sk7326

Sox paid a lot of money for Dice K, got some decent value ... was it a success? No, although it was not a failure of scouting or anything. One always got the sense that it was Matsuzaka himself. His amazing ability to limit BABIP (and it is a skill he seemed to legitimately have) allowed him to be decent at times despite being truly horrid to watch for almost all of his career. His 2008 season was probably one of the most overrated seasons in history. His 2007 was at least as good without the shiny sub 3.00 ERA to show for it.

To be fair, a genius by Ron Washington standards

The NL has closed the gap that has formed over the last 10 years. But it is not shut. Boston and Detroit are the two best teams in baseball and have proven it (Oakland is close). It don't mean a damn thing in October because that's how the game works - but I'd still pick an AL team blindly over an NL team. The ballpark edge an AL team has is profound - although any best of seven is basically coin flip.

The "they are scouting him" stories I think tend to be leverage plays by some source. Teams are getting dimes on everybody. And there is no information advantage in the Nippon league, everybody knows the talent industrywide. I think if they see the stuff and the approach, he'd interest them. With the Japanese guys, the latter is often the problem.

I think they have zero interest in how many times he strikeouts. Clearly that is an area where the team's development is relatively indifferent (and that's fine - strikeouts for a hitter aren't special). It has been the general approach and how long his swing got. He's never going to be an on-base machine but he can do enough to get to his power, which yeah is pretty good.

I doubt I am - I certainly don't think Salty's better. But for the price and the years - sure. Salty has been more durable, has been roughly McCann's equal this year, and projects to be a 120 start guy for longer. Metrics this year on the two were roughly the same - Salty's arm is much inferior for sure, but neither is any sort of Molina here. Let's put it this way - he has made a lot of improvement across the board, enough to be a legitimate starter for the next 3 years - and there are precious few catchers out there who can say that. Trading Salty's next 3 years for McCann's is not a slam dunk at all - especially on a per dollar basis.

Over the career - sure. But he has a lot more miles (despite close in age) - and the results have slipped. Both are probably middle of the pack by now - which is fine. McCann's reputation is stellar, but his ability to catch is on the decline in a way that Salty's ain't.

Throwing he is not good, but he is a solid receiver otherwise - at least as good defensively as McCann - if he just went all Victorino and gave up switch hitting he'd be much more valuable despite the clear developmental leaps forward he has made the last 2 seasons.

Pierzynsi and Ruiz are old ... not multi year solutions ... it's really a 2 man market with a dropoff. If Salty promised to stop pretending he can hit righthanded, I'd be happy to give him 3 years. (at a market reasonable price)

The catcher market is virtually nil - this is why Salty is going to get a very handsome salary from somebody ... and why if the Red Sox were that team I would not be upset. Corner outfielders - you can always find somebody decent, or (like Boston has) cobble together a FrankenLeftFielder platoon which does the job about 85% as well as a true stud at 25-50% of the cost.

Basically what I'd note is - just because you get the odd Lars Anderson or Andy Marte does not mean that ALL prospects (or even most) with those crackerjack traits - conquering levels at a young age - does not mean that the process or the evaluation is not sound. The odds are still with you ... I mean my reaction to missing on Anderson is *shrug* it happens.

The thing to me with prospects is - age + level to me is the simplest way to evaluate them. It's just the principle that anybody who has played sports knows. The kid conquering JV means nothing to me - but the freshman who can get reps, even as a substitute, with the varsity ... THAT is who you bet on.

But what does beating them out mean. It does not reflect in the stats necessarily - it could just be coaching and scouting outcomes. Bradley clearly has shown he can handle CF defensively and at the plate he knows what he is doing, though it has not translated into results fully. Any promotion (like a signing) is a bet - but a bet on a kid with a lot of natural growth remaining. The Lars Anderson sort of regression as a 23 year old is very rare.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but "scouting the stat line" is generally a bad way to operate.

You need to have conviction to play Bradley and the ability to not listen to the WEEI callers or Globe writers if/when he struggles (this applies to Bogaerts too). The thing with Bradley is that his defense and his approach will allow him to contribute as long as he is hitting .240 or so (i.e. not a total offensive zero). He will draw enough walks to be able to at least not be an automatic out (the way Napoli was able to still cobble at bats together despite his wicked July swoon) while the other stuff is worked on.

Evidence is a shaky thing on prospects. Lars Anderson's case is very much an exception - one of the weirdest of them all, usually guys who are performing at levels they are young for are very high probability guys. In the long run, betting on guys like that works. (just like, as Tampa would attest, despite the volatility of prospects, drafting very high still works quite well) The Japanese guy is worth signing if he is better than your alternatives in a meaningful way. The history if Nippon league starters would lead you to believe that this is in fact not true - Darvish's style is much more "American" than the guys they have generally produced. The more typical examples have been the Nomos or Matsuzakas, not pitching to contact, wasting a lot of time etc.

Jung is right to a degree, but the Red Sox drafted and developed him - so it is kind of unlikely that they do not recognize his hitting personality. The team has had aggressive approach guys before too - most of them playing shortstop. Middlebrooks can be effective - even a good player - without being a great on-base sort. What did happen in his minor league tour was that the stance seemed to get quieted down some - so fewer parts of his swing can break down. Really Middlebrooks is like Josh Reddick - the on-base is not going to ever be high, but it can be good enough to let his power do work.

You just have to be strong about - wheeling out Trot Nixon and his .140 batting average in 1998 - sticking with Pedroia. And if you REALLY need a backup plan, then go to the trade market for it. We can sign some veteran chum for these positions - but it will almost certainly result in a downgrade, just one with some certainty. Certainly Bradley's .250/.320/.380 would be better than a veterans. The Sox will not just give a position to someone who has not earned it, but if you are giving the job to a kid, then you have to mean it and not have an itchy trigger finger about it.

1. I suspect they expected more than what the fans and media were expecting. There was a lot of "worst possible outcomes" that came true with a lot of these guys the last year plus. We did not need guys to be amazing - to just be a version of their normal selves. (that certainly held with Ellsbury, Pedroia) 2. This is the formula they had in 2003, 2004 too - really 2012 was the first major departure from a very on-base centric approach. It is less about some sort of adherence to a philosophy than it is signing players who are wired that way already. Some guys just want to take the bat off their shoulder, and coaching can only do so much. 3. Mid-tier starters are dicey, I agree. But what we have seen across baseball over and over again is that you can efficiently cobble together solid platoons from cheaper guys. That has been the team's masterstroke this season - effectively using platoons to wallpaper over their weak spots. What is funny is that a lot of this sort of stuff is really just an extension of stuff Earl Weaver knew and espoused many moons ago.

Sale's delivery raises serious questions about future durability ... it's not impossible that he retains the value, but he is a risky get. Hernandez is effectively unavailable I imagine for fan reasons at least, but if you are going to go wit a basket of prospects (Bogaerts included) ... and Seattle has almost nobody who they can turn into a meaningful path to being respectable again - there is at least a conversation to be had there. Arguably best pitcher in baseball, flawless mechanics, 2 years younger than Jon Lester ... I know, it's a dream and there is too much risk aversion among all parties to do something that big.

Choo makes a ton of sense - yeah he is a little older than what you'd want to give 4-5 years to, but skillset is durable and he has been excellent playing out of position this year. Put him in LF, and no worries. Re-signing Salty is fine with me. Neither he nor McCann are great defensive catchers - and Salty is a better receiver (it's just the arm that has been a problem, and slowing the running game is a Red Sox issue forever). He will get a contract which will be a bit stunning, but there are literally no catchers with starting level talent available outside of those two. Salty is a legit starter - yeah you could use a righty partner to go with him, or just tell him to do what Victorino has done and just say F it - but he has legitimately developed over the last two seasons. Stanton is a fun name - and a good player, and the sort of guy that makes sense for a longer commitment. All of that is true. But for the Red Sox, you can find enough corner production without selling the farm, and there is not much marginal sacrifice. He is not a transformational sort of guy - like say Felix Hernandez (imo at least). BTW: Not saying a King Felix trade is realistic at all, but if you are going to sell the future, THAT is what you are talking about.

It's not the big money that was the problem - it was the big money at 30 year olds (and even the Gonzalez trade was not a poor evaluation - the result did not work out). Stanton is 23, huge difference. Now I wouldn't empty the farm for him - but the big money should not be a reason not to want him. This is why you grow the prospects in part. The philosophy of the FO is not new at all, it's just reverting to the 2003-2010 edition which did quite nicely. Honestly where the FO is now is an admission that 2011 did not require a drastic shift ... and that 2012 (the drastic shift) was proof

Defensive Runs Saved is derived from a zone rating ... BBRef uses Total Zone Rating rather than UZR ... BBRef's Total Zone is helpful for their mission, which is to be able to put zone ratings on every player in history. Fangraphs and BBRef use the same defensive metrics for life before 2002. Also, 8.2 v 8.1 with something like rWAR is not enough to scream better - but it definitely allows that argument. Small differences in WAR invite diving into the components. Boggs was the better player, there is no doubting that. But Ellsbury's 2011 does compare favorably with Boggs (or most anybody else's) very best.

Ellsbury's 2011 was a 9.1/8.1 WAR sort of season - depending on which flavor you prefer. Basically that was Mike Trout territory - but obviously there is no reason to think that will come back. Ellsbury's best season beats Boggs narrowly from an fWAR view, Boggs by a nose in the bWAR world. Wade Boggs was a great player (and very strange dude) for a long time, so this is no insult. Ellsbury is a 6 win player this year which would place him in the Top 20 or so position players in the league - which I think is fair. He is the 3rd or 4th best CF in the league ... Trout, McCutchen for sure ... Kemp if you want but you'd have to answer more profound durability issues than even Ellsbury has. Gomez is fascinating but the track record and reliance on defensive metrics inspires some skepticism. But we buy his future, not his present - for him to absorb a position switch he will either have to be a defensive wizard like Victorino (whose bounceback season is a legit surprise btw) or hit like a quasi-slugger. I just don't see either happening. Bradley WILL be a dropoff next year - but that should not last very long.

Honestly, if the team just said F it, we'll go with 10 pitchers ... that would be optimal. Yeah some lefty feelings will be hurt, but whatever.