A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I don't think I've found fault with very much that Theo has done over the years. I was cautious about the Drew signing but not completely against it. I didn't mind either the Renteria or Lugo signings. No way Crawford was worth $142 mil to us, even if he performs offensively the way he did last year. He is never going to be worth as much to us defensively in Fenway and he almost definitely is going to degrade over the life of that deal. Give me a bopper in Fenway's LF anyday.

    Beltre may well be a PED user. For all we know both Gonzalez and Crawford are also ( not saying they are but we don't really know with anyone do we ? ). Beltre had a great year before he went to Seattle and a great year after he left Seattle. I'm betting he is going to continue to be a solid player going forward for another 4-5 years. Put a PED clause in the contract and sign him. If he continues to hit like he did last year he's worth more than Gonzalez.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I don't want to ruffle any feathers here. I'm just stating my opinion. For the record:

    1) I'd take Victor back in a heartbeat compared to what we have now. I think Sciocia has it about right when it comes to CERA:


    It has been refuted all over the place as a major factor. It is a relatively small factor IMO, and there is a lot of underlying data which can skew the results a lot which are related to the pairing of individual pitchers and catchers. If a pitcher has a slow time to the plate how important is the catcher's ability to throw out runners? If the pitcher throws a "splitter" how much is the catcher's ability to keep those balls in front of him a factor? If the pitcher is not a rocket scientist, or is new to the league, how important is the catcher's intelligence and experience? I don't want to spend a hundred posts about it but substantial studies have indicated over and over that it is an overated factor. I do think it's a factor but it's overated. I think Sciosia has it about right. Pitches can even be called from the bench, successfully. I'd take Victor back in a heartbeat compared to what we have now.

    I'd take VMart over Crawford mostly for the money saved, but I'd rather have neither and have used all the money to spread out the upgrades.

    2) I know UZR/150 is best utilized by a 3 year sample as I've spent well over 2 hours reading the entire blog on UZR/150 criteria several years ago but then again most people here dumped all over Ellsbury's numbers in 2009, which were shown later in the year to not even be accurate, in a one year sample, even though he had plus defender numbers in years earlier. Even a two year sample is only an indicator with a wide standard deviation. My point here being that those numbers all correlated to what I was seeing on the field though, at least so far this year. Youk is not going to be Beltre defensively. Not even close. I ENVY Texas's left side infield D. It will eventually separate them in the AL West IMO and could well give them another title. 

    I agree, but AGon at 1B will be much batter than the Youk/Lowell/Anderson combo at 1B last year and our OF defense should be much better.

    Crawford will be lucky to be more than a plus 10 defensively ever again in Boston, IMO. Crawford has not been a plus defender so far for us. I know he has been historically but he is overated defensively IMO. UZR/150 numbers are skewed big time by how player attributes fit into a particular park. And yes, I do know that they allow for "park factor" but not for a player's fit into that park factor. The data is reflective as much for how a player fits as it does for a players intrinsic ability. I've studied this quite a bit and that is my opinion.

    As I've mentioned earlier, Cameron, for example, is not suited any more for spacious CF parks as his numbers were way down in San Diego but in cozy Milwaukee he was recently a defensive star. He is not suited very much for spacious Fenway's CF area either. He's still a good defender but the park he is playing in is a very big factor in the UZR/150 numbers he will achieve. I don't think he will see above a plus 5 ever again in CF, at least in Fenway.

    But you got your guy back in CF again.

    3) I was not aware that Moon's contention that the Sox are not doing well against RH pitching either was correct but I trust that Moon wouldn't say that if he didn't have the data. Over time though, I think that LH will become more and more a factor in the overall offensive performance of this team.

    We have faced 10 starting lfties and 12 righties. The opps have found our weakness and are seeking to exploit it.

    Interestingly, in the small sample size of 22 games, we have done even worse vs RHPs in terms of BA/OBP/Slg%, but have scored more runs! 

    vs RHPs:  .233/.325/.357/.681 (56 runs/12 games: 4.7/gm) 
    vs LHPs:  .243/.334/.395/.730 (37 runs/10 games: 3.7/gm)

    4) Theo of course did the best he could with what options were available to him but I think he messed up last winter. He paid way to much for Crawford, especially since Crawford is not optimized at all in Fenway. We should have kept Beltre and probably even Martinez. I think he wanted those draft picks badly, as this year's draft is going to be big, but we could have been a better team for less than half of this winter's spending spree.

    I don't think the only options were CC, Beltre, AGon, an VMart.

    We are extremely vulnerable at catcher and Victor's bat would have been huge in this lineup in place of Tek and Salty.

    Except he's not a FT atcher anymore.

    Russell Martin probably does stink as a catcher but he's probably a heck of a lot better than Salty. That would have been $5 - $6 mil well spent and possibly that was their objective and they just lost out to the Yanks.

    Hard to fault Theo for not outbidding for this guy. In hindsight I looks like the Yanks got a great deal (small sample size), but at the time he was a huge gamble.

    The reality is that Martinez probably wouldn't catch more than half the games but having him available makes us a lot better team in the playoffs especially.

    You mean 0-3 like 2009? You are discounting what pitchers do when throwing to VMart.
     

    Considering that we are paying some of these other guys over twice as much as Victor would have cost, it would have been money well spent. He could have slid right into the DH spot next year and still given us a decent back up catcher.

    VMart is not a great hitter for the DH or 1B slot even now. Project an age decine and it was not worth it. I'll take a .220 catcher combo that gets a much better ERA from out staff. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    I don't want to ruffle any feathers here. I'm just stating my opinion. For the record: 1) I'd take Victor back in a heartbeat compared to what we have now. I think Sciocia has it about rightwhen it comes to CERA: http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/red_sox/index.php/2011/04/25/on-varitek-saltalamacchia-and-the-usefulness-of-catchers-era/ It has been refuted all over the place as a major factor. It is a relatively small factor IMO, and there is a lot of underlying data which can skew the results a lot which are related to the pairing of individual pitchers and catchers. If a pitcher has a slow time to the plate how important is the catcher's ability to throw out runners? If the pitcher throws a "splitter" how much is the catcher's ability to keep those balls in front of him a factor? If the pitcher is not a rocket scientist, or is new to the league, how important is the catcher's intelligence and experience? I don't want to spend a hundred posts about it but substantial studies have indicated over and over that it is an overated factor. I do think it's a factor but it's overated. I think Sciosia has it about right. Pitches can even be called from the bench, successfully. I'd take Victor back in a heartbeat compared to what we have now. 2) I know UZR/150 is best utilized by a 3 year sample as I've spent well over 2 hours reading the entire blog on UZR/150 criteria several years ago but then again most people here dumped all over Ellsbury's numbers in 2009, which were shown later in the year to not even be accurate, in a one year sample, even though he had plus defender numbers in years earlier. Even a two year sample is only an indicator with a wide standard deviation. My point here being that those numbers all correlated to what I was seeing on the field though, at least so far this year. Youk is not going to be Beltre defensively. Not even close. I ENVY Texas's left side infield D. It will eventually separate them in the AL West IMO and could well give them another title.  Crawford will be lucky to be more than a plus 10 defensively ever again in Boston, IMO. Crawford has not been a plus defender so far for us. I know he has been historically but he is overated defensively IMO. UZR/150 numbers are skewed big time by how player attributes fit into a particular park. And yes, I do know that they allow for "park factor" but not for a player's fit into that park factor. The data is reflective as much for how a player fits as it does for a players intrinsic ability. I've studied this quite a bit and that is my opinion. As I've mentioned earlier, Cameron, for example, is not suited any more for spacious CF parks as his numbers were way down in San Diego but in cozy Milwaukee he was recently a defensive star. He is not suited very much for spacious Fenway's CF area either. He's still a good defender but the park he is playing in is a very big factor in the UZR/150 numbers he will achieve. I don't think he will see above a plus 5 ever again in CF, at least in Fenway. 3) I was not aware that Moon's contention that the Sox are not doing well against RH pitching either was correct but I trust that Moon wouldn't say that if he didn't have the data. Over time though, I think that LH will become more and more a factor in the overall offensive performance of this team. 4) Theo of course did the best he could with what options were available to him but I think he messed up last winter. He paid way to much for Crawford, especially since Crawford is not optimized at all in Fenway. We should have kept Beltre and probably even Martinez. I think he wanted those draft picks badly, as this year's draft is going to be big, but we could have been a better team for less than half of this winter's spending spree. We are extremely vulnerable at catcher and Victor's bat would have been huge in this lineup in place of Tek and Salty. Russell Martin probably does stink as a catcher but he's probably a heck of a lot better than Salty. That would have been $5 - $6 mil well spent and possibly that was their objective and they just lost out to the Yanks. The reality is that Martinez probably wouldn't catch more than half the games but having him available makes us a lot better team in the playoffs especially. Considering that we are paying some of these other guys over twice as much as Victor would have cost, it would have been money well spent. He could have slid right into the DH spot next year and still given us a decent back up catcher.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom




    Yup. Scioscia does have it right. He was a top-notch catcher who know's a catcher's relevance. That is why he split catching duties with Mathis and Napoli, despite:

    Napoli:       .252 BA  .348 OBP   .840 OPS   97 HR

    MATHIS:  .199 BA  263 OBP  .576 OPS  24 HR

    Now tell me Boom, why on earth didn't Scioscia make Napoli his FT catcher?
    I asked the clown Softy this question three times, but he has avoided it.

    "I think it's (CERA, etc.) an absolute tool to evaluate a catcher's performance with a pitcher".    Scioscia - from that piece in the Herald.

    This shoots down the clown's "a catcher has nothing to do with pitching"/ "It's solely on the pitcher" BS.

    Let's see. Last year, CERA-related issues were new to many posters on this board. Now, you say it's over-rated.

    Did you ever take the time to look at the data on the thread devoted to this subject matter?
    Are you aware of how much better pitchers do with Tek/Mathis?
    Are you aware of the differential with their counter-parts?
    Are you aware of how this profoundly affects team Win-loss records?

    Are team win-loss records over-rated?
    Why is VMART catching part-time now?
    Why didn't some team sign him as a FT catcher at age 32?
    After all, he is a .300 hitter with power.

    Why Boom?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Crawbury POTENTIAL:

    To continually upset/compromise opposing pitchers/defense.
    To turn singles into doubles/doubles into triples.
    To allow the team to have a man in scoring position simply by getting on base.
    To be able to score from first on a double or long-gap single.

    Potential hasn't been tapped into because neither CC or Ells is hitting near their career norms...yet.


    Lester had his best year in 2010.
    With VMART: 3.63 ERA over 136 IP
    With out VMART: 2.50ERA OVER 72 IP
    With Tek1.88 ERA over 38 IP

    VMART is now a DH who catches PT.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Crawbury POTENTIAL:

    To continually upset/compromise opposing pitchers/defense.
    To turn singles into doubles/doubles into triples.
    To allow the team to have a man in scoring position simply by getting on base.
    To be able to score from first on a double or long-gap single.

    Potential hasn't been tapped into because neither CC or Ells is hitting near their career norms...yet.

    I hope it doesn't turn into Crawdud.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Lester had his best year in 2010.
    With VMART: 3.63 ERA over 136 IP
    With out VMART: 2.50ERA OVER 72 IP
    With Tek1.88
    ERA over 38 IP

    Take away that 72 IP and his numbers look a lot different.

    Looks like an "iota" to me.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Crawbury POTENTIAL: To continually upset/compromise opposing pitchers/defense. To turn singles into doubles/doubles into triples. To allow the team to have a man in scoring position simply by getting on base. To be able to score from first on a double or long-gap single. Potential hasn't been tapped into because neither CC or Ells is hitting near their career norms... yet . I hope it doesn't turn into Crawdud.
    Posted by moonslav59


    If it becomes "CRAWDUD" after 3-4 months, then we may be looking UP at the O's.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Well, the '-bury" got it started tonight.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Man, that 8th inning was bizarre!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Time for the doubters to come back to the surface.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Time for people to give some credit to the opposition. This O's  pay attention to detail. The are sound defensively (Roberts the possible exception), hit in the clutch (.309 with RISP, 2nd in the A.L.), have a line-up that hasn't begun to hit, pitching that is vastly under-rated, and are well managed.

    They may have gotten a swell head after the early start, but I honestly think they are better than both Toronto and the Rays. And once they get their #2 starter back, I look for them to be heard from.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Reading account of the game, sounds like Tek was off defensively.  If Tek is now the FT catcher rather than PT catcher, we are going to find out if he can hold up.  I hope he can but catchers that age...Sorry Boom, but put me with those that feel VMart was just not our catcher going forth.  He is a great player but just not right guy for us.  Theo has taken a chance on our catching and maybe it won't work out, but he had to do it.  I for one welcome what he's done, and if it doesn't work out, then he'll address it and we'll go on.  This position is in transition and VMart wasn't the long term answer; you said yourself that next year he would be DHing.  If Salty can't cut it, then we'll find our young catcher.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The Red Sox have a shot at finishing April at .500 facing Brad Bergeson on Thursday and the backend of Seattle rotation at home on Friday and Saturday.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II


    If he wasn't making millions, I'd almost feel sorry for Tek tonight.  The passed balls were unbelievable.

    I'd love to blame it on miscommunication, but he's caught Bard long enough where this shouldn't be a factor.

    Perhaps two days in a row is asking too much.

    Whatever, we DO have a catching problem.

    I don't believe that Federowicz would be dissapointed with a call-up....pressure, or not.  Hell, how much worse could it get?  As far as confidence breaker, I'd bet my last dollar that Federowicz is salivating at the opportunity.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I agree Hill. I also think the Sox deserve credit for showing some heart tonight.
    It's a long season. To reach .500 by April's end would be no small achievement given the historically slow start.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : Yup. Scioscia does have it right. He was a top-notch catcher who know's a catcher's relevance . That is why he split catching duties with Mathis and Napoli, despite: Napoli:       .252 BA  .348 OBP   .840 OPS   97 HR MATHIS:  .199 BA  263 OBP  .576 OPS  24 HR Now tell me Boom , why on earth didn't Scioscia make Napoli his FT catcher? I asked the clown Softy this question three times, but he has avoided it. "I think it's (CERA, etc.) an absolute tool to evaluate a catcher's performance with a pitcher".    Scioscia - from that piece in the Herald. This shoots down the clown's "a catcher has nothing to do with pitching"/ "It's solely on the pitcher" BS. Let's see. Last year, CERA-related issues were new to many posters on this board. Now, you say it's over-rated. Did you ever take the time to look at the data on the thread devoted to this subject matter? Are you aware of how much better pitchers do with Tek/Mathis? Are you aware of the differential with their counter-parts? Are you aware of how this profoundly affects team Win-loss records? Are team win-loss records over-rated? Why is VMART catching part-time now? Why didn't some team sign him as a FT catcher at age 32? After all, he is a .300 hitter with power. Why Boom?
    Posted by harness

    I did say I agreed with Scioscia right? I'm just saying it's over rated. As Scioscia said it's more related to pitcher catcher combinations. Martinez did great with Buchholz for example and terrible with Beckett. Given where we are now in the catching situation I think we would be better off if we kept Martinez and Beltre, saved a bunch of money with Crawford and Gonzalez and a lot of minor league talent. Both Beltre and Martinez hit LH pitching well if I remember correctly and would have balanced this lineup out very well for 1/3 the cash. 

    We all should strive for intellectual integrity IMO. There are some very definitive studies which indicate that CERA is an over rated stat. It's not useless. It's significant. Rarely is it the end all be all stat in evaluating a catcher. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Reading account of the game, sounds like Tek was off defensively.  If Tek is now the FT catcher rather than PT catcher, we are going to find out if he can hold up.  I hope he can but catchers that age...Sorry Boom, but put me with those that feel VMart was just not our catcher going forth.  He is a great player but just not right guy for us.  Theo has taken a chance on our catching and maybe it won't work out, but he had to do it.  I for one welcome what he's done, and if it doesn't work out, then he'll address it and we'll go on.  This position is in transition and VMart wasn't the long term answer; you said yourself that next year he would be DHing.  If Salty can't cut it, then we'll find our young catcher.
    Posted by Critter23


    I never said Martinez was our long term catching solution. I just think he was a a lot better part of the solution than what we have now. Addressing the catching situation is going to be difficult this year. We were moaning about paying Martinez $10 mil a year when we gave guys like Crawford more than $20 mil a year for 7 years!

    It may be that Salty was worth the risk but even Texas didn't want him and they are not loaded with catching talent either. Tek probably doesn't hit above .200 the way he is being used now. Salty doesn't look like he's going anywhere but down. The only hope I've got for him at this point is that maybe he is one of those guys who need a lot of AB to get going, like a slugger who needs more reps generally at the beginning of the year. Catcher's sometimes take a lot longer to develop. Do we want to invest 2 years in that project while we are primed for a playoff spot otherwise? We needed to be optimized to win now.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Here is the article which solidified my perspective in the CERA issue:


    Here is the conclusion statement:

    Conclusions

    Though we would colloquially say that game-calling doesn’t exist, it’s more accurate to say that if there is a true game-calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection. There is no statistical evidence for a large game-calling ability, but that doesn’t preclude that a small ability. For example, a genuine game-calling ability that reduces a pitcher’s ERA by 0.01, resulting in a savings of about 1.6 runs per year for the entire team and could be masked by the statistical variance in the sample size we have to work with. Players would need to play thousands more games than they actually do to have enough data to successfully detect such a skill statistically.

    There are other places to look for a catcher’s influence beyond the game-calling ability looked for in this study. A catcher might be able to impact the "clutch" performance of the pitcher, helping him focus in high leverage situations. Such a pitcher would surrender fewer runs than expected from his hits & walks allowed. A catcher who senses what his pitcher is throwing well might be more efficient in calling pitches, reducing the pitch count per batter, and thus allowing the starter to go deeper into the game and preserving the bullpen. Nothing in this study precludes any of the possibilities from being true, and this is a promising line for future investigation.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : I did say I agreed with Scioscia right? I'm just saying it's over rated. As Scioscia said it's more related to pitcher catcher combinations. Martinez did great with Buchholz for example and terrible with Beckett. Given where we are now in the catching situation I think we would be better off if we kept Martinez and Beltre, saved a bunch of money with Crawford and Gonzalez and a lot of minor league talent. Both Beltre and Martinez hit LH pitching well if I remember correctly and would have balanced this lineup out very well for 1/3 the cash.  We all should strive for intellectual integrityIMO. There are some very definitive studies which indicate that CERA is an over rated stat. It's not useless. It's significant. Rarely is it the end all be all stat in evaluating a catcher. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom


    Does intellectual integrity include answering questions?
    I asked you quite a few, but didn't see any answers.
    The one I'd like answered the most is why Scioscia, whom you agreed with,
    deployed both Mathis/Napoli when he could have used the better hitting Napoli full-time.

    Do you think he was aware of the data favoring Mathis regarding over-whelming pitcher effectiveness and resulting team-loss records? If he doesn't value that, why play a .199 career hitter so often?

    I appreciate the Woolker piece you posted, Boom, but have seen variations of it before. He tries to numerically quantify it via formulation. Problem is, and the article admits this, the comparisons are drawn using several catchers catching different pitchers from different teams employing different defenses.

    You really have to dig to find credible examples where the criteria can be useful and properly measured. The Napoli/Mathis data is a great example. It consistently favors Mathis year to year.

    You are formulating your opinion based on CERA articles that admit it (criteria of game-calling, etc.) lies below the threshold of detection. Well, much in life does, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I asked you several times to look at the data on the Catcher's relevance thread last year. You finally admitted you didn't. So, your opinion  is being stated without ever acknowledging some pretty compelling information, which spanned 1000's of IP.

    Had you read it, you'd understand why VMART, who openly stated he wants to catch FT, is now employed as a DH/PT receiver.

    Here's another question: Why do you feel it's "overrated"? If articles admit the obscure conclusions can easily result from lack of info, resulting in alternative but inaccurate methods of measuring the phenomenon, then it's hardly over-rated. Perhaps understated. Definitely mis-understood. Because it's a hot topic on this board due to it's obvious importance to the team, that doesn't mean it's suddenly overrated.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Crawford? I am still waiting to see what Epstein saw here. Crawford is a better version of what the RS had in abundance in the system

    True, which is why I said, before the fact, that Theo's elevator doesn't stop every floor if he shoots the moon for Crawford. Crawford will have his career moments, but none of that will ever justify the signing given what the future needs where and the alternatives.

    I've gone from accepting that Varitek can be a backup catcher to he needs to retire. Tonight was simply the final straw on countless examples of his inability to move and reflex well enough to be a worthy backup. Because catcher importance is overrated by the CERA/Varitek myth holders, few will believe that a team can win with lousy catching. But they can, and they have. But there is no reason to make the hurdle larger.

    Varitek can't hit MLB pitching (2 or 3 acorns don't debunk this fact)
    Varitek's reflexes and joints are shot and he's clumsy behind the plate
    Varitek's arm is shot ( 1 or 2 acorns don't debunk this fact)

    Magic fingers isn't enough to justify Varitek taking an active roster spot. There were no magic fingers tonight, but here were clumsy fingers.

    Any MLB catcher who flunks all 3 categories, hitting Mendoza, marginal throwing, and quick and nimble enough to adequately block and make the tougher catches, this guy has no business on the active roster.

    That said, nothing about the last 2 losses concern me about the team's chances to win the division. Beckett wasn't bad, Lester has been good again, Buch is adjusting to life without VMart but has still been good enough to be a #4 starter, Slackey is good enought to be a #4 starter, and DiceK has shown he's plenty good enough to be a #5 starter. Barring core player or starting pitching starter long term season injury, this team will emerge during dog days. A lot of teams with patchwork pens and one or two good starters and retread offensive profiles will fade during dog days. That is the baseball I know.

    Youk is finding his stroke. Pedroia has looked excellent out of the gate. AGon is starting slower coming off the surgery and adjusting to AL pitching, but has a beautiful swing and quick bat release and will be one of the better #3 hitters in the AL. Ellsbury and Crawford was a silly notion to improve the OF balance and catching position, but they will end up within career ranges. They should be rolled over between 1 and 9, not this Crawford is waldo nonsense. Once Crawford starts to hit, he should go to the top, but at least stagger the spot and rotate the two in the 1 and 9 spots. Drew is aging out but off to a decent start. It's easy to see Ortiz is playing for a contract, he looks quite decent as he ages out. Lowrie and Scutaro should be platooned, not Lowrie everyday SS. But that won't be any tipping point for the season.

    And, Tito, for the love of Mike Lowell, either play Cameron or Mac enough v. LHP to allow one to develop a sense of timing or tell dim bulb Theo to trade Cameron and go get (outside or inside) and start regularly platooning a solid v. LHP OPS guy to make these left handed retread starters pay. Theo makes fantasy baseball GM's look like real MLB genius.

    But for the love of Mike Lowell wasting a 2010 roster spot, hold a joint retirement day for Wakefield and Varitek and get these guys off the active roster. Either that or ask them to agree to a AAA assignment, try and trade them for a scrap, or release them.

    And, Josh, I know you are a big MLBPA attack dog, but give up the Varitek security blanket, you aren't going to finish that contract sucking your thumb and throwing to Varitek. And, Josh, let your rank and file know that smart fans demand blood testing for HGH. And don't give me the "privacy and civil rights" bugaboo nonsense. Team owners are not the federal government.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Last night certainly did not at least IMO signal that Tek has to retire and can't serve the function of back-up catcher, at least in theory.

    However his presence does present 'issues". Unlike any other back-up who would be his age the temptation to start him more often when the team and in particular the pitchers struggled early was tremendous. That temptation wasn't there with Victor Martinez, because while the merits of this point have been argued into the ground on this board and in other circles, Victor Martinez' offense made the point moot. But Salty, that was a different story.

    So it appears the RS became enamored with the idea that Jason Varitek could fix any pitcher with his in game pitch calling and game management. In the last two days we found out two things.

    One: If the pitcher is unable hit his spots, he gets hit regardless of who the catcher is.

    Two: When you play Jason Varitek too much his diminished skills will be exposed from the wear of catching a heavier load. While Buchholz wasn't taken deep, 12 hits and 2 walks is not a good outing. Beckett made a couple of mistakes and the Rs trailed. But more importantly Varitek looked awful in the 8th with Bard on the mound. Salty has given up past balls because of bad technique, those passed balls were for a catcher of Tek's experience and skill set were IMO the by-product of slowed reaction time, which is likely attributable to the current workload.

    We can argue all we want about how the mastery of in game management is valuable, even to the point where some seem willing to accept that most nights we not only go into games with 24 outs versus 27 but that some of those outs will be surrendered with RISP. But go to well too often and the odds even out. The pitchers have ordinary performances and the catcher because of his age makes physical errors behind the plate he wouldn't if he was catching once every 5 days or even 2 of every five with days-off in between.

    Now I have never completely credited Tito for staying with Pedroia in 2007. First off, the team was 'covering" Pedey in April 2007. Second I have always thought that not only did Theo have Terry's back, I think that Theo was in Terry's ear to keep putting Pedey out there.

    Conversely I believe that neither Theo or Tito has the same faith in Salty. And if Theo did not and does not have that same faith in Salty, it was unwise to bring back Tek. Because if you don't have a total commitment to the catcher who is going to catch the majority of the games, his back up must be able to slot in and do that. And only the most die hard supporters of Tek, unwilling to accept that the aging process effects us all ever thought that at 39 Tek is capable of carrying a heavy workload.

    I honestly was stunned that Tek was scheduled to start Buch, knowing that the odds of Salty catching Beckett were 5% or less. Salty had come off of a nice performance by Lackey and he at least is having professional PAs.

    Long and short. If the answer isn't in the present (Salty with Tek as a 30-40 game back-up), it isn't in the past (Tek catching 100 games and Salty catching 62). It isn't a condemnation of Varitek, getting old is not something a player can do anything about. But his presence on the roster causes the temptation to go to that well too often and the last two nights in Baltimore serve as notice of that fact. While not losses that can be attributed to Jason Varitek (even though some would attribute them to Salty if he had been the catcher), we clearly saw that relevance of the catcher only runs so deep and that at 39 Jason can't hit and worked too hard his usually fundamental solid play behind the plate suffers.

    For the moment it should be Salty three starts, Tek two or bust IMO.

    Just my takes 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from -The-Babe-. Show -The-Babe-'s posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Time for the doubters to come back to the surface.

    Posted by moonslav59

    Nope, been here the whole time. But I'm not really a "doubter" as much as I am a "realist". And, realistically, the sawx are a very expensive, very flawed team. Spin it however you like in your usual fashion, but the bottom line is you are what your record says you are.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Salty three starts, Tek two.  Agree, fivekatz.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Buch is adjusting to life without VMart but has still been good enough to be a #4 starter

    I thought that pitchers pitch and catchers catch and it was as simple and clear cut as that. Why would Buch need to adjust?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    If Drew continues playing time and numbers, on pace for 5 year value Fangraphs ~$78.6m.


    ayerWAR/posFromToAgeGPAOPS
    1Carl Yastrzemski88.71961198321-43330813991.841
    2Dwight Evans61.11972199020-38250510240.842
    3Rice41.51974198921-3620899058.854
    4Reggie Smith32.61966197321-2810144264.826
    5Manny Ramirez31.22001200829-3610834682.999
    6Fred Lynn29.71974198022-288283513.902
    7Mike Greenwell23.51985199621-3212695166.831
    8Trot Nixon20.51996200622-329823829.845
    9Ellis Burks16.71987200422-397333132.796
    10J.D. Drew13.52007201031-345252093.853

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share