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.
8/8-8/9 Red Sox @ Rays Series Thread
|
Post by huskies15 on Aug 10, 2017 8:39:10 GMT -5
Benintendi and Nunez have been hot in August. Other than that the rest of the lineup is meh.
Betts needs to hunt those fastballs some more, and idk what Bogaerts did to his once beautiful swing, but it looks like hes chopping wood. He can't pull anything anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 10, 2017 8:43:35 GMT -5
Benintendi and Nunez have been hot in August. Other than that the rest of the lineup is meh. Betts needs to hunt those fastballs some more, and idk what Bogaerts did to his once beautiful swing, but it looks like hes chopping wood. He can't pull anything anymore. If I had to guess I'd say the thumb injury Bogaerts incurred early in the year is lingering and may actually be one of those that requires surgery or extended immobilization after the year but is something "he can play through" right now.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Aug 10, 2017 8:45:11 GMT -5
Benintendi and Nunez have been hot in August. Other than that the rest of the lineup is meh. Betts needs to hunt those fastballs some more, and idk what Bogaerts did to his once beautiful swing, but it looks like hes chopping wood. He can't pull anything anymore. Bogaerts swing hasn't been beautiful for a long long time, but at least he was getting opposite field hits like crazy the past couple of years. He's not even slap hitting anymore, he's a pop up machine. Hopefully it's due to the injury and not something else.
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Aug 10, 2017 8:52:35 GMT -5
Benintendi and Nunez have been hot in August. Other than that the rest of the lineup is meh. Betts needs to hunt those fastballs some more, and idk what Bogaerts did to his once beautiful swing, but it looks like hes chopping wood. He can't pull anything anymore. Bogaerts swing hasn't been beautiful for a long long time, but at least he was getting opposite field hits like crazy the past couple of years. He's not even slap hitting anymore, he's a pop up machine. Hopefully it's due to the injury and not something else. I hope its injury too, but last year he was pulling the ball with some authority and it led to 21 HRs. I watch highlights of 2013 from time to time and really miss the quiet balance and power he displayed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 10, 2017 10:56:27 GMT -5
Before last night, Porcello was 0-9 with a 3.99 ERA vs. AL East opponents. I'm not even sure how that is possible for a first place team.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Aug 10, 2017 12:45:14 GMT -5
Before last night, Porcello was 0-9 with a 3.99 ERA vs. AL East opponents. I'm not even sure how that is possible for a first place team. He has a remarkable ability to always get the decision.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 10, 2017 13:07:51 GMT -5
Before last night, Porcello was 0-9 with a 3.99 ERA vs. AL East opponents. I'm not even sure how that is possible for a first place team. He has a remarkable ability to always get the decision. Pitching to contact means you go deeper into the game. The deeper you get into a game, the more likely you are to be the pitcher when the decision-inducing runs score. ... Yet another reason why the win and loss stats are awful.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 10, 2017 13:23:56 GMT -5
Before last night, Porcello was 0-9 with a 3.99 ERA vs. AL East opponents. I'm not even sure how that is possible for a first place team. He has a remarkable ability to always get the decision. It doesn't help that we don't seem to score him many runs.
|
|
pd
Rookie
Posts: 246
|
Post by pd on Aug 10, 2017 14:10:47 GMT -5
Credit where credit is due. I've been very critical of Barnes in the past, but it seems like he has turned a corner and he's slowly putting up a great season. Farrell's faith in him seems to be paying off. Same with Workman, though it remains to be seen if he holds up. Good bullpen management giving Reed and Kimbrel a night off, coupled with the off day today. BP should be rested for the Yanks. I was thinking the same, that Farrell deserves credit for sticking with these guys.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 10, 2017 14:50:16 GMT -5
Re Workman - he is having quite a year- combined Pawtucket and Boston - 32 games, 49.1 innings, 16 BB, 54 K, WHIP of around 1, ERA about 1.7. Considering he didn't pitch in 2015, and threw but 20 innings in 10 games in 2016, and he's only 29....pretty encouraging
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 10, 2017 16:25:23 GMT -5
Re Workman - he is having quite a year- combined Pawtucket and Boston - 32 games, 49.1 innings, 16 BB, 54 K, WHIP of around 1, ERA about 1.7. Considering he didn't pitch in 2015, and threw but 20 innings in 10 games in 2016, and he's only 29....pretty encouraging I liked him when he was in college. Always thought he had the general control and stuff to be a good reliever, but felt sure if he could get 2-3 MPH on his FB he could be a very good reliever. Was hoping for the uptick in velo post surge. Seems like he picked up a bit.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,696
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 10, 2017 17:11:35 GMT -5
Re Workman - he is having quite a year- combined Pawtucket and Boston - 32 games, 49.1 innings, 16 BB, 54 K, WHIP of around 1, ERA about 1.7. Considering he didn't pitch in 2015, and threw but 20 innings in 10 games in 2016, and he's only 29....pretty encouraging I have a strange feeling of calm when Workman comes in, so he's doing something very right. Barnes, I've noticed is either dominating or can't get anybody out. Usually it's all about his control/command. He's the guy who when he's bad will give up 4 runs in one shot and then not get scored upon for awhile. If Price comes back and the Sox go with 11 pitchers in the post-season, and given that the Sox don't use Abad in anything resembling an important situation, it's possible that they only go with one lefty in the pen - E-Rod, who can also get out righties. With Reed and others in the pen, they don't really need a LOOGY as they get out lefties as well as righties. That allows six righties in the pen with Kimbrel, Reed, Kelly, Barnes, Workman, and Hembree as E-Rod serves as the lone lefty. If Price isn't an option for the pitching staff, then E-Rod winds up in the rotation and either Abad or Scott get the lone lefty spot. Hembree has his issues but in general he's pitched well enough to merit a spot thus far in the bullpen, although you can say the same about Boyer, although Hembree has better strikeout stuff and has shown the ability to pitch multiple innings.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 10, 2017 20:53:45 GMT -5
Benintendi and Nunez have been hot in August. Other than that the rest of the lineup is meh. Betts needs to hunt those fastballs some more, and idk what Bogaerts did to his once beautiful swing, but it looks like hes chopping wood. He can't pull anything anymore. If I had to guess I'd say the thumb injury Bogaerts incurred early in the year is lingering and may actually be one of those that requires surgery or extended immobilization after the year but is something "he can play through" right now. Over 60+ years of watching baseball, it seems that any injury to the thumb or that area, especially on the top hand, significantly causes a dimunition of power. Experience says up to a year. I wouldn't be surprised if X's power outage disappears early next year. Just a personal observation.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 10, 2017 21:06:24 GMT -5
The Yankees lose.
The Sox pick up a game on the loss column and gain a half game in the standings without even doing anything.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 10, 2017 21:06:39 GMT -5
Yankees lose! Down by 4 with 2 on base, Hicks just had quite possibly the worst AB I've seen this year by anyone against a shaky Osuna. This makes me happy all around.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 10, 2017 21:10:23 GMT -5
NYY - LOSERS!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 10, 2017 21:39:18 GMT -5
Barnes, I've noticed is either dominating or can't get anybody out. Usually it's all about his control/command. He's the guy who when he's bad will give up 4 runs in one shot and then not get scored upon for awhile. Edits in red ... Exactly what planet are you reporting from, and have you notified NASA? Matt Barnes has never given up 4 earned runs in a relief appearance in his career. He was indeed charged with 4 (game-changing) runs on July 30 when Xander booted an absolutely routine ground ball, he gave up a hard-hit ground ball single, and then two absolutely ordinary ground balls, each of which looked like a GDP coming off the bat, went perfectly through holes ... and then Robby Scott allowed all three inherited runners to score, with a bases-clearing double to the first batter he faced ... meanwhile, Barnes hasn't given up an XBH to his last 92 batters, going back to June 16.Even with that ridiculous BABIP luck, a proper system of earned runs would have charged Barnes with just 1.8, not 3. A reliever who can get everyone to hit ground balls will give up, on average, .35 runs per inning. Barnes had that BABIP-nightmare inning immediately after I had extolled his transformation into dominance, and some people here were quick to point out how premature I had been to make that claim. Subsequently, he has made 5 appearances and faced 15 batters, allowing 0 hits, 1 walk, striking out 6, and getting 6 ground balls, 1 line drive, and 1 FB. He inherited just one runner and erased him on a GDP with his first pitch. In fact, since I first proclaimed Barnes a transformed reliever and admitted that all of his numbers would regress to the mean because no one was capable of sustaining what he was doing, they've almost all gotten better (except for ERA, of course). It's still a SSSS (the first S for super), but meanwhile, we're still waiting for the regression and it's still not happening. And here's a study I just cooked up. There's a profound relationship between K% and BB%, and GB%. While K and BB rates explain just 5% of GB%, the expected GB% of a pitcher based on his K rate and BB rate can range from .380 to .555. (In general, the higher the K/W, the lower the GB rate. But the negative effect of K's levels off, and wild strikeout pitchers get even fewer GBs than ones with better control.) So you want to adjust the observed GB rate to reflect the expectation. That tells you how many GB's a guy is getting relative to his ability to command the strike zone. Barnes with the new delivery has a .692 GB rate, but given his K and BB you'd expect .425. Since MLB average is .451, that gives him an adjusted GB rate of .735. (You do it with ratios: 692 / 425 * 451.) From 2012 to 2016 there were 2007 pitching seasons with 150 or more BFP (I picked that limit because it gets you a bit more than 6 relievers per team per year). Three of those seasons had an adjusted GB higher than Barnes with the new delivery: Zach Britton in 2016, Zach Britton in 2015, and Zach Britton in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Aug 10, 2017 21:50:51 GMT -5
for barnes, the key is not walking guys. His stuff has always been good enough. If the new delivery mitigates that problem great. I am going need more than the current sample size to confirm that. This coming from a guy who has been one of his biggest backers on this site.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,696
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 10, 2017 23:03:48 GMT -5
Barnes, I've noticed is either dominating or can't get anybody out. Usually it's all about his control/command. He's the guy who when he's bad will give up 4 runs in one shot and then not get scored upon for awhile. Edits in red ... Exactly what planet are you reporting from, and have you notified NASA?Matt Barnes has never given up 4 earned runs in a relief appearance in his career. He was indeed charged with 4 (game-changing) runs on July 30 when Xander booted an absolutely routine ground ball, he gave up a hard-hit ground ball single, and then two absolutely ordinary ground balls, each of which looked like a GDP coming off the bat, went perfectly through holes ... and then Robby Scott allowed all three inherited runners to score, with a bases-clearing double to the first batter he faced ... meanwhile, Barnes hasn't given up an XBH to his last 92 batters, going back to June 16.Even with that ridiculous BABIP luck, a proper system of earned runs would have charged Barnes with just 1.8, not 3. A reliever who can get everyone to hit ground balls will give up, on average, .35 runs per inning. Barnes had that BABIP-nightmare inning immediately after I had extolled his transformation into dominance, and some people here were quick to point out how premature I had been to make that claim. Subsequently, he has made 5 appearances and faced 15 batters, allowing 0 hits, 1 walk, striking out 6, and getting 6 ground balls, 1 line drive, and 1 FB. He inherited just one runner and erased him on a GDP with his first pitch. In fact, since I first proclaimed Barnes a transformed reliever and admitted that all of his numbers would regress to the mean because no one was capable of sustaining what he was doing, they've almost all gotten better (except for ERA, of course). It's still a SSSS (the first S for super), but meanwhile, we're still waiting for the regression and it's still not happening. And here's a study I just cooked up. There's a profound relationship between K% and BB%, and GB%. While K and BB rates explain just 5% of GB%, the expected GB% of a pitcher based on his K rate and BB rate can range from .380 to .555. (In general, the higher the K/W, the lower the GB rate. But the negative effect of K's levels off, and wild strikeout pitchers get even fewer GBs than ones with better control.) So you want to adjust the observed GB rate to reflect the expectation. That tells you how many GB's a guy is getting relative to his ability to command the strike zone. Barnes with the new delivery has a .692 GB rate, but given his K and BB you'd expect .425. Since MLB average is .451, that gives him an adjusted GB rate of .735. (You do it with ratios: 692 / 425 * 451.) From 2012 to 2016 there were 2007 pitching seasons with 150 or more BFP (I picked that limit because it gets you a bit more than 6 relievers per team per year). Three of those seasons had an adjusted GB higher than Barnes with the new delivery: Zach Britton in 2016, Zach Britton in 2015, and Zach Britton in 2014. Is what I bolded really necessary? Can you simply disagree and provide your facts without the snark? I really don't have a ton of time to research stuff other than try to recall events from my memory, which sometimes is really good (particularly on historical stuff) and sometimes gets hit with biases and can come to the wrong conclusion. To begin with I was exaggerating the point I was trying to make which is when he's out of sync with his control he's more likely to give up multiple runs. I know you have annointed him the righthanded Andrew Miller now that he did his delivery tweaks - and I hope you are right. But it's really not that hard to imagine that a guy Barnes' size will have time where he struggles with his mechanics because of his size and when that happens he's more prone to blow up on the mound. You can throw all these numbers that may or may not really mean anything at me all you want but until I see a longer period of time where I can see consistency then I'll buy it. Thus far he's doing a good job with it, but I want to see a longer stretch. I mean you could tell me in 2011 that Daniel Bard had found the secret to life when he had a stretch where he was so unhittable, but then he fell hard in Sept 2011. I just like to see a longer sample size (probably longer than you would) before I get too excited about anything when it comes to performance changes. I'll keep an open mind about what I see, but like I said I didn't see any reason for the snark.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 11, 2017 2:11:09 GMT -5
What I can say about Barnes is that the new tweaked delivery might of helped his curveball into a elite level pitch, at least maybe from my perspective. I have no evidence to back this statement up, but right now I think his curveball is his best pitch by far. Right now if I had to compare his curveball to a pitcher in the past, I would compare it to Josh Beckett in 2007.
His fastball command is still a work in progress, even with his tweaked delivery, but his curveball has been so good that I think he can almost get away with just that pitch right now.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 11, 2017 12:23:33 GMT -5
What I can say about Barnes is that the new tweaked delivery might of helped his curveball into a elite level pitch, at least maybe from my perspective. I have no evidence to back this statement up, but right now I think his curveball is his best pitch by far. Right now if I had to compare his curveball to a pitcher in the past, I would compare it to Josh Beckett in 2007. His fastball command is still a work in progress, even with his tweaked delivery, but his curveball has been so good that I think he can almost get away with just that pitch right now. Here's his run value per 100 pitches, relative to all MLB pitches (with frequency in parentheses), first in 2016, then this year before the delivery change, then after it. FB
+0.60 (65%)
+1.76 (59%) +2.99 (53%) SL+0.43 (6%) -4.75 (13%) +6.04 (14%) CU-0.50 (24%) -0.45 (28%) +3.95 (34%) CH-3.11 (5%) --- --- To put these into perspective, here's where each result would rank among this year's qualifying relievers (minimum throwing the pitch 5% of the time): FB (out of 160) 85 -> 22 -> 5 SL (out of 115)
67 -> 114 -> 1 CU (out of 65) 36 -> 35 -> 3 Interpretation: almost every MLB reliever's FB is a better-than-average pitch. You can't succeed otherwise. For average relievers, breaking balls are often below average relative to all MLB pitches, and the main reason you throw them is so hitters can't sit on the FB. It's all game theory. Barnes prior to the transform had the usual good FB, but it was a fraction below average compared to MLB relievers. The curve was also a bit below average. The slider was relatively less effective than either, but the slider is more of a plus pitch in MLB than the curve, so Barnes threw it more this year. He had terrible results in a SSS, which is probably because he got hurt on just a couple of mistakes. Meanwhile, though, his FB command had been much better than in 2016 and it had become a very good pitch. Now it simply looks like all three pitches have become elite, but I think you're dead right about the importance of the curve to the mix. He's throwing it more often and the FB less, so a good portion of the further improvement in FB effectiveness is simply because he's throwing it less often and hence hitters can't look for it as much. And his SSS of 44 sliders (2.2 per outing) -- a pitch with better movement in the new delivery -- has been ridiculous. One of the reasons he's been so good is that hitters don't look for it, can't hit it, and he can pull it out of his back pocket twice an inning when he thinks that neither the FB or CU is a great idea. Better overall command but especially of the curve, and he's stopped hanging the slider (that would account for the improved average movement, too). The latter is an important component, and when (if?) he comes back to earth and becomes merely an excellent 8th inning guy, it's because never hanging the slider is more a SSS fluke than a result of the delivery change.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 11, 2017 15:44:49 GMT -5
Edits in red ... Exactly what planet are you reporting from, and have you notified NASA?Matt Barnes has never given up 4 earned runs in a relief appearance in his career. Is what I bolded really necessary? Can you simply disagree and provide your facts without the snark? I really don't have a ton of time to research stuff other than try to recall events from my memory, which sometimes is really good (particularly on historical stuff) and sometimes gets hit with biases and can come to the wrong conclusion. To begin with I was exaggerating the point I was trying to make which is when he's out of sync with his control he's more likely to give up multiple runs. I know you have annointed him the righthanded Andrew Miller now that he did his delivery tweaks - and I hope you are right. But it's really not that hard to imagine that a guy Barnes' size will have time where he struggles with his mechanics because of his size and when that happens he's more prone to blow up on the mound. You can throw all these numbers that may or may not really mean anything at me all you want but until I see a longer period of time where I can see consistency then I'll buy it. Thus far he's doing a good job with it, but I want to see a longer stretch. I mean you could tell me in 2011 that Daniel Bard had found the secret to life when he had a stretch where he was so unhittable, but then he fell hard in Sept 2011. I just like to see a longer sample size (probably longer than you would) before I get too excited about anything when it comes to performance changes. I'll keep an open mind about what I see, but like I said I didn't see any reason for the snark. I apologize for the snark, if it offended you ... I wouldn't have used it if I didn't think it was actually pretty funny, and more importantly, wasn't directed at someone whose memory for all things Sox is so good that the error seemed uncharacteristic. It's cruel to poke fun at someone who's not contributing much here. A slip-up by a valuable poster seems to me like a different animal (even if I'm aware that the response has, as you acknowledge, some element of bias.) And, yeah, he was inconsistent, and more so than most relievers. So another source of my response was the persistence in describing him that way when it seems to no longer apply. You didn't qualify the description with "used to be and may well still be." The key thing with Barnes that I think you may be missing is that, as I understand it, the entire purpose of the new delivery was to gain consistency. It would be different if he'd changed, say, his arm slot to get better movement, and that had suddenly fixed his inconsistency. Then you'd be right to question whether the new consistency and better command was for real. But as I understand the story, he was fed up with his inconsistent command, and tried three of four alterations to his delivery in search of something that he felt he could repeat better. The last was the dramatic simplification of his delivery that worked for Miller, and it worked for him dramatically, immediately. It's worked for him ever since. So: -- Simpler deliveries are inherently more consistent. -- Barnes immediately felt that he could better repeat the new, simpler, delivery. -- He has done just that, rather dramatically. So therefore I don't think there's any doubt that it has made him significantly, measurably more consistent. This consistent? Maybe not. But definitely more than before. How much, time will tell. Here's where we're just a little bit opposite: in Barnes' first game with the new delivery, he fanned the side swinging on 11 pitches. (Which was arguably fueled by adrenaline generated by excitement over how good the new delivery felt). And I was already more of a believer than you are now!
|
|
|