Jackie Bradley, Jr. - Help

[OttoC]

[tablegrid= Position OPS by Team Winning Percentage ]Win% Rk C OPS Rk 1B OPS Rk 2B OPS Rk 3B OPS Rk SS OPS Rk LF OPS Rk CF OPS Rk RF OPS Rk DH OPS .625 1 OAK .843 1 TOR .965 1 HOU .823 1 TEX .873 1 LAA .732 1 CLE .885 1 LAA .988 1 TOR .846 1 DET .969 .586 2 LAA .761 2 DET .938 2 DET .818 2 SEA .801 2 KCR .725 2 OAK .880 2 BAL .804 2 LAA .809 2 LAA .866 .565 3 DET .737 3 CHW .850 3 SEA .803 3 OAK .775 3 CHW .720 3 BAL .861 3 HOU .785 3 BAL .770 3 BOS .850 .494 4 CLE .734 4 BOS .794 4 MIN .768 4 TBR .758 4 TBR .701 4 TOR .816 4 NYY .785 4 DET .769 4 CHW .847 .517 5 KCR .724 5 CLE .773 5 BOS .739 5 NYY .736 5 BOS .697 5 TBR .787 5 OAK .772 5 TEX .750 5 BAL .845 .448 6 MIN .719 6 NYY .770 6 NYY .735 6 CLE .734 6 CLE .689 6 DET .756 6 TBR .715 6 SEA .729 6 TOR .799 .545 7 BAL .713 7 LAA .740 7 LAA .691 7 CHW .714 7 BAL .687 7 KCR .748 7 KCR .707 7 HOU .728 7 MIN .794 .432 8 TEX .688 8 BAL .734 8 CHW .687 8 TOR .709 8 TEX .671 8 NYY .746 8 TEX .694 8 TBR .723 8 TEX .766 .506 9 NYY .682 9 TBR .722 9 CLE .682 9 MIN .699 9 MIN .670 9 MIN .719 9 CLE .694 9 CHW .721 9 TBR .748 .400 10 HOU .682 10 SEA .704 10 TOR .678 10 DET .697 10 TOR .660 10 BOS .703 10 TOR .671 10 OAK .706 10 HOU .743 .545 11 SEA .681 11 OAK .697 11 TBR .676 11 KCR .681 11 OAK .658 11 LAA .679 11 DET .663 11 KCR .694 11 OAK .712 .522 12 TOR .622 12 TEX .669 12 KCR .649 12 HOU .649 12 HOU .655 12 TEX .653 12 CHW .636 12 MIN .672 12 KCR .640 .443 13 BOS .619 13 KCR .648 13 TEX .625 13 BAL .643 13 NYY .625 13 CHW .628 13 MIN .623 13 CLE .667 13 CLE .640 .472 14 CHW .604 14 MIN .643 14 BAL .612 14 LAA .612 14 SEA .606 14 SEA .621 14 BOS .615 14 NYY .651 14 NYY .606 .451 15 TBR .543 15 HOU .580 15 OAK .562 15 BOS .590 15 DET .584 15 HOU .555 15 SEA .604 15 BOS .597 15 SEA .559     TOT .691   TOT .749   TOT .707   TOT .713   TOT .673   TOT .739   TOT .719   TOT .723   TOT .760 [/tablegrid] 

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

The person who nailed it was the person who pointed out that projections are unbiased estimates and therefore you should expect players should underperform them half the time. So, if you pencil in somebody with a projection of 680 OPS, then you're likely to end up with a black hole in your lineup. Stting the bar for projected performance higher doesn't mean you can't accept someone with a 680 OPS, it means you won't have to endure someone with a 580 OPS.

I do admit in light of the averages quoted in response to my post that it's possible I still have to further recalibrate my expectations to the lower offensive environment (I used to set the bar at a 750 OPS). However, I've always rejected the use of "league average" as the benchmark for the Red Sox. FWIW, it wasn't long ago that they had above average players at every position. I would use as a benchmark the average among teams that made the playoffs, or at least teams that finished above 500, maybe teams in the top half of the league in terms of runs scored.

There is no one who consistently moves the goalposts more than you.

You're professional media spinster-level/member of Big Brother's party-level bad.

 

[Plympton91]

There is no one who consistently moves the goalposts more than you.

You're professional media spinster-level/member of Big Brother's party-level bad.

When confronted with conflicting evidence (how unbelievably low the average OPS now is) I change my position. What do you do?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

FWIW, it wasn't long ago that they had above average players at every position.

 
When would that be, exactly?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

When would that be, exactly?

Well .. If you count The LF platoon then last year

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

When confronted with conflicting evidence (how unbelievably low the average OPS now is) I change my position. What do you do?

Just admit I was wrong without a "however" and a "FWIW."

It doesn't hurt. Almost feels good sometimes. "Wow. Didn't realize that. Thanks. I was wrong."

Feel free to practice.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Well .. If you count The LF platoon then last year

 
Who was the above average third baseman that I missed?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Well .. If you count The LF platoon then last year

 
That depends on how you define average.  Rev's thread from last year is a good place to start.
 
.320 is about average for wOBA and the Sox were carrying Middlebrooks at third as a below average bat for most of the season.  Bogaerts gave them above average production at the end of the year, but given his troubles this year, I'm not sure I'd call him an above average bat at this stage of his career.  All told, they managed a .311.
 
Yes, it's a bit nitpicky to point out that they don't meet the criteria because they were below average at one position but it's also worth pointing out that they got greater than expected production out of a lot of hitters in 2013.  Building a team that is consistently above average offensively up and down the order is incredibly difficult.  The fact that several of the players who were comfortably above average last year are now well below average should illustrate that point nicely.

 

[Stitch01]

Looking at Ottos chart, I'd argue that going into next season with a projected .725 OPS hitter at every position is not an attainable goal. If Bradley looks like a.680-.700 guy with great defense for no money there are plenty of other places to better spend time and treasure on.

 

[Plympton91]

Just admit I was wrong without a "however" and a "FWIW."

It doesn't hurt. Almost feels good sometimes. "Wow. Didn't realize that. Thanks. I was wrong."

Feel free to practice.

No one has shown me that I'm wrong yet. Damon, Mueller, Garciaparra, Ramirez, Ortiz, Millar, Nixon, Varitek, and Walker would like a word.

Also, I made a very principles-based argument. Fill in the right OPS based on those principles. I should've done the work before I posted and taken the time to lay out the principles first instead of guestimating a number, my bad.

Hope you're enjoying tonight's game.

 

[Stitch01]

I assumed you were talking about a more recent team. A big market team in 2003 who was smart about the value of OBP had a lot of advantages just not there in today's game.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

No one has shown me that I'm wrong yet. Damon, Mueller, Garciaparra, Ramirez, Ortiz, Millar, Nixon, Varitek, and Walker would like a word.

 
Walker was not an above-average player in 2003. He wasn't even an above-average hitter in 2003.
 
Millar was probably not an above-average player that year either, in spite of the 25 HR--112 wRC+ and woeful defense. We can take the defensive metrics that put his WAR at 1.0 (BBref) and 0.4 (FG) with a grain of salt, but he was strictly an offensive player, and his offense, in that run environment, was only a little above average.
 
I think it was Bill James who said that pennants are lost every year because it is so difficult to fill every slot on a team with an average player, let alone an above-average one.

 

[JimBoSox9]

 
Walker was not an above-average player in 2003. He wasn't even an above-average hitter in 2003.
 

 
I blinked at this one, but a quick check shows that a .760 OPS at second base was good for a 95 OPS+ in 2003.  Pure insanity.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
Walker was not an above-average player in 2003. He wasn't even an above-average hitter in 2003.
 
Millar was probably not an above-average player that year either, in spite of the 25 HR--112 wRC+ and woeful defense. We can take the defensive metrics that put his WAR at 1.0 (BBref) and 0.4 (FG) with a grain of salt, but he was strictly an offensive player, and his offense, in that run environment, was only a little above average.
 
I think it was Bill James who said that pennants are lost every year because it is so difficult to fill every slot on a team with an average player, let alone an above-average one.

Millar's OPS+ was 110 that year, so he was an above average hitter.  Defensively, well, that's a different story, but he played a passable 1B.  
 
Interestingly, it was Damon who was below average offensively with a 94 OPS+.  He had a little bit of a regression that season (OPS was down 50 points from the prior year, and was 100 points higher the following year), which proves how impossible it is for a team to field above-average players at every position each and every season.  
 
It should be noted that the pitching (both starters and bullpen) that season was arguably worse than the 2014 Red Sox.  
 
If Bradley becomes a 94 OPS+ player, we should be happy.  It's not his fault that the media over hyped his ability, or that the team has offensive holes in other parts of the lineup (some of which should easily be filled by the time 2015 rolls around). 

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

So, Plympie's still wrong, right?

 

[TomRicardo]

So, Plympie's still wrong, right?

 
I think DH3 is turning on his main binkie, Stephon Drew.  You need to handle him with kiddie gloves however yea for the most part he always is.
 
Trolls aren't looking to make good points.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
I blinked at this one, but a quick check shows that a .760 OPS at second base was good for a 95 OPS+ in 2003.  Pure insanity.

 
 

Millar's OPS+ was 110 that year, so he was an above average hitter.  Defensively, well, that's a different story, but he played a passable 1B.  
 
Interestingly, it was Damon who was below average offensively with a 94 OPS+.  He had a little bit of a regression that season (OPS was down 50 points from the prior year, and was 100 points higher the following year), which proves how impossible it is for a team to field above-average players at every position each and every season.  
 
It should be noted that the pitching (both starters and bullpen) that season was arguably worse than the 2014 Red Sox.  
 
If Bradley becomes a 94 OPS+ player, we should be happy.  It's not his fault that the media over hyped his ability, or that the team has offensive holes in other parts of the lineup (some of which should easily be filled by the time 2015 rolls around). 

 
Is OPS+ adjusted for position?  I thought it was only adjusted for league and park.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

 
 
 
Is OPS+ adjusted for position?  I thought it was only adjusted for league and park.

It's not.  B-r.com does show sOPS+, which is adjusted for a given split.
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/split.cgi?t=b&team=BOS&year=2003#defp
 
In 2003, Sox 1B had an sOPS+ of 91, 2B of 113, and CF of 93.  The other 6 positions were 124 or higher (LF at 146).
 
Defense could shift the 2B and CF arguments above or below average, but 1B was below average hitting and, I assume, fielding.

 

[smastroyin]

The biggest offender to the bad 1B split was David Ortiz.  As a 1B, he hit 255/346/422 in 185 PA.  As DH he hit 310/389/700 in 314 PA.  
 
Millar hit 271/343/466 in 420 as a 1B, which was a bit below average 1B production (272/358/458).  Accounting for Fenway we can say pretty safely Millar was below average overall as a 1B, though his own split was neutral.
 
When looking at the position splits like this, of course, you are really only talking about what happened in those games, not the overall ability of the player.  

 

[RedOctober3829]

SSS alert, but JBJ is 10th in the majors in Defensive Runs Saved by both BB-Ref and Fangraphs.  He's only behind Marcel Ozuna at CF.

 

[Plympton91]

SSS alert, but JBJ is 10th in the majors in Defensive Runs Saved by both BB-Ref and Fangraphs.  He's only behind Marcel Ozuna at CF.

I'm surprised he's behind anyone. Is that as a rate stat or as a counting stat?

So, Plympie's still wrong, right?

Yes, it appears that in 2003 and 2004, only 7 of the 9 players in the everyday lineup were above average offensively. In 2003 a couple had OPS+ in the 95 range, and in 2004 one had an OPS+ in the 95 range and the other was SS dragged down by a ton of at bats being given to Pooky Reese after projected starter Nomar Garciaparra came up lame.

So, with only 7 of the 9 players on those teams (and 8 of the 9 projected starters in 2004) having an OPS+ of 100 or more, the point I was making was clearly blown out of the water and entirely irrelevant.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

I'm not sure how anyone could ever undermine your point that the Sox should have the BESTEST PLAYER EVER at every position, every year.

That's a hard position to argue.

 

[Plympton91]

I'm not sure how anyone could ever undermine your point that the Sox should have the BESTEST PLAYER EVER at every position, every year.

That's a hard position to argue.

Yeah, that's what I'm arguing. You got me. It was totally wrong of me to be concerned that they had no depth in CF or RF going into the season, which is at it's heart, the fundamental problem with the team this year.

 

[Stitch01]

I'm surprised he's behind anyone. Is that as a rate stat or as a counting stat?

Yes, it appears that in 2003 and 2004, only 7 of the 9 players in the everyday lineup were above average offensively. In 2003 a couple had OPS+ in the 95 range, and in 2004 one had an OPS+ in the 95 range and the other was SS dragged down by a ton of at bats being given to Pooky Reese after projected starter Nomar Garciaparra came up lame.
So, with only 7 of the 9 players on those teams (and 8 of the 9 projected starters in 2004) having an OPS+ of 100 or more, the point I was making was clearly blown out of the water and entirely irrelevant.

What we need to evaluate the premise are the 2003 and 2004 projections, not actual performance.

Big market teams that were smart about evaluating offense had advantages then that simply aren't available today.

Your metric is an aspirational goal that doesn't need to be met to contend for a title and is probably not realistic at all for the 2015 Sox.

 

[alwyn96]

You know, with his recent "hot" streak and awesome defense, Bradley currently projects as a 2 win player this year, which is...not terrible. I would not have thought that a few weeks ago. It would be nice if he could finish the season on a good note. If Bradley meets the offensive projections he had going in to the year (around 250/350/350, so unlikely, but not impossible), he'd probably be around a 3-ish win player. 
 
EDIT: I have a question - since I don't live in Boston, I don't really know: how are the Fenway fans reacting to Bradley and Bogaerts' struggles? They're young, and they're both guys who haven't struggled a ton in their careers, and I could see them internalizing the fans' negativity a little. Are people being decent, or taking it out on the young guys? They both look so young, I worry about them. 

 

[Otis Foster]

You know, with his recent "hot" streak and awesome defense, Bradley currently projects as a 2 win player this year, which is...not terrible. I would not have thought that a few weeks ago. It would be nice if he could finish the season on a good note. If Bradley meets the offensive projections he had going in to the year (around 250/350/350, so unlikely, but not impossible), he'd probably be around a 3-ish win player. 
 
EDIT: I have a question - since I don't live in Boston, I don't really know: how are the Fenway fans reacting to Bradley and Bogaerts' struggles? They're young, and they're both guys who haven't struggled a ton in their careers, and I could see them internalizing the fans' negativity a little. Are people being decent, or taking it out on the young guys? They both look so young, I worry about them. 

  Muted disappointment, for the games I've been at.

 

[SoxVindaloo]

  Muted disappointment, for the games I've been at.

My experience also. The booing when someone like AJP fails is much more pronounced than when one of the kids messes up.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Yeah, that's what I'm arguing. You got me. It was totally wrong of me to be concerned that they had no depth in CF or RF going into the season, which is at it's heart, the fundamental problem with the team this year.

 
1 Victorino (injured) 
2 Nava (slumped)
4 Gomes (semi-slumped)
5 JBJ (struggled) 
6 Sizemore (lottery ticket)
7 Carp (injured)
(Hassan/Brentz(injured)/et. al. - Holt and Betts weren't on the OF radar when the season opened)
 
So, which ML starting OFer should we have signed to play in Pawtucket?  (I'm sure there were like 4 or 5 of them that we turned away.)   Or which of those guys should we have DFA'd to sign a free agent.  Only Nava/JBJ had options, and there was no reason to start either in AAA.  You've got to break camp with somewhat defined roles.  
 
You can argue that Sizemore was a bad idea, but that only works if there's a FA CF who would have been willing to sign with the Sox and play part time if JBJ didn't pan out.  

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
So, which ML starting OFer should we have signed to play in Pawtucket? 

 
Ellsbury

 

[AbbyNoho]

 
Ellsbury

 
He plays for the Yankees.

 

[Plympton91]

 
1 Victorino (injured) 
2 Nava (slumped)
4 Gomes (semi-slumped)
5 JBJ (struggled) 
6 Sizemore (lottery ticket)
7 Carp (injured)
(Hassan/Brentz(injured)/et. al. - Holt and Betts weren't on the OF radar when the season opened)
 
So, which ML starting OFer should we have signed to play in Pawtucket?  (I'm sure there were like 4 or 5 of them that we turned away.)   Or which of those guys should we have DFA'd to sign a free agent.  Only Nava/JBJ had options, and there was no reason to start either in AAA.  You've got to break camp with somewhat defined roles.  
 
You can argue that Sizemore was a bad idea, but that only works if there's a FA CF who would have been willing to sign with the Sox and play part time if JBJ didn't pan out.  

The only CF in that list other than Bradley is Victorino, but he's supposed to be the RF. The simultaneous, early-season slumps of Nava, Gomes, and Carp would have meant that they had a poor left field situation no matter what they did and I would be the first one here saying that is just bad luck that can't be helped. But in RF and CF, the only viable plan this team had was for Victorino and Bradley to combine for 1200 at bats. Sizemore is not depth, he is the equivalent of a 60-yard Hail Mary pass down by 8 with 5 seconds to play in a football game.

My preferred plan, which I have stated repeatedly because apparently many people on this Board lack fundamental reading comprehension skills, was to have Bradley be that depth, with him riding the Pawtucket shuttle to start the season behind Victorino and a CF of the Red Sox choice, whether that be Ellsbury, another free agent such as David Murphy, or a trade such as Craig Gentry, Nori Aoki. Perhaps, those players would not have worked out great, no one seems to be hitting up to their career norms this season, or would have collided with Xander Bogaerts and broken their collarbone missing the whole season, but those would be hindsight criticisms.

What is not hindsight, and what more and more people are posting in multiple threads over the past week, is that this team started the season with only 1 viable CF above A-ball, except for the guy they planned to start in RF, and they also had no good options for RF in Fenway Park above A-ball if they needed the starting RF to play CF. That's not a good plan for a team that wanted to mount a serious defense of their post-season tournament championship. So, the only conclusion is that they didn't give a damn, and some people here are o.k. with that. I'm not.

I should add that Bradley made another absolutely unbelievably good play on defense tonight, and does not appear to be quite the black hole on offense of late that he was earlier in the season. Wanting Bradley to ride the shuttle for one more season is not to imply that I don't want Bradley to ever play regularly for Boston. I simply saw more AAA at bats combined with inevitable major league playing time due to injury or ineffectiveness as a sufficiently good developmental season. Even were they to resign Ellsbury, Bradley would be an everyday outfielder no later than opening day 2016, replacing Victorio, provided he earned it with production in a part-time role in 2014 and 2015. And, with sufficient production in a part-time role in 2014, he could have been competing with Nava for the strong half of the LF platoon (though it would be silly to not have him play CF or RF) in 2015. So, it's not about "Bradley hate" its about wanting to compete every year.

This management team said their goal was to make the playoffs in 6 out of 10 years. Barring a miracle finish to 2014, they'll need to make the playoffs every year from 2015 to 2019 in order to have the decade of 2010-2019 meet their goal. Moreover, that goal was set when there was only 1 wild card team. Now that there are 2, one would hope that a new goal would 7 times out of 10, or perhaps even 8 of 10. So, adjusted for the larger postseason, they've already failed to meet their own defined goal.

 

[lexrageorge]

...

This management team said their goal was to make the playoffs in 6 out of 10 years. Barring a miracle finish to 2014, they'll need to make the playoffs every year from 2015 to 2019 in order to have the decade of 2010-2019 meet their goal. Moreover, that goal was set when there was only 1 wild card team. Now that there are 2, one would hope that a new goal would 7 times out of 10, or perhaps even 8 of 10. So, adjusted for the larger postseason, they've already failed to meet their own defined goal.

Those are some ripe cherries you're picking there.  Had you picked the decade from 2003-2012, you would have counted 6 playoff appearances.  You also could have picked decades starting at 2000-2009, 2001-2010, 2002-2011, or 2004-2013, and got the same results.  But you must have known that.  So go enjoy that ripe bowl of cherries.  

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

What is not hindsight, and what more and more people are posting in multiple threads over the past week, is that this team started the season with only 1 viable CF above A-ball, except for the guy they planned to start in RF, and they also had no good options for RF in Fenway Park above A-ball if they needed the starting RF to play CF.

Daniel Nava played 25% of the team's innings in RF last year. Half of those at Fenway. The depth qua depth is, if anything, better this year than it was last year. There are more people who can "play" outfield, including CF. The only difference is replacing Ellsbury with Bradley Jr., who is not as good a player. That's your problem with the way the team was constructed, but you've been asked to move on to something else, and you've latched on to this "depth" thing, which is ridiculous on its face.
 

Now that there are 2, one would hope that a new goal would 7 times out of 10, or perhaps even 8 of 10. So, adjusted for the larger postseason, they've already failed to meet their own defined goal.

As long as we use your definition rather than theirs, yes, they've already failed to meet their own defined goal.

 

[Plympton91]

Daniel Nava played 25% of the team's innings in RF last year. Half of those at Fenway. The depth qua depth is, if anything, better this year than it was last year. There are more people who can "play" outfield, including CF. The only difference is replacing Ellsbury with Bradley Jr., who is not as good a player. That's your problem with the way the team was constructed, but you've been asked to move on to something else, and you've latched on to this "depth" thing, which is ridiculous on its face.

This is the second time you've said this, and it is patently false. The lack of depth in CF and RF was either first or second on the list of reasons I gave for why I'd be willing to pay market rates for Ellsbury from the first "should they sign Ellsbury" thread. Even after Ellsbury left, and many people spent the winter looking for some retread to platoon with Bradley, I continued to state in those threads over the winter that the roster construction wouldn't work to carry a platoon or backup CF, so therefore they should sign or trade for a starting CF and let Bradley ride the shuttle as depth for one more season. There is not even a smidgen of revisionist history in my harping on the lack of depth in CF and RF in this organization, or in the way I would have sought to remedy it, Ellsbury or no Ellsbury.

For a fleeting moment it looked like they were going to win the lottery with Sizemore, but once that hope evaporated in the first week of the regular season, the lack of a plan was laid bare. Your continued insistence on redefining depth to mean any player who has ever played an inning in the outfield does not make it so.

 

[Plympton91]

Those are some ripe cherries you're picking there.  Had you picked the decade from 2003-2012, you would have counted 6 playoff appearances.  You also could have picked decades starting at 2000-2009, 2001-2010, 2002-2011, or 2004-2013, and got the same results.  But you must have known that.  So go enjoy that ripe bowl of cherries.  

I published 2 papers last year, and got a great performance rating because of it. However, I won't get any credit in this year's performance appraisal for having published 2 papers last year. That's a perfectly reasonable standard for my employer to hold me to. I don't see why I should give others the benefit of being able to rest on their laurels either.

 

[Stitch01]

The Sox have been one of, at worst, the three most successful franchises in baseball over the last ten years and are set up pretty well for the future. Not sure rooting for a baseball team is going to be your thing if you don't think the franchise is living up to expectations over the long term.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

This is the second time you've said this, and it is patently false. The lack of depth in CF and RF was either first or second on the list of reasons I gave for why I'd be willing to pay market rates for Ellsbury from the first "should they sign Ellsbury" thread. Even after Ellsbury left, and many people spent the winter looking for some retread to platoon with Bradley, I continued to state in those threads over the winter that the roster construction wouldn't work to carry a platoon or backup CF, so therefore they should sign or trade for a starting CF and let Bradley ride the shuttle as depth for one more season. There is not even a smidgen of revisionist history in my harping on the lack of depth in CF and RF in this organization, or in the way I would have sought to remedy it, Ellsbury or no Ellsbury.

It's always revealing to go back and look at what people actually wrote at the time. In the Ellsbury thread, you say the Red Sox would be stupid not to go to 6/$108. By the end of that thread, you say they should be willing to get to 6/$120 for him. You also argued that in order to afford Ellsbury at that salary, they should jettison Victorino and have JBJ play in RF.

 

[Byrdbrain]

Are we really doing this again?

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

So, the only conclusion is that they didn't give a damn.

 
I just thought of another possible conclusion.  The Red Sox front office actually does give a damn, spent a lot of man hours working on coming up with this roster, employed a lot of people whose knowledge of baseball dwarfs yours, but, alas, a lot of things went wrong (some of which, perhaps, they might have been better prepared for?  Or not?).  That's another possible conclusion.
 
Not surprisingly, you don't really have any idea how baseball operations does their job.  There is so much luck (good and bad) in the decisions they make that it takes years to judge whether they are sufficiently good at it.  The people who suggest that Cherington deserves some slack for what happened last year understand this, and you, not surprisingly, do not.  The slack does not mean he is allowed to be bad at a his job now, it means that his performance last year (as well as the top-ranked farm system) suggest that the organization is in good hands, even if a bunch of things go wrong this year.
 
His track record, unlike yours, suggests he understands how to create and sustain an organization.  If history later judges that he sucks at his job, it will be based on more data than "not signing Nori Aoki in 2014."
 
Its fun to pick at the moves that a GM makes.  He should not have signed Sizemore?  But when the GM just won a World Series, its more likely that one would think, "gee, I wonder what Ben was thinking there?  I wonder what he and his advisors saw in the workouts and medical reports that we do not see that made them make that decision?"  The answer to that question might be interesting.  But the idea that they don't care, or they are stupid, just makes the poster look like a dick.

 

[Toe Nash]

I suggest everyone stop engaging with the same tired argument and watch this again. This is the JBJ thread:
 
http://deadspin.com/red-sox-outfielder-jackie-bradley-jr-lays-out-for-a-m-1602720126

 

[nvalvo]

He hit a ball to the track in deep right against Chris Sale, too. That ball would have been off or over fences in 20 or so parks. 

 

[Plympton91]

Yeah, I should stop allowing myself to be trolled by others.

Bradley's defense is, if anything and if possible, better than advertised, and there is finally evidence in the "last 14 days" and "last 28 days" stat lines that he's learning how to be an effective offensive player again.

That's very promising. It's why, as KkiH noted in a totally divorced from context hit job, it would have been acceptable in a hypothetical scenario where the Red Sox were actually middle market team to create payroll space by relying on him as a RFer this season.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

This management team said their goal was to make the playoffs in 6 out of 10 years. Barring a miracle finish to 2014, they'll need to make the playoffs every year from 2015 to 2019 in order to have the decade of 2010-2019 meet their goal. Moreover, that goal was set when there was only 1 wild card team. Now that there are 2, one would hope that a new goal would 7 times out of 10, or perhaps even 8 of 10. So, adjusted for the larger postseason, they've already failed to meet their own defined goal.

 
Just throwing this out there, but if a team isn't going to make the playoffs every year, from a baseball development POV, there is something to be said for going from worst to WS win back to worst again.
 
I admit it sucks from a fan's POV, though.

 

[nvalvo]

Bradley's defense is, if anything and if possible, better than advertised, and there is finally evidence in the "last 14 days" and "last 28 days" stat lines that he's learning how to be an effective offensive player again.

 

 
Bradley's starting to look a bit more like the guy who compiled his minor league record. The eye-test is even more convincing than the numbers, but I was just digging around his Fangraphs page, so here are a few nuggets. 
 
His K% peaked at 30.9 in May; back down under 27 in June/July. His LD% was only 13.7 in April; that's back above 20% in June/July. His IFFB% was an astonishing 14.3 in April; down to a more ordinary 5.6 in June. 
 
And he's apparently made 57 (!!!!) out of zone plays this season, which is somehow both entirely plausible and completely unbelievable at the same time. He might break UZR. 

 

[pokey_reese]

For what it's worth, after his recent "hot" streak and great defense, and X's cold streak and mediocre defense, JBJ now has a comfortable lead in WAR on the season.

 

[alwyn96]

 
Just throwing this out there, but if a team isn't going to make the playoffs every year, from a baseball development POV, there is something to be said for going from worst to WS win back to worst again.
 
I admit it sucks from a fan's POV, though.

It's been one hell of an emotional roller coaster these last couple years, I'll give them that. 2011 was no picnic either. 
 
EDIT: To keep the discussion on topic, that Bradley catch was frickin awesome. Look how much ground he covers! He reads the ball off the bat immediately! With what appears to be an absolutely perfect route! Not to mention the crazy athleticism of that leap. AND, look at the runner - he goes back to tag because he knows Bradley is insanely good and is capable of flipping out and making insane catches like that. That's some respect right there. 

 

[iayork]

In the lower-scoring environment league-wide these days, does high-quality defense or offense become more valuable? How should we recalibrate expectations from the steroid era?

 

[JimBoSox9]

In the lower-scoring environment league-wide these days, does high-quality defense or offense become more valuable? How should we recalibrate expectations from the steroid era?

 
Off the cuff I think the answer to the first half of the question hinges on whether there are more or less balls in play in today's environment versus the steroid era.  With an extremely quick-and-dirty look, here's a comparison of HR/K/BB rates between today and 2003:
 

 
The increase in strikeouts dwarfs the decrease in walks and HRs in raw totals, leading to less balls in play.  That would make defense less valuable today, although the difference feels fairly marginal and I'd expect at a macro level that value to be transferred to the pitcher rather than the offense.  Within the lineup, I think it's clear from league FOs the result has been to more highly value hitters who can reverse that HR % decline.  

 

[ivanvamp]

Still a SSS, but his last 35 games:  .248/.320/.336/.656
 
Not very good, but combined with his unbelievable defense, that would make him a pretty nice CF.  
 
The JBJ trend is up, folks.  And that's very good news.

 

[alwyn96]

2014 WAR at the All-Star break:
 
JBJ - 1.5
Ellsbury - 1.8