sk7326

I believe stockpiling is fine - but a team like Boston in particular (deep coffers, major league focus), only needs to worry about keeping the future super-mega-stars. I have no idea how the front office will work. But the way it is assembled, I am not sure whether Dombrowski will have THAT much direct influence on the scouting side. (and that has been the side of the operation which has clearly worked) I suspect Hazen will largely be in command there (And certainly in handling the analytics staff). I think it will largely be "play or trade" - although I think Hazen will help him with making the calls on the lower level guys. I mean - just by reading the same things everybody else does - Benintendi, Devers, Moncada, Espinoza - all look like guys the team will hold because of megastar potential (at least for now). Everybody else in the minors is probably some level of fair game - including Margot, just because of how stacked the system in CF.

I noted that the issues the team had early seemed to point to a coaching change - obviously that is still the case. However, managing is the one thing which is the biggest black box - where people flat out don't know what makes a manager good or bad. Teams have won with bad managers, teams have lost with good ones - it's not simply as reductive as wins. Farrell coming back is fine - there is a decent chance Lovullo will be gone ... he's clearly one of the most qualified managerial candidates out there (even before his acting stint with Boston), and could be on any number of shortlists. I'd also think Lovullo would not want the job in Boston anyway based on how the circumstance would have to play out. Tactically, Farrell is solid - he certainly has never had a greatest hits of howlers like Matt Williams did this past season, nor even what Ned Yost has done (and of course Kansas City is winning despite it). The guys clearly respect him. In a lot of ways the biggest mistakes the org made were setting the club up in 2014 for the title defense - too much wishing on stars (in the outfield) that had a lot of risk associated with it. (that Victorino could stay healthy or that a Nava/Carp platoon could still work, JBJ). 2015 clearly did not go well, but a lot of it was hasty makeup work for 2014's non-moves. Pitching's gotta be better - duh. How that manifests itself between rotation and bullpen, I honestly don't care. Just make it happen. The lineup is largely set - and looks to be quite good. Of course, if the Sox wanted to take their coffers out for a walk and look at a Jason Heyward (or a Justin Upton who fits the classic LF mold more cleanly), I would not have any real issue there.

No. Really it was mostly the offense getting on track. From a 30,000 foot level, the idea was the Red Sox would have the year the Jays had mostly. Lineup provides cover for middle of the road run prevention. The run prevention was worse than expected (in particular the ghastly defense on the left side) and the offense went in the tank for a solid 2 months (neither of the left side culprits hit enough). When the offense woke up, suddenly things have been entertaining. Really - the improvement lately can all be traced to tangible things at each position: 1B: Travis Shaw clearly improved on what Napoli gave OF: Hanley's replacements have not been that much better than 2015 Hanley offensively. But they can catch the ball, and that works wonders. Hanley's misadventures were particularly untenable once his offense went to seed. And of course, Bradley has been solid in a way which looks like it's for real (i.e. aligned with the guy he has been his entire professional baseball life). C: Swihart once he got his legs under him has been a monster improvement over the pu pu platter (Which included overpromoted Swihart) before And the rotation has been largely okay - the sort of thing which we could have hoped for entering the season (no real Arrieta sized hot streaks, aside from Kelly I guess). There are enough tangible reasons for the turnaround.

I think Workman as a starter should be dead - but he could be very helpful in the pen.

A side issue also is - you send somebody down who should be starting ... the kid knows it too. It is easy to tell someone to eat your vegetables, keep your head up etc ... but when somebody is blocked, and not on merit - it will show in his performance and development. If you believe players are human beings (and use that as a reason to p'shaw analytics or arguments against clutchy mcclutchersons) then this is an obvious sentiment.

The implication would be that the team was half-assing it when the season was on the table, which seems awfully, awfully unlikely given the championship timber who was already on the team. They've played better - and it shows ... and if you look at the entire body of work, they've been roughly (perhaps a bit less) what we thought they were in April.

There are park adjustments, and certainly trajectory is accounted for somewhat ... and over the number of trials (just estimating 25 balls in play per game x 2430 games) a lot of the noise can be sampled away. Personally it is an improvement over what was previously done (largely, guess - you look at the ghastly gold glove voting) ... but like anything, it's not perfect on its own. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/

Also, UZR's (or whatever) contribution is less about identifying good v bad defenders so much as being able to actually turn that into some assessment of value. While one did not need metrics to identify that Victorino was a spectacular RF in 2013 - it was a crucial part of a very reasonable (albeit downballot) MVP candidacy that he had. The combination of measuring what a fielder did, as well as how much did it actually matter. One of my favourite examples was Pedroia winning the MVP in 2008 - now voters picked him for silly reasons (Scrappy McTougherson, Red Sox brand etc) - but he really actually was among the very best players in the league that season. The UZR stuff's value I think is being able to put something in the soup which is an improvement from just checking the triple slash (or, yuck, RBIs).

There is truth here - and I do wonder if UZR is confounded by weird looking OFs, which happen regularly (cough, cough). I mean you look at how consistently Red Sox LFs have been measured poorly over time (whether it be Greenwell, Rice, Nava, Crawford, Manny, Hanley) - I have not checked Yankee RFs though Paul O'Neill graded badly - is it possible that those sorts of OFs fool the measurement system?

Yeah, defense is one of the areas which I do think the teams have much better information than the public ... UZR is helpful, but the limitations are obvious and good to know. But I think even the UZR makers have pointed that out. You know, UZRs predictive value for a player really needs a couple of seasons (because of the noise that comes with human measurement and such) - although the data over a short time frame does have value for portraying what happened. (i.e. going 0 for 10 goes not mean a guy is a .000 hitter, but it does mean he had a crappy 10 PAs)

I think with an outside company dealing with it that is fine now. It's like Sport VU data with the NBA - more information from a standard data source. Now if only MLB provided the Pitch F/X data as richly as the NBA does with its Sport VU stuff. It's interesting stuff to know - even if the conclusions are questionable.

They are bursting with prospects and guys who can start - so trading for pitching is doable. Heck, if Bradley is part of a deal - I'd have no hesitation going back in the free agent pool for Jason Heyward. (who is only 8 months older than JBJ) to fill the gap. But you look at the team and you see stars up the middle - and that includes catcher (regardless of who ends up being the starter - it is obvious (once he got his legs under him) that Swihart's got tremendous ceiling there) and will be a really good player for somebody.

What is funny is the team is - based on the full season set (which you can use since there was no major trade during the season) is about what was expected. Scored a lot, mildly positive run differential. The difference between a shade below .500 and a bit above has been the pitching (and flammable relief in particular).

Rodriguez is one of this team's 5 best starters - regardless of what happens in the offseason. He is also this team's best shot at an ace if one is not acquired elsewhere. Owens I am a little more in agreement with you, although his problems this season have often been a result of the coaches getting a little greedy (industrywide, you see managers getting much more aggressive about having the eject button the 3rd or 4th time through the lineup). Hill probably has created a mini-bidding war. If nothing else, I'd consider him for a mid-bullpen role if he cannot crack the rotation - that strikeout rate is very impressive.

Getting one of the handful of aces out there would be amazing - stop the presses. But if the Sox signed a Lackey - or at least 1 or 2 reliable starters - someone who can spit out 25-30 good starts, that would be ok. Team has been averaging 5.33 runs a game since the ASB, which is basically a Toronto-esque pace. The pitching has been better too, but it is just some serious raking which has emerged. How much of the raking is sustainable? I think you can ask whether Travis Shaw will turn into a pumpkin. You can also assert that Bradley's power won't be like this. (although I think his .250/.340 slash is for real) But otherwise, the other guys are all in a position to be better. (including 3B just by virtue that Sandoval could not be much worse)

I am saying that the job of measuring that stuff has been outsourced to Pitch F/X ... who has been in charge of standardizing this stuff ... now could Pitch F/X be corrupted? Well, since another company is actually handing the data collection and distribution that seems unlikely. I think pitching metrics before Pitch F/X type standardization has all the limitations you'd think it would.

Short answer: in 2004, I doubt it - or if official velo stats were being collected at all. Now? Yes

One of the funny things is that the Red Sox look like they are going to finish with a record which is - probably what 3 or 4 games - within range of what a normal person would have predicted for this team entering the season. What is heartening is that the players and coaches did not quit on the season and have provided a couple of months of entertaining, damn good baseball ... there is stuff to fix (and the cupboard is very full as far as ways to go about doing so), but there is a strong foundation (and that probably understates the status of the everyday lineup).

That is fair. I would think that if a team is not collecting its own data - given how high pressure and paranoid teams are - on this stuff, then that raises questions on whether those teams executives can put on their shoes correctly without labels. What is the point of advance scouting otherwise?

I think that the Sox did something extraordinary might be the fiction part of it. I think the question was to whether it created an unfair advantage or whether it affected velocities that teams used or recorded over that time frame. Both of those I think are non-stories.

That he was getting by with lesser stuff as was the rest of the staff ... akin to his 1999 relief outing But moreover, it's a bit of a nonstory - stadiums pump their guns all the time ... fans want to see high numbers, no harm in giving it to them. I remember it as far back as the late 90s when NBC had Robb Nen throwing 102 MPH in a closing outing.

I love Pedro to death - he is keenly aware of his legend.

or fictional

Pitch F/X only was installed in parks in 2006. I am sure Pedro is right (relative to what you saw on NESN's broadcast for instance), but I am also sure that other team's advance scouts had their own readings of his velocity.

It would - I am inclined to think that pitch f/x stuff is legit. It's installed in every stadium, and just from a pure game theory perspective it doesn't make much sense to tinker with it too much.