SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
4/10-4/13 Red Sox @ Yankees Series Thread
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 14, 2014 14:01:43 GMT -5
It is shocking how quickly this team changed from last year's. Yesterday, there were only four players in the starting lineup who were starters early in the season last year: Napoli, Ortiz, Nava and Bradley and Bradley did not stick. It is far too early to think the team won't be competitive. However, there probably will be quite a few changes as the season progresses. Bradley looks like the permanent CF now. His fielding and throwing are exceptional, and he is hitting some. The other two spots are iffy, but Sizemore certainly seems to be able to hit. I wonder what will happen to Nava once Victorino comes back? If he doesn't start hitting, he might wind up somewhere else. The infield should look different later on. Either Middlebrooks will be back at 3B, or we probably will see Cecchini, if he keeps hitting at Pawtucket. I sure hope that Pedroia's injury is not serious, but I am concerned that his manner of play is going to limit his career. I don't think the Sox should even think about trading Betts. Bogaerts is OK at SS, but I think he could move over to 3B at some point, but not this year unless they re-sign Drew, and that idea doesn't appeal much to me, anymore. The Sox pitching actually has been pretty decent and if it holds up, and the hitting rebounds, as it should, the team will be competitive. Is it really though? They did not get appreciably better anywhere but the pen. The injuries add to the calculus, but I honestly believed the ownership decided to pass on big ticket potential improvements (Tanaka being the biggest ticket of all - and hey, wouldn't he have provided some nice Jon Lester insurance?), or a significant trade that could've upgraded a position of need and approach this year as a "post-World Series mulligan/bridge year." Xander/Bradley and Middlebrooks were all calculated gambles - and certainly three I personally support. Even without injuries, both LF platoon and RF were subject to decline based on age/last year's unlikely performance. Lost significant OPB and SLG vs. RHP in catcher and starting pitching appeared subject to some decline given the age and wear. Also consider the batted balls in play are not finding holes with RISP as often or propitiously as they were early last year. Give or take 5 ABs and 1 Mujica meltdown, this team could just as easily be 10-3 or 9-4 . It is frustrating, especially since, in all their World Series winning years since 2004, the Sox have had relatively good Aprils, something that buoyed them through down periods those seasons. It's all frustrating as hell to watch, that's for sure. But there are positives. They are hitting the ball for the most part. The starting pitching overall has been pretty good, as has the pen. Also helping is that almost no one in the AL East is healthy or looks like they are running away with it, yet. In fact with the amount of games the Sox would've had nearly in hand with just one timely hit (or in last night case not sending Bradley or a little sane replay), they actually could be creating some nice separation like they did last year. I'm as crabby as the next guy about how these first couple weeks have unfolded, and I was no big fan of the off season (I too would've traded Doubront and Webster while perceptions were relatively high in a package (yes, 2-3 more prospects not named Xander) for an impact OF. And everyone knows I would've gone to the mat on Tanaka). Still, I think as long as they don't get too deep in the hole they can get this thing going in the right direction. I just wish I could shake the 2012 feeling all these early injuries have given me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 14, 2014 14:19:48 GMT -5
I can understand going cheap with Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, and Bradley, since all three of those guys are legitimately MLB-ready, high-ceiling prospects who were likely to be no worse than a little below league average in 2014. I wanted Drew and a platoon CF (which, ironically, they ended up getting), but can understand why they did what they did.
I really can't understand going cheap at catcher. I badly wanted McCann, and think he might be one of those rare big-money signings that might end up providing some surplus value. Don't get me wrong, I like Vazquez and Swihart as much as most, but they're (a) at least a year away, (b) playing at a position that really does require more development time than the average position, and (c) can be worked in as backups until McCann has to move off the position. I can understand standing pat at outfield, because while there were opportunities for improvement (Ellsbury, Beltran, Ethier, etc.), they looked to be marginal improvements at a hefty cost. But catcher is the one move that really makes the offseason look like a bridge year where they sacrificed the present in favor of the future.
(There was also not landing Abreu and going with Napoli, but the timing of that one makes it excusable. I didn't think they were going to get Tanaka no matter how high they bid, so that didn't bother me too much.)
/rant
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 14, 2014 14:26:59 GMT -5
Big sigh of relief:
Pete Abraham @peteabe
Source: #RedSox 2B Dustin Pedroia (left wrist) should be fine. More tests being done, but injury does not appear serious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 14:37:31 GMT -5
The loss of Ellsbury and Victorino hurts our offense, not just in the #1 and #2 holes, but also in how pitchers approach the rest of the lineup. Has anyone else noticed how dynamic the Dodgers offense looks now with Dee Gordon leading off? It kills me that Gordon was readily available in trade as recently as last year. He's still only 25 years old, can play 2B or SS and is one of the fastest dudes in baseball. espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/dodger-report/post/_/id/3943/dee-gordon-tries-to-reignite-his-career
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Apr 14, 2014 14:52:52 GMT -5
The loss of Ellsbury and Victorino hurts our offense, not just in the #1 and #2 holes, but also in how pitchers approach the rest of the lineup. Has anyone else noticed how dynamic the Dodgers offense looks now with Dee Gordon leading off? It kills me that Gordon was readily available in trade as recently as last year. He's still only 25 years old, can play 2B or SS and is one of the fastest dudes in baseball. espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/dodger-report/post/_/id/3943/dee-gordon-tries-to-reignite-his-careerDee Gordon? The one with the -1.4 career WAR, a career 79 wRC+, and putrid defense? His speed can be electric, but he's awful at everything else. He just looks appealing now because he's begun the season on a hot streak.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Apr 14, 2014 14:55:22 GMT -5
Big sigh of relief: Pete Abraham @peteabe Source: #RedSox 2B Dustin Pedroia (left wrist) should be fine. More tests being done, but injury does not appear serious. We can have a season now. While we're struggling to score, I'm keeping an eye on our rotation. The Top 4 appear to be close to being on their game. Buchholz not there yet, but was encouraged by his start in NY. A little better defense and he only gives up 2. I'm not going to get into a tizzy if Doubront struggles. I think we'll see Workman and Ruby by mid-summer. One in the rotation. The other in the pen. I don't have much faith in Ranaudo or Webster.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 14, 2014 14:55:59 GMT -5
I can understand going cheap with Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, and Bradley, since all three of those guys are legitimately MLB-ready, high-ceiling prospects who were likely to be no worse than a little below league average in 2014. I wanted Drew and a platoon CF (which, ironically, they ended up getting), but can understand why they did what they did. I really can't understand going cheap at catcher. I badly wanted McCann, and think he might be one of those rare big-money signings that might end up providing some surplus value. Don't get me wrong, I like Vazquez and Swihart as much as most, but they're (a) at least a year away, (b) playing at a position that really does require more development time than the average position, and (c) can be worked in as backups until McCann has to move off the position. I can understand standing pat at outfield, because while there were opportunities for improvement (Ellsbury, Beltran, Ethier, etc.), they looked to be marginal improvements at a hefty cost. But catcher is the one move that really makes the offseason look like a bridge year where they sacrificed the present in favor of the future. (There was also not landing Abreu and going with Napoli, but the timing of that one makes it excusable. I didn't think they were going to get Tanaka no matter how high they bid, so that didn't bother me too much.) /rant I agree with this in the mean. I thought McCann, who you'd transition to 1st after the 2nd year of his deal, or to DH if they let Papi walk anytime before McCann's deal ended was a great fit. The OF to me was/is a position of need because other than Bradley there wasn't a lot else between AA and AAA. The opportunity to trade Nava as part of a larger package (who I love, but around whom there were rumors because of his cost/OBP), seemed like it would be too good for Ben to pass up given Nava's age and his performance exceeding expectations. Tanaka became a dream once they made it an open bidding process. I actually thought the Sox could've out pokered the Yankees and whomever under the old bid process by basically bidding $75M or so, then offering Tanaka Darvish's deal. If he passed he'd be off the market for another year keeping him away from rivals and bringing him into the Scherzer/Lester/Shields market next year. Oh well. The Ellsbury market ballooned past where I thought it would go. I still am waiting for the day when they decide Sizemore can play 6 games a week. I don't want to break the guy but he's on a 1 year deal and should be leading off and playing LF as much as possible. Period. Now I am wondering if Sox can snare Puig with all this talk of his attitude. I think Papi, Pedroia and Xander would tamp that down pretty quickly. Anyway. Like jmei said, rantage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 15:15:03 GMT -5
The loss of Ellsbury and Victorino hurts our offense, not just in the #1 and #2 holes, but also in how pitchers approach the rest of the lineup. Has anyone else noticed how dynamic the Dodgers offense looks now with Dee Gordon leading off? It kills me that Gordon was readily available in trade as recently as last year. He's still only 25 years old, can play 2B or SS and is one of the fastest dudes in baseball. espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/dodger-report/post/_/id/3943/dee-gordon-tries-to-reignite-his-careerDee Gordon? The one with the -1.4 career WAR, a career 79 wRC+, and putrid defense? His speed can be electric, but he's awful at everything else. He just looks appealing now because he's begun the season on a hot streak. The point remains though that with Ellsbury now gone, the team ends up incredibly dependent on Victorino. When he's not in the lineup, we're back to being a station to station team throughout the entire lineup and bench. That's not to say you can't make that kind of an offense work - the A's do it every night. But, you better have some really good pitching, since you're not going to score as many runs.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Apr 14, 2014 15:33:19 GMT -5
Now I am wondering if Sox can snare Puig with all this talk of his attitude. I think Papi, Pedroia and Xander would tamp that down pretty quickly. Wait...Puig? Did I miss him being available? Or, is this from a WEEI listener calling in during a rain delay? Aside from the star-power lust he draws in the news; the guy is essentially Josh Hamilton. (Really, look at their peripherals) Last season he BABIP'd his way to a 160 wRC+. At least when Hamilton BABIP'd himself to stardom it was a 175 wRC+ and, on the strength of an aberrantly good defensive season, 8.4 WAR.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 14, 2014 15:45:08 GMT -5
Dee Gordon? The one with the -1.4 career WAR, a career 79 wRC+, and putrid defense? His speed can be electric, but he's awful at everything else. He just looks appealing now because he's begun the season on a hot streak. The point remains though that with Ellsbury now gone, the team ends up incredibly dependent on Victorino. When he's not in the lineup, we're back to being a station to station team throughout the entire lineup and bench. That's not to say you can't make that kind of an offense work - the A's do it every night. But, you better have some really good pitching, since you're not going to score as many runs. This team, like last year's team is incredibly dependent on their high OBP guys to get on base. With Pedroia and Nava OPS'ing .500 and missing Victorino and WMB, it's not hard to figure out why they're not doing great. Plus, it's only a matter of time before the absurd GIDP rates and RISP hitting adjusts to the mean. This team is fine if it can get healthy. My only concern at this point is the lack of power in the lineup, but I think it'll come.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 14, 2014 15:47:26 GMT -5
Now I am wondering if Sox can snare Puig with all this talk of his attitude. I think Papi, Pedroia and Xander would tamp that down pretty quickly. Wait...Puig? Did I miss him being available? Or, is this from a WEEI listener calling in during a rain delay? Aside from the star-power lust he draws in the news; the guy is essentially Josh Hamilton. (Really, look at their peripherals) Last season he BABIP'd his way to a 160 wRC+. At least when Hamilton BABIP'd himself to stardom it was a 175 wRC+ and, on the strength of an aberrantly good defensive season, 8.4 WAR. Projecting on the constant din of Puig is not a team player/is a distraction. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 14, 2014 15:48:11 GMT -5
Wait...Puig? Did I miss him being available? Or, is this from a WEEI listener calling in during a rain delay? Aside from the star-power lust he draws in the news; the guy is essentially Josh Hamilton. (Really, look at their peripherals) Last season he BABIP'd his way to a 160 wRC+. At least when Hamilton BABIP'd himself to stardom it was a 175 wRC+ and, on the strength of an aberrantly good defensive season, 8.4 WAR. Projecting on the constant din of Puig is not a team player/is a distraction. That is all. He's probably as likely to (not) be traded as Xander.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 14, 2014 19:15:16 GMT -5
Nick Cafardo ?@nickcafardo 2m Pedroia has inflammation no structural damage in left wrist. Uehara has no structural damage. Both return to Chicago tomorrow
Great news!
In other news - Archer getting hammered tonight by the Os...
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 14, 2014 19:33:17 GMT -5
Rather than wasting my time and the boards debating Fens who conveniently misinterpreted my statement, I wonder if Eric or someone has data to suggest something about the development curve of pitchers. Just from observation over the years it seems a mix bag, depending of what (?)It seems that a number of (?0 pitchers take time to develop once they hit the big show such as guys with power stuff but wild. This development time may be longer than everyday players. Yup, not all young pitchers develop into something significant, but Koufax et al struggled for a few years'; likewise, in recent memory Lester was a little bumpy and Clay was even banished to the minors.Cliff Lee was even sent packing to the minors. Bob Gibson even had some issues his first two years. There there are: Clemons who got off to a promising start his first two years, then took off. King Felix's numbers were fine, but he had some struggle his first years, perhaps more due to the team he was on. Greg Maddox blossomed in his third year, with high ERAs his first two but good k walk rates. Marichal was ok and then took off. Can a team identify pitchers with promise when they are taking their knocks? Is there anything in common that the late starters struggle with such as command? Is there a pattern to their development such as struggle for two and then take off. Of course, it is easy to say, it depends on the pitcher. Unlike some I don't know how to characterize Felix except puzzling. Seems he should be improving with big steps his third year, but it is early in the season, Let me Google that for you: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-aging-curves-introduction/In other words, no, you can't expect a pitcher to get better just because he's young.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 19:37:10 GMT -5
Nick Cafardo ?@nickcafardo 2m Pedroia has inflammation no structural damage in left wrist. Uehara has no structural damage. Both return to Chicago tomorrow Great news! In other news - Archer getting hammered tonight by the Os... Really great news on both counts. I don't care what WAR reflects, losing both for an entire season would - for this team - probably have resulted in 15 fewer wins, if not more.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Apr 14, 2014 20:09:27 GMT -5
Rather than wasting my time and the boards debating Fens who conveniently misinterpreted my statement, I wonder if Eric or someone has data to suggest something about the development curve of pitchers. Just from observation over the years it seems a mix bag, depending of what (?)It seems that a number of (?0 pitchers take time to develop once they hit the big show such as guys with power stuff but wild. This development time may be longer than everyday players. Yup, not all young pitchers develop into something significant, but Koufax et al struggled for a few years'; likewise, in recent memory Lester was a little bumpy and Clay was even banished to the minors.Cliff Lee was even sent packing to the minors. Bob Gibson even had some issues his first two years. There there are: Clemons who got off to a promising start his first two years, then took off. King Felix's numbers were fine, but he had some struggle his first years, perhaps more due to the team he was on. Greg Maddox blossomed in his third year, with high ERAs his first two but good k walk rates. Marichal was ok and then took off. Can a team identify pitchers with promise when they are taking their knocks? Is there anything in common that the late starters struggle with such as command? Is there a pattern to their development such as struggle for two and then take off. Of course, it is easy to say, it depends on the pitcher. Unlike some I don't know how to characterize Felix except puzzling. Seems he should be improving with big steps his third year, but it is early in the season, Let me Google that for you: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-aging-curves-introduction/In other words, no, you can't expect a pitcher to get better just because he's young. Good stuff fenway. I assume this response stems from the Doubie discussion so I'll add my .02. I've always been a fan of Felix, and thought he had significant upside from the start, but that thought is starting to fade. There was more to dream on when he came up and averaged ~93mph on his fastball in 2010 and 2011, and even in 2012 when he averaged 92.7mph. The lack of control was worrying, but as a rookie he had time to work through those tweaks. Unfortunately, his walk rates have remained stagnant for the past 2 seasons, and his K rates have steadily decreased. His average fastball velocity was also down nearly 2mph last season, and sits at 90.3mph so far this year. Simply put, he hasn't shown many significant signs of improving his control, and he lacks the overpowering stuff that he seems to possess in the pen. Doubront can still settle into the #5 rotation slot and put up descent numbers this season, but my optimism around his upside is slowly fading.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Apr 14, 2014 20:45:53 GMT -5
I really can't understand going cheap at catcher. I badly wanted McCann,and think he might be one of those rare big-money signings that might end up providing some surplus value. Don't get me wrong, I like Vazquez and Swihart as much as most, but they're (a) at least a year away, (b) playing at a position that really does require more development time than the average position, and (c) can be worked in as backups until McCann has to move off the position. I can understand standing pat at outfield, because while there were opportunities for improvement (Ellsbury, Beltran, Ethier, etc.), they looked to be marginal improvements at a hefty cost. But catcher is the one move that really makes the offseason look like a bridge year where they sacrificed the present in favor of the future. /rant I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. If the Yanks signed McCann for 5/85, how high would they have raised the bid if Boston was seriously in the running? The Yanks basically said f*** it, we'll pay any sum of money to get some of the top players in free agency. (Assuming that McCann wanted to go to the top bidder), would Cashman have looked at a 5/90 offer from the rival, and defending WS champion, Red Sox and said, "Take him, we don't want to pay that"? I doubt it. Basing it off this scenario, would you be willing to pay 5/90+ for a 30 year old catcher who you plan on moving off the position in 2-3 years? Outside of a 2012 campaign in which he underperformed, his numbers have steadily dropped since 2008. His power stroke hasn't abandoned him at all, but his OPS and WAR numbers have slowly regressed, and he isn't throwing runners out at the rate he use to. It's safe to say that McCann is one of the better catchers in baseball. He hits for power, is a solid defender, and has a good approach, but a 5/90 price-tag for someone who's projected to move to an offensive-reliant position simply doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Personally I like the way Cherington is going about everything. I don't want Boston to pay way above market value in free agency. Boston will continue to build from within via their farm system; signing shorter term deals and picking up compensation picks in the process. Through this, they've established a ton of depth in the minors from which they can bolster the major league team while additionally moving some prospects for a high-level player (Stanton, CarGo, or others). When going for top-notch players, like McCann, I'd rather deal for them before they hit free agency (the way Theo did w/ Gonzalez), and sign them to a more reasonable long-term deal. Of course this is dependent on Cherington making a big splash this year or next year, but I see it coming.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 14, 2014 22:00:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I would have payed McCann 5/$90m. I think if it was close, he would have signed with Boston over New York-- Ross basically said as much in an interview last week. Maybe the Yankees would have just blown that out of the water, but I doubt it-- they had enough needs that they couldn't afford to sink too much on one spot (see their walking away from Cano and Choo, unwillingness to spend on the bullpen/infield, etc).
I thought McCann was a great buy-low candidate who was fully healthy for the first time in years and just needed a little BABIP regression to become a true offensive juggernaut again (he was borderline elite in 2013 despite a slightly below-career-average BABIP, for instance, and his peripherals have remained pristine). McCann is also a better defensive catcher than you're giving him credit for-- remember, caught stealings constitute a small percentage of a catcher's defensive value, and McCann's pitch-framing and game-calling are very good to elite, and he's an average-to-plus pitch blocker. I also think he'll stick at catcher for at least the first three years of his current deal, and maybe longer if you really needed him to. He's thirty, but you see a fair number of catchers sticking behind the plate through their thirties these days. Yeah, the tail end of any deal is going to involve some dead money, but he's going to way outproduce his deal in the first few years, and for an All-Star-caliber player, five years and $18m a year is actually below-market (see: Ellsbury, Choo, Hamilton, Fielder, Reyes, etc).
I'm all about $/WAR, but at some point, the Red Sox are going to have to spend money somewhere. They've already assembled a roster with averagish players at most positions, and it's going to be tough to upgrade without spending market prices somewhere. Their approach so far gives them plenty of flexibility, but you still have to use that flexibility somewhere, and it seemed to me that McCann was as good a place to spend it as any. We'll see, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Apr 14, 2014 22:10:13 GMT -5
Nobody said you can expect a pitcher to get better as they get older. Of course not. Rather it can take some time and lumps for some pitchers . You can't use your general statement to explain a particular pitcher as its basically meaningless and tells us noting other than improvement is not automatic as one gets older, duh. Thank you Pee Wee Herman. You are making a mountain out of molehill. As far as Felix, my point was that he showed some promise but now seems to have gone backwards (As Charlie Zink pointed out). Your response was you can't expect a pitcher to improve because he is young, duh. Not the same thing and does not explain Felix. But I have to give it to you. You are an obstinate little guy. End of story , have a nice night, but wash your hands in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 14, 2014 22:23:29 GMT -5
Simmer down now, no need to take everything so personal.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 14, 2014 23:03:50 GMT -5
Nobody said you can expect a pitcher to get better as they get older. Of course not. Rather it can take some time and lumps for some pitchers . You can't use your general statement to explain a particular pitcher as its basically meaningless and tells us noting other than improvement is not automatic as one gets older, duh. Thank you Pee Wee Herman. You are making a mountain out of molehill. As far as Felix, my point was that he showed some promise but now seems to have gone backwards (As Charlie Zink pointed out). Your response was you can't expect a pitcher to improve because he is young, duh. Not the same thing and does not explain Felix. But I have to give it to you. You are an obstinate little guy. End of story , have a nice night, but wash your hands in the morning. You asked for the development curve and you got it, and it's not meaningless at all. It's been known for a while that pitcher's have their highest strikeout rates at a young age, usually 21-22. The best ones transcend that by gaining such good command and control of their arsenal that they can get hitters to swing at their pitch almost all the time. Think Cliff Lee here. Speaking of Lee, he really didn't master pitching until age 28. There were a few good seasons before that, but he was so out of whack at age 28, he was sent to the minors to get his act together. So there's always hope. Yes, Charlie's point is well taken. The idea was that, as he got older, he'd gain better control of what is a decent arsenal. That hasn't happened this year, and it did during the playoffs last year. My own analysis: right now his delivery is badly messed up. He's falling off to the side and that pulls his pitches. Then he overcompensates and grooves one as he did last night. It made me wince to watch that pitch find the center of the plate, and Beltran belted it out of the park, just like the professional hitter he is. If you're looking for the reason why, that's it. He's not able to repeat the feat at the end of the year because he can't repeat his delivery this year. He may be one of those guys who needs time every season to relearn that. But until he can do that, he'll have more frustrating starts. He doesn't need a flamethrower, he needs jeweller’s tools, and he seems to have misplaced the set he had at the end of last year.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 15, 2014 0:04:06 GMT -5
As far as I can see, we don't have a general Red Sox news thread. So: Ian Browne ?@ianmbrowne 21m Pedroia, Uehara to avoid DL stints atmlb.com/1hDGu6n
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Apr 15, 2014 0:39:18 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that pitcher aging chart indicates generally that there is about a 5% expected variance overall in key performance numbers from the years 30-37 or so. Which would appear even more insightful in regard to the Lester situation. Of course a 3 mph drop can make the difference between a 3.00 ERA and a 4.5 ERA in some instances so individual data points don't correlate in exact ratios but it would seem that some pitchers who have outstanding stuff and ability would age very well, For example a Verlander who still would have enough gas in the tank as he ages to perform at a top rate. Or a guy like Lee, who doesn't rely on mph. Maybe also a Kuroda or Rivera, who have a devastating specialty pitches plus excellent control.
But what about a guy like Doubront, who started at much lower performance levels and doesn't have particularly great control or and outstanding changeup...etc. One would think that unless he develops such things, it's a clear downhill path.
So, just how good is Lester's cutter? And is Doubront on his way to LOOGYVILLE? And most importantly who is the next top pitcher or pitching prospect we can obtain going forward, because it appears that is the key player acquisition goal for a WS championship team.
To some of us it was Tanaka. It appears though that the Redsox are not going to play at those salary levels though any more. Which is the one reason I can find for gambling so much on Trey Ball. The are rolling the dice with all these guys {Delarosa, Webster, Barnes....) in the hopes of finding a cost effective way to fill the need for a top flight starting rotation without spending the huge bucks. They are trying to roll the dice for 1 or 2 guys to become a number 1 the less expensive way.
I'm all for it but if we get a chance to get a Scherzer or even to retain a Lester I think we should seriously look at it because I'm not seeing the cavalry coming over the hill any time soon. We can't expect to always be able to devlop the rotation from within and I'm not sure we want to be value shoppers all the time going forward. Sometimes a Lackey or a Lester should be extended, even as they age, because they give you quality, dependable innings at relatively reasonable price. We hope!
|
|
|
Post by godot on Apr 15, 2014 0:45:24 GMT -5
Thanks Norm, how do you explain the loss of velocity, just passage of time or mechanics? Suspect passage of time (your view) and mechanics explains poor command . Your explanation makes sense and does not vary that much what others told me ( command issues). BTW, did not say chart was meaningless. Regardless, from what I have been able to discern, it is usually the command factor, along with a few other factors, that allows them to develop their potential. I was told by baseball people ( those who played the game or worked with teams) that velocity loss usually comes toward the end of their 20s, with a small loss before the drop at 29 or so. After that otehr issues pop up. Arm speed, which is related to a number of factors, is the key. Regarding Felix, we are basically guessing, but am sure the Sox have a good read. Whether they can fix him or he an make the adjustments is another thing. I gave up decades ago observing their deliveries or analyzing their mechanics. It was a fools errand- too complicated- at least for me. After talking to these guys, I was also whelmed by the training pitchers should undergo, and the complexity of the mechanics and skills needed for velocity, command, even body types, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 15, 2014 1:28:34 GMT -5
If he can get his mechanics fixed, it wouldn't surprise me if he added a tick to his current 90ish velocity a few months into the year. So I think it's a combination of the two. He's getting older and can't throw quite as hard, but his delivery is messed up enough that's also knocking that down. Hope I'm right about that. When he's on he can be very good.
|
|
|