The Red Sox finally got an interleague win, scratching out a 4-2 win in Pittsburgh yesterday. Get all the coverage at RedSoxLinks.com.

Momentum swing – Peter Abraham has Andrew Miller with another strong start leading the way for the Red Sox.

J.D. Drew may be many things, but a bust isn’t one of them – From the weekend, Nick Underhill explains why J.D. Drew was a home run signing for Theo Epstein. John Tomase agrees that Drew makes the Red Sox better.

This time, Reddick seizing his chance in big leagues – Tim Britton has Josh Reddick making the most of his latest opportunity in the majors.

Jonathan Papelbon. Justin Masterson. Daniel Bard. Now Andrew Miller? – Rob Bradford says that Andrew Miller could end up being one of the Red Sox most important pitchers in 2011.

World Series hero Millar embraces his role as beloved Boston athlete – David Willis talks to Kevin Millar about his cult status in Boston.

Crawford appears on-track for return in Houston – The ProJo Red Sox Journal has Carl Crawford hoping to return to action in his home town. The CSNNE.com notes from Maureen Mullen have Darnell McDonald getting the last laugh on his cousin yesterday. The Globe notes from Peter Abraham have JD Drew having to leave the game with an eye injury. The Herald notebook from Scott Lauber has the Pirates aiming at Dustin Pedroia’s head all afternoon.

Bird may look to slow pace – Julian Benbow in the Globe has a feature on Larry Bird, who will be honored at The Tradition tomorrow night.

Solid draft strengthens Bruins’ core – Steve Conroy has the Bruins feeling good about their draft.

Different paths for Johnson and Moore – Jessica Camerato has a feature on the Celtics two draft picks and how their different pasts have brought them to the same point.

Cure in second opinion – Steve Bulpett was originally underwhelmed by the selection of JaJuan Johnson, but now thinks the Celtics got a steal.

Will they be ready? – Mark Farinella thinks that the Patriots will be better prepared than most when the lockout finally does end. He also got his first smartphone and wants to tell you all about it.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Sox Manage To Snap Interleague Skid at Four

  1. Nick Underhill's defense of JD Drew is why some people hate the Bill James approach to baseball. The numbers say JD Drew has been a top performer over the life of his $70 mill contract. Heck according to Underhill Drew should be in HOF consideration considering the number's company he is keeping. However the eye test from anyone who watches the game closely says he hasn't been. The numbers do not take into account context…when the hits happens, what the pressure was, was he missing at a key time for a "soft" injury. Drew's problem is that unless he put up Gonzales numbers he was not going to live up to a $70 mill contract that basically saw the sox bid against themselves. I did not read Tomasse's story because he makes things up. I am assuming it has garbage equal to Underhill's. Today must be defend JD Drew day in the Boston Media. I wonder who issues those orders.

    1. And the Sabrametric's disciple strikes. The answer is baseball like all sports is about more than numbers and probabilities. Statistics out of context have no validity. A player getting a home run when his team is winning by 10 runs has a statistical home run. Without context you have no idea whether it is important or not. Whether there was pressure to perform. A player misses a game, the stat says he missed a game. Without context you have no idea if he could have played, should have played or why he didn't.

      I accept that statistics are part of the game. I understand their value in attempting to determine value. I find articles like Underhill's to be all that is wrong with the Sabrametric approach that by definition discounts context. I do not really care how JD Drew performed as compared to other Right Fielders. I care about how he performed compared to expectation of what his talent outputs should have been. Without context the stats don't says anything that ours eyes actually tell us.

      1. The expectation was that he was going to be one of the best right fielders in baseball. By comparing him to other right fielders, you see that he was one of the top four players at his position.

      2. But there is nothing to prove that Drew's home run's happened in "meaningless" situations more often or less often than any other player's home runs. And how do we determine which games Drew should have played in when he said he was injured? The writing of Nick Cafardo? How much dirt is on his hat?

        1. Wow, never thought I'd see so many JD Drew defenders in one place…That is unless Theo is posting here under different names.

  2. You REALLY have to be a pink hat to defend JD Drew. To sum up his career: He had a big contract year in LA, suckered the Sox into giving him more money, walks frequently, watches called 3rd strikes frequently, gets hurt constantly, yet somehow manages to waste his god given athletic talents. 17 million for a guy who walks when the team needs a hit is a failure.

  3. Right, who's to say it's a banner time for right fielders? You pay what the market dictates for top talent, and Drew has played up to those expectations relative to his position.

  4. The problem with your use of context is selective memory. You remember him looking at called third strikes in an important games or missing other important games; I remember him carrying the team a few times and a playoff grand slam. So we fall back on stats, which show that over a career players are pretty much the same no matter what the situation is. A .300 hitter bats around .300 in a tied game and he bats around .300 in a blowout.

  5. Agree with latetodinner that this shows what is wrong with sabermetrics where it looks solely at numbers and not at all at context, plus the numbers can be massaged to support any argument that the sabermatrician is trying to make. This is why Bill James says that there is no such thing as "clutch" and writers like Rob Neyer will make vehement arguments for and against HOF candidates and saying that he has the numbers to back himself up. I realize that baseball relies more on stats than any other sport, but stats by themselves can't make the sole case for a particular player.

  6. So it is fine to say…because you remember a hit from 3 years ago in one clutch situation and that the numbers you choose then agree with your supposition that he therefore is not a sucky player? Look my objection was to Underhill's shoddy article. Anecdotally I don't particularly like Drew as an offensive player. Defensively I think he is great. But when someone like Underhill trots out the Sabrametrics to defend a player my radar goes off. When I read an article where the reporter at times compares the player to AL right fielders for one stat, all right fielders for another, and then all outfielders for a third in the course of 5 sentences to make a point no one in the readership wants made just screams to me shoddy journalism. Underhill made the mistake I think most Sarbamaticians make, the lack context. A player who bats .300 gets out 7 out of every 10 at bats. They never look at the context of those outs. A player who bats .300 gets 150 hits ever 500 at bats. A player who bats .250 gets 125 hits every 500 at bats (feel free to extrapolate the same numbers to OBP if you do not trust BA). The point is in real life the difference between a .300 hitter and .250 hitter is 5 hits every 500 at bats. So once you accept that statistics are not really accurate as a measure of who the better hitter is…you have to look at context.

    You might be able to make an argument that because of his defense, OBP and OPS that Drew compared to other right fielders has been worth $14 mill a year. My argument is between when he takes time off and for what, his lack of aggressiveness at the plate and his now diminishing skills that he was not worth the contract. So when I read some hack trying to justify it using faulty analysis I comment.

    1. look at the context then. go to drew's baseball reference page, click on career splits, and check out his performance in high leverage situations (defined as those that came in situations where the probability could be most greatly changed), you'll see that he's right on par with his career averages.

      This is where most people make mistakes. "clutch situations" can come in the first inning the same as they can in the ninth.

  7. A couple of items:

    1) Unfortunately, I watched Steve Burton's interview with U.S. Open winner Rory McIlroy, I again ask the musical question; Steve Burton is better than Alice Cook. Really? Really?! Burton had this gem for McIlroy, "Do you have a girlfriend?" He also did what Steve Burton always does and ask three questions before McIlroy could answer. McIlroy, who seems genuinely pleasant looked as though he would have liked to be anywhere but talking to Burton.

    2) This might be the only time I give any type of credit to D&C but here it is. On Friday Dave Portnoy made his weekly visit to the D&C show. I thought for sure D&C was going to give Portnoy a hard time for this blog post a few days ago.
    http://boston.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/… (NSFW)

    Dennis was seemingly scolding Portnoy on twitter and I expected it to continue. Well to their credit they did not. Barstool is not for everyone but people must realize most of it is satire and not to be taken seriously. D&C at least seemed to figure that out.

    1. Or they were strongly instructed by management to let it go. I'm more inclined to believe that vs. D&C figuring anything out…

      1. You could be right. With EEI being so desperate for younger listeners, Wolfe could have gone to D&C and said, "whatever you guys are feeling, let it go."

        1. Or they, management, actually listened to Portnoy appearances with D&C and realized it was some of the funnier and better radio they were producing anywhere in their lineup.

          One other thing…I am not sure desperate to get younger listeners is the right thought for what Management is feeling at WEEI. I think they desperate to be relevant. The Bruins run caught them by surprise…they would never have let Dale go when they did if they expected Bruins fever to hit. I think Felger and Mazz exposed the Big Show as irrelevant during the Bruins run (so much so many hours have been spent explaining that the station was not anti – Bruins rather no one cared so they did not talk Bruins). I think Toucher and Rich have also made D&C seem irrelevant in the mornings. If neither show is going to be sports centered then D&C have to get a heck of a lot more creative to keep up. I think neither channel cares about 10-2.

Comments are closed.