A 2016 thread

[RedOctober3829]

Those seasons that they sold off at the deadline were for a reason. They werent good enough to compete for the playoffs. I would like to believe we expect more from this organization than we've gotten in the past 5 years. The rationale here is similar to the NY Giants who are criticized for being a down organization. They won 2 SBs, but haven't made the playoffs in any other season. I want much more consistency out of the Red Sox than what they've given us. It's completely unacceptable for them to be finishing in last place given the resources available.

I don't expect any better results in 2016 because they haven't given me reason to. That goes to ownership on down.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

So, we just saw an incredibly hot Blue Jays team, one that in some ways reminds me of the late 70's Red Sox...a team that needed better pitching. Still, let's look at the way the Jays' offense and fielding was constructed and see if there are any lessons to be learned:
 
- Good defensive (if somewhat fragile) shortstop. Not your classic lead-off guy but with shortstop speed on the bases to disrupt the opposition
- Power hitting, great fielding 3B. Exactly what all teams seek.
- Power hitting, RBI producing 1B/DH. Exactly what all teams seek.
- Power hitting, RBI producing Switch-hitting 1B
- Power hitting, great fielding RF. Exactly what all teams seek.
- Great defensive CF/LF. Hits well enough to be in the lineup.
- Great defensive/offensive/pitcher handling catcher (how did the Yankees let this guy go?)
 
- Good defense, decent hitting 2B platoon
- Good defense, decent hitting LF platoon
- Good bench
- Breakout unknown 31 year old player hitting an ungodly .439 BABIP that they'll ride until he comes back to earth
 
Lessons learned?
 
1. Strong defense up the middle
2. Bonus points for offense at catcher
3. Power at the infield corners and from at least one corner outfield spot
4. Bonus points for great defense at 3B and RF
5. Classic DH
6. Deductions for lack of power in other corner outfield spot, but points for a great defensive outfield
 
1978:
 
1. Fisk, Remy, Burleson, Lynn
2. Fisk
3. Hobson, Scott/Yaz, Rice
4. -----, Evans (Give Scott a nod at 1B)
5. Yaz, Carbo
6. Lynn, Evans (+ Rice in LF = OK)
 
Some speed: 74 SB led by Remy with 30 
Beetle Baily, not so much
 
2015:
 
1. Vazquez (oops), Pedroia (yes), Bogaerts (ok), Betts (yes)
2. Nope
3. Sandoval (nope, but could be), Napoli (nope, but should have been), Ramirez (should be)
4. Nope, Nope
5. Not so much anymore
6. Could be
 
Bonus points for having a good hitting/fielding 2B and a Brockholt
Deductions for black hole at Catcher, a RF in the field hospital,  and the worst defensive LF in baseball
 
In 2016:
1. Vazquez back, Pedroia, Bogaerts and Betts seem to form a good defensive middle
2. Maybe Swihart blossoms
3. Move Sandoval to 1B? (not enough power). Find a good 3B or 1B? Castillo blossoms? This category is a real problem
4. Ouch
5. Ramirez fills that role just fine
6. Castillo, Betts, Bradley works
 
And explain to the front office that Pitching (starting and relief) actually does mean something over 162 games and into the playoffs. Toronto will find this out. You can't bash yourself all the way to a championship, unless you're lucky.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I'm optimistic about 2016 because I surmise that our young core are going to continue to improve. X is already one of the best at his position, and Mookie, Swihart, Castillo, and Vasquez all have had flashes.

Of course, most of us felt the same way to begin last year (X, WMB, and Bradley), and most of us felt the same way to begin this year too. Point being that if some of our young players don't take a step forward, it's going to take years to dig us out of this hole.

It's funny - for a front office that continues to value flexibility, this team really doesn't have any. Not because of the contracts, but because the Red Sox are committed to finding out how their young core are going to fare.

 

[BoredViewer]

 
Pedroia's wRC+ is tied with 2011, the best of his career and his defense does not appear to have slipped at all. If anything, he's currently better than he was going into 2013...
 

 
He's having a fantastic rebound year at the plate. 
 
His defense has not been fantastic.  Last year, he was unreal.  The eye ball test alone, told me this.  Quite a few times this year I've thought, "last year's Pedroia would have made that play."
 
I remember from another discussion (last year) that the historically best defensive 2B all start to decline defensively around this age.
 
And lastly, all the defensive stats show this year as not a good one for him.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

One thing I'm seeing repeated is the idea that both Swihart and Vazquez will be around next year. I'm thinking one of them could be more valuable as a trade chip for a starter - I'd lean toward keeping Swihart, personally, but maybe that's just me. Hanigan will still be around, and he's a more than capable backup.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

One thing I'm seeing repeated is the idea that both Swihart and Vazquez will be around next year. I'm thinking one of them could be more valuable as a trade chip for a starter - I'd lean toward keeping Swihart, personally, but maybe that's just me. Hanigan will still be around, and he's a more than capable backup.

 
Until Vazquez is healthy and can play, I don't think he has a lot of value as a trade chip.  Nor do I think there's a lot of value in assuming he'll be on the 25-man roster on Opening Day either.  One of Vazquez or Swihart could and probably should be catching for Pawtucket to start the season next year.  Barring disaster over the course of the rest of this season, I would expect Vazquez will be the guy in Pawtucket and Swihart will be in Boston.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Until Vazquez is healthy and can play, I don't think he has a lot of value as a trade chip.  Nor do I think there's a lot of value in assuming he'll be on the 25-man roster on Opening Day either.  One of Vazquez or Swihart could and probably should be catching for Pawtucket to start the season next year.  Barring disaster over the course of the rest of this season, I would expect Vazquez will be the guy in Pawtucket and Swihart will be in Boston.

I'm rather confused by this. Why isn't a Swihart/Vazquez job share viable?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'm rather confused by this. Why isn't a Swihart/Vazquez job share viable?

 
I was rolling with the premise that Hanigan would still be around since he'll still be under contract.

 

[MikeM]

Swihart has a 552 OPS. Yes, he's promising, but it's OK to suggest he might not be ready. If he's still scuffling when Hanigan is ready to return, it seems quite possible that he will be sent back down. He wasn't really supposed to get a ton of playing time at the big league level this year- if he's not playing well, why keep him up?

 
Do you really send him down in the name of making Hanigan the starter though? The season is pretty much over, and even if it miraculously turns out that it isn't, the chances he makes that difference are pretty damn slim. 67 PAs of a decent obp clip aside, we already know he's not a long term solution.
 
Unless Ben really thinks this MLB stint is stunting Swihart's growth, i don't see why we wouldn't continue seizing on the unique (well, not so much these days but still) opportunity and just let him take his growing lumps up here. Which also makes more sense in a playing for 2016 context imo. 

 

[Rasputin]

The point is, there's bo reason to think of 2015 as some outlier. It seems far more likely that 2013 is the outlier.

Would it be rude of me to point out that talking about outliers is kind of silly when you're talking about vastly different rosters?

The teams aren't underperforming for the same reasons.

 

[MuzzyField]

Aren't most rosters transitioning year-to-year?
Can't the outlier be based on the organizational philosophy and it's epic failure to sniff the post season in three of the past four seasons post-Tito?
The frustration for me weighs more on the fact that this organization is trying to win, spending to win and epically failing. Just because 2013 ended with a championship doesn't mean all is swell and the team is on the correct path. Players transitioning from MiLB to MLB, roster construction philosophy (how many DH's does one team need), and MLB talent evaluation and acquisition haven't been going as well as the decision makers expected. Better decision makers would be a good place to start.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
He's having a fantastic rebound year at the plate. 
 
His defense has not been fantastic.  Last year, he was unreal.  The eye ball test alone, told me this.  Quite a few times this year I've thought, "last year's Pedroia would have made that play."
 
I remember from another discussion (last year) that the historically best defensive 2B all start to decline defensively around this age.
 
And lastly, all the defensive stats show this year as not a good one for him.

 
Defensive metrics like UZR are meangingless in less than a half year sample. They're not even that meaningful in a full season's worth of data so his 18.3 needs to be regressed anyway. As for the eyeball test, I don't agree. He's making great plays on a regular basis and has had several "wow" moments already this season. I don't see the decline you are describing. Maybe he's just spoiled us to the point where we don't appreciate how good his glove is anymore.

 

[Otis Foster]

 
Do you really send him down in the name of making Hanigan the starter though? The season is pretty much over, and even if it miraculously turns out that it isn't, the chances he makes that difference are pretty damn slim. 67 PAs of a decent obp clip aside, we already know he's not a long term solution.
 
Unless Ben really thinks this MLB stint is stunting Swihart's growth, i don't see why we wouldn't continue seizing on the unique (well, not so much these days but still) opportunity and just let him take his growing lumps up here. Which also makes more sense in a playing for 2016 context imo. 

 
By 'he', I assume you're talking about Hanigan. The indefinite antecedent threw me for a minute.

 

[BoredViewer]

 
Defensive metrics like UZR are meangingless in less than a half year sample. They're not even that meaningful in a full season's worth of data so his 18.3 needs to be regressed anyway. As for the eyeball test, I don't agree. He's making great plays on a regular basis and has had several "wow" moments already this season. I don't see the decline you are describing. Maybe he's just spoiled us to the point where we don't appreciate how good his glove is anymore.

 
I guess we can disagree over the eyeball impressions.
 
The thing is... the stats are the stats.  That he is having a worse defensive season isn't really up for debate.
 
Sure, it doesn't make him an average or below average fielder, all of a sudden... he's likely one of the top few guys.  But, I think it is more likely than not, he has begun some kind of an overall defensive decline.