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 brendan98 on Oct 1, 2012 14:32:48 GMT -5
Time to give him a full major league shot imo. He's a weak hitter so when he slumps he'll be nonexistent, but that's to be expected. He was struggling in Pawtucket until he turned it on one day. Worst case he plays himself back to AAA and Ciriaco or Aviles take over SS. I also think it is time to give him an extended MLB shot, and see what he can turn into offensively. I liked this quote because, it backs up my point, when Iglesias slumps, what is he? The answer is, that he is pretty much the same player. Offense goes into slumps, defense doesn't. Iglesias would be the most valuable automatic out in the game, his value is not tied to his offense, if there has ever been anyone who you can make a case of "everything you get from him offensively, is gravy", it is Iglesias.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 1, 2012 14:35:20 GMT -5
There is no way that is even remotely true. You cannot OPS 430 and put up a 2.5 WAR. No. His UZR/150 of 58.4 is about 5.5 times greater than the typical 10-12 UZR/150 you see from the best SS every year. Though occasionally you see someone hit 24-25 over a full year. This is like if some guy came up and put up a 4.000 OPS over a full season. That's almost definitely true. Though it's worth pointing out that his UZR, in only 166 innings, is already 6.3. He's already saved more runs at shortstop than all but a few players this season. Suppose that he's a truly historically great SS - that he can put up a season-long UZR around 25.0. Vizquel had a 23.1 UZR in '07, an OPS of .621, and an fWAR of 2.4. At that type of defensive performance, what OPS would he need to be replacement level? .475-.500? His defense is so good that it's not likely he'll be below replacement level. He's had so many at bats at Triple-A that this isn't a situation where he needs the experience. Especially with the Red Sox coming off a 90-loss season, isn't it worth it to find out what kind of hitter he is at the major league level, and see if they can make him part of their long term plans?
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Oct 1, 2012 15:05:58 GMT -5
EDIT: Also, Normally I'd find Ozzie Smith comparisons far-fetched, but I was at the game Wednesday where he made the play on the Longoria grounder, and oh my lord. Watching Iglesias play defense actually makes me like baseball more. I honestly did not make the Ozzie comparison lightly. I look at Ozzie as the greatest ever, like I said earlier, I really saw more highlights of Ozzie, than actual game after game looks, but what I remember about Ozzie now, is that he was the best of the best in his ability to make any play defensively (as good as it gets on the routine play, as good as it gets up the middle, as good as it gets backhanding in the hole, etc ...). I see that in Iglesias, he has the complete skill set, routine plays, diving plays, in the hole, on the move, up the middle, off balance throws, you name it, he appears to be the best in the game right now.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Oct 1, 2012 17:13:52 GMT -5
As James pointed out, even at his current pace (.123/.219/.211) Iglesias would project to a 2.5-3.0 WAR player over the course of a full season - his defense has just been that good - but he also only has a .150 BABIP, and given his current batted ball data his BABIP should be closer to .250 (.254 according to xBABIP). Given a .254 BABIP (and assuming all of the added hits were singles - which is probably likely) he would have a .208/.297/.298 line, which would put him on pace for 4.0-4.5 WAR over a full season. You could make the case that his UZR wont hold up at this pace over the course of a season, but even if you cut it in half he's still an above average player (2.0-2.5 WAR). I accidentally swapped the numbers around on his wRAA (I put -4.12 instead of -2.14), so he actually would project to 5.5-6.0 WAR over a full season, and if you cut his UZR in half he would actually project to 3.0-3.5 WAR. Even if he's just your "standard" best defensive SS (~15 UZR) he would project to 2.0-2.5 WAR assuming the projected line I came up with using his xBABIP. An OPS of .496 (.158/.250/.246 - I just took a couple singles away from the projected line I came up with earlier; not scientific, but just for a quick reference) and a UZR of 25 would come out to 1.3 WAR over 150 games.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 2, 2012 9:44:06 GMT -5
MaineSox - thanks for doing the math for me. Is that a normalized (park adjusted) .496 OPS as well? Even if it isn't, it illustrates my point pretty well.
I also feel like I should point out that it isn't 2000 anymore. We don't have A-Rod/Nomar/Jeter/Tejada all putting up unprecedented SS production. MLB shortstops are hitting .257/.310/.378. So Iglesias would be giving up a lot less on offense than he would've been 12 years ago.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,678
|
Post by nomar on Oct 2, 2012 10:57:19 GMT -5
If only he walked a lot.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Oct 2, 2012 11:31:32 GMT -5
MaineSox - thanks for doing the math for me. Is that a normalized (park adjusted) .496 OPS as well? Even if it isn't, it illustrates my point pretty well. It's league adjusted, but not park (I calculated the wOBA and converted it to wRAA to find his WAR). I also had to use last season's wOBA coefficient, so it isn't perfect, but it should be pretty close. And yeah, it does make the point pretty well; he can be an excruciatingly bad hitter and still be at least a league averageish overall player thanks to his defense.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Oct 2, 2012 11:33:45 GMT -5
Though it's worth pointing out that his UZR, in only 166 innings, is already 6.3. He's already saved more runs at shortstop than all but a few players this season. Suppose that he's a truly historically great SS - that he can put up a season-long UZR around 25.0. Vizquel had a 23.1 UZR in '07, an OPS of .621, and an fWAR of 2.4. At that type of defensive performance, what OPS would he need to be replacement level? .475-.500? His defense is so good that it's not likely he'll be below replacement level. He's had so many at bats at Triple-A that this isn't a situation where he needs the experience. Especially with the Red Sox coming off a 90-loss season, isn't it worth it to find out what kind of hitter he is at the major league level, and see if they can make him part of their long term plans? James, Compare your eyes and your numbers. How many "special" plays has Iglesias made? I recall two. (Along with two bad plays on doubleplays that were not counted as errors). In comparison, even if you buy UZR (which I do not), even its proponents will say it needs at least a season or two of numbers to become normalized and meaningful. (Not surprising given the tenuous assumptions about all ground balls being equal does require a large enough number of hits to make that assumption valid.)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 2, 2012 12:27:30 GMT -5
It's not just the amazing play that Iglesias makes. It's the plays that he makes look easy. It's hard to do on TV, but if you get the chance, watch the way he moves in the field: how his body seems to be in full motion within a split second of the batter making contact; the way he never gets his feet tangled, they move so effortlessly; and, most impressive to me, the way he makes throws from any angle - it's uncanny the body control the man has. He's the best defensive shortstop I've seen since Vizquel in his prime. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll stay at that level- injuries and age can sap defensive ability faster than hitting skill, for instance - but he's truly amazing at the position right now.
If he had a poor defensive reputation and came out with a bizarrely high UZR, that's one thing. In Iglesias's case, it'd be like if the top power hitter in the minors got a September call-up and hit 12 home runs in 80 at bats. While it wouldn't be fair to expect that hitter to hit 90 home runs over a full season, it would be sensible to assume that his power is real. Iglesias came in with a sterling defensive reputation; has played defense that appears fantastic to the naked eye; and has defensive statistics that reinforce what we are seeing.
The other side of this conversation is the downside to NOT playing Iglesias in 2013. Aviles and Ciriaco are not long term answers. There is no one else within the organization ready to step in at the position. So the alternatives to Iglesias are either playing someone who is unlikely to provide upside, or pay for a replacement either through free agency or trade.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Oct 2, 2012 14:31:08 GMT -5
It's not just the amazing play that Iglesias makes. It's the plays that he makes look easy. It's hard to do on TV, but if you get the chance, watch the way he moves in the field: how his body seems to be in full motion within a split second of the batter making contact; the way he never gets his feet tangled, they move so effortlessly; and, most impressive to me, the way he makes throws from any angle - it's uncanny the body control the man has. He's the best defensive shortstop I've seen since Vizquel in his prime. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll stay at that level- injuries and age can sap defensive ability faster than hitting skill, for instance - but he's truly amazing at the position right now. If he had a poor defensive reputation and came out with a bizarrely high UZR, that's one thing. In Iglesias's case, it'd be like if the top power hitter in the minors got a September call-up and hit 12 home runs in 80 at bats. While it wouldn't be fair to expect that hitter to hit 90 home runs over a full season, it would be sensible to assume that his power is real. Iglesias came in with a sterling defensive reputation; has played defense that appears fantastic to the naked eye; and has defensive statistics that reinforce what we are seeing. The other side of this conversation is the downside to NOT playing Iglesias in 2013. Aviles and Ciriaco are not long term answers. There is no one else within the organization ready to step in at the position. So the alternatives to Iglesias are either playing someone who is unlikely to provide upside, or pay for a replacement either through free agency or trade. Given that Lackey may well be back full time in the rotation next year, it might be worthwhile for Iglesias to be at SS if for no other reason than as a way to keep him cheerful with defensive support. We all know how Lackey's disposition can be when he perceives that he isn't being well supported in the field.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Oct 2, 2012 20:00:20 GMT -5
The other side of this conversation is the downside to NOT playing Iglesias in 2013. Aviles and Ciriaco are not long term answers. There is no one else within the organization ready to step in at the position. So the alternatives to Iglesias are either playing someone who is unlikely to provide upside, or pay for a replacement either through free agency or trade. This I absolutely agree with, and it's the main reason why I'm in favor of Iglesias next year, although I would certainly investigate other SS if they are available. Too much of the rest of what I'm reading here just sounds like overly hopeful optimism though. This year is simply too small a sample size to make any kind of statistical analysis on Iglesias based on his time in the majors. The way his WAR/defenensive numbers are being thrown around is like taking the "12 homers in 80 AB" guy, and then trying to make a "fair" projection for him by saying " look, even if you cut his HR in HALF, he's still gonna hit 45 next year!"
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Oct 2, 2012 20:31:23 GMT -5
The other side of this conversation is the downside to NOT playing Iglesias in 2013. Aviles and Ciriaco are not long term answers. There is no one else within the organization ready to step in at the position. So the alternatives to Iglesias are either playing someone who is unlikely to provide upside, or pay for a replacement either through free agency or trade. This I absolutely agree with, and it's the main reason why I'm in favor of Iglesias next year, although I would certainly investigate other SS if they are available. Too much of the rest of what I'm reading here just sounds like overly hopeful optimism though. This year is simply too small a sample size to make any kind of statistical analysis on Iglesias based on his time in the majors. The way his WAR/defenensive numbers are being thrown around is like taking the "12 homers in 80 AB" guy, and then trying to make a "fair" projection for him by saying " look, even if you cut his HR in HALF, he's still gonna hit 45 next year!" Fair enough -- but if I'm the Sox and plan to have a more mobile 3B (Middlebrooks) next year, Iglesias at SS, and Pedroia at 2B, and were looking to acquire a SP in the offseason, I'd sure look long and hard at those with extreme GB tendencies.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 2, 2012 20:36:14 GMT -5
Fair enough -- but if I'm the Sox and plan to have a more mobile 3B (Middlebrooks) next year, Iglesias at SS, and Pedroia at 2B, and were looking to acquire a SP in the offseason, I'd sure look long and hard at those with extreme GB tendencies. ~cough~ Jake Peavy on a "pillow contract" ~cough cough~
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 2, 2012 22:17:06 GMT -5
~cough~ Jake Peavy on a "pillow contract" ~cough cough~ It's extremely doubtful Peavy would be looking for a "pillow contract". He's pitched very well this year, he's 31, it's a weak market for SP, and he's had a history of injuries. There's very limited upside in taking a one year deal in hopes of pitching better next year and staying healthy again, this is pretty much the ideal walk year for him. If Dan Haren hits the market, he's the type of guy who would fit the pillow contract mold.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Oct 8, 2012 1:47:44 GMT -5
Mike, forgot to comment about this previously, but great article on ESPN regarding the end of the season Sox top 10 prospects. One question I had, in regards to Iglesias was about one sentence you wrote.
You state that his ceiling is of a number 2 hitter. That seems like a huge ceiling to reach, so what kind of stat line do you look at as at that of a No. 2 hitter? And if that is so, with his exceptional defense, wouldn't that make him on of the most valuable players in baseball? Seems to me that Iglesias is being severely underrated if so.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Andrews on Oct 8, 2012 8:41:49 GMT -5
This is not directed at you Charlie, but I think in general maybe we need a refresher in terms of the definition of ceiling vs. projection. Ceiling is what a player could become in a perfect world if that player reaches his maximum development. Most prospects do not reach their ceilings by 100%. Projections are what we currently profile the player to become at their peak. We currently project Iglesias a passable No. 9 hitter -- and he's not even there yet. If he does hit his ceiling on offense and become a No. 2 hitter, we are saying he might be an occasional All-Star, primarily due to his defense.
Here's the numbers for an AVERAGE #2 hitter in the major leagues in 2012: .262/.321/.393. The Red Sox in 2012 at the #2 hole: .265/.312/.397.
If he hits his ceiling, I could see Iglesias hitting something like .280/.315/.370 in his peak years. Possibly developing some situational hitting ability, maybe hitting a bunch of doubles, probably making good use of his speed. Could that be good enough to be a No. 2 hitter? Possibly. Would that make him one of the most valuable players in baseball? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Oct 8, 2012 13:16:49 GMT -5
This is not directed at you Charlie, but I think in general maybe we need a refresher in terms of the definition of ceiling vs. projection. Ceiling is what a player could become in a perfect world if that player reaches his maximum development. Most prospects do not reach their ceilings by 100%. Projections are what we currently profile the player to become at their peak. We currently project Iglesias a passable No. 9 hitter -- and he's not even there yet. If he does hit his ceiling on offense and become a No. 2 hitter, we are saying he might be an occasional All-Star, primarily due to his defense. Here's the numbers for an AVERAGE #2 hitter in the major leagues in 2012: .262/.321/.393. The Red Sox in 2012 at the #2 hole: .265/.312/.397. If he hits his ceiling, I could see Iglesias hitting something like .280/.315/.370 in his peak years. Possibly developing some situational hitting ability, maybe hitting a bunch of doubles, probably making good use of his speed. Could that be good enough to be a No. 2 hitter? Possibly. Would that make him one of the most valuable players in baseball? Probably not. Do you have the slash line for the average #9 hitter, AL only of course
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 8, 2012 15:05:50 GMT -5
Including pitchers batting in interleague play, #9 hitters in the AL hit . .233/.292/.349 this year. The Red Sox hit .230/.276/.336 from that spot. Their most frequent #9 hitters were Aviles (96 PA), Ciriaco (96), Punto (95), Shoppach (71), and Iglesias (68).
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 8, 2012 17:35:34 GMT -5
Including pitchers batting in interleague play, #9 hitters in the AL hit . .233/.292/.349 this year. The Red Sox hit .230/.276/.336 from that spot. Their most frequent #9 hitters were Aviles (96 PA), Ciriaco (96), Punto (95), Shoppach (71), and Iglesias (68). Wow James! That is definitely doable, I believe, for Iglesias if he is allowed to play everyday. I think the key going forward with Jose is the Red Sox being patient (and the fans too). We have probably become a little skewed in our thinking as we have often had a line-up top to bottom that made the apposing pitcher work. He may have a lot of difficulty over the 1st half of the season, but he has shown the ability to make adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 8, 2012 18:05:38 GMT -5
Wow James! That is definitely doable, I believe, for Iglesias if he is allowed to play everyday. I think the key going forward with Jose is the Red Sox being patient (and the fans too). We have probably become a little skewed in our thinking as we have often had a line-up top to bottom that made the apposing pitcher work. He may have a lot of difficulty over the 1st half of the season, but he has shown the ability to make adjustments. Indeed. in 2003, Varitek was the regular #9 hitter, and hit .315/.369/.591 from that spot. In 2007, Pedroia hit 9th for most of the first half, until he was moved up to the #2 hole (and Lugo hit better than I'd remembered at the bottom of the order in the second half). It's easy to get spoiled by stuff like that. A better Iglesias comparison? In '04, Pokey Reese got the most at bats in the #9 spot, hitting .225/.267/.315. Iglesias is better defensively than Pokey was.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 8, 2012 20:47:59 GMT -5
This all gets deluded defensively if they get a butcher at 1st like Swisher or Napoli. I wouldn't mind seeing Youk back on a 1-year deal if possible. I believe he'll stay healthier there than he was last year at first and I still think he has a rebound year if he plays 2013 at 1st.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 9, 2012 0:12:36 GMT -5
Indeed. in 2003, Varitek was the regular #9 hitter, and hit .315/.369/.591 from that spot. In 2007, Pedroia hit 9th for most of the first half, until he was moved up to the #2 hole (and Lugo hit better than I'd remembered at the bottom of the order in the second half). It's easy to get spoiled by stuff like that. A better Iglesias comparison? In '04, Pokey Reese got the most at bats in the #9 spot, hitting .225/.267/.315. Iglesias is better defensively than Pokey was. In 2004 Pokey had a 19.1 UZR/150. Think Iglesias can top that as a rookie? I hope so, but I haven't seen him aside from highlights - Is he really 19 UZR good? Since 2002 Omar has done this once (2007) when he put up a 23.1 UZR. He quite possibly did it multiple times though before. If he really is this good defensively, then they have to let him play, and at the very least get a few solid Rey Ordonezesque years out of him.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Oct 9, 2012 1:27:27 GMT -5
If he's as good defensively as every scout has said, even if he's a below average 9 hitter that could be acceptable. If he can get anywhere near .250, you have a 10+ year starter up the middle at a likely low relative cost. But if you are going to stick with him, you have to supplement your lineup significantly, and make sure as hell he can be a decent situational hitter with the ability to bunt. An IF with Middlebrooks, Pedroia, and Iglesias is just about as good as you'll get.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 9, 2012 9:25:50 GMT -5
In 2004 Pokey had a 19.1 UZR/150. Think Iglesias can top that as a rookie? I hope so, but I haven't seen him aside from highlights - Is he really 19 UZR good? Since 2002 Omar has done this once (2007) when he put up a 23.1 UZR. He quite possibly did it multiple times though before. If he really is this good defensively, then they have to let him play, and at the very least get a few solid Rey Ordonezesque years out of him. I think Iglesias can be 20-25 UZR good, yes. His UZR/150 in 2012 was 49.8, which - as was mentioned on early pages - is unsustainable, but also a good indicator that he's the real deal. We see the Ordonez comparisons a lot, and I have a few points to make on that: 1. Ordonez had especially poor timing. He was a great fielding shortstop at a time when hitting was at an all time high. It meant he was giving up a lot more on offense than Iglesias would be now, and more than Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel were when they were learning to hit. That, combined with the NY media and the inevitable crosstown Jeter comparisons, seemed to put a lot of pressure on him. 2. Ordonez turned out to be three years older than people thought he was. He wouldn't have been such a highly touted prospect if people knew his actual age. You could squint and find positives for a 20/21 year old who had his Double-A and Triple-A lines. Less so when it comes to a 23/24 year old. He hit worse in Norfolk at 24 than Iglesias did in his first year at Pawtucket at 21. 3. There was talk about Ordonez having something of a work ethic problem - that's not something I've personally seen with Iglesias.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 9, 2012 10:03:14 GMT -5
Here is Ozzie Smith's 1st 4 full years in the majors:
YEAR£ TEAM LG LEVEL G AB R H TB 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS GO/AO
1978 SD NL MLB 159 590 69 152 184 17 6 1 46 47 0 43 40 12 .258 .311 .312 .623
1979 SD NL MLB 156 587 77 124 154 18 6 0 27 37 5 37 28 7 .211 260 .262 .522
1980 SD NL MLB 158 609 67 140 168 18 5 0 35 71 1 49 57 15 .230 .313 .276 .589
1981 SD NL MLB 110 450 53 100 115 11 2 0 21 41 1 37 22 12 .222 .294 .256 .549
|
|
|