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.
6/15-6/16 Red Sox vs. Braves Series Thread
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Jun 15, 2015 21:04:33 GMT -5
De Aza over Castillo?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Jun 15, 2015 21:06:24 GMT -5
Whatever I'll call today a success because of Mookie and Bogaerts.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,312
|
Post by radiohix on Jun 15, 2015 21:07:47 GMT -5
Whatever I'll call today a success because of Mookie and Bogaerts. I'm totaly behind this line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 15, 2015 21:12:21 GMT -5
Titanic
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 15, 2015 21:12:36 GMT -5
Ice burger
|
|
|
Post by nmacny on Jun 15, 2015 21:16:57 GMT -5
Whatever I'll call today a success because of Mookie and Bogaerts. I'm totaly behind this line of thinking. It's all we've got with this team. When banging your head against a wall isn't enough, they keep you hanging in there just long enough to take aim and kick you square in the Brian Johnson. No disrespect intended. Forget Farrell - I need to see Pedroia absolutely lose his mind in this dugout.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jun 15, 2015 21:24:10 GMT -5
There is a bright side, gentlemen. BREF indicates that there have been 499 20 game losers in the history of MLB. Our $21m man is well on his way to number 500! NUMBER FIVE ZERO ZERO!
REJOICE! Party! Top 500, think of the HISTORY!
THANK YOU, BEN! you know, for these records and stuff
Edit: Apparently the last 20 game loser for the SOX was way back in 1930, when there were actually two of them (team was GM'd by a Cherington, no doubt. His strategy for the year was also, to paraphrase: "I don't need no stinkin' pitchers!"). Cy Young had one, and Ruffing had two.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jun 15, 2015 21:28:23 GMT -5
I'm totaly behind this line of thinking. It's all we've got with this team. When banging your head against a wall isn't enough, they keep you hanging in there just long enough to take aim and kick you square in the Brian Johnson. No disrespect intended. Forget Farrell - I need to see Pedroia absolutely lose his mind in this dugout. Yes to that. Matter of fact, I will become extremely angry if Shank isn't labeling Petey a clubhouse cancer by Aug. I want to read about his threatening lives with his bat, and maybe even taking one.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jun 15, 2015 21:29:40 GMT -5
The idea is that you get more out of those fewer opportunities to get on base due to the better following hitters. Look, I'm sorry that there are mistakes in your book from the 60's, but that's been known and corrected since 10 years at least. You need to get over it. I am not aware of that. Please give me a source. However, my argument is based on numbers which cannot be refuted. The eighth batting position is going to get more at bats than the ninth. How can you argue with that? And then why would you put a better hitter ninth? It can't make sense. I believe the thinking is that a baserunner from the 9th spot is more likely to score a run than from the 8th spot — better access to the top of the order (i.e., better) hitters. I believe that's also the thinking behind some NL managers hitting the pitcher 8th.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,312
|
Post by radiohix on Jun 15, 2015 21:31:26 GMT -5
#FreeJBJ
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jun 15, 2015 21:46:17 GMT -5
You know that hope has left the building when folks are needing JBJ to fix things.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 15, 2015 21:48:34 GMT -5
You know that hope has left the building when folks are needing JBJ to fix things. Or that they're going to win the World Series. There hasn't been a lot of in between, though.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jun 15, 2015 21:49:19 GMT -5
true, true
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 15, 2015 22:27:59 GMT -5
Panda had a very good game tonight, also, both at bat and in the field.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jun 15, 2015 22:33:48 GMT -5
I guess the idea of the 9th place hitter being a second leadoff man is out of date. Betts 9th makes sense to me. Leon will clog the base paths ahead of DP and Holt ... except Leon won't reach base. People like to ignore the fact that intermediate hitters may well make outs. Leon single, Betts K, Pedroia single... basepaths clogged. Leon walks, Betts sac fly, Pedroia walks... basepaths clogged. And so on. "Clogging the basepaths" is generally a pretty poor line of reasoning. Even if you do get your horror combination (Leon at 2nd, Pedroia/Holt at 1st), how many times does it really matter? Is Leon going to not score on a hit where Pedroia/Holt could go 1st to 3rd? Where exactly does the ball have to be hit for that to happen? The real reason to have a better player bat 9th is so they can get on base when leading off the inning. It's about OBP, not speed. Whether this is worth giving the better hitter less PAs is generally unclear and in any case won't make any sort of substantial difference. The theory is that you want a speedster on base in front of your best hitters, not a slow man on base. So it is better for Betts to bat in front of Pedroia, etc than in front of Leon. and better not to have the slow Leon in front of Pedroia, etc.
so, yes, it is OBP ... but OBP and speed. since we are talking about 8 & 9 hitters, the OBP ain't there, so might as well take advantage of the speed. I say Betts bats 9th, not 8th.
"any sort of substantial difference." nothing makes a substantial difference. Baseball is about 100 things which each makes a trivial difference. Betts batting 9th is one trivial difference I'd take.
"Clogging the bases" is just Leon being unable to score from 2nd on Ortiz's 2-out single. It is a poor phrase.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 15, 2015 22:51:54 GMT -5
There is a bright side, gentlemen. BREF indicates that there have been 499 20 game losers in the history of MLB. Our $21m man is well on his way to number 500! NUMBER FIVE ZERO ZERO! REJOICE! Party! Top 500, think of the HISTORY! THANK YOU, BEN! you know, for these records and stuff Edit: Apparently the last 20 game loser for the SOX was way back in 1930, when there were actually two of them (team was GM'd by a Cherington, no doubt. His strategy for the year was also, to paraphrase: "I don't need no stinkin' pitchers!"). Cy Young had one, and Ruffing had two. I thought people stopped looking at individual pitcher won/loss records around the time Ruffing retired.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jun 15, 2015 23:05:07 GMT -5
I predict JBJ is in the starting lineup on TUES. They've got an open spot for a position player ... and will go back to 12 pitchers.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jun 15, 2015 23:13:38 GMT -5
Don't kid yourself, wins continue to be looked upon as a quality stat, maybe the most quality stat, and, furthermore, the correlation between pitcher wins and pitcher quality, ie, the War's, remains remarkable.
Put down your calculator, son, the game ain't that hard. Datamine to your hearts delight but know this, 9 out of 10 times wins and era will prove the pitchers equivalent to whatever other stat suits your fancy. And Porcello blows.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 15, 2015 23:42:28 GMT -5
Mookie's lost 10 hits to bad luck. His luck-neutral line is .288 / .341 / .438.
His Steamer projection was .286 / .350 / .428.
(ZiPS was .266 / .336 / .408.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 15, 2015 23:46:55 GMT -5
Don't kid yourself, wins continue to be looked upon as a quality stat, maybe the most quality stat, and, furthermore, the correlation between pitcher wins and pitcher quality, ie, the War's, remains remarkable. Put down your calculator, son, the game ain't that hard. Datamine to your hearts delight but know this, 9 out of 10 times wins and era will prove the pitchers equivalent to whatever other stat suits your fancy. And Porcello blows. Pitcher won-loss records were never mentioned by any member of the Red Sox FO in the four years I worked with them, and I got the distinct impression that Theo and Jed Hoyer didn't know what any W/L records were. I certainly didn't, and don't. It's not that they're meaningless by themselves. You would rather have a W/L record than nothing. It's just that they tell you literally less than nothing when you have other stats. You have a pile of really sharp photographs? You are literally never going to look at the blurry, out-of-focus one. Not once. Ever.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jun 15, 2015 23:55:18 GMT -5
Wow, this is almost sad. I came here to post the following, as proof of what happens when math goes to ones head, and here you are:
Will Graham says: June 15, 2015 at 1:00 pm How long are we going to continue the “well the rotation is fine, calm down” narrative here? There is basically three borderline replacement level guys right now, Buchholz and his forever inconsistent self and a rookie. Combine that with a bad defense, and it’s a mess. Stop excusing it.
Eric M. Van says: June 15, 2015 at 1:16 pm Nonsense. Porcello has a 101 xFIP- (career 95), Kelly 102, Miley 116 (career 100). The three “borderline replacement level guys” are all OK third or solid fourth starters (with Porcello and Kelly having upside for better). You can certainly win a pennant with them and two top-of-rotation guys.
And the “bad defense” is +15 DRS except for Sandoval and Ramirez, who are a combined -22 (and have looked that bad). UZR has them at -14.3 and everyone else at +9.7. And that’s with Pedroia and Napoli playing at league average, Sandoval’s always been an average defender, and getting Hanley out of LF is the topic of this article.
That's freaking crazy.
BTW, to answer your statement about the SOX FO, or what's left of it anyway, and how they view wins: The only relevance Theo's opinions on wins had is mute as they booted him. And what the present FO thinks about them is also mute because they have no idea how to procure them.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 16, 2015 2:12:24 GMT -5
Wow, this is almost sad. I came here to post the following, as proof of what happens when math goes to ones head, and here you are: Will Graham says: June 15, 2015 at 1:00 pm How long are we going to continue the “well the rotation is fine, calm down” narrative here? There is basically three borderline replacement level guys right now, Buchholz and his forever inconsistent self and a rookie. Combine that with a bad defense, and it’s a mess. Stop excusing it. Eric M. Van says: June 15, 2015 at 1:16 pm Nonsense. Porcello has a 101 xFIP- (career 95), Kelly 102, Miley 116 (career 100). The three “borderline replacement level guys” are all OK third or solid fourth starters (with Porcello and Kelly having upside for better). You can certainly win a pennant with them and two top-of-rotation guys. And the “bad defense” is +15 DRS except for Sandoval and Ramirez, who are a combined -22 (and have looked that bad). UZR has them at -14.3 and everyone else at +9.7. And that’s with Pedroia and Napoli playing at league average, Sandoval’s always been an average defender, and getting Hanley out of LF is the topic of this article. That's freaking crazy. BTW, to answer your statement about the SOX FO, or what's left of it anyway, and how they view wins: The only relevance Theo's opinions on wins had is mute as they booted him. And what the present FO thinks about them is also mute because they have no idea how to procure them. Theo wasn't booted, he quit, and they would have loved to retain him. That's about the level of accuracy you're showing here. Here's a projection that isn't based at all on math: you're going to see a significant drop in the number of people replying to your posts (inlcuding me).
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 16, 2015 4:17:41 GMT -5
The idea is that you get more out of those fewer opportunities to get on base due to the better following hitters. Look, I'm sorry that there are mistakes in your book from the 60's, but that's been known and corrected since 10 years at least. You need to get over it. I am not aware of that. Please give me a source. However, my argument is based on numbers which cannot be refuted. The eighth batting position is going to get more at bats than the ninth. How can you argue with that? And then why would you put a better hitter ninth? It can't make sense. forum.soxprospects.com/thread/2748/lineup-construction
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 16, 2015 4:20:19 GMT -5
"Clogging the bases" is just Leon being unable to score from 2nd on Ortiz's 2-out single. It is a poor phrase. How, then, does it matter that the oh-so-speedy Pedroia and Holt were between them? Either he can score from 2nd or he can't, that is part of his skillset, but the argument that this should have any bearing on where he is in the lineup makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Jun 16, 2015 4:44:29 GMT -5
Oh and Hanley's defense has been so bad in so many ways. What a piss poor effort here. Runners on 1st and 3rd w/ JBJ there, and likely Castillo/Mookie. If he's not going to produce with the bat, there's no reason to have JBJ sit in AAA.
|
|
|