Kimmi
-
Posts
27,857 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Kimmi
-
No, he did not say that he vowed to. As far as this being a big year for him contractually, isn't that the case with most of the ball players? I don't think that they let things "slide" once they have a big contract, because I really believe that the vast majority of them are professionals who have a sense of pride in themselves and in the game. But I do think many players kick it up a notch in that contract year as far as being in better condition and working a little harder, which makes you wonder why they don't do it every year.
-
No, I don't believe he actually said it in so many words, but I think it was his intent when he was talking about his offseason 'plan' to help him reach 200 innings.
-
It sounds like that's what the Yankees are gearing up for. His contract is going to be insane, as if free agent contracts aren't already insane enough. I would be surprised if he does not sign with the Yankees.
-
I do not mean to be disrespectful, but this is the exact type of traditional thinking that has been deeply ingrained into everyone's beliefs. The thought of batting Papi or Pujols is unheard of. Any manager would be crazy to do such a thing. And yet, it would be the right thing to do if they were your two best hitters on the team. Your best hitters should bat 1,2 and 4, with the higher SLG batting 4th and the higher OBP batting 1st. Even though it seems like you're wasting XBH ability by batting a big bat 1st, you'll get more overall production by him in the leadoff spot than you would with a lesser hitter there, by the simple facts that 1. he will be getting on base more often and that 2. he will get more at bats.
-
There are certainly situations that call for each of these moves. The point is that these moves are largely being overused to the detriment of the team.
-
Extending both players would absolutely be in the Sox' best interest, and I think they will work at getting it done at some point. That said, I don't think the extension needs to necessarily be done this year or even next. Both players are still under team control for several more years. It depends on how many years of free agency both the team and the players are willing to lock up. Another consideration is that Xander has Boras as his agent. We all know his reputation for wanting his players to hit free agency.
-
Actually, I think it was due to Clay vowing to reach 200 innings this year.
-
Ha ha, Touche'. I agree that 92 wins seems a little optimistic, though I do think the Sox will contend for the division. I think the Sox can win 89-90 games.
-
Well that's the thing CP. You would never have Ortiz or Pujols leading off despite what the data says. Truth be told, Ortiz and Pujols would both fit in the #4 spots better, but let's say for argument's sake that Ortiz and Pujols are on the same team and are by far your two best hitters. None of the other hitters has OBPs good enough to compare to these two. One of them should go in the #4 spot, and the other should go in the #1 spot. However, I can guarantee you that most managers would bat them 3 and 4, regardless of what the data says. I would bet that no manager would bat one of them in the leadoff spot. Where would you put them?
-
How many times have we heard that the "real" save situation in the game came in the 7th or the 8th inning? If it's the 8th inning of a one run game, with no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, and the big bats coming up, I'd want my closer out there to get those 3 outs in the 8th. I'll worry about the 9th inning when I get there. Those situations might not come up often, but when they do, I don't think that a manager should be so set in his BP roles that he'll throw a lesser pitcher out there rather than his best guy. As I posted before, I understand about relievers wanting to know their exact roles. Relief pitchers, in particular, seem to be wired differently than the rest of humanity. That said, if the dynamics of BPs changed to where there were no set roles, relievers would adapt to it.
-
The crazy sabermetric folk test and update their data constantly. They know as well as anyone how things change over time, from year to year, from league to league. The end of the steroid era has absolutely changed the value of various aspects of the game. For instance, the break even point on stolen bases has dropped from roughly 75% to roughly 69%. The sac bunt is still wrong in pretty much every game situation in the AL, except for late in a game when a team needs 1 run, and there is a runner on 2nd with 0 outs. Bunting with a runner on first base only and 0 outs? Don't do it!!!
-
I am glad you read and enjoyed the article. You may not see huge differences in the way managers set their lineups and the optimal way of doing so, but they exist. They might not be huge, but they exist enough to the point where the managers are possibly costing their teams one or two wins. What would your reaction be to seeing someone like Ortiz or Pujols batting leadoff? What would your reaction be to Swihart batting 3rd last season?
-
A man after my own heart. These guys are professional statisticians. They study and test baseball theories for a living. If one group of guys come up with results that don't seem valid for any reason, another group of guys will not just let it fly. Even it the results do seem valid, another group of guys will test it again, or test it in a different way. Their data and results are heavily scrutinized by others in the sabermetric community. And yes, they even understand the shortcomings of their data and the human element of things. Even with that, there is an overwhelming consensus that managers are getting it wrong in some areas. You can't ignore the human element, but baseball is by and large a data driven game.
-
The problem is that managers have an incorrect perception of what an optimal leadoff hitter is. I'm sure LaRussa could have found someone with an OBP better than .298 to put in the leadoff spot, but those batters didn't fit the prototypical stereotype of a leadoff hitter.
-
So, after all this time telling me that you don't like the label "traditionalist", you're now telling me that you're a traditionalist?
-
I am happy to report that Fangraphs has reconsidered that absurd drop to 91 wins, and is once again projecting the Sox to win 92 games. Two weeks until pitchers and catchers. Truck Day is February 10, mere days away. Woohoo!
-
There certainly is more than one way to skin a cat, and some ways are better than others. There is even an optimal way. For all the talk about the overuse of the sac bunt, there are still managers who are overusing it and sacrificing in situations in which it is completely uncalled for. Almost everyone understands how important not giving away an out is, and yet managers still do it. Old habits die hard.
-
No, there are any number of reasons why it hasn't been done yet. Mainly, most of the managers are old school. While there has been a shift in the sourcing of GMs, away from being former players and field managers, this is not true of managers. Almost all, if not all, managers are former players. Most GMs are going to let their managers manage the game, including determining the lineup. GMs will supply the managers with data and offer certain suggestions, but they aren't going to dictate to their managers how to manage a game. Also, can you imagine both the fans' and the players' reactions to batting Papi in the leadoff spot? You can tell just by the posts on this board that a decision like that would receive all kinds of criticism from the fans, from the media, and probably from the players themselves. Even if a manager agreed with the thinking, I don't think he'd think it would be worth the backlash.
-
Perhaps I should become the next MLB commissioner. Then I could really institute some change.
-
1. I am by no means advocating change for change's sake. I am advocating change in lineup construction because it will improve a team's offense. 2. If a manager is not willing to completely go against conventional wisdom, then any changes to the lineup are probably not worth it. OTOH, if a manager would be willing to go with the optimal lineup, that could be worth 1-2 wins. Do you think 1-2 wins is worth it? 3. Fair enough, I have no idea how open minded you are. I am confident in what I am posting because I have looked into this topic very thoroughly. It's what I do. 4. I don't know what epiphany you speak of, but I was absolutely enlightened when I was introduced to the world of sabermetrics. There's no turning back.
-
You crack me up MVP.
-
LOL Bell. Apparently, there is no point.
-
You're welcome. I'm glad you took the time to read it. I agree with you about using the best relievers in key situations earlier in the game. One reason managers say they don't use a closer in the 7th inning, for instance, is because relievers like/need to have a specific role. I can understand that, but I also think that you could get relievers used to the idea of being ready to come into a game at any point that he is most needed if you just started doing it.
-
As I said, the data supports an unconventional line up. It has been tested many times with actual game data and with countless simulations. Most fans are not going to buy into it because traditional line ups have been so ingrained into their thinking that it's sounds blasphemous to suggest otherwise.
-
Scoring is down across baseball, which puts a premium on defense. That's the look this team is going for, at least in the OF and up the middle. Shaw is reportedly going to be taking fly balls in LF as possible insurance for Castillo. I personally think Chris Young was a really good pick up.
