sk7326

Trout, Betts, Ramirez, Bregman, Lindor, Chapman all seem reasonable. Martinez too. But Trout and Betts are a cut above and neither of them are bad choices.

There are six candidates who would not be scandalous. But Trout and Betts clearly stand above the crowd.

the writers have progressively gotten better. old people die eventually.

ftfy

Betts is the clear #1, the rest are debatable to some degree or another. Now, as Kimmi notes - there is a walk away price for anybody. At the same time, I like good baseball players and the Red Sox certainly charge you and me enough money that we at least have a reason to demand that the team not skimp on good baseball players.

for the award - there are no limits (after all, relievers have won them) To qualify for the ERA title, you have to pitch a minimum of one inning per game your team has played (so 162 innings ultimately)

Not THAT clearly - there are significant monetary penalties. That is an ownership question. The baseball penalties are pretty much nil. You want to develop good players because it's cheaper. You want to have options with your core. Mostly, try not to be stupid - but do something that fits your situation. Boston is a large market team - and has different options available than Oakland. There is no reason to pretend that's not true.

absolutely. to handicap the NL Race bWAR leaders: Scherzer (9.7), DeGrom (9.6), Nola (9.4), Freeland (7.9), Cain (7.0), Yelich (6.6), Baez (6.1), Freeman (6.0), Goldschmidt (5.6), Arenado (5.2) This a year that screams for a pitcher to win MVP. Given the premium on "team goodness", perhaps Nola makes sense. But given the extreme bias towards position players, Yelich, Cain, Baez are all pretty good choices. It's going to be a very odd vote. I favor Baez with the style and defensive versatility to go with the production. Yelich is a fine choice. Lorenzo Cain is an easy one to root, one of the really underappreciated good players of recent vintage - an MVP for him would be cool.

Freeland has been brilliant, but DeGrom and Scherzer have been a bit better. I am rooting for DeGrom to win the Cy with a losing record - it would be a good sign for the species.

Right, the minimum innings is 1 IP per team game.

Here's what we know I think ... Sale, Price, Porcello, Eovaldi Rodriguez, Kimbrel, Wright, Brasier, Barnes So basically 2 more slots ... I am inclined to think Kelly gets one. The other could be anybody. I have Eovaldi instead of Rodriguez here mostly because the playoff teams have generally been good against lefties, and Rodriguez in the pen eliminates the need to carry a lefty just to have one.

Really the move with Bogaerts is to trade him THIS offseason (if you are sure you are not going to re-sign him) where you can get a strong return for a guy with a year of control. For instance, Jose Iglesias is a free agent this offseason. I don't think I would do this - but if they want to move on from Bogaerts the best time to do it is THIS offseason.

No. 1. As you yourself have noted WAR is more directionally useful than precise. A 2 win difference is not in itself proof of anything. Also, defensive measures are less reliable than offensive ones - so WAR built off of defense is inherently "squishier" 2. I think valuable and "best" is enough. Otherwise, you are basically measuring the ability of a guy's teammates. Mike Trout does not deserve to be blamed for Arte Moreno wanting to pay Albert Pujols a kajillion dollars to be a traffic cone. 3. Where sabermetrics helps is to eliminate stupid mistakes - like Victor Martinez as a 2nd place MVP guy. Personally you can't be MVP without creating a lot of "V". The top of the WAR list gives a solid list of nominees - something you can dig deeper on. For me that list is Trout, Betts, Lindor, Ramirez, Bregman, Chapman, and maybe Martinez. And THEN you can take in contextual factors, maybe some bonus for doing it in a pennant race, whatever. What is useful this year is Betts hits all the sweet spots - analytically, narrative-wise, best player on best team, 30/30. The NL MVP is much much trickier. I'd give it to Javy Baez but that could go in any direction - including Jacob DeGrom though that won't happen.

Rafaael Devers up to .738 OPS, 21 HRs, 66 RBIs ... again a mild disappointment, but the OPS is pretty good considering he was batting .243 (since SLG and OBP are related) He ups his walk rate a little bit, and gets up to .260 or better and there is a hell of a player there.

There a LOT of teams that can beat one of the playoff teams in 4 games out of 7.

You're right - my oversight ... the Red Sox have edges in the outfield - particularly striking in CF and RF. The edges in LF are not as pronounced. The Guardians have edges all around the infield, at catcher and in the starting rotation. There is no reason it shouldn't be a tough pick 'em sort of series.

The big reason the Red Sox wanted Eovaldi (or someone like him) is that the Astros, Guardians and Yankees have all murdered left-handed pitching all season. While this is NOT a reason to, say, sit Chris Sale, it makes sense to get another righty starter for a potential Game 3/4.

I should have added Chapman to the "good" list.

You never bet any baseball team vs the field ... also luck impacts record so much. The Red Sox have won 106 games, but have the run differential of a 103-59 win team. That is a great record but yes we have outplayed our record. Cleveland has the run differential of a 97-65 team yet they are on pace for 92 wins. If you compare Boston and Cleveland position for position, there are only really 3 positions where Boston has a decided edge. (LF, CF, DH). It would be hard to be cavalier about Boston's chances in that series. I am confident but realistic.

WPA has some luck involved - since there is not much control about when a player comes to bat (which impacts win probability).

Yes. This one has been easy. The narrative reasons to choose Betts are there. (the best player in the league on the best team in the league) The more "scientific" reasons to choose Betts are there (lead or near lead in WAR). It won't be unanimous - any of Betts, Trout, Bregman, Ramirez and Lindor are "good" choices - but Betts has checked all the boxes.

the Rays model is very possible if you get to an elimination game - but not until then

For me it's pretty easy. You have Wright on the roster clearly. Given that none of the starters are obvious guarantees to get through 6 - and even so in the postseason you're going to have a quick hook anyway - that having a real multi-inning bridge is good. Now being a knuckler, you might just have to hope for a hot streak - but that's what winning a World Series is.

Right - I love this team. But it's baseball - and no baseball team is a good bet vs the field.