sk7326

It is a positive event for an out ... I don't think players or managers are necessarily looking for it over - say a base hit. In general the out-for-run trade is a bad one ... obviously there are particular non-pitcher hitting cases where it helps (in particular, if you really need exactly one run). But in general sacrificing and trading outs is not a great strategy.

I agree in general - but this week there might be a roster need for Boegarts or Bradley. Both guys can backup multiple positions - which will help in NL park-land.

If you go with some comps. Edwin Jackson got 4/52 almost entirely because he can provide mid-rotation innings without getting hurt. Dempster got 2/24 for the same reason. Given the usual salary inflation - you figure the salary for sheer "durability" is $14-15. Lester next offseason could ask for 4/60 and not be at all out of his mind. The evaluation of Shields is tough because while you have his crazy consistency and durability - I agree with you about whether he is actually a lights out pitcher. He has pitched in pitcher's parks his whole career and his xFIP numbers are not amazing. I would not hesitate going 4-5 years with him because of his track record of consistency. But yeah, I'd be thinking $16-18.

The Sox are going to need an extra position player on deck this week - might be an opportune time to get Boegarts a cup of coffee. As I've noted before - his playoff eligibility is a non-issue, they have enough season-ending injury DL slots to get him on regardless of the actual call up. The callup will be on merit. Team could use a spark - although the 14-13 record is against a very tough slate of opponents. It is not as bad as it seems - and they have not actually lost much to the standings.

The years will be tough - but the division history is attractive. If you sign him (as Boston), you are not signing him expecting a #1. But his history, his low effort mechanics - you expect a guy who can crank out 200 innings without drama or injury. There is a lot of value there in this market. It's the Jon Lester thing - it's easy to knock the peak, but guys who can crank out 30-35 average-above average starts while never getting hurt is a hard trait to find and something you need in the marathon.

Stuff is terrific - but what is interesting is that his splitter movement is much more of a tumble than you normally see - not the late hard movement of a Hideo Nomo or somebody. It is a much more effective swing and miss pitch than you'd think. He has been marvelous - and has held up much more than anybody could expect in terms of sheer durability. I expect him to get some 8th inning calls during the stretch as he has been used very carefully and he does not waste pitches.

trip will be interesting - continue a trend of running into a lot of pitcher's parks lately. The alarming sign for the offense were the issues in Toronto, which is a bit of a launching pad. This is another trip I could see Boegarts being called up for in theory - NL parks means you probably want to carry fewer pitchers than normal if you can.

Oh sure - but at the same time fans knew a lot less generally in 1941. Less was tracked - the old stats were all we had. It's one of the reasons I had very little patience with the "But Triple Crown!" argument for Cabrera over Trout. We know so much more about value now than we did in the old days (and even Williams in his .406 season did not win the MVP!). The exceptions for BA are very silly - I definitely agree there.

... don't get caught up in an angle that was used to sell newspapers. The pros who led a title winning juggernaut did not grow into lesser people - broken down and/or lesser players perhaps - that doesn't stand any level of credibility.

It's silly - and the idea of the sacrifice fly itself is silly. Nobody in that case is REALLY trying to make an out. And making outs is - in terms of run prevention and run scoring - the worst thing you can do. For the record, OBP punishes both of those cases equally - and one of the good reasons to use it over BA. BA claims to measure one thing, but OBP measures it better.

The stalwarts that we know and love - those are too easy. Of the non-standard choices ... Daniel Nava and Koji Uehara Uehara in particular - for a guy whose stuff is not that wipeout, just remarkable control ... doesn't mess around

Oh I lived it - but the pitchers were broken down too, the entire rotation had been fighting aches pains, on the DL and whatnot. Just a collision of a bunch of unlikely things - I've always thought the wild overreaction to an amazingly unlikely event was the management's biggest failure since they owned the team. After all in 2011, Lackey's arm as being held together by play-doh, Matsuzaka was gone, Buchholz was gone, Lester had a DL stint, Beckett was working through a bum ankle. Erik Bedard was a guy and they had to start Tim Wakefield and Kyle Weiland's corpses. By comparison, this year's rotation has been the picture of health.

Wily Mo was an interesting case. Horrible pitch recognition. But the Reds burned through his options so quickly that he couldn't be sent to the minors. He needed minor league ABs but the Reds mismanagement made it impossible. He was just good enough to justify seeing if he could turn into a diamond. Abreu looks like he has a more advanced approach (hard to have a less advanced one).

It's a fairly cheap ownership ... I don't think they can compete for Shields, but I do think they will make a qualifying offer and bet on the draft pick compensation making some teams gun shy. I think Shields will be high on the Red Sox shopping list clearly.

The pitching was the other side of it, but a lot of that was a ton of guys hurt badly ... in particular the team's best hitter's body falling to pieces http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/gallery/2011/redsox_2011_injury_report/ That, and the Rays going on a wildly unlikely hot streak. If the Red Sox go .500 the rest of the way, that is 91-71, which is hard to picture missing the playoffs. That being said, the schedule is going to be tough the rest of the way - in particular this week's West Coast Swing, being able to burp out a .500 record would be very helpful.

Teams that get a lot of baserunners in general will have guys with RBIs ... you can get to the "great hitter" question in a lot of other ways. There was a lack of situational hitting - but there is very little evidence situational hitting is actually a repeatable skill (separate from just plain old hitting). The guys at the top of those lists are largely random (as is the teams at the top of the 1-run game lists). Runs scored (silly for the same reason) does not get the same sort of play as a "triple crown" stat yet is every bit as important in the run creation process. I mean when Manny had 165 RBIs, he had an amazing season - but the RBIs were more of a reflection on how amazing Kenny Lofton, Omar Vizquel and Robbie Alomar were that season. Manny almost always had guys to knock in - and often he did.

Red Sox are still in pretty excellent shape - not much has really changed. The Sox have not been amazing since the break: Rays 1-3 Orioles 2-1 Yankees 2-2 Mariners 3-0 DBacks 2-1 Astros 2-1 Royals 1-3 Jays 1-2 14-13 since the break against one of the meatiest portions of their schedule this season. The Jays were the below .500 team they had a losing record against, and those were 3 coin flip games which don't really say anything one way or the other (aside from dem's the breaks). In a virtual tie with Detroit for the best record in the AL and a 1.5 games out from the best record in the league period. Detroit is a better team, but I thought that before the break too. The Sox are 5 games up on a playoff spot with 6 weeks to go. Barring a catastrophic set of injuries like 2011 - they are very high probability to make the tournament.

The stupidest of stats is (of the stats everyone knows) is Saves and Errors. Neither measure what it is supposed to measure particularly well, and both are based on odd criteria. Indeed, an error is - like a basketball assists - an opinion. And errors say nothing about getting to balls, which is a more useful area of defense. Pitcher wins and RBIs are way down there as well for wonky stats - as both are team accomplishments credited to individuals.

Odds are excellent. Just need to keep chopping wood, win series, avoid serious swoons. Blue Jays series was tough - bunch of coin flip games.

Better. Like anyone who has played sports would tell you - the superstars in high school are not the kids who dominated JV as freshman. They are the guys who got rotation minutes with the VARSITY as freshmen. 20 year olds who are competing (and better that) at a grown man level of baseball - those guys almost NEVER miss, the worst case is a guy who sticks around for a decade while we wonder why he underachieved (but by no means a "bust").

Probably the floor barring injury - which is a darn good player. Potentially could be a lot more.

Appeal to authority aside - I'm not dictating a new fangled form of baseball ... more likely musing about baseball from when we were kids, basic Earl Weaver stuff which still works. Now the days of the 100+ appearance by Kent Tekulve or Mike Marshall are clearly over. But the trends of modern bullpens, with 11-12 pitchers without anybody capable of multiple innings is a severe waste of personnel. There are 25 roster spots and you want to use them wisely - and extra pitchers because you are afraid of using your highest paid reliever in an actually stressful situation takes a potential pinch runner, or utility outfielder, or guy who only knows how to hit lefties from the manager's toolbox. Having guys who can actually work multiple innings (like 100 innings a year) would actually be a great benefit - that is separate from the closer discussion. It is tempting to think that the 9th inning is automatically the most important outs in the game. They often are not - and that's why you see so many teams get success just putting random guys into the slot. I'm not even arguing 6 out saves - I'm arguing a much simpler case - if the setup guy does not do his job and creates a real problem ... using a couple of inferior guys just because you are afraid of using your closer for exactly the sort of high pressure situations that are needed - then what are you paying the closer for? To get 3 outs with the bases empty - lots of guys can do that for a lot cheaper than Papelbon.

But you are compensating the closer like he is your best reliever - so if he is not your best reliever, that is a problem. Indeed, I wouldn't even argue that the best reliever should finish the game - it's not so much the argument for the 5 out save happening more frequently, it's arguing for using Papelbon to get the game's most significant out and then move on to someone else to clean it up. The idea that a guy is the guy for the biggest situation but too big a slacker the rest of the time to work a 9th inning is counterintuitive.

Saves were invented by a writer ... Jerome Holtzman ... has no real basis in anything else

Well, here is some research done on win expectancy given a situation http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/other/wpa_inquirer.php that can say some things about closers and what is a key situation: If you take the numbers based on how average teams do - basically you take a 1 run lead into the 9th inning without baserunners - the Win Probability is 88.03% basically need to cash in 9 out 10 of these sorts of games to be doing your job as a closer. A 2-run lead, the probabilty goes to 95.27% - in other words, you'd want your closer to be able to nail down 19 of 20 of these. (note the win prob goes down if you are the road team as there is no chance to come back from a blown lead). A 3-run lead, the probability goes to 98.07%, basically 49 out of 50 save chances. If a closer has an equal number of those sorts of games, you are looking at 94% being sort of the required number, a bit less than 19/20 in save chances to be doing a "good job". Obviously the percentages go up based on outs as well, if you have one out to get with the bases empty and a 1 run lead, it becomes 97.34% (basically 30 of 31 chances). What is interesting is the four out save ... if a reliever comes in with a 1 run lead with 2 gone in the 8th, here are some win probs: runner at 1st: 84.93% runner at 2nd: 82.12% runner at 3rd: 81.23% 1st and 2nd: 80.12% 1st and 3rd: 78.57% 2nd and 3rd: 75.02% bases loaded: 72.40% 2nd and 3rd in a tie game?: 47.20% When you get to a late situation - something like 2nd and 3rd and 2 out ... that final out protecting a 1 run lead is worth almost a 16% increase in the expected win% - more crucial than any of the 9th inning situations during that game. It is mystifying how many managers are squeamish about using your best pitcher then.