RobZombie

Texiera wants 10 years and $200M. That's a bit much for a guy who is blocked by the two best hitters on the team. I'd look for someone to pay his price tag, (Orioles?). I am a believer that Tek's game calling ability and leadership is worth something. Its just not worth what he thinks it is. Call me crazy but is there a reason why the Sox can't just go with Ross, Kotteras and Brown or some combo next year?

There's a good reason for that......Lars is the better prospect. He's a year younger and had better peripheral numbers at Lancaster.

Mr. Crunchy- It would be out of line to be specific but the rumors surrounding Derrick Lowe involved stuff that was a lot worse than drinking and stepping out on his wife.

This is becoming sort of moot as Ellsburry has played well in the last couple of series before hurting his but. For the record you DO NOT make roster decisions based only upon past performance of a couple of months. You make them based upon what you think the players future performance will be and how sending them down to AAA might effect them. That doesn't mean that you NEVER send a player down for fear of hurting their feelings, but it does mean that you don't send a player down unless there is an option that has a significant chance of being better. You think that there is no harm in sending him down and trying someone else. But there is even absent of what you call "psychobabble". First you risk that Jacoby will make adjustments and start playing to his level of talent and do so for the Paw Sox. Second you give up on the player's considerable speed and defense. Third you never give the player a chance to make adjustments at the major league level. If he doesn't do so now, when is he going to do it? Now taking this risk would be one thing if you had a guy in AAA who had a realistic chance of doing well. But I assure you that a guy that is striking out half the time in AAA does not. Giving talented players a chance to do work through their struggles is something that the Red Sox have done with great success over the last five years. They didn't take Pedroia's job away after a bad month, and they didn't give up on Lugo last year either. Heck you could even go back to giving Ortiz a chance to shine even though he had a poor first couple of months in 03. Why change course now when the only other options are clearly worse players than Ellsburry is?

You present two points. #1 What is the risk? #2 What is the likelyhood that JVE will work out. You seem to think that major league players are robots and that moving them around like fantasy baseball players has no effect on their overall development. I'd strongly disagree that the risk is minimal or zero When you send down a player that has been struggling for two months you send a message to the player and the rest of the orginization. If you struggle for two months we are going to ship you out for a guy who is less talented. This sends the wrong message to prospects in the orginaztion. The message you are sending is that they really don't have a chance in the orgainzation, if they struggle they are gone. What has happened with teams that have tried this approach is that the player ends up struggling in AAA and then is shipped off to another organization where he either fails or stars. It just doesn't work. The risk is two-fold. You risk harming the players developement. Additionally you risk that they will they will start playing to their level of talent and you will miss it. What if you had done this with Dustin Pedroia after HE struggled for six weeks? In Jacoby's case, an injury has likely had an effect on his play, so you risk that he recovers and becomes the player that he was before he was injured. Of course the upside is that JVE comes up and lights the world on fire for six weeks. The likelyhood of this happening is very low. Here is how JVE has performed over the past six weeks. http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Jonathan%20Van%20Every&pos=&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=457508 It seems as though AAA pitchers have found his weeknesses and started consistantly getting him out. This is what happens when you strike out in nearly half your ABs, as JVE has through July and August. Its very unlikely that he comes up and becomes Russell Branyan. Branyan BTW SLGed .700 in the EL for a short time at age 22. Something JVE could never do. If is striking out this much against AAA pitching, what do you think will happen against major league pitching. Plus you are sacrificing the speed and defense that Ellsburry brings. I hate to be harsh ONS but your suggestion is akin to a guy who calls WEEI calling for the rookies head by taking a look at the stat line for the guy in AAA. I always shake my head and turn on System of the Down when those calls come in, as I think most knowledgeable fans do.

I find it funny that if the young CF of the future struggles for a bit some wanna be GM wants to bring in the minor league veteran who is doing well in AAA. Its completely laughable. What happens if you bring him in and he fails? Jonathan VanEvery is a 28 year old minor league veteran for a reason. You are talking about giving a major league job to a guy who is striking out 41% of the time and this is against AAA pitching. You don't do that unless you have some major holes in your swing. Unless you walk and hit for power like Dunn or Howard its very difficult to strike out that often and get on base enough to be a starting player on a contending team. Van Every as you've noticed, isn't a big walk guy either with a BB/K ratio of .3. Guys like that can mash in the high minors but tend not to stick in the majors because they swing at too many bad pitches. Think Russell Branyan or Billy Ashley. Plus the offensive stats don't even tell you about his defense which is extremely important in CF. Jacoby Ellsburry is a very talented player who is struggling right now I believe at least in part due to a wrist injury. He certainly hasn't been the same player since he injured it making a diving catch a couple of months back. As the wrist heels he should be better. The idea of sending him down in favor of a 28 year old minor league veteran with horrific strikeout totals is just foolish.

The reason for the large difference between his ERALF and actual ERA is his extremely low BABIP which stands at .220 or so. As many know average for the MLB is usually about .300 or so. However, knuckleballers have been shown to have lower BABIPs than other pitchers. This means that the ERALF for Zink should be discounted more than it would be for a normal pitcher. Lets also consider that although Zink is in his late 20s, its not unusual for knuckleballers to start to "get it" at that age. Lets remember that Wakefield didn't win a spot in the rotation for good until he was in his mid 30s. Right now there isn't really a spot for him on the roster. I'd certainly take Clay over him as he has much more upside. But if the Sox needed a starter, I think he's incredibly intriguing.

You know your worries about Clay getting drunk once or twice make a lot of sense considering your posts. Its pretty clear that you don't watch baseball, but just watch a few stats and think they tell you everything. You must have been the nerdy kid who was beaten up a lot. Rightfully So!. Though I don't advocate alchoholism, I'd say that a 23 year old getting trashed at a Red Sox celebration isn't that big a deal. From what happened with Lowe and his wife soon after he left Boston its pretty clear that he had major personal problems while in Boston. I'm sure that affected his performance. Additionally, there were rumors that Lowe was also doing cocaine, not just getting drunk once in a while. For the record re: Clay Buchholtz. -consistant command of fast-ball (a worry) -one night of drunkeness after the Sox won (not a worry)

Mike Scocia told Gammons the following about Colon, "Last year he was good for about eight starts before he ran out of gas". That may happen again this year. But getting eight to ten starts from Colon, which would be a little over a month of work, may really help.

In all seriousness the Red Sox have traded prospects for a reliever three times in the Theo era. Its kinda worked out once (Williamson). As we've seen veteran relievers can fall off the cliff pretty quickly even late in the season. It may happen even more this year with decreased steroid use. Gammons on the radio has said that the Sox would be hard pressed to get someone on the open market with better stuff than MDC and Hansen. They have the solutions on the team. They just have to wait to see them work themselves out as opposed to making a desperate move. My bet is that by the end of the season, both guys are very good options at the back end of games.

No one is going to want Julio Lugo. The idea that the Padres are going to want him to replace Greene is insane no matter how badly Greene is struggling. With Lugo, we have a guy who can't field, can't hit for power, and doesn't walk a lot. Since he's fast and can probably pay a lot of positions, someone may think that he's a poor man's Chone Figgins but that's about it. My candidate is still Omar Vizquel. Acording to UZR he was even at his age the third best defensive SS in the NL. The Cubs need a CF so here is what I'd propose. Crisp to the Cubs Gallagher to the Giants Fuld and Vizquel to the Sox. The Sox would need Fuld if they traded Crisp because they really don't have a backup plan in case Ellsburry is out for an extended period.

I'm not a big fan of BPs and other defensive stats the readings just don't seem to be as accuare as MGL. I often wonder how Dustin Pedroia can be ranked the best in the league when his range is pretty average. I am a fan of MGLs UZR stuff. A lot of the guys that rank well with that are guys that when you see play actually look like good fielders when you see them play. In fact many of the defensive statistics that major league teams use are based off of MGL or use similar methodology. The big difference between Lowrie and Ripken as far as I can see is that Ripken was big guy with a big arm. He could play deeper and increase his range. I'm not sure Lowrie can do that. There ARE certainly scouts that believe that Lowrie can play SS in the majors. Personally, I'd rather see his bat and glove get more work in Pawtuckett for the time being and bring in a veteran SS for 08 at least.

He was injured for part of the year and that slowed him at first.

The player Lugo is today isn't the player who played for Tampa Bay. IOW, he's not the player that Theo thought he was getting. He's something like half the size for whatever reason. Gammons pointed out that because Lugo's legs aren't strong anymore he plays SS like "the guy who walks accross the ice in shoes before a hockey game". Hence all of the errors. Gammons suggested that Lowrie might not be ready to handle SS on an every day basis in the big leagues yet either. The guy he suggested as a short-term replacement was Omar Vizquel. If Vizquel can't handle the job full-time, they could have him share it with Lowrie. Though I am a patient guy and generally want veteran players to be fair given chances, I think its pretty clear that something needs to be done to bring another SS in and send Lugo packing. The Red Sox have a good team and with Vernon Wells out for an extended period, and the Yankees relying on a rotation of Pettite and Wang and prey for rain, the Sox will likely win the division. But if you loose a game in the postseason because your SS didn't make a routine play you may not have a chance to recover. I would hate to see Lugo cost the Sox at a chance of back to back. To me this is the biggest priority that needs to be addressed this summer. Bigger than getting a right handed relief pitcher or getting another starter.

My point is that you are such only a complete moron like yourself would talk about statistical studies that he doesn't understand. Its pretty clear that you have never taken a statistics class. Unfortunately not everything can be proven or dissproven through the use of statistics. There are many many effects in life which we know exist even in the absence of statistical evidence. This is especially true in baseball where only, its impossible to run a controlled experiment. The question is....is it possible for catcher game-calling to be an actual ability despite that there is seemingly no statistical evidence for it? If so, could this game calling ability lead to a difference in wins and losses? The answer to this question is unequivocally yes. If the answer to this is yes, then its something a team would want to pay for. Lets say that the other teams best hitter is at the plate with the bases loaded in the 8th inning with two outs. The catcher conferences with the pitcher and they come up with a plan of attack. What you are saying is that the catcher's knowledge and experience regarding this hitters strength and weaknesses will make no difference in the outcome of this at bat which will likely determine the outcome of the game. That argument just defies all common sense. There are of course several factors that will influence the at-bat including luck, and the pitchers execution of the selected pitch. Even if the catcher was 100% responsible in this situation for the outcome of the at-bat IT STILL would not show up in any statistical study. This even though his contributions led directly to a win. In the end, I believe that Jason Vartek's knowledge and experience HAS helped the Red Sox win games important games in the past. Its also likely something that the Red Sox have wisely paid for in the past and any the team that Varitek plays for next year should pay for as well. People who assume that statistical studies tell them everything they need to know and give them all the answers just don't understand statistics very well. Statistical studies are only meant to be useful tools, but they are not meant to give you definitive answers in many cases.

Lowrie isnt' going to be here for a long period of time. Really they needed someone who could play all of the infield positions. Carter can barely play one.

Jayhawk Bill- I think sabermetrics is a great thing. But even James admits that its NOT holly grail. No statiscial study can give you all of the answers. You seem to think that it does. I do not think that statisitics or statistical studies are "baloney". But your use of them certainly is. I think you may want to read the "conclusions" portion of the study. No where does it say that game calling ability is "disproven". It just says that it isn't detectable by statistics. IOW, it isn't statiscially significant. Anyone who has taken a beginning statistics class can tell you that there is a huge difference between a "lack of statistical signifigance", and proof that hypothesis is false. That is the case here. In the conclusions they readilly admit that there are things that a catcher could do to effect the game that may not be detectable by the study. They include increased ptich efficiancy and possible increase in clutch performance. I'd also include that it may help for certain pitchers at certain times and not others. Though this cannot be detected by statistics, it could easilly add up to wins. Maybe even playoff wins. In Jason Varitek's case, there's no way tell through statistics if his experience and knowledge helped get a player out in a key situation. In general I would think that knowledge and experience would be something that you would want from an employee in a difficult situation for any company. In the end, statistics are and by extension sabermetrics, are nothing more than just a tool. Like any tool they are useless if they are applied incorrectly. You are very good at finding studies, but you think that these studies give you answers when in fact they don't always. As I said, read the studies and especially their conclusions before you post baloney.

Its unfortunate that the best you can do is drunk fat chicks in dirty bathrooms. And THAT was in high-school. If that's your peak, I'd hate the see the valley .

Again you missunderstand. There's not a problem with the study. There's a problem with your conclusions from it. There's a problem with how YOU are using it. Obviously top college hitters are much better bets than any other type of player. Pedro Alvarez is a top college hitter. I think if you studied it you'd find that these type of players were less risky but the overall WARP was less than high-school players. Really only one college hitter, Munson, didn't play every day for at least a few years. All of them played in the majors.

How good is PECOTA at predicting the seasons of secondary players? My guess is not very.

Of course this study makes two eroneous assumptions. #1 All positions are created equal....they are not. Obviously hitters are more likely to make it than pitchers and college players are more likely to make it than high school players. High School players are more likely to become stars however. Pedro Alvarez is the best of breed. He's a top college hitter from a top program likely to be drafted in the top 7. How do guys who fit this profile do? Lets take a look at some names: 05: Gordon, Clemment, Zimmerman, Braun Tulowitzki 04: Drew (would have been in top 7 but fell due to having Boras as agent) 03: Weeks 01: Texiera 99: Munson 98 Burrell, Drew (Pena 10th) 97 Drew, Glaus 96: Lee 95: Erstad, Cruz, Helton 8th It seems pretty clear from this that Alvarez is very likely to become a solid regular at least and maybe even a star. There was only one bust in the bunch (Munson), virtually everyone else was at least a solid regular for some time. Given this record, I don't see how anyone can argue that not spending $1M for a player of this calliber wasn't a huge blunder.