Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
Good gravy, this mailbag is idiots talking to idiots. Is Jackie Bradley the next Willie Mays? What does out-of-shape mean? What should I be looking for in Spring Training?
I love this answer though
Yes, we all saw what happened the last time Ellsbury was in left field: Adrian Beltre ran Ellsbury over. Though I'm not exactly sure what being a veteran means in this scenario. Is he going to be centerfield for the rest of his life? I don't think that Ellsbury is a bad centerfielder, he has a weak-ass arm but I'm not sure how much better Bradley's is. But to simply say, "Durrrr, remember what happened last time! And he's a veteran, you know!" is dumb.
From what I've read though the Sox really seem to like Bradley's speed and his work ethic. Plus, Ellsbury is on his way out of town; what do the Red Sox owe him? If they are pretty sure he's not going to sign with them next year, play him at shortstop for all I care.
I love this answer though
Yes, we all saw what happened the last time Ellsbury was in left field: Adrian Beltre ran Ellsbury over. Though I'm not exactly sure what being a veteran means in this scenario. Is he going to be centerfield for the rest of his life? I don't think that Ellsbury is a bad centerfielder, he has a weak-ass arm but I'm not sure how much better Bradley's is. But to simply say, "Durrrr, remember what happened last time! And he's a veteran, you know!" is dumb.
From what I've read though the Sox really seem to like Bradley's speed and his work ethic. Plus, Ellsbury is on his way out of town; what do the Red Sox owe him? If they are pretty sure he's not going to sign with them next year, play him at shortstop for all I care.
I love the new thread title. It's so perfectly apt for Nick that it makes me giggle.
The most hilarious thing about his "way above" quip is that there is plenty of easily attainable information out there to read and assist anyone's understanding of the concepts in the question posed to him. It's not like Nick has never heard of these concepts or they are untested, raw and doubtful. This is information that has been around for years and used currently by the team he writes for(yeah, plenty of other teams too but let's stick to the Sox) on a daily basis. So, that question highlights two things about Nick that we all are well aware of. 1) He is lazy and refuses to do any real work about the team he is "passionate" about. 2)These "new" schools of thought are in direct contradiction to how he measures players and teams. I mean, if this stuff was difficult to digest from a analytical standpoint, he may have a reason to not swallow it. But, it isn't. It's straightforward. The methodologies are fully explained and the conclusions are pretty linear if you take the hour or two to do the work. Moreover, Bobby V. said in the Saber Seminar that he never received a single piece of information from the stat geeks to use on the field so, with Nick still lobbying for the Bobby V's no fault experience, this all makes complete sense why he wouldn't bother.
The most hilarious thing about his "way above" quip is that there is plenty of easily attainable information out there to read and assist anyone's understanding of the concepts in the question posed to him. It's not like Nick has never heard of these concepts or they are untested, raw and doubtful. This is information that has been around for years and used currently by the team he writes for(yeah, plenty of other teams too but let's stick to the Sox) on a daily basis. So, that question highlights two things about Nick that we all are well aware of. 1) He is lazy and refuses to do any real work about the team he is "passionate" about. 2)These "new" schools of thought are in direct contradiction to how he measures players and teams. I mean, if this stuff was difficult to digest from a analytical standpoint, he may have a reason to not swallow it. But, it isn't. It's straightforward. The methodologies are fully explained and the conclusions are pretty linear if you take the hour or two to do the work. Moreover, Bobby V. said in the Saber Seminar that he never received a single piece of information from the stat geeks to use on the field so, with Nick still lobbying for the Bobby V's no fault experience, this all makes complete sense why he wouldn't bother.
Back to the future with Nick's Sunday column today -- a long soliloquy on the Sox not landing Hamilton and another treatise on us missing out on "game-changer" Rick Peterson. Someone needs to build an iPhone app that creates his weekly columns -- BV justification here, Gary Sheffield/JP Riccardi quote there.
I can't believe we're even debating Pete Abraham and his "mean tweets" when the Globe continues to give this much space to this guy.
I can't believe we're even debating Pete Abraham and his "mean tweets" when the Globe continues to give this much space to this guy.
Interesting that you mention Peterson. I was listening to a podcast--forget which one, unfortunately--profiling the Orioles, and one of the analysts was not too high on Peterson. Specifically, he (Peterson) does not allow pitchers to throw the cutter, no matter how effective it is for them. Their pitching prospect Dylan Bundy's best pitch is apparently the cut fastball.
Van Everyman said:
Don't forget the Twins-related notes because Nick is too lazy to leave town (Joe Mauer... twins for a Twin! I told you the Sox should have traded for him...), the obligatory David DeJesus and Frenchy Francoeur (ties to New England!) comments, and a return to Jose-Iglesias-shoud-be-the-shortstop vomitage.
Uh oh... fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner...
Don't forget this gem either:
6. Jeff Francoeur, RF, Royals — He had the worst WAR among everyday players in 2012, but at age 29, he feels he’s entering his prime hitting years. Surely, he’s one of the best right fielders in the game, with one of the strongest, most accurate arms. Would the Royals deal him? It appears so.
6. Jeff Francoeur, RF, Royals — He had the worst WAR among everyday players in 2012, but at age 29, he feels he’s entering his prime hitting years. Surely, he’s one of the best right fielders in the game, with one of the strongest, most accurate arms. Would the Royals deal him? It appears so.
CoffeeNerdness said:
Cripes. If I thought Cafardo had any nuance at all, I'd think he was cleverly trying to undermine or mock WAR as a stat (the whole "this nerdy stat says he sucks but my eyes tell me he's great" thing). But I think he just doesn't understand the stat at all, and he really believes it bolsters his point rather than contradicts it.
CoffeeNerdness said:
According to Baseball Prospectus, Francoeur's FRAA in 2012 was -18.4. As a right fielder it was -18.0, the -0.4 came during 3 games in CF. This is one of the best right fielders in the game?
He had a strange couple of paragraphs with Carlos Ruiz and Christian Vazquez.
He spent a two paragraphs talking about Vazquez before he spent like 10 on Ruiz, which is fine BTW, this is the national Baseball notes column. But then he brings it back to Vazquez by asking Ruiz if he knows who Vazquez is. Ruiz has no idea and says a couple of empty platitudes and that's how Cafardo ends it.
I don't understand why Cafardo even keeps that part in there. Everyone has run into a person who has some off-the-wall theory about something that they try to push on you. When that happens, you sorta humor them and move on. In this example, Ruiz is you and Cafardo is your crazy theory espousing buddy. The only difference between the two examples is that your insane friend doesn't write a column for the Boston Globe and isn't dumb enough to realize that you were humoring him.
"Oh yeah, really Nick? Whoa. Interesting. Boston has some good catcher over there. Uh huh. I'll look for Vazquez. Okay. So long, buddy!"
He spent a two paragraphs talking about Vazquez before he spent like 10 on Ruiz, which is fine BTW, this is the national Baseball notes column. But then he brings it back to Vazquez by asking Ruiz if he knows who Vazquez is. Ruiz has no idea and says a couple of empty platitudes and that's how Cafardo ends it.
I don't understand why Cafardo even keeps that part in there. Everyone has run into a person who has some off-the-wall theory about something that they try to push on you. When that happens, you sorta humor them and move on. In this example, Ruiz is you and Cafardo is your crazy theory espousing buddy. The only difference between the two examples is that your insane friend doesn't write a column for the Boston Globe and isn't dumb enough to realize that you were humoring him.
"Oh yeah, really Nick? Whoa. Interesting. Boston has some good catcher over there. Uh huh. I'll look for Vazquez. Okay. So long, buddy!"
geoflin said:
He's in love with power outfield arms - bemoaning often the Red Sox lack of big outfield arms in the system and saying it's because of their minor league teaching, etc. - and so any outfielder with a big arm must be "one of the best."
A guy could intentionally miss every ball that comes his way, then pick it up and fire it into second base on a frozen rope and Cafardo would think he was spectacular. He's impressed by the things that impress casual fans - diving catches and long throws. Never mind that the dives are due to bad routes and half the time those big throws go over someone's head and lead to the runner taking an extra base.
It reminded me of an old stand-up comedy bit (don't remember the comic) about when a person tells you you look like someone they know. "Oh cool, tell them I say what's up."
My favorite part about Nick's Hamilton obsession is that he thinks the reason teams don't want him is because of his "off field issues" (which to be honest really haven't affected him in years). He can't see that a streaky 32 year old with an inability to stay on the field, a piss poor approach at the plate, and who isn't really a CF may be a pretty risky guy to throw $125 million at?
Hamilton is awesome at his best, but he has several on-field question marks that are causing front offices to hesitate to make a long term commitment...I'm not sure the fact that he's a recovering alcoholic is what's stopping them.
Hamilton is awesome at his best, but he has several on-field question marks that are causing front offices to hesitate to make a long term commitment...I'm not sure the fact that he's a recovering alcoholic is what's stopping them.
The truth is, NIck loves the story of Josh Hamilton and that's the only reason why he wants Boston to blow $125M on him. It would make his job much easier if he could just have a couple of canned ledes about Hamilton and rehab or people not believing in Hamilton, etc. And a bonus is that he could write two to three features on Hamilton and how he's transitioning to Boston, the evils of addiction, blah, blah, blah.
It's all about Nicky C. which is why he loved Valentine and is the only one bemoaning his departure.
It's all about Nicky C. which is why he loved Valentine and is the only one bemoaning his departure.
It's certainly telling when I enjoy reading the analysis of Carfado's efforts here far more than the original material. When I was a kid I used to scour the entire Gammons Sunday notes column for a baseball info fix and now I half hearteadly skim over the Cafardo version as I wish I was reading what Bedard has to say about the NFL instead. My hat goes off to those of you that actually continue to make the effort.
Get over it already.
Right, because there's a direct correlation between size of market and the intensity of media scrutiny. By that token, we should expect Dallas, San Francisco, Washington, Atlanta, and Houston to be just as intense as Boston and we know that's not true.
A great point? Crawford HIMSELF said this. "It just wasn’t the right place for me at the end of my day,” he said. “I didn’t do my homework. Maybe they didn’t, either." But yo needed to quote some anonymous NL general manager (no doubt it was Brian Sabean, who you already quoted earlier in the column) to get that degree of insight? LAZY.
Why the hell are you asking me? YOU'RE THE COLUMNIST. Should we be worried? How about you ask John Farrell or Juan Nieves, or hell, Hanrahan himself. Have you considered that maybe he's a bit distracted because his wife is about to give birth to their first child?
What makes him cool? I've never even heard of this guy, and I'm sure 99.9% of your readers haven't either. He never played in the States, so all your readers are basically clueless as to who he is, unless they followed the Italian Baseball League in the 80s and 90s. But he is, according to you, pretty cool. Thanks for the heads up.
Oh wait, ESPN already aired this on February 27th? Where was this note 2 weeks ago?
Just sayin': the Sox should honor this guy that managed the Minnesota Twins to a pennant almost 50 years ago.
Again, WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME???
Why aren't you buying any of them? You think teams aren't signing Lohse just for the hell of it? Here are two legitimate reasons for you. A) His agent is Scott Boras, and B) having to surrender a first-round pick to sign him. But ol' Nick ain't buyin' it.
How about this keen insight?
It's true. You do just never know how things are going to turn out until they do.
It's true. You do just never know how things are going to turn out until they do.
This is so stupid I actually can't even believe it.
Let's assume that Kyle Lohse is unsigned for a given set of "reasons," different for each team "considering" him, but the "reasons" literally do exist because, obviously, he's not signed yet. Now, Nick has heard 800 different varieties of this "reasoning." We're not talking about anything other than a surprisingly long wait for a FA to sign, so there's no need for these "reasons" to come out any other way than exactly as they're felt by those explaining them.
However.
Nick does not believe these reasons, does not say why he doesn't believe them, doesn't say what "they" are, and offers nothing close to (what we already know to be the actual) reasons he may think more accurate. I think its safe to say Lohse isn't signed because of some combination of his costing a draft pick and the likelihood he isn't entirely worth it performance-wise no matter the likely market price.
He is just so awful.
Is he trying to say teams are not signing him out of Boras-related spite? Is he accusing them of collusion? Or is that his clumsy way of saying, "I don't get it"?
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
I think he is saying because Lohse won 16 games last year so he should be signed. Because of those 16 wins, Boras isn't asking for too much money. Again, stats are completely above Nicky's stupid head.
Maybe I'm being dense, but why did he choose the number 800? It seems like an odd number to represent "a lot", but like I said, I may be missing the connection between the number 800 and Kyle Lohse.
Because really there are three reasons why a lot of teams aren't in him:
1. He's a fair pitcher who pitched in a crummy division
2. He wants a bunch of cash and has an agent who won't back down
3. He's going to cost a team a draft pick
That's really it.
Because really there are three reasons why a lot of teams aren't in him:
1. He's a fair pitcher who pitched in a crummy division
2. He wants a bunch of cash and has an agent who won't back down
3. He's going to cost a team a draft pick
That's really it.
Dogman2 said:
That is true. And Joe Montana wore the number 16 as well. Different sport and all, but you can't argue with greatness, Dogger.
5. Joba Chamberlain, RHP, Yankees — Word that Texas has scouted him and that he would be available doesn’t come as a surprise to those in the Yankee organization who feel they’ve gone about as far as they can with him. “They would deal him in a heartbeat and then fill in with one of their starters in the bullpen,” said an AL scout. “If Texas would give up [Mike] Olt, a deal could get done there.”
http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/03/16/nick-cafardo-ranks-major-league-managers/4i6lvIdW3S8YCB7Ya3exZP/story.html
http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/03/16/nick-cafardo-ranks-major-league-managers/4i6lvIdW3S8YCB7Ya3exZP/story.html
His annual, no-rhyme, no-reason ranking of managers is up. One of the qualifications is for the roster, which is pretty damn dumb because I there aren't any managers that are general managers and actually make decisions on roster creation.
If you wanted to know, Bob Brenly is number one because he won the World Series two of the last three years. Joe Maddon is two, Showalter is three because " A complete manager who sets the tone with his personality and knowledge. Very good in-game manager." I have no idea why Showalter should be ahead of managers like Jim Leyland, Terry Francona, Joe Girardi, Ron Washington, Mike Scioscia, Davey Johnson, Charlie Manuel, Dusty Baker; managers who have won the World Series or have actually been to the World Series.
Like last year and previous years, it's really based on some weird set of criteria that Cafardo has in his pea brain that he doesn't feel like sharing with his readers. BTW, I have no idea how Eric Wedge or Ned Yost can be ranked in front of John Farrell, but they are.
If you wanted to know, Bob Brenly is number one because he won the World Series two of the last three years. Joe Maddon is two, Showalter is three because " A complete manager who sets the tone with his personality and knowledge. Very good in-game manager." I have no idea why Showalter should be ahead of managers like Jim Leyland, Terry Francona, Joe Girardi, Ron Washington, Mike Scioscia, Davey Johnson, Charlie Manuel, Dusty Baker; managers who have won the World Series or have actually been to the World Series.
Like last year and previous years, it's really based on some weird set of criteria that Cafardo has in his pea brain that he doesn't feel like sharing with his readers. BTW, I have no idea how Eric Wedge or Ned Yost can be ranked in front of John Farrell, but they are.
Ned Yost and Eric Wedge are employed as managers by Major League teams, so obviously they're doing something right. What more of an explanation do you need?
I thought it was strange to call a Porcello-Bailey trade "obvious" but give examples of why it makes absolutely no sense for the Red Sox.
Brenly was my bad. For some reason I get Bob Brenly and Bruce Bochy confused all the time; it used to happen to me when I was a kid and collected their baseball cards.
I really Cafardoed that one. Mea culpa.
I really Cafardoed that one. Mea culpa.
Ha, they did look crazy alike! Then again, when I was a kid I feel like everybody looked like this...John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Bruce Bochy supposedly had the biggest head in baseball (size 8+). One night he won a game for the Pads and when he got back to the club house there was an entire six-pack chilling in his catcher's helmet.
That's a good sized noggin.
That's a good sized noggin.
Isn't Melvin on like his third job of the decade, after being fired by the M's and Diamondbacks already? Now he's becoming "elite" by managing the Billy Beane Athletics?
Bigpupp said:
Because he's as thick as two short planks.
After pimping Iglesias last year to do the same, Nick's got a new binky. Maybe his support will finally cause P91 to STFU about doing the same on the main board.
Don't know who this Jason Bay fellow is, but I am very familiar with a gentleman named All-Around Good Guy Jason Bay. Is it posible the two are related?Mo's OBP said:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2013/03/live_updates_re_208.html
Strop ranked 93rd in WHIP last season for all relievers with at least 50 innings pitched. 93rd.
He also issued just over 5 walks per nine innings, good for 9th worst in MLB.
Yeah, if he's going to try and mislead readers by adding noise under the cover of misleadingly helpful context, at least get the context factually right.
But, I'd wager Nicky is exactly the type of sportswriter who checks out B-ref's ST pitcher quality and feels dirty for being so cutting-edge.
But, I'd wager Nicky is exactly the type of sportswriter who checks out B-ref's ST pitcher quality and feels dirty for being so cutting-edge.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/03/25/red-sox-have-some-decision-make/9QqUiFqaP2hDr9jN8ms3sM/story.html
AAARGH!!
Not a bad premise....managers dont -- but maybe should -- have more say over rosters. And he even talked to the Red Sox manager (in addition to his staff of Rolodex ghosts). But fercrissakes, John Farrell was once in a major league front office. I think he may be the ONLY current MLB manager who has been in a MLB front office. He was a freaking player development director. Along with the service time concerns of the GM, player development might be the biggest counterweight to "what the manager wants" right now. I guess Nick just forgot to ask about Farrell's actual experience in this regard. I suppose anonymous scouts talking about Earl Weaver and Bobby Cox are much more relevant.
AAARGH!!
Not a bad premise....managers dont -- but maybe should -- have more say over rosters. And he even talked to the Red Sox manager (in addition to his staff of Rolodex ghosts). But fercrissakes, John Farrell was once in a major league front office. I think he may be the ONLY current MLB manager who has been in a MLB front office. He was a freaking player development director. Along with the service time concerns of the GM, player development might be the biggest counterweight to "what the manager wants" right now. I guess Nick just forgot to ask about Farrell's actual experience in this regard. I suppose anonymous scouts talking about Earl Weaver and Bobby Cox are much more relevant.
Yeah, Earl Weaver's not in the big leagues any more, Nick. Neither is Cox or LaRussa. And he completely ignores that the Sox had an pretty good run with Theo and Tito working together to make the roster decisions for a couple of WS winners.
- Status