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 jimed14 on Aug 4, 2014 15:35:22 GMT -5
Defense also has an added value of being undervalued by the arbitrators, so that you pay less for it in years 3-6. That said, I'm not convinced that the runs saved are quite as high as the numbers represent them to be, and that's for all players across all metrics. I think JBJ needs to hit above at least .220 to be valuable here. He can't just be a black hole. It's a lot easier to judge guys that we've watched every single game for. I remember him saving a whole lot of runs this year. He's made pretty much every play he should have made and a whole lot of plays he had no business making - a lot of plays that Ellsbury never would have made. And then there are the assists.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 4, 2014 19:05:07 GMT -5
OPS+ is distorted offense only. Seriously, if I calculated all the correct weights for wRC+, then randomly changed the weights by something between -20% and +20% to create a new stat, would anyone use that stat to demonstrate anything? Of course not. So why on earth do you guys have to keep talking about OPS+ as if it is at all useful? It drives me nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 4, 2014 19:39:23 GMT -5
Yah. I meant the WAR part. I did ignore park factors because, as the post said, FWIW here are two stat lines of players who look similar by this measure. We know what you meant, and can read what you said, but you're being misleading. The rebuttals were to your open-ended ellipsis about Cespedes' worth. And the indignation is to your non-specific rebuke of those rebuttals. I think you're an intelligent, valuable and humorous poster Guidas, but you're clearly being argumentative and evasive here. I'll give you that. I was still wicked crabby they didn't win last night. Or the night before. Also, I'm not sold that Cespedes for Lester and Gomes is a great or even good deal, either. But I'll hold my powder on him until the winter. I still think he's trade bait.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 5, 2014 5:59:48 GMT -5
If Cespedes doesn't prove he can play a solid RF I don't think a trade would be off the table either. I'm glad the front office has a few months to figure everything out.
Can anyone who understands the advanced stats more tell me why he had such a good year in 2012 and has taken a step back? Could it just he a few nagging injuries? Is he swing more?
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Aug 5, 2014 6:56:43 GMT -5
If Cespedes doesn't prove he can play a solid RF I don't think a trade would be off the table either. I'm glad the front office has a few months to figure everything out. Can anyone who understands the advanced stats more tell me why he had such a good year in 2012 and has taken a step back? Could it just he a few nagging injuries? Is he swing more? I think he changed the way he approached MLB pitching since 2012. Park factors I think is a huge with him. He adjusted his approach to try and hit it out of the Grand Canyon in Oakland. His raw tools are impressive and the notion of him not being able to play RF in Fenway is laughable. He played right and center in Oakland, he can handle Fenway.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 5, 2014 7:26:22 GMT -5
Cespedes has never played right field in the major leagues (though he had back in Cuba).
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 5, 2014 8:16:58 GMT -5
Every run saved is equal to every run created. I don't disagree with you, but you do actually need to score runs to win games. The Red Sox are currently 25th in the majors at scoring runs (side note: holy s*** are the Padres bad! 2.4 standard deviations below average!) Pitching-wise Boston is tied for 18th in SIERA, and according to Fangraphs Def rating they're 4th. I don't think that their record would be playoff worthy if the pitching had been in the top 10; meaning that you still need to score runs no matter how good your pitching and defense are.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 5, 2014 8:55:16 GMT -5
Bradley can carry a roster spot with just his glove, because he is cheap. It is not a FA signing where we are going to pay him a couple million, he is pre-arbitration eligible. Spread that money else where and hope his long track record of solid OBP in the minors catches up to him. A combo of Lester and Bradley would probably be cheaper than Peavy and Rasmus. Which combo would you rather have?
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 5, 2014 9:34:00 GMT -5
Every run saved is equal to every run created. I don't disagree with you, but you do actually need to score runs to win games. The Red Sox are currently 25th in the majors at scoring runs (side note: holy s*** are the Padres bad! 2.4 standard deviations below average!) Pitching-wise Boston is tied for 18th in SIERA, and according to Fangraphs Def rating they're 4th. I don't think that their record would be playoff worthy if the pitching had been in the top 10; meaning that you still need to score runs no matter how good your pitching and defense are. With a young pitching staff we've got to be good defensively. Pedey, JBJ and Vazquez up the middle should be very good. Allows you to carry Xander at short even if he's a tick below average. As long as he produces at the plate. We're also going to need a little different bullpen. We can't have 7 one inning relievers. I'm hoping we keep Koji and re-sign Andrew Miller. Great back of the bullpen. Want a couple of long men. My guys would be Workman and Kelly. Especially, since they can spot-start too. Add a couple of lefties. We already have one in Layne I hope. He gets the starter out of trouble. Hands it to the long man if they aren't pitching well. Pick up another lefty on the cheap.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 5, 2014 9:38:12 GMT -5
Random note: I really like Gerardo Parra and wish the Red Sox had managed to pick him up. He's having a terrible year, but he's been an elite defensive outfielder who is in his prime (will be 28 next year) and is a lefty who has hit righties well enough (career .286/.335/.424). He would have made a pretty potent RF platoon with Victorino next year and can backup CF in a pinch. But with the outfield as crowded as it is, he's no longer a viable option.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 5, 2014 12:43:18 GMT -5
Bradley can carry a roster spot with just his glove, because he is cheap. It is not a FA signing where we are going to pay him a couple million, he is pre-arbitration eligible. Spread that money else where and hope his long track record of solid OBP in the minors catches up to him. A combo of Lester and Bradley would probably be cheaper than Peavy and Rasmus. Which combo would you rather have? The "cost" of Bradley is really his playing time and roster spot. I don't disagree that his cheapness helps, but if you're taking at-bats (and defensive innings, to be fair) away from someone better, then that's a legitimate cost as well. It's a tough nut to crack, and I hope that the Sox have a better handle on defensive metrics than do the public stats, but it's just tough for me to believe that it's a zero sum game the way we're conceiving it, especially in the reduced run-scoring environment that is 2014/today's Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 5, 2014 13:20:36 GMT -5
The "cost" of Bradley is really his playing time and roster spot. I don't disagree that his cheapness helps, but if you're taking at-bats (and defensive innings, to be fair) away from someone better, then that's a legitimate cost as well. It's a tough nut to crack, and I hope that the Sox have a better handle on defensive metrics than do the public stats, but it's just tough for me to believe that it's a zero sum game the way we're conceiving it, especially in the reduced run-scoring environment that is 2014/today's Sox. I think the point is you have to worry about building a team, not on specific players. Too many people make too much about specifics and don't think about the aggregate. There is one and only one formula to winning games. Score more runs than the other team. It doesn't matter what one position players slash line is compared to league average, or if this pitcher broke the imaginary threshold into "ace" definition, or how old and how many homeruns your corner outfielder hits. Bradley could very well be a below average player next year, but I believe he is a lock to outperform his contract while the team has other holes, so I would allocate my resources elsewhere before worrying about his replacement. There also are no clearly better replacements to him, you are taking risks if you go internally with Betts, or externally with someone like Rasmus. In general people are worried about the wrong things when trying to build a team. Let me prove my point here. Take an above average AAA team to start the 2015 season at the MLB level. Assume they sign Lester, Scherzer, and trade for Ellsbury, Stanton, and Tulo. That team would hit a majority of the cliches about winning baseball teams. It would have 2 "ace" pitchers that would form one of the best "one-two punches" in the league, it would have a SS who is great with the glove and capable of hitting 30 HR's, it would have a young, right handed hitting corner outfielder who would put holes in the monster, it would have a lead off hitter who is capable of stealing 50 bags and has plus speed in CF, it would have one of the better top of the orders in baseball, it would have an slightly above average payroll, and most importantly it would lose more games than any other team in the league. You have to build a complete team and not worry about specifics. You can win games with a bad outfield if you make up for it elsewhere, or without a "ace", or without the most coveted power hitting outfielder in the league. Now I wasn't exclusively taking about Bradley but I would like to go back to that point. To me he will outperform his 500K contract even if he hits 200/250/300. Betts wouldn't with that slash line, and what free agents do you feel comfortable paying to replace him? I can't find any. That money is much better spent on the pitching needs we have. After that is addressed I think we turn our attention to CF. Especially because we have 4 candidates to play that spot, with Victorino, Bradley, Betts, and Holt.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Aug 5, 2014 14:08:25 GMT -5
My 2015 April Lineup Prediction: C Vazquez 1B Napoli 2B Pedroia SS Bogaerts 3B Holt/Middlebrooks LF Craig CF Bradley/Betts RF Cespedes DH Ortiz
Vs RHP: Holt-Pedroia-Ortiz-Cespedes-Napoli-Craig-Bogaerts-Vazquez-Bradley Vs LHP: Betts-Pedroia-Ortiz-Cespedes-Napoli-Craig-Bogaerts-Middlebrooks-Vazquez
Basically platoon Holt/Middlebrooks at 3B, Betts/Bradley at CF, and Betts/Holt platoon at leadoff. This would just be to start the year, if Middlebrooks can't hit lefties, or Bradley can't hit righties, then they lose more and more time to Holt/Betts/Nava/Cecchini etc
This gives you a 4 man bench of: Backup Catcher (Ross or someone new) Nava Betts or Bradley Holt or Middlebrooks
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Aug 5, 2014 14:23:10 GMT -5
Fangraphs rates JBJ as the best defensive CFer this year. In terms of overall value he is 20th among CFers with at least 250 PAs, and 48th among all OFers. That is not good enough for a contending team. The economics of the game are not linear. It's a lot easier to upgrade from a 2 WAR player to a 3 or 4 WAR player than from 3 to 5 or 4 to a 6. Each win above 4 comes at a premium, so holding onto a player with a WAR around 2, even a cheap one, increases the cost of making upgrades elsewhere.
The easiest way for the Red Sox to improve the offense next year would be giving Betts a shot in CF, or signing a legit bat for 3B/SS. There are only so many options, beyond pie in the sky trade scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Aug 5, 2014 14:45:26 GMT -5
Fangraphs rates JBJ as the best defensive CFer this year. In terms of overall value he is 20th among CFers with at least 250 PAs, and 48th among all OFers. That is not good enough for a contending team. Bradley is 48th in OF fWAR, out of 91 players with at least 250 plate appearances. Which makes him roughly average. Is your contention that a contending team cannot afford to have even one average player? How do you explain the Tigers, who have four OF with >250 plate appearances and three (including Austin Jackson) with lower fWAR than Bradley? 22 teams have at least one OF with worse WAR than JBJ, never mind the other positions. 2 WAR players don't kill a team, quite the opposite: they are very valuable pieces, especially at minimal salary. I think a lot of resources are often wasted chasing marginal upgrades if they come at the expense of sustainable budget and talent management.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 5, 2014 15:20:01 GMT -5
Bradley could very well be a below average player next year, but I believe he is a lock to outperform his contract while the team has other holes, so I would allocate my resources elsewhere before worrying about his replacement. There also are no clearly better replacements to him, you are taking risks if you go internally with Betts, or externally with someone like Rasmus. I agree with almost all your other points (especially with regards to alleged "necessities" like an ace, middle-of-the-order hitter, etc.), but will nit-pick this one. The fact that a player will outperform his minimum-salaried contract obviously should not mean that he should be a lock to get the starting gig. If Bradley looks to be a true-talent .220/.290/.300 hitter, even with elite defense and solid baserunning, he'll be something like a two-win player. If the team can upgrade on that for a reasonable cost, they should pursue doing so. For instance, if Betts looks something like a .280/.350/.400 player with average CF defense and excellent baserunning (not an unreasonable projection; Steamer projects him to hit .278/.339/.411), that's a clear upgrade and one that would be worth displacing Bradley for. Now, you're right that it's tough to see any external options representing enough of a value proposition to make it worth displacing Bradley (unless they really like Castillo?), and the Red Sox have more important holes to fill (most notably in the rotation). But I do think that Bradley needs to get out of this slump and show that he can be counted on to put up at least the paltry line I noted above, because if he can't, he faces a real risk of being displaced by Betts (or maybe even Holt).
|
|
|
Post by redsox1534 on Aug 5, 2014 15:34:00 GMT -5
My 25 man roster next year
1B. Mike Napoli 2B. Pedroia 3B. Chase Headly SS. Bogaerts RF. Cespedes CF. JBJ LF. Betts DH. Ortiz
SP Lester SP Hamels SP Bucholz SP De La Rosa SP Workman
CL Uehara RP Miller RP Tazawa RP Badenhop RP Pat Neshek RP Justin De Fratus RP Hembree/Mujicia
Sign Headly, Trade for Hamels and De fratus.
Hamels for Webster, Middelbrooks, Craig, Marrero, Ranuado. Might be alot for Hamels and De Fratus, But Hamels is a stud locked up for the next 4 years and they need players and prospects all over the place. We offer a couple good not great prospects, some major league talent. Craig could be flipped into a three team deal were theres more prospects or a prospect going back to philly instead of craig himself. I think Philly would want a combo of young players and good controlable veterans. I no most would hate that trade and like i said it is a lot but its something I could live with if we could get back Hamels, a good young RP and something else of value.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 5, 2014 15:58:07 GMT -5
Fangraphs rates JBJ as the best defensive CFer this year. In terms of overall value he is 20th among CFers with at least 250 PAs, and 48th among all OFers. That is not good enough for a contending team. The economics of the game are not linear. It's a lot easier to upgrade from a 2 WAR player to a 3 or 4 WAR player than from 3 to 5 or 4 to a 6. Each win above 4 comes at a premium, so holding onto a player with a WAR around 2, even a cheap one, increases the cost of making upgrades elsewhere. The easiest way for the Red Sox to improve the offense next year would be giving Betts a shot in CF, or signing a legit bat for 3B/SS. There are only so many options, beyond pie in the sky trade scenarios. If you've got a dirt-cheap guy whose defense is so great that his floor is 2 WAR, and whom you have reason to believe might be significantly better at the plate, it's kind of a no-brainer to give him a chance to blossom on offense. I've seen enough offensive signs of life from Bradley to give him another year in CF, hitting 9th. This is a guy who put up a fairly legitimate (27.7% LD%) 114 wRC+ in his first month after reverting to his natural stance, before apparently acquiring another mechanical flaw that has put him into a deep funk. If he can manage close to a 100 wRC+, he'll be hugely valuable.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Aug 5, 2014 16:01:59 GMT -5
If you think Bradley will improve pretty much at all offensively, he's a spectacular player for his cost. Even if he doesn't improve, he's still a serviceable man as the 8 or 9 man in the starting nine, assuming you don't have more than one or two other legitimate bottom of the order hitters
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Aug 5, 2014 16:28:51 GMT -5
If you think Bradley will improve pretty much at all offensively, he's a spectacular player for his cost. Even if he doesn't improve, he's still a serviceable man as the 8 or 9 man in the starting nine, assuming you don't have more than one or two other legitimate bottom of the order hitters In 350 pa JBJ has a sub .600 ops. He is the furthest thing from serviceable. That is a horrific ops and I have to believe would make him one of the worst offensive starting outfielders in the American League in the past 50 years. Paul Blair had a few sub .600 seasons but had many above .700 ops seasons. Devon White mostly had above .700 ops seasons. They probably were the two best full time defensive centerfielders of the past 50 years. Ozzie Smith hit like Bradley during his San Diego years but improved dramatically after going to st. Louis at age 27 and never again was below .650 with many above .700 seasons. Ozzie was always a defense first guy with no bat. Bradley has no business being in a major league lineup unless he dramatically improves offensively. His defense is excellent although nowhere near White or Blair.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 5, 2014 16:31:25 GMT -5
Bradley could very well be a below average player next year, but I believe he is a lock to outperform his contract while the team has other holes, so I would allocate my resources elsewhere before worrying about his replacement. There also are no clearly better replacements to him, you are taking risks if you go internally with Betts, or externally with someone like Rasmus. I agree with almost all your other points (especially with regards to alleged "necessities" like an ace, middle-of-the-order hitter, etc.), but will nit-pick this one. The fact that a player will outperform his minimum-salaried contract obviously should not mean that he should be a lock to get the starting gig. If Bradley looks to be a true-talent .220/.290/.300 hitter, even with elite defense and solid baserunning, he'll be something like a two-win player. If the team can upgrade on that for a reasonable cost, they should pursue doing so. For instance, if Betts looks something like a .280/.350/.400 player with average CF defense and excellent baserunning (not an unreasonable projection; Steamer projects him to hit .278/.339/.411), that's a clear upgrade and one that would be worth displacing Bradley for. Now, you're right that it's tough to see any external options representing enough of a value proposition to make it worth displacing Bradley (unless they really like Castillo?), and the Red Sox have more important holes to fill (most notably in the rotation). But I do think that Bradley needs to get out of this slump and show that he can be counted on to put up at least the paltry line I noted above, because if he can't, he faces a real risk of being displaced by Betts (or maybe even Holt). Thanks for the response Jmei, and I agree it's not just player a will be worth XX amount which is greater than his contract of YY amount so he plays. Otherwise every team would be like 2013 Astros. I'm more of the point that the more pressing need is resigning our relievers and upgrading our starting rotation before worrying about CF. Victorino might be bumped from RF and get more time at CF, and Holt and Betts could get time there too. No one we have will be elite there, but we are deep with playable internal options. Bogaerts counterpart on the left side of the infield is also a more pressing issue than CF.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Aug 5, 2014 16:35:22 GMT -5
If you think Bradley will improve pretty much at all offensively, he's a spectacular player for his cost. Even if he doesn't improve, he's still a serviceable man as the 8 or 9 man in the starting nine, assuming you don't have more than one or two other legitimate bottom of the order hitters In 350 pa JBJ has a sub .600 ops. He is the furthest thing from serviceable. That is a horrific ops and I have to believe would make him one of the worst offensive starting outfielders in the American League in the past 50 years. Paul Blair had a few sub .600 seasons but had many above .700 ops seasons. Devon White mostly had above .700 ops seasons. They probably were the two best full time defensive centerfielders of the past 50 years. Ozzie Smith hit like Bradley during his San Diego years but improved dramatically after going to st. Louis at age 27 and never again was below .650 with many above .700 seasons. Ozzie was always a defense first guy with no bat. Bradley has no business being in a major league lineup unless he dramatically improves offensively. His defense is excellent although nowhere near White or Blair. Even with his offense at the moment, he's been a 1.5 WAR guy 37 out of 55 qualified outfielders. If he stays like he is, he's a fine 3rd outfielder so long as your other two are significantly better and there isn't more than one other hole in the lineup. So, he is serviceable. But it means that everyone outside of say JBJ and Vazquez likely have to be plus hitters, and if he doesn't improve, he could certainly be squeezed out
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 5, 2014 16:45:50 GMT -5
Every run saved is equal to every run created. This is going to sound stupid to many, but I disagree with this line of thinking. Sure in "real life" it's true, but I think it's over-rated when putting a team together. Especially when people start using WAR and other stats to determine a players value. These numbers are based off of unreliable stats (defensively) and are also given way too much weight as being actual truth and fact. Replace a 6 WAR player with a 2 WAR player doesn't mean your team will only finish 4 games different in the standings in real life yet we act like it does. Getting back to the point. I believe offense is more valuable than defense. A 4 WAR players whose entire value comes from offense will help a team win more games than the opposite in most cases. In my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 5, 2014 16:49:29 GMT -5
Any one else scratching their head with Cespedes? The 3 WS winning teams had one major thing in common. They were an offense that was deep with hitters who ground out ABs and got in base. Cespedes is a low OBP guy who doesn't do this. The Sox beat great pitching in the playoffs by getting pitch counts up and knocking the starter who's dominating out if the game. Yea you're throwing a one hit shutout but you've thrown 100 pitches thru 5 innings...
He seems like the wrong type of bat for this team.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Aug 5, 2014 17:26:55 GMT -5
mredsox89: defense WAR is based on calculation to speculative to use in making your argument. To show you how silly the number is JBJ currently has a 2.1 dWAR, which is similar to what Paul Blair had during his peak. Blair is considered to be the greatest defensive center fielder over the past 50 years. Bradley is no Blair, yet WAR grades them as similar. Bad stat.
|
|
|