moonslav59

OPS Against: 1.280 Fulmer (13 PAs) .967 Criswell (27) .944 Hendriks (14) .819 Stock (9) .795 Kelly (45) .705 Wilson (37) .622 Wink (52) .621 Whitlock (73) .608 Weissert (53) .562 Slaten (47) .519 Bernardino (47) .513 Chapman (45) .154 Guerrero (13) SPers: .896 Bello .834 Houck .823 Newcomb .758 Giolito .719 Buehler .707 Dobbins .614 Fitts .500 Crochet

But hey, we haven't been swept... yet.

I agree, and I do think no clear position hurts a player's rankings. I'm just saying, being a horrible defensive player, but having a known position should hurt, too. I've been high on Cespedes from day one- perhaps I was way off.

Founded and Losted

Cespedes may end up dropping, but he's 2 years younger than Bleis. Being a poor defender hurts, but it didn't bother the rise of Devers, although he did stick to one position.

We are at the 20% mark of the season and these would be the project fWAR totals of our current players (5 x current fWAR) 8.0 Bregman (10.0 bWAR) 7.0 Abreu (8.0) 6.5 Crochet (6.0) 6.0 Campbell (5.5) 3.5 Newcomb (-1.0) 3.0 Duran (2.0) 2.5 Devers (3.5) & Rafaela (4.5) 2.0 Story (3.5) & Narvaez (4.0) 1.5 Buehler (0.5), Whitlock (2.0), Chapman (2.5), Dobbins (1.0) & Refsnyder 2.5 (plays 30% of games) 1.0 Weissert (1.0), Fitts 91.5), Wilson (0.0)& Romy 1.5 (1/3 games)

Good to know. I knew he was young, but not that much younger than those he pitches to.

Certainly, there are not many good vibes about this team after 33 games. We are 20% through the season, and the A's have a better record. Six other teams do, too. We are just 2 games ahead of the 10th ranked team in the AL and the bottom 3rd tier. Another season of mediocrity would really suck, but so far, there are no signs of expecting much better. In the next 12 games, we play two teams ahead of us (#1 DET and #7 KCR) & two teams below us (#9 TEX and #12 MN.) We need to put together a stretch where we show more promise and consistency.

The pen worries seem to be well-founded.

In the Devers case, the SSS are not "the only ones we have. With Casas, his history is riddled with sporadic playing time, surrounding periods of being on the IL, but overall, he's done pretty well, when he plays, until this April. He's had other bad streaks, and the Dalbec worries have some merit. Dalbec had about an .800 OPS after his first 550 PAs, while casas does after 950. Both are kind of small sample sizes. Casas has about 50 points on Dalbec with OBP, but Dalbec was about 50 higher on SLG. Casas has 250 Ks in 950, while Dalbec had about 200 in 550. The recency factor of a players last 40, 60 or the almighty 80 does matter, but when you see that Devers was on pace for his career best OPS in 2024 as late as September 1st, 2025, I think the "80 game" sample size has to be taken with a grain of salt. He has a .689 OPS since 9/1/25 in 51 games (225 PAs) He hit .709 in August in 24 games and 110 PAs. He was at .791 from 8/1/25 to 8/25. I just can't believe this two sample sizes, combined is what should be the most important numbers. If you want to get technical, Devers' poor sample size is just 54 games long: 8/26 to today at .657. (Not really the full 80.) Casas is a whole other story.

Yup, except the SSS April Devers numbers are not so bad.

I'm not hanging my hat on "injury." I have said over and over, I don't know if Devers will bounce back or not. Casas has less of a history to think he is better than this. I do know Devers has been a streaking hitter and was on pace for his career best season, last year before getting hurt. I believe it is rare but not totally uncommon for a long standing good hitter to just fall of a cliff and stay there before age 30. I'd bet he is better than his last 80 game sample size, but I'm not hanging my hat on it. I have no idea on Casas. His longer sample sizes are not big and are scattered between times lost by injury. 80 games might be more significant than 160 or 40, but he did okay to end 2024.

I don't know a single person who hangs their hat on any one given sample size length, including me. You keep saying "I never claimed," but you use the same number over and over and never justify it, except to say it's roughly half a season. That's not a justification. It's just another way of saying 80 games. I don't think 3 years ago matters much, either, but two might, especially if the recent sample szie might be tainted by injury or some out of character slump or red hot streak that means little in determining who the player is or will be.

Why not answer the actual question. Isn't 40 games "how they are performing," too? 90 games? 120? 160? Why 80? Is 80 based on some scientific study that show it is more meaningful?

The Sox farm went 4-1, tonight, including a completion game. Woo won 7-1 as Wong homered. Drohan finally got touched up, a bit, but got the win. I Campbell with the save. The offense got 7 hits and 9 BBs! Sogard 2-3 w 2BBs. POR won 5-3 in 10. Mullins K'd 10 in 5.2, but he walked 4 and let up 3 hits (1ER). Anderson got the win going 3.1 while allowing 1 run. Romero 2-4, Jh Garcia 1-4 w BB and Rosario 2-5. GRE lost the completion game but won the full game 5-3. Valera went 4.1, 5H, 2ER, 1BB, 4K. McShane continued to shine by going 2.2 of scoreless pitching. Y Rod 2-3 w HR and BB. Lugo also homered, and Taylor went 3-3 w BB. Salem won 5-4, but allowed 4 in the 9th. Aita looked great. He allowed just 1 hit and no BBs. (7 Ks) Anderson homered and went 2-4 w BB. Cespedes went 3-5.

This routine is getting tiresome. I'm glad Houck looked improved, but now it's two wasted decent starts.

I didn't say you said injuries didn't matter. My point is about how firmly you seem to think just the last 80 games is who a player is, "until he proves otherwise." What is that based on, and why is that number so much more telling than others?

Players go up and down all the time- hardly any stay even all the time. Explain why you think how someone has done in the just the last 81 games is more important or telling than any other time frame or combination of time frames. For example, if a player is hitting .800 over the last 4o games and 16o games, but .600 over the last 80 games, why should we see him as a .600 guy, until he proves otherwise? Plus, when a player's numbers are affected by an injury, shouldn't that temper your judgment,, some?

I like Devers up 4th. The 3 slot has dropped out of favor, so Bregman at 3rd might be wasteful. Campbell 2nd and Bregman 3rd would mess up the lefty-righty thing, but I still like the idea of Campbell 2nd. Maybe Devers 3rd vs LHPs?

Good stuff. I always appreciate your opinions on our farm players. I'm more pumped up on Jh Garcia, and I started out pretty high on him. Is the sample size too small to start second-guessing on Valera? SP was very high on Drohan, before- up to 6th mid '23, and I wonder if maybe they weren't really too high on him. He looks for real, so far.

Time to cut ties with Blaze. Cespedes may come around. Bleis need to get something prolonged going, or he will drop quickly in the rankings. Who knows, sp's keeps Castro up way too high.

He's the hardest player to project. .598 first 24 PAs .997 middle 69 PAs .217 OPS last 38 PAs The two bad stretches are almost the same amount of PAs as the nice stretch.

Broken record. Even 2-3 monts is not who someone is and will forever be. Do you actually believe that? BTW, Casas hit .800 in 2024, including over 1.000 in his last 50 PAs and .778 over his last 175 PAs. Both Devers and Casas were dealing with injury. You cut no slack.

BA is not everything, and again, what someone has done in one month is not who they are.

Yes, he should not be put out there in a game, until he's had plenty of practice and he looks okay and feels okay. That practice should start soon, if the option is to be there. The thing is, Casas ha set the bar so low, on defense, that I find it hard to think Devers can't get to equal in a pretty short time.