246 replies to this topic

[Kid T]

I guess my point is.... this seems to be closer to the best case scenario, right?

Not in my opinion, as the context again is that he was playing against competition that was mostly several years older than he was. I wouldn't expect to see him in Boston as a regular until 2013 at the earliest. I think he was rushed a bit to see how he would respond.

Lavarnway's brief defensive exposure in the major leagues looked promising, with a good arm and competent receiving skills.

I am by no means the best judge of baseball talent, but I have watched a few games of him including some minor league games and the minor league all-star game that was on MLB Network. His receiving and blocking skills were areas that seemed to be the areas that needed the most work. In the all-star game, he appeared to be stabbing at pitches (though in fairness, he was catching unfamiliar pitchers). If he ever becomes Napoli, I'd be ecstatic. I just think that his defense is still a ways away from even Napoli at this point.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

He also advanced a level and played as one of the youngest players in AAA. It's akin to watching college freshman against juniors. There's no question that Iglesias didn't set the world on fire, but we should view his performance in context.

A college freshman who came from another country and had all sorts of things to master.

Plus, I would expect that one of these off-seasons, we are going to see a report where Iglesias "completely changed his body" or something like that. Assuming (but without knowing for sure), I would expect the training that he could take advantage in the States is a lot better than what he's ever been exposed to.

And then there are the supplements . . . .

[Super Nomario]

i don't think Elvis Andrus is Iglesias's absolute ceiling, because I think Iglesias can be a better fielder than Andrus, though Andrus is a much better baserunner than Iglesias will be (base running is overrated but Andrus put up 7.7 baserunning runs last year, that's insane) but not enough to make up for the difference in fielding. I think Iglesias can be better than andrus is now

Andrus is 18 months older than Iglesias and has already spent 3 years in the majors. He was much, much more advanced with the bat than Iglesias at the same age.

[ClutchCarl13]

Andrus is 18 months older than Iglesias and has already spent 3 years in the majors. He was much, much more advanced with the bat than Iglesias at the same age.

sorry, forgot to clarify, I meant I think Iglesias can be better than Andrus now, by a decent amount, but not prime Andrus.

[phragle]

Alexi Ramirez put up 4.9 WAR this year, most prospects don't reach the majors, to get a 4.9 WAR per year player would be fantastic, for some people's expectations of Iglesias.

Cool story bro.

[TheGoldenGreek33]

Andrus is 18 months older than Iglesias and has already spent 3 years in the majors. He was much, much more advanced with the bat than Iglesias at the same age.

And even then, he doesn't have Andrus' wheels.

[Super Nomario]

There have been 81 20+ run fielding seasons by a SS, people compare Iglesias to a lot of these players, Rey Ordonez put up 33 runs, Mark Belanger put up 35, people are saying Iglesias can be as good as those players, now if he does that with a .315 wOBA, he would have a 6.5 WAR, which is equal to Adrian Gonzalez this year and the best SS in the majors, that's why I called 20 runs shooting low. If Iglesias can put up Mark Belanger fielding numbers, he could put up a 5.0 WAR season with Yuniesky Betancourt or Alcides Escobar hitting, he could even have a 4.5 WAR season with Adam Dunn's numbers this year. So let's say my 5 WAR is reasonable, since it's his first 6 seasons, maybe he gets 23 WAR instead of 30, amount of money a player is worth is WAR*4. 23*4= 92, 92 million, add in Iglesias's rookie salary for 6 years, and the Red Sox save 91,997,660 million bucks.

Whoa whoa whoa.

Rey Ordonez put up 33 runs ONCE (per Fangraphs; BBR puts it at 25). He averaged 10-11 runs (72.3 total, 7 full seasons and a couple partials) per Fangraphs. Mark Belanger put up 35 once, and in the 25 range a few other times. He averaged more like 17. You're taking the best seasons of the best fielders ever and assuming Iglesias can do those every year.

[ClutchCarl13]

Whoa whoa whoa.

Rey Ordonez put up 33 runs ONCE (per Fangraphs; BBR puts it at 25). He averaged 10-11 runs (72.3 total, 7 full seasons and a couple partials) per Fangraphs. Mark Belanger put up 35 once, and in the 25 range a few other times. He averaged more like 17. You're taking the best seasons of the best fielders ever and assuming Iglesias can do those every year.

When did I say every year? I'm talking about Iglesias' best year, because the question was what is his ceiling, I think he'll average 3 WAR a year, and in his best year he might put up 5.5 or maybe more.

[ClutchCarl13]

oh and for people not comfortable with high WAR's with a .315 wOBA, Luis Aparicio put up 6.1 WAR in 1960 with a .315 wOBA, and in 1960 the average wOBA was .319, it's .315 this year.

[Super Nomario]

oh and for people not comfortable with high WAR's with a .315 wOBA, Luis Aparicio put up 6.1 WAR in 1960 with a .315 wOBA, and in 1960 the average wOBA was .319, it's .315 this year.

Isn't it .323 this year for the AL? I thought wOBA matched league OBP average.

[ClutchCarl13]

Isn't it .323 this year for the AL? I thought wOBA matched league OBP average.

I was using full league numbers, which I shouldn't have been but it's .321 for the AL this year and .322 for the AL in 1960. wOBA is very close, but dosen't match exactly/

Edited by ClutchCarl13, 15 October 2011 - 05:37 PM.

[radsoxfan]

oh and for people not comfortable with high WAR's with a .315 wOBA, Luis Aparicio put up 6.1 WAR in 1960 with a .315 wOBA, and in 1960 the average wOBA was .319, it's .315 this year.

This is going to get dangerously down the path of understanding WAR and UZR but.....

If someone puts up a 6 WAR because of hitting, then they actually did put up a 6 WAR. If someone puts up a 6 WAR because of fielding, they probably didn't.

Take Ordonez for example. He put up a 33 UZR in one season. But overall in his career he was in the +10 range. Since we know that defensive stats need to be averaged over many seasons to be accurate, clearly he wasn't actually a +33 defender. It was just too small of a sample size.

Ordonez' 3.3 WAR that season is clearly flawed, since it's so heavily based on a UZR that, in retrospect, was not indicative of his true value that year (unless someone wants to argue he was truly THAT good in 1999, and that much better than he was the rest of his career).

Every other season Ordonez had a WAR between -1.3 and 1.4. For his entire 9 year career, he produced 4.2 WAR. In other words, he was terrible. And I would argue that he was probably terrible in 1999 as well (despite supposedly putting up a 3.3 WAR), and the WAR stat is just inaccurate for that season beause its based on a UZR number we pretty much know is inflated.

So pointing to a season in which someone had a .315 wOBA and 6 WAR is kinda silly, since its almost certainly a statistical blip, and not indicative of the player's value that season.

Edited by radsoxfan, 16 October 2011 - 02:00 AM.

[ClutchCarl13]

This is going to get dangerously down the path of understanding WAR and UZR but.....

If someone puts up a 6 WAR become of hitting, then they actually did put up a 6 WAR. If someone puts up a 6 WAR because of fielding, they probably didn't.

Take Ordonez for example. He put up a 33 UZR in one season. But overall in his career he was in the +10 range. Since we know that defensive stats need to be averaged over many seasons to be accurate, clearly he wasn't actually a +33 defender. It was just too small of a sample size.

Ordonez' 3.3 WAR that season is clearly flawed, since it's so heavily based on a UZR that, in retrospect, was not indicative of his true value that year (unless someone wants to argue he was truly THAT good in 1999, and that much better than he was the rest of his career).

Every other season Ordonez had a WAR between -1.3 and 1.4. For his entire 9 year career, he produced 4.2 WAR. In other words, he was terrible. And I would argue that he was probably terrible in 1999 as well (despite supposedly putting up a 3.3 WAR), and the WAR stat is just inaccurate for that season beause its based on a UZR number we pretty much know is inflated.

So pointing to a season in which someone had a .315 wOBA and 6 WAR is kinda silly, since its almost certainly a statistical blip.

I hate that argument, I think that single season UZR's are just as accurate as single season wOBA's. For example, Babe Ruth's career wOBA was .510, but in 1920 he had a .600 wOBA, does that make his 14.1 WAR not real, single season UZR numbers should be treated the same as single season wOBA numbers, sometimes the wOBA fluctuations are even bigger than the UZR ones. Take Cy Semour for example, his career wOBA was .360, but one year, he became Ty Cobb lite and had a .461 wOBA because he hit .377. Or Kevin Mitchell, his career wOBA was .329, but one year he put up a .451 wOBA

[phragle]

Thank you for ruining the thread

[radsoxfan]

I hate that argument, I think that single season UZR's are just as accurate as single season wOBA's. For example, Babe Ruth's career wOBA was .510, but in 1920 he had a .600 wOBA, does that make his 14.1 WAR not real, single season UZR numbers should be treated the same as single season wOBA numbers, sometimes the wOBA fluctuations are even bigger than the UZR ones. Take Cy Semour for example, his career wOBA was .360, but one year, he became Ty Cobb lite and had a .461 wOBA because he hit .377. Or Kevin Mitchell, his career wOBA was .329, but one year he put up a .451 wOBA

Regardless of your personal feelings about that argument, it doesn't make it any less true. UZR requires many seasons worth of stats to stabilize, whereas wOBA is a stat based on a series of events which we know provided a certain value. If someone has a .500 wOBA, then we know how much offensive value he provided that season. The same simply isn't true for UZR.

Take a hypothetical player who hits exactly the same every year his entire career. Then assume this player is a very good defender. We know from experience that very good defenders often still have very large UZR fluctuations from season to season. It's highly likely this player could play an entire career with a WAR that ranged from 0 to 5, with absolutely no change in his wOBA.

Does that mean this player sometimes is useless, and sometimes is an All-Star? Or is it much more likely that this is a 2-3 win player with statistical blips on each end of the spectrum that are artificially introduced by the stats being used? I don't discount that sometimes players have fielding slumps or better fielding seasons than others, but not nearly to the extremes that UZR might make us believe.

My guess is that if Iglesias puts up a peak 5 WAR season, it will more likely be a statistical aberration of a season that wasn't actually that valuable. Unless of course he turns the corner and becomes a much better hitter than I am expecting.

Edited by radsoxfan, 16 October 2011 - 02:03 AM.

[radsoxfan]

Thank you for ruining the thread

Considering a huge part of Iglesias' value is tied to how you want to look at his fielding ability, fielding stats, and UZR, it seems pretty relevant (although admittedly somewhat tangential)

[ClutchCarl13]

if Iglesias had a good UZR for one year, and was lousy for every other year, that would be a different story, but Belanger was a consistently good fielder. UZR takes about 3 years to stabilize.

[Sprowl]

I hate that argument, I think that single season UZR's are just as accurate as single season wOBA's. For example, Babe Ruth's career wOBA was .510, but in 1920 he had a .600 wOBA, does that make his 14.1 WAR not real, single season UZR numbers should be treated the same as single season wOBA numbers, sometimes the wOBA fluctuations are even bigger than the UZR ones. Take Cy Semour for example, his career wOBA was .360, but one year, he became Ty Cobb lite and had a .461 wOBA because he hit .377. Or Kevin Mitchell, his career wOBA was .329, but one year he put up a .451 wOBA

Regarding UZR: it is measured relative to other fielders at the same position during the same year. That is why Brett Gardner, an excellent left fielder, can have UZRs in the 30s while the very best shortstop can't touch 12 -- too much depends on the other players in the pool, especially those at the bottom of the position.

Single-season UZR/150 figures are still the best single-season figures I have seen for fielding, but they need to be put into positional context more than offensive performance.

[ClutchCarl13]

Regarding UZR: it is measured relative to other fielders at the same position during the same year. That is why Brett Gardner, an excellent left fielder, can have UZRs in the 30s while the very best shortstop can't touch 12 -- too much depends on the other players in the pool, especially those at the bottom of the position.

Single-season UZR/150 figures are still the best single-season figures I have seen for fielding, but they need to be put into positional context more than offensive performance.

UZR+positional adjustment is probably the way to go when comparing players to players at different positions, then Alexi Ramirez has 18.9, and Gardner has 20.0, Gardner is barely better, but it's very close.

[radsoxfan]

UZR+positional adjustment is probably the way to go when comparing players to players at different positions, then Alexi Ramirez has 18.9, and Gardner has 20.0, Gardner is barely better, but it's very close.

As a final point . . . if you think a player with a single season UZR of 20.0 definitively had a better defensive year than someone with a single season 18.9, you are mistaken.

The error bars are large, and you are pretending like they don't even exist at all.

[ClutchCarl13]

As a final point . . . if you think a player with a single season UZR of 20.0 definitively had a better defensive year than someone with a single season 18.9, you are mistaken.

The error bars are large, and you are pretending like they don't even exist at all.

when did I say he was definitively better, I said that if you used UZR + positional adjustments, the numbers were much closer and Gardner's were better, I was just talking about the numbers, I do think Gardner had a better season because using 3 year UZR/150+ postional Gardner has 24.2 per year, and Ramirez has 15.2

[phragle]

Considering a huge part of Iglesias' value is tied to how you want to look at his fielding ability, fielding stats, and UZR, it seems pretty relevant (although admittedly somewhat tangential)

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the poster that thinks "that single season UZR's are just as accurate as single season wOBA's."

[ClutchCarl13]

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the poster that thinks "that single season UZR's are just as accurate as single season wOBA's."

they're not.

[JimBoSox9]

I would like to average Nomario and ClutchCarl's Iglesias opinions to create a single poster who has reasonable and moderate expectations for Jose. It would also have the benefit of cutting the idiot noise in the thread in half.

1) saying Iglesias took a 'step back' because of his 2011 slash stats, in the face of obvious and repeated evidence that even mediocracy in AAA at his age is exceedingly rare, is crazy. I PROMISE you that however the Sox internally evaluate him, his 2011 slash stats are barely even a part of the conversation.

2) you don't get to dispute #1 by saying Andruws had better success at that age. You might as well point out that A-Rod was further along at that age too. Just a totally unrealistic comp.

3) Niot even going to address the bullish projections and MLE mangling, as that's been well done already by others.

4) there really is a middle ground between Elvis Andruws and being an offensive black hole.

[Super Nomario]

1) saying Iglesias took a 'step back' because of his 2011 slash stats, in the face of obvious and repeated evidence that even mediocracy in AAA at his age is exceedingly rare, is crazy. I PROMISE you that however the Sox internally evaluate him, his 2011 slash stats are barely even a part of the conversation.

I assume you mean "mediocrity." Yes, mediocrity in AAA at Iglesias' age would have been rare and impressive. He was not mediocre; he was awful.

Are you saying that Iglesias' hitting performance in 2011 is irrelevant? Or are you saying that the front office has a way of evaluating his batting performance in the context of his age and level? I would agree with the latter but not the former, but I submit that even with such a contextual adjustment his season rates as a poor and disappointing one.

4) there really is a middle ground between Elvis Andruws and being an offensive black hole.

Of course there is. His 2011 performance was an offensive black hole. He is young enough to improve to get into that middle ground. I'm dubious he will.

[bloodysox]

But he wouldn't have hit like that in A+. Those MLEs aren't adjusted for age. Just because I can't hit .250 off Verlander coming out of high school doesn't mean I can't hit .300 in the NYPL. He hasn't been playing at an age-appropriate level for his bat. When Iglesias was at Lowell (again, the only age-appropriate level he's seen), he hit .350/.458/.500 with 7 BB/8 K and 4 XBH in 40 AB. It's a miniscule sample size (everything we have is), but a .958 OPS is almost Pujols-like.
Just using soxprospects' rankings, the other top-ranked position players in the system, and where they played their age 20, 21 seasons:

Middlebrooks - A, A+
Kalish - A/A+, A+/AA
Lavarnway - A-, A
Brentz - Coll., A-
Jacobs - A, ?
Coyle - A, ?
Cecchini - A-, ?
Vitek - Coll., A-/A
Head - A/A+, ?
Tejeda - A+, AA

None of them sniffed AAA, most of them didn't even get a whiff of AA, and none of them were there at age 20. Iglesias put up a .672 OPS at AA last year, empty as it may have been. Tejeda, the only other guy on that list to get a full season of AA in before he was 22, just posted a .636.

Well said. Totally agreed.

[ClutchCarl13]

Okay we all agree that as a 21 year old in AAA, a mediocre line would be pretty impressive for Iglesias, using the stats from minorleaguecentral.com and Chris dutton's xBABIP calculator, Iglesias should have a .326 BABIP but only had a .279 BABIP, if you adjust for this, and give him his expected BABIP, his line is .282/.332/.316 the slugging isn't good, but that's a mediocre line. People are calling him the best defensive shortstop they've ever seen and he's like 4 years younger than the average player in AAA. I think Iglesias has a very bright future.

[ClutchCarl13]

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the poster that thinks "that single season UZR's are just as accurate as single season wOBA's."

okay, i said it wrong, I meant that single season UZR's are more reliable than most people think, I got carried away.

[SumnerH]

okay, i said it wrong, I meant that single season UZR's are more reliable than most people think, I got carried away.

http://www.fangraphs...phs-uzr-primer/ is worth reading. It's written by Michael Lichtman, the inventor of UZR. The Sample Size and Reliability section is particularly relevant, but the whole thing is worth reading if you're going to use UZR or other defensive PBP metrics.

[ClutchCarl13]

http://www.fangraphs...phs-uzr-primer/ is worth reading. It's written by Michael Lichtman, the inventor of UZR. The Sample Size and Reliability section is particularly relevant, but the whole thing is worth reading if you're going to use UZR or other defensive PBP metrics.

1 1/2 to 2 years to stabilize. Mark Belanger did above 20 a couple times easily then. So did a lot of other people that people compare Iglesias to. Why can't we go 20 UZR for Iglesias, according to most people he's the only 80 defensive SS in the minors right now.

Edited by ClutchCarl13, 22 October 2011 - 06:24 PM.

[phragle]

okay, i said it wrong, I meant that single season UZR's are more reliable than most people think, I got carried away.

What makes you think that? Unless something changed it still takes about 3 seasons to be considered reliable. It's blasphemy to compare it to wOBA.

[absintheofmalaise]

okay, i said it wrong, I meant that single season UZR's are more reliable than most people think, I got carried away.

I read back through some of your posts here. You need to educate yourself on what UZR does and doesn't do. It is certainly not reliable using only one year and it is definitely not predictive. As for the use of pre-2002 WAR, you do realize that the defensive component it uses is Total Zone and that TZ uses box scores and PbP data to come up with the defensive stats don't you. So they are basically, recreating the game and using an educated guess as to whether an average fielder would have gotten to the ball or not. You're on some pretty shaky ground using any single season stats, much less defensive stats or combo stats like WAR.

There are a couple of threads pinned on here about UZR and WAR. They have some links in them to what MGL has said about UZR. If you can, you might want to compare how the various defensive metrics rate players. Many times there is a huge difference in what one says about a player and what another one does.

[phragle]

1 1/2 to 2 years to stabilize. Mark Belanger did above 20 a couple times easily then. So did a lot of other people that people compare Iglesias to. Why can't we go 20 UZR for Iglesias, according to most people he's the only 80 defensive SS in the minors right now.

Brah, right in the link [that SumnerH posted]

How many UZR opportunities do you need for UZR to be reliable? There isn't any magic number. If I asked you how many AB you need before a player's BA becomes reliable, you would likely answer, "I don't know. The more the merrier I guess." That is true with UZR and with all metrics. Of course, for some metrics, you need more or less data than for other metrics for an equivalent reliability. It depends on the sampling error and the spread in underlying talent, and other things that are inherent in that metric. Most of you are familiar with OPS, on base percentage plus slugging average. That is a very reliable metric even after one season of performance, or around 600 PA. In fact, the year-to-year correlation of OPS for full-time players, somewhat of a proxy for reliability, is almost .7. UZR, in contrast, depending on the position, has a year-to-year correlation of around .5. So a year of OPS data is roughly equivalent to a year and half to two years of UZR.

Edited by phragle, 22 October 2011 - 06:37 PM.

[ClutchCarl13]

I read back through some of your posts here. You need to educate yourself on what UZR does and doesn't do. It is certainly not reliable using only one year and it is definitely not predictive. As for the use of pre-2002 WAR, you do realize that the defensive component it uses is Total Zone and that TZ uses box scores and PbP data to come up with the defensive stats don't you. So they are basically, recreating the game and using an educated guess as to whether an average fielder would have gotten to the ball or not. You're on some pretty shaky ground using any single season stats, much less defensive stats or combo stats like WAR.

There are a couple of threads pinned on here about UZR and WAR. They have some links in them to what MGL has said about UZR. If you can, you might want to compare how the various defensive metrics rate players. Many times there is a huge difference in what one says about a player and what another one does.

I understand that but the absolute value of the difference of UZR and TZ in 2010 per player was 5.833. Give or take 5.8333 runs, (belanger could actually be better) and Belanger is still above 20. In comparison DRS was at 5.083333 per player. .8 runs isn't much, maybe that is just the difference between normal fielding stats as that is about the difference between TZ and DRS as well, maybe TZ is much better than we're giving credit for.

Edited by ClutchCarl13, 22 October 2011 - 07:06 PM.

[ClutchCarl13]

What makes you think that? Unless something changed it still takes about 3 seasons to be considered reliable. It's blasphemy to compare it to wOBA.

1 1/2 seasons isn't that much different than 1, it's not like it needs 3 seasons, that's why I think single season UZR's are more reliable than most people think.

[absintheofmalaise]

1 1/2 seasons isn't that much different than 1, it's not like it needs 3 seasons, that's why I think single season UZR's are more reliable than most people think.

I'm gonna cherry pick some stats here.
Player 1
-.3
6.4
-4.7

Player 2
15.3
.6
-2.9

Which seasons are predictive?

[MrDaniel]

I'm gonna cherry pick some stats here.
Player 1
-.3
6.4
-4.7

Player 2
15.3
.6
-2.9

Which seasons are predictive?

I'm pretty confident that I could find OPS numbers that looked like that for at least a couple players league wide.

[JakeRae]

I'm gonna cherry pick some stats here.
Player 1
-.3
6.4
-4.7

Player 2
15.3
.6
-2.9

Which seasons are predictive?

None of the above. Now, tell me which one isn't descriptive.

[Savin Hillbilly]

But I have a tough time seeing him as a much better than average overall player.

I want to come back to this, because I think you're probably right: average looks like his ceiling, and that's why I retain some degree of optimism about Iglesias. Average players are useful.

The other thing I think some are forgetting is that even developing players can have off years, and they can obscure the overall developmental pattern. Adrian Gonzalez at 21 had a .777 OPS in 152 PA at Florida's AA club, then got promoted to AAA and promptly shat the bed, hitting .574 in 154 PA. He then got traded to Texas, where he hit just .719 for their AA club for the remainder of the year. His overall OPS for the season was .692. He had never hit that badly before, and never would again. How would this board have evaluated a 21-year-old first baseman after a .692 OPS season, the majority of which was spent in double-A? Not optimistically, I suspect.

So I think it's a little too soon to draw conclusions. Nothing we saw this year is promising, but if scouts still think he has the potential to develop into even a mediocre major league hitter--and with his defense, that's all he needs to be--then I'd like to see more before we give up.

[radsoxfan]

I want to come back to this, because I think you're probably right: average looks like his ceiling, and that's why I retain some degree of optimism about Iglesias. Average players are useful.

Absolutely true. I just have a hard time being all that excited about someone who optimistically, will be an average overall player. Useful to be sure, especially as a cost controlled player, just not exactly what I'm looking for from a "top prospect".

Also worth noting that a big market team like the Red Sox needs average players from their farm system less than other small market teams who can't afford to buy guys like that on the open market.

They still absolutely have value to the Sox, just slightly less so. Big market teams would rather have high risk, high reward guys since they can fill in the gaps easier on the FA market (even though this is certainly less efficient money-wise).

[Rudy Pemberton]

Average player is kind of his peak, though. Lots of guys "like" Iglesias slogged through 1000+ PA's at the big league level with OPS under 600. Look at Vizquel, for example. Had full seasons of 534, 595, and 594 OPS before busting out with a 692 at the age of 25 (and dipping back to 618 the next year). Granted if he's turning water into wine in the field than you can tolerate that, but there were always be a lot of pressure on him in a major market if he's hitting poorly.

[Super Nomario]

Okay we all agree that as a 21 year old in AAA, a mediocre line would be pretty impressive for Iglesias, using the stats from minorleaguecentral.com and Chris dutton's xBABIP calculator, Iglesias should have a .326 BABIP but only had a .279 BABIP, if you adjust for this, and give him his expected BABIP, his line is .282/.332/.316 the slugging isn't good, but that's a mediocre line. People are calling him the best defensive shortstop they've ever seen and he's like 4 years younger than the average player in AAA. I think Iglesias has a very bright future.

EDIT: sorry, poor reading comprehension on my part.

Edited by Super Nomario, 23 October 2011 - 01:33 PM.

[Super Nomario]

Okay we all agree that as a 21 year old in AAA, a mediocre line would be pretty impressive for Iglesias, using the stats from minorleaguecentral.com and Chris dutton's xBABIP calculator, Iglesias should have a .326 BABIP but only had a .279 BABIP, if you adjust for this, and give him his expected BABIP, his line is .282/.332/.316 the slugging isn't good, but that's a mediocre line. People are calling him the best defensive shortstop they've ever seen and he's like 4 years younger than the average player in AAA. I think Iglesias has a very bright future.

I get .314 xBABIP (using 357 AB, 1 HR, 58 K, 12 SB, 18.1 LD%, 60 FB, 20 pop-ups, 190 GB). I'm not sure why you're getting different results.

Iglesias' power was so poor last season (9 2B, 0 3B, 1 HR in 357 AB) that I think we have to expect a poorer-than-average BABIP. BABIP of NL pitchers in 2011, for instance, was .222. I can't find the more advanced formulas for xBABIP online (they're properietary maybe?), but from http://www.hardballt...ters-and-babip/ many of the additional factors that weigh into this formula will hurt Iglesias: batting eye, pitches per xbh, speed score, pitches per plate appearance, being right-handed.

[nighthob]

Absolutely true. I just have a hard time being all that excited about someone who optimistically, will be an average overall player. Useful to be sure, especially as a cost controlled player, just not exactly what I'm looking for from a "top prospect".

Also worth noting that a big market team like the Red Sox needs average players from their farm system less than other small market teams who can't afford to buy guys like that on the open market.

They still absolutely have value to the Sox, just slightly less so. Big market teams would rather have high risk, high reward guys since they can fill in the gaps easier on the FA market (even though this is certainly less efficient money-wise).

I'm going to disagree slightly. I think his ceiling is above average if we're strictly looking WAR, that is I still think that Iglesias profiles as a mediocre hitter (which will keep him in the positive range with his defense). Seven or eight years ago I would have agreed with you, I was one of those that didn't like the Cabrera trade. But after watching the effect his defense had on the pitching staff I became a convert, and really hated seeing him go.

So there are a specific set of circumstances under which I feel that average/slightly above average players (in terms of WAR) are underrated. And that would be sterling defensive players at C/SS, because at those two spots defense is more important (OK, if you hit like Joe Mauer or A-Rod back in the day you can make up for it, but let's avoid the extremes for the moment). I watched enough Pawsox games this year to see that Iglesias is pure fielding porn, and having that defense at short is a huge plus, so long as his offensive performance is merely below average. Of course, if he's the new Mark Belanger then he'll be here for (at least some of) his cost controlled years and probably be bundled into a trade sometime, but that's a debate for another day.

[Plympton91]

I fall on the side of being one of the least bullish posters about Iglesias's ability to help the Red Sox within the 2012-2013 window, and I think basically they should just plan for the next 2 years as if he's not around.

But, there are a couple of glimmers of optimism about his season. He showed some improvement over the second half -- though, once again, he showed a Lowrie tendency to get hurt -- putting up a .250 / .304 / .313 after the all-star break and .300 / .382 / .467 over his last 10 games (33 PA). And, against lefthanders over the full season, he managed to post a .299 / .340 / .340 line. So there is a very reasonable chance that he will take a strong step forward a AAA next year based on the late season improvment, and also some evidence in his much better performance against lefthanders that recognition of high quality breaking pitches is a part of the problem and hence correctable with experience.

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

I get .314 xBABIP (using 357 AB, 1 HR, 58 K, 12 SB, 18.1 LD%, 60 FB, 20 pop-ups, 190 GB). I'm not sure why you're getting different results.

Iglesias' power was so poor last season (9 2B, 0 3B, 1 HR in 357 AB) that I think we have to expect a poorer-than-average BABIP. BABIP of NL pitchers in 2011, for instance, was .222. I can't find the more advanced formulas for xBABIP online (they're properietary maybe?), but from http://www.hardballt...ters-and-babip/ many of the additional factors that weigh into this formula will hurt Iglesias: batting eye, pitches per xbh, speed score, pitches per plate appearance, being right-handed.

For the reasons you mention, I agree that Iglesias is unlikely to put up elite BABIPs. Still, you're neglecting to mention GB%, which factors into BABIP in a pretty big way, and Iglesias had an exceptionally high GB% this year (61%). I'd imagine his BABIP goes up significantly in 2012.

[Super Nomario]

For the reasons you mention, I agree that Iglesias is unlikely to put up elite BABIPs. Still, you're neglecting to mention GB%, which factors into BABIP in a pretty big way, and Iglesias had an exceptionally high GB% this year (61%). I'd imagine his BABIP goes up significantly in 2012.

I agree, his GB % was ridiculously high. I don't know that that is a fluke, however; if he really has little or no batting skill, we would expect him to hit a lot of GB. MLB pitchers as batters this year had a GB % of 60.2. I expect his BABIP to improve somewhat; how much is the question. Based on his batting profile, his .360 BABIP in '10 looks like a bigger fluke than his .279 last season.

[SumnerH]

None of the above. Now, tell me which one isn't descriptive.

For UZR, it could be any or all of them. See the "Does UZR tell us what actually happened on the field?" section of the link I posted. UZR numbers can vary based on things that have nothing to do with in-game performance. You can have 2 different PBP observers watch exactly the same videotapes of a fielder's season and come up with different UZR values based on the observers' biases as to what is, say, a hard fly ball versus a soft line drive.

[alskor]

For UZR, it could be any or all of them. See the "Does UZR tell us what actually happened on the field?" section of the link I posted. UZR numbers can vary based on things that have nothing to do with in-game performance. You can have 2 different PBP observers watch exactly the same videotapes of a fielder's season and come up with different UZR values based on the observers' biases as to what is, say, a hard fly ball versus a soft line drive.

Exactly. Even beyond that, pretty much all observers tend to spot balls closer to the fielder who made the play than the actual location of where the play was made. Maddening. Its a bizarre inherent bias that defies full explanation.

UZR has some very serious problems and I'm not at all convinced of its continued utility. It might actually be worse than what we were using before.

I still think that Iglesias as a hitter can be helpful at the bottom of a lineup. The secondary skills will never impress but he can be effective enough if he focuses on putting the ball in play and trying to make things happen. I wouldn't hesitate at all to bring in competition every year. Iglesias is a player that will look quite good the years his BIP are falling in and very useless when they're not.

EDIT: Cleaned up wording.

Edited by alskor, 27 October 2011 - 03:13 PM.

[nvalvo]

Okay we all agree that as a 21 year old in AAA, a mediocre line would be pretty impressive for Iglesias, using the stats from minorleaguecentral.com and Chris dutton's xBABIP calculator, Iglesias should have a .326 BABIP but only had a .279 BABIP, if you adjust for this, and give him his expected BABIP, his line is .282/.332/.316 the slugging isn't good, but that's a mediocre line. People are calling him the best defensive shortstop they've ever seen and he's like 4 years younger than the average player in AAA. I think Iglesias has a very bright future.

Are the BABIP assumptions reliable in the minors? I'm genuinely not sure.