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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 31, 2015 15:35:06 GMT -5
“@scottlauber: Hanley says shoulder injury occurred on a throw from left field. First told team about it during series in Detroit in early August #RedSox”
“@ianmbrowne: Hanley Ramirez said his right shoulder has bothered him for weeks. Finally an explanation for him losing all production at plate.”
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 31, 2015 15:46:21 GMT -5
If you don't want to use WAR then come up with something other than "I think relief pitchers are just as valuable as starting pitchers" as your argument. WAR is the stat that was invented so you could actually compare them. And it makes total sense that an average #3 starting pitcher is worth more than the best relief pitcher in the league. That's why they get paid almost twice as much. Hell, #5 pitchers get as much as all but the best closers. Papelbon got moved to closer only because he couldn't hack it as a starter. Eckersly said the same thing earlier this year during a broadcast. I don't want to get in the middle of this debate because it's far more complicated than you guys are making it out to be (and this isn't the first time it has been debated on these forums) but this emboldened statement hurts your argument. Papelbon requested to be the closer because he likes being a closer (he was a closer for Mississippi State) and at the time the team desperately needed a closer as Foulke was struggling coming back from injury. Up to that point he was considered a mid-rotation starting pitching prospect who only had a few appearances out of the bullpen out of necessity.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 31, 2015 16:10:35 GMT -5
If you don't want to use WAR then come up with something other than "I think relief pitchers are just as valuable as starting pitchers" as your argument. WAR is the stat that was invented so you could actually compare them. And it makes total sense that an average #3 starting pitcher is worth more than the best relief pitcher in the league. That's why they get paid almost twice as much. Hell, #5 pitchers get as much as all but the best closers. Papelbon got moved to closer only because he couldn't hack it as a starter. Eckersly said the same thing earlier this year during a broadcast. I don't want to get in the middle of this debate because it's far more complicated than you guys are making it out to be (and this isn't the first time it has been debated on these forums) but this emboldened statement hurts your argument. Papelbon requested to be the closer because he likes being a closer (he was a closer for Mississippi State) and at the time the team desperately needed a closer as Foulke was struggling coming back from injury. Up to that point he was considered a mid-rotation starting pitching prospect who only had a few appearances out of the bullpen out of necessity. I think you're conflating two points in time (in a way that doesn't hurt your argument though). I think he was moved to the bullpen at first in 2005 because they needed him for the reasons you mention. Foulke was basically toast from the 2004 playoffs (I will never stop saying he should have been the WS MVP). They finally shut him down in July and turned to Schilling (I think he was the one who requested to try closing, as he was coming back from injury and the team needed a closer more than another starter). That failed, and Papelbon, who had made three spot starts but had been moved to the bullpen in Pawtucket I think came up and was lights out setting up Timlin the rest of the way. In 2006, he had a shoulder subluxation near the end of the year and the team worried about his usage. They brought him into camp preparing to start him in 2007 (as the number 4 behind Dice-K, Beckett, and Schilling) but he preferred to close and the team realized it was better off with him there than one of Julian Tavarez, Timlin, Brendan Donnelly, or Joel Pineiro. (WaPo article: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201287.html)
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 31, 2015 17:26:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Sept 1, 2015 8:38:24 GMT -5
I don't want to get in the middle of this debate because it's far more complicated than you guys are making it out to be Yup, all the statheads are idiots and it takes a bright baseball mind like yours to truly understand the value of a relief pitcher. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 1, 2015 9:18:22 GMT -5
I don't want to get in the middle of this debate because it's far more complicated than you guys are making it out to be Yup, all the statheads are idiots and it takes a bright baseball mind like yours to truly understand the value of a relief pitcher. Got it. This is unnecessarily abrasive. Tone it down.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 1, 2015 17:43:36 GMT -5
Michael Dyer mike_Dyer13 6m6 minutes ago Dombrowski on MLB Network: 'Guy who can "head rotation" is the off-season priority' 'We view Hanley as our 1B in 2016, Shaw a fallback'
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 1, 2015 21:44:37 GMT -5
Michael Dyer mike_Dyer13 6m6 minutes ago Dombrowski on MLB Network: 'Guy who can "head rotation" is the off-season priority' 'We view Hanley as our 1B in 2016, Shaw a fallback'So, that would mean something like this (at least if I had my way): Mookie JBJ Pedroia Papi Xander Hanley Castillo Catcher Panda I'm not sure how Shaw would fit in here. I doubt he'd get many ABs in place of Hanley at first and he doesn't fit in as an occasional Papi replacement against LHP. And yes, I would bat Panda ninth. He's the worst hitter in that lineup with the possible exception of the catcher, depending on who that catcher is.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 1, 2015 22:57:48 GMT -5
Michael Dyer mike_Dyer13 6m6 minutes ago Dombrowski on MLB Network: 'Guy who can "head rotation" is the off-season priority' 'We view Hanley as our 1B in 2016, Shaw a fallback'So, that would mean something like this (at least if I had my way): Mookie JBJ Pedroia Papi Xander Hanley Castillo Catcher Panda I'm not sure how Shaw would fit in here. I doubt he'd get many ABs in place of Hanley at first and he doesn't fit in as an occasional Papi replacement against LHP. And yes, I would bat Panda ninth. He's the worst hitter in that lineup with the possible exception of the catcher, depending on who that catcher is. Don't mind this if we can land a true ace. If not what are the chances that the Sox take a run at somebody like Votto??? (Asuming that they could unload Hanley). Either way the bullpen has to be attended to first and foremost.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 1, 2015 23:12:59 GMT -5
WHO MANAGES THIS TEAM NEXT YEAR? kinda a cruel thing to talk about with Farrell being sick and all, but? Farrell, Lovelo, Other?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 2, 2015 1:48:57 GMT -5
If you don't want to use WAR then come up with something other than "I think relief pitchers are just as valuable as starting pitchers" as your argument. WAR is the stat that was invented so you could actually compare them. And it makes total sense that an average #3 starting pitcher is worth more than the best relief pitcher in the league. That's why they get paid almost twice as much. Hell, #5 pitchers get as much as all but the best closers. Papelbon got moved to closer only because he couldn't hack it as a starter. Eckersly said the same thing earlier this year during a broadcast. I don't want to get in the middle of this debate because it's far more complicated than you guys are making it out to be (and this isn't the first time it has been debated on these forums) but this emboldened statement hurts your argument. Papelbon requested to be the closer because he likes being a closer (he was a closer for Mississippi State) and at the time the team desperately needed a closer as Foulke was struggling coming back from injury. Up to that point he was considered a mid-rotation starting pitching prospect who only had a few appearances out of the bullpen out of necessity. Yeah, the actual truth of the situation is that the team decided to move him to the rotation even though they thought he'd be a great closer, because they thought he would be a good starter, who would therefore be easily more valuable. I think it's fair to say they were psyched about him as a starter. (I spent that winter, BTW, trying to talk them into using Wakefield as the closer, on the off chance he would be up to it physically.) Even though the 3 runs given up in a 3-2 loss are just as damaging in retrospect no matter when they happen, you still have to factor in leverage, because the manager can choose to use relievers in situations where run prevention has a disproportionate influence on winning. The opposite effect, however, is that the many games that are won or lost because the SP is very good or very bad and the game is never close are much less dramatic and hence less memorable than blown saves, or dramatic ones with inherited runners, elite hitters up, and/or more than 3 outs recorded. Because the games that turn dramatically on relief efforts are much rarer, our brains automatically highlight them more, since most rare things are extra valuable: gold, or food during a famine. But in this case the rarity of these games makes them less important. Another thing that lessens the apparent extra weight of high-leverage innings is the chaining effect. If you lose a closer and replace him with a replacement-level reliever, the new guy is not taking the old guy's innings. The team's second-best-reliever takes the closer's innings, the old 7th inning guy pitcher's the 8th, and so on. It cuts the effective leverage of the closer in half, roughly.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 3, 2015 22:31:09 GMT -5
Michael Dyer mike_Dyer13 6m6 minutes ago Dombrowski on MLB Network: 'Guy who can "head rotation" is the off-season priority' 'We view Hanley as our 1B in 2016, Shaw a fallback'So, that would mean something like this (at least if I had my way): Mookie JBJ Pedroia Papi Xander Hanley Castillo Catcher Panda I'm not sure how Shaw would fit in here. I doubt he'd get many ABs in place of Hanley at first and he doesn't fit in as an occasional Papi replacement against LHP. And yes, I would bat Panda ninth. He's the worst hitter in that lineup with the possible exception of the catcher, depending on who that catcher is. Nice lineup. Does any body know why they have sandavol hitting second now?
|
|
|
Post by brycejhao on Sept 4, 2015 4:42:58 GMT -5
Lovullo said that after the discussion, there will be some interchanging the remainder of the season. It appears we will see Castillo playing more left and Betts playing some right, all in the name of trying to find the best alignment for 2016.
It seems the best alignment would be Castillo in left, Bradley in center, and Betts in right. That is likely the alignment that will win out when all the experimentation is done.
Castillo will have to learn The Wall, but his speed and athleticism will allow him to cover the ground. Bradley is the best center fielder in baseball and that’s where he should be. Betts can cover the vast ground in right with his speed.
Will the outfield of Castillo in left , Bradley in center and Betts in right work out? Is Betts's weak arm a barrier for him to take over right field well?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Sept 4, 2015 6:48:27 GMT -5
I think JBJ's bat isn't a sure thing still. The strikeouts are concerning and he's not going to keep hitting for nearly as much power. He's going to be a solid player at least, but he's not the type of person that would make me feel ok about trading Betts. I'd prefer to keep both though.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 4, 2015 10:15:49 GMT -5
Lovullo said that after the discussion, there will be some interchanging the remainder of the season. It appears we will see Castillo playing more left and Betts playing some right, all in the name of trying to find the best alignment for 2016. It seems the best alignment would be Castillo in left, Bradley in center, and Betts in right. That is likely the alignment that will win out when all the experimentation is done. Castillo will have to learn The Wall, but his speed and athleticism will allow him to cover the ground. Bradley is the best center fielder in baseball and that’s where he should be. Betts can cover the vast ground in right with his speed. Will the outfield of Castillo in left , Bradley in center and Betts in right work out? Is Betts's weak arm a barrier for him to take over right field well? I and several others have been taking about this alignment for a while. The arm is icing on the cake not the cake. The ability to turn gap shots that would be doubles and turning them into outs instead far surpass the arm aspect of it. Unless someone has a noodle of an arm to many fans overrate this aspect of outfield defense. Besides Betts arm is solid, JBJ has a cannon that's accurate and Castillo has a good arm too.
|
|
|
Post by brycejhao on Sept 4, 2015 11:22:13 GMT -5
Betts is rated only 45 in arm by the scouting report,so I don't think he has enough arm to throw to the third base or home base to make the second out.I think it's better to have the rightfielder who's arm at least 55.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Sept 5, 2015 7:27:53 GMT -5
Mookie obv has an average arm that is accurate with a quick release. Not ideal for right, but id prefer mookie and his work ethic in LF working on knowing the wall
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 5, 2015 9:52:20 GMT -5
Lovullo said that after the discussion, there will be some interchanging the remainder of the season. It appears we will see Castillo playing more left and Betts playing some right, all in the name of trying to find the best alignment for 2016. It seems the best alignment would be Castillo in left, Bradley in center, and Betts in right. That is likely the alignment that will win out when all the experimentation is done. Castillo will have to learn The Wall, but his speed and athleticism will allow him to cover the ground. Bradley is the best center fielder in baseball and that’s where he should be. Betts can cover the vast ground in right with his speed. Will the outfield of Castillo in left , Bradley in center and Betts in right work out? Is Betts's weak arm a barrier for him to take over right field well? To expand on points m1keyboots made ... Castillo is a plus defensive CFer. Betts may be even better, but the difference between them is small (DRS figures peg them both at about +7 R / 150 games in "plays made" (range)). Put them both in RF in Fenway for a year, and how many balls will Betts catch that Castillo will miss? One, perhaps. Two at most. It could be zero. The difference in throwing, though, is huge. Castillo has a great arm. It's going to more than offset any difference in range. Meanwhile, Betts appears to be a muscle-memory savant while Castillo's only defensive shortcoming is poor baseball instincts. (Mookie plays like the 27 year-old and Rusney like the 23-y/o). Mookie's likely to learn the quirks of the Monster much faster than Rusney. Mookie has a quick release and an accurate arm. It's a perfect arm for LF and will be a force in Fenway. And that's just Fenway. On the road, where you don't have a huge RF that requires CF range, the RF difference between Castillo and Betts will be even bigger.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Sept 5, 2015 10:08:23 GMT -5
Lovullo said that after the discussion, there will be some interchanging the remainder of the season. It appears we will see Castillo playing more left and Betts playing some right, all in the name of trying to find the best alignment for 2016. It seems the best alignment would be Castillo in left, Bradley in center, and Betts in right. That is likely the alignment that will win out when all the experimentation is done. Castillo will have to learn The Wall, but his speed and athleticism will allow him to cover the ground. Bradley is the best center fielder in baseball and that’s where he should be. Betts can cover the vast ground in right with his speed. Will the outfield of Castillo in left , Bradley in center and Betts in right work out? Is Betts's weak arm a barrier for him to take over right field well? To expand on points m1keyboots made ... Castillo is a plus defensive CFer. Betts may be even better, but the difference between them is small (DRS figures peg them both at about +7 R / 150 games in "plays made" (range)). Put them both in RF in Fenway for a year, and how many balls will Betts catch that Castillo will miss? One, perhaps. Two at most. It could be zero. The difference in throwing, though, is huge. Castillo has a great arm. It's going to more than offset any difference in range. Meanwhile, Betts appears to be a muscle-memory savant while Castillo's only defensive shortcoming is poor baseball instincts. (Mookie plays like the 27 year-old and Rusney like the 23-y/o). Mookie's likely to learn the quirks of the Monster much faster than Rusney. Mookie has a quick release and an accurate arm. It's a perfect arm for LF and will be a force in Fenway. And that's just Fenway. On the road, where you don't have a huge RF that requires CF range, the RF difference between Castillo and Betts will be even bigger. Agreed. This seems to me as obvious as it has been all season that Hanley cannot play LF. LF - Mookie, CF - JBJ, RF - Castillo. IMO it took awile for Rusney to get used to right. He seems to be playing better there now. Mookie can handle a switch to LF. The other benefit is this would save a little wear and tear on Mookies legs. He is certainly more of a base stealing threat than JBJ.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
Member is Online
|
Post by gerry on Sept 5, 2015 10:14:41 GMT -5
Sorry, Eric, am a bit more obtuse today than usual. Where would you play them? I am impressed with Castillo playing the wall so far and his two assists from LF, and also by his range in RF and another two assists. We really have three above average center fielders who will make large oitfields small. I think the decisiomay actually come down to the threat of their arms upon base runners and 3b coaches.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
Member is Online
|
Post by gerry on Sept 5, 2015 10:17:06 GMT -5
Sorry, Eric, am a bit more obtuse today than usual. Where would you play them? I am impressed with Castillo playing the wall so far and his two assists from LF, and also by his range in RF and another two assists. We really have three above average center fielders who will make large oitfields small. I think the decisiomay actually come down to the threat of their arms upon base runners and 3b coaches.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
Member is Online
|
Post by gerry on Sept 5, 2015 10:24:47 GMT -5
Hadn't connected the dots until now, but arms lkke Rusney's and JBJ's as well as Vasquez' and Swibart''s plus a faster pace of game by Sox pitchers could dramatically impact how opposing teams approach their running games. The word in 2016 on playing the Sox is to run at your peril, as you will just as likely run into outs whether stealing bases or stretching hits. That could significantly impact scoring, prevent big innings and 'hustle plays.'. Like pre-game throwing a wet blanket, both attitudinally and functionally, on good running teams.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Sept 5, 2015 11:51:21 GMT -5
I think JBJ's bat isn't a sure thing still. The strikeouts are concerning and he's not going to keep hitting for nearly as much power. He's going to be a solid player at least, but he's not the type of person that would make me feel ok about trading Betts. I'd prefer to keep both though. Stranger things have happened
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 5, 2015 12:50:38 GMT -5
I don't have enough info to determine if Castillo's better arm is enough of an advantage over Betts' range in RF. I do feel that Betts' infield experience would make him better suited to charge ground singles and come up throwing (think Yaz) in LF. that OF would be a dream. To paraplagerize a dear friend, "In the past when fly ball was hit, I'd cover my eyes. Now I'm amazed if it hits the ground. "
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Sept 9, 2015 23:07:51 GMT -5
I'd like to throw out a number of ideas (one of which I've articulated before) that I think go together:
1. Prospects are undervalued assets. When you trade prospects, the return is substantially less than the long-term value of the prospects. Obviously this varies from trade to trade, but over the last 15 years, the value of prospects traded by the Red Sox has been more than double the return. When you trade prospects, you are trading away future wins, and future wins traded will, if you make enough trades, exceed the present wins acquired.
2. With two wild cards, one in every three teams will make the playoffs next year. I know there are a lot of posters here who want no part of a one-game playoff, but a division champion only receives a guarantee of two October games more than a wild card team, and has only about a 6 1/2 percent better chance of winning the world series than a wild card. Winning or even competing for the wild card means playing meaningful games in August and September, and that should be the real goal.
3. Most of the names being thrown about on this site -- Chris Sale, Sonny Gray, Carlos Carrasco, Johnny Cueto, David Price -- are all available at retail price. The GM's that we most admire -- Billy Beane, Andrew Friedman -- are masters of acquiring players at wholesale prices. What is the point of hiring a top GM just to pay full market price for a known quantity.
4. The St. Louis Cardinals have, this year, assembled an historically good pitching staff, even though their top pitcher, in terms of WAR, is John Lackey. If a team has great defense -- and the Red Sox right now have great defense -- there lots of ways to create great pitching.
The Red Sox are currently about a 30 WAR team. If they did nothing this off-season, they would probably be a 35 to 40 WAR team based upon (a) improvement from their young core, (b) regression from Porcello, Ramirez and Sandoval and (c) other unanticipated stuff going wrong. that's a contender for a wild card.
If they can obtain another 5 to 7 WAR -- a starting pitcher and some bullpen arms -- they are a wild card team, maybe a bit more. This can probably be achieved without parting with any of Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley Jr., Castillo, Swihart, Moncada, Devers, Benintendi or Espinoza or even Margot or Guerra.
|
|
|