A Realistic View at 2016

[sk7326]

You certainly don't want to rush a player of Benintendi's talent or even Moncada's but you also don't want to retard their growth by holding them back. I see Benintendi very possibly in left field soon. Next year? - maybe.

 

1. You certainly don't bet on Benintendi being our LF this year. However, we know Schwarber and Conforto are recent precedents - polished college bats who got to the bigs very quickly. We'll know where Benintendi really is depending on how quickly he gets to Portland.

 

2. Moncada has been playing 2B because you try to keep a guy in the middle infield as long as possible. But he was 6'0 210 lbs as a 19 year old, and had a SS arm. The odds have always been on him outgrowing the middle infield. Moving to RF makes sense - and his bat should profile anywhere.

 

 

3. Assuming no crackerjack trade or FA, the Red Sox ideal outfield I think is Benintendi-Betts-Moncada.

 

4. Espinoza will not be rushed. Given the history of pitcher injuries and such, he might not be making >50 pitch outings until next year at the earliest. He is so accomplished as an 18 year old - it is easy to want to Dusty Baker him, but have to resist.

[S5Dewey]

 

3. Assuming no crackerjack trade or FA, the Red Sox ideal outfield I think is Benintendi-Betts-Moncada.

 

Or Benintendi-Bradley-Betts with Moncada @ 3B.

 

This team has some difficult decisions to make in the next few years with too many (?) young players beating down the door. We currently have five of our eight position players (P & DH excepted) as young, cost controlled and pretty darn good. In addition we've got Benintendi, Devers, Moncada, Travis, and let's not forget Swihart in our minor league system. Something's gotta give there someplace or we're going to eventually be losing them in the Rule 5 draft. And no, I don't see that happening but it IS the option to not doing something with them.

 

I know that DD has been criticized for his raiding the minors in Detroit, but my criticism of Ben was that he let the team wallow in last place for two consecutive years while hoarding draft picks. I won't criticize DD for making a trade or two for pitching. The question is which young players to trade and if I knew who those are I'd be sitting at DD's right hand rather than sitting here typing on a computer.

[sk7326]

Or Benintendi-Bradley-Betts with Moncada @ 3B.

 

This team has some difficult decisions to make in the next few years with too many (?) young players beating down the door. We currently have five of our eight position players (P & DH excepted) as young, cost controlled and pretty darn good. In addition we've got Benintendi, Devers, Moncada, Travis, and let's not forget Swihart in our minor league system. Something's gotta give there someplace or we're going to eventually be losing them in the Rule 5 draft. And no, I don't see that happening but it IS the option to not doing something with them.

 

I know that DD has been criticized for his raiding the minors in Detroit, but my criticism of Ben was that he let the team wallow in last place for two consecutive years while hoarding draft picks. I won't criticize DD for making a trade or two for pitching. The question is which young players to trade and if I knew who those are I'd be sitting at DD's right hand rather than sitting here typing on a computer.

 

Oh wallow is a bit of hyperbole. The Red Sox tried both years - they signed top free agents. Indeed a lot of their mistakes were about trying too hard and making pointless roster moves. (2014 in particular) Both years there were paths to winning that didn't work out. Cherington paid for it with his job - but nobody was tanking here. The most important thing Dombrowski has going here is that he is empowered - Cherington was the tip of a collaborative spear. In Detroit he made smart trades, and ultimately his owner wanted to win now now now and he did what his boss wanted. If Henry is committed to a vibrant farm system and building organically then that will happen.

 

Your alignment is certainly possible - but I have a hard time expecting Bradley to be the long term solution here, not because he is not a capable starter, but because he is such an obvious choice to be part of a meaningful trade.

[moonslav59]

Above league average offense at 2B combined with very good defense -- if he was playing 2B every day he'd get to the All Star level on positional value.

 

Holt has never sustained a great OPS over a whole season.

[moonslav59]

Are you trying to convince me that Swihart is a better ml catcher than he is right now or that Vazquez is a better ml hitter than he is right now? I don't need to be stat beaten once again. I have served my probationary period and don't need these stats to help me along.

 

No, I'm trying to emphasize how bad many teams' catchers are, and how much many of those teams would pay dearly for the chance that Swihart is or soon can be better than what they have right now or better than what they have in their system right now.

 

I have always liked Vazquez better than Swihart, and OPS is not really all that important to me, when looking at the catching position. I do, however, think it matters to many GMs. I also do not think Swihart is as bad behind the plate as many think he is. He also has room to improve, and GMs know that.

 

Simply saying that Swihart because he is not a competent everyday catcher right now, that his trade value is not as high as some think that it is. I absolutely feel that it is less now than when his name came up in talks last year.

 

Perhaps. I actually thought Swihart looked batter last year than I expected him to at that age level and experience level.

 

Now with all of that, if in fact Vazquez's name came up as being available there would be very few teams that would not be in on that one. Most could care less if he hits at all right now. The value of a catcher is simply at what level does he catch. Not to mention the fact that the Sox will probably be keeping Vazquez around for a long time.

 

Agreed.

[moonslav59]

It's nice to know we have so many future options at our near future everyday positions of greatest need.

 

DH: Likely be filled by HanRam with Sandoval, Young, Shaw, Travis and others as possibilities going deeper into the future.

 

3B: Shaw may end up back at 1B eventually (see 1B) to make room for Devers or Moncada. (We also have some solid bench strength with Sandoval, Holt, Hernandez, Marrero & Rutledge.) Outside chance: Swihart.

 

1B: HanRam may saty here, if he improves his defense, but it's likely he will move to a near FT DH role next year. If Sandoval ever gets his act back together, he could wind up at 1B, but we also have Shaw and Travis if the near future and the possibility of Devers or Moncada ending up at 1B is real. Outside chance: Swihart.

 

LF/RF: To me, Benintendi looks like he will rise quickly to fill this slot, but until then, we have Young, Castillo, Holt maybe someday Moncada. Outside shot: Swihart. Longer ways away: Basabe.

 

To me, the sheer number of strong possibilities puts us in a position to be very confident we can fill all our near future everyday positional needs in house. We even have an excess that could be packaged to land a quality pitcher. Pitching is and will be our greatest need for quite some time.

[cp176]

What you think, and what the evidence says are two entirely different things. Besides, prospects are about potential, not current ability.

 

I agree prospects are definitely about potential. That potential probably will mean different things to different people based on team needs. I will never let actual evidence cloud my thoughts. That fact s*** just confuses my thinking.

[cp176]

It's nice to know we have so many future options at our near future everyday positions of greatest need.

 

DH: Likely be filled by HanRam with Sandoval, Young, Shaw, Travis and others as possibilities going deeper into the future.

 

3B: Shaw may end up back at 1B eventually (see 1B) to make room for Devers or Moncada. (We also have some solid bench strength with Sandoval, Holt, Hernandez, Marrero & Rutledge.) Outside chance: Swihart.

 

1B: HanRam may saty here, if he improves his defense, but it's likely he will move to a near FT DH role next year. If Sandoval ever gets his act back together, he could wind up at 1B, but we also have Shaw and Travis if the near future and the possibility of Devers or Moncada ending up at 1B is real. Outside chance: Swihart.

 

LF/RF: To me, Benintendi looks like he will rise quickly to fill this slot, but until then, we have Young, Castillo, Holt maybe someday Moncada. Outside shot: Swihart. Longer ways away: Basabe.

 

To me, the sheer number of strong possibilities puts us in a position to be very confident we can fill all our near future everyday positional needs in house. We even have an excess that could be packaged to land a quality pitcher. Pitching is and will be our greatest need for quite some time.

 

the future looks bright doesn't it.

[User Name]

I agree prospects are definitely about potential. That potential probably will mean different things to different people based on team needs. I will never let actual evidence cloud my thoughts. That fact s*** just confuses my thinking.

 

"I won't let facts get in the way of a good argument". Refreshing honesty.

[cp176]

"I won't let facts get in the way of a good argument". Refreshing honesty.

 

 

Ams what i ams. wish that made me somewhat unique here - but oh well.

[moonslav59]

I think trading Swihart will be the best idea, but assuming we end up making some sort of deal to get a top quality pitcher, the one argument for keeping Swihart is evident by looking at the depth chart below:

 

C: 3 - Vazquez, Swihart, Hanigan (2 yrs of control)

1B: 8 - HanRam, Shaw, Travis, Holt, Craig, Sandoval, Devers, Moncada

3B: 7 - Shaw, Sandoval, Holt, Marrero, Rutledge, Moncada, Devers

OF: 8 - Betts, JBJ, Castillo, Young, Holt, Benintendi, Moncada, Basabe

 

There is a risk trading Swihart, but I still think it's worth it, and I still think there are several GMs that would gladly overpay to take a chance on Blake.

[redsoxdirtdog]

Great to see you moon!

[moonslav59]

Porcello is surprising many Sox fans. I'm not going to pretend I saw this season start coming, but I never backed down from my position that I thought the contract extension was reasonable and that his big pay starts this year, so let's give him a chance.

 

I'm not tooting my own horn. Posters from BDC know I've been wrong enough over the past few years to be too full of pride. Here are some of my major positions over the past few years:

 

I hated the Crawford signing from day one, calling Carl a "glorified platoon player" that would "cripple our budget for years to come".

I liked the Beckett extension.

I was okay with the Lackey signing.

I called the AGon trade to the Dodgers "perhaps the best Sox deal in my lifetime" or at least close to the trade for Pedro.

I hated the Pablo and HanRam signings.

I hated the Vic and Dempster signings, liked the Napoli signing and thought we "played it halfway" in the off-season prior to 2013. (I essentially gave us a very small chance of winning a ring in 2013.)

I thought we had a much better chance to win a ring in 2012, 2014, and 2015 than 2013.

I hated the Kimbrel deal, because I felt like Kimbrel's contract was virtually a free agent deal, so in a sense, we traded 4 prospects for ualcom qthe right to pay free agent money for just a closer. (I suggested several expanded trade offer including many of the players in the Kimbrel package along with Swihart and/or Devers for a top quality SP'er.)

I thought we overpaid for Young.

I thought the Carson Smith deal was understandable.

I disliked the Iggy deal immensely, but understood that the Sox were never going to hand Iggy the FT SS job, so getting Peavy made some sense.

I loved the salary dumps of 2014, but thought we should have gone all out for guys like ERod, Hembree and Kelly than Cespedes and Craig.

Last winter, I projected Betts would compete for the best Sox offensive player of the year and defended him against those who wanted him demoted after last year's slow start.

I am a big believer in the value of great defensive SS and Catching. I believe in CERA-related value, but the stat is almost always misused and taken out of context.

I liked the overpay for Price and have always felt like the only way to improve a rotation is by building from the top not the middle or bottom. trying to upgrade your 5 slot to a 4 slot pitcher is nearly a total waste of effort.

I have very firm beliefs on how line-ups should be constructed. Some theories I hold are that the whole lefty-righty-lefty line-up structure is over-rated, but I do think L-R splits are a big part in determining who should bat where and when. I don't adhere to the idea that players need to "fell comfortable" with one slot in the line-up and not jerked around", but I'm not for radical upheavals just for the sake of a 20 point OPS gain vs a RHP or LHP. I think you start your line-up building by putting your best all around hitter up 3rd (Ortiz vs RHPs and maybe HanRam or Pedey vs LHPs).

I think closers are often over-rated.

I was a big defender of Wakefield, even in his last days. I have also been on Wright's bandwagon for years. (I used to throw a knuckle ball in softball leagues.)

I was glad we let Ellsbury, Damon, Pedro and many other aging free agents go.

 

I projected a 98 win season this year. I did not project great seasons for Shaw (although he was my prospect sleeper pick several years ago), Holt and Pablo. I hope I'm wrong on these three guys, but I'm sticking with 98 wins.

 

I hope this provides some background to those here that do not know me. I've never been afraid to admit mistakes and holding wrong positions, but there are a few things I can bee overly and firmly committed to. I've been known to get personal at times, but usually only after being baited or in an effort to expose bigotry or over-righteousness. I realize at times I sound like a know-it-all, but I do not mean to give that impression. I should say "I think..." more often, instead of making claims that sound like facts but are really opinions.

 

I hope to do a better job at not taking the bait on this site. I hope to give some insightful contributions, and I hope this site fills the void I have felt since moving away from New England 12 years ago. I miss the Sox water cooler banter.

 

Go SOX!

[User Name]

CERA is a terrible and very limited contextual stat. Other than that, good stuff!

[Kimmi]

Oh wallow is a bit of hyperbole. The Red Sox tried both years - they signed top free agents. Indeed a lot of their mistakes were about trying too hard and making pointless roster moves. (2014 in particular) Both years there were paths to winning that didn't work out. Cherington paid for it with his job - but nobody was tanking here. The most important thing Dombrowski has going here is that he is empowered - Cherington was the tip of a collaborative spear. In Detroit he made smart trades, and ultimately his owner wanted to win now now now and he did what his boss wanted. If Henry is committed to a vibrant farm system and building organically then that will happen.

 

Your alignment is certainly possible - but I have a hard time expecting Bradley to be the long term solution here, not because he is not a capable starter, but because he is such an obvious choice to be part of a meaningful trade.

 

Another solid post SK.

 

Henry concerns me a bit. After the past 2 years of last place finishes and seeing ticket sales drop, Henry seems to be in win now at any cost mode. He has already wavered from some sound principles that have made him so successful. My concerns are not for this year, but for the long term outlook of the team. Nothing too damaging has been done yet, but I'm concerned about the possible path that this franchise is taking.

[Kimmi]

CERA is a terrible and very limited contextual stat. Other than that, good stuff!

 

It is limited in its use, but if used correctly, it is not at all terrible.

[Kimmi]

I have very firm beliefs on how line-ups should be constructed. Some theories I hold are that the whole lefty-righty-lefty line-up structure is over-rated, but I do think L-R splits are a big part in determining who should bat where and when. I don't adhere to the idea that players need to "fell comfortable" with one slot in the line-up and not jerked around", but I'm not for radical upheavals just for the sake of a 20 point OPS gain vs a RHP or LHP. I think you start your line-up building by putting your best all around hitter up 3rd (Ortiz vs RHPs and maybe HanRam or Pedey vs LHPs).

 

Good stuff overall Moon. Some of your opinions I agree with, others I disagree with.

 

On the topic of batting order, we very much disagree.

 

Batting orders, in general, are overrated. Unless a manager is willing to go completely against the grain of conventional thinking, batting orders make so little difference that it is better to put batters into a position where they feel comfortable, rather than placing them in positions where they traditionally fit.

 

A manager will also be better off doing the right-left-right-left thing rather than trying to put batters in positions where they traditionally fit.

 

The #3 hole is the least important spot out of the top 5. The line up should begin with the best hitters being placed in the 1, 2, and 4 spots, not the #3.

 

This is not just my opinion. These are facts that are backed up by data. There are always going to be exceptions, but virtually every traditional belief about batting order is incorrect.

[devildavid]

My only philosophy regarding batting order is to give the most plate appearances to your best hitters. Your best hitters are those who get on base most frequently. So I have to question why Mookie Betts is the leadoff batter. Yes, I know he has some numbers that "prove" what a productive hitter he is. But why do you give a batter with a .298 OBP the most plate appearances? That is last on the team for all those with 90 or more plate appearances. Edited May 1, 2016 by devildavid

[SinceYaz]

Moon,

 

No more realistic moment than to acknowledge the Sox are 14-10 for the month of April. This seemed the place to put this mild observation. I didn't want to create another thread so I sought out a good place to say it. Remembering almost any of the last several Aprils, without looking it up, I recall many measuring a bad season ahead because April was so bad.

 

Well, Porcello is pitching great. Wright is pitching great. The BP seems to have settled down. Price too. We lead in strikeouts. The bats are alive and the defense is doing quite well. We lead in runs and BA ... not too bad.

[Kimmi]

My only philosophy regarding batting order is to give the most plate appearances to your best hitters. Your best hitters are those who get on base most frequently. So I have to question why Mookie Betts is the leadoff batter. Yes, I know he has some numbers that "prove" what a productive hitter he is. But why do you give a batter with a .298 OBP the most plate appearances? That is last on the team for all those with 90 or more plate appearances.

 

You are correct. There are other things to consider, but for the most part, if you put your batters in order of descending OBP, you will have a much better lineup than what the conventional line up looks like.

[moonslav59]

Great to see you moon!

 

Good to see you here!

[moonslav59]

CERA is a terrible and very limited contextual stat. Other than that, good stuff!

 

It's only use is to compare catchers on the same team- pitcher by pitcher once significant sample sizes are met. That makes it extremely limited. My point being made was that "CERA related" (note emphasis on italics) are real and valuable. Many things great catchers do, are not and cannot be captured by statistics. Even pitch framing and blocking balls in the dirt cannot easily be quantified. There are some fans who believe that the pitcher calls all his pitches, because he has the ability to shake off a call or pitch what he wants to anyway, and while this may be technically true, many time a pitcher just follows the catcher's lead and only disagree or changes the called pitch when he feels a compelling reason to do so. It is my contention that catchers do most of the pitch-calling, and this has a huge impact on the game. The Jason Varitek example brings my point to light as countless anecdotal evidence over his career confirm the usefullness of having a catcher who does his homework and uses his intelligence to guide each pitcher to be the best he can be. To me, "CERA-related" involves all the intangibles involving a catcher's almost personal relationship with his staff. It is real, but it is not easily quanifiable. Comparing CERAs between catchers on different teams with different staffs and defenses behind the pitcher is useless, so in that sense, CERA alone is useless and "terrible" as you say, but the theory behind CERA is what I agree with: catchers make a difference in pitcher performance and ultimately their ERAs.

[Emp9]

My only philosophy regarding batting order is to give the most plate appearances to your best hitters. Your best hitters are those who get on base most frequently. So I have to question why Mookie Betts is the leadoff batter. Yes, I know he has some numbers that "prove" what a productive hitter he is. But why do you give a batter with a .298 OBP the most plate appearances? That is last on the team for all those with 90 or more plate appearances.

 

Concerning Betts' .298 obp, I think you may be putting a little too much stock into 24 games when his career obp is .342.

[moonslav59]

Good stuff overall Moon. Some of your opinions I agree with, others I disagree with.

 

On the topic of batting order, we very much disagree.

 

Batting orders, in general, are overrated. Unless a manager is willing to go completely against the grain of conventional thinking, batting orders make so little difference that it is better to put batters into a position where they feel comfortable, rather than placing them in positions where they traditionally fit.

 

A manager will also be better off doing the right-left-right-left thing rather than trying to put batters in positions where they traditionally fit.

 

The #3 hole is the least important spot out of the top 5. The line up should begin with the best hitters being placed in the 1, 2, and 4 spots, not the #3.

 

This is not just my opinion. These are facts that are backed up by data. There are always going to be exceptions, but virtually every traditional belief about batting order is incorrect.

 

I have read studies that show the minimal impact of various line-ups. That being said, I do think managers must try to make an impact, even if slight, to improve the odds of winning each game. All things being equal, I would do the lefty-righty thing. I never completely wrote off its advantages, but often times, a manager will use the lefty-righty theory to an extreme and place a clearly inferior hitter in front of a much better hitter (either overall, by L-R splits or individual pitcher-hitter splits) just to make the line-up look "balanced". I do not think the advantage you get late in games, when opposing managers bring in a lefty then a righty every batter makes up for the loss you may get innings 1 through 6, 7 or 8, if ever.

 

Just the fact that each slot usually gets 20 to 30 more PAs over a season than the one below it, makes a big difference. That's why I keep Betts number 1. I don't buy the Pedey is best at number 2 mantra for several reasons, two of which are as follows:

1) He isn't as fast as many think he is.

2) He has actually had better success batting 3rd and 4th (combined) than 2nd over his career.

I'd bat Bogey 2nd, since he lacks the slugging percentage to bat 3rd.

This would be my template for a line-up that does not factor in individual splits vs that days pitcher, recent trends (hot streaks/slumps), injury factors and more...

Vs RHP Vs LHPs

1) Betts Betts

2) Bogey Bogey

3) Ortiz Pedey (maybe eventually HanRam)

4) HanRam Ortiz (maybe HanRam if Papi slumps vs lefties)

5) Pedey HanRam

6) Shaw Shaw

7) JBJ Young

8) Holt JBJ

9) Vazquez Vazquez

 

 

I do think the 3rd batter should be your best OPS guy.

[sk7326]

My only philosophy regarding batting order is to give the most plate appearances to your best hitters. Your best hitters are those who get on base most frequently. So I have to question why Mookie Betts is the leadoff batter. Yes, I know he has some numbers that "prove" what a productive hitter he is. But why do you give a batter with a .298 OBP the most plate appearances? That is last on the team for all those with 90 or more plate appearances.

 

It's April 30

[sk7326]

Your best hitter should be batting 2nd. At least statistically it does the best job balancing "lots of plate appearance" with "lots of plate appearances with baserunners". Over a season the differences between 2nd and 3rd are small, but they can add up. But few teams do it - there are still significant silly little baseball princples old timey sorts have.

[devildavid]

Concerning Betts' .298 obp, I think you may be putting a little too much stock into 24 games when his career obp is .342.

 

A .342 career OBP is not a great one for a leadoff hitter. And while 24 games is a small sample, the manager also has to make adjustments for this season's results. Mookie does not have a long track record and it remains to be seen what kind of player he becomes. Right now he doesn't seem adept at drawing walks and he strikes out quite frequently. These are not good attributes for a leadoff hitter. It has been suggested that he may be better utilized at a different spot in the batting order. It is something to consider.

[moonslav59]

My only philosophy regarding batting order is to give the most plate appearances to your best hitters. Your best hitters are those who get on base most frequently. So I have to question why Mookie Betts is the leadoff batter. Yes, I know he has some numbers that "prove" what a productive hitter he is. But why do you give a batter with a .298 OBP the most plate appearances? That is last on the team for all those with 90 or more plate appearances.

 

I like to use larger sample sizes than 3-4 weeks. Here's a look at Red Sox OBP leaders from 2014-2016 combined:

 

.362 Ortiz (Not batting 1st for obvious reasons)

.346 Pedroia (should bat 2nd or 3rd or maybe 4th but not 1st)

.343 Shaw (not a leadoff hitter)

.343 Napoli (not here anymore)

.342 Betts (BINGO!)

.340 Holt (slumps as the season goes on)

.332 Nava (not here anymore)

.330 Hanigan (surprising, isn't it?)

.330 Bogey (I bat him second due to .356 OBP from 15-16)

 

2015-2016 only:

.367 Ortiz

.357 Pedey

.356 Bogey

.349 Holt

.343 Shaw

.335 Betts

.332 JBJ

.330 Hanigan

[sk7326]

A .342 career OBP is not a great one for a leadoff hitter. And while 24 games is a small sample, the manager also has to make adjustments for this season's results. Mookie does not have a long track record and it remains to be seen what kind of player he becomes. Right now he doesn't seem adept at drawing walks and he strikes out quite frequently. These are not good attributes for a leadoff hitter. It has been suggested that he may be better utilized at a different spot in the batting order. It is something to consider.

 

The Red Sox team OBP is .343. That leads the American League. .342 is well above the league average in an era where the average is lower than it has been in days of yore. Betts is off to a slow start, but there is no evidence he won't end the season as one of the league's better players.

[devildavid]

It's April 30

 

That's good. That means it's not too late for Farrell to make changes in time to improve future results.