Obviously, they should trade him when his perceived value is high.

But I dunno how that would affect the bench. I do know this: I don't want Jake to suffer from Andy Van Slyke syndrome (platooned young LH hitting OF who never really learned how to hit lefties).

I thought Andy Van Slyke syndrome was being an insufferable jerk.

Maybe they were just right from the beginning that Van Slyke couldn't hit lefties?

Ellsbury crushes him so what's the point? He's should be a fourth outfielder/defensive replacement/trade bait type.

Something has to be done about Lugo - seriously this is just not fair anymore.

11 errors in a month and change...Ouch

Free Jed Lowrie? Yes.

Can Coco play SS?

Not with his arm.

I sort of expect one of Drew, Manny, or Ortiz to get injured at some point. It'd be nice if Coco could be plugged in to one of those spots if need be.

(Obviously he wouldn't literally replace Ortiz; he could play CF or LF, wherever Ellsbury wasn't, while Manny played DH.)

Yes, with all 3 of those guys being injury risks, an above average 4th OF has pretty big value.

Coco must not have liked my saying his power disappeared.

I sort of expect one of Drew, Manny, or Ortiz to get injured at some point. It'd be nice if Coco could be plugged in to one of those spots if need be.

Even then, Moss or Kielty would probably be better.

If Ellsbury got hurt, I'd rather use Drew in center and Moss and Kielty in right.

Moss is about a win worse than Crisp a year before you even look at defense. Kielty just doesn't have any value unless a lefty is on the mound.

Moss is about a win worse than Crisp a year before you even look at defense.

And you know this how exactly?

PECOTA?

Moss can't hit

Moss can't hit

He can't? You have a problem with a 136 OPS+?

Just because the four games Brandon Moss has played this year are the only four games you've ever seen him play, doesn't mean that they're the only 4 games he has ever played.

Moss has played in 21 career major league games, with 51 plate appearances, and has a 122 OPS+.

That's a fact. PECOTA is a statistical concoction, which may or may not be relevant to Moss.

I'd rather let Moss continue to play until he proves to me he can't hit, rather than assume he can't after he's so far shown he can.

You must have been pretty terrified of Shane Spencer back in the day.

You must have been pretty terrified of Shane Spencer back in the day.

If Moss hits as well in 2008 as Spencer did in 1998, I'll gladly take that.

Brandon Moss isn't a major league ballplayer yet. He strikes out way too much against AAA pitchers - anyone who makes that little contact in the minors is going to get eaten up by big league stuff, unless you have stupendous power on the balls you do hit. Moss' power is just middling.

I'm sorta surprised anyone's that impressed with Moss - yes, he's got some hits in his 21 games, but his swing is not particularly impressive, his plate discipline is eh, and his power is eh. I don't see a big leaguer, numbers or no.

He's young enough that I could see him developing into a nice, even above-average player by 28, but he's not valuable to the Red Sox right now except as a third option stashed in Rhode Island.

Also, Kevin Youkilis sez, you call that a monster start?

I don't see a lot of difference in Youkilis this year - he seems to have added a bit of power, as he's been able to hit for power to right-center on occasion and muscled a couple of his homers just over the fence when in the past they might have been just short, but I think his current .600 SLG is mainly an aberration. that said, if Youkilis could hit 20 HRs instead of 15, and hit .300 instead of .285, he'd be a borderline all-star, and I think that's a reasonable hope.

Let him keep playing until he stops hitting. It's unfair to blow him off as a non-prospect when he is still performing like major leaguer.

It's unfair to blow him off as a non-prospect when he still performing like major leaguer.

That's crazy.

1) I made my analysis. I can blow off whomever I want.
2) Anyone can hit in 50 PAs. That's just a fact of baseball. What you need to do, to determine if someone ought to keep playing, is to analyze their past performance and their current abilities. In both areas, I think Brandon Moss falls short of deserving Coco Crisp's playing time. It appears that the Red Sox agree with me.

can we just cut Lugo? i don't want him anywhere near the team.

What you need to do, to determine if someone ought to keep playing, is to analyze their past performance and their current abilities.

OK. His past performance is a 122 OPS+, and he kills Crisp there.

Just because you think it's a fluke doesn't make it so, you know.

It appears that the Red Sox agree with me.

More likely, it appears the Red Sox don't want to crush Crisp's trade value before they try to move him.

His past performance is a 122 OPS+

Erroneous. 51 plate appearances of his are a 122 OPS. He's got 2443 other plate appearances as well, including 82 other very mediocre ones this year at AAA.

If we're going to play the "lets throw away all prior years" game, can we at least consider his entire body of performance this year? Not that that game is appropriate to play in the first place.

If we're going to play the "lets throw away all prior years" game, can we at least consider his entire body of performance this year?

Be my guest. But also don't forget his performing better in the bigs than expected might be an indication his past numbers underestimate him. Boggs hit better than expected too.

Also, Kevin Youkilis sez, you call that a monster start?

monster 1st halves of the season are the standard for youks. he seems to wear himself out by the time summer comes around.

Boggs hit better than expected too.

Wasn't Bill James able to demonstrate that if you looked at his minor league/major leauge park factors, you'd be able to see that didn't really exceed offensive expectations after he got to Boston?

More likely, it appears the Red Sox don't want to crush Crisp's trade value before they try to move him.

Even more likely is that the Sox are aware of Kielty being out with a broken hand and Moss needing more time to recover from his apendectomy. At this point Crisp leaving means Jon Van Avery is your 4th OF.

Just because you think it's a fluke doesn't make it so, you know.

Of course not. I could be wrong, just like you.

I've given my reasoning, though. First, I use Moss' minor league career to project him as a below-average hitter. Second, I use my observation of Moss, his unimpressive power, contact ability, and plate discipline, to argue that I don't think his "true talent" is reflected in his 50 major league PA. What's your reasoning?

These are (three of) the top position prospects the Sox have had over the last few years. I submit that all three (to this point, though it's perhaps still early to speak too certainly about Pedroia's and Ellsbury's keeping things up) have hit better in the majors than one might immediately guess from simply taking their minor league numbers and multiplying them by .82 for each promotion to a new level. I'm not saying that their major league numbers are completely out of line with their minor league numbers, but I'd say that all three have hit (at worst) as well as could be reasonably hoped (that they hit closer to their optimstic projections than their average or pessimistic projections).

My question is this: at what point do we start to suspect that rough minor league translations are underestimating the Sox minor league hitters? These three players provide far too few data points, obviously, but with Lowrie and Moss off to strong (fortunate?) starts, the question deserves raising, yes? How many minor leaguers would have to come up and hit better (or no worse) than their minor league numbers before we start thinking that the minors are providing more of a challenge to the young Sox hitters than previously thought (with their numbers adjusted accordingly)?

Thoughts?

Just because you think it's a fluke doesn't make it so, you know.

Which is the exact opposite of what kevin argued in the Hanley thread. Reason number 842 that it's pointless to argue with kevin.

I submit that all three (to this point, though it's perhaps still early to speak too certainly about Pedroia's and Ellsbury's keeping things up) have hit better in the majors than one might immediately guess from simply taking their minor league numbers and multiplying them by .82 for each promotion to a new level.

This is because multiplying .82 is an extremely rough form of MLE. Two of these players had extremely good K rates in the minors, which suggested they would do far better than a .82. Lowrie does as well. And both Pedroia and Lowrie had temporary injuries that severely lowered their numbers in the minors. Moss, on the other hand, has extremely awful K rates in the minors, which suggest that he'll do considerably worse than a raw MLE would suggest.

One other player in favor your theory would be David Murphy. His mL stats suggested he'd be a 4th OF, but he looks better than that now. He's player #554 to leave the Sox and immediately put everything together.

but I'd say that all three have hit (at worst) as well as could be reasonably hoped (that they hit closer to their optimstic projections than their average or pessimistic projections).

I'm pretty sure PECOTA had Pedroia hitting almost exactly what he hit last year. Hanley was a sleeping tools giant who apparently seemed to wake up once he made the bigs. Ellsbury has overperformed, but it's been 224 ABs (consider Pedroia's first 224 ABs), as you note, and his line this year isn't really out of line with his minor league numbers, just a bit over what you would have expected so far. I think the Red Sox biggest strength with their guys now is that they don't rush them, like the Mets do (just for the hell of it apparently) or the Yanks do (poor planning), and bring them up when they're both mentally and physically ready for the bigs (23-24 for all these Red Sox guys except Pedroia).

This is the first time in recent history where it's looked at all like a Yankee prospect was hurt by being rushed. Melky, Cano, Joba, and arguably Hughes were plenty ready even though they had arrived quickly. Even Kennedy did well last year.

The Sox have been good about not rushing guys in general, I guess. But they rushed the hell out of Meredith and gave up on him waaayy too quickly. They also kept sending mediocre pitchers to the hill last year while Buchholz used up his innings in AAA.

can we just cut Lugo? i don't want him anywhere near the team.

Hellz jeah.

Also, who's going to be better, Moss or Murphy?

Edit: Maybe Moss doesn't deserve to take Coco's playing time now (factoring defense, I do sort of agree)< but there was no way Brandon Moss didn't deserve to take Erik hinske's playing time last year.

Coco's up to .317 .337 .476, and it'd be higher if not for Drew's baserunning blunder. He's going to have a very good year.

Coco's up to .317 .337 .476, and it'd be higher if not for Drew's baserunning blunder. He's going to have a very good year.

1. I don't know why it's called a fielder's choice when the fielder had no choice.

2. From what I could tell, when the ball bounced off Nathan it went pretty much right toward Drew. Had it been at an angle relative to Drew, he would've had a better sense of how far away from Nathan it was going, and probably wouldn't have hesitated. But, yeah, once he hesitated he should've taken the safe way and stayed at second.

3. Had Drew stayed at second, Manny's grounder to SS would've been a DP.

This is the first time in recent history where it's looked at all like a Yankee prospect was hurt by being rushed. Melky, Cano, Joba, and arguably Hughes were plenty ready even though they had arrived quickly.

Not that it actually hurt him per se, but Melky was clearly rushed and not within miles of ready when they called him up in '05. How quickly he went from that to (roughly) average hitter the next season still shocks me.

They also kept sending mediocre pitchers to the hill last year while Buchholz used up his innings in AAA.

Yeah, considering they had the best pitching in baseball last year, and won the world series to boot, clearly they need to turn to the internet to learn how to run a pitching staff. I like you guys, but you're all nuts sometimes.

(Edit: I know that doesn't mean you can't offer criticism, but...)

But... what? Why is it crazy to note that, while I agree that the Sox "have been good about not rushing guys in general," they are not completely infallible? They won 96 games last year, not 120.

Your #36 was squishy on the agreement ("...I guess...") and introduced as a counterexample the use of mediocre pitchers instead of Buchholz on a team that clearly didn't need whatever improvement Buchholz might have been. Although you were agreeing, it seemed like you didn't really want to.

So, given #42, should we revise #36 as:

35. Cowboy Popup: I think the Red Sox biggest strength with their young players now is that they don't rush them.

36. Darren: Yes, but they needlessly lost 24 games last year because they didn't rush players.

I assume not.

Yes, but they needlessly lost 24 games last year because they didn't rush players.

And Tito. He had to be responsible for at least half of them.

It's squishy agreement because it's not an open-and-shut case. Yes, their seem to be pretty good about not rushing players, but there are a) some counterexamples and b) some cases where they seemed to hold back good players in favor of inferior ones.

Do you really believe that the Red Sox "clearly didn't need" Buchholz, simply because they won the World Series? That's an ends-justify-the-means argument that I don't agree with.

And Tito. He had to be responsible for at least half of them.

Tito actually cost them 36 games but Pedroia's guttiness recouped 12 of those games.

What about Hansen? Wasn't he supposed to fit the Chad Cordero 'college-closer-immediately-owns-the-bigs' mold, and still hasn't panned out 3 years later? What happened there?

I've been following the team from the newspapers and highlight reels more than watching the games this year. So I'm a prime candidate to do a double-take and look confused when I hear that Kevin Cash is hitting .375/.435/.475 (and even has a higher VORP than Varitek)!

Considering we were conditioned by the team and media to praise Cash if he hit .185 and prevented at least 50% of Wake's knuckleballs from rolling to the backstop, I have to say this early season performance is encouraging. Has he been smoking the ball or dropping in bloopers?

EDIT: PS I can't actually believe he is "smoking the ball" considering I remember him having about the worst major league swing around last year. On the other hand, I can't imagine someone hitting .375 without blasting some good looking drives.

bloopers and passed balls, dave. lots of them.

Dave,

Someone posted in another thread that Cash and Magadan reworked the former's swing over the winter. He's looked great at the plate, mostly. He missed about 20 knucklers last night, though.

Alvarez released. I remember when we expected him to be good.

Tavarez DFAed to make room for Casey's activation.

Tavarez DFAed to make room for Casey's activation.

And there was much rejoicing! Now if only we could dump Timlin too...

Do you really believe that the Red Sox "clearly didn't need" Buchholz, simply because they won the World Series? That's an ends-justify-the-means argument that I don't agree with.

Then it's a good thing I'm not making that argument. I believe they "clearly didn't need" Buchholz because they were leading the league in pitching, and were in good shape both to make the playoffs and to advance within them, without calling him up.

I'm sure there were some people who were pissing their pants in the middle of last year who look back now and see the team as having been incredibly lucky to have made the playoffs without having called up Buchholz back in June or July. I'm assuming you're not one of them, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

From Rotoworld, on the Tavarez to Rockies trade:

Rather than pick up immediate help, the Red Sox would probably want a prospect from the Rockies. Some possibilities could include outfielder Seth Smith, catcher Michael McKenry and pitchers Jhoulys Chacin, Shane Lindsay and Juan Morillo.

I have no idea where they got these names from, but they are mildly interesting.

EDIT: I like the looks of Seth Smith, but I can't remember how much PCL stats tend to be inflated.

Darren: Which is the exact opposite of what kevin argued in the Hanley thread. Reason number 842 that it's pointless to argue with kevin.

MCA: I've given my reasoning, though. First, I use Moss' minor league career to project him as a below-average hitter.

Darren is off his meds again so I won't bother responding to him, since he is at once disagreeing and agreeing with me at the same time and I don't know even he knows what he thinks.

Matt, I don't get where you think Moss has very little power. Let's look at the recent experience of Sox players who gratuated to the bigs and how they did ( for players who haven't completed a full season, I just used career totals):

Pedroia
Paw 2006 .305/.384/.426
Bos 2007 .317/.380/.442

Conclusion: Pedroia's MLB numbers are essentially the same as his AAA numbers, without MLE'ing them..

Ellsbury
Paw 2007 .298/.360/.380
BOS career .311/.385/.447

Conclusion: Elslbury's numbers are considerably better than his AAA numbers, especially his power numbers. No MLE necessary.

Murphy
Paw2007 .280/.347/.423
Career .288/.346/.480

Conclusion: Murphy's displayed more power than in the minors. His other numbers are the same. No MLE necessary.

Ramirez
(Ramirez is tough. He didn't play AAA. I'll put up his Portland AA numbers. Portland favors the hitter some).
PRT2005 .271/.335/.385
FLA2006 .292/.353/.480

Conclusion: Ramirez' numbers were better across the board, especially his power numbers. If anything, he needs a MiLE(minor league equivalence).

Youkilis
(Youks is another tough one. He had no full year in AAA. Let's split it between 2004 and 2005)

PAW2004 .262/.340/.407
BOS2005.260/.367/.413

PAW2005 .322/.459/.592
BOS2005 .278/.400/.405

OK, I'll give you Youks 2005. but even that one is beginning to fail, as Youks is adding power. Youks generally did not hit with the power in the minors Moss has.

So out of 5 examples, 1/2 of 1 out of 5 performed better in the minors. Even Nixon, aside from the big 1998 in PAW, hit better in the bigs than in the minors. I think it was Bill James who first noticed players moving from to PAW to BOS generally maintained their stats line.

So, before I dismiss Moss as a fluke, I want to see him play some more.

One other player in favor your theory would be David Murphy. His mL stats suggested he'd be a 4th OF, but he looks better than that now. He's player #554 to leave the Sox and immediately put everything together.

Nice post in 33, Robert. I did the one above without reading it first.

Darren contradicts himself once again with the quote above. Oh well, as long as you have something to moan about, Darren. Whatever floats your boat...

Is it just me or does #55 demonstrate a misunderstanding of what an MLE is and how they are used?

Then it's a good thing I'm not making that argument. I believe they "clearly didn't need" Buchholz because they were leading the league in pitching, and were in good shape both to make the playoffs and to advance within them, without calling him up.

This is an argument that the Red Sox were good at building a pitching staff in 2007. It's only tangentially related to what I was saying, which was that the Sox had kept Buchholz in the minors in favor of inferior and less ready pitchers. It was one example and it is certainly open to debate.

It's only tangentially related to what I was saying, which was that the Sox had kept Buchholz in the minors in favor of inferior and less ready pitchers. It was one example and it is certainly open to debate.

Oh, there's no debate that they kept Buchholz in the minors in favor of inferior and less ready pitchers. Other than a few people taking the Meredith Defense, I think we all agreed that Buchholz was likely better than some of the pitchers on the staff at that time. (IIRC I'd suggested mid-year that I didn't think Buchholz was ready to start shouldering a large IP load, and that it could cause a strain on the bullpen that could affect his and others' starts.)

The whole reason this came up was on the subject of Boston not rushing players being a strength of the team. Meredith is a fine counterexample (as is Hansen, BTW). Bringing up "sending mediocre pitchers to the hill last year while Buchholz used up his innings in AAA" alongside that as an example of a failing seems illogical given that they were already staffed for success in 2007 without him.

I don't see how it's illogical. The Red Sox could have had Johan at AAA last year and they still would have had the best staff in the league. Would that mean that keeping Johan in AAA was not an example of failing? [Sidenote: A similar thing happened with Arroyo in 03 but there were options issues in that case.]

Is it just me or does #55 demonstrate a misunderstanding of what an MLE is and how they are used?

FB, the assumption is that there should be downward adjustment of the MLE of an AAA player. But, with a lot of Red Sox players, their PAW numbers generally are the same as the ones they show in The Show.

So, to answer your question, I think the MLEs that are assigned the Pawtucket players based on International league statistics underestimate them.

Which, if the Red Sox didn't take into account when they made the Beckett/Ramirez trade, is kind of unfortunate.

FWIW, BA lists Moss this years as the #11 prospect for the Red Sox. In the OF, he's behind Elaasbury, Kalish, and Reddick. Jacoby's in the show and the other two are younger. I don't know what the success rate of #11 prospects are. Hell, I know little about prospects, so I picked up the book this year to acquaint myself with some.

I think Sean Casey has done a reasonable job so far, but Brandon Moss should get his job. I mean, brandon Moss while not a 19 year old still has some room for improvement. Sean Casey has the chance to be Sean Casey.

The Red Sox could have had Johan at AAA last year and they still would have had the best staff in the league. Would that mean that keeping Johan in AAA was not an example of failing?

Given that Johan was 28, and had already spent several seasons demonstrating he could pitch both quality and quantity innings at the big-league level, and was a better option than some on the major-league staff, it would be an example of a failing of a "let's not rush him" approach. By that standard, however, the major-league staff would've consisted of Schilling, Wakefield, Timlin, Dennis Eckersley, Jim Lonborg, Bob Feller, Cy Young, and David.

Maybe you can explain to me how calling up Cla Meredith was rushing the hell out of him, but the prospect of Clay Buchholz being called up midseason last year would not have been rushing at all. They were both in their age-22 season, their second season of pro ball, facing AA hitters for the first time and doing well. Is it the one- or two-month difference in timing? Or is it the end result? That's an ends-justify-the-means argument that I don't agree with.

And besides, it's not as if Buchholz isn't running into problems now. After last night's outing, he's got a 5.53 ERA. He does have a 3.51 dERA, so there's reason to be optimistic, but he's only thrown 42 innings, so it's not as if either number is particularly meaningful.

Would the Red Sox have been better off with Buchholz replacing 42 innings of Gabbard (2007 Sox ERA: 3.73), Lester (4.57), Hansack (4.70), and Tavarez (5.15)? Not if Buchholz supplied a 5.53 ERA, they wouldn't.

An error on my part: Buchholz was in his second full season in pro ball, but his third season. Both Cla and Clay were age 22, facing AA hitters for the first time and doing well. Is the extra year of A ball the difference?

Given that Johan was 28, and had already spent several seasons demonstrating he could pitch both quality and quantity innings at the big-league level, and was a better option than some on the major-league staff, it would be an example of a failing of a "let's not rush him" approach.

You've already said that there's no debate about whether Buc was better than some of the pitchers on the ML team. I've substituted Johan as an extreme example in order to make the point more clear. Keeping Buc was like keeping Johan in the minors, but to a far lesser degree. I'm not sure what your list of pitchers is supposed to show.

Maybe you can explain to me how calling up Cla Meredith was rushing the hell out of him, but the prospect of Clay Buchholz being called up midseason last year would not have been rushing at all.

This is an easy one. In no particular order:

--Meredith had thrown 15 very good relief innings in AA. Buc had dominated AA as a starter (and some in AAA depending on your timeframe) for a much longer period.
--Buc was widely considered one of the top couple pitching prospects in baseball. Meredith was not anywhere close to this.
--The results once they reached the Majors tell us a lot about whether it was a good decision. Buc pitched great in the Majors and Meredith didn't.

And besides, it's not as if Buchholz isn't running into problems now. After last night's outing, he's got a 5.53 ERA.

Why would you only include Buchholz's ERA from this year. He's at 4.15 in his career, with excellent peripherals. It was 1.59 before being shut down with a tired arm last year.

But he already pitched last year's innings. The innings he pitched last year with a 1.59 ERA can't be further used to replace other pitchers' innings; only the innings he would have pitched (but didn't) can be used. And in his next 42 innings after being shut down, Buchholz has provided a 5.53 ERA, which does not lend itself to the conclusion that the Sox were (a) wrong for not trying to call him up earlier, or (b) wrong for shutting him down early. The Sox may have been wrong on both counts, but Buchholz's performance so far this year (at least by ERA) does not lend itself to such conclusions.

But he already pitched last year's innings. The innings he pitched last year with a 1.59 ERA can't be further used to replace other pitchers' innings; only the innings he would have pitched (but didn't) can be used.

This doesn't make any sense. If you want to guess at what he would have done in the Majors, you might look at what he did in the minors at the time. There's no reason to substitute in innings from this year.

Edit: In addition, even if we use your odd way of thinking about it, we're not talking about 'innings he would have pitched but didn't.' We're talking about innings that he threw in the minors rather than the Majors.

But we don't know how he would have done. The Sox apparently preferred to keep him pitching in the minors (where he pitched well -- at least in AA). He pitched for a limited time in the majors and the Sox then stopped him from pitching any more. Since that time when he has pitched in the majors, he has not pitched particularly well (by ERA). Why are we giving credence to his minor league record over his major league record.

I can understand objecting to Buchholz's not being called up earlier. I just don't understand your "strenuous" objection. The Sox may have thought he wasn't ready. His ERA in AAA was unremarkable. He pitched very well in very limited innings in the majors last year, but has not pitched especally well (by ERA) in slightly less limited innings so far this year. Why not acknowledge that the Sox may have been right to go slowly? If Buchholz had pitched these 42 innings last year, the Sox would have been worse off. If he'd pitched as well as he'd pitched in AAA, but translated to the majors, the Sox might have been worse off. And the Sox were apparently worried enough about his health as to shut him down after he'd (in limited innings) been their best pitcher in the majors. Perhaps they were right to pitch mediocrities, risking only the team's chance to win it all (which they did anyway), rather than risk the development and health of a pitcher on whom they're counting heavily for the next 6 years.

I can understand objecting to Buchholz's not being called up earlier. I just don't understand your "strenuous" objection.

But your honor, I strenuously object!

I started addressing this point by point, but I don't think there's any point. I don't keeping him down as preserving his health, as he was still pitching in the minors. I don't think they would have hurt his development, as he was excellent in the minors, and looked to me to be ready. They may have been right (obviously), but I think they were wrong. In the same way, they may be generally bad at developing players, but I think they are generally good at it.

The results once they reached the Majors tell us a lot about whether it was a good decision. Buc pitched great in the Majors and Meredith didn't.

Ha! We can use the pitcher's after-the-fact results to determine if it was a good decision, but not the team's after-the-fact performance? Brilliant! Why didn't I think of dismissing points that don't support my argument?

If you're evaluating the decision based on what came after, then it's ABSOLUTELY clear they didn't need to bring him up; the team did well AND they had to shut him down for part of September and all of October for health reasons. The no-hitter against a Baltimore team that was 20 GB with 29 to play, losers of 9 out of their last 10, was an impressive accomplishment and a lot of fun. Outside of that one game, he's compiled a 4.82 ERA in the majors, 3.96 in AAA. Maybe both of us read too much into his AA and A numbers.

If you're evaluating it based on what was known at the time, you had someone who had done well against AA competition, appeared to be ready for MLB-caliber pitching to both of us and several other observers, and hadn't borne a large workload at that point in his career. When you put him on the MLB roster, his usage is no longer in the best interests of his development, but in whatever Terry Francona thinks the team's best interests are. You also had a MLB staff that was doing very well.

You've make the insinuation that not rushing Clay Buchholz last year was a negative, either in the development of Clay Buchholz or the team's performance. Hindsight hurts your argument a lot. Using only foresight, at the time given how the starters had performed, there was no pressing need for him.

Ha! We can use the pitcher's after-the-fact results to determine if it was a good decision, but not the team's after-the-fact performance? Brilliant! Why didn't I think of dismissing points that don't support my argument?

There's a fairly simple distinction here that you're (intentionally?) missing. You can use after-the-fact results as ONE factor in determining whether a certain decision was a good one. You shouldn't use after-the-fact results achieved by a whole team as evidence that a single decision was a good one. It is very easy for a team to make a really lousy decision and still win the World Series. See Gagne, Eric.

If you're evaluating the decision based on what came after, then it's ABSOLUTELY clear they didn't need to bring him up; the team did well AND they had to shut him down for part of September and all of October for health reasons.

What does shutting him down have to do with when they brought him up? The argument is whether he should have been pitching in the minors or the majors--not how much he should have been pitching. These repeated references to his health are complete nonsequitors.

The no-hitter against a Baltimore team that was 20 GB with 29 to play, losers of 9 out of their last 10, was an impressive accomplishment and a lot of fun. Outside of that one game, he's compiled a 4.82 ERA in the majors,

Wait, if you throw out his best 9 IP, is record doesn't look as good? What if we throw out all of his good appearances? I bet it looks horrible.

3.96 in AAA. Maybe both of us read too much into his AA and A numbers.

We do? I don't. Take a look at the difference in how AA and AAA numbers translate to the Majors. They're very, very close. His record in the high minors, AA and AAA, was dominant.

You've make the insinuation that not rushing Clay Buchholz last year was a negative, either in the development of Clay Buchholz or the team's performance. Hindsight hurts your argument a lot.

I it doesn't hurt my argument because I haven't made either argument. I've argued that it was the wrong decision and that it didn't hurt his development. I think it was the wrong decision because it put inferior players in the majors without any benefit to the team. For the 1,000th time, I REALIZE THIS DID NOT PREVENT THEM FROM WINNING THE WORLD SERIES.

2007 was Buccholz's first year pitching above A-ball. Any case for him reaching the majors before midseason is, to me, indefensible. He certainly wasn't going to reach the majors after fewer than 15 starts above A-ball.

So, then, really we're talking about the difference between getting called up on August 17th or July 17th. That seems like a distinction without much difference.

Why 15? This started out as a comparison of the Red Sox and Yanks' 'rushing' of young players. Joba and Hughes are both younger than Buc and pitched well after less than 15 above-A-ball games. And both those guys pitched well in the majors and helped the Yankees make the postseason.

I agree, though, that August 17 and July 17 aren't MUCH different.

I don't have the PECOTA numbers handy for Moss, but I do have the ZiPS numbers so let's take a quick look. Over a full seasons worth of at-bats, Moss is projected to strike out 147 times. That's a lot, but not so much that it makes him a useless player as long as he has a decent walk rate. And even with all those strikeouts, he projects to a .334 OBP. Not great, but it's about inline with what you would expect from Coco. More importantly though is that his projections have him hitting 11 HRs and 51 2Bs. That is far greater power production than you could expect out of Crisp, Kielty, or Casey. I'm not going to make an arguement as to whom would be the better 4th outfielder right now, but I don't think Moss' strikeout rate is a good reason to keep him in the minors. That's what kept Uggla buried for so long and look what he's done ever since he was given a chance.

As for the Buccholz debate, why would you have called him up? Because your 5th starter is a little worse than league average? That seems like a pretty silly reason to call him up in July, have him make 6 or 7 starts and then have to shut him down before September because he reached his innings limit. If he's in the minors, he can be kept to 5 innings every outing, no biggie. If you're in the majors, you need to go as deep into the game as you can everytime out or else you're more of a hindrance on the bullpen than you are any kind of help. And the comparison to how Hughes and Joba helped the Yankees last year? Hughes was exactly league average least year. The only reason he was a boost to the Yankees was because Mussina was getting lit up as bad as Jeff Weaver. Replacing Tavarez/Lester with a league average pitcher would probably been about a one win difference. And yes, I'm going to use hind-sight to say whoopdie-doo. We only tied for the best record in the league, where's the bragging rights in that? And if you wanted to put Buccholz in the pen, would he have made much of a diffrence there? He wasn't going to displace the trifecta of MDC/Oki/Papelbon, so he would have been working in middle relief, replacing one of Corey/Timlin/Snyder. It would have been an upgrade, but it also would have killed his innings limit for THIS year so it would have been pretty short sighted to do that.

Coco's PECOTA is .278/.338/.407 while Moss is .247/.318/.401 . Even if Moss is substantially undervalued by PECOTA it seems unlikely that he'll outhit Coco by much if anything. Unless I'm missing something, Coco has a huge edge on the basepaths and in the field, so I don't see how he isn't the best choice for a 4th OF/frequent starter.

Also, for Sox hitters doing as well in MLB as they did in AAA, how much of that is age? If a player hits .290 in AAA one year say, and he makes the major league team the next year, what would we expect? It's the sum of the MLE + the age advance, and I have no idea what that works out to.

As for the Buccholz debate, why would you have called him up? Because your 5th starter is a little worse than league average? That seems like a pretty silly reason to call him up in July, have him make 6 or 7 starts and then have to shut him down before September because he reached his innings limit.

So the better choice was to wait until August, have him make 2-3 starts, and then shut him down? Okay.

If he's in the minors, he can be kept to 5 innings every outing, no biggie. If you're in the majors, you need to go as deep into the game as you can everytime out or else you're more of a hindrance on the bullpen than you are any kind of help.

Yeah, they needed guys like Julian Tavarez and Jon Lester soaking up innings.

--The results once they reached the Majors tell us a lot about whether it was a good decision. Buc pitched great in the Majors and Meredith didn't.

I'm looking at Meredith's stats in the majors, and I'm not seeing how anyone would classify them as not great.

The argument is whether he should have been pitching in the minors or the majors--not how much he should have been pitching. These repeated references to his health are complete nonsequitors.

The argument is whether keeping him in the minors was a failing of the "not rushing their prospects" strength. There are all kinds of factors in that: his "stuff", his emotional readiness, his physical readiness (of which health is a big part).

You seem to think that a policy of "not rushing prospects" is contingent on what's going on with the major-league club. Am I misreading that?

The argument is whether keeping him in the minors was a failing of the "not rushing their prospects" strength. There are all kinds of factors in that: his "stuff", his emotional readiness, his physical readiness (of which health is a big part).

I haven't seen any sort of study showing that pitching in the majors is more likely to cause injuries than pitching in the minors. Is there some sort of study or data that shows this? Is there even some sort of conventional scout wisdom about this? If such data/scouting wisdom doesn't exist, there's no reason to think his injury is relevant to this conversation. If it does exist, then we can Buc out of the 'possibly held back' category... and put him in the 'possibly rushed' category.

I'm looking at Meredith's stats in the majors, and I'm not seeing how anyone would classify them as not great.

Meredith did pitch well when he was called up A FULL YEAR LATER. This after getting completely destroyed in his brief call-up in Boston. How does that show him to have been ready? Isn't it, if anything, rather persuasive evidence that he was not ready?

You seem to think that a policy of "not rushing prospects" is contingent on what's going on with the major-league club. Am I misreading that?

I feel like Col. Jessup being questioned by Lt. Kaffee. So, just so we're clear, yes, I think just about every decision should be made in context of the situation. Are we clear? ARE WE CLEAR?