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 incandenza on Jan 12, 2023 11:04:11 GMT -5
I guess I'd agree with you that if Verdugo's defense is worse than it has been in the past in RF, and Arroyo doesn't stay healthy, and McGuire can't match his career offensive performance, and Wong can't hit either, and Turner does worse than the projections, and Bello doesn't blossom, and Sale doesn't give them innings, and Whitlock doesn't take to starting, and Kluber+Whitlock can't match the 2.5 fWAR they got out of Eovaldi+Wacha, and they can't replace Strahm's value, and Jansen suffers from the rule change, and they literally don't add a shortstop at all, then they will not have a great season. But that seems like an awfully pessimistic set of assumptions! Really just a litany of all the things that could go wrong. But each of them has a counterpart of something that could go right - Joely Rodriguez could replace Strahm, Bello could blossom, Sale could stay healthy, etc. I didnt assume everything went wrong. What I pointed out was the wide ranges of variability there are with this team. Yes, somebody will be the SS. The only guarantee is that whoever plays it will be a huge downgrade overall from what X has given the Sox. And while you're awarding good grades for defense at SS and 2b, please understand I dont even know who they're getting yet. I can't assume anything yet. Yes they'll get a warm body, and options are limited, but let's see first. Hey, we both think highly of Bello and Casas and we're both intrigued by Yoshida. I was similarly intrigued by Buchholz. We all knew Clay had what it took to be among the best in baseball. And he did become the best....for the 1st half of 2013 before injuries derailed him, but coming after the promise of 2007, did you think he'd struggle so bad in 2008? Development and maturity isnt always linear and that staff had Beckett, Daisuke, Wakefield, and another promising youngster in Lester to fall back on. They didnt have to rely on Buchholz. This staff is much thinner with more question marks. Do you really want to pin your hopes to Sales resurrection as ace of the staff? It could happen, but it's been 5 years, so I dont think that makes me a negative Nellie if I'm not ready to believe. You talk a lot about projections as if they're universal and concrete. Everybody has their own internal projections and in the case of baseball all it takes is a nice gust of wind, and projections can easily get blown away.I think because of the high volume of variability of the team the range on this team goes from playoff team to legit cellar dweller (as opposed to a team that finished 3 games off the record for best last place team evah!). I think the center of that range where just as much goes right as it goes wrong is probably toward the mid to upper 70s in wins. Ymmv on that, though. It's the opposite of this! I keep trying to engage the pessimists to get their specific, concrete projections to try to see where we differ but no one will do it!
I am of course well aware that projections are not prophecy, and I agree with you on the high variability of this roster. If I project the Red Sox to win 86 games, that realistically means I think they'll win somewhere between 77-95 games or something. Nowhere in that range would realiy suprise me. But it's a probabilistic claim about the most likely outcome this season. Which, in a win projection thread, is the best we can do.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 12, 2023 11:36:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Jan 12, 2023 11:58:29 GMT -5
The MLB on Instragram projected the Sox to win the World Series in 2031. And yet some of y'all still don't see the vision, huh? http://instagr.am/p/CnUfxuuL9RY I see the vision but if Baltimore/Detroit/Angels win it before us i’ll cry 😂
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 12, 2023 13:26:38 GMT -5
I didnt assume everything went wrong. What I pointed out was the wide ranges of variability there are with this team. Yes, somebody will be the SS. The only guarantee is that whoever plays it will be a huge downgrade overall from what X has given the Sox. And while you're awarding good grades for defense at SS and 2b, please understand I dont even know who they're getting yet. I can't assume anything yet. Yes they'll get a warm body, and options are limited, but let's see first. Hey, we both think highly of Bello and Casas and we're both intrigued by Yoshida. I was similarly intrigued by Buchholz. We all knew Clay had what it took to be among the best in baseball. And he did become the best....for the 1st half of 2013 before injuries derailed him, but coming after the promise of 2007, did you think he'd struggle so bad in 2008? Development and maturity isnt always linear and that staff had Beckett, Daisuke, Wakefield, and another promising youngster in Lester to fall back on. They didnt have to rely on Buchholz. This staff is much thinner with more question marks. Do you really want to pin your hopes to Sales resurrection as ace of the staff? It could happen, but it's been 5 years, so I dont think that makes me a negative Nellie if I'm not ready to believe. You talk a lot about projections as if they're universal and concrete. Everybody has their own internal projections and in the case of baseball all it takes is a nice gust of wind, and projections can easily get blown away.I think because of the high volume of variability of the team the range on this team goes from playoff team to legit cellar dweller (as opposed to a team that finished 3 games off the record for best last place team evah!). I think the center of that range where just as much goes right as it goes wrong is probably toward the mid to upper 70s in wins. Ymmv on that, though. It's the opposite of this! I keep trying to engage the pessimists to get their specific, concrete projections to try to see where we differ but no one will do it! I am of course well aware that projections are not prophecy, and I agree with you on the high variability of this roster. If I project the Red Sox to win 86 games, that realistically means I think they'll win somewhere between 77-95 games or something. Nowhere in that range would realiy suprise me. But it's a probabilistic claim about the most likely outcome this season. Which, in a win projection thread, is the best we can do.
Two things. Are you actually expecting others to make predictions of the stats, figure out the laborious WAR formula to figure out if it's better or worse than yours for comparisons sake? If so, I can't do that. I work for a living. Not happening. I'm assuming it's the same reason why you're not comparing the other 14 teams WAR figure projections and comparing it to the Red Sox to see how it stacks up. I hardly think that seeing the Sox as say a 70 - 85 win team and picking toward the middle is pessimistic. I get tired of the optimistic/pessimistic labels nonsense. I follow what national writers see the Sox as. Sometimes it's good to step back from a Red Sox centric world, take off the Red Sox colored glasses and try to see how others with no emotional commitment toward the franchise see the team. The overwhelming consensus has been a WTF are they doing reaction and the view is of a team fighting to get out of the AL East basement. They're seen as having a shot at a wild card spot if most things break right and being a real cellar dweller, a really bad team, if things go really wrong. I think the center of that is around the 78 wins they had last year. Does that mean they are or I am right? Hell no. I mean who had the upper range of the 2013 Red Sox being a 97 win WS Champ? Virtually nobody... and that's yet another reason 2013 was so special. But at this point 10 years later, I think my evaluations match the national outlook for the most part. Let them play the games and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 12, 2023 14:12:03 GMT -5
It's the opposite of this! I keep trying to engage the pessimists to get their specific, concrete projections to try to see where we differ but no one will do it! I am of course well aware that projections are not prophecy, and I agree with you on the high variability of this roster. If I project the Red Sox to win 86 games, that realistically means I think they'll win somewhere between 77-95 games or something. Nowhere in that range would realiy suprise me. But it's a probabilistic claim about the most likely outcome this season. Which, in a win projection thread, is the best we can do.
Two things. Are you actually expecting others to make predictions of the stats, figure out the laborious WAR formula to figure out if it's better or worse than yours for comparisons sake? If so, I can't do that. I work for a living. Not happening. Good lord, do you think that's what I'm doing? I'm just making off-the-cuff gut predictions, and in the comment that started this conversation, shading toward the conservative side. I'm not asking for a thesis here. Really it's just a way asking people who think the Red Sox will stink why they think that.
You've responded to that in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, which is fine, and of course you're under no obligation to engage me at all if you don't want to, but then the conversation sort of founders because you list off various downside risks and I can say there are upside possibilities to discuss and without concrete numbers to affix to that it's all just vibes. Well of course not - you think you're making a fair and balanced analysis of the team's strengths and weaknesses. Just as I am doing. I am happy to not speak in terms of optimism and pessimism; I don't even like those terms much myself. Sorry, but I am just not going to defer to the national media here. Simply following the conversations in these threads gives you a much more informed perspective on the team than them. The whole point of doing the WAR projections, in fact, is an effort to try to think objectively about the team, beyond the media narratives and the sense of calamity that followed the loss of Bogaerts.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 12, 2023 14:36:30 GMT -5
For the purposes of this comparison, I'm swapping last year's SS and non-Verdugo corner outfielder. Which is to say, those two slots are more by batting order than by position.
Who Crowd 2022 Who Yoshida 2.3 4.8 Bogaerts Story 3.9 1.9 Story, Arroyo Devers 5.6 5.3 Turner 2.7 -0.7 Martinez Casas 2.9 0.4 Dalbec, Cordero, Casas, Hosmer Hernan. 2.1 1.1 Hernandez, Duran Verdugo 3.1 3.5 SS 1.3 -1.6 Bradley, Pham, Cordero McGuire 1.8 2.3 Vazquez, McGuire Wong 0.8 -1.1 Plawecki, Wong Bench 1.0 0.7 Refsnyder 0.0 Cordero, Arroyo -1.2 Sanchez, Downs, Almonte, Davis, Chang, Shaw, Arauz 27.6 15.4
I fixed the double-counting error and that adds 1.3 wins to last year's total. I'll edit the by-position numbers when I get a chance.
So now you get 9.9 extra wins, which puts you at 90 (including the +2 for new schedule).
Story's injury (using the same 1.3 guess as for SS) drops that down to 87-88. But the pitching should be better.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 12, 2023 15:08:13 GMT -5
Two things. Are you actually expecting others to make predictions of the stats, figure out the laborious WAR formula to figure out if it's better or worse than yours for comparisons sake? If so, I can't do that. I work for a living. Not happening. Good lord, do you think that's what I'm doing? I'm just making off-the-cuff gut predictions, and in the comment that started this conversation, shading toward the conservative side. I'm not asking for a thesis here. Really it's just a way asking people who think the Red Sox will stink why they think that.
You've responded to that in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, which is fine, and of course you're under no obligation to engage me at all if you don't want to, but then the conversation sort of founders because you list off various downside risks and I can say there are upside possibilities to discuss and without concrete numbers to affix to that it's all just vibes. Well of course not - you think you're making a fair and balanced analysis of the team's strengths and weaknesses. Just as I am doing. I am happy to not speak in terms of optimism and pessimism; I don't even like those terms much myself. Sorry, but I am just not going to defer to the national media here. Simply following the conversations in these threads gives you a much more informed perspective on the team than them. The whole point of doing the WAR projections, in fact, is an effort to try to think objectively about the team, beyond the media narratives and the sense of calamity that followed the loss of Bogaerts.
I can't give you concrete numbers because there are no concrete numbers when discussing projections. No I dont think you're going off the cuff. I suspect you're going off fangraphs? But that doesnt matter to me. They're projecting as well, so I dont take theirs as gospel anymore than I'd take yours or mine. But as far as the national thing goes, that's it. Yes we are (mostly) educated in everything Red Sox, but I doubt we as a whole are as educated on everything not Red Sox plus we are more likely to inject our own biases, whether positive or negative. That's less likely to happen with people who dont give a crap about the Red Sox one way or the other. But personally I'm not going off of them as much as I look at my own team. The cliff notes version is that gaining Casas, Turner, and Yoshida is basically offset from losing Bogaerts, Story, and JDM. And I'm not bullish on getting as good an offense out of catchers. Gaining Kluber and Whitlock is probably a wash from losing Eovaldi, Wacha, and Hill, unless either Bello makes a huge jump or Sale becomes his 2017/2018 1st half self. The pen loses Whitlock and Strahm but gains Jansen, Martin, and Rodriguez. So it could/should be a bit better, but I admit, as much as I like established closers, I do worry about where Jansen is at. I think the pitching could be a bit better. The hitting a bit worse and the defense worse. I guess I dont see the big strides forward you see, but who knows? I picked them to win 83 last year and you picked 82. You were closer,so I guess you win, lol.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Jan 12, 2023 15:43:13 GMT -5
Story really had surgery less than a week after I put $3k on the over 76.5 wins. I’m sick to my stomach. Now they pulled the bet off the board. I’m going to pray for a trade for Reynolds or Kim.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Jan 12, 2023 16:06:36 GMT -5
Story really had surgery less than a week after I put $3k on the over 76.5 wins. I’m sick to my stomach. Now they pulled the bet off the board. I’m going to pray for a trade for Reynolds or Kim. If it makes you feel any better, I still think you're going to win that bet. Even if Story were to miss the whole season, I think they still clear .500 with room to spare.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Jan 12, 2023 18:52:14 GMT -5
I’m optimistic about the bullpen, Yoshida, and regression to the mean wrt clutch hitting. Cautiously optimistic about the rotation, though a couple of injuries could blow things up pretty quickly. Pre-Story injury, I would have had the team at something like 84-85 wins. Add a win or two if they sign a shortstop. If he comes back in August, that probably drops their projection by 2 wins, so call it 83 wins pending a shortstop acquisition
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 12, 2023 22:39:32 GMT -5
Incandenza (and remind me to ask you about that handle), I think posters are reluctant to question your projections because they are all within the realm of possibility. I tend to be pessimistic about the 2023 team and while I'd quibble a bit one way or the other about a few of your estimates, I think they're all reasonable.
But the error bars for the 2023 team are extraordinarily high. I wouldn't be surprised if Casas, for instance, is an AL All-Star and a 4-5 WAR player. But plenty of young high-potential guys like him make a humbling trip back the bushes before they're ready. That's as possible for Casas as a big season.
Given that wide range of outcomes and the series of disappointments over the past year (some of us would call them amateur hour screwups; others would generously say bad luck) people are just not inclined to take the optimistic view.
I'm at 75 to 78 wins.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 12, 2023 23:09:42 GMT -5
Two things. Are you actually expecting others to make predictions of the stats, figure out the laborious WAR formula to figure out if it's better or worse than yours for comparisons sake? If so, I can't do that. I work for a living. Not happening. Good lord, do you think that's what I'm doing? I'm just making off-the-cuff gut predictions, and in the comment that started this conversation, shading toward the conservative side. I'm not asking for a thesis here. Really it's just a way asking people who think the Red Sox will stink why they think that.
1. Do you remember the Celtics in the few years before they added KG and Ray Allen? Raffy Devers is your Paul Pierce. A lineup that depends on Alex Verdugo in the middle of the order and then tapers down to the catchers, the (likely) light-hitting SS, and a 2B who was supposed to be a bench guy is a creampuff lineup. I'd list KKH as a bottom-third guy, too, except that he may be hitting second with his lifetime .314 OBP and 97 OPS-plus. 2. I expect massive decline in SS production (not a rocket science observation, I'll grant you) and moderate decline at DH. JDM put up a 117 OPS-plus last year in his age 34-35 season. Justin Turner was at 116 last year and will be playing his age 38 season in '23. Yoshida is an intriguing offensive piece but it sounds like his defense could very well cannibalize whatever offensive WAR he produces, especially if he's in Fenway's RF. He's the 180 from JBJ in RF. 3. I'll say it again: It's silly to count on anything from Sale, who hasn't had a year of durability and good performance in six years. You comfortable counting on Paxton? Kluber is a decent bet for the money. But they lost 3 SPs - Eo, Hill and Wacha, each of whom was some degree of useful last year. 4. It's hard to rate the BP without knowing where Houck and Whitlock will be. If they're both in the rotation, we have three guys we can reasonably depend on: Jansen, Martin and Schreiber. That would have been a lot just a few years ago. It's not great depth in today's game.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 13, 2023 5:10:33 GMT -5
Good lord, do you think that's what I'm doing? I'm just making off-the-cuff gut predictions, and in the comment that started this conversation, shading toward the conservative side. I'm not asking for a thesis here. Really it's just a way asking people who think the Red Sox will stink why they think that.
1. Do you remember the Celtics in the few years before they added KG and Ray Allen? Raffy Devers is your Paul Pierce. A lineup that depends on Alex Verdugo in the middle of the order and then tapers down to the catchers, the (likely) light-hitting SS, and a 2B who was supposed to be a bench guy is a creampuff lineup. I'd list KKH as a bottom-third guy, too, except that he may be hitting second with his lifetime .314 OBP and 97 OPS-plus. 2. I expect massive decline in SS production (not a rocket science observation, I'll grant you) and moderate decline at DH. J DM put up a 117 OPS-plus last year in his age 34-35 season. Justin Turner was at 116 last year and will be playing his age 38 season in '23.Yoshida is an intriguing offensive piece but it sounds like his defense could very well cannibalize whatever offensive WAR he produces, especially if he's in Fenway's RF. He's the 180 from JBJ in RF. 3. I'll say it again: It's silly to count on anything from Sale, who hasn't had a year of durability and good performance in six years. You comfortable counting on Paxton? Kluber is a decent bet for the money. But they lost 3 SPs - Eo, Hill and Wacha, each of whom was some degree of useful last year. 4. It's hard to rate the BP without knowing where Houck and Whitlock will be. If they're both in the rotation, we have three guys we can reasonably depend on: Jansen, Martin and Schreiber. That would have been a lot just a few years ago. It's not great depth in today's game. 2. Yes, but JDM grounded into 20 DP, which is not counted by OPS+, and (adjusted for his GDP opportunities), it knocked off .6 wins of value.
He also had a 158 OPS+ with the bases empty, a 100 with just a runner in first, and a 79 with RISP, in 183 PA, including a 51 in 72 PA with 2 outs and RISP.
He also had a 92 Late and Close, a 125 otherwise with teams within 4 runs of each other, and a 148 in blowouts (5+ run margin).
The last two splits combined to knock off another 1.1 wins off his value. He actually was worth 0.1 WAR. Yes, you can say that was a fluke and non-predictive, but IT HAPPENED. And that is what you compare Turner's projected production to ... WHAT. ACTUALLY. HAPPENED. LAST. YEAR.
(And it wasn't a fluke ... JDM's career WAR, starting after he was let go by the Astros, is 26.5, after losing about 3.0 WAR from GDP's and baserunning. What WAR does not include is another -7.4 wins of situational hitting.
Meanwhile, Turner's Late and Close OPS+ the last 5 years is 148, 147, 179, 132, 182. Last year he had a 101 with the bases empty, a 112 with a man on first, and a 171 with RISP.
That may not be predictive; his last 3 years with the Dodgers he's 1.1, 0.9, 1.1 wins from situational hitting, but he was -1.5 in his first 7 years with the team. Both he and JDM blossomed from obscurity in the same year; Turner has 35.7 situation-adjusted WAR in 4220 PA, and JDM has 19.1 in 4916. Some of that is defensive value of course, but most of it is hitting.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 13, 2023 10:58:45 GMT -5
Incandenza (and remind me to ask you about that handle), I think posters are reluctant to question your projections because they are all within the realm of possibility. I tend to be pessimistic about the 2023 team and while I'd quibble a bit one way or the other about a few of your estimates, I think they're all reasonable. But the error bars for the 2023 team are extraordinarily high. I wouldn't be surprised if Casas, for instance, is an AL All-Star and a 4-5 WAR player. But plenty of young high-potential guys like him make a humbling trip back the bushes before they're ready. That's as possible for Casas as a big season. Given that wide range of outcomes and the series of disappointments over the past year (some of us would call them amateur hour screwups; others would generously say bad luck) people are just not inclined to take the optimistic view. I'm at 75 to 78 wins. I totally agree about the error bars! I don't see why that should lower one's projections though. You might give a team a range of 70-90 wins or you might give them a range of 75-85 wins, but either way you're centering on 80 wins.
Really, though, I have in mind especially those people who say things like "this team won't contend in 2023" or "no need to add good players to this roster because they're so far away from being good." Those people aren't saying the team has wide error bars; they're saying the team will definitely be mediocre or worse.
Good lord, do you think that's what I'm doing? I'm just making off-the-cuff gut predictions, and in the comment that started this conversation, shading toward the conservative side. I'm not asking for a thesis here. Really it's just a way asking people who think the Red Sox will stink why they think that.
1. Do you remember the Celtics in the few years before they added KG and Ray Allen? Raffy Devers is your Paul Pierce. A lineup that depends on Alex Verdugo in the middle of the order and then tapers down to the catchers, the (likely) light-hitting SS, and a 2B who was supposed to be a bench guy is a creampuff lineup. I'd list KKH as a bottom-third guy, too, except that he may be hitting second with his lifetime .314 OBP and 97 OPS-plus. 2. I expect massive decline in SS production (not a rocket science observation, I'll grant you) and moderate decline at DH. JDM put up a 117 OPS-plus last year in his age 34-35 season. Justin Turner was at 116 last year and will be playing his age 38 season in '23. Yoshida is an intriguing offensive piece but it sounds like his defense could very well cannibalize whatever offensive WAR he produces, especially if he's in Fenway's RF. He's the 180 from JBJ in RF. 3. I'll say it again: It's silly to count on anything from Sale, who hasn't had a year of durability and good performance in six years. You comfortable counting on Paxton? Kluber is a decent bet for the money. But they lost 3 SPs - Eo, Hill and Wacha, each of whom was some degree of useful last year. 4. It's hard to rate the BP without knowing where Houck and Whitlock will be. If they're both in the rotation, we have three guys we can reasonably depend on: Jansen, Martin and Schreiber. That would have been a lot just a few years ago. It's not great depth in today's game. 1. I know nothing of these "Celtics" you speak of. (Don't really follow other sports.) But you're right, that lineup doesn't exactly seem intimidating. Then again, neither did the Guardians' last year, or the Rays', or even the Yankees' beyond Judge for big stretches last season. And the lineup shouldn't have the serious black holes that it did for stretches last season too.
2. eric handled the DH thing. Yoshida won't be playing in RF, as I understand it. He'll be the left fielder, and if the projections are to be believed he'll be a substantial upgrade over what they had last season at that position. (But big error bars!) And then that allows Verdugo to be an improvement over what they had in RF last year too.
3. It would be silly to count on Sale or Paxton for 180 IP. But it would be equally silly to totally discount them. If they combine for 150 IP, that's like adding one potentially very good starter to the rotation.
Eovaldi, Hill, and Wacha combined for 4.3 fWAR in 360 IP. I think it would be conservative to predict they get the same out of Sale, Paxton, and Kluber combined. So beyond that we have Bello for a full season, Whitlock potentially for a full season, and then MUCH better depth beyond that, with Houck and Crawford as the #7 and #8 pitchers, and Mata/Murphy/Walter later in the season. Big big error bars! But the rotation last season produced 8.6 fWAR in 808 IP with a 4.49 ERA. I frankly think it would be a little unreasonable to project them to be worse than that.
4. Hard to imagine a scenario in which both Houck and Whitlock are in the rotation other than a) both are thriving as starters, in which case that's a good problem to have; or b) there is another huge rash of SP injuries, in which case we're probably into one of the bad-case scenarios for the season anyway.
And again, just as a reality check: the bullpen last season had 1.2 fWAR COMBINED, with a 4.59 ERA. The bar for improvement here is not that high.
...
So no one has challenged the strength of schedule/clutch hitting points, which means, if we're comparing to last season, we can add 3-4 projected wins to the 78 win total. Now we're at 81-82. Could the positional side be a little bit worse than it was last year? That is certainly possible. If you want to lean more negative in that direction knock them down to 80 wins.
But I don't think there is any reasonable projection that has the pitching being worse than it was last year. Even with big error bars, I think the range of likely possibilities (unlikely things happen sometimes, of course) is that they are slightly improved to much improved. If they have, say, a league average pitching staff, that adds about 4 wins from what they had last year. Would you project them for league average pitching? If not, how much worse do you think they'll be?
I tried to go here with the most conservative projections I could muster for a median outcome and I'm at 84 wins.
(Oh, as for the handle... does the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment mean anything to you?)
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Jan 13, 2023 11:00:17 GMT -5
Good lord, do you think that's what I'm doing? I'm just making off-the-cuff gut predictions, and in the comment that started this conversation, shading toward the conservative side. I'm not asking for a thesis here. Really it's just a way asking people who think the Red Sox will stink why they think that.
1. Do you remember the Celtics in the few years before they added KG and Ray Allen? Raffy Devers is your Paul Pierce. A lineup that depends on Alex Verdugo in the middle of the order and then tapers down to the catchers, the (likely) light-hitting SS, and a 2B who was supposed to be a bench guy is a creampuff lineup. I'd list KKH as a bottom-third guy, too, except that he may be hitting second with his lifetime .314 OBP and 97 OPS-plus. 2. I expect massive decline in SS production (not a rocket science observation, I'll grant you) and moderate decline at DH. JDM put up a 117 OPS-plus last year in his age 34-35 season. Justin Turner was at 116 last year and will be playing his age 38 season in '23. Yoshida is an intriguing offensive piece but it sounds like his defense could very well cannibalize whatever offensive WAR he produces, especially if he's in Fenway's RF. He's the 180 from JBJ in RF. 3. I'll say it again: It's silly to count on anything from Sale, who hasn't had a year of durability and good performance in six years. You comfortable counting on Paxton? Kluber is a decent bet for the money. But they lost 3 SPs - Eo, Hill and Wacha, each of whom was some degree of useful last year. 4. It's hard to rate the BP without knowing where Houck and Whitlock will be. If they're both in the rotation, we have three guys we can reasonably depend on: Jansen, Martin and Schreiber. That would have been a lot just a few years ago. It's not great depth in today's game. Why do people keep using OPS+? WRC+ is just as easy to look up and correctly balances OBP and SLG. Regardless, despite the age difference Turner has been as good if not a better hitter than JD the last 4 years, and unlike JD he got better as the year went on. That's not even considering clutchness, which take it whatever way you want, but that was something a lot of fans noticed about JD last year. I can't see that being a moderate downgrade at all. I could see an argument for it being even, but I would say it's more likely an upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Jan 13, 2023 11:13:19 GMT -5
I think people use OPS+ because OPS is fine. This Clemens article from yesterday shows that OBP/SLG are pretty good at predicting runs scored. Yeah, wRC+ is probably better, but the results are almost indistinguishable and baseball-reference.com is probably a little more user-friendly to navigate and quickly reference than Fangraphs.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 13, 2023 11:20:37 GMT -5
I think people use OPS+ because OPS is fine. This Clemens article from yesterday shows that OBP/SLG are pretty good at predicting runs scored. Yeah, wRC+ is probably better, but the results are almost indistinguishable and baseball-reference.com is probably a little more user-friendly to navigate and quickly reference than Fangraphs.This is the most inexplicable comment I have ever read here, lol.
I find fangraphs a million times more user-friendly than b-ref. I can barely even read b-ref.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,407
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 13, 2023 11:38:13 GMT -5
Incandenza (and remind me to ask you about that handle), I think posters are reluctant to question your projections because they are all within the realm of possibility. I tend to be pessimistic about the 2023 team and while I'd quibble a bit one way or the other about a few of your estimates, I think they're all reasonable. But the error bars for the 2023 team are extraordinarily high. I wouldn't be surprised if Casas, for instance, is an AL All-Star and a 4-5 WAR player. But plenty of young high-potential guys like him make a humbling trip back the bushes before they're ready. That's as possible for Casas as a big season. Given that wide range of outcomes and the series of disappointments over the past year (some of us would call them amateur hour screwups; others would generously say bad luck) people are just not inclined to take the optimistic view. I'm at 75 to 78 wins. I totally agree about the error bars! I don't see why that should lower one's projections though. You might give a team a range of 70-90 wins or you might give them a range of 75-85 wins, but either way you're centering on 80 wins.
Really, though, I have in mind especially those people who say things like "this team won't contend in 2023" or "no need to add good players to this roster because they're so far away from being good." Those people aren't saying the team has wide error bars; they're saying the team will definitely be mediocre or worse.
1. Do you remember the Celtics in the few years before they added KG and Ray Allen? Raffy Devers is your Paul Pierce. A lineup that depends on Alex Verdugo in the middle of the order and then tapers down to the catchers, the (likely) light-hitting SS, and a 2B who was supposed to be a bench guy is a creampuff lineup. I'd list KKH as a bottom-third guy, too, except that he may be hitting second with his lifetime .314 OBP and 97 OPS-plus. 2. I expect massive decline in SS production (not a rocket science observation, I'll grant you) and moderate decline at DH. JDM put up a 117 OPS-plus last year in his age 34-35 season. Justin Turner was at 116 last year and will be playing his age 38 season in '23. Yoshida is an intriguing offensive piece but it sounds like his defense could very well cannibalize whatever offensive WAR he produces, especially if he's in Fenway's RF. He's the 180 from JBJ in RF. 3. I'll say it again: It's silly to count on anything from Sale, who hasn't had a year of durability and good performance in six years. You comfortable counting on Paxton? Kluber is a decent bet for the money. But they lost 3 SPs - Eo, Hill and Wacha, each of whom was some degree of useful last year. 4. It's hard to rate the BP without knowing where Houck and Whitlock will be. If they're both in the rotation, we have three guys we can reasonably depend on: Jansen, Martin and Schreiber. That would have been a lot just a few years ago. It's not great depth in today's game. 1. I know nothing of these "Celtics" you speak of. (Don't really follow other sports.) But you're right, that lineup doesn't exactly seem intimidating. Then again, neither did the Guardians' last year, or the Rays', or even the Yankees' beyond Judge for big stretches last season. And the lineup shouldn't have the serious black holes that it did for stretches last season too.
2. eric handled the DH thing. Yoshida won't be playing in RF, as I understand it. He'll be the left fielder, and if the projections are to be believed he'll be a substantial upgrade over what they had last season at that position. (But big error bars!) And then that allows Verdugo to be an improvement over what they had in RF last year too.
3. It would be silly to count on Sale or Paxton for 180 IP. But it would be equally silly to totally discount them. If they combine for 150 IP, that's like adding one potentially very good starter to the rotation.
Eovaldi, Hill, and Wacha combined for 4.3 fWAR in 360 IP. I think it would be conservative to predict they get the same out of Sale, Paxton, and Kluber combined. So beyond that we have Bello for a full season, Whitlock potentially for a full season, and then MUCH better depth beyond that, with Houck and Crawford as the #7 and #8 pitchers, and Mata/Murphy/Walter later in the season. Big big error bars! But the rotation last season produced 8.6 fWAR in 808 IP with a 4.49 ERA. I frankly think it would be a little unreasonable to project them to be worse than that.
4. Hard to imagine a scenario in which both Houck and Whitlock are in the rotation other than a) both are thriving as starters, in which case that's a good problem to have; or b) there is another huge rash of SP injuries, in which case we're probably into one of the bad-case scenarios for the season anyway.
And again, just as a reality check: the bullpen last season had 1.2 fWAR COMBINED, with a 4.59 ERA. The bar for improvement here is not that high.
...
So no one has challenged the strength of schedule/clutch hitting points, which means, if we're comparing to last season, we can add 3-4 projected wins to the 78 win total. Now we're at 81-82. Could the positional side be a little bit worse than it was last year? That is certainly possible. If you want to lean more negative in that direction knock them down to 80 wins.
But I don't think there is any reasonable projection that has the pitching being worse than it was last year. Even with big error bars, I think the range of likely possibilities (unlikely things happen sometimes, of course) is that they are slightly improved to much improved. If they have, say, a league average pitching staff, that adds about 4 wins from what they had last year. Would you project them for league average pitching? If not, how much worse do you think they'll be?
I tried to go here with the most conservative projections I could muster for a median outcome and I'm at 84 wins.
(Oh, as for the handle... does the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment mean anything to you?)
I think many might not refute the clutch stuff because it is a made-up statistic. There is no evidence it is real, predictive etc. So why bother? The onus when one makes up a new statistic (that *always* presents a favorable picture) is on the inventor. I think it *is* reasonable to say the starting pitching might be worse. I’d begin by saying they lost three of their best starters. Kluber should replace that…. but not likely exceed the value of Eovaldi or Wacha. And I will reiterate my utter lack of faith in Paxton. I love Bello, but I still see this as a big development year. And Sale… cross your fingers. There is depth, but the first time Wink starts a game, we know the season is on life support. Yes, the Guardians had poor O. But their pitching is better, and they have good defense. Our defense looks, er, not so good (not having a middle infield will mean a lot of infield singles!! I kid, but… with no middle infield, how optimistic should we be?). I still see things not too far from you, except I think I default lower. That is, the sense I get is you’d say unless something goes wrong, they should be mid-80s. I think they need all things to break right to be 85+ wins. Casas has to be real. Starters need to be healthy and good versions of themselves. The catchers need to be real major leaguers. The OF has to be maximally productive etc. All that is a lot to ask.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Jan 13, 2023 11:40:24 GMT -5
I think people use OPS+ because OPS is fine. This Clemens article from yesterday shows that OBP/SLG are pretty good at predicting runs scored. Yeah, wRC+ is probably better, but the results are almost indistinguishable and baseball-reference.com is probably a little more user-friendly to navigate and quickly reference than Fangraphs.This is the most inexplicable comment I have ever read here, lol.
I find fangraphs a million times more user-friendly than b-ref. I can barely even read b-ref.
It's probably just because I have spent a frankly unhealthy amount of time on b-ref over the last 20+ years, only using Fangraphs sparingly until the last couple of years. I'm like one of those people who feels weird using anything other than a very specific configuration of Outlook for email even though I'm sure there are vastly superior options out there.
|
|
|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Jan 13, 2023 11:50:19 GMT -5
At least on the offense side, LF, RF, 1B and CF ( assuming Kiki) all can reasonably expected to be more productive, which means more runs. C, 2B and DH nuetral. SS clear downgrade. I think this years lineup scores more runs, more consistently. Starting pitching has a reasonable expectation to be better, maybe incredibly better. I will not re hash the deltas here as others have done so, so well, many times. No question the bullpen is built to be much better. More balanced schedule helps as well.It also helps that the division rivals, with the exception of Toronto (Varsho, Bassit) have not gotten much, if any, better. So Sox have a reasonable chance for a better division record. Does all this make 12-15 more wins possible, I think so. 86-89 wins is my call. This analysis is of course not highly data driven and represents gut opinion. But that is how I roll
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 13, 2023 11:54:04 GMT -5
I totally agree about the error bars! I don't see why that should lower one's projections though. You might give a team a range of 70-90 wins or you might give them a range of 75-85 wins, but either way you're centering on 80 wins.
Really, though, I have in mind especially those people who say things like "this team won't contend in 2023" or "no need to add good players to this roster because they're so far away from being good." Those people aren't saying the team has wide error bars; they're saying the team will definitely be mediocre or worse.
1. I know nothing of these "Celtics" you speak of. (Don't really follow other sports.) But you're right, that lineup doesn't exactly seem intimidating. Then again, neither did the Guardians' last year, or the Rays', or even the Yankees' beyond Judge for big stretches last season. And the lineup shouldn't have the serious black holes that it did for stretches last season too.
2. eric handled the DH thing. Yoshida won't be playing in RF, as I understand it. He'll be the left fielder, and if the projections are to be believed he'll be a substantial upgrade over what they had last season at that position. (But big error bars!) And then that allows Verdugo to be an improvement over what they had in RF last year too.
3. It would be silly to count on Sale or Paxton for 180 IP. But it would be equally silly to totally discount them. If they combine for 150 IP, that's like adding one potentially very good starter to the rotation.
Eovaldi, Hill, and Wacha combined for 4.3 fWAR in 360 IP. I think it would be conservative to predict they get the same out of Sale, Paxton, and Kluber combined. So beyond that we have Bello for a full season, Whitlock potentially for a full season, and then MUCH better depth beyond that, with Houck and Crawford as the #7 and #8 pitchers, and Mata/Murphy/Walter later in the season. Big big error bars! But the rotation last season produced 8.6 fWAR in 808 IP with a 4.49 ERA. I frankly think it would be a little unreasonable to project them to be worse than that.
4. Hard to imagine a scenario in which both Houck and Whitlock are in the rotation other than a) both are thriving as starters, in which case that's a good problem to have; or b) there is another huge rash of SP injuries, in which case we're probably into one of the bad-case scenarios for the season anyway.
And again, just as a reality check: the bullpen last season had 1.2 fWAR COMBINED, with a 4.59 ERA. The bar for improvement here is not that high.
...
So no one has challenged the strength of schedule/clutch hitting points, which means, if we're comparing to last season, we can add 3-4 projected wins to the 78 win total. Now we're at 81-82. Could the positional side be a little bit worse than it was last year? That is certainly possible. If you want to lean more negative in that direction knock them down to 80 wins.
But I don't think there is any reasonable projection that has the pitching being worse than it was last year. Even with big error bars, I think the range of likely possibilities (unlikely things happen sometimes, of course) is that they are slightly improved to much improved. If they have, say, a league average pitching staff, that adds about 4 wins from what they had last year. Would you project them for league average pitching? If not, how much worse do you think they'll be?
I tried to go here with the most conservative projections I could muster for a median outcome and I'm at 84 wins.
(Oh, as for the handle... does the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment mean anything to you?)
I think many might not refute the clutch stuff because it is a made-up statistic. There is no evidence it is real, predictive etc. So why bother? The onus when one makes up a new statistic (that *always* presents a favorable picture) is on the inventor. I think it *is* reasonable to say the starting pitching might be worse. I’d begin by saying they lost three of their best starters. Kluber should replace that…. but not likely exceed the value of Eovaldi or Wacha. And I will reiterate my utter lack of faith in Paxton. I love Bello, but I still see this as a big development year. And Sale… cross your fingers. There is depth, but the first time Wink starts a game, we know the season is on life support. Yes, the Guardians had poor O. But their pitching is better, and they have good defense. Our defense looks, er, not so good (not having a middle infield will mean a lot of infield singles!! I kid, but… with no middle infield, how optimistic should we be?). I still see things not too far from you, except I think I default lower. That is, the sense I get is you’d say unless something goes wrong, they should be mid-80s. I think they need all things to break right to be 85+ wins. Casas has to be real. Starters need to be healthy and good versions of themselves. The catchers need to be real major leaguers. The OF has to be maximally productive etc. All that is a lot to ask. I am doing the *exact opposite* of treating clutch as predictive. I am saying it is NOT predictive; therefore we should assume that last year's poor clutch hitting should regress to the mean. If you agree that it is not predictive then you, too, should assume a 1 or 2 win improvement, all else being equal!
And lest I be accused of motivated reasoning here, this was part of the reason for my bearish 82-win projection last season: the 2021 team had a lot of good luck, and I predicted that to regress in 2022. Which it did, and then some!
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 13, 2023 12:02:41 GMT -5
At least on the offense side, LF, RF, 1B and CF ( assuming Kiki) all can reasonably expected to be more productive, which means more runs. C, 2B and DH nuetral. SS clear downgrade. I think this years lineup scores more runs, more consistently.
Starting pitching has a reasonable expectation to be better, maybe incredibly better. I will not re hash the deltas here as others have done so, so well, many times. No question the bullpen is built to be much better. More balanced schedule helps as well.It also helps that the division rivals, with the exception of Toronto (Varsho, Bassit) have gotten better. So Sox have a reasonable chance for a better division record. Does all this make 12-15 more wins possible, I think so. 86-89 wins is my call. This analysis is of course not highly data driven and represents gut opinion. But that is how I roll Here's one thing that does give me pause. A slight mystery that I haven't seen addressed is that the Red Sox actually had a somewhat meh 102 wRC+ last year, and they had poor clutch hitting, yet somehow they finished 4th in the AL in runs scored - only 2 runs behind the Astros, a very good hitting team that plays in a sandbox. Was the offense somehow luckier/better than the stats would suggest (even the clutch stats that are supposed to capture such divergence)? If so then it will actually be harder to improve on last year's offensive performance.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,407
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 13, 2023 12:03:38 GMT -5
I think many might not refute the clutch stuff because it is a made-up statistic. There is no evidence it is real, predictive etc. So why bother? The onus when one makes up a new statistic (that *always* presents a favorable picture) is on the inventor. I think it *is* reasonable to say the starting pitching might be worse. I’d begin by saying they lost three of their best starters. Kluber should replace that…. but not likely exceed the value of Eovaldi or Wacha. And I will reiterate my utter lack of faith in Paxton. I love Bello, but I still see this as a big development year. And Sale… cross your fingers. There is depth, but the first time Wink starts a game, we know the season is on life support. Yes, the Guardians had poor O. But their pitching is better, and they have good defense. Our defense looks, er, not so good (not having a middle infield will mean a lot of infield singles!! I kid, but… with no middle infield, how optimistic should we be?). I still see things not too far from you, except I think I default lower. That is, the sense I get is you’d say unless something goes wrong, they should be mid-80s. I think they need all things to break right to be 85+ wins. Casas has to be real. Starters need to be healthy and good versions of themselves. The catchers need to be real major leaguers. The OF has to be maximally productive etc. All that is a lot to ask. I am doing the *exact opposite* of treating clutch as predictive. I am saying it is NOT predictive; therefore we should assume that last year's poor clutch hitting should regress to the mean. If you agree that it is not predictive then you, too, should assume a 1 or 3 win improvement, all else being equal!
And lest I be accused of motivated reasoning here, this was part of the reason for my bearish 82-win projection last season: the 2021 team had a lot of good luck, and I predicted that to regress in 2022. Which it did, and then some!
I meant the eWAR clutch stuff. I don’t expect general “regression,” because I think it is chaotic. There is as much reason to think it is worse. It is a tiny sliver of moments when one bad call, one butterfly’s wing flap makes all the difference. I’m not adding wins based on expectations of clutch.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 13, 2023 12:09:22 GMT -5
I am doing the *exact opposite* of treating clutch as predictive. I am saying it is NOT predictive; therefore we should assume that last year's poor clutch hitting should regress to the mean. If you agree that it is not predictive then you, too, should assume a 1 or 3 win improvement, all else being equal!
And lest I be accused of motivated reasoning here, this was part of the reason for my bearish 82-win projection last season: the 2021 team had a lot of good luck, and I predicted that to regress in 2022. Which it did, and then some!
I meant the eWAR clutch stuff. I don’t expect general “regression,” because I think it is chaotic. There is as much reason to think it is worse. It is a tiny sliver of moments when one bad call, one butterfly’s wing flap makes all the difference. I’m not adding wins based on expectations of clutch. If you're not doing that then you're by definition expecting them to be bad in the clutch again.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 13, 2023 12:13:28 GMT -5
At least on the offense side, LF, RF, 1B and CF ( assuming Kiki) all can reasonably expected to be more productive, which means more runs. C, 2B and DH nuetral. SS clear downgrade. I think this years lineup scores more runs, more consistently.
Starting pitching has a reasonable expectation to be better, maybe incredibly better. I will not re hash the deltas here as others have done so, so well, many times. No question the bullpen is built to be much better. More balanced schedule helps as well.It also helps that the division rivals, with the exception of Toronto (Varsho, Bassit) have gotten better. So Sox have a reasonable chance for a better division record. Does all this make 12-15 more wins possible, I think so. 86-89 wins is my call. This analysis is of course not highly data driven and represents gut opinion. But that is how I roll Here's one thing that does give me pause. A slight mystery that I haven't seen addressed is that the Red Sox actually had a somewhat meh 102 wRC+ last year, and they had poor clutch hitting, yet somehow they finished 4th in the AL in runs scored - only 2 runs behind the Astros, a very good hitting team that plays in a sandbox. Was the offense somehow luckier/better than the stats would suggest (even the clutch stats that are supposed to capture such divergence)? If so then it will actually be harder to improve on last year's offensive performance. I don't think this counters the clutch stuff at all. They could have compiled those runs in blow outs and it would have no impact on the clutch stats. Another reason for the discrepancy is Fenway is one of the most run-friendly environments in baseball ( third after Coors and Great American), so wRC+ takes that into account while raw runs obviously doesn't.
|
|
|