moonslav59

I have had OCD since childhood. I used to channel it towards scoring every Sox game over the radio or TV and mulling over stats and data. That being said, I played sports every waking hour I was free from school, sleeping or eating. We used to shovel my driveway to play basketball in winter. We'd have to bring the ball inside and run hot water over it, because the cold made it go flat. The dirt and grime on the ball literally wore all my finger prints off my chapped fingers- no joke. I used to take medicine for the OCD, but I stopped many years ago. I still have tendencies to get caught up in data, but I channeled some into my work and into my biggest two passions: the Red Sox and contract bridge. I tried out for the University of Notre Dame baseball team and made the first cut, but I never really had a chance as a walk-on. I player inter-hall sports at ND, which was very high level- lots of all state players. The football was in pads. We won the football championship my freshman year (I was a WR & DB.) and my senior year (I was the QB and DB.) The pick-up basketball games at The Rock, often included guys like Orlando Wooldrige and football players that we all state in high school basketball. We also won the basketball championship my freshman year, and I was our high scorer in the final game. I was a fierce competitor, and maybe that comes out here, at times, when I feel challenged or put down. I don't think I fit into any one category. I am certainly a "stat geek," but not in a way maybe most people think about them. I've played the game to know enough about team chemistry and all the intangibles and nuances that go into winning or losing.

I think this year's injury to Sale was different from last's. I'm not sure, if that's good or bad. If he needs surgery, let's get it over with, now, so he'll be back that much sooner. Who knows? Price? He pitched 7 innings one- in the middle of APRIL! Then, they restricted his innings and pitches. Something happened, yet no surgery. Who knows? Eovaldi did end the year pitching, and maybe Sale or Price would have, too, had we been in the race, but he didn't look anywhere near like the October 2018 Eovaldi. Who knows? We have 3 big question marks. Probably, the odds are 1-2 do well in 2020. If it's two, we might be in contention. If it's one, likely not. If it's all 3, we may win it all, assuming no big drop-offs from others.

Too subjective for me to answer. I couldn't find anything on Baseball Reference or fangraphs.

54.574%

I'm thinking that if the Dodgers would pay $400M x 10 for Betts, they wouldn't want to give up talent in trade, too. Just sign him the next winter.

I think people will be surprised how much he gets from somebody... maybe us.

Stat geeks use data to support their claims. Non stat geeks use anecdotal evidence or personal observations to support their claims. Both side believe they are right and have evidence to support their positions. Both sides come across as righteous and maybe some as know-it-alls. Both sides are trying to "educate" the other side, and it "hits home" when someone criticizes whatever side you are on. Here's an example: someone claims, "JBJ is in an awful slump." I reply, "he has an .830 OPS over the last week and is at .800 over the last month." Yes, in my mind, I'm thinking, "That's an end to this debate," and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that way. Maybe the guy has 10 cheap hits and has K'd 40% of the time. I can see how someone would think I'm being a smug stat geek, but I don't see it that way. We can flip the script to the other side and find an equal examples of smugness from those who disavow stats or don't use them as much. They've "played the game" or "coached the game." Some appear to assume every stat geek never played the game or understand any nuances of the game or what goes on in a player's head or in the dugout of clubhouse. Maybe, the assumption is all stat geeks were nerds who never played sports. Who knows. It bugs me. It bugs you. I'm not sure either of us mean to bug the others, but it clearly happens. (Okay, some hear seem to intentionally bug others.) I don't think either side is worse than the others, and I recognize both sides doing the same thing, and I'm guilty myself, at times.

We'd be a contender with a mix at 5th starter if 2 out of Sale, Price & Eovaldi are at "top form," because I'm assuming ERod will be the same. That would be 3 solid starters. That's all you need to compete. We'd have made the playoffs, this year, if 2 had done as hoped for.

2 out of 3 at top form would make us contenders. We may wait to the deadline before deciding to trade pieces.

I'm thinking 6 years- tops. More likely 4-5.

At worst, we suck for a couple years, get some better picks, reset the tax, get more international bonus pool money and get the farm back into good shape in 2 years. Add to that any young players or prospects we get via winter or summer trades of FAs to be, and cliff may be just 1-3 years NOt 86 years. If we try to stay semi-competitive while rebuilding, it may be more problematic, but even that is doable. BTW, while I think DD went too far, specifically the Kimbrel & Pom trades (and the Thornburg & Kinsler deals in hinsight), I don't think he burned Rome to the ground. We kept Devers, Beni, DHern and a few others. He left a few structures standing.

Unless it helped us get a nice return we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, I can't see tendering JBJ a contract and then paying part of his salary (arb) to dump him for scraps.

You say you've gone back and re-read my post. How about going back and re-reading your post? I think that you moved the goal posts just a bit as you often seem to do. I should know better than to argue with someone who is right. Now don't indulge me by telling me about all of the mistakes you have made. Also do not waste your time by telling me that nothing personal is intended in what you say. you and the experts are right of course and any other argument doesn't matter. I'm fine with the goalpost moving comment, although I view it as just adding to or expanding my original post and not goal post moving, but everything else was a clear put-down. It is classic passive aggression and condescension. You say you appreciate posters who realize there is more to the game than stats, and I assume you meant me, but then you "paint a rather nasty picture of me" and the part about "any other argument doesn't matter" is way off base. I'm always open to any debate. On the DD issue, I have often defended him and taken issue with Kimmi and some posters' use of certain words like "destroyed" and "decimated." I feel like I'm in the middle ground on DD, and you paint me out to be a some kind of closed-minded radical anti-DD-ite. Okay, maybe I've been more critical than defending of DD, but it's the nature of sites like this. People tend to talk more about what they disagree with or take issue with than things they agree with.

Yes, anything can happen, and our 4 rings in 10 playoff appearances , including 4 for 4 in the WS, makes it seem like the odds are actually better than they actually are. People sometimes point to our 2004 championship as a wild card team, but that year, we had the 2nd best AL record and 3rd best in MLB. We were a top contender that year. We had the best record in MLB in 2007. That was no crap shoot. Many feel the 2013 season was a fluke, but we had the best record that year, too. The 2018 season was far from a crap shoot. We've had some really good teams that, to me, were a big step up from being called just a "playoff contender." While I agree with you that DD went too far, and we may disagree on the degree of that, I can totally see why GMs go that extra mile to greatly improve their chances and hedge against injuries and/or too many down years from our players. DD got us a ring. I can't really fault him too much for going the extra mile, and I was accepting of the projected consequences for the most part.

I don't think you would. We'd have to pay too much for Porcello, and you'd say it was too much. I do think teams will trade for JBJ, and he won't be non tendered, but I've been moving towards the non tendering position, of late.

Prospects acquired by Sox GMs by 4 Periods: Theo First 5 years (2003-2007) D Pedroia A Rizzo J Pablebon J Ellsbury C Buchholz Dice-K Okajima Jed Lowrie Doubront David Murphy J Masterson D Bard Cla Meredith Middlebrooks C Hansen Theo Last 4 years (2008-2011) Betts JBJ Vazquez Barnes Workman Tazawa Alex Wilson Margot S Fife Lin A Ranaudo Swihart C Kelly Brentz Westmoreland Ben's 4 years (2012-2015) Devers Benintendi Moncada T Buttrey M Kopech L Allen A Espinoza D Hernandez R Castillo Chavis B Johnson M Dubon Basabe Basabe S Travis Lakins D Marrero P Light C Asuaje Bautista DD's 4 years (2016-2019) H Velazquez D Flores (RIP) Casas B Mata Dalbec Houck Chatham J Duran G Jimenez T Ward A Flores M Lugo N Song Shawaryn S Anderson Feltman Groome I must have missed some names. Help me out....

We have opinions that differ from you and team management. Not everyone takes what we say as us "pretending to know more..." I guess when you disagree with a team decision, it's not pretending to know more, right? It's just an opinion. Look, I know I come across too strongly many times. I have opinions and I voice them. I don't always preface them with "IMO..." but I assume people just take it that way. I don't see things in black and white. I know you find it hard to believe I can be really thankful for DD but still have serious issues with what he did, but I do. I'm tired of hearing about how stat geeks always act like they know it all or what they say is the final statement to end all discussion. To me, you and those who bash stat geeks come across as more "know-it-alls" than we do. Plus, some of us stat geeks actually played the game, too. You aren't the only one.

It was nicer than what you wrote, and true, too, unlike your post.

I know I can be condescending, at times, and come off as a know-it-all more than I mean to be. I guess that's the difference between you and me. If you don't think what you said is condescending and passive aggressive, then you don't know the meanings of those words. Look in Webster's. They give an example of passive aggressive. Here it is: You and the experts are right of course and any other argument doesn't matter.

If we had 4-5 top prospects about to come up, at a low cost, maybe we'd think more about paying Betts top dollar. Yes, it's hard to know, but certainly having very few impact and low cost players makes it hard on managing a budget, especially if the reset is a high priority.

In DD's defense, he did keep Devers (& Beni) and extended Bogey to a team-friendly deal, but the gap between the call-up of Devers and the next high impact prospect call-up (still waiting) has been way too long and mat still last years more. Chavis, DHern and Lin are the only prospects that graduated since Devers. These names are not all that flattering, either: Travis (not DD's pick) Walden (not DD's pick) Taylor (not DD's pick) Shawaryn (not DD's pick) Lakins (not DD's pick) Who might be called up in 2020? (Age-Player- last level)) 24 Dalbec AAA 23 Houck AAA 23 Duran AA 24 Chatham AAA 24 Ockimey AAA 23 M Wilson AA 23 Crawford AA 24 Bazardo AA 23 J Diaz A+ Likely 2021: 22 Ward A+ 22 Feltman AA 20 Mata AA 21 Groome 2022 or later? 19 Casas 19 Jimenez 22 N Song 18 M Lugo 20 Decker 19 A Florez The farther away guys look better. I'm not expecting another Devers anytime, soon. Maybe D Hern can get his walks down and be a huge asset. Maybe Ward or Mata might surprise. I just see a long gap between Devers and the next high impact prospect.

Just goes to show you, multiple "mid range" contracts can work out way worse than big ones like price's or Sale's.

Very true, but one could consider his restrictions on signing 30+ pitchers to $30M+ a year, too. Even without Moncada, Ben's farm building was way better than DD's. Rather than admit they were wrong, some prefer to bash blind squirrels.

I saw this after my post.

Except for Dice-K.