moonslav59

Plawecki would have never ripped a single like that one by Vaz, so we're all good.

Maybe a couple handfuls.

Nate is something like 4th in fWAR, this year, so I find it hard to be critical, but man-o-man!

Normally, when you pull a long time starter like Richards from the rotation due to under performance issues, and he does well out of the pen, he gets a chance to start again. I'm not saying I'm for that idea, but giving Houck a chance at closer looks like a nice idea, in isolation.

You are right. I was wrong.

I got my numbers by looking at the game by game logs, same as you. I just selected different dates to make JD look better, while you picked the worst date for a longer term sample. Yes, from July 22, his numbers look bad, but why that date? Why does that date tell a more meaningful story than a few days earlier or later, or a few weeks before or after?

It's even more important, if our budget is limited for an extended time. In the past, we just filled our pitching holes through free agency and trading farm hands.

Dalbec has brought his split vs RHPs above .700, finally, but Shaw looks to be "hot," too, so maybe Cora is just hoping that continues. It's funny, how I just mentioned the 3 slot as being maybe the 6th most important slot according to some studies and maybe that's where JD should go, and here he is batting 3rd. It sure hurts not having Renfroe, Kike and Arroyo. Anybody know about Arroyo's protocol, since I think he did not test positive like Kike did. When does Renfroe return?

JD still has an .803 OPS from 2020-2021. While that's a far cry from the .985 from .2018-2019, it's still respectable. I won't say I'm not concerned about further decline, but I would not be surprised, if he puts up.900 again, before his career is over.

I think Bogey's wrist is still affecting him. If anyone needs a few days off, it's him, but with Kike and Arroyo out, that can't happen, unless we put Munoz at 2B and Arauz at SS. To me, it's about having faith in players that have proven themselves over and over. All players go through slumps, some much worse than others- some much longer than others. You give the struggling player a day off, and then put him right back out there. As much as we want to believe in momentum and trends, good players do not repeat what they have done the last week or two, or even month or two. They eventually "regress to the mean." Not always, of course, but I'm not seeing why we should view these two slumps any differently, except for maybe Bogey's wrist issue, assuming it's still bothering him. Munoz, Shaw, Arauz and others might seem like higher reward options, because they are "hot" (Dalbec, too), but I'm going with the proven vets. No 9 game sample size is going to convince me JD needs to be benched, and then on top of that, with Renfroe, Kike and Arroyo out, benched for who? One could make an argument to play Dalbec vs LHPs or Arroyo vs RHPs over a slumping JD, but not for Munoz, Arauz, Plawecki or Shaw.

OPS Against last 14 Days: .224 Whitlock .243 Davis .431 Richards .647 Eovaldi .684 Ottavino .700 Sale .801 ERod .808 Perez .832 Houck .871 Taylor .874 Sawamura .921 Robles 1.100 Pivetta 1.230 Barnes

To those who believe a manager should play the "hot hand" over more established players, that might mean Arauz, Shaw and Dalbec play everyday or until they are no longer the hot hands. OPS over last 14 Days: 1.400 Arauz (5 PA) 1.242 Shaw (12) 1.168 Dalbec (32) Would never had played by this method 1.118 Schwarber 1.111 Renfroe (out) .999 Kike (out) .972 Verdugo .773 Bogey .760 Duran (19) .680 Devers .668 Vaz .566 JD .258 Plawecki (12)- remember when the play the hot hand people wanted Plawecki to start?

I hope we don't have to rotate, because that would mean nobody is doing the job. While I totally agree, too many walks should disqualify a pitcher from being a closer, Kimbrel's was 3.7 when with the Sox, 3.6 in his career and 3.9 since 2016. I hate when Ottavino walks a guy, and what's worse is, it's almost always the first batter or even the first 2, but the guy gets guys out better than just about anyone other than Barnes and Whitlock, who will not be given the closer role, it seems. OBP Against (100+ PAs) .276 Barnes .280 Whitlock .328 Sawamura .345 Ottavino .346 Taylor .360 Perez .362 Richards You also don't want 2Bs and HRs, so SLG% against is important, too, and here is where Ottavino blows everyone away: .290 Ottavino .323 Whitlock .333 Taylor .347 Barnes .435 Sawamura .479 Richards .488 Perez They guys in the top of both categories are Whitlock, Barnes, Ottavino and Taylor. OPS Against .603 Whitlock .615 Barnes .630 Ottavino .679 Taylor .763 Sawamura .841 Richards .848 Perez This just really sucks about Ottavino (BB/9) 5.3 Ottavino, Swamura 4.6 Taylor 3.1 Barnes 2.2 Whitlock 1.8 Houck

Your need to be right outweighs your Yankee hatred?

Agreed, and I might even venture to say the prospects from 40-60 may also be the best I've seen in a while. I guess, if you had to choose the weakest zone of our farm, it might be from 6 to 15 or 20.

Why is July 22 such a magical date? Is it because choosing that date makes JD's slump look as bad and as long as you can make it out to be? Yes, the results speak for themselves, but what of these results, some shorter- some longer? Longer .691 since July 19th .742 since July 9th .777 since June 30th .805 since June 27th Shorter .753 since August 8th .749 since August 3rd We can choose exact dates to make a point look more solid. No doubt, JD is slumping, but don't these results "speak for themselves," too? Why should July 22nd hold any more meaning than the dates I chose? I'm not claiming my dates mean more than yours. The date you picked does show something useful and meaningful, but it does not negate the other chosen sample sizes- like the ones Max and I chose.

If JD hits .800 the rest of the way, he's still our 4th or 5th best hitter. (Kike might be #4.) I could see moving him down to the 5 or 6 slot, especially for certain match-ups, but that's knowing he'll hit .800. He may hit .600 or 1.000. I might slide him down, here or there, but for now, I'd keep him between the 3 and 6 slots. Remember, the 3 slot is apparently worse than the 4 or 5 slot, so maybe batting him 3rd or 6th makes a lot of sense. Having Schwarber changes the line-up dynamics, even if JD were not struggling. Once Kike and Arroyo return, let's see what happens. Maybe by then, JD is coming out of this slump.

That's exactly what I pointed out on another post. Until the last 9 games, JD had been one of our most consistent hitters- not the .950 to 1.000 guys we all wanted, but remarkably near .800 the whole time. Now, because of a super horrid 9 game stretch of stench, people want us to believe this has been a 3-4 month "slump." I'll take an .800 slump for 3 months followed by a 9 game super slump all day long. Sure, I hoped for better from JD, and I still do, but people are equating his steady decline in OPS as being a long slump. When you start out at over 1.175, even hitting .950 for 3 months will show a steady decline in your OPS. Cherry-picking sample sizes can be very misleading, too. Here's one, that to me, is not misleading but very telling. After reaching 1.189 on May 1st, JD hit: .819 in 84 games (up to this bad 9 game slump). That is very decent. The 9 game slump is so bad, it can warp any recent sample size you choose into looking like his slump is much longer than 9 games. .305 OPS in last 9 games. Although he had a 1.394 OPS in the previous 6 games (with 11 RBI), that 9 game slump turn the last 15 day total to .753. The 9 game slump can now look like a 15 day slump, despite the fact that JD went nutty in those 6 previous games! Now, he did have another, longer 15 game slump before these last 15 games: .411 in 62 PAs, so I can see how someone can take the last 30 games and call it a prolonged slump. It's totally fair. .582 in last 30 games, with the bulk of the good coming in just a 6 game stretch within those 30 games. Of course that is concerning, if not frightening. But let's mix around the sample size choices. Let's look at the prior 21 games before this past 9 (the good 6 with the bad 15). Now, it's just .698- not as rotten as .582. Let's just go back two more games to make the sample 23: .837!!! Yes, 2 games makes it jump from .698 to .837. Let's now add the last 9 games to those 23 to make it a 32 game sample not 30, and the OPS goes from .582 to .691. While .691 is not great, it's also not a horrid slump, except for maybe hitters like JD. Let's keep adding game to the front end: .758 in his last 39 games. .805 in his last 48 games .801 in last 55. .780 in last 68 and .782 in last 77. .801 in his last 95 .859 on the season

While I agree, will the Yanks go 13-0 or 25-4 in their next few games?

I kinda thought Taylor did a fine job, that one time, although it was not a save situation. I was thinking he might have been given the nod, last night, over Ottavino. He may still get the next chance, depending on the match-ups. I would not be surprised to see Barnes get a very high leverage chance, soon.

Yes, before we got Mayer, most would have viewed the Sox rise in the rankings, yes, we were rising in the ranking before the draft, as being depth- orientated. It's not like Casas and Downs were lighting the world on fire and lifting our ranking on their shoulders. Far from it. Bloom used last year's trade deadline, the Betts & Beni trade, IFA and the rule 5 draft to build some serious depth. The Beni trade, alone netted us 5 players, only one of which was not technically a prospect (Cordero). Now, Whitlock, Houck and Duran have or will graduate soon, so maybe we'll see a slight dip inn the rankings, but that Whitlock move was pure genius. I still count that as building farm depth, even though rule 5 players, by definition, are no longer on the farm. Many of the additions Bloom made have not done all that well this year, and some have fallen in the rankings, but look at this list and tell me it's top heavy. Just because you have a super player at the top, it shouldn't devalue the rest of the farm. Here is the youth Bloom has added, besides Whitlock, Verdugo and Arauz: Downs Seabold Yorke Jordan Winckowski Wong Ro. Hernandez C Miguel Bleis Nathan Hickey Tyler McDonough Eduard Bazardo Jeisson Rosario Hudson Potts Shane Drohan Victor Santoz Freddy Valdez Grant Gambrell and several others

Barnes will be given a chance to earn back the trust. That's who Cora is. It would be nice to be able to pull Houck from the rotation and give his a shot as closer, but that's a huge gamble, and who starts? Seabold? Perez? Move Richards back after he has earned back some trust? If we try, or I should say when we try Barnes back at closer, depending on how well or poorly he does, this board is going to have a lot to say. That's one fact we can take to the bank.

Max, you have been nailing it. I'll just add that not only will a line-up with Schwarber at 1B, Arroyo at 2B and Kike in CF, assuming it does happen, be the best we've seen all season, it will also improve the defense over wwhat we have been seeing while Arroyo and others have been out injured. Kike belongs in CF. Period. Arroyo is a fine defensive 2Bman. Schwarber at 1B is a huge question mark, but our defense at 1B, especially over the past 2-3 weeks has been about as bad as can possibly be, so it's hard to imagine it being any worse. Also, having Dalbec on the bench as a PH'er vs a lefty is a huge plus. I know Cora has his own ideas on line-up construction, and I'm not saying my plans is better than what he will do, but here's how I would do it: vs RHP 1. Kike CF 2. Schwarber 1B 3. Bogey SS 4. Devers 3B 5. JD DH 6. Verdugo LF 7. Renfroe RF 8. Arroyo 2B 9. Vaz-Plawecki C vs LHPs 1. Kike 2B 2. Schwarber LF 3. Bogey SS 4. JD DH 5. Devers 3B 6. Renfroe RF 7. Dalbec 1B 8. Verdugo CF 9. Vaz-Plawecki C Basically, Arroyo and Dalbec are platooned.

At the time of the trade, and even more so after Rizzo started out with a couple nice games, what was the mood of this board on the deadline moves and Bloom? Hardly anyone thought Schwarber was a "no-brainer" over Rizzo. I'm thinking there were maybe 2 or 3 of us, but I could be remembering incorrectly.

Schwarber has to be counted in the top 3 or 4, but I agree with your point. They all need to start doing better. I've never been one to think a player's last 5, 10 or 20 game sample size is a good predictor of what will come next, so I fully expect all of these guys to pull their weight going forward. There is no reason to think otherwise. Of course, players slump, all the time. One of these guys may not do well, but my guess is that 3 of the 4 do wonders, and by that I just mean do what they normally do (.850+).