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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 16:59:56 GMT -5
Hindsight is 20/20, but it seemed odd at the time that Buttrey never got mlb innings before he was traded and Lin could have put up a .608 OPS for free. Utilizing organizational players and seeing what they were capable of would have been a better team building move in my opinion. Reminds me of a certain catching situation, just to hit two dead horses with one swing.... They had seven years to evaluate Buttrey. 16 1/3 MLB innings wouldn't/shouldn't change their evaluation of him - especially for a guy whose MO is that he'd be very good for stretches but also has had trouble sustaining success.If they're wrong, then they were wrong, and that's fine. But this idea that if they'd just called him up they'd have seen how brilliant he was? That's really not how it works. It might not change their evaluation of him, but it can change ours. 16 innings is enough to get some real information about his pitches, and his pitches looked fantastic. Not even just good, he touched 100 with the fastball, was confident in throwing not one but two secondaries, and he got great results on all of them. He showed a borderline elite set of tools for a reliever. Now, the Red Sox would have seen all the same data (minus the results against MLB hitters) unless he unlocked something after the trade, so they must have some other reason to be concerned, but man, I was shocked to see how good he looked in the majors. Edit: Pretty good David Laurila interview with him available at Fangraphs: blogs.fangraphs.com/angels-righty-ty-buttrey-on-how-he-turned-a-corner/
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 13:29:45 GMT -5
So Trout's 12/430 kicks in when he's approaching his age 30 season. How on earth does Mookie not insist on at least matching that and potentially buying out his ARB3 year as a 27-year-old? I have to think the Angels felt forced to pay that much for ages 30-42 because they're the Angels, he's their franchise player, and they haven't been good. Hopefully Mookie and the Sox both agree that it's not necessary and everyone can be better off on a deal similar to Machado and Harper. I felt really good about a Mookie extension when Machado and Harper signed, I feel a lot less confident in a Mookie extension on the back of the Trout deal Yeah, I think you're right and I think the Phillies footsteps were getting too loud as well. I was hopeful that Mookie would sign once Machado and Harper were signed. But now, the price to make Mookie the highest paid player ever just went up by about $100M to roughly half a billion dollars. I would have perceived Betts as a sign at all costs player for the Sox yesterday. Now, I would think the situation could be more fluid.Counterpoint:
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 13:24:16 GMT -5
So $36M a year comprises a little more than 17% of a $210M budget - that’s the 2020 Lux tax ceiling. If Sale gets at least David Price money, that’s another 6.6%. Price’s deal runs until 2022. So that means the Sox, theoretically would have 3 players occupying about 31% of their payroll - two of them pitchers. And that’s without factoring in extensions for Xander, JBJ, and Porcello. Also doesn’t factor in extensions for Devers and Benintendi over that period. Barring the luxury tax going up to $240 million or so in the next CBA, this is going to get a bit fugly. I get that Sale is the one who's been the most publicly open to an extension, but like... if there's a really an inability to sign everyone (which you cannot convince me there is but whatever, different conversation), why is the pitcher even on the table? He's a pitcher, this is the easiest math in the world.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 13:09:08 GMT -5
Good lord on the Trout contract. Guess we have a realistic benchmark for Mookie I know Mookie was a shade better than Trout last year, but Trout has been essentially as good as 2018 Mookie Betts every single year of his career. He's on a completely different level than everyone else. I don't know exactly how to deal with that as far as estimating a Betts contract, but that's what it is.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 12:50:36 GMT -5
Offense: are we just assuming Mookie and JD recreate their amazing years without drop off? Ok let’s just do that... why is there improvement at 1st, 2nd and CF? Are we forgetting how good Moreland was last year in the first half? I know we have a full year of Pearce but Moreland isn’t likely to repeat his year from last season. Second I don’t know how we can think there’s offensive improvement and buying into JBJ is fine but it’s hardly likely. I agree Devers is likely and I also think Beni is likely to be a bit better. Mookie and JD Martinez are probably going to go backwards a bit, just because there's really no other direction for them to go, but I think you can reasonably predict better performance from almost everyone else. If the production from catcher can be merely bad it'll represent a huge improvement. Devers and Beni are the exact kind of players you look at for breakouts. Bogaerts you probably project to be about the same. 1st base, I like the platoon they're now able to run, and while I'm not super high on anyone in the Chavis/Dalbec/Ock/Travis group being helpful in the big leagues this year, there sure are a lot of them. JBJ, I don't necessarily buy the swing re-tool stuff, but every projection thinks he's a better hitter than he showed last year. Second base, well, they'll probably manage to trade for someone more productive than Kinsler this time... The one reason I'd project the offense to get worse is that they had really good health from their best hitters last year, and that's hard to repeat. But just looking at the players, there's not a lot of expected decline.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 9:11:52 GMT -5
I will never understand this. Once you have said "I regret the price we have paid for X" and "I will miss Y," I don't understand the desire to say it again and again and again. When this site becomes a place to vent, and vent in a repetitive, redundant way, rather than a place to discuss, that for me is painful. I have no issues with that trade. Never did. Never will. I think there's a reason they were more than willing to trade Buttrey. Uhhh... because they drastically underestimated him? Not saying I didn't as well...
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 8:19:24 GMT -5
It's a good step, although given that this comes so closely on the heels of MLB literally lobbying Congress for a bill locking in the pitiful minor league salaries, I'm a bit skeptical this would go nearly far enough. I fear that this is just an attempt to raise minor league wages and while locking them in at a level that's still not really a living wage. I'm hopeful that I'm wrong though. Do you have any sense at all of the extent to which baseball operations people have been exerting pressure on this issue? I know those folks don't get paid to express their views on economic justice or whatever, nor would I expect them to get any traction if they did. But maybe the "hey idiots, you're throwing away multi-million dollar talents to save $15 a day on a per diem" argument was a little more persuasive? And like you said, they probably feel more comfortable doing this now that it's completely at their discretion.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 18, 2019 13:52:15 GMT -5
My suggestion was a running average of some indicator... WAR, wOBA, OPS+... whatever. That could be indexed to take into account the player's age, experience, and anything else deemed pertinent. That would then inform the salary structure. It's one idea, certainly not the only one. It's not a matter of data anymore, it's about baseball politics and economic inertia. So an updated arbitration calculator basically, right? Yet that won't solve Snell's case, as he'd only get a lot more the next year. Also if you want to be really fair it needs to go up and down. None of this you get the same even if you're the worse player in the game crap like arbitration now. Hasn't the super two rules and increased arbitration rates really fixed those problems? No sport pays rookies top of the market rates. So why should Snell get it? Last season will be a big reason why his arbitration numbers are going to be massive. I'm all for players getting their fair share. I just think looking at rookies is kinda crazy. Every job you take will likely underpay you at first. After studying the NFL system I really like it. Set up an account for guys on the minimum and payout bonus money. I also think RJP's point about Snell being able to sign a big contract has to be part of the discussion. He could easily get 50 to 75 million right now, no? If he wants to go the Betts route to maximize future earnings is that really an issue for Baseball? I just think looking at guys like Snell takes away from the big issue. Good solid Veterans taking minor league deals. Guys coming off 2 bwar seasons can't get more than a minor league deal? That isn't data mining an aging cure, it's cheap owners not trying to compete, so there's no competition for players. Thus dragging down the contracts. A) That's bad. B) "MLB ace" is pretty far off from "any job". C) "Underpaid" is not a binary. Being paid half your worth is different from being paid 3% of your worth.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 18, 2019 11:17:46 GMT -5
B) being an above average hitter from your good side doesn't actually mean that much. Everyone's an above average hitter if you ignore the kinds of pitchers they're bad at hitting. Is this a serious statement? You're so dead set on Swihart being the wrong answer that you're going to renounce platoon splits? I'm saying that comparing someone's favorable splits to everyone else's overall line is somewhat deceptive. Everything isn't a binary.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 18, 2019 10:58:49 GMT -5
I think I've changed my mind on the 3 batter rule. I'd really hate to see a team lose a playoff game because some relief pitcher comes in for the 8th inning of a tied Game 7 in the World Series and walks two guys on 8 pitches and can't be removed because of the rule. Yeah it's an extreme example, but I really hope it's not a postseason rule. I'm the opposite: I'm pretty ambivalent on the three-batter rule in general, but I think a team deserves to lose if they bring in a trash reliever who you can't trust to face three dudes in a close Game 7 of the World Series. I'm also guessing that doesn't actually matter. The predictive power of those two hypothetical walks most likely is in the range of negligible to non-existent*. The winning manager always looks like a genius in retrospect, but these guys are all basically playing Russian roulette out there. *I don't know if people have looked at this for relievers, but there have been studies on starting pitchers "cruising" and it doesn't seem to be a real thing. The way a pitcher performed against his last five hitters is never meaningful compared to how he did against his last 500.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 18, 2019 10:35:54 GMT -5
Yep. Swihart got 207 PA in 2018 with the big club in 2018. Slashed .229/.285/.328. Over 2012 PA in AAA Pawtucket in 2017 he slashed .190/.246/.292. Swihart has been playing baseball in the organization. He also slashed .275/.336/.412 vs RHP last year, well above average for a catcher. He had only 64 PA vs LHP and since he's a switch hitter not being able to even face LHP anywhere close to enough, I wouldn't even count them. It's pretty hard for natural lefty batters to be switch hitters and stay decent enough from the right side because they don't face enough LHP. A) He's not going to be used in a strict platoon and B) being an above average hitter from your good side doesn't actually mean that much. Everyone's an above average hitter if you ignore the kinds of pitchers they're bad at hitting.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 18, 2019 9:35:35 GMT -5
If Swihart is suddenly given 60% of the starts at catcher, *I'll* sue the Red Sox. Can I ask (seriously, non-snarky, etc.) what you, or anyone else that feels similarly, has seen of or heard about Swihart to warrant that? You reference his drastic improvements on defense, but how much evidence is there that that's the case? Even looking purely at offense, I don't see a ton of reasons for optimism. It's tough to use numbers to evaluate him, but just watching him I see a low-obp guy with warning-track power and some contact ability. If you do look at the stats, it's a small sample but certainly no more encouraging unless you pay pretty selective attention to certain numbers from 3-4+ years ago. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, so what am I missing? You're missing him playing. No one can judge him because there is very little to judge. What's even worse is that he's a switch hitter and has gotten 162 total plate appearances vs LHP in the last 4 years. We've been over this a bunch so I'm not going to restate every argument in depth, but basically come on, man. This whole notion that Blake Swihart is some kind of unknowable mystery would not exist if he was in any other organization.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 17, 2019 11:54:50 GMT -5
I hate to go down this road again but the Fangraphs value numbers are not in any way suggested player salaries. What it's telling you is that you would expect to pay $80m on average free agents to return value equal to what Mookie produced last year. The reason the number is insane is because it reflects an insane system. I know my point was you need to come up with a true statistical model and how do you go about doing that? I wasn’t suggesting that’d be the one used. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Actually determining player value is largely a solved problem. The problems with implementing a new compensation model are almost entirely political.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 16, 2019 15:03:51 GMT -5
Click on where it says dollars on the top, it explains what it is. "Dollars-WAR converted to a dollar scale based on what a player would make in free agency" I think that's just badly worded. It doesn't jibe at all with how the stat is calculated.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 16, 2019 14:40:08 GMT -5
I hate to go down this road again but the Fangraphs value numbers are not in any way suggested player salaries. What it's telling you is that you would expect to pay $80m on average free agents to return value equal to what Mookie produced last year. The reason the number is insane is because it reflects an insane system. Fangraphs literally says it a convert scale as to what a player would make in free agency, not what his war would cost. It's a crap number that means nothing, less than nothing because a free agent fwar isn't even 8 million. It was closer to 10 to 11 million last report I read. So either they haven't updated it in years or it's based off something else. Where?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 16, 2019 13:13:26 GMT -5
You miss my point. Data has shown the owners how f****d up their business model was. They've responded accordingly. The players need to respond accordingly or there will be more than a few who will not ever get fair market value for their services. Data mining has done this to so many businesses it's almost impossible to keep track of, and we're just getting started. And no offense to you, but that kind of talk dates to the introduction of networked computing power. So you can toss the first million or so of those things you've heard out the window. The solution is in what I wrote. Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly. As is always the case, this is not about technology. That's been in place since Bill James, Pete Palmer, Nate Silver and their predecessors and descendants took us down this road and digital technology put it into overdrive. The owners are cutting back on their contracts to players past their prime because they're using those very evaluations. They've even said so. It's time for a countermove that is data-driven. I didn’t miss your point; I fully get it but I have still yet to hear a solution. “Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly” isn’t really a solution. How do you practically do that? Do players give up long term fixed contracts and trade them in for year to year variable rate contracts that are based on what they did that year? What happens with an injury? How’s a team supposed to budget? How do you come up with a players value thru a statistical model? Fangraphs says Mookie was worth 83m last year that’s obviously insane. Whatever the solution is it can’t have huge cost uncertainty for the teams from year to year. That would kill teams especially the smaller market ones. I hate to go down this road again but the Fangraphs value numbers are not in any way suggested player salaries. What it's telling you is that you would expect to pay $80m on average free agents to return value equal to what Mookie produced last year. The reason the number is insane is because it reflects an insane system.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 15, 2019 11:51:27 GMT -5
The Pirates are at least sort of a small market team though. The White Sox TV revenue estimates are at least twice what the White Sox are. Plus... Reinsdorf has a 40% stake in NBCSN Chicago. Doesn't let the Pirates off the hook entirely, but man... the White Sox are a top-half revenue team. I know they're still pretty awful on paper, but no major signings during THIS offseason, in THAT division, is pretty egregious. I mean what are they waiting for? What better time to buy could there be?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 15, 2019 10:47:17 GMT -5
The changes are fine, but the impact will be negligible until the MLB decides to implement meaningful rule changes. I don’t understand the logic behind waiting until 2022 to implement the pitcher shot clock. They’re not going to improve the pace of play (which is the real issue, not the length of games) until they finally do that. I half-agree. Pitchers working too slowly is part of the issue, especially the ones who are like molasses even in early innings with nobody on base. But I honestly think the mid-inning pitching changes have a bigger negative effect on game flow. Think of it this way: suppose a lefty reliever comes in to get Kole Calhoun out. He doesn't, and now Mike Trout is up with a dude on base. A reliever holding the ball a little bit longer contemplating whether it's a better idea to throw a pitch or commit ritual seppuku still has tension. Switching pitchers so FS1 can spend a couple minutes trying to sell me a Volvo and a reverse mortgage does not. Getting rid of one-out relievers is a straight up win for the game in and of itself. If it helps with pace of play or the overall duration of games, cool, but that's just the cherry on top.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 14, 2019 18:02:13 GMT -5
Perhaps Cora is considering using Darwinzon as a future 'opener'? Maybe to give an extra day off for Sale, when needed. I've said this here and elsewhere: the opener is used by teams that do not have 5 legitimate MLB starting pitchers. The Red Sox are not the kind of team that the opener strategy applies to. I would say that Darwinzon is not the kind of pitcher you use as an opener before I'd say the strategy doesn't apply to the Red Sox. I get what you're saying, but Brian Johnson made a bunch of starts for this team last year. Brian Johnson is not too good to get opened for. (No, they're probably not going to use one anyway, and they're certainly not going to use Darwinzon in the role, AND I'm on record as saying the strategy should be banned outright... but they for sure will have nights this season where they could justifiably use one.)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 14, 2019 17:54:45 GMT -5
If I am getting this right, DL stints will be 15 days for pitchers in 2020, but remain 10 days for position players? Weird. The ten day DL was largely used to treat Dodgeritis, and hitters don't seem to catch that.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 14, 2019 14:01:24 GMT -5
As long as we're going full nanny-state on pitching staffs, they should mandate the use of an actual starter. Baseball just makes more sense with a starter, and while there's a certain novelty to the opener, it's ultimately just kind of silly trick that, if anything, makes the game less watchable. Like if you take all the bullpenning stuff to it's logical conclusion, probably the optimal strategy is to just have it be pure chaos, where everyone is using decoy starters and no middle of the order hitter faces any opposing pitcher twice, etc. That doesn't seem like a superior game from a spectator perspective, or even a player perspective really. Agreed. And the cynical side of me can't help but note the other big reason MLB is probably going to make a change here: Maybe an outfit like the Arizona Diamondbacks don't have enough pull with Manfred if they have a gripe with the Brewers faking them out in a high-profile game. But you know who does? Vegas. If MLB is going to be all gambling friendly, then the bookies are going to want to know who the starting pitchers are. I think what convinced me was learning that the opener is frequently banned in Stratomatic (or similar) leagues. If it's too annoying for everyone to be doing it in your imaginary games, it's for sure too annoying for real baseball.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 14, 2019 13:49:57 GMT -5
With the exception of the stupid All-star game extra inning second base rule, I like the changes although, going from 2:05 to 2:00 only saves half a minute a game. Bring it to 1:30 already. I do like the three batters rule for pitchers and pretty happy that it's going to cause problems for the National League when the pitcher is due up the next inning. Bring on the DH universally already. So the three batter rule is only within an inning--you can switch out a pitcher who has faced less than three batters if the inning ends. As long as we're going full nanny-state on pitching staffs, they should mandate the use of an actual starter. Baseball just makes more sense with a starter, and while there's a certain novelty to the opener, it's ultimately just kind of silly trick that, if anything, makes the game less watchable. Like if you take all the bullpenning stuff to it's logical conclusion, probably the optimal strategy is to just have it be pure chaos, where everyone is using decoy starters and no middle of the order hitter faces any opposing pitcher twice, etc. That doesn't seem like a superior game from a spectator perspective, or even a player perspective really.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 13, 2019 9:10:50 GMT -5
My above comments notwithstanding... the fact that Darwinzon pitched only a single inning, and that coming in the 6th, worries me that they're thinking about keeping him up in the bullpen. It's entirely possible that they just wanted to see what it looked like in a single-inning relief outing, which I get, but still, I feel like Cora wouldn't be afraid to do that. If they do it, I will be the first one out there saying it'd be an incredibly short-sighted move. Porcello is, in all likelihood, walking next year. Darwinzon is their best candidate to replace him internally. That's far more important than getting him up this year to pitch the 7th or 8th. Not saying there's not going to be a point in the season in which that calculus changes, but for now, I think it slants heavily towards his getting more reps in the rotation. I full agree with you unless they're planning to use him as something besides a standard one-inning reliever. If they do want to do some modernized version of the old Earl Weaver pitcher development strategy of using young starters in a long relief role, I'm at least open to that as an experiment worth trying. They've given no direct indication that they're thinking about doing anything like this, but between the thin bullpen and a couple starters they probably want to baby a little bit, there's at least some compelling reasons they might want to try it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 12, 2019 10:25:27 GMT -5
Notable: Darwinson and Dalbec remain in big league camp. Dalbec outlasting Chavis is super surprising to me.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 9, 2019 15:51:51 GMT -5
I mean, this time Tom Grieve wasn't there to actually write it down, which would make proving it at least a little bit harder. Never attribute to a conspiracy what can be explained by people independently acting in their own best interest. Anyway, not looking too good for 'ol Steven Wright (remember him?), but I guess if anyone is well positioned to come back from this it's a knuckleballer.
|
|
|