SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Handicapping the 2015 Red Sox
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 9, 2015 10:23:31 GMT -5
I am bullish on Buchholz. Not so much on Miley or Kelly, or Masterson vs. any lefty. I think ZiPS will be closer to reality, with my own personal caveat on Buchholz (I think he's a 3.5ish zWAR pitcher this year). As constructed I believe this is still an 84 win team at best. The one hope to get to 88-90 wins is to have Sabathia, Tanaka and Pineda all implode early in April on that weekend where they are set to face the Sox. Then again, we'd probably have Masterson facing an all lefty/switch line-up that same weekend, so best we could do is 2 out of 3. That and have Stroman come up lame at the end of the month before Sox play Toronto. But really, the offense looks great. The pitching is planned mediocrity and a bunch of crossed fingers - in football they call this "a punt." They have to prove it otherwise through performance. 84 wins at best? As in a 90th percentile outcome? I'd put a 10%-90% range from 76 - 96 wins. There is no possible way that 84 wins is the most they can win.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,700
|
Post by nomar on Feb 9, 2015 10:30:06 GMT -5
Projecting Buchholz is a waste of time
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 9, 2015 10:35:00 GMT -5
I am bullish on Buchholz. Not so much on Miley or Kelly, or Masterson vs. any lefty. I think ZiPS will be closer to reality, with my own personal caveat on Buchholz (I think he's a 3.5ish zWAR pitcher this year). As constructed I believe this is still an 84 win team at best. The one hope to get to 88-90 wins is to have Sabathia, Tanaka and Pineda all implode early in April on that weekend where they are set to face the Sox. Then again, we'd probably have Masterson facing an all lefty/switch line-up that same weekend, so best we could do is 2 out of 3 - but with those three down it will be easier to get 2/3 vs MFYs for first half of the year. That and have Stroman come up lame at the end of the month before Sox play Toronto. That should do it, yeah. But really, the offense looks great. The pitching is planned mediocrity and a bunch of crossed fingers - in football they call this "a punt." They have to prove it otherwise through performance. You can't be serious.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 9, 2015 11:08:08 GMT -5
I am not. At least with that part, which is why I put in the "But really."
Also, in a year when there seems to be no standout staff in the AL East, acquiring a #1/1A to lead the 3/4s, combined with this offense, could produce significant separation, esp with no legit 1/2 in the system right now to bring up in the next 2-3 years. Balt may have two, Tor one. They will need better starting pitching going forward, one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 9, 2015 11:16:35 GMT -5
I'd put a 10%-90% range from 76 - 96 wins. There is no possible way that 84 wins is the most they can win. I think this is about right, although I'd bump up the top end 3 wins to 99. I think the 90% projection for this team is enormous ... that's a solid offensive year from Xander, a good Castillo, and the pitching works out relatively well with a good year from Buchholz. That's a team that wins a lot of games. But there's only a 10% chance of that happening ... I'll probably predict something like that in the prediction game because spring training always warps my brain, but that's ok. Personally, I'm positive on Porcello and Miley, meh on Masterson and Kelly, baffled by Buchholz. I'm nothing but optimistic on the position players, and cautiously optimistic on the bullpen's eventual production (may take some time to get there). I think that one lefthanded AAA starter will be ready to contribute by the ASG, and I think Wright is going to be a guy we all will be thankful for by then. I'm not real optimistic on Barnes as a starter this year, but he probably will be able to contribute as a reliever. Generally, I think this is a team that wins 85-92 games in the meat of the bell curve of their projections, but could go significantly higher if things break right in a 2013 kind of way among the starting pitching. And I think Margot breaks out in a huge way this year, but that's for another thread ...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 9, 2015 11:34:09 GMT -5
The 2005 Red Sox won 95 games with a pretty good season from Tim Wakefield an thoroughly mediocre seasons from Wells, Clement and Arroyo. Other than that they had a broken Curt Schilling and a mostly-broken Wade Miller. Like in '05, the Red Sox have a real chance have the best offense in the AL. The bullpen looks better right now, too. Though it looked pretty good heading into '05 before Foulke and Embree imploded, to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Feb 9, 2015 13:01:48 GMT -5
**snicker** They've got Miley at 0 WARP, and Buchholz at 1.2, anyone care to take the over/under on that one?... I thought not. It's not completely obvious to me which side you should bet if the prop is Miley WAR o/u Buchholz WAR-1.2. I think I would take the over because I'm not a big believer in Buchholz but he definitely has the talent to make the under a winner by a large margin.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 9, 2015 13:28:18 GMT -5
**snicker** They've got Miley at 0 WARP, and Buchholz at 1.2, anyone care to take the over/under on that one?... I thought not. It's not completely obvious to me which side you should bet if the prop is Miley WAR o/u Buchholz WAR-1.2. I think I would take the over because I'm not a big believer in Buchholz but he definitely has the talent to make the under a winner by a large margin. If Miley is replacement level, that is an interesting way to define replacement level.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 9, 2015 14:49:18 GMT -5
The 2005 Red Sox won 95 games with a pretty good season from Tim Wakefield an thoroughly mediocre seasons from Wells, Clement and Arroyo. Other than that they had a broken Curt Schilling and a mostly-broken Wade Miller. Like in '05, the Red Sox have a real chance have the best offense in the AL. The bullpen looks better right now, too. Though it looked pretty good heading into '05 before Foulke and Embree imploded, to be fair. Part of that was because Baltimore, Tampa, and The Jays were atrocious that year. All three should be better now.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 9, 2015 15:54:12 GMT -5
**snicker** They've got Miley at 0 WARP, and Buchholz at 1.2, anyone care to take the over/under on that one?... I thought not. It's not completely obvious to me which side you should bet if the prop is Miley WAR o/u Buchholz WAR-1.2. I think I would take the over because I'm not a big believer in Buchholz but he definitely has the talent to make the under a winner by a large margin. That was exactly my point. Do you take Miley to go over? Buchholz to go under? Or try to figure out what the sum of those two might be and bet that? BP is always very conservative with their pitcher projections. They've been that way since I started reading the stuff, in the early 2000s. By contrast, FanGraphs has Porcello at 4, and Miley at 3:
It is a bit of a crap-shoot, one of those games they play in Las Vegas - and lots of other places these days.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 9, 2015 16:35:43 GMT -5
The 2005 Red Sox won 95 games with a pretty good season from Tim Wakefield an thoroughly mediocre seasons from Wells, Clement and Arroyo. Other than that they had a broken Curt Schilling and a mostly-broken Wade Miller. Like in '05, the Red Sox have a real chance have the best offense in the AL. The bullpen looks better right now, too. Though it looked pretty good heading into '05 before Foulke and Embree imploded, to be fair. Part of that was because Baltimore, Tampa, and The Jays were atrocious that year. All three should be better now. Baltimore and Tampa were bad, but that was actually a fairly strong Jays team. 80-82 overall, but a Pythag of 88-74. That was the year Halladay took a liner off his leg in the midst of what was probably his best season. Those mid-00's Jays teams were strange - they basically fielded a slight-above average player at every position. They're basically my go-to example of a franchise in 86-win hell, because they were competent everywhere and up pretty tight against their budget, making individual upgrades really difficult. Also, the Yankees won 95 games that year too - I don't see anyone in the division who looks that good right now. Also, there's a real chance Tampa could stink. I wouldn't predict the Red Sox to win 95, but their 90% projection? Yeah, at least 95 without question. Realistically I think their 50% projection sits closer to 88-90. For what it's worth, I don't think there's any team out there who has a 90% projection lower than 85 wins right now. Maybe the Phillies. There isn't a hopeless team with almost nobody with a chance to be good like the '03 Tigers or the '13 Astros.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Feb 9, 2015 18:08:56 GMT -5
I also think that this team is somewhat comparable to the 2011 team. Leagues strongest lineup accompanied by an iffy rotation. The difference is that the '11 rotation was more frontloaded (Lester & Beckett) while this years rotation boasts more depth.
2011 Rotation FIP Josh Beckett - 3.57 Jon Lester - 3.83 John Lackey - 4.71 Tim Wakefield - 4.99
Clay Buchholz - 4.34 (14 starts) Andrew Miller - 5.12 (12 starts) Erik Bedard - 3.47 (8 starts) Daisuke Matsuzaka - 4.95 (7 starts) Kyle Weiland - 6.55 (5 starts)
2015 Rotation FIP (Steamer) Rick Porcello - 3.70 Wade Miley - 3.98 Clay Buchholz - 4.06 Justin Masterson - 4.08 Joe Kelly - 4.39
2011's depth was so poor that, as we all remember, the team rode John Lackey through an injured elbow and a 6.41 ERA, and Kyle Weiland was depended upon towards the end of the season. That's why I'm more confident with this rotation, even without being top heavy. Best case scenario, all 5 projected starters bounce back and log quality innings. Yet, if that fails to happen, we have tons of options waiting in the wings...Brandon Workman, Steven Wright, Matt Barnes, Edwin Escobar, Henry Owens, Edwin Escobar, Eduardo Rodriguez, and Brian Johnson.
So the pitching may not be optimal, but we most likely have the AL's premier lineup, and a rotation that can last a 162 game season.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Feb 9, 2015 21:24:53 GMT -5
It's not completely obvious to me which side you should bet if the prop is Miley WAR o/u Buchholz WAR-1.2. I think I would take the over because I'm not a big believer in Buchholz but he definitely has the talent to make the under a winner by a large margin. That was exactly my point. Do you take Miley to go over? Buchholz to go under? Or try to figure out what the sum of those two might be and bet that? I would bet a lot of money on Miley over 0.0 WAR and some money on Buchholz over 1.2 WAR. I just wouldn't want to bet anything on Miley o/u Buchholz-1.2 (a bet that is over if Miley has 3.0 WAR and Buchholz has 4.0, and under if Miley has 1.0 WAR and Buchholz has 2.5).
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 10, 2015 14:26:53 GMT -5
Seems to me the story of the 2015 Red Sox will be how quickly they come together as a team and who performs up to expectations and who does not.
I think we will mash on offense and be above average on defense, but the pitching is a complete question mark.
I expect a lot of games with scores like 8 to 6 or 7 to 5.
I would like to go out on a limb and say that bogey, with the spotlight off and a set position at short, will surprise almost everyone this year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 10, 2015 20:08:17 GMT -5
Projection systems are mathematical algorithms that pointedly rely on nothing other than actual past performance. To get a sense of how a team really projects, you want to start with those projections, but modify them based on your knowledge of factors that the projection system is unaware of. Here are all the possible omitted factors that come to my mind:
Vazquez: If his defensive ability is being included at all, it's being heavily regressed to the mean because he threw out a ridiculous 18 baserunners (including pickoffs) while allowing 14 SB. No projection system is aware of the scouting consensus that he's actually pretty much that good. (His framing ability will, of course, properly show up in the pitcher projections were it be included.)
Napoli: There's a real chance he exceeds his projections, and perhaps to a large degree, because of his sleep apnea surgery.
Pedroia: I don't have to tell you about this one, do I? His series of injuries mimics a large decline in skills which in reality is almost certainly not as large. You have to figure in the odds of his getting hurt once again, and no one knows just how much of that decline was skill and how much injury, but he has a very good chance of exceeding his projections.
Bogaerts: His 2014 numbers look like a guy who struggled with MLB pitching as a rookie. The projection system sees that, and not a guy who was as excitingly great as expected for two substantial stretches, and unimaginably awful for other long stretches after he was unexpectedly jerked between the position he expected to play and one he had been more or less assured he wouldn't.
Sandoval: I'm almost certain that all projection systems are giving him a generic AT&T-to-Fenway park adjustment, rather than one that takes into consideration how good a fit he was for each park. Granted, not every 3B we sign as a FA who played all or nearly all of his career there will do this:
PECOTA: .269 / .346 / .390 Actual: .326 / .398 / .540
.. but he's still a very good bet to beat his projections, again, by possibly quite a bit. This is especially true if his bad East Coast road numbers are due to a time zone travel effect. (If you're curious, in 2004 Mueller beat his PECOTA projection by .008 / .013 / .023, so the system was still underestimating the Fenway effect even with the year of data.)
Betts: Any projection system that ignores his ml performance will regress him to the mean too severely.
Every acquired pitcher: None of their projections will get the benefit of Vazquez and Hanigan's pitch framing, or, in some cases, improved infield defense.
Porcello: Projection systems don't know that he went from throwing his sinker 50% of the time to 33%, splitting the difference equally between his four-seamer and his curve. No one knows how much of his improvement was due to that, but if any of it is, his projections will be somewhat low because he was rather a different pitcher in 2014 than previously.
Buchholz and Kelly: There's, respectively, a great deal and some evidence that each has a BABIP skill, and projection systems don't handle those guys all that well, overly regressing their BABIP to the mean.
Masterson: The data used to project him includes some guys who were hurt the previous year and some guys who just sucked. When you know that a guy was hurt, in a specific way that screwed him up completely, he's a good candidate to beat his projection.
In general: the more that a team is built via informed buy-low acquisitions, the more it can be expected to beat its projections. That very much appeared to be Cherington's strategy this winter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 10, 2015 20:56:59 GMT -5
Though I agree with some of the above, you could repeat the above exercise with just about every team's roster and find reasons why projections are underrating them. Similarly, you could find a bunch of analogous flaws, many of them related to the fact that much of the roster performed poorly last year (and recent performance is more predictive than less recent performance). One of the things that I like about projection systems is that they try to minimize any systemic bias, which would otherwise be endemic anytime we tried to project our hometown team.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 10, 2015 22:13:17 GMT -5
Though I agree with some of the above, you could repeat the above exercise with just about every team's roster and find reasons why projections are underrating them. Similarly, you could find a bunch of analogous flaws, many of them related to the fact that much of the roster performed poorly last year (and recent performance is more predictive than less recent performance). One of the things that I like about projection systems is that they try to minimize any systemic bias, which would otherwise be endemic anytime we tried to project our hometown team. Absolutely correct, but the degree to which a team may outperform its projections will vary widely. The Sox this year seem to have an unusually large number of players in that category. And note that projection systems also don't reflect information that indicates players will likely underperform. A guy who has a great 4 months, gets hurt, and then struggles for 2 months is going to be projected too rosily. .306 / .397 / .516, previous season* .297 / .379 / .526, PECOTA projected next season *BUT .311 / .408 / .530 on August 8th .210 / .252 / .320 thereafter (reported back injury) .207 / .265 / .291, actual next season Now, I admit that I whiffed on that example. So it's possible I'm being blind to reasons why some of the projections are too rosy. We should probably list Hanley as a guy who may fall short, as he concentrates on learning a new position. Koji may be a risk for falling short, given his age late-season struggles. But in general, I think the Sox, evaluated ratioanally and fairly, have a lot more positive than negative extra information.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 14, 2015 21:43:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Feb 18, 2015 10:26:30 GMT -5
AL East shouldn't be a great division, which helps.
I'll predict 85-89 wins semi-confidently. With a top 3 offense.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Feb 18, 2015 10:54:05 GMT -5
On December 19 I posted my projection of the Sox, based on the Steamer projections of that time. They did not have a projection on Castillo. It appeared that if the projections were close to actual average performance the team might score as many as 200 more runs than they did in 2014. With decent pitching that would give them a win projection in the upper 80s. That turned out to be fairly consistent with other later projections.
Of course, these projections do not take into account critical injuries, which, as we know, can have a very major effect on team performance.
I still think that upper 80s projection is a reasonable one, assuming there is not a major breakdown in pitching. If there is a major improvement, then it might be conservative.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 27, 2015 14:13:38 GMT -5
On the accuracy of projections: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/10-years-of-team-performance-10-years-of-team-projections/One note: one of the major reasons the Red Sox have underperformed their projections so much in recent years is that they've had two pretty massive midseason sell-offs (2012 and 2014). Because this analysis only looks at preseason projected wins, a few major "build-for-the-future" moves like those can have a pretty huge impact (e.g., the 2012 Red Sox underperformed their projections by 22 wins, largely on the backs of a skeleton roster that ended the season on a 7-26 run).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 10, 2015 11:57:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 12, 2015 20:01:17 GMT -5
I tend to agree with the 86-88 win/50% projections, although I'm probably a little more bullish because I love their depth. The Sox are a very, very reasonable bet to produce 2-2.5 WAR at a minimum at every starting position on the field. Napoli is a bit of a question mark at first, but is a pretty safe bet given his defense. Bogaerts is a but of a question at SS but the offensive production expectation for the position is so low that his (seemingly improved this spring) defense is unlikely to drop him below 2. Panda in a much better hitting environment and with sound D is a safe call for 2-3, and Pedey's a shoe-in for 3+ if he stays on the field. Ramirez's offense (again, if healthy...and in a park made for his spray charts) should be above 2.5-3 alone, and I'm hoping the D doesn't drag him down much. I think Mookie's a 5-WAR player, so 2 (his 1/3-season total last year) seems very safe. Castillo, Victorino, JBJ...whoever the last OF is should be 2 or better. And Vazquez is worth 2-3 on defense alone, if not more (easily). Ortiz, if healthy, is worth 2 at DH. And I'm confident saying that Porcello will easily eclipse 2 (and maybe 4-5) in the rotation. The rest of the rotation is a giant ?, but if they can all put up just 1 WAR, we're talking 24 WAR for the starters on a safe low-end. The bullpen and bench players should contribute 5 or 6 more. That's 83-84 wins conservatively, not giving any starter credit for more than 2.
In reality, Porcello's going to benefit from not having the worst INF in baseball behind him. If he can go 15-13, 3.43 with that disaster, he can go 18-8, 2.90 with this team (and Vazquez). It seems unlikely that all four of Buchholz, Miley, Kelly, and Masterson repeat last years' performances. Even if a couple are mediocre, they'll be better than Dempster/Doubront from '13. I highly doubt Clay goes 12-1, 1.74 again in any stretch, ever, but I do think he and Kelly will be serviceable at least, and possibly solid to good. Plus, Barnes looks very good this spring and Owens, Rodriguez, and Johnson offer talented depth. JBJ's swing looks remarkably back to '13 ST, with results to match. And Craig, Nava, Victorino, Cecchini, Hanigan, Holt, and Marrero all provide positional depth.
I think 90 wins is certainly realistic, and I'd agree with a 90% of 98-100W, if Betts puts up a full season like last year, nobody in the rotation outright stinks, Ortiz keeps going, and Pedey stays healthy. Should be very, very fun to watch...could be a lot of wheeling and dealing, too.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 12, 2015 21:08:09 GMT -5
With Stroman down I could go to 86 wins for the Sox.
If they get Hamels and Kelly goes the other way in the deal I'd bump it to 90/91.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 12, 2015 22:08:20 GMT -5
With Stroman down I could go to 86 wins for the Sox. If they get Hamels and Kelly goes the other way in the deal I'd bump it to 90/91. With or without Betts? Or Bogaerts?
|
|
|