A Realistic View at 2019: Part II

[moonslav59]

Sox OPS last 28 days (not counting today):

 

1.213 Devers

1.143 Bogaerts

1.008 Vazquez

.985 Hernandez

.967 Holt

.922 Betts

.812 JBJ

.807 Chavis

.793 Martinez

.741 Benintendi

.368 Leon

 

ERA (listed in order of most IP)

3.30 ERod

2.45 Price

7.59 Sale

10.50 Porcello

2.19 Taylor

6.52 Brasier

1.93 Workman

4.82 Brewer

9.39 Barnes

6.14 Velazquez

12.15 Walden

8.53 Wright

9.00 Cashner

[moonslav59]

Last 50 Games:

 

1.081 Bogey

1.050 Devers

.973 Pearce (27 PAs)

.943 Holt

.916 JBJ

.880 Marco (55 PAs)

.851 JD

.838 Betts

.817 Vaz

.752 Beni

.746 Moreland (24)

.724 Chavis

.486 Leon

.320 Travis (25)

 

9 guys over .817!

 

[S5Dewey]

 

I've heard word that breaking balls are not breaking as much due to the new balls. That hurts guys trying to reinvent themselves as more than just a "thrower" (not that Sale was ever just a thrower).

 

This has sort of been my thinking ever since I heard about the "new" baseball but to me it pertained more to pitchers who aren't trying to reinvent themselves but instead were pitchers who never were "throwers" but relied on their stuff... like Rick Porcillo. (I think I got the right "P" this time. LOL)

[moonslav59]

When I say "reinvent himself," I'm not saying Sale needs some radical make-over. He still throws pretty hard and has multiple pitches. He just can no longer rely on rearing back and throwing it 98-100 mph when needed.

 

His control went on the blink a couple times this year, but he has also had some stretches where his K:BB rate was off the charts.

 

There is still reason for concern, but I'm confident Sale will be great for us going forward.

 

[moonslav59]

So, when Eovaldi returns, will this be the 25 man roster, until Moreland and/or Johnson is ready? (Pearce, reportedly, isn't even close.)

 

5 SP: Price, Sale, ERod, Porcello, Cashner

8 RP: Eovaldi, Workman, Taylor, Barnes, Brewer, Hembree, Walden , (Weber or DHern)

2 C: Vaz, Leon

2 1B: Chavez, Travis

2 2B: Holt, Hernandez

1 3B: Devers

1 SS: Bogaerts

1 LF: Beni

1 CF: JBJ

1 RF: Betts

1 DH: JD

 

Moreland> Travis

Johnson> DHern or Weber

Wright> Trade or Walden or Hembree back to IL (velo down)

 

[devildavid]

Actually what his WAR is saying this year is that since not as many balls are hit to CF against Boston, and because Betts is taking command of many plays, Bradley might be defensive overkill for this year’s Sox team.

 

If the Sox had Kiermeier in CF, his defensive rating would suffer, too, due to the limited opportunities...

 

But that isn't what his WAR is saying. A single number is not doing what you are doing. It is not analysing the reason for the number. So in that way, WAR fails.

[devildavid]

Possibly, but the season isn't over yet. There's still plenty of baseball to be played. I believe the Sox are going to go on that great run that we've all been waiting for. I may be disappointed, but it wouldn't be the first time.

 

I like to take a realistic approach. I go by the performance of the present team in the present season. This team, from game one, gave me no reason for optimism. They don't have the fire that I see in the Yankees, or the scrappiness of the Rays. The Rays do more with less. And their other two main WC opponents, the Guardians and A's do the same. The Sox will have to clean up on the doormat teams, because the Yanks and Rays are not going down easy. I hate to say it, but the Yankee "savages" seem like the team on a mission this season.

[moonslav59]

But that isn't what his WAR is saying. A single number is not doing what you are doing. It is not analysing the reason for the number. So in that way, WAR fails.

 

Yes, it is not perfect, but it is the best, single comparative value number we got.

[devildavid]

Yes, it is not perfect, but it is the best, single comparative value number we got.

 

But the problem remains, as it does, with the use of any single number to evaluate the real value or ability of a player. Also, it is not important to compare players in assessing their value to your team.

[jung]

Many pitcher lose Velocity and never are the same, but when looking at the best pitchers of the last 15 years, almost all of them, except Felix Hernandez, went through a rough patch or two near age 30 and were able to come back with some decent to excellent seasons afterwards.

 

I've heard word that breaking balls are not breaking as much due to the new balls. That hurts guys trying to reinvent themselves as more than just a "thrower" (not that Sale was ever just a thrower).

 

 

Sale is a fierce sompetitor, and I'm betting on him finding a way to get back to a top 10 SP'er. To me, it's more about when not if, and today was a great sign thast the time may be very near.

 

Might be worth looking at the balls that Ryu has thrown in his early career before he came here. He thrives with this baseball and it makes me wonder if the balls used in Korea bear some resemblance to these baseballs. Also makes me wonder if the number of pitchers now throwing a knuckle curve instead of using the traditional curve grip is a consequence of this new ball. There is no slider version of the knuckle curve which also makes me wonder if that is at he heart of seeing so many suck ass Sliders just rolling up to the plate waiting to be lambasted.

 

It might be harder to throw breaking balls with this baseball and it might even be more difficult to exhibit command with this baseball. However, I still applaud the efforts of pitchers to try. In the first place, there are not enough of them around that EVER had gas. Many of the guys that threw real gas didn't have the physical characteristics nor the technique to throw that hard for very long and wore out leaving us with the general level of sludge pitching in MLB unis today.

 

If they were willing to throw hard when they really couldn't for Manfred and for their agents, they should be willing to try to exhibit command for us. Everything that happens on the diamond starts with the ball in the hands of the pitcher. Without them (unless Manfred reverses direction) we are doomed to a remaining life of watching hitters hack away at 96 above their heads and balls in the dirt, behind their ears, WHEREVER. Most of the pitchers can't throw worth crap and most of the hitters have no clue what they are swinging at when and that is not interesting baseball to me.

 

Even with these baseballs and even with the explosion in HR's that "explosion" amounts to 2.8 HR's per game on average in total. Wow....I am SOOOOOOO excited. Lets watch 3 hours of guys trudging back to the dugout for 2.8 HR's, approximately 10 seconds of excitement per game. Whoopdie-ding-dong. Be still my heart!

Edited July 19, 2019 by jung

[S5Dewey]

Yes, it is not perfect, but it is the best, single comparative value number we got.

 

IMHO the "problem" with WAR is in the serious fans. We were all clamoring for something that would compare the value of players so when WAR was introduced (by more than one group, who report different WAR values) we were going to be all over it regardless of its accuracy.

 

Saying it's the best single comparative number we've got may not be a resounding endorsement. Remember, the Yugo was the best car imported from Yugoslavia too.

[Bellhorn04]

IMHO the "problem" with WAR is in the serious fans. We were all clamoring for something that would compare the value of players so when WAR was introduced (by more than one group, who report different WAR values) we were going to be all over it regardless of its accuracy.

 

Saying it's the best single comparative number we've got may not be a resounding endorsement. Remember, the Yugo was the best car imported from Yugoslavia too.

 

The way I look at WAR, it's an excellent *starting point* when analyzing a player's performance.

[moonslav59]

But the problem remains, as it does, with the use of any single number to evaluate the real value or ability of a player. Also, it is not important to compare players in assessing their value to your team.

 

Yes, not necessary, but I like the attempt, and they make noble efforts. It tries to shorten the water cooler conversations into one number instead of 3, 4 or 10.

[notin]

But that isn't what his WAR is saying. A single number is not doing what you are doing. It is not analysing the reason for the number. So in that way, WAR fails.

 

It is saying it if you know how to look at the numbers. It certainly says it to me.

 

If a player doesn’t get as many opportunities, his stats should suffer.

 

Mark Canha, for example, is a home run hitting machine. But he is never among the league leaders. While he is awesome at hitting home runs per at bat, he doesn’t get as many at bats. Therefore his home runs suffer.

 

But if you look at the single number to evaluate home runs, plenty of hitters hit more. Not because they’re better in many cases, but because they get more chances.

 

WAR, like all stats, measures accomplishments. Not ability. Fans like to use the two notions interchangeably, but that doesn’t make it right...

[Bellhorn04]

What sometimes gets overlooked is that WAR is a 'counting stat', not a 'rate stat'. Quantity is a big part of it.

[S5Dewey]

WAR is a debate-ender when we want it to be, and when we don't want it to be it's "just another tool".

[Kimmi]

Happy to be wrong!

 

Great tweet from Speier:

 

"Sale is confused by the sudden offensive explosion." LOL

[Kimmi]

Leaving with a 4-0 lead after 6, it was not a lock with our bullpen and people would still be bitchin that Sale was under performing.

 

Give your fellow posters some credit. We know that if Sale pitches 7 innings, giving up 1 run, that he pitched a great game, whether the team wins or loses. Sale pitched great last night.

 

That said, you are only kidding yourself if you think his pitching this year has not been a problem.

[Kimmi]

That is exactly the way I see Chris Sale.

 

Ditto. As I said before, my money is on Sale.

[Kimmi]

WAR is a debate-ender when we want it to be, and when we don't want it to be it's "just another tool".

 

WAR is never a debate ender.

 

However, if I had to go by only one stat to assess a player, it would definitely be WAR. It is more comprehensive than any other stat available to us.

[Bellhorn04]

WAR is a debate-ender when we want it to be, and when we don't want it to be it's "just another tool".

 

WAR isn't a debate-ender. That's a straw man.

[Kimmi]

Stat of the Day - Wins Lost (the starter was in line for the loss, but the pen blew it) versus Losses Saved (the starter was in line for the loss, but the offense and the pen bailed him out) for each starter:

 

Sale: 2-2

Eovaldi: 1-3

Porcello: 3-1

Price: 3-4

ERod: 2-1

Johnson: 1-0

Velazquez: 0-2

Weber: 0-1

 

Overall: 12-14

[Bellhorn04]

Stat of the Day - Wins Lost (the starter was in line for the loss, but the pen blew it) versus Losses Saved (the starter was in line for the loss, but the offense and the pen bailed him out) for each starter:

 

Eovaldi: 1-3

 

That's pretty wild considering Eovaldi only has 4 starts.

[moonslav59]

It is saying it if you know how to look at the numbers. It certainly says it to me.

 

If a player doesn’t get as many opportunities, his stats should suffer.

 

Mark Canha, for example, is a home run hitting machine. But he is never among the league leaders. While he is awesome at hitting home runs per at bat, he doesn’t get as many at bats. Therefore his home runs suffer.

 

But if you look at the single number to evaluate home runs, plenty of hitters hit more. Not because they’re better in many cases, but because they get more chances.

 

WAR, like all stats, measures accomplishments. Not ability. Fans like to use the two notions interchangeably, but that doesn’t make it right...

 

In theory, to me, the number should not rely on how many plays are hit to the player or how many the RF'er takes away from the CF'er, if it is meant to determine how good the player is.

 

However, the number is meant to capture what the player has done, and if the RF'er makes the play he could have made, he shouldn't get credit for just being there. It's like saying, "I was on deck for the walk off and should get some sort of credit for not getting a chance."

 

Is JBJ really a worse defender because Betts gets to balls he could have caught, or because our staff Ks more batters or induces more GBs than other teams? Or, because there's this huge wall in short LF-CF that stops him from making some catches other CF'er make,because they play in a bigger park?

 

I can see the argument being mad, and I think it has merit, but WAR is meant to capture what you have done not could have done. It places value on HRs vs singles or 2Bs. It places value on many factors all at once, something that is hard to do at the water cooler armed with 20 different stats.

[moonslav59]

WAR is a debate-ender when we want it to be, and when we don't want it to be it's "just another tool".

 

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone claim WAR ends all discussion.

 

Yes, some posters use it like it's gospel, but just looking at the discussions here, there are many factors to discuss within the WAR numbers. To me, it's way less than the never ending arguments about how much we should value HRs vs BA, RBIs vs OBP, SLG vs K Rates, what a SB is worth and what factor does SB% play in that value? It was always such a swirl of numbers to try and determine just how valuable a player is or how good a year is he having. WAR tries to simplify it into one number, but that doesn't mean that one number totally ends the debate.

[Maxbialystock]

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone claim WAR ends all discussion.

 

Yes, some posters use it like it's gospel, but just looking at the discussions here, there are many factors to discuss within the WAR numbers. To me, it's way less than the never ending arguments about how much we should value HRs vs BA, RBIs vs OBP, SLG vs K Rates, what a SB is worth and what factor does SB% play in that value? It was always such a swirl of numbers to try and determine just how valuable a player is or how good a year is he having. WAR tries to simplify it into one number, but that doesn't mean that one number totally ends the debate.

 

I really like WAR because it tries to be comprehensive, but sometimes I find the number for a given player absolutely infuriating--like pointing to Bogaerts as hands down the worst play-every-day defensive SS in recent memory.

[devildavid]

It is saying it if you know how to look at the numbers. It certainly says it to me.

 

If a player doesn’t get as many opportunities, his stats should suffer.

 

Mark Canha, for example, is a home run hitting machine. But he is never among the league leaders. While he is awesome at hitting home runs per at bat, he doesn’t get as many at bats. Therefore his home runs suffer.

 

But if you look at the single number to evaluate home runs, plenty of hitters hit more. Not because they’re better in many cases, but because they get more chances.

 

WAR, like all stats, measures accomplishments. Not ability. Fans like to use the two notions interchangeably, but that doesn’t make it right...

 

Looking at WAR is looking at a single number. There is no special way to look at it other than looking at all the numbers used to calculate it. The single WAR number tells us nothing about that. It is used as a shortcut, not as a means to help analyze further. WAR alone tells us nothing about opportunities any more than BABIP measures luck.

[moonslav59]

I really like WAR because it tries to be comprehensive, but sometimes I find the number for a given player absolutely infuriating--like pointing to Bogaerts as hands down the worst play-every-day defensive SS in recent memory.

 

Can you name an everyday SS you've seen enough to call worse than Bogey?

 

BTW, he's not listed as the worst, except for DRS.

 

Out of 27 SSs with 400+ innings, Bogey places:

 

15th in UZR/150 at -0.5 (They have Crawford and 12 below him.)

 

How about 2017-2019?

 

30 SSs with 1500+ innings

 

Bogey ranks 16th in UZR/150 at 0.0 (Segura, Galvis, Swanson and A Escobar are just below him.) He ranks 30th in DRS.

 

[moonslav59]

Looking at WAR is looking at a single number. There is no special way to look at it other than looking at all the numbers used to calculate it. The single WAR number tells us nothing about that. It is used as a shortcut, not as a means to help analyze further. WAR alone tells us nothing about opportunities any more than BABIP measures luck.

 

The thing it does is a short cut: you are right. It tries to put all the stats and arguments into one number.

 

"But, this guys has more power."

 

"But, this other guy is a way better fielder."

 

How do we know which one is more valuable and by how much? WAR attempts to weight each value in terms of how much it helps win a game. It reduces all 77 arguments about each area of skill into one number.

 

It is flawed, and it should be a conversation ender, but it does offer useful information, IMO.

[Bellhorn04]

Looking at WAR is looking at a single number. There is no special way to look at it other than looking at all the numbers used to calculate it. The single WAR number tells us nothing about that. It is used as a shortcut, not as a means to help analyze further. WAR alone tells us nothing about opportunities any more than BABIP measures luck.

 

WAR is a single number, yes, but you can also see at a glance offensive WAR and defensive WAR and all the component numbers that make it up. It's not really just one number, end of story - not if you really do want to analyze it.