2014 Projections

[seabeachfred]

I doubt it. It's human nature to forget lessons we never wanted to learn in the first place, We'll see Lucky push his tendrils back into baseball ops at some point

 

Well you could be right Dojii, but if he does Henry must step in a put a stop to it right away this time. He let it go on for three to four years last time and I'm convinced Lucchino's meddling in baseball ops played a key role in the decline of our team. Lock him in his office if you have to but keep that meddling son of a bitch out of baseball operations at all costs.

[Dojji]

Oh I agree 100%

[rjortiz]

What is the evidence that Lucchino was behind the bad personnel decisions that led to 2012? I read the SI article from Francona's perspective, but it appeared to be a mandate from ownership. I assume Lucchino handles the business decisions of the Red Sox, and may have pushed Epstein to make moves that would increase ratings for the Red Sox, but ultimately wasn't Epstein the person in charge of making those acquisitions?

 

Are some of you saying that Lucchino acted unilaterally and acquired these players over Epstein's objection? I'm not disagreeing with any of you. I really don't know the whole story. However, I am skeptical that it was entirely Lucchino's fault.

[rjortiz]

Looks pretty accurate. Never believed Tito was much of a field manager. Winning MOY over Farrell was a joke. On the FO, it's hard to get a perspective here, since the media rarely talks about the machinations upstairs in an organization. I do think James' departure in '07 plus the furloughing of several saber consultants ("cost cutting" was the explanation--though they pay those folks peanuts compared to everybody else) hurt them. They had no one to tell Epstein he's nuts for signing/trading for those $20 million dollar guys. Especially Crawford. And we now know AdGon has lost some of his power stroke. You know what the star struck media did--they declared the Red Sox World Series winners before the start of the season.

 

The Dodgers are lucky they survived that trade with the Red Sox. It hasn't helped them a bit, except maybe for Mexican attendance. But they have so much Fox TV dough they can burn a pile of it every game. What helped them in the stretch last year was Hanley, Greinke and Puig. They were the difference, along with Kershaw. That kid Ryu is good, too. They are a team to watch--and not because of Crawford or AdGon.

 

MOY is such a pointless award. There isn't any evidence to suggest that managers make a dramatic impact on the performance of their teams. They might as well call the award, "Manager of the Team That Most Exceeded Preseason Projection." The Guardians were projected to be below .500, and made the playoffs, so I can't really argue with awarding Francona.

 

As for the Dodgers trade, I agree that the Dodgers massively overvalued Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett. However, their contracts aren't as burdensome on the Dodgers, as they are for the 29 other teams in MLB. They were good regulars for the Dodgers last year, as both had WAR totals of near three. If they continue to provide that level of production, they aren't that overpaid. I wouldn't call it a win for the Dodgers, but it isn't as big a disaster as it appeared in 2012.

Edited March 25, 2014 by rjortiz

[rjortiz]

Getting rid of Johnson is almost as bad as the Yankees letting Cano go.

 

Are you serious?

[seabeachfred]

What is the evidence that Lucchino was behind the bad personnel decisions that led to 2012? I read the SI article from Francona's perspective, but it appeared to be a mandate from ownership. I assume Lucchino handles the business decisions of the Red Sox, and may have pushed Epstein to make moves that would increase ratings for the Red Sox, but ultimately wasn't Epstein the person in charge of making those acquisitions?

 

Are some of you saying that Lucchino acted unilaterally and acquired these players over Epstein's objection? I'm not disagreeing with any of you. I really don't know the whole story. However, I am skeptical that it was entirely Lucchino's fault.

 

Good question RJ and if you had read the whole book you would know what we do. The fact is Lucchino started meddling during the 2008 season when the Manny Ramirez crisis began, and he kept getting more involved the next few seasons until Epstein had had enough again and decided to go to Chicago. Lucchino wanted to hold onto Manny until it became clear that there was no other recourse while Epstein wanted to dump him as soon as possible and even suspend him when he refused to get on that plane leaving for Seattle after the Angels series. Then there was the TV rating slide show when Larry and Werner ganged up on Epstein's desire to build from within and demanded "sexy" players to bring up TV ratings and to give Lucchino more to have in the way of promotions. John Henry, who had clearly delineated the powers of Epstein in baseball operations in early 2006 and Lucchino in promotions and fund raising, but like a virus that is not wiped out he wormed his way into baseball operations starting in 2008 and it was his call to hire Bobby Valentine as manager even though new GM Ben Cherington didn't want him. As a rookie GM he got steamrolled by the nosy and meddling and dictatorial ******* Lucchino.

 

After 2012 train wreck Henry finally awakened from his stupor and gave Ben and new manager John Farrell the keys the diamond. This time Henry must stay awake and keep Lucchino as far away from baseball operations as he can manage.

[rjortiz]

Good question RJ and if you had read the whole book you would know what we do. The fact is Lucchino started meddling during the 2008 season when the Manny Ramirez crisis began, and he kept getting more involved the next few seasons until Epstein had had enough again and decided to go to Chicago. Lucchino wanted to hold onto Manny until it became clear that there was no other recourse while Epstein wanted to dump him as soon as possible and even suspend him when he refused to get on that plane leaving for Seattle after the Angels series. Then there was the TV rating slide show when Larry and Werner ganged up on Epstein's desire to build from within and demanded "sexy" players to bring up TV ratings and to give Lucchino more to have in the way of promotions. John Henry, who had clearly delineated the powers of Epstein in baseball operations in early 2006 and Lucchino in promotions and fund raising, but like a virus that is not wiped out he wormed his way into baseball operations starting in 2008 and it was his call to hire Bobby Valentine as manager even though new GM Ben Cherington didn't want him. As a rookie GM he got steamrolled by the nosy and meddling and dictatorial ******* Lucchino.

 

After 2012 train wreck Henry finally awakened from his stupor and gave Ben and new manager John Farrell the keys the diamond. This time Henry must stay awake and keep Lucchino as far away from baseball operations as he can manage.

 

This is what I assumed, and it still doesn't make Epstein any less responsible for making the Crawford, Gonzalez, and Beckett decisions. Did they ignore his input and make those decisions without him? I think Theo tried to follow the mandate he was given, and just colossally f***ed up the execution.

[User Name]

MOY is such a pointless award. There isn't any evidence to suggest that managers make a dramatic impact on the performance of their teams. They might as well call the award, "Manager of the Team That Most Exceeded Preseason Projection." The Guardians were projected to be below .500, and made the playoffs, so I can't really argue with awarding Francona.

 

As for the Dodgers trade, I agree that the Dodgers massively overvalued Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett. However, their contracts aren't as burdensome on the Dodgers, as they are for the 29 other teams in MLB. They were good regulars for the Dodgers last year, as both had WAR totals of near three. If they continue to provide that level of production, they aren't that overpaid. I wouldn't call it a win for the Dodgers, but it isn't as big a disaster as it appeared in 2012.

 

You mean Gonzales was a good regular, because Crawford was not very good, and Beckett was injured AND terrible.

[User Name]

This is what I assumed, and it still doesn't make Epstein any less responsible for making the Crawford, Gonzalez, and Beckett decisions. Did they ignore his input and make those decisions without him? I think Theo tried to follow the mandate he was given, and just colossally f***ed up the execution.

 

I disagree, and very much so. Lucchino is on the record as saying Gonzalez was Theo's baby, but the Crawford and Lackey contracts as well as the Beckett extension were all of his mandates. It'd be very hard to find now but his mea culpa was an issue of much discussion here at TalkSox before you joined.

[rjortiz]

You mean Gonzales was a good regular, because Crawford was not very good, and Beckett was injured AND terrible.

 

Should have mentioned that I meant just Crawford and Gonzalez. Crawford was a solid regular with a 2.9 WAR last year, although a lot of that was because of his defense and baserunning. It would be interesting to see if that has returned.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

MOY is such a pointless award. There isn't any evidence to suggest that managers make a dramatic impact on the performance of their teams. They might as well call the award, "Manager of the Team That Most Exceeded Preseason Projection." The Guardians were projected to be below .500, and made the playoffs, so I can't really argue with awarding Francona.

I've said this before but any award that people have to vote on is ********. If it's not apparent and indisputable, like a championship or triple crown, then it shouldn't be given out.

 

This is just off the top of my head but the best may to measure a manager might be whether his teams outperform (or underperform) their pyth on a consistent basis.

[rjortiz]

I disagree, and very much so. Lucchino is on the record as saying Gonzalez was Theo's baby, but the Crawford and Lackey contracts as well as the Beckett extension were all of his mandates. It'd be very hard to find now but his mea culpa was an issue of much discussion here at TalkSox before you joined.

 

I was not aware of that. Seabeachfred mentioned a mandate, but did not say whose decision it was.

[rjortiz]

 

This is just off the top of my head but the best may to measure a manager might be whether his teams outperform (or underperform) their pyth on a consistent basis.

 

That could suggest good bullpen management, but I think that a skewed pythag record is based on luck. The Orioles winning a huge majority of their one run games comes to mind.

[SoxSport]

Are you serious?

 

ha. I had to look at that post to figure out who Johnson was. That was a bit of overstatement--even though it backfired when the Os didn't sign Balfour. Now they don't really have a reliable closer. Late inning relief is critical the way it's used in baseball these days. The starter almost never pitches the 8th or 9th inning. In some cases, you have to wonder why not. But that's the paradigm.

 

The biggest mistake, of course, was the Yankees' letting their best player, Cano, go--and then going on a half billion dollar spending spree as if to make up for it. They blew it, and then quickly realized they blew it--so they spent wildly.

[User Name]

Because there is a mountain of statistical, empirical, and common sense related data that shows that pitchers tend to lose effectiveness quickly after reaching the 100-pitch plateau. And what's the best way to deal with a fatigued pitcher? A replacement pitcher. It's not rocket science.

[rjortiz]

ha. I had to look at that post to figure out who Johnson was. That was a bit of overstatement--even though it backfired when the Os didn't sign Balfour. Now they don't really have a reliable closer. Late inning relief is critical the way it's used in baseball these days. The starter almost never pitches the 8th or 9th inning. In some cases, you have to wonder why not. But that's the paradigm.

 

The biggest mistake, of course, was the Yankees' letting their best player, Cano, go--and then going on a half billion dollar spending spree as if to make up for it. They blew it, and then quickly realized they blew it--so they spent wildly.

 

Huge overstatement. Cano is a six win 2B, whereas Johnson hasn't exceeded 1.5 WAR.

 

Because there is a mountain of statistical, empirical, and common sense related data that shows that pitchers tend to lose effectiveness quickly after reaching the 100-pitch plateau. And what's the best way to deal with a fatigued pitcher? A replacement pitcher. It's not rocket science.

 

Hard to shake an antiquated mindset. Idiots like Rob Dibble, Tom Seaver, and Nolan Ryan seem to forget their fellow pitchers who flamed out at early ages from high pitch counts.

[User Name]

I'd exclude Ryan from the group. For all the narrative about his "no pitch counts" philosophy, he's an advocate of incremental pitch counts for young pitchers, and to take out pitchers based on signs of inefectiveness. Otherwise your point is correct.

[SoxSport]

The pitching plateau has always been 120. Gradually, it has diminished down to 100, which has put tremendous pressure on the BP and caused teams to add another RP. Any well conditioned pitcher can throw 120 pitches in a quality start. And if you listened to the experts, like Halladay, it depends more on the pattern of the game--not on the number of pitches--as to how fatigued a pitcher gets.

 

This whole business of pitch counts is an art--not a science. And there is a lot of second guessing going on right now with all the Tommy John injuries. Good luck if you can find any experimental evidence on correlating pitch counts with injuries.

 

As for the Orioles, the impact on their pitching without a reliable closer will be substantial in a tight AL East. Losing a guy with 40 saves is tough to replace. The Red Sox were very lucky last year to have discovered Uehara's mastery. Without him in the stretch, things might have been different. I wouldn't take those WAR's too literally.

[mvp 78]

Good luck? All you have to do is google "pitch count injury correlation" and a bunch of studies pop up.

[Bellhorn04]

The pitching plateau has always been 120. Gradually, it has diminished down to 100, which has put tremendous pressure on the BP and caused teams to add another RP.

 

Why do you insist on these uninformed comments? 100 is not the magic number. For most good starters it's still more like 110, maybe 115. Look at Lester's game logs for 2013.

 

In 33 starts he had:

 

19 pitch counts of 105 or more.

15 pitch counts of 110 or more.

11 pitch counts of 115 or more.

3 pitch counts of 120 or more.

[Dojji]

120 is seen as the red line -- cross it at your own peril. Anything short of that is OK, but if you're going into an inning with 108 pitches, you'll probably see a reliever warming up, and if the guy hasn't been efficient to that point you might just take him out then.

 

Old timers like to dismiss the pitch limts, but guys like Gil Meche would rather they stuck to the book. Trey Hillman ruined that poor man's career with a 132 pitch outing just because he hadn't let in a run yet. A prejudice is a poor excuse for destroying a pitcher.

[User Name]

Why do you insist on these uninformed comments? 100 is not the magic number. For most good starters it's still more like 110, maybe 115. Look at Lester's game logs for 2013.

 

In 33 starts he had:

 

19 pitch counts of 105 or more.

15 pitch counts of 110 or more.

11 pitch counts of 115 or more.

3 pitch counts of 120 or more.

 

Because making stuff up and not listening to what anybody says is his schtick. The hilarious thing is that he keeps quoting Nolan Ryan's no-pitch count "mantra", even though the Rangers handle their SP and BP just like anybody else.

[Palodios]

[table=width: 100, class: grid, align: left]

[tr]

[td]SoxSport[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]SoxSport likes to criticize pitch counts.[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]That's it. Quick chart, huh?[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

Edited March 26, 2014 by Palodios

[Bellhorn04]

120 is seen as the red line -- cross it at your own peril. Anything short of that is OK, but if you're going into an inning with 108 pitches, you'll probably see a reliever warming up, and if the guy hasn't been efficient to that point you might just take him out then.

 

Old timers like to dismiss the pitch limts, but guys like Gil Meche would rather they stuck to the book. Trey Hillman ruined that poor man's career with a 132 pitch outing just because he hadn't let in a run yet. A prejudice is a poor excuse for destroying a pitcher.

 

I always go back to the 1980 Oakland A's as the ultimate example of pitcher abuse. Billy Martin had a nice young pitching staff that year and he pitched them to death. Have a look sometime - the innings totals were incredible. All those pitchers were clearly ruined by what Martin did to them.

[mvp 78]

[table=width: 100, class: grid, align: left]

[tr]

[td]SoxSport[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]SoxSport likes to criticize pitch counts.[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]That's it. Quick chart, huh?[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

I like this. Every poster over 5,000 posts needs a chart.

[Thunder]

I like this. Every poster over 5,000 posts needs a chart.

 

I completely agree. It can also be used as a guide for new users, and should tell them who it is worth arguing against and who will just embarrass them.

[mvp 78]

New users? Heh... Have you seen it around here?

[BSN07]

I like this. Every poster over 5,000 posts needs a chart.

 

That's actually a really good idea as long as people don't go overboard. Let's see how YOTN feels on it. I vote yes

[a700hitter]

That's actually a really good idea as long as people don't go overboard. Let's see how YOTN feels on it. I vote yes

A700Hitter doesn't fit into boxes.

[SoxSport]

120 is seen as the red line -- cross it at your own peril. Anything short of that is OK, but if you're going into an inning with 108 pitches, you'll probably see a reliever warming up, and if the guy hasn't been efficient to that point you might just take him out then.

 

Old timers like to dismiss the pitch limts, but guys like Gil Meche would rather they stuck to the book. Trey Hillman ruined that poor man's career with a 132 pitch outing just because he hadn't let in a run yet. A prejudice is a poor excuse for destroying a pitcher.

 

It should be evident when a pitcher loses his stuff. And, as you say, the red line is about 120 pitches. Too bad Grady Little paid no attention to that when he kept in Pedro in that Yankee stadium game. Cost him his job.

 

I remember when Schilling pitched for Philly, and Tito was manager. Tito kept him in for 140 or so pitches many games--his ERA in the 8th and 9th innings was about 5. Claimed he had a weak bullpen. Next year Schilling had to have a shoulder operation. There's obviously a limit, but 100 pitches taxes the bullpen and leads to unforced losses. The starters are better pitchers than their replacements, except for maybe the closer.