2019 Trade Deadline
- Thread starter bosockboy
- Start date
- Status
Any chance you can include the other data? You said Boston converts 4/5 while the Yankees convert 5/6, but I'd like to know how many times they were in a situation to convert if you have it. If both teams were in that situation 100 times over the course of the season, Boston would be 80-20, the Yankees 83-17. Just curious how many wins over a season a difference like that would be.
I knew this question was coming. Almost addressed it in my reply. No idea to be honest. Who's to say Kimbrel would suck had he been in a major league training camp? Who's to say if given the opportunity any of those top 50 FA's would be having the same performance here? By the way our season is going they could be worse! GMs are supposed to find ways around the issues the Sox have. Is it easy? Hell no. Being as close to the cap as they are, constructing the roster after a whirlwind World Series winning season is a daunting task. Everyone is playing the hindsight game at this point. Hell, I was sipping the "Brasier might be able to close" Kool-Aid to begin the season but through all that hope even the most optimistic Sox fan was questioning what this bullpen was to begin the year. I honestly can't tell you what they should have done to start the year and addressing it based on current performance wouldn't be accurate either.
They didn't go into the season with Koji as the closer in 2013. Joel Hanrahan was the dedicated guy, then Andrew Bailey was the dedicated guy. Then around a quarter of the way into the season Koji inherited the job after having one save in his previous two seasons.
Yup. What happened was that neither of the 8th inning guys from last year stepped forward to do the job. It wasn't an outrageous plan. It was absolutely typical for probably 24 or 25 out of 30 teams. Your closer's contract is up. He's getting real expensive. Why not try that really good 8th inning guy in his place. The problem is that Barnes and Brasier fell through and some of the other guys did, too.
Brasier wasn’t “the 8th inning guy from last year,” Brasier was a career minor leaguer who got good results in an 8 week small sample of major league innings, just like hundreds of other career minor leaguers have done from time to time before fading back into obscurity. Nobody should ha e expected him to come close to that performance again. A prudent plan would have been for him to be the 11th or 12th man in a 12 man bullpen, not for him to be the relief ace.
Hanrahan and Bailey were guys who had shown the ability to close games. This year Barnes (2) and Walden (1) were the only guys who had even saved a game prior, unless you want to count Thornburg (13 in 2016)too.
they sure picked a great time to have their worst series of the year... right after the first hard trade deadline.
still, standing pat was the right move.
still, standing pat was the right move.
Not adding was the right move. I am not sure that they shouldn't have tried to sell some players to accelerate the likely reset this off season.
3 games behind both TB and Oakland, 5 back of CLE, and 9 back of the Twins.
Only 3 ahead of TX and LAA, one of whom sold.
The fat lady has begun getting dressed.
Only 3 ahead of TX and LAA, one of whom sold.
The fat lady has begun getting dressed.
Other than Porcello what is this likely reset that's coming this offseason? Unless JD opts out and leaves they don't have any other significant free agents. Maybe JBJ get's traded I guess, but I'm not even sure that's that significant a move. Seems way more likely they try to shore up the pen with the money they're freeing up and make one more run with the core of this team under control and then reevaluate in 2020 depending on what happens with Mookie.
Exactly. Who could they have sold off? Would a contender have even wanted Porcello?
Maybe JD, but you have to determine if that helps or hurts your chances to have him in the lineup in 2020, assuming you want him back.
Maybe JD, but you have to determine if that helps or hurts your chances to have him in the lineup in 2020, assuming you want him back.
This may seem logical but it’s not at all how the Red Sox approached it. They operated under a different philosophy altogether than what you’re describing. Sports Illustrated had a long and fascinating article about this earlier in the season, explaining (complete with interviews with Barnes and Cora) what the Sox were trying to do.
Long story short: they were using Barnes to match up late in games (innings 7-9) with the best part of the opponents’ lineups as much as possible, using their best reliever (Barnes) in what they considered to be the highest leverage and highest challenge situations. Then from there they mixed and matched who finished the game off. So they didn’t consider the 9th to be the job for an “established closer” (TM), but rather they oriented their bullpen usage around when and where the opponents’ best hitters were due up.
Sometimes, of course, this meant using Barnes in the 9th, but just as often, in the 8th or 7th, all depending on the game situation and how was coming up. Barnes said that he prepared not for a specific inning, but for specific hitters. And everyone in the pen knew their role.
Completely different approach than having “setup guys” and “closers”. So if you didn’t know that, it looks like they’re doing “closer by committee” and that “nobody stepped up to take the job”, but that’s absolutely not remotely how the 2019 Red Sox have even approached bullpen usage.
This is important for people to understand because nearly everyone is getting it wrong, and yet the Red Sox are fully on the record explaining their philosophy.
Yeah they didn't really have anything to sell that would get them anything of value that they wouldn't want to keep for the 2020 team, maybe after the season he's having they'll be able to keep Porcello on a cheap 1 or 2 year deal, Holt is their other FA, I think they'll be willing to pay him and JD as much as any other team would,
Everything you wrote is true. I only want to add that the plan wasn't even all that new. It's more or less how they approached bullpen deployment last year too (certainly it was in the post-season). The only difference was that they were no longer going to have one outlier reliever isolated to a single inning (the 9th) regardless of situation/leverage, which given their approach, is a bit wasteful. Especially if that guy is one of your better relievers as Kimbrel was until his rocky post-season. I think that, more than the salary, was why they passed on re-signing Kimbrel. They wanted to go in this direction and saw no use in signing a guy, big contract or not, who wasn't going to buy into the notion of being used in the 7th or 8th because that was the optimal deployment on a given night.
It's a bullpen philosophy focused on the best chance to win games, not the glorification of a single stat. They've had mixed results, but I don't believe it's because of the approach so much as some guys not coming through as expected (Brasier for one) and some key guys being overworked due to starting pitching shortcomings.
What we are learning is that perhaps the bullpen philosophy they want to implement is a sound one for a discussion in a faculty lounge or SABR convention, but not on the actual baseball field.
If implementing the strategy means that some of the best relievers don’t want to sign with you, then you’re tying one hand behind your back in talent acquisition.
I suppose if Hernandez does develop and Barnes and Workman don’t break down, it’ll work better with better talent around. I’m sure if they ever get to the point where they’ve developed their own trio of Dibble, Franco, and Myers or Holland, Davis, Herrera it’ll look great until those players hit free agency. But it seems to me that the benefits of the strategy, which I don’t argue exist, have to be weighed against the cost of limiting the pool of high quality relievers who want to play for you.
If implementing the strategy means that some of the best relievers don’t want to sign with you, then you’re tying one hand behind your back in talent acquisition.
I suppose if Hernandez does develop and Barnes and Workman don’t break down, it’ll work better with better talent around. I’m sure if they ever get to the point where they’ve developed their own trio of Dibble, Franco, and Myers or Holland, Davis, Herrera it’ll look great until those players hit free agency. But it seems to me that the benefits of the strategy, which I don’t argue exist, have to be weighed against the cost of limiting the pool of high quality relievers who want to play for you.
Who said anything about the best relievers not wanting to sign? I spoke of one reliever who had explicitly expressed a desire to not work in the 8th inning. That doesn't mean all or even some of the "best" relievers are going to be the same way. Frankly, if you pay enough, you'll get any reliever you want. I have no doubt that if the Sox had an extra $30M to spend last winter (on top of what they did spend), they might have paid for a Robertson or an Ottovino or a Britton or a Miller. All of those guys are pitchers that other teams might use as a traditional closer but have filled or are currently filling roles that don't involve very many save chances. If cost were no object, I think they'd have rather had one of those guys than Kimbrel.
If it worked great, people would copy it.
Honestly don't know how anyone can watch this team and blame anything other than the SP though.
If you have to overpay to get someone to accept the role, then that’s a cost of the strategy that has to be weighed against the benefits.
Because it’s a team, with a dynamic, not a series of random laboratory trials. The bullpen’s weakness is affecting the starters’ ability to compete. Cashner was left in for more than 110 pitches last night, because Cora doesn’t trust the pen. He simply wasn’t going to bring Hernandez and his sky high walk rate into a bases loaded situation.
Or the starter's weakness is affecting the bullpens ability to compete. The starters were bad right out of the gate. They just used the "less ST" thing as an excuse.
This is a tough one. Porcello in a way has become very Joe Kellyesque. Good Porcello still looks like a very good pitcher and a guy you want on your team, bad Porcello is horrendous and has nothing to offer. The problem is that good Porcello shows up less and less to the point where you have to wonder if A) he has anything left to give or B) if he just needs to be done in Boston.
It wasn't some "philosophy" they came up with because they wanted to change the way things were done to close a game. They did this for one reason only: the owners did not want to go over the luxury tax to either sign Kimbrel or replace him with a similar salaried player. Therefore, they had to go forward with what they had.
How do you know this?
After all...this approach is exactly what many members of this very forum have long been advocating as the best way to deploy bullpen resources.
Simple: they didn't go over the luxury tax to add any more pieces. I'm fairly confident they would have brought in another piece for the back end of the bullpen if they had the room under the last tax threshold. They didn't have enough quality arms then and still don't to be successful doing what you described.
I wouldn't have been shocked if Houston had some interest. They have such a good track record of taking under-performing pitchers and getting the best out of them.
If he's just mildly decent the rest of the way he'll have interest at a greatly reduced price. And at a greatly reduced price he would be a good risk for some teams that have some payroll flexibility. As far as we know his issues aren't injury related so he may well be fixable
I’ve no doubt they’d have brought in another quality bullpen piece. I think you’re right about that. I’ve argued all season long here that they didn’t and don’t have enough quality pitchers in the bullpen.
But I was referring to your claim that they’d have done it in the traditional “setup” and “closer” way instead of moving towards this philosophy. I don’t think there’s any evidence for that.
They did it that way the whole time Kimbrel was here. In fact, I'd hope they'd do the same thing they're doing with Barnes this year and Workman for that matter. Cora could afford even more to bring those guys in earlier situations to shut down any rallies and still have a bona fide closer to close a game out.
Someone else pointed out that things began to shift in the playoffs. But regardless... they implemented a new philosophy this season that was not based on “setup guy” and “closer” roles but on completely different bullpen usage. So when people say that nobody “won the closer’s job”, it’s because there was no “closer’s job” to be won. The Sox are fully on record on this point.
Nothing in my post said instead of Grienke. That should have been obvious.
The thing is, it's not the lack of a "bonafide closer" that's costing them games. Of their 21 blown saves, 5 have come in the 9th where the traditional "bonafide" closer would be working. The rest have come prior to the 9th or in extra innings when presumably the closer would have been used already.
Besides which, having a set closer to make the others available earlier presumes that they're not already being used earlier in games because Cora is saving them for something. He's not. No designated closer is no designated closer. He's not saving anyone for the ninth. He's using the best available guys in the highest leverage spots whether it's the 6th or the 9th. Seven different pitchers have recorded saves this year, none accumulating more than 7. If he were holding someone back specifically to finish games instead of using them earlier, someone would have more saves on his record.
"Closing" is not a skill. It's a job description. Like "cleanup hitter."
Ahh, so in addition?
I'm not sure they were looking for or needed 2 new starters.
I didn't realize Greinke had been underperforming and was part of your calculation.
And those two job descriptions usually describe your best players. What's your point?
I realize what not designating a closer means. If they had Kimbrel or a closer like him, do you think Cora would be using Kimbrel in the 6th or 7th like they are using Barnes or Workman? The answer is no. He did not designate a closer because he did not think there was a pitcher good enough to do so with. Therefore, he has to do what he's been doing. I'm not necessarily opposed to what Cora is doing with the bullpen. I just don't think they have good enough arms to do it with. Most of the time they use up Barnes and Workman earlier in the game and have to rely on lower leverage pitchers to pitch in higher leverage situations.
Your best reliever is your closer because your closer is your best reliever. Got it.
Yes because that’s literally what they’ve said numerous times.
Yeah, I’d like to see some more on this assertion.
Attachments
100% backwards. They do not designate a closer because they don't want to, not because they don't have anyone "good enough" to do the job. That implies that the closer has to be your best reliever and best has a specific definition in terms of skill level or expertise, which is total bullshit. There are plenty of teams in the league that have no one on Barnes or Workman's level yet they still have a "closer" designated for the job.
@RedOctober3829
But the thing is, they think the highest leverage situation is a late inning scenario when the opponents have their best hitters coming up, not always the 9th inning.
This is the “relief ace” concept that many here on SoSH have long advocated as being the optimal bullpen strategy.
Maybe they wouldn’t do it if they had Kimbrel. But that’s irrelevant actually. When people say that the Sox just haven’t had anyone “claim” the “closer’s role”, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Red Sox are operating this season.
But the thing is, they think the highest leverage situation is a late inning scenario when the opponents have their best hitters coming up, not always the 9th inning.
This is the “relief ace” concept that many here on SoSH have long advocated as being the optimal bullpen strategy.
Maybe they wouldn’t do it if they had Kimbrel. But that’s irrelevant actually. When people say that the Sox just haven’t had anyone “claim” the “closer’s role”, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Red Sox are operating this season.
I don't think it has to be either/or for having a "standard" closer vs. the "relief ace"/flexible approach. In certain cases/for certain pitchers, it will make sense to have them generally come into the game at set times so that they can mentally prepare and stick to a pre-set routine each game. For other pitchers, they may be perfectly comfortable coming in with men on base, or earlier in games, etc.
And this is precisely borne out by the last two years of the Red Sox - last year, Kimbrel was very obviously more comfortable (to the extent he was ever comfortable) coming in in the 9th or, at worst, 8th and "closing" a game out. This year, they have a bunch of guys who have pitched in various places their whole careers and thus don't seem particularly concerned with when they pitch, and unless I'm missing something their performance doesn't seem to be affected by when they pitch.
The question would be whether, after adjusting for talent levels to the extent possible, teams with "traditional" closers perform better on average than teams that use the more flexible approach. I'm not aware of any clear data that suggests one approach is consistently better than the other, but others may be.
And this is precisely borne out by the last two years of the Red Sox - last year, Kimbrel was very obviously more comfortable (to the extent he was ever comfortable) coming in in the 9th or, at worst, 8th and "closing" a game out. This year, they have a bunch of guys who have pitched in various places their whole careers and thus don't seem particularly concerned with when they pitch, and unless I'm missing something their performance doesn't seem to be affected by when they pitch.
The question would be whether, after adjusting for talent levels to the extent possible, teams with "traditional" closers perform better on average than teams that use the more flexible approach. I'm not aware of any clear data that suggests one approach is consistently better than the other, but others may be.
They discuss with the pitchers what their role will be that day. Barnes knows what part of the lineup to prepare for. He may not know which inning he will face them, but he knows which guys to prepare for. The other guys are told who may be closing the game out in situation X, etc. It’s not like they are all just sitting there anxiously awaiting word on which guy Cora will choose at random.
You'd think knowing which guys you are going to face rather than which inning you're coming in would help you prepare even more. It's far more specific.
When 30 out of 30 teams use the "traditional" closer approach for 20+ years running, where does the data come from to support the "committee" approach? I think a team (or two) will have to commit to it before there's usable data that goes beyond the theoretical. And I think that's what the Sox are committed to doing at this point. Whether it's philosophically motivated or financially (I think it's a blend of both), I don't really expect them to abandon it next year by signing a "closer". They might pursue a free agent reliever to bolster their pen, but I doubt it will be the traditional closer.
- Status