Will the real Red Sox please stand up? I repeat, will the real Red Sox please stand up?

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,657
Mobile, AL
To compare this year to 2011 is hyperbole of the finest vintage. Coming into 2011 the team was predicted to do well and was doing well right up until the last month of the season. There were very few signs to expect or predict the collapse that happened and the fallout thereafter. This year nearly half of this board expected an 85-89 win team, while only 11% thought the team was going to be any better than that. There were very few of us who thought there was any chance of winning the division and most were iffy at best on a playoff spot (77% said no playoffs).

There have been numerous posts already in this thread breaking down how far above their heads the Sox played in the first half of this year, whether that be by Pythag, Base Runs, or just even the randomness of 1 run and extra inning games. A regression like this shouldn't be a surprise.

I got caught up in the first half and started to mentally print playoff tickets much like many of us did, but getting caught up in early season excitement is fandom at it's finest. This team isn't as good as we've been seeing, but it's not as bad as this past two weeks.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
While this year's collapse is shorter in duration, the 2011 comparison works because both are sudden complete implosions that take the club directly out of a playoff spot, with no indications that the poor play will ever come to an end. The Sox have blown 5 multirun leads in the last 13 games, an unheard of rate of collapse that speaks to the team's fragile makeup and tendency to press. Like 2011, they are finding ways to lose games they should be winning handily. Like 2011, a key late inning reliever has played a huge role in the collapse (Bard back then, Barnes now). And like 2011, the manager is insisting all will be well when in fact it is not.

There's one difference though: in 2011 they finished up 7-20, a .259 winning percentage. This stretch they're in at the moment is a .154 winning percentage. They're currently playing worse than they did in September 2011.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,678
Miami (oh, Miami!)
“The season is essentially over” in mid-August, but the Sox should’ve rushed Sale back because an extra start or two would’ve made a difference?
I'm sort of in this camp as well. Mostly because the Sox appear to have had a small margin to draw losses out of. They've entirely squandered that margin over the last couple of weeks. The way that came about was more or less predictable. Suspect starting pitching, general lack of offensive depth, defensive holes at first and second. All of those have been apparent for a month or so (if not the season) and most of them were addressable in some way well before the deadline.

I can't say nothing was done to address these needs; clearly Sale and Houck (injured early in the season and not setting AAA afire during rehab) had medical time-tables to follow, and those were what they were. It was reasonable to expect them to come back for the final six weeks. Also, in June it was reasonable to think that one or more of of Dalbec/Franchy/Chavis/Santanta/Arroyo could stick and produce by the end of the year. And so they made their choices.

But there was a decided lack of urgency communicated in the particulars.

Was there a downside to having Sale start over Richards? If you have an unreliable rotation, then yes, every start matters. Certainly against division rivals. Especially if you think your team has some serious flaws, but is currently riding a wave of good fortune.

Why trade for Schwarber, on the IL? Why not promote a AAA/AA hitter or two? Why keep Santana on the roster at all? And so on. (If all this were done in mid-June, it's defensible.)

At this point they're far from out of it mathematically, but as an overall organization they've shown a disheartening inability to adapt, even reactively, and an inability to evaluate/coach the players they've committed to (although this could actually just be a long run of very bad luck).

They may see a resurgence of a few key players, or get lucky with a late development, or maybe Schwarber gets healthy and becomes the piece they need in time, along with Sale/Houck.

Perhaps as an organization they will change tracks, even with their now more limited avenues to create meaningful change on the field. But they have shown me no reason to believe they will do so instead of "staying the course,*" and so it does feel like they've been watching the window slide slowly closed for some time now.

(*It's like Gump. Everyone knew he was an idiot but beloved by the players. Then everyone was shocked when he did an idiotic thing in a key spot. But really, what did we expect.)
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,329
The gran facenda
Except this year's collapse is happening earlier in the season and this time they do have Sale coming back this week, which should make a difference both in the rotation and in bullpen usage. They also have Verdugo coming back this week from paternity leave which will take one black hole out of the starting line up. They also have nine games left against TB, who could suffer some injuries. Arroyo should be starting his rehab stint next week. When Schwarber comes back they could have him at 1B and Arroyo at 2B with Kike in CF with Verdugo back in LF and Martinez at DH. Hopefully they will have Vazquez and Plawecki trade roles.

The bullpen is still a shit show with Barnes being ineffective in the closers role and others being overworked. It would be helpful if Whitlock could pitch at least two days in a row without needing a vacation.

Cora needs to stay with his starters longer when they are pitching well. I would have left Rodriguez in last night and Pivetta and Houck in over the weekend. The same arms are being overused in the pen.

What's happening now reminds me more of what happened in 1978, but they do have time to turn it around and they do have some weapons coming back to help them do that. I'm not saying they will, but there is a chance.
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,657
Mobile, AL
While this year's collapse is shorter in duration, the 2011 comparison works because both are sudden complete implosions that take the club directly out of a playoff spot, with no indications that the poor play will ever come to an end. The Sox have blown 5 multirun leads in the last 13 games, an unheard of rate of collapse that speaks to the team's fragile makeup and tendency to press. Like 2011, they are finding ways to lose games they should be winning handily. Like 2011, a key late inning reliever has played a huge role in the collapse (Bard back then, Barnes now). And like 2011, the manager is insisting all will be well when in fact it is not.

There's one difference though: in 2011 they finished up 7-20, a .259 winning percentage. This stretch they're in at the moment is a .154 winning percentage. They're currently playing worse than they did in September 2011.
Except The Sox aren't out of a playoff spot yet. And instead of being the end of the season there's still 47 games to go. Let's not mistake raindrops for the sky falling.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Except The Sox aren't out of a playoff spot yet. And instead of being the end of the season there's still 47 games to go. Let's not mistake raindrops for the sky falling.
They're five games out already and have lost NINE games in the standings to Tampa in just a month. Nine! Their position right now is as the road team in the second WC game, after leading the division by four games not too long ago. They can't hit and they can't pitch and they are pressing and still haven't solved any of their endemic issues. Their closer is the new John Wasdin and needs to be demoted. They have three starters who cannot reach the 6th inning. And no offensive help is forthcoming because we have zero timetable on Schwarber and none of the precious prospects are ready.

You can't hang on technicalities here. You have to be realistic. It's looking incredibly likely that they're not going to make the playoffs. If by some fortune they do make it their stay will be brief, which is incredibly disappointing given the position they were in not too long ago.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
I think we forget Bloom had the Red Sox entering the season with a rotation of Rodriguez, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Richards and Perez. Four of those five came with question marks (Rodriguez due to health history).

I think that was a clearly communicated punt for 2021 and the team outperforming expectations was apparently never going to change that plan. Now, I ask myself - what actually is the plan for 2022? Specifically pitching and defense.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I think we forget Bloom had the Red Sox entering the season with a rotation of Rodriguez, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Richards and Perez. Four of those five came with question marks (Rodriguez due to health history).

I think that was a clearly communicated punt for 2021 and the team outperforming expectations was apparently never going to change that plan. Now, I ask myself - what actually is the plan for 2022? Specifically pitching and defense.
It's a big mark on Bloom that when reality gave him an unexpected gift he declined the kind offer. 2013 wasn't supposed to be a great year either.

What I'm really hoping to do here is to get people thinking about different ways to approach team-building. I see so much "trust the process" stuff from major league GMs and I think it's extremely limiting and not all that applicable to real world situations.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,678
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Except this year's collapse is happening earlier in the season and this time they do have Sale coming back this week, which should make a difference both in the rotation and in bullpen usage. They also have Verdugo coming back this week from paternity leave which will take one black hole out of the starting line up. They also have nine games left against TB, who could suffer some injuries. Arroyo should be starting his rehab stint next week. When Schwarber comes back they could have him at 1B and Arroyo at 2B with Kike in CF with Verdugo back in LF and Martinez at DH. Hopefully they will have Vazquez and Plawecki trade roles.

The bullpen is still a shit show with Barnes being ineffective in the closers role and others being overworked. It would be helpful if Whitlock could pitch at least two days in a row without needing a vacation.

Cora needs to stay with his starters longer when they are pitching well. I would have left Rodriguez in last night and Pivetta and Houck in over the weekend. The same arms are being overused in the pen.

What's happening now reminds me more of what happened in 1978, but they do have time to turn it around and they do have some weapons coming back to help them do that. I'm not saying they will, but there is a chance.
There's certainly a chance. They have 47 games left, over 54 days (the last on Sunday 10-3).

Counting today they have 10 games against TB. It's always swingier with small numbers, but if they go 6-4 against TB, they'd only be 3 games behind :(. But consider a sketch of the rest of the 2021 season as follows:

Optimistically, Sale's good for 9 (at the very most 10) starts, given he starts Aug 14 on game 43. (Also, I wonder if they chose the Sale start to have him queued up for a possible WC game? Calculations anyone?)
Anyway, optimistically assume good bullpen/offense in our rosy scenario and call Sale's team W/L record 6-3.
-Eovaldi is good for 10 starts. (6-4).
-Pivetta is good for 10 starts. (6-4).
-Erod is good for 9 starts. (5-4).
-Houck is good for 9 starts. (5-4).

All number pulled from my ass, of course, and assumes the rest of the team functions was well as they have at other times this season. They total a very plausible and decent 28-19 for a final 93-69. Which is possibly not enough to make the WC. (Even if they cluster their wins, making sure to send Sale against the Orioles and the like. :rolleyes:)

But that "hot" run would be a .600 winning percentage. Which'd be slightly worse than our April (.630) and June (.643) numbers. Maybe we again get hot/lucky? Schwarber becomes our June E.Hernandez? Sale is Sale and goes deep to freshen up the pen? Let's say we finish at a .635-ish clip for 30-17. That has us at 95-68. Likely a WC team.

But will the Sox have the fortitude to cut Richards, who in the second half has an OPS allowed of .936? (No vomit Emoji, really?) Or do they give a giant middle finger to the fans and Tanner? Stay tuned and find out.

***

To bridge to the other discussion on the board, in the context of the above, a couple of primo starts really can tip a close season one way or another. But that's assuming solid play needing a bit of a "push" for those extra wins. There's no guarantee Sale would have done so if he made his final rehab start here and went on a regular day rotation (or will do so), but with absent some yet unarticulated downside, I like the above numbers that much better with an extra Sale start or two. I also like them much better if they were padded out with a couple of extra-wins taken from the recent skid. Which is part of why it's so devastating/disappointing.

However, let's say that skid continues and we lose the next two games and stand at 65-52. A 95 win season now requires a 30-15 effort, a .666 winning percentage. Devilishly tricky to do, and nothing this team has done yet.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Rizzo has Covid so he would not be helping the Sox right now. CJ Cron from COL would be nice. But its the Rockies we are talking about. They didn’t trade Story at the deadline and then Story torched the team and owners to the media.

but beyond that. Trading for a 1B would have done little to help when we still have a black hole at catcher, DH (JDM) and Xander is still not “healthy”
After his wrist issues.
How do you know Rizzo would have Covid if he came to the Red Sox? You and nobody else have no idea so to say that because he has Covid in NY that he would here is disingenuous.

So because there's other issues on the team you just sit there, throw your hands up, and say "oh well there's nothing we can do to help"? Come on.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
It's a big mark on Bloom that when reality gave him an unexpected gift he declined the kind offer. 2013 wasn't supposed to be a great year either.

What I'm really hoping to do here is to get people thinking about different ways to approach team-building. I see so much "trust the process" stuff from major league GMs and I think it's extremely limiting and not all that applicable to real world situations.
2013 was a WAAAAAAAY better team than this year's edition. They had three pitchers throwing like aces (Buchholz, Lester, Lackey), a lights out closer, and got at least 100 wRC from 8 of 9 positions in the lineup. They required little to no tweaks and improvements at the deadline. In fact, they only made one trade. Granted it was for Peavy but they gave up next to nothing to get him (Iglesias and three lottery tickets) in a buyers' market.

Neither team, 2013 or 2021, may have had much in the way of pre-season expectations, but the 2013 squad absolutely started the year with a stronger roster. Cherington didn't have to do much with his unexpected gift and in fact didn't do much. Now if Jonny Gomes turned in a Marwin Gonzalez level performance, and Mike Napoli hit like Dalbec, and Stephen Drew went on and off the DL as often as Christian Arroyo, and Koji was more Ottavino than vintage Koji...and Cherington waved his GM wand and acquired all new players to replace them perfectly, well then we'd have an apt analogy.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,016
Oregon
How do you know Rizzo would have Covid if he came to the Red Sox? You and nobody else have no idea so to say that because he has Covid in NY that he would here is disingenuous.
Right ... he could have hurt his knee. Or had his hand broken by a pitch. Or just sucked.

Not that you're saying this ... but suggesting Rizzo would have made a positive impact is just as disingenuous as saying he would have got COVID.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
2013 was a WAAAAAAAY better team than this year's edition. They had three pitchers throwing like aces (Buchholz, Lester, Lackey), a lights out closer, and got at least 100 wRC from 8 of 9 positions in the lineup. They required little to no tweaks and improvements at the deadline. In fact, they only made one trade. Granted it was for Peavy but they gave up next to nothing to get him (Iglesias and three lottery tickets) in a buyers' market.
Everything looks obvious in hindsight. Going into the 2013 season they had Lester and Buchholz coming off terrible 2012s and Lackey returning from UCL and a terrible 2011. Their closer was Joel Hanrahan, Koji was an afterthought who hadn't made Texas' postseason roster the previous season. They signed a bunch of solid yet unspectacular vets because they wanted respectability after the 2012 disaster, there was no consensus they were a WS contender.

Their success in 2013 was entirely unexpected. Just like the success in the first half of this year was. Difference is Cherington respected the gift he was given and added to the team in a meaningful way at the deadline. Bloom hasn't.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
Their success in 2013 was entirely unexpected. Just like the success in the first half of this year was. Difference is Cherington respected the gift he was given and added to the team in a meaningful way at the deadline. Bloom hasn't.
They traded for Jake Peavy, who put up 0.6 WAR in 10 starts and then -0.2 WAR while earning $14,500,000 the next season (before he was offloaded onto SF). So far this year, Schwarber has put up 2.0 WAR in 72 games. At that rate, he'd have to play in 21.6 games with the Red Sox to be a more "meaningful" acquisition than Cherington made in 2013.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
And yet he's yet to play a single inning for the Red Sox, making him completely useless so far. Maybe wait to see if he actually sees the field before saying he's of any use at all. I believe his timetable is the always discouraging "soon."

2.0 WAR for Washington means less than nothing to the Red Sox. He's literally a net negative right now as they gave up assets for him and have received nothing in return. And they traded for him knowing full well he was injured.
 
Last edited:

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,637
Chicago, IL
Cora needs to stay with his starters longer when they are pitching well. I would have left Rodriguez in last night and Pivetta and Houck in over the weekend. The same arms are being overused in the pen.


[/QUOTE]

This is so patently true, I'm crying as I write. And something he should have anticipated. With a taxed bullpen, take advantage of the moments your starters are pitching well and pitch count is still reasonable. Pulling Pivetta had a cascading effect, IMO, on the rest of that series ....
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
And yet he's yet to play a single inning for the Red Sox, making him completely useless so far. Maybe wait to see if he actually sees the field before saying he's of any use at all.

2.0 WAR for Washington means less than nothing to the Red Sox. He's literally a net negative right now as they gave up assets for him and have received nothing in return.
You asserted: Cherington respected the gift he was given and added to the team in a meaningful way at the deadline. Bloom hasn't.

Cherington's "meaningful" addition was a guy who had put up 0.7 WAR on the year. Bloom's was a guy who had put up 2.0 WAR on the year.

So by what metric is your assertion true?

If it's that you believe Schwarber will prove to be less valuable than Peavy was, then you are predicting that either a) he will play less than 21 games or b) he will be significantly less good with Boston than he was with Washington this year. I just don't think there is any rational basis to assume that either is true.

If it's just based on the fact that Bloom's guy hasn't played as of August 11, I think that's a pretty silly way to evaluate things, but, just for the hell of it: Peavy made two starts for the Red Sox in the first ten days after getting here, one of them good, one of them not. I guess that's better than "completely useless," but, uh, not by a whole lot.

And if your point is just that you wanted Anthony Rizzo and are upset they didn't trade for him, I mean, I hear you, and I don't think that's an insane way to feel. But that doesn't support your assertion at all.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Right ... he could have hurt his knee. Or had his hand broken by a pitch. Or just sucked.

Not that you're saying this ... but suggesting Rizzo would have made a positive impact is just as disingenuous as saying he would have got COVID.
Well of course anyone can get hurt no matter where they play. But to just say "well he got Covid in NY so he automatically would've on the Red Sox so it doesn't matter" is stupid. That's all I was saying.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Cherington's "meaningful" addition was a guy who had put up 0.7 WAR on the year. Bloom's was a guy who had put up 2.0 WAR on the year.
Cherington needed a starter because Buchholz had gotten that strange injury and the alternatives were Aceves, Allen Webster, and Brandon Workman as starters. Peavy was durable both for the White Sox before being added and for Boston after being added, and pitched better than the three alternatives after he arrived. He was an enormous pickup for that team and that was a huge reason they won the WS.

Also: Cherington's pickup wasn't injured. Bloom's, as we've noted again, was. Cherington's pickup was in a position of dire need with Buchholz out. Bloom's has never played first base.

There is no reality where Bloom's pickup is better than Cherington's. None. It was a better trade the moment it was made, and proved to be the better trade in the fullness of time given what Peavy did for the Sox in 2013, unless Schwarber suddenly heals and comes back tonight and leads the team to a 15 game winning streak while hitting 20 HRs and learning how to play first base overnight. Don't stay up late for that one.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Cherington needed a starter because Buchholz had gotten that strange injury and the alternatives were Aceves, Allen Webster, and Brandon Workman as starters. Peavy was durable both for the White Sox before being added and for Boston after being added, and pitched better than the three alternatives after he arrived. He was an enormous pickup for that team and that was a huge reason they won the WS.

Also: Cherington's pickup wasn't injured. Bloom's, as we've noted again, was. Cherington's pickup was in a position of dire need with Buchholz out. Bloom's has never played first base.

There is no reality where Bloom's pickup is better than Cherington's. None. It was a better trade the moment it was made, and proved to be the better trade in the fullness of time given what Peavy did for the Sox in 2013, unless Schwarber suddenly heals and comes back tonight and leads the team to a 15 game winning streak while hitting 20 HRs and learning how to play first base overnight. Don't stay up late for that one.
The curious thing is that Cherington was addressing a weak point in his roster (Buchholz's spot) but in doing so, he weakened the big league roster at the spot where they needed the most help (3B). Perhaps Bloom should have traded Duran in a package for Rizzo?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,016
Oregon
Well of course anyone can get hurt no matter where they play. But to just say "well he got Covid in NY so he automatically would've on the Red Sox so it doesn't matter" is stupid. That's all I was saying.
And I was agreeing with you, but adding that assuming anything out of Rizzo (had he been acquired) is just as stupid
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
There is no reality where Bloom's pickup is better than Cherington's. None. It was a better trade the moment it was made, and proved to be the better trade in the fullness of time given what Peavy did for the Sox in 2013, unless Schwarber suddenly heals and comes back tonight and leads the team to a 15 game winning streak while hitting 20 HRs and learning how to play first base overnight.
That’s just ridiculous. If Schwarber puts up 0.7 WAR, which, as I pointed out above, is an exceedingly low bar given how good he’s been, then he will have been a better and more meaningful acquisition than Peavy. By literal definition.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
A huge aspect of the gassed bullpen is not simply that the starters haven’t been great, but rather the philosophy of pulling them when they’re doing well and have a relatively low pitch count, simply because they’re facing the lineup for the third time. You keep doing that over a full season and it absolutely wears on a bullpen.

When a starter is on his game, he needs to stay in as long as possible, not be pulled just because it’s the third time through a lineup.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
That’s just ridiculous. If Schwarber puts up 0.7 WAR, which, as I pointed out above, is an exceedingly low bar given how good he’s been, then he will have been a better and more meaningful acquisition than Peavy. By literal definition.
Firstly, the chances of him putting up a 0.7 WAR are slim to none given that he's injured and shows zero signs of coming back. Until he gets back on the field you can't assume anything about him except that he is a carbon based life form. And even that is iffy considered we've yet to see him. Remember also that if he ever gets on the field he will be playing out of position and thus can be expected to be a negative defensive player, which is not an issue he faced while with the Nationals. Hell, with the Nats he was still a negative defensive player in his natural position.

Secondly, WAR is not the be all and end all of trade evaluations. Peavy's arrival solidified the Sox' rotation after the loss of Buchholz, got Webster out of there and moved Aceves into the bullpen. It had positive cascades all through the roster and made the Red Sox a much stronger team.

If we can move on from a world where WAR is considered some sort of all-encompassing tool of measurement that would be just swell. WAR misses a lot and even Bill James has written about this extensively.
 
Last edited:

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
The curious thing is that Cherington was addressing a weak point in his roster (Buchholz's spot) but in doing so, he weakened the big league roster at the spot where they needed the most help (3B). Perhaps Bloom should have traded Duran in a package for Rizzo?
He didn't weaken the 3B spot, even though Middlebrooks was struggling. He already had someone on hand to improve the 3B position: Xander Bogaerts.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
A huge aspect of the gassed bullpen is not simply that the starters haven’t been great, but rather the philosophy of pulling them when they’re doing well and have a relatively low pitch count, simply because they’re facing the lineup for the third time. You keep doing that over a full season and it absolutely wears on a bullpen.

When a starter is on his game, he needs to stay in as long as possible, not be pulled just because it’s the third time through a lineup.
You would think that after this bit Kevin Cash in the ass horribly during the World Series that managers would stop doing it.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
You would think that after this bit Kevin Cash in the ass horribly during the World Series that managers would stop doing it.
I was horrified when Cash pulled Snell. But I can see it more in the playoffs, when you’re not as worried about the fatigue of a long season. But during the regular season.... starters need to go longer, when they’re effective that is. Don’t pull a starter who is pitching well simply because it’s the third time through the lineup. That’s a good way to burn your bullpen out.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I was horrified when Cash pulled Snell. But I can see it more in the playoffs, when you’re not as worried about the fatigue of a long season. But during the regular season.... starters need to go longer, when they’re effective that is. Don’t pull a starter who is pitching well simply because it’s the third time through the lineup. That’s a good way to burn your bullpen out.
Mookie said they felt immense relief when Snell was pulled. That's never a good sign that a manager is making the right move.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
He didn't weaken the 3B spot, even though Middlebrooks was struggling. He already had someone on hand to improve the 3B position: Xander Bogaerts.
Who started all of six games at the position for the rest of the regular season. His presence certainly made Iglesias expendable in a general way (specifically SS prospects were a position of strength). Bogaerts was not the 3B fall back plan when that trade was made. Like you said earlier though, everything is obvious in hindsight.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
And I was agreeing with you, but adding that assuming anything out of Rizzo (had he been acquired) is just as stupid
The one thing everyone can assume with an Anthony Rizzo acquirement is much-improved defense at the position. We can debate whether or not he would have hit better than what they've had at the position(it's pretty hard not to with who they put out there) but the defensive component is not even a question.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,678
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Secondly, WAR is not the be all and end all of trade evaluations. Peavy's arrival solidified the Sox' rotation after the loss of Buchholz, got Webster out of there and moved Aceves into the bullpen. It had positive cascades all through the roster and made the Red Sox a much stronger team.
Yep. https://www.billjamesonline.com/the_real_problem_with_war/

WAR assumes that the Replacement Level is a constant. It is NOT a constant; it’s a variable. Some teams, an outfielder gets hurt, it doesn’t really matter because they’ve got a fourth outfielder who is about as good as the starters. Other teams, it matters a lot because their fourth outfielder is a pair of stuffed pajamas. The actual replacement level is specific to the locale. Rather than trying to estimate what the replacement level actually is in this case, WAR simply assumes that it is always the same. To return to the analogy of the wheat farmer, this is like assuming that all trucks weigh the same. It leads to large inaccuracies.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
Firstly, the chances of him putting up a 0.7 WAR are slim to none given that he's injured and shows zero signs of coming back. Until he gets back on the field you can't assume anything about him except that he is a carbon based life form. And even that is iffy considered we've yet to see him. Remember also that if he ever gets on the field he will be playing out of position and thus can be expected to be a negative defensive player, which is not an issue he faced while with the Nationals. Hell, with the Nats he was still a negative defensive player in his natural position.

Secondly, WAR is not the be all and end all of trade evaluations. Peavy's arrival solidified the Sox' rotation after the loss of Buchholz, got Webster out of there and moved Aceves into the bullpen. It had positive cascades all through the roster and made the Red Sox a much stronger team.

If we can move on from a world where WAR is considered some sort of all-encompassing tool of measurement that would be just swell. WAR misses a lot and even Bill James has written about this extensively.
I mean, if your answer to “what is the objective basis for your assertion?” is to argue that it cannot be objectively assessed, then I guess there’s no real way to take the argument any further.

Given how much real estate we’ve taken up to get to this point, though, I’d be up for a friendly Jimmy Fund wager on the proposition of Schwarber putting up 0.7 WAR the rest of the way.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I mean, if your answer to “what is the objective basis for your assertion?” is to argue that it cannot be objectively assessed, then I guess there’s no real way to take the argument any further.

Given how much real estate we’ve taken up to get to this point, though, I’d be up for a friendly Jimmy Fund wager on the proposition of Schwarber putting up 0.7 WAR the rest of the way.
You're on. $100?
 

grepal

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
193
Personally, I'm mostly indifferent to the PR aspect of the job. But should Cora fluff a player, or soft pedal something, if such staves off a performance slump, or negative media attention? Probably.

But the primary job of the manager is to make choices that win individual games while keeping the team competitive over a long season (which includes overseeing training and coaching, and having input into staffing.) The results speak for themselves, the early good and the recent bad.

And when Cora accepts personal responsibility for bad decision-making, someone can link that for me.
Red Sox manager Alex Cora admits mistake in loss to Astros (bosoxinjection.com) article dated 5-18-19 a three second internet search found this.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Yes, because changing a philosophy based on a single data point is a great idea.
The point is to win the World Series. Cash cost himself the World Series because he ignored what was actually happening on the field and went by his book, which is every bit as erroneous as Gump leaving Pedro out there too long.

The point isn't "pulling a pitcher third time through the lineup is always wrong." The point is that you cannot be a slave to a rigid managerial philosphy, just pushing buttons because your little magic book says so.
 

manny

New Member
Jul 24, 2005
266
Not that I want to shut down any meaningful discussion, but the arguments around the trade deadline seem pretty circular at this point. There seem to be two camps: (1) Bloom/Sox should have recognized/adjusted to the successful season and done more at the deadline; or (2) Bloom/Sox correctly recognized the team was not as good as the first half performance and were correctly conservative at the deadline. Both sides can (and have) used the Sox performance since the deadline as their justification. At this point, I think we have to wait on how the season plays out (at a minimum) to re-assess. If the Sox end up 5 games out of the playoffs, then maybe #2 is correct---there is not much that could have been done to salvage the season. If the Sox just miss the division or WC, then I think #1 has a lot more validity. Of course it will also be helpful to see what, if anything, Schwarber provides the Sox this season. If he comes and hits 10 HRs in September (which seems not out of the realm of possibility for him), decent chance he's the most valuable offensive addition at the deadline. If he sucks or does not play much due to injury, that's a further indictment of Bloom and the Sox.

The other issue is of course we have no idea what teams were asking for from the Sox. I think it may be helpful to assume guys that were not traded at all (Cron, Carlos Santana) were just not available for whatever reason.

SJH, since you seem to be leading the #1 camp (not necessarily disagreeing)--are there any Sox prospects that you think should have been off-limits at the deadline? Or would you have been fine trading away guys like Casas, Duran, etc. if it brought back someone like Scherzer, Bryant, or Rizzo?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,725
Deep inside Muppet Labs
SJH, since you seem to be leading the #1 camp (not necessarily disagreeing)--are there any Sox prospects that you think should have been off-limits at the deadline? Or would you have been fine trading away guys like Casas, Duran, etc. if it brought back someone like Scherzer, Bryant, or Rizzo?
I would not have liked to give up Duran since he's the closest to actually being a permanent part of the major league roster and provides something in very short supply on the team (speed), and I do like Casas as a prospect, but in general I am against labeling any prospect as untouchable. It all depends on the return. I would have given up more if there was a chance of getting Scherzer, Bryant or Rizzo. If you could package Duran and Casas for Scherzer, I'd make that trade in a cocaine heartbeat.

In general I am fine with trading prospects of all sorts for quality major league players if the window for winning is now or soon. The Kopech/Moncada for Sale trade is the perfect example of this.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,637
Chicago, IL
Not that I want to shut down any meaningful discussion, but the arguments around the trade deadline seem pretty circular at this point. There seem to be two camps: (1) Bloom/Sox should have recognized/adjusted to the successful season and done more at the deadline; or (2) Bloom/Sox correctly recognized the team was not as good as the first half performance and were correctly conservative at the deadline. Both sides can (and have) used the Sox performance since the deadline as their justification. At this point, I think we have to wait on how the season plays out (at a minimum) to re-assess. If the Sox end up 5 games out of the playoffs, then maybe #2 is correct---there is not much that could have been done to salvage the season. If the Sox just miss the division or WC, then I think #1 has a lot more validity. Of course it will also be helpful to see what, if anything, Schwarber provides the Sox this season. If he comes and hits 10 HRs in September (which seems not out of the realm of possibility for him), decent chance he's the most valuable offensive addition at the deadline. If he sucks or does not play much due to injury, that's a further indictment of Bloom and the Sox.

The other issue is of course we have no idea what teams were asking for from the Sox. I think it may be helpful to assume guys that were not traded at all (Cron, Carlos Santana) were just not available for whatever reason.

SJH, since you seem to be leading the #1 camp (not necessarily disagreeing)--are there any Sox prospects that you think should have been off-limits at the deadline? Or would you have been fine trading away guys like Casas, Duran, etc. if it brought back someone like Scherzer, Bryant, or Rizzo?
But Bryant was acquired for no where near Casas/Duran level prospects. I think throwing Casas/Duran out there as a hypothetical skews the conversation. As I just mentioned in the trade thread, the Giants got Bryant for Canario (generally ranked in the low 100s for prospects) and Kilian (generally ranked around 300). Depending on which ranking you're looking at Casas and Duran are ranked in the top 25 both, or at minimum both in the top 100.

I can see having a handful of untouchable prospects. Especially when your system is not flush. But Bloom could have made a move somewhere between what he did and giving up Casas/Duran ....EDIT: that still could have yielded a very valuable player.
 

manny

New Member
Jul 24, 2005
266
I would not have liked to give up Duran since he's the closest to actually being a permanent part of the major league roster and provides something in very short supply on the team (speed), and I do like Casas as a prospect, but in general I am against labeling any prospect as untouchable. It all depends on the return. I would have given up more if there was a chance of getting Scherzer, Bryant or Rizzo. If you could package Duran and Casas for Scherzer, I'd make that trade in a cocaine heartbeat.

In general I am fine with trading prospects of all sorts for quality major league players if the window for winning is now or soon. The Kopech/Moncada for Sale trade is the perfect example of this.
Duran and Casas sounds like a lot for a guy who is going to be a FA after the season, particularly when I think that would obviously improve the Sox but not necessarily make them the prohibitive favorite. But to each his own - understand your stance and it's not unreasonable. Depending on how you define "the window for winning is now or soon", I don't think this is a particularly sustainable model or to get to a place similar to where the Dodgers are (which I think we can agree made the Scherzer/Turner trade easier for them to absorb). Given the payroll, I suspect the Sox will have that window at least once every three or four years and if you're going to be sending out massive prospect capital every three or four years, your minor league system will be regularly depleted. But again, maybe that is fine in your view and I do understand some people's idea that some front offices (and fans and media) focus too much on the future rather than winning right now.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,431
But Bryant was acquired for no where near Casas/Duran level prospects. I think throwing Casas/Duran out there as a hypothetical skews the conversation. As I just mentioned in the trade thread, the Giants got Bryant for Canario (generally ranked in the low 100s for prospects) and Kilian (generally ranked around 300). Depending on which ranking you're looking at Casas and Duran are ranked in the top 25 both, or at minimum both in the top 100.
One thing to consider: the GM of the Giants who negotiated the Bryant trade was the Assistant GM of the Cubs last year. Unless the Sox blew the Giants' offer out of the water, I don't think the Cubs were going to screw over their buddy to send Bryant to the Sox.
 

manny

New Member
Jul 24, 2005
266
But Bryant was acquired for no where near Casas/Duran level prospects. I think throwing Casas/Duran out there as a hypothetical skews the conversation. As I just mentioned in the trade thread, the Giants got Bryant for Canario (generally ranked in the low 100s for prospects) and Kilian (generally ranked around 300). Depending on which ranking you're looking at Casas and Duran are ranked in the top 25 both, or at minimum both in the top 100.

I can see having a handful of untouchable prospects. Especially when your system is not flush. But Bloom could have made a move somewhere between what he did and giving up Casas/Duran ....EDIT: that still could have yielded a very valuable player.
I hear you on this--was not necessarily throwing out Casas/Duran as a package for Bryant, more so just trying to gauge how far SJH (and others with similar view) think Sox should have gone. It seems at least SJH thinks Sox should have been willing to trade pretty much any prospect if the return was right. I'm probably of the view that Casas and Duran should have been off limits but pretty much everyone else should have been available.

I know others have mentioned this, but maybe at the time the Sox traded for Schwarber (and were presumably evaluating Bryant), the price for Bryant was much higher. Not sure I buy it would have been much higher but that is a possibility and what makes evaluating this stuff so hard.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
The point is to win the World Series. Cash cost himself the World Series because he ignored what was actually happening on the field and went by his book, which is every bit as erroneous as Gump leaving Pedro out there too long.

The point isn't "pulling a pitcher third time through the lineup is always wrong." The point is that you cannot be a slave to a rigid managerial philosphy, just pushing buttons because your little magic book says so.
You've done this multiple times now, claiming that because a coach did something and the decision didn't work that the decision was clearly wrong, which is simply ridiculous. There's almost never a way to know if the decision was right or wrong because there are too many factors. If you put in your best reliever in a key spot and he throws a bad pitch and it turns into a home run why is that on the manager and not the pitcher? Or on the hitter because guys throw bad pitches every inning and they usually aren't hit out? What if Cash had brought a position player in to pitch and the guy got out of it, did he make the right decision or just get incredibly lucky? You have no idea what would have happened if he left Snell in, but it's pretty likely it would have had a worse expected outcome than going to the bullpen based on the numbers.

To look at it in a much simpler way, suppose I tell you the Red Sox are going to score 20 runs tonight and I'll bet $1000 on it, you tell me that's ridiculous, and then they happen to score 20. Did you make the wrong decision by making the bet? Of course not, you were going to win it 99.9% of the time and it happened to not work out. By your logic you blew it, you made a horrible decision and you deserve the blame.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Also we so rarely have a chance to see both sides of a decision, meaning someone makes a decision and we have no idea what would have happened if they had done something differently. In Snell's case, we did actually get to see both sides of the decision:

game 2 of the WS: Snell was dominating into the 5th, TB was winning 5-0. 17 batters into the game, he lost it, walk/HR/walk/single and pulled. TB won the game anyway, but mostly because they were up by 5 already.

game 6 of the WS: Snell was dominating into the 6th, TB was winning 1-0. This time the 18th batter singled and Cash had already seen this film so he pulled him. Anderson blew it but Cash made the right decision in pulling Snell, just the wrong choice of relievers (Anderson was burnt by being overused in the playoffs).

Anyway, the Snell situation is an awful example. This year Snell has a new team and new manager and still never pitches deep into games, because he's just not capable of it.

Edit: Snell has actually pitched into the 7th twice this year in 21 starts, both times against terrible lineups (Mets in June, D'Backs a couple days ago), I don't think that changes the point. He's only thrown 90+ pitches 4 times in those 21 starts, he is a 5 inning, 85-90 pitch guy and his managers know that better than anyone.
 
Last edited: