Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, May 14, 2018

Reds sweep Dodgers, whose 16-24 record is the worst 40-game start since 1958

If this isn’t rock bottom, the Dodgers don’t want to know.

The Dodgers have to be better than this, or so they keep telling us. They just got swept by the team with the worst record in the National League. They are one game out of last place in the NL West.

Their 16-24 start is the worst by any Dodgers team since 1958, the inaugural season in Los Angeles.

You are who your record says you are, right?

Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: May 14, 2018 at 05:31 PM | 72 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dodgers, reds, reversal of fortunes

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Captain Supporter Posted: May 14, 2018 at 05:35 PM (#5672203)
You are who your record says you are, right?


Sportswriters need to have a mandatory tutorial on the notion of sample size.

   2. perros Posted: May 14, 2018 at 05:47 PM (#5672213)
They are eight games back of the D'backs. If I remmember correctly, same as last year.

Still, there's no denying the Dodgers have stunk the joint up so far. And I think the worst performance vs. Expectation BY FAR.

The baseball gods evidently weren't pleased by all that talk last year that the Dodgers could be a perennial 110-win team.
   3. perros Posted: May 14, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5672215)
How do you like my Plaschke paragraphs?
   4. Rally Posted: May 14, 2018 at 05:56 PM (#5672221)
At least according to the radio guys I heard yesterday, first 4 game sweep of Dodgers by the Reds since 1976.

Big Red Machine is back!
   5. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: May 14, 2018 at 06:02 PM (#5672229)
Don't worry Dodgers, even in the "depths" of the Brian McCann/Stephen Drew era when they had no young players except Brett Gardner and Nathan Eovaldi, the Yankees never finished with a losing record.
   6. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: May 14, 2018 at 06:03 PM (#5672230)
At least according to the radio guys I heard yesterday, first 4 game sweep of Dodgers by the Reds since 1976.

There have been a lot of 4 game sweeps this year. Are there more 4 game series this year? The Phillies already have 4-game sweeps of the Pirates and Giants. They have another 4-game series against the Cards next week.
   7. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5672236)
If they are actually a good team, then an 8 game winning streak is not out of the question....

There have been a lot of 4 game sweeps this year. Are there more 4 game series this year? The Phillies already have 4-game sweeps of the Pirates and Giants. They have another 4-game series against the Cards next week.



I hadn't looked into it, but with the new rules giving more extra days off, I wouldn't be surprised that they compensated some of that by increasing the number of four game series.
   8. perros Posted: May 14, 2018 at 06:09 PM (#5672237)
Is Justin Turner ever coming back? His absence has been important, perhaps.

And somebody needs to read Bellinger the riot act bunting 3-0. Bunting period.
   9. PeteF3 Posted: May 14, 2018 at 07:03 PM (#5672259)
They are eight games back of the D'backs. If I remmember correctly, same as last year.


No, the Dodgers were never 8 games back of anyone last year as best I can tell.
   10. Brian C Posted: May 14, 2018 at 07:08 PM (#5672262)
Sportswriters need to have a mandatory tutorial on the notion of sample size.

Is 40 games really that small of a sample size? That's a quarter of the season, by my math. That seems meaningful enough to be concerned if I'm in the Dodgers' orbit - I mean, it's too small of a sample size to decide to blow the team up, but it's enough to put a playoff spot in very serious doubt.

   11. perros Posted: May 14, 2018 at 07:16 PM (#5672269)
My bad. The Dodgers trailed the Giants by eight games in 2016. They were in third place this far into last season, but only a game or two out.
   12. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: May 14, 2018 at 07:20 PM (#5672270)
Even if you accept that it’s a relatively small sample side the problem here is a similar problem to the 2011 Red Sox. When you lose a bunch of games early the inevitable slumps that happen to every team are less tolerable. When the ‘11 Sox started 2-10 they were able to get going but when they slumped in September the cushion that should’ve been there wasn’t and they missed out. There are more slumps to come for the Dodgers and the bad start means they can’t just ride them out. They have to play every game with a bit more urgency and that’s tough to do for 4 1/2 months.
   13. TDF, trained monkey Posted: May 14, 2018 at 07:46 PM (#5672279)
Even if you accept that it’s a relatively small sample side the problem here is a similar problem to the 2011 Red Sox. When you lose a bunch of games early the inevitable slumps that happen to every team are less tolerable. When the ‘11 Sox started 2-10 they were able to get going but when they slumped in September the cushion that should’ve been there wasn’t and they missed out. There are more slumps to come for the Dodgers and the bad start means they can’t just ride them out. They have to play every game with a bit more urgency and that’s tough to do for 4 1/2 months.
Both the Dodgers and the Dbacks have played 40 games. If it's going to take 92 wins to win the division, Arizona (currently 24-16) can actually regress a bit, needing to play just .557 ball the rest of the way. While the Dodgers need "just" 8 more wins than the Dbacks, that translates to winning at a .663 clip over 122 games.
   14. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 14, 2018 at 07:57 PM (#5672282)

Sportswriters need to have a mandatory tutorial on the notion of sample size.


As other have already said, they still need to make up the wins. Also, the Dodgers "true talent" has regressed significantly. Seager is out for the season, Turner is out until who knows when. Kershaw is hurt. Puig appears to suck.

The "true talent" 100-win team isn't walking through the door. They're a 90 win team that's spotted a rival 8 games. In other words, they're probably done.
   15. Tom Nawrocki Posted: May 14, 2018 at 08:54 PM (#5672313)
Last August 25, the Dodgers beat the Brewers to bring their record to 91-36, which is a 116-win pace. Since then, in the regular season, they've been 29-46, which is a 63-win pace.
   16. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:13 PM (#5672322)
They are eight games back of the D'backs. If I remmember correctly, same as last year.


No, the Dodgers were never 8 games back of anyone last year as best I can tell.


Correct. the most they were back last year was 5, on Apr 25. On May 14 they were 1.5 back, with a record of 22-16.
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5672327)
The "true talent" 100-win team isn't walking through the door. They're a 90 win team that's spotted a rival 8 games. In other words, they're probably done.


yet they still have something like a dozen games alone against their rival, their destiny is still in their own hands.
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:32 PM (#5672338)
yet they still have something like a dozen games alone against their rival, their destiny is still in their own hands.

Only 6 actually. They've played 11 already vs. Arizona. And none until August 30.

I just look at the talent, and don't see a great team. Not even a good team.
   19. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:34 PM (#5672339)
I just look at the talent, and don't see a great team. Not even a good team.


That is the most important thing..

I have argued many times I don't care about the standings before June or even July.... it's all about the record, as it stands now, the record needs work, but it really doesn't mean anything, unless you think it's indicative of their real talent level...
   20. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:37 PM (#5672342)
I have argued many times I don't care about the standings before June or even July.... it's all about the record, as it stands now, the record needs work, but it really doesn't mean anything, unless you think it's indicative of their real talent level...

Well, as Tom said, they've been God-awful for 75 games. At some point good teams win games.

But, looking a that team, as an opponent, who frightens you? Grandal is great. Kershaw is Kershaw, when he's not on the DL.

Beyond that? The corpse of Matt Kemp is their second best hitter.
   21. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:42 PM (#5672346)
But, looking a that team, as an opponent, who frightens you? Grandal is great. Kershaw is Kershaw, when he's not on the DL.

Beyond that? The corpse of Matt Kemp is their second best hitter.


Apologies if I am confusing you with another poster, but didn't you argue that Bellinger is a future HOFer?
   22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:47 PM (#5672350)
Apologies if I am confusing you with another poster, but didn't you argue that Bellinger is a future HOFer?

Not me.

   23. SoSH U at work Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:50 PM (#5672353)
That was Ray.

   24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:51 PM (#5672354)
I want to see a solid 50 WAR on the board before we start talking HoF.
   25. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:52 PM (#5672356)
That was Ray.


Ok. Sorry snapper. I should have known.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 14, 2018 at 09:52 PM (#5672357)
Ok. Sorry snapper. I should have known.

No worries. Can't keep track of everything everyone says :-)
   27. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: May 14, 2018 at 10:26 PM (#5672380)
Is Justin Turner ever coming back? His absence has been important, perhaps.
Might be tomorrow in Miami, I just heard on the Dodgers flagship station.
   28. Walt Davis Posted: May 14, 2018 at 11:04 PM (#5672410)
I just look at the talent, and don't see a great team. Not even a good team.

But this is true if you look at the DBacks as well (not to mention the rest of the division). Daniel Descalso is putting up a 127 OPS+, that's unlikely to last. They've got no Cs, they've got no 2B/SS, they've got three OFs with OPS+ below 60 (Souza is 3 for 29). Goldschmidt will get better, other guys almost have to get better than they have been but right now it's an offense with a 83 OPS+. (Somehow so far this year, AZ is playing like a massive pitcher's park so maybe some of those awful performances aren't as awful as they seem.) Meanwhile the pitchers seem well over their heads but that was true last year as well.

Then of course there's the wild card which took just 87 wins in the NL last year. That still would require playing 582 ball (94 win pace) but that seems reachable for this team.

They've had a pretty tough schedule. Among the crappy teams, they've had just 3 against Mia, 6 on the road at SDP ... they must have been looking forward to these 4 at home against the Reds. So it goes. They are now 5-8 against the crappy teams which doesn't bode well; just 12-16 in the division.

Still, I recall the Cubs last year. They'd been meandering around 500 (18-19) but then took 7 of 9 on a homestand and I thought they'd finally settled back into being a top team. They then went to the West Coast where they were swept by the Dodgers (not good, not shameful) and then the Padres (that was not good) and were then 25-27 (though only 2.5 back). They were still two games under at the break and 5.5 back. They then went 49-25 and finished 5.5 ahead. It took them just 13 games after the break to move into first which they never quite relinquished (were tied at one point).

Still, I may be under-rating AZ. They had 96 pythag wins last year, are only one game over their pythag this year.
   29. TomH Posted: May 15, 2018 at 07:39 AM (#5672507)
The Dodgers could easily have the best ERA in the NL from here on out. Which might or might not be enough to get them 86ish wins for a division crown. I wouldn't count them out this year, as there just aren't many good teams in the NL it seems.
   30. bfan Posted: May 15, 2018 at 08:00 AM (#5672508)
even in the "depths" of the Brian McCann


yes, because a 2.0 WAR a year catcher was the cause of the Yankees struggles.
   31. bfan Posted: May 15, 2018 at 08:04 AM (#5672510)
The dodgers team without Turner, Seager and Kershaw is not a great team; that may not even be a good team. That is no disgrace; take the Cubs 2 best hitters and their best pitcher off the board, and they are not exactly awe-inspiring, either. The 4th star on that Dodger team (those named being the other 3) is Bellinger; after that, it is a bit of flotsam.
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 15, 2018 at 09:24 AM (#5672526)
The Dodgers could easily have the best ERA in the NL from here on out.

Lots of things could happen, but why would we think that's likely? Besides Kershaw, there's no one in that rotation that looks to be a lock for 100 IP of ERA+ >120. None of the others have managed to sustain good AND healthy for and long period of time in their MLB careers.
   33. BDC Posted: May 15, 2018 at 09:33 AM (#5672529)
The part that intrigues me is "worst since 1958."

The Rangers started 16-24 this year, too. In 2007, they started 15-25; in 2003, they were 16-24; in 2001, they were 14-26; in 1985, 13-27; in 1984, 15-25 … this is getting too depressing to follow up.

My conclusion is that L.A. Dodgers fans are a little bit spoiled :)
   34. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 15, 2018 at 09:49 AM (#5672535)
Their 16-24 start is the worst by any Dodgers team since 1958, the inaugural season in Los Angeles.

Ah, but in 1959 the Dodgers won the World Series. WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR
   35. perros Posted: May 15, 2018 at 10:13 AM (#5672547)
Andy's still pissed about '55.
   36. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: May 15, 2018 at 10:16 AM (#5672551)
The Rangers started 16-24 this year, too. In 2007, they started 15-25; in 2003, they were 16-24; in 2001, they were 14-26; in 1985, 13-27; in 1984, 15-25 … this is getting too depressing to follow up.

That's nothing a little air conditioning can't fix.
   37. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: May 15, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5672556)
Meanwhile, the D-backs have lost six straight and Patrick Corbin will see a specialist about his thumb...
   38. BDC Posted: May 15, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5672559)
That's nothing a little air conditioning can't fix

Heck, in April we often need heat :-D
   39. Greg Pope Posted: May 15, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5672661)
Meanwhile, the D-backs have lost six straight and Patrick Corbin will see a specialist about his thumb...

Do you mean Pollock?
   40. zenbitz Posted: May 15, 2018 at 02:56 PM (#5672803)
Ah salty dodger tears....
   41. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: May 15, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5672842)
Meanwhile, the D-backs have lost six straight
At home, no less. Arizona was 52-29 at home last season.
   42. Batman Posted: May 15, 2018 at 03:41 PM (#5672852)
I don't know why I remember it, but my favorite team of my childhood, the 1983 White Sox, started 16-24. They went 83-39 the rest of the way and then forgot how to hit when the playoffs started.
   43. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: May 15, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5672954)
Do you mean Pollock?
Apparently so, but I swear the AZ Republic ticker said it was Corbin.
   44. Walt Davis Posted: May 15, 2018 at 05:31 PM (#5672958)
On sample size ... The issue of sample size is about how big of a sample do we need before we have a "sufficiently accurate" assessment of a player/team's "true" talent for predictive purposes. So sure, 40 games is not a huge sample for assessing the true quality of the Dodgers and predicting their future.

But as we keep hinting at, that's not the question before us really. A season is 162 games. 162 games isn't really enough to determine a team's true quality, especially not with all the noise that come with a season (injuries, etc.). These 40 games may have minimal effect on our assessment of the true talent of this Dodgers team (i.e. are a small sample with no predictive value) but the question we have is how likely are they now to win at a 600 pace. That's unlikely under almost any circumstance although (also) it's reasonably likely that at least one currently blah team will do so.

It's like, say, you're playing the Reds who you "should" beat easily. But lo and behold, today for whatever reasons, you are down 5-2 after 4 innings. Even though it's the Reds, your chances of winning this game are slim. They're higher against the Reds than against most teams but they still aren't good. If the season was 600 games long then 40 games would be kinda trivial.
   45. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 15, 2018 at 05:51 PM (#5672967)
I don't know why I remember it, but my favorite team of my childhood, the 1983 White Sox, started 16-24. They went 83-39 the rest of the way and then forgot how to hit when the playoffs started.


There’s no Ron Kittle to save the Dodgers.
   46. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 15, 2018 at 05:58 PM (#5672972)
These 40 games may have minimal effect on our assessment of the true talent of this Dodgers team (i.e. are a small sample with no predictive value)

They've had a decent effect. Fangraphs now projects the Dodgers to play .560 ball RoS. That's a 91 win pace. I believe the Dodgers were up near 98-99 wins pre-season.
   47. Nasty Nate Posted: May 16, 2018 at 09:54 AM (#5673320)
Another loss last night to a bad team.

For winning percentage, everyone in the NL is either above .500 or below .399 - there is no team in the .400s.
   48. Batman Posted: May 16, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5673332)
There’s no Ron Kittle to save the Dodgers.
Kittle's dog just died. The ghost of Harleypooch will save the Dodgers, like it would have saved the White Sox if they still existed.
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5673334)
For winning percentage, everyone in the NL is either above .500 or below .399 - there is no team in the .400s.

And no team about .500 in the AL Central.
   50. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: May 16, 2018 at 11:03 AM (#5673380)

They've had a decent effect. Fangraphs now projects the Dodgers to play .560 ball RoS. That's a 91 win pace. I believe the Dodgers were up near 98-99 wins pre-season.


How much of that change is the injuries to Seager and Kershaw?
   51. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 16, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5673385)
How much of that change is the injuries to Seager and Kershaw?

A lot, I'd guess. And the injury to Turner.

But that's the point. The "100-win" Dodger team is never going to take the field for the rest of this season.
   52. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: May 16, 2018 at 11:40 AM (#5673415)
Let me play devil's advocate the other way. The Diamondbacks are currently struggling offensively and just lost Pollock for about six weeks. That will slightly offset an inevitable improvement Goldschmidt. For all the discouraging things that have happened to the Dodgers this season, Alex Wood has certainly been a positive. I was withholding judgement on him being a legit #2 type starter after last season's breakout. So far Wood has a 47:8 strikeout to walk ratio and a 2.54 FIP. If he keeps pitching this well, its only a matter of time before his results catch-up with his peripherals. Say Kershaw makes it back OK from the present injury. With Kershaw, Wood, and Buehler lined up in the rotation, that gives them an extremely creditable starting staff. Maeda is just OK and one would have to be concerned that Hill is out of steam at 37. But those three starters are more than enough to charge back toward .500 in June and July. When Buehler hits his innings limit he can be a huge help in the bullpen. Positionally you've got Puig due to be productive and Kemp probably set to regress. Can the Dodgers replace Seager? Of course not. But if they are floating around contention in July they can certainly find a decent shortstop option on the trade market, or even make a run at Machado. The Dodgers look terrible right now, but its always a little dangerous judging a team by its lowest moment. There's still contender level talent, even without Seager. Whether or not Roberts has alienated the clubhouse somewhere along the way, we do not know. Speaking purely statistically though, I see reason for hope, more for the rotation than anything else. Also the Dodgers will probably be spending big next offseason, so they may be open to moving farm system pieces to go for a division when push comes to shove. The presence of Kershaw, the lack of a dominant team in the NL West, and the probability of some of their luck changing (not to mention getting Turner back) has me thinking we haven't heard the last of the Dodgers this season. (one thing the team can be roundly criticized for: undervaluing reliable bullpen arms in the offseason. They let Morrow and Watson go and are already notorious for pulling non-Kershaw starters out of the game early. That doesn't look so great when the game comes down JT Chargois pitching out of trouble in the sixth inning every night)

Also lest we forget that the Cubs were struggling around .500 into July last season, along with teams like the '15 Blue Jays, the '05 Astros, and on...
   53. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: May 16, 2018 at 12:48 PM (#5673471)
Even with the injuries, I would agree that there's just too much talent to pronounce the Dodgers out yet - yeah, sans Seager/Turner/Kershaw, they're not that good... but that said -

The struggles go back to last August.

The DBacks have been in a tailspin, too, the last week - and the Dodgers have made up zero ground (in fact, I think they actually lost another half game).

I think a hidden reason for the collapse - not that it trumps losing three of your best players, but I still think it's a factor: They got outstanding value from bit players during their 120 win pace last year. Those guys have really come down to earth - Chris Taylor looks a lot more like what one would have expected Chris Taylor's upside to look like. Austin Barnes hasn't been any good. Joc Pederson looks like a guy badly in need of a change of scenery. Only Josh Fields looks any good in the bullpen (Jansen aside).
   54. TomH Posted: May 16, 2018 at 01:39 PM (#5673525)
Austin Barnes; when your catcher/utility infielder has a OBP over .400, I wouldn't knock his value.
   55. akrasian Posted: July 06, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5705965)
So who had July 5 for when the Dodgers got into first place, albeit by percentage points?
   56. Baldrick Posted: July 06, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5706024)
I just look at the talent, and don't see a great team. Not even a good team.

Dodgers are 31-15 since this comment.
   57. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 06, 2018 at 04:30 PM (#5706278)
It's Snapper. Sure, he's wrong, but for all the right reasons, and that's what matters.
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 04:57 PM (#5706292)
It's Snapper. Sure, he's wrong, but for all the right reasons, and that's what matters.

I'm sure I'm the only one here who's made a wrong prediction about baseball :-)

Though, I still don't think the Dodgers are a great team. But, they sure as hell seem lucky.
   59. Baldrick Posted: July 06, 2018 at 05:42 PM (#5706318)
I'm sure I'm the only one here who's made a wrong prediction about baseball :-)

Of course not, but you make probably 10 wrong predictions for every one that anyone else makes.
Though, I still don't think the Dodgers are a great team. But, they sure as hell seem lucky.

And when other people are flagrantly wrong about stuff they sometimes actually cop to it.
   60. perros Posted: July 06, 2018 at 06:00 PM (#5706332)
What the Dodgers have done the last three years does seem to defy conventional wisdom, swapping nobodies besides an oft-injured Kershaw through the rotation, using god knows how many relievers as a bridge to Jansen, and turning pumpkins like Turner, Taylor, Muncy, Hernandez, Pederson, Toles, Barnes, etc etc into one of the best teams in baseball.

I don't really blame Mr. Conventional for being mystified. Nor do I mind giving him #### :>)
   61. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 06, 2018 at 06:29 PM (#5706338)
What the Dodgers have done the last three years does seem to defy conventional wisdom, swapping nobodies besides an oft-injured Kershaw through the rotation, using god knows how many relievers as a bridge to Jansen, and turning pumpkins like Turner, Taylor, Muncy, Hernandez, Pederson, Toles, Barnes, etc etc into one of the best teams in baseball.


That's a stretch.
   62. perros Posted: July 06, 2018 at 06:50 PM (#5706344)
Most wins in baseball 2016 to date:

Boston 245
Cleveland 244
Chicago 244
Houston 243
Dodgers 242

Most wins since 2013 and it'd be the Dodgers in a runaway -- 520 wins. I think Washington is second with 500.
   63. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 06:52 PM (#5706346)

Of course not, but you make probably 10 wrong predictions for every one that anyone else makes.


Who put a bug up your ass?

And when other people are flagrantly wrong about stuff they sometimes actually cop to it.

Piss off.

I don't have time for somebody who takes baseball banter as seriously as you seem to.
   64. cardsfanboy Posted: July 06, 2018 at 07:03 PM (#5706350)
Most wins since 2013 and it'd be the Dodgers in a runaway -- 520 wins. I think Washington is second with 500.

Cleveland is second with 502, and St Louis is third with 501...then Washington with 500, Red Sox with 491, Yankees with 487, Cubs 480.

   65. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: July 06, 2018 at 07:56 PM (#5706366)
pumpkins like Turner, Taylor, Muncy, Hernandez, Pederson, Toles, Barnes


I don't know that Pederson was ever a pumpkin in this sense of the word. He had an off year last year and is stretched in CF, but he's always been a pretty good hitter who plays a solid corner outfield. He K's a lot, but so does everybody else these days. Baseball America ranked him the #8 prospect in baseball going into 2015. BP had him at 18th, FanGraphs at 11th. Pederson is the kind of guy who is a cornerstone of a lot of good teams. ####, for the Mariners he'd probably have been batting cleanup most of his career.
   66. perros Posted: July 07, 2018 at 01:13 AM (#5706486)
Pederson was a prospect and has played regularly for four seasons, but he can't hit lefties at all and entered the season as a fourth outfielder. But you're right, a 116 OPS+ and 6.2 career WAR are not the stats of a large squash.
   67. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 07, 2018 at 06:42 AM (#5706499)
Of course not, but you make probably 10 wrong predictions for every one that anyone else makes.

That's not fair. Ray can make wrong predictions with the best of them, in terms of both quantity and quality. And on top of that, usually he is wrong for all the wrong reasons.

Somebody posted the thread for the Red Sox acquiring Victorino thread, in the Victorino announces retirement thread. Which was a tour de force:
The Red Sox are flailing, which should have been predicted from the Napoli-1B signing.

They have turned into the Mets. This is what the Mets did last year, acquiring a bunch of overpaid mediocrities rather than just put the money towards Jose Reyes.

This is turning into an old, mediocre team at best, with too much of their resources tied to second-tier players.

Followed up with:
The problem is that they've signed a bunch of players in their 30s who project to 2-4 WAR. And 2-4 WAR players in their 30s are more likely to give you 0-2 WAR than they are 4-6 WAR.

The Red Sox have lost their way.

Victorino put up 6.1 WAR.
Napoli 4 WAR.
Red Sox win the World Series.

I wish they would lose their way like this more often.

As a bonus, Jose Reyes has been terrible, and the Mets made it to the World Series 2 years later.
   68. PreservedFish Posted: July 07, 2018 at 07:30 AM (#5706502)
The problem is that they've signed a bunch of players in their 30s who project to 2-4 WAR. And 2-4 WAR players in their 30s are more likely to give you 0-2 WAR than they are 4-6 WAR.


But this is true. He was right about this as a general rule.
   69. Nasty Nate Posted: July 07, 2018 at 08:40 AM (#5706509)
If the second sentence is true, that doesn't mean he was right in the first sentence. Signing a bunch of guys who project to 2-4 WAR is not a "problem."
   70. PreservedFish Posted: July 07, 2018 at 09:52 AM (#5706513)
True. Well ... that type of free agent, the 32-year old guy that projects to 2.6 WAR or whatever and signs for 3 big bucks years, has probably been, on the balance, the most consistently bad investment that a team can make. That doesn't mean that they are invariably mistakes, but I understand if a fan is disappointed. My team, the Mets, have a decades long history of inking these small disaster contracts.
   71. Nasty Nate Posted: July 07, 2018 at 10:14 AM (#5706518)
That doesn't mean that they are invariably mistakes, but I understand if a fan is disappointed.
Sure. And I shared in the disappointment and puzzlement with the Victorino signing.

But it's worth noting that the other 2 guys in that series of acquisitions, Napoli and Drew, were 31 and 30 in the first season of their deals. So yes, they all were in their 30s, but at the good end.
   72. Eric L Posted: July 07, 2018 at 11:42 AM (#5706552)
I've noticed that Ray and Snapper both rely on the idea that null hypothesis is always right. Snapper does it with more charm, however.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(377 - 6:29am, Nov 19)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogMichael Wilbon Weighs In On Jacob deGrom With Worst Baseball Take Of Year | MLB | NESN.com
(21 - 6:28am, Nov 19)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogMLB rumors: How Dodgers' Dave Roberts could replace Giants' Bruce Bochy
(7 - 1:30am, Nov 19)
Last: phredbird

Newsblog2018 Cy Young Award winners | MLB.com
(53 - 12:38am, Nov 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(301 - 12:30am, Nov 19)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2314 - 10:54pm, Nov 18)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2530 - 10:16pm, Nov 18)
Last: PJ Martinez

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(456 - 9:35pm, Nov 18)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogMLB Trade Rumors: Phillies 'Expecting to Spend Money' in Pursuit of Bryce Harper, Manny Machado
(10 - 9:30pm, Nov 18)
Last: there isn't anything to do in buffalo but 57i66135

NewsblogHere's why the Cardinals need Bryce Harper
(64 - 9:14pm, Nov 18)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogReport: Dodgers' Kenley Jansen to Undergo Heart Surgery, Expected to Return for Spring Training
(3 - 7:56pm, Nov 18)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1231 - 4:31pm, Nov 18)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogQ&A: Damon Minor on Giants' Steven Duggar, Chris Shaw, Aramis Garcia
(3 - 4:26pm, Nov 18)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogIndians' Trevor Bauer pleads his own Cy Young case using a spreadsheet on Twitter
(30 - 4:12pm, Nov 18)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(283 - 2:07pm, Nov 18)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

Page rendered in 0.4842 seconds
46 querie(s) executed