Lester Settles Down as Red Sox Pound Royals Bullpen
If there was one game that should have been a blowout this series, it was this one. Jon Lester taking on a spot starting Bruce Chen is just not really a competition. But through the first 4 innings, it looked like it might be.
Then Jon Lester started looking like Jon Lester, and the Red Sox lineup realized it was facing the Royals bullpen.
It was not the best start for Jon Lester, who allowed 1 run on 4 walks and 4 hits, but after some early wildness, he settled down and looked very much like the team's ace, recording 5 strikeouts and 10 groundouts in 7 innings. Bruce Chen, on the other hand, did not come back down to Earth after 4 strong innings of 1-run ball, striking out 5.
Instead, he left the game, bringing in Brad Thompson, who the Red Sox were more than happy to see. Bill Hall and Mike Cameron greeted him with a single and a double. Then, after Hall scored on a groundout by Marco Scutaro (who went 3-for-5 with 2 doubles), David Ortiz took a 1-1 fastball to straightaway center and out of the deepest part of the park for his 10th homer in May.
The Sox tacked on 4 more runs in the game, including a solo shot in the 8th by Jason Varitek. Manny Delcarmen and Joe Nelson mopped up the last 6 outs to give the Sox the 8-1 win.
Had to be hoping for more than 2 wins against KC, but good to get those after we bombed the first couple. The Athletics come into Fenway for a 3-game set starting Tuesday. Enjoy your day off!
164 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Looking at box for Portland.
Wow: Kalish had only two hits—but they were a triple and a HR!
Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell
Ah, the heck with it, let's call him up.
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Damn
.919 OPS
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Still suffering from a sub-.300 BABIP
When his career is .320 or so. Could be defense, could be luck.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Sounds good
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 30, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
His numbers make him look like the JD Drew of the future.
How’s his defense?
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Depends on who you ask.
May be able to handle center. So…really, he’s JD Drew like.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
(I've been pushing that comparison for a year, for the record)
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you get the stats like BABIP at baseball reference?
MILB doesn’t have that much
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Minor League Splits has them a couple games behind.
Otherwise, just math them out with a little bit of fudging for hard-to-find numbers.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I was just wondering if there was a fangraphs for MILB.
Baseball reference is the closest thing.
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Not really, no.
MinorLeagueSplits has FIP, BABIP, batted ball data, and a few other things, but nothing quite on the level of Fangraphs.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
The fangraphs of MiLB is fangraphs
They have BABIP, wOBA, FIP, etc. for minor leaguers too.
not current stats
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 31, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
How is his arm?
I was kind of surprised to see him playing left field. I’d thought he was more of a CF/RF
I may add this
He’s walking more that K’ing (Always a very good sign)
Most (62% actually) of his Ks are K looking (No contact issues what so ever)
His LD% is very good: Actually you can go to MinorLinesSplits.com and adjust the luck and park factor and he’ll end up with more than 1 OPS
He’s GOOD and I can confirm that USG not that new guy Ben Buchanan was pushing for the Drew comparison!
If new people don't look at my sig, they're gonna really start wondering about this USG person at some point.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I just wish USG would come back. He was smart.
"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
He was my favorite poster; I even liked him better than Sandy.
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Lemme guess
“USG would never do such a thing!”
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
USG wouldn't have to guess.
He’d KNOW.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea /
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown /
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
He was a prophet, man.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
Lester and Clay both under 3.00 ERA for the Sox now.
If Beckett and Lackey could just be average…
USG
Yeah, don't give up HR, put up a decent WHIP and a 3.70-.390 ERA
That would be nice.
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep……
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 30, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Good game, Lester rocked like always, Vtek with the Homer. … Pawsox play today?
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 30, 2010 4:36 PM EDT reply actions
6:05?
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
yes
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel I have to prepare you for the very real possibility
That a Kalish call up would be bad news for Aaron Bates. It’s him or Bubba Bell, really.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
or a Nava promotion, but it's not gonna happen
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
oh….
thanks i guess…..
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 30, 2010 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel like Bubba Bell has absolutely nothing going for him
there’s at least a slim chance they’d need to call up an emergency backup 1B before they think Lars is ready to go up. There seems to me pretty much 0 chance that Bubba Bell could possibly get called on for anything.
yes agree
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 31, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Boy that Nelson looks like he could start!
Lots of good stuff and an effortless delivery!
Maybe instead of Nitro-unstable, schizo Wakefield, the team could let someone like Nelson have a start in Wakefield’s place??.
A clean win before an off day. Nice work Lester
Anyone think the Angels would have any interest in Mike Lowell for 1st base to help with the Kendry Morales disaster?
maybe
I think Matsui might be struggling, so it’s possible.
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
We could also send prospect/s and get Mathis or Napoli,
but that probably isn’t a good idea. Tek would have to leave, and the new catcher would be a backup I suppose, making the deal not worth it, IMO. However, this would solve the imminent catching problem.
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
You think Mathis/Napoli would solve our catching problem?
I know I’d rather have ’Tek than Napoli.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
IMO, Napoli is a good defensive catcher. The problem is working with our pitchers.
I’m talking long term. How much longer is Tek gonna play? Can he even play every day at a high level?
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions
He can't wear Sox laundry this long but....
From MLBTR: this will scare you.
•"Gammons believes Jason Varitek figured out that he could extend his career by three or four years by accepting a part-time role and playing two or three times a week."
I don't need Mauer.
I just want one guy that can be back there every day and a decent backup.
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe not good, but solid
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not really seeing a catching problem these days
I mean, maybe the bad starts are a result of something weird Martinez is doing, but I just don’t really buy it. Both Martinez and Tek have been looking better at throwing runners out. I think both Martinez and part-time Tek give us better offense than Napoli would and he’s not exactly known as a plus defensive catcher. I feel like they’d be less likely to give us Mathis, and his offense would be worse
Mathis has only played 10 games. IDK if that was because of injury,
so I think they would rather give us Napoli. There has been talk of not resigning v-mart, so that would make Tek the every day catcher next year, if we didn’t make Wagner or somebody the starter. I would rather have somebody else other than Tek/our prospect, but I don’t think Napoli/Mathis is the answer.
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah Mathis was their main catcher, then fractured a wrist and has been out the rest of the year
but we agree anyways that Napoli/Mathis isn’t the solution.
Yeah, I was just saying it was a possibility.
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
Youkilis for MVP 2010
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on May 30, 2010 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Definite possibility
But there are other trade options out there too. Just a matter of who gives them the best deal.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on May 30, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, Dye's a FA possibility
I’ve heard names like Adam LaRoche, Paul Konerko, and Adam Dunn thrown out there, we’ll see what sticks. Lowell provides them flexibility at 3B as well, so that’s an added bonus.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on May 30, 2010 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Stark's sources say the Angels have some money to spend.
And Lowell would not need any time in the minors to shake off the rust like Dye would.
For Dye, would you think a week or maybe two in the minors to be MLB ready?
but if they can spend cash
they probably would have Konerko, Berkman, and LaRoche available. Lowell is probably cheaper in both $ and prospects, but if they want to compete, any of those 3 guys is a better option.
Honestly, no idea how long Dye would take. I know that players usually have a full month of ST and he’ll be manning a position that he’s never done professionally before, but I don’t know what he’s been doing- personally, I don’t really see him going anywhere this year.
The Angels need help now, so Dye may be out of the running.
The other four are all interesting:
……wOBA……, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010…. Salary 2010
Lowell……….., .377_ .344_ .346_ .307………..$12 mil
LaRoche……., .346_ .357_ .357_ .375………..$4.5 mil +($1.5 buyout 2011)
Konerko…….., .357_ .343_ .362_ .391…………$12 mil
Berkman……., .383_ .419_ .386_ .392……….$14.5 mil +($2.0 buyout 2011)
Which team would give up there 1st baseman today for a single prospect?
Berkman is a switch hitter and hands down the cream of the crop but the Astros will want more quality prospects and may not be willing to eat a lot of salary too.
Are Chicago and Arizona ready to sell today?
Boston should be past ready.
PTNL or a B prospect? We are willing to eat $$$.
It would be nice to have that roster spot to start rotating, for a test drive, some of our younger talent with options remaining. Bring up an extra pitcher when needed and then send him down for a bench bat or a back up glove or even some speed. Could be a lot of fun to watch.
James Shields records the loss
as Tampa Bay takes it on the chin 8-5. Peavy gets the win for Chicago.
Very nice. One game at a time.
Eh
I just want more Rays-Yankees. Have they only played one series? That’d be nice.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Nope. 5 games in 2 series.
We’ve taken on the Yankees 8 times, and the Rays 7.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Ortiz when another bomb, and MDC looked good, too.
Me likey.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
I like seeing this!
TB has lost 6 of their last 10, NYY and Jays have lost 5 of their last 10. But we have won 7 of our last 10.
I LOVE PEDROIA!!! ITS MAN LOVE!
Maybe its just me
but I think the division is still ours to lose. The Rays have been playing WAAAYY over their head all year, the Spanks about what you’d expect and we have obviously been playing nowhere hear where we should be. All of that and we’re only 5.5 out of first. Now if we can just stop giving games to the O’s and Royals of the league we’re set
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
Even if the Rays have been playing way better than they should be,
they’ve still set up a pretty big lead, and they do have a lot of talent; this isn’t like a team that’s bad that’s been playing well, it’s a team that’s really good that’s bene playing amazingly. That is going to be hard to catch.
And if the Yankees keep having injury troubles and some guys finally get old, hopefully they’ll drop out of the running during the grind.
No doubt
The Rays are definitely a good team but that just it, they’re not even close to an amazing team. To end May at 5.5 games back is fine. One or two shitty weeks for them with what SHOULD BE an average week or 2 for us and that lead is gone. But like I said, we cant keep gifting wins to terrible teams or I’m just blowing smoke up my own ass to feel better
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
I'm sorry, but 2 average weeks for us compared to 2 shitty weeks for them
is not going to cut down a 5-game lead. Maybe if we continue to play amazing, but I also think that the last 2 weeks we’ve been playing quite a bit above our level. We’re not going to take down top teams like that all year, and you can’t assume we will. I think you’re very much overestimating how good we are. Sure, we’ve been great the last couple of weeks, but I’m not confident that we can catch up to a team that is at least as good as us that has a huge lead. And it’s definitely not our division to lose.
This just sounds like unearned arrogance.
What kind of a rotation do we have that this is ours to lose? What kind of bullpen? We have two starters and two relievers.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldnt say that but its still very much in reach
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 30, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Im not trying to be arrogant at all
You seriously believe Beckett and Lackey will both be this bad all year? Really? Come on, you’re smarter than that. I have no argument about the bullpen, sometimes that’s just scary.
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
Lackey might be, yes. He's given us no reason to think otherwise. He can't miss bats, he's completely lost his curveball.
And Beckett is dealing with injury, to say nothing that both of them have been on the decline for a while now. Pitchers like them vanishing around this age is not unheard of. In the AL East, they could both easily put up an ERA of 5 for the rest of the season—not total, just for the rest of the year, and I would be completely unsurprised. I’m not going to count those chickens before they hatch at all.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Too depressing to think about.
"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
Beckett… yes
Not as worried about Lackey
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 30, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Really? Lackey has been even worse than Beckett, really.
At least Beckett gets swings and misses and looks good on occasion. The only time Lackey looks good is when he’s getting a few ground balls to get double plays on all the guys he walks. He’s a strike thrower who can’t throw strikes. He’s an off-speed pitcher who has lost his best off speed pitch. At least Beckett has a low strand rate and high BABIP to explain away some of his giant ERA. Lackey is not only bad—he’s actually gotten LUCKY so far.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
My worry with Beckett is it seems he has declined since the elbow injury in 2008. I wish They didn’t extend him, at least so he’d of had some motivation.
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 30, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Sometimes I dont get people around here
One second a thread is all “Beckett’s a warrior out there we need him!” the next is Beckett is terrible TRADEEXECUTE HIM! He doesn’t have to be our ace anymore and I would take his over just about any #3 out there. Same with Lackey. And I really don’t care what they get paid because its not my money and clearly doesn’t stop us from spending more. I’m not a big Beckett fan, but for what we need him to be he’s the best there is, same with Lackey. For all the talk about regressing (progressing in this case) to the mean, why is everyone so quick to throw that theory away when the situation presents itself to our pitchers
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
Regression to the mean only concerns certain things.
If a guy has a high BABIP, a low strand rate, a high HR/FB rate…Those have all been demonstrated to be generally not controllable by pitchers, and to return to a pretty predictable average. Not perfect—for instance, BABIP is effected by defense, strand rate probably decreases some for crappy pitchers (you can only strand so many runners in an inning, if you get my drift), and your park will effect your HR/FB rate—but generally it’s easy to tell if a guy is getting particularly lucky or unlucky in a stat that regresses to the mean.
What doesn’t regress to the mean are things like strikeouts, walks, and flyball rates. They regress to a personal mean often enough, but that’s very susceptible to decline and injury. It’s definitely also worth noting that the (modified) gambler’s fallacy is in effect here. Because a guy you expect to be good is really bad does not mean he’s going to be exceptionally good for the rest of the season to get his season numbers down to his expected numbers, just that he’ll probably perform at that expected level the rest of the year all else being equal.
I don’t want to execute Beckett certainly (though I never agreed with that whole bulldog/warrior/whatever BS…He’s just a good pitcher who can be replaced by another good pitcher with fewer injury issues), but there’s good reason to worry about him. Much more reason to worry about Lackey. He’s performed awfully, and there’s no guarantee he’ll recover what he lost.
Finally:
And I really don’t care what they get paid because its not my money and clearly doesn’t stop us from spending more.
That’s just really deceiving yourself. It absoutely stops us from spending more. Otherwise our bullpen wouldn’t suck. Even the Yankees are hurt by oversized contracts. If there were actually a team that was not effected by this sort of thing, they would win every world series ever.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Totally agree on that last point. And you’re gonna laugh at me but…. what’s babip? Don’t ban me for nit knowing!!!
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 30, 2010 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
BANNED
BABIP is your batting average on balls in play. Basically, how many of your flyballs and liners fall in and groundballs get through. It doesn’t include homers (since those aren’t as effected by luck…If it’s gone, it’s generally gone) or strikeouts (ditto) as they are not “in play”.
For hitters, these numbers are a lot to do with how you hit the ball (put it on a line, in the air, or on the ground) and tend to regress to a personal average. For a pitcher, there is VERY little ability to control this—though some does exist, likely giving control pitchers an edge, it is very small—so it can be expected to return to an average with a caveat that defense is a big contributer.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok thanks
Dont ban me!!!!
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 31, 2010 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Don't worry.
If they let me stay, they’ll let you stay. ;)
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
I REGRET NOTHING!
BBS? Yer in trouble.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
:(
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 31, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
This link may also help you learn about BABIP:
Link to Saber Library/ BABIP:
http://saberlibrary.com/offense/babip/
Keep asking questions and the game of baseball will evolve right in front of your very own eyes. Have fun.
And you can still love Bard.
Thank you!
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 31, 2010 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions
OK you convinced me
The Sox are a .500 team and we suck. I wish it was the nineties again so at least I could start the season with no expectations. That way we cant be disappointed, right? Although I cant disagree with the point about the bullpen. And I’m not saying either pitcher will be amazing to get back to their own personal averages, but they don’t have to be is my point. #3 stuff is all we need. And if that happens the bullpen is used less and less likely to be exposed. Even Mo can blow a save. And Papi’s done too….again
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
When did I say we're a .500 team?
The problem is .600 might not be enough in this division, and to expect that more than the Rays or especially Yankees expect that just doesn’t make sense.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions
there's a difference between being a .500 team and the division being ours to lose
the fact is, the Sox have a good chance if they can play at a high level the rest of the way, it’s just there are other very good teams in the division who also have a very good chance. It’ll be a battle all the way through the year. I don’t think many people are saying the year is hopeless for the Sox, just taking exception to saying that the division is theirs to lose.
It doesn't have to be either it's our division to lose or we suck.
Maybe we’re a good team, but it’s a ridiculously competitive division, and we’re going to have to fight hard to have a chance at it.
Absolutely
we have 110 games left. if we win 70 of them that’s 99 wins on the year. That’s 63% ball. Well within the realm of possibilities, that’s a lower win % than what the Rays are doing now including their recent slide. And again, I think they are an inferior team to both us and the yankees
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
Its just as likely and unlikely
But knock a percentage point or 2 off and we’re at 95 wins, which, as has been discussed repeatedly is Theo’s magic #. If we get to 95 and STILL fall behind the Rays and Yanks, well, I don’t know. I’ll be in favor of realignment or something
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
No, I'd say it is unlikely that we play .630 ball with this team over an extended period.
Not prohibitively, but unlikely.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions
And actually I think the point about the money is probably untrue
That staement to me is why non Sox/Yankees fans hate us. That whole point assumes that we have a right to the best players at any given position of need from any other team because we have more money. I think it was you Ben who said in another post a long time ago that players don’t all think like us as fans. We can’t imagine anyone NOT wanting to play for the RedSox but that isn’t always the reality
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
I'm not sure it's me who said that, but even if it were
The vast majority would still go to a team that offers 25% more. We are absolutely constrained by a budget, otherwise we’d be spending more than any team constrained by a budget. We’d be spending until we couldn’t spend anymore.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Out of curiosity, since you porbably know better than I do
Who was available to bolster our pen that we passed on? That’s not meant to sound sarcastic or anything if it even does. I’m just wondering
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
A few names for example:
Matt Capps
Brandon Lyon
Darren Oliver
Octavio Dotel
Mike Gonzalez
Gonzalez is injured, Dotel isn’t doing too great, and Capps wanted to close. But they all would have made a lot of sense in our pen with what we knew last season, and the fact that we didn’t make much of a move on them is proof enough that we just weren’t going to allocate much of our definitely limited budget to the pen.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Forgot about Kiko (who I, too, advocated strongly for)
But he did have some bad history going on.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Look at who made sense, not who's worked out.
The point is, near-infinite money would’ve meant they would’ve signed guys who looked like they would be good.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 30, 2010 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
which we did
InLlackey and Beckett. They just haven’t worked out yet
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
and starters are far more important than any reliever
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
I'm not claiming they were bad signings (well, Lackey was for the money/years)
Just that with the information we have now, I wouldn’t really be counting those chickens before they hatch.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with everything your saying
I don’t like the Lackey signing either, not for the years anyway. Where I disagree is that I feel we are a better team than both the yankees and especially the rays. 4 months of baseball is more than enough time to erase a lead built by a team in a month. A team that I feel is inferior to us. The Yankees won last year on the backs of several career years that is not likely to be repeated. This year the Rays built what is now a 5.5 game lead on the back of playing way over their head at a pace that they most definitely won’t/can’t maintain
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
The Yankees had a lot of career years, definitely.
But they’ve gotten a lot of great production this year, too. So things haven’t exactly changed. They’re offensively dominant with a great rotation.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
and our rotaion has been less than stellar, except Lester and Buch in May, and we know our bullpen… Not to mention the lack of production from usually solid hitters, V—Mart, Papi in april, Drew even Youk and Pedey at times, nd they are only 2 games up on us
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
And they've had their issues too.
Granderson, Sabathia, etc.
None of this says “Our division to lose” to me though. Just “in contention.”
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Im a RedSox fan
In contention and ours to lose are the same thing to me. Why even have games if you don’t expect to win every single one. And yes I know that’s not possible but the point stands. You think Pedroia ever gets to the park and says “Eh Im not feeling it today, it’s cool to drop this one”
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
I don't think you guys are talking about the same thing.
or the argument has become nonsensical. Both, probably.
"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
yeah probably both
I said I think the division is ours to lose and Ben disagrees. We’ve been going back and forth for a while
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
Well, we’re in 4th place and 5.5 games back, so saying the divisions is “our to lose” might be a stretch.
However, I think our best baseball is on the way, so I still expect a division title.
"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
In contention and ours to lose are the same thing to me.
Saying that you’re working on a different definition than everyone else probably would have made this quite a bit shorter…
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Right on
But out of those 6, one is hurt, 2 are eh, one wouldn’t want to play here because he wouldn’t close, Oliver is like 53 and we already have one of those..Wake, that leaves one viable option in Lyon. that’s not enough of an improvement to justify throwing money at even IF we had no budget
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
That makes no sense.
If you have no budget, then throwing money at people is literally not an issue. It would never factor into the equation.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions
What I'm saying
is that the improvement that would be brought to our pen by replacing any of our guys with any of those guys would be negligible but more expensive. Budget or no budget that would just be bad business
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
If there is no budget, it's not bad business.
You can’t say that money is a factor in decisions if there isn’t a budget. What about Holliday? Why didn’t we resign Bay? Is the contribution of a good reliever really not worth $5 million if Lackey is worth 17?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe Mo and a couple others
but relievers worth that much cost more than their worth in general
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
Seriously? We've lost a good few games to a bad 7th or 8th inning.
You offer Matt Capps $5 million, who knows? Brandon Lyon only cost about $4. The value of wins gets exponentially higher as you run out of places to put them, while the impact of a weak component to a team can be devastating.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Capps wouldn't want to be here
We have a closer AND his replacement. And Brandon Lyon would maybe help some but nothing major
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
Capps wouldn't want to be here at the same price.
Offer him $5 million, again, who knows? And Lyon wouldn’t be? RamRam, Oki, Atchison, and MDC have combined for 5 losses already. I have to imagine Lyon would’ve saved us 1, maybe 2 of those just by this point. Getting 1 extra inning of a good reliever vs. a crap one could be a very big deal. If we were willing to spend money on something that would make a difference, we would’ve gotten a reliever. But, like every—EVERY team—we were on a budget.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions
You are assuming those guys would actually be good.
"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
What do you mean?
Yes, it would be an $X million gamble, but so is every FA signing. Maybe relievers moreso because of the small sample sizes inherent with the job, but they don’t get paid as much. I’m not trying to say we SHOULD have signed them (well, I think we should have taken a shot at Capps), but that our not having gone after them proves that we are definitely restricted by a budget.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Bullpens are absolute crapshoots.
Spending money on a bullpen is maybe the worst way a team can improve.
"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
But if you don't have a lot of other areas for improvement
Spending a few million on a reliever for a year or two makes plenty of sense over an investment like a Holliday. Again, as I said above, I think the point of the argument has been lost: I’m not saying the Sox made a mistake by not spending money on their bullpen, but that not spending money on their bullpen when help is available at a not unreasonable cost shows that money is most certainly an object.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I see your point.
But I would argue that Theo did not spend money on the bullpen because it is so unpredictable. There are a few relief aces in the league, but other than those guys, very few relievers are able to repeat success year after year. Look around the league. The team with the best bullpen is different every season (and is a small market team just as often as a big market one). The Yankees, for example, seemingly have an endless budget and still have not been able to sign anyone to set-up for Mo since Stanton and Nelson left.
"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
Id love Capps
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 31, 2010 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I was never a Beckett fan sorryn I’d love if he gave us #3 stuff
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 30, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Me neither
I’ve always seen him as a lot of attitude with just enough talent to occasionally back it. Occasionally being the key word.
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
Yea. His track record, career ERA, success with the Sox, and WS rings on his fingers....coupled with his post season performances....
……REALLY support that “occasional” comment. lol
His success with the Sox has been a lot less than expected/he's given credit for.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions
this is certainly true to a point
but it’s more because of how loud the Boston media is than anything else. He’s also been paid like a good pitcher so far, and starting next year, will be paid like a very good pitcher, but he hasn’t been and won’t be getting paid like an elite FA pitcher (by FA pitcher, I mean one not signing an extension covering arb years)- maybe he’s on the borderline now, but also signed for less years than expected
WS rings are not an individual award so that doesn't count
toward justifying a longer term deal and I’ll concede we probably dont win it in 07 without him. But other than than he’s been great at being average. Not to mention frustrating as all get out. He hasn’t shown anything worth an extension in almost 3 years. Now we have him for 4 more. Im not saying he’s bad at all. Just that it was, is, and will be a bad contract. I hope I’m way off base here though
I exercise strong self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast
Concerning the recent big contract extension for Beckett,
I just posted this elsewhere as well!
This contract extension NOW does reflect very badly on Sox management’s judgment/research when like the moment you sign someone to a long term, very costly deal, they crap out in what may be a long term manner. If Beckett fell down and broke something, I would understand and hold back criticism of this deal. However, I have no idea what is really going on with him, and he seemed to be on the decline even before this big contract was offered, so the signs were there. This POSSIBLY failing, long term expensive pitcher may be a bigger boondoggle that Lugo, and that does Not reflect well on management doing their homework and acting responsibly given the above way Beckett seems to be checking out!
again, I think you're jumping the gun here
it’s a long-term extension and they were thinking in the long term. A back strain is probably not a long-term issue. The options were pretty much extend him then or let him go to FA, where he’ll almost certainly get longer term offers, Beckett had been pretty clear that he did not want to negotiate over the course of the season. If they hadn’t resigned him, I bet he’d be pitching on Wednesday because he thinks he feels good enough to pitch and they wouldn’t be as concerned about his long-term health.
Maybe Beckett has/had internal doubts about
his future performance potential and wanted to lock in the bucks before his crap out became too obvious. Is that like lying on a life insurance application?? This again brings up the subject of contract performance requirements??
Maybe Sox management will become known as the easy prey guys for big expensive contracts by/for failing players. Call it the legacy of or the curse of Lugo!
If he was, he knew a lot more than could be seen on any sort of medical or scouting reports.
There is no evidence that there was any way to predict Beckett’s bad start beyond “Guys who are 29 are generally entering a decline phase”. If you look at the peripherals, yes, 2009 was worse than 2008. But it was also better than 2005. It’s not like there was a clear sign that Beckett was falling off a cliff other than what seems to have been bad luck in the eyes of modern statistical analysis.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Ben Ben Ben
We are talking big bucks here. Beckett just signed a four-year, $68 million extension. That has real consequences if you give that kind of a Lugo type deal to a failing player. Again, unpredictable injuries that come about to an existing hotshot are the risk one must tolerate with longer term expensive contracts, but you don’t go tying up such huge amounts of needed funds LONG TERM on what appears to be a “has been” in current decline during the contract negotiation!!. That is not wise and bordering on a high level of stupidity.
by NG on May 31, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Like I said
2009, 2008 both better than 2005. Josh Beckett could just as easily have been fluctuating as declining. 2 years a trend does not make.
As for how much we spent, when it comes to a team like the Red Sox, every significant investment will be a LOT of money. The fact is that, with 6 years of team control and usually more due to extensions, there’s just not really any market of young guys entering their prime who are for sale any given year. Beckett was a prototypical 5/85, 5/90 guy who signed for 4 years. It was a deal. We wait a year, and we get the same type of pitcher, but probably have to commit an extra year. Unless you’re saying we should spend less and just eat a mediocre pitcher in our rotation, Beckett was the right decision.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
How about really putting his feet to the fire for one year only?
Say offer him a one year trial for say 20 mil, and then if he is in decline or shows anything short of a baseball pitching God here on earth, then bye, bye!
By my calculations, that could save us a nice 48 million instead of Lugoizing (new word) the money for nothing.
by NG on May 31, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Top pitchers looking for their last long contract do not accept 1 year offers.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
That's the point-He
may well be no longer such a pitcher! Find out first.
by NG on May 31, 2010 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions
You won't be able to find out first.
You’re in an all-or-nothing scenario, and your only alternative is to either sign a definitively worse player for less, or take that risk on some other guy. You want guarantees in a world without them.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
To say nothing of the fact that if he passes his "trial," he's just as likely to dissapear next year as he was that year.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
If he passes,
then the factors are different for the next negotiation. But for this negotiation, it is too risky to give him that much money for that long because he is not on top and has not proved himself. THAT IS THE POINT!
by NG on May 31, 2010 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions
He hasn't proved himself, but one good year will somehow make the difference?
So how come 2007 didn’t prove him for us? If he had the 1-year contract in 2007, wouldn’t 2008-2009-2010 then disprove the viability of your system?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
The human degeneration condition
happens to everyone over time. TIME passing IS the point. A young stud doing well at the time of negotiation may be worth the risk under this crazy baseball world rules, although I would like to see more performance guarantees in contracts, as you know! However, once a pitcher shows slippage over time with age, then the evaluation criteria are different than the young stud.
“Lugoization” may well be the downfall of the Sox potential dynasty because they are too frivolous with their big bucks spending; thus, they don’t have the potential funds to go after better prospect
by NG on Jun 1, 2010 7:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with this. The Beckett contract sucks
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on May 31, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
However, I have no idea what is really going on with him
And yet your post attacks the Sox as if it was clearly a pre-existing condition.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
If you don't know why a guy is in decline,
does it make sense to reward him with an expensive long term contract??? Not in my world! What about due diligence and prudence.
“Remember Lugo” should be the Alamo-like slogan that sums up this kind of irresponsible management behavior, IMO!
Why a guy is in decline?
Because he’s getting older. Everone declines some. But the Yankees bumped up (dramatically) the price for good pitching in the Burnett signing, so when Beckett offered 4 years at slightly below market, it was too good to pass up on.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on May 31, 2010 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions

by 
























