A Realistic View of the 2025 Red Sox: Part II

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

17 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

With that Devers homer, he just passed Story and Duran in OPS.

I guess benching or demoting him in the line-up was not such a good idea.

nonsense, one home run doesn't really change the fact that he's struggling.

He's still only batting .216

His OPS is being propped up by his walks, his slugging is still below .400

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

So it has been a small sample size all year when Raffy wasn’t doing much of anything, and now after a even smaller 3 game series the naysayers were all wrong, and Raffy is now back, and proven everyone wrong, and he back?👏

Again, you are arguing about a point I never made. You are good at that.

My point was that posters were making rash suggestions, like demoting in the line-up or even benching Devers, based on a tiny sample size that can change on a dime. 

I never came close to saying "Devers is back" or that he won't go right back into a funk. Who knows?

Do you still want him demoted in the line-up?

 

[Old Red]

7 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The "foreseeable future," if that was the term used, ended when the guy who said it was replaced.

He signed the deal in January 2023, so he got too play too more years at 3B that he should have.

I’m not disputing that, or even disagreeing with that. I’ve always said Raffy playing 3B didn’t bother me like it bothered you, and others, and as it was pointed out by others on here Raffy playing 3B as bad as he did wasn’t the Reason the Red Sox have been a 500, or below club the past 3 years, nor was it why the club didn’t make the postseason. There were others who weren’t good on D at their position either, and it was the Red Sox who kept it that way.

 

[moonslav59]

10 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

nonsense, one home run doesn't really change the fact that he's struggling.

He's still only batting .216

His OPS is being propped up by his walks, his slugging is still below .400

Walks are part of OBP and OPS, and it always has been.

His OPS is on the rise, and hopefully he keeps it going.

Many players with decent or good numbers have them pumped up based on just a few big games.

Nobody is proclaiming Devers is back to being Devers or that his struggles are over.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand how small sample sizes work. I'm not claiming he's back due to a big game or two. If I was, I'd be guilty of what you and others were doing when you were hyper critical of Devers. Some wanted him benched. Some demoted in the line-up. I merely pointed out how quickly things can change, and I'm glad, for now, we didn't bench him.

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Again, you are arguing about a point I never made. You are good at that.

My point was that posters were making rash suggestions, like demoting in the line-up or even benching Devers, based on a tiny sample size that can change on a dime. 

I never came close to saying "Devers is back" or that he won't go right back into a funk. Who knows?

Do you still want him demoted in the line-up?

 

Moving Raffy down in the lineup wouldn’t have been a rash decision to me, and maybe even justified at the time. Remember what happens when you get giddy especially after a small, small sample size. 

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I’m not disputing that, or even disagreeing with that. I’ve always said Raffy playing 3B didn’t bother me like it bothered you, and others, and as it was pointed out by others on here Raffy playing 3B as bad as he did wasn’t the Reason the Red Sox have been a 500, or below club the past 3 years, nor was it why the club didn’t make the postseason. There were others who weren’t good on D at their position either, and it was the Red Sox who kept it that way.

 

So, because his horrific defense, alone, was not the reason we were under .500, there was no need to try to improve a significant weakness on the team. Great philosophy.... NOT!

[Old Red]

17 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

nonsense, one home run doesn't really change the fact that he's struggling.

He's still only batting .216

His OPS is being propped up by his walks, his slugging is still below .400

Raffy always got more ink in the game threads. Devers Forevers one one AB, and Never Devers the next.

[Old Red]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

So, because his horrific defense, alone, was not the reason we were under .500, there was no need to try to improve a significant weakness on the team. Great philosophy.... NOT!

I Never said that. I said it didn’t bother me. Vaz wasn’t a good enough C for you, Bogey wasn’t a good enough SS for you, Raffy wasn’t a good enough 3B for you. It’s a wonder the Red Sox ever won any games let alone a WS.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

Moving Raffy down in the lineup wouldn’t have been a rash decision to me, and maybe even justified at the time. Remember what happens when you get giddy especially after a small, small sample size. 

Pointing out how small sample sizes can change o a dime is not "giddiness." 

Once again, you misread the room.

I'm glad we did not demote him, when you wanted to. Your claim that your idea was justified further highlights you inability to admit you were MAYBE wrong.

I say "maybe," because Devers could go 1 for 30 and one could claim you were right.

I'm not claiming I was right or you were wrong. I was just pointing out how small sample sizes should not be used to make major changes, and how just a few good games or one huge game can turn the numbers into or near respectability. 

Read into this anything else you wish. I'm not giddy or saying you and others were wrong, but man, you are sure quick to point out when others are wrong. I guess that's why you assume that is what others are doing.

 

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

I Never said that. I said it didn’t bother me. Vaz wasn’t a good enough C for you, Bogey wasn’t a good enough SS for you, Raffy wasn’t a good enough 3B for you. It’s a wonder the Red Sox ever won any games let alone a WS.

I point out weaknesses of our team, much like you and others do. I suggest possibole changes to minimize those weak areas.

Shoot me.

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Raffy always got more ink in the game threads. Devers Forevers one one AB, and Never Devers the next.

Yeah, that's how it always works in the game threads. You don't have to take those posts literally. I probably posted DFA Sale at some point in the same way my grandpa would just get annoyed at the tv and yell "you bums." It's not that serious.

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I Never said that. 

" ...Raffy playing 3B as bad as he did wasn’t the Reason the Red Sox have been a 500, or below club the past 3 years, nor was it why the club didn’t make the postseason. "

Am I missing an alternative meaning?

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, notin said:

I could argue that he could be useful beyond a simple Devers injury.  While both he and Devers are bad defenders, it’s not an automatic loss to put one in the field.

Not sure why it matters about whether or not anyone wants a Devers injury.  Unpopular or not, key injuries happen.  And if Devers were to get hurt, would the Six be better off or worse off with Yoshida?

Better off, no argument.

It's not really going to disturb me if they hold onto him.  It's just jabbering material.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

5 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Better off, no argument.

It's not really going to disturb me if they hold onto him.  It's just jabbering material.

Imagine this juggernaut of a batting order if they had just one Wade Boggs, a guy with a 5% K-rate who gets on base 300 times a year, with 100 walks and 200 hits. 

Just one batter who works pitchers and stresses them out a little more can tire out arms enough to make more mistakes vs. the rest of the hitters.

And as we know, 99.9% of major league batters are mistake hitters. The '25 Red Sox may be even .1 percent closer to the number...

[notin]

55 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

That's just silly.

It's not about how much of their assets are tied up in the player.

It's about how it impacts the salary cap every year.

I agree.  I just point out they can easily afford him, including his subsequent cap hits.  Whether or not they should have afforded him in the first place is another argument, especially considering they were not spending very heavily at that time when compared to their financial peers.  There is the argument his $90mill contract COULD have been better spent, but the obvious counter is,WOULD it have been better spent?  Assuming it was spent at all?  I got the impression they targeted him as opposed to deciding he could fit into the budget…

[notin]

27 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Better off, no argument.

It's not really going to disturb me if they hold onto him.  It's just jabbering material.

There seem to be some clinging to the motion he has to go at any cost, which is ridiculous.  Worst case scenario is he gets demoted to Worcester and occupies a 40 man roster slot.  I’d rather he be kept as depth than paid heavily to hit against Boston.  And I certainly wouldn’t attach Mayer or Anthony to any deal to unload him…

[notin]

32 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Yeah, that's how it always works in the game threads. You don't have to take those posts literally. I probably posted DFA Sale at some point in the same way my grandpa would just get annoyed at the tv and yell "you bums." It's not that serious.

Game threads are filled with impulsive reactions and brief instantaneous emotional outbursts.  A lot of them look differently after even a small amount of reflection…

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

There seem to be some clinging to the motion he has to go at any cost, which is ridiculous.  Worst case scenario is he gets demoted to Worcester and occupies a 40 man roster slot.  I’d rather he be kept as depth than paid heavily to hit against Boston.  And I certainly wouldn’t attach Mayer or Anthony to any deal to unload him…

I don't think they'd have to unload that much to trade him. Just eat half the contract and you can find a taker most likely. His contract is bad, but there are way worse contracts in baseball. He may not even be top 10. 

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

48 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Walks are part of OBP and OPS, and it always has been.

His OPS is on the rise, and hopefully he keeps it going.

Many players with decent or good numbers have them pumped up based on just a few big games.

Nobody is proclaiming Devers is back to being Devers or that his struggles are over.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand how small sample sizes work. I'm not claiming he's back due to a big game or two. If I was, I'd be guilty of what you and others were doing when you were hyper critical of Devers. Some wanted him benched. Some demoted in the line-up. I merely pointed out how quickly things can change, and I'm glad, for now, we didn't bench him.

His poor numbers dating back to last year's AS break are neither a small sample size nor a knee jerk reaction.

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, notin said:

Game threads are filled with impulsive reactions and brief instantaneous emotional outbursts.  A lot of them look differently after even a small amount of reflection…

And I'm not even sure how many of the posts are even "outbursts." When I'm participating, I'm not imagining other posters getting worked up to the point where they are actually believe "Devers SUCKS" and are deeply emotional about it. More likely they are just annoyed he has struck out again and are hopeful that he can pull out of it in the next at bat and were just expressing frustration at that one point in time. 

Most posters like all the players and want them to do well. It's fine if they vent their frustrations during the game, because that's typical fan behavior. Lose? They stink! Win? They're great! Strike out? Bad! Home run? Good! That's just the nature of watching baseball. No reason to overanalyze the game threads, but people LOVE to do it. 

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

His poor numbers dating back to last year's AS break are neither a small sample size nor a knee jerk reaction.

When he needed to take a break due to his shoulder injury? 

7/19-8/5 1055 OPS

7/19-8/26(before 3 game injury break to rest shoulder) 881 OPS

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

When he needed to take a break due to his shoulder injury? 

7/19-8/5 1055 OPS

7/19-8/26(before 3 game injury break to rest shoulder) 881 OPS

He hit .244 with a .727 OPS post AS break

[jdc69]

It should be pointed out that as Devers was "struggling," he not only lead the team, by a wide margin, in walks but, because of those walks, in runs too. 

[mvp 78]

24 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

He hit .244 with a .727 OPS post AS break

Because of his numbers in September after his shoulder was completely toast. He was fine for the entirety of July and early Aug. 

[Bellhorn04]

Devers's numbers are looking much healthier now.  His bWAR is at 0.5.  Not bad considering how he started.

[moonslav59]

43 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

His poor numbers dating back to last year's AS break are neither a small sample size nor a knee jerk reaction.

We've gone over this, several times.

I'm not sure his normal slow start is an extension of the issues to end 2024, ot not. You seem sure it is and seem to think this is who he is, now.

Would you still demote him in the line-up?

[moonslav59]

Just now, Bellhorn04 said:

Devers's numbers are looking much healthier now.  His bWAR is at 0.5.  Not bad considering how he started.

...and WAR penalizes DHs.

[mvp 78]

Yuck!

Red Sox are now 6-7 against teams above .500. SEA is the only AL team with a winning record against teams above .500. 148 runs for the Sox is 2nd in the AL. 

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

We've gone over this, several times.

I'm not sure his normal slow start is an extension of the issues to end 2024, ot not. You seem sure it is and seem to think this is who he is, now.

Would you still demote him in the line-up?

I never stated that, I merely suggested that it may be a possibility.

And, yes, I would push him down in the order to take some pressure off and see if that helps.

 

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Because of his numbers in September after his shoulder was completely toast. He was fine for the entirety of July and early Aug. 

Well, his numbers this season are eerily similar......