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.
Olney's offseason rankings
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 28, 2013 21:43:36 GMT -5
Baseball HQ is Ron Shander's site. Who was the poster here who was obsessed with that place? Joe Foy?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 28, 2013 22:08:59 GMT -5
I'm not overly into projections so it was unlikely me. On the other hand, I still think Minor League Baseball Analyst when it was compiled by Derek McKamey was the best scouting handbook available for individual players. That's also a Baseball HQ publication.
ADD: McKamey once did a Q&A here for SoxProspects.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 28, 2013 22:15:18 GMT -5
Having said that, was anyone watching the playoffs? Red Sox starters matched the tigers pitch for pitch, inning for inning If you're seriously offering up the results of a seven game series as proof of anything, I don't even know what to say to you. (And even if we could draw conclusions off such a thing, the Tigers starters were much more impressive than what the Red Sox rolled out in that series; the Sox won in large part because they hit two grand slams of Tigers relievers while their own bullpen was insanely good. But I guess we have to go all revisionist history here because EVERYONE KNOWS starting pitching ALWAYS wins in the playoffs (disclaimer: it doesn't), and the Red Sox won, so their starting pitching must have been better.)
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 28, 2013 22:54:15 GMT -5
Having said that, was anyone watching the playoffs? Red Sox starters matched the tigers pitch for pitch, inning for inning If you're seriously offering up the results of a seven game series as proof of anything, I don't even know what to say to you. (And even if we could draw conclusions off such a thing, the Tigers starters were much more impressive than what the Red Sox rolled out in that series; the Sox won in large part because they hit two grand slams of Tigers relievers while their own bullpen was insanely good. But I guess we have to go all revisionist history here because EVERYONE KNOWS starting pitching ALWAYS wins in the playoffs (disclaimer: it doesn't), and the Red Sox won, so their starting pitching must have been better.) Well Fenway you should know than that the goal of every starting pitcher isn't to have the best era in the series ... it is to Keep it close and the team in the game until their offense can win it! Geez don't you listen to all those pitcher interviews? ?? So according to all those interviews the starting pitching for the Sox was the best in the world!!! Geez these cyber kids today go figure..........
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 28, 2013 23:51:34 GMT -5
If you're seriously offering up the results of a seven game series as proof of anything, I don't even know what to say to you. (And even if we could draw conclusions off such a thing, the Tigers starters were much more impressive than what the Red Sox rolled out in that series; the Sox won in large part because they hit two grand slams of Tigers relievers while their own bullpen was insanely good. But I guess we have to go all revisionist history here because EVERYONE KNOWS starting pitching ALWAYS wins in the playoffs (disclaimer: it doesn't), and the Red Sox won, so their starting pitching must have been better.) Well Fenway you should know than that the goal of every starting pitcher isn't to have the best era in the series ... it is to Keep it close and the team in the game until their offense can win it! Geez don't you listen to all those pitcher interviews? ?? So according to all those interviews the starting pitching for the Sox was the best in the world!!! Geez these cyber kids today go figure.......... This post brought to you by Jack Morris.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 29, 2013 1:13:03 GMT -5
Buster has his best lineups posted today. The top 10: 1. Texas 2. Boston 3. Detroit 4. St. Louis 5. L.A. (AL) 6. Oakland 7. Cleveland 8. Colorado 9. Kansas City 10. N.Y. (AL) I guess he's not a crock anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 29, 2013 2:06:02 GMT -5
Olney just posted his top bullpens. The Red Sox are in the honorable mention category again. The top 10: 1. Atlanta 2. Oakland 3. KC 4. Pittsburgh 5. L.A. (NL) 6. St. Louis 7. Cincinnati 8. Arizona 9. San Francisco 10. Tampa Bay That is ridiculous and there is not a single slight of chance of 10 teams having a better bullpen than a team that just won the goddamn WS based a lot on the strength of its pen.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 29, 2013 2:37:46 GMT -5
Let's not get too upset. The lists have little predictive value. They're put together simply as a cheap way to harvest eyeballs. I doubt that Olney himself takes them very seriously.
I was a lot more twisted out of shape that Uehara didn't get onto the allstar team last year. It was obvious even then that he was putting together a season for the ages. Hard to get upset with the eventual resolution of that snafu however. That WS MVP trophy ended up right where it needed to be, in the hands of his boy.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 29, 2013 7:24:22 GMT -5
The bullpen ranking is pretty terrible. Of course putting stock in a bullpen ranking would be inane, and I am not willing myself to put the time into compiling a better one (seriously ranking all 30 bullpens is an exercise which would take many many hours considering the number of relievers at play).
I would personally, however, put Tazawa, Uehara, Mujica, Miller, And Workman, et al up against most if not all bullpens.
|
|
|
Post by c00lryan on Dec 29, 2013 8:53:47 GMT -5
Let's not get too upset. The lists have little predictive value. They're put together simply as a cheap way to harvest eyeballs. I doubt that Olney himself takes them very seriously. I was a lot more twisted out of shape that Uehara didn't get onto the allstar team last year. It was obvious even then that he was putting together a season for the ages. Hard to get upset with the eventual resolution of that snafu however. That WS ALCS MVP trophy ended up right where it needed to be, in the hands of his boy. Let's not forget about Mr. Ortiz...
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 29, 2013 14:43:17 GMT -5
Olney (and many of you) make the same mistake most folks do when they do off-the-cuff rankings like this-- they focus on the top few guys in each rotation and for the most part ignore the guys at the back end of it. It's like how everyone thought the Red Sox offense last year would suck because Ortiz was the only "middle-of-the-order hitter." Yeah, Ortiz was the only elite hitter on the team, but the Red Sox were still the best offense in the league because everyone else in the batting order was above-average. A lineup full of good but not great hitters will score more runs than a lineup with two great hitters but two or three black holes. That same dynamic is true with the 2014 rotation-- Lester may not be an ace, but each of the projected five starters are above-average #2/3-types. Lackey, Peavy, and Doubront are all coming off 2.5+ win seasons, which is pretty damn impressive for the back end of your rotation. Darvish or Kershaw or Price might be better than anyone the Red Sox have, but Peavy and Doubront are much better than Perez/Ogando or Haren/Beckett or Archer/Hellickson. The Red Sox also have averagish-to-better depth, with guys like Dempster, Workman, and Webster that would appear to be better than the depth of most teams. I agree 100%. I have no problem with Tigers being number one, but they aren't the clear number one they were before the Fister trade. I feel the Sox have a top 5 rotation, but don't have a so called ace. If you look at our number 4 and 5 starters, they are the best in the game. They are better then the Tigers! Add in the fact that Boston has the best depth of any rotation and its a crime they aren't in the top 5!
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Dec 29, 2013 23:03:04 GMT -5
Here is the thing.
Lester and even Lackey to a certain extent have my complete confidence no matter who they are matched up against.
Lackey was spectacular compared to expectations. And Lester always seems to rise to the occasion.
It.doesn't make them 'better' then Price et al and I'm not surprised the Tiger's are ranked higher, but I'm glad the sox will enter spring training as the ended the season.
I like this staff.
I love Lester and Lackey's big game approach.
I love Buck and Doubronts upside and could see either one with a great won loss record.
And while Peavy and Dempster both are reaching the point where they may fall of the cliff, they each also may have one last run in them.
While I am concerned that the next wave may all end up as back end guys and relievers, I do like the upside of Owens, Barnes, and Rubby De La rosa, and Workman seems like the real deal as well.
Any of them may contribute by July and this depth and upside potential if managed correctly is the real strength that puts them in the top five for me.
|
|
|
Post by TheCerebral1 on Dec 30, 2013 8:51:03 GMT -5
The starting pitching ranking by Olney was awful. He had the following 5 to 9... Pirates As Rangers Braves Reds None of the above teams have a number 1 starter and each of those teams have major question marks in their respective rotations. The Red Sox and Rats have better starting rotations then each of the above teams. Yu Darvish is definitely a 1. I would also say that Latos is a pretty much a 1, in my books at least. The others I can agree to. Due mainly on sample size to Cole's work.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Dec 31, 2013 17:12:21 GMT -5
Here we go again...
Olney (which ironically auto corrects to lonely) has the sox as the fourth best team in the majors... "If the Dodgers play the Tigers in the World Series, it'll be a match of the two teams currently placing the highest value on winning a championship. "
As measured by horrible contracts I suppose.
Tigers best. Then two aaaa teams, then sox.
"maintained their discipline in the offseason, not feeling the need to try to top the magic that Boston accomplished in 2013"
At least he comes out and states it. It was all magic.
162 game season, two particularly grueling series with outstanding pitching and D, and the emergence of a phenom were supernatural.
And tomorrow's list will be more ridiculous than today's.
|
|
|
Post by redsox1534 on Jan 1, 2014 9:55:54 GMT -5
Olney isnt what he used to be if u ask me. I use to really like him but every time I hear him talk he seems like hes saying the opposite of something you would expect him to kinda is a joke of a writer now. His lists are so terrible. We have a top 3-5 rotation and bullpen its not even close.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Jan 1, 2014 10:55:16 GMT -5
Here we go again... Olney (which ironically auto corrects to lonely) has the sox as the fourth best team in the majors... "If the Dodgers play the Tigers in the World Series, it'll be a match of the two teams currently placing the highest value on winning a championship. " As measured by horrible contracts I suppose. Tigers best. Then two aaaa teams, then sox. "maintained their discipline in the offseason, not feeling the need to try to top the magic that Boston accomplished in 2013" At least he comes out and states it. It was all magic. 162 game season, two particularly grueling series with outstanding pitching and D, and the emergence of a phenom were supernatural. And tomorrow's list will be more ridiculous than today's. Jack, did you predict the Sox to win it all last year? Did you predict them to make the playoffs? If I remember correctly, the general feeling (not a slam-dunk consensus but seemingly most posters) on this board was that the Sox might have a shot at the wild card. A lot of people liked the Blue Jays chances because the "won the offseason" by taking on a bunch of contracts and trading for a knuckleballer. The Sox Starting Pitchers were coming off injury or poor performance, Ellsbury and Big Papi were coming off injuries and they signed a bunch of mid-level free agents. The Sox had some injuries but nearly everything fell into place last year that could fall into place with notable exceptions of JBJ establishing himself in the ML and Middlebrooks following up on his promise from last season. Papi raked and was insane in the playoffs, Lester had somewhat of a career resurgence and was great in the playoffs, Buchholz was on fire until his injury, Iglesias could not make an out, Ellsbury stayed on the field, Napoli stayed healthy AND played good defense at 1B, Uehara had a season for the ages, Victorino had a career resurgence, Lackey returned from injury, had a career resurgence and became a huge part of the rotation, Gomes came up with some huge hits, youngsters like Britton and Workman pitched meaningful innings,… I think the Sox will be good next year and I also expect there will be regression and poor performance in some areas. 4th best team in the ML is not an insulting ranking/projection/opinion.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Jan 1, 2014 12:00:00 GMT -5
Agree, 4th seems like a good spot for them right now. A lot of things broke right for this team last year, a lot of question marks going into next year. Hopefully it tips in their favor again, but 4th really doesn't seem like an insulting spot......
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jan 1, 2014 12:48:08 GMT -5
Agree, 4th seems like a good spot for them right now. A lot of things broke right for this team last year, a lot of question marks going into next year. Hopefully it tips in their favor again, but 4th really doesn't seem like an insulting spot...... The Sox are going to enter next season with Bradley, Middlebrooks and Bogey all playing key roles and I do not think we can expect all three youngsters to get through the year without some sort of growing pains. Bradley can not hit the inside pitch. Middlebrooks has been known to confuse the goodyear blimp with a fastball and swing at it. Bogey's defense at shortstop is scares me. If he's not getting to balls that Drew would get to, then the pitchers will become frustrated and alter they way they pitch to hitters and that never works. Also what depth do we have behind the youngsters. Next to nothing? So in summary, we know the youngsters are going to have ups and downs, good days and bad, hot streaks and cold as ice slumps, and we know we are thin in terms of depth behind them. Being ranked #4 is really a complement when you consider all things. However if the Sox stay relativelt healthy, and we catch lightening in a bottle again with the rookies performing at a consistently decent level, then look out; because next season just might be another hat and T shirt year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 1, 2014 13:30:13 GMT -5
Can we get rid of this idea that Bogaerts is a horrible shortstop? He's a fine shortstop. He probably won't be as good defensively as Drew, but he'll be an average shortstop.
It's not just you, larrycook, but the idea seems to be popping up in several places. He's young and he'll make mistakes, but he'll probably make some nice plays too. He'll be fine at short if they play him there.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 1, 2014 15:09:53 GMT -5
Can we get rid of this idea that Bogaerts is a horrible shortstop? He's a fine shortstop. He probably won't be as good defensively as Drew, but he'll be an average shortstop. It's not just you, larrycook, but the idea seems to be popping up in several places. He's young and he'll make mistakes, but he'll probably make some nice plays too. He'll be fine at short if they play him there. I was thinking the same thing. Xander made several great defensive plays last season.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Jan 1, 2014 18:50:43 GMT -5
Can we get rid of this idea that Bogaerts is a horrible shortstop? He's a fine shortstop. He probably won't be as good defensively as Drew, but he'll be an average shortstop. It's not just you, larrycook, but the idea seems to be popping up in several places. He's young and he'll make mistakes, but he'll probably make some nice plays too. He'll be fine at short if they play him there. I was thinking the same thing. Xander made several great defensive plays last season. A big part of why I am not for the Drew signing. Bogaerts could outgrow the position someday but he can play short now. The Sox should play him there as much as they can, while they can. I also haven't given up on Middlebrooks as it seems a lot of people have. He may never develop a great approach at the plate but he'll definitely never develop one as a part time player in my opinion. Power is such a scarce commodity right now the Sox gotta see if he'll pan out. If it doesn't seem to be working out, Chenchini is in the pipeline. Lots of people are itching to ship Middlebrooks out in a trade. Could this be the worst possible time to do that? What's the Sox return for a guy who had an up and down year like he had last year? At this point he is more valuable to the Sox than anybody else. He ain't the centerpiece in a Stanton trade right now. Not trading him this offseason is not an opportunity lost, it's not selling for 50 cents on the dollar. A player in Drew's position, early 30s, is not looking for the type of contract the Sox would like him to sign. He is looking for 4-6 years at a high AAV. This is the age for him to get his big contract. Worst case scenario for him is to sign another pillow contract and hit free agency again next year hoping that there will be more demand for a short stop. But his fielding skill are great now. Anybody wanting to sign an up the middle player long term will want to get as much of that contracts length to be when the player can field his position well. Next season he'll be 31 and the one after 32. He needs to get that deal now. He also can't be caught in a situation next year (on a pillow contract) sharing time in the field with a young player(s). That won't help his market.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Jan 1, 2014 18:53:53 GMT -5
Looks like I blended to threads together on that post...
My bad.
|
|
|