How do we break on through to the other side... of .500?

[johnnywayback]

I feel like the answer here depends on a few questions:
 
-- Can JBJ get past these growing pains and contribute at the plate?
-- Can Bogaerts improve his defense enough to stay at SS?
-- Can Middlebrooks become a reliable source of power (reliable enough to outweigh his contact deficiencies)?
-- Can we fix Buchholz?
-- Can Doubront become a consistent #3/4 starter?
 
And, frankly, a lot more is riding on the answers to those questions than just whether the current roster can win the AL East in 2014.  These are questions that determine the long-term strategy of the organization.  So I think we are sort of stuck waiting for the answers.  
 
That's what a bridge year is.  I'm glad we're having it the year after a championship.  And I'm glad that we have reasons (expected upwards regression from Pedroia, abundance of prospect depth in case of a major injury or if Peavy craps out, and, most of all, the general mediocrity of the division) to hope that, even if we don't get the answers we want to those questions, we'll be playing meaningful baseball in September.

 

[curly2]

I know Bradley's awful OPS vs. lefties (.610) is better than his awful OPS vs. righties (.599) but I think the Sox need to find a right-hand hitting CF.

Tell JBJ he's starting every day against righties and maybe he relaxes a little but not having to face tough lefties. I think he'd start to hit better.

The guy who would be the platoon partner should be a short-term guy. That way if JBJ learns to hit lefties he can be an everyday guy, and if not, Betts can make 40 starts a year playing CF against LHP as part of his "supersub" role.

 

[Plympton91]

 
That's what a bridge year is.  I'm glad we're having it the year after a championship.  And I'm glad that we have reasons (expected upwards regression from Pedroia, abundance of prospect depth in case of a major injury or if Peavy craps out, and, most of all, the general mediocrity of the division) to hope that, even if we don't get the answers we want to those questions, we'll be playing meaningful baseball in September.

 
Yeah, winning back-to-back championships really is counterproductive.  All those famous teams like the "Big Red Machine" are totally overrated. 

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

So, how is this team different from last year's team, and what is the biggest change needed?
 
1) The top answer is the downgrade in centerfield.  The teams went from a 5.8 WAR[footnote] player to a 0 WAR player.  Moreover, the lineup construction has changed fairly dramatically.  Pedey is not a lead off guy.  He looks to me to have lost a quarter-step or so on the bases, and it never has been his highest and best use.  I think what this team is lacking is a decent OBP guy with a little speed who can take up one of the top 3 spots in the lineup, drop Ortiz and Nap to 4th and 5th, and help avoid the dramatic constipation we've seen on the bases all year.  Inning after inning goes by where we're playing station to station where we used to have bases open in front of Ells, Vic and Pedey, causing more double play opportunities and less scoring.
 
2) Left sided infield downgrade.  Xander is an offensive downgrade from Drew at the moment, giving up about .090 OPS points, and considerably less pop.  Standing alone, this wouldn't a very big deal and hopefully by the end of the year, we'll be looking at maybe a 1.0 WAR difference from last year.  But the third-base situation is nearing hopeless, and the combination of lower production and giving away a couple of outs per week on defense for a team that doesn't have room to give up outs is causing trouble.
 
3) Starting pitching.  Back 60 percent of the rotation is not as effective as last year, and obviously, Clay is much worse than he was during half of last year.  Dempster was one of the best 5th starters in baseball last year -- usually got into the 6th inning at least, and gave the team a 50/50 shot to win the game, which is about as much as you can ask from your number 5.  This year, we're barely even getting that from our number 3.
 
4) Downgrade at the catcher position.  Pierzynski is barely replacement level so far.  We are, simply, missing pop at the bottom of the lineup.  There's nothing there.  We need a few majestic gappers or 400 footers down there every now and then.  Just missing Drew's bat, or just missing Salty's down there might have been tolerable, but with both gone, pitchers are mowing through the bottom half without much fear or stress.
 
5) Platoon/bench guys are all having bad years.  Carp, Gomes and Nava were good for about 3-4 WAR last year, and this year they are all playing right about at replacement level.  Sizemore is just taking up space.
 
6) Bullpen.  About the same, but having to do more because of the starting pitching problems.
 
Great, so it's easy to throw darts.  What can be fixed?  I dunno.  I think all that's likely to be out there that can be afforded is perhaps some left side help, but whomever we get isn't going to fix what I think is the biggest need -- a real lead off hitter who can move first to third and move Papi and Nap down to 4 and 5.  And filling that role will likely be at JBJ's expense, which means we take two steps forward and one back, because that creates a defensive downgrade in centerfield.
 
[footnote]  All WAR is fangraphs.

 

[Puffy]

One area of friction this season (so far) is the extent to which the Sox have really whiffed on settling the CF position. The Sizemore reclamation project is a borderline bust at this point, but his .645 OPS would be easier to take if he could play a passable CF. Having learned that he's probably just a LF at this point has directly and indirectly resulted both in the demotion of Nava (whose bat against RHP would have helped lately) and running JBJ, Jr. out there 6 nights a week. Their hands are tied at this point, since Bradley is basically a necessity out there due to the defense (and/or health) of the remaining outfielders. Victorino's health has removed the possibility of playing CF on anything more than an occasional or emergency basis. I don't know if Bradley has been rushed, but it does seem like there is no option to have him work on his offensive struggles in Pawtucket, given the fact that there really isn't another everyday CF on the 40-man - and I don't know what other choice they really have at this point other than continuing to run Bradley out there and hope he comes around.

 

[twothousandone]

(3) Back up the Brinks truck and make Florida an offer they can't refuse, in order to get Stanton.  Only Bogaerts is off the table.
 

The 23-22 Marlins should make Stanton available, but the 20-23 Red Sox ought to say Bogaerts is not available?
 
Given what seems to be the Red Sox real belief in player development (which includes development at the major league level), maybe they'd look for an upgrade at Catcher, they may be nearing the point where Middlebrooks (DL'd anyway) is deemed expendable, they may look for a boost of speed and/or defense in the OF.  But acquiring those things will mean giving up something AND making room on the roster.
 
Even something like de La Rosa for Headley would mean cutting someone. Carp? (or maybe they throw him in the deal). Carp isn't worth anything to a rebuilding major league team, nor is he worth giving anything up for a contending. Same with Nava and Gomes and Ross and Pierzynski.
 
Maybe they can roll the dice on Gerardo Parra in CF. Arizona might be willing to move him for Christian Vasquez and Matt Barnes.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Maybe they can roll the dice on Gerardo Parra in CF. Arizona might be willing to move him for Christian Vasquez and Matt Barnes.

 
I'm not moving Vasquez and Barnes to "roll the dice" on a guy with just a year and a half of team control left who is three years removed from his only above average offensive season.  Parra's best attribute is his gold glove caliber defense (primarily in the corners), but we already have gold glove caliber defense in center field where you propose to play him.
 
Maybe if this was a roster for which the championship window was closing that's a deal you do, but this is a team heading towards a big window of opportunity in the near future.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Maybe they can roll the dice on Gerardo Parra in CF. Arizona might be willing to move him for Christian Vasquez and Matt Barnes.

 
We're going to need catching and starting pitching in a bad way next season (hell, we could use it now,) and you want to trade potential from those positions for a guy that plays like JBJ is playing now, just without the upside? Makes sense.

 

[Dahabenzapple2]

Trading Bogaerts now would be the absolute worst time to do it as we do not know what he is.
 
We know the following:
 
A) He will be hitter with an elite OBA.
 
 
We do NOT know the following:
 
B) His power - is he a 10-15 HR/0.450 SLG guy 2 to 3 years from now or does he get to the next level where he could be a 25-30 HR/0.550 SLG guy
 
The difference is a good major league player or a HOF level talent.
 
As far as X in the field, if he is what we hope, if he can play SS, it only adds to the package.
 
So I don't include Bogaerts in the package for Stanton since he still has a real chance (what chance? that is the real question) to be as good as Staton in a couple of years at a huge value.

 

[ivanvamp]

The 23-22 Marlins should make Stanton available, but the 20-23 Red Sox ought to say Bogaerts is not available?
 
Given what seems to be the Red Sox real belief in player development (which includes development at the major league level), maybe they'd look for an upgrade at Catcher, they may be nearing the point where Middlebrooks (DL'd anyway) is deemed expendable, they may look for a boost of speed and/or defense in the OF.  But acquiring those things will mean giving up something AND making room on the roster.
 
Even something like de La Rosa for Headley would mean cutting someone. Carp? (or maybe they throw him in the deal). Carp isn't worth anything to a rebuilding major league team, nor is he worth giving anything up for a contending. Same with Nava and Gomes and Ross and Pierzynski.
 
Maybe they can roll the dice on Gerardo Parra in CF. Arizona might be willing to move him for Christian Vasquez and Matt Barnes.

 
Answer to your first question, bolded above, is yes.  The Sox have a ton of top-level prospects.  They could easily put together a package that could net Stanton, without including Bogaerts.  Obviously, the question is would they be willing to?  Because the price would be steep.  Hence my "Brinks truck" comment.  
 
Then there is that last sentence of yours.  You kind of ridicule me for my idea, and then you counter with THAT?  Gerardo Parra, he of the lifetime 95 ops+, who only once in six seasons broken 100 ops+ (113 in 2011), who has never hit more than 10 homers in a season, who doesn't even steal bases (career high of 15 in 2011 and 2012).  His best asset is his defense (which, to be fair, is outstanding).  But that's EXACTLY where JBJ is great as well.  
 
Right now, by fWAR, JBJ is outperforming Parra in terms of defensive WAR this season.  So you are essentially gaining nothing in CF.  And you want to unload a dynamic catching and high-level pitching prospect in order to essentially not upgrade in CF?
 
Wow.

 

[Plympton91]

Reading through all of this, I think it's important to note that outside of CF and perhaps 3B and Clay Buchholz, all of this angst is likely just small sample size flukes.  I am still not all that concerned with Doubront and Peavy, they are inconsistent 4th and 5th starters who will have ups and downs through the season and end up with 180 IP and an ERA around 4.25.  
 
Bradley not hitting is a problem, but one that was completely predictable and which, due to poor planning, has no solution this year.  They've just got to appreciate the defense and hope the OBP at least has bottomed out.  His minor league pedigree suggests that he will eventually be at least a 340/420 guy, and the only question is when.  Sadly, it's looking like "not 2014" is the answer, because he's the only answer in CF, not only for this year but for next.  His development has to take priority.
 
Middlebrooks struggles with contact and injury are frustrating, but with better prospects behind him it may be time to bite the bullet and find a stopgap for this season.  Especially with him being out for a few weeks, then a rehab assignment possible, concerns about his development should not cost us any more games in 2014.  Not worth it.
 
Buchholz is worrisome at this point, but also not something you can do much about.  I'm going to hope that he is just still somewhat afraid of his body after last year's injury and not letting loose.  With any luck, he'll start pitching well next time out and we'll all forget about the opening 7 weeks like we did in 2012.
 
Another change I'd make is to get Workman back up here in the bullpen and trade Capuano for whatever you can get.  They need to milk every win they can, and Workman in relief is better than Capuano, probably significantly.  I don't care about the smoke and mirrors the CC is benefitting from right now.
 
So, find a good thirdbaseman and trade from surplus to get him and maximize the roster with internal options, but don't fully panic.  I'm not all that optimistic, but it's not at all hopeless.  And they certainly shouldn't be "selling" and even then only of spare parts that get through waivers at the end of August.

 

[ivanvamp]

If you think that Capuano is smoke and mirrors, then trading him now is a superb idea.  Because so far this season, he's been very good.  
 
22.1 ip, 2.01 era, 1.16 whip, 9.3 k/9
 
That's pretty much all you can ask from a relief pitcher not named Koji Uehara.  

 

[alwyn96]

I think the best thing is probably to just try to wait it out, but if the team wants to make some moves for the sake of making moves by say...June 15th:
 
1) Cut Sizemore, recall Nava. Sizemore's not showing many signs of improvement, and he pretty superfluous on this team. 
 
2) DL or hide Mujica in a basement somewhere. He's awful.
 
3) Move Doubront to the bullpen. I'm not convinced he'll ever be more than a borderline 5th starter.
 
4) Call up whichever AAA starter is looking good. Webster, RDLR, whoevs. Maybe they have a bottle with some lightning in it.
 
5) Either get Betts some reps at 3B in AA, or promote him to AAA to see how he deals with borderline MLB-quality breaking stuff so maybe he could contribute in September, or hell, July or something. I'm sure someone will get hurt soon. Give Victorino some extended time to get healthy again. All about the Mookie train!
 
There you go. Just reshuffle some deck chairs and sit back and enjoy the 82-80ness. 

 

[ivanvamp]

Felix Doubront is a perfect 5th starter. 
 
Career #s:  4.61 era, 400.1 ip, 89g, 1.46 whip, 8.2 k/9.  Just the last 3 years, since he became a regular starter:  66 g, 365.0 ip, 5.2 ip per start, 1.45 whip, 8.3 k/9, 4.59 era, 91 era+.
 
So the era+ is a little high, the whip is high, but the k/9 is terrific, and even the 5.2 ip per start is pretty solid for a 5th starter.  
 
Last year, he pitched in 29 games.  Of those 29, 27 were starts.  He was horrid in his two relief appearances (on May 8 and Sep 29, where he totaled 6.2 ip, 16 h, 11 er, 5 bb, 6 k).  In his 27 starts, here was his line:  155.2 ip, 145 h, 67 er, 66 bb, 133 k, 3.87 era, 1.36 whip, 7.7 k/9.  That's REALLY good for a 5th starter.  
 
Of those 27 starts, he allowed more than 3 er just *THREE* times.  That's it.  Just three.  So pretty much every time out he at least gave you a chance to win.  Or, to put it better, he didn't get you buried.  
 
On top of it, he made peanuts.  
 
So you had a guy who was well above league average (I mean:  better than league average) in era in his starts, he had good k/9 numbers, he gave you pretty decent innings each game, he hardly ever took you out of a game, and he made almost nothing in the process.
 
If that's a "borderline" fifth starter, I'd like to know what kind of rotation you expect to have.  

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

2) Left sided infield downgrade.  Xander is an offensive downgrade from Drew at the moment, giving up about .090 OPS points, and considerably less pop. 

 
What base are you using? I'm trying to figure out how to make .777-.748=.090.
 
EDIT: And if you use wRC+, Bogaerts 2014 is actually ahead of Drew 2013, 111-109.
 
We have many problems. Shortstop offense is not one of them, and is not likely to become one anytime soon.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

 
What base are you using? I'm trying to figure out how to make .777-.748=.090.
 

 
Bad math.  You're right.

 

[alwyn96]

Felix Doubront is a perfect 5th starter. 
 
Career #s:  4.61 era, 400.1 ip, 89g, 1.46 whip, 8.2 k/9.  Just the last 3 years, since he became a regular starter:  66 g, 365.0 ip, 5.2 ip per start, 1.45 whip, 8.3 k/9, 4.59 era, 91 era+.
 
So the era+ is a little high, the whip is high, but the k/9 is terrific, and even the 5.2 ip per start is pretty solid for a 5th starter.  
 
Last year, he pitched in 29 games.  Of those 29, 27 were starts.  He was horrid in his two relief appearances (on May 8 and Sep 29, where he totaled 6.2 ip, 16 h, 11 er, 5 bb, 6 k).  In his 27 starts, here was his line:  155.2 ip, 145 h, 67 er, 66 bb, 133 k, 3.87 era, 1.36 whip, 7.7 k/9.  That's REALLY good for a 5th starter.  
 
Of those 27 starts, he allowed more than 3 er just *THREE* times.  That's it.  Just three.  So pretty much every time out he at least gave you a chance to win.  Or, to put it better, he didn't get you buried.  
 
On top of it, he made peanuts.  
 
So you had a guy who was well above league average (I mean:  better than league average) in era in his starts, he had good k/9 numbers, he gave you pretty decent innings each game, he hardly ever took you out of a game, and he made almost nothing in the process.
 
If that's a "borderline" fifth starter, I'd like to know what kind of rotation you expect to have.  

 
I'd like the kind of rotation that has 5 pitchers better than Felix Doubront in it. I mean, I don't "expect" to have the Tiger's rotation, but having a rotation like that would go a long way towards getting the Red Sox over .500. If Doubront can be replaced with a guy who's better, that would be great. I don't think Doubront is likely to be much better than what he has shown so far, and I'd like to have a better pitcher than that. I guess I meant he's borderline in the sense that he is just barely good enough to hold down a rotation spot on a team that hopes to compete for the playoffs. Sure, he's making peanuts, but if there are better pitchers starting in AAA, and you want to win more games, then replacing your worst pitcher helps get you there. Those guys make peanuts too. Doubront's about to start making almonds. 

 

[ivanvamp]

 
I'd like the kind of rotation that has 5 pitchers better than Felix Doubront in it. I mean, I don't "expect" to have the Tiger's rotation, but having a rotation like that would go a long way towards getting the Red Sox over .500. If Doubront can be replaced with a guy who's better, that would be great. I don't think Doubront is likely to be much better than what he has shown so far, and I'd like to have a better pitcher than that. I guess I meant he's borderline in the sense that he is just barely good enough to hold down a rotation spot on a team that hopes to compete for the playoffs. Sure, he's making peanuts, but if there are better pitchers starting in AAA, and you want to win more games, then replacing your worst pitcher helps get you there. Those guys make peanuts too. Doubront's about to start making almonds. 

 
I'd like to have five pitchers better than John Lackey too.
 
Your characterization of Doubront as a "borderline 5th starter" is absurd, though.  He's performed as a starter MUCH better than that.  Again, as a starter last year:
 
155.2 ip, 145 h, 67 er, 66 bb, 133 k, 3.87 era, 1.36 whip, 7.7 k/9, just three (out of 27) starts where he gave up more than 3 er
 
Try to find any 5th starter in baseball that good.  There honestly aren't that many 4th or even 3rd starters that accomplished that last year.  
 
I wouldn't mind upgrading from Doubront either, but he's not really the problem.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
Yeah, winning back-to-back championships really is counterproductive.  All those famous teams like the "Big Red Machine" are totally overrated. 

The Big Red Machine had no free agency to deal with.

The overall point is accurate. We got a huge unexpected gift last year with what that team did out of nowhere. Bitching that they can't do it again the very next year is churlish.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The Big Red Machine had no free agency to deal with.

The overall point is accurate. We got a huge unexpected gift last year with what that team did out of nowhere. Bitching that they can't do it again the very next year is churlish.

 
Not to mention premature.

 

[Plympton91]

The Big Red Machine had no free agency to deal with.

The overall point is accurate. We got a huge unexpected gift last year with what that team did out of nowhere. Bitching that they can't do it again the very next year is churlish.

Well sure. There were lots of people posting last spring that the Red Sox should trade Jon Lester for prospects because it was so obvious that they couldn't compete. So I guess to those people last year wAs a completely unexpected gift. I wasn't one of those people.

 

[alwyn96]

 
I'd like to have five pitchers better than John Lackey too.
 
Your characterization of Doubront as a "borderline 5th starter" is absurd, though.  He's performed as a starter MUCH better than that.  Again, as a starter last year:
 
155.2 ip, 145 h, 67 er, 66 bb, 133 k, 3.87 era, 1.36 whip, 7.7 k/9, just three (out of 27) starts where he gave up more than 3 er
 
Try to find any 5th starter in baseball that good.  There honestly aren't that many 4th or even 3rd starters that accomplished that last year.  
 
I wouldn't mind upgrading from Doubront either, but he's not really the problem.

 
We're talking about a guy who got booted from the rotation twice last year, so I'd say the Red Sox viewed him as borderline as recently as...last year. Of course, this is the internet, and it's not enough to merely disagree, but call someone's position absurd, so I'll say it's <checks thesaurus> bizarro that you would argue otherwise.
 
In all seriousness, I sense you're hung up on the "borderline" thing, and it's taking us down a fruitless path. Forget about borderline. I like Doubront. I thought him coming into camp in shape this year meant he was finally going to turn his potential into better results. I don't think Doubront's "the problem" either, but he's a guy with limited upside, and if you're grasping at straws to upgrade somewhere, he's a candidate (maybe you didn't read the part where I said the Red Sox should actually just wait it out and I'm just spitballin here). I don't think he's a number 3, as far as those 1-5 pitcher rankings have any actual meaning. He shows flashes, but he's got a career 91 ERA+. A 7.7 k/9 doesn't mean much these days, if you can believe it. His fastball's steadily lost velocity and his k rate is trending down. Giving up 3 runs a game isn't so great when you're only averaging a little over 5 innings a start. He's a perfectly cromulent starter if you don't have anyone else available, but I don't think he's a guy who should get in the way of a better pitcher. It's preposterous, Kafkaesque, and far-out to argue against this. :buddy:    

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Some possible ways to improve the team for 2014:
 
...

(2) Bring up Cecchini to fill in for, and ultimately replace, Middlebrooks.  I still think WMB has potential with terrific power, but he's got far too many holes in his swing right now.  Cecchini *should* be able to continue his excellent on-base work in the majors.
 
...

Betts time in LF?  

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Sorry, having browser problems.  My question for ivanvamp and others advocating for Checchini and/or Betts - what is the likelihood that they are simply the next JBJ/Xanders, who while being promising prospects, have issues transitioning to the big leagues?  It strikes me as kind of silly that in a season in which part of the problem with the team is that the youngsters have struggled to make the leap to the Show to suggest that the solution to these problems is to promote ever younger youngsters.

 

[JakeRae]

Sorry, having browser problems.  My question for ivanvamp and others advocating for Checchini and/or Betts - what is the likelihood that they are simply the next JBJ/Xanders, who while being promising prospects, have issues transitioning to the big leagues?  It strikes me as kind of silly that in a season in which part of the problem with the team is that the youngsters have struggled to make the leap to the Show to suggest that the solution to these problems is to promote ever younger youngsters.

 
JBJ has had issues transitioning to the big leagues (mostly strikeout related and his minor league rates indicate that he should be able to control that to the point of being at least a .240-.260 hitter once the dust settles). Xander Bogaerts has not. Xander Bogaerts has been everything that we could realistically expect from a 21 year old short stop. Really, he's been more than we have any right to expect from a 21 year old short stop. If he were batting second, and his .369 OBP had led to him scoring 30 runs so far this season, which he should be and it would, no one would be worried about Xander Bogaerts. He will get better, but the only problem he has had is that somewhere along the way people decided he would be Mike Trout instead of just a regular old awesome 21 year old transitioning to playing in MLB. Xander Bogaerts is not Mike Trout. 

 

[ivanvamp]

 
We're talking about a guy who got booted from the rotation twice last year, so I'd say the Red Sox viewed him as borderline as recently as...last year. Of course, this is the internet, and it's not enough to merely disagree, but call someone's position absurd, so I'll say it's <checks thesaurus> bizarro that you would argue otherwise.
 
In all seriousness, I sense you're hung up on the "borderline" thing, and it's taking us down a fruitless path. Forget about borderline. I like Doubront. I thought him coming into camp in shape this year meant he was finally going to turn his potential into better results. I don't think Doubront's "the problem" either, but he's a guy with limited upside, and if you're grasping at straws to upgrade somewhere, he's a candidate (maybe you didn't read the part where I said the Red Sox should actually just wait it out and I'm just spitballin here). I don't think he's a number 3, as far as those 1-5 pitcher rankings have any actual meaning. He shows flashes, but he's got a career 91 ERA+. A 7.7 k/9 doesn't mean much these days, if you can believe it. His fastball's steadily lost velocity and his k rate is trending down. Giving up 3 runs a game isn't so great when you're only averaging a little over 5 innings a start. He's a perfectly cromulent starter if you don't have anyone else available, but I don't think he's a guy who should get in the way of a better pitcher. It's preposterous, Kafkaesque, and far-out to argue against this. :buddy:    

 
Heh.  Then I shan't.

 

[WenZink]

 
...... Xander Bogaerts has not. Xander Bogaerts has been everything that we could realistically expect from a 21 year old short stop. Really, he's been more than we have any right to expect from a 21 year old short stop. If he were batting second, and his .369 OBP had led to him scoring 30 runs so far this season, which he should be and it would, no one would be worried about Xander Bogaerts. He will get better, but the only problem he has had is that somewhere along the way people decided he would be Mike Trout instead of just a regular old awesome 21 year old transitioning to playing in MLB. Xander Bogaerts is not Mike Trout. 

 
It's an overstatement to suggest that fans expected Xander to be Mike Trout (or at least the ability to transition to MLB at 21, like Trout.), but it's not a stretch that they were expecting Xander to be an impact player from day 1, similar to Nomar when during his first full season in 1997.   Nomar had 365 TB in '97, got off to a hot start in April, slumped in May, then had a great summer.  Nomar, of course, was 2 years older in '97 than the 21 year old Bogaerts, and it's an unfair comparison.  A lesson that will probably have to be relearned if the Sox call up a 21 year old Mookie later this summer..

 

[Plympton91]

 
JBJ has had issues transitioning to the big leagues (mostly strikeout related and his minor league rates indicate that he should be able to control that to the point of being at least a .240-.260 hitter once the dust settles). Xander Bogaerts has not. Xander Bogaerts has been everything that we could realistically expect from a 21 year old short stop. Really, he's been more than we have any right to expect from a 21 year old short stop. If he were batting second, and his .369 OBP had led to him scoring 30 runs so far this season, which he should be and it would, no one would be worried about Xander Bogaerts. He will get better, but the only problem he has had is that somewhere along the way people decided he would be Mike Trout instead of just a regular old awesome 21 year old transitioning to playing in MLB. Xander Bogaerts is not Mike Trout. 

 
This is a great point about Bogaerts batting second and taking advantage of his OBP until the power we all expect to come develops.  I doubt for reasons of "personnel" they'll drop Victorino in the order, but what about going to a top 5 of Victorino, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Pedroia, Napoli; that would get Bogaerts on in front of Ortiz for him to drive in and make it more difficult for teams to pitch around him.  Get Pedroia out of the leadoff spot where he's not as comfortable, and Victorino is hitting 2nd anyway, so it's not losing too much to lead him off instead (even though he should bat down in the order vs. righties).

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

I think as much as anything else we miss the disruption Ellsbury would cause on the base paths. Obviously the difference between his offense and JBJ is large, but I think what Ellsbury brought on the base paths is missed as well.

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

 
JBJ has had issues transitioning to the big leagues (mostly strikeout related and his minor league rates indicate that he should be able to control that to the point of being at least a .240-.260 hitter once the dust settles). Xander Bogaerts has not. Xander Bogaerts has been everything that we could realistically expect from a 21 year old short stop. Really, he's been more than we have any right to expect from a 21 year old short stop. If he were batting second, and his .369 OBP had led to him scoring 30 runs so far this season, which he should be and it would, no one would be worried about Xander Bogaerts. He will get better, but the only problem he has had is that somewhere along the way people decided he would be Mike Trout instead of just a regular old awesome 21 year old transitioning to playing in MLB. Xander Bogaerts is not Mike Trout. 

My purpose in mentioning Bogaerts "struggles" (and BTW I do think he really has struggled with the glove) is not to suggest that he's got no future as a major leaguer because he hasn't been Mike Trout, but merely to suggest that other youngsters are unlikely to be a panacea for this team's problems.


If it's unrealistic to expect Xander to be Moke Trout, isn't it also unrealistic to expect Cecchini to be Yasiel Puig?

 

[Cuzittt]

Who wants or expects Cecchini to be Puig? I only expect him to be better than Middlebrooks. Which would make the team marginally better.

 

[joe dokes]

 
We're talking about a guy who got booted from the rotation twice last year, so I'd say the Red Sox viewed him as borderline as recently as...last year. Of course, this is the internet, and it's not enough to merely disagree, but call someone's position absurd, so I'll say it's <checks thesaurus> bizarro that you would argue otherwise.
 
In all seriousness, I sense you're hung up on the "borderline" thing, and it's taking us down a fruitless path. Forget about borderline. I like Doubront. I thought him coming into camp in shape this year meant he was finally going to turn his potential into better results. I don't think Doubront's "the problem" either, but he's a guy with limited upside, and if you're grasping at straws to upgrade somewhere, he's a candidate (maybe you didn't read the part where I said the Red Sox should actually just wait it out and I'm just spitballin here). I don't think he's a number 3, as far as those 1-5 pitcher rankings have any actual meaning. He shows flashes, but he's got a career 91 ERA+. A 7.7 k/9 doesn't mean much these days, if you can believe it. His fastball's steadily lost velocity and his k rate is trending down. Giving up 3 runs a game isn't so great when you're only averaging a little over 5 innings a start. He's a perfectly cromulent starter if you don't have anyone else available, but I don't think he's a guy who should get in the way of a better pitcher. It's preposterous, Kafkaesque, and far-out to argue against this. :buddy:    

 
The whole #3, #4, #5 crap, is, well, crap. 
If Felix Doubront is your fifth best starter, then you are wasting valuable resources by replacing him, because he is probably already beter than everyone else's 5th best starter.  If he is your 3rd best starter, then you might be in some trouble unless he improves dramatically.

 

[metaprosthesis]

I think that people have pretty well covered the sorts of specific issues facing the Red Sox this year.  However, on a macro level, it seems that if the Sox were just a smidge luckier, they would have a prettier record and there would be less panic.  They have played 15 one-run games (difference in final score, not total runs scored), which is about 35% of their games so far, and the highest number in the AL.  They have lost 10 of those games.  This, combined with their fifth-worst-in-the-majors offensive LOB% makes me think that bad luck fuels a fair amount of their woes thus far.  It's like the opposite of the 2012 Orioles.
 
It also seems a bit premature to write off the Sizemore experiment.  While I don't think we should expect greatness, his .258 BABIP (despite a non-terrible 18.9% LD rate) suggests some upward regression may lie ahead.

 

[jimbobim]

I think that people have pretty well covered the sorts of specific issues facing the Red Sox this year.  However, on a macro level, it seems that if the Sox were just a smidge luckier, they would have a prettier record and there would be less panic.  They have played 15 one-run games (difference in final score, not total runs scored), which is about 35% of their games so far, and the highest number in the AL.  They have lost 10 of those games.  This, combined with their fifth-worst-in-the-majors offensive LOB% makes me think that bad luck fuels a fair amount of their woes thus far.  It's like the opposite of the 2012 Orioles.
 
It also seems a bit premature to write off the Sizemore experiment.  While I don't think we should expect greatness, his .258 BABIP (despite a non-terrible 18.9% LD rate) suggests some upward regression may lie ahead.

 
Agree 100 percent with all of these points. Outside of the Tiger series and some real brutal games against the Yanks the Sox have been in most every game. Now the Yankees ( pretty lucky this year with Solarte pulling a 2013 Inglesias) and Detroit( destined for the ALCS) are teams the Red Sox need to play much better if they want to go to the playoffs this year.
 
Two Points I would add
 
1) They need another established bat. There have been rumblings about the players wanting Drew back and guys like Merloni, gammons, etc seem to think that will somehow solve the offensive production problem. It would solve the 3b problem by moving X back over there but its essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul because then are you going to try and break in a new SS after the year or move X back? 3b, and basically the entire OF is underperforming. I wouldn't touch Vic or JBJ for different reasons but the LF platoon worked last year and it hasn't this year. Solving the LF problem is a lot easier then finding a competent 3B. Stanton( supposedly not available but I think he'll be shopped before the year is done) Kemp ( obviously the Dodgers would need to eat some money but if I can get him for18-19 mill a year for something like Renaudo Marrero WMB I think he'd be a perfect LF with the ability to spot JBJ against lefties)  Sandoval, Headley etc. The team needs a veteran bat for the 5 hole. 
 
2) I don't think SOSH is this way necessarily but the Red Sox writers, tv pundits, and talk radio crowd (Speier is the exception excellent work all the time) need to stop essentially eating our young talent alive without being patient. X is struggling with RISP. Big deal. He is going to be a star and he is far from unplayable at SS and is noticeably improving.  Drew was hurt to begin last year was mired in a pitiful slump before improving to only being unwatchable against lefties. he got back and was saved by his defense and 10 mill dollar salary. JBJ has struggled at the bat but the Red Sox should be able to bat him 9th without suffering a huge loss. I'm personally done with WMB and I think he would sulk like no tomorrow if he got sent down to the Bucket.  

 

[Saints Rest]

 
JBJ has had issues transitioning to the big leagues (mostly strikeout related and his minor league rates indicate that he should be able to control that to the point of being at least a .240-.260 hitter once the dust settles). Xander Bogaerts has not. Xander Bogaerts has been everything that we could realistically expect from a 21 year old short stop. Really, he's been more than we have any right to expect from a 21 year old short stop. If he were batting second, and his .369 OBP had led to him scoring 30 runs so far this season, which he should be and it would, no one would be worried about Xander Bogaerts. He will get better, but the only problem he has had is that somewhere along the way people decided he would be Mike Trout instead of just a regular old awesome 21 year old transitioning to playing in MLB. Xander Bogaerts is not Mike Trout. 

 
 

 
This is a great point about Bogaerts batting second and taking advantage of his OBP until the power we all expect to come develops.  I doubt for reasons of "personnel" they'll drop Victorino in the order, but what about going to a top 5 of Victorino, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Pedroia, Napoli; that would get Bogaerts on in front of Ortiz for him to drive in and make it more difficult for teams to pitch around him.  Get Pedroia out of the leadoff spot where he's not as comfortable, and Victorino is hitting 2nd anyway, so it's not losing too much to lead him off instead (even though he should bat down in the order vs. righties).

 
I'm going to be even more bold and suggest that Bogaerts should be our new leadoff hitter.  SO far this year, with no one on, his slash line is 326/421/457/878.  Leading off an inning, which he has done 36 times, he looks even better at 444/535/611/1146.  With runners on, he is 170/279/245/524.
 
Now some will say that that is too much pressure on a 21 year old, that he is already struggling in the field, and likely taking that to the plate.  Maybe.   But he is also the guy who showed no sign of adverse affects from the playoffs.
 
I'd like to see them go Bogaerts, Pedroia, Ortiz, Napoli, Vic (when he's back), then the last four in almost any order with JBJ batting 9th.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

However, on a macro level, it seems that if the Sox were just a smidge luckier, they would have a prettier record and there would be less panic.  They have played 15 one-run games (difference in final score, not total runs scored), which is about 35% of their games so far, and the highest number in the AL.  They have lost 10 of those games.  

 
Here's the thing: most baseball games are relatively close. If your talent level is such that you have a positive run differential, you should expect to win more one run games than you lose. If you score fewer runs than you prevent, you're going to lose more one run games.
 
Even if that's not the case (there does seem to be a weak relationship between run differential and winning pct. in one run games), the total number of games that you play that are decided by one run is going to decrease as run differential increases. The 2014 Red Sox are on pace to play in 56 one run games. In 2013, they played in 42. Just assuming that most teams should expect to win about half of their one run games, merely being involved in that many more is going to damage the overall record.

 

[Dogman]

Well sure. There were lots of people posting last spring that the Red Sox should trade Jon Lester for prospects because it was so obvious that they couldn't compete. So I guess to those people last year wAs a completely unexpected gift. I wasn't one of those people.

 
Actually, you were:
 

Plymtpon 91 Posted 17 March 2013 - 08:38 PM

The standard error of the average number of wins for a baseball season is SQRT(162*winpct*(1-winpct)).  So, if you pick the team to win 81 games, then you're saying you're 95 percent confident that they'll win between 74 and 88 games.  That's about where I am; I would be more optimistic if Ortiz was healthy but that is a huge hole in the lineup.  I think the Blue Jays, Tigers, and Angels are clearly better than the Sox, and that the Devil Rays are probably better as well.  The rest of the league is very even.  The Yankees injuries and the age of the pitching staff leaves them vulnerable. Texas is relying very heavily on youth and have lost a lot of firepower over the past two years.  Chicago is my real dark horse, and even Seattle is a good bet at the odds they're being quoted at.  The Orioles should not be written off based on their flukey one-run record last season; they have young talent that will improve to offset that.  I expect the A's to regress and Kansas City to disappoint.
 

 
Even if you picked 88 wins and at the very top end of that range you cited, that would not have been good enough for the playoffs as 91 wins was the cutoff last season.  You were at  "about" 81 wins because Ortiz wasn't healthy and the team would not be very competitive ( For perspective,I was at 74 wins). Are you sure 97 wins wasn't an unexpected gift?

 

[metaprosthesis]

 
Here's the thing: most baseball games are relatively close. If your talent level is such that you have a positive run differential, you should expect to win more one run games than you lose. If you score fewer runs than you prevent, you're going to lose more one run games.
 
Even if that's not the case (there does seem to be a weak relationship between run differential and winning pct. in one run games), the total number of games that you play that are decided by one run is going to decrease as run differential increases. The 2014 Red Sox are on pace to play in 56 one run games. In 2013, they played in 42. Just assuming that most teams should expect to win about half of their one run games, merely being involved in that many more is going to damage the overall record.

 
I'm not sure I understand your point.  The parenthetical in your second paragraph refutes the first paragraph, so other than the observation that most baseball games are relatively close, I'm not sure it contributes anything.  And, frankly, the "relative" part is the part that matters.  One-run games are the closest games.  The difference between a win and a loss is the slimmest there.  Since nearly half of the Red Sox losses so far are of that slimmest nature, it stands to reason that only a small improvement could bear meaningful results.  That was all I suggested.  I guess that my statement implies that if you project the rest of the season, then the Sox should win more one-run games.  But all I meant was that, looking at the results we have so far, they aren't getting blown away by their competition much of the time.  That seems like a hopeful sign.

 

[KillerBs]

Here is my prescription, if not now then within a week or 2 if nothing signfiicant changes. :
 
1. Move Carp and one of the AA/AAA pitchers for a veteran OFer who can spell Bradley and Victorino in CF/RF. Easier said then done true but Venable or Denorfia come to mind as potential targets. This is the top priority given Bradley's struggles and Victorino's frailty. 
2. Dump Sizemore and recall Nava, so we have a back up 1b in the absence of Carp. Hope that Nava gives the team a spark on his return.
3. In the absence of a cheap rental at 3b, stick with Holt at 3b until Middlebrooks returns
4. Give Peavy and Buchholz 1 or 2 more starts to see if they still deserve to take the mound every 5th day. If not, DL Buchholz or Peavy (assumng an injury can be located) or move one of them to the pen (if not) and recall DeLaRosa or whoever else you think is the best starter at AAA.
5. Give Mujica another chance or 3, but if he continues to suck, find a way to get him off the 25 man, and replace with your next best pitcher in AAA -- presumably one of Workman or Webster or Barnes, assuming they are not dealt in number 1 above.  

 

[DJnVa]

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/83442-drew-is-walking-through-that-door/

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
I'm not sure I understand your point.  The parenthetical in your second paragraph refutes the first paragraph, so other than the observation that most baseball games are relatively close, I'm not sure it contributes anything.  And, frankly, the "relative" part is the part that matters.  One-run games are the closest games.  The difference between a win and a loss is the slimmest there.  Since nearly half of the Red Sox losses so far are of that slimmest nature, it stands to reason that only a small improvement could bear meaningful results.  That was all I suggested.  I guess that my statement implies that if you project the rest of the season, then the Sox should win more one-run games.  But all I meant was that, looking at the results we have so far, they aren't getting blown away by their competition much of the time.  That seems like a hopeful sign.

 
I've been thinking like you did for a while this season - so many one run losses! They've been unlucky, they just need to convert a couple of those to wins, and they'll be fine! But the actual macro level is how many runs this team is capable of scoring and preventing, not their "luck" in one run games. If they had a better offense, Miller doesn't lose two games in Minnesota. My point is that if you're trying to project to the rest of the season, looking at run differential is almost certainly a better predictor than looking at record in one-run games and then regressing that to the mean. 

 

[metaprosthesis]

 
I've been thinking like you did for a while this season - so many one run losses! They've been unlucky, they just need to convert a couple of those to wins, and they'll be fine! But the actual macro level is how many runs this team is capable of scoring and preventing, not their "luck" in one run games. If they had a better offense, Miller doesn't lose two games in Minnesota. My point is that if you're trying to project to the rest of the season, looking at run differential is almost certainly a better predictor than looking at record in one-run games and then regressing that to the mean. 

 
Okay.  I'm not really talking about projecting.  Maybe I shouldn't use the word "luck" because it gets associated with expectations of regression in stats circles (and since I cited Sizemore's BABIP in the same post, it's reasonable to presume I meant it in that way).  From a pure observation-of-data standpoint, it is a fact that many of the Red Sox's losses have been very close.  So, I'm simply saying that to improve things going forward is not so daunting a task.  Like everyone else in the thread, I think that the offense needs to improve (and a step in that direction appears to have just been made).  If they improve the offense, then the run differential will most likely improve (unless there is compensatory suck on the pitcher's mound).  I am absolutely not promoting the idea that, "oh, they've been unlucky in one-run games and when that turns around everything will be rosy!"  This thread contains all kinds of suggestions that this trade or that shake-up needs to happen.  My point was that the difference between the present offense and an offense that wins more games (and, accordingly, has a positive run differential) might not be large enough to require much more than something like Bradley hitting over his weight or some balls dropping in for Sizemore.  Or, maybe, replacing Middlebrooks's Ks with Stephen Drew's BBs.

 

[Reverend]

I also would like to see the Red Sox score more runs and believe it could be instrumental in them winning more games.

 

[nvalvo]

I have a few fairly obvious observations on Bradley's offense.
 
The positives:

• His isolated patience is .100. That is rock solid.
• Relatedly, his walk rate is 11 percent, up from last year's MLB numbers and more in line with what he did in AA/AAA. 
• He's shown no split: .275 wOBA against L and R. More SLG against LHP, more OBP against RHP. 

The negatives: 

• His 30% K rate is unsustainable for a player without Adam Dunn power. That said, he typically K'd around 20% in the minors. Can that be regained as he learns the league?
• His LD rate is not very good at 16%. Not truly horrible (David Ross' 11% says hi), but not good at all. 
• That means his .310 BABIP might be *high.* Uh oh. 
• Sliders in particular have been devouring him. I think we've all seen that watching the games; the numbers bear it out. 

My takeaway is that he's getting a crash course in major league breaking pitches. He simply has to learn to recognize a big league slider, and until he does so, he's going to scuffle. I don't think he can really do that effectively in AAA, so I think we just need to be patient with him. He's got a good plate approach in other respects, so I hope that as he learns the league and sees pitchers for a second time, he puts his offensive game back together. 

 

[alwyn96]

 
The whole #3, #4, #5 crap, is, well, crap. 
If Felix Doubront is your fifth best starter, then you are wasting valuable resources by replacing him, because he is probably already beter than everyone else's 5th best starter.  If he is your 3rd best starter, then you might be in some trouble unless he improves dramatically.

 
I agree that the whole 3,4,5 thing is a pretty unclear idea the way it's thrown around. Instead of "5th starter type" we should probably say, "a guy who projects to be around a 90 ERA+, around 160 IP," but that's a little clunky. Over the course of the season, pitchers get injured and/or pitch better or worse than expected, so the 5th best starter at the beginning of the season is often (usually?) a different guy than at the end of the season. 
 
However, I am flummoxed as to why you wouldn't want to maximize the quality of your rotation. If you've figured out how clone prime Sandy Koufax (projected to 9.7 WAR each), and you have 4 of him in your rotation plus Felix Doubront (projected to 1.7 WAR), you're saying that you wouldn't want a 5th 9.7-WAR Sandy Koufax clone in there to take his place? He gives you like 8 more wins! Sure, if there are additional easy things to do that get you more wins, you do those things too. Nothing about what I said precludes you from doing other things. But the principle of playing better players over worse ones seems pretty sound to me. 
 
I'll say that the real problem with the Doubront part of my argument, since no one is making it, is that it hinges on one of the AAA guys being meaningfully better than Doubront. If you don't think that is true, than it doesn't make sense to replace Doubront, who would remain the guy you think is the 5th best starter and the guy who would get you the most wins. Whether or not he is better than other starters on other teams is irrelevant, it's whether he's better than other starters on your team (or your 40-man or whatever). 

 

[bellowthecat]

While hopefully Drew helps give a couple extra wins out of the left side of the infield, the real problem has been the -0.5 fWAR that the Sox have received out of the outfield.  Everyone's been all over Sizemore and JBJ, and their issues are well known, but I'm surprised there aren't alarm bells ringing over Shane Victorino.  He has completely lost his magic against RHPs from last year and is striking out at an 18.5% clip against a career average of 12.0%.  He has looked fine in the field, but the days off for aches and pains aren't going to go away.  If the Sox are going to do anything at all this year they're going to need to start getting production out of the outfield.  Maybe they can trade for someone in June to play RF and platoon JBJ and Victorino in CF, but more realistically I think all they can do is hope Vic turns it around.