A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Well, let's say Downs was signed. At that money, he's gonna set-up. So, he compliments Bard in that role. But,  that's Jenks role. Does the bread spent on Downs validate using him in a lesser role?

    It's the same thing as hitting a 20 mil player 8th or 9th.

    I think Theo called it right limiting the high end $$$ to two arms in the pen and taking low-ball risks with Hill/Miller/Albers. You can't have a 5 million dollar reliever pitching set-up to the set-up for the set-up guy. But if UR saying he might have gone with Downs over Wheeler, then that's a different story.

    Hill is getting swings-and-misses on curves in the strike zone.
    Anybody with any knowledge of pitching should have recognized Hill as the one who should be used with Bard to bridge the games to Paps.

    This would alleviate the workload on Bard and let him match-up better to opposing righties. In fact, the reason Bard wasn't used tonight was because Tito wanted to give him an extra day's rest.

    If Jenks was healthy and doing a good job, Tito would have greater margin for error. Role models only work if they are truly cutting it. Not only is Bard coming up short in many cases, but with Wake/Aceves starting and the team deciding to go with Morales, it's hard to figure why Tito is not utilizing Hill properly.

    As for Crawford, hitting him lower in the line-up makes sense. If he really gets hot and gets on base more often, then I say use him in lieu of whoever's cold at the top of the order. I also think a lot of this herky-jerky motion he uses in his stance can be eliminated. His plate discipline may suffer as a result. This might be addressed at some point during his tenure here.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Well, let's say Downs was signed. At that money, he's gonna set-up. So, he compliments Bard in that role. But,  that's Jenks role. Does the bread spent on Downs validate using him in a lesser role?

    It's the same thing as hitting a 20 mil player 8th or 9th.

    Here's how I look at it: you can really never have too much pitching. Bard and Paps are only used every other day or maybe 3 out of a 5 day stretch. Nobody ever goes 8 or 9 innings anymore. So, in theory, we need 10 slots filled in a 5 game stretch for the 8th and 9th only. Bard and Paps fill 6, Jenks fills 2-3 and Wheeler, Downs, or a combo of Crain Guerrier fill the other 1-2 8th inning slot and all the 7th or earlier innings.

    Secondly, you know how fickle relievers are. You could have safely bet that one of the big 4 would be ineffective or injured thids year at any given moment in the season: thus the need for a 5th solid arm.


    I think Theo called it right limiting the high end $$$ to two arms in the pen and taking low-ball risks with Hill/Miller/Albers. You can't have a 5 million dollar reliever pitching set-up to the set-up for the set-up guy. But if UR saying he might have gone with Downs over Wheeler, then that's a different story.

    I had suggested this on another thread, as well as trying to get a guy like Fuentes or Putz to take a lesser role at more money than they took. I'm not sure they would have, and this is one reason it is hard to name names in alternative plans "after the fact".

    Hill is getting swings-and-misses on curves in the strike zone.
    Anybody with any knowledge of pitching should have recognized Hill as the one who should be used with Bard to bridge the games to Paps.

    This would alleviate the workload on Bard and let him match-up better to opposing righties. In fact, the reason Bard wasn't used tonight was because Tito wanted to give him an extra day's rest.

    Tito is stuck on traditional paradigms. He has pluses, but to me, this is his biggest weakness and he has shown no sign of breaking from traditions- traditions that other managers started breaking from years ago.

    If Jenks was healthy and doing a good job, Tito would have greater margin for error. Role models only work if they are truly cutting it. Not only is Bard coming up short in many cases, but with Wake/Aceves starting and the team deciding to go with Morales, it's hard to figure why Tito is not utilizing Hill properly.

    I agree, but I also feel an extra or better arm would have made things easier for Tito. Spending on another 5/6th starter guy-long relief might have been prudent as well.

    As for Crawford, hitting him lower in the line-up makes sense. If he really gets hot and gets on base more often, then I say use him in lieu of whoever's cold at the top of the order. I also think a lot of this herky-jerky motion he uses in his stance can be eliminated. His plate discipline may suffer as a result. This might be addressed at some point during his tenure here.

    But, assuming everyone is hitting at their expected level, are you saying he deserves to hit 8th all season? I'm sorry, harness, but I think no $20M guy should ever be justifiably placed in the 8th slot. Either he is placed wrongly or paid way too much. I think the latter.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Few thoughts about Crawford, who I fear will make the JD Drew debates look mild in their ability to polarize and thanks to the duration of the contract, short in length of time they rage.

    I am not sure how the RS got down the road they did with Crawford. It was totally understandable OTOH that they had the OF on their "improve" list, but some of the very reasons they did would make Crawford a marginal addition.

    The RS OF was the least productive OF in MLB in 2010.
    The RS OF was aging with Drew and Cameron in their final years.

    So far nothing about Crawford would not fix these two things, he is young, in fact he was at the ideal age to sign a FA because you get more prime years for your money.

    Where it broke down IMO is it did not fix the other problem which was the prospects that RS had in the system were LH guys with moderate power and plus speed. And the player in this roster did not fill a void in the line-up as constructed (hence the season is 25% over and nobody can really say where he should be hitting if he was hitting).

    As I try to rationalize what brought the RS here it could be that much of the FA market for catching had evaporated while they did their work to pull of the Gonzalez trade. Once that market was thinned out as they went to the Winter Meetings the need to add a bat increased. And they knew the OF was weak and going to get a whole lot weaker in depth after 2011 concluded. The catching position offensively was going to be league average at best. The IF and DH were set so that left the OF which was going to be an even bigger issue a year later.

    As for the minors, yeah they had LH down there. But in December of 2010 let's be objective. Josh Reddick was not a guy to bail on but he was not a guy you bet the future of the MLB franchise on. Kalish was more promising but he would be the beneficiary of more time in AAA to polish his skills.

    It all shouted that Jayson Werth a RH RF would be a good fit. But he was signed on the eve of the Winter Meetings opening and for a figure that one could only call shockingly inflated. So inflated that his agent who loves to let the market go through the motions by extended negotiations as long as possible had his client accept the offer without the benefit of walking the halls of the Winter Meetings for counter offers. 

    How we got to signing a guy who had what our prospects had, who was Jacoby Ellsbury with slightly more power but power that was negated by our home field's dimensions is a mystery to me. The size of the contract coming from a team so firm about the correctness of their player valuations was/is shocking.

    Every "intangible" element of Carl's game that Harness points to is possessed in some quantity by guys in the RS system and when you consider that Fenway is likely to mute Carl's HR production and reduce his impact on defense in 81 games it is close. In fact by that same argument one could make a case that Ellsbury, who is a superior base runner and base stealer may be more intangibly valuable, yet this board in the two years I have visited debates that players validity with vigor and a few with vitrol.

    Unlike Moon, I see why the RS needed to improve the OF. They already went and spent more on relief pitchers than they would have liked to because of the volatility of that market. The catching market was pretty darn thin by December 10th. The starting pitching market after Lee was marginally attractive and they had made their commitments in 2010, making any addition here aside from Lee a very iffy situation. The OF screamed as a place to enhance now and for the near future. And trade options after the A-Gon trade were lessened greatly due to the RS not having that many headliner prospects and the desire to hold on to them.

    So the option was going to be to keep their powder dry because the FA market did not have what they needed which was a RH power hitting OFer with the ability to play either corner and the arm to be effective in Fenway's RF.

    Did the falling attendance, fading finishes from WS, to ALCS, to ALDS to no playoffs and the flap about NESV expanding their portfolio to include a Premiership franchise create undue pressure to make this splash?

    Perhaps. But unless you think signing Jacoby Ellsbury to a 6 year $110M extension tomorrow morning is a GREAT idea the contract is a bad one even if Crawford averages his 2010 stats over the 7 years.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I do agree CC's not a #3 hitter for Boston

    It took you that long to agree on the obvious. Slow, though the Red Sox thought he could handle the #3 spot. He's struggling in the #8 spot.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    A few thoughts about the posts regarding situational pitching changes and "roles":

    I would not begin to argue specific situations, those arguments benefit from equal parts of hindsight and speculation what would have happened instead.

    But rather I will explain why I think managers are so keen on establishing roles for their relievers.

    If one goes with and stays with the hot hand a few things happen. At best the guy is successful, extends over the pitch counts that are established to keep him healthy and is now unavailable for a few consecutive games, rather than being available the next night or if used back to back only on the shelf for a day.

    Another issue is if you stay with that hot hand until there is a jam, now you ask the next guy to come in and deal with the mess with little or no margin for error. A big part of managing IMHO is putting guys into situations where they are most likely to succeed, the rest is up to them and their ability to maximize the situation that day.

    OTOH, relievers having roles allows the team to effectively manage the amount of times guys warm up and the pitches they throw in games. And unlike the "hot hand" it is something that can be repeated again and again. 

    And at this time of year believe it or not the manager is still searching out many of his relievers to find their roles and their boundaries. Where in an elimination game in the playoffs it may make sense to go with the hot hand.

    At this time of year there is the longer view of finding out who will be most consistently a hot hand and keeping the pitchers within the boundaries of work loads to win the marathon.

    Out of the box thinking is often attractive and occasionally ground breaking. Often it is an over reach. This board before the 2010 season was all a buzz about the revolutionary thinking in Seattle, where run prevention was valued over run production. 


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, we can agree to disagree but if Crawford was such a bad option hitting 3rd, as compared to Youk who would slot very effectively at #4 or 5, why would the Sox slot him #3 at the start of the season? To me, the difference was not HUGE or ENORMOUS and apparently team management felt the same way. At the beginning of the year, with the data available to them at the time, they chose Crawford at #3.

    I can't believe you cited Ellsbury's 2010 stats several times. That was ridiculous. I didn't even cite Youks stats from last year as it was short seasoned and his numbers from before were even better. I tried to keep this apples to apples as much as possible. I was very objective in my analysis, intentionally so even when the data wasn't as convincing in so doing.

    Maybe Ellsbury's new strength is helping his arm some. I'm observing an average level mlb arm. To me it's not just strength. It's accuracy as well. Sometimes he has to make a strong throw from deep CF and I'm seeing some decent throws recently from Ellsbury.

    From observing your posts for a couple years now, I would contend that you dramatically under rate the impact of a top SB guy. I understand that you liked Tommy Harper etc...but I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the impact of the high percentage stolen base and the impact of CERA. Other than those 2 things I think we generally are in agreement, including on Ellsbury's CF performance. Maybe we disagree a little on why Ellsbury hasn't done as well defensively in CF but I'm not saying he's a great CF. He's about average to me. Put him in San Diego and I bet we would be seeing plus UZR/150 numbers in CF.

    Here is something I think people might be missing. I'm saying IF we get a better CF, I would move Ellsbury to RF or trade him. I doubt if that happens but I'm raising a hypothetical. We are talking about Fenway's right field, one of the most difficult, expansive RF areas in baseball. We are not talking about Yankee stadium's RF. It is more important to have strong range in Fenway's RF. The ability to cover territory in Fenway's RF is more important than in many other parks. Ergo Ellsbury being a more attractive option in Fenway's RF. 

    Ellsbury is not Roberto Clemente ok, but he is a viable and I would even say a positive option in Fenway's RF. He is playing every game this year for a reason. Tito could be subbing in Cameron at CF this year but he is not doing that at least at the start of games. Ellsbury is a major force on this team and if we moved him from CF to RF isn't it clear as a bell that his UZR/150 numbers probably go up? That should be indisputable statistically. Even if Ellsbury had a slightly below average arm in mlb, his overall strengths and abilities should enable him to be a good defensive right fielder in Fenway.

    I think Ellsbury stays with us until he leaves in FA, probably as a type A. I think he is going to be given every opportunity to become a stud so that Theo gets a couple picks. And I think that policy is also going to benefit this team a lot in the interim.

    BTW, it's great that Drew's career average with RISP is good. Of course that data only includes those AB where he didn't walk. A player has to swing the bat to actually hit with RISP right. Again, he plays for numbers, just like he held out for more money when he was a first round pick for the phillies. Just like he has done his entire career. He doesn't like to play unless he's fully healthy. It skews the numbers.

    I don't want to fault Drew. I appreciate him as a player but he is what he is and the data is now extensive about how often he has gotten hurt and this is a guy I've never once seen dive for a ball in my memory. I've seen that slide catch a bunch but never a diving snag. Even with that we can't keep him on the field and unless we platoon him quite a bit his numbers go down. He is over rated as a player. By the way, so far this year he has 10 RBI, with over a quarter of the year done. As compared to Ellsbury's 22 RBI with guys like Tek and Salty hitting in front of him as the lead off guy.

    I think we have covered these things sufficiently. There is no point repeating them.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm not sure what harness had in mind, but I think leaving a "hot hand" in for 1-3 more batters shouldn't change the dynamic enough to have far-reaching effects on other established pitcher's roles.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    There are benefits and drawbacks to using players in defined roles.
    It depends on UR situation. It works if you have guys who are lights out in their respective role.

    It doesn't work well if the bridge is shakey. This pen currently has a soft underbelly - the 8th frame. Bard is over-used and has not been consistent in the role. The reason he's over-used is because the team is finding themselves in more "winnable" games this year, especially lately, whereas Tito would NOMAS  NO MAS on several games last year...namely those destined for EI.

    It wouldn't really be an issue if Jenks was as advertised. This idea of limiting pitches has merit, but it shouldn't be set in stone. Last night Hill threw 17 pitches. He was pitching well. Tito cut the string and went with Albers with no back-up.
    Nobody was even warming up!

    Katz
    has a point in that you want a pitcher to be brought into a position where he can succeed. The problem is: pitchers have to establish their stuff. Some can do it quicker than others. Some days you have to fool' em with half UR repertoire.
    When a guy has it going, it means he's in sync. More often than not, he's UR best bet. It's better than bringing in another pitcher cold - who either isn't accustomed to the role - or hasn't been cutting it consistently.
    If it doesn't work, have another option readily available.

    Recognizing Hill and what he can do would have lessened the load on Bard.
    Hill doesn't throw hard, but has wonderful movement. Especially for a lefty. Just watch hitters bail on him.

    Maybe Tito doesn't trust the soft throwers. Right now, he has little choice!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Maybe you stayed at a Holliday Inn Express and left without paying the bill.
     
  10. 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:
    [QUOTE]Maybe you stayed at a Holliday Inn Express and left without paying the bill.
    Posted by SoxSoldRed[/QUOTE]

    It was a mistake. I was only running after you as you forgot UR monkey suit.

    No where did I ever say CC was a #3 hitter. I said he was a transitional fit. I said he will add another dimension to this team with the Crawbury tandem.
    You don't have the ability to acknowledge what he brings to the team, even after his slow April. He can change the tempo of a game in several ways...while one-dimensional players can only do it with their bats.

    Hope Oki finds a nice fit.
    Hope Wheeler won't follow him.
    Hope they don't trade Jake next week.
    Glad they kept Lowrie out of the AGONE deal.
    Hope Wake pitches well enough tonight...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Few thoughts about Crawford, who I fear will make the JD Drew debates look mild in their ability to polarize and thanks to the duration of the contract, short in length of time they rage.

    I am not sure how the RS got down the road they did with Crawford. It was totally understandable OTOH that they had the OF on their "improve" list, but some of the very reasons they did would make Crawford a marginal addition.

    The Holliday signing of the prior winter at $17M per year x 7 years looks better and better (in terms of the CC deal) doesn't it? ($160M/7 minus the $15M for Cam= $145M/7) 

    The RS OF was the least productive OF in MLB in 2010.
    The RS OF was aging with Drew and Cameron in their final years.

    I never said it wasn't an area of need; to me, it wasn't out top need. However, we had Ellsbury and Cam returning and Kaish and other kids a year closer to readiness.

    So far nothing about Crawford would not fix these two things, he is young, in fact he was at the ideal age to sign a FA because you get more prime years for your money.

    The age was right: the hand was wrong. His speed is minimized in Fenway's LF and on the basepaths with Tito as the manager and Youk, AGon or Papi up behind him (not likely to steal as often as in his past). His defense looks sketchy so far, but maybe it will come around. The same thing happened to Cam at first.

    Where it broke down IMO is it did not fix the other problem which was the prospects that RS had in the system were LH guys with moderate power and plus speed. And the player in this roster did not fill a void in the line-up as constructed (hence the season is 25% over and nobody can really say where he should be hitting if he was hitting).

    As I try to rationalize what brought the RS here it could be that much of the FA market for catching had evaporated while they did their work to pull of the Gonzalez trade. Once that market was thinned out as they went to the Winter Meetings the need to add a bat increased. And they knew the OF was weak and going to get a whole lot weaker in depth after 2011 concluded. The catching position offensively was going to be league average at best. The IF and DH were set so that left the OF which was going to be an even bigger issue a year later.

    As for the minors, yeah they had LH down there. But in December of 2010 let's be objective. Josh Reddick was not a guy to bail on but he was not a guy you bet the future of the MLB franchise on. Kalish was more promising but he would be the beneficiary of more time in AAA to polish his skills.

    I agree, but looking to 2012 after Drew and Cam go, we still need a RF'er even with CC here.

    It all shouted that Jayson Werth a RH RF would be a good fit. But he was signed on the eve of the Winter Meetings opening and for a figure that one could only call shockingly inflated. So inflated that his agent who loves to let the market go through the motions by extended negotiations as long as possible had his client accept the offer without the benefit of walking the halls of the Winter Meetings for counter offers. 

    I am glad we didn't get Werth either, even though his RH'd bat fit better.

    How we got to signing a guy who had what our prospects had, who was Jacoby Ellsbury with slightly more power but power that was negated by our home field's dimensions is a mystery to me. The size of the contract coming from a team so firm about the correctness of their player valuations was/is shocking.

    About $50M too much shocking!

    Every "intangible" element of Carl's game that Harness points to is possessed in some quantity by guys in the RS system and when you consider that Fenway is likely to mute Carl's HR production and reduce his impact on defense in 81 games it is close. In fact by that same argument one could make a case that Ellsbury, who is a superior base runner and base stealer may be more intangibly valuable, yet this board in the two years I have visited debates that players validity with vigor and a few with vitrol.

    Unlike Moon, I see why the RS needed to improve the OF.

    I would have spent the $20M on 3-4 players instead:
    -A shorter term RH'd OF'er (bridge to 2012)
    -A solid game-calling catcher
    -Another good reliever or two (or an upgrade from what we got plus another one).

    I used the Cam/Kalish vs Crawford as an example of the worst case scenario for our OF and how much of an upgrade was CC from that?
    (not $20M worth, not even $12M worth, really)


    They already went and spent more on relief pitchers than they would have liked to because of the volatility of that market. The catching market was pretty darn thin by December 10th.

    I am nealy certain Theo never intendedon paying market value for VMart. The two draft picks gained by letting him walk meant the "equal value" would never be met. I don't agree that the AGon deal took 24 hours a day and distracted Theo from addressing the catcher issue earlier. If so, he dropped the ball and forced the situation that led to overspending on the only big splash FA left besides Lee.

    I agree, the timing made the CC deal almost a necessity in terms of saving face on winter dealings. I know there are those that wanted VMart instead of CC. I wanted neither at their costs.

    The starting pitching market after Lee was marginally attractive and they had made their commitments in 2010, making any addition here aside from Lee a very iffy situation.

    ...and who knows if he would have come here if we offered more. It's hard to know if we could have signed Lee and dealt Dice or Lackey, eating some money on the latter, but perhaps it was an option. I think there may have been other trade options for players of high financial burden to other teams.

    The OF screamed as a place to enhance now and for the near future. And trade options after the A-Gon trade were lessened greatly due to the RS not having that many headliner prospects and the desire to hold on to them.

    There was talk of a couple OF deals in the works this past winter. Moderate improvements in the form of a solid RH'd bat along with the returning of Ells and Cam could have gotten us through 2011 at marginally less production than CC at between his career average and 2010 numbers. Yes, if Kalish, Reddick or others are not ready by 2012, then the FA options might be limited, but there are other ways of filling 2012's OF needs and spending$20M for 2011 as a bridge to the next year's needs is the most "shocking" thing to me, not to mention the last years of the deal. Who knows, maybe even Lowrie can play LF in 2012.

    So the option was going to be to keep their powder dry because the FA market did not have what they needed which was a RH power hitting OFer with the ability to play either corner and the arm to be effective in Fenway's RF.

    Some say Werth was ideal for Fenway's RF- one is saying Ells can do it.

    Did the falling attendance, fading finishes from WS, to ALCS, to ALDS to no playoffs and the flap about NESV expanding their portfolio to include a Premiership franchise create undue pressure to make this splash?

    Perhaps. But unless you think signing Jacoby Ellsbury to a 6 year $110M extension tomorrow morning is a GREAT idea the contract is a bad one even if Crawford averages his 2010 stats over the 7 years.

    B-I-N-G-O !
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    ...and who knows if he would have come here if we offered more. It's hard to know if we could have signed Lee and dealt Dice or Lackey, eating some money on the latter, but perhaps it was an option. I think there may have been other trade options for players of high financial burden to other teams.

    Moon I would say the odds on Lee becoming a RS just on what we know are virtually null. He turned down more money from Texas which provided nice proximity to his native Arkansas and much more money from the NYY. Now how the RS were going to win a bidding war with the NYY for a guy who wasn't looking for the highest bid is hard to imagine.

    As for the pitching trade market, not to be a smarty pants but if the NYY didn't pick up any of those attractive financial burden guys after they lost on Lee, chances are good they aren't there or are just awful. And the RS had every reason to feel OK about their staff.

    I have a harder time saying what else they should have done with the money in 2011. The catching market was not breath taking by any means. The OF market after Crawford and Werth very thin and trades were hampered by the fact that the RS spent so much in A-Gon deal and just aren't loaded at the AAA at all. Ellsbury might have been their most tradable commodity but coming off of an injury marred 2010 his stock was down. Lowrie just hadn't played enough between the wrist and the mono. After that it is pretty much guys you don't want to trade or guys people expect you to pay to play for them.

    But sometimes you just have to take your lumps. I have no way to prove it but I am sure the RS had Werth targeted at about $75-$80M and never saw the Nats coming.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, we can agree to disagree but if Crawford was such a bad option hitting 3rd, as compared to Youk who would slot very effectively at #4 or 5, why would the Sox slot him #3 at the start of the season? To me, the difference was not HUGE or ENORMOUS and apparently team management felt the same way. At the beginning of the year, with the data available to them at the time, they chose Crawford at #3.

    1) Tito is hooked on the L-R-L paradigm and perhaps he wondered about AGon's recovery.

    2) Using this same logic, then do you now agree that Cam is a better Cf'er than Ellsbury, because Tito moved him?

    3) OBP is as crucial at the 3 slot and since Ells hits LH'ers and RH'ers about equally and Pedey hits RHPs better than LHPs, the whole L-R-L thing is amiss anyways.

    4) Youk is as near a guaranteed .400 OPS guys as there is in MLB. He has power as well. He is the best #3 hitter on his team. AGon is the next best. Papi is the next best (at least vs RHPs).

    5) Crawford's weakness vs LHPs is a huge negative for a 3 slot hitter late in a game.

    I can't believe you cited Ellsbury's 2010 stats several times. That was ridiculous. I didn't even cite Youks stats from last year as it was short seasoned and his numbers from before were even better. I tried to keep this apples to apples as much as possible. I was very objective in my analysis, intentionally so even when the data wasn't as convincing in so doing.

    Youk's 2010 numbers should count. He wasn't playing hurt.
    Jacoby's 2010 numbes were dubious, and some were from playing with pain.

    I wouldn't say selecting Ellsbury's best year (2009) is being objective. Why not count 2008?

    Maybe Ellsbury's new strength is helping his arm some. I'm observing an average level mlb arm. To me it's not just strength. It's accuracy as well. Sometimes he has to make a strong throw from deep CF and I'm seeing some decent throws recently from Ellsbury.

    I've watched evry game. Apparently, I am watching different games than you are. His arm is below average. Being acurate helps some, but it is not strong. I could go along with average for CF, but as a RF'er, it would be below average.

    From observing your posts for a couple years now, I would contend that you dramatically under rate the impact of a top SB guy. I understand that you liked Tommy Harper etc...but I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the impact of the high percentage stolen base and the impact of CERA.

    Boom, I could argue that if an 80% SB rate is the agreed number for having a positve impact on offense production, then it means that a 75% rate is not very helpful, if at all. How much is 81% worth? Jacoby is at 84.3% career, This year is 78.9%. I could argue this, but I won't: I don't agree with the 80% number. I think 70-75% is a positive number. Holding Ellsbury on 1st base and forcing IF'ers and pitchers to focus on a runner and not the batter has value too. I know that. I love that value. I love Jacoby on our team. It has nothing to do with his fielding or ability to play RF.

    The CS's are outs that restrict the chances of scoring and offest some of the advantages of the SBs. That is a fact that needs to be pointed out when looking at the positive aspects of base stealing. (edit: tonight's CS was followed by long dbl by AGon: no run.)

    Other than those 2 things I think we generally are in agreement, including on Ellsbury's CF performance. Maybe we disagree a little on why Ellsbury hasn't done as well defensively in CF but I'm not saying he's a great CF. He's about average to me. Put him in San Diego and I bet we would be seeing plus UZR/150 numbers in CF.

    Our CF is pretty large. We have had slow LF'ers that should have allowed more CF plays. We have a huge RF that necessitates Drew not shading to CF. Drew is not fast, but gets good breaks on balls.

    To me, the fact that Jacoby plays super deep is an admition tht he is not a good OF'er or lacks confidence.

    Here is something I think people might be missing. I'm saying IF we get a better CF, I would move Ellsbury to RF or trade him. I doubt if that happens but I'm raising a hypothetical. We are talking about Fenway's right field, one of the most difficult, expansive RF areas in baseball. We are not talking about Yankee stadium's RF. It is more important to have strong range in Fenway's RF. The ability to cover territory in Fenway's RF is more important than in many other parks. Ergo Ellsbury being a more attractive option in Fenway's RF. 

    I think it is easier to find a good RF'er than a good CF'er these days.

    ...BTW, it's great that Drew's career average with RISP is good. Of course that data only includes those AB where he didn't walk. A player has to swing the bat to actually hit with RISP right....

    You don't think it matters that he usually has less potent players behind him, and picthers picth around him?

    You actually want him to swing at balls outside the strike zone with RISP?


    Of course, I wish he had more RBIs, but by walking, he gives the next guy a chance for even more RBIs.
    I don't want to fault Drew. I appreciate him as a player but he is what he is and the data is now extensive about how often he has gotten hurt and this is a guy I've never once seen dive for a ball in my memory. I've seen that slide catch a bunch but never a diving snag. Even with that we can't keep him on the field and unless we platoon him quite a bit his numbers go down. He is over rated as a player. By the way, so far this year he has 10 RBI, with over a quarter of the year done. As compared to Ellsbury's 22 RBI with guys like Tek and Salty hitting in front of him as the lead off guy.

    Small sample size, but Drew is getting older. boom, I have been on record as saying we overpaid for Drew and that Theo knew we weren't getting a true fulltime player for $14M per.

    I think we have covered these things sufficiently. There is no point repeating them.

    Let's move on.

    After this year, Jacoby will have 3 years in CF. The UZR/150 data will be more reliable.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think the RedSox FO is very capable of multi-tasking.
    No one deal will prohibit them from paying close attention to other matters.

    I'm sure the AGONE deal was top priority. But not the only priority.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Good response katz. I agree that Lee coming here had little chance.

    The trade talk was directed towards an OF'er. If we didn't sign Crawford, I wasn't for not spending any on upgrading the OF. I wanted it spread around. Finding a RF'er actually made more sense. Finding a RH'd OF bat made more sense. Signing a LH'd LF'er for $20M made no sense. LF'ers are usually easy to find, and the fact that our LF'er plays 81 games in Fenway allows us to hide a poor fielding LF'er better than most teams.


    A look at the other options play thus far this year is about as frightening as CC's. The difference is they weren't signed for 7 years or $142M.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    One other thing; to Moon:

    Bringing other relievers into Boston isn't the easiest thing to do. Some prefer to veer away from pitching in this park - in this city. The ones who have come here under this present regime haven't exactly fared that well. Oki comes to mind of one who sustained anything over two years...and that's a marginal call.

    Wheeler found a home in Tampa - a place with little pressure.
    Jenks is used to seeing 315 ft. flys to left nestling into leather.
    R. Rameriz fizzled after a year...or half a year.
    Gagne, well, never mind.

    Timlin seems to be the exception. BP's are tricky anyway, but seemingly more so in Boston's glare.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm not saying my way would have been better for 2011, but at least it wouldn't be 7 years.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    7 years is 3 years too long.
    But it beats a broken mirror! Cool
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Hindsight: nobody here said that Berkman would have been a good LF'er this year in Boston.

    He signed with St. L for $8M/1.

    Monday morning QB wanted (sign these guys for $1M more):
    LF: Berkman $9M/1
    RP: Downs     $16M/3
    C:  Ramon Hernandez: $3M
    Upgrade from Wheeler ($3M)
    to Jesse Cain ($14M/3) or Matt Guerrier ($13M/3)

    All this totals less than $19M and $12M is off the books for 2012. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Just watched the RS win the rubber game.  Wake pitched great, much like a (3) hitter he threw here in Oakland about three years ago.  I think pitching regularly he can pitch like this; what a great commodity to have in your pen for situations like this.  You've been saying this for two years Moon--falling on deaf ears for one of our "former" posters.  Next, I was quite impressed with Salty.  He seemed to catch a great game, dealing with three different pitchers and styles.  Only let one ball by from Wake that I saw, and hit a homer.  He looks more confident.  I think this is going in the right direction.  My one complaint is he doesn't seem to open the glove completely when setting his target, it seems only part open, offering a smaller target.  What do I know.  I was a catcher through high school, but I'd still like to see that glove open up.  Lowrie looks good to me too, confident and professional.  A-Gon, what a hitter.  Youk, what a gutsy scrapper.  Loved that at-bat against Wood, and did he ever tag that triple.   I hope the momentum and confidence from this series continues, not sure the Cubbies are a top adversary at this point but probably a good team to find and refine your groove. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I never liked Downs at the Fens. It's not conducive to his pitching style. More often than not, it's a graveyard for lefties like him. And three years at 5 mil a year is pretty steep given his age.

    Age is also a factor with Hernandez/Berkman.
    The former hasn't caught over 100 games since 2008. And he hits better in the weaker N.L. The latter isn't one I'd like to see patrolling LF on the road.

    14/13 mil for Crain/Guerrier is too much. They may not transition well to tougher competition.

    On the thought process that made Boston sign CC at 140 mil: They've been waiting for this guy to hit FA for years. Nothing this last winter played into or deterred them from inking a player who's been on their radar for so many years.

    They are using a more complete scale. Are they visionaries? Well, you know how Theo feels about long-term commitments like these. Time will tell it.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, there has been an ongoing discussion here of CC coming to Boston.  I did not expect the RS to go for him because of all the speculation about Werth.  I thought Werth was a better fit, but I did not want to go for him--I was not impressed with his (Werth's) game last year, at bat or in the field and especially in big situations.  I just accepted the RS would not make a play for CC and was completely surprised when they did for that money.  I thought both of those contracts were too crazy for what you got.  BUT once they committed to CC I hoped like crazy he would add an electric speed- run- steal-slide-take an extra base dynamic with Ells, in other words CRAWBURY!  I still hope that happens, but I don't know.  He looks a little lost to me, trying too hard?  He has had a couple of important hits lately, but I don't see him making a regular impact on the game.  I think what you and others are saying is he is a good player, but one whose skills don't fit in well here.  This is a puzzle to me.  Seems as if Theo et al have painted themselves into a corner a bit.  I have some trouble with the argument "We'll need another outfielder next year anyway."  He didn't look good against the lefthander today, and some here make the argument that he's not really a great right fielder.  Left field doesn't make use of his skills.  What's to happen here?  Seven years of grin and bear it? 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Harness, I hope you're right--that they're visionaries.  As a fan, I want for him to be a huge success.  It's tough for many players to make it here, big stage, lots of pressure and expectations.  I'm not a GM so I don't know how to look at this but I just don't see it yet.  Maybe he'll just slowly acclimate himself and Tito et al will figure out what to do with him.  To me it's pretty disturbing they don't even know where to bat him.  Does that  suggest he's been on the radar for years?  Not disputing your thought, just if so, why don't they seem to know what to do with him now
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Crit: Whether we like it or not: The FO is transforming this team to be able to play and win at any venue. The years of seeing a sub-par, station-to-station road team is gone.
    So is the years of utter home dominance. This is becoming a more balanced ballclub.

    Ever hear about the fan who kept trying to fit a puzzling piece into a known puzzle? He kept trying and trying - changing the piece in every direction.
     Finally, he gave up. And that's when he realized: It was the other traditional pieces that were obsolete.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Was this a case of "Taking Best Free Agent Available"--even if they didn't actually need him?
     

Share