171 replies to this topic

[Kramerica Industries]

HriniakPosterChild, on 12 June 2011 - 12:37 AM, said:

I'm certain that Boras prefers that his clients go to arb each year to maximize their income and reach free agency at the earliest possible date. But Alex Rodriguez preferred to sign a multiyear deal with the M's when he became arb-eligible. That worked out okay in the long run.

(I am almost certain that the M's didn't buy out a free agency year. My point is that Boras really does let his clients figure out which way they want to point the car even if they do expect him to do much of the driving.)

Carlos Gonzalaz came to mind as Boras client who gave up free agent seasons. It was a massive contract however.

Quote

The Rockies agreed on a seven-year, $80 million contract with outfielder Carlos Gonzalez

http://www.denverpos...7#ixzz1P4N8mcxv

[HriniakPosterChild]

Kramerica Industries, on 12 June 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

Carlos Gonzalaz came to mind as Boras client who gave up free agent seasons. It was a massive contract however.

I can only see Theo committing that kind of long term money to two outfielders if he's extremely comfortable about having a good cost controlled third man. You could argue he's got expensive corner outfielders right now with Ellsbury in center, but the end was in sight on J.D. Drew's deal when he made the commitment to Carl Crawford.

If I'm right, Ryan Kalish's development will have a lot to do with whether Theo gets an extension from Ellsbury, because Boras clients don't usually give deep discounts on free agent years.

[CSteinhardt]

Eric Van, on 11 June 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

A terrific analysis that I believe needs only one sentence changed (the one in bold).

First, it's not a quantum leap; it's the evolution and maturation of the major adaptation he made in 2009 at the start of June, when he hit .302 / .365 / .439 the rest of the way. That's why many of this saw this coming (someone has a sig where I quote the argument for his becoming a superstar.)

And it is not pitch recognition, which has always been terrific (making him an excellent two-strike hitter), it's pitch anticipation, looking for specific pitches much more often, rather that defensively reacting to whatever is thrown.

After being ahead 2-0, after being behind 0-2:

2008: 69, 121
2009: 71, 226
2011: 213, 170

You know, I'm really glad you've previously explained that unless otherwise indicated we should assume your posts aren't intended to reflect reality, because otherwise I'd be highly tempted to cite you for flagrant crimes against statistical validity.

You're really using what is, as of now, a 40 PA / 29 AB sample to conclude that he's gotten better after 2-0 counts? If that's the case, why not look at a similar sample size in 2010:

In 2010, Ellsbury had a 157 sOPS+ after a 1-0 count (36 PA), but just 28 after 0-1 (42 PA). So the real difference between the 2010 and 2011 Ellsbury is surely that he's gotten better by recovering his previous skills in ]defensive hitting situations! [/sarcasm]

In 2009, Ellsbury had just a 15 sOPS+ after a 3-0 count (33 PA). So it's even worse than you're making it out to be!

In 2008, you mention his 121 OPS+ after a 0-2 count, but that just 69 after a 1-2 count. The difference is that on a 0-2 count, he went 15-55, and those 55 AB were very good compared to the league. If he had a couple fewer hits, it makes an inordinate difference. Especially when you're going to pick the very best of about 20 ways you could have sliced the data in order to claim you've found something.

Of course, you've done that again in 2011, haven't you? On a 2-0 count, Ellsbury in 2011 is 4-6, with a double and a homer. Which bumps those 40 PA up by a wide margin; after a 3-0 count, we're down a 108 sOPS+.

Incidentally, if you want an alternative explanation, the difference is that the league as a whole is hitting for less power in 2011 compared to 2008/2009, while Ellsbury (as is common for 27 year olds compared to 25 year olds) is hitting for the most power in his career. Compare, say, Ichiro over the same period:

Ichiro (2-0, 0-2):
70, 139
107, 209
(91, 217 in 2010)
100, 194

So, yeah, your argument is best summed up as:

- Ellsbury is hitting for more power. I have no clue why, so I'm going to cherry-pick statistics from tiny sample sizes and hope I can convince people I know why.

Like I said, you really need to include that disclaimer about your posts not being intended to reflect reality in your sig or something, because otherwise it's not fair to the casual reader of SoSH.

[Eric Van]

CSteinhardt, on 12 June 2011 - 07:04 PM, said:

[absolute nonsense not worthy of repetition.]

Is this the least self-aware post in SoSH history? It's fucking hysterical.

The overall pattern is exactly as I stated, which is to say, exactly as I predicted two years ago: Ellsbury this year, so far, has gone from being a guy who was dramatically better (relative to everyone else) when behind in the count to the opposite. Here's every PA from the three seasons (sOPS+ (PA)):

No Cherry Picking

Split	2008-9	2011
First Pitch	86 (135)	130 (31)
Ahead / Full	88 (427)	135 (109)
Even	94 (238)	171 (84)
Behind	148 (431)	97 (91)

And then there are the situational splits (team ahead, tied, behind; and 0, 1, and 2 outs) which also cover ever PA without cherry-picking and are also exactly as predicted.by the same hypothesis.

Now, I happen to toss in the "After 2-0" and "After 0-2" splits to help people grasp the data, because those are the best splits to look at quickly, in terms of combining a decent sample size with an actual advantage for the batter of pitcher. 1-0 and 0-1, the advantage isn't big enough, 3-0, the sample size is too small. They're the only other performance-by-count stats I ever look at, besides ahead / even / behind / first pitch.

Now, your goal here is not to arrive at any kind of truth or grasp of reality, but to try to make me look bad.

So you construct a "counter-argument" by cherry-picking the one stat I quoted that actually had a SSS while ignoring the three serts of data that included every PA.

And you then proceed to waste, what, 30 or 45 minutes of your life, cherry- picking and quoting the meaningless counter-examples.

[Rough Carrigan]

Kramerica Industries, on 12 June 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

Carlos Gonzalaz came to mind as Boras client who gave up free agent seasons. It was a massive contract however.



http://www.denverpos...7#ixzz1P4N8mcxv

Andruw Jones also did with Atlanta, though that, supposedly, only came after his father felt that Boras was trying to steer the process to get Jones out of Atlanta and to a possibly bigger contract somewhere else and told Boras to cut the shit and do what his son wanted which was to get the best contract he could from the Braves.

[CSteinhardt]

Eric Van, on 12 June 2011 - 08:09 PM, said:

Is this the least self-aware post in SoSH history? It's fucking hysterical.

The overall pattern is exactly as I stated, which is to say, exactly as I predicted two years ago: Ellsbury this year, so far, has gone from being a guy who was dramatically better (relative to everyone else) when behind in the count to the opposite. Here's every PA from the three seasons (sOPS+ (PA)):

No Cherry Picking

Split	2008-9	2011
First Pitch	86 (135)	130 (31)
Ahead / Full	88 (427)	135 (109)
Even	94 (238)	171 (84)
Behind	148 (431)	97 (91)

And then there are the situational splits (team ahead, tied, behind; and 0, 1, and 2 outs) which also cover ever PA without cherry-picking and are also exactly as predicted.by the same hypothesis.

Now, I happen to toss in the "After 2-0" and "After 0-2" splits to help people grasp the data, because those are the best splits to look at quickly, in terms of combining a decent sample size with an actual advantage for the batter of pitcher. 1-0 and 0-1, the advantage isn't big enough, 3-0, the sample size is too small. They're the only other performance-by-count stats I ever look at, besides ahead / even / behind / first pitch.

Now, your goal here is not to arrive at any kind of truth or grasp of reality, but to try to make me look bad.

So you construct a "counter-argument" by cherry-picking the one stat I quoted that actually had a SSS while ignoring the three serts of data that included every PA.

And you then proceed to waste, what, 30 or 45 minutes of your life, cherry- picking and quoting the meaningless counter-examples.

Oh, so he's best when the count is even, just as you predicted. Oh, you know, these sliced and diced statistics can pretty much say anything when you invent enough of them and get to pick which measure to look at.

And you're still claiming that 40 PA is a decent sample size and trying to defend the 2-0/0-2 splits. Luckily, hundreds of years of mathematics have gone into helping us figure out what sort of sample size is too small. Even when you don't know the uncertainty in individual trials. For example, in one such method we might randomly pick 40 PA out of the 40 PA that he's had, with replacement, and consider the standard deviation in sOPS (one SD is approximately 41 for the 2-0 count and 51 for the 0-2 count, although I've done a simple MC and haven't tried to think about whether sOPS is defense/park/etc. adjusted). If those errors are uncorrelated, adding in quadrature gives a one-sigma error estimate of 63 on the difference between 2-0 and 0-2 count sOPS. If so, In other words, come back and draw conclusions when you have a larger sample size, and do so with statistical validity.

[Eric Van]

CSteinhardt, on 12 June 2011 - 10:11 PM, said:

And you're still claiming that 40 PA is a decent sample size and trying to defend the 2-0/0-2 splits. Luckily, hundreds of years of mathematics have gone into helping us figure out what sort of sample size is too small. Even when you don't know the uncertainty in individual trials. For example, in one such method we might randomly pick 40 PA out of the 40 PA that he's had, with replacement, and consider the standard deviation in sOPS (one SD is approximately 41 for the 2-0 count and 51 for the 0-2 count, although I've done a simple MC and haven't tried to think about whether sOPS is defense/park/etc. adjusted). If those errors are uncorrelated, adding in quadrature gives a one-sigma error estimate of 63 on the difference between 2-0 and 0-2 count sOPS. If so, In other words, come back and draw conclusions when you have a larger sample size, and do so with statistical validity.

It's hard to say who's the troll here, as I seem to be able to bait you into more time wasting. Your claims to the contrary, the 2-0 and 0-2 counts are not part of the argument. "Now, I happen to toss in the "After 2-0" and "After 0-2" splits to help people grasp the data."

Funny thing is, when you want to illustrate a point by quoting the most relevant sub-split, even if you know that, by itself, that split can never be statistically significant because the SS is too small ... four times out of five the split will back up your argument, and can be used to underline the point you've already made.

You may now take 30 minutes to explain to us why it's evil to quote the numbers that best illustrate the already established effect, when they happen to trend in the expected direction, but to omit them in the occasional instances when they flukily run counter.

[terrynever]

Got this in the mail today at work:

http://www.baseballa...r-ellsbury.html

[twothousandone]

terrynever, on 13 June 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

Got this in the mail today at work:

http://www.baseballa...r-ellsbury.html

Are they suggesting a higher LD% = stronger? Because, just above, we have a sensible suggestion (I'll pass on whether or not it is supported by data) that he's a bit more agressive in hitters counts, and I can see how that might lead to a better LD %.

Given how seriously he seemed to approach rehab (at least in the off-season, as his time in Arizona during the 2010 season led some to question his seriousness), I can certainly buy that he is stronger. I'd also think that proper coaching could also lead to him being more aggressive in hitters counts. Has anyone seen write-ups to suggest "who" may have provided that coaching? Is Scott Hatteberg coaching?

[Sprowl]

The major difference I see in Ellsbury's approach at the plate is that he has retired the Boggs-style defensive opposite-field slap, and on outside pitches he is now using a full-body swing. He always had what used to be called his batting-practice swing, but through 2009 he only brought it out for a few situations, especially changeups from RHP. We didn't see that swing very often, probably because Ellsbury was so vulnerable to high heat that he quickly got into pitcher's counts and had to protect the plate. Now he has the timing and the power to catch up to high fastballs, and pitchers have to respect his ability to drive the ball. Ellsbury's power zone has expanded, and pitchers have started to nibble instead of pounding the strike zone. There are some costs to the new approach -- Ellsbury's K-rate is a career-high 17%, and his walk rate is no better than his career average -- but they are costs the Red Sox will happily incur in return for the power and aggression.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

twothousandone, on 13 June 2011 - 11:42 AM, said:

Are they suggesting a higher LD% = stronger? Because, just above, we have a sensible suggestion (I'll pass on whether or not it is supported by data) that he's a bit more agressive in hitters counts, and I can see how that might lead to a better LD %.

Given how seriously he seemed to approach rehab (at least in the off-season, as his time in Arizona during the 2010 season led some to question his seriousness), I can certainly buy that he is stronger. I'd also think that proper coaching could also lead to him being more aggressive in hitters counts. Has anyone seen write-ups to suggest "who" may have provided that coaching? Is Scott Hatteberg coaching?

Yeah, it's a weird conclusion to jump to from the stats he cited. A better LD% and a lower ground ball and popup %? Sounds like he's just making better contact, I'm not sure how much added strength has to do with it. Hell, he even says that his popups are going shorter distances then previously. Kind of a bizarre argument to make from the data provided.

[chrisfont9]

HriniakPosterChild, on 12 June 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

I can only see Theo committing that kind of long term money to two outfielders if he's extremely comfortable about having a good cost controlled third man. You could argue he's got expensive corner outfielders right now with Ellsbury in center, but the end was in sight on J.D. Drew's deal when he made the commitment to Carl Crawford.

If I'm right, Ryan Kalish's development will have a lot to do with whether Theo gets an extension from Ellsbury, because Boras clients don't usually give deep discounts on free agent years.

Seems like a factor would be how both sides view Ellsbury's injury potential. If Theo thinks he's low-risk, he'll want to do a deal. If Boras thinks he's low risk, he won't want to do a deal. If Ells is spooked by what happened last year, whether he sees himself as low risk or not, he might prefer a deal. The media shitheads will probably portray Ells as high risk, which will distract the low-information fans, which would discourage a deal from happening unless both sides steadfastly ignore it. Unless Ells has an MVP-level year, in which case the Sox and fans will be salivating for a deal, and Boras will throw himself in front of Ellsbury's car to stop one from happening.

[terrynever]

chrisfont9, on 13 June 2011 - 01:12 PM, said:

Seems like a factor would be how both sides view Ellsbury's injury potential. If Theo thinks he's low-risk, he'll want to do a deal. If Boras thinks he's low risk, he won't want to do a deal. If Ells is spooked by what happened last year, whether he sees himself as low risk or not, he might prefer a deal. The media shitheads will probably portray Ells as high risk, which will distract the low-information fans, which would discourage a deal from happening unless both sides steadfastly ignore it. Unless Ells has an MVP-level year, in which case the Sox and fans will be salivating for a deal, and Boras will throw himself in front of Ellsbury's car to stop one from happening.

If the Sox are as good as they appear to be, why would a young player like Ellsbury walk away from a potential dynasty?

[redsox2020]

So we're not demanding he bat 9th or including him as a throw in on every potential trade any more? Awesome.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

terrynever, on 13 June 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

If the Sox are as good as they appear to be, why would a young player like Ellsbury walk away from a potential dynasty?

$$$$$

[chrisfont9]

terrynever, on 13 June 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

If the Sox are as good as they appear to be, why would a young player like Ellsbury walk away from a potential dynasty?

I'd like to say he'll factor that in, but I wouldn't assume too much about his relationship with the club.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

We're approximately 44% of the way through the season now and Ellsbury has been outstanding to this point.

fWAR (AL CF)
2nd

fWAR (MLB CF)
5th

fWAR (AL OF)
3rd

fWAR (MLB OF)
8th

wOBA (AL CF)
2nd

wOBA (MLB CF)
4th

wOBA (AL OF)
5th

wOBA (MLB OF)
14th

This is where stands among his peers without taking into context his ability to steal bases. When we look at wRC (which includes SB and CS statistics) we see him moving up a bit.

wRC (AL OF)
4th

wRC (MLB OF)
7th

wRC (AL CF)
2nd

wRC (MLB CF)
3rd

And this is how he fares when we move on to wRC+ which is league adjusted.

wRC+ (AL CF)
2nd

wRC+ (AL OF)
5th

wRC+ (MLB CF)
4th

wRC+ (MLB OF)
15th

[Eric Van]

Snodgrass'Muff, on 20 June 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

We're approximately 44% of the way through the season now and Ellsbury has been outstanding to this point.

BP has him 8th in MLB in RARP, which is based on TAv (EqA). Gonzalez is 6th, Papi 14th, Youk 15th.

[Shelterdog]

terrynever, on 13 June 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

If the Sox are as good as they appear to be, why would a young player like Ellsbury walk away from a potential dynasty?

BBA said it already, but straight cash.

Plus he's not that young. He turns 28 soon so this is probably his one monster contract.

[Punchado]

Also, I haven't seen any games live and I don't have any numbers to back it up but is it possible that Ellsbury has also become even more handsomer this season?

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Shelterdog, on 21 June 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

BBA said it already, but straight cash.

Plus he's not that young. He turns 28 soon so this is probably his one monster contract.

And his agent is Boras.

[Rasputin]

Punchado, on 21 June 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

Also, I haven't seen any games live and I don't have any numbers to back it up but is it possible that Ellsbury has also become even more handsomer this season?

By about 8%.

[bakahump]

Rasputin, on 21 June 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

[qoute]View PostPunchado, on 21 June 2011 - 02:07 PM, said:
Also, I haven't seen any games live and I don't have any numbers to back it up but is it possible that Ellsbury has also become even more handsomer this season?[/qoute]



By about 8%.

According to Boras he is expected to continue to get more handsome by 4-8% annually. If he continues on this career path he will become the most handsome man ever to play MLB by 2018 and is projected to bring in an additional 87 Million dollars in Pink Hats alone by 2020. If you look at this binder he has put together you will clearly see why Jacoby McCabe Ellsbury is certianly worth 200 million dollars over the next 11 years.

[fenwaypaul]

bakahump, on 21 June 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:

According to Boras he is expected to continue to get more handsome by 4-8% annually. If he continues on this career path he will become the most handsome man ever to play MLB by 2018 and is projected to bring in an additional 87 Million dollars in Pink Hats alone by 2020. If you look at this binder he has put together you will clearly see why Jacoby McCabe Ellsbury is certianly worth 200 million dollars over the next 11 years.

That 8% increase in 2011 is an outlier though. It's obvious from the four-dimensional plot that the results are skewed by all the good hair days in June.

[John DiFool]

15 HRs now, which probably blows all preseason projections out of the water. With both him and Pedroia having power surges, the Sox should be set at 1-2 for several years at least.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

John DiFool, on 20 July 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

15 HRs now, which probably blows all preseason projections out of the water. With both him and Pedroia having power surges, the Sox should be set at 1-2 for several years at least.

Except for that pesky issue of whether they can re-sign him. Of course if they do, they should be set at 1-4 for multiple years.

Edit: Or at least 1-3. Forgot Youks contract is up after next year.

Edited by Bucknahs Bum Ankle, 20 July 2011 - 03:09 PM.

[Joshv02]

Bucknahs Bum Ankle, on 20 July 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:

Except for that pesky issue of whether they can re-sign him. Of course if they do, they should be set at 1-4 for multiple years.

Edit: Or at least 1-3. Forgot Youks contract is up after next year.

The Sox carry an option on Youkilis for 2013.

The starting 9 11 will come off the books after the following years:

1. Ellsbury - 2013 (arb for 12 and 13)
2. Pedroira -- 2015 (team option last year)
3. Gonzalez -- 2018
4. Youkilis - 2013 (team option last year)
5. Ortiz -- 2011
6. Crawford -- 2017
7. Drew -- 2011
8. Reddick -- 2016 (all min or arb)
9. Saltalamacchia - 2013 (arb for 12 and 13)
10. Scutaro -- 2012 (team/player option last year)
11. Lowrie -- 2014 (arb for 12, 13 and 14)

It is fairly staggered, but post 2013 will be the next period for big changes. I'm OK with not worrying too much about what happens after 2013 until at least sometime during the end of 2012. I'd like to enjoy this core rather than fret about it.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Even before today, Ells was 7th in fWAR. If Pedroia deserves some MVP love, so does Dreamboat. Pretty crazy that the Sox have three legit MVP candidates in Adrian, Pedey, and Jacoby. They likely steal votes from each other, blah, blah, but all currently deserve consideration (assuming Bautista gets hit by a bus...)

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Yeah, Bautista is having such a gaudy year numbers-wise that I'm guessing this is all academic, but Pedroia is probably at the top of the list for Red Sox players with Gonzalez and Ellsbury both clawing at his heels. This offense has turned out to be exactly as good as we were hoping, which is remarkable. The next few years are going to be a joy to watch, as this team should be a threat to win the division in each of them.

That said, the Red Sox entered today with the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th spots in wRC+ locked up in the AL. Reddick doesn't qualify, but his 189 would rank 2nd in the AL. Small sample size, to be sure (and no, I don't expect him to continue to hit that well), but the offense over the last month or so has been epic.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Ellsbury woke up this morning third in the league in fWAR with 5.0, behind only Bautista (6.9) and his teammate Pedroia (5.4). At his current pace he'd finish the season at 8.4.

A funny note that kind of sums up the relentlessness of this offense: Ellsbury's .375 OBP is good for 12th in the league--but only 5th on his own team.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Savin Hillbilly, on 21 July 2011 - 06:44 AM, said:

A funny note that kind of sums up the relentlessness of this offense: Ellsbury's .375 OBP is good for 12th in the league--but only 5th on his own team.

Obviously an adjunct of that, but even more compressed: Ells is fifth in the AL in times on base, but only third on his own team.

[Larry Gardner]

bakahump, on 21 June 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:

According to Boras he is expected to continue to get more handsome by 4-8% annually. If he continues on this career path he will become the most handsome man ever to play MLB by 2018 and is projected to bring in an additional 87 Million dollars in Pink Hats alone by 2020. If you look at this binder he has put together you will clearly see why Jacoby McCabe Ellsbury is certianly worth 200 million dollars over the next 11 years.

His HAN+, normalized to league average, and with ballpark effects is 163.
Other notables: John Lackey 52, Freddie Garcia 21.5, Bartolo Colon 8.2, Willie McGee -5.5, Lyle Lovett -25

[Super Nomario]

Worthy of note: he blew away his career-high in HR a while ago, but with today's 2B Jacoby has tied his career high in doubles and extra-base hits for a season - in fewer than 100 games.

[ObstructedView]

Super Nomario, on 24 July 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

Worthy of note: he blew away his career-high in HR a while ago, but with today's 2B Jacoby has tied his career high in doubles and extra-base hits for a season - in fewer than 100 games.

According to my Yankee fan brother-in-law, this is conclusive evidence of steroid use -- especially since Ells was injured last year. But of course, Curtis Granderson's unprecedented power numbers are purely the result of subtle swing changes encouraged by the MFY brain trust.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

ObstructedView, on 25 July 2011 - 09:56 AM, said:

According to my Yankee fan brother-in-law, this is conclusive evidence of steroid use -- especially since Ells was injured last year. But of course, Curtis Granderson's unprecedented power numbers are purely the result of subtle swing changes encouraged by the MFY brain trust.

Dear Idiot Brother-in-Law: 27 is the typical age for a power surge/peak. And you have 4 pounds of cottage cheese where your brain should be. Small curd.

[bowiac]

ObstructedView, on 25 July 2011 - 09:56 AM, said:

According to my Yankee fan brother-in-law, this is conclusive evidence of steroid use -- especially since Ells was injured last year. But of course, Curtis Granderson's unprecedented power numbers are purely the result of subtle swing changes encouraged by the MFY brain trust.

In fairness, Granderson's power surge is much smaller than Ellsbury's. Granderson had hit 30HRs before, and is on a 44 HR pace this year. Ellsbury's career high was 8 before, and is on pace for 25. That's a big difference...

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

bowiac, on 25 July 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

In fairness, Granderson's power surge is much smaller than Ellsbury's. Granderson had hit 30HRs before, and is on a 44 HR pace this year. Ellsbury's career high was 8 before, and is on pace for 25. That's a big difference...

Ellsbury's way down on his triples. 10 last year but only two this year, probably because some of those balls that were staying in the park last year are being hit out this year.

[amarshal2]

Smiling Joe Hesketh, on 25 July 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

Ellsbury's way down on his triples. 10 last year but only two this year, probably because some of those balls that were staying in the park last year are being hit out this year.

That's assuming triples are typically long fly balls that stayed in the park. I'm not sure that's the case. Even if it is, this argument could support the idea of PED's -- i.e., he's now muscling out balls that used to fall short.

The better point is just noting that his XBH's in total are way, way up -- 2B's in particular. A massive increase in doubles points more strongly to improving the way he's hitting overall than it does PED use. Additionally, he's always had the HR swing in BP, he just couldn't bring it to games (Theo must have said this 30 times). It's the same as the jump Cano made, bringing that smooth BP swing to games. Of course, PED's could be helping him recover faster, blah blah blah, so we'll never know.

[cwright]

Larry Gardner, on 21 July 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

His HAN+, normalized to league average, and with ballpark effects is 163.
Other notables: John Lackey 52, Freddie Garcia 21.5, Bartolo Colon 8.2, Willie McGee -5.5, Lyle Lovett -25

Any appearance metric that has Freddie Garcia lower than John Lackey is seriously flawed.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

He could just be having a fluky year with his HR/FB rate. He's at 15.1%, by far the highest of his career. His IFFB% is on par with 2009, but his line drive rate is way up from 17.7% in 2009 to 24.9% this year, indicating he's simply making better contact. He's ranked 7th in the majors in LD%, so while it's a huge improvement, it's not an unsustainable rate. I wouldn't be surprised to see him drop back a little next season, or even the rest of this season, but I think it's entirely possible he's simply coming into his own as one of the best outfielders in the game.

If he can maintain even 75% of this offensive production going forward, he'll be enormously valuable.

As an aside, with Ellsbury and Pedroia having MVP caliber years, Lester having established himself as one of the top pitchers in baseball, Papelbon being one of the best closers, and Bard becoming (arguably) the best set up man in the bigs, the Red Sox scouting and development program is looking mighty good at this point. They'll have drafted and developed five of the best players in the majors (excluding Youks, since they didn't draft him), with three of them being players that few thought could reach this level of production. There's probably a good bit of luck involved there, but you have to give the front office some credit as well.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 25 July 2011 - 11:45 AM.

[WayBackVazquez]

bowiac, on 25 July 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

In fairness, Granderson's power surge is much smaller than Ellsbury's. Granderson had hit 30HRs before, and is on a 44 HR pace this year. Ellsbury's career high was 8 before, and is on pace for 25. That's a big difference...

Ellsbury hit 9 in 145 games in 2008.

Derek Jeter's career high was 10 before he hit 19 in only 149 games. When you're talking about previous career highs, it's really not saying that much when the career consists of only 2 seasons.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Snodgrass'Muff, on 25 July 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

As an aside, with Ellsbury and Pedroia having MVP caliber years, Lester having established himself as one of the top pitchers in baseball, Papelbon being one of the best closers, and Bard becoming (arguably) the best set up man in the bigs, the Red Sox scouting and development program is looking mighty good at this point. They'll have drafted and developed five of the best players in the majors (excluding Youks, since they didn't draft him), with three of them being players that few thought could reach this level of production. There's probably a good bit of luck involved there, but you have to give the front office some credit as well.

According to B-R, Youk was drafted by the Sox in the 8th round of the 2001 draft. Unless you mean by "they didn't draft him" the current administration, and I wouldn't hold which GM/Owner was in the seat against this in this situation

[Quintanariffic]

Lose Remerswaal, on 25 July 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

According to B-R, Youk was drafted by the Sox in the 8th round of the 2001 draft. Unless you mean by "they didn't draft him" the current administration, and I wouldn't hold which GM/Owner was in the seat against this in this situation

Youkilis was drafted when Duquette was still GM and The Yawkey Trust still the owner. The new ownership inherited him in the off-season between 2001 and 2002 and Theo didn't become GM until the 2002-2003 off-season. Youk made his Sox debut in 2004 and became a regular in 2006 after Millar was put out to pasture. Theo and Co maybe get half credit for finishing his development and being present when his power surge appeared.

FWIW, Lester was drafted under the interm GM administration of Mike Port. Maybe give Theo 3/4 credit for that, as there was certainly signficant development during his watch.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Yeah, I simply meant he wasn't drafted by this front office. I was mostly remarking on how much better Ellsbury and Pedroia have been than was expected, and to a lesser degree, Papelbon as well. That they are currently (or in the past have) out produced even the wildest predictions that could have been made when they were drafted says a lot about this front office and their ability to scout. Again, there's luck involved with any prospect, and especially so with those that become MVP type players, but they picked these two guys and they've worked out as well as can be expected, they chose to stick with Lester and Youk, and Papelbon and Bard have ended up as two of the best relievers in baseball. That's an impressive list, and that's before you get into Buchholz, who had a great year last year and really seemed to be on the verge of emerging as a front line starter before getting hurt, or the slew of young players who have shown promise as well (Reddick, Kalish, Lowrie) or the list of prospects that are having great seasons (Lavarnway, Middlebrooks, Head, ect ect).

This tangent probably belongs in the "Developmental Machine" thread more than here, but looking at Ellsbury and his ridiculous production this year got me to thinking about how impressive this front office has been at drafting and developing players. It's a treat to see them having this much success without cracking the top half of the draft order even once, and while continuing to spend big on free agents and extensions to keep talent around.

I thought taking a moment to truly appreciate how good we have it right now was appropriate.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Moments like the endings of the last two games are the kinds of things that vault a guy like Ellsbury into the MVP debate. I am one who thinks that statistics can only take you so far in an MVP debate (like winnowing down the contenders) and then the team and performance at key times tends to take over. Ellsbury, Pedroia and Gonzalez are all contenders at this point. We shall see what happens. Another couple of walkoffs, and Jacoby is the favorite.

In other news, this MLB.com video includes the most excited sounding Joe Castiglione I have ever heard.

Edited by LahoudOrBillyC, 04 August 2011 - 01:59 AM.

[CaptainLaddie]

He is on pace for 45 doubles, 27 homers, 122 runs scored, 97 RBIs, 46 stolen bases and a .373 OBP.

For the record, here's a list players who have done that in a season:







That is correct: no player has ever put up those numbers. Hanley Ramirez can make most of those numbers in his 2007 season (except the RBI total). If you're willing to make it 75 XBH, 120 R, 95 RBI, 35 SB and a .373 OBP, you get:

Ty Cobb, Barry Bonds, George Sisler, Kiki Cuyler, Ken Williams and Jose Canseco. That's a hell of a company to be in.

Edited by CaptainLaddie, 04 August 2011 - 02:26 AM.

[phragle]

Does 5/75 get it done? Does 6/95?

[bosockboy]

phragle, on 04 August 2011 - 01:51 AM, said:

Does 5/75 get it done? Does 6/95?

Really doubt it. Boras is going to sell him as Rickey Henderson redux; however I could see Boras signing an extension early to capitalize on this season. Maybe 6/120.

Going to be hard to shoe horn into the budget with Crawford drawing that same money.

[tonyarmasjr]

bosockboy, on 04 August 2011 - 06:22 AM, said:

Really doubt it. Boras is going to sell him as Rickey Henderson redux; however I could see Boras signing an extension early to capitalize on this season. Maybe 6/120.

Going to be hard to shoe horn into the budget with Crawford drawing that same money.

Are you talking about after this season or when he becomes a FA? I don't know who to compare him to to try to see what the market is is for guys at his talent level with 2 years of arbitration left. In recent Sox history, Youk and Pedroia both signed earlier than that, but Youk's was 4/41 and Pedroia's was 6/40.5 (the offseason after he won the MVP). The highest annual salary either of them have (including post-arb years) is Youk's $13 mil club option in 2013. Ellsbury's making $2.4 this season, his first over $500k. He might get 6/120 on the open market right now, but if that's the asking price I don't see an extension getting done.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I don't think there's any real reason to lock up Ellsbury now unless you are getting a significant discount; and that's extremely unlikely due to his agent, his breakout season, and the fact he's only two years from free agency.

Sox control him through his age 29 season, the best move may be to go year to year, let him walk, and ideally you've got Kalish (or someone else) ready to step in. I know we get attached to the homegrown guys but you can't really keep all of them at market rates without significantly increasing the payroll.