34 replies to this topic

[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?

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.

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.

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.

[Detts]

Mark and Leigh Teixeira were never coming to the Red Sox.

Regards

[TomRicardo]

They had too many bad contracts. Lowell, Lugo, Ortiz, and Varitek. There was only so much they could do to move around the dead weight. Ortiz on his own would have been fine but the bench got every thin behind him.

The defense was terrible. Ellsbury looked like he was regressing and Bay, Lugo, Varitek, and Lowell were abortions on the field. Victor Martinez was poor and there were time Youkilis looked lost at third. Only Drew, Adrian Gonzalez, and Pedroia looked good come the end of the season.

[kmueller]

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.

I agree with you. For an emergency call up, he did have a couple of games where I thought he showed signs of being a major league pitcher. I have real hope for him in the future.

The question, I thought, was what is the weakest part of the organization right now. Based on the contributions of the farm system to the team, I voted for it. I was further supported in my opinion based on the fact I don't see many (<1) all stars sitting in Pawtucket or Portland right now.

Clay's success should be given to "Coaching", not farm system development. Splitting hairs really, but he was developed by the farm system and ready to go, in the FO opinion in Sept. 07 and spring 08. He needed more coaching to reach his potential in July 09.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

For the first two options I went with the 25 man roster and the road offense, which are obviously tied together. For whatever reason, this team just didn't hit as well on the road and it was a big enough difference that it cost them the series against the Angels. They simply could not put runs on the board in LA. For all the strengths of the offense, they simply couldn't figure out how to do it away from Fenway.

The tougher answer for me was number three. I don't know where they could have improved the lineup to have fixed the road hitting since I'm pretty convinced we were never actually going to land Teixeira. The only thing I can think of that was feasible that might have had an impact on the way the season finished up and maybe even the playoffs was picking up a front line starter at the deadline. Since I don't think Halladay was realistic, I'm thinking specifically of Cliff Lee. Maybe having him in the lineup allows the Sox to win a couple of games against the Yankees down the stretch or even challenge them for the division.

But really, the problem with the 25 man roster wasn't something that was all that fixable this season, so I don't think anything was really going to change the end result. This team has some old players that they committed to. Some of them got hurt, some of them simply sucked early in the year, some of them didn't live up to expectations. Hopefully they can address some of these things for 2010. An upgrade at a corner infield spot, an upgrade in the rotation, maybe even an upgrade at DH if something becomes available. With a weak free agent class, this will likely have to be done via trades, though. So I'm not holding my breath.

[Unbearable Lightness]

Clay's success should be given to "Coaching", not farm system development. Splitting hairs really, but he was developed by the farm system and ready to go, in the FO opinion in Sept. 07 and spring 08. He needed more coaching to reach his potential in July 09.

Isn't "coaching" part of development? And the second part is not comprehensible.

[czar]

The defense was terrible. Ellsbury looked like he was regressing and Bay, Lugo, Varitek, and Lowell were abortions on the field. Victor Martinez was poor and there were time Youkilis looked lost at third. Only Drew, Adrian Gonzalez, and Pedroia looked good come the end of the season.

This can't be hammered home enough.

The Sox were 4th to last in DER, and had the biggest dropoff in the majors from 2008 to 2009. Below average UZR, tied for the lowest RF/9 in MLB as a whole. Pretty much the only fielding metric where they weren't below league average was-- widely accepted as possibly the worst one out there-- fielding %. Also, (I don't have time to run spreadsheets now) but in the Buchholz thread I noted that the GB BABIP was a good deal higher for the Sox than MLB average-- this could be partly the field conditions as discussed by Pedroia, but more than likely, the absolute utter lack of range on the left side of the infield for half a season.

And while the road offense might have been weaker than in year's past, but you can certainly make an argument the Sox were the 2nd or 3rd best (granted, distantly behind NYY) offense in baseball. Yeah, they ultimately lost because they couldn't score runs against Lackey and Weaver, but other than the occasional cold stretch during the season; this wasn't the glaring problem stopping us from being the 2nd best team in baseball.

Edited by czar, 12 October 2009 - 10:50 AM.

[John DiFool]

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

Just quoting the facts-this system has been a bit weak on feeding position players to the majors since Ells came up for good in fall of '07, for whatever reasons (Cuzitt outlined some possibly valid ones). If our farm system is so good, eventually potential has to be replaced with production-it can't coast on reputation indefinitely. Reddick is high on their list of course, but showed only occasional flashes in his short stints with the big club.

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.

No, but if this farm system was as talented as everybody says it is, sooner or later it should start to produce some star players to replace the older ones lost to FA and age. I'm patient, don't get me wrong, I'm not down on Reddick or Wagner or anyone in particular, but more often than not when promote a guy it seems he regresses or something, rather than kicking it up another notch, which makes me think they aren't as good as the BA list, or Sox Prospects list, says they are. [Thumbs up to Exposito, which I've been on record here before as being high on, but let's see how he does over a longer stretch first]

Edited by John DiFool, 12 October 2009 - 02:01 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Just quoting the facts-this system has been a bit weak on feeding position players to the majors since Ells came up for good in fall of '07, for whatever reasons (Cuzitt outlined some possibly valid ones). If our farm system is so good, eventually potential has to be replaced with production-it can't coast on reputation indefinitely. Reddick is high on their list of course, but showed only occasional flashes in his short stints with the big club.

No, but if this farm system was as talented as everybody says it is, sooner or later it should start to produce some star players to replace the older ones lost to FA and age. I'm patient, don't get me wrong, I'm not down on Reddick or Wagner or anyone in particular, but more often than not when promote a guy it seems he regresses or something, rather than kicking it up another notch, which makes me think they aren't as good as the BA list, or Sox Prospects list, says they are. [Thumbs up to Exposito, which I've been on record here before as being high on, but let's see how he does over a longer stretch first]

So your argument is that because they haven't promoted a star since Ellsbury (the same year Pedroia came up and won the Rookie of the Year award, then went on to win an MVP the following year) that the farm system is a weakness? 2008 was really the year Ellsbury started to come through and he didn't become a real impact player until this season. But aside from him, Lester didn't become a real fixture here until 2008 and continued to be dominant in 2009. Buchholz came up in 2007, spent part of 2008 up and didn't really start to come around until he was called up this season. Daniel Bard was a pretty big deal in the bullpen this year and will continue to develop in the coming seasons.

Point is, the team has had a steady stream of talent coming from the farm system and making an impact at the major league level. But it doesn't happen over night. None of the star players on the roster who were developed here just showed up and started dominating right away. Well, aside from Papelbon, who is the exception to the rule. It takes time for players to acclimate and become stars. The fact that we can point to Ellsbury, Pedroia, Youkilis, Papelbon and Lester from the last five or so years means this farm system is at least as good as we think it is. If we go two or three years without another impact player showing up, you can start complaining about the farm system. But as it stands it looks like Buchholz and maybe even Bard will be keeping that stream of players flowing for now.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 12 October 2009 - 02:43 PM.

[Carmen Fanzone]

Could some of our more statistically-minded folks disabuse me of the notion that building a lineup largely around - for simplicity's sake - grinding out OBP might be fine for the regular season, but is a flawed concept for the post season?

I get that, over time, if you just get enough guys on base you'll eventually score runs. I understand the deep lineup concept, and loved the idea of Drew in the 8 hole, for instance. But doesn't all that rely on a very large (season-long) sample size? Can a team afford that luxury when the first step in the postseason is winning a short series?

I look at the offense and don't see a stretch in the lineup where the opposing pitcher says to himself "oh, shit.. the next two guys could take me deep and end this game" as opposed to "the next two guys could get on base and they might get a rally started." Maybe you can convince me that a deep lineup of good hitters is better than two mashers, five good hitters and two competent pros over a given 3-5 game stretch. Maybe I was spoiled by the Manny/Ortiz years and we'll never see the likes of it again, so I'm being unrealistic.

This lineup didn't seem to strike fear into opposing pitchers at any point as much as it was designed to exhaust them. Maybe you'll tell me that, mathematically, there's no "fear factor" that can be quantified and, therefore, none exists. But I had this feeling that the lineup could be pitched to moreso than in the past.

Am I wrong?

[Rudy Pemberton]

The Red Sox had a very strong middle of the lineup. Youks, Bay, and even Drew were among the best offensive players in the league. Anything can happen in a tfive game series. That is your story folks. It happened to the '05 Sox, a great offensive club, as well as the 07 Yankees. You can't build a team guaranteed to win any one series, unfortunately.

[Seels]

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.

I didn't, but I was strongly considering it. I think as opposed to how he usually is, it was one of the biggest fatal flaws in the post season, and in the last few weeks of the season. I thought there was a big difference between Tito of this year and Tito of 04-08, and it was just magnified by the results.

But even Tito being a perfect manager wouldn't have changed the contributions of Ortiz / Varitek / Daisuke / Lugo / Penny / Smoltz.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Could some of our more statistically-minded folks disabuse me of the notion that building a lineup largely around - for simplicity's sake - grinding out OBP might be fine for the regular season, but is a flawed concept for the post season?

I get that, over time, if you just get enough guys on base you'll eventually score runs. I understand the deep lineup concept, and loved the idea of Drew in the 8 hole, for instance. But doesn't all that rely on a very large (season-long) sample size? Can a team afford that luxury when the first step in the postseason is winning a short series?

I look at the offense and don't see a stretch in the lineup where the opposing pitcher says to himself "oh, shit.. the next two guys could take me deep and end this game" as opposed to "the next two guys could get on base and they might get a rally started." Maybe you can convince me that a deep lineup of good hitters is better than two mashers, five good hitters and two competent pros over a given 3-5 game stretch. Maybe I was spoiled by the Manny/Ortiz years and we'll never see the likes of it again, so I'm being unrealistic.

This lineup didn't seem to strike fear into opposing pitchers at any point as much as it was designed to exhaust them. Maybe you'll tell me that, mathematically, there's no "fear factor" that can be quantified and, therefore, none exists. But I had this feeling that the lineup could be pitched to moreso than in the past.

Am I wrong?

It's going back a bit, but I don't think the 96-01 Yankees possessed any of those "oh shit" sluggers in the heart of their order. They utilized a deep lineup of OBP guys grinding out at bats and rallies just as the Red Sox desire to do. Those teams did okay in the post-season.

Tino Martinez was their biggest threat in the heart of that order, but even he only exceeded the 30 HR plateau twice in that stretch (41 in '97, 34 in '01). Only one other player got to 30 in those six years: Bernie Williams with 30 in 2000. Neither one would fit into a conversation about fear-inducing sluggers on the level of '03-'07 vintage Ortiz and Ramirez.

I imagine there are more examples for the more stat-inclined to bring up. But that's the one that jumped immediately to mind. Probably should be noted that those teams also possessed a strong pitching staff to compliment the lineup. In fact, I'd imagine that those Yankee teams are the prototype for what Theo envisions for the Red Sox.

[shepard50]

OPS is a better determinant to RS than pure OBP because it takes into account doubles, triple and HRs. I don't pretend to be an expert on this but there is an interesting article on Hardball Times about run estimation:

Harball Times: The great run estimator shootout Pt. I

[John DiFool]

Point is, the team has had a steady stream of talent coming from the farm system and making an impact at the major league level. But it doesn't happen over night. None of the star players on the roster who were developed here just showed up and started dominating right away. Well, aside from Papelbon, who is the exception to the rule. It takes time for players to acclimate and become stars. The fact that we can point to Ellsbury, Pedroia, Youkilis, Papelbon and Lester from the last five or so years means this farm system is at least as good as we think it is. If we go two or three years without another impact player showing up, you can start complaining about the farm system. But as it stands it looks like Buchholz and maybe even Bard will be keeping that stream of players flowing for now.

My argument is that I am worried that your scenario in your penultimate sentence may be about to come true, and, except for Jed and his balky wrist, it has been (for non-pitchers) true since Ells came up for good 2 years ago. Am I not allowed to express concern about this until after the fact? Yes, I am most certainly not ignoring the B & B Boys, and I have been one of Clay's most ardent fans, after so many wrote him off after '08, and no, I'm not doing a 180 on that and writing any of the farm kids off-yet. But I am a bit perturbed that nobody seems ready to step in next spring for any of our aging lineup guys, putting Theo in the position of hoping one of them catches fire during the 1st half (something, I'll note, I dearly hope happens, be it Wagner, Reddick, or whoever).

[Snodgrass'Muff]

You can't expect a positional player per year to step in. That's just not realistic. And it's not the least bit credible if you're trying to argue that farm system is over rated. There were a lot of people who thought very little of Dustin Pedroia before 2007... or even two months into the 2007 season. There were even more who doubted Lester would ever be anything special. Plenty have doubted Clay would ever be an impact pitcher (myself included) and Ellsbury has had his share of detractors, too. Hell, even Youks had more than his share of doubters who didn't think he'd ever amount to much.

Just because you don't see the next obvious impact player, that doesn't mean they're not there. And no, you're absolutely allowed to wonder... but making statements like you don't think the farm system is as good as BA rated it simply because you don't see an obvious candidate for that next big promotion is a bit disingenuous. Especially considering the success this front office has had in developing and promoting players since it got here.

Never mind the fact that the farm system brought us Victor Martinez as a replacement for Tek this season...