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.
Chasing a Gold Glover: Ceddanne Rafaela
|
Post by bishop on Sept 12, 2024 14:28:12 GMT -5
The low hanging fruit for improving the defense next year is that Story (and Maybe Mayer) will be replacing... Rafaela at SS.
Great post, but another potential low hanging fruit is replacing Valdez/Romy/rotating cast that includes Catchers at 2B with... Rafaela (or David Hamilton or Kristian Campbell) at 2B. But hey maybe Grissom wins the job too, his bat may be worth it. (The numbers also say replacing Wong would do it, I'm not sure how much I buy those but they REALLY hate his framing!) I mean really what's the knock on Rafaela's defense right now, that when forced to start half our games at the most difficult position he didn't have a ton of experience at he was basically dead average? Fun fact when looking at the game logs too, all 3 of his errors as a CF happened by April 12, he had 7 as a SS through June 25, and in about 380 innings since at SS he has 2. He's also played over 100 errorless innings in CF since then, including flipping between the two positions within a lot of games, then he just started his first game and looked good at 2B last night. And while some injuries are luck he's also been durable unlike a whole lot of other players we all like... it is crazy to me anyone would want to move him off our 26 man roster even if his bat may never improve to be good enough to be a locked in starter in an ideal world.
|
|
|
Post by bishop on Sept 12, 2024 14:40:00 GMT -5
Why? A super utility guy who can fill in or give occasional days off while also being a defensive replacement or pinch runner off the bench would be awesome. I won't even include Romy, Grissom, Story, Dom Smith and it may be unfair to include the 3rd string catchers but we've given 761 plate appearances to Pablo Reyes, Nick Sogard, Tyler Heineman, Danny Jansen, Enmanuel Valdez, Danny Jansen, Zach Short, Jamie Westbrook, Mickey Gaspar, Garrett Cooper & Bobby Dalbec. I'd be ecstatic if 500 of those went to Ceddanne while "his" "starting" ones went to Anthony or Campbell. Injuries happen, just ask Trevor Story, Vaughan Grissom & Marcelo Mayer who are probably part of the puzzle I hope Rafaela is providing cover for next season. Anthony is taking Abreu's job. … why can’t anthony and abreu co-exist? I figure he is due to splits and handedness, but maybe that is too flippant and guys like Rafaela, Hamilton, and Campbell being on a roster obviates the need for a Rob Refsnyder type to pair with Abreu. I certainly wouldn't sell low on him, but I guess my main point there is that Anthony and Abreu aren't taking Rafaela's role (on a healthy roster) because they can't do it. Not sure anyone in baseball can, even if using him in that role makes HIM look worse than starting him every day in CF, it's an invaluable skillset for any team.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Sept 12, 2024 14:50:18 GMT -5
We're the worst defense in all of baseball in 2024. No matter what happens between now and the end of the year, that won't change. It's not lost on me the silliness of expecting two guys who profile as average at best defenders to push out our very best defensive outfielder in 2025. Can the Red Sox afford to subtract defense from an already terrible defensive team? a) That's not true. They're 23rd out of 30 by OAA, and... 6th best by DRS? (Wait, is that right? Really?)
b) To the extent it is true Rafaela has been more of a problem than a solution; he's at -3 OAA, broken down as -7 at SS and +4 in CF. (DRS likes him better, but DRS also thinks the Red Sox are just fine on defense, so...) If what you're saying is that they can't afford not to make him the everyday centerfielder... they actually can, because Duran has actually been better than Rafaela by both OAA and DRS in CF. Abreu has also been roughly as valuable for his outfield defense as Rafaela has been.
The low hanging fruit for improving the defense next year is that Story (and Maybe Mayer) will be replacing... Rafaela at SS.
a) Ok, then instead of worst defense in baseball, the most errors in baseball. The Red Sox defense has been very bad. I'm not going to get into an OAA/DRS discussion - they both have flaws. Some folks have suggested averaging them - but even if you said we were 14th or 15th in baseball - adding in 100+ errors and leading the league in that category says the Red Sox are really, really bad on defense. For the record, Rafaela has 9 errors at SS in 281 chances. So removing him from the deal still means the Red Sox will likely have over 100 errors on the season. b) Duran has 60 more chances in CF than Rafaela does. Even if I just discount the fact that Rafaela has been splitting his time between infield and outfield - 60 chances is fairly considerable. But I'm perfectly fine to say that Duran has been a wash in CF. What I'm not willing to agree to is that over the course of an entire season, Duran will end up being better than Rafaela in CF. Regardless, given between them they have 400 chances in CF and Duran has another 117 in LF - I feel pretty confident that removing Rafaela entirely (166 chances) will result in worse outfield defense. Especially if you replace him with a player that is a negative defender in LF. I agree that Story has the chance for the biggest overall impact to defense, I don't agree that just Story fixes the Red Sox defense, not by a long shot.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,419
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Sept 12, 2024 15:02:15 GMT -5
a) That's not true. They're 23rd out of 30 by OAA, and... 6th best by DRS? (Wait, is that right? Really?)
b) To the extent it is true Rafaela has been more of a problem than a solution; he's at -3 OAA, broken down as -7 at SS and +4 in CF. (DRS likes him better, but DRS also thinks the Red Sox are just fine on defense, so...) If what you're saying is that they can't afford not to make him the everyday centerfielder... they actually can, because Duran has actually been better than Rafaela by both OAA and DRS in CF. Abreu has also been roughly as valuable for his outfield defense as Rafaela has been.
The low hanging fruit for improving the defense next year is that Story (and Maybe Mayer) will be replacing... Rafaela at SS.
a) Ok, then instead of worst defense in baseball, the most errors in baseball. The Red Sox defense has been very bad. I'm not going to get into an OAA/DRS discussion - they both have flaws. Some folks have suggested averaging them - but even if you said we were 14th or 15th in baseball - adding in 100+ errors and leading the league in that category says the Red Sox are really, really bad on defense. For the record, Rafaela has 9 errors at SS in 281 chances. So removing him from the deal still means the Red Sox will likely have over 100 errors on the season. b) Duran has 60 more chances in CF than Rafaela does. Even if I just discount the fact that Rafaela has been splitting his time between infield and outfield - 60 chances is fairly considerable. But I'm perfectly fine to say that Duran has been a wash in CF. What I'm not willing to agree to is that over the course of an entire season, Duran will end up being better than Rafaela in CF. Regardless, given between them they have 400 chances in CF and Duran has another 117 in LF - I feel pretty confident that removing Rafaela entirely (166 chances) will result in worse outfield defense. Especially if you replace him with a player that is a negative defender in LF. I agree that Story has the chance for the biggest overall impact to defense, I don't agree that just Story fixes the Red Sox defense, not by a long shot. No it says that the Red Sox are about middle of the pack defensively.. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that it is in their best interest to get better defensively but to just wave off widely used stats to fit your narrative is an odd argument.
|
|
|
Post by soxpatsceltics on Sept 12, 2024 15:12:12 GMT -5
The issue with Rafaela, at least from my prospective, is that for him to have value he needs to play the outfield, specifically center field. Many of the Red Sox best offensive players also play the outfield. Duran is an 8 win player. He is playing everyday. Anthony is the best prospect in baseball, when he arrives, he is playing every day. So that is two of your three outfield slots. So he is competing with three guys for playing time: 1) Campbell: You want Campbell to play second, but there is a nonzero chance he ends up in the outfield. 2) Grissom: Grissom still has extreme upside. He lost the entire 2024 year though. If Campbell is at second, Grissom might end up in left, which is where the Braves were going to move him prior to trading him. If he sticks at second, he likely forces Campbell to left. 3) Abreu: does not have the upside of Anthony or Campbell. But a very solid player. The current right fielder. At the end of the day, Anthony is taking the job or Rafaela or Abreu. Depending on how things shake out with Campbell and Grissom, both might be relegated to the bench. Why? A super utility guy who can fill in or give occasional days off while also being a defensive replacement or pinch runner off the bench would be awesome. I won't even include Romy, Grissom, Story, Dom Smith and it may be unfair to include the 3rd string catchers but we've given 761 plate appearances to Pablo Reyes, Nick Sogard, Tyler Heineman, Danny Jansen, Enmanuel Valdez, Danny Jansen, Zach Short, Jamie Westbrook, Mickey Gaspar, Garrett Cooper & Bobby Dalbec. I'd be ecstatic if 500 of those went to Ceddanne while "his" "starting" ones went to Anthony or Campbell. Injuries happen, just ask Trevor Story, Vaughan Grissom & Marcelo Mayer who are probably part of the puzzle I hope Rafaela is providing cover for next season. Anthony is taking Abreu's job. This is exactly where I'm at. He'll get his at bats but having a .280 OBP guy doesn't fly even from the 9 spot. To be clear, this is not a talent issue with Rafaela, with his talent he should be able to improve to a 25 HR .320 OBP guy in his prime. I think this is a makeup issue, as he's clearly not making the adjustments that the coaching staff has been stressing to him since his breakout in the minors in 2022. He's even regressed in that regard he leads the league in out of zone swing% at over 45% and he hasn't walked in over a month. Huge, huge offseason for him. Talent is there but I think that barring a noticeable change in approach during spring training he's going to find himself in a utility role going forward.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Sept 12, 2024 15:17:53 GMT -5
a) Ok, then instead of worst defense in baseball, the most errors in baseball. The Red Sox defense has been very bad. I'm not going to get into an OAA/DRS discussion - they both have flaws. Some folks have suggested averaging them - but even if you said we were 14th or 15th in baseball - adding in 100+ errors and leading the league in that category says the Red Sox are really, really bad on defense. For the record, Rafaela has 9 errors at SS in 281 chances. So removing him from the deal still means the Red Sox will likely have over 100 errors on the season. b) Duran has 60 more chances in CF than Rafaela does. Even if I just discount the fact that Rafaela has been splitting his time between infield and outfield - 60 chances is fairly considerable. But I'm perfectly fine to say that Duran has been a wash in CF. What I'm not willing to agree to is that over the course of an entire season, Duran will end up being better than Rafaela in CF. Regardless, given between them they have 400 chances in CF and Duran has another 117 in LF - I feel pretty confident that removing Rafaela entirely (166 chances) will result in worse outfield defense. Especially if you replace him with a player that is a negative defender in LF. I agree that Story has the chance for the biggest overall impact to defense, I don't agree that just Story fixes the Red Sox defense, not by a long shot. No it says that the Red Sox are about middle of the pack defensively.. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that it is in their best interest to get better defensively but to just wave off widely used stats to fit your narrative is an odd argument. Well how do you square 100 plus errors - more than any team in baseball with DRS saying we're 6th? DRS considers situation - which is something that's beyond the fielder's control. OAA doesn't consider situation, so it doesn't consider human nature. I'm literally granting you 14th or 15th in baseball based on OAA and DRS. So how does that explain leading the league in errors? Are there errors that result in runs/losses that aren't captured by DRS or OAA? Or are the extra errors just the phantom ravings of official scorers?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 12, 2024 16:25:31 GMT -5
Well how do you square 100 plus errors - more than any team in baseball with DRS saying we're 6th? DRS considers situation - which is something that's beyond the fielder's control. OAA doesn't consider situation, so it doesn't consider human nature. I'm literally granting you 14th or 15th in baseball based on OAA and DRS. So how does that explain leading the league in errors? Are there errors that result in runs/losses that aren't captured by DRS or OAA? Or are the extra errors just the phantom ravings of official scorers?The Red Sox make many bad plays, but they also make many good plays - in the end, these cancel out. If you only look at errors, you're only recognizing a single subset of bad plays while ignoring both the good plays and the bad plays which aren't reflected as errors (lack of range, mental mistakes, etc.). UZR (not as good as OAA, but ideal for demonstrating the difference) shows the red sox are -2.4 (21st) in outfield arm, -3.1 (26th) in double plays, -13.2 (30th) in errors BUT are +12.4 (1st) in range. If you were to replace Rafaela with Story on the infield while replacing TON with Rafaela in the outfield, you should expect for the red sox to improve in ARM, DPR and errors (although the offensive impact may not be as rosy). I take this as a positive for a young team as players typically improve in reducing errors as they age while the ability to make highlight real plays, and show off their fielding range, is more stable (and often declines with age). That isn't to say it isn't a concern, just less of a concern in my opinion. OAA accounts for situation in a more precise manner than DRS, which is why OAA is generally the most used defensive metric currently:Outs Above Average (OAA) is the cumulative effect of all individual plays a fielder has been credited or debited with, making it a range-based metric of fielding skill that accounts for the number of plays made and the difficulty of them. For example, a fielder who catches a 25% Out Probability play gets +.75; one who fails to make the play gets -.25. Add: it should be noted UZR is less positive on the Red Sox overall as it has them ranked 25th in defense (but as mentioned OAA is a better metric - according to Fangraphs who updates UZR).
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Sept 12, 2024 16:31:00 GMT -5
Well how do you square 100 plus errors - more than any team in baseball with DRS saying we're 6th? DRS considers situation - which is something that's beyond the fielder's control. OAA doesn't consider situation, so it doesn't consider human nature. I'm literally granting you 14th or 15th in baseball based on OAA and DRS. So how does that explain leading the league in errors? Are there errors that result in runs/losses that aren't captured by DRS or OAA? Or are the extra errors just the phantom ravings of official scorers?The Red Sox make many bad plays, but they also make many good plays - in the end, these cancel out. If you only look at errors, you're only recognizing a single subset of bad plays while ignoring both the good plays and the bad plays which aren't reflected as errors (lack of range, mental mistakes, etc.). UZR (not as good as OAA, but ideal for demonstrating the difference) shows the red sox are -2.4 (21st) in outfield arm, -3.1 (26th) in double plays, -13.2 (30th) in errors BUT are +12.4 (1st) in range. If you were to replace Rafaela with Story on the infield while replacing TON with Rafaela in the outfield, you should expect for the red sox to improve in ARM, DPR and errors (although the offensive impact may not be as rosy). I take this as a positive for a young team as players typically improve in reducing errors as they age while the ability to make highlight real plays, and show off their fielding range, is more stable (and often declines with age). That isn't to say it isn't a concern, just less of a concern in my opinion. OAA accounts for situation in a more precise manner than DRS, which is why OAA is generally the most used defensive metric currently:Outs Above Average (OAA) is the cumulative effect of all individual plays a fielder has been credited or debited with, making it a range-based metric of fielding skill that accounts for the number of plays made and the difficulty of them. For example, a fielder who catches a 25% Out Probability play gets +.75; one who fails to make the play gets -.25. Add: it should be noted UZR is less positive on the Red Sox overall as it has them ranked 25th in defense (but as mentioned OAA is a better metric - according to Fangraphs who updates UZR). Great post. Does OAA debit a player for missing a cut off man? Debit a player for not turning a double play? Does it account for plays made under greater duress as opposed to not?
|
|
|
Post by abrinker on Sept 12, 2024 16:58:32 GMT -5
Cora is vanishingly unlikely to bench him. He's more likely to do as he has done. In the thick of a post-season race, where every win is vital, CR's only gotten a handful of days off since his deep slump began around a month ago. Granted, almost all of those starts have been at SS. But they're clearly willing to live with his bat in the lineup every day. A good offense can carry his bat in the 9 hole every day. The problem comes when he's one of like 4 guys not hitting at the bottom of the order (not to mention the top as has been the case in September). True, but is that the optimal deployment? Assume we soon have an OF mix consisting of Duran, Anthony, Abreu, Rafaela, and another RHH bat (e.g., TON or Ref), what would be the best starting configuration? |
| OPS (OPS+) | OPS (OPS+) | | Defense* | vRHP | vLHP | Duran | CF (70); LF (70) | .931 (157) | .682 (93) | Abreu | RF (60) | .874 (142) | .511 (44) | ONeill | LF (50) | .743 (107) | 1.200 (231) | Refsnyder | RF (45); LF (50) | .733 (106) | .948 (165) | Rafaela | CF (70) | .701 (95) | .643 (80) | Anthony | CF (50); LF (60) | .872 (NA) | .902 (NA) |
*Admittedly my estimates based on OAA, DRS, and scouting reports. YMMV.Duran and Anthony will hold down two spots. Duran's defensive value in CF is comparable to Ceddanne's. Even if Duran's a shade below, what he offers offensively more than compensates for it. That leaves Rafaela competing with Abreu and Ref/TON/Other RHH for the other position, and he falls well below any of these options offensively. Abreu's RF defense is stellar and he kills RHP, so he'll be the strong side of a platoon. That leaves the weak side role, which overwhelming favors Ref/TON/Other RHH at the plate. Rafaela would most assuredly be the better option in the field, but that leaves CR with a role as an OF maybe 2-3 days a week, and one who will likely be lifted for a PH once the starter leaves, or one who can come in as a defensive replacement late in the game. Of course, he could fill a super utility role, but his IF defense would really need to improve to be a more viable option than, say, Hamilton or Gonzalez. He's super athletic, so I don't see why he can't improve there. Of course, this assumes his level of offensive production doesn't meaningfully improve. He's a rookie; still a lot of time to get better. I'm just not convinced he'll be a competitive option among an embarrassment of riches next year. When would he make a lineup overall better than the other options? Rarely, which could mean he becomes a back of the bench, defensive replacement, pinch runner-type player. Not saying that's not valuable in its own right (though a bit overpaid if that's the role), just saying his playing time could become limited if he doesn't make serious offensive strides soon. Again, this isn't meant to personally offend anyone on this board. I would love to see him turn it on. It's not that he's a terrible player. It's just the reality of our OF situation may soon put him on the outside looking in, relative to better studs.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 12, 2024 17:52:34 GMT -5
The Red Sox make many bad plays, but they also make many good plays - in the end, these cancel out. If you only look at errors, you're only recognizing a single subset of bad plays while ignoring both the good plays and the bad plays which aren't reflected as errors (lack of range, mental mistakes, etc.). UZR (not as good as OAA, but ideal for demonstrating the difference) shows the red sox are -2.4 (21st) in outfield arm, -3.1 (26th) in double plays, -13.2 (30th) in errors BUT are +12.4 (1st) in range. If you were to replace Rafaela with Story on the infield while replacing TON with Rafaela in the outfield, you should expect for the red sox to improve in ARM, DPR and errors (although the offensive impact may not be as rosy). I take this as a positive for a young team as players typically improve in reducing errors as they age while the ability to make highlight real plays, and show off their fielding range, is more stable (and often declines with age). That isn't to say it isn't a concern, just less of a concern in my opinion. OAA accounts for situation in a more precise manner than DRS, which is why OAA is generally the most used defensive metric currently:Outs Above Average (OAA) is the cumulative effect of all individual plays a fielder has been credited or debited with, making it a range-based metric of fielding skill that accounts for the number of plays made and the difficulty of them. For example, a fielder who catches a 25% Out Probability play gets +.75; one who fails to make the play gets -.25. Add: it should be noted UZR is less positive on the Red Sox overall as it has them ranked 25th in defense (but as mentioned OAA is a better metric - according to Fangraphs who updates UZR). Great post. Does OAA debit a player for missing a cut off man? Debit a player for not turning a double play? Does it account for plays made under greater duress as opposed to not? I don't believe OAA will directly debit the fielder for missing the cutoff, but it will debit him if there's a negative result from his throw (which may or may not be because he missed the cutoff man) - it even knows how fast the specific baserunner was and how far he was away from the base. Where DRS or UZR try to make predictions based on averages and zones - OAA knows exactly where everyone is on every play (almost) and exactly each player's ability (again, almost). OAA, DRS and UZR will all debit a player for not turning a double play. I'm not sure what you mean by 'duress'. If you want to know the details (at least for infield fielding) try the first link below. If you REALLY want to know the details, try the second link (it's a bit of a slog if you're not into that type of thing). www.mlb.com/news/statcast-introduces-outs-above-average-for-infield-defensetangotiger.com/images/uploads/History_of_the_Fielding.pdf
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Sept 12, 2024 18:04:58 GMT -5
Great post. Does OAA debit a player for missing a cut off man? Debit a player for not turning a double play? Does it account for plays made under greater duress as opposed to not? I don't believe OAA will directly debit the fielder for missing the cutoff, but it will debit him if there's a negative result from his throw (which may or may not be because he missed the cutoff man) - it even knows how fast the specific baserunner was and how far he was away from the base. Where DRS or UZR try to make predictions based on averages and zones - OAA knows exactly where everyone is on every play (almost) and exactly each player's ability (again, almost). OAA, DRS and UZR will all debit a player for not turning a double play. I'm not sure what you mean by 'duress'. If you want to know the details (at least for infield fielding) try the first link below. If you REALLY want to know the details, try the second link (it's a bit of a slog if you're not into that type of thing). www.mlb.com/news/statcast-introduces-outs-above-average-for-infield-defensetangotiger.com/images/uploads/History_of_the_Fielding.pdfThanks I will check out both links. By duress, I mean, you can have the exact same play; in one situation with a runner on 3rd with two outs and the other with no one on base. It's the same difficulty play in either case - but the player is human, not a robot and he knows failure means a run scores on the first situation where as it doesn't in the second situation. Is there a difficulty adjustment for situation?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 12, 2024 18:56:49 GMT -5
I don't believe OAA will directly debit the fielder for missing the cutoff, but it will debit him if there's a negative result from his throw (which may or may not be because he missed the cutoff man) - it even knows how fast the specific baserunner was and how far he was away from the base. Where DRS or UZR try to make predictions based on averages and zones - OAA knows exactly where everyone is on every play (almost) and exactly each player's ability (again, almost). OAA, DRS and UZR will all debit a player for not turning a double play. I'm not sure what you mean by 'duress'. If you want to know the details (at least for infield fielding) try the first link below. If you REALLY want to know the details, try the second link (it's a bit of a slog if you're not into that type of thing). www.mlb.com/news/statcast-introduces-outs-above-average-for-infield-defensetangotiger.com/images/uploads/History_of_the_Fielding.pdfThanks I will check out both links. By duress, I mean, you can have the exact same play; in one situation with a runner on 3rd with two outs and the other with no one on base. It's the same difficulty play in either case - but the player is human, not a robot and he knows failure means a run scores on the first situation where as it doesn't in the second situation. Is there a difficulty adjustment for situation? I don't believe that OAA uses situational or clutch metrics. These things are typically found to be non-statistically relevant - or to put it another way, they kind of are robots as they've trained their brains/bodies to react the same way regardless of pressure. There is the rare occurance that a player falls apart under pressure, but it's incredibly rare and even further, rarely means it will happen again. To put it another way, a player who makes a great clutch or situational play is no more likely to do it again (there was one metric that showed Ortiz was 'clutch' a long time ago, but it was only that one metric and only the one player). So most metrics don't measure those plays any differently because they want to know how good the player is 'now' and then use that to forecast how good they will be 'in the future' - how good WAS the player tends to be left out of these things.
|
|
|
Post by soxpatsceltics on Sept 12, 2024 21:23:11 GMT -5
JBJ throws the guy out at home on the Soto hit
|
|
chaimtime
Veteran
Posts: 942
Member is Online
|
Post by chaimtime on Sept 13, 2024 12:04:29 GMT -5
No it says that the Red Sox are about middle of the pack defensively.. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that it is in their best interest to get better defensively but to just wave off widely used stats to fit your narrative is an odd argument. Well how do you square 100 plus errors - more than any team in baseball with DRS saying we're 6th? DRS considers situation - which is something that's beyond the fielder's control. OAA doesn't consider situation, so it doesn't consider human nature. I'm literally granting you 14th or 15th in baseball based on OAA and DRS. So how does that explain leading the league in errors? Are there errors that result in runs/losses that aren't captured by DRS or OAA? Or are the extra errors just the phantom ravings of official scorers? You have to get to the ball to make an error. If you’re getting to a lot of balls but have a mediocre conversion rate, you’re probably fine overall defensively, but are gonna have a high error count. I think that’s about right for this year’s team—compare that to last year’s team, which did not get to many balls and had a poor conversion rate on the ones they did get to. If I had to guess, DRS is probably giving them more credit for the ones they’re getting to, while OAA is dinging them a little harder for the ones they’re not converting. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, it’s a capable-but-inconsistent defensive team, which probably makes it around average overall.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 13, 2024 12:57:08 GMT -5
I maxed out my own personal baseball career as a little leaguer with solid strike zone judgment. So I truly don't understand what is going on with Rafaela when he swings at pitches so far outside the zone; not least of all on those pitches that he's actually able to make contact with. Some people have suggested his chronic chasing means that he's stubborn or uncoachable, but I don't want to assume that.
Still, there is something about it I don't understand. If a pitch is well outside the zone but he is able to make contact with it, why can he not just... decide not to swing at it? It's like he knows where the pitch is going, it's going well outside the strike zone, yet he swings anyways. I just don't have the context to understand this.
Can someone with a lot more experience than me in either hitting or scouting speak to this at a psychological level - like, what is it like to be this sort of hitter? Why does it seem so difficult to change? And how optimistic can we be that Rafaela ever will change?
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Sept 13, 2024 14:59:31 GMT -5
Well how do you square 100 plus errors - more than any team in baseball with DRS saying we're 6th? DRS considers situation - which is something that's beyond the fielder's control. OAA doesn't consider situation, so it doesn't consider human nature. I'm literally granting you 14th or 15th in baseball based on OAA and DRS. So how does that explain leading the league in errors? Are there errors that result in runs/losses that aren't captured by DRS or OAA? Or are the extra errors just the phantom ravings of official scorers? You have to get to the ball to make an error. If you’re getting to a lot of balls but have a mediocre conversion rate, you’re probably fine overall defensively, but are gonna have a high error count. I think that’s about right for this year’s team—compare that to last year’s team, which did not get to many balls and had a poor conversion rate on the ones they did get to. If I had to guess, DRS is probably giving them more credit for the ones they’re getting to, while OAA is dinging them a little harder for the ones they’re not converting. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, it’s a capable-but-inconsistent defensive team, which probably makes it around average overall. It's definitely true that they are at the top of the league in fielding chances - but it's also true that they have the lowest fielding %, so it's not just that they are getting to more balls, they are making more errors per chance than any other team. In fact the Giants have the most chances and twenty fewer errors. So, yes, if they were getting to fewer balls, they'd have fewer errors, but they'd also have fewer outs which would be negatively reflected in OAA and DRS. I just don't think excluding traditional defensive stats when you lead the league in errors and have the worst fielding% and just accepting some combination of DRS and OAA is telling an accurate story. On DRS, they are crediting Duran, Abreu and Rafaela with 44 DRS. The entire team has a total of 55. I'm speculating that the nature of Fenway park is giving our LF and CF defense a bit of a boost that may not be warranted in DRS, but that's just speculation on my part. But even if I am wrong there, when three guys (all outfielders) have 80% of your total DRS, I don't think that paints a picture of overall capable-but-inconsistent defensive team. Same thing with OAA, those three players have a combined 19 OAA when playing in the outfield. The rest of the team and Rafaela at SS is -35. Maybe with Story , this meets the capable-but-inconsistent label - but not without him. As mentioned by another poster re: Rafaela - while he grades out poorly at SS, he should be getting more credit for stabilizing the SS position - his play there in the second half of the season was better after his initial struggles in April-June. And maybe that's the answer to the error question - why is it that if you average DRS and OAA and come out average that you still lead the league in errors. Maybe it is because the infield defense has been terrible while the outfield defense has been overall very good. It was mentioned to me that the good plays cancel out the bad plays - but if most of your good plays come from the outfield and most of your really bad plays come in the infield, I don't think they cancel each other out. And replacing Rafaela with Story and a slightly below average left fielder (O'Neill/Grissom/Campbell/whoever) may not have the same impact that many people expect. It's very true that Story in his short time in Boston has put up some pretty impressive OAA rates - but it's also true that his OAA in Colorado (-6 in 2018, 18 in 2019, -7 in 2021) had wide fluctuations. Not sure what to make of that. If he produced at the 2019 rate, it would still be a team defense that was heavily weighted to just three players, but the balance between outfield and infield probably would be overall capable-but-inconsistent or maybe even slightly better than that. But maybe it won't and I still think it's a mistake to remove your best overall defensive outfielder chasing offense that you ought to be able to make up elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by rickasadoorian on Sept 13, 2024 16:24:49 GMT -5
I maxed out my own personal baseball career as a little leaguer with solid strike zone judgment. So I truly don't understand what is going on with Rafaela when he swings at pitches so far outside the zone; not least of all on those pitches that he's actually able to make contact with. Some people have suggested his chronic chasing means that he's stubborn or uncoachable, but I don't want to assume that.
Still, there is something about it I don't understand. If a pitch is well outside the zone but he is able to make contact with it, why can he not just... decide not to swing at it? It's like he knows where the pitch is going, it's going well outside the strike zone, yet he swings anyways. I just don't have the context to understand this.
Can someone with a lot more experience than me in either hitting or scouting speak to this at a psychological level - like, what is it like to be this sort of hitter? Why does it seem so difficult to change? And how optimistic can we be that Rafaela ever will change?
Rather than being stubborn or uncoachable, couldn't it just be ability? I'm sure players can improve their plate discipline a little bit, but how many have improved it drastically? He's never going to be Kevin Youkilis. How much improvement should one expect? If he was Sammy Sosa and capable of hitting 40 HRs a year, he'd draw more walks by default.. but he isn't. His K/BB ratio is almost 10:1. What's a reasonable expectation? To get that ratio closer to 5:1? Baseball is full of players who washed out or could have had better careers if they just walked a little more. Soriano would be a HOF. Juan Samuel would have been a perennial all star. Pete Incaviglia would have made an all star game or two. Shea Hillenbrand is another one. I doubt it's for lack of trying, it's just not in their skill set. It's possible that trying to be more selective would actually have a negative impact on their game. No one expects Meidroth to hit 30+ HRs a year. No one expects Devers to steal 40 bases. Why should they expect Rafaela to walk 50 times?
|
|
macca
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by macca on Sept 13, 2024 20:22:54 GMT -5
I maxed out my own personal baseball career as a little leaguer with solid strike zone judgment. So I truly don't understand what is going on with Rafaela when he swings at pitches so far outside the zone; not least of all on those pitches that he's actually able to make contact with. Some people have suggested his chronic chasing means that he's stubborn or uncoachable, but I don't want to assume that.
Still, there is something about it I don't understand. If a pitch is well outside the zone but he is able to make contact with it, why can he not just... decide not to swing at it? It's like he knows where the pitch is going, it's going well outside the strike zone, yet he swings anyways. I just don't have the context to understand this.
Can someone with a lot more experience than me in either hitting or scouting speak to this at a psychological level - like, what is it like to be this sort of hitter? Why does it seem so difficult to change? And how optimistic can we be that Rafaela ever will change?
Your post makes me wonder if he doesn't trust what he is seeing but trusts his bat speed which leads to the boom and bust spells that he goes goes through. So he slashes at everything and chases too much. Just speculating, happy to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by FreeJBJ on Sept 16, 2024 15:19:18 GMT -5
I was excited about Rafaela going into the season and he's been spectacular at times. But I fear the lack of plate discipline will be a fatal flaw. Here's the list of players with an OBP under .280, 140+ strikeouts and fewer than 20 walks in a season:
Rafaela this season Tim Anderson 2017 Matt Davidson 2017 Mike Zunino 2014 J.P. Arencibia 2013 Miguel Olivo 2011
Anderson had the best career of the bunch, but there's not much in the way of consistent starter-level players on winning teams. I would trade Rafaela this offseason while he still has some value.
|
|
|
Post by abrinker on Sept 16, 2024 15:40:47 GMT -5
How much value does he really have, actually? If we hadn't signed him to the extension, I think he'd have a fair bit more trade value. Obviously, it only takes one team to value him to a degree that the trade would be a net positive for us. Ultimately it should come down to the FO's evaluation of his ability to adapt and overcome. If they think he has the right makeup to do so, keep him. If they don't, look for a deal. The fact they signed him to that extension five months ago suggests to me they believe he can overcome.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Sept 16, 2024 16:00:20 GMT -5
How much value does he really have, actually? If we hadn't signed him to the extension, I think he'd have a fair bit more trade value. Obviously, it only takes one team to value him to a degree that the trade would be a net positive for us. Ultimately it should come down to the FO's evaluation of his ability to adapt and overcome. If they think he has the right makeup to do so, keep him. If they don't, look for a deal. The fact they signed him to that extension five months ago suggests to me they believe he can overcome. It was a bizarre extension at the time. He has value to the organization, and needs to improve offensively to stick as a starter on this roster. I agree, he would have more value to other teams prior to the extension.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 16, 2024 16:28:28 GMT -5
I was excited about Rafaela going into the season and he's been spectacular at times. But I fear the lack of plate discipline will be a fatal flaw. Here's the list of players with an OBP under .280, 140+ strikeouts and fewer than 20 walks in a season: Rafaela this season Tim Anderson 2017 Matt Davidson 2017 Mike Zunino 2014 J.P. Arencibia 2013 Miguel Olivo 2011 Anderson had the best career of the bunch, but there's not much in the way of consistent starter-level players on winning teams. I would trade Rafaela this offseason while he still has some value. Anderson 2016-2022: 104 wRC+ Zunino 2016-2021: 101 wRC+ Davidson 2013-2022: 93 wRC+
Olivo 2004-2010: 81 wRC+ Arencibia 2011-2015: 79 wRC+
With his defense, Rafaela is like a 3.5-4-WAR player if he can match Zunino or Anderson over the next 6-7 years. Maybe a 2-WAR player if he matches Olivo or Arencibia.
I'm pretty confident that Rafaela will end up inside the range of 79-104 wRC+ over the next 7 years. Which would probably mean he'd end up inside the 2 to 4 WAR/600 PA range. Which would mean he'd still be pretty valuable on his contract. (Though he'd have to end up in the upper half of that range or something to be more valuable than he would have been without the extension.)
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Sept 16, 2024 16:30:09 GMT -5
I don't think the extension impacts his value much one way or the other, for us or for any other teams. We gave up some flexibility but got him to commit to being reasonably priced for a good while. It's just a contract that exchanges a very fixed amount of risk that he's not that good and he gets paid like he's ok against the upside that he's pretty good and he just get's paid like he's ok. Currently he seems like he's doing ok and getting paid like he's ok, so so far it feels like a pretty value-neutral proposition.
|
|
|
Post by ephus on Sept 16, 2024 16:47:04 GMT -5
One thing I have watched all year with Rafaela is grounding in to double plays. My thinking is this. Striking out is but one out. Grounding in to double plays is two. Striking out at a high rate AND grounding into a lot of double plays is a fatal combination. Rafaela has grounded into 7 double plays all year. Aaron Judge leads the league in GDP with 22. What is interesting here is that he has one a month in every month but July when he had two. Look, everyone agrees his approach needs to improve, and pitch selection is weak; but if I came on here and told everyone last January that he'd put up a 2.8 WAR with 70 RBI out of the nine hole, we'd all think this team would have a lot more wins.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Sept 16, 2024 16:52:32 GMT -5
I don't think the extension impacts his value much one way or the other, for us or for any other teams. We gave up some flexibility but got him to commit to being reasonably priced for a good while. It's just a contract that exchanges a very fixed amount of risk that he's not that good and he gets paid like he's ok against the upside that he's pretty good and he just get's paid like he's ok. Currently he seems like he's doing ok and getting paid like he's ok, so so far it feels like a pretty value-neutral proposition. Well, it also eats up roughly 5M/yr AAV under the luxury tax line during the 2024-2026 seasons when at least for 2024 the budget is tight. In exchange, the Sox will potentially save some AA in the 2027+ years when the Sox may or may not need it as badly. It is worse deal in the early years for a team like the Sox who are right up against the tax line. It's irrelevant for the 20+ teams that are well under the line.
|
|
|