Grade the Red Sox trade deadline

How would you grade the additions of Schwarber, Austin Davis and and Hansen Robles?

  • A (Pumped! They killed it)

    Votes: 6 1.3%
  • B (Pretty happy. Did what they had to do)

    Votes: 132 29.2%
  • C (Eh. No First baseman? No SP?!)

    Votes: 200 44.2%
  • D (Really unimpressed)

    Votes: 104 23.0%
  • F (Should almost get fired)

    Votes: 10 2.2%

  • Total voters
    452

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,292
Chicago, IL
I genuinely thought I was trying to clarify a difference of perspective — i.e., talk about baseball — rather than "get" someone. I am sorry if it came across otherwise.

And the first sentence is not at all what I said. I think you're exactly right that ON JULY 28, Dalbec didn't look great to the FO or anyone else, but I just think it's strange to say that they "got lucky" when the guy they chose to be their starting 1B in the offseason turned out to produce quite close to his projections, just saving the bulk of that production for August and later.

That question of the volatility of expectations is also key to a disagreement in the other thread. I guess I hoped you'd say more about why you see it that way.
They did get lucky that he became (has become, for six weeks at least) the best hitter on the team and in that time one of the best in baseball by virtually every metric. If he simply started hitting AT their expectations of him (800-ish OPS hitter) while Schwarber was injured, he would have lost an enormous amount of playing time to Schwarber and/or Shaw, subsequently. That was the stated intention of the Schwarber trade. And Shaw was brought in when it looked like Schwarber wasn't healthy enough, or adapting quickly enough, to play first base, presumably because they felt they needed a platoon partner for Dalbec. But Dalbec kept hitting at an over 1.000 OPS rate, and has staked out more playing time for himself. Neither S or S have gotten many starts at first.
 

canyoubelieveit

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2006
7,644
I apologize for gamethreading a bit here, but I just came here to grade myself an F on the trading deadline for insisting repeatedly that the one and only thing that absolutely had to happen was to replace Dalbec. Another game with a HR, great at bats, and some very impressive picks at first. OPS at .800 now. Glad we didn't waste resources on someone like Schoop (who was the guy I was pushing to get).
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,942
I saw that and I'm not sure I agree. I mean, the Rockies clearly lost the trade deadline. The Red Sox didn't win the trade deadline. Their bullpen still sorta sucks and they won't have a second baseman in the postseason. The Red Sox were able to take advantage of a Yankee collapse and the A's and M's not being great. Though they have been able to stave off a nuclear Blue Jays team, so maybe this all evens out.

But to do a victory lap, now? I mean, there's still two weeks left. Let's pump the breaks on the "Chaim was right!" bumperstickers*.

Also, to put in another way, in August, the Sox, Yanks, A's, M's and Jays were in fox hole and Boston was bleeding out. The Sox wounds were able to coagulate and scab over. Three of the four other teams in the foxhole are in pretty bad shape. Bloom didn't do much healing wise, other than say, "You're going to be okay, here's a Band-Aid and lollipop" and wait for time to work its magic. I hope to hell that I'm wrong, but those scabs can fall right off real quick. And in the playoffs, that usually happens at the absolute worst possible moment.

* And this doesn't mean I want Bloom stripped of his job title and catapulted to Shelbyville. I just don't think that a guy whose biggest trade was for a leftfielder/DH (positions that were already ably filled) who didn't play for three weeks after the team acquired him wasn't Theo in 04.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
73,291
Oregon
But to do a victory lap, now? I mean, there's still two weeks left. Let's pump the breaks on the "Chaim was right!" bumperstickers*.
I read Chad's piece looking for signs of a victory lap and/or Chaim bumperstickers ... didn't see any. He basically said things turned out better than what the immediate naysayers were saying ... which is true.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
I saw that and I'm not sure I agree. I mean, the Rockies clearly lost the trade deadline.
Apologies for the aside, because this is much better saved for @cannonball 1729 ’s incredible elimination thread — and mods, tell me if I should just move it — but since it was referenced can I just emphasize briefly how insane it was that the Rockies decided to hang onto all of their tradeable impending free agent assets (not just Trevor Story, but CJ Cron and Jon Gray) at the deadline? They’re going to finish with ~75 wins and get qualifying offer compensation only for Story.

It’s even more stunning when you consider they have one of the most barren farm systems in MLB, while their NL West competitors have far better MLB rosters as well as some of the best farm systems in the league: the Padres, of course, but also the Giants, Dodgers and Snakes are no slouches there.

Sorry. Rant over.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
40,399
I read Chad's piece looking for signs of a victory lap and/or Chaim bumperstickers ... didn't see any. He basically said things turned out better than what the immediate naysayers were saying ... which is true.
As did everyone's favorite Boston reporter John Tomase!
Chaim Bloom has a thick skin, but even the unflappable chief baseball officer of the Red Sox betrayed some frustration at the portrayal of the trade deadline as an abandonment of his clubhouse.C

You remember the MLB trade deadline. While every contender in baseball seemingly acquired a future Hall of Famer and two All-Stars, the Red Sox plucked injured Kyle Schwarber and two nondescript relievers, one of whom went by Big Fudge, off the clearance rack.

Leading the division by 1.5 games, the Red Sox dropped 10 of their next 13 to fall five games behind the Tampa Bay Rays and into an Oklahoma drill for the wild card.
Critics of the team's relative inaction pointed to the Yankees, who aggressively shed prospects to acquire first baseman Anthony Rizzo, outfielder Joey Gallo, starter Andrew Heaney, and reliever Clay Holmes. While the Red Sox floundered, the Yankees soared, ripping off 23 wins in 27 games and making up a staggering 9.5 games on Boston in the process.

Even those of us who didn't advocate strip-mining the farm system nonetheless believed the Red Sox could've done more. Speaking in early September, Bloom bristled at the suggestion that the clubhouse had reacted poorly to receiving relatively little help on July 30.
Nearly two months later, Bloom appears poised to get the last laugh. While it's fair to believe the malaise of early August related directly to a failure to acquire immediate reinforcements, there's little question now that Bloom's moves have put the Red Sox in a position to take control of the wild card race and possibly even host that winner-take-all affair vs. the Blue Jays.

Bloom believed Schwarber to be the highest-impact offensive player acquired at the deadline, and even if it took a couple of weeks for the left-handed hitter to return from a hamstring injury, he has since delivered by batting .276 with an .863 OPS and Ted Williams-esque .406 on base percentage.


His patience has seemingly rubbed off on the rest of the roster. Prior to Schwarber's debut on Aug. 13, the Red Sox owned a .321 on base percentage, good for 10th in baseball. Since he returned, they're at .350, second only to the Nationals.
Even the relievers Bloom landed in minor deals -- right-hander Hansel Robles and left-hander Austin Davis, the aforementioned sizable confection -- have found their lanes.

The hard-throwing Robles may not always be on speaking terms with the strike zone, but he has authored eight straight scoreless outings while giving the Red Sox a different look from the right side with his upper-90s heat. And after a rocky start, Davis hasn't allowed a run this month, either. He has limited left-handers to a .160 average with the Red Sox, emerging as a legit left-on-left weapon.

Meanwhile, the deals the Yankees made have the potential to blow up in the face of general manager Brian Cashman. After a hot start, Rizzo is batting only .254 with slightly above-average production. Gallo has provided power -- 12 homers in 47 games -- but he's a caricature of the all-or-nothing slugger, batting .162 with 72 strikeouts. Meanwhile, Holmes has been nails (5-1, 2.11), but Heaney owns a 7.00 ERA.
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/did-red-sox-chaim-bloom-not-brian-cashman-win-mlb-trade-deadline
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,942
I read Chad's piece looking for signs of a victory lap and/or Chaim bumperstickers ... didn't see any. He basically said things turned out better than what the immediate naysayers were saying ... which is true.
That's fair. Chad didn't specifically say that. But I still don't think that Sox won. The Sox treaded water and got kinda lucky. Which is cool, but I don't think that it's a good plan every year.

As far as the nay-sayers go:

1. The yay-sayers weren't exactly pleading to keep Dalbec at first. That's revisionist thinking. I mean, I'm glad that they didn't have anyone remotely better than a well-below league average first baseman; but I'm sure if you asked Bloom in April, "So your first baseman is going to really suck from April through July, but he'll play much better in August and September, are you cool with that?" I doubt his answer would be yes.

2. Also, most people were asking for bullpen help in July. I still think that the team needs help there.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I apologize for gamethreading a bit here, but I just came here to grade myself an F on the trading deadline for insisting repeatedly that the one and only thing that absolutely had to happen was to replace Dalbec. Another game with a HR, great at bats, and some very impressive picks at first. OPS at .800 now. Glad we didn't waste resources on someone like Schoop (who was the guy I was pushing to get).
Accountability! Nicely done. I don't think anyone outside Dalbec's closest friends and family could have or would have predicted his amazing ascension. I was shilling for Rizzo, at least for defense, but even there Dalbec has been better.
 

jmcc5400

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
3,417
Tomase: "Bloom believed Schwarber to be the highest-impact offensive player acquired at the deadline, and even if it took a couple of weeks for the left-handed hitter to return from a hamstring injury, he has since delivered by batting .276 with an .863 OPS and Ted Williams-esque .406 on base percentage. "

So sloppy and lazy. Sure, I know .406 is a magic number for Williams, but Ted had an OBP under .436 exactly once in his career and a lifetime OBP of .482. There is nothing "Williamsesque" about a .406 OBP.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
That's fair. Chad didn't specifically say that. But I still don't think that Sox won. The Sox treaded water and got kinda lucky. Which is cool, but I don't think that it's a good plan every year.

As far as the nay-sayers go:

1. The yay-sayers weren't exactly pleading to keep Dalbec at first. That's revisionist thinking. I mean, I'm glad that they didn't have anyone remotely better than a well-below league average first baseman; but I'm sure if you asked Bloom in April, "So your first baseman is going to really suck from April through July, but he'll play much better in August and September, are you cool with that?" I doubt his answer would be yes.
Why not? This isn't a veteran free agent signing, it's a guy who hasn't hit 162 career games played, and the scenario you described sounds an awful lot like "promising pre-arb corner IF figures out major league pitching after four months."
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,942
Why not? This isn't a veteran free agent signing, it's a guy who hasn't hit 162 career games played, and the scenario you described sounds an awful lot like "promising pre-arb corner IF figures out major league pitching after four months."
Him figuring out major league pitching cost the Red Sox a bunch of games for the spring and a lot of the summer. Major League Baseball isn't an internship and if anyone could have given the team even average production, Dalbec would have spent a lot of time in Worcester this year. I doubt any GM would be excited that there was a hole in his line for four months.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,449
Maine
Him figuring out major league pitching cost the Red Sox a bunch of games for the spring and a lot of the summer. Major League Baseball isn't an internship and if anyone could have given the team even average production, Dalbec would have spent a lot of time in Worcester this year. I doubt any GM would be excited that there was a hole in his line for four months.
How does one figure out major league pitching while playing in the minor leagues? Despite Dalbec's struggles (and struggles elsewhere in the lineup), the team had the best record in the AL on July 4. Hard to argue it cost them a bunch of games. Two or three maybe, but that doesn't really change a ton about where they are now. Just a bigger cushion for WC1.

I agree that if they had an adequate replacement, he very likely would have been sent down at some point in May or June, but ultimately teams have to give some rope to young players in order to be sure of what they are. Some guys turn it around in a couple months and never look back (e.g. Dustin Pedroia). Some guys never figure it out and are soon out of the game (e.g. Will Middlebrooks). If the Dalbec we've seen over the last 6+ weeks is closer to the real Dalbec going forward, it's arguably worth their patience. Short term pain for long term success.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,942
Two or three games is a pretty big deal right now. Would you rather be 4.5 up on the third place team or 1.5 with 11 to play?
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
Him figuring out major league pitching cost the Red Sox a bunch of games for the spring and a lot of the summer. Major League Baseball isn't an internship and if anyone could have given the team even average production, Dalbec would have spent a lot of time in Worcester this year. I doubt any GM would be excited that there was a hole in his line for four months.
They had the best or near the best record in baseball for pretty much the entire time he was struggling, so no, it's completely disingenuous to say that he cost them a bunch of games
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
3,688
Him figuring out major league pitching cost the Red Sox a bunch of games for the spring and a lot of the summer. Major League Baseball isn't an internship and if anyone could have given the team even average production, Dalbec would have spent a lot of time in Worcester this year. I doubt any GM would be excited that there was a hole in his line for four months.
This is borderline trolling. You want to go back through every rookie or even seasoned veteran that had a prolonged slump and claim that that slump killed a team? What about their hot streaks? Did those same streaks "save" the season?
If you want to remove those claims about "losing games" then you can also take out the games that Dalbec possibly "saved" in August. Seems like everyone should know about all this stuff by now.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,942
This is borderline trolling. You want to go back through every rookie or even seasoned veteran that had a prolonged slump and claim that that slump killed a team? What about their hot streaks? Did those same streaks "save" the season?
If you want to remove those claims about "losing games" then you can also take out the games that Dalbec possibly "saved" in August. Seems like everyone should know about all this stuff by now.
Slump? Yeah. That's a word we could use to describe the first four months of a season. Craig Grebeck had a career-long slump. Same with Nick Punto.

Do you honestly believe that Dalbec should have been having meaningful at bats in June and July? Because these were his stats by month:

April: 214/276/343 1 home run
May: 200/243/422 4 home runs
June: 237/280/500 5 home runs
July: 210/234/306 1 home run

He wasn't hitting, he was barely getting on base and his power was almost nonexistent. Not to mention his defense wasn't great either. Where am I trolling to suggest that Bobby Dalbec had four really shitty months that may have cost the Red Sox a few games during the year.

I know that Dalbec has morphed into Willliams x Yaz x Nomar x Ortiz, which has apparently caused a lot of amnesia in this fan base, but give me a break with this, "YOU'RE JUST TROLLING" about Dalbec bullshit. It's okay to say that he was bad, when he was. I'm sure he's not reading this and crying himself into a frenzy on the trainer's table.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
Slump? Yeah. That's a word we could use to describe the first four months of a season. Craig Grebeck had a career-long slump. Same with Nick Punto.

Do you honestly believe that Dalbec should have been having meaningful at bats in June and July? Because these were his stats by month:
He was an above average hitter in June, so yeah I'm not sure why he shouldn't have been given meaningful at bats then. I do like that you quickly changed from he cost them a bunch of games to a few games, you're getting closer to the actual realistic amount he cost them at least.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
3,688
Slump? Yeah. That's a word we could use to describe the first four months of a season. Craig Grebeck had a career-long slump. Same with Nick Punto.

Do you honestly believe that Dalbec should have been having meaningful at bats in June and July? Because these were his stats by month:

April: 214/276/343 1 home run
May: 200/243/422 4 home runs
June: 237/280/500 5 home runs
July: 210/234/306 1 home run

He wasn't hitting, he was barely getting on base and his power was almost nonexistent. Not to mention his defense wasn't great either. Where am I trolling to suggest that Bobby Dalbec had four really shitty months that may have cost the Red Sox a few games during the year.

I know that Dalbec has morphed into Willliams x Yaz x Nomar x Ortiz, which has apparently caused a lot of amnesia in this fan base, but give me a break with this, "YOU'RE JUST TROLLING" about Dalbec bullshit. It's okay to say that he was bad, when he was. I'm sure he's not reading this and crying himself into a frenzy on the trainer's table.
You’re saying he should have been benched because he cost them X number of games. But up until the end of July… what we’re the other options?
So if you bench him in mid July and get Rizzo you have to take into consideration their overall production from the day Rizzo showed up in NY until now . That means that we likely would have lost several games that Dalbec “single handedly” won.
Also…. Where is anyone turning him into Williams???
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
I look forward to your never citing WAR again in an argument. Thank you.
MIssed the part where I mentioned WAR in that post, but yeah how dare we use actual numerical metrics on a message board of supposedly statistically smart fans rather than just make random statements without any data to back them up
 

RIrooter09

Alvin
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
6,276
Dalbec probably doesn't turn it around without giving him those ABs to make adjustments. We are in strong position for a wild card spot. Does anyone really think those ABs are the difference between us winning the division or not?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,449
Maine
Dalbec probably doesn't turn it around without giving him those ABs to make adjustments. We are in strong position for a wild card spot. Does anyone really think those ABs are the difference between us winning the division or not?
For the season, Dalbec has been worth 0.5 bWAR and 0.8 fWAR. Suggestive that he's been a fairly neutral influence on the team's overall standing. The only argument that he's cost them games overall is if they had magically been able to replace him with someone more productive.

edit to add: Just for comparison, Anthony Rizzo is at 1.9 bWAR for the season (1.2 in Chicago, 0.7 in New York). If he does that all for the Red Sox, the team is arguably a game better in the standings.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
22,204
Do you honestly believe that Dalbec should have been having meaningful at bats in June and July? Because these were his stats by month:

April: 214/276/343 1 home run
May: 200/243/422 4 home runs
June: 237/280/500 5 home runs
July: 210/234/306 1 home run

He wasn't hitting, he was barely getting on base and his power was almost nonexistent. Not to mention his defense wasn't great either. Where am I trolling to suggest that Bobby Dalbec had four really shitty months that may have cost the Red Sox a few games during the year.
280/500 (June) is playable (and is far from "nonexistent" power). And represented continued improvement over April and May.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
For the season, Dalbec has been worth 0.5 bWAR and 0.8 fWAR. Suggestive that he's been a fairly neutral influence on the team's overall standing. The only argument that he's cost them games overall is if they had magically been able to replace him with someone more productive.

edit to add: Just for comparison, Anthony Rizzo is at 1.9 bWAR for the season (1.2 in Chicago, 0.7 in New York). If he does that all for the Red Sox, the team is arguably a game better in the standings.
Yeah, the Sox are 26/30 in 1st base WAA this season at -1.7, but almost half of that is everyone who played 1st base that WASN'T Dalbec, despite him taking 75% of the plate appearances this season. It's impressive how bad Santana/Cordero/Gonzalez/Chavis were in such a short amount of time.
 

The Filthy One

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2005
2,962
East Bay
280/500 (June) is playable (and is far from "nonexistent" power). And represented continued improvement over April and May.
His July was incredibly rough, though, and he looked more lost than ever at that point. In a game thread on 7/31, I noted that he was about to go the entire month of July with an HR, and then, of course, he hit one. He went from June 28 - July 30 (21 games) with no HR. During that time he hit .230/.254/279 with 1 BB and 24 K. He hit two doubles and zero triples over that time. He looked as toasty as a major leaguer this side of 2021 JBJ can look.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
3,688
For the season, Dalbec has been worth 0.5 bWAR and 0.8 fWAR. Suggestive that he's been a fairly neutral influence on the team's overall standing. The only argument that he's cost them games overall is if they had magically been able to replace him with someone more productive.

edit to add: Just for comparison, Anthony Rizzo is at 1.9 bWAR for the season (1.2 in Chicago, 0.7 in New York). If he does that all for the Red Sox, the team is arguably a game better in the standings.
Obviously this is assuming that Rizzo was here from day one and Dalbec somewhere else.
Wasn’t a realistic possibility considering salary into the mix…
So the overall balance for anyone who thinks he should have been sent to AAA back in May would have to be: Dalbec plus his ML replacement up to deadline then add Rizzo’s line at the deadline to now- to what Dalbec has done from game one up today
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
15,887
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Yeah, the Sox are 26/30 in 1st base WAA this season at -1.7, but almost half of that is everyone who played 1st base that WASN'T Dalbec, despite him taking 75% of the plate appearances this season. It's impressive how bad Santana/Cordero/Gonzalez/Chavis were in such a short amount of time.
Even the ones who hit and fielded better than Dalbec?

You should really just wait and use three year averages. Hopefully Dalbec will hit so well, and field so adequately, that your argument can be it's insane to think any other 1B would have been an improvement over him during the first half of the 2021 season.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
Even the ones who hit and fielded better than Dalbec?

You should really just wait and use three year averages. Hopefully Dalbec will hit so well, and field so adequately, that your argument can be it's insane to think any other 1B would have been an improvement over him during the first half of the 2021 season.
Which of those 4 hit and fielded better than Dalbec?
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
Go look up the actual numerical metrics. Marwins in the mix as well.

Be careful to compare them to Bobby numbers before he lit it up if you want to make an argument about which players sucked in the first half. Or like, go wait out the 3 years.
Cordero: .497 OPS
Gonzalez: .567 OPS
Santana: .597 OPS
Chavis: .549 OPS

1st half Dalbec (the time before he lit it up): .673 OPS

So I'll ask again, which of those 4 hit and fielded better than Dalbec
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,449
Maine
Obviously this is assuming that Rizzo was here from day one and Dalbec somewhere else.
Wasn’t a realistic possibility considering salary into the mix…
So the overall balance for anyone who thinks he should have been sent to AAA back in May would have to be: Dalbec plus his ML replacement up to deadline then add Rizzo’s line at the deadline to now- to what Dalbec has done from game one up today
Obviously. The argument put forth is he cost them games with his performance in the first half. Clearly if he did (he was in the negative WAR for a long time), he's made up for it in the last 6-7 weeks. So it would take replacing him entirely with a Rizzo (or better) to make the Sox significantly better off than they are right now.

His first half may wind up simply being growing pains necessary to get to a stage where he's a meaningful contributor to a good Red Sox team.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Him figuring out major league pitching cost the Red Sox a bunch of games for the spring and a lot of the summer. Major League Baseball isn't an internship and if anyone could have given the team even average production, Dalbec would have spent a lot of time in Worcester this year. I doubt any GM would be excited that there was a hole in his line for four months.
Any GM, particularly our current one, knows that the key to how they want to run a team is cost-controlled producers, who rarely show up on day 1 just hammering major league pitching. Dalbec's development is just about in line with the first 150 games of David Ortiz' career, except that he got to the point where he is contributing during pre-arb year #2, unlike Papi who (thank all the gods) didn't really prove himself adequately until he started to get expensive. If there is a GM alive who *doesn't* get excited about this, he or she should be fired.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Obviously. The argument put forth is he cost them games with his performance in the first half. Clearly if he did (he was in the negative WAR for a long time), he's made up for it in the last 6-7 weeks. So it would take replacing him entirely with a Rizzo (or better) to make the Sox significantly better off than they are right now.

His first half may wind up simply being growing pains necessary to get to a stage where he's a meaningful contributor to a good Red Sox team.
Right, which again gets back to the original point, that Bloom would not be OK with this. Because Bloom was in win-now-at-all-costs mode? Not a chance.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
15,887
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Cordero: .497 OPS
Gonzalez: .567 OPS
Santana: .597 OPS
Chavis: .549 OPS

1st half Dalbec (the time before he lit it up): .673 OPS

So I'll ask again, which of those 4 hit and fielded better than Dalbec
So weird. It's almost like you didn't use the numbers for those players while they were playing first base. Which would be the relevant numbers in determining which first basemen were not productive as first basemen.

I think you've earned a rare "ignore" from me. So say whatever you want.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
So weird. It's almost like you didn't use the numbers for those players while they were playing first base. Which would be the relevant numbers in determining which first basemen were not productive as first basemen.

I think you've earned a rare "ignore" from me. So say whatever you want.
Yes, it's very relevant that Danny Santana had a .597 OPS overall and a .773 OPS when he played 1st base (almost entirely because he homered in his first 2 starts with the Sox). I'm sure there was something about him playing 1b that made him hit better, and if they had just let him play 1b more he wouldn't have sucked so much at the plate.

Hopefully I am on ignore so I don't have to deal with you replying to my posts with random one liners about how much you hate advanced stats.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,449
Maine
So weird. It's almost like you didn't use the numbers for those players while they were playing first base. Which would be the relevant numbers in determining which first basemen were not productive as first basemen.

I think you've earned a rare "ignore" from me. So say whatever you want.
If you have the relevant numbers that back your assertion, why not post them yourself?

But since you don't want to make the effort. As a 1B in 2021...

Cordero .462 OPS (26 PA)
Gonzalez .670 OPS (44 PA)
Santana .773 OPS (44 PA)
Chavis .606 OPS (22 PA)

Well, gee. Guess Cora and Bloom really fucked it up by not playing Santana and Gonzalez exclusively at 1B where their bats magically played up relative to playing other positions. Of course, with those sample sizes, it's more likely just be weird statistical noise and would have fallen in line with their overall pitiful numbers if they had played there more often.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
15,887
Miami (oh, Miami!)
If you have the relevant numbers that back your assertion, why not post them yourself?

But since you don't want to make the effort. As a 1B in 2021...

Cordero .462 OPS (26 PA)
Gonzalez .670 OPS (44 PA)
Santana .773 OPS (44 PA)
Chavis .606 OPS (22 PA)

Well, gee. Guess Cora and Bloom really fucked it up by not playing Santana and Gonzalez exclusively at 1B where their bats magically played up relative to playing other positions. Of course, with those sample sizes, it's more likely just be weird statistical noise and would have fallen in line with their overall pitiful numbers if they had played there more often.
I'm not making an assertion. Scotty's argument was that Dalbec's first half excellence was dragged down by the shitty play of his replacements. Which is stupid.

And with that I'm done. The rhetorical ax-grinding on this board is getting insane.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,865
That wasn’t his argument at all, it was that half of Boston’s 1B suckage came from the even worse alternatives.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
That wasn’t his argument at all, it was that half of Boston’s 1B suckage came from the even worse alternatives.
I think Romine has trouble reading, we should probably cut him some slack.

It's kind of funny because if someone said before the season "On September 22nd Bobby Dalbec will have a 110 ops+ and 23 home runs" a lot of people would have said "yeah, that sounds about right", it's pretty much in line with his preseason projections, just how he got there would make no sense to anyone.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
217
I'm not making an assertion. Scotty's argument was that Dalbec's first half excellence was dragged down by the shitty play of his replacements. Which is stupid.

And with that I'm done. The rhetorical ax-grinding on this board is getting insane.
Is that actually what you believe his argument was?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
15,887
Miami (oh, Miami!)
That wasn’t his argument at all, it was that half of Boston’s 1B suckage came from the even worse alternatives.
Is that actually what you believe his argument was?
Seriously? Context does not matter anymore? He's pushing back against the idea playing Dalbec early in the Suck Period cost the Sox games, or was a bad idea at the time.

They had the best or near the best record in baseball for pretty much the entire time he was struggling, so no, it's completely disingenuous to say that he cost them a bunch of games
He was an above average hitter in June, so yeah I'm not sure why he shouldn't have been given meaningful at bats then.
For the season, Dalbec has been worth 0.5 bWAR and 0.8 fWAR. Suggestive that he's been a fairly neutral influence on the team's overall standing. The only argument that he's cost them games overall is if they had magically been able to replace him with someone more productive.

edit to add: Just for comparison, Anthony Rizzo is at 1.9 bWAR for the season (1.2 in Chicago, 0.7 in New York). If he does that all for the Red Sox, the team is arguably a game better in the standings.
Yeah, the Sox are 26/30 in 1st base WAA this season at -1.7, but almost half of that is everyone who played 1st base that WASN'T Dalbec, despite him taking 75% of the plate appearances this season. It's impressive how bad Santana/Cordero/Gonzalez/Chavis were in such a short amount of time.
It's great Dalbec is hitting well. It's obvious he was hitting like shit in the first half, wasn't compensating with defense, and that any moderate player would have been an upgrade. He was epicly fucking bad. Worst qualifying player type bad.

Do I really need to qualify that to soothe anyone's child-like ego around here?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,449
Maine
Seriously? Context does not matter anymore? He's pushing back against the idea playing Dalbec early in the Suck Period cost the Sox games, or was a bad idea at the time.
No, he was pointing out that the team had no better alternatives in the first half which is why Dalbec saw so much playing time. Not that his play wasn't as bad as it was. It was bad. The in-house replacements were simply worse.


It's great Dalbec is hitting well. It's obvious he was hitting like shit in the first half, wasn't compensating with defense, and that any moderate player would have been an upgrade. He was epicly fucking back. Worst qualifying player type bad.

Do I really need to qualify that to soothe anyone's child-like ego around here?
No one is arguing that a moderately better player wouldn't have been an upgrade. NO ONE. The case made earlier in the thread was that his play cost them wins. I even acknowledged that might have been the case in the first half (he had a negative WAR which by the definition of the stat means he cost them games). However, he's made up for that with his play over the last six weeks so that overall his impact on the season has been fairly neutral.

At most, a moderately better player (I posited Rizzo, but the same argument can be made with Cron or Schoop or Aguiliar or any other wishlist guy who got brought up on this board this season) would probably be worth an extra win or two over what Dalbec has produced if he were to have entirely replaced Dalbec. Which gives them an extra game or two lead in the wildcard but still has them in the same wildcard position. If that's where they end up on October 3, but Dalbec ends up being a 2-3 WAR 1B moving forward as a result of the experience and adjustments he made this season, then the shitshow in the first half is arguably worth the pain.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
3,688
No, he was pointing out that the team had no better alternatives in the first half which is why Dalbec saw so much playing time. Not that his play wasn't as bad as it was. It was bad. The in-house replacements were simply worse.




No one is arguing that a moderately better player wouldn't have been an upgrade. NO ONE. The case made earlier in the thread was that his play cost them wins. I even acknowledged that might have been the case in the first half (he had a negative WAR which by the definition of the stat means he cost them games). However, he's made up for that with his play over the last six weeks so that overall his impact on the season has been fairly neutral.

At most, a moderately better player (I posited Rizzo, but the same argument can be made with Cron or Schoop or Aguiliar or any other wishlist guy who got brought up on this board this season) would probably be worth an extra win or two over what Dalbec has produced if he were to have entirely replaced Dalbec. Which gives them an extra game or two lead in the wildcard but still has them in the same wildcard position. If that's where they end up on October 3, but Dalbec ends up being a 2-3 WAR 1B moving forward as a result of the experience and adjustments he made this season, then the shitshow in the first half is arguably worth the pain.
Thanks.... this is the most succinct and clear way to put this whole argument. Nobody is denying that Dalbec stunk in the first half+ but arguing that he should have been benched needs to take into consideration the entire season. It'd be the same as arguing that ERod should have been skipped whenever he had a bad start. Yes... that would be great if it were possible to do but then his good starts may not have happened. One has to consider the "vs weak opponents" and the "vs strong opponents" and take them in totality. Every player has those throughout a season and we can't EricVan overall production to create a better (or worse) scenario.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
10,624
guam
So weird. It's almost like you didn't use the numbers for those players while they were playing first base. Which would be the relevant numbers in determining which first basemen were not productive as first basemen.

I think you've earned a rare "ignore" from me. So say whatever you want.
Read this again, and think about your argument. It makes no sense unless you think that the other four players somehow would have hit better if they had been given games at 1B because they were playing 1B.

I think that there have been instances where a player's numbers were different when batting DH vs. playing in the field, and that has sometimes been attributed to "being in the game" or what have you. But it's hard to see why the relevant hitting stats are their numbers "as first basemen," rather than just their overall numbers. Fielding stats and hitting stats are generally thought to be independent variables.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
15,887
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Read this again, and think about your argument. It makes no sense unless you think that the other four players somehow would have hit better if they had been given games at 1B because they were playing 1B.

I think that there have been instances where a player's numbers were different when batting DH vs. playing in the field, and that has sometimes been attributed to "being in the game" or what have you. But it's hard to see why the relevant hitting stats are their numbers "as first basemen," rather than just their overall numbers. Fielding stats and hitting stats are generally thought to be independent variables.
If we're considering how bad Dalbec was at 1B, April-July 2021, we ought to look at his numbers at 1B, April-July 2021. That was (and is) the context for what I wrote.

If someone says the overall numbers at 1B, April-July 2021, are bad in part because players-other-than-Dalbec were bad at 1B, we ought to look at those numbers for those players at 1B for April-July 2021.

Whether or not those players sucked ass elsewhere or elsewhen simply isn't relevant to the question of exactly how bad Dalbec was at 1B, April-July 2021, vis-a-vis players-other-than-Dalbec at 1B for April-July 2021.

Nor are Dalbec's numbers, elsewhere and elsewhen, relevant to the question of exactly how bad Dalbec was at 1B, April-July 2021.

So, in that context, when someone presents numbers from elsewhere and elsewhen, attempting to suggest those numbers show players-other-than-Dalbec depressed the numbers at 1b, April-July 2021, is is, in professional parlance, a patently bogus argument. A time waster. An issue fudger. And not worth time.

***

I am not arguing Danny Santana should have replaced Dalbec.
I am not arguing the Sox would or could or should have traded for anyone.
I am not making some kind of Chaim Bloom argument one way or the other.

Sometimes, one can just look at what's there, without distorting the facts to score an argument, or leaping to some kind of conclusion, or attempting to show one was really right, all along.

Fucking shocking, I know, but there you have it.

I have said I'm out and people still keep addressing me. Would you please all think whatever you want, and stop pinging me on this thread?
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,292
Chicago, IL
I think a few issues are being conflated when considering the trade deadline and Dalbec.

- The first is giving promising rookies time to adjust. All teams will take their lumps riding out some bumpy months with certain guys. This is a given, and it's its own matter.

- The next is how many games Dalbec cost the team in the first four months. Here RedHawksFan has a point: the organization had nobody better. There was no good internal replacement. In that sense, Dalbec didn't cost any games: he was the best they had. And he was pretty damn terrible. This is it's own matter, though it impacts:

- The Dalbec factor in assessing the trade deadline. It is clear to me the team prioritized finding someone who could reduce the amount of at bats that went to Dalbec. As soon as they got Scwarber, Bloom announced that he would play first base. Schwarber's return took longer than expected and/or they were finding he wasn't transitioning well at first in repetitions before games (it took a looooooong time before he started at first base). Because of the delay the Red Sox got ANOTHER first baseman, in hopes of crafting a solid platoon, in Travis Shaw. To me, all this indicates Bloom was intent at decreasing Dalbec's presence in the line up BECAUSE: continued below .800 OPS hitting (and bad fielding) from your first baseman was not acceptable for the stretch drive.

And then a crazy thing happened: Dalbec started to hit. Not only becoming decent, but becoming - for August and September - statistically the best hitter on the team, and one of the best in baseball. And his confidence clearly improved, impacting his defensive play (he's been really good lately).

It seems a FANTASY and a kind of idolization of Bloom to suggest that this was Bloom's plan all along - that he knew Dalbec would come along in the last third of the season. He tried to replace/reduce Dalbec's ABs many times, first with the scrubs (Santana, etc) then with Cordero (they sent him to Worcester to learn to play first base), then with Schwarber, then with Shaw.

The team got lucky as fuck that Dalbec not only starting hitting at what we think will be his par going forward (oh, 800-ish OPS), but started hitting like Bryce Harper.

I love Schwarber and hope he stays with the team, but his absence from the team for a critical stretch in August, and the fact that his D is terrible not only at first but also in left (meaning if both he and JD are in the line up the D suffers), still means Bloom's MOVES get a mixed grade. Dalbec suddenly hitting at an elite level was not part of the plan and so I feel can't be part of the report card.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
15,887
Miami (oh, Miami!)
PS. Specifically, in case you all missed it:

Cordero: .497 OPS
Gonzalez: .567 OPS
Santana: .597 OPS
Chavis: .549 OPS

1st half Dalbec (the time before he lit it up): .673 OPS

So I'll ask again, which of those 4 hit and fielded better than Dalbec
These are the numbers for those players at 1b from April 1 to July 31. (Per Fangraphs splits tool.)

Santana: 44 PA, .773 OPS
Gonzalez: 40 PA, .689 OPS
Chavis: 21 PA, .538 OPS
Cordero: 11 PA, .727 OPS

Dalbec: 269 PA, .639 OPS
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
PS. Specifically, in case you all missed it:



These are the numbers for those players at 1b from April 1 to July 31. (Per Fangraphs splits tool.)

Santana: 44 PA, .773 OPS
Gonzalez: 40 PA, .689 OPS
Chavis: 21 PA, .538 OPS
Cordero: 11 PA, .727 OPS

Dalbec: 269 PA, .639 OPS
Santana OPS to July 31: .554
Gonzalez OPS to July 31: .583

Why again would we expect them to perform better than that at 1B? You are bordering on trolling at this point. Because Santana had a better OPS in his 44 1B PAs he is a better choice?

Edit: it was mentioned upthread but cherry picking a 44 PA sample based on which position the player is playing is Van-esque