"This too shall pass" ---- righting the ship for 2016

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
Short of a fire sale, I would be surprised if they finished below .440. Moving Koji would hurt, but I'm expecting better performance ROS from Panda, Hanley, Papi and Porcello and more growth from Bogaerts, Betts and Rodriguez. The mitigating factor is Buchholz seemingly being lost for the rest of the season, so I don't expect them to have a monster two month stretch, but they could go .500 the rest of the way.
 
And I didn't ascribe motivations to your thinking and I certainly didn't assume that all simple thinking is on the other side of the debate or that all people on the other side are doing it. I very specifically cited two posts as examples of what I was talking about and said a lot of people are doing similar things when posting. I think that bears out with a rereading of the most active threads on the main board right now over the last few days.
 
 
So you are predicting that on average, 39 out of 40 players have under performed each year when compared to projections? Because that's what you started with and that kind of hyperbole is what I'm arguing against. If you are amending that to suggest that the split would be more along the lines of 90/70 over 4 seasons I'd be interested to see the results of a look like this, but as it's your position, I'll leave it to you to do the legwork. You'll also need to come up with an error bar for it as it's not really fair to draw the line at the exact comp as being ~5% above or below is probably just normal variance and should count as a "heads.".
 
It may turn up less than 70 seasons of positive results, but I wouldn't be shocked if it turned up more. This year alone I'd bet on Bogaerts, Betts, Koji, Eduardo, Holt, Pedroia, Miley, De Aza, Hanigan, Buchholz, and Tazawa are all good bets to be in that margin for error or above it and this is probably the worst season of the four. You're likely to have a lot of players from the 2013 roster coming up heads as well, so that's a pretty good start. When you consider that the 2012 squad was 53-51 on July 31st of that year, there are very likely a good number of players who will also come up heads for that season as well.
 
And that doesn't mean the front office is above reproach or that they haven't made any mistakes worth criticizing, but the last 3.5 seasons haven't been as bad as some here are suggesting.

 
Okay, if you can point me to a way to get pre-season Zips projections for previous years, I'll do it. For 2015:
 
Six batters so far have performed more than 1.0 WAR under projected (projected was adjusted to 100 games, but the 1.0 WAR difference is over that 100 game time frame, not converted back to a 162 game total): Sandoval, Ramirez, Castillo, Napoli, Nava, and Craig. Four batters have performed between 0.5 and 1.0 WAR under projected (corrected to 100 games): Leon, Ortiz, JBJ, and Pedroia. Betts (0.8 WAR above projected), Bogaerts (1.1) and Holt (1.4) are the only hitters that exceeded expectations thus far.
 
I'm leaving out Victorino, Vazquez, and Hanigan for being injured - not because they are missing too many games to underperform, but because I'm willing to put injuries in the luck column. Castillo, JBJ and Craig are left in - their underperformance is due partly to their underperformance at the major league level and partly to the front office's unwillingness to play them. 
 
Clay Buchholz (+2.4) is the only pitcher who's been more than 1.0 WAR away from projected in either direction. Porcello, Barnes, and Ogando haven been between -1.0 and -0.5. Masterson, Mujica, Breslow, Hembree, and Wright were between -0.5 and 0.0. Ross, Miley, Kelly, Varvaro, and Layne were between 0.0 and 0.5. Uehara and Tazawa have been between 0.5 and 1.0.
 
Please let's not have the WAR argument again. I'm assuming that over 29 different players the noise evens out (that WAR is an unbiased estimator). So we have in 2015:
 
6 players more than 1.0 WAR below expected
7 players between 0.5 and 1.0 WAR below expected
5 players between 0.0 and 0.5 WAR below expected
5 players between 0.0 and 0.5 WAR above expected
3 players between 0.5 and 1.0 WAR above expected
3 players more than 1.0 WAR above expected
 
By my 1.0 WAR criteria, that's 3 heads and 6 tails. If you project it out to a 162 game season, it's 6 heads and 14 tails. Totaled together, all of those players have been 12.6 WAR below projected so far. If I had some estimate of variance for Zips I'd be happy to run that comparison, although just a simple non-parametric rank-sign test has a p<0.0001 that the projected and observed performances aren't different - that is, random.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

But of course that's just a comparison based on publicly available data. I'm assuming Ben wasn't using a Zips spreadsheet to make decisions the past few offseasons. But of course, simply looking at $ spent / win, or $/WAR for the Red Sox since 2012 will show pretty spectacularly (I really don't think you need to run stats on this) how bad they've been. What this does show is that they've been much worse than consensus, which kind of supports the idea that the moves they made in the offseason were more or less reasonable. If anything, I think this analysis is more of an indictment of the coaching staff - this suggests that the team on paper (i.e. the one that Ben and co. created) should have been good enough to compete. They just haven't. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Okay, if you can point me to a way to get pre-season Zips projections for previous years, I'll do it. For 2015:
 
Please let's not have the WAR argument again. I'm assuming that over 29 different players the noise evens out (that WAR is an unbiased estimator). So we have in 2015:

 
 
I'm sorry, but I don't accept WAR as a valid way to look at this. The samples are far too small to trust the defensive or base running components. I know that's the only comprehensive tool we have, but it's just not good enough. Looking at offense separately and then looking at defense on a case by case basis with a regressed UZR would probably turn up different results. I know that's a lot of additional work I'm proposing, so I don't expect you to necessarily do that, but I was assuming we would be looking at hitting and then either looking at defense and base running more loosely through observations or properly regressed metrics.
 
As for where to get preseason projections, I have no idea. Google isn't turning anything up and fangraphs only seems to offer this year's projections.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
 
I'm sorry, but I don't accept WAR as a valid way to look at this. The samples are far too small to trust the defensive or base running components. I know that's the only comprehensive tool we have, but it's just not good enough. Looking at offense separately and then looking at defense on a case by case basis with a regressed UZR would probably turn up different results. I know that's a lot of additional work I'm proposing, so I don't expect you to necessarily do that, but I was assuming we would be looking at hitting and then either looking at defense and base running more loosely through observations or properly regressed metrics.
 
As for where to get preseason projections, I have no idea. Google isn't turning anything up and fangraphs only seems to offer this year's projections.

 
Dude that's why we set the 1.0 cutoffs. Come the fuck on. Your position now is that there's no statistical evidence that the 2015 Boston Red Sox have underperformed their projections more than random. It's your turn to provide a shred of evidence. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

That's not my position and I'm getting tired of the straw man arguments. This was a tangent that I thought might be interesting but since you've conceded that your 39 out of 40 was hyperbole by shifting to a more reasonable set of numbers, I'm content to leave it at that. At no point have I ever said anything even close to "there's no statistical evidence that the 2015 Boston Red Sox have underperformed their projections more than random." I also didn't bring up luck, you did, which started this sidebar in the first place. My position from the start is that people are being too fast and loose with declaring failures and mistakes and that it leads to shitty posts and weaker discourse. If you are going to continue trying to put words in my mouth, I'm just gonna back out of the thread now because we're just going to go in circles.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

That's not my position and I'm getting tired of the straw man arguments. This was a tangent that I thought might be interesting but since you've conceded that your 39 out of 40 was hyperbole by shifting to a more reasonable set of numbers, I'm content to leave it at that. At no point have I ever said anything even close to "there's no statistical evidence that the 2015 Boston Red Sox have underperformed their projections more than random." I also didn't bring up luck, you did, which started this sidebar in the first place. My position from the start is that people are being too fast and loose with declaring failures and mistakes and that it leads to shitty posts and weaker discourse. If you are going to continue trying to put words in my mouth, I'm just gonna back out of the thread now because we're just going to go in circles.

 
Thanks for all that you do to better this board's discourse.

 

[Rasputin]

 My position from the start is that people are being too fast and loose with declaring failures and mistakes and that it leads to shitty posts and weaker discourse. If you are going to continue trying to put words in my mouth, I'm just gonna back out of the thread now because we're just going to go in circles.

 
This is also my position, and I'd add that we're talking about an enterprise with results that are inherently variable. Look at a guy like Mark Buehrle who is notoriously consistent, pitching a couple hundred innings and being pretty good or a long time. Here's his WAR starting in 2001 per baseball reference.
 
5.9 5.0 2.5 4.2 4.8 2.2 6.1 4.4 5.3 4.0 3.8 3.8 2.1 3.6 2.5
 
Just looking at the trade from Miami to Toronto, the Torontonians were probably disappointed by his 2.1 in 2013, but he comes back in 2014 with a 3.6 and he's at 2.5 so far in '15. And throughout his career, differences of 1 WAR or more are fairly common from year to year.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Just out of curiosity, at what point would some of you actually be willing to say the front office has done a poor job? 

 

[Rasputin]

Just out of curiosity, at what point would some of you actually be willing to say the front office has done a poor job? 

 
When they are consistently making decisions that are clearly poor at the time of the decision.
 
It was pretty obvious to a lot of us that the signing of Justin Masterson was a pretty bad decision--big chance of a big downside, little chance of a moderate upside. 
 
That wasn't the case with the Porcello trade. It wasn't the case with the Ramirez signing. It might have been slightly the case for the Sandoval signing in that even those who thought it was a good move thought Sandoval was going to be overpaid.
 
It certainly wouldn't have to be every decision, because nobody that bad is going to get a GM job, but it's got to be a lot more than one clearly bad decision on a relatively minor deal and a kind of meh larger deal.

 

[mauf]

Just out of curiosity, at what point would some of you actually be willing to say the front office has done a poor job? 

When they aren't two years removed from a championship, with two 22-year olds holding up-the-middle positions and arguably the deepest farm system in the game.

 

[nvalvo]

Just out of curiosity, at what point would some of you actually be willing to say the front office has done a poor job? 

 
Well, that point would be unlikely to arrive when the consensus has our farm system in the top two or three in baseball.  
 
Have some things gone poorly at the big league level? Sure. But imagine if we'd dealt, say, Betts, Marrero and Devers for Hamels, and were now 47-53, instead of 44-56. Would you be happier with the FO then? 

 

[tomdeplonty]

Could this be useful? http://www.bbprojectionproject.com/
 
(Edit: the projections provided are pretty limited - R, HR, RBI, AVG, SB for hitters; W, SO, WHIP, and ERA for pitchers - but there are Zips and Steamer numbers back to 2012.)

 

[Rasputin]

So, with this logic, results don't matter at all, only the perception of a move at the time it's made?
It's also ridiculous in that 95% of the moves the sox make are rationalized after they are made. Look at how quickly the opinion on Porcello changed when he went from the Tigers to the Sox.

 
Of course results matter, but a lot of the decisions a GM makes can't be fully judged for at least three or four years after the move is made.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
Well, that point would be unlikely to arrive when the consensus has our farm system in the top two or three in baseball.  
 
Have some things gone poorly at the big league level? Sure. But imagine if we'd dealt, say, Betts, Marrero and Devers for Hamels, and were now 47-53, instead of 44-56. Would you be happier with the FO then? 

 
Leaving aside your strawman of a hypothetical crappy trade, I don't mind pointing out Cherington deserves credit for the player-development side of things. I think they do such a good job of that and of raiding other teams' systems for talent that I now am starting to believe more and more that they should have committed to something closer to a full rebuild after 2014 than what they wound up doing.

 

[grimshaw]

 
Okay, if you can point me to a way to get pre-season Zips projections for previous years, I'll do it. For 2015:
 

I started doing it but got a massive headache.
 
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/oracle/discussion/2012_zips_projections_-_boston_red_sox/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2013-zips-projections-boston-red-sox/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2014-zips-projections-boston-red-sox/

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Just out of curiosity, at what point would some of you actually be willing to say the front office has done a poor job?

Like it or not, a WS championship is generally a "Keep Your Job for a while" card. How long? Well, it's more than 21 months and probably less than five years.

That time frame grows when you get the coveted #1 Farm System ranking.

And to turn the question around - the Red Sox finally have a GM that prioritizes prospects over short-term wins. Shouldn't he be rewarded by getting a chance to see if his prospects can compete? If not, doesn't that say to future GMs that it's better to get a few more wins and deal the prospects than hang on to them and develop the farm system?

 

[alwyn96]

 
Of course results matter, but a lot of the decisions a GM makes can't be fully judged for at least three or four years after the move is made.

 
Yeah, seems like the most productive way to evaulate it would be to take both the assesment of move at the time and the results, to some extent. I mean, if the Red Sox somehow trade Mike Napoli and magic beans for Mike Trout, but Trout gets hit by bus and Napoli regains his stroke, the results may be a little misleading in terms of judging the front office. The Lackey deal looked like an unmitigated disaster at the end of 2012, but one could probably argue it being merely not-very-good deal today. Results obviously matter, but sometimes crazy stuff happens that I'm not sure it's always fair to blame a FO for. But I think if enough moves that looked good at the time just continue not to work out, then I think you have to put some blame on the FO (or at least their process), fair or not.
 
In terms of how much to hold the FO to account, I guess I'm more peaved about them not making the playoffs 3 out of 4 years despite the new expanded format. I don't really care whether they finish 2nd or last if they don't make the playoffs. If they're not going to make the playoffs anyway, I'd rather have the high draft picks than watch a mediocre team stumble around or trade prospects to make a last push. But not making the playoffs when it's been statistically easier than ever to do so seems not great.
 
I'm sure there will be plenty of time to formally analyze in excruciating detail just how bad the FO has been when the season's over. Porcello could pitch like an ace or Sandoval could slug 20HR the next few months and then we'll have wasted all this time and have to come up with a new/different narrative

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
Dude that's why we set the 1.0 cutoffs. Come the fuck on. Your position now is that there's no statistical evidence that the 2015 Boston Red Sox have underperformed their projections more than random. It's your turn to provide a shred of evidence. 

 
While your approach is mathematically sound, there are few assumptions attached to it in the context of this thread.   Basically, the thing that's confusing to me is that we'd automatically attribute the underperformance of individual players to the Front Office.  I can see blaming the field manager for underperforming the pythag - the argument being that the runs scored and prevented were "there" but the manager somehow didn't maximize the teams performance over 162 games to the point where it significantly shows up in the standings.   However, I can't see why one would argue that when player X individually underperforms their projections, at a first cut, the FO is to blame, rather than the player himself (or the coaches).  
 
I agree that the FO ought to have statistical projection models that are more sophisticated than the publicly available ones.  But in that case (assuming unlimited resources) we'd see only a) over performance of signed players, and b) jettisoning players who'd go on to under perform.  When we see a player who underperforms based on the publicly available models, we have to strongly consider that it's the player's "fault" - that there was a hidden injury, or poor conditioning, or a failure to prepare, etc.  It's not like the FO has models that predict disaster, but they go ahead and sign a player beyond their year/salary comfort limit regardless of that (e.g., Elsbury, Lester.)
 
One could make the argument that the FO has a statistical projection model that greatly overvalues the players - more so than the standard projections (i.e., the Julio Lugo scenario).  But what happens when the individual player underperforms both this hypothetical overvalued mark *and* the publicly available projections?  Again, absent something like gross negligence from the coaches/manager, you have to look at the player first.  
 
One could argue that FO ought to consider each player on a case by case basis - say, for example, Sandoval.  The FO has statistical models, but there's a risk that Sandoval eats himself out of the game, or mails it in.  However, since other teams were in the bidding for Sandoval, we should assume that to the extent these issues were concerns they were fully explored and factored in.  
 
I just don't see the "totally obvious bad signing" or "totally obvious bad trade" in the lot of personnel moves.  I see plenty of bad results, but there weren't many nay-sayers when those signings and trades happened.  (And I say this as someone who was personally on the fence about Sandoval).
 
What's even more remarkable is that all this does not take into account the limited resources available and the surely finite budget the FO operates under.  Sandoval was the best the Sox could do for a 3B, short of gutting their farm in a trade.  When I look at the past 4 seasons from this perspective, it's even harder to find fault with the FO's decisions.  

 

[Plympton91]

Like it or not, a WS championship is generally a "Keep Your Job for a while" card. How long? Well, it's more than 21 months and probably less than five years.

That time frame grows when you get the coveted #1 Farm System ranking.

And to turn the question around - the Red Sox finally have a GM that prioritizes prospects over short-term wins. Shouldn't he be rewarded by getting a chance to see if his prospects can compete? If not, doesn't that say to future GMs that it's better to get a few more wins and deal the prospects than hang on to them and develop the farm system?

Are they prioritizing prospects over short term wins?

They had a massively valuable trade chip in John Lackey, and chose to acquire an injured former all star on a large contract instead of prospects.

Garin Cecchini had a tremendous second half in Pawtucket last season, then posted an 800 OPS for the Red Sox in September. Then the Red Sox signed an out of shape average fielding 3b with a steadily declining 740 OPS to a 5 year $95 million contract, essentially blocking his path to the majors.

They had a plethora of young pitchers who could have been given opportunities to win the 5th starter spot, and instead they gave one of the worst starting pitchers in 2014 a $10 million guaranteed contract.

Even around the margins they're not clearly prioritizing development. They've elevated a journeyman outfielder on a hot streak over Bradley and Castillo. Another example is that some of the losers of that 5th starter competition that never happened could have also been given the 12th spot in the bullpen on which they're wasting $2 million on Craig Breslow.

Another test of the penny wise and pound foolish strategy is to ask yourself whether the Cubs would trade John Lester to the Red Sox for Ric Porcello and Rusnay Castillo. Same total dollars right?

 

[alwyn96]

Are they prioritizing prospects over short term wins?

They had a massively valuable trade chip in John Lackey, and chose to acquire an injured former all star on a large contract instead of prospects.

Garin Cecchini had a tremendous second half in Pawtucket last season, then posted an 800 OPS for the Red Sox in September. Then the Red Sox signed an out of shape average fielding 3b with a steadily declining 740 OPS to a 5 year $95 million contract, essentially blocking his path to the majors.

They had a plethora of young pitchers who could have been given opportunities to win the 5th starter spot, and instead they gave one of the worst starting pitchers in 2014 a $10 million guaranteed contract.

Even around the margins they're not clearly prioritizing development. They've elevated a journeyman outfielder on a hot streak over Bradley and Castillo. Another example is that some of the losers of that 5th starter competition that never happened could have also been given the 12th spot in the bullpen on which they're wasting $2 million on Craig Breslow.

Another test of the penny wise and pound foolish strategy is to ask yourself whether the Cubs would trade John Lester to the Red Sox for Ric Porcello and Rusnay Castillo. Same total dollars right?

 
I'm not sure the decision to leave Cecchini and his .611 OPS in AAA is much of a black mark against the FO.  The Lackey trade sure hasn't looked great so far, though.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
While your approach is mathematically sound, there are few assumptions attached to it in the context of this thread.   Basically, the thing that's confusing to me is that we'd automatically attribute the underperformance of individual players to the Front Office.  I can see blaming the field manager for underperforming the pythag - the argument being that the runs scored and prevented were "there" but the manager somehow didn't maximize the teams performance over 162 games to the point where it significantly shows up in the standings.   However, I can't see why one would argue that when player X individually underperforms their projections, at a first cut, the FO is to blame, rather than the player himself (or the coaches).  
 
I agree that the FO ought to have statistical projection models that are more sophisticated than the publicly available ones.  But in that case (assuming unlimited resources) we'd see only a) over performance of signed players, and b) jettisoning players who'd go on to under perform.  When we see a player who underperforms based on the publicly available models, we have to strongly consider that it's the player's "fault" - that there was a hidden injury, or poor conditioning, or a failure to prepare, etc.  It's not like the FO has models that predict disaster, but they go ahead and sign a player beyond their year/salary comfort limit regardless of that (e.g., Elsbury, Lester.)
 
One could make the argument that the FO has a statistical projection model that greatly overvalues the players - more so than the standard projections (i.e., the Julio Lugo scenario).  But what happens when the individual player underperforms both this hypothetical overvalued mark *and* the publicly available projections?  Again, absent something like gross negligence from the coaches/manager, you have to look at the player first.  
 
One could argue that FO ought to consider each player on a case by case basis - say, for example, Sandoval.  The FO has statistical models, but there's a risk that Sandoval eats himself out of the game, or mails it in.  However, since other teams were in the bidding for Sandoval, we should assume that to the extent these issues were concerns they were fully explored and factored in.  
 
I just don't see the "totally obvious bad signing" or "totally obvious bad trade" in the lot of personnel moves.  I see plenty of bad results, but there weren't many nay-sayers when those signings and trades happened.  (And I say this as someone who was personally on the fence about Sandoval).
 
What's even more remarkable is that all this does not take into account the limited resources available and the surely finite budget the FO operates under.  Sandoval was the best the Sox could do for a 3B, short of gutting their farm in a trade.  When I look at the past 4 seasons from this perspective, it's even harder to find fault with the FO's decisions.  

Yep, running through the numbers made me realize that if players are consistently underperforming available projection systems, that's more likely an indictment of the manager and his staff, not the front office.

 

[Plympton91]

 
While your approach is mathematically sound, there are few assumptions attached to it in the context of this thread.   Basically, the thing that's confusing to me is that we'd automatically attribute the underperformance of individual players to the Front Office.  I can see blaming the field manager for underperforming the pythag - the argument being that the runs scored and prevented were "there" but the manager somehow didn't maximize the teams performance over 162 games to the point where it significantly shows up in the standings.   However, I can't see why one would argue that when player X individually underperforms their projections, at a first cut, the FO is to blame, rather than the player himself (or the coaches).  
 
I agree that the FO ought to have statistical projection models that are more sophisticated than the publicly available ones.  But in that case (assuming unlimited resources) we'd see only a) over performance of signed players, and b) jettisoning players who'd go on to under perform.  When we see a player who underperforms based on the publicly available models, we have to strongly consider that it's the player's "fault" - that there was a hidden injury, or poor conditioning, or a failure to prepare, etc.  It's not like the FO has models that predict disaster, but they go ahead and sign a player beyond their year/salary comfort limit regardless of that (e.g., Elsbury, Lester.)
 
One could make the argument that the FO has a statistical projection model that greatly overvalues the players - more so than the standard projections (i.e., the Julio Lugo scenario).  But what happens when the individual player underperforms both this hypothetical overvalued mark *and* the publicly available projections?  Again, absent something like gross negligence from the coaches/manager, you have to look at the player first.  
 
One could argue that FO ought to consider each player on a case by case basis - say, for example, Sandoval.  The FO has statistical models, but there's a risk that Sandoval eats himself out of the game, or mails it in.  However, since other teams were in the bidding for Sandoval, we should assume that to the extent these issues were concerns they were fully explored and factored in.  
 
I just don't see the "totally obvious bad signing" or "totally obvious bad trade" in the lot of personnel moves.  I see plenty of bad results, but there weren't many nay-sayers when those signings and trades happened.  (And I say this as someone who was personally on the fence about Sandoval).
 
What's even more remarkable is that all this does not take into account the limited resources available and the surely finite budget the FO operates under.  Sandoval was the best the Sox could do for a 3B, short of gutting their farm in a trade.  When I look at the past 4 seasons from this perspective, it's even harder to find fault with the FO's decisions.  

Boy, you are a master of the false dichotomy in this post.

Would signing Jed Lowrie for a third of Sandovals commitment have gutted the farm? Would trading for Louis Valbuena have gutted the farm? Did the Blue Jays just gut their farm to acquire Tulo?

Does the fact that "there weren't many naysayers" on a board full of front office fanboys say anything meaningful, potting aside whether that is actually true? I know one poster, at least, described Sandoval as likely to be one of the worst signings in team history. I've consistently asked why you'd sign both Sandoval and Ramirez, when either of them could have filled the hole at 3B and the outfield didn't have a hole, really.

The pro-front office group here is just engaging in a big case of denial. Cherington, or the professional scouts he relies on, or meddling from above him that's impacting his decision making is a problem.

For instance they've got all this super technical stuff to evaluate defense, right? When deciding to sign HR as a left fielder, did they go in an run queries on how good HR was going back and ranging into the outfield or foul territory on popups? Was he in the top or bottom of that distribution? What does that say or not say about his likely success adapting to the OF?

Why is $192 million on HR and Porcello better than $165 million on Lester and Cespedes?

What was the deal they turned down when they chose Allen Craig and Joe Kelly. Without knowing the opportunity cost, how can you conclude that the process leading to that waste of $31 million on Craig was sound?

I just think the pro side here needs to come up with something. I hear you on the farm system, but that is 1/2 Cheringtons job and that process and staff is separable from the major league scouting that is driving the bad free agent and trades. You can decide to keep the minor league and amateur staffs while revamping the major league side and give Cherington one more chance with a new set of advisors there. B

 

[Rovin Romine]

Boy, you are a master of the false dichotomy in this post.

Would signing Jed Lowrie for a third of Sandovals commitment have gutted the farm? Would trading for Louis Valbuena have gutted the farm? Did the Blue Jays just gut their farm to acquire Tulo?

Does the fact that "there weren't many naysayers" on a board full of front office fanboys say anything meaningful, potting aside whether that is actually true? I know one poster, at least, described Sandoval as likely to be one of the worst signings in team history. I've consistently asked why you'd sign both Sandoval and Ramirez, when either of them could have filled the hole at 3B and the outfield didn't have a hole, really.

The pro-front office group here is just engaging in a big case of denial. Cherington, or the professional scouts he relies on, or meddling from above him that's impacting his decision making is a problem.

For instance they've got all this super technical stuff to evaluate defense, right? When deciding to sign HR as a left fielder, did they go in an run queries on how good HR was going back and ranging into the outfield or foul territory on popups? Was he in the top or bottom of that distribution? What does that say or not say about his likely success adapting to the OF?

Why is $192 million on HR and Porcello better than $165 million on Lester and Cespedes?

What was the deal they turned down when they chose Allen Craig and Joe Kelly. Without knowing the opportunity cost, how can you conclude that the process leading to that waste of $31 million on Craig was sound?

I just think the pro side here needs to come up with something. I hear you on the farm system, but that is 1/2 Cheringtons job and that process and staff is separable from the major league scouting that is driving the bad free agent and trades. You can decide to keep the minor league and amateur staffs while revamping the major league side and give Cherington one more chance with a new set of advisors there. B

 
You have correctly identified a couple of other rational moves the Sox could have made, in addition to the ones they actually did make.  (Well, leaving aside the whole issue of what it would have taken to sign Lester, the ages of the players, the years of control, Cespedes attitude and unwillingness to shift to RF, the fact that Lester, recent good month aside, hasn't lit up the NL league http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=lestejo01&t=p&year=2015 etc. etc. etc.) As for naysayers, there weren't many naysayers in the national media, the pundits, or, yes, on this board.  
 
You seem to want an easy target to blame for the Sox's misfortunes.   I'm sorry if this seems an ad hominem argument, but your pattern of criticism of the front office is a tired act.  You were awfully silent when Lester was stinking up the joint, and now he's the great white whale.  Ellsbury was your last hobbyhorse, but you've fallen silent about him since his humdrum 2014 and injured 2015 - well, unless he was on a hot streak at the time.  I will flat out guarantee that if the Sox had signed Lowrie and he played 18 games for them before tearing his thumb and requiring what could be season ending surgery, you'd have railed to the skies and beat your breast that the Sox were too cheap to sign Sandoval.  
 
Personally, I'd love it if there was an easy fix, or a single clear factor to blame.  But, as you say, we don't have all the information necessary to weigh all the decisions that were made.  Perhaps you should take that to heart before inventing boogeymen to scare all the little fans. 

 

[grimshaw]

  I will flat out guarantee that if the Sox had signed Lowrie and he played 18 games for them before tearing his thumb and requiring what could be season ending surgery, you'd have railed to the skies and beat your breast that the Sox were too cheap to sign Sandoval.  
 

Not to mention the fact that the Sox basically gave up on Lowrie and he probably would have given them the finger if they tried to sign him.

 

[Super Nomario]

When they are consistently making decisions that are clearly poor at the time of the decision.
 
It was pretty obvious to a lot of us that the signing of Justin Masterson was a pretty bad decision--big chance of a big downside, little chance of a moderate upside. 
 
That wasn't the case with the Porcello trade. It wasn't the case with the Ramirez signing. It might have been slightly the case for the Sandoval signing in that even those who thought it was a good move thought Sandoval was going to be overpaid.
 
It certainly wouldn't have to be every decision, because nobody that bad is going to get a GM job, but it's got to be a lot more than one clearly bad decision on a relatively minor deal and a kind of meh larger deal.

I don't think "clearly poor" is the right standard. How many teams make clearly poor moves in a given year? How many front offices "consistently" make clearly poor moves? These front office guys, GMs, scouts are all getting paid and they're all smart guys.
 
The Sandoval signing wasn't clearly poor at the time - he's been a good player, and at 28 he's young for a free agent. However, there were red flags, especially his weight and his pattern of decline (his two best WAR seasons were in 2009 and 2011). Signing him to a 5-year deal was neither clearly poor nor clearly good, but the outcome would depend on how the front office evaluated these questions and risks. So far, it seems they did a poor job with it.
 
The front office has by-and-large failed in assessing these questions and risks particular to individual players. Porcello had a mediocre track record before 2014. Was that just a good year or a breakout campaign? They paid him like the latter, but it looks to be the former. Was Masterson a good bounce-back candidate? The answer appears to be no. Was the injury history of Victorino (who ended up being roughly worth his contract), Craig, or Bailey behind them? Can Joe Kelly translate his tantalizing stuff into results? How about Castillo's elite athleticism? The book isn't written on all of these decisions, and it's unfair to expect Cherington to get all of them right, but he has come up with the wrong answer(s) with startling frequency.
 
I agree that few of the moves were "clearly poor." At the same time, I would argue that few of the moves were "clearly good," other than the Punto trade. Between those extremes, you seem to be arguing that we can't meaningfully evaluate the decisions because of the role of chance. I would argue that this is fundamental to the job of general manager - you're looking for the slight edges, the guy who's a little bit undervalued because he hasn't broken out, the guy who's a little bit overvalued because of a fluke year, the guy whose red flags are serious, and the guy where the risks are overblown. I don't see any evidence that this front office is capable of this kind of assessment, and it appears that they may be among the worst at it. Maybe Cherington is on a string of brutal luck - and bad luck for sure is a part of it - but I also don't see anything that makes me comfortable with his ability to make decisions going forward.
 

Like it or not, a WS championship is generally a "Keep Your Job for a while" card. How long? Well, it's more than 21 months and probably less than five years.

That time frame grows when you get the coveted #1 Farm System ranking.

And to turn the question around - the Red Sox finally have a GM that prioritizes prospects over short-term wins. Shouldn't he be rewarded by getting a chance to see if his prospects can compete? If not, doesn't that say to future GMs that it's better to get a few more wins and deal the prospects than hang on to them and develop the farm system?

I don't think prioritizing prospects over short-term wins is a good or bad thing in-and-of itself. Ideally there's a balance, and we're able to win in the short-term while setting ourselves up for success in the long term. Flags fly forever; #1 farm system designations are quickly forgotten.

 

[jscola85]

 
I'm not sure the decision to leave Cecchini and his .611 OPS in AAA is much of a black mark against the FO.  The Lackey trade sure hasn't looked great so far, though.

 
Cecchini certainly has not performed great, but sticking with him and Middlebrooks would've freed $100M up to spend on other things.  Like a starter that can keep his ERA under 4.00.

 

[soxhop411]

“@brianmacp: Farrell: Big-league starts for Brian Johnson, Henry Owens are ”on the horizon.“”

 

[alwyn96]

 
Cecchini certainly has not performed great, but sticking with him and Middlebrooks would've freed $100M up to spend on other things.  Like a starter that can keep his ERA under 4.00.

 
Are you saying, even knowing what you know now about their below replacement level performances, that you would go into the 2015 season with Cecchini and Middlebrooks as your starting 3B? I agree that Sandoval has been bad and the rest of the contract doesn't look good at this point, but Cecchini and Middlebrooks are not the answer to any MLB team's 3B question in 2015. Sandoval being bad doesn't mean that Cecchini and Middlebrooks are MLB-quality players.

 

[jscola85]

Not necessarily, just that throwing $100M at Sandoval was not the only option for the team, which people keep espousing.  Besides Donaldson, who the FO at least inquired about but were apparently rebuffed, Luis Valbuena and Yunel Escobar were acquired on the cheap to play 3rd for Houston and Washington, respectively, and both have been fairly adequate so far.  3rd base in the 2014/15 offseason was not Sandoval or Bust. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Not necessarily, just that throwing $100M at Sandoval was not the only option for the team, which people keep espousing.  Besides Donaldson, who the FO at least inquired about but were apparently rebuffed, Luis Valbuena and Yunel Escobar were acquired on the cheap to play 3rd for Houston and Washington, respectively, and both have been fairly adequate so far.  3rd base in the 2014/15 offseason was not Sandoval or Bust. 

 
Escobar and Farrell have a history, and it's not a good one.  No way the Sox were going near him with a ten foot pole.
 
Valbuena is hitting .196/.280/.412 for the Astros.  Hard to look at him as an alternative and not have the same reaction to the notion that they could have simply kept Middlebrooks.  Cheaper than Sandoval? Yes.  Better than Sandoval?  Not really.

 

[Thelobsterroll]

@brianmacp: Farrell: Big-league starts for Brian Johnson, Henry Owens are on the horizon.

Does that mean Wright to the bullpen and Joe Kelly to triple A? Or are they going to send them both to triple A?

 

[benhogan]

 
Are you saying, even knowing what you know now about their below replacement level performances, that you would go into the 2015 season with Cecchini and Middlebrooks as your starting 3B? I agree that Sandoval has been bad and the rest of the contract doesn't look good at this point, but Cecchini and Middlebrooks are not the answer to any MLB team's 3B question in 2015. Sandoval being bad doesn't mean that Cecchini and Middlebrooks are MLB-quality players.

They could have gone Holt/WMB or Holt/Valencia or Holt/Weeks. After a few weeks it would have been Brock's job.  
 
Not sure why BROCK HOLT gets ignored by so many?
 
There were plenty of other options besides Panda.  
 
People should go back and check out the "3rd Base" thread from last fall.  Its an interesting read.
 
Tom Ricardo and P91 were pretty adamant against signing Panda.  Actually the entire board was pretty unexcited about blowing $100MM and a supplemental pick on Sandoval.

 

[Rasputin]

Not sure why BROCK HOLT gets ignored by so many?

 
Because third base is his worst position, and he's tremendously valuable in the supersub role. He's not being ignored, it's just a much better idea to have him elsewhere.

 

[Thelobsterroll]

Rasputin beat me to it

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

They could have gone Holt/WMB or Holt/Valencia or Holt/Weeks. After a few weeks it would have been Brock's job.  
 
Not sure why BROCK HOLT gets ignored by so many?
 
There were plenty of other options besides Panda.  
 
People should go back and check out the "3rd Base" thread from last fall.  Its an interesting read.
 
Tom Ricardo and P91 were pretty adamant against signing Panda.  Actually the entire board was pretty unexcited about blowing $100MM and a supplemental pick on Sandoval.

 
Because Holt didn't exactly finish the season strongly last year (July 1 on, he hit .253/.305/.333) and there were (and are) questions of whether his arm is good enough to play full time at 3B.  There was plenty of cause for concern that Holt in 2014 was a bit of a flash in the pan and that his true ceiling was that of a journeyman utility player.
 
Frankly, even with his continued good play this year, I don't know that he's good enough to be a full time player anywhere but maybe second base.  His true value is in his versatility.

 

[benhogan]

 
Because Holt didn't exactly finish the season strongly last year (July 1 on, he hit .253/.305/.333) and there were (and are) questions of whether his arm is good enough to play full time at 3B.  There was plenty of cause for concern that Holt in 2014 was a bit of a flash in the pan and that his true ceiling was that of a journeyman utility player.
 
Frankly, even with his continued good play this year, I don't know that he's good enough to be a full time player anywhere but maybe second base.  His true value is in his versatility.

didn't we discover he was playing injured the 2nd half of last season (with a concussion?).  Maybe I'm misremembering.
 
He strikes me as a guy that would work his tail off in the off season (ala Xander) to become a better glove at 3rd if given the position.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

didn't we discover he was playing injured the 2nd half of last season (with a concussion?).  Maybe I'm misremembering.
 
He strikes me as a guy that would work his tail off in the off season (ala Xander) to become a better glove at 3rd if given the position.

 
He was diagnosed with a concussion on September 12, allegedly stemming from an injury sustained on August 25.  He played 11 games "with" the concussion before shutting down for the year on September 6 (.204/.235/.286 in 52 PA).  Even if you exclude those 11 games from the slash line I mentioned previously, he's still at .265/.321/.345 from July 1 through August 24 (221 PA).  Still not a strong case that his hot May/June was sustainable long term.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Didn't see it posted elsewhere, but Mookie Betts to the 7-day DL with a concussion, and JBJ up. Farrell said JBJ will be the everyday CF going forward until Mookie returns.
 
Hoping JBJ finally shows his AAA success can translate to MLB.

 

[benhogan]

 
Because third base is his worst position, and he's tremendously valuable in the supersub role. He's not being ignored, it's just a much better idea to have him elsewhere.

Maybe If we just went with the best out of Holt, Middlebrooks, and Cecchini last fall, it probably wouldn't have been so bad

 

[manny]

I couldn't imagine this board right now if the Sox went in to the season with Middlebrooks and Cecchini as their 3B options and we had the same record (which we would).  People would be using that as an argument to say how bad Cherington is and a reason for his firing.  I'm not necessarily a Cherington supporter and obviously the Sandoval contract looks awful but to act like anyone would be ok with Middlebrooks/Cecchini as the 3B plan seems disingenuous. 

 

[Plympton91]

 
Are you saying, even knowing what you know now about their below replacement level performances, that you would go into the 2015 season with Cecchini and Middlebrooks as your starting 3B? I agree that Sandoval has been bad and the rest of the contract doesn't look good at this point, but Cecchini and Middlebrooks are not the answer to any MLB team's 3B question in 2015. Sandoval being bad doesn't mean that Cecchini and Middlebrooks are MLB-quality players.

 
This reasoning assumes that baseball players are strat-o-matic cards or computer sims.  Part of Cecchini's poor performance was due to a shoulder injury that he's been playing through.  Maybe that injury doesn't happen if he's with the major league team.  Another reason people have said is that Cecchini realized he was blocked at 3B and began spending more time learning other positions, which took time away from his ability to work on offense -- this excuse was made in spades for Xander's poor hitting last year, why isn't it valid for this kid too?  Magnifying that point, others have stated that, after being blocked so prominently from 3B, Cecchini changed his approach to try to generate more power that would play better at 1B or LF, leading to him pressing and drawing fewer walks while strikeouts soared.  Maybe all of those are just excuses, or maybe his failure to make those adjustments really do mean he would just have been a Brock Holt type in the majors anyway, but it's not out of the realm of possibility to imagine a world where Cecchini gets the job and hits the way he did last September.
 
And with all of the suggestions by other posters, I think we're up to about 10 legitimate options that were neither as risky nor as expensive as Sandoval for 5/$95, including simply playing the guy they had signed the previous day, Hanley Ramirez, at 3B, but by all means, people should feel free to continue with the canard that the only viable option for 3B last winter was that contract. 

 

[alwyn96]

 
This reasoning assumes that baseball players are strat-o-matic cards or computer sims.  Part of Cecchini's poor performance was due to a shoulder injury that he's been playing through.  Maybe that injury doesn't happen if he's with the major league team.  Another reason people have said is that Cecchini realized he was blocked at 3B and began spending more time learning other positions, which took time away from his ability to work on offense -- this excuse was made in spades for Xander's poor hitting last year, why isn't it valid for this kid too?  Magnifying that point, others have stated that, after being blocked so prominently from 3B, Cecchini changed his approach to try to generate more power that would play better at 1B or LF, leading to him pressing and drawing fewer walks while strikeouts soared.  Maybe all of those are just excuses, or maybe his failure to make those adjustments really do mean he would just have been a Brock Holt type in the majors anyway, but it's not out of the realm of possibility to imagine a world where Cecchini gets the job and hits the way he did last September.
 
And with all of the suggestions by other posters, I think we're up to about 10 legitimate options that were neither as risky nor as expensive as Sandoval for 5/$95, including simply playing the guy they had signed the previous day, Hanley Ramirez, at 3B, but by all means, people should feel free to continue with the canard that the only viable option for 3B last winter was that contract. 

 
I don't understand what you're getting at with the strat-o-matic card thing at all, but I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that if a guy isn't hitting at an acceptable level in the minor leagues, then it's unlikely he's going to hit an an acceptable level in the majors. Maybe if he doesn't hurt his shoulder he's somehow ok, but that seems like a much bigger leap. It seems like you could make the excuse that every crappy minor leaguer who suffers any injury could actually be awesome if he could just be himself in MLB. Also, it's not just hitting - Cecchini isn't really known for his fielding, either. He's basically a LF at this point, and not just because he's blocked.
 
I don't know who you're arguing with here exactly - I'm making no argument that there weren't other options than Sandoval. Hell, I wanted them to sign Headley. Just that going by this year's results, Cecchini and Middlebrooks look like they would have been horrible options. I guess you could argue some counterfactual world where if they were playing for the Red Sox they would have somehow been good, but I don't find that very convincing. It's agree it's possible Cecchini could still be something approaching a major league player at some point and show that that one hot month was more than just a well-timed hot streak, but this season so far is pretty poor evidence for that, and that the FO made an easily defensible call at least on Cecchini's readiness, if nothing else.
 
It seems like there's much more low-hanging fruit to criticize the FO for than not starting a guy who is barely cutting it in AAA.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

Can someone remind me of the reason why Brock Holt was not a reasonable alternative to Sandoval as the starting 3b?  I think there is a reason, but I no longer remember it.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Can someone remind me of the reason why Brock Holt was not a reasonable alternative to Sandoval as the starting 3b?  I think there is a reason, but I no longer remember it.

Because third base is his worst position, and he's tremendously valuable in the supersub role. He's not being ignored, it's just a much better idea to have him elsewhere.

 

[The Boomer]

 
You have correctly identified a couple of other rational moves the Sox could have made, in addition to the ones they actually did make.  (Well, leaving aside the whole issue of what it would have taken to sign Lester, the ages of the players, the years of control, Cespedes attitude and unwillingness to shift to RF, the fact that Lester, recent good month aside, hasn't lit up the NL league http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=lestejo01&t=p&year=2015 etc. etc. etc.) As for naysayers, there weren't many naysayers in the national media, the pundits, or, yes, on this board.  
 
You seem to want an easy target to blame for the Sox's misfortunes.   I'm sorry if this seems an ad hominem argument, but your pattern of criticism of the front office is a tired act.  You were awfully silent when Lester was stinking up the joint, and now he's the great white whale.  Ellsbury was your last hobbyhorse, but you've fallen silent about him since his humdrum 2014 and injured 2015 - well, unless he was on a hot streak at the time.  I will flat out guarantee that if the Sox had signed Lowrie and he played 18 games for them before tearing his thumb and requiring what could be season ending surgery, you'd have railed to the skies and beat your breast that the Sox were too cheap to sign Sandoval.  
 
Personally, I'd love it if there was an easy fix, or a single clear factor to blame.  But, as you say, we don't have all the information necessary to weigh all the decisions that were made.  Perhaps you should take that to heart before inventing boogeymen to scare all the little fans. 

 
Mainly it was a failure to learn from history.  Expensive free agents, Lester included, are fool's gold. At least Gonzalez and Crawford were acquired for a team already contending. Cherington quickly fixed this mistake.  Sandoval and Ramirez (like Victorino, Gomes and Napoli) were added to a last place team.  This time, instead, these expensive veterans did not improve the team.  Cherington needs to find a way to cut bait again.
 
Throwing money at problems doesn't solve them.  Sox fans would have accepted a committed plan to rebuild the major league team.  Instead the front office was conflicted.  They horded their prospects, as they should have, but then blocked their advance.  Why isn't Jackie Bradley playing every day in the majors right now?  
 
Despite the clamor of front running fans, management showed too much patience with their declining talent after their unexpected glory in 2013 rather than with their own developing youngsters.  This was a fatal mistake.  Instead of sticking with development, even at the price of major league struggles, and adding to this base (with Eduardo Rodriguez as the happy exception), they tried to replicate 2013 with the foolish acquisitions of Ramirez and Sandoval.

 

[OCD SS]

The idea that the fan base would be OK with rebuilding seems laughable to me; granted I don't live near Boston and generally gauge fan sentiment only here, but with the howling that greeted the idea of a "bridge year" I can only imagine what actually bringing up "rebuilding" would lead to. Patience does not seem to be a strong suit and I expect that a good deal of the criticism would be on the "with a payroll this high they SHOULD be competitive every year" theme.

Pablo and Hanley wouldn't be the first players to rebound after a bad first season in Boston. I don't see Ben cutting bait with them; the only way they go is if Cherington goes and a new GM decides to clean house.

 

[jscola85]

The idea that the fan base would be OK with rebuilding seems laughable to me; granted I don't live near Boston and generally gauge fan sentiment only here, but with the howling that greeted the idea of a "bridge year" I can only imagine what actually bringing up "rebuilding" would lead to. Patience does not seem to be a strong suit and I expect that a good deal of the criticism would be on the "with a payroll this high they SHOULD be competitive every year" theme.

Pablo and Hanley wouldn't be the first players to rebound after a bad first season in Boston. I don't see Ben cutting bait with them; the only way they go is if Cherington goes and a new GM decides to clean house.

 
What's a bounce-back though?  These two are ranked among the ~10 worst every day players in baseball per fWAR.  They could improve by leaps and bounds and still be roughly replacement level, and therefore massive wastes of payroll.

 

[OCD SS]

Why is rebounding to performance approximating their career lines out of the question? They were not replacement level players last year. Maybe they've both suddenly disintegrated, but that seems very unlikely to me, given their ages; I think the number of players that were at their level that totally fell apart is smaller than the number that had disastrous seasons and returned.

 

[jscola85]

Why is rebounding to performance approximating their career lines out of the question? They were not replacement level players last year. Maybe they've both suddenly disintegrated, but that seems very unlikely to me, given their ages; I think the number of players that were at their level that totally fell apart is smaller than the number that had disastrous seasons and returned.

 
Well, for one, because Hanley is going to be 32 and thus reduces the likelihood of improvement.  Two, he's not playing the position that he has succeeded at historically, and there's no clear path to getting him back to somewhere he won't suck defensively and still provide value with the bat.  Lastly, he's been fairly lucky with staying on the field relative to history, so he could play better next year but miss 40 games and thus wipe out a chunk of that reversion to the mean.
 
I have serious reservations that Sandoval will bounce back in a big way barring a significant change in his weight.  He would not be the first overweight hitter to fall off a cliff at or around this age.  His BB%, ISO, groundball rate, and hard hit rate are all a lot worse than his career levels, and his defensive mobility has been reduced to nil.  This isn't a guy suffering an unlucky BABIP or an injury-plagued season.  He's a fat guy who has gotten fatter and it seems pretty likely that the weight has become a hindrance.  I hope he gets his weight under control but I would only view a bounce back from him as a 50-50 proposition.
 
There's a far stronger case that Porcello and Castillo will bounce back in a big way.  Porcello has a history of good performance and his FIP suggests he's not THIS bad even this year; Castillo has no track record but the scouting reports and tools are there at least, plus again age is on his side.

 

[OCD SS]

Pablo's peripherals point to why he is having a bad year, not an essential change in his talent level; that's what a bad season is. I don't monitor his weight, so is he really so much fatter than he has been in the past? When players of his body type tank it still tends to happen in their early 30's, not age 28. There's about a 4 year swing there, so if he's truly done it would be an outlier.

With Hanley I'm much more worried about his health; if he can't do the extra work in LF and still play, that doesn't bode well, but I don't think the position is fundamentally affecting his bat. WAR probably distorts this as UZR has a problem with the Monster anyway, to say nothing of the small sample size variation.