IBC

Alright I'm jumping in this to defend the 06 Cards after Jake's statement. What everyone fails to recognize is the fact that the fully healthy lineup they put on the field in Game 1 of the NLDS: Eckstein, Belliard, Pujols, Rolen, Molina, Edmonds, Duncan and Encarnacion, was the first time they had fielded an entirely healthy lineup with their best 8 hitters since Pujols got hurt in May that year. They went the last 4 months having one or multiple guys out. And that was the first time the entire decade that going into the playoffs, a key player didn't get hurt in the last two weeks of the season and miss the entire postseason.

The whole Manny vs. Bay thing, Manny was a shithead, he got traded and now he's playing hard. Its hardly the first time this has ever happened. To a much much lesser extent, Felipe Lopez is doing the same thing in St. Louis right now. He wasn't playing hard in Washington, got cut, got to STL and was basically told this is your last chance. Now the guy is playing hard and contributing to a team trying to win the WC. Honestly I could give a shit, I quit watching ESPN a long time ago because I was tired of hearing about anything and everything Red Sox being more important than anything else. Hopefully the Twins take the Wild Card, the Yanks and Sox miss the playoffs and we'll get an October dealing only with one bandwagon team that will shoot themselves in the foot sooner or later because they're the Cubs and that's what they do

First of all, Bay has certainly struggled against lefties this year

Well, considering that this year's playoffs are going to be played this year, I would say that's a pretty valid point. And it's not like it's 30 ab's. He's had 100 ab's vs. lefties this year - it's a pretty solid sample size.

Over and over again I've said that there isn't a statistical argument to be made that Jason Bay is better than Manny Ramirez

My point EXACTLY! Thanks Jake!

But let's look at the composition of this team for a moment: To win a World Series you need at least two elite hitters (even the ridiculous 2006 Cardinals had Albert Pujols (1.102) and Chris Duncan (.952) in your lineup.

I would hope any team that makes the playoffs EVER has two elite hitters. Is there a team that has ever made the playoffs that didn't have 2 excellent hitters? It would seem to be almost a minimal requirement to slug through 162 games, have one of the best records in the league, and have 2 excellent hitters. The above is gibberish. Utter nonsense.

The only team that made the playoffs last year without having two people in the top 60 in the MLB in ops were the DBacks (two in the top 80), and they had 6 regular contributors at or above an ops of .800.

MLB it doesn't make sense to put up with that sort of crap if you have an unlimited payroll.

I would LOVE to have this elongated. My initial reaction is...the EXACT opposite. If a guy is being an asshole, and eating salary cap space, and you can dump his salary off your books to get someone else by cutting him, and you have 55 roster spots and a taxi squad, just dump his ass. In baseball - who gives a shit, it's not like he's eating up cap room.

Sorry it took me longer to reply to this then I anticipated, but I have a few minutes to kill so here's the longer drawn out version of what I meant by the Packers argument.

In the NFL teams have a hard cap, which results in increased parity every year as well as harsher consequences for bad contracts (for example the 49ers were using something like 22% of their cap last year to pay off contracts of guys who were cut in 2006 or earlier), and the cap also punishes teams for trading guys almost as much as for cutting them (or more, depending on the time of year and the nature of the guy's bonus) meaning that it's much harder to get away from a superstar. The parity means that the top of the standings change so much every year that it is even more imperative to go for it if you have an opportunity, because if it blows up it is easier to rebuild, and you have fewer chances. Thus, because of the nature of Favre's contract and the competitive realities of the NFL it made sense for the Packers to allow Favre to hold them hostage (even though it resulted in lost seasons in 2005 and 2006), because the opportunity he presented if the gamble paid off was incredibly rare and much more fleeting, even in the best of circumstances the team's chances of being a real live Super Bowl contender are at best 60-40.

The Boston Red Sox, on the other hand, will probably always have the second or third highest payroll in an uncapped sport, meaning that they have a built-in competitive advantage every year. As long as they employ competent front office people and disaster doesn't strike in terms of injuries, suspensions, or the team plane crashing, the Red Sox should be a World Series contender every year, which means that they have the freedom to make moves for the longer term (unlike, say, the Brewers, who have to go all in with Sabathia/Sheets because of their economic realities). The reason you "have to go all out for a championship" is that generally you never know when you're going to get another chance, but the Red Sox will have a chance every year.

More importantly, going from Manny to Bay is not punting the season. Jason Bay is a terrific player. 100 AB is actually not a very good sample size (it's about 20-25 games, much less than a quarter of the season, 300 AB is a much better minimum, a full season (550-600 would be best) and 100 AB pales in comparison to 416 from the previous three years of much better performance, especially when that 416 AB performance meshes with the anecdotal reality that righties hit better against lefties and would be a better indicator going forward. Also with Bay you don't have the downside risk you have with Manny, which is him choosing not to play, one that the Red Sox absolutely had to have considered viable when they made the trade.

Two elite hitters is certainly a subjective argument, but to me the standard for elite is .900+ OPS. No, not every team has two such guys. Last year's Angels had only one, Vlad, with Casey Kotchman second at .839. The Diamondbacks didn't have single one. The Indians didn't have a single one. Hell, last year's World Champion Red Sox only had one (Ramirez just missed the cut at .881).

The current Red Sox have three such players, Youkilis, Drew, and Bay (who's now outslugging Manny's Red Sox production by 50 points after a couple of good games since your last post about his stats, my point being that conclusions made from small sample sizes are dumb) and a now healthy Ortiz is right on cusp at .866 (and .902 since the All-Star Break). My point? Going from Manny to Bay did not have a significant impact on the Red Sox upside, and it took away the downside risk from Manny's bullshit. Protecting yourself like that is like diversifying your stock portfolio, nothing sexy about it, and you might be giving up a small percentage of potential returns, but ultimately crucial to success, especially for a team like the Red Sox that contends every year.

Since the trade...

Manny - .400/.487/.670 - LA Dodgers 11-17
Bay - .327/.365/.529 - Boston Red Sox - 17-8

I guess it's true that games really aren't played on paper. LOL

On paper the Dodgers are still a team that hasn't figured it out....Playing Pierre & Manny in the same OF at Chez is insane...especially while Either watches from the bench.

You mean to tell me that Ethier couldn't net them a 3b better than Casey Blake? of a dish towel better than Molester 'stache Kent?

The scary thing is that Blake has actually been one of the best hitters in the lineup. That they are playing Nomar at SS just blows my mind. Remember McCourt, the Sox had to get rid of Nomar to make the leap.

Jason Bay on Red Sox: .313/.359/.513
Jason Bay overall: .289/.371/.518

Manny Ramirez on Dodgers: .414/.500/.748
Manny Ramirez overall: .326/.422/.580
Manny Ramirez on Red Sox: .299/.398/.529
Manny Ramirez on World Series Champion 2007 Red Sox: .296/.388/.493

Batting 4th for the Red Sox on 9/2: Dustin Pedroia

Red Sox HOMR (Happiness Over Manny Ramirez) Rating: 27.2 (league average is 3.6).

As the stats show, regardless of Manny's ability as a hitter, as indicated by the HOMR, their happiness will now lead them to a World Series.

Manny is one of the greatest hitters of all time, no doubt about that.

But, a Red Sox team with a slew of world series vets, actually thought they had a better chance of winning without Manny. The Red Sox players and Red Sox management both agreed on this....and at this point in time, they appear to be better off.

Maybe, just maybe, the actual players and front office knew something that us sim league managers don't.

In the 29 games they have played 1 legitimate playoff contender, Chicago, and are 4-3 vs. them. The Yanks are the only other team 10 games above .500. They are doing PRECISELY what they did with Manny Ramirez - beat the teams they were supposed to beat.

Are we seriously saying that Dice-K would pitch WORSE because Manny was around? Paps would suddenly nose-dive? Pedroia and Youkilis would both suck intentionally to oppose having Manny in the lineup?

Three Facts I Know About the Red Sox:
1) They were going to make the playoffs.
2) They are a better team, statistically, with Manny Ramirez in the lineup.
3) They have won 2 World Series with Manny Ramirez cleaning up after Ortiz.

Can someone PLEASE argue that Manny would have not tried in the playoffs...I'm begging someone to do this...please!

Your missing the point. Do you think you really know the situation better than Ortiz, Beckett, Drew, Theo Epstein, etc. etc.

They all wanted Manny gone. They wanted him gone and they still want to win. Can all these players and management team be wrong??

yes

MLB teams really need to start consulting all the great baseball minds available in the form of 20 something sim freaks.

We can't win in the sim world, but heck, give us a MLB team and we could surely do much better. LOL

So wait, just because I don't work in the MLB means I can't question a move or disagree with it?

Abolutely, you can disagree.

But to think that an entire team of players and coaches are wrong seems like a pretty bold statement though. What info do you have that was not available to them??

First of all, great question JP...

Second of all, quick question(s) - was this the management and players that won 2 World Series with Manny? Including last year? It's not possible that a team made a knee-jerk trade that will come to haunt them in the long run (as we continue to prove statistically, and you counter with feelings)? No teams have ever made a knee-jerk move that has cost them in the long run? No GM has ever made a worse trade then a 20-something sim freak would make?

I hire salespeople for my team based mostly on personality, and commitment to a team goal. But if one of the greatest ticket salesperson in the history of tickets sales wanted to be on my team - I'd take him/her in a heartbeat, regardless of if he/she was a dick. And if, during my tenure, we won two World Ticket Sales Titles with that person on staff, and if we were gunning for a third - you better goddamn believe I'm doing whatever it takes to keep that person around.

Also, JD Drew? Really? I would have gone with Varitek.

As a manager myself, I know that decisions are made among a management group based on certain information available to them. When a decision is made, you always have people that are going to second guess that decision, whether or not they have all the information available to them or not. Employees are constantly questioning decisions that are made without ever knowing the full story or reason behind that decision.

The public can cry foul, but I'm not so sure we have every piece of information that went into making this decision. And based on things I've read, I think the Manny decision was more of a team decision. As a team, they must have thought they were better off without him.

I love this...so you're just speculating as much as we are right? So we're the 20-something SIM freaks who have no business contesting a trade by a pro sports team, and you're the enlightened 'manager' (which I am, too) come to tell us what must be going on in the Red Sox organization. And that there's no way these guys made a knee-jerk reaction at the deadline that's going to ultimately hurt their chances at winnings a World Series?

Considering the Red Sox divulged they had a meeting where SOME veterans opinions were allowed, I'd like to think they were giving us most of the information. And based upon that information, I'm coming to the determination, using actual statistics, that they have hurt their chances of winning a championship by moving Manny Ramirez. If our management team EVER had a meeting like that, we sure as shit wouldn't have told our own staff - much less the media.

It's not possible that some of these people are jealous of Manny? Considering the Red Sox history of jettisoning their stars, I have no problem thinking that this was just another in a long line of those moves - just one that's going to bite them in the ass more than any of the others did. Apologies for apparently being a terrible manager and using statistics to back up arguments I'm making based on all the information at my disposal.

Royals wrote:I love this...so you're just speculating as much as we are right?

Yes. The only difference is that I'm giving the benfit of the doubt to the professionals.

Then why did they go public with the meeting? That's my biggest question. That was about as unprofessional as a professional organization could EVER be.

They went public for vanity's sake. The job of a GM is to put the best possible team on the field and let the manager deal with the day-to-day attitude of the players. The players of the game of baseball sure as shit aren't qualified to be General Managers. In fact, unless statistically enlightened, I'd argue that many of them are WORSE choices to be GM's then many of us. If at some point if comes out that Manny threatened Youkilis with a knife, nailed Pedroia's wife, or killed Francona's pet snake, I'll concede the point.

To date, the worst we've got is that he 'seemed to be hustling less this year' - even though he was statistically helping the team win more baseball games. You want to talk about knee-jerk reactions? Ask a player if they want Manny on their team the day he doesn't run out a grounder, the night before the trade deadline - I can't imagine a WORSE time to solicit player opinion.

Why would they leak it? Could it be that Theo Epstein is an attention whore?

Royals wrote:Then why did they go public with the meeting? That's my biggest question. That was about as unprofessional as a professional organization could EVER be.

They went public for vanity's sake. The job of a GM is to put the best possible team on the field and let the manager deal with the day-to-day attitude of the players. The players of the game of baseball sure as shit aren't qualified to be General Managers. In fact, unless statistically enlightened, I'd argue that many of them are WORSE choices to be GM's then many of us. If at some point if comes out that Manny threatened Youkilis with a knife, nailed Pedroia's wife, or killed Francona's pet snake, I'll concede the point.

To date, the worst we've got is that he 'seemed to be hustling less this year' - even though he was statistically helping the team win more baseball games. You want to talk about knee-jerk reactions? Ask a player if they want Manny on their team the day he doesn't run out a grounder, the night before the trade deadline - I can't imagine a WORSE time to solicit player opinion.

They went public with the meeting as a "Fuck You" to Manny. Unprofessional? Probably, but remember that the guys making the decisions here are roughly our age. Meanwhile, Jason Bay on the year is hitting roughly what Manny hit for the 2007 Red Sox in terms of OPS, so you can win a World Series with a guy hitting like that. There has so far been absolutely no cost to the Red Sox in trading Ramirez, which certainly didn't cause J.D. Drew to get hurt 3 weeks later. Z, I hate to resort to this tired anti-sabermetric line, but baseball is in fact played by human beings and not computers. So yes, if there is a cancer in the clubhouse that is fucking with everybody off the field, it could cause Daisuke Matsuzaka to pitch worse. Just because something is not mathematically quantifiable doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm really not sure why you continue to insist on jumping down the throat of this deal.

I also enjoy that you are making a sabermetric argument and then making fun of having Pedroia as the cleanup hitter when sabermetrics clearly shows that the "traditional" roles for various spots in the batting order have almost no bearing on wins and you should let the best hitters hit earlier in the lineup to get more at bats. Pedroia is probably the 4th best hitter in that lineup (Ortiz, Bay, and Youk being the three best), so sabermetrically 4th is probably the best place for him to hit. Does that sound silly? Sure, and that's why numbers alone aren't enough to make an argument about a game played by people, especially when Bay is essentially providing the exact same punch to the lineup that 2007 Manny did.

I'm certainly not arguing that Pedroia isn't the best available 4th hitter for them - I'm saying there's quite a drop in protection for Ortiz when it goes from Manny to Pedroia - and the fact that the Sox traded a clear #4 hitter for someone they don't feel comfortable with at cleanup is telling that they don't necessarily trust the trade - or, at least, Francona doesn't.

I played baseball for 20 years. I played on teams that have won a High School State Championship, two DCMSBL championships, and won the Greater Hartford Twilight League. I also played for Hamilton College - and we didn't win 10 games in any of the years I played. The two teams I played on that got along the worst? The High School State Championship team (the Seniors HATED the sophomores and juniors because we got a lot of publicity), and the Twilight League Team (three of us college guys made the team over guys who had played in the league for 10 years - one guy gave up a home run to Bernie Williams and Mo Vaughn in the league). The two teams that got along the best? The two DCMSBL championship teams I played on - I'd never had more fun playing baseball in my life. My next favorite team? My senior year at Hamilton when we won 7 games.

I always felt I played better when Jamie Harrison was pitching at Hamilton. I didn't like him very much. I always felt like I played better when Bronson Hall was pitching in the DCMSBL. Loved the kid. Funny thing was - Jamie was the best pitcher I played with in college, and Bronson was the best pitcher I played with in college.

My point? Talent wins the day. I don't care how much or little you like each other, the team that puts the best players on the field day-in and day-out has a better chance of winning the game. Its like poker. If you keep playing good cards, your chances of winning are higher. If you keep trying to bluff on rags, someone's going to catch you.

Manny would have played - he literally has no choice. And the Red Sox would be a better team for it. Putting Manny, Ortiz, Youk, Pedroia, Drew, etc. on the field every day, with the Red Sox pitching is like starting each game with A-K in the playoffs. Taking Manny out and substituting Bay is like starting each game with K-Q. You're gonna beat most hands, but you might get fucked by an Ace.

(After awesome analogy is made, Brett drops microphone and walks off stage to thunderous Palin-level applause)

Manny absolutely did have a choice. There are any number of "injuries" someone can suffer that are not really diagnosable on MRI, plus there is potential "chronic pain and soreness" to take a guy out of the lineup as well. Would he have done that? Who can say, but the possibility was there, and the arguments for doing it (especially if your agent is Scott Boras), could be compelling. Either way I don't get why you're hanging on to this so hard. Bay is giving them roughly the same production he gave them last year (and not much less than he was giving this year, remember that Manny moved to a much easier league by going to the Dodgers, which accounts for much of the disparity). Also, how much has having Manny helped the Dodgers' chances to win exactly? When they got Manny they were at .500 exactly. Since the trade they've gone 15-16, so how valuable have those numbers really been?

I'm sorry, on what planet is a difference of 71 ops points "not a lot"? And that's Manny's OPS for the Sox vs. Bay's OPS for the Sox - not overall.

And I'm sorry - we need to be clear here - are you blaming Manny Ramirez attitude for the Dodgers going 15-16 since he got there? Because I see that, look at his #'s since he got there, and can't even begin to imagine how far they'd be outside of the playoffs without him during those 31 games.

I love this whole "injury" theory too. Manny's on pace to play in 154 games this year. And he's 36. I'm 28 and I get sore after playing basketball for 2 hours, 3 days a week.

From the "I'm Just Gonna Reprint It" it department, even though it pretty much guarantees the Red Sox are going to come back to win the series:

Jim Caple: "So, too, are the Red Sox a different team. David Ortiz wore a telling black T-shirt after Boston's 13-4 Game 4 spanking. In the same style of the "Got Milk?'' advertisements, the shirt asked: "Got Manny?" Boston most certainly does not got Manny this October, and while Kevin Youkilis and Jason Bay have hit well, his absence is as conspicuous from the lineup as it is from the clubhouse."