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.
2014-15 offseason discussion
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 3, 2015 12:55:52 GMT -5
I think people are saying that the Red Sox can compete with this rotation. It's not that it's good or great. They can compete and be in the playoffs race which would be a nice change from last year and hopefully it continues for years to come.
They don't need to give Scherzer 175m over 7/8 years. They don't need to trade Mookie Betts for Cole Hamels.
Now if prices of those players drop to something more palatable then sure but right now they can stay away from it.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jan 3, 2015 13:28:09 GMT -5
Alternative or no alternative, he's a keeper because of the high reward, low risk situation. People keep saying Clay is low risk as if they could just hide him under the carpet whenever he's bad. First you have to give him playing time to find out whether he's currently good or bad. Then if he's bad you have to do something with him. Who knows whether he will always agree to go on the phantom DL.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 3, 2015 16:43:15 GMT -5
Alternative or no alternative, he's a keeper because of the high reward, low risk situation. People keep saying Clay is low risk as if they could just hide him under the carpet whenever he's bad. First you have to give him playing time to find out whether he's currently good or bad. Then if he's bad you have to do something with him. Who knows whether he will always agree to go on the phantom DL. I agree. Buchholz is the ultimate high risk player. There is a significant downside risk when you commit a starting rotation spot to a guy that is so frequently injured and inconsistent. If bad Clay shows up, the team is in a very tough spot.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 3, 2015 17:07:02 GMT -5
I agree - the point I was making is some here who hope for best case with this rotation are pinning hopes on 3 or 4 of the starters putting together a simultaneous string of outlier years and/or pointing to last year's performance to justify/negate why player X has a high probability of doing this. This includes some of the more stats-minds among us. The three buy-low-ish members of the Red Sox rotation don't have to have outlier seasons for this to be a pretty good rotation-- they just have to bounce back to their career norms. Here is how Buchholz, Masterson, and Miley have performed over the past three years. Over that period, each has generally been an above-average starter. If Porcello is a three win starter, those three guys are in the two/three win range, and Kelly and the 6th/7th/8th starters combine for two wins, that's one of the better rotations in the league ( it would have roughly ranked 10th or 11th last year). No, they won't all pitch to their career norms, but that's generally the best bet when you're projecting player performance, and you hope that some guys underperforming their projections is offset somewhat by others overperforming. You could argue that the rotation is somewhat high-risk, with two guys in Buchholz and Masterson who have both been great but are coming off bad years, and a guy in Kelly who has never started a full season and has put up generally mediocre results. But they're balanced out somewhat by the steadiness of Miley and Porcello and buttressed by guys like Owens and Rodriguez and Barnes, who should be ready by mid-season to take over if any of the aforementioned trio sucks it up. To some extent, I'd rather have high-ceiling/low-floor guys like Masterson/Buchholz than the Jason Vargases and Jason Hammelses of the world.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 3, 2015 17:16:00 GMT -5
Alternative or no alternative, he's a keeper because of the high reward, low risk situation. People keep saying Clay is low risk as if they could just hide him under the carpet whenever he's bad. First you have to give him playing time to find out whether he's currently good or bad. Then if he's bad you have to do something with him. Who knows whether he will always agree to go on the phantom DL. It's a fair point (games in April count as much in the standings as games in September), but it's not like they have to keep throwing him out there if he looks terrible. If and when it becomes clear that he can't hack it, they can shift him to the bullpen or just DFA him (a la AJP) and call up the best of the PawSox arms (of course, the hard question is determining when it's time to throw in the towel-- see the Sizemore saga last year). But to some extent, if you have capable depth, you do want the high-risk (high-ceiling/low-floor) guys-- if they succeed, you've just gotten a front-end starter for cheap. If they don't, you dump them and plug in the best of your prospects.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 3, 2015 17:37:53 GMT -5
Cherington is just a value shopper and he's going to keep that cash in his wallet until he finds value. Overall, I think that approach is great. And something the Redsox seem to know more than most teams is that one or 2 star players cannot carry a team into the playoffs unless they are named Barry Bonds. Look at Mike Trout and the Angels. The Redsox are collecting a lot of good players and they are hoping, with some reason I think, that one or 2 starters step up and become an ace by the time the playoffs hit. They want to be good enough to get in the playoffs every year, and they are willing to roll the dice at year end.
They have already spent a bunch of cash. I just don't see them signing Shields or Scherzer in this situation. They appear to be looking to St. Louis as kind of a model. Develop our own great young pitching and hope one or 2 of them emerge in the playoffs. And if that doesn't happen they have a good chance with Masterson, Porcello, Buchholz emerging at year end potentially. If they get a chance to acquire a #1 in a reasonable trade I could see that happening but they aren't signing Scherzer for $175 mil and Shields is not a #1.
I have no problem going with this rotation as it is. I'd prefer better but overall I think Cherington put up a great team without losing a lot of top prospect trade chips.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,662
|
Post by cdj on Jan 3, 2015 19:14:52 GMT -5
I think people are saying that the Red Sox can compete with this rotation. It's not that it's good or great. They can compete and be in the playoffs race which would be a nice change from last year and hopefully it continues for years to come. They don't need to give Scherzer 175m over 7/8 years. They don't need to trade Mookie Betts for Cole Hamels. Now if prices of those players drop to something more palatable then sure but right now they can stay away from it. Very well put, and that's what I believe as well. There will be better opportunities to get an ace down the road, we don't have to jump at the first one.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,485
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 3, 2015 22:35:16 GMT -5
I think people are saying that the Red Sox can compete with this rotation. It's not that it's good or great. They can compete and be in the playoffs race which would be a nice change from last year and hopefully it continues for years to come. They don't need to give Scherzer 175m over 7/8 years. They don't need to trade Mookie Betts for Cole Hamels. Now if prices of those players drop to something more palatable then sure but right now they can stay away from it. Very well put, and that's what I believe as well. There will be better opportunities to get an ace down the road, we don't have to jump at the first one. Exactly. I have a tough time, given the money Cincy already has committed, that they'll be able to re-sign Johnny Cueto, and I doubt Cincy will be in the race come the end of July. Cueto will be available for the stretch drive. The question will be how much are the Sox willing to give up for a rental if they're in the race, and keep in mind, they would be competing with other teams as far as best offer for the Reds. So it might be more expensive than you'd think, even for a rental, because of what the competition might be willing to deal, but I'd have to think that Cueto could be that guy for the Sox at the end of July, and then I'd have to wonder if the Sox after the season would be willing to give Cueto the money they wouldn't give Lester.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 3, 2015 22:54:22 GMT -5
For reference, Clay Buchholz has generated more Value than salary every year including 2014 and 2012. There's no reason to believe he won't continue to do so.
Using FanGraphs VALUE dollars number vs his contract:
2007 $.4m $3.3m 2008 $.4m $3.6m 2009 $.41m $4.8m 2010 $.44m $14.1m 2011 $.55m $4.9m 2012 $3.5m $6.6m 2013 $5.5m $16.0m 2014 $7.7m $12.0m 2015 $12.m ? 2016(team option) $13m ? 2017 (team option) $13.5m ?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 4, 2015 5:30:47 GMT -5
For reference, Clay Buchholz has generated more Value than salary every year including 2014 and 2012. There's no reason to believe he won't continue to do so. Using FanGraphs VALUE dollars number vs his contract: 2007 $.4m $3.3m 2008 $.4m $3.6m 2009 $.41m $4.8m 2010 $.44m $14.1m 2011 $.55m $4.9m 2012 $3.5m $6.6m 2013 $5.5m $16.0m 2014 $7.7m $12.0m 2015 $12.m ? 2016(team option) $13m ? 2017 (team option) $13.5m ? But only twice has he exceeded in value what he would be paid the next three years. Also. As has been discussed Buchholz's fWAR last year was a little wonky. His bWAR was negative.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 4, 2015 5:49:18 GMT -5
It wasn't "wonky." As always, it's a matter of which methodology you prefer. If you think his fWAR was wonky you should think fWAR for all pitchers is wonky.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 4, 2015 6:13:07 GMT -5
I suppose that my general sentiment is that if Buchholz worst case still justifies his mid-range salary then he's not a likely candidate for being the biggest team problem. We have a good team but just like any year there are questions and a wide array of possible outcomes for several players and that's not just the starting staff. It seems like others have wider bands than Clay although I'll be the first to admit that the degree of probability within those bands for Clay has to greater than for most (high standard deviation).
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 4, 2015 6:31:00 GMT -5
It wasn't "wonky." As always, it's a matter of which methodology you prefer. If you think his fWAR was wonky you should think fWAR for all pitchers is wonky. I disagree with this. It has been discussed several times, but fWAR generally does a good job of predicting future value by using indicators such as BABIP that regress to the mean over time. It fails in cases where the pitcher's performance was so poor that it would not be expected to regress to the mean and where there is a tangible skill difference when pitching from the stretch (and therefor LOB% are lower). That doesn't doom the value of the entire stat, but it certainly forces the reader to look at each case and be open minded to the fact that it is far from perfect.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 4, 2015 13:00:52 GMT -5
Cherington is just a value shopper and he's going to keep that cash in his wallet until he finds value. Overall, I think that approach is great. And something the Redsox seem to know more than most teams is that one or 2 star players cannot carry a team into the playoffs unless they are named Barry Bonds. Look at Mike Trout and the Angels. The Redsox are collecting a lot of good players and they are hoping, with some reason I think, that one or 2 starters step up and become an ace by the time the playoffs hit. They want to be good enough to get in the playoffs every year, and they are willing to roll the dice at year end. They have already spent a bunch of cash. I just don't see them signing Shields or Scherzer in this situation. They appear to be looking to St. Louis as kind of a model. Develop our own great young pitching and hope one or 2 of them emerge in the playoffs. And if that doesn't happen they have a good chance with Masterson, Porcello, Buchholz emerging at year end potentially. If they get a chance to acquire a #1 in a reasonable trade I could see that happening but they aren't signing Scherzer for $175 mil and Shields is not a #1. I have no problem going with this rotation as it is. I'd prefer better but overall I think Cherington put up a great team without losing a lot of top prospect trade chips. Remember last year when you wanted Choo at all costs because they needed him with no OF help on the horizon? Just reminiscing,,,
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 4, 2015 13:01:56 GMT -5
It wasn't "wonky." As always, it's a matter of which methodology you prefer. If you think his fWAR was wonky you should think fWAR for all pitchers is wonky. I disagree with this. It has been discussed several times, but fWAR generally does a good job of predicting future value by using indicators such as BABIP that regress to the mean over time. It fails in cases where the pitcher's performance was so poor that it would not be expected to regress to the mean and where there is a tangible skill difference when pitching from the stretch (and therefor LOB% are lower). That doesn't doom the value of the entire stat, but it certainly forces the reader to look at each case and be open minded to the fact that it is far from perfect. I've posted this already, but it bears repeating. After he came off the DL last year, Buchholz threw 120 innings of 3.64 FIP ball but put up a 4.64 ERA due to a poor strand rate. That poor strand rate looks like small sample size bad luck rather than any issue with pitching from the stretch-- Buchholz's career 71.8% strand rate is pretty much identical to the league-average strand rate for starters (72.5% last year), and over his career, he's actually pitched slightly better with men on base. You can't just lump that in with his earlier bad stretch and dismiss his 2014 season altogether. This is the exact kind of situation where FIP more accurately predicts his future production than ERA. By the way, the idea that pitchers can pitch so poorly that you can't expect them to regress to the mean is the opposite of what you should expect. Yes, DIPS theory falls apart if you have non-MLB-caliber pitchers, but Clay Buchholz is assuredly an MLB-caliber pitcher. The popular examples that jimed likes to throw around-- Lackey in 2011, Buchholz last year-- prove his point wrong. Both those guys came back and promptly pitched up to their career norms.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 4, 2015 16:08:16 GMT -5
I haven't come up with a list that shows that is survival bias. Non-MLB pitchers probably leave the league all the time with ERAs much higher than their FIPs. When marginal major leaguers underperform their peripherals, they often aren't getting a second chance, and without those additional reps, regression can't set in. Regardless, Buchholz is clearly a major-league-caliber pitcher, as are most pitchers who pitch in the major leagues, so this whole point is generally a red herring. I don't think this is clear at all - at least not in the context of this conversation. Don't get me wrong, Buchholz has on average been a major-league-caliber pitcher. He projects to be a major-league-caliber pitcher going forward. I'm normally someone who goes for the stats over the eye test, but Buchholz was not the same guy at the start of last year. Whether it was injury or something else, he was not the same guy. His stuff was worse and he was clearly out of sorts when he got into trouble (men on base). He couldn't repeat his deliver and his release point was all over the place. He just looked like a very different guy. At the end of the day this is still a human game and there are bound to be cases of natural human inconsistencies. Clay Buchholz circa April/May 2014 was not the same guy as he had been in the past. For the purposes of this conversation, I called his fWAR wonky because I don't believe for a second he brought 2.2 wins (or $12M) worth of value to the team last year. This isn't just some out-there theory either. The other major measure of WAR (bWAR) had him at -1.6. We probably don't need to rehash the DIPS/WAR debate. fWAR is a better predictive stat. bWAR is a more accurate descriptor of past value. Neither is perfect and instances that don't make sense should be questioned and not taken as gospel. But both are extremely useful and a great tool to use to better understand player performance.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 4, 2015 16:16:05 GMT -5
I moved some pure DIPS discussion to that thread in the Off-Topic Forum.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 4, 2015 16:22:24 GMT -5
When marginal major leaguers underperform their peripherals, they often aren't getting a second chance, and without those additional reps, regression can't set in. Regardless, Buchholz is clearly a major-league-caliber pitcher, as are most pitchers who pitch in the major leagues, so this whole point is generally a red herring. I don't think this is clear at all - at least not in the context of this conversation. Don't get me wrong, Buchholz has on average been a major-league-caliber pitcher. He projects to be a major-league-caliber pitcher going forward. I'm normally someone who goes for the stats over the eye test, but Buchholz was not the same guy at the start of last year. Whether it was injury or something else, he was not the same guy. His stuff was worse and he was clearly out of sorts when he got into trouble (men on base). He couldn't repeat his deliver and his release point was all over the place. He just looked like a very different guy. At the end of the day this is still a human game and there are bound to be cases of natural human inconsistencies. Clay Buchholz circa April/May 2014 was not the same guy as he had been in the past. For the purposes of this conversation, I called his fWAR wonky because I don't believe for a second he brought 2.2 wins (or $12M) worth of value to the team last year. This isn't just some out-there theory either. The other major measure of WAR (bWAR) had him at -1.6. We probably don't need to rehash the DIPS/WAR debate. fWAR is a better predictive stat. bWAR is a more accurate descriptor of past value. Neither is perfect and instances that don't make sense should be questioned and not taken as gospel. But both are extremely useful and a great tool to use to better understand player performance. My objection is that you're clinging to the 50 innings where he was terrible and ignoring the 120 innings where his peripherals were pretty good. Sure, his first 50 innings were terrible, and even fWAR would regard it as sub-replacement-level production. But you're letting that taint his post-DL play, which obfuscates the fact that, as a whole, he had a decent enough season. My contention is that his 2014 fWAR is significantly more predictive than his 2014 bWAR going forward. Do you disagree with that statement?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 4, 2015 16:34:01 GMT -5
I don't think this is clear at all - at least not in the context of this conversation. Don't get me wrong, Buchholz has on average been a major-league-caliber pitcher. He projects to be a major-league-caliber pitcher going forward. I'm normally someone who goes for the stats over the eye test, but Buchholz was not the same guy at the start of last year. Whether it was injury or something else, he was not the same guy. His stuff was worse and he was clearly out of sorts when he got into trouble (men on base). He couldn't repeat his deliver and his release point was all over the place. He just looked like a very different guy. At the end of the day this is still a human game and there are bound to be cases of natural human inconsistencies. Clay Buchholz circa April/May 2014 was not the same guy as he had been in the past. For the purposes of this conversation, I called his fWAR wonky because I don't believe for a second he brought 2.2 wins (or $12M) worth of value to the team last year. This isn't just some out-there theory either. The other major measure of WAR (bWAR) had him at -1.6. We probably don't need to rehash the DIPS/WAR debate. fWAR is a better predictive stat. bWAR is a more accurate descriptor of past value. Neither is perfect and instances that don't make sense should be questioned and not taken as gospel. But both are extremely useful and a great tool to use to better understand player performance. My objection is that you're clinging to the 50 innings where he was terrible and ignoring the 120 innings where his peripherals were pretty good. Sure, his first 50 innings were terrible, and even fWAR would regard it as sub-replacement-level production. But you're letting that taint his post-DL play, which obfuscates the fact that, as a whole, he had a decent enough season. My contention is that his 2014 fWAR is significantly more predictive than his 2014 bWAR going forward. Do you disagree with that statement? I've always said that fWAR is more predictive. That wasn't what this conversation was about. The issue with Buchholz is that well his fWAR is a good predictor of his mean production, he has such a wide range of possible outcomes that the actual likelihood that he is that player is lower than most others. So yeah, it is the best of a bunch of bad options when trying to predict the pitcher Clay will be. The truth is we don't know with a reasonable enough level of confidence how Buchholz will pitch next year and we're all crossing our fingers that good Clay will show up. I think we're more on the same page then you're making it out to be. The entire context of the point I was making was to highlight the uncertainty with Buchholz. We're on the same page in that fWAR (and bWAR) are both very useful stats and should not be discredited because of a few outliers - but the existence of those outliers is very real and I feel Buchholz was one of those last year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 4, 2015 16:50:48 GMT -5
We're mostly on the same page with regards to Buchholz's risk profile/uncertainty, but I still disagree that Buchholz was an fWAR outlier last year. I think his 2014 was the exact sort of season where looking at his fWAR adds value, because I genuinely think he had a pretty decent season both in terms of volume of innings (the third-most-innings-pitched in his career) and in terms of per-innings effectiveness (his second-best full-season K-BB%).
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 4, 2015 17:09:37 GMT -5
We're mostly on the same page with regards to Buchholz's risk profile/uncertainty, but I still disagree that Buchholz was an fWAR outlier last year. I think his 2014 was the exact sort of season where looking at his fWAR adds value, because I genuinely think he had a pretty decent season both in terms of volume of innings (the third-most-innings-pitched in his career) and in terms of per-innings effectiveness (his second-best full-season K-BB%). So you feel Buchholz was worth 2.2 wins to the team last year - or about $12M versus a replacement level player? I just don't see it. Clearly he was better in the last 2/3rds of the season, but he was putrid in the first third. And his 4.75 xFIP in that time understates how bad he was.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jan 4, 2015 17:59:53 GMT -5
By the new, more accurate, FIP park factors to be implemented on Fangraphs, Fenway becomes a neutral ballpark instead of a hitters' ballpark (by FIP only), so you can knock a few ticks off Buchholz's fWAR. But I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say he might have been worth a win or two last year - he had some great moments.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 4, 2015 18:00:09 GMT -5
I think his true-talent performance last year was worth about that much, yeah. Poor sequencing and batted-ball luck meant his actual production was worse than that, but in terms of trying to predict his future performance (which is the context in which this conversation takes place), I certainly place more stock in his fWAR than his bWAR.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 4, 2015 18:22:10 GMT -5
I can buy that he was not as bad as his bWAR, but I think there was a lot more to his early season struggles than just sequencing and much of it is not accounted for in FIP. And even if you feel he is a 2.2 WAR player going forward - which I agree is probably the mean of all the likely outcomes - that isn't a terrific value at $12M. And that is really what this conversation was about - the claim that Buchholz is a high upside player with limited downside.
I don't have a lot of faith in this team to recognize that Buchholz is performing at the lower end of his possible outcomes and to then make the change. That really adds to the cost of a player with his level of uncertainty.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 4, 2015 18:38:52 GMT -5
I think you misinterpreted Ray's claim that Buchholz is "low risk." He didn't mean that Buchholz has a high floor in terms of potential player performance (we all recognize the wild swings in performance we've seen from him over the past half-decade), he meant that his contractual status means that even if he busts, the Red Sox aren't on the hook for a lot of dead money.
In my mind, he's akin to someone like Francisco Liriano or Brandon McCarthy-- there's considerable upside there, but also considerable injury and consistency questions. Considering that Liriano just got 3/$39m (and a QO), having Buchholz for 1/$12.75m guaranteed, plus team options at $13m and $13.5m, is not quite a steal, but still a good bit under-market.
|
|
|