Red Sox' relative strengths and weaknesses

[Bellhorn04]

Don't remember any good OF play from him while in Boston. I do remember him not going all out to catch a ball in the 9th inning of game 162 in 2011.

 

I don't remember his speed doing much for us either.

[Spudboy]

I misspoke, I guess.

 

I meant to say that Crawford brought those attributes to the team when he was signed.

 

He did little with me while with the Sox. I have lost all respect for him.

[a700hitter]

Crawford was also one of the most durable players in the game when we got him. That ended with a thud too. Crawford was a thoroughbred before he left Tampa. Doughnut boy was already in decline when he hit the !market. And I don't see him bouncing back, although I can see him bouncing.

[Elktonnick]

Crawford's career practically cratered after his stint with the Red Sox. He never was the threat he used to be once he left Tampa. If anything I'd say the low expectations of Rays fans suited his temperament best.

[Kimmi]

What you're implying is fallacious. While signing pitchers over 30 usually spells disaster in the back end of the contract, the signing team usually gets at least a couple of elite/very good seasons in the front end of the contract. The fact is (and this is fact) Price has sustained elite performance over the better part of a decade, while Pablo had declined statistically for three years running and had his work ethic called into question. You are trying to compare paying Corvette money for a Corvette, and paying Corvette money for a Ford Fiesta. It's faulty logic.

 

It's not fallacious. I am not saying that Sandoval is as good a player as Price. I also understand that Sandoval having a terrible year was more likely that Price having a terrible year. That said, despite the decline in Sandoval's offense, there was no reason to expect him not to be a 2.5 - 3 WAR player last year. And the money being paid to Price is significantly more than the money being paid to Sandoval.

[Kimmi]

I agree with Kimmi. Coming to Fenway I can see a very good argument for Sandoval actually improving his performance. There were a few warning signs that he might not be an All-Star but none that he would decline to the degree that he did. And I say that as someone who utterly disliked the signing at the time.

 

Thank you.

[Kimmi]

I need some of Kimmi's sunshine and PMA.

 

It's not always easy, but somebody has to do it.

[User Name]

So a clear regression trend is no reason to expect a significant drop-off in production? Then what is?

[Kimmi]

ok - here is how I see your logic here.

 

The two moves that we seem to be talking about are the signings of Sandoval last year and Price this year.

Since the Red Sox are flush with cash, in your estimation they needed a third baseman last year and they signed the best available in Sandoval. Since they are once again this year flush with cash, they realized that starting pitching was a priority, thus they signed the best available in Price.

You see virtually no difference in these two signings, because you feel that both were keeping in line with the team's philosophy at the moment.

Those of us who see a difference between these two moves, are allowing our feelings about whether or not we liked either signing to cloud the fact that they represent the same thing in keeping in line with orders from the top?

 

If that is your case, it is much to narrow a focus for me. If it supports your feeling good about Ben Cherington's tenure in Boston, that is fine.

 

The move to sign Sandoval would have made some sense at the time if they had gone out and gotten a real top of the rotation guy as well. They chose not to. Bad move at the time and extremely bad in hindsight. The way you see things - not much difference in the 2 moves. The way I see things - a huge difference particularly considering what they did not do. If that is my bias getting in the way of the facts as you see them, I am very biased.

 

Did signing Pablo make the Sox a better team, on paper? I don't think anyone can honestly say no to that.

 

They spent a lot of money to make the team better.

 

Isn't that what they did with Price?

[a700hitter]

Did signing Pablo make the Sox a better team, on paper? I don't think anyone can honestly say no to that.

 

They spent a lot of money to make the team better.

 

Isn't that what they did with Price?

They needed pitching more. I think Sandoval made them only marginally better on paper than installing Holt at 3B. Not getting a top pitcher for 2015 was misguided.

[User Name]

Did signing Pablo make the Sox a better team, on paper? I don't think anyone can honestly say no to that.

 

They spent a lot of money to make the team better.

 

Isn't that what they did with Price?

 

That's again comparing a Corvette to a Ford Fiesta.

[mvp 78]

Did signing Pablo make the Sox a better team, on paper? I don't think anyone can honestly say no to that.

 

They spent a lot of money to make the team better.

 

Isn't that what they did with Price?

No, because they didn't need a second 3b.

[SoxnCycles]

That's again comparing a Corvette to a Ford Fiesta.

 

More like a Cadillac with a slipping transmission.

Not a great investment, but probably fixable.

 

I think the big mistake was signing both Hanley AND Pablo.

They should have signed one or the other and filled either 3B or LF with a lower cost option.

The Sox got a little too greedy.

[Dojji]

So a clear regression trend is no reason to expect a significant drop-off in production? Then what is?

 

That regression trend is not particularly significant statistically -- as was pointed out to me when I pointed out Dustin Pedroia's similar regression trend last year which bore a great deal of similarity to Sandoval's if for different reasons.

 

Oh and for the record from a WAR standpoint that trend continued this past year, owing to the number of games Pedroia wound up sitting out (first year he's ever lost that much time, and a really disturbing development for such a game little guy who always wants to be out there)

[Palodios]

No, because they didn't need a second 3b.

 

Wait, who was their first ? I hear 3b is Holts worst position and there are no guarantees with Hanley.

[a700hitter]

The difference between Sandoval or Holt at 3B was not even close to the difference in cost. The money would have been better spent upgrading the train wreck of a pitching staff after Ben had dismantled the 2014 staff. It was as clear as could be, and the misguided priority played out in real time with another awful season.

[User Name]

That regression trend is not particularly significant statistically -- as was pointed out to me when I pointed out Dustin Pedroia's similar regression trend last year which bore a great deal of similarity to Sandoval's if for different reasons.

 

Oh and for the record from a WAR standpoint that trend continued this past year, owing to the number of games Pedroia wound up sitting out (first year he's ever lost that much time, and a really disturbing development for such a game little guy who always wants to be out there)

 

Pedroia is not 100 pounds overweight, and he's not in any way, shape or for relevant to this discussion. It's an apples to oranges comparison. You are defending what can't be defended. It would make a modicum of sense if they hadn't signed a better hitter and athlete to move out of position. I know you love being a contrarian but come on.

[mvp 78]

Wait, who was their first ? I hear 3b is Holts worst position and there are no guarantees with Hanley.

 

Hanley and Panda were signed on same day. Hanley's deal was announced first, so was probably signed first.

 

The move was mind boggling at the time.

[Kimmi]

So a clear regression trend is no reason to expect a significant drop-off in production? Then what is?

 

A significant drop off in production at the age of 28? No. Even with his large size. Expecting a mild drop off is reasonable. OTOH, expecting an improvement playing in the friendly confines of Fenway and AL East parks is reasonable as well.

[Kimmi]

They needed pitching more. I think Sandoval made them only marginally better on paper than installing Holt at 3B. Not getting a top pitcher for 2015 was misguided.

 

I agree that they needed pitching more. That is not the point.

[a700hitter]

I agree that they needed pitching more. That is not the point.

Misuse of resources was the point.

[Kimmi]

That's again comparing a Corvette to a Ford Fiesta.

 

Not in terms of value/dollar over the length of the contract though.

 

I wish I knew more about cars so I could give the proper analogy here, but you're paying {insert most expensive car name here} prices for that Corvette and you're paying Corvette prices for the Fiesta. Same thing.

[Kimmi]

Misuse of resources was the point.

 

No, that wasn't the point.

[a700hitter]

No, that wasn't the point.

It was my point. What was your point?

[User Name]

Not in terms of value/dollar over the length of the contract though.

 

I wish I knew more about cars so I could give the proper analogy here, but you're paying {insert most expensive car name here} prices for that Corvette and you're paying Corvette prices for the Fiesta. Same thing.

 

The Corvette is elite. The Fiesta is above-average and declining. With the Corvette, you get what you pay for. With this Fiesta, you don't.

[User Name]

A significant drop off in production at the age of 28? No. Even with his large size. Expecting a mild drop off is reasonable. OTOH, expecting an improvement playing in the friendly confines of Fenway and AL East parks is reasonable as well.

 

I don't think you're giving enough importance to what being 100 pounds overweight can do to an athlete, even if he's not yet 30 years old. "Even with his large size" is just a terrible beginning to any sentence trying to defend the Sandoval signing.

 

I liked Ben, but this was a terrible signing right off the bat. Anyone could see it. Decline, problems with body type, questions about his work ethic, the whole shebang. Humans make mistakes. Ben was not some sort of deity impervious to errors. Signing Sandoval was a dumb idea right off the bat, considering he already had a better overall 3B and needs in the rotation.

[jacksonianmarch]

Pedroia is an interesting conundrum. He played only 93 games with a bunch of nagging injuries. It wasn't one injury a la 2010 and the foot fracture. He's also a small framed player who plays balls out, which makes him a durability risk going forward. That being said, he hits his most homers since 2012 and does it after missing almost 70 games. If he can stay healthy, he is going to have a strong season.

[Station 13]

Pedroia average 148 games prior to 2015 for his previous 4 season. I'm not sure where all these talks he is injury prone comes from. In 2010 he had a broken foot following a foul ball, s*** happens. He had a hamstring in 2015. Otherwise he is consistently playing 140 games.

[mvp 78]

So consistently hitting the 15 DL and fighting through injuries for an entire year? Sounds about right.

[jung]

Just losing the ability to bat RHed is enough proof that at some point the weight took over on Panda. Usually that is a graph of age/weight and when the two lines cross, the player is in trouble.

 

Anybody that could not see that Panda was fighting all that weight batting from the right side is just plain blind to it. He was utterly motionless through the hips and torso. You actually could not see his hips turn at all if they were turning. The bat simply appeared out from behind all that rotundness with no evidence of his hips clearing. The best way I could describe it is a guy trying to bat while wrapped up in bungee cord that he was trying to fight through to get around.