...in my mind, either Brasier or Pearce. Xander's had a very good year that may have exceeded expectations, but not so much that it surpasses the wholly unpredictable contributions of Brasier and Pearce.
Discuss.
Discuss.
Did they play enough to count? I'd probably go with Brock Holt.
I too had written him off - especially after his 0-10 start (albeit with 4 walks). Since that 0-10 start, he is .281 AVG / .362 OBP / .411 SLG. Pretty pretty good.Yeah, gotta be Brockstar. 357 PA of above-average offense plus respectable-to-good defense at six positions. Pretty remarkable from a guy a lot of us [cough....thatwouldbeme....cough] were writing off before the season.
DittoI vote Holt. 10th player was always supposed to be about the player who most exceeded expectations (though half the time it seemed to end up with the season MVP), and Holt was a guy a lot of people were ready to DFA in spring training. Can't get much lower expectation-wise than that.
I can't get behind giving it to someone who's paid $30M, so I'm a no on Price. Maybe comeback player of the year for him, but not 10th player. Also not keen on giving it to someone acquired during the season, which eliminates Pearce. Brasier's been good and certainly exceeds expectations since most had never heard of him, but I question how much impact he's actually had.
I don't know if you can say "a bunch of unsung guys" stepped up this year. Holt and, to a lesser extent, Brasier and Pearce are the only ones who seem to qualify, and their contributions have all been pretty modest. The story of this year was a key group of the "sung" guys--Mookie, JDM, Xander, Sale, and to a lesser extent Price and Benintendi--stepping up and outperforming even our pretty elevated expectations. In that sense, it's the anti-2013.You don't win 107+ games unless a bunch of unsung guys step up but for me, it's Holt.
The internet wasn't around to scream at them for the complete lack of any standards. Seems like more of a "we really like this guy" award.Hard to believe the award could have been called the 10th Man Award in 1975 with Fred Lynn as the winner.
Clemens in 86, etc., etc.
The NBA Sixth Man Award goes back to 82-83. That is a pretty well known award in sports and should set a theme for such awards, from then on anyway. So, in 1975 we should have seen Bernie Carbo or someone like that win the award.The internet wasn't around to scream at them for the complete lack of any standards. Seems like more of a "we really like this guy" award.
I would argue that if his 2018 wasn't pretty much what you expected, you were unreasonably pessimistic on him. This year was only a modest step up from last year: he was a wee bit better at everything--K rate, BB rate, HR rate--and as a result his ERA came down half a run. That seems like exactly what you'd expect from a 25-year-old. He's a good pitcher, getting better. The only question marks around him are about durability.For the sake of contrarianism I would go with E-Rod
not pessimistic. But his jump was bigger than I expected.I would argue that if his 2018 wasn't pretty much what you expected, you were unreasonably pessimistic on him. This year was only a modest step up from last year: he was a wee bit better at everything--K rate, BB rate, HR rate--and as a result his ERA came down half a run. That seems like exactly what you'd expect from a 25-year-old. He's a good pitcher, getting better. The only question marks around him are about durability.
Really? Lynn was a rookie. I don't recall exactly, and I know he excelled in his 1974 call up, but I'm pretty sure no one was expecting him to win the MVP.Hard to believe the award could have been called the 10th Man Award in 1975 with Fred Lynn as the winner.
Hard to be the 10th Man when you're in the starting nine ... which became the problem with the awardReally? Lynn was a rookie. I don't recall exactly, and I know he excelled in his 1974 call up, but I'm pretty sure no one was expecting him to win the MVP.
As pointed out, the official criteria for the award says nothing about coming off the bench. It was all about exceeding expectations.Hard to be the 10th Man when you're in the starting nine ... which became the problem with the award
Which is why it was awarded so many times to players in the starting lineup, when the intent by calling it the "10th Player" was to reward someone who was beyond the primary 9As pointed out, the official criteria for the award says nothing about coming off the bench. It was all about exceeding expectations.
I was starting to write: "Brasier has been great, but he's only pitched less than 33 innings so far, 15th on the Red Sox just behind Workman and ahead of Tyler Thornburg."BrockHolt! is a former All Star which renders him ineligible under the ERR 10th Man Awards. If, in March, you took the Red Sox organization and said list the players in order of projected contribution how far down would you go before you got to 30 year old (at that time) Ryan Brasier? 50? 60? And he's been a huge 7th 8th inning guy for much of the season. We at ERR Enterprises are pleased to award the 2018 Red Sox 10th Man Award to 2017 Hiroshima Toyo Carp and 2018 Red Sox hero, Ryan Brasier.
I don't ever remember them insisting it go to a bench player, more like to an unsung hero. But history aside, your suggestion would make it a lot easier to understand and play along. Holt probably but Pearce gets a few votes.The NBA Sixth Man Award goes back to 82-83. That is a pretty well known award in sports and should set a theme for such awards, from then on anyway. So, in 1975 we should have seen Bernie Carbo or someone like that win the award.
Brock Holt gets my vote this year.
The 10th Man award was started when WSBK-TV carried the games - and it was a fan vote, by postcard.I recall Evan's speech after we won for the second year in a row. Paraphrasing ... Thank you, but maybe you should be expecting more from me.
Holt happened to have a good (not great) first half in a year when the Sox crapped the bed so badly that they had no real All-Star caliber first-half performances. His first-half OPS was .792. He finished at .727. It was a nice story, and showed that he could be a solid player for a sustained period, but calling him a "former All Star" is kind of stretching a point--true in particulars, but misleading in essence. And in the two years since then he's been mediocre and awful, respectively. Perhaps some of us overdid the pessimism a bit--a bounceback year wasn't an unreasonable thing to expect. But a career year?I think it's a tough call between Holt and Braiser. I think ERR makes a decent point regarding Holt as a former All Star, maybe we should have been expecting more from him. Who would have predicted that Ryan Braiser would earn a playoff roster spot? So Braiser gets my vote.
The 1978 Sox had no bench after dumping Bernie Carbo. So it was either a starter or a pitcher. None of the starters make much sense, including Fisk, who won it. I'd have given it to Bob Stanley, had a great year in a number of different roles.Lynn made sense. Yaz and Fisk not so much.
Completely agree that calling Holt a former all-star was hyperbole. But the point stands that it showed he could be a solid player, as you say. Ryan Braiser had no such history, and though it doesn't compare to last night's cycle, Braiser also gets hypothetical points for telling Sanchez to get the fuck back in the box.Holt happened to have a good (not great) first half in a year when the Sox crapped the bed so badly that they had no real All-Star caliber first-half performances. His first-half OPS was .792. He finished at .727. It was a nice story, and showed that he could be a solid player for a sustained period, but calling him a "former All Star" is kind of stretching a point--true in particulars, but misleading in essence. And in the two years since then he's been mediocre and awful, respectively. Perhaps some of us overdid the pessimism a bit--a bounceback year wasn't an unreasonable thing to expect. But a career year?
And certainly, I think it's fair to say that no one was expecting Holt to play a key role in a postseason Yankees series by hitting for the cycle in the Bronx. I know 10th player is supposed to be a regular season award, but still...
I mean, it certainly wasn't hyperbole. It was an out-of-context borderline misleading fact presented tongue in cheek, but the guy was an All-Star. For me, the problem with the 10th Player Award was always that the definition was so squishy and left an awful lot of room for subjective grading. My response reflected my subjective feeling about an award that really can only be decided based on subjective feelings. The one thing we do know, however, is that Brock Holt was an All-Star (and Chewbacca was not from Endor).Completely agree that calling Holt a former all-star was hyperbole. But the point stands that it showed he could be a solid player, as you say. Ryan Braiser had no such history, and though it doesn't compare to last night's cycle, Braiser also gets hypothetical points for telling Sanchez to get the fuck back in the box.
Wait, what?We're a fan base that still refers to Scott Cooper as a two-time All-Star, the humorous intent was baked into the reference.
I think I'm still team Brock, but this is good reasoning.I agree with most in here, that it's Brasier or the BrockStar and it's close between them.
But looking back at the last games/weeks as well as looking forward to the next series, who would the Sox miss more if he had been out for the season?
Holt had a great offensive year and is very versatile in the field, but they could replace his defensive with Lin/Nunez and they have a good offense in place without him. But loosing Brasier would be a huge hit to the already shaky bullpen. Therefore Brasier gets my vote.