S5Dewey

And I'm one of those critics.I'm firmly of the belief that defensive statistics are mostly voodoo, which makes WAR mostly voodoo too. I have no problem with offensive WAR in that it's made up of hard numbers with no subjectivity involved, but when one starts mixing defensive "stats" with offensive hard numbers it devalues the total of the two.

Yes. I've been saying for some time that what the Red Sox have proven this year is that they're a team that can really kick the snot out of a bad pitching staff.

Is there anyone other than me who has little to no faith in Craig Kimbrel? I know that at the end of the day he (usually) gets the job done, but sweet God, can that guy ever throw fewer than three balls to a batter?? Did anyone ever tell him that one of the cardinal rules of relieving is that you NEVER WALK THE FIRST BATTER?? What happened yesterday was predictable, that sooner or later he'd walk someone and it would come back to bite him - and us - on the ass. The best thing we can hope for now is that he learned something from that experience and throws more strikes. Amazing, too, because one of the things I've always said is that I want my closer to bed able to throw ~100 MPH. I guess what I should have been saying is that I want my closer to throw STRIKES at ~100 MPH. If I were an opposing manager I'd be telling my players that when they're facing Kimbrel unless they get something they're sure they can square up that they should take two pitches and then see where they are in the count.

IMHO John Farrell is getting entirely too much blame for the losses sustained by the bullpen. He doesn't have much to work with there. As the old saying goes, "It's pretty hard to make leather out of pig s***."

Agree. Those are beyond cool. I may have to own one of those!! It'll match the salvaged 4' square Citgo sign on my garage.

I remember it like it was yesterday. I was saying, "For Chrissake, pull him! WTF do you think you're doing???. How the f*** did he talk you out of this?? You're the f***ing manager, not him. Make your decision and stick to it!!" And when the game was over the thing I wanted to see the most was for John Henry to step over that short wall in front of his seat, walk into the dugout, point his finger in Grady's face and unmistakably say on National Television those two words I longed to year, "YOU'RE FIRED!!" Funny, too, because I'm not usually that vindictive.

For a one-time experience I would stay out of the grandstand section. While what S&C said is true about it not being much of a problem, not all obstructed view seats are created equal and you may find yourself unable to see the pitcher or the batter. Or the Shortstop, etc. If you've got some time to dick around on your computer then do this: Look at a seating chart for the field, pick out the area you think you might want to sit in, and then go to this site: http://www.preciseseating.com/. There you can put in the exact section, row, and seat number and see what you'll see from that seat. I'd be looking for something in Lower Boxes sections 19-70 (Section 25 is about the center of the Red Sox dugout) or Louge Boxes sections 105-165. Here's a word of warning on Louge boxes though. STAY AWAY from the first two or three rows. There's a walkway directly in front of the louge section and you'll find yourself peeking around the people walking in the walkway. My personal preference is for the Pavilion section -not to be confused with the more expensive Pavilion CLUB section. They're not at field level but IMO the view is great. And as much as I hate to say this, I've had good luck with ACE tickets. Yeah, you'll pay a premium but you'll also get a good seat. If you've got time to kill get to the park as early as possible, even before they open Yawkey Way. Take a stroll around the outside of the park. There are bars near the main entrance to the park where a person can get a beer, and when the crowd begins to show up the atmosphere can be electric. If you're only doing it once, make a day of it. If you get there early enough (say, 5-6 hours before game time) you may be able to watch the players show up in their cars. I think the parking lot is off Van Ness St. At any rate, it'll be the street that's cordoned off near the park. You can't miss it. Good luck, and ENJOY! And bring good mo-jo!

I didn't mean that they were deliberately passing out misinformation. It's more that I question the competence of the medical group - and the FO passes on what they hear from their doctors. In fact, IMO they shouldn't be disseminating any information at all. Pedey deliberately downplayed his wrist problem and said that he felt that giving out injury information puts the Sox at a disadvantage when their opponents know of player's issues.

Well, dammit, he SHOULD have left a massive farm! Two consecutive last place finishes will usually help a team's farm system, and Ben let the team wallow in last place while hoarding these prospects. I mean, I'm glad we've got prospects like Benintendi and Groome, but lets not give Ben too much credit for it unless you think that was his master plan, to finish last a few years in a row to build a core group of young outstanding players.

That, and I don't trust them to be giving accurate medical prognosis to the fans. If they want to take the Bill Belichik route and list everyone as "day to day" that's fine with me - and actually makes good sense - but they should at least make it clear that that's what they're doing (a la Belichik).

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said defensive stats are half voodoo. With all due respect, and I don't mean to rip you apart here, but the only defensive thing you mention that's quantifiable is the C/S%. Everything else you preface with "He seems", "I don't remember", 'I doubt", "is he really", and "I won't argue". I won't dispute that defensive metrics have some value, but at the end of the day we tend to fall back on what we KNOW - the offensive stats - because they're quantifiable. Consequently we subconsciously put too much emphasis on a player's offensive contributions as opposed to the defensive contributions. It's human nature, that's all.

You may have heard me mention this before but the reason we always quote offensive stats is because we know they are something we can hang our hats on, where defensive stats are half voodoo. We all fall into that same trap because offensive stats are hard, calculated numbers while defensive stats at best are comprised of people watching games and then judging whether player 'a' would have gotten to a ball. In addition, the scorebook doesn't tell the story either. Benintendi's great catch in Tampa Bay goes down in the book as "F7" (ho-hum), exactly the same as a routine can-o-corn fly ball. Defense is graded on a pass/fail basis (did he make the play, or didn't he?) while offense is graded according to the magnitude of the accomplishment. The only way to compare offense and defense stats would be to grade offense on a pass/fail basis - did he reach base, or didn't he? - and ignore the fact that many times the player reaches base on an extra-base hit. So we as people tend to fall back onto what we know, hard numbers.

The only way it's a good idea to rush Benintendi back is if the team is going all-in for the ring, which in itself is a bad idea. While this team has become fun (and unbearably frustrating!) to watch at times, the odds of their garnering the ring this year are slim, even with a healthy Benintendi. Don't risk this guy's health and future in pursuit of something that realistically probably isn't even there.

IMO this is one of those things that looks great in print, but in real life....not so much. After two last place finishes in succession being competitive looks very good to me. Yes, it's frustrating to be the bridesmaid but not as frustrating as watching "my" team play bad baseball year after year. If those were the two choices - to finish second every year or to finish last 9 years out of ten and win a ring in year #10, I'll take the second place finishes. At least it's exciting and at least the team is playing good baseball.

So are you disputing my point or my phraseology?

Treading lightly because I know better than to disagree with Moon, But.... Ok, Elias has a 12.91 ERA but Wade Miley with his 7.12 ERA hasn't exactly been making the Mariners forget about Felix, either. Neither of those guys are valuable. The value may come from Carson Smith so we can't really say this has been a BAD trade. Wilkerson & Rio for Aaron Hill Wilkerson is 27 years old and has an ERA of 6.xx in Colorado Springs. Not exactly the kind of guy you lose sleep over losing. OK, Hill hasn't been much but he's at least given us options at 3B occasionally, which we need. Basabe & Almonte for Ziegler Basabe and Almonte are both prospects and while one of them will work out neither of them are going to be All-Stars. We were struggling to find BP help at the time of the trade and while Zeigler has had his ups and downs he's also been inserted into and pitched his way out of some tough situations. I'm not sure his Inherited Runners Scored is a good representation of what his efforts have been. I also think his upside is strong because "all" he needs to do is learn to find the plate more. Espinoza for Pomeranz This is the one we may get our asses kicked on. Or not. Pom has done better than I expected, and Espinoza is years away. Given the fact that we needed SP at the time of the trade I'm not shedding tears over this one ... yet. IMO the jury is still out. Pat Light for Abad I'm far from being a fan of Abad. IIRC it was Dojii who immediately referred to him as "ADreadful" and that appears to be spot-on. Pat Light is carrying around an 8.44 ERA. But at the end of the day this is two guys who aren't helping their team being traded for one another. I'm not ready to say that all of DD's trades have helped the team, but other than the Miley/Smith trade I don't see any that have hurt the team. "Not having hurt the team" is a low bar but it IS a bar, and it's one that many GM's don't clear. One of my criticisms of Ben is that he was hoarding prospects while the team was finishing last. At least DD is making an effort. In my mind that's better than standing pat and watching the team circling the drain.

This is, as they say, "the thing". No matter what a team does there's no guarantee that they're going to win. Right now, as Sox fans, we're all saying that this is a flawed team but if The Sox make the playoffs "anything can happen". Well, every team is saying that - because it's true. Anything can happen and any team can win it all. Ten team teams make the playoffs right now but only one of them is going to win the WS. Baseball being a game of inches, sometimes a game is decided by an inch or two on a ball fair or foul, a bad (or a good) bounce, or one AB. It's good to have a "Win" mentality but going all-out to win in one year is a mistake just because of the oddities of the game. Just look at the 2013 Tigers. Look at that roster and tell me why that team shouldn't have won the 2013 World Series. But they didn't because "anything can happen". Thanks, Iggy. I like what DD has done and what he hasn't done. Had he been going "all-out" we'd be without JBJ and/or some other player(s) in return for a short term rental. Instead he's acquired a group of players who can make a run at it this year and for the next few years and at the same time kept several key prospects just in case things don't work out with our core group. Trying to keep things in perspective, after what's happened in the past two seasons I'm very happy that the Sox are where they are this year and I like where they are in 2017. Sure, I'd like to win it all this year (and every year!) but at the end of the 2015 season the Sox were flat on their backs, and as the old saying goes, "you've got to crawl before you can walk".

And BTW, this situation with Vaz only makes me more sure of my reluctance to bring up Benitindi. Sometimes players have to be optioned for reasons other than simply not performing. The more option years the team has at their disposal the better off the team is.

Thanks, IRS. Just when I thought this whole "option year" business couldn't get any more complicated something like this pops up.

I'm not questioning that this is correct, I just don't understand it. As I understand it a player has three 'option years', years when he can be 'optioned' between the minors and the parent club and allow the parent club to retain control of the player. Nowhere have I read that these three years have to be consecutive. According to BR his first call-up was in 2014 when he played in 55 games before being optioned back to Pawtucket. That's option year #1. He lost the entire 2015 season to his TJ surgery but since the three 'option years' don't have to be consecutive years 2015 is not an option year for him. Now he's been sent back down in 2016 to work on his hitting, which is option year #2. Now I'm hearing that he's out of options. What am I missing?

For me, I don't doubt that Hanley can do a decent job at DH. I see Hanley's (and our) problem as the old saw, "Never be the guy who follows the legend. Always be the guy who follows the guy who follows the guy who's the legend". We've been spoiled by David Ortiz and we're going to have Ortiz-like expectations from whomever the DH is in 2017. As the man used to say, "I pity the fool", because the fans aren't going to be happy with him.

First of all, Welcome, Ex! Good to see you posting! Your eyes are a lot better than mine. I didn't see the ankle injury but the way that knee gave out gave me the heebie-jeebies. I didn't want to say anything but I saw some MCL or LCL damage. Glad I was wrong.

I saw an ad recently for a service that connects directly to your heart, and when your heart stops they erase your browsing history.

If Vaz/Holaday is my choice, it's Vaz every day. And can we play double-headers on Sunday?

Ya, but that ERA is a reflection of the entire year and he's pitched better than that ERA in his last several outings. If he doesn't implode on us again I'm fairly certain that they'll pick up his option for $13M, but what they do with him after that remains to be seen. It's very possible that some GM might see more than $13M of upside there and Buch could be a part of a trade.