What's Wrong With the Red Sox?
Baseball's simplicity can be frustrating sometimes. Teams score runs by avoiding outs and efficiently advancing runners by mixing in power. Preventing runs means amassing outs without allowing too many base-runners or extra base hits. If you consistently score runs better than you prevent them, you win. AND THAT'S IT. As a Manager or General Manager, your job is to assemble personnel positioned to consistently score more runs than they allow. At the beginning of the season, it appeared that the Red Sox had such a team. 13 games into the 2010 season, it still appears the Red Sox have such a team.
So what about baseball's simplicity? Why is it frustrating? The 2010 Boston Red Sox serve as a great example in that as much as we want to stretch for an explanation for why they are off to such an awful start, the answer is much simpler than we'd like to think. It's because a bunch of really good baseball players are playing really poorly. That doesn't make for very good copy or talk radio, though.
All one has to do is look at the team that demolished the Sox this Patriots Day weekend, the Rays, who went 11-16 to start last season and never recovered. In the AL East, you just can’t be 4-9 after 13 games, 6 games behind the Rays and 5 1/2 in back of the Yankees, and think it’s going to be easy to come back.
Everything is going wrong right now.
Here you have two attempts to diagnose structural problems with the way the Red Sox approached this past off-season. And what is the evidence that Boston faltered in putting together this roster? Why it's their first 13 games of course. If only the Red Sox had retained Jason Bay instead of Mike Cameron, then everything would be better (don't tell Cafardo and Silverman that Bay is off to a .245/.351/.327 start with the Mets).
Boston won 95 games last year, lost Bay, added a top-20 pitcher in John Lackey, an upgraded shortstop in Marco Scutaro and two veteran top-notch defenders in Mike Cameron and Adrian Beltre. You could argue whether or not those moves amounted to an improved team or not, but even if you come down on the side that they did not improve, nobody thought they would play .300 baseball and hit, pitch and field like some of the very worst teams in baseball. The team's composition is not the issue. They're just playing terribly. Just consider the following:
At the outset of the season, if you knew that even two or three of those 12 bullets would unfold, you would have known the Red Sox would struggle to start the year. It's the combination, THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING WRONG, that has made it so disastrous. I listed those bullets out to evidence that the Red Sox are simply playing really badly, and that their first 13 games are not an indictment on how this roster was constructed.
None of this to say that their start might not portend some problems. Martinez has looked disastrous behind home plate, his ineptitude tossing runners out turning Red Sox games into veritable track meets for opposing teams. Age could be a factor too, as Cameron (37) is already out for an extended period of time while players like Ortiz (34), Drew (34), Scutaro (34) and Beltre (31) all struggle. Finally, injuries of any sort can threaten a team's hopes. Ellsbury missed his 8th straight game last night and who knows how Daisuke Matsuzaka will hold up? All of these are legitimate concerns, albeit ones that applied to last year's roster too. They couldn't throw out anyone on the base paths in 2009 either, still had an oldish team and battled injuries all season long. Again, back to my point. It's hard to fault structural problems with the way this roster was assembled for Boston's slow start.
In the midst of a 4-10 stretch in 2004, Globe scribe Tony Massarotti, then at the Herald, thought he knew what was wrong with the Red Sox. He titled his article "Moneyball is going bankrupt" and wrote at length about how the Red Sox had a philosophical problem. They didn't understand what it took to play winning baseball consistently. Just like Michael Silverman thinks that "run prevention" is a bad thing as it relates to the 2010 Red Sox, Mazz disliked how Boston eschewed small ball, a style of play he favored.
In the meantime, while the Red Sox just stand around and wait, the Yankees try to create. New York stole three more bases last night, bringing its series total to seven, and had attempted nine steals in the series; the Red Sox have attempted none. New York has a sacrifice bunt; the Red Sox have none. The Yankees have struck out six times; the Red Sox have struck out 19.
These are the sorts of things that sportswriters come up with, accountability free, when things are going badly. Boston was playing its worst baseball of the year when Mazz wrote that piece. As far as Mazz was concerned, it was not because they were simply playing like crap, but because they were not bunting enough. At best, it's terrible analysis. At its worst it's rabble-rousing. Whatever the case, things would "line up perfectly" enough for the Red Sox to win 98 games and their first World Series since 1918 in 2004.
In 2008, the Yankees won 87 games and finished in 3rd place in the AL East. Robinson Cano and Derek Jeter struggled, Hideki Matsui was not himself and Melky Cabrera was a disaster. Andy Pettitte did not perform like he typically would. It was no indictment necessarily of the roster but rather a team that exemplified the greatest truth when it comes to sports front office management: that projecting human performance, inherently, is subject to all sorts of pitfalls.
Maybe the Red Sox will bounce back, maybe they won't. As I see it, the most likely scenario is that they start to play like they can but this hole proves too much to overcome. I would say the next likeliest outcome is that the Red Sox are firing on all cylinders at some point when the Rays or Yanks falter over a two-week stretch, allowing Boston to climb back into the race. Finally, and this really is entirely possible, maybe this year too many guys have off years. If that's the case, the Red Sox might not win 80 games. And you know why that will be? Simple, of course: because a bunch of good players will have failed to play well.