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.
Sale to BOS for Moncada, Kopech, Basabe, Diaz
|
Post by ponch73 on Dec 26, 2016 18:35:44 GMT -5
I think the general issue that most people are having with your stance is that it is based on "feeling," and perception, but it is wholly refuted by evidence. Even your counter-argument against his Schilling rebuttal is the same thing: he's not "bashing" Schilling at all. That's a wholly outrageous claim. He's pointing out the logical fallacy in using small sample sizes as "proof" of postseason ability. Like every other small stretch, the playoffs represent microcosms of players' abilities. Those cases include hot streaks, cold streaks, injuries, etc. In large part, the "perception" is based on chance. If any of us DIDN'T have confidence in Porcello/Price, the problem is with us, not them. And that's because our "confidence" would be based entirely on an observational and temporal bias. You can argue against it all you want, but that's reality. The highest-likelihood outcome for both of them is reversion to the mean, meaning improved results. As jmei pointed out, this is a WELL-documented phenomenon. Extensively well-documented. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Most people wouldn't have said a word about Schilling not being a shutdown performer. To bring up his 2004 as a counter to my argument that Porcello and Price haven't been any good in the post season while Schilling is known for being a big game post season pitcher-- imo this IS "bashing." He was using one series and not looking at the entire post season without any consideration for injury. Your opinion notwithstanding, your unfortunate decision to willfully misunderstand the original point about Schilling, the context in which it was delivered, and the overall argument about the foolishness of drawing sweeping conclusions from small sample sizes -- even after several others have patiently tried to explain it to you -- doesn't serve you or your ineffective original argument very well. And your full-throated defense of that argument in subsequent posts is becoming increasingly incoherent.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 26, 2016 18:38:08 GMT -5
... I'll answer this one. Ages 25-27 regular season fWAR: Porcello - 9.7 Kluber - 18.1 Kluber has a much stronger regular season track record than Porcello and is widely regarded as an ace. Porcello had a great 2016 but few, if any, would consider him as good as Kluber - based on scouting and regular season results. How about you play it straight? If we look at their age-equivalent numbers, Kluber has nothing of the kind. Ages 25-27 bWAR: Porcello - 9.7 Kluber - 3.4 I'm being kind. Porcello's been pitching since he was 20. So, we get to see what happens now that he's in his prime and Kluber is 31, right? Ponch73 Do you really expect Porcello to pitch like he did last year going forward? I think he will be good, but I don't see an ACE. I hope I'm wrong but I have this feeling that we might just have watched a career year by Porcello. There is a saying that pitching and D wins Championships. That sure seems to be what DD is going for. Look at last year, we were a great hitting team but good pitchers could shut us down. What the hell is an ACE, please? Some definition would be appreciated. As for Porcello, a few of you may want to prepare your apologies, along the gracious lines of posters who admitted they'd under-estimated the guy. Here's what struck me last year, and why there's every reason to expect at least a little more success going forward (click to expand): This was discussed at least a few times during the season. He's mastered the two seam and four seam fastballs, and he can locate them at will, getting Ks and eliminating just about all the walks. He did that over the course of two years by figuring out when the high fastball should be used and where it should go. The superior curveball only adds to that arsenal. He's not perfect, no pitcher ever is. He was certainly good enough to help carry the team into the playoffs. That the team didn't win it all is too bad, but as JimEd has suggested, there is a lot of randomness involved. Teams get hot, they go cold, they get hot again, and cold again,... and so on. That is baseball. Of course you want them to have a healthy, well-rested roster once they get there. That's never a guarantee. The idea is just that, to get there and roll the dice. This team is primed to do that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 26, 2016 18:42:54 GMT -5
I think the general issue that most people are having with your stance is that it is based on "feeling," and perception, but it is wholly refuted by evidence. Even your counter-argument against his Schilling rebuttal is the same thing: he's not "bashing" Schilling at all. That's a wholly outrageous claim. He's pointing out the logical fallacy in using small sample sizes as "proof" of postseason ability. Like every other small stretch, the playoffs represent microcosms of players' abilities. Those cases include hot streaks, cold streaks, injuries, etc. In large part, the "perception" is based on chance. If any of us DIDN'T have confidence in Porcello/Price, the problem is with us, not them. And that's because our "confidence" would be based entirely on an observational and temporal bias. You can argue against it all you want, but that's reality. The highest-likelihood outcome for both of them is reversion to the mean, meaning improved results. As jmei pointed out, this is a WELL-documented phenomenon. Extensively well-documented. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Most people wouldn't have said a word about Schilling not being a shutdown performer. To bring up his 2004 as a counter to my argument that Porcello and Price haven't been any good in the post season while Schilling is known for being a big game post season pitcher-- imo this IS "bashing." He was using one series and not looking at the entire post season without any consideration for injury.
What you say "microcosm" I say after a point that "microcosm" becomes "a concern." In 66.67 innings of Davis Price's work we see he is no Madison Bumgarner. We could se after 66.67 innings that Bum is a post season stud, right? Haven't we been able to tell Lester has been too?
The reality is - DD - a general manager got a big time Big 3 3rd starter who is most likely to be the ACE. To close your eyes and pretend Price and Porcello have been good pitchers in the post season despite what you see with your eyes- that's your business. No skin off my back.
IMO if the Red Sox won the title in 2015 DD wouldn't have done this. DD is making the moves and imo it is more align with what I'm figuring. And as I stated to jmei, he did some work to find the stats - which I feel bad about - but it's not refuting what I said. I never said Sox needed the best ACE.
He didn't say that Schilling wasn't a fantastic (one of the top-5 ever) postseason pitchers. What he said was that observing a small sample (Schilling's 2004 ALCS) does not accurately reflect his career. You're missing everyone's point by interpreting it in a wholly different way from intent. Have Price and Porcello been mediocre postseason pitchers? Yes. Just about everyone has acknowledged that, repeatedly. But all historical evidence suggests that that performance (postseason) is far less PREDICTIVE of what they'll do in the future postseasons than is their regular-season performance. You're extrapolating inherently nonpredictive data. It's similar to predicting a guy who's a marginal regular who starts the year hitting .330/.450/.600 over 30 games and declaring him a sure-fire MVP candidate, or...a better example...that a pitcher who's been a perennial CY candidate starting 3-7 like Clemens in '87 and calling him a one-year wonder for '86. There's even a perfect example in Lester: prior postseason "stud" who had two years of bad postseasons. The "stud" vs "bust" perception is based on small samples that are in large part stochastic. Give a guy enough postseason innings, and those results are MOST LIKELY to resemble exactly what he's done in the regular season. The smaller the sample, the more noise. I'm sure there's *some* pressure/fatigue/"clutch" aspect to it, but it's small for the vast majority of players. In the simplest sense, your argument is an extension of the "I've flipped this penny three times and it's been heads every time, so it'll probably be heads again more often in the future" line of reasoning. So, after Sale gets his start or three next fall, regardless of how they go, if he makes three more in 2018, the most likely outcome is that he'll go 2-1, low-3 ERA with 25 K in 21 innings.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 26, 2016 19:08:26 GMT -5
... I'll answer this one. Ages 25-27 regular season fWAR: Porcello - 9.7 Kluber - 18.1 Kluber has a much stronger regular season track record than Porcello and is widely regarded as an ace. Porcello had a great 2016 but few, if any, would consider him as good as Kluber - based on scouting and regular season results. How about you play it straight? If we look at their age-equivalent numbers, Kluber has nothing of the kind. Ages 25-27 bWAR: Porcello - 9.7 Kluber - 3.4 I'm being kind. Porcello's been pitching since he was 20. So, we get to see what happens now that he's in his prime and Kluber is 31, right? Ponch73 Do you really expect Porcello to pitch like he did last year going forward? I think he will be good, but I don't see an ACE. I hope I'm wrong but I have this feeling that we might just have watched a career year by Porcello. There is a saying that pitching and D wins Championships. That sure seems to be what DD is going for. Look at last year, we were a great hitting team but good pitchers could shut us down. What the hell is an ACE, please? Some definition would be appreciated. As for Porcello, a few of you may want to prepare your apologies, along the gracious lines of posters who admitted they'd under-estimated the guy. Here's what struck me last year, and why there's every reason to expect at least a little more success going forward (click to expand): This was discussed at least a few times during the season. He's mastered the two seam and four seam fastballs, and he can locate them at will, getting Ks and eliminating just about all the walks. He did that over the course of two years by figuring out when the high fastball should be used and where it should go. The superior curveball only adds to that arsenal. He's not perfect, no pitcher ever is. He was certainly good enough to help carry the team into the playoffs. That the team didn't win it all is too bad, but as JimEd has suggested, there is a lot of randomness involved. Teams get hot, they go cold, they get hot again, and cold again,... and so on. That is baseball. Of course you want the them to have a healthy, well-rested roster once they get there. That's never a guarantee. The idea is just that, to get there and roll the dice. This team is primed to do that. As an ardent Porcello supporter since his acquisition, I am fully on-board with the data (both individual/contextual and general MLB-historical) suggesting that Porcello's true-talent going forward is substantially closer to 2016 than 2015. In fact, he had similar progress in 2014. I think 2015 was probably a significant outlier based on his experimentation with the fourseam (which led to some lumps but was a positive learning experience), new team/contract/etc. FWIW, one of his top historical comps is Greg Maddux. Obviously that's a ludicrous "expectation," but it does speak to how a pitcher who relies on spin/changing eye level, and outstanding command, can continue to improve through his late-20s despite not having unreal raw stuff. I'm confident that Porcello will settle in as at least a 1a/2. I think he'll also likely have extended success based on what's likely to be some resistance to early-30s velocity loss, since his success is largely unrelated to velocity. He's also been quite healthy, and since he doesn't rely on velocity or high effort, and is fairly efficient, he should remain so. I tend to be very sparing with "ace." I'd probably only call Kershaw, Scherzer, Sale, Price, maybe Cueto (probably not), maybe Verlander and Bumgarner, "aces." To me, an "ace" is a HOFer or a would-be-HOFer who misses on counting stats. A guy who has a LONG history of high-level success. It's unlikely that Porcello is an "ace," but I certainly think there's a significantly non-zero chance he becomes one. And I can absolutely see him comparing favorably to a guy like Andy Pettite or Jon Lester by career's end. I've said it before: who thought Lester was an "ace" in September of 2013? He had a terrible 2012 and a mediocre 2013. Then he had a great postseason, harnessed/perfected inducing pop ups, and took a step forward. He's better than the 2 I used to think of him as, he's probably a legit 1 now. But I wouldn't call him an "ace" until he strung another 3-4 years like 2016 on, and won 20 a couple of times with a Cy or two. Just my personal point of reference for terminology.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 26, 2016 20:54:26 GMT -5
There is a lot of randomness and variables in the playoffs.
Adding Sale increases your chances of winning at the dance. This is the one standpoint that can't be denied in this entire argument.
The Sox have a better pitching staff in 2017 than in 2016. Hopefully a full year of Sale, Pomeranz, Wright, and Eduardo Rodriguez will make that statement a fact.
Ohh and I feel my head exploding all over again when talking about whether Porcello is a ACE or not. We literally just went over this 3-4 years ago with Lester.
Just to add-
It doesn't bother me at all that Porcello won't repeat his performance in 2017. Doesn't matter to me if he's a number one starting pitcher in the playoffs again in 2017. All three of Porcello, Price, and Sale will have to perform in 2017 to see who is the game one starter in the playoffs hopefully in 2017. May the best man win.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Dec 26, 2016 23:26:41 GMT -5
In less than the nine paragraphs it's been taking, can someone summarize what is even being argued at this point?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 27, 2016 0:24:56 GMT -5
... I'll answer this one. Ages 25-27 regular season fWAR: Porcello - 9.7 Kluber - 18.1 Kluber has a much stronger regular season track record than Porcello and is widely regarded as an ace. Porcello had a great 2016 but few, if any, would consider him as good as Kluber - based on scouting and regular season results. How about you play it straight? If we look at their age-equivalent numbers, Kluber has nothing of the kind. Ages 25-27 bWAR: Porcello - 9.7 Kluber - 3.4 I'm being kind. Porcello's been pitching since he was 20. So, we get to see what happens now that he's in his prime and Kluber is 31, right? I don't know where the snark came from, but changing another poster's quote isn't acceptable on any forum I've ever been on. Please clean this up and set a better example. (also I have no clew what your point is - are you saying Porcello will be better than Kluber once he reaches 30?)
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 27, 2016 1:56:02 GMT -5
You know what the point is. Why compare Porcello's ages 25-27 to Kluber's ages 28-30? Kluber didn't even reach the majors till he was 25 and his value wasn't above replacement till he was 27. By then Porcello had been pitching for seven years. You made a blanket statement about their relative merits. I think it should be qualified. I have no idea what Porcello will do going forward but neither do you, nor do we know where Kluber is headed.
As for changing your quote, if you mean using the same formatting to show what their age comparisons look like, you might as well try to copyright paragraphs or tables.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 27, 2016 3:09:26 GMT -5
In less than the nine paragraphs it's been taking, can someone summarize what is even being argued at this point? No, probably not. Maybe "necessity" versus "luxury," i.e. the idea that Price and Porcello are regular-season unreliable and playoff snakebitten and acquiring Sale was a "necessity" for a viable playoff run. That's versus the opinion that Sale is a "luxury" in that he represents an added benefit in both cases but similar cumulative benefit could have been achieved by other much less costly means at other positions or via internal depth/improvement (including playoff performance regression to career regular season performance by Price/Porcello). But yeah, it's gotten pretty convoluted.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 27, 2016 15:35:49 GMT -5
... I'll answer this one. Ages 25-27 regular season fWAR: Porcello - 9.7 Kluber - 18.1 Kluber has a much stronger regular season track record than Porcello and is widely regarded as an ace. Porcello had a great 2016 but few, if any, would consider him as good as Kluber - based on scouting and regular season results. How about you play it straight? If we look at their age-equivalent numbers, Kluber has nothing of the kind. Ages 25-27 bWAR: Porcello - 9.7 Kluber - 3.4 I'm being kind. Porcello's been pitching since he was 20. So, we get to see what happens now that he's in his prime and Kluber is 31, right? Ponch73 Do you really expect Porcello to pitch like he did last year going forward? I think he will be good, but I don't see an ACE. I hope I'm wrong but I have this feeling that we might just have watched a career year by Porcello. There is a saying that pitching and D wins Championships. That sure seems to be what DD is going for. Look at last year, we were a great hitting team but good pitchers could shut us down. What the hell is an ACE, please? Some definition would be appreciated. As for Porcello, a few of you may want to prepare your apologies, along the gracious lines of posters who admitted they'd under-estimated the guy. Here's what struck me last year, and why there's every reason to expect at least a little more success going forward (click to expand):
This was discussed at least a few times during the season. He's mastered the two seam and four seam fastballs, and he can locate them at will, getting Ks and eliminating just about all the walks. He did that over the course of two years by figuring out when the high fastball should be used and where it should go. The superior curveball only adds to that arsenal. He's not perfect, no pitcher ever is. He was certainly good enough to help carry the team into the playoffs. That the team didn't win it all is too bad, but as JimEd has suggested, there is a lot of randomness involved. Teams get hot, they go cold, they get hot again, and cold again,... and so on. That is baseball. Of course you want them to have a healthy, well-rested roster once they get there. That's never a guarantee. The idea is just that, to get there and roll the dice. This team is primed to do that. An ACE is what Porcello was last year. A guy that was one of the top pitchers in starts, innings, WHIP, ERA and war in American League. You really can't argue he wasn't a top 5 pitcher in AL last year. That's an ACE season in my book. So you think your chart proves what exactly? For me it proves Porcello needs to have perfect control to be an ACE. 2016 sure looks like an outlier. He's either turned a corner or just had a career year. No one knows for sure. In 2014 everyone thought he turned a corner, then in 2015 he wasn't that good.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 27, 2016 17:50:16 GMT -5
You know what the point is. No i don't - that's why I asked. Again - no reason for the attitude. Why compare Porcello's ages 25-27 to Kluber's ages 28-30? Because those are the past 3 years which are most recent. Comparing at the same age is irrelevant to the conversation unless you are trying to say that Porcello will greatly improve going forward given his age. Is this your point? Kluber didn't even reach the majors till he was 25 and his value wasn't above replacement till he was 27. By then Porcello had been pitching for seven years. You made a blanket statement about their relative merits. I think it should be qualified. I answered a question by another poster of who was better (they were making the point that Kluber was better due to playoff track record) and I responded by noting that Kluber is better - noting the regular season track record and NOT the playoff record to make what was my point. I have no idea what Porcello will do going forward but neither do you, nor do we know where Kluber is headed. I do have an idea of what they will do going forward based on their past performances and statistical forecasting models which determine that Kluber will be superior in 2017. As i have made much of my living forecasting for retailers and manufacturers, i find the notion that 'we don't know what's going to happen' completely foreign. There is certainly a chance that Porcello will be better than Kluber next year but I didn't think that Kluber being the better pitcher was a hot topic as I seemed to be in minority thinking that Porcello should have won the Cy Young. As for changing your quote, if you mean using the same formatting to show what their age comparisons look like, you might as well try to copyright paragraphs or tables. No. I mean that you quoted my post, but doctored the quote you used to make it look like i said something different than I said. After looking back at it, it seems you may have done this by accident. But I'm stunned by the arrogance in your last two posts and I'm STILL not sure of your point as I don't think you were aware of the conversation which you got yourself into so your comment didn't make sense (to me at least) within the context.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 28, 2016 14:11:00 GMT -5
I have no idea what Porcello will do going forward but neither do you, nor do we know where Kluber is headed. I do have an idea of what they will do going forward based on their past performances and statistical forecasting models which determine that Kluber will be superior in 2017. As i have made much of my living forecasting for retailers and manufacturers, i find the notion that 'we don't know what's going to happen' completely foreign. There is certainly a chance that Porcello will be better than Kluber next year but I didn't think that Kluber being the better pitcher was a hot topic as I seemed to be in minority thinking that Porcello should have won the Cy Young. That's great that you made living with statiscal models, but I am guessing that those models predicted the patterns of groups of buyers rather than individual consumers. Or at the very least least, lost their accuracy when they were applied to individuals. While free to the public predictors like STEAMER might give you an idea that Kluber will be better, it also is wrong a very high percentage of the time. Additionally we also know that relative ages is important when predicting the performance of baseball players. Most (again not all) peak in their late 20s and then decline in their 30s. Accordingly the age of Kluber and Porcello is certainly a factor to be considered. Kluber took a huge step forward when he was 28. Porcello turned 28 yesterday. Why do believe what Kluber accomplished Porcello cannot repeat?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 28, 2016 21:04:00 GMT -5
I do have an idea of what they will do going forward based on their past performances and statistical forecasting models which determine that Kluber will be superior in 2017. As i have made much of my living forecasting for retailers and manufacturers, i find the notion that 'we don't know what's going to happen' completely foreign. There is certainly a chance that Porcello will be better than Kluber next year but I didn't think that Kluber being the better pitcher was a hot topic as I seemed to be in minority thinking that Porcello should have won the Cy Young. That's great that you made living with statiscal models, but I am guessing that those models predicted the patterns of groups of buyers rather than individual consumers. Or at the very least least, lost their accuracy when they were applied to individuals. While free to the public predictors like STEAMER might give you an idea that Kluber will be better, it also is wrong a very high percentage of the time. Additionally we also know that relative ages is important when predicting the performance of baseball players. Most (again not all) peak in their late 20s and then decline in their 30s. Accordingly the age of Kluber and Porcello is certainly a factor to be considered. Kluber took a huge step forward when he was 28. Porcello turned 28 yesterday. Why do believe what Kluber accomplished Porcello cannot repeat? Players, just like consumer groups, can only be predicted accurately from larger groups. With consumers you can cut it down to specific types of retailers, specific retailers, income brackets, ethnicity, occupation, regional area, etc. But you wouldn't want to look at a single consumer and use that consumer to predict another single consumer (thinking that Porcello will follow the exact improvement curve as Kluber when they are not similar pitcher and do not have similar histories - they're currently both in their primes, so i find it unlikely either deviates significantly from projections unless they are injured). The projections systems like steamers and zips are looking at age and available statistics (possibly grouping similar pitchers as higher predictors - but I'm not certain) in a similar manner. They can then more accurately predict what will happen for a single pitcher, but of course there is significant room for error and any pitcher could in theory be better than any other pitcher on any given season (usually with injury being the largest culprit). But just because we can't be 100% certain of who will be better doesn't mean we shouldn't try to figure it out. 2017 Steamers (accounts for age of pitchers): Kluber - 4.8 fWAR Porcello - 3.6 fWAR 2017 ZIPs (accounts for age of pitchers): Kluber - 5.4 zWAR Porcello - 4.3 zWAR (please note the original point I was contributing to was that past seasonal success is more predictive of future post season success than past post season success - if anyone would like to make an argument why Porcello will be better than Kluber in 2017, I'd be very interested to hear it as I would like that to be true)
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 29, 2016 15:57:43 GMT -5
Using FanGraphs' numbers, over the last 4 years, Kluber has a higher SD than Porcello by almost a third. So this is not a gimme, not by a longshot. Steamer does take the right tack on this, using Bayesian estimators as far as I can tell. That should use all the information they have including age, though they don't make their model available that I can see. I don't know that they use nearest neighbor analyses, though that might provide even more information.
Nonetheless, their estimates for Porcello completely missed last year. My original point stands. You're comparing players with very different histories, who are on different trajectories. General statements about who believes what when comparing the two players should be backed by more than Steamer or Zip estimates. By my reckoning, the Sox made a very wise decision extending Porcello. Last year drove that home. He's in his prime and he may produce like this for a while. That makes him a real asset.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 2, 2017 17:05:08 GMT -5
What are the Red Sox chances of winning the 1st round (getting home field at Fenway also) with sale and without Sale? What are the chances of the Red Sox getting home field over the Indians now that they also have Brantley and the signing of Encarcion if the Sox didn't have Sale? What are the chances the Sox could have defeated the Indians and Cubs without having Sale? Without Sale - I don't believe the sox have any realistic chance of winning a title. It would be pure luck. In a post-season series, Sale will make two starts. If everyone is healthy, they will replace one start each by: -- The best of Eduardo Rodriguez, Drew Pomeranz, or Steven Wright -- The second best of that group. Given the game to game variability of elite starting pitchers, that's really hard to measure. I mean, David Price over his career would be a downgrade. Sale probably makes you quite a bit better if you have a pair of serious injuries in the rotation like the Indians did (in which case he's replacing the weakest of the healthy guys, plus Buchholz), and somewhat better if you have one injury. Edit: Yes, the Red Sox and Indians look to be head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the AL. There's one immense different separating the two teams, one that's particularly important in a short series, and it's not on the playing field but in the dugout.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 3, 2017 7:01:23 GMT -5
Edit: Yes, the Red Sox and Indians look to be head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the AL. There's one immense different separating the two teams, one that's particularly important in a short series, and it's not on the playing field but in the dugout. Not that immense considering Francona was just beaten by a manager that did everything in his powers to lose the 7th game of the last World Series.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 3, 2017 8:32:39 GMT -5
Edit: Yes, the Red Sox and Indians look to be head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the AL. There's one immense different separating the two teams, one that's particularly important in a short series, and it's not on the playing field but in the dugout. Not that immense considering Francona was just beaten by a manager that did everything in his powers to lose the 7th game of the last World Series. Francona and Maddon both kinda lost their minds in game seven but come on, overall Francona has been excellent in the playoffs and in general. You really want to point to the outcome of a single game to negate that?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 3, 2017 8:52:41 GMT -5
Edit: Yes, the Red Sox and Indians look to be head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the AL. There's one immense different separating the two teams, one that's particularly important in a short series, and it's not on the playing field but in the dugout. Not that immense considering Francona was just beaten by a manager that did everything in his powers to lose the 7th game of the last World Series. Sometimes, the manager does bad enough to win a game by 1 run instead of 5 runs. You notice more when they lose the game by a run instead of winning the game by 3 runs.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 3, 2017 11:46:07 GMT -5
Francona and Maddon both kinda lost their minds in game seven but come on, overall Francona has been excellent in the playoffs and in general. You really want to point to the outcome of a single game to negate that? Not negate it downright, but I just don't think it's that important. The Red Sox didn't lose to the Indians because of the manager, nor did the Indians won because of Francona either. A couple of lucky bounces or players getting hot at the right time is IMO way more important than the "immense difference" between both teams. Sometimes, the manager does bad enough to win a game by 1 run instead of 5 runs. You notice more when they lose the game by a run instead of winning the game by 3 runs. Over the season? Yes I agree. But on a short series? Nah, stuff's just too random and it would take the manager a serious f*ck up to be noticed. And even then he might still win, like Maddon and Maddon is supposed to be a good tactician. One of the underrated things about Farrell is that he not only has some calm eyes and a collected personality, but he's also an imposing character in the dugout. There were some reports about Chris Sale possibly being an a**hole in Chicago, but do you think he'd pull that off with Farrell and risk getting knocked the hell out? I don't think so. Point is I really think we have a fine manager for the team we have.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Jan 3, 2017 12:00:34 GMT -5
Over the season? Yes I agree. But on a short series? Nah, stuff's just too random and it would take the manager a serious f*ck up to be noticed. And even then he might still win, like Maddon and Maddon is supposed to be a good tactician. *ahem* Yeah but I want a WWE style comeback. I want the Red Sox to be facing the Yankees and it's the bottom of the 9th and the game is tied and Farrell calls a pitch hitter and THE LIGHTS GO OUT and there's a lot of fireworks and Papi just storms the field and hits a walk off HR on the first pitch and the ball travels so hard that it goes back in time and hit Grady Little in the head in 2003 and we win that World Series.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 3, 2017 12:43:18 GMT -5
Well, yes detective, like I said it would take the manager a serious f*ck up to be noticed. And Little was definitely noticed. There are some differences between him and Farrell, like John won a World Series and everything, but if he somehow manages to Little it up in the future then yes I'll call him to be fired as well and hit in the head by a time travelling badass baseball. Not until then because I just see 0 similarities between them.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 3, 2017 13:11:06 GMT -5
Well, yes detective, like I said it would take the manager a serious f*ck up to be noticed. And Little was definitely noticed. There are some differences between him and Farrell, like John won a World Series and everything, but if he somehow manages to Little it up in the future then yes I'll call him to be fired as well and hit in the head by a time travelling badass baseball. Not until then because I just see 0 similarities between them. Right, because you haven't seen Farrell make one of his typical ridiculous relief pitcher decisions in the deciding game of a playoff series that made them lose the game. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. He is prone to making them. He just needs an opportunity for you to finally see it. I'd prefer to avoid that.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Jan 3, 2017 14:34:04 GMT -5
Well, yes detective, like I said it would take the manager a serious f*ck up to be noticed. And Little was definitely noticed. There are some differences between him and Farrell, like John won a World Series and everything, but if he somehow manages to Little it up in the future then yes I'll call him to be fired as well and hit in the head by a time travelling badass baseball. Not until then because I just see 0 similarities between them. Not harshing on you. Just trying to point out that noticeably consequential screw-ups by managers happen at a non-negligible rate. Personally, I'd say what's left to debate is the manager-specific prevalence of noticeably consequential screw-ups, not so much if that rate ever dips to zero.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 3, 2017 17:27:43 GMT -5
Right, because you haven't seen Farrell make one of his typical ridiculous relief pitcher decisions in the deciding game of a playoff series that made them lose the game. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. He is prone to making them. He just needs an opportunity for you to finally see it. I'd prefer to avoid that. If it happens I'll be convinced. And I'm talking Grady Little levels of stupidity like everyone on planet Earth knew it was the wrong move, not a debatable move that didn't work. Not moves that you'd need advanced stats to prove it was wrong, that doesn't fit the criteria. Not harshing on you. Just trying to point out that noticeably consequential screw-ups by managers happen at a non-negligible rate. Personally, I'd say what's left to debate is the manager-specific prevalence of noticeably consequential screw-ups, not so much if that rate ever dips to zero. Sorry if I sounded harsh on the reply as well lol internet boards have this barrier distinguishing playful tone from an overly serious one. But yeah, I agree that managers screwing up and losing their team a game happens. Very often. What I don't agree is that the difference between the Red Sox and the Indians on that regard is as gigantic as Eric pointed out. Could John screw us up and cost us the season? He could and if he does then he should be fired and mocked eternally. But the same could happen with Francona. It sure isn't as likely, but the chasm isn't as big as say having a role player getting crazy hot at the right time. Baseball is too random for me to embrace managers as pure tacticians. Of course I don't want a complete idiot either, but I honestly don't think Farrell is close to being that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 3, 2017 17:47:10 GMT -5
Just a suggestion, but I think we're a bit in the weeds on the same manager discussion that gets rehashed every month or two here. Maybe we can move on given that this is supposed to be a Sale trade thread?
Again, just throwing that out there.
|
|
|