Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Blaming Bobby: The 2012 Manager Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1275 replies to this topic

#101 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8232 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 02:16 PM

Are we really debating whether the manager giving bunting tips to a player -- any player -- during the course of a six week Spring Training is a bad thing?

Damn, if Crawford's entire spring was dedicated to bunting, this would be worth stressing about.

Valentine is clearly very hands on and took the time to give Carl Crawford, a speedster who should be able to get on base by bunting a few times a season, and sacrificing when the circumstances dictate, a few ideas. Unless you're set on hating the new manager, that seems to be only positive and, at the very least, non-controversial.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 06 March 2012 - 02:17 PM.


#102 aron7awol

  • 278 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 02:18 PM

From what I can find on B-R...

All bunts:
91 PA, 20 H, .690 OPS, 33 SH, 5 ROE

Sacrifice bunt situations (<2 outs and runners on):
58 PA, 12 H, .960 OPS, 33 SH, 3 ROE

Subtract the two to get the non-sacrifice bunts:
33 PA, 8 H, .485 OPS, 0 SH, 2 ROE

My conclusion: He's going to have to get a lot better at it for it to be a useful tool in his arsenal, or only use it when the 3B is playing very deep.

Edited by aron7awol, 06 March 2012 - 02:18 PM.


#103 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 21259 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 02:45 PM

Bunting is by and large a stupid idea unless the batter is EXCELLENT at it and/or circumstances call for it, say when the crazy shift is on against Ortiz (and every once in a while he'll drop one down). Carl's got enough on his plate at this point in time not to be wasting time and energy trying something with such limited benefits.

Classic case in today's game already, as he gives away an out by having Ellsbury sacrifice in an inning (3rd) when everybody hits.

#104 Buzzkill Pauley


  • SoSH Member


  • 5267 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 02:54 PM

Classic case in today's game already, as he gives away an out by having Ellsbury sacrifice in an inning (3rd) when everybody hits.


O NOEZ! It's March 6th and BobbyV already has Ellsbury bunting, Gonzalez playing RF, and McDonald batting 5th!

#105 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22437 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 03:37 PM

Unless you're set on hating the new manager, that seems to be only positive and, at the very least, non-controversial.


Well, duh.

#106 Remagellan

  • 4186 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 03:53 PM

O NOEZ! It's March 6th and BobbyV already has Ellsbury bunting, Gonzalez playing RF, and McDonald batting 5th!


You forgot Punto is DHing! :banana:

#107 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26085 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 03:55 PM

Crawford's ENTIRE CAREER has shown that he doesn't have the skills necessary to bunt for base hits. You need more than speed to do so. If he wasn't bunting much for hits when he was 23, he's not going to be bunting for hits at 31.



He could try defense, which was bad last year after being good beforehand. There's little to no benefit from Crawford working on bunting (and hey, he's already gotten hurt from doing so). His defense, however, is another issue, since previous to 2011 it made up a large part of his value.


Just stop already. If you aren't embarrassed by what you've said so far, you should be. It's Spring Training and a guy for whom bunting would actually be useful is working on it to develop its utility. If you think this is in any way a bad thing you are wrong and that is really all there is to it.

#108 redsox2020

  • 252 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:52 PM

Forget about Crawford, I'm more worried about this part of the article where Valentine is planning to give crucial at bats to a 10 year old.

Robbie Gravel, a 10-year-old from Ocala, Fla., pushes a ball in Valentine’s direction. Along with an autograph, he gets a lecture about how to hit a baseball with the sweet spot of the bat.

“Are you listening?’’ Valentine says to the suddenly bewildered boy. “That’s where you want to hit the ball.’’



#109 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 21259 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 05:23 PM

O NOEZ! It's March 6th and BobbyV already has Ellsbury bunting, Gonzalez playing RF, and McDonald batting 5th!

Yeah, guilty of piling on, I guess, sometimes too easy around here. When Ellsbury adds another like year to his awesome 2011, he can join the never (sac) bunt crew consisting of Gonzo and Papi (Youk, Pedey?). And, why not practice anything and everything in ST.

#110 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15031 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 05:45 PM

O NOEZ! It's March 6th and BobbyV already has Ellsbury bunting, Gonzalez playing RF, and McDonald batting 5th!


Scott Bakula always asks Downtown Anderson to bunt in the first act because he's gonna have him hit the dinger as the third act climax.

Anyone know if they've spent time on Salty's "problem"? When does Cerrano arrive in camp?

Edited by soxfan121, 06 March 2012 - 05:45 PM.


#111 Boggs26

  • 340 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:08 PM

From what I can find on B-R...

All bunts:
91 PA, 20 H, .690 OPS, 33 SH, 5 ROE

Sacrifice bunt situations (<2 outs and runners on):
58 PA, 12 H, .960 OPS, 33 SH, 3 ROE

Subtract the two to get the non-sacrifice bunts:
33 PA, 8 H, .485 OPS, 0 SH, 2 ROE

My conclusion: He's going to have to get a lot better at it for it to be a useful tool in his arsenal, or only use it when the 3B is playing very deep.


Not that I necessarily disagree with your point, but isn't using OPS a little silly when dealing with bunting? Isn't this one time where straight BA or OBP would be more descriptive?

And just to keep to the topic,I don't see any reason to get upset about spending a little time in spring training working on a fundamental skill like bunting. Seems like a logical time to work on it.

#112 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11492 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:14 PM

There's really no downside to working on bunting, other than opportunity cost (i.e. time not spent working on other things). No matter how much you're going to be bunting, it's better not to suck at it.

#113 aron7awol

  • 278 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:31 PM

Not that I necessarily disagree with your point, but isn't using OPS a little silly when dealing with bunting? Isn't this one time where straight BA or OBP would be more descriptive?

And just to keep to the topic,I don't see any reason to get upset about spending a little time in spring training working on a fundamental skill like bunting. Seems like a logical time to work on it.


I figured it was easy enough to find AVG (or OBP or SLG) by simply dividing OPS by 2, and I wanted to compare his bunting OPS to his swinging OPS (vs. LHP specifically) to get an idea of where his break even point would be. I thought I should consider the fact that bunting is sacrificing all hope for power in my comparison.

As far as practicing bunting, I'm not upset about it at all. In fact, I've been clamoring for Ortiz to push bunts down the third base line whenever they put the shift on. I don't care how good of a hitter he is, it should be easy enough to bunt for a hit in that situation >50% of the time, which is essentially becoming a 1.000 OPS singles-only hitter. That's extremely valuable. Bunting for base hits in normal situations? Unless the hitter is phenomenal at it, or just a terrible hitter in general, I'd much prefer to have them swing the bat.

#114 Buzzkill Pauley


  • SoSH Member


  • 5267 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:19 AM

I figured it was easy enough to find AVG (or OBP or SLG) by simply dividing OPS by 2, and I wanted to compare his bunting OPS to his swinging OPS (vs. LHP specifically) to get an idea of where his break even point would be. I thought I should consider the fact that bunting is sacrificing all hope for power in my comparison.

As far as practicing bunting, I'm not upset about it at all. In fact, I've been clamoring for Ortiz to push bunts down the third base line whenever they put the shift on. I don't care how good of a hitter he is, it should be easy enough to bunt for a hit in that situation >50% of the time, which is essentially becoming a 1.000 OPS singles-only hitter. That's extremely valuable. Bunting for base hits in normal situations? Unless the hitter is phenomenal at it, or just a terrible hitter in general, I'd much prefer to have them swing the bat.


The thing with Crawford is, unless an opposing pitcher has a Pettitte-like pickoff move or the catcher has a Wieters-like cannon, sacrificing power isn't really the worst thing in the world. Because Crawford can manufacture runs at a good enough rate not to worry about "running into outs" ahead of the heart of the order.

He's got an 81.6% SB rate over the course of his career. So if he isn't going to take the BB to get to first, he may as well learn to bunt. Especially against LHP.

#115 TheYaz67

  • 3490 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:28 PM

Nellie Fox certainly made a weapon out of the bunt - he went 26 for 30 on bunt attempts one year IIRC.... it can be done if you are fast and lefthanded - not unreasonable to have Carl working on this, especially as others have pointed out he hasn't bunted much in the past, so defenses probably don't cheat up on him as much as they do with other fast lefties...

#116 aron7awol

  • 278 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 01:44 PM

The thing with Crawford is, unless an opposing pitcher has a Pettitte-like pickoff move or the catcher has a Wieters-like cannon, sacrificing power isn't really the worst thing in the world. Because Crawford can manufacture runs at a good enough rate not to worry about "running into outs" ahead of the heart of the order.

He's got an 81.6% SB rate over the course of his career. So if he isn't going to take the BB to get to first, he may as well learn to bunt. Especially against LHP.

Nellie Fox certainly made a weapon out of the bunt - he went 26 for 30 on bunt attempts one year IIRC.... it can be done if you are fast and lefthanded - not unreasonable to have Carl working on this, especially as others have pointed out he hasn't bunted much in the past, so defenses probably don't cheat up on him as much as they do with other fast lefties...

I agree that the bunt becomes a useful tool if he can get good enough at it to beat it out for a hit at least 35% of the time. The question is, can he do that? If so, I still only want him doing that against LHP. I'd much rather take my chances with his career .812 OPS and .162 ISO against RHP. As far as against LHP, sacrificing power is clearly less of a problem if the bases are empty, so the strategy could (and should) change situationally.

Bunting made a ton of sense for Nellie Fox, he of the career ISO of .074. Sacrificing power when you have very little isn't much of a sacrifice. He is a good example of how good someone can be at bunting for a base hit, however, so thanks for posting that.

#117 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 21259 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 02:21 PM

Nellie was also famous for his thick-handled bat. He could probably make good bunting contact at any point on it up to his fists and put the ball where he wanted to. Not too many Nellie Foxes around anymore.

#118 DanoooME


  • SoSH Member


  • 6432 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 08:50 AM

I agree that the bunt becomes a useful tool if he can get good enough at it to beat it out for a hit at least 35% of the time. The question is, can he do that? If so, I still only want him doing that against LHP. I'd much rather take my chances with his career .812 OPS and .162 ISO against RHP. As far as against LHP, sacrificing power is clearly less of a problem if the bases are empty, so the strategy could (and should) change situationally.


I think if he gets good enough at it that there's a threat of a bunt, that may bring the infield in a little closer and may get him more hits just because the defense has to respect that ability and it becomes one more thing for the defense to worry about.

#119 Mike F


  • Mayor of Fort Myers


  • 1923 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:51 AM

Nellie Fox certainly made a weapon out of the bunt - he went 26 for 30 on bunt attempts one year IIRC.... it can be done if you are fast and lefthanded - not unreasonable to have Carl working on this, especially as others have pointed out he hasn't bunted much in the past, so defenses probably don't cheat up on him as much as they do with other fast lefties...


It might be useful to remember that Fox spent many of his years batting 2nd behind Luis Aparicio and the Sox were not a team of tremendous power.

#120 Buzzkill Pauley


  • SoSH Member


  • 5267 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:30 PM

I think if he gets good enough at it that there's a threat of a bunt, that may bring the infield in a little closer and may get him more hits just because the defense has to respect that ability and it becomes one more thing for the defense to worry about.


Right -- the important thing isn't that he bunts so much that he threatens a bunt-steal combo that gets him to 2nd base ~30% of the the time (based on an 80% steal rate and a .375 bunt-based OBP). That's a tremendous threat with empty bases or Ellsbury on-board ahead of him.

If Crawford threatens to get to 2nd with a bunt single, the infield corners have to respect that and play him in, while the 2B must shade left if needed to wheel to 1B. Those infield holes created become very helpful should Crawford show bunt then swing away. After all, that's precisely how Mueller got his single through the box against Rivera in Game 4.

#121 Saints Rest

  • 3739 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:19 PM

It kind of amazes me the number of ways that BV has done things that seem right out of the BB playbook: indivudalized, hands-on instruction; a refusal to treat players differently because of their contract or status; practicing little things to be ready for any situation; asking players to be versatile enough to handle multiple positions to allow for roster flexibility on gameday.

Yet BV is a villain (to many), while BB is a genius (again, to many).

Maybe BV just needs to adapt BB's tendency to speak less.

#122 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5006 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:32 PM

It kind of amazes me the number of ways that BV has done things that seem right out of the BB playbook: indivudalized, hands-on instruction; a refusal to treat players differently because of their contract or status; practicing little things to be ready for any situation; asking players to be versatile enough to handle multiple positions to allow for roster flexibility on gameday.

Yet BV is a villain (to many), while BB is a genius (again, to many).

Maybe BV just needs to adapt BB's tendency to speak less.

The bolded, for sure. And perhaps put a couple more World Series trophies in the Fenway trophy case.

#123 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25514 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:41 PM

Just stop already. If you aren't embarrassed by what you've said so far, you should be. It's Spring Training and a guy for whom bunting would actually be useful is working on it to develop its utility. If you think this is in any way a bad thing you are wrong and that is really all there is to it.


Well OK then. Of course reasonable people can disagree if bunting is useful to Crawford, but the Great Rasputin has spoken from his SC mudhut. All hail!

#124 genivive

  • 820 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 05:08 PM

Mud hut? and here I thought he was just missing in door plumbing....

#125 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23241 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 06:18 PM

It kind of amazes me the number of ways that BV has done things that seem right out of the BB playbook: indivudalized, hands-on instruction; a refusal to treat players differently because of their contract or status; practicing little things to be ready for any situation; asking players to be versatile enough to handle multiple positions to allow for roster flexibility on gameday.

Yet BV is a villain (to many), while BB is a genius (again, to many).

Maybe BV just needs to adapt BB's tendency to speak less.


What BB does is great for Football. In Baseball, that's called micromanaging and possinly overmanaging. You know, shit we get on Girardi, TLR, and Maddon for doing.

I didn't think this needed explaining but apparently it did.

#126 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26085 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 06:34 PM

Well OK then. Of course reasonable people can disagree if bunting is useful to Crawford, but the Great Rasputin has spoken from his SC mudhut. All hail!


No, reasonable people cannot disagree. Carl Crawford is exactly the kind of player who would be better if he would be a better bunter. It's spring training, the time designated to work on shit. And your position is that Carl Crawford shouldn't be working on his bunting. It is not a reasonable position to take and if you think otherwise you need to take about three steps back, kick yourself in the nuts and realize that you have lost yourself in your biases.


Mud hut? and here I thought he was just missing in door plumbing...


None of my doors have plumbing.

#127 lexrageorge

  • 3048 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 08:12 PM

What BB does is great for Football. In Baseball, that's called micromanaging and possinly overmanaging. You know, shit we get on Girardi, TLR, and Maddon for doing.

I didn't think this needed explaining but apparently it did.


I think we have yet to see a true case of "overmanaging". Telling players to work on drills during spring training is hardly micromanaging or overmanaging. Perhaps Girardi and Maddon are setting new trends; after all, Maddon's team beat a much more talented Red Sox team to a wild card spot last year.

#128 genivive

  • 820 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:11 PM

No, reasonable people cannot disagree. Carl Crawford is exactly the kind of player who would be better if he would be a better bunter. It's spring training, the time designated to work on shit. And your position is that Carl Crawford shouldn't be working on his bunting. It is not a reasonable position to take and if you think otherwise you need to take about three steps back, kick yourself in the nuts and realize that you have lost yourself in your biases.




None of my doors have plumbing.

Wow you have doors? I didn't know mud hut had doors, brother, you must be moving on up

#129 mauidano


  • Mai Tais for everyone!


  • 13404 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:30 PM

Tito is not looking great either when he yips. If he was smart his first year at ESPN would have him say little about the Sox.


+1!

#130 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11492 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:31 PM

What BB does is great for Football. In Baseball, that's called micromanaging and possinly overmanaging. You know, shit we get on Girardi, TLR, and Maddon for doing.


Well played. I think it went over some heads.

#131 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15031 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:41 PM

It kind of amazes me the number of ways that BV has done things that seem right out of the BB playbook: indivudalized, hands-on instruction; a refusal to treat players differently because of their contract or status; practicing little things to be ready for any situation; asking players to be versatile enough to handle multiple positions to allow for roster flexibility on gameday.

Yet BV is a villain (to many), while BB is a genius (again, to many).

Maybe BV just needs to adapt BB's tendency to speak less.


Belichick wasn't instantly beloved and to this day there's a fair amount of fans who think Borges might have a point, now and then. The most recent manifestation of this is the "love the coach, hate the GM" line of thinking, which has a point, I guess. To use Parcells turn of phrase, if the meal tastes great every single freaking year, complaining about the ingredients that were purchased and not used in the menu is kinda lame. BB may or may not be a great, consistent purchaser of groceries but you can't argue that he's a certified Iron Chef.

People tend to dislike other people they think "love the sound of their own voice." Valentine talks like he loves the sound of his own voice all the time. Doc Rivers has a little bit of this in him; Parcells loved the sound of his own voice, Tony LaRussa, etc. To get away with talking like the cock of the walk is you have to win for it to become a part of your "charm" instead of part of your "annoying tendency".

Even if the Red Sox win the World Series this year, there will be some (coughSJHcough) who will argue it was in spite of Valentine; there are Cardinals fans who will argue it wasn't LaRussa, it was X, Y, and Z that mattered much more. Borges thinks the Patriots are Brady more than BB.

I'm enjoying the Bobby V Era thus far; I was one of those people who thought it was more about the players than Francona. See how I did that?

#132 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26085 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:35 PM

Wow you have doors? I didn't know mud hut had doors, brother, you must be moving on up


It's more of a cardboard tenement than mud hut.

#133 Carl Everetts Therapist


  • yossarian


  • PipPip
  • 1558 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:41 AM

The writing is on the wall and it tells me that Valentine is gonna go with Iglesias in Boston to start the year.... Unless he struggles with the remainder of camp. There is just too much buzz about Iglesias and i think there is a strong effort to push him into the starting role.

I think Iglesias should head back to AAA and build on this confidence he's getting in ST instead of starting in Boston and possibly having a setback which may impact him now and in the future.

Either way so far Iglesias is the story of camp

#134 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11492 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:37 AM

I think Iglesias should head back to AAA and build on this confidence he's getting in ST instead of starting in Boston and possibly having a setback which may impact him now and in the future.


Rob Bradford agrees with you, CET:

But here is the reality: Aviles has done nothing this spring to suggest he shouldn't be the Opening Day shortstop for the Red Sox. It's just that most haven't been able to take their eyes off Iglesias long enough to realize it.

***

The Red Sox need to buy some time when it comes to Iglesias, and judging by what Aviles has shown thus far, he can do that and then some.


I'm inclined to agree too. But it'll be interesting to see what happens. Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel had to learn to hit major league pitching on the job too, and eventually they did.

#135 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25514 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:08 AM

What have I missed so far? Is Iglesias hitting that much better this spring? This is a guy who put up a 554 OPS in AAA last year. I understand his glove is outstanding, but he doesn't appear to be ready to attempt to hit major league pitching yet.

I'd much rather, like Bradford, see Iglesias back down in AAA to start the year. I assume that if Aviles starts kicking balls around at shirt then Bobby will simply give Punto more time there as a first step.

#136 Alcohol&Overcalls

  • 1205 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:21 AM

I'm inclined to agree too. But it'll be interesting to see what happens. Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel had to learn to hit major league pitching on the job too, and eventually they did.


It took Vizquel something like 8 years in the bigs to produce an OPS > .700 (he was on his second team at that point), and over 1100 ABs to get over .600 ... Ozzie also took 8 years to get over .700, and 5 years to get to .650.

I'm sure Iglesias would be valuable as a .650 OPS guy (something like Ozzie's 1982, .248/.339/.314, would work) but it would require that the otherworldly defense directly translates, in the same way that it did for Ozzie (fWAR of 4.1 in that 1982 season). The problem is that sort of batting line is something resembling Clay Davenport's 90th %ile translation. Hopefully, reason (and Aviles) wins the day.

#137 Doctor G

  • 1897 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:29 AM

The only reason the Sox brought Alex Gonzalez back the second time was the defensive disaster that Nick Green had become. Aviles will start the season at short, and if he is simply reliable he will stay there.

it is a developmental step for Iglesias to challenge for the starting position. i expect his hitting will tail off as the Spring progresses and the pitchers start getting stretched out and see batters more than once in a game.

#138 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23241 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:37 AM

Couldn't the lineup carry his nonexistent bat? I'm inclined to give him the job if it means stellar defense at SS. The Sox would be really effing strong up the middle.

#139 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25514 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:39 AM

Couldn't the lineup carry his nonexistent bat? I'm inclined to give him the job if it means stellar defense at SS. The Sox would be really effing strong up the middle.


They did lead the league in runs last year, so I suppose the lineup could tolerate it. Still, having a nearly-automatic out come through the lineup 3 or 4 times a game isn't exactly ideal offensive strategy.

#140 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8232 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:40 AM

Interesting point, Saints Rest, about Belichick. Many of the things Bobby is doing indeed appear very similar to what Belichick does. I think that the common link is that both men are more intelligent and self-confident than the average bear, and both attack their program with the mindset that everything they do is for a reason. That latter point sounds like it's something all coaches either do or should do, but I don't get the sense that many actually operate that way.

As to Iglesias, I can see both sides to the argument and think it's a relatively close call.

Givng him more seasoning allows him more chance to show that his improved hitting means something. If he falls on his face at the plate this season in Boston, it might retard his development and extend the time until he's ready for the job. And Aviles has had a good spring.

On the flip side:

- Aviles, good camp or not, probably doesn't have a very high ceiling and is almost certainly would be just keeping the seat warm for Iglesias.

- Iglesias is, by all accounts, truly special in the field. He will likely save runs and his presence will improve the mindset and confidence of the pitching staff (or at least certain members of it).

- The improvement in Iglesias' offense might not be a mirage and might be tied to finally being fully healthy and the extra muscle he added to his frame this past off-season. If I'm not mistaken, he dealt with nagging injuries all last year.

- Iglesias strikes me as the kind of player/person who might regress if he doesn't get the positive reinforcement of making the team and winning the starting job. Yes, this might be extreme arm chair shrink nonsense, I know.

On balance, I think I'd bite the bullet and see what Iglesias can do. I'm trying to assess the extent to which my opinion is based on my excitement about watching this kid play on a regular basis...and I can't put my finger on it.

#141 BCsMightyJoeYoung

  • 2642 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:58 AM

In regards to keeping Iglesias .. this will mean that Aviles has to go - either to Pawtucket , or be released/traded. Does anyone know if he has any Options left?

If not, I can't see the Sox releasing Aviles and gambling everything on Iglesias based on a few ST at bats. That's not the Sox' MO.

Edited by BCsMightyJoeYoung, 09 March 2012 - 12:08 PM.


#142 Trlicek's Whip

  • 2972 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 12:00 PM

What have I missed so far? Is Iglesias hitting that much better this spring? This is a guy who put up a 554 OPS in AAA last year. I understand his glove is outstanding, but he doesn't appear to be ready to attempt to hit major league pitching yet. I'd much rather, like Bradford, see Iglesias back down in AAA to start the year.


Bobby V should work on him one-on-one with bunting before they break camp. /ducks

#143 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28215 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 12:17 PM

In regards to keeping Iglesias .. this will mean that Aviles has to go - either to Pawtucket , or be released/traded. Does anyone know if he has any Options left?


They could keep Aviles instead of a 5th OF, or less likely, a reliever.

#144 tonyarmasjr

  • 565 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 12:44 PM

In regards to keeping Iglesias .. this will mean that Aviles has to go - either to Pawtucket , or be released/traded. Does anyone know if he has any Options left?

If not, I can't see the Sox releasing Aviles and gambling everything on Iglesias based on a few ST at bats. That's not the Sox' MO.

Agreed. And even as a big Iglesias fan, I don't want to see him in Boston before the All Star break - even if he's got an OPS of 1.000 in Pawtucket. I'd much rather see Aviles naill down the SS job all year, anyway. That said, Iglesias (5 SH, 12 SB in 100 games last year in AAA) is the type of player Valentine's NL style would find ways get the most out of at the plate.

#145 Worst Trade Evah


  • SoSH Member


  • 10834 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 01:57 PM

I can't see Iglesias as shortstop in Boston this year or next, for anything beyond a cup of coffee, a few good games in Spring Training notwithstanding.

And I don't really understand the logic that the offense can absorb a dud so why not? The goal is always to maximize the chance of winning, which is roughly the spread between runs prevented and runs scored.

Remember when Ellsbury was getting those insane defensive ratings as a minor league centerfielder? (-60 runs against or something) Let's see if Iglesias is Ozzie Smith before rolling with what might be a .220/.260/.280 player, because he will have to be that and more to make up for the offense. At least Ozzie always had a little plate discipline going for him -- I can't see that Iglesias really even has that. There's a solid chance his career never reaches Pokey Reese levels. Maybe he can be as good as Adam Everett, though probably without Adam's sweet power stroke. Everett hit 40 career home runs and I would be willing to take a bet that in Iglesias's major league career he will not hit 40 home runs. Of course, hopefully it takes 15 years to resolve this bet.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 09 March 2012 - 02:24 PM.


#146 sachilles


  • Rudy-in-training


  • 630 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 01:59 PM

I seem to remember Pedroia praise Iglesias last spring, and again this spring. Where the competition for SS may be a close call, tie breakers like team chemistry may come in to play. Aviles can play outfield.
I think we'll see iglesias called up late in the spring if Aviles isn't hitting well, OR if the team as a whole is hitting well enough that Iglesias' bat isn't as crucial.
I think he'll get some extended time in Boston, with the opportunity earn the right to stay. However, he'll start out at AAA.

#147 C4CRVT

  • 2418 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 03:18 PM

I read the Edes article on Aviles a few days ago. Edes' spin is that Aviles has historically done very well with an everyday job.

http://espn.go.com/b...-boston-red-sox

#148 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5644 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 04:18 PM

I read the Edes article on Aviles a few days ago. Edes' spin is that Aviles has historically done very well with an everyday job.

http://espn.go.com/b...-boston-red-sox


Historically he's also gotten hurt with an everyday job.

#149 lexrageorge

  • 3048 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 05:55 PM

Iglesias remains one of Boston's top positional prospects, so I give Bobby V full credit for taking a long, hard look at him this spring and ensuring he gets tons of at-bats. At the very least this gives the team another data point when trying to assess his ceiling.

What I'm hoping is that the team uses this opportunity to give Iglesias some coaching tips and things to work on at the start of the season, which should really be in AAA. A few promising ST at bats is less predictive than a season's full of AB's at Pawtucket. I think if anything his ST shows that there's at least a chance he can become a serviceable major league hitter, which is all that would be needed given his stellar defense. But so far pitchers are still working on fine tuning their repetoire, and so it's way premature to give him the varsity SS job just yet.

#150 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15031 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 06:17 PM

Let's see if Iglesias is Ozzie Smith before rolling with what might be a .220/.260/.280 player, because he will have to be that and more to make up for the offense.


How would we do that, exactly? If reports from the Bucket said "Ozzie Smith" would that suffice? Or would the response be "it's AAA"?