A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Well Ex, last night I saw the end of the RS game--not many chances to see them on the West Coast.  I mentioned before that when I see the RS, I see BV make decisions that don't seem sharp to me.  First, I liked the way he changed pitchers to Morales, he went to the mound with purpose, looked committed and in control, etc.  But...after Morales balked for the second time and BV had to consult the umpire and then explain to Morales who looked flustered, kept pulling his hat, glancing at third, and generally looked uncomfortable--I think most managers would have taken him out before he hit the next guy.  Now 1st and 
    3rd in a one run game.  They luckily got out of it.  Did it make a difference this time--no.  Do I think Jim Leyland would have left him in--no.  Do I know any of the conversations that went on with BV, Morales, the pitching coach, Ben, no.
    With that extra run on third and a guy who had already balked twice, I think he should have been taken out.   
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    With that extra run on third and a guy who had already balked twice, I think he should have been taken out.  

    I agree, but now that it is over, maybe Morales has his confidence boosted by getting that out.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    For those who wanted us to improve our "clutch hitting", Cody Ross stepped it up last night in our biggest game of the year, so far.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    We're almost at the quarter mark.

    It's interesting to note that...

    Ross and Aviles are on pace for 100+ RBIS

    We have 5 or 6 players on pace for over 20 HRs.

    6 players with 40+ 2Bs (5 with 50+)

    We have a 75 point higher OPS vs LHPs than righties.

    We've scored almost as many runs per game on the road as at home.

    We now have 4 starters under a 5.00 ERA.

    Our pen has lowered its WHIP to 1.222

    Our team ERA?

    4.63

    3.90 the last 28 days
    3.25 the last 14 days
    1.19 the last 7 days!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Tough loss. We had our chances.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Well Ex, last night I saw the end of the RS game--not many chances to see them on the West Coast.  I mentioned before that when I see the RS, I see BV make decisions that don't seem sharp to me.  First, I liked the way he changed pitchers to Morales, he went to the mound with purpose, looked committed and in control, etc.  But...after Morales balked for the second time and BV had to consult the umpire and then explain to Morales who looked flustered, kept pulling his hat, glancing at third, and generally looked uncomfortable--I think most managers would have taken him out before he hit the next guy.  Now 1st and  3rd in a one run game.  They luckily got out of it.  Did it make a difference this time--no.  Do I think Jim Leyland would have left him in--no.  Do I know any of the conversations that went on with BV, Morales, the pitching coach, Ben, no. With that extra run on third and a guy who had already balked twice, I think he should have been taken out.   
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]
    I think this analysis is a reach. You have no idea what most managers or Leyland would have done. No idea. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : I think this analysis is a reach. You have no idea what most managers or Leyland would have done. No idea. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]
    You do psychological analysis of snapshots from a distance and perceive Valentine's dullness. I find that MO squishy. Frankly, I don't know why you even bother when you operate from a base of such limited knowledge. You don't and can't know what goes on -- really goes on -- between a manager and his players on the field, to say nothing of off the field. You don't know the full context in which managers make decisions.
    All things considered -- and I've watched most games closely -- I'd say that Valentine is managing this club well. Not perfectly, but then neither did Stengel, Torre, La Russa, or John McGraw.
    The Sox battle. They hustle. They support one another. As battered as they are by injuries -- two more tonight -- they look like a team. At least by my definition. IMO, by and large, now that BV has a better sense of his personnel, he is making the right moves. Give the guy a break. He's working with a wounded roster. And be a little less certain that you know what is going on in people's heads.  Looks can be deceiving, and they can  be a sign only of a fleeting moment's worth of thought or feeling.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]He's a "gamer" at heart. His will to compete was misjudged by many here as being selfish.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Too right, moon.  It was disgusting....but as ever, consider the source(s) and the truth emerges.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : I want to pitch for the Red Sox even more "badly" than Wakefield, is it a good idea?
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Probably not a good idea, no.  But would I criticise you for it, make up childish nicknames for you and call you selfish?  Absolutely not.  Why not?

    Because neither you nor Wakefield chooses the roster.  If people wanted Wakefield gone, why criticise him rather than the manager/GM/President?  Because he wanted to play?  So what, so do you and I.  But instead of being sensible and fair, they chose to sh1t all over a guy that gave his all for the Sox over 17 years just because he wanted to keep playing the game he loved.

    Nice people, eh?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Mr Moon

    There was a lot written about singles saved by SS.  The sample is small of course, but I think the numbers are interesting.

    2012  SS 
                  PO + assists        innings   ratio    pitching staff GB %       

    Hardy                205              372       .55                 46.2
    Escobar             190              324       .59                  50.8
    Aviles                182              338       .54                  46.1
    Lowrie               140              274       .51                  46.6
    Andrus              168              332       .51                  42.2
    Jeter                 128              285       .45                  44.4
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Mr Moon There was a lot written about singles saved by SS.  The sample is small of course, but I think the numbers are interesting. 2012  SS                PO + assists        innings   ratio    pitching staff GB %        Hardy                205              372       .55                 46.2 Escobar             190              324       .59                  50.8 Aviles                182              338       .54                  46.1 Lowrie               140              274       .51                  46.6 Andrus              168              332       .51                  42.2 Jeter                 128              285       .45                  44.4
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    Luckily Mr. Hanky/Softlaw is too jealous of Moon to read this popular thread or he'd blow a gasket over this.  Nice work, Tom.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : Luckily Mr. Hanky/Softlaw is too jealous of Moon to read this popular thread or he'd blow a gasket over this.  Nice work, Tom.
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]

    Aviles is holding his own.

    Thanks Chill, I'm off to the pub to watch you know what in a couple of hours.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : Aviles is holding his own. Thanks Chill, I'm off to the pub to watch you know what in a couple of hours.
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    I'm a Spurs fan, Tom, so this game has special meaning for me!  Go on, Bayern Munich!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Mr Moon

    There was a lot written about singles saved by SS.  The sample is small of course, but I think the numbers are interesting.

    2012  SS 
                  PO + assists        innings   ratio    pitching staff GB %       

    Hardy                205              372       .55                 46.2
    Escobar             190              324       .59                  50.8
    Aviles                182              338       .54                  46.1
    Lowrie               140              274       .51                  46.6
    Andrus              168              332       .51                  42.2
    Jeter                 128              285       .45                  44.4

    Yes, of course an IF'er on a team with a staff that induces more GBs will get more chances. I stated my methodology had some flaws and was not perfect. UZR/150 tries to take amount of chances into converted outs into consideration, but it too is flawed.

    My basic point is this: by playing the game for about 15 years and watching the game for over 40 years, I am 100% certain that a great-ranged SS can make close to an extra play a game over a terrible one over a long season. I settled on about 100 plays for major leaguers. 

    I have since admitted that Aviles looks better than I imagined (so far), and that the defensive differential has not been great enough so far this year to warrant switching SSs at this point, but Iggy's improved offense is now pushing the equation closer to (but not there yet) re-evaluation moment in my eyes.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    ...and the fact that this differential is pretty large year in and year out shows it is not a fluke.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Nice to see us get a win when out hit for once.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Softy roasted me for saying I'd still rather have had Adam Dunn at $56M/4 than CC at $142M/7.

    Dunn is now at ...

    .246/.390/.585/.975

    HRs: 13
    RBIs: 31

    On pace for 52 HRs and 125 RBIs.

    (Although his 2 year CWS totals are:  .182/.318/.352/.670)
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Things are coming around. Only 2 games or so back of the Yanks if I remember correctly. If our starters can hold it together for a while we should be back in it. Baltimore can't stay up there all year I wouldn't think ( I haven't been following them closely this year ). TB is still the one I'm concerned with most.

    Middlebrooks sure has some pop this year. He had 8 or 9 HR before he came up and now another 5? A lot of RBI in a short time also. The guy is certainly performing well so far. The pop especially is very impressive. He's hit HR balls we don't normally see from Rookies. Opposite field over 380 feet, 20 feet over the fence? Ellsbury still can't do that. 

    We have a ton of 3rd base talent in the minors (counting Middlebrooks). Maybe more than any other team in baseball.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    We are now 2nd in MLB in runs scored.

    We are 28th in runs allowed and within 10 runs of last place.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Things are coming around. Only 2 games or so back of the Yanks if I remember correctly. If our starters can hold it together for a while we should be back in it. Baltimore can't stay up there all year I wouldn't think ( I haven't been following them closely this year ). 

    Looks like harness was a year off with his Orioles call.

    TB is still the one I'm concerned with most.

    They will not "go away".

    Middlebrooks sure has some pop this year. He had 8 or 9 HR before he came up and now another 5? A lot of RBI in a short time also. The guy is certainly performing well so far. The pop especially is very impressive. He's hit HR balls we don't normally see from Rookies. Opposite field over 380 feet, 20 feet over the fence? Ellsbury still can't do that. 

    I've been impressed, but we need more time to know if it is sustainable.  It could get interesting when Youk comes back.

    We have a ton of 3rd base talent in the minors (counting Middlebrooks). Maybe more than any other team in baseball.

    I still really like Cecchini, and can see Bogaerts and/or Coyle at 3B if they keep improving and end up blocked.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Middlebrooks has got to be impressing teams around the league. Both from a numbers perspective and from a scouts perspective. He looks the part at 3rd. Sometimes it's better to "look" good than to "be" good and Middlebrooks seems to both look and be good. Comparisons to a young Scott Rolen are worth a lot around the league. If anything, Middlebrooks appears to have legit 3rd base power. Look at all the guys teams are hoping will do well, even at 1st, like Smoak, LaPorta....etc. Middlebrooks looks like he has legit 1st base power. He could be a heck of a find. 

    If he turns out to be for real and Ellsbury and Crawford come back strong at some point, compare our lineup to any team in the league. We have a surplus of offensive talent if we are healthy.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Middlebrooks has got to be impressing teams around the league. Both from a numbers perspective and from a scouts perspective. He looks the part at 3rd. Sometimes it's better to "look" good than to "be" good and Middlebrooks seems to both look and be good. Comparisons to a young Scott Rolen are worth a lot around the league. If anything, Middlebrooks appears to have legit 3rd base power. Look at all the guys teams are hoping will do well, even at 1st, like Smoak, LaPorta....etc. Middlebrooks looks like he has legit 1st base power. He could be a heck of a find.  If he turns out to be for real and Ellsbury and Crawford come back strong at some point, compare our lineup to any team in the league. We have a surplus of offensive talent if we are healthy.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    I really think Youk & DMac will be the odd men out. I wonder if the Sox will give Youk a legitimate chance to play everyday, even if just to showcase him for a deadline trade.

    If everyone is healthy, we have a lot of legitimate MLB players:

    3 Cs: Salty, Shopp & Lava
    2 1B: AGon & Gomez/Lars
    1 2B: Pedey & Ciriaco
    2 3B: Youk & Middlebrooks
    2 SS: Aviles & Iggy
    4 LF: CC, Ross, DMac & Nava
    2 CF: Ellsbury & Byrd
    1 RF: Sweeney 
    1 DH: Ortiz

    This is 19 guys for 13 slots. Gomez, Anderson, Iggy, & Lavarnway can safely stay in AAA, and DMac and/or Byrd could be dealt or DFA'd to leave us with a solid and deep 13, but that would leave us with a bunch of poor fielding OF'ers (CC, Ross & Nava) all best suited for LF. Perhaps Nava will be sent back down and Byrd will stay.

    If Bailey and Dice-K return to form, and everyone is healthy,we really have too many mediocre pitchers for the last slots on the staff:

    3- 100% sure 25-man roster pitchers if healthy:
    Beckett, Lester & Aceves 

    6- Close to 100% sure 25-man roster pitchers:
    Bailey, Bard, Buch, Doubront, Morales, R Hill

    8- Mediocre bottom of the pen pitchers:
    Matsusaka, Atchison, Mortensen, Tazawa, Albers, Padilla, Miller & Melancon

    6- Projects/Gambles of prospects perhaps ready for MLB:
    Cook, Germano, Duckworth, Mathis, Olendorf, Wilson

    If Dice-K makes the 25-man roster, that gives us 10 pitchers. That leaves 7 Mediocre pitchers and 6 projects left to fight for 2-3 slots. While it's true "you can never have too much pitching", I don't think that applies to "too many" mediocre pitchers fighting for a couple of spots.

    I'd like to see us try and find a way to deal a few of these guys for a much better upgrade giving us 11 solid pitchers and maybe 7 guys fighting for 1-2 slots instead of 10 solid and 13 fighting for the last 2-3 slots.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Here's one idea:

    Trade:
    Youkilis ($12m + $13m in 2013 or $1m buyout)
    Albers ($1.075M) 
    Miller ($1.04M). 
    [If they want Punto ($3M/2), we could abide.] 

    For:
    Sergio Romo ($1.5M + 2 arb years)
    A. Huff ($10M + $2M buyout in 2013) [Cut Huff if he won't go to AAA.]

    The money is about even for 2012.

    We get a solid relief pitcher under control for 3 years and clear up 2 slots for Middlebrooks and Mortensen.

    SF gets some needed corner IF offense and 2 innings eating relief pitchers as well as dumping a useless Huff and his contract.

    I'd like to include CC and maybe Dice-K for Zito (to save money not because I like Zito), but that's another story.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    I caught a lot of grief for projecting this from our catching position this year.

    Sox:  (650) .250  25  85 (.315/.455/.770)  +.033 

    So far, we are on pace for about:

    .285  30  100.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Big Papi was sure throwing around the old leather today wasn't he? You might have to include him on your list at 1st mr. moon. I'm not sure if I like the Romo deal, I don't know enough him as a pitcher. I like the idea of moving Youk and Punto, but I would rather get as much high A or AA talent as we could. I like the pitching a little better than you do. I also think that CC is going to come back and remind people of just who Carl Crawford really is. The thing I really like is how the starting pitching has stepped up since Big Papi read them the riot act. I think this team can contend as is so I think if the Sox were to make any major or semi-major deals they should further strengthen the farm system which is starting to turn into a serious strength.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share