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

    And now Wake starts and Dice is back in Japan.
    It's providence.

    Atheists take notice!!!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    katz, you know I respect your opinion greatly and nothing you said here is untrue. I would just like to make this point: Wake was recovering from back surgery and you have to think there should be some leeway given him at the start of 2010. Yes, he did pitch poorly overall in 2010, but I do think going from starter to reliever and back 10 times did not make it any easier. Yes, some of that was due to his own ineffectiveness, but I do think some was misuse on Tito's part. Take a look at Wake after he got shelled in his firsst relief appearance after his intitial 4 starts in April: 2 relief games vs the Yanks combined: 4 IP  2 Hits  1 ER   0 BB Then a start vs Toronto 7 IP  5 H  3 ER  0 BB Back to the pen @ NYY 2 IP  1 H  0 ER  0 BB Then the awesone start vs Halladay in Philly: 8 IP  5 H  0 ER  2 BB He then had 2 horrible starts vs KC & Oak (the 2 softy wouldn't let go of for months) 9.2 IP  20 H  15 ER  3 BB He then had 5 good starts in a row: 36 IP  34 H  13 ER  6 BB  (3.25 ERA) Then he had another 2 game "meltdown" at TB and vs TX. 7.2 IP  12 H  12 ER   6 BB Followed by a good start at Oak: 6 IP  3 H  3 ER  2BB That was an 11 start stretch. 7 good starts: 50 IP  42 H  16 ER  10 BB (2.88 ERA/ 1.04 WHIP) 4 bad starts: 17.1 IP  32 H  27 ER  9 BB   It was at this point, I think, Tito lost total confidence and to me, it wasn't deserved. 7 out of 11 pretty good starts is not too bad, but he was rocked hard in those 4 losses. He went 10 days without any action and went of to 9 relief games and 3 spread out spot starts. Now, compare this record to Dice-K who was also returning from an in jury in 2010:  IP  H ER BB 4.2  7  6  3 7.0  5  5  3 5.1  3  1  0 4.2  9  7  3 (7.89 ERA at this point) 8.0  1  0  4 4.2  2  3  8 (5.77 ERA) Total after 4 21.2 IP   24 H  19 ER  9 BB  (1.52 WHIP) Total after 6 34.1 IP  27 H  22 ER  21 BB (1.40 WHIP) Dice-K then had a great strecth, so he was given a chance to overcome his poor stretch and find a groove.
    Posted by moonslav59
    Let me say a couple of things. As you got later into 2010 the only reason Wake was going to get starts was if other guys weren't  able to go. My point was that when Wake had a chance to "earn" a rotation spot at the start of the campaign he did not.

    As a reliever he is not the most attractive pitcher and it isn't all that shocking that Francona would go long stretches without going to him.

    The instability in having to bounce from the seldom used reliever to getting starts is the job the RS have for him when the have their full roster.

    Now let's not be like the chief of police Louie from Casblanca who says he is shocked their is gambling at Rick's American Cafe. Why didn't Dice K get sat down or Beckett when they went through rough patches and Wake get the call to see if he could out perform them. Why didn't they have to sit?

    $$$$$$ and years. The RS have more invested in them and certainly in Beckett's case last year and BTW Lackey's case this year a lot more years invested in them. Tim Wakefield will be 48 and likely retired when Lackey and Beckett are in the final years of their deals.

    But the argument is a chicken - egg argument when you say Wake did badly because he was used sporadically because on could say he was used sporadically because he did badly. Which was the cause, which was the effect?


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

     This is the first year in VMART's career that he's been a PT catcher.

    2009  C  85   1B  70
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
     This is the first year in VMART's career that he's been a PT catcher. 2009  C  85   1B  70
    Posted by tom-uk


    In 2009 Victor's OPS when he caught was 783, compared to about 950 when he didn't. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    VMart career:

    PH:  .962
    1B:  .868
    DH:  .840
    C:     .831

    Maybe he should just PH the rest of his career!

    (LOL)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    A reliever's ERA and a starter's ERA are two different things entirely. All it takes is one really horrific relief appearance to offset a stretch of 9 or 10 outings where a reliever is lights out. Really I don't care too much about reliever ERA because of that. As for starter ERA, it has more importance, more innings, chance to lower the ERA quicker (or vice versa). I want effectiveness within reason. Wakefield does exactly what I could hope for out of a 5th starter and then some.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Victor has caught like 12 games so far this year, or certainly less than 15. His splits are very likely to not be a trend.

    His lifetime catcher OPS of .831 is darn good. Of course catchers get worn down some from all the work back there. Veritek's lifetime OPS is .776.

    Even this year, Victor's OPS is .839 overall. The guy is a middle of the order bat still.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    This is true DC. ERA's for relievers can be very deceptive and particularly if a reliever is used often with inherited runners. On paper Timlin looked great in 2005 but he trashed the ERAs of the pitchers he replaced with a terrible track record with inherited runners.

    Sometimes though it is quite tedious looking at game logs is most productive. Too tedious for me so let's look at somebody whose current sample sets are ganes recent enough for us to have a good overall general impression of the game to game perfomance.

    Case in point Daniel Bard. His ERA is higher for him but still a respectable 3.51. His WHIP says he's been elite 0.974. Is he the elite guy his WHIP says or the pedestrian reliever his ERA suggests?

    The answer is both. Bard has only allowed inherited runners to score once in all his appearances. But with his own clean slate he has be inconsistent and in fact has been rocked hard a couple of occasions. He has lost 4 games already, a very high number so early in the year for a late inning set-up guy who has closer stuff.

    Even with starters ERA is a blunt instrument to measure them, though less tainted by who they play for than the W-L record which can produce Felix Hernadez' 2010.

    But IMO what ERA tells you about a starter in rough terms is how much run support a starting pitcher on average needs to win. A starter with a ERA in the mid 4's needs his offense to score 5 runs on average. A pitcher in the 3's gives a team a chance to win on a night they perform below what for almost all teams but the 2009-2010 Mariners would be their average production. Hence the King's bad W-L record in 2010.

    It is a blunt instrument but it will usually tell you which guys are the playoff rotation pitchers on any team when the manager has to make out that rotation because the variance in WHIP can be much more subdued.

    For grins I pulled up Wakefield's 2009 splits. And they suggest that one needs to look at the game logs once you get past April, where the metrics explain the 2-1 record in 4 starts.

    In May he had 6 starts. He went 4-2. But he either had a ton of run support or my guess would be he had 4 good starts wrapped around two bad ones. His SO/BB ratio was not good, his WHIP was 1.806 (nothing short of awful) and his ERA was 6.82. Now he didn't win 4 of six starts with those numbers in all six starts so I am sure if I had the tenacity that other do to pull game logs I would find when he was good he was very good, when he was bad he was awful.

    Few thoughts that do not relate just to Wake but are broader observations:

    Lackey's sample set is larger and uglier this year BUT it has the same kind of mountain and valley game to game markers in it. It is why when the RS think he is right he will return to the rotation IMO rather than wait others to hit their valleys. It is a long season and the RS will want to get Lackey moving out of his valley and up towards his mountains. Their financial commitments to him and his track record justify and in fact demand it.

    Consistency is variable in how you measure it. Wakefield has been in his second incarnation as a regular starter which began in 2003 and ran uninterrupted until his 2009 back injury a consistent starter over 30-32 starts with an unusually higher swings from game to game. With those 32 games there may be great inconsistency but over 32 games remarkable consistency.

    Following on the last point if a 5th starter is defined on a playoff team as the guy left out of the post season playoff starting rotation those kind of swings in game-to-game performance is will make you the 5th starter in the absence a pitcher who is consistently sub-par or has wilder swings on your team's roster.

    But given the state of pitching in terms of supply and demand there is no doubt that Wakefield is a very serviceable #5 and depending on the years you are having from the rest of your staff a #4, a designation that really only matters come October.

    None of the above will ever stop a team from trying to improve their rotation when an opportunity presents itself, whether it was the Phillies signing Cliff Lee or the RS signing John Lackey.

    Just my takes  
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Interesting takes on Ortiz and Rizzo. Apparently there has been some clamor for the Padres to bring up Rizzo already:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/05/padres-notes-rizzo-adams-gregerson.html

    And Ortiz has been putting up by far the best numbers of any DH in baseball this year, positioning himself for probably a lucrative 2 year deal next year at minimum with someone:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/05/what-declining-dh-production-means-for-david-ortiz.html
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    It's at .829 overall (about .010 below his career number).
    He's on pace for 12 Hrs and 75 RBIs if you triple his numbers.
    He's on pace for about 15 Hrs and 90 RBIs if he stays healthy all year.

    He has played only 11 games at catcher this year(45 PAs/.422 OPS).
    He's DH'd 25 games and played 1B 1 game (OPS over 1.000 combined).

    Our 3-4-5 hitters:

    AGon: .911
    Youk: .886
    Papi:  .918

    Ellsbury is at .830
    Lowrie's at .803

    If he plays 11 games at catcher each of the next thirds of a season, he'll end up with 33 games there. If he stays healthy, he may end up with 40.

    To have him, AGon and Papi on this year's team would have meant he could DH maybe 15 games, play 1B maybe 5 games, and catch ??? To maximize his bat, he'd have to play over 150 games (healthy). That means about 130+ as a catcher. I don't see that as being realistic at age 32 and as much as he has compromised many of our start's effectiveness.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think I've said like 5 times now that I was proposing to let Papi go into free agency for hopefully a 2nd round pick and keep Martinez primarily as a catcher to replace one of our current .600 OPS tanden.

    Detroit is hitting him #5 if I remember correctly which would seem to make him a middle of the order bat to me! Martinez would be catching a lot more if they didn't feel so good about Avila, and rightfully so. Detroit had it right. Martinez is still a valuable commodity. Well worth it for the 4 year deal he signed.

    2 weeks ago he was hitting .330. His average, like most players, is going to go up and down some. He is a lifetime .300 hitter with a 162 game average of 21 HR and 38 doubles per year. As a catching platoon guy those are big numbers.

    It turned out that keeping Papi was a good call ( my bad ) but Martinez would have still been our primary catcher anyway in my scenario for 1 -2 years. As good as Tek and Salty have done lately, they still have near Mendoza line numbers. It is encouraging though that they appear to be improving. We would have been a better team if we kept Victor IMO, this year and even going forward. He was worth the money. He is still only 32 years old. His switch hitting bat would have helped this team a lot from the catching position.

    An apples to apples comparison of Ortiz and Martinez as DH only is not appropriate for the Redsox. Martinez could clearly have helped with our catching load, particularly in the next 2 years. He is 32 as compared to Ortiz at 36. He had no CERA problems with Lester or Buchholz. Beckett and Lackey maybe just didn't have great years last year and there is no indication that Martinez would have hurt Matsuzaka's performance any this year either. Lackey has completely tanked this year. Is that Martinez's fault also? We have Tek as a back up catcher for us at 39 but we didn't see Victor as a back up guy at 36? We got on a "Martinez stinks" train and few of us but me got off.

    Beltre has also continued to be a stud this year. Let me just state it flat out...given the past couple of years projections I would match my calls with anyone's here. How's that for trash talking! Cool


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The current Elias rankings are up on MLBTradeRumors and one thing that caught my eye is that Jed Lowrie, if he were to be a free agent, would have Type A status right now. I could care less about his talent, but I just wanted to toss that to Softlaw. Lowrie is in the top echelon of AL 3B, SS, and 2B based purely on his statistics from the past three seasons.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    5katz, you sure you and moon aren't related? oh, oh.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Boom I have feel the RS locked into a set limit they would go with Victor. I don't buy into the idea that it was a courtsey offer and even if it was in their industry you have to be prepared to make good on the offer if it is accepted. At the right terms they would have been fine with VMart but remember they had first hand experience with how fast offensive prowess can erode for a catcher as he moves through his 30's.

    Even if we don't accept the CERA as literally as some here present it, there is no argument I think that VMart's value is slanted more to his offense than Tek's was when he was signed for 4-$40M and the team annoited him Captain.

    As a DH with utility at 1st and C at $13M in today's market it is a reach. The Tigers also signed Benoit to a 3 year - $16.5M deal so their valuations aren't exactly bulletproof.

    Beltre was a longer view. They knew the market was slow on Beltre and they had another Adrian in their sites, so it laid out well for them.

    Yes you called Adrian Beltre right as he is continuing to put up fine #'s at Texas, so far.

    There was of course another variable which was the business operations side. Bringing back Beltre and VMart wasn't exactly going to be a great advance ticket sales move coming off of the 2009 and 2010 seasons. We can argue that they might have not been a tremendously different team on paper or in the field but they would have been by perception. And the RS are an entertainment product at the end of the day.

    The Ortiz decision was easy IMO. They had 7 days at the conclusion of the WS to either play chicken with Ortiz to save a few million for 2011 and 2012 or exercise their team option at $12M to retain the best DH in the game with no further obligation.

    Both VMart and Beltre are outstanding players. IMO after Lee they were the best players in the FA market with Crawford arguably eclipsing them if you buy into his career year 2010 being sustainable for 5 years.

    Of course it is hard to see them go. But the RS clearly improved in terms of perception, did not get worse in reality, got younger, got 4 picks in a deep draft and surrendered three top prospects not ready for 2011 in the process. Not bad between the white lines and not bad for the bottom line.

    All that said I really don't like the Crawford contract at all. By the end of the season I am willing to bet that Salty will have a line close to .250/.315/.425/.740 with 12-15 HR and 50 RBI.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I like Salty, I don't really care if he hits .150 and drives in 11 runs...just don't screw up too much catching the aces and the youngins and oldies. My new view of the catcher's spot is I don't care what you do at the plate. It took me a long time to get over the catcher's inefficiency at hitting, especially Varitek's famous slumps and dropoffs after great starts.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Rizzo would be called up right now if San Diego wasn't concerned he would go super 2. Hoyer is saying he wants to keep him down for development reasons but if San Diego were in a pennant race I bet Rizzo would be playing 1st for them right now. Rizzo was a very big part of that Gonzalez deal and they also got 2 other top picks in Fuentes and Kelly, who both are having solid developmental years.

    Rizzo's numbers so far this year in 180 AB folks: 15 HR, 16 doubles, .372 Average, 60 RBI, .452 OBP, 1.175 OPS.


    Extended over a full season ( 540 AB ): 45 HR, 48 doubles, 180 RBI...the guy is a monster!


    I was moaning about losing Rizzo almost daily after that deal was made.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think I've said like 5 times now that I was proposing to let Papi go into free agency for hopefully a 2nd round pick and keep Martinez primarily as a catcher to replace one of our current .600 OPS tanden.

    Yes, I know your position, and it had merit. It's nice to have a DH that can play 2 positions.

    I happen to disagree with your position, but it's a close call. We've gone over this many times already, but in short:
    1) VMart on the Sox would not be a middle order hitter (3-4-5), unless you call #6 "middle order" in the strict mathematical sense.
    2) VMart may not be able to catch more than 60-80 games decently, as Detroit figured out, and likely many other teams as well. (harness made a good case for the absense of serious bidders for a top hitting "catcher", the probability is, most teams did not view him as a FT catcher.)
    3) VMart's career OPS is about .840, but at his age, one would expect a drop off slowly and then maybe a steep one near the end of a 4 year deal. A fair projection might look like this: .825 ('11), .815 ('12), .800 ('13) and maybe .780 the last year. These are pretty good DH numbers, but not great. They certainly are not good 1B numbers, no matter how hard softy tried to claim they are.
    4) The whole CERA issue. Chances are, VMart would have been OK with Buch and Lester (and Wake) , but beyond that... (see the CERA thread). That's about 70 starts.  I sincerely feel he would have greatly compromised the other starters effectiveness had he caught them a lot.
     5) Letting papi walk would have caused an uproar. I might have signed with the Yanks.

    Detroit is hitting him #5 if I remember correctly which would seem to make him a middle of the order bat to me!

    He'd likely bat 6th with the Sox.

    Martinez would be catching a lot more if they didn't feel so good about Avila, and rightfully so. Detroit had it right. Martinez is still a valuable commodity. Well worth it for the 4 year deal he signed.

    He's already been hurt. Let's wait until year  4 to judge.

    2 weeks ago he was hitting .330. His average, like most players, is going to go up and down some. He is a lifetime .300 hitter with a 162 game average of 21 HR and 38 doubles per year. As a catching platoon guy those are big numbers.

    He's leaving his prime now, boom. 4 years post prime are a lot of years.

    It turned out that keeping Papi was a good call ( my bad ) but Martinez would have still been our primary catcher anyway in my scenario for 1 -2 years. As good as Tek and Salty have done lately, they still have near Mendoza line numbers.

    You are only looking at hitting. If Vmart was here and our ERA was 0.75 higher, many would not have thought it was his fault.

    It is encouraging though that they appear to be improving. We would have been a better team if we kept Victor IMO, this year and even going forward. He was worth the money. He is still only 32 years old. His switch hitting bat would have helped this team a lot from the catching position.

    Last year, our catching position had a .793 OPS. I could see our current  tandem matching that the final 2/3rds of the season.
     
    An apples to apples comparison of Ortiz and Martinez as DH only is not appropriate for the Redsox. Martinez could clearly have helped with our catching load, particularly in the next 2 years. He is 32 as compared to Ortiz at 36. He had no CERA problems with Lester or Buchholz.

    CERA is a relative stat. Nobody else caught Buch, but I agree, it is highly doubtful anyone could have gotten more out of him. Lester, on the other hand, did much better with VTek (1.88 to 3.68).

    Beckett and Lackey maybe just didn't have great years last year and there is no indication that Martinez would have hurt Matsuzaka's performance any this year either. Lackey has completely tanked this year. Is that Martinez's fault also? We have Tek as a back up catcher for us at 39 but we didn't see Victor as a back up guy at 36? We got on a "Martinez stinks" train and few of us but me got off.

    Simply put, the guy is not good with the staff. That is not being a good catcher, back-up or otherwise. He also had trouble with baserunners as well, but that is more our pitcher's fault than VTek or VMart's.

    Beltre has also continued to be a stud this year. Let me just state it flat out...given the past couple of years projections I would match my calls with anyone's here. How's that for trash talking! Cool

    I certainly think Beltre/AGon/Vmart may outhit AGon/Papi/Salty-VTek this year, but beyond...?

    Also, it's not just about HRs and OPS.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon:

    I certainly think Beltre/AGon/Vmart may outhit AGon/Papi/Salty-VTek this year, but beyond...?

    Also, it's not just about HRs and OPS.

    Boom:

    I think Beltre/AGon/Vmart are even more likely to outhit AGon/Papi/Salty-VTek next year, and the year after and the year after.

    It isn't just about HRs and OPS but a big factor is HR and OPS from what position. Mauer is worth a heck of a lot more because he is a catcher, rather than a DH. MArtinez, even if he is a 50/50 catcher is worth more as a catcher than he is as a DH. Even with a year as good as Papi is having so far this year, a strong case could be made that Victor would have been even more valuable to the Sox this year, replacing one of our current catching tandem.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    What I don't get, Boom, is that you continually bring up VMART - obviously because you wanted him here as primary catcher. This leads to a CERA discussion. So, you bring up Buch/Lester and clearly don't wish to name others. Why is that?

    And when I tell you VMART was horrid with the others, and Lester was twice as good without VMART catching him, and there was no credible frame of reference with Buck - you go into ur "I really don't want to discuss CERA any further" bit.

    The fact is, it compromises your take, so you avoid it. How long will you turn a blind eye to a decade of numbers in Cleveland, where he came up on the short end with his contemporaries.

    You can't have UR cake and eat it too. Earlier you said you wanted VMART to primarily DH for Papi. Then you change it to wanting him as primary catcher. Now you mention 50/50.
    The guy is presently a back-up catcher for a reason. Can he catch full-time at age 32? Hell yes. Is he? NO. Why not?

    TOM brought up 2009. That year he was in a tandem catching 83 games, (which, BTW TOM, is not a PT position. PT catcher is more of a back-up. He was clearly in a tandem). This again shows him hitting much better when he did not catch.
    He hit 15 HR's in 271 at bats as a DH/1st-baseman. As catcher, he hit 8 in 317 at bats. He hit .328 as opposed to.281 as a receiver. The disparity in OPS/slugging was stark.

    When he doen't have to concern himself with catching a pitching staff, his focus is on hitting, and it shows. In other years, he didn't have this luxury, so the numbers were much closer. And I'm willing to bet this trend will continue so long as he can focus on hitting.

    If UR argument is him over Papi, it has merit, as I believe VMART will put up higher-than-career norms if he doesn't have to catch much. Otherwise, you are looking at a scenario which would not benefit him or the team.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The 4 draft picks we get for losing Martinez and Beltre are huge this year, but so were Rizzo, Kelly and Fuentes and the lost draft pick we could have gotten for letting Ortiz go.

    It seems to all be working out well. And I am truly excited about the upcoming draft. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Lavarnway is finally starting to warm up this year. He's close to his minor league career average now, and popping HR balls at a good rate.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    One point on gauging relievers beyond WHIP/ERA: I look at high-leverage situations. Bard has poor numbers in this regard, which deflates the WHIP/ERA debate.

    He has pitched quite well in middle/low leverage conditions, so it's becoming a foregone conclusion that he's regressing from being a potential closer to becoming an iffy choice to set-up the closer. That's how it stands 1/3 through 2011.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    One point on gauging relievers beyond WHIP/ERA: I look at high-leverage situations. Bard has poor numbers in this regard, which deflates the WHIP/ERA debate.

    He has pitched quite well in middle/low leverage conditions, so it's becoming a foregone conclusion that he's regressing from being a potential closer to becoming an iffy choice to set-up the closer. That's how it stands 1/3 through 2011.

    I'm not saying you are wrong, harness, but it's a hard call. How many good closers do poorly in a set up role, even if the set-up situations are high leverage. It's hard to know what would happen if Bard became the closer, but I'm glad we don't need to find out... this year.

    I'm not trying to defend bard. He has had a tough start this year.

    Another stat shows Bard as not being so bad:
    2011 Late and close: .730 OPS (in 2010 it was .459)
    2010 high leverage: .494/ low leverage: .793

    Career:
    Late & Close: .584
    High Leverage: .615
    Low Leverage: .637

    He's young. The sample size is small. It's too early to judge.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Boom, if you watched Victor catch yesterday afternoon, and personally hand the Sox their first run, you saw evidence as to why teams did not want him as a catcher. I love his bat but he is NOT a good, or even adequate catcher at the ML level. And since the guy we got in the big prospect trade is putting up triple crown or MVP numbers and leading the team to first place, any arguments as to the merits of the FO decisions don't hold water. And none of that takes into account the marketing decisions of bringing back essentially the same team as the one fans lost interest in last year. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    The 4 draft picks we get for losing Martinez and Beltre are huge this year, but so were Rizzo, Kelly and Fuentes and the lost draft pick we could have gotten for letting Ortiz go. It seems to all be working out well. And I am truly excited about the upcoming draft. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom

    Just a reminder that the Red Sox would have received a compensatory draft pick for David Ortiz only if the venerable designated hitter had declined an offer of arbitration working off his 2010 salary of $12.5 million.

    I'm not convinced Ortiz would have declined an arbitration offer.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share