moonslav59

We did better at home than away with the same team and the same opps in the sample size chosen. It doesn't matter why, but the fact is, we win more at home than on the road- both regular season and the playoffs. Just because the HFA did not help in the 40's, 60's and 70's does not mean we don't gain an edge in the next decisive game had it been at home.

I like Pom a lot. His low cost contract over the next 2 years will help us spend elsewhere. That's a hidden asset. I just like Espi much more- even if just as part of a larger package for someone much better than Pom.

But again, you are being a Monday morning quaterback..... How is it "Mondasy Morning QB'ing, when i hated the trade on day one and said so? Pom was an All Star with team control. He is not a rental. He gave us 13 starts. DD did what he thought was best for the organization at the time. Again, at the time of the trade and all along, I said I understood why we made the trade and that it DID make us better this year and through the next two years at a cost-controlled price- a big plus. I also never put down Pom and correctly viewed him a s a capable 3/4 slot starter going forward. I'm not using the injury issue to Monday Morning QB, and we're not even sure the late season swoon is injury or fatigue related anyways. Now if you want to blame anyone, it has to be Buchholtz who pitched like s*** before the trade deadline. Maybe we also blame JF and Wright for getting hurt by the second base bag that just happened to be in his way. I try really hard to not play the blame game. However, that does not mean I don't speak up when I dislike a trade. I disliked the Iggy trade, but understood that within the context of the fact that the Sox were never going to move Bogey to 3B and make Iggy the starting SS, as I hoped for, the trade made perfect sense. Monday morning QB'ing might or might not work on that deal, but ultimately, all deals are judged on hindsight (fair or not). This deal will be judged, IMO, on how well Pom does for us, and in some ways, if he influences a championship season vs how great or bad Espi ends up being. I'm fine with waiting it out, but I was certainly not for standing pat at the deadline, in fact, I wish we had gone bolder than Pom, even if it meant trading Espi, Swihart, Devers and mid-levels for Qunintana or Sale. so, please stop making me out to be someone not wanting to win this year or wanting us to go tell the players, "this is it, your stuck with what you got!" It was a good trade and I do it again. It was a bad trade- just like the Kimbrel one.

I assume you have Young, Shaw, Hill, a catcher and Marrero as the last of the 14 position players. Where and when do you see Marrero being needed on defense? I can see us PH'ing Young (or Beni) first- for Leon or Holt. If it's for Leon, then Vaz or Holaday comes in. If it's for Holt, Hill would (could) probably come in (vs the lefty pitcher) and be in place for the lefty the next time around the order. If a righty comes in before Hill's PA, then we'd probably PH Shaw and keep him in. I prefer Hernandez over Marrero, because we may need to PH for Shaw later, if another lefty is brought in.

We're 21-10 at home in the playoffs since Henry took over. We are 21-15 away in the same period of time. That's a bigger and more meaningful sample size than decisive games including games from back in the 60's and 40's.

WE ARE IN THE PLAYOFFS CONTENDING FOR WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. You of course would rather have kept Espy and not participate in this year's playoffs. I got it. Nothing could be further from the truth. 1) The choice was not just trade for Pom or do nothing. 2) I suggested several trade options. 3) We could have absorbed the loss of Swihart and/or others to get a starter- maybe even a better one. 4) We probably make the playoffs without ever having Pom. He gave us 5 QS's out of 13 starts. We may have used Buch earlier than we did, or we might have gotten 2-3 QS's out of Owens, Johnson, Elias or Kelly out of the 13 Pom gave us.

Well, Espi was a top 3 prospect we didn't "protect".

Barely.

As bad as some of our back-up players are offensively, they still may be better matched with a particular RP'er late in a game. Since Leon is slumping (.426 in the last 28 days) and Holt struggles vs LHPs (.350 OPS vs lefties), guys like Hernandez, Shaw, Hill and yes, maybe even (rarely) Marrero may be a a better batter in certain scenarios. (Note: some are very tiny sample sizes) OPS vs RHPs: .764 Leon .762 Holt .762 Shaw .668 Hernandez .527 Vazquez .500 Marrero .376 Hill OPS vs LHPs: 1.062 Leon 1.056 Hernandez .804 Vazque.770 Hill .750 Holaday .509 Shaw .350 Holt .258 Marrero Last 28 Days: 1.467 Holaday .724 Holt .708 Hill .625 Vaz .500 Marrero .485 Shaw .456 leon .393 hanigan .333 Hernandez

It's not just about the decisive game though. Starting a series at home can set the tempo and make a difference. Winning at home can prevent a decisive game from every being needed.

We live in present. I'm glad, when the "present" was 3-6 years ago, we didn't trade Betts, Bogey and JBJ.

Could happen. What if PomPom provides nothing?

I never said the deal did not make sense, but that is different from thinking the trade was good or not, or deciding on what the criteria is for evaluating the trade years from now. Pomeranz certainly improves our outlook for the next two years. His low contractual cost will affect other deals we can make as well. He projects to have a positive influence on the team for two years more. Espinoza is a rare prospect who cracked the top 15 at very young age. Many hold his age against him due to the long time it might take for him to make a difference, and the increased uncertainty that he even will make it, but the flip side is that when a player of his age makes it that high in the rankings, it is because he has phenomenal upside potential. If that upside potential is reached, we will regret making the trade. His performance matters in the judgement.

1) Trading Espi was not the only option. 2) I have never shied away from trading prospects for vets. 3) 3 years from now will be the f***ING PRESENT!

It's not a big difference, but the Sox, perhaps more than other teams over the years, are often built to succeed in their own park. That has changed since the Henry era, but we still win more at home than away over the years. 2003-2016 (under Henry): .......Runs scored/ Runs allowed = Differentail Home: 6319 / 5307 = +1,012 Away: 5445 / 5092 = +353 It's really not even close. I realize that the playoff history, especially in deciding games prior to 2003 has not always been kind to Fenway, but that sample size is tiny. 2013: WS: H 2-1/A 2-1 ALCS: H 2-1/ A 2-1 ALDS: H 2-0/A 1-1 2009: ALDS: H 0-1/A 0-2 2008: ALCS: H 1-2/A 2-2 ALDS: H 1-1/A 2-0 2007: WS: H 2-0/A 2-0 ALCS: H 3-1/A 1-2 ALDS: H 2-0/ A 1-0 2005: ALDS: H 0-1/A 0-2 2004: WS: H 2-0/A 2-0 ALCS: H 2-1/A 2-2 ALDS: H 1-0/A 2-0 2003: ALDS: H 1-2/A 2-2 Since Henry totals: ALDS: Home 7-5 / Away 8-7 ALCS: Home 8-4 / Away 7-7 WS: Home 6-1 / Away 6-1 TOTAL: Home 21-10 / Away 21-15 Maybe, it makes a little difference.

My point is, you guys are making the correlation between high K rates and the end result of getting more guys out. Then, you are saying that because they are often, but not always related, then high Ks should be used to judge the final output. I'm saying judge the final output. If someone's got a high LD% and low BABIP number or some other indicator that he is getting lucky or getting away with allowing more balls put in play due to superior defense than who you are comparing him to, then I get it, but that's not the case here. I brought up the BB/K rate as a stat that can be used and "correlated" the same way Ks are. Most pitchers with great BB/K rates end up with great outputs, so naturally that stat should then be used as part of the judgement of the output. It's nonsense. Pitchers get guys out in many ways. I get the argument that forcing the defense to help make the out often will lead to more hits, but when it doesn't, why hold it against the pitcher? Plus, Porcello walks less batters, and that more BBs puts men on base without the defense having a say in the matter. It's all on the pitcher (maybe some on the catcher?). Porcello let up less hits + walks per inning than anyone but Verlander (by 0.01). Porcello has the best park and opponent adjusted ERA (ERA-).. That's the output That's the bottom line. He did it by walking less batters. He did it by allowing less runs than expected by playing in more hitters' parks and facing way tougher teams and offenses (ERA- proves that point). Maybe If Porcello played on the Guardians, who have a better defense, play in more of a pitcher's park, and face easier opponents, he'd have more Ks, less hits allowed and a better ERA and K/9 rate.

Was that a choice? Of course better pitching beats HFA, but there's a good chance Porcello faces Kluber in game 5. They are about as equal as they get. It might help to tip the balance by playing in Fenway.

...and when things are pretty even, like Porcello vs Kluber in game 5, you look for any edge you can get... like HFA.

Just because high Ks usually translates into better pitching doesn't mean it should be a major measuring stick of greatness. Getting people out more often and not allowing XBHs when they do get on base is really what great pitching is all about. Since 1977, there are 221 starters with 1500+ IP. The leaders in ERA- and WHIP are mostly high K guys, but there are enough low K guys to prove that you don't have to strike guys out to not allow men on base or men to score. ERA- (K/9) 63 Kershaw (9.8) 67 Pedro (10.0) 70 Clemens (8.6) 73 Santana (8.8) 75 Johnson (10.6) *76 Maddux (6.1) *76 Halladay (6.9) *78 Brown (6.6) 78 Oswalt (7.4) #14 80 Saberhagen (6.1) #15 80 J Tudor (4.9) #19 82 J Key (5.3) #24 82 Appier (6.9) #26 83 D Stieb (5.2) #29 83 Hudson (5.9) #30 84 Guidry (6.6) That's 10 in the top 30 with a K rate less than 7.0. That's significant enough to prove that K's are not needed to produce great bottom lines. Nolan Ryan and Hideo Nomo K'd a bunch of people, but they also walked too many. Ryan had a 1.22 WHIP and 88 ERA-. Nomo had a 1.35 WHIP and 101 ERA-. Clearly WHIP has a higher correlation to great pitching than K's. It's not a coincidence that the high K guys and the low K guys that are successful both have great WHIP. WHIP Pitcher ERA- 1.01 Kershaw (1) 63 1.05 Pedro (2) 67 1.10 Santana (4) 73 1.13 Schilling (11) 79 1.14 Maddux (6) 76 1.14 Saberhagen (14) 80 1.15 S Fernandez 90 1.15 Scherzer 82 1.16 C Hamels 81 1.17 Halladay (7)76 1.17 Clemens (3) 70 1.17 Sutton 94 (5.4 K/9) 1.18 R Guidry 84 (6.6 K/9) There are 24 pitchers with over 3500 IP since 1977. 17 of them have a K/9 rate below 7.2. Of the 16 with ERA- below 90, 9 have k/9 rates below 7.2, 8 are below 6.6, and 5 are below 6.1. Glavine and Buehrle are below 5.4.

No one seems to care much about where players bat in the order... I do. If only for this reason... PA differential from leadoff to number 9> 144 8> 126 7> 122 6> 101 5> 83 4> 47 3> 27 2> 15 Grouping you best hitters makes sense with your high OBP up ahead of your high SLG guys. OBP vs RHPs SLG vs RHP .407 Ortiz .665 .400 Beni .584 .377 Betts .540 .371 Pedey .456 .363 Bradley .538 .347 Bogey .438 .344 HanRam .453 .337 S Leon .427 .336 Holt .426 .325 Shaw .437 .319 Young .446 .319 Hernandez .349 .313 Swihart .316 .262 Hanigan .286 .250 Vazquez .277 .212 A Hill .164 Next year, i could see us ending up with this vs RHPs: 1) Beni 2) Pedey 3) Betts 4) HanRam 5) JBJ 6) Bogey 7) Shaw 8) Leon 9) Holt/Pablo/Swihart OBP vs LHP SLG .450 S Leon .612 .420 HanRam .677 .410 Young .589 .397 Pedey .415 .393 Bogey .480 .382 Ortiz .485 .375 Vazquez .429 .357 A Hill .413 .333 Brentz .405 .309 JBJ .356 .302 Betts .512 .250 Beni .179 .244 Holt .105 .138 Hanigan .107 Maybe this vs LHPs: 1) Pedey 2) Bogey 3) Young 4) HanRam 5) Betts 6) JBJ 7) Leon 8) Hernandez 9) Beni/Vaz/Swihart/Young (This is just a template and is assuming no acquisitions.)

I'm not arguing against Papi and PEDs. He should be a first ballot HOF'er.

I'd be okay with 10 pitchers, if there was a position player that screamed usefulness, but sadly even the 14th position player (Hill/Vazquez/Marrero?) is not really a game-changer in any real sense.

That sounds too convenient. I'd use the argument that nobody ever proved what he took.

With the use of Hill or Marrero in question, I still think the idea of carrying a 3rd catcher makes some sense. We can PH Young or Beni for Leon in the 6th or 7th and then PH Shaw or Hernandez for Holday in the 8th or 9th and end up with Vaz to finish the game behind the plate.

Yes, and he can at least field SS. Hill cannot. Marrero fields SS better, but that should not come up at all.