jad

Is the idea that since the Sept collapse was inexplicable, as was winning last year, as was this year's debacle, the best policy is just to flail wildly dealing & acquiring players seemingly irrationally, in expectation that the Benign Indifference of the Universe will dump a championship into your lap every few years regardless?

Yes. See above.

Ticket prices are not directly related to salaries. They are set to produce maximum revenue (duh! not to match salaries) and thus depend solely on what people are willing to pay. They would be exactly the same if players were making half what they are making and would be exactly the same if player salaries tripled.

I really hope there is a sound reason for this, because it seems to defy ordinary human reason. If he 'plays average', (and even that is an 'if'), THEN he will be worth 10/year for 7 years. But why commit such a sum even to a proven 'average' player? since by definition, 'average' players will always be available for 'average' salaries? Whatever plan there is seems to be shrouded in mystery, as no two RS fans seem to agree what it is. (And 700--you're right; this is very much what Cherington said earlier this year--the roster was perfectly fine; it was just that they weren't performing up to expectations.)

Never meant to imply that Manny didn't have 'heart' or whatever (this is the problem when we argue using abstractions!). He's the best hitter I ever saw--and I'm sure he didn't get what looked like perfect balance and timing by what many call "Manny being Manny".

Well, there's no argument that DP is a great player AND has heart. I don't see how that supports the notion of the importance of 'intangibles', since what he does is perfectly measurable (hitting/fielding). There's no way of knowing if he's a great player BECAUSE he has heart, or that heart is "why" he's a great player. Manny, for example, was a great player but (according to some) didn't have heart; and I'm sure there are thousands of professional players languishing in the minors who have much more 'heart' than he does. What makes a great player is how they perform, and how they perform is measurable (although not perfectly). We fans like displays of energy or heart; statistics don't care about that. But what matters in sports is performance--the fact that the ball gets over the fence--not how it got there. I'm thinking of Youkilis's childish displays of 'heart'--or the displays of 'heart' (that is 'tantrums') by, say, any 4-year-old or, alas, us 'post-middle-age' would-be athletes.

Middlebrooks at third? Instead of Holt? What have you seen from WMB this year to suggest he should be in the majors next year? All i see is a .180 hitter, often injured, with no power.

The whole point of Moneyball was that traditional experts (this includes scouts and coaches in particular) rated players on too many 'intangibles' (form, and yes, 'heart, guts' etc.)--intangibles that formed traditions from which experienced scouts couldn't escape (including tactics like the bunt, various sacrifices, moving the runner over, etc.-- that were demonstrably counterproductive). These traditions are also inarguable--those who believe in the Giants of the Old Days, or that 'heart' and other 'intangibles' are important cannot be disputed, since they do not admit anything as evidence against those beliefs. That's fine, since we're watching sports--and such traditional intangibles are part of our enjoyment (we love the beautiful swing, even if it doesn't result in hits, the sacrifice, the notion of a clutch hitter, hot streaks, the notion that certain mediocre players are 'winners' etc.--even though these things are no more 'real' than a ballet or movie.)

2015 seemed a lot less far away when I was actually looking forward to it.

Exactly. Beckett, Crawford, and Gonzalez are having so-so years by their career standards. Yet the RS have (... had) only one starter outperforming Beckett, and I believe only two hitters outhitting Gonzalez (or Ellsbury for that matter). The RS alternatives to Crawford (Victorino, Bradley, Sizemore)--make his year look pretty good as well. For a team with few salary constraints, I can't see how consistently getting rid of your top players is a good strategy (last year doesn't count, because they had J. "Winning Finds Me" Gomes, and could hardly have lost.)

I think you're right, but the logic is strange, isn't it. The RS have already given up on these two, and believe that their trade value couldn't really get lower than it is right now. So what the hell--let them play: maybe they'll get lucky at the plate and their value will go up. But as fans, we're not really watching the RS building for the future by 'playing the kids'.

Exactly what have the RS seen or do they hope to see from Bradley and Middlebrooks that suggests things will be any different next year? Do they keep running these guys out there until, say, July 2015, hoping that maybe they will turn things around?

Let's see ... maybe it's "All Outs, Jr." or (assuming J is Jr.) All zeros; always out; always overmatched; Aw Ouch; At zero; ... hmm. No idea. ... Oh wait. ... Aha! I got it, finally. (But having stumbled onto the answer, I feel I am not at liberty to reveal it.)

Craig Counsell, 2011, tying Dave Campbell 1973 and Bill Bergen 1909. (Just trying to keep up with the astonishing depth of information possessed by posters here is exhausting).

Gotta be Bradley. I hope they don't explain this abstruse way of referring to him, because it's been very amusing (if futile) trying to figure it out.

Oof. 3 more starts by Bradley, given his approach, should get him the record. 2015 is going to be a long long summer if Boggaerts, B, and Middlebrooks are given 'one more chance' to prove themselves.

Bottom of the order: 1-31 yesterday, 0-18 today. I suppose making 12 fewer outs should be seen as an improvement.

1-31 for the bottom half of the order may be the worst line in baseball history!

Watching Bradley at the plate makes me wonder exactly what it is that hitting coaches do? If a guy has an eccentric stance, one that leads to a 'happy' lead foot (I don't think any successful hitter has this), and consequent (? I think) off-balance swings and bad timing (he almost fell over last night looking at an third strike on the outside corner or slightly off the plate), WHY doesn't a hitting coach make changes?

Hmm. Makes sense if true, although knowing what's going on in JL's head has to be largely speculation. But even if that is true, RS still seem to have made a blunder--they could have renegotiated his contract (maybe kicking the 500K year down the road even). The option for Lackey wasn't "play for a WS contender this year" or "test the FA market next year." With that contract, his option was "play for the RS or retire." I just don't see why the RS couldn't have used that as a bargaining chip and ended up with a better,cheaper pitcher than they're likely to get on the market.

If it's true Lackey will honor his contract, why do the RS get rid of him knowing it will cost 10/15 mil per year to replace him in FAgency? I really don't understand that.

Ha. I don't believe I ever said or implied that good rh hitters haven't been successful at Fenway (Rice, G. Scott, Manny, etc.). It's just that taking ordinary rh hitters and putting them in Fenway as if something magical will happen doesn't work, despite the number of times it's been tried. Good hitters are good hitters wherever you put them (Manny and Ortiz will hit well wherever they are). Mediocre hitters, well, there's a reason they've been mediocre in stadiums other than Fenway.

For as long as I have been following them, the RS have found big old dumb right-handed .250 hitters irresistible, despite the evidence that the greatest and most successful hitters in Fenway have been LH-- WIlliams (who I believe lost the batting title to Pete Runnels, another left handed hitter), Yastrzemski, Boggs, and both the no. 1 and 2 hitters last year (Ortiz and Nava, languishing on the bench this year and during the playoffs in favor of another big, dumb RH hitter--Gomes). Ah those heralded names: Ray Boone, Jack Clark, ... and who could forget Mike Cameron?

If clutch existed to any meaningful extent, it would be easily documented. And it hasn't been. It's the same as what to most of us seems obvious: that basketball players get on 'hot' streaks. Of course they do ... Except they don't, and hot streaks have been shown to be indistinguishable from chance performance (right--Bird had more of them than, say, Jim Luscatof, because he has a higher fg percentage). Same goes for "protection" for hitters, which has repeatedly been shown to be mythical. And of course, the idiotic bunt sacrifice and moving the runner up (not rocket science--the most bases you can 'move the runner up with an out' in an inning is two, and unfortunately ... oh well). But so what? We watch sports for the mythology, not the reality! That's why when Gomes claims responsibility for WS wins, there will always be those who believe him. Maybe our clinging to the notion of 'intangibles' gives us the illusion that we too can 'get our minds right' and be professional athletes too. Sure. Just as I see no reason the RS can't go on a run, win all their final games, and bring another WS back this year.

You're forgetting Kelly Johnson! A force whose lifetime BA is almost 50 points higher than Drew's this year! What a coup. They should put 2015 WS tix on sale today.