Red Sox' relative strengths and weaknesses

[SoxnCycles]

At the very least, you are able to take whatever you dish out. Most former posters on here would attack and then be offended if anyone stood up to them.

 

And a good feud is always fun to read when the offseason gets boring. I'd like to see a good UN/iortiz thread right about now...

 

I don't think that's limited to former posters.

 

I do think a lot of members, here and on other boards, enjoy watching a good fight more than they want to admit.

Glad to see you can be honest about it.

[Kimmi]

When it regards Red Sox players that I have seen play hundreds of times, I would trust my observations, but I can't think of any situations where that has happened. Until now, the stats have supported my observations in those cases.

 

We once had a debate about how much a speedy runner on first base disrupts the defense. I stated that that idea is largely a myth, and cited several studies. You more or less said that you don't believe those studies, not in those exact words. That, to me, is a largely traditional view.

[a700hitter]

We once had a debate about how much a speedy runner on first base disrupts the defense. I stated that that idea is largely a myth, and cited several studies. You more or less said that you don't believe those studies, not in those exact words. That, to me, is a largely traditional view.

I don't believe that speed always disrupts a defense, but in some cases it most definitely does. I am not going to go back into all the data that was used in the study you presented and have the same discussion all over again, but I didn't agree that the study used sufficient data to yield a definitive answer. That study was faulty imo. Also, it is my recollection that the study was presented to show that speed on the bases did not improve the performance of the following batters. That is not the same thing as disrupting a defense.

 

Even if that study proved that speed is not generally a disruptive factor, that doesn't rule it out in every case. In my experience , I have seen it be very disruptive. I think that anyone who remembers the 1967 World Series can tell you that Lou Brock was a tremendous disruptive force. Anyone who is still alive who saw Jackie Robinson run the bases in the late 1940's and early 1950's can testify how he disrupted team defense.

 

I think you picked the wrong example if you want to talk about traditionalist views versus nontraditionalist views. If you want to talk about traditionalist views, I believe that there is still a place in the game for the sacrifice bunt despite the fact that my father told me at age 8 all about how giving up an out negatively affected the percentages for scoring runs. I don't believe in little ball and I understand the percentages when you give up an out, but sometimes I do think that a bunt is in order. If you want to call me a traditionalist for that, fine. I guess that you believe sacrifice bunts should never happen and that the skill should not be taught.

[jung]

There is no need to go all the way back to 1967 to see the effect of speed that exists throughout a lineup on a team not well equipped to handle speed. The Royals ran some teams right out of the ballpark last year and did it on the biggest stage in baseball as well.

[a700hitter]

There is no need to go all the way back to 1967 to see the effect of speed that exists throughout a lineup on a team not well equipped to handle speed. The Royals ran some teams right out of the ballpark last year and did it on the biggest stage in baseball as well.

You sir are in danger of being labeled a traditionalist and excluded from New School thinking.

[mvp 78]

I don't think that's limited to former posters.

 

I do think a lot of members, here and on other boards, enjoy watching a good fight more than they want to admit.

Glad to see you can be honest about it.

 

It's more enjoyable for me to be more of a bystander these days. I've had enough "fights" with A700 and pals that it just got boring and repetitive and never accomplished anything anyway.

[mvp 78]

You sir are in danger of being labeled a traditionalist and excluded from New School thinking.

 

Those mid-80's Cardinals teams were doing it wrong!

 

Also, see Carl Crawford in TB.

[cp176]

I just find talking about baseball stuff much more entertaining than arguing about my personal philosophical beliefs. In all honesty, I am much more interested in the way players perform daily than I am in trying to project how they might perform. As for the arguing, I have been involved in a few. But I am old school. Arguing on the internet with someone I don't know about something I really could give a s*** about never made much sense to me. Dombrowski is responsible for all of this down time.

[Dojji]

There is no need to go all the way back to 1967 to see the effect of speed that exists throughout a lineup on a team not well equipped to handle speed. The Royals ran some teams right out of the ballpark last year and did it on the biggest stage in baseball as well.

 

It's almost like sabermeterics are so en vogue today that traditional skills like speed and defensive fundamentals are the new market inefficiency. It was pretty much by having a faster and more fundamentally sound team that the Royals humiliated the Mets. The Mets loaded up based on stats, sacrificing defense for offense and playing players where the numbers were acceptable but where players had severe defensive flaws, and wound up being slaughtered by their own mistakes when the stats hit the field and started playing out in realtime.

 

I mean for pity's sake you had an example on the very first pitch of the World Series. A proper center fielder runs that down. Yoenis Cespedes, played in center to get his bat in the game and far more comfortable in left field. had a terrible read on a flyball to deep center, and followed that up by taking a very inefficient route to the ball, and as a result that first pitch allowed Alcides Escobar to circle the bases for an inside the parker.

 

Throughout the series the Mets lack of fundamental skills was only shown up even worse by the Royals' brilliantly fundamentally-sound play on both sides of the ball, culminating by the incredibly ballsy read by Hosmer to take the plate in the bottom of the 9th to tie game 5, which happened because of three different defensive mistakes happening all at the same time.

 

-- Wright should not have charged the ball, that's the shortstop's ball and with a man on third he should have covered his base.

 

-- The shortstop should have called Wright off, if not come in and charged the ball himself and looked Hosmer back, he stayed back on the ball and Wright, ironically fearing Hosmer might take the plate because of the shortstop's conservative play, charged the ball himself leaving a gap that Hosmer felt safe to exploit.

 

-- And of course, Duda's poor throw -- probably the most forgivable of the three due to having the least time to think or operate, but Duda could possibly have taken his time to set his feet and maybe his throw still gets Hosmer, but he rushed the throw home and it wasn't close.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Dojji

[Bellhorn04]

It's almost like sabermeterics are so en vogue today that traditional skills like speed and defensive fundamentals are the new market inefficiency.

 

Sabermetrics re speed and defense had a LOT to do with Jason Heyward procuring a 184 million contract.

[User Name]

Sabermetrics re speed and defense had a LOT to do with Jason Heyward procuring a 184 million contract.

 

And the Royals are built on the current sabermetrics approach to a tee. Common sense please.

[SoxnCycles]

It's almost like sabermeterics are so en vogue today that traditional skills like speed and defensive fundamentals are the new market inefficiency. It was pretty much by having a faster and more fundamentally sound team that the Royals humiliated the Mets. The Mets loaded up based on stats, sacrificing defense for offense and playing players where the numbers were acceptable but where players had severe defensive flaws, and wound up being slaughtered by their own mistakes when the stats hit the field and started playing out in realtime.

 

I mean for pity's sake you had an example on the very first pitch of the World Series. A proper center fielder runs that down. Yoenis Cespedes, played in center to get his bat in the game and far more comfortable in left field. had a terrible read on a flyball to deep center, and followed that up by taking a very inefficient route to the ball, and as a result that first pitch allowed Alcides Escobar to circle the bases for an inside the parker.

 

Throughout the series the Mets lack of fundamental skills was only shown up even worse by the Royals' brilliantly fundamentally-sound play on both sides of the ball, culminating by the incredibly ballsy read by Hosmer to take the plate in the bottom of the 9th to tie game 5, which happened because of three different defensive mistakes happening all at the same time.

 

-- Wright should not have charged the ball, that's the shortstop's ball and with a man on third he should have covered his base.

 

-- The shortstop should have called Wright off, if not come in and charged the ball himself and looked Hosmer back, he stayed back on the ball and Wright, ironically fearing Hosmer might take the plate because of the shortstop's conservative play, charged the ball himself leaving a gap that Hosmer felt safe to exploit.

 

-- And of course, Duda's poor throw -- probably the most forgivable of the three due to having the least time to think or operate, but Duda could possibly have taken his time to set his feet and maybe his throw still gets Hosmer, but he rushed the throw home and it wasn't close.

 

You do realize you're ripping the basic strategy of a team that made it to the World Series, right?

Almost every team has flaws somewhere, whether it be defense, offense, pitching, or some combination of them.

 

The fact that they made it to the WS tells me they have some idea of what they're doing.

They had flaws and made the best use of what they had, a handful of anecdotal plays aside.

[jung]

That series was a very tough match up for the Mets especially after losing their Shortstop. I don't know if the Royals knew how much the match ups favored them but they seemed to be taking advantage right from the start. As strong as the Jays were at the plate, I am willing to bet the Mets would have at least done better in that match up. The Mets might have still come out on the short end but I think they would have faired better.

 

Which is not to say anything in these preceding posts is wrong. But man I would hate to see the outcome if those two teams played 162 games against each other.....I think it would have been ugly.

[Bellhorn04]

I would argue that the difference in the World Series was the bullpens. The Mets blew late inning leads in 3 of the 4 losses. Switch bullpens and they'd be champs.

[Dojji]

I think the infield defense played too big a role in why those leads were blown to blame the Mets pen

 

The Mets strategy was to trade defense for offense, and they got enough offense out of it to get to the WOrld Series, which is impressive. But it's the same tradeoff they made to get there that guaranteed they weren't going to win that series against the Royals.

[User Name]

No, Bellhorn is absolutely right. Even though Murphy and Cespedes made critical errors, the implosion from the Mets BP was the key factor in assuring victory for the Royals.

[Elktonnick]

The series was pitching and defense. The Mets poor defense knocked the wind out their sails, that coupled with the Royals stellar bullpen was the story IMHO

If DD was paying attention, the sox still have needs in the pen for sure but the real question is at the corners. It is wishful thinking to believe that Sandoval and Ramirez aren't defensive liabilities.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Elktonnick

[User Name]

Because of all the stats and eye-tests Ramirez has failed in his extensive time at first base. Oh wait, he hasn't played an inning there yet! Fatso can suck it though.

[Kimmi]

I don't believe that speed always disrupts a defense, but in some cases it most definitely does. I am not going to go back into all the data that was used in the study you presented and have the same discussion all over again, but I didn't agree that the study used sufficient data to yield a definitive answer. That study was faulty imo. Also, it is my recollection that the study was presented to show that speed on the bases did not improve the performance of the following batters. That is not the same thing as disrupting a defense.

 

Even if that study proved that speed is not generally a disruptive factor, that doesn't rule it out in every case. In my experience , I have seen it be very disruptive. I think that anyone who remembers the 1967 World Series can tell you that Lou Brock was a tremendous disruptive force. Anyone who is still alive who saw Jackie Robinson run the bases in the late 1940's and early 1950's can testify how he disrupted team defense.

 

I think you picked the wrong example if you want to talk about traditionalist views versus nontraditionalist views. If you want to talk about traditionalist views, I believe that there is still a place in the game for the sacrifice bunt despite the fact that my father told me at age 8 all about how giving up an out negatively affected the percentages for scoring runs. I don't believe in little ball and I understand the percentages when you give up an out, but sometimes I do think that a bunt is in order. If you want to call me a traditionalist for that, fine. I guess that you believe sacrifice bunts should never happen and that the skill should not be taught.

 

I did not bring this up to debate the topic again, but rather to give an example of a traditional belief or old school belief. The idea that having a "disruptive" runner on first base benefits the batter at the plate is one that is largely believed to be true. However, the data simply does not support this notion.

 

A traditionalist is going to believe it anyway, because that's what he/she "knows" from all the years of watching baseball, despite what the numbers say. FTR, it was more than one study that I linked. You choose not to believe the stats because they don't support what you've always believed.

 

Before I researched the topic, I would have sworn up and down that having a disruptive runner on first benefits the hitter at the plate. After seeing the data on the topic, I now believe otherwise.

 

That, for me, is what I see as the difference between old and new school. (Yes, CP, I know it's not an either/or thing.) You are going to believe what intuitively seems to make sense regardless of the data. I am going to believe the numbers.

 

As far as sac bunts go, they absolutely do have their place in baseball. Unfortunately, the sac bunt is a tactic that is way overused.

[a700hitter]

I did not bring this up to debate the topic again, but rather to give an example of a traditional belief or old school belief. The idea that having a "disruptive" runner on first base benefits the batter at the plate is one that is largely believed to be true. However, the data simply does not support this notion.

 

A traditionalist is going to believe it anyway, because that's what he/she "knows" from all the years of watching baseball, despite what the numbers say. FTR, it was more than one study that I linked. You choose not to believe the stats because they don't support what you've always believed.

 

Before I researched the topic, I would have sworn up and down that having a disruptive runner on first benefits the hitter at the plate. After seeing the data on the topic, I now believe otherwise.

 

That, for me, is what I see as the difference between old and new school. (Yes, CP, I know it's not an either/or thing.) You are going to believe what intuitively seems to make sense regardless of the data. I am going to believe the numbers.

 

As far as sac bunts go, they absolutely do have their place in baseball. Unfortunately, the sac bunt is a tactic that is way overused.

I did not disagree with that study because I am a traditionalist, but rather because I viewed the data as insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion. I can be persuaded by data, but I do examine the data and don't accept all studies as proof of the the hypothesis. Questioning the integrity of data doesn't make me a traditionalist. You on the other hand state that you believe that there is a place in the game for the sac bunt despite the clear mathematical percentages that indicate otherwise. I think that makes you a traditionalist.

[cp176]

The corners - What we hear so far is that the big boy has been doing 2 a days getting ready for the spring. We have heard that Napoli has given Ramirez some really good advise. Whether he puts the time in to make himself an adequate first baseman or not, guess we just wait and see and hope for the best. I'm glad we have something that resembles good backups if either or both of these guys can't get it done.

[a700hitter]

The corners - What we hear so far is that the big boy has been doing 2 a days getting ready for the spring. We have heard that Napoli has given Ramirez some really good advise. Whether he puts the time in to make himself an adequate first baseman or not, guess we just wait and see and hope for the best. I'm glad we have something that resembles good backups if either or both of these guys can't get it done.

I am still hoping that DD can move him or the human donut at 3B. Either move would solve a lot of problems.

[cp176]

It is reasonable to assume that Ramirez has the ability to play a serviceable first base at least for a little while. Two things worry me about him even though I have no "quantifiable statistical evidence" to back it up - can he stay healthy - is he willing to put in the time that it will take to be able to get it done. After reading Napoli's careful detail of how hard he had to work to make the transition to first base, we are going to find out soon how badly Hanley wants it. No matter how many ground balls he has fielded, the nuances of the position won't be easy for him to master. Hope he can do it.

[Elktonnick]

It is reasonable to assume that Ramirez has the ability to play a serviceable first base at least for a little while. Two things worry me about him even though I have no "quantifiable statistical evidence" to back it up - can he stay healthy - is he willing to put in the time that it will take to be able to get it done. After reading Napoli's careful detail of how hard he had to work to make the transition to first base, we are going to find out soon how badly Hanley wants it. No matter how many ground balls he has fielded, the nuances of the position won't be easy for him to master. Hope he can do it.

 

I still wonder how many times he is going to get hit in the head when Clay Buccholtz suddenly decides to throw to first.

[cp176]

LoL but it is scary - the back of the head - the top of the head- the side of the head

[a700hitter]

LoL but it is scary - the back of the head - the top of the head- the side of the head

I am okay with it as long as he stops the ball and prevents the runner from advancing.

[Spudboy]

I still wonder how many times he is going to get hit in the head when Clay Buccholtz suddenly decides to throw to first.

 

That sounds funny but the problem is that we can all envision Hanley allowing a ton of throws from infielders and pitchers to somehow find the tarp.

 

Anyone who really believes that after 10 years or so in MLB that Hanley is about to turn the corner in his career and become a competent defender is dreaming.

 

This has disaster written all over it.

[cp176]

That sounds funny but the problem is that we can all envision Hanley allowing a ton of throws from infielders and pitchers to somehow find the tarp.

 

Anyone who really believes that after 10 years or so in MLB that Hanley is about to turn the corner in his career and become a competent defender is dreaming.

 

This has disaster written all over it.

 

seems a tad risky but kind of looks like we might be stuck with him

[User Name]

That sounds funny but the problem is that we can all envision Hanley allowing a ton of throws from infielders and pitchers to somehow find the tarp.

 

Anyone who really believes that after 10 years or so in MLB that Hanley is about to turn the corner in his career and become a competent defender is dreaming.

 

This has disaster written all over it.

 

Wasn't he a decent SS for years, but his range declined because he bulked up like a linebacker? I don't understand the irrational hate on Hanley.

[cp176]

I have no hate for him. I really do hope he will get it done. It would be good for us and better for him if he can. Just a little nervous here. That's my personal makeup. I'm pretty sure that he has the physical ability to do the job.