194 replies to this topic

[Rasputin]

You know, a hundred games still isn't out of the question.

[Quintanariffic]

I guess you're not counting on Carl Crawford for much. Given that this is the glass half full thread, his imminent return must count for something.

In all likelihood, it will count for a lot less production than Daniel Nava has been giving them in LF.

[GreenMonsterVsGodzilla]

The top 4 (MLB rankings) prospects (Brentz, Bogaerts, Lavarnway, Barnes) are all tearing it up right now. As are Jackie Bradley and Juan Carlos Linares. There could be some very exciting young players up in the next couple of years.

[bosockboy]

We are getting 2004-2007 Ortiz again.

[Savin Hillbilly]

In all likelihood, it will count for a lot less production than Daniel Nava has been giving them in LF.

True, but the tense is highly relevant here. Nava has earned some respect, but I seriously doubt he goes .937 the rest of the way.

[Manramsclan]

You know, a hundred games still isn't out of the question.

If they win today the Sox will be at 40-35 leaving 87 games to play.

To reach 100 wins they will need to go 60-27 which is a .690 Winning Percentage.

Out of the question? Maybe not, but that glass is pretty freaking full.

With an 2/3 of a starting outfield coming back in less than 20 days, Gonzalez and Pedroia coming around, Papi mashing, and the bullpen getting some serious reinforcement the outlook is rosy.

To reach 95 wins requires a .632 winning percentage at 55-32 which is obviously more within reach.

[Lynchie]

Seeing a couple of Yank pitchers go down today may be bad for them -but a golden opportunity over the next few weeks to take advantage of the situation as we get healthy and this team starts to take off.

[Ed Hillel]

Game and a half out of the "you're fu*ked, you have to use your #1 starter a day before facing the 1 or 2 seed" play-in game!

[Rasputin]

If they win today the Sox will be at 40-35 leaving 87 games to play.

To reach 100 wins they will need to go 60-27 which is a .690 Winning Percentage.

Out of the question? Maybe not, but that glass is pretty freaking full.

.690 * 162 = 112 win pace. Some teams have won 112 games in a season so clearly it's possible, no matter how unlikely.

[Rasputin]

Game and a half out of the "you're fu*ked, you have to use your #1 starter a day before facing the 1 or 2 seed" play-in game!

Good thing we don't have one then, isn't it?

[luckysox]

Good thing we don't have one then, isn't it?

This is well played...and seriously, who in the hell WOULD pitch that game? I mean, if there was a choice of any guy in the rotation, who would you go with right now? And I realize this answer will likely be different (and not even necessarily matter) in September.

I think if you put a gun to my head I might actually go Morales. Which is insane.

Edited by luckysox, 27 June 2012 - 05:48 PM.

[dbn]

This is well played...and seriously, who in the hell WOULD pitch that game? I mean, if there was a choice of any guy in the rotation, who would you go with right now? And I realize this answer will likely be different (and not even necessarily matter) in September.

I think if you put a gun to my head I might actually go Morales. Which is insane.

What about this guy? [/mostly kidding]

[Red(s)HawksFan]

This is well played...and seriously, who in the hell WOULD pitch that game? I mean, if there was a choice of any guy in the rotation, who would you go with right now? And I realize this answer will likely be different (and not even necessarily matter) in September.

I think if you put a gun to my head I might actually go Morales. Which is insane.

If we're not presuming good health for the pitchers currently on the 15-day DL, I'm going DiceK. Not the sexy pick, but if he can manage to avoid the one bad inning (and this is the glass half-full thread so why not), he'd keep them in it. And he's got the experience advantage over Morales as well.

But if we're presuming healthy returns from the DL (again, it's the glass half-full thread), I'm going Beckett.

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

If they win today the Sox will be at 40-35 leaving 87 games to play.

To reach 100 wins they will need to go 60-27 which is a .690 Winning Percentage.

Out of the question? Maybe not, but that glass is pretty freaking full.

With an 2/3 of a starting outfield coming back in less than 20 days, Gonzalez and Pedroia coming around, Papi mashing, and the bullpen getting some serious reinforcement the outlook is rosy.

To reach 95 wins requires a .632 winning percentage at 55-32 which is obviously more within reach.

Since starting May with a 5 game losing streak, they've played at a .604 pace. If they keep that exact pace for the rest of the season, they'll finish with 92 wins. I expect that will be good enough for Wild Card slot #2. To reach 95 requires only three extra wins over the pace they've been playing since the end of that losing streak. Very achievable, I'd say.

[Pumpsie]

The Sox got off to a 4-10 start, and since then have been 36-25 (third best in the AL) at a .590 clip. If they just keep playing at that same clip, they'll finish with 91 wins, which should get them into the postseason. If the additions of Beckett, Buchholz, Ellsbury, Crawford, Sweeney, Bailey, Hill and whomever else is getting healthy is a collective positive, and it should be, they should win a few more games than that. So, 95 wins is not out of the question at this point.

[Manramsclan]

Since starting May with a 5 game losing streak, they've played at a .604 pace. If they keep that exact pace for the rest of the season, they'll finish with 92 wins. I expect that will be good enough for Wild Card slot #2. To reach 95 requires only three extra wins over the pace they've been playing since the end of that losing streak. Very achievable, I'd say.

I agree entirely.

100 wins, however, is asking for a lot. Being on a "112 win pace" for a 162 game season over 87 games is far-fetched given that the 2012 Sox don't have the aforementioned ace. Even our wicked-hot-in-the-second-half 2004 Sox played their last 87 games at record of 56-31 with a .643 win percentage. Even if you want to take the actual halfway point of 81 games the 2004 Sox played a scorching hot mark-of-the-beast .666 percentage at 54-27. They finished to win 98 games(at the 75 game mark they had a record of 42-33, only two games better than the current Sox)

Thinking that this 2012 team could play above that pace to reach 100 wins is far fetched for many reasons, not the least of which being that the top of that rotation featured one first ballot HOFer and one borderline HOFer that could spur the type of winning streaks necessary to get going, and a rotation that did not have one single injury all year long.

Tossing around the 100-win plateau has always proven to be foolhardy IMO. The teams that win 100 games are usually consistent from the beginning of the season to the end with some great hot streaks in between. This club just got back to respectability. Let's not get carried away with the idea that they are all the sudden going to become the type of juggernaut to be among the 80 teams who have won 100 games since 1900. That calculates out to 28% of the seasons that do not have a 100 win team. Or over 1 in 4.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Let's not get carried away with the idea that they are all the sudden going to become the type of juggernaut to be among the 80 teams who have won 100 games since 1900. That calculates out to 28% of the seasons that do not have a 100 win team. Or over 1 in 4.

Considering MLB only moved from a 154 game format in 1962, your conclusion is fairly irrelevant.

Including 1962, there have been 47 full seasons (less 1981, 1994, and 1995). If you wish to figure out how frequently a team has won at a 100 pace all season, it needs to be calculated on a wPCT rate, or simply by throwing out those seasons where winning 100 would have been more extraordinary than currently.

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

Considering MLB only moved from a 154 game format in 1962, your conclusion is fairly irrelevant.

Including 1962, there have been 47 full seasons (less 1981, 1994, and 1995). If you wish to figure out how frequently a team has won at a 100 pace all season, it needs to be calculated on a wPCT rate, or simply by throwing out those seasons where winning 100 would have been more extraordinary than currently.

Just as a point of information, 1972 was also a strike-shortened season. That was the year the Red Sox played 155 games, finishing at 85-70, tied with Detroit in the loss column. But they lost the AL East pennant by 1/2 game because they played one game fewer. Detroit played 156, finishing at 86-70.

Thanks, Bowie Kuhn.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I think talking about 100 wins at this point is definitely a huge reach, but this team still has a decent shot at 91-95 wins and a playoff spot. This has been a really good team ever since the 4-10 start... even with all the injuries and unexpected poor performances in the starting rotation.

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

I think talking about 100 wins at this point is definitely a huge reach, but this team still has a decent shot at 91-95 wins and a playoff spot. This has been a really good team ever since the 4-10 start... even with all the injuries and unexpected poor performances in the starting rotation.

Yeah, 100 wins is probably unrealistic -- though not impossible. Still, as someone pointed out, after 75 games, this much-maligned edition of the Red Sox is only 2 games behind the storied 2004 team's pace. And that 75th game in 2004 was the start of a skid in which they lost 5 of 6 games. So I would say that a week from now, it is possible and even likely that the 2012 Red Sox will be ahead of the 2004 team that won 98 games.

We tend to forget that the 2004 team muddled along for most of the season not really looking like anything special. What turned it around was the defining stretch of that season, August 16-September 8. The team won 18 of 20 games in that stretch, including a 10-game winning streak.

Is this year's group capable of going on a run like that sometime later this season? If so, 100 games may actually be attainable. And a playoff spot definitely will be.

[Plympton91]

Look at what you have to construct a lineup, rotation, and bullpen in a perfect world would now be:

Ellsbury, Pedroia, Ortiz, Gonzalez, Middlebrooks, Salty/Ross, Crawford, Kalish/Shoppach, Aviles.

Punto, Lillibridge, Sweeney, Nava, McDonald, Podsednik

Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Matsuzaka, Doubront

Bailey, Bard, Aceves, Padilla, Atchison, Miller, Morales, Hill, Melancon, Albers

That's a lot more major league ballplayers than there are spots on a 25 man roster with a 12 man pitching staff. Can Doubront, Bard, and Kalish get you an "Ace?"

[smastroyin]

just for the record only two teams in the AL are ahead of a 92 win pace. 90 wins looks like a decent bet to make the play in game.

[OCD SS]

That's a lot more major league ballplayers than there are spots on a 25 man roster with a 12 man pitching staff. Can Doubront, Bard, and Kalish get you an "Ace?"

In a thread whose premise is optimism, sure. In the real world, probably not.

Besides, this team probably sees Kalish as a long (or at least longish) term solution for RF, so I doubt he gets traded.

[Laschelle Tarver]

In a thread whose premise is optimism, sure. In the real world, probably not.

Besides, this team probably sees Kalish as a long (or at least longish) term solution for RF, so I doubt he gets traded.

With Brentz and Bradley coming quickly and Crawford signed long term, I would not be shocked if Kalish got dealt.

[Savin Hillbilly]

With Brentz and Bradley coming quickly and Crawford signed long term, I would not be shocked if Kalish got dealt.

I've been assuming that Bradley's role is to replace Ellsbury when the latter walks. If so, then Kalish's primary internal RF competition is Brentz, which makes him seem a bit less expendable (especially since we will presumably need a DH by then as well).

[Paradigm]

That's a lot more major league ballplayers than there are spots on a 25 man roster with a 12 man pitching staff. Can Doubront, Bard, and Kalish get you an "Ace?"

Of course not. And IMO, Doubront is not for trade unless you're getting back multiple years of talent in return. This team needs a cost-controlled #3 badly.

Edited by Paradigm, 28 June 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[Laschelle Tarver]

I've been assuming that Bradley's role is to replace Ellsbury when the latter walks. If so, then Kalish's primary internal RF competition is Brentz, which makes him seem a bit less expendable (especially since we will presumably need a DH by then as well).

Only reason I can see them keeping Brentz over Kalish is because he is a right handed bat. Maybe by then they will use the DH position to rotate other players in and out of to get them some rest (which is how I would like to see them use the role if they don't have someone the level of Ortiz to hit there every day).

[bosockboy]

Isn't the DH Lavarnway?

[Eric Van]

That's a lot more major league ballplayers than there are spots on a 25 man roster with a 12 man pitching staff. Can Doubront, Bard, and Kalish get you an "Ace?"

Folks have addressed the reasons why Kalish probably stays, so here's the other problem.

When you trade a good, young, cost-controlled player (plus extra parts) for an expensive All-Star, you have to be really sure that the guy you're getting is going to be significantly better than the guy you're giving up.

You know, the way a majority of the organization was sure that Johan Santana was a significant upgrade to Jon Lester (I believe that only Farrell's scouting assessment killed that), or that presumably nearly everyone was sure that Adrian Gonzalez was a significant upgrade to Anthony Rizzo (yeah, I know, jury's still out there). Or, if you think in terms of signing a FA in order to make an internal option available for trade, the way everyone was sure Carl Crawford was better than Josh Reddick.

Doubront for an expensive ace has too much of a downside risk. It always takes some luck to win a WS and that often takes the form of one of your #2 quality starters getting on a roll and pitching like an ace in October. Heck, there's an argument that Beckett has never been a true ace, except, of course, when he's pitched like one.

I think that trading for apparent proven aces is perilous, and if you find yourself lacking one, the wisest thing is probably to build a deep quality rotation and hope for that kind of Beckett 2007 luck.

[Rasputin]

100 wins, however, is asking for a lot.

Of course it is. Nobody has ever said it isn't.

Being on a "112 win pace" for a 162 game season over 87 games is far-fetched given that the 2012 Sox don't have the aforementioned ace.

Josh Beckett has made 12 starts and allowed three runs or fewer 8 times, four runs twice, and seven runs twice. If he's not an ace, he'll do.

Runs allowed per game by month so far. 5.64, 4.34, 3.91.

If the Sox keep that down in the low 4s while maintaining the second best offense in the league, 100 wins is going to look more and more realistic every day.

What this team needs to make 100 wins possible is a) Doubront needs to pitch pretty well the whole season, b) no new big injuries, c) Crawford and Ellsbury to come back and produce, d) one extended really hot stretch.

Tossing around the 100-win plateau has always proven to be foolhardy IMO.

Because talking about it makes bad things happen?

The teams that win 100 games are usually consistent from the beginning of the season to the end with some great hot streaks in between.

Do they? Have you looked?

Just looking at 2003 because it's as far back as I went looking for 100 win teams and there happened to be three that year...

The 2003 Yankees had a whole month where they were under .400, at .393.
The 2003 Braves were mostly consistent with a couple great months.
The 2003 Giants had a couple months barely over .500 and some great months.

Ahh hell, let's look at more.
The 2004 Cardinals were at an 87 win pace after two months.
The 2004 Yankees were one game over .500 in March/April
The 2005 Cardinals went 13-13 in September
The 2008 Angels had two months of 15-13
The 2009 Yankees didn't have a month at a 100 win pace until July.
The 2011 Phillies were pretty much excellent all year.

So far, the 2012 Sox have had months of .500, .517, .583

Should the Sox sweep Seattle, that's a 102 win pace for the month of June.

This club just got back to respectability. Let's not get carried away with the idea that they are all the sudden going to become the type of juggernaut to be among the 80 teams who have won 100 games since 1900. That calculates out to 28% of the seasons that do not have a 100 win team. Or over 1 in 4.

Pretty sure there are more 100 game winners in recent seasons than you think, even in tough divisions like the AL East.

Yeah, it's going to be hard. It's 60-32 and the Sox haven't had a record that good over a stretch that long since last year.

[Eric Van]

We just saw a guy throw 73 sinkers and 8 curveballs and not get a single swing-and-miss, and throw a 2-hit shutout where both guys were erased on double plays.

[TFisNEXT]

We are getting 2004-2007 Ortiz again.

Most overlooked occurrance on this board. It was merely 2 years and about 6 weeks ago that everyone was demanding his release. One of the most incredible turnarounds that we are all taking for granted because we also were expecting the 2004-2007 Papi everytime we saw him bat in 2008 and at least early 2009....then he sucked for a year or a bit more, and we finally accepted he was done, except he wasn't done. He has somehow morphed into the Cardinals version of Albert Pujols (not quite but close) by putting up a 950-1000+ OPS and a low K rate the last 2 years.

He went from a guy who was declining, then couldn't hit LHP at all anymore, to almost complete toast to the point of being released (at least by fans), to an absolutely devastating hitter versus both lefties/righties and one of the best hitters (arguably most feared in the AL) in the game again.

[singaporesoxfan]

Game and a half out of the "you're fu*ked, you have to use your #1 starter a day before facing the 1 or 2 seed" play-in game!

If the Sox bullpen is much better than its starters would they really need to use the #1 starter (whomever that may be) if they make it in? Or can it be an all hands on deck game?

[catomatic]

We just saw a guy throw 73 sinkers and 8 curveballs and not get a single swing-and-miss, and throw a 2-hit shutout where both guys were erased on double plays.

Looks like we might have found an Aaron in the rough, now if we can only find a Shawn, too.
Edit: Beaten to the Small/Chacon punch in the Morales thread. Dammit.

Edited by catomatic, 30 June 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[lexrageorge]

If the Sox bullpen is much better than its starters would they really need to use the #1 starter (whomever that may be) if they make it in? Or can it be an all hands on deck game?

Discussions like this can only lead to bad karma. Right now, this is the least of the team's issues to worry about.

[TomRicardo]

Look at what you have to construct a lineup, rotation, and bullpen in a perfect world would now be:

That's a lot more major league ballplayers than there are spots on a 25 man roster with a 12 man pitching staff. Can Doubront, Bard, and Kalish get you an "Ace?"

Why would you trade Doubront? He is beginning to wear down but he is a cost controlled lefty starter who gives you 9+ K/9 and 3 K/BB.

Seems more like he needs some "shoulder soreness" and a 15 day vacation. If he comes back and is still coughing up HRs move him to the bullpen

Edit - That said Kalish, Bard, and Some grab bag third prospect (Lin, Hassan, maybe you go as high Cecchini) should be enough to get Garza

Edited by TomRicardo, 30 June 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

After the all-star break it's about time for Doubront to get a nice easy trip to the DL, a long rehab, and a return around September 1 that allows him to approach 140-150 IP. He should be a little above 100 IP by then.

Morales and the guys due to come off the DL -- with Stewart in a break-glass emergency -- should make it possible to lose Doubront for 4-6 weeks, without much (if any) pain to the team.

[Pumpsie]

After the all-star break it's about time for Doubront to get a nice easy trip to the DL, a long rehab, and a return around September 1 that allows him to approach 140-150 IP. He should be a little above 100 IP by then.

Morales and the guys due to come off the DL -- with Stewart in a break-glass emergency -- should make it possible to lose Doubront for 4-6 weeks, without much (if any) pain to the team.

I think you're onto something here. It also appears that Doubront is running out of steam a bit right now and could use a rest.

Also, I'm shocked at how good the bullpen has been so far. It's the MVP of the team to this point.

[mauidano]

After the all-star break it's about time for Doubront to get a nice easy trip to the DL, a long rehab, and a return around September 1 that allows him to approach 140-150 IP. He should be a little above 100 IP by then.

Morales and the guys due to come off the DL -- with Stewart in a break-glass emergency -- should make it possible to lose Doubront for 4-6 weeks, without much (if any) pain to the team.

Other than his previous outing, Felix has pitched well and above expectations. His start agains the M's was definitely quality and back on track. He has been the most consistent starter on staff. Yes, the innings issue is brought up. Maybe the six man rotation thing spaces it out a bit as well. But to lose that type of pitching for any length of time is risky if it's not necessary. It'll hurt. As mentioned by Pumpsie; who knew that the bullpen would be this strong? The middle relief is crazy good.

[Van Everyman]

What has gone right? I'll say it:

Bobby. When you think about everything that he was supposed to be--good at getting the most out of marginal talent, a good game manager--other than a few hiccups at the beginning of the season (I'm thinking of Lineupcardgate), the guy has done an excellent job. Salty has become an all star-caliber catcher. WMB has blossomed. Nava and Ross are putting up the best combined OPS of Sox corner OF since 2009. Doubront, until tiring, has been a revelation, as has Morales. In the bullpen, you have guys like Atchison and Albers putting up career best numbers. Basically, the one area he hasn't gotten results from is big $ veterans not named Papi -- Gonzo, Youk, Lester -- and you would think (or hope) they will eventually play to their abilities. You can complain about Bobby's style, but after the reams of shit that guy has gotten, and continues to get, there is no denying he's gotten results.

Also:

Ben. Yes, you can ding him for trading starter-quality talent for RP. And no one here will ever defend the Punto deal. But just about every move he's made that hasn't fallen victim to injury has panned out -- Ross most obviously but also guys like Pods, Cook and the decision to start Aviles.

Honestly, this team is fascinating. The mid-season retrospectives at the All-Star break should be interesting to say the least.

[bosockboy]

Padilla hasn't been scored on since late May....he's developing into a pretty dominating 8th inning arm. The bullpen is the star of this team....every single member is contributing at a high level and really has to in order to keep their job.

[tims4wins]

Tied for the 3rd best run differential in baseball, and quietly sneaking up on the Yankees for the #2 spot.

[bloodysox]

Our farm system is in the best shape it's been in since 2007. We have 7 prospects in John Sickels midseason top 120 list (Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes, Lavarnway, Swihart, Jacobs, and Owens) and more importantly, 4 in the top 60.

And while there's still a good chance that Cherington will trade our blue chippers for a reliever, it's still something to be excited about.

Especially with the upcoming "soft cap" ($189 million), the Red Sox will need to rely more on homegrown talent down the road.

Edited by bloodysox, 04 July 2012 - 10:58 PM.

[Eric Van]

And while there's still a good chance that Cherington will trade our blue chippers for a reliever, it's still something to be excited about.

Actually, since he already made a patently awful trade that more or less fit that description and now has somewhere between one (Albers, probably) and six MLB-quality relievers (including Melancon, Bard, Mortensen, Tazawa, and Prior all potentially at Pawtucket) than he can possibly use, I wouldn't call that chance "good."

[JMDurron]

For the first time that I can remember this season, the team has shown an ability to come back and take a lead after facing a major deficit against one of the top teams in the AL. That's a positive regardless of the ultimate outcome of tonight's game.

Also, tonight's pathetic shell of a starting lineup has put up 7 runs in 6 innings.

[DaveRoberts'Shoes]

For the first time that I can remember this season, the team has shown an ability to come back and take a lead after facing a major deficit against one of the top teams in the AL. That's a positive regardless of the ultimate outcome of tonight's game.

Also, tonight's pathetic shell of a starting lineup has put up 7 runs in 6 innings.

And yet they still came up short in the end. They're just good enough to not get routinely blown out, but they're not "good".

[bloodysox]

It's important to think positively after the shitshow of a game we just experienced.

Carl Crawford and Jacoby Ellsbury are coming back right after the All Star break.

While Nava has been impressive, there's no way that Nava/Kalish is even comparable to Crawford/Ellsbury. The significant upgrade in defense and offense that we'll get when they come back is going to be huge.

[Seels]

Yea, but that's assuming Ellsbury is at last years level -- unlikely, and that Crawford isn't -- also unlikely. I think it'll be a minor miracle if Ellsbury and Crawford average out to over an .800 ops.

[bloodysox]

Yea, but that's assuming Ellsbury is at last years level -- unlikely, and that Crawford isn't -- also unlikely. I think it'll be a minor miracle if Ellsbury and Crawford average out to over an .800 ops.

I expect a .800 OPS from Crawford and a .870 OPS from Ellsbury. That's not unreasonable and that along with the upgrade defensively is a positive in my view.

[Seels]

I expect a .800 OPS from Crawford and a .870 OPS from Ellsbury. That's not unreasonable and that along with the upgrade defensively is a positive in my view.

You expect better than their career averages after coming back from injuries? Yea, thats unreasonable. Especially with Crawford.