How to Fix the Red Sox

Before we get started: Yes, the Red Sox need to be fixed. No, they are not good enough as they are. No, the fact that they made the playoffs this season does not mean that everything is fine and dandy. The Red Sox are an old, flawed team, and the 2009 postseason exposed those flaws. Here, I will lay out my semi-realistic plans to bring the Sox back to the forefront of the playoff picture.

1. Forget Bay; sign Holliday.

Jason Bay is a very good baseball player. He is a great hitter who has provided more production than the Red Sox could have possibly hoped for, especially given that he was acquired after everyone and his brother knew that the Sox were hell-bent on running the greatest right-handed hitter in their history out of town. He is also, however, absolutely terrible with the glove.

According to UZR, Bay’s defense cost the Red Sox 13.9 runs in 2009 versus what a league-average left fielder would have provided. Matt Holliday, on the other hand, was 5.3 runs above average, despite having to get used to two new ballparks. In his last two years at Coors, Holliday posted UZRs of 14.2 and 9.1; in those same years Bay’s UZRs were -11.5 and -18.4.

Even if we use the most conservative assessment (and do not assume that Bay, who is one year older, will have his skills deteriorate faster than Holliday), there is still a 20-run gap between Holliday and Bay. This is even before we look at the offensive numbers, where Bay and Holliday appear to be essentially equal.

The bottom line is this: Matt Holliday is the best player available. The Red Sox have a greater revenue stream than any team in baseball except the Yankees. If Holliday hits the market, the Yankees don’t sign him and the Red Sox don’t sign him, the Red Sox have failed.

2. Sign Chone Figgins.
2a. If Figgins is not available, sign Adrian Beltre.

Personally, I think that Figgins is staying with the Angels. If, however, they decide to get stupid (always a possibility, considering the fact that they signed Mike Scioscia through 2014 and gave a combined $140 million to Gary Matthews Jr. and pre-breakout Torii Hunter), Figgins would be a fantastic acquisition. He would bring fantastic speed to the top of the order, while getting on base more often than Jacoby Ellsbury. He would also solve another position’s defensive problem; his 14.5 UZR in 2009 represents a 25-run upgrade from Mike Lowell and his gimpy hip.

In the likely event that Figgins never becomes available, Beltre would represent a cheaper (albeit not as good) alternative. Like Figgins, he is a defensive wizard (13.7 UZR in 2009), and although his batting line would leave much to be desired from a corner infielder, there is some hope that his skills would play better at Fenway than they do at SafeCo Field. (FanGraphs’ Dave Allen wrote a fascinating piece about this about a week and a half ago.)

3. Don’t rely on Bard to be the closer.

As I noted a month ago, Bard regressed heavily after an impressive start to his 2009 season. I’m not saying that the Red Sox shouldn’t trade Jonathan Papelbon; what I am saying is that a Papelbon trade should only be made if a contingency plan, such as re-signing Billy Wagner, is in place.

4. Teach Jacoby Ellsbury to play defense.
4a. If he is unwilling to learn, shoot him and sign Mike Cameron.

Tell an average Red Sox fan that Jacoby Ellsbury is a terrible defender, and you’ll get about the same response as if you told an average Jew that Israel is one of the most evil countries in the world. However, much like white phosphorus burns on a Lebanese civilian’s face, the numbers are hard to hide. Ellsbury posted a startling -16.5 UZR in 2009; despite his fantastic speed and propensity to make diving catches, he is apparently incapable of gauging fly balls off the bat, which more often than not leads to ugly routes and balls dropping in for hits.

Cameron, if brought in to Boston, would be everything that people claim Alex Gonzalez is: A superb defender who hits just well enough to contribute there, as well. He’ll be 37 when the 2010 season gets underway, but unless Ellsbury manages to right himself defensively Cameron would give the Red Sox a much better chance to win.

So there you have it: Four relatively simple things that would make the Red Sox a significantly better team than they were in 2009. There are no ridiculous trade scenarios here, no “give Bowden and Lars to the Padres for Heath Bell and Adrian Gonzalez” insanity. It only costs money, which is something of which the Red Sox have plenty.

There’s only one

Yes, friends, it’s October again. And that means another month of playoff baseball, the first round of which will be positively overflowing with terrible, terrible coverage thanks to our friends at TBS. Fortunately, Chip Caray will only be able to ruin one of the four first-round matchups on the worst network to ever televise sport, but I’m sure they’ll be able to dig up a few equally awful announcers to make sure that every team’s fans suffer equally.

Except the Red Sox, because Don Orsillo is doing the play-by-play on their series with the Angels.

Anyway, this post serves as the standard “I make predictions, then later on we look back at them and laugh at how pathetic I am” post. It will be fun, I’m sure.

ALDS
Yankees over Twins in 3
Red Sox over Angels in 5

I would have predicted the Yankees to beat the Tigers in four games, believing that Justin Verlander could singlehandedly give them Game 2. The Twins, however, have no pitcher of Verlander’s caliber, and will be less than 24 hours removed from one of the most draining games imaginable when they take the field in New York for Game 1. It’s unfortunate that the playoff game couldn’t be played Monday; with a day to recuperate and travel, it’s possible that the outcome might have been different.

The Red Sox and Angels have matched up in the first round of the playoffs for three years in a row, now, after also meeting in the first round in 2004. Both teams have a very solid lineup and rather questionable pitching, but I think the Red Sox’ frontline starters (Lester and Beckett are as effective a 1-2 punch as any in the game) and dominant back end of the bullpen will see them through here.

NLDS
Cardinals over Dodgers in 5
Phillies over Rockies in 4

If the Cardinals had homefield advantage, I’d take them in 4. As it is, I think the Dodgers will be able to find a way to win one of the games started by either Carpenter or Wainwright before ultimately falling to the superior team. In the other series, I won’t even pretend to know that much about the Rockies; their surge to get into the playoffs was impressive, but I think the Phillies–even with the potential clusterfuck in their bullpen–will walk away with the win.

ALCS
Yankees over Red Sox in 5

The Yankees will be rested and ready after humiliating the Twins, and the Red Sox will be exhausted from having to go all-out to beat the Angels. Either Lester or Beckett will be dominant enough to get one game for Boston, but the patient and powerful Yankee hitters will wait out Clay Buchholz and tattoo Daisuke Matsuzaka, and that will be all she wrote. If the Yankees take the first three and lead Game 4 by one run in the bottom of the ninth, I reserve the right to change my prediction.

To Yankees in 4.

NLCS
Cardinals over Phillies in 6

Once again, I think that Carpenter and Wainwright will carry the torch for St. Louis here. The thought of a Carpenter-Lee showdown gets me all tingly inside, and hopefully we get it. Or Carpenter-Pedro. That would be AWESOME.

World Series
Yankees over Cardinals in 5

I was recently accused of being a frontrunner for pointing out that the 2009 Yankees consist of a group of largely likable players (and Jorge Posada) who just happen to be the most ridiculously expensive team in the history of sport. (This off-the-cuff statement takes into account not only the 2009 payroll, which I know is not the highest in MLB history, but also the huge long-term commitments made to CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett and Mark Teixeira.)

I doubt that this prediction will change that. However, I simply see there to be no stopping the Yankees right now. They are too good, too deep, and the path before them is filled with teams that are either pathetically inadequate or just fatally flawed. If the Red Sox had Julio Lugo on the bench (.277/.351/.432 after leaving Boston) instead of Jed Lowrie (.147/.211/.265), or if they had hung onto John Smoltz (who, for all his struggles, had the exact same FIP as Paul Byrd during his time in Boston and was said to be feeling better with every start), or if they had seen the potential in Joel Pineiro…

…wait, those guys are all on the Cardinals. Well, I’m still taking the Yankees in five.

Katie Bard the door

Worst pun ever? Probably.

Daniel Bard exploded onto the scene in 2009. After a rather pedestrian minor league career, he was wildly impressive in Spring Training and carried that impressiveness into the minor league season, posting incredible strikeout rates with Pawtucket and earning a major league callup in mid-May. After only striking out one batter in his first five innings of work, Bard exploded, striking out 36 batters over his next 25.1 innings and allowing only nine walks, including none in 12 July innings.

There were many Red Sox fans, myself included, who thought that Bard was emerging as the closer of the future for the Red Sox. Some argued that he should take that role immediately, and that Jonathan Papelbon should be traded; I was of the position that the move should not be made midseason, and that it would be more prudent to make an evaluation over the winter.

Since the end of his incredible July, Bard has regressed. Heavily. He’s still striking people out (24 K in 17 IP since August 1), but his other stats have been downright atrocious. He’s walked 11 batters in those 17 innings, a rate which is simply unacceptable no matter HOW many batters you strike out. Bard is also, as some had feared, being victimized by the long ball; Bard has allowed five home runs since the first day of August.

At the other end of the spectrum sits Jonathan Papelbon. Unlike Bard, Pap’s season did not start off well at all; his strikeout rate, while still high, was lower than it had been since he became a reliever, and he was walking a batter every other inning. He was still a good pitcher, but not the dominant closer that Red Sox fans had come to expect; as he approached another year of arbitration, it became a fair question to ask whether or not the Sox would be best served by trading him in the offseason, using his reputation and the power of the save statistic to cover up the fact that he looked like a pitcher about to decline.

Not exactly.

Since July 1, Papelbon has been pitching like…well, Papelbon. In 32 innings he’s struck out 40 batters while surrendering just seven walks and two home runs, basically putting an end to discussion that he may be past his prime or that the Red Sox should seriously consider trading him. (I believe that there is never a case where a player–especially a relief pitcher–should be considered completely untouchable, but I also believe that having a dominant relief ace like Papelbon is something that should not be taken lightly.)

The addition of Billy Wagner (19 K in 12 IP and possibly the greatest suggestion I ever made) has allowed the Red Sox to cover up the massive decline in Bard’s performance. Still, it will be very interesting to see how he performs in the playoffs, and what–if any–success he has in the 2010 season.

Til death do U.S. part

We’re starting a new feature here on IJAB: I find a problem, then come up with an incredibly complicated solution to it that, in practice, would create a whole host of other problems that are much worse than the initial problem. Today’s problem: Marriage.

The civil institution of marriage exists solely as an extension of the religious institution of marriage. However, because of the benefits involved, many people who are not seriously in love with one another get married to save a few bucks. This, religious people would argue, cheapens the sanctity of the religious institution of marriage.

There’s also the issue of gay marriage. Different states have taken different stances on the issue, and again most of the debate seems to fall along religious lines. Those who believe that homosexual couples shouldn’t be married generally believe that allowing it would be an affront to God, and that would–again–cheapen the sanctity of the religious institution of marriage.

And let’s not forget divorce. When a marriage breaks down, there has to be a divorce just to end the civil marriage. Many religions, particularly Catholicism, see divorce as a shameful act. Just about all religious people would argue that the civil act of divorce–stop me if you’ve heard this one before–cheapens the sanctity of the religious institution of marriage.

So if the civil institution of marriage creates such controversy, and only came into being for religious reasons…why not get rid of it?

From a governmental perspective, marriage creates nothing but headaches: Paperwork has to be filed and maintained, name changes typically have to happen (and then happen again in the case of divorce), and there’s the simple fact that one married couple generates less tax revenue than two individual people making the same amount of money.

Eliminating the civil institution of marriage would, in the long run, reduce clutter and bureaucratic nonsense, as well as bring in more money for the government. (Of course, new protections would have to be established regarding children and probably property, but stay with me here.) It would also give organized religions less stuff to complain about, which is always nice. And, as a cherry on top of the sundae, it would eliminate one of the oldest ties between religion and government, which is just about always a good thing.

Despite what these last few paragraphs might have you think, I’m not insane. I know that there’s no way in Hell that civil marriage will ever be eliminated in this country, certainly not while I or anyone reading this is alive. And it’s very likely–I’d even go so far as to say it’s virtually certain–that there’s something I’m overlooking that makes my argument look even more pointless and counterproductive than it already is.

I will say one thing, though: I’d bet on Obama pushing to eliminate all marriage before betting on him pushing to recognize gay marriage.

One more year for the Captain

EDIT: Disregard this entire post. I take it all back. After allowing four stolen bases in the first two innings against the Yankees, three without a throw and two after dropping the ball…I’m done. I want him gone. Please go away, Jason. Please.

Before I start, let me say one thing right now: I am not, at present, a fan of Jason Varitek. I think that his role as captain of the Red Sox has been greatly overstated, and that his gamecalling abilities are significantly overrated. As has been discussed elsewhere, he has become a complete liability behind the plate. Despite a hot start to the season, his bat has not rebounded from a disastrous 2008, and at 37 years old it appears that it never will.

Despite all of this, I think he should stay with the Red Sox for 2010. Why? It’s very simple: He’s the best catcher available.

It’s a sad indictment of the catching situation that exists in Major League Baseball, but it’s true. Jason Varitek, a 37-year-old (who will turn 38 on April 11 of next season) catcher with a batting line of .211/.315/.397, is legitimately the best catcher available this coming offseason. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the list of free agents. Who on that list is a better hitter than Jason Varitek?

Josh Bard jumped out at me at first, after I slammed the Red Sox for letting him go in Spring Training. He’s put up a .234/.293/.363 line with the Nationals, and may be understandably hesitant to come to Boston for a third time.

Brad Ausmus is hitting well in a very limited role for the Dodgers (.289/.340/.367), but has been the beneficiary of a .357 BABIP, and his slash stats are at their highest level since 1995, 2005 and 1999, respectively.

Henry Blanco has been a serviceable backup for many years in the National League, but his .236/.323/.377 line is roughly equivalent to Varitek’s and is helped by a walk rate that is well higher than any that he’s posted since 2002. (I believe that walk rates are skill-based, but I’m always inclined to trust six years of data before one.)

I could go on all day with this. The 2010 free agent market is littered with options that are just uninspiring on every level. Would Bengie Molina, who hasn’t played fewer than 96 games since 1999, accept a backup role? If so, would we be able to tolerate his complete refusal to work a walk? Are Brian Schneider or Ramon Castro really going to be the answer?

There’s no point in trying to argue that Jason Varitek is a good baseball player. However, just by virtue of being a catcher, he becomes valuable. After unsuccessfully trying to trade for a young catcher in this past offseason–and then seeing many of those players fall on their face in 2009–the Red Sox may be best served by picking up the Captain’s 2010 option and hoping that they can develop a successor internally.

Respect for the office

As I’m sure you’re aware by now, last night Barack Obama gave a speech before a joint session of Congress. As I’m also sure you’re aware, Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) interrupted that speech, shouting “You lie!” at the President when he said that government funds would not be used to provide health care to illegal immigrants under any new health care plan.

The way things are going now, there won’t be a plan from which to draw funds, but that’s beside the point.

Generally, I don’t get too riled up about things that many consider to be in bad taste. Too often, “poor taste” is used as a cover for saying that one simply doesn’t like what is being presented to them, or by people who are afraid to deal with a difficult issue. However, I do feel that Representative Wilson’s actions deserve reproach, both for being “in bad taste” and simply for being hypocritical.

When George W. Bush was President, he said a lot of patently false things before members of Congress. Not once (and please correct me if I’m wrong) did a Senator or Representative rise from his seat and try to shout him down, even as he told lies that were much more onerous than the ones of which Wilson accuses Obama. In fact, whenever President Bush faced any opposition or criticism whatsoever, Republicans were always there to say that he was our President, our Leader, and we had to show respect for him because to do otherwise would portray weakness to the enemy.

And yet, though we are still at war on two fronts and the prospect of war looms on two more, it suddenly becomes okay for someone–not just someone, but a member of CONGRESS–to shout down the President as he gives a speech. After years of being told that it was unjust and unethical to even insinuate that President Bush may have committed a war crime, it suddenly becomes perfectly fine to put this President on a level with tyrants like Hitler and Pol Pot.

(As an aside, the fact that Republicans are calling Obama both “Hitler” and “socialist” shows that they’re just as easily manipulated as the public was in 1930s Germany.)

I’m not saying that Representative Wilson’s actions were absolutely wrong. I won’t stand here and pretend that I would have been offended if someone like Barney Frank had called President Bush on any of his bullshit. However, his actions show that Republicans only hold respect for the office of the President when a Republican is filling that office. The next time a Republican President (and that time may be coming sooner than I’d like if the Democrats don’t pull their heads out of their asses) gives an address before Congress and says something patently false, it will be interesting to see whether a Democratic congressman takes the same initiative as Representative Wilson.

Of course, what will be even more interesting will be to see how long it takes Fox News to call the act “deplorable” and “unforgivable.”

Josh Beckett is hurt.

If you’ve been paying attention to the Red Sox of late, it’s no secret that Josh Beckett has hit a rough patch. In his last four starts prior to tonight’s outing against the Rays, Beckett had allowed 12 home runs in just 25.1 innings, posting a 7.82 ERA in the process. In the first three innings of his start tonight, he allowed two more home runs and five earned runs, sending both of those already horrible rates upward.

It’s easy to say that Beckett just happens to be struggling right now, and that he will right the ship on his own. This may well be true. However, I think there’s more to the story than just a bad stretch, and I have the evidence to prove it. First, look at Beckett’s fastball velocity:

As you can see, there has been a steady decline in the velocity of Beckett’s fastball. Furthermore, his release point has shifted dramatically:

The first start is from Beckett’s last good start, August 7th against the Yankees. The second is also against the Yankees, this time from the 23rd. To my eye, that’s a noticeable–and worrisome–drop in Beckett’s release point.

The August 7th start was notable not just because it was Beckett’s last good start, but also because he threw an inordinately high number of pitches. Beckett threw 115 in that start, more than he had in any start in more than two months. Obviously it was an important start, and Beckett pitched very well, but one has to question the wisdom in Terry Francona leaving Beckett–who struggled with arm injuries in the late stages of the 2008 season–in to throw so many pitches in a late season start.

Beckett has struggled mightily on the mound of late, and his struggles coincide with a dip in velocity and a lowered release point. I can only hope that the Red Sox see the same things that I do, and stop running him out there before he hurts himself even more than he already has.

Rangy Rangers

A lot has been made this season about the fact that the Texas Rangers have come from seemingly nowhere to be a contender for the AL Wild Card. Most of the credit has been given to their pitching; for years, the book on the Rangers has been that they have a great offense but terrible pitching, and this year it seems that they finally have the right combination of talent and coaching to get batters out as well as score a bunch of runs. On the surface, this would appear to be the case; after posting a 5.37 ERA last year (worst in the majors), the Rangers have a 4.15 team ERA this year, good for 7th in the majors and second in the American League.

Of course, it’s not that simple. There has been some improvement by the Rangers pitchers, but not nearly as much as conventional wisdom would have you think. Let’s take a look at the 2008 and 2009 Rangers pitching staffs:

2008: 6.01 K/9, 3.90 BB/9, 1.10 HR/9, 4.83 FIP

2009: 6.22 K/9, 3.37 BB/9, 1.10 HR/9, 4.56 FIP

As I said, there has been some improvement. The Rangers were 28th in the majors in FIP last season; this year they are 24th. Still, this is not the massive change that many ESPN talking heads would have you believe. The real difference between the 2008 Rangers and the 2009 version lies in the defense. Last season the Rangers ranked dead last in the category; according to UZR, their defense cost them 52 runs. This season, the change has been startling; what was once the worst defensive team in the majors is now one of the best, their glovework saving 35 runs, fifth-best in the majors and third in the American League. That kind of turnaround–87 runs, if UZR is to be believed–is absolutely startling. If one was to take 87 runs off of what the 2008 Rangers allowed, their 5.37 ERA would become a 4.87 ERA.

The Rangers pitchers are a little bit better than they were last year, but they’re still pretty bad. It’s defense, not pitching, that’s helping them win.

Paint Your Wagner?

With the Mets placing Billy Wagner on waivers, I think it’s worth discussing whether the Red Sox would be wise to look into claiming him off of waivers or trying to get him in a trade. He’s owed a rather hefty amount: About $2.7 million for the rest of the season, plus a $1 million buyout for next season’s $8 million option. On top of that, he’s coming off of Tommy John surgery, and hasn’t pitched in the majors since last August. Given those facts, there’s definitely a case for the Sox to stay away.

On the other hand, he has pitched very well in his rehab assignments; it’s just 7 innings, but he’s struck out 10 batters without allowing a walk or a home run. Plus, it’s worth noting that the 12th guy in the pen right now is Fernando Cabrera, and while he’s nice to have the fact is that he’s a one- or two-inning righty in a pen that has five other one- or two-inning righties ahead of him. Adding Wagner in his place would give a little more flexibility and make it harder for teams to stack their lineups with lefthanded batters.

I think the Sox should go after Wagner, and I wouldn’t be opposed to just taking his salary. If it works out, he becomes another very good arm in a bullpen that’s already full of them. If it doesn’t, rosters expand in less than two weeks anyway, so it’s not like Cabrera would be gone for a long time.

EDIT: The path getting there was long, winding, and definitely more complicated than it needed to be. However, in the end, the Red Sox got their man. Assuming that the two players the Sox eventually give up amount to nothing of consequence, I really like the deal.

It’s pointless speculation time!

MLB commissioner Bud Selig said recently that he wanted an international draft and a hard limit on the initial signing bonuses for MLB draft picks as part of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Both of those are rather unfriendly to the players, and I hypothesized that the MLBPA might want something in exchange. After some talking with my dear friend Space, we figured that one possibility would be to expand to 32 teams, thereby expanding the number of players who get paid a major league salary. (For the purposes of this exercise, we’re going to ignore the ongoing recession and the fact that the Rangers have had to borrow money to pay salary while the Brewers and Royals are manipulating their players’ service time to save a few million bucks.)

If MLB did expand, they might decide to emulate the NFL and go with four four-team divisions. What would those divisions look like, you wonder? I’m glad you asked!

AL EAST

Baltimore

Boston

New York

Toronto

The most competitive division in the game loses one of its three excellent teams, but otherwise remains unchanged.

AL NORTH

Chicago

Cleveland

Detroit

Minnesota

Basically take the AL Central and get rid of the Royals. There’s your AL North.

AL SOUTH

Kansas City

New Team

Tampa Bay

Texas

The first of two new teams for the American League comes into the AL South, also known as the Island of Misfit Teams. This new squad could theoretically be placed in Oklahoma City (I once created an expansion team there in Baseball Mogul called the Bombers. They played in Alfred P. Murrah Stadium. In a related story, I am going to Hell.), Memphis, New Orleans or Charlotte, to name a few.

AL WEST

Los Angeles

New Team

Oakland

Seattle

In my mind, while there are several possibilities for the new AL South team, the expansion club for the AL West simply has to be in Las Vegas. I suppose one could pussy out and put the team in Portland or Boise or some other city that isn’t Vegas, but that kind of nonsense won’t fly in this ridiculous hypothetical of mine.

NL EAST

New York

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Washington

The NL is tougher to get an obvious handle on than the AL. I almost had Cincinnati in here to avoid having both Pennsylvania teams in the same division, but the difference between them is far greater than that between Los Angeles and San Diego, so I think it works.

NL NORTH

Chicago

Cincinnati

Milwaukee

St. Louis

I always forget just how many teams are in the NL Central. There’s like a half dozen or something. It’s ridiculous.

NL SOUTH

Atlanta

Colorado

Florida

Houston

More inexact science here. Denver is further north than St. Louis, so one could argue that the Rockies and Cardinals should switch divisions, but I think the Cubs-Cardinals rivalry is worth preserving.

NL WEST

Arizona

Los Angeles

San Diego

San Francisco

Finally, one that makes sense. Stupid Rockies being in the middle of stupid nowhere surrounded by stupid nothing.

Because it changes so frequently, I didn’t really consider competitive balance when making these decisions. The Pirates and Nationals sharing a division might create a black hole of suck, and for the immediate future the Dodgers and Angels would probably be able to breeze into the playoffs. But, one never knows. For now, I’ll open this up for conversation among the handful or so who’ve read this far: What do you think of this arrangement? What, if anything, would you do differently?