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.
The Big Bad Mookie Betts Thread
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 1, 2014 12:16:55 GMT -5
I just posted in another thread about the possibility of signing Pablo Sandoval if the Giants don't extend the QO. If that doesn't work out, I think moving Mookie to 3B makes sense. But I'd rather see them sign Sandoval (again, only if there's no QO). He'd balance the order a bit and provide some much-needed power.
Assuming no Stanton trade or other big shuffling, I see a 2015 Opening Day OF of Cespedes, Castillo and Victorino/Nava with Mookie getting every-day ABs while not accumulating service time at Pawtucket. He'd be the top candidate to get called up when the inevitable Victorino injury hits.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Sept 1, 2014 14:14:38 GMT -5
3) You can teach Mookie 3B starting in ST, and start him at Pawtucket if needs more work, while using Holt as a placeholder. Furthermore, the extra AAA PA that he would get in that scenario could not hurt and might well help. The theory being that what Bogaerts missed by not getting more PA at AAA was the (largely mental) experience of working his way out of a deep slump in AAA rather than at MLB, with the added difficulty and, especially, pressure to perform. Good plan... you should email it to Cherington just to be safe.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,728
|
Post by nomar on Sept 1, 2014 14:23:56 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see if they try Mookie at 3B come ST.
I think Cecchini will get called up in September. It's a possibility that he's ready to go at the start if next year. I doubt that both Betts and Cecchini will still be here come ST though. Cecchini has done a good job rebuilding his value as much as he could in August.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 14:24:22 GMT -5
I just posted in another thread about the possibility of signing Pablo Sandoval if the Giants don't extend the QO. If that doesn't work out, I think moving Mookie to 3B makes sense. But I'd rather see them sign Sandoval (again, only if there's no QO). He'd balance the order a bit and provide some much-needed power. Assuming no Stanton trade or other big shuffling, I see a 2015 Opening Day OF of Cespedes, Castillo and Victorino/Nava with Mookie getting every-day ABs while not accumulating service time at Pawtucket. He'd be the top candidate to get called up when the inevitable Victorino injury hits. So if Mookie hits 280 to finish the season in 50 games,(small sample i know) i think theirs NO WAY Mookie starts the year in Pawtucket. We have seen how good of player Mookie has been when he is playing everyday. Like you say, get Mookie some time at 3B and let him learn on the fly just like Betts did with the OF.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Sept 2, 2014 4:15:47 GMT -5
Hopefully this hasn't been discussed yet, I don't have the time to luck to close for it:
I am wondering if the Redsox not using Mookie at 2B these days with Pedroia not available could indicate they don't really consider trading him, like many suggest. Wouldn't they make him more attractive for other teams if they show he can handle 2B at the major league level? I would really welcome it if they choose to stick with him instead of trade him, like for many others here he really has grown on me a lot with his play.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 2, 2014 6:25:37 GMT -5
There has really been no questions about his ability to play 2B defensively, so I'm not sure playing him there in one random game in September really "showcases" him (i.e., increases his trade value) at all. As such, I don't think we can read anything about their willingness/unwillingness to trade him from the decision not to play him there. It's more likely that keeping him in the OF was just because he hasn't played 2B in months (indeed, he might not have taken ground balls at 2B in months).
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 2, 2014 6:53:04 GMT -5
Mookie's OPS is up to 780 and rising. He should be our lead off hitter for the next 10 years. While discussing his position is important, so is having a ++ lead off guy. Eric has been saying it for a while. 3b should be his spot in 2015. I'll wager he has a higher slugging pct tha Cecchini. Can't be much worse defensively from reports.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 2, 2014 7:07:30 GMT -5
There has really been no questions about his ability to play 2B defensively, so I'm not sure playing him there in one random game in September really "showcases" him (i.e., increases his trade value) at all. As such, I don't think we can read anything about their willingness/unwillingness to trade him from the decision not to play him there. It's more likely that keeping him in the OF was just because he hasn't played 2B in months (indeed, he might not have taken ground balls at 2B in months). When asked the question in yesterday's pre-game, Farrell was quite clear that Betts would not be filling in at 2B. He mentioned that Mookie has not played the position for some time. Whether that means they're not showcasing him for a trade is for others to speculate.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Sept 2, 2014 7:08:42 GMT -5
Agree he needs to be hitting leadoff next season and 3B seems logical. Also while we seem to have too many OFers now after next season that might not be the case. Cespedes and Victorino (I think he gets traded this year) only have one year left and Craig could be an option to replace Napoli if he leaves after next year too.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 2, 2014 8:48:37 GMT -5
I think they would be nuts to trade Mookie. He sure looks for real and few other teams would look at him with the same perceived value. And he is such a good fit for this team being able to play CF or RF potentially after Victorino is gone, or even RF next year if Victorino is incapacitated as it appears he may well be. And he may be even better at 3rd, although his scouting report said he had trouble coming in on balls if I remember correctly. I think sometimes teams underestimate the value of a good CF. We may be maximizing his value for us in CF or RF if JBJ reemerges, as compared to 3rd if we can develop a solid hitting 3rd baseman through other options.
I love players who can cover multiple positions and we have 2. We have some real talent to work with going forward and the bucks to contend in the FA market as well. And guys like Mookie, Swihart, Owens and I think Barnes will emerge to lead this team going forward as a real strong core.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 2, 2014 13:03:04 GMT -5
The Sox don't need to play Mookie at 2nd ... they know he can play there. But they can't be too confident about his OF play yet, so it makes all the sense in the world to keep him there.
Although, in the "irrelevant but somewhat annoying" category, he's probably going to have too many ABs this year to be a prospect over the offseason and a rookie next year, right? So, no joy seeing him ranked as an elite prospect in offseason lists or wondering if he'll win ROY next year. Alas.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,728
|
Post by nomar on Sept 2, 2014 13:49:36 GMT -5
Mookies UZR/150 has gone from -30 to -4 in 6 days. He's going to be at least average in CF, probably better.
If he doesn't collapse offensively, which is doubtful considering his excellent K/BB and sustainable ISO, he could be a 4-5.5 WAR player next year in CF or 2B. We'll see if/how he plays at 3B. In right field I think his defense could easily be plus.
Nothing is imminent, but he looks to be a very valuable player. I hope he's off the table. I wouldn't read into it much, but they don't seem to be showcasing him.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Sept 2, 2014 14:00:28 GMT -5
Why wouldn't Mookie be in left next year assuming Castillo is the guy in center? Cespedes (or victorino) should be in right assuming he's still here. Has a much better arm than Mookie.
Are we still hung up on the speed is taken away by the monster nonsense? Because I thought Cespedes arm was negated by it too? Should we just sign fat slow outfielders with no arms to play left field just so no perceived value is lost by playing that guy there?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 2, 2014 14:15:39 GMT -5
Why wouldn't Mookie be in left next year assuming Castillo is the guy in center? Cespedes (or victorino) should be in right assuming he's still here. Has a much better arm than Mookie. Are we still hung up on the speed is taken away by the monster nonsense? Because I thought Cespedes arm was negated by it too? Should we just sign fat slow outfielders with no arms to play left field just so no perceived value is lost by playing that guy there? It's not so much "speed is taken away by the monster" as "speed is totally necessary in RF in Fenway." That's a big, big RF, and you need a good defender to play it. Mookie would be a lot better in RF than Cespedes, it seems from Mookie's rapid improvement in CF. I think arm strength is a little overrated in RF anyway. And it's not like Mookie's Johnny Damon out there ... he's got a reasonable arm.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 2, 2014 14:29:36 GMT -5
To echo another post, above, (inserted after posting and then seeing the other post) the Red Sox would be nuts to trade Betts unless they got a comparable player in return, like a Stanton, etc. Even then, who would be the CF? JBJ isn't going to be the one next year. Castillo has to prove himself both as a hitter and as a fielder. Until he does that, the Red Sox should not assume that he will be the CF, and take action on that assumption. We have seen that movie this year.
Betts is the closest to being a RH Ellsbury the Red Sox have, and it has been enormously obvious this year what not having an Ellsbury at the top of the order has meant.
I could see them trying Betts at 3B in ST, but I think that a position is more likely to be filled by a slugger, an acquisition during the winter. If that doesn't happen, and if Castillo shows he can handle CF, then about the only position open for Betts is 3B. That is, however, if they don't trade one, or more of the other OFs.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 2, 2014 15:31:12 GMT -5
Based on Clay Davenport's defensive ratings (which are backed up almost exactly by BP's, for the one year that we have data from them*), Mookie has been a +6.5 R/150 defender at 2B, based on 231 games.
Various defensive metrics disagree wildly about Mookie so far in his equivalent of 26 MLB OF games (good according to DRS, really bad by TZ, a bit below average by UZR), but the best I can make of him at MLB is -4 in CF. In 43 games in CF in the minors, Davenport had him at +7 +/- 3.5, so a best and safe guess might be that's he's currently average in CF.
Note that guys who are 0.0 defensively in CF tend to be +6.0 in RF and +12.0 in LF, as a rule of thumb. So Mookie might be usefully regarded, right now, as +6 in RF. He wouldn't be +12 in LF playing half his games in Fenway, though.
So: here is a table that assumes Mookie is a +6.5 2B, and shows how good he has to be, defensively, at various other positions, in order to have the same value, or in order to lose only certain amounts of WAR. Note that there is a separate line for "actual LF value" simply because that's such a weak position now that LF hit less well than RF, even though it's easier defensively. I don't think it's a good idea to put a guy in LF because he doesn't seem to be losing much value because of that line; that is ceding one of the easiest advantages a good team can find for itself. If there weren't such a drought of LF, the line for LF would be 7 runs larger than the "RF/LF" line, rather than 3.5 smaller.
WAR lost-> 0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 3B/CF +11.0 + 6.5 +2.0 -2.5 -7.0 RF/LF +18.0 +13.5 +9.0 +4.5 0.0 LF (act) +14.5 +10.0 +5.5 +1.0 -3.5 I don't think you ever want to play a guy at a position where he's wasting 1.5 or 2.0 WAR of value. I think that if a guy has a specific valuable offensive skill / role as Mookie does, though, you can move him to a position where he loses 1.0 WAR of value initially and hope / expect that experience will move him in the direction of just a 0.5 WAR loss.
Given the above data, it's a bit of a stretch right now to play Mookie in CF or RF, where you're burning more than 1 WAR of value. Given a bit of time, he's probably very much keepable in CF. The same thing seems true at 3B.
Given our need at 3B, that conversion seems like a viable plan. It's also viable to keep him around as a plan C in CF if Castillo is a bust and Bradley never hits, or as a potential RF. What doesn't make sense is to keep him as a LF, playing half his games in a park that negates the value of his speed, if CF, RF, and 3B are filled adequately. Especially if he can be traded for a certain fishy outfielder.
I think this is a strong argument for trying the 3B conversion. And with Cecchini finishing strong, part of a very strong argument for not acquiring a 3B this winter.
*BP combines data from all positions without breaking it down, but Mookie played only 2B in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by rismith on Sept 2, 2014 16:20:40 GMT -5
Not sure I see the logjam beyond next year. Victorino has one year left. If he is healthy, you play him and see what happens. Betts is 21 and can play in the minors if necessary. Cespedes may be gone after next year so if you can't sign him, you have now lost 2 starters in the outfield for 2016. Castillo is getting fast tracked but there is no guaranty he can hit ML pitching. No way they should deal Betts. Kid is a star. Let Bradley and he play in the minors and try to build depth and value. Hopefully you can move Victorino if healthy. Need to be thinking about 2015 and 2016....
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 2, 2014 16:32:42 GMT -5
Note that guys who are 0.0 defensively in CF tend to be +6.0 in RF and +12.0 in LF, as a rule of thumb. So Mookie might be usefully regarded, right now, as +6 in RF. He wouldn't be +12 in LF playing half his games in Fenway, though. So: here is a table that assumes Mookie is a +6.5 2B, and shows how good he has to be, defensively, at various other positions, in order to have the same value, or in order to lose only certain amounts of WAR. Note that there is a separate line for "actual LF value" simply because that's such a weak position now that LF hit less well than RF, even though it's easier defensively. I don't think it's a good idea to put a guy in LF because he doesn't seem to be losing much value because of that line; that is ceding one of the easiest advantages a good team can find for itself. If there weren't such a drought of LF, the line for LF would be 7 runs larger than the "RF/LF" line, rather than 3.5 smaller. WAR lost-> 0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 3B/CF +11.0 + 6.5 +2.0 -2.5 -7.0 RF/LF +18.0 +13.5 +9.0 +4.5 0.0 LF (act) +14.5 +10.0 +5.5 +1.0 -3.5 Can I ask what set of positional adjustments you're using, and how those positional adjustments were derived? It seems wildly different from most sets I'm familiar with, most notably the one used by Baseball-Reference and the one popularized by Tom Tango. Starting from CF as 0, it seems like you've got it as: LF: -12 RF: -6 CF: 0 3B: 0 2B: +4.5 Compare that to Tango's (last updated 2008; assuming CF = 0 for the ease of comparison): LF: -10 RF: -10 CF: 0 3B: 0 2B: 0 ...and B-R's (this set is from 2012; I believe they have 2013 updated ones somewhere but I'm too lazy to find them and think they'd be virtually the same; again assuming CF = 0 for the ease of comparison): LF: -10 RF: -10 3B: -0.5 CF: 0 2B: +0.5 In particular, note that both the above think CF is about as difficult a position as 2B, whereas you have a generic player losing about a half wins' worth of value purely based on positional adjustments between CF and 2B. There's also a significant bit of wonkiness between CF/RF/LF. I'm open to the possibility that those two sets of positional adjustments may be slightly outdated or inaccurate, but I'd like to see your work. This one little difference accounts for half of the defensive value that Betts would purport to lose if he moved from 2B to CF, and significantly alters the question about whether it would make sense to move him to RF or LF.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 2, 2014 16:36:36 GMT -5
Not sure I see the logjam beyond next year. Victorino has one year left. If he is healthy, you play him and see what happens. Betts is 21 and can play in the minors if necessary. Cespedes may be gone after next year so if you can't sign him, you have now lost 2 starters in the outfield for 2016. Castillo is getting fast tracked but there is no guaranty he can hit ML pitching. No way they should deal Betts. Kid is a star. Let Bradley and he play in the minors and try to build depth and value. Hopefully you can move Victorino if healthy. Need to be thinking about 2015 and 2016.... Also, Craig is around for longer, but if he hits, it probably makes more sense to let Napoli walk after 2016 and move Craig to first base. And if he doesn't hit he's not blocking anybody. So if you look at the 2016 outfield, it's Castillo and a bunch of question marks. I've said it before, but trading Betts really only makes sense if winning in 2015 is prioritized over everything else.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 2, 2014 17:31:50 GMT -5
Can I ask what set of positional adjustments you're using, and how those positional adjustments were derived? They're based on MLB hitting by position the last 10 years, weighted 10-9-8...3-2-1. For simplicity, I've used TAv by position as reported by BP, taken the results relative to the .265 TAv of MLB starters, and converted to R/150. This gives you: + 9.4 SS + 8.9 C + 4.2 2B + 0.0 CF - 0.1 3B - 7.3 RF -11.4 1B - 3.7 LF is the anomaly; I use the RF adjustment instead. I don't see any kind of good rational argument that 2B ought to hit as well as 3B, and, year after year, they haven't. Tango has tried to show that guys who convert from 2B to 3B or 3B to 2B field the positions equally as well, but there is obviously a huge selection bias there. If you forced all the 3B whom you'd never try at 2B to play 2B, you'd see that 2B was more difficult. (For the same reasons, guys who play both 3B and SS don't tend to play 3B anywhere like 9.5 runs better than SS; it's more like 3 runs. But if you forced all the guys like Middlebrooks to play a whole lot of games at SS, you'd see the observed defensive difference move towards the 9.5.) LF should be expected to hit better than RF, and they did until 2006. Since then, they've been worse than RF, by (points of TAv) .002, .003, .002, .003, .018, .004, .007. At the same time, the percentage of LF PT taken by regulars has dropped to below that of even catcher. Both point to a shortage of talent among pure hitters that has been widely observed and crops up elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Sept 2, 2014 17:41:09 GMT -5
Eric, why are you looking at hitting at all when you derive positional adjustments? The point of the positional adjustment is to neutralize the league average because not all positions are equally hard to defend. That has nothing to do with hitting. You seem to be assuming that all positions should be providing the same amount of overall value, and so if one position hits better than another it must be easier to field. That doesn't make any sense when you consider that most of the best overall positional players are center fielders or shortstops. That's going to cause you to undervalue CF, and it looks like you did, relative to the traditional positional adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 2, 2014 18:21:21 GMT -5
Yeah, what Ethan said. There's a huge selection bias when you do it your way, ones that don't require counterfactual hypotheticals to illustrate. In particular, there's a deeply engrained bias that puts shorter guys at 2B and taller guys at 3B, even though there is plenty of evidence that tall 3B do just fine defensively at 2B if they were moved there.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 3, 2014 14:34:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 3, 2014 14:43:29 GMT -5
The above is basically my read as well. Most of the alleged outfield logjam will be resolved by the end of 2015 (with Cespedes and Victorino becoming free agents), and it would really only take a trade of Cespedes or Craig this offseason to open up a starting RF spot for Mookie next year (with the idea that Victorino is a bench player until he demonstrates that he can be healthy and productive and Nava is best utilized as a reserve/platoon player). Moreover, while the idea of switching Betts to 3B makes sense in theory, I'm still not sure it makes much sense in practice. I'm convinced Mookie will be an above-average defensive outfielder, but he's never played 3B in his life, and putting him at the one position that places a huge emphasis on his weakest defensive tool (his arm) seems like a bad idea. I've previously elaborated on why I think he's a bad fit at 3B here and here, so I won't belabor the point, except to note that third base also happens to be one of the deepest positions in free agency, with guys like Sandoval, Headley, H. Ramirez, and A. Ramirez all available.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 3, 2014 15:04:45 GMT -5
Am I the only one who wants to trade Betts? I mean, I don't get why people are so against trading him. We know he's really good but that shouldn't stop you from trading him. The thing is, Mookie is clearly not nearly as good in Center field as he is in 2nd base, and he would lose a lot of value in Center Field, and even more in Left or Right Field. Also considering that we already have Craig, Castillo, Cespedes, Victorino, and Nava, with Bradley there if he can figure it out, I don't see a place for him in the outfield. These factors make me think that he would be much more valuable to us in a trade than on the field, provided we get good value of course (I'm definitely not for trading him for something that isn't worth it), and if we don't get good value, we definitely don't have to trade him, but I would be thrilled if we traded him for good value.
Also I think that acquiring Craig, Cespedes and Castillo is a clear statement he won't play outfield for us. I see people proposing Castillo/Betts/Cespedes or some variation of that all the time, but that leaves Allen Craig, who is clearly a starter quality player on the bench, and Shane Victorino, who should be an elite bench player as the 5th outfielder, and it knocks Nava, our only lefty outfielder, off the roster. It really doesn't make any sense unless we trade one of those guys, and I don't see us trading any of these guys really
Castillo-You don't sign a guy for 72 million to trade him, also we would have to subsidize a lot to get any value for him, because the other teams clearly didn't think he was worth 72 million or they would've bid that. Cespedes-He only has one year left, so you wouldn't get a ton of value, or anything that would help you more in 2015 than Cespedes would, also they've shown that they want to re-sign him. Craig-Trading a guy who was a .306/.358/.492 guy his whole career before this year, and this year put up .228/.287/.341 is all kinds of dumb Victorino-Would be selling low just like Craig, people seem to forget he was a 5.8 WAR player in 2013. Now we know you can't count on him to play, but the other teams know that too, so he wouldn't get much of value and he could be extremely valuable off the bench to us. Nava-Destroys righties and would be a key late game righty batter for us, and could start many games against righties for us. Also would be selling low, and with how righty heavy this team is, I don't see us trading away another lefty to give Mookie space on the bench
|
|
|