we know Farrell has also managed very aggressively in big games and had quick hooks and the like. I suspect if the Sox got gifted a weapon like Andrew Miller to go with Kimbrel Miller would have not been banished to the 8th inning.

We're not really - Shaw and Sandoval will be perfectly acceptable - it would be nice to be better, but if that is your 7th or 8th best player, then the position lineup is pretty darn good. Moncada is the upside option - granted he has to be able to actually hit the baseball (and it is pretty good when that happens).

Since the talk was greatest Sox hitter, was fair to stick with Red Sox careers - so Yaz' career suffers due to it just being so darn long. I used 3500 PAs so we could get a sample of 5ish seasons in a Sox uniform. But to examine peak, the 25 best Red Sox SEASONS by wRC+ 1. Ted Williams 1957 - 223 2. Ted Williams 1941 - 221 3. Ted Williams 1946 - 215 4. Ted Williams 1942 - 209 5. Ted Williams 1954 - 207 6. Ted Williams 1947 - 207 7. Babe Ruth 1919 - 203 8. Yaz 1967 - 194 9. Ted Williams 1949 - 189 10. Manny Ramirez 2002 - 185 11. Ted Williams 1948 - 183 12. Jimmie Foxx 1939 - 181 13. Yaz 1970 - 179 14. Ted Williams 1958 - 179 15. David Ortiz 2007 - 175 16. Fred Lynn 1979 - 174 17. Ted Williams 1956 - 174 18. Jimmie Foxx 1938 - 173 19. Wade Boggs 1987 - 171 20. Yaz 1968 - 170 21. Bob Johnson 1944 - 169 22. Dwight Evans 1981 - 168 23. Wade Boggs 1988 - 167 24. Ted Williams 1951 - 166 25. Carlton Fisk 1972 - 165

The Red Sox Top 20 in wRC+ (1918 to 1946, 3500 PA minimum, approximately 5 seasons of PAs ... remembering 100 is league average) 1. Ted Williams 188 2. Manny Ramirez 154 3. Jimmie Foxx 151 4. David Ortiz 146 5. Fred Lynn 142 6. Wade Boggs 142 7. Mo Vaughn 136 8. Nomar Garciaparra 134 9. Carl Yastrzemski 130 10. Kevin Youkilis 130 11. Dwight Evans 129 12. Reggie Smith 129 13. Carlton Fisk 129 14. Jim Rice 128 15. Jackie Jensen 123 16. Joe Cronin 122 17. Mike Greenwell 120 18. Trot Nixon 118 19. Dustin Pedroia 117 20. Bobby Doerr 115

Ortiz' career had a confluence of things which are hard to imitate and stand outside of baseball to some degree: 1. He was a central principal in breaking the curse. And more than that - he had three walk off hits in that postseason ... how many people get that many chances, let alone cash them in 2. He never left - and was a heck of a comeback story, both from his time in Minnesota as well as his mid-career swoon in Boston which was overcome so completely that almost nobody remembers it. 3. He is the common thread through the entirety of the most productive era in modern Sox history 4. He enjoyed being famous. He was not an aw shucks sort - he loved the crowd back. 5. He was such a departure from the staid, racially problematic historical nature of the team. Not that he would not have been as beloved without it, but it infused a freshness and fun and energy to the proceedings which were historically very un-Red Sox with rare exceptions (like one with mutton chops and a very goofy looking wind up). One of the heroes if the Cubs win it all will be a natural choice. The players cited are all good choices, but you have to have a banner - it would be hard to do it otherwise. Andrew Miller could take on "folk hero" status, but that is a separate issue.

All of it wins championships - the Sox just ran into a team who were a little better three times. Cubs got shut out last night - but hung 8 runs up the night before and averaged some healthy numbers. The Red Sox were good - but it's baseball and being a good team is not at all sufficient.