Evaluating Ben

[Al Zarilla]

[SIZE=10.5pt]There was a lot said before the season started about this team not having an ace. Buchholz even had t-shirts made for the starters. To me, that's not it, or all of it. The 2005 team, with Schilling hurt and Pedro gone, didn't have an ace, but it had four innings eaters. Wakefield, Arroyo, Clement and Wells pitched between 184 and 225 innings, all having ERAs in the 4s, but they won 95 games. Of course, Papi and Manny et al destroyed pitchers that year too.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]The guy that pisses me off most is Miley. I watched him pitch a few very good games against the Giants over the years and then he comes over and pitches like he has. The Giants are no Orioles offensively, but Miley wouldn't have beaten Boston College on Sunday. [/SIZE]

 

[Otis Foster]

I'm assuming that with Miller Ben was in a Texeira position – that whatever he offered was going to be beaten by the Yankees so he just gave up once he's driven the price up as much as he could.

 Could be, but you never know till you test the premise.
 
IIRC, length of contract was the major issue.

 

[Why Not Grebeck?]

You can add the Vavaro DFA to my "Ben doesn't understand bullpens" argument on the previous page. Woof.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

My biggest problem (and one of my only problems) with Ben is how he builds bullpens. He paid way too much for both Andrew Bailey and Mark Melancon (and this isn't just hindsight - most of us thought so at the time) and then gave up way too quickly on Melancon - he had two horrible outings at the start of the year that blew up his ERA and WHIP, but he was a reasonably effective pitcher after that. Then he didn't trade Koji at the deadline, instead signing him to a multi-year deal right before the start of FA. I think he'll be reasonably effective this year, but it's hard to argue that the team wouldn't have been in better shape trading him for a good prospect and then using his money on a much younger Andrew Miller or David Robertson instead.

 
This is probably an absurd reach. But seeing as Cherington appears to be a heavily data-driven guy, maybe bullpens are his regime's weakest area because they involve the smallest samples? More food for thought than anything else.

 

[Rasputin]

 
This is probably an absurd reach. But seeing as Cherington appears to be a heavily data-driven guy, maybe bullpens are his regime's weakest area because they involve the smallest samples? More food for thought than anything else.

It's probably just the fact that putting together bullpens is really hard. You can't just go out and sign guys. You can't just trade for guys. You've got to get a little lucky.

 

[Plympton91]

Ramirez has been replacement level because of his early season butchery.  Now he'll likely improve in the field somewhat, but he is hitting wRC+ 156 with the 4th worst defensive value in MLB behind Prince Fielder and Nelson Cruz.  With Ortiz in the equation for the next two years, they are going to suffer in the field in at least one position.  I'd rather have JBJ spelling any OF position and/or Holt rotating with Nava in left with Hanley in there against ground ball guys and/or small ballparks.  If pitching is going to be sub par, they ought to beef up run prevention.
 
I'm not saying Ortiz isn't going to produce anymore, but I think they can field a better overall team without him since they have a stacked lineup.

Any statistical system claiming that anyone short of Fats Domino playing LF at Fenway Park in half their games could offset a 1000 OPS in this offensive environment with poor defense is a seriously flawed statistical system. There's no way there's an average of one play per game that Hanley Ramirez is turning into an extra base over an average left fielder. No way.

 

[TigerBlood]

Any statistical system claiming that anyone short of Fats Domino playing LF at Fenway Park in half their games could offset a 1000 OPS in this offensive environment with poor defense is a seriously flawed statistical system. There's no way there's an average of one play per game that Hanley Ramirez is turning into an extra base over an average left fielder. No way.

Any reasoning system that claiming that the only negative effect of Hanley's defense is turning one play into extra bases is a seriously flawed reasoning system. Guys are scoring automatically from second if the ball is hit anywhere more than 5 steps to Hanley's left or right. I don't think he's demonstrated the ability to gun down anyone at home on sac flies yet. He is making routine plays look extremely difficult, which means that semi-difficult fly balls that other guys would get to on the run or with a slide or dive, Hanley isn't even within striking distance. Mookie probably has to shade further towards left than he would with a better defender over there, opening up right center for more gappers in the deepest part of our outfield.

I agree with your premise -- Hanley's probably not undoing his offensive production *to the degree* that bWAR suggests, but don't oversimplify the issue just to make a point.

 

[Plympton91]

Any reasoning system that claiming that the only negative effect of Hanley's defense is turning one play into extra bases is a seriously flawed reasoning system. Guys are scoring automatically from second if the ball is hit anywhere more than 5 steps to Hanley's left or right. I don't think he's demonstrated the ability to gun down anyone at home on sac flies yet. He is making routine plays look extremely difficult, which means that semi-difficult fly balls that other guys would get to on the run or with a slide or dive, Hanley isn't even within striking distance. Mookie probably has to shade further towards left than he would with a better defender over there, opening up right center for more gappers in the deepest part of our outfield.

I agree with your premise -- Hanley's probably not undoing his offensive production *to the degree* that bWAR suggests, but don't oversimplify the issue just to make a point.

How many balls in play are actually hit to left field in the course of a typical game? Three or four? Range factors for leftfielders are usually in the low 2's, and then maybe a couple more hits go that way? And some fraction of those in Fenway hit 20 feet up the wall, and others are essentially easy groundballs that roll past shortstop and need to be picked up and flipped back in. It's really hard for me to believe that in a typical game it matters all that much whether Jose Canseco or Jackie Bradley is playing LF. Maybe similar to the argument about the effect of an optimal lineup vs. a random lineup, which I think people peg at 25 runs a season or something. Hanley's going to be worth way more than 25 runs over Jackie Bradley on offense

 

[grimshaw]

How many balls in play are actually hit to left field in the course of a typical game? Three or four? Range factors for leftfielders are usually in the low 2's, and then maybe a couple more hits go that way? And some fraction of those in Fenway hit 20 feet up the wall, and others are essentially easy groundballs that roll past shortstop and need to be picked up and flipped back in. It's really hard for me to believe that in a typical game it matters all that much whether Jose Canseco or Jackie Bradley is playing LF. Maybe similar to the argument about the effect of an optimal lineup vs. a random lineup, which I think people peg at 25 runs a season or something. Hanley's going to be worth way more than 25 runs over Jackie Bradley on offense

I am by no means using early season data as gospel for the fielding metrics because his UZR/150 isn't going to stay in the -40's (Manny was -21).    
 
To answer your question though,he has had 34 balls hit in his vicinity  Inside Edge Fielding ranks the likelihood of each ball hit to a player as a percentage chance.
He has had 4 that were impossible (0%), 1 that was remote (1-10%), 1 that was unlikely (10-40%), two that were even (40-60%), 2 that were likely (60-90%), and 24 that were routine (90-100%).  He missed 2 of the routine plays, and hasn't made any that were even or harder yet.  Those two routine ones are what has skewed the data.  None of that factors in arm or lollygagging though.
 
As a comparison, last year. Alex Gordon who is generally thought of as the best LF, made 16.7% of the remote plays, 57.1% of the unlikely plays, and all but one of the routine plays.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 

hasn't made any that were even or harder yet. 
 
 

 
What did Inside Edge score that play where he caught the foul fly at the edge of the seats and gunned down the guy at 2B?
 
 

 

[grimshaw]

 

 
 
What did Inside Edge score that play where he caught the foul fly at the edge of the seats and gunned down the guy at 2B?
 
 

 

Probably likely?  And how many guys tag if it's a good fielder?

 

[WenZink]

Any statistical system claiming that anyone short of Fats Domino playing LF at Fenway Park in half their games could offset a 1000 OPS in this offensive environment with poor defense is a seriously flawed statistical system. There's no way there's an average of one play per game that Hanley Ramirez is turning into an extra base over an average left fielder. No way.

 
I remember when defensive metrics first started to get more sophisticated a dozen years ago, and there was a similar reaction from Yankee fans to Jeter's low measurement, as well as Sox fans reacting to Manny's low score, as well.
 
It's hard to say, but if you look at the net "shift" statistics (which were posted in another thread, that I can't find), we saw teams shifting an average of 600+ times a season, and the average net result was a prevention of around 15 hits over the course of a year.  If Hanley doesn't improve his defensive play (which I think he will, to some extent) then he'll allow more than 15 extra hits, and well more than 20+ bases over 150+ games.  He's helped,of course, by the Green  Monster, which serves as a backstop, but in some of the bigger parks, against a team that has more speed and less power, I can only begin to imagine.  I remember how much Manny hurt the Sox in games in Anaheim, when the Angels were very aggressive on the basepaths.  The Sox might consider moving Hanley to DH in some of those situations, with Ortiz going to first, when facing a right handed starter.
 
The only other solution would be to get Jackie Earle Haley to play centerfield.

 

[In my lifetime]

I know Farrell is trying to boost his confidence, which was fine for a month. However, at this point, after what is presumably his last at bat, he needs to be subbed for defensive purposes. That would alleviate approximately 15% of the issue (1-2 defensive innings).
 
I am not even sure why the thread has been hijacked. It seems like it belongs in a separate thread-- Hanley's adventures in LF.

 

[WenZink]

I know Farrell is trying to boost his confidence, which was fine for a month. However, at this point, after what is presumably his last at bat, he needs to be subbed for defensive purposes. That would alleviate approximately 15% of the issue (1-2 defensive innings).
 
I am not even sure why the thread has been hijacked. It seems like it belongs in a separate thread-- Hanley's adventures in LF.

 
I think Hanley's adventures in left field have a lot to do with how much Ben relies on defensive metrics.  Certainly, when you assemble a pitching staff that pitches to contact, he must have given it a lot of consideration.  (In spite of the high K/9 of some of the starters in April.)  In the long run, I'm delighted to have Hanley under contract, because it will help ease the separation anxiety over the inevitable departure of David Ortiz at DH.  But in the short-term, Hanley has got to get better, or he's going to give back in the field, a lot of his value.  Manny was horrible on balls hit into the gaps in the ballparks with big left fields, and he never got better at that.  I just hope that Hanley's "dogging it," is more a case of being tentative until he becomes more comfortable.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Probably likely?  And how many guys tag if it's a good fielder?

 
I think the runner tagged because of entanglement with the barrier and/or fans, and would have gone on most LFs. I doubt most LFs could make that throw.

 

[Rice4HOF]

What are we evaluating Ben on? The after the fact results or based on what was known at the time? Im a big believer that people should be evaluated on their decision making process, but not necessarily on the outcome, since there are too many things that can happen out of one's control that cannot be predicted.
 
Let me give a quick example. If Ben traded Allen Craig and Mujica for Trout, how many people would see that as a steal for the Red Sox? Of course, everybody. But what if Craig regained his previous form, and Trout got a career ending injury his first week in Boston?  Based on the results that would be evauated as a "bad" trade for Boston.  Is that we're doing here? Saying moves that looked great at the time were bad, because they turned out poorly? Or trades that looked bad, but flukely turned out ok (BROCK HOLT!) were actually good?

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

Was BROCK HOLT a bad idea at the time? I remember a lot of people eyeing him favorably as a toss in based on his plate discipline numbers in the minors. Sure he was considered a minor part of the deal, but picking good lottery tickets is an important part of any deal.

 

[Sampo Gida]

I believe the Red Sox operate more on a consenus management basis.   Obviously I have no way of knowing its true but Ben didnt really have the pedigree to be trusted with full control.  Larry knows his stuff and JWH is not a guy who does not get involved in the big decisions. He sets the budget and drives medium/long term strategy. 
 
This offseason kind of reminded me of 2011.    Never understood the Crawford signing and never understood Pablo.  Hanley made far more sense at 3B although the conventional wisdom says a SS should be a decent LF'er, especially at Fenway.   Their decision not to spend on SPing reminded me of their passing on Fister at the deadline 2011 (couldn't part with the valuable prospects, none of which amounted to a hill of beans at the end of the day) .  Lack of SPing at the end was responsible for the collapse in 2011 and may be the story in 2015.  Now we can't part with our valuable prospects for Hamels (who hasnt pitched all that well this year, but not sure that SSS is meaningful).
 
Pushing the panic button in the first week in May is never a smart thing to do, and I only hope the Red Sox just decided the roll the dice on the rotation and hope for 2013 results, with a backup plan in place to acquire what they need in case that did not fly.   This makes a lot of sense. Why spend money or give up prospects if you can get lucky with positive regression.  There were good reasons to expect this team coud win if everything went right like in 2013.  If that does not happen, the team knows fans won't accept waving the white flag like in 2012 and 2014.  They need to win in 2015, or at least be competitive to avoid an attendance/ratings backlash in the 2nd half and 2016.  I expect come June or July they will do what it takes to fill holes if needed.
 
So I don't think we can judge Ben or the consensus management team at this point in 2015

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Judging this team now has some pitfalls.
 
Just looking at early season standings (and not going into structural problems), we have the following teams under .500:
 
Red Sox
Jays
Indians
White Sox
Angels
A's
Mariners
Nats
Pirates
Padres
Giants
 
All good teams.
 
Let's talk about the Yankees. The Yankees are an old team. Their bullpen will be exposed as the season wears on. Don't compare the Yankees to other teams - they can afford to pay the monetary penalty for giving older players way too many years in order to capitalize on their good years...and then they continue to get old.
 
The Red Sox lineup now features 6 veterans and, when Castillo's called up - 5. That's 1/3 of the lineup unproven and with things to learn. The closest the Yankees have to a kid is Gregorius, starting his 3rd year. The rest of their lineup's age is: 31, 31, 39, 35, 31, 38, 30 and 32. Of course they're going to be ok...until they break down.
 
Yes, I think this Red Sox team is extremely flawed and will need almost as much luck as the Yankees to make it into the playoffs. Does anyone here think an AL East team is positioned to win the pennant?
 
If we're going to criticize Cherington and the assembly of the Red Sox system - let's not use the first month of 2015...or even the entire years 2014-2015 on which to base that judgement. The opening post was making that point - looking at the entire body of work. The analysis probably deserves an even longer view into the near future, when this team will be built around Porcello and Kelly and a bunch of maturing kids scoring millions of runs.

 

[Plympton91]

The Yankees bullpen will be exposed as the season wears on?  What on earth are you talking about.  Did you mean "starting pitching," because at least that makes a little bit of sense?
 
In the bullpen, they're about 6 deep with prime of their career flamethrowers, and they have both AAA depth consisting of people who've had major league success and a prospect in Lindgren who'd be the #2 pitcher in the Sox system (Along with Severino at AA who would be Boston's #1).
 
And, the longer their lineup stays healthy, the closer Refsnyder and Judge are to being able to fill in.  Plus, they've got bench depth that is at least as strong as Boston's.
 
While SoSH was busy mocking the Yankees inflexible payroll, Brian Cashman was building a stronger contender than Ben. 

 

[Sampo Gida]

The Yankees bullpen will be exposed as the season wears on?  What on earth are you talking about.  Did you mean "starting pitching," because at least that makes a little bit of sense?
 
In the bullpen, they're about 6 deep with prime of their career flamethrowers, and they have both AAA depth consisting of people who've had major league success and a prospect in Lindgren who'd be the #2 pitcher in the Sox system (Along with Severino at AA who would be Boston's #1).
 
And, the longer their lineup stays healthy, the closer Refsnyder and Judge are to being able to fill in.  Plus, they've got bench depth that is at least as strong as Boston's.
 
While SoSH was busy mocking the Yankees inflexible payroll, Brian Cashman was building a stronger contender than Ben. 

 
Lets not get carried away.  Yankees have had a nice 13-3 run, but their rotation is their achilles heal, like the Red Sox. However, unlike the Red Sox  they do have a couple of aces,  but one is on the DL and the other has not made 11 consecutive starts w/o a DL stint since 2011.  Some durability issues there, and the depth is not quality depth although Severino might be ready for a call up in the 2nd half  
 
Their offense for the most part has been carried by Arod, Chris Young and Teixeira.  See how long that lasts as neither Arod or Teixeira is all that durable and Young is streaky.  They are strong at the top of the order but the middle could be exposed soon. 
 
Judge has had a couple of weeks in AA ball, its unlikely he helps this year.  Refsnyder is an error machine.  As we should know very well, prospects sometimes don't always deliver when called up.
 
I do agree with you that the Yankees bullpen is their strength.  I don't see any weaknesses there.  Like you say, plenty of depth down on the farm.
 
Red Sox offense has got off to a slow start, but should improve with warmer weather.  Pitching is a problem though, both starting and in the pen.  Bens going to need to make a move at some point and get an ace and maybe a good closer.  Won't go far in the playoffs without both

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
Lets not get carried away. 
 
(Snip)
 
Red Sox offense has got off to a slow start, but should improve with warmer weather.  Pitching is a problem though, both starting and in the pen.  Bens going to need to make a move at some point and get an ace and maybe a good closer.  Won't go far in the playoffs without both

 
The recent games have been annoying, but I still have faith that the Sox will contend this year.  
 
It's disappointing the Sox SP has let them down thus far - particularly because the new veteran accessions (Hanley, Sandoval) are playing well, but the younger talent (Xander, Betts, Vasquez, Castillo) has yet to make a consistent impact.  A decent Ortiz helps but the dismal showings by Napoli, Craig, Nava and Victorino) have created black holes in the lineup.  
 
I can't help but think that the younger talent might be feeling self-defeating pressure to perform/step it up.  

 

[twibnotes]

I think it makes sense to evaluate Ben across a few dimensions.

Macro management -

I like what he is doing big picture-wise. Avoiding crippling long-term deals and keeping a strong farm intact gives me faith that the Sox's best days are ahead.

Drafting and Minor League Acquisitions -

Seems to have done well here as evidenced by the consistently positive views across baseball about our farm. I like seeing some big money used for younger guys like Moncado. Again, best days ahead.

Player Development -

Really hard to measure bc we know some prospects are simply not going to work out. Still, I didn't like the way JBJ was handled last year, and I share the concerns many posters have about X's development. I view this area as a watch-out. Having a great farm only matters if you keep and develop the right guys.

Building a MLB team (within the constraints of the macro vision cited above) -

This is where I have my biggest concerns. He obviously hit on a lot of his choices in '13, and he deserves a ton of credit for that. Still, Ben's record here has some blemishes. Bullpen construction has been a known issue, and he hasn't successfully been able to build a rotation the last couple years within the boundaries of the club's clear philosophy on age, long term deals etc. More simply put, if 2015 is another down year, it starts getting hard to defend Ben's roster construction track record. The Sox ownership is simply spending too much money to be a sub 500 team three out of four years, the '13 title notwithstanding.

 

[charlieoscar]

...but the younger talent (Xander, Betts, Vasquez, Castillo) has yet to make a consistent impact....

 
Rusney is a big question mark. He's already over 27 and his last season in Cuba was winter ball, 2012-13. He didn't start playing again until the end of 2014, after he got out of Cuba, and then he has been injured twice. I think both Betts (54 at AA, 45 at AAA) and Bogaerts (79 games at AA, 60 at AAA) were rushed too quickly. And Vazquez is basically a defensive player.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

Looking at the last 4 years, the Red Sox have had $674,066,730 in opening day payroll, which is third-highest in baseball. This is not including non-payroll money which has been used for several notable signings (Rusney Castillo, Yoan Moncada), and extensions that have not yet kicked in (Rick Porcello).
 
Over this period, the Red Sox have won 250 games, which is 18th in baseball. If the league's teams continue their current season pace the Sox will finish the year with 310 wins, which would be 20th in baseball over the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 seasons.
 
Combine the payroll and the games won and the Red Sox would come out of 2015 having spent $2,177,072.63 per game won over the past four years. This would  28th in baseball, only ahead of the Yankees and Reuben Amaro Jr.
 
The 2013 postseason has bought the current FO a lot of rope. But how much rope exactly?

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Looking at the last 4 years, the Red Sox have had $674,066,730 in opening day payroll, which is third-highest in baseball. This is not including non-payroll money which has been used for several notable signings (Rusney Castillo, Yoan Moncada), and extensions that have not yet kicked in (Rick Porcello).
 
Over this period, the Red Sox have won 250 games, which is 18th in baseball. If the league's teams continue their current season pace the Sox will finish the year with 310 wins, which would be 20th in baseball over the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 seasons.
 
Combine the payroll and the games won and the Red Sox would come out of 2015 having spent $2,177,072.63 per game won over the past four years. This would  28th in baseball, only ahead of the Yankees and Reuben Amaro Jr.
 
The 2013 postseason has bought the current FO a lot of rope. But how much rope exactly?
 

I think a world series buys you more than 1 and a fifth seasons.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
Looking at the last 4 years, the Red Sox have had $674,066,730 in opening day payroll, which is third-highest in baseball. This is not including non-payroll money which has been used for several notable signings (Rusney Castillo, Yoan Moncada), and extensions that have not yet kicked in (Rick Porcello).
 
Over this period, the Red Sox have won 250 games, which is 18th in baseball. If the league's teams continue their current season pace the Sox will finish the year with 310 wins, which would be 20th in baseball over the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 seasons.
 
Combine the payroll and the games won and the Red Sox would come out of 2015 having spent $2,177,072.63 per game won over the past four years. This would  28th in baseball, only ahead of the Yankees and Reuben Amaro Jr.
 
The 2013 postseason has bought the current FO a lot of rope. But how much rope exactly?
 

This is an interesting cocktail party factoid, but it's worth very little as a metric, if only because the higher spending teams are naturally going to be stacked toward the bottom of the list.  In terms of talent acquisition, who has Ben spent big chunks on that prospectively looked like terrible deals?  Who has he lost or not gone after that would have fit in the budget, not gone against ownership's aversion to big contracts for older guys, and made a huge difference?  

 

[Marbleheader]

Only guys over $10M next season are Hanley, Sandoval, Porcello, Pedroia and Castillo. Jury is out on Rusney, but the only real stinker next year is Craig at $9M (Miley at $6 doesn't look good either) .

 

[Plympton91]

Looking at the last 4 years, the Red Sox have had $674,066,730 in opening day payroll, which is third-highest in baseball. This is not including non-payroll money which has been used for several notable signings (Rusney Castillo, Yoan Moncada), and extensions that have not yet kicked in (Rick Porcello).
 
Over this period, the Red Sox have won 250 games, which is 18th in baseball. If the league's teams continue their current season pace the Sox will finish the year with 310 wins, which would be 20th in baseball over the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 seasons.
 
Combine the payroll and the games won and the Red Sox would come out of 2015 having spent $2,177,072.63 per game won over the past four years. This would  28th in baseball, only ahead of the Yankees and Reuben Amaro Jr.
 
The 2013 postseason has bought the current FO a lot of rope. But how much rope exactly?

Great post!!!

The wins per dollar spent might be a little biased like someone else said, but I don't think there's any excuse for being so terrible in terms of raw wins given that amount of raw dollars. They're trading the wrong people, keeping the wrong people, and signing the wrong people. Getting both Sandoval and Ramirez never made sense, giving Miley a pillow contract before seeing if he could pitch in the AL doesn't seem like they knew what they had, etc.

The 2013 season was great, and that was helped by Victori O's performance, but judged over the whole 3 years, even that contract. Ow looks like a stinker. Ben has 1 good signing to his credit --- the original UehRa deal---and one good trade---- the Punto deal. YeH those are huge positives, like the 2013 Post-season tourney championship---but those laurels are looking more like random luck and less like sound decision making every day

 

[The X Man Cometh]

This is an interesting cocktail party factoid, but it's worth very little as a metric, if only because the higher spending teams are naturally going to be stacked toward the bottom of the list.  In terms of talent acquisition, who has Ben spent big chunks on that prospectively looked like terrible deals?  Who has he lost or not gone after that would have fit in the budget, not gone against ownership's aversion to big contracts for older guys, and made a huge difference?  

 
I get that. Its pretty obvious when you look at the full list, that using it as a "metric" would favor sh*tty teams that don't spend money. But the Cardinals, Giants, Rangers - hell even the Dodgers who throw $$ around like its monopoly money - have gotten more bang per buck per this kind of back of the envelope perspective. The point is to illustrate that in the regular season, ownership's money hasn't gone very far.
 
2013 was magical. Absolutely so. Ortiz, Taz, Uehara were lights out. Victorino, Gomes, Nap all had little "signature moments". The whole thing was amazing. I just find it amusing that people want to credit Ben with 2013 (a year in which the team rose above the projections) and turn around and absolve him for 2014 and 2015 (years in which the team underperformed the projections). If the end result of 2013 is a feather in Ben's cap, then why is the end result of 2014 not a strike against him?
 
With each turn of the rotation things look a little bleaker. And the offense is underperforming as well, thanks to several unfortunate circumstances - Nava scuffling, Nap inexplicably turning into a lemon, XB experiencing growing pains at the plate, Allen Craig evidently having nude photos of Mrs. Farrell, etc. As the GM, Cherington is accountable for the team's performance and at 13-17 it hasn't been hot so far.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
 
I get that. Its pretty obvious when you look at the full list, that using it as a "metric" would favor sh*tty teams that don't spend money. But the Cardinals, Giants, Rangers - hell even the Dodgers who throw $$ around like its monopoly money - have gotten more bang per buck per this kind of back of the envelope perspective. The point is to illustrate that in the regular season, ownership's money hasn't gone very far.
 
2013 was magical. Absolutely so. Ortiz, Taz, Uehara were lights out. Victorino, Gomes, Nap all had little "signature moments". The whole thing was amazing. I just find it amusing that people want to credit Ben with 2013 (a year in which the team rose above the projections) and turn around and absolve him for 2014 and 2015 (years in which the team underperformed the projections). If the end result of 2013 is a feather in Ben's cap, then why is the end result of 2014 not a strike against him?
 
With each turn of the rotation things look a little bleaker. And the offense is underperforming as well, thanks to several unfortunate circumstances - Nava scuffling, Nap inexplicably turning into a lemon, XB experiencing growing pains at the plate, Allen Craig evidently having nude photos of Mrs. Farrell, etc. As the GM, Cherington is accountable for the team's performance and at 13-17 it hasn't been hot so far.
 

No one is saying that he shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny that everyone under him is receiving right now.  He gets credit for rolling sevens and elevens in 2013, and he certainly bears some of the responsibility for crapping out in 2014.  But dollars per win illuminates nothing in terms of trying to pinpoint what, if any, areas he has performed poorly in given the realities of the salary cap and constraints put on him by ownership.

 

[MikeM]

But dollars per win illuminates nothing in terms of trying to pinpoint what, if any, areas he has performed poorly in given the realities of the salary cap and constraints put on him by ownership.

 
 What exactly is this (limiting) reality and/or constraints by ownership you speak of? Keeping in mind i believe the Sox are an over capped team atm, and since last year's trading deadline Ben hasn't seemed to have any trouble coming up with the cash to wildly throw around in any "let's go all in on our scouting" area he saw fit thus far. 
 
In Ben's defense, this season really has to play out in it's entirety before a fair evaluation can be made here. Although like Theo before him, i am pretty confident in stating a belief that i'm going to like the "Conservative Ben" approach more then the version that spends boatloads of money while playing the "i'm the smartest guy in the room" game. From an overall standpoint, this past winter reeked too much of an over-confidence in that latter imo. Which is something, even then, i fully expect to be reevaluation #1 going in to next winter.
 
You know, when Henry allows Ben to spend his way out of this probable mess. Which make no mistake...is going to happen. Two shitty seasons in a row here is too far in not to push the panic button (although i doubt many will be labeling it as such when it actually happens)

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

---but those laurels are looking more like random luck and less like sound decision making every day

You can look at it this way or you could say that the last three years show sound decision-making interspersed by random bad luck. If Napoli was hitting the way we all believe he should be and Vasquez was still playing, who knows what this team would be doing?

When Ben inherited the team, they has a huge payroll and, people forget, a middling at best farm system. So the Red Sox are transitioning from a team that depends on veterans (higher priced) and try to get sustainable production from the farm system. When a team is committed to kids, some of them aren't going to pan out and almost all of them are going to have growing pains but they've got to be played in order to find out whether they can play at this level.

I'd much rather see a team with X at SS than someone like Carl Crawford. Even X isn't Mike Trout or even (for now) Anthony Rizzo.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I was going by what SB Nation and at least one other source wrote: "Now, the Red Sox can't sign an international player to a bonus of more than $300,000 until July 2 of 2017."

Just FYI for you, the Sox were already penalized when they signed Christopher Acosta to a bonus worth $1.5 million and Anderson Espinoza to a bonus worth $1.8 million in 2014 - so the Moncada signing didn't affect that and as stated above was a great way to leverage the fact that they can't have a signing bonus over $300K for the next two years. http://www.overthemonster.com/2015/2/27/8119761/red-sox-international-free-agent-yoan-moncada

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
 What exactly is this (limiting) reality and/or constraints by ownership you speak of? Keeping in mind i believe the Sox are an over capped team atm, and since last year's trading deadline Ben hasn't seemed to have any trouble coming up with the cash to wildly throw around in any "let's go all in on our scouting" area he saw fit thus far. 
 
In Ben's defense, this season really has to play out in it's entirety before a fair evaluation can be made here. Although like Theo before him, i am pretty confident in stating a belief that i'm going to like the "Conservative Ben" approach more then the version that spends boatloads of money while playing the "i'm the smartest guy in the room" game. From an overall standpoint, this past winter reeked too much of an over-confidence in that latter imo. Which is something, even then, i fully expect to be reevaluation #1 going in to next winter.
 
You know, when Henry allows Ben to spend his way out of this probable mess. Which make no mistake...is going to happen. Two shitty seasons in a row here is too far in not to push the panic button (although i doubt many will be labeling it as such when it actually happens)

They were essentially out of play for any of the top line free agent pitching on the market last year, and they're going to be cap compliant.  They may open the wallet for one of the upcoming class--there will be more seasons after this one, you know--but Lester, Scherzer and Shields were never coming through that door.
 
Where's Ben been "wildly throwing cash around?"  If Masterson is your example, you flunked.  A one-year, 10m flyer on a potential recovery project isn't big money, and it's only a failure if they stick with him too long,

 

[Plympton91]

Where's Ben been "wildly throwing cash around?"  If Masterson is your example, you flunked.  A one-year, 10m flyer on a potential recovery project isn't big money, and it's only a failure if they stick with him too long,

 
I think you can be harsher than that on the decision.  They were faced with a situation where they had a suspect pitching rotation and $10 million to spend.  They chose to spend $10 million on Masterson's upside potential despite the fact that he was one of the worst pitchers in baseball last season.  
 
Instead, they could have used Stephen Wright or not made the Ranaudo/Ross trade, and taken that $10 million plus the $2 million they gave Breslow to strengthen the bullpen significantly.   Luke Hochevar got 2 years and $10 million from KC, and he's a potential relief ace.  Likewise Pat Neshek signed for 2 years, $12.5 million or Jason Grilli for 2 years, $8 million.  Strengthening the bullpen limits the damage the rotation can do. 
 
If they really wanted a solid veteran for the rotation, and were willing to spend $10 million for 2 years, they could have gotten Edinson Volquez, who has almost as much upside as Masterson, and was much better last year, especially in the second half.   Jason Hammel was also an option in the range (2 years, $18 million, with a third year option at $10 million or $2 million buyout); his bad ERA in Oakland was mostly a function of a ridiculous HR/FB rate.  Chris Young, who was great for Seattle last season, spent the whole offseason waiting for a contract and then signed with Kansas City for 1 year and $675,000.   He's been unhittable in relief, and has had a great 5 inning start for them.  Franklin Morales was a better starting pitcher last season than Masterson, even though he pitched in Colorado, and he only got $1.85 million from Kansas City.   Either of those last two could have been combined with Hochevar and been cheaper over 2 years than Masterson and Breslow were for one. 

 

[Traut]

Cherington's biggest problem is he has failed to get anything from the farm system. For years, we've heard they have the best system in baseball. None of it has helped the Red Sox.

You have prospects for two reasons: (1) develop them into major league talent; or (2) trade them for major league talent. They've done neither. Though the jury is still out on Betts and Xander.

It's either a development problem or its an evaluation problem. But it's a major problem for this organization.

 

[nattysez]

I think a world series buys you more than 1 and a fifth seasons.

2012 was on his watch, too.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Cherington's biggest problem is he has failed to get anything from the farm system. For years, we've heard they have the best system in baseball. None of it has helped the Red Sox.

I don't know what people's - not just you but this post was handy - expectations are. If you go to Fangraphs and look at WAR by position for the AL, guess which positions BOS are ranked highest?

Yes, SS (ranked 3rd) and CF (ranked 4th).

Maybe expectations were too high, but barring injuries, X and Mookie are going to be solid contributors for years to come.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Major League scouting and evaluation has been terrible for 5 years now. There have been a handful of solid pickups but too many bad misses. Cherington is ultimately responsible but someone apparently is telling him things like Craig and Kelly should be good, Hanrahan should do well, Mujica is a good bet for 2 years in the AL East, Masterson should be solid in 2015 etc. Either Cherington is ignoring his big league evaluation people, which would be ludicrous, or else they've been wrong again and again.

We need a new voice and new eyes in the department run by Nice guy Allard Baird.

 

[Traut]

I don't know what people's - not just you but this post was handy - expectations are. If you go to Fangraphs and look at WAR by position for the AL, guess which positions BOS are ranked highest?

Yes, SS (ranked 3rd) and CF (ranked 4th).

Maybe expectations were too high, but barring injuries, X and Mookie are going to be solid contributors for years to come.

My expectation is they don't finish in last place for 3 out of the last 4 seasons.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Cherington's biggest problem is he has failed to get anything from the farm system. For years, we've heard they have the best system in baseball. None of it has helped the Red Sox.

You have prospects for two reasons: (1) develop them into major league talent; or (2) trade them for major league talent. They've done neither. Though the jury is still out on Betts and Xander.

It's either a development problem or its an evaluation problem. But it's a major problem for this organization.

I think the jury is in on Betts.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

I think the jury is in on Betts.

2012 Middlebrooks says hi.
 
And yeah, I know Mookie's more talented, but it's way too early.

 

[theapportioner]

Major League scouting and evaluation has been terrible for 5 years now. There have been a handful of solid pickups but too many bad misses. Cherington is ultimately responsible but someone apparently is telling him things like Craig and Kelly should be good, Hanrahan should do well, Mujica is a good bet for 2 years in the AL East, Masterson should be solid in 2015 etc. Either Cherington is ignoring his big league evaluation people, which would be ludicrous, or else they've been wrong again and again.

We need a new voice and new eyes in the department run by Nice guy Allard Baird.

I don't know. They've tried to go cheap, with expected results. But they have also hit on Koji, Holt, got good initial results with Victorino and Napoli, got a good year out of people like Gomes and Carp, the Peavy trade wasn't terrible, and so far Hanley, Pablo, and Porcello aren't problems.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

2012 Middlebrooks says hi.
 
And yeah, I know Mookie's more talented, but it's way too early.

You mean the guy with the 13-70 BB-K ratio during his one good half season?

 

[grimshaw]

2012 Middlebrooks says hi.
 
And yeah, I know Mookie's more talented, but it's way too early.

Weak comparison.  Middlebrooks was an average fielder and slow. Betts has been league average at the plate, a plus on the bases and exceptional in a demanding position.  The latter two aren't going to get worse.

 

[dcmissle]

Weak comparison.  Middlebrooks was an average fielder and slow. Betts has been league average at the plate, a plus on the bases and exceptional in a demanding position.  The latter two aren't going to get worse.

 

[Rasputin]

My expectation is they don't finish in last place for 3 out of the last 4 seasons.

That hasn't happened.

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

Major League scouting and evaluation has been terrible for 5 years now. There have been a handful of solid pickups but too many bad misses. Cherington is ultimately responsible but someone apparently is telling him things like Craig and Kelly should be good, Hanrahan should do well, Mujica is a good bet for 2 years in the AL East, Masterson should be solid in 2015 etc. Either Cherington is ignoring his big league evaluation people, which would be ludicrous, or else they've been wrong again and again.

We need a new voice and new eyes in the department run by Nice guy Allard Baird.

 
My thoughts exactly. I'm probably a bit biased, but I've never liked having that guy in such a prominent evaluation position within the FO. I don't know exactly who advises what over there, but they've had some abysmal recommendations at the major league level over the past few years.

 

[Traut]

That hasn't happened.

Hence the use of the word "don't" - future tense.