Jose Iglesias starting?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBSHBT1969. Show TBSHBT1969's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting? : Hopefully the posters there have read up on the definition of a troll and can comprehend exactly what it means. I am the cop and you are the outlaw / troll.
    Posted by FortMeade[/QUOTE]

    LOL...how's that homemade tin foil badge holding up?

    You are not a cop, you are an idiot and a troll. But I'm guessing you already knew that.

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

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    FortMeade hasn't ended crime here but who can in Newark, NJ? At least we don't have total anarchy. Chris Christy is working on it.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBSHBT1969. Show TBSHBT1969's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]FortMeade hasn't ended crime here but who can in Newark, NJ? At least we don't have total anarchy. Chris Christy is working on it.
    Posted by lowelll[/QUOTE]

    Referring to yourself in the 3rd person pike makes you look like more of an idiot than you already are.

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

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting? : I can get behind that.   If he has a good spring at the plate, why not give him the nod and see how he does.  Sure.  I mean, if it doesn't work, he can always re-tool at Pawtucket and we can call it a second cup o' coffee.  I am all for shoring up the middle too.  I mean, seriously, the thought of Iggy and Pedey up the middle makes me wicked psyched (most common phrase used by Worcester teens).  But, if he struggles at the plate in ST, I just don't think there is any reason to rush him.  Aviles is somewhat of an unknown in his presumptive role as everyday shortstop, but his defense has looked, well, Scutaro-esque, so I would be good with him in the short run.  And his bat is basically slept on.  But, I seriously predict he will be a force to reckon with given an everyday job.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    If you take a look at Aviles career numbers, there is definitely reason to think he can be a steady offensive presence in the line-up.  He posted +.300 averages in 2 of his 3 full seasons with KC, the other was mostly lost to injury.  He draws almost no BB, so some improvement on plate discipline could go a long way for him.

    I definitely question whether he can be an adequate everyday SS.  He certainly has a stronger arm than Scutaro but his range might actually be less than Marco's.  3B seems to be a better fit for Aviles, which I think is his "natural" position.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Jose Iglesias starting? : AS DAD WOULD SAY........"WELL SON, YOU WERE ONLY 2 MONTHS AHEAD OF THIS BOARD"  !!!!   AS I SAID WAY BACK WHEN  BOBBY V. WAS HIRED, BEING A FORMER S S  HE KNOWS THE VALUE OF IGG'S GLOVE AND HOW HE COULD SUBTRACT 3 + OUTS PER GAME FOR THAT PITCHING STAFF..........  AT THIS POINT, I SEE A LOT OF DICK WILLIAMS IN BOBBY V. !!!
    Posted by Bill-806[/QUOTE]

    Bill, we all know you will be calling for an end to the Iglesias era if he goes 0-4 on opening day.

    You repeatedly showed last year you are the epitome of the reactionary irrational fan.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting? : Pedey absolutely mashed his way through the minors.  the issue is not that the line-up can't handle having a lack of production from Iglesias.  Its about Iglesias' development.  He has glaring holes in his offensive approach that, if he is thrown to the wolves in the majors, could ruin him.  I say, lets take our time with this kid.  I don't care if he turns into a beast at the plate.  But, ultimately, if he can't ... hack it ... at the plate in the majors, his confidence will be shot, and surely his D will suffer.  Hey, maybe he has has another hot spring and shows better discipline and swing for a month or two at Pawtucket.  Great, Lets bring him up.  But, it doesn't serve anyone, club or Iggy, to bring him up prematurely.  he's 21.  Don't get me wrong:  I am excited for the Iglesias era to begin.  But, I don;t see, other than for the sake of feeding the excitement, the reason to rush him if his bat is still not ready.  Aviles will be a fine placeholder.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    Agree on all points.  Let's all remember Iglesias' 2011 AAA stats:

    .235/.285/.269/.554 (58K/21BB)

    That's a confidence-busting, MLB trainwreck waiting to happen.  Unless he tears it up in ST, send him to Pawtucket and see what Aviles/Punto can do for a month while Iglesias (hopefully) perks up at the plate.



     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    Dire predictions of a collapsed psyche if Iglesias is at first overwhelmed at the plate are not supported by the experience of earlier great defenders who at first might just as well have gone to bat with a match stick. And didn't hit even decently for years. 
    Put simply, we don't know what the young man is made of, or of how he would fare under Valentine.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    Pretty safe bet that he starts the year in Pawtucket.  But , he may well be our starting shortstop before the year is over.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    Not a chance. The dude couldn't hit his way out of a wet paper bag. And the nonsense that he will make up for his lack of a bat with his glove is laughable at best. 

    I guess it means nothing to you that the best-ranged SSs in MLB make over a hundred more plays a season over the worst.  100 extra outs given to the opps is meaningless.

    Yes, guys like your Jeter can make up for their lousy range by hitting exceptionally well and having a good arm, but the flip side can be true as well. Some weak hitting SSs can and will make up for the lack of hits by saving an equal or greater amount on defense.

    Simple math.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]Not a chance. The dude couldn't hit his way out of a wet paper bag. And the nonsense that he will make up for his lack of a bat with his glove is laughable at best.  I guess it means nothing to you that the best-ranged SSs in MLB make over a hundred more plays a season over the worst.  100 extra outs given to the opps is meaningless. Yes, guys like your Jeter can make up for their lousy range by hitting exceptionally well and having a good arm, but the flip side can be true as well. Some weak hitting SSs can and will make up for the lack of hits by saving an equal or greater amount on defense. Simple math.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Agreed that exceptional D can make up for weak hitting.  I just think there has to be a baseline.  Iggy has to show that he can even be a 'weak' hitter in the majors before he should get the nod.  That may come in the very near future.  But he at least has to show that he is not overwhelmed by AAA pitching.  He definitely got better toward the end of last season, most importantly showing better patience.  So, maybe the time is sooner than later.  But, with my manager's hat on, I want to get him some run at Pawtucket to start the year at least, make sure he is not going to be hacking away like a novice and then have to face major league breaking stuff night in and night out.  Because the line between 'weak' hitting and 'not' hitting is a crucial one.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    Peter Abraham's note from Jet Blue today:

    Iglesias has gained 10 pounds and cut down on his body fat. He launched two balls over the fence during batting practice today. "Just lucky," he said.

    ___________

    OK, good sign.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnDeckCircle. Show OnDeckCircle's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    Why not start Iglesias ?    A stong glove and a weak bat has been known all along.   Dave Magadan is supposedly the hitting coach.    Have him spend whatever time it takes to correct the battings flaws of Iglesias.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]Peter Abraham's note from Jet Blue today: Iglesias has gained 10 pounds and cut down on his body fat. He launched two balls over the fence during batting practice today. "Just lucky," he said. ___________ OK, good sign.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    Yeah but remember all the bombs Pedro Cerrano was launching in Spring Training until Eddie Harris started breaking off some Curve Balls...... Just saying.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    A quick check - that needs validation - reveals each SS' last (significant ABs) minor league results:
    • Mark Belanger:  AAA, .262/.346/.345/.691
    • Ozzie Smith:  A-, .303/.391/.362/.753
    • Yuniesky Betancourt:  AAA, .295/.323/.443/.766
    • Omar Vizquel:  AAA, .233/.299/.300/.599
    Those are the first 4 I researched, in order.   After the first three the case looked fairly clear but, while Vizquel's minor league numbers were a bit better at a slightly older age, it gives me a bit more hope than I've had.  Although I imagine few if any major league SS had worse minor league hitting stats than Iglesias.

    I am still sticking to seeing if Iglesias tears it up in ST and, if not, let him start in Pawtucket and see what Aviles/Punto can deliver.

    Also, does anyone know Iglesias' contract status vis a vis arbitation/free agency i.e. does it suit the Sox to hold him back to gain an extra year of control?



     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBSHBT1969. Show TBSHBT1969's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]A quick check - that needs validation - reveals each SS' last (significant ABs) minor league results: Mark Belanger:  AAA, .262/.346/.345/.691 Ozzie Smith:  A-, .303/.391/.362/.753 Yuniesky Betancourt:  AAA, .295/.323/.443/.766 Omar Vizquel:  AAA, .233/.299/.300/.599 Those are the first 4 I researched, in order.   After the first three the case looked fairly clear but, while Vizquel's minor league numbers were a bit better at a slightly older age, it gives me a bit more hope than I've had.  Although I imagine few if any major league SS had worse minor league hitting stats than Iglesias. I am still sticking to seeing if Iglesias tears it up in ST and, if not, let him start in Pawtucket and see what Aviles/Punto can deliver. Also, does anyone know Iglesias' contract status vis a vis arbitation/free agency i.e. does it suit the Sox to hold him back to gain an extra year of control?
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]

    That's great, but the days of the all glove no bat SS are a thing of the past.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]Not a chance. The dude couldn't hit his way out of a wet paper bag. And the nonsense that he will make up for his lack of a bat with his glove is laughable at best.  I guess it means nothing to you that the best-ranged SSs in MLB make over a hundred more plays a season over the worst.  100 extra outs given to the opps is meaningless. Yes, guys like your Jeter can make up for their lousy range by hitting exceptionally well and having a good arm, but the flip side can be true as well. Some weak hitting SSs can and will make up for the lack of hits by saving an equal or greater amount on defense. Simple math.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Take away a hit every three games is equivalent to getting ( 54 hits ) and will raise a .220 BA to .300. Simple math.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting? : That's great, but the days of the all glove no bat SS are a thing of the past.
    Posted by TBSHBT1969[/QUOTE]

    I realise that, agree, and you're reinforcing my view that Iglesias is not ready to play SS for the Sox unless/until he significantly improves his batting.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from davidap. Show davidap's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    I'm not sure why everyone assumes that Iglesias is a phenomenal defensive shortstop. Few, if any of us, have really seen him play on a regular basis. We're only going by minor league scouting reports, which tend to glorify everyone until they turn 27 and are still toiling in obscurity.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting? : Take away a hit every three games is equivalent to getting ( 54 hits ) and will raise a .220 BA to .300. Simple math.
    Posted by lowelll[/QUOTE]

    I understand the argument, agree with it generally, and have posted it earlier in this very thread.  But extend the logic:  if Iglesias' glove "raises" a .150 BA (with no power or walks, which is likely) to .230 - which doesn't seem impossible to me, though perhaps a bit pessimistic - we have a 22-year old virtually automatic out that some people abuse and others laugh at.

    He'd have to be made of stone for that not to affect his fielding, development and temper.

    Let him continue to develop in the shadows unless/until Aviles/Punto fail.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from sundvl20. Show sundvl20's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    .240 and 15 jacks. If Iggy put up those numbers, people would accept that with stellar def. thats pretty much what they had with alex gonzalez twice and let him go. Never could figure that one out. What a treat to watch that guy play d.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    Not a chance. The dude couldn't hit his way out of a wet paper bag. And the nonsense that he will make up for his lack of a bat with his glove is laughable at best.  I guess it means nothing to you that the best-ranged SSs in MLB make over a hundred more plays a season over the worst.  100 extra outs given to the opps is meaningless. Yes, guys like your Jeter can make up for their lousy range by hitting exceptionally well and having a good arm, but the flip side can be true as well. Some weak hitting SSs can and will make up for the lack of hits by saving an equal or greater amount on defense. Simple math.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Take away a hit every three games is equivalent to getting ( 54 hits ) and will raise a .220 BA to .300. Simple math. 

    ...and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Iggy would make 108 more plays than Scoot would have had he still be here this year.

    If Iggy is all that he is made out to be defensively, I'd take .190 and 80 saved hits.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jose Iglesias starting? : I understand the argument, agree with it generally, and have posted it earlier in this very thread.  But extend the logic:  if Iglesias' glove "raises" a .150 BA (with no power or walks, which is likely) to .230 - which doesn't seem impossible to me, though perhaps a bit pessimistic - we have a 22-year old virtually automatic out that some people abuse and others laugh at. He'd have to be made of stone for that not to affect his fielding, development and temper. Let him continue to develop in the shadows unless/until Aviles/Punto fail.
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]

    Why are you starting at .150 instead .220?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from davidap. Show davidap's posts

    Re: Jose Iglesias starting?

    I understand the argument, agree with it generally, and have posted it earlier in this very thread.  But extend the logic:  if Iglesias' glove "raises" a .150 BA (with no power or walks, which is likely) to .230 - which doesn't seem impossible to me, though perhaps a bit pessimistic - we have a 22-year old virtually automatic out that some people abuse and others laugh at.

    He'd have to be made of stone for that not to affect his fielding, development and temper.

    Let him continue to develop in the shadows unless/until Aviles/Punto fail.

    With respect to in-game planning, elite defense does not compensate for negative offense. You can't predict when a great defender will prevent a hit. You can predict when a poor hitter will make an out. Consequently, teams can target a weak hitter by pitching around the batter or two before him. This effectively renders 2-3 hitters useless almost every time they come up to the plate (unless there are two or more men on base). A great defensive player does not hold a similar in-game tactical advantage. A manager can't tell his plus defender to save a hit in any one situation. The ball still needs to be hit to that fielder. Therefore the number of hits prevented will be evenly distributed throughout the course of a game because you can't predictably control when the ball will be hit in a certain direction. Conversely, the number of pitch arounds to hitters in front of an automatic out will be situation-dependent, meaning they occur at the most critical times of a game.

    In other words, a great fielder is just as likely to prevent a hit in the 3rd inning with no one on base in a 7-0 game, as he is during the 9th inning of a 2-1 lead with runners on second and third. A weak hitter is far more likely to hurt a team in the latter scenario than the former. Teams won't have to pitch around anyone in a 7-0 game, whereas they'll definitely target a weak hitter in the 9th inning of a 2-1 game. Thus, while I don't dispute the raw computational mathematics involved in adjusting a poor batting average for an excellent defense, I don't think you can weigh each statistical instance equally. A weak hitter will be more conspicuous than a plus defender because of the much greater situational control in pitching to a weak hitter.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share