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.
Travis Shaw named Starting 3B
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 27, 2016 15:20:28 GMT -5
Is there a baseball pedigree connection? Mookie wasn't an elite prospect either. Both guys have a strong family connection to former players. You'd wonder, wouldn't you? Although, Mookie did get $750,000 in the fifth round (second-round money). And he was elite in his third year in the minors, when he was hitting .340/.400+/.500+ in AA/AAA. He just rose so quickly as to defy high ranking on an offseason list. But there's probably something to be said for early-life exposure, especially the more intellectual aspects of the game.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 27, 2016 16:06:11 GMT -5
Who could have ever guessed that Shaw would be playing as well as he is based on his minor league numbers? What a revelation for the Sox!! Can anyone recall another Boston player being such a surprise based on minors vs majors? Not only at the plate but his defense has been pretty good also. John Valentin hit way better in the majors than he did in the minors. So has Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Apr 27, 2016 16:14:20 GMT -5
John Valentin hit way better in the majors than he did in the minors. So has Hanley. For us old timers I'll add Carlton Fisk, for the young guys Iggy. The list isn't as short as some think.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 27, 2016 22:19:37 GMT -5
So did Carlton Fisk and, to a lesser degree, Fred Lynn I'd also to a lesser degree to include Wade Boggs as somebody hitting better in the majors than in the minors. He was a low .300s hitter until he "peaked" at AAA around .335 or so. Account for the adjusting of major leagues vs AAA and you could reasonably expect Boggs to hit .280 to .300 with no power and bad defense. Instead Boggs was hitting .360 consistently and actually averaged .356 thru his first seven seasons, and he also was a doubles machine who became a good defensive 3b.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 27, 2016 22:58:10 GMT -5
So did Carlton Fisk and, to a lesser degree, Fred Lynn I'd also to a lesser degree to include Wade Boggs as somebody hitting better in the majors than in the minors. He was a low .300s hitter until he "peaked" at AAA around .335 or so. Account for the adjusting of major leagues vs AAA and you could reasonably expect Boggs to hit .280 to .300 with no power and bad defense. Instead Boggs was hitting .360 consistently and actually averaged .356 thru his first seven seasons, and he also was a doubles machine who became a good defensive 3b. Interesting parallel in that Boggs was a late call-up, too. He languished a bit because of questions about his MLB viability (power, defense, lack of respect for OBP in those days...).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 28, 2016 1:31:03 GMT -5
I view Shaw as being the poster boy for the new way of doing business. Let's not forget Henry's statement that the Sox would be relying less on analytics than they have in the past. I'm guessing that if Ben was still the GM, Sandoval would have been the starter at the beginning of the year because the projections said so.
Even with a 'new order', think about how much better they would have to have thought Shaw was than Sandoval to make that call in the first place. It couldn't have been close. This decision didn't come from office geeks, it came from on field personnel.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Apr 28, 2016 7:43:30 GMT -5
Thanks for all the replys. Many good takes on the why and also some great names of former players with a similar profile. Without mentioning names I believe juice might have helped a few of these guys. Hopefully he can sustain this production and be a lucky find for the Sox. Now if only JBJ could find what he needs to hit somewhere close to what he did in the minors.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,717
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Apr 28, 2016 7:45:49 GMT -5
The "of the all star game" portion of the thread title got cut off, I think.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 28, 2016 8:03:08 GMT -5
I view Shaw as being the poster boy for the new way of doing business. Let's not forget Henry's statement that the Sox would be relying less on analytics than they have in the past. I'm guessing that if Ben was still the GM, Sandoval would have been the starter at the beginning of the year because the projections said so. Even with a 'new order', think about how much better they would have to have thought Shaw was than Sandoval to make that call in the first place. It couldn't have been close. This decision didn't come from office geeks, it came from on field personnel. Not only are you making a bunch of questionable assumptions about how the Red Sox operate, but given that Shaw had a decent amount of playing time last year, and that the team's internal projections likely include proprietary batted ball data and lord knows what else, I don't think you can even assume that their projections favored Sandoval.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,717
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Apr 28, 2016 8:10:09 GMT -5
I view Shaw as being the poster boy for the new way of doing business. Let's not forget Henry's statement that the Sox would be relying less on analytics than they have in the past. I'm guessing that if Ben was still the GM, Sandoval would have been the starter at the beginning of the year because the projections said so. Even with a 'new order', think about how much better they would have to have thought Shaw was than Sandoval to make that call in the first place. It couldn't have been close. This decision didn't come from office geeks, it came from on field personnel. Not only are you making a bunch of questionable assumptions about how the Red Sox operate, but given that Shaw had a decent amount of playing time last year, and that the team's internal projections likely include proprietary batted ball data and lord knows what else, I don't think you can even assume that their projections favored Sandoval. Agreed. It was either Sandoval or Shaw, and Sandoval lost it just as much as a SSS of Shaw won it. They were left with an easy choice, it's just worked better than expected. I don't think any team is shifting away from analytics. Teams are always looking for a competitive advantage. Some are just better/more fortunate at it than others. No projection system had Sandoval or Hanley as bad as they were last year, so it's hard to blame that on analytics. Sometimes moves just fall flat.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 28, 2016 8:25:53 GMT -5
I don't think any team is shifting away from analytics. Teams are always looking for a competitive advantage. Some are just better/more fortunate at it than others. No projection system had Sandoval or Hanley as bad as they were last year, so it's hard to blame that on analytics. Sometimes moves just fall flat. No, I DO think it's fair to say the Sox are shifting away from analytics, only because they had gone so far in that direction. They will certainly still use the analytics, but they will use the scouting more to go along with it, which they might not have done enough of in the past few years. Indeed, they may continue to grow their analytics department, yet still rely on it less than in 2014-15.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 28, 2016 8:32:09 GMT -5
Shaw vs Pablo was not an easy choice. It was the right choice and Pablo and Shaw's performances made it easier but not team in history had ever benched a player with that type of contract that fast.
I don't know that this is a scouting vs analytics decision though but I do believe the Sox are adjusting under DD. Which I just think is part of any process of an organization looking to improve itself. DD is more old school scouting and the Red Sox probably went a little too far with the analytics. DD is open minded though and seems to be incorporating both. It should be a good match and balance and it's something he's talked about so it's really not an assumption to say.
If anyone watched Shaw last season, they would know the WMB comparisons and concerns were incredibly off base. Shaw does K a lot but their approaches at the plate are not even remotely similar. The majors are filled with players who do well in the majors without great minor league track records. It also makes sense considering the minors are where players develop and improve.
I think Shaw is legit, but not current level of batting legit. I don't know what a reasonable triple slash to throw on him is, but let's just say we should be happy having him hitting in this lineup for years to come.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,717
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Apr 28, 2016 8:42:40 GMT -5
I don't think any team is shifting away from analytics. Teams are always looking for a competitive advantage. Some are just better/more fortunate at it than others. No projection system had Sandoval or Hanley as bad as they were last year, so it's hard to blame that on analytics. Sometimes moves just fall flat. No, I DO think it's fair to say the Sox are shifting away from analytics, only because they had gone so far in that direction. They will certainly still use the analytics, but they will use the scouting more to go along with it, which they might not have done enough of in the past few years. Indeed, they may continue to grow their analytics department, yet still rely on it less than in 2014-15. I would just counter by asking you to show me something that actually proves they're shifting away from analytics. I just don't see it. I guess if you take Cherington as the extreme you could argue that, but even he did things like trade for relievers and signing Sandoval with his red flags. We kept a lot of our staff after BC left, so I think people in general have exaggerated any shift in the use of available data. Just my take, though.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 28, 2016 8:49:05 GMT -5
We may be having a language problem. Shifting away from is probably a poor way to say "starting to balance things back out again" or Incorporating more "old school" scouting etc. just listen to DD talk he's spoken about this. I don't think they are doing less analytic, in fact, they are probably doing more in a way since teams who do are always looking for new things. DD is the only evidence you need for this. But it doesn't mean they are moving away from analytics.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Apr 28, 2016 8:53:03 GMT -5
The only fear I have is our depth. If any other player goes down we have a quality replacement. I don't feel we have that @ 3rd. Holt & Rutledge can fill in for a game or 2, but not for a month or 2. Not sure if Marco Hernandez has much experience there, if he does, that may be an option. Marrero clearly doesn't have the bat.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,225
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Apr 28, 2016 9:27:00 GMT -5
I'd really like to know when was the "breaking point" when they decided it's Shaw's job. Let's rewind to spring training and remember that they were planning to give him a look in LF, at that point I presume that there were no decision yet and then Fat Pablo made a diving play at 3rd base and the next day (IIRC, it was the day planned to be the first day for Shaw in LF but I may be wrong) he came to camp with lower back stiffness so they gave him few days to rest and put the Shaw in LF plan on hold and kept playing him at 3rd base. I think that was the turning point.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 28, 2016 22:24:49 GMT -5
No, I DO think it's fair to say the Sox are shifting away from analytics, only because they had gone so far in that direction. They will certainly still use the analytics, but they will use the scouting more to go along with it, which they might not have done enough of in the past few years. Indeed, they may continue to grow their analytics department, yet still rely on it less than in 2014-15. I would just counter by asking you to show me something that actually proves they're shifting away from analytics. I just don't see it. I guess if you take Cherington as the extreme you could argue that, but even he did things like trade for relievers and signing Sandoval with his red flags. We kept a lot of our staff after BC left, so I think people in general have exaggerated any shift in the use of available data. Just my take, though. Henry stated it before spring training. www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2016/02/24/john-henry-says-red-sox-will-rely-less-analytics/95uy1OmoQw0ojxr7SRcOWO/story.html Red Sox principal owner John Henry revealed a major shift in organizational philosophy Wednesday when he said the team was de-emphasizing its reliance on analytics in making major decisions.
Henry sat on a bench near the Red Sox clubhouse and spoke to the media after he and chairman Tom Werner watched manager John Farrell address the team before its full-squad workout. He said he made his decision on analytics based on the Red Sox’ poor results in three of the last four seasons.
“I spent at least two months sort of looking under the hood, and came to the conclusion that we needed to make changes,” said Henry, who also owns the Globe. “One of the things that we’ve done — and I’m fully accountable for this — is we have perhaps overly relied on numbers, and there were a whole host of things.
“We have a very hands-on president of baseball operations [Dave Dombrowski] and a general manager [Mike Hazen] who worked extremely well together. We have made significant changes. The biggest thing is players on the field have to perform.” Clearly, Shaw outperformed Sandoval in every phase of the game in spring training. It had little or nothing to do with projections.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 29, 2016 5:00:30 GMT -5
In reference to Sandoval/Shaw: At the start of spring training, manager John Farrell recalled Thursday, “[Boston president of baseball operations] Dave [Dombrowski] said to put the best team on the field that we have, and he’s right. At first, I was like, ‘Are these words, or are these going to be able to be actions?’ And we’ve been able to put it into action.”
“I think it sent a positive message that we’re going to play the best guys,” said Dombrowski, who joined the Red Sox last August after being let go by Detroit. “Same thing with Brock Holt playing a lot in left field.” nypost.com/2016/04/29/modern-day-yankees-red-sox-star-headaches-fight-for-survival/If the new way of doing things is real, Buccholz needs to step up his game before he gets Johnsoned.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 2, 2016 1:15:50 GMT -5
You do realize that your argument favors analytics? Shaw outplayed Sandoval by any analytical metric you care to use starting last season. Now, if the latter had been given the job to lose at the start of this season, something I thought might happen, you'd have a case. It didn't. The better player - the one with the better numbers won out.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 2, 2016 6:51:09 GMT -5
You apparently didn't watch much spring baseball. Look at the pre-season projections and look at what Henry said.
Let's not forget your arguments about Panda's weight not being an issue because he's a victim or whatever. You're seriously backpedaling here.
The position was won by Shaw impressing the coaches a whole lot more than Panda. Analytics had absolutely nothing to do with it. That's a total crock pot full of bull-stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 2, 2016 7:30:17 GMT -5
Look at, the numbers phil. I honestly thought they'd give it to Sandoval at the start because of the money and to give him a chance to prove out. I didn't think they'd give him much time for that to happen, though. I was wrong and they didn't even do that. They went straight to the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 2, 2016 7:53:29 GMT -5
They went straight to the player who was performing the best. It was obvious to pretty much every poster that was watching the games. The people that were arguing against were the people who were looking at their histories. It wasn't so much that we thought Shaw would be great, that was a major surprise to everyone, it was more a case where none of us could see anything but a negative WAR player whenever the fat one appeared on a baseball diamond. I seriously doubt if stats had anything whatsoever to do with it, particularly because their stats histories generated a better projection for Panda, not the other way around.
Sorry, I believe what Henry said, they're deemphasizing analytics. Same situation with Castillo who looked bad all spring. Bill James, et al, are no longer driving the bus. I say that being a long time James follower (I had his first 8 or 9 books).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 2, 2016 7:57:10 GMT -5
Look at, the numbers phil. I honestly thought they'd give it to Sandoval at the start because of the money and to give him a chance to prove out. I didn't think they'd give him much time for that to happen, though. I was wrong and they didn't even do that. They went straight to the numbers. Pretty much every projection system that people in here refer to all the time, assumes that players regress to their career averages to a large extent. These projection systems also discount young players without much of a track record. The people watching Sandoval last year and this spring knew that wasn't the case for him because he didn't even look like he belonged in the majors. That's a definite case of scouting vs. statistical analysis.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 2, 2016 8:08:51 GMT -5
Yea Norm I think your stretching there to say they went with spring training numbers therefore it was analytics. Regardless, the right guy was given the job.
As for the turning point thing. I don't think they were handing Shaw the job as a permanent thing out of spring training. I think the turning point had been Sandoval hurting his shoulder for being fat and Shaw just playing well. Travis Shaw has arrived and the Red Sox couldn't be more fortunate.
Regarding the third base depth... The good news is Shaw is young and has shown to be durable so it's less of an issue. If there were an injury then Holt can play there. Is it ideal? Not really but it's not terrible either.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 2, 2016 8:11:53 GMT -5
Look back in several threads for Shaw. You see a lot of (paraphrasing) "he's a streaky hitter that happened to have a good streak last year" or "his minor league numbers don't support major league success" or "That was at first base, he only has a handful of games at third base" or "there's a reason there aren't any left handed third bsemen". Those were from people that weren't watching. No way were the "analytical posters" even remotely open to considering Shaw. Hindsight doesn't fit here.
|
|
|