Sox to hire Alex Cora as manager

[Bellhorn04]

When you state 200+ PA's, it automatically rules out Nunez and Devers who are better offensive options than Hanley.

 

That's pure speculation as far as Nunez is concerned, of course.

[mvp 78]

I think part of the benefit of Betts leading off is his speed, too.

 

But yes, this stuff about the lineup can all get a bit muddled, that's for sure.

 

The -BSR score really pushes him back in the lineup a little.

[mvp 78]

That's pure speculation as far as Nunez is concerned, of course.

 

Sure, but Moon has already speculated that Hanley will be ahead of Mitch on the depth chart at 1b.

[cp176]

and how about that silly coach of ours even today talking about Martinez giving protection to our guys by being in that lineup. Being serious just for one second, he did say that he was not sure that protection does actually apply but seems good with the concept if for no other reason than Martinez's teammates believe in it. Call it whatever you like, believe in it or not, give absolute statistical evidence that it can not exist - our new enlightened Coach seems to think that it might. With a renewed interest in having power bats in the lineup doesn't it at least make any of you think that lineup construction might be a little similar to the way it has been for so many years before? I'm going with a big YES on that one. Power bats who can produce runs in the 3-4-5 spots.

[sk7326]

and how about that silly coach of ours even today talking about Martinez giving protection to our guys by being in that lineup. Being serious just for one second, he did say that he was not sure that protection does actually apply but seems good with the concept if for no other reason than Martinez's teammates believe in it. Call it whatever you like, believe in it or not, give absolute statistical evidence that it can not exist - our new enlightened Coach seems to think that it might. With a renewed interest in having power bats in the lineup doesn't it at least make any of you think that lineup construction might be a little similar to the way it has been for so many years before? I'm going with a big YES on that one. Power bats who can produce runs in the 3-4-5 spots.

 

What I like from this quote is being smart enough to meet players halfway. Lineup construction mathematically really doesn't matter much, just like sacrificing a chicken does not actually make you more able to hit a curveball. But it's not worth alienating players (whoever they are) to stay on that mountain.

[cp176]

What I like from this quote is being smart enough to meet players halfway. Lineup construction mathematically really doesn't matter much, just like sacrificing a chicken does not actually make you more able to hit a curveball. But it's not worth alienating players (whoever they are) to stay on that mountain.

 

Once again I think that is pretty much right on. Making any change just to prove a point normally turns out pretty pointless. I always have liked Alex Cora very much. Now I like him even more. I just happen to think that he knows how to coach and work with people. Some will say that his age makes a difference, I choose not to. He just seems to get it.

 

Once again though what is this midwifeing the process all about? I know what a mid wife is but you have to explain that one to me. lol

[moonslav59]

When you state 200+ PA's, it automatically rules out Nunez and Devers who are better offensive options than Hanley.

 

Add Nunez and Devers and HRam is still 5th or 6th best in any Sox sample size from 1 to 3 years.

 

Also, if you use all of 2017 or 2015-2017 numbers for Nunez, HRam comes out ahead.

[moonslav59]

Sure, but Moon has already speculated that Hanley will be ahead of Mitch on the depth chart at 1b.

 

I'm going off reports HRam is already penciled in at the 3 slot. Maybe I misread something.

[Emp9]

and how about that silly coach of ours even today talking about Martinez giving protection to our guys by being in that lineup. Being serious just for one second, he did say that he was not sure that protection does actually apply but seems good with the concept if for no other reason than Martinez's teammates believe in it. Call it whatever you like, believe in it or not, give absolute statistical evidence that it can not exist - our new enlightened Coach seems to think that it might. With a renewed interest in having power bats in the lineup doesn't it at least make any of you think that lineup construction might be a little similar to the way it has been for so many years before? I'm going with a big YES on that one. Power bats who can produce runs in the 3-4-5 spots.

 

Thing is, absolute statistical data can’t exist on this subject, because most if not all teams throughout history adopted the protection strategy. There’s no actual, real-time counter-point (atleast nothing meaningful or quantifiable). Sure, one can move around the already baked-in numbers and assume and try to simulate what would happen if..., but it’s not like you could use the scientific method on such a thing.

 

There’s nothing mystical about it. Protection is really just condensing your best hitters together in the hopes the opposing pitcher(s) makes a mistake(s) going up against your best, one after the other. Does it always work? No. Does it make perfect sense? Yes. Mainly because you only have 3-Out chunks to work with. But, I’ll say this, the more stacked your lineup is with great hitters, the less you have to worry about micromanaging such an event. And if I can kindly use this years team as an example, I’m not too worried.

[Kimmi]

Oh come on now - lots of people here agree with you. I agree with respect to most things baseball as well. What I do think about this though is that if a player thinks he is going to be a better hitter because of whatever people mean when they say "protection", he stands a better chance to hit. Believing that you can do something before you attempt to do it in my estimation is very important.

 

I agree that confidence and attitude can affect a hitter's performance. I know that players, both pitchers and batters, believe it exists. I will stop right there.

[Kimmi]

The challenge for managers is figuring out how to take stuff analytics suggest and turn it into actionable stuff. It's not necessarily a matter of understanding or not understanding the analytics. That stuff can tell you why stuff happened and possibly what to do to fix it ... but the how is very much up in the air, especially with players who have been playing a certain way their whole lives, rather successfully.

 

I have a hard time thinking that previous managers did not communicate the analytics - granted it probably manifested itself in areas of emphasis - such as unusual defensive alignments.

 

I'm not suggesting that the players have to understand it, just that they have to buy into it. If they don't buy into it, it's likely not going to work.

 

I think that a lot of the managers themselves don't buy into the analytics, and therefore don't use much of the information given to them by the FOs, and therefore didn't see the need to communicate this information to the players. I really think that there is a disconnect between the analytically minded FOs and the traditionally minded managers, though I believe the trend is changing.

 

The Red Sox have a special coach, Ramone Vazquez, whose job it is to make that connection, and to relay such information to the players in a way that it's not threatening. My understanding is that Cora specifically asked for this coaching position to be added.

[Kimmi]

What I like from this quote is being smart enough to meet players halfway. Lineup construction mathematically really doesn't matter much, just like sacrificing a chicken does not actually make you more able to hit a curveball. But it's not worth alienating players (whoever they are) to stay on that mountain.

 

IMO, it is more beneficial to put a batter in a line up slot where he feels comfortable than it is to put him in his 'optimal' spot.

 

But not alienating players goes back to the idea of being able to communicate the data to the players in a way that they will buy into it.

 

Having a batter hit 2nd instead of 3rd will only make a difference of about 2 runs over the course of a season, but as you pointed out, every run counts.

[Kimmi]

Thing is, absolute statistical data can’t exist on this subject, because most if not all teams throughout history adopted the protection strategy. There’s no actual, real-time counter-point (atleast nothing meaningful or quantifiable). Sure, one can move around the already baked-in numbers and assume and try to simulate what would happen if..., but it’s not like you could use the scientific method on such a thing.

 

There’s nothing mystical about it. Protection is really just condensing your best hitters together in the hopes the opposing pitcher(s) makes a mistake(s) going up against your best, one after the other. Does it always work? No. Does it make perfect sense? Yes. Mainly because you only have 3-Out chunks to work with. But, I’ll say this, the more stacked your lineup is with great hitters, the less you have to worry about micromanaging such an event. And if I can kindly use this years team as an example, I’m not too worried.

 

What matters most is to get the best hitters in the lineup, not where they are placed.

 

I've posted before that a manager can literally pull his lineup out of a hat everyday and hardly miss a beat over the course of a season.

 

I kid you not.

[Emp9]

What matters most is to get the best hitters in the lineup, not where they are placed.

 

Where else would they be if not the lineup? Concession stand?

[cp176]

Thing is, absolute statistical data can’t exist on this subject, because most if not all teams throughout history adopted the protection strategy. There’s no actual, real-time counter-point (atleast nothing meaningful or quantifiable). Sure, one can move around the already baked-in numbers and assume and try to simulate what would happen if..., but it’s not like you could use the scientific method on such a thing.

 

There’s nothing mystical about it. Protection is really just condensing your best hitters together in the hopes the opposing pitcher(s) makes a mistake(s) going up against your best, one after the other. Does it always work? No. Does it make perfect sense? Yes. Mainly because you only have 3-Out chunks to work with. But, I’ll say this, the more stacked your lineup is with great hitters, the less you have to worry about micromanaging such an event. And if I can kindly use this years team as an example, I’m not too worried.

 

Some of this is not new though at all. Coaches have been experimenting with lineup construction for as long as the game has been played. Having what some consider to be your best hitter hitting first really isn't a new concept at all.

[cp176]

I agree that confidence and attitude can affect a hitter's performance. I know that players, both pitchers and batters, believe it exists. I will stop right there.

 

Honest to God Kimmi there are those among us who believe that a blend of analytical information coupled with a healthy dose of what has worked since the game was created is really the way to go. Guess I am one of those people. It just doesn't have to be one or the other.

[Emp9]

Some of this is not new though at all. Coaches have been experimenting with lineup construction for as long as the game has been played. Having what some consider to be your best hitter hitting first really isn't a new concept at all.

 

Yeah no doubt there are exceptions. I was speaking generally. No desire to get into the weeds. But even having your best hitter bat leadoff is at least some kind of a strategy. A randomized batting order (which what I was really referring to) has zero strategy whatsoever. A non-strategy that I simple don’t 100% buy into. Would you jump in your time machine and randomize our 2004 Championship lineup for that post season? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I sure as f*** wouldn’t.

[cp176]

Yeah no doubt there are exceptions. I was speaking generally. No desire to get into the weeds. But even having your best hitter bat leadoff is at least some kind of a strategy. A randomized batting order (which what I was really referring to) has zero strategy whatsoever. A non-strategy that I simple don’t 100% buy into. Would you jump in your time machine and randomize our 2004 Championship lineup for that post season? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I sure as f*** wouldn’t.

 

Sorry Emp I think that I missed your point here.Outside of just a few tweeks here and there my ideal lineup would not vary much from what coaches have been doing very successfully for many many years. The Red Sox have the opportunity to have some legit power bats hitting in the 3-4-5 spots. I think Alex Cora will take advantage of it because he believes it is the way to go and not because he doesn't want to rock anybody's boat.

[mvp 78]

I'm going off reports HRam is already penciled in at the 3 slot. Maybe I misread something.

 

Reports are all over the place this time of the year.

[mvp 78]

Add Nunez and Devers and HRam is still 5th or 6th best in any Sox sample size from 1 to 3 years.

 

Also, if you use all of 2017 or 2015-2017 numbers for Nunez, HRam comes out ahead.

 

And if you look at Hanley in 15 and 17, you’d want him dfa’d.

[moonslav59]

And if you look at Hanley in 15 and 17, you’d want him dfa’d.

 

Not me. He was hurt.

 

He's healthy now.

 

With Pedey out, HRam has the 4th best OPS of a returning player. If you count Devers and Nunez (just with BOS), then he's 6th best.

 

If you want to cut our 4th or best, then what next? Bogey, Vaz and JBJ (7th, 8th and 9th best)?

 

He deserves a look, even if he wasn't getting $22M.

 

He's getting a longer look, because he's making $22M.

 

Last year, the Sox stated he was not going to play 1B for the rest of the year. That's how bad the injury was.

 

I guess you have no faith in the modern invention called "surgery."

 

Even cherry-picking a three year sample size for HRam that encompasses 2 injury-plagued seasons (or DFA seasons as you call them), here's a comp you should look at:

 

3 year OPS

 

.785 HRam

 

.776 Bogey

 

.774 Nunez

 

.768 Moreland

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by moonslav59

[Spudboy]

Reports are all over the place this time of the year.

 

That one is straight from the horses ass. I heard and saw Cora say it.

[cp176]

That one is straight from the horses ass. I heard and saw Cora say it.

 

me too!

[jacksonianmarch]

Everything is bluster aside from injuries this time of year. It isn’t even March yet

[S5Dewey]

Thing is, absolute statistical data can’t exist on this subject, because most if not all teams throughout history adopted the protection strategy. There’s no actual, real-time counter-point (atleast nothing meaningful or quantifiable). Sure, one can move around the already baked-in numbers and assume and try to simulate what would happen if..., but it’s not like you could use the scientific method on such a thing.

 

There’s nothing mystical about it. Protection is really just condensing your best hitters together in the hopes the opposing pitcher(s) makes a mistake(s) going up against your best, one after the other. Does it always work? No. Does it make perfect sense? Yes. Mainly because you only have 3-Out chunks to work with. But, I’ll say this, the more stacked your lineup is with great hitters, the less you have to worry about micromanaging such an event. And if I can kindly use this years team as an example, I’m not too worried.

 

Emp makes a great point here though. In order to have a comparison of one "method" against the other one has to have a baseline of significant sample size to compare with. Up until now no manager has tried to pull the lineup out of a hat (I'm using that phrase to indicate placing hitters at random in the order) so there's no data using that as a baseline. Anything attempting to determine an optimum lineup uses player statistics gathered when a manager has tried to tweak the old-fashioned way of developing a lineup.

 

Saying that randomness in a batting order is as good as a structured order is just bad science. It may (or may not) be true but there's no statistical data to support the comparison.

[Jack Flap]

That one is straight from the horses ass. I heard and saw Cora say it.

 

If I recall correctly, he was asked who would be hitting third and said something like "As of now, Hanley Ramirez." This was also before the Martinez signing had been finalized or publicly acknowledged by the team.

 

I would guess that nothing is written in stone at this point.

[mvp 78]

As of right now, he's hit 3rd exactly zero times in Spring Training.

[Emp9]

Emp makes a great point here though. In order to have a comparison of one "method" against the other one has to have a baseline of significant sample size to compare with. Up until now no manager has tried to pull the lineup out of a hat (I'm using that phrase to indicate placing hitters at random in the order) so there's no data using that as a baseline. Anything attempting to determine an optimum lineup uses player statistics gathered when a manager has tried to tweak the old-fashioned way of developing a lineup.

 

Saying that randomness in a batting order is as good as a structured order is just bad science. It may (or may not) be true but there's no statistical data to support the comparison.

 

Thanks S5, I think you explained my position better than I did. Lol

[Bellhorn04]

As of right now, he's hit 3rd exactly zero times in Spring Training.

 

Hanley has been hitting 3rd.

[mvp 78]

Hanley has been hitting 3rd.

 

Not according to the boxscores I've seen?