Red Sox ownership

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

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?

 

Not disparaging you -- it's just exhausting every time typing a post to have to carefully proof-read every single word to make sure it can't be twisted by the same reader ever-ready to jump all over it. Exhibit E: when I said "for the four years of his extension" I now know I should've said INSTEAD "for the four years of his extension compared to every other Red Sox who also pitched in all four years -- no wait -- "in each of those four years."

 

You never liked the Eovaldi extension because he was injury-prone. I always liked it because I saw his potential to be a top of the rotation guy when healthy. I actually liked it more than the Sale extension -- and not because of the money, but because he looked more damaged, judging by the end of 2018.

 

As for ERod, his delivery-time bugged me, but not as much as Price, who intentionally took a year between pitches to upset batters' timing his meatballs. But I have nothing against ERod -- and remember how great he and Nate looked in Florida in 2020 right before the pandemic lockdown. Instead, Houck was the best pitcher for throwing three games September.

 

And by the way, we're both idiots for even trying to compare WAR decimal points -- at least according to bb-ref: "you should not take any full-season difference between two players of less than one to two wins to be definitive"

[moonslav59]

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.

 

I don't dispute ERod pitched better, when he pitched. Others did, too.

 

I still think the 4 years of Nate were a clear okay. I'd say it was more on the good side of okay than the bad. I wished he'd have pitched more than 73 games out of about 110 available in those 4 seasons. The 2019 season was bad. After that he was good. All-in-all, he was okay.

 

In some ways, his 4 years were like Porcello's, but Rick pitched more often- just not as well, except for the one year (like Nate.)

 

We aren't counting his 2018 1/2 season and playoff heroics, and that will always be a happy remembrance.

[notin]

Not disparaging you -- it's just exhausting every time typing a post to have to carefully proof-read every single word to make sure it can't be twisted by the same reader ever-ready to jump all over it. Exhibit E: when I said "for the four years of his extension" I now know I should've said INSTEAD "for the four years of his extension compared to every other Red Sox who also pitched in all four years -- no wait -- "in each of those four years."

 

You never liked the Eovaldi extension because he was injury-prone. I always liked it because I saw his potential to be a top of the rotation guy when healthy. I actually liked it more than the Sale extension -- and not because of the money, but because he looked more damaged, judging by the end of 2018.

 

As for ERod, his delivery-time bugged me, but not as much as Price, who intentionally took a year between pitches to upset batters' timing his meatballs. But I have nothing against ERod -- and remember how great he and Nate looked in Florida in 2020 right before the pandemic lockdown. Instead, Houck was the best pitcher for throwing three games September.

 

And by the way, we're both idiots for even trying to compare WAR decimal points -- at least according to bb-ref: "you should not take any full-season difference between two players of less than one to two wins to be definitive"

 

 

Just admit it was surprising to find out ERod had better WAR than Eovaldi over that stretch. I admit I was surprised, although it made more sense once I realized ERod only pitched 46 fewer innings over that four year stretch.

 

If you tried to qualify it with “lead the team in WAR for all pitchers who pitched in each of those seasons”, someone, possibly not me, would have said “soooo… more WAR than Brasier?” I don’t think anyone else would have qualified.

 

And yes, similar WAR numbers aren’t definitive. But the leader in WAR is. Just because ERod had 0.3 more bWAR than Eovaldi didn’t mean he was a better pitcher. But it does mean he has more bWAR. And we as fans get this nitpicky with lots and lots of stats.

 

For example, what did batting average tell you? For me, it tells me 95% of the league gets a hit in the range of 20% to 30% of their at bats. Not a big range, but we sure as heck that out like one. Sometimes down to too much detail.

 

For example, in 1949, Ted Williams lead the AL in home runs and RBI. But not in batting average, which he lost to George Kell by .0002. Why? What was the point? Why did MLB suddenly decide they needed four decimal places? And did anyone think Kell was a better hitter?

 

Williams got no credit for a triple crown that year, and a difference that small could have been a grounder that should have been an error (on a Kell hit). Or one that shouldn’t have been for Williams. Or a miscall at first base. Or maybe even a runner getting thrown out trying to score on a flyball? Is it possible Williams lost out on a triple crown because the Sox had a slower runner on third base? Does that somehow make Ted a worse hitter? Would we look at him as even better if he got that third triple crown?

 

(The sac fly scenario described above was not possible in 1949, as that was within the timeframe when MLB credited hitters with an at bat for sac flies, a rule they changed back in 1954. But it’s weird to think under today’s rules, it is a possibility.)

 

But the stats are what they are. Kell still reigns as the 1949 batting champion. (Fix that, Manfred!!) And ERod had more bWAR than Eovaldi during that 4 year stretch…

Edited February 27, 2024 by notin

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Just admit it was surprising to find out ERod had better WAR than Eovaldi over that stretch. I admit I was surprised, although it made more sense once I realized ERod only pitched 46 fewer innings over that four year stretch.

 

 

I actually knew ERod had the best year in that span, but probably included Eovaldi's extra decimal points worth of WAR for the Sox in 2018.

 

I've always been suspicious of WAR, and not just because it's a stat that any baseball fan, even diehards, can ever calculate -- like batting average (that's one thing BA is good for).

 

But did you know some historical WAR values have changed? Mookie once had a 10.6 when he was MVP in Boston, but now he has a 10.7 from that year (supposedly, bb-ref updated some ballpark factors a few years back). And then they tell us we can't compare players with decimal points -- or even one or two whole numbers...

 

Kell made the Hall. Not so for Alex Johnson, who beat out Yaz for the 1970 batting crown by 3/1000ths of a point. Carl was guest speaker at our Little League awards night that winter and told us when he lost the batting title he cried.

 

Finally, it was virtually all local media who've said and complained this winter that the Red Sox are perceived across the industry as no longer interested in spending big on top free agents. And it's not just Felger and Mazz or Tomase, but Boston Globe beat reporter Pete A, and even a source as reputable as Alex Speier. But as Gammons noted today, there's still hope...

[notin]

I actually knew ERod had the best year in that span, but probably included Eovaldi's extra decimal points worth of WAR for the Sox in 2018.

 

I've always been suspicious of WAR, and not just because it's a stat that any baseball fan, even diehards, can ever calculate -- like batting average (that's one thing BA is good for).

 

But did you know some historical WAR values have changed? Mookie once had a 10.6 when he was MVP in Boston, but now he has a 10.7 from that year (supposedly, bb-ref updated some ballpark factors a few years back). And then they tell us we can't compare players with decimal points -- or even one or two whole numbers...

 

Kell made the Hall. Not so for Alex Johnson, who beat out Yaz for the 1970 batting crown by 3/1000ths of a point. Carl was guest speaker at our Little League awards night that winter and told us when he lost the batting title he cried.

 

Finally, it was virtually all local media who've said and complained this winter that the Red Sox are perceived across the industry as no longer interested in spending big on top free agents. And it's not just Felger and Mazz or Tomase, but Boston Globe beat reporter Pete A, and even a source as reputable as Alex Speier. But as Gammons noted today, there's still hope...

 

Hey I’ve been saying “still hope” all off-season!

 

I’m not surprised WAR changes. But it’s not unique to that stat. In 2010, I watched an Orioles-White Sox game that started with a ceremony honoring Jim Gentile for winning the 1961 RBI crown, something a change in the stats gave him earlier that week. (The Orioles also honored Gentile’s 1961 contractual clause and awarded him a $5,000 bonus for winning the RBI crown.)

 

Hack Wilson also saw his record-setting RBI total jump from 190 to 191. Or he would have seen it happen if he hasn’t died 50 years earlier.

 

So I’m not surprised WAR changes…

[moonslav59]

notin & GG are two of my favorite posters.

 

Can't we all just get along?

 

[a700hitter]

[notin]

My new campaign when they make me Commissioner - harmonize batting averages.

 

I don’t get why I can go to baseball-reference and see that Cy Young won 1892 ERA title when that stat didn’t even exist at that time. Or why I can see Wilcy Moore lead the ‘27 Yankees in saves some 40 years before the save was conceived. But no one can go back through the 1930 through 1954 seasons and re-calculate the batting average without sac flies. I mean, have you ever thought what it took to back fill the save data all the way back? To go thru every box score and see if there was a save? And what version of the save rule did they use?

 

This update would be peanuts in comparison…

[moonslav59]

 

That was worse than losing Betts.

 

Fisk

Lynn

Burly

 

Also, Cecil Cooper, Bill Lee, Tiant

Also before that, Reggie Smith, George Scott and others.

[notin]

That was worse than losing Betts.

 

Fisk

Lynn

Burly

 

Also, Cecil Cooper, Bill Lee, Tiant

Also before that, Reggie Smith, George Scott and others.

 

Babe Ruth, Herb Pennock (HOF), Waite Hoyt (HOF), Carl Mays (should be HOF), Bullet Joe Bush, and Sad Sam Jones. All to the same team in a short timeframe…

[moonslav59]

My new campaign when they make me Commissioner - harmonize batting averages.

 

I don’t get why I can go to baseball-reference and see that Cy Young won 1892 ERA title when that stat didn’t even exist at that time. Or why I can see Wilcy Moore lead the ‘27 Yankees in saves some 40 years before the save was conceived. But no one can go back through the 1930 through 1954 seasons and re-calculate the batting average without sac flies. I mean, have you ever thought what it took to back fill the save data all the way back? To go thru every box score and see if there was a save? And what version of the save rule did they use?

 

This update would be peanuts in comparison…

 

I task you with figuring out Teddy's real BA in his .406 season.

[notin]

I task you with figuring out Teddy's real BA in his .406 season.

 

.419

 

That one has already been done by someone else. The Wikipedia article on the sacrifice fly mentions it…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I task you with figuring out Teddy's real BA in his .406 season.

 

- 100 points for not facing African American pitchers or fielders from the mainland or Caribbean islands

 

- 50 for not playing mostly night games in the dark

 

- 50 for not facing fresh-armed relievers in late innings

 

+ 100 for facing only the best 70 pitchers from 7 teams pre-expansion, pre-interleague (as opposed to 300 more current pitchers who would never be good enough to make the majors)

 

+ 50 for playing in a time when baseball was truly the national pastime, and the majority of professional athletes played big league baseball

 

+ 50 for batting eye and contact skills honed in an era that condoned and encouraged PEPPPER -- and didn't ban it in every ballpark with a metal fence at every level in the US!

 

.406 - 200 + 200 = .406

[notin]

- 100 points for not facing African American pitchers or fielders from the mainland or Caribbean islands

 

- 50 for not playing mostly night games in the dark

 

- 50 for not facing fresh-armed relievers in late innings

 

+ 100 for facing only the best 70 pitchers from 7 teams pre-expansion, pre-interleague (as opposed to 300 more current pitchers who would never be good enough to make the majors)

 

+ 50 for playing in a time when baseball was truly the national pastime, and the majority of professional athletes played big league baseball

 

+ 50 for batting eye and contact skills honed in an era that condoned and encouraged PEPPPER -- and didn't ban it in every ballpark with a metal fence at every level in the US!

 

.406 - 200 + 200 = .406

 

I get it’s unlikely to change.

 

But Ted Williams had 185 hits in 456 ABs that included 14 run-scoring flyballs.

 

In 1941, this resulted in a .406 BA.

 

In 1940, this would have resulted in a .419 BA.

 

In 1939, it’s .406 again.

 

In 1943 through 1954 - .406

 

In 1955 and since - .419.

 

From 1908 to 1931 - .419.

 

Before 1908, probably higher than .419 (prior to 1908, hitters were not credited with an at bat if any runner advanced on a fly ball).

 

That’s just some weird rule changes…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I get it’s unlikely to change.

 

But Ted Williams had 185 hits in 456 ABs that included 14 run-scoring flyballs.

 

In 1941, this resulted in a .406 BA.

 

In 1940, this would have resulted in a .419 BA.

 

In 1939, it’s .406 again.

 

In 1943 through 1954 - .406

 

In 1955 and since - .419.

 

From 1908 to 1931 - .419.

 

Before 1908, probably higher than .419 (prior to 1908, hitters were not credited with an at bat if any runner advanced on a fly ball).

 

That’s just some weird rule changes…

 

Fatse: "Yoshida! Hit the ball in the air! You might be better than we think... even after you retire!"

[moonslav59]

- 100 points for not facing African American pitchers or fielders from the mainland or Caribbean islands

 

- 50 for not playing mostly night games in the dark

 

- 50 for not facing fresh-armed relievers in late innings

 

+ 100 for facing only the best 70 pitchers from 7 teams pre-expansion, pre-interleague (as opposed to 300 more current pitchers who would never be good enough to make the majors)

 

+ 50 for playing in a time when baseball was truly the national pastime, and the majority of professional athletes played big league baseball

 

+ 50 for batting eye and contact skills honed in an era that condoned and encouraged PEPPPER -- and didn't ban it in every ballpark with a metal fence at every level in the US!

 

.406 - 200 + 200 = .406

 

Love it!

[jad]

Did Teddy have any bunts? Where the dumb-ass scoring rule is that if you TRY to get out while moving the runner up, it's a sacrifice, but if you TRY to get a hit while moving the runner up, it's an out. That is idiotic. (Why not, then, for sac flies? THAT doesn't count as a sac fly because CLEARLY he was trying to get a home run).

[moonslav59]

Did Teddy have any bunts? Where the dumb-ass scoring rule is that if you TRY to get out while moving the runner up, it's a sacrifice, but if you TRY to get a hit while moving the runner up, it's an out. That is idiotic. (Why not, then, for sac flies? THAT doesn't count as a sac fly because CLEARLY he was trying to get a home run).

 

I think the word "sacrifice" implies intentionality, but your point is still valid.

[jad]

I think the word "sacrifice" implies intentionality, but your point is still valid.

 

So the problem was when they extended the term to fly balls? where the notion that a batter can attempt to hit a fly out rather than, say, an off-the-wall double, is absurd. But equally absurd is the notion that a batter is rewarded for 'trying' to make an out w/ a bunt, or that the scorer is some mind-reader who can determine intent. (I believe there was a chapter in MONEYBALL critiquing the whole moral impetus behind the concept of 'sacrifice', no?).

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

So the problem was when they extended the term to fly balls? where the notion that a batter can attempt to hit a fly out rather than, say, an off-the-wall double, is absurd. But equally absurd is the notion that a batter is rewarded for 'trying' to make an out w/ a bunt, or that the scorer is some mind-reader who can determine intent. (I believe there was a chapter in MONEYBALL critiquing the whole moral impetus behind the concept of 'sacrifice', no?).

 

As a batter, that ruling on bunts always bugged me. If I bunt a guy over, and just jog to first, I'd get credit for a sac bunt and no at bat to hurt my average. But I'm running fast, that must mean I'm trying to beat it out -- like get on base, which is always a batter's duty -- so, sorry: no sac for you... and an AB against my BA.

[moonslav59]

So the problem was when they extended the term to fly balls? where the notion that a batter can attempt to hit a fly out rather than, say, an off-the-wall double, is absurd. But equally absurd is the notion that a batter is rewarded for 'trying' to make an out w/ a bunt, or that the scorer is some mind-reader who can determine intent. (I believe there was a chapter in MONEYBALL critiquing the whole moral impetus behind the concept of 'sacrifice', no?).

 

I get your point. It is valid.

 

It's really not much of a reward. It just doesn't count the AB. Unlike a BB, it does not help (or hurt) BA or OBP.

[Randy Red Sox]

Even if JH signs Montgomery he will be sure to dock him for days missed to date in ST

[Bellhorn04]

Even if JH signs Montgomery he will be sure to dock him for days missed to date in ST

 

Good one.

[notin]

Did Teddy have any bunts? Where the dumb-ass scoring rule is that if you TRY to get out while moving the runner up, it's a sacrifice, but if you TRY to get a hit while moving the runner up, it's an out. That is idiotic. (Why not, then, for sac flies? THAT doesn't count as a sac fly because CLEARLY he was trying to get a home run).

 

 

Huh?

 

I get not crediting a hitter with an at bat on a sac bunt; the hitter isn’t even trying to get a hit. He is intentionally bunting. But a sac fly is happenstance. Even if the hitter is trying to drive the ball. Run-scoring groundballs are at bats; why aren’t run-scoring flyballs?

 

But that’s another matter. The sac fly has a weird history.

 

From 1900 to 1908: Any flyball that advanced a runner was not an at bat.

From 1908 to 1930: Only run-scoring flyballs were not at bats.

From 1931 to 1939: Run-scoring flyballs were at bats

1940: Run-scoring flyballs were not at bats

From 1941 to 1954: Run scoring flyballs were at bats again

From 1955-present: No at bat credited if a run scored on a fly out.

 

That’s more messed up than save rule changes.

 

I do think MLB could go back in and fix batting averages from 1931 to 1954 to the current rules. If they can go back in and do the monumental task of putting saves in from 18?? To 1965, they can adjust batting averages. Get rid of .406 and replace it with .419

[notin]

I get your point. It is valid.

 

It's really not much of a reward. It just doesn't count the AB. Unlike a BB, it does not help (or hurt) BA or OBP.

 

It does impact OBP. A sac bunt and a sac fly are plate appearances…

[moonslav59]

It does impact OBP. A sac bunt and a sac fly are plate appearances…

 

Not if a run scores, right?

 

It's no PA.

[notin]

Not if a run scores, right?

 

It's no PA.

 

No. They are always plate appearances. They just are not always at bats...

[moonslav59]

No. They are always plate appearances. They just are not always at bats...

 

I always assumed SA did not hurt OBP.

[notin]

I always assumed SA did not hurt OBP.

 

It actually does. And it should. He stepped up to the plate and didn’t get on base…

[moonslav59]

It actually does. And it should. He stepped up to the plate and didn’t get on base…

 

I'm not sure about the "should" part, but I get it.

 

Why not count reach on error as getting on base, then? He stepped up and got on base.