sk7326

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.

He is a hard guy to replace defensively. Fortunately we already have one of the most qualified to do so. Really it comes down to whether the corner outfield market is promising. That said, his flaws should make him affordable to keep.

His 2019 arb won't be too difficult. The thing with Bradley will be the 2019-2020 offseason where it is the prime time to trade him if you don't want to re-sign him. The market of alternatives will be key - but Red Sox can replace him at CF internally quite credibly, and Bradley will be 30 by opening day 2020.

Probably still easing him back. I think he'll be a candidate for that sort of usage - though (like all relievers) the hook could be quick.

Of the four Red Sox in serious contention for postseason hardware I'd list Sale as the 2nd likeliest to actually win. I'd list in probability Betts Sale Cora Martinez

Right - and that is a pure rate stat with a minimum number of ABs. (502) The ERA title has a minimum number of innings (162, which Sale has not quite hit). Now looking at the numbers, Sale's IP per start is not greatly lower than Verlander (6.0 vs 6.3). That amounts to about 10-11 innings over the season - again, not much. What really is more relevant is Sale being mostly a noncontributor for the last 2 months of the season. There was a ton of value created in the starts he did make - but that the team has benefitted from his success less frequently than Verlander and Kluber by a pretty wide margin DOES matter - enough to make this pretty close. Again, if Sale wins it is a perfectly acceptable and just result.

Yes, it is a stupid award. Writers are not really in a good position to judge a good performance. It always goes to "which team did we underrate the most".

I look at cliff years as the sort of thing where your range of likely outcomes is something like 75-95 wins. That is a very large range, but reflective of the "maybes" a team would face. Again, the 2014ish Yankees is a good comp.

I think that is possible - although that is as much because 3B is the org's strongest position as anything else.

He has shown he can conquer every level - even after struggling early (like he did in Salem and Greenville). Bellhorn had the right perspective year. It has been a little disappointing but in no way discouraging.

They figured out how to efficiently build around their ballpark. Oakland indeed shifted their own philosophy to sort of do the same thing. And of course Kansas City was one win away from 2 WS doing the same thing. Have a ballpark where fly balls go to die, have pitchers who keep the ball in play and have fielders who can run down anything.

It's baseball. If you get to the postseason, you can win the whole thing. If you are FAVORED to win it all, it is more likely than not you will lose. You obviously want to maximize every shot you get because - as the 1975 Sox showed - stuff is flimsy. The Red Sox will always have a high payroll - and fans should demand no less given what they have to pay. The worst case we'll probably get is a season where you come into it with an uncomfortable amount of "maybes". You get seasons like 2012 and 2014 when the maybes don't hit. You get a season like 2013 when they do. When I read fears of a cliff, I read fear of becoming the 2010 Astros or the 1998 Marlins. That is not happening. There WILL be years where the Red Sox will be more impacted by stuff going right or wrong. I cite 2014 or 2015 as examples - teams that were relying on some risks to go well (in those years those risks did not go well).