Boo Ya Grandma

Baseball Prospectus has released their orgizational rankings. The Yanks are ranked 4th overall and the Sox are 11th. Both teams are also ranked quite highly in pitching at 1st and 7th overall, respectively.

Pitchers and Catchers

First day of official workouts for the Sox today. I must say I am very excited for this year, if everything comes together for the Sox this years team could be truly great. Of course the Galdstoner is quick to point out that the same could be said of the Yanks. It is going to be a fun year.

A Couple Things That Annoy Me Pt. 1

With the very aggressive offseason that the Sox have had so far, the wonderful world of sports journalism is all over every move. Of course, this means they are making some pretty stupid arguments and I am starting to get pretty annoyed. I will explain these in a more-than-one-part series I call "Things That Annoy Me."

1.) Julio Lugo vs. Alex Gonzalez

One of the most annoying arguments is that pertaining to one Alex Gonzalez. Gonzalez is poplarly known as perhaps the best defensive shortstop in Red Sox history. So people are not inclined to let him go, particularly for a player like Lugo who makes his fair share of errors. The basic line of thought was nicely summed up by Jackie McMullen during an appearance on NESN. She expressed regret at letting such a "special player" walk, "what happened to last years emphasis on defense," she lamented. There are so many things wrong with this position, but I will break it down into two basic arguments. Firstly, does anyone really think Alex Gonzalez is a better ballplayer than Julio Lugo? No. Well, that is to say that no one who has any idea what's going on thinks that. If you want to question the money they are giveing him, that's one thing, but there's no question that Lugo is a vastly superior player to Gonzalez. Lugo is probably not even that much worse defensively than Gonzalez, has he undeniably has better range. Gonzalez is very steady handed, and rarely makes errors, but Lugo will get to more balls. However, understaning that requires abstraction away from things immediately visible, which most people, particularly those in the business of writing about sports, seem to have a difficult time with.

The second thing I have a problem with here is: when and where did this 'emphasis on defense' happen? I must have missed that. Let's look it over. The Sox had a pretty bad outfield defense, if by pretty bad I mean very bad. McMullen is clearly thinking about the infield defense when making this statement, which admittedly was very good, but you have to consider how it got that way. Mike Lowell was perhaps the best defensive third baseman in the league last year, but he was an accident. Unwanted baggage in the Beckett deal. The Sox took him on because Beckett was good enough to justify it, not because they particularly wanted him. Sure his defense was part of the reason that the deal was deemed worthwhile, but they hardly went out and acquired a glove in that deal. Kevin Youkillis was another accident. Remeber how he was a third baseman, and no one really knew how well he would adjust? They picked up J.T Snow as a defensive replacement becasue they were so unsure. The defensive replacement at first, by the way, goes back to Mientkiewicz in the Nomar deal, and is a practice that arguably wastes a valuable bench spot. Anyway, getting back to my point: he was moved to first out of necessity, and the Sox were lucky that he was good there. Loretta was acquired much more for his bat than his glove, and Pedroia is a good bet to be better in the field than Loretta was.

And finally, we get to the object of Jackie's affection: Alex Gonzalez. Does anyone remember last offseason? Gonzalez was far from the Red Sox first choice at the position, they found thamselves with a hole there late in the offseason and had to plug it. Hence Gonzalez. He was not heralded at the time, and signed a short deal for reasonable money. Let me tell you a secret about why this is the case; Gonzalez is not a particularly remarkable ballplayer. He is decent but he is not a standout. His acquisition was not an intentional move towards defense, it was making the best of a market that, quite frankly, didn't have a whole hell of a lot out there.

So putting it all together, I see no intentional trend towards defense there at all. It just sort of worked out that way. That's not a bad thing, but the point is that acquiring Lugo over Gonzalez is not a change of strategy. It is a move to get a better shortstop, and in fact the best shortstop available this year.

Parity

MLB has talked a lot aout the supposed 'parity' of baseball in recent years, the go-to stat: 7 teams have won the world series in the last 7 years. At first glance, this is an impressive number; no other of the big 4 sports have matched that run of new title holders. However, baseball is different than other sports. It is more random, in any given day a worse team is more likely to win than in other sports. This is reflected in the gruelling 162 game schedule, twice what any other league plays and 10 times the number comprising a football season. the longer season works out random fluctuations and, in the end, does a pretty good job of picking the best team. The playoffs, however, are short. Anything can happen in a 5 or 7 game series. At the most, a team plays 19 playoff games (with a 11-8 record). This is not enough to work out an average. Noone is worried if thoeir team is in last place after 19 games, and noone is particularly excited if their team starts 11-8 (granted, there are many games to go, but if the first 19 games were a reliable predictor of the rest of the season, this dismissal would not be justified). So if we do not pick the best team based on the first 19 games, why should we base our choice on the last 19?

Now, even if we accept that the amount of turnover among the best teams in the league will tell us much about parity (a complete analysis of this issue would have to also include turnover amung the worst teams, and the difference in records between these extremes), we would be much better off looking at season record than playoff results. So, here are the top 5 teams by wins over the last 7 years (from ESPN.com):

2006 - (WS: STL)
NYY-97
NYM-97
MIN-96
DET-95
OAK-93

2005 (WS: CWS)
STL-100
CWS-99
NYY-95
BOS-95
ANA-95

2004 (WS: BOS)
STL-105
NYY-101
BOS-98
ATL-96
LAD-93

2003 (WS: FLA)
NYY-101
ATL-101
SFG-100
OAK-96
BOS-95

2002 (WS: ANA)
NYY-103
OAK-103
ATL-101
ARI-98
STL-97

2001 (WS: ARI)
SEA-116
OAK-102
NYY-95
HOU-93
STL-93

2000 (WS: NYY)
SFG-97
STL-95
ATL-95
CWS-95
NYM-94

(I wish Blogger had a better spreadsheet option)

I included the World Series winners each year to demonstrate my point about the randomness of the playoffs. Notice that not once in the last seven years has the World series winner been the winningest team in the league. In fact, in the last seven years, only twice has the WS champion even been in the top 5! Indeed, the playoffs are a very poor indicator of the best teams. Only 8 teams even make the playoffs. It is really remarkable that those 6th-8th teams are responsible for 5 of 7 titles - much worse at picking out the best teams than one would expect even from simple randomness. (What can or should be done about this is another issue entirely. Perhaps it would be best to change the format somehow - lengthen series? play a round-robin round? Even if these were viable options, nothing will be done since this would appear to reduce the parity, as shown below.)

Getting to the meat of the analysis, we can see that 6 different teams have occupied the 9 (ties included) possible spots as the winningest team in the game. This is not too bad, but looking at the top five totals, only 14 teams have occupied the 35 potential spots. The big winners are the Yanks with 6 appearances in the top 5, St. Louis with 5, Oakland and Atlanta with 4, and Boston with 3. These five teams alone count for 22 appearances, almost 2/3 of the possible spots. In a field of 30 teams, this does not seem to represent a great degree of parity to me.

It is kind of hard to know what this really means without the full analysis I mentioned above, and a complete comparison to the same results for the NFL, NBA and NHL, while also balancing for the number teams in the league (i.e. this analysis would appear to signify more 'parity' in a smaller league, as teams are more likely to appear in the top 5 by law of averages). This, of course, is more work than I am willing to do, as I am not paid for this. However, it can at least be said that the annual turnover among the best teams in the league is significantly less than the 7-in-7 championship story implies.

Barry Bonds: The Ultimate Moneyball Pickup?

On of the stories this offseason that seems not to be getting too much attention is the free agency of one Barry Bonds. As the offseason wears on, and the apparent lack of interest from MLB teams continues, Bonds may become one of the best cheap pickups in baseball. Cheap, I say in terms of $/runs created; it is unlikely that he will ever be cheap in a general sense.

Let me put it this way: One of the best hitters ever, very likely the best since Ted Willimas retired 46 years ago, is available but noone seems to care. In these simplified terms this is very surprising, especially considering the FA market we have seen so far this fall. If Bonds slips below the $10M per year mark, he would be an unbeleivable value.

I do not mean to say there aren't concearns about signing Bonds. He is not much of a clubhouse presence cough*STERIODS*cough, he would bring a lot of bad publicity to whomever signs him cough*STERIODS*cough, and he could probably not be counted on to play a full season cough*STEROIDS*cough. But he will hit. And he is closing in on this record that will have fans pooring through the gates. So it is not implausible to say that a small market team in need of some fans could ride the wave through the bad publicity of even associating with the man (if it's a short term deal) and come out better in the end. And on a large market intense media team (say NY and Boston) the added press would not change how things operate in principle (hell, it's not like the yanks havn't dealt with known juicers before), in fact it might even be that Bonds, who is clearly used ot the attention, would take some pressure off of his teamates. This could be valuable in markets where the press can be crushing to more sensitive or conscientious players. And his injury concerns will be reduced if he signs with a team the has an opening at DH.

In the end though, it will be those ungodly numbers he put up at the beginning of the century that will get him a job. He simply needs to find a general manager and ownership that cares mostly about winning, and recognizes the value of signing such a hitter for what will likely be a very cheap deal. I can think of a few teams that might fit the mould, but we will see if anything happens. It may very well be that Bonds has alienated himself from the game enough that not even the Billy Beans and George Steinbrenners of the world would touch him with a 10 foot pole (that is to say, 1 year contract).

Personally, I would not mind to see Bonds disappear without getting a chance to catch Hank Aaron. This would avoid much controversy and a potential PR disaster for the game. I bet Bud Selig agrees and I would not be surprised if he is strongly pressuring teams to stay away from the slugger, thus forcing a de facto retirement with a mere 734 hrs. This may, in fact, be one of the main reasons for the silence on the Bonds front.

Either way, it's an interesting question. I think it also forces one to really think about the steroids issue if you frame it this way: "How would I feel if my team signed Bonds?" If you won't admit you'd be a little excited to see him hit, either you possess great integrity to the game, or you are lying. After all, we all know Bonds juiced, but none of us know who did and did not elsewhere in baseball. By many accounts, it is very plausible that your favorite slugger, who you hold above the likes of Bonds, was sticking needles in himslf too. And he did not put up the numbers Bonds did. I guess that's the point: who knows? Look for an interesting conclusion to this one.

I Feel Like I'm Taking Crazy Pills!

Without even explaining what this post is about I think most of you can figure it out. The free agent market has gone totally nuts. Let me start by saying that I realize that baseball is awash in revenue sharing money and that free agents were bound to get contracts that, by the standards of the past few years, were totally outrageous. However, that didn't prepare me for the stupidity of some of the GMs in major league baseball. This leads me to my new conclusion, one that I should have come to long ago: never, ever, under any circumstances underestimate the stupidity and poor reasoning abilities of GMs and owners.

Let's take apart the two biggest signings so far, one bad and the other nothing less than excrable, and I will explain exactly what is so tremendously idiotic about them. First the bad. The Cubs signed Alfonso Soriano for $136 million over 8 years. This is not the dumbest move I have ever seen but it is pretty dumb. Keith Law put it best: "So, let me get this straight: The team that finished last in the National League in OBP in 2006 (and, not coincidentally, second-to-last in runs scored) with a .319 team mark just signed a left fielder with a .320 career OBP and a .337 OBP in 2006 (both figures exclude intentional walks) to replace a guy with a .365 OBP in 2006." The thing is, Soriano might be worth that much money for a team like the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, etc. Teams that already have high OBPs. However, the Cubs were the worst possible suitor for Soriano in that he just adds to their weaknesses. In addition, they signed him for 8 years! That is an insanely long contract for a guy who counts on his quick bat and speed as important facets of his game. He'll be 38 in the last year of his contract. While some might say that this is okay since players are increasingly playing better for longer, I just don't see a guy with Soriano's strengths (bat speed, foot speed) and weaknesses (poor pitch selection, hands of stone) as a player who will continue to play well as he approaches his middle age years.

Next let's tackle a signing that I think is one of the worst I have seen in years: Juan Pierre's. Once again, a very good breakdown of why this is so terrible is available in Keith Law's blog entry about it. Juan Pierre was a prime contributor to the Cubs OBP woes last year, so he obviously won't help the Dodgers in that category. In addition, they have three good young players (Andre Ethier, Matt Kemp and James Loney) who will most likely be able to perform at the level that Pierre does for much less money. I don't mean this is stupid because down the road they will regret having this contract when they have good young players to take Pierre's place. Rather, I mean that all three young players, right now, are about as good as Juan Pierre. Thus, the Dodger's brain trust has taken what would have been a cheap up and coming outfield and turned it into a low-OBP incredibly overpaid outfield. Stupid, stupid, stupid, and that is the last word on that.

My Plans for the Sox Offseason Pt. 2

The Outfield:

The defense has been the major problem for the Sox here. If the right deal has come along, Manny is gone. In this case, the first step is to slide Crisp to left and WMP to center (believe it or not Pena is actually a pretty good CFer). Signing JD Drew seems a reasonable, and also likely, way to fill the hole in RF. We can expect Coco and Wily Mo to hit a bit better than they did last year as they are fully healed from their injuries and as Pena continues to develop. Drew should be a considerable step up from Trot, in terms of offense and defense. The issue with him is injuries; he has missed significant time in his career. However, the only time he missed in the last tree years was the result of a pitch that hit him in the wrist. I think it is a gamble the Sox will take. So this outfield has done a bit of the work in replacing Manny’s production. Regardless, it is a huge step up in defense, which should save some runs.

The Infield:

The other major trade the Sox should look into is Mike Lowell. First base is the place to make up most of Manny’ offense and I think the best way to open that spot is to ship Lowell and move Youks back to third. As with Manny, the right trade has to come along, and I believe the target should be pitching, but as noted a hole has been opened at 1b, which should not be ignored. I think we can/have to assume Pedroia is ready to start full time at second. He should play better D than Loretta, but will not likely match his offense.

So, we have 1b and SS left. As mentioned, I think the Sox should target a slugging first baseman. There may be some possibilities. As a minimum baseline, Pat Burrell is likely available pretty cheap if the Sox are willing to take on his salary. He has not been a first baseman most of his career, but he played 58 games there in 2000 and was apparently decent. This is not to say that they should settle for him. It might be possible with the haul from Manny and Lowell to get someone better. There has been rumor that Mark Teixeira might be available. I don’t know how reasonable this is, but he would be a huge addition This would be something for the FO to get creative about, it would probably require a 3 team deal, as Texas is most likely looking for pitching. Anyway, assuming Burrell is the most likely solution (of those I am discussing), I still think that along with Drew, he can make up much of the hole Manny has left in the offense. As for SS, this all depends on what they can get in trades. It is not likely that they will match Gonzalez’s defense there, but there is a good chance they can upgrade offense from the position. If they can get someone like Wood from Anaheim, it might be worth just plugging him in and hoping for the best. If no good short stops are available, they are stuck with the FA market. In this case, I think it kind of depends on who is set to fill 1b. I am not particularly high on Lugo, but if they can’t get much more offense from first than Burrell he might be a good option. If, on the other hand, they can swing a guy like Teixeira, it makes more sense to sign a defensive specialist, like Counsell, on a one year deal if possible.

The lineup:

So what do we have after all of these moves?

1B Burrell?/Teixeira?
2B Pedroia
3B Youks
SS ? Lugo? Counsell?
RF Drew
CF Pena
LF Crisp
C Varitek, Barajas

And how is that likely to stack up to last year?

Pos D O
1B - +
2B + -
3B - +
SS - +
RF + +
CF + +
LF + -
C + =

Overall, I think this is about even with last year’s lineup. The offense will probably not be as good, but I don’t think by as much as some might. The defense overall should be better; a bit worse in the infield but substantially better in the outfield. Another reason A Teixiera acquisition would be so nice is that he’s so young. He could go into the core group of Youks, Crisp, Pena, Pedroia, Papelbon, Matsuzaka, Beckett, Lester, who along with Papi and whoever comes up (Kotteras? Bowden? Ellsbury?) to make this a very competitive team for 5 or 6 years to come. It’s this core, as mentioned, that makes Manny more appealing to trade.

Adding it all up:

So how could this team stack up?

Defense +
Offense –
Rotation ++ (and if Clemens, one more +)
Bullpen +

I think this would be a better team than the 2006 version. It is debatable overall, but the improvements in the rotation and defense are clear.

What if it doesn’t all come together:

I guess the better question might be “what about when it doesn’t come together.” It sounds as though the Sox are likely to sign Drew (so says Olney), but other than that there is no reason to believe any of the specifics I have talked about will come together. It doesn’t seem that there is as much interest in Lugo as had been anticipated, so he might be worth signing if they can get him for 8 M or less per year.

Other than that, the biggest question is whether Manny will be traded. If the right deal isn’t available, though, the Sox have some options. Crisp and Pens could be moved, and it is not impossible to hold onto these two along with Drew in a big outfield rotation. Possible, I say, but not likely. If one has to go, I would rather hang onto Wily Mo because he seems to have an interesting skill set, and potential to blossom into a top notch slugger. Again, this is contingent on what deals are available for each player, though.

Lowell also doesn’t have to go, but certainly one of the Manny/Crisp/Pena/Lowell gang will need to be swapped if simply for the bullpen’s sake. The bullpen problems are too deep to be fixed in the FA market. The positional flexibility of Youks/Lowell and Crisp/Pena seem to open many options for how this could resolve itself.

There is also the possibility that they will pull of something no one has thought of yet. Theo recently made a comment about how they have gotten away from their skill in finding undervalued players. If he intends to get back to this, we may see some acquisitions in the Bellhorn/Millar/Ortiz mould. It should be an interesting offseason to say the least.

P.S. Sorry for the lack of references and links through this series. This is all stuff I’ve been mulling over the last month with random readings and TV interviews scattered through that time. I am still without a good enough connection to look around and find all of the stuff I’ve read. I'll get back to the hard analysis you have come to expect before long.

My Plans for the Sox Offseason Pt. 1

My first step would have been a strong bid on Mastuzaka. Now, I was too slow to call for that one. As I sadi in my last post, he will be a huge addition and will fill an imporatn hole in the staring rotation. With Matsuzaka on board, we can start looking at how to fill some other holes.

Needs (in no particular order):
Outfield defense
Shortstop
Bullpen help
Closer
6^th starter?
Backup catcher

Assets:
Manny/Crisp/Wily Mo Pena
Lowell
$$ - the salary cap is up to $148 M and the Sox can top that this year without penalty, and the Matsuzaka post shows they are ready to throw some around.

Trading Manny:

Now, I had never been a fan of the idea of trading Manny, but I have recently warmed up to the idea. Manny is one of the best hitters ever, and it has been great to see him hit for the Sox. However there are a few things that have made the idea of a trade more palatable. As the time remaining on his contract shortens and the free agent market inflates, it seems that he might be more appealing to other teams. As such the Sox can likely get a better deal for him now than in the past. Secondly, whether he has or will rescind his latest trade demand, it’s pretty clear that he will not resign here. We will only be missing 2 years of his career – he won't be finishing his career here, so it’s not like we are unloading a career Red Sock. The Red Sox outfield defense is potentially atrocious. It seems unlikely that they can carry Manny, Ortiz and WMP. One will probably be gone by the start of next season, and I like Crisp and Wily Mo as parts of the core of young players the Sox have piled up recently. There is an appeal, as a fan, to the idea of watching the same group play together for the next 5 years or so; something I have yet to really get a chance to see as a young fan. And finally, the positional hole opened by the Sox will likely be easier to fill than some of the holes they are currently looking at in the bullpen and SS. As a result of these conditions, I think the team can get better next year if Manny is traded. I also think Lowell should be moved, but both cases are contingent on the right deal coming along. Between the two, the Sox should acquire pitching first, a slugging 1b second, and lastly a short stop/short stop prospect (that is in order of priority, I don't think they can get all of this).

Pitching:

The addition of Matsuzaka is a huge improvement in the starting rotation. Check the last post for my opinion of him as a pitcher. Papelbon’s move from the bullpen should also help, and I think we can expect Beckett to pitch somewhat better than he did last year. Just from these improvements, the rotation is much better than it was last year. The only sort of question mark is Wakefield, who is coming off an injury. It might make sense for the Sox to find a sort of 5.5 starter to spell him or bump him to the bullpen if he struggles (really more for the sake of the bullpen than the rotation - see below). Of course there is also the question of Clemens. Based on little more than rumors I have heard, it sounds like, if he comes back next year, the Sox are likely the team. In this case, I think the best idea would be to let him start less often, say once a week, rather than starting him up in June like he has done. He would still throw fewer innings than a regular starter, and hopefully stay fresh for the pennant run. This would also fill the sort of 5.5 starer role, giving the other old guys (Wake and Schilling) a rest, maybe help Papelbon stretch his outings out, and help Matsuzaka adapt to pitching more frequently. Gammons has mentioned the possibility of the Sox using a 6 man rotation at times for these reasons, and I think this is a reasonable way getting the intended effect. Clemens is not essential, but if he is a possibility, I would do it in a blink. Think how monsterous that rotation could be:

Schilling
Matsuzaka
Beckett
Papelbon
Wakefield
Clemens/6^th starter-swingman?

If Clemens signs on, that’s a good bet for the best rotation in the league. Even without him this is I think a very good rotation. Apparently the Sox have talked to a couple of Japanese free agents like Tomo Okha who could fill a similar role and help Mats get used to America. That seems a reasonable move, and as long as the 5.5/6th starter can pitch reasonably above replacement level, the rotation can be viewed as a strength for this team next year.

Bullpen:

This is a tough one. I think it really depends on who they can get in trades. Speier seemed to be the only genuinely appealing FA but he is off the market now, and the Sox have reportedly already talked to him. Otherwise, a closer is necessary. Perhaps Lidge or Baez? In any case, I think it might make sense to take a flier on Dotel and hope he has come back from his surgery. If Wakefield is pushed to the pen, he would eat innings, which is very valuable. Even if it’s not Wake, there should be a swingman who can pitch a lot of innings out of the pen and spot start (as mentioned above). We do still have Timlin, Delcarmen and Tavarez coming back, who should all be decent. I don’t think it’s really worth depending on Hansen, he would be better off starting at AAA. That is, unless he lights it up in spring training. The bottom line is that I am not really sure what can be done about the bullpen. The Sox have struggled in this dept the last few years, and I won't pretend to have any solutions. Basically, in my plan the bullpen will be patched up mostly with the best returns possible for Manny and Lowell.

In part 2:
I will look at the lineup, and how it can be changed, specifically to fill the hole left by a trade of Manny, as well as some contingency plans. Then I will add it all up and hopefully you will agree that it would be an improved Red Sox team.