sk7326

Barry Bonds in 2002 had a slash line of .471/.700/1.294 David Ortiz 2013 .688/.760/1.188 What is even CRAZIER about Ortiz' postseason was his slash lines in the previous 2 rounds: ALDS: .385/.556/.923 ALCS: .091/.200/.227 Basically, David Ortiz had two "Barry Bonds early 2000s" series while transforming in Pete Kozma in the middle.

He had a rough season - but 26 year old great athletes with good tools are guys you can bet on ... He has shown he can hang at the big league level - the verdict on him is not that clear. I was definitely among those worried about him having a job here in the future. But he has developed quickly and consistently for a guy who has spent only a few years concentrating on baseball full time. Patience with him is warranted.

1. QO's for Napoli and Ellsbury. No QO for Drew. Flip a coin on Saltalamacchia. Be ready for Bogaerts and Bradley to be manning full time gigs next season. 2. Do not get too hung up with who was on the field at the end of the World Series. You do what you have to do to win games tonight, but that does not mean that Middlebrooks or Salty are out of the picture for the future. Doesn't mean they are part of the future either - just that you don't make decisions on 3 weeks of baseball - even if they are the highest profile 3. 3. Relievers, relievers, relievers - the nature and history of the position, you have to expect Tazawa, Breslow and Uehara to turn into pumpkins next season. That doesn't mean Koji should not be the closer to start blah blah blah ... but you want to have a continuous supply of arms to throw at the bullpen and be ready to switch horses. None of the ALCS/NLCS participants ended up with the closer they broke camp with - that tells you all you need to know. 4. Look into left field. If we are left with Carp/Gomes/Nava, yes - that is good enough. But if you can get Carlos Beltran for a short hitch, or Shin Soo-Choo for a reasonable one (bidding might get very hot on Choo, for a guy who can't hit lefties), it is worth kicking the tires. 5. See if you can move Dempster. That said, his contract is very reasonable for what he offers - so don't eat salary unless you are actually getting a body with some upside coming back. 6. There are guys who can be serious difference makers who are not on the block but worth doing due diligence on (Felix Hernandez, Chris Sale) ... obviously keep with that. The Red Sox' prospect depth and ability to take on money can really make a difference here.

This season was a remarkable correction from the lapse that was 2012 - it is instructive that key assistants from the previous regime were the guys running the controls here. The management deserves credit for having enough humility to correct course when it turned out the old way was still pretty effective. Really this season was a case of a return to form for Jon Lester - a bullpen which found itself (and given the way relievers are year to year - it is a crapshoot every season) down the stretch and just a ton of the bad luck of the past reversing itself. You look at the serious amounts of time missed by our best players last year and the clown car full of starting pitchers who had to mop up the last year and change ... if the team could just have the injury bug nipped (or at least seriously reduced), it was going to go a long way towards moving us to respectability. 97 wins and a title was more than anybody could predict - but there was always a playoff contender here, the players were finally able to ply their trade.

At least by Game 2 evidence, the pitches (the fastball and change) are pretty straight pitches. He locates the fastball well, and the change up has tremendous deception (the arm action is excellent and for a straight change it has to be). I know our team won't be stupid fishing too much - but I think they will be ready to swing at the first pitch if it's a good one. If Wacha's curveball has more snap than it showed in Game 2, the equation changes a lot. That said, he threw so few (and none of them particularly good) in Game 2, it is hard to say he'll want to throw it in the highest leverage start possible.

This team is better than the 2007 team (similar lights out back of bullpen, better starting) ... not as good as 2004. (where the defending batting average champion batted 8th)

I mentioned this earlier in the other thread. I am expecting a shift to a much more aggressive approach with Wacha this time around, like they did with David Price in Game 2 of the ALDS. Look for the first good fastball you see and let it rip. His curve is useless except as a "show" pitch, so you only have to adjust for the changeup.

Box set is better. And I would not even throw out Game 3. Don't watch it for too long, but it helps to see just how ... dead ... we were. I remember Game 4, just hoping "let's get on the board here - I don't want a sweep" I remember Game 5, "I don't want to lose it in Boston" By Game 6, suddenly you were thinking "jeez, we steal one more, and ya never know" And then in Game 7, when Johnny Damon (who hadn't hit AT ALL all series) had his "Victorino slam" moment ... that was a particular fond memory for me because of 2003. In 2003 we also chased the starter early - but missed an enormous chance to blow open the game, partially leading to the Grady-driven meltdown ... would the Yankees dodge a bullet that size again? And then - it was suddenly 6-0 and the rout was on

What to do with Wacha the 2nd time around will be an interesting question ... to me, I could see an adjustment to the gameplan they used against David Price in Game 2 of the Tampa Series, dispense with the "deep count" approach and sit dead red for hittable fastballs, first pitch or otherwise. No reason for them to look for his curve - it's a hanger and he doesn't like throwing it. That reduces it to a two pitch concept.

He's got a pretty good chance to be BOTH a strikeout machine and an on-base one.

The ballparks have mattered here too. Detroit is a hitter's park in general though the dimensions are big and the season shifted. Saint Louis, Tampa are pitcher's parks all the way. At home the Red Sox have scored 39 (12 + 6 + 0 + 6 + 5 + 8 + 2) runs while allowing 19 (2 + 4 + 1 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 4). That is 5.6 runs a game against some very high caliber of pitching, when they have come back to a friendlier hitting confines.

Durability is relevant here too ... one of the stats that seems to register over and over again with contenders is that they have not used that many starters. The Red Sox have been lucky - even with Buchholz' injury, our top guys have largely been able to take the ball. There is a world of difference between Ryan Dempster being your weak link vs Kyle Weiland.

He hasn't had an on-base average below .370 (not counting the cups of coffee in Boston) ... offensively he is more like a "three true outcomes" sort of hitter ... he walks a lot, he strikes out quite a bit, and he hits the ball hard when he puts it in play.

There have been a lot of players in 2013 who did not get hurt like they did in 2012 - between Ellsbury, Lackey, healthy enough Pedey, healthy Ortiz ... there is a LOT of production that was in the medical ward last season. There is a lot that can be cured by just being able to field the team you thought you'd be fielding.

We have Berry in because we know who the starting CF is, and Berry has a specialized skill. The playoff decisions are made completely outside of the "who is on the team next year". Bogaerts is on the 25 because the team wants to carry 11 pitchers and needed somebody who could play both 3B and SS. He has had a good October - although this would not be sufficient for me to give him the SS job next year (I'd be happy to give it to him in general, just saying the October production is not magical here). Bradley has raked and caught the ball at every level - I am not sure there is much to be learned left in the minors for him. I do disagree with the idea that we can't give him a serious 300 or so PAs to show us whether he has the chops for real or not - we did that in 2007 with our second base position and it worked out ok. You just have to see the guy who has cranked out .280/.370 seasons in his organized baseball career - and ignore the pitchforks and torches if he is not achieving your wildest dreams by May 15. He put together good, high quality big-league at-bats from his first days with the big club. He has not shown he can hit big league breaking stuff - but the only way to address that is to see lots of big league breaking stuff until you fix it.

To win the title, every part of your team is tested. After all, only 10 teams qualify for the tournament. To make the tournament, you gotta hit - it is hard to make it with incompetent run production. You're #4/#5 starters matter, and you have to be able to exploit the other teams' flotsam. But once you GET to the postseason, different thing. The Red Sox have leaned on their run prevention (and I won't use the word pitching here - we have had average or better defense at all of the defensive positions and elite level defense at 2B, SS, CF, RF), in order to beat teams who on paper should be doing it better. The difference for Boston to date (and yes, it can change, I am ducking a lightning bolt as we speak) - has been that this team has shown more ways to win than anybody else. It has been about balance.

Jackie Bradley will be lucky to be 50% of Ellsbury ... in 2014. After all half of Ellsbury in 2013 would have gotten you something like Michael Bourn or Austin Jackson, or even Coco Crisp. But if I could get you Austin Jackson next year + 5 years or so of better than that, for about 1/3 of the price tag (if that) - that'd be pretty a pretty good deal.

Almost all free agent signings are negative return the way the system is drawn up. It's the idea of the winner's curse (in game theory) - you pay more than the asset's worth in order to win the auction. Does that mean you NEVER offer a giant contract? No - but you do have to weigh the consequences carefully. How much peak are you buying vs decline - for a big free agent you are going to buy decline, but is it enough to offset the upfront production? Ellsbury, as a 30 year old without a ton of history of corner-hitter production (in case his defense slips to corner outfielder levels), let alone a ton of history of staying healthy (regardless of reason) ... is a very risky buy. This is not Alex Rodriguez 2000, where the 25-year old best player in the AL was hitting the market ... there you were buying a lot of peak), this is a much more standard 30-ish guy. There are guys worth breaking the bank (and the Red Sox' relatively deep pockets) for - Mike Trout's UFA class (if he does not sell off his freedom to the Angels) or for that matter Xander Bogaerts if he is who we hope he is - but they are VERY rare.

One of the things that 2004 did was end the "Win it for" of people my age at least. I am not sure if the "curse" was the literary millstone the pseudo-intellectual sorts like to say it was - but I do remember (I was at a happy hour in Grad School which had bled into the night) when Aaron Boone's homerun cleared the fence ... and it was the first time I thought "they're never going to win it". So, with tonight being on the precipice of closing the greatest decade of Red Sox baseball most everybody short of our great-grandparents have seen, I'd be curious to hear some of your thoughts. In particular, starting this thread was made all the more urgent when I found out that there are posters here who barely remember 2004 (! - holy crap am I old). A few particular questions I'd love to hear answers to: 1. The year you were hooked - for me it was 1986. I was 8, young enough to love the baseball and the drama, Hendu's homerun when we were starting at elimination. I fell asleep before the Buckner play - the heartache for me was kicking away the 3-0 lead the next night (who gets a mulligan like that to atone for a disaster). Fortunately being an 8 year old, you got to disregard how odious some of the individuals were. 2. Your favorite Red Sox team (difficulty - not 2004). 2007 was a juggernaut, and the comeback against Cleveland was terrific. But I do harbor affection for the 2008 team - which by October was clearly overmatched against Tampa, but staged a really stirring comeback. Left it all out on the field, though they could not figure out Matt Garza. 2010 was also in retrospect a year that deserved respect - 89 wins with an amazing fiesta of devastating injuries, while David Ortiz was in the middle of figuring out where his swing had gone. 3. Where does 2013 rank. (and I think the answer doesn't change all that much with what happens the next 2 nights) - for me it's redemption. I guess I'm a bit older in real life now, so it cannot grab me like 2004 did, let alone Morgan Magic. I thought that last year's record and the 2011 finished had so much bad luck that it obscured how little it would take for us to be reasonably good this year. But no, I did not expect that we were fielding the best team in the league. It has been a great surprise - and to me a success on almost every level. The "almost" part? Well we have 2 nights to figure that out.

Teams without turnover are the ones you worry about. We have the best team in baseball for 2013 - almost assuredly that will not get better for 2014 without some change. There are more players leaving their peak years than entering ... and the opponents will add talent

Ross has played better than Salty the last couple of games ... we are down to a 2 game season (tops) ... this does not impact the decision to bring Salty back one way or the other (nor should it - and this applies to Middlebrooks as well). But there is a championship to win - the long term stuff we discuss ad nauseam goes out the window here.

if you take Ellsbury's 2011 out of the equation ... .355 has been on-base high water mark. Now if he keeps this up (that was good enough for 19th in the AL this year) - that is a good player. Bradley's 2013 was a rough introduction - he was promoted aggressively due to his spring ... so small sample size warnings abound. BUT, you break his batting down: 18 hits in 107 plate appearances ... 10 walks, 31 Ks, 2 HBP, 3 homeruns. So - you do the requisite BABIP calculations, and it comes out to .246.** ** Now things like BABIP are shaky statistics if the player has truly substandard ability, but from watching Bradley IMO this is a non-issue. (You or I step into the batter's box against a big leaguer - and a standard BABIP interpretation will make it look like you and I have a prayer of being major league hitters.) So what if BABIP luck improves to something closer to .300 - a fairly average result? And what if he cuts his strikeouts down from 29% to 20% - basically to the level he had in the minors. You put those together, and suddenly his slash line moves to .245/.336. This is without any prediction of improvement in Bradley - which flies in the face of what we expect from a 23 year old at the level of baseball he has been in. The 3 HRs over this small sample for what its worth translates to 15-20 HRs over a season. David Dejesus aims much too low for a comp since the glove matters - Bernie Williams might be a better one.

I think folks look at Bradley and see an advanced approach at the plate, an above average CF - 2 things Ellsbury did not have as a 23 year old ... and a 7 year age advantage. There is also the track record of consistent improvement and achievement at each level of baseball. You will lose the ability to steal 2nd with Bradley ... there is a pretty good chance you will have improved your ability to get to first base though.

A little bit of turnover is a healthy thing ... after all, not everybody who gets a lot of run is going to keep improving. Some will just age, some will plateau ... also the competition will work to close the gap. Management has to do stuff to keep "been there, done that" complacency from setting in, especially during the marathon. Injecting some youth - adding players (not just for the sake of change, there has to be a baseball reason obviously) can do that. Especially now, with baseball cracking down on amateur bonuses while the industry is simultaneously drowning in cash ... a lot of teams have money and there are few ways to spend it aside from on free agents. The market will seem inflated, but it's not - but the Red Sox (or the Yankees) will not just be able to put the winning bid on whomever they want. There is just an excess of supply.

I agree to a point - frankly splitting hairs at this point. Lester has been terrific - although his line score was not all his doing, and that also figures into things.