A Realistic View at 2019: Part II

[dgalehouse]

Centerfielders are good defenders . It goes with the territory. The Sox have one of the best . No need to look any deeper into it . No need to rank them .

[moonslav59]

My guess is that AAAA CF'ers are probably better on D than O.

[devildavid]

Other made up numbers: wins, saves, blown saves, RBI, et al

 

RBI is not made up. The others you mentioned are meaninglessly assigned to a pitcher.

[devildavid]

I have no problem with oWAR. It's dWAR I have an issue with. Unfortunately dWAR bleeds over into WAR. oWAR deals in reality. Numbers. percentages. dWAR deals with someone else's perception of what a player does. When I see a dWAR value that says that JBJ's only .2 WAR better than this mythical "replacement player" (as BR's dWAR does) I'm going to challenge the formula that created the value. Maybe, just maybe, dWAR is wrong.

 

My problem is with the last R considered in the calculation. That number has nothing to do with the numbers generated by actual player performance.

[devildavid]

Centerfielders are good defenders . It goes with the territory. The Sox have one of the best . No need to look any deeper into it . No need to rank them .

 

We are in rare agreement here. This nails it. I don't care where my team's players rank, I care about how they fit into the team and what they contribute to the team.

[notin]

RBI is not made up. The others you mentioned are meaninglessly assigned to a pitcher.

 

It isn’t?

 

What’s the definition of an RBI?

[jung]

I don't think you can be 9 games over .500 and have "shown nothing." We have a top 2 or 3 offense, for one. Our rotation did go 4-5 weeks pitching very well. Our pen did okay for the first 2 months. Our defense has improved at 3B.

 

Look, I agree, we have yet to "put it all together" for any meaningful stretch, but there is still 2+ months to go. I know it is hard to ignore a 99 game sample size, and I'm not. We do have serious issues. We have some in-house options like Eovaldi and long shot Johnson that may solve 2 issues. Moreland's return could help, too. A trade for a solid RP'er could also help. Adding 4 players to a team already 9 over .500 can make a difference. I'm not saying it will. I'm not saying I have any hard evidence, other than this is close to the same team as 2018, to say we are likely to be a top contender by October, but it is possible.

 

I know it wasn't you saying it, but even last year some posters were very pessimistic about our chances vs Houston in the playoffs. That was after winning 108 games. Houston "had a better rotation." Houston has a "better pythagorean record."

 

We came close in 2003, despite going 60-49 for 4 months in a row (.550 winning % that is very close to the one we have now). That team went 17-9 in September and 7-3 to end August. They were 72-55 on August 20th, which is much better than our record is now, but I seriously doubt many Sox fans had hope as late as August31st after we just lost 2 of 3 to the Yanks and were 5.5 out.

 

In 2004, we had a stretch where we went 43-43 from May 1st to Aug 6th. That's a very long stretch of worse baseball than we have played in our first 99 games. The sample size is almost the same. If I add 13 games on the end of that stretch to equal 99 games, they were 7 games over .500- worse than this year's stretch. There was not much hope that year, either, but we finished the season 40-15, and the rest is history.

 

We won the division in 2007, mostly on the strength of our great start (36-15). We went 60-51 the last 4 months of the season, including a 54-48 stretch (worse record than this year for a longer stretch).

 

Nobody expected a ring in 2013 from day one. We had a shorter stretch of pretty bad play by going 48-38 in one 86 game stretch- better than this year, but not by much.

 

All those championship teams, except for last year, looked pretty bad for very long stretches.

 

Let me say one more thing about our team, we've made the playoffs 9 times since 2004. We've won it all in 4 of them- once as a wild card entry. That's pretty amazing, and it speaks to our ability to step it up when it counts most. I realize those were different teams, but 2018 was not.

 

The Sox virtually led and by big numbers from start to finish last year. The combination of being preoccupied with God only knows what in season (am I going to get a new contract being the most obvious preoccupation) and the lack of pitching has killed the Sox this year. There is no cure for a Rotation that is expected to be the strength of the team ending up one of the weakest elements of it. If anything the Rotation and the Pen are running neck and neck for futility and that CAN'T happen with an expectation for some sort of success.

 

Everything that happens on the diamond starts with the ball in the hand of the pitcher. They had the very real expectation that the Rotation would be their strength....hence they simply (DD style) did no spend much time on the pen. You just cannot start with an expectation for excellence from your Rotation, get what we have gotten and expect to make it up elsewhere. Just not now baseball is played even now with all this rocket ship baseball nonsense and the worst pitching overall I have seen in my lifetime.

 

Its not so much that the Yankmees have pitched that much better for example. Its that they were not built around their rotation in the first place and that is the dif.

 

Also, I am completely non-plused by the way the OF has not functioned as a unit this year. Talk about a bunch of preoccupied babies.....PLEASE. Grow up for God sake. Nobody forced you guys to make a career out of baseball and if you were asked you would likely say this is exactly what you want to be doing. SO ACT LIKE IT! PLAY LIKE IT.

[jung]

People asking about Moreland and what happens to Chavis. Don't think there is anything to worry about. Just saw video of Moreland today and while his swing looks predictably awful, Mitch looks terrible. Clearly has put on some tonnage since being out. Not sure when to expect him and what to expect when he gets here.

[moonslav59]

Cleveland's remaining games:

 

4 @NYY

3 vs HOU

3 vs BOS

3 @ TBR

10 MN (7 away/3 home)

3 vs TEX

3 @ WSH (to end the season)

3 vs PHI

6 LAA (3H/3A)

 

3 @ TOR

3 @ NYM

6 DET (3A/3H)

7 CWS (4H/3A)

7 KCR (4A/3H)

 

The A's have:

3 v NYY

11 HOU (7A/4H)

10 TEX (7H/3A)

5 LAA (3H/2A)

3 @ CHC

3 vs MIL

2 vs STL

2 @ SFG

3 vs DET

4 @ SEA (to end the season)

7 KCR (4A/3H)

 

 

[Bellhorn04]

My problem is with the last R considered in the calculation. That number has nothing to do with the numbers generated by actual player performance.

 

So go with Wins Above Average. It's there.

[dgalehouse]

The Sox score 17 runs yesterday and get one hit today . It's the kind of thing that would have old Pythagoras scratching his head up in the Elysium Fields or wherever he is . But give the O's kid credit . He pitched the game of his life . Nothing you can do .

[devildavid]

So go with Wins Above Average. It's there.

 

Average what?

[devildavid]

It isn’t?

 

What’s the definition of an RBI?

 

It is a run batted in due to a hit or walk. It's not just up to some made up rules about assigning wins or saves. So an RBI is an actual accomplishment that can be rightly credited to an individual hitter. Saves are based on made up requirements that have been different in different times in baseball history. RBI's have pretty much been the same thing through history. Assigning wins can't be shown to be the result of what one pitcher did.

[moonslav59]

It is a run batted in due to a hit or walk. It's not just up to some made up rules about assigning wins or saves. So an RBI is an actual accomplishment that can be rightly credited to an individual hitter. Saves are based on made up requirements that have been different in different times in baseball history. RBI's have pretty much been the same thing through history. Assigning wins can't be shown to be the result of what one pitcher did.

 

Well, they did say a walk somehow can "bat" a run in, but I agree with your point.

 

Wins, saves and BSs are ridiculous. A starter can go 4.2 of shut out ball, while the next guy can go 4.1 allowing 10 runs, but he gets the win.

 

The whole save thing is whacked out.

[Bellhorn04]

It is a run batted in due to a hit or walk.

 

Or an out that meets the criteria.

[Bellhorn04]

The whole save thing is whacked out.

 

The save thing is whacked out, although it could arguably be made into a legit stat if it was re-done.

[oldtimer]

It is a run batted in due to a hit or walk. It's not just up to some made up rules about assigning wins or saves. So an RBI is an actual accomplishment that can be rightly credited to an individual hitter. Saves are based on made up requirements that have been different in different times in baseball history. RBI's have pretty much been the same thing through history. Assigning wins can't be shown to be the result of what one pitcher did.

 

To get an RBI, a hitter needs to have opportunities. Some clubs don't provide as many opportunities so one has to look at that aspect when using RBIs as a figure of merit for a player.

[notin]

It is a run batted in due to a hit or walk. It's not just up to some made up rules about assigning wins or saves. So an RBI is an actual accomplishment that can be rightly credited to an individual hitter. Saves are based on made up requirements that have been different in different times in baseball history. RBI's have pretty much been the same thing through history. Assigning wins can't be shown to be the result of what one pitcher did.

 

 

Or an out.

 

But just one out. Hit into two outs and you don’t get credit for driving in a run.

 

Or on an error. Which is weird because you do get credit on an out. So if the defense gets you out cleanly, you get an RBI. But if the defense botches the play, you don’t. (Think about that for a second. What other sport has a parallel?)

 

Of course, the official scorer can credit a batter with an RBI on an error, if, in his opinion, the run would have scored. So once the ol’ opinion gets involved, the stats stop being consistent....

[OH FOY]

Rarely happens, RBI is pretty simple drive in Runs. You might get 1 a year if that on your scenario. Maybe 2, if your driving in over 100 runs that situation means nothing. Your still good at driving in Runs.

Runs is most important word in the game.

Also on say a Double Play, and you hustle to beat it out, you should get rewarded.

Edited July 21, 2019 by OH FOY!

[dgalehouse]

Rarely happens, RBI is pretty simple drive in Runs. You might get 1 a year if that on your scenario. Maybe 2, if your driving in over 100 runs that situation means nothing. Your still good at driving in Runs.

Runs is most important word in the game.

Also on say a Double Play, and you hustle to beat it out, you should get rewarded.

Agree . There are little flaws in stats and almost everything in life . That doesn't discount the value very much . Most RBIs are just that . A player who consistently gets a lot of them is doing a good job.

[devildavid]

Or an out.

 

But just one out. Hit into two outs and you don’t get credit for driving in a run.

 

Or on an error. Which is weird because you do get credit on an out. So if the defense gets you out cleanly, you get an RBI. But if the defense botches the play, you don’t. (Think about that for a second. What other sport has a parallel?)

 

Of course, the official scorer can credit a batter with an RBI on an error, if, in his opinion, the run would have scored. So once the ol’ opinion gets involved, the stats stop being consistent....

 

Which is still not as made up as assigning wins and saves.

[devildavid]

To get an RBI, a hitter needs to have opportunities. Some clubs don't provide as many opportunities so one has to look at that aspect when using RBIs as a figure of merit for a player.

 

But that does not negate the statistic as a measure of something.

[S5Dewey]

What makes you think the difference, especially on defense between the #30 CF'er and a AAAA player is all that much?

 

There is a certain implication that when a player reaches the ML level he's a better player than someone who hasn't reached that level. IMHO JBJ is one of the premier defensive outfielders in baseball now. One would think that if there were AAAA players who are almost as good as he is that some team would have brought some of them up by now. Yet, JBJ is still seen as one of the premier outfielders in baseball.

 

But the real issue here isn't JBJ. He's just the local poster child for the flaws in dWAR - and most of us agree that there are some. Once we agreed that there are some the only questions were how big those flaws are, how many of them are there, and how much they affect a player's "assigned" dWAR.

 

I maintain they're significant. Other's think they're inconsequential.

[Bellhorn04]

But that does not negate the statistic as a measure of something.

 

So you find RBI palatable as a 'real' statistic, but you dispute others like SLG and the concept of 'replacement player' and so on. Face it, this is all about your subjective personal preferences. You don't really have any support for any of it.

[Slasher9]

What makes you think the difference, especially on defense between the #30 CF'er and a AAAA player is all that much?

 

IMO, there are probably 15 CF'ers in AAA that are better defensively than the bottom 5 MLB CF'ers on D.

 

The difference is huge. You ever go to minor league games? The defense is awful. Especially AAA games.

[jacksonianmarch]

Guys, I am not sure how you can watch all of the sox games and come away with JBJ being a positive defender this year. He has not been great. The position has gotten better across the league on defense and JBJ has looked old this year

[dgalehouse]

There is a new wave of folks who want to revolutionize the way you look at baseball . That is where you get things like UZR and dWAR . The old , traditional stats are not only discarded , they are ridiculed. Your " eye test " is meaningless compared to the " eye test " of Jimmy Schmegge , an unemployed, recent college grad who makes a few bucks by staying up all night and ( allegedly ) watching every pitch of every game . Jimmy couldn't judge a fly ball if it was headed for his face .

[moonslav59]

The difference is huge. You ever go to minor league games? The defense is awful. Especially AAA games.

 

So, all the great ML defenders skipped AAA, I guess.

 

Yes, I have been to minor league games. I've seen some great fielders, including JBJ way back when.

 

In a sense, we replaced Ellsbury with a AAAA player that many felt should have been DFA'd a number of times, and now we see offense taken at the mere thought that a minor leaguer may be better at defense than JBJ.

[Slasher9]

and now we see offense taken at the mere thought that a minor leaguer may be better at defense than JBJ.

 

Correct. It is offensive

[jad]

The difference is huge. You ever go to minor league games? The defense is awful. Especially AAA games.

 

Exactly! It's one reason I love going to minor league games (present choice--SeaDogs, AA). Once a ball is hit, you have no idea what will happen. That said, I should also add that the defense you see in AA or AAA these days is much better than it used to be years ago when I first started going.