"This too shall pass" ---- righting the ship for 2016
- Thread starter In my lifetime
- Start date
Well, it was a "continue to be productive" comparison.Snodgrass'Muff said:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/90467-this-too-shall-pass-righting-the-ship-for-2016/?p=6229377
And I said the 1928 Yankees seemed to be more predictable to continue the 1927 excellence than the 2016 Red Sox. I certainly hope we're onward and upward though.
Al Zarilla said:
Actually it wasn't a "continue to be productive" comparison. It was a "someone who predicts/expects everything to fail for the 2016 Red Sox offense is the type to predict failure for even the surest of things" comparison. In other words, I think there are people out there who aren't happy unless they're predicting doom and gloom no matter what the most rational expectations ought to be. And amongst those people are where I would expect to find the folks who would make the case that the 2016 Red Sox will be decidedly worse off than the 2015 offense if they change nothing significant from what they have right now.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I don't know. The players seem to like Lovullo, and they've been playing pretty well for him. Honestly I think that's probably 80% of what makes a successful manager. That could of course change at any time, but that's the way management goes. I'm not sure managers really do anything quantifiably special anyway, aside from try not screw things up too badly. Lovullo's bullpen usage doesn't seem wildly out of line with modern bullpen management that you'd get from most other managers. I'd say aside from mayyyyybe Tony La Russa, who was definitely infuriating in his own way, there has yet to be a manager who manages a bullpen to fans' satisfaction.
I wouldn't be upset if they went with Lovullo next year. He apparently interviewed for the Cubs job in 2013 and Rangers and Twins jobs in 2014, so I think he's pretty well thought of around the league. I guess an alternative would be someone like Ron Gardenhire (who is somehow only 7 years older than Lovullo, even though it seems like he's been around forever. Man, Lovullo looks great for 50.) Gardenhire won MoY in 2010, but man his last couple seasons were rough and he never seemed the most sabery of managers. Or there's someone like Dave Martinez, who always seems to get buzz when there's a managerial opening. Not sure what's so special about him other than working with Joe Madden for a while, but also seems well-respected. Really I don't know what's super special about anybody once they get to a certain level. Guys just have different strengths and weaknesses that make them better or worse fits depending on the situation, but with new guys at least their weaknesses aren't obvious yet.
If Gardenhire was brought in, the Game Threads would literally explode with all the stupid bunting, small ball strategies and Pitching to Contact.alwyn96 said:
He epitomizes why the Twins released David Ortiz in the first place.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
I'm pretty sure the main board would burn down once the hiring was announced.
Personally, I'd be okay if Farrell or Lovullo were retained. I'm sure we can do better, but there's a whole lotta worse out there.
If they're gone, I'm interested in Bud Black for reasons I cannot even really name.
For what it's worth, Gardenhire is expected to replace Ausmus in Detroit. Ausmus seems to me like a much more plausible (not necessarily likely) candidate in Boston if DD decides to move on from Farrell/Luvullo.
Opinions on Gardenhire are very mixed - unless DD is known to like him, probably not. Ausmus unlikely because a team concerned about attendance won't name someone who's just been fired, I'd think. (Maybe someday.) Farrell's success in '13 was with a high-character team of (mostly) veterans, quite unlike what the Sox have now. Lovullo seems like the default.
Fireball Fred said:
Because as we all know, fans come to the games to see the managers.
Want to know what helps attendance: winning. If Bobby V had a 95-win team, every night would've been sold out. If we brought Tito back to a 65-win team, Fenway would be a ghost town.
So hypothetical scenario, while making the assumption that:
1. We'll only end up adding 1 outside starting pitcher to our rotation next year
2. It ultimately won't be David Price
Cueto finishes the year healthy but having pitched himself into a situation where he's looking to sign a 1 year deal in hopes of re-establishing a higher value for next winter. All things considered and if the opportunity presented itself, do you blow everybody away making a short term but very heavy on the one year salary investment in a bounce back season there (which also essentially buys us another year of exploring alternative options), even if it means passing on the chance to sign a guy like Zimmerman right now?
1. We'll only end up adding 1 outside starting pitcher to our rotation next year
2. It ultimately won't be David Price
Cueto finishes the year healthy but having pitched himself into a situation where he's looking to sign a 1 year deal in hopes of re-establishing a higher value for next winter. All things considered and if the opportunity presented itself, do you blow everybody away making a short term but very heavy on the one year salary investment in a bounce back season there (which also essentially buys us another year of exploring alternative options), even if it means passing on the chance to sign a guy like Zimmerman right now?
MikeM said:
I'll preface by admitting my bias that I think Cueto -- even with his fade this year -- is likely the best free agent pitcher available under $150MM. Not having to give up a draft pick makes him even more appealing to me. If his medicals are clear enough, I think he's still worth a multi-year deal. I even think that his current stumble is a good thing overall for the Sox signing him as a "bargain" for say $100MM guaranteed over 5 years plus 1-2 options. As long as his fade isn't directly related to an elbow or shoulder injury he's trying to pitch through, I'm not really that concerned.
Greinke and Price are better pitchers overall, of course, and given my druthers I'd prefer the Sox sign the former rather than the latter. but either one of them will probably come well into my "prohibitive cost" zone of $150+MM. With the Sox already shouldering the burden of $61MM annually over the next 3 years to Porcello, Hanley, and Panda, my belief is that's too much money to spend.
I personally don't see the appeal of Zimmermann. Cueto's had marginally better stats, but in a much-better hitting division. The NL East has been an offensive wasteland since 2010, and that's the timeframe during which Zimmermann's made his hay. He doesn't walk guys, which is nice; but it's not like he's missing a ton of bats either. I worry that his stuff isn't good enough to succeed against the revitalized offenses of Toronto and New York. To me, he feels too much like Porcello 2.0 for me to want the Sox to lock up another $120-140MM on him.
To rank my preferences, assuming Greinke and Price each get $150+MM guaranteed, I'd prefer:
- Cueto for up to 5 guaranteed years;
- Trade for a club-controlled starter;
- Cueto on a 1-year "pillow" contract;
- Shark for up to 4 guaranteed years; and
- Zimmermann for up to 5 guaranteed years
I'd rather see Arnie Beyeler than Lovullo, frankly. At least he's got a track record of success with some of the kids on this team.
So we don't have to dig around to find out what you're talking about, would you post the information you're referring to here. Opinions without anything backing them up are worthless.AB in DC said:
Thanks
Two years as Pawtucket manager (2011-2012), 160-126 record, including one IL championship. Probably the only positive thing that happened in the Sox organization in 2012.
Coinciding with the Sox consistently having a top 3 farm system that was loaded at the top. Minor league records tell us nothing about a manager's capabilities for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that the talent spread in any given league is incredibly volatile.AB in DC said:
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Unlike the 2014 and 2015 Red Sox, who were the consensus pick to win the AL East.
I'm not sure why minor league managers don't get more attention for an open MLB managerial spot. Maybe the NHL is different, but I remember when the Washington Capitals promoted Bruce Boudreau from their AHL affiliate a few years ago, and he was the best head coach that the Capitals had in decades.
In this case, the 2016 Sox look to be heavily weighted toward the young end of the age spectrum, so I'd think that it'd be more important to hire a manager skilled in working with young players rather than one used to dealing with seasoned vets.
(EDIT: Similar situation in NFL hiring head coaches from successful college teams -- though college teams are more dependent on non-coaching factors like recruiting and scholarships.)
In this case, the 2016 Sox look to be heavily weighted toward the young end of the age spectrum, so I'd think that it'd be more important to hire a manager skilled in working with young players rather than one used to dealing with seasoned vets.
(EDIT: Similar situation in NFL hiring head coaches from successful college teams -- though college teams are more dependent on non-coaching factors like recruiting and scholarships.)
Were any of the current kids actually on Beyeler's teams? Seems like nearly of them were in like AA or lower when he was at AAA.
Lovullo was a manager at the minor league level for 9 years, for what it's worth. Not saying Beyeler would be a bad choice, but I would guess if they thought he were the guy he'd be managing right now instead of Lovullo.
It seem like management-wise, dealing with vets is probably harder than youngsters. The kids basically do what they're told or they're out of there. The vets have egos and big salaries and long contracts and if a vet's really unhappy with a manager then it's often easier to get rid of the manager. That's the best explanation I can think of.
Lovullo was a manager at the minor league level for 9 years, for what it's worth. Not saying Beyeler would be a bad choice, but I would guess if they thought he were the guy he'd be managing right now instead of Lovullo.
It seem like management-wise, dealing with vets is probably harder than youngsters. The kids basically do what they're told or they're out of there. The vets have egos and big salaries and long contracts and if a vet's really unhappy with a manager then it's often easier to get rid of the manager. That's the best explanation I can think of.
alwyn96 said:
No, they weren't. I made a post earlier detailing exactly who on the current roster was under Beyeler's managerial tutelage in the minors, but it must have gotten lost in the testing or something. Beyeler had Hill, Tazawa, and Wright in Pawtucket (and Buchholz for a rehab stint), and Tazawa and Buchholz in Portland (and a David Ortiz rehab stint). That's it. Any experience Beyeler has dealing with Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, etc is as their first base coach in Boston.
AB in DC said:
Okay, fine. I was responding on my phone and should have looked more closely. Of course, your post looks at pre-season rankings and ignores what actually happened over the course of each season and does a rather nice job of sidestepping my actual point, that minor league rosters are too volatile for manager win-loss records to tell us anything about about a manager's ability to handle a major league team. Plus, farm system rankings are not just AAA prospects, and you give zero context regarding the state of other rosters in the IL in either season. The 2011 PawSox roster included Matt Albers, Alfredo Aceves, Michael Bowden (who was still pitching very well against minor league hitters), Felix Doubront, Brian Duckworth, Matt Fox (who was 29), Rich Hill, Tommy Hottovy, Jose Iglesias, Andrew Miller, Kevin Millwood, Franklin Morales, Daniel Nava, Hidecki Okajima, Josh Reddick, Junichi Tazawa, Drew Sutton, Kyle Weiland, Alex Wilson, Ryan Lavarnway's incredible career year and even got a little help from the incomparable Darnell McDonald.
The 2012 roster had Chris Carpenter (who was 26 and was pitching very well against minor leaguers), Lars Anderson, Pedro Ciriaco, Aaron Cook, Ivan De Jesus, Josh Fields, Alex Hassan, Mark Melancon, Will Middlebrooks on fire, Mark Prior, Steven Wright and some cross over with the 2011 group including Tazawa, Iglesias, Nava, Linares, Lavarnway, Hill, Duckworth and others.
So the 2011 squad had a few legitimate prospects and a bunch of AAAA guys who were too good for the IL but not quite good enough for the majors, with some rehabbing vets or vets looking to get their careers back on track. 2012 was a little lighter on prospects but still had plenty of those borderline major league players that do well at that level.
In short, they had very good rosters for competing with other IL teams even if most of those guys had a limited or no future in MLB. Your assertion that Beyeler is a better option than Lovullo because of minor league win-loss records is heavily flawed when you actually look at it. Beyond the rosters for each club and the fact that we have no idea what kinds of rosters the other IL teams were fielding those years, there is the fact that the primary purpose of minor league rosters is not to win games. There is also the great point from alwyn96 that most of these kids haven't played under Beyeler which means that Lovullo already has a better rapport than Beyeler does with the kids. Then there is the complete lack of any mention of Lovullo's minor league managing record. He won the Eastern League championship in 2005, which won him BA's AA Manager of the Year award, as well as the EL and Carolina League manager of the year awards in 2004 and 2005. He finished with a .520 winning percentage before becoming a permanent fixture in major league dugouts. So even if minor league records mattered, which they don't, Lovullo has a pretty nice track record there as well.
You guys must be too young. The anecdotal answer to anyone who wants to promote a successful Pawtucket manager is Butch Hobson. QED
Because our real manager will hopefully be healthy ?lexrageorge said:
Farrell has his shortcomings (game management) but has always appeared to have the confidence of the FO. If he's healthy I think he will be back.
DD may have other ideas though. If they do replace him they will probably move him into the front office. Maybe even the GM as mentioned rather frequently. Has there been any reports at all concerning this scenario?
He is the only manager in Red Sox history to get me to stand up and scream at him while actually at Fenway.smastroyin said:
The guy had Mike Greenwell and Mo Vaughn shutting on the bench in favor of tweedle dum and tweedle dummer.
That's fine, they need days off.
Then we get the bases loaded and dum and dummer are up with a lefty on the mound. Dum and dummer cannot hit a lick. Not a lick.
Memory fails, but as I remember it, all we needed was a fly ball, but at the very least, it was a very close game.
He does not pinch hit with either Vaughn or Greenwell.
Now you have to understand, in the entire history of this organization there is no player I have despised more than Mike Greenwell. There was a brief dalliance with Mike Benjamin, but that failed to stand the test of time.
So you have to understand where my head was at when I stood up and screamed "Hello, pinch hitter!"
I didn't want him fired, I wanted to personally punch him in the balls repeatedly.
Jimy Williams tried to lose games on purpose because he didn't like the GM. Grady Little made the single worst managerial decision in the history of sport.
Butch Hobson was the worst manager in my lifetime. The only reason I don't say "ever" is because we've had managers who wouldn't play Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, and Hank Fucking Aaron.
Pretty sure it's because the best coaches are believed to be at the Major League Level and there are 6 of them on a team.AB in DC said:
Look at the experience at the ML level of these men, compared to Arnie's 3rd yr in the majors. He was marveling in 2013
about all he had to learn, night & day from the minors.
Kelly, and Buchholz both being shut down for the year really emphasizes what has been an obvious point: a team (especially the RS with at least 1 pitcher who has had trouble making it through a year) needs to go into each season with at least 7 potential starters. In fact, with the increase in pitching injuries over the last 10-15 years it would not surprise me if teams started to move to a 6 man rotation for the regular season. The RS are in a good position to go into 2016 7+ pitchers capable of being above average starters.
Buchholz
Porcello
Miley
ERod
Kelly
Owens
Johnson
with Workman as long man in BP (you can add him to the list, but I have my doubts. Although you could say that about half the list).
Between the performance question marks, and potential injuries I don't think this type of starting pitching depth is a luxury, but instead is a minimum starting point. And to be a playoff team, the addition of a #1 starter is really going to be necessary and will likely result in the expenditure of the majority of the available budget. IMO, that is a good use of funds (as long as they pick a #1 starter who at least performs up to expectations for the 1st 3 years of a 5 yr deal). I think the hope of getting your money's worth signing ace is unlikely. The best way to get at least your money's worth is to draft that pitcher (or trade for a cost controlled version), and the RS do have a few potential possibilities (ERod, Kelly) to develop into aces, but at this point the odds are against it. So add the #1 starter and then go into next year with 8 quality starters, albeit with several coming off injuries and assume that at any one time 5 will be healthy and effective enough to be average or better starters. As long as one is a true #1 starter, the backend being average would by definition be a major upgrade from the average MLB rotation.
Buchholz
Porcello
Miley
ERod
Kelly
Owens
Johnson
with Workman as long man in BP (you can add him to the list, but I have my doubts. Although you could say that about half the list).
Between the performance question marks, and potential injuries I don't think this type of starting pitching depth is a luxury, but instead is a minimum starting point. And to be a playoff team, the addition of a #1 starter is really going to be necessary and will likely result in the expenditure of the majority of the available budget. IMO, that is a good use of funds (as long as they pick a #1 starter who at least performs up to expectations for the 1st 3 years of a 5 yr deal). I think the hope of getting your money's worth signing ace is unlikely. The best way to get at least your money's worth is to draft that pitcher (or trade for a cost controlled version), and the RS do have a few potential possibilities (ERod, Kelly) to develop into aces, but at this point the odds are against it. So add the #1 starter and then go into next year with 8 quality starters, albeit with several coming off injuries and assume that at any one time 5 will be healthy and effective enough to be average or better starters. As long as one is a true #1 starter, the backend being average would by definition be a major upgrade from the average MLB rotation.
6-man rotation seems to be one of those things that makes a lot of sense in theory but doesn't work well in practice, possibly because it takes pitchers out of their career-long routine. Until the way pitchers are brought up changes, I think the 5-man is the way to go, but I believe every pitcher should have to serve at least one 14-day stint on the DL at some point between 1/3-2/3 of the way through the season so they don't wear out at the end of the year. Here's an article that discusses the 6-man.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-six-man-rotations-ever-worth-it/
This year we entered with 8 theoretically serviceable starters (by serviceable I mean someone you reasonably expect to be at least a #4-5 starter): Miley, Porcello, Owens, EdRod, Kelly, Buch, Wright, Johnson. 9 if you include Masterson - at the time he seemed like a dumb gamble to me, but team mgmt seemed to think he was a good gamble. And, I'm not counting emergency guys who I think are sort of on the fringes of "serviceable" (Barnes, Workman, Hill).
My offseason strategy would be to try to swing a trade for a cost-controlled Ace (Margot plus one of the above pitchers plus a lesser prospect should be enough i think). Like I've said elsewhere, Margot seems like the asset that is the best combination of high value & expendable (arguably top-25 prospect in MLB going into this year and did nothing to hurt himself while climbing the ladder). He's duplicative of other cost-controlled OFs on the roster who are more MLB-proven; Moncada is another potential OF who's better and coming up behind him; and Benintendi isn't chopped liver either.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-six-man-rotations-ever-worth-it/
This year we entered with 8 theoretically serviceable starters (by serviceable I mean someone you reasonably expect to be at least a #4-5 starter): Miley, Porcello, Owens, EdRod, Kelly, Buch, Wright, Johnson. 9 if you include Masterson - at the time he seemed like a dumb gamble to me, but team mgmt seemed to think he was a good gamble. And, I'm not counting emergency guys who I think are sort of on the fringes of "serviceable" (Barnes, Workman, Hill).
My offseason strategy would be to try to swing a trade for a cost-controlled Ace (Margot plus one of the above pitchers plus a lesser prospect should be enough i think). Like I've said elsewhere, Margot seems like the asset that is the best combination of high value & expendable (arguably top-25 prospect in MLB going into this year and did nothing to hurt himself while climbing the ladder). He's duplicative of other cost-controlled OFs on the roster who are more MLB-proven; Moncada is another potential OF who's better and coming up behind him; and Benintendi isn't chopped liver either.
2016 Outfield:
I'll list all Red Sox Right Fielders since 1975 and their assist totals. Some of these numbers are skewed because:
1) Assists are totals (not necessarily by field position)
2) No differentiation between Fenway and away games
3) Some years are impossible to assess because the RF played too many games at 1B. These are marked with *.
What does it show?
- Dwight Evans was a special fielder (surprise) from 1975 - 1980 before falling back to earth
- Most good non-Evansian Red Sox fielders hovered around the 8-assist range
- When judging who should be in RF in 2016 (Betts, Bradley or Castillo), is arm strength a strong enough predicate (assists versus put outs - acknowledging that holding runners is not a stat) to come to a conclusion?
I'm suggesting that assist opportunities over 162 games is not as critical as fielding ability - that a strong-armed RF for the Sox is not as important as a good/fast RF unless your name is Evans (and your CF is named Lynn)...meaning another vote for Bradley in CF.
It could be useful to look at Cf and LF assists also. Maybe I'll do that.
Year - Right Fielder - Assist Total
1975 Evans 15
1976 Evans 15
1977 Carbo 5
1978 Evans 14
1979 Evans 15
1980 Evans 11
1981 Evans 9
1982 Evans 9
1983 Evans 6
1984 Evans 9
1985 Evans 9
1986 Evans 9
1987 Benziger* 7
1988 Evans* N/A
1989 Evans 5
1990 Brunansky 7
1991 Brunansky 5
1992 Brunansky* N/A
1993 Quintana* N/A
1994 Hatcher 3
1995 O'Leary 6
1996 O'Leary 8
1997 O'Leary 8
1998 Bragg 7
1999 Nixon 3
2000 Nixon 8
2001 Nixon 7
2002 Nixon 7
2003 Nixon 4
2004 Kapler 6
2005 Nixon 8
2006 Nixon 6
2007 Drew 3
2008 Drew 6
2009 Drew 5
2010 Drew 1
2011 Drew 3
2012 Ross 9
2013 Victorino 10
2014 Nava* N/A
2015 Castillo 5 in 54 (all positions)
Bradley 4 in 49 (all positions)
Betts 9 in 127 (CF-centric)
I'll list all Red Sox Right Fielders since 1975 and their assist totals. Some of these numbers are skewed because:
1) Assists are totals (not necessarily by field position)
2) No differentiation between Fenway and away games
3) Some years are impossible to assess because the RF played too many games at 1B. These are marked with *.
What does it show?
- Dwight Evans was a special fielder (surprise) from 1975 - 1980 before falling back to earth
- Most good non-Evansian Red Sox fielders hovered around the 8-assist range
- When judging who should be in RF in 2016 (Betts, Bradley or Castillo), is arm strength a strong enough predicate (assists versus put outs - acknowledging that holding runners is not a stat) to come to a conclusion?
I'm suggesting that assist opportunities over 162 games is not as critical as fielding ability - that a strong-armed RF for the Sox is not as important as a good/fast RF unless your name is Evans (and your CF is named Lynn)...meaning another vote for Bradley in CF.
It could be useful to look at Cf and LF assists also. Maybe I'll do that.
Year - Right Fielder - Assist Total
1975 Evans 15
1976 Evans 15
1977 Carbo 5
1978 Evans 14
1979 Evans 15
1980 Evans 11
1981 Evans 9
1982 Evans 9
1983 Evans 6
1984 Evans 9
1985 Evans 9
1986 Evans 9
1987 Benziger* 7
1988 Evans* N/A
1989 Evans 5
1990 Brunansky 7
1991 Brunansky 5
1992 Brunansky* N/A
1993 Quintana* N/A
1994 Hatcher 3
1995 O'Leary 6
1996 O'Leary 8
1997 O'Leary 8
1998 Bragg 7
1999 Nixon 3
2000 Nixon 8
2001 Nixon 7
2002 Nixon 7
2003 Nixon 4
2004 Kapler 6
2005 Nixon 8
2006 Nixon 6
2007 Drew 3
2008 Drew 6
2009 Drew 5
2010 Drew 1
2011 Drew 3
2012 Ross 9
2013 Victorino 10
2014 Nava* N/A
2015 Castillo 5 in 54 (all positions)
Bradley 4 in 49 (all positions)
Betts 9 in 127 (CF-centric)
Savin Hillbilly said:
Agreed .. also Evans' (and any great throwing OF) totals dropped because people stopped trying to take the extra base. Its like judging Cs by CS putouts where the more relevant stat is number of attempts. An even better example is Wade Miley - nobody runs on him.
The fielder's reputation is arguably a far more important factor than the actual number of assists. .
OK, no problem with the criticism...is there anything out there stat-wise that could show whether a stronger arm in RF (particularly Fenway) historically proves better than a stronger arm in CF - given the relative distribution of balls hit to each field?
I'm not very good at understanding defensive stats.
I'm trying to better understand where Betts should play given the current talent. My "gut" still says JBJ in CF and Betts in LF.
I'm not very good at understanding defensive stats.
I'm trying to better understand where Betts should play given the current talent. My "gut" still says JBJ in CF and Betts in LF.
Perhaps a more illuminating analysis would be to look at times a runner takes an extra base against a fielder. That would combine the outfielder's ability to track down a ball and throw it. Combining that with run expectancies and then comparing the results across LFs, CFs, and RFs would give some estimate of how relatively important that skill is for the three positions.
geoduck no quahog said:
No comment on the arm/field question. But the position choice seems obvious. You bat your best hitters at the top of the lineup because they get more ABs . Unless your proposed RF has a rag arm, you put your best outfielders into the fields that garner the most flyballs.
For me, I have
LF : Betts
CF: Bradley
RF: Castillo
None of this is hugely important. They are all very good outfielders. But I do want a generational talent in Bradley in CF. The other two positions are largely irrelevant.
kieckeredinthehead said:
This brings up another large factor - the speed of the OF in getting to the ball in the first place. IIRC, rag armed (think Johnny Damon bad) Mickey Rivers used to generate good to very good assist totals because of his aggressiveness in getting to the ball.
Yastrzemski was another OF who charged the ball like an infielder.
geoduck no quahog said:
Join the club.
I don't know if what we're looking for really exists. There's an Arm component to UZR that supposedly incorporates batted-ball info and baserunner decisions, but its year-to-year results tend to look a little squirrelly, like UZR in general.
BBref has Adv/Held/Kill numbers and percentages for each outfield position; those might shed some light, but they're hard to interpret (for me at least). FWIW, JBJ has the highest Held rate of any AL RF with at least 20 opportunities, and is tied for the second highest Kill rate. In CF, Mookie is a bit below average in Held rate, but well above average in Kill rate, just behind Adam Jones, which suggests that runners may be underestimating his arm a bit.
Anyway, this is why I think outfield arms are one of those things that's still best evaluated by the eye test, scouting wisdom, and crowdsourcing. And the eye test for me says that JBJ has one of the top 5 arms I've ever seen in a Sox uniform (and I could probably say top 2 or 3 and still be telling the truth); Rusney has a fairly strong but slightly scattershot arm, a la Carl Everett; Mookie has a fringe-average arm that's enhanced by quickness to the ball and pretty good accuracy. Does that sound right?
Tango has the results for what fans think, so far, of the Boston players.Savin Hillbilly said:
Join the club.
I don't know if what we're looking for really exists. There's an Arm component to UZR that supposedly incorporates batted-ball info and baserunner decisions, but its year-to-year results tend to look a little squirrelly, like UZR in general.
BBref has Adv/Held/Kill numbers and percentages for each outfield position; those might shed some light, but they're hard to interpret (for me at least). FWIW, JBJ has the highest Held rate of any AL RF with at least 20 opportunities, and is tied for the second highest Kill rate. In CF, Mookie is a bit below average in Held rate, but well above average in Kill rate, just behind Adam Jones, which suggests that runners may be underestimating his arm a bit.
Anyway, this is why I think outfield arms are one of those things that's still best evaluated by the eye test, scouting wisdom, and crowdsourcing. And the eye test for me says that JBJ has one of the top 5 arms I've ever seen in a Sox uniform (and I could probably say top 2 or 3 and still be telling the truth); Rusney has a fairly strong but slightly scattershot arm, a la Carl Everett; Mookie has a fringe-average arm that's enhanced by quickness to the ball and pretty good accuracy. Does that sound right?
In my lifetime said:
I would add Wright to that list so there's almost 9 (adding Workman here, but I think he'll be quality BP guy) quality starting pitching arms before even making a move to sign an ace (trade or FA signing). I also don't think that Margot + will bring back a "cost controlled ace"..... not that I'm looking to have that conversation here again....
Not sure if I can add anything that others with greater knowledge have already said. One thing is I generally stop listening to the talking heads and paper jockeys other than Speier. With the new front office it is a tad early to figure where they're going to go. There are many rumors floating about that they'll do one thing or another.
The kids have shown they can play ball. They don't seem to know that they're suppose to lose. That's a tough characteristic to instill in a team and these guys seem to come by it naturally. I also agree with Remy that they're a great bunch of kids who are willing to lesson and learn. I think there is a core here that can definitely be built upon. Guys such as Betts, Shaw, Swihart, Bogaerts, Bradley, Castillo, Layne, Rodriguez and Holt. Throw in some solid veterans - Papi, Pedroia, Hanigan and a few of the pitchers - and there is something to work with. Not sure where Panda and Hanley sit in all this as neither has been able to meet our expectations. Hanley until he hurt his shoulder looked to be a great pickup but has not been the player he was in April and early May.
I'm lean toward picking up a solid front-line pitcher and a solid, closer type for the pen. Position players are there and do not need a great deal of fine tuning. To start the screaming and yelling off I'd like to see Price and Chapman added and leave it at that.
The kids have shown they can play ball. They don't seem to know that they're suppose to lose. That's a tough characteristic to instill in a team and these guys seem to come by it naturally. I also agree with Remy that they're a great bunch of kids who are willing to lesson and learn. I think there is a core here that can definitely be built upon. Guys such as Betts, Shaw, Swihart, Bogaerts, Bradley, Castillo, Layne, Rodriguez and Holt. Throw in some solid veterans - Papi, Pedroia, Hanigan and a few of the pitchers - and there is something to work with. Not sure where Panda and Hanley sit in all this as neither has been able to meet our expectations. Hanley until he hurt his shoulder looked to be a great pickup but has not been the player he was in April and early May.
I'm lean toward picking up a solid front-line pitcher and a solid, closer type for the pen. Position players are there and do not need a great deal of fine tuning. To start the screaming and yelling off I'd like to see Price and Chapman added and leave it at that.
lxt said:
Since July 31 they are 26-19, 14-8 at home and 12-11 on the road. They have won 10 series, lost 4 and split 1 (5-1-1 at home, 5-3 road). They're still having trouble against the division, going 11-10, winning 4 series (Rays 2, Jays 2) and losing 3 (Yankees 2, Orioles 1) - but a big improvement over the previous division record of 17-27. This has been a competitive team that can be fun to watch.
I agree with adding a solid starter for next year. I think the bullpen needs more revamp than just a closer type. My guess is that they'll stick with Pablo at 3rd, hoping for a bounce-back to league average O and D from him (and hopefully they'll place him in the lower third of the batting lineup), and that they'll try to trade Hanley (13-8 since they shelved him on 8/27 - no real place/need for him on this team). If they can't trade him maybe he can play first base and provide Ortiz insurance (if he hits again).
Price is going to be >$25M AAV, Chapman will likely break the $10M mark with his final year arbitration salary, so combined they'd place the Sox well over the luxury tax threshold.lxt said:
Also, what do you think is an acceptable acquisition cost for Chapman? San Diego gave up a top 50 pitcher in Wisler, a young guy they had just selected in the 2nd round of the 2013 draft, and a Round A competitive balance pick (so a top 50 selection). On top of that Atlanta got to send them Melvin Upton's deal (3 years at ~$45M) for Carlos Quentin's (1 year, $8M) and Cameron Maybin's (2 years, $16M).
An analogous scenario would be the Red Sox sending Owens, two good low minors lottery tickets, and taking on all of the remaining deal of Jay Bruce. I'm not sure if I'd give that much for any closer who would then be displacing Koji.
Will Smith of the Brewers is just entering his arb. years, he might be a good target to acquire as Milwaukee isn't likely up for paying their third reliever a nice salary. Better yet, if the next GM wants to tear it down and rebuild it might be worth shooting for a package deal of Will Smith and Francisco Rodriguez ($5.5M in 2016, $6M team option with a $4M buyout for 2017), letting them free up some money and get some mid-range prospects out of two bullpen arms that are a financial premium for a non-competitive club.
From the FA market Tommy Hunter would be an interesting option. He's blown up with the Cubs but has been a good pitcher in the AL East the last three years prior to being traded. Bringing him back to the division on a low cost deal would be a solid move to find a middle innings guy.
The club currently lacks a 1B, unless they're suddenly sold on Shaw which I would really doubt, and Hanley has started working at 1B already. It's a pretty obvious fit right now and prior to hurting his shoulder early this season the bat looked like the stuff dreams were made of. I'd imagine the FO will retain both Sandoval and Hanley, neither deal is absurdly long and both are likely at the absolute nadir of their value.Heating up in the bullpen said:
The conservative way forward would be Hanley at 1B, Sandoval at 3B, and Shaw as the backup to both. If Ortiz hangs it up after 2016 Hanley can move to DH and Shaw and/or Sam Travis can battle for the 1B job. Even if Ortiz sticks around Shaw will be one year shy of hitting arbitration even when he retires and Sam Travis would likely be finishing his first full season in AAA. It's a nice setup at 1B right now, not log jammed but not bare cupboards either.
Heating up in the bullpen said:
Building on this with some updated information.
Using post ASB because it's easy to get data, the Sox are at a +41 run differential in 67 games. Prorated, this works out to about +99 run differential which appears to be about a 90-91 win ball club using pythag expectancy. The offense has been top 3-4 in baseball (3rd in runs, 4th in OPS) and about average defensively -- 17th in baseball in runs allowed. They've more or less been since the All-Star break what we hoped for coming into this year.
Basically, if they could be expected to replicate their 2nd half success over a full season they're already going to be pretty good. I haven't done a thorough an analysis to understand how likely this is but just thinking it through I'm guessing it's somewhere between fair and a bit optimistic. (What stands out in my mind is that they lead MLB in batting average in the 2nd half at .280 -- not something one should count on.)
I'm on board with a starter who is reasonably projected to be among the ~15-30 best pitchers in baseball (plus some depth) and probably 2 reliable bullpen arms (one plus arm) while pretty much leaving the offense as is (edit: I'm not speculating on what they may feel they need to do with Hanley, etc. but assuming the talent level will be about the same).
amarshal2 said:
The other thing we've seen in the last few weeks is that a few weeks after the starting pitching stabilized, the relief performances have improved. I think there could be a causal link there. I'm looking at ways to quantify this, but can't find the splits I want.
But here's what I think: the unreliable rotation of the first half taxed what could have been an okay bullpen until it pretty much imploded. In the meantime, Porcello and Miley stabilized themselves, Masterson departed, Kelly revived his season, and Hill, Wright, Rodriguez and Owens arrived. This gave us about a month of a team with good starting pitching and a good lineup, excellent through six or seven innings until the DRAFT PICK DEFENDERS had to come into the game. But as the rotation has sopped up more innings, the bullpen has licked its wounds and improved to the point that now, with a good game on defense, we could concede fewer than 100 runs in September, after conceding between 119 and 137 the previous months.
So I agree that maybe the bullpen doesn't need a gut rehab, but just a more moderate renovation. If Robby Ross, Jr. is pitching in the seventh inning, that's probably a decent sign.
nvalvo said:
Assuming a seven-man bullpen, the Sox could get away with just one new signing:
1. Uehara
2. Tazawa
3. Ross
4. (new guy)
5. Layne (LOOGY-type)
6. Wright or BJohnson (long relief / occasional sixth starter)
7. (open competition to whoever looks best during spring training - probably Barnes)
But this leaves the bullpen awfully thin in case Uehara shows his age or if Tazawa can't bounce back.