Game 53: Beckett goes for no-no, falls short
by Randy Booth on Jun 4, 2009 1:37 AM EDT
in Game Stories
27 comments
Red Sox vs Tigers recap
Red Sox vs Tigers boxscore
Josh Beckett is a dealer.
Beckett had a no-hit bid until the seventh inning in the Sox's 10-5 victory on Wednesday. He allowed just two hits in his 7.2 innings of work while walking two and striking out nine. He also allowed three runs, but all were unearned.
The offense was clicking, too. J.D. Drew hit a home run and every starter (except Mike Lowell) scored at least one run. Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis and Jacoby Ellsbury each had two hits.
This new lineup seems to be working. It's delivered a couple of wins and the offense seems to be producing at a pretty nice pace. One note: the four best OBPs on the team (Pedroia, Drew, Youkilis and Bay) are the Nos. 1 through 4 hitters. That's what we want, right? It seems to be working.
Sox go for the sweep on Thursday at 1 p.m. It's the D-Train, Dontrelle Willis, versus the T-Train, Tim Wakefield.
0 recs |
27 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The problem is:
“This new lineup seems to be working. It’s delivered a couple of wins and the offense seems to be producing at a pretty nice pace. One note: the four best OBPs on the team (Pedroia, Drew, Youkilis and Bay) are the Nos. 1 through 4 hitters. That’s what we want, right? It seems to be working.”
Like last year, if 3 of the 4 of these top four got on base everytime so the bases were load with one out, then you strand them all forever because 5-9 can’t deliver. Couple that with heinous defense, especially at SS, and we don’t make the playoffs.
I think I would rather have sparks more evenly distributed throughout the lineup??
by NG on Jun 4, 2009 7:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Better to take your shot at getting 2 runs with the top 4 guys
And then hope someone in the next few can get a hit and knock in some more.
Better than having a bunch of guys come up with 1 on and 2 outs…
by USG on Jun 4, 2009 7:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's diuscuss my favorite subject---MOMENTUM!
First off, I think momentum is important in sports like baseball. In Physics, momentum is a force which can usually be either dissipated, maintained, or increased. Increasing momentum or at least maintaining it should be the team goal, IMO, as it leads to continued good things like more runs and increased player efforts and increased fan positive activity. It may also lead to championships in the end. Now concentrating all momentum potential in the first four has the larger (IMO) likelihood of allowing any gained momentum to fall back to zero during the 5 guys after that who can’t rise to the occasions very often. However, by scattering the talented players throughout the line-up, the momentum is not allowed to fall to zero but gets at least maintained at a decent level (hopefully) throughout the lineup and game.
Ideally a great team would have momentum maintainers and momentum enhancers through the entire line-up, but maybe this is too tough to buy/achieved for most teams. So again, it usually boils down to engineering large momentum voids or small momentum voids in the line-up. This is a debatable proposition, but I would favor engineering the potential for small momentum voids.
by NG on Jun 4, 2009 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just gonna smash NG's hopes and dreams real quick like:
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jun 4, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can you look back at 2004 and
not believe in momentum!
by NG on Jun 4, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
not true. For example last night our 6-9 hitters accounted for 6 runs batted in, and Ellsbury scored and had 2 hits. The night before 6-9 had 5 of our 9 hits and those players scored twice. The game before the 6-9 hitters were on base 8 times in 19 plate apps. (a 421 OBP) and scored 3 runs. So, what is your point?
by Buzzy on Jun 4, 2009 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anecdotes are a poor way to make policy!
Last year, we had ample evidence of how badly the potential got sucked away by poor players in the bottom part of the lineup. As I said above, having talent that delivers regularly throughout the line-up is ideal, and maybe the Sox are getting there, but from my perspective, I think Randy has it right. There are only about 3 or 4 guys that are dependable in the clutch over a longer period. IN GENERAL OVER THE LONGER RUN, I would favor seeding them throughout the line-up for maintain the potential rather than shooting the entire wad in the front part of the line-up and then allowing momentum to fall to nothing!
by NG on Jun 4, 2009 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we
were discussing the last 3 games, no?
by Buzzy on Jun 4, 2009 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not me!
I’m a constant global thinker and a fair weather Red Sox fan with a World Series ambition. I want long term strategies that lead to many victories by a team that earns such victories. I don’t want just lucky victories, and I don’t want victories only over poorer teams, and I don’t want victories only at home.
by NG on Jun 4, 2009 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want
long term strategies but you panic after every little down turn. And you want to burn the bullpen out. Baseball is like church: many attend, few understand ;).
by Buzzy on Jun 4, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woah, don't go to religion.
NG, please pick up a copy of The Book. It’s about statistical analysis, and it’s name is appropriate.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jun 4, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Red Sox as an organization think long-term
They don’t panic like their fans do. From 2003 to 2008 (the Theo years), the Sox are averaging 94.2 wins a year. In those six seasons, they have been to the ALCS 4 times and won the WS twice. This year, they have an .585 WP which correlates to roughly 95 wins.
All that matters is the team’s won-loss record. I don’t care if they win 95 games in blow outs and lose the remaining 67 by 1-run, where the opposition comes from behind. The object is to get to the post-season. Once there, the playoffs are a crapshoot.
This FO clearly knows what they’re doing.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jun 4, 2009 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is, one or two of those four guys is going to get on, most likely in scoring position as well.
The bottom part of the lineup isn’t that much worse than the top 4 – they can knock in guys. Plus, those top 4 can knock themselves in pretty often as well.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jun 4, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rumor
Did you guys see during the game on ESPN where Rick Sutcliffe said the rumor on the field is J.J. Hardy possibly coming to Boston?
by boondock_saint812 on Jun 4, 2009 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That has been mentioned before.
Not really so sure that Hardy moving forward is all that much better than Lowrie moving forward. They actually strike me as similar players. Hardy is better right now. They are similar in the field and Hardy has more power. Overall, it might make sense as say, Lowrie+something for Hardy. The question then is-what would the “something” be? Also, again payroll would go up substantially. He is a FA after this year.
by Buzzy on Jun 4, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
similarities
Hardy and Lowrie are very similar but JJ combined for 50 HR in 07/08. Has Jed displayed that kind of power at any level. I think if you can get a SS with that good fielding and that kind of power then go after him. It just depends on what Milwaukee would want. They have a kid in AAA ready to come up and take over SS. So I would think they’re not going to ask for a lot.
by boondock_saint812 on Jun 4, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im wondering if
Hardy could be gotten for say Penny + prospect(s) not named Buchholz, Bowden, Lars, or Bard.
I agree with the Lowrie/Hardy comparisons. I was expecting Boston to make a much bigger move with the Papi situation, catching opening in the future. and the problems at SS.
by SoxAcumen on Jun 4, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
If we kept Lowrie, would he play 3B once he comes back? Move Lowell to DH?
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jun 4, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't
think his bat is optimal for a 3b.
by Buzzy on Jun 4, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jun 4, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hadn't considered his bat.
Although he hits a lot of doubles, which is what we expected from Lowell.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jun 4, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not saying Lowrie is better
but acutally their power numbers track at the minor league level, which is usually a decent predictor. Hardy never had more than 12 HRs in the minors, and topped out with a 495 slugging. Lowrie slugged 506/501 in AAA/AA in 2007. He was 2 years older, though. Basically if we forget about HRs, I would suspect Lowrie tops out as an 800OPS guy. This is close to what Hardy has been in his 2 best seasons.
My guess is that Lowrie will not have the HR power of Hardy but will be a very similar OPS guy with similar glove.
by Buzzy on Jun 4, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lowrie
They wouldn’t take Lowrie like boondock_saint (Love that movie!) said, they have a SS in AAA that they can use (this is why he MAY be available) so having Lowrie would be useless to them. Lowrie could though become our new Alex Cora maybe? That is if we didn’t find a place to send him.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Jun 4, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My guess on the Hardy thing...
Is that they keep him for the rest of the season and try to get into the playoffs. I doubt they trade an established player to put a prospect into the lineup during a pennant race. During the offseason though, I think he could definitely be available.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Jun 4, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
