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.
8/5-8/7 Red Sox @ Astros Series Thread
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 7, 2013 10:23:43 GMT -5
Tampa Bay lost; the Red Sox are now a game and a half up in the AL East and six games up in the Wild Card race. Is the sky still falling??? People are still suggesting we resign Ellsbury so....yes.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 7, 2013 10:35:51 GMT -5
Getting a good idea of who looks good in what role as far as the top pitching prospects. Britton has been lights out as a reliever. Maybe that truly is his role? Workman has been rancid as a reliever and whoever came up with Wright as a SP, relieved by Workman can thank their lucky stars the offense was up to the task today.. Here is to no more relief efforts by Workman and Wright banished to the pen if he gets into any games. Team can't afford any more wobbly knuckle baller efforts from the outset. Workman was on a 3 game start role and deserved that start. Let Wright throw junk relief if they have to in a long effort. Wow, did RDLR ever throw more fuel on the fire as a future closer? Nasty 96-8 heater with movement and 90-92 changeup? Forget working at lower velocity as a starter, those 2 pitches and let him work relief in the 7-8th innings for now. This guy just may have future closer written alllll over him he can keep what he had tonight up. No need for a third pitch that way. Just air it out.. Shades of Bard, just no crazy ideas from the FO about moving back to the rotation plz.... I tend to agree although my opinions are based on just a few observations so take them with a grain of salt. But yes, Britton and De La Rosa seem to have stuff that plays really well in relief, especially if they really focus on 2 pitches only occasionally throwing a 3rd. Workman on the other hand doesn't really have a plus pitch (maybe the cutter?), but rather gets by on mixing 4 or so pitches. In the long term, there just isn't enough room in the rotation for Webster, De La Rosa, Barnes, Workman, Ranaudo, Owens, and Britton. A couple of these guys will get transitioned to relief, and I think Britton and De La Rosa offer a lot of upside in those roles. Or traded in packages to fill areas of need.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 7, 2013 10:44:13 GMT -5
.241 / .303 / .335 (44 G, 208 PA): Ellsbury on May 20. .346 / .408 / .514 (61 G, 287 PA): Ellsbury since. That's a pretty decent stretch at his 2011 level. His injuries have come from collisions with other players. Given the dearth of OF prospects other than JBJ, I'm all for trying to re-sign him, and actually think there's a decent chance of it. He seems like me to be the sort of player that other GM's will not break the bank irrationally to sign. I've gone back and forth on this. On the one hand, he's not a big home run hitter (which still makes a big difference), he's got the injury history keeping his counting numbers down, plays in the shadow of Ortiz and Pedroia, isn't a consistent All-Star, and his 2011 looks like a fluke. On the other hand, he can hit for average and power, has speed, plays good defense up the middle, is still fairly young, and has demonstrated dominant offensive performance. If you squint hard he looks like a star player, and if you assume his "injuries have come from collisions with other players" and are unlikely to recur, he's actually worth some serious money. I think some GM is going to get convinced by Boras that he's worth a big investment, but it's not a slam dunk.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 7, 2013 10:49:53 GMT -5
I am going on the record to say if you can get him for 5 yrs, at 15-16M a year then do it, transition him to LF, and just keep him from being jumped on or run into by dump trucks or anyone named "Beltre." At his current demolition derby rate, I don't think Victorino will average 100 games a season by the end of his contract.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 7, 2013 11:33:08 GMT -5
I am going on the record to say if you can get him for 5 yrs, at 15-16M a year then do it, transition him to LF, and just keep him from being jumped on or run into by dump trucks or anyone named "Beltre." At his current demolition derby rate, I don't think Victorino will average 100 games a season by the end of his contract. People love whole "dirt dog" thing, but I have to say, when we're talking about a 162 game season, I'm really not that into it. I mean, if it's a critical out, fine, make the reckless diving catch. But if it's a five run game? Yeah, maybe just play that ball on a hop or whatever...
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 7, 2013 11:35:31 GMT -5
The Napoli criticism has been a little over the top. But, there's no doubt he's struggling. He k's once every 2.97 plate appearances. The guy we're clamoring to replace him Mike Cark. K's once every 3.24 plate appearances. Or, another way to look at it. He k's at 92pct to the ratio Napoli does. Not much of a difference IMO. I want to play Carp more against righties. But, sometimes he doesn't pinch hit is because the other team has a lefty ready. He's as likely to K against a lefty, as Napoli is versus a righty. We're talking about Napoli's exhorbitant BABIP. Well, Carp's is much worse and likely to regress too.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 7, 2013 11:41:59 GMT -5
The Napoli criticism has been a little over the top. But, there's no doubt he's struggling. He k's once every 2.97 plate appearances. The guy we're clamoring to replace him Mike Cark. K's once every 3.24 plate appearances. Or, another way to look at it. He k's at 92pct to the ratio Napoli does. Not much of a difference IMO. I want to play Carp more against righties. But, sometimes he doesn't pinch hit is because the other team has a lefty ready. He's as likely to K against a lefty, as Napoli is versus a righty. We're talking about Napoli's exhorbitant BABIP. Well, Carp's is much worse and likely to regress too. He doesn't pinch hit because Farrell has decided that he's the number five hitter and you don't pinch hit for your number five hitter*. The righty ready in the pen didn't stop him from pinch-hitting Gomes last night. Napoli is constantly getting gassed by righty closers in the ninth and Farrell absolutely refuses to notice or care. *Why not? Because shut up, that's why.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Aug 7, 2013 11:47:33 GMT -5
Rubby's Pitch/fx breakdown, with 6 pitch identifications corrected (two 4-seamers misidentified as two-seamers, and all 4 changeups missed -- 2 classified as a generic fastball, 1 as a 2-seamer, 1 as a slider): 10 4-seamers, average 98.2 mph, range 96.7 - 99.2 (last 3: 99.1, 99.1, 99.2). Horizontal and vertical movement, -4.9, 8.1. Results: 2 swinging strikes (1 for a K), 2 called strikes, 2 fouls, 4 balls. 4 changeups, average 92.0. Movement, -5.2, 4.2, so it had the same amount of armside run as his FB, but 4" of relative drop. Results: groundout, called strike, 2 fouls. 2 sliders, each 90.6. Movement, 4.0, 2.2. Results: 2 swinging strikes (1 for a K). A 6 mph separation between FB and change is not only nothing to worry about, it's actually better than an average (11 mph) separation. Depending on his makeup, I could see giving him another half-year in the Pawtucket rotation, or letting him compete for 2014 closer in ST. Good post. One nit to pick-- the more the separation between the fastball and changeup, the better (hitters are more off-balance and likely to swing and miss). So the fact that De La Rosa only has a 6 mph separation is not better than average but much worse. Some pitchers can make it work (Beckett always threw a 90 mph changeup that got a few swings-and-misses) but all else being equal, you'd like to see that changeup be slower by a few mph. I don't disagree - in fact, you're 100% right - but Rubby has said that he throws three different changeups ("I throw the changeup at three different speeds -- 94 miles an hour, 88 and 78." link). Not sure why he was throwing the one he was last night, but at least he has one(s) with good separation.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Aug 7, 2013 11:54:24 GMT -5
I am going on the record to say if you can get him for 5 yrs, at 15-16M a year then do it, transition him to LF, and just keep him from being jumped on or run into by dump trucks or anyone named "Beltre." At his current demolition derby rate, I don't think Victorino will average 100 games a season by the end of his contract. If Boston decides to bring back Ellsbury, I'd rather see a long term positioning of Ells in CF and JBJ in RF. I just think Ells in LF is a waste of speed and range. I mean if Manny Ramirez can handle LF at Fenway, well just about anyone can. RF on the other hand is such a tough position in Fenway. Can Brentz handle it? He has the arm and defensive ability, but once again range is such a must and I'm not sure he has that. IMO, Victorino has been a great #2 hitter, but his defensive speed and range in RF is what has been irreplaceable. If Ells is back, JBJ will probably see some time in AAA next year and in RF while Victorino hits the DL 2+ times.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 7, 2013 12:06:01 GMT -5
Moving to a small left field isn't necessarily the worst thing that could happen to Ellsbury as he ages. Save what's left of those legs for the basepaths.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Aug 7, 2013 12:14:39 GMT -5
I am going on the record to say if you can get him for 5 yrs, at 15-16M a year then do it, transition him to LF, and just keep him from being jumped on or run into by dump trucks or anyone named "Beltre." At his current demolition derby rate, I don't think Victorino will average 100 games a season by the end of his contract. If Boston decides to bring back Ellsbury, I'd rather see a long term positioning of Ells in CF and JBJ in RF. I just think Ells in LF is a waste of speed and range. I mean if Manny Ramirez can handle LF at Fenway, well just about anyone can. RF on the other hand is such a tough position in Fenway. Can Brentz handle it? He has the arm and defensive ability, but once again range is such a must and I'm not sure he has that. IMO, Victorino has been a great #2 hitter, but his defensive speed and range in RF is what has been irreplaceable. If Ells is back, JBJ will probably see some time in AAA next year and in RF while Victorino hits the DL 2+ times. If Ellsbury is back, someone's speed and/or range is going to be wasted in LF, so it might as well be the guy with the noodle arm who is prone to getting poor jumps.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 7, 2013 12:34:03 GMT -5
Rubby's Pitch/fx breakdown A 6 mph separation between FB and change is not only nothing to worry about, it's actually better than an average (11 mph) separation. Good post. One nit to pick-- the more the separation between the fastball and changeup, the better (hitters are more off-balance and likely to swing and miss). So the fact that De La Rosa only has a 6 mph separation is not better than average but much worse. Some pitchers can make it work (Beckett always threw a 90 mph changeup that got a few swings-and-misses) but all else being equal, you'd like to see that changeup be slower by a few mph. That's the conventional wisdom, and it's wrong. I did a massive regression analysis on what makes a changeup effective, and the least effective changeups had precisely the MLB average separation. Slower than average was quite a bit better than faster than average -- 14 mph differential rocks -- but any difference from average helps. This makes perfect sense if you realize that hitters recognize the change not by velocity, but by spin. (The study confirms that, in that another predictor of change success is GB%; the spin axis on a two-seamer is much closer to a change than a four-seamer is, so it really helps the deception of a change if the pitcher throws a two-seamer.) Once they read change, they default their timing to the average change. Hence a harder change is more effective than an average one. Slower-than-average changes are quite a bit rarer than harder-than-average changes, and that's why they're the best. The only other person to study this was Dave Allen of FanGraphs (although I think the study was elsewhere), using a completely different methodology (pitch/fx comparisons of each change compared to the previous FB, whereas I used BIS data for average effectiveness, velocity, etc. for a full season). He came up with the precise same result, but he and everyone reading his study interpreted it backwards, which is to say, they forgot that a positive linear weight had been (arbitrarily as always) initially defined as being good for a pitcher! That's how strong they were wedded to the conventional wisdom. Rubby, by the way, seems to throw an odd change whose axis matches his four-seamer (or else he's throwing all two-seamers; I'll have to look into that more). It should be a very effective pitch for him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 7, 2013 12:47:08 GMT -5
Survivor bias? Seems like only pitchers with very good fast changeups throw them.
Also, confounding variables. Only pitchers with very high velocity fastballs throw fast changeups. Those are generally better pitchers in general, so makes sense that their changeups are better despite being fast. Like how power hitters strike out more, so a bad regression would show that Ks are good. Maybe you controlled for this, though.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Aug 7, 2013 13:10:16 GMT -5
Rubby's change isn't devastating because of the velocity or lack there of. His change is devastating because of the drop and fade. The thing drops of the table like a splitter and has the horizontal movement of a screwball. It really is a thing of beauty. Pedroesque
I have been trumpeting the Rubby should be a starter thing since the trade, but seeing him in relief and in 2 inning stints early in ST makes me think he's custom made to be a closer. He has a lot of Aroldis Chapman in him. I think he stays in the pen through 2013 and after he excels as a reliever I think they will try and convert him back to a starter maybe 2015 or so.
whats greater a 9th inning of 96-98 mph FB with devastating change or innings 1 thru 5 with a 92-94mph FB, good change and show me slider?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 7, 2013 13:57:24 GMT -5
The other very important piece is his ability to sell it, and he has that. There is little discernible difference in the arm action between his heat and his changeup. That's got to be difficult for hitters. Last evening should have been an eye-opener for people. When he's on his stuff is ridiculously good and he can work with just the fastball and the multi-dimensional changeup once through the roster. I'd like to hear from those who've watched him in Pawtucket to get an idea of what his slider has been like this year. He'll need that third pitch if he's ever to be a starter.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,003
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 7, 2013 15:07:35 GMT -5
If Boston decides to bring back Ellsbury, I'd rather see a long term positioning of Ells in CF and JBJ in RF. I just think Ells in LF is a waste of speed and range. I mean if Manny Ramirez can handle LF at Fenway, well just about anyone can. RF on the other hand is such a tough position in Fenway. Can Brentz handle it? He has the arm and defensive ability, but once again range is such a must and I'm not sure he has that. IMO, Victorino has been a great #2 hitter, but his defensive speed and range in RF is what has been irreplaceable. If Ells is back, JBJ will probably see some time in AAA next year and in RF while Victorino hits the DL 2+ times. If Ellsbury is back, someone's speed and/or range is going to be wasted in LF, so it might as well be the guy with the noodle arm who is prone to getting poor jumps. If Ellsbury's back, JBJ and/or Victorino gets traded in a package to a team that needs a CF.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Aug 7, 2013 16:32:34 GMT -5
So Stephen Drew is gonna have an 810 OPS by the end of the season and will have played about 120 games. I am 100% confident in offering him the QO at this point. Either he accepts and comes back and gets another 100-120 games at short with Bogaerts getting the other 40-60 games (and another 70-90 games at third), or he signs elsewhere as the best SS on the market. I think that at this point I'd prefer the former. Drew has been great, and that he pisses off guys in the media because he's just like his brother is just icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 7, 2013 17:35:13 GMT -5
So, and correct me if I am wrong, this is the longest series thread this year, and its an early August series against the Astros and only two games have been played. I find that very funny.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 7, 2013 17:38:41 GMT -5
Survivor bias? Seems like only pitchers with very good fast changeups throw them. Also, confounding variables. Only pitchers with very high velocity fastballs throw fast changeups. Those are generally better pitchers in general, so makes sense that their changeups are better despite being fast. Like how power hitters strike out more, so a bad regression would show that Ks are good. Maybe you controlled for this, though. There's so much data in this study, and so many variables and interactions, that I very much trust the results (which were tremendously significant, statistically). The smoking gun is that, according to the regression, the least effective change was precisely the one with the average differential. On the nose, to the tenth of a mph. And the differential was not a variable -- just the average FB and CH speeds. There were interactions all over the place (between strike %, GB%, velocities, etc.), but no interaction that changed the optimum differential based on any of the other variables. There were a lot of folks with bad changeups in the study, show-me third and fourth pitches, so I don't think there's any selection bias. Harder throwers had more effective changes than slower, given the same differential. In fact, the guys whose changes, all things being equal, are most effective are hard-throwing, strike-throwing, groundball pitchers, but the guys throwing the most changes are soft-tossing flyball pitchers. Finally, speed differential is actually a very small factor. I would actually advise coaches to ignore it and concentrate on teaching deception and command. The biggest predictor of success was frequency, much more so than you could explain by the obvious fact that guys with better changes throw it more often. To really separate out cause and effect here, though, you'd need to expand the study with pitch/fx location and movement data. It's on my list of studies to maybe do someday (along with thirty or forty others!).
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 7, 2013 17:44:43 GMT -5
I had attempted to post earlier but apparently it did not go thru. In any case, I was wowed by RDLR at 12:15 a.m. or thereabouts. To me he was the story of last night's game. He showed very good control and, as someone before noted, pumped in at 96-98. He certainly does not have the prototypical starting pitcher's body. At 24 he is not yet El Guapo esq but it does appear that he may have aspirations. He looks like a high effort back of bullpen guy both physically and the way he throws.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,842
|
Post by wcp3 on Aug 7, 2013 18:25:49 GMT -5
I am going on the record to say if you can get him for 5 yrs, at 15-16M a year then do it, transition him to LF, and just keep him from being jumped on or run into by dump trucks or anyone named "Beltre." At his current demolition derby rate, I don't think Victorino will average 100 games a season by the end of his contract. People love whole "dirt dog" thing, but I have to say, when we're talking about a 162 game season, I'm really not that into it. I mean, if it's a critical out, fine, make the reckless diving catch. But if it's a five run game? Yeah, maybe just play that ball on a hop or whatever... I honestly cringed when I heard the Red Sox announcers praise Victorino for running full-sprint into the wall ... on a foul ball. It was a reckless play for a veteran whose had a bad back all season.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Aug 7, 2013 18:58:01 GMT -5
Survivor bias? Seems like only pitchers with very good fast changeups throw them. Also, confounding variables. Only pitchers with very high velocity fastballs throw fast changeups. Those are generally better pitchers in general, so makes sense that their changeups are better despite being fast. Like how power hitters strike out more, so a bad regression would show that Ks are good. Maybe you controlled for this, though. There's so much data in this study, and so many variables and interactions, that I very much trust the results (which were tremendously significant, statistically). The smoking gun is that, according to the regression, the least effective change was precisely the one with the average differential. On the nose, to the tenth of a mph. And the differential was not a variable -- just the average FB and CH speeds. There were interactions all over the place (between strike %, GB%, velocities, etc.), but no interaction that changed the optimum differential based on any of the other variables. There were a lot of folks with bad changeups in the study, show-me third and fourth pitches, so I don't think there's any selection bias. Harder throwers had more effective changes than slower, given the same differential. In fact, the guys whose changes, all things being equal, are most effective are hard-throwing, strike-throwing, groundball pitchers, but the guys throwing the most changes are soft-tossing flyball pitchers. Finally, speed differential is actually a very small factor. I would actually advise coaches to ignore it and concentrate on teaching deception and command. The biggest predictor of success was frequency, much more so than you could explain by the obvious fact that guys with better changes throw it more often. To really separate out cause and effect here, though, you'd need to expand the study with pitch/fx location and movement data. It's on my list of studies to maybe do someday (along with thirty or forty others!). I'm sure you probably know this, but I hope you're referring to effect sizes and betas or odd ratios rather p values or other thresholds for 'statistical significance.' It sounds like there is so much data in this study that a very minuscule effect may deemed significant simply based on the fact that your analysis has a ridiculous amount of power.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 7, 2013 19:14:01 GMT -5
Nice hit Vic, So this kid Cosart are they building around him?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 7, 2013 19:28:52 GMT -5
Whatever it might mean in terms of results, Carp's at-bats are just more watchable than Napoli's. He should have had a walk just now, of course.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 7, 2013 19:39:07 GMT -5
Largest strike zone of the series, and that's really saying something.
|
|
|