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 jimed14 on Jul 11, 2013 16:52:49 GMT -5
Hey, remember when Brett Lawrie had 171 really good plate appearances for the Blue Jays a couple years back? Young player, better minor league track record than Iglesias, solid K/BB numbers (I read on Fangraphs that those stabilize really fast)... how's that working out? I swear, I'm going to make this point if it kills me. Up to 185 PA. We started having this argument when it was under 100. At what point is it ok to think he might be a legitimate potential ~.700 OPS hitter which is an above average SS bat?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 11, 2013 17:17:12 GMT -5
It's ok to think he MIGHT be that player. But there's an awful lot of people who've decided that he IS that player, and he's probably not.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,000
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 11, 2013 17:35:54 GMT -5
Hey, remember when Brett Lawrie had 171 really good plate appearances for the Blue Jays a couple years back? Young player, better minor league track record than Iglesias, solid K/BB numbers (I read on Fangraphs that those stabilize really fast)... how's that working out? I swear, I'm going to make this point if it kills me. wait, Brett Lawrie has about 150 PAs this year that are different from both his minor league numbers and his previous major league numbers, and you DO use those to define him, but Iglesias has about 185 PAs this year that are different from both his minor league numbers and his previous major league numbers, and you use WON'T those to define him?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 11, 2013 17:38:40 GMT -5
Lawrie is .259/.311/.398 in his last 689 PAs.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 11, 2013 19:07:01 GMT -5
And if iggy could put up those numbers to go along with his glove he would be a great, affordable ss for the Sox for a bunch of years. Dose he not look like a guy who can do that to you now?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 11, 2013 20:30:08 GMT -5
And if iggy could put up those numbers to go along with his glove he would be a great, affordable ss for the Sox for a bunch of years. Dose he not look like a guy who can do that to you now? But I'm not saying he's going to put up those numbers. I'm saying Lawrie as a player who was completely overrated based on a sample of performance very similar to what we now have from Iglesias. People want to say that 170 odd PAs is a sample we can trust. I'm pointing out cases that show it's not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 21:50:54 GMT -5
What I see in this debate are two sides talking past each other. Both sides acknowledge his start is not sustainable no matter if he has improved. What is sustainable? I read the scouting report here and it says he has quick bat speed. There are countless stories out there about what he's doing differently, but it seems to me the scouting report is where we should be looking, past the poor performances in years past, past the rocket start this year.
As a lurker, what I wish to see on Iglesias are the reports of those who assembled that scouting opinion. How do they see him now? Is he finding ways to make use of his raw skills? I'll compare those updated report(s) to the winter discussions of what is an acceptable performance threshold for him with the bat. If I had to guess, he's on track to meet or somewhat exceed that pretty low threshold necessary to make him a valuable player on this team.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jul 11, 2013 21:52:21 GMT -5
People want to say that 170 odd PAs is a sample we can trust. I'm pointing out cases that show it's not. Even the optimistic posters are wildly regressing Iglesias' statistics. In order to debunk the estimate you have to prove that it's way too optimistic to regress 250 points of OPS but in fact one should regress 300-350 points based on stats from partial seasons at age 21 & 22 in AAA. Random player anecdotes won't do much for you. The fact is Iglesias is showing good contact skills in the majors & there are so many caveats about his track record (age advancement, wild inconsistency, nagging injuries, babip, the "compete" theory) that his offensive potential is still up in the air and a range of estimates are reasonable. So carry on being a wet blanket - that's reasonable too and it apparently brings you joy.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,761
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 11, 2013 22:00:24 GMT -5
It's ok to think he MIGHT be that player. But there's an awful lot of people who've decided that he IS that player, and he's probably not. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make exactly. Nobody here thinks Iglesias will threaten to win batting titles in the future, but there's no reason NOT to think that he won't be better than Rey Ordonez (the sum of our worst fear) with the bat. When I think of terrible hitters, the kind of hitter a lot us figured Iglesias would be are guys like Ray Oyler, Rey Ordonez, Felix Fermin, Marc Sullivan, and Mario Mendoza come to mind. None of those guys were capable of sustaining a stretch like Iglesias has had. I'm not convinced that Iglesias will hit .300 but I'm convinced that he should be able to manage .250 and perhaps do even better than that. With the bar set low for an average offensive SS and possessing the glove he has, Iglesias should be an asset. You site as an example Bret Lawrie who hasn't exactly been a picture of health lately. Perhaps that can skew his numbers a little? I would think a healthy Lawrie would put up better numbers than he has. As pedestrian as those numbers are if Iglesias approaches those numbers he'd be an all-star candidate. Getting back to Iglesias is it possible there are extenuating circumstances that made his numbers look lousy? Sometimes the switch just goes on. It did for Ortiz and Bautista who improved markedly as hitters (and yes I know Ortiz was a masher in the minors), but he got healthy and changed his style with the Sox (stopped hitting like a little b#tch which is how Tom Kelly wanted him to hit). Numbers are usually very reliable but it isn't a 100% thing. You can't always be a slave to the numbers. It seems to me Iglesias could hit a little, had decent early success, got rushed, got very confused and messed up, and finally changed back to his own style of hitting, learned a little bit of plate discipline thru experience, and had a lot of help from the gods of BABIP, but as a guy who puts the ball in play a lot and has an explosive first step, he should be able to dink enough hits to be a decent player. Believe me, I've done a complete 180 on Iglesias. I really thought he couldn't hit his way out of a paper bag, but learning more about him and watching him (my own worthless personal scouting report), I'd say there's alot more to his offensive game than his lousy minor league numbers of the past few years. With a guy like Middlebrooks, even with his success last year, it was obvious the guy's BB/K ratio would doom him sooner or later. I do think eventually he'll get a little better with it (not good by any stretch) - but enough to eventually come up and hit 25 homers because he does have real power, but with Iglesias, unlike Middlebrooks, he's improving on the things that were hampering his offense (his approach at home plate as he doesn't get himself out anywhere near as much as he did in the past).
|
|
|
Post by marrcus on Jul 11, 2013 22:45:29 GMT -5
As his ave. is sinking, I'm seeing improvement. You are starting to see some brisk hits up the middle like his second rbi today. You weren't seeing that a month ago.
He's going to get better, probably for the next few seasons. The only possible negative I can come up with is he may think he should have Pedroia-type power. Which given his flat swing is unlikely and I hope he sticks with.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 12, 2013 2:57:34 GMT -5
What I see in this debate are two sides talking past each other. Both sides acknowledge his start is not sustainable no matter if he has improved. What is sustainable? I read the scouting report here and it says he has quick bat speed. There are countless stories out there about what he's doing differently, but it seems to me the scouting report is where we should be looking, past the poor performances in years past, past the rocket start this year. As a lurker, what I wish to see on Iglesias are the reports of those who assembled that scouting opinion. How do they see him now? Is he finding ways to make use of his raw skills? I'll compare those updated report(s) to the winter discussions of what is an acceptable performance threshold for him with the bat. If I had to guess, he's on track to meet or somewhat exceed that pretty low threshold necessary to make him a valuable player on this team. Good post. I'd like to read what the people who wrote the scouting report here are thinking now. On talking past each other I plead guilty. As an Iggy believer I've gone from talking past the other side to ignoring them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 10:55:54 GMT -5
Personally I think that looking at Iglesias's past track record and BABIP and concluding that he's probably Ray Oyler is lazy analysis. It's nice that you know how to work a computer and can read a fangraphs page, but to be cliche the game is meant to be seen and not to be fully analyzed from a computer screen. The best way to use the incredible amount of numbers we have is to couple that with watching the game to make a conclusion.
From a numbers standpoint what has always dogged Iglesias is a complete lack of power. He was regularly having ISO's under .50. Players with ISO's that low are probably not driving the ball. If you aren't driving the ball it's very difficult to have a BABIP high enough to justify a regular position. Only two major league regulars last year had ISO's that low, Jamey Carroll and Ben Revere. Carroll was a fringy regular and Revere was boosted by speed that Iglesias doesn't have.
This year Iglesias has raised his ISO to .100 thus far, it was higher than normal in the minors too. He's stiking out only 13% of the time which is in line with what he's done as a minor leaguer. Oyler it should be mentioned struck out nearly a quarter of the time. Ordonez never once hit for the type of power that Iglesias has shown this year over 320 plate appearances in AAA and the majors. Clearly if he keeps this up, he'll be a far better player than either Oyler or Ordonez even if his BABIP regresses.
Further, Iglesias has always had good bat speed so there is no reason to think that he's suddenly going to start getting overmatched.
The question then becomes if there is a baseball reason behind Iglesias's increased power. I think that there is. As mentioned on the telecasts, he is in much better shape this year. Further he worked with Pedroia over the off-season on going the other way. These factors would lead to the player driving the ball with authority more often.
I think it's short sited to conclude that Iglesias will regress to the under .300 BABIPs and under .50 ISO's of Ray Ordonez. Neither the numbers nor an honest assessment of his baseball skills this season support that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 12, 2013 11:11:40 GMT -5
Personally I think that looking at Iglesias's past track record and BABIP and concluding that he's probably Ray Oyler is lazy analysis. It's nice that you know how to work a computer and can read a fangraphs page, but to be cliche the game is meant to be seen and not to be fully analyzed from a computer screen. The best way to use the incredible amount of numbers we have is to couple that with watching the game to make a conclusion. From a numbers standpoint what has always dogged Iglesias is a complete lack of power. He was regularly having ISO's under .50. Players with ISO's that low are probably not driving the ball. If you aren't driving the ball it's very difficult to have a BABIP high enough to justify a regular position. Only two major league regulars last year had ISO's that low, Jamey Carroll and Ben Revere. Carroll was a fringy regular and Revere was boosted by speed that Iglesias doesn't have. This year Iglesias has raised his ISO to .100 thus far, it was higher than normal in the minors too. He's stiking out only 13% of the time which is in line with what he's done as a minor leaguer. Oyler it should be mentioned struck out nearly a quarter of the time. Ordonez never once hit for the type of power that Iglesias has shown this year over 320 plate appearances in AAA and the majors. Clearly if he keeps this up, he'll be a far better player than either Oyler or Ordonez even if his BABIP regresses. Further, Iglesias has always had good bat speed so there is no reason to think that he's suddenly going to start getting overmatched. The question then becomes if there is a baseball reason behind Iglesias's increased power. I think that there is. As mentioned on the telecasts, he is in much better shape this year. Further he worked with Pedroia over the off-season on going the other way. These factors would lead to the player driving the ball with authority more often. I think it's short sited to conclude that Iglesias will regress to the under .300 BABIPs and under .50 ISO's of Ray Ordonez. Neither the numbers nor an honest assessment of his baseball skills this season support that conclusion. I agree with and like much of this, but let me just add, however, that it's not stathead blindness to suggest that the .430 babip he's sporting since being called up on May 24 is going to regress from the mean. Literally nobody can sustain that. Yes, he is absolutely an improved hitter, and it's been great to see. I think that any argument that says his current production is a complete mirage ignores that, as you say. I also don't think many people are saying he's a complete mirage either - the point is just trying to figure out what he is when he cools off a bit. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not quite sure. To pick a couple admittedly arbitrary samples, I think the .295/.360/.318 on a .342 babip he's put up over his last 12 games since taking over shortstop for Drew, or the .317/.364/.350 on a .365 babip in his last 16 games since Middlebrooks went down are a lot more realistic for him as ceiling-ish projections going forward. Again, they're arbitrary starting points that happen to cut off much of the power he's hit for, so if someone has a better idea of where to cut, I'd love to hear it. As we've said over and over, he's got value as a number 9 hitter with a .700-ish OPS because the defense is so good, so the above lines would be just fine by me. The point for me has always been that we can't suddenly think he might be a potential number 2 hitter or something because of what he's doing right now, rather than trying to say he's a babip fraud or something like that, a point that your points would debunk quite well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 12:11:04 GMT -5
Chris-
I agree with most of your points. I don't think he's a number two hitter either. I just object to those who look at his track record, and BABIP and conclude that he's going to regress into a Rey Ordonez type of hitter if that. Obviously he's not going to sustain a .430 BABIP. But I absolutely think he could be an above average BABIP player in the .320s or so because of his foot and bat speed. The reason for this as I stated this is his improved power. I don't think that he's going to have under .50 ISO's anymore any can probably get that to .100. BABIP is related to three things, luck, power, and footspeed. Iglesias has had a lot of luck, has always had footspeed, but has also improved his power.
So let's say a 13% K rate, 100 ISO, .320 BABIP, 6% Walk Rate that leaves us as .280/.323/.380. That's still probably not good enough to be anything more than a back of the line up guy but it's far better than Rey Ordonez. For the record Ordonez' career line is .246/.289/.310 and that was inflated because of all the time he spent as a #8 hitter in the NL receiving non-intentional and intentional walks that weren't indicative of his skill.
|
|
okin15
Veteran
Posts: 1,373
Member is Online
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 12, 2013 13:15:46 GMT -5
But Chris just made the point that his .100 iso isn't including even some regression to the mean. Why would we expect him to lower his BABIP but not his iso? It's not all about hits, falling in, it's also about being streaky, and getting a few extra good rips in a month, etc. If you take that .280/.323/.380 and apply a .050 iso, then you're at something closer to, though still better I suppose than Ordonez.
Also, just a point on the counter... guys who sustain high BABIPs tend to have lowish isos (though still the power to drive the ball a little) and use their speed and slap-hitting style to get hits (see Suzuki, Ichiro). I think Iglesias has developed into this style of hitter (though not so much Ichiro specifically).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 12, 2013 13:27:53 GMT -5
I think Iglesias can be like Ichiro in the sense that he'll be good for a certain amount of infield hits a year - perhaps 15-20 - as long as his legs remain healthy and he's quick out of the box. I also think if he can show sustained success as a singles hitter, he will start bunting for hits more often (and more successfully once he learns to keep the barrel of the bat over the ball), and add a few points to his average and OBP that way, as well.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 12, 2013 13:49:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 12, 2013 14:00:39 GMT -5
Here's my point from earlier-- if Iglesias can generate a bunch of infield hits consistently (bunt hits, speed out of the box, etc.), why have his minor league BABIPs been so mediocre-to-bad in a largish sample? Remember, it's generally easier to sustain higher BABIPs in the minors because of worse defense and pitching, yet Iglesias has only one minor league season with a BABIP above .300 (and that was in 2010 at AA). And yes, there are a lot of narratives that might "explain" his poor minor league performance and why his outperformance of his track record is sustainable. There's the "best shape of his life", the "he wasn't challenged in the minors", the "he was pushed too aggressively" (don't the last two contradict?), etc. I just think narratives like those are generally post-hoc rationalizations for small-sample-size results. I mean, sometimes the narratives are accurate (Bautista et. al.), but more often than not, they're just sportswriter cliches. Ask Josh Hamilton or Jeff Francoeur or Albert Pujols how being in the best shape of their lives is going for them. More important, even if the BABIP gains are legit, he hasn't shown the power or plate discipline or basestealing ability to make him a true star-level player. .280/.323/.380 is great considering his defense, and that's an above-average starter and a player who could start at SS in Boston for a decade. But that's still his ceiling, and to get there, he has to prove that the BABIP gains are real and not illusory. And because so much of his offensive value is going to be derived solely from his BABIP (because he doesn't take many walks, hit for much power, or steal bases), where his BABIP settles is the most important variable in determining how good he'll ultimately be. At this point, I think there are reasons to doubt that he's a true talent .320 BABIP hitter, some of which I've laid out above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 14:01:26 GMT -5
Driving the ball into the gap requires more athletic skill than bloop hits. Though both raise your BABIP, driving the ball is more likely to be sustainable because it is caused by athletic talent and not by luck. If a player is driving the ball AND getting a ton of lucky bloop hits, you would expect the players ISO to stay the same while the BABIP fell since bloop hits are mostly singles.
My thesis is that Iglesias's power improvement is real and sustainable. He's now done it over 300+ PA's in the majors and minors and there are baseball reasons to support this improvement which I've stated. I guess you could argue that he'll stop driving the ball as much simply because of his past track record. However, I find that argument to be intellectually lazy as it ignores the real improvements that Iglesias has made physically. In the end, stats are nice but if you aren't watching the games they don't have a lot of context or meaning.
Why is it impossible to believe that the power improvement is real?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 14:21:22 GMT -5
Case in point. Your reasons to doubt this come from his minor league track record as opposed to what you see on the field. You haven't laid out a single baseball reason to doubt that he is now a .320 BABIP hitter. Players do improve on their minor league performance by changing their approach or their physical skills.
Dismissing an improvement in physical skills simply because it's a "sports-writer cliche" is a weak argument. It is certainly true that workout programs can improve a players physical skills and in turn their baseball ability. Just because it doesn't hold in some cases does not mean that it's always an invalid statement. Many players have used workout programs to improve and Iglesias IMO is one of those players.
It's very easy to sit behind a computer and declare that the player "has to prove" that he's a better player over a long period. In the real world decisions must be made long before such proof is available. That is why other information other than just looking at fangraphs must be used to make that determination. Sometimes a player really does make sustainable improvements that show his past track record to be irrelevant. You can't just look at a players track record and assume blindly that it will continue.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 12, 2013 14:28:46 GMT -5
I've posted in the past an article looking at every one of Iglesias' first 26 hits concluding that many of his hits are lucky and unsustainable. There's also this fun exercise. And I've never said that it's impossible that Iglesias' alleged strength/skill gains are legitimate. But (a) my eye test tells me a lot of his hits aren't sustainable, (b) I don't put a lot of faith in "best shape of his life"-type arguments, and (c) more often than not, a player regresses to his track record. Finally, I think the allusions to the fact that I don't watch the games are silly. As demonstrated by my heavy presence in the gameday threads, I've watched a good 75% of the Red Sox games this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 14:40:53 GMT -5
To put this in perspective Ichiro once had a season with 60 singles that he didn't hit out of the infield. That's incredible if you think about it. Iglesias already has 16. 15-20 really isn't all that many and 24 players did better than that a year ago.
The question was asked in another thread why Iglesias hadn't hit more infield singles and bunt hits before. I have a few answers.
#1 Are we sure that he didn't?
Perhaps it's the clean hard hits to the outfield that are increasing and not the infield hits.
#2 New Emphasis on hitting the other way. Balls hit to the left side of the infield are more likely to result in infield hits.
#3 He's bunting more.
Bunting for a hit is really a lost art at the major league level. Iglesias tries it a great deal and is pretty good at it. He already has 5 bunt hits, only 17 players had more all of last year.
Showing the ability to use the bunt as a weapon can also have the added benefit of bringing the infield in closer to guard against the bunt. This of course gives the infielders less range and the opportunity for even more hits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 15:11:59 GMT -5
That would hold with thinking that a .440 BABIP isn't sustainable. If his BABIP were .320 that would mean approximately 20 fewer hits. That's a lot and would probably fail your eye test. But as I demonstrated he can still be a good baseball player with a .320 BABIP.
That's fine but that doesn't mean they are always illegitimate. Kevin Youkilis for example saw his ISO increase from the mid 150s to the mid 200s and at the time it was credited at least in part to his work at the athletes performance center in Arizona.
"Best shape of your life" arguments are usually made in spring training to make a prediction about the type of season the player will have. This argument is used to explain the type of season that the player IS having. Plus, since you watch 75% of the games I am sure that you have noticed that Iglesias really is in better physical shape than last year. You might have also heard on the telecast specific references to his areas of his body, like his chest, that are more defined than last year. This doesn't sound like the typical baloney spring training argument that you are referring to.
As I've stated before this is an intellectually lazy argument.
Just because something is often true does not mean that it is always true. There are several examples of players who saw significant sustainable improvement in their performance. In general the reason a player often regresses to their track record is that the increased performance is driven by luck as opposed to an actual baseball improvement such as Bautista's changed swing.
As far as the allusion that you don't watch games you do seem to make arguments that are based only upon fangraphs data as opposed to coupling it with other information. If you are watching the games, you should be able to form your arguments around what is going on on the field along with your ability to read a fangraphs page.
Seriously we are all capable of spouting out past statistics and concluding that they are the end all be all until proven otherwise. I think I am justified in expecting more from myself in forming a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 12, 2013 15:39:59 GMT -5
#1 Are we sure that he didn't? Perhaps it's the clean hard hits to the outfield that are increasing and not the infield hits. It's possible, but his line drive rates from 2012 (14.5%) and 2011 (19.6%) aren't that different from his in the majors this year (20%). Iglesias is a right-handed hitter, so his opposite-field hits would be towards the right side of the infield, so this doesn't apply. Is this true? There are plenty of articles from 2012 which talked about his bunting proficiency ( see this, for example), but he still topped out at a .260 average.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 12, 2013 16:02:51 GMT -5
"Best shape of your life" arguments are usually made in spring training to make a prediction about the type of season the player will have. This argument is used to explain the type of season that the player IS having. Plus, since you watch 75% of the games I am sure that you have noticed that Iglesias really is in better physical shape than last year. You might have also heard on the telecast specific references to his areas of his body, like his chest, that are more defined than last year. This doesn't sound like the typical baloney spring training argument that you are referring to. I don't see much of a difference. Iglesias is still a pretty skinny guy who doesn't have the frame to support much muscle. The narrative also doesn't ring any more true to me because it's made after the fact. Indeed, it seems more likely to me to be a false narrative because people want a reason to believe that Iglesias' performance is not luck but is sustainable. I've already presented scouting evidence that the vast majority of his hits appear unsustainable. I don't pretend to be a scout so I haven't really discussed it, but I personally have not seen a lot of sustainable success. I've seen a lot of balls down the left-field line for doubles, weak infield hits to the left side, and bloops just over the infield or in that no-man's zone behind first base. Yes, he's occasionally driven a pitch into a gap and hit a few ringing line drives, but I haven't seen a single fly ball that has any carry behind it, and it's very tough to hit for a high BABIP when you aren't getting non-bloop fly ball hits. I think Iglesias has improved this year, especially with regards to his plate discipline and going the other way. But I trust the principle of regression to the mean more than I trust a small sample's worth of subjective scouting reports by fans prone to confirmation bias, and I don't happen to think Iglesias hits enough home runs or line drives to sustain a batting average north of .280, especially given his minor league performance. By the way, we're arguing about 40 points of BABIP here, so there's no reason that you have to continue to make pejorative little remarks about my use of statistical evidence.
|
|
|