Role Playing

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Role Playing

    "Yaz was a number 3 hitter".
    "Crawford is a #3 hitter".
    "Crawford is a lead-offf hitter".
    "Lowrie is a utility player".
    "Varitek is a back-up catcher".

    "Wakefield is a 6th starter".
    "Beckett is the #4 pitcher".


    Funny how "roles" can change.
    Is our perception of them based on their salary structure?
    Their output this week?

    "He can't go another inning. His pitch count is at 110 pitches".
    "No. NO! He's the 7th inning guy! He can't pitch the 8th!".

    Sadly, roles reflect the times we live in. Corporate structure dictates our livelihood.
    As a result, we see the players we root for - we see ourselves - in our "roles".
    We think about our role...before we think.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from billsrul. Show billsrul's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    I somewhat agree Harness.  I think it depends what "roles" we're talking about.  Pitch counts is one thing I generally support; I'm guessing it has a long-term effect (thinking a month or two down the line) on season performance.  I'd also be willing to bet that there's something to be said for maybe letting a pitcher go 120-130 pitches in one start, and then cutting him off at 80-90 the next.  But I think it's a generally good practice not to be sending your guys out there for 120-130 pitches each start, otherwise you'll wear out their arm throughout the year.

    As for the batting order stuff, I'll actually agree with you on this one.  I think guys ought to change spots in the order depending on who's playing in the lineup, who the starting pitcher is, and maybe even in some extreme situations, the ballpark.  I would think MLB hitters could get over constant lineup switching (in middle school i was constantly switched in the lineup and it really bugged me.  but these are professional adults, one would believe they could handle it).  But I think that's one thing that supports the defined roles; if players can't handle the moving around.

    As for bullpen, I'm not so sure.  I don't like the set "8th inning man/9th inning man, etc. thing", but I think that there should be some general rules set for bullpen guys, just so they know when they are likely to be getting into the game. 

    As for your corporate structure whining, I'm not so sure I agree.  i don't think that role definition has changed much in society (it has a bit in baseball maybe with bullpens and pitch/innings counts, but the pitch counts part is really just management getting smarter)
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    I don't like it when people feel players should be in because they make a certain salary. That shouldn't be involved when deciding who the best team is to put on the field on any given day. Once they've decided on the roster, they should throw out any notions about money, and view all players the same. Just put a team together that has the best chance of winning each individual game as it comes.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Yeah Kim, but who gets a longer leash, Crawford or Wake?
    Salary creates fan bias. Otherwise Drew would not have been so scrutinized
    for  4+ years.

    Lackey/Beckett/CC - they will be under the gun for years. Every bad game will create false expectations.

    Dice's role has changed since how it was perceived back in 2007.
    And player performance hinges on expectation.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Yeah Kim, but who gets a longer leash, Crawford or Wake?
    Salary creates fan bias. Otherwise Drew would not have been so scrutinized for
    4+ years.

    Lackey/Beckett/CC - they will be under the gun for years. Every bad game will create false expectations.

    Dice's role has changed since how it was perceived back in 2007.
    And player performance hinges on expectation. -- Harness
    ----------------------------------------------

    Fan bias shouldn't count for anything either. Players don't make their salaries up themselves -- agents do. 

    If a player hasn't done well in the last game, but the manager feels he can do better, than put him in. Again, not because of how much he cost the team, but more a belief in someone's abilities. That opinion should be completely separate from the salary they make. IMO
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Some people seemed very upset about Lackey starting the season as the #2, and bashed Francona for it as if it was some terrible blunder...seems like a pretty meaningless label to me. After the first week everyone forgets who started in what order at the beginning of the season anyway, and we start ranking the pitchers based on their performances.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    In Response to Re: Role Playing:
    [QUOTE]I somewhat agree Harness.  I think it depends what "roles" we're talking about.  Pitch counts is one thing I generally support; I'm guessing it has a long-term effect (thinking a month or two down the line) on season performance.  I'd also be willing to bet that there's something to be said for maybe letting a pitcher go 120-130 pitches in one start, and then cutting him off at 80-90 the next.  But I think it's a generally good practice not to be sending your guys out there for 120-130 pitches each start, otherwise you'll wear out their arm throughout the year. As for the batting order stuff, I'll actually agree with you on this one.  I think guys ought to change spots in the order depending on who's playing in the lineup, who the starting pitcher is, and maybe even in some extreme situations, the ballpark.  I would think MLB hitters could get over constant lineup switching (in middle school i was constantly switched in the lineup and it really bugged me.  but these are professional adults, one would believe they could handle it).  But I think that's one thing that supports the defined roles; if players can't handle the moving around. As for bullpen, I'm not so sure.  I don't like the set "8th inning man/9th inning man, etc. thing", but I think that there should be some general rules set for bullpen guys, just so they know when they are likely to be getting into the game.  As for your corporate structure whining, I'm not so sure I agree.  i don't think that role definition has changed much in society (it has a bit in baseball maybe with bullpens and pitch/innings counts, but the pitch counts part is really just management getting smarter)
    Posted by billsrul[/QUOTE]

    Role definition/adopted policy has severe drawbacks. And when it influences managerial decision-making based on job description/expectation, players can pay the price - and games are needlessly lost.

    I agree that the advent of pitch count will go along way in protecting investment.
    The BP is structured along this premise. In fact, BP roles are the result of it.
    But every player is different. Their threshold differs. Just as every game has it's own pulse. I used corporate policy as an analogy because what is perceived to benefit the main populous doesn't necessarily work for everybody.

    Sometimes flexibility is not an option. Sometimes it is, but hands are tied.
    I believe Tito was hired by Theo because they share a common mind-set in many areas. Tito knows what's expected of him. And his decisions are made accordingly.
    Billy Martin was at constant war with his boss, but in doing things his way, he proved to be effective. Unfortunately, he was also self-destructive.

    I don't abide by "what's seen as being good for all" as always being the decisive factor.
    I'm old enough to remember the landscape as one ruled by independents. Now, corporations have a monopolizing affect on every aspect of our lives. Call it whining if you choose, but I have a valid frame of reference. And just as they rule our economy, so do they rule how fans now view the game of baseball.


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Think on this for a moment:
    How many times in UR daily job do you have to abide by policy, even though you know there's a better way.

    Don't you think Tito's hands are tied in the same way?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    The biggest role isn't corporate, it's getting skin from the game.

    Wakefield is a #9 starter

    Salty had great stuff, tonight
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    "Getting skin from the game"? Can you be more specific?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    "Everybody's got to have some skin in the game", so everyone can get some skin from the game.

    I agree that some roles are too restrictive. Earl Weaver was the best I ever saw at understanding how to construct a cohesive and productive roster. Baseball hasn't really changed much since then. Weaver would be worth the inflated dollar to consult before reflexively listening to accountants and stat geeks.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Weaver's expertise wasn't limited to roster construction.
    He was his own person who probably had more free reign than his present-day contemporaries.

    I do think the game has become more restrictive. I think it's more important to GM's for their managers to 'tow the company line'.

    Leland/Manuel are outliers.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Well if you think of the circumstances under which Francona was hired, he replaced a guy who was basically fired because he managed by feel instead of by the numbers, and who virtually defied a direct order to pull Pedro after no more than 105 pitches.  So yes, I think Francona has a mandate to manage a certain way.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    m
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Damn, I thought this topic was about...you know...role playing.  I was all prepared to be the naugthy cop and everything.  YOU RUIN EVERYTHING HARNESS!

    Yell
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    In Response to Re: Role Playing:
    [QUOTE]Well if you think of the circumstances under which Francona was hired, he replaced a guy who was basically fired because he managed by feel instead of by the numbers, and who virtually defied a direct order to pull Pedro after no more than 105 pitches.  So yes, I think Francona has a mandate to manage a certain way.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    Well, and everyone in the world knew Pedro was done.  Even this girl, who nothing about baseball BTW, hanging out with us knew he was done.  All she kept saying during the eighth inning was, "Why did he send the pitcher back out?  Even I know he's done!"  I'm not saying it justifies his firing, but I certainly understand it.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    i've often thought that at times "roles" could be to the detriment of not only the player but the team as well, like with pitchers, with  say a 1-2 run lead, what makes the 8th any less pressure packed than the 9th?..i say if it matters that much, why not go to your closer then, for me a perfect example would be the 98' Yanks, Torre at times went to Stanton in different innings, to me when he was right, Stanton could get anybody out... 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    In Response to Re: Role Playing:
    [QUOTE]i've often thought that at times "roles" could be to the detriment of not only the player but the team as well, like with pitchers, with  say a 1-2 run, what makes the 8th any less pressure packed than the 9th?..i say if it matters that much, why not go to your closer then, for me a perfect example would be the 98' Yanks, Torre at times went to Stanton in different innings, to me when he was right, Stanton could get anybody out... 
    Posted by jete02fan[/QUOTE]

    Preach on, Jete!  We should be less concerned with pitching out closer in the ninth inning, and more about pitching our best relievers in the spots where they give the team the highest leverage. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    In Response to Re: Role Playing:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Role Playing : Preach on, Jete!  We should be less concerned with pitching out closer in the ninth inning, and more about pitching our best relievers in the spots where they give the team the highest leverage. 
    Posted by redsoxfan791[/QUOTE]

    And it should be noted that Francona did utilize this philosophy in a game against Oakland on April 20.  The Red Sox were leading 4-1 with one out in the 6th and Buchholz had loaded the bases.  Francona brought Bard in, he got the last 2 outs in the 6th and then pitched the 7th.  Jenks was used in the 8th and Paps in the 9th. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from wherescreamingcomesfrom. Show wherescreamingcomesfrom's posts

    Re: Role Playing

         I thought the way Francona used Bard in that game against Oakland was fantastic. I said at the time that it's the reason I don't want him as the future closer, I prefer that the manager has the freedom to use our best reliever any time the game is on the line. Bard "saved" that game in the 6th (or 7th, I can't remember).

        Generally speaking, the need to have defined roles seems overblown. However, I don't go in for the opposite extreme either. I don't think, for example, the lineup should radically shift from day to day. Playing lefty/righty matchups, great. A guy with a good track record against a given pitcher great. But shifting 1-9 constantly because of small sample sized differences . . . . I wouldn't be for that.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Now, corporations have a monopolizing affect on every aspect of our lives. Call it whining if you choose, but I have a valid frame of reference. And just as they rule our economy, so do they rule how fans now view the game of baseball.

    This is patently false. How do account that over 50% of U.S. income comes from the taxpayer, or that the average govt employee make nearly twice as much as his private counterpart.
    I can tell by your post that you are not a strong proponent of capitalism, you must therefore favor socialism as a means to fairness.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from wherescreamingcomesfrom. Show wherescreamingcomesfrom's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Oh God, this is where the thread takes a turn for the worse . . .
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tc25. Show tc25's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    In Response to Re: Role Playing:
    [QUOTE]Now, corporations have a monopolizing affect on every aspect of our lives. Call it whining if you choose, but I have a valid frame of reference. And just as they rule our economy, so do they rule how fans now view the game of baseball. This is patently false. How do account that over 50% of U.S. income comes from the taxpayer, or that the average govt employee make nearly twice as much as his private counterpart. I can tell by your post that you are not a strong proponent of capitalism, you must therefore favor socialism as a means to fairness.
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]
    Ike,  something must be wrong with my computer because I cannot  find out who you are replying to, but I must say I agree with you
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    I think what you're saying is that these roles should not be set in stone, & that the manager (Tito) needs to have the flexibility to make open ended decisions on an inning by inning basis without the confines of salary, status, or other pigeon holed "roles" for any particular player???  That the manager is often hamstrung by roles that are too narrow in scope???

    I tend to agree..... But

    To echo a few people here, I like the idea of constantly changing roles based on a guy stepping up & TAKING OVER a particular role......

    i.e.  Beckett />  Who has somehow stepped his game back up to the level of an ACE, A STOPPER, our #1 starter.  It's a beautiful thing to watch :)

    Els />  I see him quickly stepping his game up & reclaiming his spot at the top of the hitting order.  It was a brutal year for him last year!  Many have been wanting to write him off.  With the kind of bat speed he has, & his ability to consistently make contact, Els. WILL take his natural "role" back.  You got to love it when a guy rises to the challenge!  With his speed, he was born to be a lead-off hitter.  Getting his bearings back in CF, he will quickly show that he was also born to play CF!

    Lowrie />  It seemed that his "role" was definitely going to be the backup SS & utility infielder!  WOW!  How quickly things have changed.  SO MANY have doubted this kid, & sometimes with good reason, but Lowrie is the prime example of a guy stepping up, pushing his game to a higher level, & flat out TAKING / EARNING his spot.  Some guys thrive on proving their detractors wrong!  Let's hope he keeps doing so!!!!!!  I think he's the real deal!  Having said that, I do understand those who say he's too slow, got too slow a release, & not enough range to be a natural SS.  If he just keeps making the plays he's supposed to, & doesn't try to do more than he is capable, I think he will be a HUGE PLUS to this team.

    Salty />  It's water under the bridge, but I sure wish he had been brought in as the BACKUP / APPRENTICE catcher.  I wish they had given the kid a chance to PLAY his way into the starting catcher.  Perhaps they are trying to do that now???  This is a much better situation for a young guy!  A chance to grow, learn, EARN the position.  Let's hope that's what's happening, because it's been a rough start for this kid.  With Tek's declining hitting, & NO catchers out there, it certainly seems clear that we are going to need Salty to step up.  Let's hope that he can do so without the spotlight of being THE CATCHER on him?!?  I think he's gonna rise to the challenge.

    Dice-K />  Perhaps his slide to the #5 spot, combined with a SHORT LEASH, has kicked this guy into 5th gear!  Let's face it, the guys was rapidly becoming seen as almost a total disaster for the Red Sox.  The past two years & his first 2 starts had clearly brought things to a head!  WHAT HAPPENED to push this guy into showing us what he is really capable of????  I wish I knew the inside scoop on that one!  Whatever the case may be, I really hope he continues to PROVE that he is in fact "the real deal."  All those people on this site DEMANDING apologies from everyone who ever said something critical of Dice-K are way off base.  There is no way in Hell that you could blame a committed Red Sox fan for being unbelievably frustrated with his inconsistency.  ANYWAY.........................  If he keeps pitching like he has been the past 2 games, he WILL be an All-Star :) :)  Maybe even GRAB that #3 starter "role??

    Lackey />  Maybe getting roughed up & majority doubted has pushed him to a different level?????  I certainly like what he has shown us the last 2 games.

    Scutaro />  I still love the guy, & feel badly for him now that Lowrie has TAKEN his job.....  I'm rooting for the guy to step it up as the back-up SS & utility guy and EARN more playing time.  With the likelihood of injuries etc., he will no doubt get his shot.  He's certainly capable of being a major contributor to this team, & I'm rooting for him to show what he's got.  Just as HE DID last year!!!!!!  I'm sure the decision Tito was forced to make by Lowrie was a very difficult one.  Especially since Scutaro was our iron man last year.  Tough call!  Glad he did it though.

    Tek />  WE could never say enough about what this guy has meant to the Red Sox.................  One of my favorite players these past 10 years.  BUT...........
    He's gonna have to dust the cobwebs off of his bat if he wants to TAKE HIS JOB BACK.  With his age.......... The odds are certainly not in his favor.

    Paps!  He definitely appears to be ready, willing, & more than ABLE to CEMENT his "role" as THE CLOSER!!!  He's looking better & better.  Back to his lights-out self.  You gotta love this!!!!!!

    Jenks & Bard???  Time for both to STEP BACK UP & claim their "role!"  We've seen the problems...... Who's gonna take advantage of the opportunity????

    WAKE???  I understand why many think he's all washed up.  Perhaps their right?
    BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  This guy has done SO MUCH for the Red Sox over these past what, 13, 14, 15 years!  I love the guy, & think he will get that shot to show what he's still got!  There will be injuries....... I'm betting he steps up & shows us that he's still got something left in the tank?!?!?!

    The list could go on, but you get the idea.........

    I basically agree with Harness about the need to have "evolving roles." 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChrisHouse. Show ChrisHouse's posts

    Re: Role Playing

    Good post Redsoxdirtdog. You seem to be more hopeful and optimistic than you were in recent weeks. All good points.
     

Share