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.
4/10-4/12 Red Sox @ Yankees Series Thread
|
Post by GyIantosca on Apr 12, 2015 23:13:06 GMT -5
I want to end the night positive. Good first week. Took two series and the MFY's look like a joke. Betts has had tough luck but does hit the ball good. Proud of Xman. Just think if Buch keeps this up because it's one thing to pitch bad but not covering bases is terrible, we might have some young good talent ready. Opening day tomm.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 13, 2015 4:54:17 GMT -5
Positive takeaways from this game: Xander is en fuego, Victorino looking capable defensively, Hanley is crazy strong. Aaaaand.... the legend of Brock Holt continues!
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Apr 13, 2015 6:06:33 GMT -5
For me the most encouraging sign continues to be Bogaerts' low K rate. Through 50 spring training PA's and 30 more since the season began, it's at 10%.
If he can maintain that . . . wow!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 13, 2015 6:43:23 GMT -5
While Clay was bad, when you induce 9 GB, you expect to get more than 3 outs. Without the BABIP luck (and when national TV announcers bring it up, you know the luck has been terrible), that's a 5 IP, 3 ER performance. And I completely think that the 4th inning mental meltdown was over that. You make a good pitch, you see a ball hit on the ground, you're thinking "that's 1 out, maybe 2," and instead it's a hit. Not defending the reaction, BTW. Derek Lowe used to do the same thing. Yep, was about to say this. He gave up 4 straight soft ground ball hits in the 4th and people are bitching about it and then Schilling had to start in on "why he is such a genius about calling Buchholz not an ace after giving up 10 runs." It was the worst bad BABIP luck I've ever seen in one game. It was a few ground ball outs away from being a tie game after 5 innings. It was a great game to turn off. Great news though. It's just one loss. Hopefully get all that out of the way in one game.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 13, 2015 7:18:03 GMT -5
Yes, there was a bunch of seeing-eye ground ball singles that filled up the bases. But those were followed up with hard-hit ball after hard-hit ball. Even with better BABIP luck, he gives up five runs instead of ten runs.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 13, 2015 7:26:34 GMT -5
He seemed to lose his release point from the get-go in the first inning. Then he was opening his shoulder. Then he looked like he was aiming it. After that he didn't look too bad but def didn't have the feel for a couple of his pitches. His FB seemed to be all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 13, 2015 7:36:17 GMT -5
There was a time when you could give up a home run to Stephen Drew by sheer bad luck. That time has passed.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 13, 2015 8:03:08 GMT -5
To be honest, with that RF, just about anyone on this board could hit a fly that could go out there.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 13, 2015 10:24:31 GMT -5
To be honest, with that RF, just about anyone on this board could hit a fly that could go out there. .........if I could have a 10 mph following wind....
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 13, 2015 10:54:44 GMT -5
In his interview on ESPN, Farrell said Buchholz should have tried to establish his fastball in the first inning instead of throwing changeups, etc. Buchholz simply wasn't the same pitcher he was on opening day. Next time out he might be back to that again, and then the time after that he could be bad again.
If he were still at the beginning of his career, we could chalk this off to learning. But at this point, I don't know what it is, but it is getting very old.
Owens, Johnson and Rodriguez are saying hello in Pawtucket.
|
|
|
Post by caseytins on Apr 13, 2015 12:21:54 GMT -5
If the Sox aren't on the mlb.com feed tonight and I'm stuck watching a Padres game I'm going to go ballistic. Isn't it time to allow people to get all the games they pay for at least? Blacked out again. This is ridiculous. There are ways to get around these blackout issues. [and those issues are not to be discussed here - the Moderators]
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 13, 2015 17:31:36 GMT -5
Great win!
Need another.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Apr 13, 2015 20:15:31 GMT -5
Man, seeing the defense thay mooks somehow came up with in 10 months almost, ALMOST, makes me forget about JBJ cf defense. Which is the best I've seen live or on TV (yes I'm biased).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 14, 2015 1:16:36 GMT -5
Yes, there was a bunch of seeing-eye ground ball singles that filled up the bases. But those were followed up with hard-hit ball after hard-hit ball. Even with better BABIP luck, he gives up five runs instead of ten runs. To give an appropriately long and technical reply ... no. He gave up two hard-hit balls all night, plus three medium-hard. The first crushed ball, the A-Rod double, was actually on a fairly good pitch. The Headley HR that followed was also crushed. The Drew HR was hit decently, but not hard enough to do damage ordinarily; it's an out in every other ballpark in MLB (HitTrackerOnline confirms that it's a HR in only 1 MLB park). Headley had a soft liner in the 3rd, after he'd fanned McCann and A-Rod. And Gregorius' leadoff single in the 4th was the only GB single that had any juice. I have no idea what game you were watching. They loaded the bases in the first inning on a walk, an excuse-me opposite-field GB single by Gardner, an RBI infield out, another walk, and a Napoli error. You then had the aforementioned A-Rod / Headley / Drew sequence. In the fourth, they had four straight GB hits, and then a SF. Really, there are versions of that outing (in any other park) where he has solid BABIP luck, escapes the first despite the two walks, and A-Rod doesn't guess right on the low cutter away, and he gives up a single run.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 14, 2015 7:13:34 GMT -5
The double-HR-HR sequence was what I was referring to. Yes, if you assume every ball in play is an out, change ballparks, and fiddle with sequencing enough, you can imagine that scenario, but that certainly wouldn't be average BABIP luck, either (it takes it too far in the other direction).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 14, 2015 7:21:03 GMT -5
It's not even just BABIP luck. It's LOB% luck. He had given up 7 runs on 4 hits, 2 walks and an error. His SIERA is 2.81 to go along with that 7.84 ERA.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 14, 2015 8:16:05 GMT -5
It's not even just BABIP luck. It's LOB% luck. He had given up 7 runs on 4 hits, 2 walks and an error. His SIERA is 2.81 to go along with that 7.84 ERA. He had a 1.67 SIERA in his first start and a 4.55 SIERA in his second start. Yes, giving up ten runs took a lot of bad luck (as it usually does). But it's very difficult to make that start look good.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 14, 2015 8:20:26 GMT -5
It's not even just BABIP luck. It's LOB% luck. He had given up 7 runs on 4 hits, 2 walks and an error. His SIERA is 2.81 to go along with that 7.84 ERA. He had a 1.67 SIERA in his first start and a 4.55 SIERA in his second start. Yes, giving up ten runs took a lot of bad luck (as it usually does). But it's very difficult to make that start look good. Which is about right. Too much hyperbole in the game thread about his demise. It was a bad game, but he didn't look like last year when he was bad and was either grooving 89 mph 4 seamers or walking everyone.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 14, 2015 9:06:54 GMT -5
He had a 1.67 SIERA in his first start and a 4.55 SIERA in his second start. Yes, giving up ten runs took a lot of bad luck (as it usually does). But it's very difficult to make that start look good. Which is about right. Too much hyperbole in the game thread about his demise. It was a bad game, but he didn't look like last year when he was bad and was either grooving 89 mph 4 seamers or walking everyone. It's true that this sort of thing can happen by sheer random variation. Kershaw gave up 7 runs in 1.2 IP last year. The thing with Clay is that he mixes in these, as Schilling labeled them, "noncompetitive pitches". If he sometimes thinks, "it doesn't matter whether I back up this base, he's going to score anyway," does he also sometimes think "it doesn't matter what I throw, he's going to hit it anyway" and throw a middle-middle meatball?
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 14, 2015 10:15:29 GMT -5
Buchholz completely lost himself for a few batters. He couldn't hit his spots, his delivery was different on like 12 consecutive pitches, and he had fear in his eyes. Do I think this is the real Buch? No. But do I think this Buch will pop up every now and again, and probably at the worst possible times? Definitely. He needs to remember how he gutted it out in the World Series a couple years ago. That's the mentality he needs to be dominant if healthy.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 14, 2015 13:55:34 GMT -5
It's not even just BABIP luck. It's LOB% luck. He had given up 7 runs on 4 hits, 2 walks and an error. His SIERA is 2.81 to go along with that 7.84 ERA. He had a 1.67 SIERA in his first start and a 4.55 SIERA in his second start. Yes, giving up ten runs took a lot of bad luck (as it usually does). But it's very difficult to make that start look good. That's 3 runs in 6 IP, and I think we can all agree that, with average luck, that's just about the quality of start it was. And that's disappointing, as is Clay's reaction to the incredibly bad luck, but it's nothing to panic about. Re the LOB% luck, some of that is the clustering due to his having lousy mechanics in the first -- the proximity of his two BB to one another was not random. But most pitchers do that to some degree.
|
|
|