Comments on: Plugging the 2011 Red Sox Into a Lineup Simulator http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Marky Mark http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-78021 Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:01:59 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-78021 With the Jenks signing the Boston Red Sox now have the highest payroll in MLB. We really need a salary cap in baseball so the other 29 teams can compete with Boston. It is getting a little ridiculous now with their spending.

]]>
By: Fireworks http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-77377 Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:11:26 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-77377 In my example I neglected to mention that every pride, regardless of how large the boundaries of their territory, has a portion of the park that is theirs exclusively.

]]>
By: Fireworks http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-77374 Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:04:08 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-77374 @ 26

I don't like your analogy. Firstly, as far as I can remember, it is the lionesses that do the hunting together as a group in their territory.

A proper way to look at the Yanks, Sox, and other teams would be to imagine a national park that protects all its animals, and in that park are a number of separate prides of lions (say 30), and that none of the other predators in the park would ever try to separate a lion from its kill. In that example, most of the other prides have territories that are not coterminous with the boundaries of the park (whether that is representative at all of how prides really function), however, the Yankees and Red Sox, have a territory that is coterminous with the park boundaries. These coterminous boundary prides have the ability not only to make credible bids upon the services of other teams recent free agents (prey in other prides' territory), but also retain any of their own players that was recently under contract (prevent other prides from seeking prey in their territory). However, that does not necessarily mean that these two large prides always prevent preying in their territory, it means that both, at their whim, can prevent it, regardless of which pride it is that is making the attempt. Lastly, both of these prides prey in other territories without reservation and occasionally may find themselves face to face, squaring off over the same prey. While the Yankees pride usually can get the Sox pride to back down, that is not always the case.

I don't know if anyone who reads this days-old thread will see my post and agree with my analogy instead of 26's, but it is more apt to me and supports my earlier contention that while the Sox are a) not quite the Yanks, they're b) as formidable as the Yanks to pretty much everyone else. I think (b) is more important than (a). (a) only matters to the Yanks and Sox and their fans. (b) matters to the other 28 teams and their fans.

]]>
By: Johnny Twisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-77127 Sun, 12 Dec 2010 05:29:09 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-77127 There is a salary floor, it's $10M.

]]>
By: Sean http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-77123 Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:54:55 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-77123 @ #23

The Red Sox are NOT 'more like the Yankees' than they are other clubs in MLB. The Yankees are ALONE in what they are. The Red Sox are, IMO, uniquely ALONE------neither 'same thing as the Yanks', nor 'same thing as anyone else'-------in what THEY are.

When FA hits, it's like a kill on the Serengeti (sp?)... the LIONS are the Yankees. Boston is the 2nd most formidable diner on the carcass that is the 'players available'--------perhaps a LEOPARD or HYENA--------but they can't outmuscle the lion for anything.

In order for the leopard to come away with something from the kill------they have to slip it past the lion. Maybe the lion is sleeping... or full... or distracted. The leopard cannot go in there in broad daylight and take.

The Red Sox are Jack to the Yankees' giant. Maybe Boston has the resources to get up the beanstalk like nobody else--------but they still have to SNEAK the goose that lays the golden eggs past a sleeping giant. They can't announce they're coming, waltz in there and TAKE the goose.

The Red Sox cannot be in direct competition for any one player that both teams truly covet------and beat the Yankees to him. ONLY if the Yankees are sleeping can this happen... and only if the Red Sox are stealth and quick about it. The A-Rod negotiations stalled with Boston------the Yanks swept in and gobbled him up. Teixeira negotiations stalled-----and ditto. The Red Sox got Manny only because the Yankees didn't want him OR because the Yankees were distracted with MUSSINA. The Red Sox snuck Curt Schilling past the Yankees only because they snuck out to Arizona on Thanksgiving and had him signed before anyone knew they went------and the Yankees were preoccupied with Javier Vasquez. Boston got A-Gone solely because the Yankees have no spot for him (yeah, I know it was a trade-----so that might have helped Boston even if the Yanks wanted him).... the Red Sox got Carl Crawford because the Yankees have been laser-locked on Cliff Lee.... and they did the Crawford thing QUICK-------no snags that would allow the Yankees to wake up from their Cliff Lee stupor and do something about it.

The Red Sox are a clear #2 at the kill..... but they are NOT the lion.

]]>
By: Sean http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-77122 Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:32:27 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-77122 @ #23

The Pirates shouldn't be defended. They aren't a ML ballclub. There needs to be a salary cap in MLB-------as well as a FLOOR to spending. IMO, if you can't spend X-amount of dollars, you're NOT a big league club. As far as being MAJOR League---------the Yankees' behavior requires far less defending than the Pirates'.... JMO.

]]>
By: Fireworks http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-76997 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:25:45 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-76997 Um, pretend like a person not fluent in English wrote that second paragraph.

]]>
By: Fireworks http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-76996 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:23:37 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-76996 @11 @13 Please stop trying to defend the Sox as if they're the Pirates. Yes, the Yankees have the highest payroll, but the Sox are often 2nd and if not 2nd very close to 2nd.

The Sox may be closer to the team behind them in payroll but they're not a bunch of Average Joes out there working on a shoestring budget. The days where you could greatly contrast Yankees' spending and Sox' spending have been over for a while. While the Yanks will always be the biggest spenders and most easily able to swallow a bad contract, the Sox aren't too far behind. And the "oh we just removed money from the payroll so we really saved money" argument is bogus. When you pay a player a ton of money for a ton of years your payroll naturally must go up in the years following as you have to pay young studs that produce more and sign later free agents to be competitive while you have less flexibility in moving players that landed big contracts. Unless, of course, you hit the lottery every year with your draft picks, but no one can do that. Anyway, you end up being an formerly good, formerly up-and-coming team that actually has to do a rebuild. The Sox--like the Yanks--don't do rebuilds anymore. Sox don't have to do a rebuild because a half-dozen players make eight figures. And that's precisely what makes the Sox like the Yanks. It's most of the other teams out there that have to make hard, hard choices and not do things like sign Lackey to a lengthy contract, give Beckett an extension, exercise a $12.5m option on an aging DH, then go out and commit $40m a season on two players for the next 7 seasons.

It's amazing how every fan base has this thing they hold onto whether it's true or not. For Sox fans it's the idea that the Sox are somehow more like the other baseball teams than the Yankees. Yes, the Yankees have the deepest pockets and often address issues via free agency. That the Sox don't have pockets as deep as the Yanks is a relative comparison; their pockets are still deep and like most every competitive team with an advantage in resources, they utilize them.

That's the other thing. I don't get how people still buy into that "doing things the right way," nonsense that the old-timers spew out when talking about teams like Tampa Bay. You have the resources to acquire players, you do so. Is it nice to develop a homegrown player? Sure. But nothing makes the fans happier than winning. No one should feel bad because their team has more resources and is utilizing them.

]]>
By: Will S http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-76993 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:07:14 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-76993 Interestingly enough, if you do the same thing with last year's team*, an optimal lineup scores 5.794 R/G.

*Like this:
1 2B Pedroia
2 1B Youkilis
3 DH Ortiz
4 RF Drew
5 C V-Mart
6 CF Cameron
7 LF Ellsbury
8 3B Beltre
9 SS Scutaro

Just shows how much injuries can kill you.

]]>
By: Lawrence Azrin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9440/comment-page-1#comment-76921 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:45:38 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9440#comment-76921 #17/ Ellis Says: "What's the greatest offensive team ever (runs per game)? Murderer's row?"

I think that instead of using runs/game, which would favor teams in high-scoring eras, we could:
1) use the % a team is better than league-average runs/game
2) how strong a team is up and down the whole lineup

I recall flipping through the 2007 "Total Baseball" encyclopedia (Pete Palmer), and noticing several of the Murderer's Row teams standing out in "batting wins", including 1932, 1936, 1931 and (of course) 1927 (sorry, I'm not sure how to look up batting wins for teams on this site), also the 1953 Dodgers.

#2 would apply to teams that don't have the very highest numerical totals, but have NO holes in their batting order at all, such as the 1975-76 Reds, and the 2003-04 Red Sox. It might be more useful to analyze teams over two/three year periods, as a team can benefit from a fluke year or two from players in the batting order.

]]>