OT: Alex Cora's Philosophy

[intlzncster]

Come on, LCF in Fenway is 379, only 20 feet shallower than Yankee stadium in that area with a 37' wall. If it clears the Monster with ease, Yankee stadium ain't holding it.

There was an article by a mathematician a few years ago that showed the average home run that went over the Monster would have been out in EVERY major league park. I can't find it for the life of me right now.

I agree, the ball is flying out of parks everywhere. Players are bigger and stronger, the ball is reportedly juiced, and parks are being built to keep fans excited and oblivious to the fact they just blew a week's salary on their visit. That said, the Eastern League made the Yard Goats put a 13 foot net on top of a 12 foot wall to cut down on HRs on the 317 foot right field line (Which is deeper than both lines in Yankee stadium.) Fenway was built to fit between the streets of Boston 100+ years ago. The Yankees had a blank canvas in 2009 and built what they built. As far as advantages or disadvantages, when you play 81 games in one place, it's smart to build a team to take advantage of it. Kudos to Cashman for doing that.

The ball is definitely juiced. That's been shown very clearly in the numbers. Significantly up since the new ball was introduced.

 

[intlzncster]

As far as advantages or disadvantages, when you play 81 games in one place, it's smart to build a team to take advantage of it. Kudos to Cashman for doing that.

If you're building a park, you want to build for homers. Fans want dingers. Helps you win if you construct the right roster (incl pitchers) for it. Helps your guys stats so players want to play there. etc

I hear what you're saying but the Yankees would hit the most homers in the majors regardless of where they're playing.

I think that's universally acknowledged. Both points above are true.

 

[mauconnfan]

If you're building a park, you want to build for homers. Fans want dingers. Helps you win if you construct the right roster (incl pitchers) for it. Helps your guys stats so players want to play there. etc



I think that's universally acknowledged. Both points above are true.

Again, not too many Colorado players have left that stadium and been as successful. Baltimore is a huge advantage because the dimensions are a shoe box all around. They say in the spring to summer time at Wrigley 80% of the time the wind blows out like mad. Cincy the ball flies out, Houston is quirky and it also flies there. Yankee obviously RF to RC and LF to LC nice dimensions for HR's, Fenway LF can be both detrimental and helpful for HR's but certainly helps the average with short fly balls scaling off the fence on its way down. I mean the list goes on and on but everyone gets to hit there when playing the other team so if you're a good hitter take advantage of these situations right? Problem is these guys aren't great hitters anymore, they all want to pull the ball and load up to hit hit it high and long so shame on them. The game has changed there aren't enough Boggs, Gwynn's and Mattingly's who can take advantage of fields dimensions or even care to. The loaded ball, the loaded players and the need to for the long ball has changed the game. It's still fun to watch but to not see the changes in the players, the expectations (.300 hitters are few and far between) and ball right now is crazy. It's a damn super ball.

You're right the new fans are getting what they're looking for.

 

[mauconnfan]

Come on, LCF in Fenway is 379, only 20 feet shallower than Yankee stadium in that area with a 37' wall. If it clears the Monster with ease, Yankee stadium ain't holding it.

There was an article by a mathematician a few years ago that showed the average home run that went over the Monster would have been out in EVERY major league park. I can't find it for the life of me right now.

I agree, the ball is flying out of parks everywhere. Players are bigger and stronger, the ball is reportedly juiced, and parks are being built to keep fans excited and oblivious to the fact they just blew a week's salary on their visit. That said, the Eastern League made the Yard Goats put a 13 foot net on top of a 12 foot wall to cut down on HRs on the 317 foot right field line (Which is deeper than both lines in Yankee stadium.) Fenway was built to fit between the streets of Boston 100+ years ago. The Yankees had a blank canvas in 2009 and built what they built. As far as advantages or disadvantages, when you play 81 games in one place, it's smart to build a team to take advantage of it. Kudos to Cashman for doing that.

I need to see that mathematician's findings because it's wrong and I guarantee those numbers/dimensions are even inflated in LF but who's to say? Yankee Stadium is built for lefties no doubt but the Yanks have mostly righties that have power who can use it too, you guys won a game because of the short porch so more guys should hit it like Martinez did kudos to him for being a good hitter. As I said at Fenway I've seen rockets hit the wall for singles/doubles that would've been bombs anywhere else and I've seen fly balls drop over the wall that would be a can of corn in most parks for sure, it's give and take but it's not a huge gap.

 

[superjohn]

Again, not too many Colorado players have left that stadium and been as successful. Baltimore is a huge advantage because the dimensions are a shoe box all around. They say in the spring to summer time at Wrigley 80% of the time the wind blows out like mad. Cincy the ball flies out, Houston is quirky and it also flies there. Yankee obviously RF to RC and LF to LC nice dimensions for HR's, Fenway LF can be both detrimental and helpful for HR's but certainly helps the average with short fly balls scaling off the fence on its way down. I mean the list goes on and on but everyone gets to hit there when playing the other team so if you're a good hitter take advantage of these situations right? Problem is these guys aren't great hitters anymore, they all want to pull the ball and load up to hit hit it high and long so shame on them. The game has changed there aren't enough Boggs, Gwynn's and Mattingly's who can take advantage of fields dimensions or even care to. The loaded ball, the loaded players and the need to for the long ball has changed the game. It's still fun to watch but to not see the changes in the players, the expectations (.300 hitters are few and far between) and ball right now is crazy. It's a damn super ball.

You're right the new fans are getting what they're looking for.

Plenty of good hitters playing now, in fact a couple of the best hitters ever are still playing.

I know what you're saying, MLB seems to have changed like the NBA has. Long ball is exciting and accounts for at least 1 run as opposed to a single or double so players are putting more loft in their swing. Same goes for the the 3 ball in the NBA. More value has been placed on it and future earning power is tied in. It's all cyclical. During the steroid era I'm sure people didn't think there would be so few .300 hitters now and so many no hitters.

 

[superjohn]

I need to see that mathematician's findings because it's wrong and I guarantee those numbers/dimensions are even inflated in LF but who's to say? Yankee Stadium is built for lefties no doubt but the Yanks have mostly righties that have power who can use it too, you guys won a game because of the short porch so more guys should hit it like Martinez did kudos to him for being a good hitter. As I said at Fenway I've seen rockets hit the wall for singles/doubles that would've been bombs anywhere else and I've seen fly balls drop over the wall that would be a can of corn in most parks for sure, it's give and take but it's not a huge gap.

I don't really see why anyone is upset about it. The Yankees could be playing their games on Mars and they would hit more homers than everyone else. It helps the lefties who aren't built like Paul Bunyan. It doesn't matter with the three Yankees who can hit it 500 feet.

 

[intlzncster]

Again, not too many Colorado players have left that stadium and been as successful. Baltimore is a huge advantage because the dimensions are a shoe box all around. They say in the spring to summer time at Wrigley 80% of the time the wind blows out like mad. Cincy the ball flies out, Houston is quirky and it also flies there. Yankee obviously RF to RC and LF to LC nice dimensions for HR's, Fenway LF can be both detrimental and helpful for HR's but certainly helps the average with short fly balls scaling off the fence on its way down. I mean the list goes on and on but everyone gets to hit there when playing the other team so if you're a good hitter take advantage of these situations right? Problem is these guys aren't great hitters anymore, they all want to pull the ball and load up to hit hit it high and long so shame on them. The game has changed there aren't enough Boggs, Gwynn's and Mattingly's who can take advantage of fields dimensions or even care to. The loaded ball, the loaded players and the need to for the long ball has changed the game. It's still fun to watch but to not see the changes in the players, the expectations (.300 hitters are few and far between) and ball right now is crazy. It's a damn super ball.

You're not wrong, but don't forget about Ichiro in there. He was doing it during this era for sure.

 

[intlzncster]

Plenty of good hitters playing now, in fact a couple of the best hitters ever are still playing.

I know what you're saying, MLB seems to have changed like the NBA has. Long ball is exciting and accounts for at least 1 run as opposed to a single or double so players are putting more loft in their swing. Same goes for the the 3 ball in the NBA. More value has been placed on it and future earning power is tied in. It's all cyclical. During the steroid era I'm sure people didn't think there would be so few .300 hitters now and so many no hitters.

It's even changed from a teaching perspective. With all the tech now, hitting coaches are focusing on launch angles and looking at exit velocity. They are trying to optimize homerun hitting.

Makes sense not just from a PR standpoint, but a strategy standpoint as well. On the one side you need to string together multiple hits to manufacture runs. On the other, one swing gives you runs.

 

[jibsey]

Both teams will be in it all summer and fall. This series proved that.

Should be a fun one to watch.

Not necessarily

 

[Tenspro2002]

It's even changed from a teaching perspective. With all the tech now, hitting coaches are focusing on launch angles and looking at exit velocity. They are trying to optimize homerun hitting.

Makes sense not just from a PR standpoint, but a strategy standpoint as well. On the one side you need to string together multiple hits to manufacture runs. On the other, one swing gives you runs.

It's not just that home runs are good, it's that ground balls are bad. If you hit the ball on the ground, you're getting maybe 1 base, possibly 2 if you place it exactly right. Most outcomes are bad -- double plays, failure to get the runner home from 3rd with less than 2 outs.

If you try to hit it in the air, you'll fly out or pop out more, but you'll also hit for extra bases more whether out of the park or not, and you'll also improve your chances of a sac fly, etc.

 

[mauconnfan]

Plenty of good hitters playing now, in fact a couple of the best hitters ever are still playing.

I know what you're saying, MLB seems to have changed like the NBA has. Long ball is exciting and accounts for at least 1 run as opposed to a single or double so players are putting more loft in their swing. Same goes for the the 3 ball in the NBA. More value has been placed on it and future earning power is tied in. It's all cyclical. During the steroid era I'm sure people didn't think there would be so few .300 hitters now and so many no hitters.

Yeah both MLB and NBA like the long ball and ,market it therefore the kids growing up are thinking that's the way. Heck they even advertised for a kids Home Run contact the other night on ESPN during the Yanks Sox game, I mean LL and young teens, that's not a good thing from my viewpoint but again things have changed.

Saw a stat a week or 2 ago where in all of MLB there were more K's than hits through that point of the year. That's a horrific stat for an old baseball guy like me and shows the change in philosophy overall in the game is not very good. But who's to argue, it's selling right now and because the players hit like they do baseball is smart in making the ball work to it's focus.

 

[intlzncster]

It's not just that home runs are good, it's that ground balls are bad. If you hit the ball on the ground, you're getting maybe 1 base, possibly 2 if you place it exactly right. Most outcomes are bad -- double plays, failure to get the runner home from 3rd with less than 2 outs.

If you try to hit it in the air, you'll fly out or pop out more, but you'll also hit for extra bases more whether out of the park or not, and you'll also improve your chances of a sac fly, etc.

Exactly. I should have said hitting coaches are focused on driving the ball (rather than HR specifically), over pure contact.

 

[the Q]

That's cool I played baseball too wish I worked a lot harder in high school and college but had fun nonetheless greatest game ever basketball is a close second

Yes it is. And nothing is close.

Baseball has the mental brutality of world class chess, the precision of gold and the fast twitch muscles of Olympic Weight lifting.

The chess match was my favorite part. I knew the pitchers better than they knew themselves after one time through the order.

 

[the Q]

Yeah both MLB and NBA like the long ball and ,market it therefore the kids growing up are thinking that's the way. Heck they even advertised for a kids Home Run contact the other night on ESPN during the Yanks Sox game, I mean LL and young teens, that's not a good thing from my viewpoint but again things have changed.

Saw a stat a week or 2 ago where in all of MLB there were more K's than hits through that point of the year. That's a horrific stat for an old baseball guy like me and shows the change in philosophy overall in the game is not very good. But who's to argue, it's selling right now and because the players hit like they do baseball is smart in making the ball work to it's focus.

But it’s alsk a big concern. Baseball is having less action than ever before. And the games aren’t getting shorter anyway.

But people will live with shootouts. I don’t recall many complaints about the game 5 of the WS. And if that game started at 7pm instead of 830 there would’ve been zero complaints.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Exactly. I should have said hitting coaches are focused on driving the ball (rather than HR specifically), over pure contact.

Hitting it hard is good. That's been known forever.

What's new is the idea that hitting it hard on the ground is a waste, and hitting it hard in the air is much, much better.

 

[the Q]

Hitting it hard is good. That's been known forever.

What's new is the idea that hitting it hard on the ground is a waste, and hitting it hard in the air is much, much better.

It baffles me it took this long.

I knew this 15 years ago and my college teammates made fun of me for it when I tried to tell them about it.

It makes zero sense to teach hitting the ball on the ground when you teach pitchers to try and "throw groundballs" too.

 

[the Q]

I will question cora’s Philosophy on the double steal.

 

[NC_Uconn_Fan]

Come on, LCF in Fenway is 379, only 20 feet shallower than Yankee stadium in that area with a 37' wall. If it clears the Monster with ease, Yankee stadium ain't holding it.

Actually, true lc at Fenway is 335', the stated 379 marker is more toward true center field. Yankee stadium is 382' to true lc. That is almost 50' difference. Fenway does make up for it with a large rf. Yankee stadiums, rc is a joke too (I'm a Yankee fan) at 360'. Can't go by the markers on the wall, the markers are correct, but not really in the correct locations.

Sources -

Clem's Baseball ~ Fenway Park

Clem's Baseball ~ Yankee Stadium II

 

[Waquoit]

I will question cora’s Philosophy on the double steal.

Good call, poor execution

 

[the Q]

Good call, poor execution

Vazquez was on 2nd. He's not fast.

You had 2 on and no outs and one of your best hitters up. Who was also a lefty so the catcher had an easy read.

There was very little to gain by stealing 3rd there with Beni up.

 

[Waquoit]

Results oriented analysis. He beat the throw.

 

[the Q]

Nope. The risk was not worth the reward.

 

[tentoes4rings]

Part of the greatness of the Red Sox is having an awesome bench. Three catchers who could start for any team, gold glove caliber Moreland, versatile guys like Holt and Nunez you can plug into 3-4 spots and not miss a beat. Considering Farrell’s teams the last couple years flamed out dramatically in September and October resting guys ain’t the worst thing. You’re not going to go 162-0.

To revisit this post further, the catching situation scares me. Christian has regressed so much offensively that I think an upgrade is seriously needed. For a team with a short window of only a couple years, Id love to see the Sox make a run at a guy like Salvador Perez. He's still young, was a leader on a WS Champion team and would be a perfect fit for this team.

 

[The Viking]

Vazquez’s defense to me this year has been disappointing.
If you are going to suck offensively at least be a very strong defensive catcher like Leon who will block everything and throw out runners.
At this point I’d give Vazquez’s starts to Swihart for 1-2 weeks and see if the kid can back to what he was supposed to be offensively.

 

[tentoes4rings]

Vazquez’s defense to me this year has been disappointing.
If you are going to suck offensively at least be a very strong defensive catcher like Leon who will block everything and throw out runners.
At this point I’d give Vazquez’s starts to Swihart for 1-2 weeks and see if the kid can back to what he was supposed to be offensively.

I couldn’t agree more. Having Swihart on the bench to never play makes no sense. I still believe Swihart can really hit if given a chance. A little drop off defensively with a potentially big upgrade offensively is worth exploring. I think the Sox should make a big push for Salvador Perez, he’s still young and would be a perfect fit for this team.

 

[The Viking]

If the Royals put Perez on the market, the Sox wouldn't have the best offer for him.

 

[tentoes4rings]

If the Royals put Perez on the market, the Sox wouldn't have the best offer for him.

I can’t disagree unfortunately. Dombrowski has gutted the system so much that the Sox are not in a great position to acquire any great players. Also, the payroll is so high. When JBJ plays though, there are two automatic outs in the lineup, contrast that to the Yankees who have none. Either Vazquez or JBJ needs to get it going soon or it’s going to be a real issue.

 

[intlzncster]

I can’t disagree unfortunately. Dombrowski has gutted the system so much that the Sox are not in a great position to acquire any great players.

They are gutted, but how many of the trades wouldn't you'd make again?

1. Moncada/Kopech for Sale is a no brainer, even though the 2 for 1 stings--especially since they got JD now.
2. Kimbrel? He's pretty damn good. 4 prospects hurts from a pure numbers standpoint.
3. Pomerantz for Espinoza, tbd. Pomerantz has been OK, but who knows if Espinoza pans out in the end; think he had Tommy John surgery. He still might have been valuable trade bait in the end.
4. Carson Smith hasn't worked out overall due to injuries. Maybe he's turning a corner though.
5. Ziegler was a decent trade.
6. The Tyler Thornburg trade was a bum trade (3 prospects +Shaw).

I mean, looking at it, I'm probably making 1 through 5 again. I'd take back Carson Smith deal, but that's only because of unknown injuries after the fact.

I think where he's been dragging is all of these multiple prospect for single player trades. I think other GMs know they can squeeze Dombrowski because he's willing to give up a bunch of dudes to guarantee a deal goes through. His style gives up leverage implicitly.

Also, the payroll is so high. When JBJ plays though, there are two automatic outs in the lineup, contrast that to the Yankees who have none. Either Vazquez or JBJ needs to get it going soon or it’s going to be a real issue.

Well, they have the answer to that one on the roster right now, with Martinez, Moreland, and maybe Swihart. You just have to sacrifice D to do that.

 

[Tenspro2002]

They are gutted, but how many of the trades wouldn't you'd make again?

1. Moncada/Kopech for Sale is a no brainer, even though the 2 for 1 stings--especially since they got JD now.
2. Kimbrel? He's pretty damn good. 4 prospects hurts from a pure numbers standpoint.
3. Pomerantz for Espinoza, tbd. Pomerantz has been OK, but who knows if Espinoza pans out in the end; think he had Tommy John surgery. He still might have been valuable trade bait in the end.
4. Carson Smith hasn't worked out overall due to injuries. Maybe he's turning a corner though.
5. Ziegler was a decent trade.
6. The Tyler Thornburg trade was a bum trade (3 prospects +Shaw).

I mean, looking at it, I'm probably making 1 through 5 again. I'd take back Carson Smith deal, but that's only because of unknown injuries after the fact.

I think where he's been dragging is all of these multiple prospect for single player trades. I think other GMs know they can squeeze Dombrowski because he's willing to give up a bunch of dudes to guarantee a deal goes through. His style gives up leverage implicitly.



Well, they have the answer to that one on the roster right now, with Martinez, Moreland, and maybe Swihart. You just have to sacrifice D to do that.

Yeah, the quantity of prospects in the deals might bother people, but the quality should not. Most of them were guys who had so-so value and were unlikely to pan out. The only failure so far is Thornburg/Shaw, and that's only because Thornburg had an unexpected injury and Shaw had an unexpected resurgence after having been exposed late in the 2016 season.

In terms of quantity, the question is: is a GM really going to give up someone of consequence for a handful of B-level prospects? If not, then the throw-ins don't really hurt you.

Dombrowski basically had to make those deals to get back into contention quickly. Cherington stocked the farm but was unwilling to make a big move and the major-league performance was abysmal.

 

[tentoes4rings]

They are gutted, but how many of the trades wouldn't you'd make again?

1. Moncada/Kopech for Sale is a no brainer, even though the 2 for 1 stings--especially since they got JD now.
2. Kimbrel? He's pretty damn good. 4 prospects hurts from a pure numbers standpoint.
3. Pomerantz for Espinoza, tbd. Pomerantz has been OK, but who knows if Espinoza pans out in the end; think he had Tommy John surgery. He still might have been valuable trade bait in the end.
4. Carson Smith hasn't worked out overall due to injuries. Maybe he's turning a corner though.
5. Ziegler was a decent trade.
6. The Tyler Thornburg trade was a bum trade (3 prospects +Shaw).

I mean, looking at it, I'm probably making 1 through 5 again. I'd take back Carson Smith deal, but that's only because of unknown injuries after the fact.

I think where he's been dragging is all of these multiple prospect for single player trades. I think other GMs know they can squeeze Dombrowski because he's willing to give up a bunch of dudes to guarantee a deal goes through. His style gives up leverage implicitly.



Well, they have the answer to that one on the roster right now, with Martinez, Moreland, and maybe Swihart. You just have to sacrifice D to do that.

I have a little different perspective because I lived in Fort Myers for a few years and got to watch and meet a lot of those prospects. Moncada was the one guy I really wished we could have retained and I think if DD stuck to his guns he could have included Groome or additional prospects without having to include him in the Sale trade. Last year was frustrating because we all knew the Sox needed another big bat, especially with Papi's retirement. So I wondered why would you trade away Moncada and Kopech for Sale if you weren't prepared to bolster the offense. With JD added this year it's more defensible, I just think Moncada will be a big star for years and would have been prefect for the Boston spotlight. I agree, only the Thornburg trade looks like a colossal fail right now but with Shaw's defensive issues two years ago it seemed like a solid deal at the time.