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 thelavarnwayguy on Jul 24, 2014 6:42:06 GMT -5
I don't feel uncomfortable with math but I stiil see every team in baseball with a lineup based on the singles hitting high obp guys generally up first, especially if they are good base runners, and each team's better OPS guys generally up in the 3, 4 and 5 slots. It may well look like only a math problem to a mathmatician but human athletes are very difficult to predict entirely from math and even more importantly, the emotional, psychological, effort level, concentration level, situational etc... factors are not insignificant.
I do see and understand your point. My son is a harvard educated economist. I am aware of math and it's advanced applications. I don't dispute the overall point that what we need does not necessarily have to be a power hitter. I'm just saying in this lineup it would be slightly better than another obp guy. I'd rather have a Papi rather than a Brock Holt in this lineup configuration. Key word SLIGHTLY.
Humans are imprecise entities, not math constructs. We can predict success with a lot of mathmatical certitude but there are still factors which we are incapable of putting into a spreadsheet accurately no matter how detailed the measuring techniques used. Earl Weaver might have had a point when he said something to the effect that the best play in baseball is the 3 run HR. Of course having Frank Robinson on his team might well have helped him come to that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 24, 2014 6:49:25 GMT -5
The only reason to sell high on Holt that I can think of is if they think Betts will fill a super-utility role rather than be settled into one regular position. Otherwise, Holt is a really valuable part of the team at a bargain price.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,968
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 24, 2014 7:37:14 GMT -5
Winess that Ortiz is the only guy any where near a 90-100 RBI pace for the year. ... So, to summarize, the Red Sox do not necessarily need a power hitter. They need a good hitter. Let's hope 2015 Brock Holt is as good as 2014 Brock Holt. You're right of course that RBI is not a personal stat and has no part in this discussion. But doesn't the fact that Ortiz and Holt have the same wOBA actually undermine your point? Singles-hitter Holt, hitting out of his mind in a way that no one thinks he will repeat exactly (optimists think 2015 Brock Holt will be solid, not spectacular), has the same wOBA as power-hittter Ortiz, having his worst healthy season in a Red Sox uniform in terms of BA, OBP and SLG (only 2009 was worse). In other words, singles hitters can get to 800-850 OPS (where Ortiz is now), but except in rare instances only power hitters can get to 900-1000, where Ortiz used to live.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 24, 2014 7:55:03 GMT -5
Isn't simply using runs a better indicator? "The Red Sox don't score enough runs" is absolutely true. "The Red Sox don't get enough RBI" is really just an awkward way of saying the former.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 24, 2014 7:58:48 GMT -5
Yes, it is true that power hitters are often/usually good hitters. But the point is that they should not get a special bonus because they achieve their success through power as opposed to on-base ability or baserunning or defense. A good player is a good player. The Red Sox need more good players. If Holt is a three win outfielder (I don't think he is, but this is a hypothetical), it doesn't make a lot of sense to displace him for a guy like Mike Morse who is an overall inferior player but happens to hit for power.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 24, 2014 8:07:01 GMT -5
Obviously they do but XBHs are a better way to drive in runners. Especially in today's baseball with strikeouts at an all-time high and defensive shifting taking base hits out of the game, stringing singles together isn't a good strategy. Short-sequence offense is king. So what you're saying is "players aren't good at getting singles, therefore you shouldn't go for players who are good at getting singles". Guys, power or not power is a stylistic difference. What matters is total offensive production. I want players with a .359 wOBA, whether they get it like Brock Holt (.321/.366/.450) or like David Ortiz (.253/.349/.500). Obviously people who have a lot of home runs also have a high total offensive production. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with having an entire team of Brock Holts (2014 edition). (Yes Brock Holt and David Ortiz have the same wOBA as of today. No, I do not think that they will have the same wOBA going forward.)Theoretically yes, functionally no. Here's a complete list of the players of the players who've had an OPS above .800 with an ISO under .150 during the last calendar year: 1. Robinson Cano Would an entire team of 2014 Brock Holts score runs? Sure. But you literally cannot collect enough of those players to make it happen in real life. Even Holt isn't really that guy. He's riding a .387 BABIP right now. Being as generous as possible you're looking at something like a .280/.330/.400 guy going forward.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 24, 2014 8:56:45 GMT -5
So what you're saying is "players aren't good at getting singles, therefore you shouldn't go for players who are good at getting singles". Guys, power or not power is a stylistic difference. What matters is total offensive production. I want players with a .359 wOBA, whether they get it like Brock Holt (.321/.366/.450) or like David Ortiz (.253/.349/.500). Obviously people who have a lot of home runs also have a high total offensive production. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with having an entire team of Brock Holts (2014 edition). (Yes Brock Holt and David Ortiz have the same wOBA as of today. No, I do not think that they will have the same wOBA going forward.)Theoretically yes, functionally no. Here's a complete list of the players of the players who've had an OPS above .800 with an ISO under .150 during the last calendar year: 1. Robinson Cano Would an entire team of 2014 Brock Holts score runs? Sure. But you literally cannot collect enough of those players to make it happen in real life. Even Holt isn't really that guy. He's riding a .387 BABIP right now. Being as generous as possible you're looking at something like a .280/.330/.400 guy going forward. OPS is flawed precisely because it overvalues slugging and undervalues OBP. Replay this experiment with wOBA and you get guys like Matt Carpenter and Joe Mauer and Michael Brantley and Jason Kipnis who don't hit for much power but are nonetheless very good hitters. Again-- yes, it is hard to be an above-average hitter without power. That doesn't mean that when we look for offensive upgrades, we should focus solely or even primarily on power production. There is zero reason to do that rather than just filtering by overall offensive production using a stat like wOBA or wRC+, which properly weighs the contributions of getting on base and hitting for power. Power is obviously valuable if you can get it, but there's no reason to fetishize and overvalue it. Just get good hitters (or, more precisely, just get good overall players). That said, Steamer projects Holt to hit .285/.338/.382 (.320 wOBA, 99 wRC+). That's about league-average production at 3B and slightly below-average in LF and RF. It's eminently upgradable upon, so I think Holt fits best as a super-utility type (maybe as the long half of the platoon at 3B with Middlebrooks).
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jul 24, 2014 9:14:02 GMT -5
Isn't simply using runs a better indicator? "The Red Sox don't score enough runs" is absolutely true. "The Red Sox don't get enough RBI" is really just an awkward way of saying the former. Someone has to drive runners in. Sox have had a lot of guys on base but they have not been getting RBI's. Therefore not getting a lot of runs.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Jul 24, 2014 9:28:12 GMT -5
There are plenty of singles hitters in the HOF. I would hold on to Holt and trade Herrera. I don't think Holt is a HOF. He's gor more value in the national league because of flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 24, 2014 10:41:13 GMT -5
Just accept it. Chicks dig the long ball.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 24, 2014 14:20:59 GMT -5
Jest about it all you want, but Eckersley would probably never have come to Boston had it not been for the flukey September of '77 of Ted Cox and most baseball people are thinking that Holt's play so far has been the same thing and non sustainable, the same they were repeating about Iglesias last year.
All I am pointing to is *if* the Marlins are willing (and gullible) enough to take him as the top piece in a deal, it would go a long, long way towards making any deal towards Stanton workable, just like it did with Eckersley, when it allowed the team to hand onto Aase for another year.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 24, 2014 14:26:11 GMT -5
All I am pointing to is *if* the Marlins are willing (and gullible) enough to take him as the top piece in a deal, it would go a long, long way towards making any deal towards Stanton workable, just like it did with Eckersley, when it allowed the team to hand onto Aase for another year. If you were a general manager, would you take Brock Holt as the top piece in a deal for an all-star? If not, why would you expect the Marlins to do so, or is your trade analysis that we should base all of our trades assuming the incompetence of others?
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 24, 2014 17:25:30 GMT -5
Of course not. It would likely be a terrible deal, even if Boston included others, such as Devers, Marrero, or whatever pieces the deal was built upon.
My only point was the Indians all along back in '77 insisted on Ted Cox as the main part for Eckersly. Wise was on the downside. Bo Diaz was a backup, kid catcher and Mike Paxton another young, soft tosser.
The Sox got lucky with poor scouting with regards to Cox was my point and it would be nice for the same to happen again if they could turn it into their favor with regards to Holt and acquiring that big bat they need.
All am trying to say, though may have not gotten it across well.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 25, 2014 11:24:48 GMT -5
Scouting is much better and more thorough today than it was in 1977. The Sox did not pay all that much attention to their minor league players, as we recall from another infamous trade.
I like Holt a lot, but he isn't going to bring a superstar in any trade, either an existing major leaguer or a really top prospect. I think that when combined with one or two other players, perhaps one of the pitching prospects, he could yield a solid regular in return, maybe a decent hitting and fielding young OF with some power.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 25, 2014 15:24:40 GMT -5
Scouting is much better and more thorough today than it was in 1977. The Sox did not pay all that much attention to their minor league players, as we recall from another infamous trade. I like Holt a lot, but he isn't going to bring a superstar in any trade, either an existing major leaguer or a really top prospect. I think that when combined with one or two other players, perhaps one of the pitching prospects, he could yield a solid regular in return, maybe a decent hitting and fielding young OF with some power. Can understand that. probably more than some here as a long time fan of the kids who came up through the system, such as the jerry remy deal that moved the ONLY real pitching prospect they had, who was MLB ready in Don Aase, for the only real positional hole the team had, 2b. Not well thought out to wipe out what the team needed, pitching that the team needed for remy at the time, nor the half year rental of Bob Watson for my dear friend Pete "Sasquatch" Ladd either, among others. Getting Boddicker in exchange for Schill and Anderson one really can't dice the team on. Anderson turned from a skinny kid into a muscle bound HR hitting machine nearly over night. A shame they didn't have some sort of PED testing then, he'd have failed miserably. Used to see Brady each spring come to WH and he never put on weight, then all of a sudden when he gets to the O's, he's HUGE. Can't have regrets based on future intake of PED use and numbers from them. Larry Anderson, Gagne.. What they are.. Blunders.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 26, 2014 21:40:55 GMT -5
The only reason to sell high on Holt that I can think of is if they think Betts will fill a super-utility role rather than be settled into one regular position. Otherwise, Holt is a really valuable part of the team at a bargain price. Right now, he has a very clear set of roles for next year -- the backup SS / 2B who can: 1) Start in RF when Victorino is hurt 2) Start at 3B when Middlebrooks is hurt 3) Start at either 3B or RF against many RHP (all the ones with significantly bigger-than-average platoon splits) 4) Start in CF versus tough LHP ... and be league-average at all four extra jobs. He could get 400 PA doing that.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jul 29, 2015 17:08:42 GMT -5
There has been a lot of talk about Holt being traded recently, and there are some out there who believe he is riding an incredible amount of luck and will fall-off sooner rather than later. I don't have a crystal ball, but wanted to post a few stats that indicate he may be the real deal:
LD% 2014: 26.4% 2015: 25.5%
Hard/medium/soft hit%: 2014: 28.1% / 56.3% / 15.6% 2015: 28.6% / 53.3% / 18.1%
Pull/Center/Opp: 2014: 44.3% / 30.4% / 25.3% 2015: 33.8% / 39.0% / 27.1%
I'm sure someone can show the league averages, but I don't know where to find those. But the higher center% is a good indicator that he's improving his approach (always good to hit up the middle, right?), the hard hit % is strong and the line drive % is extremely strong. I see these as good indicators that his unusually high BABIP may be sustainable.
|
|
|