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 telson13 on May 15, 2016 17:59:28 GMT -5
The Sox are on pace for just under 1000 runs (976). That's ridiculous in this offensive era. How much better/worse can this lineup be? How likely are they to pass 1000 runs scored...are they due for a major correction? And what changes, if any, are there that will improve the lineup and/or (non-pitching) defense?
|
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on May 15, 2016 18:35:06 GMT -5
Xander Bogaerts .389
Travis Shaw .398
Jackie Bradley Jr. .390
Hanley Ramirez .396
BABIP
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 15, 2016 19:38:00 GMT -5
Regression and injuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 15, 2016 21:36:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 15, 2016 21:53:44 GMT -5
Xander Bogaerts .389
Travis Shaw .398
Jackie Bradley Jr. .390
Hanley Ramirez .396
BABIP Plus, an all-fields approach (and especially opposite-field-heavy approaches) can result in sustainably high BABIPs. This is actually one of the pillars of Chili Davis's tutelage. Not great for HR, but great for OBP and doubles. www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=857&position=OFwww.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=826&position=SSwww.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1001124&position=3Bwww.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1101&position=OFwww.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4314&position=1BOf course, those are some pretty good hitters. But the point is that BABIP can be sustainably high, depending on hitting approach. Bogaerts especially, but also JBJ and Shaw under Chili, have adopted an all-fields approach. And Hanley has been a high-BABIP hitter for his whole career (not surprisingly, he hits the ball hard to all fields, and Fenway is likely to rob him of some HR, but increase his BABIP by giving him some extra hits off of the wall, and in the triangle): www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=8001&position=SSIn fact, take out his two awful injury-plagued years where he was around .250-.270, and he's got a career BABIP probably around .350, in less forgiving parks. |
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on May 15, 2016 22:00:13 GMT -5
The Sox are on pace for just under 1000 runs (976). That's ridiculous in this offensive era. How much better/worse can this lineup be? How likely are they to pass 1000 runs scored...are they due for a major correction? And what changes, if any, are there that will improve the lineup and/or (non-pitching) defense? JBJ and Shaw are going to see some major regression, and Ortiz and Xander are due for at least a little as well. Mookie is going to get better. I'm optimistic that Pedroia and Hanley will remain similarly productive, but as noted, injuries are going to happen and those guys are high-risk for that. The one change to improve the lineup and defense? Benintendi, after he destroys AA over his first 200 plate appearances. That's a hope, not an expectation. But Brock Holt playing as the everyday LF (vs. RHP) instead of the super utility guy is a hindrance of sorts, and will continue to be one over the course of the season. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 15, 2016 23:07:39 GMT -5
We need to be clear about this. There is no way those four players will keep that figure at .390+, Chili Davis or no Chili Davis. That isn't going to happen. But as Matt points out, Betts who's at .276 will see his rise, as probably will Holt who's at .289. Things even out, but there will be some fallback from this absurd offensive output, there has to be. Bogaerts is the most interesting of these guys. He was at .372 last year and, while that seemed unnatural, his approach does make me pay attention. He's obviously getting this baseball thing down. It looks like the walks are starting to come, and he's reintroduced the pull side of the equation. He continues growing before our eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on May 15, 2016 23:53:58 GMT -5
They didnt have to be that good. Did you see the scores of some of those games? The oakland series and the first game against houston especially, could have scored like 6 runs less in each of those games and they still would have won.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on May 16, 2016 1:08:05 GMT -5
I think that this far from the end of the season, a better question would be if there's going to be a better offense this year. The Cubs are somewhat close and the Cardinals are also in the vicinity, but I don't think either team has a line-up that's as ridiculously deep and or have an in-house candidate who could improve a position even more (Benny in LF... I know, not 100% realistic, but it's more likely than getting to 1000 runs).
I think the Red Sox are going to lead the MLB in runs, that's the first step towards the club right? (:
|
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 16, 2016 3:05:50 GMT -5
We need to be clear about this. There is no way those four players will keep that figure at .390+, Chili Davis or no Chili Davis. That isn't going to happen. But as Matt points out, Betts who's at .276 will see his rise, as probably will Holt who's at .289. Things even out, but there will be some fallback from this absurd offensive output, there has to be. Bogaerts is the most interesting of these guys. He was at .372 last year and, while that seemed unnatural, his approach does make me pay attention. He's obviously getting this baseball thing down. It looks like the walks are starting to come, and he's reintroduced the pull side of the equation. He continues growing before our eyes. Of course not. But it's not unreasonable to think Bogaerts and Hanley may finish in the .350 range. Shaw and JBJ, most likely, will finish much closer to .300, until proven otherwise. My point is simply that presuming an average (.300) BABIP for them, simply because it's league average, is just that: a presumption. Speier makes a good point in that, around .340, they're maybe 15 points above where league-leading teams finish in BABIP, meaning there may not be a huge regression. And the HR numbers are likely to increase slightly as the weather heats up. I doubt Betts finishes the year where he is. Ortiz can't realistically keep up this pace either, although he may still hit 30 HR and 40 2b. Pedroia *might* reasonably approximate what he's done so far. Vazquez is a complete wildcard, but I don't see him getting *substantially* better. If Benintendi does come up (I think he will, just after the trade deadline), he probably won't set the world on fire, but he can probably approximate Holt. 1000 runs is pretty rare...I'd put this team around a 2-3% chance, but I'm curious to see how it plays out, to say the least. A 50-point rise in leadoff OBP will be a good start. Plus, they steal bases (and run them, for the most part) efficiently. And I don't think a team BABIP around .320-.325 is at all unrealistic. Lose some singles and doubles, gain some HR...that regression may not dent the offense as much as some might think. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 16, 2016 7:59:17 GMT -5
Since 1950, two teams (1950 Red Sox, 1999 Indians) have scored 1000 or more runs in a season. In recent history, the 2007 Yankees came the closest at 968, but that was before offense really started ticking down. From '08 onward, only two teams have even cracked 900.
It's not going to happen. This team has a good offense, but it's not a historic offense, and even if it were, the run environment just isn't high enough for anyone to get to 1000.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 16, 2016 11:18:48 GMT -5
They didnt have to be that good. Did you see the scores of some of those games? The oakland series and the first game against houston especially, could have scored like 6 runs less in each of those games and they still would have won. Well that's the point - the question is if they're going to score 1000 runs, not whether they're going to keep winning. I think we all agree those are two different questions. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 16, 2016 11:54:26 GMT -5
Since 1950, two teams (1950 Red Sox, 1999 Indians) have scored 1000 or more runs in a season. In recent history, the 2007 Yankees came the closest at 968, but that was before offense really started ticking down. From '08 onward, only two teams have even cracked 900. It's not going to happen. This team has a good offense, but it's not a historic offense, and even if it were, the run environment just isn't high enough for anyone to get to 1000. I'd say that it's very unlikely. They'd have to be about 0.9 runs per game better than the 2013 squad, which would be quite a feat. But I do think that this is a better offensive team. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 16, 2016 11:54:41 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has claimed that Bogaerts et al are going to regress down to a .300 BABIP, but they certainly won't maintain their current ~.400 BABIPs, and even regressing from that down to the .350 range is a pretty sizable step down.
I'm also not sure it's fair to assume that they'll hit a bunch more home runs to compensate for the aforementioned BABIP drop. Ortiz aside, the rest of the roster doesn't really have anyone who projects to be a 25+ home run hitter. Maybe Hanley, but he hasn't gotten there since 2008 and is more of a lots-of-doubles guy. They have a bunch of 15-25 home run guys (I'd put Hanley, Betts, Shaw, and probably Bradley and a healthy Pedroia in that bucket), but those guys are on pace for roughly that many home runs now, and I don't think it's fair to expect much more in that department.
In other words, I don't see enough positive regression (Betts and the catchers could be hitting better) to offset the negative regression (BABIP from the aforementioned guys and at least a slight cooling off from Bradley, Shaw, and yes, Ortiz). If they're not on pace for 1,000 runs right now, I don't think they're going to hit better than they have so far.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,823
|
Post by nomar on May 16, 2016 12:17:39 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has claimed that Bogaerts et al are going to regress down to a .300 BABIP, but they certainly won't maintain their current ~.400 BABIPs, and even regressing from that down to the .350 range is a pretty sizable step down. I'm also not sure it's fair to assume that they'll hit a bunch more home runs to compensate for the aforementioned BABIP drop. Ortiz aside, the rest of the roster doesn't really have anyone who projects to be a 25+ home run hitter. Maybe Hanley, but he hasn't gotten there since 2008 and is more of a lots-of-doubles guy. They have a bunch of 15-25 home run guys (I'd put Hanley, Betts, Shaw, and probably Bradley and a healthy Pedroia in that bucket), but those guys are on pace for roughly that many home runs now, and I don't think it's fair to expect much more in that department. In other words, I don't see enough positive regression (Betts and the catchers could be hitting better) to offset the negative regression (BABIP from the aforementioned guys and at least a slight cooling off from Bradley, Shaw, and yes, Ortiz). If they're not on pace for 1,000 runs right now, I don't think they're going to hit better than they have so far. I'm going to go out on a limb and say if he stays healthy Bogaerts hits around 20 HRs too. Still too much waving with his swing, but he's pulling the ball more in the air which is a good sign. His confidence is also through the roof. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 16, 2016 12:31:27 GMT -5
Oh, sorry, yeah, I think Bogaerts is in that bucket too and I just forgot to include him. Again, though, he's on pace for ~16 home runs, so I don't know if you can assume that he's going to hit much more than that the rest of the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 16, 2016 14:44:31 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has claimed that Bogaerts et al are going to regress down to a .300 BABIP, but they certainly won't maintain their current ~.400 BABIPs, and even regressing from that down to the .350 range is a pretty sizable step down. I'm also not sure it's fair to assume that they'll hit a bunch more home runs to compensate for the aforementioned BABIP drop. Ortiz aside, the rest of the roster doesn't really have anyone who projects to be a 25+ home run hitter. Maybe Hanley, but he hasn't gotten there since 2008 and is more of a lots-of-doubles guy. They have a bunch of 15-25 home run guys (I'd put Hanley, Betts, Shaw, and probably Bradley and a healthy Pedroia in that bucket), but those guys are on pace for roughly that many home runs now, and I don't think it's fair to expect much more in that department. In other words, I don't see enough positive regression (Betts and the catchers could be hitting better) to offset the negative regression (BABIP from the aforementioned guys and at least a slight cooling off from Bradley, Shaw, and yes, Ortiz). If they're not on pace for 1,000 runs right now, I don't think they're going to hit better than they have so far. I agree with pretty much every single thing you wrote here. I only ask about the 1000 runs threshold because, well, it's fun. I doubt Shaw and JBJ finish much above .300/.350/.500, if even that (which is a pretty damn good like). But I think you said it best: probable negative regression is more widespread than positive. |
|
|
