488 replies to this topic

[BucketOBalls]

I don't know the exact number, but I'm betting it's a single digit number. And one of them is named Jonathan Papelbon.

The interesting number would be how many were not closers, which is probably a much smaller single digit number.

Generally, the way to pick up relief mid season is to look for over paid guys and get them.(i.e. save the other club money). There wasn't an opportunity like that this year.

[TomRicardo]

Yeah, those eight quality innings out of Dice-K sure were emblematic of the 2010 season, weren't they?

The better illustration of this futile season was on display on Friday night, when ten runs wasn’t enough of a cushion for Josh Beckett and Tito needed to burn through both Bard and Papelbon to get the win. Theo’s bullpen construction issues during the offseason would have been far less of an issue if we didn’t have three of the five spots in rotation incapable of going more than five innings on most days.

Ummm Beckett left after 6 2/3 and 5 run lead. Not great but it wasn't his fault it took non Bard-Papelbon 1/3 of an IP to give two runs.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don't know the exact number, but I'm betting it's a single digit number. And one of them is named Jonathan Papelbon.

Correct on both counts. The number is six: Papelbon, Rivera, Broxton, Soria, Thornton, and Downs.

If you reduce the time frame to three consecutive years, you add three more guys (Darren Oliver, Ryan Madson, and Frank Francisco). Two years, you add 13 more. But still, that only adds up to 22 of 49--so fewer than half of the RPs who added at least one win's worth of value to their teams this year also did so last year.

[behindthepen]

.

I was surprised not to see Pap's post-game comments here. It sure looks like he got squeezed, at least once if not 3 times in that PA.

"It was really tough tonight. Considering I'm not only pitching against the hitter, I'm pitching against the umpire. I mean, when you've got to do that against this lineup you'll never be successful - it just won't happen," Papelbon said.

"When you've got to do that you're in a lose-lose situation. Just call the game. There are 27 outs, call the game. Don't let the crowd influence you, don't let the hitter influence you, don't call the pitch where the catcher catches it; stay focused for 27 outs. Call the game," Papelbon said. "

[Savin Hillbilly]

I was surprised not to see Pap's post-game comments here. It sure looks like he got squeezed, at least once if not 3 times in that PA.

There's a lively discussion of this in the Catch-22 thread.

[OttoC]

While Game Scores aren't the most meaningful metric for evaluating starting pitchers, a look at them by starters and bullpen perhaps establishes some context for bullpen performance. I separated the games scores into intervals of five points, then plotted the team's record (tmWL) for each interval along the starter's record (strtWL) and bullpen record (penWL). As can be seen, the bullpen lost a number of games in which the starters recorded Game Scores of 50, or more. The starters went 53-15 in those games (.779) while the pen was 9-15 (.375) when the starter didn't get the decision. The starters pitched well enough to win 95 games but THE performance of the bullpen dropped the team's expectation down to 90 wins (.555).

GmSc    tmWL   strtWL  penWL
----------------------------
-2 -1    0-2    0-2    0-0
  0-4    0-1    0-1    0-0
  5-9    1-1    0-1    1-0
10-14    0-1    0-1    0-0
15-19    0-5    0-4    0-1
20-24    0-2    0-2    0-0
25-29    1-5    0-4    1-1
30-34    3-3    1-2    2-1
35-39    6-8    5-7    1-1
40-44    6-9    4-7    2-2
45-49    7-2    5-2    2-0
50-54    8-7    5-5    3-2
55-59   8-13    5-7    3-6
60-64    7-4    6-1    1-3
65-69   16-4   16-2    0-2
70-74   10-2    9-0    1-2
75-79    7-0    7-0    0-0
80-84    6-0    5-0    1-0
----------------------------
Record 86-69  68-48  18-21
Win%    .555   .586   .462

[DieHardSoxFan1]

While Game Scores aren't the most meaningful metric for evaluating starting pitchers, a look at them by starters and bullpen perhaps establishes some context for bullpen performance. I separated the games scores into intervals of five points, then plotted the team's record (tmWL) for each interval along the starter's record (strtWL) and bullpen record (penWL). As can be seen, the bullpen lost a number of games in which the starters recorded Game Scores of 50, or more. The starters went 53-15 in those games (.779) while the pen was 9-15 (.375) when the starter didn't get the decision. The starters pitched well enough to win 95 games but THE performance of the bullpen dropped the team's expectation down to 90 wins (.555).

GmSc    tmWL   strtWL  penWL
----------------------------
-2 -1    0-2    0-2    0-0
  0-4    0-1    0-1    0-0
  5-9    1-1    0-1    1-0
10-14    0-1    0-1    0-0
15-19    0-5    0-4    0-1
20-24    0-2    0-2    0-0
25-29    1-5    0-4    1-1
30-34    3-3    1-2    2-1
35-39    6-8    5-7    1-1
40-44    6-9    4-7    2-2
45-49    7-2    5-2    2-0
50-54    8-7    5-5    3-2
55-59   8-13    5-7    3-6
60-64    7-4    6-1    1-3
65-69   16-4   16-2    0-2
70-74   10-2    9-0    1-2
75-79    7-0    7-0    0-0
80-84    6-0    5-0    1-0
----------------------------
Record 86-69  68-48  18-21
Win%    .555   .586   .462

Interesting analysis, Otto. But I think it's important to keep this in proper context. While the bullpen was 9-15 when the starters posted game scores greater than or equal to 50, I'd bet a few of those losses could just as easily be attributed to strong performances from opposing starters (or weak offensive performances) rather than a leaky bullpen. It's extremely difficult to win even a plurality of games if your offense is being stymied. Which isn't to say the bullpen was all roses and daises. Ignoring for a second Papelbon's pedestrian season, the non-Bard bullpen faction coughed up its fair share of games.

Out of curiosity, where can one find detailed records of game scores?

Edited by DieHardSoxFan1, 27 September 2010 - 02:36 PM.

[Eric Van]

So, how much has the bullpen hurt us?

(I finished putting together the following table just before last night's game and I'm resisting the urge to revise it until the season's over. Conclusions will not change significantly.)

There are 8 other elite teams in MLB besides us, and they happen to be the 8 teams still in playoff contention other than the undeserving Reds.

So let's look at who each team has in their pen as closer, #2 guy, #3 guy, and middle relievers, and we'll look at how they've done using WPA, the single most meaningful stat for reliever past effectiveness (not for future projection, just for impact on team W/L).

For the middle relief, I've only listed the guys with 40 or more appearances and a WPA of +0.20 or more, but the WPA total includes everybody. (For the Giants I've parenthetically listed the three guys they picked up in July who have all been effective.)

As you can see, the Twins and Yankees changed alignments after deadline trades. (Actually, the Twins swapped Guerrier's and Crain's roles as 2 and 3 about a month before the deadline, but for simplicity's sake I'm measuring that from the same date that they got Capps and demoted Rauch from closer to #3. There are probably other teams who have swapped their 2 and 3 at some point; these classifications are based on the majority of the season so far).

Because of the way tables format here, I've put the WPA of each pitcher (or group of pitchers) before their name, The first WPA is the total for the whole bullpen

Bullpens, Playoff-Caliber Teams 2010, Through 9/25

WPA	Team	WPA1	Closer	WPA2	#2	WPA3	#3	WPA4+	Others incl.
8.72	Padres	4.83	Bell	2.26	Adams	0.60	Gregerson	1.03	Webb
8.47	Rays	4.75	Soriano	2.20	Benoit	2.16	Balfour	-0.64	Choate
8.01	Rangers	3.50	Feliz	1.68	Oliver	1.96	O'Day	0.87	Ogando, Francisco
6.08	Twins	2.97	Rauch/Capps	2.20	Guerrier/Crain	0.71	Crain/Rauch	0.20	Duensing
5.43	Yankees	2.66	Rivera	1.51	Chamberlain/Woods	1.38	Robertson	-0.12	Logan
4.51	Giants	3.81	Wilson	0.92	Romo	1.07	Casilla	-1.29	(Lopez, Ramirez, Ray)
4.30	Phillies	2.15	Lidge	1.45	Madson	1.33	Contreras	-0.63	Durbin
2.93	Braves	0.55	Wagner	0.98	Saito	0.86	Moylan	0.54	O'Flaherty, Venters
6.06	Average	3.15		1.65		1.26		0.00
3.33	Red Sox	2.00	Papelbon	4.27	Bard	-0.89	Okajima	-2.05	---

As you can see, Papelbon (before last night) had been 1.15 wins worse than the average other elite-team closer, but Bard has been 2.62 wins better than the average #2 guy. Swap them and Bard would be the 3rd most valuable closer and Papelbon would be an above-average #2. Combined, they are 1.5 wins better than average for a 1-2 punch. I think that's what was expected of them; Papelbon has been less effective than hoped for, Bard has been even better.

As I discussed in the Catch 22 thread, there was every reason to think Okajima could be a solid elite-team bullpen #3 guy. Instead, he has fallen 2.15 wins below that (more after last night, of course).

I honestly believe the team went into the season knowing the rest of the bullpen crew would be below average for an elite team. Given Ramirez's fade and MDC's inconsistency, they had to belleve that. Middle relief is where you get the least bang for the buck even when you're not already at the luxury tax limit. They spent all their money on the rest of the team, where you get better bang for the buck, and had no budget left to address the one known and fairly trivial weakness -- which they probably figured would be 1 win below average compared to other elite teams. It turned out to be 2.05 (so far).

Summing up, going into last night the Sox bullpen had been 2.7 wins worse than the other elite teams, so it's probably 3.0 now. I think they counted on being average, with Bard and Papelbon being a win better and the middle relievers being a win worse. Oki's collapse cost them 2 wins and the middle relievers were even sketchier than feared, adding another loss.

Depending on your POV you can blame the bullpen struggles for 3 or 4 wins. It's 3 wins if you buy that they knew the middle relief would be weak, 4 if you expected it to be average. And it's 3 wins if you include the fact that Bard and Papelbon combined have been better than average, but 4 wins if you take that as a given.

No amount of fixing the pen could have changed the results -- and replacing Oki (the major problem) would have required a major trade or financial investment.

[RedOctober3829]

So, how much has the bullpen hurt us?

(I finished putting together the following table just before last night's game and I'm resisting the urge to revise it until the season's over. Conclusions will not change significantly.)

There are 8 other elite teams in MLB besides us, and they happen to be the 8 teams still in playoff contention other than the undeserving Reds.

So let's look at who each team has in their pen as closer, #2 guy, #3 guy, and middle relievers, and we'll look at how they've done using WPA, the single most meaningful stat for reliever past effectiveness (not for future projection, just for impact on team W/L).

For the middle relief, I've only listed the guys with 40 or more appearances and a WPA of +0.20 or more, but the WPA total includes everybody. (For the Giants I've parenthetically listed the three guys they picked up in July who have all been effective.)

As you can see, the Twins and Yankees changed alignments after deadline trades. (Actually, the Twins swapped Guerrier's and Crain's roles as 2 and 3 about a month before the deadline, but for simplicity's sake I'm measuring that from the same date that they got Capps and demoted Rauch from closer to #3. There are probably other teams who have swapped their 2 and 3 at some point; these classifications are based on the majority of the season so far).

Because of the way tables format here, I've put the WPA of each pitcher (or group of pitchers) before their name, The first WPA is the total for the whole bullpen

Bullpens, Playoff-Caliber Teams 2010, Through 9/25

WPA	Team	WPA1	Closer	WPA2	#2	WPA3	#3	WPA4+	Others incl.
8.72	Padres	4.83	Bell	2.26	Adams	0.60	Gregerson	1.03	Webb
8.47	Rays	4.75	Soriano	2.20	Benoit	2.16	Balfour	-0.64	Choate
8.01	Rangers	3.50	Feliz	1.68	Oliver	1.96	O'Day	0.87	Ogando, Francisco
6.08	Twins	2.97	Rauch/Capps	2.20	Guerrier/Crain	0.71	Crain/Rauch	0.20	Duensing
5.43	Yankees	2.66	Rivera	1.51	Chamberlain/Woods	1.38	Robertson	-0.12	Logan
4.51	Giants	3.81	Wilson	0.92	Romo	1.07	Casilla	-1.29	(Lopez, Ramirez, Ray)
4.30	Phillies	2.15	Lidge	1.45	Madson	1.33	Contreras	-0.63	Durbin
2.93	Braves	0.55	Wagner	0.98	Saito	0.86	Moylan	0.54	O'Flaherty, Venters
6.06	Average	3.15		1.65		1.26		0.00
3.33	Red Sox	2.00	Papelbon	4.27	Bard	-0.89	Okajima	-2.05	---

As you can see, Papelbon (before last night) had been 1.15 wins worse than the average other elite-team closer, but Bard has been 2.62 wins better than the average #2 guy. Swap them and Bard would be the 3rd most valuable closer and Papelbon would be an above-average #2. Combined, they are 1.5 wins better than average for a 1-2 punch. I think that's what was expected of them; Papelbon has been less effective than hoped for, Bard has been even better.

As I discussed in the Catch 22 thread, there was every reason to think Okajima could be a solid elite-team bullpen #3 guy. Instead, he has fallen 2.15 wins below that (more after last night, of course).

I honestly believe the team went into the season knowing the rest of the bullpen crew would be below average for an elite team. Given Ramirez's fade and MDC's inconsistency, they had to belleve that. Middle relief is where you get the least bang for the buck even when you're not already at the luxury tax limit. They spent all their money on the rest of the team, where you get better bang for the buck, and had no budget left to address the one known and fairly trivial weakness -- which they probably figured would be 1 win below average compared to other elite teams. It turned out to be 2.05 (so far).

Summing up, going into last night the Sox bullpen had been 2.7 wins worse than the other elite teams, so it's probably 3.0 now. I think they counted on being average, with Bard and Papelbon being a win better and the middle relievers being a win worse. Oki's collapse cost them 2 wins and the middle relievers were even sketchier than feared, adding another loss.

Depending on your POV you can blame the bullpen struggles for 3 or 4 wins. It's 3 wins if you buy that they knew the middle relief would be weak, 4 if you expected it to be average. And it's 3 wins if you include the fact that Bard and Papelbon combined have been better than average, but 4 wins if you take that as a given.

No amount of fixing the pen could have changed the results -- and replacing Oki (the major problem) would have required a major trade or financial investment.

Great analysis. How much of a financial investment will it take to gain an additional 3 wins from the bullpen? As I've posted a few times, they need to spend the money to upgrade the pen.

[OttoC]

Interesting analysis, Otto. But I think it's important to keep this in proper context. While the bullpen was 9-15 when the starters posted game scores greater than or equal to 50, I'd bet a few of those losses could just as easily be attributed to strong performances from opposing starters (or weak offensive performances) rather than a leaky bullpen. It's extremely difficult to win even a plurality of games if your offense is being stymied. Which isn't to say the bullpen was all roses and daises. Ignoring for a second Papelbon's pedestrian season, the non-Bard bullpen faction coughed up its fair share of games.

Out of curiosity, where can one find detailed records of game scores?

When the bullpen takes the loss in a game where the starter has a 50+ game score, they are the ones giving up the winning runs. The score was either tied or the Red Sox ahead when the starter left the game.

I'm not sure how detailed you need the records to be but bb-ref's team pitching game logs might provide what you want.

[gammoseditor]

No amount of fixing the pen could have changed the results -- and replacing Oki (the major problem) would have required a major trade or financial investment.

I don't know if this is true. Looking at your chart above, you could conclude that Joaquin Benoit, aquired by the Rays for nothing, makes up the difference between the Sox and Rays. If he were our #3 guy we'd gain just about 3 wins. If the Rays didn't have him they'd lose about 3 wins subbing in the 4+ guys. Our 4+ guys would be stronger, and the Rays would be worse, as the best of the bunch would be in the 3 role. Unless you mean no amount of in season fixing the pen.

[Savin Hillbilly]

How much of a financial investment will it take to gain an additional 3 wins from the bullpen? As I've posted a few times, they need to spend the money to upgrade the pen.

If you look at the bullpens on EV's list, and how those pitchers were acquired, and what their salaries were when acquired, I think you'll agree that it's not about spending a lot of money. It's about scouting and luck. There is exactly one non-closer being paid >$5M among those eight teams, Kerry Wood (and of course he was a closer when he negotiated that salary). The large majority of the non-closers are being paid <$3M, especially on the teams at the top of the list. San Diego's top 5 relievers are being paid a grand total of just over $6 million.

[Eric Van]

How much of a financial investment will it take to gain an additional 3 wins from the bullpen? As I've posted a few times, they need to spend the money to upgrade the pen.

I feel pretty strongly that you trade prospects for relievers who are a year or two from FA and pitching for non-contenders (Sean Marshall of the Cubs, Sean Burnett of the Nats) or on a team with relief depth to spare (Mike Adams of the Padres). We are in a position to overpay with prospects because a guy who projects to be good, solid, MLB player like
Yamaico Navarro or Che-Hsuan Lin has no actual value to us if there will never be room for them on our roster. That is, in fact, one of the main rationales for building a farm system with this kind of depth -- to be able to (theoretically) overpay in talent for the guy you really want..

If you look at the bullpens on EV's list, and how those pitchers were acquired, and what their salaries were when acquired, I think you'll agree that it's not about spending a lot of money. It's about scouting and luck. There is exactly one non-closer being paid >$5M among those eight teams, Kerry Wood (and of course he was a closer when he negotiated that salary). The large majority of the non-closers are being paid <$3M, especially on the teams at the top of the list. San Diego's top 5 relievers are being paid a grand total of just over $6 million.

I actually meant to say that I had that info handy. Let's look at where the guys on the top pens came from (I skipped the Braves because their pen hasn't actually been great).

Closers
1 - Established closer, Type A FA at $7.5M (Soriano, although he was re-signed by his original team and traded for a reliever, Jesse Chavez, who was promising and had 1 year of servoce time -- Chavez being less valuable than the second round pick the Braves would have gotten otherwise).
1 - Established closer traded the winter before FA in big multi-player deal (Lidge)
1 - Established closer traded at deadline 1+ years before FA for a #2 prospect having an off year (Capps for Ramos)
1 - Top prospect (#18 the year before, #5 the following) obtained in trade for veteran star (Feliz)
1 - Nothing reliever obtained after 1 year of service time and developed (Bell)
1 - Late round draft pick (Wilson, 24th)
1 - International signing (Rivera)

#2 Guys
1 - Failed closer, traded at deadline for PTBNL with new team paying $2M of salary for 2 months (Wood)
1 - Established set-up guy, non-compensation FA at $3M (Oliver)
1 - FA signed to a minor league deal (Benoit)
1 - Nothing reliever obtained after 1 year of ST and developed (Adams)
1 - High draft pick (Crain, 2nd)
2 - Late round draft picks (Madson, 9th, and Romo, 28th)

#3 Guys
1 - Established set-up guy traded at deadline 1+ years before FA for a #8 prospect (Rauch)
1 - Nothing reliever obtained in trade after 3 years of ST (Balfour)
1 - Low-level prospect obtained in trade for veteran (Gregerson, ranked #29)
1 - Non-compensation FA at $1.5M (Contreras)
1 - Waiver claim (O'Day)
1 - FA signed to a minor league deal (Casilla)
1 - Late round draft pick (Robertson, #17)

Among the good extra men, Ryan Webb was a #24 traded prospect, Francisco a #28-29, Durbin a FA signed to a $0.9M deal, Choate a fa signed to a ml deal, Ogando a Rule 5 pick, Duensing a 3rd round pick, Logan a promising extra body in a bigger trade.

To Savin's luck and scouting I'll add coaching / internal development. They had the right idea with Atchison and it wouldn't surprise me to see him qualify as a good extra guy next year.

[Plympton91]

I feel pretty strongly that you trade prospects for relievers who are a year or two from FA and pitching for non-contenders (Sean Marshall of the Cubs, Sean Burnett of the Nats) or on a team with relief depth to spare (Mike Adams of the Padres). We are in a position to overpay with prospects because a guy who projects to be good, solid, MLB player like
Yamaico Navarro or Che-Hsuan Lin has no actual value to us if there will never be room for them on our roster. That is, in fact, one of the main rationales for building a farm system with this kind of depth -- to be able to (theoretically) overpay in talent for the guy you really want..

From your keyboard to Theo's whiteboard. If that is the Sox strategy this offseason it would be music to my ears. There has to come a point where all this depth starts getting lost in the rule 5 draft, so the time much be approaching to start packaging quantity for quality.

[Rudy Pemberton]

We would really need to know how other teams view the Red Sox depth, though. Navarro could be a decent utility player someday, but is he really going to bring back a useful major leaguer right now? Same goes with Lin; good on-base and defensive skills but zero power. I'm not saying that these guys can't be parts of deals, but they seem like secondary parts to me, and I would expect that most other teams have a lower opinion of the Sox unprecedented depth guys than the Sox organization and fans do.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

So, how much has the bullpen hurt us?

(I finished putting together the following table just before last night's game and I'm resisting the urge to revise it until the season's over. Conclusions will not change significantly.)

There are 8 other elite teams in MLB besides us, and they happen to be the 8 teams still in playoff contention other than the undeserving Reds.

So let's look at who each team has in their pen as closer, #2 guy, #3 guy, and middle relievers, and we'll look at how they've done using WPA, the single most meaningful stat for reliever past effectiveness (not for future projection, just for impact on team W/L).

I disagree with the bolded part, because WPA is leverage-adjusted. Where there's a shallow bullpen like the Sox, the reliever entrusted to high-leverage situations (Bard) will have an artificially inflated WPA because he gets every chance. For example, Nelson (-0.03 WPA) wasn't a 2-wins-better pitcher than Okajima (-2.05). He just (a) didn't get the same number of chances, (b) only ever entered behind or with a lead no fewer than 5 runs, and (c ) as a result didn't get put into any leverage situtations higher than a 1.1 rating (May 27, when he gave up the go-ahead run in the game).

Bard had one of the highest WPA in MLB not simply because he is the actually one of the best, but because he was also the only non-closer his team could turn to in high-leverage situations. I prefer using OPS against, because at least it baselines performance, therefore showing who was good, who was bad, and who was ugly (Bard good at .540, Okajima bad at .858, Nelson ugly at 1.060).

[edit:] I really like OttoC's table by starter gamescore, because that 3-7 RP record when getting a 60+ gamescore from the starter really speaks to just how many gut-punch losses this team suffered. Even just a winning record in those decisions and the Sox are only 2 out.

Edited by Buzzkill Pauley, 28 September 2010 - 09:50 AM.

[Worst Trade Evah]

There's sort of a related point in an article by Phil Birnbaum, linked in Tango's blog, on the lemon effect in baseball. The basic idea is that people close to the players, like their GMs and managers, have a better idea of their competitive value than other people on average. The consequence is that the average available player who is traded or signed to a multi-year free agent deal does less well than a comparable player who isn't.

Phil Birnbaum has a nice statement of the idea in his article:

In economics, the “Market for Lemons” represents the idea that, in a situation where the seller of a
good has better information on its quality than the buyer, the market will be inefficiently biased
towards lower-quality goods.
The reasoning goes like this. Suppose the value of the average car of a certain year and model is
$5,000. If I own an example that has never needed a repair and has always worked perfectly, then
maybe it’s worth $6,000. But I can never get $6,000 for it, because, even though I know how good it
is, there’s no way for me to convince the buyer than I’m not lying.
On the other hand, suppose my car is a lemon. It’s been in the repair shop countless times, and,
although it’s running fine right now, I’m sure it’ll break again sometime soon. I’d be thrilled to sell it
for $5,000, because it’s really only worth $4,000.
So, what happens? The owners of the good cars hang on to them, and the owners of the lemon cars are
enthusiastic about selling. So the quality of the cars offered for sale is now below average.
Buyers eventually realize that the cars offered are worse than average, and so they’re now willing to
pay only $4,500. That means that, now, sellers of average cars, which are worth $5,000, also become
unwilling to sell. This drops the quality even further, and the price drops even further, and so on, until,
in theory, there are no cars for sale at any price.
In practice, of course, it doesn’t go that far. There are indeed ways for sellers to convince buyers that
their cars are of higher quality – warranties, service records, and so on. Also, some owners of $6,000
cars will sometimes be willing to sell their car even though they can only get $5,000 for them.
But, still, theory indicates that the quality of used cars on the market should be somewhat lower than
the quality of used cars in general.

Matt Swartz in BP had a related finding, that "free agents WHO SIGNED MULTI-YEARS deals with new teams underperformed free agents who signed multi-year deals with their old team, specifically in future years."

I think this effect -- which may not be a strong one, but seems to be real -- is a reason why the impulse to just go out and get a bunch of guys to replace the ones you already have isn't necessarily a good one. The grass on the other side of the fence may be available for a reason.

[Eric Van]

From your keyboard to Theo's whiteboard. If that is the Sox strategy this offseason it would be music to my ears. There has to come a point where all this depth starts getting lost in the rule 5 draft, so the time much be approaching to start packaging quantity for quality.

The big Rule 5 squeeze is coming next year -- Rizzo, Britton, Lavarnway, Lin, Middlebrooks, Weiland, and Fife, plus Pete Ruiz (big-time sleeper), Federowicz, all the guys not quite draftable this year (led by Cabral and Chih-Hsien Chiang, but also Rice, Turpen and others), and a host of lottery tickets (Dent, Huntzinger, Mailman, Pressly, Lee, Herold), one of whom is likely to be a winner the way Tejeda was this year.

This year, as I outlined in the winter roster thread, the squeeze will be on all the fringe roster candidates, especially the bullpen guys -- they may well have to expose Patterson, Manuel, Fox, Coello, and even Hill to waivers as they sign free agents or trade non-roster guys for relievers.

The guys on the roster I could see going in a trade are Bowden, Exposito, Tejeda, Navarro and Nava. Bowden for obvious reasons, especially if Doubront starts next year in the Pawtucket rotation (which would mean the MLB bullpen has a new LHR plus Okajima or Hill). Exposito is going to start clogging high-minors PT from Lavarnway and Ibarra and has probably been passed by both as prospects, projecting as only an OK regular C in the short run -- but he also looks like the sort of guy who could blossom late as a hitter. Tejeda is a potential star at a position where we have tons of depth but will have no near-future impact. Navarro would be useful next year as a guy to call up from AAA whenever an INF is hurt, but you can always a get a guy like that as a mlfa (e.g., Angel Sanchez). Nava would actually be reasonable useful to a contender all of whose AAA OF were either veterans who were out of options or major prospects just up from AA who need to play every day. He'd be the guy who rode the AAA shuttle all year as injuries demanded it, and was a solid MLB backup OF. Given that Kalish and Reddick are likely to be in Pawtucket competing for MLB PT at his expense, it might be a favor to him to move him to another organization -- in fact, I could see him being dealt for a non-eligible low-level prospect.

[Eric Van]

We would really need to know how other teams view the Red Sox depth, though. Navarro could be a decent utility player someday, but is he really going to bring back a useful major leaguer right now? Same goes with Lin; good on-base and defensive skills but zero power. I'm not saying that these guys can't be parts of deals, but they seem like secondary parts to me, and I would expect that most other teams have a lower opinion of the Sox unprecedented depth guys than the Sox organization and fans do.

BA has always described Navarro as a future MLB regular, whose bat could play even at 3B. He actually looks like he could stick at SS to me. Davenport Peak Translations have him as a slightly below-average MLB hitter, but above average as a SS, and the second best SS prospect in the high minors after Eduardo Nunez of the Yankees (there's a dearth of high-minors talent at SS right now) .

Lin's OBP skills are so good that the Davenport Translations have him as an average MLB hitter and above average in CF. When you add a potential GG to the mix (and he's one of the guys whose scouting reports are backed up by ml defensive metrics) he projects to be a good MLB starting CF, maybe a very good one. Check out theTAvs and wOBAs of CF starters -- it has become a relatively offensively challenged position as teams emphasize OF defense more and more.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The big Rule 5 squeeze is coming next year -- Rizzo, Britton, Lavarnway, Lin, Middlebrooks, Weiland, and Fife, plus Pete Ruiz (big-time sleeper), Federowicz, all the guys not quite draftable this year (led by Cabral and Chih-Hsien Chiang, but also Rice, Turpen and others), and a host of lottery tickets (Dent, Huntzinger, Mailman, Pressly, Lee, Herold), one of whom is likely to be a winner the way Tejeda was this year.

This year, as I outlined in the winter roster thread, the squeeze will be on all the fringe roster candidates, especially the bullpen guys -- they may well have to expose Patterson, Manuel, Fox, Coello, and even Hill to waivers as they sign free agents or trade non-roster guys for relievers.

Just to clarify - the Rule 5 squeeze you're talking about won't be happening until after the 2011 season, correct?

And aside from Hill, I wouldn't hesitate to waive all those guys currently on the 40-man that I you listed. Replacement-level players, all of them.

[Eric Van]

I disagree with the bolded part, because WPA is leverage-adjusted. Where there's a shallow bullpen like the Sox, the reliever entrusted to high-leverage situations (Bard) will have an artificially inflated WPA because he gets every chance. For example, Nelson (-0.03 WPA) wasn't a 2-wins-better pitcher than Okajima (-2.05). He just (a) didn't get the same number of chances, (b) only ever entered behind or with a lead no fewer than 5 runs, and (c ) as a result didn't get put into any leverage situtations higher than a 1.1 rating (May 27, when he gave up the go-ahead run in the game).

Bard had one of the highest WPA in MLB not simply because he is the actually one of the best, but because he was also the only non-closer his team could turn to in high-leverage situations.

This is all absolutely correct. However, what I was actually trying to measure in that study was reliever value, not effectiveness, and that's what I should have said in describing the utility of WPA as a stat. The factors you talk about are indeed needed to convert WPA from a measure of value to effectiveness, but we want to include them when measuring value to team.

I prefer using OPS against, because at least it baselines performance, therefore showing who was good, who was bad, and who was ugly (Bard good at .540, Okajima bad at .858, Nelson ugly at 1.060).

Still a fuzzy stat for relievers. Papelbon's 4 RA in the game where he had the huge lead and just needed work are not the same as 4 RA with a 3 run lead. And I've done studies which showed that reliever clutch differential has predictive value just like it does for hitters. You want to look at WPA and simply adjust it for average LI (although doing it appearance by appearance, as I'm attempting to do with Win-Equivalent ERA, is probably even better).

[Eric Van]

Just to clarify - the Rule 5 squeeze you're talking about won't be happening until after the 2011 season, correct?

And aside from Hill, I wouldn't hesitate to waive all those guys currently on the 40-man that I you listed. Replacement-level players, all of them.

Yes, after 2011.

It would be very nice to keep at least a few guys who probably can't help you but maybe one of them can. And you don't know who that guy is yet. Joacquin Benoit was a FA signed to a minor league deal, Matt Guerrier and Darren O'Day were waiver claims. They were replacement-level once, too.

[Eric Van]

There's sort of a related point in an article by Phil Birnbaum, linked in Tango's blog, on the lemon effect in baseball. The basic idea is that people close to the players, like their GMs and managers, have a better idea of their competitive value than other people on average. The consequence is that the average available player who is traded or signed to a multi-year free agent deal does less well than a comparable player who isn't.

Phil Birnbaum has a nice statement of the idea in his article:


Matt Swartz in BP had a related finding, that "free agents WHO SIGNED MULTI-YEARS deals with new teams underperformed free agents who signed multi-year deals with their old team, specifically in future years."

I think this effect -- which may not be a strong one, but seems to be real -- is a reason why the impulse to just go out and get a bunch of guys to replace the ones you already have isn't necessarily a good one. The grass on the other side of the fence may be available for a reason.

I'm aware of this effect and yet I didn't have it in mind when I argued for overpaying in trade for guys whose teams would gladly keep them, rather than signing FA whose teams decided to let them go. But it really strengthens that argument.

Feed from the top and bottom of the talent pool. Trade for two quality guys and then identify a couple of guys who might be undervalued and breakout candidates and sign them to non-roster invitations.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Nava would actually be reasonable useful to a contender all of whose AAA OF were either veterans who were out of options or major prospects just up from AA who need to play every day. He'd be the guy who rode the AAA shuttle all year as injuries demanded it, and was a solid MLB backup OF. Given that Kalish and Reddick are likely to be in Pawtucket competing for MLB PT at his expense, it might be a favor to him to move him to another organization -- in fact, I could see him being dealt for a non-eligible low-level prospect.

Eh, Nava strikes me as a nice story but I don't see any kind of future for him. He turns 28 in February and is a corner OF with no power and questionable defense. I don't think anyone would give up anything for him; every team has a bunch of guys like him.

Lin's OBP skills are so good that the Davenport Translations have him as an average MLB hitter and above average in CF. When you add a potential GG to the mix (and he's one of the guys whose scouting reports are backed up by ml defensive metrics) he projects to be a good MLB starting CF, maybe a very good one.

I don't know a ton about Lin, is there a current big leaguer you'd compare him with? Great OBP but no power, and appears to have poor base-stealing ability at this time. Juan Pierre? Pierre had more power in the minors...just trying to get a sense of who is similar to Lin.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don't know a ton about Lin, is there a current big leaguer you'd compare him with? Great OBP but no power, and appears to have poor base-stealing ability at this time. Juan Pierre? Pierre had more power in the minors...just trying to get a sense of who is similar to Lin.

Lin is a 10+ BB% guy, while Pierre has never approached that rate at any level. Lin seems closer to a Brett Gardner type, but with somewhat less prolific/efficient baserunning ("poor base-stealing ability" might be a little harsh for a guy who just stole 26 bases at a 68% success rate, but certainly he doesn't look like he's going to be in the Gardner/Ellsbury class).

[Eric Van]

Eh, Nava strikes me as a nice story but I don't see any kind of future for him. He turns 28 in February and is a corner OF with no power and questionable defense. I don't think anyone would give up anything for him; every team has a bunch of guys like him.

Not disagreeing with you really, except that most of the guys who fit this description are out of options and there's some advantage in roster flexibility when a guy has them. I would expect him to be traded for a guy on the borderline between prospect and organizational filler, e.g., Ryan Pressly sort of guy.

I don't know a ton about Lin, is there a current big leaguer you'd compare him with? Great OBP but no power, and appears to have poor base-stealing ability at this time. Juan Pierre? Pierre had more power in the minors...just trying to get a sense of who is similar to Lin.

It's tough, but I did come up with one rough and very interesting comp.

Guys with very low Iso are usually weak speedster types and seldom have Lin's cannon arm, which is why many end up in LF. And guys with Lin's high IsoD and low Iso are also very rare.

Lin had a .068 Iso this year in AA, and if you look at all MLB players within 15 points of that (minimum 300 PA), the highest OBP is .359, well shy of Lin's .386. But that guy is also an elite defender with a cannon arm -- and is Asian to boot.

He's also a likely first-ballot HOFer which Lin will not be. But if you think RH Ichiro without the 80 speed (which I know is like saying "like a blonde Jennifer Love Hewitt without the big rack"*) but with 70 batting eye instead, that's probably as good as you can get. Some guys have essentially unique skill combinations.

*Edit: I know that without some footnote some fool will claim later that I said Lin would be as good as ichiro, and maybe you think Hewitt is also a great beauty, so just for the record, I've just said that Lin is similar to Ichiro except for the part that where he lacks the one game-changing skill that makes Ichiro great.

Edited by Eric Van, 28 September 2010 - 12:06 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

And guys with Lin's high IsoD and low Iso are also very rare.

That's why I thought of Gardner, whose .276/.382/.376 line this year seems like the kind of thing you'd expect Lin to come up with. Another good example from an earlier generation would be Brett Butler (career .290/.377/.376).

[twothousandone]

We would really need to know how other teams view the Red Sox depth, though. Navarro could be a decent utility player someday, but is he really going to bring back a useful major leaguer right now? Same goes with Lin; good on-base and defensive skills but zero power. I'm not saying that these guys can't be parts of deals, but they seem like secondary parts to me, and I would expect that most other teams have a lower opinion of the Sox unprecedented depth guys than the Sox organization and fans do.

Are you asking, in wildly different words, can the Sox get XXX for Navarro and Lin? Navarro, Lin, and Rizzo? I think that is an important question, at the risk of playing fantasy GM.

Does Navarro, Lin and Bowden get Adams?

If Thornton's option is picked up, will the White Sox take one of those packages for him? Is anything like that enough to get Sean Marshall? If the Cubs demand Doubront for Marshall, should the Sox do it?

[Rudy Pemberton]

The Gardner comparison is pretty promising. FWIW, when Gardner was in AA, he was a year older and hit 272 / 352 / 318, quite a bit worse than Lin's 275 / 386 / 343.

[Eric Van]

Are you asking, in wildly different words, can the Sox get XXX for Navarro and Lin? Navarro, Lin, and Rizzo? I think that is an important question, at the risk of playing fantasy GM.

Does Navarro, Lin and Bowden get Adams?

If Thornton's option is picked up, will the White Sox take one of those packages for him? Is anything like that enough to get Sean Marshall? If the Cubs demand Doubront for Marshall, should the Sox do it?

Mike Adams is two years from FA, and he's a set-up reliever. You're talking about 3.0 WARP of value here. A decent 4 or 5 starter is about 2.0 per season. If Jed Hoyer thinks Bowden can do that in San Diego, he comes out way ahead in Adams for Bowden even-up. Basically, it's a fair trade if Bowden has a 50-50 chance of spending 3 years at the back end of their rotation and Adams is guaranteed not to produce like he did in 2009-10.

Now, complicating this deal is that he might be a Type A FA in two years if (big if) there is no change to the FA compensation system. And at the very least they've got to replace the absurd Elias rankings which are so screwed up that 1.5 WAR middle relievers qualify as Type A.

The same is true of Marshall except he's probably worth 4 WARP over two years.

Thornton's option will certainly be picked up, and he's worth about 3.0 WARP over his one year, and his potential Type A status is again a confound.

As we saw with Soriano, teams are very reluctant to give up a draft pick for a reliever. You may see more guys either not offered arb, or accepting arb and then being traded for prospects worth less than the pick the other team would have given up.

[yecul]

Are these trade scenarios realistic on any level?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Speaking of WAR, here's a lovely chart drawn from from fangraphs data:

Pitching 2010 AL Pitching WAR by Team

Team	WAR	SP RAR	SP Rank	RP RAR	RP Rank
White Sox	23.9	167.4	2	59.6	1
Red Sox	19.2	176.1	1	3.9	12
Twins	19.1	149.9	3	30.2	4
Rangers	17.6	122.1	8	42.8	2
Blue Jays	16.0	131.1	4	21.2	7
Angels	15.8	127.2	6	20.7	8
Tigers	15.7	127.3	5	21.3	6
Rays	14.6	104.8	10	36.9	3
Mariners	14.1	126.5	7	-1.0	14
Athletics	12.7	112.2	9	10.7	10
Yankees	12.0	89.8	11	25.6	5
Royals	10.1	86.6	12	6.9	11
Indians	8.1	77.9	13	1.6	13
Orioles	8.0	60.9	14	17.3	9

Yes, without Bard (13.7 RAR) fangraphs calculates this year's pen at a full 10 runs below replacement level. Which sounds about right.

[Rudy Pemberton]

If Jed Hoyer thinks Bowden can do that in San Diego, he comes out way ahead in Adams for Bowden even-up. Basically, it's a fair trade if Bowden has a 50-50 chance of spending 3 years at the back end of their rotation and Adams is guaranteed not to produce like he did in 2009-10.

Will he do this before or after he trades Adrian Gonzalez for Felix Pie

I kid, I kid.

[Eric Van]

Will he do this before or after he trades Adrian Gonzalez for Felix Pie

I kid, I kid.

Before I fell asleep I was going to edit and note that Jed will get more because every team wants setup relief and other teams beside us will be willing to overpay. So (as I think I've said earlier) it would be something like Bowden and a Jed favorite from among the 30-60 prospect range. But teams aren't going to go wacko with the overpay; at some point you take your chances with a FA instead.

[Eric Van]

Speaking of WAR, here's a lovely chart drawn from from fangraphs data:

FanGraphs pitching WAR appears to be based on FIP or xFIP rather than actual results. Which is both ludicrous and just plain wrong. (Wait till you see what I've just discovered about Buchholz's BABIP.)

[David Laurila]

Playing "what if," suppose the Red Sox were to deal Papelbon this winter and annoint Bard as the closer, only to see Bard get injured at the outset of spring training. In that scenario, could Beckett be a viable option for that role? Given the combination of his demeanor and ability to absolutely dominate in short stretches, he might excel in that role.

[BosRedSox5]

Playing "what if," suppose the Red Sox were to deal Papelbon this winter and annoint Bard as the closer, only to see Bard get injured at the outset of spring training. In that scenario, could Beckett be a viable option for that role? Given the combination of his demeanor and ability to absolutely dominate in short stretches, he might excel in that role.

That's just too many "what if's" in a row. Trading Papelbon is so unlikely I don't even know if there's a number low enough to attach a percentage to. Who would want him at that price after a bad season, why would we trade him in the first place when he and Bard are the only relievers coming back. Why would Bard get injured, he's young and has no injury history. But, even if we're pushed back to our 3rd option as closer... I think pride would prevent Beckett from becoming our closer, and good sense from management would prevent the Red Sox from asking.

[Foulkey Reese]

$15.75m for a pitcher who would at most give us 70-80 innings or so. I just can't imagine that ever happening.

[RedOctober3829]

Playing "what if," suppose the Red Sox were to deal Papelbon this winter and annoint Bard as the closer, only to see Bard get injured at the outset of spring training. In that scenario, could Beckett be a viable option for that role? Given the combination of his demeanor and ability to absolutely dominate in short stretches, he might excel in that role.

Is that you, Tony Mazz?

[Savin Hillbilly]

$15.75m for a pitcher who would at most give us 70-80 innings or so. I just can't imagine that ever happening.

I can't imagine offering a guy that much if that was his expected use, but converting him to that use after you've already signed him and are on the hook either way is a slightly different thing. I have no idea if he'd be significantly more effective as a reliever, or whether he'd buy into the idea of converting, but if the answer to both questions turned out to be "yes" then I don't think the salary would be a good enough reason not to try it. I'd certainly rather pay $15.75M for 70 quality innings than for 200 like the ones we've been seeing, if those turned out to be our choices.

[Eric Van]

Playing "what if," suppose the Red Sox were to deal Papelbon this winter and annoint Bard as the closer, only to see Bard get injured at the outset of spring training. In that scenario, could Beckett be a viable option for that role? Given the combination of his demeanor and ability to absolutely dominate in short stretches, he might excel in that role.

This question actually prompted my Beckett thread, so thanks for asking it.

I think that if the Sox had somehow made the playoffs this year that Beckett would have joined Bard setting up Papelbon. He wasn't going to be a better Game 4 option than Dice-K and Dice-K can't really pitch relief and would have added nothing to the pen. Whereas Beckett would have very good in that role -- he had a 3.93 Component ERA in his first inning, but 2.00 actual ERA which means that he also excelled in pitching out of jams. In a first inning of work when you are still exposing your repertoire to people and figuring out what works for you, that good karma may be for real.

[Boggs26]

$15.75m for a pitcher who would at most give us 70-80 innings or so. I just can't imagine that ever happening.

Not that I find the scenario at all plausible, but is 15.5M really that different from what they'll likely pay Papelbon next year? In other words, aren't they looking at paying someone 10-12M for 70-80 innings?

[BosRedSox5]

ESPN.com suggests the Red Sox would be after Jon Rauch. He'll be a free agent, and I think that's a brilliant idea. If Pap bounces back, that's a strong bridge from the 7th inning to the 9th.

[Savin Hillbilly]

ESPN.com suggests the Red Sox would be after Jon Rauch. He'll be a free agent, and I think that's a brilliant idea. If Pap bounces back, that's a strong bridge from the 7th inning to the 9th.

Rauch might be a good fit for that role. He'd certainly be a step up from Atchison. Is it pretty much a done deal that the Twins will let him walk? And what would it take to sign him? I'm guessing an AAV in the $4-5M range, but 2 years or 3?

[SoxFanPJ]

Rich Harden has been DFA by the Rangers. Assuming he is released, I wonder if he is yet in the stage of his career where he would consider a move to the bullpen. Seems like an interesting player to take a bullpen flyer on.

[Sprowl]

Rich Harden has been DFA by the Rangers. Assuming he is released, I wonder if he is yet in the stage of his career where he would consider a move to the bullpen. Seems like an interesting player to take a bullpen flyer on.

That's an interesting prospect, since Harden's OPS in the early innings was pretty good (.744 in the first inning, .665 in the second). He is mostly a fastball-slider pitcher at this stage in his career (that once-brilliant splitter isn't at all frequent these days). Velocity loss with starter's innings seems to have been significant: his fastball was a wretched pitch in 2010 (-14.6 runs below average, which is awful), but mostly after the velocity started to fall. Sometimes he peaked in the 2nd inning; sometimes as late as the 4th, but in any case he was toast after 75 pitches (1.205 OPS).

I don't know whether he's willing to convert to relief for 2011, but he might be well advised to.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Harden has pretty crappy control, and it's hard to envision him being very durable in a relief role. It would be worth talking to him for sure, but seems like a low chance of success, doesn't it?

[nvalvo]

The Elias Rankings are out. Here are the relievers.

Elias Rankings of Relief Pitchers

	Player	Position
Type A	Rafael Soriano (RHP)	RP
Type A	Mariano Rivera (RHP)	RP
Type A	Matt Guerrier (RHP)	RP
Type A	Scott Downs (LHP)	RP
Type A	Dan Wheeler (RHP)	RP
Type A	Jason Frasor (RHP)	RP
Type A	Frank Francisco (RHP)	RP
Type A	Grant Balfour (RHP)	RP
Type A	Arthur Rhodes (LHP)	RP
Type A	Takashi Saito (RHP)	RP
Type B	Jon Rauch (RHP)	RP
Type B	Koji Uehara (RHP)	RP
Type B	Brian Fuentes (LHP)	RP
Type B	Kevin Gregg* (RHP)	RP
Type B	Joaquin Benoit (RHP)	RP
Type B	Kerry Wood (RHP)	RP
Type B	Randy Choate (LHP)	RP
Type B	J.J. Putz (RHP)	RP
Type B	Jesse Crain (RHP)	RP
Type B	Chad Qualls (RHP)	RP
Type B	Pedro Feliciano (LHP)	RP
Type B	Octavio Dotel (RHP)	RP
Type B	Trevor Hoffman* (RHP)	RP
Type B	Hisanori Takahashi (LHP)	RP
Type B	Aaron Heilman (RHP)	RP
Type B	Chad Durbin (RHP)	RP

[BosRedSox5]

If Jon Rauch and Brian Fuentes are only Type B's I would make those two our biggest targets. Two real good relievers with experience closing. They'd cost less together probably that Scotty Downs would by himself.

[YTF]

If Jon Rauch and Brian Fuentes are only Type B's I would make those two our biggest targets. Two real good relievers with experience closing. They'd cost less together probably that Scotty Downs would by himself.

In theory I agree, but this isn't happening. Not sure that there is any way possible to get them both cheaper than Downs and if some how you were able to snag both a lefty and righty of this caliber at an "affordable" rate it would be great but the problem here is that each should be more highly sought after by teams looking for closers and neither is at the end of his career. They would want to maximize their earning potential while trying to set themselves up for the following contract as well. Being a 7th inning guy in Boston doesn't seem to be something that either might settle for at this point.

Just curious....Any love out there for Joaquin Benoit? Not great career numbers, but coming off a VERY impressive season pitching in the AL east after a year out in '09.

Edited by YTF, 30 October 2010 - 07:57 AM.