A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[moonslav59]

You can make definitive judgements on past performance as that book is closed.

 

If a guy goes 0-25 in the World Series, you can't say "well we don't definitively know how his WS was." Yes, we do. It sucked.

 

Agreed, but is someone who goes 1 for 5 in a WS as bad as guy who went 10 for 50?

 

Yes, you can say both sucked, but a sample size context is needed in both examples.

 

Vaz had pretty good pitch framing skills in 2014... a much larger sample size than 2016. It's hard to know why he was worse in 2016. maybe it was partially due to injury, not fully being rehabbed and/or catching a staff of pitchers he had little experience with.

 

Yes, we can say he was "bad" in 2016, but can we really say for certainty that because of his smaller 2016 sample size, he's a bad pitch framer? Or, more importantly, how can we view the likelihood of his being a bad pitch-framer going forward. My guess is that with added experience with newer pitchers on the staff, a healthier body, and hopefully improved confidence, he will revert back to be a plus pitch-framer, a plus CS% catcher, a plus wild pitch-blocker, and a better overall CERA-related catcher than he was in 2016.

 

His hitting is still a mystery, but I'm not optimistic he'll ever be consistently over .725 or even .700.

[moonslav59]

But it doesn't mean anything because it's too small a sample size.

 

None of us have ever said it "doesn't mean anything". Any 0-25 streak has meaning and can greatly affect a team's chances of winning. When I say "making definitive judgments" I mean labeling a player as a choke based on just a 25 AB sample size. That's "definitive" to me. Saying he sucked for those 25 ABs is not "definitive" in the sense that we are making a long-lasting judgment on a player's overall skill level, career accomplishments or expected future production level.

 

Maybe we are at odds with the semantics or contexts associated with the words "definitive" and "judgment". Perhaps, I should have been more descriptive in my explanation, but then I'd probably be accused of being too verbose.

[S5Dewey]

None of us have ever said it "doesn't mean anything". Any 0-25 streak has meaning and can greatly affect a team's chances of winning. When I say "making definitive judgments" I mean labeling a player as a choke based on just a 25 AB sample size. That's "definitive" to me. Saying he sucked for those 25 ABs is not "definitive" in the sense that we are making a long-lasting judgment on a player's overall skill level, career accomplishments or expected future production level.

 

Maybe we are at odds with the semantics or contexts associated with the words "definitive" and "judgment". Perhaps, I should have been more descriptive in my explanation, but then I'd probably be accused of being too verbose.

 

My tongue-in-cheek comment was directed more toward David Price's WS history. During a discussion we had about that recently there seemed to be a semi-consensus that Price's struggles in the WS don't mean anything because the SS is too small.

[moonslav59]

You can make definitive judgements on past performance as that book is closed.

 

If a guy goes 0-25 in the World Series, you can't say "well we don't definitively know how his WS was." Yes, we do. It sucked.

 

Would you really say a player going oh for 1 "sucked"?

 

Even if his out was a long fly ball robbed of an HR by a spectacular play?

 

How about oh for 2?

 

We probably all have differing views on when a sample size become "definitive" or more definitive.

 

Does going of for 2 really define a player?

 

O for any 25 stretch in his career?

 

Maybe a 10 for 100 stretch for a good hitter might define him as "streaky", but I don't think a 2 for 20 stretch necessarily does, unless he has a lot of them over his career.

 

[Bellhorn04]

My tongue-in-cheek comment was directed more toward David Price's WS history. During a discussion we had about that recently there seemed to be a semi-consensus that Price's struggles in the WS don't mean anything because the SS is too small.

 

And Price can stink in his next 5 postseason games and it still won't mean anything because the sample will still be too small. It'll always be too small with postseason numbers.

[S5Dewey]

And Price can stink in his next 5 postseason games and it still won't mean anything because the sample will still be too small. It'll always be too small with postseason numbers.

 

Yep. Crazy, isn't it?

 

That also means that we can't call Papi a great Post-Season clutch hitter. He's only a good hitter who happened to run into a few at the right time.

[mvp 78]

55 games in 2014 is a larger sample size than 57 in 2016. Now that's some fuzzy math.

[mvp 78]

And Price can stink in his next 5 postseason games and it still won't mean anything because the sample will still be too small. It'll always be too small with postseason numbers.

 

But you can say "he has sucked so far." You just can't say he'll always suck.

[moonslav59]

And Price can stink in his next 5 postseason games and it still won't mean anything because the sample will still be too small. It'll always be too small with postseason numbers.

 

Stop saying "It won't mean anything." Nobody is saying when player sucks in the playoffs, it is meaningless.

 

While post season sample sizes are rather small, it does not mean they meaningless. % post seasons are smaller than 10, so 10 sucky post seasons would hold more "meaning" than just 5, and I suppose you could begin to judge the guy as a "choke" after a certain amount of games played, but the poor playoff performance might have little to do with choking under pressure. It could just be bad luck. It could be lack of stamina after 200 or 220 IP'd during a season. It could just be nothing but a selected choice of his worst games that happened to fall during the playoffs.

 

One could probably find a sample size throughout Prices career where he has an 8.50 ERA between 7pm on April 22nd and 4 pm on April 24th. Would anybody care?

 

Would you be concerned with his next start on April 23rd?

 

I realize I am oversimplifying things, and I'm not denying that a player can "choke" under pressure or "rise to the occasion" as well, but there is a point where the sample size is too small to know it's just coincidence or if there is a deeper meaning or reason involved.I'm not sure if Price's playoff sample size is large enough to label him anything. I, for one, would not bet on him in his next playoff start, so I wouldn't say his history has no meaning, but what if he pitched two straight shut outs next October, what would that mean to you guys?

 

He's no longer a choke? He's still a choke, because his overall numbers still suck.

 

Would his two game sample size now be large enough to expect continued brilliance?

 

If forced to bet, what sample size do you use to determine how well he'll do in his next game?

[moonslav59]

55 games in 2014 is a larger sample size than 57 in 2016. Now that's some fuzzy math.

 

Good point. I remembered incorrectly and felt he caught much more than just 20 innings more in 2014 than his scattered 2016 innings.

 

20 innings more is not a significant sample size difference. My bad.

[moonslav59]

But you can say "he has sucked so far." You just can't say he'll always suck.

 

Agree.

[Kimmi]

I think you're being too charitable to CV. He was a worse pitch framer than Evan Gattis last year and had a lower CS%. Sandy Leon had a better DWAR even when factoring in the additional games and also had a lower CS%. Sandy's CERA was also .40 less when receiving the same pitchers as CV.

 

Vazquez ranked 22nd out of 114 catchers in terms of extra strike calls per game, and 21st out of 114 in pitch framing runs above average, per StatCorner.

 

At Baseball Prospectus, Vazquez ranks 12th overall defensively out of 114 catchers. He was 17th in framing runs (+7), tied for 21st in blocking runs (+.9), tied for 38th in throwing runs (at exactly 0.0), and 11th in fielding runs (+11). I'd say that's very good, but still a drop off from his 2014 numbers.

 

To be fair, Fangraphs DRS has him at -1.

[moonslav59]

Vazquez ranked 22nd out of 114 catchers in terms of extra strike calls per game, and 21st out of 114 in pitch framing runs above average, per StatCorner.

 

At Baseball Prospectus, Vazquez ranks 12th overall defensively out of 114 catchers. He was 17th in framing runs (+7), tied for 21st in blocking runs (+.9), tied for 38th in throwing runs (at exactly 0.0), and 11th in fielding runs (+11). I'd say that's very good, but still a drop off from his 2014 numbers.

 

To be fair, Fangraphs DRS has him at -1.

 

Not bad for an "off year".

[Emp9]

Uh Oh... does this mean the CERA Cold War is officially over and we've just been thrust into another CERA Nuclear Arms Race? I'm gonna make some coffee.....

[Bellhorn04]

Stop saying "It won't mean anything." Nobody is saying when player sucks in the playoffs, it is meaningless.

 

While post season sample sizes are rather small, it does not mean they meaningless. % post seasons are smaller than 10, so 10 sucky post seasons would hold more "meaning" than just 5, and I suppose you could begin to judge the guy as a "choke" after a certain amount of games played, but the poor playoff performance might have little to do with choking under pressure. It could just be bad luck. It could be lack of stamina after 200 or 220 IP'd during a season. It could just be nothing but a selected choice of his worst games that happened to fall during the playoffs.

 

One could probably find a sample size throughout Prices career where he has an 8.50 ERA between 7pm on April 22nd and 4 pm on April 24th. Would anybody care?

 

Would you be concerned with his next start on April 23rd?

 

I realize I am oversimplifying things, and I'm not denying that a player can "choke" under pressure or "rise to the occasion" as well, but there is a point where the sample size is too small to know it's just coincidence or if there is a deeper meaning or reason involved.I'm not sure if Price's playoff sample size is large enough to label him anything. I, for one, would not bet on him in his next playoff start, so I wouldn't say his history has no meaning, but what if he pitched two straight shut outs next October, what would that mean to you guys?

 

He's no longer a choke? He's still a choke, because his overall numbers still suck.

 

Would his two game sample size now be large enough to expect continued brilliance?

 

If forced to bet, what sample size do you use to determine how well he'll do in his next game?

 

I for one have never called Price a choker. I don't believe that he is. But I do believe he has a psychological 'monkey on his back' that's a factor.

 

If you read Rick Porcello's comments about his first season in Boston, he admitted that his poor start gotten into his head and 'snowballed' on him. Things do get into players' heads and affect them. Don't take my word for it, take Porcello's.

[notin]

My tongue-in-cheek comment was directed more toward David Price's WS history. During a discussion we had about that recently there seemed to be a semi-consensus that Price's struggles in the WS don't mean anything because the SS is too small.

 

Not only too small. but more importantly spread out over too many years. It's bad enough to evaluate a guy on 70IP, but to do so on 70IP speard out over 8 seasons flies in the face of the exact human factor people are saying it is proof of.

 

If you want to cite these types of things as proof of choke or inability to perform under pressure, then you have to acknowledge that over time, Price, or any player is not the same person and has grown somewhat. And even f that player continues not to perform, it becomes less likely it is simply "choking" and more likely that it is just poor timing, bad luck, and small sample sizes.

 

Therefore long term post-season failures actually are more likely attributable to randomness. Although as teams in the post-season do tend to be better level of talent, we cannot eliminate them having good days, too...

[Bellhorn04]

Not only too small. but more importantly spread out over too many years. It's bad enough to evaluate a guy on 70IP, but to do so on 70IP speard out over 8 seasons flies in the face of the exact human factor people are saying it is proof of.

 

If you want to cite these types of things as proof of choke or inability to perform under pressure, then you have to acknowledge that over time, Price, or any player is not the same person and has grown somewhat. And even f that player continues not to perform, it becomes less likely it is simply "choking" and more likely that it is just poor timing, bad luck, and small sample sizes.

 

Therefore long term post-season failures actually are more likely attributable to randomness. Although as teams in the post-season do tend to be better level of talent, we cannot eliminate them having good days, too...

 

To me the fact that it's spread out over a number of years actually increases the aberration factor. It's not the same as having a bad streak in the course of a season which happens to every player.

[S5Dewey]

Not only too small. but more importantly spread out over too many years. It's bad enough to evaluate a guy on 70IP, but to do so on 70IP speard out over 8 seasons flies in the face of the exact human factor people are saying it is proof of.

 

If you want to cite these types of things as proof of choke or inability to perform under pressure, then you have to acknowledge that over time, Price, or any player is not the same person and has grown somewhat. And even f that player continues not to perform, it becomes less likely it is simply "choking" and more likely that it is just poor timing, bad luck, and small sample sizes.

 

Therefore long term post-season failures actually are more likely attributable to randomness. Although as teams in the post-season do tend to be better level of talent, we cannot eliminate them having good days, too...

 

That's all fine, but if we want to be fair about this we have to also have to be willing to take our bad with the good. As I said in a post subsequent to the one you cited, "That also means that we can't call Papi a great Post-Season clutch hitter. He's only a good hitter who happened to run into a few at the right time."

 

Ortiz has only about 300 post-season AB's as opposed to 8600 AB's in his 20-year career. Those 300 are a very small sample size - about 3 1/2% - as compared to his total body of work. If we have the right to call Papi a post-season hero we also must call Price a post-season bust. We can't have it both ways.

 

I believe that Papi is a post-season hero, one who rises to the occasion, but in order for me to believe that I also have to believe that Price is a post-season bust. To believe anything else would be hypocritical.

[notin]

That's all fine, but if we want to be fair about this we have to also have to be willing to take our bad with the good. As I said in a post subsequent to the one you cited, "That also means that we can't call Papi a great Post-Season clutch hitter. He's only a good hitter who happened to run into a few at the right time."

 

Ortiz has only about 300 post-season AB's as opposed to 8600 AB's in his 20-year career. Those 300 are a very small sample size - about 3 1/2% - as compared to his total body of work. If we have the right to call Papi a post-season hero we also must call Price a post-season bust. We can't have it both ways.

 

I believe that Papi is a post-season hero, one who rises to the occasion, but in order for me to believe that I also have to believe that Price is a post-season bust. To believe anything else would be hypocritical.

 

Ortiz had a career .956 OPS with Boston anda career .947 OPS in the post-season. The myth of his post-season success is rooted in the fact that he is a really, really good hitter who hit the same in the post-season as he did in the regular season. But the hits in the post-season are more memorable in many cases.

 

The reason Papi is a post-season hero is that he is also a regular season hero...

[Bellhorn04]

Ortiz had a career .956 OPS with Boston anda career .947 OPS in the post-season. The myth of his post-season success is rooted in the fact that he is a really, really good hitter who hit the same in the post-season as he did in the regular season. But the hits in the post-season are more memorable in many cases.

 

The reason Papi is a post-season hero is that he is also a regular season hero...

 

But what also needs to be considered is the strength of opposition factor in the postseason. Generally speaking you're facing the best pitching staffs, and with all the off days you're not going to see much of their back end guys.

[S5Dewey]

Ortiz had a career .956 OPS with Boston anda career .947 OPS in the post-season. The myth of his post-season success is rooted in the fact that he is a really, really good hitter who hit the same in the post-season as he did in the regular season. But the hits in the post-season are more memorable in many cases.

 

The reason Papi is a post-season hero is that he is also a regular season hero...

 

C'mon. Get real. Are you implying that Papi didn't feel and respond to the pressure in the post-season? That the playoffs were "Ho-hum. Same old same old game" during the playoffs? That he didn't feel the difference between baseball in May and baseball in October? I don't believe that for an instant. There's more pressure in October. Some can handle it, some can't.

 

To continue to use the "small sample size" argument knowing that there can never be a sample size that's "meaningful" is disingenuous. Every sample size means something, especially when it's the only sample size we've got. Right now the only sample size we've got says that Price is a .200 pitcher in the playoffs. I have no idea why that is but Price's numbers in the playoffs are what Price is in the playoffs.

 

I hope he does better in 2017. I really do. But I'm going to have the same misgivings about any playoff starts he has in 2017 that I had in 2016.

[moonslav59]

I for one have never called Price a choker. I don't believe that he is. But I do believe he has a psychological 'monkey on his back' that's a factor.

 

If you read Rick Porcello's comments about his first season in Boston, he admitted that his poor start gotten into his head and 'snowballed' on him. Things do get into players' heads and affect them. Don't take my word for it, take Porcello's.

 

Well said.

 

I'm not saying some psychological factors aren't in play with Price.

 

I am worried about his next playoff start.

[moonslav59]

MLBTR reports on our 3 biggest need areas:

 

1. Third Base: Boston is hoping that a healthy and in-shape Pablo Sandoval can get back to his old Giants form, though that’s no small risk given Sandoval’s disastrous 2015-16 seasons. With Travis Shaw off to Milwaukee, the Sox are left with Brock Holt and Josh Rutledge as the primary third base backup options on the MLB roster. The Red Sox didn’t hesitate to bench Sandoval after he struggled in Spring Training last year, so if he has another rough spring, the Sox could start looking for a reliable everyday option at the hot corner.

 

I agree here. With Hernandez and Dominguez at AAA, I think we'll be okay, even if Pabloe sucks.

 

2. Bench Depth: While the Red Sox have several backup options on the 25-man roster or high minors, WEEI.com’s Rob Bradford recently pointed out that the team is rather lacking in proven depth pieces, and might not be able to handle an injury to one or two regulars. Adding the likes of an Adam Rosales or Trevor Plouffe (names cited as Bradford as players of interest for the Sox) would help in this regard.

 

I disagree here, although adding Plouffe and trading or giving back Rutledge makes some sense.

 

We have Young as our 4th OF'er is fine. Holt is an okay 5th OF'er.

Holt is a giid utility IF'er. Moreland, Rutledge, Hernandez, Dominguez, Travis and Marrero gives us plenty of depth here.

 

3. Left-Handed Reliever: The club’s decision to tender a contract to Fernando Abad was something of a surprise, given how poorly Abad fared after joining the Red Sox last summer. Robbie Ross is the primary lefty in Boston’s bullpen and while it appears the Sox feel Abad will get back on track, it wouldn’t hurt to find another southpaw. Admittedly, this is a pretty borderline “need” on what is a pretty stacked Boston roster — the Sox could potentially find another lefty reliever internally in the form of Roenis Elias, Brian Johnson, Henry Owens or perhaps even one of Eduardo Rodriguez or Drew Pomeranz (if Steven Wright reclaims a rotation spot).

 

We don't necessarily need a lefty. Thornburg's career splits show he's .200 points better vs lefties, so they overlooked that fact.

[Kimmi]

C'mon. Get real. Are you implying that Papi didn't feel and respond to the pressure in the post-season? That the playoffs were "Ho-hum. Same old same old game" during the playoffs? That he didn't feel the difference between baseball in May and baseball in October? I don't believe that for an instant. There's more pressure in October. Some can handle it, some can't.

 

To continue to use the "small sample size" argument knowing that there can never be a sample size that's "meaningful" is disingenuous. Every sample size means something, especially when it's the only sample size we've got. Right now the only sample size we've got says that Price is a .200 pitcher in the playoffs. I have no idea why that is but Price's numbers in the playoffs are what Price is in the playoffs.

 

I hope he does better in 2017. I really do. But I'm going to have the same misgivings about any playoff starts he has in 2017 that I had in 2016.

 

I have to agree with Notin in his past two posts. He is spot on.

 

The players that we think of as 'clutch' do not become better players in the postseason. They are simply good players all the time. Papi does well in the postseason because he's simply a good hitter.

[notin]

But what also needs to be considered is the strength of opposition factor in the postseason. Generally speaking you're facing the best pitching staffs, and with all the off days you're not going to see much of their back end guys.

 

I'd be willing to bet Ortiz' regular season numbers in most cases don't differ from his regular season numbers against those same teams. And he does face a lot of thr "backend" guys in the post-season because, by the end of the season, injuries have bumped many of those guys to the front...

[Bellhorn04]

I'd be willing to bet Ortiz' regular season numbers in most cases don't differ from his regular season numbers against those same teams. And he does face a lot of thr "backend" guys in the post-season because, by the end of the season, injuries have bumped many of those guys to the front...

 

And I'm willing to bet that MLB overall offensive numbers for the postseason are significantly lower than MLB overall offensive numbers for the regular season.

[moonslav59]

And I'm willing to bet that MLB overall offensive numbers for the postseason are significantly lower than MLB overall offensive numbers for the regular season.

 

I agree. Also, it seemed like an inordinate amount of Papi's great playoff OPS came at the most clutch times within the context of the playoffs being clutch by itself in its entirety.

 

So many walk off hits and HRs. The grand slam vs Detroit when the whole team was looking shell-shocked on offense that night.

[a700hitter]

I agree. Also, it seemed like an inordinate amount of Papi's great playoff OPS came at the most clutch times within the context of the playoffs being clutch by itself in its entirety.

 

So many walk off hits and HRs. The grand slam vs Detroit when the whole team was looking shell-shocked on offense that night.

Whether Papi got better in those situations or the pitcher got knock kneed and peed himself at the prospect of facing Papi in those circumstances is debatable, but one thing is for certain -- the advantage shifted to the batter more than it would for most other hitters.

[moonslav59]

Whether Papi got better in those situations or the pitcher got knock kneed and peed himself at the prospect of facing Papi in those circumstances is debatable, but one thing is for certain -- the advantage shifted to the batter more than it would for most other hitters.

 

I feel blessed to be able to watch Papi play for the team I have loved since childhood. Add to Papi the joy I had watching Pedro and Clemens put up some of the best performances in MLB history, and I wonder why I ever complain about anything to do with the Sox of the past 2 decades.

[a700hitter]

I feel blessed to be able to watch Papi play for the team I have loved since childhood. Add to Papi the joy I had watching Pedro and Clemens put up some of the best performances in MLB history, and I wonder why I ever complain about anything to do with the Sox of the past 2 decades.

The unending quest for perfection?