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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by natesp4 on Jun 28, 2021 20:24:35 GMT -5
Was digging into Renfroe on baseball reference and came across the Tampa-San Diego Renfroe trade. That one's looking rough for Tampa even though it looked somewhat reasonable at the time. They sent Pham (1.8 bWAR) and Cronenworth (3.4 bWAR, full 6 years of control at the time) for Renfroe, Xavier Edwards, and old friend Esteban Quiroz. Xavier Edwards is admittedly a nice prospect, but with Renfroe non-tendered and now on fire this really has to hurt.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Jun 28, 2021 19:54:20 GMT -5
Very random aside that I figured the people on this board would appreciate more than anyone:
If you ever are craving attention, just go to Fenway wearing Bellhorn memorabilia. I went to the game yesterday wearing my prized Bellhorn shirsey and was pulled aside by at least 5 different people who wanted to express how much it means to them to see me wearing the shirt. I had one older woman sit next to me during warmups for about 5 minutes to discuss Bellhorn's biggest hits in '04 and how much joy they brought her. Hell, even a couple Yankee fans gave me high fives just because they appreciated the deep cut.
Red Sox Nation is probably one of the only fanbases that has such an emotional connection to their team to have that kind of reaction to a random guy in a shirt, just a really weird but cool experience.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Jun 18, 2021 8:44:21 GMT -5
For my own sanity I'm thinking of this as two separate trades: Kemba and a 2nd for Horford and a first rounder for Moses Brown. I don't love either of those trades but I'm fine with them.
Just a really disappointing end to Kemba's Boston career when it seemed like such a cool fit.
Edit: Just realized the Celtics also got a 2nd back, so the Kemba/Horford deal would be a straight swap
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on May 17, 2021 17:05:55 GMT -5
I think I just split the difference between replacement and average player and add 1.0 WAR to his total in my head. Which passes my gut check where if Trout comes in at 9 WAR and Ohtani comes in at a cumulative 8 WAR, I view those as roughly equal seasons.
I'll also say that if a Red Sox player can't win MVP, I want Ohtani to win. It'd be great for baseball for "the next Babe Ruth" to come full circle on living up to the hype by winning MVP as an all-star quality pitcher and hitter.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Apr 15, 2021 8:33:23 GMT -5
I actually had a reaction somewhat in the opposite. While they may not be selecting from generational talents at #4, I'm looking at this list and I'd be very content with anyone 1-8. I feel like usually I'm looking at these lists and dreading the possibility of them selecting a least a few guys in their range.
Add in the fact that there will likely be a Tier 1 set of 4-5 players come July and the Red Sox will just be selecting whichever one falls, and this has potential to be the draft that gives me the least heartache yet.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Mar 30, 2021 11:28:41 GMT -5
Mata likely moving down as well so we should see a new #3. I can't imagine much of a switch amongst the guys directly below Mata though. Maybe Houck gets a little boost based on the velocity bump. My guess is those guys just slide up in the order they're in and Mata slides in behind Houck.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Mar 23, 2021 8:25:05 GMT -5
Has anyone ever done a study on where the danger zones are for innings in a season, pitches in a game, etc? I am fine with not having guys throw 135, 140, or more pitches. But it seems like even 120 is almost unheard of today, and truthfully that doesn’t seem more dangerous to me than 95-100 pitches. I think the answer to the change is manifold: A) survivor bias. There *were* plenty of Fidryches whose arms went kaboom. So we see the survivors and think the practice “worked,” or whatever. B) guys didn’t try to strike out as many batters and tried to keep pitch counts lower. I suspect there were guys throwing 89-91 who could have been 94-95 if they thought it was worth it. C) strategic change. With modern bullpens, there is less reason to throw a guy longer, no matter who he is. D) investments... it is simply too expensive a risk to have, well, Sale miss a year and a half. That is just a few — and others have been mentioned, too. That said, it is impossible not to marvel at guys like Palmer in the 70s: 40 starts, 23 CGs in 1976, for example. And we have guys we hope make 23 STARTS. This isn't exactly what you're looking for but I often go back to these two sources on the matter: bleacherreport.com/articles/1622573-do-innings-limits-pitch-counts-actually-prevent-serious-injurieswww.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/09/predicting-tommy-john-surgeries-the-2017-update.htmlThe conclusion seems to be that there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest what pitch count is "correct" but modern pitchers aren't being allowed to train their arms to throw 110+ pitches on a consistent basis. Based on the second article (as many would predict) risk of injury is much more heavily correlated with repeatability of delivery, % of hard pitches thrown, and previous arm injuries. I swear I remember reading an article discussing how the 100-pitch limit had zero basis in science and 100% basis in picking an easy even number, but I think the conclusion was once again that they couldn't find any evidence as to what the proper number should be.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Feb 19, 2021 7:19:46 GMT -5
Count me in as another who would love to see more discussion here. I'm unfortunately just not as smart in hockey as I am in baseball. Can't provide much analysis, I just sit back and yell "shoot the puck" here and there.
I will say if anyone here is into the development of more sabermetric style stats in hockey you should give @fauxcentre a follow on Twitter. He's doing some really cool things and posts pretty frequent analysis on Bruins players.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Feb 17, 2021 9:35:04 GMT -5
This is honestly one of my favorite Bloom era trades. It feels like the type of trade you pull in a video game, trading guys you were cutting anyways for prospects. The type of trade you would just never see in the Dombrowski era, in part because Dombrowski never would have accumulated excess depth guys like this in the first place. This is one of your favorite trades? Org. guys all around? I am afraid I am confused by the mise-en-abyme of it all: Bloom is a genius because of his Rays training, so he has mastered the art of sending guys we know are not valuable to chumps who don’t. Bbuuuuutttt.... this is to the RAYS, masters of knowing which prospects will bust and wizards of finding low hanging fruit. To believe Bloom has won, we must trust his Rays training; if he has won, then the Rays lose.... and then.... what... becomes.... of.... his... training??? Did O. Henry write this story? Yeah I enjoy this type of deal. He's using the fringe ends of the roster to try to keep building value. As someone who loves following prospects, this is part of what makes following a team fun. I'm not saying he just bamboozled the Rays, but the Sox were prepared to lose both Mazza and Springs for nothing and got another fun guy to keep tabs on.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Feb 17, 2021 9:20:41 GMT -5
This is honestly one of my favorite Bloom era trades. It feels like the type of trade you pull in a video game, trading guys you were cutting anyways for prospects. The type of trade you would just never see in the Dombrowski era, in part because Dombrowski never would have accumulated excess depth guys like this in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Jul 17, 2020 17:59:00 GMT -5
I was staring at baseball reference today looking through the career stats of some guys and it got me thinking about how certain guys panned out vs the expectations we all had for them. Guys who were not busts but had varying levels of success like Bogaerts, JBJ, Barnes, Vasquez, Benintendi, Mookie, Holt, ERod, etc. Where would we classify their outcome so far in their career compared to their floor/baseline/ceiling? I feel like as prospects we analyze these guys like crazy, assigning grades to each of their skills but once they hit the majors we're pretty binary (satisfied/disappointed). I'd be curious see what everyone here would rate various players on the team (or off the team) in terms of a percentile. For example, in my opinion Travis Shaw is a guy who probably hit his 95th percentile projection.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Jan 28, 2020 19:21:10 GMT -5
Thank goodness, I was scared of a world without a former Rangers first baseman. This will make 7 of the last 8 years with a guy we signed out of Texas. Gives them a chance to develop a new one for us.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on May 27, 2019 8:25:17 GMT -5
Ben Watson suspended first 4 games... sucks but could be a blessing. They get an extra roster spot out of the gate and give some extra rest to a 38 year old guy... Also probably the best apology for getting caught violating the drug policy that I've ever seen. He did have unique circumstances that other players typically don't have, but that doesn't take away from how refreshingly genuine and honest it seemed.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Apr 16, 2019 12:12:13 GMT -5
At this point I'm glad he got DFA'd. I've been rooting for this guy so hard his entire career and watched the Sox do seemingly everything they can to prevent him from succeeding.
I hope he gets picked up by a team that puts him in a great position to succeed and he just absolutely mashes.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Jan 25, 2019 18:03:30 GMT -5
FWIW, redsoxpayroll on Twitter has them at 244.69M already for the CBT (admittedly a rough estimate, but don't be fooled by the Cot's spreadsheet like I was, as that's not a CBT number). Figure at least 0.9M comes off with a catcher trade (and as much as $3.75M), there's still not a lot of room to move there. Maybe they save a million or two by cutting one of the arb relievers in camp, but if they're serious about staying under the third CBT threshold, then Dombrowski might be serious about their stance on relievers. The shame would be if, like, last year, they go over regardless and pass up on FA deals for no reason. As for those saying they should just trade for someone midseason, that's just not a good idea. Last year, would you have assumed they'd need to trade for a 2B and a SP at the deadline? For me, you build a team, then take the Theo method of spending the first third of the season identifying what you need, then the second third finding it. I am missing your points here. Was there any shame/ bad things they did last year? Secondly, I didn't understand the Theo method vs any normal method for a high priced team. Last year they traded for Eovaldi and Pearce and Kinsler. So if someone were to sya let's see what we got going into the year then if need to make a trade, isn't that what we did last year and probably looking like we might do with the bullpen this year? And maybe 2b? And maybe other positions? The idea is to keep money open so they can make a trade. That's what they did last year I thought. So where is the shame if any for this year or last year? His point is more about the second half of the sentence. Last year the Sox passed up on improving the team more in free agency presumably in an effort to stay under the tax. They then ended up going just over the limit anyways. If you're not re-setting the tax, just blow through it and go all in. The same situation seems to be setting itself up this year.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Dec 13, 2018 14:07:28 GMT -5
Very unfamiliar with the rules for the minor league portion. What restrictions were the Sox up against where they manage to lose a guy like Tyler Hill? Not that he's set the world on fire, but he's a 22 year old who's still worth tracking. I guess I more expect to lose 26 year old org types when I think of the minor league Rule 5.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Nov 3, 2018 9:24:48 GMT -5
Is dekeing pitches not already a super prevalent thing in the MLB? I mean I remember being taught in babe ruth to always turn the ball over in our glove a few times before throwing so the batter couldn't pick up on you putting a curve ball grip on. And that's when our pitches were so terrible that it wouldnt have mattered anyways.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Oct 20, 2018 15:18:30 GMT -5
Can someone with a little better scouting eye than myself tell me how competent Travis Shaw is at 2B? He played 37 games there this year and still had 1.0 dWAR. Were we really this far off with his defensive profile that he actually has the range to play an ok 2B? Or is this a case of shoving a square peg into a round hole to keep his bat in the lineup?
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Oct 1, 2018 20:00:13 GMT -5
Not a huge fan of Kuraly on the 3rd line. Like him as a player but I think he's a nice 4th liner and becomes below average as a 3rd line center.
Not very prospect heavy, especially since I think Urho will be sent down once Grz or Krug is back. With so many prospects not making the team it makes me pretty open to a Panarin type trade. I really thought one of JFK, Studnicka, Frederic, Cehlarik would make the team.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Oct 1, 2018 19:39:07 GMT -5
I think a lot of you are kind of putting words in fenway's mouth. He never said Mookie has the better career, or who he thinks would be better in modern day, or anything like that. Just comparing the best season between the two players. Using a strictly numbers based argument since I wasn't alive to watch Ted Williams (admittedly makes my argument more irrelevant than others), they are pretty easy to compare.
Mookie's 2018 and Ted's 1941 had them both at 10.9 bWAR. Ted had a much better offensive season than Mookie, putting up ridiculous numbers, but provided no value on the basepaths or on the field. Mookie on the other hand put up a great season in terms of offense, defense, and baserunning. They were two totally different players. I think it's an interesting argument to say that perhaps Ted's 1941 offensive numbers would have looked a little more like Mookie's had he been playing in a de-segregated league (thus making Mookie's 2018 more impressive). On the counter point, Ted's numbers may have looked even more impressive if he had access to advanced scouting reports on every pitcher and was able to reap the benefits of modern training/nutrition/etc.
Regardless, the biggest takeaway of this discussion to me is how crazy and awesome it is to look at the skepticism about Mookie in the beginning of this thread and fast forward to now when we're having legitimate discussions comparing Mookie Betts to Ted Williams.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Oct 1, 2018 5:34:11 GMT -5
I hadn't realized it until Champs brought it up in the GDT, but Mookie is going to end up with a batting title and a MVP award this year. That doesn't happen a lot I'm sure. He's the Willie Mays of our generation. Probably the best season baseball had seen since Bonds. In terms of bWAR it is. And it's the best non-Bonds season since Ripken in '91. Tied for second best Red Sox season with Ted Williams at 10.9
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Sept 21, 2018 14:20:10 GMT -5
At 10.2 bWAR his 2018 season is also officially a top 50 season of all-time.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Sept 9, 2018 13:36:05 GMT -5
On a different topic: there is a good deal of talk about deGrom as Cy Young, but I struggle to see why one would vote for him over Schertzer. Max has better old school stats, and he has a higher bWAR. So the big case for deGrom is ERA. And he’s been awesome, but so has Schertzer. Keep in mind 0.9 of Scherzer's overall bWAR is from his hitting. I'm not sure if you're one of the people who thinks hitting should be included in Cy Young voting or not. I know Greinke and Bumgarner frequently get that argument going. I I'm okay with someone picking Scherzer. He has 41 more Ks in about 15 more innings and their xFIPs suggest they haven't performed as differently as ERA may suggest.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Aug 29, 2018 14:40:24 GMT -5
I don't trust Scott. I think he walks too many of his fellow lefties to be able to be trusted, but I could be wrong about that. All I know is that in a very small sample size this year I was pretty unimpressed. And in a larger sample size from the past I wasn't very overwhelmed. I think September could be big for Wright if he stays healthy and possibly Lakins. This could be a big opportunity for him. I see a lot of people share a similar sentiment as you about Scott and I just genuinely don't understand it. In his full year with the big league team last year he held lefties to a .121/.224/.303 line. Farrell used him all year as his mop up guy against righties and I think people forget that when used correctly he was completely dominant.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Aug 21, 2018 5:33:08 GMT -5
Honestly haven't been keeping up with this thread, but saw it at the top of the Forum list and couldn't help but check it out. I see we haven't resolved anything yet. If I could add one additional item to the argument, I think there's one stat that the sabermetric crowd is overlooking and it's the last column of this table: www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/misc.shtml(that's attendance per game if you don't want to bother clicking through) MLB attendance peaked in 2007 and has been in a decline ever since, roughly coinciding with the spread of advanced analytics. You ever heard the phrase "you can either be right or you can be happy"? If this stuff is so great, why is it killing the game (Jason Werth's words, not mine)? Why do you have to get in a blood fight to convince fans one by one that this stuff is an improvement? Some of it was good at the beginning, I'm personally a fan of quantifying defense, but now it's just getting to be overload. I'm an analytical guy. I have a thermodynamics book with a sheet of paper in it that has the math to explain that footballs deflate in cold weather, but WAR makes my head hurt. And this fielding independent stuff just strikes me as nonsense. Going back to football, can you imagine Bellicheck explaining that the other team's game plan is irrelevant and defense doesn't matter? Not scared of numbers but I like baseball games where balls are put in play, hits are better than walks, RBI's still count for something, and the game is played on the field instead of a simulator. Feel free to reply if you'd like, but if you're an advocate of WAR and advanced analytics I think it's only fair/consistent to ask that your rebuttal not include anything that might be construed as context. I'll just point out the old correlation =/= causation and the decline in attendance likely is more affected by the massive economy crash and the fact that people no longer want to or can afford spending hundreds of dollars to go to a baseball game when you can find it for free on the internet. Additionally the decline in interest in baseball has been almost entirely about not engaging the younger generation, who in my opinion would embrace advanced stats much more than the older generation. The issue is more the terrible job the MLB does marketing their players and how inaccessible they make games and highlights.
|
|
|