5GoldGlovesOF,75

I think they'll all get in eventually. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but hopefully in theirs. The case for Pettitte is strong; quick research shows that every pitcher who led his decade in victories made the Hall of Fame (I only looked back as far as 1950, when integration made such accomplishments more legit). As for the just-concluded Teens, the top three in Ws will be first-ballot guys: Scherzer, Verlander, Kershaw. Pettitte paced the 00s with the lowest leading total in seven decades -- 148 wins (nine more than Halladay, who was fourth)... but Andy is also the career postseason leader in wins, games started and innings pitched. Sure he pitched for great teams, but if pitching is 70% of the game, and your ace has five rings, I'd say he deserves a plaque.

Kinda hijacking my own thread, but since this topic was supposed to be about modern metrics: on MLB TV today there was a discussion about top shortstops, and it was reported that Bogaerts was last in DSR. Also interesting: in one of the articles projecting a Betts to LA trade, a writer suggested Gavin Lux as the Red Sox new shortstop, because the writer assumed Bogie would soon have to be moved to another position anyway. One more question about WAR: if WAR supposedly "measures a player's value in all facets of the game", then why are there also separate categories for Offensive WAR and Defensive WAR?

For me, it's that they have to stay in contention for a playoff spot through the final week of the regular season (which 90+ usually did in the old days, before we had such a disparity between the haves and the tankers).

"it was realized that publicly announcing your need to shed a large amount of payroll might not be the wisest idea from either a PR or a business standpoint" ... like, right before announcing a hike in ticket prices...

"The third will not piss off very many." ...unless he's still here. Ha!

So true. So much of what the public sees or hears is political posturing. And the bored (or paid off, in scoops) media runs with it. The poor Red Sox can't afford the tax and oh no, they'll lose a draft pick? Ok, better trade our future Hall of Famer who is just about to enter his prime because he wants a top-of-the-market salary that he's earned. If we spin it just right, even the discerning public will accept it...

I'm all over that. I'd even drive them, but may not leave San Diego... I wonder if The Bench is still in Mission Beach? Does Joe still own the Beachcomber?

Mike?

Agreed. I've seen some beat writers say it'd be best for Bloom to trade Betts asap and just move on from it, so it's not a season-long distraction. But the best approach for the team may just be -- as many here have suggested -- to attempt to improve over the winter via low-cost additions, lottery cards, born-again prospects, etc., then see what happens through the first half of 2020. By then, Chaim will have had plenty of time to get to know Mookie and his intentions... and the front office will have had more than enough time to make best offers to Betts, while also targeting prospective trade partners as a fallback.

"Be realistic ... perhaps Mookie Betts for five years of 23-year-old outfielder Alex Verdugo would work." Ya, I'm not basing my unrealistic expectations on one website that admits their values are "a probalistic model... where nothing here is absolute, but rather, a best guess based on the data available"... because I can't put a number on a player's intrinsic value to his organization and its fanbase. Instead, I was thinking more of the many website hits I got by merely Googling "Betts trade Dodgers". That's where I found several proposals from writers, including professionals who work for MLB.com. Here are just some of their suggested LA packages for Mookie: May, Ruiz, Pederson; Lux or May, Ruiz, Pederson; May, Pederson, Downs; Verdugo, Seager, Cardillo; Lux, Ruiz, Pollock. Another MLB writer listed, "Some Dodgers prospects who could interest the Red Sox would be Jeter Downs, Tony Gonsolin, Josiah Gray, Gavin Lux, Dustin May, Keibert Ruiz — all young, all affordable. They could also be interested in the likes of Matt Beaty, Edwin Ríos, Ross Stripling, Julio Urías and the aforementioned Verdugo". Prospects, suspects, call them what you want -- their teams know they have to give up something to get something. And the Boston braintrust is smart enough to wait them out.

Please retract this asap before someone in LA sees it! Or at least delete Betts' name!!! The last thing we need is past-his-prime Pollock, no hit lefties/no field Joc and half-cooked Jansen (who LA won't even use in big spots anymore). I know you were just trying to make numbers match... and the total of all five of your Sox on that site probably don't add up to just one of Lux, May, Verdugo or Ruiz -- but I have faith those are the types that Bloom is demanding in some combination or no deal.

I'm talking 15-20 years from now, when most voters on that Veterans Committee would have either played in an era when the majority of guys did some kind of PEDs or they did them themselves.

I think guys like Schilling, Clemens and Pettitte will eventually. While Ryan was an automatic, Blyleven and Morris took a long time to get recognized. Give the old school voters credit, though on Ryan. He went 8-16 in 1987 and still finished fifth in the Cy Young. It wasn't like they were just picking big "winners" ahead of him, either; two guys above Ryan had records of 13-9 and 16-16, and a reliever with 5 Ws won it.

Good pitchers make teams good; it’s not usually the other way around. Ballplayers will tell you there’s much value in a starting pitcher that teams have supreme confidence playing behind. This isn’t necessarily something measurable, when other stats like ERA, WHIP and FIP can also be rendered meaningless, depending on approach. No formula can calculate a man’s mindset if, for example, he has a big lead and decides to pitch to contact instead of straining for strikeouts or pitching around star hitters. I’m not a Jack Morris fan, though I know there was controversy in his recent Hall of Fame selection. Morris threw for some good teams, but in high-scoring games only his teammates know for sure if he was missing his spots or just lobbing them in there, trusting his borderline-Cooperstown DP combo and Gold Glove centerfielder. Old school fans would expect a pitcher that led his decade in victories to eventually get enshrined on a bronze plaque. Some would debate Morris had mediocre stats, but he also had the reputation of being able to win no matter the situation – be it a 1-0 World Series Game Seven or a 10-9 slugfest. To me, the best data for Jack Morris is reflected in the number 3. That’s how many different franchises that went on to win world championships wanted him on the mound to start Game One of a World Series. That’s the sign of a true ace.

Modern analytics dismiss pitching victories – at least in awards voting -- but stats for individual player contributions still use the word “Win” in their titles, like WAR, WAA or WPA. Can anyone New School clarify? I played with one pitcher who, when discussing opponents, would say, “I beat them.” And I always corrected him: “You mean, we beat them.” Nowadays, thanks to pitch counts and bullpen games, the workhorse starter is an endangered species. Certainly, with the use of openers becoming widespread, scoring rules for win eligibility need to be revamped. So, is there still such a concept as a winning pitcher? If we're not going to use numbers, can we at least still use the words "winner" and "loser" as adjectives? For example, when it comes to facing the Yankees, especially in Yankee Stadium, am I wrong to call Eovaldi a winner and Price a loser? That's what I saw in 2018 and even Spring of '19 (before Braiser blew the Gardner game). I'm also thinking Eovaldi > Sale vs. NY, at least last year. We like to be able to count on a guy to nail down wins in tight games, and throw shutdown innings after the offense scores, especially after taking the lead. We’ve also witnessed hurlers with great numbers who sometimes seem to pitch just good enough to lose. But is it all just random… or myths… or can qualitative data actually show trends?

I agree and have never expected the Sox to not go for it in 2020. That would be totally out of character for these owners -- and like I said, old guys don't suddenly change. I know with the way Boras and free agency drags now that offseasons are basically cold stove leagues, and so we blab out of boredom about tax penalties and resets and trading star players. Yes, the Sox brass has mentioned finances, but of course those could just be calculated comments in one phase or another of public negotiations or a way of tempering contract expectations... or someone just voicing impulsive exasperations about current market prices. And like you say, even if the front office even wants to cut back, it cannot afford the hit with fandom. Changes will be made, because no change would be unacceptable, but the tanking that Yankee fans hope for will never happen in Boston under this or any ownership. Bloom's goal of building his "sustainable" competitive franchise will encompass not only stockpiling legitimate prospects, but also locking up established young stars with whom fans already identify. As a Red Sox fan, I expect that and demand that.

Not sure if I totally believe anything the spin doctor says. Remember when he agreed to do an interview about why the Red Sox didn't hold a presser to announce DD's firing... and never actually answered the question? As for Sale, I think no news is not good news. If there were problems or setbacks, Boston wouldn't go public, lest any potential trade partner gleans desperation and ups their demands (and I mean potential trades for other pitchers -- though it would also obviously affect any Sale trade options).

Not the whole 96 -- "less money to eat" still means we'd have to subsidize the deal. But I don't see anyone of value coming back, and if we do have to take someone else's bad contract, so be it... as long as it's less -- and what wouldn't be, compared to the most expensive pitcher in MLB history (no thank you very much, DD)/

Dalbec or Chavis are enough assets to get Price gone, but don't expect anything good back... except less money to eat.

Pear shape, as in grow a pear...

Certainly a possibility, but the adjustment period in a win-or-else market could be another reason why the Yankees may not be quite as good in '20. NY only had two defensive standouts -- Didi and Judge -- in the past postseason when D was an issue... and that tandem may soon be cut in half.

That's too bad, because according to experts, your size means you're apt to break down sooner than us bigger typers.

Great hitter; not as good as Didi at short... another key position where defense wins titles. Granted, Bogaerts never looked as good as Didi, either. Lugo definitely wasn't, Drew and Cabrera were maybe just as solid. But I'm sure someone can dredge up some statistic to tell me what I was seeing wasn't what I actually saw.

Yankee fans I talk to also know they won't win a title with Sanchez behind the plate, they're stuck with Stanton, and their lineup is righty-heavy. Schwarber would be a perfect DH in Yankee Stadium, but luckily Epstein knows that and wouldn't want to be responsible for putting him in pinstripes.

Again, imagine the perceptions of Porcello or Sale if they got ERod's run support in 2019. Porcello won 14 games as it was; what if he won another three and was a 17-game winner again? Sale went 6-11, but there were several games in the first half at least where he pitched good to great and took the loss or no decision. It's not too much of a stretch to say -- with ERod's run support -- that his record could have been reversed. If Sale had gone 11-6, then folks might lament that he had an injury-shortened offyear, and not worry that he suddenly sucks and will never be good again.