Red Sox Reality Check

“An army of asses led by a lion is better than an army of lions led by an ass” - George Washington The Red Sox must rely on their offensive leadership...but who exactly are they? The Sox are moving away from their recent Moneyball roots. But is the problem analytics or identifying and paying players most likely to produce?  Establishing a cause and effect relation for statistics isn't easy. For example, we know that the most productive players invariably have productive statistics. But we can't a priori know that players who have had excellent statistics will continue to do so.  Age, injury, illness, lack of motivation, personal problems (e.g. alcohol or substance abuse), or statistical variation can change productivity.  Consider the complex decision-making surrounding free agent Jacoby Ellsbury.  At the end of the 2013 season, the Red Sox had to decide their commitment to their free agent outfielder. In his "peak" (age 27) season, he was runne...

            "Dinner Out is a go." Mookie Betts organized a team gathering at a Japanese restaurant. He prepared to pick up the tab for forty-five teammates, but Dustin Pedroia and other unnamed veterans spared him that cup.  How important is team chemistry in baseball? Old-timers remember the " We Are Family " Pittsburgh Pirates of 1979. But slightly older fans also remember the 1977 dugout confrontation between Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson.  Martin had to be restrained from going after Jackson .  A little over four months later, the Yankees captured yet another World Series.  Dave Roberts has a pragmatic view of baseball chemistry .  "Winning definitely bands a team together. It's easy to have good chemistry when you're winning." Sometimes chemistry occurs when players have a common enemy, like the manager or ownership. The fictional representation of that was Tom Berenger's "Major League".  A baseball team...

"No progress occurs without change, but not all change is progress." - John Wooden It's all good. Let's put on some smiley faces today and reexamine the Bosox 2016. David Price showed up over a week early, saying and doing all the right things. He and David Ortiz hugged it out, burying the hatchet.  GM Dave Dombrowski praised 23-year-old outfielder Mookie Betts for organizing and sponsoring a team dinner. Maybe Dunkin Donuts should show Betts some love for being an exemplary teammate.  Clay Buchholz threw batting practice and there were no injury qualifiers included in the discussion.  MLB is modifying sliding rules, which should eliminate rolling blocks and just maybe keep the Sox dp combination of Dustin Pedroia and Xander Bogaerts healthy. As an aside, not only should the runner and batter be declared out, but the violating slider should be tossed.  Henry Owens was all smiles as he battles to earn a spot at the back of the rotation. The sampl...

The Red Sox have reconstructed broken parts of the club - the starting rotation and the bullpen. It's not as though a two-year hiatus without a championship has wrought tar and feathers to Fenway Park.  Ownership has gotten solid reviews on their hire of Dave Dombrowsky and had no choice but to give cancer survivor John Farrell a chance to save his job. The question becomes, will the prior regime's coach killers, Ramirez and Sandoval be addition or addition by subtraction? Will the Sox need more than comic relief from the high-priced spread?  Competing for a title is certainly one thing. Competing to avoid humiliation as the employers of 'don't care' and 'care even less' is another matter. But wait, is the quality of mercy and forgiveness not strained?  In the language of Wall Street, the Red Sox and gazillionaire chief John Henry have suffered "style drift". Style drift means no consistent plan. Richard Dennis had his "Turtle Traders...

The Red Sox want us to "Get Ready for It", the new and improved Bosox. We shouldn't be quick to judge a book by its cover, but Pablo Sandoval's gravity-challenged arrival smacks of arrogance and entitlement.  Contrast the San Antonio Spurs' championship attitude with the Red Sox 'chicken and beer' legacy.  The Red Sox third baseman showed up larger-than-life and you've got to believe the photographer waited to get this snap next to food service.  A .245/.292/.366/.658 slash line doesn't equate with "nothing to prove" after a nothing year for Sandoval. It's reasonable to expect that either Travis Shaw, Brock Holt or both could do as well or better while (if you'll pardon the expression) "hungrier" to contribute to the team.  FanGraphs describes his year . "Actually, he had the worst season of any major leaguer."  Boston fans can actually be reasonable...but you don't get unconditional love....

I'm back.  We've read and heard a bit about Central Banks imposing or considering "negative interest rates". With negative rates, the bank/government holds your money and takes a small percentage away from you, encouraging you to spend or invest, which is fine if you have discretionary money, but not so attractive for many citizens.  With Spring Training upon us, I couldn't help but note a distinct lack of interest so far. The Red Sox need to win back fans lost to bad baseball, high prices, and bad public relations like the exile of Don Orsillo.  There are the usual good "young phenoms" stories (Betts eclipsing Bogaerts), bad (comeback trail for Corpulent Corners - Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez), and ugly (even Clay Buchholz not wanting to talk contract extension). I mean you can't blame a guy for injuries, but must you overpay and over rely on him?  In Reading the Room, David Kantor frames conversation styles. The four broad positions ar...

We don't know the final decision about Jon Lester. So often we hear from players, "it's not about the money." Billionaire owners, surprisingly (not) offer more candor, as they couch money talk in terms of value, fiduciary responsibility, and the least honest, loyalty.  Jon Lester talked about wanting to stay in Boston, but when dollar signs become astronomical, players find limbic pleasure center gratification prevails more than well-intended talk about hometown discounts.  It will be easy for Lester to talk about how great his Boston experience was (absent cancer and the chicken-and-beer gang), multiple championships, and great teammates. But at the end-of-the-day, he will also share concerns about taking care of his family. I'd really be great with him saying, "teams offered me ridiculous sums to throw a baseball, and I'm not foolish enough to turn that down." Meanwhile, the Red Sox, authors of the initial "lowball", "insulting...

The Red Sox made a "serious" offer to Jon Lester, rumored to be between 110 and 120 million dollars for six years. Russell Martin, a decent, but not front tier catcher, just received over 80 million dollars for five years. With a host of teams involved (at least Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, and Toronto), an offer of an AAV (average annual value) of possibly sub 20 million isn't insulting, just not competitive. As a public relations maneuver, making an offer is a start. As a competitive bid for one of the top two starters in free agency when baseball swims in money, it's more of a sad joke on Red Sox fans than 'serious'. Red Sox management hasn't proven itself anything but fortunate from 2013, sandwiched around a brace of disasters. Just as success leaves fingerprints, so does failure. And every Red Sox fan knows whose fingerprints are on this one.

Does Sox management get a free pass, a few kudos, or both? Does winning a WS totally exonerate them for playing  boring, bad baseball  much of the time the past 3+ years? They're almost unwatchable these days.  Christian Vazquez  isn't enough to redeem this mess.  Has  Koji Uehara  finally hit the wall?  http://www.baseball-reference. com/players/e/ellsbja01.shtml    Too soon to call  Jacoby Ellsbury  a bust in NY, but his numbers are poor for a guy in a bandbox and making a Brinks' truck haul of a salary.  No gripe with a guy getting paid, but he hasn't shown he's a top 10 MVP candidate to earn the big dollars/long-term money, no matter how much water some scribes carried for him. He has everything to prove and we'll find out whether the money has turned him into  Josh Beckett . It's always the Janet Jackson, "what have you done for me lately?" story in big markets.  http://www.baseball-reference...

Having a great performer and great performances reflects SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. Arguing that the Red Sox brass are the "smartest guys in the room" is inconsistent and illogical with two last place seasons in three years. Yes, luck matters in sports, and baseball has more luck associated than many other sports, e.g. basketball. Michael Mauboussin addresses this in " The Success Equation ." And obviously, the Red Sox had a combination of skill and luck in winning last season. I won't suggest that karma from the Marathon bombing gave them a tailwind. But luck shouldn't figure so much in often non-existent offense or lack of inspirational play. Certainly we all recognize the season-to-season variation that occurs in baseball. George Scott's 1967 .303 morphs into 1968s .171 or Dwight Evans .292 in 1982 becoming .238 the next season. Last season the Red Sox led the majors in runs scored and OPS. This season the Sox are tied for 13th in runs, 11...

Mostly, the Sox haven't been the 'smartest guy' in the room in 2014.  22M dollars, give or take. 500K dollars The sample size isn't large. BABIP (batting average balls in play) tends to stabilize after about 1100 career at bats, which Player 2 isn't anywhere close to. Jacoby Ellsbury earned his payday and Brock Holt (Player 2) hopes to someday.

The season isn't over. After all, we have Stephen (don't call me J.D.) Drew back in town. What has the season taught us so far? The mediocrity of the AL East has encouraged the Sox to believe they will contend to the bitter end. Maybe they will, as that's what mediocrity does. We've learned that some of the Sox kids may not be ready, and that the everyday inexperienced shortstop can hit, at least when the weather isn't freezing. We've also learned that free furniture prospects have gone south. May 2014 looks eerily similar to September 2012. Now the Sox' sponsor is offering a free mailbox with certain purchases. We'll call it the MAIL IT IN campaign. I won't suggest that the Sox management doesn't care. But perhaps the sample size of bargain basement WAR/$ crew of Ross, Gomes, Carp, et al. approach won't even come close to working. But that's the point of "outlier" approaches. As good as the "Moneyball" theory...

The Red Sox had a flawed team. They took action. They now add insult to injury, at best disingenuous and at worst guilty of the 'Big Lie' - public relations over substance. First, how do the Red Sox see it? The team is reeling, having been annihilated by the Tigers.  Thanks to the mediocrity of the AL East, the Sox are still "in the hunt".  The Sox struggle against right-handed pitching. Overall, the offense is pathetic. The infield defense has been below average to average at best.  Fans are getting restless.  Second, what is the Sox "solution-focused" approach?  Stephen Drew improves the infield defense.  The addition of Drew eventually will likely slightly increase the offense.  The Sox stabilize the third base carousel by moving Bogaerts to third.  Third, what's the big picture or what's the harm? The Sox are seen as jerking the kids around. Telling Bogaerts that he's the 'future shortstop' is likely not true, ...

Yesterday, in the world of Tony Maz of the CSN afternoon talking heads show, we learned that Jackie Bradley's career is doomed. One unsuccessful at bat has shaken Bradley's foundation to the core and that he needs psychotherapy if not ECT. I think it was in 1954, a young Jim Greengrass sparked the Reds to a 10-9 win over Milwaukee with four doubles. The Braves rookie right-fielder took the collar, going 0 for 5. His career would obviously go South in the parallel universe of the BBWAA. Except from there, that failure went on to a Hall of Fame career as Hank Aaron. It's easy to go wrong on decision-making, with flawed framing, confirmation bias (believe what you choose to read), emotion, and overconfidence. The only problem is our own fallibility. Don't read too much into the sample size of one day or one at bat. If you're the '84 Tigers and go 35-5 out of the box, then you know something special is happening. Jacoby Ellsbury went 0 for 4 yesterday. Wha...

Baseball lifers always have a fascination with the grizzled veteran types, the Michael Youngs (recently retired). Living in the past, veteran experience, savvy sometimes make a difference. But usually talent and youth (over the intermediate term) prevail. I couldn't care less about the private lives of baseball players. Whom they date, what they do on their days off don't matter to me. I care about what they do between the lines, their attitude towards their job, and both their potential and production. Will Middlebrooks has a serious 'hole' on breaking stuff (sliders) away. When Jacoby Ellsbury was a young player, it was the summer of 4 to 3, as inside hard stuff tied him up. Middlebrooks may always be a high strikeout guy, but has anybody checked out Mike Napoli's 'K' totals? Middlebrooks is an adequate defender (obstruction aside) and can probably hit 25-30 homers with 75-85 RBI if the Sox can free themselves from the Stephen Drew "binky" ...

David Ortiz had a remarkable campaign in 2013, culminating in a World Series championship and a Series MVP. He's made it clear his priority (as is his right) is compensation. But when sportswriters around America start declaring what the Red Sox should pay their DH and for how long, I cringe. At the end of the day, you get paid whatever you and your employer agree upon. There is a "market price" for everything...and value is what you get and price is what you pay. David Ortiz is entitled to get whatever he can for his family and himself. But the Red Sox have little protection should age, time, or other factors change Ortiz' value. And Ortiz' leverage is limited to  free-spending American League teams without a surfeit of older players with probable DH roles. It's certainly true that players often get paid for what they've done versus what they're likely to do. It's hard to project an older DH. Who are the comps? Harold Baines had 25 homers ...

"Judge not that ye be not judged." - Matthew I'm no Bible scholar, but I try to know common sense. Longtime Red Sox broadcaster Jerry Remy announced a return to his passion, his craft, his job.  I don't know Remy as a person or a parent, but it's not my obligation or responsibility to judge him on anything personal. As a baseball insider and analyst, he has provided Sox fans win twenty-six years of expertise to our benefit.  In a lengthy interview, he professed his sadness and his struggles with his son's murder accusation, his own cancer and depression. He acknowledged that the pain of Jennifer Martel's death and suffering for her family and his grandchild will never go away. What more can he do beyond try to live his life or retreat into his own pain and depression? Remy's task will be hard. Will he and play-by-play man Don Orsillo be able to resume the light-hearted moments inherent and necessary to on-air spontaneity? Will the smallest slip...

If you want economy, you have to pay for it. It's a seller's market, and after Clayton Kershaw's 30 plus AAV (average annual value), the Red Sox must address the "Lester Problem". Lester's career trajectory had a speed bump in 2012, but he rebounded last season, particularly with post-season excellence. At his best, Lester is an ace, but for most of the past five years, he performs at a number 2 level, averaging 204 innings, almost 15 wins, and a strikeout to walk ratio exceeding 2.5. As periodic readers know, K/BB ratios predict ERA better than ERA itself. The ability to strikeout batters helps pitchers escape trouble and keeping runners off base is the extension of the Sox OPS offensive philosophy. Kershaw, of course is substantially younger than Lester, although even at age 25 he has almost 1200 innings under his belt. His ERA, WHIP, and K/BB ratio all exceed Lester's, although Lester's two World Series rings outpoint Kershaw's Cy Youngs....

Historically, the Red Sox have not rushed prospects to the bigs. Sure, there was Carl Yastrzemski at 21 in 1961, Tony Conigliaro at age 19 in 1964, Ken Brett at age 18 in 1967. Jim Rice (21) and Fred Lynn (22) made their appearances in 1974, and were rookie stalwarts on the 1975 World Series team. Jacoby Ellsbury had an 1.188 OPS in the 2007 World Series at age 23. Obviously, these 'exceptions' don't establish that Jackie Bradley, Jr. and Xander Bogaerts will light the baseball world afire in 2014. But it doesn't preclude the possibility that they can impact the Sox lineup as previous young players have. A multitude of fortunes must break your way to win championships. Do Red Sox fans expect that a team that hit a collective .227 in the postseason would get enough pitching to capture its third title in a decade? Do they recognize that without other-worldly performance by Koji Uehara this was impossible? Did they anticipate that Jon Lester would go 4-1 in October w...

Years ago I penned the piano falling from the sky and flattening Red Sox fans. 1967 wasn't so bad, the Sox prohibitive underdogs to the Cardinals of Gibson and Brock. No expectations. 1975 brought a miraculous series, squashed by the Big Red Machine. Ed Armbrister, where are you now? 1986 continued the misery, a thousand paper cuts in a vinegar plant, combining servitude in the ICU at Bethesda Naval Hospital with the apocalyptic collapse against the Mets. I'll ignore the 1972 'bad trip' around third base of Luis Aparicio leading to a half-game pennant loss, the 1978 Torrezian playoff game drilling by the Bucky Dentist, or "why does my wife ask me to call her Pedro?"..."Because I never take her out (2003)". The former meant little in the big picture, and WS I erased the Yankee defeats better than any tranquilizer. The worst demons hit the fan. Maybe young Sox fans envy grizzled Sox addicts the suffering. How many Sox fans can remember 1946 with th...