Dombrowski in Cherington Out

[Kimmi]

What the f*** is "Large N"?

 

Basically, it's the concept that when using stats, players are very predictable as a group, but individually, they are virtual unkowns. This is why scouts are so important.

 

Unfortunately, even with scouting reports, it is impossible to know what any indvidual is going to do. The best we can do is to look at what the group as a whole has done in the past, and try to individualize it as much as possible.

[a700hitter]

What the f*** is "Large N"?

In Ben's case it stands for "Numbskull"

[sk7326]

The idea was to move Hanley from a defensive position to an offensive one ... it has not worked, but it was a good percentage play. So now you move him to another offensive position. LF and 1B have long been the "well you gotta play him somewhere" positions (with relative tubbiness differentiating them I suppose). Hanley's extraordinary badness was a fairly unlikely outcome - and one which has been accented by him suddenly forgetting how to hit too.

[Kimmi]

In Ben's case it stands for "Numbskull"

 

Seriously, do people really think that Ben and the FO make these decisions with no research, both from the analytics and scouting side? A move goes terribly wrong (in the first year of the deal anyway), and we hear all of this is criticsim of how stupid Ben is and how he is signing players based on nothing more than a blind guess.

 

There is so much more that goes into the decisions that we don't know about. They have so much more information that we never hear about because the FO does not disclose it.

 

They are looking at deals from angles that we have no clue about. They are contacting teams about players that we wouldn't even know are on the radar. They are looking at players who might become available in 2 or 3 years and factoring that into their equation. They have both an analytics department and a scouting department whose job it is to research every possible angle of team development.

 

The FO has gone terribly wrong the past 2 years. But please don't try to sell me on the idea that they haven't done their homework.

[Kimmi]

The idea was to move Hanley from a defensive position to an offensive one ... it has not worked, but it was a good percentage play. So now you move him to another offensive position. LF and 1B have long been the "well you gotta play him somewhere" positions (with relative tubbiness differentiating them I suppose). Hanley's extraordinary badness was a fairly unlikely outcome - and one which has been accented by him suddenly forgetting how to hit too.

 

Thank you once again for being the voice of reason. When I read your posts, it reassures me that I am not way out in left field.

[a700hitter]

Seriously, do people really think that Ben and the FO make these decisions with no research, both from the analytics and scouting side? A move goes terribly wrong (in the first year of the deal anyway), and we hear all of this is criticsim of how stupid Ben is and how he is signing players based on nothing more than a blind guess.

 

There is so much more that goes into the decisions that we don't know about. They have so much more information that we never hear about because the FO does not disclose it.

 

They are looking at deals from angles that we have no clue about. They are contacting teams about players that we wouldn't even know are on the radar. They are looking at players who might become available in 2 or 3 years and factoring that into their equation. They have both an analytics department and a scouting department whose job it is to research every possible angle of team development.

 

The FO has gone terribly wrong the past 2 years. But please don't try to sell me on the idea that they haven't done their homework.

It has worked out very poorly. I have to conclude that the homework was done poorly. Edited August 27, 2015 by a700hitter

[iortiz]

Every GM make their homework, that is out of the question. The thing is that some of them take bad decisions based on their analysis/homework, just like in Ben's case. At the time (especially last 2 offseasons) some agreed with him and some not, and that's fine, but in the end, time would tell if their analysis/homework/plan were oks.

Time has spoken for Ben... he is very gone. Hopefully DD make the right decisions.

[mvp 78]

Basically, it's the concept that when using stats, players are very predictable as a group, but individually, they are virtual unkowns. This is why scouts are so important.

 

Unfortunately, even with scouting reports, it is impossible to know what any indvidual is going to do. The best we can do is to look at what the group as a whole has done in the past, and try to individualize it as much as possible.

Former teamates of Hanley have gone on the record stating that Hanley should only play IF. Maybe they shoud've asked around before wasting 88M?

[Kimmi]

Former teamates of Hanley have gone on the record stating that Hanley should only play IF. Maybe they shoud've asked around before wasting 88M?

 

I'm sure they did ask around. None of us knows who they talked to and who they didn't. I'm sure there are other former teammates who felt pretty confident that Hanley could make the transition to LF. Perhaps they could have been more thorough in talking to former clubs. Perhaps they were extremely thorough. We don't know.

 

That said, I am pretty sure that they were comprehensive enough in their "homework" that they felt confident in signing him. The point is that they didn't sign Hanley without gathering the information on him that they thought was sufficient.

[a700hitter]

I'm sure they did ask around. None of us knows who they talked to and who they didn't. I'm sure there are other former teammates who felt pretty confident that Hanley could make the transition to LF. Perhaps they could have been more thorough in talking to former clubs. Perhaps they were extremely thorough. We don't know.

 

That said, I am pretty sure that they were comprehensive enough in their "homework" that they felt confident in signing him. The point is that they didn't sign Hanley without gathering the information on him that they thought was sufficient.

Just bad luck? Faulty information? Did the former team mates lie?

[Kimmi]

Just bad luck? Faulty information? Did the former team mates lie?

 

You know as well as I do that there is no way to predict future performance with 100% accuracy. It's all a guess. Even the most seemingly sure bet is a guess. All I'm saying is that it's an educated guess based on information that they collected, not a blind guess. They did not just throw their hands up in the air and say, what the heck, let's do it.

[a700hitter]

You know as well as I do that there is no way to predict future performance with 100% accuracy. It's all a guess. Even the most seemingly sure bet is a guess. All I'm saying is that it's an educated guess based on information that they collected, not a blind guess. They did not just throw their hands up in the air and say, what the heck, let's do it.

I also know that Ben amassed a record of failed decisions that is astonishing. If they had good processes and good research including scouting, he must have the worst luck in the world that so many things went wrong. He reminds me of The Mush in the movie A Bronx Tale.

[cp176]

Whether the front office did their homework or not, whether bad luck enters in or whatever else, in order for this team to get better, Hanley Ramirez has to go. It was a bad sign. We will have a better team without him on the roster, and my bet is that Dombrowski knows it. i feel for the guy but I do not think that his value as a potential hitter can compensate for the negatives that he brings.

[Orange Juiced]

Just bad luck? Faulty information? Did the former team mates lie?

 

They gathered as much information as possible and made an educated guess. NOBODY knew exactly how Hanley would fare in LF. He has always been a pretty good athlete, and he seemed to embrace the move to the OF. Those two things suggest that there's a reasonable chance he could at least be close to replacement level on defense in the OF.

 

They probably figured that, as a calculated gamble, his offense would more than make up for it if his defense was subpar. The problem is twofold: (1) His defense was WAY worse than pretty much anyone thought it would be, and (2) his offense hasn't come CLOSE to making up for it. If he was at .880 ops, 30 hr, 110 rbi, etc., then maybe yeah. But his injuries and lack of hitting have really enhanced (is that the right word? you know what I mean) his terrible defense.

[Orange Juiced]

You know as well as I do that there is no way to predict future performance with 100% accuracy. It's all a guess. Even the most seemingly sure bet is a guess. All I'm saying is that it's an educated guess based on information that they collected, not a blind guess. They did not just throw their hands up in the air and say, what the heck, let's do it.

 

This is true. Let's say that Mike Trout were magically available in the offseason and the Sox could land him for an 8-year, $250 million deal. By WAR, he's WAY worth that kind of money. At $7 million per 1 WAR, and about 9 WAR a season, he's "worth" about $60-65 million a season. Obviously nobody would pay THAT kind of money, but still, $30+ million a year is reasonable for a guy like Trout.

 

If the Sox signed him for 8/250, how would people here feel about that? As sure a bet in the game to be great. He hasn't even reached his age 27 season yet (still 4 years away!) so you'd be getting all his pre-prime and prime years. He's always been healthy, etc.

 

Let's say the Sox did it and then for whatever reason Trout declined and ended up being worth about 3 WAR per year. Not a bad player by any stretch, but not remotely what the Sox paid for him.

 

Would we eviscerate the front office for such a move?

 

Calculated gambles are what front offices must make. Lots of times they don't work out. The best front offices gamble successfully more times than they fail, but none of them get a tremendously high percentage right.

[waltr]

In spite of his offensive output, Hanley has been a problem, even being termed "unreliable" in Miami and Los Angeles. They cried no tears and lost no sleep when he left. Ortiz has not been the influenc om him which they had hoped he would be and they not only made a bad decision in his signing, but outbid themselves in the process

[waltr]

I believe he will make Dick (Dr Strangeglove) Stuart look like a gold glover!!

[sk7326]

In spite of his offensive output, Hanley has been a problem, even being termed "unreliable" in Miami and Los Angeles. They cried no tears and lost no sleep when he left. Ortiz has not been the influenc om him which they had hoped he would be and they not only made a bad decision in his signing, but outbid themselves in the process

 

He was termed unreliable because he was always hurt.

[Bellhorn04]

I know there's some cherry-picking involved here, but the last time Hanley both played more than 128 games and put up an OPS over .759 was 2010.

[Kimmi]

I also know that Ben amassed a record of failed decisions that is astonishing. If they had good processes and good research including scouting, he must have the worst luck in the world that so many things went wrong. He reminds me of The Mush in the movie A Bronx Tale.

 

Not that I agree with it, but I can accept your statement that Ben's research processes are flawed. What I can't accept are the statements or the insinuations that Ben made a move without doing his homework.

[Kimmi]

They gathered as much information as possible and made an educated guess. NOBODY knew exactly how Hanley would fare in LF. He has always been a pretty good athlete, and he seemed to embrace the move to the OF. Those two things suggest that there's a reasonable chance he could at least be close to replacement level on defense in the OF.

 

They probably figured that, as a calculated gamble, his offense would more than make up for it if his defense was subpar. The problem is twofold: (1) His defense was WAY worse than pretty much anyone thought it would be, and (2) his offense hasn't come CLOSE to making up for it. If he was at .880 ops, 30 hr, 110 rbi, etc., then maybe yeah. But his injuries and lack of hitting have really enhanced (is that the right word? you know what I mean) his terrible defense.

 

Spot on post. Thank you.

[Kimmi]

This is true. Let's say that Mike Trout were magically available in the offseason and the Sox could land him for an 8-year, $250 million deal. By WAR, he's WAY worth that kind of money. At $7 million per 1 WAR, and about 9 WAR a season, he's "worth" about $60-65 million a season. Obviously nobody would pay THAT kind of money, but still, $30+ million a year is reasonable for a guy like Trout.

 

If the Sox signed him for 8/250, how would people here feel about that? As sure a bet in the game to be great. He hasn't even reached his age 27 season yet (still 4 years away!) so you'd be getting all his pre-prime and prime years. He's always been healthy, etc.

 

Let's say the Sox did it and then for whatever reason Trout declined and ended up being worth about 3 WAR per year. Not a bad player by any stretch, but not remotely what the Sox paid for him.

 

Would we eviscerate the front office for such a move?

 

Calculated gambles are what front offices must make. Lots of times they don't work out. The best front offices gamble successfully more times than they fail, but none of them get a tremendously high percentage right.

 

This is why I've said before that I don't put the blame for this season on Ben. On paper, most "experts" had the Sox winning the division. This team was supposed to be good. What happened on the field is really beyond Ben's control

 

I gave an example similar to your Trout example using Kershaw earlier in the year to make the point that Ben is not responsible for the way Porcello has pitched this season. Porcello is obviously no Kershaw, but the point stands. If Ben signed Kershaw and then Kershaw fell apart, I don't think anyone would blame Ben. Ben should not be blamed for Porcello pitching as badly as he has either.

[Bellhorn04]

I would have liked picking up Porcello as an isolated transaction. What I don't like is that, as I see it, they traded Lester for Porcello.

[BigPapi]

This is why I've said before that I don't put the blame for this season on Ben. On paper, most "experts" had the Sox winning the division. This team was supposed to be good. What happened on the field is really beyond Ben's control

 

I gave an example similar to your Trout example using Kershaw earlier in the year to make the point that Ben is not responsible for the way Porcello has pitched this season. Porcello is obviously no Kershaw, but the point stands. If Ben signed Kershaw and then Kershaw fell apart, I don't think anyone would blame Ben. Ben should not be blamed for Porcello pitching as badly as he has either.

 

The problem with porcello wasn't trading for him for this year. It was giving him a a 4 yr, $80+ million dollar extension before he even threw a pitch for the red sox. For a guy who has been mediocre for the large majority of his career except for one year in which he was solid, thats a big risk. Since the sox obviously thought that he turned a corner in 2014 and was going to become a solid, above average pitcher as he moved into his prime years, they decided to try to lock him up very early. The sox were projecting that his mediocrity stopped during the 2014 and that he would not regress. You can't even compare a Kershaw situation with Porcello because Kershaw's track record is far more impressive than Porcello's .

[jacksonianmarch]

Kimmi, is Ben your brother or something?

 

Lets just look at some interesting tidbits from last offseason.

 

Flush with cash, the sox were looking basically at a clean drawing board. Their longest signed player was their 2b, who even in a slightly diminished capacity was still an above average to elite player. They had a system brimming with talent. Their CFer and SS already had their feet wet in the system. Basically, they were able to shed most bad money and had a system on the up and up. So how did this thing go wrong? I can tell you why. They went apeshit over a piss poor free agent market. Instead of preaching patience and prudence, they shot their load for guys who had either a bad track record or no track record.

 

De la Rosa and Webster had value last offseason. Why would you package them together to get a lefty homer prone bad chemistry guy trending in the wrong direction? Miley might be somewhat productive, but he was a bad fit from day 1. And if you think I'm a hypocrite, read my posts about his acquisition when it happened. I panned it and was right in doing so. Miley was a bad fit in the clubhouse, a bad fit to the park and was trending in the wrong direction. Now he's basically a #5 who is signed to an extension and is worth nothing to other clubs. You are stuck with him.

 

Pablo Sandoval was trending downward in terms of offensive production. His weight was trending upward. He was a clubhouse cancer in SF. The only thing going for him was that he was marketable and mashed in the playoffs. So throw 5 yrs $95 mil at him? Bad fit, bad trend, bad length of deal. Bad everything

 

Hanley Ramirez has trouble staying on the field. Hanley Ramirez is a s***** clubhouse guy and everyone who let him walk was happy to let him walk. What about his demeanor screamed SIGN THIS GUY AND HAVE HIM LEARN A NEW POSITION! He also has trouble staying on the field. This one is the least defensible. The guy has always been a powderkeg and an ******* in the clubhouse. SO lets sign him and make him our #4 hitter and have him learn LF in Fenway? f***ing retarded.

 

Rick Porcello was a nice little pitcher in Detroit. He was a #4 or 5 there and basically pitched as a #4 or 5. Last yr, he was dominant until Aug 1 then s*** the bed and basically was left without a spot in the playoffs. He is also a contact pitcher. What made Ben think he was the guy to take the reigns as the new ace in Fenway, especially knowing that Panda was a defensive time bomb and Bogaerts was coming off a poor defensive season? So lets deal a real LFer in Cespedes (who looks WAY better than Ramirez) and deal him for a pitcher who is a good back end of the rotation guy, then lets sign him like an ace and proclaim him the ace. Then we will watch him implode and dread the next 5 years.

 

Guys, Ben might be an analytics guy and he might be trying to find a diamond in the rough. The problem is, finding a diamond in the rough requires you to go through a lot of rough. This is Boston. This is a big market. This isn't Pittsburgh. The idea of trying to find hidden value and then overpaying for that value and basically getting negative value makes no sense. Pay for the known commodity and stop saddling yourselves with dumb contracts on guys who could have been hitting their stride, but probably weren't. Cherington hit on a bunch of guys prior to 2013. But the fall from grace and the absolute disaster left is one of the worst GM jobs of all time. I am sorry Kim, but he deserved to be canned

[User Name]

You pan essentially everything the Red Sox do, so that's no call to fame, fine sir.

[mvp 78]

You pan essentially everything the Red Sox do, so that's no call to fame, fine sir.

 

Still waiting on his "Remy got Orsillo fired" story.

[reYoukilis]

Kimmi, is Ben your brother or something?

 

Lets just look at some interesting tidbits from last offseason.

 

Flush with cash, the sox were looking basically at a clean drawing board. Their longest signed player was their 2b, who even in a slightly diminished capacity was still an above average to elite player. They had a system brimming with talent. Their CFer and SS already had their feet wet in the system. Basically, they were able to shed most bad money and had a system on the up and up. So how did this thing go wrong? I can tell you why. They went apeshit over a piss poor free agent market. Instead of preaching patience and prudence, they shot their load for guys who had either a bad track record or no track record.

 

De la Rosa and Webster had value last offseason. Why would you package them together to get a lefty homer prone bad chemistry guy trending in the wrong direction? Miley might be somewhat productive, but he was a bad fit from day 1. And if you think I'm a hypocrite, read my posts about his acquisition when it happened. I panned it and was right in doing so. Miley was a bad fit in the clubhouse, a bad fit to the park and was trending in the wrong direction. Now he's basically a #5 who is signed to an extension and is worth nothing to other clubs. You are stuck with him.

 

Pablo Sandoval was trending downward in terms of offensive production. His weight was trending upward. He was a clubhouse cancer in SF. The only thing going for him was that he was marketable and mashed in the playoffs. So throw 5 yrs $95 mil at him? Bad fit, bad trend, bad length of deal. Bad everything

 

Hanley Ramirez has trouble staying on the field. Hanley Ramirez is a s***** clubhouse guy and everyone who let him walk was happy to let him walk. What about his demeanor screamed SIGN THIS GUY AND HAVE HIM LEARN A NEW POSITION! He also has trouble staying on the field. This one is the least defensible. The guy has always been a powderkeg and an ******* in the clubhouse. SO lets sign him and make him our #4 hitter and have him learn LF in Fenway? f***ing retarded.

 

Rick Porcello was a nice little pitcher in Detroit. He was a #4 or 5 there and basically pitched as a #4 or 5. Last yr, he was dominant until Aug 1 then s*** the bed and basically was left without a spot in the playoffs. He is also a contact pitcher. What made Ben think he was the guy to take the reigns as the new ace in Fenway, especially knowing that Panda was a defensive time bomb and Bogaerts was coming off a poor defensive season? So lets deal a real LFer in Cespedes (who looks WAY better than Ramirez) and deal him for a pitcher who is a good back end of the rotation guy, then lets sign him like an ace and proclaim him the ace. Then we will watch him implode and dread the next 5 years.

 

Guys, Ben might be an analytics guy and he might be trying to find a diamond in the rough. The problem is, finding a diamond in the rough requires you to go through a lot of rough. This is Boston. This is a big market. This isn't Pittsburgh. The idea of trying to find hidden value and then overpaying for that value and basically getting negative value makes no sense. Pay for the known commodity and stop saddling yourselves with dumb contracts on guys who could have been hitting their stride, but probably weren't. Cherington hit on a bunch of guys prior to 2013. But the fall from grace and the absolute disaster left is one of the worst GM jobs of all time. I am sorry Kim, but he deserved to be canned

Wow, we suck. All that and you didn't even bring up keeping Bucholz but getting rid of Lester, which I think was the beginning of the downfall.

 

BC was too analytical I think and ignored stuff like injury history, which boggles the mind, team chemistry and getting guys with competitive spirit.

 

Not counting 2013 where he could do no wrong. He may have gotten lucky there. I wonder if getting all those good character guys was a happy accident and he was really looking at their sabre stats because he sure hasn't copied that formula.

[sk7326]

You pan essentially everything the Red Sox do, so that's no call to fame, fine sir.

 

Jacko's first paragraph was right and then the other 7500 words could have gone in the wood chipper

[Kimmi]

I would have liked picking up Porcello as an isolated transaction. What I don't like is that, as I see it, they traded Lester for Porcello.

 

I can agree with that.