Maxbialystock

You guys haven't lived long enough. The umpires today are way better than in the past--even though I entirely agree they don't always get the balls and strikes right. I say again, getting balls and strikes right over 200 times per game ain't that easy to do. Only a few do it consistently well. While I too will occasionally get torqued about a specific call or two, especially when they go against the Sox, I know the other team also gets screwed now and then. An entire thread about how the refs are screwing our guys to me is pointless. Our pitchers are subpar, pure and simple. Anybody watch Uehara today? Did you notice, as I did, he threw a whole lot more breaking balls, especially his splitter, than he did the other night when he gave up that go ahead dinger? Buchholz, on the other hand, surprised me by looking pretty good. He didn't have command of all his pitches, but still threw well enough to get a clean inning despite the single to left.

Your cry for justice is, I'm afraid, just plain old whining. We have lousy pitchers who can't or won't (some are afraid of it---see Buchholz) hit the strike zone. Just look our presumptive ace, Price, today, May 29. He has two walks and it's talking him 45 pitches to get through the first two innings. The homeplate umpire aren't penalizing our guys. They are doing it to themselves.

Perhaps. Until it happens, I'm a helluva lot more sympathetic to them than to typical whining fans who think the world is unjust because their team just lost 3 in a row.

This perspective is why I keep returning to this thread. I hate giving up young talent, but, as you say, right now some of them are likely blocked. Meanwhile, the John Henry era continues to demonstrate an inability to find and develop good pitchers and so has had to rely on free agency and trades.

My thoughts are as follows. During the John Henry era, which by and large has been hugely successful, the Sox leadership have demonstrated a pronounced inability to develop good pitching. In the rare instances when they succeed, they too often let them go to other teams or ruin one of them by moving him from the bullpen. Remember that popular commercial about how Bo Jackson knew baseball, football, tennis, etc but didn't know diddley? Well, that's the Sox front office and overall system--they don't know pitching.

The OP is silliness personified. The simple fact is that we have a lousy pitching staff. I think it is possible that in these last two games in Toronto when we lost late and despite scoring first 5 runs and the 9 that the Jays are reading our signs. However, I also think that Uehara threw too many "fast" balls (that top out at 86-88 mph) and not enough splitters. Kimbrel has blazing speed but can also be predictable--but the case for the Jays reading our signs is stronger there. The reality--and the reason why I call the OP silly--is that umpiring keeps getting better and better thanks to the multiple camera replays and the semi-official use of automated strike zones. I say semi-official because the umps still make the calls on balls and strikes and only get feedback later, which is a whole helluva lot better than before those automated strike zones. A further thought is that I think the hitting lobby continues to be far more powerful than the pitching lobby. You can see this in every game when almost every batter is more than willing to complain about a call, but rare is the pitcher or catcher who will do so. To be honest, my sympathies tend to be in favor of pitchers and umpires. Pitchers because they have to throw that ball very hard--in the case of starters, 100 times or more a game--with a variety of speeds and spins while still hitting an incredibly small target 66 feet away. They throw so hard they put their arms and shoulders at risk, but they are still nothing if they don't have control. The home plate umpires, on the other hand, put themselves at risk by just standing behind the catcher. On top of that, they have to make literally hundreds of calls, every one of which is being tracked by special cameras and computers. Did anyone every wonder (as I have) why MLB doesn't simply pick the best home plate umpires, pay them more, and keep them behind the plate? My guess it's because home plate is just too tough a job night after night for the incredibly long MLB season. So the job rotates among the four-man umpire squad. And don't forget that the umpire's view is inevitably and slightly blocked by the catcher, usually on low pitches and outside pitches. The other issue is that a breaking ball might or might not have passed thru the plane of the strike zone even though it began and ended outside it.

Sorry. To me this one is different because it has more data, including the pitchers. It therefore paints a different picture. I also like that several are ranked very high among all MLB players at their position, but the pitchers are ranked way, way down.

WAR uses a complex formula which attempts to evaluate the whole player relative to other players and can be applied to pitchers as well as position players. As of today, the WAR rankings by position for Sox players--compared to all other MLB players at the same position--are: 1B/Ramirez: 10th 2B/Pedroia: 5th 3B/Shaw: 3d SS/Bogaerts: 1st CF/Bradley: 3d RF/Betts: 4th DH/Ortiz 1st LF none "qualified" (not enough AB's/games) C none "qualified" (ditto) P Wright 24th P Porcello 49th P Tazawa 83d P Kimbrel 88th P Price 396th P Buchholz 448th

Ortiz was of course never suspended. Indeed the one failed test in 2003 was a precursor to the regular testing MLB and the MLBPA finally agreed upon in 2004. There is zero evidence Ortiz used PED's during his best years in Boston.

I agree with your enthusiasm, but not with the comparison. I think this team is not playing way over their heads or our expectations. We knew all along Bogaerts could hit, ditto Ortiz and Betts. Shaw and JBJ both started hitting really well last August and September. Pedroia and Ramirez are actually below their norms. Ditto LF and C. The 2013 team had superb pitching with Lester, Lackey, and Buchholz, until his injury, all having excellent seasons. This year the pitching is subpar. Ramirez at 1b is a surprise, granted, but he should not have been. The 2013 team, absent Ellsbury and Salty, collapsed in 2014. I don't see that happening to this team. One other correlation is valid--same manager. But the consensus among talksox posters is that Farrell was lucky in 2013 and proved his lousiness in 2014 and 2015. I disagree, but that's because I'm obnoxious and other things. I do not disagree that no one predicted this team would be 12 games over .500 on May 25. That is indeed astounding, but 2014 and 2015 made it hard to see anything good in 2016.

4 passed balls. A season's worth.

Adroitly done. You focus on the word lambast--which I agree was over the top--and ignore my basic argument--that Ortiz has probably, given all the clean tests he has undergone, been clean for the vast majority of his best years, including this one. I say again, we are all aware of the cloud because we all know about the 2003 positive test. But, again, a cloud is by its nature nebulous, so I simply decided to blow it away with some facts and reasonable suppositions. When you came back and said that Ortiz's great success this year cannot be accepted for what it is, that was tantamount to an attack. Just one time, please, address my basic argument--that the 2003 test notwithstanding, Ortiz has been repeatedly tested since then and at the same time had his best years as a hitter.

JBJ is back batting 6th with Shaw backing him up, thus avoiding the situation of a couple games ago when he was walked twice to get to Hannigan: Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Ramirez (no damage from the HBP), Bradley, Shaw, Hannigan, and Swihart. For most of this season Farrell has preferred to bat his worst hitter 8th and it seems to work. To me Betts leading off is an anomaly. He has a low OBP and knocks in a whole lot of runs, which argue he should be further down. Anomaly or not, however, it seems to work because to date this lineup with only slight variations (JBJ moving up) has been the 8th wonder of the world. The one hole is Hannigan, but he seems to be the best at catching Wright and spelling Vazquez. Swihart in LF is also a surprise, but one that makes sense to me because his transition has seemed almost effortless--about on a par with Betts suddenly moving from 2B to CF (was it 2014?). Meanwhile, apparently, Swihart is still working on his catching skills--good for him and for the club. We're in the 80's here in the National Capital Region, so one presumes Boston is warming up as well. I am more and more convinced that the hot weather overall is better for pitchers than hitters. Why? Because it's further into a long, long season and is draining for the everyday player, the hitter. Starting pitchers, on the other hand, only go every 5th day and should have no problem being "up" for their starts. Relievers, similarly, go at most every other game and only for a short period. I do not discount the tremendous physical effort required of pitchers, but think the sheer length of the season is what brings those batting averages down.

Fine. I'm all in favor of mojo or even reverse mojo.

Let's review the bidding. The Babe's argument consists entirely of the cloud over Ortiz's head. None of us have forgotten it. I simply pointed out some facts--that the failed test was in 2003 before MLB testing in 2004 and after and before Ortiz's hitting took off. I didn't even mention that his early success, 2003-2008, was probably mostly due to the simply fact that the guy following him in the lineup was one of the best righty hitters ever. I emphasized that this year, 2016, one of Ortiz's very best years, has occurred after more than a decade of announced and unannounced tests and is very likely legitimate. At no point did I insult anyone--your or him--by calling them obnoxious, insufferable or intransigent. For the most part I simply stated some facts and what I regard as reasonable suppositions. Indeed, I think I did a much better job of fairly arguing the "cloud" than the Babe did in presenting it in the first place. I am guilty of commenting on which side you took and implying it's because Babe is an old hand and I am not. You have taken grave exception to that, and I continue to be astounded that defending Ortiz deserves censure, especially when simply stated facts and reasonable suppositions (I can't prove Ortiz hasn't used PED's since 2003). You have also glossed over the fact that the Babe has taken over a thread which was supposed to be about "making history," which to me was and is a pretty good topic. Instead, we are now arguing about Ortiz's cloud and the Babe's right to make that the center of attention.

Wow. Now I began to understand the importance of being the new guy. A Yankee fan--and I know many and always have friendly discussions with them--takes over a thread entitled "Making History," which is about several Sox doing significant statistical things this season, only one of whom is David Ortiz. He takes this opportunity to lambast one of our favorite players over a "cloud" hanging over Ortiz's head. I take up the cause to defend Ortiz even though I agree he was in fact tested and failed in 2003. My point is that Ortiz has been, for all any of us know, been absolutely clean since 2003, which was Ortiz's first year in Boston, where his huge success began. Earlier with the Twins he was not nearly what he became, yet one can presume that was the period, assuming there was one, of presumed PED use. MLB started serious testing, which has continued unabated, in 2004. This year, 2016, 13 years after 2003 and after many, many drug tests which were all negative, Ortiz is having an incredible year for someone of his age. Said Yankee fan attacks Ortiz, not just for that 2003 test, but for everything Ortiz has accomplished since then, including this year. And our arbiter of all that is sensible takes the side of said Yankee fan, whose only apparent purpose was to prevent any Sox fan discussion of "making history" in 2016. And I, the newbie, find myself, once again, on the wrong side of the argument because I had the temerity to defend Ortiz.

Back to the record-setting. We count everything in baseball, of course, but to me the real significance of this team is sum of the parts, a blend of Ortiz's last hurrah, Pedroia and Ramirez hanging in there, and those five regulars who are 26 and under. Plus the bullpen. Plus our knuckleballer.

You're darn right the PED cloud has hindered candidates, and I agree with the sportswriters. My prediction is it won't affect Ortiz, but that doesn't mean much because he could be kept out because he's a DH. I thought being in a program was made public. If not, I can only say the program must be working because Ortiz is better than ever right now. You're guy A-Rod might be in a program too, and he sure doesn't look better than he ever was.

You do realize, I hope, that the very word cloud is nebulous and ill-defined. As I recall, he tested positive one time when almost everyone was tested and none of the results were to be made public. More to the point, MLB is fully capable of putting a confirmed--please note the meaning of that word--PED user on leave or probation or in a program. This has not happened to Ortiz but has happened to many others. The PED cloud, I hasten to add, has hung over all of MLB for literally decades in large part because the all-powerful MLBPA didn't want a firm policy against PED use. I believe that era has pretty much ended, but it has left a residue. The acid test for Ortiz will come five years after he retires and is up for the HOF and the sportswriters will have to vote on what they believe. So far, I think their judgment has been pretty good.

Wow. You can't be serious. He was supposed to be our 4th or 5th starter but has turned into our ace and deserves our unrestrained approbation.

This bunch, the 2016 team, is so far way better--5.86 runs/game vs. 5.33; .844 OPS vs. .810; but, mostly importantly, this team leads the AL in runs scored by bunch. The 1977 team scored fewer runs than the Twins. Plus this team I suspect is younger, which was my other point. Five (Betts, Bogaerts, Shaw, JBJ, and Vazquez) regulars are 26 or younger. Let me hasten to add that "so far" is a key phrase. The season is young, and most hitters find it hard to sustain that daily grind of 150+ games, 6 a week, through the summer.

Off by a smidgen. Young is hitting ahead of JBJ but the names are right. Two lefty and 7 righty bats in tonight's lineup.

I can't disagree with that. The advantage of developing LF skills is so that he can play more often while still being the backup catcher. The Nationals's Bryce was a catcher through high school, one year of college, and the minors until they switched him to OF so he could play in more games. He might have been a great catcher, but his bat was too valuable.

Back to the game thread. I see this lineup tonight: Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Ramirez, JBJ, Young, Rutledge, Vazquez.

FWIW, I probably should not have started the WAR of the roses thread,which is a slightly new slant on an old subject--the Sox offense this year. There are I think two other threads on the offense and of course moonslav's thread on the realistic assessment of the Sox in 2016.