How do you improve the Red Sox

Ok so I know I'm going to get killed for saying something like this BUT, if I'm the Red Sox and I've felt Betts out about an extension and I am not feeling great about it then I'd consider dealing him for Fernandez. I LOVE Mookie and have a full understanding of his current value as an every day player versus a pitcher etc. However, if I'm the Red Sox and I need to project forward 3 -4 years to when he's going to be a free agent, I'm not giving him the massive deal he will deserve and get. He's too small a frame and his abilities rely so much on his quickness and processing speed that I suspect his decline will be quick and early. I realize that's years away at this point and there could be an MVP season in there, but if I can flip him for Jose Fernandez, I think I do that. There are very few elite starting pitching options coming up in the near term that are clear at this point after Strasburg signed. Obviously, it's a massive massive piece to give up but it's one piece and you are getting a similarly massive massive piece back and you're preserving your farm system.

Ah I actually had to think about this but now I think I see your point. Sabre 101 says choice 2.

However, super-advanced Sabre says that the difficulty with this kind of analysis is that pitching is difficult to project, compared to position play. A pitcher's rate of hard contact just refuses to stabilize except possibly over very large data sets. Pitchers who are consistent over a very long time are a largely unexplained miracle, but very precise command seems to have something to do with it. 

BTW, eric's posts on the value of command have been superlative. If anyone wants to know more, just click eric's member name and search his posts for "command".

So, if you're the GM and really, really want to win, you "need" this miracle of superb command, highly consistent pitching. But how can you find a stat that projects that looking forward (rather than measures value in hindsight)? Nothing projects rates of hard contact.

So as a GM, you need to hedge, hedge, hedge your bets. Load up on the best pitchers you can get. The truism really is true. You can never have too much pitching with great command and consistency. 

Position players, by comparison, are much more a matter of projectable WAR. Spend the money or trade your "blocked" talent and, with a much higher confidence level, you'll get the value.

Caveats: Don't be stupid and acquire fat guys, or guys who lost the ability to hit fastballs (Pablo and Hanley, you know who you are). Also, when signing long-term contracts, assume that the last half of the contract is dead money. Factor that in! Break out of the monopoly of spending caps because if you do, you can make money by spending money. Yes, the other owners will hate you because you won at the prisoner's dilemma, but so what. You'll be very rich (assuming you have a big market club and your book value climbs by hundreds of millions with each successful year).

Err...ah, forget it. Eric already said it. I don't think it's remotely worth the two fewer years for similarly valuable players. Especially with Betts still years before his prime, and Fernandez post-TJ.

Except "quality consistent pitching" is very rare. Those guys are #1s/2s on first-division teams. And plenty of teams *with* those sorts of pitchers don't win championships (see: Dodgers, LA). To me it looks more like WS winners have the hot hand(s). Either offensively (Papi '13) or on the pitching end (Lester '13, Bumgarner '14). And in that case, it's much more unpredictable than you describe. Doyle Alexander (9-0, 1.53 in 11 starts equaling 88.1 innings (!)) and Randy Johnson (10-1, 1.28 in 11 starts equaling 84.1 innings) were two of the best deadline acquisitions I can recall, and surely ever, at least in terms of immediate return. And despite two white-hot pitchers, neither team even *went* to the WS. Both the Braves and Mariners were pretty happy with the hauls they got, though. I'm sure Seattle would've liked Johnson back after that, but he was a free agent, and they made out pretty well. Alexander was very mediocre for two years and retired after losing 18 games in '89. Heck, even Price didn't put the Blue Jays over the top last year.

Deadline deals are often a swindle, and the vast majority of the time it's the team acquiring the veteran getting swindled. Unless a team is genuinely filling a hole (injury, below-replacement performance) with an eye to the future (meaning that that player will still be around and producing), it's a terrible idea fueled by the irrational concept of immediacy. A well-built team will get plenty of shots at the playoffs, unless they become a poorly-built one by making a lot of ill-advised "go-for-it!" deals.

Those are the sort of anecdotal ideas that no doubt have lots of merit coming from someone like you.

The sole point here is that, as a GM, trying to do things systematically, you always "need" consistent pitching, and Teheran, who has superb command and somehow consistently induces weak contact, is as consistent as, or maybe a tick better than Porcello (if he can keep the weak contact up). 

But yes, look out for regression to the mean and Mike Torrez moments, flukey though they be.

"From someone like you." You mean, that has sense? Come on, you're better than that. You made an unsubstantied, loosely generalized claim and I gave three examples that roundly refuted it. That's not "anecdotal," it's clear refutation of your supposed "truism."

A tick better than Porcello? Maybe...but that's about the performance to expect. 2013 Peavy. And you want to trade elite talent for that level of performance. For maybe 1 or 2 wins over the next best guy? What a waste...

Last year, of the 150 MLB starters with the most IP, Teheran ranked 97th in bWAR/GS, 99th in SIERA, and 99th in the weighted combination of the two. I don't think there's any argument for him being any more or less consistent than the average pitcher.

Well, technically, there has been at least an argument for it:
sabr.org/latest/sarris-how-good-atlantas-julio-teheran

ADD: the argument being that he has a BABIP skill (like the kind you've posted about here many times), which in his case is tied to his ability to induce pop-ups.

As opposed to all of those teams where he just wouldn't quite be a fit.

Teheran is 25 and signed long term on the cheap, he's not a rental like your quiz make it seem.  He has what 4 years of team control, compared to 6-7 years for Benintendi.  You also are leaving out the fact that Teheran can help you make playoffs and get to word series.  Not saying I would make that deal, but your quiz makes it seem like you would be trading Benintendi for a few starts of Teheran and that's just not true.

Teheran has a 42% fly ball rate and a 3.84 FIP, and results boosted by a .206 (career .271) BABIP in 2016. I'm not trying to see everything crash back to the mean while those fly balls sail over the Monster and the Yankees' short porch.

It was entirely a rebuttal to the claim that he is consistent. That's what putting a word in bold in the post you're quoting means.