Maxbialystock

Devers taken out after hard slide into catcher. Injured?

If I were to pick one source of talksox unease about 2018, it would be this. Last year the Sox pitching was better than the Sox hitting, and this year is likely to be the same. That is a big change in the John Henry era when hitting has been so dominant, and I think it's because of Dombrowski. The point is, we have always had great hitting.

97 should not be that irrational because the core of this year's team won 93 last year. The biggest difference in the lineup is basically JD Martinez for Moreland with Ramirez going to 1B. Nunez is new, but actually played a lot last year and should not be a big step down from Pedroia at 2B. One presumes Cora is a plus. The rotation is missing 3 right now (Rodriguez, Pom, Wright), but still has 2 of the best in Sale and Price. Plus Porcello, who was great in 2016 and horrible last year. I am not a Pom fan, but his numbers say I'm wrong. ERod has always shown promise. Wright had just the one good partial season, 2016, but showed the knuckler can work. Bullpen should be fine. That said, I too went with 92-95.

The recent past, 2011 thru 2017, offers a cautionary tale about predicting the next season: 2011--90 wins, Francona fired, Epstein leaves, Cherington new GM 2012--69 wins, Valentine fired, Farrell hired 2013--97 wins and the WS 2014--71 wins 2015--78 wins, Cherington fired, Dombrowski hired 2016--93 wins 2017--93 wins, Farrell fired, Cora hired

After 17 votes, center of mass is 95 wins. If we just factor in JD Martinez and his WAR (wins above replacement) last year of 4.2 and compare it to Ramirez's -0.3 WAR last year, that comparison alone accounts for at least 2 more wins in 2018 than in 2017. That's if you buy WAR, which many don't, even though it's a handy rough measure of overall value. What's left out is the effect of the new manager. Will basically the same team as last year play better for Cora? It's possible if the discussion on talksox and some of the commentary have any legitimacy. The other unknown of course is how much other teams have improved or not--about which I am clueless except for Stanton going to the Yankees.

I will. If he was arrested for domestic violence and will have it hanging over his head (no further "incidents") until December 2018, he is scum. Assuming he rejoins the Boston team, I hope Cora uses him regularly as a pinchrunner.

All hail, YOTN.

Well put. You gotta look at the eaches, which I did not do.

Is it a slider or a curve? And I completely agree it's effective--in fact, crucial, for the reason you state. Last year Devers I think hit a dinger off your closer's 103 mph fastball or something like that.

Thanks.

Those are better and what I had in mind, but this dummy couldn't do it. So I'm glad someone else stepped in.

I agree Sale and Price can be really good (and have been). After them, to me it's iffy. Porcello, especially. Plus Pomeranz and and ERod are just trying to get healthy. Wright is a huge question mark because that knuckler can come and go even in a good year. That said, you could be right: if the pitchers are healthy all six of those I mentioned have had at least one solid season--except for ERod, but he has definitely showed promise. Wright only had 24 starts in 2016, but 15 were QS.

Interesting that so far the preponderance of votes--87%--see this year as basically the same as last year even though Farrell is gone, JD is added, and everyone else is back. Oh, and Price is healthy.

Now I understand. Thanks. It doesn't have one because I have no idea how to do a poll, which is probably a good idea.

BC was actually a tough out in the ACC this year. They beat duke.

What polling? The entire OP is facetious, a reminder of all the complaints about last year’s 93 win team. I have no idea how many wins this year.

Got to be at least 7 more than last year’s disaster. Cora by himself has to be good for at least 5 more. Plus JD, Devers for the whole season, and a bunch of guys yearning to improve on last year. Knee deep in quality starters. Kimbrel back. 105 wins? Not enough?

I of course agree, but would add that utility players, subs, whatever you want to call them, are more precious in MLB than in the NFL or NBA or you name it. The typical MLB team has 12 pitchers and 13 position players, two of whom must be decent catchers. That leaves 3 players to replace the other 8 starting position players. Given that they play 162 games, that seems insane, but it actually works pretty well. But it does mean those backups must be able to contribute. I personally am no fan of Brock Holt, but he actually can play the infield and the outfield passably well. At bat he is more than willing to take pitches, both to have a shot at a walk and to add to the pitch count. Statistically, I'm sure he doesn't live up to his salary.

As am I. Ditto Div I NCAA basketball. Not the NBA and, really, not the NFL (except for the occasional Patriots game). In sheer minutes of watching, the Sox with 162 games a season (plus playoffs) is an addiction.

I had to go back to page 348 to see the reaction to the Martinez signing. On this page I saw the mention of Brentz and was totally confused, which only underscores how little I keep up with the Sox during the offseason. Not to take sides, but notin clarified it all by saying the Sox, having signed Nunez and Martinez, had to get rid of two from the 40 man roster, something I rarely think about. So now would someone tell me what is the mostly likely lineup come April? To me we seem to be knee deep in catchers and infielders and DH's but not so deep in outfielders, which must delight Brock Holt no end.

I consider all acquisitions to be risky, but I also think acquisitions ended the 86 year drought. When you make as much money as this club does, you should be willing to spend on acquisitions--even though I personally am always skeptical. I hated the Price contract, but right now I'm hoping he will finally make a difference this year. And so on.

Dead right about the Army, into which I was born and later served. It integrated in 1948, a year after MLB integrated, and I can promise you that there were still integration and discrimination issues into the 1970's and beyond. Before 1948 the Army simply reflected American society. Interestingly, however, US Colored Troops were a significant part of the Union Army and suffered significant casualties. This might have helped the US Congress vote for the 13th amendment and later the 15th amendment which ended slavery and gave all races the vote--but not women, of course.

Impressive and way beyond anything I did. Especially teaching ESL now. Inaction is the right word for Yawkey. And my judgment--obviously different from yours--is that there were worse things to do back then than doing nothing. I'll go further and say that his unwillingness to sign black baseball players had very little effect on the ones he didn't sign because they could sign with other clubs. Still, given your experience, I do understand your insistence that anyone who wasn't helping was hurting racial equality in this country.

Must be pretty comfortable to say that in this day and age. Did you ever actively opposed racism? I have, more than once, but I have also failed to do so when I was in a segregated high school and 5 years later when I was in Korea. I left out of my OP that I am fine with John Henry changing the name of Yawkey Way and the support he is getting from Boston. Times and attitudes have changed for the better and changing that name is great way to show it. And this. I love the story of what Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson did. I even like that both served in the Army--Rickey in WW I and Robinson in WW II (he never deployed but through no fault of his own--a story itself). Both were truly heroic. Ken Burns was right to make the integration of MLB a centerpiece of his series on Baseball. I believe it truly helped this country and made desegregation easier--beginning in 1948 with the desegregation of the armed services and then Brown vs. the Board of Education in 1954. If we now vilify Tom Yawkey for not doing the same thing Rickey did--at least, not for 12 years--doesn't that diminish that mighty deed of 1947? By the way, I also agree there were lots of people in the 1940's who weren't racist. In 1939 Marian Anderson, the great African-American contralto had been touring mostly in Europe because it was easier then trying to get a venue here in the States. But then Sol Hurok booked Constitution Hall in DC. Unfortunately, the DAR owned the Hall and chose to abide by the segregated policies of DC and refused to let Marian sing. Eleanor Roosevelt, a member of the DAR, promptly resigned from the DAR and thousands of American women--DAR members-- joined her. Hurok moved the concert to the Lincoln Memorial where Marian sang to 75,000 people, black and white, and millions on the radio. Three years later Marian was invited by Constitution Hall to sing there as a benefit for the Red Cross, and she was very happy to do so.

I think everyone knows he is today branded as an unmitigated racist. So, because my nature is contrarian, I offer the following in mitigation-- 1. Yes, he probably was racist. But when MLB was integrated in 1947, Boston was a very racist city and continued to be so for many years. Don't take my word for it, read what Bill Russell used to say about Celtics fans and Boston when he was here, 1956-69. He did not hate whites per se because he admired and liked his coach, Red Auerbach, and the owner, both white. He hated the racism of Boston, however, and was quite vocal about it. 2. And don't just take Russell's word for it either. Look at the attendance figures for the racially enlightened Boston Celtics during the Bill Russell era when the Celtics won 11 NBA championships in 13 seasons, by far the most successful run by any major sports franchise in the history or American sports. During that run they never sold out a single game in Boston Garden, seating capacity 14,000 (13,909). Their best season in the Russell era was 10,517, which was also the first season they ever won the NBA championship. By 1961-62, smack dab in the middle of the Russell era, the most successful in professional American sports history, it was 6,852, which was less than half of capacity. In 1955-56, the season before Russell arrived, attendance was 8,063. 3. Then there's the Branch Rickey-Jackie Robinson saga taking place in Brooklyn and the National League. Anyone remember the movies about Jackie (there have been at least two)? Almost everywhere Jackie played he was subject to abuse because Boston was not the only racist city in America. Just about every city was, and the fans (some of them) made that abundantly clear. 4. Then there's the issue of what form Tom Yawkey's racism took. To read some of the commentaries, you would think he was a slave owner or regularly throwing African Americans in jail or at least putting a big dent in their chances for employment. 5. Well, not really. He denied excellent baseball players employment with his ball club for 12 years (1947-59), but it was a small part of the whole and actually didn't prevent those very few African-Americans from playing for other MLB clubs. 6. Plus this. Roughly three years after MLB was integrated (and so were the Minors), the Negro Baseball League, "among the largest and most prosperous black-owned business ventures, were allowed to fade into oblivion." This is not an argument that Yawkey was doing a good thing by not integrating the Sox, but does say it wasn't quite as harmful as has been claimed. 7. Yawkey bought the Sox in 1933 when their average game attendance was 3,732. The very next year it more than doubled to 7,930, still far short of the 33,000 capacity, however. The next big jump came 12 years later, 1946, the first season after World War II, when attendance shot up to 18,166 per game and stayed that way for 4 seasons, then ground slowly down and stayed there thru the 1966 season when it was 10,014. Then came 1967, Yaz, etc, and attendance more than doubled to 21,000 and basically stayed close to that until Yawkey died in 1976 (attendance that year 23,406). He had his faults as an owner, but was still better than those who proceeded him. 8. Meanwhile, Boston itself was changing demographically. In 1940 it was 97% white, and in 1970 it was 82% white and in 1990 it was 62.8%, about where it is today. I think we can assume that attitudes have changed with the demographics. Heck, Bill Russell has even deigned to return. And word is that during his later years Yawkey got along quite well with the African Americans on the Sox.