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 thursty on Feb 25, 2016 7:04:31 GMT -5
I dunno. But they now have a guy running their team who uses RBI when describing what kind of offensive player a guy is, which I heard with my own ears by Dombrowski the other day re: Pablo Sandoval. It seems to me that there is literally nothing that would convince some people that this team is not going to be using information in the most progressive way possible. They can hire Dave Dombrowski, the owner can come out and say it blatantly, and still we get people here saying, "What's the big deal? They're not really gonna do it." And of course, more importantly, there is the Kimbrel trade
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 24, 2016 23:37:43 GMT -5
Actually, Henry never mentioned scouting at all. I'm not sure I understand the reluctance to accept his formulation at face value; it was entirely self-impelled, and came within the context of him describing a 2-month process where he became convinced there were serious problems; he chose to mention "over reliance on numbers" foremost.
Now, of course it is virtually impossible to know exactly what he means, viz. how he intends to operationalize the change. It would be helpful if he would have provided a concrete example as illustration. And of course the problem with finding fault with an application of "numbers", is that it can be countered with a plausible counter claim that the numbers were merely misapplied
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 22, 2016 23:48:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 22, 2016 9:37:10 GMT -5
I have never been and never will be a big Sandoval fan, but when has he ever not been fat? He was fat when he was good, and he's fat now. It's so weird to see people pretend that this isn't all just angst about his horrible performance last year. Well, it's reasonable to assume that there's a correlation between the two. Perhaps being fat at 25 is different than being fat at 28, 29
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 22, 2016 9:33:03 GMT -5
Yes, it's essentially just a rehash of the same arguments I've presented (and therefore is well-reasoned and logically sound). With one important omission, viz. Assuming Castillo is playing well enough to remain in the OF "rotation", i.e. he hasn't played so poorly that he's essentially a non-factor, it's hard to imagine a situation where you wouldn't want to start him against LHP. To wit, in his (very brief ML career, 404 PAs), he looks a lot like, well, Chris Young: against LHP -> 119+ against RHP -> 49+ That sure looks like a profile of a platoon player, which means if you're going to play him at all, you're going to want him in there against lefthanders.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 21, 2016 12:55:57 GMT -5
See, this is what exactly I feared. Young can't play CF, so any marginal benefit you might get from moving JBJ to center is more than offset by playing Young so as to "not bounce Mookie around" - Farrell is simply not competent to be a modern manager, and Dombrowski is to be blamed for foisting this move in the first place. Remember when it took like 3* weeks of playing Sizemore in CF over JBJ in RF at start of 2014? Unbelievable; they should have just left well enough alone
*Actually it was only a week, seemed like an eternity
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 20, 2016 17:42:27 GMT -5
BSHOL commentary combined with a BSOHL comment. Rob Bradford @bradfo 56m56 minutes ago Henry Owens: "Everyone says when they come in, 'I'm in the best shape of my life.' But I actually am" Not sure HO can get any more awesome shrinking his walk rate?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 20, 2016 11:47:43 GMT -5
OK, for the sake of argument, let's presume that Betts doesn't want to move to RF, i.e. he prefers to stay in CF (and just because he hasn't whinged to the media like Xander did, is no evidence that it isn't so)
Does/should that matter?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 20, 2016 11:36:48 GMT -5
I get that Mookie and Xander are the same age, but in what other way are they similar players? Why does the disastrous moving Xander to 3B decision have anything to do whatsoever with moving Mookie to RF? Maybe Mookie is more like Machado, who became one of the best 3B in the league when he was moved off SS? Why can't Mookie switch positions like Brock Holt? When has Mookie ever lost any confidence or looked shaky in any way? The result was disastrous - the decision was correct. It's process not results that you can control
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 20, 2016 10:58:50 GMT -5
Sometimes I feel like I'm on the outside of an inside joke, or just can't recognize trolling.
We now have multiple posters (of course several are the usual suspects) positing the following:
You do not move a player whose defense is "unplayable" at a position (I'll use August Fagerstrom's description of Xander Bogaerts at SS in 2014 - for some reason that seems to carry weight) to another position (citing some completely speculative "psychological impact" which has the merit of being 100% unverifiable),
but you *do* move a player from his position, where he is *above average* (again citing completely speculative and unverifiable psychological traits (in contradistinction to above player's) of said player).
By that ironclad "logic", teams should keep players with < 700 OPS in the lineup so as to not endanger their fragile and sensitive psyches.
How deep does the rabbit hole go?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 19, 2016 14:25:30 GMT -5
Young will probably be spelling all the outfielders, I'd bet. Given the way Bradley mashed lefties last season, the casual assumption that he loses 200-250 PAs is, I hope, wrong. He deserves the chance to play, and play a lot. If he gets jerked around as he has in the past, it will be to his detriment, and to the team's in my opinion. Surely, you're not advocating an equal rotation among Betts/Castillo/JBJ? Sitting your best player gratuitously is probably not a recipe for success. Where did this "JBJ has been jerked around" meme come from? You're not the only one who has been propounding it. Was he jerked around in 2013? In 2014, he was allowed to put up 423 PA of 46+ playing everyday; that's probably unprecedented. Is there anyone who thinks that it was a mistake to call up Betts in mid-August to supplant him? The only issue one can have is that JBJ should have been sent down *much earlier* (my contemporaneous contention) - and I suspect that that is not what you mean by "jerked around". As for 2015, I concede that his stints pre AS break, he wasn't given much a chance (it's safe to say that Farrell had (has?) little faith in him, but he had cause). And then the last two months of the season he was given an everyday position (and excelled). I think the Red Sox have shown extraordinary patience with their recent prospects (JBJ, Bogaerts, WMB), and all of their failures have been first and foremost on the players.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 18, 2016 22:44:23 GMT -5
I'd guess JBJ is a 10-15 DRS CF (which is worth 1-1.5 wins appox.), which is quite good, but isn't Kiermaier territory.
Betts was +9 in CF last year (UZR was less bullish, 1.8 in CF in 2015).
And Young will start ~ 35% of the games, with JBJ sitting; that's the stated plan to begin the season. Who plays center then? can not be Young. Betts is a cornerstone for years to come; it's 50-50 that JBJ is even a first-division starter (74+ career)
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 14, 2016 8:25:50 GMT -5
Buxton was #1 or 2 in 2014 when he finished 2013 at A+. And he's probably going back to AAA to start this year. But he did miss a lot of 2014. Buxton is slotted to be the opening day CF for the Twins (they traded Hicks remember); now if he hits like last year, he'll get sent down, but it's his job to lose. I saw a triple of his and it was unbelievable; the fastest player I've ever seen
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 6, 2016 2:58:40 GMT -5
But you've failed to take into consideration who plays CF when Young starts and JBJ sits, which is, from what I've deduced, the plan going into the season. That's at a minimum 1/3 of the games. The answer cannot be Young. I suppose you could start Castillo in CF on those days. Without a lot more data, I don't see the benefit of shuttling Mookie between OF positions; he's just way more important than JB to the team's present and future
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 1, 2016 17:00:57 GMT -5
I'm not sure how the characterization of Mookie as "pull-happy" got put into the minds of the several posters who keep repeating it. It's simply fatuous.
2015 league bb distribution: Pull/Center/Oppo 41/35/25
Mookie: 40/37/23
It's true that there was a severe regression from his (IMO better) 2014 215 PA: 35/36/30
And yes all of his HR have been left-of-center, but that doesn't make him pull happy; last year he was pretty much league average or less, in 2014 he was "oppo happy". For comparison, Xander was: 47/38/19 in 2014 That's pull happy.
And remember that Mookie pretty much announced his intention (in the notorious Alex Speier spring training interview), before the season.
The bigger question is what were the Red Sox doing allowing their 22-year-old leadoff hitter to change an approach that was the archetype for a leadoff hitter? Mookie Betts can hit the ball to any part of the field he wants, and it's incumbent on the Red Sox to emphasize the benefit of hitting to RF, assuming that's what they desire.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jan 8, 2016 6:53:11 GMT -5
Reading the tea leaves, it appears that the plan going into opening day will be: Castillo-LF Bradley-CF Betts-RF
against RHPs.
And that Young will start for Bradley against LHPs (all reverse splits are illusory). Given that you shan't play Young in CF unless it's an emergency, who plays CF against LHPs? I would think that's Betts, but Castillo could play there as well (certainly has the better arm of the two). He's only played 130 innings in center, so hard to get a read on him there.
I don't think they've really thought out the outfield alignment well. Let's grant that CF (even at Fenway ) is a more impactful position than RF, and Bradley is the superior defender (in both positions) to Betts. It doesn't necessarily follow that a Bradley-CF/Betts-RF alignment is better than the reverse; and even if it is, by how many runs? And then compound that by the fact that Bradley in even an optimal scenario would play 2/3 of the outfield innings; if Betts is the one targeted as the CF in his stead (with Castillo shifting to RF), is it really worth it?
Not to mention that the idea of shifting Betts to RF comes from the GM, and is at best tolerated by the field management (I find it a bit ironic that a guy who offered one of the most ill-considered (predictably) FA contracts ever (signing Fielder to shift Cabrera to 3B), is now obsessing over what are likely marginal efficiencies in OF alignment, but whatever). This certainly has the potential to cause unnecessary discord and problems. Although I'm generally of the mind that players are babied too much and should be able to play multiple positions well (and this includes the SS), allowing for the most optimal alignment to win a given game, it shouldn't be done gratuitously. It would be logical that, e.g. it increases injury risk.
Unless someone could present a reliable calculation that shows Bradley-CF/Betts-RF is, say, double digit defensive runs better than the reverse (and that's a very fraught calculation), I wouldn't bother - let Betts stay in CF until he plays himself off the position.
Betts is the cornerstone, can't afford to mess that up.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jan 6, 2016 20:52:57 GMT -5
The thing with Bogaerts is that we've all been following him for years, we've been excited about the guy for years, we've been reading glowing scouting reports, calling him the next big thing, etc. We're heavily invested in the player. Without any of the background, would you look at a guy who hit .320 off a .371 BABIP, with a 4.9% walk rate and a .101 ISO, and think "breakout"? If I was a fan of any other team, I'd probably look at him and think Erick Aybar with a little less defense. I still believe in the upside, but I also wonder if I'm (we're) just a little TOO knowledgeable about Bogaerts to really get an honest read on him. It's probably the latter; the hype machine feeds on itself in a reinforcing cycle. If you remember the podcasts, they couldn't even say his name without a giggle (sounds a bit silly in retrospect). Just think of the truly outstanding young players in the game (Trout, Stanton, Harper, Goldschmidt, Machado, even Betts and Puig). What I've never understood, is if you put a team of those players together and were watching them all for the first time (with no pre-knowledge of any of them), and asked yourself, "which one doesn't belong?" Pretty clearly it's Xander. Think of all the memorable plays that the others have to their name - has Xander ever done anything on a MLB field that has left you shaking your head in wonder? Probably his most memorable moment is laying off a 3-2 slider in the ALDS. Now of course, that's elite company and there's no shame in not belonging to it, and it by no means implies that Xander isn't a very valuable player (hell he was the best all-around SS in the AL last year). But it's *not* what some led us to believe
|
|
|
FIP
Jan 1, 2016 23:44:08 GMT -5
Post by thursty on Jan 1, 2016 23:44:08 GMT -5
There is no consensus that FIP "is clearly recognized as more of an indicator of past performance than a predictor of future performance"
I think it's fair to say that there is a consensus that there are better predictors of future performance than FIP (xFIP, SIERA, et al), but there are certainly many who strongly feel that HOF consideration, Cy Young, etc. should take into consideration actual run prevention (this is the main source of discrepancies between bWAR and fWAR when it comes to pitchers)
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 28, 2015 17:51:29 GMT -5
As much as I hate the Kimbrel trade it's preferable to rooting for a team that sees an instance of domestic violence as a buy-low opportunity. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I have little confidence that the Red Sox wouldn't have made the same trade if it was available. The difference isn't in morality, but mentality
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 28, 2015 17:43:38 GMT -5
If nothing else, it demonstrates the virtue of patience over panic. And exposes all the "identified who he wanted and went out and got him - what a MAN!" for the palaver that it always was.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 22, 2015 17:31:36 GMT -5
Wow, Speier really loves Benintendi - fulsome praise, almost untoward. And I suspect he's not reflecting only his opinion; the FO must also be all in
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 21, 2015 19:19:49 GMT -5
For the price of one Kimbrel, you could get two other dudes. And even if each one of those other dudes isn't as reliable individually, the odds that they BOTH break down are probably less than the odds of Kimbrel breaking. So with the two guys you have a better chance that at least one is still upright by the end of the season. In other words, I'd rather have two guys who are 70% reliable versus one guy who's 85% reliable. /architects 2015 WS champion KC Royals' starting rotation FTFY
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 20, 2015 13:32:49 GMT -5
It's not even Christmas yet, and already Sandoval is in the best shape of his life
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 18, 2015 14:26:49 GMT -5
And I think there's even more evidence of the apparent separation between Kimbrel and other options simply because of the big package they gave up for him. Do we honestly think this scouting/player development department doesn't know what they have? Guys an entire staff scouts/drafts/signs/develops? Like we think they can't do math on expected value that people on here do in 15 minutes? Come on now. It's fun to discuss and comment on this stuff, but to sit here and post with hubris like we know things they don't, is well... not smart. In no way am I saying they're infallible, but I think it's pretty clear with their current roster construction and where the market was, they were largely shopping at the Kimbrel store, and that's it. Do I like Kimbrel? Hell yes. Do I like the price they paid? Hell no. But it's baseball, and Sox were largely put in this situation by farting around with half measures the last two years. So how can we judge the quality of the trade? Ah, by simply observing *that the trade was made* After all, Lackey and Littrell for Kelly and Craig; what could possibly go wrong?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 18, 2015 3:36:55 GMT -5
In a moment of clarity, this came to me: Price and Kimbrel for Seager and Urias - can undo the damage in one fell swoop
|
|
|