"No pop" Lowrie

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

    Re:

    Moon, I think Jed shows that even with limited range a slugging SS can be the better option over a singles saving SS.

    [/QUOTE]


    Just seems easier to play him at 3B or 2B.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This goes back to the debate on the importance of SS range, slugging SS, UZR, and WAR.

    Jed has been the 5th best SS in MLB over the last two years despite missing 60 games last year.  You have posted many times about how important range is at SS, IMO you lost sight of value.  Jeter was valuable despite very poor range, just like Jed or Hanley (up until this year). There is more than one way to skin a cat.  

    Poor SS range plus hitting 15% better than the average player at your position equals the 5th best SS in MLB.  You could argue he is better suited to 2B or 3B but that doesn't always suit a roster or take awaythe point that SS range has been over-emphasized on this board. IMHO. Just my take......

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

    Re:

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    Moon, I think Jed shows that even with limited range a slugging SS can be the better option over a singles saving SS.


    Just seems easier to play him at 3B or 2B.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This goes back to the debate on the importance of SS range, slugging SS, UZR, and WAR.

    Jed has been the 5th best SS in MLB over the last two years despite missing 60 games last year.  You have posted many times about how important range is at SS, IMO you lost sight of value.  Jeter was valuable despite very poor range, just like Jed or Hanley (up until this year). There is more than one way to skin a cat.  

    Poor SS range plus hitting 15% better than the average player at your position equals the 5th best SS in MLB.  You could argue he is better suited to 2B or 3B but that doesn't always suit a roster or take awaythe point that SS range has been over-emphasized on this board. IMHO. Just my take......

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually the defensive metrics say Lowrie has slightly plus range, although his UZR/150 is negative, but it's not awful and he was an above average defender last year.  He may eventually be better suited for 2nd in a few years but his defense isn't horrible, it's not plus. .780 OPS short stops don't grow on Trees.  

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re:

    In response to stillallbost08's comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    our problem is not finding decent shortstops, it is keeping them

    As always - 100% correct!

     




    who didnt they keep that they should have??

     

    [/QUOTE]
    everyone since Lugo? 

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

    Re:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    he defensive metrics say Lowrie has slightly plus range, although his UZR/150 is negative, but it's not awful and he was an above average defender last year.  He may eventually be better suited for 2nd in a few years but his defense isn't horrible, it's not plus. .780 OPS short stops don't grow on Trees.  

     

     

     



    Hugh, I did notice his RF was exactly middle of the pack last year.  This year,  ESPN dWAR and RF rank his last in MLB at SS.

     

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

    Re:

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    he defensive metrics say Lowrie has slightly plus range, although his UZR/150 is negative, but it's not awful and he was an above average defender last year.  He may eventually be better suited for 2nd in a few years but his defense isn't horrible, it's not plus. .780 OPS short stops don't grow on Trees.  

     

     

     



    Hugh, I did notice his RF was exactly middle of the pack last year.  This year,  ESPN dWAR and RF rank his last in MLB at SS.

     



    Fan graphs has a range runs above average of .7, not great but above average. 

    Im going to go check out espn now.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The Lowrie for Melancon deal would not have been all that bad had we held on to Mark.

    1.10 ERA  0.903 WHIP in over 65 IP with the Pirates this year.

    Sox4ever

     

     



    there is no telling Melancon would have replicated those numbers if he stayed in boston. It seems he is a small market guy. Having said that though, in hindsight, the Hanrahan trade is one i would take back..

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, you are right, we don't know if Melancon would have pitched well had he stayed here this year, but I tend to think the whole small market thing is usually blown out of proportion.

     

    He's a good pitcher.

    Lowrie probably would have never won a FT spot on this team had he stayed.

    [/QUOTE]

    i normally agree with that sentiment but there ARE players who can not perform under pressure. and generally speaking, there is more pressure in large markets than there is in small markets. If anything, i just find it interesting that his numbers in small markets are much better than in larger ones..

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re:

    Drew, a little better, but similar make-up as Lowrie. It's no suprise that the Red Sox keep looking for these tall slugging SS.

    I'm not sure what height has to do with anything, but both Drew and Lowrie are not tall.  They are #7 & #8 in WAR for all MLB SS's.  Of the guys with higher WARs, only Segura is shorter than them.

    Next up, for certain, is Bogaerts. I've seen him play many times and other than handling the balls hit right at him or close to him, he's a very weak defensively if he's an everyday SS.

    Which is why he will eventually migrate to 3B. 

    I expect Red Sox management will give Drew a QO, if they are almost sure he'll turn it down (Drew's young enough to where he's likely to get a 2 or 3 year offer in the 16 to 30M range. But he's old enough and fragile enough and has miles on his body and I expect there's a strong chance he'll take that kind of offer.

    Which is where your train leaves the tracks.  If he is worth a contract for $30M/3, the he is an outstanding signing for $9.5M/1.

    There is a poster on here who is willing to bet that management has no plans for Bogaerts as the long term SS (that poster bets that managment plans on going with Marrero as the long term SS). I hope this poster is correct, but he's disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. He will almost surely be wrong, as the history of how Red Sox managment looks at SS couldn't be any clearer. And that means there are no long term SS starting plans from management, for Marrerro. Just a hunch.

    What you consider the history of how the FO views SS's is not reality.  Look at the transactions-

    • Traded slugger Nomar for OCab GG defense.
    • Trade Hanley, known for his bat, not his glove
    • Signed Renteria, who had 2 GGs'.
    • Signed Gonzalez who had an outstanding glove
    • Signed Lugo, who was average in both bat and glove
    • Signed Iglesias who was expected to be all glove and no bat.
    • Signed Scutaro with equal parts offense and defense
    • Drafted Marrero-all glove, little offense
    • Signed Drew who is equal parts offense and defense.

    Since we traded Nomar, the only SS that could be considered a big bat was Renteria, and he was an outstanding defender before he joined the RS.  Overall, that group of 7 SS's is way more valued for their defense than their offense.

    IRT to Marrero, he was the reason they traded Iglesias, imo.  They are interchangeable.  Certainly he has to continue to develop, but I would bet real money he will be our SS by 2016, if not 2015.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re:

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    I will bet money that the only way Marrero is the SS by 2015 and 2016 is if Bogaerts big sample OPS is under .800 and/or an injury takes place. I will bet money that Marrero will never be the opening day and season long planned starter at SS for the Red Sox for more than one or two seasons.

    [/QUOTE]

    if stiffys track record means anything it's time to buy Marerro stock. numbers never lie and stiffys win% on predictions concerning the red sox speaks for itself. Marrero will now be a star after receiving the stiffy "kiss of death"

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

    Re:

    Drew, a little better, but similar make-up as Lowrie. It's no suprise that the Red Sox keep looking for these tall slugging SS.

    I'm not sure what height has to do with anything, but both Drew and Lowrie are not tall.  

    Both are lanky and 6 feet tall. That's tall.

    They are #7 & #8 in WAR for all MLB SS's.  Of the guys with higher WARs, only Segura is shorter than them.

    "WAR" is metric that is more subjective than "range factor". Most casual baseball minds are using it like OBP.

    You can use any metric you want, but Lowrie and Drew still aren't going to be tall.

    Next up, for certain, is Bogaerts. I've seen him play many times and other than handling the balls hit right at him or close to him, he's a very weak defensively if he's an everyday SS.

    Which is why he will eventually migrate to 3B. 

    I expect Red Sox management will give Drew a QO, if they are almost sure he'll turn it down (Drew's young enough to where he's likely to get a 2 or 3 year offer in the 16 to 30M range. But he's old enough and fragile enough and has miles on his body and I expect there's a strong chance he'll take that kind of offer.

    Which is where your train leaves the tracks.  If he is worth a contract for $30M/3, the he is an outstanding signing for $9.5M/1.

    Market, market value and worth are not the same, Joe. You should know better than that. Do you need me to give you list of all the labor contracts and evaluate the contract "worth"?

    Is there a point to this?  Market value is objective, and worth is subjective.  If someone says Drew is worth $33M/3, then that's his number.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    I will bet money that the only way Marrero is the SS by 2015 and 2016 is if Bogaerts big sample OPS is under .800 and/or an injury takes place. I will bet money that Marrero will never be the opening day and season long planned starter at SS for the Red Sox for more than one or two seasons.



    if stiffys track record means anything it's time to buy Marerro stock. numbers never lie and stiffys win% on predictions concerning the red sox speaks for itself. Marrero will now be a star after receiving the stiffy "kiss of death"

    [/QUOTE]

    The numbers and reports are compelling.  I don't rely too much on the numbers, since minor league fields are inconsistent, but here they are-

    • Player A  133 games  657 chances  .977 fielding %  RF/G 4.83
    • Player B  276 games  1196 chances  .970 fielding %  RF/G 4.18

    Based purely on the numbers, Player A is a better fielder.  I would take that with a grain of salt, but every scouting report I've read on Player A says he is consistent with Player B.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re:

    I think Bogaerts will stick at SS for a while. I don't see any reason to move him off the position for 5-6 years at least. The guy is only 20 for God's sake and his range isn't that bad. We are probably looking at our SS for the next 10 years IMO.

    Just because he can move off the position doesn't mean he will. Look at his range again. It's not that bad.

    Also, I'm not counting on Marrero. He is definitely not going to supplant Bogaerts at SS. Highly unlikely. Marrero is a solid defensive guy but his bat will never even come close to Bogaert's. Forgetaboutit!

    We have no one on the horizon who is going to threaten Xander's PT at SS. Bank on that one right now. If anyone, maybe Mookie Betts but that is very unlikely.

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

    Re:

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    Moon, I think Jed shows that even with limited range a slugging SS can be the better option over a singles saving SS.


    Just seems easier to play him at 3B or 2B.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This goes back to the debate on the importance of SS range, slugging SS, UZR, and WAR.

    Jed has been the 5th best SS in MLB over the last two years despite missing 60 games last year.  You have posted many times about how important range is at SS, IMO you lost sight of value.  Jeter was valuable despite very poor range, just like Jed or Hanley (up until this year). There is more than one way to skin a cat.  

    Poor SS range plus hitting 15% better than the average player at your position equals the 5th best SS in MLB.  You could argue he is better suited to 2B or 3B but that doesn't always suit a roster or take awaythe point that SS range has been over-emphasized on this board. IMHO. Just my take......

    [/QUOTE]

    I haven't "lost sight". I once did a study on posititional value, and how having a great hitting SS or catcher can help a team have great gains vs their opponents at those positions. I uded Mauer as an example on how his value to a team is much more than his numbers show they are, because he does it from the catching position where the league OPS this year is .707. Having an .850 to .900 OPS from a position like catcher or SS is 100-200 points higher than most team's have at those slots. I get that.

    Despite my continued bashing of Jeter's fielding at SS, I have repeatedly said he should be a 1st ballot HOF'er. Is that a sign of me "losing sight" of the value of offense from the SS position?

    As with jeter, I think Lowrie would have been more of a value at 2B or 3B, but if the alternative was having a .200 hitting average fielding SS, then no.

     

Share