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.
4/19-4/21 Red Sox vs. Royals Series Thread
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 21, 2013 23:12:15 GMT -5
If WMB continues his struggles, any chance he could be back in Pawtucket? He still has two options left and he clearly needs some serious help on his plate discipline. If he had Daniel Nava's plate discipline, WMB would be one of the best 3B in the game. Btw, that last AB by him was good until he struck out, running the count full. ... When are Morales and Breslow back? 1) Middlebrooks has probably got until at least the middle of May to turn things around before he starts losing playing time, and probably until June before optioning him becomes realistic, but the problem is that there is no Plan B at third. I do find it interesting, however, that Justin Henry, one of Pawtucket's best hitters so far (leads system w/ 42% LD%; .341/.436/.432 line) and who has played very little 3B in his career, has made four of his last five starts at third base. The Sox may be trying to figure out if a temporary 3B solution should they need to send WMB down is currently in Pawtucket or not. Brock Holt has been awful at the plate and Drew Sutton hasn't been that good, so Henry may be getting a semi-look. 2) Breslow is pitching for Portland on Tuesday, Morales on Wednesday. (Lackey on Monday)
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Apr 21, 2013 23:29:22 GMT -5
Burn it down. Blow it up. Sell Fenway. Fire Wally.
What? Still have the best winning percentage in the AL? Second best in baseball? Okay I suppose they can have another day. . .
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Apr 22, 2013 0:01:53 GMT -5
I've been one of the bigger WMB skeptics but talk of demotion is foolish. If he's a true talent .750 OPS (with a good glove, that's a nice 3B) and he's at .650 after 59(!) at bats ... or even worse ... big deal, he's slumping. He could have a tough full season even - it happens to established players, and WMB's success in FY12 was clearly unsustainable in a partial year, and we all knew, or should have known, that he would have some learning to do. Yes, he's striking out a lot - what did you expect? Even when he's on he's going to K a ton.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 22, 2013 7:34:54 GMT -5
WMB is just bridging the gap until Garin Cecchini is ready. At the pace they are moving him, that's going to be 2015.
I'm as big a fan of WMB as there is, always have been, but his lack of discipline/recognition concerns me. He's shown an ability to adjust in the past though.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 22, 2013 8:11:46 GMT -5
I've been one of the bigger WMB skeptics but talk of demotion is foolish. If he's a true talent .750 OPS (with a good glove, that's a nice 3B) and he's at .650 after 59(!) at bats ... or even worse ... big deal, he's slumping. He could have a tough full season even - it happens to established players, and WMB's success in FY12 was clearly unsustainable in a partial year, and we all knew, or should have known, that he would have some learning to do. Yes, he's striking out a lot - what did you expect? Even when he's on he's going to K a ton.Ok, great... but who says he's a .750 OPS guy? What if he's, for instance, the .248/.285/.431 hitter than ZIPs projects?
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Apr 22, 2013 9:01:23 GMT -5
I've been one of the bigger WMB skeptics but talk of demotion is foolish. If he's a true talent .750 OPS (with a good glove, that's a nice 3B) and he's at .650 after 59(!) at bats ... or even worse ... big deal, he's slumping. He could have a tough full season even - it happens to established players, and WMB's success in FY12 was clearly unsustainable in a partial year, and we all knew, or should have known, that he would have some learning to do. Yes, he's striking out a lot - what did you expect? Even when he's on he's going to K a ton.Ok, great... but who says he's a .750 OPS guy? What if he's, for instance, the .248/.285/.431 hitter than ZIPs projects? Then he's a .716 OPS guy, this season at least.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 22, 2013 16:44:58 GMT -5
Point is, it's easy to say "well, if he hits X, he'll be fine", but if you're not providing some kind of reason that he's likely to hit that much, it's a meaningless statement. Hey, if he has a 1.000 OPS he'll be the MVP!
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Apr 22, 2013 17:42:26 GMT -5
If you object to an estimate, make a case that it's unreasonable. Anything else is just intellectually lazy.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Apr 23, 2013 2:15:48 GMT -5
If you object to an estimate, make a case that it's unreasonable. Anything else is just intellectually lazy. Shouldn't it be up to the person making the estimate to make a case that it's reasonable, not the person questioning it to make a case that it's unreasonable? If Gallup (or Rasmussen, or whoever) just threw poll numbers out there without anything to say how they got to those numbers and someone questioned them on where they came from, and their only response was "make a case that this seemingly random number is wrong," who is actually practicing intellectual laziness?
|
|
|