Kimmi

I do not want the FO to sell the farm. As much as I love them, I would trade Victorino or Napoli if possible. I would trade lesser prospects to try to fortify the middle of the bullpen. I don't think we're getting an ace because the cost will be too high for where we stand in terms of playoff chances, unless something drastic changes in the standings between now and the end of the month. I would not trade Koji.

Honestly, I was surprised that they didn't add another a true #1 myself. That said, it seems that Hamels cost was too high. I am glad that they did not give up Swihart, Bogaerts, or Betts, and then some, to get him. What other #1 types were available through trade? Cueto? I don't remember what the deal was with him during the offseason. The other #1s were free agents. Right or wrong, the Sox have made it pretty evident that they will not give long term contracts to pitchers in their 30s.

So, you don't think the Sox could have won even 4 more games out of the 10 that they lost in May if they averaged 5 runs per game instead of the mere 2.8 that they did? Of course it will be pitching that the team upgrades. The offense has rebounded and should never have been a weakness to begin with. That shows nothing in terms of how big a problem the lack of offense was for the first part of the year.

Thank you for this post. You saved me the time.

People "like me" have never said that the games in April don't count. When we say it is "just April" is that it's silly to make any season decisions based on less than a month's worth of play. First off, the Mets offense in June was not worse than our May offense. Secondly, June was the Mets worse month. Thirdly, the Sox were not built around great pitching, they were built around great offense. We have talked many times about how this team was supposed to win a lot of 8-7 games. Well, we have failed to win too many 5-4, 4-3, 3-2 games. Once again, I'm not saying that the pitching is fine or that they are not part of the problem.

Think of how many question marks the Yankees had with both their pitching and their offense. And yet, things are currently working out for them. Is Cashman suddenly GM of the year because things are breaking the right way for the Yankees, but are not breaking the right way for the Sox?

It obvioulsy hasn't worked out, but that does not mean the rationale going into the season was not solid.

Who said that the pitching was good in May? I'll post this again: In May, the Sox ERA was 4.12. The Rangers ERA was 4.23. The Yankees ERA, incidentally, was 4.38. The Sox were 10-19 that month. The Rangers were 19-11. The Yankees were 13-16. In other words, the Rangers and Yankees both had worse ERAs during the month of May than the Sox did, yet both had better records. The Rangers had a significantly better record. Now look at the runs scored per game. Sox - 2.8, Rangers - 5.3, Yankees - 4.1 The Sox had 10 games that month in which the pitching gave up 4 runs or fewer and the Sox lost. TEN games where the pitching was decent or even very good, and the offense didn't come through. Even if we only won 4 of those games, think of the difference in the standings.

Yes, drafting position does show. It's also the philosophy of the FO not to specifically draft pitching just because pitching is a need. Their philosophy is to typically draft the best available player, and then deal from areas of strength to acquire pitching.

No one has ever said that our pitching doesn't stink. No one has ever said that our pitching was supposed to be great or that they are capable of carrying the team. If they performed up to expectations, they would be mediocre. They haven't performed up to expectations, and they have been overall terrible. Would we win more games if the pitching were better? Of course we would. That is not my point. Is that the area that needs to be addressed? Of course it is. That is not my point either. My point is and has always been that if the offense had been performing up to expectations all season long, this team would be leading the division, despite the putrid pitching. You, nor anyone else, has not been able to dispute that. So, you can say that our offense could be Murderer's Row and we still wouldn't win with this pitching staff as many times as you want, but that isn't going to make your statement true. I have said many times that the way this team was constructed is not my preference in ways to construct a team, but there was certainly some sound rationale behind it. The large majority of analysts and computer models agreed, so obviously his strategy is defensible. It hasn't worked, but good strategies don't always work. If it makes you feel better about yourself to call me a homer and to say that I've lost credibility, go right ahead.

Of course it is. That's why they play the full season. That doesn't mean that one bad month can't be the difference between the postseason or not. How often do you hear the saying about playoffs being lost in April?

I just don't get what all the fuss is about women's breasts. LOL

Exactly. You have no valid counterargument, so go with snarkiness instead.

You don't think that one bad month can make or break a season? The team has not been great all season, but they have played at .500 or above each of the other months. It is their play in May that is the difference between leading the division and being in last place.

Nice. Attack the credibility of other posters. How is that any less insulting than what you call UN? out for?

You can't look at the offense or the pitching in a vacuum like you are. Together, they have to be good enough to score more runs than the other team. The offense was supposed to be the best in baseball, averaging about 5 runs per game. Show me where I'm wrong when I say that if the offense had averaged 5 runs per game like they were expected to, this team would be in first place, despite the league worst ERA. I have presented several sets of numbers to you, and you have not countered with anything other than stating again that the pitching is not good enough to get this team to the playoffs. You are entitled to your point of view, but looking at the gamelogs, the ERAs month by month, and the runs scored/game month by month, that point of view is wrong. To date, the pitching staff has been good enough to keep us in contention if the offense had produced like expected.

I never said that poor defense was to blame for Porcello's pitching this season. This is what I posted earlier: I am not saying that Porcello's poor season this year is due to poor defense. What I am saying is that Porcello had a poor defense playing behind him in Detroit, and his ERA reflected that. Therefore, it was not unrealistic to expect him to pitch better this year with what was supposed to be a very good defense behind him. You stated that we should expect Porcello to pitch worse at Fenway then at Comerica. I am arguing that we should not have expected the parks to make a difference because Porcello is a groundball pitcher, and that we should expect him to pitch better by not having the terrible Detroit defense behind him. Poor defense is not to blamed for how badly he's pitching this year.

Why not debate it? What else is there to do?

I'm not an expert on balks either, but I've heard that when stepping in the direction of the base when throwing over to the base, the pitcher's foot has to be within a 45 degree angle towards first base. Looking at the replays, his foot was well within that 45 degrees. Also, it's the same move Miley has done all season long and for his entire career. That was only the 2nd time in his career he's been called for a balk in his major league career.

I don't think anyone is saying that the starting pitching doesn't stink. As far as it being more difficult to pitch at Fenway, that should not be the case for a groundball pitcher with a better defense behind him. I realize that he has not been the groundball pitcher that everyone expected, but pitching at Fenway versus Comerica should not have been a problem for Porcello.

This is not normal variance. Far from it.

I'm not really trying to pin all the blame on one or the other. I'm just trying to defend my opinion against those who are putting all the blame on the pitching, and those who are faulting Ben's strategy of building this rotation.

Fair point, but let me say this. The month of May is what has put the team in the hole that they are in. The offense wasn't just last in May, they were horrific. The offense was pretty good in April (albeit with a lot of gift runs given to them), and they have recovered in June/July. Our record month by month has pretty much gone the way our runs scored/game has gone. If we played .500 ball in May, we'd be right at the top of the division with the Yankees.

That sums it up pretty nicely.

What are you talking about? The offense didn't save anything in May. I know the pitching has been last or close to last all season long. The offense, which is what this team was built around, was last in baseball in May. Had they done their job in May, we would be in first place.