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.
6/29-7/2 Red Sox @ Blue Jays Series Thread
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 29, 2015 21:26:21 GMT -5
Pitching terribly with men on and terrifically with men on may well have some transient mental component, but it's not predictive and should be ignored when evaluating pitchers. I don't agree with this at all. There are definitely some pitchers who struggle from the stretch, whether because they are able to stay balanced or keep their timing in the windup, or because they tip their pitches, or their landing gets screwed up... any number of things. Zack Greinke struggled for years from the stretch, until the Dodgers figured it out. Rick Porcello's rate stats are so much worse over a long period with men on that I have serious concerns there. That doesn't mean it's not fixable, but it's certainly a thing to be considered With Buchholz, I'm more concerned about the durability. The 101 innings he's up to is already the fifth-highest total of his career, and only seven innings behind the fourth most. The only other season when he was this effective was 2013, and that basically ended in mid-June.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 29, 2015 21:29:46 GMT -5
Seems like when Leon is catching our pitching staff is giving up less than four runs per game and isn't Leon among the league leaders in catching potential base stealers? Both those things are mostly explained by the fact that he's Clay Buchholz's personal catcher, and Buchholz is (a) by far the best pitcher on the staff and (b) one of their two starters who can control the running game (the other is Miley).
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 29, 2015 21:38:06 GMT -5
fWARs are lower because of park effects. Fenway is a much friendlier home ballpark than SF and LA. And Sandoval especially was expected to get a big boost to his slash line as a result. Whys that? Sandoval has always hit well in SF (career OPS = .854) despite the ballpark effects, and performed worse away from home (career OPS = .760).
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 29, 2015 21:40:50 GMT -5
Hey would you look at that 2 in a row. 8-5 since the 7 game losing streak.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 29, 2015 21:41:44 GMT -5
Seems like when Leon is catching our pitching staff is giving up less than four runs per game and isn't Leon among the league leaders in catching potential base stealers? Both those things are mostly explained by the fact that he's Clay Buchholz's personal catcher, and Buchholz is (a) by far the best pitcher on the staff and (b) one of their two starters who can control the running game (the other is Miley). Exactly! Buchholz almost always pitches when Leon catches. So if Leon catches more then it only stands to reason that Buchholz will pitch more. Imagine if Leon could get Buchholz to pitch four out of five games instead of only one in five. The only problem is that when Leon is in the lineup against lefties, David Ortiz doesn't usually do very well. Maybe they can have Cespedes catch Buchholz on the days when lefties are pitching? Or would Buchholz not pitch those games? Does that mean Buchholz shouldn't pitch against lefties?
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jun 29, 2015 21:44:43 GMT -5
looks like Sox are on the hook for $250,000 for Kratz, remainder of the year, unless he makes it back to a 40-man roster. He's FA.
that was an expensive 2 games.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 29, 2015 21:49:12 GMT -5
I would add: (3) Those who note that he had a 3.19 xFIP and 5.73 ERA in his first 7 starts, and a 3.18 xFIP and 2.13 ERA in his subsequent 9, and wonder WTF you're talking about. Pitching terribly with men on and terrifically with men on may well have some transient mental component, but it's not predictive and should be ignored when evaluating pitchers. In evaluating pitchers or in predicting their future performance? Those two aren't orthogonal, but they are not the same thing "Evaluating pitchers" in order to make roster decisions, which was the implied context given the Cafardo reference. In which case, they are the same. Agreed, in evaluating pitchers to vote for the CY, etc., they can be quite different.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jun 29, 2015 21:51:48 GMT -5
...Borderline ace or great #2 -- which, of course, is all that Jon Lester ever was. If there's any doubt about that, Cafardo's first two recommendations to fix the Sox in his column the previous Sunday were 1. Acquire an ace, and 2. Trade Buchholz. ... Very funny and spot on. Statistical variation just escapes many people, Eric. The idea of using estimators that minimize that variation should be easy to understand, but it's not. For a guy like Cafardo simplistic first impressions die hard.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,755
|
Post by nomar on Jun 29, 2015 21:55:42 GMT -5
Not too important at this point but Baltimore and Tampa also lost tonight. Getting a game on at least three of our division rivals feels good.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 29, 2015 22:05:02 GMT -5
(Of course, the better he pitches, the more the back of my brain is thiking "sell high." But that's another matter...) Same as you! I would have a tough time dealing Buchholz for three reasons- 1) that xFIP combined with his very affordable contract virtually demands an All Star/near all star return with at least 2.5 years of control, specifically because the deadline is the ultimate sellers' market. But because the numbers of contenders is limited, there may not be an equitable match. 2) Greatest positions of need are starting pitching and likely First Base, unless you believe that Henley will take over there next year.It would seem the Sox have enough 4/5 starters and a 3 is not really fair return for Buchholz who is more like a 3/2 who can trend to a 1 for long stretches of time, but has also looked like a 4/5 on occasion. Bottom line, Sox don't need a couple 5/4s back for a 3/2 with playoff experience, and no one woll give you a 2 or better for him. And make no mistake, trade Buchholz and you will need a good pitcher now and into the next two years at least. Team says they won't pay Ace prices for long term free agents which mean you have to trade for one or develop on - unless you wish to continue with this lovely two 3s and three 5s rotation experiment. The nearest home developed prospect in the minors who looks like he may - may - be more than 4/3 is in A ball right now and will prob take 2-3 more years - best case - to make it to MLB, or he may never even make it at all. 3) As for a first baseman. Which not-past-peak, near all star or better 1st baseman with 2 or more years control remaining would a contending team give up for a guy like Buchholz? It would have to be a AAA phenom or 1st or 2nd year guy who is blocked, or GM who is so hurting for pitching he has to make a move to save his job, and Buchholz looks like the best he can get with what he has and can still remain a contender. Also, have perhaps 10% confidence that Cherrington would make a good deal. The Punto deal, by all accounts, happened at the ownership level. He did very well in the Miller deal. Every other deal has been pretty much meh, although Brock Holt could eventually turn one from a push to a sligh win. So, yeah, for those reasons, I'd hold on to Buchholz
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 29, 2015 22:12:04 GMT -5
Pitching terribly with men on and terrifically with men on may well have some transient mental component, but it's not predictive and should be ignored when evaluating pitchers. This is not true - I compared the difference in K%-BB% for men on vs. bases empty for pitchers with 20+ GS in the past 10 years and found a positive correlation of about 0.30 between the split in year n and the split in year n+1. Exhibit A: Rick Porcello. He's been terrible with men on for his entire career. (Whether there is a mental component, or some pitchers are just better/worse pitching from the stretch, I can't say.)
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 29, 2015 22:15:53 GMT -5
looks like Sox are on the hook for $250,000 for Kratz, remainder of the year, unless he makes it back to a 40-man roster. He's FA. that was an expensive 2 games. I have a hard time believing that. If he had accepted the assignment to Pawtucket, sure, but electing free agency surely means that you waive your right to the salary, non?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 29, 2015 22:16:39 GMT -5
Pitching terribly with men on and terrifically with men on may well have some transient mental component, but it's not predictive and should be ignored when evaluating pitchers. I don't agree with this at all. There are definitely some pitchers who struggle from the stretch, whether because they are able to stay balanced or keep their timing in the windup, or because they tip their pitches, or their landing gets screwed up... any number of things. Zack Greinke struggled for years from the stretch, until the Dodgers figured it out. Rick Porcello's rate stats are so much worse over a long period with men on that I have serious concerns there. That doesn't mean it's not fixable, but it's certainly a thing to be considered I almost put in a line saying that there were career differences (or differences over a distinct chunk of career) that were real, and that you shouldn't pay attention to short term fluctuations and instead assume that the difference between ERA- and xFIP- should be expected to regress to career (or a version of that, regressed towards zero depending on career IP). But I realized that the game had already started while I was typing that post! And furthermore, Buchholz may be a strange and freaky exception. I found what I believe to be hard-core evidence for a BABIP skill in 2010, when he somehow combined a 4.27 SIERA and 79.0% LOB% to produce a 2.33 ERA. And over the course of his career, his BABIP and LOB% are inversely correlated (r = .87, p = .002. If you remove '07, it's .89, .003).
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jun 29, 2015 22:29:02 GMT -5
looks like Sox are on the hook for $250,000 for Kratz, remainder of the year, unless he makes it back to a 40-man roster. He's FA. that was an expensive 2 games. I have a hard time believing that. If he had accepted the assignment to Pawtucket, sure, but electing free agency surely means that you waive your right to the salary, non? I don't know any more. u may be right. Allen Craig: "Craig would have to forfeit his remaining salary if he declined his outright to AAA." Kratz is in the same situation ... less than 5 years of service. I always thought they were guaranteed the minimum once the season started. Guess it isn't true.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 29, 2015 23:13:22 GMT -5
And furthermore, Buchholz may be a strange and freaky exception. I found what I believe to be hard-core evidence for a BABIP skill in 2010, when he somehow combined a 4.27 SIERA and 79.0% LOB% to produce a 2.33 ERA. And over the course of his career, his BABIP and LOB% are inversely correlated (r = .87, p = .002. If you remove '07, it's .89, .003). Of course, since high LOB% is good, this is to be expected. More in a bit ...
|
|
|
Post by sox1fan on Jun 30, 2015 1:11:58 GMT -5
Xander needs to get his lower half more involved if he's going to find his power stroke and start getting pitched around more often. He's been very good though so I'll accept that as a gradual process. Good to see Mookie go oppo one AB then drive a triple into the gap the next. Was nervous that he was falling back into a slump. From here on tonight I'll be rooting Bradley on extra hard. Kid needs a hit to get some confidence going. He's striking out a lot which is disappointing. I'm wondering if it might make sense for JBJ to lay a few down, use his speed and beat out a few bunts. Get some confidence under his belt. He just needs to string together a few hits, and I think he will be fine. His swing doesn't look as long as last year, but he is still rolling over on ground balls to 2B too much for my taste. It looks like he needs a bit of uppercut to his swing, so he can get the ball at least elevated slightly. If he elevates it, he may find some gaps, or at least the OF, possible. Still, though, love what his defense brings. The strike to home plate on Sunday (even though the game was over) really shows off his ++ arm.[/quote]
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 30, 2015 1:21:46 GMT -5
Pitching terribly with men on and terrifically with men on may well have some transient mental component, but it's not predictive and should be ignored when evaluating pitchers. This is not true - I compared the difference in K%-BB% for men on vs. bases empty for pitchers with 20+ GS in the past 10 years and found a positive correlation of about 0.30 between the split in year n and the split in year n+1. Exhibit A: Rick Porcello. He's been terrible with men on for his entire career. (Whether there is a mental component, or some pitchers are just better/worse pitching from the stretch, I can't say.) OTOH, high LOB% in a given year is: 17.7% low BABIP 12.3% low xFIP- 3.1% low HR/FB 1.6% previous year's LOB difference from that predicted by the above three factors 65.8% luck or whatever That's for the average pitcher. Of course, what you found is that 9% of that year-to-year split is real.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 30, 2015 2:03:40 GMT -5
OTOH, high LOB% in a given year is: 17.7% low BABIP 12.3% low xFIP- 3.1% low HR/FB 1.6% previous year's LOB difference from that predicted by the above three factors 65.8% luck or whatever That's for the average pitcher. Of course, what you found is that 9% of that year-to-year split is real. Without having studied this in-depth enough to back it up with numbers, I'm inclined to believe that for most pitchers it's basically random (e.g. Joe Kelly, who did better with men on before coming to the Sox and worse since) and a couple, like Porcello, have a real talent split (above and beyond the baseline, which is slightly worse performance with men on).
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Jun 30, 2015 6:16:52 GMT -5
And Sandoval especially was expected to get a big boost to his slash line as a result. Whys that? Sandoval has always hit well in SF (career OPS = .854) despite the ballpark effects, and performed worse away from home (career OPS = .760). Because players almost always perform better at home. Looking at road splits to try to determine performance at a new location is a waste of time. Look at Matt Holliday
|
|
|
Post by sox1fan on Jun 30, 2015 7:29:14 GMT -5
Why do you think that no one in the media ever ran this ground? Particularly with the season that Donaldson has had to date, and the struggles of Sandoval (more defensively, as offensively, he seems to be nearing his career averages)? I'm sure Shaughnessy and/or Cafardo did it. But it's dumb to expect your team to simply trade for a specific player. It's not like going to a store and making a purchase. The majority of the teams in the league should have traded for Donaldson. The second guessing based on bad results is out of control. Signing Ramirez and Sandoval were pretty much universally liked and all of baseball expected the Red Sox to have the best hitting team in baseball. Because it didn't work out that way does not mean that the decisions were wrong at the time they were made. Interesting that the day after I post on SP why the media never ran the Donaldson story to ground, we get this: www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2015/06/red_sox_wanted_josh_donaldson_before_signing_pabloFurther interesting that the A's stated Donaldson wasn't available at the time the Sox asked. Seems likely it's correct to assume that teh A's targeted a specific player and it was a private marketplace for the deal.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 30, 2015 8:51:28 GMT -5
Clay Buchholz is flat out having a better season than Jon Lester. Time to start calling him what he is - our Ace.
Maybe we'll finally stop hearing about people complaining we should've re-signed Lester. Not re-signing him was the RIGHT move!
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 30, 2015 9:17:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 30, 2015 9:34:31 GMT -5
Haha, that's great.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 30, 2015 9:45:13 GMT -5
I saw that last night and I thought..... New avatar.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 30, 2015 11:24:23 GMT -5
I've never been a Buchholz fan but he is starting to change my opinion of him. All things considered, this might turn out to be his most impressive season. But to completely change my mind - which hardly is important - he has to keep it going.
|
|
|