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.
Trade deadline (2021): thoughts/strategy/predictions
|
Post by trajanacc on Aug 13, 2021 11:45:01 GMT -5
I think there are plenty of people on this board (not claiming I am one of them) who can analyze baseball better than an average player.
There’s a difference between being a bird and being an ornithologist.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 13, 2021 12:03:52 GMT -5
Teams with >25% playoff odds that objectively added less talent at the trade deadline than the Red Sox, and their records since then:
Milwaukee: 9-4
Atlanta: 8-4
San Diego: 6-6
Cincinnati: 8-5
Houston: 5-6
I think Tampa Bay (9-3), San Francisco (10-3), and the White Sox (8-5) made comparable additions. (Note that this is a majority of teams with >25% playoff odds.)
Still waiting for the explanation of why the Red Sox are uniquely emotionally fragile among all these teams. Or are the players on these teams also depressed but finding a way to win anyway? (Maybe just the Astros are sad, which is because...?)
As for the strawman "players are actually human" argument... Of course they are. No one denies they have feelings. It's the implausible speculation about those feelings (why would they feel so sad after the team added Schwarber, one of the biggest gets of the trade deadline?) and the ascription of causal significance to those feelings (why would feeling sad make them so much worse at baseball?) that is being denied.
And the fact that this theory has no explanatory power whatsoever - see the records of the other teams I listed above - might be reason to question it, no?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 13, 2021 12:11:25 GMT -5
Yes but does this WAR you speak of take into account the magical feeling of confidence imbued by the front office to those teams by showing that they are "going for it?" /s
Yeah know when the moderators asked us to stop with the back and forth about players being human and having normal emotions about things I did as asked and stopped. But I see now that some of you want to continue that banter as you still feel the need to bring it up. This will be my last comment, sorry I lied before but I can't help myself, I'm human. I think it is funny if not annoying that you all think you know better than the players and coaches that actually play the games. Have any of you actually ever played or were you the waterboys? Countless players and coaches thru the years have spoken about this in all team sports but you guys know better I get it. I think I will just laugh at you rather than get annoyed. I partially agree with the sentiment. You could see how defeated Xander looked during that 1st TB series. I don't think it's a coincidence that the team just fell apart completely after the deadline. They haven't won a single series. They hadn't lost 4 games in a row all year up until that point. You also see guys like Rizzo and Scherzer performing out of their minds. Could the fact that they knew they were on losers have impacted their performance? I get it, super small sample sizes, but the before and after is staggering. You could argue that someone like Rizzo was starting to perform better before the deadline, which I think actually furthers the point because they wanted to get traded to a winner. Yes, they're all professionals and need to act as such. I just know my job is easier when I'm enjoying my work. It doesn't mean I'm bad at my job when I'm having a bad day, but my job is easier when I'm in my element. This team was left in the dust by ownership. They felt they were a winner and the organization said no. They aren't exactly hitting back and proving them wrong. There seems to be a lot of whining in the clubhouse. Fans whine. I whine. I really don't want the team to whine and make excuses. Was the team over achieving and preforming better than numbers would suggest? Yes. Is their talent level the worst team in baseball? Because that's what they've been.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 13, 2021 12:26:35 GMT -5
Teams with >25% playoff odds that objectively added less talent at the trade deadline than the Red Sox, and their records since then: Milwaukee: 9-4
Atlanta: 8-4
San Diego: 6-6
Cincinnati: 8-5
Houston: 5-6
I think Tampa Bay (9-3), San Francisco (10-3), and the White Sox (8-5) made comparable additions. (Note that this is a majority of teams with >25% playoff odds.)
Still waiting for the explanation of why the Red Sox are uniquely emotionally fragile among all these teams. Or are the players on these teams also depressed but finding a way to win anyway? (Maybe just the Astros are sad, which is because...?) As for the strawman "players are actually human" argument... Of course they are. No one denies they have feelings. It's the implausible speculation about those feelings (why would they feel so sad after the team added Schwarber, one of the biggest gets of the trade deadline?) and the ascription of causal significance to those feelings (why would feeling sad make them so much worse at baseball?) that is being denied.
And the fact that this theory has no explanatory power whatsoever - see the records of the other teams I listed above - might be reason to question it, no?
Conversely, Phillies 8-2 Giants 8-2 Dodgers 7-3 Rays 7-3 Jay's 7-3 Yankees 7-3 White Sox 6-4 Athletics 8-2 (not sure where they fit here) The Mets added Rich Hill, Javier Baez, and Trevor William so, you could add them in the interest of being fair, but the acquisitions aren't that great and they weren't that good of a team to begin with. Still, they're 4-6 and are now 0.5 games out of 1st. Schwarber has yet to play 1 inning for this team. He's great, in theory. Maybe a bad comparison, but when the market goes up and I check my 401k, it's great to see, but it doesn't feel like a real thing when you're 33. The point is, they got a nice piece that will help them, later, at some point. They were probably hoping for a piece that could help them right now. They basically lost the division and are clinging to dear life for the SECOND Wild Card spot by two games, after being up by 9+ games before Schwarber or Sale even had a chance to step onto the field. It's also hard to compare clubhouses. Different people with different expectations. Plus, the games actually do matter. You can be good and happy and lose and be bad and angry and win.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 13, 2021 12:39:35 GMT -5
Yeah know when the moderators asked us to stop with the back and forth about players being human and having normal emotions about things I did as asked and stopped. But I see now that some of you want to continue that banter as you still feel the need to bring it up. This will be my last comment, sorry I lied before but I can't help myself, I'm human. I think it is funny if not annoying that you all think you know better than the players and coaches that actually play the games. Have any of you actually ever played or were you the waterboys? Countless players and coaches thru the years have spoken about this in all team sports but you guys know better I get it. I think I will just laugh at you rather than get annoyed. I partially agree with the sentiment. You could see how defeated Xander looked during that 1st TB series. I don't think it's a coincidence that the team just fell apart completely after the deadline. They haven't won a single series. They hadn't lost 4 games in a row all year up until that point. You also see guys like Rizzo and Scherzer performing out of their minds. Could the fact that they knew they were on losers have impacted their performance? I get it, super small sample sizes, but the before and after is staggering. You could argue that someone like Rizzo was starting to perform better before the deadline, which I think actually furthers the point because they wanted to get traded to a winner. Ugh, I should really resist engaging here, but these arguments are just driving me completely nuts...
-Do you really need a psychological explanation for Max Scherzer having two good starts? -Rizzo had two good games when he first got to New York and has sucked since then. Where did the magic go?
-Gallo has sucked ever since he got to New York. -Heaney has sucked in New York.
-Cruz has sucked in TB. -Bryant has been worse in San Francisco than he was in Chicago. -Javier Baez has been terrible in New York. -Kimbrel has given up more runs for the White Sox than he had all season for the Cubs. -Trea Turner has been lousy for the Dodgers.
In fact - and I didn't expect this when I started looking up the stats - the all-star types that got traded have largely done worse with their new teams. (The main exceptions are Scherzer, Berrios, Gibson... is it a pitcher thing? Probably just noise. [ADD: Ha, I just realized Berrios' latest start was a stinker and he's now been worse with Toronto than he was with Minnesota, so take him ff the list.])
What does this tell us about plausible-sounding pop psychological explanations of player performance?
ADD: And one more thing, just to clarify: I don't dismiss the relevance of player psychology out of hand. But such theories are so speculative, and it's so easy to construct a just-so story around them, that we should only turn to them when we have really good reason to. At the very least the theory should 1) make sense on its own terms, and 2) fit the empirical evidence. This theory about the Red Sox does neither.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 13, 2021 12:48:05 GMT -5
Yeah know when the moderators asked us to stop with the back and forth about players being human and having normal emotions about things I did as asked and stopped. But I see now that some of you want to continue that banter as you still feel the need to bring it up. This will be my last comment, sorry I lied before but I can't help myself, I'm human. I think it is funny if not annoying that you all think you know better than the players and coaches that actually play the games. Have any of you actually ever played or were you the waterboys? Countless players and coaches thru the years have spoken about this in all team sports but you guys know better I get it. I think I will just laugh at you rather than get annoyed. I partially agree with the sentiment. You could see how defeated Xander looked during that 1st TB series. I don't think it's a coincidence that the team just fell apart completely after the deadline. They haven't won a single series. They hadn't lost 4 games in a row all year up until that point. You also see guys like Rizzo and Scherzer performing out of their minds. Could the fact that they knew they were on losers have impacted their performance? I get it, super small sample sizes, but the before and after is staggering. You could argue that someone like Rizzo was starting to perform better before the deadline, which I think actually furthers the point because they wanted to get traded to a winner. Yes, they're all professionals and need to act as such. I just know my job is easier when I'm enjoying my work. It doesn't mean I'm bad at my job when I'm having a bad day, but my job is easier when I'm in my element. This team was left in the dust by ownership. They felt they were a winner and the organization said no. They aren't exactly hitting back and proving them wrong. There seems to be a lot of whining in the clubhouse. Fans whine. I whine. I really don't want the team to whine and make excuses. Was the team over achieving and preforming better than numbers would suggest? Yes. Is their talent level the worst team in baseball? Because that's what they've been. Perhaps the human element that keeps being mentioned is actually the fans being emotional about their team losing and searching for a scapegoat on which to apply the recent run of losses. As exhibit A, I'll point out your 'feeling' that the Red Sox have been 'the worst in baseball' while there have actually been 3 teams that have been worse and 2 teams that have been equally as bad. I would argue that a couple of poor managerial decisions (let's see if Houck can go 6 innings...) and a rookie callup who has been pretty awful so far (-3 DRS/-1.5 UZR to go with 41wRC) are primary culprits along with some bad luck and an above-average difficult schedule.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 13, 2021 12:54:20 GMT -5
In fact - and I didn't expect this when I started looking up the stats - the all-star types that got traded have largely done worse with their new teams. (The main exceptions are Scherzer, Berrios, Gibson... is it a pitcher thing? Probably just noise.) Without looking to far into it, you could point out that two of those pitchers changed divisions while the other changed leagues, as a possible reason for added success (fewer opportunities for the hitters to have seen them over the past year). But I have a hunch the most correct answer is 'they're really good' (at least with Scherzer and Berrios).
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 13, 2021 12:59:23 GMT -5
In fact - and I didn't expect this when I started looking up the stats - the all-star types that got traded have largely done worse with their new teams. (The main exceptions are Scherzer, Berrios, Gibson... is it a pitcher thing? Probably just noise.) Without looking to far into it, you could point out that two of those pitchers changed divisions while the other changed leagues, as a possible reason for added success (fewer opportunities for the hitters to have seen them over the past year). But I have a hunch the most correct answer is 'they're really good' (at least with Scherzer and Berrios). I did have that thought about pitchers who change leagues (and note the Berrios exception above)... That would be an interesting to thing to look into: do league-switching pitchers traded mid-season systematically overperform?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 13, 2021 13:01:04 GMT -5
I partially agree with the sentiment. You could see how defeated Xander looked during that 1st TB series. I don't think it's a coincidence that the team just fell apart completely after the deadline. They haven't won a single series. They hadn't lost 4 games in a row all year up until that point. You also see guys like Rizzo and Scherzer performing out of their minds. Could the fact that they knew they were on losers have impacted their performance? I get it, super small sample sizes, but the before and after is staggering. You could argue that someone like Rizzo was starting to perform better before the deadline, which I think actually furthers the point because they wanted to get traded to a winner. Ugh, I should really resist engaging here, but these arguments are just driving me completely nuts... -Do you really need a psychological explanation for Max Scherzer having two good starts? -Rizzo had two good games when he first got to New York and has sucked since then. Where did the magic go?
-Gallo has sucked ever since he got to New York. -Heaney has sucked in New York.
-Cruz has sucked in TB. -Bryant has been worse in San Francisco than he was in Chicago. -Javier Baez has been terrible in New York. -Kimbrel has given up more runs for the White Sox than he had all season for the Cubs. -Trea Turner has been lousy for the Dodgers. In fact - and I didn't expect this when I started looking up the stats - the all-star types that got traded have almost universally done worse with their new teams. (The main exceptions are Scherzer, Berrios, Gibson... is it a pitcher thing? Probably just noise.)
What does this tell us about plausible-sounding pop psychological explanations of player performance?
Gallo was performing very well all year and is coming down. Rizzo and Gallo came into NY with opposite expectations. Rizzo has contributed in more than 2 games. In one of the games he was 1 for 4, but the 1 hit tied a game they won in extras. Rizzo is still hitting .281/.400/.563/.963 for the Yankees despite cooling off a bit in his last 7 days and getting placed into Covid protocol, which funny enough was a legit concern with him since supposedly he refused the vaccination. Rizzo for the Cubs hit .248/.346/.446/.792. Rizzo has been a +0.2 WAR player for the Yankees. He's also hitting this line with an .222 BABIP whereas his BABIP in Chicago was .261. His IsoP is .281 vs .198, but again 9 games. Scherzer, yes, 2 game sample. In this 2 games he absolutely dominated. This is the same guy who with the Nationals had a 2.76 ERA and a 3.61 FIP. As of right now, he's 1.74 ERA and 1.63 FIP. His k/9 went from 11.9 to 13.9 and his bb/9 went from 2.3 to 0.9. But we are talking 2 games vs 19, but he seems happy in his new home. Andrew Heaney just sucks in general. Not really fair to use, but I'll be fair and say I probably would have if I thought of it and it fit my narrative. Maybe I am cheating this a bit because my point was more on players who were under performing and now out performing post-trade. Cruz was awesome before the trade, but I didn't want the Sox to get the 40 year old even if a roster spot was open. I'd have feared him breaking/wearing down. I will give you Turner. He is not performing for the Dodgers to date and was having a very awesome season.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 13, 2021 13:02:59 GMT -5
Without looking to far into it, you could point out that two of those pitchers changed divisions while the other changed leagues, as a possible reason for added success (fewer opportunities for the hitters to have seen them over the past year). But I have a hunch the most correct answer is 'they're really good' (at least with Scherzer and Berrios). I did have that thought about pitchers who change leagues (and note the Berrios exception above)... That would be an interesting to thing to look into: do league-switching pitchers traded mid-season systematically overperform? Without too much research, I would say yes because I always give an edge to pitchers the 1st time hitters see them so that might be a factor.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 13, 2021 15:40:54 GMT -5
Real simple question.
Does a clubhouse have a personality, in that I mean are they having fun, do they enjoy the atmosphere. Yeah know like the Cowboy up group led by Millar. Or just the opposite like the beer and chicken group or to go back further to the 25 players 25 cabs group of the 80's.
Can a team be better with a good clubhouse vs a bad one?
And if you say yes then how can you object to the idea that a team can feel a boost when adding talent to their team and hence their chances of winning more games because they have filled a hole or improved the rotation. Again players talk about it all the time.
And I NEVER truly blamed this concept for the Sox losing skid. Go back and read and point out where I actually made that direct comment. Yes I did allude to it in comparing what teams did in the AL East directly after the deadline but as an example of the affect. All I ever said was it is a factor, no it doesn't cause implosions but it can either help or hurt. I think people have dug in and made more of this than what is meant by a boost vs a feeling of disappointment. If you were on the Sox and they traded for Max you would feel the boost from the excitement and that matters. If the Yankees get the guy, Rizzo, that you thought could really help your team is there not a feeling of "dam I wish we got that guy", hence disappointment. What is better in a clubhouse, a boost or disappointment? Does it cause some huge winning or losing streak NO but is it a factor.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaymabe on Aug 13, 2021 16:07:28 GMT -5
In regards to Turner, we must remember that not only was he traded, but he was moved off the ss position with the Dodgers, so that little wrinkle can't be brushed under the rug. I think the Dodgers made that move with 2022 in mind as much as they did for this season with Seager probably leaving via free agency.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by shagworthy on Aug 13, 2021 16:47:41 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be a Bloom apologist, I do feel like an average 1b was an attainable goal, but the vitriol towards him I find mystifying.
People keep pointing out that it wasn't a hard mandate based on previous comments Chaim and the Front Office made not to go beyond the tax, but what do people expect Sam Kennedy or Chaim Bloom to say? "oh, hey my employers are fucking misers, so don't expect any big moves because they've pinched the purse shut."
If you want to keep your job, you're going to foster the ideal of hope while knowing the reality. My guess is the ownership and baseball ops looked at the team as currently constructed, the options in the market and their acquisition cost, and the likelihood of an extended playoff run against their competition and realized rather quickly this was not the year, so while not completely punting, they made moves that either would provide neutral to minimal gains.
This losing streak isn't because of the deadline moves/non-moves. It's because the talent hasn't been performing relative to their earlier performances. Some regression is always an expectation, but the level of regression especially with RISP is out of the ordinary. Whether it be psychological or physical is really moot, and if Cora is worthy of all the praise heaped on him in the first half, right now in this moment is his opportunity to prove his mastery.
I mean, think about it, for 80 or so games, this team overcame Richards, Perez, Dalbec, Santana, Franchy, Chavis, Gonzales, and to a smaller extent Vasquez's non-contributions. Not many teams could overcome those holes while remaining in first place late in the season. Even if they end up losing this season it's still a win because no one, (and if you say otherwise you're full of shit) anticipated the Sox even being a leader/contender this late in the season.
I get the emotional response and frustration. It sucks watching them execute so poorly and loose games they have more than a 50% chance of winning. Believe me, I'm yelling obscenities at my TV at a rate that my family has probably considered involuntary commitment for me. We just have to figure out how to channel this frustration constructively versus lashing out at low hanging fruit. I mean, no one is calling for Tim Hyers head on a pike yet, even though his progeny lead the league is chase rate and various other non-desirable metrics.
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Aug 14, 2021 7:56:47 GMT -5
Real simple question. Does a clubhouse have a personality, in that I mean are they having fun, do they enjoy the atmosphere. Yeah know like the Cowboy up group led by Millar. Or just the opposite like the beer and chicken group or to go back further to the 25 players 25 cabs group of the 80's. Can a team be better with a good clubhouse vs a bad one? And if you say yes then how can you object to the idea that a team can feel a boost when adding talent to their team and hence their chances of winning more games because they have filled a hole or improved the rotation. Again players talk about it all the time. And I NEVER truly blamed this concept for the Sox losing skid. Go back and read and point out where I actually made that direct comment. Yes I did allude to it in comparing what teams did in the AL East directly after the deadline but as an example of the affect. All I ever said was it is a factor, no it doesn't cause implosions but it can either help or hurt. I think people have dug in and made more of this than what is meant by a boost vs a feeling of disappointment. If you were on the Sox and they traded for Max you would feel the boost from the excitement and that matters. If the Yankees get the guy, Rizzo, that you thought could really help your team is there not a feeling of "dam I wish we got that guy", hence disappointment. What is better in a clubhouse, a boost or disappointment? Does it cause some huge winning or losing streak NO but is it a factor. I agree you can have a good clubhouse or a bad clubhouse, and that is something that players feel. I’m not sure that having a good clubhouse is actually predictive of winning more baseball games than if you have a bad clubhouse. It’s one of those things that sounds logical, but how would you prove it? It’s an easy, comfortable narrative for players to point to clubhouse culture as the reason they won or lost, but does that mean it was the reason? I suspect that teams who win a lot have good clubhouses because they are winning, and teams who lose a lot have bad clubhouses because they are losing. The cause and effect is reversed.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 14, 2021 8:01:13 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be a Bloom apologist, I do feel like an average 1b was an attainable goal, but the vitriol towards him I find mystifying. People keep pointing out that it wasn't a hard mandate based on previous comments Chaim and the Front Office made not to go beyond the tax, but what do people expect Sam Kennedy or Chaim Bloom to say? "oh, hey my employers are fucking misers, so don't expect any big moves because they've pinched the purse shut." If you want to keep your job, you're going to foster the ideal of hope while knowing the reality. My guess is the ownership and baseball ops looked at the team as currently constructed, the options in the market and their acquisition cost, and the likelihood of an extended playoff run against their competition and realized rather quickly this was not the year, so while not completely punting, they made moves that either would provide neutral to minimal gains. This losing streak isn't because of the deadline moves/non-moves. It's because the talent hasn't been performing relative to their earlier performances. Some regression is always an expectation, but the level of regression especially with RISP is out of the ordinary. Whether it be psychological or physical is really moot, and if Cora is worthy of all the praise heaped on him in the first half, right now in this moment is his opportunity to prove his mastery. I mean, think about it, for 80 or so games, this team overcame Richards, Perez, Dalbec, Santana, Franchy, Chavis, Gonzales, and to a smaller extent Vasquez's non-contributions. Not many teams could overcome those holes while remaining in first place late in the season. Even if they end up losing this season it's still a win because no one, (and if you say otherwise you're full of shit) anticipated the Sox even being a leader/contender this late in the season. I get the emotional response and frustration. It sucks watching them execute so poorly and loose games they have more than a 50% chance of winning. Believe me, I'm yelling obscenities at my TV at a rate that my family has probably considered involuntary commitment for me. We just have to figure out how to channel this frustration constructively versus lashing out at low hanging fruit. I mean, no one is calling for Tim Hyers head on a pike yet, even though his progeny lead the league is chase rate and various other non-desirable metrics. Exactly!!!
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 14, 2021 8:17:31 GMT -5
Real simple question. Does a clubhouse have a personality, in that I mean are they having fun, do they enjoy the atmosphere. Yeah know like the Cowboy up group led by Millar. Or just the opposite like the beer and chicken group or to go back further to the 25 players 25 cabs group of the 80's. Can a team be better with a good clubhouse vs a bad one? And if you say yes then how can you object to the idea that a team can feel a boost when adding talent to their team and hence their chances of winning more games because they have filled a hole or improved the rotation. Again players talk about it all the time. And I NEVER truly blamed this concept for the Sox losing skid. Go back and read and point out where I actually made that direct comment. Yes I did allude to it in comparing what teams did in the AL East directly after the deadline but as an example of the affect. All I ever said was it is a factor, no it doesn't cause implosions but it can either help or hurt. I think people have dug in and made more of this than what is meant by a boost vs a feeling of disappointment. If you were on the Sox and they traded for Max you would feel the boost from the excitement and that matters. If the Yankees get the guy, Rizzo, that you thought could really help your team is there not a feeling of "dam I wish we got that guy", hence disappointment. What is better in a clubhouse, a boost or disappointment? Does it cause some huge winning or losing streak NO but is it a factor. I agree you can have a good clubhouse or a bad clubhouse, and that is something that players feel. Iâm not sure that having a good clubhouse is actually predictive of winning more baseball games than if you have a bad clubhouse. Itâs one of those things that sounds logical, but how would you prove it? Itâs an easy, comfortable narrative for players to point to clubhouse culture as the reason they won or lost, but does that mean it was the reason? I suspect that teams who win a lot have good clubhouses because they are winning, and teams who lose a lot have bad clubhouses because they are losing. The cause and effect is reversed. As I have said, it can't really be measured but it is a factor. Maybe the best word for it is morale. A sport like baseball is such a mind game between being at your very best vs just average, the ups and downs of a players performance based on what is going thru their minds is much more than other sports. Hitting a baseball that is going anywhere from 80 to 100 mph and moving in different directions is the hardest thing in sports. Just like throwing it so guys can't hit it is also a fine line between great and average that we see pitchers performance vary greatly from day to day to wk to months. As for reason, I don't think players in the moment would recognize it but they would in retrospect right. What was going on with the chicken and beer crowd? Did they understand the consequences of their actions in the moment, probably not but I am sure they did after the fact. Stuff matters. Did Coras blind faith in Kiké help him shutout the naysayers and help him and his confidence to become a very good leadoff hitter? Maybe is all anyone other than Kiké could say. I think Cora is one of the best and I think the Sox are going to turn this around and finish really strongly, ending up in first and giving us hope for the post season. Without Cora and his deft handling of the clubhouse I don't think that happens. We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 14, 2021 10:23:23 GMT -5
I agree you can have a good clubhouse or a bad clubhouse, and that is something that players feel. IâÂÂm not sure that having a good clubhouse is actually predictive of winning more baseball games than if you have a bad clubhouse. ItâÂÂs one of those things that sounds logical, but how would you prove it? ItâÂÂs an easy, comfortable narrative for players to point to clubhouse culture as the reason they won or lost, but does that mean it was the reason? I suspect that teams who win a lot have good clubhouses because they are winning, and teams who lose a lot have bad clubhouses because they are losing. The cause and effect is reversed. As I have said, it can't really be measured but it is a factor. Maybe the best word for it is morale. A sport like baseball is such a mind game between being at your very best vs just average, the ups and downs of a players performance based on what is going thru their minds is much more than other sports. Hitting a baseball that is going anywhere from 80 to 100 mph and moving in different directions is the hardest thing in sports. Just like throwing it so guys can't hit it is also a fine line between great and average that we see pitchers performance vary greatly from day to day to wk to months. As for reason, I don't think players in the moment would recognize it but they would in retrospect right. What was going on with the chicken and beer crowd? Did they understand the consequences of their actions in the moment, probably not but I am sure they did after the fact. Stuff matters. Did Coras blind faith in Kiké help him shutout the naysayers and help him and his confidence to become a very good leadoff hitter? Maybe is all anyone other than Kiké could say. I think Cora is one of the best and I think the Sox are going to turn this around and finish really strongly, ending up in first and giving us hope for the post season. Without Cora and his deft handling of the clubhouse I don't think that happens. We shall see. The Kiké Hernandez/Alex Cora dynamic is interesting. Cora believed that Hernandez could be an impactful leadoff man and the numbers said otherwise for such a long time. Hernandez was swinging at a lot of bad pitches and getting himself out. At first Cora resorted to blind faith, trying to build his confidence up. Then what Cora saw that the .290 OBP wasn't working he yanked him out of the leadoff spot and dropped him down. Even gave him a few days to clear his head. Funny, coincidentally or not, how a new leadoff hitter emerged. I don't have the numbers to back me up but by my eye test, Hernandez became a good deal more patient, started taking an occasional walk if it was there and started zoning in on good pitches as was preached by Cora, and now Hernandez has given me nothing to complain about because he is getting on base at a decent rate and is combining doubles/HR power with it. I think there is a connect the dots with Kiké Hernandez's upturn and Cora's managing and that's one of the understated things that I really admire about Cora. I didn't like the Hernandez signing much (Bloom nailed it) and I certainly didn't like him in the leadoff spot and while he's probably a bit miscast there still, he is the best leadoff option the Sox have on this team if Verdugo does indeed have something about leading off against righties that he doesn't feel comfortable with. So I do think there is some sort of understated clubhouse dynamic at work here (and sometimes it gets overstated, too).
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Aug 14, 2021 13:09:08 GMT -5
Teams with >25% playoff odds that objectively added less talent at the trade deadline than the Red Sox, and their records since then:
Milwaukee: 9-4
Atlanta: 8-4
San Diego: 6-6
Cincinnati: 8-5
Houston: 5-6
I think Tampa Bay (9-3), San Francisco (10-3), and the White Sox (8-5) made comparable additions. (Note that this is a majority of teams with >25% playoff odds.)
Still waiting for the explanation of why the Red Sox are uniquely emotionally fragile among all these teams. Or are the players on these teams also depressed but finding a way to win anyway? (Maybe just the Astros are sad, which is because...?)
As for the strawman "players are actually human" argument... Of course they are. No one denies they have feelings. It's the implausible speculation about those feelings (why would they feel so sad after the team added Schwarber, one of the biggest gets of the trade deadline?) and the ascription of causal significance to those feelings (why would feeling sad make them so much worse at baseball?) that is being denied.
And the fact that this theory has no explanatory power whatsoever - see the records of the other teams I listed above - might be reason to question it, no?
This is an interesting point. What if instead of thinking about the talent added, we think about the prospect packages given up. I imagine that the Red Sox deadline (no disrespect to Aldo Ramirez, I hope that he succeeds) might look more favorable there. How many contending teams gave up a lower total package than Chavis, Ramirez, and Scherff?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Aug 16, 2021 15:23:17 GMT -5
What I don't understand is that the Sox got a thumper in Schwarber, the GM said he's better than Rizzo and Bryant, and yet we continue to bat him 6th?
Why???
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 16, 2021 18:07:19 GMT -5
What I don't understand is that the Sox got a thumper in Schwarber, the GM said he's better than Rizzo and Bryant, and yet we continue to bat him 6th? Why??? What is wrong with 6th? The problem much of the year has been the length of the lineup. This helps — bigtime.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 16, 2021 18:19:39 GMT -5
Especially when 3/4/5 is Bogaerts, Devers, JDM.
There doesn't seem to be many times they've put lefties back-to-back in the order, so with Devers hitting 4th it's either 2nd or 6th for Schwarber.
|
|
|
Post by soxinsf on Aug 16, 2021 18:26:56 GMT -5
Especially when 3/4/5 is Bogaerts, Devers, JDM. There doesn't seem to be many times they've put lefties back-to-back in the order, so with Devers hitting 4th it's either 2nd or 6th for Schwarber. The other consideration is that hitting Schwarber near the top of the order means more sprinting on the base paths. His collision at second with Mateo was either a miscalculation by Schwarber or a decision not to slide. This is a guy who is meant to hit, not to run.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,987
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 16, 2021 18:39:31 GMT -5
Especially when 3/4/5 is Bogaerts, Devers, JDM. There doesn't seem to be many times they've put lefties back-to-back in the order, so with Devers hitting 4th it's either 2nd or 6th for Schwarber. The other consideration is that hitting Schwarber near the top of the order means more sprinting on the base paths. His collision at second with Mateo was either a miscalculation by Schwarber or a decision not to slide. This is a guy who is meant to hit, not to run. This is exactly right. It’s fun to think of him hitting second in October, but it would not be wise now. Plus, “better than Rizzo” does not mean better than our 3-4-5.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 16, 2021 18:47:29 GMT -5
I’am going to throw my hat in the ring on this lineup discussion. Iâm fine with Schwarber 2nd, and I’m fine with him 5th if he’s pushing Bogaerts, Devers, JDM down 2-4. Renfroe and Kiké are great, pushing .800 ops is fine at the top of the lineup but it’s not elite, and it’s a little more SLG than OBP. It just doesn’t feel right to have both those guys come up before Bogaerts, Devers, JDM, and Schwarber.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 16, 2021 19:06:55 GMT -5
Kiké's had the best OBP in the AL over the past 6 weeks, he's been great in the 1-spot.
Not opposed to moving XB/RD/JDM to 2-4 and getting Schwarber into the 5-spot, but ideally I think we'd just move Verdugo back into the 2-spot and put Renfroe at 7.
|
|
|