sk7326

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.

The one less pitcher should be a non factor in the postseason - short series, not using all of your starters ... you don't need to stack the bullpen. The choice for the 11 man staff ties their hands more than needed, but whatchagonnado. Berry is a better pinch runner than Bradley - but Bradley runs well and can definitely get from 1st to 3rd. And he can be a defensive replacement if Ellsbury's foot or Victorino's hammy warrants one.

Berry HAS attempted steals before though ... and more than that the ability to get from 1st to 3rd on a non trivial hit or score on a double matters too. I don't think the stolen base has to be the extent of his value on the bases. I lean towards Bradley myself just because Ellsbury and Victorino have both missed time this season and have nagging things going on - and with the roster limitations, having a guy who can actually start at those positions carries some extra weight.

Well, Ells has a good argument here since the difference in positions matter quite a bit. But it's that very positional factor that really shoots a hole in the "future value" case.

You bat leadoff one time a game. And lineup protection does not have much empirical oomph behind it - if he were a "20 HR guy" he'd have been one this season. I am being realistic - clone his 2013 for five years, at the plate and in the field ... you've sold me. But if he has to move to LF - then he basically has to turn into 2011 Ellsbury to be pumping out the same output 2013 Ellsbury the CF is producing. It's not a very good bet for a guy going into typical decline years.

They are paying Pedroia a lot less ... both in terms of now and what that money looks like when he is 38. And 2B is an easier position to wallpaper over than a below average CF. And Ellsbury has beaten his 2013 season exactly one time in terms of production, and two times in terms of plate appearances.

As well you should - he was the position player MVP of the league that year, easily. But we're talking future production here.

As well you should - he was the position player MVP of the league that year, easily. But we're talking future production here.

To be fair, the league average OBP was .320 or so. Ellsbury's .357 ish sort of OBP is certainly good. To use his 2011 as any sort of barometer for the next 5 years is stupid clearly. That said, if he could repeat his 2013 ... which is basically a good Tim Raines season with better defense (not a GREAT Tim Raines season - if you want criminally undervalued HoF candidate) ... for 5 years, he'd certainly be worth the price he is wishing for. The odds of that actually happening are very very low.

Home field is nice but assures very little. Starting with the Red Sox ... they won 2/3 of their home games and 1/2 of the roadies. So - to keep things simple, 2/3 likely they win a home game, 1/2 likely they win a road game against average competition. If they have home field, you'd expect a 3 game sweep to occur (in a best of 5) 22% of the time. If they DIDN'T have home field, it drops to 17%. It's a significant drop, but not as stark as you think. (extend this out to all of the other best of 5 scenarios and the Red Sox would be 70% with home field, 63% without) Now, in real life - against better competition you are probably looking at more like 60% at home, 40% on the road. Then you are talking about a drop from 54% to 46%, which is the difference between favorite and underdog although still basically a coin flip. Probabilities aside, home field is one extra home game per series - assuming coin flip odds the rest of the time. But does it matter THAT much for a single game? In sports like basketball and football without a doubt - but in baseball, the rotating starting pitcher basically means you are playing a different team every day in the series. You go to individual matchups and such then - I mean in a best of 7 you are basically evaluating #3 starters.