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.
5/25-5/27 Red Sox @ Twins Series Thread
|
Post by James Dunne on May 25, 2015 20:39:11 GMT -5
As hard as I was on jimed and mgoetze for calling Kelly's outing bad luck, the people I'm seeing on the twitter who want to make pronouncements based on how he fared facing 14 batters are far, far, far more wrong.
EDIT: Though in fairness to them, Kelly has something like a 4.50 FIP since joining the Red Sox in 110 innings. I wasn't particularly high on him entering the season and while I've been more impressed than I expected with the raw stuff, his results haven't moved the needle as it were. If someone wants to make the case that he's a worse pitcher than both Steven Wright and Eduardo Rodriguez I think that might be fair. I just don't think todays game means anything at all.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 25, 2015 21:04:40 GMT -5
I hope we all get over Lackey real soon. At age 36, he sure was trade material last year. and 2015, he is 90 P/GS. No future there.
The most confusing thing about that trade is that Baseball Cube says Jack Littrell born 1929 is the father of Corey Littrell born 1992. I am skeptical.
Corey's 2015 WHIP in A+ is 1.41. I am not sure what the Craig/Kelly anti-fan club has to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 25, 2015 21:08:36 GMT -5
What needs to happen with Kelly is straightforward. He needs to find consistency - game to game. If he can do that, he'll have a place in the rotation. If not, he won't. There are others waiting in line for a seat at that table, and he's likely to lose his if he can't find that.
He doesn't have to be on his game all the time. But alternating from lights out to fireworks illuminating the sky before the second inning is out isn't going to work, not if it happens over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 25, 2015 21:14:35 GMT -5
If we're going to call all IFFBs outs, then we should also call all home runs home runs... EDIT: When a pitcher faces 14 batters, allows a home run, walk, and 12 balls in play, and you say that the expected outcome is one run allowed, you see why that creates skepticism, right? I mean, people around here are skeptical about so many things, I'm never surprised about skepticism here. So let's say we've got 3 innings, 1 walk, 5 hits and we know one of the hits is a home run. How many runs allowed is that likely to be? If the walks and hits are distributed evenly across the innings, 2-2-2, you can have the home run be either the first or the second thing that happens, so it's basically about 1.5 runs. Add a little bit extra for the possibility of a single/walk followed by an RBI double. If it's 3-2-1, your home run is still giving you about 1.5 runs, but in half the cases where it's not in the "3" inning, that inning produces an extra run (unless perhaps the walk was the last of the 3 events in that inning). If it's 3-3-0 or 4-2-0 you're probably looking at about 2.5 runs. All in all on average I'd put it around 2 runs. All the same, your 7.5 outs, 3 runs still seems like an exaggeration. But hey, I showed my math, why don't you show the math for your numbers if you want to discuss this?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 25, 2015 22:31:51 GMT -5
So I put the inputs into the B-Ref play index: 14 BF, 1 HR, 1 BB, 0 K. Going back to 1914, Joe Kelly had the 209th game in MLB history to match that description. Here is what happened in those appearances:
10 runs: 1 time (the unlucky schmuck was Rob Bell of Tampa Bay, 4/18/2005 9 runs: 2 8 runs: 3 7 runs: 12 (including Kelly today) 6 runs: 16 5 runs: 31 4 runs: 50 3 runs: 40 2 runs: 30 1 run: 24
The median outcome was four runs and the mean was 3.78.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 25, 2015 23:31:22 GMT -5
Seems like there's a ton of debate about results versus analytical statistics.
I get that Miley got a lot of balls hit at people yesterday. And therefore was "lucky" to an extent. I get that Kelly gave up some hits that snuck through, etc, and perhaps was a bit "unlucky".
But after awhile, who really cares? I mean, how many times can you watch your starter put your team in a 7-0 hole by the second inning? The pitcher's job is to collect outs, no matter how he does it, lucky or unlucky. He didn't do it. And as others have pointed out, he wasn't exactly overpowering Twins batters.
From where I sit, Miley got the batters out on Sunday and Kelly didn't on Monday. That's the bottom line, luck or otherwise.
On April 29, 1986, Clemens gave up a solo HR that could have made him a losing pitcher in a game he struck out 20 and walked nobody had Dwight Evans not responded with a 3 run HR. That would have been unlucky. That's not Joe Kelly today.
Frankly I'm tired of hearing about luck. There's always going to be luck and random variances with sequencing, etc. The bottom line is winning ballgames. Hearing about luck after awhile wreaks of excuse making.
Was it luck when Clark's double down the line snuck out of play and Sierra couldn't score in the tied 9th inning of Game 5 ALCS, 2004? Think about it for a second. You can say the Yankees had the misfortune of bad random offensive sequencing those last four games and were "unlucky" and didn't win. I prefer to say they choked because they couldn't get a key hit when they needed to.
Instead of hearing about luck, I'd like to hear about the Red Sox stacking some wins together, playing as well as they did the last two games against Anaheim, where they put some runs together, got key hits with runners in scoring position, made a great baserunning play (Holt scoring on a hit and run single from 1b), and had pitching that held the opponents off the scoreboard.
The heck with luck, etc. After awhile a team makes its own luck.
With all these analytical stats, the only one that truly matters is the most simple one, winning percentage, and right now the Red Sox' winning percentage isn't that sturdy. Hopefully that changes over the remainder of the season. It certainly can happen, but they're not exactly instilling me with a ton of confidence.
|
|
|
Post by buttclown on May 26, 2015 0:15:03 GMT -5
Seems like there's a ton of debate about results versus analytical statistics. I get that Miley got a lot of balls hit at people yesterday. And therefore was "lucky" to an extent. I get that Kelly gave up some hits that snuck through, etc, and perhaps was a bit "unlucky". But after awhile, who really cares? I mean, how many times can you watch your starter put your team in a 7-0 hole by the second inning? The pitcher's job is to collect outs, no matter how he does it, lucky or unlucky. He didn't do it. And as others have pointed out, he wasn't exactly overpowering Twins batters. From where I sit, Miley got the batters out on Sunday and Kelly didn't on Monday. That's the bottom line, luck or otherwise. On April 29, 1986, Clemens gave up a solo HR that could have made him a losing pitcher in a game he struck out 20 and walked nobody had Dwight Evans not responded with a 3 run HR. That would have been unlucky. That's not Joe Kelly today. Frankly I'm tired of hearing about luck. There's always going to be luck and random variances with sequencing, etc. The bottom line is winning ballgames. Hearing about luck after awhile wreaks of excuse making. Was it luck when Clark's double down the line snuck out of play and Sierra couldn't score in the tied 9th inning of Game 5 ALCS, 2004? Think about it for a second. You can say the Yankees had the misfortune of bad random offensive sequencing those last four games and were "unlucky" and didn't win. I prefer to say they choked because they couldn't get a key hit when they needed to. Instead of hearing about luck, I'd like to hear about the Red Sox stacking some wins together, playing as well as they did the last two games against Anaheim, where they put some runs together, got key hits with runners in scoring position, made a great baserunning play (Holt scoring on a hit and run single from 1b), and had pitching that held the opponents off the scoreboard. The heck with luck, etc. After awhile a team makes its own luck. With all these analytical stats, the only one that truly matters is the most simple one, winning percentage, and right now the Red Sox' winning percentage isn't that sturdy. Hopefully that changes over the remainder of the season. It certainly can happen, but they're not exactly instilling me with a ton of confidence. forum.soxprospects.com/thread/2694/posters-discussion-quality
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on May 26, 2015 0:46:34 GMT -5
Seems like there's a ton of debate about results versus analytical statistics. I get that Miley got a lot of balls hit at people yesterday. And therefore was "lucky" to an extent. I get that Kelly gave up some hits that snuck through, etc, and perhaps was a bit "unlucky". But after awhile, who really cares? I mean, how many times can you watch your starter put your team in a 7-0 hole by the second inning? The pitcher's job is to collect outs, no matter how he does it, lucky or unlucky. He didn't do it. And as others have pointed out, he wasn't exactly overpowering Twins batters. From where I sit, Miley got the batters out on Sunday and Kelly didn't on Monday. That's the bottom line, luck or otherwise. On April 29, 1986, Clemens gave up a solo HR that could have made him a losing pitcher in a game he struck out 20 and walked nobody had Dwight Evans not responded with a 3 run HR. That would have been unlucky. That's not Joe Kelly today. Frankly I'm tired of hearing about luck. There's always going to be luck and random variances with sequencing, etc. The bottom line is winning ballgames. Hearing about luck after awhile wreaks of excuse making. Was it luck when Clark's double down the line snuck out of play and Sierra couldn't score in the tied 9th inning of Game 5 ALCS, 2004? Think about it for a second. You can say the Yankees had the misfortune of bad random offensive sequencing those last four games and were "unlucky" and didn't win. I prefer to say they choked because they couldn't get a key hit when they needed to. Instead of hearing about luck, I'd like to hear about the Red Sox stacking some wins together, playing as well as they did the last two games against Anaheim, where they put some runs together, got key hits with runners in scoring position, made a great baserunning play (Holt scoring on a hit and run single from 1b), and had pitching that held the opponents off the scoreboard. The heck with luck, etc. After awhile a team makes its own luck. With all these analytical stats, the only one that truly matters is the most simple one, winning percentage, and right now the Red Sox' winning percentage isn't that sturdy. Hopefully that changes over the remainder of the season. It certainly can happen, but they're not exactly instilling me with a ton of confidence. Lmao
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 26, 2015 6:16:29 GMT -5
So I put the inputs into the B-Ref play index: 14 BF, 1 HR, 1 BB, 0 K. Going back to 1914, Joe Kelly had the 209th game in MLB history to match that description. So you looked only for pitchers that had exactly 14 BF? That obviously introduces selection bias, as managers (incorrectly) are more likely to hook the pitcher after 14 BF if he had given up a lot of runs than if he had only given up one or two. The correct thing to do would be to look up pitchers whose outings started this way, whether they were hooked or not, and check what happened therein.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 26, 2015 7:06:07 GMT -5
So I put the inputs into the B-Ref play index: 14 BF, 1 HR, 1 BB, 0 K. Going back to 1914, Joe Kelly had the 209th game in MLB history to match that description. Here is what happened in those appearances: 10 runs: 1 time (the unlucky schmuck was Rob Bell of Tampa Bay, 4/18/2005 9 runs: 2 8 runs: 3 7 runs: 12 (including Kelly today) 6 runs: 16 5 runs: 31 4 runs: 50 3 runs: 40 2 runs: 30 1 run: 24 The median outcome was four runs and the mean was 3.78. I assume that does not include everyone that had that line through 14 BF who went on to face a lot more batters because the results weren't as bad. That's meaningless. edit - mgoetze and I are on the same page a lot lately...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 26, 2015 7:43:21 GMT -5
It would only really involve selection bias in starting pitchers. Several of these were relief outings.
I'm not even sure what I am debating anymore, since I agree that Kelly a) was unlucky, and b) shouldn't have been pulled and also that nothing can/should be ascertained from how he pitched against those 14 batters going forward.
|
|
|
Post by pedey on May 26, 2015 8:18:44 GMT -5
I'm anxious for the Sox to give E-Rod a shot in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on May 26, 2015 8:35:54 GMT -5
So I put the inputs into the B-Ref play index: 14 BF, 1 HR, 1 BB, 0 K. Going back to 1914, Joe Kelly had the 209th game in MLB history to match that description. Here is what happened in those appearances: 10 runs: 1 time (the unlucky schmuck was Rob Bell of Tampa Bay, 4/18/2005 9 runs: 2 8 runs: 3 7 runs: 12 (including Kelly today) 6 runs: 16 5 runs: 31 4 runs: 50 3 runs: 40 2 runs: 30 1 run: 24 The median outcome was four runs and the mean was 3.78. I assume that does not include everyone that had that line through 14 BF who went on to face a lot more batters because the results weren't as bad. That's meaningless. edit - mgoetze and I are on the same page a lot lately... This kind of statistical analysis is BS. No two games are the same, way too many unmeasurable variables cannot be factored in which can influence the outcome of a game.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 26, 2015 8:58:08 GMT -5
Seems like there's a ton of debate about results versus analytical statistics. ........ The heck with luck, etc. After awhile a team makes its own luck. With all these analytical stats, the only one that truly matters is the most simple one, winning percentage, and right now the Red Sox' winning percentage isn't that sturdy. Hopefully that changes over the remainder of the season. It certainly can happen, but they're not exactly instilling me with a ton of confidence. Are you kidding me? After all the time you have spent on here, you even mention winning percentage?
On the contrary, the only one that truly DOES NOT matter is the most simple one, winning percentage. How did you slip through the cracks in the company screening process?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 26, 2015 9:05:11 GMT -5
It would only really involve selection bias in starting pitchers. Several of these were relief outings. I'm not even sure what I am debating anymore, since I agree that Kelly a) was unlucky, and b) shouldn't have been pulled and also that nothing can/should be ascertained from how he pitched against those 14 batters going forward. Regardless, you can't not count the pitchers that faced more than 14 batters with identical lines. It almost certainly reduces the median # of runs given up. Probably by a lot. And it also doesn't even factor in that only one of the balls was hit hard. Or two, if you really think the line drive to right field was a true line drive. I wouldn't have scored it that way. If it were a hard line drive based on trajectory, Nava would have caught it. Instead it fell in for a hit because it wasn't hit hard enough. I think there is a bias for scorers that hits end up being called line drives more than outs, just because they are hits. I actually disagree about taking Kelly out. I think the HR and walk came because he was tiring from throwing so many pitches in two innings. That slider was a meatball on the home run.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 26, 2015 9:29:01 GMT -5
About that home run, BTW. You may recall it scored 3 runs. You may also recall that the preceding batter was Kelly's sole walk, and it came with 2 outs. Here's how close Kelly was to getting out of the inning rather than giving up a 3-run shot: (See the green box with the 7 right next to it.)
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on May 26, 2015 10:54:30 GMT -5
I heard they were ready to bring up Rodriguez but Wright had a great start so they held off. I don't know what they do know but McAdam said maybe he takes Kelly's spot. Kelly may get one more start. I think Kelly will be useful in the bullpen if he doesn't pan out.
I want us to be more agressive on the offense. We're not stealing. That's one thing Ellsbury that last year man he was a pain on the bases. Victorino too the first year we had him when he got on the bases also.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 26, 2015 11:05:47 GMT -5
I heard they were ready to bring up Rodriguez but Wright had a great start so they held off. I don't know what they do know but McAdam said maybe he takes Kelly's spot. Kelly may get one more start. I think Kelly will be useful in the bullpen if he doesn't pan out. I think that's a mistake. So what happens if Rodriguez bombs? Then you're stuck in a corner.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on May 26, 2015 11:12:19 GMT -5
I think it was McAdam or Bradford. Jimed. I think it was on Comcast last night. They always bringing this crap up.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on May 26, 2015 12:33:26 GMT -5
Heard Farrell on Power Alley on XM and he said Sandaval is considering hitting lefty only.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 26, 2015 12:44:40 GMT -5
Seems like there's a ton of debate about results versus analytical statistics. ........ The heck with luck, etc. After awhile a team makes its own luck. With all these analytical stats, the only one that truly matters is the most simple one, winning percentage, and right now the Red Sox' winning percentage isn't that sturdy. Hopefully that changes over the remainder of the season. It certainly can happen, but they're not exactly instilling me with a ton of confidence. Are you kidding me? After all the time you have spent on here, you even mention winning percentage?
On the contrary, the only one that truly DOES NOT matter is the most simple one, winning percentage. How did you slip through the cracks in the company screening process? Team winning percentage doesn't matter? What world do you live in? The real world that I live it exists where teams play to win real ballgames, and real (not virtual or statistically should be) results actually matter. So if you think the team should go 90-72 based on analytics, but winds up 83-79 in the real world, that's more important to you? At some point you are what your record says you are. That's the point I was trying to make. Not so sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If I'm wrong about that, then what the hell are the Red Sox playing for? If the Sox have the best winning percentage in their division, they're going to the playoff as division champions. If they win more games than their opponent in each playoff round, they'll be hoisting a World Championship trophy. Again, what's so difficult about understanding this? Christ, I didn't say that pitcher's W/L record is how you analyze pitching performance. Never even remotely indicated that thought if that's what you're thinking by your over-the-top reaction. At some point I get tired of hearing how if the starting pitcher gives up 7 runs in 2 innings, which has happened way more often than it should, especially in an era where the hitters don't dominate anymore, that it's just that darn BABIP luck, etc. It rings hollow after awhile. But hey, if watching the pitchers get knocked out in the 2nd inning floats your boat and it pains you too much to say the pitcher was ineffective, then more power to you.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 26, 2015 12:46:56 GMT -5
I heard they were ready to bring up Rodriguez but Wright had a great start so they held off. I don't know what they do know but McAdam said maybe he takes Kelly's spot. Kelly may get one more start. I think Kelly will be useful in the bullpen if he doesn't pan out. I think that's a mistake. So what happens if Rodriguez bombs? Then you're stuck in a corner. You're always so against the Red Sox strategy of hoarding depth, but now that a legit prospect is making a push and an unproven veteran isn't really nailing down his spot, you're terrified of losing that depth? Brian Johnson is still around, Henry Owens has been pitching better (albeit with too many walks to make me comfortable), I'm pretty happy with Wright in the rotation long term. Plus there are out-of-organization options. If the team thinks Rodriguez is ready then they should promote him. From there it's just a matter of whether he should replace Kelly or Wright. There are fair arguments for either. Also, using someone athletic like Kelly (or Masterson, for that matter, or Wright) as a swingman is probably a good use of his skills. Players used to move between the bullpen and rotation pretty frequently up until 15-20 years ago. EDIT: Perhaps the idea needs to be reframed. Instead of thinking of it as Kelly losing his spot in the rotation and Rodriguez being next in line, suppose the Red Sox feel strongly that Rodriguez is very good and ready to contribute right now. Has Joe Kelly done anything to make you think he should stand in the way? His inputs are, at best, average. So even if the outputs catch up with that, the idea that Rodriguez is a better pitcher isn't crazy.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on May 26, 2015 13:06:48 GMT -5
You're always so against the Red Sox strategy of hoarding depth, but now that a legit prospect is making a push and an unproven veteran isn't really nailing down his spot, you're terrified of losing that depth? Brian Johnson is still around, Henry Owens has been pitching better (albeit with too many walks to make me comfortable), I'm pretty happy with Wright in the rotation long term. Plus there are out-of-organization options. If the team thinks Rodriguez is ready then they should promote him. From there it's just a matter of whether he should replace Kelly or Wright. There are fair arguments for either. Also, using someone athletic like Kelly (or Masterson, for that matter, or Wright) as a swingman is probably a good use of his skills. Players used to move between the bullpen and rotation pretty frequently up until 15-20 years ago. EDIT: Perhaps the idea needs to be reframed. Instead of think of it being Kelly losing his spot in the rotation and Rodriguez being next in line, suppose the Red Sox feel strongly that Rodriguez is very good and ready to contribute right now. Has Joe Kelly done anything to make you think he should stand in the way? I don't believe Rodriguez is ready to contribute. I would be much more inclined to bring up Johnson before Rodriguez, who needs to demonstrate better pitches against right-handed batters and has not been as effective in May as he was in April. I'd like to wait until the all-star break (at least) for Rodriguez. I'm in no hurry to dump Wright or Kelly from the rotation; I'd like to see Carl Willis' input into Dr. Kelly and Mr. Hyde before we toss him off into the bullpen.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on May 26, 2015 13:18:50 GMT -5
You're always so against the Red Sox strategy of hoarding depth, but now that a legit prospect is making a push and an unproven veteran isn't really nailing down his spot, you're terrified of losing that depth? Brian Johnson is still around, Henry Owens has been pitching better (albeit with too many walks to make me comfortable), I'm pretty happy with Wright in the rotation long term. Plus there are out-of-organization options. If the team thinks Rodriguez is ready then they should promote him. From there it's just a matter of whether he should replace Kelly or Wright. There are fair arguments for either. Also, using someone athletic like Kelly (or Masterson, for that matter, or Wright) as a swingman is probably a good use of his skills. Players used to move between the bullpen and rotation pretty frequently up until 15-20 years ago. EDIT: Perhaps the idea needs to be reframed. Instead of think of it being Kelly losing his spot in the rotation and Rodriguez being next in line, suppose the Red Sox feel strongly that Rodriguez is very good and ready to contribute right now. Has Joe Kelly done anything to make you think he should stand in the way? I don't believe Rodriguez is ready to contribute. I would be much more inclined to bring up Johnson before Rodriguez, who needs to demonstrate better pitches against right-handed batters and has not been as effective in May as he was in April. I'd like to wait until the all-star break (at least) for Rodriguez. I'm in no hurry to dump Wright or Kelly from the rotation; I'd like to see Carl Willis' input into Dr. Kelly and Mr. Hyde before we toss him off into the bullpen. This
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on May 26, 2015 13:33:39 GMT -5
@scottlauber: Farrell used word "interesting" about Sandoval batting left vs lefty yesterday. #RedSox have discussed it, but ultimately player's choice
|
|
|