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.
7/7-7/8 Red Sox vs. Marlins Series Thread
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 14:24:17 GMT -5
Xander has learned SS. I think he would have learned 3b, and Iggy at SS would have been great, But it's all spilt milk. If, if and buts, were candy and nuts, what a Merry Christmas it would be.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2015 14:27:44 GMT -5
Masterson and Wright were superfluous in the team's eyes. Sox don't need a fifth starter until after the break. It's quite possible that Wright will be the one called up, not Johnson, now that the 40 is full. With Spruill off, there aren't necessarily obvious DFA candidates there (although there are certainly options). So wait, Farrell was using Breslow for more than one inning and Noe Ramirez over Wright when they blew 3 tie scores on Friday?
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 6, 2015 14:29:39 GMT -5
Masterson and Wright were superfluous in the team's eyes. Sox don't need a fifth starter until after the break. It's quite possible that Wright will be the one called up, not Johnson, now that the 40 is full. With Spruill off, there aren't necessarily obvious DFA candidates there (although there are certainly options). I forgot about 2 off days ,and had to look up superfluous, but that makes sense. Masterson and Wright were redundant, making Wright was superfluous. Just to be that guy. The original call-up was Wright-on (that guy again), and sending him (or someone) down is the right move too. Hope they bring up a bat to PH for Napoli or the C.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 6, 2015 14:32:49 GMT -5
So wait, Farrell was using Breslow for more than one inning and Noe Ramirez over Wright when they blew 3 tie scores on Friday? No. Wright wasn't called up until the 4th. He was swapped for Noe Ramirez. www.soxprospects.com/transactions.htm
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2015 14:34:45 GMT -5
So wait, Farrell was using Breslow for more than one inning and Noe Ramirez over Wright when they blew 3 tie scores on Friday? No. Wright wasn't called up until the 4th. He was swapped for Noe Ramirez. www.soxprospects.com/transactions.htmOh ok thanks. Maybe bringing Wright up instead of Ramirez would have been smarter. Maybe leaving Wright on the damn team for good would be smarter.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 6, 2015 14:36:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 14:38:58 GMT -5
I forgot about 2 off days ,and had to look up superfluous, but that makes sense. Masterson and Wright were redundant, making Wright was superfluous. Just to be that guy. The original call-up was Wright-on (that guy again), and sending him (or someone) down is the right move too. Hope they bring up a bat to PH for Napoli or the C. I know redundant . I barely made it through high school and one year of college. I have no problem learning from the posters here. Thank You.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 6, 2015 14:43:36 GMT -5
post hoc ergo propter hoc as do the "numbers" that show increasing % of breaking balls thrown and for strikes. speaking of fallacies...your opinion is just as fallacious as mine. I mean, Brock Holt played like 27 positions in 4 days and kept hitting, and then they ask Xander to switch to a similar spot that he has in fact played on an even bigger stage (successfully) before, and that's what breaks him? And the Sox' front office was supposed to predict that? I mean, signing Drew a second time wasn't a great idea, but I don't think it broke Xander, or if it did, it shouldn't have, not a bona-fide MLB player. I think we forget that he had only a very brief hot streak (both in the field and at the plate) last year between being bad at SS and then being bad at 3B. We kinda have to hope (and I do in fact believe) that doesn't happen again this year. There are still plenty of people out there (my uncle expressed as much on Friday night) who don't think Xander is a good SS ergo he isn't a good player at all. SSS are a real thing.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 6, 2015 14:45:23 GMT -5
Masterson and Wright were redundant, making Wright was superfluous. Just to be that guy. The original call-up was Wright-on (that guy again), and sending him (or someone) down is the right move too. Hope they bring up a bat to PH for Napoli or the C. I know redundant . I barely made it through high school and one year of college. I have no problem learning from the posters here. Thank You. Sorry wasn't even aiming at you Ray. Was a (playful) barb at Chris. I'll just shut up now before I make more of an arse of myself. cheers
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 6, 2015 14:57:42 GMT -5
speaking of fallacies...your opinion is just as fallacious as mine. I mean, Brock Holt played like 27 positions in 4 days and kept hitting, and then they ask Xander to switch to a similar spot that he has in fact played on an even bigger stage (successfully) before, and that's what breaks him? And the Sox' front office was supposed to predict that? I mean, signing Drew a second time wasn't a great idea, but I don't think it broke Xander, or if it did, it shouldn't have, not a bona-fide MLB player. I think we forget that he had only a very brief hot streak (both in the field and at the plate) last year between being bad at SS and then being bad at 3B. We kinda have to hope (and I do in fact believe) that doesn't happen again this year. There are still plenty of people out there (my uncle expressed as much on Friday night) who don't think Xander is a good SS ergo he isn't a good player at all. SSS are a real thing. Brock Holt's value to play a lot of positions is just that, nothing more, and honestly has no part in a discussion about a 21 year olds ability to change positions while he is learning to be a MLB players. Let's not even bring up the years of professional baseball innings, at-bats, that Holt had the benefit of. It was a terrible decision, it had obvious effects on the the player, and you want to leave it at "if he can't tough that out, he isn't major league caliber".
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 15:04:25 GMT -5
I know redundant . I barely made it through high school and one year of college. I have no problem learning from the posters here. Thank You. Sorry wasn't even aiming at you Ray. Was a (playful) barb at Chris. I'll just shut up now before I make more of an arse of myself. cheers I wasn't offended. You are a good poster.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 6, 2015 15:10:16 GMT -5
I mean, Brock Holt played like 27 positions in 4 days and kept hitting, and then they ask Xander to switch to a similar spot that he has in fact played on an even bigger stage (successfully) before, and that's what breaks him? And the Sox' front office was supposed to predict that? I mean, signing Drew a second time wasn't a great idea, but I don't think it broke Xander, or if it did, it shouldn't have, not a bona-fide MLB player. I think we forget that he had only a very brief hot streak (both in the field and at the plate) last year between being bad at SS and then being bad at 3B. We kinda have to hope (and I do in fact believe) that doesn't happen again this year. There are still plenty of people out there (my uncle expressed as much on Friday night) who don't think Xander is a good SS ergo he isn't a good player at all. SSS are a real thing. It was a terrible decision, it had obvious effects on the the player, and you want to leave it at "if he can't tough that out, he isn't major league caliber". It's clearly not obvious to me, or at least one other poster here. We don't feel that correlation equals causation. And don't effing put quotes around something I didn't say. That's disingenuous and inappropriate. Stuff like that turns your perfectly reasonable opinion into a personal attack which is quite frankly not appreciated. Note how other posters use terms like "I think" to express their ideas rather than noting how their thoughts are "obvious" (indicating everyone else is obviously wrong). It's both frustrating from a debate standpoint and hurtful on a personal level.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 6, 2015 15:23:05 GMT -5
It was a terrible decision, it had obvious effects on the the player, and you want to leave it at "if he can't tough that out, he isn't major league caliber". It's clearly not obvious to me, or at least one other poster here. We don't feel that correlation equals causation. And don't effing put quotes around something I didn't say. That's disingenuous and inappropriate. Stuff like that turns your perfectly reasonable opinion into a personal attack which is quite frankly not appreciated. Note how other posters use terms like "I think" to express their ideas rather than noting how their thoughts are "obvious" (indicating everyone else is obviously wrong). It's both frustrating from a debate standpoint and hurtful on a personal level. Apologize for the quotes, I am not in the business of wanting to offend or minimize anyone's posts, as I think most of my posts will show. In regards to this situation, it was a move that I detested and puts me on the offense whenever it is mentioned. I should've let it slide without comment. We'll just have to disagree on this one.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2015 15:33:33 GMT -5
I mean, Brock Holt played like 27 positions in 4 days and kept hitting, and then they ask Xander to switch to a similar spot that he has in fact played on an even bigger stage (successfully) before, and that's what breaks him? And the Sox' front office was supposed to predict that? I mean, signing Drew a second time wasn't a great idea, but I don't think it broke Xander, or if it did, it shouldn't have, not a bona-fide MLB player. I think we forget that he had only a very brief hot streak (both in the field and at the plate) last year between being bad at SS and then being bad at 3B. We kinda have to hope (and I do in fact believe) that doesn't happen again this year. There are still plenty of people out there (my uncle expressed as much on Friday night) who don't think Xander is a good SS ergo he isn't a good player at all. SSS are a real thing. Brock Holt's value to play a lot of positions is just that, nothing more, and honestly has no part in a discussion about a 21 year olds ability to change positions while he is learning to be a MLB players. Let's not even bring up the years of professional baseball innings, at-bats, that Holt had the benefit of. It was a terrible decision, it had obvious effects on the the player, and you want to leave it at "if he can't tough that out, he isn't major league caliber". Xander likely would have run into the same struggles as a SS. The weakness existed before he moved to 3rd, it just wasn't exploited. It's pretty obvious now with how much he has changed his approach because it's now working. Now the real stupid decision is that they shouldn't have moved Xander to 3rd because he was a better SS than 3B and Drew wasn't worth moving him and interrupting his development.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 6, 2015 15:38:46 GMT -5
Neither was trading future HOF shortstop Jose Iglesias for a #6 starter. And winning a WS? I am sick of this argument. Please give me definitive data on how Peavy helped them do that. The Sox lost more of his starts than they won that year. He gave them no more (and perhaps less) than Workman was giving them up to that point, and any other #5 pitcher pitching at AL average for 10 starts that year. And he had one good start in the post-season. He added virtually nothing they didn't have or couldn't have found elsewhere. They won the World Series despite Peavy just like they won the World Series in '07 despite Gagne. It was a bad trade.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 15:47:36 GMT -5
I am sick of this argument. Please give me definitive data on how Peavy helped them do that. The Sox lost more of his starts than they won that year. He gave them no more (and perhaps less) than Workman was giving them up to that point, and any other #5 pitcher pitching at AL average for 10 starts that year. And he had one good start in the post-season. He added virtually nothing they didn't have or couldn't have found elsewhere. They won the World Series despite Peavy just like they won the World Series in '07 despite Gagne. It was a bad trade. You are right on what happened. But at the time I can see why they made the move. I hate this discussion, because I would have kept Iggy.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,827
|
Post by wcp3 on Jul 6, 2015 15:50:23 GMT -5
okin15 I don't think any of us are in a position to say what, exactly, caused Xander to have a bad season. I do think that him being a 21-year-old going through his first struggles at the plate probably had a lot to do with it. It's tough to find your stroke when you're going up against elite pitching daily, and I'm sure the lack of confidence spiraled. But it's utterly ridiculous to dismiss that changing positions had some effect. The guy was trying to learn one of the hardest positions, and had to readjust on the fly. Not saying that's the cause of his struggles, but it's reasonable to think it may have added to it.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,827
|
Post by wcp3 on Jul 6, 2015 15:51:40 GMT -5
I would have given Wright the starts. Looks like the Johnson supporters win out. Have to give WCP credit. His position never changes on the floater. Maybe if Xander picked one up and switched to pitcher, nah. I promise you this: I will never criticize Xander's knuckleball.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 15:56:55 GMT -5
I would have given Wright the starts. Looks like the Johnson supporters win out. Have to give WCP credit. His position never changes on the floater. Maybe if Xander picked one up and switched to pitcher, nah. I promise you this: I will never criticize Xander's knuckleball. LOL, well done.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 6, 2015 16:05:09 GMT -5
Have to give WCP credit. His position never changes on the floater. So if I decided to randomly hate, say, Pedroia because, uh, he does a little hop before the pitch, then I could get "credit" too as long as I was consistent about it?
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 16:20:00 GMT -5
Have to give WCP credit. His position never changes on the floater. So if I decided to randomly hate, say, Pedroia because, uh, he does a little hop before the pitch, then I could get "credit" too as long as I was consistent about it? I was mostly joking. I'd give you credit for any sign of a sense of humor.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 6, 2015 16:39:33 GMT -5
I was mostly joking. I'd give you credit for any sign of a sense of humor. Sorry, no can do. Here's an instructional video on how to use the forum:
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,827
|
Post by wcp3 on Jul 6, 2015 16:40:06 GMT -5
Have to give WCP credit. His position never changes on the floater. So if I decided to randomly hate, say, Pedroia because, uh, he does a little hop before the pitch, then I could get "credit" too as long as I was consistent about it? Dude, none of it is serious, so maybe lighten up. No, I didn't enjoy watching Wakefield pitch, but I love and appreciate everything he gave to the Red Sox. I've said that the entire decade I've been posting on this board.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 16:54:09 GMT -5
I was mostly joking. I'd give you credit for any sign of a sense of humor. Sorry, no can do. Here's an instructional video on how to use the forum: I didn't watch the video. Use the forum any way you want. I'll reply or ignore based on content.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 6, 2015 16:55:05 GMT -5
I am sick of this argument. Please give me definitive data on how Peavy helped them do that. The Sox lost more of his starts than they won that year. He gave them no more (and perhaps less) than Workman was giving them up to that point, and any other #5 pitcher pitching at AL average for 10 starts that year. And he had one good start in the post-season. He added virtually nothing they didn't have or couldn't have found elsewhere. They won the World Series despite Peavy just like they won the World Series in '07 despite Gagne. It was a bad trade. I'm sick of the argument as well, but don't pretend like one side can be defended and the other can't. There's no definitive data in either direction because we only know what did happen. In 2013, the Red Sox traded for Jake Peavy and he took Brandon Workman's spot in the regular season rotation and Felix Doubront's spot in the playoff rotation. In 2013, the Red Sox won the World Series. We do not know whether the former improved or decreased the chances of the latter occurring because we don't know for certain what happens in the alternative universe in which the trade doesn't happen. Sure, maybe Workman's just as good as a starter. And maybe someone other than Workman pitches those innings out of the bullpen in the playoffs and gets rocked. Or maybe Workman turns back into a pumpkin as a starter, revealing that he's indeed an MLB reliever. I get your point of view, but don't pretend like everyone who subscribes to the "f- it, they won the World Series" argument is a dolt. ----- And to speak to a different point, I don't think the argument is "Bogaerts moved to third base and was worse because he was playing a different position." It's more "Bogaerts the rookie had been starting at shortstop but then the club went and got someone else to play the position so he started pressing even more, while also being disappointed in losing the shortstop job." It's not the same as Brock Holt being asked to play other positions so that they could get his bat into the lineup. I don't think it's something inherent about being asked to play third base, but rather throwing another obstacle at the 21-year-old rookie who was already struggling to tread water. And of course there's the other half of it that they felt Stephen Drew was worth doing that for - it's one thing if they went and got Tulo or Andrelton Simmons or something and you tell the rookie to suck it up.
|
|
|