41 replies to this topic

[The Boomer]

The 100th anniversary of the first professional game at Fenway today more than ironically went to the Yankees. It's probably a strained metaphor but, unless this Sox ship rights itself as injured players return, this year's team is resembling baseball's version of the Titanic. Small sample size notwithstanding, this looks more like a bunch of bloated overpaid first class players who will sprint for the lifeboats before this team implodes. The blame for this probably goes all the way back to that last chapagne popping championship celebration in 2007 if not before. Last decade's winners beat the Yankees for the first time since the beginning of Fenway's first century because they didn't try to (ruinously financially) keep up with the Yankees. Rather than a classic rebuilding effort (that could have been accomplished quicker in Boston than most places with their financial advantages), they continued with expensive patches and fills of the cracks in their hull to keep their streak of sellout crowds going. Even if they turn this around relatively soon to flirt with the playoffs, won't this be just another disappointing mirage just like in 2011?

The new collective bargaining agreement might hurt the franchise more with the spending cap on signing amateur talent in upcoming years than with how it limits their short term spending this season and maybe next year too.

If this second version of the Titanic goes down in this Centennial year, who will get saved in the lifeboats?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The 100th anniversary of the first professional game at Fenway today more than ironically went to the Yankees. It's probably a strained metaphor but, unless this Sox ship rights itself as injured players return, this year's team is resembling baseball's version of the Titanic.

It's such a strained metaphor it could be served out of a little glass jar with a teeny plastic spoon.

This team cannot shipwreck. The 2012 Red Sox can only continue to move forward until September -- whether they can do so at a high enough winning percentage and become a playoff team requires that the season play out. They have to play out their schedule, win or lose. And they are a baseball team that is currently losing against superior competition. That is all.

Whether you choose to abandon ship or not is the real question you're asking.

Edited by Buzzkill Pauley, 20 April 2012 - 08:14 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

The 100th anniversary of the first professional game at Fenway today more than ironically went to the Yankees.

Congratulations to this year's Alanis Morrissette Award winner.

Small sample size notwithstanding, this looks more like a bunch of bloated overpaid first class players who will sprint for the lifeboats before this team implodes.

How exactly will they do that? Retire? They're under contract.

The blame for this probably goes all the way back to that last chapagne popping championship celebration in 2007 if not before.

So, the moral of the story is, if you celebrate when you win, it'll make you suck?

If this second version of the Titanic goes down in this Centennial year, who will get saved in the lifeboats?

I'm not sure, but I'm betting against this thread.

[Plympton91]

Bah, no time for defeatism. Every team will have a stretch of games where they go 5-10 or so; they're playing a tough schedule with a badly injury-depleted team and a new manager and coaching staff.

Reinforcements will start to arrive much sooner than most years, and they'll be of higher quality than you imagine.

If the baseball gods can forestall more injuries for a little while, they can get going soon enough.

Furthermore, the idea that spending money on this team is what got them into this mess is ridiculous. Spending money on the wrong players is what got them into this mess. If they had taken the same amount of money they spent on Crawford, Jenks, Cameron, and Lackey and bought Holliday, Downs, and Papelbon instead, they'd be fine. Or, if just one of the four losers had performed up to a scintilla of their capability, they'd have been ok.

Moreover, while Lackey's first three seasons are a wasteland of suck, I'm actually looking forward to his repaired elbow taking the mound for us. In all likelihood, he'll finally be the guy they thought they were getting.

Edited by Plympton91, 20 April 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[JMDurron]

Whether you choose to abandon ship or not is the real question you're asking.

Now I'm annoyed that I already used the TNG time loop episode reference in another thread. Damn

Bah, no time for defeatism. Every team will have a stretch of games where they go 5-10 or so; they're playing a tough schedule with a badly injury-depleted team and a new manager and coaching staff.

Reinforcements will start to arrive much sooner than most years, and they'll be of higher quality than you imagine.

If the baseball gods can forestall more injuries for a little while, they can get going soon enough.

Furthermore, the idea that spending money on this team is what got them into this mess is ridiculous. Spending money on the wrong players is what got them into this mess. If they had taken the same amount of money they spent on Crawford, Jenks, Cameron, and Lackey and bought Holliday, Downs, and Papelbon instead, they'd be fine. Or, if just one of the four losers had performed up to a scintilla of their capability, they'd have been ok.

Moreover, while Lackey's first three seasons are a wasteland of suck, I'm actually looking forward to his repaired elbow taking the mound for us. In all likelihood, he'll finally be the guy they thought they were getting.

I know some of this is just looking for a reaction, but...

This team isn't likely to be any less injury-depleted anytime soon. Bailey and Ellsbury are not coming back in 15 days. Buchholz is apparently not going to be able to use the mechanics that made his fastball effective in 2010-2011 anymore. Several key players (Youkilis, Beckett) are not getting any younger or more durable as we debate this point.

Aside from Rich Hill, there is absolutely no solid reason to feel secure that the reinforcements are going to be "of higher quality than you imagine." Matsuzaka will hopefully not suck anymore, but getting 75% of the 2007-2008 version is hardly "of higher quality" than anyone can imagine. If Andrew Miller is of higher quality than someone can imagine, someone needs a better imagination.

The so-called baseball gods have apparently decided that we are doomed to watch a devastating chain of injuries inflict (hyperbole alert) doom upon the Red Sox for 3 consecutive years now. You need to use caps lock and bold font with your first word there.

I don't think that anyone (well, anyone sane anyway) is saying that spending money on the team is the problem. It's not even the wrong particular players, in my mind. It's the type of players. Aging, free agent players are horrible investments, where the best case scenario is often to do no worse than to break even on "value" vs health and performance (JD Drew comes to mind). The problem is that the collective capability of all free agents (barring the occasional 27-year-old superstar FA, and we don't see many of those anymore) is constantly declining relative to their statistical baselines, and the FAs who don't end up hurt or incompetent are the exception, not the rule.

No disagreement with your last statement.

[Plympton91]

This team isn't likely to be any less injury-depleted anytime soon. Bailey and Ellsbury are not coming back in 15 days. Buchholz is apparently not going to be able to use the mechanics that made his fastball effective in 2010-2011 anymore. Several key players (Youkilis, Beckett) are not getting any younger or more durable as we debate this point.

Aside from Rich Hill, there is absolutely no solid reason to feel secure that the reinforcements are going to be "of higher quality than you imagine." Matsuzaka will hopefully not suck anymore, but getting 75% of the 2007-2008 version is hardly "of higher quality" than anyone can imagine. If Andrew Miller is of higher quality than someone can imagine, someone needs a better imagination.

I'm not sure how "than you can imagine" ended up there. What I meant to say was "Higher quality than you can usually hope to get at this point in the season." Aside from Rich Hill, if Matsuzaka can come back as well toward his peak as Zimmerman and Strasburg have come back, then you're getting a huge upgrade over Doubront and Doubront an upgrade over Albers, Atchison, Miller or Thomas. Moreover, they are also getting a breakthrough performance from Middlebrooks, while I still think it is a blatent overreaction at this point to think that Youkillis isn't still at least an 850 OPS guy who can not kill you defensively at 3B. They are sitting on Lavarnway if Salty doesn't snap out of his now half season plus of nonproduction, though he seems to be hitting the fine except for it's going right at people. Iglesias seems to have learned how to take a pitch once in a while, perhaps that translates into swinging at more pitches he can square up.

I also think that a lot of the reason Valentine isn't optimizing matchups is to see if any of his bullpen guys can "break through" and be more complete pitchers. That's a long-term strategy that may be detrimental in the short-run, perhaps needlessly. However, I also expect those "mistakes" to dissipate as the weeks roll on and he gives up and realizes he has to manage by the book--or as somebody steps up.

Edited by Plympton91, 21 April 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

This team isn't likely to be any less injury-depleted anytime soon.

Yes, it is -- within 30 games, The Sox are likely to have activated Matsuzaka, Hill, Crawford, and possibly Miller from the DL. That represents 12-16% of yesterday's team. And again, for those players most likely to be injured in that span, there are excellent replacements available in AAA.

Upgrading that much of the roster is really significant, especially as regards its impact to the bullpen. Adding Doubront as a set-up man -- a LHP who actually can get both RH and LH hitters out -- is huge, even if the upgrade in the rotation from him to Matsuzaka is only marginal. Add Hill and his newfound velocity into that group, and suddenly the bullpen is no longer the question mark it once was, but an actual strength of the team. The added bonus being that Justin Thomas is no longer on the roster, much less pitching important innings.

Crawford strengthens the top of the lineup, while also re-balancing the handedness of the OF hitters. Perhaps adding Ellsbury would be a bigger boost, but Crawford is still a gigantic step up from Jason Repko -- who's replaced by Ross moving over to CF. Playing Crawford, Ross, and Sweeney everyday might not be ideal, but it's a damn sight better than BobbyV's fetish for Repko.

Miller. Eh, nevermind.

But whatever -- the point is that all this improvement is probable within a 2-5 week window. And fortunately, most of that window is spent playing against other deficient teams, rather than the beasts who were scheduled for the Sox' first five series.

Contrary to the doom-casters, the 2012 Red Sox won't stay a .333 team. And by the time Bailey comes back, they'll probably have evened things out to a .550 or so winning percentage.

Titanic, indeed. Feh.

[tims4wins]

Contrary to the doom-casters, the 2012 Red Sox won't stay a .333 team.

.308, actually

[Savin Hillbilly]

Yes, it is -- within 30 games, The Sox are likely to have activated Matsuzaka, Hill, Crawford, and possibly Miller from the DL.

I think the problem here is that there isn't anybody on that list who isn't a question mark even when healthy, with the possible exception of Hill. (Well, OK, Miller isn't a question mark--we know he'll suck.) So it's hard to get excited about their returns individually, and even harder collectively. How certain is it that Matsuzaka will pitch better than Doubront has thus far? What can we really expect from Crawford?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I think the problem here is that there isn't anybody on that list who isn't a question mark even when healthy, with the possible exception of Hill. (Well, OK, Miller isn't a question mark--we know he'll suck.) So it's hard to get excited about their returns individually, and even harder collectively. How certain is it that Matsuzaka will pitch better than Doubront has thus far? What can we really expect from Crawford?

Even if they're question marks, it's asinine to believe they won't be improvements, though. Isn't it? The team has just been that bad, and that injury-depleted. So when some those injuries are scheduled to come off the DL, it's even more ridiculous to say "the team isn't likely to be any less injury-depleted anytime soon."

Matsuzaka may not be any better than Doubront or Bard as a starter, but Doubront or Bard in the pen will certainly be an improvement over whomever is displaced. Crawford may not hit any better than Sweeney or Ross when he comes back, but it will be Repko or Lin or McDonald who loses playing time when Carl returns. Those things are pretty obvious as trickle-down effects.

[JMDurron]

I think the problem here is that there isn't anybody on that list who isn't a question mark even when healthy, with the possible exception of Hill. (Well, OK, Miller isn't a question mark--we know he'll suck.) So it's hard to get excited about their returns individually, and even harder collectively. How certain is it that Matsuzaka will pitch better than Doubront has thus far? What can we really expect from Crawford?

Yes, this is my concern. If 2008 Matsuzaka and 2010 Crawford show up inside of 30 games, fine, I'll buy that the team is less injury-depleted, because Matsuzaka helps to cover the bullpen from the rotation (5-6 innings of 0-2 ER instead of 5 innings of 5-6 ER from the starter), and Crawford covers for Ellsbury's absense in the lineup AND in the field. I am far from convinced that either of those players are likely to be at 100%, and I'm actually more worried about Crawford's swing, defense, and speed game with his multitude of injuries than I am Matsuzaka's capabilities. I hope all of the reinforcements are good and healthy, but Hill's the only player I have a high level of confidence in on that front.

I am totally agreeing with Plympton on what Valentine is doing with the relievers. He doesn't have enough good arms to just play matchups, so he needs to see which players can potentially break their historical splits with improved performance before settling in to a regular usage pattern. Morales obviously comes to mind here.

[Doctor G]

By Memorial Day:
Pitchers

Beckett
Lester
Buchholz
Matsuzaka
Cook
Bard
Aceves
Doubront
Hill
Morales
Atchison
Padilla/Tazawa

With Crawford and possibly Middlebrooks to help out offense.

I'm not hitting the lifeboats yet.

[Harry Hooper]

The strengths and weaknesses of the bullpen and the lineup/offense are really not going to matter unless and until the starting rotation starts doing its job and putting up a string a quality starts. No team is going to post a lot of W's if its down a bunch of runs by the 3rd inning almost every game.


Good news: the starting staff is entirely capable of performing better.
Bad News: it's been quite a while since they have done so.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The strengths and weaknesses of the bullpen and the lineup/offense are really not going to matter unless and until the starting rotation starts doing its job and putting up a string a quality starts. No team is going to post a lot of W's if its down a bunch of runs by the 3rd inning almost every game.


Good news: the starting staff is entirely capable of performing better.
Bad News: it's been quite a while since they have done so.

You're right, of course.

It has been quite a while since Tuesday.

[tonyarmasjr]

You're right, of course.

It has been quite a while since Tuesday.

When they gave up 18 runs? Harry said a string of quality starts. The starting rotation has put up consecutive QS once this season, which doesn't qualify as a "string" in my book. They have a collective ERA over 6 - approaching John Lackey 2011 territory. Things aren't going to get much better until they start pitching better as a unit.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

When they gave up 18 runs? Harry said a string of quality starts. The starting rotation has put up consecutive QS once this season, which doesn't qualify as a "string" in my book. They have a collective ERA over 6 - approaching John Lackey 2011 territory. Things aren't going to get much better until they start pitching better as a unit.

At this time last Tuesday, the Sox were coming off 7 straight games of good starting pitching marred by one bad inning (by WTFClay Buchholz) and two instances of bad bullpen management (BobbyV leaving Bard and Doubront in for two batters too long each).

In addition, I would think it's obvious that starters do not make a unit, but are five different pitchers who take the ball individually. So they don't have to pitch better as a unit, even if it would be fabulous if Lester and Buchholz had good outings the next time around. That's the reason the adage "momentum is only as good as tomorrow's starting pitcher" gets thrown around.

This whole topic is retarded, though. It's April 21, and people are freaking out.

[tonyarmasjr]

At this time last Tuesday, the Sox were coming off 7 straight games of good starting pitching marred by one bad inning (by WTFClay Buchholz) and two instances of bad bullpen management (BobbyV leaving Bard and Doubront in for two batters too long each).

In addition, I would think it's obvious that starters do not make a unit, but are five different pitchers who take the ball individually. So they don't have to pitch better as a unit, even if it would be fabulous if Lester and Buchholz had good outings the next time around. That's the reason the adage "momentum is only as good as tomorrow's starting pitcher" gets thrown around.

This whole topic is retarded, though. It's April 21, and people are freaking out.

It only takes one inning to make a good start a shitty one. And if half the rotation has trouble getting past the 5th, there are going to be times where the manager has to leave guys in too long. Even a good bullpen can't patch together 4 innings every other start, let alone a bad one.
Obviously, all the starters perform as individuals. And we can judge them as such. We could also separate them from being a unit if Lester and Beckett were going out and throwing 7 IP with 2 ER every time, then we could say the others need to pick it up, but that isn't the case. So, yes, they each need to pitch better individually. Which means they all need to pitch better collectively. I've been pretty pleased with Bard and Doubront, so far. But when we're breaking two guys into the rotation, the other three have to pick up the slack and that isn't happening.
I agree with your last point.

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Contrary to those policing this thread, I think the topic starter here is asking a legit question and it something that many Sox fans are wondering. Is this team destined for mediocrity this year?

I agree with the view that its simply too soon to give up (Boomer didn't suggest that upthread btw) but the product on the field thus far has been uninspiring. Furthermore, this team, as currently constructed, is relatively old (the sixth "oldest" in the league) so its not like the fans have any exciting young stars to watch develop while the team struggles. It would be one thing to watch a guy like Will Middlebrooks strike-out while figuring out MLB pitching versus seeing the Sox vets scuffle.

Finally, while I think the Crawford and Lackey hate is overdone here, the direct byproduct of their awful contracts is that the Sox are constrained in how they course-correct. Again, its much too soon for players or fans to head for the life-boats. But its hard to argue with those who think Nick Punto resembles a small, light-hitting, poor-defending iceberg.

[Sprowl]

Nearer, my BABIP, to thee.


Too early to panic, but the offseason upheaval doesn't seem finished. If the Red Sox don't get hot in May against weaker opposition, then it might be time to take Demolition 101: Blowing It Up.

[The Gray Eagle]

Still too early for this thread, but after today, as long as there is a question mark at the end, I have no problem with it.

On the one hand, it's SO early, and these pitchers just can't be this bad forever-- because guys in A ball can't be THIS bad. There is almost all of a season to still turn it around. There are a lot of players on the roster who have been good very recently. Once we stop facing tough starters and lineups in virtually every single game, we should be able to get on track.

On the other hand, good teams don't lose 30 out of 41, or whatever it is now. I know the roster has changed since Spetember, but it actually might be worse right now, without Papelbon and Ellsbury. Actually, looking at the two rosters directly, I'd rather have September's than April's.

If this garbage baseball is still going on into May, we will really need to bring up a bunch of young guys-- Lavarnway, Middlebrooks, Lin, Linares, maybe Wilson, possibly Iglesias if he is hitting at all. Getting older isn't going to fix this mess, and while those players likely won't either, at least they can get some experience, show what they have, and make the edges of the roster younger and cheaper, more athletic, less injury prone. Marlon Byrd is a move in exactly the opposite direction of that, which is okay only as long as this team starts winning a bunch of games sometime soon. If they don't, then the Byrd deal will just make things even worse.

[The Boomer]

For anyone who knows my style, you will recognize that almost all my opinions about the state of the Sox franchise are positive. Bowden and 20% or so of what is still owed to Byrd is an OK trade particularly because Bowden was already designated for assignment. I should have put a question mark after the title of this topic but I have a sinking feeling about the direction of this team. No lead against a good team is safe for this year's Sox. Reinforcements are on the way but if those returning can't revive the Sox from their second April swoon in 2 years, Cherington might need to rebuild in earnest. I will understand this and want them to start the process sooner rather than later. They have a good but aging (and sometimes injured) nucleus. The teams overall fortunes this season seems to depend on several obvious deficits. Will Crawford and Ellsbury come back soon and will enough to save this season? Will their pitching come around? Will they avoid other serious injuries and the permanent decline of aging players (Youkilis?). Unless all three of these questions turnout as well as we can hope, then management must start the needed overhaul.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

For anyone who knows my style, you will recognize that almost all my opinions about the state of the Sox franchise are positive. Bowden and 20% or so of what is still owed to Byrd is an OK trade particularly because Bowden was already designated for assignment. I should have put a question mark after the title of this topic but I have a sinking feeling about the direction of this team. No lead against a good team is safe for this year's Sox. Reinforcements are on the way but if those returning can't revive the Sox from their second April swoon in 2 years, Cherington might need to rebuild in earnest. I will understand this and want them to start the process sooner rather than later. They have a good but aging (and sometimes injured) nucleus. The teams overall fortunes this season seems to depend on several obvious deficits. Will Crawford and Ellsbury come back soon and will enough to save this season? Will their pitching come around? Will they avoid other serious injuries and the permanent decline of aging players (Youkilis?). Unless all three of these questions turnout as well as we can hope, then management must start the needed overhaul.

Then tell us who you would jettison in the rebuilding effort, and why. Rather than framing it as an open question.

Were I blowing up the Sox, I would first seek to trade Youkilis, Ortiz, Lester, Ellsbury, and Beckett. In that order.

But I would much rather the Sox fire BobbyV quick and see if the current Sox respond to Bogar, than to blow it up.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

The so-called baseball gods have apparently decided that we are doomed to watch a devastating chain of injuries inflict (hyperbole alert) doom upon the Red Sox for 3 consecutive years now.

I guess the bill for that deal with the Devil we signed in October 2004 when we were down 3-0 against the MFYs has finally come due.

[Foulkey Reese]

I guess the bill for that deal with the Devil we signed in October 2004 when we were down 3-0 against the MFYs has finally come due.

So worth it.

[tonyarmasjr]

Then tell us who you would jettison in the rebuilding effort, and why. Rather than framing it as an open question.

Were I blowing up the Sox, I would first seek to trade Youkilis, Ortiz, Lester, Ellsbury, and Beckett. In that order.

But I would much rather the Sox fire BobbyV quick and see if the current Sox respond to Bogar, than to blow it up.

Why Lester?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Why Lester?

80-90% of his production for the next 2-3 years can be projected to Doubront, at a lower AAV.

And he has a ton of value, thus able to bring back a lot in return.

[tonyarmasjr]

80-90% of his production for the next 2-3 years can be projected to Doubront, at a lower AAV.

And he has a ton of value, thus able to bring back a lot in return.

Ok. The other guys made perfect sense to me; why I asked. If it were me, Lester's the one veteran pitcher I'd want to keep as a stabilizing force, based on durability and (subjectively perceived) leadership intangibles. I do think this team's due for a youth movement, aside from abandoning ship, so I don't want to see them give up viable ml assets this season to patch holes as the ship goes down anyway. Not that that's a foregone conclusion at this point. Yet.

[JMDurron]

I guess the bill for that deal with the Devil we signed in October 2004 when we were down 3-0 against the MFYs has finally come due.

Given that we got a 2-for-1 special out of it, I'd have no problem with this whatsoever.

Honestly, the fact that there's no "too bad he never won one in a Sox uniform" statement tagged to the career of Pedro Martinez might be worth it on its own.

[ookami7m]

Can I ask why people keep adding last September to this team's current record? There are some significant differences in personell on the team, injuries etc. I didn't have to deal with things from my last job on my current performance reviews, so why should the Sox?

[GodSamGod]

Can I ask why people keep adding last September to this team's current record?

Recency bias. Or confirmation bias. One of them.

[Pumpsie]

Can I ask why people keep adding last September to this team's current record? There are some significant differences in personell on the team, injuries etc. I didn't have to deal with things from my last job on my current performance reviews, so why should the Sox?

Well, John Henry just did tonight and he's the owner of the team.

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

I guess the bill for that deal with the Devil we signed in October 2004 when we were down 3-0 against the MFYs has finally come due.

All I can say is that, if not for '04 AND '07 (we sometimes seem to forget that the Red Sox won TWO World Series in this century), after recent events culminating in yesterday's apocalypse, I'm not sure I coule even be a baseball fan anymore.

So if it was a deal with the devil, I'm fine with it. But I think, if we want to continue the theological analogies, it's more realistic to cal 2004 and 2007 a gift from the Almighty.

[Infield Infidel]

You know what, over the first 14 games, we went 4-10. Our five opponents combined record? 52-29. The worst team we've played is 9-7. The best team we played is 13-4, with three teams 10-6.

We aren't going to play teams that good every game. Let's see how we do against a few shit teams before we decide we are one of them.

[someoneanywhere]

You know what, over the first 14 games, we went 4-10. Our five opponents combined record? 52-29. The worst team we've played is 9-7. The best team we played is 13-4, with three teams 10-6.

We aren't going to play teams that good every game. Let's see how we do against a few shit teams before we decide we are one of them.

In a sense, perfectly reasonable. But at a payroll of $180 million? Not so much.

Or, to put it another way: how high are you on the Twins? They've had a tough early schedule, too.

If you want to win, you have to stay competitive with the good teams, not beat up on the shit teams. After all, you're expected to beat them. But when the good teams club your ass, well, you have to own it and look in the mirror.

That's not to say it can't be turned around. But knocking around the shit teams like little Sissy Spaceks does not make you a good team.

[86spike]

You know what, over the first 14 games, we went 4-10. Our five opponents combined record? 52-29. The worst team we've played is 9-7. The best team we played is 13-4, with three teams 10-6.

We aren't going to play teams that good every game. Let's see how we do against a few shit teams before we decide we are one of them.

maybe their records are good because they got to play Boston.

[Savin Hillbilly]

If you want to win, you have to stay competitive with the good teams, not beat up on the shit teams. After all, you're expected to beat them. But when the good teams club your ass, well, you have to own it and look in the mirror.

This is true in the long run--we're not going anywhere if we can't at least play in the neighborhood of .500 against the teams we've been playing so far. But in terms of assessing how bad the team is based on its record to date, it's worth considering. We may be in a slump; even good teams have them. We started last season with one, too, and then kicked everybody's ass for four months. Even a very good team can look like a very bad team when they play tough competition in the middle of a slump.

maybe their records are good because they got to play Boston.

Yeah, nobody expected last year's four playoff teams to go anywhere this year.

[dynomite]

This is true in the long run--we're not going anywhere if we can't at least play in the neighborhood of .500 against the teams we've been playing so far. But in terms of assessing how bad the team is based on its record to date, it's worth considering. We may be in a slump; even good teams have them. We started last season with one, too, and then kicked everybody's ass for four months. Even a very good team can look like a very bad team when they play tough competition in the middle of a slump.

Yeah, nobody expected last year's four playoff teams to go anywhere this year.

Exactly. Great points. I hadn't even thought about it, but you're completely correct: the Tigers, Rangers, Yankees and Rays were the four playoff teams in the AL last year.

And in terms of a slump, let's not forget that we faced those teams without:

- Our closer
- Our starting CF
- Our starting LF
- Our #5 starter (DiceK?)

Edit: In other words, we had players slumping (Lester, Beckett, Youkilis) in addition to a number of critical injuries. How well should we have expected the Red Sox to perform, then? Imagine the Yankees were without Rivera, Granderson, and Nova in addition to Gardner. It wouldn't surprise me if they scuffled a bit against good competition.

Edited by dynomite, 24 April 2012 - 10:02 AM.

[trekfan55]

In a sense, perfectly reasonable. But at a payroll of $180 million? Not so much.

Or, to put it another way: how high are you on the Twins? They've had a tough early schedule, too.

If you want to win, you have to stay competitive with the good teams, not beat up on the shit teams. After all, you're expected to beat them. But when the good teams club your ass, well, you have to own it and look in the mirror.

That's not to say it can't be turned around. But knocking around the shit teams like little Sissy Spaceks does not make you a good team.

Payroll mistakes aside, when 60MM of that 180MM is on the DL we cannot really use that as an excuse. If Crawford, Lackey, DiceK were underperforming this year then maybe.

[tonyarmasjr]

It's amazing how much calmer it is in here today after a win...

[tims4wins]

It's amazing how much calmer it is in here today after a win...

That's what the previous 43 games did to us... when you go 11-32 it makes winning a single game a big deal

[dbn]

maybe their records are good because they got to play Boston.

[sample size]
I posted this (meant to be taken with a grain of salt) in the pie eating thread:

Team RecordvsNotRedSox RecordvsRedSox
Det 7-6 3-0
Tor 7-5 2-1
Tam 8-4 1-3
Tex 11-3 2-0
NY 7-6 2-0
-------------
  40-24 10-4
  63%  71%

Using the expected win % = A(1-B)/A+B-2AB (or whatever it is, I don't have it in front of me), if "team" A has a 63% winning percentage against average opponents, but wins 71% of the time against team B, team B is a 40% winning percentage team against average opponents.

[\sample size]

[kieckeredinthehead]

Using the expected win % = A(1-B)/A+B-2AB (or whatever it is, I don't have it in front of me), if "team" A has a 63% winning percentage against average opponents, but wins 71% of the time against team B, team B is a 40% winning percentage team against average opponents.

That is the correct formula. To flesh the small sample size aspect out, we could start by adding last night's game to include Minnesota's record. The win last night actually decreases Boston's win pct merely by playing the Twins, to .391. But if you ignore last night's game, and the Sox had won one more of those one-run losses, suddenly they're a .486 team. If they'd split their one run games, suddenly they're a .561 team, with 90 wins, and on their way to the second wild card berth.