A Realistic View at 2016

[moonslav59]

moon did say 'sporadic' personal observation - which could mean one or two games in a season.

 

Most fans watch one team regularly (mostly on TV) and maybe a few other games on TV. We may see an NL team play 1-6 times a year. We make judgments about our own players based on comparing them to a woefully inadequate sample size of "the others". We rely on stats and metrics to "fill the gaps".

 

Talk about flawed methodology!

 

UZR/150 attempts to rate players with a standardized methodology that includes personal observations of every ball hit in every game played over a season. Yes, it is flawed, because it involves human observation and maybe a sketchy framework as well, but at least it involves watching every game, not just a tiny percent of them.

 

I have had many debates about Jeter's defense. I feel he was probably never a plus fielder, and I am near certain he was one of the worst fielding SSs over the last 8-10 years of his career due mostly to hius piss-poor range. Several respectable posters argued he was one of the best. Clearly, personal observation is flawed (either by me or more likely those "other guys").

 

[moonslav59]

Jeter won the awards due to name recognition, NOT due to personal observation. Those are two completely different things.

 

The Yanks were on TV more often. Jeter made the ESPN highlights more than west coast players. That one play of him going into the stands warped many people's opinion of his defense.

 

Yes, name recognition was a big part of it, but that is exactly what I'm talking about: personal observations are flawed by prejudice and preconceived notions based on hearsay, previous skills and using "flawed" stats and metric to fill the gaps.

 

Remember Rafael Palmiero won the GG award at 1B one year when he was primarily a DH.

[mvp 78]

The Yanks were on TV more often. Jeter made the ESPN highlights more than west coast players. That one play of him going into the stands warped many people's opinion of his defense.

 

Yes, name recognition was a big part of it, but that is exactly what I'm talking about: personal observations are flawed by prejudice and preconceived notions based on hearsay, previous skills and using "flawed" stats and metric to fill the gaps.

 

Remember Rafael Palmiero won the GG award at 1B one year when he was primarily a DH.

 

The Palmiero award was about perception, not about watch people actually saw. That's not personal observation. Same with Jeter. These people weren't observing Jeter playing defense the way you or I observe the Sox play defense. I watch enough games to know that this team is better defensively than many Sox teams I grew up watching.

[moonslav59]

My point is that opinions gathered through personal observations are bound to be clouded by perception or tainted by unbalanced sample sized viewing.

[S5Dewey]

My point is that opinions gathered through personal observations are bound to be clouded by perception or tainted by unbalanced sample sized viewing.

 

Yes, and UZR or any other defensive metric is flawed because they're subjective from the 'stringers' who rate each play. And yet, defensive metrics are ...what?...half of WAR?

 

WAR is the merging of perfect mathematics (offense) with imperfect subjective rankings (defense) and then passing the total off as a perfect result.

 

And before anyone says that nobody says WAR is perfect, saying that is a lot like talking out of both sides of one's mouth. People will say in one breath that WAR isn't perfect and in the next breath use WAR to "prove" that one player is better than another.

[moonslav59]

Yes, and UZR or any other defensive metric is flawed because they're subjective from the 'stringers' who rate each play. And yet, defensive metrics are ...what?...half of WAR?

 

1)I do not believe the defensive aspect of WAR is 50% of a player's overal WAR score.

2) At least "stringers" are trained to rate the same aspects of the play as other stringers, and the totality of the stringers do actually watch every play of every game-something casual observers like us can never do. Even if we watched every play of every game on TV, it's not the same as watching every game live in person.

Of course the system is flawed, but I still think it's better than any one person can do on his own. That does not mean it is close to perfection- only better than mine or your or any single person's observations alone.

It's the same with prospects- you basically take the word of the people who have seen them play much more than we have, or they have talked to people who have seen them play often. People they respect and have talked to about several players over time.

There's no way any of us know who in MLB is a better fielder than Bogey or catcher than Vazquez by just pure observations. There's no way fielding %, CS% or RF/9 is better than UZR/150, DRS or other metrics, yet that was the traditional way we valued players defensively. Defensive metrics still have a long way to go, but I respect them (with large enough sample sizes) more than any other stat or personal observation. Are there numbers I disagree with? Certainly! This year's JBJ UZR/150 score is baffling to me, but his larger sample size score is +8.7 and his DRS is +20 over about a full 2 season's worth of data and innings.

 

Here are the UZR/150 leaders (in order) from 2013-2016 (2000+ innings):

SS- Simmons, Cozart, hardy, Crawford, Iggy, Tulo, A Escobar (Bogey 14/29)

CF- Pillar, Hamilton, Lagares, Cain, Pollock, CarGo, Martin, JBJ (8/29)

2B- Pedey (1/26), Barney, Panik, Phillips, Kinsler, Zobrist, LeMahieu, Utley

3B- Uribe, Machado, Donaldson, Arenado, Longoria, Headley, Prado, Beltre (Pablo 25/28)

RF- Heyward, Suzuki, Parra, Calhoun, Reddick, Pence, Aoki, Polanco

LF- Cespedes, Gordon, Marte, Crawford, de Aza, Yelich, Gardner

1B- Belt, Rizzo, Napoli, Moreland, Pujols, AGon, Miggy, Y Alonso

 

Maybe you may think some of these guys should be slightly shuffled around, but I don't see anyone here that I can say, based on my own observations, is significantly misplaced.

 

 

WAR is the merging of perfect mathematics (offense) with imperfect subjective rankings (defense) and then passing the total off as a perfect result.

 

They have never claimed to be perfect.

 

Their attempt to merge offense with defense is admirable, IMO, but is not an easy task. When anyone at the water cooler tries to argue about one player being better than another often cites defense or base running as influencing factors beyond hitting. We certainly know we are not perfect and bring personal preferences to the table. Maybe one of us values defense more than the other. Maybe we both agree on the portion defense should hold, but disagree on how good or bad particular players are based on our own limited knowledge, observations and reliance on antiquated statistics or votes from clownish GG voters.

The fielding bible at least tries to use several "expert" opinions to determine who is better and who is worse. I value their combined opinions more than GG voters, but they are only individual people who watch an extremely small fraction of all plays made over a season.

 

I respect what UZR/150 and DRS metrics are trying to perfect. I do not value any stat or metric as the be-all-end-all, but I do not discount them as useless either. I'll take UZR/150 or DRS over any single fielding stat out there. BTW, even Fldg & is influenced by home team score keepers.

 

And before anyone says that nobody says WAR is perfect, saying that is a lot like talking out of both sides of one's mouth. People will say in one breath that WAR isn't perfect and in the next breath use WAR to "prove" that one player is better than another.

 

Posters cite WAR to compare players, but anyone who says WAR proves anything is wrong. Saying they are wrong does not also mean WAR is useless.

 

In a world where simplification is often viewed as a virtue, the striving to find one number that encapsulates all aspects of a player's skill sets and proportions those values correctly is an interesting undertaking that is more or less still in its infancy.

 

Since you have to agree that none of us have a clue about how good a fielder some players on other teams really are, how do you propose we rank player's total value?

 

Nothing is definitive. I get that, but I value WAR as much as or more than OPS, ERA-, WHIP, OPS against, UZR/150, BA, OBP, Fldg%, CS% or any other single number alone. Trying to juggle multiple numbers to rank players is equally frustrating and flawed.

 

[S5Dewey]

Moon and I go back a long way, years back on the BDC board, and I have a huge respect for his research and his postings. However, we've also had a basic difference of opinion regarding WAR. He likes it. I don't.

 

I don't because there are too many moving parts. Have you even looked up how WAR is calculated? Especially dWAR? It reminds me of something Eck once said about tall pitchers with a big motion - and I'm paraphrasing here - 'These big guys with big motions, there's just too much that can go wrong here, and when one little thing is wrong it messes up the whole delivery'. That's my bigger issue with WAR - there are too many moving parts and too much subjectivity, most especially on the defensive side of it.

 

I have no issue with oWAR - straight forward numbers calculation, but one simply cannon merge data obtained one way with data obtained another way (hard numbers vs. subjective numbers) and come to any meaningful conclusion.

 

Now, to respond to the last two paragraphs of Moon's post - the synopsis if you will:

 

Lumping the criteria listed, (OPS, ERA-, WHIP, OPS against, UZR/150, BA, OBP, Fldg%, CS%) does nothing but muddy the waters. BA, OPS, & OBP are offensive numbers that can be precisely calculated using data at hand. ERA- & OPS against are pitching metrics that shouldn't even be brought into this conversation. It's patently unfair to compare pitchers against position players because pitchers don't even hit in the AL while they do hit in the NL (Do they use a pitcher's offense in the NL in calculating WAR? Does anyone even know, without looking it up?). There are too many differences between a pitcher's contribution and a position player's contribution for WAR to have any meaning when comparing the two. So let's not try to compare them and weed them out of this conversation.

 

That leaves us with the offensive side of the game (OBP, OPS & BA) vs. the defensive side of UZR/150 and Fldg % (I'm a bit shaky about Fldg % due to the subjectivity of what's an error and what isn't, but I'll defer to Moons post on that one). So again, I fail to see how one can combine had numbers with subjective opinions and draw any meaningful conclusions.

 

To answer the question of how I propose to rank a player's total value, I don't. And that's why I don't think we should try. I have always been very frustrated at how we subconsciously (?) overvalue offense/undervalue defense. [When we talk about players one of the first things said is, "He has an OPS of .xxx" With only a very few notable exceptions offense is ALWAYS the first thing we think about, even though offense may be the weakest part of one's game. Why? Because it's easy to quantify and reliable. We stay away from defense because deep inside we all know it's subjective and unreliable - and yet it's one of the main components of WAR. Does that make any sense?

 

IMHO it's very possible that we've become overly obsessed with numbers and quantifying everything and everyone in baseball to the point that we're overlooking the fact that not everything can be quantified. Sometimes the eye test can be as reliable as the stats. But, that's just MO.

Edited July 28, 2016 by S5Dewey

[Bellhorn04]

I like WAR a lot myself. And I know it's far from perfect.

 

I like the fact that the #2 and #3 WAR guys on the 2013 Red Sox were Victorino and Ellsbury, ahead of Papi. That in itself shows the weight given to fielding and speed and the measurement of the complete game of the player

[S5Dewey]

I like WAR a lot myself. And I know it's far from perfect.

 

I like the fact that the #2 and #3 WAR guys on the 2013 Red Sox were Victorino and Ellsbury, ahead of Papi. That in itself shows the weight given to fielding and speed and the measurement of the complete game of the player

 

Yeah, probably I should have included DH's with pitchers in that group who can't be compared with position players. DH's, Papi especially since he essentially NEVER plays defense, doesn't have the chance to have his WAR affected by his defense whether it's positively or negatively.

[Bellhorn04]

Yeah, probably I should have included DH's with pitchers in that group who can't be compared with position players. DH's, Papi especially since he essentially NEVER plays defense, doesn't have the chance to have his WAR affected by his defense whether it's positively or negatively.

 

No, of course he doesn't. But doesn't the fact that Victorino had a 6.1 WAR and Papi had a 4.4 WAR bear out that defense/speed are big components of WAR? You said your concern was with offense being overvalued and defense being undervalued.

[moonslav59]

Moon and I go back a long way, years back on the BDC board, and I have a huge respect for his research and his postings. However, we've also had a basic difference of opinion regarding WAR. He likes it. I don't.

 

I don't because there are too many moving parts. Have you even looked up how WAR is calculated? Especially dWAR? It reminds me of something Eck once said about tall pitchers with a big motion - and I'm paraphrasing here - 'These big guys with big motions, there's just too much that can go wrong here, and when one little thing is wrong it messes up the whole delivery'. That's my bigger issue with WAR - there are too many moving parts and too much subjectivity, most especially on the defensive side of it.

 

I have no issue with oWAR - straight forward numbers calculation, but one simply cannon merge data obtained one way with data obtained another way (hard numbers vs. subjective numbers) and come to any meaningful conclusion.

 

Now, to respond to the last two paragraphs of Moon's post - the synopsis if you will:

 

Lumping the criteria listed, (OPS, ERA-, WHIP, OPS against, UZR/150, BA, OBP, Fldg%, CS%) does nothing but muddy the waters. BA, OPS, & OBP are offensive numbers that can be precisely calculated using data at hand. ERA- & OPS against are pitching metrics that shouldn't even be brought into this conversation. It's patently unfair to compare pitchers against position players because pitchers don't even hit in the AL while they do hit in the NL (Do they use a pitcher's offense in the NL in calculating WAR? Does anyone even know, without looking it up?). There are too many differences between a pitcher's contribution and a position player's contribution for WAR to have any meaning when comparing the two. So let's not try to compare them and weed them out of this conversation.

 

That leaves us with the offensive side of the game (OBP, OPS & BA) vs. the defensive side of UZR/150 and Fldg % (I'm a bit shaky about Fldg % due to the subjectivity of what's an error and what isn't, but I'll defer to Moons post on that one). So again, I fail to see how one can combine had numbers with subjective opinions and draw any meaningful conclusions.

 

To answer the question of how I propose to rank a player's total value, I don't. And that's why I don't think we should try. I have always been very frustrated at how we subconsciously (?) overvalue offense/undervalue defense. [When we talk about players one of the first things said is, "He has an OPS of .xxx" With only a very few notable exceptions offense is ALWAYS the first thing we think about, even though offense may be the weakest part of one's game. Why? Because it's easy to quantify and reliable. We stay away from defense because deep inside we all know it's subjective and unreliable - and yet it's one of the main components of WAR. Does that make any sense?

 

IMHO it's very possible that we've become overly obsessed with numbers and quantifying everything and everyone in baseball to the point that we're overlooking the fact that not everything can be quantified. Sometimes the eye test can be as reliable as the stats. But, that's just MO.

 

We are always trying compare player A with player B.

 

Nobody disagree that the offensive aspect of evaluation is easier to quantify. I like OPS a lot and use it often, but almost everyone agrees that OBP is more important than SLG%. I'd prefer an OPS type stat that was maybe 60% OBP + 40% SLG.

 

Base running is also part of an offensive calculation and it goes beyond SB and CS. I do think oWAR does a pretty good job separating the values and then combining them into one number.

 

Obviously defense has always been much harder to quantify. It's probably impossible without some major technological breakthrough. Fldg% is woefully inadequate, yet many posters still rely on it to make judgments. Home field scorekeepers are highly subjective, but that's not even the major issue with using fldg% as a major factor in determining defensive value. To me, range, especially at SS, CF and to some extent 2B, RF and LF can and often is much more important than how many routine plays you complete. I'll use the SS position, because, to me, it is the most important defensive position on the field beyond maybe the catcher position. The difference in errors between the top 8 innings SSs last year is this:

1405 Andrus 22

1360 Bogey 11

1359 Desmond 27

1350 Ramirez 16

1336 Aybar 17

1330 Gregorious 13

1307 A Escobar 13

1305 Semien 35

The disparity between 11 and 35 is significant. 25 errors over 150 games is one more error every 6 games. The widest fldg% disparity is .037 (.984-.947).

Some very significant disparities there, but now let's look at total plays made- something many baseball fans rarely look at: (PO + A)

Andrus 764

Bogey 665

Desmond 643

Ramirez 666

E Aybar 603

Gregorious 607

A Escobar 635

M Semien 621

 

Let's look at the differences between Gregoriious and Elvis Andrus. Gregorious has a better fldg% by .007, but can anyone really with a straight face say that makes him better than Andrus? Andrus made 157 more plays than Gregorious! Maybe some of that can be attributed to their pitching staffs-- how many ks they have/how many ground balls to SS they allow, but clearly more is needed than just fldg%. Andrus had 9 more errors, so he must be worse, right?

 

RF/9 (range factor over 9 innings) tried to address this, but it ignored how many balls were hit to the SS position. RF/9 does have some value, and when using it with fldg% one is improving his point of reference, but UZR/150 attempts to address the issue of how many balls are actually hit to a player vs how many they make. Certainly, there are flaws as some balls are hit harder or farther away from the fielder than others. Some balls are easy, some are hard, some are near impossible and some are impossible. UZR/150 tries to distinguish between all these types, but is rated by people who are flawed. I get that. There must be differences between some raters, but they do try to mix them up and move them around, so over a full season or two or three, it should all "even out" to some extent. None the less, the metric is seriously flawed. However, the question is really about the extent of the flaws vs the extent of the flaws of people using seriously unbalanced personal observations combined with fldg% and RF/9. Which is worse?

 

It's my position that UZR/150 over a large sample size is better than the eye test + using rudimentary fldg stats.

 

Let's go back to Gregorious vs Andrus. Andrus played in 75 more innings, so that has to be factored in. Without knowing how many balls were hit to the SSs, I'd say Andrus is clearly the better SS despite making more errors. I'd say the 157 more plays outweighs the 9 more errors, but I'd probably be wrong. According to fangraphs, Andrus had 98 more balls hit in his zone than Gregorious. That changes the equation, and it's something no casual fans knows about or even cares to know about. We make defensive judgments based on near blindness.

 

UZR/150 might be flawed, subjective and more, but it's not blind. It looks at every play, and to me, that's what makes it a better evaluator than you and me. Andrus made 75% of the plays hit into his zone. Gregorious made 79%. Gregorious made 110 plays out of the zone compared to 105 by Andrus (in 75 more innings).

 

The 2015 UZR/150 of these top 8 innings SSs?

Andrus 0.0

Bogey 0.9

Desmond -3.7

Ramirez -5.6

E Aybar -8.0

Gregorious 7.9

A Escobar 6.7

M Semien -10.4

 

The best UZR/150 SSs last year were:

17.7 Hechavarria

17.5 A Simmons

11.9 Crawford

7.9 Gregorious

 

The best by fldg%

.988 Simmons

.986 Peralta

.985 Tulo

.984 Hechavarria

.984 Bogaerts

 

To me, the UZR/150 list is more refelective of who the best defensive SSs are.

 

It's flawed. It's subjective. But, it's not blind.

 

 

[moonslav59]

Here's a list of out hottest hitters over the last 28 days:

 

1.085 Betts

1.056 Ramirez

.968 Leon

.963 Ortiz

.891 JBJ

.862 Holt

.841 Pedey

.830 Shaw

.798 Bogey

 

Wow, 9 hitters all above .798!

 

 

OPS against:

.328 Ziegler

.570 Barnes

.613 Ross

.684 Porcello

.747 Wright

.779 ERod

.780 Price

.804 Layne

.804 Tazawa

.808 Uehara

.958 Buch

.986 Pomeranz

1.137 Hembree

 

Not as impressive, but if Kimbrel and Uehara come back strong our top 4 SP'ers and top 4-5 RP'ers should look pretty good (on paper).

 

 

[moonslav59]

How about the last 365 days?

 

Ortiz .325 42 136 (1.086 OPS)

 

JBJ .290 25 102 (.916)

 

Betts .316 28 94 (.899)

 

Bogey .331 16 97 (.846)

 

Pedey .304 14 51 (.831)

 

Shaw .269 25 91 (.809)

 

Ramirez .260 13 65 (.749)

 

B Holt .265 5 47 (.703)

 

Under 250 PAs

.930 Leon

.846 Young (Sox only)

.802 Swihart

.696 Rutledge

.674 Castillo

.583 Vazquez

.571 Hanigan

.560 Sandoval

 

[d-money]

Getting help from the twins tonight. This team's fortunate despite playing like crap. Win tonight plzzz

[Kimmi]

So much to say about WAR, so little time. Who am I kidding? I have all night.

 

1. Just because a stat is flawed, that doesn't mean that it's no good or worthless. The fact of the matter is that WAR works. It correlates very well with actual team wins. Like it or not, IT WORKS. All stats are flawed one way or another. That doesn't mean that they're all worthless.

 

2. Every offensive statistic is subjective as well. Ks, hits, OPS, you name it, it's subjective. Offensive stats may not be as subjective as defensive stats are, but they are subjective nonetheless. The stat geeks go through painstaking measures to eliminate as much bias and subjectivity as possible, and they do a pretty good job of it. A much better job than an official (biased) scorekeeper or even an umpire calling balls and strikes do.

 

3. I have often heard people state that WAR overvalues defense too much. IMO, I think WAR has it right, and most people undervalue defense too much.

 

4. One of the best things about WAR is that it gives us the ability to compare players who play different positions, including comparing pitchers with position players.

[Nick]

How about the last 365 days?

 

Ortiz .325 42 136 (1.086 OPS)

 

JBJ .290 25 102 (.916)

 

Betts .316 28 94 (.899)

 

Bogey .331 16 97 (.846)

 

Pedey .304 14 51 (.831)

 

Shaw .269 25 91 (.809)

 

Ramirez .260 13 65 (.749)

 

B Holt .265 5 47 (.703)

 

Under 250 PAs

.930 Leon

.846 Young (Sox only)

.802 Swihart

.696 Rutledge

.674 Castillo

.583 Vazquez

.571 Hanigan

.560 Sandoval

 

 

Moon, I've often thought of Sox offense as that of a SEC college football team going up against a mid major team. They score in the 70's. Run up 800 yards in offense. Then they play a tight game to say 17-14 loss vs comparable opponent. Offensive averages are still gaudy but the record is still 1-1. Obviously the better statistics indicator in this case would be for games only in the conference.

 

Last night's game was perfect example. Great offensive team should have crushed the Angels and not wait until the 9th inning to lose 2-1. I get that we are still in thick of things and our offense is good. But I don't think it's great.

 

One example maybe to eliminate lop sided wins by adjusting the runs scored to no more than 4 run differential. (I believe that's the 'save' criteria, no?). Thus 16-2 game would be averaged as 6-2 game and 10 excessive runs would be ignored for the purposed of offensive run output....call it the adjusted runs scored or something.

 

Simply to say we are averaging full one run more than the next team may not be the best indicator.

You can throw out every offensive numbers but they are just averages. John Farrell is dumbfounded by games such as last night. All he can say is WE HAVE GOOD OFFENSE. WE SCORE RUNS. He's confused because of extreme distribution in offensive output. I'm not sure how you would come up with it but there has to a better indicator of team's offensive output than simply 'averages'.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Nick

[Bellhorn04]

Moon, I've often thought of Sox offense as that of a SEC college football team going up against a mid major team. They score in the 70's. Run up 800 yards in offense. Then they play a tight game to say 17-14 loss vs comparable opponent. Offensive averages are still gaudy but the record is still 1-1. Obviously the better statistics indicator in this case would be for games only in the conference.

 

Last night's game was perfect example. Great offensive team should have crushed the Angels and not wait until the 9th inning to lose 2-1. I get that we are still in thick of things and our offense is good. But I don't think it's great.

 

One example maybe to eliminate lop sided wins by adjusting the runs scored to no more than 4 run differential. (I believe that's the 'save' criteria, no?). Thus 16-2 game would the averaged as 6-2 game and 10 excessive runs would be ignored for the purposed of offensive run output....call it the adjusted runs scored or something.

 

Simply to say we are averaging full one run more than the next team may not be the best indicator.

You can throw out every offensive numbers but they are just averages. John Farrell is dumbfounded by games such as last night. All he can say is WE HAVE GOOD OFFENSE. WE SCORE RUNS. I'm not sure how you would come up with it but there has to a better indicator of team's offensive output than simply 'averages'.

 

This is usually the way it works though. In MLB offense is heavily dependent on the quality of the opposing pitching. You face a different starter each game, and starters have a lot of ups and downs in their performance.

 

There are other ways to analyze the offense though, like how many times have we scored 5 runs compared to other teams etc.

[Slasher9]

it's equally flawed for every player so that means its not flawed.

[mvp 78]

it's equally flawed for every player so that means its not flawed.

 

That's not how any of this works.

[Kimmi]

Average runs scored per game and average runs allowed per game is actually a very good indicator of how good a team is. Pythagorean W-L does a good job of predicting a team's remaining season record.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter if a team scores 12 runs one game and 2 runs the next. The average of 7 runs/game (over a large enough sample, of course) is a good measure of the team's performance.

[Slasher9]

That's not how any of this works.

 

[moonslav59]

Moon, I've often thought of Sox offense as that of a SEC college football team going up against a mid major team. They score in the 70's. Run up 800 yards in offense. Then they play a tight game to say 17-14 loss vs comparable opponent. Offensive averages are still gaudy but the record is still 1-1. Obviously the better statistics indicator in this case would be for games only in the conference.

 

Last night's game was perfect example. Great offensive team should have crushed the Angels and not wait until the 9th inning to lose 2-1. I get that we are still in thick of things and our offense is good. But I don't think it's great.

 

One example maybe to eliminate lop sided wins by adjusting the runs scored to no more than 4 run differential. (I believe that's the 'save' criteria, no?). Thus 16-2 game would be averaged as 6-2 game and 10 excessive runs would be ignored for the purposed of offensive run output....call it the adjusted runs scored or something.

 

Simply to say we are averaging full one run more than the next team may not be the best indicator.

You can throw out every offensive numbers but they are just averages. John Farrell is dumbfounded by games such as last night. All he can say is WE HAVE GOOD OFFENSE. WE SCORE RUNS. He's confused because of extreme distribution in offensive output. I'm not sure how you would come up with it but there has to a better indicator of team's offensive output than simply 'averages'.

 

And, this is why pitching keeps you in more games than hitting. It's math.

 

Yeah, SP'ers only pitch every 5th day, but they can face more than 850 batters over 33 starts.

 

Last night's game was unfortunate, but we still have 3 of our top 4 RP'ers on the DL.

 

It's too bad that the one game Price let up zero runs, when we needed it, our pen let him down.

[bowman]

Not a good sign when we are finding different ways to lose more often than ways to win. Hope we catch fire. Last night would have been a huge win.

[oldtimer]

Not a good sign when we are finding different ways to lose more often than ways to win. Hope we catch fire. Last night would have been a huge win.

 

Yes, and we got beat with a starting pitcher with an 85 mph fast ball velocity. It does point out velocity is not the be all and end all.

 

I prefer that management shores up our weak areas such as left field, third/first base and look for another solid RP. Chances are the cost wouldn't be that great.

 

Someone needs to take it upon themselves to fire up this team. My guess is it will come from within the players and not from Farrell.

 

Trading away our best assets for a SP will give marginal improvement and we know SPs are fragile. We could wind up with nothing much to show for our best prospects.

[cp176]

Not a good sign when we are finding different ways to lose more often than ways to win. Hope we catch fire. Last night would have been a huge win.

 

I think that you are on to something here. We are one or two players away from being very good for a very long time. I don't like the trend whether looked at from all thing statistical or all of the things that you can't measure. When the game is absolutely on the line and maybe even the season, what types of players can really get it done. I just don't like the pattern of losing so many very close games. High scoring or low scoring, doesn't matter. We have an exciting core of young players, but can they get us over the top. We get into great position, and come of short way too often. i think that we are one starting pitcher and one position player (the right one - whoever he may be) away. i don't think the answer is in either Benintendi or Moncada. For the record, i think that if you trade one and it was Moncada, it would be a stupid move if the thought process was that Benintendi was going to be the major difference maker. For the right two players, trading both of these guys could make sense. there is something missing here that the youth movement might not ever fill.

[moonslav59]

I think that you are on to something here. We are one or two players away from being very good for a very long time. I don't like the trend whether looked at from all thing statistical or all of the things that you can't measure. When the game is absolutely on the line and maybe even the season, what types of players can really get it done. I just don't like the pattern of losing so many very close games. High scoring or low scoring, doesn't matter. We have an exciting core of young players, but can they get us over the top. We get into great position, and come of short way too often. i think that we are one starting pitcher and one position player (the right one - whoever he may be) away. i don't think the answer is in either Benintendi or Moncada. For the record, i think that if you trade one and it was Moncada, it would be a stupid move if the thought process was that Benintendi was going to be the major difference maker. For the right two players, trading both of these guys could make sense. there is something missing here that the youth movement might not ever fill.

 

I couldn't disagree more. This is the first chance these young kids of ours have had a chance to not "come up short".

 

I've been screaming for more top quality pitching since 1970, when I started following the Sox, but trading Moncada and/or Benintendi to try to get one now, IMO is not the answer. I want the Sox to win for many years to come, so I trading our extended future away in hopes of striking it big this year is not my idea of a good idea.

 

[Bellhorn04]

I've been screaming for more top quality pitching since 1970, when I started following the Sox

 

That's 46 years of screaming...you must be getting a little hoarse.

[moonslav59]

That's 46 years of screaming...you must be getting a little hoarse.

 

A couple ruptured aortas too!

 

[moonslav59]

I loved the Cespy for Porcello trade and supported the extension due to his age and the fact that all his contract years were within prime-something that rarely happens with 4 or more year deals on this scale.

 

He had a rough year in 2015, but the extension started this year.

 

I'm sure glad we have him now. He is clearly our ace.

 

He's been very good to excellent all year...

 

OPS against by month

 

Month Porc Wri Price

April .625 .545 .709

May .777 .578 .722

June .706 .607 .768

July .684* .747 .728

Total .699* .619 .734

* not counting tonight game.

 

Nice game Rick. You're our stopper now!

 

[moonslav59]

MLB OPS against leaders:

 

1) .475 Kershaw

2) .566 Arrieta

3) .571 Stasburg

...

6) .596 Pomeranz

...

15) .619 Wright

...

30) .679 Porcello

...

55) .734 Price

 

(out of 94 qualifiers)