Openers and no closers: Can the Tampa Bay method work here?

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,726
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Again, for me the crux of this is an emotional issue. They traded Mookie. They had a horrible year last year, after a terrible disappointing 2019. They had to do something to get the fans back on their side, and in the first half they did exactly that. They looked to have a wonderful rebound year. But they seem strangely resigned to seeing that ebb away over the second half. Bloom and Cora don't seem to mind that they lost 10 games in the standings to Tampa in a single month. I simply don't understand the nonchalance. They deal with "Wait till next year" is that most of the time, next year never comes. The future is always brighter than the present, then it becomes the present and the can is kicked further down the road. We're seeing this happen in Seattle, where the M's are having a pretty good season but DiPoto seems content to bank on a future that perpetually remains 2 years away.
I want to break out some discussion because this has been on my mind for a very long time and it's worth discussion and getting other viewpoints.

The basic question is: Can the "Tampa Bay" method of team-building work elsewhere?

The Rays have achieved something incredible over the last 15 years or so. Despite having a microscopic payroll, little to no attendance at their games, and a tiny fanbase, they have put together 11 winning seasons over the last 14 years, winning 3 divisional titles and making the playoffs 6 times and the World Series twice. They have nearly no ability to re-sign their stars to larger second contracts and often trade their established players the moment they come close to getting bigger money. They have won by innovating extremely radical strategies: extreme use of the shift in both infield and outfield, employing an opener for many games before going to their bullpen, and more recently by rigid adherence to not allowing their starting pitchers to see a lineup for a third time. They have an extremely advanced analytic department, and frankly what they've accomplished is incredible and should be deeply admired. Many of their front office staff have since taken positions elsewhere in baseball and I'm sure owners LOVE the idea of winning 96 games a year on a $65 million payroll, so they're anxious to bring the TB method to their own teams. As we know Chaim Bloom was brought here from Tampa to be the GM.

At the same time, I am highly skeptical the Tampa Bay method will work elsewhere.

The Rays operate under unique circumstances that apply to no other franchise. Their attendance and fan base is so small that the front office can operate in a near-vacuum of observation, so if they decide to trade a good and popular player, they will receive almost no backlash or criticism for it. If they try an unusual strategy like an opener, they can do so in the comfort that really, no one in the area much cares, so if it fails it will be quickly forgotten. These are luxuries that other teams do not have. If the Rays trade a superstar because they can't or won't pay him, the reaction is a shrug. If another team trades a superstar (for the purposes of this exercise we'll call him Bookie Metts) instead of paying him, the reaction is a national backlash against the trading team and will include scorn and derision, fan backlash and attendence dropoffs and media rating declines. These are legitimate damages that most teams cannot well afford.

My hypothesis: The ability to make baseball moves without any sort of fan or media scrutiny is a major advantage for the Rays that no other team has, and thus attempts to replicate what they do will fail elsewhere without a significant change in actual baseball strategies.

Anyone as old as I am will remember when the Sox tried the Bill James-approved bullpen-by-committee experiment in 2003. In theory it's a fine idea. In reality, human psychology (players and managers prefer to have set roles) and fan and media reaction to any failures in the system (Opening Day 2003 was a disaster and it never worked all that well afterwards) prevented such an experiment from succeeding. Perhaps it would have failed anyway since the players weren't likely good enough, but in Boston such a quick setback to the idea quickly caused a firestorm and ended the experiment quickly. In Tampa, they can try that, or an opener, or radical shifts with impunity because the backlash simply isn't there to any real extent.

There's a ton of points to touch on here but I needed the brain dump to get the discussion started.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
It's been pointed out before, but I don't think the exact model of the Rays franchise is the goal (particularly the 96 wins a year on a $65M payroll thing). The idea is to bring in the Tampa model of analytics and farm/organization building to a big budget (96 wins a year on a $200M budget). In other words, the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Red Sox now are roughly at the stage where the Dodgers were in about 2014: cleaning up the financial messes of the previous admin (in the Dodgers case, it was wild spending that included the Punto trade) while building up what Theo Epstein once called a player development machine. The only thing the Dodgers had going for them then that the Sox don't now is a far weaker division so they got to do it while continuing to win the division year after year.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
Dodgers operate with a massive payroll, I’m not sure the Sox are prepared to go as high as the Dodgers have operate the past few years…that being said, I think the direction of the team in the next few years, before the pipeline of talent from the minors truly begins in earnest is this…..Is extending X and Devers (and Sale if he opts out) key to the teams future or is it likely to get them back into the same mess they are just getting out of?

That 14 Dodgers team is interesting- they finished first, won 94 games and their best offensive players were a 23 year old Puig, 30 year old SS Hanley Ramirez, and 32 year old Adrian Gonzalez.

The team has been really good ever since but Puig was the only guy making an impact on the 17 104 win team, and he was no better than the 5th best offensive player on that team- which was led by Bellinger and Seagar (both under 23), and journeyman Justin Turner (and a pitching staff where Kershaw was the only big $$$ player).

But even that 17 team had the highest payroll in baseball and spent close to 1/3 of it on Gonzalez, Crawford, Kazmir, and Ethier, who were all terrible or didn’t even play.

I guess the key thing is - develop or acquire a bunch of productive and inexpensive players and you can hide a lot of mistakes.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Dodgers operate with a massive payroll, I’m not sure the Sox are prepared to go as high as the Dodgers have operate the past few years...
Why? Note the Dodgers payroll in 2018 ($195M), 2019 ($204M), and 2020 (full year equivalent of $204M). That's below the luxury tax threshold for all three seasons. This year they are far exceeding even the highest threshold but can do so with the lightest possible penalties. They're likely to do it in 2022 but in 2023, the only significant salary obligation (presuming they get to dump the Bauer contract) is Betts. Everyone else is done or in arbitration by then. It's very likely they drop back below the penalty threshold (assuming there is one) at that point, just as the Sox did last year. Why in the world can't the Sox get themselves back to that point again? They're right up against the cap now so it's not like they're slashing payroll to Rays levels or even White Sox levels (roughly middle of the pack). The paranoia that the Red Sox aren't going to spend money like the big market team they are just baffles me.

I guess the key thing is - develop or acquire a bunch of productive and inexpensive players and you can hide a lot of mistakes.
It is. And that's obviously going to take time to get to where the Dodgers system currently is. Which is why I point out that the Sox are roughly 5-6 years behind where the Dodgers are right now in their timeline. The goal is to get there, though.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I'd be fine if the Sox went the bulk reliever route with 3 good starters but you need a deep system full of guys who are running out of time to make a rotation and not established big leaguers. The Sox seem to be close to that situation now.

If as examples, down the line they had guys like Winckowski, Houck, Groome, Seabold (if not a starter) in the pen going 2-3 innings twice a week instead of rolling the dice on them as starters, you can spend that money saved on offense and high premium relievers. Then you can make those deadline deals for the best pitcher available.

It'll be fascinating to see if Bloom flirts with top end pitching free agent talent or goes a different route.

Edit: To be clear, I'd still like the money spent, and believe it will be regardless, but I think they could be successful adopting some small market strategies.
 
Last edited:

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don't get this

___________________
Bloom and Cora don't seem to mind that they lost 10 games in the standings to Tampa in a single month. I simply don't understand the nonchalance. They deal with "Wait till next year" is that most of the time, next year never comes
______________________
Where do we see that they don't mind? Where are they saying Wait till next year?

Next year has come 4 times for the Sox in the past 17 years.it has come zero times for the Rays.

I would rather be a Sox fan this century than any other team.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
I think the Sox will spend (they will absolutely have to if they re-up X and Devers), but not sure if it will be at LA levels, or if it needs to be. Key thing in the next few years seems to be finding value in short term deals as they wait for prospects to develop; I guess the challenge in that, as we saw this year, is you’ve got a relatively unappealing group of players available to you on those kinds of deals and you’re bound to suffer through some Marwin Gonzalez type performances to get the Hunter Renfroe’s.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,044
I don't get this

___________________
Bloom and Cora don't seem to mind that they lost 10 games in the standings to Tampa in a single month. I simply don't understand the nonchalance. They deal with "Wait till next year" is that most of the time, next year never comes
______________________
Where do we see that they don't mind? Where are they saying Wait till next year?

Next year has come 4 times for the Sox in the past 17 years.it has come zero times for the Rays.

I would rather be a Sox fan this century than any other team.
Agreed on this. Rays won 31 of 42 since the ASB. 0.740 winning percentage. You will lose ground to a team that wins at that pace. If you have a 0.500 slump over that period, you will lose 10 games. Rays will win 100 games this year it looks like. Yankees will win ~95. It's tough division. I don't see nonchalance, I see a realization that division title was likely to be lost and a focus on having enough to get into the playoffs without giving up too much for the future.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,537
My hypothesis: The ability to make baseball moves without any sort of fan or media scrutiny is a major advantage for the Rays that no other team has, and thus attempts to replicate what they do will fail elsewhere without a significant change in actual baseball strategies.
If the Red Sox keep punting away seasons, they're going to find out what it's like to play baseball in a zip code that doesn't care about them. The Pats have already lapped the Sox, and depending on how well they do during their seasons, the Celts and the Bruins aren't too far behind. As a matter of fact last year, while all four teams were playing, the Red Sox were an absolute distant fourth. There was a time, even when Tom Brady was here, where the Red Sox were the undisputed favorite team of New England. Now, the year goes: August through January: Patriots talk, February: Pats talk, C's and B's talk, March, April and May: a little Sox talk, but more C's and B's talk now that they're in the playoffs, June and July: Sox talk but with a lot of Pats camp talk, B's and C's free agency.

John Henry and company are losing this region and city and they don't seem to care at all. I think that they're okay with that and have focused more on buying as much real estate in the Fenway as they can. And that's fine, they've been here for almost 20 pretty decent years. But if you're wondering why none of your casual sports friends are talking about the Red Sox, you should look at the ownership.

while building up what Theo Epstein once called a player development machine.
Literally every single team wants to do this. Every. Single. One. It makes money for the owners and it sells hope to the fans. "We may suck this year, but keep buying those $15 Sam Adams folks, we're going to be tremendous in 2025! Or 2026. Or 2027. Or sometime." It doesn't even matter the sport, this is the mantra you're going to get. What is Chaim doing that's going to set him apart from the other heads of baseball clubs? Building through the draft is not the novel, paradigm shaking philosophy that you think it is.

Next year has come 4 times for the Sox in the past 17 years.it has come zero times for the Rays.

I would rather be a Sox fan this century than any other team.
Great. I'm impressed with your concern for a billionaire's bottom line. Me? I'd rather John Henry spend his money like a long-lost Steinbrenner and have the Boston Red Sox employ awesome players and at least try to win every year. I know that you can't win every year, but you can at least give it an honest effort. BTW, you know that they finished last four times under Henry and company, right? And had such an epic collapse another year the future Hall of Fame manager and general manager quit and the manager (who guided the team to it's first World Championship since 1918) was figuratively tarred and feathered by the newspaper that the Sox team owner also owns.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,679
Miami (oh, Miami!)
They have won by innovating extremely radical strategies: extreme use of the shift in both infield and outfield, employing an opener for many games before going to their bullpen, and more recently by rigid adherence to not allowing their starting pitchers to see a lineup for a third time. They have an extremely advanced analytic department, and frankly what they've accomplished is incredible and should be deeply admired.

***
My hypothesis: The ability to make baseball moves without any sort of fan or media scrutiny is a major advantage for the Rays that no other team has, and thus attempts to replicate what they do will fail elsewhere without a significant change in actual baseball strategies.
I think there's a natural limit on what one can do with exploiting a strategy - other teams will begin to do the same. So, to the extent other teams can't do what TB does due to social pressure, such a thing can remain a TB niche.

I also think that truly getting a competitive edge (beyond massively outspending others) comes down to scouting paired with analytics.

Ideally you want to pick up Mookies - IDing players that are undervalued by whatever reason by other franchises, and acquiring them with the resources you have (a 5th round pick in his case.) It's too early to tell from the current drafts if they're doing something.

However, I do think we see an organizational shift in the Sox signing a bunch of guys with high spin rate (but they eventually found that this was an advantage that could be nullified by the league/the rules.)

For whatever reason they also signed a bunch of utility or multiple position guys - E.Hernandez, Marwin, Santana. Maybe that was a bridge strategy, a bunch of lottery cards, or an attempt to exploit something they identified. If the last, they failed, either in concept of execution.

In terms of broad trends (like the Ray's shifting), the 2021 Sox feature aggressive swinging, and non-stealing. Some of that might be individual player profiles, and some of that may be an organizational philosophy. On the pitching side they're generally trading hits and walks for Ks, and coming out about league average. Again - could be the signings and/or the coaching.

Overall, I'd say there's been no clear stride forward. 2020 is a bit under-rated I think, when it comes to evaluating Bloom. It was a weirdo punt year and they could sign/trade for whatever marginal/undervalued guys they wanted and try to unleash their potential.
Here's the B-ref transaction page from Nov. 2019 through 2020.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2020-transactions.shtml

Not all of those should work out by a long shot. Tire kicking is totally normal.

There are some decent signings, but also a lot of meh in there. We've held onto a bunch of it too, some as organizational depth we're using now.

So do they have an insight that translates into acquiring ML talent?
 

GB5

New Member
Aug 26, 2013
675
I think the theory that with essentially no fan base, they have free liberty to do whatever they want in terms of experiments and nobody cares, is certainly a luxury that the RS will not have. In my estimation, one of the greatest accomplishments that the Rays have pulled off involves nobody caring. True there is no fanbase backlash when they trade their best players year after year. the fact that they have been able to do so without the onfield personnel, or the manger shutting down has been an astounding accomplishment. These players are human, they care about things, and accomplishments and winning. When you continue to trade your best players it unfortunately sends a message to the players that you are not about winning. We have spent five lifetimes worth of bandwith in the last month analyzing whether the RS players essentially quit after Chaim didnt support them at the deadline. How has this happened to Tampa with almost no drop off in the on field product? The Sox traded Mookie, and granted it was a Covid year but they were on their way to a 100 loss season, and it didnt seem as fun. These players miss things when taken from them and it affects their performance. Most thought Devers missed Cora last year, and JD missed his video machine. How is it that the Rays are insulated from this when they are losing big things constantly?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Boston's high water mark in the division was at the end of the day on July 5. At that point they were 4.5 games up on Tampa, at 54-32 (.628). Since then:

Boston has gone 22-27 (.449)
Tampa has gone 35-13 (.729) - including going 7-2 against Boston

So let's say Boston had gone 4-5 (instead of 2-7) against Tampa, and had gone 26-23 (.531) over their last 49. Tampa would then have gone 33-15 (.688) over that same stretch and would still have picked up 7.5 games on Boston.

That would have put Tampa up 3.0 in the division. A far cry from the 9.0 lead they have now, but still, it would have been a massive reversal over near 50-game stretch.

Long story short: Boston has played poorly since that high water mark. But not *EPICALLY* badly. But it's coincided with Tampa playing out of their minds over nearly a third of the season (their .729 mark would project to 118 wins over 162 games, just for reference). So it makes Boston's bad stretch seem exponentially worse.
 

bringbackburks

New Member
Jul 21, 2005
69
I think the overall thesis of the first post is true; Tampa definitely derives an advantage from a lack of external pressure that allows more freedom to experiment. I don't think this is an advantage unique to Tamp per se, but rather that their history as an expansion team and atrocious first ten years of existence have come together to elevate it above what most everyone else could realize. Because they were almost never never successful in the beginning of their existence as a franchise, fans were used to losing. Then, when they found success with this method, there was never going to be a reason to question it even in down years. But it's important to remember that Tamp hasn't had any prolonged periods of bad teams recently. Would they have the conviction to ride out 3 or 4 last place finishes in a row? Probably, but they haven't had to yet.
I think this type of advantage is in the same vein as the Astros early 2010's tanking. Houston had the same flexibility to shut it down without feeling the pressure to build a winning team more quickly.

The Rays just seem to have taken the same approach, applied it across the board and, because the front office is obviously talented, found success.

The other part of the Rays system is revenue-sharing. A high-value, guaranteed revenue stream that is not directly dependent on local fan interest further removes baseball decisions from external pressure.

Could the Tampa approach (trading stars early in career, atypical analytic based strategy, etc.) work for Boston? I'd like to say yes, if it was implemented gradually by a talented front office. But the history of the last 40 years tells me that the neither the fanbase or ownership has the stomach (or disinterest) to weather multiple bad outcomes and losing seasons.
 
Last edited:

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,401
Overland Park, KS
Agreed on this. Rays won 31 of 42 since the ASB. 0.740 winning percentage. You will lose ground to a team that wins at that pace. If you have a 0.500 slump over that period, you will lose 10 games. Rays will win 100 games this year it looks like. Yankees will win ~95. It's tough division. I don't see nonchalance, I see a realization that division title was likely to be lost and a focus on having enough to get into the playoffs without giving up too much for the future.
If Chaim is going to listen to the fans and media in order to make decisions, the Sox should fire him now. This Red Sox team played really well in the first half. The bullpen was not going to be great all year and the starters have not been that good. This is a very mediocre pitching staff and a top-five offense. The defense is atrocious, have you ever seen a team that is this terrible defensively at first base?

I cannot for the life of me understand how this Rays team leads MLB in runs scored, it's a tribute to them but it really feels strange. Their team OPS is 0.741, the Sox team OPS is 0.769 and yet they have scored 34 more runs than the Sox and have played 2 fewer games. WTF?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,726
Deep inside Muppet Labs
If Chaim is going to listen to the fans and media in order to make decisions, the Sox should fire him now. This Red Sox team played really well in the first half. The bullpen was not going to be great all year and the starters have not been that good. This is a very mediocre pitching staff and a top-five offense. The defense is atrocious, have you ever seen a team that is this terrible defensively at first base?

I cannot for the life of me understand how this Rays team leads MLB in runs scored, it's a tribute to them but it really feels strange. Their team OPS is 0.741, the Sox team OPS is 0.769 and yet they have scored 34 more runs than the Sox and have played 2 fewer games. WTF?
Their team OPS+ is 111. The Sox' is 104. Their walk rate is much higher than the Sox'. They take the extra base far more often than the Sox (48% vs 42%). They've also managed to hit in the clutch much better and more reliably as they lead the league in WPA by a fair bit.

It's numerous small advantages that add up to a big one overall.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,401
Overland Park, KS
Their team OPS+ is 111. The Sox' is 104. Their walk rate is much higher than the Sox'. They take the extra base far more often than the Sox (48% vs 42%). They've also managed to hit in the clutch much better and more reliably as they lead the league in WPA by a fair bit.

It's numerous small advantages that add up to a big one overall.
I agree on the walk rate and they run better than the Sox but this lineup should not be outproducing Houston and the Dodgers, as well. It's kind of shocking, besides Franco does anyone in this lineup scare you? I give them credit, it definitely is a team that is more than the sum of its parts. I guess they just don't pass the eye test for me but they get it done on the margins.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,679
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Their team OPS+ is 111. The Sox' is 104. Their walk rate is much higher than the Sox'. They take the extra base far more often than the Sox (48% vs 42%). They've also managed to hit in the clutch much better and more reliably as they lead the league in WPA by a fair bit.

It's numerous small advantages that add up to a big one overall.
It's interesting how similar the teams are offensively in some ways. For example, neither bunts.

To SJH's list I'd add that they PH more than we do and have done very well in those situations (79 AB, .823 OPS).

We're at 49 AB .596 OPS.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,679
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I agree on the walk rate and they run better than the Sox but this lineup should not be outproducing Houston and the Dodgers, as well. It's kind of shocking, besides Franco does anyone in this lineup scare you? I give them credit, it definitely is a team that is more than the sum of its parts. I guess they just don't pass the eye test for me but they get it done on the margins.
They do matchups well. In terms of the % of their PAs with a platoon advantage, BR says they're #2 in the league at 62%. League average is 53% and the Sox are 10th at 51%.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Great. I'm impressed with your concern for a billionaire's bottom line. Me? I'd rather John Henry spend his money like a long-lost Steinbrenner and have the Boston Red Sox employ awesome players and at least try to win every year. I know that you can't win every year, but you can at least give it an honest effort. BTW, you know that they finished last four times under Henry and company, right? And had such an epic collapse another year the future Hall of Fame manager and general manager quit and the manager (who guided the team to it's first World Championship since 1918) was figuratively tarred and feathered by the newspaper that the Sox team owner also owns.
I don't think I expressed any concern about the bottom line. And I will take 4 championships and 17 last place finishes vs. what the Ray's have done the past 21 years. 2nd place brings me no joy. The Sox were like that from 1975 to 2003 and that wasn't nearly as much fun as the time since then was.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
The Sox still have one of the top payrolls in the league. There is no reason to think they won't continue to have one of the top payrolls in the league. What team wouldn't want to try to copy the Rays ability to get value for cheap when you can combine that with the ability to keep that talent you found when it gets not so cheap?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,537
The Sox still have one of the top payrolls in the league. There is no reason to think they won't continue to have one of the top payrolls in the league. What team wouldn't want to try to copy the Rays ability to get value for cheap when you can combine that with the ability to keep that talent you found when it gets not so cheap?
Because every single team is doing this. This isn't some super secret plan that only the Rays are doing. The Yankees are doing this*. The Pirates are doing this. The Giants are doing this. Who isn't doing this, should be the question.

Every single team wants to win on the cheap with young, cost-controlled players. I mean, c'mon, this isn't like Chaim Bloom or the Rays FO found the treasure at the bottom of Oak Island. When they say this, the next words should be "So what". This is not a plan, much like getting on base to score runs is not really a plan. Or scoring more than the other team is a plan.

This is something you say to a bunch of hillbilly rubes to make them think you're smart.

* Just the batting order: Sanchez makes $6.3M, Voight makes $4.7M, Torres makes $4M, Urshela makes $4.65M, Andujar makes $617K (60-day IL), Gardner $4M, Gallo $6.2M and there's more. There's essentially a salary cap in MLB, so building a cheap team without going over the CBT is incredibly important.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,671
From a financial standpoint; I think the Red Sox are in a different place than a lot of franchises in the sense that from an attendance POV, they are relatively bullet-proof thanks to the successful commercialization of Fenway Park and turning it into a tourist trap. We've seen that the team doesn't have to be particularly good to get people coming to the ballpark.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Because every single team is doing this. This isn't some super secret plan that only the Rays are doing. The Yankees are doing this*. The Pirates are doing this. The Giants are doing this. Who isn't doing this, should be the question.

Every single team wants to win on the cheap with young, cost-controlled players. I mean, c'mon, this isn't like Chaim Bloom or the Rays FO found the treasure at the bottom of Oak Island. When they say this, the next words should be "So what". This is not a plan, much like getting on base to score runs is not really a plan. Or scoring more than the other team is a plan.
Clearly, every team isn't doing it though, because there are plenty of teams that don't spend and also haven't had 25% of the success the Rays have had. So the Rays must be doing something right identifying value that other teams aren't doing. The Pirates haven't won more than 82 games since 2015 and have been dreadful for 3 years, so they don't seem to be doing whatever the Rays are doing to compete most seasons.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,537
Clearly, every team isn't doing it though, because there are plenty of teams that don't spend and also haven't had 25% of the success the Rays have had. So the Rays must be doing something right identifying value that other teams aren't doing. The Pirates haven't won more than 82 games since 2015 and have been dreadful for 3 years, so they don't seem to be doing whatever the Rays are doing to compete most seasons.
You might be right, it would appear that the Rays are doing something different, but what is it? It's not just win with cheap value, like a lot of people in this thread say, because all teams are trying to do this--to varying degrees of success. If we turn this back 20 years, the A's famously used their Moneyball strategy of finding overlooked players to win.

Looking through the Rays roster, Tampa has seven players taken in the first six rounds of the draft, including four taken in the first round. Most of their players seem to be international signings. Maybe that's how they're doing it, heavily scouting the Caribbean and finding players that way. IDK. (Kiermaier and Kittredge are extreme late round picks who are helping the club).

* I am not an expert on the Rays roster, so this is all cursory research on baseball-ref.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
913
My hypothesis: The ability to make baseball moves without any sort of fan or media scrutiny is a major advantage for the Rays that no other team has, and thus attempts to replicate what they do will fail elsewhere without a significant change in actual baseball strategies.
I agree that Tampa is a unique market and the lack of scrutiny by fans or media is likely an advantage in that the Ray's front office can do unusual things (using openers) or controversial things (trading their best players) without much pushback or second guessing. But I don't see evidence of Bloom implementing any controversial or unusual strategies in Boston. To the extent that Boston is attempting to replicate Tampa's success, it would seem the goal is to do a better job of identifying talent in order to create depth throughout the system. While Tampa does this exceptionally well, the goal is not a unique one. I suspect Boston also might incorporate the use of additional analytics. But I don't anticipate experimental strategies, regularly trading star players, or anything other than a big payroll. As has been said elsewhere, I think the Sox approach will look more like the Dodgers than Tampa.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
913
Semi related: I find it amazing that players seem to enjoy playing in Tampa.

https://theathletic.com/2657763/2021/06/22/the-tampa-bay-rays-player-centric-ruthless-paradox-you-cant-knock-it-because-they-win/


Here's Colin McHugh's perspective, which is echoed by several other players (in particular Blake Snell):

Upon arrival, McHugh decided his perceptions were wrong. The atmosphere wasn’t cold. “It’s just very chill,” he says. Cash kept things loose. The players felt pride that a team like Tampa Bay believed in them. They understood the score. They were there for a good time, not a long time.
“Nobody knows how long they’re going to be here, or what they’re going to be here for, or if they’re going to get traded or whatever the case is,” McHugh says. “But while you are here, you’re treated like they want you here. You’re supposed to be here. You’re not an afterthought.”
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
From a financial standpoint; I think the Red Sox are in a different place than a lot of franchises in the sense that from an attendance POV, they are relatively bullet-proof thanks to the successful commercialization of Fenway Park and turning it into a tourist trap. We've seen that the team doesn't have to be particularly good to get people coming to the ballpark.
Attendance this year has been mixed. Yes, Covid, but NYY games were full. But you can still buy good Mets tix.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
To answer the OP, of course it can work here. It can work anywhere. It's a system that has shown that it can work, but like any system that has proved successful, you have to have the right personnel. That's the difficult part. Also, middle/long relief types typically don't get paid like starters or closers and established starters aren't looking to get paid like middle/long relievers. I think you might see more teams experiment with bullpen games or openers on a limited basis, but I think few will opt to go to the extent that we saw in Tampa.
 

jaytftwofive

New Member
Jan 20, 2013
1,182
Drexel Hill Pa.
I have said it before, it's amazing what they have done with a low payroll. Certainly a model franchise that relies on their farm system and smart trades.
 
Last edited:

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
You might be right, it would appear that the Rays are doing something different, but what is it? It's not just win with cheap value, like a lot of people in this thread say, because all teams are trying to do this--to varying degrees of success. If we turn this back 20 years, the A's famously used their Moneyball strategy of finding overlooked players to win.
It starts with being way better at the bullpen than any other team, and helps that they can do that for cheap. Whether it's identifying potential, coaching, or how they deploy them I'm not sure, but they're consistently one of the best bullpen teams every year, and that isn't even factoring in that that they also throw so many more innings than other teams because of how they use openers. They've been top 3 in bullpen era each of the last 3 years.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,915
Salem, NH
It's been pointed out before, but I don't think the exact model of the Rays franchise is the goal (particularly the 96 wins a year on a $65M payroll thing). The idea is to bring in the Tampa model of analytics and farm/organization building to a big budget (96 wins a year on a $200M budget). In other words, the Los Angeles Dodgers.
Probably a nitpick, but if they can emulate the Rays model and build a 96 win team for $65M, then the Red Sox should do it. But don’t stop there. Use the remaining $135M per season to turn that 96 win team into a juggernaut.

Imagine if the Rays could add Gerrit Cole, Freddie Freeman, Xander Bogaerts and Jacob DeGrom? Or whatever random four players would suit them.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Probably a nitpick, but if they can emulate the Rays model and build a 96 win team for $65M, then the Red Sox should do it. But don’t stop there. Use the remaining $135M per season to turn that 96 win team into a juggernaut.

Imagine if the Rays could add Gerrit Cole, Freddie Freeman, Xander Bogaerts and Jacob DeGrom? Or whatever random four players would suit them.
In other words, the Dodgers model.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,479
Rogers Park
It's been pointed out before, but I don't think the exact model of the Rays franchise is the goal (particularly the 96 wins a year on a $65M payroll thing). The idea is to bring in the Tampa model of analytics and farm/organization building to a big budget (96 wins a year on a $200M budget). In other words, the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Red Sox now are roughly at the stage where the Dodgers were in about 2014: cleaning up the financial messes of the previous admin (in the Dodgers case, it was wild spending that included the Punto trade) while building up what Theo Epstein once called a player development machine. The only thing the Dodgers had going for them then that the Sox don't now is a far weaker division so they got to do it while continuing to win the division year after year.
Probably a nitpick, but if they can emulate the Rays model and build a 96 win team for $65M, then the Red Sox should do it. But don’t stop there. Use the remaining $135M per season to turn that 96 win team into a juggernaut.

Imagine if the Rays could add Gerrit Cole, Freddie Freeman, Xander Bogaerts and Jacob DeGrom? Or whatever random four players would suit them.
Yeah, that's the Dodgers. Red(s)HawksFan's characterization of LA as 96 wins on $200m budget sells them short.

The Dodgers are already at 85 wins this season, tied with the Giants for best in baseball. They will cruise past 96, barring an implosion.
Last year's Dodgers won at a 116 win pace, but that was 43 wins in a 60 game season.
2019, was 106.
2018 was only 92 (out of 163).
2017 was 104.

Before that, it's safe to say the battle station was not yet fully operational, and they were merely good.

Over the last five seasons, the Dodgers have played at a .631 winning percentage, which is a 102-60 record in a 162 game season. They also have one World Series title, three National League pennants, and one NLDS loss to the eventual championship. I'd have them as World Series favorites as of today, and Fangraphs' playoff odds agrees.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
I'd rather John Henry spend his money like a long-lost Steinbrenner and have the Boston Red Sox employ awesome players and at least try to win every year. I know that you can't win every year, but you can at least give it an honest effort. BTW, you know that they finished last four times under Henry and company, right? And had such an epic collapse another year the future Hall of Fame manager and general manager quit and the manager (who guided the team to it's first World Championship since 1918) was figuratively tarred and feathered by the newspaper that the Sox team owner also owns.
The problem is if a team tries to win every year it might not win at all. From a talent acquisition standpoint, it's way better to finish 1st one year and last the next then to finish 2nd and 3rd those two years.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,316
If the Red Sox keep punting away seasons, they're going to find out what it's like to play baseball in a zip code that doesn't care about them. The Pats have already lapped the Sox, and depending on how well they do during their seasons, the Celts and the Bruins aren't too far behind. As a matter of fact last year, while all four teams were playing, the Red Sox were an absolute distant fourth. There was a time, even when Tom Brady was here, where the Red Sox were the undisputed favorite team of New England. Now, the year goes: August through January: Patriots talk, February: Pats talk, C's and B's talk, March, April and May: a little Sox talk, but more C's and B's talk now that they're in the playoffs, June and July: Sox talk but with a lot of Pats camp talk, B's and C's free agency.

John Henry and company are losing this region and city and they don't seem to care at all. I think that they're okay with that and have focused more on buying as much real estate in the Fenway as they can. And that's fine, they've been here for almost 20 pretty decent years. But if you're wondering why none of your casual sports friends are talking about the Red Sox, you should look at the ownership.



Literally every single team wants to do this. Every. Single. One. It makes money for the owners and it sells hope to the fans. "We may suck this year, but keep buying those $15 Sam Adams folks, we're going to be tremendous in 2025! Or 2026. Or 2027. Or sometime." It doesn't even matter the sport, this is the mantra you're going to get. What is Chaim doing that's going to set him apart from the other heads of baseball clubs? Building through the draft is not the novel, paradigm shaking philosophy that you think it is.



Great. I'm impressed with your concern for a billionaire's bottom line. Me? I'd rather John Henry spend his money like a long-lost Steinbrenner and have the Boston Red Sox employ awesome players and at least try to win every year. I know that you can't win every year, but you can at least give it an honest effort. BTW, you know that they finished last four times under Henry and company, right? And had such an epic collapse another year the future Hall of Fame manager and general manager quit and the manager (who guided the team to it's first World Championship since 1918) was figuratively tarred and feathered by the newspaper that the Sox team owner also owns.
What are we even doing here? This is spectacularly unfair and misleading.

The Red Sox finished first in 2016. The Red Sox finished first in 2017. The Red Sox finished first in 2018 and won the World Series with perhaps their greatest team ever. The team reinvested in the championship team for 2019, were among the clear favorites to win again, and instead underperformed miserably and finished third in their division. For the 2020 season, Chris Sale was lost to TJ surgery, Eduardo Rodriguez was lost to a covid-related heart condition, the manager was fired for conduct from before he joined the Sox, and JD Martinez and Rafael Devers were terrible.The Sox did not invest in that team and entered into a rebuild with a new of baseball operations. Heading into 2021, the team made a number of small bets that most people around here agreed would allow the Sox to play respectable ball while perhaps competing for the wild card, and while continuing to build toward sustainable excellence for the long haul. The team has played respectable ball and is competing for a wild card.

As for Francona and his figurative tar and feathering in the newspaper that John Henry owns, Francona left the Red Sox at the end of September 2011. John Henry agreed to purchase the Globe in August of 2013, and completed the sale in October of that year.