1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Drew will likely have 50-100 more total bases than Iggy too so i think that makes up for the "hits saved" differential. Those extra bases will extend rallies, shorten opposing starters outings, tap into opposing BPs earlier, boost his confidence, improve team moral and help win games as much or more than saving a hit every few games.

    I agreed that at worst, they'd both probably even out, but that one costs $9.5M more and does not do much to help the staff.

    Also, Drew wasn't signed until the pitching staff was rounded out.. and it's not like that 10Mil is holding them up at all. If they had a different pitcher in mind who would have cost us that 10 Mil they would have bit on it and not even looked at Drew. They know the pitching needs help moreso than our SS situation. They just felt Dempster was the best option for what we needed (reliable Vet on a short term deal). Once the pitching was rounded out they looked at the SS situation and felt Iggy still wasn't ready (understandable) so they went after Drew..

    I certainly hope Ben made an overall plan before making any signings, but I realize unforeseen things happen. He could have decided he was going to go with Iggy, Ciriaco, and Holt (and maybe even Bogaerts at some point) and then he'd have known he'd have more money to spend on a better SP or LF'er, or RF'er, or Catcher, or even gotten another SP that would hav eallowed him to trade Doubront or a couple relief pitchers to upgrade elsewhere, including teh farm.

    The fact is, Ben made SS for 2013 a pretty high priority at the expense of other more needy positions.

     



    BC probably saw what i saw this offseason... there were no SP worth investing into that weren't HUGE "??s" or compromised our long term goals. So instead of chancing it on marcum or mcCarthy or Haren, shelling out too many dollars and/or years on Sanchez (overrated IMO) or Grienke or Edwin, Losing a draft pick by signing Loshe etc... He went with Dempster, With all the injuries we've had in the recent years it will be nice to know we have at least 1 dependable starter who can give us around 200 innings and even mentor some of the younger guys.

     

    Next years SP FAs on the other hand....... WHOOOOOOOOO! that's worth investing in (DOC!).

    but i also get where BC is coming from not trusting the starting SS job to Iggy who only has 1 month of decent AAA hitting under his belt. While i think we overpaid for Drew i'm not too worried about our money spent this offseason.. With the expectation that we will have a bunch of prospects joining the team (at low low cost) in the next 2 years and also the big heap of cash coming off the books in the time period i really don't care how much we spent this offseason because we will not likely be in financial trouble in the long term.. Which is why i am not worried about the overpays. if we have to move a guy we won't hesitate to eat their contract because we are cost controlled in the upcoming years. If Iggy steps up and refines his offense it will be simple to ship Drew out and give Iggy his spot. So it is a win-win really. We hedged our bets at SS.. If Iggy pans out, no big deal, eat a couple Mil on Drews deal and say sayanara. If not, we won't be stuck with an abysmal offensive SS killing rallies with no clear upgrade (and yes, Drew is a clear upgrade). Same goes for Dempster, if one of our young pitchers excells and deserves to be in the MLB we can eat part of his deal and move him back to the NL OR ship doobie out (to the BP even). If we want to sign a marquee SP next offseason and our rotation is rounded out (our current 5) we can easily ship someone out and eat part of their contract without fear of hamstringing ourselves with payroll tied up in other teams. If that puts us over the luxury tax threshold in 2014 (or 2013 for that matter) no big deal all that money is freed up by 2015 anyway...... No matter how you slice it We have flexibility going forward and that is one of our biggest assets.

     



    Free agency was not the only way to get a quality SP, and I understand the innings thing with Dempster. I get what Ben was up to, but I disagree on one thing: he did nothing proactive for the future this winter. Keeping all the prospects and draft picks was nice, but it did not make us better. All of the FAs signed will be gone or past prime by 2014 and 2015. We can not count on all of the FAs on next years list to still be available. many players extend these days.

     

    I just can't accept that with all the money spent, not one dime helps us in 2015 or beyond, except maybe a little from SV or what we might get by trading one of these guys. I see this as a missed opportunity in a plan that seeks to make us highly competitive by 2015.



    what if one of the guys we picked up this offseason is traded for a player who helps us in 2015?? Just because it doesn't look that way now doesn't mean it won't happen. We've seen these things cycle before, If Hanrahan extends that would be a move that helps us in 2015 and beyond, If Carp develops into a good 1Bman/OF'er? If Drew plays well enough to get a QO? If Dempster is traded? Holt could turn into a servicable IF'er or even Of'er (he certainly has a lot of potential)... Saying NONE of these moves helps us in 2015 and beyond is being a bit narrow minded as we don't know what the future holds. Your a poster who follows the web of player transactions very well so I know you'll catch them when/if they occur.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:

     

    The short-stop situation is a joke. Iggy should have been handed the job right out of the gate. As a few have said nationally the Sox will not make or miss the play-offs based on Iggys offense.

     



    Iggy shouldn't be handed anything. make him earn his spot.

     



    Exactly.  Iggy was given a chance to earn a starting spot on the 2013 team, he didnt.  Ditto for Lava.  Ditto for Kalish.

    Spots should be earned , not awarded.

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to Polly-'s comment:

    The way in which the free agents were obtained did help us in 2015 since no prospects were traded and no draft picks were forfeited. The free agents signed were to fill holes that couldn't be filled in any other manner and were relatively short term.



    The free agents we got will not help us in 2015. That's just the truth. This whole, "we did not lose any picks" is not helping us at all, it is just keeping things the same as when the winter started. I'm talking about something that "helps us" in 2015 and hopefully beyond: nothing did that.

    I realize that signing A sanchez and losing a draft pick might have effected the furture to the negative, but signing B Mccarthy to $25M/3 is but one example of what we might have done to get a pitcher who can be helpful in 2015 without losing a draft pick or by trading a prospect. Also, since pitchers with many years of team control at a low cost are in high demand, we could have signed Mccarthy and Marcum and then traded Doubront in a package to obtain a player who is under team control for 3+ years.

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    what if one of the guys we picked up this offseason is traded for a player who helps us in 2015??

    I have mentioned that this seems to be the only redeeming value to any of our signings, but it will also take Ben to pull the trigger and essentuially "give up" on the season at the deadline, unless a kid comes up and does well somewhere giving us a surplus at a position of need to another desperate team. It could happen, but this is walking on unchartered waters. I'm all for breaking paradigms, but until it happens, I'm guessing we keep these guys to the bitter end.

     

    Just because it doesn't look that way now doesn't mean it won't happen. We've seen these things cycle before, If Hanrahan extends that would be a move that helps us in 2015 and beyond

    I liked the Hanrahan trade, since I had little faith in the prospects we gave up. I have heard he is open to extending, and if he does, that would be a help for 2015 and maybe beyond. Again, I have not given up on Ben. I am still holding out hope.

     

    , If Carp develops into a good 1Bman/OF'er?

    Yes, he is under team control until after 2016's season, but is he who you want to hang your hat on this winter?

     

    If Drew plays well enough to get a QO?

    Highly doubtful. Even if he does play great, he could be the next Lohse.

     

    If Dempster is traded? Holt could turn into a servicable IF'er or even Of'er (he certainly has a lot of potential)... Saying NONE of these moves helps us in 2015 and beyond is being a bit narrow minded as we don't know what the future holds. Your a poster who follows the web of player transactions very well so I know you'll catch them when/if they occur.

    Yes, I know some of these lesser players may spring to life and be contributors, but nothing we did this winter really made a significant difference on our outlook for 2015 and beyond. We have the same prospects and draft picks, which gives us a bright future, but this team needed to use this winter to improve our longterm outlook, but instead we kept it essentially the same, and spent all our money and efforts on the here and now. 

    I get why it was done. I just think we could have done one thing that significantly helped our team for 2015 and beyond... and we could have done it without giving up any future players if that is what we wanted to do. (I think we might have given up 2-3 future players for 1 better one, but that is not something I needed to happen.)

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    Exactly.  Iggy was given a chance to earn a starting spot on the 2013 team, he didnt.  Ditto for Lava.  Ditto for Kalish.

     

    Spots should be earned , not awarded.

     

    You mean 2012.

     

    BTW, Lava hit .429 last spring and was sent to AAA. Salty hit .222 and Shoppach .259. There was no way Lava made the team in April. He had no shot. 

    Iggy hit .200, and I suppose that is not good enough even for perhaps the best fiedling SS in MLB.

    Aviles hit .279, so you do have a point here. Mike fielded much better than I imagined he would, so I'm not complaining that Iggy didn't start last year, although I wanted him to. I do think Iggy had a shot to beat out Mike with a great ST, but it did not happen.

    I do not think Iggy has a chance this ST. Drew is the $10M dollar man, and he starts in April.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Polly-'s comment:

     

    The way in which the free agents were obtained did help us in 2015 since no prospects were traded and no draft picks were forfeited. The free agents signed were to fill holes that couldn't be filled in any other manner and were relatively short term.

     



    The free agents we got will not help us in 2015. That's just the truth. This whole, "we did not lose any picks" is not helping us at all, it is just keeping things the same as when the winter started. I'm talking about something that "helps us" in 2015 and hopefully beyond: nothing did that.

     

    I realize that signing A sanchez and losing a draft pick might have effected the furture to the negative, but signing B Mccarthy to $25M/3 is but one example of what we might have done to get a pitcher who can be helpful in 2015 without losing a draft pick or by trading a prospect. Also, since pitchers with many years of team control at a low cost are in high demand, we could have signed Mccarthy and Marcum and then traded Doubront in a package to obtain a player who is under team control for 3+ years.



    You keep mentioning Marcum...you obviously don't believe why I said he was never an option, so do a little homework.  The fact that there was zero interest in the guy all winter and he ended taking a 1 yr./4 million dollar deal on January 30th, despite a solid on field resume isn't a red flag at all?!  This team is trying to change the team culture (It has nothing to do with players singing kumbaya in the clubhouse), so Marcum was never an option.  

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    what if one of the guys we picked up this offseason is traded for a player who helps us in 2015??

    I have mentioned that this seems to be the only redeeming value to any of our signings, but it will also take Ben to pull the trigger and essentuially "give up" on the season at the deadline, unless a kid comes up and does well somewhere giving us a surplus at a position of need to another desperate team. It could happen, but this is walking on unchartered waters. I'm all for breaking paradigms, but until it happens, I'm guessing we keep these guys to the bitter end.

     

    Just because it doesn't look that way now doesn't mean it won't happen. We've seen these things cycle before, If Hanrahan extends that would be a move that helps us in 2015 and beyond

    I liked the Hanrahan trade, since I had little faith in the prospects we gave up. I have heard he is open to extending, and if he does, that would be a help for 2015 and maybe beyond. Again, I have not given up on Ben. I am still holding out hope.

     I've also heard that he is willing to extend. really hope he does because  i like this dude a lot. But you never know how a closer is going to do when coming to boston.....

    , If Carp develops into a good 1Bman/OF'er?

    Yes, he is under team control until after 2016's season, but is he who you want to hang your hat on this winter?

     Not hang my hat on him, but he is pretty young.. i expect that he will continue to develop and get better. his 2011 season wasn't too shabby. Just another young guy to look forward to in a couple years.

    If Drew plays well enough to get a QO?

    Highly doubtful. Even if he does play great, he could be the next Lohse.

     While i agree it is unlikely its not impossible. If he puts up great offensive numbers in fenway (certainly not outside the realm of possibility) and gives us average-above average defense a team might be interested enough to give up a draft pick. Especially considering the average offense given from the SS position.

    If Dempster is traded? Holt could turn into a servicable IF'er or even Of'er (he certainly has a lot of potential)... Saying NONE of these moves helps us in 2015 and beyond is being a bit narrow minded as we don't know what the future holds. Your a poster who follows the web of player transactions very well so I know you'll catch them when/if they occur.

    Yes, I know some of these lesser players may spring to life and be contributors, but nothing we did this winter really made a significant difference on our outlook for 2015 and beyond. We have the same prospects and draft picks, which gives us a bright future, but this team needed to use this winter to improve our longterm outlook, but instead we kept it essentially the same, and spent all our money and efforts on the here and now. 

    i think our future is pretty damn bright as it is..(STOP BEING GREEDY LOL) we have one of the top farms in BB, a dumptruck load of cash coming off the books around the time the crop is scheduled to arrive. The next 2 years FA classes leave this one in the DUST. Definitely an ideal time to restock, not to mention we will have a much much better idea of what prospects are shoe ins and which ones are busts and will be able to supplement the team accordingly.

    I get why it was done. I just think we could have done one thing that significantly helped our team for 2015 and beyond... and we could have done it without giving up any future players if that is what we wanted to do. (I think we might have given up 2-3 future players for 1 better one, but that is not something I needed to happen.)

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    You keep mentioning Marcum...you obviously don't believe why I said he was never an option, so do a little homework.  

    Stop the condecending attitude. I heard your point, and disagree. Anyone is an option if you offer enough. I realize Ben did not want him, so "he never was an option", but any deal he did not make was not an option and we should just never discuss anything then, huh?

    The fact that there was zero interest in the guy all winter and he ended taking a 1 yr./4 million dollar deal on January 30th, despite a solid on field resume isn't a red flag at all?!  This team is trying to change the team culture (It has nothing to do with players singing kumbaya in the clubhouse), so Marcum was never an option.  

    He was an option. Every FA was. You are being too narrow minded. We are talking about theories and scenarios, and differing opinions on what could have been done. I am stating my opinion. You disagree. I'm Ok with that, but you can't seem to grasp the concept that other options were there, but were not chosen... some for very good reasons, other were debatable.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to Polly-'s comment:

    Maybe the Sox saw visions of Bryce Florie when they considered McCarthy.



    Maybe the Sox were just flat out wrong...maybe.

    It's not like that hasn't happened before.

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Polly-'s comment:

     

    Maybe the Sox saw visions of Bryce Florie when they considered McCarthy.

     



    Maybe the Sox were just flat out wrong...maybe.

     

    It's not like that hasn't happened before.



    The Sox have been wrong plenty of times.  So has every other team.  Predicting the future performance of ballplayers, especially ones with recent injuries, is an inexact science to put it mildly.

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     The Torre book went into this in detail, which included his limitations.

    I didn't read it.

     



    Perhaps, but why discuss this as often as you do?  

    I state what I believe, and this is a hot topic for many posters. I have responded to responses and criticisms of my methodology and beliefs. 

    yes, I have done this more often than I probably should have, but I enjoy talking baseball in my retirement.

     



    OK.

     

     

    And while this is silly, did you know that Strat-O-Matic gave Jeter the highest possible fielding rating for roughly the 1st 10 yrs of his career? They are also very conservative about giving out this rating. Neither here nor there, of course. The only point is, there are two camps regardig him, and while I think the new metrics are flawed (See Roberto Alomar for a few yrs, Don Wert, John Vuckovich, John Kennedy, Wes Parker, Don Mattingly, Omar Vizquel, Bobby Richardson, Mark Belanger, and other supreme fielders); they cannot be ignored.

    Hence my "postage stamp range" remark; it fits to a tee, Amazing they're not moving him out of that position this yr; it shows what a shambles they are.

     



    UZR/150 was not around in teh days of many of these players, including Jeter pre-2002. I have been very careful in only talking about Jeter since 2003.

     

    I thought they should have kept ARod at SS, and moved jeter to 3B way back when, but ARod's D went bad as well.

    They will not move jeter until he is ready to move himself... or retire. The same went for keeping Ripken playing everyday seeking the record, even when it clearly hurt the team. They are icons and untouchable.



    I was referring to RF for those players.

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     The Torre book went into this in detail, which included his limitations.

    I didn't read it.

     



    Perhaps, but why discuss this as often as you do?  

    I state what I believe, and this is a hot topic for many posters. I have responded to responses and criticisms of my methodology and beliefs. 

    yes, I have done this more often than I probably should have, but I enjoy talking baseball in my retirement.

     



    OK.

     

     

    And while this is silly, did you know that Strat-O-Matic gave Jeter the highest possible fielding rating for roughly the 1st 10 yrs of his career? They are also very conservative about giving out this rating. Neither here nor there, of course. The only point is, there are two camps regardig him, and while I think the new metrics are flawed (See Roberto Alomar for a few yrs, Don Wert, John Vuckovich, John Kennedy, Wes Parker, Don Mattingly, Omar Vizquel, Bobby Richardson, Mark Belanger, and other supreme fielders); they cannot be ignored.

    Hence my "postage stamp range" remark; it fits to a tee, Amazing they're not moving him out of that position this yr; it shows what a shambles they are.

     



    UZR/150 was not around in teh days of many of these players, including Jeter pre-2002. I have been very careful in only talking about Jeter since 2003.

     

    I thought they should have kept ARod at SS, and moved jeter to 3B way back when, but ARod's D went bad as well.

    They will not move jeter until he is ready to move himself... or retire. The same went for keeping Ripken playing everyday seeking the record, even when it clearly hurt the team. They are icons and untouchable.

     



    I was referring to RF for those players.

     

    I'm not understanding your point. They didn't have the sabermetrics back in the days of Belanger-- no UZR/150.

    Mark's RF/9 was very good though. It was over 5 every year from 1971 to 1978, and over 4.8 every year he had more than 400 innings at SS ('69-'81). Amazing!

     




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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Over the last 9 years Jeter has played against the Sox approx. 162 games, a full season.  Surely someone can remember a game when Jeter's fielding issues resulted in a run or more for the Sox that contributed to us winning a game.

    [/QUOTE]

    You don't remember plays like, "oh, he just missed getting to that ball that 90% of MLB SSs would have gotten to" and then later realize, "had he got that, they would have won".

    First, baseball games are never won or lost on one play.

    Secondly, the memory does not work that way.

    Thirdly, it is clear to anyone watching 162+ games by a SS that Jeter has poor range, and the huge sample size of data proves that fact. Yes, he makes up for some of that by having  a nice arm, maybe better positioning than others, and his making almost all the plays hit right to him, but he has been, ovberall, a below avergae fielder, and if that is from the SS position, then it cost his teams some runs and wins along the way. I happen to think he has been one ofthe 3 worst fielding SSs in MLB for the past decade- surely that has cost his team some wins.

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    Wow, it took you a while to get back to me on that one, moon. :-)

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Over the last 9 years Jeter has played against the Sox approx. 162 games, a full season.  Surely someone can remember a game when Jeter's fielding issues resulted in a run or more for the Sox that contributed to us winning a game.

    [/QUOTE]

    You don't remember plays like, "oh, he just missed getting to that ball that 90% of MLB SSs would have gotten to" and then later realize, "had he got that, they would have won".

    First, baseball games are never won or lost on one play.

    Secondly, the memory does not work that way.

    Thirdly, it is clear to anyone watching 162+ games by a SS that Jeter has poor range, and the huge sample size of data proves that fact. Yes, he makes up for some of that by having  a nice arm, maybe better positioning than others, and his making almost all the plays hit right to him, but he has been, ovberall, a below avergae fielder, and if that is from the SS position, then it cost his teams some runs and wins along the way. I happen to think he has been one ofthe 3 worst fielding SSs in MLB for the past decade- surely that has cost his team some wins.

    [/QUOTE]

    That is a big jump in logic. Without data to back it up you really can't say he has surely cost his team some wins. In addition, you don't factor in if his offense offset his defensive shortcomings. Seeing how often that the Yankees won the division, championships, and had a high winning pctg. during Jeter's long career tells me his "poor" defense didn't fatally harm his team's ability to win. 

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    Here is an excellent article about Jeter's defense.  It's lengthy, but it is a worthwhile read, especially for those who don't buy into what the advanced stats are saying.

    http://grantland.com/features/the-tragedy-derek-jeter-defense/

    Using either BP's defensive metric or BR's metric, Jeter has cost his team more runs in the field than any other player in history.  Granted, some of that is due to Jeter's longevity, but it is still very telling about his defense.

    If nothing else, look at the plot of Jeter's top 20 plays versus Brendan Ryan's top 20 plays.  You can easily see the difference in range.

     

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You don't remember plays like, "oh, he just missed getting to that ball that 90% of MLB SSs would have gotten to" and then later realize, "had he got that, they would have won".

    First, baseball games are never won or lost on one play.

    Secondly, the memory does not work that way.

    Thirdly, it is clear to anyone watching 162+ games by a SS that Jeter has poor range, and the huge sample size of data proves that fact. Yes, he makes up for some of that by having  a nice arm, maybe better positioning than others, and his making almost all the plays hit right to him, but he has been, ovberall, a below avergae fielder, and if that is from the SS position, then it cost his teams some runs and wins along the way. I happen to think he has been one ofthe 3 worst fielding SSs in MLB for the past decade- surely that has cost his team some wins.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spot on.   Even with Jeter's supposed better positioning and sure handedness, he is one of the worst fielding SSs.  We tend to remember the errors much more readily than the balls a fielder failed to get to.

    Lindbergh put it nicely:

    "Jeter gets outs on an above-average percentage of the balls he gets to, which helps obscure the fact that he gets to so few. It’s telling that errors are recorded only when a fielder has mishandled the ball, even though not even getting close to it might be the greater crime. We’re more likely to remember a fielder’s sins of commission than we are his sins of omission."

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If we had traded Ellsbury for Bauer and Lester for Myers...

     

    C Salty/Ross/Lava

    1b Middlebrooks

    2b Pedey

    3b Bogaerts

    Ss Iggy

    LF Brentz/Nava

    CF Bradley

    RF Myers

    SP Buch, Lackey, Doub and 2 from: Morales, Bauer, DLR, Webster, Taz, Wright

    The money spent on Dempster, Naps, SV, Drew, and Gomes could have netted us A Sanchez and a power RF'er or LF'er (Myers plays the other).

     

    Tell me this would not have been a fantastic team to watch this year! (Even without Sanchez or a big bat and with SV in RF instead and maybe McCarthy or Marcum as another SP.)

    [/QUOTE]

    Ouch!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to seannybboi's comment:

     

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    Where would Boegarts play?

     



    I actually want see him at 3B, WMB at 1B, Iggy at SS

     

     




     

    Iggy cannot hit the baseball at the ML level, barely at the AAA level. Until he can he should be buried at AAA where he cannot hurt us.

     



    Yet the career .299 OBP guy in the minors makes the team?

     

    (Ciriaco)

    Please explain.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Neither has made the team yet. And of the two, Ciriaco has had much better success at the ML level

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow!  I'm halfway through the first page and two really bad calls in retrospect.

    I should really quit before I get to my responses, if any.

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Drew isn't a better "overall SS" than any but the very worst SS's.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Makes me think I need to re-evaluate my position, but I guess a broken clock is...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Okay, to the top of the 2nd page and we have another winner.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Over the last 9 years Jeter has played against the Sox approx. 162 games, a full season.  Surely someone can remember a game when Jeter's fielding issues resulted in a run or more for the Sox that contributed to us winning a game.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's a little bit like proving a negative.  I think it is a lot easier to look at total plays.  It is really difficult to have your eye on the pitcher, then the batter, then to see how quickly the SS got off the block on a grounder up the middle.

    It's like a discussion we had in softball when it was decided I was more valuable at catcher.  One guy said, in my defense, that Joe never dropped a flyball in his life.  The manager's retort was that Joe actually never reached a flyball in his life.

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    I'll concede the point on Jeter's defence having cost his team runs and games.  It just intrigues me that we never notice the specific instances.  I expect at some point 'range errors' will be given more attention in game coverage. 

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

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Over the last 9 years Jeter has played against the Sox approx. 162 games, a full season. Surely someone can remember a game when Jeter's fielding issues resulted in a run or more for the Sox that contributed to us winning a game.

     



    The problem with trying to recall a "lack of range" play in which Jeter caused his team some runs defensively is that these plays are ruled as "hits" by the scorer. Therefore, most people watching the game credit the batter with getting a good hit rather than blame Jeter for allowing runs to score. Most people don't even realize that that grounder would have been turned into an out by the majority of the other shortstops.

     

    It is easy to remember when someone boots a grounder, especially when that booted ball results in runs. Most people are not going to make a mental note of a grounder that made it into the outfield, "past a diving Jeter", that resulted in runs.

    In one study of data from 2003 to 2008, the SS with the highest rate of grounders kept in the infield was Adam Everett at 83.5%. Ramon Vazquez was worst at 76.5%. Jeter was 2nd to last at 77.3%.

    The difference between the best and worst over a season is about 40 hits. So, Jeter has fewer errors than other shortstops, but he is giving up significantly more hits. Just because these plays cannot be easily seen or recalled doesn't mean that they don't exist.

    Moon is spot on in his posts about Jeter's defense. The fact that he makes all the plays that he gets to is biased by the fact that he gets to so few. Even with his sure handedness, he is an overall terrible defensive SS.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Great response, but I think your statement I underlined can be more like a 100-120 hits differential between best and worst.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not that much.  Using a study over the past 5 years, using a cut-off of 3,486 IPs, which is meant to get me close to a ML roster of 30 starters, there are 25 SS's that meet that criteria.  Dividing  IPs/plays, the best among the SS's is Barnes with 3.85 IPs/play.  the worst among all SS's is Jeter with 4.80 IPs/play.

    UJsing 1,400 IPs as a standard season, the difference between the two (the best and worst) is 'only' 72 plays per season.

    But 72 plays is still significant.  Assuming all are singles, that effectively would reduce a player's average from .300 to .180.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Ben - make 1967 happen again! Keep Bogaerts, De La Rosa Webster, Bradley and Wright on 25 man roster!

    In response to eidlog's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    1967, what a great year! From the start of spring training, you knew something was different. Starting with Dick Williams. When asked what his expectations for the coming year were, he replied, "we'll win more than we'll lose." It was exciting from start to finish. Young players and veterans came together like magic. What would be the excitement level if Bradley was in the outfield and Bogaerts was at short. And why not Wright every fifth day with De La Rosa and Webster coming in from the bullpen throwing close to 100mph. I know it isn't the way things are done nowadays. I'm told it's not prudent.  Let them get their at bats and build up their innings at the minor league levels. But I can dream the  "Impossible Dream".

    [/QUOTE]

    I really have to keep shaking my head as to why some fans like Webster so much.  I say at best Webster will be another Phil Hughes.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share