so we start off 9-6 and everyone says "that's not sustainable"

 

if we started out 6-9 you'd all be saying "told you so"

 

can't you just enjoy that your team is performing well?

 

Hence my post about positive threads on Soxtalk.

so we start off 9-6 and everyone says "that's not sustainable"

 

if we started out 6-9 you'd all be saying "told you so"

 

can't you just enjoy that your team is performing well?

 

I'm not saying the record, I am saying the ridiculous pitching numbers aren't going to last. Plus seeing as I had 83-79 for this season, I definitely wouldn't be saying "told you so".

I'm not saying the record, I am saying the ridiculous pitching numbers aren't going to last. Plus seeing as I had 83-79 for this season, I definitely wouldn't be saying "told you so".

the numbers aren't that ridiculous. if you have a good starting rotation - which we do - and a lights out bullpen to bring down the ratios - which we do - there's no reason we can't be a low to mid 3's team ERA

so we start off 9-6 and everyone says "that's not sustainable"

 

if we started out 6-9 you'd all be saying "told you so"

 

can't you just enjoy that your team is performing well?

Someone must have not told the Sox they weren't supposed to perform well. Shame on them for playing well and getting our hopes up.

Apparent hatred towards AJ and the unsustainability of the Sox numbers so far aside, I am thoroughly enjoying this team right now. I see a lot of the same stuff others are apparently seeing, too. The team seems more relaxed and more unified compared to years past, especially last year.

 

The performances of Rios, Dunn, and Peavy have been better than I think any of us expected or even hoped. We'll see if they can sustain it, but I have a pretty good feeling about this team. No, I'm not saying they will be winning the division, but this is not a 95 loss team.

so we start off 9-6 and everyone says "that's not sustainable"

 

Well, to be literal, 9-6 is not sustainable because that projects out to 97 wins, but if Peavy/Sale/Humber/Dunn/Rios all perform anywhere close to the way they have so far, 90 wins is not out of the question.

Well, to be literal, 9-6 is not sustainable because that projects out to 97 wins, but if Peavy/Sale/Humber/Dunn/Rios all perform anywhere close to the way they have so far, 90 wins is not out of the question.

agreed

the numbers aren't that ridiculous. if you have a good starting rotation - which we do - and a lights out bullpen to bring down the ratios - which we do - there's no reason we can't be a low to mid 3's team ERA

 

A 3.16 team ERA and .219 BAA are unsustainable in this day and age. Not saying we don't have good pitching, but this is out of line for what we are capable of doing over the course of 162 games.

A 3.16 team ERA and .219 BAA are unsustainable in this day and age. Not saying we don't have good pitching, but this is out of line for what we are capable of doing over the course of 162 games.

Hopefully Brent Morel striking out at 3x his normal rate is equally unsustainable.

Apparent hatred towards AJ and the unsustainability of the Sox numbers so far aside, I am thoroughly enjoying this team right now. I see a lot of the same stuff others are apparently seeing, too. The team seems more relaxed and more unified compared to years past, especially last year.

 

The performances of Rios, Dunn, and Peavy have been better than I think any of us expected or even hoped. We'll see if they can sustain it, but I have a pretty good feeling about this team. No, I'm not saying they will be winning the division, but this is not a 95 loss team.

 

They don't seem as tight for sure. They also seem like they have practiced the little things that just destroyed this team in close games last year. I swear it is like Ozzie never drilled this guys. He must have told them you need to, but never actually put them through the practices.

Hopefully Brent Morel striking out at 3x his normal rate is equally unsustainable.

 

Obviously.

A 3.16 team ERA and .219 BAA are unsustainable in this day and age. Not saying we don't have good pitching, but this is out of line for what we are capable of doing over the course of 162 games.

i did say low-to-mid 3's. that includes something like a team era of 3.30, 3.40 - which I think IS sustainable.

i did say low-to-mid 3's. that includes something like a team era of 3.30, 3.40 - which I think IS sustainable.

Mind you, this would be the lowest Team ERA in the AL since at least the start of the steroid era (can't quickly check team stats before ~ 2000.)

Mind you, this would be the lowest Team ERA in the AL since at least the start of the steroid era (can't quickly check team stats before ~ 2000.)

haha ok wow didn't realize that. did a check myself and even our '05 team had a 3.61 era. I'll concede this point.

 

however, no reason we can't be among the top pitching staffs in the league all year.

the 1990 Athletics had a 3.18 team ERA for the season. Holy bajeezus.

haha ok wow didn't realize that. did a check myself and even our '05 team had a 3.61 era. I'll concede this point.

 

however, no reason we can't be among the top pitching staffs in the league all year.

Well, I can give reasons but no need to...I'd say the larger point is that if Morel, Beckham, and Viciedo don't step it up, then I don't know how this team could be competitive without putting up that kind of historically good ERA level, since, for example, I doubt AJ Pierzynski will stay in the MVP race all year with the bat.

 

Teams can have the best pitching in the league and not be anywhere close to competitive. Oakland and Seattle tend to be up there, for example, although there are some big ballpark effects.

the 1990 Athletics had a 3.18 team ERA for the season. Holy bajeezus.

(Can I ask what website you got team stats going back that far?)

i did say low-to-mid 3's. that includes something like a team era of 3.30, 3.40 - which I think IS sustainable.

 

Odds are we are going to add at least a half a run, if not full run to that team ERA by the time the season is over. That still would be a very good season.

Well, I can give reasons but no need to...I'd say the larger point is that if Morel, Beckham, and Viciedo don't step it up, then I don't know how this team could be competitive without putting up that kind of historically good ERA level, since, for example, I doubt AJ Pierzynski will stay in the MVP race all year with the bat.

 

Teams can have the best pitching in the league and not be anywhere close to competitive. Oakland and Seattle tend to be up there, for example, although there are some big ballpark effects.

Viciedo will be fine IMO, but he's going to have some struggles along the way. Morel and Beckham can't be this bad for much longer. The good news is that Dunn & Rios are taking some of the heat off those guys for the time-being.

Viciedo will be fine IMO, but he's going to have some struggles along the way. Morel and Beckham can't be this bad for much longer. The good news is that Dunn & Rios are taking some of the heat off those guys for the time-being.

My worry on all of those guys is still the same...that if the team is going to decide they want to compete, they can't tolerate these guys slumping for all that much longer, and that means Fukudome and Lillibridge are going to start putting them on the bench. But...putting them on the bench is the worst thing we can do to develop them. That's the big catch-22 here. We're going to have to lose games we could be winning to turn those guys into anything useful...but if we don't do that, then they're going to need to be replaced next season.

Ventura makes a difference, no doubt. Sometimes, you watch so many games for so long you forget how much a manager can add. Hope I'm saying this in 5 months.

(Can I ask what website you got team stats going back that far?)

good ole sortable team stats on mlb.com

 

1999 is allll sorts of wrong though. says the KC royals had a team era of 10

Well, I can give reasons but no need to...I'd say the larger point is that if Morel, Beckham, and Viciedo don't step it up, then I don't know how this team could be competitive without putting up that kind of historically good ERA level, since, for example, I doubt AJ Pierzynski will stay in the MVP race all year with the bat.

 

Teams can have the best pitching in the league and not be anywhere close to competitive. Oakland and Seattle tend to be up there, for example, although there are some big ballpark effects.

 

see i just disagree with this wholeheartedly. almost every team besides Texas has a black hole or two in the bottom third of the lineup.

Ventura makes a difference, no doubt. Sometimes, you watch so many games for so long you forget how much a manager can add. Hope I'm saying this in 5 months.

 

I'm not even sure Elmo himself couldn't have managed this team more effectively than the last couple of years of Ozzie.

Adam Dunn just playing near what he's normally done has made quite a difference.

 

I have no clue if this team is any good or not. But I don't feel like I'm wasting my time following them right now, whereas for a great chunk of last year, I cared a little less every day as the circus moved on.