Right. AL. Not MLB. 8th best in MLB. Still.They are tied for the 5th best record in the AL, not in all of MLB, in a league where 5 of the 15 teams are basically not trying.
Right. AL. Not MLB. 8th best in MLB. Still.They are tied for the 5th best record in the AL, not in all of MLB, in a league where 5 of the 15 teams are basically not trying.
Have to cubically transform itThanks. No conversion factor for AL vs. NL or day vs. night?
Given how poorly they came out of the gate the the historical odds stacked against them, my answer is when they qualify for the playoffs. Anything less than that is going to be a disappointment and also mean middle of the road draft picks. That's not going right in my eyes.The Red Sox are currently tied with Texas as the fifth-best team in baseball. At what point should we stop saying things have “gone wrong” this season? When they make the playoffs? Or only if they win the wild card game?
Well, in 3-4 weeks they'll have to be one or the other because 4 weeks from today is 10 days prior to the deadline and that doesn't really give a lot of leeway to wait and see. If they are at least 10 games over .500, buy if it makes sense. Otherwise, start mulling offers. Then again, some teams are already making deals so hesitation could be a killer for Boston.this is more filling column space than anything following another rough home series loss to an inferior team, but Pete considers selling if they're still playing like this in 3-4 weeks.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/06/23/time-rebuild-red-sox/O77Jt6bBVl5cIz6dC6kMUJ/story.html
If this was a scientific paper, Pete would have been destroyed by the reviewers.this is more filling column space than anything following another rough home series loss to an inferior team, but Pete considers selling if they're still playing like this in 3-4 weeks.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/06/23/time-rebuild-red-sox/O77Jt6bBVl5cIz6dC6kMUJ/story.html
I could not agree more....my concern at this point is that they make a trade that represents some marginal improvement and further depletes the farm system. They thought they could squeeze another title run out of this group but it is just not going to happen. They have to make some tough decisions. The Yankees recognized reality a few years ago and ended up with Gleyber, Frazier, and a handful of others. I am not suggesting that the Sox have the pieces to get similar players as many of the obvious trade candidates are injured or not performing particularly well (Moreland, Pierce, Nunez, Thornburg). Others like Porcello, Bradley, Hembree, Workman, Holt might have some value..........JD has limited no-trade, and I am not ready to give up the idea of re-signing Mookie, but they would obviously command huge returns.This team is over priced and underperforming.
Sell.
The job of leadership is to recognize and deal with reality.
And they just lost a series at home to one of those five teams. Which they would have won had they not let 7 runs score from the 7th inning on.They are tied for the 5th best record in the AL, not in all of MLB, in a league where 5 of the 15 teams are basically not trying.
I am a notorious "half empty" fan, but this is correct.With a team that is in playoff contention you do not sell, period.
It doesn't matter how well you build your system the fact is the stars don't align all that often so you have to take your chances now.
This feels right to me, as well. In a lot of ways, this reminds me of 2005. A team that was still good enough to compete, but also one with a handful of fatal flaws. But I don't think selling makes sense.I am a notorious "half empty" fan, but this is correct.
1. What can you do? I guess trade Porcello
2. This seems like a house money year, they won, are in cap mess, (made worse by Evoldi signing, granted) so will ride with they have and then have more flexibility to maybe take another serious run with this core.
Good question for a new thread but when does he make the leap or is this what he is? A still developing star or a Trot Nixon with less power?Benintendi since the ASB:
.277/.352/.411, 9 HR, .134 ISO in 587 PA.
His 103 RC+ is 50th out of 84 qualified outfielders over that time, and 16th out of 21 left-fielders (min 250 PAs).
I think in my humble opinion, the Red Sox are wrong in their bullpen usage. I still believe in this team and am convinced they will at least win the wild card BUT this closer by committee isn't working. Or so it seems to me that the Sox do not have a definitive closer. I say go with one man as your closer, be it Workman, Barnes or Brasier. This one up and one down does not seem to be working. I still think the can win the division with what I believe are 11 games left with the Yankees.
Thanks for your input. I believe in Cora and if it's his decision to go by match-ups (i.e. the case with Barnes the other night) so be it. I still like the traditional closer role. I like Brasier because I think he has the mental make-up as a closer.You don't say...
If you're going by save percentage, Brasier is still the best candidate (7 SV, 3 BS) of the ones that have been given the opportunities. If they aren't comfortable letting it be him, I think it's Taylor's turn.
Short of a trade, though, they aren't going to have a definitive closer for the rest of the season because Cora doesn't seem like he is interested in going back to the traditional closer designation and will continue to play matchups.
How did you reach this conclusion? What does Brasier have mentally that someone like Barnes or Workman don't?Thanks for your input. I believe in Cora and if it's his decision to go by match-ups (i.e. the case with Barnes the other night) so be it. I still like the traditional closer role. I like Brasier because I think he has the mental make-up as a closer.
It’s impossible to prove mental toughness or lack thereof, but Barnes can’t close. His numbers when he pitches back to back nights are horrible.How did you reach this conclusion? What does Brasier have mentally that someone like Barnes or Workman don't?
Brasier can do the closer’s mean and nasty look, like a poor man’s Goose Gossage, but it’s obviously going to take more than that.How did you reach this conclusion? What does Brasier have mentally that someone like Barnes or Workman don't?
Or he can close. Just not on consecutive days.It’s impossible to prove mental toughness or lack thereof, but Barnes can’t close. His numbers when he pitches back to back nights are horrible.
While I haven't seen much of him, I think his physical demeanor on the mound (facial and body language) speaks of an aggressive I can do it attitude. But I agree with other posters that it's hard to determine. If not Brasier, my second option is Workman based on ERA.How did you reach this conclusion? What does Brasier have mentally that someone like Barnes or Workman don't?
Is it fair to say, then, that Brasier has The Good Face?While I haven't seen much of him, I think his physical demeanor on the mound (facial and body language) speaks of an aggressive I can do it attitude. But I agree with other posters that it's hard to determine. If not Brasier, my second option is Workman based on ERA.
What does his girlfriend grade out at? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6naO8n6HsqEWhile I haven't seen much of him, I think his physical demeanor on the mound (facial and body language) speaks of an aggressive I can do it attitude.
Did the fact that you typed that last sentence make you hesitate at all before hitting the "post" button? It should.In other words treat the second half like game seven of the WS.
Should be an interesting time for Lou and DD at the breakfast buffet Sunday morning.If Dumbo waits any longer to add a couple big league arms, he may get to the point where he feels this team may not be worth it. If that’s the case he should look in the mirror when he asks why that is.
Yes. That is because clutch is a descriptive stat---it describes what already happened.I know you guys mocked my use of Fangraph's clutch stat earlier, but it really does illustrate where things have gone wrong this season.
You just described how the clutch stat works. From the Fangraph's definition of clutch: "Clutch does a good job of describing the past, but it does very little towards predicting the future. Simply because one player was clutch at one point does not mean they will continue to perform well in high-leverage situations (and vice versa). Very few players have the ability to be consistently clutch over the course of their careers, and choking in one season does not beget the same in the future. "The pitching in particular has been at its worst when it matters the most. Red Sox starters are dead last in the league and relievers are third from last in the league. Clutch measures a player's performance in high leverage situations against his own performance at baseline, so basically this shows us that over the course of the year the starters have been way worse than they should be when it really counts, and the relievers have been somewhat worse than they should be when it really counts.
Here's where we get into actual data. Studies have found that a. "Clutch" may be real and b. it's effects are likely very small, and is at best limited to a few players. The following may be useful to you: http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=betweenthenumbers/ortiz/060405 and http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/clutch_skill_does_exist/The key question is whether this is describing an actual phenomenon that the team has some control over or whether it's just variance.
PIN, you just really answered your question right there. That's one of the big pieces of data as to why "clutch" as a team characteristic, is more about luck than an individual skill. If a team is particularly "clutch" one season, it has essentially no bearing on how "clutch" they will be the next season. You just proved the inverse hypothesis! The data supports this!I think any tactical argument that the team should be selling must start with a good explanation as to why this gap is anything but luck -- particularly given that the exact opposite thing happened last year (actual win % of .667 vs. 3rd order win% of .612) with largely the same personnel.
They would go either four innings or three innings every third day..So your starters will now go every 3 days, on 2 days rest, instead of on the 4 days rest they are used to?
For what it's worth I never intended to suggest that team clutch might be predictive -- kinda the whole point of my argument was that one of the largest and most obvious reasons why the Sox have struggled relative to last year was that the team was lucky last year and unlucky this year, and the team clutch stat describes that very well. The fact that it's very likely not predictive is kinda the point. For all the people out there claiming that the team is bad, I think for that argument to hold water they need to provide some sort of substantive evidence to support that position.Yes. That is because clutch is a descriptive stat---it describes what already happened.
...
You just described how the clutch stat works. From the Fangraph's definition of clutch: ...
...
That's not going to work. And why reduce the number of innings for your best guys?They would go either four innings or three innings every third day..
Team OPS+, ERA+2018 vs. 2019
Nunez
2018: .265/.289/.388/.677, 80 ops+
2019: .235/.252/.320/.572, 48 ops+
Benintendi
2018: .290/.366/.465/.830, 122 ops+
2019: .275/.356/.434/.790, 105 ops+
Betts
2018: .346/.438/.640/1.078, 185 ops+
2019: .261/.381/.453/.835, 117 ops+
Martinez
2018: .330/.402/.629/1.031, 172 ops+
2019: .298/.374/.549/.923, 137 ops+
Pearce
2018: .279/.394/.507/.901, 140 ops+
2019: .180/.245/.258/.503, 32 ops+ (plus being hurt)
Barnes
2018: 3.65 era, 121 era+, 1.27 whip
2019: 4.93 era, 97 era+, 1.36 whip
Brasier
2018: 1.60 era, 277 era+, 0.77 whip
2019: 3.41 era, 140 era+, 1.14 whip
Sale
2018: 2.11 era, 209 era+, 0.86 whip
2019: 3.82 era, 124 era+, 1.03 whip
Porcello
2018: 4.28 era, 103 era+, 1.18 whip
2019: 5.07 era, 94 era+, 1.40 whip
Velazquez
2018: 3.18 era, 139 era+, 1.27 whip
2019: 5.31 era, 90 era+, 1.30 whip
Rodriguez
2018: 3.82 era, 116 era+, 1.27 whip
2019: 4.79 era, 99 era+, 1.36 whip
Eovaldi
2018: 3.33 era, 133 era+, 1.28 whip
2019: 6.00 era, 80 era+, 1.52 whip (plus being hurt)
Johnson
2018: 4.17 era, 106 era+, 1.43 whip
2019: 6.43 era, 75 era+, 2.00 whip
So in some cases, great players are doing ok, but it's still a significant drop-off. And in other cases, mediocre players are performing at horrifically bad levels, and it's a significant drop-off. We can complain all we want about how this team is structured, but there are a TON of guys in their usual roles that are just seriously underperforming compared to last year. With, of course, predictable results. I mean, it's not just bench guys underperforming. There are some star players that are way off from last year: Betts, Martinez (more Betts than Martinez but still), Sale, even Porcello.
I'm not sure an "elite BP arm" would have made that much of a difference to this point. The pen didn't really start giving up leads (and racking up their league high BS) until 6-8 weeks into the season when the overload of innings caught up to them. Whatever elite guy they may have signed would have been caught up in that same as the rest.Aside from adding an elite BP arm I dont think DD could have done anymore.
JDM, Betts and Sale all have had significant fall offs from last year. Some others have underperformed. XB has been great. Price has done well.
Maybe Cora deserves some of the blame for the slow start but its July and they have been relatively healthy. They should be firing on all cylinders now
The cup cakes they face until the ASB should help them tune up for the 2nd half. I still like their chances of grabbing a WC spot but the 2nd half looks like a tougher schedule
Team OPS+, ERA+
2018: 111, 118
2019: 107, 106
Interesting side note: The team is slashing .269/.344/.457 for an OPS of .801 and an OPS+ of 107.
Last year, the team slashed .268/.339/.453 for an OPS of .792 and had an OPS+ of 111.
The league as a whole is slashing .252/.322/.431 this year as opposed to .248/.318/.409 last year.
Where do you come up with that?point 2 you make is my biggest complaint. If we make it the ALDS, at worst we're a 35% shot to make it through. that's baseball.
Not for short term rentals, anyway. Some guys named (that probably aren't really on the market) like Felipe Vazquez and Matthew Boyd would be worth the prospects.Where do you come up with that?
If you assume all rounds are a coin flip, then the odds of winning the World Series after getting to the ALDS are 1/8 or 12.5%.
If they have to get to the ALDS through the wild card game, that reduces the odds of winning the World Series to 1/16, or 6.25%.
It’s not worth trading prospects to have a better chance at making the wild card game.
Which makes you appreciate 2007/2013/2018. Top seed each time and took care of business.35% just to make it through the ALDS, is what I meant.
no matter how lopsided two teams are in a playoff series, the underdog has a pretty good shot. that's the scary thing when you're the "1 seed" in baseball, it's not like the NFL.
2018 especially. The more you look at last year's team, the more you (generic "you"; I'm not singling you out personally) should appreciated them.Which makes you appreciate 2007/2013/2018. Top seed each time and took care of business.
Building on this point, according to b-ref, the Red Sox are currently 15th in the AL in Defensive Efficiency (% of BIP converted into outs). This despite the team only being 8th in runs allowed per game, 6th in errors, and tied for 9th in fielding %.As far as runs scored the Sox are a little bit ahead of last year's average pace. It's runs allowed that's hurting them. The pitchers, including unearned runs, allowed 647 last year, but are on a pace for 804 this year.