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.
Red Sox sign Marwin Gonzalez
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 13, 2021 11:24:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 13, 2021 11:34:33 GMT -5
That may be the case, but that I guess I’d ask: how plausible is it that a guy who is historically not a good hitter has his one big, big year the year we know his team cheated but that is just all a coincidence? I think you can make a case for signing him even without 2017. But if you are saying the guy we are getting is/could be *that* guy — or even the guu whose career averages include that year — that seems kind of crazy. And none of that addresses the ick-factor... a bunch of players (and a manager) will make good dough having been part of what I view as a very under-rated scandal. People point to steroids, but knowing what pitch is coming? C’mon. And if we can look at guys who suddenly start hitting tons of homeruns back at the height of the ‘roids era and roll our eyes, it seems fair to do that with guys who suddenly rake for the 2017 Astros. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 13, 2021 12:02:36 GMT -5
That may be the case, but that I guess I’d ask: how plausible is it that a guy who is historically not a good hitter has his one big, big year the year we know his team cheated but that is just all a coincidence? I think you can make a case for signing him even without 2017. But if you are saying the guy we are getting is/could be *that* guy — or even the guu whose career averages include that year — that seems kind of crazy. And none of that addresses the ick-factor... a bunch of players (and a manager) will make good dough having been part of what I view as a very under-rated scandal. People point to steroids, but knowing what pitch is coming? C’mon. And if we can look at guys who suddenly start hitting tons of homeruns back at the height of the ‘roids era and roll our eyes, it seems fair to do that with guys who suddenly rake for the 2017 Astros. I would say it was a career year. I get being doubtful, yet unless a player had massive home/road splits then I'd say the amount that helped is being way overblown. Nevermind the reports where teams said they knew and messed with them. I see a guy that should be about a league average league hitter who plays good D at a ton of positions. I'd also point out that Bradley's 2020 season was a big outlier also given the three seasons before it. Yet that hasn't stopped many for wanting him back when the chances he repeats that are very slim, about equal to Gonzalez getting back to 2017 levels. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 13, 2021 12:10:17 GMT -5
Thought this fangraphs chart on Gonzalez was interesting. Appears Gonzalez, springer, beltran, bregman were the biggest beneficiaries of that trash can thing. Gonzalez article It looks to me like Gonzalez, Beltran, Marisnick, and Gurriel were the biggest beneficiaries.
Among that group, Gonzalez and Marisnick had wildly outlierish career years, and Gurriel had his second-best season. Beltran stunk, but of course that was the last season of his career.
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 13, 2021 12:13:31 GMT -5
That may be the case, but that I guess I’d ask: how plausible is it that a guy who is historically not a good hitter has his one big, big year the year we know his team cheated but that is just all a coincidence? I thought eric's point that he changed his approach, saw big gains, and then the league adjusted was pretty persuasive. Of course that also gives us a reason to discount his 2017 results, even setting aside the cheating. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 13, 2021 12:24:01 GMT -5
It is possible that Gonzalez has a career year that both coincided with his benefiting from the sign-stealing and other unrelated factors, no?
And regardless, they're paying him to be a backup. He doesn't need to be 2017 Gonzalez, nor are they paying him to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 13, 2021 12:24:54 GMT -5
That may be the case, but that I guess I’d ask: how plausible is it that a guy who is historically not a good hitter has his one big, big year the year we know his team cheated but that is just all a coincidence? I think you can make a case for signing him even without 2017. But if you are saying the guy we are getting is/could be *that* guy — or even the guu whose career averages include that year — that seems kind of crazy. And none of that addresses the ick-factor... a bunch of players (and a manager) will make good dough having been part of what I view as a very under-rated scandal. People point to steroids, but knowing what pitch is coming? C’mon. And if we can look at guys who suddenly start hitting tons of homeruns back at the height of the ‘roids era and roll our eyes, it seems fair to do that with guys who suddenly rake for the 2017 Astros. I would say it was a career year. I get being doubtful, yet unless a player had massive home/road splits then I'd say the amount that helped is being way overblown. Nevermind the reports where teams said they knew and messed with them. I see a guy that should be about a league average league hitter who plays good D at a ton of positions. I'd also point out that Bradley's 2020 season was a big outlier also given the three seasons before it. Yet that hasn't stopped many for wanting him back when the chances he repeats that are very slim, about equal to Gonzalez getting back to 2017 levels. That may be in Bradley’s case. But a) to our knowledge, the Sox were not operating a massive, scientific cheating program; and b) it was *last* year, so we cannot say yet if it ended with the season. We can say MG came immediately back to earth after the trash bins were silenced. Anyway, as I said: a) there are reasons *independent* of how good he was in 2017. b) it takes a lot of squirming to say they cheated, which helped people, but the guy who had the career year (that he has never followed up) didn’t benefit. c) if that is our attitude, I assume everyone votes for Bonds who played in an era of cheats but can’t technically be said to have benefited. Maybe he just adjusted! d) ... nothing about Bradley... it wasn’t a comparison. e) for me, at least, it is not about good player/bad player. It is about the ick factor. I have a hard time tooting for a guy who is making millions of dollars in part because (or at least despite that) he cheated. 🤷♂️. Purely subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 13, 2021 14:31:00 GMT -5
I would say it was a career year. I get being doubtful, yet unless a player had massive home/road splits then I'd say the amount that helped is being way overblown. Nevermind the reports where teams said they knew and messed with them. I see a guy that should be about a league average league hitter who plays good D at a ton of positions. I'd also point out that Bradley's 2020 season was a big outlier also given the three seasons before it. Yet that hasn't stopped many for wanting him back when the chances he repeats that are very slim, about equal to Gonzalez getting back to 2017 levels. That may be in Bradley’s case. But a) to our knowledge, the Sox were not operating a massive, scientific cheating program; and b) it was *last* year, so we cannot say yet if it ended with the season. We can say MG came immediately back to earth after the trash bins were silenced. Anyway, as I said: a) there are reasons *independent* of how good he was in 2017. b) it takes a lot of squirming to say they cheated, which helped people, but the guy who had the career year (that he has never followed up) didn’t benefit. c) if that is our attitude, I assume everyone votes for Bonds who played in an era of cheats but can’t technically be said to have benefited. Maybe he just adjusted! d) ... nothing about Bradley... it wasn’t a comparison. e) for me, at least, it is not about good player/bad player. It is about the ick factor. I have a hard time tooting for a guy who is making millions of dollars in part because (or at least despite that) he cheated. 🤷♂️. Purely subjective. Yeah I would vote for Bonds, it's not even a discussion for me. Here's how I look at cheating, it's been going on since the beginning of time and tons of players do it. I look at the steroid era as a huge positive for Baseball. It literally saved Baseball after the strike. People seem to forget that. So I view players in the lense of the time they played. I 100% believe Bonds took steroids and I 100% believe a ton of the guys he faced also did. I don't think Steroids made him a HOF player. Unless you can 100% tell me everyone who did and didn't take them, while also showing me what effect they had on their careers that's a crazy slippery slope to walk. With Gonzalez 2017 really has no bearing for me. Just that his road splits do show it wasn't just cheating. I have to ask, so you wouldn't have wanted Springer? Lots of comments from you how that changes everything for the Jays. Yet look at his numbers, there's no massive difference. 2017 wasn't his best year and if that sign stealing was so huge shouldn't it have been? He's another guy who hit better on the road than at home. I'm not really seeing an evidence that sign stealing helped them. Then there's if you have people involved in that, then don't who have to hate the Red Sox players and coaches? We got punished for it twice! The magical 2018 season involved it. You going to look at Betts differently now? |
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 13, 2021 14:49:59 GMT -5
That may be in Bradley’s case. But a) to our knowledge, the Sox were not operating a massive, scientific cheating program; and b) it was *last* year, so we cannot say yet if it ended with the season. We can say MG came immediately back to earth after the trash bins were silenced. Anyway, as I said: a) there are reasons *independent* of how good he was in 2017. b) it takes a lot of squirming to say they cheated, which helped people, but the guy who had the career year (that he has never followed up) didn’t benefit. c) if that is our attitude, I assume everyone votes for Bonds who played in an era of cheats but can’t technically be said to have benefited. Maybe he just adjusted! d) ... nothing about Bradley... it wasn’t a comparison. e) for me, at least, it is not about good player/bad player. It is about the ick factor. I have a hard time tooting for a guy who is making millions of dollars in part because (or at least despite that) he cheated. 🤷♂️. Purely subjective. Yeah I would vote for Bonds, it's not even a discussion for me. Here's how I look at cheating, it's been going on since the beginning of time and tons of players do it. I look at the steroid era as a huge positive for Baseball. It literally saved Baseball after the strike. People seem to forget that. So I view players in the lense of the time they played. I 100% believe Bonds took steroids and I 100% believe a ton of the guys he faced also did. I don't think Steroids made him a HOF player. Unless you can 100% tell me everyone who did and didn't take them, while also showing me what effect they had on their careers that's a crazy slippery slope to walk. With Gonzalez 2017 really has no bearing for me. Just that his road splits do show it wasn't just cheating. I have to ask, so you wouldn't have wanted Springer? Lots of comments from you how that changes everything for the Jays. Yet look at his numbers, there's no massive difference. 2017 wasn't his best year and if that sign stealing was so huge shouldn't it have been? He's another guy who hit better on the road than at home. I'm not really seeing an evidence that sign stealing helped them. Then there's if you have people involved in that, then don't who have to hate the Red Sox players and coaches? We got punished for it twice! The magical 2018 season involved it. You going to look at Betts differently now? First: I am no saint. I love Manny, but I can no longer respect him (as much for stupidity!). If we were talking about a superstar, I’d be as hypocritical as the next guy, I’m sure. So... I’m no saint. I did not want to sign Springer but for reasons that never reached the ethical dilemma. Abstracted from issues of contract and ethics, yes, he makes the Jays much better. He was excellent in 2017, but he had better years still in 2016 and 2019. So, on the one hand, cheating didn’t obviously boost him (meaning I expect he could still certainly equal his 2017 numbers), and on the other, the question of ethics is separate from that. He is as tarred as anyone, even if his numbers don’t appear to be out of alignment. By the way... I’d say the issue of sign stealing helping is also separable: first, it seems like any performance enhancement still leaves only circumstantial evidence of improvement. That is, you cannot literally demonstrate steroids improved anyone unless you isolate every possible excuse. But even with the lack of causal connection, if it quacks like a duck.... But... cheating doesn’t only “count” if it works, just as sticking up a bank with a gun isn’t only a crime if I make it out with the money. So given that the cheating is proven, no one *has* to show the causal relation to call him or the others cheaters. In 2018, I didn’t know about 2017. Certainly when Cora was hired the first time, I didn’t know. That is a big difference. I’m not trying to sway people, and I totally agree there is virtually no way to create a clear line across time, place, teams whatever. But there speaking for myself, in cases that are acknowledged, admitted, verified etc. I don’t love signing guys up who have never really paid a price. While hard cases are hard, when you ignore easy cases, it makes it that much more worth cheating going forward. Now... I’ll add one other complication. I don’t think it is the Sox unique responsibility to be gatekeepers. The league blew it by not suspending players big time. Having let them go, the league said to teams play on. So the Sox have every reason to do so. So I’m not spitting nails, canceling my MLB package etc... I’m no saint. But I don’t *enjoy* adding players I am reluctant to root for even before game one. Hey, maybe the guy is the next Brock Holt (I mean off the field) and wins me over. But he starts behind. |
|
|
