sk7326

Balls are dying in the outfield too - lot of balls which look better off the bat than the result

Tough baseball luck there - Will hit a rocket - sometimes just the breaks

They will - now that there is interleague every day - it is going to be hard not to change it. And yes, I'm getting the Vin Scully feed here - another level. By himself no less!

Braun's apology was pretty silly (hint: if it is 944 words, you are doing it wrong). Definitely supported his appeal and the initial suspension being thrown out - the appeals process has to be there and work, and technicalities like that are important if it's your ass on the line. But if he's going to admit something, best to actually just be straightforward with it.

W!ell the HGH benefits are still pretty controversial - granted the studies are scarce - had to go back to 2007 for some of the good stuff http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/i-dont-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball-and-neither-should-you/ ... certainly the evidence for a drop in homeruns or a staggering change in run scoring after harsher testing hasn't really come true at all. But it is necessary to aggressively test it, if nothing to just have it covered in case Congress feels like wasting its time again. Guys getting ahead of the rules will be an issue the whole way - teams want to get ahead of the rules, and will fully support it though none will ever admit it. In a sense it tells you how healthy the game is that the media and the management have spent several years demonizing its players with the broad brush without suffering at the box office.

Well the brunt of the OBP was the unfathomable number of walks - he had a spectacular batting eye and managers were idiots about refusing to pitch to him.

This. I tend to be fairly ambivalent. Certainly don't feel a moral outrage about it - any of that Shaughnessy-esque sanctity of the game nonsense. I have a hard time believing the teams were in the dark on it - Selig is happy to let the players bask in the wrath, but it's impossible that the teams were not partially culpable. I am glad their testing policy has gotten tougher - nothing wrong with that, as long as they start taking the confidentiality part of the thing seriously. It's a giant loophole in that Biogenesis case - and something that could screw up future appeals.

Ignore the 73 homerun season - that 2004 is mindblowing. .609 OBP, 232 walks. He had more IBBs than any team did that season. Considering the backflips we do justifiably over .400 OBP sorts, it was another planet. I have no doubt the drugs contributed - but it couldn't be 100%, and certainly none of the critics or writers seem the least bit interested in that part of the story.

That is a fair sentiment - although what the actual effects were is harder to actually peg. Baseball involves so many special, learned skills that whatever steroids produced is not as cut and dried as say the edge they give football players. (who still routinely do this stuff) Bonds 2004 was still unfathomable - the ability to hit literally the only good pitch you see all game was still pretty incredible. The 2004 season with its baffling .609 OBP (and I think he's a giant jerk btw) - the only hitter that you could say truly managers and other players feared (they may say that about others but only Bonds got them to act like it). What is the heydays of PEDs? Well, amphetamines and greenies had been around for decades and more or less commonly accepted. I don't get too wrapped up in the numbers implications - guys used amphetamines in the 60s, the owners systematically kept subsections of players from playing baseball in the 30s and 40s (and in the Red Sox and Yankees cases, further than that). All of the numbers require some context. It happened, baseball rolled in dough because of it - a rolling in dough that STILL continues (the fan interest and attendance never went down - only writers seemed particularly interested and still are in the witch hunt aspects of it) ... I am glad that they fixed it, at least from a PR perspective - you don't want kids getting into this stuff, and baseball was extremely unfairly maligned compared to other sports. I feel bad for those who were clean in the old days (although that number is probably not that big) - and for obvious HoFers who get shafted because of playing in the wrong time. (Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio hello!)

On some level we have to be grownups about this. The teams are all looking for an edge - and for a time from the resumption of baseball after the 1994 strike to, well, now I suppose - players took a whirl with PEDs, and more than likely teams helped provide them whenever possible. There is a narrative associated with cheating and clean players getting screwed - but without a full accounting of the time period, it is not fair to speculate on who was "enhanced" and who was not. Hell, baseball relies on such specialized skills that the actual positive effects of steroids are not at all set in stone. This doesn't mean I don't think there was an effect - I just don't know what it is. Homeruns are not sufficient evidence - after all the McGwire-Sosa thing happened in the shadows of a two team expansion, and in the history of baseball expansion periods have always had large homerun boosts come with it. Certainly I think the writers essentially passing along rumors like jr high school chicks about who might have used - and using that to base HoF decisions is unconscionable, especially placing a pure guilt by association case on Jeff Bagwell, who should be a lead pipe cinch to get in. Everybody had years to unring the bell and nobody chose to, and that includes the writers and the league itself. It is odd for a museum of baseball to try to deny that the greatest individual offensive performer since the Babe walked the earth - I am sure the drugs helped that as much as racial non-integration helped the Babe. (although the drugs do not explain a truly baffling 232 walks in a season). The effects of steroids are not certain - and I am not really sure HGH helps performance (in a highly skilled world like baseball) much at all. At least the latter has a bonafide medical use, and I don't see why it cannnot be delivered to players by team physicians. Technology to help injury recovery is a good thing. At the end of the day, did the 2004/7 Sox have PED use? Probably - but I have a hard time saying the Red Sox were dirty while the 2003 Marlins or 2000 Yankees were clean. That doesn't square with any sort of laugh test. It was not a "clean" game then (if it ever has been) - no point making judgments on relative cleanliness.

If you want to go with value creation, it'd be Ellsbury or Pedroia. Can't go wrong with either - though for me Ellsbury has been a wee bit better. Ortiz is way up there too, but it's still value only being created on one end of the field so to speak. If you look at it from an exceeds expectations perspective - Nava proving that he is at worst a legitimate piece of a credible corner outfield platoon is one, and obviously Koji Uehara's ability to be healthy has been the other. Lackey has been remarkable as well. Really this season has been a triumph of the middle of the bell curve. Last 2 seasons literally every out of the blue bad thing that could happen to this team happened. Yes, some of the wounds were self inflicted, but you just look at average expectations for this roster and these baseball players, and the 7 months before April 2013 really needed a ton to go wrong. This year has been our good players being good again, and the injury bug not being so debilitating.

Standings at the All Star Break 1. Red Sox 59-39 2. A's 56-40 (2 games back) 3. Tigers 52-43 (5.5 games back) 4. Rays 56-41 (2.5 games out in division) 5. Rangers 54-42 (2 games out in division) 6. Orioles 54-43 (4.5 games out in division, 0.5 game out WC) 7. Guardians 51-45 (1.5 games out in division, 3 games out WC) 8. Yankees 51-45 (7 games out in division, 3 games out of WC) 9. Royals 44-49 (7 games out in division, 8.5 games out WC) Standings entering today 1. Tigers 74-53 2. Rangers 74-53 3. Red Sox 75-54 (tied, Tigers have 2 games in hand) 4. Rays 72-53 (1 game out in division) 5. A's 71-55 (2.5 games out of division) 6. Guardians 69-58 (5 games out of division, 2.5 games out of WC) 7. Orioles 68-58 (5.5 games out of division, 3 games out of WC) 8. Yankees 67-59 (6.5 games out of division, 4 games out of WC) 9. Royals 64-61 (9 games out of division, 6.5 games out of WC) I know Sox have mucked around a bit - and I'd be more annoyed at "how" they are playing in April and May (where now we just want results) - but really with the parity at the top of the AL, the Sox have not actually lost much ground at all - in fact they have gained a half a game on Baltimore for the final playoff slot. What has really happened since the break was that some of the teams that might have been buried (Royals, Yankees) are still not dead. In some ways Sox are in the same position they were before the Break - and actually a little better since they've run off a month from the calendar. If this is struggling - things aren't so bad.

True - although Ryu's excellence should be tempered a bit - terrific pitcher's park. We're a good team - and the "take a ton of pitches" AL approach is always an adjustment for NL teams

$50 to win the East $100 to make the playoffs either way I think that the team has muddled along in August has given fans a false sense of dread - they have not actually moved much in the standings.

Divisions: Sox, Tigers, Rangers WC: Rays, A's Divisions: Braves, Pirates, Dodgers WC: Cards, Reds really no suspense in the NL and very little in the AL

Answer is probably yes - at least for a time. But given how the sport was until - let's just say until pretty recently - it is hard to call any champion "clean" or any team having more integrity than others. Haters can hate, but it's not supported by the evidence.

Good game all around - but there was something about using Uehara in an 11 run game after leaving him in mothballs last night which felt like a poke in the eye.

Farrell did what so many managers do and it makes no sense. If Uehara is your best reliever (he is) - then holding him back for a less important situation (and yes, a save situation would have less critical than that last out to keep the game tied) is letting the stupid save rule dictate usage.

It's the starting pitching ... makes them more dangerous in October in theory. But they have to get there, like we do. But all of the teams are muddling along right now. Every day that passes with the teams all sort of equal, the better it is for Boston.

Shortstops and Center Fielders can always be moved to different positions if they can't stick - drafting them and then seeing what happens is never a bad way to go. It's where your best high school athletes play - and your best college ones often. If you just drafted them (and the hard throwers mixed in) - long term your organization prospect muscle will be solid.

They do - but you don't use high picks for that stuff. They are looking for star potential - and they can afford to since you can always find roster filler. It means that a lot of guys might miss - or be more trade bait. But a system without actual upside and just a bunch of future Mike Carps ain't doing anything for your big league future either. Org has a lot of live arms - there are very few aces period out there, and the Sox are almost never in a position to draft one.

I don't blame Farrell per se since most big league managers have been conditioned to this ... but ... 2 outs, need to get one guy out ... and somehow Uehara never gets the call ... sigh

I am not sure Back 9 is entirely fair ... I just meant the days when we could sit here and compare him to Verlanders or Felix Hernandez' of the world are probably over. But that doesn't mean he can't still be an excellent #3, adequate #2. His xFIP numbers have not wobbled that much, and his stuff is still good enough to pitch to contact. I mean if I were in Boston's shoes, I'd offer Lester a 5/75 extension and feel zero guilt - his durability alone makes that a completely fair deal.

Merrero was a value play where they picked him. Middle infielder, had a rough season but was valued by the industry before then (why JBJ slipped), in a program which has a phenomenal track record producing pros. Red Sox have clearly seen a bit of risk in taking pitchers early - and high school arms are the riskiest demographic of them all. Also add that the Sox have very rarely drafted in the spots where really high upside-low risk sort of pitchers have resided. They had that chance this year, and indeed took a live high school arm. As Barnes, Ranaudo showed - they do not fear the starting pitcher but find the earliest draft spots to be better places for position players where they normally draft. And given their ability to manipulate bonuses - they have more flexibility than other teams. (it is one of the fun quirks of the new CBA that the draft rules changes hurt the teams like Tampa) Red Sox have under Theo and Jed, definitely placed a priority on great athletes with their draft picks - even toolsy guys like Middlebrooks, who was a two sport kid who clearly needed polish. Often this involves guys in the middle of the field just because that's where your best athletes tend to end up. And given their system and where they often pick - this seems like an admin that clearly values upside and tools over pure probability.

Wherever he pitches - rest assured his innings will take a while ... he was effective with us for a few years and I never underestimate the culture clash that a guy like him has to face. But was he ever agonizing to watch - good enough stuff to come right at guys but stubbornly unwilling to do so.