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
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,417
|
Post by ianrs on Aug 30, 2013 17:14:04 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 3, 2013 6:45:26 GMT -5
One might ask how in heck Betts put up a significantly better line after his promotion:
.296 / .418 / .477 (76 G, 340 PA) .341 / .414 / .551 (51 G, 211 PA)
And then you might remember that he started the Greenville season .151 / .270 / .226 in his first 15 G / 63 PA, through April 23, then was was a nutty .148 / .452 / .333 in his next 9 G / 42 PA through May 5. At that point, he was .150 / .343 / .263.
From May 7 to his promotion, he hit .355 / .453 / .563 in 52 G / 235 PA.
I can't remember now in which thread I was explaining the art of cherry-picking and excising the parts of seasons that you don't think have any predictive value, because the player was hurt, slumping because he missed ST, struggling with a divorce, or what have you. Well, the difference between these two lines:
.150 / .343 / .263 (24 G, 105 PA) .355 / .453 / .563 (52 G / 235 PA)
is so stark that it's impossible to explain as random variation. There's a sense in which the same player could not have put up both lines in succession -- something tangible must have changed. So I spent May and June wondering if the latter line, and not the overall line, was actually the marker of Bett's talent. IOW, the first 105 PA seemed likely to be meaningless, and hence not predictive.
You may see where I'm going with this. Check out this pair of lines:
.355 / .453 / .563 (52 G, 235 PA) in low-A .341 / .414 / .551 (51 G, 211 PA) in high-A
That pair of lines makes perfect sense (the park factors, 101 and 100 respectively, are not a confound). So in fact Betts' first 105 PA weren't predictive. You need to cut them out of his season to make sense of it.
So we should be thinking of him as a guy who at age 20 hit .348 / .434 / .558, with 34 SB, 2 CS, and just 4 GDP* in a season split 53 / 47 between low- and high-A. That's good.
*In his first 105 PA, he had 4 SB, 1 CS, and 3 GDP. The huge decline in GDP rate, from .045 of his balls in play to .009, suggests a fundamentally changed swing plane and/or approach.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 3, 2013 7:37:31 GMT -5
Copying some of this over from the Gameday thread because I think it's cool enough not to get lost when that goes away ...
Mookie Betts and Dustin Pedroia were almost exactly the same age in A+ (Dustin was 6 weeks older). Here are their lines (Mookie had significantly more PAs, 211 to 128):
Dustin: .336/.417/.523 Mookie: .341/.414/.551
Just astonishingly similar.
Digging just a touch deeper ... we've all marveled at how hard it is to strike out Mookie, with only 17Ks in 211 PAs. Well, in 128 PAs in A+, Pedroia struck out four times. Four! When it happened, they should've stopped the game and given the pitcher an engraved baseball.
Now, these comparisons are for entertainment purposes only. I'm not sure what the park/league difference from Sarasota (FSL) in 2004 to Salem (Carolina) in 2013 does to all of this, yadda, yadda. I just think it's pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 3, 2013 12:37:28 GMT -5
We'll know a lot more about Mookie Betts by this time next year especially if he's putting up good numbers in Portland, but if he progresses the way he has been progressing...it makes you wonder.
We know he could have some major value as a chip in a trade, but if he continues down the path he's been going and he's still in the organization, could there be a time - say 2016 or 2017 - he's ready to play and by then (and I hate to say this) 33 year old Pedroia could be on the decline and/or dealing with injuries given his all-out style of play and with 5 years left on his deal - and be in a situation where Betts would be a better option at 2b?
Is Betts somebody that can play SS or play LF? Would his bat play up enough powerwise to let him play an OF corner? Or is Betts somebody who's best used as trade bait? And if so, by 2016 or so could would we even be wishing he was our 2b instead of Pedroia?
Again, just thinking out loud here - not saying the Sox shouldn't have extended Pedroia or guaranteeing that Betts shoots thru the system although he is certainly on the right path. And for all we know, Betts could wash out and Pedroia could well continue to be our Jeter (except good on defense)for the duration of his long contract.
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 413
|
Post by badfishnbc on Sept 3, 2013 12:49:48 GMT -5
Can Pedroia play first?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 3, 2013 12:54:47 GMT -5
He doesn't have the power to be a 1b now (not that we'd want him to be obviously). Can't imagine he would down the road.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Sept 3, 2013 13:07:59 GMT -5
Yeah he doesn't have the power.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 3, 2013 13:59:54 GMT -5
Betts doesn't really have the range or the arm to play SS on a full-time basis. Just because a guy is a plus defensive 2B doesn't mean they can play SS-- see, for instance, guys like Dustin Pedroia or Chase Utley. He's never played outfield in his professional career but may be able to transition if needed.
|
|
rfan
Rookie
Posts: 6
|
Post by rfan on Sept 3, 2013 14:48:19 GMT -5
I know he doesn't project well as a full-time SS, but I'm guessing he could play it in a utility role? And in the outfield, I'm guessing he doesn't really have the arm for right, but is he a pure LF type or could he handle backing up center? A Zobrist-lite type of player would be interesting and valuable, a guy who could backup both middle infield and some outfield spots with great plate discipline and a bit of pop.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 3, 2013 17:07:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 3, 2013 17:51:12 GMT -5
? "11 hours ago ericmvan said"........Nothing?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 3, 2013 18:06:46 GMT -5
Copying some of this over from the Gameday thread because I think it's cool enough not to get lost when that goes away ... Mookie Betts and Dustin Pedroia were almost exactly the same age in A+ (Dustin was 6 weeks older). Here are their lines (Mookie had significantly more PAs, 211 to 128): Dustin: .336/.417/.523 Mookie: .341/.414/.551 Just astonishingly similar. Digging just a touch deeper ... we've all marveled at how hard it is to strike out Mookie, with only 17Ks in 211 PAs. Well, in 128 PAs in A+, Pedroia struck out four times. Four! When it happened, they should've stopped the game and given the pitcher an engraved baseball. Now, these comparisons are for entertainment purposes only. I'm not sure what the park/league difference from Sarasota (FSL) in 2004 to Salem (Carolina) in 2013 does to all of this, yadda, yadda. I just think it's pretty cool. I used to always add K%, BB%, HR/Contact ("HRC"), BABIP, and sometimes XBH% (XBH per hits in play) whenever I posted a slash line comparison. The extra numbers can be tremendously informative when making a player comparison. The only reason I haven't done so here is that I need to fool around with the "code" tag. So let's do that now! Here's your Mookie vs. the young Laser Show comp: Who PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BAP XBH% Betts 208 .341 .414 .551 .330 .082 .101 .041 .346 .268 Pedroia 127 .336 .417 .523 .325 .031 .102 .019 .327 .324
(PA* excludes SH and IBB is is the base rate for K% and BB%. The latter of course excludes IBB. EqA (or TAv) is estimated from OBP and SA. And the "code" tag works great with tables posted directly from Excel!) The BB rates are identical. You might guess from Pedroia's lower BABIP ("BAP" just to save column space!) and higher XBH% that they had very similar SABIP (slugging averages on balls in play), and you'd be right: .457 for Betts, .462 for Pedroia. So the only difference here is that Pedroia struck out 61.5% less often and homered 54.4% less often when he made contact. You would generally conclude from that pair of differences that Pedroia swung much less hard, but somehow I doubt that's true.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 3, 2013 18:54:03 GMT -5
He doesn't have the power to be a 1b now (not that we'd want him to be obviously). Can't imagine he would down the road. There's a kernel of truth in this kind of thinking, but at the same time it can lead you into error. You want guys who are good players for their positions, period. If a guy is good, when taken in isolation, it doesn't matter how he gets his goodness. He can be a little subpar offensively and a defensive wizard, or a defensive hack and the best hitter in baseball. And as a hitter, he can be a high OBP, low power guy or the opposite, if the overall result is good. However, you do want a team that has the right balance of all of this. Especially offensive balance. I remember that the Blue Jays back in the 90's (?) had a team of good hitters who were all low OBP, high SA types. There was no good batting order for them because they had all RBI guys and no tablesetters. And they must have hit a ton of solo homers. So that's why folks will say "he doesn't have the power to play 1B" even if he's a future OBP leader. What they really mean by that (whether they know it or not!) is that "his bat will play at 1B, but will present a challenge to team offensive balance; any team with him at 1B is going to want to get some power from a position that usually doesn't supply it, or risk having too many guys getting on base without guys to knock them in." As long as X is at SS, we hope, we'll have the flexibility to fill a power position like 1B, DH, or 3B with a guy whose strength is OBP rather than SA. In fact, Pedroia would be the 14th best hitting 1B in MLB this year (Mike Napoli is 20th). The bigger concern, I think, would be the size of the target he presented for throws. In any case, re Betts, it seems as if the timing is off; if Mookie is for real, they'll have to decide what do with him while Pedroia is still going very strong. And the discussion of Betts as a super-utility 10th man is, of course, one we were having pages ago in this thread. It is a very viable option for one of the three best teams in baseball which also has one of the three best farm systems. Who exactly are you going to trade him for?* (No, please, Ben, not for a relief pitcher.) Having a guy who could start for almost anybody as your 10th player, starting at LF, CF, 2B, 3B, maybe some RF and SS, and getting 400 or even 500 PA a year in the process -- that's the kind of depth that wins championships. Wouldn't you love to go through a season knowing that you were the proverbial one injury away from .... having to play Mookie Betts (as we dream of him) every day? *As I mentioned earlier (but meant to expand on), although we'd love to trade him for a LF (or RF) prospect of equal caliber who was blocked there the way Betts would appear to be blocked at 2B, that's very unlikely to happen. If Betts continues like this, then a LF as good as he is probably going to be good enough defensively to handle RF. And how many teams are so strong at all three outfield positions that they couldn't find room for a guy that good? Who was the last top corner OF prospect who was traded because he was blocked? OTOH, young 1B are blocked and get traded all the time, because that's the end of the defensive spectrum and they can't really play anywhere else. Heck, at one point we were worried about Lars Anderson blocking Anthony Rizzo! So the one top prospect-for-top prospect trade you could imagine happening is Betts for a blocked young 1B of equal talent. And that 1B, if Betts continues like this (let's dream, and you should always have a plan for success as well as failure), would have to be a tremendously good hitter. The MLB guy whose Davenport Peak Translation matches Betts', after positional adjustment, is Joey Votto; Paul Goldschmidt is a few points lower. Such a trade, it seems to me, would be likely to happen only if both guys had had some real success at the MLB level; otherwise the fear is that you're trading a for-real Betts for Justin Smoak, who, as good as he's turned out to be, is still .035 points of EqA / TAv behind Votto and Goldschmidt. And the other team, of course, would be afraid they were trading the next Votto for, say, Neil Walker. (And, yes, in case you missed the implication, the 2013 2B leaders in TAv: Cano, Carpenter, [Mookie's projection], Kipnis, Utley, Kendrick, Zobrist, Pedroia.)
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 3, 2013 19:49:31 GMT -5
And the discussion of Betts as a super-utility 10th man is, of course, one we were having pages ago in this thread. It is a very viable option for one of the three best teams in baseball which also has one of the three best farm systems. Who exactly are you going to trade him for?* ... *As I mentioned earlier (but meant to expand on), although we'd love to trade him for a LF (or RF) prospect of equal caliber who was blocked there the way Betts would appear to be blocked at 2B, that's very unlikely to happen. If Betts continues like this, then a LF as good as he is probably going to be good enough defensively to handle RF. And how many teams are so strong at all three outfield positions that they couldn't find room for a guy that good? Who was the last top corner OF prospect who was traded because he was blocked? Isn't this a very weak and slippery argument, with a lot of sleight of hand? A LF who "is as good as" Betts surely does not have to be good enough defensively to play RF (Yaz, Rice, Ricky, Bonds, Manny etc etc etc). And a team does not have to be "strong at all three outfield positions" to give up a LF or RF; how strong they are at CF has nothing to do with it. They just have to have a big hole at 2b and possibly at leadoff, and a LF or RF bat they feel they can replace easier than they can find a 2b. Or you can package Betts with more bodies for a LF or RF even better than Betts. It doesn't have to be a prospect; it can be a solid major leaguer whom the other team thinks they can replace. Trading Betts next July could bring much more value than having him play as a sub.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Sept 3, 2013 20:25:59 GMT -5
And the discussion of Betts as a super-utility 10th man is, of course, one we were having pages ago in this thread. It is a very viable option for one of the three best teams in baseball which also has one of the three best farm systems. Who exactly are you going to trade him for?* ... *As I mentioned earlier (but meant to expand on), although we'd love to trade him for a LF (or RF) prospect of equal caliber who was blocked there the way Betts would appear to be blocked at 2B, that's very unlikely to happen. If Betts continues like this, then a LF as good as he is probably going to be good enough defensively to handle RF. And how many teams are so strong at all three outfield positions that they couldn't find room for a guy that good? Who was the last top corner OF prospect who was traded because he was blocked? Isn't this a very weak and slippery argument, with a lot of sleight of hand? A LF who "is as good as" Betts surely does not have to be good enough defensively to play RF (Yaz, Rice, Ricky, Bonds, Manny etc etc etc). And a team does not have to be "strong at all three outfield positions" to give up a LF or RF; how strong they are at CF has nothing to do with it. They just have to have a big hole at 2b and possibly at leadoff, and a LF or RF bat they feel they can replace easier than they can find a 2b. Or you can package Betts with more bodies for a LF or RF even better than Betts. It doesn't have to be a prospect; it can be a solid major leaguer whom the other team thinks they can replace. Trading Betts next July could bring much more value than having him play as a sub. Is it just me, or is this thread getting WAY ahead of itself? Betts still has to run the gauntlet of AA, and even if he gets off to a good start, AA tends to slow down a lot of guys to some extent or other after they are exposed to the league for awhile. Anderson and Exposito to a great extent, Cecchini to a lesser extent. Betts is probably a late 2015 arrival to the Show at best, and I wouldn't want to get rid of him if he does show up well in AA, because I keep having this nagging thought in the back of my mind that as hard as he plays, Pedroia could have serious injury issues or even a relative crash in performance about the time that Betts is due to arrive. As unfortunate and jinxing as it sounds, if Betts turns out to be a real talent (e.g., Pedroia II, or even Pedroia slightly lighter) I don't get rid of him before it's absolutely necessary.
|
|
rfan
Rookie
Posts: 6
|
Post by rfan on Sept 3, 2013 20:54:34 GMT -5
Is it just me, or is this thread getting WAY ahead of itself? Betts still has to run the gauntlet of AA, and even if he gets off to a good start, AA tends to slow down a lot of guys to some extent or other after they are exposed to the league for awhile. Anderson and Exposito to a great extent, Cecchini to a lesser extent. Betts is probably a late 2015 arrival to the Show at best, and I wouldn't want to get rid of him if he does show up well in AA, because I keep having this nagging thought in the back of my mind that as hard as he plays, Pedroia could have serious injury issues or even a relative crash in performance about the time that Betts is due to arrive. As unfortunate and jinxing as it sounds, if Betts turns out to be a real talent (e.g., Pedroia II, or even Pedroia slightly lighter) I don't get rid of him before it's absolutely necessary. Oh no question, completely ahead of ourselves. But it's a fun question to dream on. Zobrist has been one of my favorite players for a long time precisely because of how valuable his flexibility his. The ability to provide above-average offense and defense from essentially any position besides catcher and pitcher is something I've always wanted. I'd love to see Betts get some reps at as many positions as possible just to see if he could become that kind of player.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 3, 2013 21:24:07 GMT -5
Is it just me, or is this thread getting WAY ahead of itself? Betts still has to run the gauntlet of AA, and even if he gets off to a good start, AA tends to slow down a lot of guys to some extent or other after they are exposed to the league for awhile. Anderson and Exposito to a great extent, Cecchini to a lesser extent. Betts is probably a late 2015 arrival to the Show at best, and I wouldn't want to get rid of him if he does show up well in AA, because I keep having this nagging thought in the back of my mind that as hard as he plays, Pedroia could have serious injury issues or even a relative crash in performance about the time that Betts is due to arrive. As unfortunate and jinxing as it sounds, if Betts turns out to be a real talent (e.g., Pedroia II, or even Pedroia slightly lighter) I don't get rid of him before it's absolutely necessary. Oh no question, completely ahead of ourselves. But it's a fun question to dream on. Zobrist has been one of my favorite players for a long time precisely because of how valuable his flexibility his. The ability to provide above-average offense and defense from essentially any position besides catcher and pitcher is something I've always wanted. I'd love to see Betts get some reps at as many positions as possible just to see if he could become that kind of player. It's working out swimmingly for Profar...
Also, it's really hard to be a super-utility guy when you're a second baseman. Second basemen can't play shortstop almost by definition (or they'd be shortstops), they probably don't have the arm for third or right, probably don't have the footspeed for center... and really there's not all that much utility in a 2B/LF. Zobrist is kind of awesome but that skillset is very, very rare.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Sept 3, 2013 21:47:11 GMT -5
Oh no question, completely ahead of ourselves. But it's a fun question to dream on. Zobrist has been one of my favorite players for a long time precisely because of how valuable his flexibility his. The ability to provide above-average offense and defense from essentially any position besides catcher and pitcher is something I've always wanted. I'd love to see Betts get some reps at as many positions as possible just to see if he could become that kind of player. It's working out swimmingly for Profar...
Also, it's really hard to be a super-utility guy when you're a second baseman. Second basemen can't play shortstop almost by definition (or they'd be shortstops), they probably don't have the arm for third or right, probably don't have the footspeed for center... and really there's not all that much utility in a 2B/LF. Zobrist is kind of awesome but that skillset is very, very rare. I've wondered for a while now if this applies to Mookie; he's supposed to be a plus runner right? So could he potentially play CF?
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Sept 3, 2013 21:55:14 GMT -5
Oh no question, completely ahead of ourselves. But it's a fun question to dream on. Zobrist has been one of my favorite players for a long time precisely because of how valuable his flexibility his. The ability to provide above-average offense and defense from essentially any position besides catcher and pitcher is something I've always wanted. I'd love to see Betts get some reps at as many positions as possible just to see if he could become that kind of player. It's working out swimmingly for Profar...
Also, it's really hard to be a super-utility guy when you're a second baseman. Second basemen can't play shortstop almost by definition (or they'd be shortstops), they probably don't have the arm for third or right, probably don't have the footspeed for center... and really there's not all that much utility in a 2B/LF. Zobrist is kind of awesome but that skillset is very, very rare. But how many 5-8 possibly 5-9" outfielders are there in Left or even center? Heck when he jumps he might not be able to hit the white line on the scoreboard wall even???
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Sept 3, 2013 22:14:01 GMT -5
But how many 5-8 possibly 5-9" outfielders are there in Left or even center? Heck when he jumps he might not be able to hit the white line on the scoreboard wall even??? Coco Crisp was the first name to come to mind as a 2B converted to OF, and he's listed 5-10.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Sept 3, 2013 22:57:02 GMT -5
J.J. Cooper wrote up Mookie for this week's Ask BA: www.baseballamerica.com/minors/ask-ba-is-javier-baez-ready-for-the-big-leagues/ Nothing particularly new, except I read his lack of comment on the Alen Hanson comparison as it's not a bad comparison. Are other people reading it similarly, or do you think you can't really tell? I mention this because Hanson was BA's #61 prospect coming into this year. Which makes me think that Cooper sees Mookie as an easy top 100 prospect. It's easy to see that when we look at his numbers at this point, but having not heard too much about him at BA or other sites, I wasn't sure how highly he was thought of.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 3, 2013 23:06:25 GMT -5
So could he potentially play CF? I mean I can't rule it out but even if he has the basic athletic tools to do it, there's a significant skill/experience component to being an MLB outfielder. LOTS of middle infielders theoretically have the athleticism for CF, but how many do? It's a very rare player that has the bandwidth (for lack of a better term) to handle multiple up the middle positions AND the responsibility associated with being an everyday-ish MLB hitter. Maybe there's more of them who could do it and managers just don't have the vision to make it happen, but I wouldn't underestimate how difficult it actually is to be a Zobrist/Figgins (remember him?) type.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 4, 2013 5:40:18 GMT -5
But how many 5-8 possibly 5-9" outfielders are there in Left or even center? Heck when he jumps he might not be able to hit the white line on the scoreboard wall even??? Coco Crisp was the first name to come to mind as a 2B converted to OF, and he's listed 5-10. A 5'9" guy played CF for us last night and has three Gold Gloves.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Sept 4, 2013 8:02:14 GMT -5
So could he potentially play CF? I mean I can't rule it out but even if he has the basic athletic tools to do it, there's a significant skill/experience component to being an MLB outfielder. LOTS of middle infielders theoretically have the athleticism for CF, but how many do? It's a very rare player that has the bandwidth (for lack of a better term) to handle multiple up the middle positions AND the responsibility associated with being an everyday-ish MLB hitter. Maybe there's more of them who could do it and managers just don't have the vision to make it happen, but I wouldn't underestimate how difficult it actually is to be a Zobrist/Figgins (remember him?) type. That's a good point, and I really hadn't thought about that aspect of it. I'm not really sure how you'd test that hypothesis though, and would two up the middle positions really be that much harder than two corner positions? I know it would be more physically demanding, but would 2B/CF really take that much more mental capacity than 1B/LF or 3B/RF? I honestly don't know the answer to that (although intuitively it doesn't seem like it should, and those kinds of players are relatively common).
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Sept 4, 2013 8:27:49 GMT -5
He doesn't have the power to be a 1b now (not that we'd want him to be obviously). Can't imagine he would down the road. There's a kernel of truth in this kind of thinking, but at the same time it can lead you into error. You want guys who are good players for their positions, period. If a guy is good, when taken in isolation, it doesn't matter how he gets his goodness. He can be a little subpar offensively and a defensive wizard, or a defensive hack and the best hitter in baseball. And as a hitter, he can be a high OBP, low power guy or the opposite, if the overall result is good. However, you do want a team that has the right balance of all of this. Especially offensive balance. I remember that the Blue Jays back in the 90's (?) had a team of good hitters who were all low OBP, high SA types. There was no good batting order for them because they had all RBI guys and no tablesetters. And they must have hit a ton of solo homers. So that's why folks will say "he doesn't have the power to play 1B" even if he's a future OBP leader. What they really mean by that (whether they know it or not!) is that "his bat will play at 1B, but will present a challenge to team offensive balance; any team with him at 1B is going to want to get some power from a position that usually doesn't supply it, or risk having too many guys getting on base without guys to knock them in." As long as X is at SS, we hope, we'll have the flexibility to fill a power position like 1B, DH, or 3B with a guy whose strength is OBP rather than SA. In fact, Pedroia would be the 14th best hitting 1B in MLB this year (Mike Napoli is 20th). The bigger concern, I think, would be the size of the target he presented for throws. In any case, re Betts, it seems as if the timing is off; if Mookie is for real, they'll have to decide what do with him while Pedroia is still going very strong. And the discussion of Betts as a super-utility 10th man is, of course, one we were having pages ago in this thread. It is a very viable option for one of the three best teams in baseball which also has one of the three best farm systems. Who exactly are you going to trade him for?* (No, please, Ben, not for a relief pitcher.) Having a guy who could start for almost anybody as your 10th player, starting at LF, CF, 2B, 3B, maybe some RF and SS, and getting 400 or even 500 PA a year in the process -- that's the kind of depth that wins championships. Wouldn't you love to go through a season knowing that you were the proverbial one injury away from .... having to play Mookie Betts (as we dream of him) every day? *As I mentioned earlier (but meant to expand on), although we'd love to trade him for a LF (or RF) prospect of equal caliber who was blocked there the way Betts would appear to be blocked at 2B, that's very unlikely to happen. If Betts continues like this, then a LF as good as he is probably going to be good enough defensively to handle RF. And how many teams are so strong at all three outfield positions that they couldn't find room for a guy that good? Who was the last top corner OF prospect who was traded because he was blocked? OTOH, young 1B are blocked and get traded all the time, because that's the end of the defensive spectrum and they can't really play anywhere else. Heck, at one point we were worried about Lars Anderson blocking Anthony Rizzo! So the one top prospect-for-top prospect trade you could imagine happening is Betts for a blocked young 1B of equal talent. And that 1B, if Betts continues like this (let's dream, and you should always have a plan for success as well as failure), would have to be a tremendously good hitter. The MLB guy whose Davenport Peak Translation matches Betts', after positional adjustment, is Joey Votto; Paul Goldschmidt is a few points lower. Such a trade, it seems to me, would be likely to happen only if both guys had had some real success at the MLB level; otherwise the fear is that you're trading a for-real Betts for Justin Smoak, who, as good as he's turned out to be, is still .035 points of EqA / TAv behind Votto and Goldschmidt. And the other team, of course, would be afraid they were trading the next Votto for, say, Neil Walker. (And, yes, in case you missed the implication, the 2013 2B leaders in TAv: Cano, Carpenter, [Mookie's projection], Kipnis, Utley, Kendrick, Zobrist, Pedroia.) When people say "he doesn't have enought power for first" I read it as "his total offensive package is not good enough for first". Pedroia is one of the best second baseman in the game because he has good offense for a MI and elite defense at an important defensive position. If you remove his position and defensive value Pedroia is a much less valuable player. By the time Pedroia's defensive game has fallen off enough to necessitate a move, I imagine his bat will have deteriorated enough where there are better offensive options. Often the first baseman has great power and great OBP skills to necessary offensive package. If the guy doesn't hot for power, he needs better in base skills if the guy has great OBP skills like Olerud or Bill Terry, I have no problem if he doesn't hit 15 homers a year.
|
|
|