Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

Sox pitchers drank in the dugout?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
213 replies to this topic

#151 NomarRS05

  • 3263 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:03 PM

EDIT: I would also add that the effort ti understand that kind of complexity is the reason I came to this board in the first place and have stayed on here for nearly a decade now. I feel like we're getting away from that right now, though I suppose to an extent it's understandable.


The 1986 Mets and 2004 Red Sox were well-conditioned enough not to fall apart and therefore had success (in the case of the 1986 Mets, the rest of the league may also not have been as fitness-focused as it is today). The problem a lot of us are having with the beer stories are that they point to a larger lack of conditioning and focus that dogged this team. The ex-manager, ex-GM and now players have all alluded to the fact that the players could have been in better physical shape.

Did we ever hear those stories about the 86 Mets or 04 Sox? No. The reason it's such a big deal with this team is that they started off the season like a bunch of hungover frat guys rolling out of bed stumbling to the ballpark to a 3-9 start and then ran out of gas in the last month of the season.

Is that because they weren't in peak physical condition? It certainly couldn't have helped. People are trying to diagnose how such a massive failure could have occurred and it would be silly to dismiss the poor nutritional habits, ignorance of workout programs and yes, drinking in the clubhouse.

Do people really think fitness doesn't matter in baseball?

#152 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:05 PM

If you think it's about moral outrage, then I just don't know what to tell you.

Go Sox. Yay?


What I think is that it's hilarious how much of a caricature you've become since the collapse and how you you can't get your head around the idea that you don't have to be a total homer to think that blowing up the team because of some disciplinary issues isn't practical or logical.

But hey, keep screaming "LUCEN!" over and over. It really does wonders for you position.

#153 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 13284 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:06 PM

Just reminds me that the 1986 Mets in particular engaged in far, far worse behavior than any of this and it didn't seem to affect their performance much. Keith Hernandez was having a beer in the clubhouse during the infamous Game 6 when he assumed that game was "over."

Again, the reasons for baseball failure and success are much, more complex than anything we're hearing. But it seems like no one right now is willing to do the type of real analysis it will take to understand what really happened. Well, I hope the FO is doing it. They say they are, but who knows, these days?

EDIT: I would also add that the effort ti understand that kind of complexity is the reason I came to this board in the first place and have stayed on here for nearly a decade now. I feel like we're getting away from that right now, though I suppose to an extent it's understandable.


I agree. We are a long way from Doc Gooden driving on the sidewalk because he was stoned out of his mind.

"You can't just go out and buy a championship ring.. .well, unless Dwight Gooden runs out of coke."
Adam Carolla

But a lot of people point out that group that was so talented needed the opposing team to screw up to even win one world series and the quick decline of those players was connected to drugs and drinking.

Edited by reggiecleveland, 19 October 2011 - 01:07 PM.


#154 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:07 PM

Do people really think fitness doesn't matter in baseball?


This is a perfect example of how ridiculous the main board has gotten. I don't think anyone is saying conditioning doesn't matter. Just like I don't think anyone is saying nothing was wrong with this team or that nothing needs to be done to address what happened. But we have straw man arguments like this floating around destroying the signal to noise ratio.

#155 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14170 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:18 PM

What I think is that it's hilarious how much of a caricature you've become since the collapse and how you you can't get your head around the idea that you don't have to be a total homer to think that blowing up the team because of some disciplinary issues isn't practical or logical.

But hey, keep screaming "LUCEN!" over and over. It really does wonders for you position.


Lucen, your point would be compelling if I or others were saying that.

And reminding people that you are Lucen does give me the benefit of the doubt edge. There is a reason you changed your name after all.

#156 Gene Conleys Plane Ticket

  • 3189 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:22 PM

I agree. We are a long way from Doc Gooden driving on the sidewalk because he was stoned out of his mind.

"You can't just go out and buy a championship ring.. .well, unless Dwight Gooden runs out of coke."
Adam Carolla

But a lot of people point out that group that was so talented needed the opposing team to screw up to even win one world series and the quick decline of those players was connected to drugs and drinking.


As for the decline of the Mets in subsequent years, definitely. There were other factors involved, but when your best pitcher and best hitter are both alcoholic drug addicts, that's going to drag you down.

I think it's a stretch to say that the Mets nearly losing the '86 series was due to their lifestyle choices, though. They were playing a pretty good team in a short series and there was this guy named Bruce Hurst who may have had something to do with it.

As for the Mets conditioning, I remember Hernandez talking about how he would often eat ice cream before games because he thought it gave him energy after what was presumably a rough night out the previous evening.

The stories of drinking and unhealthy eating (and drugs) in baseball go back a long way. A LONG way. Doesn't excuse what the Red Sox pitchers did, but I'm sure the ghosts of Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford are snickering at the outrage over what to them probably seems like kid's stuff.

For the Red Sox, we have yet to hear that any of these guys have serious substance abuse issues an I don't think we're going to. They were just being dicks, basically, not drunks. That's one reason why I'm pretty confident of a return to form in 2012. But time will tell.

#157 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:22 PM

Lucen, your point would be compelling if I or others were saying that.

And reminding people that you are Lucen does give me the benefit of the doubt edge. There is a reason you changed your name after all.


I think the fact that you attack the poster instead of the post speaks louder than, well, anything else you're posting. That you continue to characterize my point as "All is well! Go Sox!" is exactly what I'm pointing to. I'm arguing that the team should be looking to hold on to all of it's best players. Moving them for the sake of... well, for any reason other than getting back equal value by trading from an area of strength to bolster an area of need, is asinine.

Since pitching is not an area of strength, they should not be looking to move Beckett or Lester. It's really not that difficult a position to grasp. Of course, all you can do is scream "LUCEN!" and "ALL IS WELL!" over and over, so I think you know you're mostly a joke at this point.

Keep on keeping on, I suppose.

#158 patinorange


  • SoSH Member


  • 6895 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:28 PM

Was drinking on their off days a problem when the team was 82-51?



Maybe. If they went 83-50, they would have made the playoffs.

I can imagine what was going on in spring training if it's OK to drink in the clubhouse during the season ( which apparently is not being denied).
There is no scenario where I would imagine Tito would allow drinking in the dugout, but who the hell knows anymore.

The horrible starts the last two seasons might actually have some causes other than random bad runs.

#159 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17524 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:32 PM

Correct and that point out some differences between the two situations that have nothing to do with the people in the clubhouse or front office. the Mets have not had success for a while and also share the spotlight with the Yankees. if the Mets had collapsed in the mid 80s when they were the big guns in town it may have been different. My point is the intnesity of the media spotlight is a big factor in the attention.


Actually the Mets won the division the year before with 97 wins and were on pace 90+ wins all the while losing games they lost games where they scored 6,7,8, and 9 runs. They collapsing were very very similar.

#160 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 13284 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 02:09 PM

Actually the Mets won the division the year before with 97 wins and were on pace 90+ wins all the while losing games they lost games where they scored 6,7,8, and 9 runs. They collapsing were very very similar.

There is no way they were getting devoted coverage with the Yankees with Arod, Jetes, etc getting headlines. The focus of the press just shifted to the yankees. The Boston baseball press has a nothng else to focus on. And Willie Randolph has not broken an 86 year curse.

Edited by reggiecleveland, 19 October 2011 - 02:10 PM.


#161 lambeau

  • 371 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:03 PM

More Lackey to San Diego talk in SD Union-Tribune. I think that's how they address this.

Beckett's too valuable, and is admitting mistakes. Hate those beer mistakes.

#162 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 20265 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:07 PM

Time to change the thread title. Whether you believe them or not they came out and denied the accusation.

#163 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 14630 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:09 PM

Time to change the thread title. Whether you believe them or not they came out and denied the accusation.


Meant to do that last night actually, thanks for the reminder.

#164 Jinhocho


  • SoSH Member


  • 8776 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:35 PM

Count me among the group that thinks this is a legit story and a big deal.

1. They all pitched like shit down the stretch (and Lackey all year)
2. Conditioning seems to have been a problem.
3. We'll never know what Tito did behind the scenes, but that's a huge fuck you to the manager.
4. I kind of wonder if one or more of these guys has a drinking problem... not healthy behavior.
5. It absolutely reeks of not giving a shit--this is what bothers me the most. If you're doing well, you can get away with shit. When you're going South, grow the fuck up.


Spot on. I was listening to ESPN radio today and they had Mat Holliday on discussing the cardinals. It was like the exact opposite of what we heard and saw from the Sox. He spoke about how they knew they were a good team, maybe better than their record, but hadnt had the results they wanted. He said they got together and all agreed that playoffs or no playoffs they were going to finish strong down the stretch. They couldnt control anything else, but they could have each others backs, play hard, and win some ballgames.

I think we have seen so much shit come out the last few weeks we are kind of jaded about it by now and most of us just want it to be over. I think, when all is said and done, is that we are going to realize that the team AND organization had a historically bad collapse and in the case of the team AND organization they were horribly, horribly dysfunctional and unprofessional.

#165 Gene Conleys Plane Ticket

  • 3189 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 04:06 PM

Spot on. I was listening to ESPN radio today and they had Mat Holliday on discussing the cardinals. It was like the exact opposite of what we heard and saw from the Sox. He spoke about how they knew they were a good team, maybe better than their record, but hadnt had the results they wanted. He said they got together and all agreed that playoffs or no playoffs they were going to finish strong down the stretch. They couldnt control anything else, but they could have each others backs, play hard, and win some ballgames.


But with all due respect, what would you expect him to say? I think if the Red Sox had managed to eke out of couple of extra wins in September, then hit a little hot-slash-lucky streak in the postseason, you'd be hearing rather similar quotes from Red Sox players right now.

I'd say also, baseball players may know a lot about the technical aspects of how to hit, pitch and field, but they have no special knowledge about why their teams win or lose. In fact, I'd say they are among the least reliable sources on that subject. As players, who spend massive amounts of time together for 6-8 months out of the year but only a small fraction of that time actually playing competitive games, they tend to place an inordinate amount of weight on "clubhouse chemistry," "leadership" and other aspects of their own interpersonal dynamics. Other than that, their insights are generally limited to, "we played good," or "we played bad." Player statements like, "we had each others backs and we played hard" mean basically nothing in terms of offering an empirical explanation for results on the field.

I think we have seen so much shit come out the last few weeks we are kind of jaded about it by now and most of us just want it to be over. I think, when all is said and done, is that we are going to realize that the team AND organization had a historically bad collapse and in the case of the team AND organization they were horribly, horribly dysfunctional and unprofessional.


As for the historically bad collapse, that's self-evident. I don't think anyone is jaded about that. It's pretty hard to deny or de-emphasize. And it's also clear that the team and organization was to some disturbing degree dysfunctional and unprofessional. "Horribly, horribly" so? I don't know. One man's "horribly, horribly" is another man's "meh."

The question is, how did the dysfunction/unprofessionalism affect results on the field?

I don't think anyone, on this board, in the media or anywhere, has answered that question, which is the only question that means anything for this team going forward. All I've seen are assumptions. "Their lack of discipline MUST have caused them to lose." "They tuned the manager out, therefore they collapsed." And so on.

I've seen no evidence for any such connection (doesn't mean there isn't one; only that there's been no evidence presented to support it). When we start seeing some, that's when this discussion goes from gossipy soap opera to something that actually might be productive.

#166 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 10295 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 04:15 PM

The question is, how did the dysfunction/unprofessionalism affect results on the field?

I don't think anyone, on this board, in the media or anywhere, has answered that question, which is the only question that means anything for this team going forward. All I've seen are assumptions. "Their lack of discipline MUST have caused them to lose." "They tuned the manager out, therefore they collapsed." And so on.

I've seen no evidence for any such connection (doesn't mean there isn't one; only that there's been no evidence presented to support it). When we start seeing some, that's when this discussion goes from gossipy soap opera to something that actually might be productive.

What exactly would constitute such evidence?

#167 Gene Conleys Plane Ticket

  • 3189 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 04:52 PM

What exactly would constitute such evidence?


That's a good question. And in fact, it may not be possible to establish a connection, in which case this entire discussion becomes even more useless than it already is, beyond its admittedly entertaining tabloid appeal.

I think we'd something as concrete as, say, Carl Everett in 2001 refusing to come in for medical treatment on his injured knee followed by a drop in performance. Or, perhaps more liberally, if it came out that, say, Jon Lester had been drinking on the day he pitched in a game like, for example, this one (9/24/11 v NYY; 2.2 IP, 8 ER). I think that would constitute evidence of poor performance being related to improper behavior.

Going back to 2001 (the closest analogy I see between another season and this one), when Joe Kerrigan took over he instituted a "take the first pitch" rule for the excessively hacktastic players on the team at that time. But the Dante Bichettes and Mike Lansings on the team simply disregarded him and continued hacking at will. I'd say that was evidence of a bad attitude at least partially causing poor performance.

I guess if, hypothetically, Tito had set up a rule that David Ortiz is not to attempt to stretch singles into doubles when there is any doubt, Ortiz's getting thrown out in the final game of the season would be evidence of disrespect for the manager contributing to a loss.

#168 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 20265 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 05:26 PM

No one has mentioned AJ Pierzynski's comments here. He admitted to drinking in the clubhouse during games with other teammates he even used the word "rally beer" which leads me to believe that its a league wide thing. And today he was on PTI and said he has seen it on all 3 of the teams he has played for, that's Giants, Twins, and the White Sox.

So before we start accusing people of having drinking problems let's take a step back and realize that we know jack shit about what goes on in clubhouses.

Obligatory, Go Sox. All is well.

#169 Gene Conleys Plane Ticket

  • 3189 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 05:54 PM

No one has mentioned AJ Pierzynski's comments here. He admitted to drinking in the clubhouse during games with other teammates he even used the word "rally beer" which leads me to believe that its a league wide thing. And today he was on PTI and said he has seen it on all 3 of the teams he has played for, that's Giants, Twins, and the White Sox.

So before we start accusing people of having drinking problems let's take a step back and realize that we know jack shit about what goes on in clubhouses.


That's basically what Pete Abe said in his blog post today, which I believe is linked elsewhere and which was probably the most sensible thing I've read about this whole affair in the major media. What went on in the Red Sox clubhouse isn't good -- but it also isn't especially unusual. I think as time goes on we may find that, as you say, this practice goes on pretty much everywhere and the term "rally beer" may join "slumpbusting" as one of those inside-baseball slang words whose meaning soon becomes known to everyone.

#170 JohntheBaptist


  • SoSH Member


  • 7483 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 05:55 PM

No one has mentioned AJ Pierzynski's comments here. He admitted to drinking in the clubhouse during games with other teammates he even used the word "rally beer" which leads me to believe that its a league wide thing. And today he was on PTI and said he has seen it on all 3 of the teams he has played for, that's Giants, Twins, and the White Sox.

So before we start accusing people of having drinking problems let's take a step back and realize that we know jack shit about what goes on in clubhouses.

Obligatory, Go Sox. All is well.

I think the point that's being missed is that there was a lack of professionalism, which isn't a great place to be when your team goes into a tailspin. Have other MLers consumed alcohol in varying degrees of conjunction with games? Yes, baseball players and alcohol have always, always gone together.

The point here isn't a strict "alcohol in the clubhouse" issue because taken alone it's worthless--it tells us exactly what it tells us about what was happening in the BOS clubhouse with the J.D. in '04--nothing. The issue is that a number of people intimately involved with the team, when grasping at what was wrong with the clubhouse, chose this info in particular as one of their examples. Yes it has lived longer than some of the other complaints because, I guess, of the third-rail nature of "drunk on the job." We can choose to go the Snodgrass route and isolate the incidents to such a degree as to seem ridiculously mundane and whatever, who cares--which is exactly what you'd do when you discover the context from '04. The act of drinking in a clubhouse has literally occurred in the past so there's no sense in taking a hard look at the roster to try and alleviate some obvious problems of which that may be a highlight. Interesting approach.

The physical act of drinking in the clubhouse came, for these three guys, with some as-yet unarticulated context that clearly bothered nearly everyone that mentioned it. Shock of shocks, AJ Pierzynski can't see how some drinking with his teams could be different given the context of a given situation.

The issue, again, is not the morality of alcohol in a clubhouse, it's the way they carried themselves throughout. This includes their drinking AND their playing baseball. You see, when you combine those and other realities, the problems start seeming systemic. There was an obvious issue with how they were participating in their workplace. They were giving signals to everyone around them that they did not give a shit. The people around them, in attempt to convey that information to us, chose the beer anecdote as an example, for obvious reasons. Sorry to be all high school gym coach about it, but the issue isn't the alcohol, it's the attitude of the people involved. What that has to do with AJ Pierzynski is kind of lost on me.

edit-clarity

Edited by JohntheBaptist, 19 October 2011 - 05:56 PM.


#171 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 20265 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 06:13 PM

So, hypothetically, if Josh had slammed his glove around, if Lester would have punched a wall and if Lackey ran through a wall in frustration, we wouldnt be here blaming them? We would have automatically given them a pass? Hell no, the sources would still be feeding the media crap because THERE HAS TO BE A REASON!!1

In Baseball, how do you project the image that you give a shit? You break things right? Seems very unprofessional to me.

I just dont really know what to say here. Sept was the perfect storm of shit going bad. Every thing that could go wrong, did.

#172 JohntheBaptist


  • SoSH Member


  • 7483 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 06:39 PM

So, hypothetically, if Josh had slammed his glove around, if Lester would have punched a wall and if Lackey ran through a wall in frustration, we wouldnt be here blaming them? We would have automatically given them a pass? Hell no, the sources would still be feeding the media crap because THERE HAS TO BE A REASON!!1


Obviously when I say that they "didn't give a shit," I'm not referring to an absence of glove-throwing. There are other ways of showing/ not showing those around you that you have an investment in the team's success. It seems pretty obvious to me that those three players in particular impressed upon many around them that they did not.

I'm not really sure what the deal is with your hypothetical--do you mean if they were demonstrative but still drinking and still losing?

In that event I don't think it would have changed the reaction at all and rightfully so.

In Baseball, how do you project the image that you give a shit? You break things right?


Where on earth are you coming up with the breaking things theme? To answer your question, I don't know how you project that image, you just give a shit. How does Dustin Pedroia do it? He does it, right? I don't remember seeing him break anything. I don't think it's a mystery when someone clearly doesn't, though.

You agree that it is bad, as a pro baseball player, to not care about the success of your team, correct? And that all indications are that those three fell short of that ideal, right? I'm agreeing that saying "well they didn't care because they drank in the clubhouse" in isolation isn't fair. What is fair is to take all the information that we've been given--including the indications that they were drinking while the team was playing (common or not, probably not an ideal practice, right?)--and determine that there was a problem. The people involved with the team--seem pretty convinced of it.

So, it seems Snodgrass wants to approach the situation by taking the incidents free of context and simply build the team as if it's all over and done with. Yecul seems to prefer they maybe concentrate on improving the working environment on the heels of the Sept shit-storm, before any sacred roster-cows are fretted over. Gotta say, comin' out a bit more on yecul's side myself.

I just dont really know what to say here. Sept was the perfect storm of shit going bad. Every thing that could go wrong, did.


Absolutely. The lion's share of the issue with the collapse was injury, poor performance and player management; on the field stuff. However, being upset with and wanting to change the culture of a roster that produced those events and that result is hardly a morality police thing. It is totally, 100% legit. Drinking in a clubhouse isn't really anything worse than a dumb idea. It did, however, come to represent for people involved with the team whatever The Clique was doing "wrong," which I'd argue can be both very real and difficult for anyone to describe.

#173 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14170 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 06:46 PM

So, hypothetically, if Josh had slammed his glove around, if Lester would have punched a wall and if Lackey ran through a wall in frustration, we wouldnt be here blaming them? We would have automatically given them a pass? Hell no, the sources would still be feeding the media crap because THERE HAS TO BE A REASON!!1

In Baseball, how do you project the image that you give a shit? You break things right? Seems very unprofessional to me.

I just dont really know what to say here. Sept was the perfect storm of shit going bad. Every thing that could go wrong, did.


In those instances we probably wouldn't have Theo and Francona holding a press conference where they questioned the player's conditioning, desire and engagement in the team, though. We'd probably be having talent THERE HAS TO BE A REASON threads because that would be the only variable.

This is the focus now because it's jarring and topical, but also because it impacts some of the entrenched talent. Retaining Papelbon won't mean much if Lester and Beckett blow off conditioning again and don't give a shit leading to another fade down the stretch, for example.

It's clear that you and Lucen and others do not see this as a problem. The team played bad and they lost. Period. Others see it different. Others, including the team's manager and general manager, see these areas as problematic. Does it make sense that it's a topic of conversation?

#174 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 13284 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 06:49 PM

So, hypothetically, if Josh had slammed his glove around, if Lester would have punched a wall and if Lackey ran through a wall in frustration, we wouldnt be here blaming them? We would have automatically given them a pass? Hell no, the sources would still be feeding the media crap because THERE HAS TO BE A REASON!!1

In Baseball, how do you project the image that you give a shit? You break things right? Seems very unprofessional to me.

I just dont really know what to say here. Sept was the perfect storm of shit going bad. Every thing that could go wrong, did.


Your so far off base I think Bogar sent you in with that post.

The given in your post is that in one or two things went right, like a quality start from your top three pitchers, they make the playoffs.

If they had broken things and still pitched like shit they would be in the same place. I am assuming you mean between drinking and sitting in the clubhouse they broke things? It would be silly to say they broke things and didn't drink, because this thread is about drinking. we don't like drinking during the games because it probably lead to that perfect storm, or at least was one of the elements that coincided.

#175 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 06:58 PM

It's clear that you and Lucen and others do not see this as a problem. The team played bad and they lost. Period. Others see it different. Others, including the team's manager and general manager, see these areas as problematic. Does it make sense that it's a topic of conversation?


You might want to take a remedial English class. I've not once said it's not a problem. I just don't think looking to trade your best players is a logical way to approach fixing that problem.

Your insistence on calling me Lucen demonstrates how weak you feel your position is, though. Rather than address my actual posts, you attack me, hoping to discredit my point with smear campaign. Your quip about how reminding people I'm Lucen somehow gives you the benefit of the doubt is cute, but complete bullshit. Either you're taking a position that people can't learn, grow and mature over time, or you're hoping people won't see through your paper thin attempt to cover the inadequacies in your own posts on the matter.

Either way, it's amusing as hell.

#176 Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat


  • has big, douchey shoulders


  • 11148 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:06 PM

You might want to take a remedial English class. I've not once said it's not a problem. I just don't think looking to trade your best players is a logical way to approach fixing that problem.

Your insistence on calling me Lucen demonstrates how weak you feel your position is, though. Rather than address my actual posts, you attack me, hoping to discredit my point with smear campaign. Your quip about how reminding people I'm Lucen somehow gives you the benefit of the doubt is cute, but complete bullshit. Either you're taking a position that people can't learn, grow and mature over time, or you're hoping people won't see through your paper thin attempt to cover the inadequacies in your own posts on the matter.

Either way, it's amusing as hell.

Wait, so you're really Lucen? Because he definitely didn't know how to calculate shit.

#177 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:11 PM

Wait, so you're really Lucen? Because he definitely didn't know how to calculate shit.


See? Learning!

#178 JohntheBaptist


  • SoSH Member


  • 7483 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:22 PM

You might want to take a remedial English class. I've not once said it's not a problem. I just don't think looking to trade your best players is a logical way to approach fixing that problem.


I have no idea what you're arguing here. You say it is a problem--so everyone's on the same page there. Who is "looking to trade [the] best players," exactly? Or, if you prefer--what does "best" mean to you, in this instance?

The nuts and bolts of what would happen w/r/t transactions can be argued--there is always a dynamic, unforeseen element to a baseball offseason and player availability, etc. Would the completely context-free "trades" you mention be worth it, long term/ short term, all that jazz. But, the idea that they should put the off-field negativity from 2011 in the rearview when approaching the roster next year is naive in the extreme to me. So, where your particular point fits in here I have no idea.

Why, exactly, wouldn't it be a good idea to try and improve the culture of the team after all of this through roster construction? It is, I hope, one of many ways they plan to attack the problem this offseason. If it is a blatant on-field step back, probably not. If it is a marginal one, it really isn't as clear a choice as you're making it.

#179 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:25 PM

I have no idea what you're arguing here. You say it is a problem--so everyone's on the same page there. Who is "looking to trade [the] best players," exactly? Or, if you prefer--what does "best" mean to you, in this instance?


yecul has argued that they should be willing to trade Beckett and Lester (who are the "best" I'm talking about here, though I should probably say "best pitchers" instead). I can't see a way in which trading them away makes the team better, though. At best, they'll tread water and expend time that can be better used addressing weaknesses in the roster.

Why, exactly, wouldn't it be a good idea to try and improve the culture of the team after all of this through roster construction? It is, I hope, one of many ways they plan to attack the problem this offseason. If it is a blatant on-field step back, probably not. If it is a marginal one, it really isn't as clear a choice as you're making it.



No, even a marginal step back is a mistake, as it's a step back.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 19 October 2011 - 07:26 PM.


#180 Kid T

  • 499 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:26 PM

No one has mentioned AJ Pierzynski's comments here. He admitted to drinking in the clubhouse during games with other teammates he even used the word "rally beer" which leads me to believe that its a league wide thing. And today he was on PTI and said he has seen it on all 3 of the teams he has played for, that's Giants, Twins, and the White Sox.

So before we start accusing people of having drinking problems let's take a step back and realize that we know jack shit about what goes on in clubhouses.

Obligatory, Go Sox. All is well.

I think the first article (in the Boston Herald) that exposed the beer drinking in the clubhouse also mentioned that it's a bigger problem league-wide than many would think.

Edited by Kid T, 19 October 2011 - 07:27 PM.


#181 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 20265 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:34 PM

What Iím trying to say is how does anyone here know who gives a shit and who doesnít? Who is trying and who isnít? Whenever a team is slumping you hear idiotic ranting about how there is no fire. Kevin Youkilis wails on Gatorade coolers and shouts profanities after striking out. Now there is a dude who gives a shit, look at all that fire. JD Drew grounds out meekly to 2B with out batting an eye and goes back to the dugout. There is a dude who doesnít care. He doesnít give a shit.

Thatís what it sounds like a few of you guys are saying about the Texas Trio. So when did they stop caring?

John Lackey on September 25th pitched the biggest game in his Red Sox career going 6 innings and allowing 3 runs, a game the Sox eventually won in 14 thrilling innings. Did he care that night?

I donít have a problem if you think the Sox should trade Josh Beckett fWAR of 4.3 or Jon Lester fWAR of 3.7 because you think they are a bad influence on the team. You would be retarded but I wouldnít have a problem with it. But when people start pointing at guys and start saying they didnít care then I have a problem with it.

And I think Theo and Tito questioning their desire is horseshit. This team was doing the exact same shit in Sept as they were doing when they were the best team in baseball. The only difference was the results.

#182 absintheofmalaise


  • too many flowers


  • 9988 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:04 PM

Y'all keep the Lucen crap and the personal crap out of this thread please. It's bad enough that this place looks like a series of game threads and y'all aren't helping. Argue the points and quit insulting the poster.

#183 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 5027 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:09 PM

I think the people who are accusing those of us concerned about these revelations of being enamoured of "gossip" or of being "teatotalers" are really the ones that are well behind the times. This is not the 1920s or the 1970s. The idea that baseball players are not athletes or don't need to be in optimal physical condition because a few outliers have managed to excel while having "bad bodies" is shortsighted in the extreme. Who's to say David Wells wouldn't have been a Hall of Famer with proper nutrition and conditioning? The simple fact is that we know what the recommended diets of world class athletes consist of, and we know that drinking alcohol and eating Popeye's chicken multiple times per week (at least) isn't on those lists. We've also got plenty of examples of players who have taken dramatic leaps forward in performance after committing to a state-of-the-art diet and exercise regimen from a place like API. Therefore, I don't think it is too much to expect that a player on a multimillion dollar, multiyear contract live up to those modern standards, at least for the 8 months a year that they're officially "on the job" if not year-round. Moreover, I would hazard a guess that in a world with fewer performance enhancing drugs and bans on certain powerful stimulants, being in optimal condition is going to become even more important. My guess is that the teams that can motivate the most players to become committed to the regimens prescribed by places like API will become the dominant teams going forward.

#184 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14170 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:16 PM

yecul has argued that they should be willing to trade Beckett and Lester


Is that what's been grinding your gears all this time? Let's just put it this way, that's not exactly what I have been saying and there's a really long way between willing and plan A.

Opinions may differ. Maybe for you that's completely not possible. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me to see it differently.

#185 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:18 PM

Is that what's been grinding your gears all this time? Let's just put it this way, that's not exactly what I have been saying and there's a really long way between willing and plan A.

Opinions may differ. Maybe for you that's completely not possible. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me to see it differently.


Then I guess we're back to agreeing to disagree, as I don't see a way in which trading either pitcher can make this team better.

#186 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 5027 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:32 PM

Really? I don't see how trading Lester can make them better. But, while I really like "good" Beckett, I think an objective look at his career could easily lead one to argue that he's overrated by at least some. If you can find a GM who inappropriately discounts "even-year" Beckett or even thw within year inconsistency we've seen in 2009 and at the end of 2011, then you might fleece somebody. Also, if the conditioning issues coincide with his attitude of "I'd be just as happy to stay home with my kid" then they're going to get worse, not better. I know if I had 20 million in the bank, I'd be retired already.

#187 mauidano


  • Mai Tais for everyone!


  • 11174 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:37 PM

I just dont really know what to say here. Sept was the perfect storm of shit going bad. Every thing that could go wrong, did.


Perfectly said. The season is over. It's October, let's move on.

#188 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:42 PM

Really? I don't see how trading Lester can make them better. But, while I really like "good" Beckett, I think an objective look at his career could easily lead one to argue that he's overrated by at least some. If you can find a GM who inappropriately discounts "even-year" Beckett or even thw within year inconsistency we've seen in 2009 and at the end of 2011, then you might fleece somebody. Also, if the conditioning issues coincide with his attitude of "I'd be just as happy to stay home with my kid" then they're going to get worse, not better. I know if I had 20 million in the bank, I'd be retired already.


I think Becektt's odd year/even year thing is blown out of proportion. His xFIP's are 3.71, 3.40, 3.68, 3.57, 4.44, 3.31, 3.19, 3.30, 3.86, 3.58. His career average is 3.60. He's been far more consistent than a casual glance would suggest. His k/bb rate had a two year spike, but otherwise has also been consistent. 2.18, 2.57, 2.71, 2.81, 2.86, 2.14, 4.86, 5.06, 3.62, 2.58, 3.37.

Moving him for another starting pitcher of equal value is a lateral move. Moving him for prospects hurts the 2012 season, and moving him for a position they need help in (SS or 3B) might be a lateral move, but is more likely to be a step back as the rotation is already in need of some help on the back end. Moving him for a younger pitcher who will provide as much value on the field is a pipe dream.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 19 October 2011 - 08:43 PM.


#189 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 5027 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:49 PM

Thanks for the xFIPs, they definitely tell a different story. One bad year in a string of good ones. That makes it easier to see why the Sox were comfortable committing so much for so long. Shocked that any adjustments could bring down 2010 that much though.

#190 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:53 PM

Thanks for the xFIPs, they definitely tell a different story. One bad year in a string of good ones. That makes it easier to see why the Sox were comfortable committing so much for so long. Shocked that any adjustments could bring down 2010 that much though.


Well, xFIP isn't perfect. I'm certainly not going to argue he had a good year in 2010 based entirely on a 3.86 xFIP, but I don't think it was as bad as his 5.78 ERA suggests, either. In either case, I think it's unlikely that the Sox get better by trading him.

#191 jose melendez


  • Earl of Acie


  • 12217 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 12:56 AM

I'm not saying you need to break shit to make a point or that Drew doesn't care because he doesn't.

I'm saying that it is clear that there was something seriously wrong down the stretch. It's not that the Sox played bad baseball--they played epically historically bad baseball. It's hard for the worst teams in the league to put up numbers that bad down the stretch, for a team with actual talent to do it is pretty much unfathomable.

So how could this have happened?

1. Bad luck--possible, but highly highly unlikely
2. Lots of players got worse at the same time for unrelated reasons
3. There was something systematic going on on that team that dragged performance down.

It's like if you have crops fail in an entire region one fall--sure it could be that all the farmers suddenly got shittier, but it's much more likely that it's some sort of correlated issue.

If the cause was the manager (which I am skeptical of) that's gone. If it's the GM, that's gone. If it's the owners, nothing can be done, so if its the players or some combination of the players, that is where it's worth looking.

I suspect one of the reasons that the post mortem is so infuriating to so many folks on this site is that for all the knowledge gained from the SABR revolution, it does a lousy job of explaining things like this. The numbers say that every once is a great while, something like this will happen--what it struggles to get at is the why this time and not the other 99.9% of the time?

Edited by jose melendez, 20 October 2011 - 01:00 AM.


#192 Reverend


  • needs sharper knives


  • 19192 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 12:23 PM

I suspect one of the reasons that the post mortem is so infuriating to so many folks on this site is that for all the knowledge gained from the SABR revolution, it does a lousy job of explaining things like this. The numbers say that every once is a great while, something like this will happen--what it struggles to get at is the why this time and not the other 99.9% of the time?

What if the reason it struggle is because sometimes there is no reason? I mean, there may be, and if there are solvable problems, they ought to be sought out and solved. And yet any probablistic game is just that.

Sometimes, it's sorta like when someone is surprised that it's raining and yelps, "But the weatherman said there was only a 10% of rain!"

#193 PrometheusWakefield


  • SoSH Member


  • 6346 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 01:00 PM

1. Bad luck--possible, but highly highly unlikely
2. Lots of players got worse at the same time for unrelated reasons
3. There was something systematic going on on that team that dragged performance down.

I don't think it's that mysterious. Pitching staffs often rise and fall together. Bad starts put pressure on tired bullpens, and tired bullpens force managers to leave pitchers out there longer.

What we saw in September was nothing more than the eventual collapse of a pitching staff that had been slowly ground down over the course of a season. Much like the collapse of a roof that had been growing steadily more waterlogged and moldy, the results appeared to suddenly come from nowhere only if you exclude the steady stream of bad news starting as far back as May.

Matsuzaka went down for the year, but that was okay because it wasn't clear we were getting that much out of him anyway and we had depth. Jenks and Wheeler turned out to be busts, but that was okay because Daniel Bard was phenomenal and Aceves was mostly good enough. Lackey went from mediocre to shockingly bad, but we could get by - and look, here's new guys like Andrew Miller and Kyle Weiland whose minor league numbers suggest they can be perfectly adequate, if not great. Plus we got Bedard, who is likely to be good as long as he's healthy. When they turned out to be busts as well, it became clear that our entire pitching staff was relying entirely on Beckett, Lester, Bard and Papelbon. But that was okay because maybe you get Bedard back in time for the playoffs and maybe with our offense two top arms with two top bullpen arms would be enough.

The problem with relying so heavily on four guys is that you severely increase your risk if bad stuff starts to happen to them. Bard, who was leading the league in appearances for much of the season (and finished 5th) almost entirely in high lev situations I suspect was a victim of exhaustion. Lester and Beckett had mostly bad luck - Beckett had a 2.96 xFIP in September ruined by unusually high number of homers per fly ball, while Lester's 3.75 xFIP in September was 4th out of the 6 months of the season. Papelbon likewise had some brutal moments but by xFIP was steller in September - 1.32 ERA. Overall, but for the total collapse of the rest of the exhausted, injured, mediocre pitching staff, we only would have noticed the poor play of Bard.

There is no mystery here that needs to be explained by fried chicken or drinking beer or just not caring enough. Those things fill our needs as fans to find some puritan-ish reason that the failure of the team can be attributed to insufficient virtue. The reason the 2011 Red Sox failed to make the playoffs is because our pitching staff sucked, partly due to injuries, most due to having too many players who suck. For a while, we were able to get by on our offense and our few good pitchers, but eventually the walls caved in. Physiology, performance and skill combined with bad luck and you have what we all watched. I'm sure the team chemistry was bad, and maybe that was a complimentary factor, but bad chemistry always follows losing.

I think the most fundamental problem with the beer, fried chicken and video games explanation for the 2011 Red Sox is that none of the stories about the team indicate that that stuff wasn't happening in July or August.

#194 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 12937 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 01:54 PM

1. Bad luck--possible, but highly highly unlikely
2. Lots of players got worse at the same time for unrelated reasons
3. There was something systematic going on on that team that dragged performance down.


I don't think that there's any way we'll ever know for sure. But I do think that #1 is a lot more likely than people want to admit. It's human nature to look for a reason for everything, and it certainly makes sense to leave no stone unturned--if there's something identifiable that can be corrected or avoided in the future, it's hugely valuable to do that.

But there have been a ton of things posted (from examples in years past to purely statistical Bill James simulations) showing that historic collapses, bizarre down years for Willie Mays level hitters, and other outliers do sometimes happen for essentially no reason. And I think because of the desire to a) find reasons for things that happens; and b) feel some control over the future, we tend to be much more dismissive of random chance than we should be. And that often causes us to construct narratives out of limited or no evidence.

Edited by SumnerH, 20 October 2011 - 01:56 PM.


#195 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17524 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 02:11 PM

One thing lost was how horrific the fielding was in the last month of the season. The pitchers were often thrown under the bus by the likes of Crawford.

#196 joyofsox


  • empty, bleak


  • 5986 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 02:53 PM

What if the reason it struggle is because sometimes there is no reason?


When SG (of Replacement Level Yankees Weblog) posted his season simulations for 2011 back in the spring, I emailed with him.

He sent me some information from the 5,000 seasons he ran through Diamond Mind -- and through nothing but random chance, Boston's win totals ranged from 117 to 68!

The 2011 Simulated Red Sox won 100+ games in 1,057 seasons (21.1%), but they also finished at or under .500 in 100 of the 5,000 seasons (2%).

68-94 - 1 season
72-90 - 2 seasons
73-89 - 1 season
74-88 - 1 season
76-86 - 7 seasons
77-85 - 8 seasons
78-84 - 14 seasons
79-83 - 12 seasons
80-82 - 17 seasons
81-81 - 37 seasons

Random chance sucks.

#197 Kid T

  • 499 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 04:45 PM

Drinking in the clubhouse is nothing new

#198 In my lifetime

  • 351 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 06:33 PM

I don't think it's that mysterious. Pitching staffs often rise and fall together. Bad starts put pressure on tired bullpens, and tired bullpens force managers to leave pitchers out there longer.

What we saw in September was nothing more than the eventual collapse of a pitching staff that had been slowly ground down over the course of a season. Much like the collapse of a roof that had been growing steadily more waterlogged and moldy, the results appeared to suddenly come from nowhere only if you exclude the steady stream of bad news starting as far back as May.

Matsuzaka went down for the year, but that was okay because it wasn't clear we were getting that much out of him anyway and we had depth. Jenks and Wheeler turned out to be busts, but that was okay because Daniel Bard was phenomenal and Aceves was mostly good enough. Lackey went from mediocre to shockingly bad, but we could get by - and look, here's new guys like Andrew Miller and Kyle Weiland whose minor league numbers suggest they can be perfectly adequate, if not great. Plus we got Bedard, who is likely to be good as long as he's healthy. When they turned out to be busts as well, it became clear that our entire pitching staff was relying entirely on Beckett, Lester, Bard and Papelbon. But that was okay because maybe you get Bedard back in time for the playoffs and maybe with our offense two top arms with two top bullpen arms would be enough.

The problem with relying so heavily on four guys is that you severely increase your risk if bad stuff starts to happen to them. Bard, who was leading the league in appearances for much of the season (and finished 5th) almost entirely in high lev situations I suspect was a victim of exhaustion. Lester and Beckett had mostly bad luck - Beckett had a 2.96 xFIP in September ruined by unusually high number of homers per fly ball, while Lester's 3.75 xFIP in September was 4th out of the 6 months of the season. Papelbon likewise had some brutal moments but by xFIP was steller in September - 1.32 ERA. Overall, but for the total collapse of the rest of the exhausted, injured, mediocre pitching staff, we only would have noticed the poor play of Bard.

There is no mystery here that needs to be explained by fried chicken or drinking beer or just not caring enough. Those things fill our needs as fans to find some puritan-ish reason that the failure of the team can be attributed to insufficient virtue. The reason the 2011 Red Sox failed to make the playoffs is because our pitching staff sucked, partly due to injuries, most due to having too many players who suck. For a while, we were able to get by on our offense and our few good pitchers, but eventually the walls caved in. Physiology, performance and skill combined with bad luck and you have what we all watched. I'm sure the team chemistry was bad, and maybe that was a complimentary factor, but bad chemistry always follows losing.

I think the most fundamental problem with the beer, fried chicken and video games explanation for the 2011 Red Sox is that none of the stories about the team indicate that that stuff wasn't happening in July or August.


Great post! It took me a week to even look at SOSH after the 162nd game. And now we basically have drinking light beers and eating fried chicken during the game as a significant story regarding the September collapse. Please, I am sure that in September of 2004 and 2007, some pitchers were drinking in the clubhouse, or getting shit-faced the night before a game or arguing with their wife or having an affair, etc. Enough, let me read about something important, for example how vaccines are the major cause of autism. After all, children get vaccinated and lo and behold at this same age we start to notice autism in children.

Edited by In my lifetime, 20 October 2011 - 06:37 PM.


#199 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 5027 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 08:52 PM

On the same token, since Mantle was a drunk and a Hall of Famer, I think we should repeal all drunk driving laws, let 5 year-old kids ride in the front seat with no seat belt, and force NFL linemen to play without helmets.

I guess people are dug in on this,so I'll just say that while a lot of stuff had to go wrong, it takes willful suspension of disbelief to think that conditioning hasn't been an issue on this team for several years now and that drink beer and eating Popeye's chicken in the dugout wasn't symptomatic of that culture.

Once again, for me, it comes down to we know the recommended diet of a world class athlete during training and competition, and we know that beer and fried chicken isn't part of it. There's no Puritanical virtue in that statement, it's 100 percent scientific fact. Players that ignore that science will underperform over a 9 month trial and teams that ignore that science will lose efficiency.

Moreover, contrary to what some have said here, it is perfectly reasonable that the team was affected much more in September than during July and August. The effects of ignoring nutritional and fitness guidelines would be cumulative, and the deterioration would be reinforced by the grueling schedule.

I guess its natural for fans to want to invent reasons to excuse the behavior of highly irresponsible, coddled, multimilliaires. But to me, the 2011 Boston Red Sox are posterboys for the President's quest to enact a millionaire surtax.

#200 In my lifetime

  • 351 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 09:16 PM

Once again, for me, it comes down to we know the recommended diet of a world class athlete during training and competition, and we know that beer and fried chicken isn't part of it. There's no Puritanical virtue in that statement, it's 100 percent scientific fact. Players that ignore that science will underperform over a 9 month trial and teams that ignore that science will lose efficiency.



Wade Boggs is considering a comeback and would love to see the a link to the study which proved that it is "100% scientific fact" that eating fried chicken and drinking a couple of beers causes athletes to underperform over a 9 month trial.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users