Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

sk7326

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,647

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by sk7326

  1. sk7326
    Limited resources? Who said that?
  2. sk7326
    If I go tale of the tape (fwiw): Lineup: 2004 Bench: 2018 Rotation: 2004 Bullpen: push - though this is tricky. The pitching staff was managed differently in 2018 than anyone though to manage a staff in 2004. But I cannot assume the starters except for Lowe and Wakefield that 2004 would have the flexibility to rove. That said, Foulke was the best reliever on either team. It's a tough call. Defense: 2018 Manager/Coaching - push.
  3. sk7326
    The 2004 team went 98-64. The playoffs were not really in doubt - the doubt was being down 3-0 to the Yankees. But it was also the only 3 games they lost in the postseason. The Red Sox won 108 games in a league where there were a high number of 95+ loss teams. Now, there is no wrong answer here. Heck, I'd say the Red Sox had a more dominant season in 2018 (nobody is really arguing otherwise). But I'd probably pick 2004 in a best of 7 for many marbles.
  4. sk7326
    (the NBA ratings went up last year, a year where ratings for every other sport dipped)
  5. sk7326
    I have a hard time thinking the most massive favorite in a playoff series is more than 55-45 or so. I mean, you look at how frequently good teams lose 2 out of 3 to bad teams during the season - it's hard to think of any team as a lock. Or put another way, a run of the mill bad team (as opposed to an extra special bad team like the 2018 Orioles or early era Astros) still wins 40% of their games. Similarly a baseball team that loses 40% of the time has had a terrific season.
  6. sk7326
    won as many of the 162 games as LA did ... a worse Colorado team made the World Series in 2007. Back to back postseasons and a team that finally figured out how to pitch in Coors. They were flawed but they had one of the few legit aces in the sport (as well as a legit perennial all star) and you can go a long way with that.
  7. sk7326
    If the Red Sox were 60-40 odds to win every series they played, there would be a 22% chance of them going all the way ... that's also very little chance. (and I think 60-40 is very steep odds for any baseball series)
  8. sk7326
    yes - or do what soccer does and make regulation wins worth 3 points
  9. sk7326
    I wouldn't claim randomness. But I don't think there is a playoff mismatch that is ever really much more than say a 57-43 edge. That edge is substantial, but not so much where upsets don't happen all the freakin' time. I mean you break down Atlanta - they lost a bunch. But you look at say the 1991 World Series (still probably the most dramatic World Series of my lifetime), every game but one (an Atlanta win) was a coinflip. I just look at baseball - with the oversized importance of pitching, and how teams rotate starters. It is rare that any team is rolling out a demonstrably inferior squad every single game. Put another way, the 1972 Phillies were not a sorry team on Steve Carlton days.
  10. sk7326
    Sabbathia went 17-5 with a 4.39 ERA ... so the traditional stats were less amazing. 6.0 fWAR vs 2.7 fWAR is pretty clear. I don't blame anyone for voting for Sabathia - but to me it wasn't close. Plus - Ichiro had every indication of a superstar anyway (for what its worth). I have to reiterate - stardom is a secondary consideration for me ... but this was a case where a secondary consideration did not have to kick in.
  11. sk7326
    The playoffs are a crapshoot. But it's still how the title is decided - and it's okay to be upset at not winning the tournament and thrilled at winning it. But it is impossible to game it in the same way you can game the NBA playoffs for example. I mean, in my 32 years as a fan I've seen an 85 win team and an 83-78 team win it all. (the 83-78 team more remarkable since it was in the wild card era)
  12. sk7326
    Any team can win 4 out of 7 - even bad ones. And this historically great REd Sox team got smoked to a significantly inferior Tampa team 3 times in September. Here is the thing - given how pitching rotations work, it is very unlikely that any team is even a 1/3 chance to win every single head to head matchup. I mean the Red Sox were one of two teams to hold the Yankees homerless in the Bronx in back to back games this season ... the other one was the Orioles.
  13. sk7326
    The defense in 04 was not great granted. But the bullpen was at least as good and the rotation was stronger. Backend Pedro had 5.5 WAR, 4th in the American league! Lowe was wildly inconsistent, but coming off of a Cy Young caliber season and obviously flat brilliant in the playoff run. It would be a fun series. I would offer that the 2004 Angels > 2018 Yankees and the 2018 Astros vs 2004 Yankees is fairly close. The 2018 Dodgers were a bit better than the 2004 Cardinals (or a least the Chris Carpenter-less one we faced) The 2007 team had the most dominant end-game bridge with Okajima to Papelbon. That said all 4 teams had good bullpens. Uehara was clearly the best closer of the bunch - though Foulke's crazy flexibility gave him specific special value outside of a traditional closer's expectations.
  14. sk7326
    This is baseball, not the NBA. All of these series are not much more lopsided than coinflips. The Red Sox won 11 of their 14 games, but every game in the Astros series was still interesting in the 8th inning. The Dodgers with a break could have won Games 2 and 4 of the WS. You get to the playoffs, you can win the whole thing. There are no dead on arrival teams. The best team in the league loses - all the time. The Red Sox should make the playoffs again - and once that happens, you have to like their chances.
  15. sk7326
    Of course it's a marketing tool. But more importantly - if a race is close, I would consider age as a factor. Ideally an accomplished rookie is an identifier of a star of tomorrow. So if that is the result of the award, it is better for baseball. I absolutely consider that. Now, if the older rookie is clearly the best rookie - like Ichiro in 2001, you don't run from that.
  16. sk7326
    Ohtani still had what was basically a full season's worth of bulk - 50 innings and 400 PAs is darn close to 600 PAs worth of action.
  17. sk7326
    If 30 yo Ryan Brasier had the best rookie season by a considerable margin, no. If he is in a dead heat with a 22 y.o. - I'd be inclined to go with the 22 y.o. ... the sport has problems celebrating its current stars, so a chance to do so is worth taking advantage of.
  18. sk7326
    Ohtani had 3.8 fWAR - you have to add what he did on the mound My ballot would be Ohtani, Torres, Wendle ... Wendle is a rookie, so I have to consider him. But I'd prefer to give it to a young player when its justified ... the award should highlight the future stars of the game.
  19. sk7326
    Torres could, but it'd be a robbery ... Ohtani was easily the best rookie of the class. 3.9 WAR with what is the roughly the equivalent of a full season workload (51 IP, 367 PAs) despite a fairly inefficient distribution of work for him (his bat was a legit surprise)
  20. sk7326
    I'd put them as the #2 seed of our 4-teams ... 2004 I'd put #1 ... better starting pitching, the most complete lineup of the bunch #2 - 2018 2007 #3 2013 #4
  21. sk7326
    Andujar to a degree - Devers is a better investment ... better defender (less shaky at least) and 1.5 years younger.
  22. sk7326
    I think there is a clear number to bring Pearce back - like a year at $6M or so ... put him on the same schedule as Moreland. But the Sox will not stretch for this. Porcello and Bogaerts are both interesting guys to trade - not that they should, but they could get something meaningful with guys they did not plan on signing. Benintendi has another 2 years before arbitration so he is a non-issue for a while
  23. sk7326
    I will retract on Kershaw ... He has 2 years, 70 million. While he'd never get that on the open market, there IS a chance he can negotiate an extension for say, 4/80 where the Dodgers giving him some extra money and years in exchange for some tax relief.
  24. sk7326
    It is an interesting starting market. - I am pessimistic about re-signing Eovaldi. Somebody is going to blow away the market with years and the Sox will reluctantly have to let him walk. - I would not be surprised if Pomeranz got re-signed on some sort of short "prove-it" deal. His health and suckiness last year might scare off a hot market for him. Coming back to this team and re-building his market might be the right move. - Charlie Morton, Anibal Sanchez, Hyu-Jin Riu and Derek Holland are all interesting "old guys" who are possibly gettable for a 1-2 year deal. - I see basically zero chance either Price or Kershaw opt out.
  25. sk7326
×
×
  • Create New...