How Good Are The Sox Now?

Drek

New Member
Jul 21, 2005
5
Picture you have a really nice car but a few jackass friends of yours light the back seat on fire. In their attempt to put it out they fire brigade gas cans one after the other into the backseat of your really nice car, claiming that if you just give them a little more time they'll figure it out. Then a guy comes along with a fire extinguisher. How much nicer is your life now than it was before extinguisher guy showed up?

That's how much better the Sox are.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
He's had 8 postseason starts, is 0-7 with an era of 5.26. He's allowed 3 runs or less in 4 of them. That's objectively terrible, if not predictive. Are we looking at the same guy?
I neglected to notice that some of his appearances were in relief.

Won loss record means nothing.

His troubles essentially amount to three games. He allowed 7 runs to the 2013 Red Sox in the Division Series, 5 to Texas in the 2015 Division Series, and 5 to Kansas City in the League Championship Series.

People look at post season results and compare them to regular season results and that's stupid. In the post season, you're facing good teams and sometimes good teams are going to score.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
He's a top 5 catcher with a year and a half remaining. I think the Victor Martinez trade would be a decent estimate of his value.
MLB starter with an iffy track record and a minor league reliever ... EdRod and Pat Light? I might make that trade if the team didn't actually need Rodriguez to start games right now.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Isn't this a case where the gains are far more likely to exceed what is predicted? We are replacing below replacement talent with a guy who has been a top 10 pitcher this year. 1 win might be what systems project, but our 4 and 5 spots have put up a combined era in the 7's and we replaced it with a guy who should conservatively have an era of 4. We are replacing a group of pitchers who put up an era 2 runs higher than Clay Buchholz and didn't even average 5 innings a start. This isn't a minor upgrade and I'm not sure a system that crunches numbers would pick up on that.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Broken record department: I know this is a thread about the Red Sox, but nothing operates in a vacuum. Almost every negative cited can be applied to other teams, including injuries and ageing. This thread should have us comparing the Red Sox to the Orioles and Blue Jays. One, a team that has highly suspect starting pitching and overly relies on the home run and the other a truly scary team that also has pitching issues. I'm kicking this part off hoping that more stat-worthy posters will chip in.

Let's compare starters:
Tillman / Gausman / Gallardo / Jimenez / ?
(Estrada) / Sanchez / Happ / Dickey / Stroman
Price / Porcello / Wright / Pomeranz / Rodriguez

Pen:
Britton / Brach / Despaigne / Worley / Bundy / Givens / Roe / (O'Day)
Osuna / Storen / Chavez / Biagini / Cecil / Grili / Loup / Schulz
(Kimbrel) / Ziegler / Uehara / (Tazawa) / Barnes / Ross / Hembree / Buchholz / Layne / (Kelly)

Batting Order:
Rickard / Machado / Jones / Davis / Trumbo / Wieters / Schoop / Reimold / Hardy
Saunders / Donaldson / (Bautista) / Encanarcion / Martin / Tulowitzki / Smoak / Pillar / Barney
Betts / Pedrioa / Bogaerts / Ortiz / Ramirez / Bradley / Holt / Shaw / Leon

Bench:
Joseph / Flaherty / Kim / Alvarez
Thole / Travis / Burns / Lake / Goins
Hanigan / Hill / Martinez / (Young) / Brentz

First blush:

The Blue Jays barely take the starter's prize here, but Pomeranz makes a big difference. Not having a #5 hurts the Red Sox. Still, Sanchez is going to the pen. Orioles can't compete in this category. I could now give the edge to the Red Sox if I squint.

The Orioles have the best pen. Britton and Brach are killers and O'Day is coming back. The Jays Osuna is statistically better than Kimbrel. Ziegler helps, but not enough to make up for losing Carson and watching Koji flame out. I'd say the Red Sox pen as it stands is far behind the Orioles and Blue Jays.

The Red Sox have the best lineup, one that doesn't depend on long balls. Let's look at lineups. Betts is the class of the leadoff hitters and Machado/Donaldson the #2's. Bogaerts and Bautista are different types of #3's but I'll take Bogaerts any day. Ortiz ('nuff said). Trumbo is outhitting Hanley, but I don't think he's going to keep it up (while Hanley will improve). Bradley is today much better than Tulowitzky, but that may change.

I'd say the Sox have the better bench, even more so when Young replaces Brentz.

Blue Jays are the team that should scare the Orioles and the Red Sox. If the Sox can either (1) improve their pen - assuming Kimbrel and Tazawa are ok and, (2) possibly pick up a #5 under the assumption that Rodriguez is a long shot or that Wright will hit a rough spot - then they overtake the Jays on paper. Pomeranz is huge. Hill is big. Kelly may prove a surprise in the pen and Ziegler could also exceed expectations.

It's unfortunate that Pomeranz didn't really push a #5 out of the rotation since the team didn't have one. Maybe Rich Hill is coming through that door (doubtful)...but regardless - the team looks pretty damn competitive.
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
I'm not sure what would be the perfect fix for Boston. Is it a 5th starter, more pen help, a catcher or a LF? But I do like the idea of CarGo in LF. He will cost a lot, however; if we can keep "Moncada" and "Benintendi" out of a trade then I'd consider it. What will it cost? I imagine more than I'd like but DD seems to be able to put trades together that don't clean out the prospects.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I'm not sure what would be the perfect fix for Boston. Is it a 5th starter, more pen help, a catcher or a LF? But I do like the idea of CarGo in LF. He will cost a lot, however; if we can keep "Moncada" and "Benintendi" out of a trade then I'd consider it. What will it cost? I imagine more than I'd like but DD seems to be able to put trades together that don't clean out the prospects.
I assume the motivation for another catcher (seen Lucroy come up in various places) is for better offense? Given that the team is already the number one run scoring offense in the league, I'm not sure that's necessarily a priority. Between Leon, Hanigan, and Vazquez, defensively they're set and that's all they really need out of that position for the rest of the year.

Left field is another where I'm not sure it's much of a priority in the short-term. They've collectively gotten a .256/.323/.402 from their left fielders while the league average LF is .257/.325/.405. That's not terrible. Chris Young will return, Brentz has been adequate in his absence, and Holt is Holt...and of course Benintendi is on the horizon as well. I'm not seeing where expending prospect resources (even if they're not named Benintendi, Moncada or Devers) and adding another ~$27M to the payroll through the end of next season is worth whatever upgrade they might get.

Pitching is where further improvements can and should be made if any more deals are to be done. But I also think that simply getting healthy can be as much of a boost for the second half as making any more trades.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
Isn't this a case where the gains are far more likely to exceed what is predicted? We are replacing below replacement talent with a guy who has been a top 10 pitcher this year. 1 win might be what systems project, but our 4 and 5 spots have put up a combined era in the 7's and we replaced it with a guy who should conservatively have an era of 4. We are replacing a group of pitchers who put up an era 2 runs higher than Clay Buchholz and didn't even average 5 innings a start. This isn't a minor upgrade and I'm not sure a system that crunches numbers would pick up on that.
I think a system would pick up on that, but IMO the system would have to add something beyond a WAR comparison. That's because WAR is context neutral. The context Pomeranz is adding is a significant increase of winning every fifth game. Thinking in hyperbole, it seems like the pre-Pomeranz odds of winning that game were close to nil, but the example of SOS starts leading to a 4-0 record demonstrates the hyperbole.

Anyway, I'm going to pull a 20% increase of winning every fifth game out of my butt. If I pulled a reasonable number, that would be about 3 extra wins. I welcome feedback on the 20% number.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I assume the motivation for another catcher (seen Lucroy come up in various places) is for better offense? Given that the team is already the number one run scoring offense in the league, I'm not sure that's necessarily a priority. Between Leon, Hanigan, and Vazquez, defensively they're set and that's all they really need out of that position for the rest of the year.

Pitching is where further improvements can and should be made if any more deals are to be done. But I also think that simply getting healthy can be as much of a boost for the second half as making any more trades.
There is no denying that pitching is the issue long term, but in a short series, this rotation is good enough. Getting to the playoffs is the real dog fight.

I see it as extra wins are extra wins, no matter where they come from and Lucroy is 1-2 win upgrade for the half season. Lucroy is also elite defensively, and as a pitch framer and can also play 1B. Sure the defense is fine with what we have, but he could be a long term solution since the pipeline is not encouraging. There would also be absolutely no breaks in the lineup which also has additonal value.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
I think a system would pick up on that, but IMO the system would have to add something beyond a WAR comparison. That's because WAR is context neutral. The context Pomeranz is adding is a significant increase of winning every fifth game. Thinking in hyperbole, it seems like the pre-Pomeranz odds of winning that game were close to nil, but the example of SOS starts leading to a 4-0 record demonstrates the hyperbole.

Anyway, I'm going to pull a 20% increase of winning every fifth game out of my butt. If I pulled a reasonable number, that would be about 3 extra wins. I welcome feedback on the 20% number.
It's the right ballpark, anyway. You're taking a spot in the rotation that has earned roughly -1 WAR in the first half and replacing it with someone at ~2 WAR.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
WAR is the most challenging stat that I deal with. It makes no logical sense to the average baseball fan (me). I don't see a player contributing to "x" amount of wins during a season...the concept is foreign. I understand that statistical analysis provides this number and it's uses as a relative indicator, that a "replacement" team wins a certain number of games over a season. I get it. I just don't see a rational (versus theoretical) relationship between the season-long performance of a single player and the amount of wins a team gets.That's not the way baseball is played (as opposed to, say, wrestling).

Is WAR a proven stat? Has it been tested against actual results? How do you demonstrate that a Lucroy led directly to 2.3 additional wins over an entire past season?

If a fantasy team was assembled and every player had a +4.0 WAR, would that team theoretically win 100 more games than the replacement team?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the stat.

Carry on. I'll take my answers off air.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
It's the right ballpark, anyway. You're taking a spot in the rotation that has earned roughly -1 WAR in the first half and replacing it with someone at ~2 WAR.
One way of looking at it:
  1. Sox starters other than Price/Wright/Porcello have a combined FIP of 6.32 this year.
  2. Drew Pomeranz has a 3.49 FIP over the past three years.
  3. The Sox are scoring 5.62 runs per game this year.
  4. The Pythagorean W/L for scoring 5.62 runs and allowing 6.32 is .447.
  5. If you change the runs allowed to 3.49 it becomes .705.
  6. There are about 15 starts left per rotation slot.
  7. At a .447 winning percentage we will go 7-8 in those starts.
  8. At a .705 WPTC we will go 11-4.
So calculated that way, it's a four-game swing. Even if you moderate those assumptions considerably--assume Pomeranz is a 4.00 FIP pitcher in the AL East, and that the clown car fifth slot would have managed in his absence to right the ship to the tune of, say, a 5.50 FIP--it's still a two-game swing. Split the difference and you get the same three-game swing phenweigh found. In the position the Sox are in, even two games could matter quite a bit, and four would be huge.
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
1,082
Pittsboro NC
He's a top 5 catcher with a year and a half remaining. I think the Victor Martinez trade would be a decent estimate of his value.
To refresh memories, the Red Sox traded Justin Masterson, Nick Hagadone and Bryan Price for Martinez.
Masterson was already a major leaguer, up with the Sox for part of 2008 and all of 2009. In 2009 he had started 6 games and appeared in 25 others in relief, with a 4.50 ERA. In his two partial seasons with the Sox he had accumulated 3.2 WAR (BRef), most of it in 2008.
Hagadone was in low A, was 0-2 with a 2.52 ERA in 10 starts and had just had TJ surgery in 2008. He was the 55th overall draft pick in 2007. Coming out of TJ surgery, he had reportedly just touched 99 mph before the trade. He ended up making 143 relief appearances for the Indians from 2011-15, with a 4.77 ERA and -0.3 WAR. He had one decent season, in 2014 throwing to a 2.70 ERA and 0.6 WAR. He signed a minor league contract with the Brewers this past winter, then the contract was voided after his physical; he'd had surgery for a fractured left (throwing) elbow in July 2015.
Price was in high A at the time, with a combined 4-8 record and 4.67 ERA in 19 starts at Greenville and Salem. He was the 45th overall pick in the 2008 draft. He had a 3 game cup of coffee with the Indians in 2014, giving up 6 earned runs (3 homers) in 2.2 IP. He's currently on the roster of the Indians AAA team (Columbus), but is on the restricted list and hasn't pitched this year.

So what's an equivalent trade?
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
Owens, Raudes, Cosart? Although I'd imagine they'd be interested in Swihart as part of the package.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
One way of looking at it:
  1. Sox starters other than Price/Wright/Porcello have a combined FIP of 6.32 this year.
  2. Drew Pomeranz has a 3.49 FIP over the past three years.
  3. The Sox are scoring 5.62 runs per game this year.
  4. The Pythagorean W/L for scoring 5.62 runs and allowing 6.32 is .447.
  5. If you change the runs allowed to 3.49 it becomes .705.
  6. There are about 15 starts left per rotation slot.
  7. At a .447 winning percentage we will go 7-8 in those starts.
  8. At a .705 WPTC we will go 11-4.
So calculated that way, it's a four-game swing. Even if you moderate those assumptions considerably--assume Pomeranz is a 4.00 FIP pitcher in the AL East, and that the clown car fifth slot would have managed in his absence to right the ship to the tune of, say, a 5.50 FIP--it's still a two-game swing. Split the difference and you get the same three-game swing phenweigh found. In the position the Sox are in, even two games could matter quite a bit, and four would be huge.
Thanks for putting in more rigor than I. This projection methodology seems like a pretty reasonable way to add context compared to WAR.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
The starting lineup, ops, and their ops+ numbers as of this morning:

C Leon - 1.198, 209
1b Ramirez - .818, 113
2b Pedroia - .795, 109
3b Shaw - .792, 106
SS Bogaerts - .841, 120
LF Holt - .775, 102
CF Bradley - .911, 136
RF Betts - .858, 122
DH Ortiz - 1.085, 180

I've never seen a roster where every member of the starting lineup has an ops+ over 100.
 

TFisNEXT

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
12,529
The starting lineup, ops, and their ops+ numbers as of this morning:

C Leon - 1.198, 209
1b Ramirez - .818, 113
2b Pedroia - .795, 109
3b Shaw - .792, 106
SS Bogaerts - .841, 120
LF Holt - .775, 102
CF Bradley - .911, 136
RF Betts - .858, 122
DH Ortiz - 1.085, 180

I've never seen a roster where every member of the starting lineup has an ops+ over 100.

The '03 and '04 teams essentially did this, though maybe technically Damon and Walker were below 100 in '03, I can't remember exactly but if they were it wasn't by much.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
WAR is the most challenging stat that I deal with. It makes no logical sense to the average baseball fan (me). I don't see a player contributing to "x" amount of wins during a season...the concept is foreign. I understand that statistical analysis provides this number and it's uses as a relative indicator, that a "replacement" team wins a certain number of games over a season. I get it. I just don't see a rational (versus theoretical) relationship between the season-long performance of a single player and the amount of wins a team gets.That's not the way baseball is played (as opposed to, say, wrestling).

Is WAR a proven stat? Has it been tested against actual results? How do you demonstrate that a Lucroy led directly to 2.3 additional wins over an entire past season?

If a fantasy team was assembled and every player had a +4.0 WAR, would that team theoretically win 100 more games than the replacement team?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the stat.

Carry on. I'll take my answers off air.
Why yes it has been studied and it is pretty accurate.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/what-is-war-good-for/
 

Shore Thing

New Member
Jul 14, 2005
67
The '03 and '04 teams essentially did this, though maybe technically Damon and Walker were below 100 in '03, I can't remember exactly but if they were it wasn't by much.
WTF. The '03 and '04 teams did this, but not really?

2003
C Varitek - .863, 120
1b Millar - .820, 110
2b Walker - .760, 95
3b Mueller - .938, 140
SS Nomar - .870, 121
LF Manny - 1.014, 159
CF Damon - .750, 94
RF Nixon - .975, 148
DH Ortiz - .961, 141

2004
C Varitek - .872, 121
1b Millar - .857, 117
2b Bellhorn - .817, 107
3b Mueller - .811, 106
SS Reese - .574, 46
LF Manny - 1.009, 152
CF Damon - .857, 117
RF Kapler - .700, 77
DH Ortiz - .983, 145
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
WTF. The '03 and '04 teams did this, but not really?

2003
C Varitek - .863, 120
1b Millar - .820, 110
2b Walker - .760, 95
3b Mueller - .938, 140
SS Nomar - .870, 121
LF Manny - 1.014, 159
CF Damon - .750, 94
RF Nixon - .975, 148
DH Ortiz - .961, 141

2004
C Varitek - .872, 121
1b Millar - .857, 117
2b Bellhorn - .817, 107
3b Mueller - .811, 106
SS Reese - .574, 46
LF Manny - 1.009, 152
CF Damon - .857, 117
RF Kapler - .700, 77
DH Ortiz - .983, 145

Sure, but in 2004 they could have had Nomar and Nixon in the lineup during some of those games. The 2016 lineup is still a blackhole at Catcher, overall.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The 2013 team came within one position:

2013
C Saltalamacchia - .804, 118
1B Napoli - .842, 128
2B Pedroia - .787, 115
3B Middlebrooks - .696, 87
SS Drew - .777, 111
LF Gomes - .771, 110
CF Ellsbury - .781, 113
RF Victorino - .801, 118
DH Ortiz - .959, 159

And they also had three guys on the bench (Nava, Carp, and Iglesias) with at least 200 PA and OPS+ over 100.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
WAR is the most challenging stat that I deal with. It makes no logical sense to the average baseball fan (me). I don't see a player contributing to "x" amount of wins during a season...the concept is foreign. I understand that statistical analysis provides this number and it's uses as a relative indicator, that a "replacement" team wins a certain number of games over a season. I get it. I just don't see a rational (versus theoretical) relationship between the season-long performance of a single player and the amount of wins a team gets.That's not the way baseball is played (as opposed to, say, wrestling).

Is WAR a proven stat? Has it been tested against actual results? How do you demonstrate that a Lucroy led directly to 2.3 additional wins over an entire past season?

If a fantasy team was assembled and every player had a +4.0 WAR, would that team theoretically win 100 more games than the replacement team?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the stat.

Carry on. I'll take my answers off air.
Here's how I think of it. Take a team: let's say the Red Sox. Add up their WAR. Add that WAR to the replacement level WAR (usually set at 40-something wins), and you get an estimate of the team's record. Basically, WAR is working backward from that to allocate value to the different contributions players make — defensively, offensively, pitching, and baserunning.

Here's the 2013 Red Sox. They accrued 35.9 WAR from position players and 16 WAR from pitchers, for a total of 52 WAR. Replacement level is 47.7 wins, so that roughly predicts the 2013 team to win 99 and change. They won 97. Close.

Or the 2014 Red Sox. 16.7 WAR from position players, and 11.3 WAR from pitchers, plus replacement level of 47.7: 75.7 wins. They won 71, but really cratered in the second half. Still: close.

WAR roughly allocates to individual players the differences in value that lead to those different outcomes. There are error bars, just as teams sometimes outperform or underperform their pythagorean records.

> If a fantasy team was assembled and every player had a +4.0 WAR, would that team theoretically win 100 more games than the replacement team?

There aren't enough PA or IP to go around for every roster spot to accrue 4.0 WAR. But yes, that sort of outlier would likely break the model somewhat.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
2004
SS Reese/Cabrera/Nomar - .716, 82
RF Kapler/Nixon - .758, 93
but 2016 is still Christian Vazquez for 100 more PA. He didn't say end the season with 9 regulars at 100+ OPS+, just a lineup sporting one. I'd wonder if any team finished at above average production over the course of the year at all positions.
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
I'm not exactly sure there is a great deal of benefit comparing earlier Sox teams to this one. The baseball world has changed since 2003 & 2004 and to some extent 2013. In 2003 & 2004 the baseball world was still in heavy with the PED which skew any comparison. In 2013 we had several veterans play at levels no one was expecting. The team today and the league have changed dramatically. The game is different with extra WC, parity, the play on the field (shifts, pen usage, more small ball Vs. bashing ...), strike zone, replays and on and on. I'm all for comparing the Sox to other teams now and in the next year or two but not against teams that played almost in a different era. Let's compare the current team to last couple of teams and may be the 2013 group but let's leave 2003, 2004 to that era.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
but 2016 is still Christian Vazquez for 100 more PA. He didn't say end the season with 9 regulars at 100+ OPS+, just a lineup sporting one. I'd wonder if any team finished at above average production over the course of the year at all positions.
I checked out the 1999 Indians that scored a thousand runs...they had three guys under 100.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
1950 Red Sox did it.

Scored 1027 runs. Went 94-60. Finished 3rd out of 8, 4GB. The guy credited as the Catcher barely squeaked by at 101 OPS+, with 299 PA. Backup catcher had 258 PA.
So the almost impossible, incredibly difficult, so hard we had to go hunting for it cool thing a team can do was still done four years more recently than winning a hundred games.

Come on, people, I've probably lived more than half my life already, I want this before I die.

And yes, if you had told my 15, 20, 25, or 30 year old selves that winning a hundred games is what I would be wanting to see before I died, I likely would have questioned the accuracy of your prediction. It's even possible that I would have been rude or dismissive in the process.

In retrospect, my 30 year old self would have been particularly assholish.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Here's how I think of it. Take a team: let's say the Red Sox. Add up their WAR. Add that WAR to the replacement level WAR (usually set at 40-something wins), and you get an estimate of the team's record. Basically, WAR is working backward from that to allocate value to the different contributions players make — defensively, offensively, pitching, and baserunning.

Here's the 2013 Red Sox. They accrued 35.9 WAR from position players and 16 WAR from pitchers, for a total of 52 WAR. Replacement level is 47.7 wins, so that roughly predicts the 2013 team to win 99 and change. They won 97. Close.

Or the 2014 Red Sox. 16.7 WAR from position players, and 11.3 WAR from pitchers, plus replacement level of 47.7: 75.7 wins. They won 71, but really cratered in the second half. Still: close.

WAR roughly allocates to individual players the differences in value that lead to those different outcomes. There are error bars, just as teams sometimes outperform or underperform their pythagorean records.

> If a fantasy team was assembled and every player had a +4.0 WAR, would that team theoretically win 100 more games than the replacement team?

There aren't enough PA or IP to go around for every roster spot to accrue 4.0 WAR. But yes, that sort of outlier would likely break the model somewhat.
Thanks to you and Byrdbrain, I now understand the basis. It makes much more sense due to your explanation.
 

LahoudOrBillyC

Indian name is Massages Ellsbury
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
4,073
Willamette Valley
nvalvo's explanation, which I agree with, is also a useful thing to know when considering how to build your team.

According to most analysts, a "win" costs about $8M on the free agent market. To win 97 games (a "safe" total to make the playoffs) means you need 50 WAR, which would cost about $400M on the market.

No one has ever spent close to $400M in the market, so how can this be true. It is true because great teams almost always have a huge amount of pre-market talent. The Red Sox have a shit-ton of talent that has yet to hit the market. This is why they are good.

So if someone ever says "you can't build a team in free agency" this is what they mean. It is basically impossible without $400M. The late 1990s Yankees had a fantastic pre-market core. Once that core aged and got expensive, and the Yankees did not develop a core behind them, their payroll went through the roof.

You need Mookie Betts and Xander Bogaerts to be able to afford David Price and Hanley Ramirez.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
1950 Red Sox did it.

Scored 1027 runs. Went 94-60. Finished 3rd out of 8, 4GB. The guy credited as the Catcher barely squeaked by at 101 OPS+, with 299 PA. Backup catcher had 258 PA.
Thanks. I meant from the position as a whole though. So 2016 Catcher for the redsox would be the aggregate total of Vaz/Hannigan/Swihart/Leon. I'm guessing the answer is no. The 1998 Yankees came close.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
If you get to narrow the goalposts every time someone puts one on net, then eventually nobody will be able to score, sure. Nobody's ever scored 2000 runs in a season, either. Doesn't mean we can't be impressed by what @BaseballJones said about our team.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing for. That having an all-above-league-average-hitters lineup isn't impressive as hell? We need to add additional constraints before we're allowed to be happy?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
If you get to narrow the goalposts every time someone puts one on net, then eventually nobody will be able to score, sure. Nobody's ever scored 2000 runs in a season, either. Doesn't mean we can't be impressed by what @BaseballJones said about our team.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing for. That having an all-above-league-average-hitters lineup isn't impressive as hell? We need to add additional constraints before we're allowed to be happy?
I wasn't arguing, and I never moved my goal post. You read my original post incorrectly, partly because I didn't word it well enough. I asked if any team finished at above average production for every position for a season. I didn't say players. Nor have I expressed any disappointment in our lineup. Have fun playing the fallacy game though, sorry for being a baseball buff and genuinely interested if a team has ever sported a 100+ ops at every position for the course of a season.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Not sure where to find the information either, but I think the 2004 Detroit Tigers came very close, if not actually doing it. And the 2009 Yankees lineup had 8 regulars sporting a 118+ ops or higher. Damn.


Also there is the 2009 Los Angeles Angeles who had a lineup of 100+, but not for position. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAA/2009.shtml
 
Last edited:

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Oddly, BBref doesn't seem to offer any direct pathway to searching for this, but a good place to start is going to franchise encyclopedias and looking at each franchise's highest-scoring seasons. (Although since OPS+ is relative to environment, you might be just as likely to find an example from a team that scored 700 in the dead-ball era vs. 900 in the 90s.)

A couple of fairly obvious candidates come up:

1931 Yankees
1976 Reds
1953 Dodgers

These all qualify if your criterion is having a >100 OPS+ from the team leader in GS at each position. If you mean a >100 collective OPS+ from everybody who played that position that year, that would be harder to find.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410

FinanceAdvice

New Member
Apr 1, 2008
167
Albany, NY
[QUOTE="Rasputin, post: 1786703, member: 166]

Price and Pomeranz would match up well with anyone.
I don't buy this premise. Price had a famously poor playoff record and Pomeranz has none. And they would going into the high leverage fire known as Red Sox Playoffs.

Pomeranz will also likely be coming off the highest usage regular season of his career

I have to agree. Sure the Red Sox have perhaps the best offense in all of all baseball but they must somehow improve their pitching. Hopefully Price can right his ship and Pomeranz' first AL outing could be an abberation. Wright and Porcello could very well be dominant in play-offs but IMHO you need 4 quality. I dont think they can rely on Sox to outslug everyone.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,900
Alexandria, VA
Oddly, BBref doesn't seem to offer any direct pathway to searching for this, but a good place to start is going to franchise encyclopedias and looking at each franchise's highest-scoring seasons. (Although since OPS+ is relative to environment, you might be just as likely to find an example from a team that scored 700 in the dead-ball era vs. 900 in the 90s.)

A couple of fairly obvious candidates come up:

1931 Yankees
1976 Reds
1953 Dodgers

These all qualify if your criterion is having a >100 OPS+ from the team leader in GS at each position. If you mean a >100 collective OPS+ from everybody who played that position that year, that would be harder to find.
1931 Yankees are damned close, but CF had 99 sOPS+. 1997 Indians have just CF under at 91 as well.

1976 Reds P had 79 sOPS+. 1953 Dodgers P had 69 sOPS+
 

John DiFool

Member
SoSH Member
May 12, 2007
1,179
Jacksonville, Florida
Based on a comment I saw in a game thread wondering about the offense seemingly dying in the late innings, as it indeed did, again, last night...

Innings 1-3: .307/.369/.517
Innings 4-6: .290/.363/.482
Innings 7-9: .269/.331/.427
[Extras: .319/.418/.404-wow, only 56 total PA's in extras this year too...]

League for comparison:

Innings 1-3: .266/.329/.431
Innings 4-6: .261/.324/.437
Innings 7-9: .249/.314/.407

So it's not your imagination, the offense simply dies after the 6th. Only slug .411 in the 7th too...
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Isn't it unsurprising that offense in general (not just the Red Sox) tails off in the later innings, given how bullpens are used? If a team is trailing or tied in the late innings, they're typically facing the iron of their opponent's pen. If a team is leading, while they aren't necessarily facing the best pitchers the opponent has to offer, they may not necessarily be pressing for big innings and more runs the way they were in the early going, especially if the lead is significant (say more than 3 runs).
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Sure, that's why he included the AL for comparison.

Look at it this way: the Red Sox OPS is 16.6% higher than the AL in general during innings 1-3, 11.0% higher during innings 4-6, and 5.1% higher during innings 7-9. The good news is that they are still an above-average innings 7-9 offense, but not the juggernaut they are during innings 1-6.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Based on a comment I saw in a game thread wondering about the offense seemingly dying in the late innings, as it indeed did, again, last night...

Innings 1-3: .307/.369/.517
Innings 4-6: .290/.363/.482
Innings 7-9: .269/.331/.427
[Extras: .319/.418/.404-wow, only 56 total PA's in extras this year too...]

League for comparison:

Innings 1-3: .266/.329/.431
Innings 4-6: .261/.324/.437
Innings 7-9: .249/.314/.407

So it's not your imagination, the offense simply dies after the 6th. Only slug .411 in the 7th too...
I agree with Red(s)HawksFan that the bullpens they face may have a lot to do with that in the last 3 innings. Also, I wonder if innings 1-3 have a higher percentage of plate appearances by the top 4 guys in the lineup, compared with innings 7-9. That is, in innings 7-9 I bet there's a pretty even spread of plate appearances taken by every spot in the lineup. But in innings 1-3, I hypothesize that you'd have a higher percentage of at-bats by your 1-4 hitters, if for no other reason than that you get to start the game with them, which guarantees they get PAs.

Just a thought. I wonder how one can get that information without scouring through actual box scores individually.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
The interesting question is: why? It could be that they have faced more teams with better bullpens. Indeed, the Yankees and Orioles have two of the better pens in the AL. The Jays are sort of the top of the bottom third. Perhaps also they are in relatively more close games in the 7-9th, prompting teams to use their better relievers? I don't know. Another small contribution might come from having a higher % of ABs vs LHP in innings 7-9 (is this true?) The AL OPSs 0.747 vRHP and 0.749 vLHP, while the Red Sox are 0.835 vRHP and 0.826 vLHP.

Anyhow, some food for thought.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
They are a playoff contender. If I were the Sox I would do the following.

1) Fire John Farrell. His bullpen management and just overall game management is atrocious. It's going to cost the Sox more big games. Replace him with Torey Lovullo for the rest of the season.
2) Make small moves to shore up the bullpen. Guys that maybe need a change of scenery such as Storen or Benoit would have been perfect as low cost flyers. Ironically both have since been dealt. But perhaps someone like McGee who has been great away from Coors?
3) DFA Layne once Kimbrel returns. He has been abysmal recently.
4) Trade Clay Buchholz and eat salary if need be. I think he's becoming a distraction for this team and is a wasted roster spot if you aren't going to start him. Obviously not going to exercise the option next year so might as well use him in a deal to an NL team for a reliever. Think something like Thornburg to Boston and Clay to Milwaukee.
5) Move Holt back to a Supersub role where he can excel and the team can use him more.
6) Call up Andrew Benetendi. The bat is there. Dombrowski mentioned two weeks ago he wasn't that far away. See if you can get him to give you a jolt like the Mets got out of Conforto last year.
7) Move Moncada to 3rd and have him ready for a Sept 1st call up.

I mean those are just moves I can see that will help this team now. The pen needs another 6th or 7th inning piece. LF can be solved internally. Farrell is a bottom 10 in game manager.