Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:12 AM (#2145165)
I bet you that rookie thye're putting out for game5 will pwn us
   2. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:20 AM (#2145171)
I bet you that rookie thye're putting out for game5 will pwn us


The probables the Web site is showing has Wang, Ponson, the Unit, Moose, and Lidle. The only question is whether Lidle will be back off the bereavement list in time to start Sunday.

-- MWE
   3. CONservative governMENt Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:32 AM (#2145177)
The only question is whether Lidle will be back off the bereavement list in time to start Sunday.

According to Rotoworld the Yankees are using the bereavement list only to get an extra roster spot during the weekend. Lidle will definitely be there for Monday.
   4. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:47 AM (#2145192)
They should be forced to bring out the dead body and put it on display before the first pitch at Fenway!!!
   5. bunyon Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:50 AM (#2145200)
They should be forced to bring out the dead body and put it on display before the first pitch at Fenway!!!

I'm pretty sure the Red Sox will be on display.
   6. Darren Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:51 AM (#2145202)
Yeah, it does sound pretty fishy to put a guy on the bereavement list between his starts. Maybe they should amend the policy to require the player to miss at least 5 games or something.

On a separate note, are there any guidelines for who has to die in order to get on there? Is any kind of documentation required (i'd guess no)?
   7. Nasty Nate Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:51 AM (#2145203)
Let the circus begin... WWWOOOOOOOP!! Tomorrow is also the start of my vacation.

(so who's got a ticket for me for friday night or saturday?)
   8. Nasty Nate Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:54 AM (#2145206)
somewhere Lee Sinins is throwing a chair
   9. 1k5v3L Posted: August 18, 2006 at 01:19 AM (#2145222)
[homer simpson]

table 5, table 5, taaaaable 5.

[/homer simpson]

The Yankees called up former Dbacks pheenom Brian Bruney. I bet Yankee fans haven't been this excited since Bret Prinz brought his Purple Rain to piss on someone's parade in the Bronx...
   10. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 18, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#2145239)
On a separate note, are there any guidelines for who has to die in order to get on there?


Nope. No one even has to die - Richie Sexson was put on the list when his wife had to go to the hospital to have an emergency C-section done. The rule is that a player has to be on the list for at least three days, and no more than seven. MLB's permission is required.

-- MWE
   11. Darren Posted: August 18, 2006 at 01:42 AM (#2145242)
That sounds ridiculously exploitable and difficult to enforce evenly. You should have a set rule, not 'MLB permission.' Once you have something like that, it makes it susceptible to abuse.

And 3 days makes no sense for starting pitchers.
   12. Nasty Nate Posted: August 18, 2006 at 02:00 AM (#2145249)
please darren lets not ##### about roster shenanigans.. as we know the red sox can sneak around with the best of them . .

and someone in lidle's family did die, so theyre not pulling this out of thin air
   13. Darren Posted: August 18, 2006 at 02:19 AM (#2145259)
I'm not saying the Red Sox don't do the same kinds of things. I'm just pointing out that putting Lidle on that list for days that he wasn't going to pitch anyways doesn't make sense. The reason the list exists is to allow players time to grieve without it screwing up the team's roster. In this case, the Yankees are using his grieving to expand their roster. It just shouldn't work that way (for any team).
   14. PJ Martinez Posted: August 18, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#2145262)
"The reason the list exists is to allow players time to grieve without it screwing up the team's roster."

This is a good point. Some enterprising journalist should look into uses of this list in the past, and see if there are comparable examples. More power to the Yankees for seeing a possible advantage in the situation, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called on it. And it is a bit crass.
   15. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: August 18, 2006 at 02:27 AM (#2145264)
In this case, the Yankees are using his grieving to expand their roster.

But his grandmother died.

I agree with your earlier points about a set rule being needed, but unless you know something I don't, you're assuming facts not in evidence.
   16. PJ Martinez Posted: August 18, 2006 at 02:30 AM (#2145265)
"...you're assuming facts not in evidence."

What facts would those be? Lidle was put on the list after his last start, and will reportedly come off the list before his next start. In the meantime, the Yankees have called up Bruney, who already spared at least one arm by pitching the ninth today.

Or perhaps I just don't follow your point.
   17. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: August 18, 2006 at 02:59 AM (#2145274)
In my opinion, Darren was assuming that Lidle was put on the bereavement list specifically because the Yankees feared for their pitching in this important series. The implication that I see is that he believes Lidle would not have been placed on this list if his personal situation were the same and the Yankees were playing the Devil Rays in between two days off.

Of course, he might be correct - this could be at least partly a sham. But I don't know how he could possibly know that.
   18. PJ Martinez Posted: August 18, 2006 at 03:05 AM (#2145275)
"Darren was assuming that Lidle was put on the bereavement list specifically because the Yankees feared for their pitching in this important series."

Well, they put him on the list and called up a reliever. Reportedly, Lidle will return before his next start. He would not have pitched in the meantime, dead relative or no. Without ascribing intention, then, the Yankees have, in fact, used the bereavement list to expand their roster. If Lidle does return before his next start, I don't see how this is disputable.
   19. Sean McNally Posted: August 18, 2006 at 03:09 AM (#2145276)
They should be forced to bring out the dead body and put it on display before the first pitch at Fenway!!!


When I saw this, my first thought (being the cynic I am) was "Could this be a Ferris Bueller's Day Off situation?"

Bud playing the role of Principal Rooney, of course.

"Tell you what dipsh*t, just roll her old bones on down here and I'll dig up your reliever."

"BUD! Ferris Bueller's on line two!"
   20. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 18, 2006 at 04:34 AM (#2145315)
Erik-

The bereavement list exists for the players, so that they won't hurt the team by taking a few days off after a death in the family or other family crisis. What does putting Cory Lidle on the bereavement list do for Lidle? He could have gone anyway, because the funeral is in between his starts. As such, he wouldn't have hurt the team by taking a few days off, because he wasn't going to pitch on those days.

Unless there's some significant risk of Lidle being detained with family and missing his next start, I think that the Yankees' action here goes against the spirit of the rule.

It has nothing to do with whether the Red Sox or Rays are the opponent. It has to do with stealing an extra roster spot in between starts. Players go on the bereavement list in order to miss time - Lidle is apparently not missing any time, because he's making both scheduled starts.
   21. Josh Posted: August 18, 2006 at 03:34 PM (#2145505)
I can't see how that is aguable. I'm not so sure it matters much (just like grabbing Mike Stanton with 5 days left in the season, last year), but as MCoA lays it out, there really isn't much of a defense that I can think of.

That said, the problem is not the Yankees, but MLB who allowed it. No conspiracy theory - they've have probably allowed anyone to do it. But, just rather dumb.
   22. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 18, 2006 at 03:49 PM (#2145526)
The Yanks have used to starting pitchers out of the bullpen in the past. Just because it isn't likely that Lidle would pitch doesn't mean, that in the event of two 15 inning games in these next five, that Lidle wouldn't be brought in, particurlarly if it's his throw day. Both Wang and Wright have come out of the bullpen this year. I could see Torre using Lidle out of the bullpen in an extreme situation. That possibility alone makes this move legit IMO.
   23. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: August 18, 2006 at 03:53 PM (#2145530)
What does putting Cory Lidle on the bereavement list do for Lidle?

Saturday is Lidle's "throw day" between starts. Pitchers sometimes make emergency relief appearances on these days. Lidle would have been unavailable in this scenario.

Unlikely? Absolutely. But it's still an actual situation that could arise.

You Red Sox fans are seriously being whiny about this.
   24. Russ Posted: August 18, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#2145537)
That possibility alone makes this move legit IMO.

100% agreed. It would probably be even more fishy if the Yankees used a lot of relievers in the first game of the series and then put Lidle on bereavement AFTER the result of the first game in case they had another emergency where they needed a pitcher, even though he would have already left the team.

I think the Yankees are 100% justified here. You have to always allow for the worst case roster scenario and that's what they're doing. Lidle simply won't be around for those 3 games for a completely legitimate reason. I don't think you should be able to force any team to go into a game with fewer than 25 uniformed personnel (except in case of suspension, right?). A team could CHOOSE to go into a game with less than 25 personnel, but it's not in baseball's interest to FORCE them to do it.
   25. PJ Martinez Posted: August 18, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#2145538)
"Saturday is Lidle's "throw day" between starts. Pitchers sometimes make emergency relief appearances on these days. Lidle would have been unavailable in this scenario."

That's a bit of a reach, don't you think? I'm sorry if we come off as whiny. I don't really care, and, like I said above, more power to the Yankees for finding an advantage. I just think they should be called on it in the mainstream press. And MLB should probably change the rules somehow, so this doesn't happen in the future.
   26. Russ Posted: August 18, 2006 at 04:15 PM (#2145564)
I just think they should be called on it in the mainstream press.

Red Sox fans aren't just coming off as whiny... they're coming off as whiny, insensitive jerks who (if that was even possible) are even more insenstive than the media people who AREN'T putting this in the mainstream press out of respect for Lidle and the fact that this just isn't that big of a deal.


--A Pirates fan who has no pre-existing dog in this fight
   27. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 18, 2006 at 04:45 PM (#2145626)
I'm a Sox fan and I'm with Larry and Cowboy on this issue. Just because Lidle is not scheduled to pitch does not mean he's ineligible to pitch. Preventing the Yankees from putting him on the bereavement list, which other teams routinely do when a player leaves the team for family reasons, would leave them genuinely one man short for the duration.

I could, however, see an argument against the maneuver if Lidle was going on the list to visit his ill grandmother, who presumably would be sick before his last start and would remain so after his next start. But he didn't time her death. It just worked out that way.
   28. Kevin Sweet Child Romine (aco) Posted: August 18, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#2145661)
Yeah, well, Manny has never gone on the bereavement list ANY of the times his grandmother died!
   29. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 18, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#2145669)
MLB should probably change the rules somehow, so this doesn't happen in the future.


I don't see how they could without impacting a player's legitimate right to miss time for family emergencies. The teams have to ask MLB's permission, anyway, before they can use the bereavement list - and MLB can just say *no* if they think it's being abused. (I'm not aware that permission has ever been denied when asked, but privacy regulations would probably prevent one from finding out, anyway.)

The Yankees just placed Andy Phillips on the DL for what was (reportedly) a "tweak" in his rib cage, calling up T.J. Beam. That, to me, is a more questionable action than what they did with Lidle. Phillips has all of 7 PAs in August and wasn't likely to see much (if any) action in Fenway - so now he's "conveniently" injured badly enough to be put on the DL (and won't have to be activated until after rosters expand). Maybe he is hurt badly enough to justify a DL stint - but it'll be interesting to see when he goes out on rehab (and I don't doubt that he will).

-- MWE
   30. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: August 18, 2006 at 08:09 PM (#2146411)
somewhere Lee Sinins is throwing a chair
Hilarious.

From May 7 --
"Officially, Perez is on the "bereavement list." But, someone needs to buy MLB a dictionary, or at least tell them about www.m-w.com. Bereavement means mourning over death. In the past week, Blue Jays P Scott Downs mourned over the "death" of his daughter, who was merely sick, before her "dead body" must have come back to life. Now, Perez is "mourning" over the "dead body" of his mother, who is merely in the hospital.

There is a reason why there are different words for "dead child" and "sick child" and "dead mother" and "sick mother." Sometimes, there are different words because there are merely synonyms. But, it is often the case that there are different words because they are antonyms. This is clearly a case of the latter.

There is a very simple way to eliminate this mockery. Require actual mourning. Force the team to get a casket, put the "dead" child into it, put it into the middle of the clubhouse and force him/her to sleep in it for a full day while everyone else in the room acts as though it was a wake. Make it very clear--if you want your player to "bereave" then make him bereave and you'll instantly put an end to this."
   31. Fridas Boss Posted: August 18, 2006 at 08:18 PM (#2146435)
Wow, I had forgotten that snippet of Sinnis ass-hattery.
   32. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: August 18, 2006 at 09:08 PM (#2146570)
My comment was a poor attempt to mock Sinins, I couldn't remember if he called to display the body in the clubhouse or on the field.
   33. Mattbert Posted: August 18, 2006 at 09:46 PM (#2146618)
I am willing to temporarily lay aside partisan hatred and come down on the Yankee fans' side of the aisle on this one. Situations such as the one Larry brought up do actually occur, albeit rarely. Despite the long odds against the Yankees needing to use a starter in relief, and the even longer odds that this need would arise on Lidle's scheduled throw day, the mere possibility is enough to justify NY's use of the bereavement list here.

It would be a lot fishier if a team did this for the opposite situation, e.g. if, hypothetically, the Red Sox put Seanez on the bereavement list (presumably to mourn the death of his ability to get important outs) so they could call up someone from the minors for a spot start. I suppose the loss of a reliever for 3 days minimum is nominally more of a sacrifice in exchange for that extra roster spot than the "loss" of a starter who doesn't miss any starts. If it's the 12th or maybe even 13th man in the pen getting BLed, though, I think it'd be just as reasonable to put "loss" in sarcastic quotes for that situation.

Is the team under any obligation to replace the BLed player with someone who plays the same position? I'm guessing not, since there's so much grey area there. For instance, would a BLed shortstop have to be replaced by another shortstop or would any infielder be okay? Would any other position player (outfielder, catcher) be okay as long as it's not a pitcher? And what about replacing starting pitchers with relievers and vice versa? I'm comfortable with the general laissez-faire attitude towards the BL, but I think tightening up the positional issue somewhat would at least help mitigate abuse of the BL as a means to accomplish something like the Yankees just did through the magic of the DL: turning an end-of-the-bench backup IF into a relief pitcher.

Tangential question for Yankees fans (or Emeigh):
Why did it take Beam nearly 3 seasons to get out of A-ball as a college draftee, and an almost 23-year-old senior at that? It looks like he was a little homer-happy prior to being converted to relief, but his other peripherals (esp. K/9) were always quite good.
   34. Darren Posted: August 18, 2006 at 10:39 PM (#2146678)
After seeing the display in the game thread today, I've decided no Yankees fans can call anyone else a whiner.
   35. Darren Posted: August 18, 2006 at 10:41 PM (#2146683)
Also, how anyone can say I'm being insensitive to Lidle is beyond me. I am talking about the abuse of the roster rules. I haven't in any way suggested that Lidle shouldn't be allowed to leave the team.

There is a very easy fix to this problem. Extend the required absence to seven days.
   36. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: August 19, 2006 at 12:13 AM (#2146795)
Couldn't the Yankees, had they wanted to, taken someone with options (like Wang, I'd imagine) and send him down between starts? Why couldn't the Sox do this with Lester after tonight's game if they want? The way I understand these things, a team can send a player on the AAA shuttle with relative impunity.

On YES, they were saying that if Jason Johnson got demolished in his start this afternoon, he likely wouldn't even be on the Sox roster tonight. Assuming the Sox called up another pitcher, why would that be different?
   37. Swedish Chef Posted: August 19, 2006 at 12:48 AM (#2146874)
There is a very easy fix to this problem. Extend the required absence to seven days.

So you would have every player that wants to attend a funeral miss a week? To fix what exactly? The problem that teams that have starting pitchers with dead relatives can call up a 25th man to sit on the bench for a few days even though they don't miss a start?

I can't even begin to imagine why anyone would be bothered by that.
   38. Mike Emeigh Posted: August 19, 2006 at 12:51 AM (#2146880)
Couldn't the Yankees, had they wanted to, taken someone with options (like Wang, I'd imagine) and send him down between starts?


A player who is optioned out can't be recalled for 10 days unless it's to replace an injured player.

Why did it take Beam nearly 3 seasons to get out of A-ball as a college draftee, and an almost 23-year-old senior at that? It looks like he was a little homer-happy prior to being converted to relief, but his other peripherals (esp. K/9) were always quite good.


Beam had only two good pitches - his fastball and hard slider - and he couldn't quite get the hang of an offspeed pitch. It shouldn't have taken them as long as it did to try him in the pen, quite frankly, but I don't get the sense that the Yankees have a really strong player development staff.

-- MWE
   39. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: August 19, 2006 at 06:13 AM (#2147419)
Should this go in this thread or the "depressing" thread?

Thank you Jason Johnson, for your 36.5 avg. game score and your 7.98 R/9. I'd hate to see the guy you beat out.
   40. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: August 19, 2006 at 06:20 AM (#2147423)
A player who is optioned out can't be recalled for 10 days unless it's to replace an injured player.

Yeah, like they couldn't have someone take out Beam's kneecap before Wang's next start.
   41. Darren Posted: August 19, 2006 at 12:27 PM (#2147481)
So you would have every player that wants to attend a funeral miss a week?

Yes, I would. Or I would want MLB to have a backbone and refuse to let teams abuse the system in this way. But as we've seen many times, actually enforcing rules or taking a stand on important baseball issues is not a priority to MLB.
   42. OlePerfesser Posted: August 19, 2006 at 01:22 PM (#2147507)
But he didn't time her death. It just worked out that way.

Aha! Does The Boss have an alibi for her time of death? Did anyone see a guy wearing a white turtleneck and blue blazer lurking around the grandmother's house? Call CSI! We have motive, all we need is opportunity and method...

[OK, that was a joke, for anyone with the slightest bit of doubt about it. And we are, indeed, being a tad whiny about this. We`have no reason whatsoever to suspect there was any underhanded calculation involved here, and in any case the benefit of having a mop-up reliever around is trivial, especially with Torre managing, even if there had been. Forgive us, MFY fans--we're pretty depressed right now. Even Mr. Sunshine.]
   43. Darren Posted: August 19, 2006 at 01:51 PM (#2147524)
Well, I FOR ONE AM NOT WHINING. The rule is stupid and it is being abused because it is stupid. A team, the Yankees in this case, has benefited from this stupid rule. I will not sit hear and be lectured about whininess by Yankees fans who are whining about the Red Sox getting Erik F. Hinske and Javy F. Lopez from division rivals.
   44. Passed Ball Posted: August 19, 2006 at 01:53 PM (#2147525)
Just maybe, Red Sox fans might have reason to worry more about their staff than the Yankees staff.
   45. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 19, 2006 at 02:15 PM (#2147536)
I FOR ONE AM NOT WHINING

OK, then. You're ########.

The rule is not stupid and it's not being abused. And I didn't say a thing about Hinske or Lopez, except "you can have him" in the latter case.
   46. OlePerfesser Posted: August 19, 2006 at 02:24 PM (#2147546)
I would like to have the Prozac concession in New England today.

I feel pretty much like I did after game 3 of the the LCS in '04: knowing there is a theoretical possibility we can still win it all, but understanding that it'll take some sort of miracle. The consolation is we have evidence that miracles do happen.

Today's game really is do-or-die. Losing this series really digs too deep a hole, and getting blown out of the series makes the hole look like a grave.

Plus, we just need Beckett to look like the elite talent you give up people like Ramirez and Sanchez and tens of millions of dollars for. Right now, the depressing way the team is playing is leading to questions about whether Beckett and Crisp are really the kind of talent you want to build your future around, or whether they're just players (like Clement) the FO thought a little too much of.

Cowboy up.
   47. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 19, 2006 at 02:41 PM (#2147559)
Today's game really is do-or-die. Losing this series really digs too deep a hole, and getting blown out of the series makes the hole look like a grave.

I wouldn't bee too sure. Since August 1, every AL contender except the Tigers has taken a turn at being buried, and even Detroit saw their lead temporarily shrink and heard whispers about settling for the wild card. Both of these teams have amply demonstrated that they're capable of losing games that they should win and winning games that they should lose. It shouldn't be a complete shock if a seemingly insurmountable lead after this series wound up being a distant memory by the time the teams meet again in September. It also wouldn't surprise me if the Red Sox took the next three and the proceeded to go on a none-game losing streak. There are just too many things wrong with both teams.
   48. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 19, 2006 at 02:43 PM (#2147561)
"bee" too sure?
"the" proceeded?
"none"-game losing streak?

Not typing too well this morning. Anyway, I think you can figure out my point.
   49. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: August 19, 2006 at 02:47 PM (#2147563)
There is no rules-based difference between the active players on a team's roster, until they actually get in a game. That is, while there are specific rules that apply to (for example) the catcher who is currently in the game, there are no rules saying who may or may not be put in as catcher.

If the Yankees did not place Lidle on the Bereavement List, they would be free to bat him cleanup as their starting shortstop. He could pinch run. He could be their starting pitcher all three days. He could be a defensive sub in right field. And in a significantly less unlikely scenario, he could be an emergency reliever.

The fact that the Yankees are very unlikely to use Lidle in any of these roles is neither here nor there.

Finally, for anyone who might think that I am being petty, might I remind you:

You are arguing that a man whose grandmother just died should not be eligible for the Bereavement List.
   50. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: August 19, 2006 at 03:39 PM (#2147602)
After seeing the display in the game thread today, I've decided no Yankees fans can call anyone else a whiner.

As others have mentioned, it's not abusive. There is the possibility that Lidle could've been used over the weekend in a relief role (or as just mentioned, a PR) and the Yankees are deprived from that by having him attend to family needs.

Well, you've seen Pirates fans call this whining. Add a Cubs/Rays fan to the list as well. If complaining about one measly roster spot going to a guy like Brian Bruney -- with MLB's express permission -- isn't whining, I'm not sure what it is.

This is unbelievable; something I'd expect from Mets or White Sox fans. ;-)
   51. Toby Posted: August 19, 2006 at 03:42 PM (#2147605)
I, like Darren, was away for a week. Sorry about the lack of new threads. Not that I've been starting many, anyway.

My approach to this series, even before yesterday's sweep, is that any news is good news. If we sweep, great. If we get swept, that might be the second-best scenario: I think it would spell the end of the "grace period" the FO has received from the media and the general fan base since the 2004 WS win. The FO has fielded teams in 2005 and 2006 that have been plausible contenders but very flawed. The FO needs a wakeup call, one way or the other.

That said, I suspect this year's team has its best baseball ahead of it, and I think we'll be playing in October, one way or another.
   52. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: August 19, 2006 at 09:19 PM (#2148051)
I'd be a little happier if the Sox would at least show a pulse.

Toby: what's your source of optimism? They can't play much worse, but it sure looks like there isn't enough pitching to sustain a run.
   53. karlmagnus Posted: August 19, 2006 at 11:11 PM (#2148084)
This is in many ways a better team than 2004, but it has been devastated by injury -- to lose 3 of your starting 5 pitchers plus your first reserve for most of the season will kill any team, particularly one that traded it No. 5 starter for hitting in March (a good trade, IMHO, but has bitten us.)

Of all the teams in the last decade, I think the 2001 had the highest expectations in April, and if Nomar/Pedro had rrepeated their 1999/2000 seasons, would have been the best. However it lost Nomar,Pedro and Varitek, suffered from poor managing (e.g. not allowing Wakefield to start) and then fell apart late in the season. This team has a similar dynamic at this point; unlike after 2005 I would NOT be in favor of blowing it up in the offseason, since the FO trade too much already and aren't that good at it.
   54. baudib Posted: August 19, 2006 at 11:29 PM (#2148117)
In what ways is this team better than 2004?
   55. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: August 19, 2006 at 11:36 PM (#2148128)
Schilling + Beckett <<< Schilling + Pedro.

AGon<<<<Cabrera Agon<<<Nomar

Loretta = Bellhorn? Maybe.

Youkilis>>>Millar

Manny=Manny

Crisp <<<<<Damon

Nixon 2006<<<Nixon 2004

Ortiz = Ortiz
Papelb

Timlin 2006 slightly< Timlin 2004

TaverezSeanez<<<<<<< Anyone from 2004

Hansen, Delcarmen<<< Williamson Embree

Varitek 2006<<<Varitek 2004

Mirabelli 2006<<< Mirabelli 2004

Lester<<< Arroyo

Wakefield 2006<< Wakefield 2004

Karl: Don't hock me a chynek.
   56. karlmagnus Posted: August 20, 2006 at 12:10 AM (#2148171)
On your list Loretta, Lowell, AGon/Cora, Youkilis, Manny, Pena, Papelbon and Lester are better than their 2004 equivalents (Papelbon WAY better than Foulke, who I never liked), Wakefield is constant (if currently injured), Williamson was injured most of the year so Hansen/Delcarmen>>Williamson/Embree, Ortiz Timlin and Varitek are down, CRisp < Damon but not by a huge amount. Beckett << even 2004 Pedro, by all means. The team is overall younger, fields much better and is pointing upwards not downwards.

2001's better than either; if Pedro/Nomar had repeated their 2000 seasons they're worth about 5 each of anyone on this team except Manny.
   57. Buzzards Bay Posted: August 20, 2006 at 12:20 AM (#2148182)
the sox can't prevent runs

and the yankees are exposed too
they can't prevent runs either

they both need the Twins bullpen
   58. Toby Posted: August 20, 2006 at 12:44 AM (#2148206)
September will be one of our best months.

Reasons for optimism about September:

Schedule. An unbalanced mix of home games 17, road games 11. Also, the only tough teams we face are the ones we are chasing (NYY, CWS, MIN).

Returning players. Tek and Trot will be back. Not that they are any great shakes on paper, but at least they will contribute.

Improving players. It's more likely than not that we will get some contributions from Wells and Foulke. They may not contributions we haven't gotten yet.

New players. This team should benefit more than most from September callups and the expanded roster. Most notably, we can add a few more arms to a bullpen that badly needs a few more arms -- a LOOGY or two, some low-leverage fodder, anything to take the burden off the few pitchers who HAVE been effective.

Regression to the mean. Just a feeling, but it seems to me that we have more underperformers -- led by Beckett and Coco -- than overperformers (Papelbon is the only one who comes to mind). I expect we'll get a little more luck in that department.

But I'll freely admit that I'm optimistic because I've made my peace with the possibility that we don't make October and I'm just not going to agonize over it.
   59. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: August 20, 2006 at 12:48 AM (#2148213)
WHAT?

The bullpen was better and much more balanced in 2004.
Remember the scoreless innings streak?
Plus, you're forgetting how good Foulke was before 2005.
Sure Papelbon has a fancy low ERA, but they both got the job done equally well, I'd be surprised if Papelbon doesn't end the season with more blown saves and more losses than Foulke did in 04.

In 2004 They had 5 above average starters instead of one.
-Schilling was better, posting a lower ERA by half an run, in a much harder hitting AL (compared to today)
-Pedro > Beckett, hell 2004's worst starter (Lowe) pitched better than Becket has this year.
-How is Wakefield consistant? He's looked terrible this year AND he's injured.

I'll save you the rest of the staff.

Bellhorn 2004 was way better than Loretta this year.
-better baserunner
-scored more (93 runs)
-much more power, better OBP, less GiDP
-more range

Kevin Youkilis 2006- .294/.392/.455 +better defense
Kevin Millar 2004- .297/.383/.474 +better leadership (you think Millar would have let NY rape the sox this weekend?)

Bill Mueller 2004- .283/.365/.446
Mike Lowell 2006- .284/.340/.474 +better defense
I doubt Lowell's advantage holds up, sinces he's DOA and has shown life since the ASB (as is his MO)

This is silly.

I'll take this one step further, the members of the 2004 team in 2006, are as good as the current team
   60. Toby Posted: August 20, 2006 at 12:48 AM (#2148214)
Hey! I didn't even mention getting Wake back, too.

And the positive value of *not* getting Clement or Jason Johnson back.
   61. Toby Posted: August 20, 2006 at 01:34 AM (#2148273)
that should be

It's more likely than not that we will get some contributions from Wells and Foulke. They may not [be much, but at least they will be] contributions we haven't gotten yet.
   62. b Posted: August 20, 2006 at 01:45 AM (#2148291)
That's a bit of a reach, don't you think?

Course, they used Wright on Saturday to eat an inning, so maybe it isn't. The bigger issue, I'd guess, is Sunday. What happens if Mussina tweaks something in warmups and the Yankees need a starter? Lidle would be the one to go on short rest. If he isn't in the building, that can't happen.
   63. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: August 20, 2006 at 01:52 AM (#2148300)
I blogged this, but...

Try to pick out which statements are emo, and which statements describe the Red Sox:

KEVIN YOUKILIS IS HITTING FIFTH!!!

MY PARENT'S DON'T UNDERSTAND ME!!!

MY GIRLFRIEND BROKE UP WITH ME WHEN SHE HOOKED UP WITH ANOTHER GUY AT THE CREED CONCERT!!!

RUDY SEANEZ DFA'ED!!

YOU BROKE MY LIFE!!!!

MIKE TIMLIN WITH INHERITED RUNNERS IN HIGH LEVERAGE SITUATIONS!!!

MY DADDY DOESN'T LIKE MY BOYFRIEND BECAUSE HE'S GOT A TATTOO!!!

MY MOMMY WON'T GIVE ME MONEY FOR THE SIMPLE PLAN CONCERT!!!

JOSH BECKETT WON'T THROW STRIKES!!!!

Seriously, the ship is sunk.
   64. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: August 20, 2006 at 05:45 AM (#2148426)
(you think Millar would have let NY rape the sox this weekend?)

Are you serious?
   65. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: August 20, 2006 at 08:46 AM (#2148456)
about the rape? no.
about Millar? Hell yes!

Sorry, but there's something to a team's attitude and how they handle adversity.

Would the Red Sox came back for three down against oakland in 2003 w.o Millar?
Could they have shaken their early season mediocrity and gone on a tear in 2004 w/o him?
Could they have come back from 3-0 against the Yankees?

I'm not saying he's soley responsable, but he didn't hurt.

I've been reading how Theo is targeting calmer, more mellow/vanilla/low-key guys because some spreadsheet says they'll do well in Boston.
WHY? They won with/cause of their excentric, positive, crazy team, not in spite of it.
   66. villageidiom Posted: August 20, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#2148653)
I've been reading how Theo is targeting calmer, more mellow/vanilla/low-key guys because some spreadsheet says they'll do well in Boston.

Whereas I've been reading nonfiction.

There certainly is something to a team's attitude and how they handle adversity. But you've demonstrated nothing about the attitude of the 2006 Red Sox; to me you seem to be drawing conclusions from the fact that they lost a few games and thus aren't "handling" adversity well.

Well, no. The Red Sox are relying on too many pitchers who have difficulty throwing strikes to pitch against an entire roster of hitters who know the difference between a ball and a strike. That's about as simple as it gets. The starters are not efficient, and end up throwing 120 pitches in under 6 innings; then the bullpen is forced to throw more innings than they were built to handle.

It's not that often a team can score ~7 runs a game on average and lose three straight, but that's what happens when your starting pitching is crap. Fortunately, our two best chances for pitching deep into games are going tonight and Monday.
   67. CONservative governMENt Posted: August 20, 2006 at 06:11 PM (#2148678)
I'm doing some research on baseball economics - does anyone know what the current 'record' is for the highest payroll of a non-postseason making team? I'm thinking it has to be the Mets or Dodgers but need confirmation.

Thanks in advance for any assistance!
   68. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: August 20, 2006 at 06:18 PM (#2148684)
Assuming this is correct, the 2001 Dodgers had a paryoll of $109 million, and didn't make the playoffs. That's bad, but the all-time worst team--I assume--is the 2003 Mets: 117 million dollars and 0 playoff games
   69. CONservative governMENt Posted: August 20, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#2148697)
Assuming this is correct, the 2001 Dodgers had a paryoll of $109 million, and didn't make the playoffs. That's bad, but the all-time worst team--I assume--is the 2003 Mets: 117 million dollars and 0 playoff games

That's a good starting point but it looks like they use full-year compensation for mid-season pickups. I'm wondering if there is anywhere that calculates something closer to money spent.
   70. villageidiom Posted: August 20, 2006 at 09:01 PM (#2148864)
Gardening - I hope you're going to index all that for inflation. Your list will always skew toward recent years otherwise, whether it's meaningful or not.

Three suggestions on that front. First, you can use some flavor of the Consumer Price Index to get at overall inflation trends, but surely that will grossly understate the inflation in player salaries since 1976.

Second, the Lahman database now has salary information where it could be obtained; from this you could produce your own inflationary index based on average player salaries from year to year. That would be much closer to capturing salary inflation. Actually, since there are only so many teams, a handful of teams raising salaries significantly could skew the average; the median would go the other direction, ignoring it almost completely, and that might be too far in the other direction.

Third, consider trying something that measures team salary relative to league median, as I think that goes in the direction you're headed. If you want to know what team spent the most relative to "typical" for that year, and still didn't make the playoffs, that would give you a pretty accurate picture.

BTW, thanks for bringing up the subject in THIS thread.
   71. Darren Posted: August 20, 2006 at 09:12 PM (#2148868)
Would the Red Sox came back for three down against oakland in 2003 w.o Millar?
Could they have shaken their early season mediocrity and gone on a tear in 2004 w/o him?
Could they have come back from 3-0 against the Yankees?


Yes, they could have done all these things without Millar, except the first one because they would have been eliminated if they were three down. And let's not forget, Millar was present for the bad part of each of those situations too.

I'm not saying he's soley responsable, but he didn't hurt.

You could say this about any player on the team. He didn't hurt? I didn't hurt either, am I also a key contributor to the team?


I've been reading how Theo is targeting calmer, more mellow/vanilla/low-key guys because some spreadsheet says they'll do well in Boston.
WHY? They won with/cause of their excentric, positive, crazy team, not in spite of it.

Oh, it's the spreadsheet that's telling him to get mellow players. Right. Because when the Red Sox were winning the past 2 1/2 years, I kept hearing that that it was Theo's willingness to look beyond the spreadsheet that was bringing in the mellow players.

It's also important to note that the vanilla/low-key guys include extreme fighter Rudy Seanez, idiot fighter Julian Tavarez, party-boy David Wells, jerkface Josh Beckett, and musician/tv-writer wannabe Coco Crisp. Really boring bunch there.
   72. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: August 21, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#2150200)
Julian Tavarez isn't Vanilla. He's curdled milk.
   73. vortex of dissipation Posted: August 21, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#2150956)
MY GIRLFRIEND BROKE UP WITH ME WHEN SHE HOOKED UP WITH ANOTHER GUY AT THE CREED CONCERT!!!

That's the Red Sox. Emo would be "MY GIRLFRIEND BROKE UP WITH ME WHEN SHE HOOKED UP WITH ANOTHER GUY AT THE DASHBOARD CONFESSIONAL CONCERT!!!"

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8091 seconds
41 querie(s) executed