Broken Records

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Choo got $130 million and has thrown up a 108 OPS+ for Texas this year. That's way off from his previous numbers and isn't promising from a 31 year old OFer with 6 more years to go on the deal and who'll be making $21 million in his age 39 season. And his defense is supposedly beyond awful and has graded out that way for years. If he hit for Texas the way he did for Cincy and Cleveland, the contract's not so bad, but since all of his value is with the stick I'd say so far it's an early candidate for the Contract of Regret.
It's one season. Players have ups and downs all the time, even, nee especially, young players. Overly weighting a down year from a youngish veteran was the reasoning the Red Sox used when they declared that Scott Cooper was better than Wade Boggs, and that Jeff Suppan was going to replace Roger Clemens as the staff ace for 1997.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
It's one season. Players have ups and downs all the time, even, nee especially, young players. Overly weighting a down year from a youngish veteran was the reasoning the Red Sox used when they declared that Scott Cooper was better than Wade Boggs, and that Jeff Suppan was going to replace Roger Clemens as the staff ace for 1997.
You're the guy declaring Cruz a PED case and now you're lamenting the departure of Roger Fucking Clemens? 
 
You're priceless. Don't ever change.
 
Anyway. A one-dimensional 31 year old player crashing on his offensive statistics immediately after signing a new deal for a team playing in a launching pad strikes me as a pretty horrible sign for contract value in the near and later future.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
If they want Choo's overall production at that price they can just take back Crawford via salary dump.  At least his contract winds off sooner.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
Plympton91 said:
That's an interesting list of potential options, but I guess I see substantially greater downsides in production, lower expected production, and a high prospect cost in any of the trades.

The Cubans are much more likely to be JC Linares or Dayan Viciedo than Yoenis Cespedes or Abreu, yet they'll cost as much as a mid-tier free agent.

The most attractive mid-tier free agents you listed are PED guys, I just don't buy that Nelson Cruz is doing what he's doing as a clean ballplayer. He wasn't ever caught by the testing, so he's probably still doing whatever it was he was doing in the first place, but with a more discrete supplier this time. Once he gets a long-term contract, he'll stop using the drugs and go back to being a guy with average power and below average plate disciple, essentially Jonny Gomes. Coby Rasmus is a total tease, whose inconsistency would be maddening on a 3 year $39 million commitment or perhaps even higher as some team still pays for promise rather than performance. Aoki can't hit, Cuddyer, Cargo, and Dickerson come with the Coors factor, and the reason the Orioles are unlikely to pick up Markakis' option would be that he was awful for 2 years prior to this one and they would know more than others how much weight to put on each in calculating the the three-year average production.

I don't see the Cards as willing to trade Craig for what you're suggesting; they'd probably want at least Marrero, who'd allow them to move Peralta to 3B and Carpenter back to 2B, and one of the righthanded pitchers from AAA.

I still say Ellsbury or Choo was where to spend the money in the outfield for the next 6 years, and then fill in around that with the propsects the Sox have in their own system. To me, at this point, the best option is to keep the Nava/Gomes platoon while you figure out who among Betts, Middlebrooks, and Cecchini can play the best outfield corners, and whether Bradley can hit.
 
There are other options out there.  Old friend Brandon Moss is going to start to get pretty expensive next year for the A's.  Same for Matt Joyce in Tampa.  Washington might decline Denard Span's option or just trade him with only one year left after this season.  Will Venable has had a bad/unlucky year at the plate but is likely still a pretty good player who could be had for an affordable price.
 
There's also blocked prospects like Joc Pederson in LA who we could use our pitching surplus to trade for.  Prospect for prospect swaps aren't common but I don't see an easy way for LAD to open up roster space for him.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
Plympton91 said:
It's one season. Players have ups and downs all the time, even, nee especially, young players. Overly weighting a down year from a youngish veteran was the reasoning the Red Sox used when they declared that Scott Cooper was better than Wade Boggs, and that Jeff Suppan was going to replace Roger Clemens as the staff ace for 1997.
 
His walk rate is down, his K rate is up, his LD% is down.  I'd say those are all concerns, though certainly not enough yet to say he's got a fork in his back or anything.  The fact is, to be worth anything close to what he was paid, he needed to be an elite hitter basically every year of his deal, because he's an awful defender by any metric/scout and his baserunning skills will decline over time.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,613
Row 14
Plympton91 said:
Ellsbury's continued power outage leaves him not quite an all-star by ESPN's offensive WAR rankings, but still the 11th best offensive value outfielder in the AL and the 4th best offensive value CF in the AL.

I focus on offensive WAR because that is a validated and confidence inducing stat. You could include defensive WAR, but to do so would require believing that both Jacoby Ellsbury and Brett Gardner suddenly became borderline league average defensive outfielders this season, when they just happen to be covering the same ground in Yankee Stadium's expansive LCF. Sure.. Uh huh... Yeah... right.

I say this not to argue that the Red Sox should have resigned Ellsbury, but to further the point that there just aren't a whole heck of a lot of good outfielders these days, certainly not ones who are readily available to put into the Red Sox lineup in 2015. As any economist will tell you, when supply is constrained, the price will go up. It sort of puts in new perspective for me a rationale for the Yankees spending spree on outfielders, including the Gardner extension, last offseason. They saw a market with a scarce commodity and tried to corner it. Whether that ends up being smart remains to be seen.
 
Have you watched him in NY?  He really isn't that good defensively.  He still has a tough times on reads off the bat and his arm is not even decent.
 
His main value is on the base paths.  To be honest he looks like Carl Crawford out there with more poise less effort.
 
Edit - I am not sure why you keep advocating Carl Crawford 2.0
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
jscola85 said:
 
Well, I think it is safe to say we've had below-average hitters out there for long stretches as well - ie, Sizemore, Bradley, playing Gomes so much vs. RHPs, Pierzynski, etc.  It's not out of the question that the true talent of this team offensively is below-average, meaning our BABIP (even adjusted for Fenway) should be somewhere around .300.
 
Even if we got to .315, that's still ~15 points below last year.
 
One area that should definitely regress in our favor is RISP.  We're hitting .228 with RISP vs. .278 last year, and that .228 average is 13 points worse than our .241 overall average.  So even if we don't improve BABIP, simply getting better luck in the timing of our hits should improve our scoring.
 
Why do people keep saying this?
 
Gomes vs. RHP in 2013: 176 PAs (48% of total PAs)
Gomes vs. RHP in 2014: 94 PAs (48% of total PAs), so on pace for 181 PAs
 
I realize it's a small part of your larger point but it seems to be talked about a lot here with no numbers to support it.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
Ok that's a more reasonable point, but we're talking about 94 PAs.  Last year his BABIP vs. RHP was .318.  This year it's .234.  His batted ball numbers are almost identical.  So we're really talking about a higher K rate over 94 PAs.
 

caminante11

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
3,089
Brooklyn, NY
Last season Gomes overperformed against RHP and underperformed aganst LHP especially early in the year.  This year's split is more normal.  Thankfully, he has not started much against RHP since Brock Holt!! and the return of Nava.
 
The big platooning issue is at catcher where there always seems to be a reason to do the opposite.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
Plympton91 said:
As any economist will tell you, when supply is constrained, the price will go up. 
 
I'm not an economist, but in that scenario it seems like you should focus on developing cheaper options, and try to avoid overpaying in a seller's market.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
caminante11 said:
Last season Gomes overperformed against RHP and underperformed aganst LHP especially early in the year.  This year's split is more normal. 
 
There's nothing remotely "normal" for Gomes about a .513 OPS vs. RHP; his career number is .724. Last year's platoon split of .050 was unusually small for him, yes, but it was still closer to his career average (.155) than this year's is (.357).
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
Plympton91 said:
That's an interesting list of potential options, but I guess I see substantially greater downsides in production, lower expected production, and a high prospect cost in any of the trades.
The Cubans are much more likely to be JC Linares or Dayan Viciedo than Yoenis Cespedes or Abreu, yet they'll cost as much as a mid-tier free agent.
Why? Tomas is the exact type of player this team needs, a corner outfielder with power. How can you be so sure he's going to be a disappointment? It's obviously not set in stone whether he performs or not, but why throw out the option of trying him out? It's only going to cost money and he's blocked by no one.

You also keep stating that there aren't many good outfielders. Then this kid has a pretty low bar to clear to get into the upper tier.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Regarding Abreu, I wonder what happened there. If the Red Sox saw him as a legitimate power hitting first baseman middle of the order bat, then he would presumably be worth more than the $11Million AAV he signed for. If they didn't, why bid at all? In other words, if they evaluated him as the real deal, go get him; if not, stay out of it altogether. They sort of did a value bid, which just seems weird. What am I missing?
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
1,242
Herndon, VA
The timing of when he became available. World Series, in the middle of Napoli's hitting streak, rather than during the normal FA market. It's a tricky time to evaluate team needs while playing for a World Series while other teams are well into offseason preparations.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
caminante11 said:
Last season Gomes overperformed against RHP and underperformed aganst LHP especially early in the year.  This year's split is more normal.  Thankfully, he has not started much against RHP since Brock Holt!! and the return of Nava.
 
The big platooning issue is at catcher where there always seems to be a reason to do the opposite.
I think that is the reason why people are under the impression that Gomes and Nava are offline in their platoon advantage ABs, because they were for the first month or two of the season until Holt effectively replaced Victorino as the everyday starting OF and the platoon was able to be reestablished.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
kieckeredinthehead said:
 
I'm not an economist, but in that scenario it seems like you should focus on developing cheaper options, and try to avoid overpaying in a seller's market.
Depends on your utility function. If you're willing to piss away a year or three of contention in the process, a period in which your top two power threats and star closer are aging, and your #1 starter may leave, then sure go for it. Your soccer team and race car drivers may appreciate the extra attention and resources for a while.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Being cheap for sure has zero to do with what's happened to the Red Sox in 2014.  Jesus, they're like number 4 in payroll and gave Drew $10MM 6 weeks ago.  So soccer team and race car driver doesn't apply.  If we're talking about future years, then Lester leaving doesn't apply.  That rant makes no sense. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Stitch01 said:
Being cheap for sure has zero to do with what's happened to the Red Sox in 2014.  Jesus, they're like number 4 in payroll and gave Drew $10MM 6 weeks ago.  So soccer team and race car driver doesn't apply.  If we're talking about future years, then Lester leaving doesn't apply.  That rant makes no sense. 
If they're going to spend a whole bunch next offseason on players who aren't as good as the players available last offseason just because it would have caused a one year blip in the payroll structure, that's not optimal planning. If they're not planning to spend a whole bunch next offseason then they're going to have a team full of rookies and rejects that is highly likely to be uncompetitive again. I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to understand. Next year's free agents either suck, or require giving up a draft pick. There's no point in spending money on former, and the team has shown no interest in spending on the latter.

One way I hope they spend money rather soon is by locking up Andrew Miller for a bunch of years at a discount to the closer rates he'll probably be hoping for.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I don't see a lot of performance from the multi-year '13 free agent class that cant be replicated even by a crappy '14 class.  Cano has been good, obvious non-starter.  Napoli has been good, the Sox paid up and kept him.  Nelson Cruz has been good, but you hate that option.  Tanaka is looking like an awesome gamble. Davis might have been helpful, but his defense sucks and he wanted playing time and he just would have replaced Sizemore's salary slot so its not really a budgetary thing.  Young sucked.    Granderson has been OK.  Kazmir has been good, not sure the Sox should have been in the market for another mid-rotation type starter this offseason (open to counterarguments here). Who else am I missing?  Choo has been awful and the contract looks bad and Ellsbury has been meh at best.  Offering Drew a multi-year deal to get him in for the full season would look awful right now.  You can argue that they didn't plan optimally and should have signed one of those two players, but performance isn't really on your side right now. 
 
Basically 90% of the roster is underperforming expectations so the team sucks.  I don't think the front office had a great offseason (personally, the only move I hated at the time was not QOng Salty and signing AJP.  I thought the rest of the deals were reasonable but they basically whiffed on all of them YMMV), but sure seems like misses were picking the wrong player rather than a reluctance to spend money.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Plympton91 said:
[Broken Record]

Part of the reason they've gotten no production out of LF and RF is that they have no outfield depth, and a reason they have no outfield depth is that they replaced Jacoby Ellsbury with Grady Sizemore. Even if Ellsbury was too expensive for their taste, they should have acquired a proven major league CF and left Bradley on the Pawtucket shuttle.

[/Broken Record]
 Your premise is absurd. Did you actually read out loud what you wrote? You are arguing that replacing Ellsbury with a proven centerfielder will make Nava (.591 OPS in 2014; .830 OPS in 2013; ~25 percent lower OPS in 2014), and Gomes (.696 OPS in 2014; .770 OPS in 2013; ~10 percent lower OPS in 2014) hit better. Please don't make the specious argument that both have been platooned less this season+, because no such thing has occurred; Nava has faced 110/31 righties/lefties this season, and 339/119 last season. Gomes has faced 82/84 righties/lefties this season, and 151/161 last season. How would replacing Ellsbury with a proven centerfielder will have kept Victorino healthy this season? The only reason sizemore got considerable playing time was because of a) an excellent spring training, and b) Victorino got hurt; if the same thing happened to Victorino last season we would have had the same problem of "depth" that you allude to right now. Therefore, even had we had Ellsbury 2.0, the lack of production out of RF and LF would be garbage.

By your logic, replacing Will Middlebrooks with a proven third basemen in the offseason, or signing an average/above-average shortstop and moving Xander to third, will make Dustin Pedroia hit better in 2015. Why? Because infield depth, that's why.

Also, didn't mean for an entire thread to get started because of my snarky comment. Sorry about that.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
EricFeczko said:
 Your premise is absurd. Did you actually read out loud what you wrote? You are arguing that replacing Ellsbury with a proven centerfielder will make Nava (.591 OPS in 2014; .830 OPS in 2013; ~25 percent lower OPS in 2014), and Gomes (.696 OPS in 2014; .770 OPS in 2013; ~10 percent lower OPS in 2014) hit better. Please don't make the specious argument that both have been platooned less this season+, because no such thing has occurred; Nava has faced 110/31 righties/lefties this season, and 339/119 last season. Gomes has faced 82/84 righties/lefties this season, and 151/161 last season. How would replacing Ellsbury with a proven centerfielder will have kept Victorino healthy this season? The only reason sizemore got considerable playing time was because of a) an excellent spring training, and b) Victorino got hurt; if the same thing happened to Victorino last season we would have had the same problem of "depth" that you allude to right now. Therefore, even had we had Ellsbury 2.0, the lack of production out of RF and LF would be garbage.
By your logic, replacing Will Middlebrooks with a proven third basemen in the offseason, or signing an average/above-average shortstop and moving Xander to third, will make Dustin Pedroia hit better in 2015. Why? Because infield depth, that's why.

Also, didn't mean for an entire thread to get started because of my snarky comment. Sorry about that.
You are obviously an expert at interpreting statistics, I leave you to your spreadsheets. Hope you're enjoying your soon to be last place Red Sox getting swept by the Cubs at home. Instructively, they're losing as Doubront can't hold the fort -- Doubront's story is the story of most prospects, they don't make it. But, lets continue to put all the team's eggs in that basket.

Yes, I believe that having a stable, productive leadoff hitter would make the whole lineup better. No, I can't give you a correlation coefficient between two endogenous variables to "prove" that statement, the way you smart and sophisticated SABRmetricians can. Sorry. I'm just little ole me, watching baseball with no understanding of that stuff.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Plympton91 said:
You are obviously an expert at interpreting statistics, I leave you to your spreadsheets. Hope you're enjoying your soon to be last place Red Sox getting swept by the Cubs at home. Instructively, they're losing as Doubront can't hold the fort -- Doubront's story is the story of most prospects, they don't make it. But, lets continue to put all the team's eggs in that basket.

Yes, I believe that having a stable, productive leadoff hitter would make the whole lineup better. No, I can't give you a correlation coefficient between two endogenous variables to "prove" that statement, the way you smart and sophisticated SABRmetricians can. Sorry. I'm just little ole me, watching baseball with no understanding of that stuff.
 
I know! If only they weren't paying roughly 133 million on prospects like Mike Napoli, David Ortiz, Shane Victorino, Dustin Pedroia, John Lackey, Jake Peavy, Jon Lester, AJ Pierzynski, Clay Buchholz, Jonny Gomes, Edward Mujica, Chris Capuano, Koji Uehara, Craig Breslow, David Ross, Mike Carp, Burke Badenhop, Andrew Miller and Grady Sizemore.  They really should look into spending some money on some vets.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
Plympton91 said:
You are obviously an expert at interpreting statistics, I leave you to your spreadsheets. Hope you're enjoying your soon to be last place Red Sox getting swept by the Cubs at home. Instructively, they're losing as Doubront can't hold the fort -- Doubront's story is the story of most prospects, they don't make it. But, lets continue to put all the team's eggs in that basket.
Yes, I believe that having a stable, productive leadoff hitter would make the whole lineup better. No, I can't give you a correlation coefficient between two endogenous variables to "prove" that statement, the way you smart and sophisticated SABRmetricians can. Sorry. I'm just little ole me, watching baseball with no understanding of that stuff.
Brock Holt is offended by this. He also thinks you're wrong.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
1,242
Herndon, VA
Is Doubront even a -prospect- at this point? He's like, into what, his third year? Fourth year, Fifth year? by now. It's not like he's some fresh new rookie. He's had two good years prior to this year. Just whining about him at this point as being a 'prospect' seems like... well, out of touch.
 
The problem with this team in general has been that their 6-9 SUCK, not who's on leadoff. It can easily be verifiable by just looking at the stats - they're last in a lot of multiple offensive categories in the AL.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Brock Holt is offended by this. He also thinks you're wrong.
That's because Brock Holt is awesome at all things, including math.
Red sox leadoff hitters are hitting league average this year, and only getting on base 1.4 percent less than last year.
As DavidTai points out above, the offensive suck is in our 6-9 hitters. However, offense is down at the other positions as well.
 
 
Plympton91 said:
Instructively, they're losing as Doubront can't hold the fort -- Doubront's story is the story of most prospects, they don't make it. But, lets continue to put all the team's eggs in that basket.

Yes, I believe that having a stable, productive leadoff hitter would make the whole lineup better.
 
Except, as shown above, neither of these statements reflect the red sox; the red sox have a productive leadoff hitter and they have not limited the team to prospects-only. In fact, Doubront is starting instead of a prospect that may have pitched better (i.e. RLDR). I don't want to say you are wrong...but I have no other way of finishing this sentence.
 
Plympton91 said:
Hope you're enjoying your soon to be last place Red Sox getting swept by the Cubs at home.
 
So I take it you are no longer a red sox fan then? I'm enjoying watching the kids learn how to play in the big leagues this season, and I suspect that the average fan likes it a bit more than you think. Otherwise, yeah, the season sucks, but that's part of baseball; ultimately, the crappy seasons just make the good ones sweeter.
 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
EricFeczko said:
 
 Otherwise, yeah, the season sucks, but that's part of baseball; ultimately, the crappy seasons just make the good ones sweeter.
 
 
I dont know if "sweeter" is quite right; it is *definitely* part of baseball.  But it does (or should) reinforce the idea that winning a WS is hard and takes skill and luck.  Being a realistic competitor annually (i.e., without enduring eras of suckdom) is also difficult.
And that for *any* team (regardless of payroll), shit can very easily go sideways for 5 million different reasons. Is whats happening in Boston a whole lot different than TB, or Texas, or, to a lesser degree, Pitt or Cinci?
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
Plympton91 said:
I still say Ellsbury or Choo was where to spend the money in the outfield for the next 6 years, and then fill in around that with the propsects the Sox have in their own system.
How in hell do you figure that?
 
On Ellsbury - CF is the one position in the outfield where the Sox HAD prospects to fill in.  So ignoring the fact that you think he would have somehow signed here for 6 years instead of the 7 he got in NY, or that he isn't worth his contract this year and will only depreciate in value as he loses his one elite skill - speed, how does it make sense to keep the guy who blocks your best OF prospect when the goal is to use the farm to fill the other positions?
 
To further that point, I'm sure the Sox FO didn't just suddenly wake up one morning this spring and though "hey, maybe we could try Betts in CF?"  He played more CF in high school than 2B by his own account.  I'm sure after his breakout 2013 season they were considering all alternatives as 2B wasn't his future home (at least not in Boston).  So there's another CFer Ellsbury would have blocked, even if Bradley never pans out.
 
Then Choo - he's a clear defensive liability in CF or RF.  Since 2010 he's been a poor base stealer who gets caught way too much to run as often as he does, but he sure isn't going to let that stop him from running.  His entire career has been fueled by an exceptionally high BABIP (.347 career mark to this point) with his best years well above even that mark, but all those seasons were 4-5 years ago.  Over the last four years he's shown a general decline in both BABIP and ISO.  He also doesn't hit LHP well.  The only times when his LHP splits climb out of the low .600's gutter has been when his RHP splits drop down into the .700's.  
 
So at this point he's Daniel Nava except Nava's smart enough to not try stealing 30 bases a year only to get caught a dozen times.  Oh, and he costs $18.5M AAV over the next seven years, despite the fact that he's already showing signs of decline.
 
Prior to the 2013 season people probably would have dismissed Victorino in much the same way you dismissed options like Markakis (only awful in 2013 FYI, had a 126 OPS+ in 2012, the Orioles will likely decline the option not because they don't like Markakis but because he's just not a $17.5M player) and Colby Rasmus (capable of a .756 OPS despite a .228 BA so far this season).  I'd take either one of them at 3/$39M well before even entertaining Ellsbury or Choo at 7 years and near $20M because none of these guys are likely to be good major leaguers in their mid to late 30's.
 
It's the FO's job to look at the available pool of outfielders and pick their next Shane Victorino.  The alternative to that can't be overpaying an above average guy to the tune of $22M per for seven years simply because change is scary.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
Plympton91 said:
Doubront's story is the story of most prospects, they don't make it. But, lets continue to put all the team's eggs in that basket.
 
 
You realize that the Red Sox - your Red Sox - appear to have committed to trying to incorporate two rookies a year for the foreseeable future, right?
 
I wonder how many more of these rants we are going to see until the RS's new strategy is either vindicated or abandoned.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,452
Haiku
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
I wonder how many more of these rants we are going to see until the RS's new strategy is either vindicated or abandoned.
 
Why would vindication or falsification end the rants?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
 
You realize that the Red Sox - your Red Sox - appear to have committed to trying to incorporate two rookies a year for the foreseeable future, right?
 
I wonder how many more of these rants we are going to see until the RS's new strategy is either vindicated or abandoned.
Is there a source for the "two rookies a year" statement? 
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Drek717 said:
It's the FO's job to look at the available pool of outfielders and pick their next Shane Victorino.  The alternative to that can't be overpaying an above average guy to the tune of $22M per for seven years simply because change is scary.
 
I agree with the second sentence. But there may be a lurking fallacy in the first--that just because a strategy has worked once, it will always be available to use again. There really isn't going to be a plausible "next Shane Victorino" next winter. I'm defining that as a guy (1) still in his early 30s, (2) with a recent track record of above-average play over multiple seasons, (3) coming off a down year that one can reasonably expect him to bounce back from.
 
Next year's OF FA crop is a grand parade of mostly over-35 has-beens or never-weres. The few guys in their early 30s or younger are either career mediocrities (Bonifacio, Rasmus, Colvin), or coming off good years that will win them an overpay (Melky), or both (Delmon Young). The closest thing to a "next Shane Victorino" I see there would be Denard Span or maybe Schierholtz, and I'm having trouble getting excited about those options.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
I agree with the second sentence. But there may be a lurking fallacy in the first--that just because a strategy has worked once, it will always be available to use again. There really isn't going to be a plausible "next Shane Victorino" next winter. I'm defining that as a guy (1) still in his early 30s, (2) with a recent track record of above-average play over multiple seasons, (3) coming off a down year that one can reasonably expect him to bounce back from.
 
Next year's OF FA crop is a grand parade of mostly over-35 has-beens or never-weres. The few guys in their early 30s or younger are either career mediocrities (Bonifacio, Rasmus, Colvin), or coming off good years that will win them an overpay (Melky), or both (Delmon Young). The closest thing to a "next Shane Victorino" I see there would be Denard Span or maybe Schierholtz, and I'm having trouble getting excited about those options.
Your second paragraph has really been the crux of the point I've been making since last November.

I just disagree, I guess, with most here about the implications of that for the strategy they should have followed with Ellsbury.

Thankfully, with the emergence of Holt and Betts, maybe it will just waste one year as a result. But, I'd still like to see what "payroll flexibilty" is a means to accomplish rather than feeling like they were so scarred by the Crawford et al signings that they now view it as an end in itself.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
Super Nomario said:
Is there a source for the "two rookies a year" statement? 
 
It's not a hard and fast rule, but according to Farrell, this is what they have found internally:
 
"We've gone through this exercise as a group internally," Farrell said. "We met last week, and we looked at what history has shown. Teams that win regularly -- how many players do they transition and bring in? You know what, it's roughly two a year. To maintain youth. To maintain talent. To continue that building over the long haul."
 
That assessment came after looking at baseball's five winningest organizations over the past 35 years. Some of them made big changes, others none at all. But the average was two.
 
 
Point being, the Red Sox has apparently made an organizational decision to forego long-term free agent contracts to players over 30 (not an absolute rule but I would guess it would apply in the vast majority of cases); try to develop a core through the farm system by giving their young talent the ability and time to fail at the big league level.  While I can see the merits of this decision - particularly when compared to the MFYs method of building teams and in the current financial context - I am very interested to see how this plays out.
 
The corollary to this point is that there has always been a tension w/r/t to the Red Sox between winning and developing prospects.  Most prospects fail when they first come up.  That's not conducive to winning.  However, not giving them a chance to fail is also not conducive to developing prospects.  Which is at least part of the reason that Theo's "$100M development machine" never really came to fruition.
 
Link:  http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/bos/red-sox-cardinals-make-change-a-constant?ymd=20140317&content_id=69498192
 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
 
It's not a hard and fast rule, but according to Farrell, this is what they have found internally:
 
 
Point being, the Red Sox has apparently made an organizational decision to forego long-term free agent contracts to players over 30 (not an absolute rule but I would guess it would apply in the vast majority of cases); try to develop a core through the farm system by giving their young talent the ability and time to fail at the big league level.  While I can see the merits of this decision - particularly when compared to the MFYs method of building teams and in the current financial context - I am very interested to see how this plays out.
 
The corollary to this point is that there has always been a tension w/r/t to the Red Sox between winning and developing prospects.  Most prospects fail .  That's not conducive to winning.  However, not giving them a chance to fail is also not conducive to developing prospects.  Which is at least part of the reason that Theo's "$100M development machine" never really came to fruition.
 
Link:  http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/bos/red-sox-cardinals-make-change-a-constant?ymd=20140317&content_id=69498192
 
FTFY.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
It's not a hard and fast rule, but according to Farrell, this is what they have found internally:
 

 
Point being, the Red Sox has apparently made an organizational decision to forego long-term free agent contracts to players over 30 (not an absolute rule but I would guess it would apply in the vast majority of cases); try to develop a core through the farm system by giving their young talent the ability and time to fail at the big league level.  While I can see the merits of this decision - particularly when compared to the MFYs method of building teams and in the current financial context - I am very interested to see how this plays out.
 
The corollary to this point is that there has always been a tension w/r/t to the Red Sox between winning and developing prospects.  Most prospects fail when they first come up.  That's not conducive to winning.  However, not giving them a chance to fail is also not conducive to developing prospects.  Which is at least part of the reason that Theo's "$100M development machine" never really came to fruition.
 
Link:  http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/bos/red-sox-cardinals-make-change-a-constant?ymd=20140317&content_id=69498192
The rule about signing players to long term contracts better not apply to Jon Lester. Lester is at the top of his game, has performed his best in the biggest games his whole career, hasn't suffered a major injury his entire career(not counting cancer just pitching-related), and is only approaching 30.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Super Nomario said:
Is there a source for the "two rookies a year" statement? 
 
This is not the source you were seeking but it may add a little perspective to the conversation.
 
From 2000 through 2013, there were 310 batters who had at least 130 AB in their first season and 347 pitchers who pitched at least 50 IP in their's (130 and 50 are the respective qualifiers for rookie status). 14 seasons with 30 teams per season gives an average of 0.738 batters per team per season and 0.838 pitchers per team per season, or 1.576 rookies per team per season. It breaks down like this...for batters, pitchers, and both. I put Montreal and Washington together to keep the teams at 30 (source: Lahman database).
 
[tablegrid=  ]Bat Nbr Pct 0 216 51.4% 1 122 29.0% 2 63 15.0% 3 14 3.3% 4 5 1.2%   420               Pit Nbr Pct 0 199 47.4% 1 135 32.1% 2 57 13.6% 3 21 5.0% 4 5 1.2% 5 3 0.7%   420               All Nbr Pct 0 119 28.3% 1 114 27.1% 2 95 22.6% 3 50 11.9% 4 23 5.5% 5 9 2.1% 6 6 1.4% 7 3 0.7% 8 0 0.0% 9 1 0.2%   420 [/tablegrid] 
 
The club with 9 was the 2011 Royals.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
 
It's not a hard and fast rule, but according to Farrell, this is what they have found internally:
 
 
Point being, the Red Sox has apparently made an organizational decision to forego long-term free agent contracts to players over 30 (not an absolute rule but I would guess it would apply in the vast majority of cases); try to develop a core through the farm system by giving their young talent the ability and time to fail at the big league level.  While I can see the merits of this decision - particularly when compared to the MFYs method of building teams and in the current financial context - I am very interested to see how this plays out.
 
The corollary to this point is that there has always been a tension w/r/t to the Red Sox between winning and developing prospects.  Most prospects fail when they first come up.  That's not conducive to winning.  However, not giving them a chance to fail is also not conducive to developing prospects.  Which is at least part of the reason that Theo's "$100M development machine" never really came to fruition.
 
Link:  http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/bos/red-sox-cardinals-make-change-a-constant?ymd=20140317&content_id=69498192
 
Thank you for posting that.
 
I think the "two rookies a year" thing is symptomatic of a healthy developmental system, not a willingness to hand rookies (who may or may not be ready) starting jobs. Every year, injuries, aging, underperformance, etc. creates need and opportunity at the major league level. Organizations with good development machines are filling those with rookies (or guys who are functionally but not technically rookies, like RDLR). Additionally, top prospects will sometimes just show so much dominance that they force the way into the lineup, as Betts did this year and Bogaerts last year. So the FO doesn't need to plan to integrate two rookies a year - it will happen as long as the minor league system is producing and developing prospects.
 
The problem is: if you read the "two rookies a year" thing like the FO apparently did this offseason and pencil two rookies into the starting lineup, you won't end up incorporating two rookies - you'll end up incorporating 4 or 5. And that's a ticket to Astrosville.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Another thing about the two rookies a year thig is that its almost universally accepted among the Earl Weaver school that a great way to break in a rookie is at the back of the bullpen. Yet, this team, supposedly committed to breaking in rookies and having 5 legitimate AAA starters, plus going into the season Britton and Wilson, gave the 12th pitcher job to a below average veteran journeyman something doesn't add up quite squarely.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
In Weaver's day, his new pitcher at the back of the bullpen would come into a game they were losing as early as the second or third inning and finish the game. Managers don't do that now.
 
In Weaver's day, he had a 4 man rotation. Teams don't do that now.
 
Times have changes.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,909
San Andreas Fault
HriniakPosterChild said:
 
In Weaver's day, his new pitcher at the back of the bullpen would come into a game they were losing as early as the second or third inning and finish the game. Managers don't do that now.
 
 
Sounds like Dick Radatz, who probably was the front AND the back. One of the most exciting pitchers for the Sox in the last __ years. You name it. And, they burned him out.
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,261
Off the beaten track
Plympton91 said:
You are obviously an expert at interpreting statistics, I leave you to your spreadsheets. Hope you're enjoying your soon to be last place Red Sox getting swept by the Cubs at home. Instructively, they're losing as Doubront can't hold the fort -- Doubront's story is the story of most prospects, they don't make it. But, lets continue to put all the team's eggs in that basket.

Yes, I believe that having a stable, productive leadoff hitter would make the whole lineup better. No, I can't give you a correlation coefficient between two endogenous variables to "prove" that statement, the way you smart and sophisticated SABRmetricians can. Sorry. I'm just little ole me, watching baseball with no understanding of that stuff.
 
With Brock Holt batting leadoff, the 2014 Red Sox have scored ~3.5 runs per game. With other players batting leadoff, the Sox have scored almost 4 runs per game. Brock Holt as a leadoff hitter (40 games, 189 PA) is hitting .324/.369/.443. Jacoby Ellsbury in 2013 as a leadoff hitter .298/.355/.426.
 
For your Sox specific theory, there certainly seems to be no correlation between having a "stable, productive leadoff hitter" and the effectiveness of the other batters in the lineup. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Frisbetarian said:
 
With Brock Holt batting leadoff, the 2014 Red Sox have scored ~3.5 runs per game. With other players batting leadoff, the Sox have scored almost 4 runs per game. Brock Holt as a leadoff hitter (40 games, 189 PA) is hitting .324/.369/.443. Jacoby Ellsbury in 2013 as a leadoff hitter .298/.355/.426.
 
For your Sox specific theory, there certainly seems to be no correlation between having a "stable, productive leadoff hitter" and the effectiveness of the other batters in the lineup. 
I have to applaud both you and the other dude who made the same point for the maximum level of obtuseness possible in your responses.

Is the argument now that they shouldn't have signed Ellsbury, because emergence of Brock Holt would have pushed him to the bench?

Or is the argument that Brock Holt can't hit anywhere except leadoff, in the same way Bogaerts can't hit unless he's playing shortstop (except for the 1.000 OPS he had in the first 6 days he was playing 3B)?
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,392
NH
Plympton91 said:
I have to applaud both you and the other dude who made the same point for the maximum level of obtuseness possible in your responses.
Is the argument now that they shouldn't have signed Ellsbury, because emergence of Brock Holt would have pushed him to the bench?
Or is the argument that Brock Holt can't hit anywhere except leadoff, in the same way Bogaerts can't hit unless he's playing shortstop (except for the 1.000 OPS he had in the first 6 days he was playing 3B)?
For someone who is so blessed academically, you really let a lot of things fly over your head or you totally miss the point of your own argument. I'd have to guess it's just trolling because you seem better than this.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
For someone who is so blessed academically, you really let a lot of things fly over your head or you totally miss the point of your own argument. I'd have to guess it's just trolling because you seem better than this.
No, if there's any trolling going on in this thread, it's in the responses to my points, not in my posts. But I'm through trying to make a point that no one wants to hear. So carry on with your spreadsheets that tell you the Red Sox wouldn't be a much better team both this year and next with Ellsbury ( or another proven CF acquired through trade or free agency ). And whatever happened after that could be papered over with the maturation of the great farm system (and you have to assume that would happen, or the purported "bridge" doesn't even exist).
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,261
Off the beaten track
Plympton91 said:
I have to applaud both you and the other dude who made the same point for the maximum level of obtuseness possible in your responses.

Is the argument now that they shouldn't have signed Ellsbury, because emergence of Brock Holt would have pushed him to the bench?

Or is the argument that Brock Holt can't hit anywhere except leadoff, in the same way Bogaerts can't hit unless he's playing shortstop (except for the 1.000 OPS he had in the first 6 days he was playing 3B)?
 
I never mentioned Ellsbury in my post, and merely wanted to show that your theory about the Sox run scoring problems this year stemming from their lack of a good leadoff hitter was incorrect. I wanted the team to sign Ellsbury, not to the obsessive stage you did certainly, but because he is well above average offensively, defensively, and especially on the basepaths. But you have taken the Ellsbury re-signing to a whole other level, where you are trying to blame the rest of the team's offensive struggles on his absence. It may be time to give it a rest. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Frisbetarian said:
 
I never mentioned Ellsbury in my post, and merely wanted to show that your theory about the Sox run scoring problems this year stemming from their lack of a good leadoff hitter was incorrect. I wanted the team to sign Ellsbury, not to the obsessive stage you did certainly, but because he is well above average offensively, defensively, and especially on the basepaths. But you have taken the Ellsbury re-signing to a whole other level, where you are trying to blame the rest of the team's offensive struggles on his absence. It may be time to give it a rest. 
"A stable productive lead off hitter" was a description of Jacoby Ellsbury, and that he would add depth to the lineup by moving each of the other productive hitters down a notch. Along with sparing us the moronic demotion of Daniel Nava after 70 plate appearances, it would have reduced Grady Sizemore and Jackie Bradley to a de minimus number of at bats. All of that would improve the offense.

It was not a commentary of Brock Holt's 6 week run of a 400 BABip hitting lead off, though I would note that when Brock Holt ends up hitting lead off, it's a pretty good sign you were grasping at straws in an attempt to find a lead off hitter.

I'd also note that as far as "Proving" anything about the relationship between lead off performance an runs scored your post pretty much fit my critique of SABRmetrics to a tee. You found a correlation between two endogenous variables over a small sample. You "proved" nothing except that you can use basic features of Google and Excel
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,261
Off the beaten track
Plympton91 said:
"A stable productive lead off hitter" was a description of Jacoby Ellsbury, and that he would add depth to the lineup by moving each of the other productive hitters down a notch. Along with sparing us the moronic demotion of Daniel Nava after 70 plate appearances, it would have reduced Grady Sizemore and Jackie Bradley to a de minimus number of at bats. All of that would improve the offense.

It was not a commentary of Brock Holt's 6 week run of a 400 BABip hitting lead off, though I would note that when Brock Holt ends up hitting lead off, it's a pretty good sign you were grasping at straws in an attempt to find a lead off hitter.

I'd also note that as far as "Proving" anything about the relationship between lead off performance an runs scored your post pretty much fit my critique of SABRmetrics to a tee. You found a correlation between two endogenous variables over a small sample. You "proved" nothing except that you can use basic features of Google and Excel
 
I never claimed to show a definitive relationship between lead off performance and runs scored in MLB, just that your assertion. "having a stable, productive leadoff hitter would make the whole lineup better" was not true for the Red Sox this year.  Despite having scored the least runs in the AL this year (sigh), the Red Sox leadoff hitters have been slightly above average at .270/.334/.388. 
 
Also, your combative, insulting posting style neither impresses or convinces, although it is at times humorous. I would suggest you try a more civil tone.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Yes the Sox would be better with Ellsbury. They'd have as many as 40 or 41 wins. If you want to argue the number would be higher the onus is on you to show why. The lead off hitter hypothesis looks pretty thin and the models that predict team scoring and win translations based on individual offensive stats are pretty robust. If you want to believe that Dustin Pedroia would have a 75 point higher OPS or Shane Victorino would be healthy or something because Ellsbury was on the team, that's your perogative.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,613
Row 14
Frisbetarian said:
 
I never mentioned Ellsbury in my post, and merely wanted to show that your theory about the Sox run scoring problems this year stemming from their lack of a good leadoff hitter was incorrect. I wanted the team to sign Ellsbury, not to the obsessive stage you did certainly, but because he is well above average offensively, defensively, and especially on the basepaths. But you have taken the Ellsbury re-signing to a whole other level, where you are trying to blame the rest of the team's offensive struggles on his absence. It may be time to give it a rest. 
 
He really isn't above average defensively.  This keeps getting said but 30 YO Jacoby Ellsbury does not look better than half the CFs in MLB.
 
Trout, JBJ, Hamilton, Cain, Bourjous*, Martin, Incariate, Gentry*, and Span are all much better than Ellsbury.
 
I would argue Maybin, Blanco, Ozuna, Lake and his own teammate Gardner are better as well.
 
Ellsbury would be around James Jones, Chris Young, Anthony Gose, and Michael Bourn are in the middle of the talent.