moonslav59

MLBTR reports on our 3 biggest need areas: 1. Third Base: Boston is hoping that a healthy and in-shape Pablo Sandoval can get back to his old Giants form, though that’s no small risk given Sandoval’s disastrous 2015-16 seasons. With Travis Shaw off to Milwaukee, the Sox are left with Brock Holt and Josh Rutledge as the primary third base backup options on the MLB roster. The Red Sox didn’t hesitate to bench Sandoval after he struggled in Spring Training last year, so if he has another rough spring, the Sox could start looking for a reliable everyday option at the hot corner. I agree here. With Hernandez and Dominguez at AAA, I think we'll be okay, even if Pabloe sucks. 2. Bench Depth: While the Red Sox have several backup options on the 25-man roster or high minors, WEEI.com’s Rob Bradford recently pointed out that the team is rather lacking in proven depth pieces, and might not be able to handle an injury to one or two regulars. Adding the likes of an Adam Rosales or Trevor Plouffe (names cited as Bradford as players of interest for the Sox) would help in this regard. I disagree here, although adding Plouffe and trading or giving back Rutledge makes some sense. We have Young as our 4th OF'er is fine. Holt is an okay 5th OF'er. Holt is a giid utility IF'er. Moreland, Rutledge, Hernandez, Dominguez, Travis and Marrero gives us plenty of depth here. 3. Left-Handed Reliever: The club’s decision to tender a contract to Fernando Abad was something of a surprise, given how poorly Abad fared after joining the Red Sox last summer. Robbie Ross is the primary lefty in Boston’s bullpen and while it appears the Sox feel Abad will get back on track, it wouldn’t hurt to find another southpaw. Admittedly, this is a pretty borderline “need” on what is a pretty stacked Boston roster — the Sox could potentially find another lefty reliever internally in the form of Roenis Elias, Brian Johnson, Henry Owens or perhaps even one of Eduardo Rodriguez or Drew Pomeranz (if Steven Wright reclaims a rotation spot). We don't necessarily need a lefty. Thornburg's career splits show he's .200 points better vs lefties, so they overlooked that fact.

Well said. I'm not saying some psychological factors aren't in play with Price. I am worried about his next playoff start.

I like Nolan Ryan, but he was not better than Maddux. Although I believe Ryan had the best H/9 rate SINCE 1966, his 4.7 BB/9 rate was horrible. FIP has him as the best pitcher with over 4000 IP since 1966- significantly ahead of Maddux(2.97 to 3.26) . WHIP Maddux 1.14 (.281 BAbip) N Ryan 1.25 (.265 BAbip) ERA- Maddux 76 N Ryan 90 To be fair, FIP- has Maddux ahead of Ryan (76 to 83),b ut with an ERA- difference that large over two huge sample sizes, Maddux should be clearly the better pitcerh, and FIP related metrics short change him (and others with low K% rates).

I respect the stats and metrics that try to take the fielding of the team behind the pitcher out of consideration, but there is a systemic flaw as it pertains to how they value low K rate pitchers who continuously get batters to hit into outs--even on poor fielding teams. I realize those types of pitchers are not too common, so that's probably the reason high K% rate is easier (or better) to project how pitchers will do going forward. While low K% pitchers who do very well might not be too common, there's a big enough subset of pitchers in this group that rated too lowly due to poorer FIP related numbers due to lower Ks. , I agree that ERA is flawed, and so is ERA- and ERA+, and since just the labeling of an error is so subjective, these numbers are bound to be flawed as well, but the bottom line for a pitcher is ultimately not to allow runs. Extremely low BAbip or high LOB% can skew the numbers based on luck, so I see the reasoning behind trying to lessen their influence on a metric trying to determine how well a pitcher did over a given period, but to me, it should not be totally eliminated.

Top 3 starters by projected 2017 WAR: 13.6 LAD 7.7 Kershaw, 3.2 Hill, 2.7 Maeda 13.3 WSH 6.0 Scherzer, 4.4 Strasburg, 2.9 Gonzalez 13.1 NYM 5.7 Syndergaard, 3.9 deGrom, 3.6 Matz 12.9 BOS 4.8 Sale, 4.5 Price, 3.6 Porcello 12.7 CLE 4.9 Kluber, 4.5 Carrasco, 3.3 Salazar 12.0 SFG 4.9 Bumgarner, 4.2 Cueto, 2.9 Samardzija 11.9 CHC 4.5 Lester, 4.1 Arrieta, 3.2 Hendricks According to these numbers, we have the best number 2 and second best number 3, but we finish 4th because our number 1 lacks significantly behind Kershaw, Syndergaard and Scherzer.

Not bad for an "off year".

I like Johnson better now too, but with emotional issues, there's always going to be a huge question mark over his head once the pressure rises.

I've never argued ERA is a better measure. I will argue a pitcher with a consistently low ERA-, OPS against or WHIP will continue to do so, regardless of K%. Show me the evidence that high K% projects a better ERA- the following season than previous ERA-, OPS against or WHIP does. Just because there are more good ERA- pitchers with higher K%s than lower K%s does not mean it is an accurate predictor of individual pitcher projections. If a low K pitcher continuously puts up low ERA- numbers, I'd reject K% projections. Same with high K guys with higher ERA- histories. I'll project continued higher ERA-s based on his career trend. I'm sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show some pitcher's previous low ERA-, OPS against or WHIP did not lead to continued success, and maybe higher K% guys in this category fared better than low K% guys, but to me the hole in the fielding independent metrics is too large to respect its outcomes. Take Hideo Nomo; the guy has the 13th best K%(22.7%) since 1986, yet his ERA- (which adjusts for park and other factors) is 101. From 1996 to 2003 he had over 150 IP every year. His best ERA- (77) season after his rookie year came after one of his worst K% seasons (20.8%). His 2003 season with his lowest ERA- since his rookie year was also his worst K% season (19.7%). His worst two ERA- seasons (1997 & 1998) were both seasons that saw his K% 3% higher than his career norm. BTW, 5 of his first 9 seasons saw his ERA- above 99.

Agree.

Good point. I remembered incorrectly and felt he caught much more than just 20 innings more in 2014 than his scattered 2016 innings. 20 innings more is not a significant sample size difference. My bad.

Stop saying "It won't mean anything." Nobody is saying when player sucks in the playoffs, it is meaningless. While post season sample sizes are rather small, it does not mean they meaningless. % post seasons are smaller than 10, so 10 sucky post seasons would hold more "meaning" than just 5, and I suppose you could begin to judge the guy as a "choke" after a certain amount of games played, but the poor playoff performance might have little to do with choking under pressure. It could just be bad luck. It could be lack of stamina after 200 or 220 IP'd during a season. It could just be nothing but a selected choice of his worst games that happened to fall during the playoffs. One could probably find a sample size throughout Prices career where he has an 8.50 ERA between 7pm on April 22nd and 4 pm on April 24th. Would anybody care? Would you be concerned with his next start on April 23rd? I realize I am oversimplifying things, and I'm not denying that a player can "choke" under pressure or "rise to the occasion" as well, but there is a point where the sample size is too small to know it's just coincidence or if there is a deeper meaning or reason involved.I'm not sure if Price's playoff sample size is large enough to label him anything. I, for one, would not bet on him in his next playoff start, so I wouldn't say his history has no meaning, but what if he pitched two straight shut outs next October, what would that mean to you guys? He's no longer a choke? He's still a choke, because his overall numbers still suck. Would his two game sample size now be large enough to expect continued brilliance? If forced to bet, what sample size do you use to determine how well he'll do in his next game?

Would you really say a player going oh for 1 "sucked"? Even if his out was a long fly ball robbed of an HR by a spectacular play? How about oh for 2? We probably all have differing views on when a sample size become "definitive" or more definitive. Does going of for 2 really define a player? O for any 25 stretch in his career? Maybe a 10 for 100 stretch for a good hitter might define him as "streaky", but I don't think a 2 for 20 stretch necessarily does, unless he has a lot of them over his career.

None of us have ever said it "doesn't mean anything". Any 0-25 streak has meaning and can greatly affect a team's chances of winning. When I say "making definitive judgments" I mean labeling a player as a choke based on just a 25 AB sample size. That's "definitive" to me. Saying he sucked for those 25 ABs is not "definitive" in the sense that we are making a long-lasting judgment on a player's overall skill level, career accomplishments or expected future production level. Maybe we are at odds with the semantics or contexts associated with the words "definitive" and "judgment". Perhaps, I should have been more descriptive in my explanation, but then I'd probably be accused of being too verbose.

Agreed, but is someone who goes 1 for 5 in a WS as bad as guy who went 10 for 50? Yes, you can say both sucked, but a sample size context is needed in both examples. Vaz had pretty good pitch framing skills in 2014... a much larger sample size than 2016. It's hard to know why he was worse in 2016. maybe it was partially due to injury, not fully being rehabbed and/or catching a staff of pitchers he had little experience with. Yes, we can say he was "bad" in 2016, but can we really say for certainty that because of his smaller 2016 sample size, he's a bad pitch framer? Or, more importantly, how can we view the likelihood of his being a bad pitch-framer going forward. My guess is that with added experience with newer pitchers on the staff, a healthier body, and hopefully improved confidence, he will revert back to be a plus pitch-framer, a plus CS% catcher, a plus wild pitch-blocker, and a better overall CERA-related catcher than he was in 2016. His hitting is still a mystery, but I'm not optimistic he'll ever be consistently over .725 or even .700.

I totally get your point and don't disagree. Think of it this way: Say a very consistent .300 hitter (hit between .295 and .305 for 4 straight years and is 29 years old) is going through a 5 for 50 slump (.100). Over his next 10 ABs would yo bet his BA would be closer to .100 or .300? How about over his next 50 ABs? His next 500 ABs? If forced to bet, I'd bet closer to .300 on all three, but I'd feel much safer the larger the sample size going forward. I'm not a betting man (anymore), but I'd bet this hitter hits over .200 in his next 500 PAs, unless his name is Allen Craig.

The sample sizes are really too small to make any definitive judgment on CV's 2016 defense. On CERA, almost every pitcher has vastly different sample sizes with any specific Sox catcher. I provided the CERA numbers pitcher-by-pitcher below, but please note some of the vert tiny sample sizes. Here are a few things I noticed: Out of our top 6 IP pitchers (starters for the most part): Leon had a better CERA than Vaz with 3 (Price, Porcello & Buch). Vaz had a better CERA than Leon with 2 (Wright and ERod). It may not be a fluke that Vaz had caught both of these guys in the minors. When looking at the other 5 pitchers (RP'ers) with over 48 IP, we see a much different result. (Note: the sample sizes are even tinier here.) Leon had a better CERA with only 1 RP'er (Ross with an IP difference of 27 to 7) Vaz had a better CERA with the 4 others (Barnes, Kimbrel, Hembree & Tazawa- all with both pitchers having a sample size of 15 to 25 IP) (Note: Leon did better with Uehara and Kelly, but his IP with Kelly was just in 7 IP, and neither had over 18 IP with Uehara.) If we use these numbers to allign the best catcher with our starters next year, we might want to use Vaz as Wright's "caddy" and possibly with ERod and/or Pom. Here are the 2016 CERA numbers I compiled: L=Leon V=Vazquez Ha=Hanigan Ho=Holladay S=Swihart (I bolded the leader(s), if the sample size is large enough to be top 2) Price: L 3.23-109/ V 4.62-97/ Ho 4.15-13/ S 5.73-11 Porc: L 2.52-107/ V 3.64-94/ Ha 3.45-16/ S 6.00-6 DWri: L 6.46-24/ V 2.72-36/ Ha 2.90-90/ S 1.35-7 Buch: L 3.84-61/ V 5.60-53/ Ha 3.24-8/Ho 2.25-8/S 10.00-9 ERod: L 4.90-79/ V 4.50-22/Ha 3.00-6 DPom: L 5.85-20/ V 0-0/ Ha 7.88-8/ Ho 3.32-41 (Norris 1.56-81/Bet 6.00-21) Barnes: 6.04-25/ V 1.37-20/ Ha 5.17-16/ Ho 0.00-5/ S 3.38-3 Ross: L 1.65-27/ V 12.86-7/ Ha 1.98-14/ Ho 0.00-3/S 5.79-5 Kimb: L 3.20-20/ V 2.04-18/Ha 1.74-10/ Ho 10.80-3/ S 13.50-2 Hemb: L 3.18-17/ V 2.08-17/Ha 1.98-14/Ho 3.00-3 Taza: L 4.24-17/ V 4.11-15/ Ha 1.38-13/ Ho 18.00-2/ S 3.86-2 Ueh: L 3.44-18/ V 5.94-17/ Ha 0.00-8/Ho 0.00-1/ S 0.00-3 Kelly: L 1.35-7/ V 4.50-10/ Ha 6.97-21/ Ho 3.38-3

Interesting use of the word "floating". I remember feeling the same way in a championship game my hall won while playing in an inter-mural league at the University of Notre Dame. I too was usually an assist and defensive guy, but that day I was "floating" in a "zone". I scored 14 of my team's 25 baskets. I never thought about what was going on at the time, and as I read later, that's what probably helped me "stay in the zone." I remember when it was my turn to be rotated out for a sub, the sub said to me, "Are you kidding me? I'm not going in for you!" Later, I read a book called In the Zone: Transcendent Experience in Sports. I highly recommend it to any true sports fan. It based on a study of great players (mostly in golf and tennis) and what they said after having a fantastic performance. The language used all sounded very similar. "I was in a zone." "I was floating." "It was like I was outside my body." "Everything was like it was in slow motion, and I could see ahead." "I wasn't thinking about anything." "As soon as I became aware of how well I was doing, the thought distracted me, and I left the zone." I've lived and seen "hot" and "cold", and although there may not seem to be any or much randomness to it from the player's point of view, I think some or a lot of "randomness" comes into play as to when the point of entering or leaving "the zone" occurs. It could be something as simple as a mere thought in the mind that changes the focus. It could be a minor injury or a personal issue. As a fan, trying to determine when a streak begins or ends is, in a way, random. I'm not trying top ut words in anyone's mouths, but that is what I think people meant by "random". Some players are known for being very streaky- good and bad, like Mike Napoli. Mike had super seasons and average seasons and a couple bad ones too. Within a season, he had up and down stretches that seemed endless. I remember arguing with several [poster who wanted him benched in 2013 during a long "slump". I kept saying, we may be taking him out just as his hot streak was about to begin. I said that for a while, as his slump continued (longer than I expected), but he did finally bust out and helped us win a ring. Maybe with a player like Mike, it's safer to bet on him continuing a streak (hot or cold) than to bet on him to "return to norm", since he hits at his norm for extended periods of times at a much lower rate than other players. Other players are much more consistent. They have shorter slumps and usually shorter hot streaks as well. They are more "predictable" or "random" in the sense that they hover around their career norm pretty consistently in almost any selected shorter sample size within their career. I would not bet on a guy like Pedey to continue in an ongoing slump. As far as I know, there are no studies that show that a baseball player's most recent 20, 30 or 50 game results are a better predictor of what will come in the next 20,30, 50 or 162 games than using the players last 1-3 year sample size or career norm as a predictor. In fact, I'd bet the opposite is true. Using some sort of combination between recent 1 year, 3 year and extended trends of legitimate sample sizes is probably the best predictor of what to expect going forward.

Owens or Johnson. It's about time one of these guys stepped up their game. Both had close to a 50-50 chance of becoming at least a decent #5 starter at some point in their career. That gave us a 75% chance that at least one could be "that guy". We've seen squat so far. It's time to prove your worth guys! (I'd like to see us sign a couple vets to minor league deals as added depth.

Link?

Great article on the value of pitch framing: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-bad-could-a-pitch-framer-possibly-be/ Another view: http://www.hardballtimes.com/pitch-framing-was-doomed-from-the-start/

Here's how I see our positional depth chart right now: C Leon, Vazquez, Swihart (AAA), Butler (AAA) 1B Ramirez (DH)- Moreland, Travis (AAA), Holt, Craig (AAA non 40 man) 2B Pedroia, Holt, Hernandez (AAA), Rutledge, Marrero (AAA) 3B Sandoval, Rutledge, Holt, Hernandez (AAA), Domingues (AAA) SS Bogaerts, Hernandez (AAA), Holt, Marrero (AAA) LF Benintendi, Young, Holt, Moreland, Swihart (AAA) CF Bradley, Benintendi, Betts, Young, Holt, Castillo (AAA non 40 man) RF Betts, Bradley, Young, Holt, Moreland (assuming Brentz is not on the 40 man roster by opening day) DH HanRam-Young, Swihart (AAA), Witte (AAA non 40 man) SP Sale, Porcello, Price, Rodriguez, Pomeranz, Wright, Kelly, AAA: Elias, Johnson & Owens RP Kimbrel, C Smith (DL), Thornburg, Wright, Kelly, Ross, Hembree, Abad (DFA/DL?), AAA: Scott, Elias, Workman, Martin, N Ramirez, Ysla, (Owens/Johnson)

Some very good K/BB rate pitchers with lower than 7.00 K/9 rates still fair badly with FIP related metrics. To me, low WHIP and low OPS against is way more important than K% or K/9.

What we lose on defense at 1B vs any gain we may get by using Bautista at DH instead of basically a Moreland-Young platoon is not worth the money we pay and the loss of flexibility. What if we sign JB and then we have a major injury at a position of limited depth? With no flex money, we'll end up going over the limit just to get a possible slight gain. I want $6.5M Young playing vs LHPs at DH not riding the bench. I want HanRam at DH vs RHPs not at 1B full time. I don't want a $5.5M Moreland on the bench almost everyday. While I do t2hink JB is better than Moreland vs RHPs, I like Young better vs LHPs, and the loss at 1B defense makes it pretty close to even value to me. I don't see JB as a big plus.

There are too many exceptions to "the rule" that are too obvious to ignore. While a strong correlation does exist between high Ks and good pitchers or as a predictor to future good pitching, it continually misses out on accurately valuing great low K pitchers season after season after season. It's not like a fluke outlier season here and there that don't fit into the formula; it is a large group of pitchers that are continuously short-changed, because they force batters to hit the ball weakly for outs instead of striking out more batters. Look, I get that a guy who Ks a lot of batters compared to the norm is usually a better pitcher than one that Ks less than the norm, but some high K pitchers also let up a lot of hits, HRs or BBs, but their high K totals make them better pitchers using this formula than someone who lets up less hits and BBs per nine, but Ks way less. Just because the fielding portion of a pitcher's performance is removed from the equation, doesn't automatically make it a better formula than one that accounts for pitchers getting more outs and allowing less extra base hits than high K pitchers. Since 1986, these are the top starters by ERA- (2500+ IP) with K/9 rates: 67 Pedro 10.0 69 Clemens 8.6 75 Randy J 10.6 76 Maddux 6.1 76 Halladay 7.0 78 Brown 6.6 78 Oswalt 7.4 79 Felix 8.4 79 Schilling 8.6 80 Saberhagen 6.2 xFIP (K/9) 3.17 Schilling 8.6 3.23 Randy J 10.6 3.23 Halladay 7.0 3.24 Felix H 8.4 3.41 C Carpernter 6.9 3.42 Hammels 8.6 3.44 Pedro 10.0 3.45 J Smoltz 7.9 3.50 Greinke 8.1 3.50 Clemens 8.6 Greg Maddux is 23rd at 3.73 all because of his relatively low K rate. His 1.14 WHIP is third best, but according to this formula, that's secondary to getting Ks instead of ground outs or pop outs. Sorry, I can't drink that kool aid. The worst pitchers in this era according to FIP are: 4.88 Suppan 4.9 K/9 (104 ERA-) 4.82 Trachel 5.74 (101) 4.77 Wakefield 5.9 (97) 4.70 Garland 4.8 (98) 4.65 Williams 5.9 (98) 4.52 B Arroyo 5.8 (98) 4.48 J Moyer 5.4 (97) 4.44 K Rogers 5.1 (94) Really? Wake is the 76th best pitcher out of 79 in this era? All these guys have low K rates, yet they are ranked behind of these guys in FIP: 4.43 B Witt 7.2 (112) 112 for God's sake!!!! 4.38 Astacio 6.8 (105) 4.38 Dempster 7.8 (104) 4.27 Harang 7.1 (104) 4.24 R Wolf 7.0 (101) 4.11 E Santana 7.2 (99) These guys are really better than Wake and Rogers? Bobby Witt had a freakin 1.57 WHIP career! These sample sizes are too large to be outliers or some freaky fluke. They are examples of serious flaws in any system that places too much value on K rates and not on getting hitters to make outs.

Don't underestimate Moreland's defensive value at 1B vs JB's negative defensive value, and the fact that DH'ing HanRam vs RHPs might prevent injury or just keep his bat fresh for the long season. If we hadn't signed Moreland, I could see this debate (or the one for EE previously) as having merit, but I'm with notin. I just don't think DD has any great interest in paying large (even if an underpay) for a DH type. We already have 2 guys who look more like DHs than positional players: HanRam and Pablo. One could argue Young and Swihart fit the mold as well.