sk7326

The local television money is the best estimator of relative position - the Red Sox is huh-yooge. The Red Sox are rolling in it - and it's perfectly nice for ownership to want to make money. Nobody is asking them to make a stupid business decision. But the contracts are not shackling them from making a decision - the money is there. The counterfactual moon poses "imagine if we did not have albatross contracts - how much more money would we have" is a little silly. If we did not have those contracts, maybe the Sox would spend more, maybe it would go into the owners pockets. I don't think those contracts are any real impediment - aside from an impediment to ego.

It's Pomeranz-Rodriguez-Buchholz for two spots ... and "who can provide the most value coming out of the pen?" is a very meaningful question to ask (because Wright clearly is the long-man). What is interesting is that there are pretty good arguments for any of the choices.

I don't think he means it as punishment ... it is about trying to find a guy who can do what Lincecum did for the Giants in 2012. If Buchholz can come in two or three times in a series and get 6 outs - that will be more valuable than one Game 4 start.

I am in agreement on their quality mostly ... Heyward has had four seasons of >5.8 bWAR or more ... that is an elite profile (a number which puts you firmly in the Top 10 of the NL). His combination has been superb defense and getting on base frequently (the most important offensive skill). Now I think you can fairly ask whether the scale is correct (the offense: defense weights). Is his excellent fielding really saving enough runs to equate to 3 wins? I tend to lean towards offense with two players of similar WAR, only because I think the defensive component (doesn't matter which flavor) has a much higher ranger of uncertainty (in terms of its contribution to run prevention) than the offensive stuff.

Step 1 is get to the postseason ... Step 2: See Step 1 That being said, the interesting question is which of Pomeranz, Rodriguez or Buchholz would you want to transition to a bullpen weapon if we get a chance to play some postseason ball. Pomeranz is experienced, but I could see Rodriguez' stuff playing up in the 3-6 out bursts.

Right now, the Red Sox have a clear top 3 postseason rotation: Price, Porcello, Pomeranz ... now (if Wright gets back, which is an open question), Wright and Rodriguez for the #4 starter is the interesting question. Really the question becomes whose stuff can play up in bursts to punch up the bullpen.

well that is marketing and partnering with card manufacturers and I think baseball reference has had a significant first mover advantage (as the site which basically rendered the baseball encyclopedia obsolete).

I'll give one - I am not sure I agree, but it is the best choice for this topic ... Jason Heyward He has had flashes of tremendous offensive output - but for the most part he has been noteworthy for good on-base skills, but maddening inconsistency in terms of delivering power or stuff that makes the highlights. But he has registered consistently as one of the league's best outfielders - and most of it has been built on superb defense in RF. Your view on defensive measurement will significantly influence whether WAR is delivering the mail there. Victorino in 2013 being a legitimate downballot MVP is another.

I don't think it is anything psychological or anything. He is basically a golfer who can drown in swing thoughts at times. Overcomplicate the mechanics and stuff. He has ace stuff, always has ... but doesn't always let it fly. At this point he is what he is - but for stretches, that can be pretty darn good.

it's not an error - it is a perspective ...

The formula for WAR is complicated - because there is a lot of normalization (to get numbers measured on different scales to add up) - but the fact that bWAR and fWAR are calculated differently should INCREASE your confidence. The two sites differ in WAR, because they have a couple of fundamentally different assumptions about player performance. That is great - better to have a couple of perspectives on this question than a stat like fielding percentage which tells you literally nothing helpful. One of the major differences between the two was the notion of what "replacement level" is - but they have come to some sort of consensus on that. This is big, as it at least puts the two on the same scale. But you look at position players - WAR is essentially identical between the two. The differences are in defensive measurement, and neither of those differences are that huge. Pitcher WAR differs, but it differs because the two sites have different ways of trying to separate a pitcher's contribution to run prevention. Fangraphs fundamentally gives pitchers less control over batted balls in play Baseball Reference does. This explains the huge gap in David Price's season for instance. The key thing is - I don't think that the question is settled (how separable is pitcher and fielding performance in terms of run prevention), and it is worthwhile to see how tweaking the assumptions changes the picture. The two versions of WAR ask fans to basically engage the numbers and why they are the way they are - the fundamental assumptions about player value, and why good stuff happens. Remember, RBIs are also a made up stat - arbitrarily assigning credit for a run scoring. You are right to a certain degree about offense vs defense. Chicks dig the longball - so people will always talk about homers and hitting and such - there is an inherent bias there. At the same time, defensive measurement IS much flimsier than offensive measurement. So yes, if I see two players with close WAR and one builds it with defensive value (see Victorino in 2013), it would move them down the rankings for me a little bit. But the defensive value is there - and it is nice that we can at least bound the contribution. When Bradley stunk at the plate, we DID hear about his defensive brilliance - because we knew that the equation could work if he hit enough. But he was so dreadful offensively, that no defense could overcome it. Outfield assists are a great extra parlor trick Bradley has - uncommonly good for a CF - but outfield assists are generally fairly random and a function of opportunity. And in a sense, your best bet to get outfield assists is to have an above average arm, but not a great one (because then nobody would run on you).

They DO have that kind of money (they ALWAYS have that kind of money) ... it is whether Steel Drivin John Henry wants to.

They didn't need him really. Yes, 3B sucked - and it would be awesome if Moncada could fix it. It is worth a look. But - if Benintendi gets back (and there is some question there), the Red Sox are average at worst offensively in 7 of the 8 regular positions. They could live with "solid defense, occasionally dangerous" at 3B. I am happy to get a look at Moncada - but we know command and breaking stuff is a different level at the show - and so a guy who had significant contact problems as Double-A was a high risk of flailing at the big league level. From his minor league stats - it seems like approach on some level is sound - he does walk quite a bit. But the craft has to catch up to the athleticism - and that's cool, he's still a baby relatively - and it is probably not going to happen during the season. I will be delighted to be proven wrong here.

Not sugarcoating - but at least you had a guy who missed bats up there, that's all.

With Napoli it carried over. Listen, I am excited to see Moncada - and I think he can be really good. I also am cautious because of his issues making contact - since I do not know whether it was a Napoli-esque calculation, or some real blind spots. And - while I am not worried about him defensively per se ... there is no reason to believe the (run production + run prevention) total package is a clear upgrade on Shaw (at least right now). You can live with Shaw's production if the run prevention impact is significant after all. He is a good sort of guy to have at the bottom of the lineup - solid defensively and can mash from time to time. I am open minded - and baseball is fun. This is cool.

If Holt doesn't make the error - at least it puts the strikeout in play (which he is more than capable of doing). He was not sharp - had not gotten much work in ... some of that could be put on Farrell, but circumstance is what it is sometimes. For the record - I did not love the Kimbrel trade ... not because he was not good, but I just did not see the marginal value of that position.

Will make getting to October a challenge - I doubt Wright cracks the playoff rotation either way.

Somehow, whether by design or luck - our rotation is not a problem.

They sort of have to announce themselves. Hell, bringing Kimbrel into the 9th was exactly the right call - and something most managers don't do!

The team has had some trouble hitting the last two games. Both parks are bad for hitters generally, but clearly the Sox should (and did Friday and Saturday) transcend that. Given the competition on the mound, yesterday was vexing.

See above post - with Napoli, there was clear approach and craft. He was looking for something to mash and he walked a ton ...

I agree in principle. On the other hand there is the "can he actually hit the baseball major leaguers are throwing him" ... as I noted, that's what the scouting is for - was his enormous strikeout rate in Portland a choice in approach, or his bat being afraid of breaking stuff? I think that is why he was down longer than Benintendi with better superficial numbers. You can get a lot done with athletic advantage at lower levels. That AA pitchers got him to whiff a third of the time could (could!!) be a harbinger that there is an absence of craft at this point (which would not be surprising!). I am excited about his arrival - I know the .571 BABIP ain't gonna last.

I get on Farrell - because he's a manager, and that's what watching baseball is. But you look at the box scores - and the team has piled up a lot of annoying losses - and honestly, it is hard not to say Farrell played the right (or at least a thoroughly reasonable) pitcher in the right spot. On some level that is all you can do. Now he has not been hyper vigilant in hitting the eject button - but that is not the best way to manage the regular season. I know in 2013 he was much more cutthroat with that stuff - and generally did not let a chance go to make sure his best relievers had a say in the highest leverage spots.

Giant bonuses are the best dollar value in player personnel ... Moncada's bonus is probably the sort of bonus a good draft year #1 overall pick gets if there in fact no draft.

He started as a SS I think ... 2B was just a good way to ease him in given just how little baseball he had played, and all those things he had to deal with as a 19 year old which normal prospects don't.