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.
Red Sox acquire Craig Kimbrel for Margot, Guerra +
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 18, 2016 0:35:42 GMT -5
I don't think anyone's arguing that it's a short-term solution. By nature, it isn't. But neither is spending big money. Andrew Bailey, Joel Hanrahan, Mark Melancon (with the caveat that he wasn't given much of a chance), Carson Smith, and Craig Kimbrel all argue against that. Relievers, even excellent ones, are inherently volatile (look at Trevor Rosenthal or Dave Robertson this year). My point is that a team needs a solid system in place of converting starters to relievers, and that such a system prevents costly trades for volatile assets (at grossly inflated prices). Effective evaluation of quality relievers, too, like Koji pre-2013 (he represented a market inefficiency due to age and velocity despite outstanding results) is paramount. The Sox could have signed or traded for a number of relievers who would have been far less expensive in both talent and salary than Kimbrel; they could also have identified buy-low starters and tried converting them to the same end while employing a stop-gap closer like Rodney who was available cheaply on the market. Thinking that trading for an expensive "known quantity," especially a reliever, will guarantee you outstanding performance is likewise silly.I think this a very fair point. The genesis of the trade was the state of the bullpen going into the 2016 season. That context is important because it qualifies the decision making limitations. If the GM feels that the choice of "proven" over "development" is the best course of action, then he should choose that. That is why I have been solidly behind this trade from the beginning. It is unfortunate that he hasn't lived up to his past performance, but that may happen. Some of which your describing can't fit into that timetable, if the GM is looking for immediate upgrade. I'll add that there is a monetary loss when you spend time developing failed projects, so it's not just easy to say that you should keep trying that. Very well said. Best way to build pen long term and in 2016 are two very different things. We needed an immediate upgrade, not a long term project with a very high bust rate.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 18, 2016 0:38:30 GMT -5
Seriously, how many fewer saves would Robbie Ross have this year if they pitched him as an exclusive closer? I'd bet the same, but wouldn't be surprised if it would be more. I think that's really funny and for me seems like hating on Kimbrel. Kimbrels career save % is 91%, which is also his % this year. Ross has a 67% save % for his career. Granted it's a small sample size, but thinking he could equal or do better than 91% is a whole lot of positive thinking. I think it's less about disparaging Kimbrel and more about the effective difference between the two. If Ross, or alternative(s) can manage 80% (not a stretch, I don't think, given Ross's SSS and the success of a guy like Rodney in SD), and the team can win, say, 1/2 of blown save games (4 of 8 for a 40 SVO season, or 2 of 4 if Kimbrel goes 36/40), then the effective difference is 38-36, or two wins. Now, that might be critical, and it certainly looks that way this year. But in taking the former approach, there's the liklihood of additional gains in the depth/quality of the bullpen. And, that's only if Kimbrel is his normally effective self, has no major injuries, etc. I agree that it wasn't a "bad" trade, but those resources in $/talent could have provided additional wins elsewhere, and in the future. But, like you say, it was largely an urgency- and (perceived) predictability-driven decision, and overall I don't think it likely hurt the team much in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 18, 2016 0:49:14 GMT -5
In all fairness, the bullpen was so awful last year that I think the *relative* predictability/reliability of Kimbrel was an attractive attribute, and somewhat justifies the move. DD paid big for a presumed anchor. If the Sox had had three or four established, reliable arms but no "real" closer, they could have absorbed more risk at the closer spot. So although I've never "liked" the trade, I get it, and I don't have a huge problem with it. It was just "sub-optimal" to me.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 18, 2016 2:01:23 GMT -5
Seriously, how many fewer saves would Robbie Ross have this year if they pitched him as an exclusive closer? I'd bet the same, but wouldn't be surprised if it would be more. I think that's really funny and for me seems like hating on Kimbrel. Kimbrels career save % is 91%, which is also his % this year. Ross has a 67% save % for his career. Granted it's a small sample size, but thinking he could equal or do better than 91% is a whole lot of positive thinking. Set-up relievers are charged with a blown save if they relinquish a lead, but if they keep the lead, they get a hold rather than a save. You can convert holds to saves by multiplying by .85.* You also have to include wins and losses. Ross in his relief career is 14-6 with 42 holds, 6 saves, and 3 blown saves. That's an 86% success rate (W + S + .85 *H) / (W + S + .85 *H + L + BS). Kimbrel is 21-15 with 246 saves, 25 blown saves, and 3 holds. That's an 87% success rate. *If you do that you get the same correlation between success rate and ERA for closers and set-up guys.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 18, 2016 2:30:59 GMT -5
I think that's really funny and for me seems like hating on Kimbrel. Kimbrels career save % is 91%, which is also his % this year. Ross has a 67% save % for his career. Granted it's a small sample size, but thinking he could equal or do better than 91% is a whole lot of positive thinking. Set-up relievers are charged with a blown save if they relinquish a lead, but if they keep the lead, they get a hold rather than a save. You can convert holds to saves by multiplying by .85.* You also have to include wins and losses. Ross in his relief career is 14-6 with 42 holds, 6 saves, and 3 blown saves. That's an 86% success rate (W + S + .85 *H) / (W + S + .85 *H + L + BS). Kimbrel is 21-15 with 246 saves, 25 blown saves, and 3 holds. That's an 87% success rate. *If you do that you get the same correlation between success rate and ERA for closers and set-up guys. For one thing we are talking about save %, not success rate. It's a known fact that a lot of pitchers that are good set up guys aren't good closers. Second that formula makes little sense if it doesn't include blown holds and just treats a hold as .75 of a save. That is if your trying to prove that Ross and Kimbrel would have the same save %. Ross can blow a hold, have team come back in a later inning and that formula would say the same, heck if he got a win it would go up. Now Kimbrel would get a blown save and thus it would lower his success rate. Even if Kimbrel got a win, it would stay the same as the blown save would cancel out the win.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Aug 18, 2016 8:13:16 GMT -5
In all fairness, the bullpen was so awful last year that I think the *relative* predictability/reliability of Kimbrel was an attractive attribute, and somewhat justifies the move. DD paid big for a presumed anchor. If the Sox had had three or four established, reliable arms but no "real" closer, they could have absorbed more risk at the closer spot. So although I've never "liked" the trade, I get it, and I don't have a huge problem with it. It was just "sub-optimal" to me. On the contrary, if the bullpen was awful overall you don't want one over the top reliever, you want several reliable arms instead. And I do still have a problem with this trade. No matter the context it was a bad trade.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Aug 18, 2016 8:29:53 GMT -5
They did that by dealing for Carson Smith.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 19, 2016 0:45:51 GMT -5
Set-up relievers are charged with a blown save if they relinquish a lead, but if they keep the lead, they get a hold rather than a save. You can convert holds to saves by multiplying by .85.* You also have to include wins and losses. Ross in his relief career is 14-6 with 42 holds, 6 saves, and 3 blown saves. That's an 86% success rate (W + S + .85 *H) / (W + S + .85 *H + L + BS). Kimbrel is 21-15 with 246 saves, 25 blown saves, and 3 holds. That's an 87% success rate. *If you do that you get the same correlation between success rate and ERA for closers and set-up guys. For one thing we are talking about save %, not success rate. It's a known fact that a lot of pitchers that are good set up guys aren't good closers. Second that formula makes little sense if it doesn't include blown holds and just treats a hold as .75 of a save. That is if your trying to prove that Ross and Kimbrel would have the same save %. Ross can blow a hold, have team come back in a later inning and that formula would say the same, heck if he got a win it would go up. Now Kimbrel would get a blown save and thus it would lower his success rate. Even if Kimbrel got a win, it would stay the same as the blown save would cancel out the win. There's no such thing as a blown hold because they get charged with a blown save instead. So we're counting everything. Didn't I already say that? (It seems you have no idea what the save rule actually is, which (hate to say it) is frankly unsurprising. It's indifferent to the inning the pitcher enters. If your closer comes in for a 2-inning save and he blows the lead in the 8th and gets lifted, that's obviously a save attempt and a blown save, so if that happens to your setup guy, it's also a blown save. But if he succeeds, he gets a hold. The official scoring system can not be expected to know how long the pitcher was supposed to pitch. And you're "known fact" is laughable bs. There is no special closer mojo. The number of pitchers who have pitched noticeably better as set-up guys than as closers is no greater than the opposite (of whom Uehara is the supreme example staring you right in the face) and not greater than expected by chance. There have been relievers who seem to have had legit trouble pitching in high leverage (Rudy Seanez, Fernando Abad), but they usually struggle in the important 7th / 8th inning role and don't get a chance to close.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 19, 2016 9:35:26 GMT -5
In all fairness, the bullpen was so awful last year that I think the *relative* predictability/reliability of Kimbrel was an attractive attribute, and somewhat justifies the move. DD paid big for a presumed anchor. If the Sox had had three or four established, reliable arms but no "real" closer, they could have absorbed more risk at the closer spot. So although I've never "liked" the trade, I get it, and I don't have a huge problem with it. It was just "sub-optimal" to me. On the contrary, if the bullpen was awful overall you don't want one over the top reliever, you want several reliable arms instead. And I do still have a problem with this trade. No matter the context it was a bad trade. I didn't say that they would only want "one over-the-top" reliever. I said that having multiple holes means that they have risk throughout the bullpen, and so I understand trying to effectively eliminate as much risk as possible in the highest-leverage (most important) position. That reduces acquisition costs for the remaining holes, because it allows for more risk in acquiring players for those spots, i.e., Carson Smith. Smith was only obtainable because he was an injury risk. Otherwise, he would've cost much more. The Sox were willing to gamble because they had some certainty elsewhere. Relief arms are, by nature, unreliable. So I agree with you that teams with multiple holes want to identify and acquire multiple options, which is what the Sox did. But taking on what was perceived as a relatively low-risk Kimbrel made obtaining additional arms to fill those other slots easier, by allowing the team to take on more risk in those other spots. Again, I've never liked the trade, but I understand the rationale behind it. Edit: see the auditions of Hembree and Barnes, made possible by the bullpen's perceived depth...instead of additional trades/FA signings to reduce risk at other spots, the Sox made two moves, and both of those guys got shots, because the pen wasn't overcrowded with multiple mid-level relievers.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 2, 2016 19:48:16 GMT -5
No matter the context it was a bad trade. Excellent summary of this zombie thread
|
|
|
Post by pedey on Sept 3, 2016 9:45:44 GMT -5
This trade was so bad because relief pitchers come and go. It takes a slightly above average relief pitcher or a failed starter to close. That principle comes from Moneyball. Trading 4 prospects for a relief pitcher is always a terrible idea. I don't care if Mariano Rivera is coming out of retirement, relief pitchers often flame out randomly and unexpectedly.
If the DD felt SO OBLIGATED to trade away so much young talent, it would have been much better spent on a starting pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 3, 2016 9:50:31 GMT -5
While the trade gave up too much in "value," the Red Sox want to win now. And that means next year too. Kimbrel is far better than anything we had/have. There are reasons why our 8th inning relief is so suspect, and one definitely is JF. But with Kimbrel, he gives the Sox a certain assured lockdown capability the Sox need in the 9th. Bottomline is- if the Sox wanted to win now and next year, one spot they needed was a defined closer. You heard Zeigler speak of how important he felt was understating his role. That's what the sox needed. They didn't have anyone else this year. I like Robbie Ross - but he ain't no Kimbrel. And the sox tried to get the 8th inning guy in Smith who was terrific in Seattle. There was a plan for a rebuild bullpen.
The guys we had last year just aren't that good.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Sept 3, 2016 15:49:43 GMT -5
While the trade gave up too much in "value," the Red Sox want to win now. And that means next year too. Kimbrel is far better than anything we had/have. There are reasons why our 8th inning relief is so suspect, and one definitely is JF. But with Kimbrel, he gives the Sox a certain assured lockdown capability the Sox need in the 9th. Bottomline is- if the Sox wanted to win now and next year, one spot they needed was a defined closer. You heard Zeigler speak of how important he felt was understating his role. That's what the sox needed. They didn't have anyone else this year. I like Robbie Ross - but he ain't no Kimbrel. And the sox tried to get the 8th inning guy in Smith who was terrific in Seattle. There was a plan for a rebuild bullpen. The guys we had last year just aren't that good. Except that by trading Margot, the Red Sox have arguably reduced their chances of winning next year. With Margot available, the Red Sox would have had the option of trading Bradley for elite pitching. For example, the Nationals would be have to be at least intrigued by the idea of a Bradley for Giolito deal (with a relief arm or A couple B prospects to Boston). There were other ways to improve the bullpen -- Rodney has been comparable for example -- without giving up six years of a player with Margot's tools.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 3, 2016 16:22:04 GMT -5
While the trade gave up too much in "value," the Red Sox want to win now. And that means next year too. Kimbrel is far better than anything we had/have. There are reasons why our 8th inning relief is so suspect, and one definitely is JF. But with Kimbrel, he gives the Sox a certain assured lockdown capability the Sox need in the 9th. Bottomline is- if the Sox wanted to win now and next year, one spot they needed was a defined closer. You heard Zeigler speak of how important he felt was understating his role. That's what the sox needed. They didn't have anyone else this year. I like Robbie Ross - but he ain't no Kimbrel. And the sox tried to get the 8th inning guy in Smith who was terrific in Seattle. There was a plan for a rebuild bullpen. The guys we had last year just aren't that good. Except that by trading Margot, the Red Sox have arguably reduced their chances of winning next year. With Margot available, the Red Sox would have had the option of trading Bradley for elite pitching. For example, the Nationals would be have to be at least intrigued by the idea of a Bradley for Giolito deal (with a relief arm or A couple B prospects to Boston). There were other ways to improve the bullpen -- Rodney has been comparable for example -- without giving up six years of a player with Margot's tools. No they haven't. Because of their addition of Pomeranz, their starting staff is exceptionally strong. Instead they could trade JBJ for example to Braves for an elite 1b in Freeman. Now- we'd have an amazing lineup. We'd have a real bulldog sandwiched between some other real fine hitters.
As far as Rodney - the guy is as up-and-down as they come. If you are planning on winning before a season starts, you can't rely on Rodney to be your closer. For example in 2012 he was amazing. In 2013 all of us Red Sox fans should be thankful that he was pitching in that close game 4 so we didn't have to face Price in a potential game 5. That year he wasn't so good. Looks like he had a good 2014 but a miserable 2015. And if Miami wants to rely on this guy as a closer (if he is?) - good luck with that come playoff time. I'm not a big fan of Kimbrel but I'd be a lot less with Rodney.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Sept 3, 2016 16:37:26 GMT -5
Except that by trading Margot, the Red Sox have arguably reduced their chances of winning next year. With Margot available, the Red Sox would have had the option of trading Bradley for elite pitching. For example, the Nationals would be have to be at least intrigued by the idea of a Bradley for Giolito deal (with a relief arm or A couple B prospects to Boston). There were other ways to improve the bullpen -- Rodney has been comparable for example -- without giving up six years of a player with Margot's tools. No they haven't. Because of their addition of Pomeranz, their starting staff is exceptionally strong. Instead they could trade JBJ for example to Braves for an elite 1b in Freeman. Now- we'd have an amazing lineup. We'd have a real bulldog sandwiched between some other real fine hitters.
As far as Rodney - the guy is as up-and-down as they come. If you are planning on winning before a season starts, you can't rely on Rodney to be your closer. For example in 2012 he was amazing. In 2013 all of us Red Sox fans should be thankful that he was pitching in that close game 4 so we didn't have to face Price in a potential game 5. That year he wasn't so good. Looks like he had a good 2014 but a miserable 2015. And if Miami wants to rely on this guy as a closer (if he is?) - good luck with that come playoff time. I'm not a big fan of Kimbrel but I'd be a lot less with Rodney.
You seem to have missed the point of my post: without another outfielder, you can't trade Bradley -- not for Giolito, not for Freeman. And yes Rodney is a step down from Kimbrel, but Margot is worth a lot more than the difference.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 3, 2016 17:13:02 GMT -5
No they haven't. Because of their addition of Pomeranz, their starting staff is exceptionally strong. Instead they could trade JBJ for example to Braves for an elite 1b in Freeman. Now- we'd have an amazing lineup. We'd have a real bulldog sandwiched between some other real fine hitters.
As far as Rodney - the guy is as up-and-down as they come. If you are planning on winning before a season starts, you can't rely on Rodney to be your closer. For example in 2012 he was amazing. In 2013 all of us Red Sox fans should be thankful that he was pitching in that close game 4 so we didn't have to face Price in a potential game 5. That year he wasn't so good. Looks like he had a good 2014 but a miserable 2015. And if Miami wants to rely on this guy as a closer (if he is?) - good luck with that come playoff time. I'm not a big fan of Kimbrel but I'd be a lot less with Rodney.
You seem to have missed the point of my post: without another outfielder, you can't trade Bradley -- not for Giolito, not for Freeman. And yes Rodney is a step down from Kimbrel, but Margot is worth a lot more than the difference. No - you missed my point. You can trade JBJ now if you wanted BECAUSE we have such string starting pitching.
I don't believe a possible lousy bullpen pitcher like Rodney vs kimbrel makes up with Margot when you compare Margot vs Young/Holt.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 3, 2016 17:29:06 GMT -5
You can't trade JBJ without replacing him. If you're replacing him with Benintendi, you need a better LF, like we've needed all year.
Do we really need to go back and re-argue this trade?
|
|
|
Post by adamoraz on Sept 3, 2016 18:00:30 GMT -5
Why does everyone want to trade Bradley so much? I think having a Benny, Bradley, Betts outfield next year will be amazing.
As far as Kimbrel, I'm pretty happy with him. He's had some rough outings but he's been far more solid than anyone else in that bullpen. We'll have to wait a few years to see how Margot and the others turn out before we really know whether or not this trade was a success.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 3, 2016 18:39:48 GMT -5
Gentlemen, we are now 10 months later after this trade 75 pages later. Margot appears to be a quality outfielder. But he is small does not have a great arm and does not hit for power. He has had an excellent year at AAA BUT the padres have not brought him up yet. Could be a control issue.To get a quality proven closer you can not just give up a bag of balls. He is not a proven major league hitter. I think that Dave thought he has Castillo as a regular. Young as a backup, and holt to help as well. In the way background he had benintendi. Stuff happens. The other 3 players appear for the moment to be throw ins. Koj looks like he is out of gas and so is taz. K C won with a power bullpen. Relief pitchers are and can be fickle. Dave had a chance for a quality proven closer and took it. The guy has even with a knee injury has been pretty darn good, not perfect but still pretty darn good. I think we need to move on.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 3, 2016 20:43:51 GMT -5
You can't trade JBJ without replacing him. If you're replacing him with Benintendi, you need a better LF, like we've needed all year. Do we really need to go back and re-argue this trade? The other poster said "we can't trade him."
I say we can if we wanted and potentially be stronger. I wasn't the one that 1st mentioned trading him. I'm just the one arguing we can if we want and still be very strong.
No reason why Young/Holt can't platoon/play left field.
Now we'd add Freeman- so you'd have a lineup something like-
1- Pedey 2- XB 3- Freeman 4-- Betts 5/6/7 -- any variation of Hanley/Beni/Moncada 8/9 any variation of Leon or platoon of Young/Holt
Isn't this lineup really, really good? So why would anyone say "we can't trade JBJ and do well with the aforementioned lineup?"
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 3, 2016 20:47:15 GMT -5
This is not the right thread to be discussing the desirability of trading Jackie Bradley Jr.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 30, 2016 1:55:06 GMT -5
In 14 games this season, Kimbrel has allowed two runners to reach base in an inning, excluding infield hits (a decision I made before looking at the data). How has he done after the second runner has reached base?
It's 26 PA, .190 / .346 / .524. Hitters are just 4/21, but with a 2B and 2 HR, and 5 BB (and 12 SO).
More importantly, despite the low BA, it's been a very costly set of performances. FanGraphs credits him with 3 shutdowns and 9 meltdowns (two games were neither). Adjusting for two errors made behind him which turned a tie (Hanley botching the throw from Shaw) and a perilous situation (Holt in LF) into walk-off losses, he has a -2.20 Win Probability Added in the 14 games (it's -2.77 without the adjustment).
IOW, if you had replaced Kimbrel with an average reliever every time he put a second runner on base, you would have won two more games.
Has he been any better if he puts the second man on after already getting two outs? Not really: 1/8, HR, 3 BB (.125 / .364 / .500). Has he been any worse once he's walked two batters in an inning? Nope (and in fact it's the same 1/8 line).
Is he getting any better? No. In fact, most of the overall damage has happened in the 5 games starting 7/5, where he's 2/7, HR, 4 BB.
A good question: is his decline due to the increase of such outings, or his inability to pitch well after getting into trouble? Well, there were 17 such games this year without the infield hit exclusion (which takes time to research). With the Braves as a closer he had 20, 10, 15, and 16, and he had 15 with the Padres.
Does it make sense for a reliever as good as he has been to melt down so frequently after putting a couple of runners on? That's another good question. If he had just been average in WPA in these situations, he'd be 3rd in MLB in WPA to Britton and Miller, which suggests that the average reliever is not quite average. Koji has had 10, 12, 17, and 11 with the Sox. I think that Kimbrel with the Braves had an unusual ability to pitch out of jams, which balanced his extra propensity to get into them (a pattern probably common among high-K, high-BB relievers). Now that he's seemingly lost that ability, the extra propensity is contributing to a steeper-than-usual decline.
Those who want to remain optimistic can argue that I've isolated the suckage into a SSS, and so his problems this year (33rd in WPA with my error adjustments but unadjusted for his high leverage, 65th in ERA- among qualifiers, but 17th in SIERA and 19th among qualifiers in FIP-, which of course isn't what we paid for either) are all bad luck. I haven't seen that. His badness seems to be genuinely clustered in a Jekyll / Hyde fashion, resulting in even less value than his deeper metrics would predict.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 30, 2016 7:36:07 GMT -5
In 14 games this season, Kimbrel has allowed two runners to reach base in an inning, excluding infield hits (a decision I made before looking at the data). How has he done after the second runner has reached base? It's 26 PA, .190 / .346 / .524. Hitters are just 4/21, but with a 2B and 2 HR, and 5 BB (and 12 SO). More importantly, despite the low BA, it's been a very costly set of performances. FanGraphs credits him with 3 shutdowns and 9 meltdowns (two games were neither). Adjusting for two errors made behind him which turned a tie (Hanley botching the throw from Shaw) and a perilous situation (Holt in LF) into walk-off losses, he has a -2.20 Win Probability Added in the 14 games (it's -2.77 without the adjustment). IOW, if you had replaced Kimbrel with an average reliever every time he put a second runner on base, you would have won two more games. Has he been any better if he puts the second man on after already getting two outs? Not really: 1/8, HR, 3 BB (.125 / .364 / .500). Has he been any worse once he's walked two batters in an inning? Nope (and in fact it's the same 1/8 line). Is he getting any better? No. In fact, most of the overall damage has happened in the 5 games starting 7/5, where he's 2/7, HR, 4 BB. A good question: is his decline due to the increase of such outings, or his inability to pitch well after getting into trouble? Well, there were 17 such games this year without the infield hit exclusion (which takes time to research). With the Braves as a closer he had 20, 10, 15, and 16, and he had 15 with the Padres. Does it make sense for a reliever as good as he has been to melt down so frequently after putting a couple of runners on? That's another good question. If he had just been average in WPA in these situations, he'd be 3rd in MLB in WPA to Britton and Miller, which suggests that the average reliever is not quite average. Koji has had 10, 12, 17, and 11 with the Sox. I think that Kimbrel with the Braves had an unusual ability to pitch out of jams, which balanced his extra propensity to get into them (a pattern probably common among high-K, high-BB relievers). Now that he's seemingly lost that ability, the extra propensity is contributing to a steeper-than-usual decline. Those who want to remain optimistic can argue that I've isolated the suckage into a SSS, and so his problems this year (33rd in WPA with my error adjustments but unadjusted for his high leverage, 65th in ERA- among qualifiers, but 17th in SIERA and 19th among qualifiers in FIP-, which of course isn't what we paid for either) are all bad luck. I haven't seen that. His badness seems to be genuinely clustered in a Jekyll / Hyde fashion, resulting in even less value than his deeper metrics would predict. Always amazed at the data you come up with. Thank you for taking the time. I am learning terms every day. If I understand your data it says he as a pitcher is trending down. He does not have the same stuff to get away with walking people and grooving fastballs assuming here he throws strikes. We did not get back the value we gave up to get him. Several questions come to mind. Has he been affected by the leg injury? Did we get damaged goods? Is he affected by pitching in fenway and handling the boston media? Is he just having a bad year and has he lost his mojo? Will it come back next year? Does Boston have someone on the coaching staff that can help him fix his pitching problems? Has the change of leagues affected him? Margot is a good player. Would you rather have him or beni? Guerra and the other infielder , the last I looked, did not have great years in A ball. The pitcher is still in low A. Snapshot in time, today, it does not look like we got much but not sure we gave up much. Two years from now, the prospects may come on and it turns out to be a terrible trade. IMHO, it was a fair trade for both sides. If kimbrel pitches well in the post season and shows the good side, the sox do nothing this winter. If not then the look hard at Kelly, koji, and maybe chapman.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 30, 2016 8:13:49 GMT -5
The good news is that Kimbrel still has elite strikeout ability. Sixth best K% among qualified relievers. The bad news is nearly everything else.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 30, 2016 8:42:23 GMT -5
It would be interesting to look at his NL statistics and find out if there was a much higher percentage of pitches out of the strike zone being swung on and missed.
|
|
|