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.
David Ortiz - most impactful acquisition in Red Sox history?
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 16, 2015 8:55:43 GMT -5
Thing about Ortiz was that he did so much damage to other teams at a reasonable cost to his own team. Manny was a great hitter, but he was never good value. Remember when he passed through irrevocable waivers? Every other great Sox position player wasn't a major league acquisition in the way I interpret the title ... But Pedro may even be underrated for his effect on the franchise. The team of the 90s was pretty moribund. I mean, Mo Vaughn was nice and all, but ... I remember going to a game in mid-90s, getting a cheap ticket at game time and grabbing an empty seat just behind home plate. Saw the game 5 rows behind homeplate for a few bucks. Pedro (along with Nomar) really put the Red Sox on the map again in a new way, made Fenway a really exciting place to be. And while not as embedded in the community as Ortiz, he has that special connection with the city that's hard to quantify. Of course, it doesn't really seem like it now, but in the sweep of the history of the Red Sox, it's notable that the two most popular players of the last 15 years of Sox history (and two of the most popular in the team's history) have been Dominican. And I'm not sure there's ever been a Sox player as universally beloved in Boston as Big Papi. Maybe Yaz? Certainly not Williams. That's not even close, but it's because of the World Series wins. Yaz hit a foul popup. Ortiz didn't. Not very fair to Yaz, but it's what people remember most. |
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 16, 2015 12:20:58 GMT -5
the best flier on an unknown yes. manny ramirez is best free agent of all time. i love big papi but manny was a beast in boston. keep in mind though that when they picked up ortiz minny had released him due to his supposed lack of hr power they thought of him as warning track power guy. turns out they were so wrong. in boston hitting in front of manny he became a 30 hr hitter and lead us to 3 world series. i love big papi is one of the 10 greatest hitters in sox history but manny in his time here was a better free agent sign The Red Sox got great production out of Manny for 7.5 years, but the Sox have been getting fantastic production out of Ortiz for 13 seasons and still counting. That in itself is more valuable. Then when you factor in all the big moments Ortiz had that nobody else, even Manny, really didn't have. Let's see - Manny was World Series MVP, although nobody was really certain why. He nearly cost the Sox Game 1. He did hit a game winning HR off K-Rod in ALDS Game 2 in 2007, and he had the difference making HR in Game 5 of the 2003 ALDS, but he didn't have those moments that Ortiz did. I will say more of the Manny moments were pretty hillarious at times, but the fact of the matter is that at times Manny's otherworldly offense was overshadowed by poor defense and a lot of the aggravation he caused the team. Ortiz has a pretty big ego - that's plain to see, but he never caused problems the way Manny did. I'd say Ortiz is the best free agent acquisition of all-time for the Sox. Even more so than Manny. I don't think it's fair to use manny's defense against him when Ortiz barely played defense for the sox. |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 16, 2015 12:45:46 GMT -5
The Red Sox got great production out of Manny for 7.5 years, but the Sox have been getting fantastic production out of Ortiz for 13 seasons and still counting. That in itself is more valuable. Then when you factor in all the big moments Ortiz had that nobody else, even Manny, really didn't have. Let's see - Manny was World Series MVP, although nobody was really certain why. He nearly cost the Sox Game 1. He did hit a game winning HR off K-Rod in ALDS Game 2 in 2007, and he had the difference making HR in Game 5 of the 2003 ALDS, but he didn't have those moments that Ortiz did. I will say more of the Manny moments were pretty hillarious at times, but the fact of the matter is that at times Manny's otherworldly offense was overshadowed by poor defense and a lot of the aggravation he caused the team. Ortiz has a pretty big ego - that's plain to see, but he never caused problems the way Manny did. I'd say Ortiz is the best free agent acquisition of all-time for the Sox. Even more so than Manny. I don't think it's fair to use manny's defense against him when Ortiz barely played defense for the sox. Fair enough, but my overall point still stands. The Sox were quite willing to dump Ramirez after the 2003 season because of his "issues". Any team could have taken his contract. That's how much they felt his attitude, poor defense in LF - he wouldn't have gotten quite as big a contract if he had been strictly a DH, and his lack of hustle (I remember reading that the FO actually documented how many times he didn't hustle and estimated how many runs it cost them), mitigated his mighty offensive prowess somewhat. Enough to the point when you look at what the Sox were paying Manny for his production (and yes, Manny was worth his contract) and what the Sox have paid Ortiz for his production all this time, Papi has to be one of the biggest bargains of all-time. |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 16, 2015 12:56:53 GMT -5
Thing about Ortiz was that he did so much damage to other teams at a reasonable cost to his own team. Manny was a great hitter, but he was never good value. Remember when he passed through irrevocable waivers? Every other great Sox position player wasn't a major league acquisition in the way I interpret the title ... But Pedro may even be underrated for his effect on the franchise. The team of the 90s was pretty moribund. I mean, Mo Vaughn was nice and all, but ... I remember going to a game in mid-90s, getting a cheap ticket at game time and grabbing an empty seat just behind home plate. Saw the game 5 rows behind homeplate for a few bucks. Pedro (along with Nomar) really put the Red Sox on the map again in a new way, made Fenway a really exciting place to be. And while not as embedded in the community as Ortiz, he has that special connection with the city that's hard to quantify. Of course, it doesn't really seem like it now, but in the sweep of the history of the Red Sox, it's notable that the two most popular players of the last 15 years of Sox history (and two of the most popular in the team's history) have been Dominican. And I'm not sure there's ever been a Sox player as universally beloved in Boston as Big Papi. Maybe Yaz? Certainly not Williams. That's not even close, but it's because of the World Series wins. Yaz hit a foul popup. Ortiz didn't. Not very fair to Yaz, but it's what people remember most. I think Pedro was more universally loved than Ortiz is. Yaz became a huge fan favorite, too, over time. Williams was always revered and talked about the way we talk about Pedro and his feats. The word "impact" is a tough word to evaluate. If you look at post-season Ortiz has been an impactful as one can be. On the other hand, Yaz didn't have nearly as many opportunities, and Williams had even less chances, and the one Series he got into he was injured. I would say the Sox had a Ted Williams era (1939 - 1960), a Carl Yastrzemski era (1961 - 1983), a Roger Clemens era (1984 - 1996), a Pedro Martinez/Nomar era (1997 - 2004), and we are in the Ortiz era now (2003 - present). |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 16, 2015 13:10:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 16, 2015 13:39:13 GMT -5
It's good for taking the longevity piece out. Eddie Murray got to 500 but he also had more PAs than anyone else on the list. It's meant to be a way to compare him, as a current player who will continue climbing the list, to players who have retired. By limiting your universe to the 500-HR club, you essentially control how the players were pitched to, since they were all great sluggers, no? By the way, it boggles the mind to realize that Jim Thome got to 600 home runs and is 7th all-time on the list. The guy was "only" a five-time all-star and only won ONE silver slugger. What a strange career in some respects. I mean, he finished in the top 10 in the MVP voting in three seasons in which he did not even make the All-Star Game. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 16, 2015 13:50:45 GMT -5
It's good for taking the longevity piece out. Eddie Murray got to 500 but he also had more PAs than anyone else on the list. It's meant to be a way to compare him, as a current player who will continue climbing the list, to players who have retired. By limiting your universe to the 500-HR club, you essentially control how the players were pitched to, since they were all great sluggers, no? By the way, it boggles the mind to realize that Jim Thome got to 600 home runs and is 7th all-time on the list. The guy was "only" a five-time all-star and only won ONE silver slugger. What a strange career in some respects. I mean, he finished in the top 10 in the MVP voting in three seasons in which he did not even make the All-Star Game. I'd prefer HR/AB, which would accomplish the same thing. Walks are good, but they're penalized in HR/PA. Or even HR/(PA-BB-HBP) if you want to penalize SFs. I mean it's even penalizing IBBs. What can a batter do about them? |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980 
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 16, 2015 14:46:13 GMT -5
.... And I'm not sure there's ever been a Sox player as universally beloved in Boston as Big Papi. Maybe Yaz? Certainly not Williams. With the exception of 67, Yaz was not beloved for most of his first 14 years with the Sox, when he at times seemed like a prima donna. From 75-83 he grew more and more beloved, in part because of his wondrous work ethic, in part because he was not longer expected to carry the team. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 16, 2015 21:40:33 GMT -5
.... And I'm not sure there's ever been a Sox player as universally beloved in Boston as Big Papi. Maybe Yaz? Certainly not Williams. With the exception of 67, Yaz was not beloved for most of his first 14 years with the Sox, when he at times seemed like a prima donna. From 75-83 he grew more and more beloved, in part because of his wondrous work ethic, in part because he was not longer expected to carry the team. Yeah, he started to get booed a lot starting in '69, I think. Starting in '71 and '72 he was definitely booed viciously by a very significant percentage of fans. If you were a Yaz fan it was part of the Fenway experience, and not a pleasant part; these folks absolutely hated and reviled him as the symbol of everything disappointing about the team. What unleashed them was his hitting 4 HR in 141 G / 588 PA from July 18 of '71 to August 15 of '72 -- on that date he was hitting .252 / .345 / .317. Gammons reported that he was playing with a badly injured thumb the whole time. Didn't matter that he hit .285 / .378 / .521 the rest of the way, with 10 HR in 45 G -- people had made their mind up. I think I can recall hearing a bit of of it in '75, but by then it had become an outlier; if you let loose with a "Yaz, you suck!" scream, people now looked at you askance. I don't think it ended entirely until '77, when he went back to LF and won a deserved GG at the age of 27. After that he was a demigod. Very strange (but welcome) transition. Edit: just saw the assertion that Williams was always loved. No way. The sportswriters hated him and wrote trash about him, and a significant percentage of fans, as I understand it, followed suit. They thought he was selfish for taking walks when he should have been trying to knock guys in. He was blamed for the failure of the franchise. There's a reason he never tipped his cap to the fans. |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 16, 2015 23:45:19 GMT -5
Yaz tells a story of how fans were booing him and one day he went out to LF and stuck wads of cotton in his ears to drown out the sounds of the boos. And when there was a pause in the action, he took out the cotton balls, waved them to the crowd, and they started cheering him, and he said they never booed him again after that.
Yaz was my first favorite Sox player. I remember being excited about going to my first game at Fenway on Aug 31st and I was so looking forward to seeing Yaz. Of course, the day before that, he crashed into the wall chasing Jim Essian's liner off the wall and he cracked some ribs which pretty much ended his season as I didn't get to see him the next day. I was fortunate enough to see him in 1981 and 1982, and I'll never forget how special the last two days of his career was.
Now this has nothing to do with anything - but I just realized that Dennis Eckersley was the only guy to play on the same team with Luis Tiant and Pedro Martinez. That's pretty neat, and he when he got dealt to the Cubs, the Sox called up Roger Clemens to take his spot in the rotation, so Eck had direct links with three of the best aces in Red Sox history. Pretty neat.
|
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 17, 2015 1:30:50 GMT -5
It's good for taking the longevity piece out. Eddie Murray got to 500 but he also had more PAs than anyone else on the list. It's meant to be a way to compare him, as a current player who will continue climbing the list, to players who have retired. By limiting your universe to the 500-HR club, you essentially control how the players were pitched to, since they were all great sluggers, no? By the way, it boggles the mind to realize that Jim Thome got to 600 home runs and is 7th all-time on the list. The guy was "only" a five-time all-star and only won ONE silver slugger. What a strange career in some respects. I mean, he finished in the top 10 in the MVP voting in three seasons in which he did not even make the All-Star Game. I'd prefer HR/AB, which would accomplish the same thing. Walks are good, but they're penalized in HR/PA. Or even HR/(PA-BB-HBP) if you want to penalize SFs. I mean it's even penalizing IBBs. What can a batter do about them? A lot of good slugging 1B In the AL in thomes era. |
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Sept 17, 2015 2:38:41 GMT -5
The greatest acquisition was Pedro, but Papi has a lot more longevity. and as much as I love pedro, he never won us a WS |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 17, 2015 5:53:21 GMT -5
The greatest acquisition was Pedro, but Papi has a lot more longevity. and as much as I love pedro, he never won us a WS He certainly helped (with help from Manny and Ortiz and bad Cardinals baserunning). Pedro pitched 7 shutout innings in Game 3 of the 2004 World Series. So he certainly contributed. |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 17, 2015 6:18:38 GMT -5
With the exception of 67, Yaz was not beloved for most of his first 14 years with the Sox, when he at times seemed like a prima donna. From 75-83 he grew more and more beloved, in part because of his wondrous work ethic, in part because he was not longer expected to carry the team. Yeah, he started to get booed a lot starting in '69, I think. Starting in '71 and '72 he was definitely booed viciously by a very significant percentage of fans. If you were a Yaz fan it was part of the Fenway experience, and not a pleasant part; these folks absolutely hated and reviled him as the symbol of everything disappointing about the team. What unleashed them was his hitting 4 HR in 141 G / 588 PA from July 18 of '71 to August 15 of '72 -- on that date he was hitting .252 / .345 / .317. Gammons reported that he was playing with a badly injured thumb the whole time. Didn't matter that he hit .285 / .378 / .521 the rest of the way, with 10 HR in 45 G -- people had made their mind up. ... It was a wrist injury (although I guess everything is connected in the hand-thumb-wrist area) and it was pretty well known, and he says he never was as strong again: went from 40 hrs 3 of 4 years 1967-70 to 15-21 the rest of his career except for 28 in the hot summer of 1977 when the whole lineup was deadly. His big (at the time!) salary was a factor in how he was viewed too; his $167k was the most in mlb in 71 and 72. And like Williams, he walked a lot, 102 times even in 1971, which was not appreciated at the time. "Yogi Berra would hit a ball off his ear when you needed an rbi," my father would say. I'm not sure when this story dates to, but there was a time where Yaz came up with the bright idea of taping the bat to his hands to make up for this or another wrist injury. Then somebody asked how he would run the bases. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 17, 2015 9:38:34 GMT -5
It's good for taking the longevity piece out. Eddie Murray got to 500 but he also had more PAs than anyone else on the list. It's meant to be a way to compare him, as a current player who will continue climbing the list, to players who have retired. By limiting your universe to the 500-HR club, you essentially control how the players were pitched to, since they were all great sluggers, no? By the way, it boggles the mind to realize that Jim Thome got to 600 home runs and is 7th all-time on the list. The guy was "only" a five-time all-star and only won ONE silver slugger. What a strange career in some respects. I mean, he finished in the top 10 in the MVP voting in three seasons in which he did not even make the All-Star Game. I'd prefer HR/AB, which would accomplish the same thing. Walks are good, but they're penalized in HR/PA. Or even HR/(PA-BB-HBP) if you want to penalize SFs. I mean it's even penalizing IBBs. What can a batter do about them? I guess the point is to look at home runs per time the batter strode to the plate and faced a pitcher, not home runs per time the batter got in the box and had one of a few selected outcomes but not others. You could go both ways with it. HR/AB "penalizes" singles, doubles, and triples more than HR/PA does. I don't see the reason you'd want to take out walks and hit-by-pitches but not reaching safely on a hit, if you're thinking of it the way you do. (Yes, I get "three true outcomes" and all of that. My point is that doesn't really matter for this.) To me, at-bats are pretty much always going to be inferior to plate appearances. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 17, 2015 9:42:51 GMT -5
I'd prefer HR/AB, which would accomplish the same thing. Walks are good, but they're penalized in HR/PA. Or even HR/(PA-BB-HBP) if you want to penalize SFs. I mean it's even penalizing IBBs. What can a batter do about them? I guess the point is to look at home runs per time the batter strode to the plate and faced a pitcher, not home runs per time the batter got in the box and had one of a few selected outcomes but not others. You could go both ways with it. HR/AB "penalizes" singles, doubles, and triples more than HR/PA does. I don't see the reason you'd want to take out walks and hit-by-pitches but not reaching safely on a hit, if you're thinking of it the way you do. (Yes, I get "three true outcomes" and all of that. My point is that doesn't really matter for this.) To me, at-bats are pretty much always going to be inferior to plate appearances. I just don't see any reasonable way to rank Sosa over Bonds like this list does. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 17, 2015 10:04:11 GMT -5
I guess the point is to look at home runs per time the batter strode to the plate and faced a pitcher, not home runs per time the batter got in the box and had one of a few selected outcomes but not others. You could go both ways with it. HR/AB "penalizes" singles, doubles, and triples more than HR/PA does. I don't see the reason you'd want to take out walks and hit-by-pitches but not reaching safely on a hit, if you're thinking of it the way you do. (Yes, I get "three true outcomes" and all of that. My point is that doesn't really matter for this.) To me, at-bats are pretty much always going to be inferior to plate appearances. I just don't see any reasonable way to rank Sosa over Bonds like this list does. Well, the point is to control for how much the player played looking at home runs alone, not to say which player is better or anything. It's interesting but it's not meant to be definitive. Of course nobody in their right mind is going to say Sosa was a better player or better hitter. But if you're saying, player steps in the box, based on his career, who is more likely to hit a home run in this plate appearance, the answer is Sosa. That doesn't, on its own, make the comparison garbage. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 17, 2015 10:39:25 GMT -5
I just don't see any reasonable way to rank Sosa over Bonds like this list does. Well, the point is to control for how much the player played looking at home runs alone, not to say which player is better or anything. It's interesting but it's not meant to be definitive. Of course nobody in their right mind is going to say Sosa was a better player or better hitter. But if you're saying, player steps in the box, based on his career, who is more likely to hit a home run in this plate appearance, the answer is Sosa. That doesn't, on its own, make the comparison garbage. My answer is still Bonds, who was intentionally walked 688 times, which is more than twice as many as anyone else since they've been keeping track of them. In those 688 plate appearances, he had zero chance to hit a home run. I can't argue with the literal math of 'steps in the box', I just don't think it says anything meaningful. He was intentionally walked so many times precisely because he was so much more likely to hit a home run if he was pitched to. I'm not sure what the list is supposed to measure, but I assume it was something along the lines of how dangerous of a home run hitter each player is. And it's impossible to know how many times guys like Williams or Ruth were intentionally walked, or even severely pitched around. But I'd assume it was a lot, which is why I wouldn't include walks at all. |
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 17, 2015 11:13:42 GMT -5
Next week should be PapiPalooza at Fenway.
|
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Sept 17, 2015 14:12:26 GMT -5
and as much as I love pedro, he never won us a WS He certainly helped (with help from Manny and Ortiz and bad Cardinals baserunning). Pedro pitched 7 shutout innings in Game 3 of the 2004 World Series. So he certainly contributed. he did, he had his worst season, for us that year as well though... |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 17, 2015 14:14:05 GMT -5
He certainly helped (with help from Manny and Ortiz and bad Cardinals baserunning). Pedro pitched 7 shutout innings in Game 3 of the 2004 World Series. So he certainly contributed. he did, he had his worst season, for us that year as well though... He also threw his arm off in 2003 for us. |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 17, 2015 22:17:19 GMT -5
He certainly helped (with help from Manny and Ortiz and bad Cardinals baserunning). Pedro pitched 7 shutout innings in Game 3 of the 2004 World Series. So he certainly contributed. he did, he had his worst season, for us that year as well though... Pedro did have his worst season with the Sox, but keep in mind, even with his ERA at 3.9, he was still well above average and clearly the Sox' 2nd best starter, so he definitely contributed to the Championship. Pedro's worst was a lot better than a number of pitchers' best. And he certainly did everything in his power to lead the Sox to Championships in 1999 and 2000. He just didn't have the team behind him. No one man wins the Championship by himself. It takes a team. |
|
|
|
Post by weaselgoo on Sept 17, 2015 23:10:32 GMT -5
Curt Schilling was pretty good too, he had great pitching numbers and won 3 championships and was also a World Series MVP, just like Ortiz.
|
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Sept 17, 2015 23:50:45 GMT -5
I'm simply saying. David Ortiz to me seemed like the spark in 2004. Maybe I'm alone in that. He also raked in 2007, and RAKED in 2013. Maybe it's just me, but PPI played a much larger role,sorry Pedro signed elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 18, 2015 0:27:29 GMT -5
... By the way, it boggles the mind to realize that Jim Thome got to 600 home runs and is 7th all-time on the list. The guy was "only" a five-time all-star and only won ONE silver slugger. What a strange career in some respects. I mean, he finished in the top 10 in the MVP voting in three seasons in which he did not even make the All-Star Game. Thome was criminally undervalued, in my opinion. He's one of the best hitters of that generation, certainly one of the most feared. During his prime years he was overshadowed by other players on the same team. Cleveland in the mid-90s hosted one of the greatest collections of hitters ever. With Albert Belle, Manny, and Thome all blasting away, Eddie Murray was merely an afterthought. Kenny Lofton and Julio Franco set the table, and guys like Omar Vizquel & Sandy Alomar were along for the ride. And they had Jeff Kent, Brian Giles and Jeromy Burnitz riding the bench, don't you know! The most HRs he ever hit was 52, during an era when others were putting up obscene numbers. But he was very consistent hitting 40 or more 6 times, and 30 or more a dozen times. When they pitched to him, that is. He's got a lifetime on-base percentage over .400. He should be in the HOF by any reasonable measure. Let's see if they let him in the door. |
|
|
