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.
The Official 2016 World Series Thread
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 31, 2016 20:12:23 GMT -5
After watching this post-season I think some of these relievers' values need to be re-evaluated. WAR doesn't capture the post-season impact of guys like Miller, Chapman, and even Allen. Watching these guys drives home the point even further that Kimbrel isn't going to be one of these guys. He can't go multiple innings and dominate because he'd walk too many guys driving up his pitch count something fierce. The guy with the best chance to be something resembling an Andrew Miller is Joe Kelly, and it's hard to have great expectations with Kelly, but he's got the stuff to do it and he can probably work multiple innings at times if need be (in the post-season). Kimbrel is that guy. Always been a high leverage performer. Power curveball to match Chapman's. In most of Kimbrel's games he had an other-worldly WHIP of something like 0.67 (17 games from 8/13 through 9/24, and 37% K-BB), with very few pitches to get through the inning (and then several blowups). With Pomeranz and Kelly, the Red Sox did match up against Cleveland in the late innings. Porcello and Price, unfortunately, had bad games. Cleveland scouted/analyzed them well. Buchholz did his part, and kept us in the game. I think they'll try to extend him for 4/60, now that they "fixed" his arm angle throwing from the stretch. My God man, you totally live in an alternate reality. Pomeranz and Kimbrel are nowhere near the equals of Miller and Allen. That's utterly ridiculous. It wasn't a fluke that did Pomeranz in. It was one of many homers he gave up upon joining the Red Sox that did the Red Sox in. He gave up a crucial hit that scored an inherited runner in Game 1 and he gave up a crushing HR in Game 3. Andrew Miller, he's not. As far as Kimbrel goes, the man is 3-2 on every batter and walks 5 of them per 9 innings. What makes you think he can record multiple innings without running his pitch count very high? His blow up games count, too. You can't just throw them away and pretend they didn't happen because it doesn't support your point of view. And there's no way they extend Buchholz like that. The man is incapable of putting together an injury free full season of effective pitching. He hasn't put a full season together where he pitched well since 2010. The Sox aren't giving him that kind of contract. He's "fixed" until he gets injured or scuffles again as he always has. He'll be here next season, but he's not getting extended.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Oct 31, 2016 20:33:12 GMT -5
Kimbrel's 0.67 WHIP from 8/13 to 9/24 was as good, and as consistent as any pitcher's , and was achieved over a substantial 57 TBF. His pitch counts were very low. Insignificant samples of what happens in any one game really need to be tuned out as noise, as hard as that is to do, because the memory plays tricks on us. Pomeranz was amazing in relief. Miller gave up a homer and let an inherited run score. It was just a fluke that Cleveland won, or it might be said that they did a better job of analyzing the tendencies of Porcello and Price, than we did of analyzing Kluber and Tomlin. We'll see what happens with Buchholz. I think on the open market he gets 4/60 easy. Maybe 6/90. Fixed Buchholz is an incredibly valuable pitcher. Like a fixed Rich Hill. But no need for name-calling. We're just posting on a forum. It's not the end of the world. ADD: I just noticed ericmvan's favorable comparison of Kelly and Chapman here.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 31, 2016 21:23:09 GMT -5
Kimbrel's 0.67 WHIP from 8/13 to 9/24 was as good, and as consistent as any pitcher's , and was achieved over a substantial 57 TBF. His pitch counts were very low. Insignificant samples of what happens in any one game really need to be tuned out as noise, as hard as that is to do, because the memory plays tricks on us. Pomeranz was amazing in relief. Miller gave up a homer and let an inherited run score. It was just a fluke that Cleveland won, or it might be said that they did a better job of analyzing the tendencies of Porcello and Price, than we did of analyzing Kluber and Tomlin. We'll see what happens with Buchholz. I think on the open market he gets 4/60 easy. Maybe 6/90. Fixed Buchholz is an incredibly valuable pitcher. Like a fixed Rich Hill. But no need for name-calling. We're just posting on a forum. It's not the end of the world. ADD: I just noticed ericmvan's favorable comparison of Kelly and Chapman here. What you're doing is called cherry picking. You can't call it noise because a guy has a tendency to melt down all at once. And you are disregarding the fact that the guy walks too many guys to be what you say he is. I thought we were getting the guy you described when the Red Sox made the trade, but that wasn't the case. Who did Miller give up a homer to when he pitched against the Sox? Nobody. He gave up Fowler's homer in garbage time. Pomeranz was hardly amazing in relief. Amazing is throwing up zeroes. He didn't do that. He turned a manageable 2-1 deficit into a 4-1 deficit. You can call it a fluke if you like. I'd prefer to call it a fact. At some we have to live in a factual world instead of a virtual world where something should have happened that didn't so it's a fluke. You don't know that Buchholz is "fixed". Did you think Buchholz was "fixed" in 2013 when he was setting the world on fire? What happened? He got "broken" again and injured again as is his pattern. I think Buchholz is fixed until he's broken yet again and/or injured yet again. I won't dispute that Buchholz can land a 4 and 60 contract. Seeing what Ian Kennedy got, nothing surprises me anymore, but it won't be from the Red Sox. You have Kopech as the new Nolan Ryan. Maybe he will be, but in this day and age I don't think they'll let him throw 300 innings and walk 160 batters. When he's lights out you tout him extremely high but you ignore his tendency to walk batters because again it doesn't fit your narrative. All of us can see that this kid has an electric arm but not all of us are as confident that he's going to shed the walks, or at least as quickly as you do. Some of us aren't as dismissive of those types of things and some of us think he needs more development time, and more experience. And to be clear, I did not call you any names. I said that I think you live in an alternate reality, one in which I think you act or think like a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian and act like you think the rest of us are a bunch of reactionary fools who can't see the light as clearly as you can. But like you said, it's only a baseball forum, and whether we agree or not, it's not really that crucial in the big scheme of things. There are plenty of guys I enjoy talking baseball with whom I don't share the same view of the game they do. That's fine. And FWIW, one day I hope I say this eccentric DeepJohn was on the money about Kopech being a spectacular ace-like Cy Young award caliber pitcher. At least I'd like to see the Kimbrel you're describing - the Atlanta version. It's certainly not the guy I watched last year.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Oct 31, 2016 21:42:01 GMT -5
I haven't analyzed Pomeranz's homers, but with brute force, I see that his 1.16 HR/9 is 42 on the leaderboard for starters. There are about 40 pitchers in a tight range of .92 (Kluber) to 1.22 (Scherzer). We didn't get enough at bats to see what it would be as a reliever. But I see that for relievers, Miller was 79 on the leaderboard at 0.97. One theory is that the offspeed pitcher will give up more homers to batters who are sitting offspeed, if the pitch is just a little off. That's what Coco Crisp said in the post game, that he was sitting curveball, and Pomeranz sort of hung one just a little. Crisp reached for it, and he got it. I thought it was outside the zone (ADD: which tends to be the least likely place for a home run). It happens. We go home, but we get to do it again next year. It's all great.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2016 12:06:19 GMT -5
who would you rather have a beer with---Tito and Napoli, or Theo & Lester? Outside of my family, there's probably nothing more interesting and fascinating to me than how to build a baseball team. So it's Theo by a long shot. Plus he has good taste in music.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 1, 2016 19:21:44 GMT -5
Wow, the Indians forgot what time the game started. What a disaster in the 1st inning.
And seriously, when are they going to change the rule of no error just because someone doesn't touch a fly ball or pop fly despite the fact that the play should be made every single time?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2016 19:53:59 GMT -5
How does a center fielder with a .296/.372/.514 slash in 365 PA have only a 0.9 WAR? We just saw how. Naquin has no business in center field.
EDIT: I actually posted this before Chisenhall just cut him off.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedKyle on Nov 1, 2016 21:53:56 GMT -5
Moronic decision by Maddon to bring in Chapman here.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2016 21:58:35 GMT -5
A bit of a flub by Francona there overshadowed by the Chapman silliness. If he's going to bring in Rajai Davis to pinch hit for Naquin to lead off the seventh, he should've brought him out for defense in the sixth.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Nov 1, 2016 22:05:54 GMT -5
Maddon's on his way to losing game 7 tonight.
Just dumb. Its not like he doesn't have relievers who can hold a 5 run lead.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 1, 2016 22:07:59 GMT -5
97% WP and you bring in Chapman (and then send him out with a bum ankle). Farrell-esque
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2016 22:18:18 GMT -5
97% WP and you bring in Chapman (and then send him out with a bum ankle). Farrell-esque They may have had a 97% win probability, but that 3% is pretty consequential. The important question here is how many pitches tonight realistically limits Chapman or renders him less effective tomorrow. If they feel he can throw 35 pitches consecutive days then why punt around with the likes of Rondon? I wouldn't have gone to Chapman today but I don't think it's necessarily so crazy. I would, however, use a different pitcher for the ninth to face Guyer/Davis/Perez.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Nov 1, 2016 22:26:30 GMT -5
Now a 7 run lead and he's still in. I had no idea Maddon was this idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 1, 2016 22:28:23 GMT -5
I trust John Lackey to protect a 5-run lead over 2 IP. The point is that it limits his options for tomorrow; no way Chapman can throw 50 pitches on 0 rest; what is the probability that Chapman couldn't be used in a higher leverage situation than 97/3 tomorrow? Close to 0
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 1, 2016 22:34:39 GMT -5
What a dumb play by Perez
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2016 22:51:32 GMT -5
I trust John Lackey to protect a 5-run lead over 2 IP. The point is that it limits his options for tomorrow; no way Chapman can throw 50 pitches on 0 rest; what is the probability that Chapman couldn't be used in a higher leverage situation than 97/3 tomorrow? Close to 0 There is definitely much less than a 100% chance that the win probability is 97% after the fifth inning tomorrow. Also, Chapman came on in a five run game - to Francisco Lindor win two men on. With the huge dropoff from Chapman to the Cubs' next best reliever, it is a totally defensible decision to have him come in there - particularly since such usage definitely would not preclude him from being used again tomorrow. When the lead was still at least five (and then seven after the Rizzo homer), and the bottom of the order was coming up, then Maddon should have had another arm ready. Those pitches that Chapman threw in the ninth - after a pretty long rest - were totally unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 1, 2016 23:03:15 GMT -5
I understood but didn't agree with the decision to bring in Chapman or at least keep him pitching but it's obvious that Maddon doesn't trust his bullpen other than Chapman or Montgomery to hold a big lead. It worked out, I think. We'll see how effective Chapman is if he comes into the game.
But what an interesting series it's been. This series at this point is dead even. 3 wins apiece. 19 runs scored apiece. 2 blowout wins apiece, and one one run victory each.
Tomorrow's matchup and circumstances are fascinating, each with points and counterpoints. You get possible Cy Young winner and the best starter of the post-season pitching in Kluber, but on 3 days rest against NL ERA champ and the guy who pitched the Cubs to their first pennant since 1945 in Hendrick.
The Cubs bullpen looks thin with a heavily used Chapman and little else, but they do get to use Lester and Lackey as relievers if need be to help mitigate that disadvantage while the Indians have an extremely well rested Andrew Miller and a rested Cody Allen. Miller could go as long as they need him to go tomorrow if necessary.
Meanwhile the Indians have the home field advantage but the Cubs have the momentum.
Man, I can't wait to watch tomorrow's game!! I think the Cubs are the better team and will win, but at this point, who knows?! One fanbase is going to have the thrill of a lifetime while the other one will continue the agonizing wait, and it will particularly be agonizing if the Indians let a 3-1 series lead slip away.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2016 23:14:47 GMT -5
The two league leaders in ERA+, Hendricks and Kluber, will face each other in Game Seven of the World Series. Baseball is the best.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Nov 2, 2016 0:12:08 GMT -5
I trust John Lackey to protect a 5-run lead over 2 IP. The point is that it limits his options for tomorrow; no way Chapman can throw 50 pitches on 0 rest; what is the probability that Chapman couldn't be used in a higher leverage situation than 97/3 tomorrow? Close to 0 There is definitely much less than a 100% chance that the win probability is 97% after the fifth inning tomorrow. Also, Chapman came on in a five run game - to Francisco Lindor win two men on. With the huge dropoff from Chapman to the Cubs' next best reliever, it is a totally defensible decision to have him come in there - particularly since such usage definitely would not preclude him from being used again tomorrow. When the lead was still at least five (and then seven after the Rizzo homer), and the bottom of the order was coming up, then Maddon should have had another arm ready. Those pitches that Chapman threw in the ninth - after a pretty long rest - were totally unnecessary. You keep talking as if there's no effect on tomorrow. He threw 42 pitches Sunday, got one days rest and then was in position to throw 40-50 pitches tonight with a game that the rest of the pen should have been able to hold easily. Maybe he could do that and still pitch tomorrow, but there's no way you can't think the odds are it's going to limit him and his effectiveness for that game. With two on, two out, 7-2, I can see getting him warmed up. But he had already had him warmed and ready to go and brought him in there. There was just no reason for it.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 2, 2016 7:15:01 GMT -5
have to give the Cubs players a lot of credit. they have been challenged in the last 2 series and have shown some real resliency.
Kluber has been a thorn in everyone's side this post season. And now he has to do it again, but for how long? There has been a feeling that the Indians are the tortoise, and the Cubs the hare. Who will win the race this time?
I haven't watched much of it, but I think the tactical use of the relievers is slightly overblown. Sure there is a concern about overuse, but I just don't think fans (through no fault of their own not playing the games) really can understand how the moment can overcome fatiugue. There are plenty of indications, in sports and life, that people can overcome great physical obstacles. One thing for sure, the players want the chance, if their number is called, and their performance will determine the winner of the series.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 2, 2016 7:19:16 GMT -5
With two on, two out, 7-2, I can see getting him warmed up. But he had already had him warmed and ready to go and brought him in there. There was just no reason for it. That's the sort of reactive (rather than proactive) managing that we murdered Farrell for all season, and rightfully so. Maddon recognized that Lindor was the fifth batter of the inning, and therefore if he got the chance to hit it would be with the ability to make it into a two-run game. If he waits until just before Lindor's at-bat, he has a significantly lesser pitcher facing Lindor and Napoli in the seventh inning of a game they absolutely, no question, need to win. Making sure Chapman was ready for Lindor in the game's highest-leverage situation was excellent managing by Maddon. Not recognizing that the lead was still going to be at least five runs going into the ninth with the bottom of the order coming up and Chapman hopefully needed the next day was not-so-excellent managing. The pitches he threw in the ninth, after the long wait of the top of the inning, were unnecessary and any chance they hinder his availability for tonight was not a risk that matched the reward.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Nov 2, 2016 19:18:08 GMT -5
With two on, two out, 7-2, I can see getting him warmed up. But he had already had him warmed and ready to go and brought him in there. There was just no reason for it. That's the sort of reactive (rather than proactive) managing that we murdered Farrell for all season, and rightfully so. Maddon recognized that Lindor was the fifth batter of the inning, and therefore if he got the chance to hit it would be with the ability to make it into a two-run game. If he waits until just before Lindor's at-bat, he has a significantly lesser pitcher facing Lindor and Napoli in the seventh inning of a game they absolutely, no question, need to win. Making sure Chapman was ready for Lindor in the game's highest-leverage situation was excellent managing by Maddon. Not recognizing that the lead was still going to be at least five runs going into the ninth with the bottom of the order coming up and Chapman hopefully needed the next day was not-so-excellent managing. The pitches he threw in the ninth, after the long wait of the top of the inning, were unnecessary and any chance they hinder his availability for tonight was not a risk that matched the reward. Yeah, if you're building your entire strategy around the notion that the Cubs only have one Relief Pitcher who can stop a 15 HR guy from hitting a 3 run HR. And that the subsequent 2 run lead couldn't be protected by that one said reliever. If you want to hamper your chances of winning game 7 on that rationale, then I am just going to disagree. And leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 2, 2016 19:52:18 GMT -5
Baez bought the hype, he thinks he is the best defender in the world.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 2, 2016 19:53:17 GMT -5
Jesus...Joe West is umpiring a Game 7 of the World Series....MLB just doesn't give a f**k.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 2, 2016 19:54:26 GMT -5
Baez bought the hype, he thinks he is the best defender in the world. To be fair...he' is a young guy in a game 7. There is a lot of pressure.
|
|
|