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.
Poll: Who Should Be in Next Year's Rotation? VOTE FOR FIVE!
|
Post by juniorp90 on Aug 7, 2015 16:22:06 GMT -5
That was just thinking about a trade Margot-Swihart-Ball-Stanquiewizc-Johnson for Sale. To be honest, to get good arms there to give good talent and having Betts, Castillo, Benintendi and Bradley Jr I think we could give to Margot. To cover the catching we can go to free agency ... Hundley, Avila ... along with Vasquez. And assuming Bauer trading, you could include a package do about Sam Travis, Chavis, etc... If the Sox offered Swihart, Xander, Betts, Owens, Devers, and Margot I'm not sure if that is enough to move Chris Sale. He's a transcendent player. He's 26 and already has almost a 1,000 strike outs (only 4 years as a starter) Porcello Included in trade and redsox assume that part of your contract ... Perhaps in the central division is reunited with his good form. And with Rodon, Quintana and possibly Ball and Johnson I do not see crazy move to Sale.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 7, 2015 16:29:07 GMT -5
Nope, the blind spot is yours if you don't understand that the Sox starters actually pitched at nearly a league-average level and only gave up so many runs due to horrible clustering luck (and below-average BABIP luck). The results are the results no matter how much you assign "luck" to it. FIP is a good indicator but it has its blind spots, too. The Sox pitching has gotten belted around. It's not all bleeders and seeing eye hits against the staff. They've comparatively have gotten knocked around. And clustering luck? I guess about a dozen other teams in the league have "better luck" in clustering their hits given up. That sounds pretty lame to me. If you told me that the defense was atrocious and it was a contributor to the pitching looking worse than it appears, I could buy a good portion of that as they get no help out of LF or 3b and RF has been in a state of flux all year and they've had a lot of inexperienced catching to deal with. That would make more sense then. See FIP, which does measure 3 important components and can be a useful indicator, but ignores how hard the ball has been hit, wall balls, line shots down the line, line drives that are more unlikely to be converted into an out by the defense, etc. is average. Therefore they're as good a pitching staff as anybody else. Meanwhile they're giving up more runs and not getting outs as consistently as just about every other staff in the league. But yeah, it's totally the hitting...the starters have done nothing to contribute to the 47-62 record the team is sporting. I guess the Sox can throw out the same pitching staff next year, get a hitter or two, and they should be good to go then. Boy, am I relieved. The Sox starters rank 16th in MLB in K%, 23rd in lowest BB% but 16th again in K% - BB%, 15th in HR/FB, and 16th in both SIERA and xFIP. They rank 12th in lowest percentage of hard-hit balls. If you factor out the subpar defense, they would rank about 21st in Win Probability Added. So this has been an absolutely average staff that has, however, cost the team about 2 wins by untimely pitching. Now, what's insanely misleading is that the starter's runs-allowed metrics are awful. They rank about 27th in Run Expectancy Wins, defense factored out, and 27th in ERA-. But all those extra runs allowed, enough to move them from 21st to 27th, not only have no predictive value for the future, they have had no impact on winning or losing. They're the extra runs given up (sometimes as inherited runners) after a game has already been lost, when hits have been clustered and clustered on the cluster. And no one is saying the Sox don't need another top pitcher. If you have something that's average and you want to contend, you have to try to improve it. It's the notion that we had an awful rotation that's contradicted by every fact. BTW, Baseball Prospectus shows combined offensive and defensive clustering luck, and the Sox rank 23rd. It's about 2 wins worth, so all of that may well be the starting pitching.
|
|
|
Post by beantown on Aug 7, 2015 16:36:51 GMT -5
Yep, getting Sale seems like a pipe dream to me, and also not worth the weight in damage it would cause to our system.
I continue to be a big believer in Carlos Carrasco. We're talking about a guy with excellent peripherals (FIP under 3) who is just entering his prime at 28 years old. Moreover, this is somebody I believe we could acquire with the right package to Cleveland. The Indians made just under 29 million (and are projected to do basically the same next year) in revenue from their market, and are in the red about 60 million thanks to bloated contracts like Swisher's. Here is a team that is desperate to build from the bottom up, and would be eagerly listening if a team offered them a deal for CC. If a three prospect package headlined by either Swihart or Margot doesn't get it done, we don't listen, but I think if they're willing to bargain around that price range, then the Sox should be hungry to negotiate.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 7, 2015 17:08:50 GMT -5
It's surprising how quickly we've reached a consensus on what I think is the clear best strategy: acquire a top-of-rotation guy, leave a spot open for Owens, Johnson, or Wright, and round out the rotation with Buchholz, Porcello, and ERod. About half the voters disagree with one of those five options and don't foresee trading Miley, but he's clearly the 6th option. So the obvious big topic of debate is whether you go the route of free agency or trade to acquire the top arm. I'm pretty surprised at how many people are ok with Buchholz as the number 2 after another half season of performance. Because half a year of Buchholz plus half a year of whoever replaces him (ideally, whoever is pitching better at AAA between Owens or Johnson) is almost certainly better than anything you could acquire for $13M a year, or the equivalent in trade talent. Given that Buchholz has been worth $20M this year already*, the only real question is whether I should have included "massively" in that assertion. I left it out because he does have a track record of not pitching that well for the first 1/3 to 1/2 season after an injury. If he comes back this season and seems close to 100%, you can put it in there. *By bWAR. It's just above his career rate at current $/Win. At $8M/Win, he's averaged $1.0M/GS since 2009. That's a middle-of-the-pack #2 starter.
If Clay Buchholz starts 18 games, how well does the supplementary pitcher(s) have to pitch in his 15 for the end result to be an average ...
borderline #2 / #3 starter: the fill-in needs to be a borderline #3 / #4 starter #3 starter: very good 5th starter Borderline #3 / #4 starter: replacement level pitcher
|
|
|
Post by cheers on Aug 7, 2015 17:25:07 GMT -5
This a wonderful topic, but I think it possible that we are framing it incorrectly.
Are there any two starting pitchers that the Sox could reasonably expect to acquire that makes this a playoff contender next year?
I really don't think so, unless there is a significant accompanying offensive upgrade (or Sandoval, Ramirez, Swihart, Castillo making big leaps at the plate). The Sox probably should be looking at 2017 instead.
So, it seems best to acquire a young, back of the rotation arm with upside, and punt until the all-star break, hoping for some good breaks for a change..
Rotation: Buchholz (for 125-140 innings until he breaks), replaced by Owens/Johnson tucked away at AAA Porcello, who seems likely to be not so awful Rodriguez Miley New Kid acquired through trade.
longman/#6 Wright
Kelly to the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 7, 2015 17:28:16 GMT -5
Yep, getting Sale seems like a pipe dream to me, and also not worth the weight in damage it would cause to our system. I continue to be a big believer in Carlos Carrasco. We're talking about a guy with excellent peripherals (FIP under 3) who is just entering his prime at 28 years old. Moreover, this is somebody I believe we could acquire with the right package to Cleveland. The Indians made just under 29 million (and are projected to do basically the same next year) in revenue from their market, and are in the red about 60 million thanks to bloated contracts like Swisher's. Here is a team that is desperate to build from the bottom up, and would be eagerly listening if a team offered them a deal for CC. If a three prospect package headlined by either Swihart or Margot doesn't get it done, we don't listen, but I think if they're willing to bargain around that price range, then the Sox should be hungry to negotiate. I agree that Sale is a combination of unlikely and costly (prospect-wise). And I like CC although I'd almost prefer Bauer. But yeah, with salary relief taking on Bourne or Swisher, the Indians might listen to a less-than-ridiculous trade offer. I wouldn't include Swihart, but Margot and pieces, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 7, 2015 17:30:47 GMT -5
I'm pretty surprised at how many people are ok with Buchholz as the number 2 after another half season of performance. Because half a year of Buchholz plus half a year of whoever replaces him (ideally, whoever is pitching better at AAA between Owens or Johnson) is almost certainly better than anything you could acquire for $13M a year, or the equivalent in trade talent. Given that Buchholz has been worth $20M this year already*, the only real question is whether I should have included "massively" in that assertion. I left it out because he does have a track record of not pitching that well for the first 1/3 to 1/2 season after an injury. If he comes back this season and seems close to 100%, you can put it in there. *By bWAR. It's just above his career rate at current $/Win. At $8M/Win, he's averaged $1.0M/GS since 2009. That's a middle-of-the-pack #2 starter.
If Clay Buchholz starts 18 games, how well does the supplementary pitcher(s) have to pitch in his 15 for the end result to be an average ...
borderline #2 / #3 starter: the fill-in needs to be a borderline #3 / #4 starter #3 starter: very good 5th starter Borderline #3 / #4 starter: replacement level pitcher
This doesn't take into account the toll on the bullpen for the 1 or 2 short starts before the dl stint, or the 3 or 4 short starts after the dl.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 7, 2015 17:40:50 GMT -5
It's surprising how quickly we've reached a consensus on what I think is the clear best strategy: acquire a top-of-rotation guy, leave a spot open for Owens, Johnson, or Wright, and round out the rotation with Buchholz, Porcello, and ERod. About half the voters disagree with one of those five options and don't foresee trading Miley, but he's clearly the 6th option. So the obvious big topic of debate is whether you go the route of free agency or trade to acquire the top arm. The other very interesting thing, of course, is that a significant number of voters are ready to commit to Wright as a 5th starter and an even greater number don't even want him in the mix. In fact, there are more folks who want Miley in the rotation than Wright. Wright, BTW, ranks 1st among 167 MLB starters (minimum 40 IP) in lowest LD%, and 4th in BABIP. I don't know that Miley is "clearly" the 6th option. Maybe things changed since you posted this, but Miley is currently the fourth highest vote-getter in the poll with 41 votes. Yes, if you add up the last two options (Johnson/Owens and Wright/Johnson/Owens), you get more than 41 (as of this post, 51), but I think that overcounts some folks who might want two of Johnson/Owens/Wright in the rotation. At the very least, I think it's close enough that I wouldn't call it a consensus. There are 77 total votes for the three potential internal additions, versus 44 for Miley. For Miley to be the 5th most preferred option, there would need to be 34 people who want two of the three in the rotation, and just 9 voters who want 1. I think if the actual number of people who want an internal addition is 60, you have to say that's clearly ahead of Miley's 44 ... and that would mean 17 people voting for two versus 33 voting for just one. There's no way that's the ratio. Out off 88 voters so far: 16 want to replace Buchholz 17 want to replace Porcello 9 or more don't want an outside addition (1 more for everyone who wants 2) 11 or more don't want an internal addition (1 more for everyone who wants 2) Since all four of these things are about equally radical, my gut tells me that about 5-8 folks have opted for two internal additions, or two external ones. (Those 53 vacancies have been filled by 44 votes for Miley, 2 votes for other, and 7 left blank.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 7, 2015 17:45:53 GMT -5
Because half a year of Buchholz plus half a year of whoever replaces him (ideally, whoever is pitching better at AAA between Owens or Johnson) is almost certainly better than anything you could acquire for $13M a year, or the equivalent in trade talent. Given that Buchholz has been worth $20M this year already*, the only real question is whether I should have included "massively" in that assertion. I left it out because he does have a track record of not pitching that well for the first 1/3 to 1/2 season after an injury. If he comes back this season and seems close to 100%, you can put it in there. *By bWAR. It's just above his career rate at current $/Win. At $8M/Win, he's averaged $1.0M/GS since 2009. That's a middle-of-the-pack #2 starter.
If Clay Buchholz starts 18 games, how well does the supplementary pitcher(s) have to pitch in his 15 for the end result to be an average ...
borderline #2 / #3 starter: the fill-in needs to be a borderline #3 / #4 starter #3 starter: very good 5th starter Borderline #3 / #4 starter: replacement level pitcher
This doesn't take into account the toll on the bullpen for the 1 or 2 short starts before the dl stint, or the 3 or 4 short starts after the dl. That's like 6 IP. Maybe 7. That's invisible next to the all the variance everywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 7, 2015 17:50:34 GMT -5
This doesn't take into account the toll on the bullpen for the 1 or 2 short starts before the dl stint, or the 3 or 4 short starts after the dl. That's like 6 IP. Maybe 7. That's invisible next to the all the variance everywhere else. It's more innings than that. But if 15 or 20 innings is still invisible, I'll take your word on the math. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 7, 2015 17:55:03 GMT -5
I don't know that Miley is "clearly" the 6th option. Maybe things changed since you posted this, but Miley is currently the fourth highest vote-getter in the poll with 41 votes. Yes, if you add up the last two options (Johnson/Owens and Wright/Johnson/Owens), you get more than 41 (as of this post, 51), but I think that overcounts some folks who might want two of Johnson/Owens/Wright in the rotation. At the very least, I think it's close enough that I wouldn't call it a consensus. There are 77 total votes for the three potential internal additions, versus 44 for Miley. For Miley to be the 5th most preferred option, there would need to be 34 people who want two of the three in the rotation, and just 9 voters who want 1. I think if the actual number of people who want an internal addition is 60, you have to say that's clearly ahead of Miley's 44 ... and that would mean 17 people voting for two versus 33 voting for just one. There's no way that's the ratio. Out off 88 voters so far: 16 want to replace Buchholz 17 want to replace Porcello 9 or more don't want an outside addition (1 more for everyone who wants 2) 11 or more don't want an internal addition (1 more for everyone who wants 2) Since all four of these things are about equally radical, my gut tells me that about 5-8 folks have opted for two internal additions, or two external ones. (Those 53 vacancies have been filled by 44 votes for Miley, 2 votes for other, and 7 left blank.) Whoops-- I did not see last night that Wright was an independent option (which, let me add, is a nice bit of framing to get your desired result ). I'm very tired and read this quickly and so might not be fully appreciating your analysis, but it's not a zero-sum game of Miley versus the three internal options, and any folks who either want all three internal options in the rotation or want two of them plus Miley would throw off the above analysis. These people definitely exist (89 voters but only 73 votes for Buchholz and 71 for Porcello), especially considering the hostility towards Porcello and Buchholz that seems to be fairly popular these days.
|
|
|
Post by bbscouts on Aug 7, 2015 18:14:24 GMT -5
I couldn't bring myself to vote for Porcello although I realize he is an unmovable object in the middle of the rotation since they already extended him. I'm higher on Owens than most and I think he and E-Rod can be the core of the staff for several years. I like Wright as the 5th starter or at least in the bullpen since the knuckleball is rare and causes problems for many lineups. Kelly should be tried in the bullpen. Buchholz obviously stays as a starter. Miley I think has been competitive but could see him getting traded if they can acquire a better starter.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 7, 2015 18:22:51 GMT -5
This a wonderful topic, but I think it possible that we are framing it incorrectly.
Are there any two starting pitchers that the Sox could reasonably expect to acquire that makes this a playoff contender next year?
I really don't think so, unless there is a significant accompanying offensive upgrade (or Sandoval, Ramirez, Swihart, Castillo making big leaps at the plate). The Sox probably should be looking at 2017 instead. It's really easy to contend these days. This team will contend next year if they acquire one frontline starter, a quality setup reliever (or two), probably a good OFer (assuming that Bradley and Castillo constitute a platoon rather than two regulars), and if everyone plays, on average, to their projections. It's really hard to fathom just how far Ramirez and Sandoval have underperformed this year (6.4 wins between them already, including clutch hitting, versus their ZiPS and Steamer projections), and it's just as easy to forget that Christian Vazquez projected to be the 5th best catcher in MLB (with pitch framing included). Despite everything else that went wrong, they'd be neck and neck with the Blue Jays right now if just those three things hadn't happened. Repeat: do nothing to fix the pitching, do nothing to fix RF or LF (after you move Hanley to 1B), and if Vazquez, Ramorez, and Sandoval simply play to their talents, you contend. Folks, BTW, said the same thing about 2013 after 2012, only more vehemently.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 8, 2015 20:34:08 GMT -5
Locks: Buchholz, Porcello, Wright. Locks unless traded: Rodriguez Likely: Miley Of course, I won't disagree that the Sox could be improved by acquiring an elite pitcher. My suggestion for the rotation if they do acquire one without giving Rodriguez or Miley in return would be a piggyback arrangement - have Wright face the first 18 (or more) batters and then have Miley/Porcello/Rodriguez finish the game. If someone gets injured or there's a doubleheader, you already have an extra stretched-out starter on the roster. Of course, it won't happen with Farrell, but I haven't given up hope that we could have a more enlightened manager next year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 8, 2015 20:43:48 GMT -5
Locks: Buchholz, Porcello, Wright. Locks unless traded: Rodriguez Likely: Miley Of course, I won't disagree that the Sox could be improved by acquiring an elite pitcher. My suggestion for the rotation if they do acquire one without giving Rodriguez or Miley in return would be a piggyback arrangement - have Wright face the first 18 (or more) batters and then have Miley/Porcello/Rodriguez finish the game. If someone gets injured or there's a doubleheader, you already have an extra stretched-out starter on the roster. Of course, it won't happen with Farrell, but I haven't given up hope that we could have a more enlightened manager next year. I don't know if any managers would do that, but it's very easy to do on a roster that includes Brock Holt on the bench.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 8, 2015 20:47:12 GMT -5
Locks: Buchholz, Porcello, Wright. Locks unless traded: Rodriguez Likely: Miley Of course, I won't disagree that the Sox could be improved by acquiring an elite pitcher. My suggestion for the rotation if they do acquire one without giving Rodriguez or Miley in return would be a piggyback arrangement - have Wright face the first 18 (or more) batters and then have Miley/Porcello/Rodriguez finish the game. If someone gets injured or there's a doubleheader, you already have an extra stretched-out starter on the roster. Of course, it won't happen with Farrell, but I haven't given up hope that we could have a more enlightened manager next year. A Wright/Rodriguez piggybacking could be so good... If only, if only.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 9, 2015 1:51:31 GMT -5
Of course, I won't disagree that the Sox could be improved by acquiring an elite pitcher. My suggestion for the rotation if they do acquire one without giving Rodriguez or Miley in return would be a piggyback arrangement - have Wright face the first 18 (or more) batters and then have Miley/Porcello/Rodriguez finish the game. If someone gets injured or there's a doubleheader, you already have an extra stretched-out starter on the roster. Of course, it won't happen with Farrell, but I haven't given up hope that we could have a more enlightened manager next year. I don't know if any managers would do that, but it's very easy to do on a roster that includes Brock Holt on the bench. Piggybacking the starters is also something they can do in September when Buchholz, Johnson, and Porcello are all recovered, given that Kelly is the only guy in the current rotation that you really want to bump. It's probably a better way to limit the innings of all the youngsters than going to a 6-man rotation.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 11, 2015 12:25:23 GMT -5
Maybe the Red Sox could buy low on Rubby de La Rosa, with his 18.7% HR/FB rate that Arizona won't even notice.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 11, 2015 16:09:39 GMT -5
See FIP, which does measure 3 important components and can be a useful indicator, but ignores how hard the ball has been hit, wall balls, line shots down the line, line drives that are more unlikely to be converted into an out by the defense, etc. is average. Therefore they're as good a pitching staff as anybody else. Meanwhile they're giving up more runs and not getting outs as consistently as just about every other staff in the league. For what it's worth, based on the Baseball Info Solutions quality of contact stats, the Red Sox pitching staff has given up the 17th-highest rate of "Hard" contact, the 25th-highest rate of "Medium" contact, and the 8th-highest rate of "Soft" contact. How does a team rank near the tops in both hard and soft contact? What does that mean in terms of the pitching staff/defense?
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 11, 2015 16:46:10 GMT -5
How does a team rank near the tops in both hard and soft contact? What does that mean in terms of the pitching staff/defense? Well they're right around the middle of the league in hard contact, not really near the top. In terms of defense, it means, shockingly, that our defense is terrible, because they've been incapable of turning lots of soft contact into outs. And pitching-wise, my thought is that it's indicative of the kind of pitchers we have: Miley and Porcello, at least, are guys who don't have the stuff to get away with poor location. When they're on, lots of weak grounders, when they're off, they get shelled
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 11, 2015 17:06:40 GMT -5
How does a team rank near the tops in both hard and soft contact? What does that mean in terms of the pitching staff/defense? Tautologically, it means they rank near in bottom in medium contact. As mentioned above, 17th most hard contact is a long way from "near the tops" (so is 8th, for that matter). The general profile seems to be better-than-average in terms of contact given up by the pitching staff, which means the hypothesis of "they're giving up tons of hard contact" seems inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 11, 2015 18:39:35 GMT -5
How does a team rank near the tops in both hard and soft contact? What does that mean in terms of the pitching staff/defense? Tautologically, it means they rank near in bottom in medium contact. As mentioned above, 17th most hard contact is a long way from "near the tops" (so is 8th, for that matter). The general profile seems to be better-than-average in terms of contact given up by the pitching staff, which means the hypothesis of "they're giving up tons of hard contact" seems inaccurate. Nitpicking, but the Red Sox are 13th in hard contact%.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 11, 2015 19:38:07 GMT -5
They were 17th when I originally posted four days ago. The difference between 13th and 17th is 0.1%, which tells you that maybe ordinal ranking is not the best way to evaluate it.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 12, 2015 10:31:39 GMT -5
They were 17th when I originally posted four days ago. The difference between 13th and 17th is 0.1%, which tells you that maybe ordinal ranking is not the best way to evaluate it. Would that suggest that these numbers are more just white noise than anything else or could you use these to derive a conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 12, 2015 10:56:25 GMT -5
They were 17th when I originally posted four days ago. The difference between 13th and 17th is 0.1%, which tells you that maybe ordinal ranking is not the best way to evaluate it. Would that suggest that these numbers are more just white noise than anything else or could you use these to derive a conclusion? All it suggests to me is that there are a lot of teams clustered in the middle who are not separated by much.
|
|
|