Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    With only 9 FC to SS throughout this series, is it worth giving up some defense for considerably better hitters who have been hot as of late?


    Who are the "considerably better hitters" and define "considerably better hitters"?

    Look at it another way than you and the Red Sox management always look at it. This is the part of the season where one big fielding play that ends a scoring threat can be just as likely a tipping point in any game as a PA might be. And compare the big sample OPS between the alternatives.

    Harken back to the 1970 Orioles vs. the Big Red Machine. Unless the alternative is a lot better hitter than someone like S. Drew, a .735 season OPS is the better alternative than "lets go with who's hot for the next series" approach. 

    This is a one game do or die game. It's more likely a play by the SS makes the difference than the bat of a hitter whose better but not a true slugger profile, himself. 

    The game starts out as run prevention from a 0-0 tie score and the middle innings determine what kind of competition the game is taking on from both sides of the ball. The adjustments for pinch hitters, etc., are for later in the game. 




    Look at the recent stats of the players involved. There you will find your answer as well as in the OP.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    I've looked, and I found the OP is as off base as the way Red Sox managment values the position of SS. 

    Drew should be benched in favor of Bogaerts, look at the post season numbers for Drew this year and last year. Also, look at Bogaerts talent in the big moment of Game 4.



    SSS

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to BurritoT-'s comment:

    All funny. If Peavey contributes to us winning a WSC this year or next then the deal was worth it, otherwise Peavey is out of MLB in 4 years and Iggy is winning 10 gold gloves over the next 15 seasons. I would take Iggy in that case all day long...

    A play-off win is all some want to see as some said yesterday (I'll take a play-off win anyday"  they said)... I want a WSC to justify this trade.



    Iggy isn't going to win 10 gold gloves over the next 15 seasons. I don't know why so many people are so sure that Iggy is going to have this amazing career. The justification for this trade is that Bogaerts is the starting SS next year and Iggy has a career OPS of 670.  He isn't any better than Adam Everett. You still sad about losing him?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc1944. Show MadMc1944's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    It's not suprrising to see a meddling thread about benching Iglesias for the Tigers, by the cheerleaders for the S. Drew 9.5M contract. And on that note, it's more apt that the Red Sox need to bench the failing SS slugger S. Drew, who has a .133 BA and .400 OPS in the 2013 playoffs, and had a .211 BA and .602 OPS in the 2012 playoffs with his last mercenary role team, the A's.

    Bogaerts should get most of the plate appearances from here out, as his key tipping point working a walk in Game 4 of the ALDS showed. He gives up little on defense, and he provides that better slugging talent that Red Sox managment uses to decide who the starting SS is. 



    I can wait until next season for Xander to be the full-time SS, 3B or Left fielder. Unless there is an injury to Drew I want Drew at SS for as long as we play in the 2013 playoffs. Both the Tigers and the A's seem to have three of four starters -RHanded pitchers. This is not the time to experiment IMHO.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    I've looked, and I found the OP is as off base as the way Red Sox managment values the position of SS. 

    Drew should be benched in favor of Bogaerts, look at the post season numbers for Drew this year and last year. Also, look at Bogaerts talent in the big moment of Game 4.

    Can we please not get carried away with this thing.  It's not like Bogarts hit a 3-run homer.  He drew a walk!  A very important walk that showed good plate discipline, but it's hardly a reason to replace Drew with him at SS.

    As Bill would say, "let me be clear about this".  There is NO WAY I want a SS with very limited innings at that position during the WS.  An out by Drew is just an out, but an error by an inexperienced SS can cost a team several runs. 

    OMG.  I've now taken to quoting Bill. Someone please put me out of my misery!  :-)

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    The reason to replace Drew is he stinks in the post season. Take a look at 2012 and 2013! He's also nothing to brag about in the season.



    I think you are dilluded.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

    Oh man...you're dumb.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BurritoT-'s comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Why do posters keep trying ot justify this trade, especially when those who were against it stopped talking about it a month ago?

     

     

     




    There were plenty of people on both sides continuing this conversation since it happened.

     

     

    Truth is, the trade worked for all 3 teams. Boston got the starter it needed to get to the post season and get through round 1.

    Detroit got someone that could play solid defense at a primary position.

    CWS got a top OF prospect that showed he can compete at this level, ableit in a SSS this year.

    We still have a solid all around veteran SS for this year, as well as a top SS prospect in all baseball ready to take over in 2014 and another slick fielding SS at AA. The future hasnt been compromised one bit, all while making the team better right now. How is this NOT a win for us and the other teams?

     

    [/QUOTE]
    This is a win for all teams this year, but the future could very well be another story.  We have three prospects (Bogarts, Marrerro and Chiccini) who are exactly that, prospects, and we're hoping and praying that they'll pan out.  The trade gave up a player who's now proving he's good enough to play SS in the PS.  Was that a smart thing to do for the future?

    The ONLY way this trade has not compromised the future one bit is IF one of those guys turns out to be as good as Iggy.  Otherwise we'll have to pay someone more to play SS than we'd have paid Iggy - leaving fewer $$ for someone else - or we're going to have someone who's not as good as Iggy at SS.  That's the future.  Which has been my problem with the trade all along.

     

    And IF (that's capital letters IF) paying Drew to play SS next year is what keeps us from signing Ellsbury - a very real possibility, btw - this well have a TREMENDOUS impact on the team.

    [/QUOTE]


    ...And Detroit is hoping Iggys hitting pans out. Remember, Iggy hasnt played a full year in MLB yet. He too is basically "unproven" offensively, unless you actually believe he will be a 280-300 GB hitter. Hes been trending downward basically since July and has done absolutely nothing in the ALDS.

    If you and others who dont like the trade (of which I respect your opinions) cant even see the talent that Xander has and feel comfortable with him going forward, I dont know what to tell you. Xander will be the better all around player that Iggy is. Heck, Marrero is in that defensive conversation. Hes a stud with the glove, not as much with the bat though. Like Iggy. Should be in AAA sometime in 2014. We won in 04 and 07 with mercinaries at SS. This year too so far. Its not as big a deal as some make it out to be if were to have to go down that road again. But like I said, if you cant see the talent we have right now and going forward, Theres no use talking anymore about this.

    Stephen Drews possible resign will not be cause for Ellsbury not being signed. Thats a bit of a stretch. He will either be figured in the plans or not. I think they will go with Bogey next year and have a good back up.

    My words werent meant to start an Iggy battle. Its just so obvious to me how well this has worked out for all teams. Sorry, no, IMHO it wont impact us going forward. With 2 SS in the system, 1 being a top #3 prospect in all baseball, I feel very comforable going forward.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I've looked, and I found the OP is as off base as the way Red Sox managment values the position of SS. 

    Drew should be benched in favor of Bogaerts, look at the post season numbers for Drew this year and last year. Also, look at Bogaerts talent in the big moment of Game 4.

     

     

    Can we please not get carried away with this thing.  It's not like Bogarts hit a 3-run homer.  He drew a walk!  A very important walk that showed good plate discipline, but it's hardly a reason to replace Drew with him at SS.

    As Bill would say, "let me be clear about this".  There is NO WAY I want a SS with very limited innings at that position during the WS.  An out by Drew is just an out, but an error by an inexperienced SS can cost a team several runs. 

    OMG.  I've now taken to quoting Bill. Someone please put me out of my misery!  :-)

    [/QUOTE]

    As BILL's dad would say, "Here's the gun: don't miss."

    If Bogey was some great fielding SS, I could see starting him, at least vs LHPs, but he isn't, so I wouldn't.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to The4040club's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    I think some fans feel the need to support the front office by bashing the traded Sox players. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     



    Who is trashing Iglesias?  I stated repeatedly he is a great fielding SS, but not a good hitter.  The postseason ends tomorrow if the Tigers don't win.  Iglesias' hitting isn't their only problem but it is a fixable one.  Start Peralta at SS and Kelly in LF.  Good as he is--and he is--Iglesias is still just a rookie who ain't hitting.  He is not the anointed one. 

     

     



    Iggy still ended the regular season with decent numbers, especially for someone batting ninth.  As far as not hitting in his first post season playoff, it happens to a lot of players.  Even some veterans have a bad post season once in a while.  The kid has a great glove and I suspect if the tigers win, iggy will be starting against the red sox every game.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, he has a great glove.  No, he hasn't had many chances to dispay it--half as many fielding chances in 4 games as Drew in 4 games.  Meanwhile the Tigers backs are now to the wall, and Peralta is known to be a very good hitter at SS and is ranked third among AL shortstops in WAR.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    Yes, he has a great glove.  No, he hasn't had many chances to dispay it--half as many fielding chances in 4 games as Drew in 4 games.  Meanwhile the Tigers backs are now to the wall, and Peralta is known to be a very good hitter at SS and is ranked third among AL shortstops in WAR.  

    A team with their backs against the wall can be saved by a great play at SS just as easily as a big hit by one of 9 players.

    Sox4ever

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I've looked, and I found the OP is as off base as the way Red Sox managment values the position of SS. 

    Drew should be benched in favor of Bogaerts, look at the post season numbers for Drew this year and last year. Also, look at Bogaerts talent in the big moment of Game 4.

     

     

     

     

    Can we please not get carried away with this thing.  It's not like Bogarts hit a 3-run homer.  He drew a walk!  A very important walk that showed good plate discipline, but it's hardly a reason to replace Drew with him at SS.

    As Bill would say, "let me be clear about this".  There is NO WAY I want a SS with very limited innings at that position during the WS.  An out by Drew is just an out, but an error by an inexperienced SS can cost a team several runs. 

    OMG.  I've now taken to quoting Bill. Someone please put me out of my misery!  :-)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As BILL's dad would say, "Here's the gun: don't miss."

     

    If Bogey was some great fielding SS, I could see starting him, at least vs LHPs, but he isn't, so I wouldn't.

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't you say you would start Bogaerts against a lefty before the Rays series? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought you mentioned starting both Bogaerts and Ross against a lefty. And since then, Drew has not lit it up, and Xander has a 1000 OB% and has not hurt us in the field.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to BMav's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to S5's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    I've looked, and I found the OP is as off base as the way Red Sox managment values the position of SS. 

    Drew should be benched in favor of Bogaerts, look at the post season numbers for Drew this year and last year. Also, look at Bogaerts talent in the big moment of Game 4.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Can we please not get carried away with this thing.  It's not like Bogarts hit a 3-run homer.  He drew a walk!  A very important walk that showed good plate discipline, but it's hardly a reason to replace Drew with him at SS.

    As Bill would say, "let me be clear about this".  There is NO WAY I want a SS with very limited innings at that position during the WS.  An out by Drew is just an out, but an error by an inexperienced SS can cost a team several runs. 

    OMG.  I've now taken to quoting Bill. Someone please put me out of my misery!  :-)

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As BILL's dad would say, "Here's the gun: don't miss."

     

     

    If Bogey was some great fielding SS, I could see starting him, at least vs LHPs, but he isn't, so I wouldn't.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't you say you would start Bogaerts against a lefty before the Rays series? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought you mentioned starting both Bogaerts and Ross against a lefty. And since then, Drew has not lit it up, and Xander has a 1000 OB% and has not hurt us in the field.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I said I'd start Bogey vs one of the Rays lefties.

    The Tigers have no lefty starters. The A's have one.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    A team with their backs against the wall can be saved by a great play at SS just as easily as a big hit by one of 9 players.



    Just as easily?  I don't think that's a fair statement.

    A hitter is guaranteed to get at least 4 opportunities to do something at the plate.  But a fielder isn't guaranteed to get anything but routine plays over the course of a game.

    Also, how many actual instances can you think of where a great play by a shortstop was a difference-making play in a postseason game? 

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to S5's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    I've looked, and I found the OP is as off base as the way Red Sox managment values the position of SS. 

    Drew should be benched in favor of Bogaerts, look at the post season numbers for Drew this year and last year. Also, look at Bogaerts talent in the big moment of Game 4.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Can we please not get carried away with this thing.  It's not like Bogarts hit a 3-run homer.  He drew a walk!  A very important walk that showed good plate discipline, but it's hardly a reason to replace Drew with him at SS.

    As Bill would say, "let me be clear about this".  There is NO WAY I want a SS with very limited innings at that position during the WS.  An out by Drew is just an out, but an error by an inexperienced SS can cost a team several runs. 

    OMG.  I've now taken to quoting Bill. Someone please put me out of my misery!  :-)

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As BILL's dad would say, "Here's the gun: don't miss."

     

     

     

    If Bogey was some great fielding SS, I could see starting him, at least vs LHPs, but he isn't, so I wouldn't.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't you say you would start Bogaerts against a lefty before the Rays series? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought you mentioned starting both Bogaerts and Ross against a lefty. And since then, Drew has not lit it up, and Xander has a 1000 OB% and has not hurt us in the field.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I said I'd start Bogey vs one of the Rays lefties.

     

    The Tigers have no lefty starters. The A's have one.

    [/QUOTE]


    So you would start him against the A's lefty then, right?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Yes, he has a great glove.  No, he hasn't had many chances to dispay it--half as many fielA ding chances in 4 games as Drew in 4 games.  Meanwhile the Tigers backs are now to the wall, and Peralta is known to be a very good hitter at SS and is ranked third among AL shortstops in WAR.  

    A team with their backs against the wall can be saved by a great play at SS just as easily as a big hit by one of 9 players.

    Sox4ever



    A great play can indeed save the day, but the chances of that happening are slim indeed, especially when not many balls are being hit toward Iglesias--half as many as Drew. 

    A good hitter is far more likely to make a difference in a key game.  Thus Ortiz plays 1B in NL parks.  Thus good hitters routinely make more money than good fielders.  In fact, "good field, not hit" is the mantra for all utility infielders.   In fact, "good field, no hit" firstbasemen and thirdbaseman are rare as hen's teeth, same for rightfielders and leftfielders.  It is mostly true for centerfielders. 

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 2004Idiot. Show 2004Idiot's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?


    Pete Abraham         

    Peralta playing SS for Tigers tonight, not Iggy.Red Sox may have been smart to sell high.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to 2004Idiot's comment:


    Pete Abraham         

    Peralta playing SS for Tigers tonight, not Iggy.Red Sox may have been smart to sell high.

    Again, as DAD would say ............  "So SON, is this what it comes down to" ?????   "LET ME BE CLEAR", every time IGGY takes the field, the computer will gather new facts that will keep this discussion going for years !!


     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    A team with their backs against the wall can be saved by a great play at SS just as easily as a big hit by one of 9 players.

     



    Just as easily?  I don't think that's a fair statement.

     

    A hitter is guaranteed to get at least 4 opportunities to do something at the plate.  But a fielder isn't guaranteed to get anything but routine plays over the course of a game.

    Also, how many actual instances can you think of where a great play by a shortstop was a difference-making play in a postseason game? 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    OK, I could have added or a nonplay by a worse fielding SS.

    How many times do most of us even notice if a game turns on a nonplay?

    Yes, Perralta has a better chance of getting a big hit, but what are we talking about? Even if we grant that Perralta has a 10% better chance to get a hit, that's maybe 1 more hit every 2-3 games. How often does a great fielding SS "save a hit" as opposed to a below average SS? Mt guess is it is better than once every 2-3 games, so yes, I think it is a more than fair statement.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Yes, he has a great glove.  No, he hasn't had many chances to dispay it--half as many fielA ding chances in 4 games as Drew in 4 games.  Meanwhile the Tigers backs are now to the wall, and Peralta is known to be a very good hitter at SS and is ranked third among AL shortstops in WAR.  

    A team with their backs against the wall can be saved by a great play at SS just as easily as a big hit by one of 9 players.

    Sox4ever

     



    A great play can indeed save the day, but the chances of that happening are slim indeed, especially when not many balls are being hit toward Iglesias--half as many as Drew. 

     

    A good hitter is far more likely to make a difference in a key game.  Thus Ortiz plays 1B in NL parks.  Thus good hitters routinely make more money than good fielders.  In fact, "good field, not hit" is the mantra for all utility infielders.   In fact, "good field, no hit" firstbasemen and thirdbaseman are rare as hen's teeth, same for rightfielders and leftfielders.  It is mostly true for centerfielders. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What makes you think not many balls will be hit to the SS tonight?

    What happened in the previous 4 games?

    What makes you think Iggy can't get a big hit or bunt or SB? It's not like Perralta is hitting .500.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Iglesias--what is Jim Leyland thinking?

    hey, moonslav, take a look at Detroit's lineup tonight and get back to me.

    Normally, usually, I understand that most things on this board are conjectural, but in this case I thought it was pretty obvious a move should be made.  What I didn't understand was your somewhat stubborn insistence that Iglesias must be the only choice at SS.  As I recall, you also once wrote his consummate skill would save 1 or more runs per game, which was way over the top.  If any SS were actually that good, he would be paid at least $20M a year if he never got a hit. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share