notin
-
Posts
53,292 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
45
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
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by notin
-
He wouldn't have added any depth, so it comes down to whether or not he's an upgrade over Hembree. And if he is one, would he have been enough of one to justify losing luxury tax wiggle room?
-
Absolutely fans love closers, especially closers who give great radar gun readings. Did Epstein go in so heavily because he wanted a closer? Or was he trying to get one of the best available players to end a 108 year drought?
-
And despite all that, he was never a top 100 prospect on any list...
-
The Chapman cost looks light, but it was in the aftermath of his domestic violence incident. The Dodgers were prepared to give up more for him before that. But many of the others were viable alternatives. Kimbrel was the biggest name. At the time (and this was bbefore signing Price), starting pitching looked like the bigger need and going in so heavily on a closer looked foolish and naive. The Sox had bigger issues in innings 1 thru 8 than in the ninth. But fans love closers, despite their inability to create wins. That's the nature of the role. When DDombrowski went in so big on Kimbrel, the big question was "will this team have enough leads to protect for one inning?"
-
Kimbrel was a Nike sneaker. No different than a dozen off-brands, but at multiple times the cost...
-
Not only is Kimbrel a no-brainer at that price, barring injury, but I'm not as quick to anoint Smith as any sort of heir apparent. He's coming off an injury and didn't have a lengthy record of success prior. Hembree is just as likely to impress next season...
-
Hey, they should have learned to field. Although, plenty of late bloomers get given up on by one team (or more) and go on to great careers. David Ortiz leaps to mind. I mean, seriously, Papi might have been the single greatest free agent ever acquired by the Red Sox. But was anyone excited at all when he was signed? I can admit I was more excited about Jeremy Giambi that off-season...
-
Per Soxprospects.com, Carson Smith has just over 2 years of service time, meaning he pitches 2017 for the league minimum, and is eligible for arbitration in 2018, 2019, and 2020. Currently the Red Sox control him for all those years....
-
Rare, but not unheard of. It is probably more common among defensively talented players, because their defense keeps them in the MLB level sometimes...
-
Bradley drastically altered his swing by removing a preceding toe tap. This extremely minor change allowed him to start the physical bat movement portion of his swing mere fractions of a second earlier, with major changes to his productivity. But when Bradley was struggling, his BABIP was roughly equal to his xBABIP. He was not the victim of bad luck. He still has occasional hot and cold steaks, but these just seem to be normal variations around his new career norms. What Bradley needed to do was listen to his hitting coaches who tried to get him to eliminate that leading toe tap two years earlier. ..
-
Actually I paid that pigeon. Best use of 3 popcorn kernels ever...
-
There's a difference between saying streaks are a function solely of randomness and that the hot hand doesn't exist. Correct me if I have this wrong - your argument is streaks are the product of a brief period of elevated talent due to mechanical changes, hard work, etc. Like an adrenalin rush. The counterargument is that streaks are the product of luck (which enhances existing skill) but their very continuance is not dependent on their existence (i.e. the coin flipping analogy). So just because a player is 0 for 20 or 10 for 20 really has no impact on that 21st at bat. Do I have this right?
-
I The bottom of every bullpen is questionable right now. Most teams don't spend money on their 5th, 6th and 7th relievers. The budget for the backend is limited for everyone, and the only pitchets who fit into it are usually a talent crapshoot. Getting a good pitcher is like winning a lottery. And how do you hedge your bets in a lottery? Sign as many tickets as possible to minor league deals...
-
If the slumps are products of randomness, and many are, they can have predictive value. I made successful predictions in the past for Nava and Buchholz in those exact situations. Conversely a player like Leon who is clearly a random product of success can also allow for a predictable equalizing slump. But yes, injuries and certain personal criteria can mess with a player and create slumps that are not due to randomness and therefore have no predictive value...
-
Well, for batting average we look at one extreme as being successful 30% of the time and the extreme worst limit as being successful 20% of the time. But those are our limits(-ish). Really we start thinking of a good hitter as maybe hitting .270 or above and a bad hitter as hitting .240 or below. So nearly every hitter will be successful between 20% of the time and 30% of the time. And we label based on whether or not they are successful 27% of the time or more, or 24% of the time or less. Thats a pretty small range...
-
Yes, although Hanley got off to an amazing start in 2015 before banging up his shoulder. Had he not done that, his 2015 might have been better than his 2016. But yes, players do have wide fluctuations in performance. But really, these wide fluctuations still encompass a very small range....
-
At this poiin the off-season, I would want the Sox to stockpile pitching depth for both the rotation and the bullpen. Pitchers like these are upgrades, but do not help in depth. While upgrades are certainly good, waiting until July when needs are easily identifiable does make some sense...
-
Absolutely true. Just like I don't feel exactly the same every day, I don't see how athletes can't wake up with a sore ankle or a headache and we expect it to NOT be a factor in hitting a 95mph fastball. It's just a headache, right? We're close to the same page with our defonitions. I have a way of measuring that luck, which may or may not be accurate. But to me, hard work and increased skill still only allows for success with certain parameters. Which is why I think Sandy Leon was very lucky last year and not likely to repeat...
-
Conversely I never said streaks were solely a function of randomness, a term on which wr do not agree on the definition. However over the large scale of a season, yes there will very likely be a random element that clusters the streak together. But I have noticed that typically for many cold streak there is an equalizing hot streak (and the reverse is also true). So if this the case, then players typically play up to (or down to) their talent level. And whether they go 12 for 25 and follow it up with 0 for 15, or they go 12 for 40 getting exactly 3 hits every 10 at-bats, is usually a function of randomness...
-
Fair question. To me it would be excessive successes beyond what the batter can control. I wouldn't consider home runs random. But far greater success on groundballs and flyballs. Basically if a hitter's BABIP greatly exceeds his xBABIP, I would consider that a product of randomness. Ok. Your turn...
-
For someone who whines when someone else "puts words in their mouth", you sure are quick and proud to do the same yourself. No one said that the work doesn't pay off or that there are no variations in talent level. But yes, sometimes players do have hit streaks that are not based on skill and skill alone, and this goes beyond the occasional bloop single.
-
So he started making hard contact less often and brought himself DOWN to a .362 BABIP on ground balls? Imagine how high hus BABIP must have been before. And while pitchers do make adjustments and the word spreads, let's be realistic. Leon fell off a cliff. Is the argument thay nearly EVERY pitcher in the AL made the same adjustments against Leon and nearly everyone was successful? That's a big coincidence to swallow. Real big. Or... Maybe Leon was just lucky alot for a long time. He hit grounders where fielders weren't, and when he hit them at fielders, the infielders were inadequate. It wasn't all bloop hits and grounders with eyes for Leon. But he most definitely was lucky. And had a career year based on some ramdomness. ..
-
So are you saying Leon smoked a lot of grounders past infielders and then suddenly forgot how? He was 50% above league average in this regard. Fifty percent higher, which is an insanea mount higher given the abysmally tight range that is MLB batting averages. Doesn't strike you as "lucky"?
-
But what about luck that isn't obvious? Like Sandy Leon last year? Was he using applied skill? He helped himself with an absurdly high BABIP on ground balls for a guy with no speed. Luck or applied skill?
-
No one is putting words in your mouth, especially with questions. But I do want your definition of randomness as it applies to baseball. I'm willing to bet a few people are arguing over the same points and only differing on terminology....
