14 Nov 2018 23:11:30
Could the Red Sox make these moves in the offseason?

Send Eduardo Rodriguez to Washington for Anthony Rendon? (Note 1)

Send Michael Chavis, Sam Travis, Jackie Bradley Jr, and Rafael Devers to Miami for JT Realmuto and Starlin Castro? (Note 2)

Sign Kelvin Herrera 2/12?

Re-sign Craig Kimbrel 4/80?

Sign Dallas Keuchel 5/115?

Sign Anibal Sanchez 2/16

How would this roster do?

Lineup:
1. Benintendi LF
2. Betts CF
3. Martinez DH
4. Rendon 3B
5. Realmuto C
6. Castro 2B
7. Moreland 1B
8. Bogaerts SS
9. Holt RF

Bench:
1. Nunez IF
2. Pedroia 2B (if healthy)
3. Lin UT
4. Vasquez C

Rotation:
1. Sale
2. Keuchel
3. Price
4. Sanchez
5. Porcello

Bullpen:
1. Brasier RP
2. Hembree RP
3. Barnes RP
4. Poyner RP
5. Workman SU
6. Herrera SU
7. Kimbrel CL

Note 1 - Eduardo Rodriguez is a valuable LHP who has 3 more years of team control, the same amount as Max Scherzer. This one works well for both teams. The Nationals need another arm if they are truly looking to go deep into October in 2019, though I based this on the assumption they will sell. The Nationals also have Carter Kieboom who is nearly big-league ready, and could try to move him to 3rd.

The Red Sox need an upgrade at 3rd from Devers, and Anthony Rendon could be what the Red Sox are looking for. Boston might have to give up more though. Not sure. Rendon is a FA after next year.

Note 2 - The Marlins won't compete for at least 2 more years. But all of the players they get have at least 3 more years of team control. They get 4 good young players, and in the event they do compete in 2021 and beyond, it makes pieces like Lewis Brinson trade chips.

The Red Sox get their much needed catching upgrade, and Brock Holt as a superutility moves to RF to replace Bradley as he is better than JD defensively. Castro fills Holt's spot at second.

Quick note - There are trades involving the Red Sox on other sheets. I may or may not apply it to each of the teams I involve on these hypothetical offseasons.

Any thoughts? Also I realize these trades don't happen in a vacuum. It's all hypothetical.

1.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 01:46:00
the first trade isn't good for either team, I think more on both sides need to be added. the second one is terrible for the Red Sox. Herrera will probably sign for more money. Kuechel doesn't fit any where on the Red Sox. I could see Kimbrel coming back. Overall the team you listed is not as good as this years team.

2.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 03:58:26
Rendon has been worth 6+ WAR in each of his past two seasons (17 over his last three seasons) .

It's going to take a hell of a lot more to acquire him. A return I'm not sure the Red Sox even have.

3.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 04:21:59
Consider this:

Over the past three seasons, only one third baseman has put up a higher WAR than Rendon (17.3): Jose Ramirez (19.2). He's been better than Bryant (16.9), Arenado (16.4), and even Manny Machado (15.1). Over the past two seasons, the gap between Rendon and the #3 3B gets even wider (13.0 vs. Bryant's 11.3).

He's a pretty safe bet to be worth 5 wins, and put up a 130 wRC+, at the very least.

If the Red Sox offered that, it wouldn't get hung up on. Mike Rizzo would have to spend 20 minutes making sure it's not a prank call. That's so laughably terrible.

4.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 05:31:59
BATMAN! :

1. Rendon-for-Rodriguez swap makes both teams better and fills each other's needs.

2. JT Realmuto AND Starlin Castro? That's great come on man. Even for that price. Realmuto has 2 years of team control as does Castro. We know about Chavis' PED use, Devers hasn't worked out for Boston, Travis is a good piece, and JBJ is good, but having a good catcher instead of Sandy Leon who hit 211 with a war of -0.5 or Christian Vazquez who hit 207 with a WAR of -0.8! They literally took a win away! Come on man!

3. Hererra won't sign for much more. Teams will target Britton, Kimbrel, Miller or even Cody Allen well ahead of Herrera.

4. So can I.

5. And um. HOW IS THIS WORSE THAN LAST YEAR?

5.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 07:12:09
The Nationals are not better off with E-Rod instead of Rendon.

They could literally sign any of a half dozen pitchers, or trade for someone without including him.

Heck, the Nats could land Rodriguez without Rendon, Soto, or Robles.

6.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 10:52:56
thestatbook,

Rendon has put up a WAR of 14.1 over the last 3 years, and it was only 4.2 in 2018. Get your facts right before you tell them.

Anthony Rendon Profile

Rodriguez put up a WAR of 3.0 in just 23 starts - a little bit more than two-thirds of how many starts a pitcher has each year. The Nationals have more room for him on their staff. So for argument's sake let's say a pitcher has 33 starts a year. A 3.0 WAR over 23 starts puts him on pace for a 4.3 WAR over the course of 33 starts. He is another arm the Nationals need. Not to mention he is nearly 10 million dollars cheaper than Rendon. The Red Sox sign Keuchel and Anibal Sanchez making Rodriguez tradeable.

If the Nationals do trade Rendon but plan to contend again in 2019, Eduardo Rodriguez could be their guy. Not to mention his value will go DOWN from here as well.

7.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 13:29:57
Just noticed that you have them signing Anibal Sanchez, I think he proved he needs to stay in the National League. He was quite terrible for the Tigers his entire tenure there. You are still a fool for thinking Herrera will only sign for 6 million a year, he's one of the better relief pitchers and will get more. It just doesn't seem like your listed team will be any better than this year's team. For the Rodriguez/ Rendon sway, its rare there is a one for one trade, and I would think both sides would want more than one player, especially the Nationals for Rendon.

8.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 15:51:05
I use Fangraphs WAR. There’s a difference there. So my facts are correct.

You also have no idea how WAR is calculated. It’s not a counting stat, so tallying a “rate” doesn’t work that way. The point is, one year of Rendon is significantly more valuable than 3-4 of E-Rod.

I don’t know why you think of these silly, extremely unlikely (that’s putting it very generously) trades: Acuna, Berrios, Scherzer, Benintendi.

It’s not even that they are unlikely. They aren’t good. And you acting like you should do these for every team is hilarious. I mean, do what you want if it makes you happy. But these trades are terrible and ridiculous.

9.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 19:33:12
hey thestatbook, i feel like flappybird is someone who use to be on here all the time. the terrible posts seem familiar and his defense for these also seems familiar, don't you think?

10.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 20:29:19
I agree. I’ve been trying to figure out who, though.

These are absolutely terrible.

11.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 20:45:59
I was going to say crazysull, but sull is a Red Sox fan and this guy has stated he is a Yankees fan.

12.) 15 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 22:28:07
"You also have no idea how WAR is calculated. It’s not a counting stat, so tallying a “rate” doesn’t work that way. "

You just love bulling people on here, don't you?

WAR is a counting stat, in a sense. WAR is the aggregate of rate based statistics measured over time. The more IP or PA in which you accrue positive rates, the higher your corresponding WAR will be. And yes, you can prorate WAR, assuming the base rates remain constant.

Maybe explain this to other posters instead of trying to insult them. Just a thought.

13.) 16 Nov 2018
15 Nov 2018 23:41:55
No, it's not a counting stat. Literally no sabermetrics guys consider it one. It's a "rate" because of win concentration and because of run environments. It's also a rate because it's not like 1 game = x, 2 games = x, etc. Games only help because it helps them accrue stats. Those same games also allows them to lose value (more on that in a few) .

In order to mete it out on a per start/ game basis requires not just the player to continue playing the same way, at the same rate, with no deviation, but it requires the entire LEAGUE to do so. The chances of the entire run environment to remain constant is so small, you may as well call it impossible.

Besides, it's manipulative. The argument assumes that 'if Rodriguez did "X", then his WAR would be "Y. "'

The problem is: His WAR is "Y" because he failed to do "X". What is stoping teams like the Giants from saying, "You should buy on Steven Duggar because, had he played 162 games, he was worth almost 3 wins! "? It's exceptionally manipulative.

It's also manipulative because it assumes there would be no deviation in any of those "phantom" games. He's only going to be very good in them. That's about as manipulative, speculative, and wrong as it gets.

14.) 16 Nov 2018
16 Nov 2018 02:10:36
I will put out the disclaimer I'm a Red Sox fan.

E-Rod does not get you Rendon. If it does, I'm all for it though. But it won't.

I wouldn't move all of that for Realmuto. The Sox have three capable catchers on the roster, if not any stars. I don't understand why I keep seeing people all over the internet saying that Devers "hasn't worked out for Boston. " The kid just turned 22 last month! He's nowhere close to the player he will become. You probably would have jettisoned Xander in his second year too.

I'm a JBJ fan, and I think his defense in center field is almost as important to the performance of that pitching staff the last few years as anyone on the roster, but if they can pull something big back in a trade coming off that playoff performance, they have to at least listen. This isn't that move though.

If Holt is your everyday starter in RF, you aren't as good as this season. He is very valuable as a supersub, not as much as an every day starter.

Herrera and Kimbrel I'm good with even at the more expensive pricetag it will take to get Herrera than you've shown. The two starters. no thanks. Sanchez is done, especially in the AL, and Keuchel will get way too much considering his last couple of seasons have been very meh.

15.) 16 Nov 2018
16 Nov 2018 22:41:39
thestatbook;

"No, it's not a counting stat. Literally no sabermetrics guys consider it one. "

Rather than argue in circles, I decided to outsource this question to a couple baseball writers that I regularly correspond with via email.

Here is my question and the response from Eno Sarris, Baseball Analytics Writer for the Athletic, former Editor and Writer for Fangraphs, and Mike Podhorzer, Fangraphs writer and author of "Projecting X: How to Forecast Baseball Player Performance"

Me - “Could you settle an argument for me in reference to WAR? So would you characterize WAR as more of a counting stat or rate state? My position is that it is more of a counting stat, because it's the aggregate of rate stat effects accrued over time. Aside from weighing the sample size for a rate stat and whether or not it has stabilized, time is really not a variable. I know there are rate stats involved in calculating WAR, but I think it is more of the positive or negative effect those rate stats have had during any given amount of time. So you are essentially "counting" negative and positive attributions of rate stats in the context of runs and wins, right? While the peripheral conditions may change, that is just interdependent on the variable of time. Point being, it's tough to define haha. Is there a better way you would explain this? ”

Eno - "It's interesting. I think of it as a counting stat, but its one of the rare counting stats that can be negative going forward, which makes it act as a rate stat in a way. But the very basic component of WAR is runs, and runs is a counting stat. Because of the 'replacement' concept, it can be negative going forward, is all. Does that help? "


Mike - "It's most certainly a counting stat since WAR can rise or fall with more playing time. Even if the player performs exactly the same, more playing time will change it. That wouldn't be the case if it were a rate stat. There are no rate stats in WAR, you can't turn rate stats into a counting stat. You might think FIP is part of WAR, but it's really the counting stats used to calculate FIP. "

16.) 18 Nov 2018
17 Nov 2018 22:41:54
I would disagree with both on their stances of what constitutes WAR as a "counting stat". It's an aggregate of stats compared to a league average aggregate of stats, adjusted for positions, ballparks, run environments, etc, then weighed against "replacement" level.

If you want to simplify it to "it goes up and down, and thus it's a counting stat", sure. But we can hopefully all agree this is an extremely simplified answer with no explanation of the nuance involved (I can't blame Eno or Mike for giving you the simple answer, they have better things to do with their time) .

If you don't want to call it a "rate", that's also fine. Call it a value stat, then.

But to call it a counting stat, on the notion that it "goes up and down" is no better than calling an airplane a car because it has wheels.

17.) 18 Nov 2018
17 Nov 2018 22:45:25
And the "counting stat" vs. "rate stat" argument still doesn't settle the issue at hand:

It's utterly manipulative, and shows a massive misunderstanding of how WAR works when you think you can just say "had player A played X games, his WAR would be Y"

Because, again, it assumes that all variables remain constant: at the player level, the "replacement level", the run environment, and all other circumstances.

In fact, Mike even hinted at something (perhaps intentionally, who knows) that would make such an argument rather silly: the more games played, the more variations you can have. If anything, an estimation of WAR on MORE games would be a very, very difficult thing to project, and anyone suggesting it is blowing smoke.

18.) 18 Nov 2018
17 Nov 2018 23:12:12
The other problem with considering WAR a "counting stat" is that the folks who created it have even said there are areas in which it can't be differentiated.

"WAR should be used as a guide for separating groups of players and not as a precise estimate. For example, a player that has been worth 6.4 WAR and a player that has been worth 6.1 WAR over the course of a season cannot be distinguished from one another using WAR. It is simply too close for this particular tool to tell them apart. "

What we would traditionally consider a "counting stat" (HR, RBI, SB, W, K, BB, etc), there's a distinguishable difference. The difference between a guy who hit 30 HR and one who hit 31 is 1 home run. That's a tangible, measurable thing. While it says nothing of value, it's distinguishable. We can compare the two and say one hitter was better in that department.

6.4 and 6.1 are not the same thing, I would imagine you agree. And the difference is 0.3. But if we can "distinguish", then what are we counting. What exactly constitutes "0.1" wins above replacement? How do we count that, and if it's countable, it should be distinguishable at the minute levels.

WAR is a value stat. It doesn't "count" anything tangible.

19.) 19 Nov 2018
19 Nov 2018 03:35:56
Great argument guys. I truely enjoyed it. This is why I still like the stats I used when I was a kid to evaluate players. This sabermetrics stuff is too confusing.