Unless there's a piece of factual data buried in there, like someone being injured, I can't think why anyone would watch this.
I'm serious. Why would anyone watch this?
Will the real Red Sox please stand up? I repeat, will the real Red Sox please stand up?
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I'm serious. Why would anyone watch this?
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56149953/644971170.0.jpg)
I don’t understand this line of thinking. Was Cora a genius when they were playing well and then at some point in the season he just turned into an idiot? If not, how can say he’s to blame when the Res Sox are doing poorly but not when they are doing well?
This is exactly what people were saying about Boone in the first half of the year. Then the Yankees went out and made a few acquisitions, some players returned from injuries and others just got on hot streaks.
Managers really don’t matter a ton in the regular season in baseball. One thing about baseball that’s not true for other sports like football is that given the amount of games, the team’s true talent level usually is reflected in the standings by the end of the year. And this team’s true talent level going into the season was a fringe playoff contender - which is exactly what they are now. I think we all got a little deluded by their first-half success but it’s pretty clear now that was driven by a lot of close wins, sequencing luck, and the like.
Apart from selecting who is on the team, deciding where to play and bat hitters, deciding which platoons to employ, creating a work/rest rotation, supervising the hitting and pitching coaches, approving a pitch strategy, calling specific pitches from the dugout, issuing intentional walks, deciding when to PH, PR, or put in defensive replacements, deciding which relievers to use - how often and when, and implementing team-wide philosophies like defensive shifts, aggressive hitting, aggressive base running, no base stealing, not taking walks, always having the green light, etc.
Like I said, if you believe that, my cat can be made available to manage the next game.
How's ole Press Conference doing? https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2021-managers.shtml
I think Cora should get credit for when the team was playing well, and blame when they are not. (Not all credit or blame, but some as he is a key part of the teams leadership).
I think a manager helps set the tone in the clubhouse and that may require adjustments in approach when things are going poorly (or well). Find ways to maximize the talents of the players that you have so that the team performs as well as possible. This can be achieved in a variety of ways.
If we think Cora is getting the most out of the team and that their collapse was inevitable no matter what (thus no reason to make any roster moves since it doesn’t matter), than I guess that’s that. But I would love for the teams leadership to explain why they think they were doing so well before and now they aren’t.
If the managers thinks the team wasn’t really that good and we should be happy with where the team is (as many suggest), is that really someone you want managing?
I'm leaning more towards agreeing that the generally don't matter in the way a football coach matters. I don't know how to put an exact % on to the amount that they do... but I suspect that in football it's close to 50% and in baseball it's close to 10%.
I have always felt that the most important thing a baseball manager can do is to keep the team together over a VERY long season. It's why teams often rally or fall apart sometime after the AS Break... the grind. Not just physical but the emotional toil that being around the same people and counting on those people can take.... being away from your family, etc.... There's lots of subtle relationships that develop that we don't know anything about: Did the team think that Dalbec should have been kicked off the team and everyone hates him? Does everyone think JDM is a moron? Do people think Devers is a clumsy doofus? What political teams develop? I can't imagine what Schwarber is thinking right now- joining this clearly dysfunctional group......
I do know Cora is failing horribly at keeping this team's head in the game and that, to me... is 100% where that 10% of where a manager's affect on the team's play lies.
Edit- the team had a great fighting spirit in the first half... winning games by scraping a run together in the late innings or getting tough outings by the bullpen. That spirit really seems to have left... and that's also on Cora. He seemed to embody that in the first half and it's just gone. The team has quit.
Questionable defense, particularly regarding the infield, was anticipated. This is a concern that is going to extend beyond 2021. The outfield machinations for the KS era and a general malaise (plus a dash of pressing) look to have intensified poor fielding of late.
Managers do make a lot of decisions, but more than anything, they manage PEOPLE, not just baseball situations. It's entirely possible that a person can be good at handling people in one circumstance, but not in another. Cora seems to be very good at times, but when the chips are down, he doesn't seem to be able to rally the team for whatever reason. I always put most of the blame on the players, because it's not Cora's fault that a guy makes a bad throw or swings at a terrible pitch or can't find the strike zone. These guys are pros and have been playing baseball a LONG time. Some of this is basic, basic stuff. Cora has to be trying SOMETHING to rally the team. But whatever he's trying is not working, period. It's just not. Maybe he's not cut out to be a manager in such a situation. He's clearly a wartime consigliere because we've seen him in the highest pressure moments do very well. But maybe his managing style just doesn't lend itself to bringing a team of depressed and despondent players back from the brink. I don't know.
This is a response somewhere between "grading the trade deadline" and this thread, BUT: Cora's options, in some ways, are worse now than before the deadline, and that's on Bloom. Schwarber only being able to DH, pushes JD to the field, which degrades the defense. Substantially. The team is slower on the base paths and worse in the field with Schwarb on the team but unable to play first base. Dalbec should have seen his playing time reduced after the deadline and he hasn't.
Maaaaaybe with Schwarber here (in the event he could play first base), Dalbec could start against lefties, maybe pushing Duran out of the line up ... bascially creating a platoon of Dalbec/Duran, with JD playing the field only against lefties. (Vs. R: 1B - Schwarb, DH - JD, LF -Verdugo, CF -Duran,...Vs. L: 1B - Dalbec, DH: Schwarb, LF: JD, CF: Verdugo)
Instead Schwarber is bumping Renfroe, a gold glove caliber fielder.
Epstein's bold trade of Nomar in 2004 was the anti-Schwarb move ... he saw the team needed D and speed and went out and got it in Cabrera, Minky, and Roberts. He made the team more total and holistically good. Bloom's move this year was just pushing that square peg down real hard while blurring his eyes. If adding a bat also makes you slower and worse in the field, then, uh .....yeah.
In this sense Cora is hamstrung. However, his handling of the pitching staff ...while nicely cognizant of distributing innings in the first half of the season, failed to adjust as the games took on more significance, and the bullpen began to fray, most emblematic of his quick triggers with Pivetta and Houck in respective first games of doubleheaders.
The team's "aggressive" batting approach has been lacking from the beginning, something some folks have been pointing out for a long time (no player is EVER given the red light), and reveled somewhat by Schwarber's patient at bats, that are sorta like, "wow ... what the what now? I forgot this was possible." The walk rate, the swinging out of the zone rate, all pretty bad. Situational awareness, terrible. That's on Cora.
Running into so many outs? I don't know who to blame here ... either the players are just really dumb, or something is not being communicated well or often enough.
Cora has some real strengths as communicator. But one is left to wonder if his affirmational style is too laissez-faire and lacks a disciplined approach to the game.
Last edited:
Nobody believed in them coming out of spring training either, and it became a rallying cry for them. I just can't see how a group that used those slights as motivation and racked up more come-from-behind wins than any other team in MLB decided to give up because the FO didn't 'do enough' at the deadline (and gave up while they were in first place to boot).
A lot of this is mumbo jumbo anyway, and I certainly have no clue what's going on inside these guy's heads, but maybe early in the season, it was outsiders (such as everyone in the media picking them 4th) who didn't believe in the team, creating "we'll show them!" motivation, but now its insiders (the FO who didn't get needed upgrades) who don't believe in the team, causing them to quit.
My two cents: I think we're way too quick to psychologize these things, because we (understandably) have a desire to relate to athletes as people.
The other thing that corresponded with the trade deadline was our whole pitching staff getting to ~50% more IP than any of them threw last year, and some of them collapsing. This, of course, happened to all teams, and seems to have impacted different pitchers differently in unpredictable ways.
But our record over the last few weeks looks like much less of a deviation if Matt Barnes didn't have a four day stretch where he conceded a .400/.538/1.100 slash line, to pick just one example out of a hat. Just that one stretch of poor performance by a key pitcher in high-leverage spots has meant the difference between the team being an unremarkable 10-9 and a panic-inducing 7-12, even given all of the other slumps and under-performances by other players. Do we really think Barnes' terrible week at the office was because he was upset that Bloom didn't trade Connor Seabold for Anthony Rizzo? I'd say it was probably just a dead arm period by a guy hitting the 40 IP mark after only throwing 23 IP the year before. Barnes seems like a mentally tough, composed dude to me.
Or on the hitting side, do I really think that Raffy Devers has a sub-.700 OPS in August because he's emotionally crushed by Chaim Bloom's trade deadline? He hasn't had a slump this bad since... early last year.
If we're going to play the psychologizing game, hasn't anyone pointed out that since Chaim Bloom expressed confidence in Bobby Dalbec by not acquiring a first baseman, he's hit .310/.408/.643 in 49 PA (i.e. considerably better than Rizzo has hit in 52 PA for NY), raising his season OPS from .659 to .712? Or is that not how this works?
edit: or what Philip Jeff Frye said...
The other thing that corresponded with the trade deadline was our whole pitching staff getting to ~50% more IP than any of them threw last year, and some of them collapsing. This, of course, happened to all teams, and seems to have impacted different pitchers differently in unpredictable ways.
But our record over the last few weeks looks like much less of a deviation if Matt Barnes didn't have a four day stretch where he conceded a .400/.538/1.100 slash line, to pick just one example out of a hat. Just that one stretch of poor performance by a key pitcher in high-leverage spots has meant the difference between the team being an unremarkable 10-9 and a panic-inducing 7-12, even given all of the other slumps and under-performances by other players. Do we really think Barnes' terrible week at the office was because he was upset that Bloom didn't trade Connor Seabold for Anthony Rizzo? I'd say it was probably just a dead arm period by a guy hitting the 40 IP mark after only throwing 23 IP the year before. Barnes seems like a mentally tough, composed dude to me.
Or on the hitting side, do I really think that Raffy Devers has a sub-.700 OPS in August because he's emotionally crushed by Chaim Bloom's trade deadline? He hasn't had a slump this bad since... early last year.
If we're going to play the psychologizing game, hasn't anyone pointed out that since Chaim Bloom expressed confidence in Bobby Dalbec by not acquiring a first baseman, he's hit .310/.408/.643 in 49 PA (i.e. considerably better than Rizzo has hit in 52 PA for NY), raising his season OPS from .659 to .712? Or is that not how this works?
edit: or what Philip Jeff Frye said...
If we're going to put ourselves inside the players' heads, I think it's just as likely that they might have thought of the deadline 180 degrees from this. Not "upgrading" could actually be management saying that they do believe in you. Making material changes to the team means that they don't believe in you, despite your being in first place.
A few homers in blowouts won’t change my mind on Dalbec…if management believes in him, not sure what to think of that.
that being said…a lot of interesting theories
-lack of moves because bloom believes in team
-lack of moves because bloom did not believe in team / knew not good enough
-cost for Rizzo too high
-Dalbec as good as Rizzo
-Schwarber best bat traded anyways
But if the simple explanation is fatigue that for some reason has affected the Sox pitchers more than others, is that not something the team should have been prepared for?
Without being in the clubhouse, impossible to know what the collective mood of the team is and how it has evolved, but most importantly, how has Cora addressed it, and has his messaging changed?
I’m sure we’ll get a post-mortem after the season but there is still a chance they right this ship,
that being said…a lot of interesting theories
-lack of moves because bloom believes in team
-lack of moves because bloom did not believe in team / knew not good enough
-cost for Rizzo too high
-Dalbec as good as Rizzo
-Schwarber best bat traded anyways
But if the simple explanation is fatigue that for some reason has affected the Sox pitchers more than others, is that not something the team should have been prepared for?
Without being in the clubhouse, impossible to know what the collective mood of the team is and how it has evolved, but most importantly, how has Cora addressed it, and has his messaging changed?
I’m sure we’ll get a post-mortem after the season but there is still a chance they right this ship,
To the team's credit, the releases of both Marwin Gonzalez and Matt Andriese -- coupled with the fact that we're not seeing Danny Santana (injured, I know) or Franchy Cordero getting undeserved ABs -- shows that they do know when to cut bait, even if it takes a little longer than we'd like.
I'm still not a fan of the Schwarber move if he's not going to play 1B, but oh well.
I'm still not a fan of the Schwarber move if he's not going to play 1B, but oh well.
How? It's a league-wide issue, not in the sense that it has affected the whole league (August wRC+ is actually a hair down from June/July), but in the sense that basically all pitchers are making a big innings jump and could be potentially affected.
We only have so many roster spots, and a bunch of our carefully hoarded AAA SP depth were IL'd or went under the knife this season (Mata, Ward, Seabold, although Seabold is back now and throwing great). So what exactly was the FO supposed to do about that?
Is it mythos, though, really? Or more common sense? I'm sure the players perceived exactly what we perceived: that the team was good but could use some talented additions because they had some holes. And of course, just like us, they saw all of their competition add significant pieces. You don't think Xander notices that? Shit, he said as much in a post game.
Now, it does seem farfetched to think not making adequate moves would send the players into never ending slide of losing. But it certainly would be a fucking bummer if you were in that clubhouse not to get any help (aside from the one or two guys who would be demoted or lose playing time as a consequence; though even then some might welcome additions). Of course it must hurt morale to see your competition add weapons when your team doesn't, and bad morale well indeed have a short term impact on outcome/quality of play.
Can we blame Bloom's moves/lack of moves entirely for the 3-week slide. No. But was an ingredient? I think so.
Bush won in 2000 not only because of Ralph Nader. But also because of Gore campaigned running away from the Clinton record. And a "butterfly ballot" that caused 3,000 Palm Beach Jewish voters to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan. Etc. Take away any one of those factors and does he win? Maybe, yes. But was any one in isolation completely responsible for the outcome? No.
If Bloom somehow managed to swing Rizzo or Bryant or Gibson, might it have sent the team in a different direction? Maybe. Were the lack of reinforcements disappointing to players? Almost certainly. And that may well have affected their play. If they play better in the first days after the deadline, do the next two weeks look different. Probably.
I'm not sure of that. Like, at all.
Our understanding of the team and the clubhouse is shaped by the Boston sports media, the same media that the players have told us again and again literally for decades that they feel misrepresent the dynamic around the team in toxic ways.
It's different now than it was in, to pick a year, 1997, but it's not
Both Rizzo and Bryant have hit well in NY and SF (.850ish OPS for both), but worse than either Dalbec or Schwarber have in the few weeks since the trade deadline. Since the deadline, our 1B have posted a 129 wRC+, best in the AL East.
Meanwhile, we've lost winnable games because the back end of the bullpen imploded...
View: https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/1429518542521651206
...and the starting pitching faltered somewhat.
View: https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/1429519775735197698
Dalbec did have three good games in a row (one vs. Tampa, and 2 vs Baltimore) when he went 7-11 with 3 HR’s. But that performance was inconsequential to the Sox winning those games; in fact he somehow managed an overall negative WPA in those games because he did all the damage when the games were essentially over. Maybe it’s not fair to omit those performances entirely but when a player has such massive struggles vs. power pitchers, righties, on the road…you wonder if he can ever truly help in an important spot.
Before those games, he was 4-16 in the month with 2 bb and 8 k, and since the last of those three games, he’s 2-15 with 1 bb and 5 k.
He’s at -0.9 WAR for the season, Rizzo is 1.5. The difference b/w the two is pretty huge. Regardless, the Sox should have been looking to upgrade 1b since at least mid-June; instead they tried Franchy Cordero and signed Travis Shaw.
Ultimately finding replacement level players has been a pretty big challenge for the Sox this year as they’ve given a ton of at bats to players who performed far worse than the mythical replacement player….
Before those games, he was 4-16 in the month with 2 bb and 8 k, and since the last of those three games, he’s 2-15 with 1 bb and 5 k.
He’s at -0.9 WAR for the season, Rizzo is 1.5. The difference b/w the two is pretty huge. Regardless, the Sox should have been looking to upgrade 1b since at least mid-June; instead they tried Franchy Cordero and signed Travis Shaw.
Ultimately finding replacement level players has been a pretty big challenge for the Sox this year as they’ve given a ton of at bats to players who performed far worse than the mythical replacement player….
So the difference between Rizzo and Dalbec is 2.4 games over the course of 3/4 of a season. It’s not that much really. I mean you have a whole team of Rizzos against a whole team of Dalbecs and it really adds up, but over 3 weeks, that much of a difference is very small.
Projects to about 3.2 wins over the course of the year. Sox are 2.5 behind the Yankees. It’s significant, but yeah, in a small sample size like a few weeks, WAR is hard to really make sense of. By looking at WAR it’s hard to justify most deadline deals and isn’t the stat head consensus largely that they don’t make a difference from that POV?
Ultimately, I think you’d always want to be trying to improve your team even if it’s difficult to show how it helps in the numbers. I personally don’t care about Rizzo at all and don’t think the Sox should have given up significant assets for a rental player. In a perfect world they would have had a better plan in case Dalbec had a sophomore slump; I guess that was Marwin and Santana but both those guys had been terrible recently too.
If they could have flipped Dalbec and Aldo Ramirez for Aguilar or someone else with another year of control to bridge the gap to Casas, that would have been ideal. But guessing either the Sox remain hopeful in Dalbec or he doesn’t have value to other teams.
Ultimately, I think you’d always want to be trying to improve your team even if it’s difficult to show how it helps in the numbers. I personally don’t care about Rizzo at all and don’t think the Sox should have given up significant assets for a rental player. In a perfect world they would have had a better plan in case Dalbec had a sophomore slump; I guess that was Marwin and Santana but both those guys had been terrible recently too.
If they could have flipped Dalbec and Aldo Ramirez for Aguilar or someone else with another year of control to bridge the gap to Casas, that would have been ideal. But guessing either the Sox remain hopeful in Dalbec or he doesn’t have value to other teams.
This is interesting, if maybe only to me. Since the trade deadline, comparing Rizzo to Dalbec. Now we know that Rizzo is a better baseball player. That's not the question. The question is what have these two done since the trade deadline.
Rizzo
- Overall: 12 g, 52 pa, 9 r, 3 hr, 9 rbi, .244/.365/.463/.829
- In 3 games (7/30, 7/31, and 8/3), Rizzo went: 6-10 (.600) with 7 r, 2 hr, 3 rbi, 3 bb
- In the other 9 games, Rizzo went: 4-31 (.129) with 2 r, 1 hr, 6 rbi, 2 bb
Dalbec
- Overall: 19 g, 57 pa, 8 r, 4 hr, 15 rbi, .300/.386/.640/1.026
- In 3 games (8/11, 8/13, 8/14), Dalbec went: 7-11 (.636) with 5 r, 3 hr, 11 rbi, 2 bb
- In the other 16 games, Dalbec went: 8-39 (.205) with 3 r, 1 hr, 4 rbi, 3 bb
So for both of these guys, the vast bulk of their post-trade deadline production came in three games, and the rest of their games they've been pretty unhelpful. Dalbec with a better batting average, but Rizzo with a little more production give the number of games played. But basically a wash.
So over this period of time, they've both been roughly equal, though I will say that two of Rizzo's big games came right away and were HUGE for the Yankees to win those games. Dalbec's big games came in blowouts, though of course, his massive production was a big reason for why those games were blowouts.
Rizzo
- Overall: 12 g, 52 pa, 9 r, 3 hr, 9 rbi, .244/.365/.463/.829
- In 3 games (7/30, 7/31, and 8/3), Rizzo went: 6-10 (.600) with 7 r, 2 hr, 3 rbi, 3 bb
- In the other 9 games, Rizzo went: 4-31 (.129) with 2 r, 1 hr, 6 rbi, 2 bb
Dalbec
- Overall: 19 g, 57 pa, 8 r, 4 hr, 15 rbi, .300/.386/.640/1.026
- In 3 games (8/11, 8/13, 8/14), Dalbec went: 7-11 (.636) with 5 r, 3 hr, 11 rbi, 2 bb
- In the other 16 games, Dalbec went: 8-39 (.205) with 3 r, 1 hr, 4 rbi, 3 bb
So for both of these guys, the vast bulk of their post-trade deadline production came in three games, and the rest of their games they've been pretty unhelpful. Dalbec with a better batting average, but Rizzo with a little more production give the number of games played. But basically a wash.
So over this period of time, they've both been roughly equal, though I will say that two of Rizzo's big games came right away and were HUGE for the Yankees to win those games. Dalbec's big games came in blowouts, though of course, his massive production was a big reason for why those games were blowouts.
And you can't exactly carry over "well Rizzo had several huge hits with for the Yankees while Dalbec's big hits didn't really matter much", because it's not like you can just assume Rizzo's hits with the Sox would have been in key spots instead of blowouts either. Even if you assume Rizzo's hits would have been as equally valuable game to game as they were with the Yankees you're gaining about a win in the standings based on net WPA. Would people really feel good about the situation if the Sox were 8-13 instead of 7-14 since the deadline because they'd decided to "go for it" and get Rizzo?
Last edited:
You don't think established players (or any players) are noticing that Bobby Dalbec is striking out half of his at bats, and that the team sports 4 #5 pitchers? Really?
I think that’s fair, actually. I think most of us would agree that Rizzo is a much better player than Dalbec but to think his first few games with the Sox would have featured timely hits like his first few with the Yankees did is a giant leap. While I’m clearly not a big believer in Dalbec, the Sox recent struggles go far beyond him. What’s done is done; and whether we like it or not, the first base situation is what it is the rest of the way.
The Sox are tied for a playoff spot with 40 games left. There are far worse situations to be in. I would hope that Cora and the rest of the staff are reinforcing what an opportunity this team has in front of them- lamenting the games blown or the trades not made can be done when the season is over.
They still control their own destiny and determine how this team is remembered. We saw how they played for 100 games, we know they are capable.
The Sox are tied for a playoff spot with 40 games left. There are far worse situations to be in. I would hope that Cora and the rest of the staff are reinforcing what an opportunity this team has in front of them- lamenting the games blown or the trades not made can be done when the season is over.
They still control their own destiny and determine how this team is remembered. We saw how they played for 100 games, we know they are capable.
Much of this last swath of comments argue for or against a theoretical boost to morale a team/players might get if high quality players are brought in at the deadline, or conversely a dip in morale if there are no significant additions. And whether morale has any impact on performance.
Since, if it does, it's impossible to quantify, might put this too much in the groovy land of subjectivity for this forum.
But one can consider this experientially. Maybe this is obvious, but: How do YOU perform in your job, or how does your "team" at work perform? How and why does performance fluctuate? It is utterly untethered from context/vibe/morale/circumstances?? Does the subtraction or addition of an influential co-worker alter the whole place? Does the right leadership impact constructive dynamics which foster everyone doing better work? Have you not experienced these things?
Why would sports teams be any different? Why would athletes be different?
I work in a "public performance" field (as an actor and director in theater and TV) ... Being in a long run of show, performing that show 8 times a week, each actor's respective performance -- and the ensemble's collective performance -- waxes and wanes, gets better and worse. Group dynamics, circumstances,, and individual psychology have a massive effect on performance quality. I understand the unmeasurable nature of this in sports, but to deny this basic phenomenon seems to patently dismiss something I suspect we all experience in our own lives to some extent.
Since, if it does, it's impossible to quantify, might put this too much in the groovy land of subjectivity for this forum.
But one can consider this experientially. Maybe this is obvious, but: How do YOU perform in your job, or how does your "team" at work perform? How and why does performance fluctuate? It is utterly untethered from context/vibe/morale/circumstances?? Does the subtraction or addition of an influential co-worker alter the whole place? Does the right leadership impact constructive dynamics which foster everyone doing better work? Have you not experienced these things?
Why would sports teams be any different? Why would athletes be different?
I work in a "public performance" field (as an actor and director in theater and TV) ... Being in a long run of show, performing that show 8 times a week, each actor's respective performance -- and the ensemble's collective performance -- waxes and wanes, gets better and worse. Group dynamics, circumstances,, and individual psychology have a massive effect on performance quality. I understand the unmeasurable nature of this in sports, but to deny this basic phenomenon seems to patently dismiss something I suspect we all experience in our own lives to some extent.
At no point during the year did they sport "4 #5 pitchers" so no I don't think they ever noticed that. At most they sported 2, and really it was probably just 1 and who the guy pitching like a #5 was changed.
yeah…. Martinez and Devers are looking at Dalbec thinking, “man… you should’ve been replaced! And since you haven’t been, it’s really upset me”!
Especially in the three weeks or so since the trade deadline, because Dalbec has been absolutely god-awful terrible. I mean, they could train a dog to do better than .304/.396/.674/1.070.
If a team needed the psychological "jolt" of new players to continue performing at the same level they had for the previous three months, it's suggestive that they aren't that good and aren't likely to maintain even after the "jolt". The psycho-babble is tired and baseless. They were playing shitty before the deadline. Even if waving a magic wand (trading for new players) might have a band-aid effect, it really is not a way to sustain success.
There is a motte-and-bailey maneuver going on here. You assert references to entirely unverifiable psychologisms like "morale," and then, when challenged, you retreat to characterizing player performance (perhaps hyperbolically — our rotation of all #5 pitchers is somehow 3rd in the AL in SP WAR). The quoted above was not the argument everyone was responding to, which was much more focused on vibes.
You don't know what Dalbec's season means to the other players in the clubhouse. Maybe they consider supporting a struggling teammate to be an important aspect of being a good team mate, rather than demoralizing. I don't know. And that's the point: I don't know. And I really can't know. I don't think the clichéd quotes that make it into the press really have much of a bearing on this. No one is going to tell Jen McCaffrey, "Bobby's been hitting terribly and Chaim didn't replace him, and that bums me out, so now I will also hit terribly."
With that I will drop it.
The Dalbec experiment would be a lot more stomachable if he played a passable first base. He’s at 7 outs below average on the year—worst among qualified first basemen—and that’s before botching Xander’s throw just before the rundown play today.
I don’t see that he’s much more than a short-side platoon DH. His nice stretch since 7/29 includes a 1.129 OPS against RHP in 26 PAs, but with a 7:1 K/BB ratio it doesn’t look sustainable. Two of the three Oriole right-handers he homered off in that stretch have been DFA’d (Plutko, Valdez), and the other (Knight) is a 30-year-old rookie who was sent back to AAA.
The fact he’s still here is a head-scratcher to me. It seems clear to nearly everyone that Casas is the long-term solution beginning as early as next summer. Dalbec’s not going to be our 3B or DH, so it’s likely that he’ll be someone else’s project a year from now. Given that, I don’t know why he wasn’t moved at the deadline to a team that can afford to develop him, and for someone who could help us now.
I don’t see that he’s much more than a short-side platoon DH. His nice stretch since 7/29 includes a 1.129 OPS against RHP in 26 PAs, but with a 7:1 K/BB ratio it doesn’t look sustainable. Two of the three Oriole right-handers he homered off in that stretch have been DFA’d (Plutko, Valdez), and the other (Knight) is a 30-year-old rookie who was sent back to AAA.
The fact he’s still here is a head-scratcher to me. It seems clear to nearly everyone that Casas is the long-term solution beginning as early as next summer. Dalbec’s not going to be our 3B or DH, so it’s likely that he’ll be someone else’s project a year from now. Given that, I don’t know why he wasn’t moved at the deadline to a team that can afford to develop him, and for someone who could help us now.
The real Red Sox *have* stood up ... and promptly tripped over their own feet and faceplanted.
I suppose the only saving grace of this crash back to reality is that we don't have to get our hopes up and invest any more emotion into this group. Between the offense's futility at the plate with runners on base and the inability of our once-invincible and now very-hittable bullpen aces to get outs, there was no way that this team was ever going to make any noise in October.
I suppose the only saving grace of this crash back to reality is that we don't have to get our hopes up and invest any more emotion into this group. Between the offense's futility at the plate with runners on base and the inability of our once-invincible and now very-hittable bullpen aces to get outs, there was no way that this team was ever going to make any noise in October.
A huge squander in the 7th that doesn’t open a 3-1 game, two horrible defensive plays to blow that lead in the 9th, Barnes blowing yet another save, and then the tying run thrown out at home in the bottom of the 10 in about the eight millionth terrible base running decision this month.
It’s the same old shit and they can’t or won’t fix it.
It’s the same old shit and they can’t or won’t fix it.
King Boron would like to note the above post remains true no matter what Travis Shaw decided to do today.
Posted this in the game thread, re-posting here because it shows just how bad the defense, particularly the infield, has been especially since the ASB.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/22/sports/saturdays-debacle-flashpoint-glaring-red-sox-issue-defense/
It's more striking that after Franchy Cordero was sent back to AAA that the team really stEspecially in the three weeks or so since the trade deadline, because Dalbec has been absolutely god-awful terrible. I mean, they could train a dog to do better than .304/.396/.674/1.070.
If a team needed the psychological "jolt" of new players to continue performing at the same level they had for the previous three months, it's suggestive that they aren't that good and aren't likely to maintain even after the "jolt". The psycho-babble is tired and baseless. They were playing shitty before the deadline. Even if waving a magic wand (trading for new players) might have a band-aid effect, it really is not a way to sustain success.
you’d Think having 7 guys in a lineup with an OPS over .750 would beleading to lots more wins. I guess it doesn’t account for distribution of that OPS…
Dalbec isn’t a good enough bat to have killing the team in the field like that. Schwarber might not be any better defensively but he’s better with the bat and should be moved to 1B immediately.
X being a defensive issue at SS is something they’ll have to live with for now.
X being a defensive issue at SS is something they’ll have to live with for now.
Maybe they consider keeping Schwarber healthy by avoiding the stretches needed for good first base play important. A guy coming in with leg issues is not a guy you ask to play first base, in my opinion.
Certainly not immediately after coming off the IL. But they played him in LF today, and Cora said before the game that the plan is to get Schwarber a game at 1B before the end of the homestand, which is Thursday. Seems like they have benchmarks they want Schwarber to clear to get him to 1B (hitting, running the bases in game, playing the field anywhere, etc), and he's nearly there.
I’ll take Shaw at 1B most days just for the better glove. It’s crazy that we’re in this position to begin with. Bloom treating first like it’s no big deal to play defensively and anyone can play there is hurting this team. Go get a real 1B and stop treating the Red Sox like a low budget operation.
If folks are going to continue to post this narrative, i'm going to continue to play whack-a-mole with it.
None of us have any idea what Bloom tried to get done and couldn't during the trade deadline. None of us has any idea how close they were at getting Rizzo.
People who post as they know exactly what happened -- and what Bloom's thought-process was -- are just talking out of their ass
And Dalbec has played plenty of 1st base. No he's not very good at it, but him playing 1st isn't just throwing some guy out there that has never played it before.
The facts kind of speak for themselves; they are well below replacement level at the position both offensively and defensively and their attempts to address it were Arroyo, Franchy Cordero and now, Travis Shaw, and maybe Schwarber will play some first at some point. I wouldn’t say any of these moves have been terribly effective…
Please show your proof that this is what they wanted to end up with, or tried to end up with.
I’m not arguing intent, just what actually happened. They have tried a lot of guys with little or no experience at the position and it hasn’t worked. I have no idea what “they wanted” to end up with, but what they did end up with seems far more important.