109 replies to this topic

[nvalvo]

Over. My reasoning is as follows.

The 2011 team significantly underperformed reasonable expectations. Many of the things that went wrong can be expected to be better, or at least different:

• Lackey was awful; he won't be pitching until 2013.
• Crawford was awful; he should rebound. The extent of his rebound is one of the biggest questions facing the team.
• Matsuzaka got hurt; he should return healthy at some point.
• Drew was horrible on offense; he's moved on. It's not quite clear how those PAs will be apportioned.
• Wakefield was horrible; he will probably not return, unless the SP situation gets *really* grim.
• Buchholz got hurt; he should be healthy now.
• Gonzalez was fantastic, but I actually expect him to be even better SLG-wise further out from his shoulder surgery.
• Jenks got hurt; if healthy, he could be a useful bullpen piece.

There are also a few places where we should expect worse performance:

• Ellsbury was Rickey Henderson last year; I expect him to merely be Jacoby Ellsbury next year. That's a fine player.
• Ortiz had a great year, but he's older, and that brings some risk of decline.
• Beckett had a great year, but it's hard to project him to be as good as he was.
• Papelbon is gone; he's been replaced with Bailey. Bailey isn't Papelbon, but he's a serviceable closer.
• Bard is possibly headed to the rotation; Melancon is a fine choice as a setup man.
• Managing. Who can say?

I see a lot of room for large improvements, and several opportunities for small declines.

But I also want to raise the specter of the opposition. I'm curious what others think the rest of the AL East will look like.

I, for one, expect a lot of decline in NY. Mostly I don't see how they can repeat the luck they had in starting pitching last year, but there are also worrying signs in their offense (A-Rod OPS+ last four years: 150, 138, 123, 116; Teixeira: 180, 141, 124, 117; obviously the emergence of Cano and Granderson offset those declines somewhat).

I do anticipate much stronger teams out of TB and Toronto.

Your thoughts?

[Manramsclan]

Over.

Last year's team had 90 wins with two dependable bullpen arms, an historically bad season from a starting pitcher who kept getting the ball (Lackey) and an historic collapse in September that can easily be pinned on the starting staff.

That same starting staff had the burden of John Lackey performing a key role as well as injuries that turned a perceived strength into a liability.

In 2012, 200 innings of league average pitching can be reasonably expected from a combination of Bard,Aceves, and a half a season of Dice-k which replaces Lackeys awful, awful season.

A return to form for Buchholz and you have to expect this team will at least tread water if not improve 3 to 5 wins.

This team has issues, and I don't see a juggernaut, but with the offensive capabilities and the upgrades to the starting staff mentioned mentioned above I think a reasonable expectation is a 91-93 win team with high water of the magic 95 win threshold.

Whether the new playoff rules are instituted in time for the Red Sox to make the playoffs is another story. Both the Angels and the Rays present a clear challenge to that Wild Card spot, and both have much deeper starting staffs that have upside.

Edited by Manramsclan, 11 January 2012 - 05:05 PM.

[JMDurron]

I would take the over. The last two years have been remarkable in the lack of health and with guys playing far below any reasonable expectation. This has to straighten out sometime.

I'm not sure if the lack of health and variable performance are as anomalous as we would like them to be. I think we have to start with a baseline expectation of several injuries and underperformance from some presumably "reliable" players. Thankfully, there are also the occasional Jacoby Ellsbury 2011 upswings as well, but I strongly disagree with your last sentence.

Thanks for the new sig.

I vote over. I think Adrian Gonzalez has a beastly year and Crawford improves quite a bit. If the big 3 in the rotation stay healthy I think this is team that can go deep.

I think the odds of the "big 3" in the rotiation staying healthy are extremely long. I understand that Buchholz's back injury is not explicitly known as something that will permanently harm his ability to pitch, but when a 23-26 year old starter only throws 76, 92, 173.2, and 82.2 IP at the MLB level, I think the burden of proof is on the posters who expect him to be healthy, not those of us who expect him to be injured and therefore unavailable and/or ineffective.

Lack of conditioning isn't strange. The same guys who were sucking wind in September will be taking the field in April. I'm eagerly awaiting the "Josh Beckett is in the best shape of his life" stories in spring training.

Then we have the other potentially weak link in the "big 3". I have every expectation that Josh Beckett will be more motivated and less effective in 2012, because by ERA+ and WHIP, he had his best season yet in 2011 and still was a major negative contributor at the end of the season. Expecting him to have the equivalent of his best season in his career two years in a row is a tall order at age 32. He is an extremely talented, extremely unreliable performer.

The biggest risk to the 2012 bullpen isn't the departure of Papelbon (who wouldn't replicate his 2011 season anyway, IMO) and Bard, it's the rotation. Again. A rotation of Lester-Beckett-Buchholz-Bard-Aceves with various dreck backing them up, even with Matsuzaka's expected midseason return, is a huge injury AND performance risk. Those risks translate into fewer IP, which translate into more IP and eventually a worse performance by the bullpen. That can manifest itself either in more wear and tear on whoever the good relievers end up being over the course of the year, or in more innings being forced to the crappy middle relievers due to too many IP per night being forced upon the group as a whole. I think the bullpen is as likely to be fine as it has been in any other recent year, because beyond how many IP the rotation can take from them, it's essentially pointless to try to set specific expectations for reliever performance anyway.

The other major risk is the lack of reliable performers in the starting lineup. The players who can be reasonably assumed to match their recent performance and forward-looking projections are Dustin Pedroia and Adrian Gonzalez. As far as I can tell, that's it. We know that Salty seems to be streaky at C, and while he should have a steadier start to the season, he's not a sure thing from a production standpoint. Kevin Youkilis is reliable from a production standpoint, but is a significant injury risk. David Ortiz brings the native injury risks from his age, plus the near-certainty of a performance falloff relative to his excellent 2011. Ellsbury looks to be fairly reliable from a injury standpoint, but there's no realistic way that he can match his 2011. Marco Scutaro is a significant injury risk and should not be expected to match his 2011 production, although I think only a mild falloff should be expected. Carl Crawford, based on last year, is obviously hugely unreliable from a production standpoint and is a mild injury risk (speedy players with hamstring issues, Jose Reyes haunts my dreams here), although I think he's certain to have a better season. Right field shows no obvious improvement from the 2011 baseline, with the current setup looking to be better than Drew, but worse than Reddick.

So, if we're talking about this team's "true talent level", which I consider to be what the team should/would achieve given normal production and health levels from each particular player, I think we're looking at a squad that can be reasonably expected to win 95 or more games. I would ballpark the group as a 92-97 win team by that measure. Once you start to factor in the reliability of any given position player's production level, then factor in injury and performance risks on the pitching staff, I'm seeing a team that is equal to last year's squad, but one that should not be quite as streaky. With the roster AS-IS (Kuroda and a RF would make me feel significantly better), I think this team is heading for 90 wins on the mark, and a decent shot at one of the two Wild Card spots. I'd take the under.

Edited by JMDurron, 11 January 2012 - 05:12 PM.

[Rasputin]

Those moves add up to 96 wins? Mike Sweeney, Kelly Shoppach and TBD 5th starter? Really? Sox catching hit 29 homeruns in 2011 with .229//291/..446. It's hard to see how the addition of Shoppach improves those numbers that much.

I'm having a hard time believing that you're actually serious and am at least a little inclined to believe that you're just trolling. Are you just not understanding how horrifically bad John Lackey was last year? Do you really think, with all the shit that happened in September, that 90 wins is the baseline talent level?

At one point in September the Sox had Dice K, Buchholz, Becket, and Bedard all not pitching because they were injured in some manner. Do you really think that having everyone get injured at the same time is normal?

Because even if Crawford improves, he's not that good.

He had an OPS+ of 85 in 2011 compared to a career OPS+ of 105. Improvement is improvement.

[Trautwein's Degree]

I'm having a hard time believing that you're actually serious and am at least a little inclined to believe that you're just trolling. Are you just not understanding how horrifically bad John Lackey was last year? Do you really think, with all the shit that happened in September, that 90 wins is the baseline talent level?

At one point in September the Sox had Dice K, Buchholz, Becket, and Bedard all not pitching because they were injured in some manner. Do you really think that having everyone get injured at the same time is normal?

They won 90 games last year. I do not think the pitching staff has been improved. They still don't have starting pitching depth. Your assumption is that pitchers who were injured/broke down last year won't break down this year. I'm unwilling to make the same assumption.

You understand there was a reason that Lackey was so bad and they kept throwing him out there? They didn't have anyone better to replace him with. No one. To the point they were considering a trade for Bruce Chen on the last day of the season.

Over the course of a season, injuries happen. They'll happen to the 2012 Red Sox. The offense was great last year. I don't anticipate the net additions/subtractions changing that. The Sox will score runs in 2012 as they did in 2011 (when they lead MLB in runs scored with 835).

I can't look at the current pitching staff and conclude it's much better than the 2011 version. If you do, that's fine. A healthy Buchholz and Doubront will be very important to this club. I just don't see 96 wins. Perhaps 89 to 93 but not 96.

[Rasputin]

They won 90 games last year.

Do you think they won 90 games because that's what the talent level was or because there were factors that prevented them from performing up to their talent level?

I do not think the pitching staff has been improved.

I literally do not understand how this is possible.

Dice K and Buchholz combined to pitch 120 innings. That's why John Lackey was pitching, because TWO starters were done for the season by the middle of June.

You need about 1000 innings from starters. From the current staff I see it breaking down something like this.

Beckett and Lester combine for about 400.

So 600 have to come from someone else and I think it's fairly likely that's three guys giving us about 150 and

Figure Buchholz for about 180.
Figure Bard for about 150.
Figure Aceves for about 150.

That would leave about 120 innings or say 20 starts presumably apportioned to Doubront, Tazawa, Miller, and if he can come back, Dice K.

That's why I want another starter, preferably a more durable mediocre guy like Kuroda. That way you can plug him in for Aceves and use Aceves for the times when you need to fill in for a guy for a couple starts and guys like Doubront and Tazawa only get a handful of starts between them and guys like Miller get zero.

Now if we go into this and get 80 innings from Buchholz and 30 innings from Bard, we're going to be fucked.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Of course, one has absolutely no idea whether Bard will succeed as a starter nor whether Melancon will succeed in the AL.

One has no idea about a lot of things, of course. Nonetheless, saying they haven't addressed the rotation ignores the fact that they are planning to convert Bard and that Melancon was acquired as his replacement.

Aceves--> Jenks/Aceves - Not sure if Ace can help in the rotation and bullpen.

My point was that when Dice-K comes back, I assume that plan A is for Aceves to return to the pen (this also assumes they don't acquire one more starter). So he'll start the year replacing DiceK (and the gang of idiots who followed him last year), and finish it replacing...himself.

Lowrie--> Punto -should be an uipgrade, if only because Punto won't get hurt

Does the name "Gowdy" mean anything to you, son?

As for Crawford vs. Ellsbury, I think it's rational optimism to think that the former will gain at least as much value as the latter will lose this year. Or put it this way: Last year, they were good for 9.6 fWAR between them. It seems reasonable to expect a similar total next year, just with different distribution.

[JMDurron]

Figure Buchholz for about 180.
Figure Bard for about 150.


Now if we go into this and get 80 innings from Buchholz and 30 innings from Bard, we're going to be fucked.

I think this is where the optimists and pessimists come together. The optimists presume the first scenario is the most likely. The second scenario (or one closer to it, we'll get more than 30 IP from Bard) is what the pessimists are closer to.

Also, Beckett and Lester have combined for 400 IP once - in 2009. That's the only time it has happened. You can't assume that you get that many IP out of the two of them combined, when neither of them even hit 200 IP last season when both were healthy and reasonably effective outside of September.

[Rasputin]

Also, Beckett and Lester have combined for 400 IP once - in 2009. That's the only time it has happened. You can't assume that you get that many IP out of the two of them combined, when neither of them even hit 200 IP last season when both were healthy and reasonably effective outside of September.

About 400.

They combined for 384 in 2011. Lester did his part in 2010, they both hit 200 in 2009, were at 384 in 2008.

So basically the only time they weren't around 400 innings was in 2010 when Beckett only managed 127.

[OttoC]

One has no idea about a lot of things, of course. Nonetheless, saying they haven't addressed the rotation ignores the fact that they are planning to convert Bard and that Melancon was acquired as his replacement.
...

I'm sorry that you thought my statement--Of course, one has absolutely no idea whether Bard will succeed as a starter nor whether Melancon will succeed in the AL.--meant that they hadn't addressed the rotation and that I was unaware that the plan is to convert Bard to a starter and use Melancon in his role in the bullpen. I re-read my statement--Of course, one has absolutely no idea whether Bard will succeed as a starter nor whether Melancon will succeed in the AL.--and concluded that all I meant was there is no guarantee that Bard will succeed as a starter or Melancon as a set-up man in the American League

[fenwaypaul]

Eternal pessimist here. I went with the under; I'd rather be surprised than right.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Over, definitely.

Looking at WAR; for losses and additions.

Lost: Reddick (1.9), Varitek (0.5), Lowrie (0.3), Drew (-0.3). Papelbon (3.0), Lackey (1.5), Bedard (0.9), Wake (0.8), Wheeler (0.4)
Added: Sweeney (0.1), Punto (1.8), Shoppach (1.1), Bailey (0.9), Melancon (0.8), Cook (1.0)

The only real productive player lost was Papelbon. Sure, starters 4+ and RF are question marks, but the bar is set very very low, the Sox got little from those spots last year. The bench is certainly upgraded.

Sox had the 4th best run differential in baseball last year. Should have won 95, and now have a manager with a proven track record of exceeding expectations.

I'd expect 92-96 wins, lower end if they add a Jeff Francis and higher end if Kuroda / Oswalt.

[rembrat]

People are really underestimating how bad Wakefield was as starter last year. Years past he could be counted on for a 2 fWAR season and that was awesome. Last year he was responsible for about 14% of SP innings and he could not even amass a full win. That is a ton of wasted innings.

If the Sox had an average starter pitching those innings the collapse probably doesn't happen.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Exactly. Lackey, Wakefield, Miller, Matsuzaka, Bedard, and Weiland combined for 479 IP and just 3.4 WAR.

Those guys gave up 340 runs in 479 IP (6.39 R/9). 46% of the teams runs, in 33% of the innings.

I'm not underestimating that it's difficult to make up the quantity of those innings, but they were really, really poorly pitched innings.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm sorry that you thought my statement--Of course, one has absolutely no idea whether Bard will succeed as a starter nor whether Melancon will succeed in the AL.--meant that they hadn't addressed the rotation and that I was unaware that the plan is to convert Bard to a starter and use Melancon in his role in the bullpen. I re-read my statement--Of course, one has absolutely no idea whether Bard will succeed as a starter nor whether Melancon will succeed in the AL.--and concluded that all I meant was there is no guarantee that Bard will succeed as a starter or Melancon as a set-up man in the American League

Traut made a statement to the effect that they hadn't addressed the SP need.

I replied to Traut pointing out that because of the planned Bard conversion, the Melancon acquisition, by replacing Bard, in effect addressed the SP need.

You quoted my reply and replied in turn. I assumed (naturally, I think) that you were answering me in the context of the exchange between me and Traut, and not in isolation. And in that context, it certainly sounded as if you were saying that the uncertainty of Bard and Melancon's success rendered my reply to Traut invalid and meant that they had not in fact addressed the SP need. Hence my answer.

On we go.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

I went with the Over

I for one am very high on Tazawa and think that he will start at Pawtucket (if he doesn't win a starting job in ST) and impress. By mid to late may I see him pushing Aceves for a starting role or sliding into the rotation as an injury replacement. I think he could give the team a high 3 low 4 ERA as a 5th starter, easily improving on Lackey's pile of shit 2011 campaign.

Lackey and Wake were so bad that it's hard for me to see how those innings couldn't be hugely improved on even by accident.

I also like the backend of the pen more than a lot of others, I think Melancon could be very effective in the set-up role and that Bailey can equal a typical Papelbon year if he stays healthy.

I expect a big season power wise from Gonzales. He's another year removed from shoulder surgery, has now become accustomed to Boston and has seen a lot of the pitchers in the AL and AL East now.

I wouldn't be surprised if another outfield bat (for RF) and starter are added before spring training.

I'd put the team right around the 95 win range, but I also think it will take less wins than least season to win the AL East and or a wildcard slot

[TomRicardo]

Really? They're worse in some clear ways, they have zero idea what they're going to get at the back end of the rotation, they don't know who's going to start in RF until Kalish comes back, they have no idea if Crawford will come around, they lost the best closer in their history, they hired perhaps the worst fit for manager possible, their All Star 3rd baseman keeps breaking down, yet you really think there's a "decent" chance at 100 wins, something they haven't accomplished in 65 years?

Holy shit. I'll never consider you an Eeyore again.

.

100 wins is a terrible estimation but it is no dumber than your chicken little idiocy of under 90 wins. If I would guess I would say ~94 wins.

You still have the best line up in baseball no matter how many question marks you try to line up. I doubt Crawford continues to completely useless. Even if Ellsbury comes down to Earth (not sure why you would predict that), you have Pedroia without a screw in his foot and Gonzalez without a torn shoulder.

Al;so you complimenting Papelbon is beyond bizarre. Three months ago you were drooling for his departure.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

.

100 wins is a terrible estimation but it is no dumber than your chicken little idiocy of under 90 wins. If I would guess I would say ~94 wins.

You still have the best line up in baseball no matter how many question marks you try to line up. I doubt Crawford continues to completely useless. Even if Ellsbury comes down to Earth (not sure why you would predict that), you have Pedroia without a screw in his foot and Gonzalez without a torn shoulder.

Al;so you complimenting Papelbon is beyond bizarre. Three months ago you were drooling for his departure.

Nowhere did I say Ellsbury would come down to earth, although some regression wouldn't shock me. LF is still an enormous question mark since ya know, the owner spent the entire offseason saying he never wanted to sign him in the first place. That should be awesome for Carl's confidence. RF is a question mark given that Kalish (who I like) won't be ready until June or so. Youkilis got badly injured again last year; will he be recovered?

How many guys in the rotation can actually be counted upon? We've got even-year Beckett, he was fat and lazy and unmotivated and a negative leader last year and he choked down the stretch. He's got a very long way to go to be considered dependable in my eyes. Lester was good as always, but he also sucked down the stretch. Buchholz is recovering from a broken back, I suppose we shouldn't worry about that? Bard might be good in the rotation, he might not. He hasn't started since Single A. How many innings can we expect from him? 100? 150? 180? No one knows. Aceves was significantly better out of the pen than as a starter last year.

And that's not even getting into the clusterfuck of a managerial hiring they conducted. Or signing Nick Punto. I don't see them cracking 90 wins. No worries about that, really; I'm fine with another transitional year. But the team is thin and very flawed and they've gone backwards in the two most important aspects for matching a pythag: bullpen and manager. I think Bobby V will be an extremely negative influence on the team as I consider him to be an awful fit for this team.

This offseason was a complete mess from Day 1. In many ways they were hamstrung by Theo's prior decisions, so it's not all on Ben, of course. Still...NICK PUNTO. Christ on a cracker.

It would be nice to be pleasantly surprised. We'll see.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

And that's not even getting into the clusterfuck of a managerial hiring they conducted. Or signing Nick Punto. I don't see them cracking 90 wins.

How do you know that Valentine was a bad hiring? For all we know he could be a great fit for this team and clubhouse.

And you keep bringing up this pissant little defensive replacement or occasional utility infielder, like he has ruined the team. How much impact on wins and losses could he possibly have? He'll likely play sparingly.

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

But the team is thin and very flawed and they've gone backwards in the two most important aspects for matching a pythag: bullpen and manager.

Haven't Bobby V teams historically outperformed their pythag?

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

How do you know that Valentine was a bad hiring? For all we know he could be a great fit for this team and clubhouse.

And you keep bringing up this pissant little defensive replacement or occasional utility infielder, like he has ruined the team. How much impact on wins and losses could he possibly have? He'll likely play sparingly.

I have said it elsewhere, I think Valentine is just about the worst fucking guy they could have possibly hired for the job due to personality and ego issues IN BOSTON. Tactically he could be very sound, but I think his issues in constantly ending up with a divisive clubhouse will be exacerbated quickly here. I also detest the way he was hired, with ownership overruling their GM and going to a name with Q rating instead of the solid baseball man Ben wanted. It was amateur hour over there this winter.

I hate Bobby V's guts, always have, and I want him out of this organization as quickly as possible. He's an unmitiated, egotisical jackass with a long history of taking credit for the wins and blaming others for the losses. I cannot wait until he tells the media that Crawford would be an MVP if he just listened to what exactly he said to him. That should be fun.

Obvioisly I'm exaggerating re: Punto. At the same time I thought his signing was a TERRIBLE omen for the club. Ben talking about him "being a winner" in the wake of saying he wanted player who looked like they cared as opposed to laconic bums like JD Drew. Just an awful sign that Ben was going to actually follow though on his moronic words.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Punto has been worth an average of ~1.5 WAR for each of the past three years. He'll make less money for the Sox this year than Hideki Okajima did last year. The hatred of this guy seems to have no basis in any kind of rational analysis of data, odd for SOSH. If he (or Shoppach, or Germano, or Cook) sucks, who cares? Their salaries account for <1% of payroll. But, based on available data Punto was good to excellent value. Why are some folks unwilling to acknowledge this?

Interesting thread, in that the under crowd is all emotion, and the over much more analytical, driven by actual data.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 12 January 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The discussion of pythag is nonsensical. Red Sox, managed by Tito were -5 last year, Valentine around +26 for his career. If pythag performance is so important ( and it's debatable, winning a lot of blowouts and losing close ones can make you look bad, and vice verses) than at worst this is a push. Love him or hate him, Valentine can manage a pitching staff (but it was the NL!!!1!)

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Punto has been worth an average of ~1.5 WAR for each of the past three years. He'll make less money for the Sox this year than Hideki Okajima did last year. The hatred of this guy seems to have no basis in any kind of rational analysis of data, odd for SOSH. If he (or Shoppach, or Germano, or Cook) sucks, who cares? Their salaries account for <1% of payroll.

Interesting thread, in that the under crowd is all emotion, and the over much more analytical, driven by actual data.

A team up against the luxury tax threshold gave this player a 2 year deal at 1.75 per when he would have been deserving of a major league invite somewhere with a league minimum salary had he made the team. Stupid.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The discussion of pythag is nonsensical. Red Sox, managed by Tito were -5 last year, Valentine around +26 for his career. If pythag performance is so important ( and it's debatable, winning a lot of blowouts and losing close ones can make you look bad, and vice verses) than at worst this is a push. Love him or hate him, Valentine can manage a pitching staff (but it was the NL!!!1!)

So you're cool with the status quo. How stunning.

I've said my opinion. Hopefully I'll be wrong. Lord knows my expectations for this year's team couldn't get any lower. Just remember that pretty much every move that was made this offseason was met with gushing approval from Nick Cafardo.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Wouldn't the status quo have been keeping Tito? Your rants are amusing, but ridiculous, no matter what the sport (Pats ended up 8-8, right?) Hyper reactionary, emotional, negative. You have no idea what kind of offers Punto had, but if he can put up the same kind of performance he as recently, he will be a bargain. If not, well, it's 1% of payroll. Theo's blunders of the past few years, And moves like Papi accepting arb were far more damaging to immediate payroll than this.

Your continued instance that hiring Bobby V was a PR move based on his "q score" is ridiculous, since nobody seems to like the guy. Hiring Jason Varitek would have been a "q score" hire.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Wouldn't the status quo have been keeping Tito? Your rants are amusing, but ridiculous, no matter what the sport (Pats ended up 8-8, right?) Hyper reactionary, emotional, negative. You have no idea what kind of offers Punto had, but if he can put up the same kind of performance he as recently, he will be a bargain. If not, well, it's 1% of payroll. Theo's blunders of the past few years, And moves like Papi accepting arb were far more damaging to immediate payroll than this.

Your continued instance that hiring Bobby V was a PR move based on his "q score" is ridiculous, since nobody seems to like the guy. Hiring Jason Varitek would have been a "q score" hire.

You do realize Q rating is not a measure of likability but one of visibility?

Being lectured by the dimwitted likes of yourself really does make my day brighter. I'm done with this. We'll all be proven right or wrong in 10 months and then the victory laps can begin.

[C4CRVT]

As currently constituted, I took the under. If they add one more legit starter, I'd take the over.

[Toe Nash]

We've got even-year Beckett, he was fat and lazy and unmotivated and a negative leader last year and he choked down the stretch.

"Even-year Beckett" really needs to stop. Beckett had poor years in 2006 and 2010, but they weren't as bad by peripherals as they are by ERA. His 2008 was just as good as his 2007 or 2009. It's a lazy meme that undermines other valid points about Beckett regarding his conditioning.

Josh Beckett's red sox career

Year	Team	IP	ERA	FIP	xFIP
2006	Red Sox	204.2	5.01	5.12	4.44
2007	Red Sox	200.2	3.27	3.08	3.31
2008	Red Sox	174.1	4.03	3.24	3.19
2009	Red Sox	212.1	3.86	3.63	3.3
2010	Red Sox	127.2	5.78	4.54	3.86
2011	Red Sox	193	2.89	3.57	3.58

[absintheofmalaise]

Punto has been worth an average of ~1.5 WAR for each of the past three years. He'll make less money for the Sox this year than Hideki Okajima did last year. The hatred of this guy seems to have no basis in any kind of rational analysis of data, odd for SOSH. If he (or Shoppach, or Germano, or Cook) sucks, who cares? Their salaries account for <1% of payroll. But, based on available data Punto was good to excellent value. Why are some folks unwilling to acknowledge this?

Interesting thread, in that the under crowd is all emotion, and the over much more analytical, driven by actual data.

Why are you using a metric that you don't understand to make your case here? And I do realize that it's not just you.

[someoneanywhere]

Now if we go into this and get 80 innings from Buchholz and 30 innings from Bard, we're going to be fucked.

Eternal pessimist here. I went with the under; I'd rather be surprised than right.

So if I'm hearing you Unders right, you'd rather be fucked than be right.

I'm an Over. But I can dig that.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Why are you using a metric that you don't understand to make your case here? And I do realize that it's not just you.

What about his use of the metric in this context indicates a lack of understanding or invalidates his point? This is a sloppy ad hominem argument.

[RedOctober3829]

Do you think they won 90 games because that's what the talent level was or because there were factors that prevented them from performing up to their talent level?



I literally do not understand how this is possible.

Dice K and Buchholz combined to pitch 120 innings. That's why John Lackey was pitching, because TWO starters were done for the season by the middle of June.

You need about 1000 innings from starters. From the current staff I see it breaking down something like this.

Beckett and Lester combine for about 400.

So 600 have to come from someone else and I think it's fairly likely that's three guys giving us about 150 and

Figure Buchholz for about 180.
Figure Bard for about 150.
Figure Aceves for about 150.

That would leave about 120 innings or say 20 starts presumably apportioned to Doubront, Tazawa, Miller, and if he can come back, Dice K.

That's why I want another starter, preferably a more durable mediocre guy like Kuroda. That way you can plug him in for Aceves and use Aceves for the times when you need to fill in for a guy for a couple starts and guys like Doubront and Tazawa only get a handful of starts between them and guys like Miller get zero.

Now if we go into this and get 80 innings from Buchholz and 30 innings from Bard, we're going to be fucked.

I don't think you can pencil in Buchholz for 180 IP at all. He might, but coming off his back injury it's a question mark at best. Aceves pitched 114 innings last year(mostly from the pen) and will most likely be in his same role this season so 150 starter's innings is not going to come from him. Bard at 150 is very, very generous given I don't think he exceeds 120-130 this year. I think they will sign Kuroda based on the fact that he is durable(180 or more IP 3 of his 4 US Pro seasons). If they count on Silva or Cook to be that guy they will be sorely mistaken.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I don't think you can pencil in Buchholz for 180 IP at all. He might, but coming off his back injury it's a question mark at best. Aceves pitched 114 innings last year(mostly from the pen) and will most likely be in his same role this season so 150 starter's innings is not going to come from him. Bard at 150 is very, very generous given I don't think he exceeds 120-130 this year. I think they will sign Kuroda based on the fact that he is durable(180 or more IP 3 of his 4 US Pro seasons). If they count on Silva or Cook to be that guy they will be sorely mistaken.

Kuroda would be a very nice addition, but it would be tough to sign him and remain under the luxury tax threshold. He made just about $12 million last year; I'd expect he could get a contract of similar dimension on the open market. Not sure the Sox can swing that at this time.

[maufman]

According to Baseball Prospectus, the Sox had 98.7 third-order wins in 2011. The 9-win deficit between that and the Sox' actual 90 wins is about equally attributable to a poor Pythagorean record, and poor ability to translate offensive production into runs scored. Neither shortfall is likely to be replicated in 2012.

On the other hand, I think the club probably won't be as good on paper in 2012 as it was in 2011. Ellsbury, Pedroia and Beckett all had great years, and the rest of the roster is more likely to decline than improve due to age.

I voted "over," but if the threshold were 95 wins, I probably would have taken the under.

[Mike Greenwall]

Over (92-95 wins)

This team will respond to the challange of removing the stink from Sept. (fingers crossed)

[redsox2020]

Obvioisly I'm exaggerating re: Punto. At the same time I thought his signing was a TERRIBLE omen for the club. Ben talking about him "being a winner" in the wake of saying he wanted player who looked like they cared as opposed to laconic bums like JD Drew. Just an awful sign that Ben was going to actually follow though on his moronic words.

I'll never understand why Cherington catches so much grief over those kind of comments. Does it not occur to people that perhaps he was speaking to the fans in terms they could understand & easily relate to? You know, the same fans who heard time & again how lazy & uncaring our mega-talented team was last year? Do you really think he's oblivious to the numbers & would use the same rah rah language if he were addressing a room full of sabermetric geniuses who weren't emotioinally tied to wins & losses?

Edited by redsox2020, 12 January 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Why are you using a metric that you don't understand to make your case here? And I do realize that it's not just you.

To quickly demonstrate relative value of Punto, and to dispute the notion held by many that he is useless and not worthy of being in the league? I know you don't like people using the stat, but it's out there, and we need some way to quantify Punto's contributions.

What stats are SOSH moderator approved. Ideally, I need to understand them too.

[Eric Van]

People are figuring out how much better or worse this team is than last year's, and almost everyone here is adding their estimated differential to last year's win total.

But last year's win total has almost no predictive value at all. It's 10% of the picture.

The other 90% of predictive value is the expected number of wins based on complete hitting and pitching line. That was 99 wins according to Equivalent Runs, and 101 wins according to Runs Created. Call it 100.

Furthermore, there was a study of team injuries over at (IIRC) BP that had the Sox as 3 wins worse than average, a lot of that being Buchholz. Now, we were able to trade for Bedard and make up some of that, but that's still another win or two you can add to the baseline.

So the baseline that you are working off when you figure out whether this club is better or worse than last year is not 90 wins. It's 90% 100 wins, 10% 90 wins, plus a win or two for average health ... it's 100 or 101 wins.

That's not pie-in-the-sky optimism or fanboy boosterism. It's the soundest possible sabermetrics.

The 2011 Sox were supposed to be the dominant team in baseball, got very bad pitching from their 4th starter and almost historically bad pitching from their 5th starter, and still should have won 102 games with neutral karma and health. Playing in the AL East. So there was absolutely nothing wrong with the pre-season conception of the talent on the team: it was so good that even with the Dice-K and Buchholz injuries and the Lackey debacle (probably another injury), they were still one of the three dominant collections of talent in MLB. What went wrong was their worst-in-baseball ability at turning hits and walks and homers and all the rest of that stuff you can count into wins.

I also think folks are quite objectively seriously underestimating the negative impact of Lackey. Bard for Lackey is just a slight upgrade? Andrew Miller for John Lackey would be a 1.6 win upgrade (based on last year's ERA). Does anyone regard Daniel Bard throwing Lackey's 160 innings with a 4.20 ERA as overly optimistic? That's a 4 win upgrade.

Crawford will be better, Ellsbury and Ortiz are likely to be less good, and we can debate whether that's a wash or not, but saying it's in the neighborhood of a wash seems fair. Aceves and a returning Dice-K certainly look to be at least a wash versus Wakefield. The bullpen is not as good, but it's not nearly enough to offset the 4-win upgrade (which could be 5 or even 6 if Bard is actually real good as a starter) that you get by replacing Lackey.

It's quite rare that a team underperforms its expected win total by 10 games.

It's extremely rare that a team with 100 expected wins has a starter who is so incredibly black-hole, sucking-chest-wound bad that replacing him with any kind of decent alternative adds 4 wins.

Both of these very unusual things happened to the 2011 Sox, and it is causing the 2012 Sox to be massively underrated.

[JimBoSox9]

seriously underestimating the negative impact of Lackey.

One cannot underestimate infinity.

[BucketOBalls]

I also think folks are quite objectively seriously underestimating the negative impact of Lackey. Bard for Lackey is just a slight upgrade? Andrew Miller for John Lackey would be a 1.6 win upgrade (based on last year's ERA). Does anyone regard Daniel Bard throwing Lackey's 160 innings with a 4.20 ERA as overly optimistic? That's a 4 win upgrade.

Even if that is true, it's a 4 win upgrade to the rotation and a 1 win downgrade to the bullpen. Thinking a pitcher might not automatically transition to a new role and be awesome right out of the gate is pessimistic? Bard to the rotation is a reasonable experiment, but there seems like a decent chance of failure there or him struggeling a bit while adapting. Besides, Bard pitched 73 innings last year. He probably isn't going to more than double that next year. IIRC it's 40 IP increase per year, right? So put Bard down for 110ish.

[JimBoSox9]

IIRC it's 40 IP increase per year, right? So put Bard down for 110ish.

That's a rule of thumb for young, developing pitchers coming up through the minors as starters. Bard is 26 and has had MLB trainers for a couple years. I'm not saying he'll pitch 200 innings, but that logic just doesn't necessarily transfer to his situation.

My offhand guess would be they'll let him pitch 140 innings as a SP and then move him to the bullpen.

[JakeRae]

Even if that is true, it's a 4 win upgrade to the rotation and a 1 win downgrade to the bullpen. Thinking a pitcher might not automatically transition to a new role and be awesome right out of the gate is pessimistic? Bard to the rotation is a reasonable experiment, but there seems like a decent chance of failure there or him struggeling a bit while adapting. Besides, Bard pitched 73 innings last year. He probably isn't going to more than double that next year. IIRC it's 40 IP increase per year, right? So put Bard down for 110ish.

Is a 4.20 ERA for 160 innings out of a starter awesome?

EV was trying to illustrate that you don't have to think that Bard is going to be a front tier starter to get a massive upgrade from Lackey. Responding that thinking that he won't be awesome out of the gate is completely missing the point. He doesn't need to pitch 200 innings and he doesn't need to throw up a 3.30 ERA to give this team a massive upgrade over Lackey. He needs to be a little better than average for 160 innings. Really, to be a significant upgrade, he just needs to be better than replacement level when he pitches.

Lackey was worth -1.2 rWAR last year. This is a much better measure of his performance last year than the 1.5 fWAR figure that's been getting used in this thread. Bard could be a complete flop as a starter and he's still likely to be significantly better than Lackey was last year.

[absintheofmalaise]

To quickly demonstrate relative value of Punto, and to dispute the notion held by many that he is useless and not worthy of being in the league? I know you don't like people using the stat, but it's out there, and we need some way to quantify Punto's contributions.

What stats are SOSH moderator approved. Ideally, I need to understand them too.

If the data that goes into one or more of the components of a metric is wrong wouldn't the conclusion also be wrong? Why use a metric that is incorrect to try to prove a point when there are other stats and metrics that can do a better job? Isn't it better to break down the individual components of a combo metric/stat like WAR or even OPS so you get a more complete picture. BA/OBP/SLG tells you more about a player than just using OPS does. If you break down WAR into Batting/Baserunning/Fielding/Replacement/Positional wouldn't that give people a better idea of where his value might come from.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Well, if folks really want to see where a players value is coming from, they can dig deeper on their own into the components and realize that Punto's value comes from defense, base running, and clearly not his offense. I get what you are saying, but showing 5 different metrics with slashes in between is cumbersome and difficult to make sense of, while obviously more accurate. Its nice to have one number that encompasses all of a players contributions to compare. The main point was really that the Sox haven't lost much, have likely upgraded the bench, and guys like Punto, Shoppach, Sweeney have value even if they aren't great offensive players. The methodology of some of these metrics may not be to your liking, but I think it's a stretch to suggest they are completely wrong, useless, and / or leading us to incorrect conclusions.

[OttoC]

I used bb-ref data to find the total innings pitched by the top three starters for each major league team in 2011, as well as the number of games started by the three and their average innings pitched per start. The Red Sox were slightly below average in all three categories. There were some anomalies introduced by trades, notably Edwin Jackson (CHW/STL--199.7 total IP), Ubaldo Jimenez (CLE/COL--188.3 total IP), and Doug Fister (DET/SEA--216.3 IP total). Jimenez actually started the third-most innings for the Rockies with 123.0 and his total was higher than the Indians' third-place starter; Edwin Jackson's total was slightly higher than the Cardinals' third-place starter; while Fister's total would have put him second with the Mariners and the Tigers.

The top three starters for the Angels, Rockies, Phillies, and Giants all pitched more than 200 innings and the Rangers just missed that group by 2.0 IP. Some clubs got over the 600 IP total for three starters because one starter had an "unusually" high IP total.

While this is only one year of data, I have no reason to think it abnormal for the current baseball era. Although there were two clubs over 7+ IP, one almost at 7, and one under 6, the remaining clubs were fairly consistent in innings pitchrd per gamr started.

Tm	  IPgs	  GS	IP/GS
-----------------------------
LAA	 702.7  100	 7.03
PHI	 682.3	 95	 7.18
TBR	 662.7	 96	 6.90
ARI	 656.0	 99	 6.63
SFG	 643.3	 99	 6.50
DET	 628.0	 98	 6.41
LAD	 628.0	 98	 6.41
TEX	 621.7	 98	 6.34
MIL	 620.3	 99	 6.27
STL	 615.3	 99	 6.22
SEA	 605.7	 93	 6.51
FLA	 595.0	 97	 6.13
NYY	 593.0	 92	 6.45
HOU	 593.0	 94	 6.31
NYM	 588.3	 96	 6.13
OAK	 580.3	 91	 6.38
CLE	 570.0	 91	 6.26
CHW	 569.3	 88	 6.47
SDP	 550.7	 90	 6.12
CHC	 546.0	 89	 6.13
BOS	 544.7	 89	 6.12
ATL	 543.7	 92	 5.91
KCR	 536.0	 87	 6.16
MIN	 532.0	 87	 6.11
TOR	 528.0	 82	 6.44
CIN	 522.7	 82	 6.37
WSN	 521.3	 88	 5.92
PIT	 505.0	 86	 5.87
COL	 487.3	 79	 6.17
BAL	 481.7	 82	 5.87
-----------------------------
Avg	 581.8	 91.9   6.32
SD	  55.3	  5.8   0.303

[nvalvo]

That Philadelphia number is amazing, considering they're in the NL.

[Rasputin]

Punto has been worth an average of ~1.5 WAR for each of the past three years. He'll make less money for the Sox this year than Hideki Okajima did last year. The hatred of this guy seems to have no basis in any kind of rational analysis of data, odd for SOSH. If he (or Shoppach, or Germano, or Cook) sucks, who cares? Their salaries account for <1% of payroll. But, based on available data Punto was good to excellent value. Why are some folks unwilling to acknowledge this?

Can you name a spot in the game where you would rather have Punto doing his thing than ANY OTHER PLAYER ON THE ROSTER doing their thing?

I'll help you out. It's the late inning of games where the Sox have a 2-3 run lead. Figure out how many of them there are and try to calculate the difference between having Punto out there and having Youks or Scutaro out there.

Interesting thread, in that the under crowd is all emotion, and the over much more analytical, driven by actual data.

It's not interesting, it's typical. A cool headed analysis suggests that this team is going to be very good. The only way you can be negative about this team is if you overreact to the way last season ended.

[The Long Tater]

Third or even fourth place seems doable. Good players are getting older and so are the bad ones. The off season replacements are not as good as what was lost.

[Toe Nash]

That's a rule of thumb for young, developing pitchers coming up through the minors as starters. Bard is 26 and has had MLB trainers for a couple years. I'm not saying he'll pitch 200 innings, but that logic just doesn't necessarily transfer to his situation.

My offhand guess would be they'll let him pitch 140 innings as a SP and then move him to the bullpen.

It also doesn't really apply to pitchers transitioning from the bullpen to starting. Relievers throw fewer innings, but they are higher-stress and have less rest in between appearances. There's not a lot of established data about the transition, but CJ Wilson is a prominent recent example and he threw much more than 140 innings.