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.
Jeff Samardzija
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Oct 5, 2014 12:49:24 GMT -5
You know that you can continue reading the thread and see that there was already a very well made argument made by jmei about the lineup protection myth as it related to 2014 David Ortiz. If you did you would see an adult conversation that ended with the poster who initially made that comment now aware of the fact that "Protection" is really a questionable and hardly provable thing and even thanking Jmei for his responses. Or you could not..... Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 11, 2014 21:15:10 GMT -5
the poster who initially made that comment now aware of the fact that "Protection" is really a questionable and hardly provable thing Oh, sure. Unfortunately, this was hardly an isolated incident. The poster in question was hardly the first one to ever bring up this "protection" nonsense on this forum. Many of those who do are resistant to any form of statistical analysis. So I thought I would bring up a complementary argument to jmei's in hopes of convincing some more people.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Oct 12, 2014 12:51:56 GMT -5
Per Nick Cafardo, "Red Sox would not part with Henry Owens in a package for Jeff Samardzija." Says later on if made available, Red Sox would be calling on Jeff Samardzija. Does that help sort sift what a potential deal could be or at least what we would offer.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 12, 2014 18:46:43 GMT -5
Does that help sort sift what a potential deal could be or at least what we would offer. No, I'm pretty sure it's the same old story, Sox FO feel they value Owens higher than the rest of the league so he is basically untouchable.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 12, 2014 20:50:42 GMT -5
In the Votto story, it notes how Billy Hamilton helped Votto see more fastballs when he got on base. I wonder if he is factoring in the data of when Hamilton doesn't get on base. Batting a high on base guy like maybe Mookie at lead off, who is also a base stealing threat, should help Ortiz and Pedroia a lot if he produces.
And put me down as a believer that lineup protection behind you can definitely give a guy better pitches to hit as well. It is a clearly reasonable conclusion. If Ortiz is up and a guy is on first, is the pitcher going to be more or less likely to throw him strikes if Mike Trout is up next? You can bet Ortiz is going to be more likely to get a strike to hit in such an instance. Great hitters can change lineups even, and especially 2-3 great hitters in a row. Plus just ramping up the overall stress factor. I think Ortiz just intimidates pitchers into throwing mistakes sometimes. And the added pressure of another stud behind him ramps that phenomena up significantly.
It takes more than one fangraphs article or a few ABs to draw a conclusion about that issue, and lots of data indicates that batting order doesn't have as much impact as we think, but mlb teams still bat their top hitters generally 3-4, and multiple great hitters in a row can change the entire dynamic of a lineup.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Oct 13, 2014 4:19:49 GMT -5
Does that help sort sift what a potential deal could be or at least what we would offer. No, I'm pretty sure it's the same old story, Sox FO feel they value Owens higher than the rest of the league so he is basically untouchable. No.. You misinterpreted what I was saying. Owens is in the top tier of our prospect system, so if they asked for Owens and we declined, so our offer now will be even lower that what we offered without Owens last time now that it's only for one year. Samardzija was on a 2 year deal, Redsox declined offer of Owens for Samardzija, His value obviously declined from last year, now he's on a 1 year rental, What would they offer now?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 19, 2014 13:47:18 GMT -5
Does anyone think we could get the A's interested in Allen Craig? Would they consider Craig and 2 decent (e.g. Webster and Barnes, but not Owens) pitching prospects for the final season of the Shark?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Nov 19, 2014 13:52:31 GMT -5
Does anyone think we could get the A's interested in Allen Craig? Would they consider Craig and 2 decent (e.g. Webster and Barnes, but not Owens) pitching prospects for the final season of the Shark? I doubt it now that they've signed Butler. Investing that much in two hitters who recently went through huge declines is way too risky for Beane/anyone really. I think we're such with Craig. Just have to hope our coaches can help him correct whatever is wrong and that Craig stays healthy.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 22, 2014 1:38:03 GMT -5
In the Votto story, it notes how Billy Hamilton helped Votto see more fastballs when he got on base. I wonder if he is factoring in the data of when Hamilton doesn't get on base. Batting a high on base guy like maybe Mookie at lead off, who is also a base stealing threat, should help Ortiz and Pedroia a lot if he produces. And put me down as a believer that lineup protection behind you can definitely give a guy better pitches to hit as well. It is a clearly reasonable conclusion. If Ortiz is up and a guy is on first, is the pitcher going to be more or less likely to throw him strikes if Mike Trout is up next? You can bet Ortiz is going to be more likely to get a strike to hit in such an instance. Great hitters can change lineups even, and especially 2-3 great hitters in a row. Plus just ramping up the overall stress factor. I think Ortiz just intimidates pitchers into throwing mistakes sometimes. And the added pressure of another stud behind him ramps that phenomena up significantly. It takes more than one fangraphs article or a few ABs to draw a conclusion about that issue, and lots of data indicates that batting order doesn't have as much impact as we think, but mlb teams still bat their top hitters generally 3-4, and multiple great hitters in a row can change the entire dynamic of a lineup. It's true that some guys are helped by lineup protection. Trot Nixon use to thrive hitting 2nd, because he saw more fastballs, because pitchers knew he had a fairly good eye and didn't want to walk him with (e.g.) Manny and Ortiz coming up next. IOW, they were more worried about who was up after Nixon than Nixon himself. But pretty much by definition, projection is going to be meaningless to the best hitter on the team. Any pitcher who is not simply trying their hardest to get David Ortiz out is asking for trouble. You'd be a fool to be thinking about the on-deck hitter, and to be altering what you feel is the optimum approach to get him out, simply because the next guy up had a bit more power than the guy who was hitting after him the last time you faced him. And note that if they pitch around him because the next guy is perceived as weak, that's good, because that's more walks. Oh, and in the case of Ortiz specifically, we do have a whole career to look at, and the identity of the next hitter has indeed been meaningless. You want an anecdote to drive that home? When Ortiz faced Esteban Loaiza in the bottom of the 14th of game 5 of the 2004 ALCS, with 2 outs and runners on 1st and 2nd, and was looking to become the first person in post-season history to have two walk-off hits in the same post-season series, let alone in successive games, and the first to have three in a career, let alone in one year ... who was on deck? Doug Mientkiewicz.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 29, 2014 6:52:26 GMT -5
Only half-facetious: I'd probably trade Cespedes for Samardzija, if Billy wants a do-over. I'd do that in one second. We know Oakland won't do this trade. Maybe if we throw in a prospects they bite.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Nov 29, 2014 9:15:20 GMT -5
Thanks for that tidbit on Game 5, Eric. I didn't remember that at all, and I can never get enough tidbits and things to make me think about that post-season.
On Samardzija, I don't think they'd ever deal Samardzija for Cespedes straight up. We'd probably have to include something as mentioned previously, and I'm not sure whom that would be. If we assume the "availability" of each player for Cespedes + to be about the same, I'd rather go after Porcello, Leake, Iwakuma or Latos myself. Not that I'd be in any way upset if we were to land Shark for something like Cespedes and Ranaudo, but again there are others I'd prefer first.
|
|
|
Post by seanleary001 on Nov 29, 2014 9:34:58 GMT -5
I think Nava, Marrero and Coyle would land us Samardzija. I'd do that in a second.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 29, 2014 9:41:37 GMT -5
I think Nava, Marrero and Coyle would land us Samardzija. I'd do that in a second. Oakland will need a shortstop if lowrie leaves in free agency. So a deal like this should have legs.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Nov 29, 2014 9:53:30 GMT -5
I think Nava, Marrero and Coyle would land us Samardzija. I'd do that in a second. So you think a deal without a top 10 organizational prospect can get a done? Cmon man...
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 29, 2014 10:19:00 GMT -5
I think Nava, Marrero and Coyle would land us Samardzija. I'd do that in a second. Saying you'd do a deal in a second means it wouldn't get done at all. Your trade may have legs if you traded Cespedes for Nava, but I still think you'd need to include an arm like a Workman/Ranaudo.
|
|
|
Post by seanleary001 on Nov 29, 2014 10:22:05 GMT -5
I think Nava, Marrero and Coyle would land us Samardzija. I'd do that in a second. So you think a deal without a top 10 organizational prospect can get a done? Cmon man... No offense meant to SoxProspects by not having him in the top 10, but Marrero is ranked as the number 10 "organizational prospect" by boston.redsox.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2014/index.jsp?c_id=bos#list=bos
|
|
|
Post by seanleary001 on Nov 29, 2014 10:24:45 GMT -5
I think Nava, Marrero and Coyle would land us Samardzija. I'd do that in a second. Saying you'd do a deal in a second means it wouldn't get done at all. Your trade may have legs if you traded Cespedes for Nava, but I still think you'd need to include an arm like a Workman/Ranaudo. That makes sense to add a Workman/Ranaudo type starter. I was thinking Nava being cheaper and has more controlled years, the A's might value him over Cespedes...Do you think they would want to bring Cespedes back?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 29, 2014 10:30:19 GMT -5
I don't know if they'd want him back. If they don't I'd have to imagine, it's due to off field stuff. Nava just isn't that valued where he can bring back an arm such as Samardjida as a deal headliner.
Marrero is a guy I've defended and it wouldn't shock me to see a team really value him. I also agree that he shouldn't be dismissed as "not a top 10 organizational guy".
Samardjida is interesting because you'd think he's younger than he really is. Mileage is low though so perhaps he will age better. I know he's a free agent at years end, but I'd think they'd want to sign him if they acquired him via trade.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Nov 29, 2014 10:31:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 29, 2014 10:35:28 GMT -5
For all we know, Beane might have Marrero ranked 1st and Owens 33rd. It's difficult to even guess what kind of players/prospects it would take.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 29, 2014 11:27:11 GMT -5
For all we know, Beane might have Marrero ranked 1st and Owens 33rd. It's difficult to even guess what kind of players/prospects it would take. This is why annoys me about trade speculation. Everyone wants to talk about what it "should" take to land player X. And then Josh Donaldson gets traded for Brett Lawrie and three prospects no on ever heard of. You. Don't. Know. What. Any. Player. Will. Cost.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 29, 2014 16:44:50 GMT -5
I don't know if they'd want him back. If they don't I'd have to imagine, it's due to off field stuff. Nava just isn't that valued where he can bring back an arm such as Samardjida as a deal headliner. Marrero is a guy I've defended and it wouldn't shock me to see a team really value him. I also agree that he shouldn't be dismissed as "not a top 10 organizational guy". Samardjida is interesting because you'd think he's younger than he really is. Mileage is low though so perhaps he will age better. I know he's a free agent at years end, but I'd think they'd want to sign him if they acquired him via trade. With Smardjida you get a player that just seems to be putting it all together. Most experts expected him to breakout a year earlier. For three straight years he's had great strike out numbers. His mileage is really low. Was a huge football star at Notre dame and was projected as a high draft pick. Instead turned to baseball. Started as a reliever and then moved to starter for the last three years. I think he's very underrated.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan1994 on Nov 29, 2014 17:19:48 GMT -5
"And then Josh Donaldson gets traded for Brett Lawrie and three prospects no on ever heard of." The prospects "no one ever heard of" did not come out of the wood work, they were well established prospects in the Blue Jays organization.I think if any of us payed as much attention to Blue Jays prospects as we do to sox prospects we'd have a better idea of their value. I assume you're a red sox fan, which means you probably have a bias for our prospects. Most of the time that means we'll overvalue our prospects, and undervalue prospects on other teams. Not because we have delusions of grandeur, but we don't study those teams as much as our own. I can't imagine many fans of other teams have any idea about who Devers, Margot, Marrero, Johnson...big name prospects...not to mention the lesser known guys..
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 29, 2014 17:33:14 GMT -5
The prospects "no one ever heard of" did not come out of the wood work, they were well established prospects in the Blue Jays organization.I think if any of us payed as much attention to Blue Jays prospects as we do to sox prospects we'd have a better idea of their value. I assume you're a red sox fan, which means you probably have a bias for our prospects. Most of the time that means we'll overvalue our prospects, and undervalue prospects on other teams. Not because we have delusions of grandeur, but we don't study those teams as much as our own. I can't imagine many fans of other teams have any idea about who Devers, Margot, Marrero, Johnson...big name prospects...not to mention the lesser known guys.. Well said. The young SS most scouts love his bat and think he has a high ceiling, even if he has to move to 3b. I never heard of him, but scouts think he's the one to watch with the most upside.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan1994 on Nov 29, 2014 17:36:06 GMT -5
www.fangraphs.com/blogs/franklin-barreto-the-key-to-the-josh-donaldson-trade/ link with good info on the prospects involved in the Donaldson trade... TL;DR Nolin profiles as a 4 or 5 starter, perhaps a bullpen guy Grvemen profiles as a bullpen arm Barreto is highly respected (1.45 million bonus in 2012) and considered by some to be better than Margot...some think he might move off SS to CF
|
|
|