Red Sox in season discussion

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
Dumping Hosmer saved the Padres several million in luxury tax though right? And they had very little time to move him.

There were multiple accounts and reports that teams inquired about JD and that the Sox asking price included major league player(s) and a top prospect(s).

The idea that they couldn’t give him away doesn’t seem supported by any evidence / reports.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
Indeed, seems the issue was not wanting to give him away, which is, in my mind, baseball ops malpractice if it meant getting under the LT threshold in a season where a title, even a week ago, seemed highly unlikely at best.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Dumping Hosmer saved the Padres several million in luxury tax though right? And they had very little time to move him.

There were multiple accounts and reports that teams inquired about JD and that the Sox asking price included major league player(s) and a top prospect(s).

The idea that they couldn’t give him away doesn’t seem supported by any evidence / reports.
We heard what the sox supposedly asked for, we haven't heard any supposed offers.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Asked earlier, but no response.... But would it have been a terrible move to staple a prospect with some upside like Winkleman Gonzalez to JDM to extract a better prospect that could be further along than WG? Or does that not really make any sense?
It might have been a reasonable move, particularly if the motivation was improving the prospect return or lessening/eliminating the need to subsidize JDM's salary. However, it would still require a team interested in acquiring JDM in the first place. I don't think we can ignore or rule out the possibility that no one wanted him no matter the price or the incentives.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
Why? So people can call them cheap? Is it that big a set back?
Any time you fail to achieve a goal as an organization, it's a set back. Set backs aren't good, regardless of size. Failing to get under the LT threshold will literally make it more expensive to field a team next year. We know that JWH has deep pockets, but we also know that they aren't bottomless and he pushes back if the bill gets to be too high. That's why we had the infamous "bridge" year (and I think he learned the wrong lesson from the backlash to that assertion) and why they made it such a priority to get under the threshold not too long ago.

They'll be called cheap for not wanting to spend extra money now, far more than they would have if he had just given JDM away as a door prize.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
They looked good for a month, playing, what, 4 series against the three worst teams in the league during that stretch?

To me, they don't look like a contender that was snake-bitten by injuries. They look like a mediocre and flawed team that was snake-bitten by injuries and became a last-place team. Even when healthy they were not much of a threat to do anything in the postseason.
They were crushing good teams during that stretch too
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
It might have been a reasonable move, particularly if the motivation was improving the prospect return or lessening/eliminating the need to subsidize JDM's salary. However, it would still require a team interested in acquiring JDM in the first place. I don't think we can ignore or rule out the possibility that no one wanted him no matter the price or the incentives.
I think we can rule that out. Why were teams inquiring about him if they weren’t interested “no matter the price”?

This new idea that no one was interested in JD - where is that coming from?

https://risingapple.com/posts/ny-mets-rumors-jd-martinez-trade-asking-price

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/mlb-rumors-dodgers-showing-interest-red-sox-jd-martinez

View: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10043398-red-sox-trade-rumors-jd-martinez-being-shopped-ahead-of-mlb-deadline
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
How about the fact that he's still with the Red Sox? There were all kinds of stories about teams pursing Willson Contreras too, but he didn't go anywhere either. Something clearly changed from the time those articles (and others like them) were written and the deadline. Perhaps interest cooled.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
How about the fact that he's still with the Red Sox? There were all kinds of stories about teams pursing Willson Contreras too, but he didn't go anywhere either. Something clearly changed from the time those articles (and others like them) were written and the deadline. Perhaps interest cooled.
Perhaps, but what has been reported is that teams thought the asking price, a big league player and a top prospect, was too high. Seems like the most reasonable explanation. ‍♂

Sox thought / hoped to still contend, saw some value in JD the rest of the year for several reasons, put a high price on him and kept him when no one met it. I suspect it’s the same reason Eovaldi and others weren’t deal, too.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Looking carefully, the Sox were buyers or more accurately, acquirers ...trading for Pham and essentially picking up Hosmer for almost nothing. But all those things happened or were announced AFTER Vaz was traded. Trading your starting catcher and one of your better hitters for players that are not ready to help you this year is NOT something a buyer does. After a week, I still cannot see the logic of what transpired!
It seems pretty clear if the reporting around it was accurate. Bloom thought the Sox had a chance of making the post season, but not a huge one.

So he made modest acquisitions (not mortgaging the future), yet was also prepared to sell if he was blown away by the offers.

The Vaz trade makes sense if the FO thought Vaz's production on both sides of the plate was replaceable. To replace Vaz, they might have explored trading JD for prospects to lateral for Sean Murphy as a long term solution, or maybe they had McGuire as a "standby" deal all along.

For Pham, they may have been in on other players with Pham being a backup. . .or maybe they were always going to try to get him if the price was a PTBNL.

As for Hosmer, maybe they were in on another hitter on another team and dropped that like a hot-potato when Hosmer basically fell in their laps.

In retrospect, if Bloom magically had today's knowledge of how further injuries would shape up, maybe he'd just have gone into seller mode. But he didn't, and Aug 2 was the deadline. Such is life.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
To me, they don't look like a contender that was snake-bitten by injuries. They look like a mediocre and flawed team that was snake-bitten by injuries and became a last-place team. Even when healthy they were not much of a threat to do anything in the postseason.
I actually pretty much agree with this, although in the new era of 3 Wild Cards, I think "mediocre" and "contender" are almost synonyms. The current 3rd Wild Card in the AL (Rays) are on pace to win 86 games, and the 3rd Wild Card in the NL (Phillies) are on pace to win 90.

To your earlier point about the cost being primarily due to Sale, I think it's worth noting that Eovaldi, Hill, and Wacha (plus Paxton, of course) have all missed more than a month of games on the IL. That's the entire projected starting rotation missing at least a month of games, plus our starting 2B & CF (Story and Kiké) missing ~2 months. That's pretty significant (regardless of whether you blame roster construction or bad luck).

As far as "flawed mediocre team" from the outset, I personally find it hard to evaluate this team for many reasons, not least of which that -- as has been discussed -- they made the ALCS last season. I'm not trying to say that was their "real" talent level as opposed to the maddening squad that went 37-34 in the 2nd half last year. It's just hard for me to evaluate this team's ceiling when a similar version very nearly ended up in the World Series last year.

So if Bloom is supposed to get a pass on this year's major league team because of the bad luck of all the injuries, does ranking 29th last year mean that the credit he gets for having a better-than-expected result to the season should be reduced a bit?
No, I'm not suggesting Bloom get all the credit or all the blame.

I think part of the evaluation is whether you think Bloom did a better job securing players with fewer injury concerns last year, whereas this year he seemed to bank heavily on Sale and Paxton contributing to the 2022 roster, etc.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
How could anyone blame bad luck for injuries that steal big chunks of the season from a rotation featuring Chris Sale, Eovaldi, Rich Hill, and Michael Wacha? (Not saying that you are doing that - just responding to the notion that someone out there might think the Red Sox had bad luck with the injuries).

Every one of those guys is a bright, blinking red injury risk at all times. You don't put a whole rotation of guys like that onto your roster and then blame bad luck for them missing time. It's what they all do.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,231
No, I'm not suggesting Bloom get all the credit or all the blame.

I think part of the evaluation is whether you think Bloom did a better job securing players with fewer injury concerns last year, whereas this year he seemed to bank heavily on Sale and Paxton contributing to the 2022 roster, etc.
I didn't mean to suggest that was your conclusion. I just thought the data you put together would seem to say that as unlucky as the team has been with health this year (which some think means Bloom should get a pass), it was as lucky last year on the same dimension.

Part of the problem with gambling on often unhealthy players is the volatility we've seen this year. When they are all well, the team is (mostly) great but as the season wears on, are they going to stay healthy? When then Duquette teams got full years out of Brett Saberhagen or Tim Naehring, the Sox were pretty competitive, but you couldn't count on those guys to do it regularly. Betting on the Wachas and Paxtons is going to work out sometimes and not others. I might guess that playing prospect roulette with the Corderos, Durans and Whitlocks is also a volatile strategy. The scrap heap is probably even worse - very rarely you find David Ortiz but mostly it's Danny Santana or Dwayne Hosey.

Conversely, spending big money on somebody like Mookie or Soto seems less likely to produce highly variable outcomes. These deals are not without risk, particularly given the size and, more importantly, length of contracts being given out nowadays, and probably teams do end up overpaying for WAR, but the risk is largely to ownership's profit line, and at least they are getting a fair bit of WAR along the way a lot of the time.

Edit - I should probably caveat the above paragraph with my guess is probably a better one with regard to everyday players than pitchers.
 
Last edited:

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
How could anyone blame bad luck for injuries that steal big chunks of the season from a rotation featuring Chris Sale, Eovaldi, Rich Hill, and Michael Wacha? (Not saying that you are doing that - just responding to the notion that someone out there might think the Red Sox had bad luck with the injuries).

Every one of those guys is a bright, blinking red injury risk at all times. You don't put a whole rotation of guys like that onto your roster and then blame bad luck for them missing time. It's what they all do.
How about:

Hosmer
Story
Devers
Kike
Houck
Strahm
Bello
Danish
Whitlock
Seabold
etc?

Are they all bright blinking red injury risks at all times?

I wonder how long the Strength and Conditioning staff has left with this team
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
How could anyone blame bad luck for injuries that steal big chunks of the season from a rotation featuring Chris Sale, Eovaldi, Rich Hill, and Michael Wacha? (Not saying that you are doing that - just responding to the notion that someone out there might think the Red Sox had bad luck with the injuries).

Every one of those guys is a bright, blinking red injury risk at all times. You don't put a whole rotation of guys like that onto your roster and then blame bad luck for them missing time. It's what they all do.
Every single pitcher in baseball is just as susceptible to injury as the four you cite. Staying healthy isn't a skill, it's luck. Sometimes that's luck of genetics, but still luck. The Sox once signed a 30-year-old starter who was coming off six straight seasons in which he made at least 30 starts and threw 170+ innings. Seems like a perfectly durable guy. His name was Matt Clement, and we know how that turned out.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Every single pitcher in baseball is just as susceptible to injury as the four you cite. Staying healthy isn't a skill, it's luck. Sometimes that's luck of genetics, but still luck. The Sox once signed a 30-year-old starter who was coming off six straight seasons in which he made at least 30 starts and threw 170+ innings. Seems like a perfectly durable guy. His name was Matt Clement, and we know how that turned out.
Every single pitcher is susceptible to injury.

Not every pitcher is as likely to miss time as Chris Sale or Michael Wacha or 42-year-old Rich Hill. I don't know how you can argue that it's all just random.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Conversely, spending big money on somebody like Mookie or Soto seems less likely to produce highly variable outcomes. These deals are not without risk, particularly given the size and, more importantly, length of contracts being given out nowadays, and probably teams do end up overpaying for WAR, but the risk is largely to ownership's profit line, and at least they are getting a fair bit of WAR along the way a lot of the time.
But it's not just overpaying for WAR.

Take Carl Crawford. Great player with the Rays - going to be 29, but there are studies that show guys with his skills don't decline, yada, yada, yada. 7 years, $142 million. Maybe we overpay a bit on the back end, but man, 2011 and 2012 are going to be glorious. In isolation that does not seem unreasonable.

What we got was the capstone salary on a very expensive 2012 club. And prior to that the player gave us a lot of injury and uncertainty. So we didn't know if we should be trading him, when that should happen, or keeping him to rehab/play, or acquiring more OF depth to take his place. He's holding down a spot on the 40 man, and he is or isn't in the plan. (For the WARists, that .09 bWAR over 2 seasons.)

Memory lane: https://www.espn.com/boston/mlb/news/story?id=5901372

Seriously - read the whole thing, it's ironic as hell.
Between the multitalented Crawford, who a source confirmed came to terms Wednesday night on a seven-year, $142 million deal with Boston, and slugging first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, acquired by trade last weekend from San Diego and in line for his own seven-year deal for an estimated $154 million, the Red Sox appear set for the next decade.

Crawford passed his physical on Friday, a team source confirmed, and the Red Sox have scheduled a 10 a.m. ET Saturday news conference to announce his signing.

"Adrian already heard about Carl," Gonzalez's agent, John Boggs, e-mailed Wednesday night. "He's very happy."

A team that has often complained about the spending habits of the New York Yankees, who two years ago swooped in and outbid Boston for Mark Teixeira, has abandoned fiscal restraint by making Crawford the first player in Red Sox history with a contract with an average annual value in excess of $20 million.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Every single pitcher is susceptible to injury.

Not every pitcher is as likely to miss time as Chris Sale or Michael Wacha or 42-year-old Rich Hill. I don't know how you can argue that it's all just random.
I didn't say random. I was implying unpredictable. Unless it's a chronic or recurring situation like a bad back, being injured once is not indicative or predictive of being injured again, especially to a completely different part of the body. Sale having had Tommy John surgery to repair his elbow isn't predictive of nor does it make him more susceptible to breaking a rib or getting hit by a line drive on the finger or falling off a bicycle.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
I didn't say random. I was implying unpredictable. Unless it's a chronic or recurring situation like a bad back, being injured once is not indicative or predictive of being injured again, especially to a completely different part of the body. Sale having had Tommy John surgery to repair his elbow isn't predictive of nor does it make him more susceptible to breaking a rib or getting hit by a line drive on the finger or falling off a bicycle.
It's been a few years, but IIRC, studies have demonstrated that the most predictive information about whether a pitcher will go on the DL this year is whether they went on the DL in previous years.

In fact, here you go:

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/19653/baseball-therapy-what-really-predicts-pitcher-injuries/

First, shoulder injuries. In order of strength of prediction, the best predictors of whether or not you will have a shoulder injury in the coming year are whether you had a shoulder injury last year, how many pitches you threw last year, whether you had a shoulder injury two years ago, how many extra batters you faced last year from the year before (with a greater increase meaning that you were less likely to be injured), and the two-strike foul rate (just barely). It's clear that guys with pre-existing conditions are a risk. This shouldn't be too big a surprise. But if you were entrusted to face more batters last year, it might be a sign that the team thinks your shoulder is okay. It’s hard to tell whether the two-strike fouls issue is cause or effect. If you're not able to blow that fastball by hitters, it might be because there is some shoulder damage that's really the beginnings of an injury.


For elbows (in order): Home run rate (lower HR rate guys have elbow injuries more often), whether you had an elbow injury last year, the number of batters you faced last year, the change in the number of innings you pitched last year (again, a bigger increase leads to a lower rate of injury), and ERA (the higher the ERA, the more likely you are to get hurt).


For any injury at all, there were two factors: You are more likely to get injured if you threw more pitches last year, and if you had an injury last year.


For spending time on the disabled list, we see a similar pattern: the number of pitches thrown in the last year, spending time on the DL last year, and the change in the number of batters faced (once again, a big increase meant a drop in injury chances.)
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Every single pitcher in baseball is just as susceptible to injury as the four you cite. Staying healthy isn't a skill, it's luck. Sometimes that's luck of genetics, but still luck. The Sox once signed a 30-year-old starter who was coming off six straight seasons in which he made at least 30 starts and threw 170+ innings. Seems like a perfectly durable guy. His name was Matt Clement, and we know how that turned out.
And that same year they lost to free agency a 31 year old pitcher who had had seven straight years of perfect health who then went on to start 33-38 games for each of the next eight years. You never know.

Edit - but I’d argue Derek Lowe wasn’t a typical pitcher and maybe his pitch repertoire helped him stay healthy.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
How could anyone blame bad luck for injuries that steal big chunks of the season from a rotation featuring Chris Sale, Eovaldi, Rich Hill, and Michael Wacha? (Not saying that you are doing that - just responding to the notion that someone out there might think the Red Sox had bad luck with the injuries).

Every one of those guys is a bright, blinking red injury risk at all times. You don't put a whole rotation of guys like that onto your roster and then blame bad luck for them missing time. It's what they all do.
Eovaldi and Hill had no injuries last year, Wacha had a small stint on the IL. They made a combined 86 starts and another 7 in relief. So yeah, having them all hurt at the same time for extended periods was pretty bad luck.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
How could anyone blame bad luck for injuries that steal big chunks of the season from a rotation featuring Chris Sale, Eovaldi, Rich Hill, and Michael Wacha? (Not saying that you are doing that - just responding to the notion that someone out there might think the Red Sox had bad luck with the injuries).

Every one of those guys is a bright, blinking red injury risk at all times. You don't put a whole rotation of guys like that onto your roster and then blame bad luck for them missing time. It's what they all do.
There's a quiet trend of some teams -- well, the Rays anyway -- using the injured list kind of strategically. Just stockpiling high upside, high-risk arms knowing that some of them are inevitably going to spend time on the 60-man IL, thus opening a roster spot and keeping them in the organization.

I feel like someone recently wrote about this, or maybe tweeted about it, but I can't find it now. It's a controversial approach if you think about it. Teams can't exactly be forthright about it because you never want to root against health, and it ratifies the notion that pitchers must throw at max effort nowadays to stay competitive, thus sacrificing long-term health.

Anyway, there's no evidence the recent Sox do this, but I wonder if the Paxton and Hill signings suggest that Bloom is toying with the idea. The Rays have a ton of excellent pre-arb pitchers who've sustained long-term injuries the last few years (a truly incredible list that includes Glasnow, Chargois, Fairbanks, Chirinos, Anderson, Kittredge, Feyereisen, Fleming, Baz, Drake, Beeks, Patiño, Poche, Archer, Springs, Roe, Hunter, Reed, Thompson and Johnson). They had the most pitchers on the 60-man IL last year (12; the Padres were second with 9) and lead MLB again this year (8, tied with the Dodgers and Twins), mostly with different pitchers. The Dodgers, Twins and Padres all have a lot of pitcher injuries like this. Is it all random bad luck? Surely there's some of that, but I'd be more inclined to think so if those weren't exceptionally clever front offices.
 
Last edited:

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
Isn’t this likely just a factor of TB having a lot of good pre-arb pitchers in general? The more good pre-arb pitchers you have, the more injured ones you will have too. Sox haven’t been very successful with young pitchers in general, for a long time now.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Isn’t this likely just a factor of TB having a lot of good pre-arb pitchers in general? The more good pre-arb pitchers you have, the more injured ones you will have too. Sox haven’t been very successful with young pitchers in general, for a long time now.
Huh. I’ve been reading its OLD pitchers who have the Red Flashing light that they are going to get injured.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Isn’t this likely just a factor of TB having a lot of good pre-arb pitchers in general? The more good pre-arb pitchers you have, the more injured ones you will have too. Sox haven’t been very successful with young pitchers in general, for a long time now.
Not quite. Every team staffs roughly the same number of pitchers whether they're arb or pre-arb or signed via free agency, and the Rays (and close behind, the Dodgers) have lately consistently led in lengthy injuries. I don't think their age or arb status has anything innately to do with it.

It's possible that putting pitchers on the 60-day IL allows the Rays, Dodgers, etc. to add more pitchers to the 40-man, which subsequently makes those pitchers eligible for the 60-day IL if they get hurt. But then, that's the strategy.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Isn’t this likely just a factor of TB having a lot of good pre-arb pitchers in general? The more good pre-arb pitchers you have, the more injured ones you will have too. Sox haven’t been very successful with young pitchers in general, for a long time now.
The idea is that it's a novel way of keeping more pitchers on your 40-man and in your organization. I think you're right in the sense that the Sox haven't had a chance to do it even if they wanted to because they haven't had the prospect arms who need 40-man protection. But soon they will.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
I am intrigued. The Rays do have a whopping 8 pitchers on the 60 day IL. Sox have two (Paxton and Taylor). On the flip side, is there something about the Rays pitching program that is leading to more injuries? Or are they targeting a certain profile of pitchers who are more likely to get hurt (at first glance all their injured pitchers are fairly young, of course they are a young team)? Or just dumb luck?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
The idea is that it's a novel way of keeping more pitchers on your 40-man and in your organization. I think you're right in the sense that the Sox haven't had a chance to do it even if they wanted to because they haven't had the prospect arms who need 40-man protection. But soon they will.
It might be a novel way to keep pitchers around during the season, but there is no IL in the off-season. Any pitchers that end up on the 60-day IL have to be added back to the 40-man roster at the end of the season in order to keep them in the organization. So there are certainly drawbacks to using the 60-day IL as a place to stash an extra pitcher or two, especially if they are pre-arb guys with any value.

As far as the Red Sox go with such a strategy, I think that could very much be a factor in taking a shot with a guy like Paxton who is recovering from injury and is sure to start the season on the IL. Other than the salary implications, Paxton hasn't really been a hindrance to roster construction all year but could possibly be a contributor once he is healthy and ready to pitch. Kind of a built in mid/late-season acquisition.

I am intrigued. The Rays do have a whopping 8 pitchers on the 60 day IL. Sox have two (Paxton and Taylor). On the flip side, is there something about the Rays pitching program that is leading to more injuries? Or are they targeting a certain profile of pitchers who are more likely to get hurt (at first glance all their injured pitchers are fairly young, of course they are a young team)? Or just dumb luck?
It could also be part of the strategy of how the pitchers are used. The trend with relievers (and as far as the Rays go, some of their starters too) is to go max effort in short outings. It's not unreasonable that as part of a strategy of cycling through a bunch of young pitchers doing that, a few of them overdo it and end up injured.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,387
I didn’t realize just how bad JDM has been the past 2+ months.
View: https://twitter.com/SmittyOnMLB/status/1557533634227224576


With him and Xander hitting the way they have, its not shocking this team is sinking like a rock
To cherry pick just a smidge...

JDM (through May 29): 153 ab, 5 hr (1 hr every 30.6 ab), .379/.439/.588/1.028
JDM (since May 29): 214 ab, 4 hr, (1 hr every 53.5 ab), .210/.277/.346/.623

JDM's first two years with the Sox: 1144 ab, 79 hr (1 hr every 14.5 ab), .317/.392/.593/.985, 155 ops+
JDM's last three years with the Sox: 1148 ab, 44 hr (1 hr every 26.1 ab), .271/.333/.471/.809, 115 ops+

Just a completely different hitter than he had been.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Christopher Smith
@SmittyOnMLB

6h

The Red Sox are 11-25 with a negative-96 run differential since July 1.
This is even worse than the 11-19 start, which I didn't think was possible. Congrats to all involved.

Probably time to start cutting vets that have no future for the team and call up some kids just for the experience. Brasier, Ort, Barnes aren't going to be part of the next good Red Sox team anyway.

The collapse makes it even odder they traded for a 34 year old Pham and a 32 year old Hosmer. I suppose the prices were right and there was no one else in the system to bring up instead so there's no real harm done but it's clear this season is a lost cause.

Is Story coming back at all? I've heard nothing about any progress from him.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
921
Boston
Eovaldi and Hill had no injuries last year, Wacha had a small stint on the IL. They made a combined 86 starts and another 7 in relief. So yeah, having them all hurt at the same time for extended periods was pretty bad luck.
Eovaldi has been a regular major league starter for 11 years. Hes hit 180 innings twice and 150 innings three times. He's also the first guy to be truly successful coming back from second TJS. Him getting hurt should be expected.

Similarly, Wacha has been a regular major league starter for 9 years. Hes hit 150 innings twice. He's typically around 120 (which he will probably hit again this year). Rich Hill is the oldest starter in MLB - yes he threw ~160 innings last season. You know the last time prior to that he did that? Dustin Pedroia was a rookie.

This is just who these guys are. They had pretty bad sequencing outcomes, but it isnt some shock that a bunch of guys who normally cap at 120 innings get hurt.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
This is even worse than the 11-19 start, which I didn't think was possible. Congrats to all involved.

Probably time to start cutting vets that have no future for the team and call up some kids just for the experience. Brasier, Ort, Barnes aren't going to be part of the next good Red Sox team anyway.

The collapse makes it even odder they traded for a 34 year old Pham and a 32 year old Hosmer. I suppose the prices were right and there was no one else in the system to bring up instead so there's no real harm done but it's clear this season is a lost cause.

Is Story coming back at all? I've heard nothing about any progress from him.

You know what's really weird? From an odd perspective, the past two weeks kind of weren't a collapse. To cherry pick, on July 27 we were 4.5 games out of the WC 3 spot. We went 5-7 following that, and as of this morning, we're 5 games back from the WC3 spot.

It's absolutely a collapse in the sense that we've been 2-5 against some weak competition since the trade deadline, and we're now down to 51 games left on the season. It's also a collapse in the sense that the scrum for the WC has tightened with the exception of the Sox. We had to move up a bit and we did not.

But it's just an oddity that we haven't also plunged in the WC standings.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
This is even worse than the 11-19 start, which I didn't think was possible. Congrats to all involved.

Probably time to start cutting vets that have no future for the team and call up some kids just for the experience. Brasier, Ort, Barnes aren't going to be part of the next good Red Sox team anyway.

The collapse makes it even odder they traded for a 34 year old Pham and a 32 year old Hosmer. I suppose the prices were right and there was no one else in the system to bring up instead so there's no real harm done but it's clear this season is a lost cause.

Is Story coming back at all? I've heard nothing about any progress from him.
Besides Casas and maybe Murphy and German (and you could add Valdez), there aren’t really any “kids” to call up. I think it’s a major reason why they traded for Hosmer / Pham and didn’t trade some of the other vets.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
You know what's really weird? From an odd perspective, the past two weeks kind of weren't a collapse. To cherry pick, on July 27 we were 4.5 games out of the WC 3 spot. We went 5-7 following that, and as of this morning, we're 5 games back from the WC3 spot.

It's absolutely a collapse in the sense that we've been 2-5 against some weak competition since the trade deadline, and we're now down to 51 games left on the season. It's also a collapse in the sense that the scrum for the WC has tightened with the exception of the Sox. We had to move up a bit and we did not.

But it's just an oddity that we haven't also plunged in the WC standings.
Huh. I suppose even the good teams have slumps: the Yankees are 19-22 since June 24, for example.

But overall the team is playing atrocious baseball and has been for the last 6 weeks. There's no chance they claim that last WC spot at this point and hopefully they will prepare accordingly for 2023.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Huh. I suppose even the good teams have slumps: the Yankees are 19-22 since June 24, for example.

But overall the team is playing atrocious baseball and has been for the last 6 weeks. There's no chance they claim that last WC spot at this point and hopefully they will prepare accordingly for 2023.
Yeah, I also think they're cooked, baring a miracle turn-around. And it would have to be that - the team would have to be both notably hot and notably lucky. Players would have to return and/or give peak performances. The team would have to be lucky - not only good umpire/pitcher matchups, but things like having the opposing team dealing with a gassed bullpen from the night before a series starts, or missing the most difficult opposing starter due to how the rotations line up.

The WC3 spot is currently held by a team with a .530 WP. At other points that spot was closer to .540.

To get to .530, the Sox have to finish with the Sox have to finish with 86 wins. To get to .540, 88 wins.

They are currently 54-58 with 51 games left. Can they go a minimum of 32-19 down the stretch to get to 86 wins. . .Maybe. With a Trevor Story like epic player streak (or two) at just the right time. They did have that run of 32-12 from May 10 to June 26.

Do I think that's likely to be repeated? No. Not against more difficult competition, and not without early-season Wacha, Strahm, Story, JD, etc. Too many coins have to land on heads.
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
8,945
New Hampshire
Even understanding there is nobody to call up, how can Darwinzon and Ort remain on the major league roster?

Darwinzon has given up 17 runs, 14 hits and 8 walks in 6.2 innings. His WHIP is 3.3

Honestly, would anybody claim him if he were DFA'd? Would we care?

What was said upstream about the Sox holding onto their marginal AAAA players for way too long has never been more true.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,231
You know what's really weird? From an odd perspective, the past two weeks kind of weren't a collapse. To cherry pick, on July 27 we were 4.5 games out of the WC 3 spot. We went 5-7 following that, and as of this morning, we're 5 games back from the WC3 spot.

It's absolutely a collapse in the sense that we've been 2-5 against some weak competition since the trade deadline, and we're now down to 51 games left on the season. It's also a collapse in the sense that the scrum for the WC has tightened with the exception of the Sox. We had to move up a bit and we did not.

But it's just an oddity that we haven't also plunged in the WC standings.
I understand what you're saying, but we're also now closer in the standings to the Rangers, who are 12 games under .500, than we are to the last wildcard spot.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
You know what's really weird? From an odd perspective, the past two weeks kind of weren't a collapse. To cherry pick, on July 27 we were 4.5 games out of the WC 3 spot. We went 5-7 following that, and as of this morning, we're 5 games back from the WC3 spot.

It's absolutely a collapse in the sense that we've been 2-5 against some weak competition since the trade deadline, and we're now down to 51 games left on the season. It's also a collapse in the sense that the scrum for the WC has tightened with the exception of the Sox. We had to move up a bit and we did not.

But it's just an oddity that we haven't also plunged in the WC standings.
No one wants to run away with it but it's also the addition of the 6th playoff spot (though right now there is a 3 way tie for the last 2 WC spots). The 6th best team in a league probably isn't going to be much better than a 85-88 win team most years. Those teams are never going to "run away" with anything. Unless a team totally sucks, they are going to be "in" contention. The AL has been brutal since 2018, but it looks like this year is back to norm.

Wasn't that long ago that 90 wins might not even get you in the playoffs. I'd guess now 90 is all but a lock and some years, 83-84 games will get you in. I did a quick look at past years to see how the 6th best team fared since the addition of the 2nd WC. This year, the pace is 85 wins for the AL and 90 wins for NL. The NL is weird this year, though. The worst team with a record over .500 is the 60-50 Brewers. 10 games over .500. There are no "middling" teams. Record wise anyway.

6th place records AL/NL, 2nd WC record AL/NL. Differential AL/NL.
2021: 91,83/92,90. 1,7
2020:
2019: 93,86/96,89. 3,3
2018: 90,88/97,91. 7,3
2017: 80,86/85,87. 5,1
2016: 86,86/89,87. 3,1
2015: 83,83/86,97 3,14
2014: 87,82/88,88 1,6
2013: 91,86/92,90 1,4
2012: 90,86/93,88. 3,2

The 2nd WC was added in 2012.

From 2012-2021, the 6th best team in the AL averaged 87.9 wins in the AL and 85.1 wins in the NL.
From 2012-2021, the worst playoff team averaged 89.1 wins in the AL and 88.6 wins in the NL. Worst playoff team described by record, not playoff spot.
From 2021-2021, the 2nd WC teams averaged 90.9 wins in the AL, and 89.7 wins in the NL.

If the last 10 years mean anything, the 6th WC spot will reduce the win requirement to make the playoffs by 3 games in the AL and 4.8 games in the NL. The 3rd wildcard spot really helps the stacked divisions too. I added the worst playoff team just because I was curious. It's interesting that over the last 10 years the 2nd WC team has been 1.8 and 1.1 wins better than the 3rd Division winner.

But yeah. 91-71 vs 88-74 and 90-72 vs 85-77. That puts a lot of teams in contention.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I understand what you're saying, but we're also now closer in the standings to the Rangers, who are 12 games under .500, than we are to the last wildcard spot.
Hmm - that's not really a change either. To continue our cherry picked oddity, the Rangers were 9.5 games back on July 27, and today they're 9.0 games back.

It's kind of remarkable how the Sox just kind of recently froze in the standings despite horrendous baseballing.

No one wants to run away with it but it's also the addition of the 6th playoff spot (though right now there is a 3 way tie for the last 2 WC spots).
(Snip.)
I had done a smiliar look at the numbers at the beginning of the year.

I think that you're right in that "average" teams will be in the potential post-season scrum longer than in previous years. For example if a hypothetical team with the Sox's record at the trade deadline had a bunch of peak-returning players, or made aggressive trades, that sort of record wouldn't preclude a run at the post season.

Another thing to consider in relation to that (which was a bit too complex to get a number-handle on) is the disparity division quality, in relation to a balanced or unbalanced schedule. Since division winners always advance, with extreme imbalance you might have a situation where a weak division has a team in contention for that division, but not (effectively) for the WC. And, depending on balanced or unbalanced schedules, that contention might be a bit hidden - say if those two teams play a significant amount of games against each other at the end of the season. Point is, you could be dealing with 10 or 11 teams out of 15 considering themselves in the mix at the trade deadline. Seller's market.

I haven't seen a breakdown of this year's activity to prior years - but as a consequence, I'd guess probably also going to see increased trade activity at the trade-deadline.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I think that you're right in that "average" teams will be in the potential post-season scrum longer than in previous years. For example if a hypothetical team with the Sox's record at the trade deadline had a bunch of peak-returning players, or made aggressive trades, that sort of record wouldn't preclude a run at the post season.

Point is, you could be dealing with 10 or 11 teams out of 15 considering themselves in the mix at the trade deadline. Seller's market.

I haven't seen a breakdown of this year's activity to prior years - but as a consequence, I'd guess probably also going to see increased trade activity at the trade-deadline.
I think with more teams in it at the deadline, we see less teams having fire sales but just as much or more activity. That activity will come from contending teams trading MLB players for MLB players. This will also push down win totals as there will be less bad teams to beat up on, which keeps teams in it for longer.

If a team goes into September around .500 and has a good month, it could very well be enough for the 3rd WC.


edit: I don't think the Sox are going to do this. I'm speaking in general terms. The 3rd WC lowers the thresh hold a bit.