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.
9/8-9/10 Red Sox vs. Rays Series Thread
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 10, 2017 15:38:13 GMT -5
Why does Farrell have Kimbrel warming in a game where the Sox ARE DOWN BY 4 RUNS??!!
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 10, 2017 15:44:29 GMT -5
There is only so much you can do with Porcello, I agree. The offensive problems are partly Farrell's fault too. He doesn't use his best pinch hitting options in key spots. He leads off one of his worst hitters in the second half in Xander Bogaerts. He would rather use Holt over Lin in a key game (Lin is a better hitter at this point) and then he'll want to play his worst offensive player in the 7th spot in the batting order (Holt) over two hitters who are clearly better than Holt in Travis and JBJ. Sure. I am not saying your incorrect. I dont think JF is that great a manager. It isn't easy to see the guys lose games this time of year. Our offense is hard to watch most days.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 10, 2017 16:02:25 GMT -5
tough loss, but successful series. Seems like 20 over .500 is a stumbling block. We gotta take care of the A's handily.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 10, 2017 16:39:10 GMT -5
The only good takeaway that I can see from Farrell not pinch hitting Young for Moreland is that hopefully Farrell doesn't trust Young against LHP anymore.
I personally think Sam Travis has surpassed Young in terms of a playoff spot on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 10, 2017 16:58:54 GMT -5
If this team had last year's offense they'd have 96 wins at this point. At least. If this team had last year's best manager still in the dugout, Torey Lovullo, they'd have at least 10 extra wins. I'm no fan of Farrell but that's ridiculous. The Red Sox offense is thoroughly mediocre. Lovullo wouldn't be squeezing 10 extra wins out of this team. Nobody would. Earl Weaver in his prime couldn't. You can't win every game 2-1. The Red Sox offense shuts down too often to allow ridiculously long stretches of brilliance.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 10, 2017 17:11:13 GMT -5
If this team had last year's offense they'd have 96 wins at this point. At least. Perhaps this year's team would have more. Last year's team was good enough to win 100 games but lost way too many close games and underachieved despite a ferocious offense and a strong top of the rotation, and as it was they lost two close games to what I felt was an inferior injury riddled Indians team. The thought was replace Ortiz with Sale and all is equal. Not bad thinking, but the fact of the matter is that while Sale did his part, Pomeranz was healthy finally and blossomed and Kimbrel dominated, the offense has been highly mediocre. It's not that they just lost Ortiz. It's like Betts, Bogaerts, and Hanley were neutered, Pedroia missed time, and Moreland as decent as he's been doesn't come close to replacing Ortiz's production in the middle. This year's team is nowhere near as good as last year's team. Last year's team should have won almost 100 games but settled for 93. This year's team will probably wind up winning almost as many games as last year's team, but they should probably only win about 90 given their true talent level. This year's team has actually overachieved, which is why they might actually have a better shot in this year's playoffs, even though I think talent wise, they're inferior to the Indians and Astros, and even the Yankees. At this point I'm hoping E-Rod heals up and starts pitching better, the way he is capable of pitching when not worrying about his knee. If we get that guy back, I honestly would leave Porcello out of the rotation come playoff time. It's not Porcello's fault that the offense goes into a coma often when he pitches, but the guy has been getting whacked hard this year. He has been mediocre, to be charitable. And he's another reason why the Sox this year aren't the juggernaut we hoped they'd be. I'd even consider leaving him off the roster if Maddox continues to impress or Smith looks ready, neither of which I think will be the case. It was a good series against Tampa after a good series against Toronto, but the Red Sox are not clicking on all cylinders and I don't know if they're capable of doing so given how often the offense goes to sleep. They need to take at least 2 of 3 against Oakland (especially on Thursday because I have tickets to the game). If they don't they're still vulnerable to being caught by NY. I still think they'll hold on, but I don't think it'll be easy or pretty. I actually am curious to see if that final 4 game set against Houston determines who they play in the the first round. It would be funny if Houston beat them up (after the Sox would have clinched) and then the Sox knock out Houston in the ALDS. Not so funny the other way around or if by beating up Houston they set themselves up to get knocked off by Cleveland, who looks like the class of the league right now, although I'm less scared of them at this point (because the Sox would be expected to lose) then I was by Game 2 of the ALDS when I knew the Sox were not going to find a way to win against an inferior team.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 10, 2017 17:50:00 GMT -5
There are no teams that "should have won 100". The teams that do always exceed their projections.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Sept 10, 2017 20:37:16 GMT -5
I only watched part of the game - a few observations from the bits I saw and perusing the box score
Porcello really has to work hard for everything this year - he may not be off by much, but looking at his last three seasons, there is a fine line between hittable and unhittable Porcello.
Bogaerts is NOT a leadoff hitter - in fact he continues to make soft contact at best (there are a few line drives here and there, but not reliably so). He needs to be dropped down lower.
Mostly - they missed Nunez - and today without him showed what a spark he has been.
Other than that, you win some, you lose some - and since you can't win them all, today was kind of inevitable...sadly. This offense just doesn't reliably click.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Sept 10, 2017 20:40:38 GMT -5
Maybe a few more thoughts - Holt. Young. Not deserving of being on the playoff roster (or even on the team right now). Not sure about Davis either. Travis and Lin are better options.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 10, 2017 21:24:11 GMT -5
tough loss, but successful series. Seems like 20 over .500 is a stumbling block. We gotta take care of the A's handily. You mean the As who just swept a four game series against Houston? Those As?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 10, 2017 22:09:45 GMT -5
tough loss, but successful series. Seems like 20 over .500 is a stumbling block. We gotta take care of the A's handily. You mean the As who just swept a four game series against Houston? Those As? The same A's that swept the Sox in Oakland earlier this year too. What a trap series this could be.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 11, 2017 7:43:39 GMT -5
There are no teams that "should have won 100". The teams that do always exceed their projections. I wouldn't say there are NO teams that should win 100. The 2007 Red Sox outscored their opponents by about 200 runs, correct? That team should have won 100 according to their pythagorean projected record. Last year's team should have won about 98 games so I exaggerated 100 by a small amount. The 2013 team projected to a winning pct of .618 which is 100 wins, and the 2007 team projected to a winning pct of .624 which is 101 wins. The 2002 team actually projected close to 100 wins (.615 winning pct%) so it does happen that according to those projections teams should have the ability to win 100 games. The Red Sox, for some reason, when that happens, never play up to the projections. They last reached triple digits in 1946 win 104 wins. That team actually projected to a 97-57 record so they actually played above expectations given their runs scored/runs allowed. The main point is that while the team from last season projected at .606 or 98 wins, this team projects to 92 wins which is actually what this team is on pace for, so last year's team underachieved and this one is actually on target thus far, so they look like two similar teams but this year's team is actually about 6 games worse than last year's team as far as win expectations go, but they'll wind up in about the same place. If they underprojected in 17 like they did in 16 they'd be around 86-87 wins. Good thing they're not. And that's as far as my statistical "expertise" will take me.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 11, 2017 11:01:58 GMT -5
Why does Farrell have Kimbrel warming in a game where the Sox ARE DOWN BY 4 RUNS??!! Because he hadn't pitched since the 5th and they have an off day today. He'd also had 3 days off before that appearance. There's a point where you've gotta get a guy work, and that was a great spot to do it with the off day today.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 11, 2017 12:21:46 GMT -5
I tried to find that post but running a quick search with the word "Farrell" in this thread just caused my computer to overheat and melt.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 11, 2017 12:39:43 GMT -5
There are no teams that "should have won 100". The teams that do always exceed their projections. I wouldn't say there are NO teams that should win 100. The 2007 Red Sox outscored their opponents by about 200 runs, correct? That team should have won 100 according to their pythagorean projected record. Last year's team should have won about 98 games so I exaggerated 100 by a small amount. The 2013 team projected to a winning pct of .618 which is 100 wins, and the 2007 team projected to a winning pct of .624 which is 101 wins. The 2002 team actually projected close to 100 wins (.615 winning pct%) so it does happen that according to those projections teams should have the ability to win 100 games. The Red Sox, for some reason, when that happens, never play up to the projections. They last reached triple digits in 1946 win 104 wins. That team actually projected to a 97-57 record so they actually played above expectations given their runs scored/runs allowed. The main point is that while the team from last season projected at .606 or 98 wins, this team projects to 92 wins which is actually what this team is on pace for, so last year's team underachieved and this one is actually on target thus far, so they look like two similar teams but this year's team is actually about 6 games worse than last year's team as far as win expectations go, but they'll wind up in about the same place. If they underprojected in 17 like they did in 16 they'd be around 86-87 wins. Good thing they're not. And that's as far as my statistical "expertise" will take me. To be clear, I was going by pre-season projections, not by pythag.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 11, 2017 12:58:03 GMT -5
I wouldn't say there are NO teams that should win 100. The 2007 Red Sox outscored their opponents by about 200 runs, correct? That team should have won 100 according to their pythagorean projected record. Last year's team should have won about 98 games so I exaggerated 100 by a small amount. The 2013 team projected to a winning pct of .618 which is 100 wins, and the 2007 team projected to a winning pct of .624 which is 101 wins. The 2002 team actually projected close to 100 wins (.615 winning pct%) so it does happen that according to those projections teams should have the ability to win 100 games. The Red Sox, for some reason, when that happens, never play up to the projections. They last reached triple digits in 1946 win 104 wins. That team actually projected to a 97-57 record so they actually played above expectations given their runs scored/runs allowed. The main point is that while the team from last season projected at .606 or 98 wins, this team projects to 92 wins which is actually what this team is on pace for, so last year's team underachieved and this one is actually on target thus far, so they look like two similar teams but this year's team is actually about 6 games worse than last year's team as far as win expectations go, but they'll wind up in about the same place. If they underprojected in 17 like they did in 16 they'd be around 86-87 wins. Good thing they're not. And that's as far as my statistical "expertise" will take me. To be clear, I was going by pre-season projections, not by pythag. Ah, I see, and agree. If I had a dollar for every time I heard the Red Sox look like a 100 win team by time spring training rolls around with nobody injured and the Sox not having lost a game....they haven't won 100 since they won 104 in 1946, so anticipating a 100 win season is not something I ever do. It's actually rarer for the team than winning a World Series, and certainly less important.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 11, 2017 14:49:42 GMT -5
I'm resisting the urge to do a complete before and after breakdown of Vazquez, even though the thread title "CV's CV" is obvious.
But the plate discipline metrics jump out at you. His Z-Swing and Z-Contact are both down, but his hardness of contact is way, way up.
He used to swing defensively, including swinging at more pitcher's strikes. Now he's laying off pitches he can't hit hard, and attacking those he things he can handle.
I'll note one more time than b-Ref, rather insanely, does not include DRS pitch-framing runs (where they have CV at +13) in WAR, but does include their estimate of pitch-calling (where they have CV as -5 runs relative to Leon, but even that's dubious). If they did it correctly, he'd have 2.5 WAR, not 0.7. And he's played barely more than half the time. As a regular catcher on pace for 120 games, that's 3.5 (or 3.3 if use you BP's pitch framing numbers).
He's been the third best position player on the team, just trailing JBJ, and when you include clutch hitting, just edges Pedey as the 4th most valuable adjusted for PT, and just trails him without the PT adjustment.
Mookie 5.6 - 0.4 PT + 2.5 clutch* JBJ 3.2 + 0.4 PT + 0.5 clutch CV 2.5 + 1.0 PT + 0.0 clutch Pedey 1.8 + 0.8 PT + 0.8 clutch
*Yes, Mookie Betts is the actual AL MVP if you include his preposterous clutch splits. It's not really close, either.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 11, 2017 16:00:29 GMT -5
I think many of us would like to get the voters to take OBP seriously, so getting them to buy in to the clutch thing may be a stretch. Ortiz, who's single-handed (or homer-handed if you want) effort to prove the existence of clutch performance just about succeeded, never did win an MVP. If David Ortiz can't do it maybe no one can.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 11, 2017 17:20:33 GMT -5
I'm resisting the urge to do a complete before and after breakdown of Vazquez, even though the thread title "CV's CV" is obvious. But the plate discipline metrics jump out at you. His Z-Swing and Z-Contact are both down, but his hardness of contact is way, way up. He used to swing defensively, including swinging at more pitcher's strikes. Now he's laying off pitches he can't hit hard, and attacking those he things he can handle. I'll note one more time than b-Ref, rather insanely, does not include DRS pitch-framing runs (where they have CV at +13) in WAR, but does include their estimate of pitch-calling (where they have CV as -5 runs relative to Leon, but even that's dubious). If they did it correctly, he'd have 2.5 WAR, not 0.7. And he's played barely more than half the time. As a regular catcher on pace for 120 games, that's 3.5 (or 3.3 if use you BP's pitch framing numbers). He's been the third best position player on the team, just trailing JBJ, and when you include clutch hitting, just edges Pedey as the 4th most valuable adjusted for PT, and just trails him without the PT adjustment. Mookie 5.6 - 0.4 PT + 2.5 clutch* JBJ 3.2 + 0.4 PT + 0.5 clutch CV 2.5 + 1.0 PT + 0.0 clutch Pedey 1.8 + 0.8 PT + 0.8 clutch *Yes, Mookie Betts is the actual AL MVP if you include his preposterous clutch splits. It's not really close, either. I wish he'd get a little more playing time especially while Leon is scuffling at the plate. I can't imagine that the pitchers are so uncomfortable with a different catcher that they'd have a meltdown. Not every pitcher is Jon Lester.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 11, 2017 21:49:11 GMT -5
I think many of us would like to get the voters to take OBP seriously, so getting them to buy in to the clutch thing may be a stretch. Ortiz, who's single-handed (or homer-handed if you want) effort to prove the existence of clutch performance just about succeeded, never did win an MVP. If David Ortiz can't do it maybe no one can. That's my fault. The year A-Rod beat him out (2005), I compiled a set of incredible statistics showing Ortiz's huge superiority except for performance in games that already had a 4+ run margin, where A-Rod had ridiculous numbers and Papi was a bit below his norm. I sat on them for a while before e-mailing them to Theo and asking if the Sox wanted to use them and make them public. But it was probably too close to the voting by that point. I did post them as comments online, and they did get noticed a little. An estimate of their clutch-adjusted bWAR from that year: AR 9.4 - 0.6 clutch = 8.8 DO 5.3 + 3.7 clutch = 9.0 + 0.7 proper DH positional adjustment = 9.7. I firmly believe that the positional adjustment for DH (-15 R per 162 games) is way too extreme; while DH has no defensive value, it's also demonstrably harder to hit as a DH compared to as a defensive player. As a group, DH's have hit worse than 1B (-10 adjustment) but better than LF (-6). That puts the proper adjustment as -8.
|
|
|