moonslav59

Couldn't have said it any better!

I'm not sure any amount of rule changes will help enough to attract the tech-savvy new generation.

Fair enough. I will argue that the "full season of Kelly" was there for the taking last year. He didn't get a full season because he sucked. That could happen again, so I wouldn't use him in your point. Is this better? 3/4 Uehara + 3/4 Tazawa + 1/2 Ziegler > Full Thornburg + 1/2 Smith We could add Scott, Kelly, a full ML season of Hembree plus the Pom/Wright aspect to tilt the balance the other way. We could also trade for another Ziegler type this year. I don't think out pen is "weak", but I do think it has the least strength value of our team with the possible exception of the "X factor" 3B situation.

I think we can handle one starter injury well but not two. I do think Pom improves the pen enough to not be a big concern, especially if we can get anything out of Carson Smith. I worry about this: Uehara, Ziegler & Tazawa > Thornburg + 1/2 season from Smith. (Adding Pom does go a long way to evening that equation up. I suppose adding Wright does too, but Pom looks to be a better pen arm. If ERod starts in AAA, our pen loses a good arm.)

I'm okay with the auto IBB, but that's minor. Just speed up the time between pitches and enforce it. Maybe try to cut down on the time between RP'ers somehow. I'd like to restrict how many RP'ers you can use, but that seems too extreme and changes the game too much. That's where much of the "wasted time" comes from.

Agreed, and I view "X" as a weakness until proven otherwise. I think our 6th starter is so good, it just about mitigates the weakness we have from 7-12. I think Moreland for Papi is certainly a step down, but better D at 1B and Young DH'ing vs LHPs should help lessen than drop off in offensive production, if perhaps only slightly. I'm not sure I'd call HanRam-Moreland-Young a weakness at 1B-DH though. I think our 3 catchers can produce 1-2 capable near league average catchers. To me, the pen and 3B are our weakest positions, but that may not mean they are or will end up weak when compared to the league norm.

The interesting thing I see in this list is that 3 of the top 4 half season samples are from our 4-5-6 starters!

It reminds me of the stupid college football OT rules.

So, what is this team's greatest weakness? (These are the choices I'd have provided.) A) The pen 3B C) Starter depth D) 1B/DH (Moreland for Papi) E) Catcher F) Manager (Mangement) G) Lack of clutch hitting (just kidding!)

Well said. I'm fine with moving on to another topic that has already been beaten to death as well.

An optimistic view of out rotation would be to hope some of these half season splits can be repeated in 2017 for a full season. Best half splits of 2017 by starters that are now with the Sox: 8-7 2.47 Pomeranz (1st half) 11-2 2.62 Porcello (2nd) 10-5 2.68 Wright (1st) 2-4 3.24 Rodriguez (2nd) 3-7 3.28 C Sale (2nd) 14-3 3.38 C Sale (1st) 8-3 3.58 Price (1st) 11-2 3.66 Porcello (1st) 9-6 4.34 Price (2nd)

I'm sure that's a big reason 2017 projections have Z > S.

For one thing, it's always hard to prove something doesn't exist. Secondly, I think assuming "stat geeks" or "statheads" go into data to prove what they already know is not true for me. I have been turned around on some of my belief because the data shows I was wrong (like Nomar being a plus fielder for one). Another assumption implied by some posters is that statheads never played the game or can't understand the intricacies of psychological or emotional factors involved in the game. I consider myself a person that uses stats a lot. I've been called a stathead and other names. I believe in God, even though his existence can't be proven. I'm not going to try and speak for others, but I think I explained my position very clearly in both difficult and simplistic forms, but often these types of debates get bogged down over semantics: What is "Clutch"? What is "proof" What is a "valid sample size"? Personally, I do not think any baseball player's sample size is large enough to definitively say, so and so "is clutch" or "a choke". There are just not enough moments in a player's career that are truly super important. Maybe, I'm too tight on my definition for clutch, but I've never criticized anyone for having a larger umbrella. That is what I meant, when I said, "There is no clutch"...meaning there is no player that can definitively be called "clutch". Of course there is "clutch" in terms of an event, such as, "Papi sure had a clutch hit in that game!" In that sense, it exists, but not in the way I see some people use it (and "choke"). I know this position is not shared by many, and I'm sure many posters who deny there is such a thing as clutch view it differently than I. The other main reason, I do not feel you can label a player "clutch" or "choke" comes down to the "random" argument that in itself is fraught with misinterpretations and differences in semantics. I'm not the one spouting studies on the nonexistence of "clutch", but I have read that when you take the actual results of players in clutch situations chart and compare them to a random generated results chart, they look almost identical. To me, this does not prove mental toughness has no role in being clutch or just being a better hitter overall and in general, but it does show that it is virtually impossible to prove that Papi is clutch because of some added "under pressure" skill he has that others do not. One could argue that he is just that player shown on the random generated chart that exceeded all others. It's just not something that can ever unequivocally be proven. I admit, saying that this mean "Clutch does not exist" was misleading and open to misinterpretation, but I do believe it is impossible to know with certainty that Papi was clutch. The guy was amazing when not clutch. The guy hit better than just about anyone. It should be expected he'd hit about the same "in the clutch" and he did.... just about the same. The fact that others hit worse and much worse than he did "in the clutch" vs in the "non clutch still does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I do agree that not being able to prove something does not mean it does not exist, but in this case, I do believe no baseball player can be definitively called "clutch". So in that sense, it does not exist. Did Papi do well "in the clutch"? Hell, yeah! Manny, too. Beckett for a while. You're right though, opposite sides of any argument can dig up some data that supposedly "proves" their position is correct, when we all think opposite positions cannot both be true. I try to avoid that by sticking to the same measures I feel are worthy consistently across the board when evaluating players or arguments. Take the Bogey defense issue. I clearly have a bias for great SS defense. I know that. I was fooled by Nomar's flash plays in the hole. I looked at his numbers and saw something different. I then began to watch Nomar more closely, and how other SSs handled balls hit at about the same speed and in about the same place and saw that most did not need "flash" to make the play routine. My eyes had been tricked. Plus, seeing Nomar for 162 games a year and others for just 3-18 games a year made it tough to be objective. I was down on Bogey's D at the start. I doubted he could ever reach average on defense. His 2015 season showed me I was wrong. He looked pretty close to average that year, and I was tickled pink and glad to be wrong. I was hopeful he'd make it to slightly plus in 2016, but he actually looked worse...maybe even worse than 2013-2014. Now, I'm not so sure. But, you know what? I purposely did not look at Bogey's UZR/150 numbers in 2016, until at least half way into the season. My eyes told me he regressed, and when I looked, the data supported my observations. That does not always happen, and I for one, don't go and try to hunt down other stats to show my initial position was right. I don't mind being wrong.

Because the question does not pertain to me.

Who are the stat deniers? It was tongue and cheek. As was maybe the "stathead" comment.

You didn't answer my question.

Why do stat deniers worry about the motives of stat geeks?

WAR does not, so WAR projections must not as well.

I'd still do it. OF'ers better than Brentz are a dime- a- dozen. Add a low cost pitcher to the 40 man.

Maybe someone dug deep, but couldn't find the answer to what really happened. It must have been something serious. You have to wonder about this kid's attitude, if he just refused to report to duty as stepping stone to making it to the bigs. Maybe he felt he was wronged.

It's 32.4% in MLB. He had 176 Ks in 789 PAs/ 685 ABs on the farm.

A lot of these projections strongly rely on last year's numbers. Also, projections for 2017 might have little to do with long term projections. Zunino is a year older and has 25% more professional experience catching than Swihart. That's reason enough to expect a slightly better 2017 season than Swihart. Yes, scouts can be wrong. They've been more wrong with catchers than probably any other non-pitching position, but I do think most scouts would pick Swi over Zun despite 2017 projections..

One year younger and about 1,000 innings less catching at the professional level. I don't know Zunino's amateur record, but my guess is he had more than 1 or two years catching in HS.

Just curious why they haven't DFA'd him yet. I guess they'll give him one more ST'ing to make a go at it. If an OF'er gets hurt before opening day, I guess he has a chance at a short fill-in role. Maybe, they are just waiting for their next acquisition to cut him loose.

He made it up to #18 as a very young pitcher, so he must have some hope.