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. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 26, 2011 at 01:45 AM (#3885206)
I think a lot hinges on Buchholz. If he is going to be back healthy, even if it is not until September 1st (and today's news was very good), then the Sox have little to do on the rotation front. Yeah, if they can upgrade Lackey by all means they should but Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, anyone is the best rotation of any AL team likely to make the playoffs.

Lackey has some uninspiring numbers of late but if you break it down start to start he has generally pitched well enough. He isn't giving them $18 million worth of performance but he is generally getting them some innings with 3-4 runs and that should be fine on an every fifth day basis.

Oddly, Bobby Jenks is a guy who could conceivably give them starter depth. If he could come back healthy (and that feels pie in the sky to me) then Aceves could slot into that 5th starter spot and that would be A-OK in my book.
   2. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:08 AM (#3885240)
In terms of Lackey - look, if you focus on his salary, you're going to hate him for the next three years. However, he's been better lately, and we're asking him to be, at best, the #4 starter. He's overpaid, but for a #4, he's fine.

Also, Lester is back tonight, and generally looks fine. The Sox are now replacing Weiland with Lester in the rotation - that's a big step to addressing the concerns expressed in this post.

Buchholz's session off a mound today went very well, it appears. They expect him back at full strength on or before September 1st. When he gets back, he takes probably takes Wakefield's starts. If Buchholz comes back on September 1st, that means we have deal with another seven Wakefield starts. If we win 4 of those 7 starts, that's fine.

I guess I just don't think the Sox are likely to get a starter so much better than Wakefield or Miller that it's worth the trouble. And in the playoffs, the #5 starter will never get a start, anyway.

Besides, the offense is good enough that the team can win half of the Miller/Wakefield starts, anyway. I'd rather have Aceves ready to pitch multiple innings out of the bullpen three times a week...
   3. Norcan Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:41 AM (#3885528)
In terms of Lackey - look, if you focus on his salary, you're going to hate him for the next three years. However, he's been better lately, and we're asking him to be, at best, the #4 starter. He's overpaid, but for a #4, he's fine.


I'm hopeful about Lackey. He's pitched like a solid no.3 starter since getting rock by Toronto. He also pitched much better against Tampa Bay than his stat line showed because his defense (or just Scutaro) let him down.

Along with the results, his stuff is better. I don't know the numbers exactly but he seems to be sitting in the low-90s since he's come off the DL, which is a couple mphs faster than last year and before he went on. I just don't believe he's a lost cause with regard to his contract. He's still young enough, the stuff has bounced back and the track record is long. I think he's going to get some playoff starts and that was unimaginable for a while.
   4. tfbg9 Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:43 PM (#3885585)
Youks tweaked his hammy last night. Can't help things much.
   5. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 26, 2011 at 01:03 PM (#3885594)
I posted elsewhere on Youk but I'll say it again. I think the Sox have to start considering third base options as the deadline approaches. Youk has been battling injuries all year and I fear that this is going to be a Mike Lowell circa 2008 situation where October will roll around and his body will just throw up the white flag and say "no mas" and we'll pin our hopes on Yamaico Navarro.
   6. Answer Guy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 01:51 PM (#3885624)
Not sure what you can do about 3B. If someone else plays there Youkilis has nowhere to play. He can spell Ortiz against lefties and maybe AGon gets a day off every so often (either from the game or just the field) and maybe that'll keep things fresher...

I'm not all that concerned about missing the postseason at this point, but I'd like a better #3 playoff starter option than Lackey if Buchholz can't go.
   7. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:04 PM (#3885635)
I'm not saying to replace Youkilis, I'm just saying a better backup than Navarro. Essentially get someone like Kotchman from 2008 (though he had a horrible post-season). I don't know who that player is (Ty Wigginton's name comes to mind).
   8. Dan Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:20 PM (#3885651)
How about Ian Stewart? The Rockies seem to have soured on him, and he has options. He could sit at AAA finding his swing and all, and then come up on August 31st to stay for September and potentially the playoff roster. I'm not entirely sure we really need a better backup 3B than Navarro, but if you're convinced that we do, Stewart is probably available, though I'm not sure what kind of return the Rockies envision for him.
   9. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 03:09 PM (#3885692)
Yeah, if they can upgrade Lackey by all means they should but Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, anyone is the best rotation of any AL team likely to make the playoffs.

Those three got nothin' on Sabathia, Colon, and Garcia.

(Seriously, aren't we long past the time where Colon and Garcia should have turned into pumpkins?)
   10. Bug Selig Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:00 PM (#3885751)
Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, anyone is the best rotation of any AL team likely to make the playoffs.


Verlander, Jimenez, Shields, Scherzer. Oh, wait, those are still just rumors with about a 1% chance of EITHER happening? Someone should remind the Detroit radio wonks that getting Wilson Betemit to essentially not be Brandon Inge was the easy part.
   11. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:44 PM (#3885772)
Youk's always been an injury risk. The Sox would be well-served to have a quality 3B backup at all times.
   12. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:08 PM (#3885796)
(Seriously, aren't we long past the time where Colon and Garcia should have turned into pumpkins?)


The Sox' pattern of no-pitching, no-problem probably isn't sustainable, but the good news is that the Yankees reliance on The Fluke Skywalkers will probably burn them as well.

I suspect when September hits, it will be a three-way race again.
   13. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:14 PM (#3885800)
I'm not at all sold on Lackey, and I don't think the Red Sox should just expect to coast into the playoffs. They've played amazingly well thus far, but a few injuries, some slumps, some bad luck, or a strong showing by LA or Tampa, and the Red Sox are fighting for a playoff spot again. The Red Sox were in the same position at this point in 2006, and we know how that turned out.

Lackey's pitched fine in his last 3 games, but one was against a AAA lineup, one he gave up 10 hits in 5.2 innings, and the other was legitimately good start against an average hitting team. I won't believe Lackey's magically turned some corner until he faces a non-terrible team and doesn't get pummeled. The Red Sox are not a superteam - they're a very good team with some glaring problems that could catch up with them in a hurry, and I hope that the FO is pursuing whatever even marginal upgrades they can that won't hurt the team's future.
   14. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:29 PM (#3885848)
Even if you don't believe this team is better than the 2006 team there is a pretty major and basic difference between today and July 26, 2006 (when the Sox played their 100th game). At that time there were three teams closer to the Sox in the playoff chase (not including the divisional foe in New York) than there are today. Not only does the 2011 club have to decline but someone from the group of LA, Tampa and Cleveland has to rise up.

That is not impossible but right now the Angels are the only ones on a pace to exceed 86 wins and even they project for 86.5 wins so it's not like they are on pace to catch a Sox team that slips. I don't disagree that the Sox have flaws that could hurt them but last night was in fact a good night, not a bad night, with Lester looking sharp. The issue is simply becoming mathematical and the math works very very well for the Sox. There is enough head to head with Tampa, Cleveland and Chicago that something can go awry but the teams chasing them are running out of room for error.
   15. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:30 PM (#3885850)
Double Post
   16. Joel W Posted: July 26, 2011 at 09:50 PM (#3885909)
Just to spell out what Jose said:

The 2006 team at 61-39 had the pythagorean record of 57-43. The Yankees trailed them by 1.5, Toronto by 5.5, Chicago by 2, and Minnesota by 2. The 2011 team is 62-38 and has a pythagorean record of 63-37. The Yankees trail them by 2, LAA by 6.5, and Tampa by 9.5

If the Red Sox go 31-31 from here on out they have 93 wins. Tampa would have to go 40-21 from here on out to catch them. LAA would have to go 38-21 from here on out to catch them. Those are ridiculous records, and again, that would also include the Sox playing .500 ball the rest of the way. And it'd just be to tie.

There's a reason the Red Sox have such frighteningly good chances to make the playoffs, and that's because the combination of outcomes it would take for the Red Sox to miss the playoffs right now are extraordinary.

What are the glaring problems? Not just "wow they've been lousy here" but "going forward, compared to other contenders, the Red Sox really lack..." type problems.
   17. SG Posted: July 26, 2011 at 10:17 PM (#3885922)
There's a reason the Red Sox have such frighteningly good chances to make the playoffs, and that's because the combination of outcomes it would take for the Red Sox to miss the playoffs right now are extraordinary.


Yep. The schedule helps Boston a lot. The Yankees and Angels have six games remaining against each other, and the Yankees and Rays have eight games remaining against each other. So it's going to be just about impossible for all three to end the year with a better record than Boston. Especially since Boston has nine games remaining against the Yankees and will probably sweep them.
   18. villageidiom Posted: July 26, 2011 at 10:29 PM (#3885933)
What are the glaring problems? Not just "wow they've been lousy here" but "going forward, compared to other contenders, the Red Sox really lack..." type problems.
Going forward, compared to other contenders, the Red Sox really lack problems.
   19. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: July 26, 2011 at 10:40 PM (#3885939)
The 2006 team at 61-39 had the pythagorean record of 57-43. The Yankees trailed them by 1.5, Toronto by 5.5, Chicago by 2, and Minnesota by 2. The 2011 team is 62-38 and has a pythagorean record of 63-37. The Yankees trail them by 2, LAA by 6.5, and Tampa by 9.5


It's also worth noting that the Tigers were 6.5 games better than the Red Sox in 2006, which meant that if one of the Central teams had played .700 ball or something, the Sox would've been behind the Tigers for the wild card, even without the epic collapse. This year, the Sox are five better than Texas, so even if the Angels go bonkers in the last two months the Sox still have a cushion to work with there. The way it gets dicey is if it's the Rays running the table from here on out.
   20. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 10:41 PM (#3885940)
Boston has nine games remaining against the Yankees and will probably sweep them.


Get outside, turn around, and spit! You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?!
   21. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM (#3885998)
It just seems obvious to me that this team, in its fundamentals, is vastly superior to the 2006 team. Anything can happen, but this is the best team in baseball, and the fact that they've won when there have been injury problems suggests to me that they're as likely as not to overperform, not underperform, expectations at year's end.
   22. Joel W Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:31 PM (#3886549)
What Voxter said and what Village Idiom said, which was the point of my question. The biggest holes on the Red Sox in the first 101 games of the season were left and right, along with the starting pitcher injuries. The best upgrade on Carl Crawford sucking is Carl Crawford not sucking, and Josh Reddick seems to be doing just fine in Right as a replacement for Drew. Lester is back, Lackey is serviceable, and Buchholz is on the mend hopefully.
   23. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 27, 2011 at 05:40 PM (#3886682)
Get outside, turn around, and spit! You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?!


Pretty sure SG is a Yankee fan going for the reverse whammy.

The only concern I have with the Sox is the rotation. If Beckett goes down or Lester relapses, just how long can they keep winning games with 80% of the rotation being subpar?
   24. Joel W Posted: July 27, 2011 at 08:15 PM (#3886897)
SG is a Yankee fan who I think isn't going for reverse jinxes, but is bitter about the fact that the Sox have roughed the Yankees up so far this year.

The Red Sox can keep winning games with a crappy rotation as long as they continue to have the best lineup in the league by a wide margin. In July they gave up 4.4 runs per game, which is basically league average. It's just that they scored 6.7 runs per game in July. They're on pace to score 890 runs in a league where 715 runs will be average. I'm just going to keep saying it until it gets recognized a little: the Red Sox have a wRC+ of 122. An offense that is 22% better than the league as a whole hasn't happened since...the 1976 Cincinnati Reds who had a wRC+ of 123. The 2003 Red Sox and 1982 Brewers both were 121. The 2011 Red Sox are a historically great offense, so winning without pitching is to be expected.
   25. Nasty Nate Posted: July 27, 2011 at 09:24 PM (#3886963)
My nightmare is 2 of Miller/Lackey/Wakefield getting starts in a playoff series that the Sox are playing as a wildcard because they slipped in the standings due to bad starting pitching in August/September.
   26. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 27, 2011 at 09:45 PM (#3886985)
My nightmare is 2 of Miller/Lackey/Wakefield getting starts in a playoff series that the Sox are playing as a wildcard because they slipped in the standings due to bad starting pitching in August/September.


That would require an injury to one of Beckett, Lester or Buchholz. That could happen if the Sox finish 105-57 just as easily.
   27. Nasty Nate Posted: July 27, 2011 at 10:05 PM (#3887010)
Buchholz already has an injury!
   28. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: July 27, 2011 at 10:55 PM (#3887064)
Sox are trading for a starter - I'll bet one of the gold dust twins on it...
   29. Joel W Posted: July 27, 2011 at 11:12 PM (#3887081)
Your nightmare is the dream of 25 franchises. Enjoy the ride a bit, eh?
   30. Nasty Nate Posted: July 27, 2011 at 11:44 PM (#3887122)
Well, nightmare is a strong word, but I think you get my drift
   31. villageidiom Posted: July 28, 2011 at 01:46 PM (#3887450)
Reposting from yesterday's chatter... Here's their schedule the rest of the way, and a strawman forecast of their record in each series.

1 vs. KC (1-0)
3 at CHW (2-1)
4 vs. CLE (3-1)
3 vs. NYY (2-1)
3 at MIN (2-1)
3 at SEA (2-1)
3 vs. TB (2-1)
4 at KC (3-1)
4 at TEX (2-2)
3 vs OAK (2-1)
3 vs. NYY (2-1)
3 vs. TEX (2-1)
4 at TOR (3-1)
3 at TB (2-1)
2 vs. TOR (2-0)
4 vs. TB (3-1)
4 vs. BAL (4-0)
3 at NYY (1-2)
3 at BAL (2-1)

Subtotal: 42-18
Total: 106-56

Summarized differently...

* 5-4 against NYY the rest of the way, with 6 of the 9 at Fenway.
* 4-3 against Texas
* 7-3 against Tampa, with 6 of 9 at Fenway
* 5-1 against Toronto
* 9-4 against CLE, MIN, CHW, OAK.
* 12-3 in 15 more games against the O's, Royals, and Mariners.

And that gets them to 106 wins.

Now... For them to fail to win 100 games, they need to lose at least 7 more games than in the strawman above. Go through that schedule and find at least 7 more losses. One against Texas, one against Tampa, one against Toronto... maybe one against CLE/MIN/CHW/OAK... maybe one against the cellar dwellers?

I mean, it's plausible they don't get to 100; there certainly are many ways in which they can fail to get there. At this point, I'm not expecting it.
   32. Nasty Nate Posted: July 28, 2011 at 02:16 PM (#3887466)
Ellsbury and Pedroia combined July:

.418 batting average with 16 doubles, 3 triples, and 15 HR. (.772 SLG)

38 RBI and 48 runs in 43 games.

9 out of 10 SB

I guess that's how you win without pitching.
   33. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 28, 2011 at 02:44 PM (#3887494)
I think we need a starter... which F!@3ing blows, because we're supposed to have like 7.
We also need to fix the backend of the bullpen, and get the corner OF situation worked out.
   34. SoSH U at work Posted: July 28, 2011 at 02:54 PM (#3887502)
Subtotal: 42-18
Total: 106-56


Call me greedy, but I really want to see a Red Sox team win 100-plus games. I hope to hell Tito (and Theo) don't take their damn foot off the gas at the start of September.
   35. Joel W Posted: July 28, 2011 at 03:03 PM (#3887513)
@33 those are wants, and the corner outfield situation is as worked out as it's going to be.

36-24 for 100 wins seems pretty damn doable.
   36. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 28, 2011 at 03:39 PM (#3887551)
I don't think the corner OF situation needs to be worked out. Drew's in the last year of his contract, not playing well, and Reddick's up and playing well. Drew's a backup. There's nothing to be done about Crawford but hope he crawls out of his own butt eventually.

I agree it would be nice to land a starter, but who's available that's actually an upgrade and won't veto a trade?
   37. tfbg9 Posted: July 28, 2011 at 03:59 PM (#3887579)
There's nothing to be done about Crawford but hope he crawls out of his own butt eventually.


Well, he's not in the lineup this afternoon: strained left elbow; they gave him a cortisone shot. "Hopes to play tomorrow."

And meanwhile, the Bucholz situation seems kinda ominous...Bedard anybody?
   38. Nasty Nate Posted: July 28, 2011 at 04:05 PM (#3887589)
I agree it would be nice to land a starter, but who's available that's actually an upgrade and won't veto a trade?


Almost everyone is an upgrade over Wake and Miller.
   39. Dan Posted: July 28, 2011 at 09:21 PM (#3887917)
I think the Sox need to trade for a guy like Bedard or Harden. I'd prefer Bedard since he's a lefty, but either would be nice.
   40. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: July 28, 2011 at 10:08 PM (#3887948)
The only concern I have with the Sox is the rotation. If Beckett goes down or Lester relapses, just how long can they keep winning games with 80% of the rotation being subpar?

After yesterday's game, the Sox have gotten 50 starts from pitchers who aren't Lester, Beckett, or Buchholz so far this year. The starters in those games (Wakefield, Lackey, Matsuzaka, Miller, Weiland, and Aceves) are posting a joint ERA of 5.65 (with an RA of 6.17), a WHIP of 1.55, a K/BB ratio of about 1.4.

The Red Sox are 30-20 in these games.

In other words: What Joel W said in #24.
   41. RobertMachemer Posted: July 28, 2011 at 11:09 PM (#3887972)
In July, the Red Sox have scored roughly 6.9 runs a game.
   42. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: July 29, 2011 at 12:00 AM (#3887994)
No to Bedard. I'd rather see them get Fister.
   43. RobertMachemer Posted: July 29, 2011 at 12:19 AM (#3888002)
Not including today's game, the Red Sox have scored 5.56 runs per game in a league that is averaging 4.33 runs per game. The lowered run environment is hiding how good this offense is.

Adjusting their RPG to a 4.33 RPG context, here's how the Red Sox offenses of the last ten years look...

2011: 5.56 RPG
2010: 4.91 RPG
2009: 4.83 RPG
2008: 4.73 RPG
2007: 4.73 RPG
2006: 4.41 RPG
2005: 5.11 RPG
2004: 5.06 RPG
2003: 5.28 RPG
2002: 4.77 RPG

Relative to league average scoring, this is the best Red Sox offense in recent memory.

I'll keep looking, but it would surprise me if there's been a better Red Sox offense since the 70s (and possibly not since the 1950s).
   44. chris p Posted: July 29, 2011 at 12:46 AM (#3888011)
I'll keep looking, but it would surprise me if there's been a better Red Sox offense since the 70s (and possibly not since the 1950s).

a couple weeks ago my brother mentioned that this offense, relative to league average, is as good as any offense since the 1927 yankees. they're better than the 1999 cleveland team that scored 1009 runs (6.23/5.18) * 4.33 = 5.21. at least that's what i think he was saying.
   45. RobertMachemer Posted: July 29, 2011 at 12:53 AM (#3888015)
Here are the Red Sox teams that score above 5.00 RPG, adjusted to a 4.33 RPG context...

2011: 5.56 RPG
2005: 5.11 RPG
2004: 5.06 RPG
2003: 5.28 RPG

There's then a gap -- 1988 narrowly misses the cut: adjusted to 2011, they scored 4.99 RPG

1981: 5.12 RPG
1978: 5.03 RPG
1977: 5.10 RPG
1975: 5.00 RPG
1972: 5.15 RPG
1970: 5.04 RPG
1967: 5.22 RPG

Another gap. Then the team I suspected would beat out the current team...

1950: 5.73 RPG (This team averaged 6.67 RPG in a league that averaged 5.04 RPG).
1949: 5.36 RPG
1948: 5.37 RPG
1946: 5.42 RPG
1944: 5.02 RPG
1942: 5.09 RPG
1941: 5.10 RPG

Then another gap.

1912: 5.05 RPG
1903: 5.30 RPG

So, um, there you have it. Thus far, the 2011 Red Sox have... well, the second-best offense in team history (so far), relative to the run-scoring environment in which they play.

Top ten Red Sox offenses of all-time, relative to their scoring environment (adjusted to the current 4.33 RPG environment):

1) 1950: 5.73 RPG
2) 2011: 5.56 RPG
3) 1946: 5.42 RPG
4) 1948: 5.37 RPG
5) 1949: 5.36 RPG
6) 1903: 5.30 RPG
7) 2003: 5.28 RPG
8) 1967: 5.22 RPG
9) 1972: 5.15 RPG
10) 2005: 5.11 RPG

I, for one, was surprised to see the 1903, 1967, and 1972 teams on this list.
   46. RobertMachemer Posted: July 29, 2011 at 01:06 AM (#3888022)
a couple weeks ago my brother mentioned that this offense, relative to league average, is as good as any offense since the 1927 yankees.
You can tell him that the 1950 Red Sox were better than this team (at least so far). Dunno if other teams from other years have been better or not. If someone else wants to crunch the numbers, I'd love to see them; if not, I'll probably fiddle with them later tonight.
   47. chris p Posted: July 29, 2011 at 01:15 AM (#3888025)
the 27 yankees scored 6.3 runs per game in a 4.92 run per game environment. 4.33*6.3/4.92 = 5.54. so that's right about what this red sox team is doing, but there are some other teams out there who hit a little better ...
   48. RobertMachemer Posted: July 29, 2011 at 01:20 AM (#3888027)
I'm looking... and haven't found a AL offense that was better since 1989... but, to be fair, I'm using raw RPG, which hurts good offensive teams in crappy offensive environments. A late-80s Oakland team might have been better but obscured by the fact that their park supressed run scoring.
   49. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: July 29, 2011 at 03:27 AM (#3888055)
Baseball is a funny game, innit? The Red Sox lose Lester v. Davies and Beckett v. Hochevar but win the games started by Lackey and Miller.
   50. Darren Posted: July 29, 2011 at 04:09 AM (#3888064)
According to Robothal, the Sox are after Bedard:


SOSH Robo-Bedard Thread
   51. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: July 29, 2011 at 06:09 AM (#3888091)
I'm looking... and haven't found a AL offense that was better since 1989... but, to be fair, I'm using raw RPG, which hurts good offensive teams in crappy offensive environments. A late-80s Oakland team might have been better but obscured by the fact that their park supressed run scoring.


If the Sox maintain their 121 OPS+, it will be the highest team OPS+ since the 1931 Yankees.
   52. Dan Posted: July 29, 2011 at 07:58 PM (#3888503)
Would Chiang + a minor league arm be enough to snag half a season of Bedard? Maybe I'm way off, but I think that price might be reasonable.
   53. Dan Posted: July 30, 2011 at 07:28 PM (#3889077)
Red Sox have acquired IF Mike Aviles for Yamaico Navarro and P Kendal Volz

I'm not sure that I see the point of this trade. Lowrie just started a rehab assignment, so either they want to have 2 backup infielders who can play anywhere on the IF or one of these guys is going somewhere else in a trade.
   54. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 30, 2011 at 07:41 PM (#3889080)
I think/hope Aviles is an upgrade over Navarro. I wouldn't be surprised if Lowrie isn't back until September 1. I feel like giving up Volz is one piece too many (decent minor league numbers) but in truth none of the players involved in this one are likely to mean anything.
   55. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: July 30, 2011 at 08:32 PM (#3889097)
Pete Abraham tweets that the Sox want to try Aviles in the OF, with an eye towards 2012.

He is arb eligible for the first time after this season.
   56. tfbg9 Posted: July 31, 2011 at 02:26 AM (#3889366)
He hits lefties .807 career...maybe he can play OF this year in place of DMcD, who totally blows?
   57. Joel W Posted: August 01, 2011 at 03:31 PM (#3890262)
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1032952

This comes via Stephen Goldman, in re our discussion of the best offenses. So, uh, yeah, they're very good.
   58. Joel W Posted: August 26, 2011 at 08:01 PM (#3909815)
Just an update on this. Sox slumped a bit, and are now behind the Yankees in wRC+ and tAV. The Yankees, after yesterday's explosion, now have one of the best offenses of all time, and are 5th overall since 1950 according to Prospectus. The Sox are 7th. Fangraphs has the spread at 121 and 118 wRC+, so I guess they have a stronger adjustment for Fenway than BPro.
   59. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: September 22, 2011 at 04:26 AM (#3932844)
I posted elsewhere on Youk but I'll say it again. I think the Sox have to start considering third base options as the deadline approaches. Youk has been battling injuries all year and I fear that this is going to be a Mike Lowell circa 2008 situation where October will roll around and his body will just throw up the white flag and say "no mas" and we'll pin our hopes on Yamaico Navarro.


Saw this thread on the ST bar and figured I'd check it out. I'm patting myself on the back a bit here for my forecast but more importantly in a year when they have had many things fail spectacularly that Mike Aviles acquisition has been pretty good, he's got an .849 OPS with the Sox.

Of course if you could ignore the many many stupid things I've said in other threads, that would be sensational.
   60. Dale Sams Posted: September 22, 2011 at 04:59 AM (#3932861)
And that gets them to 106 wins.

Now... For them to fail to win 100 games, they need to lose at least 7 more games than in the strawman above. Go through that schedule and find at least 7 more losses. One against Texas, one against Tampa, one against Toronto... maybe one against CLE/MIN/CHW/OAK... maybe one against the cellar dwellers?

I mean, it's plausible they don't get to 100; there certainly are many ways in which they can fail to get there. At this point, I'm not expecting it


I got the rope...
   61. rr Posted: September 22, 2011 at 05:26 AM (#3932866)
25. Nasty Nate Posted: July 27, 2011 at 05:24 PM (#3886963)
My nightmare is 2 of Miller/Lackey/Wakefield getting starts in a playoff series that the Sox are playing as a wildcard because they slipped in the standings due to bad starting pitching in August/September.


___

Gotta give NN some props for this, IMO.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5703 seconds
60 querie(s) executed