Red Sox ownership

[moonslav59]

Two thoughts:

 

1. Splurging on free agent starting pitching has rarely worked out in the past. Not just for Boston, either.

 

2. Not going all in on Monthomery and/or Snell might mean as little as the Sox are not huge fans Montgomery and/or Snell.

 

1. Waiting to fix our system's pitching production line will take years. That leaves just 2 options: trading top prospects for a solid pitcher or "splurging" on one.

2. Monty and Snell were not the only two, this winter, and Monty should be fine for 3 years. On a 4 year deal, that's not a bad gamble.

3. Past failures is a major concern and warning to not go 7 years on a stud pitcher, but it does not mean it can never or never works, of that pitchers on 4-5 year deals don't "hurt as much." The Nate and Porcello signings/extensions worked out okay, as did the Lackey 5 year deal. The Price (7) and Sale (5) deals- not so well.

 

I'm all for trying to trade for a solid and controlled SP'er, but I can understand wanting to build an inexpensive foundation, but what good is a solid foundation with no rotation?

 

If the plan is to go large on a SP'er, next year or even 2026, I can at least understand the reasoning, but I'm not so sure it will happen, even that soon/far away.

[notin]

1. Waiting to fix our system's pitching production line will take years. That leaves just 2 options: trading top prospects for a solid pitcher or "splurging" on one.

2. Monty and Snell were not the only two, this winter, and Monty should be fine for 3 years. On a 4 year deal, that's not a bad gamble.

3. Past failures is a major concern and warning to not go 7 years on a stud pitcher, but it does not mean it can never or never works, of that pitchers on 4-5 year deals don't "hurt as much." The Nate and Porcello signings/extensions worked out okay, as did the Lackey 5 year deal. The Price (7) and Sale (5) deals- not so well.

 

I'm all for trying to trade for a solid and controlled SP'er, but I can understand wanting to build an inexpensive foundation, but what good is a solid foundation with no rotation?

 

If the plan is to go large on a SP'er, next year or even 2026, I can at least understand the reasoning, but I'm not so sure it will happen, even that soon/far away.

 

1. Trading has always worked better.

2. Gray was a top option who settled on a 3 year deal. I don’t think Montgomery goes so short.

3. Nate’s extension worked out? That’s debatable. The brevity of the 2020 season does work in his favor, but overall he gave the Sox one elite season, one very poor season and one season shortened by injury. He only topped 109 IP once. And that’s not some lofty total. Lackey, too, had some good years but he gave some bad ones. I seriously doubt anyone was happy with him after he’d been with the Sox for three seasons. Not to mention, you’re only looking at Red Sox free agents. Free agency itself makes little sense. The process boils down to giving raises to aging and declining players that had their best years for another team. You can’t acknowledge that players’ peak years are ages 28-32, and then condone free agency as a primary shopping ground when most of the options are already over 30 (in some cases, well over 30) and expecting multiple years. The whole process odd best used to fill gaps on short term deals…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1. Trading has always worked better.

2. Gray was a top option who settled on a 3 year deal. I don’t think Montgomery goes so short.

3. Nate’s extension worked out? That’s debatable. The brevity of the 2020 season does work in his favor, but overall he gave the Sox one elite season, one very poor season and one season shortened by injury. He only topped 109 IP once. And that’s not some lofty total. Lackey, too, had some good years but he gave some bad ones. I seriously doubt anyone was happy with him after he’d been with the Sox for three seasons. Not to mention, you’re only looking at Red Sox free agents. Free agency itself makes little sense. The process boils down to giving raises to aging and declining players that had their best years for another team. You can’t acknowledge that players’ peak years are ages 28-32, and then condone free agency as a primary shopping ground when most of the options are already over 30 (in some cases, well over 30) and expecting multiple years. The whole process odd best used to fill gaps on short term deals…

 

Trading for good pitching has usually worked best for Boston -- but only because of free agency. The big market Red Sox were able to deal for Pedro, Schilling, Beckett, and Sale, among others, because all were due some serious coin that their mid-market teams couldn't (or decided not to) afford.

 

Eovaldi's contract worked out for the Sox because they paid market value for a starting pitcher who led their staff in WAR for the four years of his extension. The fact he was able to do that when he wasn't always great or durable is an indictment of Boston's sudden halt in investing to recruit or keep subsequent top mound talent.

 

And I can't equate Eovaldi's tenure in Boston with Lackey's -- whose three-year WAR isn't even as good as any two Pivetta years...

[moonslav59]

1. Trading has always worked better. Singing to the choir, but again, past mistakes and successes do not predict future ones.

2. Gray was a top option who settled on a 3 year deal. I don’t think Montgomery goes so short. He might go 4 with a hefty buyout for year 5.

3. Nate’s extension worked out? That’s debatable. The brevity of the 2020 season does work in his favor, but overall he gave the Sox one elite season, one very poor season and one season shortened by injury. He only topped 109 IP once. And that’s not some lofty total. Lackey, too, had some good years but he gave some bad ones. I seriously doubt anyone was happy with him after he’d been with the Sox for three seasons. Not to mention, you’re only looking at Red Sox free agents. Free agency itself makes little sense. The process boils down to giving raises to aging and declining players that had their best years for another team. You can’t acknowledge that players’ peak years are ages 28-32, and then condone free agency as a primary shopping ground when most of the options are already over 30 (in some cases, well over 30) and expecting multiple years. The whole process odd best used to fill gaps on short term deals… I said, "worked out okay, not well."

 

2019-2022 Sox SP'ers

 

IP Leaders:

408 Nate (not great, but with 2020, it's not horrific)

361 ERod

345 Pivetta

~300 Perez + Richards

196 Sale

 

fWAR

7.6 ERod (on DET for 2022 and missed all of 2020)

7.4 Nate

4.6 Sale

4.0 Pivetta

4.0 Price + Hill

3.1 Porcello + Wacha

2.2 Perez + Richards

 

ERA- as SP (100+ IP)

81 Wacha

86 Sale

88 Price

90 ERod

91 Nate

101 Perez

104 Pivetta & Hill

114 Richards & Porcello

 

Nate was not paid a huge salary, and it was 4 years not 7.

[moonslav59]

Trading for good pitching has usually worked best for Boston -- but only because of free agency. The big market Red Sox were able to deal for Pedro, Schilling, Beckett, and Sale, among others, because all were due some serious coin that their mid-market teams couldn't (or decided not to) afford.

 

Eovaldi's contract worked out for the Sox because they paid market value for a starting pitcher who led their staff in WAR for the four years of his extension. The fact he was able to do that when he wasn't always great or durable is an indictment of Boston's sudden halt in investing to recruit or keep subsequent top mound talent.

 

And I can't equate Eovaldi's tenure in Boston with Lackey's -- whose three-year WAR isn't even as good as any two Pivetta years...

 

The other thing about those big trades for pitchers, is that they all were extended, some at near FA market value, so it was really more than just the trades. We dished out big money for all of them.

 

Pedro was extended shortly after the trade for a discount rate, but it only looks real good now, because of the sharp rise in salaries, after the extension.

Schill was extended for a short period, and he was injured.

The Beckett extensión was a lot of money, back then, but it was money well spent.

The Sale extension was a total flop, but again, he got near FA money and length, at the time.

The Porcello extension worked out okay, despite a bad year and a so-so one.

The Nate extension was okay, but not really all that good.

 

That's 6 trades and extensions (or re-signings.)

 

As a group, they do compare favorably to the biggest FA signings:

Price

Lackey

Dempster

Clement

Perez+Richards

Wacha+ Hill

Kluber

[notin]

Trading for good pitching has usually worked best for Boston -- but only because of free agency. The big market Red Sox were able to deal for Pedro, Schilling, Beckett, and Sale, among others, because all were due some serious coin that their mid-market teams couldn't (or decided not to) afford.

 

Eovaldi's contract worked out for the Sox because they paid market value for a starting pitcher who led their staff in WAR for the four years of his extension. The fact he was able to do that when he wasn't always great or durable is an indictment of Boston's sudden halt in investing to recruit or keep subsequent top mound talent.

 

And I can't equate Eovaldi's tenure in Boston with Lackey's -- whose three-year WAR isn't even as good as any two Pivetta years...

 

So you’re saying Eovaldi was good because Sale was injured?

 

Eovaldi gave the Sox 2 seasons on a 4 year deal, one which was 60 games long. He accused 7.4 fWAR in his 4 seasons, with 5.7 fWAR coming in 2021. And he never topped 1.0 fWAR in any other season. I might just consider him unlucky, but he entered the deal with a very significant injury history, so this outcome was about as surprising as a daily sunrise in the east.

 

I don’t think this deal is a success simply because he outperformed Chris Mazza.

 

Not to mention, his leaving the team in fWAR over 4 years would be worth more of there were a few other names on the team for that entire stretch. Really the only other starter for all 4 years was Sale, whom he only beat because Sale pitched less often…

Edited February 26, 2024 by notin

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

So you’re saying Eovaldi was good because Sale was injured?

 

Eovaldi gave the Sox 2 seasons on a 4 year deal, one which was 60 games long. He accused 7.4 fWAR in his 4 seasons, with 5.7 fWAR coming in 2021. And he never topped 1.0 fWAR in any other season. I might just consider him unlucky, but he entered the deal with a very significant injury history, so this outcome was about as surprising as a daily sunrise in the east.

 

I don’t think this deal is a success simply because he outperformed Chris Mazza…

 

You of all posters refuting the cold hard data? Try as you like to win arguments by putting words into the fingertips of typists who never typed them, I only said -- here, I'll paste it again:

 

"they paid market value for a starting pitcher who led their staff in WAR for the four years of his extension."

 

It's a fact, and you can look it up on baseball-reference.

 

I never mentioned Sale or luck because everyone knew he was damaged goods at the time Dombrowski got himself fired for something John Henry said he agreed with... until he didn't.

[moonslav59]

So you’re saying Eovaldi was good because Sale was injured?

 

Eovaldi gave the Sox 2 seasons on a 4 year deal, one which was 60 games long. He accused 7.4 fWAR in his 4 seasons, with 5.7 fWAR coming in 2021. And he never topped 1.0 fWAR in any other season. I might just consider him unlucky, but he entered the deal with a very significant injury history, so this outcome was about as surprising as a daily sunrise in the east.

 

I don’t think this deal is a success simply because he outperformed Chris Mazza.

 

Not to mention, his leaving the team in fWAR over 4 years would be worth more of there were a few other names on the team for that entire stretch. Really the only other starter for all 4 years was Sale, whom he only beat because Sale pitched less often…

 

The signing was okay- not good.

 

Most deals like this, you figure the last year will not be worth it. You hope for 3 good years out of 4. The 2020 season was a mess, so it's hard to judge that year. (He started 9 of 2 starts.)

 

He basically had 2 good year out of the 3. 2020 was not bad. 2022 was not bad. Missing 16 out of 45 possible starts. That's not good, at all, but his ERA+ those years were 129 in '20 and 109 in '22. 2019 was bad. Only 12 GS with 9 RP games and an 81 ERA+.

 

From 2020-2022, he started 61 out of 77 games with an ERA+ of 120 and an FIP of 3.43. That is pretty good. The 2019 makes the whole deal just OK.

[mvp 78]

The other thing about those big trades for pitchers, is that they all were extended, some at near FA market value, so it was really more than just the trades. We dished out big money for all of them.

 

Pedro was extended shortly after the trade for a discount rate, but it only looks real good now, because of the sharp rise in salaries, after the extension.

Schill was extended for a short period, and he was injured.

The Beckett extensión was a lot of money, back then, but it was money well spent.

The Sale extension was a total flop, but again, he got near FA money and length, at the time.

The Porcello extension worked out okay, despite a bad year and a so-so one.

The Nate extension was okay, but not really all that good.

 

That's 6 trades and extensions (or re-signings.)

 

As a group, they do compare favorably to the biggest FA signings:

Price

Lackey

Dempster

Clement

Perez+Richards

Wacha+ Hill

Kluber

 

This is based on BOS trading and FA's, not industry experience though. Roger left via FA and had a long career. The Lester FA deal was pretty good. It also ignores bad trades like Drew Pomeranz.

[moonslav59]

You of all posters refuting the cold hard data? Try as you like to win arguments by putting words into the fingertips of typists who never typed them, I only said -- here, I'll paste it again:

 

"they paid market value for a starting pitcher who led their staff in WAR for the four years of his extension."

 

It's a fact, and you can look it up on baseball-reference.

 

I never mentioned Sale or luck because everyone knew he was damaged goods at the time Dombrowski got himself fired for something John Henry said he agreed with... until he didn't.

 

I agree with your point, but how many SP'ers were on the Sox for all 4 years of the sample we are looking at?

 

BTW, ERod had a 7.1 bWAR from 2019-2022 to Nate's 7.0 bWAR.

ERod missed 2020, but thats till counts. He was with DET in 2022, otherwise, he'd have had a higher bWAR than Nate. (Note: in just 2 seasons: 2019 and 2021, he had a higher fWAR than nate's 4 seasons.)

 

Sale was here for the 4 years, but missed time.

 

All the others have 1-2 year sample sizes in that 4 year stretch, so the statement, "highest WAR" in 4 years rings a little hollow, or needs some serious context, IMO.

 

fWAR 2019-2022

7.6 ERod

7.4 Nate

6.9 Sale +Price or 6.3 Pivetta + Price

 

Cobble together some 1 year guys:

2.3 Price in '19

0.4 Perez in '20

1.8 Houck in '21

1.8 Hill in '22

6.3 Total, which is pretty close to nate's total.

 

Using bWAR

2.1 Sale in '19

1.3 Houck in '20 (just 3 GS)

2.5 Pivetta '21

3.3 Wacha in '22

9.2 total to Nate's 7.0 bWAR

[notin]

The signing was okay- not good.

 

Most deals like this, you figure the last year will not be worth it. You hope for 3 good years out of 4. The 2020 season was a mess, so it's hard to judge that year. (He started 9 of 2 starts.)

 

He basically had 2 good year out of the 3. 2020 was not bad. 2022 was not bad. Missing 16 out of 45 possible starts. That's not good, at all, but his ERA+ those years were 129 in '20 and 109 in '22. 2019 was bad. Only 12 GS with 9 RP games and an 81 ERA+.

 

From 2020-2022, he started 61 out of 77 games with an ERA+ of 120 and an FIP of 3.43. That is pretty good. The 2019 makes the whole deal just OK.

 

Really his contract was carried by 2021. He was good in 2020, but an abbreviated season reduces the risk of his biggest flaw. In 2022, he was worth 1.0 fWAR. In about half as many innings, Bello was worth 1.3 fWAR. Schreiber and Whitlock, also both with many fewer innings, had more fWAR than Eovaldi. The only pitchers with at least 10 starts and less fWAR than Eovaldi were Crawford and Winckowski - two rookies.

 

He really wasn’t that good that year…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I agree with your point, but how many SP'ers were on the Sox for all 4 years of the sample we are looking at?

 

BTW, ERod had a 7.1 bWAR from 2019-2022 to Nate's 7.0 bWAR.

ERod missed 2020, but thats till counts. He was with DET in 2022, otherwise, he'd have had a higher bWAR than Nate. (Note: in just 2 seasons: 2019 and 2021, he had a higher fWAR than nate's 4 seasons.)

 

Sale was here for the 4 years, but missed time.

 

All the others have 1-2 year sample sizes in that 4 year stretch, so the statement, "highest WAR" in 4 years rings a little hollow, or needs some serious context, IMO.

 

fWAR 2019-2022

7.6 ERod

7.4 Nate

6.9 Sale +Price or 6.3 Pivetta + Price

 

Cobble together some 1 year guys:

2.3 Price in '19

0.4 Perez in '20

1.8 Houck in '21

1.8 Hill in '22

6.3 Total, which is pretty close to nate's total.

 

Using bWAR

2.1 Sale in '19

1.3 Houck in '20 (just 3 GS)

2.5 Pivetta '21

3.3 Wacha in '22

9.2 total to Nate's 7.0 bWAR

 

You can use all the quantitatives you want to back up your opinions. But know that numbers won't change how many, many Boston fans feel about the qualitatives...

 

... Nathan Eovaldi will always be a Red Sox hero just for beating the Yankees in two postseasons.

 

And even if Nate spends this whole next season on the IL in Texas, I'll bet Rangers fans will always consider him a hero, as well.

[moonslav59]

Really his contract was carried by 2021. He was good in 2020, but an abbreviated season reduces the risk of his biggest flaw. In 2022, he was worth 1.0 fWAR. In about half as many innings, Bello was worth 1.3 fWAR. Schreiber and Whitlock, also both with many fewer innings, had more fWAR than Eovaldi. The only pitchers with at least 10 starts and less fWAR than Eovaldi were Crawford and Winckowski - two rookies.

 

He really wasn’t that good that year…

 

I keep saying OK, which is not "good."

[moonslav59]

You can use all the quantitatives you want to back up your opinions. But know that numbers won't change how many, many Boston fans feel about the qualitatives...

 

... Nathan Eovaldi will always be a Red Sox hero just for beating the Yankees in two postseasons.

 

And even if Nate spends this whole next season on the IL in Texas, I'll bet Rangers fans will always consider him a hero, as well.

 

I do consider him a hero.

 

I do think the 4 year deal after that heroic season was okay.

 

I'm defending Nate.

[notin]

You of all posters refuting the cold hard data? Try as you like to win arguments by putting words into the fingertips of typists who never typed them, I only said -- here, I'll paste it again:

 

"they paid market value for a starting pitcher who led their staff in WAR for the four years of his extension."

 

It's a fact, and you can look it up on baseball-reference.

I never mentioned Sale or luck because everyone knew he was damaged goods at the time Dombrowski got himself fired for something John Henry said he agreed with... until he didn't.

 

If you received that statement from baseball-reference, it is a huge hit to their credibility. Because it is blatantly not a fact.

 

 

Over four years (2019-2022), Eovaldi was worth 7.3 fWAR/7.0 bWAR. Eduardo Rodriguez (2019, 2021) was worth 7.4 fWAR/7.2 bWAR. ERod only pitched 2 seasons in that stretch and accrued more WAR (by either metric) than Eovaldi did in four.

 

So now that we have established Eovaldi did not lead the team in WAR over that stretch, does it change your opinion of that contract?

[notin]

You can use all the quantitatives you want to back up your opinions. But know that numbers won't change how many, many Boston fans feel about the qualitatives...

 

... Nathan Eovaldi will always be a Red Sox hero just for beating the Yankees in two postseasons.

 

And even if Nate spends this whole next season on the IL in Texas, I'll bet Rangers fans will always consider him a hero, as well.

 

Playoff hero? Sure.

 

So was Josh Beckett. Did that justify his contract extension?

 

David Price was effective in the 2018 postseason. Does that mean his contract was worth it?

[notin]

I keep saying OK, which is not "good."

 

Eovaldi was amazing in 2021. He deserved the Cy Young that year. Or at least better than 4th place in the voting.

 

He was good in 2020. But also - 9 starts. Certainly cannot and will not hold that against him, but can't weight it equal to the other 3 years either.

 

But in 2019, he was awful. In 2022 he was not good.

 

And if you did not like the Sox pitching staff in 2023, the following starting pitchers from 2023 received as much or more fWAR than Eovaldi in 2022 (1.0) as starters: Kutter Crawford (2.2), Chris Sale (2.1), Brayan Bello (1.6), Tanner Houck (1.2), James Paxton (1.0), Nick Pivetta (1.0). (fWAR data is as a starter only)

 

If you truly believe the 2023 Sox starting staff was a nightmare, then you also shouldn't praise Eovaldi for 2022. Or in 2019...

[moonslav59]

If you received that statement from baseball-reference, it is a huge hit to their credibility. Because it is blatantly not a fact.

 

 

Over four years (2019-2022), Eovaldi was worth 7.3 fWAR/7.0 bWAR. Eduardo Rodriguez (2019, 2021) was worth 7.4 fWAR/7.2 bWAR. ERod only pitched 2 seasons in that stretch and accrued more WAR (by either metric) than Eovaldi did in four.

 

So now that we have established Eovaldi did not lead the team in WAR over that stretch, does it change your opinion of that contract?

 

ERod was on the team for 3 of those years, not 2. You can't ding Nate for missing time, then not count ERod's missed 2020 season.

[moonslav59]

Eovaldi was amazing in 2021. He deserved the Cy Young that year. Or at least better than 4th place in the voting.

 

He was good in 2020. But also - 9 starts. Certainly cannot and will not hold that against him, but can't weight it equal to the other 3 years either.

 

But in 2019, he was awful. In 2022 he was not good.

 

And if you did not like the Sox pitching staff in 2023, the following starting pitchers from 2023 received as much or more fWAR than Eovaldi in 2022 (1.0) as starters: Kutter Crawford (2.2), Chris Sale (2.1), Brayan Bello (1.6), Tanner Houck (1.2), James Paxton (1.0), Nick Pivetta (1.0). (fWAR data is as a starter only)

 

If you truly believe the 2023 Sox starting staff was a nightmare, then you also shouldn't praise Eovaldi for 2022. Or in 2019...

 

If we can't use the fact that Nate was better than almost everyone else, then you should not use the fact that others were better than he was in '22.

 

He had an ERA of 94 in 20 starts and 12 RP games. I'm sticking with my "Okay" label, despite the 1.0 fWAR and 1.5 bWAR.

Bad in 2019

OK in '20 (missed 25% of starts)

Great in '21

OK in '22

All combined: okay.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Playoff hero? Sure.

 

So was Josh Beckett. Did that justify his contract extension?

 

David Price was effective in the 2018 postseason. Does that mean his contract was worth it?

 

Just ask Red Sox Nation how they feel about Eovaldi's time in Boston. I'll bet most don't even know his AAV and could care less.

 

Like I said, during his extension he led the team in WAR for the four years he pitched. But you're right, oh mighty spitter of stats onto every post, ERod did have the single best WAR season in one of those Eovaldi years, even though he didn't throw a single pitch for Boston in half of the total Eovaldi years.

 

But we always have to use specific semantics to defend any talk on talksox lest someone jumps all over our posts with statistics to prove how wrong we all are -- as a good poster like Dewey recently alluded to without naming names -- as the reason only a few gluttons for punishment even bother posting here anymore.

[dgalehouse]

Just ask Red Sox Nation how they feel about Eovaldi's time in Boston. I'll bet most don't even know his AAV and could care less.

 

Like I said, during his extension he led the team in WAR for the four years he pitched. But you're right, oh mighty spitter of stats onto every post, ERod did have the single best WAR season in one of those Eovaldi years, even though he didn't throw a single pitch for Boston in half of the total Eovaldi years.

 

But we always have to use specific semantics to defend any talk on talksox lest someone jumps all over our posts with statistics to prove how wrong we all are -- as a good poster like Dewey recently alluded to without naming names -- as the reason only a few gluttons for punishment even bother posting here anymore.

With the millions of stats out there these days, a good stat man can always find a couple to support almost any position. And they revel in it.

[notin]

ERod was on the team for 3 of those years, not 2. You can't ding Nate for missing time, then not count ERod's missed 2020 season.

 

ERod was on the team for 3 years, but didn’t pitch in 2020 due to COVID and myocarditis…

[moonslav59]

With the millions of stats out there these days, a good stat man can always find a couple to support almost any position. And they revel in it.

 

The horror!

[moonslav59]

ERod was on the team for 3 years, but didn’t pitch in 2020 due to COVID and myocarditis…

 

Exactly. You dinged Nate for missing starts, but gave ERod a free pass for 2020.

[notin]

Exactly. You dinged Nate for missing starts, but gave ERod a free pass for 2020.

 

I didn’t do that. I just refuted the statement that Eovaldi lead the team in WAR for the span of his contract. No commentary at all about ERod beyond that…

[notin]

Just ask Red Sox Nation how they feel about Eovaldi's time in Boston. I'll bet most don't even know his AAV and could care less.

 

Like I said, during his extension he led the team in WAR for the four years he pitched. But you're right, oh mighty spitter of stats onto every post, ERod did have the single best WAR season in one of those Eovaldi years, even though he didn't throw a single pitch for Boston in half of the total Eovaldi years.

 

But we always have to use specific semantics to defend any talk on talksox lest someone jumps all over our posts with statistics to prove how wrong we all are -- as a good poster like Dewey recently alluded to without naming names -- as the reason only a few gluttons for punishment even bother posting here anymore.

 

Are you even reading my posts? I never mentioned AAV.

 

I wasn’t splitting hairs. Your post was flat out wrong. ERod had more WAR than Eovaldi over that four year stretch, despite only pitching in 2 years of it. Why is that so hard to grasp? ERod had more fWAR than Eovaldi from 2019-2022. Also more bWAR. This wasn’t about him having the single season largest WAR. (In fact, his fWARs were not as large as Eovaldi’s single season in 2019).

 

This isn’t semantics. Your statement was flat out wrong. Go look up some numbers and see for yourself.

 

Dewey don’t need to name names. Everyone knew he meant me. I don’t care. But at what point do you even try to remember you first jumped on my post to correct it? You didn’t make that comment about Eovaldi’s WAR unprovoked…

Edited February 26, 2024 by notin

[notin]

With the millions of stats out there these days, a good stat man can always find a couple to support almost any position. And they revel in it.

 

Not what happened.

 

5Gold posted one stat about Eovaldi. (That Eovaldi lead the Sox starters in WAR from 2019-2022.) I looked it up and it’s simply not true. (ERod had more fWAR and bWAR in that 4 year stretch.) That’s not someone reveling in one stat; that’s someone mistakenly citing misleading data and clinging to it as if it’s going to magically come true if he believes hard enough and disparages any doubters.

Edited February 26, 2024 by notin

[moonslav59]

I didn’t do that. I just refuted the statement that Eovaldi lead the team in WAR for the span of his contract. No commentary at all about ERod beyond that…

 

You didn't mention the missed starts by Nate?

 

You did say this, which sounds like you are not counting ERod's missed 2020 season, but count nate for 4 years...

 

ERod only pitched 2 seasons in that stretch and accrued more WAR (by either metric) than Eovaldi did in four.

 

So, because Nate spread out his missed starts, it counts as 4 seasons to 2?

[notin]

You didn't mention the missed starts by Nate?

 

You did say this, which sounds like you are not counting ERod's missed 2020 season, but count nate for 4 years...

 

ERod only pitched 2 seasons in that stretch and accrued more WAR (by either metric) than Eovaldi did in four.

 

So, because Nate spread out his missed starts, it counts as 4 seasons to 2?

 

 

I was using fWAR and bWAR. These are cumulative stats. Missing seasons hurts

 

From 2019 through 2021, ERod had 7.2 bWAR. 5.5 in 2019, 1.7 in 2021. 0.0 in the other two years. For a total of 7.2 bWAR

 

Inyhise same years, Eovaldi had -0.1, 1.2, 4.3 and 1.5 bWAR respectively. This gives him 6.9 bWAR total.

 

Similar things happen if you look at fWAR. ERod had more despite only pitching two years.

 

I suppose when I said “any metric”, that was misleading; I specifically meant bWAR and fWAR. The only numbers I cited were from those stats.

 

ERod certainly had worse attendance than Eovaldi, but he also outpitched throughout that stretch if you use WAR (either one) as any evaluation technique…

[notin]

You didn't mention the missed starts by Nate?

 

You did say this, which sounds like you are not counting ERod's missed 2020 season, but count nate for 4 years...

 

ERod only pitched 2 seasons in that stretch and accrued more WAR (by either metric) than Eovaldi did in four.

 

So, because Nate spread out his missed starts, it counts as 4 seasons to 2?

 

 

Looking at this again, it does provide an area that needs some clarity.

 

Eovaldi pitched two more seasons, but he missed some time. And 2020 happened.

 

Still he started 73 games and pitched 407 IP to get his 6.9 bWAR. (Plus minimal relief work).

 

In that same stretch, ERod missed two seasons but still made 65 starts and threw 361 IP for his 7.2 bWAR. So the workload was closer than I implied. But ERod still lead the team in bWAR.