47 replies to this topic

[Trautwein's Degree]

I'm in awe of the job that Theo has done since winning the World Series in 2007.

Looking back:

-For 2008, not giving up Lowrie, Lester, and Masterson for Santana has been a net positive for this team. I also think Theo deserves credit for helping to keep Santana out of the American League.

-Keeping Coco Crisp has provided this team with much needed outfield depth. A lesser GM may have looked at the outfield situation and moved Crisp for the sake of moving him.

-I think he played the Manny situation as well as anyone could have. They've gone 20-9 since the trade. I think Manny's outfield defense was killing them, especially on the road. I also think "team chemistry" means something.

-It's early but I love the acquisitions of both Byrd and Kotsay.

-I also think it was the right decision to move Masterson to the bullpen.

I'm sure there's more which is why I started this thread but I think Theo and by extension the front office deserves a lot of credit this season.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 03 September 2008 - 08:44 AM.

[syoo8]

I'm in awe of the job that Theo has done since winning the World Series in 2007.

I totally agree with you.

Question: What is Theo's contract status? He signed in January '06 (a few months after the gorilla suit.) Does anyone know the latest?

[Bowlerman9]

I totally agree with you.

Question: What is Theo's contract status? He signed in January '06 (a few months after the gorilla suit.) Does anyone know the latest?

He didnt actually sign in Jan 06 - he returned in Jan 06. He went the entire 2006 season without a contract and signed in either late 06 or early 07.

[TomRicardo]

This off season was not even close to the first off season he had.

Edit - This season hasn't been great for Theo, it has been pretty good. A lot of shit has went really well for him namely Masterson, Lowrie (Lugo getting hurt), Matsuzaka, Lester, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis becoming a beasts.

It was still a huge mistake taking Masterson out of the rotation for Buchholz, one that probably cost us the divison.

Edited by TomRicardo, 03 September 2008 - 08:50 AM.

[Joshv02]

According to Cots and Heyman, the contract is up at the end of this year; which makes sense as he signed a 3 year contract cover the 06-08 seasons. I assume - hope - that the negotiations aren't in public and there will be a simple press release when all is said and done.

[Foulkey Reese]

I would add signing Sean Casey to Theo's list of positives. Lowell missed a few weeks at the start of the season and Casey stepped right in for him and they didn't miss a beat.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The key to this year's team is depth, and Jon Couture sums it up pretty well:

A year after using the D.L. nine total times, the 2008 Sox are at 20.

A year after getting more man games out of their Opening Day lineup than any team, they're in a pennant race without their third baseman, shortstop and right fielder.

Yet a year after winning the World Series, there's still a reasonable chance they could do it again.

Given all the injuries and under performance this team has already gone through, it's a real testament to the FO that they have built a club that can apparently withstand lengthy absences of key players without much falloff. This is a stark difference from 2006 and perhaps a reflection of learning the hard way that acquiring and keeping depth is very important. The Sox have had 7 players make their major league debuts this year, plus another 4 with less than 2 years of service time. Theo's statement that he wanted to build a "$100 million player development machine" seemed at the time to be harmless hyperbole, but the FO has certainly made developing their own talent a high priority.

The Byrd, Kotsay, and Colon acquisitions have helped fill in the gaps as necessary due to injury and under performance.

[Joshv02]

Two mistakes that people make when debating GMs are (1) comparing them to some hypothetical perfect GM and (2) allowing hindsight bias to rule the analysis.

On (1) - When we compare batters, we can look at OPS+ or EqA or some other statistic that does an adequate job at normalizing the player relative to the rest of the competition. This makes sense as how a player does only matters in comparison to what another player would do. We don't assume that there is some hypothetical Sasquatch of a player who bats 1.000 and, therefore, Pedroia is a big failure. We assume that the relevant comparison is to the rest of the known world. There is no GM+ to compare GM moves, so analyzing a GM is often like comparing the GM to a hypothetical GM who is batting 1.000. We fail to recognize, sometimes, that GM's, like everyone, make mistakes. So long as well all realize we are doing this, then it is fine, of course. It just skews the viewpoint.

On (2) - Closely related to (1) is that we often assume things are "mistakes" by using hindsight bias. I think the Masterson/Buchholz choice falls into this category, though that debate has been made on SoSH before and need not be repeated here. The point is that we should analyze choices that are made in light of all the information (i) known to the relevant decision maker at the time or (ii) reasonably should have been known at the time. Then, look at the alternative choices and compare the total set of those choices (given the available information and choices) against the GM's peers.

I think when we do that, we'll find that this current regime does far better than most other teams. Rather than figuring out whose decisions those were, I tend to just attribute them to the GM. The biggest thing he did was develop incredible depth before the season started - and this was well recognized before hand. See, for example, the discussion on BTF when the ZIPS for the Sox came out: BTF Discussion.

So, Theo (likely) grades out well when all is said and done.

Plus, I read King of the Jews in college, am a ~30 y/o Brookline Jew, and wish I had Theo's hair.

[smastroyin]

It was still a huge mistake taking Masterson out of the rotation for Buchholz, one that probably cost us the divison.

This is doubtful unless they lose the division by one or two games. Not only do you have to presume Masterson's continued success as a starter (which was in question at the time), but you have to replace his innings in the bullpen.

Regardless, you could take this statement and say "David Ortiz hitting 200 points below expecated OPS probably cost us the division."
You could say "Josh Beckett pitching essentially as badly as he did in 2006 probably cost us the division."
You could say "Jason Varitek's three months of hitting worse than a random SoSHer taking his plate appearances probably cost us the division."
You could say "Jonathan Papelbon and Hideki Okajima being at a lower level than they were in 2007 cost us the division."
You could say "A bizarre inability to transform hits and walks into runs at an efficient level cost us the division."
You could say "The team still managed to underperform Pythag. even based on the already deflated run scoring and that cost us the division."
You could say "The starting lineup as of today has missed roughly 200 games due to injury (OK it helped in Lugo's case) cost us the division."

Despite these things, the team is most likely going to make the playoffs and can have a good chance to win the division if they take 4 of their remaining 6 games against the Rays. If they can manage to take 5, they become the favorites for the division. Hey, maybe it's unlikely, but it's not as if the division is conceded at this point.

Theo could have done better but this is the perfect example of taking Branch Rickey's famous axiom that "Luck is the residue of opportunity and design." The Red Sox got "lucky" that they had kids ready to step in, but they wouldn't have needed the kids to step in if they didn't have so much bad luck in the first place.

[SaveBooFerriss]

This is doubtful unless they lose the division by one or two games. Not only do you have to presume Masterson's continued success as a starter (which was in question at the time), but you have to replace his innings in the bullpen.

Regardless, you could take this statement and say "David Ortiz hitting 200 points below expecated OPS probably cost us the division."
You could say "Josh Beckett pitching essentially as badly as he did in 2006 probably cost us the division."
You could say "Jason Varitek's three months of hitting worse than a random SoSHer taking his plate appearances probably cost us the division."
You could say "Jonathan Papelbon and Hideki Okajima being at a lower level than they were in 2007 cost us the division."
You could say "A bizarre inability to transform hits and walks into runs at an efficient level cost us the division."
You could say "The team still managed to underperform Pythag. even based on the already deflated run scoring and that cost us the division."
You could say "The starting lineup as of today has missed roughly 200 games due to injury (OK it helped in Lugo's case) cost us the division."

I think the logical retort is that the Masterson decision is the only one of those in Theo's control. Theo had no control over anything on your list.

I don't necessarily agree with Tom on substance, but he can point to that one decision by the F.O. as potentially costing the Sox 1 or 2 wins.

Edited by Skins24, 03 September 2008 - 09:24 AM.

[bankshot1]

When you factor in the personnel moves/drafting, players not resigned, the significant contributions that prospects and young players have given this team, in addition to the Colon, Byrd, Kotsay mid-season adds, IMO its hard not to give theo and the FO a ton of credit. They've done a very good job.

[Paul M]

What if Masterson saved them from trading Moss, Lowrie, Bowden, or Hansen? Who knows if they get Jason Bay and not lose that important depth? They saw Masterson as the best relief pitcher value out there and they were right it seems. Last week's game in NY will be a game to look back on. They needed a RP badly and they also needed all of those pieces I listed above to survive this season. Given that neither Buchholz nor Masterson would be playoff starters but Masterson was the better bet to relieve well, the move has more potential October impact as well, though I don't think even the harshest Buchholz skeptics foresaw what happened in the last month he was up. Ex ante, it was at best a wash and that kind of ignores the ancillary value Masterson brought to the team.

[Manny's Hammies]

To keep the Masterson/Buchholz thing squarely in the Theo side of the things here...

The thing I think we miss on that decision was that it was all about upside. I agree w/ the point above about hindsight, and here you have to consider that Buchholz's situation has clearly confounded a lot of baseball people, from Farrell to Buchholz himself -- notwithstanding the griping going on here, everybody who actually KNEW the situation firsthand kept saying how much progress he was making and expressing genuine surprise that it wasn't translating into performance on the field. And wouldn't you know it, as soon as the guy is demoted, he's back to blowing everyone away.

All of which is to say, it's understandable why they might have blown this one -- Theo took a calculated gamble that Buchholz would perform at or around Masterson's performance level and would get a power arm for the late-innings in the pen w/o having to give anything up. Using the information that was available at the time—Buchholz's performance in his rehab and past performance, Masterson's declining performance as a starter, and the high price for relievers on the market—the choice wasn't badly informed. It just didn't work out.

[smastroyin]

I think the logical retort is that the Masterson decision is the only one of those in Theo's control. Theo had no control over anything on your list.

I don't necessarily agree with Tom on substance, but he can point to that one decision by the F.O. as potentially costing the Sox 1 or 2 wins.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can do that but there are a million decisions being made so harping on one as being more important than the others because we can view it easily is just ignorant. Every single thing creates a cascade of decisions. As Paul notes, moving Masterson to the pen lets them keep other players instead of trading them for a reliever. That's just a small example.

Despite all of the things that Theo could not control, the team is in place for the playoffs and still has a good shot at the division. That is the essence of the Rickey quote and how you missed that part of point is beyond me. Of course in hindsight we can pick apart decisions. But when the overall performance is there then maybe it's time to think that some of the "bad" decisions are the residue of a thought process that minimizes risk of a complete collapse. Even in the case of Buchholz, the upside of getting him straight will be felt for years, not just in this specific pennant race. So even if they knew perfectly what the result would be (and they didn't, and based on all available data at the time they made the right decision), the long term effect may outweigh the short term.

[Soxfan in Fla]

I think the logical retort is that the Masterson decision is the only one of those in Theo's control. Theo had no control over anything on your list.

I don't necessarily agree with Tom on substance, but he can point to that one decision by the F.O. as potentially costing the Sox 1 or 2 wins.

I think the real logical retort is the fact that the pen needed some major help and getting Masterson in there has stabilized it.

[dauber23]

Theo did indeed create a hole in the rotation by moving Masterson to the pen. But his move to get Byrd--for a bag of balls--to replace the ineffective Buchholz has minimized the damage to the rotation while we still enjoy the benefits Masterson has brought to the pen.

I think the non-trade for Santana, the brilliant move to get reasonable value (a reasonable replacement in Bay) for the no-longer-viable Manny, and the August pick ups of Byrd and Kotsay are all fantastic decisions by Theo. If the Sox win another ring, Theo gets a lot of the credit.

[Soxfan in Fla]

The one thing not really stated was getting Jason Bay in the whole Manny debacle. Consideration everyone knew he was desperate to get Manny out of town I think he did pretty damn good in getting Bay as his return. Could not have done any better and could have done much worse (insert what Marlins were offering here). Also, his throw ins on this deal, Hansen (who needed a fresh start elsewhere) and Moss (who was replaced dirt cheap with Kotsay for now) really were expendable parts. He didn't give up anything of any value and got great value in return in a move that had to be made out of desperation. Nicely done.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

The one thing not really stated was getting Jason Bay in the whole Manny debacle. Consideration everyone knew he was desperate to get Manny out of town I think he did pretty damn good in getting Bay as his return. Could not have done any better and could have done much worse (insert what Marlins were offering here). Also, his throw ins on this deal, Hansen (who needed a fresh start elsewhere) and Moss (who was replaced dirt cheap with Kotsay for now) really were expendable parts. He didn't give up anything of any value and got great value in return in a move that had to be made out of desperation. Nicely done.

We have bingo. Consider what the Phillies got when they "had" to trade Abreu. Or what we got for Nomar - OCab was a decent player but he's not Jason Bay and there was far less pressure on Theo to get something done at almost any price with that deal. I hated the idea of trading Manny, but Theo did a remarkable job of getting value back for him.

When "Feeding the Monster II" is written about our 2008 championship (or is it III - we need a book about the 2007 championship team, don't we?), the main themes will be building this team's incredible depth and negotiating a way through the Manny mess.

[TomRicardo]

I think people are extremely overvaluing the 4th/3rd reliever out of the bullpen. Masterson is not even the primary set up reliever in the scheme now and was used for mop up more times than for meaningful innings. He only has two holds so far. For better or worse MDC has been getting more meaningful innings than Masterson, so Masterson would probably be considered the 4th arm out of the bullpen. At best and this is really stretching it, Masterson has been +1 win in the bullpen.

Meanwhile Buchholz was an absolute unmitigated disaster in the rotation. His 8.28 ERA and less than 4 1/3 IP per a start were crippling. We are talking 8 starts that were extremely below replacement value. The Red Sox only went 1 - 7. Teams like Toronto and Kansas City were getting to him. I would say that it would be easy to say with Masterson the Red Sox would have gone 4 - 4 in these games (even without Masterson's mop up skills in the bullpen). 5 - 3 may be more likely.

The move was more of a 2 - 4 game swing than a 1 - 2 game swing. Fortunately we got really lucky and got Byrd (Cashman was sleeping).

[SaveBooFerriss]

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can do that but there are a million decisions being made so harping on one as being more important than the others because we can view it easily is just ignorant. Every single thing creates a cascade of decisions. As Paul notes, moving Masterson to the pen lets them keep other players instead of trading them for a reliever. That's just a small example.

First off, I am not arguing that Theo or the F.O. has done a bad job (I think they have done great). I am not even arguing that the Masterson move to the pen was the wrong move. All I am saying is someon can point to it an argue that it may have cost the Sox 1 or 2 wins.

Of course there are a myraid of decisions that affect each other, but let's look at it this way: Assume the Red Sox are trailing a game 4-3 in the 9th inning with the bases loaded and one out, Tito inexplicably pinch hits Cash for Ortiz and Cash gounds into a double play to end the game. Most people would probably point to the decision to pinch hit for Ortiz as the most significant decision that cost the Sox a chance to win the game even though there were dozens of plays earlier in the game that could have caused the Sox to win. If the Sox had been leading 8-3, the same decision would have been irrelevant.

I am not saying that the Materson decision was a bad decision like pinch hitting for Cash or Ortiz, but it we play your game and agree that every single thing creates a cascade of decisions we might as well give up trying to evaluate decisions by the front office and just look at the end result of the season. If the season was a success, every decision was great. If the season was a failure, every decision was bad.

As I said it my initial post, I do not agree with Tom on substance, but he said that the Masterson move was bad when it was made and he has the right to claim it cost the Sox a couple games. Pointing out the Varitek has underperformed does not refute this argument.

[smastroyin]

First off, I am not arguing that Theo or the F.O. has done a bad job (I think they have done great). I am not even arguing that the Masterson move to the pen was the wrong move. All I am saying is someon can point to it an argue that it may have cost the Sox 1 or 2 wins.

So you agree that you can do an overall grade based on one "bad" decision and call all of the good things lucky and call it a day? Or the premise that even if a single decision cost the Sox a win or two that it was the decision that cost the division?

You are basically completely missing the point of my argument.

[TomRicardo]

So you agree that you can do an overall grade based on one "bad" decision and call all of the good things lucky and call it a day? Or the premise that even if a single decision cost the Sox a win or two that it was the decision that cost the division?

You are basically completely missing the point of my argument.

The point of your argument was that no one could have seen that Buchholz was going to be so bad and Masterson would not be used in a real meaningful sense in the bullpen. Yet people argued this very fact when the move was made. Fact is MDC turning into a beast (2.33 ERA), Papelbon becoming a god (0.00 ERA over 18 1/3), and Timlin became less of a black hole (3.00 ERA) since Masterson was moved and the removal Craig Hansen has more to do with bullpen revival, than Tito using Masterson as a mop up reliever. Any extra innings you got from Masterson are completely negated by the ones Buchholz taxed the bullpen over what Masterson would have produced.

Edited by TomRicardo, 03 September 2008 - 10:41 AM.

[Paul M]

I think it's more interesting to look at the opportunity cost of KEEPING Masterson as a starter. In other words, given they defined a need to shore up the pen what was the best use of resources since they were going to bring a reliever in either externally or in-hosue. Maybe it was luck they ran into, but the process and the decision was sound. And Buchholz gave them no reason to think he'd implode, but that's not my point here. A lot of people wanted Damaso Marte and probably would have been ok with the cost of two arms in the Ohlendorf/Karstens class, but the Sox did not. Having a flexible guy in terms of role has also maybe helped the pen (fwiw, Delcarmen since the ASG has been significantly better which is not solely because of Masterson but I wouldn't totally dismiss it either and Okajima had come off the worst month of his career or one of the worst). I still see it as a good move despite what happened to Buchholz.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I'm amazed at the depth on this team. The Red Sox have seen many of their veteran, top-salaried players underperform or miss time due to injuries (Ortiz, Schilling, Beckett, Lugo, Lowell, Varitek, Drew) yet they are thriving. The biggest difference between the Yankees and Red Sox has been the performance of the Sox young players . Contrast the performance of Pedroia, Papelbon, Lester, Lowrie, Masterson, and Ellsbury with that of Hughes, Kennedy, Rasner, Cano, Cabrera, etc. While there has been some struggles with Buchholz and Hansen (and MDC to an extent), the net is positive.

This team just seems really versatile right now. I still maintain that Manny for Bay is a trade I make every day of the week, even if Manny was a model citizen, but it's amazing to see a team that is this good and should be just as good next year, and will have money to spend. It's also kind of cool that they can call up a guy like Bailey and Bowden (or Moss when he was here) and they help the team win games.

Maybe it's overrated, but it's also fun to watch a team that seems to enjoy playing the game and their teammates. Now, you can't seperate that from winning of course but there seems to be a philosophy here and while you may not agree with every move, you can see the thought process. How many organizations can you say that of?

[Joshv02]

The point of your argument was that no one could have seen that Buchholz was going to be so bad and Masterson would not be used in a real meaningful sense in the bullpen.

No, that makes it too black and white.

The point is really this: Choosing Buchholz over Masterson as a starter (and Masterson over Buchholz as a reliever) was reasonable, not that the opposite was so unreasonable that no one would see it. Buch projected as a 4.5 ERA (or better) pitcher to start the season and pitched well in limited time in the majors. His struggles in the majors were then followed good outings in the minors and his scouting and performance record in the minors were significantly better than Masterson's.

On the other hand, the team showed reluctance using Buchholz as a reliever as his best attribute as a starter is his pitch selection depth. Meanwhile, Masterson was considered a solid starter and a good reliever by the scouting community and his time in the majors produced good, but not great, results as a starter. In large part, his SO/BB rate was not great and his HR rate was poor. Going forward, he projected as a 4.5 or so ERA pitcher. However, he had pitched in the bullpen previously (though only in the Cape Cod league) and because of his relatively shallow assortment of pitches, was considered to be a better bet to have a good bullpen transition.

So, when you looked at everything known at the time, Buchholz as a starter was a reasonable choice over Masterson. Though, the argument that Masterson was a better choice was itself reasonable, I think the balance pointed towards Buchholz.

These decisions are not black and white. They are degrees of reasonableness.

Edited by Joshv02, 03 September 2008 - 10:46 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The point of your argument was that no one could have seen that Buchholz was going to be so bad and Masterson would not be used in a real meaningful sense in the bullpen.

I would strongly disagree that Masterson hasn't been used in a meaningful sense in the pen, but whatever. There were lots of folks screaming for Masterson to be removed from the rotation (he'll get killed in Yankee stadium!) and expected Buchholz to dominate. It didn't happen, but ultimately the Sox are a better team with Byrd and Masterson than Masterson and whoever, I think. Everyone wanted Mahay or Marte but both of those guys have been worse than horrible since the deadline.

[SaveBooFerriss]

So you agree that you can do an overall grade based on one "bad" decision and call all of the good things lucky and call it a day? Or the premise that even if a single decision cost the Sox a win or two that it was the decision that cost the division?

You are basically completely missing the point of my argument.

I guess if your point in your original post was that if Tek, Ortiz, Beckett and others had performed as expected, then the Masterson move would be largely irrelevant because the Sox would be leading the division, I agree with you.

I also agree that one "bad" decision does not invalidate all the "good" decisions and I don't call anything lucky.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

No, that makes it too black and white.

The point is really this: Choosing Buchholz over Masterson as a starter (and Masterson over Buchholz as a reliever) was reasonable, not that the opposite was so unreasonable that no one would see it. Buch projected as a 4.5 ERA (or better) pitcher to start the season and pitched well in limited time in the majors. His struggles in the majors were then followed good outings in the minors and his scouting and performance record in the minors were significantly better than Masterson's.

On the other hand, the team showed reluctance using Buchholz as a reliever as his best attribute as a starter is his pitch selection depth. Meanwhile, Masterson was considered a solid starter and a good reliever by the scouting community and his time in the majors produced good, but not great, results as a starter. In large part, his SO/BB rate was not great and his HR rate was poor. Going forward, he projected as a 4.5 or so ERA pitcher. However, he had pitched in the bullpen previously (though only in the Cape Cod league) and because of his relatively shallow assortment of pitches, was considered to be a better bet to have a good bullpen transition.

So, when you looked at everything known at the time, Buchholz as a starter was a reasonable choice over Masterson. Though, the argument that Masterson was a better choice was itself reasonable, I think the balance pointed towards Buchholz.

These decisions are not black and white. They are degrees of reasonableness.

Further, even if one thinks that Theo made the wrong choice, the expected value of that decision had to be a loss of less than 1 win. It turned out real shitty, but this just goes back to the point of not being overly results oriented in evaluating decisions. Maybe he made the wrong call, but it was probably like a half win wrong call.

[TomRicardo]

I would strongly disagree that Masterson hasn't been used in a meaningful sense in the pen, but whatever. There were lots of folks screaming for Masterson to be removed from the rotation (he'll get killed in Yankee stadium!) and expected Buchholz to dominate. It didn't happen, but ultimately the Sox are a better team with Byrd and Masterson than Masterson and whoever, I think. Everyone wanted Mahay or Marte but both of those guys have been worse than horrible since the deadline.

The Red Sox now are better with Byrd and Masterson, but they lost some ground with Buchholz and Masterson. That ground could become the difference between hosting Chicago/Minnesota at home and playing at LA for the ALDS. There is a huge difference there.

As for Masterson, he really is the fourth man out of the bullpen. He took Craig Hansen's spot.

I guess if your point in your original post was that if Tek, Ortiz, Beckett and others had performed as expected, then the Masterson move would be largely irrelevant because the Sox would be leading the division, I agree with you.

I also agree that one "bad" decision does not invalidate all the "good" decisions and I don't call anything lucky.

Absolutely. Theo isn't perfect but has done a fabulous job throughout his career. That one move can be looked at and said to cost a couple of games but that doesn't mean the net plus isn't much larger.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

What is amazing is how little some people here want to look at the big picture. These people are always going to paint the good moves as "luck" and other moves as "atrocious." Gatting Byrd was lucky, getting Bay was "fucking up and then having it all work out", etc. Whereas defensible moves are "stupid to anyone but the morons in the front office."

Here is a team that has been decimated by injuries. We have three of our World Series starting lineup and our ace pitcher on the disabled list at the moment, and the team just keeps winning. The team is 20-9 since "lucking" into dumping Manny, while the Dodgers have gone into the tank. Beckett is hurt? Yawn, let's call up Bowden for a start. What do you know, another win. Drew hurt? Whatever. Lowell -- is he on the DL too, I forget.

It is an extraordinary achilevement. All regimes makes moves that work out and moves that don't but this regime has done exactly what they promised--put themselves in a position to compete for championships every year. And the payroll, I might add, is going down. Oh wait, that means they don't care and are raping the fan base. Oops.

[bankshot1]

While the observation that Theo and the FO gave Buchholz too much rope is a very valid one, as he wasn't MLB ready this year. However at the same time, was Masterson, a guy who started the year at AA ball, prepared to pitch the 180 MLB innings that Buchholz was? IMO the use of Masterson first as a spot starter and then to middle relief while not perfect was a reasonably good solution to the problems that developed in the pitching staff.

That the organization had him to fill those roles is to their credit.

Anyone remember the Gagne trade?

Edited by bankshot1, 03 September 2008 - 11:09 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

As for Masterson, he really is the fourth man out of the bullpen. He took Craig Hansen's spot.

Agree to disagree. Masterson has gotten some hugh hi-leverage outs for this team, equating his usage with Craig Hansen's is just something we don't see eye to eye on (among many).

[TomRicardo]

What is amazing is how little some people here want to look at the big picture. These people are always going to paint the good moves as "luck" and other moves as "atrocious." Gatting Byrd was lucky, getting Bay was "fucking up and then having it all work out", etc. Whereas defensible moves are "stupid to anyone but the morons in the front office."

Here is a team that has been decimated by injuries. We have three of our World Series starting lineup and our ace pitcher on the disabled list at the moment, and the team just keeps winning. The team is 20-9 since "lucking" into dumping Manny, while the Dodgers have gone into the tank. Beckett is hurt? Yawn, let's call up Bowden for a start. What do you know, another win. Drew hurt? Whatever. Lowell -- is he on the DL too, I forget.

It is an extraordinary achilevement. All regimes makes moves that work out and moves that don't but this regime has done exactly what they promised--put themselves in a position to compete for championships every year. And the payroll, I might add, is going down. Oh wait, that means they don't care and are raping the fan base. Oops.

Slow down tiger. Are you suggesting the Dodgers are worse off because they got Manny who has been an absolute beast for them? Also the Dodgers are a game and half out of first not in the tank. Try to look up what you are talking before spewing nonsense.

I don't think anyone is saying Theo is bad or a mediocre GM. My point is this isn't his best season. That would be like getting all upset someone saying this isn't Beckett's best season and turning around and screaming like a lunatic "OH YEA BECKETT SUCKS HE JUST IS THE GREATEST PLAYOFF PITCHER OF ALL TIME".

Theo is a great GM and this season has shown his ability to move to adversity. Still his first season was by far his best. Also people are arguing just one mistake. At worse it is only going to make the playoff road harder and maybe cost us a chance at another WS. Still we will make the playoffs with a team capable of winning it all. They are just going to have to take a harder road through LA and Tampa.

[TomRicardo]

Agree to disagree. Masterson has gotten some hugh hi-leverage outs for this team, equating his usage with Craig Hansen's is just something we don't see eye to eye on (among many).

Can you mention the many hi leverage situations he has been in? I can only see a handful, less than a third of his usage. MDC, Okajima, and Papelbon have been in more hence Masterson is the fourth reliever. If you can prove me wrong please show me. Because I am looking at the game logs I am seeing Masterson as the fourth reliever, being used in a similar fashion as to how Hansen was used.

[Manny's Hammies]

Slow down tiger. Are you suggesting the Dodgers are worse off because they got Manny who has been an absolute beast for them? Also the Dodgers are a game and half out of first not in the tank. Try to look up what you are talking before spewing nonsense.

I don't think anyone is saying Theo is bad or a mediocre GM. My point is this isn't his best season. That would be like getting all upset someone saying this isn't Beckett's best season and turning around and screaming like a lunatic "OH YEA BECKETT SUCKS HE JUST IS THE GREATEST PLAYOFF PITCHER OF ALL TIME".

Theo is a great GM and this season has shown his ability to move to adversity. Still his first season was by far his best. Also people are arguing just one mistake. At worse it is only going to make the playoff road harder and maybe cost us a chance at another WS. Still we will make the playoffs with a team capable of winning it all. They are just going to have to take a harder road through LA and Tampa.

I'm not sure why you're being so hard on him this season -- basically, you're saying he made one "mistake" or move that didn't work out. In 2003, we had no closer...

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Try to look up what you are talking before spewing nonsense.

Let's ease up on the personal attacks Big Fella.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Slow down tiger. Are you suggesting the Dodgers are worse off because they got Manny who has been an absolute beast for them? Also the Dodgers are a game and half out of first not in the tank. Try to look up what you are talking before spewing nonsense.

I don't think anyone is saying Theo is bad or a mediocre GM. My point is this isn't his best season. That would be like getting all upset someone saying this isn't Beckett's best season and turning around and screaming like a lunatic "OH YEA BECKETT SUCKS HE JUST IS THE GREATEST PLAYOFF PITCHER OF ALL TIME".

Theo is a great GM and this season has shown his ability to move to adversity. Still his first season was by far his best. Also people are arguing just one mistake. At worse it is only going to make the playoff road harder and maybe cost us a chance at another WS. Still we will make the playoffs with a team capable of winning it all. They are just going to have to take a harder road through LA and Tampa.

About Manny, I am saying that the Red Sox began playing better on August 1, while the Dodgers are below .500. That is one data point among many data points. I know, its all just luck.

I think this might be Theo's best year actually. Although the organization building is an ongoing strength, he has made a lot of poor in-season trades over the years. 2003 he got some pitchers that tanked, 2005 all he could get was Jose Cruz, the Gagne debacle was last year, etc.

The job of a GM, stepping back away from the day-to-day stuff, is to create a situation such that when Terry Francona reaches for a wrench, he has a wrench, when his hammer breaks someone hands him a new hammer. In no other season since this regime has been there has Francona been able to do that as much as he does right now.

Can you deny this?

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

About Manny, I am saying that the Red Sox began playing better on August 1, while the Dodgers are below .500. That is one data point among many data points. I know, its all just luck.

I don't understand where you're going with this. Manny's at .414/.500/.748 with the Dodgers. LA has gone 15-16 since he got there, but 6 of those losses were big blowouts. Whatever LA's current problems are, Manny doesn't appear to be one of them.

For the record, I agree with your larger point that the Sox needed to trade Manny and that their improved play since the trade is no accident. But I don't think the reverse is true; I find it unlikely that Manny caused the Dodgers to struggle. They're playing at the same pace they did before the trade.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

I agree SJH about Manny. My point is not about the Dodgers, its about the Red Sox. Things are going well, and this trade is one of the reasons.

[Tudor Fever]

Can you mention the many hi leverage situations he has been in? I can only see a handful, less than a third of his usage. MDC, Okajima, and Papelbon have been in more hence Masterson is the fourth reliever. If you can prove me wrong please show me. Because I am looking at the game logs I am seeing Masterson as the fourth reliever, being used in a similar fashion as to how Hansen was used.

Fangraph's Leverage Index is a very good way to get an overall sense of how a pitcher is used, and it backs up what you're saying here. Here are the LIs for most of the current bullpen (1.00 is average):

Papelbon: 1.64
Okajima: 1.61
Delcarmen: 1.14
Masterson: 0.85
Lopez: 0.79
Timlin: 0.63
Aardsma: 0.60

Hansen, Corey, and Snyder all had higher LIs than Masterson.

Based on his lone appearance of last night, David Pauley currently is tied for all-time lowest seasonal LI for a reliever with 0.00.

[xjack]

Even if Theo knew that taking Masterson out of the rotation would be the difference between the division and the WC, my guess is he still would have done it.

Organizationally, they've put a lot of resources into solving the pitcher problem, and they were never going to let Masterson pitch 180 innings (and likely more in the playoffs). In my book, that's a positive for Theo's job performance, not a negative.

[Pumpsie]

What's been really impressive for me has been the last three trades, done in rapid order and two AFTER the trade deadline. Getting Bay, Byrd and Kotsay to replace Manny, Buchholz, and Drew just when we needed them was remarkable. They're perfect fits and done without giving up too much. Surgical precision.

And our prospects, those we keep and those we trade, have all been solid which bodes well for that evaluation process. Well, except for Hansen, whom no one can figure out apparently.

Criticism of Manny's performance with the Dodgers is ridiculous. Since the trade, Manny's been the best hitter in baseball with an OPS of around 1.250. The Dodgers would be well out of it by now without Manny. They're a game and a half back with him. There's been nothing but praise for Manny from Torre, teammates, and Dodger fans. It's all about Manny in LaLa Land.

[xjack]

One more thought. Maybe this is stating the obvious, but 2008 has shown how winning really does beget more winning. With two WS championships under their belt, it's so much easier for the front office to do the right things and stick to their player-development philosophy. Fans and players don't think it's now or never, so there's little pressure to trade the farm for a Brian Fuentes. Plus they've seen the player development machine work for Youkilis and Lester, which means there's little outcry (either in the stands or in the clubhouse) when the front office sends down Justin Masterson in order to convert him into a reliever.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

One thing to keep in mind is that the Red Sox care less about winning the division than the fans do. This was a cause of some consternation last year as well. Of course they want to win every game, and would rather win the division than not, but the team is really trying to get itself righted for the playoffs. They seem to be very cautious with all of their injuries, extending DL stints perhaps a bit longer than necessary. The bullpen also has been used pretty conservatively.

I am not sure where I stand on the Masterson decision, I can see the argument for leaving him a starter. But heading into the playoffs I will be glad that he is part of the bullpen and not the starter that gets left off the roster.

[smastroyin]

The point is that even in order to discuss a 1-2 decision as a deciding factor you have to look at the other things that got them to being a 93-95 win team in the first place. I also question the math that makes it any more than a 2 win swing, as awful as Buchholz was, because of the trickle down effects. Masterson has had a pretty high leverage index and has only failed in those situations once. And his starts were not good enough to warrant keeping him there. Unlike Dice-K I don't think he would have continued his success while walking people at the rate he was and especially against lineups with tougher lefties. Hard as it is to believe, even with his somewhat impressive bullpen stint, Masterson's FIP and xFIP are only marginally better than Buchholz's. So I think at the time of the decision, you can say pretty easily that it was the right one to make, especially when you add in the point that Masterson lengthens the pen which will be needed in the playoffs even if it didn't "pay off" in the regular season.

On top of that, keeping Masterson's innings down and also giving Clay the opportunity to perform in the majors again is worth something to this team's organizational philosophy.

I just don't see any reasonable way that this is a bad decision. Not all good decisions lead to good results.

You also, when making this assessment, ignore that part of Theo's job was having both Buchholz and Masterson as options. So this decision is one micro piece of the overall picture of his job performance. In this way, the overall picture, I think Theo's strength is really highlighted. Because really, just looking at transactions, it is easy to nitpick. But, in the end the organization as a whole is stronger in 2008 than it has been in a long time. The rash of injuries this team has seen is reminiscent of 2006 and 2001, yet unlike those years they have not collapsed as they have been able to bring in substantial depth. That is a testament to team building and fundamentally good decision making. Reasonable people can disagree. Certainly this team has the advantage of tremendous resources and people who get a woody for payroll efficiency aren't pleased. But in terms of the stated goals of the organization they have followed through completely. So, on a transaction for transaction basis, it is really easy to say "Theo did better in 2003 or 2004" and perhaps some of that is also true. But this year he stuck to a plan and did not overreact to anything except for what is apparently a team wide dislike for one of its stars. At the time I could question the motive but as Lahoud points out, the team is performing better since the trade. Regardless, in the end my guess is that that decision colors the dissenting opinion a lot more than the Masterson issue.

[yep]

Oh man. I kind of hate these discussions, because there are so many moving parts that by slightly shifting the priority we give to one detail or the other, we can "prove" completely opposite positions. However there is one really big element that I think gets a mistaken treatment almost every time. Not to single anyone out, but:

we often assume things are "mistakes" by using hindsight bias.

Hindsight is exactly the right tool to use to evaluate a GM. If well-informed fans have access to information and decision-making tools and analysis methods that are genuinely just as good as the GM does, so that we can make just as well-informed decisions from newspaper articles and the back of baseball cards, then the GM is grossly overpaid.

Whatever the yardstick, the ultimate decider of the quality of a GM's work has to be how well he has managed the odds and manufactured luck, maximizing upside and minimizing downside. Analyzing individual trades or deals in this sense is almost as useless as looking at individual at-bats. In aggregate, a good executive is supposed to get luckier* than other smart people with the same information. Otherwise, he's not earning his pay package.

The overall measure of a GM's performance has to be the outcome. It is his job to get luckier* than you or I could predict. Otherwise, all we are left with is deciding how closely his picks matched what mine were at the time, which is frankly foolish and undercuts the entire notion of objective evaluation, unless we are going to extend the argument to say that the entirety of baseball analysis is now a closed science over which I have complete mastery.

Please note that none of this is to say that "hindsight bias" is not a huge factor in armchair GM evaluations. Instead, I am saying that "hindsight bias" is only (or at least predominantly) manifest in analysis that is already too narrow or too speculative in scope to be of much use, anyway.

To put it in stark terms, analyzing a GM by analyzing individual trades is bad practice. Only in really obvious cases can we say definitely that player X was empirically worth more or less to the particular team in context than what he cost as of the minute he signed. And "really obvious cases" are not a great measure of the quality of a GM, for really obvious reasons.

When player X signs and gets injured, or under-performs, does that prove that those against the deal were right, or that the team got unlucky? When another player over-performs, or shows surprising durability, does that prove anything? When a player performs exactly to his projected value, does that prove anyone was right? And whose projection is the standard? When angry Bill calls up EEI and says that Wily Mo sucks, does that prove that he was smarter or better-informed than Theo? The answer is obviously no, and the fact is that even when smart, informed analysts do the same, in effect, the variance is huge.

The point is not whether Theo was right or wrong on X, Y, or Z, but whether they got the entire alphabet better or worse than average, or anyone else, or whatever the measure is. And the final answer has to be about the total team performance, not about one trade at a time. A poker player or a fund manager can be wrong on most of his bets but still be massively ahead if he makes the good ones count. Similarly, a fund manager or a poker player who fails to perform better than average is a poor one, regardless of how "smart" he may be, or how clever any particular play was. In endeavors where the variables are too complex and too numerous to completely quantify, smarts are ultimately demonstrated by success or failure, if only because there is no other way to evaluate that is not ultimately speculative or self-referential.

No matter how many numbers you run and how fine a point you put on the details, the variance in such things ultimately exceeds the outcomes, such as the margin by which the division is won, or the percentage of the productive roster that is intact come the post-season. If we decide to attribute that entire variance to randomness, then we have defeated the very purpose of the job that we are trying to evaluate. IOW, if the job of the GM is to get the team to the post-season with a certain regularity or whatever, then we have to believe that the goal is achievable. And if that goal is achievable, then that's really the only measure we need of job performance.

Once we start to triage which details and individual outcomes were the result of luck vs decision-making skill, then we are making the assumption that there exists a complete set of knowable data, and that we are in possession of it. Not only is this false, but the entire presumption underlying this kind of analysis is so incredibly permeable to confirmation bias of every sort that it may as well be unmitigated opinion, regardless of the number of decimal places used.

This is not to diminish the value of advanced decision-making tools or analysis methods, rather to say that these things are exactly that: tools and methods. We would like to think that the GM is using good ones, and using them appropriately, but they are ultimately in service to an end goal of some sort, and it is the outcome that proves the tool, not the other way around.

*In all cases, I am using "luck" as a shorthand for factors that affect outcome in ways that outside observers could not/did not account for in advance, including, but not limited to, actual luck.

edit: sp

Edited by yep, 03 September 2008 - 12:24 PM.

[Manny's Hammies]

Two mistakes that people make when debating GMs are (1) comparing them to some hypothetical perfect GM and (2) allowing hindsight bias to rule the analysis.

On (1) - When we compare batters, we can look at OPS+ or EqA or some other statistic that does an adequate job at normalizing the player relative to the rest of the competition. This makes sense as how a player does only matters in comparison to what another player would do. We don't assume that there is some hypothetical Sasquatch of a player who bats 1.000 and, therefore, Pedroia is a big failure. We assume that the relevant comparison is to the rest of the known world. There is no GM+ to compare GM moves, so analyzing a GM is often like comparing the GM to a hypothetical GM who is batting 1.000. We fail to recognize, sometimes, that GM's, like everyone, make mistakes. So long as well all realize we are doing this, then it is fine, of course. It just skews the viewpoint.

I think this is a point that could also be applied to Tito, who is probably the most scrutinized person on this board. If not even more so.

Plus, I read King of the Jews in college, am a ~30 y/o Brookline Jew, and wish I had Theo's hair.

Theo's balding, dude. Check it out next time he's robotic-ly wolfing down a meal in his skybox.

[Ted Cox 4 president]

Meanwhile . . . Hansen continues to self-destruct. Today's line: BB, single, sac bunt, wild pitch allowing tying run to score, BB.

Sad, really.