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.
7/25-7/27 Red Sox vs. Detroit Series Thread
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 28, 2016 9:49:37 GMT -5
I’m not sure how you can blame Dombrowski for the failures of Price and Kimbrel Uhm... what exactly would you say Dombrowski's job is, then? Are you one of the followers who thought he should stand pat? If so you're just about alone out there. The bulk of the board was giddy about Price. While there was less enthusiasm for Kimbrel given the cost in prospects, that move had plenty of supporters also. None of this stuff is written in stone. Maybe he gets canned also sooner rather than later, but he's largely done what the press and ownership asked of him as far as I can tell. Pitching is always the joker in the deck. That's especially true in a year where MLB decided to jack the offense. They said they wanted to increase it and they did. New baseballs, tighter strikezone, whatever. It's happened. Look at Betts and Bradley. They're both in line for 25-30 HRs. That would have seemed outrageous, even last year. I'm not quite ready for them to hang everybody just yet.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 28, 2016 10:49:19 GMT -5
I’m not sure how you can blame Dombrowski for the failures of Price and Kimbrel Uhm... what exactly would you say Dombrowski's job is, then? To balance the needs of the Red Sox for the short-term and long-term in a sensible way. The Kimbrel deal has been argued ad nauseum, but there was zero reason to have expected him to struggle as much as he has had. And there was even less reason to expect David Price to struggle. How you figure that's on Dombrowski is beyond me. Did you have Price being mediocre this year? If you did, you're in the minority. That's some serious Monday morning quarterbacking. The signing of David Price allowed the Red Sox to get a high caliber pitcher without surrendering young talent and without surrendering a draft pick, which turned into Jason Groome. I don't agree with all of his moves, but you don't blame Dombrowski when a guy he acquires with an established track record struggles. That's flat out wrong. It was reasonable to expect Price to pitch very well. The results aren't there but the thinking behind his signing was reasonable, especially for the short-term.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 28, 2016 11:01:02 GMT -5
Better run prevention.Edit: plus it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't getting some level production from some combination of Moncada, Benintendi, Travis and Swihart some time next year. So: 1) Something this team hasn't done in any significant sense since 2013 will suddenly appear? Because...? I don't see any pitching help coming from AAA/AA that will significantly impact this team next year. If you believe David Price becomes more like the David Price of old, fine, I'll go with that. But Wright had a magic first half, and the bloom is coming off that rose so he could very easily slip to #5 status next year (or even in the second half of this year). Porcello looks solid so let's say that continues to happen. You're then banking on Pomerantz to continue with a transformative year, and for Rodriguez to be as good if not better than his 2015 season, but with a full season of innings? I can't hold with that right now based on past performances. I am of course excluding Buchholz, who I think will be gone by then, if not August 1. 2) So two guys who've never played in MLB are going to split in two positions (one as yet to be undetermined) to make up for lost production from a potential MVP candidate, and two other guys, one who is barely a replacement level LF and who the team has completely mishandled - and where does he play since they don't like him for catcher if Benintendi comes up? - will exceed their current production to the point where it will all come together? I respect your optimism but I find both these scenarios, while not impossible, highly improbable. This is an amazing year for this offense, which may never occur again. Average AL performance by this pitching staff would have the Sox up by 5 games or more. Instead they've been mired as one of the 3 or 5 worst in runs allowed virtually all year. In addition, 2016 offers a tremendous opportunity as there is no single dominant AL team. It is entirely frustrating that this team, with a near historic offense, has been unable to seize that opportunity as of yet. Meanwhile, as it always happens, other teams will get better next year, too. This is a moment in time. Unless they get it together soon they will blow it. Improving the run prevention is as easy as improving upon the 6.00+ ERA they've received so far from their fourth and fifth starters this season. Even acknowledging that their incumbent options come with varying levels of performance uncertainty, that's a virtual lock. They've gotten a lot of fluky bad performances from Buchholz, Rodriguez, Kelly, etc. this year that, as you mention, are the only reason this team isn't the class of the AL. Even if you think Wright regresses a lot, Pomeranz (no t) is mediocre, Rodriguez has growing pains-- those guys are almost certainly going to be better next year than what they got this year out of those spots.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 28, 2016 11:02:26 GMT -5
I don't agree with all of his moves, but you don't blame Dombrowski when a guy he acquires with an established track record struggles. That's flat out wrong. We had no problem blaming Cherington for the same thing.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 28, 2016 11:04:36 GMT -5
I don't agree with all of his moves, but you don't blame Dombrowski when a guy he acquires with an established track record struggles. That's flat out wrong. We had no problem blaming Cherington for the same thing. Hell, Crawford all but ran Theo, who will likely be remembered as an all time great, out of town. That's Boston for you.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 28, 2016 11:07:43 GMT -5
I don't agree with all of his moves, but you don't blame Dombrowski when a guy he acquires with an established track record struggles. That's flat out wrong. We had no problem blaming Cherington for the same thing. We have no problem jumping on a player for being gutless if he makes an out after going 4 for 4 previously.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 28, 2016 11:13:10 GMT -5
I don't agree with all of his moves, but you don't blame Dombrowski when a guy he acquires with an established track record struggles. That's flat out wrong. We had no problem blaming Cherington for the same thing. Two different things. Price is in his prime and has been among the best in baseball. There were tons of questions about Sandoval's declining performance and his weight. There were a lot of questions as to whether Hanley Ramirez could handle LF. Allen Craig had the lisfranc injuries so it was fair to question whether he was in decline or just plain done. I don't think Price or even Kimbrel (as far as Kimbrel's performance) is a bit different. They were higher end talent than the middle/upper middle talent that Cherington went after.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 28, 2016 11:24:52 GMT -5
We had no problem blaming Cherington for the same thing. Two different things. Price is in his prime and has been among the best in baseball. There were tons of questions about Sandoval's declining performance and his weight. There were a lot of questions as to whether Hanley Ramirez could handle LF. Allen Craig had the lisfranc injuries so it was fair to question whether he was in decline or just plain done. I don't think Price or even Kimbrel (as far as Kimbrel's performance) is a bit different. They were higher end talent than the middle/upper middle talent that Cherington went after.This perspective reflects your personal opinion that so-called "higher end talent" is proportionately less risky than "middle/upper middle talent" and thus worth paying a premium for. Dombrowski apparently shares that opinion, but it is not capital-T truth. Myself and others disagree and would have preferred Cherington-esque value signings instead. When you pay that premium for elite talent but then don't get elite performance in return, it is just as fair to second-guess those decisions as it was to second-guess Cherington's decisions.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 28, 2016 11:41:18 GMT -5
We had no problem blaming Cherington for the same thing. Two different things. Price is in his prime and has been among the best in baseball. There were tons of questions about Sandoval's declining performance and his weight. There were a lot of questions as to whether Hanley Ramirez could handle LF. Allen Craig had the lisfranc injuries so it was fair to question whether he was in decline or just plain done. I don't think Price or even Kimbrel (as far as Kimbrel's performance) is a bit different. They were higher end talent than the middle/upper middle talent that Cherington went after. You can't just compare Price and Kimbrel to Sandoval and Hanley. You also have to consider their cost relative to performance.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 28, 2016 11:43:35 GMT -5
So: 1) Something this team hasn't done in any significant sense since 2013 will suddenly appear? Because...? I don't see any pitching help coming from AAA/AA that will significantly impact this team next year. If you believe David Price becomes more like the David Price of old, fine, I'll go with that. But Wright had a magic first half, and the bloom is coming off that rose so he could very easily slip to #5 status next year (or even in the second half of this year). Porcello looks solid so let's say that continues to happen. You're then banking on Pomerantz to continue with a transformative year, and for Rodriguez to be as good if not better than his 2015 season, but with a full season of innings? I can't hold with that right now based on past performances. I am of course excluding Buchholz, who I think will be gone by then, if not August 1. 2) So two guys who've never played in MLB are going to split in two positions (one as yet to be undetermined) to make up for lost production from a potential MVP candidate, and two other guys, one who is barely a replacement level LF and who the team has completely mishandled - and where does he play since they don't like him for catcher if Benintendi comes up? - will exceed their current production to the point where it will all come together? I respect your optimism but I find both these scenarios, while not impossible, highly improbable. This is an amazing year for this offense, which may never occur again. Average AL performance by this pitching staff would have the Sox up by 5 games or more. Instead they've been mired as one of the 3 or 5 worst in runs allowed virtually all year. In addition, 2016 offers a tremendous opportunity as there is no single dominant AL team. It is entirely frustrating that this team, with a near historic offense, has been unable to seize that opportunity as of yet. Meanwhile, as it always happens, other teams will get better next year, too. This is a moment in time. Unless they get it together soon they will blow it. Improving the run prevention is as easy as improving upon the 6.00+ ERA they've received so far from their fourth and fifth starters this season. Even acknowledging that their incumbent options come with varying levels of performance uncertainty, that's a virtual lock. They've gotten a lot of fluky bad performances from Buchholz, Rodriguez, Kelly, etc. this year that, as you mention, are the only reason this team isn't the class of the AL. Even if you think Wright regresses a lot, Pomeranz (no t) is mediocre, Rodriguez has growing pains-- those guys are almost certainly going to be better next year than what they got this year out of those spots. That's what we were saying about the 2014 staff, and the 2015 staff. I'm not saying that they won't improve next year but that the way it was positioned as "run prevention" - i.e. the pitching staff improving enough so they are, say, middle of the pack + somehow performing as good or just slightly worse than this year's offense = success for next year (especially the way it was positioned above on the offense) does not seem immediately realistic. Especially since this isn't in a vacuum. Other teams get better, as well. What I am saying is this year there is a huge opportunity. To just say, "Oh we should be able to produce X and nearly replicate Y next year" is all well and good, but the data supporting that happening in baseball is not overwhelming. Look at the projections after the 2013 off-season. Or after 2014. Or 2015. (or 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 28, 2016 11:50:45 GMT -5
Part of me thinks that no matter what pitcher is on the team, they're going to struggle and disappoint. I don't know why that is other than a combination of the artificial increase in offense and that playing in the AL East is more brutal than normal. I also tend to believe that Red Sox pitchers are squeezed more than other teams are.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 28, 2016 12:00:29 GMT -5
Part of me thinks that no matter what pitcher is on the team, they're going to struggle and disappoint. I don't know why that is other than a combination of the artificial increase in offense and that playing in the AL East is more brutal than normal. I also tend to believe that Red Sox pitchers are squeezed more than other teams are. I don't know. Wright has overperformed, Porcello has been great, Price unlucky albeit a bit worse too. Really I think part of the problem is that we've taken big risks. Joe Kelly based on the fact that he throws hard, an aging 2 pitch pitcher coming off of an injury in Masterson, and one of our most inconsistent players ever in Buchholz. The Yankees pitchers are in just as tough of a situation, but have had more success. Credit Cashman there. Tanaka is damn good, Kuroda was awesome coming from LA, and Pineda is a very talented arm struggling with the long ball at the moment (still a great trade on their part). Honestly our rotation is pretty darn good now if Rodriguez can be an average bottom of rotation starter, and if Wright can hover around a 3.5 ERA. The risk seems much lower than it has been since 2013.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 28, 2016 12:01:44 GMT -5
Two different things. Price is in his prime and has been among the best in baseball. There were tons of questions about Sandoval's declining performance and his weight. There were a lot of questions as to whether Hanley Ramirez could handle LF. Allen Craig had the lisfranc injuries so it was fair to question whether he was in decline or just plain done. I don't think Price or even Kimbrel (as far as Kimbrel's performance) is a bit different. They were higher end talent than the middle/upper middle talent that Cherington went after.This perspective reflects your personal opinion that so-called "higher end talent" is proportionately less risky than "middle/upper middle talent" and thus worth paying a premium for. Dombrowski apparently shares that opinion, but it is not capital-T truth. Myself and others disagree and would have preferred Cherington-esque value signings instead. When you pay that premium for elite talent but then don't get elite performance in return, it is just as fair to second-guess those decisions as it was to second-guess Cherington's decisions. Normally it is less risky. Having a strong established track record is based on being consistent and therefore predictable. Sooner or later everybody hits the wall (except Papi) - ie. the Red Sox get veteran John Smoltz coming off about 17 excellent seasons in a row, but he is coming off injury and washed up when the Sox get him. David Price has been a consistent performer, among the best for a good five years plus, is only age 30, and should be in the prime of his career. He's a good gamble. A guy who is inconsistent (Good year/bad year) or shows signs of consistent declining by definition is going to be lower end talent. Reliability matters. It's not infallible, though. I get your assertion that you'd rather see low cost gambles, but keep in mind they more often fail than they work and there is a cost to failed low cost gambles, you get lousy performance. When somebody with an established track record fails, then not only do you get lousy performance but you get a high cost associated with that performance, which makes it worse, but established track records are more likely to succeed and at some point you can't have a ton of uncertainty on your team. You need something you can rely on. The Red Sox took the five aces approach when they let Lester go. Nobody stepped up, so they went and got a guy with an established track record of being an ace, instead of further gambling. I don't blame Dombrowski for taking that approach. I don't see why anybody would regardless of the result. Unless of course, people here were clamoring for the Red Sox to try to find the next Joe Kelly to lead the staff or wanted to trade all of our top end prospects and/or established young regulars for the unobtainable young emerging ace.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 28, 2016 12:06:52 GMT -5
Two different things. Price is in his prime and has been among the best in baseball. There were tons of questions about Sandoval's declining performance and his weight. There were a lot of questions as to whether Hanley Ramirez could handle LF. Allen Craig had the lisfranc injuries so it was fair to question whether he was in decline or just plain done. I don't think Price or even Kimbrel (as far as Kimbrel's performance) is a bit different. They were higher end talent than the middle/upper middle talent that Cherington went after. You can't just compare Price and Kimbrel to Sandoval and Hanley. You also have to consider their cost relative to performance. Fine, Hanley and Sandoval cost a ton. Hanley can still hit a bit and is serviceable as a 1b, but at $22 million/year he costs more than he's worth. Sandoval is a big flop of a signing. $95 million for nothing. Kimbrel costs 4 prospects. Once you get past that staggering number, you realize the Sox dealt 6 years of a good regular CF not good enough to crack their outfield for the foreseeable future, and 3 prospects of questionable quality for 3 years of a closer who had an established track record of being among the best in baseball over the past five years. Price cost a lot of money, but nothing else. If the Sox are spending on a pitcher, I'd rather they spend $31 million on Price than $15 million on Ian Kennedy types, because that's what they're getting, which is why it behooves the Sox to try to develop their own pitching rather than dealing it for uncertainties like Pomeranz.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 28, 2016 17:06:27 GMT -5
Improving the run prevention is as easy as improving upon the 6.00+ ERA they've received so far from their fourth and fifth starters this season. Even acknowledging that their incumbent options come with varying levels of performance uncertainty, that's a virtual lock. They've gotten a lot of fluky bad performances from Buchholz, Rodriguez, Kelly, etc. this year that, as you mention, are the only reason this team isn't the class of the AL. Even if you think Wright regresses a lot, Pomeranz (no t) is mediocre, Rodriguez has growing pains-- those guys are almost certainly going to be better next year than what they got this year out of those spots. That's what we were saying about the 2014 staff, and the 2015 staff. I'm not saying that they won't improve next year but that the way it was positioned as "run prevention" - i.e. the pitching staff improving enough so they are, say, middle of the pack + somehow performing as good or just slightly worse than this year's offense = success for next year (especially the way it was positioned above on the offense) does not seem immediately realistic. Especially since this isn't in a vacuum. Other teams get better, as well. What I am saying is this year there is a huge opportunity. To just say, "Oh we should be able to produce X and nearly replicate Y next year" is all well and good, but the data supporting that happening in baseball is not overwhelming. Look at the projections after the 2013 off-season. Or after 2014. Or 2015. (or 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, etc.). You're misremembering recent Red Sox history. The 2014 Red Sox had a league- and park-adjusted ERA which ranked 17th in the majors, despite trading Lester, Lackey and Peavy at the deadline and going with scrubs in August and September. The team's problem that year was offense (it was the year where Bogaerts and Bradley collapsed, the Grady Sizemore/Stephen Drew year, etc). The 2015 staff started terribly, but ended the year 18th in the league in adjusted ERA due to Porcello and Kelly's resurgence, etc.-- the exact kind of stuff I'm talking about here. You also conspicuously fail to mention 2013, when the team made a historic turnaround by replacing well below-replacement-level scrubs with average-to-better alternatives. The data supporting the value of projection systems remains pretty good, by the way. No, it isn't close to perfect, but it's as good or better than any other system out there, and I'm willing to bet it would have outperformed "guidas' intuition" through the years (hey, don't you still owe me an avatar for Zobrist/Holt?).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 28, 2016 17:16:31 GMT -5
Normally it is less risky. Having a strong established track record is based on being consistent and therefore predictable. Sooner or later everybody hits the wall (except Papi) - ie. the Red Sox get veteran John Smoltz coming off about 17 excellent seasons in a row, but he is coming off injury and washed up when the Sox get him. David Price has been a consistent performer, among the best for a good five years plus, is only age 30, and should be in the prime of his career. He's a good gamble. A guy who is inconsistent (Good year/bad year) or shows signs of consistent declining by definition is going to be lower end talent. Reliability matters. It's not infallible, though. I get your assertion that you'd rather see low cost gambles, but keep in mind they more often fail than they work and there is a cost to failed low cost gambles, you get lousy performance. When somebody with an established track record fails, then not only do you get lousy performance but you get a high cost associated with that performance, which makes it worse, but established track records are more likely to succeed and at some point you can't have a ton of uncertainty on your team. You need something you can rely on. The Red Sox took the five aces approach when they let Lester go. Nobody stepped up, so they went and got a guy with an established track record of being an ace, instead of further gambling. I don't blame Dombrowski for taking that approach. I don't see why anybody would regardless of the result. Unless of course, people here were clamoring for the Red Sox to try to find the next Joe Kelly to lead the staff or wanted to trade all of our top end prospects and/or established young regulars for the unobtainable young emerging ace. Yes, obviously, the better of a track record, the less risk. But my point is that even players with pristine track records still have a lot of risk, and you can't justify paying inflated prices for such players because "you need something you can rely on" because history tells us that you can't in fact rely on those players and they underperform all the time. Signing David Price is still absolutely a gamble, and it is the idea that he's not that I'm pushing back on. The response to a high-risk world isn't to pay disproportionately high premiums for "elite" players with marginally lower risk. It's to make targeted bets on guys who you think are undervalued (even if they're high-risk assets) while building depth and creating backup plans to backup plans.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 28, 2016 17:35:21 GMT -5
I Think a lot of over thinking is going on. Lot of smart people making good points. Sometimes the answer is I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jul 28, 2016 17:40:19 GMT -5
jmei is on a very good day
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 28, 2016 18:06:15 GMT -5
That's what we were saying about the 2014 staff, and the 2015 staff. I'm not saying that they won't improve next year but that the way it was positioned as "run prevention" - i.e. the pitching staff improving enough so they are, say, middle of the pack + somehow performing as good or just slightly worse than this year's offense = success for next year (especially the way it was positioned above on the offense) does not seem immediately realistic. Especially since this isn't in a vacuum. Other teams get better, as well. What I am saying is this year there is a huge opportunity. To just say, "Oh we should be able to produce X and nearly replicate Y next year" is all well and good, but the data supporting that happening in baseball is not overwhelming. Look at the projections after the 2013 off-season. Or after 2014. Or 2015. (or 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, etc.). You're misremembering recent Red Sox history. The 2014 Red Sox had a league- and park-adjusted ERA which ranked 17th in the majors, despite trading Lester, Lackey and Peavy at the deadline and going with scrubs in August and September. The team's problem that year was offense (it was the year where Bogaerts and Bradley collapsed, the Grady Sizemore/Stephen Drew year, etc). The 2015 staff started terribly, but ended the year 18th in the league in adjusted ERA due to Porcello and Kelly's resurgence, etc.-- the exact kind of stuff I'm talking about here. You also conspicuously fail to mention 2013, when the team made a historic turnaround by replacing well below-replacement-level scrubs with average-to-better alternatives. The data supporting the value of projection systems remains pretty good, by the way. No, it isn't close to perfect, but it's as good or better than any other system out there, and I'm willing to bet it would have outperformed "guidas' intuition" through the years (hey, don't you still owe me an avatar for Zobrist/Holt?). Projection is right more often than not, but this team has fallen short of it in most of the years I mentioned. I think we would all agree 2013 is an outlier, if not a black swan given the pre-season projections for that year. And yes, I lost the avatar bet, which you so graciously moved on from but I was and remain ready to take my medicine. Hey, if I was right every time, I'd have cleaned up in Vegas, Foxwoods and Monte Carlo and own Idaho and Fiji right now. ADDED: Here's what I found after a quick search: After 2008 off-season 2009 pre-season projection vs actual outcome Sox were: 2009 actual +2 2010 -4 2011 -4 2012 -22 2013 + 15 2014 -19 2015 -8 This source didn't have the post 2004 and post 2005 off season projections (i.e 2005 and 20-6 projections and actuals) but I will endeavor to find. Source: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/team-win-projections-vs-actual-win-totals-2007-present/So maybe not enough to own Idaho and Fiji, but if you bet the under on the Sox's pre-season projections since the end of the 08 off-season, you won much more often than not. My initial point was the fix was not as starightforward as dcsoxfan theorized. And to jmei, sure, in theory just cut the ERA by .050 or so, which should be easy, And yet, after each one of those seasons above the front office used their reasources to tweak the team the same ways theorized above - a liitle more run prevention and/or a little more run production. I'm don't dispute the attempts, but to simply say, "all we need to do next year is X and Y if we piss away this year and we're good' always sounds great, but the actuals, at least since 2009, have - except in two cases - not followed form. Because it's baseball. Meanwhile, this team has a plus wins season and much more within their grasp. That's what makes all this so frustrating. And why I don't own Idaho or Fiji (though maybe I should start betting the under for real).
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 28, 2016 18:22:17 GMT -5
Cleaned that up for you...
|
|
|