moonslav59

I do too, but maybe not for this season. One problem with having 6-8 guys fighting for the 5th slot rather than having 5-6 solid starters to begin with is that the trial and error aspect trying to find that one guy who sticks may take months and too many losses to be able to withstand. I started a thread on "that other site" titled "Too much Quantity and not Enough Quality" that addressed this concern. It kind of ties into my philosophy that it is hard to significantly improve a pitching staff by trying to acquire a "better" 5th starter than the one already in place. I know it's easier said than done, but it's better to try to acquire a solid 1-3 starter or a top #4 type starter and then move your current 4 to the 5 slot. For informational purposes, I'll provide a brief history of our rotation since 2003 (GS). 2003: Lowe & Wake (33), Burkett (30), Pedro (29) then we had Fossum, Kim and Mendoza fighting for the 5th slot before trading for Jeff Suppan. We even ended up trying Bruce Chen (2) and Ryan Rupe (1). 2004: We had a solid 5 with no injuries- Pedro & Lowe (33), Schilling (32), Wakefield (30) and Arroyo (29). We had Kim (3) and used Pedro Astacio(1) and (Abe Alvarez (1) 2005: We basically replaced Pedro and Lowe with Clement (32) , David Wells (30) and Wade Miller (16). Wake had 33, Arroyo had 32, and Schilling 11 starts. We also saw scattered starts from Geremi Gonzalez (3), Papelbon (3), Halama (1) and DiNardo (1). I'd say this season we had 5-6 solid starters, but none ended up with an ERA below 4.15. 2006: Was a mess. We did have some quality starters 5-6 deep, but some injuries derailed us. Beckett 33, Schilling 31, Wake 23, Clement 12, Wells 8. The replacements were better than we have now: Lester 15, Snyder 10, Tavarez 6, DiNardo 6, Jason Johnson 6, Kason Gabbard 4 then 3 from K Jarvis & D Pauley and 2 from Devern Hansack. 2007: A major similarity to 2004 was the fac t that our top starters pitched a lot of starts: DiceK 32, Wake 31, Beckett 30, Schilling 24 & Tavarez 11. With Tavarez, Lester (11) and Gabbard (7) sharing 5 slot duties, we were again much better off than 2016. Buchholz got 3 starts and Hansack 1. 2008: Our top 4 were solid- Lester 33, Wake 30, DiceK 29 and Beckett 27. On paper our #5 and down slots had some nice pitchers (Buch 15, Masterson 9 and B Colon 7), but we ended up having to acquire and use Paul Byrd for 8 key starts. Others used were Pauley 2, Bowden 1 and Zink 1. 2009: The experiment of signing Brad Penny (24) and John Smoltz (8) was a total failure, but I can see how management would prefer that plan to a round robin attempt at finding a kid in the system that will produce. I ahted the plan from the start. Other starters that year were Beckett 32, Lester 32, Wake 21, Buch 16, Dice-K 12, Masterson 6, Byrd 6, Tazawa 4 and Bowden 1. I'd still give the nod to these 5th starters and below than today's. 2010: Had a nice 6: Lackey 33, Lester 32, Buch 28, DiceK 25, Beckett 21, Wake 19 with Doubront getting 3 and Atchison forced to get 1. 2011: We started to get a little shaky after the 5 slot and ended up trading for Erik Bedard's 8 starts. Lester 31, Beckett 30, Lackey 28 (playing hurt), Wake 23, Buch 14, A. Miller 12 and Dice-K 7. Weiland got 5 and Aceves 4 2012: The shaky trend continued after the top 3 Lester 33, Buch 29 and Beckett 21 with Dubront getting 29, Aaron Cook (PLEASE!) 18, Dice 11, Bard 10, Morales 9 and Zach Stewart 2. 2013: The signing of Dempster was a severe overpay to add stability to the bottom of the rotation. Some say it worked, since we won a ring. Some say the trade for Peavy was a key to winning the ring. Buch's injury forced our hand somewhat, but here's the numbers: Lester 33, Lackey 29, Dempster 29, Doubront 27, Buch 16, Peavy 10. We also used Webster 7 (8.60 ERA), Aceves 6 (4.86), Workman 3 and Morales & Wright for 1 each. 2014: Back to being messy, but on paper we had a solid 5 to start the season-- Buch 28 (the ironman!), Lester 21 (traded) , Lackey 21 (traded), Peavy 20 (traded), RDLR 18, Workman 15, Webster 11, Kelly 10, Doubront 10, Ranaudo 7 aqnd Wright 1. 2015: Surely a rotation lacking top quality at the top: Porcello 28, Buch 18 and Miley 32. After the top 3 starters, we used Kelly 25, ERod 21, Owens 11, Wright 9, Masterson 9, R Hill 4, Breslow 2, Barnes 2 and Johnson 1. Our 2016 rotation might have been a lot better so far had ERod not gotten hurt. I liked our top 3 on paper: Price, ERod & Porcello. I felt pretty confident that Kelly or Buch would be a solid #4 and perhaps give us a solid #5 as well, but I didn't expect it to be this bad. I've always liked Wright, but never thought we'd need to value him as our #2 guy. Owens and O'Sullivan failed. I suppose Elias will eventually get a look. I doubt Johnson does at this point. My guess is we look outside the system in July.

I'm not saying we should DFA Noe or give up totally on him, but it seems obvious that at this point in time, he's not the answer.

I don't get the love of Noe either. I was also surprised we used O'Sullivan instead of other choices. I'm not trying to criticize Sox management, because I'm sure they knew more than we did when those choices were made. We do have our 40 man roster filled. We added William Cuevas and Sandy Leon most recently. This includes Pablo and Workman not being on the 40 man roster as he is on the 60-day DL. soxprospects.com does not have Carson Smith listed on the 60-day roster, so maybe there is one slot to be opened. Here are the 22 pitchers listed on the 40 man roster by seniority on the 40 man roster: Buchholz Tazawa Wright Uehara Workman (60 day) Layne Hembree Kelly Barnes Rodriguez Porcello Ross N Ramirez Johnson Owens Kimbrel Jerez Light Price Smith Elias Cuevas I certainly can see the call for someone like Robby Scott (0.96 WHIP at AAA) to get a chance. Opponents have a 0.631 OPS against Robby. Opponents have a 0.633 OPS against vs Varvaro. Varvaro has a 1.09 WHIP. I think we can find a way to get one of these guys a shot sooner rather than later, but maybe some on the list above deserve a shot first.

Thank you for re-focusing on matters related to the Sox. I'm hoping that we acquire a solid #1-2 type starter, but I realize the cost may be too prohibitive. We may end up settling on a solid #3 or 4 type. Hopefully that acquisition would move a starter to the pen. I realize that wishing that demoted starter can or will jump start the pen may be a dream, but I remain hopeful. Losing Carson Smith hurt our pen. I like Barnes & Hembree's contributions, and I'm hoping Elias may help in the weeks and months to come. I can see giving in-house options a chance before overpaying for outside pen help as being the right choice right now, but if the pen is still hurting by the end of July, we will almost certainly pick-up somebody useful.

I'm actually very happy we are taking a "long look". We should not be drafting lesser players out of some sense of urgency over the need to get SP'er help ASAP.

If a team claims a player off waivers and has a viable claim as described above, his current team (the "waiving team") may choose one of the following options: -arrange a trade with the claiming team for that player within two business days of the claim; or -do nothing and allow the claiming team to assume the player's existing contract, pay the waiving team a waiver fee, and place the player on its active major league roster. In other words, a team that claims a player off waivers, pays his contract-not the minimum, so Latos may clear waivers and become a FA.

I guess it's just nearly impossible to keep this thread focused on Sox-related issues without personal intrusions.

I wonder were Groome will fit in? My guess is right after the big 4. But I could see him 5-6 behind Kopech and Travis until he at least proves himself in pro ball. But thats good news. #1 system, and a very good young talented team at the MLB level.\ My guess is he starts out 6 or 7, but I might slide him in at #5.

I'm still pretty high on Hernandez. He was one reason I suggested trading Guerra in so many scenarios over the winter.

I'm super excited with our pick. We finally have multiple top pitching prospects in our system.

I'm interested. The fact that there are issues attached should make the return not as high as it might otherwise be. I'm not saying I'd give anything for him, but I'd certainly kick the tires. We don't need a number 5 starter. We have about 7 of those. We need to build our rotation from or near the top.

Tough break for Price last night. If he could just take back 2 bad pitches... I'm hopeful this road trip ends well.

Well the Royals won last year without a great offense. Their SP'er ERA was 4.34. Their overall ERA was 3.73.

AL Runs allowed: Mean vs Median Runs/Gms Mean Median CWS 229/58 3.95 4 (closer to 3 than 5) CLE 230/57 4.04 4 (closer to 3 than 5) TOR 243/60 4.05 3 (closer to 4 than 2) SEA 242/58 4.17 3 (closer to 4 than 2) TEX 243/58 4.18 3 (closer to 4 than 2) KCR 244/58 4.21 4 (closer to 3 than 5) BAL 242/57 4.25 4 (closer to 3 than 5) TBR 243/57 4.26 4 (closer to 3 than 5) NYY 248/58 4.27 4 (closer to 3 than 5) HOU 271/60 4.52 4 (closer to 3 than 5) DET 265/58 4.57 4 (closer to 3 than 5) LAA 266/58 4.59 4 (closer to 3 than 5) BOS 270/58 4.65 4 (closer to 3 than 5) OAK 288/58 4.97 4 (closer to 5 than 3) MIN 300/57 5.26 4 (closer to 6 than 3)

It wasn't meant to try to "make our staff look better", but I did make this point, because I do not think it's as bad as some think it is. I have maintained for a long time, that our biggest weakness is our rotation, and I still feel this way. Another view... Who stared in our worst 7 games, in terms of runs allowed: 13 Kelly (2.1/ 7 ER -Buchholz got the loss) 12 Porcello (6.o/5 ER- Kimbrel got the loss) 12 Price (3.2/ 8 ER- Cuevas got the loss) 10 Porcello (6.2/4 ER - Ross got the loss) 9 O'Sullivan (4.1/ 5 ER- Hembree got the win) 9 Buchholz (5.0/ 5 ER) 9 Price (5.0/ 5 ER- Kimbrel got the loss) What's interesting to me is that 5 of the 7 worst games were not from our 5th starter. The strangest fact might be that in 6 of the 7 worst games by our staff, the starter did not get the decision, so even in those 6 of those games, our offense kept us in the game.

Yes, I meant "median" not mean. It reminds me when softy the clown kept saying "median average".

To me, the most important aspect of a pitching staff is to maximize the amount of games they keep the team within the normal range of having a chance to win. Being in a hitter's park for more than half of a season may raise the runs allowed total when compared to other teams. having a great offense may also allow that range to be raised a bit as well. I like to look at the mean runs allowed as one major indicator of staff efficiency. Right now it's at 4 runs allowed. Playing more games in hitter's parks than pitcher's parks and having an offense that has a runs scored mean of 4 a pretty good number. Also, we'd need 4 straight games of allowing 3 or fewer runs to get our runs allowed mean to 3, but it would take 11 straight games allowing 5 or more runs to get out runs allowed mean to 5. That means we are closer to a mean of 3 than 5 by a significant amount. Our staff gets blown out quite a bit. That's unfortunate, but in some ways, it's better to allow many runs in a few games rather than spread them out more evenly. That way you may lose one game 14-5, but win other games 5-4, 7-5, 6-3, 6-5 more often. Looking at our worst 5-10 games in runs allowed does tell us something. That was my point. It is a useful stat, and I think it does point to one reason we have been successful this year. When we lose, we lose big, but in the other games, our staff has been able to keep us in games long enough for our offense to win more games than it may appear we should win based on our team ERA. Looking at the numbers below: only 2 AL teams have let up more run totals in their worst 5 games, and one was only by one run. Only one team has let up a higher run total in their worst 10 games. Comparatively speaking, this has allowed our mean runs allowed to be lower as compared to our average runs allowed per game vs other AL teams. This was why I used this methodology. It wasn't meant to be some mathematician's dream of perfect symmetry. Our average runs allowed per game is 4.65, but our mean runs allowed is closer to 3 than 5. That's telling to me. I'm not going to go team by team to see how those numbers compare to other teams, but my guess is, based on the blow out numbers listed below, our mean and position of our mean being closer to 3 than 5 vs an Avg runs allowed of being closer to 5 than 4 is better than most teams. Our staff has kept us in enough games to allow us to win much more than we lose. 27 out of 58 games (close to half) our staff (and defense) has allowed 3 or less runs. 34 out of 58 games our staff has allowed 4 or less runs (team record: 27-7). 41 out of 58 games our staff has allowed 5 or less runs (team record: 30-11). Conversely, in 17 out of 58 games our staff has allowed 7 or more runs, of which we've gone 4-13. Runs allowed in worst 5 games/ Runs allowed in worst 6-10 games 56/42 Red Sox (98) 56/ 36 Astros (92) 65/ 45 A's (110) 57/ 36 Blue Jays (93) 42/ 34 CLE (76) 54/ 36 Mariners (90) 48/ 38 Orioles (86) 53/ 43 Rangers (96) 46/ 33 Rays (79) 48/ 35 Royals (83) 52/ 41 Tigers (93) 56/ 42 Twins (98) 48/ 35 White Sox (83) 47/ 37 Yankees (84)

Now, I wish we could get back to Red Sox baseball discussion on the year 2016. How about JBJ looking to be an Allstar starter? He should be joining Bogey and Papi in the starting line-up. Shocking to some, I'm sure.

Compared to other sports and even other positions within the sport of baseball, the DH is a cake walk. There's really no getting around that. That does not imply that there are not demanding aspects of the sport or position of DH. There certainly is. It's not easy hitting a ball, but that's different from being very physically demanding. That's not an ignorant position to hold. Being a DH does involve some running, and keeping one's feet healthy is an important component of hitting well. I have never downplayed Papi's injury. I have never pretended to know how much pain he is in or is expected to continue being in going forward. My position is that Papi's decision is his choice, and that he obviously loves the game as much as anyone. He's having a great time and a great season. Many players are willing to play through injuries out of an extreme love of the game. That's not an ignorant observation. I brought up the position of DH, because in my opinion, if Papi played any other position, I'd be 100% on board with not even asking him to come back another year. As a GM, I might drop light-hearted hints, but I would not make a enticing offer, unless Papi responded in some way showing he may be interested in a return. As a DH, however, and the added aspect of offering him a reduced playing time role, I do not think it is disrespectful to make a fantastic final one year offer to Papi presented in a way that is respectful of his wishes. I hardly think this position is "ignorant". I know there are personal, emotional, business and family demands that are associated with a 7-8 month MLB season. Travel. Batting practice. Working out. Occasional running. Fouling balls off your aching feet. I know there is a risk of serious injury and even just adding to a condition already existing that may jeopardize his well-being for the rest of his life. Maybe the situation is more grave than I imagine it is. If that's the case, I'm sure the Sox are aware of his condition and may choose not to make an offer based on that information. I'd be fine with that. This doesn't mean I'm back-tracking or moving a goalpost. I still believe Papi is like a child loving baseball for the wonderful sport it is. He is baseball to me. I do think if ever there was a personality or personal disposition to want to play through pain, because of his love for the game, it would be a guy like Papi. I'm not asking the Sox to take advantage of this disposition to coax a guy on a fine line of being crippled the rest of his life to selfishly try to persuade him to come back for the team and the fans sake, but in the past, Papi has equated "respect" from the team to dollar amounts offered in contracts. I can see how he may view a $25M offer after he has said he wants to retire as a slap in the face, since why didn't we pay him that much for 2016, but that is why I would begin by putting out some feelers and mentioning a possible reduced playing time role for 2017 to lessen the day-to-day stress on his feet, by mentioning added perks involving less travel or more luxurious travel accommodations. If he seems firm in his decision to retire, then fine. No harm done. What surprised me about the reaction to my position was how many posters seemed to actually want him to retire. Like somehow a 400 PA season batting .275 with 22 HRs and 80 RBIs would somehow tarnish his legend. Like even thinking about asking him back is sheer lunacy. This whole DH is a comparative cakewalk statement has been blown out of proportion and beaten to death. I'm fine with anyone disagreeing with me, but I really do not think my opinion on how hard it is to be a DH is ignorant. I've played organized baseball, basketball, football and rec hockey and other sports. I used to play basketball in the winter on a snow-shoveled court until my fingerprints were worn off and my fingers bled with blisters. I've suffered 2 football concussions and one in basketball. I had a severe collision with a 3rd baseman of all people in baseball. Two of my best friends played college hockey and have has no front teeth since childhood. I know the rigors of sports and varying positions within sports. I don't pretend to know the rigors and stresses involved with being a celebrity or playing one sport for 8 moths in a row, especially at age 40, but I did play several sports maybe 300 days a year from age 12 to 34 or 35. After age 22, it was mostly basketball, baseball, racquetball and swimming. After wrecking my knee playing basketball at age 31, I gave up baseball and played rec league softball and basketball and began swimming more. It was hard for me to ease up on sports, because I always played with reckless abandon and high intensity. I was always a fierce competitor who hated to lose. I wish I was a good enough hitter to have continued baseball as a DH, but my game was more about speed and defense than hitting. I'm sticking to my position that the DH position is easy enough for someone like Papi to consider playing one more year. The DH position is probably the main reason he has lasted this long in MLB. He loves the game as much or more than anyone I've ever see play the game. He's got to be enjoying his success this year. He's having a career best year, so far. I do not think it's absurd or ignorant to think he may want to do it another year. I'm fine if you disagree, but I take issue with anyone calling my position ignorant or absurd or crazy.

If the idea is to determine how good each team's pitching staff is when you take away their worst 5 games (a complete rotation), then my methodology is sound, and that was what I was responding to- the guy who said our staff was pretty good beyond a once around our rotation. My point was that, if you were going to take our worst 5 games away, then you need to do it to all teams and then re-compare the ERAs. Your method would also be very telling methodology and probably is a better gauge at determining how good a staff is after removing their outlier games, but that would answer a different question.

Our worst 4 games in runs allowed total 47 runs. The next 3 worst games were 9 runs each.' My guess would be the 56 runs allowed in our worst 5 games is more than with teams ahead of us in ERA, but that's not really true. The more defining sample is probably the next 5 starts. Here's a look at the other AL teams and their worst 5 games combined run totals allowed and then the next 5 worst combined totals: Worst 5/ Worst 6-10 byTeam (Total worst 10) 56/42 Red Sox (98) 56/ 36 Astros (92) 65/ 45 A's (110) 57/ 36 Blue Jays (93) 42/ 34 CLE (76) 54/ 36 Mariners (90) 48/ 38 Orioles (86) 53/ 43 Rangers (96) 46/ 33 Rays (79) 48/ 35 Royals (83) 52/ 41 Tigers (93) 56/ 42 Twins (98) 48/ 35 White Sox (83) 47/ 37 Yankees (84) As you can see, taking away the worst 5 or worst 10 games from all AL teams would not change the ERA differentials too much The biggest run differentials with the Sox are: worst 5: Cleveland 14 less runs next worst 5: Rays 9 runs less Over 50 some odd games, it's not going to change the ERA differences very much.

Actually, I think the more feasible thing to do would be to take away the worst 5 games from every team and then compare team ERAs.

True, but out of 57 games this year, we've let up 0-3 runs 26 times (including unearned runs). We've let up 4-5 runs 14 times, so 40 out of 57 games we've let up 0-5 runs. If we took away the bottom 5 games, it would be something like 56 runs.

I understand your point, but would never call you "ignorant" for disagreeing. My point is that it's not like we're asking Papi to come back as a 1Bman, catcher or pitcher. Yes, being a DH with painful feet could be much more difficult than any of us imagine, and I have said all along that if the pain Papi feels or the prognosis for his future ability to walk pain-free is indicated, then I have no issue with him retiring. My position is that the Sox should respectfully make him a fantastic offer and then respect his choice. Many players weigh their love of the game vs pain or probability of life-long debility and choose to play longer. I'd say NFL players do this from the first day of practice.

Do a front teeth count on NHL players.