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.
2014 World Series gameday thread
pd
Rookie
Posts: 236
|
Post by pd on Oct 26, 2014 7:34:06 GMT -5
Ned Yost's dumb moves in Game 3 worked and his sensible ones in Game 4 seem to have blown up. It's like baseball is laughing at us. Baseball has a way of doing that. Maybe the CW needs to be revisited a bit, or maybe there is more to his moves than he's getting credit for. Bunting sure worked out well for the Giants last night. Maybe that's because their guys actually are good at it. In terms of building a winning team, what are your takeaways from the playoffs and Series so far?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 26, 2014 9:21:11 GMT -5
In terms of building a winning team, what are your takeaways from the playoffs and Series so far? Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 26, 2014 10:32:03 GMT -5
In terms of building a winning team, what are your takeaways from the playoffs and Series so far? Don't panic if your talented young guys under perform, that's the biggie. Complement them with solid inexpensive veterans, don't sign dumb long contracts, have some sort of continuity in the roster and never ever ever draft Tim Beckham.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 26, 2014 10:55:06 GMT -5
Ned Yost's dumb moves in Game 3 worked and his sensible ones in Game 4 seem to have blown up. It's like baseball is laughing at us. Baseball has a way of doing that. Maybe the CW needs to be revisited a bit, or maybe there is more to his moves than he's getting credit for. Bunting sure worked out well for the Giants last night. Maybe that's because their guys actually are good at it. In terms of building a winning team, what are your takeaways from the playoffs and Series so far? If you mean winning a 7 game series, it's a bit of a crapshoot. It's important to try to make the right moves, but it won't guarantee success. You need at least a little luck - balls finding holes, bloop hits, hitting the empty gap, that sort of thing. The other question goes well beyond a short series. Cowboy has a bunch of the lessons in his reply. SF doesn't play in the toughest division in Baseball, so that helps them, and KC has built from the inside - slowly. They've both been very judicious in signing players, getting value for their dollars, something the Sox struck gold with last year. I expect that market to get more expensive going forward. What both teams also have in common is very strong pens. From my take on the the 2013 playoffs and WS, I think that's also what got the Sox the title. That's one part of what they'll have to have it they want to compete next season.
|
|
pd
Rookie
Posts: 236
|
Post by pd on Oct 26, 2014 16:04:12 GMT -5
tNot so much about who wins the series, but what the construction of two teams that have got this far tells us. The strong pens is the first thing that jumps out to me. Surprising is the lack of power both show.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 26, 2014 17:21:45 GMT -5
tNot so much about who wins the series, but what the construction of two teams that have got this far tells us. The strong pens is the first thing that jumps out to me. Surprising is the lack of power both show. And last year the Red Sox won the World Series with a bullpen leaning heavily on a closer who topped out at 91 and a top LHP who topped out around 92, whose velo was diminishing with each game. Seven games tells you nothing about building a team. The attempts by outlets such as Baseball Prospectus to figure out the "secret sauce" for postseason success proved to be fruitless - the way to win in the playoffs is to play better than the other team you're playing, however you're able to do that. I'll go with the 2,430-game sample rather than the 7-game sample, myself.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 26, 2014 17:36:00 GMT -5
In terms of building a winning team, what are your takeaways from the playoffs and Series so far? Don't panic if your talented young guys under perform, that's the biggie. Complement them with solid inexpensive veterans, don't sign dumb long contracts, have some sort of continuity in the roster and never ever ever draft Tim Beckham. The red sox should not be complementing their young guys with inexpensive veterans, we should be complementing expensive, talented veterans with young guys. My takeaway is that you need stars. Bumgarner, Posey, Gordon, and Cain are stars. It's a cool idea to fill your roster with slightly above average players, but it doesn't work in practice because injuries and underperformance hapoens. This series shows that having 2 or more stars (5 WAR or more players) can help correct a lot of other flaws. I think signing a guy like Scherzer would go a long way. If we signed Scherzer and Pedroia bounces back to star level, I think we can make the WS next year
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 26, 2014 18:26:20 GMT -5
Your second paragraph kinda contradicts your first though, doesn't it? The young players are the stars. Bumgarner, Posey and Gordon were drafted and developed by their current teams - Posey and Gordon were pure blue-chippers, both considered potential #1 overall picks. Cain was acquired in the Greinke deal.
Who is the most expensive player acquired as a free agent (not a resigning or extension)? I think it's Infante, right? So yeah - the key is developing young stars and fill in the gaps with the Omar Infante's of the world. The 2009 Yankees won a title building mostly through free agency, but it's really, really rare.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 26, 2014 18:36:57 GMT -5
I think that teams should try to get good players.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 26, 2014 18:55:02 GMT -5
tNot so much about who wins the series, but what the construction of two teams that have got this far tells us. The strong pens is the first thing that jumps out to me. Surprising is the lack of power both show. And last year the Red Sox won the World Series with a bullpen leaning heavily on a closer who topped out at 91 and a top LHP who topped out around 92, whose velo was diminishing with each game. Seven games tells you nothing about building a team. The attempts by outlets such as Baseball Prospectus to figure out the "secret sauce" for postseason success proved to be fruitless - the way to win in the playoffs is to play better than the other team you're playing, however you're able to do that. I'll go with the 2,430-game sample rather than the 7-game sample, myself. Yeah that guy was terrible. I'm very skeptical of any sort of "this is how you win the World Series" proclamations, but I'm on board with a strong bullpen making a difference. In the ALCS, Davis/Herrera/Holland threw fully 40% of KC's innings and gave up one run. The impact of this seems obvious to me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 26, 2014 19:33:38 GMT -5
Here's the thing, though: building a good bullpen is clearly important for the playoffs, but because relievers are really volatile, it's hard to say that signing or trading for a bunch of good relievers is the solution. Look at the Tigers-- they added the best closer in the free agency market last year in Joe Nathan to go along with incumbent fireballers Bruce Rondon and Al Alburquerque and then picked up a guy in Joakim Soria who looked like the best reliever moved at the trade deadline. They even picked up an interesting buy-low guy in Joba Chamberlain and an interesting relief prospect in Ian Krol.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 26, 2014 20:01:19 GMT -5
Here's the thing, though: building a good bullpen is clearly important for the playoffs, but because relievers are really volatile, it's hard to say that signing or trading for a bunch of good relievers is the solution. Look at the Tigers-- they added the best closer in the free agency market last year in Joe Nathan to go along with incumbent fireballers Bruce Rondon and Al Alburquerque and then picked up a guy in Joakim Soria who looked like the best reliever moved at the trade deadline. They even picked up an interesting buy-low guy in Joba Chamberlain and an interesting relief prospect in Ian Krol. So maybe the lesson is just to avoid Joba Chamberlain, always?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 26, 2014 20:11:10 GMT -5
Here's the thing, though: building a good bullpen is clearly important for the playoffs, but because relievers are really volatile, it's hard to say that signing or trading for a bunch of good relievers is the solution. Look at the Tigers-- they added the best closer in the free agency market last year in Joe Nathan to go along with incumbent fireballers Bruce Rondon and Al Alburquerque and then picked up a guy in Joakim Soria who looked like the best reliever moved at the trade deadline. They even picked up an interesting buy-low guy in Joba Chamberlain and an interesting relief prospect in Ian Krol. Right, and the Royals acquired Davis to start, Herrera came out of nowhere, etc. Bullpen construction isn't random but there's plenty of randomness involved. I'm not saying that you can sign a bunch of relievers and win the World Series. But if you do happen to make it to October with a bullpen like the Royals have, it's a significant advantage.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 26, 2014 20:48:00 GMT -5
Royals are done
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 26, 2014 20:50:03 GMT -5
Even if the Royals lose tonight, they've got two games left in KC against Peavy and Hudson? Hardly done.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 26, 2014 21:01:51 GMT -5
Bumgarner could come out of the pen apparently
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 26, 2014 21:55:26 GMT -5
Why do I get a strange feeling that Jake Peavy, who had zero luck winning any games for the Sox this season (yeah I know he didn't pitch well, but you'd think by sheer luck he would have had more wins) will somehow be the winning pitcher in the game that clinches the Series for the Giants Tuesday?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,729
|
Post by nomar on Oct 27, 2014 12:52:23 GMT -5
Finnegan gave a broke royals fan two tickets over twitter yesterday. Kids a stud.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 28, 2014 20:07:39 GMT -5
Why didn't they just start Petit over Peavy?
And I have never in my life seen a ground ball that bounces over the shortstop for a double, at any level of baseball. I'm sure it has happened on turf, but I don't count that crap.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,409
|
Post by ianrs on Oct 28, 2014 20:07:43 GMT -5
Why do I get a strange feeling that Jake Peavy, who had zero luck winning any games for the Sox this season (yeah I know he didn't pitch well, but you'd think by sheer luck he would have had more wins) will somehow be the winning pitcher in the game that clinches the Series for the Giants Tuesday? There's a reason that feeling was strange...
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Oct 28, 2014 20:10:18 GMT -5
Baltimore chop double? Haven't seen that one recently.
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on Oct 28, 2014 20:13:23 GMT -5
Jake Peavy doin Jake Peavy things
|
|
pd
Rookie
Posts: 236
|
Post by pd on Oct 28, 2014 20:39:43 GMT -5
Jake Peavey is who we thought he was.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 28, 2014 20:42:15 GMT -5
Peavy's xFIP as a Giant was worse than Lincecum's.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2014 21:48:16 GMT -5
Why do I get a strange feeling that Jake Peavy, who had zero luck winning any games for the Sox this season (yeah I know he didn't pitch well, but you'd think by sheer luck he would have had more wins) will somehow be the winning pitcher in the game that clinches the Series for the Giants Tuesday? There's a reason that feeling was strange... Yup. Good thing I didn't put any money down on that game. Peavy has gotta be the worst post season pitcher of all time. My strange line of thinking is that I've seen a bunch of guys who you'd never ever expect to be the winning pitcher of a clinching game over the past several years. In March of 2013 I never would have thought John Lackey would be the clinching winning pitcher come October 2013. Just like I never would have thought that Jon Lester, recovering from cancer in 2006 would be the winning pitcher in the clincher in 2007, just like I wouldn't have thought in early Oct 2004 that ineffective and recently demoted pitcher Derek Lowe would be winning the clincher. Would never have imagined a loser like Jeff Weaver being that guy either, but he was for the Cards in 2006. I know all the above is weird coincidence and examples of Chris Carpenter, Tim Lincecum (I think), Andy Pettitte, Cole Hamels, etc could be cited as pitchers you would think would win that all important clincher, but I was thinking that Jake Peavy would be the last guy I'd expect to win a clincher and given that it's been a very strange baseball season, why not? I guess because he's really, really bad. All I can say is thank God the Sox won the World Series last year in 6 games, because if the Sox had lost Game 6, I think the Game 7 matchup would have been Joe Kelly for the Cardinals versus Jake Peavy for the Sox. As unsure as we are about Kelly, I'd rather have Kelly pitching that game than Jake Peavy! I'm so glad (shudder at the thought) we never had to watch Jake Peavy pitch Game 7 for the Red Sox in the 2013 World Series or else last year would have ended in heartache!
|
|
|