moonslav59

I agree. I think the chance Cora gets promoted are higher than the chances he gets fired or put into a situation where he quits. I think other teams would jump at the opportunity to hire him as a manger or even a GM or assistant GM role. That being said, this team is really stuck in a rut. They lack many basic fundamentals, which is sometimes wrongly attributed to the manager and not years of unlearned skills, is part of this team's issues. Sometimes, a change in leadership gives a team the spark it needs to reach it's full potential, and it really has little to do with how good or bad the current manager is. Players get complacent, for whatever reason, and maybe a manger is partially of almost fully to blame, but it's hard to know for sure.

I have never been one to put much value in a SP'ers win total, and this was long before fangraphs. team wins are very important, but when I try to determine who is a really good pitcher, I have never thought assigned wins and losses are a major value. Sure, I moved away from ERA to ERA-, ERA+, SIERA, FIP, xFIP and xFIP- more and more. I moved away from WHIP towards OPS Against, K%-BB% and other "newer" stats and metrics, but my views on W's and L's have not changed much, at all. Wins matter a lot for a team, and I agree that some pitchers just seem to do what it takes to keep their team in more games than others, even if they have the same ERA as those "others." I don't totally discount W-L and win%, but to me wins and losses have so much to do with batting (run support) defense (fielding support) and other things like baserunning, managerial decisions and other things like park factors, strength of opponents and just plain luck (like catching a mediocre pitcher having a great night or a really bad night and timing.) I don't disagree that more and more people have turned away from looking almost exclusively at Wins, losses and ERA with maybe a little at WHIP and towards modern metrics to help them determine who are the ":better" pitchers, but I think fans have always looked beyond just traditional stats to try and adjust their idea of who is better. Often it was based more on eye test and just knowing this pitcher had better run support or defense that that other guy. Now, there is data to help us see the differences in a more objective and fact-based light- knowing full well that no metric is perfect.

That makes sense. I'm not sure the RP'ing starts and stops have changed all that much in the past decade or two, and the extra roster slot, who is always a 13th pitcher, has helped mitigate the expanded IP'd by relievers, so I'm not sure this has affected them all that much. Sp'er treatment has changed radically: I agree. It seems counterintuitive to say not allowing pitchers to go longer into games is causing more injuries, but who knows? There is no denying more major injuries are happening to mostly SP'ers. The common reasons given seem to be based on these two issues: The asking them to apply a higher spin rate or add more velocity, because we will pitch you less, and assuming it evens out. The pitch clock that hurries their pitches one right after another. I'm not disagreeing with your point about babying pitchers might be part of the issue, but I do think that asking for more spin and or more velocity is the opposite of babying.

Nobody has ever argued fangraphs or any advanced metrics change a W-L record.

Yes, I'm assuming, but I'm basing my assumptions on facts and data and making an educated guess. You just dismiss my position summarily without any counter evidence or even anecdotal or eye test reasonings given. You won't even answer the simplest of questions, like do you really think having people with lower OBPs ahead of you will give you the same or more RBI opportunities than when having players with higher OBps ahead of you? I would like to guess I know you know the answer but just don't want to admit it, but then I look back at all your silliness and have to wonder that you don't accept facts, data and reality.

You have argued that wins is a major component of evaluating a pitcher, right? If I am wrong, I apologize ahead of time.

The first thing you look at is not "major?" More silliness. BTW, "major" does not mean even majority. It just means important. I know you struggle with the true meanings of words, so maybe this will help.

Let's hope there is no Beuhler's day off.

..and they act like it's us that don't get the difference.

You and others have stressed that wins is a major stat in evaluating how good a SP'er is. It is you, not a strawman. I have never claimed you and others think it is the only stat. You further prove you don't understand the concept of "strawman," once again.

Nick, I posted this on another thread, and maybe it's what you wanted from me on the rotation. I will add that I strongly advocated for signing Fried as that "second ace" I've ranted about for years and years (Pedro-Schilling, Beckett-Schilling, Lester-Lackey, Sale-Price.) I was fine with Buehler, and he certainly looked better than Kluber, Richards, Perez and even Wacha, but I'd have preferred better. I see a lot of promise in our rotation, especially when healthy or mostly healthy. I think it's better than our ERA ranking indicates, and some metrics show this to be true. Crochet is a top 5 or 6 starter in just about every meaningful stat and metric (not winning%, so some must think he's a loser.) Houck is the big issue. He went from our ace to a huge question mark, and is currently on the IL until the end of June or July. Without something from him, going forward, it puts a lot of strain on the others to pitch like a starter a slot ahead of them. Buehler is the guy I think we can hope becomes the solid #2, again, if he can stay healthy. He has looked pretty good, so far, and I don't think it's a stretch to think he will improve. Bello has always been sort of up and down on how we view his future. He certainly has the ability to be a solid #3 or really good #4, and maybe has #2 potential, but he's been kinda lucky, this year and still has not done all that great. Crawford may not be back until August, and even if he does return, what will he pitch like. He is a good starter, but I'm counting on nothing from him in 2025. Sandoval is the in the same boat as Crawford. He's probably our 3rd or 4th best pitcher, when totally healthy, but he is not healthy. Giolito was a damn good pitcher, quite a few years ago. He's showed flashes of that, here and there, but gives no indication he can do it for a 4 month stretch, which is what we need. Dobbins and Fitts give us good promise, but it is hard to really know how good they are and can be. Batters will adjust to their pitches, and they may need to do just that to continue to look as good as they have been in their small sample sizes of 2025. Criswell, Wink and Penrod are on the 40 and could start. I don't want to mention Whitlock, because I hope his starting days are over. Wink and Penrod seem better in the pen. Criswell has recently shown he's better as a starter. Maybe he could give us a spark. All-in-all, I see 8-10 starters that all offer some level of hope and have already shown they can be good pitchers for certain periods of times. In today's game, where pitchers get TJS on a weekly basis, this is a big plus and could give us an edge over other teams, when their starters start dropping like flies. I've always valued Quality over quantity, but quantity is important, and many of those 8-10 starts have shown they can be quality pitchers. a happen now When exactly do you mean?

Do you mean that maybe with the pitching clock, there is less time between innings, and not enough refresh time for a pitcher's arm between innings? The time between starts has remained unchanged since the 4 man rotation went out of style. IP's and Pitch counts have gone down.

So, this put you in the camp of thinking Crochet is a mediocre starter. Talk about nonsense. You continue to crack me up. literally, I'm laughing out loud, and my wife is asking me about what.

I've already agreed, it's impossible to know for sure, and even if we plugged in the actual 2025 OBPs of who would have batter in front of Devers, and who would have taken Devers' 2 slot (or who bats 3rd if Bregman bats 2nd) butI think it is 100% safe to say, they'd have gotten on base more than Rafaela's 192 PAs (8th and 9th slot) Narvaez (120) and a mix of DHam, Wong and others (100 or so.) Do you actually doubt this notion, in general? There is no certainty on projected numbers for either side of the argument, but you are the only one claiming that if I cannot prove my position, I must be wrong. It's just plain silly, to me, to think Devers has had more rbi opportunities with Duran, Rafaela, Narvaez and DHam ahead of him that he would have gotten with Bregman, Abreu/Ref and Duran ahead of him. Why don't you give just one reason why you think this would not be true?

We do accept the facts. We don't accept that Crochet is mediocre.

This is the kind of "eye test" evidence red usually thrives on.

Show me it's not. I already went over the OBP numbers that have been ahead of Devers. It's absurd to think they'd be lower had he batted 4th, despite the fact that his 400+ OBP would, of course, not be batting ahead of him, Simply put, Bregman and whoever we batted 3rd would have been ahead of him, instead our our 8-9 hitters. It's not rocket science. You do the math. I'm not going through every game log to work it out. It is you who doubts my claim, so it's on you to prove I'm wrong. Studies show the 4 slot gets the most rbi chances. Common sense, not nonsense shows that THIS YEAR, YES, THESE SOX, who bat ahead of Devers have had pretty poor OBPs, so far, When you look at how often Devers has walked, it's amazing he has so many rbis, but that does not prove he could not have had more, especially with more chances. Again, these are the facts- the 4 slots up before the 2 vs 4 slots- THIS YEAR: OBP by slot: .328 7th .298 8th .288 9th .331 1st These are the OBPs of batters who likely would have batted 2nd and third, since was can leave the 8-9-1 batters the same. .288 9th .331 1st .385 Bregman (2nd) .371 Refsnyder v L and .336 Abreu vs R (3rd) Of course, who is up after these guys matters, and we can't assume all these numbers would be the same, had they batter in different slots, but the differential is so great that it's absurd to think Devers would not have more rbi opportunities batting 4th vs 2nd. It's downright silly. Forget the stats, as you love to do: go by your famous eye test: This year's line-ups: 8th: Narvaez (83 PAs) DHam (53) Wong (39) Rafaela (17) 9th: Rafaela (175) Narvaez (37) 1st: Duran (273) vs 1st: Duran (273) 2nd: Bregman 3rd: Abreu & Refsnyder Tell me your eye test prefers the first group. I dare you

1. We have played more games than every other team in MLB, including 4 more than 2 teams, 3 more than 7 teams and 2 more than 13 teams. That alone, may jump us in front of several teams in the league, if we were an average scoring team. 2. We play in a hitter's park, which inflates our runs scored and makes our runs allowed seem higher than it would be, elsewhere. (Our ERA- is always better than our ERA.) 3. When you look at ERA, many of our earned runs allowed were a result of poor defense that was not counted as an error. Our ERA is 4.12 (21st,) but out SIERA is 3.96 (15th- exactly in the middle.) Our ERA- is 98, when the average is set at 100. Our xFIP is 3.79 and ranked 8th. I'm not downplaying the fact that our rotation has let us down. They have taxed the pen and been wildly inconsistent, but our offense, defense and baserunning have let us down, too.

Yet, they basically brought the same team back in 2021, continued to dismantle the team after that, and you expected our manager to do better than he did. Got it.

You act like leading the league means he could not have had more. You're right: that's not funny. It's silly.

Although our pen is 4th in IP, we have played more games than almost everyone else and have more days off, going forward. We are also just 15 IP ahead of the average pen use. We have already used 16 pitchers in relief, not counting Toro, and could still see Penrod, I Campbell or a converted SP in the pen, before too long. We have yo-yo'd several pitchers to maximize IP use without overusing any particular pitchers. What pen arm has been overused? Chapman is on pace for about 65 games, which is high (maybe 55-60 IP.) Whitlock is on pace for about 75-80 IP, which seems high, but he was a SP'er for a long time. Weissert is on pace for 65-70 games and as many IP, like Whitlock. Slaten missed some time. Bernardino and Wilson might get 60-65 appearances. Kelly, Guerrero, Hendriks and Criswell have pitched some, but none have wow'd anyone. Maybe we'll see Fitts, Dobbins, Gio, Crawford or Sandoval in the pen, at some point- maybe even Houck.

Said it better than I. Again, moving Devers to 4 when we had Bregman might have made more sense, but the move would not make a significant impact. Almost all the studies show it does not matter all that much, but yes, it is very likely it never happens, especially with Bregman on the IL. Cora is clearly a "nerdy geek" who has bought into the modern line-up philosophy where your best hitter bats 2nd. It's funny watching the traditionalist defending him batting 2nd, when the old school would bat him 3rd (not even 4th.) LOL.

I see a lot of promise in our rotation, especially when healthy or mostly healthy. I think it's better than our ERA ranking indicates, and some metrics show this to be true. Crochet is a top 5 or 6 starter in just about every meaningful stat and metric (not winning%, so some must think he's a loser.) Houck is the big issue. He went from our ace to a huge question mark, and is currently on the IL until the end of June or July. Without something from him, going forward, it puts a lot of strain on the others to pitch like a starter a slot ahead of them. Buehler is the guy I think we can hope becomes the solid #2, again, if he can stay healthy. He has looked pretty good, so far, and I don't think it's a stretch to think he will improve. Bello has always been sort of up and down on how we view his future. He certainly has the ability to be a solid #3 or really good #4, and maybe has #2 potential, but he's been kinda lucky, this year and still has not done all that great. Crawford may not be back until August, and even if he does return, what will he pitch like. He is a good starter, but I'm counting on nothing from him in 2025. Sandoval is the in the same boat as Crawford. He's probably our 3rd or 4th best pitcher, when totally healthy, but he is not healthy. Giolito was a damn good pitcher, quite a few years ago. He's showed flashes of that, here and there, but gives no indication he can do it for a 4 month stretch, which is what we need. Dobbins and Fitts give us good promise, but it is hard to really know how good they are and can be. Batters will adjust to their pitches, and they may need to do just that to continue to look as good as they have been in their small sample sizes of 2025. Criswell, Wink and Penrod are on the 40 and could start. I don't want to mention Whitlock, because I hope his starting days are over. Wink and Penrod seem better in the pen. Criswell has recently shown he's better as a starter. Maybe he could give us a spark. All-in-all, I see 8-10 starters that all offer some level of hope and have already shown they can be good pitchers for certain periods of times. In today's game, where pitchers get TJS on a weekly basis, this is a big plus and could give us an edge over other teams, when their starters start dropping like flies. I've always valued Quality over quantity, but quantity is important, and many of those 8-10 starts have shown they can be quality pitchers.

Talk about nonsense, and BTW imitation is the highest form of flattery.

Jo Garcia is off to a nice start w the FCL Sox (over 1.000.)