|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 29, 2014 5:22:13 GMT -5
 Note to the Sox. You need to teach the rookies which way is up on the shades. They probably cover that in the Rookie Development Program. |
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jun 29, 2014 7:43:02 GMT -5
Edes on the Mookie plan:Thank God my rant in the game thread, driven by hated of the Drew signing, was completely wrong. But five games a week for each rookie means that there's four left for Drew in a 6-game week -- and seven left in a 7-game week. (From now until the trade deadline, we have four 6-game weeks, three 7-game weeks, plus the 3-day week with the ASB.) What they should do (games per week):CF Bradley 5-6, Betts 1 RF Betts 4-5, Holt 2 3B Holt 4-5, Bogaerts 2-3 SS Bogaerts 4, Drew 2-3 Essentially, you have the obvious regular lineup without Drew. Twice a week you play Drew at SS, X at 3B, and Holt in right, once to give Mookie a blow and once to rest JBJ. When there's no off day, you use the extra game to have Drew give either Holt of Xander a rare day off. What I think they'll do (games per week):
CF Bradley 5-6, Betts 1-2 RF Betts 4, Holt 2-3 3B Bogaerts 5-6, Holt 1 SS Drew 4-5, Holt 2 Here the regular lineup omits Holt, who gets one off day a week, and otherwise takes turns spelling Mookie (and JBJ via Mookie in CF), X, and Drew. The difference between this and what I'd like is a) taking 2 games from Drew and giving them to X and Holt, and of course b) Xander back primarily to SS. Their reluctance to shuttle him between SS and 3B (which is what I make of the comment about Holt playing SS) is strange given that that had to be the plan when they signed Drew and expected WMB back by about now--a Drew / Middlebrooks platoon. I could live with this if and only if it were temporary and were a prelude to a Drew trade (dump). Actually, this what I suspected in previous post, but forget Eric's calculus. Farrell needs to be creative and go by "feel" and match ups, forget the pre- set plan. It is is not real life or actually playing, which follows no pre-written script. You just need a general approach and plan and use judgement according to the "flow of things". Improvising is key. Events change fast and sometimes unexpectedly. These keyboard plans can fk you up. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 29, 2014 8:26:55 GMT -5
What they should do (games per week):What I think they'll do (games per week):
Actually, this what I suspected in previous post, but forget Eric's calculus. Farrell needs to be creative and go by "feel" and match ups, forget the pre- set plan. It is is not real life or actually playing, which follows no pre-written script. You just need a general approach and plan and use judgement according to the "flow of things". Improvising is key. Events change fast and sometimes unexpectedly. These keyboard plans can fk you up. It's both. The two are not only not mutually exclusive, they mesh well. You have a good sense of how often each guy should play, based on how good they are (plus, perhaps, in Drew's case, the desire to not bury him so that he's untradeable). You look at the matchups each night and try to determine the best lineup (that is, which one guy sits). In the long run, the frequencies of play have to match your initial "calculus," or by definition either the calculus was wrong or your matchups are. To demonstrate, take a simple two person platoon, same handedness -- let's say Nava and Holt versus RHP. You start by saying, Holt is better, he should get 60% of the PT. Every night you look at the matchups, using your splits and swing path data, and so on. If after a month or two, in 60% of the games you thought Nava was the better matchup, then either you were wrong with the original judgment, or you're doing the matchups wrong. (Maybe you got a very strange lopsided run of SP, but probably not.) The one tweak is if you get a short run of SP that put any one player on the bench too often, based on the matchups -- then you might pick a day to get him into the lineup, even though he's the guy who should be sitting, just to keep him fresh. Ditto with giving a guy a rest who hasn't had one in a while because you keep facing pitchers he matches up well against -- when you find a day where he's the fourth best option of the five, he can sit. The tweak you don't want to do is let who's "hot" and "cold" influence you too much, because those streaks, as real as they are in retrospect, have almost no predictive quality. And if you start sitting the guy who's "cold" more often than planned, that can actually mess the guy up, or, at best, prolong the time it takes him to get back his mechanics, as it probably did with Farrell burying Nava earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jun 29, 2014 8:33:11 GMT -5
Agree on that Eric. Besides, I always liked jazz as a model for decision making and action. This new set up could be fun, depending on whether Betts is ready. And I would not rule it out. This kid is a good example of throwing away a plan. Let's see how it plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 29, 2014 9:17:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pedey on Jun 29, 2014 10:47:04 GMT -5
I was thrilled with this move, except for the fact that RDLR was optioned. I'd sooner DFA Peavy than option RDLR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 29, 2014 12:52:04 GMT -5
Let's leave this thread for Mookie. The (perfectly legit) discussion of the 40-man stuff should go in its own thread. I moved a bunch of posts from this thread to one that was already started on that topic.
|
|
