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.
Handicapping the 2015 Red Sox
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 4, 2015 17:32:30 GMT -5
The Red Sox project to be the fifth-best defense in baseball, with above-average defenders at every position but shortstop. Interesting sidenote: the Yankees project to be the third-best defense in baseball next year. That's what happens when you replace once of the worst defensive left sides of the infield with one of the best. One of the sneaky ways that that team has improved this offseason. Big question for NY is whether that L side of the infield hits enough to play enough to make that projection. Possible, because Headley hit pretty well for them last year (though he's leaving his prime), and Gregorius is still young. But Headley will need to reverse a bad trend and Gregorius is awful against LH. At least the Sox have some positive projectability (provided Pedey stays healthy).
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Apr 6, 2015 7:21:42 GMT -5
I think in the American League East you hit your way into contention and pitch your way into the playoffs down the stretch. I think the Red Sox will be in contention for a playoff spot at the trade deadline but I don't think Red Sox Nation will be happy with the moves they make at that time. I think Porcello will be having a very good year but they trade him because he is essentially all they've gotten for Lester so far. I don't think they will be willing to just receive a pick for him after making him a qualifying offer and loosing him to free agency. And they won't want to pay him what he will command on the open market. Although at age 26/27 you'd think he would be exactly the type of player you would make a run at with an 8 year offer. I also think that if Masterson is pitching half way decent at the deadline that they move him as well. I do believe that we get some vey good players for them especially moving forward but it just doesn't get us to the playoffs this year. I think the Red Sox finish with 85/86 wins and just miss out.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Apr 6, 2015 8:34:51 GMT -5
As a final thought, I gotta say that I'm fascinated to see how this all works out for Cherington and the crew. There seems to be a real plan behind it ... they are still making up for the poor farm system of a few years ago. The position players are on a solid foundation now (this team is so stacked there, and the farm is deep), but the pitching pipeline is still lacking. Rather than hamstring themselves long-term by signing big contracts to older pitchers, they gambled with an unconventional approach, grabbing a lot of groundball pitchers coming into their prime years. This is gambling, but it's also playing the odds based on what they've found in their research. I'm not exactly sure what that is, but in addition to some general analysis, it probably has to do with their home park. Fenway turns fly balls into doubles at a prodigious rate, so, I'm assuming the reasoning goes, you want pitchers who get ground balls.
And they also seem to think that, in today's large-strike-zone environment, signing good free agent pitching isn't quite as good an investment as good hitting.
Overall, it's an interesting approach, and I'm really anxious to see how it turns out. It also makes me reluctant to really come down strong on any particular projection. I feel like they're trying something new and making the assumption that it's based on an analysis that's a little unconventional ...
But, you know, in the end, maybe these were just the best pitchers they could scrounge up.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 6, 2015 8:56:11 GMT -5
As a final thought, I gotta say that I'm fascinated to see how this all works out for Cherington and the crew. There seems to be a real plan behind it ... they are still making up for the poor farm system of a few years ago. The position players are on a solid foundation now (this team is so stacked there, and the farm is deep), but the pitching pipeline is still lacking. Rather than hamstring themselves long-term by signing big contracts to older pitchers, they gambled with an unconventional approach, grabbing a lot of groundball pitchers coming into their prime years. This is gambling, but it's also playing the odds based on what they've found in their research. I'm not exactly sure what that is, but in addition to some general analysis, it probably has to do with their home park. Fenway turns fly balls into doubles at a prodigious rate, so, I'm assuming the reasoning goes, you want pitchers who get ground balls. And they also seem to think that, in today's large-strike-zone environment, signing good free agent pitching isn't quite as good an investment as good hitting. Overall, it's an interesting approach, and I'm really anxious to see how it turns out. It also makes me reluctant to really come down strong on any particular projection. I feel like they're trying something new and making the assumption that it's based on an analysis that's a little unconventional ... But, you know, in the end, maybe these were just the best pitchers they could scrounge up. I actually believe this was 75% of the plan, and we'll have to have a conversation this year about how, after issuing all these statements about not being willing to pay top market dollars for starters over 30, they will likely have to pay top market dollars for at least one starting pitcher over 30 in the 15-16 off season. But let's hope they were right about this assemblage of starters, and that it all works without Vazquez's framing, receiving and throwing skills.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Apr 8, 2015 8:54:59 GMT -5
Maybe home runs do matter? Speier put an article up in the Globe which had this chart: How home runs influenced winning in 2014 Red Sox MLB MLB Record5+ HR games 0 25 24-1 (960) 4 HR games 1 54 49-5 (.907) 3 HR games 6 29 174-39 (.817) 2 HR games 20 762 510-252 (.669) 1 HR games 61 1677 886-791 (.528) 0 HR games 74 2129 787-1342 (.370) (apologies for formatting issues) linkSo perhaps the power surge from Opening Day is a legitimate indicator of better things to come.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Apr 8, 2015 9:19:17 GMT -5
This is a little silly without conditioning on games where the team in question scores five or more runs.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 8, 2015 9:32:16 GMT -5
This is a little silly without conditioning on games where the team in question scores five or more runs. Absolutely, what matters is how many runs you score. Home runs happen to correlate with runs, but if you get your runs via walks and doubles you're not any less likely to win than if you get the same number of runs via dingers.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Apr 8, 2015 10:13:15 GMT -5
This is a little silly without conditioning on games where the team in question scores five or more runs. Absolutely, what matters is how many runs you score. Home runs happen to correlate with runs, but if you get your runs via walks and doubles you're not any less likely to win than if you get the same number of runs via dingers. You are obviously right, but perhaps there is a trend developing where HR power is more strongly correlating with wins than it was, say, 10 years ago? Surely there's a way to analyze it but I'm too lazy to do it. Anyways, thought the chart was an interesting enough conversation starter to post it.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 8, 2015 10:28:30 GMT -5
You are obviously right, but perhaps there is a trend developing where HR power is more strongly correlating with wins than it was, say, 10 years ago? Surely there's a way to analyze it but I'm too lazy to do it. Anyways, thought the chart was an interesting enough conversation starter to post it. There has been a pretty steady trend over the past 10 years of the number of runs per game going down. This obviously means that if you're still hitting the same number of home runs as you were 10 years ago, you've improved in a relative sense. It also means that the relative value of a home run compared to, say, a walk has gone up, because you are less likely to score from first base (on average) than you were 10 years ago. Numbers: www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=cnHowever, this is all old hat. Not really anything you can say about it that hasn't already been said 3 years or so ago.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 8, 2015 10:33:23 GMT -5
Home runs correlate with runs which correlate with wins.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 8, 2015 14:28:07 GMT -5
Home runs correlate with runs which correlate with wins. **Direct correlation: Chicks dig the long ball, with repeat performance within each sample size being most preferable.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 8, 2015 16:44:32 GMT -5
Home runs correlate with runs which correlate with wins. **Direct correlation: Chicks dig the long ball, with repeat performance within each sample size being most preferable. Excuse me! It's not only chicks that dig the long ball. First game only...Papi looked like he was trying to do too much and consistently went outside his zone....Panda is a swing at anything machine (no surprise I know but honestly!) and looked awful batting RH.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 9, 2015 11:00:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 9, 2015 11:16:04 GMT -5
Yeah but that's using the old metrics, not the hip new CSAA ones.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 9, 2015 12:24:10 GMT -5
Also, Leon should be a better than average framer-- by all accounts (scouting reports, minor league data, limited major league data), he's an above-average to plus framer.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 16, 2015 11:26:17 GMT -5
Very interesting analysis of the Red Sox on fivethirtyeight.com, with the conclusion that this year's team is going to do well. tinyurl.com/ml8tss6
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 16, 2015 12:09:54 GMT -5
Very interesting analysis of the Red Sox on fivethirtyeight.com, with the conclusion that this year's team is going to do well. tinyurl.com/ml8tss6I disagree, it's a not-at-all interesting analysis that trots out old chestnuts, misses some important points (i.e. that preseason projections do not account for midseason trades), and concludes that we don't know anything now that we didn't know two weeks ago.
|
|
|