A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]The Lackey comment was not surprising. He pitched like he was hurt, but maybe kept some of it a secret so as not to activate the injury option clause. Well, at least the 2012 Lackey question is put to rest, and there's a rosier outlook for John for 2013 than I had yesterday. I like Ben's comments about a "strong voice" manager and Papi and Paps. Maybe I missed soemthing, but some poster was claiming he thought Ben hinted at them both walking. I can't seem to find the whole transcript of what he said.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    This is why I said over and over not to judge Lackey hurt or pitching hurt. Ya get a false read on the numbers. There were solid indicators back in the 2nd half of 2008 that showed regression likely due to his elbow.

    I do agree it was kept hush hush for contractual reasons. Why it's tricky to depict a physical issue with Lackey is because it usually affects velocity. When Dice went down, he was throwing 88 MPH in his last game. Dice throws 93 when healthy.

    Lackey throws 92-93 and has for years. But he pitches "backwards" in that he uses his FB to set up his off-speed stuff. I recall 791 showing definite regression in depth of break going back to 2008, but it didn't really affect his FB.

    Obviously, it's a type of deterioration slower than what happened to Hill or Dice.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Boom, thank you.  Please keep your word. Did you see the site on this page above that Moon suggested about relief pitching?  They had some sites there to check out "Top 10 Prospects " for each team.  Wondering if you agreed with the 10 listed there for RS?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Well, no one who's actually smart agrees with me, but that's no surprise. I just think the advantage of having Crawford hitting to his career norms outweighs the advantages of having a higher OBP guy hitting 2nd. Yes, Youk has a higher career OBP, much higher in fact. But I think it would be a good idea to get CC somewhere close to back to his comfort zone. Let's face it, the young man's confidence really took a beating this year and it might behoove the Red Sox to do something to give him back his swagger.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    Carnie, I thought about your proposal before, at least in terms of Crawford batting 2nd. In 2010 he indicated the ability to maybe get on base at a .350 - .360 clip. And if he does he would be a major force on the basepaths. His game is enhanced if he is near the top of the lineup. He is a tremendous base runner. He can potentially be an excellent #2.

    Adding to that, let's face it. Hitting #2 in front of Agon is a great place to hit especially for a guy who needs strikes to hit. If they tell Crawford to calm down about 1,000 times and get him to look at some pitches I don't see a lot of teams wanting to take a chance to walk him with Agon etc...up next. It is in many ways the best way to get him back in form IMO.

    Again, I did think about it. I don't think it is crazy at all when we look at the total lineup. It stretches the lineup and sure puts a lot of pressure on opposing pitchers if either Ellsbury or Crawford or both get on in front of the meat of this order. 

    I do not support having to have the same lineup every day, i.e. Tito's approach generally. Against RH pitching, I think going with Crawford as #2 and showing him some confidence in 2012 is absolutely an option.  

    Where I came down in the end is that Ellsbury is LH, Pedroia is RH, then Gonzalez is LH again. Pedroia is also a consistently proven commodity in that slot. Batting Crawford down in the lineup clerly hurts him. We need to find a way to protect him in the lineup, to enable him to see more strikes, or he will not be optimized. It was a tough call. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Boom, thank you.  Please keep your word. Did you see the site on this page above that Moon suggested about relief pitching?  They had some sites there to check out "Top 10 Prospects " for each team.  Wondering if you agreed with the 10 listed there for RS?
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]

    Critter, I'm fully aware of venue issues and even discussed them just a page ago but oh well. I get directly insulted again over something I absolutely understand.

    I'll check out the prospects list. Can't wait!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I've been reading the last several days that pitching coaches haven't been historically accepted as managersbut that might be changing, Bud Black and our former guy in Toronto.  If pitching is such an important part of the game, then why not?  Of course there have been a lot of former catchers in this role, and there you have someone who was involved with closely with pitching. What do you guys think about Bedard going forward?  I thought he pitched "adequately" but can he stay healthy.....
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]

    Hitters/Pitchers have their own camp during playing days. Let's face it: They are on opposite sides of the fence. I think this is why relatively few PC's manage. Farrell has front office experience. His communication skills are solid. That's why I advocated him as manager in 2011, promoting Tito into a practical FO/field position.

    Beddard IMO doesn't offer adequate playing form for heavy $$$ consideration.
    Cheap insurance? yes.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I :Beddard IMO doesn't offer adequate playing form for heavy $$$ consideration. Cheap insurance? yes.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]Exactly. Either he or Oswalt might be nice to look at on a short deal though. Preferably one year.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Mike Napoli magic fingers World Series CERA 1.50
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Crit...that list is almost a year old. It's really out of date now. A highly anticipated Baseball America list should be out soon. If Lavarnway is not in the mlb top 50 I will have to use an embassing avatar on another forum ( I note that in bold for the reading challenged here ). Conventional wisdom is that he will not be but i do think he has maybe a 40% chance. That would probably mean in the evaluation of BA, Lavarnway would be considered our top prospect now. I am of that opinion at this time. I hope he cracks the top 50 but he is currently #6 on soxprospects. 

    I know I'm in the minority on that but I find it hard to deny Lavarnway after the consistent numbers he has put up 3 years in a row now and he appears to be acceptable defensively. 34 HR last year in like 475 AB? In AAA for a 24 year old catcher?

    I think he is probably our top prospect now. Hopefully Baseball America agrees or I'll be Daffy Duck or something similar for 6 months time.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Mike Napoli magic fingers World Series CERA 1.50
    Posted by hankwilliams[/QUOTE]

    It IS interesting that nothing has been mentioned.

    I posted a bit ago that I thought his reputation was all bat but no defense, but he certainly looked adequate to me defensively...throwing guys out etc.  But, I'm not an expert so what the hell do I know?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I do not support having to have the same lineup every day, i.e. Tito's approach generally. Against RH pitching, I think going with Crawford as #2 and showing him some confidence in 2012 is absolutely an option.   Where I came down in the end is that Ellsbury is LH, Pedroia is RH, then Gonzalez is LH again. Pedroia is also a consistently proven commodity in that slot. Batting Crawford down in the lineup clerly hurts him. We need to find a way to protect him in the lineup, to enable him to see more strikes, or he will not be optimized. It was a tough call. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]I think I can agree with that, especially since it puts Crawford at number two 4 days out of 5 for the most part. I do think that one of the problems that Crawford had this year was that Tito didn't show a lot of confidence in him. Now don't get me wrong, I loved Terry Francona, and he was clearly the best Red Sox manager in my memory, but I'm not sure he handled Crawford right. Prior to this year Crawford's most similar statistical comp was Roberto Clemente. Now, I'm quoting Chad Finn on that, so I haven't done my own research. But if we could get Carl Crawford back to being that guy, how could that not benefit the Red Sox?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : It IS interesting that nothing has been mentioned. I posted a bit ago that I thought his reputation was all bat but no defense, but he certainly looked adequate to me defensively...throwing guys out etc.  But, I'm not an expert so what the hell do I know?
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]


    Why, don't you know Amp? It's all voo-doo!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Critter, I'm fully aware of venue issues and even discussed them just a page ago but oh well. I get directly insulted again over something I absolutely understand. I'll check out the prospects list. Can't wait!
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]


    ...and yet you use A's pitching to justify Young's tremendous job with them...never making the appropriate adjustments for where they played half their games, to say nothing of playing in Seattle/CA in an unbalanced schedule.
    "tippy tap".

    Did you make that bet with Moon?
    "Tippy tap".

    "I hate tap dancers".
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Why, don't you know Amp ? It's all voo-doo!
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I don't know Harn, but Napoli certainly looks pretty darned valuable in the series for now anyway..when it counts....high CERA or not.  Something has to be said positive about this.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    It IS interesting that nothing has been mentioned.

    I posted a bit ago that I thought his reputation was all bat but no defense, but he certainly looked adequate to me defensively...throwing guys out etc.
     

    Amp, Napoli 1.5 WS ERA in 4 starts is proof that CERA is a joke. Pujols and Holliday are not Varitek and Lowrie.

    Harness has a vicarious fixation on Varitek. Without CERA, Varitek is a bum. Of course, Varitek hasnt been able to finish a season as a backup catcher in two years. Varitek is a bum who should have retired years ago. Magic fingers and "mentoring" was a joke, and the metrics prove it.      


    Mike Napoli magic fingers World Series CERA

    1.50

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]It IS interesting that nothing has been mentioned. I posted a bit ago that I thought his reputation was all bat but no defense, but he certainly looked adequate to me defensively...throwing guys out etc.   Amp, Napoli 1.5 WS ERA in 4 starts is proof that CERA is a joke. Pujols and Holliday are not Varitek and Lowrie. Harness has a vicarious fixation on Varitek. Without CERA, Varitek is a bum. Of course, Varitek hasnt been able to finish a season as a backup catcher in two years. Varitek is a bum who should have retired years ago. Magic fingers and "mentoring" was a joke, and the metrics prove it.       Mike Napoli magic fingers World Series CERA 1.50
    Posted by hankwilliams[/QUOTE]

    Well, Varitek certainly isn't without flaw, yet he really could be valuable as a catching coach to pass along his knowledge or as a part-time backup.  If a big shake-up is coming, maybe he could take Tuck's spot.  Maybe three catchers?? yikes! 

    Besides, I like his haircut.... and in 30 yrs., his hair color will be same as mine..laugh.

    Better yet, how about a coach who could back-up in a pinch?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    If you guys are not ready to part with Varitek than we may as well miss the play-offs again.  Its time to move on, ...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Part-time backups are able to finish the season. Varitek has been on the shelf late in both of the last two seasons, despite only averaging about 53 games or less than 1/3 of a season.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I don't know Harn, but Napoli certainly looks pretty darned valuable in the series for now anyway..when it counts....high CERA or not.  Something has to be said positive about this.
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    Napoli could always hit. Compared to Mathis, he came in a distant 2nd with the Angels staff.

    Now he is handling a pitching staff which I've clearly stated this year was under-rated. Unlike CA, TX is a launching pad. Away from TX, their staff was among the best in baseball. This is what I tried to get across to Softone, when he said "Texas was a 2nd rate contender".

    CERA is but one indicator that can't be measured over one series. Napoli has caught an under-rated staff who has faced the Rays/the Tigers/ the Cards.  This is a far cry from facing the line-ups of Boston/NY/Philly. Given that, the staff has allowed 43 runs in 11 post season games with Napoli. Keep it in perspective.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]If you guys are not ready to part with Varitek than we may as well miss the play-offs again.  Its time to move on, ...
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Are you saying the team missed the PO's because of Tek?
    Please provide some back-up if this is UR position.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Tampa Bay is a 2nd rate contender, you blithering bozo. You claimed over and over that Napoli was playing first because of his CERA.

    Varitek was on the shelf which forced Lavarnway to enter a do or die playoff situation.

    Your comments on Napoli are completely delusional.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : ...and yet you use A's pitching to justify Young's tremendous job with them...never making the appropriate adjustments for where they played half their games, to say nothing of playing in Seattle/CA in an unbalanced schedule. "tippy tap". Did you make that bet with Moon ? "Tippy tap". "I hate tap dancers".
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I'm uploading a video file right now so I don't have time to look up everything again but I believe just a page or so ago I posted that in Young's entire 7 year career as A's pitching coach his staff had the BEST ERA IN the AL or the BEST ERA IN THE MAJORS (I can't remember) over that period. That is 7 years. That is not a fluke. Of course he had venue advantages. Who amoung us doesn't know that Oakland is a pitchers park? Nonetheless, over 7 years they ended up with at least the best ERA in the AL. And they did it with very little money. 

    Even with the Redsox, upon close examimantion we find that the relievers WHIP was the best in the league. We know that Beckett and Lester were good. Buchholz and Matsuzaka got hurt and I doubt if few us us blame Young for that. What is left? Lackey who single handedly killed the staff's ERA apparently because he pitched hurt. Wakefield who was less than ideal and guys like Wieland who had no business being with the mlb club in the first place and Miller who has failed miserably with every club he has pitched for. When we drill down to the details, it was mainly injuries and a lack of quality starting pitching depth which killed the staff. Theo was as much to blame as Young IMO but the main factor was clearly injuries. Matsuzaka, Buchholz and Lackey. Even some with Bedard, Beckett, and some of the relievers like Hill, Jenks...etc.

    If we seriously examine the situation, it was mainly injuries which killed the pitching staff.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    3 out of the beginning starting 5 pitchers were effectively wiped out due to injuries for most if not all the year. Wakefield was #6 and it's not like any pitching coach was going to help him. Doubront was out of shape and injured almost all year also. No pitching coach was going to save that level of devastation. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Mike Napoli magic fingers World Series CERA 1.50
    Posted by hankwilliams[/QUOTE]

    This is a very small sample size and statistically irrelevant. BTW, Mathis also became the primary starter because he was hitting better back then in California. The Angels let Napoli go because they had Conger coming up. Napoli has emerged as one of the top catchers in the game this year. Texas has been doing a lot of things right for quite a few years now. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : ...and yet you use A's pitching to justify Young's tremendous job with them...never making the appropriate adjustments for where they played half their games, to say nothing of playing in Seattle/CA in an unbalanced schedule. "tippy tap". Did you make that bet with Moon ? "Tippy tap". "I hate tap dancers".
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I DID make that bet with Moon, shortly after he offered it. It was like 6 to 1 odds. I rarely bet unless the odds are in my favor. My father gave me a total of $20 help going to college when he won at the track one day. I am not generally a gambler. I remember him pulling the $20 bill out of his pocket that day. It wasn't to help me. It was to show off his winnings. I had to work 2 and 3 jobs at a time to get through college. It is a lesson I remembered the rest of my life and never put my kids in that situation. Anyway, there should be a record that I did take that bet. I think Moon proposed it to be $20 with the payout to me of $120 if I won. And I mentioned that I didn't think Tek would be with the team anyway.

    But anyway...WHO CARES! 

    I guess this means I'm still arguing with harness. I'm sorry crit. I'm trying to stop.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    And I don't want Moon's money. If I won, I wouldn't have wanted his money even though I think he has plenty as an early retiree who appears to be doing just fine.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share