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 dcb26 on Sept 17, 2023 11:28:58 GMT -5
So my premise is I think they can be competitive next year with basically the same outfield group, one route to do that is by improving the pitching like you mentioned. The Red Sox are 10th in MLB in fWAR in the outfield. That's not amazing but you can definitely be competitive with that. Also, I actually do think that the defensive improvement can offset losing Turner's bat, though, Duran is a really bad centerfielder and Yoshida is a really bad left fielder, and Rafaela (or Kiermaier) is a really good centerfielder and Duran would be a good left fielder. Plus in 2024 planning you have to consider what's likely to happen next year, and I think it's more likely than not that Yoshida improves at the plate (especially full time DHing) and Turner declines as he ages. Another thing that would help is getting full seasons from either Duran or Duvall who have been the best two outfielders on the team when healthy this year. I agree overall with your premise but I'm nervous about just assuming Duran would be fine in a corner because he was not terrible in center. He's hasn't exactly shown to be the type of player who seamlessly adapts to new positions, and the ball comes off the bat much differently in a corner (especially LF in Fenway) than it does in center. His stats in LF this year are in too few games to mean anything and I don't trust defensive metrics in LF in Fenway in general, but fwiw (probably nothing) the UZR numbers are ugly, and I'm not really seeing any reason to be confident in his LF defense other than "decent CF usually make good LF" which I'm just not sure applies here. LF in Fenway would also negate his best attribute in his speed/range. I'd almost prefer him in RF (more room to use his speed, ball off the bat somewhat similar to 2b) but am not very comfortable with that either.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 17, 2023 11:13:51 GMT -5
I like Verdugo and believe he's plenty capable of having a very solid year next year, but he would be my choice to trade as 1) He should have real value to a team that feels like they can be competitive next year and could use a competent-to-better outfielder for not a lot of money (and that doesn't describe the Red Sox next year nearly as much as it did the past couple of seasons) and 2) I think it might be best for both him and the team to move on, especially if Cora and/or most of the current FO remain in place. Between the depth they have, and the good-but-not-great performance Verdugo is likely to give, I don't see a ton of risk in going in another direction.
In the right deal I'd be willing to trade Duran or Abreu instead, and they would likely have more value to a team that is rebuilding, but I'd prefer to keep all 3 of Duran, Abreu, and Rafaela: the benefit of one or two of them reaching their potential likely outweighs what they would bring back in a trade. I do think it's very important to keep Duvall or have someone else in mind that seems like a safe bet to fill a similar role on the team, and also think it's important to keep Yoshida - while there are obvious questions, he is one of the very few players currently projected to be on the team next year that has shown the ability to be a true threat at the plate for a long stretch of time. Sure there are questions, but also several valid reasons to be optimistic that next year is better/more consistent both at the plate and in the field.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 16, 2023 13:28:45 GMT -5
Chaim Bloom: most polarizing man in history. Even after his departure, mere mention of his name causes people to redefine the definition of "average" so as not to use the same scale as those who feel differently about Bloom's ability to run a baseball team.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 15, 2023 20:54:18 GMT -5
Ohtani is about as bad a fit for the team that the best player in baseball could be. So how can you resist if it falls into your lap? Have to be prepared to be in another payroll stratosphere because with Ohtani unable to pitch you still have to get two top starters, so you still have to sign a big free agent like Yamanoto, too, but I cant imagine you could sign yet another free agent starter so you have to trade from your outfield and prospect pool, like Duran, who I dont like giving up, plus others from the farm, perhaps touching a tier of prospects you'd rather not. And of course you'd have to play Yoshida in LF and Raffy at 3b long term as Rafdy would lose his Avenue to DH eventually. The lineup would have the best LH power in the league with Ohtani, Devers, Casas, and even Yoshida, or even Abreu if Versugo was dealt to save money, and eventually Roman Anthony if they can hang onto him. They would be so thin from the right side of the plate. I know....they could trade for Mike Trout, problem solved lol Luckily a rhh 2nd division/platoon bat who can take advantage of Fenway hasn't proven to be all that difficult to find in the past. Get one or two of those to round things out a bit. Sure ideally you have a Manny and Ortiz in the middle of the lineup but for one of the best 3 bats in the game, you find a way to make it work with another lhh.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 14, 2023 18:18:16 GMT -5
Wow, what a mess. As others said early on in this thread, I get it if there's someone demonstrably better available to further improve the work that has gone on to rebuild the franchise the last few years, but from what we know today, this is ugly. Seems like its either "make a lateral move to bring in someone else to try to do exactly what Bloom was doing, with a chance they are better but a guarantee that it takes them time to get up to speed and remake the org they way they want it" or "reverse course, trade the farm, win now" and I really struggle to see the positive in either of those.
I have been a staunch defender of this ownership group for a long time, but this is one of several decisions over the last few years that really have me questioning things. Once again seeing the smear campaign start up to trash a guy literally the same day he was fired is not helping. I remember people saying after Dombrowski was fired "why would another GM/PBO trust or want to work for this ownership group?" and thinking that was silly. Now I think if I were a candidate for the job I might feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 3, 2023 18:15:03 GMT -5
If they end up getting that mandate to spend, I'd like for them to focus on locking up the homegrown talent rather than go splurge on the FA market. Lock up Bello, Casas, etc. so that their AAVs in 2027-2030 are lower than market value and allow us to sustainably spend in those years too. A high-profile FA contract or two this offseason is fine, but those are risky contracts. Much better returns exist on signing the homegrown talent. This is the middle ground between the nonsense of "its Tampa Bay North" and "No FA contract should ever be too expensive for them" that I would like to see the Sox live in. Utilize the financial resources to take on some degree of risk to lock players up early, potentially get great returns, and more importantly start to lock in the best team they can realistically put on the field. Example, if Casas looks like the 1B of the future (he does to me) then sign him to a long term deal asap - yes, there is some risk, but if you give Casas 15-20 million aav and he never gets better than this year - well then he's probably worth about 15-20 million aav at FA rates. Yes, a ~2 WAR player is a lot less valuable at FA market rate than for free, but those kind of deals aren't going to sink your team unless you miss on a LOT of them. Sign the young guys, accept that they'll miss on a couple and consider it a cost of doing business that can easily be absorbed, start to put the long-term team in place, and add FA as need dictates/cost allows. I think they've reached a point where they can start to do this, and really hope that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 3, 2023 17:54:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I mean, I get how someone can reach that conclusion looking at what Rafaela can do, but "JBJ with better speed, hitting, and defense" is a no-doubter for the HOF if they stay healthy. That just seems wildly unrealistic and unfair for literally any prospect.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 3, 2023 17:38:22 GMT -5
Good thread topic. I personally don't like the idea of looking for a magic bullet solution among stats; they each tell something different, and I'm personally not comfortable enough with any all-in-one solution (WAR being the obvious example) to use them exclusively. To me there is still some "art" left among the science of advanced stats, and that's figuring out which ones to apply and when. FIP vs. xFIP is an example (and yes, some people will completely ignore both, which is fine too) - From the MLB.com advanced stats glossary So, at a high level, xFIP acknowledges that there is such a thing as a groundball or flyball pitcher, but not a pitcher who is any more "homerun prone" than their flyball rate would suggest. On *average* xFIP should be more accurate, or at least that was the case a few years ago, but there are (I believe) absolutely some pitchers who have a skill at limiting homeruns - a version of the whole "ability to limit hard contact" debate. To me, that means that xFIP may be worth looking at, but not in a vacuum. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but you're probably best off doing some research and finding out what mix of stats you think are worth looking at, and then looking at all of those if you're really trying to evaluate a pitcher's performance. For a high level understanding of some of the more advanced stats, I actually think the MLB.com glossary does a pretty good job of explaining them: www.mlb.com/glossary/advanced-stats - they're each a very quick read. As far as stats you didn't mention, I think wOBA and xwOBA allowed are very much worth looking at for pitchers - they aren't always going to be perfect, but try to determine the impact of every plate appearance on scoring runs. wOBA will try to tell you what happened, xwOBA will try to tell you what should have happened. The incorporation of statcast data into the expected outcome is something I find particularly interesting, although also not perfect. One other thing that I think gets lost sometimes in this conversation: with enough of a sample size and/or a long enough trend, almost any stat starts to be meaningful. ERA may not be anywhere near as predictive as some other numbers, but if you have a pitcher who's put up an ERA of 3 in a full season each year for the last 5 years, then all things being equal, its a pretty good bet he'll put up an ERA around 3 next year, too. The "all things being equal" piece is critical though, and again, you likely need some of these more advanced stats to spot if things really are still "equal" or not. Because of this, evaluating prospects through statistics is - as far as I'm concerned - really challenging at best, as so many things change so frequently as players progress through the minors (which is also why this site is so much fun.) In those cases, the smaller component stats, K%, BB%, things like that, may be at least a little bit safer, but still need to be considered with a ton of context.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 1, 2023 15:13:58 GMT -5
Your model of the self-interested businessman for understanding Bloom's/Henry's motivations always rings false to me. If he trades the farm for a starting pitcher or whatever, Henry and co. are going to see what he's doing. And likely as not they're not going to like it because he was brought on to specifically to carry out a different sort of plan. If he makes bad moves in general, then sure, patience will wear out eventually. But suddenly reversing course is not One Weird Trick Bloom can use to save his job and I am quite sure he's smart enough to know that.
Everyone this side of sainthood is motivated by some level of self-interest and self-preservation. This is especially true in business. CEOs are paid to get results and do multiple things at once - in this case, improve the means of production (the farm) and reach a certain level of excellence (the playoffs) - all to service the bottom line and create annual improvements in profitability. If Mr. Bloom doesn't have a contract renewal coming out of spring training, you don't think he will try to save his job and go for it? Do you really think he'll sacrifice his future with the organization for a plan that, without a playoff appearance in 2024, will more than likely mean he's gone but his replacement will reap the benefits? Or do you think this ownership group will stick with him if he doesn't make the playoffs again in 2024 because he built up the farm and success should come sometime in the next five year period? What I think you're missing every time you make a similar argument is that most people who have a (good) job will realize that the most consistently effective way to promote their self-interest is to...be good at their job. I get that you don't think Bloom is good at his job, but do you really think he's going to sit there and have a Costanza 'I will do the opposite' moment where he goes "AHA! I suck at my job - if I just try to do the worst thing at all times, I'm guaranteed to get a sweet raise!" and then trade the farm for some aging overpaid pitcher, or something? Unrelated, as far as FA this offseason, what's funny is that the two biggest targets out there, Ohtani and Yamamoto, both make a good deal of sense for the Sox (Ohtani less so if he's not pitching, but I don't think you have to overthink it too much to see how he'd help them) - and I honestly believe that if the Sox signed both of them, we'd get a media narrative that it happened because the Sox were bargain hunting and only pursued players they could get at a discount.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 27, 2023 9:41:24 GMT -5
The biggest concern the Sox have going forward I think is the state of the bullpen. They seem gassed collectively. This team really needs a few longer starts in a row soon, or I can see a few very frustrating meltdowns in the last weeks of the season… especially in Kenley misses a bunch of time and Martin gets overworked. Mostly agree, although I think it's more a matter of avoiding high-leverage situations (much easier said than done, obviously) as they'll have the extra pitcher soon and really they just need to be able to give their 3 or so highest leverage relievers some downtime. Along those lines, I wonder if they'll consider promoting a reliever they think has a chance to be a surprise late-inning/high-leverage option, rather than whoever the next-best starter is to eat mop-up innings.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 27, 2023 9:31:45 GMT -5
I think people are reading way too much into playing Devers at SS - that decision was 100% about where would Devers be more comfortable/less likely to hurt himself. If they felt SS was the better bet (not unreasonable due to the amount of time spent playing in a similar spot on the field when in a shift) compared to 2B, that's where he was going to play. Obviously can't prove this, but I see it as very doubtful that decision happened because they felt Urias was unplayable at SS and then scrambled to find the best defensive alternative. There was also the option of leaving Urias at 2B, leaving Devers at 3B, and giving up the DH to put Story at SS, which they ended up doing the next inning anyway 😁 It's also worth considering that the Sox probably don't prefer Devers to Urias in a vacuum at SS. But since Urias is an average defender at 3B, he's actually a big upgrade on Devers there. So, all putting Devers at SS says is that the delta between Urias at 3B vs Devers at 3B outweighs the delta between Urias at SS vs Devers at SS. Yup, I deleted my post as soon as I posted it because I completely misremembered how that transpired. Was hoping someone wouldn't see and respond in that amount of time Yeah, I STILL don't think its as simple as "Devers is a better SS than Urias" but it certainly does raise questions
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 26, 2023 21:57:21 GMT -5
What Wong has done for this team is huge. He's gone from "is he good enough to be the short-side of a catching platoon?" to stepping up and being a literal everyday catcher - and how many of those are there anymore? - in half a season. Really hope they can get him some rest in the near future, but he deserves a ton of credit for the work he has done so far.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 26, 2023 19:07:28 GMT -5
I mean, to be a productive hitter who doesn't have significant power and doesn't walk much, you have to get a lot of hits and get your value through a high batting average - and almost by definition those are contact hitters and don't tend to strike out much. For everyone thinking people are trying to find reasons why Rafaela can't/won't be successful, try thinking of it the other way - where will his offensive value come from? At the most basic level it has to be some combination of OBP/SLG, and while high K rate + low walk rate doesn't actually guarantee low AVG and therefore low OBP, its not promising.
This is all assuming Rafaela doesn't learn to make better swing decisions or lower his strikeout rate, and doesn't develop above-average power. I think he has a very good chance to do both - in time. But for the sake of this conversation which assumes neither of those things happen, yeah, that's not a recipe for success.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 26, 2023 18:28:14 GMT -5
I'm skeptical that the Sox would have done all they did in the past week+ to bring Reyes back if he was going to be heading right back out the door
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 18, 2023 12:52:07 GMT -5
Also, can we read this is saying that the veterans last season were... not ideal influences? This started seeming noticeable to me around the middle of last season, and I very much believe it influenced the decision making around some of these players in the off-season as well. Your/others' mileage may well vary.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 14, 2023 20:36:50 GMT -5
Grand slam for Enmanuel Valdez. 980 OPS at Worcester. Someone needs to get Pedroia to suggest to him that he practice fielding ground balls in the offseason
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 13, 2023 13:28:29 GMT -5
I don't like doing this, but... These things are all just laughably, "have you even seen this guy play?" incorrect. The first two are literally just contradicted by numbers. Thanks, had all of the same thoughts, was waiting for someone more knowledgeable to say it. Question (just because I didn't see it directly refuted) is there anything to Mayer's arm being weak, or is that equally...questionable?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 27, 2023 13:47:11 GMT -5
This seems like it's recapitulating the same issue I was trying to get at with manfred: if this looks to you like an 82-86 win team for the indefinite future even before you factor in their ability to add star-level free agents, then that's by definition a better than average forecast. But it's true that it doesn't look too impressive if you compare to how the future looked in 2003 or 2016.
Serious question: where do you put the star-level free agents? You have Casas, Story, Mayer, Devers in the IF. Yoshida, Duran in the OF. I assume you resign Verdugo. And this not to mention a few OFers in the system. So there are certainly positions that could be better, but you’d have to replace an occupant. If the Red Sox' worst problem in the next few years is that they can't find a single spot on the roster that would be improved by a star FA, they won't have any problems at all
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 24, 2023 9:45:41 GMT -5
All of the so-called "professional" sports media personalities who generate wildly exaggerated or outright false negative content in desperate attempts to secure an extra few clicks or seconds of talk time are the "unprofessional" ones, it seems to me. I'll continue to appreciate genuine enthusiasm (and easy access to all of the highlight clips)
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 15, 2023 18:17:36 GMT -5
who cares? Homers are not the end all be all of stats This. A reliable corner outfielder who can get on base 35+ % of the time is a really valuable asset. I see people talking about the lack of punch - you get a hell of a lot more punch from getting guys on base than a few extra solo homeruns - and that value compounds with more players who do it - I'd be thrilled with both of my corner outfielders getting on base 35-40% of the time. And, as others have mentioned, its not like Verdugo (or Yoshida) are singles hitters, they'll get plenty of doubles etc. For example, compare the oWAR (or any more advanced offensive stat of choice) for Devers and Verdugo this year. None of this is to say the Sox shouldn't trade/must re-sign Verdugo - but acting like he's a guy they *need* to move is pretty out there.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 15, 2023 17:52:13 GMT -5
Yes, that's true. But what's the alternative? Having 5 very good healthy starters would be nice, but how many teams manage that? The Yankees have gotten 38 starts from pitchers who aren't among their top 5 starters. The Blue Jays have been healthy but Manoah, Kikuchi, and arguably Bassitt have just sucked.
And the team's swoon coincides with the offense going into hibernation. Weirdly, it also coincides with the starting rotation getting a lot better, so it seems hard to pin their below-.500 record on the bad early season pitching performances.
It's less a criticism of their team-building philosophy (you do the best with the tools you have) and more a criticism of how we (you) evaluate teams with a lot of higher-risk options. Just because you have a lot of guys with upside, some of whom will likely end up hitting a 75th+ percentile projection, doesn't necessarily mean you'll end up with good production overall because you still have to churn through the guys who underperformed as well. I don't pin the entire record on the starting pitching but it seems beyond reproach that the bad starts they've gotten from Kluber and Pivetta have hurt the team. This seems like a reach to me. How many teams either need only 5 starters, or get even average performance out of the extra starters they need?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 30, 2023 11:08:09 GMT -5
The thing about their inconsistency is that, while it's frustrating that they don't play at their highest level in key moments, it does mean they're capable of being that elite championship-level team. They do need to add a defensive-focused assistant coach. So much of defense is just effort and focus and that's where good coaching can really manifest itself. I imagine I'm stating the obvious here, but I'm pretty sure this is why the majority of the people who are so critical of this team feel the way they do - I don't mean to speak for anyone else but I would guess that there isn't a single person here who is a regular critic of the Celtics who thinks they are legitimately bad or lacking in talent. This iteration of the Celtics absolutely is as good as they choose to be, and they just seem to wish they were champions rather than actually taking their game to that level. This isn't to say they should be at their best all the time of course, but I don't think that the constant disappearing acts they pull in the biggest moments can still be considered a coincidence or an aberration. People will bring up that most great players don't start winning championships until they've been in the league for a while, and that's definitely fair. But it doesn't seem like this team is getting better, or learning from their mistakes; they are making the same mistakes - arguably more egregious or more often - as they were several years ago. If this iteration of the Celtics was working its way into being a perennial championship contender, I would at least like to see *different* mistakes, signs of growth. Instead it often feels like they are stuck on a single hurdle with many more still to go. Coaching adjustments might help, but as (I believe, apologies if I'm mistaken) you yourself have pointed out, at some point the same results with different coaching has to reflect on the players. They do need some sort of a change (I'm personally of the mind that Smart is the one to move, despite how disappointed I've been in Brown over the last year+) and I very much believe they need a true veteran leader type - I know that's often a cliche but it really seems like that's something they're lacking, and while I like Horford he just isn't that guy. Frustrating. This was such an exciting team a few years ago but at least for me they have become very unpleasant to watch and follow.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 4, 2023 7:56:23 GMT -5
Said it before in one of the off-season threads, and I don't have anything to back this up so take it fwiw, but I definitely think there was a conscious effort in the off-season to move on from certain players who were, if not toxic, at least a bad fit in the clubhouse culture going forward.
Also, and again I know this is probably too far on the theoretical side for many, but I really think that players like Jansen, Turner, and Kluber give the team a sense of legitimacy they had lost previously. Having respected, winning, veterans not only join the team but clearly buy in and become a "part" of the team and culture does a lot for the group in the clubhouse, and says something to opponents as well. It's different when players like that choose to join a team and buy in, rather than when players are still here and simply playing out a contract. Put another way, I don't think they have the swagger they do right now without those guys
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 3, 2023 13:26:33 GMT -5
Learning to play the monster. Learning a new league and pitcher/hitter tendencies. Learning to adjust to new teammates. Slowed by an injury. I think there is reason for optimism and it's a little soon to slap the DH tag on him.
Also we should probably consider that almost everyone to play in front of the monster in Fenway gets crushed by advanced defensive metrics after building up enough of a sample. Personally I'm skeptical that any of them properly account for the monster etc. but that may just be me
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 28, 2023 21:23:28 GMT -5
This also keeps Song on an MLB salary for the maximum amount of time no? And as we've all been saying it's no lock he's ever really an MLB player so it makes total sense for him to try to keep that as long as he can, even if it's maybe slightly sub-optimal for his development. Yeah exactly, this is what I don't get from peoples' reactions here. If you're Song, and you know you need to re-learn how to pitch competitively, would you rather: A - earn a MLB salary, learn from MLB players and coaches, and be a major league baseball player B - go ride the bus in Low-A for a few $ a day and hope to get back to option A in 3 years or so Doesn't seem like a tough choice
|
|
|