The Quarter Pole; What's the problem?

[SoxFanForsyth]

Was our record this bad after 50 games in 2012?

 

26-24 through 50 in 2012, aka 5 games ahead of the 2014 counterparts.

Edited May 27, 2014 by SoxFanForsyth

[Station 13]

Was our record this bad after 50 games in 2012?

 

26-24

[sk7326]

Was our record this bad after 50 games in 2012?

 

26-24 ... good for last place, 2.5 games out.

It's a tough road for sure. However, Jays are the only team with a positive run differential. There is no real evidence that any of the other 4 teams are that good. Nothing here that a couple of good healthy weeks can't fix.

[sk7326]

Breaking down "what went wrong" by position:

 

C: Down

1B: Same

2B: Worse

3B: Same

SS: Better

OF: A Lot Worse

SP: Worse

Bullpen: Same (can quibble about individual performances - but overall has not been a problem)

 

While I understand the Drew signing from a team management perspective (it upgrades 3B while limiting any downgrade at SS) ... it is funny to see their first FA/trade foray in season was for the one position which has actually gone well this year.

[Bellhorn04]

Breaking down "what went wrong" by position:

 

C: Down

1B: Same

2B: Worse

3B: Same

SS: Better

OF: A Lot Worse

SP: Worse

Bullpen: Same (can quibble about individual performances - but overall has not been a problem)

 

While I understand the Drew signing from a team management perspective (it upgrades 3B while limiting any downgrade at SS) ... it is funny to see their first FA/trade foray in season was for the one position which has actually gone well this year.

 

Based on which numbers are we better at SS this year?

[User Name]

Bogaerts has been terrible defensively. SK is usually spot on with his assessments, but he's way off the mark here. The Drew signing upgrades both SS and 3B in a vacuum.

[sk7326]

Bogaerts has been terrible defensively. SK is usually spot on with his assessments, but he's way off the mark here. The Drew signing upgrades both SS and 3B in a vacuum.

 

Bogaerts has hit better - and his fielding has been nothing special. Not good, not a horrendous travesty - we knew coming in that his value as a SS was going to be about offense + adequate defense. UZR puts him at basically average for instance. He is certainly not Drew's equal defensively (and that combined with the disaster at 3B justifies the signing). But combine what he has done so far with the upwards trajectory he has shown (both recently as well as his career arc when he changes levels), he was well on track to upgrade that position overall from what Drew gave them. (not Drew + Iglesias together, but that is another matter)

 

If you thought that Bogaerts was going to be our best player in April - yeah not much can be done there. But someone who has been one of the top 10 shortstops in the league as a "freshman on the varsity"? He has been good.

[Bellhorn04]

Bogaerts's UZR is better than I thought it was.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Bogaerts has been terrible defensively. SK is usually spot on with his assessments, but he's way off the mark here. The Drew signing upgrades both SS and 3B in a vacuum.

 

Terrible defensively?? Not even close, at least not by Fangraph standards. His defensive rating, which is position adjusted (something that DRS is not) is at +1.8.

 

Of the 25 qualified SS, Bogaerts ranks 12th in Def Rating, so right in the middle of the pack. Based on total Def Rating for all SS right now (+72.2), the league average SS posts a Def Rating of 2.4, which may be slightly distorted upward due to Tulo and Hardy combining for 16 of the 72 points (basically, 1/5th of the points).

 

Either way, to say that Bogaerts defense has been terrible is silly.

 

Non-positional adjustments have Bogaerts UZR/150 at -0.5, so, basically an average defender.

[Spudboy]

If you actually watch all of the games and not look at advanced metrics ( which are based on subjective assessments, incidentally ) Bogaerts looks pretty bad. His range to the left is inadequate and his throws ( other than on seemingly routine plays ) are not good.

 

He looks like what he is. A young, inexperienced shortstop with defensive deficiencies.

[User Name]

You have to use the eye test here. Both SK and SFF know the limitations on UZR (and most defensive stats) when it comes to both small samples and MIF. Let's take the rose-colored glasses off. If he was as good as you think, Drew wouldn't have been resigned.

[User Name]

Bogaerts has hit better - and his fielding has been nothing special. Not good, not a horrendous travesty - we knew coming in that his value as a SS was going to be about offense + adequate defense. UZR puts him at basically average for instance. He is certainly not Drew's equal defensively (and that combined with the disaster at 3B justifies the signing). But combine what he has done so far with the upwards trajectory he has shown (both recently as well as his career arc when he changes levels), he was well on track to upgrade that position overall from what Drew gave them. (not Drew + Iglesias together, but that is another matter)

 

If you thought that Bogaerts was going to be our best player in April - yeah not much can be done there. But someone who has been one of the top 10 shortstops in the league as a "freshman on the varsity"? He has been good.

 

You're taking my analysis out of context. That's why i said Drew improves "in a vacuum". Bogaerts is a very good offensive contributor that is only going to get better, but his defense at SS is not good. You improve 3B offensively (and maybe even defensively) by moving XB to 3B, while sacrificing a bit of offense but greatly upgrading your D at SS.

[jacksonianmarch]

The question is, how much does he improve your team? Does he improve it enough to become a contender after being 8 games under .500? Probably not. You need at least 1 more starter and at least one more high quality, middle of the order OFer

[User Name]

The question is, how much does he improve your team? Does he improve it enough to become a contender after being 8 games under .500? Probably not. You need at least 1 more starter and at least one more high quality, middle of the order OFer

 

Does this mean they shouldn't have made the move? Because that makes no sense. They need to improve the defense and offense however they can, and just because they haven't made any other moves doesn't mean that they won't, or that signing Drew makes any less sense.

[jacksonianmarch]

I think it sends a strange message. You go into the yr with 3 kids starting saying you want to give the kids a chance. Then, when you're practically out of it, you sign a veteran to supplant one of your kids

[SoxFanForsyth]

You have to use the eye test here. Both SK and SFF know the limitations on UZR (and most defensive stats) when it comes to both small samples and MIF. Let's take the rose-colored glasses off. If he was as good as you think, Drew wouldn't have been resigned.

 

I vehemently disagree.

 

If Middlebrooks wasn't consistently injured and playing terribly when healthy, then Drew wouldn't have been signed.

 

The Drew signing had nothing to do with Bogaerts, IMO.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I think it sends a strange message. You go into the yr with 3 kids starting saying you want to give the kids a chance. Then, when you're practically out of it, you sign a veteran to supplant one of your kids

 

Don't think it sends mixed signals. I think it says they've given up on Middlebrooks, Bogaerts is the casualty, and they still believe they can win.

 

What I don't understand is why we feel the need to displace all of our rookies. Take your 81 wins and go into 2015 with a guy in CF who has a year under his belt and can at least hold his own (or not, but at least we will have a definitive answer and an offseason to make changes) and a guy at SS who is a middle of the order bat who can also pick it at around an average rate.

 

You keep pulling this garbage (displacing Bogaerts w Drew, trading for a new CF, etc) and next year you go into the year with a guy at SS who only played 60 games at SS in 2014 & will have to absorb lumps that could have been absorbed in 2014, and a guy in CF who is still a question mark as to what exactly he is, plus now you’re probably going to go with a rookie at C too. So, great, basically three rookies playing up-the-middle positions.

 

Again. Take your lumps. Take your 81 wins. Take your 2013 WS Championship and use it to leverage a little development time.

[sk7326]

You're taking my analysis out of context. That's why i said Drew improves "in a vacuum". Bogaerts is a very good offensive contributor that is only going to get better, but his defense at SS is not good. You improve 3B offensively (and maybe even defensively) by moving XB to 3B, while sacrificing a bit of offense but greatly upgrading your D at SS.

 

I think in previous entries I've expressed support for the Drew signing. I find it funny they brought in a SS since SS is the one position which has gone well - but it is clearly the simplest solution to improve an area of weakness. Drew is a significant defensive upgrade and while he is totally useless against lefties - you can wallpaper over that when it pops up. There just aren't many good SS or 3B to go around - so you do what you gotta do. Bogaerts future is at SS to me still - but there is a current problem to solve.

 

There is an opportunity to be had here after all. The division just isn't that good. The Yankees have basically been about what any smart person would have expected - not a hell of a lot different than last year, despite all the deck chair reshuffling - only Toronto has a positive run margin. The Sox record is depressing, but nobody has run away - and nobody has shown much evidence that they will.

[sk7326]

Don't think it sends mixed signals. I think it says they've given up on Middlebrooks, Bogaerts is the casualty, and they still believe they can win.

 

What I don't understand is why we feel the need to displace all of our rookies. Take your 81 wins and go into 2015 with a guy in CF who has a year under his belt and can at least hold his own (or not, but at least we will have a definitive answer and an offseason to make changes) and a guy at SS who is a middle of the order bat who can also pick it at around an average rate.

 

You keep pulling this garbage (displacing Bogaerts w Drew, trading for a new CF, etc) and next year you go into the year with a guy at SS who only played 60 games at SS in 2014 & will have to absorb lumps that could have been absorbed in 2014, and a guy in CF who is still a question mark as to what exactly he is, plus now you’re probably going to go with a rookie at C too. So, great, basically three rookies playing up-the-middle positions.

 

Again. Take your lumps. Take your 81 wins. Take your 2013 WS Championship and use it to leverage a little development time.

 

When you gouge the public more than any other team - and when you have a chance to make the playoffs (which you do when the entire division is in quicksand and you STILL have the best roster in the division), you play to win. It's a sensitive dance, but one that the franchise owes the fans that help keep a high revenue team a high revenue team.

[SoxFanForsyth]

When you gouge the public more than any other team - and when you have a chance to make the playoffs (which you do when the entire division is in quicksand and you STILL have the best roster in the division), you play to win. It's a sensitive dance, but one that the franchise owes the fans that help keep a high revenue team a high revenue team.

 

I just disagree. 2014, to me at least, is a year where the team is transitioning it's core players. From 2015 on, the core should be Pedroia, Bogaerts, & hopefully JBJ (position player speaking), with guys like Vazquez/Swihart and Betts transitioning in during 2015 and 2016.

 

Either way, it's silly to sit there and take the lumps of Bogaerts defensively at SS (which he has improved significantly) and JBJ offensively and then not let them stick around long enough to reap the rewards from those lumps.

[sk7326]

I just disagree. 2014, to me at least, is a year where the team is transitioning it's core players. From 2015 on, the core should be Pedroia, Bogaerts, & hopefully JBJ (position player speaking), with guys like Vazquez/Swihart and Betts transitioning in during 2015 and 2016.

 

Either way, it's silly to sit there and take the lumps of Bogaerts defensively at SS (which he has improved significantly) and JBJ offensively and then not let them stick around long enough to reap the rewards from those lumps.

 

Oh I agree on Bradley - this Sizemore nonsense was a silly idea from the word go. Bogaerts is a different deal. I agree in isolation, but they had an easy play to improve the team right now. Also Drew becomes the team's best trade asset the second he takes the field - which could be cashed in for something else, especially if it is a place Drew would not mind. Granted the latter is a lower probability, but one that should not be ignored.

 

I believe in a transition year - but in this market, with these resources, a transition year is 2006 or 2010. You don't tell the fans they can't have a reasonable shot at contention. The shot is still reasonable. You don't need to do anything stupid, but you still want to give it your best shot.

[User Name]

I vehemently disagree.

 

If Middlebrooks wasn't consistently injured and playing terribly when healthy, then Drew wouldn't have been signed.

 

The Drew signing had nothing to do with Bogaerts, IMO.

 

Well that's your opinion, but there were certainly other options, and they clearly had at least some modicum of interest (or at least comfort) with the possibility of Drew coming back in the first place since they offered him a QO and not Salty.

[User Name]

I think it sends a strange message. You go into the yr with 3 kids starting saying you want to give the kids a chance. Then, when you're practically out of it, you sign a veteran to supplant one of your kids

 

You're swinging at thin air here. With WMB out anyway, they really didn't have much of a choice.

[User Name]

Oh I agree on Bradley - this Sizemore nonsense was a silly idea from the word go. Bogaerts is a different deal. I agree in isolation, but they had an easy play to improve the team right now. Also Drew becomes the team's best trade asset the second he takes the field - which could be cashed in for something else, especially if it is a place Drew would not mind. Granted the latter is a lower probability, but one that should not be ignored.

 

I believe in a transition year - but in this market, with these resources, a transition year is 2006 or 2010. You don't tell the fans they can't have a reasonable shot at contention. The shot is still reasonable. You don't need to do anything stupid, but you still want to give it your best shot.

 

That's really all there is to it. Drew is an offensive improvement over the garbage WMB was making us put up with, and he's worlds better defensively than XB.

[Palodios]

I just disagree. 2014, to me at least, is a year where the team is transitioning it's core players. From 2015 on, the core should be Pedroia, Bogaerts, & hopefully JBJ (position player speaking), with guys like Vazquez/Swihart and Betts transitioning in during 2015 and 2016.

 

Either way, it's silly to sit there and take the lumps of Bogaerts defensively at SS (which he has improved significantly) and JBJ offensively and then not let them stick around long enough to reap the rewards from those lumps.

 

It would be one thing if this team was 8 games back, and everyone was injured. The team is 8 games back, and is healthy, minus a few short DL trips. You cannot win a championship, and then let your team fall off the cliff. I am happy going in either direction -- trading players and stockpiling picks, or shoring up the weakneses and trying to make another run at it.

 

If you think they can wait until 2015 or 2016 to make a run, remember that you may need to replace key pieces like David Ortiz, Koji Uehara, Shane Victorino, Jake Peavy, John Lackey, Jon Lester. That is why it is important to make a run if you can.... plus, the American League seems mediocre outside of Detroit.

[sk7326]

Here is the thing - flags fly forever, and you need to give your team a chance anytime you can. The question you ask is whether the Sox are in it or not - and the answer to me is decidedly yes. The roster is still good, and the rest of the division has been spinning its wheels. 7 games in the loss column is a haul - but there is still a lot of time. I have a long view about the franchise too - but nobody is poor, I have no interest in Luis Suarez' salary. The team is not absolved from honorably chasing the championship. What the Sox calculated this year is reasonable - some things have not worked so far, but they owe it to the fans to try to turn the ship around at least while there is still a whole 2/3 of a season left.

[a700hitter]

26-24 through 50 in 2012, aka 5 games ahead of the 2014 counterparts.

 

It is astounding to me that the this team is 5 games off the pace of the atrocity that was 2012 through 50 games.

 

The Blue Jays seem to be following our path but one year later. They signed a ton of talent last year and bombed like we did in 2012. This year, their guys are performing and they have some spark and spirit like we didi in 2013. Buehrle is pitching like early 2012 Buchholz.

[SoxFanForsyth]

It is astounding to me that the this team is 5 games off the pace of the atrocity that was 2012 through 50 games.

 

The Blue Jays seem to be following our path but one year later. They signed a ton of talent last year and bombed like we did in 2012. This year, their guys are performing and they have some spark and spirit like we didi in 2013. Buehrle is pitching like early 2012 Buchholz.

 

To be fair, though, the 2012 Sox stuck right around .500 the entire season until Ortiz went down, then they made the trade, and then they just fell on their face.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Well that's your opinion, but there were certainly other options, and they clearly had at least some modicum of interest (or at least comfort) with the possibility of Drew coming back in the first place since they offered him a QO and not Salty.

 

I think they were comfortable with Drew coming back because Middlebrooks was such a volatile player. And once Drew declined the QO, they didn't make any kind of push for him after that until Middlebrooks went down.

 

Drew is clearly better than Bogaerts defensively, I agree with that, and by signing Drew and moving Bogaerts to 3B, the team is better. But I really believe that if Middlebrooks was producing like he did in 2012, Drew would be still working out without a team to sign him.

[Bellhorn04]

Drew is clearly better than Bogaerts defensively, I agree with that, and by signing Drew and moving Bogaerts to 3B, the team is better. But I really believe that if Middlebrooks was producing like he did in 2012, Drew would be still working out without a team to sign him.

 

Sure he would be. Of the 3 'kids', Middlebrooks was the biggest X factor, and the worst-case scenario happened for Mr. X.