SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by soxfanatic on Sept 23, 2015 15:38:22 GMT -5
For all the talk about Bogaerts' power potential, note that his walk rate is lower than Sandoval's.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 23, 2015 15:39:42 GMT -5
If you do the same list, but with wRC+, Xander is 46th of 122 qualified player seasons. Also, why wasn't the NL included in this list? Certainly there isn't enough difference in the leagues that you can't compare age-22 seasons across them. But I guess it would be a bummer to see Pablo Sandoval ahead of Bogaerts...
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 23, 2015 15:55:41 GMT -5
For all the talk about Bogaerts' power potential, note that his walk rate is lower than Sandoval's. Yeah but just like the power, we've seen him show much better plate discipline in the past, both statistically and anecdotally (2013 playoffs, anyone?)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 23, 2015 16:27:42 GMT -5
For all the talk about Bogaerts' power potential, note that his walk rate is lower than Sandoval's. Yeah but just like the power, we've seen him show much better plate discipline in the past, both statistically and anecdotally (2013 playoffs, anyone?) Right, but it's unclear the extent to which he can walk or hit for power with the approach that has led to his high batting average this year. His strikeouts are down this year because he's: - (a) taking a more inside-out swing that lends itself to contact (contact rate up from 78.1% last year to 81.5% this year, including an improvement in contact on pitches outside the zone from 62.2% to 70.2%) but makes it harder to drive the ball (percentage of hard-hit pitches (BIS Hard%) from 34.2% to 27%); and
- (b) swinging earlier in the count (swing rate up from 45.3% to 49.9%, pitches per plate appearance down from 4.12 to 3.87), including at more pitches outside the zone (his swing rate on balls outside the strike zone increased from 30.3% last year to 36.5% this year).
As I've been arguing, I think it will be difficult for him to add back in the power and the walks without hurting the batting average. Which is fine-- his batting average can slip a little and he can still be a super productive .280/.340/.440-ish hitter. But I see a lot of folks saying "just wait until he adds the power" without considering the likelihood that if he does so, there will be tradeoffs with his batting average, and those tradeoffs may mean that, on the whole, that version of Bogaerts is not meaningfully better than the 2015 version of Bogaerts (which, to be clear, is already enormously valuable).
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Sept 23, 2015 16:32:07 GMT -5
I hope people get, the debate is how good Xander will be . Not if he'll be good.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 23, 2015 16:42:47 GMT -5
I hope people get, the debate is how good Xander will be . Not if he'll be good. Yeah, I don't want to make it seem like I'm disparaging the guy. I think he's overwhelmingly likely to be an above-average regular and probably a multi-year All-Star. But I tend to think the most likely scenario is something more like Jhonny Peralta or Carlos Guillen than Troy Tulowitzki or Alex Rodriguez.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 23, 2015 16:45:50 GMT -5
I guess, but that's not the question I think of when I see this fact. To me, this fact answers the question, "Just how good is a .322 BA as a 22 year-old?" Which this little comparison answers nicely with a resounding "really good!" If someone wants to put more meaning into it, that's not the fact's problem. #standupforfunfacts But don't you also have to take into account how meaningful batting average is as an offensive measure? Bogaerts actual production this year isn't in the same stratosphere as the five other guys on that list in their age 22 seasons, which was sort of my main point. In fact it probably wouldn't even come close to the top 50 age 22 seasons ever. That's just hitting, mind you. A 5 WAR season at age 22 is indeed a great accomplishment and bodes very well for his future. Yeah ... and, in a way, I wanna say forget I ever said anything because I agree with you more than not. All I'm really saying is that this is a real fact that means what it means (but that's all it means). It does have something interesting to say about the success of Xander's year this year, but it's not predictive or even all that meaningful on its own terms because of the limitations of batting average. But, to flesh out my point further, we have lots of evidence that Bogaerts went into this year with a very specific strategy: learn to hit the other way, cut down on strikeouts, and collect hits. He sacrificed some things in his approach to do that, and (this is my point about this) his batting average shows the success he had with that approach this year. Now, batting average hasn't been all that predictive a stat in the past, but that's not my point. Plus, there's a lot of uncertainty about 22 year-old players anyway. Back in Moneyball, Billy Beane was convinced that Eric Chavez was the next great player because of his production at a young age. His 22 year-old season was great for his age, but he never really improved on that. I'm really, really high on Bogaerts after this year, and his batting average is part of why I am. It's not that it's a particularly meaningful stat on its own, but it's that he came in with a strategy and a plan, and he succeeded on it. I think he did it in a way that didn't compromise his ability to add back in other parts of his game, but any view on that either way is almost purely speculative.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 23, 2015 20:10:39 GMT -5
I mean, just to be clear, we're all in agreement that this is just a fun fact and a nice thing for Xander to be able to say and he doesn't actually belong in the same sentence as these guys, right? That's not to say that he couldn't be a Hall of Famer, or that he isn't going to become a much better hitter than he is right now, but let's not get carried away here... Well, like a lot of stuff Speier puts out, it's easy to misconstrue and take it too far, but it's meaningful as far as it goes. The point being that it's really rare for someone to put up this kind of BA at this age, and of the thousands of 22 year-old players in the past, the only ones to do it were great players. That's good to know to put Xander's season in context, but it's not some kind of proof of what his career will be. It's somewhere between "fun fact" and "proof positive he'll be in the Hall of Fame." It's simply a factoid to illustrate his potential. Why does anyone have any issue at all with that.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Sept 23, 2015 21:02:07 GMT -5
Chavez put up 112 wRC+ and 2 WAR at 22 and was a 5 WAR player for the 5 following years. If not for injuries, he wouldve been a great player for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 24, 2015 6:39:27 GMT -5
I hope people get, the debate is how good Xander will be . Not if he'll be good. Yeah, I don't want to make it seem like I'm disparaging the guy. I think he's overwhelmingly likely to be an above-average regular and probably a multi-year All-Star. But I tend to think the most likely scenario is something more like Jhonny Peralta or Carlos Guillen than Troy Tulowitzki or Alex Rodriguez. Yes, I think it more likely that he is merely very good rather than a consistent mvp candidate. That was true, and will be true, until he is an mvp candidate, of course.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 24, 2015 9:57:50 GMT -5
I am just ecstatic that we have a shortstop with upside. It's a hard position to fill, and we haven't had much since Nomar. It would be great to have an above average guy to pen in there for the next 4 years at a minimum and 10 years if an extension can be had. I am hoping for the best.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 24, 2015 19:24:12 GMT -5
I hope people get, the debate is how good Xander will be . Not if he'll be good. Yeah, I don't want to make it seem like I'm disparaging the guy. I think he's overwhelmingly likely to be an above-average regular and probably a multi-year All-Star. But I tend to think the most likely scenario is something more like Jhonny Peralta or Carlos Guillen than Troy Tulowitzki or Alex Rodriguez. On the other hand, you're looking at him statically: if he traded power/walks for BA right now, he might've put up "X" batting line. He's 22...it seems odd to conclude that he won't further develop as a hitter, and thus add power/walks to his BA. It's quite rare that players peak in offensive production at 22. At the very least, he's got 4-6 years until his HR output is likely to peak. Hitters evolve...Bogaerts has shown that he's adaptable and a quick study. It's not a stretch at all to think that he may learn to be more selective with pitches away, and start identifying those he can turn on. He's on target for 35 doubles or so...in Fenway, when he learns to pull the ball at opportune times, he's likely to benefit from the Wall in both 2b and BA, and potentially some HR. He's also likely to get a bit stronger and get more carry on liners to RF, which may not help in Fenway, but will certainly be dangerous in a place like Yankee Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 24, 2015 19:53:53 GMT -5
*Freud*. And some of those studies are done involve systems analysis, including FAA air traffic control and OR systems analysis. In that case, you're talking about human lives being at stake. Furthermore, you're talking about a game, whether people are screaming or not. Try transfusing 70 units of blood (thats 25 liters) while a patient is lying on an OR table bleeding so fast blood is spilling over the edges like a water fountain. Or, worrying about tracking 10 planes with varying flight paths all landing within minutes of eachother and each carrying 200 passengers. You have absolutely no idea of who I am or what my work history is, yet here you are proclaiming to. Also, FWIW, transference refers to attributing emotions/motivations to others as derived from important, early-life personalities (eg parents, siblings, etc.). The more appropriate term is "empathy"...an observer feeling the emotion that they perceive in another. I won't get into it, either, but human expressions have certain archetypes that people generally understand cross-culturally. Anger, sadness, frustration, pain, elation...yes, the accuracy of the viewer in identifying them depends on subtlety of the response in the viewed and the emotional IQ of the viewer (an intrinsic ability to read emotion, which is well-studied), among other things. But the vast majority of people don't break into a huge smile when they're pissed off, nor do they glower when overjoyed. It's true that one can't read the mind--the actual thoughts--of a player when seeing their expressions and body language, but unless they're very socially inept and terrible at reading people, most individuals *can* read a person's emotional state. Regardless, I'm not entirely sure that I agree fully with Eric's assertion re: bad plays. I also *do* agree with you to some extent that at the MLB level, players have learned to moderate their "catastrophe" response, through practice. It's the same theory behind using simulation centers for medical students and resident physicians...the best predictor for success in a high-stress emergency (like a code situation, bioterror attack, etc.) is experience. BUT, to say that people are unaffected or don't show emotion when things go wrong is, IMO, naive. People may learn to hide it (which is often advantageous), but if anything, the lack of demonstrative emotion *underreports,* because people can hide expression of emotion more readily than suppress the emotion itself. So, yes, while the gauntlet leading to MLB probably weeds out the less emotionally adaptive players, they're not immune to getting upset or showing it. Telson I never claimed I knew what you do nor does it matter for this discussion. Please learn to critically read. Face expressions whether or not you can read them is irrelevant to performance on the field. I've made the point before and I'll make it again. I, you, most people don't even react to the same situation the same way every time so this is all BS to begin with. Also read deeper than the first definition of transference. You nor I have likely met the equivalent of a MLB player in whatever field we've chosen, that is how elite they are at their profession. I'll let you decide for yourself the ramifications that implies. Have you ever cursed playing sports and buckled down and performed better? Have you ever been super focused and failed? Again whether they show it or not is moot. It does not tell you anything on how they will perform after. "Please learn to read critically." Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I lack the capability to understand your point. I simply think it's illogical. You're making assumptions about my life experience, and the people/situations I've worked with/in, and they are only that: assumptions. I'll simply say that they're incorrect and leave it at that. Beyond that, it sounds like you're saying that emotion displayed on the field doesn't predict performance. I can't speak to that because I don't have a study analyzing it handy, and it's almost assuredly highly individual-dependent. But it's also not germane to what I'm saying, which is that the result of poor play is never "well, that's awesome." A misplay is essentially **never** viewed in a positive light. Depending on how good the player is at dealing with it, he may or may not be affected, and he may or may not rebound with a positive response. I find it hard to believe that, as you posit, the net outcome is neutral or positive. I believe that, more often than not, even if the net effect over many samples is small, that it is still net negative. There are many, many MLB players. They're undoubtedly "elite" in their field. They're not all infallible, though. They're inured against disappointment, but not impervious to it. So, we fundamentally disagree.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 24, 2015 22:27:02 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, how do people envision Bogaerts at his peak, say for three years? I wonder because, given the disparity in offensive environment, his age-22 season actually compares quite favorably to Derek Jeter's. Similar BA, Jeter with an advantage in OBP and a small one in HR (10 vs 7), similar SLG as Bogaerts has an advantage in 2b. Bogaerts has more than a 10-pt advantage in WRC. Bogaerts obviously is better defensively, Jeter was the better baserunner. I don't think it's a stretch to see a Bogaerts peak of .320/.380/.500, with 20-30 HR and 40+ doubles each year. It's another story if he can sustain it, but I do think his peak could be borderline MVP-caliber, particularly if his glove holds up or (fingers crossed) even improves some.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 24, 2015 23:24:46 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, how do people envision Bogaerts at his peak, say for three years? I wonder because, given the disparity in offensive environment, his age-22 season actually compares quite favorably to Derek Jeter's. Similar BA, Jeter with an advantage in OBP and a small one in HR (10 vs 7), similar SLG as Bogaerts has an advantage in 2b. Bogaerts has more than a 10-pt advantage in WRC. Bogaerts obviously is better defensively, Jeter was the better baserunner. I don't think it's a stretch to see a Bogaerts peak of .320/.380/.500, with 20-30 HR and 40+ doubles each year. It's another story if he can sustain it, but I do think his peak could be borderline MVP-caliber, particularly if his glove holds up or (fingers crossed) even improves some. I suspect that his future includes a big jump in power hitting. I think he was honing his hit tool this year and sacrificed power to do so, and in a way sacrificed taking his free passes. I think the next step is that Bogaerts applies his newly improved hit tool (ability to hit for average), and learns what pitches he can drive and also the patience required to force pitchers into those counts where they have to come in with a pitch. And when that happens I suspect we're looking at a .300 hitting, 35 home run, 75 walks kind of guy playing SS, and with the Sox having a legit shot at winning a division or pennant, I would think we're talking an MVP candidate and a guy that after the 2019 season (I nominate his 2018, 2019, and 2020 seasons as his absolute peak seasons), will be in line for a huge payday, one that will probably be too rich for the Red Sox unfortunately, and as a 27 year old free agent, I suspect he'll move on to either LA or NY.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Sept 25, 2015 7:02:41 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, how do people envision Bogaerts at his peak, say for three years? I wonder because, given the disparity in offensive environment, his age-22 season actually compares quite favorably to Derek Jeter's. Similar BA, Jeter with an advantage in OBP and a small one in HR (10 vs 7), similar SLG as Bogaerts has an advantage in 2b. Bogaerts has more than a 10-pt advantage in WRC. Bogaerts obviously is better defensively, Jeter was the better baserunner. I don't think it's a stretch to see a Bogaerts peak of .320/.380/.500, with 20-30 HR and 40+ doubles each year. It's another story if he can sustain it, but I do think his peak could be borderline MVP-caliber, particularly if his glove holds up or (fingers crossed) even improves some. I suspect that his future includes a big jump in power hitting. I think he was honing his hit tool this year and sacrificed power to do so, and in a way sacrificed taking his free passes. I think the next step is that Bogaerts applies his newly improved hit tool (ability to hit for average), and learns what pitches he can drive and also the patience required to force pitchers into those counts where they have to come in with a pitch. And when that happens I suspect we're looking at a .300 hitting, 35 home run, 75 walks kind of guy playing SS, and with the Sox having a legit shot at winning a division or pennant, I would think we're talking an MVP candidate and a guy that after the 2019 season (I nominate his 2018, 2019, and 2020 seasons as his absolute peak seasons), will be in line for a huge payday, one that will probably be too rich for the Red Sox unfortunately, and as a 27 year old free agent, I suspect he'll move on to either LA or NY. With those numbers he'll gain MVP-considerations no matter what...
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 25, 2015 8:30:26 GMT -5
I am just ecstatic that we have a shortstop with upside. It's a hard position to fill, and we haven't had much since Nomar. It would be great to have an above average guy to pen in there for the next 4 years at a minimum and 10 years if an extension can be had. I am hoping for the best. Normally I'm against deals more than 5 years, but his age, pedigree, health & success make him the exception to the rule. I'd start preparing now for a deal to be introduced next season (his last non arb. eligible season). I'd like to see a little more power and patience too. I have no doubt both of these will become a part of his overall game but would like to see some actual growth before signing him to a eight plus year deal.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 25, 2015 8:45:45 GMT -5
Telson I never claimed I knew what you do nor does it matter for this discussion. Please learn to critically read. Face expressions whether or not you can read them is irrelevant to performance on the field. I've made the point before and I'll make it again. I, you, most people don't even react to the same situation the same way every time so this is all BS to begin with. Also read deeper than the first definition of transference. You nor I have likely met the equivalent of a MLB player in whatever field we've chosen, that is how elite they are at their profession. I'll let you decide for yourself the ramifications that implies. Have you ever cursed playing sports and buckled down and performed better? Have you ever been super focused and failed? Again whether they show it or not is moot. It does not tell you anything on how they will perform after. "Please learn to read critically." Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I lack the capability to understand your point. I simply think it's illogical. You're making assumptions about my life experience, and the people/situations I've worked with/in, and they are only that: assumptions. I'll simply say that they're incorrect and leave it at that. Beyond that, it sounds like you're saying that emotion displayed on the field doesn't predict performance. I can't speak to that because I don't have a study analyzing it handy, and it's almost assuredly highly individual-dependent. But it's also not germane to what I'm saying, which is that the result of poor play is never "well, that's awesome." A misplay is essentially **never** viewed in a positive light. Depending on how good the player is at dealing with it, he may or may not be affected, and he may or may not rebound with a positive response. I find it hard to believe that, as you posit, the net outcome is neutral or positive. I believe that, more often than not, even if the net effect over many samples is small, that it is still net negative. There are many, many MLB players. They're undoubtedly "elite" in their field. They're not all infallible, though. They're inured against disappointment, but not impervious to it. So, we fundamentally disagree. You are having your own conversation. Your response is a non sequitur. For the third time I have made no assumptions of what you do and who you worked with and never even cared to ponder it, so stop repeating it enough to attempt to make it true, it's not. Also, for the third time, I never claimed anything positive negative or neutral other than there is no way to determine from face expressions,etc on the field how MLB players will play immediately afterward. I've stated the same players may react differently in the same situation depending on other factors leading up to, for example, an easy error by a teammate. I no longer care to repeat the same thing and expect a different response at this point. You are essentially agreeing with me but believe your are opposing what I've said, so in essence you are arguing against yourself. Good luck with that going forward.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Sept 25, 2015 9:24:03 GMT -5
A lot of scrolling needed in this thread right now.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 25, 2015 10:10:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't want to make it seem like I'm disparaging the guy. I think he's overwhelmingly likely to be an above-average regular and probably a multi-year All-Star. But I tend to think the most likely scenario is something more like Jhonny Peralta or Carlos Guillen than Troy Tulowitzki or Alex Rodriguez. On the other hand, you're looking at him statically: if he traded power/walks for BA right now, he might've put up "X" batting line. He's 22...it seems odd to conclude that he won't further develop as a hitter, and thus add power/walks to his BA. It's quite rare that players peak in offensive production at 22. At the very least, he's got 4-6 years until his HR output is likely to peak. Hitters evolve...Bogaerts has shown that he's adaptable and a quick study. It's not a stretch at all to think that he may learn to be more selective with pitches away, and start identifying those he can turn on. He's on target for 35 doubles or so...in Fenway, when he learns to pull the ball at opportune times, he's likely to benefit from the Wall in both 2b and BA, and potentially some HR. He's also likely to get a bit stronger and get more carry on liners to RF, which may not help in Fenway, but will certainly be dangerous in a place like Yankee Stadium. The point isn't that he is static. Its that "trading power/walks for BA" sounds good in the abstract, but he's had success with an approach - stay back and swing often. It's a lot to ask for him to be simultaneously giving you all the good and none of the bad of two different approaches within a split second. IMO, because of BABIP-related regression as he tries to pull the ball more, Xander could take strides forward without his overall slash line looking much better, and it will get completely overlooked by the media/crowd fawning over him in the present. 600 PA .330 BABIP .160 ISO 16% K-rate 4% BB-rate I'd be content with that. That would come out to a .291/.322/.451 slash line more or less, but the improvement would have been deeper than surface level - evolving his approach to both drive the ball and poke singles into the opposite field when needed. If he can isolate the two with some regularity... he can grow into both and that's where all the hyperbolic comparisons become in the realm of possibility. I'd also consider batting Xander in front of Pedroia next year. Less so to "optimize" and more to keep Xander's head in the right place about hitting for power - encourage him to focus on being a GOOD hitter and not get too carried away with being a power hitter. Pedroia has more of it in the present anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 25, 2015 10:19:39 GMT -5
On the other hand, you're looking at him statically: if he traded power/walks for BA right now, he might've put up "X" batting line. He's 22...it seems odd to conclude that he won't further develop as a hitter, and thus add power/walks to his BA. It's quite rare that players peak in offensive production at 22. At the very least, he's got 4-6 years until his HR output is likely to peak. Hitters evolve...Bogaerts has shown that he's adaptable and a quick study. It's not a stretch at all to think that he may learn to be more selective with pitches away, and start identifying those he can turn on. He's on target for 35 doubles or so...in Fenway, when he learns to pull the ball at opportune times, he's likely to benefit from the Wall in both 2b and BA, and potentially some HR. He's also likely to get a bit stronger and get more carry on liners to RF, which may not help in Fenway, but will certainly be dangerous in a place like Yankee Stadium. The point isn't that he is static. Its that "trading power/walks for BA" sounds good in the abstract, but he's had success with an approach - stay back and swing often. It's a lot to ask for him to be simultaneously giving you all the good and none of the bad of two different approaches within a split second. IMO, because of BABIP-related regression as he tries to pull the ball more, Xander could take strides forward without his overall slash line looking much better, and it will get completely overlooked by the media/crowd fawning over him in the present. 600 PA .330 BABIP .160 ISO 16% K-rate 4% BB-rate I'd be content with that. That would come out to a .291/.322/.451 slash line more or less, but the improvement would have been deeper than surface level - evolving his approach to both drive the ball and poke singles into the opposite field when needed. If he can isolate the two with some regularity... he can grow into both and that's where all the hyperbolic comparisons become in the realm of possibility. I'd also consider batting Xander in front of Pedroia next year. Less so to "optimize" and more to keep Xander's head in the right place about hitting for power - encourage him to focus on being a GOOD hitter and not get too carried away with being a power hitter. Pedroia has more of it in the present anyway. A simple change to his approach would be to look for power in hitters' counts and look to go the other way and swing defensively in pitchers' counts.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 25, 2015 11:15:31 GMT -5
"Please learn to read critically." Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I lack the capability to understand your point. I simply think it's illogical. You're making assumptions about my life experience, and the people/situations I've worked with/in, and they are only that: assumptions. I'll simply say that they're incorrect and leave it at that. Beyond that, it sounds like you're saying that emotion displayed on the field doesn't predict performance. I can't speak to that because I don't have a study analyzing it handy, and it's almost assuredly highly individual-dependent. But it's also not germane to what I'm saying, which is that the result of poor play is never "well, that's awesome." A misplay is essentially **never** viewed in a positive light. Depending on how good the player is at dealing with it, he may or may not be affected, and he may or may not rebound with a positive response. I find it hard to believe that, as you posit, the net outcome is neutral or positive. I believe that, more often than not, even if the net effect over many samples is small, that it is still net negative. There are many, many MLB players. They're undoubtedly "elite" in their field. They're not all infallible, though. They're inured against disappointment, but not impervious to it. So, we fundamentally disagree. You are having your own conversation. Your response is a non sequitur. For the third time I have made no assumptions of what you do and who you worked with and never even cared to ponder it, so stop repeating it enough to attempt to make it true, it's not. Also, for the third time, I never claimed anything positive negative or neutral other than there is no way to determine from face expressions,etc on the field how MLB players will play immediately afterward. I've stated the same players may react differently in the same situation depending on other factors leading up to, for example, an easy error by a teammate. I no longer care to repeat the same thing and expect a different response at this point. You are essentially agreeing with me but believe your are opposing what I've said, so in essence you are arguing against yourself. Good luck with that going forward. That was amusing. Good luck with that going forward.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 25, 2015 13:23:13 GMT -5
On the other hand, you're looking at him statically: if he traded power/walks for BA right now, he might've put up "X" batting line. He's 22...it seems odd to conclude that he won't further develop as a hitter, and thus add power/walks to his BA. It's quite rare that players peak in offensive production at 22. At the very least, he's got 4-6 years until his HR output is likely to peak. Hitters evolve...Bogaerts has shown that he's adaptable and a quick study. It's not a stretch at all to think that he may learn to be more selective with pitches away, and start identifying those he can turn on. He's on target for 35 doubles or so...in Fenway, when he learns to pull the ball at opportune times, he's likely to benefit from the Wall in both 2b and BA, and potentially some HR. He's also likely to get a bit stronger and get more carry on liners to RF, which may not help in Fenway, but will certainly be dangerous in a place like Yankee Stadium. The point isn't that he is static. Its that "trading power/walks for BA" sounds good in the abstract, but he's had success with an approach - stay back and swing often. It's a lot to ask for him to be simultaneously giving you all the good and none of the bad of two different approaches within a split second. IMO, because of BABIP-related regression as he tries to pull the ball more, Xander could take strides forward without his overall slash line looking much better, and it will get completely overlooked by the media/crowd fawning over him in the present. 600 PA .330 BABIP .160 ISO 16% K-rate 4% BB-rate I'd be content with that. That would come out to a .291/.322/.451 slash line more or less, but the improvement would have been deeper than surface level - evolving his approach to both drive the ball and poke singles into the opposite field when needed. If he can isolate the two with some regularity... he can grow into both and that's where all the hyperbolic comparisons become in the realm of possibility. I'd also consider batting Xander in front of Pedroia next year. Less so to "optimize" and more to keep Xander's head in the right place about hitting for power - encourage him to focus on being a GOOD hitter and not get too carried away with being a power hitter. Pedroia has more of it in the present anyway. That's essentially what I'm saying, and what I meant by Jmei looking at him "statically." I don't see it as an either/or BA vs power...it may be now, but he hopefully won't remain at his current aptitude as a hitter ("static"). He may not be able to combine both approaches *now*, and at 22 that's not surprising. But as he matures as a hitter I think it's more likely he will be able to change approaches within an at-bat, pulling inside pitches for power and hitting outside pitches the other way, on top of being more selective about which pitches he swings at. I simply see a higher upside for him than Jmei seems to.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 25, 2015 15:01:21 GMT -5
The point isn't that he is static. Its that "trading power/walks for BA" sounds good in the abstract, but he's had success with an approach - stay back and swing often. It's a lot to ask for him to be simultaneously giving you all the good and none of the bad of two different approaches within a split second. IMO, because of BABIP-related regression as he tries to pull the ball more, Xander could take strides forward without his overall slash line looking much better, and it will get completely overlooked by the media/crowd fawning over him in the present. 600 PA .330 BABIP .160 ISO 16% K-rate 4% BB-rate I'd be content with that. That would come out to a .291/.322/.451 slash line more or less, but the improvement would have been deeper than surface level - evolving his approach to both drive the ball and poke singles into the opposite field when needed. If he can isolate the two with some regularity... he can grow into both and that's where all the hyperbolic comparisons become in the realm of possibility. I'd also consider batting Xander in front of Pedroia next year. Less so to "optimize" and more to keep Xander's head in the right place about hitting for power - encourage him to focus on being a GOOD hitter and not get too carried away with being a power hitter. Pedroia has more of it in the present anyway. That's essentially what I'm saying, and what I meant by Jmei looking at him "statically." I don't see it as an either/or BA vs power...it may be now, but he hopefully won't remain at his current aptitude as a hitter ("static"). He may not be able to combine both approaches *now*, and at 22 that's not surprising. But as he matures as a hitter I think it's more likely he will be able to change approaches within an at-bat, pulling inside pitches for power and hitting outside pitches the other way, on top of being more selective about which pitches he swings at. I simply see a higher upside for him than Jmei seems to. I said nothing about his ceiling. Bogaerts obviously has all the upside in the world. I just don't think it's fair to expect him to become a perennial MVP candidate. The line I projected for him above incorporates a fair bit of improvement, especially since he's not a true-talent .320 hitter.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 25, 2015 15:01:30 GMT -5
That's essentially what I'm saying, and what I meant by Jmei looking at him "statically." I don't see it as an either/or BA vs power...it may be now, but he hopefully won't remain at his current aptitude as a hitter ("static"). He may not be able to combine both approaches *now*, and at 22 that's not surprising. But as he matures as a hitter I think it's more likely he will be able to change approaches within an at-bat, pulling inside pitches for power and hitting outside pitches the other way, on top of being more selective about which pitches he swings at. I simply see a higher upside for him than Jmei seems to. This is very semantic. But him changing or managing to blend approaches would be more of a surprise than him not, I think. I'm guessing the other poster would agree. I think he's most likely Johnny Peralta, with a chance to be more than that if something fundamental changes. I would consider that optimistic. Peralta has been a top 5 SS in the game at his peak. It doesn't look optimistic relative to what a lot of people are saying on here though.
|
|
|