The Papelbon theory

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from proftom2. Show proftom2's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    In Response to The Papelbon theory:
    You know the one--if we'd only kept Pap, the Sox bullpen and record would be just fine right now. Me, I was fine with not paying him a king's ransom.  He's fine too--an ERA of 1.29 and 5 of 5 saves already.  But his team is 7-8 and at the bottom of the NL East and well behind the Nationals.  It's early, I know. But my point is that Pap could not have helped that much this season to date.  Yesterday, probably.  And certainly game 3 against Detroit when the Sox gave up 3 in the 9th and 3 more in the 11th.  But after that I'm not so sure.  In game 1 at Detroit, the Sox tied in the 9th against Valverde.  If Pap pitched the 9th, it's a good bet that game would have gone to extra innings, but there is no guarantee the Sox would have scored in extra innings or that this bullpen would have held the Tigers in check.  And so on and so on.  Papelbon's forte is saves, not wins, and to get a save you gotta have the lead in the 9th.  Relatedly, the same theory applies to using Bard as the closer this year.  Go ahead and give him credit for the same two saves, but it is unlikely he could have done much more good for this team than two saves. Or put it this way.  The Sox have 12 pitchers, including five starters, and one guy cannot save a lousy pitching staff.  Our big three starters, for example, all have ERA's over 5.  And, as Peter Abraham keeps reminding us, this pitching staff has been lousy since about September 1 of last year.  Actually, even longer because it was overall lousy in 2011, 2010, and 2009.  In that context it is also hard for me to get mad at Cherington because it seems obvious that a long term weak pitching staff should be blamed on Theo.  He got out just in time. 
    Posted by maxbialystock

    I like your theory, it makes for good science. I'd like to add a social science side to it. We really don't have an ace on this team, we just don't pay ace money anymore for ace pitchers, like Padro and Kurt. What we pay is semi ace money and get semi ace results. So our staff is full of semi ace starters. This semi-ace mind set has become the culture of the entire team. We are semi-good team, not great, which translates into a below 500 ball club because the entire organization doesn't have an idenity.   

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

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory:
    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory : I am not sure I buy the Crawford signing as keep away from the NYY, though he probably would have been a better fit in NY with the short RF porch and spacious LF. As for Henry, the budget restrictions aren't radically different than what the NYY are looking to do. Both teams do not want to be luxury tax spenders come 2014 and have done things to be sure they won't be. 
    Posted by fivekatz


    Crawford was never on the Yankee radar.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory:
    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory : Perhaps, but the big difference is that Papelbon is a horse (did he ever have an injury the last few yrs?), while Bailey appears to be a fragile doll.
    Posted by nhsteven

    We could talk about it in 4 years, 50 million later. At that point we would probably have a better idea.  Its always easy to say a team should have signed a guy to a big contract for plus years three weeks into the first season.


     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory:
    What amazed me about Papelbon is that he cleaned out his locker when the team came back from Baltimore and never looked back. He wanted no part of this team anymore. Are you kidding me, sure he woukd have been a hell of a lot better than Andrew "Kindling Wood" Bailey and Melancon who our Junior Boy Genus picked up. Junior Boy Genus even picked up a pitcher in the Theo Compensation deal who had elbow issues who needed surgey after throwing what 2 innings ? Junior Boy Genus even went back to the Big Boy Genus and picked up a struggling outfielder. Is this all Young Ben or is it Larry Luchinno, the string puller ?
    Posted by AL34


    I have said same about Pap all along.  It wasn't about the money - he wanted away from this team.  They were not a cohesive group last year and they are not cohesive now.  I suspect lingering personal conflicts in the clubhouse - but that is just my opinion.  Anyhow, think Pap was gone regardless whether or not FO was ready to match the Philly offer.  He'd just had enough.  When your starting ACE says "he's not focused on baseball" - and your team gives up games down the stretch to let Wake chase his personal record, it's time for the closer to exit stage left.  And he did. Quickly.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    I agree that Bailey was a reasonable attempt for a team with little to trade and virtually maxed on budget.

    I agree. Even with Bailey's injury issues, getting him and Sweeney for Reddick was a good deal for a team seemingly lloking to save money.

    Melancon is IMHO one of those cases where the data on Baseball Reference trumped the old school scout perception that Melancon did not like bright lights and high leverage circumstance. 

    Actually, Melancon had a pretty good history in "high leverage" situations albiet never in games that mattered, because he never played in any. It's a tough call. It's hard to project how well a pitcher will do in a brand new situation.

    Melancon career:
    OPS against:
    Overall: .707
    Late & Close: .652
    High Leverage: .702

    These moves were gambles. 

    Yes, and the results are still not in. These guys have a few years left of control. 

    The fact is, Papelbon might not have signed here, even if we paid the same of slightly more than Philly. Paying Paps that much would have severely limited our budget even more than it already is.

    Personally I can't blame the RS for not re-signing Papelbon. The $$$ and years ended up insanely high and the amount of money sunk into Lackey, Dice K and Crawford ceratinly was a choke collar.

    Agreed. (See above)

    Call it bad luck or bad signings, the RS made a few moves orver a few years that brought them here. 

    Other than some small fry signings and deals, the Sox really haven't made a great big ticket signing or big ticket trade since Nomar.

    Sometimes circumstances tumble in a way that a team just can't keep fixing things on the fly and be a playoff contender. It is why the NYY have 28 and not 100 WS championships, why the Braves great run in 90's eventually ended. 

    I understand why people think the RS miss Papelbon, they do. But they missed Clemens but in a short time had acquired Pedro. They missed Mo Vaughn but in a short time they acquired Manny. 

    This might be a dark season this year but in the scheme of things a single season is a lot shorter that 3 seasons saddled with $40M or so in dead payroll and not having that closer too. 

    No closer is worth that long and large a deal in my opinion. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    Crawford was never on the Yankee radar.

    I tend to agree. That was likely all an urban legend to help try and explain the idiocy of the CC signing.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory:
    I agree that Bailey was a reasonable attempt for a team with little to trade and virtually maxed on budget. I agree. Even with Bailey's injury issues, getting him and Sweeney for Reddick was a good deal for a team seemingly lloking to save money. Melancon is IMHO one of those cases where the data on Baseball Reference trumped the old school scout perception that Melancon did not like bright lights and high leverage circumstance.  Actually, Melancon had a pretty good history in "high leverage" situations albiet never in games that mattered, because he never played in any. It's a tough call. It's hard to project how well a pitcher will do in a brand new situation. Melancon career: OPS against: Overall: .707 Late & Close: .652 High Leverage: .702 These moves were gambles.  Yes, and the results are still not in. These guys have a few years left of control.  The fact is, Papelbon might not have signed here, even if we paid the same of slightly more than Philly. Paying Paps that much would have severely limited our budget even more than it already is. Personally I can't blame the RS for not re-signing Papelbon. The $$$ and years ended up insanely high and the amount of money sunk into Lackey, Dice K and Crawford ceratinly was a choke collar. Agreed. (See above) Call it bad luck or bad signings, the RS made a few moves orver a few years that brought them here.  Other than some small fry signings and deals, the Sox really haven't made a great big ticket signing or big ticket trade since Nomar. Sometimes circumstances tumble in a way that a team just can't keep fixing things on the fly and be a playoff contender. It is why the NYY have 28 and not 100 WS championships, why the Braves great run in 90's eventually ended.  I understand why people think the RS miss Papelbon, they do. But they missed Clemens but in a short time had acquired Pedro. They missed Mo Vaughn but in a short time they acquired Manny.  This might be a dark season this year but in the scheme of things a single season is a lot shorter that 3 seasons saddled with $40M or so in dead payroll and not having that closer too.  No closer is worth that long and large a deal in my opinion. 
    Posted by moonslav59


    Agon?
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from chronic352. Show chronic352's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    I like Crawford but was puzzled when he was signed.  I am not willing to give up on him...I think he pressed too much last season and eventually one bad thingg snowballed into another with him.  What type of player he returns as this season will say it all abut him.

    Signing Lackey was and is a head scratcher!  I do not forsee him returning as a highly valued contributing player for the Red Sox.

    Daisuke is intriguing.  To say he was overhyped is being nice.  !00+ million spent on a guy too stubborn to pitch in a way he could last more than five innings a start.  But, this is his walk year and he may finally get it together for Bobby V.

    Those three signing alone have killed the Red Sox!!  But, there's Renteria, Lugo too!


    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory:
    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory : Ding! Ding! Ding! That, and to a lesser extent the appearance that Henry got tired of his one time favorite toy, has snowballed into the current situation. Also, it appears the RS signed Crawford as a result of their fear he would sign with the Yankees; not a good reason to sign somebody IMO.
    Posted by nhsteven

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

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    I wasn't aware Paps could bat for Salty or start for Bucholtz. 

    Paps is a factor but there are many, many more.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DayToDay. Show DayToDay's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory:
    ...When your starting ACE says "he's not focused on baseball" - and your team gives up games down the stretch to let Wake chase his personal record, it's time for the closer to exit stage left...  Posted by michaelsjr


    This is not relevant to the thread topic, but I just had to take exception to this.  I think when the media starts putting out simplistic (and oftentimes wholly untrue) theories and versions of events, they become true in people's minds.  I have heard numerous times people repeating the idea that the Sox gave up games so that Francona could get Wakefield his record. 

    The problem is it's absolutely untrue, and anyone who actually reflected on what went on last season would realize that.  The starting rotation was very thin in 2011.  They started Wake because they didn't have any other choice.  I honestly can't think of any times when Wake was starting and I thought, "Man, they're obviously just trying to get him his record.  They have a potential ace on the bench right now who could start better, but they're giving this to Wake instead!"  There was NOTHING on the bench.  And I even seem to recall that Wake was pulled in times when he actually could have gotten closer to this record, and for no real glaring reason too, almost as if Francona wanted to make sure that people knew he wasn't going out of his way to accomodate Wake.

    When a myth is repeated often enough it becomes true.  We know that Columbus proved the world was round, Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise sneak attack and Sally Field famously said, "You like me, you really like me!" in her Oscar speech.  And now we "know" that the 2011 Red Sox sacrificed wins so that Tim Wakefield could chase Roger Clemens' club wins record.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory:
    In Response to Re: The Papelbon theory : Well, Reddick is starting for Oak, so he doesn't appear to be a bust, at least after 2 weeks. And, I agree (with regards to Bailey) the thumb injury related down time shall help the forearm injury. As far as the random comment is concerned, while an interesting and possibly a valid take, after awhile a random incident doesn't look so random. As far as Paps is concerned, that's why I said in the last few years.  
    Posted by nhsteven


    NH,
    Papelbon suffered a shoulder separation in 2008 and as a consequence changed his delivery. Since then he has not been the dominant closer he was circa 2005-2007...just check his numbers in particular his K's per 9, K/BB ratio and the pct of swing and miss pitches thrown. All have trended north of his once dominant performances of 2005-2007...That's not to suggest that he still not a very good closer, but I think his reputation is greater than his results. He still hasn't found a quality secondary pitch and lives and dies on his fastball which he can no longer throw buy ML hitters, lefties in particular. More troubling is that can't maintain his fastball velocity after 30 pitches and when he tires and loses the late life his fastball tends to leak out over the plate and he becomes very hittable...See Chone Figgins in 2009...

    That said, Papelbon is still a quality closer, but the Red Sox problem is not related to his not being on the roster. It's due to Bailey being on the DL and while some among us want to conclude that Bailey's no Papelbon, even before the kid has thrown a single pitch and lamment the what ifs. Fact is that until Bailey comes off the DL and has a chance to prove to all that his success in Oakland as a closer. Will translate to success in Boston...Keith Foulke did a pretty good job for us and as I remember he too came from Oakland...
     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    Shamecock education, at it's finest. Captiously calling out another poster, while writing like a 5th grader.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    I will put on my asbestos suit before I say this ...

    The Melancon and Bailey trades were NOT bad trades.   In fact, they weren't "good" trades ... they were GREAT trades.  Bailey was injured in a collision covering 1st base ... not because his arm stopped working.  And no one could have predicted the Melancon melt down ... just as we could not predict the Aceves melt down.  Repeat that with me ... Aceves melt down.  Doesn't matter if we have Paps in the pen or if we have Bard in the pen ... Aceves being unable to record an out is a problem we would have either way.  You can't just assume he would be great again this year if other BP parts were different.

    Oh and how is Sweeney doing so far?  Wasn't he just the "meh, bonus player" in that trade? Get a grip people.  We traded one player with ZERO future here for a good, young relief pitcher.  We traded another player who was probably never going to be more than a fourth outfielder for us and in return got a pretty good closer PLUS a fairly young marginal starting OF / 4th OF.  Those are good trades.  It sucks how it has turned out so far, but without hindsight, I fail to see how those were anything but brilliant trades.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    Those are good trades.  It sucks how it has turned out so far,

    For those who don't want to suffer through the drivel, supra, simply read the above quote for the essence of the comment from which it was rescued.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: The Papelbon theory

    If Pap was the closer and bard was the set up guy, Aceves would be pitching the 6th and 7th innings.

    It's not just that Pap is gone.  It's all the pitchers being used in the wrong roles to cover up for Pap being gone.

    By the way, it's Pap being gone, Bailey on the DL, and Jenks on the DL that is hurting the team.  A healthy Bailey and a healthy Jenks gives the BP a completely different feel.

    But of course, relying on Jenks and Bailey to be healthy is a lot like relying on Santa Claus to bring you presents.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share