A Realistic View at 2018: Part I

[sk7326]

His OPS was 2 points below his career average. I think you are overstating it.

 

and a 20% dropoff from his 2015 and 2016 seasons ... really it is about endpoints and whether you place more emphasis on 23-24 seasons than 21-22 ones ...

[sk7326]

Should we also drop out their peak year? I don't believe in cherry picking stats like that. Your career average is your career average. Good years will bring it up and bad years will have it decline, but it is all the player's career.

 

no - but emphasizing age 23-24 over age 21-22 is a fairly natural thing to do ... these are human beings after all, right??

[a700hitter]

no - but emphasizing age 23-24 over age 21-22 is a fairly natural thing to do ... these are human beings after all, right??

And they weren't human at 21-22? I don't understand that comment.

[a700hitter]

and a 20% dropoff from his 2015 and 2016 seasons ... really it is about endpoints and whether you place more emphasis on 23-24 seasons than 21-22 ones ...

Down years are not uncommon early in a player's career after having success. There is no smooth career trajectory. It is a game of adjustments. You have some success and the league adjusts to you, then you decline and have to make adjustments. Early in a career, these adjustments don't happen very quickly. Edited October 12, 2017 by a700hitter

[sk7326]

And they weren't human at 21-22? I don't understand that comment.

 

they were - and so there is a learning curve, adjustments and so forth ... so a couple of years is more likely to be a better indicator to the future than the more nascent ones. This is not that complicated.

 

Of course Betts showed up and has risen up steeper - but Betts is also a Top 10 player, so there you go.

[Northern Star]

I have very poor eyesight, and it became a habit.

 

It makes it easier to find my words vs others.

 

Sorry to hear that. I wasn't suggesting it was a bad thing at all, just wondering.

[moonslav59]

With short termers, no season should be dropped. Otherwise, it is just playing games.

 

Edit: Haven't you heard of the Sophomore Slump? It is a common thing for players to take a step back after some success.

 

Yes, and that's why I said the first 2 years should not count as much as the end up doing with players only in the league for 3-5 years. It's a disproportional influence that rarely bares out over a players middle 5-7 years or even their career. Players in the league 8-9 years have career numbers which have large enough sample sizes to not be greatly influenced by their first 2 years.

 

Of course a player might end up being closer to their first 2 years than the immediate following 2-3 years, but I'm pretty sure a player's 3-4 year average is closer to what their career average ends up than their first 2 years.

 

The bell curve is a pretty strong indicator for most players who play over 9 or 10 years. It's not perfect. There are often blips and outliers, but all I'm saying is that, if you randomly took any 5-6 players in the the league who have 3-5 years experience, it would be very rare to see just about all of them decline 2 years in a row and see a major decline in the 2nd of those two years.

 

My guess is it was just bad luck (possibly with some bad influences like poor coaching and losing Papi's influence) and some or most will "right the ship", but sure there is a chance that the 2017 numbers are what all these guys truly are and will be.

 

.

[moonslav59]

Sorry to hear that. I wasn't suggesting it was a bad thing at all, just wondering.

 

I didn't take it that way. I'm not blind or getting worse, but the bold makes it easier for me.

[Northern Star]

Cant give Benni and Devers for Stanton. Bad philosophy. Ceiling too high on these 2. Look at the kids that show that they are in- consistent. More proven that in long run they hit their peak. Especially in the Power and run producers.

Your trying to get Power and losing at same time. For 2 Players. Now you have to look elsewhere to fill the void. Devers and Benni can easily hit 50 HRS together, Stanton hits 50 its a wash, and a lot of money, now your short a 3rd baseman.

Start FA, only cost money then work the phones.

 

Devers is untouchable in my book. But I'm very much against trading for Stanton. The contract is insane, even if Miami pays some of the freight.

 

A power bat would be nice, but not at any price. I think you need to add one or two position players, but as for the heart of the order I'm willing to roll the dice on Betts/Devers/Hanley.

 

Unfortunately, for DD potential is a currency with which to buy experience. At the extreme of this philosophy you get idiocy like Steve Philips saying he'd trade Strasburg for Oswalt.

[Northern Star]

I didn't take it that way. I'm not blind or getting worse, but the bold makes it easier for me.

 

It actually helps me too, even with my reading glasses on.

[Northern Star]

I'm not blind

 

If you were, there's plenty of opportunity as a MLB umpire.

[Kimmi]

Why do all of you think small? It's not your money. I will spend $125 next year to watch Red Sox play on MLB Network.

 

My guess is that Sox can spend $250M and my subscription fee will remain the same. So what if it goes up by $25 in 2019.

 

If we want to win, we need impact power bat. Quit pussyfooting around.

 

The Sox can spend more than that, but the reality is that they won't.

 

It's not my money, but spending crazy will affect what the team can do in the future. And that, I care about.

 

You saw the financial constraints the Sox were under this year. Much of that was due to big contracts that didn't pan out. So yeah, it would be great to have Stanton on our team. Until he can't play anymore and the Sox can't sign the next Encarnacion type player because of budget restraints. They might be self-imposed budget restraints, but they are very real.

[Kimmi]

With the Yankees humbling the Guardians tonight we can see at least 3 teams ahead of us in the talent pool. We do need to make moves so anyone thinking we add one bat and stand pat in all other areas is just a wishful thinker. Where we have shown weakness we need to upgrade and do so in such a way that we don't give away the store for 2019, 2020.

 

Well the plan is that Dombrowski is going to bring in a manager that will get the youngsters (and the vets) to play up to their expectations. Add a bat to 1B/DH, add a #2 starting pitcher, throw in the positive regression from the current players, and we are good to go!

[Kimmi]

I still don't understand the RS "needs." Leadership?? They won two division championships: this year without their presumed essential leader Papi. Apparently, in terms of season record, 'leadership' is meaningless. They lost the series because they had four consecutive crappy starting pitching performances. Despite that, they won one game, and would have won two had another ace pitcher, Kimbrel, not totally screwed up. Why does this prove that the FO needs to go after more hitting? And how does any of this get pinned on the manager? Getting rid of Farrell or shaking up the team has nothing to do with the team's actual performance (unless you are arguing that getting another proverbial 'big bat' is going to magically make your starting pitchers perform better in the post-season). Then why do it? To appease fans? or sportswriters? or those who want to go back to the good old days which those of us who have been watching the RS for decades know weren't really good days at all? If it's simply to sell more tickets by giving the team a new look etc., isn't that the kind of thinking that brought in the "future fan favorite" Panda?

 

Post of the year right here folks.

[Kimmi]

DD isn’t an “outside the box” thinker. He’s not a guy who regularly deals big league talent for big league talent. He’s a guy who either deals kids for proven vets or when he rebuilds, the other way around. His only two outside the box deals involved getting Scherzer (huge win) by dealing Granderson and getting Greene in the Didi deal by dealing Robbie Ray (big loss).

 

Dombrowski is no Theo, that's for sure.

[Kimmi]

Cant give Benni and Devers for Stanton. Bad philosophy. Ceiling too high on these 2. Look at the kids that show that they are in- consistent. More proven that in long run they hit their peak. Especially in the Power and run producers.

Your trying to get Power and losing at same time. For 2 Players. Now you have to look elsewhere to fill the void. Devers and Benni can easily hit 50 HRS together, Stanton hits 50 its a wash, and a lot of money, now your short a 3rd baseman.

Start FA, only cost money then work the phones.

 

I just don't get some people's willingness to part with Beni so readily.

[moonslav59]

I'd be curious to see what percentage of players decline two years in row between ages 22 and 27, the normal up stage on the way to the "peak prime" years of 26 & 27.

(Only seasons with 100 PAs listed. If under 400, it is noted.)

 

Bogaerts

21 .660

22 .776

23 .802

24 .746

 

JBJ

23 .617 (107 PAs)

24 .531

25 .832 (255)

26 .835

27 .726

 

Betts

21 .812 (213 PAs)

22 .820

23 .897

24 .803

 

Beni

21 .835 (118)

22 .776

 

Vaz

23 .617 (201 PAs)

24 DNP

25 .585 (184)

26 .735 (345)

 

Leon

26 .439 (128)

27 .845 (283)

28 .644 (301)

 

 

When looking at this age group of Sox players, it doesn't look horribly our of wack. At least Vaz showed some improvement. However, to see this and then see just about every player from 29-33 decline at the same time as well, I can't help but think it was terrible luck or a bunch of circumstances all occurred at the same time. I doubt there's a single explanation for it all.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2017 by moonslav59

[Kimmi]

Team was built around starting pitching for 2017.

 

Price came off the rotation.

 

Has there ever been a Cy Young pitcher following up with the season Procello had?

 

Sox did the right thing by resetting the penalty. BUT NOW IT'S TIME TO f*** THE LUXURY TAX THREASHHOLD.

 

They are going to go over the luxury tax threshold.

 

They are not going to spend like drunken sailors.

[moonslav59]

I just don't get some people's willingness to part with Beni so readily.

 

We're talking...

 

Giancarlo Freakin' Stanton!

 

I think bringing up Beni's name is the same breath is honoring Beni's value not diminishing or dismissing it.

 

[Kimmi]

I can't help but think it was terrible luck of a bunch of circumstances all occured at the same time. I doubt there's a single explanation for it all.

 

One word - enigma.

[moonslav59]

They are going to go over the luxury tax threshold.

 

They are not going to spend like drunken sailors.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we go over the limit by $39.9M.

 

Is that "drunken" in your opinion?

[Northern Star]

I wouldn't be surprised if we go over the limit by $39.9M.

 

Is that "drunken" in your opinion?

 

It's plenty of jack that would buy plenty of Jack...

[Kimmi]

I wouldn't be surprised if we go over the limit by $39.9M.

 

Is that "drunken" in your opinion?

 

Not necessarily, but it's not just about this year. It's also about the long term contracts that would keep them over the luxury tax limit for consecutive years, thereby raising the penalties to unfavorable amounts.

[a700hitter]

Yes, and that's why I said the first 2 years should not count as much as the end up doing with players only in the league for 3-5 years. It's a disproportional influence that rarely bares out over a players middle 5-7 years or even their career. Players in the league 8-9 years have career numbers which have large enough sample sizes to not be greatly influenced by their first 2 years.

 

Of course a player might end up being closer to their first 2 years than the immediate following 2-3 years, but I'm pretty sure a player's 3-4 year average is closer to what their career average ends up than their first 2 years.

 

The bell curve is a pretty strong indicator for most players who play over 9 or 10 years. It's not perfect. There are often blips and outliers, but all I'm saying is that, if you randomly took any 5-6 players in the the league who have 3-5 years experience, it would be very rare to see just about all of them decline 2 years in a row and see a major decline in the 2nd of those two years.

 

My guess is it was just bad luck (possibly with some bad influences like poor coaching and losing Papi's influence) and some or most will "right the ship", but sure there is a chance that the 2017 numbers are what all these guys truly are and will be.

 

.

We can dither about which stats are most relevant, but other than the injuries to Pedroia and Hanley which significantly impaired their performances (and it was predictable as they have had chronic problems), the other performances were not uniformly and drastically down. This type of performance was not totally unforeseeable for an offense without David Ortiz. Instead, there seems to have been an expectation that the remaining group would elevate their performances. To me that is not reasonable.

[moonslav59]

Not necessarily, but it's not just about this year. It's also about the long term contracts that would keep them over the luxury tax limit for consecutive years, thereby raising the penalties to unfavorable amounts.

 

Oh, I get it. I was never for the plan of the 3-4 year window, but now that we're in it, we better win at least one freakin' championship to justify the sacrifice.

 

I'd certainly prefer shorter term deals, but we only have a few openings on the roster, and signing mediocre 1 year guys isn't likely to help much.

[Northern Star]

Post of the year right here folks.

 

I don't know to what extent leadership (or lack thereof) affects the win column, but the fact is we have no natural leader among the players. Pedroia seems to think he is when in actuality he threw his teammates under the bus and sided with an opponent. Price - I don't know if he thinks he's a leader but he's been a douche with a fragile psyche. Farrell, the actual leader, allowed these to happen, seemingly without repercussion. I tend to believe having a player who will marshal the troops is a more positive thing than not, irrespective of results.

[Northern Star]

Not necessarily, but it's not just about this year. It's also about the long term contracts that would keep them over the luxury tax limit for consecutive years, thereby raising the penalties to unfavorable amounts.

 

I'm in agreement with you, especially since rosters across the majors are skewing younger as GMs realize the value of cost certainty and building from within. On the other hand, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, but I want at worst a balance between the youth movement and value for money for any big contracts. We know they've been burned, but we also know the environment in which MLB operates; if you want the top guys, you've got to offer a lot of years. It's beyond counter-intuitive but that's the reality we're living in.

[Kimmi]

Oh, I get it. I was never for the plan of the 3-4 year window, but now that we're in it, we better win at least one freakin' championship to justify the sacrifice.

 

I'd certainly prefer shorter term deals, but we only have a few openings on the roster, and signing mediocre 1 year guys isn't likely to help much.

 

Well, I don't think anyone here has anything to worry about. Dombrowski will make a splash with a big bat.

[Kimmi]

I'm in agreement with you, especially since rosters across the majors are skewing younger as GMs realize the value of cost certainty and building from within. On the other hand, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, but I want at worst a balance between the youth movement and value for money for any big contracts. We know they've been burned, but we also know the environment in which MLB operates; if you want the top guys, you've got to offer a lot of years. It's beyond counter-intuitive but that's the reality we're living in.

 

I understand that their are times when shelling out a big contract is necessary. That said, I don't think I will every be on board with the Stanton type contracts. Dombrowski's first and biggest mistake was depleting our farm.

[moonslav59]

We can dither about which stats are most relevant, but other than the injuries to Pedroia and Hanley which significantly impaired their performances (and it was predictable as they have had chronic problems), the other performances were not uniformly and drastically down. This type of performance was not totally unforeseeable for an offense without David Ortiz. Instead, there seems to have been an expectation that the remaining group would elevate their performances. To me that is not reasonable.

 

I think you're minimizing the scope of decline.

 

By the quantity: our 8 highest returning players by 2016 PAs declined. ALL EIGHT!

 

That's like flipping heads 8 times in a row.

 

9 of 10 declined. Only Vaz improved.

 

 

By the quality:

 

-201 Leon

-157 Holt

-141 Young

-116 HRam

-109 JBJ

-94 Betts

-65 Pedey

-59 Beni

-56 Bogey

+150 Vaz

 

Again, yes HRam, Pedey and Leon were expected to decline, but even with those three, it wouldn't have been unheard of for one out of 3 could have at least stayed even.

 

6 out of the top 8 declined by more 94 points! That's not "reasonable".

 

Speaking of staying even, yes, maybe our expectations were too high, but even the expectation that all 8 stayed even would have come up way short. All 8 declined by over 55 points. That's a pretty significant number. Not one came even 55 points within staying even.

 

I'm fine with blaming Papi's departure, poor coaching, injuries, and whatever, but the fact is, the decline was major and deep.