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.
10/19 Red Sox vs. Tigers ALCS Game 6 Thread
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 19, 2013 12:46:44 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong but has Gomes gotten a single hit in this 5 games series yet which got out of the infield? I don't get it. He had a foul ball which was crushed. I'm hoping for the best but betting on Nava.
Before the playoffs started, I thought to myself "Wouldn't it be wonderful if Nava got a game winning hit?". I'd love to see Fenway give him a standing O like there has never been in baseball. Wouldn't that cap off an incredible story?
Do you guys believe or what? I believe. I'm not saying it will happen but I sincerely think it could well happen. Miracles do happen. We just need to recognize it when we see them. And Daniel Nava is a potential miracle if there ever was one.
You can't make up a story like that. He must believe deep inside that this was all meant to be, or at least have some faith that this scenario could actually be true. Who knows if all that is real but whether it is or not, but having faith that it could happen may be the key to actually making it happen.
Something tells me that maybe Nava missed the sign on that SB attempt and made Farrell look bad, and that maybe it had happened before. Or Farrell is just hoping for a HR from Gomes and doesn't think the Nava approach of stringing some walks and hits together is likely to bear the same overall results. Maybe Farrell is not confident that they can score more than a run or 2 off Scherzer and a couple HR balls on mistakes are his best shot. Or maybe looking more intense does keep everyone on the team more focused. I'm stretching my imagination here because I don't get it on this issue. Nava should be the more appropriate choice both from a numbers perspective and from a team perspective.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 19, 2013 12:52:40 GMT -5
I get the numbers perspective comment that's clear, but how a team perspective? Gomes is the ultimate team guy. His story us more impressive in some ways then Nava's so I wouldn't go down that road.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 19, 2013 13:03:18 GMT -5
I get the numbers perspective comment that's clear, but how a team perspective? Gomes is the ultimate team guy. His story us more impressive in some ways then Nava's so I wouldn't go down that road. It's the fact that you can talk yourself into garbage like this that I think Farrell is starting Gomes not because of any real analytical insight, but rather because he trusts his gut. After all, every team Gomes has been on in the last few years has made the LCS, amiright? By the way, the idea that you can toss sabermetrics out the window once the playoffs arrive because of runs produced (LOL) or the hot hand or hustle is complete and utter nonsense. I won't change your mind so I'm not looking to argue about it, but suffice it to say I strongly disagree.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 19, 2013 13:22:29 GMT -5
I was asking why he thought Nava was better from a team perspective...
Not saying you throw stuff out the window but you guys who think Saber metrics is the Gospel are misguided. A players complete impact can't be measured in OPS and OBP or WAR. It's impossible to measure a players full impact. If you think runs scored is my reasoning for playing Gomes you are missing the point. I didn't even know the numbers until 2 mins before I typed it. Not sure if I'm not being clear or numbers people are so blindly reliant on them for explanations that they want to just nit pick one piece of a post. Funny thing is I'm a numbers person. Love statistics and think they're extremely useful.
However those of you who rely on them to explain everything are insufferable. They just help you play odds. However, with a manager he also has to factor in other things that help sway odds as well. Things that don't have numbers attached to then. I've never once used the word gut feel but it's probably not a bad way to put it however it could be easily misconstrued to mean there's not real basis to the decision. Gomes has impacted the games in a positive way regardless of his OBP. Anyone watching a game can see that and Farrell sees more then any of us. To suggest otherwise is ignorant. Otherwise why not just have a computer manage the game? It could easily be done - right down to pitching changes by measuring velocity changes and pitch location.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Oct 19, 2013 13:31:06 GMT -5
The Nava -Gomes discussion is fascination as it creates an interesting dialogue on team building strategy such as intangibles and stats and player value. I will try to add a perspective on Farrell's decision. He actually says many things that do explain the reasons and as a former union and community organizer they make sense. The success of an organizing campaign often is more than good narrative, strategies and tactics- although they are critical. Likewise, a good organizer has to have more than just the technical skills. The good ones have the energy, commitment and skills that can engage others in many ways and have a certain leadership quality. The campaign is a group ( or team effort) and all motors have to be running efficiently. So what does this have to do with Gomes?
Gomes has great energy and is constantly thinking about the game, according to Farrell and others,and often makes an impact on a game with a key hit and/or base running. Like Dustin he is very engaged in all aspects of the game. This helps with the teams overall approach to a game by keeping all motors running and makes players aware of all situations. His base running also fits in the Sox's new approach. To use a clique he is a team player.
Now he does not have Nava's stats ( or even hitting skills). but does he bring more to the game as it is played? Farrell suggests yes. I do not know, but Farrell's decision makes sense; it is based on his overall approach to building and managing a team and what he believes it takes to win games. ( Of course, none of this makes sense unless Gomes can do somethings with the bat and feet.)
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 19, 2013 13:37:09 GMT -5
I'd rather see Nava over Gomes but it's no slam dunk for me. I can see why Gomes is getting the nod.
Liked the way poster godot looks at it.
On a player there seems to be less debate over, I'm glad to hear Xander is playing tonight.
Sure hope Clay has a better fastball and command than he's had since coming back.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 19, 2013 13:48:24 GMT -5
If the argument is that Gomes has an "impact on the game"-- hey look, we can measure that! We can measure good baserunning and "clutch" hits and power and everything else. And, looking backwards, by pretty much whatever measure you want to use, Nava has produced more on the field than Gomes has.
Even if there are some so-called soft factors that we don't have available but Farrell does and which point towards Gomes ("energy", maybe he breaks down pitchers better in the dugout, whatever non-verifiable attribute you want), are they significant enough to make it worth starting a player who clearly projects to have worse odds of positively impacting the game? From my perspective, no. Based on the information we as fans have available to us, it is clearly a terrible lineup decision, and I don't trust enough in Farrell's infallibility to just assume he's got some unknown factors which make this the right move.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 19, 2013 13:50:33 GMT -5
I hope Farrell is ready to take clay out after 5. Doesn't seem to have the arm strength to go deep in the playoffs. Maybe it's a dumb statement to make on this board but pitches in the playoffs take more effort then in regular season. At least according to pitchers who've actually pitched in that situation. But what do they know if there isn't a stat that backs their claim.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Oct 19, 2013 13:54:06 GMT -5
Good points jmei, my post was more in line with does his decision make sense and is it reasonable. Whether it is right or wrong is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 19, 2013 13:56:34 GMT -5
The crazy thing in all of this - how is it humanly possible for someone to have better intangibles than Daniel Nava? He got cut from Santa Clara! He signed for a dollar! Then he works so insanely hard that he finishes fifth in the AL in OBP? Yeah, I want those intangibles in my lineup, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 19, 2013 13:59:16 GMT -5
Maybe it's an Angels in the Outfield scenario guys, hear me out. MAYBE just MAYBE John Farrell has a young child friend like Danny Glover and can see angels in the outfield powering up Gomes. I mean you can't measure angels in the outfield, doesn't mean they aren't there. They might not be able to help in the computer World Series though.
Anyone who has watched baseball knows managers can make idiotic, dumb decisions as well. So maybe it's just that. You lose by default when you say this isn't even a baseball argument but have to dismiss real evidence in favor of intangible things you can't measure. There's a name for it. Confirmation bias. It's a hell of a drug.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Oct 19, 2013 14:15:58 GMT -5
Of course the difference is that Coco was a veteran with little upside and no future with the team. I hope this doesn't rock WMB's confidence long term. Still, I agree with the move on both an expected production point, and a go-with-the-hot-hand point. The way Middlebrooks has played this season I doubt he has a real future with this team. But maybe that's just my pessimistic view. I can't let this go unanswered. Middlebrooks' post all star game stats were excellent (.276/.329/.476). His numbers this postseason arent great but neither are anyone else's, and they are better than Drew's. When I heard Bogaerts was starting his first game I assumed he was playing for Drew
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 19, 2013 14:31:12 GMT -5
Maybe it's an Angels in the Outfield scenario guys, hear me out. MAYBE just MAYBE John Farrell has a young child friend like Danny Glover and can see angels in the outfield powering up Gomes. I mean you can't measure angels in the outfield, doesn't mean they aren't there. They might not be able to help in the computer World Series though.
Anyone who has watched baseball knows managers can make idiotic, dumb decisions as well. So maybe it's just that. You lose by default when you say this isn't even a baseball argument but have to dismiss real evidence in favor of intangible things you can't measure. There's a name for it. Confirmation bias. It's a hell of a drug. So you think Farrell should ignore all of the following: - quality of an AB - Defense - hustle - moving runners over - taking an extra base None of those things can be measured and certainly aren't measured in OPS which is what everyone is basing their decisions on. They are all baseball things which can be measured by a manager. Just no wrapped up into a statistic. There is a difference.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 19, 2013 14:57:56 GMT -5
Does Gomes do any of those things better than Nava?
Four of those five things can be measured. Not just by a manager, but by all of us.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 19, 2013 15:02:58 GMT -5
The crazy thing in all of this - how is it humanly possible for someone to have better intangibles than Daniel Nava? He got cut from Santa Clara! He signed for a dollar! Then he works so insanely hard that he finishes fifth in the AL in OBP? Yeah, I want those intangibles in my lineup, thank you. At the risk of confusing things, I'm going to address this. Daniel Nava worked hard to turn himself into a quality major league player after having to overcome obstacles. That doesn't mean he has an infectious personality that carries over to him teammates on the field, which is what Farrell is saying Gomes provides. You can scoff at it all you want but one of the mangers who believes in saber metrics more then almost any other in baseball believes it right now. Anyone who hasn't played sports at a high level in a winning environment is unqualified to speak on intangibles that fire up teammates and lead to winning. To blindly dismiss what most professional athletes say exists is ignorance at its best. Also, just because someone suggests it should factor in doesn't mean they dismiss stats, just that the difference in statistical analysis don't outweigh other value add. "Talking about Jonny's intangibles is not said to take away anything from his ability, or diminish what Daniel Nava has done for us,'' Farrell said in explaining his decision. "The team feeds off his energy,'' Farrell said Sunday after Boston's 6-5 victory. "If this guy (Verlander) is on, you can say you can throw out all the numbers,'' Farrell said. "But we know Jonny will give you a tough at-bat, and if a pitcher makes a mistake, he'll cover it.'' (Can sub Scherzer in there) Two key thing for people who love stats to keep in mind are: Statistics is a discipline that examines data and can calculate numerical estimates of "true" values. Statistics cannot prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Oct 19, 2013 15:14:37 GMT -5
The Gomes/Nava discussion is great and informative, but today's outcome may really depend the dominance of each pitcher. If Clay does not have it and their guy does, so long.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 19, 2013 15:16:38 GMT -5
Does Gomes do any of those things better than Nava? Four of those five things can be measured. Not just by a manager, but by all of us. In my opinion he does. I agree they can be measured, but not fully in your traditional Sabermatrician sort of way. They certainly don't show up in everyone's beloved OPS (.701 btw) Defensive metrics are widely criticized. Therefore its a garbage stat. Garbage in garbage out = useless. Obviously this has run its course. There are two schools of thought at work here. One relies on only stats to explain everything as the way it should be and will follow them as Gospel. The other uses stats and other external factors to make decisions the best way possible. I'm glad Farrell is a stat freak but it's bound by them. It's worked so far. I think one thing we can all agree on is the Sox could play 2 great games and still lose to the two guys they have to face.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 19, 2013 15:17:29 GMT -5
Gomes strikes out 11.7% of the time, walks 24.3% of the time, and sees 3.87 pitches per plate appearance. He makes contact 75.3% of the time and has a swinging strike rate of 9.5%. Daniel Nava walks 9.5% of the time, strikes out 17.4% of the time, and sees 4.11 pitches per plate appearance. He makes contact 84.6% of the time and swings and misses only 5.9% of the time. Anecdotally, you'll be hard-pressed to find many scouts who think Gomes has better ABs than Nava. Daniel Nava's career UZR/150 in LF is -9.6, career Total Zone per 1200 innings is 4, and career BIS per 1200 innings is 0. Jonny Gomes' career UZR/150 in LF is -11.6, career Total Zone per 1200 innings is -17, and career BIS per 1200 innings is -13. Anecdotally, you'll be hard-pressed to find many scouts who prefer Gomes' defense to Nava's. LOL, next. Nava has the lower strikeout rate and hits more ground balls (career 36.3% to Gomes' 30%). Moreover, Nava's Win Probability Added ( defined here), a contextual measure of how much players contribute to wins, beats Gomes' 1.21 to 1.07. That implies that in "clutch" situations, Nava does more of the things that help his team win, including moving guys over. Nava's career baserunning runs above average per 600 PAs is 0.28. Gomes' is 0.45. So this goes marginally in favor of Gomes.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 19, 2013 15:20:22 GMT -5
I also want to apologize to every Red Sox fan for mushing Jonny Gomes. He's inevitably going to suck tonight. Have 3 pitch strikeouts, ground into double plays, get thrown out taking an extra base, fall in the outfield and overthrow every cut off man who's only 5 feet away.
Hopefully, Nava can replace him hit a home run and make diving catch then get up and throw the tying run out at the plate to complete the greatest defensive play in RS history.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 19, 2013 15:28:37 GMT -5
#RedSox Gm 6 vs. Tigers (Scherzer): Ells CF, Vic RF, Pedroia 2B, Ortiz DH, Napoli 1B, Salty C, Gomes LF, Drew SS, Bogaerts 3B, Buchholz
Terrible line up composition IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 19, 2013 15:29:53 GMT -5
Also, just because someone suggests it should factor in doesn't mean they dismiss stats, just that the difference in statistical analysis don't outweigh other value add. The problem is that the gulf between Gomes and Nava is so wide that the "other value" Gomes adds would have to pretty damn incredible to make it even close. This isn't using intangibles to break a tie between two very close players. This is starting a player who is incontrovertibly worse by a large margin using literally every statistical analysis you could drum up because of nebulous, unfalsifiable intangibles.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 19, 2013 15:30:58 GMT -5
The crazy thing in all of this - how is it humanly possible for someone to have better intangibles than Daniel Nava? He got cut from Santa Clara! He signed for a dollar! Then he works so insanely hard that he finishes fifth in the AL in OBP? Yeah, I want those intangibles in my lineup, thank you. At the risk of confusing things, I'm going to address this. Daniel Nava worked hard to turn himself into a quality major league player after having to overcome obstacles. That doesn't mean he has an infectious personality that carries over to him teammates on the field, which is what Farrell is saying Gomes provides. You can scoff at it all you want but one of the mangers who believes in saber metrics more then almost any other in baseball believes it right now. Anyone who hasn't played sports at a high level in a winning environment is unqualified to speak on intangibles that fire up teammates and lead to winning. To blindly dismiss what most professional athletes say exists is ignorance at its best. Also, just because someone suggests it should factor in doesn't mean they dismiss stats, just that the difference in statistical analysis don't outweigh other value add. "Talking about Jonny's intangibles is not said to take away anything from his ability, or diminish what Daniel Nava has done for us,'' Farrell said in explaining his decision. "The team feeds off his energy,'' Farrell said Sunday after Boston's 6-5 victory. "If this guy (Verlander) is on, you can say you can throw out all the numbers,'' Farrell said. "But we know Jonny will give you a tough at-bat, and if a pitcher makes a mistake, he'll cover it.'' (Can sub Scherzer in there) Two key thing for people who love stats to keep in mind are: Statistics is a discipline that examines data and can calculate numerical estimates of "true" values. Statistics cannot prove anything. How about blindly accepting a decision a coach makes without having any actual arguments for it simply because you assume he knows more. Is that ignorance? What's that called? Oh I forgot, runs scored, hustle, and other factors. Gotcha. Sound logic. EDIT (mostly for tonality) The part you don't get is I entirely accept that Gomes could perform better than Nava in this game, or this series, against RHP. Flukey things happen in a small sample of baseball games. If Gomes goes 0-4 or 4-4 with 2 home runs I still disagree with the process behind making the decision. I reject that guys play better with Gomes in the lineup than they would in the dugout. I think that's absurd. If these guys need Gomes active to get fired up and concentrated on Game 6 of the ALCS shame on them.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 19, 2013 15:32:40 GMT -5
#RedSox Gm 6 vs. Tigers (Scherzer): Ells CF, Vic RF, Pedroia 2B, Ortiz DH, Napoli 1B, Salty C, Gomes LF, Drew SS, Bogaerts 3B, Buchholz Terrible line up composition IMO. I think Salty was the only batter to consistently put the bat on the ball vs Scherzer first time thru. I don't like him batting sixth but that's probably the reason.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 19, 2013 15:35:56 GMT -5
The way Middlebrooks has played this season I doubt he has a real future with this team. But maybe that's just my pessimistic view. I can't let this go unanswered. Middlebrooks' post all star game stats were excellent (.276/.329/.476). His numbers this postseason arent great but neither are anyone else's, and they are better than Drew's. When I heard Bogaerts was starting his first game I assumed he was playing for Drew Amen.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 19, 2013 15:38:17 GMT -5
Guess that lineup was to be expected. And now for my pointless, drastically changed, unimaginable lineup I think would have been kind of cool:
CF Ellsbury 3B Bogaerts DH Ortiz 1B Napoli LF Nava 2B Pedroia C Salty RF Victorino SS Drew
Also, everything jmei said on Nava/Gomes on this page is spot on. Can't really argue it any other way, IMO.
|
|
|