And the off season begins (2018-19)

[Bellhorn04]

I can acknowledge that. Maybe some other team was hit on Kimbrel ( although DD’s big price tag did ensure the Padres would keep in touch).

 

But it always seemed crazy to go after the closer first. Especially from a guy historically known for plugging anyone into the role. Go for an ace while you still have all your chips. Even if he was married to Price (whom he had traded for before and probably knew), he had to know that contract had the potential to be catastrophic.

 

Of course it is also possible he only went after Kimbrel to alleviate fears for his poor bullpen reputation with the biggest name possible...

 

I guess I just have a little more faith in his acumen than that. He's made some mistakes but I think generally he's done a pretty good job, and made some very sharp moves.

[Dojji]

To that list I would add Theo's signing of Foulke. I suppose that was just going for the big name too?

 

Balderdash, I say.

 

Not at all. THe year before Foulke came to Boston he was 7th in the Cy Young voting. He was a premium arm, signed for what at the time was a huge bounty for a reliever (7.5M?year) and signed at his age 32 season and he got us a championship. Then he broke down, but not one person would say he wasn't worth his contract.

[Bellhorn04]

Not at all. THe year before Foulke came to Boston he was 7th in the Cy Young voting. He was a premium arm, signed for what at the time was a huge bounty for a reliever (7.5M?year) and signed at his age 32 season and he got us a championship. Then he broke down, but not one person would say he wasn't worth his contract.

 

Right. It was a baseball move. It wasn't a 'splash signing' to please the fans.

 

I don't believe the trade for Kimbrel was meant to please the fans. Closers are not generally fan-pleasers by themselves-there has to be a strong pitching staff to give them opportunities to close games.

[Dojji]

Closers have a lighthouse fallacy problem. People only really notice them when they fail to complete the save. So it's not necessarily about signing a closer to make the fans love the closer. It's signing a closer that the fans are likely to hate least, because that hate often splashes onto the GM, especially if the team is less successful than it should have been.

[dgalehouse]

I still get this underlying sense of a longing for the days of Ben Cherington. Thus , all of the little shots at Dombrowski. An unprecedented three A.L. East titles in three years with a World Series championship is not enough. Let's return to the days of signing mediocrities, finishing dead last and having fun following the farm teams. The good old days of Ben C.

[Dojji]

Not sure why Ben deserves that kind of love.. He did a solid job of digging us a strong foundation but he never struck me as a guy who would have made the moves he needed to make to tie the package up in a nice pretty ribbon the way DD did.

 

I think we needed BC to clean up Theo's mess and get the organization back on track, and we needed DD as the closer (in a business sense) to seal the deal.

 

The best GMs are their own closers, but not every GM can walk the tightrope of carefully building up a cadre of prospects while not falling so in love with them that they can't make sacrifices.

 

Kind of reminds me of a quote from General Lee around the time of the Battle of Gettysburg. "To be a good soldier you have to love the Army. To be a good General, you have to be willing to destroy the thing you love."

 

To be a GM, you have to love and believe in your prospects, but you also have to be willing to make bold moves when the time is right, and spend the currency those prospects represent to build the best team on the field you can. BC was a very good soldier, excellent even. DD is a good General.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Dojji

[notin]

Closers have a lighthouse fallacy problem. People only really notice them when they fail to complete the save. So it's not necessarily about signing a closer to make the fans love the closer. It's signing a closer that the fans are likely to hate least, because that hate often splashes onto the GM, especially if the team is less successful than it should have been.

 

 

No.

 

Closers are very much overrated. And the notion that not having the best closer means every save opportunity equals a loss is not really true either.

 

Once when asked the difference between a good closet and a bad one, former Braves’ closer Mark Wohlers said “three blown saves.” I know this sounds huge and a lot of divisions are won by less, but then not all blown saves are losses. And while having a better player there can reduce the occasional loss, that can be said about every position on the team.

 

I don’t see anyone complaining that the Sox refuse to upgrade over Vazquez. Yasmani Grandal is a very good defensive catcher (despite a rough postseason) with 30 HR power. Would the Sox be better or worse with him? The answer is often “Vazquez is good enough.” So settling at the position most important on the field is OK, but with closers it’s “hey we need an elite pitcher out there!!! We’re going to lose EVERY CLOSE GAME!!” Or my favorite “ every World Series Champion has an elite closer!!” First - not true. Second - every World SeriesChampion also has a batboy. Do we need to worry there too?

 

I’m not saying anyone can close. But the notion that the ninth inning needs more attention than other innings is silly. Get good relievers. Use them as leverage indicates. Let the saves fall with whoever gets them...

[notin]

Closers have a lighthouse fallacy problem. People only really notice them when they fail to complete the save. So it's not necessarily about signing a closer to make the fans love the closer. It's signing a closer that the fans are likely to hate least, because that hate often splashes onto the GM, especially if the team is less successful than it should have been.

 

 

With only minor modifications, you can say all of that about kickers in the NFL. Yet I bet you never once got excited when the Patriots (or whoever you root for) signed or drafted a kicker...

[notin]

I still get this underlying sense of a longing for the days of Ben Cherington. Thus , all of the little shots at Dombrowski. An unprecedented three A.L. East titles in three years with a World Series championship is not enough. Let's return to the days of signing mediocrities, finishing dead last and having fun following the farm teams. The good old days of Ben C.

 

So if anyone questions Dombrowski, it can only be as an homage to Cherington?

 

There was a 100 page thread questioning various decisions by Alex Cora. (Did you participate on it?) Do you also think this thread was only created to promote the memory of John Farrell?

[dgalehouse]

No.

 

Closers are very much overrated. And the notion that not having the best closer means every save opportunity equals a loss is not really true either.

 

Once when asked the difference between a good closet and a bad one, former Braves’ closer Mark Wohlers said “three blown saves.” I know this sounds huge and a lot of divisions are won by less, but then not all blown saves are losses. And while having a better player there can reduce the occasional loss, that can be said about every position on the team.

 

I don’t see anyone complaining that the Sox refuse to upgrade over Vazquez. Yasmani Grandal is a very good defensive catcher (despite a rough postseason) with 30 HR power. Would the Sox be better or worse with him? The answer is often “Vazquez is good enough.” So settling at the position most important on the field is OK, but with closers it’s “hey we need an elite pitcher out there!!! We’re going to lose EVERY CLOSE GAME!!” Or my favorite “ every World Series Champion has an elite closer!!” First - not true. Second - every World SeriesChampion also has a batboy. Do we need to worry there too?

 

I’m not saying anyone can close. But the notion that the ninth inning needs more attention than other innings is silly. Get good relievers. Use them as leverage indicates. Let the saves fall with whoever gets them...

 

Did they ask Mark Wohlers that question after he gave up the bomb to Jim Leyritz that turned around the 1996 Series and seemed to destroy his self confidence forever ? Maybe they should ask the same question to Mariano Rivera , Dennis Eckersley or Lee Smith . Might be interesting to hear their opinions.

[dgalehouse]

So if anyone questions Dombrowski, it can only be as an homage to Cherington?

 

There was a 100 page thread questioning various decisions by Alex Cora. (Did you participate on it?) Do you also think this thread was only created to promote the memory of John Farrell?

 

Yes. I do get the sense of a connection between the D.D. criticism and a fondness for Ben C. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how I see it. Alex Cora did a terrific job . He is yet another of Dombrowski's excellent additions.

[notin]

Yes. I do get the sense of a connection between the D.D. criticism and a fondness for Ben C. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how I see it. Alex Cora did a terrific job . He is yet another of Dombrowski's excellent additions.

 

So are you saying that every time you posted a criticism of Alex Cora on the 100 plus page thread, you were doing so because you wanted to bring attention to John Farrell?

 

Or can we all just acknowledge that criticizing DD is completely independent of Cherington?

[dgalehouse]

So are you saying that every time you posted a criticism of Alex Cora on the 100 plus page thread, you were doing so because you wanted to bring attention to John Farrell?

 

Or can we all just acknowledge that criticizing DD is completely independent of Cherington?

 

No . I don't acknowledge that. Not at all. I think there is a connection. I also think Dombrowski and Cora are a major improvement over Cherington and Farrell.

[moonslav59]

If you believe in WAR then you have to believe that we would have won with a "replacement value" closer (a closer who is well below the league average) in place of Kimbrel.

 

Anyone who actually believes that, please raise your hand.

 

It has nothing to do with WAR or replacement value. For one, we would not replace Kimbrel with a closer having a zero WAR.

 

KImbrel certainly helped us last year, but I feel we probably would have still won it all without him, and I'm not even getting into his playoff performances.

 

[dgalehouse]

It has nothing to do with WAR or replacement value. For one, we would not replace Kimbrel with a closer having a zero WAR.

 

KImbrel certainly helped us last year, but I feel we probably would have still won it all without him, and I'm not even getting into his playoff performances.

 

He did have 42 saves . And we were in a dogfight with the Yankees most of the season. I'm not sure who would have adequately replaced Kimbrel in that role. I'm not so sure we win the division either.

[S5Dewey]

It has nothing to do with WAR or replacement value. For one, we would not replace Kimbrel with a closer having a zero WAR.

 

KImbrel certainly helped us last year, but I feel we probably would have still won it all without him, and I'm not even getting into his playoff performances.

 

 

Um.. No. Craig Kimbrel had a bWAR of 2.3 and an fWAR of 1.5 in 2018, and the Sox won their division by eight games. If you believe in WAR you also have to believe that the Sox would have won their division by 4-6 games with a "replacement level" closer - a closer with a WAR of 0.0.

[moonslav59]

He did have 42 saves . And we were in a dogfight with the Yankees most of the season. I'm not sure who would have adequately replaced Kimbrel in that role. I'm not so sure we win the division either.

 

I'm not sure either, but I think we would have.

 

I don't want to get into hypotheticals, but if we had no Kimbrel, we'd have had his money to pick up someone better than Workman and Poyner.

[moonslav59]

Um.. No. Craig Kimbrel had a bWAR of 2.3 and an fWAR of 1.5 in 2018, and the Sox won their division by eight games. If you believe in WAR you also have to believe that the Sox would have won their division by 4-6 games with a "replacement level" closer - a closer with a WAR of 0.0.

 

I don't "believe in WAR" as an absolute determining factor.

 

I do think we win the division and the WS without Kimbrel.

 

Due to Sale's injury, we might have won without him (but not both him and Kimbrel).

[dgalehouse]

What we really have here is a fundamental difference between the " old school " baseball mentality and the new wave of analytical, metric based thinking. The new wave derides traditional stats as " baseball card stuff." They have their own stats they go to . They downplay the importance of a manager. They downplay the importance of a closer. They downplay the importance of home runs , stolen bases, hit and run plays , pressure, clutch , choke , the whole mental aspect of the game and so forth. They are very firm in their opinions and don't really care if those who are involved in the game disagree with them . At present, I do think that most of those involved in the game do disagree, at least to a point . However , there is a growing movement toward the new school of thought in many front offices today. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the years ahead.

[Bellhorn04]

Oh man I hate the 'we could have won without' game. It's an easy game to play after everything's over.

[Bellhorn04]

What we really have here is a fundamental difference between the " old school " baseball mentality and the new wave of analytical, metric based thinking. The new wave derides traditional stats as " baseball card stuff." They have their own stats they go to . They downplay the importance of a manager. They downplay the importance of a closer. They downplay the importance of home runs , stolen bases, hit and run plays , pressure, clutch , choke , the whole mental aspect of the game and so forth. They are very firm in their opinions and don't really care if those who are involved in the game disagree with them . At present, I do think that most of those involved in the game do disagree, at least to a point . However , there is a growing movement toward the new school of thought in many front offices today. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the years ahead.

 

I think this is one of the reasons Cora is such a good manager. He seems like a guy who grasps the old school and new school and knows how to integrate them.

[dgalehouse]

I think this is one of the reasons Cora is such a good manager. He seems like a guy who grasps the old school and new school and knows how to integrate them.

 

Yeah , I agree. A blend of the two philosophies with a good dose of common sense mixed in is probably the best way to go. Well that and a big payroll.

[S5Dewey]

What we really have here is a fundamental difference between the " old school " baseball mentality and the new wave of analytical, metric based thinking. The new wave derides traditional stats as " baseball card stuff." They have their own stats they go to . They downplay the importance of a manager. They downplay the importance of a closer. They downplay the importance of home runs , stolen bases, hit and run plays , pressure, clutch , choke , the whole mental aspect of the game and so forth. They are very firm in their opinions and don't really care if those who are involved in the game disagree with them . At present, I do think that most of those involved in the game do disagree, at least to a point . However , there is a growing movement toward the new school of thought in many front offices today. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the years ahead.

 

My issue with the "new wave" of metric based thinking is that too many of those who subscribe to it now believe it's the only way. It's like they think we've turned the corner on baseball and everything you ever thought you knew about baseball is wrong.

 

IMO there's plenty of room for both schools of thought. I believe in OPS as well as choke and clutch. I believe in BAPIP as well as momentum. While I even believe in WAR to a certain degree I tire of those whose who, when confronted with situations where WAR doesn't correlate to real-world baseball, say that they don't believe in WAR 'all that much'. What that means to me is that they firmly believe in WAR when it proves what they want it to prove but they don't believe in it when it conflicts with what's actually happening.

 

JMO!

[S5Dewey]

Oh man I hate the 'we could have won without' game. It's an easy game to play after everything's over.

 

Retrospect is a wonderful thing. :-)

[dgalehouse]

Would we have won without Kimbrel? Would we have won without Sale ? Or J.D. Martinez ? Or Mookie? Or Bogaerts? Or JBJ ? Or Benintendi ? Or Price ? Or any single player or combination of two players ? I don't really know . But I am glad we didn't have to find out .

[cp176]

Yes. I do get the sense of a connection between the D.D. criticism and a fondness for Ben C. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how I see it. Alex Cora did a terrific job . He is yet another of Dombrowski's excellent additions.

 

You are not wrong at all- you are absolutely right. We have a very small contingent pf posters here who I think believe that positive support of DD can be seen as a direct criticism of Cherington. How many times do we hear - DD has done a good job but but but. It is ridiculous but that is the way it seems to be. I also do not believe for one single second that talented players signed like Craig kimbrel are signed simply to appease fan interest. I'm pretty sure that they are signed for their talent and that usually is enough to appease the masses.

Criiticizing the moves made by any GM of course is ok and is expected. I'm a DD supporter but I have really no problem with anyone who sees things differently than I do and subsequently chooses to criticize the man. It does get tiresome having to hear how Cherington would have done things differently. I look forward!

[Kimmi]

I don't really buy this.

 

If I did buy it, then I would also buy that Ben acquired Bailey, Hanrahan and Melancon because they were 'name closers' at the time.

 

Are you going to put Bailey, Hanrahan, and Melancon (at the time) in the same category as Kimbrel? They were not the well known names that Kimbrel is. We're talking about the appeal to the casual fans. IMO, I would place the former three into the 'second tier' category.

[Kimmi]

To that list I would add Theo's signing of Foulke. I suppose that was just going for the big name too?

 

Balderdash, I say.

 

Theo also has more than enough acquisitions to show that he is not all about the big name.

 

He is even on record as saying that this was one of the difficulties that he had with Lucchino, who wanted to sign the splashy players.

[Kimmi]

To that list I would add Theo's signing of Foulke. I suppose that was just going for the big name too?

 

Balderdash, I say.

 

Also, I want to clarify that the signing of Kimbrel was not only about the name. Kimbrel was also a top shelf closer.

[Kimmi]

5 more years at $31M AAV.....it could get ugly.

 

It's already been fairly ugly since the extension kicked in.