User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4256 seconds
43 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Joel W Posted: January 05, 2010 at 07:46 PM (#3428454)Happy to clear that up.
EDIT: I don't think it's reasonable to project anyone to +20. Defensive projections need to have massive regression factors. +12ish for Cameron is as high as I'd go.
I think the Red Sox are a far harder team to predict, however. The error bars around their good defensive players are large, and they have a number of hard to predict guys in key roles (Ortiz, Ellsbury, Dice-K, Beltre, Scutaro).
Last year, there were some BBTF folks suggesting that Lowrie/Green would equal or exceed Jeter's production. I suspect Scutaro might close the gap a bit, but SS is still a big advantage for the Yanks.
There's also a knock-on effect when you have a really good defense at every position. Your top starters can stay in the game a little longer once in a while. You get fewer innings from the back end of the bullpen, and especially fewer crucial innings from them. Looking further ahead, people will also think they're better than they are if you go to trade them. I doubt this is worth even a whole win on average, but it's another reason to think defense first, and probably another reason why Coors Field pre-humidor was such a bad idea.
The defensive projection on Scutaro is too high, a function I think of a flukey 2008 UZR, and Jeter's recent improvements are probably more real than the projection thinks. Anyway, as I said, there are a lot of individual numbers in CHONE's position player projections with which one can reasonably quibble, but I think the picture those numbers give is broadly accurate, without any systemic biases.
The team to beat are the Rays.
Any team that is second best in the AL West or AL Central won't be as good as the best of the AL East.
And the overwhelming favorite for the Wild Card, I'd guess. Anyway, 2-3 wins difference seems right to me as well, though I'm very curious to see the projections as they trickle out.
Scutaro will probably never be better than Jeter--even in Jeter's worst year--but Captain Fistpump is way on the wrong side of 30. He had a little (for him) slump from '01 to '04, and has really turned it on from '05 to '09. He can't keep that up forever (at least, without a little chemical help). He's been really irritatingly consistent in the last 3 years, and I like to think that means he's due for a little regression. Of course, he could always be due for more irritating consistency. My money is always on that ############ doing better than you think or want him to. A 10% improvement over his 2010 CHONE projection (which gives him another 2009-like year) is probably easily within reach, if he stays healthy.
The only sign that he might be fading is the evaporating doubles power. It makes the rise in homers in 2009 look less promising than it otherwise might. That is, the rise in homers might be masking the early signs of decline.
It's pretty interesting, actually. The previous championship teams assembled under Theo's administration tended to be a lot more top-heavy through the regular season, with a couple key acquisitions down the stretch to help convert the team into a playoff heavyweight - but the rosters were always built with the playoffs in mind. This season's roster seems to be the opposite: built for depth and consistency, and with fewer superstars (but zero scrubs) on both sides of the ball. This team seems to be built more to make a run at 100 wins than to make a run deep into the playoffs. How much good is the best 4-5-6 starters in baseball, the best defense in the AL, and a well-rested back end of the bullpen going to do you in a 5-game series?
It's a question that matters to me, and to most other Sox fans. It doesn't matter that much to the front office, or to you and ekogan. Which is fine, but this isn't a situation where particularly objective truth about what is "relevant" exists.
It matters to me. I'm really tired of the team being comfortable with the wild card. 2007 was more enjoyable to me, because they won something before they won something. I liked that.
I think this team is better suited for the playoffs than you give them credit for. The rotational depth should allow the key components of the bullpen (Papelbon, Okajima and probably Bard) to be fresh in October, defense is crucial in October (can't give good teams extra outs) and Lester/Beckett/Lackey matches up with any team in baseball. I think there is some concern about the offense though I think the lack of a real black hole makes this an offense that could be tough in a short series.
2004 is a mix - that was a great team, both full of front-line stars and without any notable weaknesses. The 2003 club had Pedro at the front of the rotation, but a collection of place-holders behind him and in the bullpen. The 2005 and 2006 rotations are about as far from playoff-oriented pitching staffs as you can get.
I don't see any clubs, looking back, where Theo willingly took a major hit at any position on the field in order to make sure he had stars elsewhere. There have been some bad bets, but for the most part no Red Sox club under Theo has come into the season with a stars-and-scrubs lineup.
And perpetual motion machines can keep running forever-not. Sooner of later Dat Ol' Devil Age will catch up to the Yankees' stars, and that's on top of the more general Law of Competitive Balance.
While the Sox (apparently) will avoid the Black Holes of Suck which plagued C, SS, and 3B (defensively on the latter at least), I'm not really excited about acquiring 3 journeymen on the wrong side of 30. The Sox got more mileage than they reasonably expected out of the likes of O'Leary & Daubach 10 years ago, but they were a bit fortunate to do so. Sometime in the next 15 months they'll have to go get that big star like they did with Manny.
That's right, MCoA. If you're not going to blindly accept the sabermetric faith, then you can't rightfully call yourself one of the elect. Repent now!
In other words, willcarrolsux sux!
And willcarroll's got me pegged. I was desperately trying to find numbers to show that the Red Sox are two to three wins worse than the Yankees, and when I couldn't find them, I made them up without any critical engagement with reasons or explanations. That's how badly it matters to me that my favorite team project to be two to three wins worse than the team I hate. Two and three are just such beautiful, round numbers, I guess. And being worse than the Yankees is good because I hate happiness and joy. It's just so obvious, on reflection.
Nice.
In all events, I think that is approximately right, MCoA. I also think that the RS, as of now, have great depth and therefore less downside risk in some respects. They also have, as was pointed out, large error bands around their defensive advantage and, therefore, a bit larger of an error band in that respect. But, the Yankees had four starters with over 30 starts in 2009. Granted they had two significant injured position players (three if you include Nady), but those were part of the pre-season and at least were factored into most projections for '09. There were few major injuries in-season (other then where they had depth: corner IF). If they have that type of health again, they could run away with the division. If they see more normal injury patterns in-season, it could be more interesting.
I'm with Ekogan, you win your 95 or so games, qualify for the playoffs and then try to beat NY in the playoffs. Winning the series is all I care about.
There's also a knock-on effect when you have a really good defense at every position. Your top starters can stay in the game a little longer once in a while. You get fewer innings from the back end of the bullpen, and especially fewer crucial innings from them.
This makes a heaps of sense and it'll be interesting to see who finishes better this season. Surely(one hopes) that Jeter, Damon, Posada and even A-rod to some extent will eventually show their age and suffer some decline eventually...surely...
I wouldn't count Nady. When the guy who replaces an injured player is superior to begin with, that's called "good luck".
Ellsbury to LF, Cameron to CF
More than anything, though, I'm excited Lowell might still be on the club next year. He's a really great guy and I love having him on the Red Sox.That's unexpected. I figured they'd want Ellsbury playing CF to get used to the field. But I got no problem with it - the club should be in good shape either way. As Walt put it over in the Ellsbury/Cameron thread, the hot new saber heresy is that it doesn't matter which field your outfielders play, and I'm basically down with that. (The number of balls hit to center is higher, but not by a large enough amount to make a significant difference.)
I'm shocked by this to be honest. I really thought they'd leave Ellsbury in center and I felt it made some sense from a developmental standpoint.
Alex Speier
Curt Schilling
Then again, so is Hugh's post, complimenting me for ???
I'm not really sure where Hall fits in on this team. I think I'd rather have Hullett as the backup infielder. I guess Hall has the versatility to play all 3 infield spots plus some outfield if needed, but his bat has been beyond awful the last few seasons.
Unless Hall has another option left, I assume someone will take a shot at him if the Sox try to move Hall into the minors in spring. (I'm pretty sure Hall's out of options. He started the first six years of his pro career in the minors.)
I was going to go with Glanville, but decided Schilling was more appropriate for the venue.
It's R150, which is linear weights runs per 150 games. That's runs above average, with playing time neutralized. It would take work, then, to account for projections of playing time. Damn.
Eh, not so much. They have nice gentle curves, sure, but they aren't really round per se.
I have a quibble with the projection of Beltre as--am I reading this correctly?--a replacement level hitter
I think that's positionally adjusted. Cameron isn't a sub-replacement level hitter either, is he?
Of course, that is dependent on Lowell's being able to play the field competently. It was only last night that Ian Browne was reporting "Dealing Lowell not a matter of if, but when." And now it's trading Kotchman to the Mariners instead. Interesting.
It should be noted that the offense and defense runs are compared to positional averages, while the pitching runs are compared to replacement. (And, of course, the pitching runs already account for playing time, while the offense and defense runs are per 150 games.)
And as a Yankee fan, I love it like that. Some of the most fun I've had (up and down) following the Yankees was in 2003-2004, when it seemed like the two teams were as close as they could possibly be, and every game was insanely competitive.
You don't say? A power hitter who can play everywhere but catcher? ;-)
If somebody has Harveys Wallbangers' email, why not invite him over to this thread, so he might give us all the
low-down on what ever happened to the Bill Hall who hit 35 bombs. I seem to recall he (Harveys) had a Brewer fan's insider
"take" in another thread, in which Hall's el-plunge-oh cliff drop was the topic. Maybe not.
I'd do it, but I don't have the address...
His option status doesn't matter. He has more than 5 years of service time so the Sox would need his permission to go to the minors. I imagine he'd just assume become a FA in that case. The Sox are on the "hook" to Hall at about 1.5M to be on the major league roster.
Ah, okay. Thanks. That makes a heck of a lot more sense now.
Even so, I still think a healthy Beltre puts up an above-average offensive year in Fenway. And having watched him play fairly regularly when I lived in Seattle for three years, I think a lot of Sox fans are going to be stunned by how good he is in the field. Mike Lowell, pre-injury, was a fine defender in his own right, but Beltre makes him look positively statuesque by comparison.
I doubt going from a ~120 OPS+ to a 80 OPS+ is just being uncomfortable at new positions. Since his last good year in 2006, Hall has put up a 78 OPS+ in 1316 PAs. You have to assume his talent level is now far closer to that than the 2005-6 performance. Something has changed, even though I have no idea what.
I guess I don't really love the move. Does Jed Lowrie have anything more to learn in AAA? I guess maybe he could put up big numbers and increase his trade value, but I doubt he's going to have much value after a lost season and a half, as a 26-year-old in the minors.
And Bill Hall is the one who, I'd think, needs time in the minors to get himself untracked - he's got big upside, obviously, but is Hall particularly likely to fix himself playing once a week? He's the backup infielder, but Pedroia and Beltre play most every day, and I have to think Hall's a pretty marginal shortstop by this point in his career.
Projections - Hall 215/280/365, Lowrie 248/318/372
With Hall moving from SafeCo to Fenway, he should pick up some. Probably enough that the difference between his and Lowrie's projections becomes pretty marginal over 200 PA.
I guess the Sox are probably better off with Hall getting a (slight) chance at putting things back together, but acquiring upside hitters and slotting them into deep backup jobs doesn't seem like a particularly productive thing to do. didn't work with Petagine or Wily Mo, for instance. Now they've got two of them - Hall and Hermida.
Well, it might have, they just wouldn't give him Millar's playing time.
shrink, and batting guru.
If he can turn it around, I've found a new favorite Sock to go along with Victor.
It would be fascinating to deconstruct the grammatical, emotional and perhaps sexual origins of this post.
<hijack>
It should be "on track," right? I mean, MCoA seems like the kinda guy who watches what he says, otherwise I'd just chalk it up to the whole "that's what it sounded like to me and I never thought it through" phenomenon, but now I'm not so sure.
</hijack>
None of us are above the occasional inexplicable typo. Case in point, the post referred to in #62 and #66. Which I can't seem to find in the archives, and that sucks because I remember that exchange being real ###### funny.
The google results for "Roberto Petagine is pretty so hard that it hurts to watch" are not as extensive as one might hope. It seems I'm the only one who's ever written that.
Very funny b/c it is the exact opposite of what they mean. Following the train analogy being used, getting "untracked" is very, very bad.
I don't know if he is on track to be ready for opening day
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main