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
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 5, 2016 14:42:27 GMT -5
I hope he does. Bogaerts needs to walk more for sure. Some of that will come as he grows into more power, but in general he was way too aggressive. He won't sustain his offensive production walking that seldomly. I don't think Xander will ever be a standout on base wise but I think he will be always a top 10 on base guy compared to the rest of the short stops in baseball. That's really all I can ask for him. I think Xander will be a overall good or solid player in his career but Mookie will be better. It's pretty hysterical that the Boston media sees it the complete opposite. Mookie is the standout to me, I still want to see both on this team for many years though. Would still like to see Xander get extended regardless of his agent.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 5, 2016 15:35:06 GMT -5
XB reminds me of Jeter at times with his oppo stroke & hitting some mistakes for HR's....can't see the 30 though. Solid defensively, but not Iglesias...Betts is probably a year away to matching McCutcheon in his skillset.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 6, 2016 13:01:52 GMT -5
I'm definitely more concerned about Bogaerts taking a (relative) step back when trying to introduce more power this season than with Mookie potentially facing fewer inside/pullable pitches. Nothing against Bogaerts at all, and I haven't read up or heard much regarding this, but does anybody else feel like Betts is almost a purer hitter, than Xander is? I feel like Xander's lows and slumps could be (and have been) significantly worse than Mookie's could be. Mookie did start off relatively slow and slumped at times, but I distinctly recall a ton of line drives and flies simply not falling in. For Xander, we've seen (in 2014) how bad it is when he tries to do too much and pull everything. I hope Xander steadily progresses and doesn't try to rapidly become more powerful this season, and I hope Mookie can walk a bit more. He doesn't have to hit more homers, but I do hope Xander does. If they both end up as being 15-20 homer guys, with Mookie having a higher AVG and OBP, but Xander a better SLG, I won't be disappointed. But I don't know how likely it is that Xander ever becomes "that" 30 homer guy. Everyone is so obbsessed with Xander getting more power out of the short stop position and wants him to focus on hitting for more power. I don't get it. The reason why I like Xander is because he was willing to go the other way and focus on getting on base more and get more base hits. Power is usually the last thing to come with young hitters. I don't care if he's hitting around 10 homeruns a year if he keeps hitting, I really don't. If the power comes, I want it to come naturally and don't change his approach at the plate at all. Xander made himself into a way better player last year because of that approach. I hope he doesn't change a dang thing about it. I think people are more "obsessed," as you put it, with Bogaerts' power because that was a big part of what made him such a special prospect as opposed to just a good one. I really think that's all it is. It's something like "I'm cool with this reliable, free Audi, but didn't you say I might get a free Bentley?"
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 6, 2016 15:08:06 GMT -5
Everyone is so obbsessed with Xander getting more power out of the short stop position and wants him to focus on hitting for more power. I don't get it. The reason why I like Xander is because he was willing to go the other way and focus on getting on base more and get more base hits. Power is usually the last thing to come with young hitters. I don't care if he's hitting around 10 homeruns a year if he keeps hitting, I really don't. If the power comes, I want it to come naturally and don't change his approach at the plate at all. Xander made himself into a way better player last year because of that approach. I hope he doesn't change a dang thing about it. I think people are more "obsessed," as you put it, with Bogaerts' power because that was a big part of what made him such a special prospect as opposed to just a good one. I really think that's all it is. It's something like "I'm cool with this reliable, free Audi, but didn't you say I might get a free Bentley?" Honestly if Bogaerts doesn't bring back the power or the walks, he's more of a Honda Accord than anything. The thing with Bogaerts is that we've all been following him for years, we've been excited about the guy for years, we've been reading glowing scouting reports, calling him the next big thing, etc. We're heavily invested in the player. Without any of the background, would you look at a guy who hit .320 off a .371 BABIP, with a 4.9% walk rate and a .101 ISO, and think "breakout"? If I was a fan of any other team, I'd probably look at him and think Erick Aybar with a little less defense. I still believe in the upside, but I also wonder if I'm (we're) just a little TOO knowledgeable about Bogaerts to really get an honest read on him.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 6, 2016 16:41:05 GMT -5
Honestly if Bogaerts doesn't bring back the power or the walks, he's more of a Honda Accord than anything. The thing with Bogaerts is that we've all been following him for years, we've been excited about the guy for years, we've been reading glowing scouting reports, calling him the next big thing, etc. We're heavily invested in the player. Without any of the background, would you look at a guy who hit .320 off a .371 BABIP, with a 4.9% walk rate and a .101 ISO, and think "breakout"? If I was a fan of any other team, I'd probably look at him and think Erick Aybar with a little less defense. I still believe in the upside, but I also wonder if I'm (we're) just a little TOO knowledgeable about Bogaerts to really get an honest read on him. I'm thinking more BMW without the plus acceleration and solid-average brakes.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 6, 2016 17:21:02 GMT -5
I think people are more "obsessed," as you put it, with Bogaerts' power because that was a big part of what made him such a special prospect as opposed to just a good one. I really think that's all it is. It's something like "I'm cool with this reliable, free Audi, but didn't you say I might get a free Bentley?" Honestly if Bogaerts doesn't bring back the power or the walks, he's more of a Honda Accord than anything. The thing with Bogaerts is that we've all been following him for years, we've been excited about the guy for years, we've been reading glowing scouting reports, calling him the next big thing, etc. We're heavily invested in the player. Without any of the background, would you look at a guy who hit .320 off a .371 BABIP, with a 4.9% walk rate and a .101 ISO, and think "breakout"? If I was a fan of any other team, I'd probably look at him and think Erick Aybar with a little less defense. I still believe in the upside, but I also wonder if I'm (we're) just a little TOO knowledgeable about Bogaerts to really get an honest read on him. I understand your concerns. But this appears to be a different guy, very intelligent, older than his years, and quite willing to try and build something for the future. After raking in the playoffs in 2013, his numbers were pedestrian in his second year. There were holes in that fine swing, ones that were quickly exploited. What does he do? He spends the next year eliminating those holes, so completely that he ends up competing for the batting title. Is the power swing gone? Not at all. Pitchers started probing him inside towards the end of the year and he blasted a few of those well out of range. Erick Aybar he is not. What is he? I guess we get to find out this year. I think jmei's take is the best one. He has to see about integrating the two approaches as seamlessly as he can. No idea if he can do it. What I did learn, last year, is that he's trying to build something very solid. That's not that typical for a 22 year-old. The approach was impressive. I haven's seen many players focus that intently on the task at hand - a whole season's worth of focus. Now to this year. There's power there, let's see how it surfaces.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 6, 2016 20:47:25 GMT -5
Agree with Norm. 22 year old incorporates what essentially amounts to a new plate approach and wildly better defense in the course of an offseason. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I know what this kid is and isn't capable of. He's still a few seasons away from his peak physical/body/power years.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 6, 2016 20:51:19 GMT -5
Honestly if Bogaerts doesn't bring back the power or the walks, he's more of a Honda Accord than anything. The thing with Bogaerts is that we've all been following him for years, we've been excited about the guy for years, we've been reading glowing scouting reports, calling him the next big thing, etc. We're heavily invested in the player. Without any of the background, would you look at a guy who hit .320 off a .371 BABIP, with a 4.9% walk rate and a .101 ISO, and think "breakout"? If I was a fan of any other team, I'd probably look at him and think Erick Aybar with a little less defense. I still believe in the upside, but I also wonder if I'm (we're) just a little TOO knowledgeable about Bogaerts to really get an honest read on him. I understand your concerns. But this appears to be a different guy, very intelligent, older than his years, and quite willing to try and build something for the future. After raking in the playoffs in 2013, his numbers were pedestrian in his second year. There were holes in that fine swing, ones that were quickly exploited. What does he do? He spends the next year eliminating those holes, so completely that he ends up competing for the batting title. Is the power swing gone? Not at all. Pitchers started probing him inside towards the end of the year and he blasted a few of those well out of range. Erick Aybar he is not. What is he? I guess we get to find out this year. I think jmei's take is the best one. He has to see about integrating the two approaches as seamlessly as he can. No idea if he can do it. What I did learn, last year, is that he's trying to build something very solid. That's not that typical for a 22 year-old. The approach was impressive. I haven's seen many players focus that intently on the task at hand - a whole season's worth of focus. Now to this year. There's power there, let's see how it surfaces. On the one hand I agree; on the other hand you're making my point for me.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jan 6, 2016 20:52:57 GMT -5
The thing with Bogaerts is that we've all been following him for years, we've been excited about the guy for years, we've been reading glowing scouting reports, calling him the next big thing, etc. We're heavily invested in the player. Without any of the background, would you look at a guy who hit .320 off a .371 BABIP, with a 4.9% walk rate and a .101 ISO, and think "breakout"? If I was a fan of any other team, I'd probably look at him and think Erick Aybar with a little less defense. I still believe in the upside, but I also wonder if I'm (we're) just a little TOO knowledgeable about Bogaerts to really get an honest read on him. It's probably the latter; the hype machine feeds on itself in a reinforcing cycle. If you remember the podcasts, they couldn't even say his name without a giggle (sounds a bit silly in retrospect). Just think of the truly outstanding young players in the game (Trout, Stanton, Harper, Goldschmidt, Machado, even Betts and Puig). What I've never understood, is if you put a team of those players together and were watching them all for the first time (with no pre-knowledge of any of them), and asked yourself, "which one doesn't belong?" Pretty clearly it's Xander. Think of all the memorable plays that the others have to their name - has Xander ever done anything on a MLB field that has left you shaking your head in wonder? Probably his most memorable moment is laying off a 3-2 slider in the ALDS. Now of course, that's elite company and there's no shame in not belonging to it, and it by no means implies that Xander isn't a very valuable player (hell he was the best all-around SS in the AL last year). But it's *not* what some led us to believe
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 6, 2016 21:55:25 GMT -5
No not a big believer in WAR or really stats in general. I call it like I see it. Dave D. would probably love me as a fan. Like I ask one question when it comes to WAR, we always assume that a player is that much above or below WAR but can anyone name me who the replacement level player is? Then can you answer why that player is a replacement level himself and not above or below replacement level? There's no way other than in black and white paper to tell me that Mookie makes the kind of impact that Ortiz and Nelson Cruz makes on a daily basis. These two players are impact producers. Even if Mookie steals more bags or covers more ground, that doesn't mean he is worth more than these two players in general because of the presence they both bring to a lineup. I'm saying all this at present too. Don't let anyone think I'm taking away from Betts. I think he will be this kind of a impact player someday. It would be a travesty if this kid sees free agency in 5 years. I'll end up hating where this organization is headed if that happens. I know I'm not going to convince anyone here to believe in what I'm saying or that I'm trying to swade you one way or the other. This is just how I see things, I like to think that Dombrowski sees things kind of the way I do too. We all have biases and biases are often misleading or flat out wrong. Stats never lie they can be deceiving to those that don't understand what the stat is and is not telling you. For example many years ago I went to 4 Red Sox games during a season. In those 4 games Tom Brunansky had what was likely his 4 best games of the season. It was so over the top that I considered writing a letter to him with a photo of the tickets with the belief he'd send me more. Those who are not stat guys would tell you that Tom was an all star or even MVP when the truth was he was no more than a slightly above average player that season. Ortiz has a greater impact on the game with his bat and Betts has a greater impact on the game period, call it as you see it and you'd be wrong. Numbers are based on facts as 1+1 will always equal 2. I find that almost everyone who dismisses numbers is someone who never really grasped the universal language that numbers are. I believe all opinions should start with the numbers and then go from there. For example all projections for players in 2016 will utilize a system that is meant to be approx. right in most cases but will not predict breakout players such as young rising stars nor will it ever believe a player who reached a new level of production to continue to improve but rather will regress. The systems are not meant for outliers therefore if you want to predict who will surpass their projections and be right more often than you are wrong you need to utilize more numbers and common sense and logic to figure it out, so the numbers while important are not the end all be all, but it is where you start to mold your opinions and beliefs. If not all you have is anecdotal evidence which is not worth anything.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 6, 2016 23:33:42 GMT -5
Honestly if Bogaerts doesn't bring back the power or the walks, he's more of a Honda Accord than anything. The thing with Bogaerts is that we've all been following him for years, we've been excited about the guy for years, we've been reading glowing scouting reports, calling him the next big thing, etc. We're heavily invested in the player. Without any of the background, would you look at a guy who hit .320 off a .371 BABIP, with a 4.9% walk rate and a .101 ISO, and think "breakout"? If I was a fan of any other team, I'd probably look at him and think Erick Aybar with a little less defense. I still believe in the upside, but I also wonder if I'm (we're) just a little TOO knowledgeable about Bogaerts to really get an honest read on him. I understand your concerns. But this appears to be a different guy, very intelligent, older than his years, and quite willing to try and build something for the future. After raking in the playoffs in 2013, his numbers were pedestrian in his second year. There were holes in that fine swing, ones that were quickly exploited. What does he do? He spends the next year eliminating those holes, so completely that he ends up competing for the batting title. Is the power swing gone? Not at all. Pitchers started probing him inside towards the end of the year and he blasted a few of those well out of range. Erick Aybar he is not. What is he? I guess we get to find out this year. I think jmei's take is the best one. He has to see about integrating the two approaches as seamlessly as he can. No idea if he can do it. What I did learn, last year, is that he's trying to build something very solid. That's not that typical for a 22 year-old. The approach was impressive. I haven's seen many players focus that intently on the task at hand - a whole season's worth of focus. Now to this year. There's power there, let's see how it surfaces. I'll predict that his true breakout season will be 2017 at 24 years old. Next season I'd expect him to hit twice as many HR's. Last yr, he hit 3 HR's in Sept.and only 7 overall. As he gains experience he'll start to recognize situations on which he can sit on a certain pitch or attempt to drive the ball more rather than simply put the ball in play with solid contact. In his first off-season after his rookie year his progress was remarkable not only in the box but so was his D on the diamond. Most players take 2 years to adjust to the major league level while he did it in one by turning what was a weakness into a strength all at the tender age of 22. So why would anyone not believe he still has alot of room to grow? Ted Williams stated not to judge a player until he's had 1,000 at bats and Xander only reached that level near the end of this year but he's only scratched the surface. Scouts were high on him for a reason. I'd expect steady progress this season as his second half numbers show 337 .372 .431 in 297 at bats so the second half production is within an at bat of 1,000 AB.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 6, 2016 23:38:55 GMT -5
Xander's approach last year was what he should do when he's behind in the count, not every pitch. I think he'll make that change.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 7, 2016 6:54:29 GMT -5
I think people are more "obsessed," as you put it, with Bogaerts' power because that was a big part of what made him such a special prospect as opposed to just a good one. I really think that's all it is. It's something like "I'm cool with this reliable, free Audi, but didn't you say I might get a free Bentley?" Honestly if Bogaerts doesn't bring back the power or the walks, he's more of a Honda Accord than anything. The thing with Bogaerts is that we've all been following him for years, we've been excited about the guy for years, we've been reading glowing scouting reports, calling him the next big thing, etc. We're heavily invested in the player. Without any of the background, would you look at a guy who hit .320 off a .371 BABIP, with a 4.9% walk rate and a .101 ISO, and think "breakout"? If I was a fan of any other team, I'd probably look at him and think Erick Aybar with a little less defense. I still believe in the upside, but I also wonder if I'm (we're) just a little TOO knowledgeable about Bogaerts to really get an honest read on him. Didn't Xander just win the Silver Slugger Award for SS in the AL? As a 22 year old, while playing very good D at SS. I happen to like Honda Accords as they are a great value dollar for dollar, but Xander is already in the BMW class. Hopefully on his way to being a Rolls Royce!!
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 7, 2016 11:11:46 GMT -5
No not a big believer in WAR or really stats in general. I call it like I see it. Dave D. would probably love me as a fan. Like I ask one question when it comes to WAR, we always assume that a player is that much above or below WAR but can anyone name me who the replacement level player is? Then can you answer why that player is a replacement level himself and not above or below replacement level? There's no way other than in black and white paper to tell me that Mookie makes the kind of impact that Ortiz and Nelson Cruz makes on a daily basis. These two players are impact producers. Even if Mookie steals more bags or covers more ground, that doesn't mean he is worth more than these two players in general because of the presence they both bring to a lineup. I'm saying all this at present too. Don't let anyone think I'm taking away from Betts. I think he will be this kind of a impact player someday. It would be a travesty if this kid sees free agency in 5 years. I'll end up hating where this organization is headed if that happens. I know I'm not going to convince anyone here to believe in what I'm saying or that I'm trying to swade you one way or the other. This is just how I see things, I like to think that Dombrowski sees things kind of the way I do too. We all have biases and biases are often misleading or flat out wrong. Stats never lie they can be deceiving to those that don't understand what the stat is and is not telling you. For example many years ago I went to 4 Red Sox games during a season. In those 4 games Tom Brunansky had what was likely his 4 best games of the season. It was so over the top that I considered writing a letter to him with a photo of the tickets with the belief he'd send me more. Those who are not stat guys would tell you that Tom was an all star or even MVP when the truth was he was no more than a slightly above average player that season. Ortiz has a greater impact on the game with his bat and Betts has a greater impact on the game period, call it as you see it and you'd be wrong. Numbers are based on facts as 1+1 will always equal 2. I find that almost everyone who dismisses numbers is someone who never really grasped the universal language that numbers are. I believe all opinions should start with the numbers and then go from there. For example all projections for players in 2016 will utilize a system that is meant to be approx. right in most cases but will not predict breakout players such as young rising stars nor will it ever believe a player who reached a new level of production to continue to improve but rather will regress. The systems are not meant for outliers therefore if you want to predict who will surpass their projections and be right more often than you are wrong you need to utilize more numbers and common sense and logic to figure it out, so the numbers while important are not the end all be all, but it is where you start to mold your opinions and beliefs. If not all you have is anecdotal evidence which is not worth anything. Numbers are only a indicator for me, it has no bearing of what a player is going to do from one year to the next. Like for example if a player is capable of hitting 20 homeruns but we shouldn't always expect 20 homeruns every year based off one year or a couple years. They are fun to look at when a players career is over however. I just think the eye test always wins. Bill Bellicheck (sp?) Kind of said the same thing yesterday when asked about analytics. If you need numbers to tell you how good a player is then why even watch? Scouting is the most important aspect in the game for me, if you're ahead of the scouting curve then you're probably going to know how good a player can be before the actual stats and numbers actually you tell you that he's a good player.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 7, 2016 18:34:41 GMT -5
Numbers are only a indicator for me, it has no bearing of what a player is going to do from one year to the next. Like for example if a player is capable of hitting 20 homeruns but we shouldn't always expect 20 homeruns every year based off one year or a couple years. They are fun to look at when a players career is over however. I just think the eye test always wins. Bill Bellicheck (sp?) Kind of said the same thing yesterday when asked about analytics. If you need numbers to tell you how good a player is then why even watch? Scouting is the most important aspect in the game for me, if you're ahead of the scouting curve then you're probably going to know how good a player can be before the actual stats and numbers actually you tell you that he's a good player. I hope that is hyperbole, because otherwise you don't believe in forecasting of any sense, which is puzzling. Statistics and scouting will both always be fun and useful. The point of statistics is to catch every detail in order to indicate how good a player is, or how good a player will be, but this is a white whale. Statistics will never be completely correct, but as they are further developed they continue to improve. The primary issue with scouting is the sample size. If you are a great scout and see every single pitch thrown by a pitcher during the season, then you will likely be able to judge the ability and future success more accurately - but this is quite difficult and time intensive. Statistics make keeping up on players much easier, even for a scout. One example of scouting failing is Derek Jeter's defense. Before defensive metrics gained support, the general consensus was that Jeter was a 'great' defender. But after seeing the statistics it allowed scouts to go back to him and realize just how slow he was at reacting to balls hit into play which greatly reduced his range despite the package of plus tools. If scouting or numbers disagree, that's a great indicator that the other side should double-check what they think they know. It's a bit of a check-and-balance.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,421
|
Post by ianrs on Jan 7, 2016 20:47:17 GMT -5
Its funny to see the anxiety come out in regards to Xander and Mookie. Interesting that these players will almost definitely never escape one another's shadow, coming from oddly different prospect backgrounds and yet being the faces of the franchise at 23. We're now on a couple pages of "can Bogaerts adjust" after discussing a potential Betts flaw in the Betts thread.
Realistically though, we cannot discount the defensive strides that both Xander and Mookie have made on top of offensive gains. Those have been impressive adjustments. Xander's adjustment from basically doing nothing last offensive season was pretty significant too, even if the home runs were lacking. Despite the apparent flaws (Xander sacrificing power, Mookie rolling over outside pitches), they will both have plenty of time to adjust, given their ages, athleticism, and skillsets. I am hopeful that we will one day revisit these concerns just as happily as we have revisited the exaggerated, "Xander is overrated because he will have to move off of SS" chatter. Of course, pitchers will attempt to adjust, too. I think the most obvious adjustment implemented next season will be pitchers almost never going inside to Betts, but if that does happen, I just see him becoming a walk machine. The great thing about Betts is that he doesn't have to look inside, because right now he has elite hand speed. Its just a matter of recognizing when not to swing to pull. I think they will both adjust. You just gotta believe.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,680
|
Post by gerry on Jan 8, 2016 4:06:27 GMT -5
And I do believe. And their skillsets are different and equally essential to the team. There's that team word again. These are special players, well grounded and smart, as well as superbly talented. Who was better, Lynn or Dewey, the Splendid Splinter or Jumpin Joe, Lonborg or Schilling, the blond or brunette, Pedey or . . . wait, there must be someone. We are lucky to watch them all, including CV and Swihart, JBJ and Vic, Kimbrel and Koji, Pedro and Price. Parsing greatness is, IMO, as impossible as projecting it. But it is still great to be a Sox fan.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jan 8, 2016 6:53:11 GMT -5
Reading the tea leaves, it appears that the plan going into opening day will be: Castillo-LF Bradley-CF Betts-RF
against RHPs.
And that Young will start for Bradley against LHPs (all reverse splits are illusory). Given that you shan't play Young in CF unless it's an emergency, who plays CF against LHPs? I would think that's Betts, but Castillo could play there as well (certainly has the better arm of the two). He's only played 130 innings in center, so hard to get a read on him there.
I don't think they've really thought out the outfield alignment well. Let's grant that CF (even at Fenway ) is a more impactful position than RF, and Bradley is the superior defender (in both positions) to Betts. It doesn't necessarily follow that a Bradley-CF/Betts-RF alignment is better than the reverse; and even if it is, by how many runs? And then compound that by the fact that Bradley in even an optimal scenario would play 2/3 of the outfield innings; if Betts is the one targeted as the CF in his stead (with Castillo shifting to RF), is it really worth it?
Not to mention that the idea of shifting Betts to RF comes from the GM, and is at best tolerated by the field management (I find it a bit ironic that a guy who offered one of the most ill-considered (predictably) FA contracts ever (signing Fielder to shift Cabrera to 3B), is now obsessing over what are likely marginal efficiencies in OF alignment, but whatever). This certainly has the potential to cause unnecessary discord and problems. Although I'm generally of the mind that players are babied too much and should be able to play multiple positions well (and this includes the SS), allowing for the most optimal alignment to win a given game, it shouldn't be done gratuitously. It would be logical that, e.g. it increases injury risk.
Unless someone could present a reliable calculation that shows Bradley-CF/Betts-RF is, say, double digit defensive runs better than the reverse (and that's a very fraught calculation), I wouldn't bother - let Betts stay in CF until he plays himself off the position.
Betts is the cornerstone, can't afford to mess that up.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 8, 2016 8:31:27 GMT -5
Reading the tea leaves, it appears that the plan going into opening day will be: Castillo-LF Bradley-CF Betts-RF against RHPs. And that Young will start for Bradley against LHPs (all reverse splits are illusory). Given that you shan't play Young in CF unless it's an emergency, who plays CF against LHPs? I would think that's Betts, but Castillo could play there as well (certainly has the better arm of the two). He's only played 130 innings in center, so hard to get a read on him there. I don't think they've really thought out the outfield alignment well. Let's grant that CF (even at Fenway ) is a more impactful position than RF, and Bradley is the superior defender (in both positions) to Betts. It doesn't necessarily follow that a Bradley-CF/Betts-RF alignment is better than the reverse; and even if it is, by how many runs? And then compound that by the fact that Bradley in even an optimal scenario would play 2/3 of the outfield innings; if Betts is the one targeted as the CF in his stead (with Castillo shifting to RF), is it really worth it? Not to mention that the idea of shifting Betts to RF comes from the GM, and is at best tolerated by the field management (I find it a bit ironic that a guy who offered one of the most ill-considered (predictably) FA contracts ever (signing Fielder to shift Cabrera to 3B), is now obsessing over what are likely marginal efficiencies in OF alignment, but whatever). This certainly has the potential to cause unnecessary discord and problems. Although I'm generally of the mind that players are babied too much and should be able to play multiple positions well (and this includes the SS), allowing for the most optimal alignment to win a given game, it shouldn't be done gratuitously. It would be logical that, e.g. it increases injury risk. Unless someone could present a reliable calculation that shows Bradley-CF/Betts-RF is, say, double digit defensive runs better than the reverse (and that's a very fraught calculation), I wouldn't bother - let Betts stay in CF until he plays himself off the position. Betts is the cornerstone, can't afford to mess that up. Your probably right to their alignment. IMO Bradley would play up a bit in RF @ Fenway as it is close in difficultly to CF. The tiebreaker is his arm is better than close to Betts. RF (especially in Fenway) needs a cannon out there (as in Dewey). If your going to do this, I'd just leave it that way on the road as well. Castillo LF Betts CF Bradley RF.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 8, 2016 14:45:23 GMT -5
We all have biases and biases are often misleading or flat out wrong. Stats never lie they can be deceiving to those that don't understand what the stat is and is not telling you. For example many years ago I went to 4 Red Sox games during a season. In those 4 games Tom Brunansky had what was likely his 4 best games of the season. It was so over the top that I considered writing a letter to him with a photo of the tickets with the belief he'd send me more. Those who are not stat guys would tell you that Tom was an all star or even MVP when the truth was he was no more than a slightly above average player that season. Ortiz has a greater impact on the game with his bat and Betts has a greater impact on the game period, call it as you see it and you'd be wrong. Numbers are based on facts as 1+1 will always equal 2. I find that almost everyone who dismisses numbers is someone who never really grasped the universal language that numbers are. I believe all opinions should start with the numbers and then go from there. For example all projections for players in 2016 will utilize a system that is meant to be approx. right in most cases but will not predict breakout players such as young rising stars nor will it ever believe a player who reached a new level of production to continue to improve but rather will regress. The systems are not meant for outliers therefore if you want to predict who will surpass their projections and be right more often than you are wrong you need to utilize more numbers and common sense and logic to figure it out, so the numbers while important are not the end all be all, but it is where you start to mold your opinions and beliefs. If not all you have is anecdotal evidence which is not worth anything. Numbers are only a indicator for me, it has no bearing of what a player is going to do from one year to the next. Like for example if a player is capable of hitting 20 homeruns but we shouldn't always expect 20 homeruns every year based off one year or a couple years. They are fun to look at when a players career is over however. I just think the eye test always wins. So if a player hits 20 home runs year after year, you don't expect him to hit 20 home runs the next year? Sorry, but that is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 8, 2016 15:10:28 GMT -5
There's an enormous logical hole for the evaluation of prospects if we exclude "numbers". Let's fall into it together, shall we?
If we refuse to accept strikeout rate, walk rate, slugging, K/9, BB/9, swings outside the zone, contact rate... and so on, we're left with nothing but our own judgement. If that's all we're left with, why is my judgement any worse than yours? Because someone called you a scout? Who did that, and why? Can I be one also?
Scouting is at the heart of evaluation, but the muscles and tissue revolve around what the player actually does, those numbers. That's especially true with baseball where you have a very large sample size for each year, whether it's plate appearances, pitches thrown, or chances in the field. To ignore those samples is foolish. Once we decide that there is some value to those numbers, we run into a different problem. Lots of folks start abstracting and abstracting some more, trying to come up with the one number that says it all. So balance is needed. Hopefully, forums such as this one add to that balance instead of subtracting.
In a nutshell: the eyes have it, but they feed it to the brain where there's lots of other stuff floating around. Best not to ignore that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 8, 2016 19:11:46 GMT -5
Span just signed a three year slightly over 30 mil deal. If a center fielder who's always hurt with no power gets that, sox should try to extend Mookie ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jan 9, 2016 21:10:03 GMT -5
IMO Bradley would play up a bit in RF @ Fenway as it is close in difficultly to CF. Sure, but the thing is that more balls get hit to CF than RF and you want your best defender involved in as many plays as possible.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 9, 2016 22:42:55 GMT -5
The difference between whatever the optimal defensive alignment of those two and the sub-optimal alignment is probably less than a win. It's the fielding equivalent of a team having four really good hitters at the top of the lineup - say, Dustin Pedroia, Mookie Betts, David Ortiz, and Xander Bogaerts - and getting worked out because they are not hitting in the best possible order.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 11, 2016 9:38:49 GMT -5
IMO Bradley would play up a bit in RF @ Fenway as it is close in difficultly to CF. Sure, but the thing is that more balls get hit to CF than RF and you want your best defender involved in as many plays as possible. I agree to a point with this. Was Fred Lynn a better defender than Dwight Evans? That is arguable. They are like comparing Betts & JBJ. Evans just fit better in RF because of his arm.
|
|
|