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.
6/17-6/19 Red Sox @ Twins Series Thread
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 19, 2019 23:07:42 GMT -5
Btw, this is a terrific win in so many respects: -Rodriguez not folding, saving the bullpen, and gutting one out in atypical-for-him fashion away against the best offense in baseball so far -Timely hitting, including some nice oppo shots strung together for guys who’ve been struggling -essentially clean ‘pen work with a big lead -an away series win against the team with the best record in baseball, after what could’ve been a crushing defeat last night
This was a good look for the Sox. If they end up going somewhere this year, I think this series represents a major turning point.
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Jun 19, 2019 23:12:56 GMT -5
Our son is way too important to rush this thing and I'm pretty sure AC gonna take care of him. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Jun 19, 2019 23:15:32 GMT -5
Btw, this is a terrific win in so many respects:-Rodriguez not folding, saving the bullpen, and gutting one out in atypical-for-him fashion away against the best offense in baseball so far -Timely hitting, including some nice oppo shots strung together for guys who’ve been struggling -essentially clean ‘pen work with a big lead -an away series win against the team with the best record in baseball, after what could’ve been a crushing defeat last night This was a good look for the Sox. If they end up going somewhere this year, I think this series represents a major turning point. It was, wasnt it. Would I come off sounding entitled if I said I was pissed we didnt sweep?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 19, 2019 23:15:37 GMT -5
Great win. Solid win versus a good Minnesota team on the road and they took the series, too, so that's another positive.
My only concern is Devers. Hopefully the hammy doesn't linger.
It was good to see E-Rod last into the 7th after a rough start to the game. Normally he's cooked after 6. E-Rod showed a little extra tonight and as usual he got some nice run support - if only Sale were as fortunate.
Basically, everything that telson13 just typed. I think they're on their way to 90 something wins in the up direction. Hopefully Eovaldi comes back soon and healthy along with Moreland and Pearce, who I think still has some good offense left in his bat.
|
|
|
Post by marrcus on Jun 19, 2019 23:19:31 GMT -5
Nice to take advantage of some bad pitching by the TWins. They are a good team but I expected a bit better given their record.
Some guys are yet to come out of it but very good play by Devers and Boegarts among others are carrying things. I don't like to credit JBJ too much but the team certainly isn't crippled by the 8/9 black hole when he's going well (Sandy is a continued drag) and it makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Jun 20, 2019 0:23:37 GMT -5
I hear you, and don't disagree entirely. However, this has been "the year he turns the corner" over and over again for more than a couple years. Please don't misunderstand, I want him to be spectacularly awesome. I just think given the track record that thinking he is more than he is is possibly...maybe...irrationally/inaccurately optimistic. I like when I'm wrong when I'm a pessimist. I hope I am. Edit: WAR is a super kablammo flawed stat. The list of outlier data points is too numerous to bother listing. I mean, I get that because I do the same. But the dude **just turned 26**. Very few pitchers do the Clayton Kershaw awesome-in-his-2nd-year-at-21 thing. Scherzer, Halladay, Cliff Lee, Carlos Carrasco, Corey Kluber, Jacob Degrom, Justin Verlander, most recently, Frankie Montas and arguably Jose Berrios...all of those guys had middling to moderate success for several years (some toiling in the minors like DeGrom or Kluber, others getting obliterated and sent down only to emerge like Halladay, Carrasco, and Lee) from 22-25 or even 26 or 27...and then they broke out and found a new level. Absolutely, Eddie has been frustrating. But he’s also had a freak injury that lingered (and was surgically corrected...a surgery that has very high success, btw, with no sequelae), and he’s had some pretty dominant stretches. When he first came up, he pitched like a 2. It’s possible he never figures it out, or he keeps having injury problems. But his K rate has climbed, his walk rate dropped, and he still has a 70-grade CH. Yes, WAR is flawed...but just looking at his ERA, it’s a career 4.20, which is basically league-average. So for a *young* pitcher to pitch to league-average while struggling with injury, improving his whiffs, and lowering his walk rate...those are positive things. Frankly, I think he needs to put the CH in the zone just a touch more, and he needs to master his SL or come up with another third pitch. If he’s still this guy at 29, well then I think it’s a done deal. But he’s just hitting the age where many, many guys make a leap. My counterpoint on offense would be Bogey. I think it’s fair, even smart, to keep hoping on Rodriguez, because there’s a lot of history to say he has another gear. Lefty's have historically matured later than righty's. I think that Eddie has accumulated a bunch of really good experience in the last couple years and could become one of those (guile) crafty lefty's as he ages. He's learning not to nibble which is big for him.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 20, 2019 0:45:32 GMT -5
He’s been worth 2.6 fWAR per 180 innings over his career. That’s a high-end 3, or even 2a. That includes being called up at 22 y 1m old, when most guys are still in AA. And dealing with a patellar dislocation. You’re calling him a finished product at 26, which is when most starting pitchers historically begin peaking. Yes, he hasn’t been durable. But at least it’s not arm/shoulder issues. Doesn’t the rest seem...maybe...irrationally/inaccurately pessimistic to you? I hear you, and don't disagree entirely. However, this has been "the year he turns the corner" over and over again for more than a couple years. Please don't misunderstand, I want him to be spectacularly awesome. I just think given the track record that thinking he is more than he is is possibly...maybe...irrationally/inaccurately optimistic. I like when I'm wrong when I'm a pessimist. I hope I am. Edit: WAR is a super kablammo flawed stat. The list of outlier data points is too numerous to bother listing. Lol, I actually totally get the Eddie frustration. I was looking at some stuff on him and in a lot of ways, he seems the same. I admit I’m optimistic (tho i was a little pessimistic early in the game), but I don’t think it’s irrational or inaccurate. I go back to the fact that he pitched 1.5 years in MLB when most guys are still in the minors, dealt with a major jnjury, and is still just 26y 2m old. What 26 y/o is a finished product? Btw (and umassgrad woukd want me to include this, because there’ve been some heated WAR discussions before), Rodriguez is 8.3 career WAR by both fg method (FIP-based, which looks at K, BB, and HR...fielding-independent), which I quoted, and bbref (which looks at run-scoring, adjusted for park factors; www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rodried05.shtml ). I agree that WAR is flawed...all stats are, because none cover everything. But when two entirely different methods produce the same result (he has a 106 career ERA+, slightly better than average: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjusted_ERA%2B). So he’s been basically a 3 when on the field...I guess you could call him a 4 because of the durability issue, that would be fair, because reliability is very important for a SP. But you can’t call him anything but a string 3 or 2a from a pure performance standpoint. I do think there are a lot of positive signs that he will break out, and become more like a TOR guy. Health is #1, and the major problem has been resolved. It’s possible others crop up, so that one is an incomplete. Second is efficiency. Most of his *inconsistency* has been in-season and largely related to injury. But overall his career is pretty consistent. However, his in-season consistency isn’t great and usually that’s a product of inefficiency, imo. Tonight was a bit of a step, in the sense that he didn’t get rattled and finished like a boss against a real tough team. But aside from being rattled, his inefficiency seems to stem from failing to put guys away. Patience as a hitter causes him problems. That’s always been a concern with him. He’s having some BABIP bad luck this year (.336 vs a career .298, which is totally average), and the HR are a problem. But the walks being down is a good sign, and while he’s inconsistent efficiency-wise, he’s been better than he has in the past. He *needs* a reliable breaker if he’s going to take the big step. I’m not that big a fan of leaning on the CU for him, because he throws it the same speed as the CH, although the movement is different. I’d like to see him up his CH usage, because he locates it very well ( baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/eduardo-rodriguez-593958?stats=statcast-r-pitching-mlb ), and it gets lots of whiffs and grounders. His hard-hit rate is solid this year, and his LA keeps dropping. I’m not sure why he doesn’t use the CB more often; it has nice velo separation (80 mph instead of the cutter at 87-88), but it may be a comfortability issue. The few times he has used it, it’s been a good pitch for him; I’m not sure how the system differentiates CB from SL since they’re very similar velocity. Probably shape, because the CB vertical drop is substantially better than the SL, and it seems to me that the difference may be whether he executes or not (the “SL” has been shelled, the “CB” great...so maybe it’s the same pitch, flashing plus, but flat and crushed when below par; they have nearly identical location distributions, too, which kinda supports the “same pitch different execution” theory). There’s also significant difference in FB results...the 2FB (sinker) being far superior to the 4FB. Not sure what to make of that. Whatever the case, his CH movement, particularly vertical, is superb. And looking at the scatter plots, he has excellent command of it. I think he should be using it more often, like 30% instead of 20%. It’s very clearly his best pitch. But he may need to get it a little more in the zone; batters chase it but he needs to be throwing it for a strike on that corner because a couple of inches probably makes little difference in contact, but buys him a lot more strikes. It also means batters can’t wait for a FB. Coupling the 4FB (thrown maybe 35%?) with the 80 mph CB (ideally, that might be 10% of pitches, SL/CB now is 5% total) up-down should tunnel well, and then CU-SI-CH (10-15-30) L-R with different horizontal break but fairly similar velocity should also work well. His clustering of CH is outstanding; 4FB, 2FB are quite good (oddly, he throws the 2FB up and 4FB down). The CU and SL/CB are generally located well but not as precisely. I really think the key is the breaker. SL, CB, whatever...he needs that “CB” drop (5” vs 2.5 for the SL) and velo change of pace. That will keep hitters honest if he can snap it off and locate it, and that will allow him to use the CH more. Problem is, he’s not going to master it throwing it so rarely. Eddie is close...5 pitches, 3FB variants he can control, and a plus-plus CH. He just needs to get comfortable with that “CB” to where it’s something he can use regularly. At its best, it’s probably a plus pitch. It gives him a wrinkle, both break- and velocity-wise. It will allow him to truly weaponize his CH. It tunnels well with a 4FB, but has opposite movement. It’ll make him an up-down AND in-out pitcher. Idk if he needs to go to Driveline in the offseason or buy his own Rhapsodo, but he needs reps. Lots of them. I think a consistent CB (which is another GB pitch if executed properly...like Barnes and Workman do) is key for him. I also think he’ll figure it out. If not, there’s always the SF. Look what it did for Frankie Montas! 🤣
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 20, 2019 0:48:22 GMT -5
Btw, this is a terrific win in so many respects:-Rodriguez not folding, saving the bullpen, and gutting one out in atypical-for-him fashion away against the best offense in baseball so far -Timely hitting, including some nice oppo shots strung together for guys who’ve been struggling -essentially clean ‘pen work with a big lead -an away series win against the team with the best record in baseball, after what could’ve been a crushing defeat last night This was a good look for the Sox. If they end up going somewhere this year, I think this series represents a major turning point. It was, wasnt it. Would I come off sounding entitled if I said I was pissed we didnt sweep? 🙄😂🤣 No, I am too. They should’ve. But coming back from that cruddy loss with an imperfectly perfect victory might even be better, morale-wise. They’ve gotta get that bounce-back mindset they had last year, and this was s great way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 20, 2019 4:04:12 GMT -5
Yeah, this was a good series. Not great, but that's really good enough on the road.
The problem is the Yankees have been playing on a over 100 win pace all year. They just slumped before the Tampa Bay series for like 2 weeks and that was their only slump of the year. They might just be the better regular season team this year, and that's no fault of the Sox. The Yankees just may be a bit better. You can blame the slow start, at most to this point.
The wild card game seems like a inevitability, which would be great after winning a world series. That's why I have been advocating to adding a major piece (bullpen) to this team. September will be the best month of the year, unlike last year, when it was mostly dead, due to success.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 20, 2019 8:07:42 GMT -5
Yeah, this was a good series. Not great, but that's really good enough on the road. Huh?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 20, 2019 8:55:45 GMT -5
Yeah, this was a good series. Not great, but that's really good enough on the road. Huh? Yeah, have to disagree here as well. Sox could have swept and it showed a lot of poise to come back after losing a 17 inning affair and then come back from behind twice the next day.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 20, 2019 9:13:45 GMT -5
I mean, a number 4 starter isn't garbage? Pretty valuable piece still. The poster never implied he was garbage. That's right. I never implied he was garbage & if someone reads that into it, it's because of their own bias. I simply asked if he would ever become more then what he is, a #4 or #5 starter. He certainly doesn't pass the "eye test" as a borderline #2 or a #3 no matter what stats can be produced. I do think he is a perfect candidate to be traded in some kind of package to upgrade the team in some way to make another run at a title though. Who that would be for and who would have to be included going both ways remains to be seen. That's a ridiculous statement. He's only a #4 on a team that fans demand to have aces, 2's and 3's for the entire rotation. Go look at other pitchers on other teams for once. Runs per game are up a half run in 2019 over 2018 and obviously you didn't notice.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by atzar on Jun 20, 2019 9:31:35 GMT -5
I was encouraged by the fact that ERod appeared to get stronger as the game went on. First time I've seen that from him. Even when the good ERod shows up, he's not a guy who pitches well late in the game. Either he runs his pitch count up so he's out after 5 or 6, or he's nails the first time through the order and then fades - sometimes explosively. 4 ER over 7 IP won't make the ERA look pretty, but given the circumstances, I'm good with it.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 20, 2019 14:27:34 GMT -5
Yeah, this was a good series. Not great, but that's really good enough on the road. Huh? They could have swept. They blew two leads in Game 2.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 20, 2019 14:58:40 GMT -5
They could have swept. They blew two leads in Game 2. They could sweep every series. You're hard to not disappoint.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 20, 2019 15:11:03 GMT -5
They could have swept. They blew two leads in Game 2. They could sweep every series. You're hard to not disappoint. That isn't true. They don't always have a lead twice in one game a lot.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 20, 2019 15:14:40 GMT -5
They could have swept. They blew two leads in Game 2. They could sweep every series. You're hard to not disappoint. His obvious point was that the middle game was very winnable. They blew two late leads and numerous opportunities to score runs. They had a runner on 3rd with no outs in the 17th for example, 2nd and 3rd with 1 out in the 14th as well, and didn't score for example. All losses are counted equal in the standings but not all losses feel the same. Some are losses that should have or very well could have been wins. Other losses are just losses, the kind you tip your cap to the opponents and say they were better that day.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 20, 2019 15:26:51 GMT -5
Btw, this is a terrific win in so many respects: -Rodriguez not folding, saving the bullpen, and gutting one out in atypical-for-him fashion away against the best offense in baseball so far -Timely hitting, including some nice oppo shots strung together for guys who’ve been struggling - essentially clean ‘pen work with a big lead-an away series win against the team with the best record in baseball, after what could’ve been a crushing defeat last night This was a good look for the Sox. If they end up going somewhere this year, I think this series represents a major turning point. Oh, and speaking of which, Feltman has given up 2 ERs since May 8 - 13 appearances, 17 innings of work. 11 BB in that period, though he had 4 in one appearance and that was May 8. Hate wasting bullets if he can contribute.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 20, 2019 15:41:56 GMT -5
They could sweep every series. You're hard to not disappoint. His obvious point was that the middle game was very winnable. They blew two late leads and numerous opportunities to score runs. They had a runner on 3rd with no outs in the 17th for example, 2nd and 3rd with 1 out in the 14th as well, and didn't score for example. All losses are counted equal in the standings but not all losses feel the same. Some are losses that should have or very well could have been wins. Other losses are just losses, the kind you tip your cap to the opponents and say they were better that day. My obvious point was that taking 2 out of 3 from a team with a .667 winning percentage is a great outcome, not not great.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 20, 2019 16:25:27 GMT -5
His obvious point was that the middle game was very winnable. They blew two late leads and numerous opportunities to score runs. They had a runner on 3rd with no outs in the 17th for example, 2nd and 3rd with 1 out in the 14th as well, and didn't score for example. All losses are counted equal in the standings but not all losses feel the same. Some are losses that should have or very well could have been wins. Other losses are just losses, the kind you tip your cap to the opponents and say they were better that day. My obvious point was that taking 2 out of 3 from a team with a .667 winning percentage is a great outcome, not not great. A good outcome, not great. You still lost a game in the standings during this 3 game period, when that didn't need to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Jun 20, 2019 17:30:06 GMT -5
But, they are playing better. That's all you can ask. Pitching getting better. Hitting, too. If we can't win the division, which is probable, there are 2 wild card spots and, if we really get hot, good things could happen. A 7 game series with the MFY's could get interesting. Player for player we can stand up to anybody.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 20, 2019 17:32:12 GMT -5
I gotta go with jimed here. It was a great series win and you can't control other teams play, so there really isn't much you can say about that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 20, 2019 22:11:38 GMT -5
Except your premise is wholly unsupported by data. Why feel the need to knock a guy down one or two pegs in performance just for the sake of complaining? I think some people here have a fairly erroneous idea of what a “4/5” starter is. I know everyone here wants the Sox’s 5th guy to be a 2.5-win pitcher...but that’s not a “#5 starter.” It’s a solid 3. I'd be fascinated to know what the boards collective definition of #5 starter (in a decent to solid rotation) is. Here is my two cents: 170 innings of 4.80 ish ERA ball. A guy that normally gives you 5 or 6 innings of 3 run ball without being constantly on the DL. Not going to consistently win, but you should be in it if the bats are on. Yeah, roughly a 0.5-1 WAR pitcher, probably more like 130-150 IP, ERA/FIP in the 4.8-5.2 range. I think the guy you’re describing is more of what a 4 is, though as you say, the 4.8ish ERA is more “5” territory. And to be clear, I’m saying there’s roughly only 15 true #1s at any time, about 20 #2s, maybe 30-40 3s, and a whole bunch of 4/5s. By WAR, it’s roughly 4.5 or more (1), 3-4.5 (2), 2-3 (3), 1-2 (4), <1 (5). Under 0.5 WAR might be closer to a 6, ie replacement level. I like to think of it as a probability distribution...true 1/2 guys are fairly rare, and even 3s are relatively uncommon. Most guys fall into 4/5/6 territory. And that’s because the traits for a successful starter are rare (usually three average or better pitches with at least one plus is needed to be a 3, along with average or better command, and the ability to maintain stuff through 100 or more pitches). Miss any of those, and you’re stuck in back-end territory or swingman (Beeks, for example: three average pitches and average command, kind of a 4/5, tho used in a funky way cuz, TB). Not every team has a true-quality #1 starter; some rarely have 2 (Randy Johnson and Schiling on the Dbacks or Kershaw/Grienke teamed in LA), most teams have a 2-quality guy, but not all; basically every team has a 3, unless they’re truly awful; the worst teams will have 4/5-quality guys pitching more innings (they might get that 170-180, because there’s nobody else to take this innings). On a contending team, the hope is your worst starter gets limited innings because you can skip him. And, ideally your starters are a bit better than their spot in the rotation. For example, Sale is a true 1. Price has pitched like a 2, but you’d ideally have a 1a there (Jon Lester on the Sox would be my ideal 1a example. Not quite an ace, but near-#1 most years). Porcello is a 3, and has historically been 3-level but has pitched like a 1 or a 5, depending. Ideally, Price would be your 3. Rodriguez for his career has been a 3, occasionally 2a (2 results without the reliability), so he’s an ideal 4 for a playoff contender. And Eovaldi, when healthy has largely been a 4, so he makes a good 5. FWIW, not all 1s are “aces,” imo, though people use them interchangeably. You could argue that with the Sox, Lester was a 1, but I’d never call him an “ace.” To me, an “ace” is a HOF-caliber guy or a guy who looks HOF-caliber but might have his career cut short, who routinely finishes top-5 in CY voting most years, for an extended (7 yr give or take stretch). Pedro, Sale, Kershaw, Scherzer, Verlander, Kluber probably qualifies tho he won’t make the Hall, Roy Oswalt or Adam Wainright are good examples of cut-short “aces”; Halladay, Cliff Lee was for a while, etc. I’d call DeGrom a 1 but not an ace (yet), I’d call Grienke for much of his career a 1 but not an ace, CC Sabathia I’d call a 1 but not an ace even tho he probably WILL make the Hall, Mussina too, and so on. I think “ace” should be reserved for only the most consistent (and consistently *impressive* #1s).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 20, 2019 22:24:25 GMT -5
Yeah, this was a good series. Not great, but that's really good enough on the road. Huh? Lol, I had the same reaction, but I get what he’s saying. “Great” being the sweep. But I’m willing to give them “great” for coming back after a real, real tough loss and sticking it to a really good team playing in one of the toughest home environments around. The way that ended with Rodriguez really stepping up to go 7, and the bats coming alive to completely put it away...it felt like 2018 again.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 20, 2019 22:38:05 GMT -5
I mean, I get that because I do the same. But the dude **just turned 26**. Very few pitchers do the Clayton Kershaw awesome-in-his-2nd-year-at-21 thing. Scherzer, Halladay, Cliff Lee, Carlos Carrasco, Corey Kluber, Jacob Degrom, Justin Verlander, most recently, Frankie Montas and arguably Jose Berrios...all of those guys had middling to moderate success for several years (some toiling in the minors like DeGrom or Kluber, others getting obliterated and sent down only to emerge like Halladay, Carrasco, and Lee) from 22-25 or even 26 or 27...and then they broke out and found a new level. Absolutely, Eddie has been frustrating. But he’s also had a freak injury that lingered (and was surgically corrected...a surgery that has very high success, btw, with no sequelae), and he’s had some pretty dominant stretches. When he first came up, he pitched like a 2. It’s possible he never figures it out, or he keeps having injury problems. But his K rate has climbed, his walk rate dropped, and he still has a 70-grade CH. Yes, WAR is flawed...but just looking at his ERA, it’s a career 4.20, which is basically league-average. So for a *young* pitcher to pitch to league-average while struggling with injury, improving his whiffs, and lowering his walk rate...those are positive things. Frankly, I think he needs to put the CH in the zone just a touch more, and he needs to master his SL or come up with another third pitch. If he’s still this guy at 29, well then I think it’s a done deal. But he’s just hitting the age where many, many guys make a leap. My counterpoint on offense would be Bogey. I think it’s fair, even smart, to keep hoping on Rodriguez, because there’s a lot of history to say he has another gear. Lefty's have historically matured later than righty's. I think that Eddie has accumulated a bunch of really good experience in the last couple years and could become one of those (guile) crafty lefty's as he ages. He's learning not to nibble which is big for him. Yeah, I’m really curious to see where he goes. I really do wish he’d go to Driveline or a similar place, or do an Ottavino and set up his own rhapsodo. I like him sitting 93-94 more than 92-93, obviously, but with the drop in walks, maybe he’s sacrificing a little for command. Whether it’s the CB or a SF, he needs something else to induce GB like the CH, and get whiffs. His scatter plots on savant are actually pretty well-clustered, so I think the command is coming. His real “problem” is having another put-away pitch. His CH is SO good, even a solid-average CB or SF would make both his FBs and CH better. I really hope he strengthens his arm up a bit, or maybe better gets a little more drive/extension (to make it play up), so he can pitch in the 92-94 range for a while. But Patrick Corbin’s shown 90 is plenty if you have a wipeout secondary. I think Eddie will master another pitch and, as you say, age well through guile. I’m not ready yet to give up on him contending for CY votes for several years, regardless of how he does it. Hell, Jaime Moyer had a much-worse FB but a great CH, too, and he didn’t blossom until 33-34, coinciding with improved command. Lots of time for Eddie. I keep saying it: he *just* turned 26, with 4 seasons under his belt. He is FAR from a finished product.
|
|
|