sk7326

Why yes, yes they did - the 15th most effective starter in the AL that season.

They didn't in 2013 - it worked out well.

You were that pessimistic about the bullpen? That seems mean.

I will giggle uncontrollably as I note how utterly full of bunk that claim is. Going to offensive fWAR (or whatever ballpark normalized thing you like): 2014: LAA, Det led the league, Baltimore was 6th, Oakland 7th, Kansas City 10th 2013: Bos, Det, Oak, TB led, Cleveland 6th 2012: NY, Texas, Detroit, Oakland 2nd through 5th, Baltimore 11th 2011: Tex, NY, Det, TB 2 through 5th 2010: NY, TB, Min 3rd, Texas 7th 2009: NY 1st, LAA, Min, Bos 3rd through 5th 2008: Bos 2nd, NYY 6th, ChiSox 9th, LAA 10th 2007: NY 1st, Bos Cle 3th-4th, LAA 7th So - excluding "regular season tiebreaker games" since 2007: 35 AL playoff teams ... exactly 4 playoffs teams were below the median (8th place or worse) in offense 25 of the playoff teams were in the top 5 in offense

A little bit - although Ortiz in 2014 did not show the signs you'd expect of a guy who was on borrowed time (and in a lot of measurable ways still hasn't). Bat speed hadn't slowed - strikeouts didn't go up. He was doing a lot of the same things without getting the results. I think the projections were fairly in the middle of the bell curve as far as expected outcomes. The drop in Ortiz' hard contact is striking though.

Those are different points. The FO knew the pitching had to be upgraded in March to get the team to the level we want - you know, the one which wins titles. I don't think the FO expected the pitching to need to be upgraded to get to the level that they NEEDED - to be in a reasonable form of contention, due to the other two thirds of the game. So far the playoff berths in the AL are occupied by the (fWAR ranks): 1st (NYY) 4th (Hou) 6th (LAA) 9th (KC) 12th (Min) Really the major miscalculation Ben made was how much the defense would bring to the run prevention operation ... you look at how much Minnesota has been helped by a cavernous home park and good fielders. The leaking oil in the Red Sox defense (the left side primarily) has been the real disappointment.

FWIW, both Betts and Bogaerts were a full two years younger than Lynn when they hit the show and a year younger than Rice. As noted, Lynn and Rice were a once in a lifetime sort of class (and Rice in particular was the ultimate marriage of player and ballpark). The arms I share the frustration - although it seems that a lot of organizational priority has been on sourcing that via other means. It is also one of the places where the draft positions of the last decade really show.

Well ... Sandoval was an improvement over bubkus at 3B Ortiz's 2014 was not in line with his previous years and almost entirely due to a very low BABIP. He was an upside regression candidate. Bogaerts was going to improve Betts was going to be solid as a full time CF Ramirez was an improvement over bubkus in LF Napoli was expected to be roughly the player he was in 2013 and 2014 (i.e. quite good) There were a lot of options for RF if Victorino remained unhealthy, enough for at least one to click Pedroia would be healthier RF was the most speculative. But none of the above were huge leaps. Basically the idea was that Ramirez and Sandoval were going to make outsized impacts because the positions they were playing were staffed by giant sucking sounds the last season. Also Ortiz' 2014 looked like a legitimate fluke. What has happened is that Napoli and Ortiz' relative dropoffs have not been able to make up for the improvements offensively at 3B and LF. Plus RF and C have remained sore spots - although the latter was liveable.

That is a seductive narrative which actually flies in the face of what actually has happened.

When our offense has been productive, we have won ... when it hasn't we haven't. Now their poor record is the pitching's fault - in the way that the Patriots in 2011 had a s***** secondary. In NEITHER case was the "formula for team victory" built on those areas of the game being amazing ... they were built for an offense to do the lifting and the defense to be sufficient. So when the team fails (like the Patriots did in that Super Bowl) blaming the DEFENSE when the vaunted offense could not get to 28 points is somewhat misguided.

The number of earned and unearned runs across the game is small and fairly consistent. Also, what is an earned and unearned run is largely left to opinion. Obviously if a guy who reached on an error came around to score that is unambiguous, but other cases are more esoteric. A bad defense influences the number of actual runs of all flavours. After all, you replace human fielders with potted plants and suddenly many balls are getting through the infield. Oakland leads the league in ERA - but you almost expect that since their pitchers aren't terrible and they play in one of the best pitcher's parks in the whole league. Anyway, digging on this - the top AL teams in runs allowed and ERA and FIP Royals 3.61 - 3.51 - 3.83 Rays 3.76 - 3.57 - 3.81 Astros 3.79 - 3.58 - 3.62 Angels 3.82 - 3.65 - 3.88 A's 3.84 - 3.41 - 3.62 Orioles 3.97 - 3.76 - 4.07 Mariners 3.98 - 3.76 - 3.92 Twins 4.08 - 3.85 - 4.07 Guardians 4.18 - 3.80 - 3.35 White Sox 4.26 - 3.91 - 3.57 Yankees 4.33 - 3.96 - 3.64 Jays 4.37 - 4.13 - 4.11 Rangers 4.52 - 4.24 - 4.37 Tigers 4.67 - 4.27 - 4.17 Red Sox 4.67 - 4.40 - 3.98 If you take the numbers together ... he A's clearly allow the most unearned runs ... since they have committed the most errors, that is not a stunner. On the other hand, the A's get to so many balls that only 0.22 runs per game is explained by defense. In an aside, when you see the Red Sox' RA/FIP spread the REAL miscalculation Ben made is clear.

Good news is he figured it out right away - and that this is happening around the All-Star Break ... assuming the MRI is clean, they might not lose too many starts because of the timing

Personally you fire GMs because the talent base has suffered. Porcello, Miley projected to be #3 sort of starters. Masterson was a cheap (for them) gamble. Porcello has underachieved a lot, Miley has underachieved a bit less. But it is not the median of their expected performance - saying otherwise is simply incorrect. The team is not untalented. Now where you can hold Cherington accountable might be the coaching staff. But that is a more complex question. I actually don't think the GM expected ANY of the pitchers to turn into the 71 Orioles. He was expecting the lineup to do the lifting - which is a perfectly acceptable way to win, and works frequently. THAT is the differentiator this season (in May in particular where all of the bad record was created).

Listen, fans voting are fine. It's a game for the public. But I absolutely believe that business considerations should matter in choosing teams - not as a primary criteria but part of the soup.

well 3 or 4 starters ain't nothin ....

if fans are not interested in seeing the stars of the near future as well as today, then you're doing the all-star game wrong. Bogaerts as an all-star fits whatever definition of the All Star game you want - a reward for the first half OR a marketing of the game's best young and old.

We have encountered those situations, and he HAS played first. So the question kind of answers itself. As long as De Aza is playing well, this alignment makes sense ...

The "me" vs "team" is a bit hard to splice here. When he is successful the team is - I don't think he has held the team hostage in any way on stuff like that.

That could work ... but as long as De Aza has not turned into a pumpkin, the Ortiz at 1B alignment gives them probably their most complete group out there between offense and defense. I don't expect De Aza to last - but it has been nice while it has.

It is tricky. That said Holt has been one of the top 20 or so players in the AL to date via whichever WAR flavor you like. It's not a great choice - but not a stupid one either. Considering position depth - Bogaerts was a better choice, Buchholz was very much arguable and given how many relievers managers are taking into the game, Uehara was better than at least two of the guys who actually made the team. (Tazawa too, frankly)

I agree that the top performing SS in the league would have been a deserving runner up SS.

I don't want the Sox to empty the farm - that said there is depth at SS and Margot is blocked too. So there is tradeable surplus and it's why you have them.

Our SS has been the best performer in the AL to date and our CF has been about as good anybody in the AL that doesn't share a name with that of a fish.

Between 2002 and 2011 the "brutal periods" were 8 winning seasons 2 heartbreaking losses in the LCS 2 sweeps in the LDS 2 playoff berths lost inside the last weekend of the season I won't defend 2012 and 2014, but reports of brutality are very very exaggerated.

Roster crunches at most of the positions Sox had contenders ... 2B, SS, CF, SP, RP ... and Buchholz' start and pedestrian W/L obscure how well he has pitched generally