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 tonyc on Nov 16, 2014 14:27:42 GMT -5
Some parallels to last years Sox season with the Bruins, the key difference being they (might be?) able to advance a bit in the playoffs: they are playing far worse than in recent years, especially a falloff from last years Presidents cup year. They, however, have had a number of key players out for extended periods. The other parallel is that they have more young contributors both up with the team and in Providence than any time in the last decade. So they are quite interesting to follow.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 15, 2014 0:24:59 GMT -5
Finally, an articulate essay on behalf of unions- so much is stated in negative terms without such clear thought. Just the way the Koch brothers billions have a backed a non-stop spin assault that is about to enter the supreme court to block our national health insurance. In the movie Sicko, prior to its passage, it made clear what a disgrace the lack of health coverage was in this country, even compared to Cuba, with the huge profits going to CEO's of insurance companies, while people who couldn't afford preventative regular care would instead show up in ER's eventually with acute and more expensive conditions.
The masses were just also similarly deceived into voting for politicians who will attempt to remove our entire social safety net to give such executives and the Koch brothers a return on their investment- with such chicanery made possible by a "Supreme" court which removed all barriers to campaign finance limits.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 13, 2014 20:01:09 GMT -5
John, I agree that most institutions eventually suffer "hardening of the arteries", but despite my complaints about the MLBPA, which has gotten too powerful in some respects, I am in one of the few medical unions in the state of Colorado, and for the most part it's a very good thing. I've seen nonunion nurses set up and fired just before their pensions, and other workers in this state fired for attending a parent's funeral. We work hard and deserve a bit of security. Jimed, glad you are conscious food-wise, and work hard at it. I've made diet an art, since learning the ropes from a Biologist friend, in the days of Jim Rice's prime. My goal is healthy, cheap and little or no cooking. It can be done, but involves scouring your town's health food stores (and you may be out of luck if not in towns like Boulder here, or NY where I grew up) for a combination of ready to eat take out, inexpensive salad bars, and healthy volume based (cheap) restaurants like Chipotle, or cheap Chinese.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 13, 2014 13:29:14 GMT -5
This is right on jrffam, it's unfortunate there is no salary cap, so instead something needs to be done to give the little guys a better chance. Unfortunately it's all too rare you hear of Pedroia type stories where they'd offer some of their pay to retain a player.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 13, 2014 12:15:04 GMT -5
Thank you for the data Jmei, I stand corrected on ticket prices correlating with player salaries. Jimed, as I stated, I do not sympathize with the owners either. I am glad to see this lawsuit and also am grateful that some provision has been made for former players by major leaguers..it was shocking to hear that Gaylord Perry was broke and J.R. Richard was homeless before being found and assisted by a member of the Astros. Want to see more of this and generally more "paying it forward"- and there has been some good charity work no doubt- and loyalty from major leaguers.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 13, 2014 2:01:31 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing that there is not a direct relationship between the skyrocketing player payrolls and ever increasing ticket prices/demand for fan increasing new stadiums. I don't have great sympathy for the owners either. And I agree with you Oregon, better to spread that wealth into more pockets, and certainly more charities. However, there was something terribly wrong when Tony Gwynn took a few dollars less to remain loyal to San Diego- and got harrassed by the players union. That union played a part (granted the owners and the commissioner looked the other way when the fans showed up in record numbers) in perpetuating Steroid use by protecting that "right." The greed and lack of loyalty on display by todays players is not a good example for our children and culture. The bunt and moving runners over are greatly diminished because they don't pay off well statistically. Managers have less control over spoiled players who make way more money than them- Manny Ramirez was only a more extreme example of behavior that is more prevalent as a result of lack of control. A brilliant professor I had from Oxford made a clear point that analysis of American culture is impossible without correlating Baseball, as it has foreshadowed many of the issues in our society. The message of today seems an increasing "me" generation.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 12, 2014 22:27:14 GMT -5
I will begrudge some players and agents maximizing earnings. This is endemic of the ever increasing gulf of wealth distribution which is responsible for many of the social ills of this country, and planet. On a more concrete level, fans end up paying the taxes when cities have to build new stadiums to satisfy the ever-growing player greed. At least for the moment there is a degree of loyalty in hockey players to their group and not just the cash.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 10, 2014 19:40:08 GMT -5
Chris,
I (of little significance) join Eric in my enthusiasm for Wright's potential based on an ongoing upward progression, and Alex Speir (of great significance) joins him too based on a late season article in which he notes that Wright elicited swings and misses and demonstrated command that the other young pitchers did not. I do agree with you, however, that the Redsox lack of enthusiasm thus far speaks to both their faith in how likely he would play a significant role in the rotation. I too agree that they are in an awkward spot- given the fans greed to win each year- in that they have enough young talent to compete, but perhaps not throughout the early part of next year. Therefore they could very well give up some future assets (urgg!) to make that happen, in addition to signing someone.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 5, 2014 20:09:29 GMT -5
In Webster's case I don't believe bullpen work will help his starter development, he needs to work out his sequences/command with a full reportoire, turning it over several times preferably in the majors. I do agree with Eric, however, that starting in the minors has some usefulness based on body memory. I was fortunate enough to have a ski lesson with a former olympic medalist, Billy Kidd and he emphasized that even when resting in between runs you must stand in proper form, and will then retain it during actual skiing. As far as trading, the risk/reward seldom pays off dumping someone high ceiling like Webster, I'd keep him till the end..even a Ranaudo could surprise, but his lower ceiling would make a better bet.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 2, 2014 16:07:02 GMT -5
As usual makes sense Eric. Unless he gets a velocity bump to his first half 2013 I don't see ceiling to Ranuado, but still do with Webster and would be concerned trading him.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 1, 2014 15:17:57 GMT -5
Injuries and information was not as well documented back then, but I have a friend who thought Rice may have had some sort of wrist injury and was never the same after. The big falloff was right after '79.. can anyone confirm? Keneck, in terms of his eyesight I think I recall him trying contacts and they didn't work out and then trying glasses and not working with those either at the very end, don't know other details.
I loved to watch him, and he did end up in the Orlando Cepeda echelon, but boy he began like Jimmy Foxx!
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 29, 2014 11:40:05 GMT -5
James, or someone old enough to remember, since you brought up Rice I have a question about his falloff- and not the final one in which his vision loss was well documented. He was great, but after his prime years age 24-26 ending in 1979, save for his '83 season he had an early falloff. Granted he had solid years, but was not the same hitter that Hank Aaron once said is the most likely to eclipse him. Did he have some sort of injury with lingering effect?.. what happened.? I've always wondered
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 29, 2014 10:56:05 GMT -5
I wish to also thank you for the many years I've enjoyed reading here, and didn't post until this year. Frequently when I see a Sox cap here in Colorado, or in my travels annually back to NY, I'll let them know about this site. There is so little backbiting and sarcasm relative to other sites (such as the Bruins forum, where I read but don't post).. and the knowledge and links and education into todays sabermetrics- gee I was a strat-o-matic stat head since the late '60's as a 10 year old, but admittedly still don't have a great feel for most of these advanced stats. It's especially fun at deadline time!
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 25, 2014 12:05:49 GMT -5
I thought Billy Beane robbed us on Lester given the historic return on ace pitchers at deadline, however the market had been deflated..I like the return on Lackey much more given his age, attitude and Kelley's stuff.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 17, 2014 14:01:53 GMT -5
Given Mookie's tremendous potential, which Eric has statistically projected comparisons for and Klaw has scouted, you simply cannot get sufficient value for him in a trade given also his cost control. Therefore he is untouchable, as Bogaerts should be as well. This is the opposite of Giancarlo, who if entered into the trade market with his established credentials, and off the roof salary will require an over-payment of prospects and finance.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 7, 2014 23:17:02 GMT -5
Jmei,
I tend to find your posts to be the most solid on this whole board, but I hope you're wrong on Kelly. I'm most impressed not just with his fastball velocity, but the movement on his secondary stuff. Granted, he doesn't get lots of swings and misses, but particularly in his last few starts he was getting some strikeouts and also ground outs, and doesn't give up lots of extra base hits. I also see him as a bit different than the other prospects in that he is further along in number of major league starts and more developed, yet still fairly young. I also like Webster, and while I agree there's a large divergence in his potential performance, he does merit more time and did show progress in the last two years.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 7, 2014 17:29:13 GMT -5
I liked the Lackey Trade, given his issues with sticking to the contract, his age and how good Kelley's stuff is- even if Craig is a no go. The Lester deal was the best they could do given the market at the time and the new reticence of teams to trade prospects. But given the historical value of acquiring a true ace with Lester's elite post season pedigree, it was a surprisingly low return to get a corner outfielder on a one year deal with an about .760 ops.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 4, 2014 13:51:20 GMT -5
Guidas,
I too think- and thought at the deadline, this was our poorest trade that day and Beane, ironically being criticized for the A's slump afterward and the playoff results made out like a bandit- you do this trade if you're him 100x out of 100. Yet Ben was simply a victim of a dropping market that day as Masterson and Price entered the trades, and importantly, the Pirates dropped out. Perhaps Ben is clear that either John is definitely not coming back, or definitely was going to test the market even if he's considering coming back, in which case it would be an ok trade under the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 4, 2014 13:35:55 GMT -5
I don't buy these Steamer projections on Wright, Delarosa, Webster and especially Kelly. The stuff they have is too good for those latter 3 to project over 4.70, and the numbers of pitchers competing- particularly if we add 1-2 starters will provide competition allowing only sharper winners among the young starters. I'm more in agreement of his poorer projections for Ranaudo and Workman and mediocre for Bucholtz.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 4, 2014 13:09:45 GMT -5
Your point of 1 in 7 becoming starters is a good caution Moonstone, but I think Eric and Zink make good points. I joined here because I'm in shock of the placement of Wright, and still his low placement in the final top 40 just out- 23rd? After Stank- who I like but is a ways out. I don't understand this given that Wright has a pretty good chance of making the staff and contributing in long relief, spot starts, and perhaps starting eventually. Also, he's shown a steady progression each year, and a quick four year ascension. Hoyt Wilhelm pitched till nearly 50 and the Niekros and Wakefield into their 40's, so he's young. He's got the added plus of throwing a relatively hard fastball for a knuckler. I wonder if the quality of a knuckleballer can objectively be measured by the number of inches of movement per pitch, similar to the chart Eric had on fastballs, and also on the number of rotations per pitch?
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 2, 2014 22:47:11 GMT -5
In terms of winning a world series or getting a better draft pick, yes I suppose the middle ground has a disadvantage- and I too was rooting against the 'sox late in the year, selectively, for the draft pick. But the thought that either you win the series or you don't? How jaded have we become? I can remember the late '60's- early 70's when Baltimore had some of the best teams ever and the Sox had no chance whatsoever..and yet I was thrilled just to have them finish .540 as they usually did, and bang some home runs and just enjoyed the players they had. Art Martone in the Providence Journal in the late '90's, when some readers were frustrated about the Yankees dominance commented that the "sox are perfect for us."
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 2, 2014 10:09:33 GMT -5
Hi Dc,
Yaz is the reason why I took abuse and grew up as a passionate Sox fan living in NY (a dangerous thing in Yankee stadium in the late 60's/70's when not just the teams fought, but fans). However I will disagree. First, the points in his favor- his prime was amazing, and people don't even often cite his incredible '70 season, which rivaled '67. Also, yes, a number of his prime years were in that 60's- early 70's "dead-ball" era. Also, he was one of the greatest defensive left fielders of all time, and drew a nice number of walks. Points against- the latter half of his career was in an era not as defensively skewed, and during his career he mostly had a bunch of decent to solid- but not dominant types of seasons. Keep in mind that WAR is a very flawed stat in this context- it merely measures value above replacement, and if you put in more years where you are an above average player you'll pile on more points than someone who is brilliant but doesn't put in quite as many years. I had noticed this phenomenon when looking at a bunch of hall of fame and also modern close to HOF players, seeing that some who fit the endurance type description were skewed too far in their favor over some that were trully more dominant and had good but not great longevity.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 1, 2014 12:46:27 GMT -5
Fenway,
I agree with both of your points, and yet one of the beauties of baseball, vs. some other major sports where the defense is harder to statistically quantify (football, hockey) is that with enough curves and sabermetric adjustments you can make more of a cross era comparison, which granted going this far back is challenged.
I hope it's not too indulgant, but this passage in a book I read 40 years ago is too colorful to not share describing the signing of Honus: "I looked at him and he had a feather in his cap, arms down his legs and real bowlegged knees, I laughed and he did too..I asked about his baseball and he said he played on a team with his brothers, as he threw a stone so far down the train tracks my eyes popped out. His friend said, Mr. what Honus didn't tell you is his brothers team beat everyone else around. I asked him what position he plays, and surprised he said, of course all of them."
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 1, 2014 11:59:41 GMT -5
Brian,
I think that's a good way to look at them too, although, as you mentioned the SS factor would play big, since there are so few of them who had great long term hitting stats, largely because of the way they were used for most of baseball history until the last few decades.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 1, 2014 11:06:02 GMT -5
Great article on Jeter vs. Wagner by Goldman. I was well aware that the slider had not been used until after WW2 and of the other factors favoring Jeter: greater and more diverse population to draw from, greater athleticism, velocity, bullpen use and size today. Wasn't so keenly aware of the nutritional differential, but given the smoking, boozing habits of oldtimers, it's not surprising. He does admit Wagner was more dominant on both sides of the ball vs. his contemporaries, but that was a prime point which was underemphasized: While Jeter was something of an average defensive player, Wagner, by reputation, was another Ozzie Smith- who pretty much made HOF on defense alone. In fact, most people don't know that before he was signed, Honus played EVERY position. He was also one of the all-time basestealers. Also, granted it was a presabermetric era, but some early historians felt he was the best all around player ever (I know, I favor Ruth clearly too, and he would have made the HOF as a pitcher). So he makes good points, but I don't know if Jeter would really beat him by a mile, as stated, if Wagner played today (and don't forget he emphasized the nutritional deficiency of Honus' competition, but today Wagner would benefit greatly from the training and nutrition himself).
|
|
|