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.
2023 Red Sox Win Projection
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jan 3, 2023 11:36:26 GMT -5
Since this is a 2023 win projection thread, I predict a range of 76 to 85 wins. There are so many dependencies on health (Sale, Paxton), adjustment/maturity (Bello, Whitlock) just considering the starters. Looking at the projected roster, it is highly meta-stable to me as it currently shows...I expect additional changes that make any real precision in this impossible. I also hope I'm wrong and we end up a 90+ victory team.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 3, 2023 11:40:14 GMT -5
Yes! You cannot build an offseason favorite through free agency unless you are willing to outspend everyone else, Cohen style. It needs to start with the farm, and our farm has done very little for the past 5-6 years. Until the farm starts graduating productive players and thereby generating value from something outside free agency, this is the best you're really going to get. Incidentally, if Casas, Bello, and Wong are impact players in 2023, the team will probably be quite good and have a rosy outlook going forward. So, by all means make a reasoned argument to criticize the development of the farm. Calling the offseason a failure because Bloom hasn't built a top team through free agency while staying under the luxury tax makes no sense, though, especially when you don't seem to have quibbles with specific moves. If we're doing it right, we probably won't have one of the biggest contracts in baseball on the books. Instead we should extend our young studs at a discount as early as possible. It has long since been too late for Devers. I do hope he is willing to sign this offseason, but why would he unless the Sox get close to his probable market rate, which is poised to be wildly inflated due to the weak FA class next winter? If he's holding out for the Rendon AAV over 10-12 years, or something, it would probably be smarter to trade him this offseason. Multiple people on here seem to be taking for granted that Bogaerts would still be here if the Story deal had been offered. That is just speculation, and regardless the time for that was last offseason at the absolute latest. It should not factor into evaluations of this offseason. No one is criticizing Bloom for not outbidding the Padres, and rightly so. I don’t know what you would categorize an off-season when your best player walks out the door and his production is expected to be replaced by a player who has never seen MLB pitching (and I like Yoshida)! JD for Turner is pretty much a wash at this stage but Turner provides more defensive versatility and a right handed platoon at 1B. Projections seem to like Eovaldi a little more than Kluber, but again that’s more of a wash if both guys stay healthy. The bullpen is much improved, but an improved bullpen and worse lineup doesn’t exactly make this team better when you’re looking at WAR projections across MLB. The goal this off-season was to get significantly better, I suppose they still can through the trade market, but there’s not a sound argument for the roster improving after all the free agency moves and considering the amount of money they had to spend; that’s a failure. Whose goal? Price's and JDM's money had room to be spent more efficiently, but Eovaldi at $17 million per year is exactly what he got this offseason and Bogaerts is making $5-6 million more than he was last year with a handful of likely albatross years tacked on. Odds of getting much more production out of Wacha/Hill's money were low too. All told, good FA acquisitions might have made us a bit better, and I'd argue they have; they may have lost Bogaerts, but once we acquire our missing middle IF the roster will have no holes. Last year's team had black holes at 1B and RF. Christian Arroyo was our fourth OF on Opening Day... I digress. The point is, it is not a realistic goal to add significantly more value via FA over the guys we lost. A couple of wins maybe? Sure. Any additional improvements versus last year's team should largely come via the contributions of young guys like Casas, Bello, and Wong and less catastrophic injury luck. I like our odds of getting better in these ways, but this was also already known at the end of October and shouldn't really be considered when evaluating the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 3, 2023 11:42:32 GMT -5
But you keep moving goalposts. Basically you are saying the off season is not a failure because they had already failed in a way that made it impossible to succeed. They blew Xander. So saying hey we can’t match the Padres is an afterthought. And for three years they’ve been clearing salary to build up a wad of cash. The refrain at the end of the season and early this off season was don’t judge until they spend the money. This plan has been *predicated* on rebuilding this off season. Getting outspent doesn’t change that. On the contrary, calling this offseason a "disaster" based on an error from last offseason would be moving goalposts. I'm specifically responding to a comment about this offseason, so it only makes sense to focus on this offseason. From what I can gather, people are mostly upset about Bogaerts leaving and don't seem to have big problems with the other moves. However, it was always likely that Xander wouldn't come back: not a foregone conclusion, certainly, but a very real possibility. If Bogaerts leaving is enough to constitute a disaster, this offseason was likely to be a failure from the beginning. I don't think that's a fair bar to set.
There was no plan predicated on the mini rebuild being complete by this offseason and the team suddenly being a legit contender. As I called out in my last comment, that is not going to happen until the farm starts being productive. The concept of a deadline this offseason was mostly relevant in regards to evaluating Bloom. The tired argument from 2020-2022 was "Bloom only signs bargain bin players" and the tired response from 2020-2022 was "Most of the payroll was already allocated by DD. After 2022 is when a lot of money will come off the books and Bloom will get to put more of a stamp on the team. Judge him then." Sure enough, I think it is fair to say the roster is mostly his now and we know a lot more about his philosophy in free agency. So, I think going off in the Evaluating the FO thread about roster construction and philosophy now makes sense. Early in Bloom's tenure I think there was room to hope the team would be better by now, but that was largely dependent on getting real production farm the farm (e.g. Duran and Downs sticking as ML regulars). Given the state of the farm and roster entering this offseason, I don't think it's reasonable to expect we'd look like a top team by April regardless of what Bloom was able to pull off.
So, they had a good one because they didn't sign any high impact players and saved money when the next two years are devoid of much talent? Unless they plan on breaking the bank for Ohtani, I don't see what they're spending this freed money on. The Red Sox might have added on the margins, but what good is adding on the margins when your 2nd biggest asset just left without any replacement? I'll concede in calling Kluber and Eovaldi a wash at a slightly cheaper cost and Turner over JDM. I like the Yoshida, but I also liked Dice-K and the best projections for him are a singles/doubles hitter with a good OBP, not great speed, and will play a subpar LF which in turn moves Verdugo to play a subpar RF. If the goal of the off-season is to get under the luxury tax to reset (rather they try in weaker FA classes or during a trade deadline when you had less than a 50% chance of getting into the playoffs) then what are you doing with your biggest asset? Letting him play out his final season on a competitive, but not really trying season? They literally just did this with Xander and they have nothing but a 4th rounder to show for it. Devers is more valuable of the 2 if you ask me. So, not using the money is a disaster to me, but I'm OK with resetting, but entering next year without an extension or trade of Devers returns it to said disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Foulke_In_Athol on Jan 3, 2023 11:44:12 GMT -5
I think the post above about how volatile this team is is spot on, if things break right and the line up maxes out, the starters stay healthy and Sale is again a number 1 who makes 30 starts they could hang around the top of the division enough to go all out at the trade deadline. Paxton and Sale could be the best one two in the league...
Or
They could flame out, Yoshida doesn't translate, injuries plague the rotation, Casas isn't ready etc. Etc. They get to the deadline in fire sale mode.
The one thing that absolutely has to be addressed to me, before the season is the middle infield. Going into the season without a true SS, or if the plan is to move Story over a solid 2B for me is inexcusable. It would be the last straw in my book for Chaim and a fire able offense.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 3, 2023 12:05:57 GMT -5
On the contrary, calling this offseason a "disaster" based on an error from last offseason would be moving goalposts. I'm specifically responding to a comment about this offseason, so it only makes sense to focus on this offseason. From what I can gather, people are mostly upset about Bogaerts leaving and don't seem to have big problems with the other moves. However, it was always likely that Xander wouldn't come back: not a foregone conclusion, certainly, but a very real possibility. If Bogaerts leaving is enough to constitute a disaster, this offseason was likely to be a failure from the beginning. I don't think that's a fair bar to set.
There was no plan predicated on the mini rebuild being complete by this offseason and the team suddenly being a legit contender. As I called out in my last comment, that is not going to happen until the farm starts being productive. The concept of a deadline this offseason was mostly relevant in regards to evaluating Bloom. The tired argument from 2020-2022 was "Bloom only signs bargain bin players" and the tired response from 2020-2022 was "Most of the payroll was already allocated by DD. After 2022 is when a lot of money will come off the books and Bloom will get to put more of a stamp on the team. Judge him then." Sure enough, I think it is fair to say the roster is mostly his now and we know a lot more about his philosophy in free agency. So, I think going off in the Evaluating the FO thread about roster construction and philosophy now makes sense.
Early in Bloom's tenure I think there was room to hope the team would be better by now, but that was largely dependent on getting real production farm the farm (e.g. Duran and Downs sticking as ML regulars). Given the state of the farm and roster entering this offseason, I don't think it's reasonable to expect we'd look like a top team by April regardless of what Bloom was able to pull off.
Well, then let’s count DFA’ing Downs as part of the bad off season. Look, you can count money, but losing your de facto captain is very bad. Downgrading SS is bad. Not even having a 2b is bad (cf. Downs failure). Losing three of your most reliable starting pitchers and subbing in three guys in their mid-30s, two of whom have been medical textbooks the last few years… not *good*, certainly? Or… consider their own words: add 7-9 guys? Maybe they did, though you’d have to count some small fry. Add 2 starters? Nope. Add a (or two) #2 types? Nope. Missed on Abreu. No 2b, and they’ll surely sign someone, but that person will get signed as much with an eye to keeping commitments down as winning. How many guys were they reported as making offers to that they didn’t get? Doesn’t that suggest even they must feel they fell short? If the idea is that 2023 is a season of waiting for Mayer et al to be ready, you can call *anything* fine in the off season. Releasing Devers would be fine… doesn’t hurt Mayer’s development! But if a team and a FO has any responsibility to make an effort to be substantially better, it is indefensible. Excuses? Sure. Defenses? No. Downs was already a DFA candidate entering the offseason. Was DFAing him the wrong move? Did the team get worse with him gone? If the answer to both is "no", there is no reason to treat that a part of a "bad offseason".
Eovaldi and Hill signed for a combined $3 million more than they got last year. So, to bring them back, we would have had to pay at least $3 million more for a (likely, given their ages) slightly worse result than last year. So what is your complaint here? Which pitchers should they have signed to add substantially more value? Which players that we did sign are not worth it? Incidentally, adding Sale, Paxton, Bello, and Kluber and losing Eovaldi, Wacha, and Hill looks like a clear net positive.
Would you have had them go to 3/60+ for Abreu? I like Turner's deal much better, especially since the savings just about paid for Kluber.
I don't care in the slightest how many players were tied to the Red Sox that didn't end up signing. Agents will say whatever they want about the Sox' interest to put pressure on teams to raise their bids. The Red Sox also should be in on a variety of FAs and they should lose out on many of them. Would you prefer they just say, "Eh, this guy probably won't be worth it" and not bother making an offer? Basically every FA can have some value if the price is right. May as well make an offer and see what happens. I highly doubt the FO feels bad about "falling short" on any of these guys.
If we were in the business of just waiting for Mayer to be ready we would have committed to a rebuild back in 2019-2020. We certainly would not have spent the 7th most of free agents this offseason so far. Might as well just tank and get a better pick.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 3, 2023 12:10:15 GMT -5
On the contrary, calling this offseason a "disaster" based on an error from last offseason would be moving goalposts. I'm specifically responding to a comment about this offseason, so it only makes sense to focus on this offseason. From what I can gather, people are mostly upset about Bogaerts leaving and don't seem to have big problems with the other moves. However, it was always likely that Xander wouldn't come back: not a foregone conclusion, certainly, but a very real possibility. If Bogaerts leaving is enough to constitute a disaster, this offseason was likely to be a failure from the beginning. I don't think that's a fair bar to set.
There was no plan predicated on the mini rebuild being complete by this offseason and the team suddenly being a legit contender. As I called out in my last comment, that is not going to happen until the farm starts being productive. The concept of a deadline this offseason was mostly relevant in regards to evaluating Bloom. The tired argument from 2020-2022 was "Bloom only signs bargain bin players" and the tired response from 2020-2022 was "Most of the payroll was already allocated by DD. After 2022 is when a lot of money will come off the books and Bloom will get to put more of a stamp on the team. Judge him then." Sure enough, I think it is fair to say the roster is mostly his now and we know a lot more about his philosophy in free agency. So, I think going off in the Evaluating the FO thread about roster construction and philosophy now makes sense. Early in Bloom's tenure I think there was room to hope the team would be better by now, but that was largely dependent on getting real production farm the farm (e.g. Duran and Downs sticking as ML regulars). Given the state of the farm and roster entering this offseason, I don't think it's reasonable to expect we'd look like a top team by April regardless of what Bloom was able to pull off.
So, they had a good one because they didn't sign any high impact players and saved money when the next two years are devoid of much talent? Unless they plan on breaking the bank for Ohtani, I don't see what they're spending this freed money on. The Red Sox might have added on the margins, but what good is adding on the margins when your 2nd biggest asset just left without any replacement? I'll concede in calling Kluber and Eovaldi a wash at a slightly cheaper cost and Turner over JDM. I like the Yoshida, but I also liked Dice-K and the best projections for him are a singles/doubles hitter with a good OBP, not great speed, and will play a subpar LF which in turn moves Verdugo to play a subpar RF. If the goal of the off-season is to get under the luxury tax to reset (rather they try in weaker FA classes or during a trade deadline when you had less than a 50% chance of getting into the playoffs) then what are you doing with your biggest asset? Letting him play out his final season on a competitive, but not really trying season? They literally just did this with Xander and they have nothing but a 4th rounder to show for it. Devers is more valuable of the 2 if you ask me. So, not using the money is a disaster to me, but I'm OK with resetting, but entering next year without an extension or trade of Devers returns it to said disaster. Extending young studs.
I do agree that I want to see Devers either traded or extended on a deal that is fair for both sides, but I can see them not wanting to give it a shot in 2023 and reevaluating at the deadline... we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 3, 2023 12:10:53 GMT -5
Well, then let’s count DFA’ing Downs as part of the bad off season. Look, you can count money, but losing your de facto captain is very bad. Downgrading SS is bad. Not even having a 2b is bad (cf. Downs failure). Losing three of your most reliable starting pitchers and subbing in three guys in their mid-30s, two of whom have been medical textbooks the last few years… not *good*, certainly? Or… consider their own words: add 7-9 guys? Maybe they did, though you’d have to count some small fry. Add 2 starters? Nope. Add a (or two) #2 types? Nope. Missed on Abreu. No 2b, and they’ll surely sign someone, but that person will get signed as much with an eye to keeping commitments down as winning. How many guys were they reported as making offers to that they didn’t get? Doesn’t that suggest even they must feel they fell short? If the idea is that 2023 is a season of waiting for Mayer et al to be ready, you can call *anything* fine in the off season. Releasing Devers would be fine… doesn’t hurt Mayer’s development! But if a team and a FO has any responsibility to make an effort to be substantially better, it is indefensible. Excuses? Sure. Defenses? No. Downs was already a DFA candidate entering the offseason. Was DFAing him the wrong move? Did the team get worse with him gone? If the answer to both is "no", there is no reason to treat that a part of a "bad offseason".
Eovaldi and Hill signed for a combined $3 million more than they got last year. So, to bring them back, we would have had to pay at least $3 million more for a (likely, given their ages) slightly worse result than last year. So what is your complaint here? Which pitchers should they have signed to add substantially more value? Which players that we did sign are not worth it? Incidentally, adding Sale, Paxton, Bello, and Kluber and losing Eovaldi, Wacha, and Hill looks like a clear net positive.
Would you have had them go to 3/60+ for Abreu? I like Turner's deal much better, especially since the savings just about paid for Kluber.
I don't care in the slightest how many players were tied to the Red Sox that didn't end up signing. Agents will say whatever they want about the Sox' interest to put pressure on teams to raise their bids. The Red Sox also should be in on a variety of FAs and they should lose out on many of them. Would you prefer they just say, "Eh, this guy probably won't be worth it" and not bother making an offer? Basically every FA can have some value if the price is right. May as well make an offer and see what happens. I highly doubt the FO feels bad about "falling short" on any of these guys.
If we were in the business of just waiting for Mayer to be ready we would have committed to a rebuild back in 2019-2020. We certainly would not have spent the 7th most of free agents this offseason so far. Might as well just tank and get a better pick.
I guess I will take the Candide view of it… everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. It sounds like everything went great. Good! I was nervous for a bit there that they were going to be mediocre again.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 3, 2023 12:14:36 GMT -5
Folks, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but could we try not to relitigate every single offseason move in this thread? I know some of it is part and parcel with the wins projection topic, but there is really no reason to be arguing about the Downs DFA or not resigning Rich Hill in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 3, 2023 12:16:42 GMT -5
I am going with 106 wins.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 3, 2023 12:20:19 GMT -5
19-143.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 3, 2023 12:24:03 GMT -5
Since this is a 2023 win projection thread, I predict a range of 76 to 85 wins. There are so many dependencies on health (Sale, Paxton), adjustment/maturity (Bello, Whitlock) just considering the starters. Looking at the projected roster, it is highly meta-stable to me as it currently shows...I expect additional changes that make any real precision in this impossible. I also hope I'm wrong and we end up a 90+ victory team. I could realistically see 78-92. Agree it's very high variance, but that's part of why I'm so hyped to watch it!
|
|
|
Post by cmax on Jan 3, 2023 12:48:19 GMT -5
89 wins
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 3, 2023 14:37:08 GMT -5
"The bullpen has cost this team a bunch of wins this season." <--tons of people in 2022
[Red Sox spend $30 million on bullpen upgrades]
"This team will be marginally better than they were last year." <--literally NONE of those same people
This still bugs me.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 3, 2023 14:44:11 GMT -5
"The bullpen has cost this team a bunch of wins this season." <--tons of people in 2022 [Red Sox spend $30 million on bullpen upgrades] "This team will be marginally better than they were last year." <--literally NONE of those same people This still bugs me.
Jansen frightens me now that there's a pitch clock. I don't think you go from the slowest pitcher in baseball to being rushed without some bumps in the road.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 3, 2023 14:49:30 GMT -5
"The bullpen has cost this team a bunch of wins this season." <--tons of people in 2022 [Red Sox spend $30 million on bullpen upgrades] "This team will be marginally better than they were last year." <--literally NONE of those same people This still bugs me.
Jansen frightens me now that there's a pitch clock. I don't think you go from the slowest pitcher in baseball to being rushed without some bumps in the road. Yeah, well, I didn't particularly like the Jansen signing. But Jansen's name was regularly brought up last season, by some people I could name, as an example of precisely the kind of Proven Closer that the team was lacking, a lack which cost the team some huge number of wins. Starting bid might be 6 wins - the difference between the Red Sox total blown saves (27) and the league median (21). Coincidentally, that is also Bogaerts' WAR total in 2022. Does that apparently enormous value entirely go by the wayside because of the minor uncertainty introduced by the pitch clock?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 3, 2023 14:55:43 GMT -5
Last season the Boston "Last Place" Red Sox won 78 games. Taking that as a starting point...
+2 wins for more balanced schedule +4 wins for improved bullpen +2 wins for clutch hitting reverting to the mean +2 wins for slightly better injury luck +2 wins for contributions from young guys (e.g., full seasons from Casas, Bello, et al.)_
-4 wins for the net effect of non-bullpen free agent additions and substractions
Total: +8 wins = an 86-win season
For those who are predicting them to be worse than this: what part of this calculation am I getting wrong?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 3, 2023 14:59:43 GMT -5
"The bullpen has cost this team a bunch of wins this season." <--tons of people in 2022
[Red Sox spend $30 million on bullpen upgrades]
"This team will be marginally better than they were last year." <--literally NONE of those same people
This still bugs me.
I have never liked Jansen. He’s better than nothing. But to your argument, I will stipulate that if they get to replay last year’s games, they’ll win more. Also… I’m a big bullpen guy. I think they got two good relievers. But they also lost Strahm and moved Whitlock, their best reliever, to the rotation. Whitlock is better than Martin. Strahm and Joely are a push. So you are up Jansen. I don’t think it is crazy hypocritical to say that doesn’t change the win total dramatically.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 3, 2023 15:18:50 GMT -5
Last season the Boston "Last Place" Red Sox won 78 games. Taking that as a starting point...
+2 wins for more balanced schedule +4 wins for improved bullpen +2 wins for clutch hitting reverting to the mean +2 wins for slightly better injury luck +2 wins for contributions from young guys (e.g., full seasons from Casas, Bello, et al.)_
-4 wins for the net effect of free agent additions and substractions
Total: +8 wins = an 86-win season
For those who are predicting them to be worse than this: what part of this calculation am I getting wrong?
The numbers look right. I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but you're looking at this without taking into consideration that a lot of teams also got better. Seattle has a full year of Castillo and another year of development with their youngsters. Texas obviously got a lot better. Minnesota is probably the same as you. Chicago if healthy will be running out Robert and Eloy etc... So yeah things could go better for Boston but things can also improve for some of these teams as well. Not to mention that the Rays are getting Glasnow and Baz for a full season and the Jays made a big signing and the Yankees seemingly are better too. Going to be very difficult to get to 86 wins but sure its not impossible depending on Jansen, Paxton, Sale, Story and whoever they get to start at 2nd or SS depending on where they put Story.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 3, 2023 15:31:27 GMT -5
Last season the Boston "Last Place" Red Sox won 78 games. Taking that as a starting point...
+2 wins for more balanced schedule +4 wins for improved bullpen +2 wins for clutch hitting reverting to the mean +2 wins for slightly better injury luck +2 wins for contributions from young guys (e.g., full seasons from Casas, Bello, et al.)_
-4 wins for the net effect of free agent additions and substractions
Total: +8 wins = an 86-win season
For those who are predicting them to be worse than this: what part of this calculation am I getting wrong?
The numbers look right. I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but you're looking at this without taking into consideration that a lot of teams also got better. Seattle has a full year of Castillo and another year of development with their youngsters. Texas obviously got a lot better. Minnesota is probably the same as you. Chicago if healthy will be running out Robert and Eloy etc... So yeah things could go better for Boston but things can also improve for some of these teams as well. Not to mention that the Rays are getting Glasnow and Baz for a full season and the Jays made a big signing and the Yankees seemingly are better too. Going to be very difficult to get to 86 wins but sure its not impossible depending on Jansen, Paxton, Sale, Story and whoever they get to start at 2nd or SS depending on where they put Story. I don't think the Yankees or Blue Jays are better. The Jays replaced Stripling with Bassitt which is a lateral move. And the Yankees sure as hell aren't going to get 11+ WAR out of Judge again; if they get 7 WAR out of him, he might still be in the running for MVP - yet they'd have lost as much value as the Red Sox did by losing Bogaerts. Rodon makes up for some of that, but their rotation could get shaky in a hurry if they start getting hurt, and between Rodon, Montas, Severino, and an aging Cole that could certainly happen. And let's not forget that they had Barry Bonds in a disguise moustache Matt Carpenter for a third of a season last year too.
Meanwhile, the AL Central teams look that much worse with the more balanced schedule. Texas was already 10 games worse than the Red Sox last season, in a weaker division, so they have a lot of ground to make up. I don't see the Mariners as having a better roster than the Red Sox.
I do think the Rays will be really good.
ADD: I sort of distracted myself here, but the broader point is that most of the factors I listed aren't really questions of the team's quality at all; merely being less unlucky (with the schedule/injuries/clutch) nets them 6 wins. Beyond that I'm just expecting roster additions/substractions (including the bullpen) to cancel out, and then for them to get some moderate contributions from Bello, Casas, and other rookies.
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Jan 3, 2023 15:33:24 GMT -5
"The bullpen has cost this team a bunch of wins this season." <--tons of people in 2022
[Red Sox spend $30 million on bullpen upgrades]
"This team will be marginally better than they were last year." <--literally NONE of those same people
This still bugs me.
I have never liked Jansen. He’s better than nothing. But to your argument, I will stipulate that if they get to replay last year’s games, they’ll win more. Also… I’m a big bullpen guy. I think they got two good relievers. But they also lost Strahm and moved Whitlock, their best reliever, to the rotation. Whitlock is better than Martin. Strahm and Joely are a push. So you are up Jansen. I don’t think it is crazy hypocritical to say that doesn’t change the win total dramatically. Whitlock threw just 39.1 innings as a reliever last year and only 27.2 in medium to high leverage so you're really losing half of a season of Whitlock the reliever.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 3, 2023 15:35:53 GMT -5
Last season the Boston "Last Place" Red Sox won 78 games. Taking that as a starting point...
+2 wins for more balanced schedule +4 wins for improved bullpen +2 wins for clutch hitting reverting to the mean +2 wins for slightly better injury luck +2 wins for contributions from young guys (e.g., full seasons from Casas, Bello, et al.)_
-4 wins for the net effect of free agent additions and substractions
Total: +8 wins = an 86-win season
For those who are predicting them to be worse than this: what part of this calculation am I getting wrong?
The numbers all make sense to me and are possible, might even be a little low on the +2 wins from the young guys, especially Casas. I've said I'm bullish on him plenty of times but last year the Sox got -.6 fWAR out of 1st base. If Casas can put up 2 fWAR himself which seems very much possible that's probably 2 wins right there. We all saw what Bello can do too so maybe he puts up a 2+fWAR season too. Who knows about Rafaela, Walter, Mata, Valdez etc.. Wouldn't surprise me if they that combo adds a win or two either. On the flipside it's tough to really bank on young guys to come right in put up stats right away so you're probably correct going with the 2 win number there. If the starting pitching can stay relatively healthy I can see a team that could certainly out-perform expectations by a fair margin.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Jan 3, 2023 16:11:18 GMT -5
Last season the Boston "Last Place" Red Sox won 78 games. Taking that as a starting point...
+2 wins for more balanced schedule +4 wins for improved bullpen +2 wins for clutch hitting reverting to the mean +2 wins for slightly better injury luck +2 wins for contributions from young guys (e.g., full seasons from Casas, Bello, et al.)_
-4 wins for the net effect of non-bullpen free agent additions and substractions
Total: +8 wins = an 86-win season
For those who are predicting them to be worse than this: what part of this calculation am I getting wrong?
I think this is really sound. I think you could very readily do this kind of back-of-the-napkin math to get 90 wins without being too over-the-top (e.g., Casas alone could contribute +3 given how bad first base was, non-negligible chance that at least one of Sale/Paxton/Bello/Kluber/Whitlock has an All-Star caliber season), but it's hard to see how you get much lower than 85 wins without assuming something outrageously pessimistic, like John Henry starts scattering broken glass across the clubhouse floor.
|
|
|
Post by kwodes on Jan 3, 2023 17:20:36 GMT -5
I said this in a previous thread, but let's not forget that they went 26-50 last year in divisional games. That seems really fluky to me. Even if they were 32-44 in divisional games (still bad), they would've been an 84 win team last year. Only real player of value lost was Xander. Vast improvement in the bullpen and I would argue it's a pretty big improvement in the lineup in terms of types of hitters. They seem to be getting back to the "Theo Sox", full of grinders and guys who work counts and get into the bullpen early.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Jan 3, 2023 17:33:22 GMT -5
Over/under is 74 for me.
The lineup is ugly and full of question marks.
Rotation is full of questions or health concerns.
Rotation has depth and the bullpen is better, that’s my good for them.
Definitely last in the east as a prediction, which will probably be the media consensus as well
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Jan 3, 2023 17:46:02 GMT -5
Over/under is 74 for me. The lineup is ugly and full of question marks. Rotation is full of questions or health concerns. Rotation has depth and the bullpen is better, that’s my good for them. Definitely last in the east as a prediction, which will probably be the media consensus as well If Vegas set the over/under for the Sox season at 73.5, I'd tell my wife to handle school drop-offs for a couple of days because I have to go to Nevada to bet all our savings on the Sox over. I just don't see how they get that bad without actively tanking. Say whatever you want about this offseason, but the free agents they've signed have all been geared towards competing in 2023 - Jansen, Martin, Turner, Yoshida, Kluber... you don't sign those deals unless you think it can push you into playoff contention. Even if you say that last year's 78 wins was an accurate reflection of the team's true talent level and that losing Bogaerts drops them to ~74 wins, walk through the exercise Incandenza outlined above and tell me how they're losing almost 90 games without both a fire sale and cataclysmic injuries.
|
|
|