Red Sox Offense – Bold Moves

[iortiz]

Yup, that way Kimmi doesn't have to waste her time proving you wrong.

 

Probably I did not count well but I'm not wrong, pitching have sucked....again kind of the point.

[SoxnCycles]

Probably I did not count well but I'm not wrong, pitching have sucked....again kind of the point.

 

Ah, you're one of those.

 

Got it..

[Kimmi]

True, but you also have to consider that it was just around May 13 we stopped playing AL East teams for a while. The 3 teams that really fattened up our ERA were NYY, Baltimore and Toronto.

 

We have played some light hitting teams since May 13, and 2 1/2 weeks is nothing to bank a season on, I agree. While I hope that they will, I don't really expect them to maintain a 3.5 ERA. However, I don't think they're as bad as their overall ERA of 5 either.

[iortiz]

Ah, you're one of those.

 

Got it..

 

One of those, what?

[Kimmi]

Point is that both departments have sucked, plain and simple.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that.

[Kimmi]

Right. If RBI's are looked at contextually they can have some meaning...that's the way I see it.

 

I don't think RBIs are meaningless. It just isn't a very good stat in and of itself.

 

Pitcher's Wins, OTOH - meaningless.

[iortiz]

I don't think anyone is arguing that.

 

Then we agree that both departments are horrible, not only the offense.

[Kimmi]

Then we agree that both departments are horrible, not only the offense.

 

I never said that the pitching was great, just that if the offense were doing its job, we would likely be in first place. I fault the offense for our poor record more than I fault the pitching.

[iortiz]

I never said that the pitching was great, just that if the offense were doing its job, we would likely be in first place. I fault the offense for our poor record more than I fault the pitching.

 

They assembled a very unbalanced team. I didn't like the strategy from day 1.

[User Name]

How are you this f***ing stupid? No one here is saying they haven't sucked in both hitting and pitching. What people are saying (and rightfully so) is that this offense has woefully underperformed. Why do you insist on arguing s*** absolutely no one is saying? Goddamn.

[sk7326]

But if RBI's are meaningless, aren't 'hitting with RISP' stats also meaningless?

 

Yes. We could get into a "clutch" discussion but I will spare the board that. I will just say that every great hitter in those positions is in fact a great hitter. The reverse may not be true absolutely, but I suspect the reverse is true for a majority of cases.

 

But more to the point, RBIs are in general a function of two things: 1. the player's ability to hit - both for contact and power and 2. the quality of the lineup in general. Teams with good lineups pile up RBIs. You look at the relatively scant non-HR RBIs Barry Bonds had in his video-game-number years and you see the difficulty of the RBI. He was often all they had.

 

The thing with RBIs that I was pointing out is that it is every bit as made up as VORP, or OPS or whatever, perhaps more so. It is assigning individual credit for a team accomplishment - even though the share of credit is not in proportion to the actual achievement necessarily. Certain hits can advance base runners to certain bases, but the baserunner still has to be able to run without a piano on his back.

[iortiz]

How are you this f***ing stupid? No one here is saying they haven't sucked in both hitting and pitching. What people are saying (and rightfully so) is that this offense has woefully underperformed. Why do you insist on arguing s*** absolutely no one is saying? Goddamn.

Are you really this dense?

 

I'm not insisting in nothing haha chill dude, take a pill and enjoy the game.

[a700hitter]

Exhibit A: See my post regarding the Texas Rangers.

A competitve team with the worst pitching in baseball is so rare that it is an anomaly.

[mvp 78]

Bold move: trade for LF, move Hanley to DH

[User Name]

Yes. We could get into a "clutch" discussion but I will spare the board that. I will just say that every great hitter in those positions is in fact a great hitter. The reverse may not be true absolutely, but I suspect the reverse is true for a majority of cases.

 

But more to the point, RBIs are in general a function of two things: 1. the player's ability to hit - both for contact and power and 2. the quality of the lineup in general. Teams with good lineups pile up RBIs. You look at the relatively scant non-HR RBIs Barry Bonds had in his video-game-number years and you see the difficulty of the RBI. He was often all they had.

 

The thing with RBIs that I was pointing out is that it is every bit as made up as VORP, or OPS or whatever, perhaps more so. It is assigning individual credit for a team accomplishment - even though the share of credit is not in proportion to the actual achievement necessarily. Certain hits can advance base runners to certain bases, but the baserunner still has to be able to run without a piano on his back.

 

This is poetry.

[curiousd]

Request for information:

 

In the game thread for the 1-0 win by Buch over Twins, SBF kind of implied that the Giants would periodically weigh Sandoval but the Red Sox refuse to do so.....interesting if true, for sure.

 

In the spirit of the 2011 " great chicken, beer, and bathroom breaks controversy", could it be made part of Sandoval's routine to have periodic inspirational sessions with one of those Weight Watcher Ladies,

 

hired for that purpose?

[pruneface]

Obesity is linked to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, aneurisms, strokes, and ass zits from too much downward pressure in a sitting position. So is watching Red Sox baseball. I'm not aware of there being a correlation to hitting performance on a baseball field. Lots of fat, out of shape specimens of self-inflicted degradation have done just fine hitting a baseball. Now, if his man-tits are impeding his swing, there may be grounds for concern. Nothing a girdle or a bra couldn't fix. It's unfair to single Panda's weight as the underlying cause of his hitting woes without exhausting all other possibilities especially when there are millions of Americans suffering under similar circumstances looking to Panda for inspiration and a convenient excuse to continue eating philly cheesesteaks and a barrel of cola on their lazy boy as they watch Panda trudge toward the batters box.

 

It might also be fair to ask, if weight is the issue, what's the rest of the team's excuse? Have you been to a mall lately? Or just take a look in the stands. Panda fits right in. He's normal. It's all those 'in shape' freaks who need to get with the program and eat a few.

 

Here's a syllogism that should put this debate to rest:

 

Being a millionaire exempts the individual from consequences.

Sandoval is a millionaire.

Therefore, he can eat whatever the f*** he wants.

 

Last, it seems that people are under the assumption that winning is the reason why teams play the game. If that's the case, what the hell is everyone doing watching the games for? Since the Sox don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the WS series this year, there's got to be another reason. I suggest sadomasochism.

Edited June 3, 2015 by pruneface

[mvp 78]

I don't like the Sandoval aigning, but I don't care about his weight either. He really hasn't been a problem this year. He has always struggled against LHP and was generally underwhelming in the regular season. Can't be uoset for him playing like he always has.

[jacksonianmarch]

How can the pitching be "kind of ok" when it's the worst in baseball?

[Bellhorn04]

Yes. We could get into a "clutch" discussion but I will spare the board that. I will just say that every great hitter in those positions is in fact a great hitter. The reverse may not be true absolutely, but I suspect the reverse is true for a majority of cases.

 

But more to the point, RBIs are in general a function of two things: 1. the player's ability to hit - both for contact and power and 2. the quality of the lineup in general. Teams with good lineups pile up RBIs. You look at the relatively scant non-HR RBIs Barry Bonds had in his video-game-number years and you see the difficulty of the RBI. He was often all they had.

 

The thing with RBIs that I was pointing out is that it is every bit as made up as VORP, or OPS or whatever, perhaps more so. It is assigning individual credit for a team accomplishment - even though the share of credit is not in proportion to the actual achievement necessarily. Certain hits can advance base runners to certain bases, but the baserunner still has to be able to run without a piano on his back.

 

Let's talk about team hitting with RISP.

 

Red Sox team OPS .683

Red Sox OPS with RISP .659

 

AL avg. OPS .713

AL avg. OPS with RISP .746

 

Is our team's failure with RISP meaningful?

[Bellhorn04]

How can the pitching be "kind of ok" when it's the worst in baseball?

 

Who are you quoting?

[sk7326]

Let's talk about team hitting with RISP.

 

Red Sox team OPS .683

Red Sox OPS with RISP .659

 

AL avg. OPS .713

AL avg. OPS with RISP .746

 

Is our team's failure with RISP meaningful?

 

Personally no. I don't think things are changing that much - Sox are below the league average in both. The Sox overall bizarre batted ball stats provide more of the meaning to me for their offensive struggles. If you put together the walk-strikeout-batted ball story, you have a team that is consistently having solid at-bats and getting pitches to hit ... they are JUST missing them.

 

To me that has to change - and some of it will. It defies reason that a team can continually miss these pitches - without piling up strikeouts. These are hitters with pop, whose approaches have not broken down. The bat speed has not visibly slowed - but somehow solid contact has been elusive.

[SoxnCycles]

How can the pitching be "kind of ok" when it's the worst in baseball?

 

It's improving.

To deny that is just dumb.

 

The team ERA in April was 5.04. the only team in baseball with an ERA over 5.00.

Team ERA for May is 4.12.

Not great, not even that good, but an improvement.

And better than the Yankees team ERA for the month, BTW.

 

And right now, Milwaukee, Toronto and Colorado have worse team ERAs.

 

I get that it's fun to say, but "the worst in baseball" is no longer accurate.

[User Name]

Personally no. I don't think things are changing that much - Sox are below the league average in both. The Sox overall bizarre batted ball stats provide more of the meaning to me for their offensive struggles. If you put together the walk-strikeout-batted ball story, you have a team that is consistently having solid at-bats and getting pitches to hit ... they are JUST missing them.

 

To me that has to change - and some of it will. It defies reason that a team can continually miss these pitches - without piling up strikeouts. These are hitters with pop, whose approaches have not broken down. The bat speed has not visibly slowed - but somehow solid contact has been elusive.

 

Henry said yesterday in an interview with MLB.com that it's a teamwide approach problem. He said they need to be more aggressive because what they've found out is that other teams have a game plan against the Sox' passiveness at the plate and it's clearly working.

[a700hitter]

Right. If RBI's are looked at contextually they can have some meaning...that's the way I see it.

Also, since a full season is between 500 and 600 ABs and the variance of opportunities with men on base is not that great most people born before 1970 (that learned how to do math without a calculator) know that a 100 RBI guy generally hits pretty well with RISP compared to his peers. It doesn't tell you which 100 RBI guy is better with RISP or if the 95 RBI guy is better than the 100 RBI Guy. But it is a pretty good bet that the cleanup hitter with 100 RBI is better than the cleanup hitter with 75 RBI (unless he is on the Mets) assuming they play full seasons. We know intrinsically from following the game the range for the raw number that indicated a good season. Edited June 3, 2015 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

Personally no. I don't think things are changing that much - Sox are below the league average in both.

 

Yes, but we are 24 points worse with RISP, and the league average is 33 points better with RISP, so that's a pretty big gap.

[sk7326]

Henry said yesterday in an interview with MLB.com that it's a teamwide approach problem. He said they need to be more aggressive because what they've found out is that other teams have a game plan against the Sox' passiveness at the plate and it's clearly working.

 

One of the interesting things is to do a comparison with the fangraphs offensive stats for 2013 - when we were the league's best offense

 

That year Sox were:

 

3rd in walk rate

9th in strikeout rate

 

3rd in line drive rate

29th in ground ball rate

9th in fly ball rate

1st in "hard contact"

 

28th in swing percentage in balls outside of the zone

30th in swing percentage overall

 

Compare it to 2015

 

4th in walk rate

29th in strikeout rate

 

25th in line drive rate

8th in ground ball rate

18th in fly ball rate

21st in "hard contact"

 

28th in swing percentage in balls out os the zone

28th in swing percentage overall

 

====================================

Basically, the nitty gritty sort of stats show that the Red Sox are still very much a take and rake team, they have just forgotten the rake part. In fact, and this points to the claim of not being aggressive enough - it could be their lack of strikeouts is an indicator of the problem.

[Spudboy]

Henry said yesterday in an interview with MLB.com that it's a teamwide approach problem. He said they need to be more aggressive because what they've found out is that other teams have a game plan against the Sox' passiveness at the plate and it's clearly working.

 

You and I had a conversation about 5-6 years ago about swinging on the first pitch.

 

Remy said last night that the Sox should start swinging more at the first pitch. I see them taking meatballs down the middle and I tend to agree.

[a700hitter]

Despite Buchholz's recent performances, let me paraphrase the very successful campaign rallying cry of Bill Clinton: It's the pitching stupid.

 

Our hitters are talented, will adjust and will put up runs.

 

Our pitching is sans talent. We need ER to be the real deal and obtain another starter. The starting pitching is at the bottom of the s*** pile in both leagues. It isn't going to get good enough on its own by "regressing". Getting rid of Masterson was a start. More moves need to be made. If Buch stays healthy and pitches well, that would go a long way toward spring boarding this team, but does anyone place a lot of confidence in that.?

[dupree]

The starting pitching has been a problem for years now. And we have all read that the FO was going in a different direction and not signing big contracts on pitchers on the wrong side of 30 and that the propects they have in the system would fill the voids. Well that being said and this rotation from top to bottom struggling why not bring up Johnson & Owens now and say here let's see what ya got. I hate the idea of a pitcher needing more seasoning when in this Tommy John Era putting more innings on a young kids arm is playing with fire. Let's see what the kids have got before teams are willing to trade at the deadline. I know the idea of no they have more trade values in the minors, well f*** that if they are legit pitching prospects let's see what they got in a big league red sox uniform instead of as a trade chip and pitching against up in years to come.