Well, the absence of Rumples as a purported protest Iggy happens to coincide with a time when a discussion of the seeming failure of Sabermetrics concerning the Red Sox, and personal assessments of how the team would perform, might be warranted.
You know, Merlot, you say a lot of stupid shit simply for the pleasure of hearing yourself think, if thinking is what you want to call it. What you invariably fail to do, however, between your bwaaas and the like, is back yourself up.
So tell me how have sabermetrics failed? Do sabermetrics pitch? The Red Sox are two games under .500 for one simple reason: their pitching has sucked. What does that have to do with sabermetrics? Given that you haven't the slightest idea what sabermetrics are, I don't expect a reply to my rhetorical question.
The Red Sox, knowing that they have enough hitting, built their team by improving their defense and their pitching. Their defense has been suspect, in large part due to injuries. The pitching has sucked and they're still within two games of .500.
Josh Beckett has a 7.22 ERA after 5 starts. Last year after 5 starts, he had an ERA of 7.22. John Lester has an ERA of 6.23. Last year after 8 starts, his ERA was 6.51. John Lackey has an ERA of 5.09. Tim Wakefield, 5.40. Daisuke Matsuzaka has yet to start. Looking at those ERAs, you'd think the Sox would be considerably worse off than 9-11.
If these guys continue to pitch like Smoltz and Penny, it's gonna be a long season. On the other hand, if they perform up to their career levels, the Sox will be right in the thick of it with the Rays. The one thing they have proven is that scoring runs is not going to be a problem.
Now, you want to tell me what Sabermetrics has to do with it?
