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.
9/26-9/28 Red Sox vs. Yankees Series Thread
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 28, 2014 16:43:43 GMT -5
Breslow really fought to get that option picked up. I hope Ben gives some of these kids a chance to build a bullpen with. I know we can't have all of the prospects up here but we have good arms and not many can be starters and I believe are good for the pen. This offseason is gonna be very interesting. Layne should get the Breslow slot. He has already looked better than Breslow this year and probably enough innings to evaluate between here and SD in '13 should give him the go ahead for next spring. Hembree is being forgotten about also. Lets see if Hembree can be effective as a power lefty, to tag on the roster and get out both LH and RH hitters as Laybe seems to be one of those guys who is good for NOTHING but LH guys only and is a liability vs RH guys, as is evident in the way Farrell is utilizing him this season. Wilson also has looked better these last 2 months, fighting for a roster spot next season and could be a 6-7th inning guy.. Something they need with The Hopper a FA.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 28, 2014 17:32:15 GMT -5
I hope we go after Luke Gregerson, we need a Darren O'Day in our bullpen and Gregerson had a great year.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 28, 2014 17:56:59 GMT -5
The Sox scored 634 runs this year, less than in any season since whenever - at least back to 2002, which is as far as I looked. Even in 2012 they scored 100 more runs.
They gave up 715 runs, which is the fifth lowest amount allowed in the period 2002-2014. The years when they allowed less: 2013, 2008, 2007, 2002.
It is amazing now to recall that they scored 962 runs in 2003, 949 in 2004 and 907 in 2005. The most they have had since then was 872 in 2009.
Run scoring improved a bit after the July trades, but pitching was worse.
Prior to August 1, the team record was 49-60, .450, since then 22-31, .415. Average runs scored per game prior to Aug. 1: 3.81; since then, 4.11. Runs allowed per game prior to Aug.1: 4.31; since then, 4.62.
Both pitching and hitting have to improve for the team to be a contender in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Sept 28, 2014 18:41:25 GMT -5
Breslow really fought to get that option picked up. Breslow and Uehara are the poster children for how deep playoff runs affect pitchers the following season. Breslow was not that good in the 2013 playoffs. He walked 7 guys in 7 innings. espn.go.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/6365/craig-breslow
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 28, 2014 18:57:43 GMT -5
LH RPs have more lives than cats. Breslow will have a job in somebody's pen next season, and he might well bounce back. It happens all the time, especially with LHPs.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 28, 2014 19:01:17 GMT -5
Yeah so? That wasn't my point at all. He pitched too much in 2013 and it affected 2014.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 28, 2014 19:19:08 GMT -5
We will need three lefties in the bullpen next season. So far we have layne and maybe Britton.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 28, 2014 22:26:57 GMT -5
We will need three lefties in the bullpen next season. So far we have layne and maybe Britton. Layne maybe...Britton, c'mon man, no. Miller is an absolute yes. If we want 3...then let's hunt.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 28, 2014 22:37:32 GMT -5
There are some intriguing veterans on the free agent market that could make more sense than bringing I the youngsters.
Ps: I thought Britton looked semi ok in boston, but putrid in Pawtucket. Odd year for him. Seems to be a concentration or lack thereof issue.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 28, 2014 23:01:28 GMT -5
We will need three lefties in the bullpen next season. So far we have layne and maybe Britton. Layne maybe...Britton, c'mon man, no. Miller is an absolute yes. If we want 3...then let's hunt. Miller is going to cost. Can you see Boston paying upwards of 20m to sign him? He's to me the premier guy on the market. sub 30, can get lefties, righties out and some team just may have ideas of converting him into a closer. Think Boston might not be willing to go that high. They messed up not giving him his money last winter and cheaping out.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 29, 2014 0:11:30 GMT -5
There are some intriguing veterans on the free agent market that could make more sense than bringing I the youngsters. Ps: I thought Britton looked semi ok in boston, but putrid in Pawtucket. Odd year for him. Seems to be a concentration or lack thereof issue. I wouldn't count on Britton. He had a really small sample size in Boston and a much larger sample size in Pawtucket. I don't think his control is too good and I certainly wouldn't entrust him with a bullpen spot. I do believe the Sox will go after Miller, but I'm sure they'll have plenty of company and I doubt they'll wind up bringing him back. I would think, given the starting pitchers numbers crunch, at some point Edwin Escobar could wind up as a lefty in the bullpen alongside Layne.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 29, 2014 1:56:39 GMT -5
I don't even consider Jeter an acceptable SS for the last 7-8 seasons. He probably should have been the one to move to 3B when Arod joined them. And if you consider that, he's ranked nowhere near as high as he is. Hell if defense doesn't matter, Papi could be a better SS than Jeter. Also of note. Jeter's career postseason wRC+ was 121. Regular season 119. You know what they say about clutch. Yep, Jeter was a really, really good player for a long time. But, you know, no more than that ... as jmei said, Barry Larkin was every bit Jeter's equal, better when he played (similar offense, better defense) but not quite as durable (600 fewer games played). Jeter was never the best shortstop in the game for any stretch of time. And in historical context, Arky Vaughan was better than Jeter, and who remembers Arky Vaughan? Certainly not members of the BBAA, who gave him precisely zero HOF votes after he retired as the second-best and second-greatest (peak and career value) SS in history. An even better recent contrast to Jeter than Larkin is Alan Trammel, who beats him in best 5 seasons aWAR (average bWAR and fWAR) 33.0 to 31.7, only trails him in career aWAR, 72.8 to 67.0, and who is at 20.8% in HOF voting with just 2 years of eligibility left. In my ranking of players by the empirically derived 2 * aWAR5 + aWAR criterion for HOF, the next 9 SS are all in the Hall (Reese, Larkin, Cronin, Boudreau, Bobby Wallace, Bancroft, Sewell, Tinker, and Rizzuto). Meanwhile, people are seriously asking whether Ripken or Jeter was the greater player, as if it's too close to call, when Ripken has a 42.9 to 31.7 edge in aWAR5 and 94.1 to 72.7 edge in career aWAR. Now, in terms of total career value at SS, you can certainly argue that Jeter is 4th, at the head of a pack that's miles behind Wagner, ARod, and Ripken. You could also put him behind Appling, Vaughan, Yount, and Ozzie, though; it's a very tight cluster, and you'd probably have to give Jeter credit for his post-season play to get him ahead of those guys. In terms of peak value, he's not top 10. aWAR5: 50.0 Wagner 47.1 Rodriguez 42.9 Ripken 40.7 Banks 39.1 Vaughan 39.1 Boudreau (adjusted for playing during WWII) 35.1 Cronin 34.8 Yount 33.6 Garciaparra 33.3 Appling 33.0 Trammel 31.7 Jeter 31.1 Larkin 30.8 Smith It's easy to argue that he wasn't one of the ten best SS in history, a thought that would burst many people's brains. (None of this includes pre-1900 players, of whom George Davis and Jack Glasscock appear to be more impressive than Jeter and Bill Dahlen just a bit less.)
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 29, 2014 9:18:33 GMT -5
Jeter gets credit for the Yankee teams, the ones that won the first 4 championships of his career, through osmosis. Just for being part of that group, and as the last one standing, all that karma is perceived as flowing through him. It's not just him retiring, it's that era.
None of it is logical, but we humans aren't quite built for pure logic. What is disturbing is the failure of the baseball writers to get past the tribal stuff, to acknowledge truly outstanding players such as Vaughan and Trammell. That, and taking the worship to the next level. That deification is how religions get their start. The pinstriped priesthood.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 29, 2014 9:29:17 GMT -5
I don't think you can just look at regular season WAR when ranking Jeter. He's got an entire season-plus of elite hitting in the postseason. I'm sorry, but that counts. Playoffs games are real things that exist.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 29, 2014 10:01:46 GMT -5
Layne maybe...Britton, c'mon man, no. Miller is an absolute yes. If we want 3...then let's hunt. Miller is going to cost. Can you see Boston paying upwards of 20m to sign him? He's to me the premier guy on the market. sub 30, can get lefties, righties out and some team just may have ideas of converting him into a closer. Think Boston might not be willing to go that high. They messed up not giving him his money last winter and cheaping out. As I understand it Miller will cost nothing except money. ...no draft picks, no players...I would pay the guy what is needed to bring him back. We do not have a power bullpen like other teams do and Miller is not only power but LH. We have more money under cap than most teams, now rebuild that pen. We are going to spend and we are going to trade.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 29, 2014 10:07:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Sept 29, 2014 10:21:41 GMT -5
I don't think you can just look at regular season WAR when ranking Jeter. He's got an entire season-plus of elite hitting in the postseason. I'm sorry, but that counts. Playoffs games are real things that exist. The opportunity to play that many post season games is part of how Jeter's legacy gets bloated. Being part of all those great Yankee teams got him a lot of post season exposure, and the sample size was big enough that his post season numbers normalized, that is, they were really good numbers. But if Allan Trammel, to pick a random person from Eric's post, had the same amount of post- season, he might look like a similarly "clutch" and god-like post season performer. Jeter was an amazing player, who deserves a lot of admiration, but yes, there are many ways his in which his legacy is a distorted.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Sept 29, 2014 10:33:52 GMT -5
Layne should get the Breslow slot. He has already looked better than Breslow this year and probably enough innings to evaluate between here and SD in '13 should give him the go ahead for next spring. Hembree is being forgotten about also. Lets see if Hembree can be effective as a power lefty, to tag on the roster and get out both LH and RH hitters as Laybe seems to be one of those guys who is good for NOTHING but LH guys only and is a liability vs RH guys, as is evident in the way Farrell is utilizing him this season. Wilson also has looked better these last 2 months, fighting for a roster spot next season and could be a 6-7th inning guy.. Something they need with The Hopper a FA. Asking Hembree to change throwing hands in his mid-twenties might be asking too much. I'd be content with him being an effective power righty.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 29, 2014 10:34:25 GMT -5
I don't think you can just look at regular season WAR when ranking Jeter. He's got an entire season-plus of elite hitting in the postseason. I'm sorry, but that counts. Playoffs games are real things that exist. The opportunity to play that many post season games is part of how Jeter's legacy gets bloated. Being part of all those great Yankee teams got him a lot of post season exposure, and the sample size was big enough that his post season numbers normalized, that is, they were really good numbers. But if Allan Trammel, to pick a random person from Eric's post, had the same amount of post- season, he might look like a similarly "clutch" and god-like post season performer. Jeter was an amazing player, who deserves a lot of admiration, but yes, there are many ways his in which his legacy is a distorted. First off, I'm not even talking about "clutch". I'm talking about over 700 PAs of .308/.374/.465 hitting, in the cold, against playoff pitching. Second, yeah, if Allen Trammel had the same opportunities to play those games that Jeter did, he might also have hit very well and I'd count that in his favor as well. But he didn't. I understand that playoff games aren't distributed fairly to players, both because players were on bad teams or because players prior to the last 20 years or so simply didn't have as many playoff games to potentially compete in, but it doesn't matter. Like it or not, modern baseball is defined by expanded playoffs, and you can't just ignore real, meaningful (more meaningful in fact) baseball games because someone else didn't have access to them because of an accident of history.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Sept 29, 2014 11:13:45 GMT -5
The opportunity to play that many post season games is part of how Jeter's legacy gets bloated. Being part of all those great Yankee teams got him a lot of post season exposure, and the sample size was big enough that his post season numbers normalized, that is, they were really good numbers. But if Allan Trammel, to pick a random person from Eric's post, had the same amount of post- season, he might look like a similarly "clutch" and god-like post season performer. Jeter was an amazing player, who deserves a lot of admiration, but yes, there are many ways his in which his legacy is a distorted. First off, I'm not even talking about "clutch". I'm talking about over 700 PAs of .308/.374/.465 hitting, in the cold, against playoff pitching. Second, yeah, if Allen Trammel had the same opportunities to play those games that Jeter did, he might also have hit very well and I'd count that in his favor as well. But he didn't. I understand that playoff games aren't distributed fairly to players, both because players were on bad teams or because players prior to the last 20 years or so simply didn't have as many playoff games to potentially compete in, but it doesn't matter. Like it or not, modern baseball is defined by expanded playoffs, and you can't just ignore real, meaningful (more meaningful in fact) baseball games because someone else didn't have access to them because of an accident of history. I don't disagree with anything you wrote. Still, your reasoning sounds like the defense of rbis and wins as meaningful stats, for the same reasons. Jeter did what he did, and he deserves credit. He was a great player. But the context of playing for those great Yankee teams is important when you are comparing Jeter to other great players.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 29, 2014 11:19:14 GMT -5
You guys who put down Jeter with stats must not have been around in his peak years in games against the Sox. So many times we would hope that neither Jeter nor Posada would come to bat with the winning run on base, or in another key situation.
You should judge the player by the whole package, and, in my opinion, and I have been following baseball intensely since the late 1950s, in the overall package, Jeter was one of the best players in baseball for much of his career. He was fun to watch and he enjoyed the competition with the Sox, the intensity, the great baseball that almost always was played by both teams. He also really was the leader of the team.
I watched a lot of Cal Ripken, (I was in the stadium when he broke the consecutive game record), and, statistically, he was better, but he was not the team leader that Jeter was. He was a solid citizen, a great individual, but much more reserved.
BTW, HOF votes are a joke, an embarrassment to the game. The system should be changed.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 29, 2014 11:35:04 GMT -5
First off, I'm not even talking about "clutch". I'm talking about over 700 PAs of .308/.374/.465 hitting, in the cold, against playoff pitching. Second, yeah, if Allen Trammel had the same opportunities to play those games that Jeter did, he might also have hit very well and I'd count that in his favor as well. But he didn't. I understand that playoff games aren't distributed fairly to players, both because players were on bad teams or because players prior to the last 20 years or so simply didn't have as many playoff games to potentially compete in, but it doesn't matter. Like it or not, modern baseball is defined by expanded playoffs, and you can't just ignore real, meaningful (more meaningful in fact) baseball games because someone else didn't have access to them because of an accident of history. I don't disagree with anything you wrote. Still, your reasoning sounds like the defense of rbis and wins as meaningful stats, for the same reasons. Jeter did what he did, and he deserves credit. He was a great player. But the context of playing for those great Yankee teams is important when you are comparing Jeter to other great players. Well Ws and RBIs are "meaningful" stats in the sense that they do mean something. They're an accurate record of specific, defined events. The problem we tend to have with them is that people look at them as something more than they are, that certain players have a special ability to produce RBIs and Ws beyond their natural ability and the situations they're playing in when no such ability has been found to exist. I'm not crediting Jeter with some sort of special ability to get his teams to the postseason or to perform at a higher level in those guys. I'm just saying that those games happened and if we're judging him by cumulative performance, his performance in those games can't be dismissed simply because Allen Trammel didn't get the same opportunities to play in them that Jeter did.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 29, 2014 11:51:33 GMT -5
I don't think Trammel can be penalized for not having as many opportunities as Jeter, but I certainly think it's valid to consider Jeter's postseason in a case made on the value of his career. But how much should we credit Jeter for it? I'm not asking rhetorically, it's an honest question ... his stats are roughly equivalent to his regular season stats, which sounds really good in the context of playoff baseball, but is it? I searched around and couldn't find a definitive look at regular season vs post-seasons stats. I also searched around and found the defenses of Jeter to be based on counting stats, which I absolutely discount based on his much greater exposure to the playoffs.
So, relative to the statistical norms of regular season v post season, how good is maintaining your level of performance into the post-season?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 29, 2014 12:12:24 GMT -5
Absolutely brilliant piece of writing, better than just about anything on the history of early baseball that I've read. The research on the nutritional context cuts other arguments to shreds. Tremendous research. That it's on a site devoted to sports makes it even more satisfying because nutrition is such a huge factor for performance. Thank you for the link.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 29, 2014 12:36:31 GMT -5
I don't think you can just look at regular season WAR when ranking Jeter. He's got an entire season-plus of elite hitting in the postseason. I'm sorry, but that counts. Playoffs games are real things that exist. And Jeter had a whole lot of playoff games that other players didn't get, where he had a career postseason wRC+ 2 points higher than his career regular season wRC+. Imagine if he was unfortunate enough to play before the wild-card years, before the divisional series years on teams that weren't as good. He wouldn't have had nearly as many chances to show he is basically the exact same hitter in the post season that he is in the regular season.
|
|
|