Not saying that it's THE key to winning. It's just one way of winning. If you can score 1,000 runs you can outslug people. If you've got a brilliant pitching staff, you can win lots of low-scoring games. Any way that you can score more runs or allow fewer runs makes you better. I'm just saying adding to the defense may be an underppreciated way of improving a team's run differential, thus cheaper. If the defense can stop 50 runs from scoring, that helps exactly as much as adding 50 runs to the offense.
And I don't know what Ray is trying to say. The best defensive teams didn't win last year, so defense doesn't matter? I don't think anyone expected that ragtag collection the Mariners threw out there to win 85 games last year and have the best ERA in the American League. That defense (and that park) made Jarrod Washburn a star, and he flat out sucks. Nobody predicted San Francisco, the top defensive team in the NL, to win 88 games either. Some experts thought they'd be the worst team in the league. The difference between those teams and the Sox is that Boston also has a very competitive offense. I'm looking forward to 2010. Steve O On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Tom Salemi <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with the first part, and I'm fine with that. I trust Theo's measure > of value. He's right a lot more than he's wrong, with the most glaring > example of the latter being Texiera, but the Yanks probably would have just > bid $1 more. > > And I'm on board with his signing Lackey. Love the deal. And Beltre is a > good deal as well for the Sox as well. Gives us great flexibility. > > But I'm just not buying the notion that we've disovered the secretthat > defense is the THE key to winning, and that's why we're adding capable > fielders. We signed the capable fielders because they're willing to play for > short money. > . > . > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Steve Ouellette > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Really? It seems obvious to me that -- unable or unwilling to pony up for >> Holliday or Bay -- the Sox decided to focus on defense and pitching. >> >> Steve O >> >> >> >>> But I'm not going to lean too heavily on the defense argument. It just >>> strikes me more as a justification for deals that have happened than an >>> explanation of why the Sox made the deals in the first place. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Red Sox Citizens" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Red Sox Citizens" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. > >--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en.
