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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 11:38:49 GMT -5
I am not convinced of the value of WAR calculations for pitchers. It this case, they don't pass the smell test. Think about the impact on the Sox next year of having a couple or three of really superior RPs, like - but not necessarily - Robertson. But I think he, alone, would have a bigger positive impact on the team than Buchholz ever will. As we watch this team as now constructed it is much different from what we saw earlier in the year and very promising for next year. The major fixes needed now are in the pitching - a top of the rotation stopper and almost a complete rebuild of the bullpen. Buchholz had about as much value this year as Koji in 2013. It's because he pitched 113.1 innings, whereas Koji only pitched 74.1 and had ridiculous stats. Believe what you want to believe about WAR, but starters are always much more valuable than relievers because they pitch a lot more innings as long as their stats are similar. It makes sense. Every inning is relatively equal in importance over the course of a season.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 31, 2015 12:23:42 GMT -5
The WAR comparisons don't work when you mix starters and RPs. The RPs always have lower WARs but I confess I don't know why. You cannot tell me that Chapman with a fWAR of 2.1 is worth less than Buchholz and that you would prefer to have Buchholz.
Robertson is the fourth highest rated RP in fWAR. Buchholz is the 19th rated starter. However, he doesn't show up in the fangraphs list of starters and I don't know why. I tried changing the filters to account for his lower innings pitched but that didn't work. Still, when he is looked at separately he has a fWAR of 3.5.
Now, compare the actual records. I'm not going to use ERAs because they really can't be reasonably compared between starters and relievers and I think many of us now don't put as much weight on them as we once did.
Buchholz started 18 games and made no relief appearances. He pitched 113 innings, won 7 and lost 7. He had a FIP of 2.67 and an xFIP of 3.27.
Robertson has appeared in 48 games, all in relief, and has pitched 52 innings. He has won 6 games and lost 3. He has saved 27, which is less than normal for him, but then he is pitching for a bad team. His FIP is 2.09 and his xFIP is 2.17.
All other things being equal, if Robertson had been pitching for the Sox instead of Buchholz, don't you think the team record would be better? How many games have been lost by the bullpen this year? A lot more than won by Buchholz. I think just the addition of one RP of Robertson's quality could have made the Sox a .500 team.
And now seeing how much better the team has become, I wonder where the team would be in the standings today if the Sox had gone out and fixed the bullpen when its weaknesses became so obvious early in the season?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 12:26:56 GMT -5
The WAR comparisons don't work when you mix starters and RPs. The RPs always have lower WARs but I confess I don't know why. You cannot tell me that Chapman with a fWAR of 2.1 is worth less than Buchholz and that you would prefer to have Buchholz. Robertson is the fourth highest rated RP in fWAR. Buchholz is the 19th rated starter. However, he doesn't show up in the fangraphs list of starters and I don't know why. I tried changing the filters to account for his lower innings pitched but that didn't work. Still, when he is looked at separately he has a fWAR of 3.5. Now, compare the actual records. I'm not going to use ERAs because they really can't be reasonably compared between starters and relievers and I think many of us now don't put as much weight on them as we once did. Buchholz started 18 games and made no relief appearances. He pitched 113 innings, won 7 and lost 7. He had a FIP of 2.67 and an xFIP of 3.27. Robertson has appeared in 48 games, all in relief, and has pitched 52 innings. He has won 6 games and lost 3. He has saved 27, which is less than normal for him, but then he is pitching for a bad team. His FIP is 2.09 and his xFIP is 2.17. All other things being equal, if Robertson had been pitching for the Sox instead of Buchholz, don't you think the team record would be better? How many games have been lost by the bullpen this year? A lot more than won by Buchholz. I think just the addition of one RP of Robertson's quality could have made the Sox a .500 team. And now seeing how much better the team has become, I wonder where the team would be in the standings today if the Sox had gone out and fixed the bullpen when its weaknesses became so obvious early in the season? Because they pitch significantly less innings. It's like a batter who gets 350 plate appearances compared to a batter with 600 plate appearances. To make it even more simple, compare Pedroia at 75 games to Pedroia at 150 games. He has 1.8 fWAR and if he played 150 games at the same level, he'd have 3.6 fWAR.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Aug 31, 2015 12:31:39 GMT -5
They definitely do mix. 113 IP vs. 52 IP on the season. It's hard to be worth more when you pitch half the innings. How many of Buchholz's 7 wins would the Sox have won if they had Matt Barnes taking the bump?
The Red Sox have blown 18 games this season compared to 16 by the Royals and 12 by the Cardinals, both of whom are considered 2 of the best in baseball. A maximum of a 6 game swing would still put the Sox outside of a playoff spot and into 3rd place in the AL East.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 31, 2015 12:32:04 GMT -5
I am not convinced of the value of WAR calculations for pitchers. It this case, they don't pass the smell test. Think about the impact on the Sox next year of having a couple or three of really superior RPs, like - but not necessarily - Robertson. But I think he, alone, would have a bigger positive impact on the team than Buchholz ever will. As we watch this team as now constructed it is much different from what we saw earlier in the year and very promising for next year. The major fixes needed now are in the pitching - a top of the rotation stopper and almost a complete rebuild of the bullpen. Buchholz had about as much value this year as Koji in 2013. It's because he pitched 113.1 innings, whereas Koji only pitched 74.1 and had ridiculous stats. Believe what you want to believe about WAR, but starters are always much more valuable than relievers because they pitch a lot more innings as long as their stats are similar. It makes sense. Every inning is relatively equal in importance over the course of a season.I disagree with this. RPs often pitch in much higher leverage situations, coming into games with runners on base, etc. They have much less room for mistakes. I think a stat worth adding to the key stats for RPs is hits allowed. An RP often is in a situation where allowing one hit changes the complexion, if not the outcome, of the game but is not reflected in his ERA, won-lost or other stats. Starting pitchers do not face this kind of pressure from the moment they enter the game.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 31, 2015 12:34:35 GMT -5
The WAR comparisons don't work when you mix starters and RPs. The RPs always have lower WARs but I confess I don't know why. You cannot tell me that Chapman with a fWAR of 2.1 is worth less than Buchholz and that you would prefer to have Buchholz. Robertson is the fourth highest rated RP in fWAR. Buchholz is the 19th rated starter. However, he doesn't show up in the fangraphs list of starters and I don't know why. I tried changing the filters to account for his lower innings pitched but that didn't work. Still, when he is looked at separately he has a fWAR of 3.5. Now, compare the actual records. I'm not going to use ERAs because they really can't be reasonably compared between starters and relievers and I think many of us now don't put as much weight on them as we once did. Buchholz started 18 games and made no relief appearances. He pitched 113 innings, won 7 and lost 7. He had a FIP of 2.67 and an xFIP of 3.27. Robertson has appeared in 48 games, all in relief, and has pitched 52 innings. He has won 6 games and lost 3. He has saved 27, which is less than normal for him, but then he is pitching for a bad team. His FIP is 2.09 and his xFIP is 2.17. All other things being equal, if Robertson had been pitching for the Sox instead of Buchholz, don't you think the team record would be better? How many games have been lost by the bullpen this year? A lot more than won by Buchholz. I think just the addition of one RP of Robertson's quality could have made the Sox a .500 team. And now seeing how much better the team has become, I wonder where the team would be in the standings today if the Sox had gone out and fixed the bullpen when its weaknesses became so obvious early in the season? Because they pitch significantly less innings. It's like a batter who gets 350 plate appearances compared to a batter with 600 plate appearances. To make it even more simple, compare Pedroia at 75 games to Pedroia at 150 games. He has 1.8 fWAR and if he played 150 games at the same level, he'd have 3.6 fWAR. This is not a valid comparison. I disagree with it for more or less the same reasons stated above.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 31, 2015 12:42:46 GMT -5
The WAR comparisons don't work when you mix starters and RPs. The RPs always have lower WARs but I confess I don't know why. You cannot tell me that Chapman with a fWAR of 2.1 is worth less than Buchholz and that you would prefer to have Buchholz. Robertson is the fourth highest rated RP in fWAR. Buchholz is the 19th rated starter. However, he doesn't show up in the fangraphs list of starters and I don't know why. I tried changing the filters to account for his lower innings pitched but that didn't work. Still, when he is looked at separately he has a fWAR of 3.5. Now, compare the actual records. I'm not going to use ERAs because they really can't be reasonably compared between starters and relievers and I think many of us now don't put as much weight on them as we once did. Buchholz started 18 games and made no relief appearances. He pitched 113 innings, won 7 and lost 7. He had a FIP of 2.67 and an xFIP of 3.27. Robertson has appeared in 48 games, all in relief, and has pitched 52 innings. He has won 6 games and lost 3. He has saved 27, which is less than normal for him, but then he is pitching for a bad team. His FIP is 2.09 and his xFIP is 2.17. All other things being equal, if Robertson had been pitching for the Sox instead of Buchholz, don't you think the team record would be better? How many games have been lost by the bullpen this year? A lot more than won by Buchholz. I think just the addition of one RP of Robertson's quality could have made the Sox a .500 team. And now seeing how much better the team has become, I wonder where the team would be in the standings today if the Sox had gone out and fixed the bullpen when its weaknesses became so obvious early in the season? Well, since Robertson can't be a one man bullpen and pitch every inning of relief, those games would still be blown by the likes of Breslow, Ogando, etc. The team would not gain ten wins from one reliever in less than a full season, that's crazy talk. EDIT: As long as we're talking about Buchholz wins, I thought I'd throw this out there: Clay Buchholz pitched 18 games this season, and the Red Sox lost 10 of those games. In seven of those ten games, the Red Sox scored one run (they also scored one run in a 1-0 win).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 12:43:25 GMT -5
I don't know what to tell you then. Runs prevented in the 1st through 6th innings count as much as runs prevented in the 9th inning. Starting pitchers prevent a lot more runs from scoring than relief pitchers. You can argue that there's some level of clutch, but it's not going to be nearly as significant as you think. A scoreless 9th isn't worth as much as a scoreless 6 innings.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 31, 2015 12:47:56 GMT -5
Buchholz had about as much value this year as Koji in 2013. It's because he pitched 113.1 innings, whereas Koji only pitched 74.1 and had ridiculous stats. Believe what you want to believe about WAR, but starters are always much more valuable than relievers because they pitch a lot more innings as long as their stats are similar. It makes sense. Every inning is relatively equal in importance over the course of a season.I disagree with this. RPs often pitch in much higher leverage situations, coming into games with runners on base, etc. They have much less room for mistakes. I think a stat worth adding to the key stats for RPs is hits allowed. An RP often is in a situation where allowing one hit changes the complexion, if not the outcome, of the game but is not reflected in his ERA, won-lost or other stats. Starting pitchers do not face this kind of pressure from the moment they enter the game. Starting pitcher gives up three runs in the first inning. His team scores 2 for the game. Team loses. Relief pitcher gives up three runs in the ninth inning, which he entered with his team up 2-0. Team loses. Which inning was more important?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 31, 2015 13:01:22 GMT -5
If all innings were equal, we should just set up a bullpen rotation to keep all the arms fresh and well managed. Bullpen pitchers come in based on their order in the rotation, and not the situation. That'd make sense.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 13:09:45 GMT -5
If all innings were equal, we should just set up a bullpen rotation to keep all the arms fresh and well managed. Bullpen pitchers come in based on their order in the rotation, and not the situation. That'd make sense. If you could find enough good relief pitchers who could pitch enough innings, it would be possible. You'd need 15 of them to pitch 100 innings though so probably not so easy. And not enough roster spots either.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 31, 2015 13:13:04 GMT -5
Also, relievers are already given extra credit for pitching in high-leverage situations in WAR, so that's not really a valid reason why RPs could be undervalued by WAR.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 31, 2015 13:23:02 GMT -5
First of all, I misread Buchholz's fWAR. It was 3.1 and he does show up in their starting pitcher rankings if 100 IPs is used at 22nd.
I think this debate is very interesting because it deals with some fundamental approaches to the game and to player valuation.
The point about the games lost by the Sox when Buchholz pitched is quite valid. He had a stretch that was truly sensational and he should have won more games than he did. He was pitching his very best of the year just before he got hurt. If he had not gotten hurt and had kept pitching that way, he probably would have been a Cy Young candidate. However, he didn't and we still don't know if he is going to be pitching next year. It was interesting that Dombrowski said he was going to wait for the medical reports on Buchholz before deciding whether to pick up the option. That technique that was used on him has had mixed results, some terrific and some ending with surgery.
I am not disputing that when he is pitching and not injured Buchholz is a great pitcher. My argument here is that having a whole season of a great relief pitcher added to the existing BP would have resulted in more wins than Buchholz won. It is just my opinion and obviously can be argued because there are so many variables.
ADDING THIS: And my main point was that the money Buchholz would get if his option were exercised I would prefer to spend on a top RP. The Sox also still would need to get a top of the rotation starter and at least one other good RP.
If you just use the fWAR calculations and Robertson replaced the worst RP in the bullpen, which is Ogando with a -1.0 WAR, the BP's fWAR would have been 1.9 instead of -1.0. And if Andrew Miller had been retained instead of Breslow (the second worst RP in terms of fWAR), the Sox BP fWAR would be 3.3, slightly 3.9, somewhat higher than Buchholz's.
I'm still holding to my position that it is not right to compare the fWARs of RPs and SPs. But that little calculation does show the impact on fWAR of just two changes in the BP, two changes that were not beyond possibility last year when both Robertson and Miller were free agents.
In the course of doing these various bits of analysis I compiled some other stats that I think are interesting:
Average innings per start: Buchholz 6.3 Miley 5.9 Porcell 5.8 Owens 5.8 Rodriguez 5.75 Kelly 5.5 Masterson 4.8
Innings pitched by starters: 747 by relief pitchers: 410
Average innings pitched per relief appearance: 1.1
That one inning per appearance stat is very interesting because it very close to what almost every RP has done. Of course, often an RP only pitches to one or two batters in one appearance and might pitch more than an inning in another. But overall, there aren't any Mike Timlin or Bob Stanley types among this gang.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 13:36:47 GMT -5
If you don't want to use WAR then come up with something other than "I think relief pitchers are just as valuable as starting pitchers" as your argument. WAR is the stat that was invented so you could actually compare them. And it makes total sense that an average #3 starting pitcher is worth more than the best relief pitcher in the league. That's why they get paid almost twice as much. Hell, #5 pitchers get as much as all but the best closers. Papelbon got moved to closer only because he couldn't hack it as a starter. Eckersly said the same thing earlier this year during a broadcast.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Aug 31, 2015 13:44:51 GMT -5
I disagree with this. RPs often pitch in much higher leverage situations, coming into games with runners on base, etc. They have much less room for mistakes. I think a stat worth adding to the key stats for RPs is hits allowed. An RP often is in a situation where allowing one hit changes the complexion, if not the outcome, of the game but is not reflected in his ERA, won-lost or other stats. Starting pitchers do not face this kind of pressure from the moment they enter the game. Starting pitcher gives up three runs in the first inning. His team scores 2 for the game. Team loses. Relief pitcher gives up three runs in the ninth inning, which he entered with his team up 2-0. Team loses. Which inning was more important? The ninth, by far, because the team had far more opportunities left to score.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 13:52:14 GMT -5
Starting pitcher gives up three runs in the first inning. His team scores 2 for the game. Team loses. Relief pitcher gives up three runs in the ninth inning, which he entered with his team up 2-0. Team loses. Which inning was more important? The ninth, by far, because the team had far more opportunities left to score. But they didn't score because we're measuring after the fact. In the grand scheme of things, the other team scored 3 and our team scored 2. The team doesn't magically score more or less runs than they can.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 31, 2015 14:13:38 GMT -5
If all innings were equal, we should just set up a bullpen rotation to keep all the arms fresh and well managed. Bullpen pitchers come in based on their order in the rotation, and not the situation. That'd make sense. If you could find enough good relief pitchers who could pitch enough innings, it would be possible. You'd need 15 of them to pitch 100 innings though so probably not so easy. And not enough roster spots either. That's not what I meant, I'm not eliminating the starting rotation, I'm just working off the notion that all innings are equally important.... In that case, you could put your bullpen arms 1-7 and use them in that order regardless of the situation. I meant that if it was a 10-0 game in the sixth inning or a 1-0 game in the ninth, the next reliever brought in would be the one next in the "bullpen rotation" not the one appropriate for the situation. This isn't true, and we know it. You use your best relievers in the situations where they can have more influence on the game, and the opposite of your lesser relievers. Starters are meant traditionally to be workhorses, put them in and pitch till they are inefficient or can't continue, and you don't have much of a choice of what situations to pitch them. Now a days this is being challenged, and teams want to get to their bullpens earlier (times through the rotation penalty). Now teams are seeing the benefits of having multiple good relievers to use in high leverage situations. Royals are a good example. Great defense plays a part in this too, but they have the most wins in the AL, are 6th best in MLB in runs allowed at 484, and their top 5 starers by innings pitched are Volquez (165.1 IP, 3.27 ERA, 3.69 FIP, 2.3 Fwar) Guthrie (129 IP, 5.65 ERA, 5.31 FIP, -0.4 Fwar) Ventura (120.1 IP, 4.41 ERA, 3.81 FIP, 1.5 Fwar) Duffy (114 IP, 4.41 ERA, 4.51 FIP, 0.9 Fwar) and Young (87.2 IP, 3.49 ERA, 4.73 FIP, 0.4 Fwar). This isn't a rotation the differs that much from ours production wise, what is different is the bullpen. Royals top 7 relievers have a FIP under 3.46, and 5 of them have at least a 0.5 Fwar. Any time the starting pitcher leaves the game in a close game, the Royals are bringing in a reliever that puts them in a good position to win the game. Outside of Koji and Tazawa this year, we haven't had that luxury.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Aug 31, 2015 14:27:11 GMT -5
The ninth, by far, because the team had far more opportunities left to score. But they didn't score because we're measuring after the fact. In the grand scheme of things, the other team scored 3 and our team scored 2. The team doesn't magically score more or less runs than they can. Of course it is. Everything is measured after the fact. It would be interesting to see stats on win % for teams that are down 3-0 after 1 vs down 3-2 in the ninth. It's probably factored into the WAR math.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 31, 2015 14:28:55 GMT -5
If you don't want to use WAR then come up with something other than "I think relief pitchers are just as valuable as starting pitchers" as your argument. WAR is the stat that was invented so you could actually compare them. And it makes total sense that an average #3 starting pitcher is worth more than the best relief pitcher in the league. That's why they get paid almost twice as much. Hell, #5 pitchers get as much as all but the best closers. Papelbon got moved to closer only because he couldn't hack it as a starter. Eckersly said the same thing earlier this year during a broadcast. That is a fair point. Obviously, I am arguing that good RPs may be worth more than they are getting and/or WAR undervalues them. I would much rather have a Chapman than a Miley and I would be willing to pay Chapman more. I think the prevailing views have not caught up with the reality and effects of pitch counts limiting starters to five or six innings a good deal of the time. The average innings pitched by all the Sox starters is about 5 2/3.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 31, 2015 14:38:20 GMT -5
Swihart's hitting about .280 with an OPS around .700, in a lot more than 50 PA. He's been on fire for 50 PA. And frankly, his minor league track record is a lot more consistent than Shaw's, as is his scouting report. I find the SSS argument to be an oversimplification (see Anderson Espinoza discussion) when the SSS is confirmation of past trends and scouting. Also, how many PAs do you think Vazquez gets in winter ball? Coming back from injury, maybe 120? 150? And somehow that's plenty to judge how he'll perform in the *majors* next year? Sorry, I think you're contradicting yourself there, unless there's some magical barrier between 50 MLB PAs and 100 winter-ball AA-equivalent PAs. It doesn't work that way re: "confirmation of past trends and scouting" this is exactly the same stuff people were saying after Buchholz's start vs the Yankees. SSS is SSS. Also, Swihart's rocking a .364 BABIP (actually probably higher because of the inside the park HR.) He never had a BABIP close to that in the minors, and BABIPs usually decline from the minors to the majors. He's only at 90 wRC+. He's been improving, but any improvement he makes will be cancelled out or more than cancelled out by BABIP regression, and I haven't been all that impressed by his defense. I still think he's a ways away from being a starting MLB catcher SSS is a statistically randomly selected grouping from a larger, more homogenously distributed whole. Swihart's numbers have steadily improved over the course of his time in MLB. I buy the SSS for his .330/.380/.450 over the past month or so (that's a guesstimate), because I don't think he's going to be in-prime Joe Mauer anytime soon. But to say that the overall trend of his numbers is a specious observation is inaccurate. While SSS is often a reasonable approximation, it is statistically dependent on an overall static sample. That's not how MLB works...player performance is not, by and large, stochastic. There are hitter, and subsequent pitcher, adjustments, among a number of other variables like experience, and aging. Swihart is in a period of rapid learning, and thus his sample is far from static. Yeah, the BABIP will probably come down to more like .310, but he may start making more contact, picking his pitches, adjusting his swing, etc. If you want to make a SSS argument of this sort, you could theoretically "discard" his first 50 PA and claim he's a .300 hitter. That's the point of trends and scouting...because extrapolating from statistics depends on certain presumptions to deal with real-world variability that simply can't be accounted for by numbers alone. The systems the data observe are simply too complex. A simple example is calculating the acceleration rate of a falling object: wind resistance is ignored because it is irrelevant for extremely dense bodies at low velocities. A young MLB player is more like a cat falling out of a skyscraper...after two stories, wind resistance is crucial for survival. The cat spreads its body out and relaxes. It's more likely to live after falling ten stories than three, because it reaches terminal velocity after three, then slows down even further after making adjustments. The "SSS" is a gust of wind that causes a substantially temporary deceleration. It is still the **trend** that the cat is actually decelerating after three stories, as it utilizes wind resistance to save itself. Another example would be a 50- or 200-day moving average for the stock market. A volatile stock (high beta) can still be trended and its fundamentals, capital investment, D/E ratio, etc. figured into predicting future performance. You don't just "throw out" data sets because you specifically selected a small sample that doesn't fit your prediction. You account for them by factoring them into trends (statistically, combined with scouting, in baseball), not dismissing them out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 31, 2015 14:40:28 GMT -5
I disagree with this. RPs often pitch in much higher leverage situations, coming into games with runners on base, etc. They have much less room for mistakes. I think a stat worth adding to the key stats for RPs is hits allowed. An RP often is in a situation where allowing one hit changes the complexion, if not the outcome, of the game but is not reflected in his ERA, won-lost or other stats. Starting pitchers do not face this kind of pressure from the moment they enter the game. Starting pitcher gives up three runs in the first inning. His team scores 2 for the game. Team loses. Relief pitcher gives up three runs in the ninth inning, which he entered with his team up 2-0. Team loses. Which inning was more important? Isn't this the whole point of WPA?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 31, 2015 14:46:44 GMT -5
Also, how many PAs do you think Vazquez gets in winter ball? Coming back from injury, maybe 120? 150? And somehow that's plenty to judge how he'll perform in the *majors* next year? Sorry, I think you're contradicting yourself there, unless there's some magical barrier between 50 MLB PAs and 100 winter-ball AA-equivalent PAs. I only really need to see one throw from home to second that has zip and is on the money to know that he can still do it - the rest is a matter of trusting his work ethic which I am more than happy to do. As for his batting, I just have no reason to believe that TJS is going to mess that up significantly. 1) It's not whether or not he can still do it, but whether or not he can still do it consistently. 2) After a year of not hitting, you don't think he's going to need time to get it back? Or that he may unconsciously worry about his elbow? And how good of a hitter was he pre-surgery? Are you sure he's going to get much better? I actually do, but I think the lost year is going to affect him quite a bit. And for exactly that reason, I think trading Swihart is putting way too many eggs in a basket of unknown construction. Recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 31, 2015 14:57:27 GMT -5
Gordon Edes @gordonedes 1m1 minute ago Hanley Ramirez and Alejandro de Aza working out at 1B
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 15:03:15 GMT -5
Gordon Edes @gordonedes 1m1 minute ago Hanley Ramirez and Alejandro de Aza working out at 1B Why De Aza? Should read "working out a way to trade De Aza for anything at all."
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 31, 2015 15:12:59 GMT -5
The only reason why De Aza should be on this team tomorrow, is if they plan on signing him to be a backup outfielder next year, which depending on the price would be something I'm interested in.
|
|
|