SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 19, 2013 8:40:57 GMT -5
What Iglesias's numbers tell me is that he is clearly a statistical outlier but the sample size is now large enough to indicate that at least something is going on besides luck. What makes this factually true and not wishcasting? You seriously think he's beyond sss with his MLB AB's? Really? 92 AB's (in 2013 - surely his 2012 AB's won't lead you to the same conclusion as his 2013 AB's). I actually think there's been a study on how many AB's one needs in MLB before you can truly rely on the stats behind them. Someone posted it in this forum a year ago or so. I think the number was over 300 - maybe as high as 400.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 19, 2013 8:55:26 GMT -5
Also Jurickson Profar WAR: 0 Andrelton Simmons WAR: .9 Iglesias WAR: 1.4 He's got a shot to hold off Myers, Gausman and Profar for AL ROY if he gets the playing time. Don't put stock in mid-season WAR values. There's a 0.5 WAR error bar surrounding end of season numbers and less than half a season's worth of play doesn't provide overly accurate numbers. Additionally, defensive WAR should be the aggregate of at least 3 seasons' value.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jun 19, 2013 9:00:04 GMT -5
Iglesias is no Ichiro, but it isn't a bad approach for someone with quick hands and speed. Has there been some luck? absolutely, but Iglesias seems to be putting himself in a good position for that luck to occur (keeping the ball down, quick out of the box, finding a pitch he can do something with) Ichiro also sprayed line drives to all fields and basically never struck out. Ichiro's career LD% is 20.5%, Iglesias' is 16.8%. I will say that it is good that Iglesias is hitting a lot of ground balls (57.3% career), as he doesn't have enough raw power to drive fly balls out of the park. What's more likely: that Iglesias is the rare hitter able to sustain .350+ BABIPs or that his current 102 PA stretch is mostly good luck? Remember, the sample size here is still tiny tiny tiny. The guys with the best career BABIP's tend to be ground ball hitters who beat out a lot of IF hits. Again, Iglesias is no Ichiro, but it does look like he's going to do enough of that, and hit with juuuuuust enough power, to be a legitimate MLB bat, like .260+. With his glove, that's not just an average starter.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 19, 2013 9:20:09 GMT -5
Ichiro also sprayed line drives to all fields and basically never struck out. Ichiro's career LD% is 20.5%, Iglesias' is 16.8%. I will say that it is good that Iglesias is hitting a lot of ground balls (57.3% career), as he doesn't have enough raw power to drive fly balls out of the park. What's more likely: that Iglesias is the rare hitter able to sustain .350+ BABIPs or that his current 102 PA stretch is mostly good luck? Remember, the sample size here is still tiny tiny tiny. For a full-time hitter, it's basically a months worth of at bats. Can we wait a little longer before deciding to ignore basically his entire career prior to this year? I tried to see if there was any correlation between Shin-Soo Choo's plate discipline (the highest career BABIP I could think of) with Iglesias' discipline. There wasn't one. I did however notice that Iglesias has a ridiculously high Contact% and a very low SwStr%. Basically, the numbers corroborate with the eye that he's hitting what he swings at.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 19, 2013 9:36:35 GMT -5
What Iglesias's numbers tell me is that he is clearly a statistical outlier but the sample size is now large enough to indicate that at least something is going on besides luck. What makes this factually true and not wishcasting? You seriously think he's beyond sss with his MLB AB's? Really? 92 AB's (in 2013 - surely his 2012 AB's won't lead you to the same conclusion as his 2013 AB's). I actually think there's been a study on how many AB's one needs in MLB before you can truly rely on the stats behind them. Someone posted it in this forum a year ago or so. I think the number was over 300 - maybe as high as 400. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/when-samples-become-reliable/BABIP and batting average don't even stabilize (i.e., become meaningfully predictive) at 650 PAs. At 100+ PAs, the only stats which are meaningful for Iglesias are swing percentage and contact rate. Granted, he does have excellent contact rates, which means he shouldn't strike out much in the major leagues, but that's never been something I've much doubted. He should be able to avoid enough strikeouts to hit in the .250 range. I'm more concerned about plate discipline and power, and while he's made strides in those areas, I'm not sure they're enough to elevate him to more than fringe starter status. Basically, for me, his performance thus far this season hasn't changed my projected ceiling for Iglesias, though it has increased the likelihood that he reaches that ceiling. I still think he's optimistically a .250/.300/.350-type hitter, which, when combined with the otherworldly defense, makes him an average-to-slightly-above-average starting shortstop. I don't think he'll ever hit enough to deserve to hit any higher up than eighth or ninth in the order or to really rack up All-Star type seasons, though he'll be a Gold Glove regular if he ever gets the playing time.
|
|
|
Post by feez732 on Jun 19, 2013 10:06:21 GMT -5
I actually think there's been a study on how many AB's one needs in MLB before you can truly rely on the stats behind them. Someone posted it in this forum a year ago or so. I think the number was over 300 - maybe as high as 400. There really isn't a magic number for reliability, because in addition to sample size, it also depends on how far he's over-performing your expectations and what exactly you're trying to prove. If he continues to impress, you can say that he'll continue to hit better than a pitcher a lot sooner than you can say that he'll continue to hit like an all-star. It's a sliding scale, the larger the sample size, the smaller the error bars on his numbers. Not that I'm saying what he has or hasn't proven this year, but 102 plate appearances of a .449 wOBA from a guy probably expected to be closer to a .225 is much more meaningful than for someone projected for a .250 wOBA showing a .300 instead. Also, it's amazing how much some of the detractors seem to be glossing over just how young he was when first promoted to AAA. He was still young for the league even last year. Two years ago there might have been a couple younger players in the league.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 19, 2013 10:24:18 GMT -5
What makes this factually true and not wishcasting? You seriously think he's beyond sss with his MLB AB's? Really? 92 AB's (in 2013 - surely his 2012 AB's won't lead you to the same conclusion as his 2013 AB's). I actually think there's been a study on how many AB's one needs in MLB before you can truly rely on the stats behind them. Someone posted it in this forum a year ago or so. I think the number was over 300 - maybe as high as 400. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/when-samples-become-reliable/BABIP and batting average don't even stabilize (i.e., become meaningfully predictive) at 650 PAs. At 100+ PAs, the only stats which are meaningful for Iglesias are swing percentage and contact rate. Granted, he does have excellent contact rates, which means he shouldn't strike out much in the major leagues, but that's never been something I've much doubted. He should be able to avoid enough strikeouts to hit in the .250 range. I'm more concerned about plate discipline and power, and while he's made strides in those areas, I'm not sure they're enough to elevate him to more than fringe starter status. Basically, for me, his performance thus far this season hasn't changed my projected ceiling for Iglesias, though it has increased the likelihood that he reaches that ceiling. I still think he's optimistically a .250/.300/.350-type hitter, which, when combined with the otherworldly defense, makes him an average-to-slightly-above-average starting shortstop. I don't think he'll ever hit enough to deserve to hit any higher up than eighth or ninth in the order or to really rack up All-Star type seasons, though he'll be a Gold Glove regular if he ever gets the playing time. If you look at league average stats for SS this year it is 253/306/366, 255/310/367 last year. So if your projection is correct he is an average hitting SS. (NL shortstops have actually been hitting better than AL) Now this next approach on determining defense is flawed, but it is a quick way to create some context. Using Fangraphs, I selected 2013+2012 (to create a sample size), of shortstops with 500 PA. 13 SS came up. Sorted by their fielding rating, the three SS in the middle of that pack, are Escobar (8.0), Aviles (5.0), and Aybar (-.5). With this method I am assuming these players are average defensive SS's. Iglesias blows these guys out of the water defensively. I think Iglesias could cover more ground at SS than 2 Aybars. What I am getting at is if Iglesias could hit around league average for a SS, he would be one of the better ones in the league. His value would also be less tied to hot/cold streaks. No I don't think he is an allstar, an MVP, but I do think he can by these standards be a top 5-10 SS. He is also young and cheap, which I think is understated. SS really is a defense first position. I just do see the problem with having Iglesias at short long term, and using your resources to fill other holes.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 19, 2013 10:26:22 GMT -5
What Iglesias's numbers tell me is that he is clearly a statistical outlier but the sample size is now large enough to indicate that at least something is going on besides luck. What makes this factually true and not wishcasting? You seriously think he's beyond sss with his MLB AB's? Really? 92 AB's (in 2013 - surely his 2012 AB's won't lead you to the same conclusion as his 2013 AB's). I actually think there's been a study on how many AB's one needs in MLB before you can truly rely on the stats behind them. Someone posted it in this forum a year ago or so. I think the number was over 300 - maybe as high as 400. I did say it's a statistical outlier didn't I? Does that imply I think his performance is going to continue at this level? I think not. What I was trying to explain is that there are probably at least some reasons why he has had so high a performance, compared to one of the league's worst last year. At least some positive attributes contributing to it. Given both last year's sample size and this year's sample size, Iglesias now has possibly the biggest net gain in performance in the history of baseball. Certainly one of them. I read yesterday that only 2 people in baseball history have ever had that large a sample size and that high a batting average. It goes back to like 1913. That is one heck of a statistical anomaly. From a guy who had one heck of a horrible year last year offensively. Absolutely off the charts turnaround. When both years are combined this is a tremendous deviation from normal distribution. Over 300 points more BA boost from 2012 to 2013. Why? Is it just luck entirely, over that many AB? The sample size is not enough to know for sure of course but it is big enough to at least infer SOME improvement on his part. It would be highly unlikely to have that level of turnaround based upon luck only even within 100-200 AB. The statistician's here could well say that the data is not sufficient but we are not talking about a deviation of 3% here right. It is incredibly skewed. There is not enough data to PROVE anything. But normal probability of this sort of turnaround is so unlikely that something has changed in all likelihood. We are talking off the charts deviation. To me, it is most likely some increased strength and bat speed, possibly some skill development in terms of approach and maybe an intense need to succeed. Those are all aspects of "Iglesias" which I perceive to be potentially contributing to this turnaround, be them wish full thinking or not. I do perceive them as POSSIBLE and I think it is LIKELY that at least some aspect's within Iglesias are CONTRIBUTING to his success. Great soccer athletes are often not just fast but are explosive fast. They can do the starts and stops necessary to create separation and get a shot or a cross in...etc. I think if you look closely at Iglesias's body and overall game he is explosive fast. Quick. He is not the fastest runner in the 100 yard dash but the guy clearly gets out of the box faster than most players and part of that is maybe just physical with larger thigh muscles than normal or whatever the physiological aspects of explosive speed are, combined with maybe an intense need to get on base. And maybe mentally he can make that transition quickly also. The guy is clearly on a mission. To prove he belongs in mlb. The guy appears to make the transition extremely well from hitting, to running. Just as he has some of the fastest hands in baseball defensively, he also has extremely high contact rates when hitting. And he is hustling with what appears to be extreme urgency. And it's working. I think it is highly unlikely that Iglesias will ever be a .300 hitter over a full season but you know, maybe he is onto something here. His hand eye coordination appears to be exceptional defensively right and his contact rates are high. Look how quickly he gets the ball out of his glove and the throw off defensively. His stroke is relatively short isn't it. If he learns to spray the ball around he may be a decent hitter. He probably is going to continue to develop offensively. I think he is a keeper. I really like his chances to be a major contributor going forward.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Jun 19, 2013 12:07:19 GMT -5
Using Fangraphs, I selected 2013+2012 (to create a sample size), of shortstops with 500 PA. 13 SS came up. Sorted by their fielding rating, the three SS in the middle of that pack, are Escobar (8.0), Aviles (5.0), and Aybar (-.5). With this method I am assuming these players are average defensive SS's. Iglesias blows these guys out of the water defensively. I think Iglesias could cover more ground at SS than 2 Aybars. What I am getting at is if Iglesias could hit around league average for a SS, he would be one of the better ones in the league. His value would also be less tied to hot/cold streaks. No I don't think he is an allstar, an MVP, but I do think he can by these standards be a top 5-10 SS. He is also young and cheap, which I think is understated. SS really is a defense first position. I just do see the problem with having Iglesias at short long term, and using your resources to fill other holes. This, a thousand times this. The entire Iglesias debate here and elsewhere has gotten so silly in that people are now distorting the bars of offensive competence for shortstop. Stephen Drew and his .300 bop and .370 slg has the 12th highest WRC for MLB shortstops. All that Iglesias has to do to be an above average MLB shortstop is to have an OBP of .300.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 19, 2013 12:52:04 GMT -5
What I was trying to explain is that there are probably at least some reasons why he has had so high a performance, compared to one of the league's worst last year. At least some positive attributes contributing to it. Given both last year's sample size and this year's sample size, Iglesias now has possibly the biggest net gain in performance in the history of baseball. Certainly one of them. I read yesterday that only 2 people in baseball history have ever had that large a sample size and that high a batting average. It goes back to like 1913. That is one heck of a statistical anomaly. From a guy who had one heck of a horrible year last year offensively. Absolutely off the charts turnaround. When both years are combined this is a tremendous deviation from normal distribution. Over 300 points more BA boost from 2012 to 2013. Why? Is it just luck entirely, over that many AB? The sample size is not enough to know for sure of course but it is big enough to at least infer SOME improvement on his part. It would be highly unlikely to have that level of turnaround based upon luck only even within 100-200 AB. The statistician's here could well say that the data is not sufficient but we are not talking about a deviation of 3% here right. It is incredibly skewed. There is not enough data to PROVE anything. But normal probability of this sort of turnaround is so unlikely that something has changed in all likelihood. We are talking off the charts deviation. To me, it is most likely some increased strength and bat speed, possibly some skill development in terms of approach and maybe an intense need to succeed. Those are all aspects of "Iglesias" which I perceive to be potentially contributing to this turnaround, be them wish full thinking or not. I do perceive them as POSSIBLE and I think it is LIKELY that at least some aspect's within Iglesias are CONTRIBUTING to his success. Sample sizes this small mean close to nothing, even if the magnitude of the difference is tremendous. Vernon Wells hit .321/.379/.603 in 87 April PAs and followed it up with a .120/.129/.133 performance in 87 PAs since May 22nd. I'm sure that hasn't happened too many times in history either. But reading grand narratives into sample sizes this small is a fool's errand. I understand that "stuff happens" is unsatisfying and that we are hardwired to see trends in the numbers, but I urge you to just sit back and enjoy the show rather than reading too much into it. Broader point: if he hits .250/.300/.350, I agree that Iglesias is in the range of the top 10-12 shortstops in the game. But for me, that's his ceiling, and he reaches that only if (a) he continues to maintain this low strikeout rate and gives himself a chance to benefit from the infield hits and bloops and (b) if he can sustain the pop he's shown this year (note his career .048 ISO in 916 AAA PAs). I don't know if either of those propositions are slam dunks, especially the second. Yes, when he first played in AAA, he was very young, but it's not like he improved much as he got older (.041 ISO in 2012). His power has spiked this year, but I need to see him sustain it over a longer period of time before he convinces me that it's legit. Iglesias is still very much a hands/wrists hitter, and one with a very slight frame, and even a .100 ISO seems like an ambitious projection for me. We'll see. I think I've made my argument clear, and in the interests of avoiding clutter, I'll avoid repeating it too much going forward. Despite what you might think, I love watching Iglesias play, and would be thrilled if we get to watch him at shortstop for the Red Sox for the next decade. I just want to pump the breaks a little bit-- assuming that he can hit .280 or get on base at .350 going forward is only setting yourself up for disappointment.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 19, 2013 12:56:53 GMT -5
2 hours ago thelavarnwayguy said:
....Broader point: if he hits .250/.300/.350, I agree that Iglesias is in the range of the top 10-12 shortstops in the game. But for me, that's his ceiling...
This is not accurate. You're saying it's impossible for him to hit 260/310/360? That's what ceiling means
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 19, 2013 13:02:31 GMT -5
I mean, there's always a chance any player becomes the next Barry Bonds, but if we're going to talk ceiling, that's my ceiling for Iglesias in terms of his true talent level. He almost certainly will hit better than that in small stretches (as he has this year), but in terms of career numbers, I'm hard-pressed to see him performing much better than that. Reasonable minds, as always, may disagree.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 19, 2013 13:16:17 GMT -5
Just checking this thread again. Thanks jmei, that's precisely the study I was referring to.
I think I might be a little more optimistic on Iglesias's ceiling, however. I think feez made a good point - Iglesias was really young when promoted to AAA. I think they promoted on defense and his bat wasn't ready. I think his MiL numbers might a bit lower than normal because of this. But I definitely in the camp that Iglesias is a completely different hitter. Maybe he is, but the chances of that are quite slim.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 19, 2013 13:17:18 GMT -5
Reasonable minds CAN disagree.
I love so many things about Iglesias's game. Seeing short hop throws come in from the OF which he snags and still gets the tag down routinely. Seeing the transfer from glove to hand cutting milliseconds off the DP process. His range is decent but his quickness and the dependability of his arm are what set him apart to me. If the guy does hit .250 with any sort of pop I want him in the lineup.
When I look around the league it's the teams with great defensive SS which stand out to me. Elvis Andrus is kind of my ideal guy at that slot. And Iglesias might end up with at least some years close to his performance level. And my sense is that he will continue to improve as a hitter.
I'd put his ceiling at around .265 in terms of career numbers which would be tremendous considering his defensive ability. Probably come in around .245 - .250 though over his career.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 19, 2013 13:21:35 GMT -5
I mean, there's always a chance any player becomes the next Barry Bonds, but if we're going to talk ceiling, that's my ceiling for Iglesias in terms of his true talent level. He almost certainly will hit better than that in small stretches (as he has this year), but in terms of career numbers, I'm hard-pressed to see him performing much better than that. Reasonable minds, as always, may disagree. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't a couple of your phrases not right for the word "ceiling"? "I'm hard-pressed to see him performing ***much better*** than that" is not a ceiling. If I said "I can only eat ten hot dogs; I can't eat much more than that" you would be puzzled, because I've just said I can eat more than that, just not much more--probably 12. And "career numbers" are not a ceiling. John Valentin's "ceiling" is not his career number 814 OPS but the 876 from 27-30. Was Ozzie Smith ceiling his .666 career OPS or the 699 he had from ages 27-37? Am I missing the point?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 19, 2013 13:31:02 GMT -5
Semantic point: I use ceiling to mean best-case long-term projection. Maybe others use it to mean best single-season performance. Since we're talking about made-up numbers here, I don't think it's too much of a problem. But thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jun 19, 2013 13:32:20 GMT -5
I think you're completely missing the point.
The word ceiling when used for a prospect is never a reference to an absolute ceiling. All players can outperform their ceiling. We've had debates about ceiling many times on these boards and they never turn out well. The best thing to do is always assume the word "Realistic" is before the word ceiling.
And like jmei said, he is referring to his long-run actually ability. There will be small samples where he outperforms that (including potentially a peak season), but his REALISTIC ceiling in the long run is something along the lines of 250/300/350
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 19, 2013 13:33:09 GMT -5
What makes this factually true and not wishcasting? You seriously think he's beyond sss with his MLB AB's? Really? 92 AB's (in 2013 - surely his 2012 AB's won't lead you to the same conclusion as his 2013 AB's). I actually think there's been a study on how many AB's one needs in MLB before you can truly rely on the stats behind them. Someone posted it in this forum a year ago or so. I think the number was over 300 - maybe as high as 400. I did say it's a statistical outlier didn't I? Does that imply I think his performance is going to continue at this level? I think not. What I was trying to explain is that there are probably at least some reasons why he has had so high a performance, compared to one of the league's worst last year. At least some positive attributes contributing to it. Given both last year's sample size and this year's sample size, Iglesias now has possibly the biggest net gain in performance in the history of baseball. Certainly one of them. I read yesterday that only 2 people in baseball history have ever had that large a sample size and that high a batting average. It goes back to like 1913. That is one heck of a statistical anomaly.... to be fair, I think that mini-study in the Globe was only for full-season stats; there are probably lots of people who have hit .450 over 100 abs during some swatch of a season best batting average for one month: cf. sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=schoenfield/080520&sportCat=mlbLance Berkman, Todd Helton, Rod Carew, John Olerud, Tony Gwynn, George Brett, Ivan Rodriguez, Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby (no scrubs!)
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 19, 2013 13:34:18 GMT -5
thanks for various clarifications on the word ceiling
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 19, 2013 13:39:57 GMT -5
This is the Globe story by David Savino www.boston.com/sports/blogs/statsdriven/2013/06/jose_iglesias_is_batting_what.html"When we say the highest in the majors, we aren’t only talking about this season. If he were to not step up to the dish another time in 2013 (which we know won’t be the case) he would own the highest batting average of any player with at least 87 trips to the plate in modern baseball history (since 1901 when the American League came into existence). Currently holding that distinction is Hall of Fame 417-game winner Walter Johnson who went 42 of 97 at the plate in 1925 for a .433 average. Toss 19th Century players into the mix and Iglesias only drops to second, behind Levi Mayerle who batted a robust .492 for the National Association’s Athletics in 1871 (he also led the circuit in home runs with four)."
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 19, 2013 14:01:58 GMT -5
This is the Globe story by David Savino www.boston.com/sports/blogs/statsdriven/2013/06/jose_iglesias_is_batting_what.html"When we say the highest in the majors, we aren’t only talking about this season. If he were to not step up to the dish another time in 2013 (which we know won’t be the case) he would own the highest batting average of any player with at least 87 trips to the plate in modern baseball history (since 1901 when the American League came into existence). Currently holding that distinction is Hall of Fame 417-game winner Walter Johnson who went 42 of 97 at the plate in 1925 for a .433 average. Toss 19th Century players into the mix and Iglesias only drops to second, behind Levi Mayerle who batted a robust .492 for the National Association’s Athletics in 1871 (he also led the circuit in home runs with four)." Agreed that they were talking about full season stats but we all must admit that this is one hell of an anomaly especially when combined with such a horrible performance last year. Although we all agree it is mainly just luck, can we infer at least some improvement from these numbers? Considering his age and his focus over the winter on conditioning improvement. Factoring in that most mlb players probably improve some over their first 100 AB. Personally, when I hear of young players going to Arizona to the API for conditioning improvement it seems to always result in significant improvements in their performances. for example Youk, Pedroia...etc. The example of Yaz in 1967 improving so much allegedly due to conditioning improvement. It is often huge in player development.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 19, 2013 14:14:48 GMT -5
I don't think anyone on this board is arguing that Iglesias is a .400 hitter, but a point I think us pro-Iglesias guys keep hammering on is it is possible for a 23 year old to get better. His past minor league stats are bad, but he is noticeably better this year. He has a lot of lucky hits but we have also seen him drive balls this year in a way we haven't in the past. Look at Ranaudo's last three years of professional, and what he is doing now as a 23 year old. Maybe a bad comp because Ranaudo was injured (which I believe Iglesias was battling some nagging injuries also). The old Iglesias scouting report says,
"Plus bat speed accented by quick wrists. Low maintenance, compact swing. Little lower body in swing mechanics. Pulls ball hard, but struggles driving the ball the other way. Minimal power projection. Can evolve into a solid-average hitter for batting average and show doubles power as he matures." I am not expecting him to turn into
So we called out his bat speed, quick wrists, and compact swing. These are all obviously plus's.
You may not agree with me that he will become a slighty above average hitting SS, but I think we do need look at some of the good of his 2013 performance and factor it into our evaluation of him.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Jun 19, 2013 14:56:20 GMT -5
I think the question may be different then the one that everybody is asking about Iglesias.
Can Iglesias be an everyday SS with average offense and superb defense in the MLB? I think the answer to that question seeing what he is doing this year is: YES
Can Iglesias be an everyday SS with average offense and superb defense in BOSTON? I think that answer is: we don't know yet
Like it or not the atmosphere in Boston suggests that you need to have an above average Offensive SS. It's the AL , it's the AL east and the media and fans will ride you into the ground if you're not hitting above .250
could Iglesias survive in Boston as Omar Visquel? I think the answer is yes could Iglesias survive in Boston as Rey Ordonez? The answer is no.
I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's the reality. Look at the rotating door since Nomar.
I think there's a fine line Iglesias needs to skirt between being a superb fielder who doesn't hit and being a superb fielder who is a non-blackhole offensively.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 19, 2013 15:52:09 GMT -5
FWIW 3 Sox beat reporters have speculated in the last 3 days that if anyone from the infield is traded at the deadline it will be Iggy: Cafardo, Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson. Cafardo went as far as quoting citing an "NL GM" as a source saying basically the Sox front office would be nuts to do so: One National League GM couldn’t quite understand their infatuation with Drew. “They’re either trying to justify the $9.5 million they paid him, or they’re not sold on [Jose] Iglesias, who could start for 29 other teams.” I know what they're thinking - his value will never be higher but that assumes that GMs don't know from small samples and streakiness. But if he's 23 will his value never be higher or is he one of those guys who is literally figuring it out as we watch - not to the tune of a .400 ave but closer to .250-260 with all that delicious range, glove and arm? I, for one, would be crushed if they dealt him unless the return on a package sending Jose and friends out the door (i.e. for of those who just reading every other word - Jose would be part of a group of players, not Jose alone) is an elite player of need (Lee, Shields, Stanton, etc). But, like, if they traded him for Jesse Crain - really would be a soiled diapers meltdown over here (though of course you wouldn't know it by my outward calm and professional demeanor).
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 19, 2013 16:07:22 GMT -5
This is a little short sighted, but the Red Sox have scored the most runs in the MLB, they have the best record in the AL. They have had 58 games of 213/300/317 slash line out of their starting SS. I don't think the complete success of the team relies solely on the SS's ability to hit above average.
Iglesias costs less than 25% percent of what Drew costs, we have him under control for the foreseeable future, he is young and only going to get better. Why is he not our starting SS???
|
|
|