Sox hitting??

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Call me crazy, but I believe in our offense as it is. They have scored plenty of runs since Devers and Nunez came up. What worries me is Price's durability. We are done if he doesn't come back strong for the rest of the season. Eduardo and Porcello are a mass of inconcistencies, and we just can't go with Fister every 5 day.

 

I'm starting to think this too. And if B.Beane is going to trade S.Gray at a lower than normal price, why not get involved in the bidding? See if you can build a package around Groome. Gray is signed for two more seasons and so he fits perfectly into the Red Sox window. And, as we know, you can never have enough starting pitching and Price might be headed for TJ surgery as early as next season.

[a700hitter]

Nonsense. You can't prove this with any statistics so I am not buying it!

But we are both believing it, because it is obviously true. LOL!

[jacksonianmarch]

Having an Ortiz type hitter would definitely elongate the line up. It does not, however, make the other hitters perform better.

 

You keep spouting this, but you're wrong. It makes the hitters around him better for one simple reason. They see more fastballs. When you fear a guy in a lineup, you try like he'll to avoid walking the players around him. When anyone played Boston, the goal was to have Ortiz bat with nobody on. This means the guys ahead of David saw more fastballs. Also, David got on base a ton. This means the guys behind him saw more fastballs since you usually don't want to walk guys with runners on base. It created a chain reaction. The 2016 DO version was otherworldly. This led to Pedey having a resurgent power season. This led to Hanley having a resurgent year. This then has a chain reaction down and up the lineup. You remove the behemoth in the lineup, and now there isn't any guys you fear or gameplan to avoid before the game. the approach changes entirely

[cp176]

You keep spouting this, but you're wrong. It makes the hitters around him better for one simple reason. They see more fastballs. When you fear a guy in a lineup, you try like he'll to avoid walking the players around him. When anyone played Boston, the goal was to have Ortiz bat with nobody on. This means the guys ahead of David saw more fastballs. Also, David got on base a ton. This means the guys behind him saw more fastballs since you usually don't want to walk guys with runners on base. It created a chain reaction. The 2016 DO version was otherworldly. This led to Pedey having a resurgent power season. This led to Hanley having a resurgent year. This then has a chain reaction down and up the lineup. You remove the behemoth in the lineup, and now there isn't any guys you fear or gameplan to avoid before the game. the approach changes entirely

 

I'm giving you good credit for this one because it sounds like someone who actually played the game. Unless you have actually been close to situations like this, you really have no idea what it means to have that one special player in your lineup that every opponent fears to pitch to. it can influence an opponent's entire approach to how you are going to pitch to a club. From a fan's perspective, it is kind of like the anticipatory feeling of waiting every 5th day for Sale to pitch. Ortiz represented that one guy for Boston.

[Bellhorn04]

You keep spouting this, but you're wrong. It makes the hitters around him better for one simple reason. They see more fastballs.

 

This is a statement that can be proven or disproven out with data. Are pitchers throwing us less fastballs this year? Anybody?

[Kimmi]

You keep spouting this, but you're wrong. It makes the hitters around him better for one simple reason. They see more fastballs. When you fear a guy in a lineup, you try like he'll to avoid walking the players around him. When anyone played Boston, the goal was to have Ortiz bat with nobody on. This means the guys ahead of David saw more fastballs. Also, David got on base a ton. This means the guys behind him saw more fastballs since you usually don't want to walk guys with runners on base. It created a chain reaction. The 2016 DO version was otherworldly. This led to Pedey having a resurgent power season. This led to Hanley having a resurgent year. This then has a chain reaction down and up the lineup. You remove the behemoth in the lineup, and now there isn't any guys you fear or gameplan to avoid before the game. the approach changes entirely

 

Sorry, but line up protection is largely a myth. While it's true that pitchers will pitch differently to batters based on who is 'protecting' them, it unfortunately makes no difference in the batters overall performance.

 

Saying that Ortiz' behometh season led to Pedey and Hanley having resurgent seasons is cah-cah.

[mvp 78]

Sorry, but line up protection is largely a myth. While it's true that pitchers will pitch differently to batters based on who is 'protecting' them, it unfortunately makes no difference in the batters overall performance.

 

Saying that Ortiz' behometh season led to Pedey and Hanley having resurgent seasons is cah-cah.

 

Then why is everyone else having a down year? Coincidence?

 

Ortiz has a great baseball mind. Maybe having him not in the clubhouse is hurting other players' approach to a pitcher?

[Kimmi]

This is a statement that can be proven or disproven out with data. Are pitchers throwing us less fastballs this year? Anybody?

 

According to Fangraphs, the Sox saw 54.9% fastballs last year. This year they have seen 55.4% fastballs. So in short, no. But this is really too simplistic to judge by looking at the team as a whole.

[Kimmi]

Then why is everyone else having a down year? Coincidence?

 

Ortiz has a great baseball mind. Maybe having him not in the clubhouse is hurting other players' approach to a pitcher?

 

I can live with your last statement better than I can accept that they need him in the lineup. But that goes more along the lines of leadership or coaching, not with replacing the bat in the lineup.

[Kimmi]

Hanley saw 55.2% fastballs last year versus 54.9% this year.

 

Pedroia saw 58.7% fastballs last year versus 59.9% this year.

[mvp 78]

I can live with your last statement better than I can accept that they need him in the lineup. But that goes more along the lines of leadership or coaching, not with replacing the bat in the lineup.

 

How much blame do you put on Chili Davis?

 

I think there is a little merit to Ortiz helping the rest of the lineup when he was playing, but I'm not sure it's the biggest reason for the slump they are currently in.

[BstHcpr]

Hanley saw 55.2% fastballs last year versus 54.9% this year.

 

Pedroia saw 58.7% fastballs last year versus 59.9% this year.

 

Lol are you serious

[Bellhorn04]

Lol are you serious

 

It's a response to jacko's authoritative pronouncement that because Ortiz is gone we're seeing less fastballs.

 

DISPROVEN

[Kimmi]

How much blame do you put on Chili Davis?

 

I think there is a little merit to Ortiz helping the rest of the lineup when he was playing, but I'm not sure it's the biggest reason for the slump they are currently in.

 

I don't know how much blame goes to Chili, but I have questioned his role in this.

 

The merit in Ortiz helping the line up is that it elongates the line up. He may have also been able to help them from a mentor standpoint. Helping them in terms of offering protection has little merit.

[iortiz]

Well the Sox do have your countryman Velazquez.

 

Yeah, I'd rather mi paisano than Fister.

[mvp 78]

I don't know how much blame goes to Chili, but I have questioned his role in this.

 

The merit in Ortiz helping the line up is that it elongates the line up. He may have also been able to help them from a mentor standpoint. Helping them in terms of offering protection has little merit.

 

I would say "a little merit" rather than saying "little merit." Again, it's not the biggest reason they are failing right now.

[Kimmi]

I would say "a little merit" rather than saying "little merit." Again, it's not the biggest reason they are failing right now.

 

I agree it's not the reason they are failing, which is all I've been saying.

 

That does not the opinion of many, however.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree it's not the reason they are failing, which is all I've been saying.

 

That does not the opinion of many, however.

 

Most people like explanations, not enigmas.

[a700hitter]

According to Fangraphs, the Sox saw 54.9% fastballs last year. This year they have seen 55.4% fastballs. So in short, no. But this is really too simplistic to judge by looking at the team as a whole.

But how many additional inches of the plate have those pitches covered? That is how the hitter is helped. A fastball on the outside corner is less helpful than a "get me over" breaking pitch that hangs like a piñata waiting to be crushed. Also, how many more strikes over the middle did those guys see early in counts. What was the the average velocity of the pitches they saw last year compared to this year? Pitchers were expending a lot of energy trying to get Ortiz out. And there are more questions that would have to be asked and answered if you are going to definitively disprove that Ortiz helped the performance of the rest of the lineup. Stats studying the issue in general would not have any validity. It would have to be a comprehensive statiscal study of David Ortiz and the Red Sox.

[Maxbialystock]

damme, but that Kimmi is tough with the numbers, on top of which she is invariably nice to everyone.

 

Sadly, I must abandon my belief that the absence of Ortiz is the key to everything that has beset this year's lineup. FWIW, I was also sure Nunez could not possible help, and I've been wrong there too.

 

Tonight against the Guardians' righty Clevenger, I'm hoping Beni, Moreland, Devers, and JBJ have a good night. Could be Vazquez will be out there again tonight because his bat seems to have heated up again, including against righties.

 

Also FWIW, I don't see how Chili Davis can escape some blame for what has happened this year.

[a700hitter]

damme, but that Kimmi is tough with the numbers, on top of which she is invariably nice to everyone.

 

Sadly, I must abandon my belief that the absence of Ortiz is the key to everything that has beset this year's lineup. FWIW, I was also sure Nunez could not possible help, and I've been wrong there too.

 

Tonight against the Guardians' righty Clevenger, I'm hoping Beni, Moreland, Devers, and JBJ have a good night. Could be Vazquez will be out there again tonight because his bat seems to have heated up again, including against righties.

 

Also FWIW, I don't see how Chili Davis can escape some blame for what has happened this year.

The absence of Ortiz is not the key to everything, but it is a big part of it. It certainly accounts for the difference between us being in second place and having the Yankees 4 or 5 games in our rear-view mirror.

[Spudboy]

Sorry, but line up protection is largely a myth. While it's true that pitchers will pitch differently to batters based on who is 'protecting' them, it unfortunately makes no difference in the batters overall performance.

 

Saying that Ortiz' behometh season led to Pedey and Hanley having resurgent seasons is cah-cah.

 

Why don't you just say s***? It's even easier to to type.

 

I don't understand why some people on this board think it's acceptable to type "F... that" when we all know that the poster is just saying f*** THAT.

 

Swearing is swearing any way you sugar coat it.

 

It's pretentious and disingenuous to pretend that you are not cussing when it is clear that you are doing exactly that.

 

Now if you say Freek that or poop, that is another matter!

[Larry Cook]

Three quarters of our hitters are zombies!

 

Where's chilli? Something does not add up!

[harmony]

Why don't you just say s***? It's even easier to to type.

 

I don't understand why some people on this board think it's acceptable to type "F... that" when we all know that the poster is just saying f*** THAT.

 

Swearing is swearing any way you sugar coat it.

 

It's pretentious and disingenuous to pretend that you are not cussing when it is clear that you are doing exactly that.

 

Now if you say Freek that or poop, that is another matter!

Some posters make meaningful contributions to the forum without even alluding to profanity.

[moonslav59]

David Ortiz was third on the team in PAs in 2015 and had a great season (.913 OPS). How come no other starter had an OPS over .797, except Betts at .820 (which is about where Mookie is this year without Papi BTW)?

.717 HRam

.693 Napoli

.658 Pablo

With all the "fastballs these guys get to see", why the rotten protection numbers?

Only Betts had a higher OPS (.820) than .797 out of the other top 10 PA guys.

 

How about 2014?

None of our other top 11 PA players had an OPS over .719, except Napoli at .789.

 

Papi's 2013 OPS of .959 was not much better than 2015, but was he really the reason Salty hit .804? Was he the reason 9 of the other top 11 PA hitters all had an OPS above .771? And that 5 guys were over .800?

 

How come the magic only works some years?

 

Papi had a better OPS in 2012, so how come the rest of the team fizzled with his great "protection"?

Salty .742

Ellsbury .682

 

7 of the other top 11 PA players that year had an OPS below .742 and 5 were below .705. Yeah, AGon hit .812, but that was below expectations. Only Cody Ross' .807 was better than we hoped it would be.

 

I just don't see the correlation, and all the studies I've heard of say line-up protection is a myth.

 

Certainly having Papi bat 4th instead of Moreland will lead to many more runs, but I doubt it has anything more than a minimal impact on the players around him. 2012, 2014 and 2015 are good examples.

 

 

 

[Spudboy]

Some posters make meaningful contributions to the forum without even alluding to profanity.

 

So typing "F" or using a pseudonym for a swear word is not profane?

 

It is read and interpreted as the swear word. I find it interesting that a person believes that they can type or say a word that intends to convey a profane word but in their mind they have not "cussed".

 

Maybe some people will be offended by the replacement word anyway? Seems likely to me if what you say is true.

 

Now if I say "oh darn" I mean to say oh darn. Or maybe even oh damn. If I say "F you Farrell" it just means F him, not f*** him.

 

What of the word "suck"? People use that quite liberally here and elsewhere in society. "Barnes you suck". What does that actually mean? It means he sucks dick.

 

I guess we are comfortable with the image of oral sex yet prudish when it comes to the act that involves penetration.

 

Personally I have no problem with either act. Nor do I have a problem with either word.

 

I do have a problem with hypocrisy and pretension.

[a700hitter]

So typing "F" or using a pseudonym for a swear word is not profane?

 

It is read and interpreted as the swear word. I find it interesting that a person believes that they can type or say a word that intends to convey a profane word but in their mind they have not "cussed".

 

Maybe some people will be offended by the replacement word anyway? Seems likely to me if what you say is true.

 

Now if I say "oh darn" I mean to say oh darn. Or maybe even oh damn. If I say "F you Farrell" it just means F him, not f*** him.

 

What of the word "suck"? People use that quite liberally here and elsewhere in society. "Barnes you suck". What does that actually mean? It means he sucks dick.

 

I guess we are comfortable with the image of oral sex yet prudish when it comes to the act that involves penetration.

 

Personally I have no problem with either act. Nor do I have a problem with either word.

 

I do have a problem with hypocrisy and pretension.

It doesn't mean "suck a lemon"? Go figure. Shrugs. LOL!!!

[moonslav59]

I always thought it meant "Suck your thumb!"

[S5Dewey]

So typing "F" or using a pseudonym for a swear word is not profane?

 

Of course it is! Communication has two parts to it - the giver of the communication and the receiver of it. When a person says "F" rather than "f***" they're intending the receiver to know that the F is replacing is f***. You may or may not be offended by the word f*** but calling it F is no less offensive to the person hearing it than the word itself.

 

...and why do things this obvious need explanation? Are we completely bereft of common sense??

[S5Dewey]

And BTW, in my neck of the woods at least, when the word "Sucks" was first used with a negative connotation the entire phrase was "sucks donkey dicks", and I forbade my kids to use it, It was only when "sucks" lost the part about the donkeys and became part of the lexicon that I relented and allowed its use. Now it's part of our country's language.