[shepard50]

It seems to be happening organically in about 6 threads, so I thought I'd start one thread for the purpose of funneling all the hindsight.

The season is over, the stats are static, nothing can change for the 2009 Red Sox.

Tell us, what were their strengths, their flaws? Did they overachieve or underachieve? Were they built too precisely for Fenway Park? Did the front office take too many gambles on reclamation projects? Why did players who struggled in Boston seem to excel the minute they put on a new uniform? What this an element of coaching, of inferior competition elsewhere? Is it, as has been suggested a lot in the last 24 hours all about Mark Teixeira? Or were Hank and Leigh in bed form the beginning? This was the SIOSH season if the elephant in the room. Name him, once and for all.

How will YOU summarise this season and this team?

This post has been edited by shepard50: 12 October 2009 - 05:25 AM

[CaptainLaddie]

Repost this without being able to choose every single option...

[shepard50]

Got it, thanks!

[CaptainLaddie]

I think it's a great idea I just hate when polls get ruined because people like to mess them up.

[OCD SS]

In question 3, it really seems to me that the first and second answers are the same. Teixeira was the only FA really worth spending on. The next tier was very weak, and not much above the retread level (at least at the positions the Sox were looking for).

[Frisbetarian]

Team defense was a big problem with this team all season, and the playoffs were like a microcosm of the year. In yesterday's game we saw Bay not cut off a ball going into the corner allowing Hunter to easily get to 2nd - he may have made it anyway, but it sure looked like a ball Bay could have gotten to - followed by Guerrero hitting a ground (double play?) ball off Mike Lowell's glove at 3rd. Later in the game, an Abreau "double" off Youkilis' glove was followed by a walk, Morales then hit a double play ball to Pedroia that should have ended the inning but instead left runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs. In came Papelbon, and that was that.

Bay missed a cut-off man yesterday in the 9th. as well, and you all know how I love that.

[Worst Trade Evah]

Can whoever voted for biggest flaw as "Francona Game Managing" please step forward and justify your vote? My reflex response is that you have to be an idiot, but I guess I should see the argument first.

[esfr]

I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more discussion about the lack of leadership on the '09 edition of the Sox. Varitek's inability to play at a MLB-level not only hurt the team in the field but it effectively took away one of the team's key leaders. I'm generally a supporter of Tito (though more so of Playoff Tito than the other guy) but he is obviously is more of a "steady hand on the tiller" style manager than he is an "in your face ready to play"...I'm not complaining about Tito's approach but I think it fatal not to realize it goes hand-in-hand with strong player leadership. From early in the season it appeared to me the season was searching for a heartbeat - Sox lost (or effectively lost due to injury or severe decline of play) 4-5 guys who as far as we the fans know provided that role - 'Tek, Schilling, Papi, Lowell (I'm reaching), and even Paps wasn't a leader out in the pen... Many of the guys who have recently been added to the mix don't compensate for the losses above - Drew (enough said), Bay (nice player but seems pretty reserved), Youk (firey guy but no way players look up to him), Pedroia (maybe), Victor (could be but not this past year).

I know there is not a statistic to back this up but the preponderance of circumstantial evidence - road woes - nights off - big lead meltdowns - losing streaks - suggest that the club lacked some leadership. An even more esoteric observation that supports this notion is that virtually non of the players that passed thru the organization and on to other rosters peaked during their tenure here in '09 and in fact most found real success elsewhere. As I mentioned before, I don't fault Tito entirely here, but i do think his style of management exacerbated the void this year and we ended up with a team that lacked a little fire...

[John DiFool]

I chose "age" over "road offense" because I believe the former is largely to blame for the latter (but not wholly). In Fenway your road offense is almost always going to be inferior, but our 3 oldest guys (Paps, Lowell, Tek) all saw their slugging percentages drop horribly on the road, 100-160 points each. It seems older players tend to have larger home field advantages (check out Mel Ott, who at age 34 had 18 homers in the Polo Grounds-and zero on the road). This isn't to take the heat off of the likes of Pedroia (whose for his career is hitting almost 50 points higher at home), but age is more worrisome to me. "Defense" should have been an option for #2 tho-but again age is much to blame for that as well.

I also chose "farm system" for the first option-for all that we've heard about what a great system we supposedly have, no position players have come up in the last two years and done much (Jed has, but only when healthy). It can't continue to keep coasting on its press releases-sooner or later it's got to put up or shut up. When cracks appeared in our lineup, nobody down there was able to fill in. I'll give it Clay and Bard tho of course.

This post has been edited by John DiFool: 12 October 2009 - 08:47 AM

[syoo8]

We haven't hit this poorly on the road in a while.

2009 Home: 365/498/862
2009 Away: 340/414/753

2008 Home: 356/451/807
2008 Away: 360/442/802

2007 Home: 379/465/844
2007 Away: 344/424/768

2006 Home: 360/448/809
2006 Away: 341/422/763

2005 Home: 361/459/821
2005 Away: 352/450/802

2004 Home: 378/504/883
2004 Away: 342/441/783

2003 Home: 392/527/919
2003 Away: 328/456/783


Which factors contribute to the home/road split in offense? Why was it so pronounced, for example, in 2003 (when the RS had a team OPS of 919 at home) versus negligible last year?

My question for the board: does the character factor come into play here-- specifically, the "lifestyle" choices of our ballplayers on the road vs. home?

[Unbearable Lightness]

I also chose "farm system" for the first option-for all that we've heard about what a great system we supposedly have, no position players have come up in the last two years and done much (Jed has, but only when healthy).

Is that really a fair way for assessing a farm system? Almost reads like purposely myopic to fit a particular view.

[Cuzittt]

I also chose "farm system" for the first option-for all that we've heard about what a great system we supposedly have, no position players have come up in the last two years and done much (Jed has, but only when healthy). It can't continue to keep coasting on its press releases-sooner or later it's got to put up or shut up. When cracks appeared in our lineup, nobody down there was able to fill in. I'll give it Clay and Bard tho of course.

When you change directions in how you draft (which the Red Sox did a few seasons ago - Changing from primarily drafting college players to primarily drafting prep schoolers)... you are very likely to have gaps in production.

That being said... The system is close to bringing up new players, especially in the OF (Reddick, Kalish, Lin as the primary suspects) and Catcher (Wagner (defensively)). They fielded young players everywhere except Pawtucket. The Farm System (as a whole) was not a problem.

Pawtucket was a problem... although that may be more due to injuries than anything else. But, on the other hand, the Red Sox really didn't look to Pawtucket for much offensively. They brought up Bailey and Carter at various points. They brought up Van Every early in the season and Reddick late in the seaon. They could have used some depth at middle infielder... but the Sox took Green from Pawtucket before he even played there. Lowrie was injured... the rest was dreck.

You don't look to your farm system to find an immediate replacement for someone like David Ortiz crashing hard to the ground. No team has that player lying around in AAA.

[irinmike]

Well I beg to differ but I watched many AA games this summer in Portland, and with the disappearance of Lars Anderson, and the other every day players being mediocre at best, the talent you speak of must be at the single A level because it does not appear to be there at the triple or double A level right now.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

I went with the 25-man roster and picked "other" for the difference-make because I thought the team defense was the biggest weakness all year, and this could have been better addressed on the 25.

When it became clear that Lowrie was not going to be an option for an extended period, the shortstop position needed to be addressed much more quickly. Getting A-Gon was great, but it needed to happen 40 games earlier. His steadying affect seemed obvious to me. It seemed to be just wishful thinking on Theo's part that the triumvirate of Lowrie-Lugo-Green would be sufficient.

Similarly, Lowell's disastrous defense mid-season took forever to address with a Kotchman type player that could move Youk over. Lowell wasn't spelled early in the season because there wasn't a good option for spelling him. This led to a further breakdown.

In the outfield, agreeing with Fris, Bay has been an abomination - I'd take Manny over him any day, despite Manny's brain lapses. I'm not really arguing for a late-game defensive substitution, but I think an elite defensive outfield would have been nice over Kotsay or the too-oft-injured Baldelli, who lived up to both of his billings: he looked great against lefties, but couldn't stay healthy.

I think the team needs to get more athletic. Maybe that means younger.

[Cuzittt]

Well I beg to differ but I watched many AA games this summer in Portland, and with the disappearance of Lars Anderson, and the other every day players being mediocre at best, the talent you speak of must be at the single A level because it does not appear to be there at the triple or double A level right now.

You can't look at teams... you look at players.

The problem with Portland... is that all the good players in the first half of the year got promoted (Reddick, Wagner, Bates) or came up late in the season (Exposito, Nava). The only players that were there for a full season who were pretty good were Kalish (.271/.341/.440) and Jimenez (.289/.366/.422 - but poor defensively).

And, yes, Ryan Kalish is a real talent. And, yes, the Portland team as a whole was young (1 year younger on offense than league average).

[amarshal2]

I also chose "farm system" for the first option-for all that we've heard about what a great system we supposedly have, no position players have come up in the last two years and done much (Jed has, but only when healthy). It can't continue to keep coasting on its press releases-sooner or later it's got to put up or shut up. When cracks appeared in our lineup, nobody down there was able to fill in. I'll give it Clay and Bard tho of course.

So, except for Clay Buchholz and Dan Bard nobody came up and established themselves this year? That's their #3 playoff starter and their #3 bullpen option (and frankly, he's #2 on most every other team in baseball). How many teams in baseball did better than that? How many playoff teams did better? I think that's no worse than middle of the pack for playoff teams and certainly better than most non-playoff teams. I think any year where you have 2 players establish themselves as integral parts to a playoff team the farm system has had a successful year.

no position players have come up in the last two years and done much

Technically, 2008 was Jacoby's rookie season.

The thing is, I think this is going to be a legitimate gripe in a year or two. I just don't think it's legitimate right now. The farm has not produced a dynamic/impact positional talent since Youkilis or Pedroia (ignoring Hanley), which is fine since it has churned out the players we just mentioned. However, Reddick, Kalish, and Lowrie project more as above average regulars (as a likely ceiling) and Anderson took a big step back. The next guy after Anderson who really has a chance to be an impact positonal player is Ryan Westmoreland, but he's years away. In other words, I think there's an opening for criticism here, but I don't think we're there yet.

The front office knows this and they can mitigate this problem with a big trade. If they can bring in an All-Star quality player by trading a couple above average regulars the farm system will have done its job.

[kmueller]

I was the other one who voted for Farm System. The contributions this year were OK, but I voted because I think it is currently the weakest part of the organization moving forward.

I can't credit the farm with Clay this year (2007, yes). Bard was certainly a success this year, but other call ups were on the wrong side of mediocre (Kottaras, Reddick, Bowden, Tazawa).

Looking into 2010, I don't see a lot to feel too confident about either. Lars Anderson did not make much progress this year in Portland, Wagner did not make a great jump to the International League. Other prospects worth noting had either unproductive seasons in Portland/Pawtucket, or had decent seasons in Greenville or Lowell, hence unlikely they will make an impact in 2010.

[David Laurila]

Well I beg to differ but I watched many AA games this summer in Portland, and with the disappearance of Lars Anderson, and the other every day players being mediocre at best, the talent you speak of must be at the single A level because it does not appear to be there at the triple or double A level right now.

I beg to differ with your beg to differ. Four players who began the season in Portland made their big league debuts this summer, two pitchers and two position players. One of those position players, Josh Reddick, may go into next year rated as the top prospect in the organization. If he doesn't, another Portland outfielder, Ryan Kalish will likely get that nod. Add in the fact that Anderson, Exposito and Wagner all have a better than even chance to play in the big leagues some day, and a few others have a shot, this wasn't a team devoid of talent. The 2005 Sea Dogs team that featured a boatload of future big league stars was an anomaly, not what can be reasonably expected.

[amarshal2]

I was the other one who voted for Farm System. The contributions this year were OK, but I voted because I think it is currently the weakest part of the organization moving forward.

I can't credit the farm with Clay this year (2007, yes). Bard was certainly a success this year, but other call ups were on the wrong side of mediocre (Kottaras, Reddick, Bowden, Tazawa).

Looking into 2010, I don't see a lot to feel too confident about either. Lars Anderson did not make much progress this year in Portland, Wagner did not make a great jump to the International League. Other prospects worth noting had either unproductive seasons in Portland/Pawtucket, or had decent seasons in Greenville or Lowell, hence unlikely they will make an impact in 2010.

This was a poll about the 2009 Boston Red Sox, so I don't think your answer is valid.

I also think your reasoning is all wrong. If you don't credit Clay for 2009 then what would you have said in 2007? "The farm system was great this year because Clay Buchholz is going to establish himself in 2009?" Clay had virtually no impact on the 2007 team and was left off the post-season roster. If this is your logic then you need to give them credit for players like Tazawa and Reddick who could be real contributors in the future.

This post has been edited by amarshal2: 12 October 2009 - 09:55 AM

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

If this is your logic then you need to give them credit for players like Tazawa and Reddick who could be real contributors in the future.

I've got to second this. What exactly did people expect out of Tazawa? I don't think anyone in the organization foresaw a situation where he pitched in the bigs this year. He had a great minor league season, showed some flashes of being a back-of-the rotation innings eater with great control and composure, and showed me some balls of steel after being absolutely thrown to the wolves in his debut against the Yanks.

To call him the wrong side of mediocre is crazy talk. Maybe for his actual on-field performance you could call him less than mediocre, but relative to most teams' number 10 starter, I think he did alright.