OMG! Young Is Starting Again! Fire Farrell!

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
When Castillo getting playing time is more important than the major league team getting favorable matchups in winnable games, no, it isn't nuts at all.

Young was not signed to be a "once or maybe twice a week" 4th OF and he should never be utilized as one. He is one of the worst hitters in MLB against RHP and becoming annoyed at the insistence of his inclusion against them is insane? Guess I'm insane, then.
How do you know this? Holt was not the starting LF'er when Young was signed. They signed Murphy to be the 5th OF, but he had nothing left.

You're free to express your opinion, but you cannot dismiss the opinions of others as being ungrounded simply because you don't agree. Holt getting rest is Farrell's decision. Young getting at bats is also Farrell's decision. Young being on the roster was not. As for Castillo, he has shown less than Young has over his career, so not sure why he would be the best choice as 4th OF.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
For all the talk about Young being a generic 4th outfielder, he's played all but three of his innings (all last night) in LF. He hasn't taken ABs from anyone but Holt (and Shaw)...JBJ's only day off came with Castillo starting in CF and Mookie hasn't missed a start yet. At least so far, there's been nothing to indicate that his job is to give all of the starting outfielders a day off here and there. His primary usage has been as the weak side of a LF platoon. The only problem has been that they haven't faced many lefty starters so his opportunities to start have been scarce.

I think that has resulted in Farrell's having to force him into sub-optimal situations just to get him some sort of playing time. I also think it's not something that will have to continue through the whole season. At some point, they're going to face a steadier diet of left-handed starters (at least, steadier than 1 in every 11-12 games). Essentially, this whole thread is much ado about nothing.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
How do you know this? Holt was not the starting LF'er when Young was signed. They signed Murphy to be the 5th OF, but he had nothing left.
It seems from a roster construction standpoint that it was most likely Young was signed as a guy that could platoon with JBJ in favorable matchups and spell Castillo and Betts every once in a blue moon, while also acting as a lefty killer. It didn't work out that way due to Castillo not being a starter, and that's fine, but the way he's being utilized at the moment is, well, far from ideal when you consider his skillset.

You're free to express your opinion, but you cannot dismiss the opinions of others as being ungrounded simply because you don't agree. Holt getting rest is Farrell's decision. Young getting at bats is also Farrell's decision. Young being on the roster was not. As for Castillo, he has shown less than Young has over his career, so not sure why he would be the best choice as 4th OF.
Holt getting rest is Farrell's decision, yes. Given that Holt's likely to have two days off next week against the White Sox, giving him today off and plugging Young in a bad matchup seems shortsighted. It's not as if he's 37 and running on fumes, he can play a few more days knowing he'll have an easy week coming. Regarding Castillo, nobody knows for sure if he's better than Young or not, but the difference is that we already know what Young is. He's reached and passed his peak, the Sox know what they have, and they aren't committed to him for any significant length of time. With Castillo, they need more samples and data and they have an accessible avenue to get more at the major league level, instead, they're choosing to utilize a flawed player in a manner that completely plays against his strengths, and there's no reason for that.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
There actually is a reason for it. There are many, actually--they're all over this thread. That's not including ones we're not privy to (Holt is banged up, Young came to him and said he needed ABs, etc.) that Farrell has the task of making optimal given sub-optimal circumstances. This is a fact of life, not just baseball. Sometimes the best approach isn't the simple, dogmatic knee-jerk.

You're looking at everything in extreme black and white. Young is bad against RHP, yes, and Young will play against RHP occasionally. This is not, absent a clear trend, that big a deal.

edit to add that this entire conniption ended up being over two whole ABs, and to clean up my damn grammar.
 
Last edited:

williams_482

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 1, 2011
391
Young has a career OPS against RHP of .702, and that's notwithstanding his bad year last year. His tOPS+ career against righties is 89, so it's not like he's been completely hapless against them. Was last year a small sample size or the new normal? Nobody here knows. But it's not like Holt is Ted Williams (yet). His career OPS from both sides of the plate -- and he gets to face his off handed pitcher far more often than a RHB -- is .707. So, the drop off of putting Young in there from time to time against righties is not like some chasm making it a terrible experiment to see how he does against righties and lefties. Plus, he's a plus defender. Better than Holt at left? Hard to know how to read the numbers on fangraphs, so I'm really not sure, but he at least has a reputation as being a solid glove.

And even if he is saved only for starts against against lefties, he's a right handed bottom of the order hitter. In any start, maybe he gets 2 or 3 at bats before getting into the bullpen, so he's still going to have to hit against righties even in those starts (or you'll have to burn your bench spot to pinch hit and arguably downgrade your defense).
This is the most relevant point in the whole thread.

Chris Young, career, has hit .263/.362/.474 (122 wRC+) in 1417 PAs against LHP. He has hit .224/.292/.410 (83 wRC+) in 3293 PAs against RHP. These samples are large enough for us to reasonably conclude that he hit's disproportionately well against LHP. His more dramatic platoon splits from the past two years are nowhere near that level, and any argument built around split data over that sort of timeframe should go looking for some actual evidence or be dropped completely.

An 83 wRC+ is bad, and certainly much worse than a 122 wRC+, but as backup outfielders with borderline-center-field-worthy defense go, you could do worse. It's certainly not the performance of "one of the worst hitters in MLB against right handers." Castillo's glove probably makes him a better overall player against RHP, but the gap between them is going to be quite small.

Given that he is the only backup outfielder on the roster, the three starters cannot be expected to play every single day, and the Red Sox have faced an exceptionally small number of left handed pitchers to open the season, It is only reasonable that he would have a few starts against right handers. As long as he doesn't sit regularly against lefties and doesn't face many righties in the playoffs, I see little reason to label his current usage as managerial malpractice.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I think this discussion reveals that the Red Six need a better starting left fielder. Are there any possibilities? Can we revisit trading for Carlos Gonzalez or Matt Kemp?
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Chris Young, career, has hit .263/.362/.474 (122 wRC+) in 1417 PAs against LHP. He has hit .224/.292/.410 (83 wRC+) in 3293 PAs against RHP. These samples are large enough for us to reasonably conclude that he hit's disproportionately well against LHP. His more dramatic platoon splits from the past two years are nowhere near that level, and any argument built around split data over that sort of timeframe should go looking for some actual evidence or be dropped completely.
So what has happened recently and is happening currently is less relevant than what's happened in the past? Young himself once stole 27 and 28 bags in a year, does that make him a viable threat to run now? This is the Joe Kelly argument all over again, where career stats don't tell the story of the player we have our hands on at this exact moment in time.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,785
Somerville, MA
While Gonzalez might make sense because of contact length, his .756 OPS away from Coors doesn't really make him worth paying an average of $18M this year and next for a minor upgrade over Holt. Kemp's production is more attractive, but I don't know if you want to be paying $21.5M/yr through his age 34 season, which takes you to 2019. Also to keep in mind here is that while Benintendi still hasn't seen any AA or higher ABs, I'm not sure that looking for long-term solutions in the OF is necessarily where I'd be going right now.

Having said that, you do have Ortiz coming off the books next year and you may be able to slide Travis into the hole at 1B once Hanley moves to DH, so I'm not opposed to looking at Gonzalez, as the contract length is attractive to me, though the dollars aren't. So that might be the cleanest situation, even though it's not perfect. I do worry about system depth somewhat, as I'm not sure there are a ton of pieces that are attractive to other teams once you get beyond the top 5-6 guys, and I sure as hell wouldn't trade any of them for Gonzalez.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I think this discussion reveals that the Red Six need a better starting left fielder. Are there any possibilities? Can we revisit trading for Carlos Gonzalez or Matt Kemp?
Or Josh Reddick, who would be a free agent at the end of the year, freeing up the spot for Benintendi or whatever Swihart/Hernandez/Holt/Castillo thing they hack together to hold the spot until Benintendi is ready.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
If they were to add on a left fielder, what would the plan be for Holt? He'd be one of the most overqualified utility guys in MLB. I guess you just move him around the diamond all year to give guys days off. Or do you trade him?

So what has happened recently and is happening currently is less relevant than what's happened in the past? Young himself once stole 27 and 28 bags in a year, does that make him a viable threat to run now? This is the Joe Kelly argument all over again, where career stats don't tell the story of the player we have our hands on at this exact moment in time.
If you've concluded that his performance against RHP last year is who he is and he'll never get better, then sure. I think the point being advanced is not that that is definitely wrong, but that 165 at bats when you have a career body of work is not dispositive. And the point I was trying to make is that it's not like we have Michael Brantley ready to start in left field against RHP if we sit Chris Young. Even if you give Young another 100 ABs against RHP to see what he does and he only performs to the level he performed last year, what really have you lost? An extra hit every week or so? Kicking the tires a bit more in the early part of the season - especially if it lets you give guys days off -- is hardly the big horrible evidence of Farrell's incompetence that people are making it.

Edit: In fairness, I probably should have used PAs not ABs to discuss Young's body of work last year against RHP, and it's 181, not 165.
 
While Gonzalez might make sense because of contact length, his .756 OPS away from Coors doesn't really make him worth paying an average of $18M this year and next for a minor upgrade over Holt. Kemp's production is more attractive, but I don't know if you want to be paying $21.5M/yr through his age 34 season, which takes you to 2019. Also to keep in mind here is that while Benintendi still hasn't seen any AA or higher ABs, I'm not sure that looking for long-term solutions in the OF is necessarily where I'd be going right now.

Having said that, you do have Ortiz coming off the books next year and you may be able to slide Travis into the hole at 1B once Hanley moves to DH, so I'm not opposed to looking at Gonzalez, as the contract length is attractive to me, though the dollars aren't. So that might be the cleanest situation, even though it's not perfect. I do worry about system depth somewhat, as I'm not sure there are a ton of pieces that are attractive to other teams once you get beyond the top 5-6 guys, and I sure as hell wouldn't trade any of them for Gonzalez.
In his chat yesterday, Keith Law said he thinks Benintendi will be the Red Sox starting left fielder by August 1st.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,763
Or Josh Reddick, who would be a free agent at the end of the year, freeing up the spot for Benintendi or whatever Swihart/Hernandez/Holt/Castillo thing they hack together to hold the spot until Benintendi is ready.
Ugh, can we not get fleeced by Beane for a rental?
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
.
Holt getting rest is Farrell's decision, yes
. Given that Holt's likely to have two days off next week against the White Sox, giving him today off and plugging Young in a bad matchup seems shortsighted. It's not as if he's 37 and running on fumes, he can play a few more days knowing he'll have an easy week coming. Regarding Castillo, nobody knows for sure if he's better than Young or not, but the difference is that we already know what Young is. He's reached and passed his peak, the Sox know what they have, and they aren't committed to him for any significant length of time. With Castillo, they need more samples and data and they have an accessible avenue to get more at the major league level, instead, they're choosing to utilize a flawed player in a manner that completely plays against his strengths, and there's no reason for that.
I really don't think any more should be read into it than the bolded. They are in the midst of playing 17 straight games. If you're tired, you don't wait 5 more games until you get to rest just because the match ups will be more favorable. You get one when you need it, or you pick a day during that span when it ought to have the smallest impact on whether you win or lose. I mean, he played against the freaking Braves (and a pitcher the Rockies had previously released) the day before the Yankee series. The bolded is also the bind Farrell is in when they don't even have David Murphy or his ilk in AAA as a potential left handed bench bat.

I just don't think you can underestimate the grind of playing every day over a sustained stretch.
 
Last edited:

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,785
Somerville, MA
In his chat yesterday, Keith Law said he thinks Benintendi will be the Red Sox starting left fielder by August 1st.
It's a non-zero possibility, but I like to see some ABs at AA or above before I start putting a timetable on handing a starting position to someone. He has been outstanding so far, and his numbers this year are otherworldly, but I like to temper expectations because I've seen enough issues with adjusting to higher levels. Let's think back to a couple years ago when a 22-year old JBJ put up and OPS of 1.006 at Salem over 230+ ABs and then an .842 OPS as a 23-year old in Pawtucket the year after despite not being ready for the majors. I'd need to see more from Benintendi at AA, and even then, my earliest ETA would be coming out of ST next season.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Law mentioned that pre-season as well. I don't know if he has a scoop at all, but he clearly loves Benintendi like no other.
I posted this in another thread - but the last Red Sox player to move up three levels in a season was Cla Meredith. Craig Hansen did as well. No one in the 80's or 90's either.
DD is more aggressive though, so we shall see.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,371
Pioneer Valley
I really don't think any more should be read into it than the bolded. They are in the midst of playing 17 straight games. If you're tired, you don't wait 5 more games until you get to rest just because the match ups will be more favorable. You get one when you need it, or you pick a day during that span when it ought to have the smallest impact on whether you win or lose. I mean, he played against the freaking Braves (and a pitcher the Rockies had previously released) the day before the Yankee series. The bolded is also the bind Farrell is in when they don't even have David Murphy or his ilk in AAA as a potential left handed bench bat.

I just don't think you can underestimate the grind of playing every day over a sustained stretch.
Do you mean "overestimate" here, because otherwise I don't understand what you are saying. I do think that they are trying not to over-tire players, and I understand that.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Either word technically works, depending on how you frame the sentence.

Either way, I don't have anything to add to the discussion at this point, except to say I'd actually like to see them pick up a temp for LF as well.

Someone up thread suggested that putting Holt out of a job might mean we should trade him or that he's somehow overqualified. Frankly I'm concerned about the fact that Holt cooled way off after a hot start each of the last 2 years IIRC, and that if we don't do our due dilligence about replacements in left field now, we may wind up having do so desperately later at trade deadline prices. Making the move now would give us more leverage (or it might be more accurate to say "lose us less leverage" due to plenty of time still being on the clock, and that may turn out to be important.

As for who -- I can't help but notice that Colby Rasmus is in the last year of his deal and playing on a team that's not looking likely to be in the running this year. It's something to think about. I would not mind making a play for Rasmus one little bit. A trade-and-extend deal for Rasmus would be a good play, depending on what would have to go the other way.

And speaking of going the other way I can't help but notice that Houston doesn't seem to have the best catching corps... and being in a rebuild, they could afford to give a certain prime catching prospect the kind of opportunities to learn on the job that we just can't afford right now, and Swihart wouldn't be jostling with another premium young catcher for that playing time unless I've missed something (very possible). 4 years of Swihart is probably worth 1 year of Rasmus to a rebuilding team, there'd be some details to work out but there's a potential match here if DD and his Houston counterpart decided to pull the trugger

As for Holt finding a way to be useful without a starting position, he didn't have too much trouble doing this in 14 or 15. not too many supersubs manages 2+ WAR in each of the last 2 seasons. That's more than a lot of starters give. I think Holt has demonstrated that he provides extreme value on the bench, probably more value there than he does starting in a corner OF position. I'd be prepared tp speculate he's probably more valuable on the whole if he's not tied down to a given position and can range around the field speling anyone who's tired or sore and needs a multiple day break from their job. I think Brockstar's versatility is his strongest attribute and giving a guy like that a full time starting job makes them less valuable, because it makes him less available to be the Jack of All Trades he was born to be.
 
Last edited:

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
..I'm concerned about the fact that Holt cooled way off after a hot start each of the last 2 years IIRC
Thing is, you don't have to "recall correctly", you can actually spend time looking it up.

Month: Plate Appearances / OBP

2014
April: 28 / .429, May: 64 / .317, June: 127 / .370, July: 116 / .328, Aug: 133 / .310, Sep: 24 / .167

2015
April: 52 / .471, May: 68 / .294, June: 116 / .388, July: 86 / .321, Aug: 98 / .306, Sep: 79 / .341

Are you seriously suggesting trading Swihart for Rasmus straight up?
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I was going to suggest Derek Dietrich on the Marlins until Gordon got slapped with the suspension. He plays OF, 3B and 2B and bats lefty competently. Otherwise he was also behind Prado.
Jay Bruce could work as a one year thing, assuming his hot start means he's over his off year.
Anything longer than that would probably be blocking Benintendi.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Are you seriously suggesting trading Swihart for Rasmus straight up?
I'll admit that I got carried away with Rasmus' numbers this year. I agree that Swihart is an overpay/ Still, the idea of Rasmus isn't all that crazy. He's got the talent to be a middle of the lineup guy. Maybe in a good offense he'd be a little more consistent.

And ironically, Rasmus would be a great match as the senior partner in an outfield platoon if you could pair him with a RHH with platoon splits.

Hmm.

Thing is, you don't have to "recall correctly", you can actually spend time looking it up.
Does it really matter how much he degrades as the year goes on, when it's clear that he does?

Numbers are valuable to any discussion, but sometimes they have a tendency to confuse the issue with facts. The fact of the matter is that Holt's past history suggests that Holt is a candidate to fade offensively after a strong opening performance, and that looking for a guy to play fulltime LF and/or platoon with a RHH partner in LF, while we don't have a major hole in the field to sap our leverage in trade talks, would be a good use of Dombrowski's time. It would also be nice to have Holt in supersub mode again and be the one giving everybody rest instead of the one needing it.

He's a 2+ WAR player in the supersub role each of the last 2 years, I don't think he'll reach that level if he remains in corner OF role due to the offensive demands on a left fielder. Not Holt's fault in any way, just that he is the player he is, and an OPS just north of .700 at the end of the year doesn't cut it in left.

I think it's a good use of Holt to use him to patch a hole while we figure something more permanent out. I don't think it's a good use of Holt to think he can play that position for a full year and put up the same WAR that he's provided off the bench.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
He's a 2+ WAR player in the supersub role each of the last 2 years, I don't think he'll reach that level if he remains in corner OF role due to the offensive demands on a left fielder. Not Holt's fault in any way, just that he is the player he is, and an OPS just north of .700 at the end of the year doesn't cut it in left.
In 2015, MLB saw an average batting line in LF of .256/.321/.416 (.737 OPS).

In 2015, BROCKHOLT! produced a batting line of .280/.349/.379 (.728 OPS).

I don't see how that's "not cutting it" in LF, when Holt can be meshed with Chris Young's 2015 batting line of .252/.320/.453 (.773 OPS). Really, it looks like Holt and Young should be able to provide perfectly serviceable LF production.

Sure, maybe it's not an ideal long-term solution. But I think maybe it looks good enough for now.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,347
The gran facenda
You really need to take the time to read the posts before yours whatittakes. Geoduck put up Holt's OBP by month for the last two seasons. They clearly show that he doesn't "degrade" like uranium does over the course of a season. And how do facts confuse the issue? They provide clarity and back up opinions as does sound reasoning. You have provided neither to back up your opinions as others in this thread have done. I suggest you do so in the future.
Yesterday I asked you to take a couple of days off from posting in hopes that you would improve. I'm asking that of you one last time.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
You really need to take the time to read the posts before yours whatittakes. Geoduck put up Holt's OBP by month for the last two seasons. They clearly show that he doesn't "degrade" like uranium does over the course of a season.
I think Geoduck's numbers do suggest exactly that. The season long slash line will get smaller month by month with those numbers behind it, even with the positive blip in each July. I don't intend to suggest that Holt is ever useless offensively, or that he never ticks upward month by month, if I gave that impression I apologize.

And how do facts confuse the issue?
I think Geoduck's point is a pretty good example of facts confusing the issue. I may have miscommunicated, but on average Holt's season numbers would go down for the most part based on the 2014 and 2015 numbers, starting with the overexuberant April and declining in total from there, other than the one month in July that would tick them up temporarily for that month. I think that's a pretty good example of numbers enhancing the information but confusing the issue. I'm sure my mediocre communication skills didn't help.

They provide clarity and back up opinions as does sound reasoning. You have provided neither to back up your opinions as others in this thread have done. I suggest you do so in the future.
Now that is my fault. I got lazy and stopped communicating clearly.
Yesterday I asked you to take a couple of days off from posting in hopes that you would improve. I'm asking that of you one last time.
Sounds like you're preparing to enforce that, so how can I possibly say no?
 

williams_482

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 1, 2011
391
So what has happened recently and is happening currently is less relevant than what's happened in the past? Young himself once stole 27 and 28 bags in a year, does that make him a viable threat to run now? This is the Joe Kelly argument all over again, where career stats don't tell the story of the player we have our hands on at this exact moment in time.
A tiny sample of recent performance, especially with something as notoriously unstable as platoon splits, is far and away less useful than career performance. Note that a PA last week is not considered to be less useful than a PA three years ago. PA by PA they are equal, the more recent PAs should probably be given slightly more weight. But 1400 PAs beats the hell out of 180 in almost any context, especially this one.

I actually made a rather glaring error in the quoted post, and I appreciate the opportunity to correct it here.

The Book (Tango/MGL/Andy Dolphin) found that if you want to estimate the platoon skill of a right handed batter, you should regress his demonstrated platoon split by adding 2,200 PAs of league average splits against lefties. Young only has 1417 PAs against lefties, so his splits should still be regressed back to league average by roughly 60%.

If you really want to use more recent splits you certainly can, but remember that regression is not optional when trying to get something useful out of them. I say samples that small are useless because they basically disappear in an analysis like this one.

Young, for his career, is a 95 wRC+ hitter. Fangraphs weighted ZiPS/Steamer projections (which do take his recent performance into account) believe he is a true talent 92 wRC+ hitter. These seem close enough that we can work from his career platoon numbers without significant adjustment. After all, Chris young is still the right handed fly ball oriented pull hitter he has been pretty much his entire career. There is very little reason to think his true talent platoon splits have changed.

An average right handed hitter has a ~ 5% wOBA platoon split gap. Young's 122 and 83 wRC+ splits translate to 2016 wOBAs of 0.386 and 0.262, a 0.124 point (41%) platoon split gap. A weighted average of these gives us an expected platoon split gap of 19%, and projected split wRC+s of approximately 107 and 89.

Barring a stupid math error on my part, it seems pretty clear that Chris Young is a bad but useable hitter against right handed pitching. He is certainly far better than Josh Rutledge.
 

EllisTheRimMan

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2007
4,560
Csmbridge
I'm pretty sure CY has pictures of Farrell in compromising situations. Maybe DD or Henry even. ;)

Seriously, this is really not on JF when the 25 man roster has only Young as the 4th OF and guys do get (notice I did not say need) days off. Maybe JF should be more creative and put Hanley in left and shuffle the infielders when there's a RHP starting. Who's with me???!!!:banana:
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Maybe we should call up Swihart and put him in left field. I hear he has some experience there now. :p

More seriously I wonder if they actually have a scenario in which they'd even try that this yeasr. Swihart in left would do two positive things -- it would bring up a young bat into left field that could work the count and had power potential, and it would release Brock Holt to do his supersub thing, both factors that would combine to ceep Chris Young away from the field when righthanders are pitching. The question is, is that short term gain worth the cost, because "the cost" is both a year of control over Swihart and arresting his development as a catcher, that's a pretty steep price tag for an experiment. I don't think that the balance weighs in favor of the move, especially since Holt is still at least adequate in left field.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,763
Yeah, I feel like that's likely the plan, but I don't think it's happening this year. I don't think we see Swihart back as long as Hanigan is still on the team.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Ideally what I'd love to do is bring in a a guy like Gregor Blanco, a borderline starter type with an OBP/speed focus, and just add him to the outfield mix as a 4th/5th OF and see what happens. We could use one more decent bench hitter anyway, and Blanco would at least get his butt on base fairly reliably.

Unfortunately Blanco himself is outperforming and so I don't see the Giants pulling the string on a reasonable trade at the moment, but that type of player would be a useful asset. I don't think we have any actual speed on the bench just now, and against RHP I don't think we have a good stick off the bench at all, that's not ideal.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
Maybe we should call up Swihart and put him in left field. I hear he has some experience there now. :p

More seriously I wonder if they actually have a scenario in which they'd even try that this yeasr. Swihart in left would do two positive things -- it would bring up a young bat into left field that could work the count and had power potential, and it would release Brock Holt to do his supersub thing, both factors that would combine to ceep Chris Young away from the field when righthanders are pitching. The question is, is that short term gain worth the cost, because "the cost" is both a year of control over Swihart and arresting his development as a catcher, that's a pretty steep price tag for an experiment. I don't think that the balance weighs in favor of the move, especially since Holt is still at least adequate in left field.
Swihart needs 11 days of ML service time to end the year with his first full year of ML service time, at least that was the popular accounting when he was sent down. That's one short DL stint for Hanigan or Vazquez away. Even if he doesn't get it he'll likely Super-2 with his service time accrued last year and early this.

If there is a competitor willing to overpay for Hanigan at the deadline I don't think the club would hesitate to pull the trigger and move forward with Swihart as the #2 who also gets time in LF, but it won't be as a full on replacement of Holt. Brock has a .724 OPS and a 101 wRC+ right now while sporting a .269 BABIP. For comparison his 2015 and 2014 ML BABIPs were .350 and .349 respectively, his 2014 AAA BABIP was .344, his rough year after joining the org in 2013 was .303 at the AAA level, and throughout AA and AAA with the Pirates his worst BABIP was .340. His LD% hasn't even dropped much from his '14 and '15 numbers either. Literally the worst luck of his career and he's still a ML average LF offensively.

The easy solution here is to keep with the status quo for the time being, Holt/Young platooning LF, with Holt's breaks against RHP coming in ideal situations for Young to maximize his benefit. He's always hit well in Fenway for example. He offers exceptional range for a LF as well so could find value defensively in big parks against elite pitching where the offensive gap between he and Holt would likely be minimized.

At the same time they can keep getting Marco Hernandez practice in the OF to groom him into a comparable utility guy to Holt, then the club can get creative in mixing up Holt and Hernandez as the backup infielders who also share LF duties against RHPs, if needed.

Chris Young was signed as a hedge bet against multiple factors. Castillo not learning to hit a breaking ball (still a problem), Bradley revealing a massive normal split, injury to Bradley/Betts, the list goes on. A left handed Chris Young doesn't sign for 2 years/$13M as a 4th OF. The warts are why he was available instead of starting for someone else. Contingencies are already in-place (Marco, Swihart, Benintendi, even some dabbling with Shaw in LF during the spring). The Red Sox aren't going to find themselves over a barrel come the deadline looking to fill LF and overpaying as a result.

Also, Rasmus is one of the most inconsistent players in MLB today. He is a career .316 OBP guy with a present OBP of .407. He currently sports a 28% HR/FB rate (comparable to that of '02 to '04 Barry Bonds). That screams mirage. He is also by all accounts a giant asshole who was ran out of St. Louis when still considered a 24 year old up and coming star in exchange for some short term arms because no one, his manager, coaches, teammates, or even the fans, could stand him. The Cardinals won the World Series after he left and it is widely considered i market as their equivalent of the Nomar for MienkCab trade, but instead of doing it because Nomar was a shell of his former self they did it because no one could stand Rasmus for another day. His father was just as bad and was well known in the market for getting in LaRussa's face on how to manage his son. The key difference between the Rasmuses and LaRussa was that Tony thought maybe Colby shouldn't try hitting a home run every time up regardless of the situation or pitcher.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Speaking of Bradley, how do people feel he's doing at the moment? Baseball Reference shows him about a fifth of a win below replacement level at the moment, and a dWAR of -0.4, does that match what you guys are seeing there? I can't parse the advanced metrics or get a feel for the underlying stuff, so at the moment I'm a little concerned about centerfield as well as left.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,763
Yeah, I'm a huge fan of JBJ, and defensive metrics this early in the season are completely useless, but honestly something looks a little off. I haven't gotten to watch many full games yet, but in what I've seen he hasn't looked particularly sharp getting balls off the wall or out of the triangle, and some of his throws have been way off line.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
Speaking of Bradley, how do people feel he's doing at the moment? Baseball Reference shows him about a fifth of a win below replacement level at the moment, and a dWAR of -0.4, does that match what you guys are seeing there? I can't parse the advanced metrics or get a feel for the underlying stuff, so at the moment I'm a little concerned about centerfield as well as left.
dWAR at this point in the season is absolutely meaningless; ignore it. Just watching Bradley play is far more reliable both as a judge of how he's been doing, and what to expect going forward. To my eye, Bradley has been excellent defensively, as expected. He makes every routine play, he makes plays that are a little iffy and makes them look easy, and he makes occasional spectacular, unlikely plays as well. You can't ask for any more. I don't think many observers would disagree: I think most would put him as among the top 2-3 defensive outfielders in the game.

Offensively, in the 22 games he's played in 2016 his OPS is .692. His first 11 games it was .599; the last 11, .765; the last 6, .929. For comparison, last year through his first 22 games, his OPS was .430.

He can probably stay in the majors with a .692 OPS, given his elite defense. If he can maintain .765, which seems very realistic, he's a major asset to the team. If he can top .800, as he did last year (.832), he's probably all-star level. He's been too inconsistent to be confident, but just looking at him batting, I think it's realistic to hope for an .800-plus OPS, perhaps fueled heavily by SLG (6 of his last 10 hits have been for extra bases) and perhaps coming in streaks, like last year. That would put him in about the top 1/3 of outfielders offensively, and the top 5 defensively. That's the Jackie Bradley we all hoped to get a couple years ago.
 
Last edited:

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
Speaking of Bradley, how do people feel he's doing at the moment? Baseball Reference shows him about a fifth of a win below replacement level at the moment, and a dWAR of -0.4, does that match what you guys are seeing there? I can't parse the advanced metrics or get a feel for the underlying stuff, so at the moment I'm a little concerned about centerfield as well as left.
My eyes tell me that he's doing an incredible job in the field. He gets good jumps on the ball both going forward and backward. He's as elite a CF as there is. Compare the value of his production both at the plate and in the field to Jacoby Ellsbury and it's not even close that they made the right decision.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Thank you. I feel better about JBJ now. I suspected the metrics were off, but a little reassurance can go a long way.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Thank you. I feel better about JBJ now. I suspected the metrics were off, but a little reassurance can go a long way.
I had a few fleeting moments of concern as well, though I think it's passed. I've watched probably 2/3 of Sox games this season so far and there have been between 3 and 5 plays by him that I thought were uncharacteristically lax or sloppy. But I do believe he has more than offset those with his usual spectacular play the rest of the time.

Put me in the camp that suspects we could see Swihart up near the deadline as a catcher / 5th OF and Hanigan dealt, so long as Vaz seems healthy and everybody is somewhere in the vicinity of their expected developmental track. I think any bigger moves than that, with the team doing well and the sample sizes being so small, would be rash. Young might very well end up looking a little better vs. RHP in Fenway as the season goes on. It would be great to add a short-term, Blanco type OF and end up with a bench of Young, Swihart, Marrero/Hernandez and a speedy 5th OF. Tons of flexibility there (and Holt could basically turn back into a super sub if he does fade down the stretch or if someone is hot).
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Right now Hanigan is caddying Wright, so I think one of the signs that your theory could be correct, is Vazquez being given more of Wright's starts to handle, to get him used to the knuckler.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
...I don't think we have any actual speed on the bench just now, and against RHP I don't think we have a good stick off the bench at all, that's not ideal.
It would be great to add a short-term, Blanco type OF and end up with a bench of Young, Swihart, Marrero/Hernandez and a speedy 5th OF.
I'll be very interested to see what DD and Hazen do about speed. I was thinking about '04 and the importance of Dave Roberts... In '07 we had a glut of OF's, which made Coco a kind of super-4th OF (and Kielty, who hit what ended up being the WS winning home run...). And in 2013 it was Quintin Berry, who only pinch-ran and went 3-for-3 in SB attempts that postseason. Interestingly enough, Berry was on the WS-losing Tigers (under DD) in 2012, where he actually got some at bats.

Right now, the speed this team has (with its great flashes so far) is on the field. When Chris Young was a starter in Arizona, he stole a LOT of bases, averaging over 20 in a 5 year span ('07-'11). That's dropped heavily since 2012, attempting 11 times that year, followed by 13, 11 and 4 attempts last year. He hasn't tried yet this year. So what's happened to his speed? Is it really gone? Did he stop once he wasn't really considered a starter, so he was much more careful picking his spots? Was is just managers in OAK and both NY's? He was getting on base about the same amount, but it seems he just stopped trying, despite a good SB/CS ratio his whole career.

I'm not expecting a 32yo guy we brought in to mash lefties to steal a ton of bases, and you'd have to think he'd only be a PR for a handful of guys on the team... but will DD and Co. try to spin him later in the year to a team looking for his kind of bat, and try to bring up/in some speed, a la Roberts and Berry, trusting that Shaw/Swi/whoever can handle the OF defensively?
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Thank you. I feel better about JBJ now. I suspected the metrics were off, but a little reassurance can go a long way.
I've observed JBJ being very deferential to Betts in RCF this season. That's going to hurt his metrics.

But there's really good reasons for this -- first and foremost being that doing so avoids collisions that could occur if both outfielders end up going balls-out to make a play. If you watch carefully, it's fairly evident that one player (usually Betts) is running full-tilt to catch or cut-off a shot to RCF, while the second is generally running to back up the play about 5-10 yards back (usually JBJ). Secondarily, as I've dug a little deeper than just the conventional wisdom that RCF gappers "should be the CF's ball," it's become apparent that in most cases, Betts running to his right means he'll have less of a pivot as well as a quicker release and stronger leverage for throws back into the infield. So I've concluded that it's good baseball being played by Betts and JBJ right now, even if it means JBJ's dWAR suffers.

OTOH, my eyes also tell me JBJ has bulked up a little, and is less quick afoot than he was in 2014 when he truly deserved a GG. So although he continues to make the routine plays, it doesn't seem that he's going to come up with absolutely everything hit to him, like in 2014-15. The upshot is he appears to be hitting the ball a lot harder than in 2014.

So yeah, I agree with iayork's assessment above -- ignore the metrics, because he's still JD Drew smooth out there. JBJ might not make as many totally ridiculous webgems as in years past, but he's still getting to more balls than most CFs, and his increased offense is making up for the minimal drop from his previously established fielding virtuosity.

Last night's short-hop for a triple was, however, uncharacteristically and undeniably bad.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Right now Hanigan is caddying Wright, so I think one of the signs that your theory could be correct, is Vazquez being given more of Wright's starts to handle, to get him used to the knuckler.
Aside from giving the young Vazquez a mental break from catching the knuckleball, Hanigan is the prototypical veteran, reliable, defensive minded, good AB, backup catcher who can be a good resource for Vazquez both on and off the field (game calling plus preparation).

I feel it's far more likely that Swihart is a part of a larger deal than we move Hanigan who doesn't figure to give us much return. He seems to be much more valuable in his role in Boston than any player that we could get in return for an older backup catcher. Plus he's a true gritty Masshole!
 

thehitcat

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,377
Windham, ME
Quoting HRB from the Early Season Bullpen Thread
Following the Owens/Hembree heart attack innings we had Barnes, Tazawa, and Ross combine for 6 K's on 1 BB and 1 H in 4 2/3 Innings. Lights Frickin Out while Carson, Koji, and Kimbrel getting the night off.

This is Barnes first season of not being jacked around from rotation to pen and back (recognizing that much of it was due to his ineffectiveness) and is settling in now that he knows his specific role. Giddy.....just Giddy!!!!
I'd like to give Farrell some kudo's for a change for seeming playing it just right with the bullpen last night. I realize he doesn't always get it right and we can all quibble with things but I'd like to give him some props when he pushes the right buttons.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
I think JBJ is playing hyper-aggressively in Fenway near the CF wall and a few balls have gotten by him on the carom. He might be trying to take the no-hop rebound directly off the Wall to try and get more runners at 2B (or make the slower ones think about it later). With no one on first, the risk might be worth it. As long as he's got back-up, it was likely to be a double anyway. With a guy on first though, he has to be more cautious.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
My eyes tell me that he's doing an incredible job in the field. He gets good jumps on the ball both going forward and backward. He's as elite a CF as there is. Compare the value of his production both at the plate and in the field to Jacoby Ellsbury and it's not even close that they made the right decision.
It really isn't close. JBJ is far better defensively, with a much, much better arm. He's killing Jacoby at the plate as well (.826 ops, 124 ops+ for JBJ vs. .695 ops, 96 ops+ for Ellsbury). All for a tiny fraction of the cost. Oh, and JBJ is just 26 while Ellsbury is 32.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Right now Hanigan is caddying Wright, so I think one of the signs that your theory could be correct, is Vazquez being given more of Wright's starts to handle, to get him used to the knuckler.
This raises an interesting question (at least I think it's interesting): is there any correlation between framing skill and ability to catch the knuckler, and if so, is it a positive or a negative correlation? I often read about how what sets great framers apart is how quiet their bodies are and how they can receive the ball with minimal apparent movement. And I also read that catching the knuckler requires a very flexible approach that doesn't commit prematurely to an expected trajectory for the ball. It occurs to me that these two requirements could be incompatible. Or it might be that both involve similar skills, just used differently. Anybody have any thoughts on this?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
No stats, but the eye test suggests they are incompatible. Objects accelerate due to gravity. A knuckleball is in the air longer than a fastball, so it will be moving toward the earth more quickly than fastball after 60 feet. And balls thrown with spin counteract gravity at least a little bit, due to the Magnus effect. Since a knuckleball has no spin, by the time it reaches the catcher it is falling much more quickly than other types of pitches. As a result, the catcher's glove is virtually always moving downwards to catch a knuckleball, or even sometimes it has to be backhanded or caught underhand. Maybe an underhanded catch could be "framed," a little side to side, but I don't really know how a glove moving downward could be adjusted in the process of the catch to portray a slightly different catch point than actual. It would be obvious, because the glove would be moving in the direction opposite from the direction it had been moving to complete the catch. Great pitch framing, to me at least (maybe those who study the fx charts will tell me I'm wrong) is when the catcher goes slightly past the point outside the plate or high low where he needs to be to catch the ball, and then moves the glove slightly back toward the zone in order to catch the ball so that it gives the appearance that he went into the strike zone to catch the ball. I just don't see how you could do this with a ball that is accelerating downwards, because the only way to do that is to move your glove with the ball to track it, or become susceptible to a passed ball.

Also, I think umpiring the kuckleball is probably different from umpiring other kinds of pitches. Given the effect of gravity, there can be a very significant difference between where the ball is caught and where it crossed the plate, because those few feet really matter. I think framing works, because umpires have to cheat a bit on 95 mile an hour pitches and look at the glove if the ball was going too fast when it crossed the plate, and often that won't be a problem. But with the knuckleball, I think the ump can't watch the glove (and really doesn't need to as much since the ball is moving much slower) because it's so unreliable with respect to where the ball crossed the plate. I think I've posted about this in gamethreads before about how it seems that umps can get a little lost when calling balls and strikes for the pitcher that is opposing the knuckleballer and also after the kuckleballer has left the game. Not sure the massive effort would be worth it, but this seems like something that could be tested with data.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
I'm not going to call them incompatible - if the knuckle is in/near the zone and stays up, a great pitch framer could do something with it. We always hear that it's better for the catcher to let the ball come to them when a KN pitcher is on the mound, but you always see numerous received ball that get jabbed at, and caught (and conversely, missed/deflected). But since the knuckleball is not a pitch really made to get backwards-Ks, it's very important for the catcher to hold onto that ball with runners on or two strikes. Outside of that (yes anecdotally), you see a lot more deflections, simply cause it doesn't matter. Maybe it matters mentally to the catcher or the pitcher, but there has to be an ease to knowing that missing it doesn't actually affect the outcome of the at-bat.

Also, I think umpiring the kuckleball is probably different from umpiring other kinds of pitches.
I too would love to see some data here, but I have to imagine that it stays the same in a certain regard. I only have known one ML umpire, but he spoke about watching the zone, not the whole delivery and trajectory - he wanted to watch the ball cross the plate area. This is why, when you see a player duck out of the way of a nasty curve, you don't see the umpire flinch: 1. they kinda have to trust the catchers, which is one area that a catcher can help his pitcher outside of just receiving and calling a good game and 2. they can't get fooled like hitters do, it would be a Not-Top-10 pretty quick. But when it comes to a knuckleball, you do need to keep a longer track of it, simply because it's not a blurry white thing cross the solid-white thing (home plate) - so mybe there is something to be said about it affecting the opposing pitcher, that'd be really fascinating.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
I too would love to see some data here, but I have to imagine that it stays the same in a certain regard. I only have known one ML umpire, but he spoke about watching the zone, not the whole delivery and trajectory - he wanted to watch the ball cross the plate area. This is why, when you see a player duck out of the way of a nasty curve, you don't see the umpire flinch: 1. they kinda have to trust the catchers, which is one area that a catcher can help his pitcher outside of just receiving and calling a good game and 2. they can't get fooled like hitters do, it would be a Not-Top-10 pretty quick. But when it comes to a knuckleball, you do need to keep a longer track of it, simply because it's not a blurry white thing cross the solid-white thing (home plate) - so mybe there is something to be said about it affecting the opposing pitcher, that'd be really fascinating.
I've never spoken to an MLB ump, but I have heard lower level umps talk about needing to cheat because they can't always pick up the ball in the zone.

But for this discussion, isn't the important part that the entire premise of pitch framing is that the umpire is not calling the strike based solely on watching the zone? Framing would be irrelevant if umps didn't need to cheat. So, maybe a better way to frame my hypothesis is that if pitch framing is a thing at all, I would think it less effective on the knuckleball since the umpire is probably better able to see the ball in the zone and even if he couldn't wouldn't be able reliably to use where the catcher caught the ball as any kind of evidence of whether it was a strike or not.
 
Last edited:
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
I'd like to give Farrell some kudo's for a change for seeming playing it just right with the bullpen last night. I realize he doesn't always get it right and we can all quibble with things but I'd like to give him some props when he pushes the right buttons.
Matt Barnes sacking the F up would make lots of people look brilliant. Farrell gets far too much blame when a reliever doesn't perform to expectations in a role, and now he's getting too much credit when a reliever (or two) outperforms expectations. Other than black-and-white stuff like Doubront batting in a tied WS game, it's really easy to overrate the short-term tactical decisions a manager makes, and underrate the long-term strategic decisions - like rest management and sharpness management, morale management, media and expectations management, etc.