sk7326

Truth there - but the question is not about whether kids hit bumps (duh!) but whether there is anything to learn that facing AAA hitters can fix. For Rodriguez, I am not sure there is a lot that AAA hitters can offer on that front. He has trouble steering out of a bad inning skid, but that might only really be tackled at the big league level. It is an argument for having a strong bullpen to back him up - but that is obvious. Turning over a lineup the third time around is difficult - hell in the postseason you saw managers flat out not bother to let starters even do it - only way to get reps is to get reps.

Not a surprise. Team has used old GMs (Lajoie, Baird, Lee Thomas) extensively in the past. Assuming there is a process everybody is on board with, as Faber University's motto said, Knowledge is Good.

Also, the two flavors of WAR do not REALLY differ for position players. The difference is for pitchers, and since there is legitimate debate about the value of FIP, I don't see a reason to not look at both. Help draw your own conclusion. For instance - FIP vs xFIP. It is good to have both around, since "homerun luck" is not a settled issue either.

He couldn't stand up to Scioscia because his owner did not have his back. Life when the manager won't listen to what the player-personnel people say.

That is true, although that tends to come more from the scouting side than the reverse - not surprising of course, there is a bit of "get off my lawn" there

I think everybody has a price. With dudes like Devers on Moncada, the question becomes - do you care if a guy blows up in 3 years if you can be much better next year? That is a reasonable question. Even more reasonable question for an Anderson Espinoza.

All save and save related stats are nonsense. Looking at any stats without understanding the components is a bad idea to begin with. The main gap between Fangraphs and Baseball Reference is about how much responsibility to assign a pitcher (there are also differences in defensive measurement, but they are minor - and both sites now use the same functional definition of replacement level). Considering this is actually an open question, it is helpful to have two answers to that question. That any metric is not the one metric which solves all of your measurement problems does not mean it is not a distinct improvement over older made up things like OPS (which add two things which are not equivalent), RBI (which arbitrarily splits the credit for a run being scored), or chicken's blood (which helps Pedro hit the fastball).

The former is certainly questionable. The latter is trickier - since talent does not seem to be an issue so much as execution.

He can - especially things like makeup and projection. But stats can offer an unbiased take on results that for example, liking somebody's Scrappy McScrapperson traits (see Eckstein, David) can cloud. They are complementary pieces - and the analytics stuff has helped shape things that scouting emphasizes that might not have necessarily been the case. (the most famous being the revelation that, in general, approach is born not made)

I think I remember one of the guys on the basketball analytics side (Hollinger, Pelton, somebody) glibly note that the stats guys don't live in their basement ... indeed when you love the sport so much you're willing to do math to learn about it

I honestly don't know - because some of the problems seem more daunting than others: Offense - This does not seem to be especially far away. Now there is a realistic question about whether Pedroia can ever be "healthy" again. But what is clear is that Pedroia's bat has not gone anywhere (aside from out of the lineup a bit more frequently than ideal). Ortiz as it turns out is going to end up with a pretty solid year. Ramirez is a giant question mark - how much of his lost season is due to his approach going to seed (which is correctable, and since approach has normally been a strength of his) and Sandoval moreso (you'd like to think a guy with his tendencies could take advantage of The Wall, but alas). Betts and Bogaerts will keep growing. (Bogaerts next step is to lay off the bad balls he has learned how to hit and wait for ones he can drive - but this year was positive on all fronts) Defense - Again, this has been a good defensive team before this year, in fact close to very good last year. The Ramirez thing has to be addressed - there is no reason the Sox should not be able to field a plus outfield. The catcher defense will be either be good or excellent depending on the decisions made there. Much has been written about Sandoval already - I will not add any more. Pitching - (avoiding rabbit hole)

Advanced stats are useful in baseball for a few different reasons, especially compared to other sports. 1. There are just a lot more datapoints ... twice as many games as any other sport, duh 2. The fundamental exchanges in baseball are fairly simple and happen sequentially. Pitcher pitches, hitter hits and then the ball goes into play and something happens there. Compare the challenge to trying to measure the results of a football play, where 22 guys are in motion and all of them have some impact on the success of the play. You also don't have the information disadvantage you have in football or basketball (where the play was supposed to go, or what a defender's assignment is). Aside from defensive shifts, the movements are isolated, and with few exceptions, hitters and pitchers are chasing the same thing every pitch. (an out, or a non-out) Scouting and metrics complement each other. You do need metrics for your own guys, just because the metrics are unbiased and can show things the scouts might not see. (and maybe allow you to change emphases) While metrics can identify the components of a good player, only scouts can take some of that information and make it actionable. Clearly something in the Red Sox process is squirrely there. One I have identified is I don't know if they have been able to fully capture the impact of Fenway Park on defensive measurement - because there have been some confounding results with some choices that looked like they should have worked out.

WAR is good, although for pitching there is much debate about which flavor is better (and it is good the info is out there). WHIP is a good idea but uses the wrong denominator (if you want to get picky) - % of batters gets you where you want to go. But WHIP gives some good information within those limits. Saves, RBIs, pitcher wins, batting average all are useless to a degree (and the former three are much more "made up" than WAR for instance).

The front office has lost a ton of muscle - so getting some help makes sense. DiPoto lost a power struggle to Scioscia - there is some dysfunction in Anaheim on that front. The team has had a lot of former GMs around helping (Baird, LaJoie) at various times, so more of that doesn't hurt. That they would hire a guy with some understanding of analytics makes sense. Sox clearly are big on that stuff (and given some of the in-house defensive stuff, based on actual decisions, it might not hurt to have a different set of eyes) and obviously not having that puts you way behind the industry.

The gamble was not the issue - it was not cutting bait quickly. They had no problem hedging on kiddos in the lineup (to Bogaerts and Bradley's respective detriments) but did not do the same with wobbly veterans who warranted a very very short leash.

Really, as bad as his defense is - his empty OFFENSIVE numbers have bothered me more. You figure he can get better in the field - but if he is going to be essentially a poor man's Dave Kingman (how about that), that is very troubling.

Yes. I advocated the manager portion around the end of June. Now I don't know who I'd choose - aside from wanting somebody who has managed in some form or another - but everything this year has pointed to a flaw that stands outside of simple talent.

Who knows what the reasons are. At the same time, the history of established guys who publicly want to stay at a position is vast. These are proud guys - it is an admission of defeat. I remember John Valentin bristling about not being the SS when the idea of Nomar came up. Perhaps it is something that can be done in the future, but in a more face saving manner. I look at left field as a less demanding position because of 1) that teams put virtual DH sorts out there frequently, 2) neither range nor arm are huge issues, especially if the CF is good. I do think Fenway stands outside of these a bit since range is not the issue with playing LF. There are athletic sorts who have done it badly and less athletic guys who have been good. Obviously burden is on him to fix it if he wants to stay in LF. I also have no insight into whether there are physical things which he has not talked about, which might be true since his approach this season offensively has largely gone to seed.

It is a bit of the 2011 analysis. Ortiz and Pedroia turned into low character goons suddenly. Or the players were such delicate flowers that a co-worker who came over from a team that won multiple titles made them all drooling vegetables.

He was traded for the best young starter in the league (along with the double-A version of Anibal Sanchez). And the Red Sox STILL had to take back Mike Lowell's (perception at the time) entrails. I know at the time in Pawtucket there was a measure of senioritis which can come with a blocked guy ... that happens from time to time. You wish it didn't, but he was one of the league's best players once he got a regular gig. The worries are less character with him to me than simply physical. Has there been enough damage for him to not be able to play the field at all. That is on him to fix. LF is do-able, it's a matter of how much he wants to fix it.

He and Hoyer were co-GMs. So if it is less than now, it's not by much.

You have to monitor each case individually. Also, it helps to take a personal view, like your own job. Are all companies the same? If we accept that some firms are better places to work, and others can bum you out, why should that not be the case for baseball as well? Now you are right, you might have an actual red flag guy. But if he is talented and you think that your firm is a better spot for him, it often is worth a whirl.

Did they not check him out? These are significant investments - they probably had medicals anyway. For them, $9.5M IS chump change for a 1-year hitch by Red Sox standards. That said, I do agree with you that they spent far too much time down this rabbit hole. It wasn't as bad one as say, Grady Sizemore last season ... but the warning signs were there early enough to cut bait quickly. I blame the management for not tacking quickly on Masterson who was highly speculative to begin with. This also applies to Kelly who was fringy too and might have been a wipeout bullpen weapon (which would have turned out quite handy).

Also, for what its worth, Owens and Rodriguez by the end of the season is going to sail past the 140 inning mark or so. Without considering the eventual Tommy John operation (ducking lightning bolt), neither will be starting 2016 from ground zero, and these days a 160-170 innings cap is really not much of an encumberance at all (basically it's going to be where Miley ends up). I agree that the rotation around them needs more quality bulk to help augment the management of the kids. And the bullpen needs improvement to help also. In particular, Rodriguez won't be a rookie in 2016 in any meaningful way.

The instruction I think in high school and college is okay, but you are also at levels where often guys can get away with just being better athletically. In the pros the craft I suspect becomes more important. Anyway, I was being silly also.