276 replies to this topic

[Snodgrass'Muff]

There seem to be wildly differing opinions on where this team will end up this season, so I figured a poll to make your pre-season prediction and a place to discuss what you think is going to happen would be a good idea. With the season so close, the roster is mostly set and we've all had a chance to see how people look in Spring Training games. So where do you think this team ends up?

I'm guessing 91-95 wins, good enough for one of the two wild card slots. I think they have enough talent to win it all if they can get into the playoffs, even with the new playoff format making that path tougher for wild card teams. And I feel confident they will win at least one playoff game and advance to the divisional series. I actually think they have a good enough team to make a serious run at winning the World Series, but that's for another poll.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 25 March 2012 - 03:44 PM.

[rembrat]

86-90. I don't trust Valentine's ability and its a tough league. The Angels, Rangers, Yankees, and Rays are better teams imo.

[Trautwein's Degree]

It's going to be awesome when Youkilis goes down. A left side of Punto, Aviles, and Ross? Doubly awesome when they lose a starter. Depth was a problem last year. It's more of a problem this year. The needed to add a starting pitcher and they didn't. Way too many flaws on this team to overcome the talent on the roster. They compete with the Blue Jays for third place in the AL East.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 25 March 2012 - 12:24 PM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I voted 96-100 wins.

I don't see this team as substantially inferior to last year's squad, but a significant portion of that optimism is:

• my expectation that BobbyV's aggressive style will help the team outperform its pythagorean W-L record;
• my expectation that Bard will be a superior #4 pitcher to what I thought Lackey would provide in 2011;
• my expectation that Matsuzaka will be a #2/3 caliber pitcher (though still inefficient) when he returns;
• my expectation that Crawford will be turned loose to play his game and will flourish in the 2-hole; and
• my expectation that the bullpen outperforms the popular wisdom on all those "failed starters" like Miller.

As usual, it will come down to good health and some luck.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Yeah, I'm not too worried about the starting rotation. Lester and Beckett will be back, and they're essentially adding a new pitcher in getting Buchholz back. Daisuke will return in the second half giving them a "trade deadline" pick up and they have plenty of back of the rotation quality arms to keep rotating through that last spot all season as needed. I still think Bard will be a serviceable starter for the first half of the year and will then add some depth to the pen in the second half, and I'm really liking the way that pen looks like it'll shape up down the stretch.

This pitching staff will suffer injuries. Every pitching staff does. But it shouldn't be nearly as bad as last year and they know they have at least one quality arm coming back in the second half without even having to make a trade.

The pitching should significantly better than it was last year and the pen, especially, should be deeper than it was down the stretch in 2011.

[Trautwein's Degree]

I voted 96-100 wins.

They've had more than 96 wins once since 1978 and that was in 2004. They won exactly 96 games once since 1978 (2007)

The past two years they've won 89 and 90. This team is so flawed from the outset and dysfunctional at the top that it's hard to see them best 89 or 90 wins. Nothing the front office did this off season inspired confidence. I don't see this team out performing last year's win total.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 25 March 2012 - 12:48 PM.

[JimBoSox9]

In the early going, there seem to be an awful lot of people who think that the Sox will win not win the AL East but will win a playoff game. If you don't think the Sox can be better than the Yankees and Rays, it's unclear to me how you can be so confident in their chances in a 1-game playoff.

They've had more than 96 wins once since 1978 and that was in 2004. They won exactly 96 games once since 1978 (2007)

I don't think the Tito/Theo Sox were ever really worried about their win total. The goal was the make the playoffs and that's it. The Regular Season Tito meme was probably overblown, but there were definitely times he would value equitable playing time more than maximizing his matchups in a particular game. I don't think Bobby will be as willing to do that, especially since the WC changes have drastically changed the calculus of the value of winning the division.

Edited by JimBoSox9, 25 March 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

They've had more than 96 wins once since 1978 and that was in 2004. They won exactly 96 games once since 1978 (2007)

The past two years they've won 89 and 90. This team is so flawed from the outset and dysfunctional at the top that it's hard to see them best 89 or 90 wins. Nothing the front office did this off season inspired confidence. I don't see this team out performing last year's win total.

By their pythag record was 94-68. I don't think you're attributing enough value to the insanely bad luck the team had in September. If that month played out 100 times, it would have played out better 99 of them. Granted, pythagorean records don't get you into the playoffs, but they're usually pretty good a telling you what to expect going forward.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

In the early going, there seem to be an awful lot of people who think that the Sox will win not win the AL East but will win a playoff game. If you don't think the Sox can be better than the Yankees and Rays, it's unclear to me how you can be so confident in their chances in a 1-game playoff.

For me, it's about match ups. I think it's going to be tough to beat the Yankees over 162 games, but in a one game playoff against the Rays, Rangers or Angels, I like the team's chances.

[Trautwein's Degree]

By their pythag record was 94-68. I don't think you're attributing enough value to the insanely bad luck the team had in September. If that month played out 100 times, it would have played out better 99 of them. Granted, pythagorean records don't get you into the playoffs, but they're usually pretty good a telling you what to expect going forward.

Why was any of that bad luck? It was poor design. They did not have the starting pitching depth they needed. The inability of their starters to provide any sort of relief to the pen caused Bard to breakdown. They played fundamentally unsound baseball. The players that quit on this team are all back. The best manager they've ever had now works for ESPN and Carl Crawford is still hurt. Luck had nothing to do with Papelbon being unable to shut down the Orioles or Carl Crawford misplaying the final ball hit to him. Nothing.

[Pumpsie]

Looks like I'm in the majority on all three questions. Here's what I'm basing my votes on:

1) Whomever ends up pitching in the #4 and 5 slots in the rotation will be better than what we had pitching there last year. This is an incredibly low bar to hurdle.
2) Carl Crawford 2012 will outperform Carl Crawford 2011...again, a very low bar.
3) Whomever we have in RF will outperform what we had there in 2011. (See #1 and 2.)
4) Dice-K will come back midseason and be, at least, average Dice-K...and not bad Dice-K.
5) When all is said and done, Bobby Valentine will do just fine as manager and the front office won't do anything too stupid during the season.
6) Our injuries will be about average for a ML team and not catastrophic.
7) At least one of Padilla, Miller, Cook, etc. will be a pleasant surprise and a big help.
8) All our competition for the postseason will have gotten better as well...especially the Angels.
9) All we have to do is beat out one of the other top six AL teams to make the postseason. No one else will really be in the picture at the end.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

In the early going, there seem to be an awful lot of people who think that the Sox will win not win the AL East but will win a playoff game. If you don't think the Sox can be better than the Yankees and Rays, it's unclear to me how you can be so confident in their chances in a 1-game playoff.

It isn't necessarily not better than the Yankees AND Rays if you don't think they will win the division. They could lose the division by a game to either one and still be five+ games up on the other. A vote against winning the division is not a vote for third place or worse.

All I know is that they're going to pound the shit out of the ball and score a ton of runs, just like last year. The starting pitching should be better by the simple fact that the starters beyond Beckett and Lester last year couldn't have been much worse. They don't need ace like performances out of the back of the rotation, just league average, to take a big leap forward in performance.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Why was any of that bad luck? It was poor design. They did not have the starting pitching depth they needed. The inability of their starters to provide any sort of relief to the pen caused Bard to breakdown. They played fundamentally unsound baseball. The players that quit on this team are all back. The best manager they've ever had now works for ESPN and Carl Crawford is still hurt. Luck had nothing to do with Papelbon being unable to shut down the Orioles or Carl Crawford misplaying the final ball hit to him. Nothing.

No, luck had little to do with either play, but luck had everything to do with the fact that only 2/5 of their opening day starting rotation was available for most of the season. No team in baseball could withstand that many injuries. How can you honestly sit there and say luck had nothing to do with it? They had as much pitching depth as anyone else last year. And even with the absurd amount of injuries, they were on pace for 100 wins going into September. That last month was one of the worst months of baseball the team has played in its history. I'd bet the list of teams that had five months of .617 ball and one month as bad as last September was is incredibly small, if not unique.

Luck was a huge factor in how the season ended.

[Trautwein's Degree]

No, luck had little to do with either play, but luck had everything to do with the fact that only 2/5 of their opening day starting rotation was available for most of the season. No team in baseball could withstand that many injuries. How can you honestly sit there and say luck had nothing to do with it? They had as much pitching depth as anyone else last year. And even with the absurd amount of injuries, they were on pace for 100 wins going into September. That last month was one of the worst months of baseball the team has played in its history. I'd bet the list of teams that had five months of .617 ball and one month as bad as last September was is incredibly small, if not unique.

Luck was a huge factor in how the season ended.

Theo Epstein, February 18, 2011:

What could go wrong this year?

I think there are a lot of things that can go wrong. We don’t have as much depth in certain areas as we’d like. You always try to plan for not just the 25-man roster, but you ask yourself, “What happens if this guy gets hurt? What if this combination of injuries occurs?” Obviously last year, we couldn’t withstand what we went through. Starting pitching depth after our top five guys, we have [Tim] Wakefield, who can start for us. We have [Felix] Doubront, who may be in a position to start some games for us. And we have [Alfredo] Aceves, who may be able to start some for us.

But we don’t have a lot of young starting pitching in the upper minors ready to step in. I listed eight guys. The average big league team goes through 10 or 11 starters over the course of the season, so I don’t know where those starts are going to come from. We’re going to have to figure that part out as we go.

There's no depth this year. The manager wants the guy slated to be the number 4 starter to be in the pen.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 25 March 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Theo Epstein, February 18, 2011:



There's no depth this year. The manager wants the guy slated to be the number 4 starter to be in the pen.

Going through 10-12 pitchers is not the same as having 52 games started by guys not in your rotation on opening day. Add to that the fact that John Lackey needed TJ surgery and pitched all season anyway and you have two areas that will almost assuredly be improved from last year.

[OttoC]

...They did not have the starting pitching depth they needed...

I seem to remember discussions about going to a 6-man starting rotation They had depth; they just had more bad luck with injuries than anyone could have anticipated.

[Rasputin]

But we don’t have a lot of young starting pitching in the upper minors ready to step in. I listed eight guys.

The average big league team goes through 10 or 11 starters over the course of the season, so I don’t know where those starts are going to come from

. We’re going to have to figure that part out as we go.

But the average team doesn't have extended appearances by the 6-11 guys. The problem wasn't that Wakefield, Aceves, et al. made starts, it's that they made so many starts. Buchholz and Matsuzaka combined for 21 starts instead of 60.

Wakefield, Aceves, Miller, Bedard, made 47 starts.

If Miller, Cook, Aceves, and some guy we trade for make 47 starts while someone else on the roster makes 28 starts and pitches horrendously then yeah, this team isn't going anywhere.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

If Miller, Cook, Aceves, and some guy we trade for make 47 starts while someone else on the roster makes 28 starts and pitches horrendously then yeah, this team isn't going anywhere.

Actually, with the change in the playoff format this year, last year's results would still have had them in the post season.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I seem to remember discussions about going to a 6-man starting rotation They had depth; they just had more bad luck with injuries than anyone could have anticipated.

Exactly. Buchholz, Lackey, and Matsuzaka performed in aggregate so far away from any probable expectations to innings and ERA that it was almost absurd.

Leaving aside the 12 GS of pretty-much average MLB quality from Bedard and Aceves, here's what the Sox got in 2011:

• 75 GS, 467 2/3 IP (~6.2 IP/GS), 3.23 ERA [from starts by Lester, Beckett, Buchholz]
• 75 GS, 413 2/3 IP (~5.5 IP/GS), 5.92 ERA [from starts by Matsuzaka, Lackey, Weiland, Miller, Wakefield]

I expect a fair bit of ERA slippage from Beckett, but it's hard to imagine those three pitchers won't be able to support a level of production in the mid-threes.

At the same time, the only member of that awful latter group with a starter's ERA below 5 was DiceK, and he's the only one likely to start games for the Sox in 2012.

So even without a big-splash FA signing for an innings eater, I hope for some overall pitching improvement. Provided the Sox have average luck or better, health-wise.

[Reverend]

What should we use as a baseline for a "standard" number of games started and innings pitched from the quality guys?

[Plympton91]

Why was any of that bad luck? It was poor design. They did not have the starting pitching depth they needed. The inability of their starters to provide any sort of relief to the pen caused Bard to breakdown. They played fundamentally unsound baseball.

Their record in September was worse than the average month for the '62 Mets. They were a bad team by then, they weren't THAT bad a team. Anytime you go 7-22, it is multiple parts bad luck. And remeber, it took TB going 17-12 over the same period. That's out of Boston's control.

The players that quit on this team are all back. The best manager they've ever had now works for ESPN and Carl Crawford is still hurt.

Should "the best manager in history have prevented his players from quitting? Having the same job for 8 years is about 3 years too many, usually. It's just unfortunate that there's not a "senior manager" position they could have moved Francona to a couple years ago.

Luck had nothing to do with Papelbon being unable to shut down the Orioles or Carl Crawford misplaying the final ball hit to him. Nothing.

Actually, when a good defensive outfielder muffs a reasonably playable ball, that's sort of the perfect definition of bad luck.

I think the Red Sox are a little bit better team right now than they were last April, but I also think the Yankees, Rays, Blue Jays, Tigers, Rangers, and Angels are significantly better than they were last April. That means the difference between 86 wins and 94 wins is pretty much luck this year. It should be fun for those of us who remeber when a postseason berth wasn't considered a birthright. For those for whom 1995 to present is their entire Red Sox experience, I can see why you might feel a bit queasy. Buckle up, and trust us when we say its been a hell of a lot worse.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

What should we use as a baseline for a "standard" number of games started and innings pitched from the quality guys?

I think the Sox can hope for an aggregate line of 87 GS, 550 IP. That averages to 29 starts from each of the top three, at 6 1/3 IP per start.

Considering that each starter could otherwise have 32-33 games, it also builds in time for 2-3 minor DL trips. If the Sox can get that level of volume at a perfectly-reasonable-to-assume ~120 ERA+ in aggregate, they'll be in fantastic shape.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

What should we use as a baseline for a "standard" number of games started and innings pitched from the quality guys?

If none of them miss a start, you'd have to figure 95-96 starts (~32 a piece) among Lester, Beckett, and Buchholz. So I think a reasonable and not blindly optimistic baseline is probably along the lines of 88-90 or so starts and ~560 innings (~6.3 IP/start). It presumes a couple missed/skipped starts a piece, or a DL stint for one of them.

Just for comparison, the Phillies' top three (Halladay, Lee, Hamels) combined for 95 starts and 682 IP last season. The Angels top three (Haren, Weaver, Santana) combined for 100 starts and 702 IP. The Rays top three (Price, Hellickson, Shields) combined for 96 starts and 662 IP. That's the picture of perfect health and quality from the top of the rotation, and not coincidentally, the top NL team and top two AL teams in starter's ERA.

With the offense the Red Sox possess, they don't necessarily need to get those kind of performances out of their top three to win 90+ games in 2012. If they do, they're going to be threatening for the best record in the league.

[Toe Nash]

It seems like we've had the same thread or some variation thereof a hundred times since October. After September people were so ridiculous and unreasinable around here (myself included, at times) that I didn't read the main board for a couple months, hoping people would gain some perspective. They haven't. We're not going to cover any new ground rehashing the same arguments about last year's team and it's pretty frustrating to read, but thank the baseball gods that the season starts in two weeks.

Anyway, I voted 91-95 wins. The offense will again mash, with any regression from Ellsbury or Pedroia made up for by somewhat better health from Youkilis and better production from the outfield corners (I like the Ross / Sweeney platoon idea a lot). There's enough solid arms around that the 4-5 spots will be better than they were last year, whether they get 30 starts from Bard or a combination of 10-15 each from Bard / Aceves / Doubront / Padilla /Dice-K or whatever. Even with all the rehashing it's hard to overstate just how absolutely awful the production was from those spots last year. And the bullpen has enough arms that I think it will be above average, and the high-leverage innings should be taken care of.

I'm apprehensive about Valentine but I do think there's a decent chance that his go-get-em attitude combined with the embarrassment of last year does inspire the team to work hard and come out of the gate like gangbusters. They certainly have the talent if they can harness it and hopefully his coaching staff and the front office can talk him out of his wilder ideas (Iglesias) before they do too much damage.

I think the Yankees will run away with the division, but I think the Sox will clinch a wild card spot early enough that they can set it up so that whoever of the top three is pitching the best can get the start in the one-game playoff, with of course some other hands on deck. And so I like their chances in that game, and beyond that anything can happen, but they should still have two solid pitchers ready to pitch the first two games of the divisional series.

[Rasputin]

What should we use as a baseline for a "standard" number of games started and innings pitched from the quality guys?

At first glanced I pulled 25 out of my ass.

Then I decided to take a look at what folks have done so I looked at the games started over the past 25 years to see how many games pitchers are starting. There's a bit of a trough from around 11 starts to around 29 starts.

If you add up the number of guys who have started 26 or more games in a season it's 454 seasons or about 90 per year or three per team per year. That seems reasonable to me.

If you think of there being 150 starting pitching slots per year, and you're looking for the top half in terms of endurance, you're looking at about 29 games started would be better than half the slots and obviously better than more than half of the actual pitchers. That also seems reasonable to me.

[Rasputin]

But the average team doesn't have extended appearances by the 6-11 guys. The problem wasn't that Wakefield, Aceves, et al. made starts, it's that they made so many starts. Buchholz and Matsuzaka combined for 21 starts instead of 60. Wakefield, Aceves, Miller, Bedard, made 47 starts. If Miller, Cook, Aceves, and some guy we trade for make 47 starts while someone else on the roster makes 28 starts and pitches horrendously then yeah, this team isn't going anywhere.

I should correct myself.

The problem isn't that we had some crappy pitchers making starts. The problem was that we had crappy pitchers making so many starts that we couldn't bump John Lackey out of the rotation.

John Lackey should have had his Tommy John surgery in May.

[Pumpsie]

I still think that the Achilles' heel of this team is the same thing it was last season...it lacks pitching. Ben Cherington has doubled down this offseason on the Theo Epstein approach to filling out the ML staff...throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks...and, so far, this ST...no one has really stuck....the pitchers in question are either gone, injured, or still question marks. This approach left us short of pitching last season and caught up to us in September. That scenario could well play out again. It's difficult to see this staff suffering any kind of injury setbacks...there's just no depth of any quality for either the rotation or the bullpen. Theo really left the cupboard bare in this regard, and Ben didn't really fix it.

This team will score a lot of runs. How well it prevents them will determine its fate.

[nvalvo]

People in this thread think the Yankees are much, much better than I think they are. I expect them to regress on both sides of the ball.

They have a lot of money and roster spots tied up in declining offensive players (A-Rod, Jeter, Teixeira...). Cano has been great for a few years now, and Granderson had a career year last year, but any regression from those two will be hard to weather. There's been a lot of talk about offseason improvements to the pitching, but I have trouble seeing Kuroda and Pineda matching the *insane* performance NY got from Colon (111 ERA+) and Garcia (119 ERA+) in 2012 — although I should add that I think Montero for Pineda was a good long term move. The NY bullpen looks good to great.

In the 2011 Red Sox, we have a team that got next to nothing from its corner outfielders and was still the best-hitting team in baseball. Boston, as a club, put up an OPS+ of 116 last year. NY had a 106. For reference, the 2003 Sox, my gold standard for team offensive performance put up a 118. This is a top-shelf offense, and I expect them to improve in 2012. I think Boston is likely to keep their substantial offensive edge over NY, but in order to take the division, they'll need to be a lot closer defensively. I think NY is a favorite, but not prohibitively, and I see TB right in the mix, too. This should shape up to be a classic pennant race.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

That wasn't the approach last year, though. They entered the season with Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Matsuzaka and Lackey in the rotation. Not a single one of those guys was "throw spaghetti against the wall." That approach was used to fill out the long reliever and AAA starter spots for emergency call ups, and of course, is the only possible approach available to most GM's in most seasons. If guys were good enough to be locks for the rotation, they wouldn't be available for minor league contracts or spring training invites in the first place.

Or are you suggesting they should have forseen 3/5's of their rotation being reduced to a pile of goo by injuries (two blown elbows and a fractured back)?

[Rough Carrigan]

I'm pretty optimistic. I agree with most everything Pumpsie said.
I think this team is likely to win 91-95 games as this is a very tough division. The best thing for the Rangers and Angels is that the Mariners will likely suck and the A's won't be as good a team as Toronto will. I'm reluctant to rely on anything quite so fluffly as karma, but damn the yankees got lucky last year with both Colon, for most of the year, and Garcia coming through. With each passing year the chances of Jeter and Rivera having a big fall off increase. I think people are overawed by the Pujols signing by the Angels. His OPS and OPS+ last year were both below Ortiz's. His BA, OBP and SLG have basically all gone down three straight years. His numbers last year were eerily similar to Kendry Morales's in 2009. Did we all think a world beating, pennant race re-shuffler had broken his leg in 2010? The Angels' offense still looks a bit iffy. I think the Rangers are a real team but they're not so great that they're impervious to normal fluctuations of luck or injuries, either, especially on the pitching side. I have no idea about the Rays. It always seems like 2/3 of their roster turns over every year. I will be curious to see how Shields pitches this year after all the extra innings last year.

The bottom line is that I think we know all our team's flaws or potential flaws and, to a degree, confuse our lack of similar familiarity with the weaknesses of other teams for those weaknesses not existing.

[Rasputin]

I still think that the Achilles' heel of this team is the same thing it was last season...it lacks pitching. Ben Cherington has doubled down this offseason on the Theo Epstein approach to filling out the ML staff...throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks...and, so far, this ST...no one has really stuck....the pitchers in question are either gone, injured, or still question marks. This approach left us short of pitching last season and caught up to us in September. That scenario could well play out again. It's difficult to see this staff suffering any kind of injury setbacks...there's just no depth of any quality for either the rotation or the bullpen. Theo really left the cupboard bare in this regard, and Ben didn't really fix it.

This team will score a lot of runs. How well it prevents them will determine its fate.

It lacks pitching depth.

The Sox best pitchers can go toe to toe with just about anyone.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

It lacks pitching depth.

The Sox best pitchers can go toe to toe with just about anyone.

I would argue it even has depth -- If it didn't then there wouldn't be a competition for the 4th and 5th starter spots. There just doesn't appear to be any knock-your-socks-off option on that depth chart. Or any options that can be sent back down to the minors if they don't initially succeed.

What the Sox system currently lacks is a prospect playing at AA or above, who also profiles as a better-than-average starter. The way Papelbon was waiting in the wings during 2005, or Lester in 2006, or Buchholz in 2007.

From the 2006-08 drafts' top 5 rounds (where one might expect the Sox to find such a prospect) the Sox chose 13 pitchers. Eight of them were traded, two have been released. Only Caleb Clay and Brock Huntzinger remain in the organization as farmhands.

And, of course, Daniel Bard -- who coincidentally is the most intriguing option for the Sox 5th starter...

[someoneanywhere]

I'm with the majority thus far -- they'll win betwixt 90-95 games, and the fan in me says they'll win a playoff game. (Tougher call: because I don't see them winning the division, and I don't think anyone in their right mind can call a wildcard play-in game anything other than a crapshoot.)

I think this team is better than most people think, and I like that so many so-called experts are crapping on them. I think in the long run there will even be a perverse sense of thanks for 2011 -- because I do think a sense of entitlement had set in, and had begun setting in after 2007.

Let's roll the ball out there and see what happens. Good but not great pitching -- but more depth than people imagine -- a deep offense, and a defense that gets appreciably better with a return to form from Crawford, better and more consistent gloves in right, and Iglesias at short by July.

[Pumpsie]

It lacks pitching depth.

The Sox best pitchers can go toe to toe with just about anyone.

Yes, I concur. When I said that the team "lacks pitching" I meant that it doesn't have enough...the same situation we were in a year ago, IMO. If there are injuries to one or more of our best pitchers, that's really going to be difficult to make up for.

[JakeRae]

I'm in the 96-100 category. I am willing to bet on normal health and with normal health, this team is that good. If things break right, I can see 100+. With some bad luck, 91-95 is very likely. It would take a repeat of the horrific luck from the past 2 years for them to be under 90, which I'm not saying is impossible, but is far from likely. I know I'm an optimist, but I do not believe my optimism is that far fetched. This team still has similar overall talent to the team we all thought would challenge for 100 wins last year.

As for the playoffs, I voted yes on winning the division if only because I want to believe they do. Realistically, the odds are below 50% but I think they have as good a chance as the Yankees and a better chance than the Rays or Jays. The playoff game question comes down to whether you believe the new play-in game counts as part of the playoffs. Personally, I don't. I still voted yes since I think they'll win the division.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Yes, I concur. When I said that the team "lacks pitching" I meant that it doesn't have enough...the same situation we were in a year ago, IMO. If there are injuries to one or more of our best pitchers, that's really going to be difficult to make up for.

Same could be said regarding just about every other contender team in baseball. And just because the Sox rotation got hit extremely hard by the injury bug last season doesn't mean they're any more susceptible to it this year than any other team.

[reggiecleveland]

Looks like I'm in the majority on all three questions. Here's what I'm basing my votes on:

1) Whomever ends up pitching in the #4 and 5 slots in the rotation will be better than what we had pitching there last year. This is an incredibly low bar to hurdle.
2) Carl Crawford 2012 will outperform Carl Crawford 2011...again, a very low bar.
3) Whomever we have in RF will outperform what we had there in 2011. (See #1 and 2.)
4) Dice-K will come back midseason and be, at least, average Dice-K...and not bad Dice-K.
5) When all is said and done, Bobby Valentine will do just fine as manager and the front office won't do anything too stupid during the season.
6) Our injuries will be about average for a ML team and not catastrophic.
7) At least one of Padilla, Miller, Cook, etc. will be a pleasant surprise and a big help.
8) All our competition for the postseason will have gotten better as well...especially the Angels.
9) All we have to do is beat out one of the other top six AL teams to make the postseason. No one else will really be in the picture at the end.

All of this assumes all the positives will happen the same way as last year including:

• Ellsbury is the best player in the league again
• Gonzales, Pedroia are just as good and healthy
• Youks can stay healthy playing 3b
• If improving rf production is a low bar, maintain SS is a high bar.
• Beckett and Lester will be as good as they were last year.
• Whoever is in the pen is a good as Aceves, Bard and Papelbon, because it looks like maybe none of those guys will be there.
• That Salty has another decent year with the bat.
• That the extreme bad luck of injuries to Buchholz, Dice and Lackey has been improved by exactly one of those guys being healthy enough to pitch right now and the replacements are from the bargain bin.

[rembrat]

Same could be said regarding just about every other contender team in baseball. And just because the Sox rotation got hit extremely hard by the injury bug last season doesn't mean they're any more susceptible to it this year than any other team.

Except the Rangers, Angels, Rays, and Yankees. Who. have. depth.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

All of this assumes all the positives will happen the same way as last year including: [snip - laundry list].

No, it doesn't. Even regression from what-happened-to-go-well last season doesn't change the fact that this year's team is chock-full of talent that should be good for 95 wins.

Now granted, the only reason the Sox were able to weather the extraordinary bad luck to their pitching staff, and stay in contention for the playoffs through the end of the season, is because of their extraordinary bounceback seasons from Ellsbury, Beckett, Aceves, and Ortiz. However, if they had gotten better luck with their 3-4-5 starters, Youkilis, Crawford, and Drew along with those good breaks...well, I think we're still talking about the "Best Team Ever" because that would have been an unstoppable juggernaut.

But I don't think those of us who are optimistic are all pie-in-the-sky. Most of where the Sox. Have. Depth. is where their greatest offensive questions are: SS defense (Iglesias), 3B injury protection substitute (Middlebrooks), C batting production (Lavarnway), and DH age-related decline hedge (again, Lavarnway). Pitching is another story, and its tale will be told over the course of the season. With average-to-good luck regarding that, it will have a happy end. If not, it probably won't.

But assuming that this year's team will suffer similarly catastrophic injuries as in the last two years, doesn't make much sense to me. And the team is still frickin' stacked.

[Rasputin]

Except the Rangers, Angels, Rays, and Yankees. Who. have. depth.

Great, the Sox have less depth. They're more susceptible to injuries. You understand that there's no guarantee the Sox are going to get injured, right?

The Sox get 25+ starts from Lester, Beckett, and Buchholz, and three decent half seasons out of Dice K, Bard, and Doubront, I'm going to feel really good taking my chances with Aceves, Silva, and the rest of the drek for the rest of the games.

[Rough Carrigan]

All of this assumes all the positives will happen the same way as last year including:

• Ellsbury is the best player in the league again
• Gonzales, Pedroia are just as good and healthy
• Youks can stay healthy playing 3b
• If improving rf production is a low bar, maintain SS is a high bar.
• Beckett and Lester will be as good as they were last year.
• Whoever is in the pen is a good as Aceves, Bard and Papelbon, because it looks like maybe none of those guys will be there.
• That Salty has another decent year with the bat.
• That the extreme bad luck of injuries to Buchholz, Dice and Lackey has been improved by exactly one of those guys being healthy enough to pitch right now and the replacements are from the bargain bin.

But Youks wasn't healthy last year. So, that's a reasonable possibility for improvement. And Scutaro only played in 113 games last year and had almost exactly the same OPS as Aviles. Lester actually had a worse ERA+ in 2011 than any of the 3 previous years. It's not unreasonable at all to expect him to be at least as good as last year. Salty had half as many at bats against lefties last year as he did against righties. He did horribly against them. If there's one thing I think we can count on it's that Valentine won't miss obvious platoon possibilities.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 25 March 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[Harry Hooper]

Same could be said regarding just about every other contender team in baseball. And just because the Sox rotation got hit extremely hard by the injury bug last season doesn't mean they're any more susceptible to it this year than any other team.

I'd like to believe that, but you have to put some question marks next to Buchholz's health going forward.

Ideally, a good pitching staff has 3 studs at the front starting and three studs at the back of the pen, and you fill in the slots between as best you can. The Sox have the 3 studs at the front, though some health concerns about Buchholz. Are there three studs at the back of the pen? Certainly doesn't look like it if Bard and Aceves are in the rotation. Add in Melancon's and Bailey's struggles with quality lefty batters, plus Bailey's health/availability concerns, it is not the most comforting picture. Still, I see 2 more wins than 2011 if the top three starters don't miss much time.

[quint]

Great, the Sox have less depth. They're more susceptible to injuries. You understand that there's no guarantee the Sox are going to get injured, right?

The Sox get 25+ starts from Lester, Beckett, and Buchholz, and three decent half seasons out of Dice K, Bard, and Doubront, I'm going to feel really good taking my chances with Aceves, Silva, and the rest of the drek for the rest of the games.

I bolded this part because it strikes me a bizarrely optimistic.Not to appear indignant or anything, but do you really expect this? How realistic is to believe Boston makes it through the upcoming season injury free?

Meaning, injuries are the sort of happenstance a rational person should expect

[Trautwein's Degree]

Great, the Sox have less depth. They're more susceptible to injuries. You understand that there's no guarantee the Sox are going to get injured, right?

The Sox get 25+ starts from Lester, Beckett, and Buchholz, and three decent half seasons out of Dice K, Bard, and Doubront, I'm going to feel really good taking my chances with Aceves, Silva, and the rest of the drek for the rest of the games.

Even though you're taking your chances with Carlos Silva, the Red Sox aren't.

[Plympton91]

Yes, I concur. When I said that the team "lacks pitching" I meant that it doesn't have enough...the same situation we were in a year ago, IMO. If there are injuries to one or more of our best pitchers, that's really going to be difficult to make up for.

It has been largely overlooked in discussing last year's injuries that Felix Doubront was also injured, and it looks again this spring like he is still the somewhat better than replacement level option that was missing last year.

I'm not one to criticize those who want to wear dark sunglasses rather than rosy ones, but there also exists the possibility that on July 1st, the Red Sox rotation will be Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Matsuzaka, and Bard. In the bullpen could be Aceves, Padilla, and Doubront. In AAA could be Alex Wilson, Junichi Tazawa, and Aaron Cook.

Is that really a lack of pitching depth relative to the rest of the league?

How much of the lack of pitching depth last season would have been alleviated by simply putting Aceves in the rotation, and finding a decent reliever, instead of trading for Bedard? I said it in another thread, but it seemed like the argument last year was that Aceves could not start because he was more valuable pitching with the team already down 5 runs.

[Plympton91]

All of this assumes all the positives will happen the same way as last year including:

• Ellsbury is the best player in the league again
• Gonzales, Pedroia are just as good and healthy
• Youks can stay healthy playing 3b
• If improving rf production is a low bar, maintain SS is a high bar.
• Beckett and Lester will be as good as they were last year.
• Whoever is in the pen is a good as Aceves, Bard and Papelbon, because it looks like maybe none of those guys will be there.
• That Salty has another decent year with the bat.
• That the extreme bad luck of injuries to Buchholz, Dice and Lackey has been improved by exactly one of those guys being healthy enough to pitch right now and the replacements are from the bargain bin.

1. Is Ellsbury less likely to repeat his season than Granderson?
2. Are Pedroia and Gonzales more likely to drop off than Cano and Teixiera
3. Can ARod stay healthy playing 3B?
4. Will Jeter defy aging?
5. Can Sabathia's body continue to carry 50 extra pounds? Will Ivan Nova go 14-4 again? If the Yankees have such a great rotation, why did they raid the retirement home for Pettitte.
6. The Red Sox pen without Bard and Aceves would be very weak going in, whereas for the Yankees it is a strength
7. Saltalamacchia will likely improve on last season, because he and Shoppach will platoon based on opposing starter rather than Boston's starter more than last season.
8. With DiceK throwing batting practice, I'd say your last statement is too pessimistic.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I'm not one to criticize those who want to wear dark sunglasses rather than rosy ones, but there also exists the possibility that on July 1st, the Red Sox rotation will be Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Matsuzaka, and Bard. In the bullpen could be Aceves, Padilla, and Doubront. In AAA could be Alex Wilson, Junichi Tazawa, and Aaron Cook.

Is that really a lack of pitching depth relative to the rest of the league?

It's also possible that more one of Ranaudo, Pimentel, Britton, Tazawa, Mortensen, Fields, and Carpenter will be looking MLB-ready (in AA/AAA) as of July 1.

A breakout/bounceback campaign from at least two of those seven arms would do wonders for the psyche of this board, I think.

[bosockboy]

I think this particular team might be defined by in season moves. As it stands, I feel about 93 wins. But they will have to acquire a starter by mid summer even if Matsuzaka contributes by then.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I think this particular team might be defined by in season moves. As it stands, I feel about 93 wins. But they will have to acquire a starter by mid summer even if Matsuzaka contributes by then.

Why? If Matsuzaka is back and contributing and they haven't lost any of Lester, Beckett or Buchholz you don't think it's even remotely possible that one of Padilla, Bard, Cook, Aceves or Doubront will be able to fill in that last spot adequately?

[dynomite]

The past two years they've won 89 and 90. ... Nothing the front office did this off season inspired confidence.

Starters not named Beckett/Lester/Buchholz put up a 5.71 ERA last year. If the 2011 Red Sox had replaced Lackey, Wakefield and Miller they almost certainly would have made the playoffs.

The 2012 Red Sox have replaced them.

It's hard to suck as much as we did last year! Optimism abounds!