A Realistic View at 2019: Part II

[Nick]

I just don't see JD opting out. He's taking a chance in my mind. Why not opt out after 2020 instead?

 

I've come around on Brock Holt, only because he's shown he can be productive. He's a nice piece to have for any manager. He can play multiple positions without weakening the lineup, unlike say Sandy Leon.

 

We have gone withoud Pearce and Moreland for most of the year. No reason to bring them back. We have cheaper options.

 

With Rick, it all depends on what he's asking. Can he go along with the line, "hey, you'll have chance to improve your value in 2021". One year deal no more than $9M.

 

You bring everyone else back and go for it again in 2020. There is no such thing as cliff for the Red Sox.

 

We are converting every f***ing pitching prospect into a reliever. You'd think we'd be all set there.

[moonslav59]

I just don't see JD opting out. He's taking a chance in my mind. Why not opt out after 2020 instead?

 

I've come around on Brock Holt, only because he's shown he can be productive. He's a nice piece to have for any manager. He can play multiple positions without weakening the lineup, unlike say Sandy Leon.

 

We have gone withoud Pearce and Moreland for most of the year. No reason to bring them back. We have cheaper options.

 

With Rick, it all depends on what he's asking. Can he go along with the line, "hey, you'll have chance to improve your value in 2021". One year deal no more than $9M.

 

You bring everyone else back and go for it again in 2020. There is no such thing as cliff for the Red Sox.

 

We are converting every f***ing pitching prospect into a reliever. You'd think we'd be all set there.

 

None of our pitching prospects are sure bet solid RP'ers of the future.

 

I agree on Moreland & Pearce not returning. We will go with Chavis, Dalbec, Marco and maybe a returning Holt as our right side IF.

 

Porcello will not be back, and he won't take $9M/1.

 

I am nearly certain we will reset the tax at some point in the next 2-3 years. When we do, we will not be a top contender. Call it whatever you want, but we will not be a top contender at some point in the near future- hopefully just for 1-2 years.

 

I don't think JD opts out. He's basically a DH making more money than any DH on the open market can make.

 

If we decide to reset this winter, we'll trade JBJ.

 

If you read some of the posts here a week ago, you'd have thought this season was "the cliff."

 

[Nick]

If you read some of the posts here a week ago, you'd have thought this season was "the cliff." Moon

 

Week is a long time for some of us.

 

Sale and Xander's new contracts will be taken care of by Sandoval.

 

Porcello, Nunez, Pearce, Moreland and Thornburg will yield approximately $42M. If we're now at $243M, we'll be at $200M before arbitration raises for Betts, JBJ, Beni and E Rod to name big ticket items.

 

IF JD opts out, then maybe we trade JBJ and reset.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Nick

[moonslav59]

If you read some of the posts here a week ago, you'd have thought this season was "the cliff." Moon

 

Week is a long time for some of us.

 

Sale and Xander's new contracts will be taken care of by Sandoval.

 

Porcello, Nunez, Pearce, Moreland and Thornburg will yield approximately $42M. If we're now at $243M, we'll be at $200M before arbitration raises for Betts, JBJ, Beni and E Rod to name big ticket items.

 

IF JD opts out, then maybe we trade JBJ and reset.

 

If we let every FA go and don't sign anyone major, bring back Holt and sign some cheap CF'er, we can barely reset by trading JBJ. We may have to let Hembree and Leon go.

 

[cp176]

Now I realize that I am likely to get scoffed at for this one because I never have believed in any type of cliff nor have I thought that the franchise has a fast and firm budget that cannot be gone over. here is what I think - JBJ is likely gone - Porcello is gone - Benintendi may actually get traded - JD stays - that is all for starters.

[moonslav59]

Now I realize that I am likely to get scoffed at for this one because I never have believed in any type of cliff nor have I thought that the franchise has a fast and firm budget that cannot be gone over. here is what I think - JBJ is likely gone - Porcello is gone - Benintendi may actually get traded - JD stays - that is all for starters.

 

Do you think there is a plan or high priority to reset the tax in the next 2.5 years?

Edited July 28, 2019 by moonslav59

[cp176]

Do you think there is a plan to reset the tax in the next 2.5 years?

 

I honestly do not think that there is a hard and fast plan to do that. obviously no one wants to spend one penny more than they have to but i do not think that John Henry has or will say that there is a specific limit that he will not go over.

[moonslav59]

I honestly do not think that there is a hard and fast plan to do that. obviously no one wants to spend one penny more than they have to but i do not think that John Henry has or will say that there is a specific limit that he will not go over.

 

I think Henry wants to reset at some point, but he may wait longer than I imagine.

 

I can see him spending over the first line many years in a row, but resetting the tax just once has a lot of benefits- not just financial.

 

Let me word it differently: would you be surorised if Henry mandates a reset in the next 2.5 years?

 

[Bellhorn04]

If you read some of the posts here a week ago, you'd have thought this season was "the cliff."

 

I know. There was this one crazy guy saying we should trade Mookie by the deadline. Oh wait, that was notin...

[Bellhorn04]

JD may never opt out. He's a DH who's about to turn 32 and will have a WAR of 2 to 2.5 this year.

[YastrzemskI]

The Yanks are going to acquire a SP'er of merit, but I doubt that will be enough to make them a top rotation team.

 

Nobody here cares.

[Bellhorn04]

Nobody here cares.

 

Untrue.

[notin]

JD may never opt out. He's a DH who's about to turn 32 and will have a WAR of 2 to 2.5 this year.

 

Not to mention, his last go round with free agency didn’t exactly go as planned. And he was two years younger and coming off a career year then...

[jacksonianmarch]

Not to mention, his last go round with free agency didn’t exactly go as planned. And he was two years younger and coming off a career year then...

 

JD also was coming off a Lisfranc and the history with that injury is recurrent symptoms. Also, the only teams trying to win had DH's already. That might be different come this offseason

[jung]

It’s really not two weighted factors, as “park” is a subset of “league”. You're trying to over complicate it.

 

A baseline is determined for the AL parks. If the baseball is a factor, the baseline will rise. The only factor going into it is OPS in a variety of locations...

 

From the mlb web site:

Definition. OPS+ takes a player's on-base plus slugging percentage and normalizes the number across the entire league. It accounts for external factors like ballparks. It then adjusts so a score of 100 is league average, and 150 is 50 percent better than the league average.

 

From Fangraphs:

On-base Plus Slugging Plus (OPS+) has not gained as much widespread acceptance, but is a more informative metric than OPS. This statistic normalizes a player’s OPS — it adjusts for small variables that might affect OPS scores (e.g. park effects) and puts the statistic on an easy-to-understand scale. A 100 OPS+ is league average, and each point up or down is one percentage point above or below league average. In other words, if a player had a 90 OPS+ last season, that means their OPS was 10% below league average. Since OPS+ adjusts for league and park effects, it’s possible to use OPS+ to compare players from different years and on different teams.

 

From baseball reference which actually posts a "formula"

Compute the runs created for the league with pitchers removed (basic form) RC = (H + BB + HBP)*(TB)/(AB + BB + HBP + SF)

Adjust this by the park factor RC' = RC*BPF

Assume that if hits increase in a park, that BB, HBP, TB increase at the some proportion.

Assume that Outs = AB - H (more or less) do not change at all as outs are finite.

Compute the number of H, BB, HBP, TB needed to produce RC', involves the quadratic formula. The idea for this came from the Willie Davis player comment in the Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract. I think some others, including Clay Davenport have done some similar things.

Using these adjusted values compute what the league average player would have hit lgOBP*, lgSLG* in a park.

Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* - 1)

Note, in my database, I don't store lgSLG, but store lgTB and similarly for lgOBP and lg(Times on Base), this makes calculation of career OPS+ much easier.

 

Give me a break.

 

 

In other words according to its own definition, OPS+ accounts for external FACTORS as in more than one weighted factor. That is the very definition of multiple weighted factoring. So again, you are already corrupting your own data because you are employing multiple weighted factors in the one stat.

 

You will need Manfred to come clean on the rocket ship and then give you a number. The weighted factor for the baseball could be very easily defined once Manfred comes clean. I am sure the ball manufacturer knows exactly what he is manufacturing and what he was manufacturing in 2015, 2016, 1018 and now in 2019. Manfred has most particularly to come up with a number for the 2019 ball as it is so far beyond the pale that comparing season and career stats that include even the 2016 season are essentially meaningless unless your cause is to herald today's hitters as the "greatest of all time"......Ah-huh!

 

Once you have a weighted factor for the baseball, you could develop a stat for it but just as OPS+ is not a properly built stat, you will have to weight the baseball by itself, not glom it on to an already corrupted piece of data.

 

By the way, ERA+ is the same gibberish only applied to ERA.

 

Again, for those that want to have fun with numbers....be my guest. Anybody using these multiple weighted factor stats to negotiate contracts, draft or trade players or sign FA's needs his head examined.

Edited July 29, 2019 by jung

[Bellhorn04]

jung, the thing about the baseball is that everybody uses the same one. It's not like the steroids era when some guys were using and some weren't.

 

Even if you're not a fan of OPS+, a discounting factor is not that hard to figure out.

[notin]

From the mlb web site:

Definition. OPS+ takes a player's on-base plus slugging percentage and normalizes the number across the entire league. It accounts for external factors like ballparks. It then adjusts so a score of 100 is league average, and 150 is 50 percent better than the league average.

 

From Fangraphs:

On-base Plus Slugging Plus (OPS+) has not gained as much widespread acceptance, but is a more informative metric than OPS. This statistic normalizes a player’s OPS — it adjusts for small variables that might affect OPS scores (e.g. park effects) and puts the statistic on an easy-to-understand scale. A 100 OPS+ is league average, and each point up or down is one percentage point above or below league average. In other words, if a player had a 90 OPS+ last season, that means their OPS was 10% below league average. Since OPS+ adjusts for league and park effects, it’s possible to use OPS+ to compare players from different years and on different teams.

 

From baseball reference which actually posts a "formula"

Compute the runs created for the league with pitchers removed (basic form) RC = (H + BB + HBP)*(TB)/(AB + BB + HBP + SF)

Adjust this by the park factor RC' = RC*BPF

Assume that if hits increase in a park, that BB, HBP, TB increase at the some proportion.

Assume that Outs = AB - H (more or less) do not change at all as outs are finite.

Compute the number of H, BB, HBP, TB needed to produce RC', involves the quadratic formula. The idea for this came from the Willie Davis player comment in the Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract. I think some others, including Clay Davenport have done some similar things.

Using these adjusted values compute what the league average player would have hit lgOBP*, lgSLG* in a park.

Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* - 1)

Note, in my database, I don't store lgSLG, but store lgTB and similarly for lgOBP and lg(Times on Base), this makes calculation of career OPS+ much easier.

 

Give me a break.

 

 

In other words according to its own definition, OPS+ accounts for external FACTORS as in more than one weighted factor. That is the very definition of multiple weighted factoring. So again, you are already corrupting your own data because you are employing multiple weighted factors in the one stat.

 

You will need Manfred to come clean on the rocket ship and then give you a number. The weighted factor for the baseball could be very easily defined once Manfred comes clean. I am sure the ball manufacturer knows exactly what he is manufacturing and what he was manufacturing in 2015, 2016, 1018 and now in 2019. Manfred has most particularly to come up with a number for the 2019 ball as it is so far beyond the pale that comparing season and career stats that include even the 2016 season are essentially meaningless unless your cause is to herald today's hitters as the "greatest of all time"......Ah-huh!

 

Once you have a weighted factor for the baseball, you could develop a stat for it but just as OPS+ is not a properly built stat, you will have to weight the baseball by itself, not glom it on to an already corrupted piece of data.

 

By the way, ERA+ is the same gibberish only applied to ERA.

 

Again, for those that want to have fun with numbers....be my guest. Anybody using these multiple weighted factor stats to negotiate contracts, draft or trade players or sign FA's needs his head examined.

 

But the new baseball is in use everywhere.

 

Essentially this mean the league OPS will rise with more hits, total bases, and home runs.

 

I gave an example that Jason Bay’s OPS+ of 134 10 years ago was the same as Xander Bogaerts OPS+ at the time, but Bay’s OPS was almost 40 points higher. This is because the league OPS has also risen, with the Manfred Missile being a likely culprit. (A few ballparks have also changed in that time as well.)

 

If anything, I see OPS+ as more useful in incorporating these changes in the game, because by comparing a stat to league averages it can catch and account for changes. Stats like OPS, BA, SLG, and home runs cannot do this. ERA+ also becomes more useful for the same reason...

[jad]

i clearly do not hang out with the "right fans". Now before you misunderstand me, i absolutely appreciate the great love of all metrics that many who post here have. I think that it is wonderful, just not my thing and I do consider myself a very good fan of the game. To take it one step further, no one and I mean no one that I know when having a conversation about the red sox or baseball in general has ever referred to anything that could even remotely be considered an advanced metric. I enjoy all of you folks who have such love for them and i do appreciate their significance but I truly do not think that fans that I know anyway discuss athletics in this way. And although I respect the knowledge base of anyone who has learned not only the terminology of metrics but also how they can be used, I do not think that gaining that knowledge makes anyone anything particularly special.

 

What??? No way! Think of all the fan interest generated: Williams' pursuit of .400; Pete Rose's hitting streak; Sosa vs. Mcquire, Bonds chasing Ruth ... and now, fans just streaming into parks all giddy about who will win the dWAR race.

[Maxbialystock]

What??? No way! Think of all the fan interest generated: Williams' pursuit of .400; Pete Rose's hitting streak; Sosa vs. Mcquire, Bonds chasing Ruth ... and now, fans just streaming into parks all giddy about who will win the dWAR race.

 

Nicely done. Numbers are a huge part of baseball. As Kevin Costner says in For Love of the Game, "we count everything in baseball." And earlier in Bull Durham he explains, correctly, that the difference between hitting .300 and .250 is one hit a week. But your last bit is hilariously counter to the fixation on the new stats. Funny thing about WAR (not dWAR), however, is that the player with the highest WAR at the end of a season usually gets voted in as the league MVP. In the old days, it used to be the guy with most rbi's.

 

I happen to think that baseball is absolutely the best professional sport to watch in person, but these days am aghast at the very high cost of going in person combined with the increasing length of games in order to allow batters to repeatedly scratch themselves, adjust their gloves, examine their bats, adjust their caps, pretend they are interested in signals from the 3b coach, etc. And pitchers are no better because they seem to believe that throwing the next pitch is never something to be rushed but rather is something to be savored like a fine wine.

[moonslav59]

From the mlb web site:

Definition. OPS+ takes a player's on-base plus slugging percentage and normalizes the number across the entire league. It accounts for external factors like ballparks. It then adjusts so a score of 100 is league average, and 150 is 50 percent better than the league average.

 

From Fangraphs:

On-base Plus Slugging Plus (OPS+) has not gained as much widespread acceptance, but is a more informative metric than OPS. This statistic normalizes a player’s OPS — it adjusts for small variables that might affect OPS scores (e.g. park effects) and puts the statistic on an easy-to-understand scale. A 100 OPS+ is league average, and each point up or down is one percentage point above or below league average. In other words, if a player had a 90 OPS+ last season, that means their OPS was 10% below league average. Since OPS+ adjusts for league and park effects, it’s possible to use OPS+ to compare players from different years and on different teams.

 

From baseball reference which actually posts a "formula"

Compute the runs created for the league with pitchers removed (basic form) RC = (H + BB + HBP)*(TB)/(AB + BB + HBP + SF)

Adjust this by the park factor RC' = RC*BPF

Assume that if hits increase in a park, that BB, HBP, TB increase at the some proportion.

Assume that Outs = AB - H (more or less) do not change at all as outs are finite.

Compute the number of H, BB, HBP, TB needed to produce RC', involves the quadratic formula. The idea for this came from the Willie Davis player comment in the Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract. I think some others, including Clay Davenport have done some similar things.

Using these adjusted values compute what the league average player would have hit lgOBP*, lgSLG* in a park.

Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* - 1)

Note, in my database, I don't store lgSLG, but store lgTB and similarly for lgOBP and lg(Times on Base), this makes calculation of career OPS+ much easier.

 

Give me a break.

 

 

In other words according to its own definition, OPS+ accounts for external FACTORS as in more than one weighted factor. That is the very definition of multiple weighted factoring. So again, you are already corrupting your own data because you are employing multiple weighted factors in the one stat.

 

You will need Manfred to come clean on the rocket ship and then give you a number. The weighted factor for the baseball could be very easily defined once Manfred comes clean. I am sure the ball manufacturer knows exactly what he is manufacturing and what he was manufacturing in 2015, 2016, 1018 and now in 2019. Manfred has most particularly to come up with a number for the 2019 ball as it is so far beyond the pale that comparing season and career stats that include even the 2016 season are essentially meaningless unless your cause is to herald today's hitters as the "greatest of all time"......Ah-huh!

 

Once you have a weighted factor for the baseball, you could develop a stat for it but just as OPS+ is not a properly built stat, you will have to weight the baseball by itself, not glom it on to an already corrupted piece of data.

 

By the way, ERA+ is the same gibberish only applied to ERA.

 

Again, for those that want to have fun with numbers....be my guest. Anybody using these multiple weighted factor stats to negotiate contracts, draft or trade players or sign FA's needs his head examined.

 

In my opinion, ERA+ and OPS+ are better than just OPS and ERA alone.

 

It's not "gibberish."

 

It may not be perfect, but it does improve on what we had (and used).

 

I trust they do a better job adjusting the number than I could do on my own.

Edited July 29, 2019 by moonslav59

[Kimmi]

We have a serious issue with our starting pitching. The issue right now is that all of them are off. By the POs, we are gonna need at least one starter from outside this 25 man, maybe two. I have faith that Tanaka and Paxton have it figured out because they’re actually good major league pitchers. I don’t have faith in Coronary Cripple or JA Bleh. Severino coming back and German pitching decent give me hope that one of them can take a spot, but expecting both to is fools gold. We need one more guy, and preferably one we can throw in front or at the 2 spot in a rotation

 

The Yankees pitching was surprisingly good in April and May. Since then, they have turned back into pumpkins.

 

April: ERA 3.89, OPS .695

May: ERA 3.45, OPS .699

June: ERA 5.46, OPS .838

July: ERA 4.93, OPS .829

 

More fun facts: In the month of July, your starters rank 29th in fWAR, 26th in ERA, and 29th in FIP.

 

Cashman: Let's add some more offense!

[Kimmi]

I just posted this rather incredible split on the Yankees thread:

 

Yankee staff ERA - home 3.35

Yankee staff ERA - road 5.56

 

That is rather incredible. I'm starting to believe the guy who insists that the Yankees are streaming subliminal messages through their PA system and on their jumbotron.

[Kimmi]

The Yankee fans on this board are relatively level-headed. But on the NYYFans forum I visit, they have been ripping Hal, Cashman, and Larry Rothschild (Pajama Larry LOL) for the state of the starting pitching.

 

Pajama Larry - That's a good one. LOL

[moonslav59]

The Yankees pitching was surprisingly good in April and May. Since then, they have turned back into pumpkins.

 

April: ERA 3.89, OPS .695

May: ERA 3.45, OPS .699

June: ERA 5.46, OPS .838

July: ERA 4.93, OPS .829

 

More fun facts: In the month of July, your starters rank 29th in fWAR, 26th in ERA, and 29th in FIP.

 

Cashman: Let's add some more offense!

 

If this was happening to the Sox, imagine the uproar, here.

[Kimmi]

I just don't see JD opting out. He's taking a chance in my mind. Why not opt out after 2020 instead?

 

I've come around on Brock Holt, only because he's shown he can be productive. He's a nice piece to have for any manager. He can play multiple positions without weakening the lineup, unlike say Sandy Leon.

 

We have gone withoud Pearce and Moreland for most of the year. No reason to bring them back. We have cheaper options.

 

With Rick, it all depends on what he's asking. Can he go along with the line, "hey, you'll have chance to improve your value in 2021". One year deal no more than $9M.

 

You bring everyone else back and go for it again in 2020. There is no such thing as cliff for the Red Sox.

 

We are converting every f***ing pitching prospect into a reliever. You'd think we'd be all set there.

 

I read an article a couple of days ago about the effect of bad luck on JD Martinez. He is making extremely good contact with the ball, but isn't getting the results to show for it. He was compared to George Springer, who has very similar expected statistics to JD, but is getting better outcomes than JD.

 

Not that JD has been terrible, but expect him to go on a tear these last 2 months.

[Kimmi]

If this was happening to the Sox, imagine the uproar, here.

 

I can imagine. Hopefully, our rotation is going in the opposite direction of the Yankees' rotation.

[Slasher9]

What??? No way! Think of all the fan interest generated: Williams' pursuit of .400; Pete Rose's hitting streak; Sosa vs. Mcquire, Bonds chasing Ruth ... and now, fans just streaming into parks all giddy about who will win the dWAR race.

 

thats pretty good.

[Kimmi]

What??? No way! Think of all the fan interest generated: Williams' pursuit of .400; Pete Rose's hitting streak; Sosa vs. Mcquire, Bonds chasing Ruth ... and now, fans just streaming into parks all giddy about who will win the dWAR race.

 

thats pretty good.

 

You all have to remember that we are not at the ballpark. Nor are we even quoting analytics in the game threads during the games. Nor are the fans on this forum your average fans.

 

The last thing on my mind when I'm watching a game or when I'm at the ballpark is advanced stats. During games, it's pure emotion and enjoying the beauty and the nuances of the game.

 

This type of argument against analytics is weak. Very weak.

 

As I've said before, if you are on a baseball forum discussing and debating baseball, it's a completely different story. Analytics are necessary.

[moonslav59]

I can imagine. Hopefully, our rotation is going in the opposite direction of the Yankees' rotation.

 

There always seems to be one or two of our starters coming off 1 or more horrific starts. This time, it is Sale, but hopefully we can put it all together by the time the playoffs start.

 

I still think we trade for a decent RP'er. If we do, we may see this for August:

 

SP: Price, Sale, ERod, Porcello, Cashner

 

RP: Eovaldi, Workman, ______, Barnes, Hembree, Walden, Brewer, Taylor

 

(Johnson and Wright are out of options- maybe we can hold them off until September.

 

Other possible Sept call-ups: DHern, Velazquez, Brasier, Lakins, Poyner)

 

[moonslav59]

You all have to remember that we are not at the ballpark. Nor are we even quoting analytics in the game threads during the games. Nor are the fans on this forum your average fans.

 

The last thing on my mind when I'm watching a game or when I'm at the ballpark is advanced stats. During games, it's pure emotion and enjoying the beauty and the nuances of the game.

 

This type of argument against analytics is weak. Very weak.

 

As I've said before, if you are on a baseball forum discussing and debating baseball, it's a completely different story. Analytics are necessary.

 

Well said. The only time I ever think of stats while watching a game is if someone like JBJ goes 3 for 4 with 2 HRs, and I think, "I wonder what his OPS is now?"

 

There are many of us who love the stats, metrics and analytics but can also totally enjoy just watching a game free of deep thoughts on numbers.