sk7326

Well of THOSE, maybe. But he has a couple of elite tools (arm, power) and looks capable of staying at 3B. Chavis' probability is higher but not sure the ceiling is higher.

Everybody knew he couldn't really catch - the problem was that he couldn't hit either.

I am inclined to mark JD up a little bit because he was a DH - he was asked for one dimension and he delivered. But not enough to crack the Top 4 or so. Trout-Betts-Ramirez is a clear Top 3. Betts to me is the best choice, and only Trout is a fair guy to pick over him.

I can see that - but so much of the other stuff is outside the player's control. Should Trout or De Grom be penalized because their GMs did not do their thing properly?

Dalbec is the ceiling guy. 24 is not old for AA (it's not young either). But yeah, he has to be able to get his bat on the ball, at least enough for his power to show. He looks like he should be able to stay at 3B. He is their most interesting position prospect but without great probability.

Eovaldi's market is fascinating. Kershaw extended his 30M a year deal with LA. But if you did not know their names and saw them pitch you'd have a hard time thinking Eovaldi did not have better stuff.

(baseball players do not participate in a free market)

Eovaldi locked down the 12th, 13th, the 14th, the 15th, the 16th, the 17th - those all were pretty big deals

He was very good. His fundamentals were not great with an absurdly low BABIP and shaky command. There are very few special closers - Mariano Riveras aren't around every day and 2013 Koji Uehara sure as hell isn't. Closers - at least the middle 95% of them - aren't magic.

His view of what a ludicrous contract was weird. Plus, he got his economic theory way wrong.

it's not because of your point Now - Swihart's development path has been screwed up by injuries, and that's what it is. I don't know if he is a starter - even if I still like him. There is enough uncertainty in history to not be a sure thing. The real question is whether the World Series version of Vaszquez can be relied upon. He doesn't have to be good - but a .260/.300/.350 sort is good enough to be a perfectly good starting catcher (when considering his defense). If they only carry 2 catchers Leon would be a reluctant odd man out for me. But I have no issue keeping 3.

But his bat is what made him famous enough to have a reputation

Gold Gloves so often end up reflecting fame and offense - that they even get one right at all is always a surprise to me.

possibly in some general ways, but football is its own unicorn (a really short season, few guaranteed deals)

That is silly - but the WAR leaders is a good place to start. WAR is not precise enough to take as gospel, especially with smaller margins. As such, Betts and Trout are far and away the best choices for the award. Ramirez, Lindor, Bregman and Chapman are clearly a step down but worthy of consideration, and in many other seasons WOULD be serious MVP candidates. JD Martinez I'd put up there too - while the fact he added no defensive value is a fair minus for him ... I mitigate that somewhat by noting that his job was to hit the baseball and he was elite there. Betts is a fairly easy choice in that the narrative and the numbers match. But Trout is certainly deserving. Betts' edges in WAR come from defense - but a lot of THAT edge comes from playing RF where the baseline performance is lower. Would that edge hold up if Trout played RF and Betts played CF. There is reason to believe they are basically tied. The problem with talking about team success is that in reality you are evaluating the other 24 player on the roster - when you are supposed to be evaluating the player.

The 2018 Red Sox deserve to be on any of those lists where you'd put the 1976 Reds, the 1998 Yankees, the 1970 Orioles (I'll leave out the 2001 Mariners since they did not win it all, though that was an incredible season on its own terms), any of those old timey Yankees teams. They are unquestionably one of the greatest single season teams in history.

Who said they were being gotten out randomly? Of course teams lose and win for a reason. I've used the term randomness - but I should have restated it ... it's noise in the data. Put another way - since you brought up gambling - there is no doubt that Phil Ivey (or whatever famous poker player you want) is a better poker player than me. If we played a ton of hands, he'd clobber me (assuming I had not busted out by then). But - I'm going to run into a few wins here and there. It might be because he makes a mistake (since he is not perfect), or I make a mistake (since I do at least know something about poker), but most likely it's because you play the percentages but the cards went my way. In horse racing, the long shot only has to win the race once. Given the nature of baseball (the rotating pitchers in particular) - a best of 5/7 is not much more certain (if at all) than single elimination. There is just a lot of variability - much more than any other sport's playoffs. In the micro, there are specific reasons (of course there are) why any single event occurs. There will never be a Super Bowl III in the baseball playoffs.

Not really - Cubs had the same problem. You look at the team scouting ranks and the top is dominated by teams without recent major league track record. The likelihood that a team has put together a serious contender while sustaining oodles of stars at AA-AAA are extremely low. The math just doesn't add up. Farm systems are supremely important ... but I think the "Farm" term is specifically appropriate. There's a harvest, and then a new crop - but there will be lag there. There certainly has not been enough time to judge Dombrowski's replenishment efforts in either direction.

I look at the playoffs like I do March Madness ... it's likely that a pretty good team will win it all. It's not guaranteed - and there are upsets all the time. It's not guaranteed chalk, like the NBA playoffs. There have been some amazing teams (see 2018 Sox) that have won, and some very meh teams (the 1987 Twins, the 2006 Cardinals) who have won too. After all, it's about playing 1 good month of baseball - and basically all of the teams who make the playoffs are capable of that. It's what makes it fun. I mean - David Ortiz in 2013 and Johnny Damon in 2004 will be remembered for ALCS heroics ... during series they hit a combined 8 for 57. It's why the game is awesome.

I am grateful for every title ... the Red Sox were the best team in the league. The 162 game season was the best evidence of that.

4 of the 5 Astros games were on the table in the 8th. The Dodgers could have won games 2 and 5 with a break here and there. "The inches we need are everywhere" ;-) But they are inches.

A missile right hand landing can - indeed boxing is the land of the ten-run homerun, where you can lose every second of a fight until Boom! But yes, there is less randomness - physical domination is hard to overcome. With baseball those gaps are not the same. There ARE gaps, but they are relatively small. And with the outsized importance of pitching, the gaps are often temporary.

If the 2004 team could be physically relocated closer to the Mississippi River ...

2004 will always have my heart - really it was the win that made it hard to be angry anymore at losses. (the Celtics losing to the Lakers in 2010 was the closest I've gotten since) Every other title is special of course - this year because my oldest is old enough to at least understand why daddy has this mental disease.

The 2013 team was eerily similar to the 2018 one ... led from wire to wire, beat the defending AL champion in the LCS (including surprisingly beating Justin Verlander) and then beat a better Saint Louis team than the Dodgers team they faced.