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.
Let’s discuss the Red Sox horrendous pitching
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 9, 2020 19:53:48 GMT -5
The key word being "likely." I am just trying to put it into the context of a Red Sox timeline. For prospects, it's immediate. I hear you. I just don't think you can really use a Red Sox timeline on a college pitcher they're taking that early. It's uncharted territory for them. The only college player they've ever picked top 10 is Benintendi, and that's how quickly he came up, but of course he's not a pitcher. Under this ownership group, the earliest they've taken a college pitcher is Barnes at 19, who didn't fly through the system quite like the previous college pitcher they took at #19. But if they get Leiter or Rocker, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to consider it reasonably likely they're ready in mid-2023, or at the very least hope for opening day 2024. when you take a college guy from a top program that early, you're not expecting him to take 4 years or anything. That's still only 1 of the players drafted. My original statement: "For the draft, the earliest likely contributions by players from next year's draft would be late 2024 and that's likely true no matter where we draft."
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 11, 2020 10:21:48 GMT -5
Updated portrait of just the spaghetti on the wall. Weber excludes his first 3 outings where he walked everybody.
Name BFP pERA Mike Kickham 25 3.71 > 43, 4.00 Entirely the 2 homers. Jeffrey Springs 71 4.39 > 74, 4.40 Ryan Weber* 89 4.93 > 99, 4.73
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2020 22:11:37 GMT -5
Update pERA numbers (based just on K%, BB%, EV, Launch Angle, HardHit%, and Barrell%) entering today's game, and then a set of interesting season splits. sERA is Statcast's projected ERA, which is based on xwOBA. Remember that the whole impetus for my pERA is that xwOBA can score a fluke bloop single as a certain hit. Name TBF IP pERA sERA ERA Darw. Hernandez 20 4.7 1.80 2.31 0.00 Dylan Covey 26 6.3 3.75 4.35 7.11 Phillips Valdez 112 25.3 3.84 4.35 2.84 Mike Kickham 43 9.0 4.01 4.06 5.00 Chris Mazza 77 17.0 4.33 6.51 5.29 Jeffrey Springs 74 15.3 4.40 4.53 7.05 Ryan Brasier 82 18.7 4.79 4.12 3.86 Nathan Eovaldi 145 34.3 4.91 4.81 4.98 Robert Stock 48 9.3 5.21 5.34 6.75 Matt Barnes 81 17.7 5.40 4.81 5.09 Austin Brice 83 18.7 5.42 4.68 6.27 Martin Perez 197 47.0 5.46 4.65 4.40 Domingo Tapia 5 1.0 5.50 4.15 9.00 Zack Godley 143 28.7 6.19 6.76 8.16 Ryan Weber 153 35.3 6.65 6.35 5.35 Marcus Walden 59 11.3 6.66 6.55 9.53 Colten Brewer 122 25.7 6.93 8.24 5.61 Matt Hall 54 8.7 6.98 11.57 18.69 Andrew Triggs 31 7.0 7.22 6.98 5.14 Josh Taylor 36 7.3 7.23 6.55 9.82 Kyle Hart 67 11.0 7.56 11.57 15.55 Robinson Leyer 29 3.7 7.65 8.34 22.07 Tot 5.55 5.82 6.30
Note that both my metric and xwOBA do not adjust for direction of batted balls or defense. So the 5.55 versus 5.82 is entirely cheap hits.
The 5.82 versus 6.30 is three things: defense, batted ball direction (more balls down the lines increase ERA legitimately), and clustering or scattering what you give up. Cluster / scatter has one real component at the team level -- slow hooks. And slow hooks also inflate pERA. Here are the guys who have marked splits that suggest they're better than their overall numbers: Name TBF IP pERA ERA Barnes closer 20 4.7 0.33 3.85 Godley 5+ rest 50 12.0 2.19 0.75 Brasier late 47 11.7 2.41 0.77 Brice healthy 57 13.7 4.42 6.58 Weber later 99 25.3 4.73 3.55 Barnes setup 61 13.0 6.73 5.54 Godley hurt 38 7.7 7.12 10.56 Brasier early 35 7.0 7.91 9.00 Brice hurt 26 5.0 8.50 5.40 Godley <5 rest 55 9.0 8.87 16.00 Weber early 54 10.0 9.74 9.90 I figured out Godley might well be hurt, starting with his next-to-last start, days before he went on the IL. I had already pointed out that he became a completely different pitcher in the middle of that start, and I've now confirmed that his goodness in the first half of that start was different from his previous long-rest goodness (p = .024).
Brice was given 4 days rest just once this year, and that's when he stopped looking like a guy who might help us this year. That both he and Godley were allowed to pitch hurt is uncharacteristic, but some guys have a high pain tolerance and don't experience anything they think is worth mentioning until much later than most others. The first time Matt Clelemt had his shoulder looked at, it was essentially torn up beyond repair.
I don't think that explanation works for both of the two starts where Godley pitched hurt, though. My guess is that he encountered it during warmup, and aggravated it during the long PA, after which he suddenly started striking guys out but getting hammered on contact. I think he reported discomfort after that start, they couldn't find any objective evidence in medical tests, and asked him to go out again.
That's all based on how angry he was when he was lifted after he was hammered the exact same way in his next start. My guess at the conversation with RR:
"How's your arm feel?"
"F****** terrible."
I don't have any outside reason to divide Barnes, Brasier, and Weber. It just looks like they each fixed a mechanical issue.
My current status estimate for the non-obvious: (* = no options left)
40-man: Valdez, Mazza 40-man candidate (1 spot at most): Springs, maybe Weber, [Kickham* (SSS)] Other NRI: Godley*, Brice*, Walden, Stock; maybe Brewer, Leyer
TBD: Covey, Tapia Sayonara: Triggs, Hall, Hart
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Sept 12, 2020 22:32:52 GMT -5
I hear you. I just don't think you can really use a Red Sox timeline on a college pitcher they're taking that early. It's uncharted territory for them. The only college player they've ever picked top 10 is Benintendi, and that's how quickly he came up, but of course he's not a pitcher. Under this ownership group, the earliest they've taken a college pitcher is Barnes at 19, who didn't fly through the system quite like the previous college pitcher they took at #19. But if they get Leiter or Rocker, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to consider it reasonably likely they're ready in mid-2023, or at the very least hope for opening day 2024. when you take a college guy from a top program that early, you're not expecting him to take 4 years or anything. That's still only 1 of the players drafted. My original statement: "For the draft, the earliest likely contributions by players from next year's draft would be late 2024 and that's likely true no matter where we draft." 100% that is why this team should add in the off-season 1-2 year deals for their free agents. With this lineup you can still take a swing at the title but do it in a way to reset when all your young talent is still cheap and in their prime at the same time. If a couple of these guys hit you could build a 5 year window of dominance. No springer, no marcell, no big money free agents. Id rather pay Bauer 20 mil a year for two years then hes gone if he doesn't pan out then a 5-7 year deal holding the future contention window down. If bloom hits things right in the next two season, watch out.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 13, 2020 20:59:56 GMT -5
Dodged a bullet(s)?
Workman has a 4.76 ERA and Hembree is over 8 with Philly. Hembree has given up 6 dingers in 8 innings. SSS but sometimes the best trades you make are the ones you do make.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 13, 2020 22:09:29 GMT -5
Dodged a bullet(s)? Workman has a 4.76 ERA and Hembree is over 8 with Philly. Hembree has given up 6 dingers in 8 innings. SSS but sometimes the best trades you make are the ones you do make. Interesting stat. Since the trade, including tonight: Workman 2 HRA Hembree 6 HRA Betts 6 HR
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 14, 2020 2:37:48 GMT -5
Dodged a bullet(s)? Workman has a 4.76 ERA and Hembree is over 8 with Philly. Hembree has given up 6 dingers in 8 innings. SSS but sometimes the best trades you make are the ones you do make. Both Moreland and Pillar have been below replacement level, as has Hembree. Workman has 0.3 bWAR for the Philkies but he's had 5 easy saves and two horrendous failures and is 24th out of 27 guys on the team in Win Probability Added.
Meanwhile, where would the Dogers be if they hadn't traded for Mookie? He has 0.9 or 0.8 WAR more than Verdugo (b and f respectively). They're paying $26M+ for about 3 wins (pro-rated to a full season).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 14, 2020 8:24:25 GMT -5
Dodged a bullet(s)? Workman has a 4.76 ERA and Hembree is over 8 with Philly. Hembree has given up 6 dingers in 8 innings. SSS but sometimes the best trades you make are the ones you do make. Both Moreland and Pillar have been below replacement level, as has Hembree. Workman has 0.3 bWAR for the Philkies but he's had 5 easy saves and two horrendous failures and is 24th out of 27 guys on the team in Win Probability Added.
Meanwhile, where would the Dogers be if they hadn't traded for Mookie? He has 0.9 or 0.8 WAR more than Verdugo (b and f respectively). They're paying $26M+ for about 3 wins (pro-rated to a full season).
This is exactly the argument for why Trout shouldn’t win MVP: yes he’s the best player, but if a team is pretty consistently a 3rd or 4th place team, what difference does it make? He was 10.5 bWAR in 2016, but they won 74 games. By your logic “where would they be without him” is... just a bit worse. But bad is bad. Anyway, this is exactly the kind of argument using WAR that bothers me, because it assumes no human impact on bringing in the best player in baseball 3-4 years running — that when a team goes all in, it doesn’t elevate players. I don’t buy that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 14, 2020 9:03:40 GMT -5
Both Moreland and Pillar have been below replacement level, as has Hembree. Workman has 0.3 bWAR for the Philkies but he's had 5 easy saves and two horrendous failures and is 24th out of 27 guys on the team in Win Probability Added. Meanwhile, where would the Dogers be if they hadn't traded for Mookie? He has 0.9 or 0.8 WAR more than Verdugo (b and f respectively). They're paying $26M+ for about 3 wins (pro-rated to a full season).
This is exactly the argument for why Trout shouldn’t win MVP: yes he’s the best player, but if a team is pretty consistently a 3rd or 4th place team, what difference does it make? He was 10.5 bWAR in 2016, but they won 74 games. By your logic “where would they be without him” is... just a bit worse. But bad is bad. Anyway, this is exactly the kind of argument using WAR that bothers me, because it assumes no human impact on bringing in the best player in baseball 3-4 years running — that when a team goes all in, it doesn’t elevate players. I don’t buy that. I'm confused. WAR is a measure of value. Why would having the highest WAR (in theory at least) not mean you are "most valuable?" You provided the most value to your team, right? I mean, let's take Betts. Is he less valuable if he plays the same way this year for the last-place Red Sox than for the first-place Dodgers? By your reasoning, do we just disqualify any player on a team that doesn't make the playoffs? That isn't a WS contender? What if a player on a last-place team was worth 2 WAR more than any other player in baseball (using WAR as a stand-in for the general concept of player value - my point isn't that we should be slaves to WAR)? Not looking to start a protracted debate so I'll probably hang up and listen, but I just don't get your point - this seems a lot more "sports talk radio caller" of a take than I'd expect from you, so I want to make sure I'm getting your point.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 14, 2020 9:22:01 GMT -5
This is exactly the argument for why Trout shouldn’t win MVP: yes he’s the best player, but if a team is pretty consistently a 3rd or 4th place team, what difference does it make? He was 10.5 bWAR in 2016, but they won 74 games. By your logic “where would they be without him” is... just a bit worse. But bad is bad. Anyway, this is exactly the kind of argument using WAR that bothers me, because it assumes no human impact on bringing in the best player in baseball 3-4 years running — that when a team goes all in, it doesn’t elevate players. I don’t buy that. I'm confused. WAR is a measure of value. Why would having the highest WAR (in theory at least) not mean you are "most valuable?" You provided the most value to your team, right? I mean, let's take Betts. Is he less valuable if he plays the same way this year for the last-place Red Sox than for the first-place Dodgers? By your reasoning, do we just disqualify any player on a team that doesn't make the playoffs? That isn't a WS contender? What if a player on a last-place team was worth 2 WAR more than any other player in baseball (using WAR as a stand-in for the general concept of player value - my point isn't that we should be slaves to WAR)? Not looking to start a protracted debate so I'll probably hang up and listen, but I just don't get your point - this seems a lot more "sports talk radio caller" of a take than I'd expect from you, so I want to make sure I'm getting your point. Are you asking me? I am responding to the question “where would the Dodgers be if they had Verdugo instead of Betts,” which I took to mean, based on the reference to their WAR difference, that eric sees Mookie’s impact as irrelevant. My point is that if we literally use WAR as an add/subtract to records, few guys “matter” at that point. If we say “where would x team ve without y” then Trout is not MVP... because they suck with him, so subtract his WAR and it doesn’t matter. Indeed, to your point, one could as easily say, which seems to be eric’s implication, that Mookie ought not be MVP because the Dodgers are so good even having an inferior RF would not significantly diminish the team. I was making the case that this is not a good way of using WAR. I don’t believe it is a literal measure... that WAR proves if you take Mookie out of the Dodgers lineup and put in Verdugo and they have virtually the same record. There is a lot more to a players value than that measurement. Mookie is one of the two best players in baseball for 3-4 years running, and not having him is more than a WAR thing. So I am arguing against, well, what you are arguing against —except maybe that I see WAR as a *shorthand* for value and not a true overall expression of it. But... Trout deserved to be MVP. Yeah, that was my point against the “where would they be...” question.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 14, 2020 10:30:50 GMT -5
That makes a lot more sense. Right on.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 14, 2020 11:54:03 GMT -5
I think eric's point was just that Bloom traded a pile of scraps for real value at the trade deadline, and he traded the very non-scrap Betts for a ton of value too. And in WAR/$ terms the Red Sox are actually ahead of the Dodgers with the Betts-for-Verdugo swap, without even factoring in Downs and Wong, but I don't think anyone thinks that one calculation is the be-all end-all of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 14, 2020 12:06:24 GMT -5
I think eric's point was just that Bloom traded a pile of scraps for real value at the trade deadline, and he traded the very non-scrap Betts for a ton of value too. And in WAR/$ terms the Red Sox are actually ahead of the Dodgers with the Betts-for-Verdugo swap, without even factoring in Downs and Wong, but I don't think anyone thinks that one calculation is the be-all end-all of the matter. Maybe. But it isn’t my money, so as long as a team can pay, who cares? The Dodgers can pay. The Sox can’t because they spent stupidly elsewhere, like on Eovaldi. It is hardly a simple this-for-that thing. The Sox may have made lemonade from lemons, but let’s not go crazy and say somehow it is all even or even close. WAR/$ is small consolation. Hell, in that instance you can find lots of cheap players with great ratios. A minimum wage 1 WAR player is killer value (that is 2 WAR per million, which means you would need 40 WAR from a $20 million player!), but certainly is not preferable to, say, a 5 WAR guy making a lot of money. Edit: the deadline trades were not part of this exchange... I am totally on-board those. I think Bloom did really well in those — especially the Phillies deal, which would be great even if Workman and Hembree were lights out right now.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 14, 2020 12:30:21 GMT -5
I think eric's point was just that Bloom traded a pile of scraps for real value at the trade deadline, and he traded the very non-scrap Betts for a ton of value too. And in WAR/$ terms the Red Sox are actually ahead of the Dodgers with the Betts-for-Verdugo swap, without even factoring in Downs and Wong, but I don't think anyone thinks that one calculation is the be-all end-all of the matter.Maybe. But it isn’t my money, so as long as a team can pay, who cares? The Dodgers can pay. The Sox can’t because they spent stupidly elsewhere, like on Eovaldi. It is hardly a simple this-for-that thing. The Sox may have made lemonade from lemons, but let’s not go crazy and say somehow it is all even or even close. WAR/$ is small consolation. Hell, in that instance you can find lots of cheap players with great ratios. A minimum wage 1 WAR player is killer value (that is 2 WAR per million, which means you would need 40 WAR from a $20 million player!), but certainly is not preferable to, say, a 5 WAR guy making a lot of money. Edit: the deadline trades were not part of this exchange... I am totally on-board those. I think Bloom did really well in those — especially the Phillies deal, which would be great even if Workman and Hembree were lights out right now. Glad we agree. Look, from a purely cold-blooded cost/benefit perspective, the Betts trade is really looking pretty good. I wasn't convinced at the time of the trade that Verdugo was more than an average-ish player, but he looks more like All-Star caliber and is very young and very cost-controlled and may have more upside to come. And that's before Downs even enters the equation. I still have no problem arguing against the Betts trade on emotional grounds. I really don't. I'd rather they hadn't traded him and signed him to an extension instead. But the purely quantitative, cost/benefit, wins-and-losses argument against that trade is pretty untenable at this point.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 14, 2020 12:39:59 GMT -5
Maybe. But it isn’t my money, so as long as a team can pay, who cares? The Dodgers can pay. The Sox can’t because they spent stupidly elsewhere, like on Eovaldi. It is hardly a simple this-for-that thing. The Sox may have made lemonade from lemons, but let’s not go crazy and say somehow it is all even or even close. WAR/$ is small consolation. Hell, in that instance you can find lots of cheap players with great ratios. A minimum wage 1 WAR player is killer value (that is 2 WAR per million, which means you would need 40 WAR from a $20 million player!), but certainly is not preferable to, say, a 5 WAR guy making a lot of money. Edit: the deadline trades were not part of this exchange... I am totally on-board those. I think Bloom did really well in those — especially the Phillies deal, which would be great even if Workman and Hembree were lights out right now. Glad we agree. Look, from a purely cold-blooded cost/benefit perspective, the Betts trade is really looking pretty good. I wasn't convinced at the time of the trade that Verdugo was more than an average-ish player, but he looks more like All-Star caliber and is very young and very cost-controlled and may have more upside to come. And that's before Downs even enters the equation. I still have no problem arguing against the Betts trade on emotional grounds. I really don't. I'd rather they hadn't traded him and signed him to an extension instead. But the purely quantitative, cost/benefit, wins-and-losses argument against that trade is pretty untenable at this point. That’s fine, and I really, really don’t want to re-re-relitigate.... my point as that the Dodgers are probably quite happy, too. I did not mean we didn’t do well... I meant that both sides got everything they could have asked. To suggest we did *better* just doesn’t square with me. Edit: I concede the probability issue, but I still don’t think bringing 5 guys with a 20% chance of being a good starter means you gave good odds it pays off. That is, if Seabold and Pivetta come to camp and one flames out, it does not mean anything about the success rate of the other.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 14, 2020 17:35:54 GMT -5
The only way I use WAR is as a player comparison, not as a measure of what a player brings to a team's wins. It's not that kind of stat. The reason I do use it to compare players is very simple: in lieu of that we're back to the days all sorts of acclaim was foisted on guys who were mediocre to adequate at best. There are a bunch of those types in the HOF thanks to their relationship with the voters.
There has to be some way to get a semi-objective measure of a player's worth. Thanks to the stat-heads, there are a good number of such indeces these days, so comparison shopping is available. While they may only give one piece of a complete picture, they are a feature, not a bug.
Add: Speaking of numbers, you'll want to be careful with that 20% figure. All things being equal (which they are not!), the odds that at least one does become a starter is over 67%. So you've got 2/3 of a chance you hit the jackpot. Not bad (I'd argue that the 20% is too high).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 14, 2020 18:31:04 GMT -5
The only way I use WAR is as a player comparison, not as a measure of what a player brings to a team's wins. It's not that kind of stat. The reason I do use it to compare players is very simple: in lieu of that we're back to the days all sorts of acclaim was foisted on guys who were mediocre to adequate at best. There are a bunch of those types in the HOF thanks to their relationship with the voters. There has to be some way to get a semi-objective measure of a player's worth. Thanks to the stat-heads, there are a good number of such indeces these days, so comparison shopping is available. While they may only give one piece of a complete picture, they are a feature, not a bug. Add: Speaking of numbers, you'll want to be careful with that 20% figure. All things being equal (which they are not!), the odds that at least one does become a starter is over 67%. So you've got 2/3 of a chance you hit the jackpot. Not bad (I'd argue that the 20% is too high). My point is merely that the players rise or fall on their own, independent of the success or failure of another. If one fails, the other does not suddenly become more likely to succeed. Each remains his own longshot. Yes, if you line up long shots to the ends of the earth, a monkey will type Hamlet etc etc... but in a finite group, you have monkeys bashing typewriters. I made the 20% up off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 14, 2020 22:02:22 GMT -5
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 13,976
|
Post by cdj on Sept 14, 2020 22:55:27 GMT -5
The last thing I expected to see in this thread was Big Poppa Pump but hell I’d let him throw a couple innings
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 14, 2020 23:40:55 GMT -5
Are you asking me? I am responding to the question “where would the Dodgers be if they had Verdugo instead of Betts,” which I took to mean, based on the reference to their WAR difference, that eric sees Mookie’s impact as irrelevant. Actually, that wasn't quite my point. And I certainly wasn't arguing that Mookie isn't the MVP! 1) There were probably a lot of scenarios where the upgrade from Verdugo to Mookie would make the difference between winning the division easily and being able to set up your post-season rotation, and being in a pennant race. That factored into the Dodger's decision to make the trade.
2) Verdugo's on pace for 6.2 bWAR on a 162 game schedule. He's been way better than expected, and the rest of the Dodger's team has played up to hopes, and that combination has actually made the trade completely moot for the Dodgers for the shortened regular season! It's just a bit of irony.
And I hope that people get that if we had stubbornly held onto Mookie, we would have won 1 more game than we have, and gotten just a draft pick.
3) Given the difference between the two performances, Mookie has not been worth the extra money. But I doubt that bothers the Dodgers.
Two things I wasn't thinking of, but are true and relevant:
If you upgrade every position on a team by a seemingly insignificant 0.5 WAR, you win 8 or 9 more games (depending on how many "positions" you count the bench and setup relief as). One of the ways of being a good GM is to get a bunch of small marginal upgrades that add up to a significant change in the standings.
Also, the difference between Mookie and Verdugo may be much larger in the post-season. Verdugo has struggled hugely this year in high leverage, while Mookie has been has down just a little from his overall numbers.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 15, 2020 0:17:25 GMT -5
Are you asking me? I am responding to the question “where would the Dodgers be if they had Verdugo instead of Betts,” which I took to mean, based on the reference to their WAR difference, that eric sees Mookie’s impact as irrelevant. Actually, that wasn't quite my point. And I certainly wasn't arguing that Mookie isn't the MVP! 1) There were probably a lot of scenarios where the upgrade from Verdugo to Mookie would make the difference between winning the division easily and being able to set up your post-season rotation, and being in a pennant race. That factored into the Dodger's decision to make the trade.
2) Verdugo's on pace for 6.2 bWAR on a 162 game schedule. He's been way better than expected, and the rest of the Dodger's team has played up to hopes, and that combination has actually made the trade completely moot for the Dodgers for the shortened regular season! It's just a bit of irony.
And I hope that people get that if we had stubbornly held onto Mookie, we would have won 1 more game than we have, and gotten just a draft pick.
3) Given the difference between the two performances, Mookie has not been worth the extra money. But I doubt that bothers the Dodgers.
Two things I wasn't thinking of, but are true and relevant:
If you upgrade every position on a team by a seemingly insignificant 0.5 WAR, you win 8 or 9 more games (depending on how many "positions" you count the bench and setup relief as). One of the ways of being a good GM is to get a bunch of small marginal upgrades that add up to a significant change in the standings.
Also, the difference between Mookie and Verdugo may be much larger in the post-season. Verdugo has struggled hugely this year in high leverage, while Mookie has been has down just a little from his overall numbers.
This all makes sense. One thing though: we don’t know Mookie would not have signed an extension. He might have signed with the Dodgers (after saying he’d test the market) because the finances of the game have changed. If were still on the Sox, same thing might have happened. I was always one who said one more year of control means anything can happen... and we got a financial meltdown.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 15, 2020 1:49:23 GMT -5
Actually, that wasn't quite my point. And I certainly wasn't arguing that Mookie isn't the MVP! 1) There were probably a lot of scenarios where the upgrade from Verdugo to Mookie would make the difference between winning the division easily and being able to set up your post-season rotation, and being in a pennant race. That factored into the Dodger's decision to make the trade.
2) Verdugo's on pace for 6.2 bWAR on a 162 game schedule. He's been way better than expected, and the rest of the Dodger's team has played up to hopes, and that combination has actually made the trade completely moot for the Dodgers for the shortened regular season! It's just a bit of irony.
And I hope that people get that if we had stubbornly held onto Mookie, we would have won 1 more game than we have, and gotten just a draft pick.
3) Given the difference between the two performances, Mookie has not been worth the extra money. But I doubt that bothers the Dodgers.
Two things I wasn't thinking of, but are true and relevant:
If you upgrade every position on a team by a seemingly insignificant 0.5 WAR, you win 8 or 9 more games (depending on how many "positions" you count the bench and setup relief as). One of the ways of being a good GM is to get a bunch of small marginal upgrades that add up to a significant change in the standings.
Also, the difference between Mookie and Verdugo may be much larger in the post-season. Verdugo has struggled hugely this year in high leverage, while Mookie has been has down just a little from his overall numbers.
This all makes sense. One thing though: we don’t know Mookie would not have signed an extension. He might have signed with the Dodgers (after saying he’d test the market) because the finances of the game have changed. If were still on the Sox, same thing might have happened. I was always one who said one more year of control means anything can happen... and we got a financial meltdown. We are way off topic here, BTW!
I agree with you that he may have signed with the Dodgers only because they offered him a pre-COVID contract and his agent warned him that he could lose a huge amount of money if he turned the deal down. But he also had to like the idea of playing in LA, obviously.
However, if there was a scenario where Mookie goes to free agency and then re-signs with us, then there's also a scenario where he signs back with us after being rented to the Dodgers for a year. Since the disaster scenario is getting only a draft pick, your best option is to make a Mookie trade so good that you wouldn't deeply regret it even if you ended up with a lingering suspicion that you could have kept him.
Me on 9/2/19: "A great target [to replace JBJ in CF if he were traded] would be Alex Verdugo, as the Dodgers have nine regulars for 7 positions."
On 9/11: "They're not going to trade Verdugo [while trying to figure out how a Mookie to Dodgers trade would work]."
On 11/24: "I'm with those who can't see why the Dodgers would trade Verdugo for Betts, even 1-for-1. He's been a 5.0 bWAR player per 650 PA at ages 22 and 23. You can regress that a lot to the mean and still have a first division starter -- and he has 5 years of control. Getting Verdugo and then signing Betts a year later (one of them plays CF, replacing the stopgap solution) would be an absolute steal. Of course, if Betts leads the Dodgers to their long-elusive WS title, they'll probably think it's worth it, and maybe that's the way they're thinking."
At some point someone will run down the return for all the guys who were traded with one year left before free agency, and I bet the Sox' haul for Betts is going to be very near the top, if not at it. I don't think I need to point out that there's a reasonable scenario that by, say, 2023, Verdugo and Downs are worth more than Mookie (while making much less). Verdugo also seems like a good bet to sign an extension that will cover his first couple of years of free agency.
Meanwhile, what the Dogers get for 5 -> 4.37 years of control for Verdugo and 6 for Downs and Wong is 1 -> 0.37 years of Mookie at $10M, plus getting to keep a draft pick next June. To make that palatable, they have to either win the WS this year with Mookie making a clear difference, or convince themselves that he would have finished his career in Boston had they not made the trade.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 15, 2020 1:53:47 GMT -5
This all makes sense. One thing though: we don’t know Mookie would not have signed an extension. He might have signed with the Dodgers (after saying he’d test the market) because the finances of the game have changed. If were still on the Sox, same thing might have happened. I was always one who said one more year of control means anything can happen... and we got a financial meltdown. We are way off topic here, BTW! I agree with you that he may have signed with the Dodgers only because they offered him a pre-COVID contract and his agent warned him that he could lose a huge amount of money if he turned the deal down. But he also had to like the idea of playing in LA, obviously. However, if there was a scenario where Mookie goes to free agency and then re-signs with us, then there's also a scenario where he signs back with us after being rented to the Dodgers for a year. Since the disaster scenario is getting only a draft pick, your best option is to make a Mookie trade so good that you wouldn't deeply regret it even if you ended up with a lingering suspicion that you could have kept him. Me on 9/2/19: "A great target [to replace JBJ in CF if he were traded] would be Alex Verdugo, as the Dodgers have nine regulars for 7 positions." On 9/11: "They're not going to trade Verdugo [while trying to figure out how a Mookie to Dodgers trade would work]." On 11/24: "I'm with those who can't see why the Dodgers would trade Verdugo for Betts, even 1-for-1. He's been a 5.0 bWAR player per 650 PA at ages 22 and 23. You can regress that a lot to the mean and still have a first division starter -- and he has 5 years of control. Getting Verdugo and then signing Betts a year later (one of them plays CF, replacing the stopgap solution) would be an absolute steal. Of course, if Betts leads the Dodgers to their long-elusive WS title, they'll probably think it's worth it, and maybe that's the way they're thinking." At some point someone will run down the return for all the guys who were traded with one year left before free agency, and I bet the Sox' haul for Betts is going to be very near the top, if not at it. I don't think I need to point out that there's a reasonable scenario that by, say, 2023, Verdugo and Downs are worth more than Mookie (while making much less). Verdugo also seems like a good bet to sign an extension that will cover his first couple of years of free agency.
Meanwhile, what the Dogers get for 5 -> 4.37 years of control for Verdugo and 6 for Downs and Wong is 1 -> 0.37 years of Mookie at $10M, plus getting to keep a draft pick next June. To make that palatable, they have to either win the WS this year with Mookie making a clear difference, or convince themselves that he would have finished his career in Boston had they not made the trade.
B-I-N-G-O
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 15, 2020 2:07:12 GMT -5
Does anyone believe Price will make the Dodgers rotation after a year off ?
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,765
|
Post by mobaz on Sept 15, 2020 7:31:23 GMT -5
Does anyone believe Price will make the Dodgers rotation after a year off ? Will his magic elbow hold up, or be even better off? Sounds stupid but in hindsight this would have been the best year to do preemptive TJ. Or get your TJ back in September (CHRIS SALE!!)
|
|
|