Hugh2

Well Hernandez is performing at the highest level. I've seen no one rank Basabe ahead of Devers. Not that the kid doesn't have potential but I don't think he's done anything yet to place himself above him. He's struggling at a level Devers mastered at more than 1 whole year younger than him. I mean Basabe is on everyone's top Ten, But Devers is on some peoples top 10 in the whole game. Here's how I would rank them. Moncada Benintendi Espinoza Devers Kopech Travis Basabe (Alexander) Ockimey Chavis Lakins I think you can make a case for Dubon and Hernandez in there. The top 4 in my mind is interchangable. Ockimey isn't in anyone's top ten, but I'd be willing to bet when mid seasons top 10's come out soon he will be.

Guys like Gausman are why DD (the other DD) traded Erod. Show em what they are missing Eduardo!!!

Yup and I was one of them. I'll eat crow....but I'll wait a little longer. Let's see if he can hold up in a rotation for a full season

Yes but that's not what I was referring too. I saw what you did there though, touché.....touch....

That last pitch was a strike on a swihart. Why is Hanigan Wrights catcher?

I agree and think this is a good point. I made a similar point on the Patriots thread in defense of the MIT physics department who validated the Patriots story in deflategate. This is a job to these people, while I'm sure it exists, biased calls probably happen much much less often in sports than us fans like to admit.

Basabe over Devers? I haven't seen that yet. Why no love for Devers???

Clearly out next manager is in here. Tough loss, I blame the umpires.

This is the type of game you rely on your closer for more than one inning

That's just the thing, some people have zero tolerance for new statistics and argue using classical statistics. It's a resistance to change and a new way of looking things. my biggest pet peave isn't the fact that people don't like them but that they dismiss them almost immediately. It's a very unscientific and stubborn way to approach life. Even if you end up being tight that a stat is useless.

Opinions of Joe Kelly could really sway very far in either direction depending on his start. If he pitches well tonight coupled with his last start then it will be hard to ignore how he ended last season and not hope that he could emerge as solid starter in this rotation this year. However.....if he lays an egg then we better hope the offense doesn't take a day off. On side note......is it sad that I'm semi disappointed that I have to hang out with friends tonight instead of staying home and watching baseball?

Sox seem to trade away a power arm hitting triple digits but not much else going on for them almost every year. Although they are usually further away with more uncertainty than light. They almost never amount to anything....but then again Frankie Montas looks like he could play in the big leagues.

Well there is Teddy Stankiewicz but I'm not sure how well his stuff will play up in the majors right now. He's not exactly blowing guys away but he has good results, the low K rate is a little concerning. Still, I don't think he's a guy to rely on this year. I was hoping Roenis Elias would be a good depth option for us this year and he still may but the pitching staff is vulnerable if it sustains more injuries.

I guess we can agree to disagree? My point is, you can't really say a stat is useless unless you've actually used it, compiled some data to support the conclusion that the stat is useless. It's like, you can't say the theory of gravity is meaningless without going through the motions of understanding the theory and actually being able to disprove it. Now generally speaking I agree that you don't need a stat to say a guy is hitting a ball hard so if that is all you're saying I can agree with that....but I don't think that should be analogous with a stat is not useful. To be completely honest, I'm not sure how useful exit velocity is, I see a capacity for it to be useful but just how useful it is will probably be more clear in a few years after it's been measured for a longer period of time. Wait...did we just become best friends???? P.S. I hope you've seen step brothers.....otherwise that probably sounds kinda creepy.

That's fair enough, but couldn't you say that about a lot of other things too? "I don't need a stat to tell me a guy is hitting for avg" "I don't need a stat to tell me a guy is driving in runs" "I don't need a stat to tell me a guy is hitting for power" I like, and enjoy your posts southpaw and generally always agree with you but that kind of seems like a cop out for not liking a new stat. There seems to be some people who dislike stats but ironically will quote AVG/OBP/SLG/ERA all the time. Those are stats too, no? all a stat is, is a measurement of something and I say the usefulness is definitely up for debate and I'll agree with you and others there but all too often it seems that those who are quick to dismiss a new stat are also those who don't take the time to either understand it or allow enough time to go by to compile data to determine a stats usefulness.

Next stat will be "effective exit velocity" which makes adjustments for the incoming velocity. That's what we see in 2018.

I don't think it's completely meaningless, it's a stat that tells you something so therefore it can be useful to a degree. That ideal is not analogous with a stat being an appropriate way of measuring a player. Like any stat, it usually is more useful with combination of more stats. I agree that it's not really that important, you can have the ability to hit a HR with more exit velocity than Giancarlo Stanton but if you are averaging .200 and K'ing 35% of the time who cares? I think a more effective use of exit velocity would be to look at a players avg exit velocity on all balls hit in play. We all know a HR is going to be leaving the bat at a higher velocity but if a player is constantly hitting a ball with a harder exit velocity then it's because he is squaring up the ball more than other players. That's what it is telling you, just like HR's tells you how many time a guy hits a ball over a fence and BB% tells you how many times per 100 PA's a guy takes a walk. It's a stat, it tells us something. It might not be as useful as other stats but I don't think it is completely meaningless either. Like I said before, it is "the new shiny toy" people are making it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

It's not useless, like any stat it tells you something....and like every other stat alone it is flawed. Exit velocity can be a function of two different things A.) a guys natural ability to hit the ball hard and B.) how well he is squaring up the ball.

Exit velocity is the new shiny toy

It's only one start, but if Kelly can pitch like he did last week then with him and Porcello in mid season form with Price picking it up. All of a sudden this rotation looks pretty good if Erod can come back and pitch like a #3. Still, I'd like to see better depth.

I always took Buchholz for who he was. He was a TOTR starter when healthy but couldn't pitch a full season. He came close a few times but you could write him down for 15-28 starts with a D.L. stint somewhere. The thing is, over the last couple years he hasn't even pitched like a TOTR starter when he has been healthy consistently and the time between his "good" stretches and him pitching bad have grown larger and larger. Yes he still could turn it around I guess, but when you couple my last point with his age and dip in velocity it looks like he very well might be done. At the very least if the Sox aren't done with them you have to think they are close.

I've been a big Clay supporter for a while (well...a mild Clay supporter) but I'm done with him. I hope he gets it together, I'm not going to hate him just because he has durability issues or because his velocity is down but he is hurting this team. Hurry up EROD!!!!

I've been a big Clay supporter for a while (well...a mild Clay supporter) but I'm done with him. I hope he gets it together, I'm not going to hate him just because he has durability issues or because his velocity is down but he is hurting this team. Hurry up EROD!!!!

Seanny boy nice to see you over here. Oddly enough I was contemplating starting a draft thread today. I'm trying to look at this trade from LA's point of view. All things considered Urias and Moncada have very similar ceilings. They are both potential franchise players but on the other side of the diamond. However I've always held the view that all things equal teams tend to value their own guys more, still if LA desired hitting enough and the Sox desired pitching enough you could see this type of trade happening. A similar trade once happened between the Yankees and Mariners when NY sent over Montero for Pineada. However I also tend to go by the rule of "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" Now Urias isn't proven yet, but he is two levels above Moncada dominating AAA ball right now so that does increase his value compared to Moncada. I would suspect that you'd have to give up a little bit more to get Urias. But Moncada could definitely headline that package in a universe where LA is interested in that type of deal; in this universe I have no ideal if they are.

I've read those comparisons too, and I've seen much contradictory comparisons as well. The problem is we are not truly comparing apples to apples here. A ball is usually a players first real taste of pro ball. Yes there are rookie levels and short season ball but must first round high school draftees spend their first (full) season in Low A and must college first rounders will go to high A their first full year. It's somewhat of a lateral move but at the same time half the guys or more they played with or against in college won't be there with them in high A. Thats why I think comparing high A to college ball makes more sense when we are talking about the best teams like Texas A&M, Florida, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt. But even most D-1 schools are as good as those colleges. Also we are talking about going from a few dozen games to over a 100 games in one season and switching from metal bats to wood bats in many cases too. I've heard that high A is comparable to college too, but I think it's a little trickier than that. I think the average high A team would destroy most D-1 schools, maybe not destroy but they should beat them...but I think most good D-1 schools should beat your average low A team if that makes sense.