A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : With everyone healthy, I could see these line-ups: vs RHPs 1) Ellsbury 2) Crawford 3) AGon 4) Pedroai 5) Papi 6) Middlebrooks 7) Ross 8) Salty 9) Ciriaco (I could see Pedey 2nd, Papi 4th, Midds 5th, and CC 6th with Salty 7th. and Sweeney or Ross 8th.) vs LHPs 1) Ells 2) Pedey 3) Papi 4) Ross 5) AGon 6) Midds 7) Lava/Shopp 8) Aviles 9) CC
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Bingo. As I said, ideally Salty is not our #6. He's more like a #7 or 8 in a boston Redsox lineup.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : Bingo. As I said, ideally Salty is not our #6. He's more like a #7 or 8 in a boston Redsox lineup.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Ideally, yes, but he shouldn't be faulted for being batted 5th or 6th due to the enormous amount of injuries we've had.

    He's even had 39 PAs batting 4th.
    21 batting 5th
    129 6th
    110 7-8-9.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    While I think that our main issue remains inconsistent starting pitching, this team has gone from being all about high OBP and taking a lot of pitches to being about swinging for the fences.

             Pit/PA  OBP  OBP-1  OBP-2 (slot)
    2012  3.92    .325  .314    .315  (.314)
    2011  3.95    .349  .366    .371  (.369)
    2010  4.02    .339  .318    .344  (.331)
    2009  3.93    .352  .332    .378  (.355)
    2008  3.86    .358  .322    .377  (.349)
    2007  3.94    .362  .329    .382  (.356)
    2006  3.92    .351  .348    .332  (.341)
    2005  3.86    .357  .363    .352  (.358)
    2004  3.93    .360  .370    .346  (.355)

    As you can see our team OB is the worst in at least the last 9 years.
    Our leadoff and 2 slot OBP are pathetically low.
    Our pitches taken per PA Podshas fallen the last 2 years.

    Taking a look at our top OBP players this year, you will see that most are back-ups, in AAA, on the DL, or with other teams right now:

    Papi   .414
    Pods  .409
    Nava  .373
    Shop  .348
    AGon  .346
    Ciriac  .338
    Ross    .337
    Gomez .323
    Ellsb   .322
    Midds  .319
    Pedey .319
    Youk   .315
    Punto .315
    DMac  .309
    Sween .303
    Craw   .301
    Salty   .288
    Byrd   .286

    Some of our vets have faultered. 

    Here are the positional differentials from 2011 to 2012:
        2011  2012
    C   .291  .302  +.009
    1B .402  .354  -.048  AGon has begun to turn it around.
    2B .388  .351  -.037  Pedey has struggled all year.
    3B .362  .315  -.047  Middlebrooks may never be an OB machine.
    SS .330  .283  -.047  Aviles has struggled after a decent start.
    LF .304  .345  +.041
    CF.371   .289  -.082  Byrd & Sweeney hurt here
    RF .299  .328  +.029 
    DH.394   .394   .000

    Funny how the catcher and RF positions have been criticized as much or more than others.
     
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : Ideally, yes, but he shouldn't be faulted for being batted 5th or 6th due to the enormous amount of injuries we've had. He's even had 39 PAs batting 4th. 21 batting 5th 129 6th 110 7-8-9.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    Boom doesn't think these things through. He's the master of the peremptory remark, as if from an oracle. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : I guess that ESPN is wrong then. I've posted that link at least 3 times. Did you ever post any evidence at all expitch? Any substantiation beyond your opinion as a self appointed baseball professor? I guess fangraphs must be wrong also when they list Salty as having a -7 DRS. Costing his team 7 runs so far this year as compared to an average catcher. Fangraphs is just so unreliable huh. They never took baseball 101 apparently. And a -.3 DWAR is different from a WAR rating. Salty so far hasn't even been a net positive defensively. We could have paid some team $300,000 to take him off our hands defensively and been even.  I stand by my position. It's well substantiated.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    More pathetic whining.
    Not entirely self-appointed. I was hired to assist the best coach in college baseball -- or I lied about it. I was hired to coach a community college team. It won the California State Championship. 
    You were a Little League slugger and then deepened your knowledge of the game on the field by putting in two years on a high school team.
    Please note that the Red Sox have not paid another team 300,000 to take Salty off their hands. Maybe the FO has yet to get the hang of your arithmetic.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : No one said that you didn't understand the math. The issue was your use of "objectivity" in connection with statistical information. I questioned an understanding of the concept. I cited places where nowadays learned people question use of the concept and the term. Indeed, the questioning has been going on for some time, back to the Greeks at least. ( See Heraclitus. ) But it has become especially pointed in the age of quantum physics and the principle of "uncertainty."  Big difference between questioning your knowledge and introducing complications about how that knowledge is developed and put to use. And thus claims to making use of "objective evidence." The arguments along these lines are intellectually bracing. They even make one think about definitions of reality.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    I recommend the book "Being and some philosophers" by Etienne Gilson on this subject, but then again I was talking about baseball.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]I'd certainly prefer that Salty bat 7th or lower vs RHPs, but with 23 guys put on the DL over the season, we end up with make-shift line-ups nearly everyday.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    For the record I never said Salty shouldn't move up in the lineup when injuries occur. I said something like ideally Salty should not be a #6 hitter. It must have been on another thread because I can't find it now but that was my point. I'm not blaming him. I'm just saying we need to be able to do better. He is probably not a Redsox level # 6 hitter. We are not Tampa Bay.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : More pathetic whining. Not entirely self-appointed. I was hired to assist the best coach in college baseball -- or I lied about it. I was hired to coach a community college team. It won the California State Championship.  You were a Little League slugger and then deepened your knowledge of the game on the field by putting in two years on a high school team. Please note that the Red Sox have not paid another team 300,000 to take Salty off their hands. Maybe the FO has yet to get the hang of your arithmetic.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Personally I'm not impressed. IF your resume is true, it sure doesn't show by your baseball insight here.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : Personally I'm not impressed. IF your resume is true, it sure doesn't show by your baseball insight here.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    No one cares, or should care, whether you're impressed or not impressed.
    You are not qualified to judge my baseball knowledge or its application in specific instances. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : I recommend the book "Being and some philosophers" by Etienne Gilson on this subject, but then again I was talking about baseball. http://books.google.com/books/about/Being_and_Some_Philosophers.html?id=NvpuTe4pCSAC
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    You used the term and thus the concept of "objectivity" in relation to baseball. The concept does not change as it's moved from topic to topic.
    I will check out the book. The subject is fascinating.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : For the record I never said Salty shouldn't move up in the lineup when injuries occur. I said something like ideally Salty should not be a #6 hitter. It must have been on another thread because I can't find it now but that was my point. I'm not blaming him. I'm just saying we need to be able to do better. He is probably not a Redsox level # 6 hitter. We are not Tampa Bay.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    The last time I checked Tampa Bay does not have a catcher who has hit 20 homers. Odds are that if Salty continues to hit with power, he'll not bat at the bottom of the lineup, either in Boston or elsewhere, unless Boston or the other club can put someone else in the 6 hole who can protect the batters ahead of him. I'm not saying the arrangement won't be changed in Boston. That's up to BV. I note that tonight he has Salty slotted in the 6 hole as DH. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In fact, Boom, the issue has nothing to do with "ideally." Neither in real baseball nor in real life does the "ideal" come frequently into play. Trade-offs are normally the rule of the day, save to dogmatists. 
    Salty is, in fact, a good choice for the 6 hole, all things considered, because you want the 3, 4, and 5 guys to get a few pitches to hit. ( I'm taking about Boston NOW. ) Maybe in a particular situation the other team pitches around a batter to get to Salty -- but not, I'll bet, late and close, as we've ( or some of us ) have seen.  The threat of the long ball always resides in his bat -- or has up to now. If he goes a long stretch without a dinger, the opposition figures that into its calculations and acts accordingly, but not without a sense of risk, even if in their judgment a somewhat reduced one.
    That's how she goes in the real world, as opposed to the ideal one. 


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : I note that tonight he has Salty slotted in the 6 hole as DH. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    I think it's interesting to note that in 3 games in which BV has chosen to use both Shoppach and Saltalamacchia in the line up, he has Shoppach catching and Salty DHing.  There may be nothing more to that decision other than to give Salty a bit of a break from the grueling duties of catching (I can understand that more with tonight's game since Salty is recovering from some type of mild illness), but I still think it bears noting.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : No one cares, or should care, whether you're impressed or not impressed. You are not qualified to judge my baseball knowledge or its application in specific instances. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    And you sure as H.E.L.L are not capable of judging mine but you do anyway.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    Could you two please stop? All this bickering grew tiresome weeks ago.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In fact, Boom, the issue has nothing to do with "ideally." Neither in real baseball nor in real life does the "ideal" come frequently into play. Trade-offs are normally the rule of the day, save to dogmatists.  Salty is, in fact, a good choice for the 6 hole, all things considered, because you want the 3, 4, and 5 guys to get a few pitches to hit. ( I'm taking about Boston NOW. ) Maybe in a particular situation the other team pitches around a batter to get to Salty -- but not, I'll bet, late and close, as we've ( or some of us ) have seen.  The threat of the long ball always resides in his bat -- or has up to now. If he goes a long stretch without a dinger, the opposition figures that into its calculations and acts accordingly, but not without a sense of risk, even if in their judgment a somewhat reduced one. That's how she goes in the real world, as opposed to the ideal one. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    My point was that I was talking in an ideal situation, not what we have right now. YOU JUST DIDN'T READ IT PROPERLY.

    Got it yet? After 3-4 comments about this stupid little thing.

    Ideally we, the Redsox, want a better hitter batting 6th. A Mike Lowel type. A Middlebrooks type. A Tony Perez type of RBI guy but certainly with an OBP above .290, or the .240 or so it has been for the past 2 months in a row. That is not an optimal #6 by any stretch of the imagination.

    Ideally we want an Adrian Gonzalez type hitting 4th, an Ortiz type hitting 5th, a Middlebrooks type hitting 6th, A Ross type if necessary hitting 7th and a Salty hitting 8th. A slick fielding SS hitting 9th if necessary. 

    I'm not happy with a guy who has hit LESS THAN .200 now over the past 2 months time frame. Hitting 6th.

    Got it yet?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    I'd certainly prefer that Salty bat 7th or lower vs RHPs, but with 23 guys put on the DL over the season, we end up with make-shift line-ups nearly everyday.
    Posted by moonslav59


    For the record I never said Salty shouldn't move up in the lineup when injuries occur. I said something like ideally Salty should not be a #6 hitter. It must have been on another thread because I can't find it now but that was my point. I'm not blaming him. I'm just saying we need to be able to do better. He is probably not a Redsox level # 6 hitter. We are not Tampa Bay.

    Yes, I know you never said move Salty up, but what other choices did we have? Maybe a few of the times we could have had Salty 5th instead of 4th, or 6th instead of 5th, or 7th instead of 6th, but the choice was not for anyone clearly better than Salty vs RHPs.

    My point is that if we had no injuries, he'd have batted 7th or lower more often, had less PAs, less stress, and maybe better numbers.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    It's looking more and more like we should have been sellers at the deadline. We may start to look at some waiver deals for our Free Agents to be:
    Ross
    Cook
    Padilla
    Shoppach

    I don't see Papi going anywhere and Dice-K is not wanted.

    Again, the winter starting point is the Papi choice followed closely by the Ellsbury keep or trade choice. Trading Salty or Lava might help us net that key player we need, but it is a big gamble to put all our eggs in one basket at a position where finding quality is not easy.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    Youk hit 2 Hrs tonight. Our DH went 1 for 3.

    With CWS:  8 HRs and 25 RBIs in 33 games.  
       (162 pace: 40 HRs  125 RBI)
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]It's looking more and more like we should have been sellers at the deadline. We may start to look at some waiver deals for our Free Agents to be: Ross Cook Padilla Shoppach I don't see Papi going anywhere and Dice-K is not wanted. Again, the winter starting point is the Papi choice followed closely by the Ellsbury keep or trade choice. Trading Salty or Lava might help us net that key player we need, but it is a big gamble to put all our eggs in one basket at a position where finding quality is not easy.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]That's what I was saying. At this point I doubt we could get Ross through on a waiver deal anf Ellsbury's trade value has gone down.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    Waiver deals are easy if the team who wants him has a worse record than anyone looking to block said deal.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : My point was that I was talking in an ideal situation, not what we have right now. YOU JUST DIDN'T READ IT PROPERLY. Got it yet? After 3-4 comments about this stupid little thing. Ideally we, the Redsox, want a better hitter batting 6th. A Mike Lowel type. A Middlebrooks type. A Tony Perez type of RBI guy but certainly with an OBP above .290, or the .240 or so it has been for the past 2 months in a row. That is not an optimal #6 by any stretch of the imagination. Ideally we want an Adrian Gonzalez type hitting 4th, an Ortiz type hitting 5th, a Middlebrooks type hitting 6th, A Ross type if necessary hitting 7th and a Salty hitting 8th. A slick fielding SS hitting 9th if necessary.  I'm not happy with a guy who has hit LESS THAN .200 now over the past 2 months time frame. Hitting 6th. Got it yet?
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Perhaps, "ideally, when we have more choices for the 6 hole, we want...."
    Nope. You said something to the effect that we want a better hitter in the 6 hole. Then the capper. "Pure and simple." But as both Moon and I have pointed out, it's not "pure and simple." You didn't consideration the situation as it stands. There are numerous complications. But considering them would not have allowed you to take a poke at Salty. 
    The context of the situation -- as Moon and I and Danny and Southpaw see it -- has consistenty been the present. I've even raised the possibility myself that if the Sox acquire a RHed OFer with pop next season, Salty could be dropped in the order. I said that. I also said that if Salty's pop falters, the situation could change. Those comments cover future and present, in that order. And you accuse me of not reading correctly. Pathetic.
    Now you come along and specify the kind of batters who might fit in the 6 hole.
    But you didn't do that or make specific reference to the future in your "pure and simple" post. How about, "when we have fewer injuries and more good choices and get the personnel situation in general untangled, we need a better hitter than Salty in the 6 hole." Nope. You were slam bang peremptory, leaving the impression, a true one, that you hadn't grasped the full complexity of the problem.
    You just want Salty out of there, yesterday. And you popped off. You may yet get what you want, but probably not next week. All Sox fans, including me, want the best FT catcher the Sox have or can find. 
    That is the complete story. Try again to get it. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III : Perhaps, "ideally, when we have more choices for the 6 hole, we want...." Nope. You said something to the effect that we want a better hitter in the 6 hole. Then the capper. "Pure and simple." But as both Moon and I have pointed out, it's not "pure and simple." You didn't consideration the situation as it stands. There are numerous complications. But considering them would not have allowed you to take a poke at Salty.  The context of the situation -- as Moon and I and Danny and Southpaw see it -- has consistenty been the present. I've even raised the possibility myself that if the Sox acquire a RHed OFer with pop next season, Salty could be dropped in the order. I said that. I also said that if Salty's pop falters, the situation could change. Those comments cover future and present, in that order. And you accuse me of not reading correctly. Pathetic. Now you come along and specify the kind of batters who might fit in the 6 hole. But you didn't do that or make specific reference to the future in your "pure and simple" post. How about, "when we have fewer injuries and more good choices and get the personnel situation in general untangled, we need a better hitter than Salty in the 6 hole." Nope. You were slam bang peremptory, leaving the impression, a true one, that you hadn't grasped the full complexity of the problem. You just want Salty out of there, yesterday. And you popped off. You may yet get what you want, but probably not next week. All Sox fans, including me, want the best FT catcher the Sox have or can find.  That is the complete story. Try again to get it. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III


    Shoppach is our defensive whiz??

    The way he played tonight, especially on the plays in front of the plate, he should be taking lessons from Lavarnway.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    With the current state of MLB catching, we should consider ourselves lucky to have 3 capable catchers this year, and several good loking prospects beyond Lavarnway.

    Teams often trade from positions of depth and quality, and my guess is we will do that this winter or next deadline unless Salty is extended (even then, one will likely be traded).
     

Share