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 soxfando on Mar 15, 2018 18:10:47 GMT -5
Bogaerts Beni Betts JDM Devers Hanley Bradley Vazquez Nunez
|
|
|
Post by rollsoxroll on Mar 15, 2018 18:17:21 GMT -5
Betts Bogey Beni Martinez Hanley Devers Nunez Vaz/Swihart JBJ
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 16, 2018 16:09:24 GMT -5
Reagrds to points from eric-- agree with many but also disagree with a few. 1-- I know "The Book" doesn't speak well of having your best or 2nd best hitter hit 3rd, but we've seen the best teams (Houston and LA this past year and Cubs this past year but also champs of 2016) that are heavy into advanced metrics use their best or 2nd best hitter in the 3rd spot. IMO it has to do with to a degree of Eric's point of number 4 and number 2. The number 3 hitter gives protection -- especially if your number 9 hitter is going to be for example Pedroia. That's where I feel this year Pedroia belongs. He is going to provide less and less power, he's slower and older. Pedroia also has had issues with hitting into Double plays. So needless to say I like what he says about number 2. Pedroia would be like a leadoff hitter in the 9 spot. 2-- As far as back-to-back home runs I agree it is overrated. But I like for example having Napoli from that 2013 team hitting 5th. So what there was back-to-back home runs. The Sox had their 2nd best slugger at the 5. look at the cubs. Their two best sluggers are back to back. When the Sox had Ortiz and Manny-- two slow baserunners, I wouldn't want to separate them. 3-- And I think eric is spot on about comfort. Yet you don't know comfort until you try. That's why I'm okay with trying Devers at 4. Don't assume he can't handle it. See if he can. Though I'd understand you can say the same about this year of Xander, Hanley and others. 4-- I'm all for having Xander or Hanley hit 3rd as long as they hit well and Devers isn't hitting significantly better. Though having Devers at 4 you'd have at least the 1st 5 hitters a nice right left right order. If Pedroia doesn't come back very strong, he'd be great as the 9 hitter, if waiting that long to hit the first time doesn't drive him crazy. So that's a great point. And Betts batting leadoff instead of 2 makes increasingly more sense the better the 9 hitter is. When he's going really well he's a great teammate-RBI guy and could be a force at #5 or #6. They're in a good position here either way. Re Devers hitting 4: 1) If JDM, Devers, Hanley / X at 3-4-5 is better than Hanley / X, JDM, Devers, it's not by a whole lot. 2) But the former encourages opposing teams to bring in a LHR to face Benny - JDM - Devers. That probably offsets some or most of any advantage. 3) Therefore, there's so little net gain that there's no need to hit Devers 4 instead of 5.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 16, 2018 22:16:19 GMT -5
Reagrds to points from eric-- agree with many but also disagree with a few. 1-- I know "The Book" doesn't speak well of having your best or 2nd best hitter hit 3rd, but we've seen the best teams (Houston and LA this past year and Cubs this past year but also champs of 2016) that are heavy into advanced metrics use their best or 2nd best hitter in the 3rd spot. IMO it has to do with to a degree of Eric's point of number 4 and number 2. The number 3 hitter gives protection -- especially if your number 9 hitter is going to be for example Pedroia. That's where I feel this year Pedroia belongs. He is going to provide less and less power, he's slower and older. Pedroia also has had issues with hitting into Double plays. So needless to say I like what he says about number 2. Pedroia would be like a leadoff hitter in the 9 spot. 2-- As far as back-to-back home runs I agree it is overrated. But I like for example having Napoli from that 2013 team hitting 5th. So what there was back-to-back home runs. The Sox had their 2nd best slugger at the 5. look at the cubs. Their two best sluggers are back to back. When the Sox had Ortiz and Manny-- two slow baserunners, I wouldn't want to separate them. 3-- And I think eric is spot on about comfort. Yet you don't know comfort until you try. That's why I'm okay with trying Devers at 4. Don't assume he can't handle it. See if he can. Though I'd understand you can say the same about this year of Xander, Hanley and others. 4-- I'm all for having Xander or Hanley hit 3rd as long as they hit well and Devers isn't hitting significantly better. Though having Devers at 4 you'd have at least the 1st 5 hitters a nice right left right order. If Pedroia doesn't come back very strong, he'd be great as the 9 hitter, if waiting that long to hit the first time doesn't drive him crazy. So that's a great point. And Betts batting leadoff instead of 2 makes increasingly more sense the better the 9 hitter is. When he's going really well he's a great teammate-RBI guy and could be a force at #5 or #6. They're in a good position here either way. Re Devers hitting 4: 1) If JDM, Devers, Hanley / X at 3-4-5 is better than Hanley / X, JDM, Devers, it's not by a whole lot. 2) But the former encourages opposing teams to bring in a LHR to face Benny - JDM - Devers. That probably offsets some or most of any advantage. 3) Therefore, there's so little net gain that there's no need to hit Devers 4 instead of 5. Well we can agree to disagree. 1-- I hate to start the season putting Hanley at 3. I tend to think Hanley isn't very good any more. Not that he is bad - just "not that good." Thus I believe in the ZIPS numbers of .262/.342/.443/.781 and that's not very good. Not very bad. But not very good. Hanley imo is a bad bet to put him 3rd. He is too much a free swinger / not disciplined enough. You can see how he runs the bases and how he gets so obviously pull happy. He is better off 5 or 6 or 7 depending on how hot he is. As you said on a prior post "protection doesn't seem to help him." So why do it when you know he just isn't disciplined enough even on the base paths? His OBP is okay for some power he hits, but he is so poor with his decision making. Looking at the complete package and his approach while taking into account another year for an older player - it's not worth the risk to force-feed "playing by the book." And/or betting on a guy up there a bit in age with some underlying reasons to get as many at bats as possible in which he is injury prone. So if he is a bit hurt - how many at bats do you realize it-- and then push him down the order whenever you play him? Too risky imo. As for Xander. IMO until he shows power, he doesn't belong in the 3 hole with the way the game is geared now. This is why you see teams like The Cubs, Houston, and The Dodgers have their best or 2nd best hitter in that spot. Put as much pressure on the opposing team as possible. I'd like to see Hanley and/or Xander show it before I give them the 3 hole. 2-- I'm not sure about your Point 2-- I think you're saying you'd bring in a lefty to walk JDM automatically? Is that what you're saying? I like having the 1st 5 batters r/L/r/L/r until/unless Hanley or Xander can show something better than what Hanley had done in years 1 and 3 with the Sox and better than Xander has done the past 1.5 years. 3-- These are just a few reasons why I think there is enough net gain to hit Devers 4. While you say there is no need to put Devers at 4, I say there is no need to put Hanley or Xander at 3 until they prove they can hit better. For anyone that thinks either one (Xander or Hanley) is going to hit much better than they have in the past thereby hitting much better than the ZIPS number projects, then I'm on board with that once I see that they are producing. If they are producing as poorly as we have seen based on the examples I've given, I'm sure I won't be the only one "screaming" to get either guy out of the 3hole. I'm just calling it early, I wouldn't do what Cora seems intent on doing. If they produce . . . great!
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 16, 2018 23:32:00 GMT -5
Based on his dramatic differences hitting with bases empty/men on/RISP (off the top of my head roughly 85/120/150 WRC+ last year), I’d be tempted to bat Benintendi 3rd and thus Mookie 2nd (where he “belongs” as the team’s best hitter). That puts JDM 4th. So I’d go: 1) Bogaerts (if healthy I think an OBP around .370-.380 is attainable, and he’s a very good baserunner if not a particularly outstanding base stealer) 2) Mookie (contact, OBP, power, and an outstanding baserunner and very good base stealer, setting up the double-steal with Bogaerts, for:) 3) Beni (should benefit greatly from protection, better pitch selection with runners on in front of him; I think has the most upside as a complete hitter and is the most likely to make a significant leap forward) 4) JDM (his initials remind me of tuner cars) 5) Devers (a R-L-R-L stretch and also huge upside) 6) Hanley (if he truly is healthy and can approach his career line, it would be huge. I think he can) 7) JBJ 8) Vasquez/Swihart 9) Nunez/Pedroia
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 17, 2018 0:03:26 GMT -5
Based on his dramatic differences hitting with bases empty/men on/RISP (off the top of my head roughly 85/120/150 WRC+ last year), I’d be tempted to bat Benintendi 3rd and thus Mookie 2nd (where he “belongs” as the team’s best hitter). That puts JDM 4th. So I’d go: 1) Bogaerts (if healthy I think an OBP around .370-.380 is attainable, and he’s a very good baserunner if not a particularly outstanding base stealer) 2) Mookie (contact, OBP, power, and an outstanding baserunner and very good base stealer, setting up the double-steal with Bogaerts, for:) 3) Beni (should benefit greatly from protection, better pitch selection with runners on in front of him; I think has the most upside as a complete hitter and is the most likely to make a significant leap forward) 4) JDM (his initials remind me of tuner cars) 5) Devers (a R-L-R-L stretch and also huge upside) 6) Hanley (if he truly is healthy and can approach his career line, it would be huge. I think he can) 7) JBJ 8) Vasquez/Swihart 9) Nunez/Pedroia Would you still keep Xander 1st or 2nd or 3rd if his slash numbers were -- matching to ZIPS .285/.347/.434/.781?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 17, 2018 1:21:02 GMT -5
Based on his dramatic differences hitting with bases empty/men on/RISP (off the top of my head roughly 85/120/150 WRC+ last year), I’d be tempted to bat Benintendi 3rd and thus Mookie 2nd (where he “belongs” as the team’s best hitter). That puts JDM 4th. So I’d go: 1) Bogaerts (if healthy I think an OBP around .370-.380 is attainable, and he’s a very good baserunner if not a particularly outstanding base stealer) 2) Mookie (contact, OBP, power, and an outstanding baserunner and very good base stealer, setting up the double-steal with Bogaerts, for:) 3) Beni (should benefit greatly from protection, better pitch selection with runners on in front of him; I think has the most upside as a complete hitter and is the most likely to make a significant leap forward) 4) JDM (his initials remind me of tuner cars) 5) Devers (a R-L-R-L stretch and also huge upside) 6) Hanley (if he truly is healthy and can approach his career line, it would be huge. I think he can) 7) JBJ 8) Vasquez/Swihart 9) Nunez/Pedroia Would you still keep Xander 1st or 2nd or 3rd if his slash numbers were -- matching to ZIPS .285/.347/.434/.781? I’m not a fan of batting him second unless he somehow combines his IsoD from last year with his 2015 BA. With those numbers...first, yeah maybe. Not enough power for 3rd slugging .434. I’m a believer in his steady walk rate increase the past three years, and I think his baserunning is an under-appreciated asset that would make up for a less-than-stellar but still fairly solid OBP. I think the leadoff hitter really (provided the talent is available/not better served elsewhere) should be putting up an OBP of .360 or better. And I’m strongly in the camp of the idea of using your best hitter 2nd, since it provides a small but real additional number of opportunities for him to bat with a man on. To me, especially with a pseudo-leadoff 9 hitter, it’s important to get Mookie as many chances as possible to drive in runs. That’s actually a really good question, because it’s not easy to answer. The ZIPS projections (and other projection systems) have him right around the .285/.350/.440 range. So he’s not a 2 or 3, irrespective of baserunning. I suppose one could argue that he should hit down in the order, but I think that requires ignoring his positive baserunning value, and that the Sox don’t necessarily have a more ideal “leadoff” hitter beyond Betts and Benintendi. Nunez has the speed but a terrible career OBP. Pedroia...idk. Maybe, as he has the OBP skills and baserunning “skill” but without the speed to have positive value. I think Bogaerts at his projection level isn’t “ideal” as the leadoff, but I think he belongs by default unless Benintendi becomes a .310/.380/.440 or so hitter and proves comfortable batting with the bases empty. His IsoD was lower and IsoP higher when batting with the bases empty vs men on last year, which says selling out for power to me. Betts is my 2 all the way, for a variety of reasons, the two biggest being that he’s the team’s best hitter and baserunner. That screams 2 hole to me. So removing Mookie from the equation, Benintendi as projected (ZIPS is the low projection on him, .282/.354/.456, 18 HR, 17 SB) is the best leadoff candidate. But I much prefer him in the 3, for power, protection, and handedness alternation reasons. One major concern I have re: Bogey is that while he’s extremely patient (his Sw% has dropped three years in a row to just 41+%), his “patience” is largely limited to swings in the zone. His O-swing is still over 32% (vs 35.6% in 2015). So while his K rate is pretty low and his contact rates solid, he’s still swinging at bad pitches. That’s really putting a hard cap on his hit tool. If he can make some real inroads in *effective* selectivity, and get that O-swing under 30%, I think his walk rate gets over 10% and his batted-ball profile looks better as he hits better pitches. Bogey gets his share of doubles (he’s a very safe bet for 30 and could certainly hit 40 with more effective pitch selection), and he’s probably going to steal 15-20 bases if Cora’s remarks about basepath aggressiveness bear out. Combined with an OBP of .350, I think that’s their best leadoff option. FWIW, I think we continue to see some IsoD gains into the 0.075-0.080 range. And I think the projections on all three of them (Bogey, Beni, Betts) are regressed a little low given their aging curves.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 17, 2018 1:57:40 GMT -5
One related aside, on batting Bogaerts down in the order. As jmei pointed out, Devers’s projections have him marginally better than Bogaerts. And I certainly see the value in getting him more PA, because I think he’s going to have a good year. And I see how Bogaerts’s projected slash isn’t terribly inspiring, although it’s not bad, either.
The main issue I see with putting Bogaerts lower and Devers higher is twofold. For one, as pointed out, Bogey hits his share of grounders. That’s more costly when he’s preceded in the order by one or several slow baserunners. He’s more likely to ground into double plays. Conversely, a fast baserunner reduces that risk with speed, putting runners in motion, etc. Secondly, when on base behind a slow runner, his baserunning skills lose some value since he’s less able to take the extra base, the double-steal option is lost, etc. Just like hitting, there’s a benefit to grouping quality baserunners together...both in terms of play options (and the disruption of the defense, pitching rhythm, etc that go with it), and continuity/freedom (eg, not inhibiting a runner's value by putting him behind a slower runner). With Nunez 9th, that’s *four* basestealing or base-taking threats in a row. That’s very tough on a defense/pitcher because of the constant motion, greater chance of RISP, etc. I think the marginal value of Devers before Bogey as the better overall hitter is more than overcome by the benefit of having an uninterrupted string of quality baserunners.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 17, 2018 18:33:27 GMT -5
Last year, Bogaerts batted 1st for 128 plate appearances and looked to deliberately change his approach to try to walk more and he did (12.5% bb rate). He hit .309/.406/.418 in the leadoff spot. Granted, this is a small sample but I think it's worth paying attention to because he had his typical high .344 BABIP which is a little high, but not much. He's definitely capable of hitting .300 anywhere, but if he could keep his walk rate that high, we're talking excellent hitter even without much power. IMO, his OBP would be close to if not exceed .400 if he were leading off and that's probably going to lead the team.
But the power is also tempting to try to see if he can harness it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 17, 2018 18:45:43 GMT -5
Last year, Bogaerts batted 1st for 128 plate appearances and looked to deliberately change his approach to try to walk more and he did (12.5% bb rate). He hit .309/.406/.418 in the leadoff spot. Granted, this is a small sample but I think it's worth paying attention to because he had his typical high .344 BABIP which is a little high, but not much. He's definitely capable of hitting .300 anywhere, but if he could keep his walk rate that high, we're talking excellent hitter even without much power. IMO, his OBP would be close to if not exceed .400 if he were leading off and that's probably going to lead the team. But the power is also tempting to try to see if he can harness it. Interesting, I hadn’t seen that. Imo, even if he does hit for power and it initially goes “wasted” in leadoff...well, both Mookie and Beni would provide similarly “wasted” power at leadoff. So yeah, all the more, if Bogey’s hit well there, keep him leadoff. As I said, I think he can sustain a walk rate near or even over 10%, and that 12% is promising as a guy whose results reflect a specific plan.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 17, 2018 21:01:48 GMT -5
Last year, Bogaerts batted 1st for 128 plate appearances and looked to deliberately change his approach to try to walk more and he did (12.5% bb rate). He hit .309/.406/.418 in the leadoff spot. Granted, this is a small sample but I think it's worth paying attention to because he had his typical high .344 BABIP which is a little high, but not much. He's definitely capable of hitting .300 anywhere, but if he could keep his walk rate that high, we're talking excellent hitter even without much power. IMO, his OBP would be close to if not exceed .400 if he were leading off and that's probably going to lead the team. But the power is also tempting to try to see if he can harness it. I am not arguing. What happened to him the 2nd half of 2016 and why is the 128 appearances more relevant than his 2nd half of 2016? And what approach did he change? To take more pitches? And from what I understand from "The Book" - you want your best hitter or among your best hitting leadoff. At best Xander is 3rd best but probably anywhere from 4th - 6th best. So what would Xander's approach be "today?" I am not arguing. And I think Cora has said he doesn't want his guys to take more pitches. Thus that high OBP -- how much will Cora value it for the 3hole without much power? Frankly, he might not mind, but just interested in yours or others thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2018 11:13:11 GMT -5
Last year, Bogaerts batted 1st for 128 plate appearances and looked to deliberately change his approach to try to walk more and he did (12.5% bb rate). He hit .309/.406/.418 in the leadoff spot. Granted, this is a small sample but I think it's worth paying attention to because he had his typical high .344 BABIP which is a little high, but not much. He's definitely capable of hitting .300 anywhere, but if he could keep his walk rate that high, we're talking excellent hitter even without much power. IMO, his OBP would be close to if not exceed .400 if he were leading off and that's probably going to lead the team. But the power is also tempting to try to see if he can harness it. I am not arguing. What happened to him the 2nd half of 2016 and why is the 128 appearances more relevant than his 2nd half of 2016? And what approach did he change? To take more pitches? And from what I understand from "The Book" - you want your best hitter or among your best hitting leadoff. At best Xander is 3rd best but probably anywhere from 4th - 6th best. So what would Xander's approach be "today?" I am not arguing. And I think Cora has said he doesn't want his guys to take more pitches. Thus that high OBP -- how much will Cora value it for the 3hole without much power? Frankly, he might not mind, but just interested in yours or others thoughts. I just don't see how "The Book" wants a leadoff guy trying to hit home runs more than walking. OBP is still incredibly important, especially at the top of the lineup. And it's more important than power. It usually follows power, when pitchers are afraid of throwing good pitches. But you never sacrifice OBP for power. I don't know why the 2nd half of 2016 has anything to do with 2018. He changed his approach when batting leadoff last year and it was working incredibly well.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 18, 2018 12:41:13 GMT -5
I am not arguing. What happened to him the 2nd half of 2016 and why is the 128 appearances more relevant than his 2nd half of 2016? And what approach did he change? To take more pitches? And from what I understand from "The Book" - you want your best hitter or among your best hitting leadoff. At best Xander is 3rd best but probably anywhere from 4th - 6th best. So what would Xander's approach be "today?" I am not arguing. And I think Cora has said he doesn't want his guys to take more pitches. Thus that high OBP -- how much will Cora value it for the 3hole without much power? Frankly, he might not mind, but just interested in yours or others thoughts. I just don't see how "The Book" wants a leadoff guy trying to hit home runs more than walking. OBP is still incredibly important, especially at the top of the lineup. And it's more important than power. It usually follows power, when pitchers are afraid of throwing good pitches. But you never sacrifice OBP for power. I don't know why the 2nd half of 2016 has anything to do with 2018. He changed his approach when batting leadoff last year and it was working incredibly well. Before I get into the Book-- I'd still like to ask again - and I'm not arguing with your point on Xander "changing his approach." What I am asking is what did he do? What changes did he make? Are you saying his approach was changed because he had more walks? He took more pitches? Other than that, can you tell me what he changed? If it was just taking more pitches for walks, imo that won't factor much with Cora. The attached links Cora speaks of what Houston did by having Spinger 1st. Springer was 4th on OBP with Houston with guys with over 400 at-bats. And Springer led the team in Home Runs. My point is-- if we read the comments from below as to why COra wants Betts leading off- he doesn't mention OBP. He mentions power. Just like they did in Houston. And Houston is a team from what I hear is heavily into using advanced metrics. So if he is looking for power - why have Xander at 1st if his approach was previously designed by getting more walks? Per below Cora wants to put pressure on opposing team with home runs and doubles just like Springer did. This is why I think Pedroia belongs at the 9 hole too. But I digress. nesn.com/2017/12/alex-cora-reveals-who-likely-will-be-red-soxs-leadoff-hitter-in-2018/www.weei.com/blogs/rob-bradford/why-mookie-betts-will-be-alex-coras-leadoff-hitterAs far as "The Book" per below Noah Sherman the author is quoting Tom Tango author of The Book. For me I'm not "sold" completely nor is most if not all of baseball on "The Book." But until I see Xander (or Hanley) produce early, imo they don't belong on the top 4 spots. If you go by what "The Book" says imo Xander is not one of the 3 best hitters on the team. So between that and what Cora thinks, he won't have Xander hit 1 or 2 or 4 unless ofc he starts to produce better is my guess. Or we could just throwaway the book in this instance which is fine too. For example, I think deliberately having your 5th best hitter bat 3rd is not very smart unless the team has an unusual circumstance. www.bluebirdbanter.com/2012/10/12/3490578/lineup-optimization-part-1-of-2"Your three best hitters should bat somewhere in the #1, #2, and #4 slots. Your fourth- and fifth-best hitters should occupy the #3 and #5 slots. The #1 and #2 slots will have players with more walks than those in the #4 and #5 slots. From slot #6 through #9, put the players in descending order of quality."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2018 13:13:30 GMT -5
I'm not convinced Houston was right to bat Springer leadoff, but they had a lineup that was top to bottom filled with very good hitters so it didn't really matter that much what order they batted them.
And by the way, if Xander had an OBP of close to .400, he would very likely be one of the best hitters on the team even without much power.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 18, 2018 15:35:35 GMT -5
I'm not convinced Houston was right to bat Springer leadoff, but they had a lineup that was top to bottom filled with very good hitters so it didn't really matter that much what order they batted them. And by the way, if Xander had an OBP of close to .400, he would very likely be one of the best hitters on the team even without much power. 1--- But Cora is convinced Springer should be leadoff. He's the most important decision maker. Cora in the artciles I provided you is speaking of power and pop. Not OBP. 2-- And if Xander is close to .400 OBP (though he hasn't really been close tot hat for his career. His best is .356. The only thing I've heard is you saying he changed his style. i ask what changed and you ignore it. I don't know what changed other than maybe he takes more pitches. But COra is telling us he wants a guy like SPringer in which OBP didn't matter as much as power.) -- he still might not be the top 3 hitters. We can look back to 2016 and see Betts and and Hanley had strong years. That could be better than a singles hitter. Thus, they still might be better. And we have Beni who might be better along with Beni being different a lefty bat. You are probably right if he has the .400 but hasn't come close to showing it yet. Though you've read the same articles I have. Cora speaks of power and he speaks of Houston. Whether you and I disagree with him or not (I disagree with Hanley at 3) is not that relevant. Cora doesn't buy our arguments.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2018 16:14:37 GMT -5
I'm not convinced Houston was right to bat Springer leadoff, but they had a lineup that was top to bottom filled with very good hitters so it didn't really matter that much what order they batted them. And by the way, if Xander had an OBP of close to .400, he would very likely be one of the best hitters on the team even without much power. 1--- But Cora is convinced Springer should be leadoff. He's the most important decision maker. Cora in the artciles I provided you is speaking of power and pop. Not OBP. 2-- And if Xander is close to .400 OBP (though he hasn't really been close tot hat for his career. His best is .356. The only thing I've heard is you saying he changed his style. i ask what changed and you ignore it. I don't know what changed other than maybe he takes more pitches. But COra is telling us he wants a guy like SPringer in which OBP didn't matter as much as power.) -- he still might not be the top 3 hitters. We can look back to 2016 and see Betts and and Hanley had strong years. That could be better than a singles hitter. Thus, they still might be better. And we have Beni who might be better along with Beni being different a lefty bat. You are probably right if he has the .400 but hasn't come close to showing it yet. Though you've read the same articles I have. Cora speaks of power and he speaks of Houston. Whether you and I disagree with him or not (I disagree with Hanley at 3) is not that relevant. Cora doesn't buy our arguments. His approach changed by trying to walk more. I distinctly remember him doing it and it showed in the pretty big increase in walks. I'm not talking about Cora, I'm talking about my opinion. You could literally put the names of Houston batters in a hat, pull them out randomly and make a great lineup. Just because Cora said it, doesn't mean it isn't up for criticism. The entire board was bashing Farrell for leading Mookie off because he hit more than half his home runs with no runners on base at one point when they were struggling to score runs before he was dropped down in the order. Lineup order matters a lot more on a team that doesn't have equally great hitters at every spot 1-9. I'm not going to make myself try to think like Cora and then defend his position. This is my argument, not his.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Mar 18, 2018 16:48:15 GMT -5
Betts Xander Benny JD Devers Hanley/Moreland Nunez/Pedey Swihart JBJ
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 18, 2018 18:12:35 GMT -5
1--- But Cora is convinced Springer should be leadoff. He's the most important decision maker. Cora in the artciles I provided you is speaking of power and pop. Not OBP. 2-- And if Xander is close to .400 OBP (though he hasn't really been close tot hat for his career. His best is .356. The only thing I've heard is you saying he changed his style. i ask what changed and you ignore it. I don't know what changed other than maybe he takes more pitches. But COra is telling us he wants a guy like SPringer in which OBP didn't matter as much as power.) -- he still might not be the top 3 hitters. We can look back to 2016 and see Betts and and Hanley had strong years. That could be better than a singles hitter. Thus, they still might be better. And we have Beni who might be better along with Beni being different a lefty bat. You are probably right if he has the .400 but hasn't come close to showing it yet. Though you've read the same articles I have. Cora speaks of power and he speaks of Houston. Whether you and I disagree with him or not (I disagree with Hanley at 3) is not that relevant. Cora doesn't buy our arguments. His approach changed by trying to walk more. I distinctly remember him doing it and it showed in the pretty big increase in walks. I'm not talking about Cora, I'm talking about my opinion. You could literally put the names of Houston batters in a hat, pull them out randomly and make a great lineup. Just because Cora said it, doesn't mean it isn't up for criticism. The entire board was bashing Farrell for leading Mookie off because he hit more than half his home runs with no runners on base at one point when they were struggling to score runs before he was dropped down in the order. Lineup order matters a lot more on a team that doesn't have equally great hitters at every spot 1-9. I'm not going to make myself try to think like Cora and then defend his position. This is my argument, not his. I don't know anymore if we're arguing or agreeing. I was talking in part about Cora and in part of my opinion plus I had asked you a question (in bold below) and anyone else-- fair enough you don't want to make yourself think like Cora. I respect that and your opinion. -- how much will Cora value it for the 3hole without much power?
I was just offering my opinion why I don't think COra will put Xander in the 1st 2 spots to start the season (that imo even The Book says he shouldn't), but also why imo Xander shouldn't be in the 3hole either. You did say you don't see how The Book wants a guy to hit home runs rather than walking hitting leadoff. I just offered an opinion that even if Xander has an OBP of .400 he still may not be the top 3 hitters on the team if he isn't hitting for power. Thus "The Book" spoke of the leadoff hitter should be one of the top 3 hitters. Not the top OBP guy. And as you say most of the board being critical of Betts batting 1st, I can't recall. But sure - it may very well have been. But likewise the board can also be critical of how the organization under DD wasn't as advanced metric friendly as in the past and got behind the curve. Now when "The Book" using metrics says your 3 best hitters should be 1,2 and 4, most of the board is going to say having Betts at 1 is wrong? That's not what The Book is saying though. So in this case not entirely agreeing with the book - I agree with you and others. None of us have to always agree with Cora or The Book. I don't which I've said many times on this thread that I don't agree with how the book defines what a 3hole hitter should be -- and Cora seems to be using The Book by putting Hanley at 3.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2018 18:30:46 GMT -5
Springer was also the 4th best hitter on the Astros by wRC+. Then they batted the 3rd best hitter 7th or 8th by the end of the year and in the playoffs. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. The Astros didn't use "The Book" as a bible. I'd prefer Xander to bat leadoff on this team. It didn't matter who hit where on the Astros because they were all such good hitters.
|
|
|
Post by drive7 on Mar 18, 2018 19:11:32 GMT -5
The more I think about it I'm starting to like the idea of batting Nunez/Pedroia 8th and JBJ 9th in order to create more RBI opportunities for Betts and Benintendi.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 18, 2018 21:18:41 GMT -5
Springer was also the 4th best hitter on the Astros by wRC+. Then they batted the 3rd best hitter 7th or 8th by the end of the year and in the playoffs. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. The Astros didn't use "The Book" as a bible. I'd prefer Xander to bat leadoff on this team. It didn't matter who hit where on the Astros because they were all such good hitters. Agreed. Looking at the projection systems globally, Martinez looks to put up a 140 WRC+. With no running game, he’s your 4. They have Betts right around 130. He’s the best runner. He’s your 2. Benintendi, Devers, Bogaerts, Ramirez, and JBJ (in descending order of WRC+) are all projected in the 105-115 range (JBJ might be closer to 100, but it’s a tight grouping). The differences are fairly academic but both Beni and Bogey tend to be OBP-heavy and have baserunning skills. To me it’s pretty clear that you put the OBP guys with speed at the top of the order, and the one with more power 3rd. Put the base-cloggers further down. Don’t mix the two, if you can avoid it. Try to alternate handedness as much as possible. I think you could argue JBJ 9th as a second lead-off, but I like him 7th until Pedey comes back. One takeaway from looking at the projections is that this should be a good, or even excellent, offensive team. Basically, beyond Vazquez, it’s all above-average hitters who have substantial upside beyond the projections. Given the global down year on the team last year, I think a lot of the projections run a little light. They could very easily have 4-5 120 WRC+ hitters.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Mar 19, 2018 0:29:26 GMT -5
Based on his dramatic differences hitting with bases empty/men on/RISP (off the top of my head roughly 85/120/150 WRC+ last year), I’d be tempted to bat Benintendi 3rd and thus Mookie 2nd (where he “belongs” as the team’s best hitter). That puts JDM 4th. So I’d go: 1) Bogaerts (if healthy I think an OBP around .370-.380 is attainable, and he’s a very good baserunner if not a particularly outstanding base stealer) 2) Mookie (contact, OBP, power, and an outstanding baserunner and very good base stealer, setting up the double-steal with Bogaerts, for:) 3) Beni (should benefit greatly from protection, better pitch selection with runners on in front of him; I think has the most upside as a complete hitter and is the most likely to make a significant leap forward) 4) JDM (his initials remind me of tuner cars) 5) Devers (a R-L-R-L stretch and also huge upside) 6) Hanley (if he truly is healthy and can approach his career line, it would be huge. I think he can) 7) JBJ 8) Vasquez/Swihart 9) Nunez/Pedroia That sounds good. Seems like Beni and the Betts can bat in either order. If Bogaerts regains his power stroke, then would it make sense to have Beni or Betts first, sine they have good base stealing skills, and have Bogaerts bat 2nd or third? Aside from the typical spring excitement, this spring really has a lot of excitement in the air about it to me. Especially if Price regains his prior dominance.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 19, 2018 3:32:41 GMT -5
I've been drawing up my own ideas for lineups lately-
1) Benintendi 2) Mookie 3) JBJ 4) JDM 5) Devers 6) Pedrioa (when he comes back) 7) Hanley 8) Xander 9) Vazquez
This lineup becomes a little right hand heavy at the bottom, but I think this lineup puts your 6 best hitters at the top of your lineup. I think Xander and Hanley would benefit from being down in the order. I think Vazquez is easily the team's worst hitter in terms of production and needs to be hitting 9th almost all the time. I think Pedrioa is still this team's 6th best hitter if his legs are back from under him.
I actually like JBJ a lot more than Hanley. They both strike out a lot, but JBJ sees a ton of pitches and he's a tougher at bat.
When Moreland is in the lineup, I'd bat him 8th and move Xander up one spot.
Nunez would probably hit 7th (with Moreland in the lineup) or 8th (without Moreland in the lineup) until Pedrioa is back. Xander and/or Hanley probably move up one spot in this case.
You can flip Xander with Hanley in the lineup whenever one gets hotter than the other (both players are streaky).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2018 15:12:22 GMT -5
I imagine today's lineup might be what we see to start the season, other than Vazquez replacing Leon:
Betts Benintendi Ramirez Martinez Bogaerts Devers Nunez JBJ Leon
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 19, 2018 23:23:05 GMT -5
Based on his dramatic differences hitting with bases empty/men on/RISP (off the top of my head roughly 85/120/150 WRC+ last year), I’d be tempted to bat Benintendi 3rd and thus Mookie 2nd (where he “belongs” as the team’s best hitter). That puts JDM 4th. So I’d go: 1) Bogaerts (if healthy I think an OBP around .370-.380 is attainable, and he’s a very good baserunner if not a particularly outstanding base stealer) 2) Mookie (contact, OBP, power, and an outstanding baserunner and very good base stealer, setting up the double-steal with Bogaerts, for:) 3) Beni (should benefit greatly from protection, better pitch selection with runners on in front of him; I think has the most upside as a complete hitter and is the most likely to make a significant leap forward) 4) JDM (his initials remind me of tuner cars) 5) Devers (a R-L-R-L stretch and also huge upside) 6) Hanley (if he truly is healthy and can approach his career line, it would be huge. I think he can) 7) JBJ 8) Vasquez/Swihart 9) Nunez/Pedroia That sounds good. Seems like Beni and the Betts can bat in either order. If Bogaerts regains his power stroke, then would it make sense to have Beni or Betts first, sine they have good base stealing skills, and have Bogaerts bat 2nd or third? Aside from the typical spring excitement, this spring really has a lot of excitement in the air about it to me. Especially if Price regains his prior dominance. Yeah, I think if Bogaerts puts it all together this year and looks like he’s become the .300/.370/.500 hitter we all hope, I’d drop him to 3 and lead Mookie off with his superior speed. I’d probably bat Beni 2nd in that case (provided he’s taken a step forward to more like a 120-130 WRC+ guy). The added benefit, as Eric mentioned, is that Bogey/JDM 3/4 makes bringing in a lefty specialist for Beni kind of distasteful to the opposition. I’d also consider batting JBJ 9th because he’s got good OBP skills and he’s an above-average baserunner even if he’s not a huge threat to steal. I’d probably bat Nunez/Pedey 7th in that case, although extending the “pre-top-of-the-lineup” with speed guys (Nunez) or OBP guys (Pedey) 8th might also be an interesting option. I agree, this is a really, really exciting team coming off a division win despite losing a pitcher who’s historically an ace (and I don’t use that term lightly...I mean it as a perennial Cy contender) and having an offense-wide slump, not to mention a poor showing by the 2016 Cy winner and an injury-riddled year from a young starter with #1-caliber stuff.
|
|
|