Maxbialystock

Everything you say is true and pretty convincing. However, I cannot resist reminding you that the teams in the postseason are all members of the 53% to 61% winning percentage club. That is an incredibly tight shot group and means that any team has about the same chance as any other team in the playoffs. Indeed, the great DD is griping that the Phillies got screwed because they didn't get to play in the first freaking round and instead were tragically unable to maintain their baseball skills during 5 days of inactivity. Whether DD has a point or not, the bigger issue is that any WS winner these days must in fact win three straight series of 5 or 7 games. And no team, absolutely no team at all, has a decisive edge in winning percentage.

You have made the case that the Sox need both a good starter (or two) and good relievers. And I think they also need good righty bats. What I liked about that recent article on talksox is the notion that, despite the Sox needs, which are real, they were 81-81 this year and do not need a complete overhaul to make the postseason next year. If anything, with all that talent in the minors, I think the Sox are in a good position. Unfortunately, there is still the matter of grey matter which seems to be lacking in the front office.

Agree. I too don't see Duran slowing down quickly. And forget Ellsbury, possibly the most injury-prone player in the history of sports (an exaggeration). But I also would not hesitate to trade Duran for a good starter, one who is not about to go on the IL for elbow repairs.

Completely coincidental. We throw out all data that doesn't confirm that spending like a drunken sailor is the only route to success.

Everybody said I was wrong about payrolls, just as everyone, including you, insisted the payrolls were going in the wrong direction. In fact, you have provided detailed instructions on how the additional funds should be spent. On the other side, I admit I would be fine with a bigger payroll provided it was intelligently spent, and I further admit you and others would spend it more wisely than I ever could. As for DD, I'm pretty sure I wrote on one of the threads that the guy has been too good too many times--Miami, Boston, Detroit, and now Philly--to be dismissed out of hand. I have made maybe too big a deal of the 2019 mess, but I did so because most talksoxers insisted that, when JH fired him, he was just being cheap. I would go one step further and agree that DD has been a great tonic for the Phillies fan base because under him attendance has increased. One more time, my major objection to spending big is that too much money goes to too few superstars whose best years are usually before they start getting the big bucks. And that egregious situation is even worse with respect to starting pitchers, who all seem to be waiting for their next elbow surgery and at least one season to recover.

Amazing article in the OP that confirms my criticism of DD over the last several years of postings on talksox. The article is far more insightful than I've been, but it brings out two themes of mine which absolutely no one else on talksox ever agreed with. The first was that the Sox were an irreparable disaster in 2019, which is why DD got fired. I hasten to add they were brilliant in 2018, for which DD should definitely receive credit. But after the 2019 season--when the Sox already had the biggest payroll in MLB--it was going to be impossible to keep Mookie Betts away from the far wealthier and healthier (as a franchise) Dodgers, to keep paying the huge salaries of Price and Sale, both of whom were IL candidates, and to replace them with two more pricey starters. Thus did JH decide to go in a completely different direction with Chaim Bloom of the Tampa Bay Rays. The second theme was this year's Sox who finished at 81-81, which was just 5 games back of two teams, the Royals and Tigers, who made the postseason with 86-76 records. I dubbed this year's Sox the "no-names," by which I meant exactly what the article refers to near the end as homegrown and therefore low-salaried players. How many times, for example, did I point out that the entire Sox rotation in 2024 were paid less than the Sox closer Jansen? Plus by far the best position player--highest WAR of 8.7--was $750K/year 4th year player Jarren Duran. $30M/year Devers was 2d with an OPS of 3.7, less than half of Duran's. Then came Abreu (OPS 3.5), Rafaela (OPS 2.8), Hamilton (2.6), Wong (1.6), and Gonzalez (1.0). Plus let's not forget that a freak injury kept bargain basement excellent hitter Casas off the roster for about 100 games. Reinforcing my 2d point, I also reminded everyone--and was repudiated endlessly--that no less than 8 freaking MLB teams with lower payrolls than the Sox made it to the postseason: Arizona, San Diego, KC, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Detroit. I could have thrown in Seattle, 85-77, whose payroll was 15th to the Sox 11th, and Tampa Bay, 80-82 (just one game back of the Sox), whose payroll was 28th. I was in fact the only contributor to talksox who said that spending lots and lots of money wasn't necessarily the best solution, and I said that because I thought DD had inadvertently made that point for me in 2019.

Better said than my OP. I also like notin's point that MLB is indeed a 10% game, which is what Crash (Kevin Costner) means when he talks about the difference one hit a week can make. There are 26 weeks in a season, If we assume 550 at bats, 26 hits is the difference between batting .272 and .320, which is pretty big even though the differential is less than 10% (or 100 points in a batting average). OPS looks a tad more rational because MLB regulars OPS's normally range from .700 to 1.000, which is a 30% range. If we use ERA as the measure of a pitcher--and some don't like ERA's--the top 50 ERA's in the NL this season range from 2.38 to 4.38, a huge swing of 2 whole earned runs. If we use the midpoint, 3.38, as the baseline, from 2 to 3.38 is a swing of 59%. That's huge and argues that the best starting pitchers who can routinely start 30 or more games are more valuable than the best hitters. If a top ten ERA starting pitcher goes 6 (or more) innings and starts 30 or more games, that can be huge. Here, for example, are the won-lost records (a much-maligned stat) of the top ten starters--according to their ERA's--in MLB this season: 18-3, 18-4, 16-7, 13-6, 15-3, 15-7, 15-9, 12-8, 13-9, and 16-9. Fittingly, the 11th best starter was Tanner Houck with an ERA of 3.12. His W-L record was, and I would argue that's proof of just how bad the Sox bullpen was this season. Of the top 11 MLB starters by ERA, Tanner Houck 19 quality starts, which was as many as or more quality starts than all but 4 of the other 10 top ERA's.

MLB owners tends to be dilettantes, but I don't put JH or Ken Kendrick in that category. JH bought the Sox in 2002 when they were good, but just couldn't end what became the 86 year drought. He brought in a smart management team as well as Bill James, author of the book Sabermetrics. Plus he had previous experience owning a minor league team and later the Miami Marlins. And he was willing to underwrite a competitive payroll, usually among the top 3 or 5--and even now and then the biggest payroll (2018 and 2019) in MLB. Thus did John Henry end the drought in 2004 and win three more WS after that, including 2018, the best Boston Red Sox team ever. Under his ownership, the Sox have had at least five CBO's (Epstein, Cherington, Dombrowski, Bloom, and Breslow) and as many managers (Little, Francona, Valentine, Farrell, and Cora). John Henry bought the Sox for $660M, and they are now reportedly worth over $4B. He is the best Sox owner ever and very possibly the best owner in MLB since 2002. Kendrick is the 2d and by far the longest owner of an expansion team (first season 1998) in Arizona which has actually been reasonably competitive despite middling payrolls and middling attendance at games. They won the WS in 2001 by beating the Yankees--and thereby set the MLB record for fasted route to their first WS win. Last year they made it back to the WS and lost to the Rangers, and their payroll was ranked 21st in MLB and their average attendance at games, 24,212, was ranked 20th. You, sir, do not know squat about owners.

Simply stated, there ain't much correlation between spending big for players and winning lots of games. Oh, it's definitely true that this year the top 5 payrolls--Mets, $318M; Yankees $309M; Astros $255M; Phillies $247M; and Dodgers $241M--all have winning records. And in fact the Yankees have the most wins, 94, in the AL and the Dodgers the most in the NL (and MLB), 98. Meanwhile, however, the Diamondbacks spent $173M for 89 wins, the Padres $172M for 93 wins, the Mariners $148M for 85 wins, the Royals $123M for 86 wins, the Brewers $115M for 93 wins, the Orioles $110 M for 91 wins, the Guardians $107M for 92 wins, and the Tigers $99M for 86 wins. It gets better because to me there just ain't that much difference between the most wins--98 by the Dodgers--and the somewhat sparser wins, 85 by the Mariners. When you do the math--or just look at the end of season standings--you see that the Dodgers winning percentage is 60% and the Mariners 52%. That's nothing!! It means that in an 11 game series, the Dodgers would theoretically win 6 games and the Mariners 5. Heck, the no good, lowdown, rotten, stinking Boston Red Sox had a non-winning percentage of exactly 50%, which means they were just 10% worse than the mighty LA Dodgers, who, I hasten to add, could be about to lose their NLDS series against the 93 win Padres. Oh, and the 94 win Yankees are 1-1 against the 86 wins Royals. Does anyone on talksox doubt that John Henry, who ensured that the Sox had one of the top 5 payrolls in MLB from 2003 through 2021, is aware that the correlation between shelling out massive dollars for a top five payroll and having a dominant won-loss record is tenuous at best? Does anyone else remember that just 3 seasons ago, the Rays had 100 regular season wins with the 26th largest payroll of $71M? The Sox spent $187M that season and won 92 games. The Yankees spent $206M and won 92 games. The Mets spent $201M and won 77 games.

I missed that. Fascinating. Thanks.

Horrible call by the RF ump in today's Phillies-Mets game. He called the batter safe even though the ball was caught cleanly and then dropped when the RFer transferred the ball to his throwing hand/arm. The Phillies--whom I'm rooting against--challenged the call and the MLB replay guys agreed.

I'm not disposed to defend JH, but on the other hand it's worth noting the following-- 1. We know our front office are idiots because they demonstrated it in the last postseason when they dumped Sale and $17M to the Braves and brought in Giolito for $18M x 2. 2. Kennedy and company aren't the only dummies out there. The Mets, for example, spent $318M (to our $190M) to get 8 more wins--89 vs our 81. And the Astros spent $255M to get 7 more wins. The Braves, who outsmarted us on the Sale deal, spent $236M to get 8 more wins. The Rangers, Jays, and Giants all had bigger payrolls and fewer wins than the Sox, and we know the Sox were stupid. 3. Meanwhile, the Padres spent $18M less than the Sox and won 12 more games, the Mariners $42M less with 4 more wins, the Royals $67M less with 5 more wins, the Orioles $80M less with 10 more wins, the Guardians $83M less with 11 more wins, and the Tigers $91M less with 5 more wins. Oh, and the Rays spent $101M less than the Sox and had 1 fewer wins.

The OP is complete horsehockey because I positively, absolutely do not need advice on whom to root for. In fact, I feel empowered to change sides in the middle of games and/or series. I loved the first round--8 teams (of the 12 in the postseason) who all played in 3 game series with just 4 home teams and therefore no traveling from one park to another. Perfect. Now it's 8 more teams--the winners of the first four series vs the 4 teams who finished with the two best records in the AL and the two best records in the NL--playing 5 game series. I also loved the first day of the second round when all 8 teams played, but then MLB and ABC/ESPN decided to go with just 2 games a day, which means rest days without traveling. I also loved that the home team lost 3 of the 4 first round series. That reconfirms several important realities: 1) all 12 teams in the postseason are pretty close in winning percentages, ranging from 60% for the Dodgers to 53% for the lowdown, no good, rotten, stinking Royals and Tigers, both of whom made it to the ALDS and both of whom are tied--the Tigers with the Guardians and the Royals with the Yankees--at 1 game apiece; 2) home field advantage is a myth; 3) almost anyone except the White Sox had a shot at winning the WS this year. And this, which I find irresistable. Of the 8 teams in the Division Series now ongoing, 4 (Padres $162M, Royals $115M, Tigers $104M, and Guardians $93M) spent less on their payrolls than the Red Sox did. In other words, if John Henry wants to improve the Sox next season, he could do worse than fire Sam Kennedy and company (including Breslow of course).

I rooted for the Phillies back in 1980 when I was at USAWC and they won the WS in part because they had Pete Rose.

Agree defense is cheap and that just maybe they are looking for cheap solutions. On the other hand--and thanks to talksox and all the insights here--we know that the Sox badly need pitching, especially starters, and probably some righty bats. Thanks to you and moonslav and others, we also know that the Sox will have a lot of "under control" talent for trade bait this winter. As I've already said on this thread, the Fenway attendance--after throwing out 2020 and 2021, both of which were affected by covid--has dropped by 4,000/game for 3 straight seasons. If we assume 4,000 x 81 games x $100, that's $32M less income, which might also be matched by TV and internet (mlb.com) revenues. Of course, we also know that Sox fans can be just plain stupid. Easily the worst Sox team in the JH era was the 2012 Sox, who finished 69-93. Their average attendance was 37,567. The year before 2011, they also failed to make the postseason, and their average attendance was 37,703.

Agree. Moonslav and others have cited specific players and available dollars to invest, trade for, whatever. Others have chimed in. So we have a pretty good idea--and a lot of opinions--about what must be done. What Sam Kennedy says in October is utterly meaningless. Nevertheless, I can't help commenting on the Kennedy's comment that the defense, affected by the injury to Trevor Story, is what let the Sox down. This is absolute horsehockey because in fact Story did return in September and played absolutely superb defense for 18 games in which the Sox record was 8-10. I am not saying that defense makes no difference because I loved the way Story improved the infield defense. But I am saying pitching and hitting were bigger problems this season. And let's not forget that this was Story's 3d season with the Sox. Two seasons ago, 2022, when Story played in 94 games, the Sox had a worse won-lost record. More Story does not equate to more wins. By bringing up the defense and Story, Kennedy neatly bypassed the bigger reality that before the season began the Sox FO dumped Sale--and sent $17M with him to the Braves--and signed Giolito to a $19M x 2 contract. Giolito, I hasten to add, showed some of the signs/symptoms that Sale showed in 2019. Thanks to those two dumb moves, the actual Sox rotation--Pivetta, Houck, Crawford, Bello, Criswell, Winckowski, Whitlock, Fitts, et al--were paid less than the closer Jansen ($16M). We also know that the FO did little to improve the bullpen. But they did bring in Bailey, and he was enough to actually improve the Sox pitching in 2024.

All due respect because you in fact have better insights than I do, but that is utter horsehockey. Betts went to the Dodgers because they could afford the contract he was going to insist upon and the Sox could not. You and others keep forgetting --so I have to keep reminding you--that in 2019 the Sox already had the biggest payroll in MLB. And, if they simply wanted to maintain the status quo, they were going to have to increase Mookie's salary (then $20M) by at least $10M--and for a long time--and find and offer big contracts to two first line starters to replace Price and Sale while also continuing to pay Price and Sale's existing big contracts. Two years later, the Sox still had the 5th highest payroll in MLB without having the services of Betts, Price, or Sale--and of course without having two first line starters to replace Price and Sale. On the other hand, we also know that for three straight seasons--2022, 2023, and 2024--the Sox attendance has averaged about 32,600 per game, which is about 4,000 to 5,000 less per game than 2003 through 2019. It's possible Sox fans stayed away from Fenway because of Mookie's absence. On the other hand, one can argue that Sox fans, especially those spending major bucks to go to games at Fenway, are just ignorant. In 2012 when the Sox had an absolutely miserable team that finished 69-93, average attendance was 37,567. The next year when the Sox won the AL East and then the WS, the average attendance dropped 2,600 to 34,972.

Exactly.

Well said. The OP does an excellent job of describing Crawford's faults. On the other hand, Almost every Sox team in the John Henry era had a starter who ate innings (183.2) and had a so-so ERA (4.36). In the fantastic 2018 season, Rick Porcello pitched 191.1 innings with an ERA of 4.28--and was paid $21M to do so.

Of course they are. I was probably Yoshida's biggest booster/fan this year because I argued (and gave 5 reasons) why Cora should play him, which he did. Moreover, Yoshida had a couple of pretty good months in July and August (OPS's close to .900). But I agree the Sox should try to get rid of him, even if they have to pay some or even most of his remaining salary. As everyone has already said, Yoshida is a lefty bat on a team with too many lefty bats, plus he's a contact hitter with not much power, plus he can't play the outfield (no range, no arm).

I think anyone is tradeable right now if for no other reason than that, with Mayer, Anthony, Teel, and Campbell just about MLB-ready--to say nothing of Devers, Duran, Casas, Abreu, Story, Wong, O'Neill, Refsnyder (maybe), Yoshida, Rafaela, et al already on the active roster-- the Sox in 2025 are almost certain to have more players than they need. You have made that case repeatedly, and I agree with you. Plus it is unarguable that the Sox need pitching, especially starters, and one or more good righty bats. With that said, there is still the risk of making a dumb deal., which Breslow has already demonstrated he can do. Last year he dumped Sale--with $17M in cash--and picked up Giolito. You have also gone to the trouble of showing there is money that could be spent if JH is willing. And I have reminded everyone that, after 17 straight seasons (2003-2019) of averaging roughly 36,000 in attendance, the Sox had zero attendance in 2020, 21,000 in 2021, and 32,500 per season in 2022-2024. That attendance tells JH that the fans, the ones who actually pay all the bills and make the Sox worth $4.5B or so, are getting tired of not making the postseason. Actually, I think the Sox fans who go to games at Fenway are actually pretty stupid anyway, but that's another story (which I've already told twice).

Completely agree. I would trade Anthony before Campbell because Anthony is a lefty bat.

Two surplus areas: outfielders and lefty bats. I would not hesitate to trade Abreu and/or Duran--but Duran only if the Sox get someone substantial in return.

Perhaps. He sure hasn't done much his first 3 seasons. On the other hand, we have absolutely seen him make a difference on defense, especially at SS and especially on DP's. Plus he is a righty bat who, before he came to the Sox, hit pretty well. Yoshida, on the other hand, is a lefty bat, which we don't need, and a liability on defense and must therefore DH. I would not hesitate to pay 2/3 of his salary to go elsewhere.

I think Story made a strong case for improving the defense. But, guess what? When Story returned in September and played in the final 18 games, during which his defense was superb and of great value to the Sox, they went 8-10. And those 10 losses were mostly because the hitting went south. The average runs scored by the Sox over those 18 games (in which Story played) in September was 3.83. Also, my point is that the Sox need to be among the top 5 in MLB in runs scored to be competitive. Moreover, I honestly don't think they can get into the top 5 if their lineup is dominated with lefty bats as in fact it was this season. 2021 is worth mentioning because it was the last time the Sox made it to the postseason, when they also made it to the ALCS after beating the Yankees and RAys. The 2021 Sox were ranked 5th in MLB in runs scored and--wait for it--15th in team ERA!!!!!!! And guess where they were ranked in defense? 29th with the 2d most errors in MLB. So I strongly disagree with "rolling the dice" on hitting, especially when we know that Mayer, Anthony, and Teel are all lefty hitters.