Red Sox' relative strengths and weaknesses

[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 ab

 

ility to do the job.

 

second thought - Personally I would actually feel better if he was going to third and Shaw became our first baseman.. Sam Travis may also soon be ready and he might be the one who winds up at first for a long time. Not happening though.

[User Name]

That's one thing I still can't understand about the Sandoval signing. Hanley was a superior hitter, and a better overall bet stay productive despite his health issues. Why the f*** did they sign Sandoval?

[Bellhorn04]

That's one thing I still can't understand about the Sandoval signing. Hanley was a superior hitter, and a better overall bet stay productive despite his health issues. Why the f*** did they sign Sandoval?

 

Maybe they didn't feel comfortable about Hanley at third. Or maybe they just got a little greedy - thought they were really beefing up the offense.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

There was more than one study. There was very strong evidence disproving the point. You are choosing not to believe it because it doesn't gel with what you intuitively believe.

 

As far as the sac bunt goes, the data shows that the sac bunt is almost never a good idea. However, there are certain times when sacrificing is statistically the right play. The sac bunt should not be ruled out completely. As I said, it has its place in the game, when the numbers call for it, which is far less often than most people, including managers, believe.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

As much as I've defended Hanley, I have never been comfortable with the idea of him at first base. I think he has the physical talent and ability to field the position fine, but I don't think he has the ability to stay in the game mentally.

 

This has the potential to be even more damaging than having him in LF was. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that he will pleasantly surprise us.

[Kimmi]

Maybe they didn't feel comfortable about Hanley at third. Or maybe they just got a little greedy - thought they were really beefing up the offense.

 

Offense was a big need for us after 2014. Beefing up the offense made a lot of sense.

[a700hitter]

There was more than one study. There was very strong evidence disproving the point. You are choosing not to believe it because it doesn't gel with what you intuitively believe.

 

As far as the sac bunt goes, the data shows that the sac bunt is almost never a good idea. However, there are certain times when sacrificing is statistically the right play. The sac bunt should not be ruled out completely. As I said, it has its place in the game, when the numbers call for it, which is far less often than most people, including managers, believe.

No, I didn't feel that there was adequate data presented to make a compelling case. I really don't feel strongly about whether speed generally improves the performance of hitters that follow him in the order. I do feel strongly that speed does put pressure on defenses and disrupts them. The studies on the performance of other hitters in the lineup does not address that.

[User Name]

Offense was a big need for us after 2014. Beefing up the offense made a lot of sense.

 

But "beefing it up" with a guy who had a clear trend of regression did not.

[Elktonnick]

There was more than one study. There was very strong evidence disproving the point. You are choosing not to believe it because it doesn't gel with what you intuitively believe.

 

As far as the sac bunt goes, the data shows that the sac bunt is almost never a good idea. However, there are certain times when sacrificing is statistically the right play. The sac bunt should not be ruled out completely. As I said, it has its place in the game, when the numbers call for it, which is far less often than most people, including managers, believe.

 

I believe the data shows it isn't a good idea unless the batter is hitting less than 200. I don't recall the exact batting average but it is somewhere around 200. (Yes, There is a role for the traditional stats) While I may not have the exact BA, the main point is that in NL when the pitcher is hitting the sac bunt is usually the percentage play.

[Spudboy]

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.

 

I don't hate Hanley and I am certainly not irrational about him.

 

I am just going on what I have read about his fabled ability in the field with Miami and LA. I have never heard one single complementary word about his defense. Not one.

 

No doubt that he could have been a good fielder. But he never was if what I have read can be believed. I never saw much of him until he went to LA and by then he was just lousy at SS.

 

I think the core problem is that Hanley is a an immature twat who is egocentric to a flaw. He would do what he wanted to do regardless. I have no faith that he will emerge as a passable 1st baseman.

[Spudboy]

That's one thing I still can't understand about the Sandoval signing. Hanley was a superior hitter, and a better overall bet stay productive despite his health issues. Why the f*** did they sign Sandoval?

 

Just a boob maneuver.

[jung]

I believe that well balanced teams that while being balanced are optimized to the place where they are going to play 81 of the 162 stand the best chances of ending the season with a winning percentage. Whether that team can win in the post season or not tends to be an issue of pitching more than anything else, by a long margin.

 

Before going further, the 2015 WS was a blood bath for the Mets. They lost 4 out of 5 games. Stop making believe this was a close series just because games went Extras. It was a slaughter.

 

As for the elements of that series..... Folks want to contend that the bullpens were the big dif in the WS. But the KC pen had been the strength of their team all season in the sense that once it is in the game, the opponent's offense is done, the opponents neck is on the chopping block and KC can take its sweet old time administering the coup de grace.. So 7th inning on that should not have been a surprise to anybody including the Mets. What really hurt the Mets is that KC is an outstanding FB hitting team and the Mets high heat starters often could not even get to the 6th inning early in that series. Basically, the Mets could not build significant leads early in games which is when they needed to build them. Letting KC hang around in games is just death, post season or regular season.

 

Then when the rubber hit the road late in games, the Mets defense cracked under the pressure of KC's speed. The Mets could not throw a base runer stealing out to save their skin. KC clearly exposed the Mets catchers who might actually have trouble throwing out grandmothers for that matter. As we know, that was not the only hole in the Mets defense. So for my money, KC's pen was no different a tool in the post season than it had been all season long. The Mets starters failed to give the Mets enough of an edge going into the later innings, with the exception of game 2. They simply did nothing effective to keep the Royals from scoring at least enough early to stay in games and the Mets starters HAD to do that. It was the only shot the Mets had. If anything maybe the overall youth of the Met's rotation was their undoing. Schilling's they were NOT.

[User Name]

That post, in general, doesn't even make sense. No offense.

[Kimmi]

But "beefing it up" with a guy who had a clear trend of regression did not.

 

I have said many times that I am not a fan of Pablo's contract and that I thought there were better options in terms of value. That said, despite the downward trend, Pablo still should have provided an upgrade over what we had at 3rd base the previous year, albeit an expensive one.

 

The Sox signed arguably the best free agent 3B available to fill a hole. I didn't agree with the contract, but IMO, it's really no different than signing the best available free agent pitcher (Price) to fill a hole.

[cp176]

My opinion - There is an incredible difference between the two signings.

[Kimmi]

I believe the data shows it isn't a good idea unless the batter is hitting less than 200. I don't recall the exact batting average but it is somewhere around 200. (Yes, There is a role for the traditional stats) While I may not have the exact BA, the main point is that in NL when the pitcher is hitting the sac bunt is usually the percentage play.

 

Now you're speaking my language.

 

There is a threshold BA (and OBP and SLG) over which a hitter should not sac bunt. Without looking it up, I don't recall the exact numbers either, but it varies depending on the base/out state and also on whether scoring one run is more important than scoring multiple runs. There are certain instances when the BA break even point was below .100. Someone like Bonds should never sac bunt.

 

It also changes as the trends in baseball changes. For instance, the threshold was lower during the steroid era when HRs were more plentiful.

 

If I recall correctly, it only makes sense statistically to sac bunt if it is the 8th inning or later, the team needs to score one run, there are no outs, and there is a runner on second base.

 

One of my criticisms of Farrell is his overuse of the sac bunt.

[Kimmi]

My opinion - There is an incredible difference between the two signings.

 

Hindsight aside, I don't see the incredible differences. In short, it comes down to this. Last year, the Sox needed a 3B. They overpay for the best 3B available. This year, the Sox needed a SP. They overpay for the best SP available.

[Kimmi]

I don't hate Hanley and I am certainly not irrational about him.

 

I am just going on what I have read about his fabled ability in the field with Miami and LA. I have never heard one single complementary word about his defense. Not one.

 

No doubt that he could have been a good fielder. But he never was if what I have read can be believed. I never saw much of him until he went to LA and by then he was just lousy at SS.

 

I think the core problem is that Hanley is a an immature twat who is egocentric to a flaw. He would do what he wanted to do regardless. I have no faith that he will emerge as a passable 1st baseman.

 

If you don't hate Hanley and are certainly not irrational about him, that last paragraph doesn't do a very good job of showing that.

[jung]

Farrell hates the sac bunt. Not sure what you are watching unless you are going to call him to task for using a sac bunt in the 7th inning which under the right circumstances I think is fine. I do not think there is a manager in baseball that has been more vocal in his disdain for the sac bunt and less prone to using it than Farrell. He has been known to ignore it in circumstances that are screaming for it, allowing hitters that would have to close their eyes and hope to run into something to hit away when they should at least could get something out of the AB.

 

In fact at this point I think it would be safe to say that up and down the Sox organization, they are no longer even devoting a minimal amount of BP time to bunting as nobody coming up from our system can bunt a lick. I very much suspect the organization is taking its lead from its ML manager in that regard as young guys coming up from our system look like they are taking their life in their hands turning to bunt now. There is a dif between not being very good at it and being flat terrible. Maybe it is this way all over the AL and I just notice it more here.

 

I personally don't believe that players should be allowed to drop off basic skilled at the front desk as they make their way through the professional baseball ranks, particularly if they have no offsetting skill....talking to you JBJ!

[Kimmi]

Farrell hates the sac bunt. Not sure what you are watching unless you are going to call him to task for using a sac bunt in the 7th inning which under the right circumstances I think is fine. I do not think there is a manager in baseball that has been more vocal in his disdain for the sac bunt and less prone to using it than Farrell. He has been known to ignore it in circumstances that are screaming for it, allowing hitters that would have to close their eyes and hope to run into something to hit away when they should at least could get something out of the AB.

 

In fact at this point I think it would be safe to say that up and down the Sox organization, they are no longer even devoting a minimal amount of BP time to bunting as nobody coming up from our system can bunt a lick. I very much suspect the organization is taking its lead from its ML manager in that regard as young guys coming up from our system look like they are taking their life in their hands turning to bunt now. There is a dif between not being very good at it and being flat terrible. Maybe it is this way all over the AL and I just notice it more here.

 

I personally don't believe that players should be allowed to drop off basic skilled at the front desk as they make their way through the professional baseball ranks, particularly if they have no offsetting skill....talking to you JBJ!

 

Farrell may hate the sac bunt but he misuses it. I have often seen him call for the bunt with a man on 1st and no outs. The odds of scoring one run actually go down after a sac bunt in that situation.

 

The hitter at the plate might seem incapable of getting a hit, but unless he's a pitcher, the team would be better off letting him swing away than having him sac bunt.

[Elktonnick]

Farrell may hate the sac bunt but he misuses it. I have often seen him call for the bunt with a man on 1st and no outs. The odds of scoring one run actually go down after a sac bunt in that situation.

 

The hitter at the plate might seem incapable of getting a hit, but unless he's a pitcher, the team would be better off letting him swing away than having him sac bunt.

 

For the record, I am not a big fan of the sac bunt but like I said there are times it makes perfect sense. It largely depends on the match ups. And this is where the traditional stats such as BA are most useful. It also depends on the defensive set up.

[cp176]

Hindsight aside, I don't see the incredible differences. In short, it comes down to this. Last year, the Sox needed a 3B. They overpay for the best 3B available. This year, the Sox needed a SP. They overpay for the best SP available.

 

that is a pretty narrow way of looking at things i think - Possibly depends on where you place your value I guess. I see how the wording you choose might conjure some similarities between the two deals. I see no actual comparison between the two deals. Substitute the third baseman of your choice, I would always take one of the best pitchers in the game. Hinsdale absolutely aside. Zero comparison.

[cp176]

that is a pretty narrow way of looking at things i think - Possibly depends on where you place your value I guess. I see how the wording you choose might conjure some similarities between the two deals. I see no actual comparison between the two deals. Substitute the third baseman of your choice, I would always take one of the best pitchers in the game. Hinsdale absolutely aside. Zero comparison.

 

 

Hindsight

[Kimmi]

For the record, I am not a big fan of the sac bunt but like I said there are times it makes perfect sense. It largely depends on the match ups. And this is where the traditional stats such as BA are most useful. It also depends on the defensive set up.

 

It took a while, but I think most managers are coming around to the idea that the sac bunt is almost never a good strategy.

[Kimmi]

that is a pretty narrow way of looking at things i think - Possibly depends on where you place your value I guess. I see how the wording you choose might conjure some similarities between the two deals. I see no actual comparison between the two deals. Substitute the third baseman of your choice, I would always take one of the best pitchers in the game. Hinsdale absolutely aside. Zero comparison.

 

I would always prefer pitching over offense too. I understand that you would have preferred Ben signed a starting pitcher last season rather than signing Sandoval. I would have too. But that's not the point.

 

Once the FO decided last season, that they were going to focus on offense rather than on pitching, Ben did the same thing in terms of signing Pablo that Dombrowski did in terms of signing Price.

 

You might not agree with his strategy of prioritizing offense over pitching (I don't either), but the signing of Pablo and Price are same, aside from people disliking/disagreeing with one and liking/agreeing with the other.

[Bellhorn04]

It took a while, but I think most managers are coming around to the idea that the sac bunt is almost never a good strategy.

 

It really isn't used very much any more. In 2015 the average AL team had 30 successful sacrifice bunts. That's less than 1 every 5 games.

[jung]

Signing a player known to have weight problems to a monster contract without a weight clause is the determining factor in the dif between the Price contract and Panda's contract. Now we are stuck with a player on the wrong side of the weight/age factor and completely reliant upon the player to do the "right thing", a player that insists he is "not fat" which is a complete dodge. Whether or not he is fat is not the issue. Whether he can play at a level comesurate with expectations at his weight as his age increases is the issue. He had to give up switch hitting for one thing and is now stuck batting left handed playing 81 games in a park with a huge right field...not exactly what anybody had in mind for him.

 

If you were going to sign Panda, you had to include weight as an obligation. The Giants new it...Panda knew the Giants knew it. Panda publicly stated he knew where the Giants were going in a next contract and that it was a deal breaker for him ala' the Giants. So signing him at age 28 to a big contract and expecting him to perform to age 33 with a progressively more damaging weight issue and no contractual obligation to control it was just plain shortsighted and asking for trouble.

 

Signing Price is a risk but it is not a risk that is looking you in the face every instant of every day from first year to last. My best expectations for Panda was that we at least get a year or two out of him before the weight caught up to him and even that would have been a bad deal for us. As it is, we are being smacked with the weight issue right from his first year. It owns him now. If he deals with it responsibly, maybe we get a player again. If not, we will have to start to look for a crane to cart him out to 3rd base.

[Bellhorn04]

Signing a player known to have weight problems to a monster contract without a weight clause is the determining factor in the dif between the Price contract and Panda's contract. Now we are stuck with a player on the wrong side of the weight/age factor and completely reliant upon the player to do the "right thing", a player that insists he is "not fat" which is a complete dodge. Whether or not he is fat is not the issue. Whether he can play at a level comesurate with expectations at his weight as his age increases is the issue. He had to give up switch hitting for one thing and is now stuck batting left handed playing 81 games in a park with a huge right field...not exactly what anybody had in mind for him.

 

If you were going to sign Panda, you had to include weight as an obligation. The Giants new it...Panda knew the Giants knew it. Panda publicly stated he knew where the Giants were going in a next contract and that it was a deal breaker for him ala' the Giants. So signing him at age 28 to a big contract and expecting him to perform to age 33 with a progressively more damaging weight issue and no contractual obligation to control it was just plain shortsighted and asking for trouble.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but didn't Panda come into the 2014 season having lost a bunch of weight, get off to a terrible start, put weight back on and start hitting again?

[Kimmi]

It really isn't used very much any more. In 2015 the average AL team had 30 successful sacrifice bunts. That's less than 1 every 5 games.

 

And that is good to see.

 

I will be keeping an eye on Farrell's use of the sac bunt this season. I have given him somewhat of a pass the past two seasons because our offense was nonexistent at times, and I think Farrell was doing anything he could to score a run.

[cp176]

I would always prefer pitching over offense too. I understand that you would have preferred Ben signed a starting pitcher last season rather than signing Sandoval. I would have too. But that's not the point.

 

Once the FO decided last season, that they were going to focus on offense rather than on pitching, Ben did the same thing in terms of signing Pablo that Dombrowski did in terms of signing Price.

 

You might not agree with his strategy of prioritizing offense over pitching (I don't either), but the signing of Pablo and Price are same, aside from people disliking/disagreeing with one and liking/agreeing with the other.

 

The wording can certainly make any two signings look similar I think you could say. If there are two positional needs on any team, and both needs get filled, I guess you are right. Exactly the same. I don't think like that. I would find it bizarre if someone truly believed that there was much similarity between a Price and a Sandoval (etc.) signing. The Red Sox in my opinion have needed a top of the rotation pitcher for sometime. They could use the girl or boy who sits on the stool down the left field line to play third base and given the opportunity to sign Price I still would have favored the deal. We just don't agree I guess. You find me old and traditional. I'm not nor are my views. I like the lens I'm looking through.