Jump to content


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

Photo

Hypothetical Over / Under on 2012 Red Sox Wins


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
109 replies to this topic

Poll: 2012 Wins (209 member(s) have cast votes)

Assuming o/u number is 90.5, you'd bet:

  1. The Over (168 votes [80.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 80.38%

  2. The Under (41 votes [19.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.62%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9,993 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:10 PM

We kicked this discussion around in chat for a bit. It generated some interesting back and forth. We couldn't find a line on this in Vegas. In the absence of a line, we decided that 90.5 was a good number for discussion.

For the sake of discussion, if Vegas set the over/under line of Red Sox wins in 2012 at 90.5 (the win total of the 2011 team), where would you place your money and and why?

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 11 January 2012 - 12:24 PM.


#2 mikeford


  • woolwich!


  • 17,841 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:16 PM

I think the number should be altered to either 89.5 or 90.5 so as to avoid a push.

We finished with 90 on the nose last year and I personally think this team is worse than they were a year ago so... under.

#3 glennhoffmania


  • likes the tomahawk chop


  • 8,384,252 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:23 PM

I think the number should be altered to either 89.5 or 90.5 so as to avoid a push.

We finished with 90 on the nose last year and I personally think this team is worse than they were a year ago so... under.

This is assuming that 90 wins last year was an accurate indicator of the team's talent level. I say over.

#4 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9,993 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:25 PM

I think the number should be altered to either 89.5 or 90.5 so as to avoid a push.

We finished with 90 on the nose last year and I personally think this team is worse than they were a year ago so... under.


Changed to 90.5.

#5 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 12,747 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:25 PM

90 is just too low a bar for a team with this talent and payroll. Over.

#6 graffam198


  • pink hat


  • 826 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:26 PM

This is assuming that 90 wins last year was an accurate indicator of the team's talent level. I say over.


Pitching on this team has not gotten any better, and moving Bard to the rotation and out of the BP adds to that hole. I take the under.

#7 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,494 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:50 PM

Pitching on this team has not gotten any better, and moving Bard to the rotation and out of the BP adds to that hole. I take the under.

The bullpen has taken a hit because Papelbon - Bard turned into Bailey - Melancon but I think no Lackey and no Wakefield improves the rotation. Maybe you get 160IP from Buchholz, who when healthy in 2010, put up a 3.8fWAR. Lester and Beckett keep treading above 3fWAR, and one of Bard or Aceves turns out decent and you have a pretty solid rotation. Plus, they'll probably still add another SP, Kuroda most likely. I'd gladly have the pendulum swing back towards great rotation and away from great backend relief.

I'm going over.

#8 graffam198


  • pink hat


  • 826 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:05 PM

Plus, they'll probably still add another SP, Kuroda most likely. I'd gladly have the pendulum swing back towards great rotation and away from great backend relief.

I'm going over.


I know that relievers have gone from 70 ip to 200 ip (wilson), quality innings even, but I am concerned that Bard will start out great before his arm falls off down the stretch. Even if we get 160 from him, 160 from Clay, 200 from Lester and even year Beckett, there are still another 250 innings or so that we need. And I get the addittion by subtraction from Lackey and Wake, but I still worry about the starting and relief pitching. I think the sox lose a lot of games via the bp unless the team scores like the 2004 team.


On that note, I would gladly be wrong.

Edited by graffam198, 11 January 2012 - 01:06 PM.


#9 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,498 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:06 PM

Over.

#10 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,630 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:10 PM

Over.

Last year's team underplayed its pythag by four games, and that pythag was itself probably an underperformance relative to talent. They were probably at least a 95- -win team if it had played up to its capabilities. In order to take the under you have to either think that they will have shitty luck and/or karma two years in a row, or else that the following series of replacements adds up to -5 wins:
  • Lackey --> Bard
  • DiceK/Wake/Bedard/etc. --> Aceves/DiceK
  • Papelbon --> Bailey
  • Bard --> Melancon
  • Aceves--> Jenks/Aceves
  • Reddick--> Sweeney
  • Lowrie--> Punto
I don't see five losses there. I'm not even sure I see any net losses there.

#11 mr_smith02

  • 1,650 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:10 PM

This team will be more focused than it was in September, and it has a lot to prove. Change is good. Over.

#12 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:43 PM

I'm stunned that people are taking the under.

I think putting the number at 95.5 would make for a difficult decision.

I don't see how anyone can say this team got worse. Papelbon is gone, sure, and Buchholz is healthy and Lackey is gone. That's improvement.

#13 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,689 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:44 PM

They're much worse in the managerial seat. Plus Punto is worth about -5 wins all by himself.

Under.

#14 glennhoffmania


  • likes the tomahawk chop


  • 8,384,252 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:49 PM

Plus Punto is worth about -5 wins all by himself.

This cracked me up.

#15 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,489 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:51 PM

I'm stunned that people are taking the under.

I think putting the number at 95.5 would make for a difficult decision.

I don't see how anyone can say this team got worse. Papelbon is gone, sure, and Buchholz is healthy and Lackey is gone. That's improvement.

Last year the pre-season debate was whether the team could win 100 games and IIRC you were a proponent of the over. If you are now down to 95ish, that sounds like a 5 win drop off in expect performance. So aren't you saying they got worse? Or did I misremember your stance?

FWIW, I voted over and expect they are within one or two wins talent wise of the team that started last year. So I expect right around 95 wins.

#16 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16,853 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:51 PM

I would take the over. The last two years have been remarkable in the lack of health and with guys playing far below any reasonable expectation. This has to straighten out sometime.

#17 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9,993 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:58 PM

I'm stunned that people are taking the under.

I think putting the number at 95.5 would make for a difficult decision.

I don't see how anyone can say this team got worse. Papelbon is gone, sure, and Buchholz is healthy and Lackey is gone. That's improvement.


They haven't won more than 90.5 games since 2009. If this poll was done last year, I could have put the o/u at 100 and SoSH would have picked the over. When the season ended, they won 90 games.

Since they've last played a game, they've lost the best manager in team history and the best closer in team history. They haven't addressed their need for starting pitching. You can argue they've gained a little on the periphery roster spots (gaining Punto, Shoppach, Sweeney) and losing (Lowrie, Tek, and Reddick) but that's no slam dunk. Members here have credibly made the argument that Weiland may be better than Melancon in the pen.

It's hard to see where this team has improved. Especially because they've failed to add a starting pitcher. This has not been a good offseason for Cherrington.

Saying all of this, I picked the over but I think they finish with 92 wins.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 11 January 2012 - 02:00 PM.


#18 mauidano


  • Mai Tais for everyone!


  • 13,658 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:59 PM

Ovah! As the eternal optimist, I believe that we will get off to a better start and finish stronger than last year. The nucleus of this team is as good as any. Health with an element of luck determines the rest.

#19 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:03 PM

They're much worse in the managerial seat.


I'm not sure this is the case. He's certainly an ass but I think he's a pretty decent manager.

#20 Foulkey Reese


  • foulkiavelli


  • 20,166 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:05 PM

They're much worse in the managerial seat. Plus Punto is worth about -5 wins all by himself.

Under.


Thanks for the new sig.

I vote over. I think Adrian Gonzalez has a beastly year and Crawford improves quite a bit. If the big 3 in the rotation stay healthy I think this is team that can go deep.

#21 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,689 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:05 PM

I'm not sure this is the case. He's certainly an ass but I think he's a pretty decent manager.


IMO he's worse than Tito. By a long shot. We can argue objectively about his overall quality but in my mind he's a pale shadow of the man he's replacing. Even if he's "good" (and I don't think he is) that's still an immense downgrade.

#22 Foulkey Reese


  • foulkiavelli


  • 20,166 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:07 PM

IMO he's worse than Tito. By a long shot. We can argue objectively about his overall quality but in my mind he's a pale shadow of the man he's replacing. Even if he's "good" (and I don't think he is) that's still an immense downgrade.


I'm no Bobby V fan, but can anything really be a downgrade from September 2011 Tito?

#23 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,689 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:10 PM

I'm no Bobby V fan, but can anything really be a downgrade from September 2011 Tito?


Posted Image

#24 glennhoffmania


  • likes the tomahawk chop


  • 8,384,252 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:17 PM

Posted Image


You're on fire in this thread, Joe. Here's another candidate:

Posted Image

#25 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:20 PM

They haven't won more than 90.5 games since 2009. If this poll was done last year, I could have put the o/u at 100 and SoSH would have picked the over. When the season ended, they won 90 games.


No, SOSH would not have picked the over an an over under of 100. You're just being silly. And you're completely ignoring the fact that some very strange things happened in 2010 and 2011.

Since they've last played a game, they've lost the best manager in team history and the best closer in team history.


And they replaced the manager with a decent manager and if necessary, which he won't be, Bard is available to step in.

They haven't addressed their need for starting pitching.


Except that they have. Bard to the rotation is addressing the starting pitching. Aceves to the rotation is addressing the starting pitching. I would much rather have Aceves in the bullpen so I want another mediocre starter. I'm sure you do as well. I do not for a minute imagine that this is not going to happen.

More importantly, I think you are forgetting how bad Lackey was. If you think there is going to be a problem with Bard or Aceves outperforming John Lackey's 2011 then you're forgetting how bad he was. He was horrific. John Lackey pitched 160 innings of a 6.41 ERA. Alfredo Aceves pitched 114 innings of 2.61. Sure, I don't think he's putting up a 2.61 ERA but I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see 160 innings of an ERA of 4.5 or so which is a massive improvement over John Lackey.

You can argue they've gained a little on the periphery roster spots (gaining Punto, Shoppach, Sweeney) and losing (Lowrie, Tek, and Reddick) but that's no slam dunk. Members here have credibly made the argument that Weiland may be better than Melancon in the pen.



When people were saying that Weiland might be better than Melancon they're talking about a Weiland that was much better than the Weiland as starter we saw.


It's hard to see where this team has improved. Especially because they've failed to add a starting pitcher. This has not been a good offseason for Cherrington.



This is called willful ignorance.

#26 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22,559 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:26 PM

They haven't won more than 90.5 games since 2009. If this poll was done last year, I could have put the o/u at 100 and SoSH would have picked the over. When the season ended, they won 90 games.

You could do this every year, for any of our teams, at any win level (110 for the Sox, 65 for the B's, 15 for the Pats), and 85% of us would pick the over, and SJH would take the under.

#27 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,489 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:33 PM

No, SOSH would not have picked the over an an over under of 100. You're just being silly.



Not quite, close though:

http://sonsofsamhorn...ox-win-anyways/

And you certainly did.

I actually started one in P&G.

The team won 89 games last year with more injuries than I have ever seen plus bad underperformance by two starting pitchers. If all that normalizes we're in the mid to high nineties. The bullpen should be better. The offense overall should be better. I didn't think 100 games was out of the question last year and I think it's even more in the question this year. I wouldn't be surprised if this team topped 105. It's very good at the top and it's very deep almost everywhere.

My only reservation is the catching situation.



#28 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9,993 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:36 PM

No, SOSH would not have picked the over an an over under of 100. You're just being silly. And you're completely ignoring the fact that some very strange things happened in 2010 and 2011.


Lack of conditioning isn't strange. The same guys who were sucking wind in September will be taking the field in April. I'm eagerly awaiting the "Josh Beckett is in the best shape of his life" stories in spring training.

Except that they have. Bard to the rotation is addressing the starting pitching. Aceves to the rotation is addressing the starting pitching. I would much rather have Aceves in the bullpen so I want another mediocre starter. I'm sure you do as well. I do not for a minute imagine that this is not going to happen.


Moving Bard to the rotation hurts the pen. I think Bard should start but in plugging one hole they've created another. Do you think losing Bard and Papelbon means the pen will be better in 2012 than it was in 2011? I don't.

More importantly, I think you are forgetting how bad Lackey was. If you think there is going to be a problem with Bard or Aceves outperforming John Lackey's 2011 then you're forgetting how bad he was. He was horrific. John Lackey pitched 160 innings of a 6.41 ERA. Alfredo Aceves pitched 114 innings of 2.61. Sure, I don't think he's putting up a 2.61 ERA but I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see 160 innings of an ERA of 4.5 or so which is a massive improvement over John Lackey.


Losing Lackey was the highlight of the offseason. No argument from me. It just sucks we got stuck with him for another year as a result.

When people were saying that Weiland might be better than Melancon they're talking about a Weiland that was much better than the Weiland as starter we saw.


What's your point?

#29 kieckeredinthehead

  • 3,915 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:40 PM

And they replaced the manager with a decent manager and if necessary, which he won't be, Bard is available to step in.


Bard hasn't managed a game since low-A ball, and his tactics were totally different before Theo et al. made him switch to a no-bunt thing to try boost his success. Totally screwed him up.

#30 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:05 PM

Not quite, close though:

http://sonsofsamhorn...ox-win-anyways/

And you certainly did.


I am not sosh.

#31 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,630 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:10 PM

Since they've last played a game, they've lost the best manager in team history and the best closer in team history. They haven't addressed their need for starting pitching.

Melancon addressed their need for starting pitching by permitting Bard's move to the rotation.

Members here have credibly made the argument that Weiland may be better than Melancon in the pen.

In 2012?

#32 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,489 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:10 PM

I am not sosh.


No, but 34% of SoSH had them over 100 wins and 93% over 95 wins. Clearly the pulse has changed and most people think they will be significantly worse this year than they did this time last year, yourself included.

Edited by Bucknahs Bum Ankle, 11 January 2012 - 03:11 PM.


#33 Toe Nash

  • 3,108 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:18 PM

The over seems like a no-brainer, but I'd say there's a pretty large error bar, with Bard, Bobby V, Ellsbury and right field all being questions.

#34 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:22 PM

Lack of conditioning isn't strange. The same guys who were sucking wind in September will be taking the field in April. I'm eagerly awaiting the "Josh Beckett is in the best shape of his life" stories in spring training.


Lack of conditioning is what you think the problem was? Seriously? Lack of conditioning is at most one among a number of factors and far from the highest one.

Moving Bard to the rotation hurts the pen. I think Bard should start but in plugging one hole they've created another. Do you think losing Bard and Papelbon means the pen will be better in 2012 than it was in 2011? I don't.



Damn me but your thought processes are all over the place. Bard and Papelbon aren't the whole pen. The pen is not the whole team. You can have a downgrade in the 8th and 9th innings while improving the overall team. I know you understand this because it's not possible for a human being to not understand it so please stop acting like moving Papelbon and Bard out of the pen means the team is going to suck balls.

Losing Lackey was the highlight of the offseason. No argument from me. It just sucks we got stuck with him for another year as a result.



The point is that improving on him is easy. 160 innings of a slightly below average pitcher would be a MASSIVE improvement.

What's your point?


My point is that saying folks were saying Melancon might be worse than Weiland is something that needs to be in context.

#35 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 12,747 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:24 PM

In 2012?


Sadly, yes. I'm not sure that "credibly" is the adjective I'd use, though.

#36 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,388 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:25 PM

Melancon addressed their need for starting pitching by permitting Bard's move to the rotation.

Of course, one has absolutely no idea whether Bard will succeed as a starter nor whether Melancon will succeed in the AL.

#37 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:34 PM

No, but 34% of SoSH had them over 100 wins and 93% over 95 wins. Clearly the pulse has changed and most people think they will be significantly worse this year than they did this time last year, yourself included.


I think that depends on your definition of "significantly."

I think there are really two things that are keeping me from being as optimistic as I was last year and that's the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation. I am pretty convinced that the Sox are going to sign another starter and once they do we can reassess things. I'm a little concerned about Bard, not that he won't be successful but that his innings will be limited.

If the Sox were to sign, say, Kuroda, and you could guarantee me that Bard would be able to pitch in the 190-200 inning range then I'd be looking at a win total in the neighborhood of three digits. Even without those things, I think there's a pretty decent chance.

#38 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,689 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:37 PM

If the Sox were to sign, say, Kuroda, and you could guarantee me that Bard would be able to pitch in the 190-200 inning range then I'd be looking at a win total in the neighborhood of three digits. Even without those things, I think there's a pretty decent chance.


Really? They're worse in some clear ways, they have zero idea what they're going to get at the back end of the rotation, they don't know who's going to start in RF until Kalish comes back, they have no idea if Crawford will come around, they lost the best closer in their history, they hired perhaps the worst fit for manager possible, their All Star 3rd baseman keeps breaking down, yet you really think there's a "decent" chance at 100 wins, something they haven't accomplished in 65 years?

Holy shit. I'll never consider you an Eeyore again.

#39 Lynchie

  • 1,724 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:38 PM

We will miss Wake's '15' wins. Under.

#40 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,489 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:40 PM

I think 5 less wins is significant. I had them at 97 wins coming into last season and I expect around 95 this season as things currently stand. If they were to land Kuroda I might bump them up to the 97 realm again, particularly given the flexibility it would allow them with Bard.

#41 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15,575 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:46 PM

double post.

Edited by soxfan121, 11 January 2012 - 03:48 PM.


#42 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15,575 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:47 PM

Currently, the team has one starter I'd rely on for 30+ starts: Lester.

Even year Beckett. Unmotivated, uncomfortable Beckett. I'm taking the under on Beckett in 2012. Clay's back, Daisuke's elbow, Bard's transition and whatever is happening on the 5th day for the first two months of the season...the starting rotation is much worse than this time last year.

Bailey & Melancon instead of Papelbon & Bard. A perpetually injured Jenks. A guy who seemingly does it with smoke & mirrors in Aceves and then some other flotsam & jetsam in the pen.

Ortiz is a year older and closer to the end. Crawford was horrendous last year and hasn't returned the new manager's calls. Ellsbury, Pedroia & Gonzalez can be relied upon but can Youkilis? Salty? Shoppach? Scutaro? Who's playing RF? Nick fucking Punto?

Valentine? McClure? Off-field drama? An improved Toronto, a consistent New York and a still developing Tampa? Yeah...gimme the under.

Edited by soxfan121, 11 January 2012 - 03:47 PM.


#43 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:06 PM

Really? They're worse in some clear ways, they have zero idea what they're going to get at the back end of the rotation, they don't know who's going to start in RF until Kalish comes back, they have no idea if Crawford will come around, they lost the best closer in their history, they hired perhaps the worst fit for manager possible, their All Star 3rd baseman keeps breaking down, yet you really think there's a "decent" chance at 100 wins, something they haven't accomplished in 65 years?

Holy shit. I'll never consider you an Eeyore again.


I would suggest that "decent" is not very precise, and you may well be thinking of a likelihood that is higher than what I think.

That said, the team is clearly worse in one area, one. Short relief at the end of games.

When you say they have zero idea what they're going to get at the back end of the rotation you're just plain wrong.

They know precisely who is going to start in RF and right now it's a Sweeney/McDonald platoon which is virtually guaranteed to be a sizable improvement over what the Sox got from RF last year.

Do you really think Crawford is going to perform more like the worst year in his career than all the other years in his career?

Suggesting that Valentine is the worst fit for manager possible is just silly hyperbole.

#44 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9,993 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:16 PM

I would suggest that "decent" is not very precise, and you may well be thinking of a likelihood that is higher than what I think.

That said, the team is clearly worse in one area, one. Short relief at the end of games.

In what area is this team better than the 2011 team?

Do you really think Crawford is going to perform more like the worst year in his career than all the other years in his career?


Crawford's career OBP is .333. Nick Punto's career OBP is .325. I know OBP isn't everything and that Carl Crawford has had a far superior career to Nick Punto. As much as I was excited to watch him play when they signed him, he was a terrible signing. He's not that good of a player and he's clearly uncomfortable in Boston and now he's got an issue with his manager.

I'd just assume they ship him to Washington for Jayson Werth

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 11 January 2012 - 04:18 PM.


#45 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:24 PM

Going down Savin's list from above.
  • Lackey --> Bard - True, but possibly not by a alot. A slight upgrade
  • DiceK/Wake/Bedard/etc. --> Aceves/DiceK - push, maybe a slight upgrade
  • Papelbon --> Bailey - Push to a slight downgrade. Till that last game, Paps had a pretty good year
  • Bard --> Melancon - downgrade. Could be by a alot, considering the league transition
  • Aceves--> Jenks/Aceves - Not sure if Ace can help in the rotation and bullpen.
  • Reddick--> Sweeney - probably abut the same
  • Lowrie--> Punto -should be an uipgrade, if only because Punto won't get hurt
The potential for Crawford to bounce back is pretty much negated by Ellsbury no longer being MVP. The only real area where there seems to be a possibility for significant improvement is if Bard takes to starting well. Which is possible, but seems like a highly optimistic assumption, esp if you assume he does it without growing pains. Similarly, I'm not sure if Aceves can duplicate his success again, esp with a new pitching coach. Same actually applies to Beckett, who had his best year in a while. Coaching turnover could be a factor also.

90 actually sounds about right(good line there). I'd take the over, but it's close. 88-92 seems like the range to me.

#46 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,164 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:27 PM

In what area is this team better than the 2011 team?


Right field. Catcher. It is highly likely that left field will be better. It is a virtual guarantee that the fifth starter will be better.

Crawford's career OBP is .333. Nick Punto's career OBP is .325. I know OBP isn't everything and that Carl Crawford has had a far superior career to Nick Punto. As much as I was excited to watch him play when they signed him, he was a terrible signing. He's not that good of a player and he's clearly uncomfortable in Boston and now he's got an issue with his manager.

I'd just assume they ship him to Washington for Jayson Werth


How is any of this relevant to anything?

#47 deconstruction

  • 3,074 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:35 PM

Going down Savin's list from above.

  • Lackey --> Bard - True, but possibly not by a alot. A slight upgrade


From Lackey's 2011 abomination? No, it should be more than "slight."

#48 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9,993 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:51 PM

Right field. Catcher. It is highly likely that left field will be better. It is a virtual guarantee that the fifth starter will be better.


Those moves add up to 96 wins? Mike Sweeney, Kelly Shoppach and TBD 5th starter? Really? Sox catching hit 29 homeruns in 2011 with .229//291/..446. It's hard to see how the addition of Shoppach improves those numbers that much.

How is any of this relevant to anything?

Because even if Crawford improves, he's not that good.

#49 Toe Nash

  • 3,108 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:54 PM

From Lackey's 2011 abomination? No, it should be more than "slight."


This can't be stated enough. Lackey had a 66 ERA+ last year. There have only been 4 pitchers in the expansion era to pitch 150 or more innings with a worse ERA+. When someone is that bad, they nearly always get replaced before they reach that many innings. Lackey didn't because we didn't have anyone clearly better, he had a huge contract, and he had a track record of being much better. But he was really, really, really bad and damaging to the team's chances.

#50 Alcohol&Overcalls

  • 1,208 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:57 PM

Because even if Crawford improves, he's not that good.


This is a completely empty phrase - but more importantly, as long as Crawford is better than the abortion of last season, which is very likely to be the case, he represents an improvement for 2012.

I'd take the over, given that any downgrades are very slight at best (Papelbon's season last year was only worth 2 bWAR - Bailey's likely to be within a win of that even if he gets hurt), and the team's 90-win pace from last year came under circumstances unlikely to repeat themselves (and if they do repeat, then the problem is endemic to the organization, not 'just' roster construction).

I would also guess the Vegas line opens slightly higher, as well.