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
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 4, 2015 13:29:29 GMT -5
Any idea when Hanigan is coming back? I think you are right about him.
Swihart has been hitting better lately but it probably wouldn't hurt him to spend a good bit of the rest of the season in Pawtucket.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 4, 2015 13:14:59 GMT -5
I sort of like Hanley in the 2 spot, certainly in preference to Holt or Betts. But Pedroia and Bogaerts are the two hottest hitters right now. It might be interesting to have Bogaerts 2nd and Hanley third. I think it is time for Ortiz to move down in the lineup to around 5th or 6th.
I also like the Sox lineup by OPS
Sox lineup by current BA
Pedroia Bogaerts Ramirez Sandoval Betts Ortiz Swihart castillo Napoli
Lineup by OPS
Pedroia Ramierez Napoli Bogaerts Ortiz Sandoval Betts Swihart Castillo
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 4, 2015 12:43:03 GMT -5
Fascinating analysis. I was not aware of The Book. Don't be offended, hardly anyone knows about my books.
However, there is no way that batting a pitcher eighth instead of ninth (unless the pitcher is a good hitter) makes sense from a probability standpoint, nor are more runs scored likely to result. The ninth position will get fewer at-bats. A worse hitter will get more. There really isn't any other analysis necessary, I don't think.
Cook does not use projections. They really weren't done in his time. He believed the bat boy could make the best lineup every day, as easy as the manager, simply by putting the current best hitters in order. He pointed out a mistake the Yankees made in a World Series when they played a couple of their fading veterans instead of some new players who were hitting much better at that time and how it cost them some runs.
His is quite a dynamic approach, playing the best odds at all times. But then the manager has to know the best odds. That was not common in his time.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 4, 2015 12:02:50 GMT -5
There frequently is discussion in the game threads, and elsewhere, about the proper construction of the Red Sox lineup, usually in the form of criticism of the lineup actually being used. Last night, when Betts was moved down in the lineup, there were some protests. In fact, it was the right thing to do. But putting Holt in the second spot was not. Right now that's where Bogaerts should be. In the book, Percentage Baseball, by Earnshaw Cook (many copies available at tinyurl.com/n9ly44w), he shows that a lineup constructed from the best hitter to the worst will create, on average, at least 11 more runs a season. In 1956, Pirates Manager Bobby Bragan employed a lineup for the last 40 games of the season that followed that idea. It actually was Bragan's idea first. The Pirates won two more games in the last 40 than they had in the previous 40. But they were not a very good team, and Bragan abandoned the idea when he went to the Braves. He didn't think Aaron should bat first because he thought it denied him too many RBI opportunities. Cook shows that "if Aaron be moved from the lead-off position toward the fifth slot in the batting order, it will cost him from 3 to 14 runs contributed per season. How much it reduces team scoring will depend upon the relative performances of the other players." Cook shows through probabilities that the best batting order has the team's best hitter hitting first, followed by the second best hitter, etc. He points out that each batter after the first, on average, has 17 few at bats during the season that the hitter immediately preceding him. And since the object is to score as many runs as possible, the best hitters should get the most at-bats. His probabilities show that this will result in more runs scored - and as the better the hitters on a team are the higher will be the rates of scoring. "The interactions of baseball are entirely too complex to be appraised by the intuitive methods of any manager. If he wishes to gamble, as he must on every play, he might as well employ the most favorable odds. This is the only thing anyone can know (italics his) with assurance about baseball." He goes on: "Winning baseball is associated with the favorable occurrence of very small differences of significant probabilities...." Cook may have been the first to argue that the run differential is the most important statistic in baseball and that success of a team depends on maximizing that differential. "The difference between a first-place ball club and the average four- or fifth-place team is entirely a matter of balance between the runs scored in 154 games by the team (R.t) and by its opponents (R.o)..." Cook was probably the first to argue against the use of the sacrifice bunt. However, he was a big believer in the hit-and-run. He was controversial in his time in the late 50s and early 60s but Frank Deford of Sports Illustrated wrote "Right now...Earnshaw Cook knows more about baseball than anyone else in the world....Nevertheless, baseball officials hesitate to consider his findings, and for a very good reason: if he is right, they have been playing the game all wrong for years."
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 3, 2015 9:21:31 GMT -5
De Aza 31 years old 2288 PAs .265/.328/.401/.728 41 HRs OPS+ 99 fWAR 8.8 (-0.2 in 2015)
Nava 32 years old 1522 PAs .268/.357/.388/.745 23 HRs OPS+ 105 fWAR 5.0 (-0.4 in 2015)
Based on the fielding metrics, De Aza is a considerably better defender.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 17:08:56 GMT -5
The 2013 draft is beginning to look very odd. Ball still is developing but so far has not been exceptional. Stankiewicz is doing OK. Denny is gone. But look beyond the first ten draftees and you find the following players who are showing real promise:
Asuaje at 11 Gunkel at 18 Witte at 24 Dubon at 26 Longhi at 30
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 16:05:14 GMT -5
Terrific analysis. Thanks. The players the Sox drafted and signd above the 10th round since 2002 who made the majors:
Swindle Exposito Reddick Lars Anderson Pressley STrickland Britton McGuiness Hassan
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 15:51:13 GMT -5
I hate to be cynical when it comes to baseball. It's my break from reality.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 15:10:34 GMT -5
One of the major reasons I love baseball is that is such an optimistic sport - and so many of its fans and its players are as well. Of course Ortiz would say that no major changes should be made. That's his spirit. That's what he should say. And, being an optimist myself, I hope he is right.
But when I force myself to be a realist I don't see how the major changes can be avoided at some point.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 14:52:19 GMT -5
I think many teams have a far more difficult time with the draft now than when first and second round picks were awarded for free agent signings. The Sox had five round round picks in 2005 and four in both 2006 and 2011. Obviously the odds of striking gold with at least one of those picks should be pretty good. But when a team only has one pick it is more of a challenge and a bad pick has a greater impact on the organization over time.
Maybe it was the overall quality of the draft pools, but it is interesting that all five of the Sox picks in 2005 made it to the majors and three of the four in 2011 have made it and the fourth, Owens, is almost a certainty to make it. However, in 2006 only one, Bard, of the four made it.
This raises the question of how wise is it to draft a high school pitcher? The risks are huge. And it might be five years or longer for the player to make it. It might have made sense to pick a high ceiling high school pitcher when other early draft picks could be used for less risky picks. But now, with just one pick, it seems to me that a high school pitcher would have to be truly sensational to justify a team picking him in the first round.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 14:37:59 GMT -5
That's highly skewed. 16 of 23 first round picks between the 2002-2011 drafts made it to the majors. Five made it with other teams because they were traded, not because of something the Red Sox did wrong. It's a bit unfair to include 2012-2014. The 2012 guys are just starting to come up now (nine of 60 have come up), and no high schooler from the 2013 or 2014 drafts have reached the majors. Between 1987 and 2008, roughly 73% of first-round picks and 52.3% of first supplemental round draft picks made the major leagues. Considering that the Red Sox draft picks during that period have uniformly come in the back half of the first round and lower (from 2005-2011, when the data was easy for me to collect, their average first round/first supplemental round draft pick was 36th overall, with their highest pick during that time being 19th overall), the fact that they've run a 69.5% rate of their picks making the majors is exceptional and worthy of praise. If you adjusted for draft slot, I'd be willing to bet it's one of the top hit rates of any organization in the majors over that period. I think you probably are right. This is research I began some time ago with the idea of doing an overall comparison of all teams and all drafts. It is a lot of data and I was about half way through getting into a spread sheet when other things intervened in my life and I haven't gotten back to it. Maybe I will at some point if no one else does it.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 14:35:12 GMT -5
To add some perspective to the upcoming draft, I looked at Sox draft choices from 2002 through 2014, particularly first and second round choices, and all the draft choices who made it to the majors so far. The results from several hundred drafted and signed players are pretty skimpy. Only 11 of the 29 players drafted in the first round have made it to the majors with the Sox, and ten of those came from three years: 2005, 2010 and 2011. That's highly skewed. 16 of 23 first round picks between the 2002-2011 drafts made it to the majors. Five made it with other teams because they were traded, not because of something the Red Sox did wrong. It's a bit unfair to include 2012-2014. The 2012 guys are just starting to come up now (nine of 60 have come up), and no high schooler from the 2013 or 2014 drafts have reached the majors. That's a fair comment. I didn't mean to skew it and I presented the details. You are right that I should have not included the last two years in the totals. What I didn't mention, but which is fairly obvious is how few players drafted below the 2nd round made it to the majors.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 13:14:25 GMT -5
To add some perspective to the upcoming draft, I looked at Sox draft choices from 2002 through 2014, particularly first and second round choices, and all the draft choices who made it to the majors so far. The results from several hundred drafted and signed players are pretty skimpy. Only 11 of the 29 players drafted in the first round have made it to the majors with the Sox, and ten of those came from three years: 2005, 2010 and 2011.
1st and 2nd Round Red Sox Draft Choices 2002-2014
2002: No 1st Round, 2nd Rnd: Lester 2003: Murphy/Murton, 2nd Rnd: Abe Alvarez 2004: No 1st Rnd, 2nd Rnd: Pedroia 2005: Ellsbury, Lowrie, Hansen, Buchholz, Bowden, 2nd Rnd: Egan 2006: Place/Bard/Johnson/Clay, 2nd Rnd: Masterson 2007: Hagadone/Dent, 2nd Rnd: Didn't sign Hunter Morris 2008: Kelly/Price, 2nd Rnd: Gibson 2009: Fuentes, 2nd Rnd: Wilson 2010: Vitek/Brentz/Ranaudo, 2nd Rnd: Workman 2011: Barnes/Swihart/Owens/Bradley, 2nd Rnd: Jerez 2012: Marrero/Johnson/Light, 2nd Rnd: Callahan 2013: Ball, 2nd Rnd: Stankiewicz 2014: Chavis/Kopech, 2nd Rnd: S. Travis
Red Sox drafted and signed players who reached the majors with the Sox or another team:
2002: Lester, Brandon Moss, Chris Smith 2003: Murphy, Murton, Alvarez, Papelbon 2004: Pedroia, Hottovy, Meredith, Swindle 2005: Ellsbury, Lowrie, Hansen, Buchholz, Bowden, Exposito 2006: Bard, Masterson, Johnson, Bates, Richardson, Reddick, Anderson 2007: Hagadone, Middlebrooks, Rizzo, Pressley, Strickland (didn't sign) 2008: Kelly, Fife, Weiland, Lavarnway, Federowicz, Vasquez 2009: Fuentes, Wilson, McGuiness, Hassan 2010: Brentz, Ranaudo, Workman, Cecchini, Garcia 2011: Barnes, Swihart, Bradley, Betts, Shaw
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 1, 2015 17:32:42 GMT -5
For proof that there always are exceptions to general practices, just look at Alex Rodriguez. He made his first appearance in the majors at the age of 18. When he was 20 he hit .358 for the Mariners with 36 HRs, 123 RBIs and an OPS of 1.065. I don't think he was juicing then. (I've never understood why he ever did).
And also, Ted Williams. When he was 20, in his rookie year with the Sox, he hit .327 with 31 HRs, 145 RBIs and an OPS of 1.045. Two years later he hit .406.
I'm not saying that Devers is as talented as these two, just that when there is enormous talent, age really should not be much of a factor.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 1, 2015 17:19:37 GMT -5
I remember Pascual's curveball - maybe the best I've ever seen. I tried to copy it, completely without success.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 1, 2015 17:17:01 GMT -5
A question for those who want to trade Napoli and move Hanley to first. Are you assuming Hanley is a better defensive first baseman than left fielder? What makes you assume that? It's really not that much further down the defensive spectrum from left field. I feel like Mike Napoli is a much better option for this lineup than Peguero, Bradley, or whoever would replace him by taking Hanley's outfield spot, and the only way that such a move doesn't hurt the team is assuming that the combination of improved defense by Hanley at 1B over what he's doing in the OF, plus whatever they'd get in return, would be better than what they lose downgrading from Napoli to one of those other guys. I'm not sure what that is, admittedly, but the calculus isn't as easy as it seems. Remember this offseason when we were all like "yeah, just throw Hanley in left field, that'll be fine?" I think the same thing underlies the assumption that he'll be fine at first. I am not assuming that Hanley can play 1B well enough to hold the position. But I think it would be useful to try him there a few times and see how it goes. Obviously, he would have to do some work ahead of time. I wouldn't just put him there tomorrow. It seems likely the Sox are going to need a new 1B next year. Napoli is a terrific defender and I hope his recent surge continues. Then I would be happy to have him back next year. But that seems less likely now than it did before the season. Hanley, however, doesn't appear to very well suited to the outfield. Not only is he a terrible defender, he is fragile and runs into things. The obvious solution is for him to succeed Ortiz, but it isn't clear that position will be available. So, what is there to lose in giving him some reps at 1B? The other possibility is moving Panda to 1B and putting Hanley at third, but if Hanley can't handle first, he probably can't handle third even though he has played it.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 1, 2015 16:28:35 GMT -5
If the Sox now were a .500 team and the key position players were performing near their norms, it then would make sense to trade for Hamels, assuming the deal was not outrageous. Hamels is the kind of pitcher the Sox would need in the post season. But, the odds are getting pretty good that the Sox won't be in the post season. So a different approach should be employed.
Before making any significant moves, the Sox should be trying out more of the players at Pawtucket. I like the idea of having Hanley play some 1B and DHing, with Castillo moved to left, Betts to right and JBJ put in center. Johnson should be given a tryout like Rodriguez was. I think he will be pretty good. If that is the case, then the Sox have some chips to use in trading. They also could forego trading for a pitcher and instead try to get a good hitter, preferably a 1B. There aren't very many really good ones out there and the cost would be high. That might be a better long term move than trading for Hamels.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 1, 2015 11:22:01 GMT -5
It seems like the right time to make this subject a separate thread. The topic is beginning to dominate the game threads.
Except for Pedroia, the veteran position players (Napoli, Ortiz, Sandoval and Ramirez) are not hitting as expected (except maybe for Ramirez but then there is another problem with him).
The young players, Betts, Bogaerts and Swihart are doing reasonably well but not hitting enough to offset the lack of production from the others. Castillo still is pretty much of an unknown, so far not very impressive.
The starting pitching has been pretty bad with some recent improvement. The bullpen, which started out poorly, has become quite decent, but not exceptional.
There seems to be no part of this team showing championship qualities.
What should be done? Realistically, what can be done?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 31, 2015 19:16:30 GMT -5
Firing the manager, as much as it probably is deserved, is not going to solve the problems with the Sox. There just are too many of them, and many that most of us did not anticipate - nor did Sox management. The team is bad in virtually every aspect of the game. And it is a team effort. None of the veterans is playing to the level expected by past performance. Actually the best players are the youngsters - along with Pedroia. But even Pedroia is not the same player he was.
So how does such a deeply flawed team get fixed? Right now I don't have a single idea that would help to put the team back in contention. Too many things need to be fixed at the same time.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 31, 2015 13:04:13 GMT -5
Masterson gave up a run in the first inning on no hits and three walks.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 18:39:12 GMT -5
Joe Kelly is a bust. Look at the Cardinals and the young arms they have developed in Lynn, Wacha and the traded SMiller. You think if Kelly had promise he would have been traded for an aging Vet. Kelly and Craig will go down as one of the worst trades in Sox history due to the 1 year left at 500K for Lackey and the Craig contract. Cherington on notice! You are kidding, right? How about Bagwell for Larry Anderson, or the trades of Jim Lonborg, Fred Lynn, Sparky Lyle, Curt Schilling and Brady Anderson, Freddy Sanchez, etc. There are a bunch of really bad trades in Sox history and I didn't include the sale of the Babe. I think you will see that Kelly is going to be a good pitcher for the Sox, quite possibly out of the bullpen. Lackey basically was persona non grata with the Sox and he isn't doing all that great for St. Louis. The Sox took a chance on Craig. It was a reasonable chance. Sometimes they work out. Sometimes they don't, but if a team is unwilling to have the courage to take chances, the odds are good that it is a bad team. Life is like that. You have to be willing to take chances if you want to achieve great things. If they don't work out, at least you tried. Not trying is not an option if you have any ambition.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 18:29:33 GMT -5
Devers' D has been an issue all along, but at this stage in his career I don't think it is a big deal. He either will improve enough to stick at 3rd, or he will move to first. And for the Sox that is not a bad move. While there are some decent prospect 1Bs in the system, Devers is the only potential superstar that I know of.
In about three years the Sox could have an incredible infield, possibly with a superstar at every position.
That is, if they don't get traded...
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 14:12:04 GMT -5
Just about any pitcher who improves their command to the level of Lee/Glavine would be as successful as Lee/Glavine. So Owens is about as unlikely to do that as anyone else. Everyone understands that a pitcher is very unlikely to add significant velocity once they're out of their teens, but improved command is the dream that never dies. See: Kelly, Joe. I don't think that is true about velocity, if you mean pitching velocity, not just raw, uncontrolled velocity. Kelly is throwing harder now than ever before - probably too hard for his ability to command pitches. Many pitchers develop velocity in their early 20s as their bodies become stronger and more mature, and they improve their command. This is particularly true of tall but thin teenagers. But you are absolutely right about command. That is THE key to pitching success. And that showed this week with Rodriguez and I think it will show with Johnson when he gets a chance. If Owens develops really good command he might be better than either of them.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 14:02:23 GMT -5
Nomar must not have seen the Pedro game. What Grady Little did that day forever cast him in the role of one of the worst managers ever - and with the Sox there is a lot of competition for that title.
And then there are his lineups...
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 11:34:53 GMT -5
Unless the hitting improves no manager could make this team successful. Isn't it possible that a new manager might change the atmosphere of the clubhouse and thus might also cause the hitting to improve? I don't think a manager can have much effect on hitting, per se. However, there certainly are examples in Sox history of managers who have changed the atmosphere and the way the team played - sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. I am not defending Farrell and probably there should be a change of management, maybe even higher. However, he didn't cost the Sox the game last night. The only thing he did that I dispute was bringing Breslow back the next inning. That didn't make sense. I do dispute the attacks on Breslow. He has been a pretty good pitcher this year, much better than last year. However, he is not what he once was, and if he could be replaced by someone measurably better, it should be done. But that also applies to several other RPs in the pen.
|
|
|