sk7326

Owens has been terrible. Clearly he is not the pitcher the scouts and the industry think he is. After when you've lost the spring, you've lost the career.

The bigger picture with the rotation - barring a trade is probably more in the ballpark of: Guys who are here now: Porcello, Miley, Buchholz, Masterson, Kelly Guys who could take some spot turns: Escobar, Barnes, Wright, Johnson Guys who could be here later in the year for real: Owens, Rodriguez Frankly, even if Owens or Rodriguez might be better than Kelly or Masterson this year, the sort of innings limits that younger guys have these days would preclude them from making a strong big league contribution until June at the earliest anyway. IMO the odds are very low (barring health) that the Red Sox will be sitting here in June or July legitimately out of it to the point that they'd absolutely won't be buying starting pitching.

The most important factor for the success/failure of the bullpen will be the starter's ability to get into the 7th with some regularity. If the bullpen has to be pitching the 5th and 6th a lot, it's going to be terrible. And I'm not even digging at the Red Sox specifically here. Almost every team has a relatively lousy "early innings" bullpen.

It will or won't iron itself out. The closer is the right guy because he closes. The Giants last year won with their 2nd choice for closer The Red Sox won in 2013 with their 3rd contestant The Cardinals got to the WS in 2013 with their 2nd contestant The Dodgers got to the 2013 NLCS with their 2nd choice The Tigers got to the 2013 LCS with their 82nd choice When Uehara melted down and they ran out Mujica, he was ok. Now having a special guy like Uehara or Rivera is amazing to have - but the gig often figures itself out.

They are - and Badenhop was a crap shoot too. You plan to cycle through guys until the answer pops up. As far as the kids go, I think Barnes and Escobar could help in the pen, but much has to do with how the starters shake out health and form-wise. I suspect the bullpen will be fine as long as it is not overtaxed.

I was watching the other day Olbermann on ESPN2 responding to criticism of Will Ferrell's thing in Arizona. He told the story of Francona having him in the dugout during the spring games and coordinating a prank on Ortiz. Francona said "the guy's would get a kick out of it". For more than anything the games are there so the folks in towns like Fort Myers can make some money out of the deal. The real work largely is done before first pitch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTHYfD7q_OQ

tricky part of spring training linescores (the same with minor league ones too) is that you don't necessarily know what the guy was supposed to be working on. If Farrell told Buch that we're gonna have you throw 25 changeups, situation be damned - then it's going to affect his performance. The scouting of opposing lineups is limited - I'm not even really sure they are game planning approaches. I share the caution, but more because of last year. It is hard to glean from pretend games whether a guy has gotten in the work he was supposed to.

I think there is truth there. Personally I think they doubled the offer because Lester fundamentally changed his valuation with the 2014 performance. I think - in a way - it is a compliment to the front office that they were not stubborn about the valuation, and were willing to change based on the facts on the ground. But by the time they made that decision, the open market had a chance to take a spin. What the Red Sox did this offseason is a sort of parallel to what the Patriots had to do once Darrelle Revis left. Instead of saying, "let's pay a lot of money for an inferior man to man guy" they just decided "we'll just have to not do that anymore and try something else scheme wise". Once you lose the ace, for whatever reason - you have a few choices. You either find another one, which is hard because those generally don't exist, overpay for an inferior model (James Shields), or you change your mousetrap for what can work given the hand that's been dealt. So the Sox have chosen to boost the offense (and count on the additional marginal value of better offense in a run poor environment) and focus on cheaper guys in the rotation to hold the fort. I still expect them to try to upgrade the rotation - but what that will look like is very much to be written.

No, because they never had to - no draftee has that kind of leverage, especially a collegian

with negative run differentials both years! so they've been lucky too (although their bullpen work has been good both years, and i do think that can help the close game stuff a little bit). I know jack talks about the rotation being key - but the yankees pitching last year was excellent - it was a hideous offense that was the problem. Now will Stephen Drew without a full camp no longer be the major league's worst regular? I think that is a reasonable bet - especially if BJ Upton is still breathing. But him and Tex do not a 100 run difference make. The AL East is a coingflip again - just like 2013 and 2014. Now I think that Baltimore probably has the lowest probability of a bad season, but I don't think that means they will win the division either. Tampa probably needs the most help, because the youngsters do not seem as good as the group which led the 2008-2013 explosion. Really it's going to be all about close game luck and injuries - which should make it a fun ride.

maybe, but look at it this way. If there was no draft, this is about what the #1 overall pick would be making. The bar for Moncada to make the money stand up is not that high (basically 2-3 average-above average seasons)

When a good hitter strikes out in a big situation - it sure feels like he choked to me. Losses ruin my night. But I'm also not a GM or talent evaluator - I wouldn't want them to look at players so reductively.

they complement each other. And let's be real here - stats tell you what happened, and perhaps why it happened. Turning into actionable stuff on the field is tough - and that is what baseball lifers are for. It's what separates managers in this day and age.

me neither (and neither him clearly) - but it's a pithy expression

And thus ends the competition in CF. Obviously this injury is not a season stealer - but oblique is tough to heal, and if it means not working out for 2+ weeks, everybody has the requisite cover to start him in AAA (or extended spring with a cup of coffee in Pawtucket when it's go time)

And just like that, the CF position is resolved in the near term ...

I don't think the "does clutch exist" question is germane for whether I enjoy the big games, or get nervous at big times or have had hero worship for Big Papi. I have had all of those - but it's not sufficient for management to evaluate players. That is the crux of the thing.

How his tour ended in Boston obscures just what a ridiculously good player he was before his injury ... he was good after too, but the 2003 postseason was meh and 2004 was what it was.

On this note, the ability to have a good season is built almost entirely on un-clutch moments, boring Tuesdays in front of fans looking at their smartphones and trying to get on the Dance-Cam. I'd be worried if a dude is dialed in only during TV friendly times (that'd be a frontrunner).

Nomar was a bleepin' monster in 1998 and 1999 postseasons - 2003 ordinary. So I'm not sure that's a conclusive statement either. Luck and health are facts of any postseason - it's not fun to chock up things to it, but there you go. And besides, big occasions are a function of good teams (usually) as much as anything. I don't think the argument is even that clutch exists/doesn't exist. I'm a fan - it sure as hell exists to me when I watch. But there has not been a definition of those situation which meaningfully separate hitters or pitchers in a way that is siginificantly different from those players rank in general. The extreme cases largely do not exist ... the guy who is Nicky Punto 90% of the time but magically turns into 2004 Barry Bonds in the 8th inning with the tying run on base (and if he did, you'd ask whether he was asleep during the Nicky Punto times).

My favorite quote (iirc) came from John Hollinger, the Memphis NBA VP and former ESPN basketball writer ... He sees it more as "guys who love the sport so much they're willing to do the boring math to try to figure out what happened"

Disagree here - you look at his last seasons pre Boston, he was a terrible hitter from the left side. Mozel tov to him, but taking at bats from his stronger side is alarming.

He has a lot of hits in big moments - now does that mean you can make a meaningful evaluation of hitters in just those circumstances? No. After all, Ortiz is the best recent Red Sox hitter in non-clutch situations too.

Baltimore for one, where Tommy Hunter had 11 saves and Britton had 37. Cleveland had a couple of guys with double digit saves The Cards had a closer who handled most of their saves - Trevor Rosenthal - he was also not very good (1.41 WHIP, eek) Joe Nathan is another proven closer who had 35 saves, and was terrible (1.53 WHIP, eek) Granted the former two teams have good managers and the latter not so much. (at least in terms of this sort of stuff) Put another way - I did not see Mark Melancon's ability to be tough and strong during his tour here.

Oh I never disputed that - just the idea that things like RISP, 7th inning and on, or whatever is proof of anything. It just strikes me that while I'd like to have Ortiz up with the game on the line, I'd also like to have him up when it isn't.