A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Tonight's report from the fort...

    Disclaimer, I left after seven to make 5 o'clock mass, so as far as I'm concerned we won 3-1. I missed the four run eighth which was keyed by an error by Boegarts which is an interesting coincidence based on the above discussions. I think that Pumpsie (ironic because you could never hit;)) and Moon just have a different philosophy in regards to the shortstop position. I'm firmly with Moon on this and have been advocating for Iggy to be the shortstop for two seasons now. Whoever it was above comparing Iggy to Ozzie, and saying he hasn't demonstrated those skills yet, I challenge you to watch the kid play! Ozzie had NOTHING on this kid EXCEPT that he learned to be an acceptable hitter in the major leagues as his career progressed. And I know spring training at bats are just that, but Iggy is a much better looking hitter this year. He's bigger and stronger and he's having much better at bats. Pumpsie, poll the Red Sox pitchers and see who they want to start at short. I know that's impossible, but my point all spring has been that the biggest weakness on this team is pitching and an important step to correcting that problem is to back up your staff with superior defense. Between Iggy, a healthy Pedroia, Victorino, a healthy Ellsbury and (please, please Ben) Bradley Jr you could be looking at the best defensive team in the AL, if not all baseball.

    As for today's game, Buchholz was very sharp again, the defense for seven innings was very good, Ellsbury had two hits going to left (I truly believe he's reading my feedback;)), Iggy had a run-producing base hit (and saved another sure base hit), Gomes actually made plays in left and Middlebrooks continues to hit the ball hard and far. He had a triple off the wall that would have been a home run in any other park as it was still rising when it hit the "wall". For those of you unaware, Jet Blue's green monster is four feet higher than fenway, the only difference between Fenway and Jet Blue's dimensions. The reason the wall is higher is beacuse there are several rows of seats built into the wall and covered by a screen. Look for this in coming decades at fenway, except I'm sure they would use a plexiglass cover. So balls like the one Middlebrooks hit don't bounce off the screen like they would off the wall and you can get a triple where you would have had a double. Also, Middlebrooks was busting it right out of the box, thinking triple.

    It was one of the more entertaining games this year; I hated to have to leave early.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    moon, the numbers you posted for iggy are probably best case scenario.. let me dip into hyperbole and go as far as saying career highs :)

    but it's your hypothetical.. you make the rules not i.

    that said, i'd go with Iggy. but like i stated, you overplayed Iggys offensive production and undervalued Drews (162 game AVG of 61XBHs. you only listed him with 40...)

     



    I don't value what Drew did in 2008 as much as I do his last 2-3 years. 

     

    I was also going on the assumption that both would play about 150 games (reasonable) and bat at the bottom of the order, and your career Drew 162 game numbers show him getting 682 PAs. Neither would get close to that number playing 150 games batting 8th or 9th in 2013. Even if you reduce Drew's career numbers to 500 PAs it's about 45 XBHs. I feel my adjustmnent to 40 is justified, but I'd still take Iggy over Drew with 45 XBHs in 500 PAs.

    I also do not think I overplayed Iggy's offense at batting .220. I'm not ever going to use an 83 PA sample size scattered over 2 seasons as a guide to project anyone's future outlook. Iggy has over 1,000 minor league PAs and a .264 BA. The .220 MLB projection is reasonable, but I could have used this as a scenario:

    Let's say if Drew played 150 games and had 500 PAs this year with these numbers:

    140 Hits  (.280 BA) 28 DBLs, 3 TPLs,  and 14 HRs

    but if Iggy had played the same 150 games with 500 PAs:

    90 Hits (.180 BA) 15 DBls, 3 TRPLS, and 2 HRs

    and we assume that Iggy would make 100 or more plays that Drew could never make, you's still take the Drew numbers?

    50 more hits

    25 for extra bases

    but 100+ more hits saved by his superior defense, are you really saying you take this offense vs defense scenario and go with Drew?

     


    Also, my point was not to say that I am certain these will be the numbers, but to ask pumpsie if 2 SSs did have numbers like what I posted as a hypothetical scenario, could the ,220 hitting SS ever be justified as starting FT over a .280 hitting SS based on a massive defensive differential in plays made over 150 seasons. He seems locked into the need for offense at the SS position at any expense.

    Forget the names I put on my scenario, if those numbers I listed were true, which SS would you want as your FT SS. If you answer the defensive guy, then at least I got you to see my point of view. If you answered the offensive guy, I don't agree, but at least I know it's a difference in philosophy or theory and not just a personal dislike of Iggy or a mancrush on Drew.

     




    I would use OPS, not BA. Drew has a career OPS of .762; Iglesias, in a small sample size, is at .413 and is just at .589 in AAA ball. There is no amount of fielding prowess that can account for that kind of offensive difference. If Iggy can manage an OPS in the .700 range in the ML I can live with that, but FIRST he has to prove it at the AAA level THEN he can have a crack at the Sox lineup.

     

     




     

    1) You do know the MLB  norm in 2012 was .255/.319/.405/.724 and half the teams had a SS OPS of under .716 and 8 under .701. That's all players combined!

    2) Now, look at the league SS numbers: .256/.310/.375/.685. Don't you think setting the bar at .700 for a SS that may save 80-120 hits a year on defense is a little bit unreasonable?

    3) 19 MLB teams had a SS OPS or below .711, 16 teams below .691, 11 teams below .644.

    4) Let's say we look at OBP instead of BA. Drew's career OBP is .328, and his last 2 year number is .313. I'll assume .320 and an Iggy OBP of .280 (.033 below his minor league OBP). That gives us this over 500 PAs:

    Drew 160 times on base.

    Iggy  140 times on base. (130 if his OBP is .260/ 120 if it's .240, etc...)

    We're talking about Drew getting on base maybe 25-35 more times than Iggy over 500 PAs. Maybe all 25-35 of those are extra base hits more than Iggy with several more RBIs attached (and amuch  higher SLG%), but there is no way I see this as overshadowing a possible 80-120 less plays made on defense over 150 games. Even if you give Drew a .330 OBP and Iggy a .250 OBP, it's only 40 more times on base.

     

     

     




    The major leagues is no place for a professional ball player to learn how to hit. Lets give Iggy the benefit of the doubt and assume that somehow he can reproduce his stellar OPS of .589 earned in over 700 PAs at the AAA level (what he did at the A level is not particularly relevant). And lets assume he is our starting SS all year and gets at least 300 PAs. Of the 30 SS's with at least 300 PAs in 2012 only THREE had an OPS worse than  .589. Realistically, unless he is an improved batter, he is going to hit less than .589 and stands an excellent chance of being the worst offensive SS in the league, worse than Brendan Ryan of Seattle who managed an OPS of just .555. I do not want that kind of batter on my team. Its not realistic to assume that somehow he has improved on his AAA performance (=.589 OPS). Thats wishful thinking. I say let him PROVE it first; then promote him. Apparently in hiring Drew the FO agrees with this line of thought. Sure it would be fun to watch him make some spectacular plays in the field....until he is up with the bases loaded and the Sox down by a run.  

     

     




    He already improved in AAA from .554 in 2011 to .624 in 2012, but you would rather harp on his career AAA mark of .589. If you keep using his career AAA OPS, it would take him a long time at hitting .800 to get it over .700...maybe 2 years. Then he'd finally prove to you he can hit.

    While you're bumming out about Iggy striking out with bases loaded and the Sox down by a run, you will have missed the play the inning before that ended the inning and kept us down 1 instead of down 3.

    If Iggy hit .700 in AAA in 2013, would that be enough?

    I've answered all your inquiries. I'm still waiting for your reply.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Moon, I think it's just a philisophical difference. The steroid era has skewed many fans' perspective on what each position on the field means to the team. We have seen too many Arods, Ripkens, Jeters and Nomars and too much emphasis on offense. With more thourough steroid testing in place, over time we will see the return of the small, defensive middle infielders, fleet, defensive centerfielders, and only corner infielders and outfielders will provide the power in a lineup. It may cost the game we love some casual fans (Chicks dig the long ball) but the baseball will be much more realistic. I'd challenge any of the people advocating for more offense from Iggy, or the shortstop position in general, to look at the stats of a young Ozzie Smith or Omar Vizquel, or the career stats of Mark Belanger, the greatest shortstop I ever saw.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    Tonight's report from the fort...

    Disclaimer, I left after seven to make 5 o'clock mass, so as far as I'm concerned we won 3-1. I missed the four run eighth which was keyed by an error by Boegarts which is an interesting coincidence based on the above discussions. I think that Pumpsie (ironic because you could never hit;)) and Moon just have a different philosophy in regards to the shortstop position. I'm firmly with Moon on this and have been advocating for Iggy to be the shortstop for two seasons now. Whoever it was above comparing Iggy to Ozzie, and saying he hasn't demonstrated those skills yet, I challenge you to watch the kid play! Ozzie had NOTHING on this kid EXCEPT that he learned to be an acceptable hitter in the major leagues as his career progressed. And I know spring training at bats are just that, but Iggy is a much better looking hitter this year. He's bigger and stronger and he's having much better at bats. Pumpsie, poll the Red Sox pitchers and see who they want to start at short. I know that's impossible, but my point all spring has been that the biggest weakness on this team is pitching and an important step to correcting that problem is to back up your staff with superior defense. Between Iggy, a healthy Pedroia, Victorino, a healthy Ellsbury and (please, please Ben) Bradley Jr you could be looking at the best defensive team in the AL, if not all baseball.

    As for today's game, Buchholz was very sharp again, the defense for seven innings was very good, Ellsbury had two hits going to left (I truly believe he's reading my feedback;)), Iggy had a run-producing base hit (and saved another sure base hit), Gomes actually made plays in left and Middlebrooks continues to hit the ball hard and far. He had a triple off the wall that would have been a home run in any other park as it was still rising when it hit the "wall". For those of you unaware, Jet Blue's green monster is four feet higher than fenway, the only difference between Fenway and Jet Blue's dimensions. The reason the wall is higher is beacuse there are several rows of seats built into the wall and covered by a screen. Look for this in coming decades at fenway, except I'm sure they would use a plexiglass cover. So balls like the one Middlebrooks hit don't bounce off the screen like they would off the wall and you can get a triple where you would have had a double. Also, Middlebrooks was busting it right out of the box, thinking triple.

    It was one of the more entertaining games this year; I hated to have to leave early.



    Excellent read jid.

    And, I'm sure the pitcher's poll prefering Iggy to a Drew type would not just be saying that to improve their ERA; they know great fielding SSs win more games that great or decent hitting ones who are sub standard hitters.

    Ozzie Smith never even played beyond single A. In his rookie year he hit at the same OPS as Iggy did in AAA last year (.624), however his next 3 seasons were all below .589 (522, 589, & 549). He didn't get over .700 until his 8th season. After 3 years over .700, he had 3 more below .700. All in all, as a FT SS for 16 years from 1978 to 1993, he had these seasons:

    .500-.549   2

    .550-.599   1

    .600-.649   1

    .650-.699   5

    .700-.749   4  (all over age 30)

    .750+          1  (at age 32)

     

    Omar Vizquel had a .598 OPS in AAA.

    He was called up at age 22, and he began to become a better hitter almsot right away:

    .534> .593> .595>.692 and at age 29 he jumped to .779. He topped out at .833 at age 32.

    I know many feel this is a different era for the SS position, but there are still several SSs known almost only for their fielding.

    In 2012, the best 8 SSs by UZR/150 played for these teams:

    SEA

    PIT

    DET

    BAL

    SFG

    TEX

    CIN

    WSH

     

    The top 8 SSs by OPS played for these teams:

    WSH

    NYY

    MIA

    CLE

    LAD

    CCubs

    PHIL

    LAA

    While this isn't a definitive analysis, it does show that many teams win with great fielding SS, while great hitting SSs may not help much.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    Moon, I think it's just a philisophical difference. The steroid era has skewed many fans' perspective on what each position on the field means to the team. We have seen too many Arods, Ripkens, Jeters and Nomars and too much emphasis on offense. With more thourough steroid testing in place, over time we will see the return of the small, defensive middle infielders, fleet, defensive centerfielders, and only corner infielders and outfielders will provide the power in a lineup. It may cost the game we love some casual fans (Chicks dig the long ball) but the baseball will be much more realistic. I'd challenge any of the people advocating for more offense from Iggy, or the shortstop position in general, to look at the stats of a young Ozzie Smith or Omar Vizquel, or the career stats of Mark Belanger, the greatest shortstop I ever saw.



    I agree totally.

    I'd die for a Mark Belanger on this team, and perhaps Iggy is as close to him on D as any SS around today.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In 2012, the best 8 SSs by UZR/150 played for these teams:

    SEA

    PIT

    DET

    BAL

    SFG

    TEX

    CIN

    WSH

     

    The top 8 SSs by OPS played for these teams:

    WSH

    NYY

    MIA

    CLE

    LAD

    CCubs

    PHIL

    LAA

    While this isn't a definitive analysis, it does show that many teams win with great fielding SS, while great hitting SSs may not help much.

    [/QUOTE]

    these types of "analysis" you do drive me bonkers moon!

    all that tells me is what teams had a good defensive SS and what teams had a good offensive SS. Reading anything further into that is futile. It yeilds no results. you want to see which type of SS contributes to their team more? look at WAR.

    I know you said it wasn't a definitive analysis but i wouldn't even call it an analysis.. it's more of an observation. These teams had a defensive minded SS, those teams had an offensive minded SS. Some teams made the playoffs, others didn't. but don't pretend that 1/25th of a team is the reason they made the playoffs while ignoring every other person on the roster. Drawing individual conclusions from team based accomplishments is not a sound way to prove your point.

    don't take it the wrong way moon, i admire your baseball acumen but this is unsatisfactory! now, i expect a full report on my desk by monday. For every day the assignment is late i will deduct 10 points from your next test grade. shape up mister! :p

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In 2012, the best 8 SSs by UZR/150 played for these teams:

    SEA

    PIT

    DET

    BAL

    SFG

    TEX

    CIN

    WSH

     

    The top 8 SSs by OPS played for these teams:

    WSH

    NYY

    MIA

    CLE

    LAD

    CCubs

    PHIL

    LAA

    While this isn't a definitive analysis, it does show that many teams win with great fielding SS, while great hitting SSs may not help much.



    these types of "analysis" you do drive me bonkers moon!

    all that tells me is what teams had a good defensive SS and what teams had a good offensive SS. Reading anything further into that is futile. It yeilds no results. you want to see which type of SS contributes to their team more? look at WAR.

    I know you said it wasn't a definitive analysis but i wouldn't even call it an analysis.. it's more of an observation. These teams had a defensive minded SS, those teams had an offensive minded SS. Some teams made the playoffs, others didn't. but don't pretend that 1/25th of a team is the reason they made the playoffs while ignoring every other person on the roster. Drawing individual conclusions from team based accomplishments is not a sound way to prove your point.

    don't take it the wrong way moon, i admire your baseball acumen but this is unsatisfactory! now, i expect a full report on my desk by monday. For every day the assignment is late i will deduct 10 points from your next test grade. shape up mister! :p

    [/QUOTE]

     

       I thought this was philosophy class, not statistics 101. Did I turn in the wrong paper again?

      The SS is worth more than 1/25th.

      My bet is that if you go back through the records, you'll find teams do better with top fielding SSs than top hitting ones-- same with catchers.

      I think WAR does not value SS defense enough and over-values other positions on defense.

      I wasn't saying the team winning argument "proves my point", but it is true that many winning teams today don't seem to care that their SS is more about D than O, while some yahoos here think it's all about having big O at SS.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    moon, the numbers you posted for iggy are probably best case scenario.. let me dip into hyperbole and go as far as saying career highs :)

    but it's your hypothetical.. you make the rules not i.

    that said, i'd go with Iggy. but like i stated, you overplayed Iggys offensive production and undervalued Drews (162 game AVG of 61XBHs. you only listed him with 40...)

     



    I don't value what Drew did in 2008 as much as I do his last 2-3 years. 

     

    I was also going on the assumption that both would play about 150 games (reasonable) and bat at the bottom of the order, and your career Drew 162 game numbers show him getting 682 PAs. Neither would get close to that number playing 150 games batting 8th or 9th in 2013. Even if you reduce Drew's career numbers to 500 PAs it's about 45 XBHs. I feel my adjustmnent to 40 is justified, but I'd still take Iggy over Drew with 45 XBHs in 500 PAs.

    I also do not think I overplayed Iggy's offense at batting .220. I'm not ever going to use an 83 PA sample size scattered over 2 seasons as a guide to project anyone's future outlook. Iggy has over 1,000 minor league PAs and a .264 BA. The .220 MLB projection is reasonable, but I could have used this as a scenario:

    Let's say if Drew played 150 games and had 500 PAs this year with these numbers:

    140 Hits  (.280 BA) 28 DBLs, 3 TPLs,  and 14 HRs

    but if Iggy had played the same 150 games with 500 PAs:

    90 Hits (.180 BA) 15 DBls, 3 TRPLS, and 2 HRs

    and we assume that Iggy would make 100 or more plays that Drew could never make, you's still take the Drew numbers?

    50 more hits

    25 for extra bases

    but 100+ more hits saved by his superior defense, are you really saying you take this offense vs defense scenario and go with Drew?

     


    Also, my point was not to say that I am certain these will be the numbers, but to ask pumpsie if 2 SSs did have numbers like what I posted as a hypothetical scenario, could the ,220 hitting SS ever be justified as starting FT over a .280 hitting SS based on a massive defensive differential in plays made over 150 seasons. He seems locked into the need for offense at the SS position at any expense.

    Forget the names I put on my scenario, if those numbers I listed were true, which SS would you want as your FT SS. If you answer the defensive guy, then at least I got you to see my point of view. If you answered the offensive guy, I don't agree, but at least I know it's a difference in philosophy or theory and not just a personal dislike of Iggy or a mancrush on Drew.

     




    I would use OPS, not BA. Drew has a career OPS of .762; Iglesias, in a small sample size, is at .413 and is just at .589 in AAA ball. There is no amount of fielding prowess that can account for that kind of offensive difference. If Iggy can manage an OPS in the .700 range in the ML I can live with that, but FIRST he has to prove it at the AAA level THEN he can have a crack at the Sox lineup.

     

     




     

    1) You do know the MLB  norm in 2012 was .255/.319/.405/.724 and half the teams had a SS OPS of under .716 and 8 under .701. That's all players combined!

    2) Now, look at the league SS numbers: .256/.310/.375/.685. Don't you think setting the bar at .700 for a SS that may save 80-120 hits a year on defense is a little bit unreasonable?

    3) 19 MLB teams had a SS OPS or below .711, 16 teams below .691, 11 teams below .644.

    4) Let's say we look at OBP instead of BA. Drew's career OBP is .328, and his last 2 year number is .313. I'll assume .320 and an Iggy OBP of .280 (.033 below his minor league OBP). That gives us this over 500 PAs:

    Drew 160 times on base.

    Iggy  140 times on base. (130 if his OBP is .260/ 120 if it's .240, etc...)

    We're talking about Drew getting on base maybe 25-35 more times than Iggy over 500 PAs. Maybe all 25-35 of those are extra base hits more than Iggy with several more RBIs attached (and amuch  higher SLG%), but there is no way I see this as overshadowing a possible 80-120 less plays made on defense over 150 games. Even if you give Drew a .330 OBP and Iggy a .250 OBP, it's only 40 more times on base.

     

     

     




    The major leagues is no place for a professional ball player to learn how to hit. Lets give Iggy the benefit of the doubt and assume that somehow he can reproduce his stellar OPS of .589 earned in over 700 PAs at the AAA level (what he did at the A level is not particularly relevant). And lets assume he is our starting SS all year and gets at least 300 PAs. Of the 30 SS's with at least 300 PAs in 2012 only THREE had an OPS worse than  .589. Realistically, unless he is an improved batter, he is going to hit less than .589 and stands an excellent chance of being the worst offensive SS in the league, worse than Brendan Ryan of Seattle who managed an OPS of just .555. I do not want that kind of batter on my team. Its not realistic to assume that somehow he has improved on his AAA performance (=.589 OPS). Thats wishful thinking. I say let him PROVE it first; then promote him. Apparently in hiring Drew the FO agrees with this line of thought. Sure it would be fun to watch him make some spectacular plays in the field....until he is up with the bases loaded and the Sox down by a run.  

     

     

     




     

    He already improved in AAA from .554 in 2011 to .624 in 2012, but you would rather harp on his career AAA mark of .589. If you keep using his career AAA OPS, it would take him a long time at hitting .800 to get it over .700...maybe 2 years. Then he'd finally prove to you he can hit.

    While you're bumming out about Iggy striking out with bases loaded and the Sox down by a run, you will have missed the play the inning before that ended the inning and kept us down 1 instead of down 3.

    If Iggy hit .700 in AAA in 2013, would that be enough?

    I've answered all your inquiries. I'm still waiting for your reply.

     




    Sure. Lets see how he does for his next 250 PAs in Pawtucket. If he has an OPS close to .700 then we bring him up. If not, he remains in AAA ball until he can prove he can hit the baseball. It takes at least 250 PAs IMO to produce a significant sample size. So far he has not hit that well for that long, so his time has not yet come.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    W/ respect to Boegarts, it wasnt the easiest play to make, he hasn't been w/ the team, he's been playing out of position all spring & so forth. I want to hold off judgment. 

    That said, the team defense was night & day after they took out Iggy. No doubt he makes that play. And his bat IS improving. 

     

    If I cld relate it to another sport, some people wld take a high scoring PG over one that can overall make the whole team better, but I would not. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to emp9's comment:

     

    W/ respect to Boegarts, it wasnt the easiest play to make, he hasn't been w/ the team, he's been playing out of position all spring & so forth. I want to hold off judgment. 

    That said, the team defense was night & day after they took out Iggy. No doubt he makes that play. And his bat IS improving. 

     

    If I cld relate it to another sport, some people wld take a high scoring PG over one that can overall make the whole team better, but I would not. 

     



    I had left and didn't see the play. My gut tells me that Bogearts' future is as a corner infielder, perhaps at third with Middlebrooks moving to first or with Bogey sliding over to first. I have also heard talk of Bogey moving to left. He's been gone from ST for a while playing in the WBC, but you could tell from his earlier at-bats that he will be a special type of hitter.

    PS: Good analogy on the point guard; I agree.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    All these numbers about the hitting ability of mlb shortstops just makes Bogaerts look that much better as a prospect. A potential superstar at SS.

    I think Moon has a lot of great points regarding Iggy. I haven't studied the potential impact of Iggy's defense to the level he has and I'm surprised it would make 100 plays difference but they have easy data available on fangraphs for "runs saved" or DRS. Over 150 games, from his performance last year, Iggy would have saved 42 runs. That makes Moon's estimate look even a tad conservative. It sure looks believable according to the small sample size. As Moon, noted though, that small sample size is not really projectable over 150 game season. Iglesias probably is not going to maintain a UZR/150  of over 49.8 all year. There have been some players come close to that though if I remember correctly.

    The average hitting mlb team in 2012 was probably the Baltimore Orioles at 712 runs. If Iglesias could maintain a DRS of 7 runs saved per each 25 games played we are looking at 42 runs saved over a 150 game season or comparable to the amount of runs gained each year by an average Pujols performance. That is rather decent ladies and gentlemen, and softy. 

     



    Defense at the SS position is so critical. So many balls are hit in the area of the SS. I have shown over and over that MLB SS differentials in a season are often over 100 plays made vs plays not made between the best and worst ranged SSs. The same SSs are found near the top and bottom every year, even if they change teams, so it seems clear it is not a fluke. I realize there are other factors involved in the over number of plays made by a SS over 1200 innings, but it seems clear to me that a great ranged SS can easily save a play every 2 games (80+ a year). Adding or taking away 80 hits from a player's offensive numbers would be an astounding adjustment, but sadly defense at the SS position is not viewed as it should be.

     

    Iggy does not have to have a .700 OPS in MLB to be a plus to the team. My guess is that .600 and 80-100 hits saved on defense makes him a huge plus.

    Also, several MLB hitters came into MLB with poor AAA hitting records and immediately improved. Just last year Middlebrooks improved on his AAA numbers from:

    BA: AAA .268 to .288

    OBP: AAA .313 to  .325

    It can happen, but my point has always been that we don't even need Iggy to hit, since he will save 80+ hits over a full season.

     




    I understand your no range arguement for Drew, but heres the thing...Like his brother JD, Stephen doesnt have great range, but hes a very smart ballplayer that positions himself almost perfectly knowing what pitch is being thrown and who the batter is. Just looking at his range in numbers certainly doesnt tell the whole story on Stephen Drew IMO...Just another one of those cases, like we argued with salty, that numbers sometimes lie a bit.

    Now Im certainly not saying Drew is as good as Iggy defensively, but hes not as bad as the numbers suggest is all.

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Sure. Lets see how he does for his next 250 PAs in Pawtucket. If he has an OPS close to .700 then we bring him up. If not, he remains in AAA ball until he can prove he can hit the baseball. It takes at least 250 PAs IMO to produce a significant sample size. So far he has not hit that well for that long, so his time has not yet come.

     

    Well, I'm glad you are not holding him to his career AAA OPS number. I'm hoping you at least view him as a.624 AAA now rather than hold 2011 against a player in his early years of growth.

    I still disagree on the needs to hit .700 in AAA for a SS to get a shot at the bigs. I'd at least look more at OBP than OPS.

    I'm curious why you still haven't answered my question on the hypothetical scenario I presented. I'm OK with posters not believing a great ranged SS not making 100+ more plays than the bottom SSs, but I was just wondering how you felt if it were true that Iggy could make 100 more plays on D than Drew, would the .320 to .260 OBP and 40 more XBHs by Drew make up for that? (Enough for you to want to have Drew and not Iggy as your FT SS) I've answered every point and question you have made, please respond to this one question.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to BurritoT-'s comment:

    John Garland on the market........ 




    would he accept a MiL contract for depth?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    I understand your no range arguement for Drew, but heres the thing...Like his brother JD, Stephen doesnt have great range, but hes a very smart ballplayer that positions himself almost perfectly knowing what pitch is being thrown and who the batter is. Just looking at his range in numbers certainly doesnt tell the whole story on Stephen Drew IMO...Just another one of those cases, like we argued with salty, that numbers sometimes lie a bit.

    Now Im certainly not saying Drew is as good as Iggy defensively, but hes not as bad as the numbers suggest is all.

    RF/9, range metrics, UZR/15o all reflect poor, good or great positioning. If Drew was positioned very very well, he'd be making more plays than he has been, or he is so slow or poor on the break reaction time, that even great positioning still makes him a poor fielder. He may make up a few of those 80-100 plays that Iggy gets to that he could not reach by having better experience, making less errors on sure plays, or other variables, but I seriously doubt it could come close to making up for even a 60-80 play differential.

    Sidenote: I made this same argument last year with Iggy vs Aviles, and as the season started I was going to keep track of every play I thought Iggy would have made that Mike did not make. After about 25 games, I think I was up to 2 or 3 plays. I realized I had misjudged Mike's range. I may have misjudged Drew's as well, but his numbers have not been good, although they were improving before the injury that involved placing a pin in his ankle, where I believe it remains today. I'm hoping I am wrong again on projecting poor range by our SSs (Aviles and now Drew). We'll probably find out, because the moment Drew is healthy, Iggy will be sent down no matter what his OBP is.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I understand your no range arguement for Drew, but heres the thing...Like his brother JD, Stephen doesnt have great range, but hes a very smart ballplayer that positions himself almost perfectly knowing what pitch is being thrown and who the batter is. Just looking at his range in numbers certainly doesnt tell the whole story on Stephen Drew IMO...Just another one of those cases, like we argued with salty, that numbers sometimes lie a bit.

    Now Im certainly not saying Drew is as good as Iggy defensively, but hes not as bad as the numbers suggest is all.

    RF/9, range metrics, UZR/15o all reflect poor, good or great positioning. If Drew was positioned very very well, he'd be making more plays than he has been, or he is so slow or poor on the break reaction time, that even great positioning still makes him a poor fielder. He may make up a few of those 80-100 plays that Iggy gets to that he could not reach by having better experience, making less errors on sure plays, or other variables, but I seriously doubt it could come close to making up for even a 60-80 play differential.

    Sidenote: I made this same argument last year with Iggy vs Aviles, and as the season started I was going to keep track of every play I thought Iggy would have made that Mike did not make. After about 25 games, I think I was up to 2 or 3 plays. I realized I had misjudged Mike's range. I may have misjudged Drew's as well, but his numbers have not been good, although they were improving before the injury that involved placing a pin in his ankle, where I believe it remains today. I'm hoping I am wrong again on projecting poor range by our SSs (Aviles and now Drew). We'll probably find out, because the moment Drew is healthy, Iggy will be sent down no matter what his OBP is.




    Im not saying Drew is a great fielder, not at all. Just think the numbers dont see what the eyes do.

    I agree with you that Iggy will be sent down when Drew is ready. The only way hes not is if he is hitting the ball while hes up. Even then, he will have to be hitting pretty good for that to happen.

    Im pulling for the kid this year that he can put together enough offense to warrant the starting job. At this point theyre not going to give it to him paying Drew 9.5M, unless he hits .300

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I understand your no range arguement for Drew, but heres the thing...Like his brother JD, Stephen doesnt have great range, but hes a very smart ballplayer that positions himself almost perfectly knowing what pitch is being thrown and who the batter is. Just looking at his range in numbers certainly doesnt tell the whole story on Stephen Drew IMO...Just another one of those cases, like we argued with salty, that numbers sometimes lie a bit.

    Now Im certainly not saying Drew is as good as Iggy defensively, but hes not as bad as the numbers suggest is all.

    RF/9, range metrics, UZR/15o all reflect poor, good or great positioning. If Drew was positioned very very well, he'd be making more plays than he has been, or he is so slow or poor on the break reaction time, that even great positioning still makes him a poor fielder. He may make up a few of those 80-100 plays that Iggy gets to that he could not reach by having better experience, making less errors on sure plays, or other variables, but I seriously doubt it could come close to making up for even a 60-80 play differential.

    Sidenote: I made this same argument last year with Iggy vs Aviles, and as the season started I was going to keep track of every play I thought Iggy would have made that Mike did not make. After about 25 games, I think I was up to 2 or 3 plays. I realized I had misjudged Mike's range. I may have misjudged Drew's as well, but his numbers have not been good, although they were improving before the injury that involved placing a pin in his ankle, where I believe it remains today. I'm hoping I am wrong again on projecting poor range by our SSs (Aviles and now Drew). We'll probably find out, because the moment Drew is healthy, Iggy will be sent down no matter what his OBP is.

     




    Im not saying Drew is a great fielder, not at all. Just think the numbers dont see what the eyes do.

     

    I agree with you that Iggy will be sent down when Drew is ready. The only way hes not is if he is hitting the ball while hes up. Even then, he will have to be hitting pretty good for that to happen.

    Im pulling for the kid this year that he can put together enough offense to warrant the starting job. At this point theyre not going to give it to him paying Drew 9.5M, unless he hits .300




    With Drew on a one year deal he'd be pretty easy to deal during the season if he and Iglesias are both playing well.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I understand your no range arguement for Drew, but heres the thing...Like his brother JD, Stephen doesnt have great range, but hes a very smart ballplayer that positions himself almost perfectly knowing what pitch is being thrown and who the batter is. Just looking at his range in numbers certainly doesnt tell the whole story on Stephen Drew IMO...Just another one of those cases, like we argued with salty, that numbers sometimes lie a bit.

    Now Im certainly not saying Drew is as good as Iggy defensively, but hes not as bad as the numbers suggest is all.

    RF/9, range metrics, UZR/15o all reflect poor, good or great positioning. If Drew was positioned very very well, he'd be making more plays than he has been, or he is so slow or poor on the break reaction time, that even great positioning still makes him a poor fielder. He may make up a few of those 80-100 plays that Iggy gets to that he could not reach by having better experience, making less errors on sure plays, or other variables, but I seriously doubt it could come close to making up for even a 60-80 play differential.

    Sidenote: I made this same argument last year with Iggy vs Aviles, and as the season started I was going to keep track of every play I thought Iggy would have made that Mike did not make. After about 25 games, I think I was up to 2 or 3 plays. I realized I had misjudged Mike's range. I may have misjudged Drew's as well, but his numbers have not been good, although they were improving before the injury that involved placing a pin in his ankle, where I believe it remains today. I'm hoping I am wrong again on projecting poor range by our SSs (Aviles and now Drew). We'll probably find out, because the moment Drew is healthy, Iggy will be sent down no matter what his OBP is.

     




    Im not saying Drew is a great fielder, not at all. Just think the numbers dont see what the eyes do.

     

    I agree with you that Iggy will be sent down when Drew is ready. The only way hes not is if he is hitting the ball while hes up. Even then, he will have to be hitting pretty good for that to happen.

    Im pulling for the kid this year that he can put together enough offense to warrant the starting job. At this point theyre not going to give it to him paying Drew 9.5M, unless he hits .300

     




    With Drew on a one year deal he'd be pretty easy to deal during the season if he and Iglesias are both playing well.

     




    If Iggy is playing good, then I can see a deadline deal and the Sox even eating some $$ to get a better return.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    With Drew on a one year deal he'd be pretty easy to deal during the season if he and Iglesias are both playing well.

    Maybe. If he's healthy and wanted. If we pay part of his deal.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Sure. Lets see how he does for his next 250 PAs in Pawtucket. If he has an OPS close to .700 then we bring him up. If not, he remains in AAA ball until he can prove he can hit the baseball. It takes at least 250 PAs IMO to produce a significant sample size. So far he has not hit that well for that long, so his time has not yet come.

     

    Well, I'm glad you are not holding him to his career AAA OPS number. I'm hoping you at least view him as a.624 AAA now rather than hold 2011 against a player in his early years of growth.

    I still disagree on the needs to hit .700 in AAA for a SS to get a shot at the bigs. I'd at least look more at OBP than OPS.

    I'm curious why you still haven't answered my question on the hypothetical scenario I presented. I'm OK with posters not believing a great ranged SS not making 100+ more plays than the bottom SSs, but I was just wondering how you felt if it were true that Iggy could make 100 more plays on D than Drew, would the .320 to .260 OBP and 40 more XBHs by Drew make up for that? (Enough for you to want to have Drew and not Iggy as your FT SS) I've answered every point and question you have made, please respond to this one question.




    First, I did not say that he had to have an OPS of .700; I said he has to be close to that. You cannot assign a specific number as the OPS that a player must achieve before being promoted. Around .700 is what I would like to see before I want to see him in the ML. As for your hypothetical question (and it is simply conjecture), if I understand you correctly, about IF Iggy makes at least 100 more plays than Drew could make is the reduction of OBP and XBHs tolerable, in a word, no. Why? Because if you are going to use a single metric to measure a player's offensive contribution I believe that is either OPS or OPS+, not OBP. So if you rephrase your question in those terms its more relevant. I would take Iggy if Drew has an OPS of .760 and Iggy has an OPS of .700, given that Iggy saves more runs, but not if Iggy has an OPS of just .624. We simply cannot afford a black hole like that in the lineup. I think more than about .070 OPS difference between our current SS (Drew) and our minor league SS earns Iggy a ticket back to Pawtucket. The FO got this one right: they secured a SS that is decent defensively but who can also contribute offensively a bit rather than someone whose talents are too far weighted in one direction.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Sure. Lets see how he does for his next 250 PAs in Pawtucket. If he has an OPS close to .700 then we bring him up. If not, he remains in AAA ball until he can prove he can hit the baseball. It takes at least 250 PAs IMO to produce a significant sample size. So far he has not hit that well for that long, so his time has not yet come.

     

    Well, I'm glad you are not holding him to his career AAA OPS number. I'm hoping you at least view him as a.624 AAA now rather than hold 2011 against a player in his early years of growth.

    I still disagree on the needs to hit .700 in AAA for a SS to get a shot at the bigs. I'd at least look more at OBP than OPS.

    I'm curious why you still haven't answered my question on the hypothetical scenario I presented. I'm OK with posters not believing a great ranged SS not making 100+ more plays than the bottom SSs, but I was just wondering how you felt if it were true that Iggy could make 100 more plays on D than Drew, would the .320 to .260 OBP and 40 more XBHs by Drew make up for that? (Enough for you to want to have Drew and not Iggy as your FT SS) I've answered every point and question you have made, please respond to this one question.

     




    First, I did not say that he had to have an OPS of .700; I said he has to be close to that. You cannot assign a specific number as the OPS that a player must achieve before being promoted. Around .700 is what I would like to see before I want to see him in the ML. As for your hypothetical question (and it is simply conjecture), if I understand you correctly, about IF Iggy makes at least 100 more plays than Drew could make is the reduction of OBP and XBHs tolerable, in a word, no. Why? Because if you are going to use a single metric to measure a player's offensive contribution I believe that is either OPS or OPS+, not OBP. So if you rephrase your question in those terms its more relevant. I would take Iggy if Drew has an OPS of .760 and Iggy has an OPS of .700, given that Iggy saves more runs, but not if Iggy has an OPS of just .624. We simply cannot afford a black hole like that in the lineup. I think more than about .070 OPS difference between our current SS (Drew) and our minor league SS earns Iggy a ticket back to Pawtucket. The FO got this one right: they secured a SS that is decent defensively but who can also contribute offensively a bit rather than someone whose talents are too far weighted in one direction.

     



    Thanks for the answer. Yes- total conjecture.

    BTW, if you added 100 singles to Iggy's .600 OPS, he'd have a higher OPS than Drew at even .799.

    Assuming 500 PAs, adding 100 singles to Iggy's numbers would raise his OBP, and hence his OPS by 200 points alone. His SLG% would also raise as a result of 100 singles rather than 100 outs.

    More likely, the differential might be 80 plays made, and the OPS differential might be .150 (.770 to .620), still, adding 80 singles to Iggy's offense would allow him to pass Drew's OPS by a long shot-- not even close.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from baddad. Show baddad's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    i would think that the quetion depends on the cast and makeup of the platers srrounding the shortstop    if the rest of the team has good hitters ...you can get away with a weak hitting shortstop

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from baddad. Show baddad's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    obviously i meant players not platers

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to baddad's comment:

    i would think that the quetion depends on the cast and makeup of the platers srrounding the shortstop    if the rest of the team has good hitters ...you can get away with a weak hitting shortstop




    Of course! If we had a devastating offense we could afford a black hole. I don't think we will have that kind of offense this year.I also don't think it really matters who plays SS if our pitching does not significantly improve.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Well they do walk up to the plate to be batters, and in order to be batters they have to be players, so I understood platers as opposed to glovers.

     

Share