Jump to content
Will the Red Sox get back to winning after yesterday's housecleaning? Join the conversation! ×
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    103,042

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    127

 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 moonslav59

  1. moonslav59
    It's a nice problem to have-- a super strong 25.
  2. moonslav59
    We also need guys that can play. I'm hopeful Smith can help us by mid season, and we do need some quality low cost players to offset our big star contracts and sunken costs.
  3. moonslav59
    With Travis probably near ML ready once he's rehabbed enough and Devers 1-2 years away, it never made sense to me to sign EE long term, especially when you look at how tight the budget will be when we want to start extending our young stars.
  4. moonslav59
    EbenezerBatflip 10:37 Which relief pitcher should Boston fans be most excited for in 2017, Thornburg, Carson Smith, Joe Kelly, or another guy? Jeff Sullivan 10:37 Smith, if he's at 100% 1) We can be pretty sure Smith will not be at 100% to start the season, and I've heard some say June could be his ETA. 2) Last full seasons: 2016 Thornburg 67 IP/ 2015 C Smith 70 IP WAR 2.0 2.1 WHIP 0.94 1.01 ERA- 50 60 xFIP 3.28 2.36 K/BB 3.60 4.18 K/9 10.5 11.8 Pretty close, and pretty darn good!
  5. moonslav59
    Beyond our very good 4th OF'er (Young), we have guys that can play "out of position" like Holt, Swihart or Moreland, but after that cue the sound of crickets.
  6. moonslav59
    If Devers is ready to contribute in a meaningful before 2019, which I think is the time we should plan on, then we can always move Pablo to DH or even 1B, if Travis has not worked out by then.
  7. moonslav59
    I agree. Both only have one really good season under their belt, and we all know RP'ers can be very up and down.
  8. moonslav59
    Well said.
  9. moonslav59
    Thanks. I misread her statement.
  10. moonslav59
    Our lack of deep organizational depth at the OF position might keep Castillo's name in the mix, but he's going to have to really step up his game to get any chance at breaking out of his contractual purgatory. He's probably just not good enough to do that, but his winter numbers are encouraging. He's got a steep road to climb from here.
  11. moonslav59
    Welcome, Poppy. You might want to be careful starting new threads. Hope to see you contribute on some Sox threads soon. Again, welcome!
  12. moonslav59
    Nobody says you have to call 40 for 50 equal to 10 for 50. We are just saying the sample size is not large enough to definitively label either of them "clutch" or "choke". I'm fine with someone saying, "That 40 for 50 guy has sure been clutch." But, to label him a clutch player is another matter, to me. One is describing his performance or an event. The other is calling somebody something based on enough evidence to warrant it. If you went oh for 1 in a WS, would you like to be labeled a "choke"? If you went 1 for 1 with a big hit, everyone would say, "That was a clucth hit!" But, should you be called a "clutch player" based on 1 AB? I'd say no. Personally, I'd say no to 369 PAs as well, if that were all we were looking at.
  13. moonslav59
    Actually, they don't. Is Papi's 369 PA post season sample size a large enough sample to be truly definitive?
  14. moonslav59
    They should be considered but within the context of their sample sizes and in conjunction with their regular season High Leverage and late & Close numbers. Now, the sample sizes might look large enough to debate their validity. Then, we get back to the skill vs random debate.... again.
  15. moonslav59
  16. moonslav59
    20.
  17. moonslav59
    I couldn't have been clearer. I give up.
  18. moonslav59
    Then, when you see the list of recent prospect graduates and young players added to the prospect list, it looks even more amazing. By age: 18: Kopech, Groome, Espinoza, 19: L Basabe, L Allen 20: Devers 22: Benintendi, Moncada, Dubon, V Diaz, Margot 23: F Montas, Travis 24: Betts, Bogey, ERod 25: Swihart, C Asuaje
  19. moonslav59
    Agreed.
  20. moonslav59
    I'd love to see stats like that: L-R splits Late & Close Late & Close in the playoffs or key games in Sept. Stuff like that.
  21. moonslav59
    I explained it already, and once again, you misunderstood my position. And you wonder why I need 80% more words.
  22. moonslav59
    Yeah. That's probably the right answer.
  23. moonslav59
    I showed Papi's "Late & Close" numbers and agree, they should be used, but Papi's career Late & Close numbers are 60 points below his career OPS, meaning if you separated the two sample sizes (Late & Close vs non Late & Close) the differential would be more than 60 points. High leverage shows Papi in a better light- slightly better than non high leverage. I don't think any of these numbers prove anything one way or the other, except that maybe as the sample size gets large enough to approach or reach validity, they seem to get closer to the norm (as statistical probabilities would project in a random generator).
  24. moonslav59
    The Guardians just signed Boone Logan. I thought there pen was already very strong and deep!
  25. moonslav59
    100% correctomundo. Other than Hanley's excellent half season in 2013, his 2016 season was the first time he exceeded his career norm OPS of .861 since 2009! On the otherhand, EE has not been below his career norm OPS of .850 since 2011!
×
×
  • Create New...