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.
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 16, 2013 11:28:30 GMT -5
I agree with the last two posts which would make Dempster the odd man out. I think we would have to eat the salary or add another piece to get a good return but we would still have 3-4 guys waiting in the wings in AAA. Another thought would be if you don't think Lester is worth the 100+ million he may command next offseason trade him now and get a top prospect not a lottery ticket in the 35-45 pick range come June 2015. Dempster might be the odd man out but I don't think he brings anything in return...just paves the way for others. I could see Doubront going as part of a larger trade. We don't get Stanton unless we package the farm and we don't get Tanaka who goes to the Yankees. They have the money, the posting fee doesn't count and they are desperate as mentioned above. Abreu might be interesting tho. Yanks could also be in on him. If they get those two, sign Cano and Granderson or better yet, Beltran, we could be looking up. Remember....the Yanks don't rebuild, they reload.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 16, 2013 11:39:11 GMT -5
Nice interview on NPR's Fresh Air the other day with Jamie Moyer, who pitched almost 2000 innings after we traded him for a mediocre position player. Not a winter trade like that of Arroyo for Pena, and we did really need Darren Bragg, but should be mentioned alongside Arroyo. Unlike Arroyo, trading Moyer appeared to be selling high on a mediocre-at-best journeyman for a moderately useful outfielder who could play all three positions. At the time of the deal he was a 33-year old with a 94 career ERA+ in over 1100 innings. There really is no other player in history with Moyer's career arc. Like, imagine if Kevin Correia, (who is currently 33, same age as when Moyer had his good three months for the Red Sox), starting next year rips off a 13-year stretch where he wins close to 200 games, has three top-five Cy Young finishes, and is consistently putting up an ERA+ in the 110 to 130 range and makes himself a fringy Hall of Fame candidate. The idea of us discussing Kevin Correia's Hall of Fame merits in 2035 seems completely ridiculous, right? If the Red Sox ended up with Kevin Correia for some reason next season, and he's pitching well in July and the Red Sox are out of contention, you'd want the Red Sox to trade him while his value was high. That's what Jamie Moyer did. He went from Kevin Correia to fringy Hall of Fame candidate. Trading Arroyo was moving an average-to-slightly-above innings eater in his 20's who was signed to a below-market contract for a lottery ticket. The moves weren't similar at all.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 16, 2013 13:44:43 GMT -5
Not sure if this was already covered in this thread, but what do you guys think Doubrount is worth. Brian MacPherson speculated before this year that Doubrount would be in the top 4 for trade value on the Sox, if you did one of those Fangraph trade value analysis. Who would have a higher trade value, Doubrount or Lackey?
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Oct 16, 2013 18:29:31 GMT -5
Buchholz (until he gets hurt) Lester Lackey Peavy Doubront Dempster One of these guys will be hurt(you know at some point it will be Buchholz) and if not somebody like Dempster or Doubront will go back and forth between the rotation and pen. I don't expect any deals. The last time the Sox went into a season with six established starters they dealt Bronson Arroyo to Cincinnati for Wily Mo Pena and wound up scrambling for starting pitching. At some point when there are additional injuries the Sox will bring up Webster, possibly Ranaudo, and or Workman or Britton could get a start as well as could De La Rosa, or even Wright. In other words it won't be much different from this season. 2015 and 2016 is a better speculatory guess. I know this is the starting pitching trhead. Just wanted to point out that our 14 pen is pretty much set too. IMO Don't have to throw prospects/money at middlin pitchers for a change. Can poke around for a major upgrade like Cliff Lee. Butk I don't see that Pen RHP K. Uehara J. Tazawa B. Workman R. DeLa Rosa LHP A. Miller C. Breslow F. Morales D. Britton I'm letting Hanrahan and Bailey walk unless they want to sign a minor league contract. Still have some good arms in Pawtucket. Starters - A. Webster and A. Ranaudo. Pen A. Wilson and C. Martin. You can bet the Red Sox will make upgrading their middle relief a high priority this off-season. I remember one morning on the Baseball Show either Sean McAdam or one of the beat writers said "they would bet heavy that Luke Hochevar was on the Re Sox next season." It seems like they knew something and that has stuck with me as we get closer to the off-season. I also think that Hanrahan could be back on a cheap one year prove it deal, as he could be a lottery ticket. As for the starting rotation, I think Dempster could be a guy they decide to just move in order to free up some money for a 4A prospect, might even have to eat some of the contract. I think it would pay off if the Red Sox keep the 5th spot in the rotation open for one of the young pitchers to win the job. While it could start off rocky, by the end of the season it will pay off. If they are serious about dealing Doubront, I think there would be a huge market and he could be a nice return prospects wise.
|
|
|
Post by ray9360 on Oct 16, 2013 18:54:49 GMT -5
Personally my opinion is that the rotation should be in order Lester buckholz peavy lackey and i do not know who should have the fifth spot in the rotation i think it is down to Webster workman ball and Owen i think it will boil down to who has the best spring training
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 16, 2013 19:13:29 GMT -5
I know this is the starting pitching trhead. Just wanted to point out that our 14 pen is pretty much set too. IMO Don't have to throw prospects/money at middlin pitchers for a change. Can poke around for a major upgrade like Cliff Lee. Butk I don't see that Pen RHP K. Uehara J. Tazawa B. Workman R. DeLa Rosa LHP A. Miller C. Breslow F. Morales D. Britton I'm letting Hanrahan and Bailey walk unless they want to sign a minor league contract. Still have some good arms in Pawtucket. Starters - A. Webster and A. Ranaudo. Pen A. Wilson and C. Martin. You can bet the Red Sox will make upgrading their middle relief a high priority this off-season. I remember one morning on the Baseball Show either Sean McAdam or one of the beat writers said "they would bet heavy that Luke Hochevar was on the Re Sox next season." It seems like they knew something and that has stuck with me as we get closer to the off-season. I also think that Hanrahan could be back on a cheap one year prove it deal, as he could be a lottery ticket. As for the starting rotation, I think Dempster could be a guy they decide to just move in order to free up some money for a 4A prospect, might even have to eat some of the contract. I think it would pay off if the Red Sox keep the 5th spot in the rotation open for one of the young pitchers to win the job. While it could start off rocky, by the end of the season it will pay off. If they are serious about dealing Doubront, I think there would be a huge market and he could be a nice return prospects wise. I actually think a better way to put it is that they'll get at least one "closer-type" reliever. As great as Koji has been this year, and even though you pencil him in as the closer entering next year, something still terrifies me about relying on him to close games all year. Maybe it's kind of unjustified, but hey, Koji was Plan C this year. No reason not to have plan B at least next year. And no, Tazawa isn't ready to be Plan B yet. Also, can't see them entering the year with four lefties in the MLB pen. My guess is that Britton would start the year in Triple-A in deference to another acquisition.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 17, 2013 2:23:22 GMT -5
You want to keep your four best starters, and they project to be, in order, Buchholz, Lester, Doubront, and Lackey.There's no reason that Doubront, after a proper winter, can't step up to be a frontline starter.
That leaves Peavy and Dempster, and I believe the difference in trade value between them is quite a bit larger than the difference in talent (proof: how egregiously we overpaid for the former). So that means you trade Peavy (something that's very much on the table, according to Tom Tippett).
Ooh, you say, you're really leaving us with Dempster as the fifth starter? No, not at all. Because the odds are overwhelmingly good that at least one of the Pawtucket dream rotation of Webster, Workman, Wright, Barnes, and Ranuado (aka "www.br") will establish themselves as better, and grab his job, probably as soon as May. So Demspter is just a placeholder, and you hope he can re-establish some kind of minimal trade value in the first month or two of the season. (Alternately, you could keep him as the long man and spot starter, and trade Morales.)
In this plan, your pen is Uehara, Breslow, Tazawa, a top quality RH addition, and Miller, with Morales as long man. Villareal competes with a variety of reclamation jobs to be the mopup man and placeholder for De La Rosa, Britton (although that would overload you with LHP a bit) or one of the other PawSox starters.
Two more reasons why this is the best solution:
1) It's time to open up a spot in the rotation and give the five PawSox starters the real belief that they are competing head-to-head for a big league job. As long as Peavy is the 5th starter, they're going to feel blocked, and that feeling would persist no matter how Peavy pitches, because he's "former CY winner Jake Peavy," a semi-fictional construct who is a much better pitcher right now than the actual Jake Peavy (and, unfortunately, the guy we paid to get).
2) And if they both ultimately must be traded to make room for the best SP prospect, not only do you have a chance to get more for Dempster in May than now, you'll do better trading Peavy over the winter, when everyone's roster is in flux, then dealing him mid-season.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 17, 2013 7:33:03 GMT -5
Another thought would be if you don't think Lester is worth the 100+ million he may command next offseason trade him now and get a top prospect not a lottery ticket in the 35-45 pick range come June 2015. I think an opportunity exists to trade Lester to Seattle for some of the jewels of their deep minor league system; including one of their young stud pitchers. Seattle has endured 4 straight sub .500 seasons. Their GM is entering the final year of his contract. Lester is from the region and when combined with King Felix and their Japanese pitcher, Seattle would have a solid top three in the rotation. Seattle has some $34 plus million coming off the payroll next season, so they have the room to sign Ellsbury for $21 million plus per season plus add Lester to the Payroll. We have the surplus of starting pitching under our control for 2014 and more power arms at Pawtucket just about ready. Not sure Cherrington would go this route, but in my opinion, the opportunity is sitting their to make a huge deal with a Seattle team in need of new energy.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Oct 17, 2013 11:23:45 GMT -5
You want to keep your four best starters, and they project to be, in order, Buchholz, Lester, Doubront, and Lackey.There's no reason that Doubront, after a proper winter, can't step up to be a frontline starter. Sounds nice in theory, but expecting someone who has spent the last two winters waving the middle finger to the Red Sox strength and conditioning program to suddenly do a complete 180 is wishful thinking. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We have known about his questionable work ethic, but this is the first season we've seen evidence it's affecting performance (ie exhaustion after 25 starts, drop in velo and correlating drop in K rates w/ no signs of improved command). He had a nice 3 month stretch and showed positive signs of improvement v LHH, but at the same time, his K rate trended down every month and, because of poor conditioning, he's basically useless at this point in the playoffs. At this rate, I think there's a stronger probability he'll injure himself/regress versus amount to anything greater than a #4 - which is sad, really.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 17, 2013 11:55:57 GMT -5
You want to keep your four best starters, and they project to be, in order, Buchholz, Lester, Doubront, and Lackey. There's no reason that Doubront, after a proper winter, can't step up to be a frontline starter. There are several reasons why he can't step up to be a frontline starter. The basic one, which doesn't need to be rehashed here, is that it is really, really hard to become a frontline starter. The more in-depth reason is that Doubront doesn't do anything well enough to portend future elite-ness. There were sixteen pitchers who were in their age-25 season in 2013 who threw 100 innings. Doubront ranked 15th in ERA, 10th in SIERA, 10th in GB%, eighth in K%, 13th in BB%, 12th in K/BB, and 9th in fastball velocity. His HR/FB ratio was 7.8%, way below his career total - if he maintains that, he can improve, but if it's a fluke and he falls back to 11% or so, his ERA very well may jump into the 5.00+ range. The only pitch value that was among the top five among that group of 25-year-olds was his changeup. If he turns into a frontline starter, he'll need to improve markedly at something, because as of now he doesn't have a single skill that is going to separate him. All that said, Doubront is a reliable 4/5 starter at low cost and at least some upside. They shouldn't trade him because they probably can't get value for him unless another team really sees something they love him him and is willing to overpay. Trading Doubront would be the closest equivalent to trading Arroyo in '06, though I'm very skeptical that Doubront would have Arroyo's durability.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Oct 17, 2013 11:59:59 GMT -5
Personally my opinion is that the rotation should be in order Lester buckholz peavy lackey and i do not know who should have the fifth spot in the rotation i think it is down to Webster workman ball and Owen i think it will boil down to who has the best spring training Ball? As in Trey Ball? The 2013 HS draftee who has never pitched outside of the GCL? And Owens? He's not even on the 40 man roster. I can see the argument for Webster of Workman, but neither on of them is required to be on the 25 man roster. Both Dempster and Doubront must be on the 25 man roster so...
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 17, 2013 12:19:48 GMT -5
I would dangle Peavy....he may still have some trade value. If a potential return looks greater than or equal to a compensation pick in the following year's draft then I probably pull the trigger.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 17, 2013 13:23:31 GMT -5
Workman looked pretty consistent to me in the rotation and consistently good for that matter. it was only that being moved to the all to relief duty that he had any issues and pretty sure any pitcher, of any experience not matter would have some.
I can't envision the Sox hanging more than a couple of hopeful starts (at best emergency) right now on either Wright or even Webster. Neither last year showed anything as starters at the MLB level when given chances to start. Webster could turn into a decent MLB starter LT and some here think Wright could, but think myself that Workman is the only one of those right now that could be labeled MLB starter ready.
Agree with you all the way on Morales. I wanted him as the SP badly during the Bard fiasco spring of 2012 and it was so apparent. Bard lost velocity that spring, Morales didn't. Morales, even during the season was humming along throwing 95-7 with control around the 75 pitch mark and Bard was throwing 92-4 and no clue. They lost a late inning dominant reliever for -0- reason and all the signs were on the wall within the 1st 2 weeks of ST. One of the STUPIDEST things the team has ever done and 2nd week of march, it was plain as all to see if anyone wanted to.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 17, 2013 16:26:25 GMT -5
You want to keep your four best starters, and they project to be, in order, Buchholz, Lester, Doubront, and Lackey. There's no reason that Doubront, after a proper winter, can't step up to be a frontline starter. There are several reasons why he can't step up to be a frontline starter. The basic one, which doesn't need to be rehashed here, is that it is really, really hard to become a frontline starter. The more in-depth reason is that Doubront doesn't do anything well enough to portend future elite-ness. There were sixteen pitchers who were in their age-25 season in 2013 who threw 100 innings. Doubront ranked 15th in ERA, 10th in SIERA, 10th in GB%, eighth in K%, 13th in BB%, 12th in K/BB, and 9th in fastball velocity. His HR/FB ratio was 7.8%, way below his career total - if he maintains that, he can improve, but if it's a fluke and he falls back to 11% or so, his ERA very well may jump into the 5.00+ range. The only pitch value that was among the top five among that group of 25-year-olds was his changeup. If he turns into a frontline starter, he'll need to improve markedly at something, because as of now he doesn't have a single skill that is going to separate him. This analysis is [multiple strong adjectives redacted for politeness] wrong. It's a classic example of treating players as random number generators. A guy reports out of shape, comes out of the gate grossly subpar, and posts a 6.40 ERA and .326 / .392 /.432 allowed in his first 6 starts. Having worked his way into shape, he starts throwing noticeably harder and puts up a 2.55 ERA and .226 / .303 / .345 allowed over 15 starts, which is to say half a season. Then he runs out of gas, and posts a 6.81 ERA and .284 / .366 / .459 allowed in his last 8 games (7 starts). Put his season numbers into a simulator like Diamond Mind, plays hundreds of seasons, and you're not going to get one that divides up into awful, great, awful, as his did. In fact, his season numbers represent a player who never actually pitched. At no point in the season was he the mediocre guy they seem to represent; he was either much better or much worse. So all the numbers you take to represent his skill level in fact don't do anything of the sort (as, by the way, any scout could tell you). They bear no relationship at all to how good he can be. Because we believe we know what caused his season pattern, there's excellent reason to believe that it is the sustained great stretch that represents his skills. And if you ran the numbers you ran, but confined it to the 15 starts mid-season, you'd reach the precise opposite conclusion. So, the very first question you ask when you do any player analysis: does this guy's career / season numbers reflect his talent, or are portions influenced negatively by health and / or personal issues? You could have, for instance, made just as convincing an argument during the winter of 2002 against David Ortiz ever becoming an elite hitter. But if you looked at his career, all you saw were a) long stretches of elite hitting, and b) shorter stretches of terrible hitting immediately following or preceding a DL stint.* In Doubront's case, you not only have the sustained stretch of front-line caliber pitching, but his career splits by batting order position (best against 3 & 4 hitters), which demonstrate that he can get the best hitters out. *To use another Ortiz example, Baseball Prospectus and Sports Illustrated infamously stated that the Red Sox should release him in mid-August of 2009, when he was hitting .218 / .305 / .399 on the season. Over at SoSH, I was insisting that he was just fine, since those numbers consisted of .188 / .281 / .288 in 221 PA through June 5 (with obviously screwed-up mechanics which many observers mistakenly saw as reduced inherent bat speed), .285 / .364 / .616 in 173 PA through July 31 (looking precisely like Papi), then .114 / .204 / .136 in 11 G / 49 PA immediately following the PED accusation story breaking (which Ortiz said was causing sleepless nights). Removing the latter 11 games was especially controversial. Of course, Ortiz hit .290 / .397 / .619 in 184 PA the rest of the way, and .300 / .392 / .560 in four subsequent seasons. That makes sense and was predictable only if you correctly slice up his apparently awful 2009 season into the proper chunks.
|
|
|
Post by redsox1534 on Oct 17, 2013 16:39:54 GMT -5
I think Peavy gets traded. Dempster stays on the roster till some one proves they are worthy to take his spot. Plus Peavy brings back more in a trade.
We have Lester, Lacky Peavy and Dempster all are FA's next offseason. We no Lester is likely to come back but isnt a gaurantee. Lacky imo would be doubtful and the other two deff wont be. So lets just say we pay Lester and now have Buch and Doubrount. Workman will be very ready and worthy. Webster should be worthy and deff ready. De La Rosa as well. Ranuado could be an should be as well as Barnes and and Owens could be also. thats 6 good to top young/SP prospects ready come 2015. I no this about 2014 but 2015 is even more interesting an factors in to 14.
Id say trade Lester if you were convinced you wernt gonna give him the money. But I doubt this happens because the team wants to see what he can bring next year before they pay him. They will try an lock him up for 5-6 years and 80-85 mill this year and that could happen. Which could make trading Lacky more possible and still moving Peavy or Dempster and then use some saved money on a one or two year deal for a SP like Kuroda etc. So many possibilitys this offseason and its gonna be exciting.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Oct 17, 2013 16:51:54 GMT -5
I think Peavy gets traded. Dempster stays on the roster till some one proves they are worthy to take his spot. Plus Peavy brings back more in a trade. We have Lester, Lacky Peavy and Dempster all are FA's next offseason. We no Lester is likely to come back but isnt a gaurantee. Lacky imo would be doubtful and the other two deff wont be. So lets just say we pay Lester and now have Buch and Doubrount. Workman will be very ready and worthy. Webster should be worthy and deff ready. De La Rosa as well. Ranuado could be an should be as well as Barnes and and Owens could be also. thats 6 good to top young/SP prospects ready come 2015. I no this about 2014 but 2015 is even more interesting an factors in to 14. Id say trade Lester if you were convinced you wernt gonna give him the money. But I doubt this happens because the team wants to see what he can bring next year before they pay him. They will try an lock him up for 5-6 years and 80-85 mill this year and that could happen. Which could make trading Lacky more possible and still moving Peavy or Dempster and then use some saved money on a one or two year deal for a SP like Kuroda etc. So many possibilitys this offseason and its gonna be exciting. If you're a team like the Red Sox, and you're looking to contend every year, you keep your 5 best pitchers and take what you can get for the other guys; you shouldn't be worried about who brings the most back in a trade.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 17, 2013 17:20:19 GMT -5
Because we believe we know what caused his season pattern, there's excellent reason to believe that it is the sustained great stretch that represents his skills. And if you ran the numbers you ran, but confined it to the 15 starts mid-season, you'd reach the precise opposite conclusion. So, the very first question you ask when you do any player analysis: does this guy's career / season numbers reflect his talent, or are portions influenced negatively by health and / or personal issues? The problem with this sort of analysis is that you're slicing up small samples of data into even smaller samples of data based on narratives that are not at all proven and are often drummed up after the fact to explain what might actually just be random performance fluctuations. We do not, in fact, know what caused his seasonal pattern-- you're just making a hypothesis that sounds plausible, but is very difficult to confirm without reams of scouting data and the kind of personal and medical information that only Doubront himself (and maybe the front office) has access to. There are a number of other plausible explanations for this pattern. For instance, his mechanics may have been out of whack to start the season, which he then fixed for that dominant stretch, which he then lost at the end. Or, it could just be BABIP fluctuation-- the only real difference in his batting line in those stretches is BA (aside from a slight uptick in power in the last stretch), and looking at his xFIP splits by month, you see that they're pretty consistent month-to-month until September and the major variables that fluctuate are HR/9 and BABIP, which are stats wont to do so. (Interestingly enough, his K rate declined every month, but so did his walk rate. Draw your own conclusions from that trend.) In this case, there's no clear-cut injury or change in mechanics that makes it easy for us to set a date where we can compare before-and-after statistics. I imagine that the only reason you picked 6/15/7 is based on the data after the fact, rather than any ex ante reason to split it up that way. Yes, seasonal endpoints are pretty arbitrary too, but I'm still extremely uncomfortable looking at only a player's hottest stretch based on a less-than-solid narrative, especially when you're just looking at ERA and batting line against. That's the kind of thinking that lets a team talk themselves into signing Josh Hamilton to a big-money deal. Besides, even if you're right, is there any reason to think that Doubront is all of a sudden going to take his conditioning more seriously going forward? This is the third year those issues have come up and potentially hurt his performance on the field. I'm more inclined to believe that his career-to-date aggregate statistics (4.12 FIP/4.03 xFIP) are more likely to predict to his future performance than this hot stretch you've isolated, for instance, although I do believe that there's a bit of upside left.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 17, 2013 17:41:37 GMT -5
This analysis is [multiple strong adjectives redacted for politeness] wrong. It's a classic example of treating players as random number generators. A guy reports out of shape, comes out of the gate grossly subpar, and posts a 6.40 ERA and .326 / .392 /.432 allowed in his first 6 starts. Having worked his way into shape, he starts throwing noticeably harder and puts up a 2.55 ERA and .226 / .303 / .345 allowed over 15 starts, which is to say half a season. Then he runs out of gas, and posts a 6.81 ERA and .284 / .366 / .459 allowed in his last 8 games (7 starts). Put his season numbers into a simulator like Diamond Mind, plays hundreds of seasons, and you're not going to get one that divides up into awful, great, awful, as his did. In fact, his season numbers represent a player who never actually pitched. At no point in the season was he the mediocre guy they seem to represent; he was either much better or much worse. So all the numbers you take to represent his skill level in fact don't do anything of the sort (as, by the way, any scout could tell you). They bear no relationship at all to how good he can be. Because we believe we know what caused his season pattern, there's excellent reason to believe that it is the sustained great stretch that represents his skills. And if you ran the numbers you ran, but confined it to the 15 starts mid-season, you'd reach the precise opposite conclusion. So, the very first question you ask when you do any player analysis: does this guy's career / season numbers reflect his talent, or are portions influenced negatively by health and / or personal issues? You could have, for instance, made just as convincing an argument during the winter of 2002 against David Ortiz ever becoming an elite hitter. But if you looked at his career, all you saw were a) long stretches of elite hitting, and b) shorter stretches of terrible hitting immediately following or preceding a DL stint.* In Doubront's case, you not only have the sustained stretch of front-line caliber pitching, but his career splits by batting order position (best against 3 & 4 hitters), which demonstrate that he can get the best hitters out. *To use another Ortiz example, Baseball Prospectus and Sports Illustrated infamously stated that the Red Sox should release him in mid-August of 2009, when he was hitting .218 / .305 / .399 on the season. Over at SoSH, I was insisting that he was just fine, since those numbers consisted of .188 / .281 / .288 in 221 PA through June 5 (with obviously screwed-up mechanics which many observers mistakenly saw as reduced inherent bat speed), .285 / .364 / .616 in 173 PA through July 31 (looking precisely like Papi), then .114 / .204 / .136 in 11 G / 49 PA immediately following the PED accusation story breaking (which Ortiz said was causing sleepless nights). Removing the latter 11 games was especially controversial. Of course, Ortiz hit .290 / .397 / .619 in 184 PA the rest of the way, and .300 / .392 / .560 in four subsequent seasons. That makes sense and was predictable only if you correctly slice up his apparently awful 2009 season into the proper chunks. Seriously? You're accusing me of treating players as random number generators? And then you tear open a bag of arbitrary endpoints so deep that you need to break out a David Ortiz comparison for a pitcher, as if David Ortiz is a valuable comparison for anyone not named David Ortiz, ever? Perhaps playing Diamond Mind wouldn't produce such a variant quality in his endpoints, but actual baseball does all of the time. Beyond that, Doubront's peripherals during his good stretch were pretty far from elite - a K/BB ratio just over 2.0 with a walk rate still near 10%. He was helped tremendously by a .271 BABIP, and a HR/FB ratio of 7.3%. In a four year career, you've taken a 15-start stretch where he pitched well and basically used that as the sample size reflecting there's no reason he "can't step up to be a frontline starter" as if 15-game stretches of very good pitching is something that only elite pitchers do. So here are some other 25-year-old pitchers who had stretches as strong or better than Doubront's stretch of good pitching this year: Clayton Belongs In His Own Category Kershaw: 1.66 ERA, .198/.240/.276, 25.6% K, 4.6% BB Mike Leake: 2.05 ERA, .230/.275/.371, 15.1% K, 5.3% BB Jeff Locke: 2.07 ERA, .219/.313/.278, 19.4% K, 11.9% BB Jhoulys Chacin: 2.10 ERA, .231/.281/.341, 16.1% K, 6.3% BB Alex Cobb: 2.61 ERA, .212/.285/.328, 22.4% K, 9.4% BB Mike Minor: 2.65 ERA, .229/.269/.379, 24.4% K, 5.1% BB Mat Latos: 2.87 ERA, .237/.298/.349, 25.2% K, 7.0% BB The stretch that Doubront had was GOOD, but it wasn't necessarily rare. And you can't just write off the times when he pitched poorly due to narrative - that's stuff that happened. And every pitcher has a narrative - All of these guys are 25 and had as much reason to run out of gas as Doubront, but didn't. That counts. As far as opponent quality splits, Doubront's success against #3 hitters screams small-sample of 189 ABs with a .228 BABIP: www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=doubrfe01&year=Career&t=p#lineu::noneIt's possible he has a knack for situational pitching, but it's hard for me to crown him Tom Glavine Jr. considering his lack of a sustained track record and the fact that he turns #8 hitters into Robinson Cano.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 17, 2013 17:43:55 GMT -5
I am not a sabermatrician(sp) nor do I often delve into the baseball arcane. I do like Doubront's apparent stuff and apparent ability to be deceptive with his arsenal. Those are plusses. But he is not a consistent strike thrower and never has been. His control is very borderline at best. Will that improve? Who is to know but what progress have we seen? If not, he might be a perennial 5-6 inning pitcher with a 4.50 ERA. He also has IMO a very long delivery...not something compact, and that may also impact his being able to locate consistently. I don't know what trade value he has but I don't think at this stage and with his history of lack of conditioning, that he will suddenly morph into a stud strike-thrower and top line starter. Can you imagine the patient Sox hitters battling Doubront? Hell, they would have him at 100+ pitches and out after 5 innings every game.
For me, if you want to trade in the offseason, label him as "available".
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 18, 2013 2:04:31 GMT -5
Here are some other 25-year-old pitchers who had stretches as strong or better than Doubront's stretch of good pitching this year: Clayton Belongs In His Own Category Kershaw: 1.66 ERA, .198/.240/.276, 25.6% K, 4.6% BB Mike Leake: 2.05 ERA, .230/.275/.371, 15.1% K, 5.3% BB Jeff Locke: 2.07 ERA, .219/.313/.278, 19.4% K, 11.9% BB Jhoulys Chacin: 2.10 ERA, .231/.281/.341, 16.1% K, 6.3% BB Alex Cobb: 2.61 ERA, .212/.285/.328, 22.4% K, 9.4% BB Mike Minor: 2.65 ERA, .229/.269/.379, 24.4% K, 5.1% BB Mat Latos: 2.87 ERA, .237/.298/.349, 25.2% K, 7.0% BB The stretch that Doubront had was GOOD, but it wasn't necessarily rare. Well, I actually think you've made my point for me. A point which I, admittedly, didn't even really come close to making, let alone clearly articulating. (I do that sometimes, when I don't realize that what I think goes without saying actually does need to be said.) So let me clarify what I think about Doubront, while hoping that people realize I'm not backtracking or changing my opinion .. just actually stating it for the first time! Let's start by looking at ERA- of all these guys, inserting Doubront where he belongs based on the ERA of his good stretch: Leake 89 Locke 97 Chacin 81 Doubront 104Cobb 73 Minor 87 Latos 83 One of these things (well, two, counting Locke) ain't like the others. Stretches like this are, as you say, commonplace for guys who overall are quite good. They are not common for guys who are below average. When I said Doubront could be a frontline starter, I meant a #3 on a contender. I didn't mean ace. The difference between Doubront and the other guys on that list, other than Locke (who collapsed completely starting in late July), is that when they weren't on a roll, with everything clicking right, including quite possibly some BABIP luck, they weren't God-awful; they were just meh. Half a season of brilliance and half a season of so-so is, as you say, quite common. Half a season of brilliance and half a season of stench is not. My essential argument is that Doubront, given how good he has been at his best, can pretty clearly step up and be an 85-90 ERA- guy. I don't think there's such a thing as a guy (whom the league is reasonably familiar with) who can be as good as he was for those 15 games but is doomed to be a 6.60 ERA guy otherwise. You don't have to have the cherry-picked endpoints correct. This is not a statistical argument. All you have to know is that he was brilliant for a stretch, the way that very good pitchers commonly are, and in that stretch, he looked like a very good pitcher; but otherwise, he was awful, in a way very uncommon for very good pitchers. You don't even have to have the narrative right. Let's say the brilliant stretch was good mechanics plus luck (of all sorts, especially the "neurological luck" that allows an athelete to be at his best for various external and internal reasons), while the awful stretch was bad mechanics. Fix the mechanics, and the other half of the season is now good mechanics and bad luck, and hence mediocre rather than awful, and you have an 85-90 ERA-. I do, however, think the conditioning narrative is likeliest. What seems to have happened is that he surprised people by coming to camp out of shape two years ago, so last winter they gave him a program to work on and expected him to do it. And most pro athletes are hugely self-motivated, so they're not watching him to make sure he's actually doing all the work (and you can guarantee that he acted like he understood the program and the need to do it). Anyone who has a health club membership they don't use nearly often enough can understand why someone with good intentions about working out might fail to do so; it's just much rarer, I think, among pro athletes than us peons. So, he doesn't do the work, and they're shocked this spring to discover he's one of the rare pro athletes who needs to be kicked in the butt / watched like a hawk in order to get the work done. And that's their plan this winter, as I understand it. Now, it's possible he's just lazy and will never do the work, but for now I'm optimistic that he can come to camp in better shape, and that being in better shape will translate into much better results. There's no reason why a guy with his talent, as evidenced in that 15-game stretch (and shorter ones in 2012), should be getting below-average results. And so I think he can edge Lackey (whom I expect to fade just a bit, based on his second half) as our #3 starter next year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 18, 2013 5:58:32 GMT -5
When I said Doubront could be a frontline starter, I meant a #3 on a contender. I didn't mean ace. Pretty sure that's all you needed to say to clear things up. That seems perfectly reasonable as a ceiling for him still if he figures out how to be more efficient and gets his act together in the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 18, 2013 7:47:38 GMT -5
Two points.
1. Doubront as a #3 is probably a fair account of his upside.
2. You seem to be using the fact that he was god-awful rather than just mediocre during his bad stretch as a positive, rather than a negative, presumably because it suits the narrative. But taking until mid-May to pitch himself into shape, and then hitting the wall at about 125 innings as a 25-year old is one of the reasons I'm so skeptical. If he can be a #3 next year it's a huge bonus, rather than something likely that should dictate Boston's off season strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 18, 2013 9:37:48 GMT -5
Badler says Tanaka looks like a solid #2 starter - at age 24. I know the Yankees will be in on him, but to get a #2 for 6 yrs at an ave of $10M a year - for a posting fee that doesn't count against the Lux Tax. The Yankees are the Yankees but the Sox can do this if they want. Then they have trade chips in their own rotation that are high value, which can fill more positions off need, and perhaps at even more savings. I know they'll do the math on this. I pushed hard here for Darvish after seeing him a few times live in Japan. The Sox seemed to be gun-shy because of DiceK, which says to me they just didn't do their homework on Yu. Tanaka is being called the second coming of Kuroda with a FB that hits 95-95 (I've not seen him live but has some impressive game reports at Baseball America. I do hope they did their homework this time.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 18, 2013 11:26:53 GMT -5
Badler says Tanaka looks like a solid #2 starter - at age 24. I know the Yankees will be in on him, but to get a #2 for 6 yrs at an ave of $10M a year - for a posting fee that doesn't count against the Lux Tax. The Yankees are the Yankees but the Sox can do this if they want. Then they have trade chips in their own rotation that are high value, which can fill more positions off need, and perhaps at even more savings. I know they'll do the math on this. I pushed hard here for Darvish after seeing him a few times live in Japan. The Sox seemed to be gun-shy because of DiceK, which says to me they just didn't do their homework on Yu. Tanaka is being called the second coming of Kuroda with a FB that hits 95-95 (I've not seen him live but has some impressive game reports at Baseball America. I do hope they did their homework this time. The Red Sox maxed out their budget that year, they weren't spending money period. If they had actual financial flexibility and still abstained I think you'd have a case, but that whole offseason was built around being absurdly cheap and not filling the roster appropriately because the budget was apparently maxed out. The Dice-K saga might've made them more skeptical, but not making an offer at all spoke volumes about their payroll situation pre-Dodgers trade.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 18, 2013 11:55:38 GMT -5
The Red Sox maxed out their budget that year, they weren't spending money period. If they had actual financial flexibility and still abstained I think you'd have a case, but that whole offseason was built around being absurdly cheap and not filling the roster appropriately because the budget was apparently maxed out. . Can we lay this canard to rest, at least with regard to Darvish? The Sox had money to add Andrew Bailey and could have cleared more room had it been a priority. They elected to stand pat, spend their pennies elsewhere, and cross their fingers rather than shell out a huge posting fee and take a risk. They also elected to hire Bobby Valentine, so let's not pretend rational thought was the order of the day that offseason.
|
|
|