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 johnsilver52 on Jul 6, 2015 17:02:58 GMT -5
Blackout on Jerry &Don's Nesn broadcast, just like when they play the Rays.. Don't mind it when playing the Fish, Marlins have Top Notch announcers.. Tommy Hutton will have some good ones for Betts and will be interesting to hear his 1st time analysis of Betts/Bogaerts. Shame Rodriquez won't get a start vs them if only to hear what Tommy has to say.
Will be a sad day whenever Hutton hangs up his mic.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 6, 2015 17:09:04 GMT -5
The major questions right now are what are they going to do with Napoli, how are they going to boost the rotation, and how are they going to improve the bullpen?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 6, 2015 17:19:43 GMT -5
The major questions right now are what are they going to do with Napoli, how are they going to boost the rotation, and how are they going to improve the bullpen? Byung-Ho Park?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2015 17:34:16 GMT -5
Every single trade the Red Sox might have made in 2013 would not have been a good one just because they won the WS. I hate it when people use hindsight to judge trades. They might have raised the probability of winning the WS with the Iglesias trade by 0.8% or something. But it definitely wasn't a 0%/100% thing that most people seem to argue.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 6, 2015 17:41:23 GMT -5
The major questions right now are what are they going to do with Napoli, how are they going to boost the rotation, and how are they going to improve the bullpen? Speaking of cost-controlled pitching and the bullpen. Aroldis Chapman anyone? We'd have him for 2 1/2 years and if he's pitchig well, tender him and can get a 1st rounder back.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jul 6, 2015 17:46:58 GMT -5
I like how Chris put it up thread, we don't know what would have happened if someone else were in that spot, nor do we know what the mentality of the club would have been be if no trade or a different trade had been made. I don't think winning the World Series automatically justifies any trade (Hi Gagne!) but I'll gladly rewatch my 2013 World Series DVD anytime I think I would rather still have Iglesias on the team.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Jul 6, 2015 18:42:36 GMT -5
Brock Holt is an All Star.
No Bogaerts or Buchholz (yet).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 6, 2015 19:35:34 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. Re point 1, we don't know those things, but we can figure out how bad Workman would have had to be to cost them the division, and then estimate what the odds of that were. As we can also estimate the odds of Buchholz not coming back from his injury plus someone else getting hurt plus Workman and Wright being collectively bad enough to sink he season, the fear of which was the actual reason for the trade (rather than lack of confidence in Workman). The answer to the "how bad" question is "really freaking bad" and the answer to the "odds" question is "remote." We do know for a fact that the point of the trade was to increase the odds of winning the division from 9x.x% to 9y.y%, and the only question is what numbers belong after the nines. I thought, at the time, that the difference was so small as to make the trade pointless. Looking back, I still think so. I've never seen an argument otherwise. Now, they probably needed to pick up a bn extra bullpen arm at that point, but they could have gotten that for Montas and Rondon and a liitle more. Re point 2, Xander would have almost certainly started to struggle at the plate at roughly the point in time that he did (a couple of games after the switch). The thing that killed his season offensively was not that he started to struggle, but that the slump went on for freaking forever relative to typical slumps. The argument is that being given a vote of non-confidence at the position he had played all his life, and then absolutely butchering the new position, and hence having to learn to play it with some kind of adequacy, seriously affected his ability to simultaneously make the necessary adjustments at the plate, and was the reason the slump was so prolonged. If you don't buy that argument, you maybe ought to volunteer for the Turing Test. Either that, or yiu've been lucky enough that you've never had to deal with two challenges at once in your life. Put another way, the F.O. rationale can be summed up as "Xander in his rookie season will struggle at the plate at times and will need to make all sorts of adjustments, like anyone else ... I know, let's give him a vote of no-confidence at SS and make him learn how to play 3B at the same time!"
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 6, 2015 19:55:06 GMT -5
Brock Holt is an All Star. No Bogaerts or Buchholz (yet). As I said online, if Manfred had balls any larger than garbanzo beans, he's disqualify Escobar so that Iglesias can start and X can be added to the team (with Mookie taking his place in the fan vote*), a move that would be roundly applauded by literally every baseball fan who does not root for the Kansas City Royals, and probably by a good percentage of those who do. And I'm at a loss as to why Herrera and Boxberger are in the bullpen. The former is 48th in Win Probability Added for AL relievers and the latter is actually below average. They rank 22nd and 19th in bWAR, and 14th and 18th in xFIP- (16th and 18th in SIERA). That they're on the roster instead if Buchholz (or, for that matter, Kluber) is insane**. Or, if you need another reliever, Carson Smith (10th in WAR, 4th in WPA, 3rd in xFIP-) ... if you need two, also Will Harris (4th, 8th, and 15th). Just a pair of completely incompetent choices. *Of course, the players picking Adam Jones over Mookie isn't remotely defensible ... really the only mistake they made. *I'm assuming that Gallardo was only passed over because he's starting Sunday, but will be named as an All-Star ... if that's not the case, that's also absurd.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jul 6, 2015 20:17:01 GMT -5
the kookiness of the player ballot has caused me to lose interest in the all-star rosters.
If a player finishes in 2nd place with 7% of the vote, he is on the team. No voting system known to man is so absurd.
EDIT: I should point out that any AL player that voted for one of the 9 fan ballot AL winners ... their vote is wasted and irrelevant to the player vote. It is basically thrown out.
EDIT: Gallardo was passed over because Yost preferred relief pitchers. He chose 4 relievers and 1 starter (Felix Hernandez). Presumably because he sees a competitive advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 6, 2015 20:58:19 GMT -5
The All Star game is such a joke, every year I hope Sox players don't make it so they can rest up. That said, we all know how improbable this is for Holt (who, speaking of trades, makes Cherrington look good on that one even though he was the second guy in the deal). So kudos to the BrockStar.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jul 6, 2015 21:08:26 GMT -5
Re point 2, Xander would have almost certainly started to struggle at the plate at roughly the point in time that he did (a couple of games after the switch). The thing that killed his season offensively was not that he started to struggle, but that the slump went on for freaking forever relative to typical slumps. The argument is that being given a vote of non-confidence at the position he had played all his life, and then absolutely butchering the new position, and hence having to learn to play it with some kind of adequacy, seriously affected his ability to simultaneously make the necessary adjustments at the plate, and was the reason the slump was so prolonged. If you don't buy that argument, you maybe ought to volunteer for the Turing Test. Either that, or yiu've been lucky enough that you've never had to deal with two challenges at once in your life. Put another way, the F.O. rationale can be summed up as "Xander in his rookie season will struggle at the plate at times and will need to make all sorts of adjustments, like anyone else ... I know, let's give him a vote of no-confidence at SS and make him learn how to play 3B at the same time!" Well, I don't buy the conjecture (and what does the Turing Test have to do it?) - there are many players who have managed to rake and yet play terrible defense (ever hear of Miguel Cabrera?). Maybe his pre-game diet was to blame, or he had never had to make a serious adjustment before and was too stubborn and slow to make the necessary ones (and the adjustment he *has* made this year, is not a tweak, it's more along the lines of a metamorphosis). All you're doing is telling a story that depends on a counter-factual; maybe you should read up on Occam's Razor; he was bad last year, because he wasn't ready; what's remarkable is that a team would continue to rollout a 21-year old no matter what, day after day who was an absolute blackhole at the plate for 3 months (you wouldn't keep Ozzie Smith in the lineup with that kind of production). What we all should be thankful for is that he didn't internalize the post hoc rationalization, and decided to transform his approach, which is actually pretty remarkable and for which he deserves tremendous credit
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jul 6, 2015 23:41:43 GMT -5
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. Re point 1, we don't know those things, but we can figure out how bad Workman would have had to be to cost them the division, and then estimate what the odds of that were. As we can also estimate the odds of Buchholz not coming back from his injury plus someone else getting hurt plus Workman and Wright being collectively bad enough to sink he season, the fear of which was the actual reason for the trade (rather than lack of confidence in Workman). The answer to the "how bad" question is "really freaking bad" and the answer to the "odds" question is "remote." We do know for a fact that the point of the trade was to increase the odds of winning the division from 9x.x% to 9y.y%, and the only question is what numbers belong after the nines. I thought, at the time, that the difference was so small as to make the trade pointless. Looking back, I still think so. I've never seen an argument otherwise. Now, they probably needed to pick up a bn extra bullpen arm at that point, but they could have gotten that for Montas and Rondon and a liitle more. Re point 2, Xander would have almost certainly started to struggle at the plate at roughly the point in time that he did (a couple of games after the switch). The thing that killed his season offensively was not that he started to struggle, but that the slump went on for freaking forever relative to typical slumps. The argument is that being given a vote of non-confidence at the position he had played all his life, and then absolutely butchering the new position, and hence having to learn to play it with some kind of adequacy, seriously affected his ability to simultaneously make the necessary adjustments at the plate, and was the reason the slump was so prolonged. If you don't buy that argument, you maybe ought to volunteer for the Turing Test. Either that, or yiu've been lucky enough that you've never had to deal with two challenges at once in your life. Put another way, the F.O. rationale can be summed up as "Xander in his rookie season will struggle at the plate at times and will need to make all sorts of adjustments, like anyone else ... I know, let's give him a vote of no-confidence at SS and make him learn how to play 3B at the same time!" Ah, but if Iglesias was here, Bogaerts likely would not have played in the playoffs, where he helped the Red Sox beat the Tigers. Bogaerts also may have moved to third base in ST of 2014 permanently. How Bogaerts would have fared if he had been forced to learn to play third, with Igelsias entrenched at short for the next four plus years and without the confidence boost of his successful October 2013? Maybe Bogaerts would be at AAA trying to figure things out like Jackie Bradley? See all the what ifs that come from trying to second guess a decision that occurred two years ago and had ultimately successful results (ie a World Series victory).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 7, 2015 0:34:53 GMT -5
The desire to relitigate all these old debates using the same tired arguments is a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Jul 7, 2015 1:15:13 GMT -5
Let's not bring the law into this, jmei.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 7, 2015 2:52:40 GMT -5
Re point 2, Xander would have almost certainly started to struggle at the plate at roughly the point in time that he did (a couple of games after the switch). The thing that killed his season offensively was not that he started to struggle, but that the slump went on for freaking forever relative to typical slumps. The argument is that being given a vote of non-confidence at the position he had played all his life, and then absolutely butchering the new position, and hence having to learn to play it with some kind of adequacy, seriously affected his ability to simultaneously make the necessary adjustments at the plate, and was the reason the slump was so prolonged. If you don't buy that argument, you maybe ought to volunteer for the Turing Test. Either that, or you've been lucky enough that you've never had to deal with two challenges at once in your life. Put another way, the F.O. rationale can be summed up as "Xander in his rookie season will struggle at the plate at times and will need to make all sorts of adjustments, like anyone else ... I know, let's give him a vote of no-confidence at SS and make him learn how to play 3B at the same time!" Well, I don't buy the conjecture (and what does the Turing Test have to do it?) - there are many players who have managed to rake and yet play terrible defense (ever hear of Miguel Cabrera?). The conjecture has nothing whatsoever to do with hitting well while playing lousy defense. As I thought and hoped I made clear, it has to do with being forced to learn two completely different things simultaneously, both enormously difficult, and both very personally important (meaning that failure is stressful). That's not something human beings do well. Ever. Period. (Other human beings understand that, while an AI might get it wrong; hence the joke about the Turing Test. Which, incidentally, you just failed, but that's not all that uncommon.) No, I'm observing that they unquestionably placed Bogaerts in a situation that human beings are, as a rule, unequipped to handle cognitively. Occam's Razor, in fact, tells us that the best explanation for his failures is that single fact. I'm not even sure what the supposed counter-factual here is. We know they placed Bogaerts in a position where he would be expected to struggle, and he did. (You'll note how they have been adamant at playing Mookie only in CF this year. Hmmm.)
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,845
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 7, 2015 7:16:08 GMT -5
Park isn't going to sign until the offseason and doesn't really sound too great to me with a 25% K rate in an inferior league.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 7, 2015 10:39:28 GMT -5
“@prostarmgmt: Happy 49th Birthday to the Pride of Washington Courthouse…Jeff Shaw! Nice present to have @travis_shaw21 back in The Show! #GoGetEmKid”
|
|
|
Post by Nick Rabasco2 on Jul 7, 2015 14:19:20 GMT -5
Jeeze. I'm bored at my grandmother's house so I read every word of the Xander/Peavy/Iggy stuff. I have a headache now, but Chris nailed it.
To keep it simple, why can't we just be happy about what happened? We obviously don't know what would've happened had they not made the trade or how Xander would've hit had they not signed Drew. So, just be happy that we had the joy of winning a World Seires for the third time in ten years. Be happy that we now have one of the better shortstops in the game of baseball at just 22 years old. Be happy about the incredible young talent we have.
No need to get into heated arguments over this stuff IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Rabasco2 on Jul 7, 2015 15:05:01 GMT -5
There are certain things that are worth debating about, for sure. But debating about the Peavy Iggy thing just sounds so ridiculous IMO. Just because of what Chris said, the odds of them winning with the trade and without the trade are such a minimal differnce that it's pointless to go nuts over. And, again, they won. So just be happy about it.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 7, 2015 16:09:04 GMT -5
Jeeze. I'm bored at my grandmother's house so I read every word of the Xander/Peavy/Iggy stuff. I have a headache now, but Chris nailed it. To keep it simple, why can't we just be happy about what happened? We obviously don't know what would've happened had they not made the trade or how Xander would've hit had they not signed Drew. So, just be happy that we had the joy of winning a World Seires for the third time in ten years. Be happy that we now have one of the better shortstops in the game of baseball at just 22 years old. Be happy about the incredible young talent we have. No need to get into heated arguments over this stuff IMO. Not sure how "heated" it got. In fact seemed more like a marshaling of facts and opinions of outcomes. It was Chris who imputed I called soxfanatic a "dolt" when I asked for any data showing Peavy helped this team to the playoffs or win them as opposed to acquiring a #5 pitcher or letting Workman play out that year. By the way I did not mean to imply such. I really don't do personalize attacks here. I just, like, Eric and many others, believe that "But they won the World Series that year so it must've been a good trade" logic just doesn't fly with this particular trade. I mean, what are sports if you don't discuss decisions made/not made - or as jmei said, "re-litigate the past." Hell, even our country does that on a regular basis or attorneys, and the Supreme Court, would be out of work. But with sports this is part of the nomenclature and being a fan, and especially so with those that can affect the outcome of not just a game but the course of a team. We all celebrated the World Series win and continue to, but part of the fun of this - and of being a thinking human being - is to look at decisions of the past whether small in scale ("Where was Tazawa on Friday night, Farrell?") to those that have been made with more long term implications and could be affecting the team at present. To that end, yes, this team won a World Series in 2013 and it was glorious. But it has also finished last in the Division in the years before and after that and are looking rather spotty this year - though some of us, me included, remain hopeful that they will turn around. However, the recent years of spotty performance, with one outlier since 2010, can, in part, be traced to the front office's decisions - like trading Iglesias and others. Seems like this is part of the ongoing dialogue here and, frankly, a rather fascinating component of this team's operation over the last few years stretching back to before Theo's departure. It's all baseball just as much as bWAR, xFIP, SIERA and the expanded strike zone.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 7, 2015 16:12:15 GMT -5
And tonight's line-up vs. the Marlins of Miami:
@scottlauber #RedSox vs. MIA: CF Betts, 2B Holt, SS Bogaerts, DH Ortiz, LF Hanley, 3B Sandoval, RF Victorino, 1B Shaw, C Hanigan. Miley
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Jul 7, 2015 16:12:41 GMT -5
If Mookie Betts finishes the season as the AL league leader in bWAR, would it be surprising? Last 97 PA: 1177 OPS. 6/7 K/BB.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,845
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 7, 2015 16:32:55 GMT -5
If Mookie Betts finishes the season as the AL league leader in bWAR, would it be surprising? Last 97 PA: 1177 OPS. 6/7 K/BB. If he's topping Mike Trout, Josh Donaldson, and Miggy in his first full season, I'd have to say it's pretty damn surprising.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 7, 2015 16:38:46 GMT -5
This is Shaw's opportunity. I hope he makes the best of it.
|
|
|