A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    If one had not seen the game today they may have thought we lost - as all the negative threads are on Page One.  Strange.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I love DMac, and think he did a great job filling in last year.

    He's only got 22 PAs this year. 

    If they'd dare sit Crawford vs most lefties, I'd say you are right katz, but you and I know Tito won't. Also, since Ellbury hits LHPs as well as RHPs, we really only have2 OF'ers who could/should sit vs LHPs and Cameron (who is great vs LHPs) hasn't even played vs all LH's starters so far this year.

    I was for starting the year with 3 catcher or another IF'er, so Youk could get some rest by playing DH vs some LHPs and we'd have enough subs to handle late inning movements.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I hear what you are saying but how much with a 3rd catcher play? Or an additional IF?

    I am pretty sure the RS weren't married to McDonald but I can see the logic.

    Even if he gets very limited PT he gives them a decent pinch runner for the slow motion guys (Ortiz, A-Gon, the catchers).

    And it is Cameron insurance. And Cam is older. If Kalish was RH I think the RS would have been more willing to carry 4 OFers because if Cam got hurt they had an in-house call-up just down the 95 in Pawtucket.

    That is my thinking as to why they carried Mac. The contract is small enough they could have and still could designate him at some point without much concern for the $$$. But my guess is after years of riding buses Mac was holding out for a team that would give him an MLB contract. Coming out of Fort Myers their wasn't anybody pressing for that roster spot at another position...

    While Tito likes to get all his guys some PT I have no issue with amount of PT that Cameron and Mac have seen so far. Drew is sitting against a lot of LH and already has had his first bout with vertigo. There is the argument that Crawford is not going to get right platooning, he needs to play. And right now Ellsbury should play until he is tired or cools off.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I hear what you are saying but how much with a 3rd catcher play?

    1) Having three was more about having 3 chances of finding 1 or 2 that could do well.
    2) Having3 would for more PH'ing and earlier.
    3) Having a 3rd C who could play OF (Doumit) and Salty (1B) makes the idea worthy.

    Or an additional IF?

    DMac gives is options, but only if Tito benches Carwford vs LHPs (Cam plays for Drew), but we all know that will not happen enough to warrant th 5th OF'er. If someone gets hurt, then keeping DMac would have been the best choice. (I also think we could have gotten something good by trading DMac or another OF'er.)
     
    In hindisight, since Papi has hit very well vs LHPs, the extra IF'er may not have been a good idea. Only time will tell.

    I am pretty sure the RS weren't married to McDonald but I can see the logic.

    I can too. It was a close call between th 3 slots.

    Even if he gets very limited PT he gives them a decent pinch runner for the slow motion guys (Ortiz, A-Gon, the catchers).

    And it is Cameron insurance. And Cam is older. If Kalish was RH I think the RS would have been more willing to carry 4 OFers because if Cam got hurt they had an in-house call-up just down the 95 in Pawtucket.

    Agreed.

    That is my thinking as to why they carried Mac. The contract is small enough they could have and still could designate him at some point without much concern for the $$$. But my guess is after years of riding buses Mac was holding out for a team that would give him an MLB contract. Coming out of Fort Myers their wasn't anybody pressing for that roster spot at another position...

    I think this was the key reason for the choice.

    While Tito likes to get all his guys some PT I have no issue with amount of PT that Cameron and Mac have seen so far. Drew is sitting against a lot of LH and already has had his first bout with vertigo. There is the argument that Crawford is not going to get right platooning, he needs to play. And right now Ellsbury should play until he is tired or cools off.

    Again, if we don't platoon for Crawford, DMac's value to this club is minimized.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    It could also be something as simple as having DMac because of the options, true, but also  he is a RH.  To some extent, one of the risks that Theo has taken is having too many LHs in the outfield.  DMac could mitigate that risk.

    But I thought it was curious that they left ST with only five IFs. 

    As for PAs, I would suspect that Tito's tendency to tinker with the lineup has something to do with it.  One of Tito's flaws, I think, is that he overdoes this lineup business on more than a few occasions.  But that complaint on my part is minor.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    No way they platoon with CC. Won't happen. I like the way he's adjusting to Fenway wall.
    I also got a kick out of Iglesias handling his first chance. Can this kid run any?
    He looks like he might have good speed.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    No way they platoon with CC. Won't happen. I like the way he's adjusting to Fenway wall.

    I know they won't and they will have to live with a sub .700 OPS in LF all year vs lefties.... very sad.

    This is why we may not need DMac too much, unless there is an injury.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    m
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]No way they platoon with CC. Won't happen. I like the way he's adjusting to Fenway wall. I also got a kick out of Iglesias handling his first chance. Can this kid run any? He looks like he might have good speed.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    2009 AFL 4.1 seconds home to 1st. Not Bo Jackson fast but fast.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    m
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    m
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    m
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Babe-1. Show Babe-1's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : 2009 AFL 4.1 seconds home to 1st. Not Bo Jackson fast but fast.

    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    The problem is he's going to actually have to hit to utilize any speed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Iglesias maybe is a little faster than Pedroia. He's not going to steal a lot of bases but he has above average range. Great arm.

    Have you guys seen Ellsbury's hit chart lately. He is getting more balls on the outside corner again, for the first time in a year, and converting them at a high hit rate. His outs are still coming from ground outs to the 1st and 2nd basemen as busting him inside is still the book on him but a few more dingers and I don't think he sees that pitch as much in yankee stadium. He is positioned for a big year from all the data. A ton more doubles than he's used to also:


    And BTW, he's hitting .330 with an OBP of .376 from the lead off spot so far.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    "Great numbers tom, but I think you are making it more complicated than it isIf shortstop A takes away 80 singles a year more than SS B, but SS B gets 80 more singles a year than SS A: I'll call them about even."

    I haven't caught up on the full thread yet, but I have to disagree with you Moon.  I haven't really looked at Tom's numbers but he is certainly on the right track here ... it is all about runs, not hits.  A great defensive SS might be saving his team ~40 runs a year over average defense, and I don't think it takes +.120 avg to balance that out offensively.  Just look at the difference SLG can make with the same overall BA.  If our elite defender hits 7HRs and 20 2Bs per year and our avg defender hits 20HRs and 40 2Bs per year, that's going to generate quite a run differential even with the same overall BA/OBP.  That's gotta be at least +20 runs if I am not mistaken ... and I believe it is actually in the mid 20's.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Gold Gloves prove nothing, except for maybe the voters have about as absurd reasoning skills as you.

    Jeter has never been a good fielder... ever.

    However, in his prime, he was better than Lowrie is now.



    Gold gloves prove more than nothing, which, without a doubt, proves the voters have more than your idiot's level of intelligence.

    Coaches and managers vote for gold glove winners. But they couldn't possibly know as much as an old Slav, could they?

    Jeter has always been a good fielder. To make the statement that he has never been a good fielder is a reflection of just how out to lunch you are.
     
    Catatonic response is a mental disease, so your well being would require therapy. As a fellow man, I care deeply about your mental health.

    What we have is a poster who has made the following claims:

    1. Jeter has never been a good fielder

    2. Managers and Coaches (who can't vote for their own players) voting for gold glove winners ends with gold glove awards that mean "nothing".

    A trophy sits on a green table topped by a golden baseball glove flanked by two golden baseballs.

    One of the best SS in MLB history has been lucky with the voting from other managers and coaches for the following years he has one all of these meaningless gold gloves (they mean nothing because Jeter has never, ever been a good defensive SS, according to Slav):

    2004
    2005
    2006
    2009
    2010

    Only Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparacio, Omar Vizquel & Mark Belanger have been luck and won more gold gloves than Derek Jeter

    This means "nothing", and Jeter was still never, ever, ever, ever a good defensive SS, according to Slav;)

    One of the signature great defensive plays in the visual media era of MLB history, is this play, by a man who was "never a good defensive SS":

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VC73LP037o&feature=related

    Slav, there isn't anything realistic about this thread of yours.



     
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Babe-1. Show Babe-1's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Gold Gloves prove nothing , except for maybe the voters have about as absurd reasoning skills as you. Jeter has never been a good fielder... ever . However, in his prime, he was better than Lowrie is now. Gold gloves prove more than nothing, which, without a doubt, proves the voters have more than your idiot's level of intelligence. Coaches and managers vote for gold glove winners. But they couldn't possibly know as much as an old Slav, could they? Jeter has always been a good fielder. To make the statement that he has never been a good fielder is a reflection of just how out to lunch you are.   Catatonic response is a mental disease, so your well being would require therapy. As a fellow man, I care deeply about your mental health. What we have is a poster who has made the following claims: 1. Jeter has never been a good fielder 2. Managers and Coaches (who can't vote for their own players) voting for gold glove winners ends with gold glove award that mean "nothing". One of the best SS in MLB history has been lucky with the voting from other managers and coaches fro the following years he has one all these meaningless gold glvoes: 2004 2005 2006 2009 2010 Only Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparacio, Omar Vizquel & Mark Belanger have been luck and won more gold gloves than Derek Jeter This means "nothing", and Jeter was still never, ever, ever, ever a good defensive SS, according to Slav;) One of the signature great defensive plays in the visual media era of MLB history, is this play, by a man who was "never a good defensive SS": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VC73LP037o&feature=related Slav, there isn't anything realistic about this thread of yours.  

    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    I have to agree with you there softy, this is more of a fantasy thread then a realistic thread. Same as last year.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Wow GM......


    LOL!!!!!   :)

    Forget about Jeter.....  What about all the nonsense you have said about Els., Lowrie, etc.........

    You really do make me LOL   :)

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    OK GM......

    Start scouring your stat sheets!!!!!  See if you can find ANYTHING that might obliquely support YOUR side of the ledger with respect to 'proving' Ellsbury is a sub par CF & hitter......

    I know his success is killing you!  How could someone with such a self-proclaimed 'brilliant baseball mind' be soooooooooooooo   wrong!  Lowrie's success is killing you too!!!!!   We all know his fielding is suspect, but you can't even admit that the kid is tearing the cover off the ball.  Come on!  You can do it.  Make another convoluted case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     LOOK UP THOSE STATS on obscurestats.com.........

    WHO SAID????  "Lies, damned lies, & statistics." 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Babe-1. Show Babe-1's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]OK GM...... Start scouring your stat sheets!!!!!  See if you can find ANYTHING that might obliquely support YOUR side of the ledger with respect to 'proving' Ellsbury is a sub par CF & hitter...... I know his success is killing you!  How could someone with such a self-proclaimed 'brilliant baseball mind' be soooooooooooooo   wrong!  Lowrie's success is killing you too!!!!!   We all know his fielding is suspect, but you can't even admit that the kid is tearing the cover off the ball.  Come on!  You can do it.  Make another convoluted case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     LOOK UP THOSE STATS on obscurestats.com......... WHO SAID????  "Lies, damned lies, & statistics." 

    Posted by redsoxdirtdog[/QUOTE]

    Look, I believe that softy is a little crazy with his posts about certain players, but if you are going to point the finger at him for convoluted stats then you should also call out moonie for continually showing stats that "prove" the sawx aren't as bad as they are.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Look GM.......

    One would think that a smart guy like you would have learned the old adage....

    A wise man admits when they are clearly wrong!  It is not a sign of weakness to admit when you ARE wrong!  To the contrary.........  Only a fool clings to their version of the truth when EVERY SHRED OF EVIDENCE proves them wrong!

    In fact, admitting when you're wrong gives you more credibility, & helps others to not marginalized EVERYTHING you say! 

    2 possibilities with you.......

    1)  You're very young & too headstrong to SEE WHEN YOU'RE WRONG

    2)  You're older, set in your ways, & too stubborn to ADMIT WHEN YOU'RE WRONG

    Anyway.....  We still love ya!  Who else would be this easy a debate adversary?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    He calls Moon and "Old Coot" when he is actually at least as old as Moon!

    Softy wasn't there the day they taught the meaning of the words "admit it when you are wrong"!

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Somehow my draft thread got "closed". I don't see a single bad post there. I would think it's got to be a mistake but "Oh Well":

    Forums  »  Sports  »  Red Sox: On the front burner  »  This year's June MLB baseball draft - Redsox Draft ideas?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    791 brought this up about Palmero's GG.

    "Somehow the DH won the Gold Glove Award, despite playing just 28 games at first base."

    Bill James looked at different ways of measuring defense. All the metrics have flaws, but all 5 said the same thing and in aggregate you can only come to one conclusion. In 2005:   

                   Everett             Jeter

    1.  range     +11               -19                 

          UZR     +14             -13 2

    2.  Dewan +/- system(video):  Everett 66 put outs over Jeter.

    3.  Assists relative to expected avg: Jeter 40 less 

    4.  Total of hits past shortstop position:  Avg. 487,  Everett  425,  Jeter 522.

    5. Out of zone plays (fanGraphs):  Jeter 26,  Everett 78  

    All 5 metrics, no surprise Jeter has very poor range. He cost 72 singles  = 35 runs.

    " Giving him every possible break on the unknowns, he is still going to emerge as a below average defensive shortstop."   Bill James

    ss stat of the day, since Aug 12, 2010
    HR off LHP:

    Tulo             11
    Bruce           10
    Granderson    8

    Pujols            8
    Lowrie          8

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Very few baseball people, anymore, view Ellsbury as a strong defensive CF'er. Aside from the metrics, even the author of this thread seems to acknowledge he missed out, later admitted, that Ellsbury is not a strong defensive CF'er, to put it mildly.

    Now, on offense, you are quite loud for early May. Let's take a look at the large sample numbers, including a little over a month of this year:

    Career BA  .291  OBP .345  (Hardly this "on base machine/next Ichiro")

    2011  BA   .295  OBP .350  (In line with his career metrics, as Hill points out)

    There is nothing "great hitting" about these numbers for a scatback profile. A few weeks doesn't make a season, despite the mass media drumbeat about his numbers of the last few weeks. Career averages are there for a reason, with the career high and low years being thrown out after the sample gets large enough.

    Career leading off an inning: BA  .273  OBP .310

    Career leading off the game BA  .279  OBP  .320

    Career #1 in batting order  BA   .283   OBP  .334

    I'm not impressed by this, particularly when Crawford is on the books and in place for 142M. 

    It is noteworthy that managment trumped Tocoby Bellsbury's agent on swinging for the fences to display homer pop, by forcing him to the bottom of the order and some days off until he changed his approach back to the slap hitter he is.

    I understand how giddy you are with Bellsbury's last two or three weeks. But read Hill's post, which is on the money. Remember, it's early May.

    Now, I would like to see if you have a higher IQ than the author of this thread. As a test, I'm going to ask you to answer the following questions with a yes or no:

    1. Do gold glove awards mean "nothing"?

    2. Has Derek Jeter never, ever been a good defensive SS?

    Cheerio, and don't drone the regular beat consensus, it's where baseball idiocy comes from. And, remember, Theo usually reacts, after the fact.  
     

Share