Down years are not uncommon early in a player's career after having success. There is no smooth career trajectory. It is a game of adjustments. You have some success and the league adjusts to you, then you decline and have to make adjustments. Early in a career, these adjustments don't happen very quickly.
they were - and so there is a learning curve, adjustments and so forth ... so a couple of years is more likely to be a better indicator to the future than the more nascent ones. This is not that complicated.
Of course Betts showed up and has risen up steeper - but Betts is also a Top 10 player, so there you go.
Yes, and that's why I said the first 2 years should not count as much as the end up doing with players only in the league for 3-5 years. It's a disproportional influence that rarely bares out over a players middle 5-7 years or even their career. Players in the league 8-9 years have career numbers which have large enough sample sizes to not be greatly influenced by their first 2 years.
Of course a player might end up being closer to their first 2 years than the immediate following 2-3 years, but I'm pretty sure a player's 3-4 year average is closer to what their career average ends up than their first 2 years.
The bell curve is a pretty strong indicator for most players who play over 9 or 10 years. It's not perfect. There are often blips and outliers, but all I'm saying is that, if you randomly took any 5-6 players in the the league who have 3-5 years experience, it would be very rare to see just about all of them decline 2 years in a row and see a major decline in the 2nd of those two years.
My guess is it was just bad luck (possibly with some bad influences like poor coaching and losing Papi's influence) and some or most will "right the ship", but sure there is a chance that the 2017 numbers are what all these guys truly are and will be.
.
Devers is untouchable in my book. But I'm very much against trading for Stanton. The contract is insane, even if Miami pays some of the freight.
A power bat would be nice, but not at any price. I think you need to add one or two position players, but as for the heart of the order I'm willing to roll the dice on Betts/Devers/Hanley.
Unfortunately, for DD potential is a currency with which to buy experience. At the extreme of this philosophy you get idiocy like Steve Philips saying he'd trade Strasburg for Oswalt.
The Sox can spend more than that, but the reality is that they won't.
It's not my money, but spending crazy will affect what the team can do in the future. And that, I care about.
You saw the financial constraints the Sox were under this year. Much of that was due to big contracts that didn't pan out. So yeah, it would be great to have Stanton on our team. Until he can't play anymore and the Sox can't sign the next Encarnacion type player because of budget restraints. They might be self-imposed budget restraints, but they are very real.
Well the plan is that Dombrowski is going to bring in a manager that will get the youngsters (and the vets) to play up to their expectations. Add a bat to 1B/DH, add a #2 starting pitcher, throw in the positive regression from the current players, and we are good to go!