A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[kenmeister]

I have you right at the first threshold if JD and JBJ come back. If JD opts out, you’ll be under. But damn you need him

 

We definitely do. I've been wondering if he can take the first base job if he stays.

[notin]

The Red Sox reportedly have spoken with former Cincinnati Reds manager Bryan Price about their pitching coach opening:

 

 

Which raises the question of who is speaking on behalf of the Red Sox.

 

The interim crew. It's not like the offices are empty...

[notin]

'Odds' was not the right choice of words then. Those are betting odds, not statistical odds based on correlations.

 

Exactly.

 

Bear in mind betting odds not only take outcome into account, but also betting action. Just because more people were betting on the Dodgers did not make them a better team, but it was something Vegas odds-makers had to consider so as not to go broke in the event they actually won...

[moonslav59]

Houston has added top of the line starting pitching each of last three years. That's how you go for it all.

 

Yankees could have used one this year.....

 

Exactly! None of this sign a 5th starter crap.

[harmony]

MassLive speculates on next head of the Red Sox front office:

 

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2019/10/boston-red-sox-gm-candidates-whos-left-with-andrew-friedman-other-top-experienced-candidates-unavailable.html

[Kimmi]

The opening odds given are largely based on correlations and trends from the regular season along with who people are betting on or are likely to bet on.

 

I just can't believe the Brewers, A's and Ray's had close to the same chance as the Astros or even the Yankees or Dodgers.

 

Maybe your idea of close is different than mine.

 

I don't know exactly how the odds makers come up with the betting odds, but it's not strongly based on statistical analysis. Winning in the postseason just does not correlate at all to regular season wins, or any of the other categories listed in the chart below, including payroll, for those who think that spending more gives you a better chance in the postseason.

 

The strongest correlation in all of those bars below is an R^2 of .122. In other words, there is no correlation between postseason wins and anything. The playoffs are a crapshoot, or as Billy Beane likes to say, a "gauntlet of randomness".

 

I apologize for the size of the graphic.

 

[Kimmi]

Exactly.

 

Bear in mind betting odds not only take outcome into account, but also betting action. Just because more people were betting on the Dodgers did not make them a better team, but it was something Vegas odds-makers had to consider so as not to go broke in the event they actually won...

 

Thank you. That was my understanding, that the odds makers take into account who the people are betting on.

[moonslav59]

Thank you. That was my understanding, that the odds makers take into account who the people are betting on.

 

The opening line is more pure, then the line moves as people bet more on one team.

 

To me, 2-3 teams combined have a way better chance than the other 7-8 teams every year. That is far from a crap shoot.

[Kimmi]

The opening line is more pure, then the line moves as people bet more on one team.

 

To me, 2-3 teams combined have a way better chance than the other 7-8 teams every year. That is far from a crap shoot.

 

When there is no correlation between any data and postseason wins, that's the very definition of a crap shoot.

[notin]

The opening line is more pure, then the line moves as people bet more on one team.

 

Not always true.

 

Historically the Yankees and Cubs have dominated betting action from the get go, and the oddsmakers took it into account. In the case of the Cubs, there were literally thousands betting “this is the year” every season with small bets on high odds. So there were plenty of years where the Cubs were the worst team in the league, but the opening line didn’t reflect it...

[oldtimer]

Thank you. That was my understanding, that the odds makers take into account who the people are betting on.

 

The equivalent horse racing odds are first determined by an expert, who establishes the Morning Line Odds. Since there are many who bet that are not particularly sophisticated, those ML odds tend to sway the betting, however, right up to the time the horses go into the gates, the odds continue to change to reflect the money being bet. Since money that comes in at the last minute might be changing the final odds even after the horses leave the gate. The track gets their takeout and want greater amounts to be bet since they make money on each dollar bet. The only play where that doesn't work is where bettors go big on what is called bridge jumping by betting an odds on favorite to come in third and are guaranteed a minimum takeout.

 

 

I assume it is the same with Vegas odds except maybe not that immediate as games take a long time.

[moonslav59]

Not always true.

 

Historically the Yankees and Cubs have dominated betting action from the get go, and the oddsmakers took it into account. In the case of the Cubs, there were literally thousands betting “this is the year” every season with small bets on high odds. So there were plenty of years where the Cubs were the worst team in the league, but the opening line didn’t reflect it...

 

I said "more" pure not pure.

 

Certainly the opening line takes into account bettor trends.

 

As it turns out the odds are pretty darn accurate. They are a lot more accurate than calling the playoffs a total crap shoot- not that anyone is saying every team has 10:1 odds going in.

[moonslav59]

Here's a look back at the World Series winners and the runner- ups and their W-L league ranking that year (not that W-Ls sets who are the best teams):

 

2019

1HOU or 3WAS

 

 

2018

1BOS

2LAD

 

2017

2HOU

1LAD

 

2016

1Cubs

2CLE

 

2015

1KCR

5NYM

 

2014

5SFG

4KCR

 

2013

1BOS

1STL

 

2012

3SFG

7DET

 

2011

4STL

2TEX

 

2010

2SFG

4TEX

 

2009

1NYY

2PHI

 

2008

2PHI

2TBR

 

2007

1BOS

2COL

 

2006

5STL

3DET

 

2005

1CWS

3HOU

 

2004

2BOS

1STL

 

32 Teams made the WS in the last 16 seasons:

 

21 were a top 2 team in their league

11 were ranked 3 or worse in their league.

 

Of the 15 teams that won the WS:

 

11 were a top 2 team that year. (12 were top 3.)

4 were ranked 3rd or worse.

 

I'm just taking the top 4 teams vs the other 6 and look at the massive tilt to the better teams.

 

21 to 11 on just making it and 11 to 4 on winning it all.

 

If we gave the top 4 all equal odds, then those 4 should have gone to the WS 40% of 32... 12.8 times NOT 21.

 

If The Astros win, that means a top 2 team has won 12 out of 16 years, when the odds show 40% of 16 at 6.4 times.

 

It's really not even close.

 

Sure, a lowly ranked team can win every now and again, but it is far from a crap shoot.

 

 

[moonslav59]

Sorry to break the bad news:

 

Gorkys Hernandez, Josh Smith and Chris Owings elected for free agency rather than accept their demotion to AAA.

 

What are we to do?

[Bellhorn04]

Here's a look back at the World Series winners and the runner- ups and their W-L league ranking that year (not that W-Ls sets who are the best teams):

 

2019

1HOU or 3WAS

 

 

2018

1BOS

2LAD

 

2017

2HOU

1LAD

 

2016

1Cubs

2CLE

 

2015

1KCR

5NYM

 

2014

5SFG

4KCR

 

2013

1BOS

1STL

 

2012

3SFG

7DET

 

2011

4STL

2TEX

 

2010

2SFG

4TEX

 

2009

1NYY

2PHI

 

2008

2PHI

2TBR

 

2007

1BOS

2COL

 

2006

5STL

3DET

 

2005

1CWS

3HOU

 

2004

2BOS

1STL

 

32 Teams made the WS in the last 16 seasons:

 

21 were a top 2 team in their league

11 were ranked 3 or worse in their league.

 

Of the 15 teams that won the WS:

 

11 were a top 2 team that year. (12 were top 3.)

4 were ranked 3rd or worse.

 

I'm just taking the top 4 teams vs the other 6 and look at the massive tilt to the better teams.

 

21 to 11 on just making it and 11 to 4 on winning it all.

 

If we gave the top 4 all equal odds, then those 4 should have gone to the WS 40% of 32... 12.8 times NOT 21.

 

If The Astros win, that means a top 2 team has won 12 out of 16 years, when the odds show 40% of 16 at 6.4 times.

 

It's really not even close.

 

Sure, a lowly ranked team can win every now and again, but it is far from a crap shoot.

 

 

 

Nice work moon.

[Nick]

The opening line is more pure, then the line moves as people bet more on one team.

 

To me, 2-3 teams combined have a way better chance than the other 7-8 teams every year. That is far from a crap shoot.

 

Build a team that can get to the playoffs. Then add a big piece to get you over the top. That's how you do it.

 

You can't afford a kick ass team every year. It gets too expensive. You have to pick your spot.

 

I'd get under the cap in 2020 and reset.

[moonslav59]

Nice work moon.

 

Thanks. The 6 year period from 2010 to 2015 showed signs of parity taking over, but that waas it.

 

2015

1KCR

5NYM

 

2014

5SFG

4KCR

 

2013

1BOS

1STL

 

2012

3SFG

7DET

 

2011

4STL

2TEX

 

2010

2SFG

4TEX

 

7 out of 12 teams were ranked 3 or lower, and half the WS winners were not 1-2 in their leagues that year.

 

Even then, their were 6 of them and 4 of the 1-2's, so even breaking even is not equal odds.

[Bellhorn04]

Build a team that can get to the playoffs. Then add a big piece to get you over the top. That's how you do it.

 

And DD did a brilliant job in 2018 picking up Eovaldi, Pearce and Kinsler at the deadline.

[oldtimer]

Sorry to break the bad news:

 

Gorkys Hernandez, Josh Smith and Chris Owings elected for free agency rather than accept their demotion to AAA.

 

What are we to do?

 

One could ask, "Why did we sign them in the first place instead of bringing up young players from the farm"?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

One could ask, "Why did we sign them in the first place instead of bringing up young players from the farm"?

 

Great question, and I can only surmise the answer is the usual for non-contenders in the stretch run to hunting and fishing season (or golf or sitting on the couch): to prevent the free-agent clock from ticking a year early on prospects. When Owings suddenly appeared and Cora instantly batted him leadoff, it looked like he was playing him to spite DD, like, "Really, this is what you're giving me? Then this is what you've got."

[notin]

One could ask, "Why did we sign them in the first place instead of bringing up young players from the farm"?

 

It's actually a good idea to bring in some of these fringle MLB players over relying on the farm because, despite their very low likelihood of making an impact, they are still MLB talent, even at the bottom of the barrel, which is something that doesn't necessarily apply to players on the farm. Gorkys Hernandez in particular made a lot of sense despite his complete lack of exciting ability, because the Sox farm system is all but bereft of outfield talent. We as fans might think "Why not just bring up Jarren Duran? He can't be any worse than Gorkys." The problem with that logic is, he absolutely can be worse that Gorkys, and potentially by a lot. If, say, Bradley got hurt for a prolonged period, was that the time to find out that Jarren Duran cannot even make contact with an MLB fastball? Especially if it happened in May?

[Slasher9]

We definitely do. I've been wondering if he can take the first base job if he stays.

 

i think its complete negligence by Cora that JDM was not given reps/training at 1b last offseason/spring training...

[notin]

Great question, and I can only surmise the answer is the usual for non-contenders in the stretch run to hunting and fishing season (or golf or sitting on the couch): to prevent the free-agent clock from ticking a year early on prospects. When Owings suddenly appeared and Cora instantly batted him leadoff, it looked like he was playing him to spite DD, like, "Really, this is what you're giving me? Then this is what you've got."

 

What else was DD supposed to give him?

 

Owings was in the middle of a season that had him among the worst players in MLB, nd coming off a 2018 that didn't inspire much confidence, but he had something in his history that at least made him look like a serviceable MLB player. He was actually useful in 2016 and 2017, where he combined for a .736 OPS and played all over the diamond.

 

Cora batting him leadoff was just flat out stupid.

[notin]

i think its complete negligence by Cora that JDM was not given reps/training at 1b last offseason/spring training...

 

I think we were all hoping that, but there may have been a reason it never happened. I would think that JD had some back issues might have been a factor.

 

JD was brought in to hit. They left him in a role that emphasized that. And it's not like the Sox had some other bat only/no glove player waiting in the wings to fill a vacated DH role. And, the Sox did have Moreland and Pearce.

 

As for this coming year, I am hoping the Sox just slide Devers over to 1b and put Dalbec in at third. Although they will probably leave Devers at third and try Dalbec at first...

[kenmeister]

i think its complete negligence by Cora that JDM was not given reps/training at 1b last offseason/spring training...

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wondered about that.

[moonslav59]

I think we were all hoping that, but there may have been a reason it never happened. I would think that JD had some back issues might have been a factor.

 

JD was brought in to hit. They left him in a role that emphasized that. And it's not like the Sox had some other bat only/no glove player waiting in the wings to fill a vacated DH role. And, the Sox did have Moreland and Pearce.

 

As for this coming year, I am hoping the Sox just slide Devers over to 1b and put Dalbec in at third. Although they will probably leave Devers at third and try Dalbec at first...

 

I think it makes more sense to just trade Dalbec, like you suggested before. He's got to be worth more to a team needing a 3Bman than to us at 1B.

 

To those about to jump on me for trading prospects, I'm only for trading him for a young player who has about as much control as Dalbec. Maybe Johnson + Dalbec for a better SP'er.

 

Assuming JD is gone, we might see this:

 

1B: Ockimey, Chavis, Travis (cheap FA?)

 

2B: Chavis, Marco, Chatham, Lin

 

DH: Ockimey, Chavis, Fat Beni

[illinoisredsox]

i think its complete negligence by Cora that JDM was not given reps/training at 1b last offseason/spring training...

 

How do you you know he wasn’t? Maybe it was a disaster. Maybe he refused to do it. They put Hanley at 1st; while it wasn’t a total fiasco, he didn’t exactly exude confidence at the position, and he was an infielder to start with. Bottom line is we don’t know what was tried or discussed, and a manager isn’t going to reveal that type of information.

 

It was supposed to be a Moreland/Pearce platoon. If you could predict that Pearce would not only completely tank but then get hurt for most of the year and that Moreland would miss significant time concurrently, then can I have Wednesday’s or Saturday’s lottery numbers please.

[Bellhorn04]

i think its complete negligence by Cora that JDM was not given reps/training at 1b last offseason/spring training...

 

Didn't we have not just a first baseman, but a platoon of Moreland and Pearce on the payroll?

[notin]

I think it makes more sense to just trade Dalbec, like you suggested before. He's got to be worth more to a team needing a 3Bman than to us at 1B.

 

To those about to jump on me for trading prospects, I'm only for trading him for a young player who has about as much control as Dalbec. Maybe Johnson + Dalbec for a better SP'er.

 

Assuming JD is gone, we might see this:

 

1B: Ockimey, Chavis, Travis (cheap FA?)

 

2B: Chavis, Marco, Chatham, Lin

 

DH: Ockimey, Chavis, Fat Beni

 

If the Sox trade Dalbec, I could see it for the following players that makes sense (and work per baseballtradevalues.com):

 

To the Angels for OF Brandon Marsh (.811 OPS in AA last year). The Angels could move La Stella back to 2b and Marsh is blocked by Trout, Upton and Jo Adell in the Anaheim OF.

 

To the Braves for RHP Bryse Wilson (3.42 ERA in AAA). This would mean the Braves prefer Austin Riley in the OF, which may or may not be likely.

 

To the Brewers for OF Trent Gresham and RHP Freddy Peralta. Assuming the Brewers let Moustakas walk. Gresham is a bit of a post-season goat, but 2 prospects for 1 prospect seems like a stretch here. I would make this deal, but it's not my top choice.

 

To the Twins for RHP Jhoan Duran. Sano can go replace Cron at 1b, who will be non-tendered. Duran probably doesn't start the season in Boston. But it's fun to think of Sox announces having to differentiate between Jhoan Duran and Jarren Duran (no relation).

 

To the Cubs for Kyle Schwarber: Bryant can play LF. Schwarber is basically Dalbec without the defense, so no idea where he fits in Boston unless JD opts out and is not re-signed. Hard pass.

 

To the Guardians for RHP Aaron Civale. The Guardians are reportedly looking for offense at 2b or 3b, with Jose Ramriez taking the other position. Civale is a Northeastern alum who gave the Guardians a 2.34 ERA (3.40 FIP) in 57 IP last year. This one is my top choice, and not remarkably unlikely.

 

But please, no Ockimey or Travis in Boston. Every time you write that, it makes me cry...

[jacksonianmarch]

I think your opinion of Dalbec is a bit higher than should be expected. Dalbec isn’t bringing back much outside of him being part of a package. He’s worth far more to the Sox than to other organizations. That could change with a solid debut, but dealing him now doesn’t move the needle