I think the debate is a little silly. Injuries AND awful pitching contributed to the lack of performance. You guys are counting hairs on a gnat's ass to try to ascribe the effects of each. That's really hard, to impossible. If I were counting, though, it put it about 60 hairs on the poor-pitching gnat's ass, and 40 on the injuries gnat's ass.
But Ray, the one real problem with your thinking, as Steve points out, is your analysis ignores defense. Can't do that. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Beaudoin, John Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "From the depths of Hell I stab at thee!" Yeah. What he said. So there. Good job Steve. John ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Mon Oct 04 06:01:57 2010 Subject: Re: "From the depths of Hell I stab at thee!" I am so tired of baseball ... Since defense is hard to judge, you've decided to ignore it completely. The difference defensively from Pedroia and Youkilis to their replacements is enormous, as is the difference between an Ellsbury/Cameron outfield and the detritus we ran out there this year. That alone would shave a number of runs off the allowed column. The starting pitching does not need any kind of overhaul, unless you expect that Josh Beckett will again miss a third of the season (another inconsequential injury) and once more put up a 5.78 ERA -- which we have no reason to expect -- and that John Lackey will continue to be terrible, which again, we have no reason to expect. Last year the Sox scored 872 runs, allowed 736 (just eight fewer than this horrendous year), won 95 games and the wild card (and exactly matched their pythag record). Say that better defense could have cut 15 runs off the allowed total this year-- a very small number, if you've ever watched Billy Hall play the OF -- then how many more runs do the Sox have to score to get to 95 wins from 89? If healthy, could the Sox have matched 2009's 872 runs? They got better production this year at SS (Scutaro over Nick Green/Lugo/Agon), a nearly full season of Victor Martinez over Varitek, Adrian Beltre matched Jason Bay's production, Big Papi boosted his OPS by 100 points. Why couldn't they? Oh yeah, they were missing the first three guys in their lineup for most of the year. Put another way -- do you think Dustin Pedroia is worth two wins more than Billy Hall over a half season? Is Kevin Youkilis worth a win a month over Lars Anderson/crippled Mike Lowell? Is Jacoby Ellsbury worth just two wins over Daniel Nava/Darnell McDonald/Hall/Kalish/Hermida/Van Every/Reddick over the course of a full year? Just two? That's six wins right there -- ignoring all the other injuries, and at bats given to Gustavo Molina and Kevin Cash -- which would bring them to 95 ... tied with the Yankees, one behind the Rays. And I'm figuring at least one of those six wins would be against one of those teams ... It's just ludicrous to say that injuries didn't matter. If they just revamped the bullpen and resigned Martinez and Beltre, I'd take that team. Steve O On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Ray Salemi <[email protected]> wrote: Steve, You're overestimating the impact of these players. While the press likes to play up the monumental losses associated with these injuries, that's more hype than reality. The Sox had excellent replacement players, and demonstrated outstanding organizational depth at most player positions. Otherwise they would not have scored the 2nd most runs in the league. The pitching was so bad that the Sox would have had to scored 80 more runs to make the playoffs. That's not possible based simply on injuries. Ray PS. Here's the calc behind the 898. It's based on the Bill James Pythagorean system. Projected Winning Percentage = (Runs Scored)^2/ (Runs Scored^2 + Runs allowed ^2) (^2 = squared) Let's say the Sox, with no injuries, scored the most runs in baseball. That would be 860 (Yanks had 859). With the runs we scored and gave up 818/744 the pythagorean system says we should have had 88 wins. And we did. With the most runs in the league 860/744 the pythagorean system says we would have had 93 wins. Still not enough for the playoffs. The Red Sox would have had to score 898 runs to get to 96 wins based on their pitching. So you're saying that the injuries made a difference of 80 runs over the course of the season. That's a fantasy. The pitching on this team was so bad that no amount of health on the part of our starting players would have made up for it. The Sox gave up 744 runs. The Yankees gave up 693 runs, and the Rays gave up 649 runs--almost 100 fewer runs. Ray On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Steve Ouellette <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, the bullpen needs to be fixed. The pitching was a huge disappointment -- particularly Beckett and Lackey. But to say that the losses of Pedroia, Youkilis, Ellsbury, Cameron, et al. had a "marginal" effect on the team is ridiculous and illogical. Sure, the offense was productive -- does that mean that scoring more runs would NOT have led to more victories? Run differential leads to victories, doesn't matter which side it comes on. And don't forget that the players missing were also some of our best defensive players -- the drop from Pedroia, Youkilis and Ellsbury to Hall, Lowell and Nava is huge. I don't know what the defensive numbers say, but I'm guessing the Sox defense once again will measure as sub par. For sanity, we have to replace Papelbon, and bring in more bullpen arms. Beltre and Victor have to be resigned or replaced. But the team doesn't need a massive overhaul. Steve O On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Ray Salemi <[email protected]> wrote: This team, if we kept them next year, would struggle to reach the 91 games I predicted for them this year. The injuries actually had a marginal effect on this team. We mostly lost hitters and still came in 2nd in runs scored. The problem was pitching, and these problems were not due to injuries. If we go into next year with this rotation and bullpen we might, indeed, reach my prediction of 91 games. Here's what we'd have if we kept this year's "dream team". 1. Varitek -- 1 year older 2. Ortiz -- 1 year older 3. Lowell -- 1 year older 4. Wakefield -- 1 year older Then for a rotation we'd have (League average ERA was 4.14) Beckett -- 5.78 ERA Dice-K -- 4.69 ERA Lackey -- 4.40 ERA Closer Papelbon -- 3.90 ERA This is a 100-win team? What does this team have in common with any 100-win teams in the past? Nothing, that's what. As my friend said at the game today, "It's time to pull the bandaid off all at once." This team needs a major house cleaning. On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Beaudoin, John <[email protected]> wrote: I want the same team next year. If marginally healthy, then they'll win 99 games. If average healthy then they'll win 102 games or more. John ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Sun Oct 03 16:14:25 2010 Subject: Re: "From the depths of Hell I stab at thee!" I wanted to take a swing at Swisher when he dove somewhat into the stands trying to catch the HR however instead watched him lay on the ground in pain while the guys 3 rows back fought over the ball. Great game - I'm not a Lackey fan however if he can pitch like he did today for the most part next year, we have a solid 1,2, and 3 starting pitcher punch already in place. -larry On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Dan DiBiase <[email protected]> wrote: > But did you get Lowrie's??!! > > Dan D > Central NJ USA > > > > ________________________________ > From: Larry Rupp <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, October 3, 2010 12:12:50 PM > Subject: Re: "From the depths of Hell I stab at thee!" > > See you there Ray - I'll be manning the Pesky pole area for an Ortiz > homerun! > > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Ray Salemi <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm off to Fenway to see if the Sox can put a final hurt on the Yankees. >> It turned out to be a big game after all. >> >> -- >> 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] <mailto: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] <mailto: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] <mailto: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] <mailto: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] <mailto:redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. -- Author of "FPGA Simulation: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide" www.fpgasimulation.com -- 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] <mailto: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] <mailto:redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. -- Author of "FPGA Simulation: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide" www.fpgasimulation.com -- 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] <mailto: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. -- 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. -- 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.
