Health played a bigger role for Boston than a better manager, thats for sure.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MLB Offseason '13-'14 |OT| Where the best fans live
- Thread starter Corran Horn
- Start date
Health played a bigger role for Boston than a better manager, thats for sure.
Well Ortiz, Ellsbury and Napoli all playing about 140 games...That's a good situation for any manager to come into. I know Ellsbury was battling them all season, but he still swiped 52 bases. You don't do that unless you're feeling somewhat good.
Your generosity knows no bounds!
sf2fanatic
Member
:jnc so much love going on in here
Does it matter? The Red Sox true talent level wasn't 69 wins. It was an anomaly. Triangle bullshit dictates such!
The Mariners probably are a true talent 70-75 win team.
With the people I'm discussing this with, I'm not sure they can separate the Bobby V. masterpiece and the adjustments for the following season.
I think my point is that the AL West is an anomaly. Rangers and Angels should be the dominating teams, but they aren't. Oakland just does it's thing. I can't say they are a 90+ win team year after year, however they are. So, due to all that, I can see the Mariners making some sort of unpredictable push.
I never really guess standings, but if I had to I would say they are around your estimate...maybe closer side to 80.
Pedroia played 160 games in 2013 up from 141 in 2012. His WAR went from 4.9 to 6.5. They added Shane Victorino who had 6.2 WAR in 122 games. Ellsbury almost doubled his at-bats for the season and went from 1 WAR to 5.8. Big Papi played 47 more games. They added Napoli with 4.1 WAR. They added Stephen Drew with 3.1 WAR. Overall they went from 21 WAR from batting to 40.
And their pitching went from 3.6 WAR to 16.2. Getting back Lackey, Buchholz and Lester improving, and adding Koji. Those four guys alone were all better than single pitcher for Boston in 2012.
Obviously some of that stuff couldn't be predicted, like pitchers getting better, but they added a bunch of valuable position players and their other ones were more healthy. I just don't see the similarity to Seattle. The Red Sox also benefited from the Yankees being hot trash that year. The Mariners don't seem to have that advantage, if anything it's the opposite. The A's are still the A's, the Rangers improved, and Houston and LA can't possible be any worse than they already were.
Yikes. Well for starters, I didn't directly compare the 2013 Red Sox club to the 2014 Seattle Mariners. Since you are comparing the two, you are doing so using statistics which aren't available to compare with that Seattle team.
The quality of the Yankees are irrelevant. The AL East is still a very competitive division, and also not comparable to the AL West.
You're the one who brought the Red Sox up in the first place. I don't even know what your point is supposed to be any more.
Backtracking?
The initial point was that I don't believe Seattle needs to sign every available high priced free agent to make some sort of point. You believe they should.
You then mentioned teams rarely go from a 60ish win team to a 90ish. I reminded you of one from the prior season.
You made a point about how the Red Sox 'improved" in the 2012 offseason, when in reality nobody believed they did.
So, it's you who is without a solid point or argument here.
The Frankman
Banned
so good...
I said I would be very surprised if the Mariners became a contender. Your argument makes no sense because the Red Sox weren't anything like the Mariners.
HarryDemeanor
Member
Yes. My entire point was the Red Sox are EXACTLY like the Seattle Mariners. I can't even tell them apart other than the three hour time difference.
Bravo!
The Frankman
Banned
The Frankman
Banned
^
must've drank some mustard and water.
must've drank some mustard and water.
What was the point of bringing up the Red Sox if not to compare them?
The Red Sox didn't just win a bunch more games because of quantum mechanics. There were quantifiable reasons for it.
I would refer back to that little summary of events I posted. Literally have no clue where you're trying to go from there.
Dmncnby2k9
Banned
I have a dream, that ketchup lovers and mustard can sit by one another at Nathans and enjoy all the weiners they choose!
Nathans?! Meh.
You seem to be arguing against imaginary things. None of your points have had a single bit of relevance to what the Seattle Mariners have done this offseason.
Because it's the most boring argument on the entire forum?
You're not the best baseball guy in here, so I just will attribute it to that.
At least I tried to make a point besides RAH RED SOX RAH. My mistake in thinking you were interested in actually engaging in a real conversation.
2nd only to whatever Sanjuro and Brandy are talking about.
...except I didn't do that. I engaged you, you lost your points (or whatever you believe you were posting about) then dragged this back into some pissing contest.
It's a reoccurring theme with you.
STOP IT!!!!!!
I rather be arguing about hot dogs. At least it's closer to baseball related talk!
If you're trying to make this about me, you're obviously not interested in having a conversation.
And not a single time did I ever say the Mariners should just sign a bunch of random players, so again, you're arguing against imaginary points.
Just accept reality.
How is that a contradiction?
No one has said "just sign random players." My point was that taking a 72 win team, and adding a couple minor pieces plus Cano for ARod money is a really stupid strategy if your goal is winning. They're still a heavily flawed team and the free agents aren't going to be any better next year. Would adding some combo of Cruz/Choo/Beltran/Tanaka make them instant contenders? Maybe not, and it would cost a ton of money, but that's the only real strategy left to them when they signed Choo. How is waiting two years to sign more free agents going to help them?
Well yeah. Who knows if the report was even true. I'm just saying, if it was, that's a dumb strategy by Jack Z is his goal is winning instead of just saving his job.
Little Green Yoda
Member
No clue.
Define competitive? I don't see it as winning the division. Getting into that 80-win range is a target goal. In the AL to a lesser degree, but there is still that second wild card spot and you're still taking wins away from top teams in the process.
If some of the debate is over statements made by Mariners PR, then I haven't read them. I don't believe this team is going "ALL IN". I believe they are looking to win some games, generate some interest, latch onto the Seahawks coattails. The AL West isn't really a solidified division.
Paxton is right there. Peterson (1B) isn't that far off. That's about it though.
Still, Hernandez, Walker, Paxton, Cano, Zunino, Seager, Miller, and Peterson is a pretty solid core.
I don't know what Seattle is trying to do, but I was responding to a post about Jack Z supposedly telling Cano they would go "all in" in the next 2 to 3 years. If true I think that's a dumb strategy since the free agents next year are worse than this year's. If you want to go all in just do it now since there are at least some decent free agents.
I'd say the AL West has actually been fairly solidified for the last few years. The A's and Rangers have had the top 2 spots for 2 years. The Rangers had the top spot the 2 years before that. Seattle hasn't finished better than 3rd in 6 years, they've been very consistent.
I consider all in what the Dodgers attempted to do recently. I can't comprehend Seattle ever doing something of that nature, regardless of what Jack Z says.
We are talking about on paper going into the season. The division has been fairly stable if you just look at where the teams place at the end of the season, but it's tough to just go forward with that mindset. I don't think Oakland is a division winner, neither is Houston or Seattle. Angels should be ideally the best. Rangers following.
Problem is Oakland just continues to surprise and others to disappoint.
We are talking about on paper going into the season. The division has been fairly stable if you just look at where the teams place at the end of the season, but it's tough to just go forward with that mindset. I don't think Oakland is a division winner, neither is Houston or Seattle. Angels should be ideally the best. Rangers following.
Problem is Oakland just continues to surprise and others to disappoint.