1019 replies to this topic

[Eric Van]

The Red Sox, pre-trade, were playing .472 baseball.

You fucking really fucking need to fucking learn fucking Sabermetrics fucking 101.

(Sorry, watched Goodfellas last night.)

If you think it's both ordinary and predictive to go 0-6 at home in extra inning games while having the sixth best offense and the eighth best bullpen in baseball (to choose another mind-boggling, unimaginable example of what has actually gone wrong this season), then by all means continue to cite the team's W/L record as if it had some intimate connection to the amount of talent on the team.

Continue to pretend that Bill James wasn't writing about how shit GMs made the mistake you're making, of confusing W/L record with the talent on the team, thirty fucking years ago.

(You know, I have to wonder whether people like you are actually watching the games. Is it ordinary for a team that has otherwise hit .290 / .349 / .477 at home to hit .172 / .221 / .359 when trailing in the 9th by 1-3 runs, and .161 / .224 / .177 in extra innings (against the leftover guys in opposing bullpens, mind you), scoring just 1 run in 18 innings, and, oh yeah, that only happened because the guy got into scoring position via defensive indifference ... and normal to have 1 extra-base hit in 67 PA in extra innings, and that resulted in a guy being thrown out at the plate to end the inning? Does that strike you as maybe something that ought not to happen again next year?)

Continue to pretend that because we lost a mind-boggling number of wins to injuries this year and two years ago, that it's reasonable to expect that that will happen again next year, rather than losing 3 wins as the average team does and as we have done, on average, in the other years under this ownership. I mean, that's really rational.

As simple as possible: with average clutch performance (whether it's team psychology, luck, whatever), rather than the worst clutch performance I've seen in 51 years of watching the team, this team is on its way to an 87 win season. That is unassailable and incontrovertible. Period, by definition of the terms. This is the main thing that has gone wrong this season, not the starting pitching or anything else: a mind-boggling inability to win extra inning home games and a mind-boggling inability to rally from behind when trailing in the 9th, given the talent we have. (We're 2-2 in extra innings on the road, and 11-11 in one-run games in regulation. What's killed us is the 0-6 in extra innings at home, and the 0% of games we've won once our chance of winning has dropped below 11.8%.)

So, 87 wins this year of talent. Assume a new manager can get them to play to their talent. Assume that Ellsbury gives you a 5 WAR season instead of 1, you get 4 WAR from 3B instead of 2 (which is just WMB playing 150 games like he played this year), and Pedroia is healthy and adds 3 WAR (which is just him playing like he has every other year) -- now you're up to 96 wins. Subtract the downgrade at 1B and the average 3 wins of injuries (notice I'm ignoring Bailey's injury because we might have already included it in the clutch adjustment). Depending on how much (if any) you can improve the pitching, it's 90 or more wins. It's a W/C contender.

It seems absurd and unimaginable only if you think that the team winning 76 games with 87-win talent (after all the injuries) was par for the course, and something we can expect again next year. (Again, I can't imagine anyone who has watched a lot of baseball and watched the games this year not seeing that there's 87 wins of talent on the field and 11 losses worth of hurl-objects-at-the-screen choking, but maybe you've done neither.)

If you want to make that 11-win error when thinking about the future of the team, go ahead. But Bill James was mocking you thirty years ago.

(And yes, this started last September, which means that BV did not change the team psychology as it needed to be changed. And I don't think that has anything to do with fried chicken or beer, but everything to do with confidence, concentration, relaxation, freedom from distraction, and so forth. And it's pathetically clear that BV has instilled none of that. And that was his job.)

[Drek717]

The Red Sox can certainly make some roster moves during the offseason that work incredibly well. They may also get lucky with the development of some of their youngsters. But assuming they are going to be a contender involves a lot of hope. Unfortunately, hope isn't really a great strategy for building a winning baseball team.

I'm not assuming they'll be a contender, just pointing out how they aren't that far away.

Of course it'll take some breaks as well as some smart FA signings. But then for most of MLB that is always a caveat you have to accept. A few smart signings for 1B, the OF, and the bullpen coupled with some growth out of what will now be a younger pitching staff is all it'll really take. Of course that isn't guaranteed, but its also definitely not out of reach either.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Eric, you bring up some interesting points and I'm curious; do you think the Punto trade was an overreaction by the Sox? Pretending the Sox finished with the same record last season, but played 500 ball in September, would this season and clubhouse be perceived dramatically differently? Would we be more accepting of "bad karma" and stuff like that if last season hadn't ended in such epically horrible fashion? Granted, the concept of a do over is fascinating, but it's at least partially driven by a rabid and angry fan base reacting to what has occurred, not what probably should have occurred.

[Plympton91]

One thing the added flexibility should do is allow them to retain the high-quality major league depth they have. They can keep Aviles and have him be the backup infielder if Iglesias comes to camp and wins the SS job. They can keep Salty and platoon him with Lavarnway until Lavarnway forces himself into more and playing time. They can keep Ross as the starting rightfielder and force Kalish or Linares to beat him out, but when that happens they'll be o.k. with Ross as a 300 AB fill-in player. Given how terribly the team has been hit by injuries, this strategy should be a no brainer.

[Eric Van]

Headley, Choo ... I actually think the two major decisions for the off-season are:

1) Assuming they re-sign Ross as a perfect ballpark fit, do you otherwise stand pat with the corner OFers (Kalish, Nava, Sands)? Or do you trade for or sign someone studly? We'll know more when we see a month of Kalish (and I wish they'd play Nava over Podsednik); too bad Sands is a PTBNL.

2) And what about 1B? Again, getting Gomez and Loney as much PT as possible will help that decision.

I don't see a reason why you don't keep both catchers and take at least four months to figure out who's the keeper. Catching 80 games rather than 120 isn't going to set back Lavarnway's career. And I'd rather get nothing for Salty when he hits free agency a year from now, or less by dealing him at the next deadline, then trade him this winter, only to find out that he was the better guy. But this is certainly subject to debate, and maybe he's the guy you use to get a young 1B or corner OF.

I think the dearth of available good starting pitching means you roll with what we've got, plus a few savvy ml deals for Padilla / Cook types. In terms of depth, realize that Webster and Wright will be on option all year, giving them much more flexibility for covering injuries than they had this year.

[Alternate34]

To shorten EV's rant: Their pythag is 66-61, a full 6 wins better than their 60-67. The idea that this team was under some severe talent deprivation is insane. However, it does support some optimism because Beckett and Crawford were not at all responsible for positives in that Pythag. Losing Gonzo hurts but injury recovery should help this team in the immediate future. I just don't know if this FO has it in them. They did hire Bobby Valentine who has not done anything positive that I can see. I don't think he is the cause of the problems, but I am hard pressed to consider him a solution.

[Cuzittt]

1) Assuming they re-sign Ross as a perfect ballpark fit, do you otherwise stand pat with the corner OFers (Kalish, Nava, Sands)? Or do you trade for or sign someone studly? We'll know more when we see a month of Kalish (and I wish they'd play Nava over Podsednik); too bad Sands is a PTBNL.

Nava's on the DL again.

[Eric Van]

Eric, you bring up some interesting points and I'm curious; do you think the Punto trade was an overreaction by the Sox? Pretending the Sox finished with the same record last season, but played 500 ball in September, would this season and clubhouse be perceived dramatically differently? Would we be more accepting of "bad karma" and stuff like that if last season hadn't ended in such epically horrible fashion? Granted, the concept of a do over is fascinating, but it's at least partially driven by a rabid and angry fan base reacting to what has occurred, not what probably should have occurred.

Of course everything would be viewed differently if they hadn't melted down last September. But I don't think the trade was an over-reaction; it was a good baseball move.

Would you trade Anthony Rizzo and Casey Kelly (Fuentes, always a lottery ticket, looks like a failure) to get Ruddy De La Rosa, Allen Webster, and Jerry Sands? It's very close in terms of talent. If you still had Youkilis blocking Rizzo, that's actually a trade you might make.

Now, if you can make that trade and also get out of the Crawford and Beckett contracts (less $12M) ... that's a no-brainer. And toss in 10 months use of Gonzalez, too!

On a random thought ... was Theo's big problem judging acquisition character fit? Renteria, Lugo (I'll go to my grave believing the talent was there, just not the head and heart), Crawford putting too much pressure on himself, Gonzalez being rather a passive clubhouse presence. It's as if the great character of the '04 team was assembled by accident, and once he set his mind to thinking about what kind of clubhouse he wanted to have, he overloaded it with overly conscientious guys who lack the free spirit to turn around a losing streak.

[Savin Hillbilly]

On a random thought ... was Theo's big problem judging acquisition character fit? Renteria, Lugo (I'll go to my grave believing the talent was there, just not the head and heart), Crawford putting too much pressure on himself, Gonzalez being rather a passive clubhouse presence. It's as if the great character of the '04 team was assembled by accident, and once he set his mind to thinking about what kind of clubhouse he wanted to have, he overloaded it with overly conscientious guys who lack the free spirit to turn around a losing streak.

I've been thinking about this too. "Character fit" is a nice phrase. I think what they're learning is that there's a difference between being a "character guy" -- a reputation that both Crawford and Gonzalez came with -- and being the right kind of character guy for this particular media and fan environment.

and once he set his mind to thinking about what kind of clubhouse he wanted to have, he overloaded it with overly conscientious guys who lack the free spirit to turn around a losing streak.

"Overly conscientious"....exactly. I think the default assumption is that "character" is a matter of resisting the temptation to slack off and keeping intensity at full throttle. But this town is so intense about baseball to start with, that a player who has that full-throttle mentality may just start pinning the needle. The players that do best here are intense, yes, but also seem to have a sense of proportion or humor or whatever it may be that allows them to keep perspective and say, on some level, "fuck 'em" -- whoever "they" may be at any given moment. I didn't get the sense, during his time here, that Crawford has that.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 26 August 2012 - 03:03 PM.

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

You fucking really fucking need to fucking learn fucking Sabermetrics fucking 101.

(Sorry, watched Goodfellas last night.)

If you think it's both ordinary and predictive to go 0-6 at home in extra inning games while having the sixth best offense and the eighth best bullpen in baseball (to choose another mind-boggling, unimaginable example of what has actually gone wrong this season), then by all means continue to cite the team's W/L record as if it had some intimate connection to the amount of talent on the team.

Continue to pretend that Bill James wasn't writing about how shit GMs made the mistake you're making, of confusing W/L record with the talent on the team, thirty fucking years ago.

(You know, I have to wonder whether people like you are actually watching the games. Is it ordinary for a team that has otherwise hit .290 / .349 / .477 at home to hit .172 / .221 / .359 when trailing in the 9th by 1-3 runs, and .161 / .224 / .177 in extra innings (against the leftover guys in opposing bullpens, mind you), scoring just 1 run in 18 innings, and, oh yeah, that only happened because the guy got into scoring position via defensive indifference ... and normal to have 1 extra-base hit in 67 PA in extra innings, and that resulted in a guy being thrown out at the plate to end the inning? Does that strike you as maybe something that ought not to happen again next year?)

Continue to pretend that because we lost a mind-boggling number of wins to injuries this year and two years ago, that it's reasonable to expect that that will happen again next year, rather than losing 3 wins as the average team does and as we have done, on average, in the other years under this ownership. I mean, that's really rational.

As simple as possible: with average clutch performance (whether it's team psychology, luck, whatever), rather than the worst clutch performance I've seen in 51 years of watching the team, this team is on its way to an 87 win season. That is unassailable and incontrovertible. Period, by definition of the terms. This is the main thing that has gone wrong this season, not the starting pitching or anything else: a mind-boggling inability to win extra inning home games and a mind-boggling inability to rally from behind when trailing in the 9th, given the talent we have. (We're 2-2 in extra innings on the road, and 11-11 in one-run games in regulation. What's killed us is the 0-6 in extra innings at home, and the 0% of games we've won once our chance of winning has dropped below 11.8%.)

So, 87 wins this year of talent. Assume a new manager can get them to play to their talent. Assume that Ellsbury gives you a 5 WAR season instead of 1, you get 4 WAR from 3B instead of 2 (which is just WMB playing 150 games like he played this year), and Pedroia is healthy and adds 3 WAR (which is just him playing like he has every other year) -- now you're up to 96 wins. Subtract the downgrade at 1B and the average 3 wins of injuries (notice I'm ignoring Bailey's injury because we might have already included it in the clutch adjustment). Depending on how much (if any) you can improve the pitching, it's 90 or more wins. It's a W/C contender.

It seems absurd and unimaginable only if you think that the team winning 76 games with 87-win talent (after all the injuries) was par for the course, and something we can expect again next year. (Again, I can't imagine anyone who has watched a lot of baseball and watched the games this year not seeing that there's 87 wins of talent on the field and 11 losses worth of hurl-objects-at-the-screen choking, but maybe you've done neither.)

If you want to make that 11-win error when thinking about the future of the team, go ahead. But Bill James was mocking you thirty years ago.

(And yes, this started last September, which means that BV did not change the team psychology as it needed to be changed. And I don't think that has anything to do with fried chicken or beer, but everything to do with confidence, concentration, relaxation, freedom from distraction, and so forth. And it's pathetically clear that BV has instilled none of that. And that was his job.)

First, no one in this thread is dismissing Bill James or sabermetrics. However, assuming away outcomes, parsing sample sizes and assuming best case scenarios isn't exactly using statistical discipline either.

In your 90 win scenario, did you account for the fact that Cody Ross is having a career year right now? If he regresses toward his norm (especially over the past few seasons) is it reasonable for his WAR to decline as well? What about SS, where Aviles is having a career year as well? If he regresses back to his norm (he is the epitome of a replacement player), that's 1-2 WAR gone too. Finally, where do the Sox get Gonzalez' 3 to 6 WAR from? Loney? Gomez? Lavarnway?

And then there is the pitching, which, to me, is the true gulf in our argument. You simply assume the Sox can improve their pitching? Where does that come from? Lester appears to be in decline. Buchholz has, to date, some durability issues. Its entirely possible that the team swings a move for a good starter or that they get lucky with one their young arms. But again that isn't using sabermetrics, that's simply hoping that things somehow swing in your favor.

And to answer your question, yes, we people do watch a lot of the games. However some of us try to analyze things objectively instead of imagining a best-case outcome and then selecting data to fit to that result. The latter methodology isn't sabermetrics. Its fucking wishcasting.

[DLew On Roids]

When the model doesn't match what your eyes tell you, you need to consider both what your eyes are telling you and the model.

[Robert Plant]

Judging by what the O's and Padres talked about, a package for Headley would probably be something like Doubront, Jacobs, Vinicio

Why would the Padres trade Chase Headley during the offseason? They have played really good baseball since the All Star Break and even if they do nothing, look to be a very competitive team next year. New ownership has said it plans to add payroll in order to make the Padres better.

The only way the Red Sox will get Headley is if they give up similar major league talent. The Padres do have Jed Gyorko waiting in the wings http://www.baseball-...id=gyorko001jed so they might bight on a trade that would improve another posistion. I really think the Red Sox would have to give up someone like Ellsbury, Pedroia or Lester to get Headley. So unless there are still "star players" on the team that are causing clubhouse issues, I don't see a Headley trade happening. Now if the Padres are out of it come the All Star break, that would certainly change things.

Edited by Robert Plant, 26 August 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[bosockboy]

Why would the Padres trade Chase Headley during the offseason? They have played really good baseball since the All Star Break and even if they do nothing, look to be a very competitive team next year. New ownership has said it plans to add payroll in order to make the Padres better.

The only way the Red Sox will get Headley is if they give up similar major league talent. The Padres do have Jed Gyorko waiting in the wings http://www.baseball-...id=gyorko001jed so they might bight on a trade that would improve another posistion. I really think the Red Sox would have to give up someone like Ellsbury, Pedroia or Lester to get Headley. So unless there are still "star players" on the team that are causing clubhouse issues, I don't see a Headley trade happening. Now if the Padres are out of it come the All Star break, that would certainly change things.

The Padres would most certainly not want costly major league pieces, particularly Ellsbury and a date with Boras in twelve months. Not happening. More like Doubront and a couple strong positional pieces.

[knucklecup]

CF Ellsbury
2B Pedroia
DH Ortiz
3B Middlebrooks
1B Loney
LF Ross
C Saltalamacchia
RF Sands
SS Iglesias

OF Kalish
1B Gomez
C Lavarnaway
UTIL Ciriaco

SP1 Lester
SP2 Buchholz
SP3 Lackey
SP4 Buehrle

SP5/RP/CL:
Doubront
Morales
De La Rosa
Aceves
Padilla
Hill
Atchinson
Miller
Bard
Breslow
Melancon
Bailey

Going the Justin Upton route would be something to consider but as currently constructed, I think the team above has a solid chance of competing next season. There will be a lot of motivation next year from Ellsbury and Loney being in contract years, I can see Lackey being a solid middle of the rotation guy who can eat innings with a healthy arm and wanting to prove he's not the schmuck he's made out to be... and just the team in general after such an awful last 12 months.

You can see that Pedroia hasn't thrown in the towel on the season given his performance this month:
BA: .340 OBP: .404 SLG: .532 OPS: .936

I think the "Willingham contract" that is being thrown around as a comparison for the Ross extension is absurd. The Giants are rumored to be interested in him and I would absolutely sell in the right deal; with that said, I do think that the Red Sox like him as the new "heart and grit guy", however erroneous of a thought that may be, and have left him in the line up as a result. He is having an excellent season and seems made for Boston, but I do see his production against RHP diminishing moving forward, which allows for Kalish to see playing time. I think Nava is deserving of a fourth outfielder spot as well.

That bench is solid. Gomez and Ciriaco seem like capable starters at the moment - particularly Ciriaco. I would consider trading Saltalamacchia this offseason but I still do like him and in comparison to other catchers, is actually having a solid season offensively for his position. Lavarnaway can and will see at bats even if Saltalamacchia returns.

We have a lot of arms, a lot of options. I didn't even mention Stewart and Tazawa who are, at worst, excellent organizational depth, something this team has been lacking in years past.

I like the idea being tossed around about Mark Buehrle and have "penciled" him into this hypothetical rotation. I think the Marlins would like to rid themselves of that contract and wouldn't demand much more than an expendable prospect for him. Quite frankly, it isn't all that bad of a deal given our newly acquired financial flexibility. He's been consistently healthy and effective and I see him being able to eat innings through the remainder of that contract. FWIW, I've always liked his personality as well watching him with the White Sox for years.

Edited by knucklecup, 26 August 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[Robert Plant]

The Padres would most certainly not want costly major league pieces, particularly Ellsbury and a date with Boras in twelve months. Not happening. More like Doubront and a couple strong positional pieces.

The new ownership group seems perfectly willing to spend in order to get better. Phill Nicholson even mentioned a 100 million dollar payroll as a possibility. http://www.nbcsandie..._medium=twitter

The Padres are already stacked with young inexperienced pitchers most of whom have a lot more upside than Doubront. Ellsburry is perhaps the only Red Sox player that would fulfill an area of need for the Padres and even he would probably have to switch outfield positions because Cameron Maybin is arguably a better defensive center fielder. When it really comes down to it, I don't think the Padres trade Chase Headley until the trade deadline next year, if at all.

Edited by Robert Plant, 26 August 2012 - 07:35 PM.

[Deathofthebambino]

First, no one in this thread is dismissing Bill James or sabermetrics. However, assuming away outcomes, parsing sample sizes and assuming best case scenarios isn't exactly using statistical discipline either.

In your 90 win scenario, did you account for the fact that Cody Ross is having a career year right now? If he regresses toward his norm (especially over the past few seasons) is it reasonable for his WAR to decline as well? What about SS, where Aviles is having a career year as well? If he regresses back to his norm (he is the epitome of a replacement player), that's 1-2 WAR gone too. Finally, where do the Sox get Gonzalez' 3 to 6 WAR from? Loney? Gomez? Lavarnway?

And then there is the pitching, which, to me, is the true gulf in our argument. You simply assume the Sox can improve their pitching? Where does that come from? Lester appears to be in decline. Buchholz has, to date, some durability issues. Its entirely possible that the team swings a move for a good starter or that they get lucky with one their young arms. But again that isn't using sabermetrics, that's simply hoping that things somehow swing in your favor.

And to answer your question, yes, we people do watch a lot of the games. However some of us try to analyze things objectively instead of imagining a best-case outcome and then selecting data to fit to that result. The latter methodology isn't sabermetrics. Its fucking wishcasting.

I think the problem that EV and a lot of others around here share is that they either didn't play or they didn't pay attention to organized team sports growing up, and thus, it's impossible for them to shake the fact that it's both possible and extremely reasonable to understand that sometimes, a team that has a ton of talent, gets out on the field and SUCKS. I can think of a dozen teams that I played on up through the high school level that were supremely talented to the teams we faced in a given season, but when the final standings came out, we weren't at the top, or even close to it in some instances. There were a million reasons for this, injuries, coaching, suspensions, and even some of the nonsense Eric just cited like "confidence, concentration, relaxation, freedom from distraction." However, at the end of the day, we sucked, just like the Red Sox suck.

The ownership has now given this team basically a year, dating back to last September, to take all of this alleged talent and make it translate to the only thing that matters, wins. They couldn't do it. Maybe they would have started doinigj it tomorrow, but I'm the kind of guy that believes that the recent past is a much better indicator of future results than hoping for different results because they should be better due to how they look on paper.

If you think it's both ordinary and predictive to go 0-6 at home in extra inning games while having the sixth best offense and the eighth best bullpen in baseball (to choose another mind-boggling, unimaginable example of what has actually gone wrong this season), then by all means continue to cite the team's W/L record as if it had some intimate connection to the amount of talent on the team.

Ordinary? Probably not. Predictive? Most definitely not. However, lies don't figure and figures don't lie, and unless MLB changed the rules on how team's qualify for the postseason and how they stack up against their competition, the Red Sox suck. All of their alleged talent doesn't change that statistic. You can continue to cite their Pythag, and their WARs, and their karma and their wins lost to injury, but bottom line is they are 5 games or so below .500 and after a year of repetitively shitting themselves on the field, ownership had enough, and IMO, thankfully so.

(You know, I have to wonder whether people like you are actually watching the games. Is it ordinary for a team that has otherwise hit .290 / .349 / .477 at home to hit .172 / .221 / .359 when trailing in the 9th by 1-3 runs, and .161 / .224 / .177 in extra innings (against the leftover guys in opposing bullpens, mind you), scoring just 1 run in 18 innings, and, oh yeah, that only happened because the guy got into scoring position via defensive indifference ... and normal to have 1 extra-base hit in 67 PA in extra innings, and that resulted in a guy being thrown out at the plate to end the inning? Does that strike you as maybe something that ought not to happen again next year?)

How about you tell us how extraordinary and rare those numbers really are? There 30 other teams in the league and a hundred plus years of historical record to find out whether or not these things are normal or not. I've personally seen tons of guys capable of shooting 75 on a golf course, pound balls 300 yards down the middle and make every putt they look at, with nothing on the line. But, when you start playing for $50/hole, I've seen them go into "shit their pants" mode and look like your average weekend hacker. Doesn't seem all that extraordinary to me.

Continue to pretend that because we lost a mind-boggling number of wins to injuries this year and two years ago, that it's reasonable to expect that that will happen again next year, rather than losing 3 wins as the average team does and as we have done, on average, in the other years under this ownership. I mean, that's really rational.

Prior to the season, there were folks on this board getting shouted down by the Bill James fans for expressing concern about the injury history of this team, and worrying about the crazily optimistic win projections bleing floated around by those same folks who were convinced that all of our players were made out of space shuttle material and would never suffer injuries. And now, here we are, having suffered a ton of injuries and you are laying the groundwork for shouting down those people again when folks again note that injuries are a part of the game. How about this, if next year, we suffer a ton of injuries, for the third time in four years, you'll come in here and acknowledget that maybe, just maybe, it's not that mind-boggling. After all, I haven't read anything about how the Sox have overhauled their strength and conditioning programs and coaches. Nor has anyone acknowledged that maybe, just maybe, the new stringent drug testing policies might have an affect on the number of injuries suffered by MLB players going forward. Seems to me that it's certainly rational to express concern or, God forbid, predict that injuries may have an impact on the Sox chances of winning 100 games next year.

As simple as possible: with average clutch performance (whether it's team psychology, luck, whatever), rather than the worst clutch performance I've seen in 51 years of watching the team, this team is on its way to an 87 win season. That is unassailable and incontrovertible. Period, by definition of the terms. This is the main thing that has gone wrong this season, not the starting pitching or anything else: a mind-boggling inability to win extra inning home games and a mind-boggling inability to rally from behind when trailing in the 9th, given the talent we have. (We're 2-2 in extra innings on the road, and 11-11 in one-run games in regulation. What's killed us is the 0-6 in extra innings at home, and the 0% of games we've won once our chance of winning has dropped below 11.8%.)

Just so we're clear, clutch now exists or it doesn't? I'm just not sure anymore, seems like Bill James and his acolytes changed their mind on that every couple weeks not long ago.

That said, I'll grant you that's unassailable and incontrovertible that with better clutch performance, this team would have won 87 games. Now, you have to do this: Prove to me that this group of players is capable of average clutch performance. I'll hang up and listen.

So, 87 wins this year of talent. Assume a new manager can get them to play to their talent. Assume that Ellsbury gives you a 5 WAR season instead of 1, you get 4 WAR from 3B instead of 2 (which is just WMB playing 150 games like he played this year), and Pedroia is healthy and adds 3 WAR (which is just him playing like he has every other year) -- now you're up to 96 wins. Subtract the downgrade at 1B and the average 3 wins of injuries (notice I'm ignoring Bailey's injury because we might have already included it in the clutch adjustment). Depending on how much (if any) you can improve the pitching, it's 90 or more wins. It's a W/C contender.

If it's ok to assume all of those things, is it also ok to assume a new manager will be worse than BV at getting them to play to their alleged talent level? Is it ok to assume that Ellsbury gets hurt again? Is it ok to assume that WMB doesn't stay healthy and we get 1 WAR from 3b next year, or he goes into a sophomore slump or maybe he just isn't as good as this sesaon would indicate? How about if Pedroia isn't healthy? What if Ortiz finally gets old or Aviles and Salty and Ross and Nava and all of the other guys that played above their career norms regress a bit? Or Clay or Lester get hurt?

I understand precisely what you're saying and why you're assuming what you are, but why do you always seem so surprised and perplexed when these assumptions don't always pan out the way you envision, And when they don't, why do you always attempt to explain it away as some unforeseen circumstance that couldn't have been predicted as opposed to just the unfortunate reality that they aren't as talented or durable as you assume them to be?

It seems absurd and unimaginable only if you think that the team winning 76 games with 87-win talent (after all the injuries) was par for the course, and something we can expect again next year. (Again, I can't imagine anyone who has watched a lot of baseball and watched the games this year not seeing that there's 87 wins of talent on the field and 11 losses worth of hurl-objects-at-the-screen choking, but maybe you've done neither.)

I've watched a lot of baseball, but this year, I've only followed the Sox pitch-by-pitch onlne and I agree with you that had this team suffered no injuries and had this team all played to their career bests and had this team had a better manager and had this team not had a clubhouse full of assholes and entitled douchebags, they'd be right in it. But you know what, that didn't happen, and more often than not, it doesn't happen (Hello Phillies). That's why they have 2 titles in 96 years. It's just that for a lot of us, it's not surprising or abnormal or outside the realm of possibility. It's something that was foreseeable and predictable and normal. It's why the play the games. And it's why W/L record is the ultimate indicator of who actually has the best team every year.

If you want to make that 11-win error when thinking about the future of the team, go ahead. But Bill James was mocking you thirty years ago.

God forbid. I might not be able to sleep tonight when I think about a guy who defended Joe Paterno mocking me. What will I ever do?

(And yes, this started last September, which means that BV did not change the team psychology as it needed to be changed. And I don't think that has anything to do with fried chicken or beer, but everything to do with confidence, concentration, relaxation, freedom from distraction, and so forth. And it's pathetically clear that BV has instilled none of that. And that was his job.)

Finally, something we can agree on. But, as you may recall, this team ran a guy out of town that had previously instilled plenty of confidence, concentration, relaxation and freedom from distraction. Let's hope the third time is the charm, just like we're going to hope that they don't suffer an "abnormal" amount of injuries again.

[SoxScout]

Our best deals have been locking up young players, buying out arbitration/ free agent years, and having option years. The best contracts in baseball follow this formula. You need to be sure of the player you do this with. Is Middlebrooks a candidate for a deal like this over this winter?

[bosockboy]

The new ownership group seems perfectly willing to spend in order to get better. Phill Nicholson even mentioned a 100 million dollar payroll as a possibility. http://www.nbcsandie..._medium=twitter

The Padres are already stacked with young inexperienced pitchers most of whom have a lot more upside than Doubront. Ellsburry is perhaps the only Red Sox player that would fulfill an area of need for the Padres and even he would probably have to switch outfield positions because Cameron Maybin is arguably a better defensive center fielder. When it really comes down to it, I don't think the Padres trade Chase Headley until the trade deadline next year, if at all.

You could be right and time will tell of course...however they were already shopping him in July. Even if the Padres approached 100 million (which is probably several years away), they wouldn't target someone like Ellsbury for a single season with any ambitions of keeping him.

If they trade Headley, regardless of growing payroll, it should be for prospects.

[lexrageorge]

You fucking really fucking need to fucking learn fucking Sabermetrics fucking 101.

(Sorry, watched Goodfellas last night.)

If you think it's both ordinary and predictive to go 0-6 at home in extra inning games while having the sixth best offense and the eighth best bullpen in baseball (to choose another mind-boggling, unimaginable example of what has actually gone wrong this season), then by all means continue to cite the team's W/L record as if it had some intimate connection to the amount of talent on the team.

Continue to pretend that Bill James wasn't writing about how shit GMs made the mistake you're making, of confusing W/L record with the talent on the team, thirty fucking years ago.

(You know, I have to wonder whether people like you are actually watching the games. Is it ordinary for a team that has otherwise hit .290 / .349 / .477 at home to hit .172 / .221 / .359 when trailing in the 9th by 1-3 runs, and .161 / .224 / .177 in extra innings (against the leftover guys in opposing bullpens, mind you), scoring just 1 run in 18 innings, and, oh yeah, that only happened because the guy got into scoring position via defensive indifference ... and normal to have 1 extra-base hit in 67 PA in extra innings, and that resulted in a guy being thrown out at the plate to end the inning? Does that strike you as maybe something that ought not to happen again next year?)

Continue to pretend that because we lost a mind-boggling number of wins to injuries this year and two years ago, that it's reasonable to expect that that will happen again next year, rather than losing 3 wins as the average team does and as we have done, on average, in the other years under this ownership. I mean, that's really rational.

As simple as possible: with average clutch performance (whether it's team psychology, luck, whatever), rather than the worst clutch performance I've seen in 51 years of watching the team, this team is on its way to an 87 win season. That is unassailable and incontrovertible. Period, by definition of the terms. This is the main thing that has gone wrong this season, not the starting pitching or anything else: a mind-boggling inability to win extra inning home games and a mind-boggling inability to rally from behind when trailing in the 9th, given the talent we have. (We're 2-2 in extra innings on the road, and 11-11 in one-run games in regulation. What's killed us is the 0-6 in extra innings at home, and the 0% of games we've won once our chance of winning has dropped below 11.8%.)

So, 87 wins this year of talent. Assume a new manager can get them to play to their talent. Assume that Ellsbury gives you a 5 WAR season instead of 1, you get 4 WAR from 3B instead of 2 (which is just WMB playing 150 games like he played this year), and Pedroia is healthy and adds 3 WAR (which is just him playing like he has every other year) -- now you're up to 96 wins. Subtract the downgrade at 1B and the average 3 wins of injuries (notice I'm ignoring Bailey's injury because we might have already included it in the clutch adjustment). Depending on how much (if any) you can improve the pitching, it's 90 or more wins. It's a W/C contender.

It seems absurd and unimaginable only if you think that the team winning 76 games with 87-win talent (after all the injuries) was par for the course, and something we can expect again next year. (Again, I can't imagine anyone who has watched a lot of baseball and watched the games this year not seeing that there's 87 wins of talent on the field and 11 losses worth of hurl-objects-at-the-screen choking, but maybe you've done neither.)

If you want to make that 11-win error when thinking about the future of the team, go ahead. But Bill James was mocking you thirty years ago.

(And yes, this started last September, which means that BV did not change the team psychology as it needed to be changed. And I don't think that has anything to do with fried chicken or beer, but everything to do with confidence, concentration, relaxation, freedom from distraction, and so forth. And it's pathetically clear that BV has instilled none of that. And that was his job.)

First, can you please tell me how many of those 6 extra inning home games they should have won? Is a number between 3 and 4 reasonable? 1 run in 18 innings doesn't seem that uncommon; I've seen lots of teams have stretches of 18 consecutive innings with scoring only 1 run; something that happens over the course of a 162 game season. Are you saying that this is just a statistical anomaly that is unlikely to be predictive going forward? Or are you saying that this humongous sample of 18 innings is conclusive proof that Bobby Valentine is a bad manager?

Also, how many of those 11.8% win probability games did they have? That's a key piece of data that you left off your post?

Tell how does Bobby Valentine affect their record in those 6 extra inning home games...I'm all ears. Based on their 2-2 record on the road, and their 11-11 record in 1-run games you cited, it seems as if he's managing OK on the road. Is your argument that somehow he can't manage his players at home?

Why take the loss of Bailey out of your analysis?

Use WAR and Pythagorean all you want, but the team is still AL average in both OPS+ and ERA+, which would predict a 0.500 record, or 81 wins. Just saying, not all stats agree that this is an 87 win team that just needs to have fewer injuries.

Also, do we know that Pythagorean or WAR (the latter of which involves a lot of curve fitting) will have the same level of predictability to W/L record going forward?

[OttoC]

I'm not sure how many of those extra-inning games they should have won but home teams win them at a lower rate then they win all home games. From 1980 through 2011, home teams won at a .540 rate while they only won at a .527 rate in extra-inning games. About 9% of all games went into extra innings during that period.

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I'm not sure how many of those extra-inning games they should have won but home teams win them at a lower rate then they win all home games. From 1980 through 2011, home teams won at a .540 rate while they only won at a .527 rate in extra-inning games. About 9% of all games went into extra innings during that period.

Thanks Otto - so they win maybe, three or four more games if their extra inning outcomes regress to the mean. I am still not sure the math gets them to 87 wins but whatever...

This thread is worthwhile and looking at players whom the Sox should target is interesting provided its realistic. That said, I am sick of the rose colored bullshit that some people here are spouting. 100 wins, the pitching improving dramatically and young players putting up fantastic seasons out of the gate etc. It could happen (I will grant you that the tails of distributions can be and are realized) but it isn't likely.

Most of the posters on this board root for the Red Sox. But that doesn't make all of our players the bestest and the team a contender just because we root really, really hard for them to do well. We can all concoct scenarios where Mauro Gomez is the next David Ortiz and Felix Doubront suddenly steps up to become the top LH starter in all of baseball. However that doesn't mean its remotely realistic to expect those outcomes.

The saying goes that the first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging. It looks as if the Sox front office has taken that to heart. Some of the fans should follow the same path.

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 26 August 2012 - 11:01 PM.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

Our best deals have been locking up young players, buying out arbitration/ free agent years, and having option years. The best contracts in baseball follow this formula. You need to be sure of the player you do this with. Is Middlebrooks a candidate for a deal like this over this winter?

I'd be hesitant to do it this winter for Middlebrooks. He has another two years at the minimum before he starts to hit arbitration. Although, he could be potentially a Super 2 candidate. I'd like to see some more development from him with plate discipline and more stable production from him. His OPS declined each month he played, plummeting in August (albeit with a small 8 game sample). Furthermore, I'd like to see a full season of Bogaerts at SS against advanced players to see if he can stick. If he has to be moved to third, I'm guessing Middlebrooks would not block him.

However, if Middlebrooks puts up a full season of .830-.850 OPS, then I think you have to consider a Pedroia like deal that buys out his arbitration years and a couple of free agent years, with some options attached. Even if he hits .830 next year, that is still .080 points higher than the third base average, so its still pretty valuable. After that, the team can figure out where to fit Bogaerts in the future. Also, the organizational depth chart at 3B is pretty slim. Ceccini is the only real prospect, but he's at least 3-4 years away, and maybe more. And if Bogaerts can slot into the OF, or Middlebrooks can shift to 1B, then the team can make it work.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I completely agree with your point about developing and locking up young players. The formula worked well in from 2006 to 2009 when the team was a perennial contender for the WS, including one WS victory. It involves more risk because a player could completely flame out, like Bard, but the risk is less than giving a player like Crawford a huge contract, or Lackey a 5 year deal. Middlebrooks will be the first test, provided that he plays well next year.

Edited by ScubaSteveAvery, 26 August 2012 - 11:23 PM.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I agree and think you have to go at least one more full season with WMB and X and evaluate after that. Independent of X staying at SS, if WMB OPS's mid .800s and gets over his skittishness with the glove, then yes, I think you lock him up to a Pedroia or Longoria type deal. If X needs to slot in at 3B and 3B only, then you figure it out then. At worst, WMB is a huge trade chip in that scenario.

[bowiac]

Use WAR and Pythagorean all you want, but the team is still AL average in both OPS+ and ERA+, which would predict a 0.500 record, or 81 wins. Just saying, not all stats agree that this is an 87 win team that just needs to have fewer injuries.

OPS+ isn't the same thing as the quality of your offense. There's the OBP/SLG weighting issue, as well as baserunning value differentials (as well as clutch issues).

Also, do we know that Pythagorean or WAR (the latter of which involves a lot of curve fitting) will have the same level of predictability to W/L record going forward?

That's the whole premise of pythagorean records - they're more predictive of W/L records going forward than actual W/L records are.

[Eric Van]

I think the problem that EV and a lot of others around here share is that they either didn't play or they didn't pay attention to organized team sports growing up, and thus, it's impossible for them to shake the fact that it's both possible and extremely reasonable to understand that sometimes, a team that has a ton of talent, gets out on the field and SUCKS. I can think of a dozen teams that I played on up through the high school level that were supremely talented to the teams we faced in a given season, but when the final standings came out, we weren't at the top, or even close to it in some instances. There were a million reasons for this, injuries, coaching, suspensions, and even some of the nonsense Eric just cited like "confidence, concentration, relaxation, freedom from distraction." However, at the end of the day, we sucked, just like the Red Sox suck.

The ownership has now given this team basically a year, dating back to last September, to take all of this alleged talent and make it translate to the only thing that matters, wins. They couldn't do it. Maybe they would have started doinigj it tomorrow, but I'm the kind of guy that believes that the recent past is a much better indicator of future results than hoping for different results because they should be better due to how they look on paper.

Finally, something we can agree on [blaming BV]. But, as you may recall, this team ran a guy out of town that had previously instilled plenty of confidence, concentration, relaxation and freedom from distraction. Let's hope the third time is the charm, just like we're going to hope that they don't suffer an "abnormal" amount of injuries again.

That said, I'll grant you that's unassailable and incontrovertible that with better clutch performance, this team would have won 87 games. Now, you have to do this: Prove to me that this group of players is capable of average clutch performance. I'll hang up and listen.

I don't disagree with any of this. Of course the results have sucked. It's the same group of guys, though, that were the best team in MLB for most of last year. When they started sucking unexpectedly, they couldn't stop sucking. BV was hired to turn that around.

I've been saying since last winter that they may need one or two more Damon / Millar free spirit types in the clubhouse, so I'm not putting it all on BV. I've been saying for about a week (slower to see it) that what they really needed was not a new personality 180 degrees away from Tito, but just a Tito type who was not distracted by ill health and undermined by too much familiarity. So, yeah, hiring the right guy is paramount.

Just so we're clear, clutch now exists or it doesn't? I'm just not sure anymore, seems like Bill James and his acolytes changed their mind on that every couple weeks not long ago.

Both BP and Tango have shown that 10% of it is predictive. I showed at SABR a few years ago that career RISP-hitting differences (actually, men-on hitting differences versus bases empty) are real, convincingly enough that Dick Cramer (the guy who originally seemed to prove they weren't) heard about it and e-mailed me and called it the first good agument he'd heard in 30 years. And personally, I'm convinced that the 10% predictive is a mixture of a lot of 0% and instances where team or player psychology is very out of the ordinary, often for discrete time periods. What Papi did in walk-off situations for a couple of years there has odds of something like a billion to one of coming up in a baseball sim. And he's been absolutely ordinary in the clutch since.

If it's ok to assume all of those things, is it also ok to assume a new manager will be worse than BV at getting them to play to their alleged talent level? Is it ok to assume that Ellsbury gets hurt again? Is it ok to assume that WMB doesn't stay healthy and we get 1 WAR from 3b next year, or he goes into a sophomore slump or maybe he just isn't as good as this season would indicate? How about if Pedroia isn't healthy? What if Ortiz finally gets old or Aviles and Salty and Ross and Nava and all of the other guys that played above their career norms regress a bit? Or Clay or Lester get hurt?

I understand precisely what you're saying and why you're assuming what you are, but why do you always seem so surprised and perplexed when these assumptions don't always pan out the way you envision, And when they don't, why do you always attempt to explain it away as some unforeseen circumstance that couldn't have been predicted as opposed to just the unfortunate reality that they aren't as talented or durable as you assume them to be?

This is where I've been massively unclear about my intent when I make these arguments, and I genuinely thank you for challenging me in a way that points that out to me.

1) I'm neither perplexed nor surprised when shit happens.

I was a BV agnostic at the start of the year. Once I saw how he was handling the team, I had no great hopes of turning around the September psychology. Right now I'm fucking fatalistic about the team's clutch ineptitude. The day before they made the trade, they blew a 95.8% chance of winning, at home, to the struggling Angels. The day after the trade, they blew a 98.6% chance of winning to the Royals. My reaction to that was sarcastic laughter, essentially.

2) "why do you always attempt to explain it away as some unforeseen circumstance that couldn't have been predicted as opposed to just the unfortunate reality that they aren't as talented or durable as you assume them to be?" -- To me, that's the same thing. And the negative circumstances are never unforeseen; you always consider that shit might happen, just as you always consider that good stuff might, and that's why we play the games.

And it's not explaining it away. It's explaining it in order to understand what happened, and in order to understand what needs to be done for next year.

3) Yes, it's perfectly OK to assume that a lot of bad shit happens. I always try to knock off a handful of wins when doing these quick-and-dirty, back-of-the-envelope assessments of team performance (one of the reasons I didn't count the Bailey upgrade). But -- and this is something that hasn't happened here in a long time, and people have forgotten it -- sometimes unexpected good shit happens. The freaking Orioles have already won fourteen more games than their stats say they should have.

I've watched a lot of baseball, but this year, I've only followed the Sox pitch-by-pitch onlne and I agree with you that had this team suffered no injuries and had this team all played to their career bests and had this team had a better manager and had this team not had a clubhouse full of assholes and entitled douchebags, they'd be right in it.

The actual argument is that with average clutch performance (and average AED%*) and average injuries, they'd be right in it, without any change to player performance at all. And that is pretty damn rock-solid. The actual sabermetric argument I've been trying to hammer home is that, given those things being average, everyone would be saying, wow, what a talented roster, no wonder why they were on their way to 100 wins last year, they're right in this despite Lester and especially Beckett sucking. The continual focus on the underperformance of the rotation is just plain wrong. They could and should have survived that in a kind of amazing fashion.

And you have to understand that in order to figure out if it is likely that the team can contend next year.

*AED% = asshole and entitled douchebag percentage, of course. But I will argue that if you have talented AEDs, you don't jettison them, you get a manager with a superior AEDN (AED neutralization), especially because being an AED actually correlates positively with competitiveness, and any good team will have its share of them. (Once the AED becomes mediocre, you do ship his ass out of town, thanks, Josh.)

But you know what, that didn't happen, and more often than not, it doesn't happen (Hello Phillies).

No, by definition, it happens exactly as often as not, hello Orioles again.

Look, I share your concern that the clubhouse is prone to underperforming their talent. I share your concern that the team may be more injury prone that most, for some reason since they had two amazing injury years while, if I'm not mistaken, changing the entire strength and conditioning staff in between. (OTOH, the biggest injuries, to Ellsbury, were freak injuries, and I'm not sure if guys are really ever prone to those.)

So what this means is that I'm not actually as optimistic as I always sound. (I'm an optimist, but about as much so as any optimist.) The scenarios I construct are not what I think is likely to happen, they are not arguments that the team should be expected to win 90-95 games next year. They are arguments that the front office should proceed with that expectation in assembling the roster, with the understanding that the clutch and health issues are what's actually killing the team and need to be addressed.

The bottom line is: fix what is broken. Do not attempt to fix what is not broken.

If they keep BV and spend all their effort at upgrading SP, they will likely fail. They will likely have a 6 or 8 win clutch differential again, and I'll still argue that the team is not playing up to their talent, and it won't be making excuses or predicting a better 2014 -- it will just be explaining what actually happened.

If they make no effort to contend because they think that's not possible (as many here believe), that will be a tragic waste of an opportunity.

Get the right new manager, make the appropriate roster tweaks (a good new 1B or corner OF), maybe try to pick up a player with a reputation for keeping teammates loose and competitive when things are going poorly, and hope to seriously contend. But it's a very reasonable and rational hope.

[Eric Van]

Also, the organizational depth chart at 3B is pretty slim. Ceccini is the only real prospect, but he's at least 3-4 years away, and maybe more. And if Bogaerts can slot into the OF, or Middlebrooks can shift to 1B, then the team can make it work.

The supremely toolsy ex-headcase Michael Almanzar was hitting .286 / .331 / .419 (232 PA), with 19 BB and 58 SO, on July 14, and is .343 / .418 / .567 in his last 153 PA, with 14 BB and 15 SO. (That's a 45% improvement in K rate and a 56% improvement in BB rate.) He has played more 3B than 1B and apparently has made a lot of progress there as well. He'll be added to the 40-man roster this winter.

Oh, and moving Bogaerts to RF or WMB to 1B would be a huge fail. Just trade WMB for equal value if they both have to play 3B, and you come out ahead. (A RF or 1B as valuable as WMB will be a significantly better hitter.) I had a post somewhere which showed how Miguel Cabrera has been half a win less valuable per year in the OF and a full win less at 1B -- and, unlike, X, he's not in general a skilled defender.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

The supremely toolsy ex-headcase Michael Almanzar was hitting .286 / .331 / .419 (232 PA), with 19 BB and 58 SO, on July 14, and is .343 / .418 / .567 in his last 153 PA, with 14 BB and 15 SO. (That's a 45% improvement in K rate and a 56% improvement in BB rate.) He has played more 3B than 1B and apparently has made a lot of progress there as well. He'll be added to the 40-man roster this winter.

Oh, and moving Bogaerts to RF or WMB to 1B would be a huge fail. Just trade WMB for equal value if they both have to play 3B, and you come out ahead. (A RF or 1B as valuable as WMB will be a significantly better hitter.) I had a post somewhere which showed how Miguel Cabrera has been half a win less valuable per year in the OF and a full win less at 1B -- and, unlike, X, he's not in general a skilled defender.

Your latter point is apt. If the team is going to consider moving Bogaerts or Middlebrooks to a new position, they have analyze the value of such a move. But, I'd like to see Bogaerts have similar success as Middlebrooks at the MLB level before shipping off Middlebrooks to another team. If this is the case, then the team has to find a way to accommodate both players, yeah?

However, I won't grant you Almanazar that easy. A 153 PA sample is still small, even though he's showed significant improvement in his plate discipline that indicate a substantial change in his approach. Like Middlebrooks, I'd like to see that replicated over a full season. Furthermore, he's still in advanced A ball, so he's got a while until the team can even consider bringing him up. In the context of whether to offer Middlebrooks an extension if he plays .830 OPS (or better) baseball, Almanazer should have no bearing on the extension because he's so far off.

[Plympton91]

The supremely toolsy ex-headcase Michael Almanzar was hitting .286 / .331 / .419 (232 PA), with 19 BB and 58 SO, on July 14, and is .343 / .418 / .567 in his last 153 PA, with 14 BB and 15 SO. (That's a 45% improvement in K rate and a 56% improvement in BB rate.) He has played more 3B than 1B and apparently has made a lot of progress there as well. He'll be added to the 40-man roster this winter.

Oh, and moving Bogaerts to RF or WMB to 1B would be a huge fail. Just trade WMB for equal value if they both have to play 3B, and you come out ahead. (A RF or 1B as valuable as WMB will be a significantly better hitter.) I had a post somewhere which showed how Miguel Cabrera has been half a win less valuable per year in the OF and a full win less at 1B -- and, unlike, X, he's not in general a skilled defender.

I've seen Michael Almanzar at 3B several times over the years, and he is not much better than Mauro Gomez. He's a very stiff defender and very tall and gangly guy. He's most likely a 1B or a DH; so, he'll have to keep hitting the way he's hit in the second half to reach his potential.

[Hokie Sox]

I could definitely see them going after Swisher this year to play LF @ ~ 2 years, 20??? mill.The guy is a consummate professional and gets on base very well.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

It is going to cost a lot more to sign Nick Swisher. He's been a consistently above average player and is making $10 million this year. And the way he's played this year, he's probably looking at a raise. I think it takes 3 years and at least $13 million to sign Swisher. Its his last chance to get a long term deal and I'm sure he's looking to get paid.

[dynomite]

It is going to cost a lot more to sign Nick Swisher. He's been a consistently above average player and is making $10 million this year. And the way he's played this year, he's probably looking at a raise. I think it takes 3 years and at least $13 million to sign Swisher. Its his last chance to get a long term deal and I'm sure he's looking to get paid.

Even 3 years/$36 million is probably low.

According to multiple sources, Swisher is looking for a Werth-type deal for 7 years/$126 million.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I could definitely see them going after Swisher this year to play LF @ ~ 2 years, 20??? mill.The guy is a consummate professional and gets on base very well.

It would be amusing to see the hard-core Swisherphobes around here react to that one. I agree he'd be a great fit for us right now. But 2/$20M? Dream on. Here's an article that will get the conversation into more realistic territory: the question is whether he can get someone to give him $100M, or he'll have to "settle" for $80-90M. If you say "that's ridiculous! I wouldn't pay him that much!" I'd be inclined to agree. But recent experience suggests that somebody will.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 27 August 2012 - 09:29 AM.

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

I'm thinking Josh Willingham is the type of guy the Sox would go after. 2 years left on a value contract. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Masterson brought back either, dealing for both of those guys makes a lot of sense to me.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

It would be amusing to see the hard-core Swisherphobes around here react to that one. I agree he'd be a great fit for us right now. But 2/$20M? Dream on. Here's an article that will get the conversation into more realistic territory: the question is whether he can get someone to give him $100M, or he'll have to "settle" for $80-90M. If you say "that's ridiculous! I wouldn't pay him that much!" I'd be inclined to agree. But recent experience suggests that somebody will.

7 years and $100 million for Nick Swisher? I feel bad for whatever team gets sucked into that.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm thinking Josh Willingham is the type of guy the Sox would go after. 2 years left on a value contract. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Masterson brought back either, dealing for both of those guys makes a lot of sense to me.

But would it make sense to those guys' current teams?

Willingham doesn't just have a "value contract"; it's an absolute steal. It's true that the Twins probably are looking to shed payroll, but Willingham is such good bang-for-buck that I'd be surprised to see them shopping him.

Likewise, even in his second arb year Masterson's going to be solid value per dollar. No reason for Cleveland to trade him just yet. Next winter, when he's a year away from FA and headed for an Arb3 salary, is when I would expect to see him shopped.

[Hokie Sox]

It is going to cost a lot more to sign Nick Swisher. He's been a consistently above average player and is making $10 million this year. And the way he's played this year, he's probably looking at a raise. I think it takes 3 years and at least $13 million to sign Swisher. Its his last chance to get a long term deal and I'm sure he's looking to get paid.

Right. He's making 10 million THIS year, but it's also a backloaded contract at 6 years, 36 million (6 million AAV). Hard to predict the market but Swisher is not getting 7 years, 20 million. That's just laughable. I think teams are becoming smarter than that (since the Werth signing), notwithstanding a Magic Johnson takeoever and pending tv-megadeal.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

But would it make sense to those guys' current teams?

Willingham doesn't just have a "value contract"; it's an absolute steal. It's true that the Twins probably are looking to shed payroll, but Willingham is such good bang-for-buck that I'd be surprised to see them shopping him.

It depends on what the Twins get back. I'm guessing the Sox would have to part with a B or B+ prospect and a lottery ticket or two to get Willingham. Like you said, he provides a lot of value for the Twins and they would be fools to let him go cheaply. I'd love for the Sox to get him because he'd be perfect in LF for them, and if the Sox bring back Ross, then that is a pretty good outfield for cheap.

The other options are letting Nava, Sands, and Linares battle it out for the LF spot. We know that Nava can be a league average LF with sketchy defense. Linares is probably a better defender, but probably a similar hitter. Sands is clearly a better hitter and an average defender. I like the idea of trying Sands out in LF to start the year, and if he can't cut it, then maybe explore getting somebody like Willingham.

Another option, and one I like more, is to see if there is a younger RFer on the trade market and sign Ross to play LF. Upton would be fantastic, but would come at a hefty price. SoxScout mentioned Choo as well. I also think Stanton would be a major splash, and worth forking over prospects for. I think I prefer going after a RFer, who will provide more value than somebody playing LF, and letting Ross handle the LF duties. That way, Sands can play in Pawtucket and the Sox can see he if his MiLB numbers are PCL inflated or not.

Edited by ScubaSteveAvery, 27 August 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

But would it make sense to those guys' current teams?

Willingham doesn't just have a "value contract"; it's an absolute steal. It's true that the Twins probably are looking to shed payroll, but Willingham is such good bang-for-buck that I'd be surprised to see them shopping him.

Likewise, even in his second arb year Masterson's going to be solid value per dollar. No reason for Cleveland to trade him just yet. Next winter, when he's a year away from FA and headed for an Arb3 salary, is when I would expect to see him shopped.

Is the prospect cost of Willingham going to be worth it for us in contrast to signing Shane Victorino or Nick Swisher? The issue I see on Willingham is that we're not going to be the only team interested for the reasons you mentioned.

As for Masterson, I had thought that Cleveland was looking to dump him, is that not the case?

[StupendousMan]

OPS+ isn't the same thing as the quality of your offense. There's the OBP/SLG weighting issue, as well as baserunning value differentials (as well as clutch issues).

That's the whole premise of pythagorean records - they're more predictive of W/L records going forward than actual W/L records are.

I tested this hypothesis several years ago, using American League records from 1961 to 2006.

http://spiff.rit.edu...mpare_pred.html

The bottom line: after the midpoint of the season, actual W/L records are better at predicting
final W/L records than Pythagorean methods.

[gammoseditor]

I tested this hypothesis several years ago, using American League records from 1961 to 2006.

http://spiff.rit.edu...mpare_pred.html

The bottom line: after the midpoint of the season, actual W/L records are better at predicting
final W/L records than Pythagorean methods.

Someone at fangraphs did a similar study last week with the same conclusion, but I think the general point is that the following year, the prior years pythagorean record was more predictive than the prior years W/L record, no?

[nvalvo]

Another few questions for EV:

First of all, I am convinced by the broad contours of your argument here. It's been weird how bad the W-L record has been considering the relatively solid performance of most individual players. We've seen, for example, a bullpen that is very solid until they are absolutely imploding. The bullpen has put up a 2.66 K/BB ratio and a .309 OBPa, but still managed some utterly catastrophic performances which I don't need to recount to anyone here. A different distribution of bad games from relievers (i.e., not everybody sucks all at once) changes the outcome of a few of these against-the-odds come-from-ahead losses that they've managed this year. Likewise the lineup: they haven't hit near their averages in clutch situations, and if they'd done so, well, they'd have won a few more games.

If I'm following you, you're saying that the lack of offensive clutch performance in close and late situations is the largest problems facing the team. But, you seem to be expecting that to continue. Since you're telling us that clutch is only 10 percent predictive, shouldn't we not expect that trend to continue?

As a result, you appear to be arguing that this should not be a total 100% rebuild (we agree) because there's a ton of talent on the roster, and that our focus should not be on the starting rotation (we disagree). Basically, Eric, I'm having trouble getting from your description of the last year to your prescription for the rebuild. Considering the RS/RA numbers, why would that be the case? It might help our run prevention if we had a single starting pitcher with an ERA+ above 100.

If they keep BV and spend all their effort at upgrading SP, they will likely fail. They will likely have a 6 or 8 win clutch differential again, and I'll still argue that the team is not playing up to their talent, and it won't be making excuses or predicting a better 2014 -- it will just be explaining what actually happened.

So walk me through this: why should their poor clutch performance be expected to continue? I'm no fan of Valentine, but why are we so sure it's his fault? And why shouldn't Ben be focused on starting pitching?

[Savin Hillbilly]

It depends on what the Twins get back. I'm guessing the Sox would have to part with a B or B+ prospect and a lottery ticket or two to get Willingham. Like you said, he provides a lot of value for the Twins and they would be fools to let him go cheaply. I'd love for the Sox to get him because he'd be perfect in LF for them, and if the Sox bring back Ross, then that is a pretty good outfield for cheap.

It occurs to me that the Twins might lower their price tag for Willingham if the buyer was willing to take Morneau's contract as well. That might actually work for us--basically replacing Crawford and Gonzalez with two guys on short contracts who will cost half the price and perhaps provide somewhat more than half the value. Morneau's brittleness is worrisome, but with Gomez and Sands around, it might be a feasible short-term gamble.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

I like Morneau if the Sox can find a platoon partner for him. He's a career .908 hitter against RHP, and this year he's hitting .948 OPS against RHP, but he's clearly a platoon player at this point (.548 OPS against LHP!!!). Sands has a reverse split in the minors, but his small MLB sample has him crushing LHPs. Gomez in the minors also crushed LHPs but has struggled against them at the Major League level. But really, the Sox have two options to platoon with Morneau. Of course, Morneau may not want to be platooned (he can invoke 10/5 rights) and then there's the realization that the Sox are paying $14 million for a platoon player (and gave up prospects to get a platoon player).

Another nice thing about Morneau is that Fenway's big RF only takes away one of his home runs from this year:



Link

Edited by ScubaSteveAvery, 27 August 2012 - 11:43 AM.

[OttoC]

I like Morneau if the Sox can find a platoon partner for him. He's a career .908 hitter against RHP, and this year he's hitting .948 OPS against RHP, but he's clearly a platoon player at this point (.548 OPS against LHP!!!)....

It's ridiculous to spend big money and prospects for a platoon player.

[Eric Van]

However, I won't grant you Almanazar that easy. A 153 PA sample is still small, even though he's showed significant improvement in his plate discipline that indicate a substantial change in his approach. Like Middlebrooks, I'd like to see that replicated over a full season. Furthermore, he's still in advanced A ball, so he's got a while until the team can even consider bringing him up. In the context of whether to offer Middlebrooks an extension if he plays .830 OPS (or better) baseball, Almanazer should have no bearing on the extension because he's so far off.

Oh, I wasn't holding Almanzar up as a guy you make any future plans about. Just saying that Cecchini isn't the only actual prospect there, and I wouldn't call it a thin position in the system. Even if he stays at 3B, Almanzar doesn't project to be better than WMB and if he pans out, is likely to be just trade fodder.

Another few questions for EV:

If I'm following you, you're saying that the lack of offensive clutch performance in close and late situations is the largest problems facing the team. But, you seem to be expecting that to continue. Since you're telling us that clutch is only 10 percent predictive, shouldn't we not expect that trend to continue?

So walk me through this: why should their poor clutch performance be expected to continue? I'm no fan of Valentine, but why are we so sure it's his fault?

I also said that I think (or guess) that the overall 10% is from most cases of observed clutch differential being all luck and a minority being much more predictive. The observed 10% clutch predictability in hitting, in this notion of mine, is caused by a minority of guys who are in an extreme frame of mind.

It's silly and stupid and entirely unuseful, but I think the bad clutch performance continues until it doesn't. If you know what I mean. I used to track cumulative offensive clutch differential over each season and there have been years where it would trend steadily downwards, then steadily upwards, back and forth, for 20 or 40 games at a time. Egregious good or bad clutch games would seem to trigger a tendency for more of the same, until an opposite example fell out at random and sent the trend going the other way. I don't think every team does this, but some teams seem to be prone to groupthink in terms of confidence and hence approach when trailing late or in extra innings.

This team could turn it around any time if they luck into a rally. I mean, at some point an opposing closer has to walk a hitter no matter how much we hack at everything.

My problem with BV is that it's the manager's job to notice that the team is pressing, make them aware that they've changed their approach, and instill some confidence when it's lacking. As long as he's the manager, the team will be prone to extended clutch slumps, because he doesn't seem to have the skill to prevent them.

As a result, you appear to be arguing that this should not be a total 100% rebuild (we agree) because there's a ton of talent on the roster, and that our focus should not be on the starting rotation (we disagree). Basically, Eric, I'm having trouble getting from your description of the last year to your prescription for the rebuild. Considering the RS/RA numbers, why would that be the case? It might help our run prevention if we had a single starting pitcher with an ERA+ above 100.

... why shouldn't Ben be focused on starting pitching?

I don't trust ERA+ this year; if you used a one-year rather than 3-year park factor, they might be rosier.

I'm actually not saying we shouldn't try to upgrade the starting pitching; just because something isn't your primary focus doesn't mean you neglect it completely. And in theory I'm all over trading for an ace; I just can't find one. If I'm Ben I'm on the phone trying to get Felix for a package starting with Cecchini, Webster, and Jacobs, but I expect to be laughed at. I may change my mind about none of the FA being worth bumping De La Rosa to Pawtucket, too, and the team should be looking into everyone to find reliable non-obvious upside.

True story: when Jed Hoyer and Ben went off to the winter meetings when they were co-GMs during Theo's sabbatical, Jed felt that as much as we needed to upgrade the SP by getting an ace, there just wasn't one to be had. We talked about the alternative of building a 1000-run lineup (and hence the need to keep Manny at a time when that was in question); historically the only teams that have won the WS with mediocre pitching have had monster offenses, offenses good enough to defy the truth that great pitching can neutralize good hitters (in general, ace pitchers have flatter splits by batting order position than mediocre or bad pitchers). And then Beckett fell into their laps.

So maybe something similar happens this year, and Ben should absolutely try to be creative about using our farm system depth to pry a young ace away from somebody. But as far as I can tell, they all either pitch for contenders or are far enough away from free agency that their non-contending teams will not be motivated to move them.

So here's the case that standing pat will not be so disastrous that you need to get somebody, even if they're no ace:

Buchholz was coming off a year missed due to injury, was hammered for 9 starts, and has been CY-level ever since.
Lester has had bad BABIP luck compounding a legitimate subpar performance where he lost command of and confidence in his cutter, but has seemingly turned it around and I'll gamble on him being a #2 again.
Morales and Doubront, from a scouting POV, have been more impressive than their numbers, as evidenced by their both having #3 starter SIERAs. I like the idea of them sharing a rotation slot plus the Swiss Army Knife roster spot (spot starter, long man, and third LHR).
You have to give Lackey a shot to be some semblance of Lackey again.
De La Rosa has enough promise that it doesn't make sense to trade for a similar, more expensive guy.
This F.O. has a good track record so far with mlfa's, so sign 2-3 upside guys for depth.
Add Webster and Wright on options, and by mid-season Workman and by year's end maybe Barnes, and you have flexible depth as well.

It's not going to be a great rotation, but who has one these days? It certainly looks good enough to contend with. My key argument is that we should avoid focusing on it so much that we overestimate it as a problem, and hence overpay for someone who might not actually help. (A la trading for Melancon.)

[ScubaSteveAvery]

It's ridiculous to spend big money and prospects for a platoon player.

Right, but context is that if the Sox take on Morneau and some or all of his salary, then the price for Willingham drops a little. I think its a question worth asking. Lets say the Twins agree to eat $3 million a year for the remaining two years of Morneau's salary. The Sox get Morneau for $11 million a year and maybe don't have to center the deal around a player like Sands and others, but center it around Brentz and others (for example). And, as a result, the team platoons Sands and Morneau at first, getting potentially .900 OPS or more out of 1B for roughly $11.5 million, and gets to park Willingham in LF too for $7 million. The Sox may give up some real prospects, but the payoff is that they get more production out of both LF and 1B for $23 million less per year (when compared to Crawford and Gonzalez) and no long term commitments, while still fielding a competitive team. Morneau's part looks ridiculous in isolation, but overall, the combination works.

Edited by ScubaSteveAvery, 27 August 2012 - 03:05 PM.

[StupendousMan]

Someone at fangraphs did a similar study last week with the same conclusion, but I think the general point is that the following year, the prior years pythagorean record was more predictive than the prior years W/L record, no?

That's a good question, but it's not the one I addressed; I only looked at winning percentage during the remainder
of the current season.

A quick glance at the Fangraphs article you mentioned (thanks!) suggests that it suffers from the
same limitation. I don't know of any studies which compare the W/L record and Pythagorean
prediction, based on data from year N, to the actual W/L record for year N+1.

[j44thor]

In the FA era how can anything be predictive of success the following year? Teams routinely reshape 10-20% of their roster every single year so how does that get factored in? I'd like to see if previous year Pythag is better or worse than say Vegas line before the season starts.

[biollante]

Being cautious makes sense with MIddlebrooks. He is out with a wrist injury. I would think we would want to make sure he comes back swinging the same after he recovers. We have time with this player.

I really think we need pitching but I can honestly say I don't have any bright ideas.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Call Rizzo and offer him Ellsbury for Zimmermann. They've been looking for a CF for years, have the money to resign him and barring them winning the WS, a growing fanbase that will probably still be upset about shutting down Stras. They also can absorb the hit to their rotation and have Alex Meyer or John Lannan to fill the slot.

(null)