A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[cp176]

ok - now I got it. Read it this morning from weei web sight . I would copy and paste the link for you but I am unfit technologically. I'm going back to see if I can find it again.

 

it is in there. weei.com. gave his rundown or impressions of the overall condition of the team. Mentioned the need for Devers to shed weight.

[mvp 78]

Found it.

 

– While a lot has been made of Sandoval’s weight, perhaps the more pressing conditioning need right now is Rafael Devers. The 20-year-old has impressed with his bat in big league camp, but it would appear he needs to shed the pounds in order to be a viable third baseman (not first baseman) going forward.

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2017/03/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-red-sox-as-they-head-into-march/

[cp176]

ok - now I got it. Read it this morning from weei web sight . I would copy and paste the link for you but I am unfit technologically. I'm going back to see if I can find it again.

 

site - that bugged me

[moonslav59]

People kept saying Papi needed to "shed a few pounds".

 

I'm not worried.

[cp176]

People kept saying Papi needed to "shed a few pounds".

 

I'm not worried.

 

My guess is that Papi agreed with them but I'm not getting the comparison picture much though.

[User Name]

Papi didn't play the field.

[mvp 78]

Papi didn't play the field.

 

Ortiz was also much bigger than Devers.

[moonslav59]

Papi didn't play the field.

 

He played 278 games at 1B over his career.

 

True, he was a DH-only type player, but his weight was much higher than Devers.

 

From what I have read and seen, Devers has big legs and "lower half".

 

Usually, weight issues involve big guts. Scouting reports actually mention needing to "fill out" on his upper half.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=rafael+devers&safe=strict&rlz=1C1UDIB_enUS705US705&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=974&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKhK3OxLjSAhUHxFQKHfecCqoQ_AUICCgD

 

Looking at the fotos, I'm not worried at all, and to say he's a bigger conditioning issue than Pablo is pure hyperbole.

[moonslav59]

MLBTR...

 

Red Sox Renew Mookie Betts For $950K

By Jeff Todd | March 2, 2017 at 10:21am CDT

 

The Red Sox have renewed outfielder Mookie Betts’ contract at a healthy $950K price, according to Alex Speier of the Boston Globe (via Twitter). Betts, 24, has established himself as one of the game’s best players and is fresh off of an outstanding 2016 season in which he slashed .318/.363/.534 with 31 home runs and 26 stolen bases.

 

On the heels of that effort, Betts will take home the second-highest amount ever given to a 2+ service-class player who wasn’t eligible for arbitration, falling shy only of Mike Trout’s 2014 payday of $1MM. Nevertheless, the Red Sox weren’t able to get him to sign his name to the agreement. The club had the right to renew him at whatever amount it preferred, so long as it met or exceeded the league minimum salary, so it’s not as if he had much leverage. But it’s still somewhat notable that Betts was the organization’s only player to make the symbolic gesture of forcing the club to renew him.

 

That being said, president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski says that he did not sense any bad feelings between the sides during negotiations, as Tim Britton of the Providence Journal reports (Twitter links). Certainly, the club could have taken a harsher stance in setting the final number, but obviously had no interest in making a point at the expense of its relationship with a key player. As things turned out, says Betts, there’s no animosity on his part. (Via Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald, on Twitter.)

 

It would not be surprising to see the sides back at the bargaining table sooner rather than later. If nothing else, there’ll be a hefty arbitration salary to negotiate next winter, but it’s also possible to imagine that the sides will explore a longer-term deal. While Boston enjoys three years of control over Betts beyond the upcoming season, the team’s leverage will wane as he gets closer to free agency and increases his earnings through the arb process.

 

 

 

[mvp 78]

from what i have read and seen, devers has big legs and "lower half".

 

thicc

[Nick]

Per Sox Prospects on Devers

 

Summation:*All-Star potential regardless of position due to his value at the plate. Potential to be a plus hitter for average with plus-to-better power. One of the most exciting young players in the system in years. Mature approach for his age, has shown the ability to handle aggressive assignments. Will stick at third base for the foreseeable future, but if his bat develops as projected, it would profile at first base.

[moonslav59]

Per Sox Prospects on Devers

 

Summation:*All-Star potential regardless of position due to his value at the plate. Potential to be a plus hitter for average with plus-to-better power. One of the most exciting young players in the system in years. Mature approach for his age, has shown the ability to handle aggressive assignments. Will stick at third base for the foreseeable future, but if his bat develops as projected, it would profile at first base.

 

I'm not sure how his bat "profile" affects whether he plays 3B or 1B.

 

Ideally, having a top hitting 1Bman that can play 3B as a plus fielder, would be better than forcing him to 1B, because he's hitting too good for 3B.

[Nick]

[b]I'm not sure how his bat "profile" affects whether he plays 3B or 1B.

 

come on Moon, 1B is easier position to play than 3B. Hell, you don't have to look beyond Hanley. If there's a weight issue concerns/lack of mobility then you stick a guy like Devers with plus bat at 1B. I'm not sure what your issue with the 'summation'.

[Nick]

Sox is now up 17-1 on the Rays.

 

I contend this is typical Sox offense. They really feast on bad pitching, bringing up their offensive averages. Many here will say our offense is great. Is it?

 

I wonder what the run differential in 2016 would have been if we capped the single game differentials at 5 runs, plus or minus either way. Thus if this game ends at 17-1, Sox would be given a credit for 6-1 win. Why the 5 run cap? Yep stupid logic, losing team can hit a grand slam and still be one run short with a 5 run deficit.

 

My guess is that Sox win more 'huge' run differential games than losing them. 17-1 win combined with 5-2, 7-3, 2-1 loss becomes meaningless when you 'average' these 4 games. We've outscored our opponent 23-15, yet we're 1-3. If we capped it, it becomes 12-15, better explanation for going 1-3.

 

Any math geniuses out there?

Edited March 2, 2017 by Nick

[moonslav59]

[b]I'm not sure how his bat "profile" affects whether he plays 3B or 1B.

 

come on Moon, 1B is easier position to play than 3B. Hell, you don't have to look beyond Hanley. If there's a weight issue concerns/lack of mobility then you stick a guy like Devers with plus bat at 1B. I'm not sure what your issue with the 'summation'.

 

I get what he meant, but it was worded funny.

 

He's saying his bat is good enough that if he cannot be a plus fielder at 3B, he'll still have a job (at 1B).

 

My point was that it would be better for him to hit like a 1Bman, but field well enough to stay at 3B.

 

[moonslav59]

Sox is now up 17-1 on the Rays.

 

I contend this is typical Sox offense. They really feast on bad pitching, bringing up their offensive averages. Many here will say our offense is great. Is it?

 

I wonder what the run differential in 2016 would have been if we capped the single game differentials at 5 runs, plus or minus either way. Thus if this game ends at 17-1, Sox would be given a credit for 6-1 win. Why the 5 run cap? Yep stupid logic, losing team can hit a grand slam and still be one run short with a 5 run deficit.

 

My guess is that Sox win more 'huge' run differential games than losing them. 17-1 win combined with 5-2, 7-3, 2-1 loss becomes meaningless when you 'average' these 4 games. We've outscored our opponent 23-15, yet we're 1-3. If we capped it, it becomes 12-15, better explanation for going 1-3.

 

Any math geniuses out there?

 

Last season, we had a stretch were we outscored our opponents in something like 8 out of 10 straight series, but tied or lost the series in half of them.

 

It was a lot worse "in the old days", but it does still seem to happen more to us than to other teams.

 

I'm not sure where you find the data for that.

[Kimmi]

Sox is now up 17-1 on the Rays.

 

I contend this is typical Sox offense. They really feast on bad pitching, bringing up their offensive averages. Many here will say our offense is great. Is it?

 

I wonder what the run differential in 2016 would have been if we capped the single game differentials at 5 runs, plus or minus either way. Thus if this game ends at 17-1, Sox would be given a credit for 6-1 win. Why the 5 run cap? Yep stupid logic, losing team can hit a grand slam and still be one run short with a 5 run deficit.

 

My guess is that Sox win more 'huge' run differential games than losing them. 17-1 win combined with 5-2, 7-3, 2-1 loss becomes meaningless when you 'average' these 4 games. We've outscored our opponent 23-15, yet we're 1-3. If we capped it, it becomes 12-15, better explanation for going 1-3.

 

Any math geniuses out there?

 

The thing about run differential is that it is a pretty darn good measure of a team's talent level regardless of how that differential comes about.

 

It's a fact that the good teams will win more games by blowouts, and that their records in close games can be as random as a coin flip. You expect good teams to have a better record in blowout games, not necessarily in 1 or 2 run games.

[moonslav59]

The thing about run differential is that it is a pretty darn good measure of a team's talent level regardless of how that differential comes about.

 

It's a fact that the good teams will win more games by blowouts, and that their records in close games can be as random as a coin flip. You expect good teams to have a better record in blowout games, not necessarily in 1 or 2 run games.

 

I'm not up for doing the research, but I'd like to know how many other teams outscored their opponents in a series and lost or tied as many as we did.

 

With a high scoring team, I guess you'd expect more, but I think we might be surprised by how much more.

[moonslav59]

Here's our record last year by series wins-losses-ties

 

When we scored more:

W 24

T 4

L 4

 

When we tied in runs scored:

W 0

T 1

L 1

 

When we were outscored:

W 2

T 0

L 14

[harmony]

Here's our record last year by series wins-losses-ties

 

When we scored more:

W 24

T 4

L 4

 

When we tied in runs scored:

W 0

T 1

L 1

 

When we were outscored:

W 2

T 0

L 14

The Red Sox split a four-game series with the Seattle Mariners in August 2016 despite being outscored 11-10:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2016-schedule-scores.shtml

[cp176]

Travis will be at first for us after this year if he is healthy. if Devers can't play third, I hope for his sake he hits well enough to dh.

[harmony]

The thing about run differential is that it is a pretty darn good measure of a team's talent level regardless of how that differential comes about.It's a fact that the good teams will win more games by blowouts, and that their records in close games can be as random as a coin flip. You expect good teams to have a better record in blowout games, not necessarily in 1 or 2 run games.

With Thursday's blowout, the Red Sox evened their Spring Training run differential:

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/standings/_/sort/pointdifferential/seasontype/pre

 

I agree that Spring Training stats are pretty much meaningless.

[moonslav59]

The Red Sox split a four-game series with the Seattle Mariners in August 2016 despite being outscored 11-10:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2016-schedule-scores.shtml

 

Thanks for the correction. I think I counted the runs as 10-10 and put that in the above category. My bad.

Updated:

When we scored more:

W 24

T 4

L 4

 

When we tied in runs scored:

W 0

T 0

L 1

 

When we were outscored:

W 2

T 1

L 14

 

 

[moonslav59]

The main point is that we lost or tied 25% of our series last year despite outscoring our opponents.

 

Does anybody know of another team that did worse in this area?

[moonslav59]

By Steve Adams | March 3, 2017 at 11:08am CDT

 

As the Red Sox await news on the fate of left-hander David Price, ESPN’s Buster Olney runs down the list of options for Boston in the event that Price is forced to sit out part of or all of the 2017 season (ESPN Insider subscription required and recommended). The Sox do still have five big league starters in the form of Chris Sale, Rick Porcello, Eduardo Rodriguez, Drew Pomeranz and Steven Wright, though each has come with recent injury troubles. Beyond that, the team is lacking in quality depth options, though Henry Owens, Brian Johnson, Roenis Elias and others are present in Pawtucket. Free agents such as Doug Fister, Colby Lewis and Jake Peavy are still on the market, and Jose Quintana, of course, looms on the trade market. Olney notes that the Red Sox would likely have to utilize top prospect Rafael Devers as the headliner in a theoretical Quintana deal, however.

 

I'm not even sure Devers and Groome would net us Quintana. It would probably take Devers, Groome & Travis to just get the conversation started.

 

That would essentially wipe out our entire upper ranked prospects.

[mvp 78]

I'm not even sure Devers and Groome would net us Quintana. It would probably take Devers, Groome & Travis to just get the conversation started.

 

That would essentially wipe out our entire upper ranked prospects.

 

Pass.

[Nick]

Porcello pitched three strong innings today.

 

Benni is right now 3-3 with 2 doubles. Kid can swing the bat. No worries.

[Spudboy]

By Steve Adams | March 3, 2017 at 11:08am CDT

 

As the Red Sox await news on the fate of left-hander David Price, ESPN’s Buster Olney runs down the list of options for Boston in the event that Price is forced to sit out part of or all of the 2017 season (ESPN Insider subscription required and recommended). The Sox do still have five big league starters in the form of Chris Sale, Rick Porcello, Eduardo Rodriguez, Drew Pomeranz and Steven Wright, though each has come with recent injury troubles. Beyond that, the team is lacking in quality depth options, though Henry Owens, Brian Johnson, Roenis Elias and others are present in Pawtucket. Free agents such as Doug Fister, Colby Lewis and Jake Peavy are still on the market, and Jose Quintana, of course, looms on the trade market. Olney notes that the Red Sox would likely have to utilize top prospect Rafael Devers as the headliner in a theoretical Quintana deal, however.

 

I'm not even sure Devers and Groome would net us Quintana. It would probably take Devers, Groome & Travis to just get the conversation started.

 

That would essentially wipe out our entire upper ranked prospects.

 

That would be insane. Dombrowski would need a body guard if he did that one.

 

No need to panic. Not until another of the remaining top five gets hurt.

[Nick]

Beni now 4-4, just homered.....and two doubles. How can he not bat 2nd for us?

[Spudboy]

Beni now 4-4, just homered.....and two doubles. How can he not bat 2nd for us?

 

It is Spring Training.

 

But I have every confidence that this kid can hit anywhere and help this team.

 

I would not use him at 4 or 5. But anywhere else is okay.