Kimmi

I agree. The FO wouldn't have signed who they signed, and wouldn't have gone over the luxury tax this season if their eyes are on 2016. I believe they are all in it for this year.

This is true. Pitching and defense still wins championships. More often than not, teams that win it all will have both good pitching and good hitting. A team with below average pitching, as measured by regular season ERA+, has won the WS only 3 times between 1903 and 2010 (2.83%). A team with below average offense, as measured by regular season OPS+, has won the WS 33 times over the same period (33.02%). This doesn't mean that the team needs an ace to win it all. It means that we need an overall solid (above average) pitching staff, bullpen included. http://www.hardballtimes.com/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

I don't really follow football, so I can't really comment. I don't really know anything about him other than recognizing the name.

Being new here, I'm not really sure how to respond to this. LOL I will say that you're cracking me up, and that for some reason I'm getting a George Costanza risque picture in my mind. No offense.

Thank you. I enjoy posting and discussing/debating baseball. The issue for me, usually, is finding the time to do so.

Go figure, huh? The correlation between regular season success and postseason success is .28. That is the strongest correlation to postseason success that any of the studies have been able to find. In other words, the idea that the playoffs are mostly a crapshoot is true. Baseball, more than any other sport, falls victim to randomness or luck. When you're talking about a short series, skill is likely to be overwhelmed by random variation.

I am a huge fan of the research that the folks at BP, Fangraphs, and The Hardball Times do. One of the problems with trying to compare postseason numbers to regular season numbers is that you're usually looking at small samples spread out over several years. So, I don't put much stock into a player who has had a couple of bad postseasons. IMO, he is just as likely to exceed his regular season numbers in the next postseason as he is to perform below par again. I would feel much better if the Sox did add another arm, but as I posted before, I am okay with this team as currently constructed.

As far as predicitions for the 2013 season went, you start with the Pythagorean W-L record of 74-88, not the actual record of 69-93. Factor in the subtraction of Bobby Valentine, and that team was easily at 85 wins before making their first offseason move.

IMO, 2014 was about as big a fluke season as any team could have. As far as I've read, I have not seen anyone predict or foresee the offensive drop off that the team incurred last season. Sure, most people expected there to be a drop off, but not anywhere close to that magnitude. IMO, Ben's only fault last season was not having a viable back up plan on the left side of the infield or in CF, should the starters get injured or underperform. One thing I like about this year's team is that the depth is much improved.

Thank you for the welcome, Username. Let's hope you still like me in about a month. ;-)

It turns out the the best predictor of postseason success is regular season success, which should make sense intuitively. The better the winning % in the regular season, the better the chances of winning in the postseason, regardless of whether the team has an ace, a strong defense, a strong offense, momentum, etc.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that one could give to support the theory that having an ace gives you a better chance of winning in the postseason. However, according to a study conducted at Baseball Prospectus (and other studies), the correlation between having a top notch pitcher and postseason success is .02 - statistically insignificant. Here is a the pertinent part of the study, along with a link: "To do that, BP Director of Research Colin Wyers selected the “ace” of each playoff team from the one-wild-card era of 1994-2011, defining the ace as the starter who pitched at least 120 innings with the lowest ERA. Then he came up with a normalized measure of “ace-ness,” similar to ERA+ (2-ERA/lgERA, to be precise), that allowed us to place all the aces on the same scale. Finally, he checked the correlation between the strength of each team’s ace and the difference between its winning percentages in the regular season and the postseason. The result? A statistically insignificant .02. Park-adjusting the stats didn’t strengthen the correlation. Neither did defining “ace” as the starter with the highest WARP. Neither did running the study again using only pitchers who pitched in the playoffs, so as not to skew the results by including teams whose regular-season aces weren’t available in October. However we sliced and diced the data, we couldn’t find any evidence that the strength of a team’s top starter alone helped dictate how it would do. " http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18414 Granted, this might change as the scoring environment changes, but as of now, there has been no significant evidence supporting the "ace" theory.

One of the problems with the term "ace" is that there is no set definition of what an ace is. Given the choice, I would prefer strong pitching and average hitting over strong hitting and average pitching, but either way, it takes a balance. Our offense last season was nonexistent and you see where that got us, even with good pitching. I am still holding out hope that the FO gets us another top starter.

Thank you for the welcome folks. I didn't get your PM Youk, but no worries. Glad to be here.

Despite his postseason credentials to date, if I had to choose one pitcher to start a game for all the marbles, it would be Kershaw. He is simply the best in the game right now. The idea of being a postseason choker is mostly hogwash. The point of this post being, I would take Shields in a heartbeat (provided the contract does not get too crazy). He is a very good pitcher, and his numbers in the postseason are too small of a sample to put any stock into them.

There is no statistically significant correlation between having an "ace" in the rotation and postseason success. Teams without a pitcher who is deemed an ace have been just as successful in the postseason as those who have one. Besides, that guy who can carry us all the way often does not show himself until the season is underway. We may very well have that ace and just don't realize it.

I will go on record as saying that I am okay with the current rotation going into the season. Would I love to add a top of the rotation pitcher? Of course. Do I think we need to add one during the offseason to contend this season? No, I don't. Obviously, the FO would be banking on a lot of potential that may or may not be reached with the current rotation, but with Vazquez/Hanigan behind the plate and some pretty good infield defense, I think this rotation will be solid. While I would prefer adding another starter now, there is something to be said for waiting until midseason to better guage what the team's needs will be.

Thank you yeszir. Bellhorn, thanks to you also for your help.

Offensively bludgeoning your way to compete for a playoff spot doesn't work if you don't have the pitching to back it up. If Ortiz and Beltran are both signed, that will leave almost no money to spend in our area of most need, which is pitching. I can't see both Ortiz and Beltran being signed. It would be too expensive, even with them both taking paycuts.

Bravo.

I expected more out of Drew as well. What your or my expectations were does not affect whether he was monetarily worth his contract though. And I disagree that $15 mil was a relatively larger amount five years ago. You need to take into account what the market was like at that time. Corner outfielders were all getting huge contracts.

Yup, unless he has a significant turnaround, and maintains it for several years, he will be the new whipping boy. Unlike Drew's, however, his contract was insane to begin with.