246 replies to this topic

[Super Nomario]

Putting here so as not to derail the Buehrle discussion.

tonyarmasjr, on 13 October 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

1) That's wrong. He slugged .379 in 2010, split between Lowell and Portland. His combined slash line was .295/.339/.379/.719. And that was with the majority of his season spent at Portland, as a 20 year old. He would have been the youngest player on our AA team this season. (2) He only has one season (playing at AAA in his second season of pro ball, as the 2nd youngest hitter in the IL) that doesn't show promise. But, you're probably right, we should give up hope that he'll ever rival Kevin Cash at the plate. Make sure we all do that by January, when he'll turn 22.

1) He only slugged .357 in Portland, and in only 221 AB. That performance included 0 home runs, in a park the same dimensions as Fenway in left. But fair enough; his 2010 was better than his 2011. Is that a good sign or a bad sign?
2) I'm not saying the Sox should cut him, or that he has no shot. I just think the chances of him playing as an everyday SS for the Red Sox, barring injury, are very low.

I'm sure there was a reason the Red Sox started him in Pawtucket and left him there all year even though he was doing so poorly offensively. And his age does give him more room for growth than if he was 24, sure. But the "second-youngest hitter in IL" doesn't do much for me, since he was the worst hitter in the IL. I imagine there are a fair number of 21-year-olds throughout baseball who could put up Iglesias' 2011 line playing everyday in the IL. It says something that Iglesias did play in the IL and those players didn't, but any way you slice it his 2011 campaign was very discouraging.

Incidentally, I'm not sure it's a positive sign that they did keep him at AAA all year. If his failure was something specific, like "the pitchers are all throwing him curves and he can't lay off," I'd imagine they'd demote him so he could work on that skill. "He doesn't really have anything more to learn at AA" isn't a ringing endorsement if he only had a .672 OPS there.

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

I agree that Iglesias had a shitty year at the plate, but OPS is not the be-all and end-all of stats, especially for prospects. Granted, the power was pathetic, and the walk rate was not great either, but Iglesias' solid contact rate is a good sign, and it confirms what scouts have been saying about his bat speed. He's a big question mark at the moment, and I have my doubts as to whether he's ever going to be good enough to start at SS for the Red Sox, but this year wasn't quite all bad.

[JakeRae]

The thing about Iglesias is, if he can be anything better than MLB replacement level at the plate (for a SS) he's a quality starting SS. His defense is that good. That's a really low offensive bar he has to clear. His prospect stock dropped a bit this year. But, it's also really easy to overestimate how good his offense actually needs to be. If he can hit .280/.300/.350 he's more than good enough to merit a starting job. That's going to require significant improvement, but he has time to make the changes to get to that level.

[tonyarmasjr]

That .357 he slugged in Portland, though, was as a 20 year old - he was playing in an age-advanced league even then. Like I said, if he had been in AA (where I thought/think he should have been) this season, he would have been super young. And 220 ABs is about 30% of his professional ABs, if we include the fall leagues. We don't have a large enough sample to be sure of anything at this point. The only age-appropriate level he's played at was Lowell, where he raked (but, again, it was only 13 games). If he slugged .360 with an OPS of .700 in Portland this year, as the youngest player on the team, would you be saying the ship's already sailed on him becoming an average MLB hitter at SS? I don't think so. Yes, he sucked terribly in Pawtucket, and that's the largest and most recent sample we have, but it's way too early to be writing him off. I thought the Sox were too aggressive in starting him at AAA this year; I just hope/assume they know something we don't. I certainly wouldn't pencil him in at SS next year and I think it's ridiculous that people think that's an option (and even moreso that he was an option mid-season this year), but he's got at least 1000 minor league ABs left before the discussions of him as a failed prospect should even start.

Anecdote: This isn't an argument of any sort; I just found it interesting. He'll never be the hitter Nomar was or Hanley is, but out of curiosity I looked up their tracks through the minors. The last two stud shortstops the Sox have produced posted ~.720 OPSs, with 8 and 6 HR, in AA when they were 21.

[terrynever]

Pardon me for interrupting but this kid is going to be a helluva major league shortstop once he matures physically. He really seems young when you see him in person, almost like a teenager. You don't see this too often in premier athletes. Iglesias is just a late bloomer. I really think you have to give Jose another year or two before you judge his offensive skills.

This won't surprise you to hear me say Iglesias is the most amazing shortstop in the field that we have ever seen in Pawtucket. He does things with his hands and reflexes that defy description, especially when he is just fooling around in batting practice. The kid is a magician, very similar to a young Alex Gonzalez.

Jose is also a very personable young man who has easily cleared the language barrier. The one thing that resonates with this kid is he loves to play the game of baseball. That in itself makes him fun to watch.

[Super Nomario]

tonyarmasjr, on 13 October 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

That .357 he slugged in Portland, though, was as a 20 year old - he was playing in an age-advanced league even then. Like I said, if he had been in AA (where I thought/think he should have been) this season, he would have been super young. And 220 ABs is about 30% of his professional ABs, if we include the fall leagues. We don't have a large enough sample to be sure of anything at this point. The only age-appropriate level he's played at was Lowell, where he raked (but, again, it was only 13 games). If he slugged .360 with an OPS of .700 in Portland this year, as the youngest player on the team, would you be saying the ship's already sailed on him becoming an average MLB hitter at SS? I don't think so. Yes, he sucked terribly in Pawtucket, and that's the largest and most recent sample we have, but it's way too early to be writing him off. I thought the Sox were too aggressive in starting him at AAA this year; I just hope/assume they know something we don't. I certainly wouldn't pencil him in at SS next year and I think it's ridiculous that people think that's an option (and even moreso that he was an option mid-season this year), but he's got at least 1000 minor league ABs left before the discussions of him as a failed prospect should even start.

I understand he was very young, but I don't think there's any precedent for a player with power as anemic as Iglesias having a substantial major-league career. Even guys who were total washouts as SS prospects - Gookie Dawkins, Donnie Sadler - showed more. Marginal bench guys like Mark DaRosa and Pokey Reese and Alex Cora showed more. The only guys I can find with a comparable power record are extreme no-power guys Luis Castillo, Jason Tyner, and Joey Gathright. Castillo had elite on-base abilities (consistent .400 OBP in the minors) and found success in the majors; the other guys aren't good comps (since they were college draftees and quite a bit older than Iglesias), but they both were much less effective in the majors than in the minors.

If he had returned to AA and had a .360 SLUG and a .700 OPS, it would have been a year of stagnation at the same level. That probably would still have been better than what he did at Pawtucket.

The real problem is you can't project him backwards. Yes, he was very young for AAA. Put him at AA; put him at high-A: what does he hit? He had 10 XBH in 357 AB; does he have 15 if he's playing at Salem or Portland? 20?

tonyarmasjr, on 13 October 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

Anecdote: This isn't an argument of any sort; I just found it interesting. He'll never be the hitter Nomar was or Hanley is, but out of curiosity I looked up their tracks through the minors. The last two stud shortstops the Sox have produced posted ~.720 OPSs, with 8 and 6 HR, in AA when they were 21.

8 HR and 6 HR are leagues away from Iglesias' total of 1.

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

Mark Belanger is the guy that always comes to mind for me when I think about Iglesias. He couldn't hit much in the minors (OPS of .641 as a 21 yo at AA, .691 as a 22 yo in AAA), and put up a career OPS+ of 68--over 18 seasons, 13 of them as an essentially full-time player.

I have no idea what this means, though. On one hand, the right offense could probably afford to carry him. On the other hand, I doubt Mark Belanger would get a job in the current ML.

Parenthetically, I don't see him developing much power at all, and I would hate to see him mess with his physique trying. Unintended consequences, etc.

[Brianish]

It depends what you mean by power, though. Gaudy home run numbers might be unlikely, but if the kid can learn to take a walk and hit enough line drives to produce doubles regularly, he can wind up with a respectable slugging%. Combine that with his defense and you've got a quality player, especially if you can afford to stick him in the #9 spot.

[Super Nomario]

Brianish, on 13 October 2011 - 09:36 PM, said:

It depends what you mean by power, though. Gaudy home run numbers might be unlikely, but if the kid can learn to take a walk and hit enough line drives to produce doubles regularly, he can wind up with a respectable slugging%. Combine that with his defense and you've got a quality player, especially if you can afford to stick him in the #9 spot.

I agree he doesn't need to hit HR, but his double total was probably even more damning - he only hit 9 in 357 AAA AB (and no triples). For his career, he has 21 2B and 5 3B in 618 AB. He doesn't walk at all either, 21 in 387 PA after 8 in 236 PA last year. If he can learn to walk, hit doubles, and improve his batting average, he can be decent ML hitter, but I'm not sure there's any precedent.

[Brianish]

It's not that absurd. He's below the average age by a lot. He needs to adjust to advanced pitching. He needs to develop plate discipline, something a lot of kids struggle with. Seeing the ball better in turn can lead to more line drives which will improve both his BA and doubles totals. Most scouting reports suggest his bat speed is fine and his swing is reasonable. I can't believe there's no precedent for that; it amounts to seeing the ball better.

Practice, practice, practice.

(Which isn't to say he won't flame out, but I think it's silly to give up on a kid this early).

[Super Nomario]

Brianish, on 13 October 2011 - 09:50 PM, said:

It's not that absurd. He's below the average age by a lot. He needs to adjust to advanced pitching. He needs to develop plate discipline, something a lot of kids struggle with. Seeing the ball better in turn can lead to more line drives which will improve both his BA and doubles totals. Most scouting reports suggest his bat speed is fine and his swing is reasonable. I can't believe there's no precedent for that; it amounts to seeing the ball better.

Practice, practice, practice.

(Which isn't to say he won't flame out, but I think it's silly to give up on a kid this early).

I might agree with you, but as another poster noted, his contact rate isn't bad. He's making contact, but good things aren't happening when he gets the bat on the ball. He might be able to get better pitches to hit, but it's not clear that he'll be able to do more with them once he gets them.

[Brianish]

True, but all contact isn't created equal. A kid with good hand-eye coordination who needs to work on pitch selection might connect on a lot of bad pitches, producing weak contact. Or he might just lack the bat speed necessary to make solid contact. But again, most reports on his bat speed are good, so I'm inclined to watch him for a while more.

Admittedly, I'm a little biased. Give me two players of equivalent WAR, one who gets most from defense, one from offense, and I'll pick the defense every time, if only because I like to watch it more.

[soxfan121]

P'tucket, rhymes with..., on 13 October 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

On one hand, the right offense could probably afford to carry him. On the other hand, I doubt Mark Belanger would get a job in the current ML.

You don't think a perennial gold glove quality (he won 8) SS could get a job in the current ML? I'm flabbergasted.

Iglesias is the one prospect in the system who is absolutely guaranteed to be in the major leagues ten years from now (barring injury). Guys with his defensive skills may struggle at the plate, but they are given lots of at bats by someone before losing a starting job and then they hang around FOREVER as bench guys. Adam Everrett and Rey Ordonez are two decent modern examples.

The question with Iglesias - and my worries are calmed by first hand reports about his enthusiasm for the game like the one above from terrynever - is whether he can learn to be a productive hitter. Can he hit to the right side with a runner on base? Can he learn to bunt effectively? Can he learn to put the ball in play enough to use his speed to earn a few infield hits or bleeders or bloops? If he can not be a complete negative on offense, his defense will be enough and maybe more than enough.

A truly great defensive SS helps a team's pitching staff allow less runs and be more confident about "pitching to contact".

[tonyarmasjr]

Brianish, on 13 October 2011 - 09:50 PM, said:

(Which isn't to say he won't flame out, but I think it's silly to give up on a kid this early).

And that's my point. He had 17 XBH in 261 ABs in 2010. If his defense is as billed, that type of production at the plate would be enough for him to be a highly successful major league shortstop. Precedent certainly exists. Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel didn't crack a .700 OPS until their 8th seasons in the bigs (and both were under .600 in 3 of the first 4). Those are HOF-caliber players. How close to their level he'll need to be to be considered a success I don't know. The game has certainly changed since those two came up. However, until he has a track record that's more than one full season's worth of professional ABs, how can we really compare him statistically to anybody?

[Super Nomario]

Non-college-drafted Middle infielders among the top 100 active defensive WAR, and what they did at 21. I started doing college draftees, too, but it was ridiculous to compare them because they usually had way better numbers at way lower levels. Here's the list:

Iglesias (for reference): AAA, .235/.285/.269, 21 BB / 58 K
Omar Vizquel: AA/AAA, .247/.314/.328, 47 BB / 58 K
Placido Polanco: AA, .291/.331/.346, 29 BB / 51 K
Jack Wilson: A/A+, .319/.364/.431, 34 / 54
Cesar Izturis: AAA, .292/.310/.374, 10 / 22 (also .269/.279/.388 in 46 MLB games)
Jimmy Rollins: AAA, .274/.341/.457, 49 / 55
Juan Uribe: AAA, .306/.335/.520, 12 / 47 (also .300/.325/.524 in 72 MLB games; all #s to be taken with a grain of Denver salt)
Rafael Furcal: A/A+, .322/.392/.389, 55 / 78
Benji Gil: AA, .248/.298/.376, 33 / 120
Jhonny Peralta: AAA, .257/.310/.329, 15 / 45 (also .227/.295/.326 in 77 MLB games)
Omar Infante: AAA, .223/.299/.295, 22 / 32 (also .222/.278/.258 in 69 MLB games)
Robinson Cano: AA/AAA, .283/.339/.457, 42 / 67
Maicer Izturis: AA/A+, .270/.329/.360, 41 / 54
J.J. Hardy: AAA, .277/.330/.495 (only 26 games; he hit .279/.368/.428 in AA as a 20-year the year before)
Miguel Cairo: AA, .278/.323/.336, 26 / 32
Kelly Johnson: AA, .283/.349/.439, 38 / 85
Jose Lopez: AAA, .319/.354/.505, 8 / 25 (only 44 games; also .247/.282/.379 in 54 MLB games)

The closest is Omar Infante, who was within 50 OPS points of Iglesias and has gone on to have a decent career (.275/.318/.393, 90 OPS+, with an All-Star appearance and 3 100 OPS+ seasons). It's worth noting that Infante's age-21 season was his second go-round in AAA; in his first, he hit .268/.309/.369, albeit with a worse BB / K ratio of 28 / 49.

You may look at these numbers and think, "some of these guys are pretty close to Iglesias; he can just get a little better and then he can be the next Omar Vizquel!" But keep in mind that this is not a set of everyone with comparable numbers to Iglesias; it's a set of players who had good enough careers to be in the top 100 among active players in defensive WAR. We cannot say Iglesias will not have a good major league career, but we can say that none of the top MI in career defensive WAR were as bad as Iglesias in their age 21 seasons.

[SumnerH]

soxfan121, on 13 October 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

You don't think a perennial gold glove quality (he won 8) SS could get a job in the current ML? I'm flabbergasted.

Iglesias is the one prospect in the system who is absolutely guaranteed to be in the major leagues ten years from now (barring injury). Guys with his defensive skills may struggle at the plate, but they are given lots of at bats by someone before losing a starting job and then they hang around FOREVER as bench guys. Adam Everrett and Rey Ordonez are two decent modern examples.

Iglesias is far from guaranteed to ever be a regular starter in the majors, and certainly won't be that at the outset of next year. You're way underestimating how horrible Iglesias' offense is. Nobody's saying that he needs to even be league average, but he's got to improve a ton if he wants any hope at being a regular ML player.

Everett's good years are illustrative of what Iglesias needs to be to contribute; he put up around a .320 OBP/.380 SLG for a .700 OPS over 2003-2004, making him right around replacement level with the bat. That combined with fantastic defense made him a somewhat valuable player those years. If Iglesias could improve to that range, or maybe more like .685ish with a better OBP and less SLG, then he'd have a good chance at helping the Sox out. But that means Iglesias needs to tack on 130+ points of OPS on top of making the leap from AAA to the majors. (FWIW, Everett never OPS'd below .695 for a year in the minors)

Also bear in mind that even if Iglesias is excellent with the glove, he's far from a lock to be in-his-prime Everett (probably the best ever, certainly top 3) on defense. If he's merely excellent with the glove, he may need to make up even more distance at the plate.

He's still very, very young, which means projecting him is pretty volatile and he's got time to improve. But he needs to improve a lot to become a competent ML backup, let alone a starting caliber player for a team with playoff aspirations.

Edited by SumnerH, 13 October 2011 - 11:39 PM.

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

soxfan121, on 13 October 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

You don't think a perennial gold glove quality (he won 8) SS could get a job in the current ML? I'm flabbergasted.

Settle down, Beavis, it was mostly tongue in cheek. (But, Belanger was an epically bad hitter. Or trying-to-hitter, as the case may be).

Quote

Iglesias is the one prospect in the system who is absolutely guaranteed to be in the major leagues ten years from now (barring injury).

Uh, no.

Edited by P'tucket, rhymes with..., 13 October 2011 - 11:58 PM.

[Super Nomario]

Coming at this from another angle ... how well does Iglesias need to hit to be a useful player?

Let's assume that he's as good or better a defensive SS as Ozzie Smith, Mark Belanger, Omar Vizquel, etc. These guys averaged a shade under 1.5 WAR / year defensively.

Using http://www.hardballt...oba-calculator/ to calculate wOBA, http://www.insidethe..._calculate_war/ to calculate offensive WAR, and http://mlsplits.driv...lsplits/mlecalc to generate MLEs:

Iglesias' 2010 MLE - .254 wOBA, -3.99 oWAA, -0.99 oWAR, 0.49 WAR (oWAR + dWAR) - this puts him between Salty (.7 WAR) and Aviles / Lowrie / Lavarnway (.3 WAR) among Sox position players.
Iglesias' 2011 MLE - .219 wOBA, -6.02 oWAA, - 3.02 oWAR, -1.52 WAR - this would have made him the worst player on the Sox by a good margin
Iglesias' 2010 line (imagining he could hit .285/.315/.357 for Boston) - .300 wOBA, -1.32 oWAA, 1.68 oWAR, 3.18 WAR - this would make him the sixth most valuable position player on the 2011 Red Sox, behind Papi (3.8) and ahead of Reddick (1.6) or Scutaro (1.4)
Iglesias' 2011 line (imagining he could hit .235/.285/.269 for Boston) - .257 wOBA, -3.85 oWAA, -0.85 oWAR, 0.65 WAR - similar to scenario 1
Wishcasting him to a league average .323 wOBA, he would be a 0 oWAA, 3 oWAR, 4.5 WAR player - about what Kevin Youkilis (4.3) gave the Sox last year

Assuming a 21-year-old AAA SS can deliver Ozzie-Smith-in-his-prime D is a bit far-fetched, but those of you saying he really doesn't need to hit much to contribute if he can field that well are right.

[SumnerH]

Super Nomario, on 14 October 2011 - 12:07 AM, said:

Coming at this from another angle ... how well does Iglesias need to hit to be a useful player?

Let's assume that he's as good or better a defensive SS as Ozzie Smith, Mark Belanger, Omar Vizquel, etc. These guys averaged a shade under 1.5 WAR / year defensively.

Those guys averaged 1.0 WAR defensively or a shade under (0.9 at b-ref and 1.0 at fangraphs).

1.5 WAR puts you into Belanger/Everett/Vizquel in their absolute prime kind of years with the glove.

[tonyarmasjr]

Super Nomario, on 13 October 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

We cannot say Iglesias will not have a good major league career, but we can say that none of the top MI in career defensive WAR were as bad as Iglesias in their age 21 seasons.

I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. Is a .550 OPS in the IL worse than a .700 in A+, especially when you know he already did that the year before? His age 20 numbers compare favorably to some of those guys' numbers. Would you rather have the guy pushed aggressively and struggle or "repeat" (he only played 57 games) AA and match/improve on last year's line? That's a case by case decision the FO makes, but they seem to think this was the way to go with Iglesias since they let him flail all year.

Super Nomario, on 14 October 2011 - 12:07 AM, said:

Iglesias' 2010 MLE - .254 wOBA, -3.99 oWAA, -0.99 oWAR, 0.49 WAR (oWAR + dWAR) - this puts him between Salty (.7 WAR) and Aviles / Lowrie / Lavarnway (.3 WAR) among Sox position players.
Iglesias' 2011 MLE - .219 wOBA, -6.02 oWAA, - 3.02 oWAR, -1.52 WAR - this would have made him the worst player on the Sox by a good margin
Iglesias' 2010 line (imagining he could hit .285/.315/.357 for Boston) - .300 wOBA, -1.32 oWAA, 1.68 oWAR, 3.18 WAR - this would make him the sixth most valuable position player on the 2011 Red Sox, behind Papi (3.8) and ahead of Reddick (1.6) or Scutaro (1.4)
Iglesias' 2011 line (imagining he could hit .235/.285/.269 for Boston) - .257 wOBA, -3.85 oWAA, -0.85 oWAR, 0.65 WAR - similar to scenario 1
Wishcasting him to a league average .323 wOBA, he would be a 0 oWAA, 3 oWAR, 4.5 WAR player - about what Kevin Youkilis (4.3) gave the Sox last year

Assuming a 21-year-old AAA SS can deliver Ozzie-Smith-in-his-prime D is a bit far-fetched, but those of you saying he really doesn't need to hit much to contribute if he can field that well are right.

I appreciate the number crunching and it's interesting to see. My problem is: which line is the right one? There's just as much evidence pointing to the 2010 line as the 2011 line at this point; we only have numbers from two seasons. To argue either side is basically cherrypicking data, since it's night and day between the two years (at least when it comes to his slash lines - the BB rate, for example, sucks either way). How can you conclusively say his ship has sailed as a hitter? If he repeats AAA and posts another sub-.600 OPS without improving his plate discipline, then I'll start to worry.

[BosRedSox5]

Okay, but aren't we forgetting something? That Iglesias has a whopping 618 professional at bats? It's easy to take the awful line he had in Pawtucket this season and attempt to draw conclusions but that's one season and 357 at bats. I read an article with Ben Cherington where he was quoted as saying that in international scouting there's little or no hard data so you have to rely on scouting. Seems to make sense here too. Iggy is a 21 year old in AAA, let's not close the book on him.

[soxfan121]

P'tucket, rhymes with..., on 13 October 2011 - 11:50 PM, said:

Settle down, Beavis, it was mostly tongue in cheek. (But, Belanger was an epically bad hitter. Or trying-to-hitter, as the case may be).



Uh, no.

First, even if it was "mostly" tongue in cheek, it's still a completely boneheaded assertion. You said Mark Belanger couldn't get a JOB. Which is wrong. And you don't seem to understand that Belanger was an effective major league player for nearly two decades even if he was a bad hitter. The Orioles in Belanger's tenure were consistently one of the best teams in the AL and consistently won games and Belanger (coupled with another guy you'd probably claim couldn't get a job, Brooks Robinson) was a core player on these consistently successful teams.

When you want to be funny, do it in P&G. Make a claim like a near-HOF quality defensive SS couldn't get a JOB and be prepared to back it up with more than a pithy reference to Beavis. It's shoddy posting and it shouldn't be tolerated.

Care to back up your assertions (either one - I'll let you slink away from the Belanger conversation since you're "mostly" joking)? You've dismissively said "uh, no" when quoting my claim that Iglesias will be in the majors with a JOB in a decade. Got anything of value to add, at all, or are you just content to be the guy who knows nothing about baseball history and can't argue his opinions?

[Super Nomario]

SumnerH, on 14 October 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

Those guys averaged 1.0 WAR defensively or a shade under (0.9 at b-ref and 1.0 at fangraphs).

1.5 WAR puts you into Belanger/Everett/Vizquel in their absolute prime kind of years with the glove.

You're right; I was trying to establish a high end value.

tonyarmasjr said:

I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. Is a .550 OPS in the IL worse than a .700 in A+, especially when you know he already did that the year before? His age 20 numbers compare favorably to some of those guys' numbers. Would you rather have the guy pushed aggressively and struggle or "repeat" (he only played 57 games) AA and match/improve on last year's line? That's a case by case decision the FO makes, but they seem to think this was the way to go with Iglesias since they let him flail all year.

His age 20 numbers do compare more favorably to some of these guys, which is why I didn't start this thread last year. Then he took a big step back with the bat, which was already his weakest point.

The problem with Iglesias' performance is that I don't know if he could have put up a .700 OPS in A+ hitting like he did in AAA. He had ten extra base hits on the season. Using the same MLE site as before (http://mlsplits.driv...lsplits/mlecalc), his Pawtucket line last year was the equivalent of .268/.327/.312 in Salem.

tonyarmasjr said:

I appreciate the number crunching and it's interesting to see. My problem is: which line is the right one? There's just as much evidence pointing to the 2010 line as the 2011 line at this point; we only have numbers from two seasons. To argue either side is basically cherrypicking data, since it's night and day between the two years (at least when it comes to his slash lines - the BB rate, for example, sucks either way). How can you conclusively say his ship has sailed as a hitter? If he repeats AAA and posts another sub-.600 OPS without improving his plate discipline, then I'll start to worry.

I think his ship has sailed on being a league-average hitter (or close); his ship may not have sailed on contributing enough offensively to be a major league regular (even with his defense), though I suspect he won't.

It's not night-and-day between 2010 and 2011. It's not like he put up Pujols numbers in '10; he slugged .357 and had 8 walks in 236 PA. There was some promise there, mostly because he hit .285, but it was an empty .285. When his BA dipped in '11, he completely cratered.

His 2011 numbers are more recent, at a higher level, and a larger sample. I think it's fair to weigh them more heavily.

[JB H]

Am I right that Iglesias has to stick in the majors by 2013?

I don't think it's possible for Iglesias to hit bad enough in 2012 that the Sox will dump him and forget about 6 potential cost controlled years.

He seems locked in to getting carried at the end of the major league roster like a Rule V pick. He can prob provide a little bit of legit value as a defensive replacement.

If by the time he's 25 he looks like he can put up a 670 OPS, suddenly you feel really good about starting him.

[terrynever]

A 1960s era shortstop named Ed Brinkman defined the great-field, no-hit description. He played on some bad Washington Senators teams and then moved on to Detroit where he played on a few decent teams. Played 15 seasons, had an OPS+ of 65 and a lifetime .580 OPS.

Brinkman played in an era where pitchers dominated until the mound was lowered after the 1968 season. A lot of teams had shortstops or second basemen who were in the lineup only because of their gloves. It was a different time in baseball and an old school mindset.

I think the question with Iglesias is whether Boston management values an outstanding fielding shortstop who can't hit over a guy like Scutaro or Lowrie or whoever turns up after 2012 ends. I bet if you polled Boston's pitching staff, they would vote for Iglesias as the 2013 shortstop unless he regresses again next year in Pawtucket, which I doubt. Second year in AAA ball is usually an improvement for even marginal prospects.

Patience is definitely the key with Iglesias, who I would pay money to see field the ball and get rid of it. He has a lot of Vizquel qualities, the young Vizquel who was a magician.

Edited by terrynever, 14 October 2011 - 12:31 PM.

[JB H]

Super Nomario, on 13 October 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

I understand he was very young, but I don't think there's any precedent for a player with power as anemic as Iglesias having a substantial major-league career. Even guys who were total washouts as SS prospects - Gookie Dawkins, Donnie Sadler - showed more. Marginal bench guys like Mark DaRosa and Pokey Reese and Alex Cora showed more. The only guys I can find with a comparable power record are extreme no-power guys Luis Castillo, Jason Tyner, and Joey Gathright. Castillo had elite on-base abilities (consistent .400 OBP in the minors) and found success in the majors; the other guys aren't good comps (since they were college draftees and quite a bit older than Iglesias), but they both were much less effective in the majors than in the minors.

If he had returned to AA and had a .360 SLUG and a .700 OPS, it would have been a year of stagnation at the same level. That probably would still have been better than what he did at Pawtucket.

The real problem is you can't project him backwards. Yes, he was very young for AAA. Put him at AA; put him at high-A: what does he hit? He had 10 XBH in 357 AB; does he have 15 if he's playing at Salem or Portland? 20?


8 HR and 6 HR are leagues away from Iglesias' total of 1.

You can add up all of Iglesias' stats and do a MLE translation of them to the Carolina league: http://mlsplits.driv...lsplits/mlecalc

.282/.323/.338. 576 ABs, 31 BB, 102 K, 1 HR. MLEs are really wonky and imprecise, but that line certainly passes the eyeball test

I think if a highly drafted and highly paid college player with an immaculate defensvie reputation put up that line after earning an aggressive promotion to the Carolina league in his first full season, people would be still be pretty bullish on his chances of becoming a valuable major leaguer.

His contract is certainly a downer because the Sox will likely have to carry him on the major league roster when they'd prefer to stash him in AAA. But if before his last pre-arb season the Sox are going into spring training with him as the starting SS and projecting him to be a 3 WAR player (+12 defense and a .270/.300/.340 line is about 3 WAR) then that is still a massive win for the team.

[tonyarmasjr]

Super Nomario, on 14 October 2011 - 10:55 AM, said:

The problem with Iglesias' performance is that I don't know if he could have put up a .700 OPS in A+ hitting like he did in AAA. He had ten extra base hits on the season. Using the same MLE site as before (http://mlsplits.driv...lsplits/mlecalc), his Pawtucket line last year was the equivalent of .268/.327/.312 in Salem.

It's not night-and-day between 2010 and 2011. It's not like he put up Pujols numbers in '10; he slugged .357 and had 8 walks in 236 PA. There was some promise there, mostly because he hit .285, but it was an empty .285. When his BA dipped in '11, he completely cratered.

His 2011 numbers are more recent, at a higher level, and a larger sample. I think it's fair to weigh them more heavily.

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.

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

soxfan121, on 14 October 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

Care to back up your assertions (either one - I'll let you slink away from the Belanger conversation since you're "mostly" joking)? You've dismissively said "uh, no" when quoting my claim that Iglesias will be in the majors with a JOB in a decade. Got anything of value to add, at all, or are you just content to be the guy who knows nothing about baseball history and can't argue his opinions?

Oh, lighten up. I'm the one who raised Belanger as the comparison in the first place and pointed out B's long career in spite of the fact that he couldn't hit a lick. I'd say I was being pretty generous in comparing a no-hit, hasn't done anything above A ball with the bat prospect to Mark Fucking Belanger.

And I'd be interested in the evidence for your certainty that the same guy will definitely be playing in the major leagues in ten years. I wasn't saying he won't be in the bigs, but your statement is ludicrous dick-waving on its face.

And the Brooks Robinson comment is just gratuitous assholery. Talk about setting standards for the main board.

[Super Nomario]

tonyarmasjr, on 14 October 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

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.

Nobody knows what he would have hit in A+. But the MLE is the statistical equivalent of his 2011 season, normalized to the Carolina league. Just because you can't hit .250 off Verlander doesn't mean you CAN hit .300 in the NYPL either; that's why MLEs exist.

tonyarmasjr, on 14 October 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

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.

Yes, Iglesias' 2010 season had promise. His 2011 didn't. It was brutal, and a big step backwards from 2010.

[Rudy Pemberton]

He was young for the league, but it's not like he was a 13 year old boy. How much more will he develop? The fact that he's making so much contact certainly suggests he's not hitting the ball hard. How does he get more power? Will he get stronger? If so, will it slow him down in the field? He is certainly promising because of his defensive skills, but will the Sox and their fans tolerate 3 years of a 600 OPS in the majors in the hopes that someday he has a 700 OPS? That's what you get with a lot of these guys (Vizquel, Wilson, Ordoonez, whoever).

[JakeRae]

Super Nomario, on 14 October 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:

Nobody knows what he would have hit in A+. But the MLE is the statistical equivalent of his 2011 season, normalized to the Carolina league. Just because you can't hit .250 off Verlander doesn't mean you CAN hit .300 in the NYPL either; that's why MLEs exist.


Yes, Iglesias' 2010 season had promise. His 2011 didn't. It was brutal, and a big step backwards from 2010.

MLE's really aren't intended to work in reverse. We have a lot of data about what a player who performs at X level does when promoted. We have very little data about how they perform when demoted. While it does seem that they should work in both directions, I would be skeptical of that application.

In response to the lines about Iglesias being adequate if he learns to walk, hit for average, and hit doubles, if he does all those things, his defense is as good as advertised, and he stays healthy, he could find himself in the Hall of Fame. I think that hitting for a decent average and hitting some doubles are possible. I'm not very optimistic about learning to walk. Cut down on the K's, and make a bit more solid contact boosting his average and his doubles rate and he is a solid to good regular. That's all I'm realistically hoping for at this point.

It's remarkable how a year ago, I was the guy arguing that everyone was getting way too excited about Iglesias because his bat was still a long ways away and now I'm defending his prospect status. I think a lot of the negativity here is a result of the sky high, and unrealistic, expectations people had for him this year.

[Super Nomario]

JakeRae, on 14 October 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

It's remarkable how a year ago, I was the guy arguing that everyone was getting way too excited about Iglesias because his bat was still a long ways away and now I'm defending his prospect status. I think a lot of the negativity here is a result of the sky high, and unrealistic, expectations people had for him this year.

Speaking just for myself, my negativity isn't based on sky high expectations for Iglesias. He's always been a great fielder whose ability to avoid being a complete zero with the stick would determine his future. His 2011 season points to him being a complete zero with the stick. If his bat was a long ways away after 2010, it's even farther away after 2011. That's where my negativity comes from.

[Eric Van]

JB H, on 14 October 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

Am I right that Iglesias has to stick in the majors by 2013?

No. He gets four option years, meaning he won't be out of options until ST in 2014.

[radsoxfan]

My semi-negativity comes from the fact that I just don't see a ton of upside with him.

All of the talk seems to be a debate about him being totally useless with the bat (and not a major leaguer) or decent (.270/.330/.360) right? I agree that "decent" batting line, with elite defense absolutely makes Iglesias a starting major league SS, especially given the low threshold at the position these days.

But I have a tough time seeing him as a much better than average overall player. I know he is still quite young, but does anyone think he has even a small chance to be an .750-.800+ OPS type of guy? Seems to me like the answer is no. A team like the Red Sox isn't exactly desperate to develop average players from its farm system. You can just sign a Scutaro type for a mid-level FA contract and get similar overall value. (of course admittedly you could end up with a Lugo)

I get much more excited about someone like Lavarnway, who in theory if he sticks behind the plate, could be a very valuable player. I suppose if Iglesias' absolute upside is an Elvis Andrus type, then that would be very nice as a cost controlled option at SS. But I just feel like his bat limits his ceiling as someone I can get super excited about as a prospect.

[JB H]

ty Eric.

radar - .270/.330/.360 with elite defense makes him a legitimate all star caliber player. '

Check out http://www.fangraphs...eam=0&players=0

Shortstops don't hit much these days

[TheGoldenGreek33]

Super Nomario, on 14 October 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

If his bat was a long ways away after 2010, it's even farther away after 2011.

Further away? It would be further away if his performance was against low-A pitchers. Must we reiterate for the thousandth time that he was a 21-year-old playing his first full season in the states against pitchers 3-4 years older than him? How is that experience a bad thing? I guarantee Jose was told before the year, "We don't care what the results are. Just learn." He got the highest signing bonus of any international prospect in franchise history and was given an extremely aggressive placement by Hazen & Co. I'll defer to baseball ops on this one...

[Super Nomario]

TheGoldenGreek33, on 15 October 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

Further away? It would be further away if his performance was against low-A pitchers. Must we reiterate for the thousandth time that he was a 21-year-old playing his first full season in the states against pitchers 3-4 years older than him? How is that experience a bad thing? I guarantee Jose was told before the year, "We don't care what the results are. Just learn." He got the highest signing bonus of any international prospect in franchise history and was given an extremely aggressive placement by Hazen & Co. I'll defer to baseball ops on this one...

He had a worse season with the bat in 2011 than in 2010. I don't know how that point is even arguable. He was terrible in Pawtucket. Yes, he advanced a level, but he was awful there. He is young enough that he can still improve, but his 2011 season was a step in the wrong direction.

[TheGoldenGreek33]

If you evaluate prospects solely on performance, then sure. I don't know how predicative that approach is, however.

[Kid T]

radsoxfan, on 15 October 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

My semi-negativity comes from the fact that I just don't see a ton of upside with him.

All of the talk seems to be a debate about him being totally useless with the bat (and not a major leaguer) or decent (.270/.330/.360) right? I agree that "decent" batting line, with elite defense absolutely makes Iglesias a starting major league SS, especially given the low threshold at the position these days.

But I have a tough time seeing him as a much better than average overall player. I know he is still quite young, but does anyone think he has even a small chance to be an .750-.800+ OPS type of guy? Seems to me like the answer is no. A team like the Red Sox isn't exactly desperate to develop average players from its farm system. You can just sign a Scutaro type for a mid-level FA contract and get similar overall value. (of course admittedly you could end up with a Lugo)

I think at worst, he's a great defensive SS and a mediocre bat that we can leverage in a trade with an "old school" GM

Quote

I get much more excited about someone like Lavarnway, who in theory if he sticks behind the plate, could be a very valuable player.

Maybe the better question is, what is more likely - Lavarnway improving defensively enough to stick behind the plate or Iglesias developing enough of a bat to not present a black hole in the line-up? Given those two options, I put my money on Iglesias.

Super Nomario, on 15 October 2011 - 02:06 PM, said:

He had a worse season with the bat in 2011 than in 2010. I don't know how that point is even arguable. He was terrible in Pawtucket. Yes, he advanced a level, but he was awful there. He is young enough that he can still improve, but his 2011 season was a step in the wrong direction.

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.

Edited by Kid T, 15 October 2011 - 04:02 PM.

[radsoxfan]

JB H, on 15 October 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

ty Eric.

radar - .270/.330/.360 with elite defense makes him a legitimate all star caliber player. '

Check out http://www.fangraphs...eam=0&players=0

Shortstops don't hit much these days

I'm quite aware the position is pretty ugly right now. Again, if his absolute upside is a .320 wOBA great defending SS, he is clearly at least an average SS, and this season a borderline All-Star.

I just have a tough time getting very excited if his 95th percentile projection is Elvis Andrus (and at this point his 50th percentile projection seems to be well below that).

[ClutchCarl13]

Okay, let's say Iglesias puts up a .260/.330/.360 line, looking at similar lines to that, his wOBA will be .315, a .315 wOBA is exactly average, so he creates no batting runs, people are saying Iglesias is the best defensive shortstop they've ever seen, lets give him a 20 UZR, he could probably get even more than that, but you don't know so you have to shoot low. Then add 20 replacement runs for playing 600 PA's, add in about 3 baserunning runs, as that's probably what Iglesias will get, and a 7 run positional adjustment for shortstop, he is a 5 WAR player, that is the same as Matt Holliday and Lance Berkman this year, and is only below Tulowitzki, Reyes, and Peralta as a shortstop. And Iglesias could probably put up a 25 UZR, Adam Everett did that, and Iglesias can probably be better defensively than Everett. Why would you guys be upset with .280/.330/.360, if we can get the third best shortstop in the league and a player as good as Lance Berkman and Matt Holliday this year, I would be ecstatic, I mean, if we know he can put up that line, he's easily the Red Sox #1 prospect.

[scramer14]

Like some of you have said previously, I think Iglesias CAN improve. The keyword is CAN and you have to remember he is extremely young. As long as Magadan remainder our hitting coach, I believe there is a chance that Iglesias can become a decent hitter with and outstanding glove. That's really all you need out of a SS.

[radsoxfan]

Kid T, on 15 October 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

I think at worst, he's a great defensive SS and a mediocre bat that we can leverage in a trade with an "old school" GM

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

Obviously it depends on your definition of the term "mediocre". But the worst case scenario is that he hits like he did last year and is totally incapable of setting foot on a major league field.

He is certainly young enough to improve, and I expect that he will. But based on what I've heard, his upside isn't much better than what we got out of Scutaro this season (of course better defensively, but worse offensively, as a .343 wOBA seems out of reach). Hard for me to be too excited about that.

Edited by radsoxfan, 15 October 2011 - 04:09 PM.

[Sprowl]

Kid T, on 15 October 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

I think at worst, he's a great defensive SS and a mediocre bat that we can leverage in a trade with an "old school" GM


Maybe the better question is, what is more likely - Lavarnway improving defensively enough to stick behind the plate or Iglesias developing enough of a bat to not present a black hole in the line-up? Given those two options, I put my money on Iglesias.

Lavarnway's brief defensive exposure in the major leagues looked promising, with a good arm and competent receiving skills. Mike Napoli provides an interesting precedent, and isn't looking like such a bad defender in Texas. In the middle of the all the current drama, a Salty-Lavarnway platoon is one of the more promising positions on the 2012 team, which looks strong up the middle.

Iglesias' hitting is harder to predict because he is much younger, and he appears to have been rushed. I wish there were more clips of Iglesias' fielding around, because it seem like it will be a long time before we see him play in the majors, and probably not for the Red Sox.

[radsoxfan]

ClutchCarl13, on 15 October 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

Okay, let's say Iglesias puts up a .260/.330/.360 line, looking at similar lines to that, his wOBA will be .315, a .315 wOBA is exactly average, so he creates no batting runs, people are saying Iglesias is the best defensive shortstop they've ever seen, lets give him a 20 UZR, he could probably get even more than that, but you don't know so you have to shoot low. Then add 20 replacement runs for playing 600 PA's, add in about 3 baserunning runs, as that's probably what Iglesias will get, and a 7 run positional adjustment for shortstop, he is a 5 WAR player, that is the same as Matt Holliday and Lance Berkman this year, and is only below Tulowitzki, Reyes, and Peralta as a shortstop. And Iglesias could probably put up a 25 UZR, Adam Everett did that, and Iglesias can probably be better defensively than Everett. Why would you guys be upset with .280/.330/.360, if we can get the third best shortstop in the league and a player as good as Lance Berkman and Matt Holliday this year, I would be ecstatic, I mean, if we know he can put up that line, he's easily the Red Sox #1 prospect.

First of all, the best SS in the league this season was an 11.9 UZR. Just "giving" Iglesias a 20 UZR seems kind of absurd. And thats most definitely not "shooting low". I understand he is a very good defensive SS, but I'm not sure we should be saying he is close to twice as valuable as the best defensive guys in the majors right now.

Secondly, without getting into the whole argument about how hard it is to measure defense, I find it a stretch to expect a .315 wOBA player to be giving you 5 WAR, even at SS.

Again, if I thought Iglesias' 50th percentile projection was as a .315 wOBA great defensive SS, I would be much more exited about him. I understand that he is young, so his range of possible outcomes is still very very broad (in both directions). But after last season, doesn't that still seem more like the best possible case scenario?

Personal preference perhaps, but if the best case scenario is that close to Scutaro value (who I am probably undervaluing for the sake of argument), I am just not that excited. I hope he proves me wrong and turns into a stud, but after last season I find that hard to see right now.

Edited by radsoxfan, 15 October 2011 - 04:35 PM.

[Super Nomario]

Per Fangraphs, only twice in the last ten years has someone put up a 20 UZR at SS. Everett did put up a 25 once; that's best UZR season of all time. His next-best UZR was 13.2. 12-15 is a more reasonable estimate, assuming the scouting reports are accurate.

Edited by Super Nomario, 15 October 2011 - 04:50 PM.

[ClutchCarl13]

radsoxfan, on 15 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

First of all, the best SS in the league this season was an 11.9 UZR. Just "giving" Iglesias a 20 UZR seems kind of absurd. And thats most definitely not "shooting low". I understand he is a very good defensive SS, but I'm not sure we should be saying he is close to twice as valuable as the best defensive guys in the majors right now.

Secondly, without getting into the whole argument about how hard it is to measure defense, I find it a stretch to expect a .315 wOBA player to be giving you 5 WAR, even at SS.

Again, if I thought Iglesias' 50th percentile projection was as a .315 wOBA great defensive SS, I would be much more exited about him. I understand that he is young, so his range of possible outcomes is still very very broad (in both directions). But after last season, doesn't that still seem more like the best possible case scenario?

Personal preference perhaps, but if the best case scenario is that close to Scutaro value (who I am probably undervaluing for the sake of argument), I am just not that excited. I hope he proves me wrong and turns into a stud, but after last season I find that hard to see right now.

Lets say Iglesias only gets 11.9 UZR then, he's still a 4.2 WAR player with a .315 wOBA. I am not sure that Iglesias will put up a .315 wOBA, but I was using .315 wOBA because some people were saying that you shouldn't get excited about a player who only puts up that line, no matter how good his defense.


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 20 WAR , amount of money a player is worth is WAR*4. 20*4= 80, 80 million, add in Iglesias's rookie salary for 6 years, and the Red Sox save 79,997,660 million bucks.

Edited by ClutchCarl13, 15 October 2011 - 05:24 PM.

[phragle]

Alexei Ramirez

[ClutchCarl13]

phragle, on 15 October 2011 - 04:57 PM, said:

Alexei Ramirez

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.

[ClutchCarl13]

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