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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 15, 2019 12:14:58 GMT -5
An average pitcher had two bad starts followed by a good one. I just checked baseball history and this is apparently a first. Baseball is amazing, we see something new every day. That's why I love this game. Totally unpredictable stuff. Same pitcher that allowed 10 runs and 15 baserunners in less than 5 innings. in 5 innings sox got 1 run and 3 baserunners *blank stare*
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 15, 2019 12:01:05 GMT -5
I'd like to introduce a few folks in this thread to an advanced statistical tool known as a "calendar".
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 15, 2019 11:54:45 GMT -5
Straly is the same guy who couldn’t make the Miami Marlins But let’s defend how good he is with his 91 mph fastball and rest of his slop arsenal Nobody is saying Straily is a star, but the Marlins dumped him because they didn't want to pay him. They don't want to pay anybody. They also have five pitchers in their rotation who are younger than Straily, and if not necessarily better, at least more interesting. They also moved Chen and his relatively huge contract to the bullpen to open up playing time for these pitchers. I've crushed the Marlins for being cheap as much as anyone, but I'll actually give them credit for making the right call on this.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 15, 2019 9:41:30 GMT -5
So Vazquez is really playing second? Lol, wtf. I almost sort of wonder if Cora is kind of drunk off his own apparent infallibility after last year, like a gambler who's hit one too many inside straights and now thinks he can feel the next one coming...
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 15, 2019 9:29:01 GMT -5
Don't take it so literally, it's just one example of a thousand of elite or near-elite bullpen talent coming out of nowhere. Obviously that one pitch is not the reason Kimbrel hasn't signed. But again, the guy who threw that pitch is getting paid 1/25th of what Kimbrel is asking. Right, but the other end of that spectrum is a team like the Nationals, ostensibly trying to compete, giving pitches to Trevor Rosenthal and posting a team bullpen ERA of 7.75 so far this year. There are something like 350 to 400 bullpen roster spots, and Kimbrel upside is much, much higher than almost all of the people filling them (and his downside realistically isn't that much worse). I'm a Kimbrel skeptic, but if he's coming down to a three-year deal, there are a lot of teams that would be a lot better with him there. Upside in terms of performance, yes, but Kimbrel has almost no potential to "turn a profit" so to speak. You're never going to trade a Kimbrel contract for any significant return. Whereas, for instance, if the Red Sox fall out of contention but Brasier is pitching well, you might actually get a useful piece in exchange all his years of cheap control. Ok, but the Nationals are competitive, and why should they care about that? Well, they shouldn't, but maybe their internal evaluations on Kimbrel aren't so great, maybe he doesn't fit into their long term plans budget-wise, maybe they just really like Doolittle and they don't want to invite the tension of bringing in a more "established" closer who feels like he deserves the role. There's all sorts of reasons why an individual team might not want Kimbrel despite an apparent need for bullpen help. So, there's only 30 teams. You've got your Royals and your White Sox and your Padres and Giants and Orioles and about ten others who have no particular interest in being better this year anyway, and if anything have an interest in being as bad as possible. To the extent that they want to improve their bullpens, they 100% want to find the Alvarados and Brasiers of the world. They're certainly not about to give up a pick and the associated slot money for Kimbrel. Then you've got your Astros and Dodgers who've built such incredible depth that they hardly have enough playing time for the guys they already have*. Then you've got the teams that might have a use for him but just don't have the budget, which in the weird alternative financial reality that MLB has created, includes not only the Rays and the As, but the Red Sox and Cubs. Finally, we're left with the teams that wanted bullpen help and had the budget to afford premium FAs, your Phillies and Yankees. Those teams only have so many roster spots, and they filled them with FAs who had similar projections as Kimbrel, who had lower contract demands, less "proven closer" baggage, and weren't causing heart attacks all October. And yeah, maybe Washington still should sign him, but when you start whittling away potential buyers to the extent that I've described here, you're in a situation where one or two teams can just decide they don't like the cut of his jib or whatever, and there's essentially no market for the player. *Please do not ask me to explain the Joe Kelly signing.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 14, 2019 21:35:50 GMT -5
That was one pitch, though. Don't take it so literally, it's just one example of a thousand of elite or near-elite bullpen talent coming out of nowhere. Obviously that one pitch is not the reason Kimbrel hasn't signed. But again, the guy who threw that pitch is getting paid 1/25th of what Kimbrel is asking.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 14, 2019 11:48:08 GMT -5
Reports say Kimbrel is looking for a deal in the Davis and Britton range three years 39 to 52 million. I don't care what you think of Kimbrel that is a fair deal. That report came out like 12 hours after one saying he still wanted a record setting deal. So color me confused why no team has signed him yet.Remember when the internet went insane over a pitch that Jose Alvarado threw? That guy, as far as I can tell, signed for nothing, was never a prospect of note, and makes the league minimum. Kimbrel's asking price is roughly twenty-five times the AAV.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 13, 2019 12:13:29 GMT -5
Get used to it, the ball is flying. Highest home runs per game rate ever this season. I don't blame MLB for trying to get more offense in the game without destroying the player's bodies with steriods. The Sox need to find a better job of containing it. They're one of the 3 worst teams at it. MLB knows that homeruns drew the fans back after the strike years and they're trying to get that back. Players like Verlander even acknowledged it last year that the baseball is juiced. MLB wants the ball juiced. This ascribes both a level of competence and a level of morality that I don’t think MLB really possesses.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 13, 2019 8:02:31 GMT -5
demainah - did you see the catch JBJ made tonight? It was a key catch at a key time. The kind of thing that doesn't really show up in a box score but it prevented at least one run. Who knows if Workman would have gotten the next batter? That's the kind of thing JBJ does with regularity that makes him valuable. His hitting is mediocre, but he's as good a CF defensively as I've seen in 40 years of watching this team. It didn't look as spectacular, but I thought that catch he made coming straight in on a low line drive was even more impressive. You have to commit so quickly on a play like that, and you can't screw it up or you're playing a single into a triple at least. Lots of guys can cover ground and time a big leap at the warning track, but it's those incredible instant reads on the ball that really separate the great outfielders from the good ones to me.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 13, 2019 6:57:48 GMT -5
When I read the details it absolutely blew my mind. If I’d been in his shoes, there’s NO way I’d’ve taken that deal unless I was pretty certain (PEDs, injury/catastrophic life/career-threatening disease) my first year was an illusion. Incredible steal for ATL. They are going to be a BEAST of a team. All this low-cost certainty means they’re gonna be able to spend in FA if they do choose, too. Just incredible. Or they could just trade everyone in three to five years and do the whole thing over again.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 12, 2019 21:31:46 GMT -5
This homerun problem just won't go away. Get used to it, the ball is flying. Highest home runs per game rate ever this season.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 11, 2019 11:40:43 GMT -5
Do you agree with the rule book? Do you even read my posts? I’ve said so many times that I’m in favor of an improved strike zone, through the use of technology. But it seems like you ignore that, because you want to reduce everything to a yes/no argument to be won or lost. I’m not interested in that discussion. I’m interested in what the strike zone should actually look like, and I think that just saying “rulebook strike zone” is a wildly inadequate answer to that question, which doesn’t respect the reality or history of the game.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 11, 2019 7:43:38 GMT -5
The Morton signing has looked prudent ( and honestly he may have been the guy to spend less on for what could be better results than Eovaldi), and has formed a potentially scary top three in their rotation with Snell and Glasnow. Or, uhh... Chris Sale.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 11, 2019 7:36:44 GMT -5
Since when, and why not? What is the evidence that a rigid strike zone which has never existed is definitively better? Yeah, let's get rid of that. Bad calls are bad. The practical definition of the strike zone as it has existed for over a century is not necessarily bad! Two different issues. Since the rules were written. Just because flawed ups can't always get it right during a game doesn't change the rules on what a strike is and isn't. Evidence? Why do I need evidence for a strike to be what the rules say? If you don't like the rules than change them, to whatever the damn ump feels like on a given day. Right now any part of the ball going threw the zone is a strike, and should be called as such. Otherwise why have rules? Hey, do you always drive the speed limit? If not, why? The rule as written is all that matters, right? I've written about a half dozen posts in this thread about why the "rulebook zone" isn't a thing that exists or has ever existed, and we don't know if implementing it would particularly make baseball better or worse. I invite you to give those a closer reading.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 10, 2019 17:23:42 GMT -5
Because right now you're not getting a strike call when one seam nicks the corner on a 0-2 count. That might be the best argument for an electronic zone. A strike is a strike, take out the human side of things. The count shouldn't matter. If the ump had a bad day shouldn't matter. You just eliminate all the variance from ump to ump. The zone is 100% the same every game, for every pitch. It just makes so much sense. Nothing worse than watching clear strikes and balls being called wrong. Since when, and why not? What is the evidence that a rigid strike zone which has never existed is definitively better? Because right now you're not getting a strike call when one seam nicks the corner on a 0-2 count. That might be the best argument for an electronic zone. A strike is a strike, take out the human side of things. The count shouldn't matter. If the ump had a bad day shouldn't matter. You just eliminate all the variance from ump to ump. The zone is 100% the same every game, for every pitch. It just makes so much sense. Nothing worse than watching clear strikes and balls being called wrong.Yeah, let's get rid of that. Bad calls are bad. The practical definition of the strike zone as it has existed for over a century is not necessarily bad! Two different issues.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 10, 2019 12:06:31 GMT -5
You're treating this issue like a binary, when it's anything but. I've said multiple times in this thread that I am in favor of using technology to improve the strike zone. I just think that doing that is a lot more complicated, and comes with a lot more unanswered questions, than the "robo umps now!" crowd wants to admit. My urban planning knowledge is pretty sketchy, but my basic impression here is that putting things in orderly grids is good, but eliminating mixed zoning has been a complete disaster. So I have a hard time getting dogmatic about "top down technocratic decisions are best" versus "respecting traditions and the natural evolution is best". Not to get all squish "both sides" but I think you have to consider and respect both methods. So to get back to my stance on the strike zone, YES, we should have a better, more consistent strike zone, BUT "just call the rulebook strike zone" is a completely inadequate answer for what a better strike zone should look like. You have to understand and respect the actual strike zone that's sustained this game for a century, and move forward from that point. Sure - mass vaccination is a rationalist, top-down scheme. Likewise rural electrification, public education, and social security - all good things. It's not that abstract rationalist programs are inherently bad; it's just that what makes a given system work is not necessarily visible from such a perspective. Which means that interventions based on that perspective can disrupt stuff that developed over time according to some organic logic, producing unintended consequences. It just struck me that your points about the strike zone fit nicely into that analysis. I agree, but I'd also say that "call the rulebook strike zone" doesn't even rise to the level of being rationalist. I'm not sure exactly how I'd characterize it... it's sort of like constitutional literalism, but for parts of the constitution that have never been used. It's like insisting that the US has to get serious about stopping the king of England from quartering soldiers in our houses or something.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 10, 2019 11:05:48 GMT -5
Interesting piece from Eno Saris in The Athletic today about Sox starters. With regard to Sale, he says the drop in velo is troubling and he spends a little time on that, but regarding the others, it sounds like bad decision-making or feel for certain pitches: You could point to some changes in their arsenals. Rodríguez is throwing a new version of his breaking ball, which could be throwing him off. Nate Eovaldi broke out by throwing his cutter more often last year, and he’s throwing it less often this year. David Price is throwing his cutter less and his four-seam more for some reason. Rick Porcello is throwing his four-seam more than he’s ever thrown it.Full piece here, subscription required: theathletic.com/912565/2019/04/10/sarris-the-red-sox-arent-suffering-from-a-championship-hangover-so-what-is-ailing-boston/?source=dailyemail All I'm hearing is free Sandy! Catcher pitch-calling is the myth that will not die.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 10, 2019 11:01:21 GMT -5
This is a long way of saying you think the strike zone “works” when in fact there is a large body of data they clearly suggests it doesn’t. It’s like the argument against instant replay saying “we don’t need it, the human factor ‘works’,yet since it’s been instituted, instant replay has show that umps are wrong 51% of the time with safe and out and fair and foul calls, which are theoretically easier than balls and strike. If you look to tennis, which has instituted a robotic sensor for in or out balls, the accuracy has greatly improved as well, as has the pace of play. This comes down to whether one wishes to use thetech at hand to improve the game at this level or not. You apparently prefer not, which is fine, but there are many here who disagree with you. We can talk about this “statist” theory some other time (which sounds rather subjective , and treats multivariate problems a single variate to ‘prove’ its solution - then again, I didn’t read the book.) You're treating this issue like a binary, when it's anything but. I've said multiple times in this thread that I am in favor of using technology to improve the strike zone. I just think that doing that is a lot more complicated, and comes with a lot more unanswered questions, than the "robo umps now!" crowd wants to admit. Here's another example: modernist urban design. Older cities tend to be a jumble, with irregular street patterns, and homes and businesses all mixed together. (A certain large city in eastern Massachusetts comes to mind.) In the 20th century some modernists (like Le Corbusier and Robert Moses) showed up and said "Hey you guys. You guys. This is so irrational." And so they proceeded to tear down a lot of these old irrational neighborhoods and replace them with the sort of "towers-in-a-park" developments that you have probably seen somewhere or another. (Think New York City housing projects, for example.) This was a much more orderly system, which put everything in a nice grid, and separated homes from businesses so that everything had its proper place in the order of things... and of course it was terrible. These modernist developments were so dreadful that a lot of them have already been destroyed, despite being only a few decades old. Turns out the old "messy" neighborhoods functioned very well for the people who lived there, and provided a real sense of place, even if it looked irrational from the outside. Once again, imposing an abstract rational order on a complex organic system totally screwed everything up. My urban planning knowledge is pretty sketchy, but my basic impression here is that putting things in orderly grids is good, but eliminating mixed zoning has been a complete disaster. So I have a hard time getting dogmatic about "top down technocratic decisions are best" versus "respecting traditions and the natural evolution is best". Not to get all squish "both sides" but I think you have to consider and respect both methods. So to get back to my stance on the strike zone, YES, we should have a better, more consistent strike zone, BUT "just call the rulebook strike zone" is a completely inadequate answer for what a better strike zone should look like. You have to understand and respect the actual strike zone that's sustained this game for a century, and move forward from that point.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 9, 2019 14:51:24 GMT -5
Here's another question: you have this automated strike zone. It's a perfect rectangle. How much of the ball has to pass through it to be a strike? If one seam of the ball just nicks the corner of the zone, is that a strike? Does the ball have to be more than 50% in the zone to count? Or is it probabilistic, where if half the the ball is in the zone, there's a 50% chance it goes for a strike? The existing rule already calls for a strike if "any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone" so I'm not sure why that would change.Also, the strike zone is a pentagonal volume, even if it's not always accurately called that way. Because right now you're not getting a strike call when one seam nicks the corner on a 0-2 count.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 9, 2019 14:48:09 GMT -5
What a horrible attempt at a block by Vazquez. Please someone convince me he's a great defensive catcher. I think he's a pretty good defensive catcher, and I'm absolutely not going to bother trying to convince you of that.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 9, 2019 13:54:45 GMT -5
Here's another question: you have this automated strike zone. It's a perfect rectangle. How much of the ball has to pass through it to be a strike? If one seam of the ball just nicks the corner of the zone, is that a strike? Does the ball have to be more than 50% in the zone to count? Or is it probabilistic, where if half the the ball is in the zone, there's a 50% chance it goes for a strike?
Again, I'm all for an improved, more consistent strike zone. I just think the question of what that actually entails is waaaaaaay more complicated than anyone is giving it credit for.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 9, 2019 11:48:54 GMT -5
The league in 2018 hit .170/.227/.278 after getting to a 1-2 count. That’s with the “sympathetic” zone that favors whichever party is behind in the count. Per the rule book, hitters should be at an even greater disadvantage after 1-2. Does that make for a more interesting, more exciting, better game of baseball?
Again, there’s an assumption that it’s wrong for the strike zone to ever change based on (for instance) the count. But how do we know that? It’s possible that the sympathetic zone is the only thing that ever made this dumb game watchable in the first place. We don’t know!
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 9, 2019 11:21:00 GMT -5
But the conspiracy theorist in me thinks they'll still build bias into the automated strike zone because everyone knows that if a Yankee didn't swing at a pitch then it's not a strike. Reminder that conspiracy theories are uniformly ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 9, 2019 11:05:24 GMT -5
Let me separate two things here:
1. We should use technology to make more accurate ball and strike calls, or to assist umpires in making more accurate ball and strike calls
2. We should call the "rulebook strike zone".
The rulebook strike zone is about as real as the Easter Bunny. The actual strike zone as understood by players and umpires has NEVER particularly resembled the rulebook definition of the strike zone; nor is it even particularly well defined. I'm all for making the calls more accurate and consistent, but the idea that we actually know what the strike zone should be is not based on anything. The strike zone as actually called is more round than square, it changes size based on the count, all these weird things, and that's what it's been for well over a hundred years. Does a truly square strike zone make the game better? Does a non-sympathetic strike zone make the game better? How would ABs look with a rulebook zone? Would it massively favor pitchers or hitters? We really have no idea.
So yeah, let's start doing the trials. I want the answers to these questions. But the notion that we're just going to use the rulebook zone and that's going to be fine is completely unfounded.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 9, 2019 9:56:42 GMT -5
Nervous when Nunez is the backup to most of the lineup. I like having Holt or Lin on the roster at all times. The problem with winning every single baseball game for a year is that you start thinking a player like Nunez isn't a huge drag on your team.
|
|
|