Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Kimmi

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. Kimmi
    This is an extremely traditionalist post.
  2. Kimmi
    Speed is an advantage. The threat of a stolen base with a runner on first is not.
  3. Kimmi
    Homer is a derogatory term. Look it up. Traditionalist is not. I would not be offended if someone told me I had old school baseball views, and truth be told, I do have a few of them.
  4. Kimmi
    The issue was not about stolen bases, per se, but about the perceived added advantage that a speedy runner gives to his team when he is on first. Obvioulsy, if the runner can successfully steal second, then that's an advantage to the offense. The secondary effect of "disrupting the defense" and thereby giving the offense, namely the guy at the plate, a big advantage is false. The advantage comes from having a runner on first, period. It could be David Ortiz. The advantage to the offense comes from having players playing out of position with ANY runner on first. That advantage to the offense dissipates when the runner on first is a disruptive runner. The 12 to 16 points that a hitter gains in wOBA when there is a runner on first dissipates to just 2 points when that runner is a disruptive one.
  5. Kimmi
    I am not trying to label or discredit anyone. The fact of the matter is, there are traditional views and there are new school views. Not all traditional views are wrong, but many of them are. New school views are sometimes wrong as well. As I've said many times, no one here is either/or. However, I do believe that most people here lean more in one direction than the other. That's okay. When I call something a traditional view, that's because that's what it is. There's no way around it.
  6. Kimmi
    OK, so a speedy runner disrupts the defense. I'll agree with that. However, that disruption gives no advantage to the offense. In fact, it gives a slight advantage to the defense by giving a disadvantage to the batter at the plate. Same issue.
  7. Kimmi
    Perhapss your opinion that the study was not comprehensive and reliable is because it does not support what you believe.
  8. Kimmi
    No, I'm not. Price is going to be a beast. No worries.
  9. Kimmi
    Again, that does not translate to baseball. There is NO correlation between height and velocity at the major league level. Play the percentages by drafting the best pitchers regardless of height, rather than ruling someone out simply because he is short.
  10. Kimmi
    On the topic of salaries and payroll, it's interesting to note that the correlation between payroll and wins continues to drop. An interesting read from MacPherson:
  11. Kimmi
    Injuries can happen to any player, regardless of how experienced he is in playing a position. If Price suffers an injury this year, and then is never quite the same pitcher afterwards, the Sox will be forced to send him out there every 5th day because of his contract.
  12. Kimmi
    Of coures both moves are defensible. So was signing Pablo.
  13. Kimmi
    No, I'm not ignoring red flags. I have said many times that I did not agree with the contract. But seriously, those red flags were more for the back end of the contract, not the front end, and certainly not the first year. Pretty much everyone agreed that the Sox were a better team after they signed Pablo. There is overwhelming historical evidence that giving a long term contract to a pitcher in his 30s is a bad move. But we can ignore that information and say that giving Price that huge contract was a good move anyway? You can't have it both ways.
  14. Kimmi
    There is a bias against short pitchers, especially right handed ones, because teams are not as willing to draft or sign these pitchers based on false asumptions. It's not just velocity. It's also durability and overall performance. Science might say that taller pitchers have an advantage, but if it doesn't translate to baseball performance, then not drafting shorter pitchers because they're short is fallacious. It's the same with the eye color thing. There is scientific proof that blue eyes are more sensitive to sunlight, but that sensitivity does not translate to baseball performance. Scouts were not drafting blue-eyed players because of fallacious assumptions.
  15. Kimmi
    Another example of a double standard in judging contracts: Many believe it was stupid and an overpay to pick up Clay's option at $13 mil for ONE year, yet Price's $217 mil is not an overpay? That is just insane thinking. Talk about lack of objectivity.
  16. Kimmi
    Hindisight. No one expected him to become a Gold Glover, but it is reasonable to think that an athlete would improve some going from one of the hardest positions to play to one of the easiest positions. Even if there was no defensive improvement, Hanley should have been a 3 WAR player. The surprise with Hanley was his terrible offense. He was not signed to be a defensive player. He was signed to provide right handed offense. If Manny could patrol LF well enough not to be an overall liability, Hanley should have been able to do so as well.
  17. Kimmi
    Exactly, the scouts can see height. They are drafting based on height (not solely, of course), which is a bias against shorter pitchers. There might be a bias for velocity, but that doesn't preclude there being a bias against short pitchers. Not only in drafting, but in free agency and trading, there is a bias against short pitchers because of beliefs about velocity, performance, and durability. I completely agree with you about command and movement.
  18. Kimmi
    That's a matter of opinion, as is who is better between Price and Greinke. Even if he wasn't the best available, he was one of the best and not that far off from Headley. The point still stands.
  19. Kimmi
    There is a difference between being a bust and having typical decline. If Sandoval showed typical decline, you could still expect him to be a 2.5 WAR player. You might also expect his offense to improve, moving from SF to Boston. He would still not be worth the contract, but that isn't the point. Personally, I believe I am being objective. I can understand the reasoning behind signing a player even if I disagree with the signing. I don't think most people can do that.
  20. Kimmi
    They didn't sign two 3B. They signed a LF and a 3B.
  21. Kimmi
    And Price is getting paid as a true elite player. Again, I'm not trying to say that Pablo is in the same category at Price.
  22. Kimmi
    Of course. I didn't like the contract either, but I can understand the rationale behind it.
  23. Kimmi
    It has nothing to do with General Managers, actually. It's about having a double standard based on whether one agrees with a move or disagrees. Agreeing with a move does not make it right, and disagreeing with a move does not make it wrong. This is also not about whether we needed a 3B more or a pitcher more. I agree with you that we needed a SP more. However, last offseason, the direction the FO decided to take, right or wrong, was to build the team around offense. What is the difference between signing the best available 3B to a large contract to fill a need and signing the best available SP to a large contract to fill a need? Especially if you don't care how much money Henry spends since it's not your money?
  24. Kimmi
    Also, who cares how much the Sox paid for Pablo? It's not our money. Just give us the best player possible at that position, no matter the cost. We don't care how much Henry spends. He's a billionaire. How many times have we heard that argument when it comes to signing Price? Why is Henry's money a concern for Pablo, but not for Price?
  25. Kimmi
    No, it was not easy to foresee Sandoval being a bust, at least not in the first part of his contract. Dude was 28 when he signed his contract. It was reasonable to expect a mild dropoff, which would still be an improvement over what we had the previous year. It was not reasonable to expect anywhere near the disaster that we saw. Was Pablo more of a risk to be a bust than Price in the early part of the contracts? Absolutely. But again, Pablo's contract is not nearly large as Price's. Also, I will say again that I am not a fan of Pablo's contract. I would have preferred Headley myself. However, the aggregrate offensive runs above average provided by the 3B in 2014 was -27.4. Their defense was -5.3 runs. Clearly, we needed an upgrade at that position, particularly offensively, which Pablo should have provided. The FO signed the best (or one of the best) free agents to fill that hole. Isn't that what fans are always clamoring for?
×
×
  • Create New...