A Realistic View of the 2025 Red Sox: Part II

[Old Red]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I've been saying Devers 4th from before Bregman's injury, when we actually had another top hitter to fill the all-important two slot.

I still like the idea, but the change will not make much of a difference, and I'm fine with keeping Devers 2nd.

Anthony 3rd or 4th works for me, too. Just bring the kid up. We could have a goldmine ready for discovery.

Bring on the next GOLD RUSH!

So Devers is 2nd in all of MLB with 50 RBI, which is 1 RBI behind the leader all batting from the number 2 hole, and you want to move him to the 4 slot? Is he going to get more RBI chances batting 4th? That may make Moonsense, but nonsense to me. Besides the Red Sox have the new Johnny Bench batting 4th now. Gold Rush?🤭

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, Old Red said:

So Devers is 2nd in all of MLB with 50 RBI, which is 1 RBI behind the leader all batting from the number 2 hole, and you want to move him to the 4 slot? Is he going to get more RBI chances batting 4th? That may make Moonsense, but nonsense to me. Besides the Red Sox have the new Johnny Bench batting 4th now. Gold Rush?🤭

The 4 slot has even more rbi opportunities.

Hey, Magic Johnson played one of the best games of his career as a center. I guess they should have kept him there.

[Old Red]

7 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The 4 slot has even more rbi opportunities.

Hey, Magic Johnson played one of the best games of his career as a center. I guess they should have kept him there.

Are you talking about your science, and studies in general, or are you talking about the Red Sox THIS YEAR? I’m only talking about the Red Sox this year.🤭🙈

[moonslav59]

33 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Are you talking about your science, and studies in general, or are you talking about the Red Sox THIS YEAR? I’m only talking about the Red Sox this year.🤭🙈

You know how many rbi opps will be in the 2 and 4 slots for the Sox the remainder of the year?

Do you even know how many there have been for each slot, so far? Maybe your eye test has a count.

LMAO

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

You know how many rbi opps will be in the 2 and 4 slots for the Sox the remainder of the year?

Do you even know how many there have been for each slot, so far? Maybe your eye test has a count.

LMAO

Like I said you are just going by science, and studies in general instead of what’s actually happening, and what’s actually happening is Raffy currently has 50 RBI, which is 1 RBI behind the leader. No i don’t know how many RBI chances there have been for each slot so far, but it really wouldn’t matter in this discussion anyway since Raffy has been on base plenty with all his walks batting in the two hole along with his 50 RBI. I guess to you if it ain’t broke fix it anyway. Sounds kind of geeky, and nerdy to me all in the name of science.🙈🤭🤮

[dgalehouse]

There are people who have trouble accepting the plain truth.  They want to spin everything, look for alternatives, extenuating circumstances , excuses, changes and break everything down into parts. Over and over, blah, blah, this and that. Everything but accepting the reality . The bottom line. 

[Old Red]

16 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

There are people who have trouble accepting the plain truth.  They want to spin everything, look for alternatives, extenuating circumstances , excuses, changes and break everything down into parts. Over and over, blah, blah, this and that. Everything but accepting the reality . The bottom line. 

As Michael Felger has said many times that the Geeks, and Nerds have taken over sports, and I also understand that many, want, and need all the info they can get. I also understand that studies, and science in general may show that the #4 slot may get more RBI chances than the #2 slot, but all I care about is what’s happening with the Red Sox right now this year, and I don’t think that Raffy batting in the two hole with his 50 RBI is in the top 100 list of problems with the Red Sox that need changing even for the sake of science.

[moonslav59]

38 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Like I said you are just going by science, and studies in general instead of what’s actually happening, and what’s actually happening is Raffy currently has 50 RBI, which is 1 RBI behind the leader. No i don’t know how many RBI chances there have been for each slot so far, but it really wouldn’t matter in this discussion anyway since Raffy has been on base plenty with all his walks batting in the two hole along with his 50 RBI. I guess to you if it ain’t broke fix it anyway. Sounds kind of geeky, and nerdy to me all in the name of science.🙈🤭🤮

What is "sounds like to you" makes your ear test as wrong as your eye test.

It doesn't take a geeky nerd to see the truth.

OBP by Sox

.294 #8

.284 #9

.337 #1

Depending on who the bat instead of Devers #2 slot (maybe Bregman, then who bats 3rd?)

.337 #1

___ #2 (Maybe Ref .383 & Abreu .336)

.375 #3 (mostly Bregman .385)

This isn't some complex calculus problem. Most simple-minded people could work it out.

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I don’t think that Raffy batting in the two hole with his 50 RBI is in the top 100 list of problems with the Red Sox that need changing even for the sake of science.

Nobody thinks it's a top 500 problem. Can you try to think outside the box?

A major problem is the #4 slot- the #1 RBI slot in the line-up.

Bregman could have done fine in the slot. He had the .407 OBP Bregman ahead of him and has one more RBI than the leadoff guy, Duran. (35 to 34.)

And again, I've said over and over, this barely makes a difference, and you act like I'm saying it's a top problem. Can you, just for once, understand someone else's point for what it is and not what you imagine it to be?

You crack me up with all the nonsense, then act like others are the clowns.

[moonslav59]

34 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

There are people who have trouble accepting the plain truth.  They want to spin everything, look for alternatives, extenuating circumstances , excuses, changes and break everything down into parts. Over and over, blah, blah, this and that. Everything but accepting the reality . The bottom line. 

Aren't you breaking down who you think we are and how we think?

I'm glad you are the one who decides what reality is... NOT!

[dgalehouse]

7 minutes ago, Old Red said:

As Michael Felger has said many times that the Geeks, and Nerds have taken over sports, and I also understand that many, want, and need all the info they can get. I also understand that studies, and science in general may show that the #4 slot may get more RBI chances than the #2 slot, but all I care about is what’s happening with the Red Sox right now this year, and I don’t think that Raffy batting in the two hole with his 50 RBI is in the top 100 list of problems with the Red Sox that need changing even for the sake of science.

You have to give the nerds credit. They are smart. They will find a way to make good money off of things like sports even if they can't play. 

[dgalehouse]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

Aren't you breaking down who you think we are and how we think?

I'm glad you are the one who decides what reality is... NOT!

I don't decide what is reality. Reality is reality. The Sox are. 27-31.  Reality. Devers has 50 rbis .Reality. I don't decide these things. 

[Old Red]

13 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Aren't you breaking down who you think we are and how we think?

I'm glad you are the one who decides what reality is... NOT!

New slogan. Moonsense= Nonsense.👏👍

[Old Red]

26 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

What is "sounds like to you" makes your ear test as wrong as your eye test.

It doesn't take a geeky nerd to see the truth.

OBP by Sox

.294 #8

.284 #9

.337 #1

Depending on who the bat instead of Devers #2 slot (maybe Bregman, then who bats 3rd?)

.337 #1

___ #2 (Maybe Ref .383 & Abreu .336)

.375 #3 (mostly Bregman .385)

This isn't some complex calculus problem. Most simple-minded people could work it out.

Are you calling Cora simple minded? This must be another in a long line of you saying I don’t agree with Cora, but I don’t think he’s wrong things.

[dgalehouse]

Some folks like to overanalyze everything. That is their prerogative. I don't begrudge it. But reality is reality. If I say a pitcher is 4-6 on the season, they will scoff and say the wins and losses are meaningless. They will cite things like xfip. But they are missing the point. The wins and losses are not meaningless. They are already in the books. Reality. The xfip may help to explain things and may help in projections for future success, but it doesn't change what already happened. What happened is not meaningless. It is real. That is just one example. It's like that with everything.

[moonslav59]

30 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Are you calling Cora simple minded?

Sounds like you are.

I like Cora and disagree with him on some minor things, like this. That's something you never grasp. Call that what you want, but it's you.

[moonslav59]

40 minutes ago, Old Red said:

New slogan. Moonsense= Nonsense.👏👍

Good projection.

[notin]

1 hour ago, Old Red said:

As Michael Felger has said many times that the Geeks, and Nerds have taken over sports, and I also understand that many, want, and need all the info they can get. I also understand that studies, and science in general may show that the #4 slot may get more RBI chances than the #2 slot, but all I care about is what’s happening with the Red Sox right now this year, and I don’t think that Raffy batting in the two hole with his 50 RBI is in the top 100 list of problems with the Red Sox that need changing even for the sake of science.

Just because Devers isnt the problem doesn’t mean he can’t be part of the solution.

Devers has come up with 168 runners on base this year and driven in 38 of them (plus himself 12 times), making for an insane 22% of runners driven in.  I can’t get exact numbers on how many men have been on base for Sox cleanup hitters this year, but it’s definitely higher than that, given thats a shade above league average of 159 and Devers himself has been on for following hitters 95 times.  If he can continue driving on 22% of all runners, certainly he could top his current 50 RBIs.  Granted Devers and his .400 OBP wouldn’t be there, but pushing him further behind the guys batting 8th and 9th should help enough.

Id be surprised if Cora moved him down, but the idea isnt without merit.  But I think Cora is happy begetting 38 more PAs from Devers…

[Old Red]

21 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

Some folks like to overanalyze everything. That is their prerogative. I don't begrudge it. But reality is reality. If I say a pitcher is 4-6 on the season, they will scoff and say the wins and losses are meaningless. They will cite things like xfip. But they are missing the point. The wins and losses are not meaningless. They are already in the books. Reality. The xfip may help to explain things and may help in projections for future success, but it doesn't change what already happened. What happened is not meaningless. It is real. That is just one example. It's like that with everything.

As I’ve said many times the most important stats are the ones that actually show up on the scoreboard, which in turn translates to W-L.

[Old Red]

16 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Sounds like you are.

I like Cora and disagree with him on some minor things, like this. That's something you never grasp. Call that what you want, but it's you.

Since I fully back Cora on Raffy not playing 1B, and since I back Cora in Raffy batting 2nd once again your Moonsense=Nonsense.

[jdc69]

7 hours ago, Old Red said:

As I’ve said many times the most important stats are the ones that actually show up on the scoreboard, which in turn translates to W-L.

Wins and losses are so out of favor. Poor Garrett Crochet has around 2.00 ERA but a 4-4 W/L record. He couldve had that record with a 4.00 ERA or more. And it's not necessarily from poor offense, it's this new analytics way of must replace starting pitcher at a certain time regardless of circumstances. Humans like incentive and a feeling of purpose. It makes them play better. Of course geeks don't have a stat for that. To them players are merely a gear for the machine that when wore out, just replace. 

[Old Red]

29 minutes ago, jdc69 said:

Wins and losses are so out of favor. Poor Garrett Crochet has around 2.00 ERA but a 4-4 W/L record. He couldve had that record with a 4.00 ERA or more. And it's not necessarily from poor offense, it's this new analytics way of must replace starting pitcher at a certain time regardless of circumstances. Humans like incentive and a feeling of purpose. It makes them play better. Of course geeks don't have a stat for that. To them players are merely a gear for the machine that when wore out, just replace. 

I was talking about teams W-L record, and not an individual.

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, Old Red said:

Since I fully back Cora on Raffy not playing 1B, and since I back Cora in Raffy batting 2nd once again your Moonsense=Nonsense.

Talk about nonsense, and BTW imitation is the highest form of flattery.

[jdc69]

6 hours ago, Old Red said:

I was talking about teams W-L record, and not an individual.

You were also talking about "important stats," which seemed to be about a pitchers W/L.

[cp176]

18 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm not sure anyone is "happy" with our rotation results, to date. I will say, not everyone thinks what happened recently will always repeat itself going forward.

The Sox are 17th in Starter ERA- at 100 and 14th in SIERA. Not great, at all, but not horrible for a team with so many SP'er injuries, and our 2024 ace with an ERA over 8. (They are 7th xFIP at 3.77.)

I'd also like to say that Devers is hitting .816 over his last 81 games, but I never hear about that time frame  anymore.

Have to admit I am pretty happy with our current starters right now.  Obviously I don’t really have much of a clue about the world of modern metrics.  It clutters my mind.  But what it looks like to me is it is kind of like me saying that ERA is a very important stat.  I still like it but I realize there are many more efficient ways to rate and rank pitchers.  If you eliminate the bums of the month and just focus on the current starters, I like them.  Young, strong, and pretty competitive.  I just wish once again that the pitch count numbers were still at least at 100 and not 85.  Oh well.

[Larry Cook]

Our single biggest problem is the rotation. At 4 plus innings per start, our bullpen is being over utilized and come August, they will all have dead arms 
 

 

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, cp176 said:

Have to admit I am pretty happy with our current starters right now.  Obviously I don’t really have much of a clue about the world of modern metrics.  It clutters my mind.  But what it looks like to me is it is kind of like me saying that ERA is a very important stat.  I still like it but I realize there are many more efficient ways to rate and rank pitchers.  If you eliminate the bums of the month and just focus on the current starters, I like them.  Young, strong, and pretty competitive.  I just wish once again that the pitch count numbers were still at least at 100 and not 85.  Oh well.

I see a lot of promise in our rotation, especially when healthy or mostly healthy. I think it's better than our ERA ranking indicates, and some metrics show this to be true.

Crochet is a top 5 or 6 starter in just about every meaningful stat and metric (not winning%, so some must think he's a loser.)

Houck is the big issue. He went from our ace to a huge question mark, and is currently on the IL until the end of June or July. Without something from him, going forward, it puts a lot of strain on the others  to pitch like a starter a slot ahead of them.

Buehler is the guy I think we can hope becomes the solid #2, again, if he can stay healthy. He has looked pretty good, so far, and I don't think it's a stretch to think he will improve.

Bello has always been sort of up and down on how we view his future. He certainly has the ability to be a solid #3 or really good #4, and maybe has #2 potential, but he's been kinda lucky, this year and still has not done all that great.

Crawford may not be back until August, and even if he does return, what will he pitch like. He is a good starter, but I'm counting on nothing from him in 2025.

Sandoval is the in the same boat as Crawford. He's probably our 3rd or 4th best pitcher, when totally healthy, but he is not healthy.

Giolito was a damn good pitcher, quite a few years ago. He's showed flashes of that, here and there, but gives no indication he can do it for a 4 month stretch, which is what we need.

Dobbins and Fitts give us good promise, but it is hard to really know how good they are and can be. Batters will adjust to their pitches, and they may need to do just that to continue to look as good as they have been in their small sample sizes of 2025.

Criswell, Wink and Penrod are on the 40 and could start. I don't want to mention Whitlock, because I hope his starting days are over. Wink and Penrod seem better in the pen. Criswell has recently shown he's better as a starter. Maybe he could give us a spark.

All-in-all, I see 8-10 starters that all offer some level of hope and have already shown they can be good pitchers for certain periods of times. In today's game, where pitchers get TJS on a weekly basis, this is a big plus and could give us an edge over other teams, when their starters start dropping like flies.

I've always valued Quality over quantity, but quantity is important, and many of those 8-10 starts have shown they can be quality pitchers.

 

 

[moonslav59]

15 hours ago, notin said:

Just because Devers isnt the problem doesn’t mean he can’t be part of the solution.

Devers has come up with 168 runners on base this year and driven in 38 of them (plus himself 12 times), making for an insane 22% of runners driven in.  I can’t get exact numbers on how many men have been on base for Sox cleanup hitters this year, but it’s definitely higher than that, given thats a shade above league average of 159 and Devers himself has been on for following hitters 95 times.  If he can continue driving on 22% of all runners, certainly he could top his current 50 RBIs.  Granted Devers and his .400 OBP wouldn’t be there, but pushing him further behind the guys batting 8th and 9th should help enough.

Id be surprised if Cora moved him down, but the idea isnt without merit.  But I think Cora is happy begetting 38 more PAs from Devers…

Said it better than I.

Again, moving Devers to 4 when we had Bregman might have made more sense, but the move would not make a significant impact. Almost all the studies show it does not matter all that much, but yes, it is very likely it never happens, especially with Bregman on the IL. Cora is clearly a "nerdy geek" who has bought into the modern line-up philosophy where your best hitter bats 2nd.

It's funny watching the traditionalist defending him batting 2nd, when the old school would bat him 3rd (not even 4th.) LOL.

[Bellhorn04]

15 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Some folks like to overanalyze everything. That is their prerogative. I don't begrudge it. But reality is reality. If I say a pitcher is 4-6 on the season, they will scoff and say the wins and losses are meaningless. They will cite things like xfip. But they are missing the point. The wins and losses are not meaningless. They are already in the books. Reality. The xfip may help to explain things and may help in projections for future success, but it doesn't change what already happened. What happened is not meaningless. It is real. That is just one example. It's like that with everything.

Crochet is 4-4.  Yes, I am very much scoffing at the idea that this means he's been mediocre.

 

[Old Red]

21 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Crochet is 4-4.  Yes, I am very much scoffing at the idea that this means he's been mediocre.

 

The team most importantly 6-6 when Cro Man pitches, and not even 500 when he doesn’t, so I would say the Team is less than mediocre.