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.
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 17, 2022 11:48:15 GMT -5
Love to be sitting here in my artisanally crafted media bubble, completely unaware that there are idiotic Los Angeles Dodgers takes in the world There were actual posts by Dodgers fans calling for Dave Roberts to be fired and for LA to dump Mookie's contract. I hate the thought of Dodgers fans being stressed out by paying him all that money - happy for the Red Sox to take on that deal if it makes them feel better. Betts for Verdugo, Wong, and Downs - who says no?
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,400
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 17, 2022 12:30:06 GMT -5
There were actual posts by Dodgers fans calling for Dave Roberts to be fired and for LA to dump Mookie's contract. I hate the thought of Dodgers fans being stressed out by paying him all that money - happy for the Red Sox to take on that deal if it makes them feel better. Betts for Verdugo, Wong, and Downs - who says no?
Is 1 WAR ~ $7 million? So 6.4 bWAR is ~$45 million? Is that right? So the Dodgers got double their money this year? Or is my math wrong?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 17, 2022 12:43:16 GMT -5
Betts for Verdugo, Wong, and Downs - who says no?
Is 1 WAR ~ $7 million? So 6.4 bWAR is ~$45 million? Is that right? So the Dodgers got double their money this year? Or is my math wrong? 1 WAR is a little over $8 million, and fangraphs has Betts being worth $53 million this year. (They list this at the bottom of their player pages.)
Betts is doing what he needs to do to make this a good contract for the Dodgers - putting up surplus value at the beginning (though almost all of that surplus came this year and scarcely any last year). But there is a decade left on that contract and with each year that passes the future of the contract becomes more likely to pencil out in the red for the team. Incidentally, I hadn't realized that Betts just turned 30...
But funnily enough, it would sort of make sense for the Red Sox to add him now that they have a bunch of money to spend and a giant hole in RF. I mean I'd rather have Mookie on a 10 year/25.6 AAV contract than whatever Judge is gonna get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2022 12:49:18 GMT -5
There were actual posts by Dodgers fans calling for Dave Roberts to be fired and for LA to dump Mookie's contract. I hate the thought of Dodgers fans being stressed out by paying him all that money - happy for the Red Sox to take on that deal if it makes them feel better. Betts for Verdugo, Wong, and Downs - who says no?
Hey. Jeter Downs had 21 strikeouts in 40 MLB at bats - but if you choose to forget them, his strikeout rate was actually 0%. Yankees starting Taillon tonight vs Guardians' Civale... Kinda feels like whichever of those combustable guys is able to hold it together for the first 3-5 innings will determine the game? Taillon > Cortes > Holmes/Losaiga/Peralta Civale > Bieber > Karinchak > Clase?
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,400
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 17, 2022 12:51:38 GMT -5
I feel like after a season in which almost everything went wrong, Sox fans are owed Tito magic by the baseball gods.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 17, 2022 12:55:57 GMT -5
Betts for Verdugo, Wong, and Downs - who says no?
Hey. Jeter Downs had 21 strikeouts in 40 MLB at bats - but if you choose to forget them, his strikeout rate was actually 0%. Yankees starting Taillon tonight vs Guardians' Civale... Kinda feels like whichever of those combustable guys is able to hold it together for the first 3-5 innings will determine the game? Taillon > Cortes > Holmes/Losaiga/Peralta Civale > Bieber > Karinchak > Clase? Except that Holmes won't be available and Peralta, if available, might be gassed.
|
|
|
Post by benzinger on Oct 17, 2022 13:23:01 GMT -5
Love to be sitting here in my artisanally crafted media bubble, completely unaware that there are idiotic Los Angeles Dodgers takes in the world It sounds to me like you must be missing ESPN’s morning lineup. Here’s what you are missing: 9:00- Two Bald Guys Arguing 9:30-Black Guy Arguing With White Guy 10:00-Four Guys Yelling Over Each Other Etc....
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Oct 17, 2022 14:33:39 GMT -5
I don't know..I think it will be exciting to see 2 lesser teams in the standings fight for the NL championship.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 17, 2022 14:42:43 GMT -5
i think some of the playoff commentary has truth, but misses the most important point. These playoff teams are so close and the organizations so competitive that the playoffs are essentially a crapshoot. is it unfair that an 86 win team can win the World Series ? I don't feel that way. I mean, you could look at like the last seed isn't deserving, but is that really true ?
It takes a lot to win even 86 games in this environment. They all know the rules going in and to the victors of the playoff format, goes the spoils. It has made for some really exciting baseball, which should be the intent of expanding the teams involved.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Oct 17, 2022 14:53:37 GMT -5
Is it fair that a team could lead a game for 8 2/3 innings and then give up 2 runs and lose that game?
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,400
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 17, 2022 15:09:55 GMT -5
I know baseball is different because the “best” team has lower odds to win in a single game or short series but still… the other sports let in many more mediocre teams. How often does the #1 overall seed win the NCAA tournament? Who complains when a 12 beats a 5… which happens every year?
I guess I don’t take it that seriously— I accept the miracle run by an outsider as one of sport’s great joys. I remember the miracle on ice not the “how dare that sh&tty group of kids beat the greatest team in the world” on ice.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 17, 2022 15:30:28 GMT -5
The issue for me is not whether the playoffs are "fair" or "unfair." Like I said above, the issue is that the concept of "champion" has been thoroughly decoupled from the concept of "best team." The World Series winner is the champion, and that's all anyone cares about, and that's what I root for the Red Sox to be. But the World Series winner is increasingly less likely to be the best team, or among the handful of best teams, which devalues excellence.
If the Red Sox are on pace to win 110 games next season I'll think "this is nice but it'll be a bummer if they get bounced in a best-of-five series." If they get a wild card spot with 85 wins I'll think "great, they have a shot at lucking into a Championship banner." It flattens out achievement, and means the bar that teams (and fans) should rationally aim at is "good enough" rather than "the best team in the game." It's a poor incentive structure.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,400
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 17, 2022 15:46:01 GMT -5
The issue for me is not whether the playoffs are "fair" or "unfair." Like I said above, the issue is that the concept of "champion" has been thoroughly decoupled from the concept of "best team." The World Series winner is the champion, and that's all anyone cares about, and that's what I root for the Red Sox to be. But the World Series winner is increasingly less likely to be the best team, or among the handful of best teams, which devalues excellence.
If the Red Sox are on pace to win 110 games next season I'll think "this is nice but it'll be a bummer if they get bounced in a best-of-five series." If they get a wild card spot with 85 wins I'll think "great, they have a shot at lucking into a Championship banner." It flattens out achievement, and means the bar that teams (and fans) should rationally aim at is "good enough" rather than "the best team in the game." It's a poor incentive structure.
I guess we should separate the pleasures. This season was not fun, and if they squeaked into the playoffs and won, I’d enjoy that… but it would still have been an unpleasant summer. I can’t go back and change how unhappy I was in July. Conversely, if they kill all season, I can love it… then be crushed late year. I still had a great July. I’m tryin to be a good Buddhist and live in the present.
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Oct 17, 2022 15:54:23 GMT -5
The 2018 playoffs had me worried because of what happened to the 2007 Patriots.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 17, 2022 16:13:52 GMT -5
The issue for me is not whether the playoffs are "fair" or "unfair." Like I said above, the issue is that the concept of "champion" has been thoroughly decoupled from the concept of "best team." The World Series winner is the champion, and that's all anyone cares about, and that's what I root for the Red Sox to be. But the World Series winner is increasingly less likely to be the best team, or among the handful of best teams, which devalues excellence.
If the Red Sox are on pace to win 110 games next season I'll think "this is nice but it'll be a bummer if they get bounced in a best-of-five series." If they get a wild card spot with 85 wins I'll think "great, they have a shot at lucking into a Championship banner." It flattens out achievement, and means the bar that teams (and fans) should rationally aim at is "good enough" rather than "the best team in the game." It's a poor incentive structure.
I guess we should separate the pleasures. This season was not fun, and if they squeaked into the playoffs and won, I’d enjoy that… but it would still have been an unpleasant summer. I can’t go back and change how unhappy I was in July. Conversely, if they kill all season, I can love it… then be crushed late year. I still had a great July. I’m tryin to be a good Buddhist and live in the present. See, I agree with this, and it's why I tend not to agree with people who place an absolute value on winning championships above all else. Like I refuse to believe that a Red Sox fan who lived from 1919 to 2003 simply wasted their entire life as a fan; surely there were meaningful joys and pleasures along the way. (Hell, I had fun watching the games in September even after the Red Sox were eliminated from the playoffs; I rooted for them and everything.)
By the same token, that's why I wish we could somehow push a button to make the regular season record more meaningful for people - maybe give that team a slightly smaller trophy or something, I don't know. At any rate it would be nice for people to look at the Dodgers' season as at least a partial success rather than (as I saw one person say) the biggest fail of a season in LA sports history or something, just because the pachinko ball didn't bounce their way in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 17, 2022 16:27:06 GMT -5
The issue for me is not whether the playoffs are "fair" or "unfair." Like I said above, the issue is that the concept of "champion" has been thoroughly decoupled from the concept of "best team." The World Series winner is the champion, and that's all anyone cares about, and that's what I root for the Red Sox to be. But the World Series winner is increasingly less likely to be the best team, or among the handful of best teams, which devalues excellence.
If the Red Sox are on pace to win 110 games next season I'll think "this is nice but it'll be a bummer if they get bounced in a best-of-five series." If they get a wild card spot with 85 wins I'll think "great, they have a shot at lucking into a Championship banner." It flattens out achievement, and means the bar that teams (and fans) should rationally aim at is "good enough" rather than "the best team in the game." It's a poor incentive structure.
I think this is true, for sure. it has similarities to the NCAA basketball tournament to me. But I see it as really good teams vying for the chance to win a championship and then it is a free for all, basically. I see that as being a fair tradeoff to the traditional concept of best team / champion, and it allows for all of us to see a larger pool of great players trying to win.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 17, 2022 16:40:38 GMT -5
The issue for me is not whether the playoffs are "fair" or "unfair." Like I said above, the issue is that the concept of "champion" has been thoroughly decoupled from the concept of "best team." The World Series winner is the champion, and that's all anyone cares about, and that's what I root for the Red Sox to be. But the World Series winner is increasingly less likely to be the best team, or among the handful of best teams, which devalues excellence.
If the Red Sox are on pace to win 110 games next season I'll think "this is nice but it'll be a bummer if they get bounced in a best-of-five series." If they get a wild card spot with 85 wins I'll think "great, they have a shot at lucking into a Championship banner." It flattens out achievement, and means the bar that teams (and fans) should rationally aim at is "good enough" rather than "the best team in the game." It's a poor incentive structure.
I think this is true, for sure. it has similarities to the NCAA basketball tournament to me. But I see it as really good teams vying for the chance to win a championship and then it is a free for all, basically. I see that as being a fair tradeoff than the traditional concept of best team / champion, and it allows for all of us to see a larger pool of great players trying to win. If MLB is now more like the NCAA tournament then it should embrace that! For instance: because there are so many D1 schools fandom can't feasibly live or die on championships. Accordingly there are other recognized markers for success: winning your conference, getting into the top rankings, etc. One of my points is that, if this is how MLB wants to structure its playoffs, it would be good to have other measures of success like this as well.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 17, 2022 16:51:49 GMT -5
I think this is true, for sure. it has similarities to the NCAA basketball tournament to me. But I see it as really good teams vying for the chance to win a championship and then it is a free for all, basically. I see that as being a fair tradeoff than the traditional concept of best team / champion, and it allows for all of us to see a larger pool of great players trying to win. If MLB is now more like the NCAA tournament then it should embrace that! For instance: because there are so many D1 schools fandom can't feasibly live or die on championships. Accordingly there are other recognized markers for success: winning your conference, getting into the top rankings, etc. One of my points is that, if this is how MLB wants to structure its playoffs, it would be good to have other measures of success like this as well.
i think they do to some extent. There are still pennants teams put up for Division titles or League titles. When I say similarities it is because of the amount of teams has increased. Realistically, the NCAA tournament has well over 80% of the team that have no chance in raising the banner. That differs from MLB, where every team this year, with the exception of the Mariners (to me) could have it happen. That is how close these teams are. Put another way, would a 20 game win deviation between the 1 seed and 7 seed in MLB mean the same now as it meant 20 years ago. I don't think it does, so by increasing the teams that could win, you are legitimizing their regular season efforts to make the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Oct 17, 2022 18:04:48 GMT -5
I don't really get why "most wins in the regular season" has to be THE arbiter of how 'good' a team is. Its not like the playoffs are a surprise for the teams and players involved, and I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that the team best equipped to succeed in a 162-game season is automatically the team that's best equipped to win a short series. Teams know they have to succeed at both - yes, there's obviously more random chance involved in the playoffs, but I think its really unfair to assume that every team that won a playoff series despite finishing lower in the regular season and/or being an underdog was automatically lucky rather than good. Injuries and roster depth, clutch/streakiness, home/road splits, ability to throw multiple innings/on short rest, relivers with the ability to get K's/popups with risp and less than 2 outs, veteran leadership, etc. You obviously can't perfectly manipulate a lot of these factors, but they all play into playoff success and need to be considered, and I believe teams that do them well deserve some recognition for it (and are a ton of fun to watch.)
And really, wouldn't it just be amazingly boring if the team with the best record or best (choose your metric of choice: WAR, pythag, etc.) won the World Series 90% of the time? (Reduce the "best teams should win" argument to absurdity and everyone should be a Yankees, Packers, Lakers, and Canadiens fan, which probably won't fly with a Boston-centric audience.)
I'm not saying the current playoff structure is perfect, it can definitely be tweaked, and I'm not necessarily a fan of even the current number of teams getting into the postseason - but I definitely AM a fan of teams exceeding expectations when they get the chance.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,400
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 17, 2022 18:18:14 GMT -5
If this game gets postponed, the gods have scorned me again. Gives the Yankees’ tired pen a day rest. Blargh.
|
|
|
Post by benzinger on Oct 17, 2022 19:11:14 GMT -5
If this game gets postponed, the gods have scorned me again. Gives the Yankees’ tired pen a day rest. Blargh. Also would allow Bieber to go for CLE??
|
|
|
Post by lostinnewjersey on Oct 17, 2022 20:46:27 GMT -5
Postponed. If it means Bieber is available, that's good for the Guardians. The Yankees get to rest their bullpen, but so what? They're not that great anyway. Maybe it means Cortes is in play, but sooner or later his innings load has to catch up with him. Tomorrow would be a good time for that to happen (and all of next season).
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 17, 2022 23:08:42 GMT -5
Is 1 WAR ~ $7 million? So 6.4 bWAR is ~$45 million? Is that right? So the Dodgers got double their money this year? Or is my math wrong? 1 WAR is a little over $8 million, and fangraphs has Betts being worth $53 million this year. (They list this at the bottom of their player pages.)
Betts is doing what he needs to do to make this a good contract for the Dodgers - putting up surplus value at the beginning (though almost all of that surplus came this year and scarcely any last year). But there is a decade left on that contract and with each year that passes the future of the contract becomes more likely to pencil out in the red for the team. Incidentally, I hadn't realized that Betts just turned 30...
But funnily enough, it would sort of make sense for the Red Sox to add him now that they have a bunch of money to spend and a giant hole in RF. I mean I'd rather have Mookie on a 10 year/25.6 AAV contract than whatever Judge is gonna get.
I've said on here before that these $$$ per WAR calculations to figure out a player's value are silly and meaningless. The latest estimates, as far as I know, are that a team of replacement level players would win about 50 games, give or take. To get to 90 wins at $8M per win, you'd have to add $320M in salary. FG has Mookie at 6.6 WAR in 2022. If a 78-win team such as the 2022 Red Sox replaced two 0-WAR guys with a pair of Mookies, it would win another 13 games and nudge the win total over 90. But you'd need to spend another $106 million in salary. A 91-win season would have been enjoyable compared to what we got, but JWH might have been a bit peeved over the $340 million payroll. Or to look at it another way, if the RS had signed Mookie to a contract with an AAV or $53 million (and based on reporting, it sounds like he would have turned that down and countered with a demand for more!), they would have had a payroll of $287 million and won 85 games, just enough to watch the PS from home like they're doing now. WAR per $$$ stats are as meaningless as fielding percentage.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Oct 17, 2022 23:17:51 GMT -5
Not true, your not factoring in that a true dollar per WAR is $5M (5B in salaries, 1000 WAR per year) but the system is so flawed with how much WAR teams gain from cost-controlled players that when you remove those dollars and WAR from the calculation it becomes 8M on what gets spent in the open market.
I will say we as a baseball community should give more thought to using 5M as the number in calculations though. Especially if we are including the WAR from the cost controlled years.
|
|
|
Post by benzinger on Oct 18, 2022 9:07:27 GMT -5
So the Yankees are moving up Cortes on short rest and CLE ISN’T using Bieber? I didn’t see it going that way.
|
|
|