Second Guesser's Club - They Call This A City?

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
24,020
The gran facenda
Game 1: 7:08 MLBN
Game 2: 7:15 FOX
Game 3: 8:07 ESPN
 
[tablegrid= Probable Starters ] W L G GS IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP Rubby de la Rosa RHP 1 0 1 1 7 10.29 0 0 0.25 100.00% 62.50% 0.00% 0 0.78 1.34 Drew Smyly LHP 2 4 11 8 48.1 8.38 3.54 1.49 0.299 80.70% 36.60% 13.10% 4.1 4.54 4.04                                 Jon Lester LHP 6 6 12 12 80 10.69 2.48 0.68 0.33 69.60% 41.30% 8.70% 3.15 2.53 2.69 Max Scherzer RHP 6 2 12 12 78.2 10.18 2.75 0.92 0.313 80.20% 34.50% 8.70% 3.2 3.12 3.33                                 John Lackey RHP 6 4 12 12 79.2 8.02 1.81 0.79 0.321 76.20% 46.40% 8.50% 3.28 3.03 3.24 Anibal Sanchez RHP 2 2 9 9 50.1 8.23 2.68 0 0.229 64.40% 42.60% 0.00% 2.15 2.13 3.31 [/tablegrid]
 

Stanley Steamer

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2012
1,439
Rossland, BC
Wow, impressive that Lester's stats are actually better than Scherzer's. Maybe he does deserve a little bit more in his next contract.
Both teams are coming off 3 game sweeps, but only one has grown accustomed to losing streaks. Can't say I'm feeling it, but hopefully we can get one or even two.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
24,020
The gran facenda
Active roster minus Drew vs LHP 2014.
 
[tablegrid= Splits vs. LHP ] PA BB% K% BB/K OBP SLG OPS ISO Spd BABIP wRC wRAA wOBA wRC+ Xander Bogaerts 79 11.40% 16.50% 0.69 0.418 0.522 0.94 0.209 0.1 0.353 15 6 0.411 161 Brock Holt 49 6.10% 24.50% 0.25 0.417 0.523 0.939 0.136 0.1 0.515 9 3.6 0.407 158 Jonny Gomes 80 18.80% 20.00% 0.94 0.425 0.469 0.894 0.172 0.1 0.348 14 5.2 0.397 151 David Ortiz 90 13.30% 16.70% 0.8 0.367 0.5 0.867 0.243 0.1 0.25 14 3.7 0.366 130 Dustin Pedroia 84 15.50% 9.50% 1.63 0.381 0.437 0.818 0.169 0.1 0.29 12 3.1 0.361 126 Jackie Bradley Jr 76 5.30% 26.30% 0.2 0.289 0.377 0.666 0.159 2.4 0.292 7 -0.9 0.297 82 David Ross 40 12.50% 37.50% 0.33 0.275 0.4 0.675 0.229 0.1 0.222 4 -0.7 0.291 78 Jonathan Herrera 22 4.50% 18.20% 0.25 0.286 0.222 0.508 0 0.1 0.267 1 -1.3 0.237 41 A.J. Pierzynski 60 0.00% 13.30% 0 0.237 0.291 0.528 0.073 0.1 0.229 3 -3.7 0.233 38 Grady Sizemore 52 7.70% 26.90% 0.29 0.231 0.25 0.481 0.083 0.1 0.212 2 -3.7 0.221 30 Alexander Hassan 6 0.00% 83.30% 0 0.167 0.167 0.333 0 0.1 1 0 -0.8 0.149 -20 Daniel Nava 27 3.70% 29.60% 0.13 0.111 0.077 0.188 0 0.1 0.111 -2 -4.6 0.092 -59 [/tablegrid]
 
 
[tablegrid= Splits vs. LHP ] G AB PA H 1B 2B 3B HR R RBI BB IBB SO HBP SF SH GDP AVG Brock Holt 19 44 49 17 11 6 0 0 0 5 3 0 12 0 1 1 0 0.386 Xander Bogaerts 35 67 79 21 13 5 0 3 3 6 9 1 13 3 0 0 2 0.313 Jonny Gomes 31 64 80 19 14 2 0 3 3 14 15 0 16 0 1 0 0 0.297 Dustin Pedroia 33 71 84 19 9 9 0 1 1 5 13 1 8 0 0 0 2 0.268 David Ortiz 38 74 90 19 11 3 0 5 5 14 12 3 15 2 2 0 2 0.257 Jonathan Herrera 12 18 22 4 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 0.222 A.J. Pierzynski 31 55 60 12 10 1 0 1 1 10 0 0 8 2 2 1 3 0.218 Jackie Bradley Jr 38 69 76 15 7 6 1 1 1 8 4 0 20 3 0 0 2 0.217 David Ross 16 35 40 6 2 2 0 2 2 3 5 1 15 0 0 0 0 0.171 Grady Sizemore 24 48 52 8 6 1 0 1 1 4 4 0 14 0 0 0 2 0.167 Alexander Hassan 2 6 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0.167 Daniel Nava 14 26 27 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 1 0.077 [/tablegrid]
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,339
absintheofmalaise said:
Boston:
 
Holt 1B
Bogaerts 3B
Pedroia 2B
Ortiz DH
Gomes LF
AJP C
Sizemore RF
Herrera SS
JBJ CF
RDLR RHP
 
I'm all for platooning Drew, but what's the point of doing it with a guy who has a .246/.295/.329 career line (in Coors Field, no less) vs. LHP and is an inferior defender? And considering Ross is a much better defender, Pierzynski shouldn't start another game vs. a lefty.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,587
Rudy's Curve said:
 
I'm all for platooning Drew, but what's the point of doing it with a guy who has a .246/.295/.329 career line (in Coors Field, no less) vs. LHP and is an inferior defender? And considering Ross is a much better defender, Pierzynski shouldn't start another game vs. a lefty.
You are trading D for a bat with AJP… Ross seems to have trouble hitting since his head injury
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,757
NY
So they spent $10m on Drew and move Bogaerts to 3B so Drew can sit against lefties and bunt in key spots.  And I agree with Rudy- if you're not going to sit AJP against a lefty when the hell are you going to sit him?
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,339
soxhop411 said:
You are trading D for a bat with AJP… Ross seems to have trouble hitting since his head injury
 
He hit .270/.341/.351 after returning last year vs. .185/.274/.400 before. He's been terrible at the plate this year but he can at least work the count and run into one against LHP, two things Pierzynski is incapable of doing. Combined with his superior defense, Ross is the better option vs. LHP and it's not close.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,853
Wouldn't we expect Ross to be starting tomorrow, though?
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
glennhoffmania said:
So they spent $10m on Drew and move Bogaerts to 3B so Drew can sit against lefties and bunt in key spots.  And I agree with Rudy- if you're not going to sit AJP against a lefty when the hell are you going to sit him?
For his first week or two back, it's not unrealistic to think that playing Drew two out of three games is a good plan.  And if so, sitting him against the lefty makes perfect sense.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
glennhoffmania said:
So they spent $10m on Drew and move Bogaerts to 3B so Drew can sit against lefties and bunt in key spots.
 
Perhaps $10M is a bit much to pay for 2/3 of 2/3 of a good-but-not-great player, but it's John Henry's money not ours. Unless you think it's going to prevent the Sox from doing something else this year, what's the big deal? It's not like we're taking on a long-term contract.
 

knucklecup

hi, I'm a cuckold
Jun 26, 2006
4,235
Chicago, IL
Rudy's Curve said:
 
He hit .270/.341/.351 after returning last year vs. .185/.274/.400 before. He's been terrible at the plate this year but he can at least work the count and run into one against LHP, two things Pierzynski is incapable of doing. Combined with his superior defense, Ross is the better option vs. LHP and it's not close.
AJP caught De La Rosa last week. Why mess with the kid?
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,757
NY
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Perhaps $10M is a bit much to pay for 2/3 of 2/3 of a good-but-not-great player, but it's John Henry's money not ours. Unless you think it's going to prevent the Sox from doing something else this year, what's the big deal? It's not like we're taking on a long-term contract.
Well each day it looks more like it won't matter, but the point I've been making is that it's 10m they couldn't take on with a deadline deal assuming they have some sort of self-imposed payroll cap.

But damn this team is awful. Now I'm thinking it's 10m they could've held onto for next year.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
glennhoffmania said:
Well each day it looks more like it won't matter, but the point I've been making is that it's 10m they couldn't take on with a deadline deal assuming they have some sort of self-imposed payroll cap.

But damn this team is awful. Now I'm thinking it's 10m they could've held onto for next year.
You can be streaky and survive and maybe even thrive -- but you're dead if your streaks aggregate to .333 baseball, which is where we sit this moment.

I'm not going to go nuts if they fall out of it. Last season bought a lot in my book. But they can't delude themselves. In a year in which the division appears very mediocre, they had better do something very soon if they intend to be players. We are approaching too late very fast.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,469
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
dcmissle said:
You can be streaky and survive and maybe even thrive -- but you're dead if your streaks aggregate to .333 baseball, which is where we sit this moment.
I'm not going to go nuts if they fall out of it. Last season bought a lot in my book. But they can't delude themselves. In a year in which the division appears very mediocre, they had better do something very soon if they intend to be players. We are approaching too late very fast.
Considering they are getting replacement (or below) level out of 5 spots in the lineup, "doing something" isn't going to save the season. They would have to acquire above average players for LF, CF, C and 3b. This assumes Vic comes back fully healthy. Drew presumably solves one position but there are no obvious fixes for the rest. Do you want to strip the farm in a desperate grab at the post season this year? It's just not a realistic possibility.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
 Do you want to strip the farm in a desperate grab at the post season this year? It's just not a realistic possibility.
 
Nope, but I disagreed with just about every aspect of the strategy last winter, and the results speak for themselves.
 
I can't remember being this disgusted and depressed by a Red Sox baseball team this early in the season since maybe 1997.  The year after Clemens walked off into what was obviously going to be the twilight of his career.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Perhaps $10M is a bit much to pay for 2/3 of 2/3 of a good-but-not-great player, but it's John Henry's money not ours. Unless you think it's going to prevent the Sox from doing something else this year, what's the big deal? It's not like we're taking on a long-term contract.
 
It may be money that's affordable but it also puts Drew to the fore when it comes to filling out the line-up card and his being in the line-up means that two prospects will be moved from positions they have been playing. Boston needs a third baseman and Holt was looking good there, so he gets moved to first (not so good) and left while Bogaerts gets moved from short to third. It seems like a desperation move that really won't hve much in the way of dividends.
 
I like the idea of building from within the system and from a business point-of-view it makes sense because the salaries of young players will be low. Unfortunately, I think Cherington and others in the front office bought into the hype of the "strong" Red Sox farm system as so many on this board have done. There are some pieces there, mostly on the pitching side, so I would write off this season and even the next two-three and sell off valuable and possible redundant parts. Lester should bring a good return. Pedroia definitely would, given his contract (and Mookie Betts on the doorstep...plus Holt has experience at that position). I'd even trade Ortiz. Those three trades plus what is waiting in the wings could provide a very competitive team for several years.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,200
Plympton91 said:
 
Nope, but I disagreed with just about every aspect of the strategy last winter, and the results speak for themselves.
 
I can't remember being this disgusted and depressed by a Red Sox baseball team this early in the season since maybe 1997.  The year after Clemens walked off into what was obviously going to be the twilight of his career.
Of course, if the Sox had followed your advice over the years, they would have something like $30mm tied up in Matt Holliday (746 OPS this season) and Jonathan Papelbon (4.65 xFIP). And while we'd have the money we spent on Vic free to use for other purposes, we'd be talking about filling the gaping hole in RF (Josh Reddick, 618 OPS).
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Unlike the gaping hole in both RF and CF that they have?

I don't think you can butterfly effect all that. If they sign Holliday, for instance, maybe the payroll constraints are such that Pap can't be an option at all. The Red Sox obviously are a well run, data driven organization with a grand plan laid out for payroll and talent.

I saw how 2013 fit into what I thought that philosophy was. I don't see how 2014 fits at all. And the results of 2014 suggest that without a few big free agent signings or make couple more ROY level seasons from prospects, 2015 will be just as bad and maybe 2016 too.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Considering they are getting replacement (or below) level out of 5 spots in the lineup, "doing something" isn't going to save the season. They would have to acquire above average players for LF, CF, C and 3b. This assumes Vic comes back fully healthy. Drew presumably solves one position but there are no obvious fixes for the rest. Do you want to strip the farm in a desperate grab at the post season this year? It's just not a realistic possibility.
No. That is something I would not do. But I would not get caught in between playing let's pretend baseball either. If they are in 3 weeks where they are now, 4th and trailing by close to double digit, I start selling and playing as many kids as I can, unless they are not up to it. Otherwise, they would be just wasting time.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,654
02130
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Considering they are getting replacement (or below) level out of 5 spots in the lineup, "doing something" isn't going to save the season. They would have to acquire above average players for LF, CF, C and 3b. This assumes Vic comes back fully healthy. Drew presumably solves one position but there are no obvious fixes for the rest. Do you want to strip the farm in a desperate grab at the post season this year? It's just not a realistic possibility.
So, a couple things:
-You can get by with a couple holes in the lineup if you have solid players elsewhere. The Red Sox obviously have more than a couple holes, but a big problem is that no one is giving the star-level production to make up for it. Using sOPS+ (which adjusts their performance relative to the rest of the league at each position:
 
[tablegrid= Red Sox OPS+ by Position ]Position 2013 sOPS+ 2014 sOPS+ Toronto 2014 C 125 84 86 1B 117 101 148 2B 122 116 95 3B 85 97 112 SS 126 125 91 LF 116 96 132 CF 112 62 96 RF 108 51 150 DH 163 126 114 [/tablegrid]
 
So, you're seeing not only putrid production from CF and RF and a big drop at C, but also a drop at every position but 3B and holding steady at SS. For as much attention as the Ellsbury - JBJ move has gotten, the drop from Victorino 2013 to Victorino / Nava / Sizemore / etc 2014 has been bigger. But also, Ortiz last year was 63% better than the average DH -- this year it's just 26%. 
 
Toronto has gotten below-average production out of 4 spots, but Encarnacion, Melky and Bautista have been 30% or more better than average for their positions, so they can get away with little out of the catcher spot.
 
For the Red Sox, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that there is low-hanging fruit and the offensive performance can be improved a lot by just a few things that I consider relatively likely (NOT having to "do something" by going outside the organization):
-Napoli and Victorino returning and staying healthy. This should get the RF production closer to average and the 1B production above average.
-Drew approximating his 2013 / career offensive performance. This would help the production at 3B by virtue of Xander moving over.
 
But the problem is at the following places, which are IMO less likely to improve
-AJP or Ross need to hit better. This may not happen but barring an injury you probably can't add anyone.
-Nava improving. Who knows but last night was encouraging (or Sizemore but I'm less bullish on that).
-JBJ. He may improve, he may not. The average AL CF is hitting .263/.328/.395. Can he get close to that? I'm not sure.
 
Finally, Ortiz is experiencing a big drop in production, and at his age it's not clear he'll pick it up or that expecting him to remain one of the ten best hitters in MLB was realistic. While he's still above-average, he's no longer making up for poor production at other spots. Nothing you can do abut this but it is a big reason for the drop in offense.
 
I guess my point with all this is that going outside the organization isn't really an option unless someone like Stanton is available (which they should look at anyway regardless of their chances this year). But, they should be expected to improve anyway. At three spots that they're weak, they have a MLB regular who just needs to get healthy (RF and 1B), or they've already made the move to improve (3B). At another (CF), they have a rookie who "should" be better, and finding a replacement who is an improvement and can also field is going to be impossible or expensive. At catcher they're basically stuck but these are veterans who again, could catch a hot streak if they're not toast.
 
It's not clear that this is enough to make up the ground they've given, or that it will even matter if they don't solve the back of the rotation. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I really did not like the non move by Farrell in the 8th. Gomes should have hit for Nava. If they go to the RH, then you've got a RH in to face Drew and Bradley. Much better than what they ended up with.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
canderson said:
Xander bunting in T9 in a tied game on the road with Holt on first. Explain away, please.
Even worse, they were down by a run. Farrell is pressing, no doubt. Just stop bunting. I can live with whatever else happens.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,567
canderson said:
Xander bunting in T9 in a tied game on the road with Holt on first. Explain away, please.
 
If X wasn't bunting on his own, it's another in the litany of ridiculous decisions Farrell has made this season.  I am starting to wonder how good a game manager Farrell is.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,757
NY
The pinch hitting and bunting decisions have been atrocious. Farrell's lucky Ortiz bailed him out or there would be a lot of questions.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,385
Plympton91 said:
Unlike the gaping hole in both RF and CF that they have?

I don't think you can butterfly effect all that. If they sign Holliday, for instance, maybe the payroll constraints are such that Pap can't be an option at all. The Red Sox obviously are a well run, data driven organization with a grand plan laid out for payroll and talent.

I saw how 2013 fit into what I thought that philosophy was. I don't see how 2014 fits at all. And the results of 2014 suggest that without a few big free agent signings or make couple more ROY level seasons from prospects, 2015 will be just as bad and maybe 2016 too.
 
Really? We just saw a team go from absolutely cover-your-eyes horrific in 2012 to World Series champs in 2013 and you're ready to write off 2016? You think Ben's just going to sit on his hands? Were Gomes/Napoli/Victorino "big free agent signings"? 
 
The Sox made some bets in JBJ and Middlebrooks that didn't pay off. Nava/Gomes/Carp started off the season as shells of the players who were great last year. Buchholz has been inexplicably bad. That doesn't mean the front office is all of a sudden sitting around smoking crack all day. Stop with the doom and gloom stuff. It's tiresome. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Napoli, Victorino, and Drew were free agent signings consistent with a strategy of, "let's make sure we're average at every position."

Instead of doing that in 2014, they made 3 separate decisions that were the equivalent of handing the SS job in 2013 to Iglesias (going into the season with only Bradley as a viable CF, Middlebrooks as the only viable 3B, and relying on two catchers approaching 40).

The philosophy that won the Post season tournament in 2013 was absent last offseason.

So, hopefully they'll go back to it in planning for 2015. The rumors that they offered Drew a 2 year contract suggest that perhaps they will.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,030
Deep inside Muppet Labs
nattysez said:
 
If X wasn't bunting on his own, it's another in the litany of ridiculous decisions Farrell has made this season.  I am starting to wonder how good a game manager Farrell is.
 
I wonder if it's the ex-pitcher syndrome: pitchers are so used to micromanaging everything in their starts, since they control the entirety of the action, that as coaches/managers they may have a tendency to overmanage as well. "Team is struggling = MUST DO SOMETHING" mentality. I seem to remember some chatter about this when Dierker was hired as the Astros manager, that ex-pitchers had that rep as managers. I don't follow the Padres closely enough to know if Bud Black is the same way though.
 
In any case, enough with the freaking bunting.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,030
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
Napoli, Victorino, and Drew were free agent signings consistent with a strategy of, "let's make sure we're average at every position."

Instead of doing that in 2014, they made 3 separate decisions that were the equivalent of handing the SS job in 2013 to Iglesias (going into the season with only Bradley as a viable CF, Middlebrooks as the only viable 3B, and relying on two catchers approaching 40).

The philosophy that won the Post season tournament in 2013 was absent last offseason.

So, hopefully they'll go back to it in planning for 2015. The rumors that they offered Drew a 2 year contract suggest that perhaps they will.
 
Hmmm, let's see, what's the difference in Napoli, Vic, and Drew from 2013 to 2014? Oh yeah, they've all missed large chunks of the year already through injury or agent idiocy.
 
Others have got it right: JBJ and Middlebrooks have grossly underperformed and the team as a whole has been injured. Buchholz has been injured and crappy. Dubront has been injured and mediocre. Nava was hot garbage at the beginning of the season. Once again attributing this team's struggles to some sort of moral failure on the part of the front office make no sense whatsoever. If Buchholz wasn't the worst starting pitcher in baseball this season (note: hyperbole) then this team's outlook would seem much rosier.
 
The only real issue I have with the FO is letting Salty walk; we're in agreement that that was a mistake and other options for the catcher's position going forward should have been considered. I would have liked to see them give Salty the 3 years, use Ross as a backup this year and then one of the kids as backup next year, then move the kid to the starter in year 3 and make Salty the no.2 guy. All that being said, AJP hasn't been terrible, and while Ross has been bad he was bad last year too and that's OK from a defensive no.2 catcher.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,716
All that being said, AJP hasn't been terrible, and while Ross has been bad he was bad last year too and that's OK from a defensive no.2 catcher.
 
 
And after a hot start, Salty hasn't been all that much better than AJP.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,200
In fairness to P91, he thought the FO was staking too much on the success of JBJ and WMB, and said so at the time.

I think they covered the WMB risk adequately. There was no reason to expect Herrera to be so bad, and we had organizational depth (Cecchini, Holt) to fill the gap even if Plan A and B both fizzled (or if Herrera had been needed to fill in at SS or 2B).

Relying on JBJ was more risky. In hindsight, they should have moved one of Nava/Carp for what they could get (not much), then signed a defensive-minded reserve OF. This would likely have meant forgoing the gamble on Sizemore, who presumably would have signed with a team that offered a clearer path to a roster spot; obviously, this would have been no great loss. Hindsight is always 20/20, but if memory serves, P91 pretty much nailed this one at the time; the SoSH majority (which included me) was wrong.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
joe dokes said:
 
And after a hot start, Salty hasn't been all that much better than AJP.
Stats-wise maybe. But when you factor in team chemistry and organizational fit (ie - making the opposing pitcher work) I wonder if the difference between AJ and Salty isn't a lot larger than it appears. After last season I am a big believer in the intangibles.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,030
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Bone Chips said:
Stats-wise maybe. But when you factor in team chemistry and organizational fit (ie - making the opposing pitcher work) I wonder if the difference between AJ and Salty isn't a lot larger than it appears. After last season I am a big believer in the intangibles.
 
Intangibles are nice. But intangibles won't cover for Buchholz being the worst starter in baseball this year, or for all the injuries the team has had.
 
As for intangibles, Salty got benched in the World Series after Game 3. Ross, the guy who replaced him, is still on the team.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,716
maufman said:
In fairness to P91, he thought the FO was staking too much on the success of JBJ and WMB, and said so at the time.

I think they covered the WMB risk adequately. There was no reason to expect Herrera to be so bad, and we had organizational depth (Cecchini, Holt) to fill the gap even if Plan A and B both fizzled (or if Herrera had been needed to fill in at SS or 2B).

Relying on JBJ was more risky. In hindsight, they should have moved one of Nava/Carp for what they could get (not much), then signed a defensive-minded reserve OF. This would likely have meant forgoing the gamble on Sizemore, who presumably would have signed with a team that offered a clearer path to a roster spot; obviously, this would have been no great loss. Hindsight is always 20/20, but if memory serves, P91 pretty much nailed this one at the time; the SoSH majority (which included me) was wrong.
 
Would there be as much collective concern over JBJ if Victorino and Nava hadn't died?
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,757
NY
joe dokes said:
 
Would there be as much collective concern over JBJ if Victorino and Nava hadn't died?
 
Exactly.  P91 was sulking because his most favoritist player signed with NY.  Stating the obvious, that Bradley would not be as good as Ellsbury in 2014, isn't something that only he could foresee.  But if the rest of the OF hadn't completely gone in the shitter I doubt that many other people would be too upset with Bradley playing great defense while struggling offensively in the 9th spot.  The combined suck and absences of Victorino, Nava and Carp, along with less than stellar production from Pedroia, Ortiz, Napoli and two out of five starting pitchers, has caused greater concern over Bradley than would otherwise be warranted.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Intangibles are nice. But intangibles won't cover for Buchholz being the worst starter in baseball this year, or for all the injuries the team has had.
 
As for intangibles, Salty got benched in the World Series after Game 3. Ross, the guy who replaced him, is still on the team.
Salty was also the starting catcher on a team that won more games than any team in the regular season last year. He had to be doing something right.

I'm not sure I want to go down the road of saying we should have retained Salty for 3 more years, but I'm starting to ask the question. Catcher is such a hugely important position, and a lot of the little things a catcher does (calling the game, framing pitches, etc) are by their very nature intangibles. Maybe this is more of a commentary on AJP than it is Salty, but the pitching staff hasn't changed from last year yet we've gone from 10th to 28th in opponent's batting average. And there's no denying the change in team chemistry. Salty was a popular player in the clubhouse, and AJP is, well - AJP.
 

ctsoxfan5

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2004
809
Bone Chips said:
...Maybe this is more of a commentary on AJP than it is Salty, but the pitching staff hasn't changed from last year yet we've gone from 10th to 28th in opponent's batting average. And there's no denying the change in team chemistry. Salty was a popular player in the clubhouse, and AJP is, well - AJP.
 
Part of the change in opponent batting average can be explained by the fact that this year the Sox are 29th out of 30 in defensive efficiency at .684.  In 2013, they finished 17th at .706.  
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,200
glennhoffmania said:
 
Exactly.  P91 was sulking because his most favoritist player signed with NY.  Stating the obvious, that Bradley would not be as good as Ellsbury in 2014, isn't something that only he could foresee.  But if the rest of the OF hadn't completely gone in the shitter I doubt that many other people would be too upset with Bradley playing great defense while struggling offensively in the 9th spot.  The combined suck and absences of Victorino, Nava and Carp, along with less than stellar production from Pedroia, Ortiz, Napoli and two out of five starting pitchers, has caused greater concern over Bradley than would otherwise be warranted.
Of course we'd be less upset about a move that went wrong if more things were going right.

It's far too soon to judge the Ellsbury decision; no reasonable person thought Ells wouldn't earn his money and then some in the first year of his new contract. I'm just saying that P91's belief that we shouldn't carry both Nava and Carp on the roster has proved prescient.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,757
NY
maufman said:
It's far too soon to judge the Ellsbury decision; no reasonable person thought Ells wouldn't earn his money and then some in the first year of his new contract.
 
I don't know why you think this is a given.  Obviously it's dependent on how much a win is worth, but is at least 4 wins a reasonable cutoff to say that he would definitely earn his money in his first year?  If so, you didn't think it was possible that he wouldn't be a 4 win player this year?  I know that WAR has its flaws but both FG and B-Ref have him on pace to be below 4 wins this year.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,200
glennhoffmania said:
 
I don't know why you think this is a given.  Obviously it's dependent on how much a win is worth, but is at least 4 wins a reasonable cutoff to say that he would definitely earn his money in his first year?  If so, you didn't think it was possible that he wouldn't be a 4 win player this year?  I know that WAR has its flaws but both FG and B-Ref have him on pace to be below 4 wins this year.
You're putting too much weight on SSS fielding metrics. If you assume he's no worse than average defensively (and even that would be a big drop from his past performance), he's comfortably on pace for the 3-4 wins above replacement he needs to earn his money. And if Ellsbury's D has truly fallen off a cliff, I'd say that's something no one reasonably expected this winter.

If your point is simply that the early returns suggest the Sox were wise not to match the MFYs' offer, you'll get no argument from me.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,757
NY
maufman said:
You're putting too much weight on SSS fielding metrics. If you assume he's no worse than average defensively (and even that would be a big drop from his past performance), he's comfortably on pace for the 3-4 wins above replacement he needs to earn his money. And if Ellsbury's D has truly fallen off a cliff, I'd say that's something no one reasonably expected this winter.

If your point is simply that the early returns suggest the Sox were wise not to match the MFYs' offer, you'll get no argument from me.
 
Your last line is one of my points, so we agree there.
 
I was mostly disagreeing with the statement that no reasonable person could think that he wouldn't earn his money and then some in year one.  First, this assumes he stays healthy the whole season.  Second, if he ends up somewhere between three and four wins I wouldn't call that comfortably earning more than his salary.  His contract pays him as if he's a super star and I just don't think it's a given he'll perform like one in any year of his deal.
 
Now I was very confident that he'd outperform JBJ this year, but at an additional cost of about $21m I didn't think it was worth it.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,853
glennhoffmania said:
 
I don't know why you think this is a given.  Obviously it's dependent on how much a win is worth, but is at least 4 wins a reasonable cutoff to say that he would definitely earn his money in his first year?  If so, you didn't think it was possible that he wouldn't be a 4 win player this year?  I know that WAR has its flaws but both FG and B-Ref have him on pace to be below 4 wins this year.
 
When the Verducci article hit, I checked Ells's stats through the same number of games last season and they were basically the same. It was a weird omission on the part of a very good baseball writer, in my opinion.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
maufman said:
Of course we'd be less upset about a move that went wrong if more things were going right.

It's far too soon to judge the Ellsbury decision; no reasonable person thought Ells wouldn't earn his money and then some in the first year of his new contract. I'm just saying that P91's belief that we shouldn't carry both Nava and Carp on the roster has proved prescient.
 
Thanks for the support, but my position was that even if Ellsbury was too expensive for them, they should have signed somebody to start in CF (or in RF and moved Victorino to CF), and that Bradley should have been riding the Pawtucket shuttle filling in as the replacement for injury or underperformance in CF and RF. 
 
 
Let's totally abstract from Ellsbury at this point, that's been debated and nobody's changing their position.
 
 
The problem that the organization had all winter was that Bradley was the only plausibly viable defensive CF OR RIGHTFIELDER above single-A!  That they were not only vulnerable to underperformance of Bradley, which has been much worse than even I imagined, but to a medium-term injury to EITHER BRADLEY OR VICTORINO.  Saying, "Oh Bradley wouldn't be a problem if Victorino wasn't hurt so much," misses the forest for the tree.  Committing to Bradley meant that they had no real backup not only for Bradley, but also for Victorino, especially in Fenway's RF.  They took a 1000 to 1 flier on Sizemore, and he's proven once again that there is no such thing as a "no risk signing" because the risk is the manager let's him suck for way too long.
 
It's not Carp/Nava that were taking up a roster spot that could have been used to ensure production out of CF, and provide better depth in RF, it was Bradley, who hadn't earned the full time job with his performance last offseason, didn't earn the job with his performance in spring training (he was sent down, returned when Victorino got hurt, and stayed when Sizemore sucked even worse in CF than he has at the plate).  I don't know who was available other than Ellsbury, but they've got a lot of money and a lot of prospects.  Make it work.