Poll: Better or Worse: Josh Beckett’s ERA in 2009

New Poll Question: Better or Worse: Josh Beckett's ERA in 2009?

Josh Beckett pitched better than his 4.03 ERA might suggest in 2008, so it's safe to assume he'll better that total in 2009. The question is, "by how much?". How low can he go? How does 3.50 sound for a bar? Vote in the poll to the left and give your community projection for Beckett here.

Find out how you all responded to our previous poll, "Will Jason Varitek hit .240+ in 2009?" after the jump.
New Poll Question:
Better or Worse: Josh Beckett’s ERA in 2009?
Josh Beckett pitched better than his 4.03 ERA might suggest in 2008, so it’s safe to assume he’ll better that total in 2009.  The question is, “by how much?”.  How low can he go?  How does 3.50 sound for a bar? Vote in the poll to the left and give your community projection for Beckett here.
Previous Poll Results:
Better or Worse: Jason Varitek’s 2009 Average?
Really? 62% of you think that Jason Varitek will go .240+? I’m shocked. While I think it’s possible, I wouldn’t put the over as the “favorite” heading into the season.

Categories: Jason Varitek Josh Beckett Poll Quick Post

Tim Daloisio has been blogging about the Red Sox since 5 minutes after he discovered what a blog was in 2003. After managing the blogs Musings from RSN and The Red Sox Times, Tim decided to join the Fire Brand community at the beginning of the 2008 season as a writer and producer and host of the Fireside Chats weekly podcast. When not writing, talking, or thinking about the Red Sox, Tim spends his time in NH with his wife and two daughters.

5 Responses to “Poll: Better or Worse: Josh Beckett’s ERA in 2009” Subscribe

  1. Joe Veno March 3, 2009 at 1:41 PM #

    I projected between a 3.60 and 3.70 ERA for Beckett, but would not be surprised at all if he did better than that. I was the only person to vote for higher than 3.50…

  2. Tim Daloisio March 3, 2009 at 1:49 PM #

    Joe…I also voted higher than 3.50. He could have a great year and post a 3.50 – 3.75 ERA. I thought I set the bar low and aggressive. I guess not low enough.

  3. Evan March 3, 2009 at 1:58 PM #

    Really? I voted lower. Surprised people are bearish on the 3.50 mark.

  4. Sam K March 3, 2009 at 3:30 PM #

    Poll needs a 3rd option. You have +/- 3.50, but I think just-plain 3.50 sounds about right.

  5. Tim Daloisio March 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM #

    then you can take the 3.50+ as it could mean 3.50 and higher ;)