Maxbialystock

Ignorance is once again rampant on talksox. To remind: the very best MLB team this year with 104 wins was the Braves, who won 64% of their games. The last place (in the AL East) Sox won 48%. If those two teams played a 5 game series, the Sox would normally win 2 and the Braves 3 games, which means the Sox would only need a break in one game to win the series.

Looking back, I'm inclined to be somewhat forgiving of the Sox staff--for two reasons. One of them is definitely not the the acquisition genius of Chaim Bloom. The two are: 1) the injuries to Sale, Houck, and Whitlock--all were out for 2+ months--and others on the staff to the degree that for 2-3 weeks the Sox were starting relievers in 2 of the 5 rotation spots; 2) the 48 games with just 3 days off from Aug 4 to Sep 20. Given those two big issues, I think the pitching staff did remarkably well. Bello came through with the most innings and most quality starts. Sale had some good moments/games and pitched more innings, 102, in 2023 than he did in the 3 previous seasons. Pivetta seemed to me to get better after being shunted through the bullpen--I think his curve got sharper. Crawford did yeoman service, as did Houck.

Is Eovaldi a better risk and better starter than Sale? Absolutely. So the Sox probably blew it last year when they didn't re-sign him, but the caveat to that is that JH was almost certainly the guy who said no to a Eovaldi contract. He over-learned the lesson of signing Price and Sale to long term contracts. However, Sale is now part of the Sox landscape and no more movable than Fenway Park. With that in mind, I'm hopeful that, after pitching 158 innings in 2019 when the elbow went bad and required TJ surgery, 0 innings in 2020, 42.2 in 2021, 5.2 in 2022 (bicycle injury) and 103 this year (WHIP 1.13, ERA 4.30, WAR 1.7), Sale can go 150 or more reasonably effective innings next year.

Boy, do you have a reading comprehension problem. None of those 100 teams made excuses. None. Nor am I. I'm simply analyzing the nature of MLB. And my first point is that the distance between the penthouse, winning 100 or more games, and the outhouse, finishing well out of the playoffs with just 65 wins, is pretty short. It's the distance/difference between winning 6 out of 10 games and winning 4 out of 10 games. And it's even closer when the wild card teams have all won 55% of their games and the best team, the Braves with 104 wins, won just 65% their games. That's a 10% difference in winning percentage. It's miniscule--but looks huge when you throw in a 162 game season. You of course skipped over all of that and jumped to the 6 day break period. But even there you ignored my example of the Rockies in 2007 who were absolutely the hottest team in MLB history for the last half of September (final 17 games) and their first two postseason series. In that stretch they won 23 of 24 games. Then they did nothing for 9 days and got swept by the Sox. So, before you repeat this malarkey about how the Astros won their ALDS series, please address the Rockies in 2007 and the fact that the difference between winning MLB teams and losing MLB teams is actually quite small, but made to look bigger because of the 162 game season.

Of course there is. Yesterday's NY Times had a column by Jayson Stark arguing that the bellyaching about the schedule is baloney--and then praised David Dombrowski as the pinnacle of GM's/CBO's by citing what he did with the Marlins, Tigers, Red Sox, and now the Phillies. I'm anti-DD, but I have to agree with some of what he said. DD likes to spend money, but he usually gets results (if not long-lasting results). But one of the responses to the column pointed out that the best teams in MLB can be expected to win 3 games in a 5 games series, and the MLB losers can be expected to win 2 games in a 5 games series. That's mostly true--except that this year the Royals only won 35% of their games, the A's 31%, and the Rockies 36%. The point is that any team that makes it to the postseason has a shot. As I've already made clear, I also think the four teams--Orioles, Astros, Dodgers, and Braves--that had a first round bye were somewhat penalized when the wild cards were decided by 3 games series. So those four teams with byes went six days, from Sunday to the following Saturday, between games. The three teams with 100 or more wins--Orioles, Dodgers, and Braves--were swept in their 5 game division series. Actually, the Braves had a miraculous win in one game and so lost 3 of 4 to the Phillies, a team they beat in 8 of 13 games in the regular season. A better example is the 2007 Rockies, who were red hot in September, finishing 16-1. That got them into the postseason with 90 wins. They stayed hot by winning 7 straight games postseason games, beating the Phillies and Diamondbacks, to get to the WS. Unfortunately for the Rockies, the Sox needed 7 games to finish off the Guardians in the ALCS, which meant the red hot Rockies cooled their heels for 9 days--and were promptly swept by the Sox.

Sham, spam. Please name just one MLB team over the past 100 years who stated publicly that they were not much interested in winning, but just wanted to kind of get through the next season. To be honest, maybe the Pirates have said that or even the Orioles. But a wealthy team like the Sox? Never. Bloom had absolutely no choice but to say his intent was to keep the Sox competitive. As for his utter failure to fix the pitching, I blame almost all of that on JH who decided during the 2019 season that never again would he invest heavily in starters--not even enough to keep Eovaldi and Wacha after last season. Along the same line, I believe JH is the one who decided to cut the payroll to an unprecedented 15th in MLB. Thus too the departures of Mookie and Bogey for greener pastures. On the other hand, I agree that so far Bloom's two priciest acquisitions, Story and Yoshida, have come nowhere near earning their pay. Plus a whole bunch of pitchers.

Simply stated, and yet so profound.

I am more than happy to agree that the Sox were way, way, way behind the Orioles this season. But my math is dead right because the 162 game season magnifies the difference between winning 6 out of 10 games and winning 5 out of ten games. Exactly as you say, 10 games for each team is just 1/16th of a season. But 10 games is almost the entire postseason. For example, in 2004, 2007, and 2018, the Sox won the WS and played, each time, 14 games in the postseason. All three years the Sox had to win the ALDS, the ALCS, and the WS. When the Sox lost to the Astros in the ALCS two years ago, they played a total 11 games: 1 vs. the NYY, 4 vs. the Rays, and 6 vs. the Astros.

Yes, but I think MLB is set on more games and therefore more accumulated ratings. My guess is that the Yankees vs the Dodgers would draw the most, but that's just the WS. Shirley three game wild card series for eight teams, followed by five game division series for eight teams, followed by seven game, etc--will increase TV revenues regardless of who makes it to the World Series.

The new format with 3 game wild card series means the 4 teams with byes--Orioles, Astros, Dodgers, and Braves--took 6 days off before their first games in the division series. That's too many if you want to keep your edge. And that's especially true when you realize that the low-life "lucky" teams that barely got into the postseason won 5 1/2 out of every 10 games they played compared to the elite teams (with the byes--except for the Rays) who won just 6 of 10 games they played. So, while I would love to say the new format is unfair to the best teams--by making them wait 6 days--I also recognize that even 100 wins doesn't make you that much better than 90 win team. Here's a horrible, terrible thought. The Sox were absolutely dreadful this year, so bad that many on Talksox wanted everyone fired--Bloom, Cora, the coaches, other executives, you name 'em. Clean the freaking house out!!!! But the Sox won 48% of the time or basically 5 out of 10 games compared to the fantastic Orioles, 101 wins, who won 6 out of 10 games. In other words, the distance between the penthouse and the outhouse ain't nearly as great as Talksoxers believe it is.

Dave Roberts should have done the same thing by having a good bullpen arm ready from the 2d inning on and maybe from the 1st inning on. As it was, no one was in the bullpen until the Diamondbacks nailed 2 and maybe 3 dingers in the 3d inning. If the Braves lose, that means all four teams with close to 100 wins--Orioles, Dodgers, Braves, and Rays--will have been eliminated right off the bat. Rays in the "wild card" and the other three in the division series. If you were one of the four teams with a bye in the wild card round, you had 6 days off. I think that's too many to maintain your edge. In 2007 the Rockies killed everyone in the postseason and had to wait 9 freaking days before playing the Sox, who needed 7 games to eliminate the Guardians. Sox swept the Rockies in the WS. So far this year the Dodgers and Orioles have been swept, the Astros beat the Twins, and the Phillies are up on the Braves, 2 games to 1.

I was just about to post that the AL East was over-rated, so thanks for those insights. Let's not forget that the 101 win Orioles and the 99 win Rays still only won 6 out of every 10 freaking games. The Rays were squashed by the Astros, who won 5 1/2 out of every 6 games this season. Same goes for the Rangers, who are about to take 3 of 3 from the Orioles. Guess which current AL East Manager has the best record (17-8) in the postseason (and by a big margin)?

I only bring it up when I see yet another complaint--sometimes by you--about how Crazy Cora rested someone. You have said it often enough for others to assume it must be true: resting players is stupid and the reason why the Sox have had lousy seasons in 2022 and 2023.

Yes, I did know that. It's one of the reasons why I keep harping on righty bats. The 2013 solved that problem by having several switch hitters. The 2007 Sox had Mike Lowell, Youk, Manny, and Pedey. 2004, Manny, Millar Bellhorn, Tek, and Mueller. Tek and Mueller were switch hitters.

Probably not. I'm just saying that using them is against the rules, is monitored, and is therefore stupid.

Who cares about Dugo? I like his defense in RF, but he is part of the lefty bat problem. But my real question has to be why you are touting Soto when elsewhere you have claimed the Sox only real need is good starters. You said that rather emphatically. But now you want a lefty bat instead?

No, he's dumb for riding a motorcycle and using PED's. And it's actually possible to hit 42 dingers in a season and not ride motorcycles or use PED's. Consumer Reports did the research.

Let the celebrations begin when the Sox sign Soto, another lefty bat. Just what the doctor ordered.

I know you're being sarcastic, but would remind you that the games played by the top seven Sox position players in 2018 make it clear that missing a bunch of games, whether because of Cora or injury, did not prevent that team from being the best Sox team ever and one of the best MLB teams ever. I have also acknowledged that the Braves preference for playing their top 3 or 4 players as often as possible has worked for them. The problems with this year's Sox were mostly pitching, which was definitely affected by multiple injuries (Sale, Houck, Whitlock, Crawford, Paxton, etc) and by the brutal 48 games in August-September with just 3 days off. The injuries to Story and Duvall also affected the righty bats in the Sox lineup. Of the top seven Sox hitters--based on total bases by each hitter--5 were lefties and 2 (Turner and Duvall) were righties. Story, who signed for 6 years and $140M 2 years ago, was 15th in total bases.

Let's try this. Can we agree Story, whose DWAR was +1.0 this season, is the best defensive SS the Sox had this year or any season going back to 2014? Can we also agree that SS is a key position on defense? If we can agree on those two points, consider the following. The game log on Story says that he played in 43 games for the Sox and that the Sox won 18 of those games and lost 25.

I'm not against aces. Far from it. As you say, they can make a big difference, especially if your goal is winning the WS. So your recitation of aces past is spot on. I picked 2021 because it was just 2 seasons ago and is therefore relevant to where the Sox are right now, because I think 93 wins in 2024 is worthwhile goal (and the WS might not be realistic), and because I see some parallels but also some big differences. And to me the two rotations, 2021 and 2023, are remarkably similar despite the plethora of injuries in 2023. Indeed, if you remove just Eovaldi from 2021, the 2023 rotation is clearly better than 2021. On the other hand, the lineups, the bats, are vastly different. The good one, 2021, had a bunch of righty bats--which, I hasten to add/emphasize, DID NOT INCLUDE MOOKIE BETTS. The not so good one, 2023, had a bunch of lefty bats. So to me it's pretty obvious the Sox need more righty bats than they had this season and that fixing that should have as much emphasis as getting one or two reliable starters. One other difference between 2021 and 2023. 2021's payroll was the 6th biggest in MLB. 2023's is ranked 15th. So, just as you have said several times, the Sox can afford to spend more to fix the pitching and hitting. And one other similarity between 2021 and 2023. Lousy defense. 2021's was ranked 29th with a team fielding percentage of .981. They committed 107 errors. The 2023 Sox finished 28th with 102 errors and a fielding percentage of .982.

As always, clear as a bell. You want starters and all else is secondary. I don't agree. For starters, let's compare the 2023 Sox to the 2021 Sox, who won 93 games, were a wild card, and made it to the ALCS. The 2021 Sox finished 5th in MLB in total runs scored. And here are the top seven bats on that team-- Devers, lefty bat, 3b: .890 OPS, 113 rbi's, 318 total bases, WAR 3.5 JDM, righty bat, DH: .867 OPS, 99 rbi's, 295 total bases, WAR 3.0 Renfroe, righty bat, RF: .816 OPS, 96 rbi's, 261 total bases, WAR 2.4 Bogey, righty bat, SS: .863 OPS, 79 rbi's, 261 total bases, WAR 4.9 Dugo, lefty bat, LF/RF: .777 OPS, 63 rbi's, 232 total bases, WAR 2.2 Kike Herndandez, righty bat, CF: .786 OPS, 60 rbi's, 229 total bases, WAR 4.9 Bobby Dalbec, righty bat, 1b: .792 OPS, 78 rbi's, 206 total bases, WAR 0.2 This year's (2023) Sox finished 11th in MLB in runs scored, which historically has guaranteed they would not make it to the postseason. And here are this year's top Sox hitters: Devers, lefty bat, 3b: OPS .851, 100 rbi's, 290 total bases, WAR 3.5 Turner, righty bat, DH/1B: OPS .800, 96 rbi's, 254 total bases, WAR 2.1 Yoshida, lefty bat, DH/LF: OPS .783, 72 rbi's, 239 total bases, WAR 1.4 Dugo, lefty bat, RF: OPS .745; 54 rbi's, 230 total bases, WAR 2.6 Casas, lefty bat, 1b/DH: OPS .856, 65 rbi's, 210 total bases, WAR 2.2 Duvall, righty bat, CF/RF: OPS .834, 58 rbi's, 170 total bases, WAR 1.5 Duran, lefty bat, CF/LF: OPS .828, 40 rbi's, 160 total bases, WAR 2.2. Ah, you might say, but the 2021 Sox had a much better pitching staff. Well, yes and no. Their team ERA was 4.24, 15th best in MLB. The 2023 Sox team ERA was 4.52, 21st in MLB. However, the lowest team ERA this season was the Brewers 3.71--so the 21st place Sox were less than 1 ER below the best staff in MLB. The lowest team ERA in 2021 was the Dodgers' 3.01, so the 15th best Sox ERA of 4.24 was more than 1 ER behind the best. Since starters are your thing, here are the top 5 starters from the 2021 Sox-- Eovaldi, 32 starts, 13 quality starts, 182 IP, ERA 3.75, WAR 4.6. ERod, 31 starts, 9 quality starts, 157 IP, ERA 4.74, WAR 1.9 Pivetta, 30 starts, 8 quality starts, 155 IP, ERA 4.53, WAR 2.6 Richards, 22 starts, 4 quality starts, 136 IP, ERA 4.87, WAR 0.2 Perez, 22 starts, 4 quality starts, 114 IP, ERA 4.74, WAR 0.5 And here are the top 6 starters for the 2023 Sox-- Bello, 28 starts, 15 quality starts, 157 IP, ERA 4.24, WAR 3.1 Crawford, 23 starts, 4 quality starts, 129 IP, ERA 4.04, WAR 2.5 Houck, 21 starts, 5 quality starts, 106 IP, ERA 5.01, WAR 1.3 Sale, 20 starts, 6 quality starts, 102 IP, ERA 4.30, WAR 1.7 Paxton, 19 starts, 8 quality starts, 96 IP, ERA 4.50, WAR 1.1 Pivetta, 16 starts, 5 quality starts, 142 IP, ERA 4.04, WAR 2.4 My take on the above is that the six in 2023 were about as good as the five in 2021--except for the quantity of starts. The 2023 "six" had 43 quality starts to 2021's "five's" 38 quality starts. I think they might have had a lower ERA too. And my point is that I think you have over-reacted to this year's pitching problem because you have ignored the effects of all those pitchers/starters on the IL as well as the daunting 4-Aug to 20 Sep schedule (48 games with just 3 days off). I think Bello, Sale, Pivetta, and Crawford would be a good start on a rotation next year. If they are healthy, they could average between 25 and 30 starts (or a total of 100 to 120 starts). If the Sox spend enough in cash/salary and prospects for one good starter, that might be enough. This would also allow the Sox to solve the biggest problem with this year's team: too many freaking lefty bats.

Kershaw lasted .1 innings while giving up 6 runs. Now it's 9-0 Diamondbacks in the 2d. Braves also lost, 3-0, to the Phillies. And the Orioles 3-2 to Rangers. Astros are the only home team in the Division Series who won the first game.

I won't be.

Meh. I've semi-adopted teams near where I was living: the Kansas Royals, the Baltimore Orioles, the Washington Senators and Nationals, and the Philadelphia Phillies. I've also seen pro football games in person, Div I basketball at Madison Square Garden and collegiate sports of all kinds (lacrosse, tennis, squash, football, basketball, soccer, etc). I even went to the World Cup in DC. And it's my opinion that the best sport to watch in person is MLB--except at Fenway Park, where the sight lines were always abysmal and the seats expensive. As for the Rays, I read that roughly 3 million people live within roughly an hour's drive of the Trop, which I think is a horrible ballpark. So it makes sense to build a good ballpark where the Trop is.