sk7326

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.

I do think they liked him a lot - and one could easily argue they wanted him to stay for another year to assure Farrell health. It is good to have a qualified in house guy - but this was always the likely move. I also was never sure if Lovullo wanted to be seen as stabbing one of his best friends in the back.

The most likely outcome if that were to happen would be to split the first two games ...

Well in 2014 it was a vote of no confidence and jerking him around ... the reason was understandable but so was the reaction ...

I know - I did not even know they were eligible!

in 2003 we also won a do or die Game 6 in New York and in 2008 with a compromised Josh Beckett we won a do or die Game 6 in Tampa ... I saw the Giants win a Game 7 in Kansas City and was too young to see live (but have seen on tape) the Pirates winning in Baltimore in Game 7 of the ugly softball jersey world series

The statistics say no such thing. Or that game in Fenway park that just happened was a figment of our imagination.

Since they also have to play road games - it says less than you think

The Rockies finished 13-1 and swept their two NL postseason opponents, entered the World Series with a 20-1 record Their opponent stumbled to a 7-7 finish, limped through the ALCS ... 14-10 record over that same stretch prior to the WS The Rockies predictably rolled to the title - how do you stop an opponent on that sort of streak.

This, my friend is how a World Series champion builds momentum heading into the postseason http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/STL/2006-schedule-scores.shtml

It's the spread you care about for that evaluation, not just home record. Exactly 4 teams won 65% of their home games (Cleveland, Texas, Cubs, Dodgers) ... only the Dodgers were below .500 on the road. That seems more an indicator of them being good generally.

No way - past management would have also known this team is firmly into a contention window. They would aggressively identify the one player away they were and try to do something about it ... I recall them in the 2003 offseason signing an elite reliever and going after a certain Rhode Island video game tycoon ...

Final week of the season where they entered the week essentially clinching a tie for the division? There is not one team of the 30 in their position who would not have done the same thing ... play the regulars a little bit, give the starters some burn but rotate through a lot of guys. Indeed the Guardians did the same thing - that they ended up #2 was largely dumb luck.

They lost because Cleveland's starting pitching + Andrew Miller was better than Boston's starting pitching ... that's it. This is something that could have occurred any weekend against any team because baseball is a funny game. It's not like some of the bloops and bleeders in that 2nd inning in Game 2 were anything Price could have done anything about - that's baseball.

Yes. Because you expect young players to get better. But it is also a bit of a silly question since we know this will not be the roster.

It's baseball - Guardians were better. Price was awful - and in the inning which blew up, one of the ball's was hard hit, and the rest were perfect pitches that ended up in a place without fielders. Home field is an edge, but a small one - one which the Red Sox have transcended many many many times. After all, since the playoff seeding began (1998) - teams with HFA have gone 69-65 (.515). Given that in most cases the HFA went to the better team, this casts significant doubt over the size of the HFA in and of itself. It is hard to divine meaning from any of these series aside from the fact that a team won and a team lost and that is was (usually) fun to watch.

They would have - what I do not remember was the win scenario, and their focus was clearly on getting healthy ... I suspect if their guys were 100% they might have pushed harder. It was a risk - and one which was a missed extra point from possibly paying off. C'est la vie.

The players that went out there certainly did. The Patriots example is less interesting as Julian Edelman And Gronk's ailments were hard to deal with in an alternate way - and the bye was clinched (and they had blown a game they should have won in Denver during the season). Home field means considerably more in football - but the Patriots healthwise were probably not in a position to do much in Week 17 other than what actually happened.

Really 3B is the only position that needs to be addressed (and that might not even be the case) - pitching will be the priority, both the bullpen and reducing the uncertainty at the back of the rotation.

Ultimately, baseball is the flukiest of all the major sports on a day to day basis - and why the regular season is the least flukey of all (ironing out those flukes via sheer number of games). But it follows the playoffs are the flukiest of the pro sports. (NBA > NFL > NHL > MLB ... in terms of level of certainty and the likelihood the champ is in fact the "best"). The only real conclusion that comes from why they lost is that the Guardians outscored them in three games. It's no solace - but hard to call for anybody's head over it either.

Your math is wrong. The edge is not remotely that large.