A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Quantifying defense and comparing a good fielding/weak bat SS to vica versa is difficult but I will have a go.  Moon and Boom, I am far from certain on crunching these numbers but I do think the numbers below support 791's ESPN conclusions.

    Moon "If he can save a hit every 2 games on defense, we don't need him to hit over .225. "   

    Saving a hit every other game = ~ 38 runs.

    (many feel Fangraphs WAR over-values D)
    C. Izturis '09: 1.0 WAR in 114 games 9 UZR (12 UZR/150) BA .256  OPS .545
                  
    Adam Everett '06:  2.4 WAR  26 UZR, BA .232 OPS .642 

    Lowrie ~5.5 WAR (last ~ 80 games  2.8 WAR)

    Boom "A great glove at SS might well knock a 1/3 of a run off all the starting pitcher's era."   = 54 runs saved

    In 2010 Izturis .230 BA  29 wRC( League avg 58)   

    Lowrie ~80 games has wRC 50  extrpolated over 600 PA  ~ 100 runs

    Offense only Jed vs Izturis:  100  vs  29  = 
     71 runs

    For the sake of comparison I will bring up Jeter's 2005 season. If Lowrie has a SS UZR similar to Jeter's 2005 of  -13, is his bat good enough to overcome this?

    Jeter WAR 4.5  wRC+ 129  OPS .839  UZR -13 was 9 runs better than light hitting amazing defender Everett. Lowrie has out hit Jeter's 2005 numbers since his 2010 call up.  For 2010 and 2011 Lowrie's combined wRC+ is ~142 which means he is 42% better at hitting than the avg SS over that period.

    There are many variables but IMO even with elite D Iglesias would need to bat WAY over .225 to be more valuable at SS than Jed. Of course Jed would probably have to put up at least a.370 wOBA and if he is  -13UZR.

    Putting Iglesias back in AAA for three years may be best for the Sox to maximize performance at SS for the next 8 years relatively cheaply.



     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE] Great numbers. It's hard to imagine the season finishing at .248. Some say it is because of the amount of goodyung pitchers coming up of late or the demise of PEDS, bu PED shouldn't effect BA that much.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

     I have to disagree, PED's deliver more stength, and allows recovery from injury faster. What does that have to do with batting average? Everything. Balls that were once warning track outs, sail over the fence, that puts another tally in the hit collumn, and most importantly it exchangea a hit for an out, a  significant swing in the so called batting average, which is not an average at all, but a success to opportunity ratio.That's just once facet, a stronger player will hit line drives through the infield, and that creates more hits as well.  Many times, I have heard ex-players talk about PED's, as if the drugs create more contact, that's a red herring,  it's never been a question about a players ability to make contact, it's about the effect of that contact by a bigger, and stronger player.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    It seems fishy to a degree that we see some significant lapses at SS defensively and then both Navarro and Scutaro get injured on the day Iglesias goes 3 for 4 and a call up. And Scutaro doesn't know what the injury is but both are listed with "Strained Oblique" injuries. I can't believe that they would place both of them on the DL to clear space for Iglesias but I could believe that they would place one of them on the DL to clear up space.

    Francona made it clear that Iglesias is the sub but it could be that Iglesias is exactly what this team needs to improve their small ball capabilities. This is the year of the pitcher and guys with Iglesias's talent could be a boost. No way I'm saying he replaces Lowrie in the lineup or is even the starter but I wouldn't be surprised that if he can hit much at all they find a way to trade Scutaro at the break.

    We traded Nomar for a defensive SS and bingo, world series championship. It's probably just coincidence but we may be looking at a similar scenario with the trigger being pulled for us.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Boomer - agree with you on SS and the trigger.

    Would still feel better if the team were hitting, and could support another player near the Mendoza line.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Quantifying defense and comparing a good fielding/weak bat SS to vica versa is difficult but I will have a go.  Moon and Boom, I am far from certain on crunching these numbers but I do think the numbers below support 791's ESPN conclusions.

    Moon "If he can save a hit every 2 games on defense, we don't need him to hit over .225. "   

    Saving a hit every other game = ~ 38 runs.

    (many feel Fangraphs WAR over-values D)
    C. Izturis '09: 1.0 WAR in 114 games 9 UZR (12 UZR/150) BA .256  OPS .545
                  
    Adam Everett '06:  2.4 WAR  26 UZR, BA .232 OPS .642 

    Lowrie ~5.5 WAR (last ~ 80 games  2.8 WAR)

    Boom "A great glove at SS might well knock a 1/3 of a run off all the starting pitcher's era."   = 54 runs saved

    In 2010 Izturis .230 BA  29 wRC( League avg 58)   

    Lowrie ~80 games has wRC 50  extrpolated over 600 PA  ~ 100 runs

    Offense only Jed vs Izturis:  100  vs  29  = 
     71 runs

    For the sake of comparison I will bring up Jeter's 2005 season. If Lowrie has a SS UZR similar to Jeter's 2005 of  -13, is his bat good enough to overcome this?

    Jeter WAR 4.5  wRC+ 129  OPS .839  UZR -13 was 9 runs better than light hitting amazing defender Everett. Lowrie has out hit Jeter's 2005 numbers since his 2010 call up.  For 2010 and 2011 Lowrie's combined wRC+ is ~142 which means he is 42% better at hitting than the avg SS over that period.

    There are many variables but IMO even with elite D Iglesias would need to bat WAY over .225 to be more valuable at SS than Jed. Of course Jed would probably have to put up at least a.370 wOBA and if he is  -13UZR.

    Putting Iglesias back in AAA for three years may be best for the Sox to maximize performance at SS for the next 8 years relatively cheaply.

    Great numbers tom, but I think you are making it more complicated than it is. If shortstop A takes away 80 singles a year more than SS B, but SS B gets 80 more singles a year than SS A: I'll call them about even.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    moon - you may be right about 92 games being enough to take the division.

    I got caught up in the hype and was thinking the team would win 105 game, including the post-season - of which I was certain there would be.

    But the 1967 Red Sox won the pennant with 92 wins - in a field of ten teams, not five.  It may yet be enough for the ALDS.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Jeter has the gold gloves to prove he's had a great career with the glove. To compare Lowrie to that is beyond absurd.

    Gold Gloves prove nothing, except for maybe the voters have about as absurd reasoning skills as you.

    Jeter has never been a good fielder... ever.

    However, in his prime, he was better than Lowrie is now.


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    If a team has good pitching and a great offense, the impact of that SS with great range becomes even more important. The Sox have Carl Crawford hitting 8th for God's sake. Runs shouldn't be a problem. I like the idea of them maximizing their ability to win low scoring games, 3-2 and 4-3 type games, because there are a ton of them in mlb and in the year of the pitcher that is the sweet spot to hit, especially when we already should have the ability to generate a lot of runs. How can win get more wins? Improve our SS defense.

    The Giants showed the path last year, even without a great fielding SS. It's run prevention even more than run scoring. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

     Great numbers tom, but I think you are making it more complicated than it is . If shortstop A takes away 80 singles a year more than SS B, but SS B gets 80 more singles a year than SS A: I'll call them about even.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon it is more complicated: base running, OBP, SLG%,...  singles only does not tell the whole story. Pitching staff tendencies, with GB vs FB in particular should factor in. That is why WAR is used.  When/if field fx is perfected the debate will continue, but I would like to see the numbers that dispute 791's finding.

    Most importantly if it is close the most economical allocation is 3 years of Jed and then 5 or so of Iglesias.  Run prevention and creation are of equal value of course it comes down to who provides more value, how they do it is fairly irrelevant.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Interesting conversation about SS and the pros and cons of defense.

    Boom I don't buy too much into the Giants as a formula just yet and using any one champion in one season as model can be dangerous. 2006 Cardinals are the poster child for that.

    And while you point at the Giants my exhibit A would be the Seattle Mariners, who were praised here on BDC in the off season leading up to the 2010 campaign for their vision in run prevention first.

    And the Giants weren't built defense first any way. They are pitching rich and their offense is the product of a middle market budget and minor league system thin on offense talent.  It wasn't just SS, Aubrey Huff is a butcher and so many of the guys were what the Giants could get not the residue of design.

    It is very debatable IMO whether in what is becoming the era of the great young pitchers that offensive prowess is not the premium factor in seperating from the pack.

    Let's put it this way, if the RS had a better defensive SS with very marginal offensive skills in April rather than having Lowrie get hot, the hole they'd be in right now would be monumental.

    In the long run I don't think Lowrie is going to be the RS SS but the argument  about run prevention versus run production is far less clear to me. The key is run differential, at least in the regular season it matters less how you get there than that you generate that differential. After all, we can look at the detail for hours why the RS are under .500 right now but the facts are they give up too many runs relative to what they score.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Great numbers tom, but I think you are making it more complicated than it is . If shortstop A takes away 80 singles a year more than SS B, but SS B gets 80 more singles a year than SS A: I'll call them about even.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon it is more complicated: base running, OBP, SLG%,...  singles only does not tell the whole story. Pitching staff tendencies, with GB vs FB in particular should factor in. That is why WAR is used.  When/if field fx is perfected the debate will continue, but I would like to see the numbers that dispute 791's finding.

    Of course it is more complicated than I showed, but I was assuming all other numbers were even, including HRs, 2Bs, etc... (I should have qualified my statement.)

    Most importantly if it is close the most economical allocation is 3 years of Jed and then 5 or so of Iglesias.  Run prevention and creation are of equal value of course it comes down to who provides more value, how they do it is fairly irrelevant.

    From what I have heard of Iglesias, I really am excited about having a great defensive SS on th ML team soon. I'm not dissing Jed. I have been one of his biggest supporters over the last year. (I admit, I was not beforehand due to his low range at SS.)

    Assuming Iglesias comes to the bigs now and stays, Scutaro stays injured or is traded, I can see plenty of opportunities for both to get plenty of PAs.

    Iglesias 100-110 games at SS (plus some late inning defensive work in games he does not start).

    Jed: 60 games at SS, 40 at 3B (Youk to DH vs some LHPs), and 10 at 2B.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

     Iglesias 100-110 games at SS (plus some late inning defensive work in games he does not start). Jed: 60 games at SS, 40 at 3B (Youk to DH vs some LHPs), and 10 at 2B.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]



    I think this is unlikely, baring injury, it would take a huge slump by Jed and a hot streak by Iglesias. Possible yes likely no, plus it does not make financial sense to start the clock on his controlable years.   I think his AAA manager says it best:

    “We all understand he could play defense in the big leagues tomorrow, but he’s still young,” PawSox manager Arnie Beyeler (who managed Iglesias last year in Pawtucket) said prior to the season. “He just needs to play. It’s tough to be patient with a kid like him who has so much ability. It will really be interesting to see how it plays out. The longer we can keep him down and let him develop, the better player he’s going to be when he gets up there. But he’s going to be a good player.”

    As to the numerical break downs as I am sure you would agree it very unlikely that Iglesias will ever have the XBH totals to match Jed. So looking at singles won't be too relevant.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Personally I take Francona at face value when he says this call up is temporary. There are IMO at least very few scenarios where that does not happen.

    Now I know obliques are a bad baseball injury. But if that is the case I think the RS look to trade or go elsewhere for a back-up utility IF who can't hit much.

    There are very few people that don't think Jose needs a lot of work to become a light hitting MLB player. He could shock every one get thrown into the line-up and hit better than our two catchers. But aside from that or a Lowrie injury I think Jose sees little PT and quick return to Pawtucket even if Scut's injury lingers.  
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Lackey has not been very close to the expectations we had for him as our #2-3 starter. However, those who look only at ERA and WHIP are missing an important aspect of his production as compared to other starters on this staff who haven't gotten half the bashing he has...

    2010 21/33 starts (6+ IP) with 0-3 ERs allowed & 23/33 with 0-4 ERS allowed.
    (all but 3 were for more than 6.1 IP)
    2011 3/6 starts with 0-2 ERs allowed

    Sox total: 24/39 starts with 0-3 ERs & 26/39 with 0-4 ERs allowed.

    If you look at these guys since we signed Lackey...

    Beckett: 12/27 with 0-3 ERs & 14/27 with 0-4 and 6+ IIP.
    Dice-K:   12/30 with0-3 ERs & 16/30 with 0-4 and 6+ IP.
    Buch:     19/28 with 0-3 ERs & 19/28 with 0-4 and 6+IP.
    Lester:  27/39 with 0-3 ERs & 30/39 with 0-4 and 6+ IP.
    Wake:    10/21 with 0-3 ERs & 11/21 with 0-4 and 6+ IP.
      (Could have been 11/21 had Tito not yanked him last week)

    Percentt of QSs or 0-3 ERs in 6+ IP (0-4 ERS %)
    Lester:    69% (77%)
    Buch:      68% (68%)
    Lackey:  62% (67%)
    Wake:     48% (52%)
    Beck:      44% (52%)
    Dice-K:   40% (53%)

    I'm not pretending to say Lackey has done as well as Buchholtz and Lester over this time. Those two let up 0, 1 or 2 ERs much more often than Lackey, but with our good offensive team last year, letting up 0-3 or 4 ERs in a start puts the team in a good postion to win. And the more often you do the you add value to you production.

    I know some of these numbers are skewed by games with 5.2 IP and 1-2 ERs or 4-5 IP and 0 ERs not counting, but there aren't many of those games.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    katz - agree that the Red Sox can go to the trade market, but this puts more pressure on Salty to consistently produce. 

    Sox can only go after so many front-line players via trade - plus there are just so many that will be made available.  If presented with a choice between C and IF, methinks that the FO will choose IF.  And they may need to go after a short-term rental, rather than long-term contract.

    Just thinking out loud.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Infield over catcher?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I want to make it absolutely clear that I think Lowrie plays over Iglesias. We all agree that it is better to start Iglesias's clock later to get maximum value and that he improves with more time in the minors. If a Pedroia gets hurt or Youkilis gets hurt, I would support Iglesias being at SS in place of Scutaro or Navarro.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]katz - agree that the Red Sox can go to the trade market, but this puts more pressure on Salty to consistently produce.  Sox can only go after so many front-line players via trade - plus there are just so many that will be made available.  If presented with a choice between C and IF, methinks that the FO will choose IF.  And they may need to go after a short-term rental, rather than long-term contract. Just thinking out loud.
    Posted by summerof67[/QUOTE]The way I look at Jose in the line-up puts more pressure on the two catchers. Neither is hitting and aside from game calling which has subsided as an issue their is as much "pressure" or should be on Tek.
    Two weak bats is a NL line-up in AL East, not a great way to fly even if we had the Phillies starting pitching staff.

    My point really was that a no hit middle IF to back up Lowrie if Scut's oblique becomes an issue like Pokey Reese's did in 04 isn't costly. Right now the RS are not in the market for starting middle IF, they need to replace a utilty IF not a starting SS.

    I just think they will continue to develop a player they anticipate will be a long term star rather than put in him in the tough position of getting fewer PAs against superior pitching on a very big stage.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Lackey has not been very close to the expectations we had for him as our #2-3 starter . However, those who look only at ERA and WHIP are missing an important aspect of his production as compared to other starters on this staff who haven't gotten half the bashing he has... 2010 21/33 starts (6+ IP) with 0-3 ERs allowed & 23/33 with 0-4 ERS allowed. (all but 3 were for more than 6.1 IP) 2011 3/6 starts with 0-2 ERs allowed Sox total: 24/39 starts with 0-3 ERs & 26/39 with 0-4 ERs allowed. If you look at these guys since we signed Lackey... Beckett: 12/27 with 0-3 ERs & 14/27 with 0-4 and 6+ IIP. Dice-K:   12/30 with0-3 ERs & 16/30 with 0-4 and 6+ IP. Buch:     19/28 with 0-3 ERs & 19/28 with 0-4 and 6+IP. Lester:  27/39 with 0-3 ERs & 30/39 with 0-4 and 6+ IP. Wake:    10/21 with 0-3 ERs & 11/21 with 0-4 and 6+ IP.   (Could have been 11/21 had Tito not yanked him last week) Percentt of QSs or 0-3 ERs in 6+ IP (0-4 ERS %) Lester:    69% (77%) Buch:      68% (68%) Lackey:  62% (67%) Wake:     48% (52%) Beck:      44% (52%) Dice-K:   40% (53%) I'm not pretending to say Lackey has done as well as Buchholtz and Lester over this time. Those two let up 0, 1 or 2 ERs much more often than Lackey, but with our good offensive team last year, letting up 0-3 or 4 ERs in a start puts the team in a good postion to win. And the more often you do the you add value to you production. I know some of these numbers are skewed by games with 5.2 IP and 1-2 ERs or 4-5 IP and 0 ERs not counting, but there aren't many of those games.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Lackey has crossed the line for me. I have very little faith in him. I defended him last season, but I can't defend him any longer. I just think he is a bad fit for the team. I thought he would be a solid starter, but he has not been so far.  
    When you have to play around with the stats to try to dig out some positives on a pitcher, I think that is very telling. Good pitchers numbers should speak for themselves.

    Yes, it's early in the season, but I am now taking a "show me" position on Lackey. I will not join in bashing him and I will praise him when warranted, but he really needs to prove himself on the field this season and put up consistently good numbers.

    Unfortunately, to make things fair, I have little faith in Dice-K and Wakefield as well. These players have all pitched long enough in MLB to know that what you see is what you get. I hope they all prove me wrong, but I am not optimistic.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Infield over catcher?

    I think so, moon. But I could be wrong.  As I have said before, they are gambling (assessing risk, really) that Salty will be okay and emphasizing other parts of the field, IMO.  And as katz points out, this puts pressure on the Cs to perform.  Salty just needs to get above the Mendoza line and keep his arm sharp.

    katz: thanks for clarifying. I had thought they would be in the market for a frontline middle infielder, but with Lowrie filling in, they could pick up a veteran backup.  Still lament the loss of a Bill Hall, though; i.e., a fill-in who is accustomed to the big stage and can play IF and OF.  But there is no crying in baseball and that's done, so let's see what we can do.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    When Scutaro or even Navarro are available, Iglesias goes back down. Let's hope he shows them some ability right now so we can see him sooner rather than later.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Infield over catcher? I think so, moon. But I could be wrong.  As I have said before, they are gambling (assessing risk, really) that Salty will be okay and emphasizing other parts of the field, IMO.  And as katz points out, this puts pressure on the Cs to perform.  Salty just needs to get above the Mendoza line and keep his arm sharp. katz: thanks for clarifying. I had thought they would be in the market for a frontline middle infielder, but with Lowrie filling in, they could pick up a veteran backup.  Still lament the loss of a Bill Hall, though; i.e., a fill-in who is accustomed to the big stage and can play IF and OF.  But there is no crying in baseball and that's done, so let's see what we can do.
    Posted by summerof67[/QUOTE]Lowrie was filling Hall's role coming out of ST this year and with 5 OFers on the roster this year instead of 4 it seems to have been a very call by Epstein so far in 2011, by the numbers and by the salary too.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I know DMac deserves a spot on a ML roster, but I must admit, I was urprised we went with 5 OF'ers when the other 4 don't have enough PAs to spread around as it is.

    A guy like Doumit could have covered the 5th OF'er slot and the 1st-3rd Catcher slot as well. (I'd rather have Snyder.)

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Yes, I was for carrying three receivers, one doubling as 1st base back-up.
    The team seamed to have adequate outfield depth at AAA to risk this.
    But with the injury bug hitting Pawtucket, maybe carrying Mac has merit. It depends on the health of Tek and the health/growth of Salty.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]I know DMac deserves a spot on a ML roster, but I must admit, I was urprised we went with 5 OF'ers when the other 4 don't have enough PAs to spread around as it is. A guy like Doumit could have covered the 5th OF'er slot and the 1st-3rd Catcher slot as well. (I'd rather have Snyder.)
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]Perhaps they might have gone with 4 OFers if they didn't have 3 LH OFers as starters and the best 2 guys in AAA weren't LH (Reddick/Kalish).

    They were clearly toying with different options because they were looking at Martin and they didn't sign McDonald until 3-11 according to Cot's and then for only $0.47M. 
     

Share