• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

OFFICIAL 2018 MLB PLAYOFFS Thread (Cubs free)

Ayo said:
No, it doesn't. If you expect an entire team of 25 players to be homegrown, then, well, lol.

The midseason Pearce and Eovaldi trades were brilliant moves by Dombrowski. Arguably 2 of the 3 most important players in the WS flipped for some random prospects and cash.
Click to expand...

I don't expect them to be all homegrown. My first comment was in response to Dixieboy's "Sox are basically all gone grown." (understood to mean homegrown) comment. If you don't understand that, then, well, LOL.
 
SC DEAC said:
C Vasquez / swihart
2b Holt
Ss bogaerts
3b devers
Of benetendi
Of Bradley
Of betts

77.8 percent of the Red Sox typical starting lineup was homegrown. Name another World Series champ with more. This is the lamest, most butthurt argument I’ve heard lately
Click to expand...

Gee, is there a reason you left out the most important part of a baseball team (pitching)? Maybe because the starters and closer are a combined 83% not homegrown, including their top four starters (the one homegrown starter started one of their 14 postseason games). BTW, you list two catchers as homegrown, but leave off Leon, who played in more games than either of the guys you listed. Similarly, you might want to include Nunoz, who played in more regular season games than Holt (they both played in 8 postseason games).

The Red Sox have a terrific team and should be a force for years to come, paticularly if Dombrowski keeps making great trades/signings.
 
I liked when Cora, holding the trophy, turned to the owners and said something like "can I take this to my island..."
 
Some awesome team responses on twitter.

 
Even as a Yankees fan I can appreciate the Sox playing New York, New York after winning the WS
 
WFU71 said:
Gee, is there a reason you left out the most important part of a baseball team (pitching)? Maybe because the starters and closer are a combined 83% not homegrown, including their top four starters (the one homegrown starter started one of their 14 postseason games). BTW, you list two catchers as homegrown, but leave off Leon, who played in more games than either of the guys you listed. Similarly, you might want to include Nunoz, who played in more regular season games than Holt (they both played in 8 postseason games).

The Red Sox have a terrific team and should be a force for years to come, paticularly if Dombrowski keeps making great trades/signings.
Click to expand...

you are correct about the pitching- most of it was not homegrown, although Price is the only big dollar free agent on the pitching staff. All the others were acquired through trades (and trades occur when you have assets, often minor league homegrown assets, that other teams want.)

As for the catcher position, Vazquez was hurt a chunk of the season which is why Leon played as much as he did. In the postseason, Vazquez had 37 at bats vs. Leon's 13 so I think it is safe to say that Vazquez is the primary catcher for the Red Sox although they certainly do play two and sometimes three catchers frequently. Btw, Leon played parts of 3 seasons with the nationals and a grand total of 95 at bats, the Red Sox picked him up and he has 902 at bats over the past 4 years. So Leon is not homegrown but 90% of of his significant playing time in the majors has come with the red sox. As for Nunez, a big chunk of his playing time this year was when Devers was hurt or at second base when Pedroia missed practically the entire year. (Btw, Pedroia is homegrown and has been the 2b for a decade in boston).

so yeah, I see what you are saying but in the modern era this Red Sox team is as homegrown as it gets for a champion. If anyone knows the answer of a WS champ with more homegrown starters then please let me know- I'm sure there is one but a quick google search didn't tell me.
 
How come the "analytics" of the Red Sox don't consider striking out just another out? They were 26th in Ks this year. You can work counts without striking out.

The Red Sox "analytics" also say stealing bases is good. They were #3 in that and only 11 from leading the majors.
 
RJKarl said:
How come the "analytics" of the Red Sox don't consider striking out just another out? They were 26th in Ks this year. You can work counts without striking out.

The Red Sox "analytics" also say stealing bases is good. They were #3 in that and only 11 from leading the majors.
Click to expand...

Who are you arguing with?
 
MHBDemon said:
I usually like to throw out an entire player's career, in favor of...oh i don't know...say 40ish at bats.
Click to expand...

You just have to start something. If you don't think 30 or 40 ABs against a specific pitcher doesn't give a better indication than what he does in general, then there's no sense in discussing it. Players, managers, GMs, anyone who knows anything about sports knows certain players do better or worse against certain other players than they do against others. To say it's irrelevant is silly.
 
RJKarl said:
You just have to start something. If you don't think 30 or 40 ABs against a specific pitcher doesn't give a better indication than what he does in general, then there's no sense in discussing it. Players, managers, GMs, anyone who knows anything about sports knows certain players do better or worse against certain other players than they do against others. To say it's irrelevant is silly.
Click to expand...

You seemed to be starting something with out of context statements and "analytics" in quotations as if you were arguing with a wall about the value of analytics. I thought I'd give you what you wanted.

I think what a player does in general is more important. Actually, it doesn't matter what I think, because we can prove it mathematically. There are even studies about it!
 
You can make numbers come out anyway you wish.

In general, a player could be much more efficient against a certain pitch or he might really suck playing in cold weather. If a guy has a .300BA/.360 OBP for his career but is .120/.160 in weather that's under 40 degrees in 40 PAs, do you actually think the cold doesn't have any impact?

If a guy is .450/.525 against a pitcher or in a stadium, it's irrational to think he isn't better in those situations.
 
RJKarl said:
You can make numbers come out anyway you wish.

In general, a player could be much more efficient against a certain pitch or he might really suck playing in cold weather. If a guy has a .300BA/.360 OBP for his career but is .120/.160 in weather that's under 40 degrees in 40 PAs, do you actually think the cold doesn't have any impact?

If a guy is .450/.525 against a pitcher or in a stadium, it's irrational to think he isn't better in those situations.
Click to expand...

If only we had a way to find out.
 
Those stats are cherrypicked.

Remember, there's no such thing as a hot hand hand in basketball.
 
This is going nowhere. I fully understand your position towards me and anything I say about any subject. It's very sad and something you should try to improve.
 
CantStandYa said:
Oh sweet, this thread is ruined.
Click to expand...

The season/playoffs is over my dude. Create a hot stove thread. I'll try to hold off on calling RJ out for his "analytics" idiocy until next baseball season.
 
The idiocy is to think certain hitters or pitchers don't have advantages in some situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top