2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[User Name]

I agree with you on this. His problem was pitch selection. It was pitch execution, i.e command, which some believe to be the first sign of arm trouble. He did go on the DL. Maybe it was a phantom DL, maybe not. Ony heand the doctors know. He left a lot of balls over the fat part of the plate. That isn't pitch selection. It is execution.

 

This is why looking at stats is better than making s*** up. His fastball velocity was actually higher than in 2014, but he threw a lot more of them. His strike% was right around career averages, while his overall contact% went down. They f***ed with his pitch selection and sequencing, everything else was right around career averages.

[a700hitter]

I think Porcello will be lucky to return to his career norms in 2016. He's just not a top of the rotation pitcher. He is a 4 or 5. The pitch selection argument is bogus imo. His fastball velocity was up, and it was getting hit hard, because he wasn't commanding the pitch. That is execution. Just because his FB velocity was up from prior seasons doesn't mean that he didn't have an injury. Many feel that loss of command is the first sign of an injury, and he was DL'd during the season. It could also be that he couldn't harness the command of his increased velocity. If he vastly improves in 2016, it will be because he learns to harness command of his higher velocity, not because of the mix of his pitches. He left too many fastballs dead red for hitters.

[User Name]

How would you know what's bogus and what isn't if you're just making it up as you go along? His velocity, command and control were fine. He was very unlucky, and he was too predictable with the fastballs. If you look at his pitching charts, he was back to the same pitch selection during his final handful of starts with markedly different results. Why would I believe what you're spitballing when I can easily use the data (and what I saw from his last few starts) to come to an way more informed conclusion?

[jacksonianmarch]

The interesting thing about Porcello is that he always underperformed him xFIP until what amounted to his contract yr in 2014. The funny thing is, his awful 2015 and his solid 2014 showed basically the same xFIP. He was unlucky in 2015 just as much as he was lucky (based on his career norms) in 2014. My guess is that he returns to his prior career norms, xFIP in the 3.5 range, ERA in the 4.3 range

[Kimmi]

If Hanley can't play first, there's not much they can do with him, except maybe use him as an expensive 1B/DH platoon option, and wait until 2017 when he replaces Papi as full time DH.

 

That's true. We really have to hope that he won't be a huge liability defensively. That said, if he is that bad defensively, I think the Sox need to bench him, maybe let him DH now and then, despite his contract. I think his offense will return. I have serious doubts about his ability to play 1B.

[Kimmi]

A more "realistic" projection is 88 wins, not 92. After being in last place for 3 of 4 years, the 92 games may be a little bit of a stretch. It's more likely than not that they don't get to 90 wins.

 

Projections aren't foolproof. I just haven't seen a correlation between Sox projections and performance the past 5 years or so. This team is such a mixed bag that it's really hard to say for sure where they'll end up.

 

Ninety-two wins is probably a little on the optimistic side, but not outrageous. Hanley and Pablo were so bad last year that if they can just play at replacement level, which is not unrealistic, that's an addition 4 wins over last season.

 

Also, our BP was really bad as well. The addition of Kimbrel and Smith is a significant improvement.

[Kimmi]

I agree with you on this. His problem was pitch selection. It was pitch execution, i.e command, which some believe to be the first sign of arm trouble. He did go on the DL. Maybe it was a phantom DL, maybe not. Ony heand the doctors know. He left a lot of balls over the fat part of the plate. That isn't pitch selection. It is execution.

 

It's a combination of both, as well as some bad luck, but UN? is right that it was mostly pitch selection. When he came back from the DL, his pitch selection was more along the lines of how he pitched in 2013 and 2014. That was the biggest reason for his improvement.

 

Four things contributed to his improvement after the DL:

1. More sinkers and change ups, less 4 seamers

2. Improved change up movement, which goes along with #3

3. Pitching down in the zone

4. Luck

 

Here's a good analysis of his pitching before the DL versus his pitching after:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/10/9/9485911/rick-porcello-and-staying-optimistic

[SoxHop]

That's true. We really have to hope that he won't be a huge liability defensively. That said, if he is that bad defensively, I think the Sox need to bench him, maybe let him DH now and then, despite his contract. I think his offense will return. I have serious doubts about his ability to play 1B.

 

I think that is the only option. If Hanley is horrible at first. We bench him, and he waits to take the DH spot the year after.

 

I don't know why I'm coming around to thinking he may be serviceable at first. Maybe because I haven't seen him play for a few month. But dang.... when I think back he just looks so uncoordinated and just flat out confused on D I am probably fooling myself.

 

I still think he can hit like a beast. He was going absolutely bonkers hitting at the beginning of the year, and I think that's the true Hanley when not hurt. I could see him as a great DH.

 

I have the feeling the first two years we paid him is a sunk cost....

[Kimmi]

I think Porcello will be lucky to return to his career norms in 2016. He's just not a top of the rotation pitcher. He is a 4 or 5. The pitch selection argument is bogus imo. His fastball velocity was up, and it was getting hit hard, because he wasn't commanding the pitch. That is execution. Just because his FB velocity was up from prior seasons doesn't mean that he didn't have an injury. Many feel that loss of command is the first sign of an injury, and he was DL'd during the season. It could also be that he couldn't harness the command of his increased velocity. If he vastly improves in 2016, it will be because he learns to harness command of his higher velocity, not because of the mix of his pitches. He left too many fastballs dead red for hitters.

 

The pitch selection argument is not bogus. It's a fact. Look at the data.

 

It is no secret that Porcello altered his selection and sequencing.

[Kimmi]

I think that is the only option. If Hanley is horrible at first. We bench him, and he waits to take the DH spot the year after.

 

I don't know why I'm coming around to thinking he may be serviceable at first. Maybe because I haven't seen him play for a few month. But dang.... when I think back he just looks so uncoordinated and just flat out confused on D I am probably fooling myself.

 

I still think he can hit like a beast. He was going absolutely bonkers hitting at the beginning of the year, and I think that's the true Hanley when not hurt. I could see him as a great DH.

 

I have the feeling the first two years we paid him is a sunk cost....

 

I agree with you about the hitting. If he's healthy, he is a beast offensively. We'll have to keep our fingers crossed that he can be serviceable defensively. Who knows, maybe working next to Pedroia will have some positive effect.

 

If it comes down to it and he needs to be benched, Shaw should be able to hold his own at 1B.

[SoxHop]

I agree with you on this. His problem was pitch selection. It was pitch execution, i.e command, which some believe to be the first sign of arm trouble. He did go on the DL. Maybe it was a phantom DL, maybe not. Ony heand the doctors know. He left a lot of balls over the fat part of the plate. That isn't pitch selection. It is execution.

 

I think it was both.

 

Did Hannigan catch him the second half? And also they did the breakdown of his pitch selection, and it was different from his norm so there is some truth to that. I think that adjusted the second half. I almost expect his pitch selection changed due to him not executing, or feeling uncomfortable.

 

He had nothing that first half. Couldn't hit the corners, and had nothing on it when he found the corner.

 

I hate to say it. The second half he was a hit away from most starts getting put out in the 4th or 5th. The line may look much much better than the first half, but he was dancing with danger most of the games the second half and I don't think made it past the 6th very often. He looked like a pitcher trying to rebound. I don't remember a game he dominated.

[a700hitter]

I think it was both.

 

Did Hannigan catch him the second half? And also they did the breakdown of his pitch selection, and it was different from his norm so there is some truth to that. I think that adjusted the second half. I almost expect his pitch selection changed due to him not executing, or feeling uncomfortable.

 

He had nothing that first half. Couldn't hit the corners, and had nothing on it when he found the corner.

 

I hate to say it. The second half he was a hit away from most starts getting put out in the 4th or 5th. The line may look much much better than the first half, but he was dancing with danger most of the games the second half and I don't think made it past the 6th very often. He looked like a pitcher trying to rebound. I don't remember a game he dominated.

Agreed. He wasn't clearly commanding games in the second half. He had some good games, but he struggled in a lot of other games.

[cp176]

I think that is the only option. If Hanley is horrible at first. We bench him, and he waits to take the DH spot the year after.

 

I don't know why I'm coming around to thinking he may be serviceable at first. Maybe because I haven't seen him play for a few month. But dang.... when I think back he just looks so uncoordinated and just flat out confused on D I am probably fooling myself.

 

I still think he can hit like a beast. He was going absolutely bonkers hitting at the beginning of the year, and I think that's the true Hanley when not hurt. I could see him as a great DH.

 

I have the feeling the first two years we paid him is a sunk cost....

 

We all need to be optimistic I think when talking Hanley Ramirez. If he cannot play first base, I would be very surprised if he stays a part of this team with respect to using him as a dh next year. Unless he is injured, I don't think that keeping him around - pinch hitting and occasionally dhing will work at all. IMO that would be a definite recipe for major team issues. They have the players to get by perfectly well and maybe even better without him. Even though nothing is being really said about what happens if this next experiment does not work, I am betting that a lot of people are at least thinking about what the next step would be. Hope he can at least play an adequate first base. He should be able to. I think that it is up to him.

[User Name]

I think it was both.

 

Did Hannigan catch him the second half? And also they did the breakdown of his pitch selection, and it was different from his norm so there is some truth to that. I think that adjusted the second half. I almost expect his pitch selection changed due to him not executing, or feeling uncomfortable.

 

He had nothing that first half. Couldn't hit the corners, and had nothing on it when he found the corner.

 

I hate to say it. The second half he was a hit away from most starts getting put out in the 4th or 5th. The line may look much much better than the first half, but he was dancing with danger most of the games the second half and I don't think made it past the 6th very often. He looked like a pitcher trying to rebound. I don't remember a game he dominated.

 

He's a sinkerballer. With the amount of contact they alllow, they're usually on the "one hit away to let the game get out of control" end of the spectrum. Trying to up his strikeouts is what screwed him in the first place. Let him pitch, and let the D work behind him.

[a700hitter]

I will be happy if Porcello logs 200 innings and a 4.25 ERA in line with being the #4 that he has always been. If he can do that, his contract will be an overpay, but not the disaster of Panda's contract.

[cp176]

He's a sinkerballer. With the amount of contact they alllow, they're usually on the "one hit away to let the game get out of control" end of the spectrum. Trying to up his strikeouts is what screwed him in the first place. Let him pitch, and let the D work behind him.

 

You're right here. Interesting part is that everybody has a theory as to why he wanted to up the K total. Most people seem to want to blame the coaching staff. Porcello is a big boy. He gets most of the blame from me. Hope he settles in and does what he is capable of doing without trying to do any more.

[User Name]

You're right here. Interesting part is that everybody has a theory as to why he wanted to up the K total. Most people seem to want to blame the coaching staff. Porcello is a big boy. He gets most of the blame from me. Hope he settles in and does what he is capable of doing without trying to do any more.

 

I disagree. Pitch selection is, for the most part, prepared and handled by the coaching staff. No amount of "big boy-ism" lets you tell your bosses you won't do as they say.

[cp176]

We do disagree. I'm ok with that.

[Kimmi]

We do disagree. I'm ok with that.

 

Keep in mind, though, that both Vazquez and Hanigan were injured early. The lack of a strong defensive catcher most likely didn't help with either pitch selection or execution. A good game caller will know how to best utilize a pitcher's strengths, which might different in one game than it is in the next.

 

Also, with Swihart being called up before he was ready, I think the coaching staff probably outlined the game plan with Swihart pretty thoroughly before the games. An experienced catcher would know what in game adjustments to make when the game plan isn't working. Swihart probably didn't, but rather tried to stick with the plan even though it wasn't working.

[Kimmi]

Here's why I don't think the 92 wins projection is that out of line:

 

1. Our Pythagorean W-L was 81-81. Start from there, not our actual record. So, 92 wins would be an 11 win improvement.

2. Hanley and Pablo were both below replacement level last year. If they both regress to just replacement level, that's a 4 win improvement. If either one of them is that horrible again, we have Shaw or Holt who could certainly give us replacement level performance.

3. Our BP last year was awful. Don't underestimate just how bad they were. The additions of Kimbrel and Smith, which in turn lengthen the rest of the pen, easily improve the team by 3 wins, probably more.

4. I will let you all decide how many wins Price adds over Masterson. How many wins will a full year of Rodriguez add? Anywhere close to 4? I would think so.

 

I don't think an 11 win improvement is at all unreasonable. That doesn't include any steps forward from any of our young position players or any improvement Porcello might make. Granted, some players might take steps backwards as well, but the 11 win improvement is still reasonable.

[User Name]

I'm more inclined to think they improve 11 games from their actual W-L record, placing them right around, but below, 90 wins. To reach that 92 win projection, they need another SP.

[Northern Star]

Here's why I don't think the 92 wins projection is that out of line:

 

1. Our Pythagorean W-L was 81-81. Start from there, not our actual record. So, 92 wins would be an 11 win improvement.

2. Hanley and Pablo were both below replacement level last year. If they both regress to just replacement level, that's a 4 win improvement. If either one of them is that horrible again, we have Shaw or Holt who could certainly give us replacement level performance.

3. Our BP last year was awful. Don't underestimate just how bad they were. The additions of Kimbrel and Smith, which in turn lengthen the rest of the pen, easily improve the team by 3 wins, probably more.

4. I will let you all decide how many wins Price adds over Masterson. How many wins will a full year of Rodriguez add? Anywhere close to 4? I would think so.

 

I don't think an 11 win improvement is at all unreasonable. That doesn't include any steps forward from any of our young position players or any improvement Porcello might make. Granted, some players might take steps backwards as well, but the 11 win improvement is still reasonable.

 

Christ, I could add a win over Masterson and I've never pitched a game in my life.

[a700hitter]

Lots of excuses have been produced for Porcello's horrible 2015 (and it was horrible). In 2016, he needs to put up because he will be out of excuses.

[Kimmi]

I'm more inclined to think they improve 11 games from their actual W-L record, placing them right around, but below, 90 wins. To reach that 92 win projection, they need another SP.

 

I tend to agree that 92 seems a little optimistic. I'm just saying that it's not unrealistic. There are some on this board that think that the 92 win projection is way out of line, and some that think that the Sox won't even be contenders next season.

 

So, if this team is so unlikely to improve by 11 games, I'd like to hear their reasoning for it?

 

Has our rotation not improved by 4 wins with Price? Has our BP not improved by 3-4 wins with Kimbrel and Smith? Are both Hanley and Pablo going to be below replacement level again? And if so, will they be our starters the whole season or will they be replaced with better options?

[Kimmi]

Christ, I could add a win over Masterson and I've never pitched a game in my life.

 

Kind of my point. We had some really fluky bad performances last year.

 

Do you think the Sox, as currently constructed, will be contenders this year?

[Kimmi]

Lots of excuses have been produced for Porcello's horrible 2015 (and it was horrible). In 2016, he needs to put up because he will be out of excuses.

 

There are reasons why things happen, some of which are out of a player's control. They're not excuses, but reality.

 

As far as I know, Porcello has owned up to his poor performance last season.

[User Name]

Don't you know that anything that doesn't fit the negative narrative is an excuse?

[a700hitter]

There are reasons why things happen, some of which are out of a player's control. They're not excuses, but reality.

 

As far as I know, Porcello has owned up to his poor performance last season.

 

If he returns to his career norms of putting up 200 innings and a 4.25 ERA, he will not have to make excuses.

[jung]

All of the various Porcello stories might have some truth to them. IMO, problem 1 was his decision to try to turn himself into Kelly for some inexplicable reason. But where 700's concerns might be valid is that Porcello's bread and butter pitch is not easy on the arm at all. His reasoning for his selection may well be some concern that the wear on his arm was taking its toll....then possibly failure on an epic level forced him back to a more balanced approach. What was he risking at that point....more failure when he was already failing? It is as plausible as anything else and might explain why both his selection and then his execution left much to be desired. 2016 might tell us more than 2015 did on Porcello. We might not like the answer we get though. I think he is a rotation 3 at his very best.

 

As for the other signings from the end of Larry/BC that concern us, I for one think we should have known better on Panda at least. This is a player that has knowingly and willingly put himself right on the edge of the weight/age line graph choosing to just get by over being what he could have been. I am so sick of the "he was great in the post season BS...meaning what? You should give a guy like that close to $20m per because he was able to cobble together good post season runs...That is a joke. He should have had a weight clause and not forcing that issue was just plain asking Panda to spit right in your eye which he did as Hanley did for that matter.

 

That said, unlike the enigma that is Hanley, the eclectic basket of offerings, most of them not very good that is Castillo and the mystery that is JBJ, with Panda at least there is a heck of a ballplayer buried under all that blubber. If it were me, I would stop screwing around with the guy. Force the help down his throat putting him on a weight management program in the process and if he does not like it, too f***ing bad.

 

The guy owes us one year already and frankly rather than see another year like that, I would bench him in a heartbeat. What would we be missing:

He,

- can no longer switch hit at his 2015 weight forcing him to hit LHed into Fenway's huge RF

- looks like he is playing in slow motion as balls go past him at 3rd

- literally had to be removed from the game and possibly hospitalized after going from 1st to home

- could not even turn in some instances in order to make a good throw to 1st looking like it would take a crane to get that ponderous front leg turned and planted

- could not or would not make the effort to even put himself in the right position when he had the responsibility as the cutoff man, choosing instead to take a few thudding steps and lounge around 3rd...no mans land for the 3rd basemen as the cutoff man

and last

- was caught in the clubhouse on his smartphone trying too hook up with some baseball groupie during a game he was still playing in , poorly as usual. That story if taken to its worst conclusions would give you nightmarish, upchuck visuals!

 

By the way, what do folks think about Farrell more than suggesting that JBJ is going to be the CFer in 2016. Frankly, I can only buy that one if JBJ were to remain in RF in Fenway switching places with Mookie in parks where that is warranted. If Farrell mean's full time, he is out of his mind.

[Kimmi]

I am so sick of the "he was great in the post season BS...meaning what? You should give a guy like that close to $20m per because he was able to cobble together good post season runs...That is a joke. He should have had a weight clause and not forcing that issue was just plain asking Panda to spit right in your eye which he did as Hanley did for that matter.

 

I, for one, have never used the "great in the postseason" argument in defense of Pablo because I know how meaningless postseason stats are relative to the overall ability of a player. I don't believe for a second that someone as statistically oriented as Ben is would ever buy into the "postseason greatness" hype.

 

As far as the weight clause goes, in hindsight, that probably would have been a good idea. That said, some people/players really appreciate their bosses having enough confidence/respect for them not to have to force an issue upon them, and they respond accordingly. It didn't work with Pablo.

 

I get the feeling that Dombrowski has pretty much told him how it's going to be with his conditioning and weight, and if Pablo does not comply to the extent where his performance doesn't suffer, he will find himself doing a lot of sitting.