So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

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

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    It appears that it has been predetermined that the only way to fix his swing is in the minors.  I'm not at all convinced that swinging against AAA pitchers fixes that.  They are easier to hit.  They're easier to read.  The cuts and bites that kill WMB in the pros might be easier to lay off in the minors, because he can read them quicker, or he can hit them eaiser.

    Secondly, I think part of the problem is that he is stubborn and doesn't want to change.  Sitting on the bench might be a better solution that batting practice v AAA pitchers.

    I've never been a fan, and have pointed out his K/W many times in the past.  But I wouldn't send him down unless we had a really nice alternative in AAA.  And if I were to send him down, it would be to teach him 1st, not just his hitting.

    Shoyld've traded him last year instead Youk,

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    In response to ADG's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    It's unorthodox, but Jose Iglesias and Stephen Drew can handle the left side of the Red Sox infield for now while Will Middlebrooks works on his game in the minors. Drew Sutton can celebrate his 30th birthday in the role of an MLB utility infielder.

    Thank you hill. I have been advocating that for a while. It makes no sense for Middlebrooks to be a part time player in Boston. The Red Sox can't afford to have a young player like Middlebrooks work his way out of a slump.

    hill - Given your stats knowledge. what player (previous, etc) most resembles what Middlebrooks has done so far. I know there is a statistical method that calculates that.


    I don't know of a statistical calculation, but in the past I've compared Will Middlebrooks to Mark Reynolds and Alex Liddi. Middlebrooks and Reynolds had May call-ups as 23-year-old thirdbasemen and posted similar numbers their rookie seasons. Reynolds, however, did not experience the sophomore slump of Middlebrooks, who so far this season has fielded like Reynolds.

    Middlebrooks might fall somewhere between Reynolds and Liddi (the latter was Middlebrooks' same-age, same-size, same-handedness opposing thirdbaseman in the 2011 Futures Game).

    My doubts about Middlebrooks rose from alarming K/BB ratio in more than 1,700 minor league at-bats. The most encouraging comp I could find was Hall of Fame thirdbaseman Mike Schmidt, who in his second season as a 23-year-old posted a .196/.324/.373/.697 line in 443 plate appearances. Schmidt, whose progression was highly unusual, retired with a career on-base percentage of .380 while I question whether Middlebrooks can consistently post an OBP above .300.

    Just my thoughts.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to 37stories' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Who takes his place? They have no one better than him at AAA. Bogaerts isnt ready.

     



    How do you know he isn't ready?  some scouts think he may be able to help the big league club now

     

    [/QUOTE]

    which scouts? what do they say?

    I obviously don't "know' he isn't ready. I think that he isn't ready because he is 20 years old and could use more time at AAA.

    There is no reason at all to rush him.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    It appears that it has been predetermined that the only way to fix his swing is in the minors.  I'm not at all convinced that swinging against AAA pitchers fixes that.  They are easier to hit.  They're easier to read.  The cuts and bites that kill WMB in the pros might be easier to lay off in the minors, because he can read them quicker, or he can hit them eaiser.

    Secondly, I think part of the problem is that he is stubborn and doesn't want to change.  Sitting on the bench might be a better solution that batting practice v AAA pitchers.

    I've never been a fan, and have pointed out his K/W many times in the past.  But I wouldn't send him down unless we had a really nice alternative in AAA.  And if I were to send him down, it would be to teach him 1st, not just his hitting.

    Shoyld've traded him last year instead Youk,



    Its possible that you were right and that he will never make it in the big league. However, I disagree that sitting him is a viable way to help him fix his swing. At Pawtucket, although the pitching is generally inferior, there are coaches who can work with him intensively so he can develop better habits at the plate. He can practice them there in a lower pressure environment over and over again then put them to use when he is given another chance, hopefully next year. I am not ready to give up on him just yet, but I would hedge my bets by giving Bogaerts time at 3B.

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

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to S5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Farrell has proved that he will use the players that he feels will give the Sox the best chance to win. Drew is streaky, like most MLB players, but has proved over the years that he can and will hit. Hes already started to come out of it, taking some walks and making solid contact over the last few days. If Drew goes on another one of his runs theres no way Farrell will take him out of the lineup, even against LHP. When he gets hot, he can hit anyone. Plus, if they are considering trading him it would make more sense to play him FT. The left side of the IF is solid right now.

    Some here may be playing for the future, but the FO and team are playing to win this year as well as thinking about the future. They certainly have more faith in this team than some here.

     

     

     

     




    I realize that bringing up Sutton is a long shot. but IMO thats the best move if the FO is totally committed to a run in 2015. Playing "to win this year as well as thinking about the future" is not a total commitment to the future. Its a different and IMO the wrong approach for a team whose overall pitching is, at best, mediocre and whose bullpen stinks. We are not winning a ring this year and IMO we are unlikely to even make the playoffs, let alone a run deep into them. Wasting this year by inadequately committing to 2015 puts off by at least another year the time when the Red Sox are powerhouse team.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    How is trying to win now not being committed to the future? Drew Sutton isnt the answer to winning this year. Right now the best players for the left side are Iggy and Drew.

    Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. They are in 1st place and have the flexability to acquire a needed player in July. They arent disrupting any of the prospects progress and development, so Im not sure how they put off being a contender for another year, 2016 by your judgement, by trying to win this year. They are a contender as it stands right now, regardless what your opinion is.

    They certainly have the offense to do it, and if they need a piece for the pen or the rotation they have the ability to make a deal. If they can contend this year theres no reason to think they cant next year, or the year after and so on...

     

     

     



    How many teams in the last 20 years or so have won a ring with pitching that ranks 7th in the league? Regardless of YOUR opinion, despite the fact that they are in first place, they are NOT a contender for a ring. They might, if they are lucky, bash their way into the playoffs on offense alone, but since pitching and defense wins in the playoffs, they won't get far because of mediocre pitching at best. I thought winning a ring was the goal...silly me.

     

     




    But..but...but ... just a few posts up in this thread you said,

     

    " I would rather finish in fourth place this year and expect to compete for a ring consistently starting in two years than sacrifice our future in a fruitless attempt to make the playoffs this year." [emphasis mine]

     

     



    In the last 10 years three of the winners have had a ranking of 7th or worse in their respective leagues.

     

    So, it's not exactly the statistical improbability your attempting to make it out to be.

    Sorry, S5.

    This was directed at Pumpsie.

     

     

     




    OK, here it is. I had hoped that common sense would prevail, but it didn't. So I researched further back than 10 years to see how important good pitching is to winning a ring-the ultimate goal. I looked all the way back to 1990, 22 years. In 1994 there was no WS. Since then only FOUR teams had an ERA of 7th in their league and won a ring. We are now seventh in ERA in the AL. The average ERA rank was 3.86-top third. We are not top third. We were; now we are sinking like a rock. Our pitching is not good enough to win a ring in all likelihood. Impossible? Of course not. But I would not bet a dime on our chances.

     

     

     

    Here are the league pitching ranks since 1990:

    1990 and on: 2, 2, 9, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 2, 2, 7, 3, 2, 9, 1, 4, 4, 1, 8, 5 in 2012.

    See the pattern? There are four #1s and six #2s if my counting is right. Thats means almost half of the champs since 1990 were first or second in pitching in their league. If you want to win a ring, you pretty much need top third pitching to have a good chance at it. If you don't have it the odds are stacked against you. Its just the way it is.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

    That's way too simplistic.  For one thing, ERA is not a good indication of the ability of a pitching staff.  But if you insist on ERA, at least use ERA+ so you are not giving staffs like Kansas City more credit than they deserve over the likes of Detroit & Texas.

    One of those #1 teams was the 2007 Sox, but our starters this year have actually been quite a bit better than that team's.  The relief pitching has been worse, but that is always a crap shoot and it's relatively easy to fix.  Bringing in a bullpen arm, or promoting a guy like De la Rosa can completely change the complexion of the bullpen, and without causing us to mortgage our future.  

    You can't throw out the bullpen entirely, but come the post-season, you have the opportunity to have your #5, and in some cases your #4 guy available in relief.  And nobody is worrying about giving a guy some rest - it should be somehow weighted down in your analysis.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree that ERA+ would be a more accurate way to look at this, but that would involve more work than I am willing to do. ERA is a good rough estimate of how good a pitching staff is. I stand by what I wrote: our pitching, as currently constructed, makes it highly unlikely that we can compete for a ring this year.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    We're fifth in ERA+, behind Texas, Kansas City, Detroit & Chicago.  Two contenders, two not.

    I'd be more concerned about our WHIP - we allow too many baserunners to continue to keep them from scoring.  

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to S5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Farrell has proved that he will use the players that he feels will give the Sox the best chance to win. Drew is streaky, like most MLB players, but has proved over the years that he can and will hit. Hes already started to come out of it, taking some walks and making solid contact over the last few days. If Drew goes on another one of his runs theres no way Farrell will take him out of the lineup, even against LHP. When he gets hot, he can hit anyone. Plus, if they are considering trading him it would make more sense to play him FT. The left side of the IF is solid right now.

    Some here may be playing for the future, but the FO and team are playing to win this year as well as thinking about the future. They certainly have more faith in this team than some here.

     

     

     

     




    I realize that bringing up Sutton is a long shot. but IMO thats the best move if the FO is totally committed to a run in 2015. Playing "to win this year as well as thinking about the future" is not a total commitment to the future. Its a different and IMO the wrong approach for a team whose overall pitching is, at best, mediocre and whose bullpen stinks. We are not winning a ring this year and IMO we are unlikely to even make the playoffs, let alone a run deep into them. Wasting this year by inadequately committing to 2015 puts off by at least another year the time when the Red Sox are powerhouse team.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    How is trying to win now not being committed to the future? Drew Sutton isnt the answer to winning this year. Right now the best players for the left side are Iggy and Drew.

    Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. They are in 1st place and have the flexability to acquire a needed player in July. They arent disrupting any of the prospects progress and development, so Im not sure how they put off being a contender for another year, 2016 by your judgement, by trying to win this year. They are a contender as it stands right now, regardless what your opinion is.

    They certainly have the offense to do it, and if they need a piece for the pen or the rotation they have the ability to make a deal. If they can contend this year theres no reason to think they cant next year, or the year after and so on...

     

     

     



    How many teams in the last 20 years or so have won a ring with pitching that ranks 7th in the league? Regardless of YOUR opinion, despite the fact that they are in first place, they are NOT a contender for a ring. They might, if they are lucky, bash their way into the playoffs on offense alone, but since pitching and defense wins in the playoffs, they won't get far because of mediocre pitching at best. I thought winning a ring was the goal...silly me.

     

     




    But..but...but ... just a few posts up in this thread you said,

     

    " I would rather finish in fourth place this year and expect to compete for a ring consistently starting in two years than sacrifice our future in a fruitless attempt to make the playoffs this year." [emphasis mine]

     

     



    In the last 10 years three of the winners have had a ranking of 7th or worse in their respective leagues.

     

    So, it's not exactly the statistical improbability your attempting to make it out to be.

    Sorry, S5.

    This was directed at Pumpsie.

     

     

     

     




    OK, here it is. I had hoped that common sense would prevail, but it didn't. So I researched further back than 10 years to see how important good pitching is to winning a ring-the ultimate goal. I looked all the way back to 1990, 22 years. In 1994 there was no WS. Since then only FOUR teams had an ERA of 7th in their league and won a ring. We are now seventh in ERA in the AL. The average ERA rank was 3.86-top third. We are not top third. We were; now we are sinking like a rock. Our pitching is not good enough to win a ring in all likelihood. Impossible? Of course not. But I would not bet a dime on our chances.

     

     

     

     

    Here are the league pitching ranks since 1990:

    1990 and on: 2, 2, 9, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 2, 2, 7, 3, 2, 9, 1, 4, 4, 1, 8, 5 in 2012.

    See the pattern? There are four #1s and six #2s if my counting is right. Thats means almost half of the champs since 1990 were first or second in pitching in their league. If you want to win a ring, you pretty much need top third pitching to have a good chance at it. If you don't have it the odds are stacked against you. Its just the way it is.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

     

    That's way too simplistic.  For one thing, ERA is not a good indication of the ability of a pitching staff.  But if you insist on ERA, at least use ERA+ so you are not giving staffs like Kansas City more credit than they deserve over the likes of Detroit & Texas.

    One of those #1 teams was the 2007 Sox, but our starters this year have actually been quite a bit better than that team's.  The relief pitching has been worse, but that is always a crap shoot and it's relatively easy to fix.  Bringing in a bullpen arm, or promoting a guy like De la Rosa can completely change the complexion of the bullpen, and without causing us to mortgage our future.  

    You can't throw out the bullpen entirely, but come the post-season, you have the opportunity to have your #5, and in some cases your #4 guy available in relief.  And nobody is worrying about giving a guy some rest - it should be somehow weighted down in your analysis.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree that ERA+ would be a more accurate way to look at this, but that would involve more work than I am willing to do. ERA is a good rough estimate of how good a pitching staff is. I stand by what I wrote: our pitching, as currently constructed, makes it highly unlikely that we can compete for a ring this year.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    We're fifth in ERA+, behind Texas, Kansas City, Detroit & Chicago.  Two contenders, two not.

     

    I'd be more concerned about our WHIP - we allow too many baserunners to continue to keep them from scoring.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree that ERA is way to simplistic. I suppose a very rough idea, but still not nearly enough by itseld to rank our staff. WHIP is slightly concerning, but has been improving as of late. ERA+ Sierra, and a couple other stats are a much more complete way to rank pitching staffs.

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

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    @Slomag

     

    Exactly,  I've been worrying about this for a while now.  Even earlier in the season when the pitching had more success they had trouble with keeping guys off the bases.  Generally speaking our pitchers' stuff has been unhittble, but the staff is walking guys like crazy.  Last time I checked we were #1 in BB.  That WILL catch up with us eventually. 

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

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    Middlebrooks to be sent down

    Snyder to be called up

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

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    @Slomag

     

    Exactly,  I've been worrying about this for a while now.  Even earlier in the season when the pitching had more success they had trouble with keeping guys off the bases.  Generally speaking our pitchers' stuff has been unhittble, but the staff is walking guys like crazy.  Last time I checked we were #1 in BB.  That WILL catch up with us eventually. 



    Well, the good news is the problem is weighted toward a couple of guys - I give Dempster a little lee-way because he's usually much better about walks (or has been in recent years) and he's learning a lot of new batters, and may be pitching a bit carefully.  If the Sox make a move for a Shields or Peavy (if healthy) Doubront will likely be traded or pushed out of the rotation, so this could be a non-issue late in the season.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    From today's MLB Trade Rumors chat:

    2:35 [ Comment From Doug Doug: ]

    Could you see the Red Sox flipping Will Middlebrooks to the Brewers for Aramis Ramirez? (At least a deal based around those two)? Would give the Brewers a long-term piece at 3B, and give the Red Sox an immediate upgrade, but one that wouldn't block Xander Boegarts at 3B long-term.

     

    Tuesday June 25, 2013 2:35 Doug

     

      2:36 Tim Dierkes:

    It's not the craziest idea I've ever heard.

    http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=88041b1375/height=550/width=470

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    Unfortunately for the data I provided for ERA+ has to be manually extracted whereas ERA is readily available. It would be interesting to see how the teams that won a ring fared in ERA+ in their league since 1990, relative to the other teams. Unless someone knows how to extract that data more easily the rough estimate provided by ERA will have to do.

    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE

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

    Re: So Send Middlebrooks Down Already

    In response to hill55's comment:

    From today's MLB Trade Rumors chat:

    2:35 [ Comment From Doug Doug: ]

    Could you see the Red Sox flipping Will Middlebrooks to the Brewers for Aramis Ramirez? (At least a deal based around those two)? Would give the Brewers a long-term piece at 3B, and give the Red Sox an immediate upgrade, but one that wouldn't block Xander Boegarts at 3B long-term.

     

    Tuesday June 25, 2013 2:35 Doug

     

      2:36 Tim Dierkes:

    It's not the craziest idea I've ever heard.

    http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=88041b1375/height=550/width=470



    I wonder if he meant "thats not the craziest idea I've ever heard...could make sense" or "that's not the craziest idea I've ever heard....but it's up there" 

     

Share