sk7326

Some of this makes sense. You have to evaluate which prospects are GOING to be part of the big league future and who you are "hoping" will be part of the big league future. Boegarts is clearly a piece for us. Marrero, Middlebrooks are "hopes" although Middlebrooks has a significant lead with all of those big league at-bats. Merrero is not really part of the future, and Cecchini could be. I agree Drew does not need to be brought back - especially since he will get some attention, he has rebuilt his career here. Does this team have a huge need? I'd actually say "not really". 1B and LF are unsexy, but what great management (Friedman, Theo/Cherington) know is that platoons can very cheaply and ably source those positions. Abreu is worth looking at, though the red flags are definitely there (scouting reports of average bat speed, already as old as Cespedes was when he got to the bigs, little history of Cuban prospects being big league ready on day 1). If you want to allocate your money for a big money 1B, you want it to go to your 2012 Adrian Gonzalez (the Red Sox signing of him was totally defensible, there was always some risk he'd slip, just not that quickly). But if we are doing a Carp-Gomes-Napoli dance to fill 1B/LF - that will not worry me one bit.

Iglesias could be a generational DEFENSIVE shortstop ... can he hit well enough, that is an open question. But I have no guilt about dealing him for Peavy. Shortstop - we had options. And when you see the plays Drew has made over the weekend, he is no slouch.

Has been a triumph of approach - Sanchez has dominated but the Red Sox have weirdly "made him work". Oh sweet walks!

True: Hitters with a .350-.400 OBP are a pain in the ass to pitchers, period. The players ARE human - and I do not dispute that there an intangibles. But they do show up in the end product - that is the whole point. If having a 50 SB guy were essential, then more good teams would have them. But they're not. They are nice to have, but line drive power and the ability to just get on base no matter what are nicer. This is not a paean against stolen bases - I like them. But getting to first base is WAY more important, and there is no such thing as clogging the basepaths with runners.

The Tigers are a dreadful defensive team although excellent in 2 places. What UZR can point out is if somebody has had a good year - but one year's data does not help much about the actual player's overall ability. Jackson had a down year - but he is an elite CF defensively. Napoli may or may not be a good defensive 1B, but he had good results this year - certainly enough to show he is at least as good as Fielder there. And yeah Infante is solid as well - though more of a utility guy who hits better than one. UZR is not perfect, just the best tool we have in the evolving area of defensive measurement. That said, there are holes. Even among outfielders there are certain flaws like fielders who play home games at Fenway where I think the field is the perfect combination of tiny (so little credit for ranging) and plenty of extra base hits to not be able to get. It has to be complemented by the scouting view.

When I was a kid, I remember Roger Craig with the Giants as a splitter guru ... now the guy in the bigs is someone like Don Cooper in Chicago who has rescued so many schlubs by teaching cutters. Or at least "see how a cutter looks" is a useful first stop for a guy who is a rescue case. UN is right that with all of the specialization, the curves still persist, although specialists are taking up the slack for any observed downturn in starter usage. Definitely the screwball has been phased out - the circle change gets the same job done with far less effort.

Stolen bases is not a strength for Bradley - but his speed is good. This is not uncommon - Bernie Williams was basically this way and he turned out OK. Stolen bases in this day and age are nice to have, but not an essential quality, even to be a good baserunner. One thing to remember too about defense is - it is one of the things that often improves through coaching - there is generally very little defensive fundamentals taught at the amateur level. Even big league fielding coaches still add a lot of value thee. Ellsbury came up a shaky "reader" who could cover up mistakes with his speed - he is much better now. No reason Bradley can't have that sort of arc - he is probably better already than Ellsbury was when he entered the league.

You are right - Choo is a bad CF. He was forced to play there by the Reds due to their alignment. Here he would play LF most likely. He will be more like "decent" than bad there.

Some pitches have lost luster, often for health reasons (although not sure how much of those concerns are fair). Splitter, Screwball ... I still see the curve a lot, although clearly the preference is to work off the fastball. Starters I think in older times had a lot of pitches to mess around with, but now the philosophy is to throw 3 pitches well and focus on that. It is hard to start without a quality 3rd pitch - especially something that can impact both sides of the plate.

Choo will get an 8-figure salary. He'll probably get 4 years too. The question about his value as teams assess him will probably be whether they think he can hit lefties enough to not be a minus. That to me will be the main driver of his contract. I agree that Gomes/Nava/Carp can do a sufficient job - not as good as Choo, but close enough, close enough for the Sox to not have to go crazy in the market.

Tigers defense is horrid. Cabrera is the worst 3B in the league and Fielder is below average at 1B (much more an example of how teams have historically used 1B/LF, as a place to hide somebody who can't field). Victor Martinez might catch in the NL park but that's it. The Tigers have TWO legitimately excellent defenders and lucky for them they are both in the middle of the field (Iglesias and Jackson). But otherwise Boston outflanks them across the board. Middlebrooks has the tools to be above average, Drew, Pedroia and Napoli have all been good to very good. The outfield defense has only LF as a weak spot, but in Fenway the LF defensive "norms" go out the window. Salty is an average to slightly below average catcher, but honestly nothing that causes one to think Boston is at a minus there - and if you add Ross in, the position is in solid shape.

Sorry ... MY early pick, Tigers in 7 ... etc etc etc

The early pick is Tigers in 7 ... the ability to miss bats is enough ... barely. If this sounds like at least a partial reverse jinx - I'll let you decide.

Right on Gomes - I keep forgetting him. I do think the larger point holds - the red flag on Choo if there is one is that he has over the last 3 years a significant platoon split. That would need to be addressed - either with a Gomes playing a good amount or just living with him being a .6xx OPS guy against lefties. It's not a terminal problem necessarily (Ortiz has made giant strides the last couple of years there), but still something which diminishes his value to me if I were playing GM.

I don't know if it was feast or famine - I'd say it is fairly similar. The difference between then and 2013 was honestly that this year we were coming off of the Valentine disaster. In those years we were coming off of perennial contenders. But you look at 2007 when we had a juggernaut. 2008 it was a tough loss to Tampa but an incredibly gritty, tough series against a team that was clearly not a fluke. 2010 was one of Francona's finest managing jobs - 89 wins with a team that had to play Darnell McDonald a lot and were just torched by injury all season. Injuries also were a primary driver of 2011's stuff. I look at it this way - 8 years is a long time, so Francona might have been right to leave. But the Red Sox have regained their mojo with Theo's right hand man and Francona's pitching coach ... that speaks volumes about the real verdict on the 2003-2011 system that was in place. I am just grateful the opportunity was there to correct the panic-driven overreaction that was the 2011 offseason.

The reads and such are less the problem than just covering the ground. It's why he has been magic in RF - because you'd expect an average-ish CF to be a knockout RF. He has delivered on that front. I have no fear of Bradley earning the gig.

The tricky thing with keeping all of those guys is that if anything Choo could use a right handed partner - and the current guys don't provide that (Victorino aside and he is not platooning with anybody). Nava switchhits but is FAR less useful as a righty - and Carp, Bradley etc etc are lefty too. I'd rather not move Victorino to CF full time, clearly the corner position has really helped him in all aspects ... he is still a good defensive CF, but he will be less good most likely heading into his mid 30s - and keeping him in a corner still allows him to provide a ton of value on that side of the field. I say be ready for Bradley in CF and deal with Choo from a position of strength.

Boston's bullpen is nothing special - 10th in ERA this season. Detroits also not special - 12th. Now, what is interesting is that for the most part, bullpen ERA did not correlate much with who actually was successful. Tampa was 7th, Toronto was 4th. In 2012, this was more in line with Tampa, Oakland, Baltimore, leading the pack. Though once again Detroit 10th, Yanks 7th, Rangers 6th. Red Sox 4th in 2011 and so on. On the other hand: 2013: The top 5 teams in Starters ERA: Detroit, Oakland, Tampa, Boston, Kansas City (with Cleveland, Texas taking next 2 spots) 2012: Tampa, Detroit, Oakland, Seattle, Anaheim (Yankees #6, Rangers #8) 2011: Tampa, Anaheim, Texas, Oakland, Yankees, Mariners, Tigers Basically starter's ERA has been a much more durable predictor of playoff timber than bullpen ERA. I guess what I am saying is - we quibble about the Red Sox middle relief, but I'd temper it by noting: 1. Middle relief is the weak spot of EVERY bullpen, even the good ones 2. If we are getting into any bullpen early our chances to win go up The Red Sox back of the bullpen is very strong, stronger than Detroit's ... if we are counting on 5th and 6th inning guys to win a postseason series, we have much bigger problems.

Offenses were nearly identical in production, though the Tigers are a little more top heavy. The Red Sox ability to start rallies from any spot in the order - as well as them just being healthier, gives them an edge. But I am expecting this to be a grind.

One of the big edges Boston had with the way the series broke down is only having to face Verlander in Games 3 and 7. Yeah it sucks to get him for a Game 7, but if this series gets to 7 - we are depending on a coin flip anyway. The Tigers have the edge in the rotation, with a LOT of bat-missers. But clearly ours is plenty good enough and is CAPABLE of outpitching anybody in a short series - we just saw that.

Well this year was only Choo's 2nd 5-win caliber season, which puts him in line with Ellsbury. But yes, the games played matter and Choo has made more of them. The dangers with Choo are an alarming split against lefties, and just the general risk of giving any 31 year old corner guy a contract into his mid-30s. Free agent signings are - as a general rule - losing propositions so it's something you have to live with. I do think his ghastly defensive numbers this year are really a function more of playing out of position than anything - move him to LF and things will be fine, even if the metrics might not show it. (Fenway's left field has confounded UZR through the history of the tool) His on-base skills might not be .423 for the next 2-3 years, but solid high .300s are completely reasonable. I do think the probability of him maintaining his value is greater than Ellsbury over the next 4 years.

It is so silly - baseball's economic system is probably the most stable outside of the NFL (where so much of the revenue is centralized). Is it sad that Tampa has to trade guys? Sure - but they at least do not have to maintain a minimum payroll (and thus employ useless veterans) and tie Friedman's hands behind his back. That was the beauty of Moneyball for baseball fans - it took the excuses for smaller market teams and created some expectations.

Here is the thing using the Victorino comparison. Victorino was a really shaky deal at the signing - a lot of projection for a guy who had a poor season with increasingly intolerable splits. The Red Sox blew the market away with that signing. 32 years old, coming off of a bad season with increasing evidence he could not hit righties ... that did not make for an $13M player. The Red Sox did a good job projecting the defensive impact - more than what a lot of folks expected - and when Victorino scrapped switch hitting, his ghastly platoon split went with it. He doesn't even have to be that good the next 2 seasons for the contract to be a major win for the Red Sox. Ellsbury has a lot more going for him entering the market - he was arguable the Red Sox best player his last 2 healthy seasons. Of course there is the rub - and because he is 30 and not 27/28 like BJ Upton was entering the market last year, it is harder to close your eyes and dream of any yet-to-be-realized upside. (never mind that Upton fell on his face, there is at least more prime years to project at his age) I'd like him back - but it is hard to commit the years that undoubtedly somebody will offer him.

Actual age, assessment of defense matter. Using those numbers though it'd be non-Ellsbury.

Sox-Cards would be a good series. So would the Dodgers - a grand stage for Kershaw, Puig is nothing but good for baseball.