SB Nation MLB Question Of The Day
Everybody's picking the Boston Red Sox in the American League East, which will look smart if they can just get through this season somewhat healthier than last year.
Mar 10, 2011 - There are questions surrounding all 30 MLB teams during Spring Training, and Rob Neyer intends to answer them with his 30-part Question of the Day series. Today, he takes a look at the Boston Red Sox.
Quick, how many games did the Boston Red Sox win last year?
If you said 89, you get a gold star sprinkled in fairy dust. Because considering the perennial expectations surrounding the Red Sox and how many things went wrong for them in 2010, it's not easy to remember that they finished with the fifth-best record in the American League.
It should be said that some things did go well for the Red Sox last season. Adrian Beltre played out of his mind. Victor Martinez played in 154 games and hit like Victor Martinez. Despite his early-season funk, David Ortiz finished with highly respectable numbers.
And it's Beltre and Martinez that might give people the wrong impression about this team. If the Red Sox play well this season, newcomers Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez will probably get much (or most) of the credit. Which will be fair ... but only to a point. The difference between last year's Red Sox and this year's Red Sox will not be Crawford and Gonzalez, who will (at best) merely replace Beltre's and Martinez's value.
No, the difference between last year's Red Sox and this year's Red Sox will -- if there is a difference, and a positive difference -- be fewer days on the Disabled List. Many fewer, probably.
First let's consider just the outfield, which a year ago was supposed to be anchored by Jacoby Ellsbury, Mike Cameron, and the famously injury-prone J.D. Drew.
Bill Hall, Ryan Kalish, Eric Patterson, Jeremy Hermida ... All of those guys saw more time in the outfield than they were supposed to, or should have. Essentially, two-thirds of the outfield was an unmitigated disaster ... and that was only the half of it. Because something like two-fourths of the infield was disastrous, too.
Actually, when you do the math it wasn't quite that bad.
Second baseman Dustin Pedroia played only 75 games. But one of Pedroia's replacements was Jed Lowrie, who hit even better than Pedroia.
First baseman Kevin Youkilis played only 102 games, but when he played he was brilliant. Unfortunately, his replacements, led by Mike Lowell in his swan song, didn't fare nearly as well.
According to Baseball Prospectus, the Red Sox lost more than 1,100 days to the DL. Which seems like a lot, especially considering that Ellsbury, Cameron, Youkilis and Pedroia had never before demonstrated any particular penchant for injuring themselves.
Granted, baseball players do get hurt, sometimes even baseball players with no penchant for it. But four generally healthy players in one season? All with catastrophic, season-killing injuries?
More than anything, that's just really awful luck.
Today's Question, then, is this ... Will the Red Sox luck turn around just some? It doesn't have to turn all the way around. They don't need great luck, good luck, or even average luck. They just need, when it comes to injuries to their hitters, luck that isn't unfathomably execrable.
Their chances at that sort of luck (or better) are really good. Which is why almost every projected standings you'll see show the Red Sox finishing atop the American League East.
11 comments
Comments
Uh...
Victor Martinez played in only 127 games, ceding a substantial number of injury at-bats to the fearsome duo Gustavo “No Relation” Molina and Kevin “Not Worth Any” Cash. Additionally, if Pedroia had not been injured, Jed Lowrie most probably would have pushed Scutaro’s decent production to the bench, given the lingering arm issues Scoot played through – suggesting a greater negative impact than the phrase “[b]ut one of Pedroia’s replacements was Jed Lowrie, who hit even better than Pedroia,” suggests.
I’m not sure this substantially undercuts the main point of the article, but FYI.
"Laser show. So relax."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Mar 10, 2011 1:00 PM EST reply actions
2010 combined rWAR:
Adrian Beltre & Victor Marinez: 9.1
Adrian Gonzalez & Carl Crawford: 11.1
It’s highly probable that the new guys will more than replace the old guys’ value in 2011.
by PriceJD on Mar 10, 2011 2:14 PM EST reply actions
Yes, but:
That was last year’s performance for A-Gon/CC. Neyer’s comparing 2010 Beltre/Martinez with 2011 Gonzalez/Crawford, saying, basically, that the Sox won’t get more performance from this year’s due than they got from last year’s duo. By fWAR, Beltre/Martinez contributed 11.1 WAR last year, and the FG Fans projections have the new duo at 11.2 WAR next year. So they’re even.
Of course, you could definitely argue that while comparing last year’s duo’s 2010 to this year’s duo’s 2011 tells you how much the swap out can add or subtract from last year’s total to get this year’s total, and while that may be the point of Neyer’s exercise, it’s a very limited perspective. The reason it was a great move is that last year’s duo projects to be significantly worse next year, at 7.8 fWAR. And the gap will likely increase as last year’s duo enters their mid-30s.
Plus, of course, Boston got two first-round picks and two sandwich picks out of the exchange, and in a particularly deep draft. Thanks, terrible and easily gamed free agent compensation system!
by abbreviatedman on Mar 12, 2011 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
And Josh Beckett Stunk
If Beckett could get his ERA to something like 3.98 instead of close to 6.00 like last year and pitch 200 innings that would be a big difference too.
Dice K could also do a lot better.
by Free_AEC on Mar 10, 2011 4:55 PM EST reply actions
Regression
Not to be a total downer, but there’s going to be some negative regression too. Buchholz will allow a lot more runs next year, even if he pitches better (which is likely). And Ortiz might decline further.
by abbreviatedman on Mar 10, 2011 9:31 PM EST reply actions
Injuries
Injuries were part of it of course, but the bullpen and starting pitching, aside from Lester and Buchholz, was awful. The bullpen should be better this year, but Beckett and Daisuke are question marks..
Also, the Red Sox atypically poor start in April when relatively healthy (losing Jacoby and Cameron was tough, but they were not insurmountable) gave them less of a cushion when disaster struck.
When it became clear the Red Sox needed to fill holes in the bullpen, 1B and OF, Theo could do nothing but raise the white flag, because the Red Sox were up against the salary tax threshold and did not want to lose top prospects so they could make the A-Gon deal this offseason.
The weakness on the 2011 team seems to be starting pitching depth. Last year the pitching was relatively healthy, even considering Becketts back, Daisukes whatever, and Clays short stint on the DL. May not be so lucky this year.
The Red Sox have three 35 yo starters (Papi, JD, Scutaro), and Pedroia, Youkillis, A-Gon and Jacoby are all coming off injury.surgery, and even a healthy JD only starts about 124 games a year. The backup OF’er is 38 Mike Cameron who also had season ending surgery. How they all do in 2011 is anyones guess, but most seem to be predicting everyone is going to be 100%.
by pft on Mar 11, 2011 3:56 AM EST reply actions
Well.
I wouldn’t call the following IP marks “relatively healthy”: 215, 208, 173.2, 153.2, 140, 127.2. I see two full-time starters, an 80% starter, a 70% starter, and so on down the line. They used 8 starters, including their 6th starter, Wakefield, pitching a ton.
I’m also not sure how losing two thirds of your outfield is only “tough but not insurmountable”.
Seems like a lot of rationalizations to downplay the amazing amount of poor luck the team had.
I don’t know anyone but the biggest homer who thinks their team is going to be 100% healthy next year, as you say “most” are. And, as Neyer said, they don’t need to be. They just need to be better than the 60% healthy they were last year.
by abbreviatedman on Mar 11, 2011 10:03 AM EST up reply actions
Well
Neither Jacoby or Cameron were middle of the order guys. Cameron had trouble hitting RHP’ers the past couple of years, and was 37, so we can only speculate what he would have done if not injured. We had a lot of depth in the OF, unfortunately Tito could not decide who his best depth was, and he ended up giving too much playing time to Kalish, Nava and Patterson. So yes, the injuries were tough but not insurmountable.
Buchholz only missed 3 starts so should be 90%, while Daisuke and Beckett were our #4 and #5 starters. Becketts DL trip was a blessing since he was getting hammered in his 7 starts before getting injured (carryover from his last 9 in 2009). The Yankees should have been so lucky with Burnett. Wakefield actually made 9 of 13 QS with Daisuke and Beckett out before slumping in June. Doubront filled in nicedly for Buchholz 3 missed starts (he was a 90% pitcher), and did quite well.
The Yankees also had injuries to the bullpen in the early going, losing Aceves, Park and Marte. They also lost their # 2 starter for 2 months.
FWIW, we played the Yankees last May when they were without Granderson and Swisher, not to mention their DH (Johnson) and Posada, yet all people could do was moan about Ellsbury and Cameron and Daisuke.
I do not argue that losing Pedroia and V-mart and then Youk was insurmountable, especially given the poor start in April and Theos being unable to fix the bullpen.
I could argue that losing Pedroia and Ellsbury for as long as they did could be medical incompetence and not just bad luck.
by pft on Mar 13, 2011 3:57 AM EST up reply actions
I think your definition of healthy for pitchers is off
It sounds like you are saying you disagree becuase you think the Red Sox starters weren’t that healthy, and that they only had what you consider two full time starters and three starters in the 70-80% range (and a 6th that pitched 127.2). You are right that this isn’t “relatively healthy.” It is extremely healthy. 9 of the 13 other teams in the AL didn’t have two 200 IP starters. And as far as overall health, the only team in the AL that clearly had better starting health than the Red Sox is Tampa Bay. You say they used 8 starters. That is not only not a lot, but 158 of their 162 games were started by just 6 guys. Again, Tampa is the only team that can match that sort of stat, and Tampa was freakishly healthy in 2010 with their 5 main starters handling 154 of their 162 games. In fact, I’d say Tampa’s main question is the reverse of Boston’s for hitters: can their staff stay that ridiculously healthy next year.
So, I agree with you and Neyer that Boston’s hitters only need to be somewhat healthier next year for the team to win the east, but PFT is right that the starting rotation had little in the way of injury complaints.
by Brad Newberg on Mar 11, 2011 12:37 PM EST reply actions
And I think your definition of YOUR MOM is off.
Hehe. Jus’ playin’.
Using number of starters was a bad idea on my part! Thing is, plenty of teams use 8 starters, but only because they trade a pitcher, or trade FOR a pitcher, or promote a young ‘un. Taking those into account, plenty of teams had better health, just more starters used. For example, while SEA only had three pitchers get more than 20 starts, those three got 34, 31, and 28, and the only reason they didn’t get a fourth with a ton of starts is that they traded Cliff Lee.. Similar case, but in reverse, for Texas. And Cleveland traded Westbrook, Chicago traded (accidentally) for Edwin Jackson, Baltimore promoted guys, etc.
Fully admitted homer here, though, and sometimes our own team’s injuries seem worse than anyone else’s. Obviously Boston’s hitters were well below average health-wise, but I’ll admit that maybe Boston’s rotation wasn’t as bad health-wise as I thought. I still think it was average at best, though, considering both the missed time and the pitching through injury.
by abbreviatedman on Mar 11, 2011 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
But Only
Since 2001, an average of 105 starting pitchers have been on the DL at least once during the season. Thats slightly more than 3 per team.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/starting-pitcher-disabled-list-analysis-1-of-3/
Red Sox were about average in 2010 for starters, maybe a bit worse if you want to include Tazawa who was injured in ST and destined to start the season in Pawtucket. Their bullpen was a bit less injured than average.
by pft on Mar 13, 2011 4:10 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed