Over the Monster: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Week One: Previews and Predictions for all 15 games

Can the Red Sox Still Hit? Dispelling the Myth of the "Weakened Offense"

From the beginning, the Red Sox' goal this offseason has been clear: run prevention, run prevention, run prevention. And certainly, they've made great strides towards that goal. Mike Cameron will hush fears of Jacoby Ellsbury's suspect reads, while Ellsbury will take advantage of the smaller left field, replacing the sieve that was Jason Bay. Adrian Beltre is one of the best defensive third basemen to play the game in recent years, and will hopefully allow Kevin Youkilis to supply his top-notch defense at first for the whole season. Marco Scutaro will provide some consistency at shortstop, for once, and all of this will be taking place behind a ridiculously strong rotation.

But in the eyes of many, this has been at the cost of offense. "We won't be able to hit elite pitching" (who can?) or "We're lacking a middle-of-the-rotation bat" are oft-heard complaints. Right now, let's take a look at what we actually have--all semantics aside. This article will attempt to look at the offensive production gained or lost objectively with statistics, so if you're not a fan of wOBA, now is the time to turn around. I've taken advantage of Beyond the Boxscore's wOBA to RAR calculator to turn wOBA over a certain number of plate appearances into the more tangible concept of runs for the sake of simplicity.

Star-divide

First, we need to establish a baseline. Let's use the 2009 Sox. Last year we scored 872 runs--the 3rd most of any team that season, and the 10th most in the last 5 seasons. If that's not a good offensive team, I don't know what is.

So what's changed since 2009? Well, a fair amount. Let's look at new players since the start of the 2009 season, who they're replacing, and how much of a difference it's going to make.

The first change is the difference that a whole season of Victor Martinez will make over a season of Jason Varitek. In 2009, Jason Varitek caught 109 games, accumulating 425 plate appearances. Let's consider this to be the load of the "starting catcher" that Victor Martinez is taking over. Last year, Jason Varitek had a .306 wOBA, while Victor Martinez managed a .399 while with Boston. Now, I'm sure Fenway helped Victor out some, but it seems likely that he won't be able to maintain that number, and again, I'm trying to be conservative--even pessimistic! Let's aim closer to his recent averages at .370 instead. Then we have to subtract Martinez' .399 wOBA over 31 games started at catcher. With these fairly conservative calculations the switch from Varitek to Martinez should be worth about 8.2 runs over last year.

Next up is the Marco Scutaro change. Last year's group of shortstops posted a truly atrocious .289 wOBA over 574 plate appearances, while Marco Scutaro managed a solid .354. However, it's the consensus opinion that Scutaro won't keep up his performance from last year, even if his plate discipline peripherals suggest it wasn't just a matter of luck. Bill James and the Fans projections both are right around .327, though, which doesn't seem at all unreasonable. Over the same 574 plate appearances, the difference between Scutaro and last year's shortstops is worth 19.5 runs. Surprisingly, this makes up the bulk of the improvement to the Red Sox' offense--likely due to the fact that I'm considering Martinez to have produced well above what could be expected of him in 2010 last year.

From here, we enter negative territory with a positive balance of 27.7 runs.

At 3rd base, we have the newly acquired Adrian Beltre, whose offensive production is a matter of much debate, replacing Mike Lowell. Last year, Lowell managed a wOBA of .346 over 440 plate appearances at 3rd base. Now, it's not fair to really only compare Lowell and Beltre, as Youkilis spent tons of time at 3rd with Victor Martinez filling in at first, making V-Mart the effective substitution. However, since we're not considering Martinez' time spent elsewhere this coming year, we can't really count it this year. It would be about the same as far as plate appearances are concerned. We'll also, for the sake of simplicity, not consider Casey Kotchman's fill-ins, since he'll likely be back too. Adrian Beltre, for his part, had a very bad year last year, but he was dealing with injuries. It's more fair to instead look at his 3 previous years, which were all very consistent around .340 wOBA. Again, to be conservative, we won't even consider the advantage of hitting in Fenway as compared to Safeco, great though it may be. Given the .006 wOBA difference, there's not much change in production switching from Lowell to Beltre--only 2.3 runs.

Finally, there's the big one: left field. While Ellsbury may well be the one manning the position come 2010, it's really Mike Cameron that's replacing Jason Bay, so we'll use him for comparison. Jason Bay was an undeniable offensive stud last year, managing a .397 wOBA over 638 plate appearances. 638 plate appearances might be a bit much for a guy of Cameron's age, but for once I'm going to be optimistic and assume he stays healthy all season (which he's mostly managed three of the last 4 seasons). In exchange, we'll ignore the fact that, given their likely different positions in the lineup, many of Bays at bats would be going to a better offensive producer like Drew. For Cameron, we'll put the wOBA level again at .340. This is less than Cameron has managed in recent years, for the most part, but let's accept some decline in production due to age, fitness buff that Cameron might be. The difference here is admittedly dramatic, as the switch from Jason Bay will cost the Red Sox some 32.2 runs.

Some quick math later, and we have the figure of 6.8 runs. That's it. The Boston Red Sox of 2010 should, even assuming a fairly low baseline for all replacement players, score only 6.8 runs fewer than they did in 2010. Even ignoring all bumps longtime residents of Progressive, Miller, and Safeco Field might get from playing half their games in Fenway. Even assuming that Ortiz doesn't continue his performance from the last half, but replicates his mediocre season as a whole. Even assuming that our young guys like Pedroia and Ellsbury don't improve! It doesn't take into account the advantages in wins if not runs that being able to play "small ball" might have in a close game, as Scutaro, Cameron, and Beltre can all steal a base if they need to compared to just Jason Bay (to say nothing of all the cries of GIDP-machine Lowell last year). The difference is all of 6.8 runs.

Last year, the Sox ended the season in a series where they failed to score more than 1 run combined in the first 2 games. And of course, there was the long period against the Yankees where they just couldn't score any runs. It was streaks like these that set off an alarm in Red Sox Nation making everyone think that we were somehow a bad team with a weak lineup. But alarmism is the perfect way to describe that. Every player slumps. Sometimes teams slump together--have a bad game or two. Even 3 like against the Yankees. Looking at a sample as small as 5 cherry-picked games, though, is an absolutely ridiculous way to assess a team's abilities, and the changes that need to be made. Last year, we scored a ton of runs. This year, we'll still score a ton of runs. The difference is that we won't give up nearly as many, and we'll have a better chance of winning any game we play as a result.

4 recs  |  Comment 63 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Around SB Nation

Juan Pierre Vs. The World

Sep 2010 from South Side Sox - 186 comments

What To Do With James Loney

Sep 2010 from True Blue LA - 321 comments

Comments

Display:

Excellent Post

This should be mandatory reading for all the boo-birds out there. I expect to cite to it repeatedly as the season draws near.

by argo0 on Jan 5, 2010 12:51 PM EST reply actions  

Well done.

Add the gains from pitching and defense, and we should be much better next year.

"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 Jan 5, 2010 1:01 PM EST reply actions  

and again

the quality of this post easily beats out (almost) everything you read on espn, cbssports, boston herald, boston globe, si etc.
Good Job Ben!

by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 5, 2010 1:49 PM EST reply actions  

Didn't I make this fanpost, like, 3 weeks ago?

Just kidding-nice job! One place I disagree is Scutaro, and this is part of why my numbers come in a bit lower than yours. I think last year the Sox SS platoon (Lugo/Lowrie/Green/Gonzo) created 60 or so total runs by wRC. Most projections have Scutaro at something close to 70. So I think the gain is likely 10, not 20 runs. I think otherwise were are basically matching. One other thing is that unlike some recent Sox good offensive teams-this team has perhaps more balance, which has a positive effect that is not easy to quantify. Cosider that in 07 we had Lugo and Crisp’s awful bats in the lineup, while in 08/09 we had the automatic out that is Jason Varitek (along with, last year Nick Green, etc), while now perhaps there is no real “gimme” out (as long as Cameron holds steady, and Beltre does not repeat last year). I like that.

by Buzzy on Jan 5, 2010 1:49 PM EST reply actions  

"But my gut tells me the statistics lie!"

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard some Chicken Little wailing about how our offense is going to suck next year because we didn’t re-sign Bay to a bloated contract, yet the statistics say we’ll lose just seven runs.

Meanwhile, how many runs will we save from improved defense and pitching? Cameron vs. Bay saves us about 21 runs. Figure having Victor catch more games and Tek fewer will save us a few runs, though not very many; call it two or three. Beltre vs. Lowell saves us about 30 over a full season. Call Scutaro vs. the committee a wash and drop the estimate by a decent chunk just to be conservative, and the defense should be around 40 runs better. And let’s be equally conservative on our offensive projections (or let’s just take Buzzy’s estimate for Scutaro) and say we lose more like 20 runs — probably too high, but within the margin of error.

The Sox scored 872 runs and gave up 736 last season. Under the Pythagorean expectation, such a team should win 94.6 games — right at the 95 the Sox won. Now subtract 20 runs scored and 40 runs allowed to project a team scoring 852 runs and allowing 696. Such a team should win 97.2 games.

And that’s before we factor in the improvement in pitching. We can reasonably expect Beckett and Lester to do about as well in 2010 as they did in 2009. We can reasonably expect Dice-K not to suck like he did in 2009 — even a mediocre 2010 would be a big improvement. We can reasonably expect Buchholz to continue to improve after his breakthrough last two months of 2009. And as much as we all love and respect Wake, we can reasonably expect Lackey to be a pretty significant upgrade. Assuming Wake moves to the bullpen as a long or middle innings reliever, he should be about equivalent to what we got from Masterson et al. last season. Papelbon should regain his form and be a little better. Bard should improve. The rest of the pen should be about the same. So figure the pitching staff should be significantly improved, and this is already conservatively a 97 win team without any of that factored in.

All of which tells me that barring significant injuries or strokes of luck, neither of which can be modeled with any degree of reliability, this is a team that should win 95-100 games in 2010. That may or may not win the division, but it’ll get us to the playoffs, and that ought to be good enough for us given that the team that wins the World Series is more likely to be the team that gets hot in October than the team with the best record from April through September.

by RSNexile on Jan 5, 2010 2:08 PM EST reply actions  

Youk at 1st

You didnt mention 1st D. Vmart played alot at 1st. Youk Gold Glove will play there most of the yr

by Pl1166 on Jan 5, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions  

I didn't mention it because the point was to make a conservative estimate

I’m saying that conservatively, we can expect the Sox to win 95-100 games with the roster we have right now. Factor in things like Youk playing first full-time, Ellsbury being a very good leftfielder as opposed to a horrible CF in addition to Cameron’s excellent defense replacing Bay’s sieve of a glove, Youk being healthy all year, etc., etc., etc., and the number of expected wins rises accordingly.

by RSNexile on Jan 5, 2010 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Very Well Said

For anyone who think that these “advanced” statistics lie-ask them to add up the Sox total WAR for each player. Get a total then add the number of wins for a replacement team (42) and compare to the # the team won last year.

Imagine how much better your run prevention team is if instead of comparing Cameron and Bay, you get your 20 runs by comparing Ellsbury and Bay and then comparing Cameron to last year’s Ellsbury. That is about 40 runs right there. I really think this team can beat 2007’s 650 (or so) runs allowed.

by Buzzy on Jan 5, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions  

And it's not just about improved defense and pitching

It’s also about how improved defense and pitching reinforce each other, though I’ve never seen what I would consider a good metric for how that happens.

Think of how difficult it was for Dice-K to make it through five innings last year, or how much trouble Buch had at times getting through the sixth. Partly that was their own fault, though we can expect both to be improved in the 2010 season, but partly it was also due to missed opportunities on defense. And when the defense doesn’t make a play, the pitchers have to throw more pitches and give up more runs. That means the starters can’t stay in the game as long, the bullpen gets used up and burned out faster, injuries are more common, and the pitchers’ collective numbers get worse. By contrast, when the defense makes more plays, the pitchers throw fewer pitches, the starters can stay in the game longer, the bullpen can stay well rested, injuries are going to be less common, and the pitchers’ collective numbers improve.

All the projections here are based on numbers from seasons that have already happened, which is absolutely what we should be using. But those numbers are based on teams that didn’t have the improved defense and pitching the 2010 Sox should have relative to the 2009 Sox. I strongly suspect that such a significant improvement in defense and pitching ought to have a syllogistic effect that will amplify the effect, all other things held constant of course. I doubt it would add up to much more than a game or two over the course of the season, but when you’re talking about a conservative estimate of 95-100 wins, a game or two could mean the difference between the wild card and the division title. And at the very least, the prospect of better health and a fresher pitching staff for the playoffs should significantly improve our chances of winning the World Series this year.

by RSNexile on Jan 5, 2010 2:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Gawd, during Beckett's second half 'slump'

it seemed each ‘bad outing’ always got triggered by some bonehead defensive screw up that would tip Beckett off his screws.

A base on E or a hit that should have been an out leaking through … and then Beckett would give up a bomb.

by mmmmm on Jan 5, 2010 4:33 PM EST up reply actions  

that

plus 14 HRs allowed in 4 games ;)

by Buzzy on Jan 5, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Great post, USG ... rec'd

When one looks at the pitching and defense, the Sox could give up less than 650 runs in 2010. The 2007 Sox, a decent defensive and pitching team, allowed 657. The only position where the Sox were better defensively is CF. While Cameron is great, I can’t see him besting Coco’s ’07. Ells is better than Manny. Drew had his worst defensive year in Boston in 2007. Pedroia is greatly improved. As good as Lowell was with the glove in 2007, Beltre has been better than that by UZR150 in 7 of the last 8 years.

The pitching in 2010 should be better than 2007 too. Beckett was great in 2007. Schilling was good, but only threw 151 innings. Dice-K was good as well. But Wake wasn’t great that year, and the rest of the rotation consisted of Julian Tavarez, a young John Lester, Kason Gabbard, and three good starts by Buchholz. If healthy, Lester, Beckett, Lackey, Dice-K, and Buchholz should be a significantly better rotation.

Basically, the Sox should at least duplicate what they did offensively last year (they were a very good offense in 2009). But, for argument’s sake, let’s even say they’re 30 runs worse (because a lot of fluky things can happen over 162 games). The defense and pitching should make them better than the 2007 team that allowed only 657 runs. Let’s say they score 840 runs and allow 650. That would give them a 190+ run-differential, putting them around 100 wins.

 I think any Red Sox fan who isn’t excited about next year is crazy.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jan 5, 2010 2:18 PM EST reply actions  

100 wins sounds about right

Without factoring in the improved pitching staff and taking very conservative estimates of offensive and defensive expectations, I have the Sox pegged at 97 wins. Factor in the improved pitching staff and be a little less conservative (but still very realistic) and 100 sounds eminently possible.

Then what happens if Papi plays for the whole season like he did in the second half of 2009? And Youk stays healthy all year? And Tek doesn’t completely suck down the stretch because he only catches 40 games instead of 100? And what if Beltre can come back to hit .260-.270 with 15-20 HR, which would minimize the loss of offense in replacing Lowell? And what if Ellsbury switches to left so we have significantly improved defense in both left and center instead of just left?

If it’s a season with the normal ups and downs — injuries, slumps, a player or two unexpectedly playing like crap for a hefty chunk of the year, etc. — this is a 95-100 win team right now. But if everything goes right — fewer injuries than normal, no unexpected crappiness, a player or two having a career year — this could be a team for the ages.

by RSNexile on Jan 5, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree completely

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jan 5, 2010 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Will Ells be in left?

Ells is young. will they put him in lf or allow him to grow and improve in cf.

by Pl1166 on Jan 5, 2010 2:33 PM EST reply actions  

This whole offseason has been about run prevention, I don’t think it fits in the plan to sign a great defensive outfielder and then allow Ellsbury to play a position he isn’t that good at defensively when we can just shift him over and be even better defensively. Right now I think its about putting together the best team, Ells at LF makes us a better team. Ells can still work on getting better reads in left like he can in center too.

"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 Jan 5, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions  

If the Sox are smart, Ells will be in LF

Cameron is a better defensive player and has a stronger arm. If the Sox want to maximize their run-prevention—and their off-season moves have been geared toward improving defense and pitching—you have to put the better defender in the premium defensive position. That means putting Cameron in CF and Ells in LF.

As for allowing Ells to “grow and improve,” the Sox are built to win now. Also, you don’t know if Ells can improve enough in CF to be as good as Cameron. Ells doesn’t get good reads. The Sox’ system is deep in OF prospects. The Sox may have another player in mind as their long-term option in CF.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jan 5, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree

But I havent heard nothing out of the soxs saying that

by Pl1166 on Jan 5, 2010 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

There was mention a while back that Terry and Theo were going to sit down with Ellsbury and Cameron to talk about it.

I take that as a sign that Cameron is in CF, or at least a rotation was worked out. The only reason they’d need to include the “incumbent” in the conversation was if he was getting moved.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Jan 5, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

A key point I thought was missed.

Allowing fewer runs with another ace in the deck (Lackey), A (hopefully) healthy Dice-K, and another year under Buchholz should be a significant difference over last year, with Smoltz, Penny, Byrd, so on so forth.

by David Harnden on Jan 5, 2010 2:37 PM EST reply actions  

not missed-

the idea is that the defensive and pitching upgrades are a given…and that the “expected” offensive downgrade should not be so severe or even occur.

by Buzzy on Jan 5, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think any of us Yankee fans...

would say that the Red Sox are actually worse than last year. Your team has improved quite a bit on defense and pitching. Really, the Yankees and Red Sox are polar opposites: The Yankees have the best offense in the game and a pretty good defense, and the Red Sox have the best defense in the game (in my opinion), and a pretty good offense. I’d give you guys a slight edge in starting pitching, and us the edge in the bullpen. Should be a good division race.

by Wraithpk on Jan 5, 2010 4:06 PM EST reply actions  

Some of you would.

But not the type that would come over here and leave a rational post, such as yourself.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Jan 5, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Yup

Should be a good race.

by Schulz on Jan 6, 2010 11:07 AM EST up reply actions  

Not exactly rational.

Best defense in baseball? I consider that a joke. And the Yankees have a superior pen? Absurd.

by David Harnden on Jan 5, 2010 4:11 PM EST reply actions  

Best Defense

Might be a stretch although the only weak defensive player would be at C with Martinez and an average SS with all other either above average or Gold-Glove caliber

by BobZupcic on Jan 5, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Bob - I luvs ya - but I have to jump on that

could you (or anyone) please show me something that demonstrates that V-Mart is a ‘weak defensive player’ at Catcher?

Please don’t use ‘caught stealing’. It (preventing stolen bases) is not important to the Red Sox as a team so you shouldn’t hang that on the catchers.

I’m not claiming he’s gold-glove caliber, mind you. But I just don’t see weak defense in a guy who’s caught for some very, very good pitchers over the last few years.

by mmmmm on Jan 5, 2010 4:53 PM EST up reply actions  

defense

or not, V-Mart’s inability to throw out runners is a bit of a problem…

by Buzzy on Jan 5, 2010 4:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Why?

And why is it “V-Mart’s inability” when it is for all practical purposes team defensive indifference? The Red Sox pitching staff as a rule does barely anything to keep runners from getting jumps. The philosophy of the team is to focus on getting the batter out. And frankly I agree with that philosophy.

I’m sorry, but to me this is like rating a hitter based on RBIs or an outfielder’s defense based on his arm alone.

by mmmmm on Jan 5, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

In a SSS

He did seem to have a problem even getting the ball to second.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Jan 5, 2010 5:01 PM EST up reply actions  

What does a catcher spend 95% of his time doing?

It’s not attempting to throw out runners.

Let’s not make that the measure for how good they are defensively.

I’m willing to accept that VMart is not a good defensive catcher. But not based on his caught runner’s percentage. It makes no sense.

What’s his passed ball frequency? How well does he communicate with his pitchers (i.e. ‘call a game’) ? Does he catch pop-ups and field bunts? Does he block the plate?

THOSE are the real tasks of a catcher.

by mmmmm on Jan 5, 2010 5:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh, I understand.

But there’s a point where SB bits are important. And that’s right around the point where every other SB ends up going to 3rd as the ball winds up in CF.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Jan 5, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm not saying its not better to stop SBs.

I’m just saying it is given far too much weight in proportion to other things.

If you get the batter out, then the fact that a guy stole 2nd usually becomes meaningless.

What is the average success rate at throwing out runners? Around 40% or so? And if the throw is wild, the penalty is high.

I’d prefer that the pitcher and catcher focus on getting the batters out, which is more likely around the 70% success rate.

Yes, it is true that there are a few critical game situations where it really really really hurts that they stole a base. But those cases are rare and unless they steal home (!), they haven’t scored yet.

by mmmmm on Jan 5, 2010 5:49 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah - i was just going off the top of my head

30% reinforces the belief that you should focus your attention on gettting the batter out.

by mmmmm on Jan 5, 2010 6:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Wouldn't that have to wait for September?

I don’t see the Sox carrying three catchers (or at least not unless Wagner also pitches out of the bullpen. . . .)

by lone1c on Jan 5, 2010 9:02 PM EST up reply actions  

it's really not a good measure of a catcher

but yeah, that was ridiculous. Every throw he made was just terrible. I’m sure he’ll work on that this offseason and hopefully at the very least get his accuracy improved.

by wolf9309 on Jan 5, 2010 7:24 PM EST up reply actions  

he was awful last year

and since he had a shoulder injury, I bet that is not a fluke…15 percent for the Tribe/ 11 percent for us last year. I hope it gets back to his old levels…

by Buzzy on Jan 5, 2010 5:21 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't get

How people can talk about how Ellsbury’s steals weren’t really that valuable, and then say that throwing runners out is important.

by Gnick on Jan 6, 2010 2:45 AM EST up reply actions  

V-Mart

Yeah I was going on his weak arm……maybe should move him to average overall

by BobZupcic on Jan 5, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

His arm was good until last year

In 2007, he threw out 32% of basestealers in 121 G. He was hurt in 2008, but still caught 37% of would-be base-stealers.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jan 5, 2010 5:52 PM EST up reply actions  

And then he came to the Red Sox

where we don’t believe in holding runners…

by mmmmm on Jan 5, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions  

He wasn't great in Cleveland beforee coming to the Sox

But he was worse with Boston.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jan 5, 2010 7:57 PM EST up reply actions  

yes-see above

bad both places. Good before 2008. Let’s see next year.

by Buzzy on Jan 5, 2010 8:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Great post, overall USG

It would be perhaps simpler and more accurate – though less conservative to not do it by position replacement (i.e. Replacing 2009 Tek at bats with 2010 VMart at bats, etc., etc.) and instead simply go through the lineup and assign an estimated projection of at-bats for each player. But that’s quibbling.

by mmmmm on Jan 5, 2010 5:32 PM EST reply actions  

I am God awful with projecting PA numbers.

Much easier for me to just project onto last year’s PA numbers.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Jan 5, 2010 5:36 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah - but the lineup was so fractured last year, I thought it might be harder

than just to make some simple assumptions such as each starter playing about 145 games, at about 4 PAs per and then fill in the rest of the at bats with the bench players roughly equally.

Yeah, some guys will play less and some will play more, but overall that should be close.

by mmmmm on Jan 5, 2010 5:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Very Good Post Ben

I was anticipating a good season even before we got Beltre. I think with him in the line up and my firm belief that he’ll be better at Fenway then he was at Safeco it’s a true upgrade worth even more than the 2 or 3 runs conservative outlook on him defensively.

My one concern with him is going to be his patience at the plate. That dude’s a hacker.

by Red Sox Raider on Jan 6, 2010 1:27 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Over the Monster, an SB Nation community that delivers news and analysis while encouraging discussion regarding everything Boston Red Sox. OTM was founded Feb. 22, 2005.
Start posting about the Red Sox »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
What we lost... what we "gained"
Tardy_001_small
The negativity
Small
OTM Fantasy Football?
Tatersox_small
I Demand Blood

Recent FanPosts

Small
Fantasy league looking for managers
Hpim0626_small
Facts Of the Season
Tatersox_small
PLAYOFFS?? We talkin' 'bout playoffs? (Yahoo Fantasy)
Small
Killing Paps value
Small
Trade With Dodgers
Spokedb_onblack_1600x1200_small
Minor League Rankings
Spokedb_onblack_1600x1200_small
It's Not Over Yet,  But....

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

SEATTLE - JULY 10:  Starting pitcher Felix Hernandez #34 of the Seattle Mariners celebrates after defeating the New York Yankees 4-1 at Safeco Field on July 10 2010 in Seattle Washington. (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images)

MLB Power Rankings: On The Challenge Of Identifying A League's Best Pitcher

ANAHEIM CA - SEPTEMBER 08:  Jeff Mathis #5 of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is mobbed by teammates after hitting a  walk off sacrifice fly to score Torri Hunter form third base against the Cleveland Indians in the 16th inning on September 8 2010 at Angel Stadium in Anaheim California.   The Angels won 4-3 in 16 innings.  (Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

Mathis' 16th-Inning Sac Fly Lifts Angels Over Indians 4-3

Philadelphia Phillies' Jimmy Rollins, left, slides into home to score past the tag of Florida Marlins catcher Brad Davis on a single by Carlos Ruiz in the third inning of a baseball game, Wednesday, Sept. 8, 2010, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum) +2 updates

Phils Top Marlins 10-6, Jimmy Rollins Leaves Game With 'Hamstring Tightness'

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

20136_562469370037_32603605_33253497_5601129_n_small Randy Booth

Editors

Master_shake_small Allen Chace

Rorscach_small 0157H7

Red_seat_small Ben Buchanan

Authors

Zissou551_small SoxDevil

Red_sox_logo_small Logan Lietz

Red-sox-yankees_small BerkshireFan

Photo_small wolf9309