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.
5/31-6/3 Red Sox @ Astros Series Thread
|
Post by manfred on Jun 3, 2018 9:52:17 GMT -5
Serious question: Aaron Judge has nearly twice Benny’s WAR. Is the implication that to date he’s been nearly twice as good? Because that seems... not true. Better? Yes. But only slightly.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 3, 2018 9:54:04 GMT -5
How is that a hot take? Do you know of a ton of people who think that Swihart's bat carries well as a 1b/lf/dh? I'd personally love to see him get consistent ABs - as a catcher. His bat plays there. I'd love to see what he could become if the Sox let him continue his progression without the move to LF and all that followed. What part of wanting a guy with an .800 OPS on your bench versus a guy who never had an OPS that high even when he was playing well 3 years ago is a HAWT take? Especially when you really would like the guy to get ABs regularly at the position his bat make sense for? Just curious. Quite frankly it's not even a hot take, it's just an "ill advised" take. You dump a young talent who's athletic, plays a bunch of position at a decent level, runs the bases well and is a switch hitter with years of control left for a 35 years old base clogger who can't play any defensive position (he can't even play first base, that's how bad his glove is) and should be strickly platooned just so you can maybe, just maybe, use him in a hypothetical pinch-hit situation (if the other manager brings his LOOGY, we're screwed)? There's reasons Adam Lind is out of a major league job, he offers you no flexibility. I'll take the upside of Swihart and give him as much at bats as I can, give my guys rest, they're gonna need it in a heated summer to get his timing back over the unemployed stiff. It's not a no-brainer. Maybe you wouldn't do it, but if Mookie was out awhile, Lind would get DH at-bats against righties, and last time I checked the majority of rotations are staffed by righties. That would force JDM into the outfield which I don't particularly like, although it would make him happy. If our lineup didn't have numerous holes in it, I wouldn't consider it, but the lineup, particularly without Mookie does have numerous holes in it. I don't see how giving Swihart regular at-bats as a catcher is "dumping a young talent", and as far as his athleticism goes, we don't know how good an outfielder or 1b he is. We only know that his bat doesn't project to hold up as a regular unless he's catching. I have no idea why Lind struggled to get a job. Matt Stairs made a long living being a guy who hammers righties, was defensively challenged, and other managers didn't want to see pinch-hit against their closers, most of them who are righty by the way. Lind had very good numbers last year, ones that were in line with his career norms. I think having 3 catchers, 2 of them who are pretty much duplicates of each other, is the bigger waste of a roster spot, then somebody who can come up for a "hypothetical" pinch-hit AB, unless of course you think our lineup 1-9 doesn't have anybody who should be pinch-hit for in a late/tight game situation or are cool with having less offense if either Mookie or JD were to be out for an extended period of time, which is the case right now with Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 10:21:49 GMT -5
Given that the Red Sox beat the Yankees 14-1 in one game earlier this year, they should have no problem beating them in the playoffs. *hot take* No one here has talked about one game. Would like to take the division first before talking playoffs also. Edit- The Sox are also 16-12 against the Yankees the past 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by coachmac on Jun 3, 2018 10:28:06 GMT -5
One of the reasons Cora gave when asked about calling up Travis was that he felt the team was alreadytoo heavy with left-handed bats. Lind would only add to that problem. Cora doesn't know as much about roster construction as some of our posters but his opinion may actually matter
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 10:44:47 GMT -5
One of the reasons Cora gave when asked about calling up Travis was that he felt the team was alreadytoo heavy with left-handed bats. Lind would only add to that problem. Cora doesn't know as much about roster construction as some of our posters but his opinion may actually matter Both Mookie and Pedrioa are right handed bats and they are both are on the DL. The roster will be more evenly split throughout the lineup when they eventually comecback. It's only too left handed heavy with injuries to key players.
|
|
|
Post by danredhawk on Jun 3, 2018 10:56:52 GMT -5
It's sample size bs, pure and simple. Last regular season, the Sox were 3-4 against Houston and Detroit, 9-10 vs. Baltimore, 2-4 with KC and LA. That variability is what makes the playoffs such a crapshoot. Is Houston tough? You bet. But the notion that they have done sort of hex over the Sox is laughable. I don't think you can write it all off to sample size. If you don't think you can get into a guy's head in less than 100 AB's just ask John Kruk how much he likes facing Randy Johnson. I'm sure last night's win was cathartic and will help clear some heads in the Red Sox locker room. I'll save you all the 10,000 word rant on why sample size, normalization, and other statistical methods don't always apply to real world scenarios. I'll just do what I always do and yell it at at my TV the next time Brian Kenny's on MLB network. It's not only a small sample size - it's a small sample size spread out randomly over a two year time period. Its baseball guys. What happened Friday and Saturday had zero bearing on what happened yesterday - let alone what happened last October. And what happened yesterday will have no bearing on what happens today - let alone next October. And the idea raised in this thread that the Astros own the Sox - but yesterday's win somehow represents a resilience and fight only compounds the fact that this is complete recent bias and overreaction (a la this entire thread - god help Adam Lind when he does get called up and grounds out in his first AB)... Boston won 2 of the first three last year against Houston to stretch a two year run in the series between the teams to 7-3. Shockingly, it had no bearing on the post-season series. How could that not have been deep inside the Astros heads?? I hope you will still spare us the rant - because I understand completely how beating my 3.5 foot tall, 5 year old niece three times in a row in basketball might not be a sample size issue. But we're talking about two evenly matched baseball teams full of professionals on both sides. Which is essentially the perfect scenario to indicate that small samples have no bearing on future results...
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 11:07:33 GMT -5
I don't think you can write it all off to sample size. If you don't think you can get into a guy's head in less than 100 AB's just ask John Kruk how much he likes facing Randy Johnson. I'm sure last night's win was cathartic and will help clear some heads in the Red Sox locker room. I'll save you all the 10,000 word rant on why sample size, normalization, and other statistical methods don't always apply to real world scenarios. I'll just do what I always do and yell it at at my TV the next time Brian Kenny's on MLB network. It's not only a small sample size - it's a small sample size spread out randomly over a two year time period. Its baseball guys. What happened Friday and Saturday had zero bearing on what happened yesterday - let alone what happened last October. And what happened yesterday will have no bearing on what happens today - let alone next October. And the idea raised in this thread that the Astros own the Sox - but yesterday's win somehow represents a resilience and fight only compounds the fact that this is complete recent bias and overreaction (a la this entire thread - god help Adam Lind when he does get called up and grounds out in his first AB)... Boston won 2 of the first three last year against Houston to stretch a two year run in the series between the teams to 7-3. Shockingly, it had no bearing on the post-season series. How could that be in the Astros heads?? Let's throw out the last 4 games of the regular season where the Sox faced the Astros in meaningless games last year and Houston had the division won by that point. The Sox are 4-8 against the Astros in the past two years including the playoffs. In 25 percent of these games the Astros have blown out the Sox. No one is saying that the Astros owns the Sox. All I have said is that the Astros have been slightly better to this point. The Sox are still a great team in their own right. The Sox have a combined record of 16-24 against the Yankees and Houston in meaningful games the last two years. That isn't great. Theses are the teams the Sox are going to be most likely facing in the playoffs. The Sox could be better when it's all said and done at the end of this year, but they need to prove it and so far they haven't. It's going to be a stressful baseball season to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by coachmac on Jun 3, 2018 11:36:09 GMT -5
One of the reasons Cora gave when asked about calling up Travis was that he felt the team was alreadytoo heavy with left-handed bats. Lind would only add to that problem. Cora doesn't know as much about roster construction as some of our posters but his opinion may actually matter Both Mookie and Pedrioa are right handed bats and they are both are on the DL. The roster will be more evenly split throughout the lineup when they eventually comecback. It's only too left handed heavy with injuries to key players.
|
|
|
Post by coachmac on Jun 3, 2018 11:37:02 GMT -5
Both Mookie and Pedrioa are right handed bats and they are both are on the DL. The roster will be more evenly split throughout the lineup when they eventually comecback. It's only too left handed heavy with injuries to key players. I knew Cora wouldn't know as much about his team than you.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 11:43:10 GMT -5
I knew Cora wouldn't know as much about his team than you. What?! No. Who said that? The reason why they brought up Sam Travis is because they are too left handed heavy *at the moment* and will be facing a few left handed pitchers later in the week per Cora.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 3, 2018 12:15:06 GMT -5
Serious question: Aaron Judge has nearly twice Benny’s WAR. Is the implication that to date he’s been nearly twice as good? Because that seems... not true. Better? Yes. But only slightly. Judge fWAR 2.8 Benintendi fWAR 2.1 If you look at baseball reference’s WAR, the largest difference between the two is 1 WAR for defense. I’m skeptical that Judge was been 1 WAR better defensively.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 3, 2018 12:15:38 GMT -5
It's not only a small sample size - it's a small sample size spread out randomly over a two year time period. Its baseball guys. What happened Friday and Saturday had zero bearing on what happened yesterday - let alone what happened last October. And what happened yesterday will have no bearing on what happens today - let alone next October. And the idea raised in this thread that the Astros own the Sox - but yesterday's win somehow represents a resilience and fight only compounds the fact that this is complete recent bias and overreaction (a la this entire thread - god help Adam Lind when he does get called up and grounds out in his first AB)... Boston won 2 of the first three last year against Houston to stretch a two year run in the series between the teams to 7-3. Shockingly, it had no bearing on the post-season series. How could that be in the Astros heads?? Let's throw out the last 4 games of the regular season where the Sox faced the Astros in meaningless games last year and Houston had the division won by that point. The Sox are 4-8 against the Astros in the past two years including the playoffs. In 25 percent of these games the Astros have blown out the Sox. No one is saying that the Astros owns the Sox. All I have said is that the Astros have been slightly better to this point. The Sox are still a great team in their own right. The Sox have a combined record of 16-24 against the Yankees and Houston in meaningful games the last two years. That isn't great. Theses are the teams the Sox are going to be most likely facing in the playoffs. The Sox could be better when it's all said and done at the end of this year, but they need to prove it and so far they haven't. It's going to be a stressful baseball season to say the least. But why does this matter? How does anything that happened last season matter? And what is your point, anyways? "The Sox need to play better against the best teams in the league." Okay, well, I think they're trying! Unless there's some sort of magic Astros elixir that demons are sprinkling on their bats at night I don't really understand what your theory is. Why, in your view, have the Red Sox singularly struggled against the Astros? (But not yesterday, and certain games last season don't count, but other games last season definitely do count.) And how can they do better against them? I would say your point just boils down to "the Astros have been slightly better to this point." Which is fine (though continues to overlook the fact that the Red Sox have a better record.) But then you talk about how they're only 4-8 against the Astros since last season. But is that meaningful? If so, a .667 winning percentage suggests the Astros are WAY better than the Sox. On the other hand, if it's just a random small-sample outcome spread over two seasons, then it doesn't prove anything at all. Either way, it doesn't support your claim that the Astros are slightly better than the Red Sox.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 3, 2018 12:44:56 GMT -5
And passes this guy named Mookie Betts for the MLB lead in Win Probability Added, 2.63 to 2.60.
Meanwhile, J.D. Martinez strengthened his hold on 3rd place, with 2.10. The gap between him and #4 Jean Segura is bigger than the gap between Segura and #17.
The gap between Benny and the best non-Red Sox, Segura at #4, is the same as the gap between #4 and #35.
And the last time I ran the numbers, you know who was dead last in WPA/PA given some reasonable minimum? And who probably is no longer last after tying last night's game with a homer?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 3, 2018 12:51:09 GMT -5
It's not only a small sample size - it's a small sample size spread out randomly over a two year time period. Its baseball guys. What happened Friday and Saturday had zero bearing on what happened yesterday - let alone what happened last October. And what happened yesterday will have no bearing on what happens today - let alone next October. And the idea raised in this thread that the Astros own the Sox - but yesterday's win somehow represents a resilience and fight only compounds the fact that this is complete recent bias and overreaction (a la this entire thread - god help Adam Lind when he does get called up and grounds out in his first AB)... Boston won 2 of the first three last year against Houston to stretch a two year run in the series between the teams to 7-3. Shockingly, it had no bearing on the post-season series. How could that not have been deep inside the Astros heads?? I hope you will still spare us the rant - because I understand completely how beating my 3.5 foot tall, 5 year old niece three times in a row in basketball might not be a sample size issue. But we're talking about two evenly matched baseball teams full of professionals on both sides. Which is essentially the perfect scenario to indicate that small samples have no bearing on future results... I get ignoring last October's results to some degree, hard to be in JD's head when he wasn't on the team last October. But a ballplayer is going to take a little of today's game into tomorrow's game just like you or I would if we had a bad day at work. There's a mental part that I feel people are not paying attention to when they use the phrase "small sample size". You think all of JBJ's problems are mechanical and have nothing to do with the mental part of the game? Or that all of Ortiz's postseason aura was statistical anomaly? I guess I jump on the phase "small sample size" because I think it gets misused in baseball. In non-baseball situations you use this phrase when statistics is incapable of saying anything intelligent about a situation, but that doesn't mean that you can't figure something out through other means. In baseball, we tend to use the phrase to imply that nothing intelligent can be said about a situation at all. I think "small sample size" is a good phrase to use to remind people to be patient and that things can turn around, like with Swihart, but is a little overused when telling people to disregard what just happened. I like the general point you're making, and statheads can sometimes be dismissive of psychological factors. But I think there's a bias that's endemic in baseball, and maybe in life, to read importance into our emotional experience or feeling in a situation which may not be reflective of reality. For instance, yeah I may have a bad day at work and carry that with me into the next day; but I really don't think it affects how well I do my job. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to me - it's my emotional experience! It's important from my perspective. And I will put some energy into improving that experience. What bugs me is that players, and ex-player managers and broadcasters, see the game through this lens in a way that obscures reality. So for instance, Mookie feels "comfortable" hitting leadoff, so Cora keeps him there. Great for him! It's nice to feel comfortable. But also Mookie is an incredible baseball player and I really don't think he'd do worse if he batted lower in the lineup. (He also feels comfortable wearing a goofy plastic necklace every game, but I don't think that's the cause of his success either.) The problem is that there's a cost to his comfort - namely, we're squandering our best hitter and a serious power threat in precisely the situations where he is least likely to have men on base. That's a pretty high price to pay for his comfort. And ultimately we aren't privy to the psychological experiences of these players. Was JBJ's issue mechanical, psychological, or both? Well, maybe it was psychological, but there's no way for us to know. We can look at his mechanics, and then we can look at the stats, and we can see that his slump got well outside SSS range. So we know something's going on. But if we didn't have the stats to confirm it, what could we say? PS. David Ortiz' career slash line: Regular season: .286/.380/.552 Postseason: .289/.404/.543 But I'll be damned if he wasn't supernaturally clutch.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 3, 2018 12:55:53 GMT -5
It's not only a small sample size - it's a small sample size spread out randomly over a two year time period. Its baseball guys. What happened Friday and Saturday had zero bearing on what happened yesterday - let alone what happened last October. And what happened yesterday will have no bearing on what happens today - let alone next October. And the idea raised in this thread that the Astros own the Sox - but yesterday's win somehow represents a resilience and fight only compounds the fact that this is complete recent bias and overreaction (a la this entire thread - god help Adam Lind when he does get called up and grounds out in his first AB)... Boston won 2 of the first three last year against Houston to stretch a two year run in the series between the teams to 7-3. Shockingly, it had no bearing on the post-season series. How could that be in the Astros heads?? Let's throw out the last 4 games of the regular season where the Sox faced the Astros in meaningless games last year and Houston had the division won by that point. The Sox are 4-8 against the Astros in the past two years including the playoffs. In 25 percent of these games the Astros have blown out the Sox. No one is saying that the Astros owns the Sox. All I have said is that the Astros have been slightly better to this point. The Sox are still a great team in their own right. The Sox have a combined record of 16-24 against the Yankees and Houston in meaningful games the last two years. That isn't great. Theses are the teams the Sox are going to be most likely facing in the playoffs. The Sox could be better when it's all said and done at the end of this year, but they need to prove it and so far they haven't. It's going to be a stressful baseball season to say the least. Two of the three blowouts were because Sale and Pomeranz (8 10 6 6 3 3 his last 2 regular-season starts) were running on fumes by season's end, a fact which got the manager fired.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 13:08:33 GMT -5
Let's throw out the last 4 games of the regular season where the Sox faced the Astros in meaningless games last year and Houston had the division won by that point. The Sox are 4-8 against the Astros in the past two years including the playoffs. In 25 percent of these games the Astros have blown out the Sox. No one is saying that the Astros owns the Sox. All I have said is that the Astros have been slightly better to this point. The Sox are still a great team in their own right. The Sox have a combined record of 16-24 against the Yankees and Houston in meaningful games the last two years. That isn't great. Theses are the teams the Sox are going to be most likely facing in the playoffs. The Sox could be better when it's all said and done at the end of this year, but they need to prove it and so far they haven't. It's going to be a stressful baseball season to say the least. But why does this matter? How does anything that happened last season matter? And what is your point, anyways? "The Sox need to play better against the best teams in the league." Okay, well, I think they're trying! Unless there's some sort of magic Astros elixir that demons are sprinkling on their bats at night I don't really understand what your theory is. Why, in your view, have the Red Sox singularly struggled against the Astros? (But not yesterday, and certain games last season don't count, but other games last season definitely do count.) And how can they do better against them? I would say your point just boils down to "the Astros have been slightly better to this point." Which is fine (though continues to overlook the fact that the Red Sox have a better record.) But then you talk about how they're only 4-8 against the Astros since last season. But is that meaningful? If so, a .667 winning percentage suggests the Astros are WAY better than the Sox. On the other hand, if it's just a random small-sample outcome spread over two seasons, then it doesn't prove anything at all. Either way, it doesn't support your claim that the Astros are slightly better than the Red Sox. My point is that the Sox need to perform better against the better of the competition. Trying doesn't count for anything when you traded your future away for the now. It would be very dissapointing if the Sox came away with nothing this year because they couldn't get past Houston or New York. They'd have 1 more realistic shot at it next year as a true title contender and who knows after that. I only threw out the last 4 meaningless games of last season when the Sox were facing the bottom of the Astros 40 man roster last year. Everything else was meaningful. The Sox do have a better record at the moment, but it's really close record wise. I think the Sox have struggled against the Astros because the Sox have been slightly less healthy when the Sox have faced the Astros. The Sox bullpen has been a weakness when facing this team for the most part (at least they turned it around yesterday, except Joe Kelly). The Astros have also beat Sale twice in this time. Hopefully the Sox are healthy come October and the best of the Sox players come to perform. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 13:13:44 GMT -5
Let's throw out the last 4 games of the regular season where the Sox faced the Astros in meaningless games last year and Houston had the division won by that point. The Sox are 4-8 against the Astros in the past two years including the playoffs. In 25 percent of these games the Astros have blown out the Sox. No one is saying that the Astros owns the Sox. All I have said is that the Astros have been slightly better to this point. The Sox are still a great team in their own right. The Sox have a combined record of 16-24 against the Yankees and Houston in meaningful games the last two years. That isn't great. Theses are the teams the Sox are going to be most likely facing in the playoffs. The Sox could be better when it's all said and done at the end of this year, but they need to prove it and so far they haven't. It's going to be a stressful baseball season to say the least. Two of the three blowouts were because Sale and Pomeranz (8 10 6 6 3 3 his last 2 regular-season starts) were running on fumes by season's end, a fact which got the manager fired. Yes and hopefully that problem is fixed this year come October. If Sale can't make it to October this year when the Sox are *more conservative* with him this year, then the Sox are porked. Chris Sale really is the linchpin to how far the Sox go in October.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 3, 2018 13:49:59 GMT -5
"Regardless, it was nice to pull off a win late last night because for 24 innings the Red Sox looked like they were incapable of beating the Astros."
If you go back a few pages in this thread, you will find some people saying the Red Sox looked like they were incapable of beating the Astros, and some who were saying the Red Sox were capable of beating the Astros. And then the Red Sox beat the Astros.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 13:55:05 GMT -5
All of the questions will be answered come October. We will see if the Sox can win the division in between that time.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Jun 3, 2018 14:17:18 GMT -5
All of the questions will be answered come October. We will see if the Sox can win the division in between that time. Just like every season
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 14:37:58 GMT -5
All of the questions will be answered come October. We will see if the Sox can win the division in between that time. Just like every season Except for the non contending ones. Can't wait for October.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 16:38:41 GMT -5
The Yankees game is postponed again.
I think they need to make up something like 5 games later in the year. That's nuts. I hope it catches up to them and wears them out later in the year.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 3, 2018 16:56:26 GMT -5
Huh. So what happened to Charlie Morton that he suddenly became a 10 K/9 pitcher when he came to the Astros at age 33? He averaged under 7 in his career before that.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 3, 2018 17:02:35 GMT -5
Huh. So what happened to Charlie Morton that he suddenly became a 10 K/9 pitcher when he came to the Astros at age 33? He averaged under 7 in his career before that. The Astros changed things mechanically with Morton. They also told him to drop the 2 seam fastball completely and throw the 4 seam instead. It's added 3-4 mph on average in his fastball. It's made him dominant.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfromnc on Jun 3, 2018 18:40:32 GMT -5
Lead off double. Gotta love that.
|
|
|