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.
Red Sox Acquire Adam Ottavino from the Yankees
|
Post by bnich on Jan 26, 2021 16:43:23 GMT -5
I thought this trade was a joke. Ok. This is very real.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 26, 2021 16:52:24 GMT -5
I actually see the MFY with a ton of variability in their 2021 outcome. Kluber, Tallion, Montgomery and Severino are all question marks due to recent physical problems. Cole is a stud and the young kid German was big last year. After that, their rotation is Scotch tape. Happ and Tanaka combined for 19 starts (which projects to 51 over a full season) and put up ERA-pluses of 123 and 120 respectively. They have not replaced that reliability. Consideration of the fact that the Yankees a) have a huge number of question marks in their starting rotation, and b) are projected to have far and away the best rotation in the AL, should help to ground our opinions about the Red Sox' potential competitivenes.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 26, 2021 17:09:10 GMT -5
I actually see the MFY with a ton of variability in their 2021 outcome. Kluber, Tallion, Montgomery and Severino are all question marks due to recent physical problems. Cole is a stud and the young kid German was big last year. After that, their rotation is Scotch tape. Happ and Tanaka combined for 19 starts (which projects to 51 over a full season) and put up ERA-pluses of 123 and 120 respectively. They have not replaced that reliability. Consideration of the fact that the Yankees a) have a huge number of question marks in their starting rotation, and b) are projected to have far and away the best rotation in the AL, should help to ground our opinions about the Red Sox' potential competitivenes. Not disputing your comment but what projections have the Yankees as far and away the best rotation in the AL? Their 2 and 3 starters have combined for roughly 75 innings since the start of the 2019 season.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2021 17:17:10 GMT -5
Consideration of the fact that the Yankees a) have a huge number of question marks in their starting rotation, and b) are projected to have far and away the best rotation in the AL, should help to ground our opinions about the Red Sox' potential competitivenes. Not disputing your comment but what projections have the Yankees as far and away the best rotation in the AL? Their 2 and 3 starters have combined for roughly 75 innings since the start of the 2019 season. Easy now: our #1 didn’t pitch at all last year, or #2 has averaged 88 innings a year since 2016, and our #3 has averaged 40 innings a year since 2015.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 26, 2021 17:21:11 GMT -5
Not disputing your comment but what projections have the Yankees as far and away the best rotation in the AL? Their 2 and 3 starters have combined for roughly 75 innings since the start of the 2019 season. Easy now: our #1 didn’t pitch at all last year, or #2 has averaged 88 innings a year since 2016, and our #3 has averaged 40 innings a year since 2015. Well I wasn't saying the Sox rotation is projected to be the best in the AL either. There's probably projections that are bullish on the Yankees rotation. I just really don't see how to really project what Taillon or Kluber will do when they've basically not pitched for 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2021 17:25:04 GMT -5
Easy now: our #1 didn’t pitch at all last year, or #2 has averaged 88 innings a year since 2016, and our #3 has averaged 40 innings a year since 2015. Well I wasn't saying the Sox rotation is projected to be the best in the AL either. There's probably projections that are bullish on the Yankees rotation. I just really don't see how to really project what Taillon or Kluber will do when they've basically not pitched for 2 years. I was mostly kidding. I think it may be fairest to say every staff in the AL East is going to be an adventure this year.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 26, 2021 17:29:06 GMT -5
Well I wasn't saying the Sox rotation is projected to be the best in the AL either. There's probably projections that are bullish on the Yankees rotation. I just really don't see how to really project what Taillon or Kluber will do when they've basically not pitched for 2 years. I was mostly kidding. I think it may be fairest to say every staff in the AL East is going to be an adventure this year. It's not just the AL East either, when I first read the comment about the Yankees projection my first thought was uh how.. then I tried to think of any great rotation on paper in the AL and came up with nothing. Closest I had was the Indians with Bieber, Plesac, Civale and Mckenzie but those last 3 don't have a long track record at all.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2021 17:40:03 GMT -5
I was mostly kidding. I think it may be fairest to say every staff in the AL East is going to be an adventure this year. It's not just the AL East either, when I first read the comment about the Yankees projection my first thought was uh how.. then I tried to think of any great rotation on paper in the AL and came up with nothing. Closest I had was the Indians with Bieber, Plesac, Civale and Mckenzie but those last 3 don't have a long track record at all. Health is always tricky, and coning off an odd year, it could be even more complicated. And just as I think the truncated season could result in having to take extra care of pitchers, I also wonder if guys will have trouble getting locked in. I mean, a guy like ERod: yes, his arm was totally healthy, but he did not pitch *at all.* It is not crazy to think his stuff could take time to return to its peak — not just in arm strength, but in refinement. This is my thing about all the projections: this is unprecedented.
|
|
|
Post by a2sox on Jan 26, 2021 17:43:22 GMT -5
Making the playoffs is fun, no matter how you do it. I got way too much work done last summer when the Sox were out of it early. I say bring on that wld card.
More on topic, the Ottavino deal is the first move I've been really excited about this winter. Hopefully there are a few more coming...
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Jan 26, 2021 17:47:25 GMT -5
I think we can all agree that this is no super team. That said it has a chance to be very good and even compete for a World Series. Worst case the farm system should be getting deeper and the Sox should not be totally out of it so early. I honestly can’t go though another year like last year. Literally trying to loose games with starting those misfits. SO DEMORALIZING
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 26, 2021 18:14:57 GMT -5
Consideration of the fact that the Yankees a) have a huge number of question marks in their starting rotation, and b) are projected to have far and away the best rotation in the AL, should help to ground our opinions about the Red Sox' potential competitivenes. Not disputing your comment but what projections have the Yankees as far and away the best rotation in the AL? Their 2 and 3 starters have combined for roughly 75 innings since the start of the 2019 season. With the Taillon addition, fangraphs depth charts has them projected for 18.3 WAR. Last I checked no other AL team was above 13.6; Red Sox are at 12.8.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,031
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Jan 26, 2021 18:29:01 GMT -5
I think it’s fair to say the Yankees rotation has by far the most upside, it doesn’t change that it’s largely a question mark though
If everything breaks right it’s got the chance to be the best rotation we’ve seen in awhile in this division
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 26, 2021 18:45:29 GMT -5
Not disputing your comment but what projections have the Yankees as far and away the best rotation in the AL? Their 2 and 3 starters have combined for roughly 75 innings since the start of the 2019 season. With the Taillon addition, fangraphs depth charts has them projected for 18.3 WAR. Last I checked no other AL team was above 13.6; Red Sox are at 12.8. Their projections have Kluber with 2.9, Taillon with 2.1 and severino with 2.3. I know its just a projection and they obviously use numbers I can't even fathom to come up with it. On the other hand I think its reasonable for me to be skeptical that 3 guys who have pitched a total of 85 innings since 2019 will combine for 7.3 WAR.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 26, 2021 19:09:19 GMT -5
With the Taillon addition, fangraphs depth charts has them projected for 18.3 WAR. Last I checked no other AL team was above 13.6; Red Sox are at 12.8. Their projections have Kluber with 2.9, Taillon with 2.1 and severino with 2.3. I know its just a projection and they obviously use numbers I can't even fathom to come up with it. On the other hand I think its reasonable for me to be skeptical that 3 guys who have pitched a total of 85 innings since 2019 will combine for 7.3 WAR. Maybe. Or one of those guys could have a 6 WAR season by themselves; wouldn't surprise me either way. Which just goes back to the point that the strongest rotation in the AL is still full of question marks.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 26, 2021 19:14:11 GMT -5
Their projections have Kluber with 2.9, Taillon with 2.1 and severino with 2.3. I know its just a projection and they obviously use numbers I can't even fathom to come up with it. On the other hand I think its reasonable for me to be skeptical that 3 guys who have pitched a total of 85 innings since 2019 will combine for 7.3 WAR. Maybe. Or one of those guys could have a 6 WAR season by themselves; wouldn't surprise me either way. Which just goes back to the point that the strongest rotation in the AL is still full of question marks. That wouldn't surprise me either, that's why they're projections I suppose. Time will tell who the strongest rotation is this season. Pitching is a volatile thing that's for sure, this season more so than I can remember.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,928
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 26, 2021 19:14:25 GMT -5
Their projections have Kluber with 2.9, Taillon with 2.1 and severino with 2.3. I know its just a projection and they obviously use numbers I can't even fathom to come up with it. On the other hand I think its reasonable for me to be skeptical that 3 guys who have pitched a total of 85 innings since 2019 will combine for 7.3 WAR. Maybe. Or one of those guys could have a 6 WAR season by themselves; wouldn't surprise me either way. Which just goes back to the point that the strongest rotation in the AL is still full of question marks. I once did a really thorough analysis and identified all the pitching staffs in recent MLB history who went into the season without any question marks. Unfortunately, at some point I lost the penny I engraved the results on.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 26, 2021 22:34:21 GMT -5
Maybe. Or one of those guys could have a 6 WAR season by themselves; wouldn't surprise me either way. Which just goes back to the point that the strongest rotation in the AL is still full of question marks. I once did a really thorough analysis and identified all the pitching staffs in recent MLB history who went into the season without any question marks. Unfortunately, at some point I lost the penny I engraved the results on. Ha. That penny actually made its way to my possession. It said "2018 Boston Red Sox"
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 26, 2021 23:52:10 GMT -5
I once did a really thorough analysis and identified all the pitching staffs in recent MLB history who went into the season without any question marks. Unfortunately, at some point I lost the penny I engraved the results on. Ha. That penny actually made its way to my possession. It said "2018 Boston Red Sox" The 2018 Red Sox had a ton of questions. What made the 2018 Red Sox special was that they had ALL of the right answers!
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 27, 2021 4:02:39 GMT -5
This is a team filling holes and trying to compete for a playoff spot, while hedging their bets to be better in 2022, than they will be in 2021. Many of the 'doom and gloom' group feel that way because the front office's actions explicitly show that they don't think they can compete for a world series in 2021.As Chris states above, there are 3 teams which are head and shoulders above the rest and there aren't any reasonable moves that put the Red Sox into their tier. So this seems like the best strategy for the now and the future, but not the most fun when you're a fan looking for instant gratification; because you're not going to get it. The second paragraph is really insightful, but the part I bolded is not quite right, and off in a really crucial way. There are two paths to a WS victory. Type A) Assemble an uber-team. You can acquire so much talent that everyone is in awe and says, wow, WS winner there. Basically, it's a team that transcends the principle that the playoffs are a crap shoot.
I only met Theo once (my interview!) and his mantra "Avoid the temptation to build an uber-team," was in that conversation. And then he violated it! It's really hard to resist, because it does work often enough. Dave Dombrowski built an uber-team so good that they could have won the WS without the key piece, Chris Sale.
Type B) Assemble a credible contender and hope for a season where a whole lot of things go right. The vast majority of WS winners fit this description.
This is the Sox in 2004, beginning with the Bill Mueller signing the year before. They got Bellhorn to play 2B, and when you factor in clutch hitting, he was the MVP among the position players, and then was the real MVP of the WS! Do you think that was the plan? They had their #5 starter, Kim, go on the DL after 3 starts, had his replacement Bronson step in, and never had a starter miss another start. They had to go through hoops to get Millar and he turned out to be clubhouse gold (the anti-Adrian Gonzalez, which tells you that Theo wasn't very good at judging clubhouse fit). It's a long list. 2013 is another obvious example. I mean, seriously, Shane Victorino? Given Cherington's overall track record he should have gone after the late James Randi's million-dollar prize for proof of psychic powers.
Bloom is doing an amazing job of building a potential Type B champion, and without doing anything to hurt the team in 2022 or later. Everyone has upside! I mean, Enrique Hernandez cannot hit guys in his first PA against them, but for the second and subsequent looks he's a beast at the plate. Maybe the Dodgers tried to fix that, but maybe they didn't. And I single him out because you can create the list of obvious upside additions yourself, beginning with Richards and Andriese, a total nobody who faced 40 guys in September and put up a 2.50 pERA, which if sustained would put him in the conversation for best reliever in MLB after Hendriks, Yates before his injury, and Chapman. Which of course tells you it's not all real, but how much of it was? Even a bit of real makes him an asset and a bargain.
As long as your team is good, and deep, enough to make the playoffs then you have a shot at winning the WS. The better your team, the better the chance at winning. But the better the team before the season, the higher your chances of succeeding - and the same goes for the postseason, although with a bit more volatility. The two types of teams above can be better described as 'sustainable' and 'unsustainable' as the terms 'super team' and 'credible contender' are a matter of opinion and can't be shown aside from backward reflection. A sustainable team, like what the Rays have done for years, finishes each season with a similar amount of resources (picks, prospects, MLB talent and available funds) as the previous year. A unsustainable team, like the Red Sox from 2018, finishes the season with fewer resources than the previous season (presumably because they made 'win-now' moves) The third type of team, of course, is the rebuilding team. Which, as everyone knows, leaves a season with more resources than the previous season (they should hope). The largest concern for the Red Sox is that the Dodgers appear to be a sustainable team with similar funds and the Yankees are almost a sustainable team with similar funds (I'm skeptical that they're there - but they're close). The Padres are an unsustainable team, but they had so many resources to begin with that there's a chance they could become a sustainable team and still remain very good - but it's too early to say (and it seems unlikely they can sustain their current funds). The Red Sox are definitely a rebuilding team this year, but one hoping to compete while increasing their resources (funds available to spend, prospect stockpile and on-field talent) so that next offseason they're stronger than last offseason. It hurts them in the short term but is likely necessary for future success as their other options are to be unsustainable and likely have less talent than 3 other teams; to be sustainable and definitely have less talent than 3 other teams; or to take the Dombrowski method and become unsustainable after multiple years of rebuilding - which will still be an option in future years if they so choose (but I think we all agree this is unlikely). The term 'Super Team' is a great tag line for sports reporters, but it doesn't actually describe what's going on. A great team that's sustainable - now that's the dream. (Just ask the 2001-2019 Patriots and the 1957-1969 Celtics)
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 27, 2021 7:37:59 GMT -5
I just think most people, myself included don't want to see a repeat of 2019, not even 2020. The worst spot you can be stuck in sports is stuck in the middle. In baseball, it matters a tiny bit less, because the draft is more of a crapshoot. It still matters, however. Like in 2019. If the Sox sold, instead of went for it, could you have gotten- Gaven Lux and Verdugo for 1 and a half years of Mookie Betts instead of the Downs package a half year late? (Or something similar to that?) No one wants the Sox season to be over asap. We are here anyways, we want to see baseball for as long as we can. Winter stinks big time. I'm pretty sure we got the right guy making decisions, so I'm not too worried about of this yet. Verdugo looks like a player so he's going to be fun to watch but I highly doubt the Dodgers would have traded Lux for anyone. A repeat of last year, while brutal would be exciting because it would be the 2nd year of the tank. Tanking is a lot better than being a treadmill squad. A trip to tank city last year got the Sox the #4 pick in a good draft. Well worth it! I wouldn't hate a 65 win season much like I also wouldn't hate a 95 win one.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 27, 2021 8:18:35 GMT -5
Ha. That penny actually made its way to my possession. It said "2018 Boston Red Sox" The 2018 Red Sox had a ton of questions. What made the 2018 Red Sox special was that they had ALL of the right answers! i don't know Champs. Correct me if I am wrong, but they went into the season with a Starting Staff of Sale, Price, Porcello, Rodgriguez and Pomeranz. I think the pen was pretty solid also. That is about as good as it can get.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 27, 2021 8:36:12 GMT -5
The 2018 Red Sox had a ton of questions. What made the 2018 Red Sox special was that they had ALL of the right answers! i don't know Champs. Correct me if I am wrong, but they went into the season with a Starting Staff of Sale, Price, Porcello, Rodgriguez and Pomeranz. I think the pen was pretty solid also. That is about as good as it can get. Jerry, the 2018 Sox certainly had less questions about their starting staff and closer than the 2021 Sox do. That's for sure! But even the 2018 Sox had questions. They had an untested rookie manager running things. There were questions of whether they had adequate depth behind that strong rotation. In 2018 Johnson and Velazquez were positive answers. In 2019 the question was whether they could be again, and the answer was a hell no. Same with Steven Wright, who contributed in 2018 but not 2019. There were questions about which Rick Porcello they would see, something closer to the Cy Young Award winner or the disaster he was in 2017. He would up being closer to the Cy Young Award winner, although his numbers don't really confirm that - but let's say that Porcello put up a workhorse season that would fit nicely into Tim Wakefield's career line. The bullpen beyond Kimbrel was a major question mark. Matt Barnes did emerge. I had barely ever heard of Ryan Brasier and he was a contributor. Brandon Workman gave them more than he had in awhile. I had zero faith in Joe Kelly. I'd cringe when he came in. By the World Series, he was THE MAN in the bullpen. There were questions about the catching. Ironically those remained until Vazquez answered it positively in 2019. There were questions whether Devers would mature. He eventually did, but later in the season and when it mattered most. Would Nunez come back healthy or be a shell of himself? He wound up being a shell of himself although he had the biggest AB of his life in the World Series. Would Holt come back healthy or was he finished? He came back healthy and contributed. He was Mr Power hitter in Sept, and was huge in the post-season. Which Mookie would they see? The guy who hit .264 or did Mookie have another gear, even beyond what he accomplished in 2016? We found out that he was superman in 2018. Most of the winter was would they get JDM or not? They did and thank God for that! Would X continue to mature? He took a big step forward in 2018 followed by another one in 2019. Would JBJ hit enough? He did eventually. Would Hanley or Moreland contribute enough at 1b? No, but Pearce and Moreland certainly would. Of course every team has these types of questions. Some less questions than others and the probabilities of the yes/no answers are different for each team for each question. But you're right about the rotation having less questions in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 27, 2021 10:30:36 GMT -5
The second paragraph is really insightful, but the part I bolded is not quite right, and off in a really crucial way. There are two paths to a WS victory. Type A) Assemble an uber-team. You can acquire so much talent that everyone is in awe and says, wow, WS winner there. Basically, it's a team that transcends the principle that the playoffs are a crap shoot.
I only met Theo once (my interview!) and his mantra "Avoid the temptation to build an uber-team," was in that conversation. And then he violated it! It's really hard to resist, because it does work often enough. Dave Dombrowski built an uber-team so good that they could have won the WS without the key piece, Chris Sale.
Type B) Assemble a credible contender and hope for a season where a whole lot of things go right. The vast majority of WS winners fit this description.
This is the Sox in 2004, beginning with the Bill Mueller signing the year before. They got Bellhorn to play 2B, and when you factor in clutch hitting, he was the MVP among the position players, and then was the real MVP of the WS! Do you think that was the plan? They had their #5 starter, Kim, go on the DL after 3 starts, had his replacement Bronson step in, and never had a starter miss another start. They had to go through hoops to get Millar and he turned out to be clubhouse gold (the anti-Adrian Gonzalez, which tells you that Theo wasn't very good at judging clubhouse fit). It's a long list. 2013 is another obvious example. I mean, seriously, Shane Victorino? Given Cherington's overall track record he should have gone after the late James Randi's million-dollar prize for proof of psychic powers.
Bloom is doing an amazing job of building a potential Type B champion, and without doing anything to hurt the team in 2022 or later. Everyone has upside! I mean, Enrique Hernandez cannot hit guys in his first PA against them, but for the second and subsequent looks he's a beast at the plate. Maybe the Dodgers tried to fix that, but maybe they didn't. And I single him out because you can create the list of obvious upside additions yourself, beginning with Richards and Andriese, a total nobody who faced 40 guys in September and put up a 2.50 pERA, which if sustained would put him in the conversation for best reliever in MLB after Hendriks, Yates before his injury, and Chapman. Which of course tells you it's not all real, but how much of it was? Even a bit of real makes him an asset and a bargain.
As long as your team is good, and deep, enough to make the playoffs then you have a shot at winning the WS. The better your team, the better the chance at winning. But the better the team before the season, the higher your chances of succeeding - and the same goes for the postseason, although with a bit more volatility. The two types of teams above can be better described as 'sustainable' and 'unsustainable' as the terms 'super team' and 'credible contender' are a matter of opinion and can't be shown aside from backward reflection. A sustainable team, like what the Rays have done for years, finishes each season with a similar amount of resources (picks, prospects, MLB talent and available funds) as the previous year. A unsustainable team, like the Red Sox from 2018, finishes the season with fewer resources than the previous season (presumably because they made 'win-now' moves) The third type of team, of course, is the rebuilding team. Which, as everyone knows, leaves a season with more resources than the previous season (they should hope). The largest concern for the Red Sox is that the Dodgers appear to be a sustainable team with similar funds and the Yankees are almost a sustainable team with similar funds (I'm skeptical that they're there - but they're close). The Padres are an unsustainable team, but they had so many resources to begin with that there's a chance they could become a sustainable team and still remain very good - but it's too early to say (and it seems unlikely they can sustain their current funds). The Red Sox are definitely a rebuilding team this year, but one hoping to compete while increasing their resources (funds available to spend, prospect stockpile and on-field talent) so that next offseason they're stronger than last offseason. It hurts them in the short term but is likely necessary for future success as their other options are to be unsustainable and likely have less talent than 3 other teams; to be sustainable and definitely have less talent than 3 other teams; or to take the Dombrowski method and become unsustainable after multiple years of rebuilding - which will still be an option in future years if they so choose (but I think we all agree this is unlikely). The term 'Super Team' is a great tag line for sports reporters, but it doesn't actually describe what's going on. A great team that's sustainable - now that's the dream. (Just ask the 2001-2019 Patriots and the 1957-1969 Celtics) I continue to love the Rays comparison. I will love it even more when they, you know, win a World Series. It reminds me of the old days of Billy Beane adulation. Nearly 20 years, a book, a film... but no ring. Chapeau! Eric, serious question: when did you last *not* absolutely love a Sox move? I mean, last year you were pumping up guys on the scab staff, it feels like every minor player they get is one EV recommendation away from breaking out, every three-start peak is a sign of substantial advance.... I’d take some of these things more seriously if there were a bit fewer of them. If you go into an experiment trying to prove something, it isn’t a huge surprise when you do. Just look at flat earth videos on YouTube. A lot of math there, too.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,928
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 27, 2021 23:20:39 GMT -5
Fangraphs: Adam Ottavino Heads to Boston in Unusual Cross-Rival Trade by Dan Szymborski "Another thing to take into consideration is that Ottavino was tinkering with his repertoire and spent some of the spring working on a changeup that he didn’t actually use in the regular season. 'I’ve been throwing a changeup all spring,' he said. 'Who knows how much I’ll use it in the season, but I’ve been throwing it, trying to get comfortable with it. I’ve also been throwing my four-seamer again a little bit more. I’m not sure how much I’m going to use that either, but I’m trying to add a couple of weapons to the tool chest. You never know when you’re going to need them and maybe it’ll help me when we get to the playoffs again.' In the end, Ottavino was a very sinker-and-slider pitcher in 2020, largely also missing the usual cutter that, while never an out pitch, provided something “between” the other two pitches." link(That's from the player news thread.) He was a very different pitcher in his final very good stretch than in his start of year great one. I may take a look at that at some point.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,928
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 28, 2021 0:28:29 GMT -5
Eric, serious question: when did you last *not* absolutely love a Sox move? I mean, last year you were pumping up guys on the scab staff, it feels like every minor player they get is one EV recommendation away from breaking out, every three-start peak is a sign of substantial advance.... I’d take some of these things more seriously if there were a bit fewer of them. If you go into an experiment trying to prove something, it isn’t a huge surprise when you do. Just look at flat earth videos on YouTube. A lot of math there, too. I am an optimist and am quick to see upside, it's true. I try to make it clear just how high I am on a guy. Sometmes I'm guilty of not posting later thoughts. For instance, Pivetta in his first start seemed to be doing what I thought they would have him do, but his second start was less impressive from that POV. He's still a work in progress, but I think his bad approach with the Phillies is really clear and very fixable if he can break some bad habits. The seconds start seemed to be a bit of a reversion to them.
I was fascinated by the fact that Perez in 2019 was almost never ever, in a given game, the guy with his ERA; his starts were always really good or really bad. He was a #4 starter who would consistently give you either a borderline #2 / #3 effort or get shelled. And unlike Derek Lowe in 2004, there were no actual streaks; there was just random variation in the sort of start he would produced the appearance of a hot streak, like his "great start" to the season. But when you divided the season into chunks, there was still so much variance within a "good stretch" or "bad stretch" that it was clear that there really weren't any.
Last year it seems (I haven't run the numbers) that he didn't do that, and the results were ... just a #4 starter with a normal distribution. Was that actually a step on the way to unlocking #3 potential? I don't think this kind of pattern just happens; it would be a result of lifestyle, especially how much sleep you get before a start. [1] That they re-signed him suggests they still have some work they want to do with him, but for me right now he's the #6 guy. I would put the odds of a breakout to mid-rotation quality at 20%, but that's 18% more than most guys of his apparent caliber. So I like him.
To answer your question ...
I really disliked the premature Beckett extension. I was lukewarm on the Adrian Gonzalez trade. I hated the Kimbrel trade and hated the Sale trade. I hated the first Melancon trade. I thought the Reddick for Bailey trade was solid, but only because I thought Reddick was a spare part; when I found out how bad Kalish's health was at the time, I was retroactively pissed. I disliked the second Melancon trade and was delighted to be proven wrong by the throw-in, some guy named Brock. I hated the Iglesias et al for Peavy trade. I despised re-signing Stephen Drew. I really wanted them to pass on Price and hated them not re-signing Rich Hill regardless. I despised the Shaw for Tyler Thornburg trade. I was underwhelmed by the Nunez addition. I can't remember hating the Eric Gagne trade, which confounds me! And I was at the game a few weeks earlier where Kason Gabbard shut out the Royals on 3 hits.
And I think that trying to teach Henry Owens new mechanics was the single stupidest player development move I've ever heard of.
[1] When the SABR conference was in Pittsburgh, I went up to Neal Huntington after the in-ballpark pre-game Q & A session and asked him what the team was doing to study sleep and circadian rhythms (figuring that was not of general interest compared to the Q's others had asked him!). I told him I had done a lot of that for the Sox in 2005-2008, looking for evidence in the playing data. He had some great info, and he seemed genuinely impressed that I was doing that back then (I think he said "you were ahead of your time" twice). Really nice guy; I was sad to see him get canned!
|
|
|