2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    A large percentage of the RSN have argued 2014's disaster is mostly the result of replacing good hit, OK field Ellsbury with so-so hit, very good field Bradley.  For proof they point to Bradley's abysmal OPS, barely over .600 and the Sox horrible hitting and scoring, dead last in the AL.  Even worse than Tampa and Houston, for crying out loud.


    But WAR--wins above replacement--paint a different picture.  Right now Ellsbury's WAR is 1.5 and Bradley's is 1.4, so Jacoby is ranked 7th among AL centerfielders and Jackie 8th.  They are that close because Bradley right now is the best fielding CF in the AL.  


    When salaries are compared--Jacoby's $22M to Jackie's $500K--it becomes even harder to understand why some among the RSN pine for Ellsbury and despise Bradley.  


    To me this relates to the larger question of "what should Ben C have done after the 2013 season?"  As of right now, Cherington has brought back everyone important on the 2013 roster except Ellsbury and Saltalamacchia, and to these eyes neither is missed that much.  Pierzynski's WAR is a terrible -.1, but Salty's WAR is only slightly better at .2.   


    And let's not forget that Ben C brought back virtually the entire 2013 pitching staff, the same guys who had an ERA of 2.00 in the postseason against the Rays, Tigers, and Cardinals and the 5th best ERA in the AL during the regular season.


    The John Henry era has brought three world titles after an 86 year drought, but I think 2013 just might have been the most surprising, coming as it did after finishing dead last in the AL East in 2012, Ben C's first year as GM and the same year he traded away AGon, CC, and Josh Beckett to the Dodgers.  2004, as great as it was, repeated 2003 only with a better ALCS outcome and then sweeping the Cardinals in 4 in the WS.  


    I am by no means letting Ben C off the hook because the GM is always accountable for what happens on the field, barring an epidemic of injuries of course.  In this case Victorino can hardly be called an epidemic.  Middlebrooks on the DL is difficult to assess because of his struggles in 2013.  


    moonslav says this is the month when Ben C will make one or more deals to begin to right the ship, not for 2014 so much as for 2015 and after.  Consequently, I think it is way too early to make a definitive judgment on Ben C's tenure as GM except to say he helped produce a minor miracle in 2013 which simply didn't carry forward into 2014.   


     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seannybboi. Show seannybboi's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    Can JBJ win a GG this season?  Does a GG winner need at least decent offense?  I think JBJ set a record for the most rookie OF assists.  He has 10 assists already with no errors so far.  Amazing defense. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    Right now Ellsbury's WAR is 1.5 and Bradley's is 1.4,

     

    I'm thinking anyone who wasn't a WAR fan B4

    hasn't changed their mind

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    In response to seannybboi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Can JBJ win a GG this season?  Does a GG winner need at least decent offense?  I think JBJ set a record for the most rookie OF assists.  He has 10 assists already with no errors so far.  Amazing defense. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Don't look now but young Jackie's offense is starting to be pretty decent.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    Its not just that the magic didn't carry forward.  Or, that he sat on his hands this past winter.  What he did, riding a gamble that was long odds to succeed in the short-term but much sounder in the long-term, was parlay the good vibes buffer of a world championship into an opportunity to move into the future with youth infusion.  Bradley.  Bogaerts.  Middlebrooks (ugh).  Now Holt, DeLa Rosa, Workman.  He didnt sign any of the stop-gap measure decent-but-not-great vets that could stand in the way of the kids.  That was a big part of the 2013 plan when they went out and got vets on 2 and 3 years deals so they could keep the doors open for the almost-readies. He signed AJ, which sure is totally meh, because he wanted a catcher on a 1 year deal so Vasquez or Swihart could move in with ease when ready.  

    This strategy has been a huge reason the 2014 club has struggled so mightily in the early going.  There was so much responsibility put into kids' hands.  Looks really terrible now.  But, I feel confident that this will bear fruit long-term - even later this year.  

         
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    The trouble is not the loss of Ellsbury, that could have been absorbed had the other 24 guys on the roster simply done what they normally do! The problem is, Ellsbury is gone, AND no one else is doing what their baseball card says they do, plus rookies that have not delivered as hoped. Combine those, and you have the living definition of SUCK.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Its not just that the magic didn't carry forward.  Or, that he sat on his hands this past winter.  What he did, riding a gamble that was long odds to succeed in the short-term but much sounder in the long-term, was parlay the good vibes buffer of a world championship into an opportunity to move into the future with youth infusion.  Bradley.  Bogaerts.  Middlebrooks (ugh).  Now Holt, DeLa Rosa, Workman.  He didnt sign any of the stop-gap measure decent-but-not-great vets that could stand in the way of the kids.  That was a big part of the 2013 plan when they went out and got vets on 2 and 3 years deals so they could keep the doors open for the almost-readies. He signed AJ, which sure is totally meh, because he wanted a catcher on a 1 year deal so Vasquez or Swihart could move in with ease when ready.  

    This strategy has been a huge reason the 2014 club has struggled so mightily in the early going.  There was so much responsibility put into kids' hands.  Looks really terrible now.  But, I feel confident that this will bear fruit long-term - even later this year.  

         [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Yeah, I agree Space. It's hard to pick any one thing that was horrible, but a lot of little things have added up. But what you said about the WC buffer is about right I think. Had we not won last year, then had this mess--can you imagine the hue and cry?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Its not just that the magic didn't carry forward.  Or, that he sat on his hands this past winter.  What he did, riding a gamble that was long odds to succeed in the short-term but much sounder in the long-term, was parlay the good vibes buffer of a world championship into an opportunity to move into the future with youth infusion.  Bradley.  Bogaerts.  Middlebrooks (ugh).  Now Holt, DeLa Rosa, Workman.  He didnt sign any of the stop-gap measure decent-but-not-great vets that could stand in the way of the kids.  That was a big part of the 2013 plan when they went out and got vets on 2 and 3 years deals so they could keep the doors open for the almost-readies. He signed AJ, which sure is totally meh, because he wanted a catcher on a 1 year deal so Vasquez or Swihart could move in with ease when ready.  

    This strategy has been a huge reason the 2014 club has struggled so mightily in the early going.  There was so much responsibility put into kids' hands.  Looks really terrible now.  But, I feel confident that this will bear fruit long-term - even later this year.  

         [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Yeah, I agree Space. It's hard to pick any one thing that was horrible, but a lot of little things have added up. But what you said about the WC buffer is about right I think. Had we not won last year, then had this mess--can you imagine the hue and cry?

    [/QUOTE]


    Who has to imagine it?!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A large percentage of the RSN have argued 2014's disaster is mostly the result of replacing good hit, OK field Ellsbury with so-so hit, very good field Bradley.  For proof they point to Bradley's abysmal OPS, barely over .600 and the Sox horrible hitting and scoring, dead last in the AL.  Even worse than Tampa and Houston, for crying out loud.

     

    But WAR--wins above replacement--paint a different picture.  Right now Ellsbury's WAR is 1.5 and Bradley's is 1.4, so Jacoby is ranked 7th among AL centerfielders and Jackie 8th.  They are that close because Bradley right now is the best fielding CF in the AL.  

     

    When salaries are compared--Jacoby's $22M to Jackie's $500K--it becomes even harder to understand why some among the RSN pine for Ellsbury and despise Bradley.  

     

    To me this relates to the larger question of "what should Ben C have done after the 2013 season?"  As of right now, Cherington has brought back everyone important on the 2013 roster except Ellsbury and Saltalamacchia, and to these eyes neither is missed that much.  Pierzynski's WAR is a terrible -.1, but Salty's WAR is only slightly better at .2.   

     

    And let's not forget that Ben C brought back virtually the entire 2013 pitching staff, the same guys who had an ERA of 2.00 in the postseason against the Rays, Tigers, and Cardinals and the 5th best ERA in the AL during the regular season.

     

    The John Henry era has brought three world titles after an 86 year drought, but I think 2013 just might have been the most surprising, coming as it did after finishing dead last in the AL East in 2012, Ben C's first year as GM and the same year he traded away AGon, CC, and Josh Beckett to the Dodgers.  2004, as great as it was, repeated 2003 only with a better ALCS outcome and then sweeping the Cardinals in 4 in the WS.  

     

    I am by no means letting Ben C off the hook because the GM is always accountable for what happens on the field, barring an epidemic of injuries of course.  In this case Victorino can hardly be called an epidemic.  Middlebrooks on the DL is difficult to assess because of his struggles in 2013.  

     

    moonslav says this is the month when Ben C will make one or more deals to begin to right the ship, not for 2014 so much as for 2015 and after.  Consequently, I think it is way too early to make a definitive judgment on Ben C's tenure as GM except to say he helped produce a minor miracle in 2013 which simply didn't carry forward into 2014.   

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement].   The wonderful thing about the multitude of stats available today is that one can almost always find one to support their biased opinion. Even if it defies common sense. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    The Sox might be a couple of games better with Ellsbury, that's about it.  And there would be several threads here about what a disaster it was giving him $150 million when he's obviously in decline. Maybe Softy would be here.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from chickenandboose. Show chickenandboose's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    Bradley bringing that avg to .227! Will we see a .250 soon?

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    dgalehouse,

    What biased opinion?  I was always a big Ellsbury fan and hated losing him, but believed there was no way he would be re-signed, not with Cano going to the Mariners and the Sox ill treatment of Ellsbury in 2010. 

    If WAR is the wrong stat, please tell me of another that attempts to evaluate the whole player, not just the hitter.  Speaking of stats, here's another.  Bradley has 10 assists and 0 errors; Ellsbury 2 assists and 1 error.   The Yankees are paying franchise player wages to a decent not great centerfielder/hitter who is now 30 and unlikely to get better. 

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    The real question will be the 2015 Ellsbury vs. the 2015 Bradley

    and the 2016 Ellsbury vs. the 2016 Bradley

    ...2017....2018...2019.  That's what will really matter.  If people want to look at this year alone, it's hard to justify letting Ellsbury walk and playing Bradley for the min, but I have confidence time will prove that decision wise.  As I've been saying since the beginning. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    "THE GREAT SOFTLAW" TOLD US, we wouldn't miss Ellsbury at all.........  Heck, I miss SOFTY more than Ellsbury  !!!

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    Better to compare Holt with Ellsbury. I don't need WAR (or peace). It's Holt hands down!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Better to compare Holt with Ellsbury. I don't need WAR (or peace). It's Holt hands down!

    [/QUOTE]

    OK, but Holt isn't a centerfielder.  JBJ was the guy who replaced Ellsbury in Centerfield for the Boston Red Sox.  Holt is also a much better infielder than he is an outfielder.  And while he's showed a very impressive ability to shift around the diamond in an attempt to get his bat in the lineup...that doesn't make him a GG everywhere just because he can play there.  He's not a centerfielder.

    WHy is it that Holt should be compared to Ellsbury??? What did Holt have to do with the Sox letting Ellsbury walk???

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    also to make a point in reference to the OP

    "moonslav says this is the month when Ben C will make one or more deals to begin to right the ship, not for 2014 so much as for 2015 and after"

    If the objective was to make a deal to help us in 2015 and not 2014, ideally we would be doing more wheeling and dealing in the winter and not at the deadline.  Now, this doesn't mean we won't make some moves to help us in the future but all things considered that would be the time to be making help us now moves AND not be on the wrong side of supply/demand. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from patrickford. Show patrickford's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    I've always felt Bradley will hit over .300 for the prime years of his career. In fact he's such a hard working and intelligent player that it would not surprise me if he was hitting around .300 in his late '30s. 
    He had a hole in his swing, he began pressing, he kept working and grinding, and now seems to be solving that issue. 
    He's always hit. Two years ago I saw an article which described Bradley working in the cage just on wasting pitches with two strikes. That impressed the hell out of me. This guy is not only going to hit, but once he establishes respect, he is going to torment pitchers. Every at bat is going to be a work-out. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    In response to patrickford's comment:


    I've always felt Bradley will hit over .300 for the prime years of his career. In fact he's such a hard working and intelligent player that it would not surprise me if he was hitting around .300 in his late '30s. 
    He had a hole in his swing, he began pressing, he kept working and grinding, and now seems to be solving that issue. 
    He's always hit. Two years ago I saw an article which described Bradley working in the cage just on wasting pitches with two strikes. That impressed the hell out of me. This guy is not only going to hit, but once he establishes respect, he is going to torment pitchers. Every at bat is going to be a work-out. 




    Think I read that same article, he was relentless practicing hitting with two strikes so he would sit in the batting cage and just try to foul off pitches that were close to the zone to borderline.


    That sounds like the kind of work ethic of someone who can work through things and make adjustments.  Development isn't always linear, and it doesn't always happen overnight but JBJ just strikes me as the kind of person who over the long haul will become a better hitter, and might have the smart to be that better hitter for a long time. 


    Raw tools, and stats mean something.  But something else that means a lot that often doesn't get brought up in conversation is "baseball makeup" and one thing I like about all these young kids in the Sox system, is most of them have strong makeup through the roof. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Teakus. Show Teakus's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    For most reasonable folk it was simply a matter of the Red Sox letting the best leadoff hitter in baseball walk, to be replaced with an unproven rookie who struggled significantly offensively at the MLB level. And until quite recently, those fears were vindicated as JBJ hit below .190 to .215 for almost half the season. My argument was if you didn't feel signing Ellsbury was worth it (I'd have not agreed to that Yankee deal), we should have signed/ traded for another good hitting veteran to replace him. Letting both Salty and Ells go, and naively expecting no drop off in production, has contributed to our becoming one of the worst offensive teams in baseball. We tried to roll the dice with 3 rooks(2 of which had struggled to hit MLB pitching), and 2 37 yr old catchers. This is especially egregious when you consider that most knowledgeable folks consider last years team to have played above it's head offensively. Even expecting the same result with the exact same team would have been arrogant, removing 2 vital offensive cogs and expecting the same is just plain crazy! But that is exactly what they did and it's why we're where we are now. Let's plan for next year! Let the kiddies play and see what they have. Move some unneeded pieces at the trading deadline to stock up on rooks and dump some salary. Show some initiative and planning now, and the Nation will rally to your side. Slumber and take the easy road this deadline, and fail to be active and produce results at the winter meetings next year, and you will have one cranky fanbase to contend with. And deservedly so. Ben and the owners have to rebuild this once powerful offense. That means adding studs and removing journeymen.

    Teakus-Carpe Veritatem!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Teakus. Show Teakus's posts

    Re: 2013 v. 2014, Ellsbury v. Bradley

    I certainly hope you are right Patrick. There is just such a difference between AAA and MLB pitching that it's not always clear which players will go on to have great careers and who will fail. Look at the enigma known as Will Middlebrooks. If he ever put it all together I think he could be another Adrian Gonzalez, minus the good defense of course. A true menace at the plate with 30+ homer power and a .280 or above average. But he continues to fail because he has gaping holes in his swing and lacks the discipline to lay off junk. A patient pitcher with good stuff has such an advantage against him! I am so worried about his development I give him a less than 30% chance of succeeding at this point. Which means I'm on record as saying he's got a 70% chance of being traded before next season. Will he ever get it together? Who knows?! Only time will tell. The same goes for JBJ, who I'm excited to see has seemingly turned the corner of late. He's showing excellent patience at the plate and FORCING pitchers to pitch to him. I like what I'm seeing, but he's not out of the woods just yet. Let's see how he handles himself going forward before proclaiming victory or defeat. But it does seem he has found something out recently, and is smart enough to have made the proper corrections. Good post.

     

     

    In response to patrickford's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I've always felt Bradley will hit over .300 for the prime years of his career. In fact he's such a hard working and intelligent player that it would not surprise me if he was hitting around .300 in his late '30s. 
    He had a hole in his swing, he began pressing, he kept working and grinding, and now seems to be solving that issue. 
    He's always hit. Two years ago I saw an article which described Bradley working in the cage just on wasting pitches with two strikes. That impressed the hell out of me. This guy is not only going to hit, but once he establishes respect, he is going to torment pitchers. Every at bat is going to be a work-out. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

Share