sk7326

And that he was already enormous for a 19 year old ... just physical growth might have voted him off the island

I will refrain from the threadjacking bait on the second half. The other stuff - he obviously needs to field balls he can get to. But there is indicators he is getting to a lot of balls. I don't think the team is making a fetish out of moving players - because it's not that simple. I think it is more that (and this was at least true in my high school and college teams) your best athletes pitch, your best athletes play shortstop and your best athletes play centerfield, and acquiring premium athletes is a good thing. Also in a lot of cases, their first good exposure to defensive instruction does not really start until you get to pro ball.

It does mean some improvement is required, but if he is generating many more chances for errors by getting to balls, that is a good thing. Or at least something which large error totals can hide.

2012 Lots of people got hurt and the manager was a bozo 2013 Lots of people didn't get hurt and the Red Sox won a title. Given they were the best team in the league almost every day of that season, it is hard to call it lucky. 2014 underachievement plus the FO being wimps about their own organization which didn't help. 2015 has been marked by underachievement in a widespread way - in 2015 more than 2014. Blaming the players is fashionable (and they are not blameless) because it is easy to seem more reasonable by not wanting to can the manager. There is a lot of evidence that Farrell has not brought anything positive to the party except for 2013 where his status as a decent human being was a huge improvement on Valentine.

Depends on what they were. Errors by themselves don't say a lot about fielding.

Given how widespread team underachievement was across so many areas, without great underlying talent reasons ... failures in the manager/coach are completely normal things to suspect.

Essentially it comes down to how much credit/blame do you give his teammates. In 2014 he had some good homerun luck, and the previous years he didn't, and in all cases he played in front of teammates who largely did not improve upon potted plants in the requisite fielding positions. The underlying pitcher was largely the same. Weirdly despite how bad the left side of the defense was, the Sox were STILL A better defensive outfit than the Tigers teams Porcello got to work with ... but he brought far less to the table.

I agree with that.

His 2014 was in line with his 2013 and 2012. ERAs varied, but a lot goes into that. The 2015 was not in line with any of them.

Well you would have: MYSTERY MAN, Buchholz, two kids with ERAs at or below the blessed holy 4.00 ... now is that enough to prop up another underachieving offense? Probably not. Is it enough to serve an offense doing its job to improve the bottom line results. Of course it would.

Clearly the team needs to have six or seven guys who can make starts: the way I look at next year: - Owens and Rodriguez should be in Boston. There are things to learn (for the former, getting through the order 3rd time out, the latter avoiding the one bad inning spiral). I'm not putting Owens into Cooperstown on two starts, but it is very clear there is a guy with some big league swing and miss stuff there. Wright is a valuable swingman - and the way modern bullpen construction is, just having any sort of multi-inning guy is very nice to have. - Buchholz was good this year when he was healthy. Obviously that is an annoying caveat, but there you go. The cost control is attractive too So before discussing Porcello or Miley, it seems like there are four starters who can put something competitive out there, and would fall into line quite nicely if the Sox in fact DID sign a Cueto (which I would approve of). Now if Porcello just returns to being an above average starter, like he was before April of 2015, that gets you up to five. If Miley is your 5th starter, then things look less shabby. I think what people like about Miley is the competitiveness, and that he hangs in there - but yeah that does not offset the pedestrian numbers otherwise. When I talked about not needing a slegehammer, the fact is if the Sox signed one pitcher who can be a reliable top of the rotation sort - an "ace" would be wonderful, but even a Hiroki Kuroda/Mark Buehrle sort - just a guy you don't have to worry about would be very helpful. I am not blind about the starting woes this season - I just tend to get annoyed at making run prevention just as simply reductive as talking about pitching linescores. The Red Sox entire run prevention operation failed - and the non-pitching part of it also needs to be addressed.

First - he moved from a hitters park to another hitters park. Fenway gives up a lot of doubles, more than Comerica but fewer homeruns. Both are in the Top 10 in Park Factors, neither are Coors level outliers. The Tigers were also one of the league's worst defenses last year and the Red Sox were one of the league's best. That figures in also. Second, and this is the key point in the Porcello discussion. Instead of looking at the ceiling, which is debatable, look at the floor, which is not. He did not fail to be a top of the rotation starter, or fail to be better than the magical 4.00 ERA or whatever goalpost is used. He failed to be what he was last year, the year before, or years before that. He was a truly bad pitcher as a 26 year old, which defies any sort of non-injury related explanation. Now this happens very occasionally (since I saw Rick Ankiel as a pitcher, and there are no absolutes), but the odds are strongly against that being the future level of performance. Without the revelation of an injury that bothered him all year, I am much more comfortable looking to the coaching for an answer to him becoming below replacement level than a 26 year old suddenly aging at a twentyfold rate. When I am critical of the coaching, it is not because of one guy - it is because of the sheer number of guys who underperformed career norms across all aspects of baseball. And it's not like they are a team brimming with old folks. This was actually the sort of case which you almost expected a managerial change midseason.

He was nearly 3 full wins worse than his "career level" - which is not something which happens to 26 year olds. Top, middle, bottom, front, rear, sides of the rotation. He did not have to be an ace to justify his contract. He had to be better than replacement level, which he has not been this season to even remotely qualify. When talent did not perform to its capability consistently, across all areas of the game, it is completely justifiable (heck, sensible) to blame the coaching staff. There is a lack of "talent related" reasons for many of the failures. (did the bat speed go away collectively? Did the pitching staff all take stupid pills to underperform career norms despite being in their 20s?)

Miley you are closer to the truth. Porcello had a major falloff from his career at an age which does not make sense - there is a lot of fluke evidence (and a lot of poor coaching evidence) there.

That was a lot of money for 50+ innings. Bullpens are fickle by definition. Miller served his purpose.

I clearly forgot about Buchholz, and since the kids are Rodriguez and Owens ... that is not a terrible start. If they signed Cueto all the better, but the bleating about an ace as a cure all is misplaced.

Travis has some long term potential. But in the short term a job share would make sense. Now the temptation is to say you owe Craig money so see what happens. That is stupid, and ignores the notion of sunk cost. That money's gone - so make the best baseball decision. Now if you think he can return to the land of .370/.450 slash, wonderful but the burden is on him. I would not bet anything meaningful.

The high performing professionals thing is a bit of a canard. If Sandoval were not a pro, somehow he would not have been a key guy on a few title teams. That analysis is often bent to fit narrative. What we have seen so far from the "string" is that: - There is clearly some there there with Henry Owens - nobody putting him in the Cy Young voting, but there is a foundation there. Owens and Rodriguez are a good place to start. I'd say keep Buchholz - for all the injury warts he is so cheap relative to performance when healthy that it makes sense. - The rotation does not need the sledgehammer - seriously. You take the kiddos, Porcello, Miley and Wright and that is a rotation which can work, of course given Porcello straightens his issues out. Whether or not he is a 4 WAR pitcher is in debate, but that he is better than replacement level shouldn't be. - There are more reasons to keep Cherington than to dump him - and if the front office stops worrying about NESN ratings and just let the baseball operation flow, things will go better. The parts of the org which is outside of the WEEI/NESN purview has been productive. - Not quite the same for Farrell. He has not been the tactical disaster that a Matheny, Matt Williams, Brad Ausmus or Ned Yost have been to varying degrees. But he has not created value the way that Bochy, Francona, Girardi etc do, either tactically or developmentally. And this year's system wide underperformance has to reflect on him first. Fortunately with the increasing use of analytics and such, finding managers with both analytic and ex-baller cred is not as hard as it used to be. Obviously previous managing is a must in whatever context. (doesn't mean big league managing necessarily - but actually doing the job) - 1B is the biggest question in terms of upgrades. You can do it with clever platooning or just aiming high for a guy, but clearly they need more from an offensive position than they have been getting. - Now a good corner bat would be nice, but there is some merit in just riding out Castillo and seeing where it ends up. His performance the next two months is important, if nothing else to keep him in play as an asset. (if a team thinks he can start, he is priced very very well) The path to where the team wants to be is not that daunting. Some good targeted moves (and a managerial change) and it might fly.

Oh that's obvious. But if Nava suddenly looked like a .377 OBP guy over THESE two weeks, nobody should be surprised. His non-performance most likely would have been fixed by just getting regular burn.

Over 67 whole PAs. .372 OBP last year vs righties, .377 career. Strong candidate to bounce back.

a bit??? Toronto is the best offensive team in baseball!

Good claim for the Rays - Nava is limited but he does one thing very well - hit righthanded pitching. For a team chasing a playoff spot it's not so bad - a bench bat who will be especially handy if they can force their way into a playoff game.

Angels opening will be interesting - like the Red Sox there are some "power structure" questions. Basically the GM is stuck with Scioscia. Red Sox have some questions to answer on that front obviously - but they never cheaped out on that stuff, and there is a substantial network of guys with both experience and Red Sox experience, which are both valuable.

Iglesias for Peavy was not a good deal on paper - though entirely defensible by the "flags fly forever" perspective The Lackey deal was probably the worst - not a "worst deal forever and ever and ever" ... but certainly did not turn a significant asset into commesurate return.

Owens was good - got twice through the order nicely. Deception is real and so is the junk. Quite a bit to build on. Third time was dicier - but that is the case for almost every starter these days.