169 replies to this topic

[OttoC]

As for Iglesias's playing experience, he has two stints in the Arizona Fall League that no ever mentions. As a matter of fact, his first pro experience was in the AFL in 2009 after signing that September and he actually posted acceptable numbers as a 19-year-old: .275/.324/.420/.745. That may be why he was pushed so quickly through the system. Too fast, I think in retrospect. It would be interesting to see video of him at the plate in 2009 to compare with him at the plate nowadays. I have some recollection of reading that he has a tendency to imitate other players' batting styles.

[Super Nomario]

This is vastly hyperbolic. The most logical way for Iglesias to get to .680 would be .300/.340/.340. All he needs to get there is to hit for a much higher average.

Given Iglesias' virtually zero HR power, he'd need like a .330 BABIP to hit .300. That seems unlikely to me; league-average BABIP was .293, and there's reason to believe Iglesias will average even lower given his lack of pop.

This is what I'm trying to say above about Brandon Crawford. He's improved his approach *at the major league level,* palpably and relatively quickly.

He got playing time because of his defense, and the PAs this year — especially in the second half — have been markedly, markedly better from a "scouting" (via TV) perspective, and the results are much better, too.

Split	   G GS  PA  AB  R  H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO   BA  OBP  SLG  OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+
1st Half   78 72 274 254 20 61 17  2  1  21  1  2 14 56 .240 .287 .335 .621 85   4   3  2  1   2   3  .303	90	72
2nd Half   65 50 202 181 24 47  9  1  3  24  0  2 19 39 .260 .327 .370 .697 67   0   0  0  2   4   0  .312   114	94

Provided by [url="http://www.sports-reference.com/sharing.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool"]Baseball-Reference.com[/url]: [url="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=crawfbr01&year=2012&t=b&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool#half"]View Original Table[/url]
Generated 10/25/2012.

It can happen.

This may or may not be real, though. Of the Red Sox last year who got 400 PA - Saltalamacchia, Gonzalez, Pedroia, Aviles, and Ross - all of them had one half where they hit more than 70 OPS points better than the other. Maybe Crawford's superior second half represents real improvement, but that's not at all clear on the face of it.

[JakeRae]

Because it's patently unreasonable to expect a guy who put up a 624 OPS in AAA this year to post a 600 OPS in the majors next year. I'd set the over/under at about 530. At that level, he's passable if he's as good with the glove as advertised. Any worse, and you'd be better off trotting Ciriaco out there, which is another way of saying Iglesias would be below replacement level at that point.

His MLE from this past year (AAA performance only) via drivelinebaseball's calculator, was .229/.272/.263. Putting the over/under at a hair below his MLE from the previous season for a player who will be 23 and has steadily improved is overly pessimistic. But, as a point of comparison, his 2011 AAA season looked an awful lot like that line at .235/.285/.269 and he followed up that with a .266/.318/.306 season.

I don't think it's reaonable to assume that Iglesias won't improve at all going into next season, so his MLE from this year should be closer to his 25th percentile projection than his median projection. His AAA line from this year would likely sit closer to his 90th percentile. .245/.290/.280 feels close to right as a reasonable middle of the road projection. That's definitely not good enough that I'm excited about the prospect of Iglesias being the starting shortstop next year, but I'm not dreading it either.

[Sprowl]

Here is another part of a case for Iglesias being something other than a complete black hole at #9. Compared to the other players who accumulated at least 70 at-bats while playing shortstop, Iglesias didn't whiff much (5.5% swinging strikes). He could hit an underpowered .570 OPS and still help the team outlast the opposing starter.

Also, 7 defensive runs saved in 193 innings and UZR/150 of 49.8 is not quite off the charts, but it's close. If small samples at bat are worthy of note, then so are small samples in the field.

[nvalvo]

Crawford's minor league numbers over 4 seasons were .734 OPS.

Iglesias, in the entirely of his minor league career, is at .626.

I'll stop annoying you all blabbering about Crawford after I note that he had better results in the low minors. His numbers in the high minors were only a hair better than Iglesias', as an older player, in better hitters' leagues.

[Steve Dillard]

Also, 7 defensive runs saved in 193 innings and UZR/150 of 49.8 is not quite off the charts, but it's close. If small samples at bat are worthy of note, then so are small samples in the field.

Particularly with the flimsy basis for the UZR calculation. It is not like offensive stats where there is a defined measurable data point, and the only issue is whether the sample size is large enough. The UZR is a based on a hypothesis that a player should field a certain percentage of balls hit to his zone that regardless of positioning, speed of the batted ball, speed of the runner, type of field, position of other fielders, among others. The model expressly assumes those assumptions even out only over a large enough sample size so that individual factors that clearly impact the results are likely to be equal for all. I don't know at what point that applies, but even the proponents of the model say it has to be over a full season.

In other words, even the UZR proponents will tell you the defensive rating over 30 games is meaningless. Not just a "valid data but a small sample size that is not predictive" (like offense) but "not valid data." Putting it into a broader WAR that weighs the "non valid data" equally with the "valid but small sample size" offensive data yields meaningless certitude. Its the equivalent of taking an offensive measure and averaging it with a random number.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I'll stop annoying you all blabbering about Crawford after I note that he had better results in the low minors. His numbers in the high minors were only a hair better than Iglesias', as an older player, in better hitters' leagues.

Crawford's got a total of 118 PA in AAA. Total. His numbers there were crap, but that's a SSS limitation, really.

Iglesias has a total of 783 PA in AAA. His numbers are also crap, over a much larger sample size.

I think the comparisons are not helpful, honestly. Iglesias has a pretty good sample of being utterly unable to hit at the AAA level. Now he's magically going to hit in the majors? Not buying it. That .245/.290/.280 hypothetical line JakeRae posted above is eye-searingly awful.

He's not good enough at the present time and should certainly not be simply handed the major league SS job. Even if he was in-his-prime Ozzie Smith in the field (he's not), that's a very tough tradeoff to make. I hope Ben is searching high and low for a palatable alternative to bridge the time until Bogearts is ready. I don't like this idea of just giving him the job and hoping he'll improve. Anything's possible but such a strategy seems pretty unlikely to succeed. Judging from his minor league numbers, the best way to get him out is to fire 3 fastballs over the plate, he doesn't appear to be capable of doing anything with them.

Now, if they want to carry him on the 25 man and use him as a defensive super-sub, I'm all for it.

[Savin Hillbilly]

What's the minimum contribution, in WAR terms, that we would want from a SS? This year Aviles, in about 80% of a full season's worth of starts, gave us 1.8 fWAR. In 150 games, it would have been about 2.3. I think most of us would agree that Aviles' 2012 performance was pretty much a floor--we wouldn't want to settle for less than that much overall value if we could help it. So let's see how Iglesias might match that 2.3.

According to FG, a SS gets about 2.7 fWAR just for showing up for a 150-game season--20 replacement runs plus about 7 positional runs (7.5*(150/162)). For a full-time shortstop to be worth 2.3 fWAR, therefore, his overall offensive/defensive contribution must add up to at least -0.4. So whatever Iglesias' negative offensive value is, his positive defensive value must be within 0.4 of it.

I've run some numbers and I would say that an offensive value of -20 runs is probably the best-case scenario. That would involve a wOBA of around .280, which I think would surpass most of our expectations.

If that's correct, then we can say, roughly speaking, that he has to be worth 16 runs as a defensive shortstop in order to not be a downgrade from Aviles.

Perhaps the closest recent model for (relative) optimism about Iglesias next year would be Omar Vizquel's 2007, when he had a line of .246/.305/.316, for a wOBA of .277 and a total offensive value of -23.7. But his defensive value of 23.1 effectively canceled this out, and he wound up being worth 2.4 fWAR. That's the kind of thing we might reasonably hope for from Iglesias in 2013, I think.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 26 October 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[Super Nomario]

Perhaps the closest recent model for (relative) optimism about Iglesias next year would be Omar Vizquel's 2007, when he had a line of .246/.305/.316, for a wOBA of .277 and a total offensive value of -23.7. But his defensive value of 23.1 effectively canceled this out, and he wound up being worth 2.4 fWAR. That's the kind of thing we might reasonably hope for from Iglesias in 2013, I think.

That 23.1 was Vizquel's best defensive value by 7 runs per Fangraphs. I don't think you can reasonably project Iglesias to more than about 15 (Ozzie Smith's career average per 162 games).

Edited by Super Nomario, 26 October 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[Paul M]

What's the minimum contribution, in WAR terms, that we would want from a SS? This year Aviles, in about 80% of a full season's worth of starts, gave us 1.8 fWAR. In 150 games, it would have been about 2.3. I think most of us would agree that Aviles' 2012 performance was pretty much a floor--we wouldn't want to settle for less than that much overall value if we could help it. So let's see how Iglesias might match that 2.3.

According to FG, a SS gets about 2.7 fWAR just for showing up for a 150-game season--20 replacement runs plus about 7 positional runs (7.5*(150/162)). For a full-time shortstop to be worth 2.3 fWAR, therefore, his overall offensive/defensive contribution must add up to at least -0.4. So whatever Iglesias' negative offensive value is, his positive defensive value must be within 0.4 of it.

I've run some numbers and I would say that an offensive value of -20 runs is probably the best-case scenario. That would involve a wOBA of around .280, which I think would surpass most of our expectations.

If that's correct, then we can say, roughly speaking, that he has to be worth 16 runs as a defensive shortstop in order to not be a downgrade from Aviles.

Perhaps the closest recent model for (relative) optimism about Iglesias next year would be Omar Vizquel's 2007, when he had a line of .246/.305/.316, for a wOBA of .277 and a total offensive value of -23.7. But his defensive value of 23.1 effectively canceled this out, and he wound up being worth 2.4 fWAR. That's the kind of thing we might reasonably hope for from Iglesias in 2013, I think.

Good work, Hillbilly--

So, in 2012 terms, doesn' t that mean his raw slash lines could be .240/.295/.300 or is this already adjusted for the overall shift down in offensive levels since 2007? Sounds like to me the consensus is high .500s with expected plus defense is not far from the low to mid 2s in value we want. In other words, anything at or above .600 makes him approaching pretty solid overall. So, it comes back to can a .615 guy at 22 in AAA be a .600 guy at 23 in MLB and I think that's not very unreasonable.

[Savin Hillbilly]

That 23.1 was Vizquel's best defensive value by 7 runs per Fangraphs. I don't think you can reasonably project Iglesias to more than about 15 (Ozzie Smith's career average per 162 games).

I agree, but I think it's also possible that Iglesias will have a slightly higher offensive value than Vizquel did, because, as Paul M. notes, the baseline for offense has dropped a bit since 2007. Possible, but by no means a lock.

I think the point is that matching Aviles' 2012 is probably the best case, and it depends on the defense being as advertised and the offense being at the upper limits of what a reasonable person could project (barring a quantum leap forward of the kind some have referred to, which is certainly not impossible but boils down to wishcasting at this point).

So penciling in Iglesias for the starting job next year is not downright folly, but it's a gamble where a "win" probably means getting performance that's just barely acceptable. OTOH, you could argue that the same is true of any of the FA options--I don't actually think it's true of Drew, but I know some people do--so if the Sox don't want to give up talent to fill the SS slot, rolling the dice on Iglesias may be their best option.

[Sprowl]

Its the equivalent of taking an offensive measure and averaging it with a random number.

The sample size questions with UZR and DRS have to do with when they become predictive, not whether they are accurate as a retrospective description of how the player performed during the period at the position (in this case, a period of 77 innings at shortstop). In the same way that we would weight an OPS datum by comparing it with what we saw from Iglesias at bat (eg, minimal power, difficulty identifying offspeed pitches, lots of low-velocity groundballs, coupled with the ability to make contact, however weak, on pitches in the strike zone), we would also weight a DRS datum by what we saw from Iglesias in the field (described several posts ago).

I therefore strongly disagree with your characterization that all defensive numbers for Iglesias should be treated as random. Your argument appears to be that +49.8 might as well be -23.5 (another random number), and that we should give no defensive numbers any predictive weight going forward. Perhaps a UZR/150 of 49.8 suggests false specificity, and might better be summarized as "very positive" but based on observation, those numbers are a good descriptor of what he did. Demonstrated range, quickness, accuracy and double-play co-ordination, both as initiator and pivot, describe the same player that appears, however fleetingly, in the DRS and UZR/150 numbers. There are players for whom the numbers from a fraction of a season contradict observation, Jed Lowrie being a recent example in which observation of athleticism and fundamentals were right and the numbers were wrong. In Iglesias' case, observation and quantification confirm each other.

[Steve Dillard]

From how I understand UZR's description, I don't think that's right. Its not only limits the predictive value, but also the actual historical data. The critical difference is, unlike objective batting data, the fielding is an assumption because they do not review actual data as to whether the player could reach a particular ball. They are making suppositions based upon assumed fielder positioning and normal rates of fielding the ball:

The base runner and outs adjustments are a proxy for infield defensive alignment. With a runner on first and less than 2 outs, UZR assumes that the SS and 2B are playing in “double play position” which is typically closer to second base and a little shallower. With a runner on first and no one on second, it is assumed that the first baseman is holding the runner. With a runner on first or second and no outs (or 1 out and a pitcher at bat), the third baseman often has to play up in anticipation of a bunt.

If a player only spent 50 innings at a position last season, it’d be a good idea not to draw too many conclusions from their UZR score over that time. Like with any defensive statistic, you should always use three years of UZR data before trying to draw any conclusions on the true talent level of a fielder.

http://www.fangraphs...hp/defense/uzr/

A player’s UZR does not necessarily tell you how he actually played just as it does not necessarily tell you what his true talent is. . . .That is because it is not measuring something that is categorized, like a coin flip which either comes up heads or tails, or BA, whereby a player either gets a hit or he doesn’t, . . . But, because we can verify that a player did indeed hit .334, we say that a player’s BA is a good record of what actually happened.

Now, that being said, there is still a potentially large gap between what you might see on the field if you were to watch every play of every game and what UZR “says” happened on the field. And that is one of several reasons why one year or even 10 years of UZR (or any other sample metric) does not give us a perfect estimate of a player’s true talent or even an accurate picture of what actually happened on the field. The reason for that is that the data is imperfect. For example, UZR might put a certain batted ball in a certain bucket and determine that that batted ball was extremely difficult for the CF’er to catch, based on the recorded (by the BIS “stringers”) qualities of the ball and other data. We don’t, of course, know for sure whether it was indeed a difficult to field batted ball. We don’t know exactly where each fielder was stationed, we certainly don’t know the exact location of the batted ball to the nearest square inch on the field, and we definitely don’t know how long the ball was in the air or on the ground. In reality, it might have been an easy ball to catch or it might have been a difficult one to catch, or somewhere in between. We can only hope that in the long run, those balls were indeed hard to catch, on the average, for each individual player. We certainly know that those balls were hard to catch, on the average, for the league as a whole over a 6-year period.

Edited by Steve Dillard, 26 October 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[Sprowl]

From how I understand UZR's description, I don't think that's right. Its not only limits the predictive value, but also the actual historical data. The critical difference is, unlike objective batting data, the fielding is an assumption because they do not review actual data as to whether the player could reach a particular ball. They are making suppositions based upon assumed fielder positioning and normal rates of fielding the ball:

http://www.fangraphs...hp/defense/uzr/

The phrase "true talent level" is what I mean by predictive -- how long a period of data would you need to generate a good prediction of what the player's UZR/150 would be in the following year, in the absence of observation and scouting? That is a much more demanding criterion than using UZR or DRS as an alternative method (compared to the evidence of our eyes) of assessing how Iglesias performed in those 77 innings.

I did not say that Iglesias will continue to post a +50 UZR/150. That is nobody's true talent level, not even Ozzie Smith in his prime. Rather, I said that he fielded extraordinarily well during those 77 innings, and the best available defensive metrics tend to confirm that evaluation. There is an irreducible human element in any fielding metric, even if HitFX data were more widely available for evaluating a play's difficulty and a batter's skill.

The confounding issues regarding positioning (whether the defense is in a shift, for example) apply to both offensive and defensive statistics. How many groundballs pulled into a shift are converted into outs, and does the infielder or the manager get the credit? Does Saltalamacchia have a low BABIP for a relatively high LD% because he is unlucky, or because he is predictable?

[OnWisc]

A's have declined their half of the option on Drew.

http://www.washingto...276a_story.html

Would seem a prime candidate for a one year re-establish value deal, with which I would have no problem. Not sure Boras is going to see it as the right situation given the presence of Iglesias, but then again, if they're convinced Drew can rebound, shouldn't be insurmountable.

[seantoo]

Because he's a guy who can't even hit AAA pitching?

He had more than 400 PA this year in AAA and threw up a .624 OPS. A 624 OPS in the majors would be barely acceptable for a slick-fielding SS; there's no evidence to show he's even capable of that level of offensive performance.

His monthly splits last year in the minors refute your statement even if his overall numbers were mediocre, for 2 of the 4 months he did very well to great.1 month he missed due to injuries and it took him a month to get it back. ill post the monthly splits when I get my power back. in the very least his splits should remove any doubt that his bat will someday be more than adequate.

[JakeRae]

His monthly splits last year in the minors refute your statement even if his overall numbers were mediocre, for 2 of the 4 months he did very well to great.1 month he missed due to injuries and it took him a month to get it back. ill post the monthly splits when I get my power back. in the very least his splits should remove any doubt that his bat will someday be more than adequate.

Jose Iglesias 2012 Monthly Splits

	AVG	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	OBP	SLG	OPS
April	0.200	22	85	10	17	1	0	0	5	8	16	4	1	0.274	0.212	0.485
May	0.341	20	82	13	28	2	1	1	9	4	5	4	0	0.364	0.427	0.790
June	0.071	3	14	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0.071	0.071	0.143
July	0.242	24	99	9	24	1	0	0	7	6	16	3	2	0.287	0.253	0.540
August	0.329	19	73	14	24	5	0	0	2	9	8	1	0	0.402	0.397	0.800

• Back to top

[Plympton91]

I continue to ask, and get no response. For those who think it would be fine to have Iglesias be a "great field, no hit" shortstop, exactly what are you defining as "no hit?" Would it be fine with you if Iglesias really does hit like a pitcher -- with a slash line of .150 / .190 / .170? Because, I can see that as a completely reasonable projection. It is, after all, roughly what he produced in an extended September audition.

If they're serious about wanting to win in 2013, they'll sign a major league shortstop soon. If they're serious about playing the team that gives them the best, however little, chance to win in 2013 without signing a major league shortstop, they'll start with DeJesus until he proves he can't play the position defensively, then move to Ciriaco if necessary, all while evaluating how well Iglesias did during the first half of the season at Pawtucket. If they're just interested in a narrative and selling tickets during April, they'll give the job to a clearly not ready and over his head Iglesias.

[ShaneTrot]

Are we discounting the value this kid brings to a decidedly mediocre pitching staff?

[Rough Carrigan]

A's have declined their half of the option on Drew.

http://www.washingto...276a_story.html

Would seem a prime candidate for a one year re-establish value deal, with which I would have no problem. Not sure Boras is going to see it as the right situation given the presence of Iglesias, but then again, if they're convinced Drew can rebound, shouldn't be insurmountable.

I agree that Drew is an interesting possibility. I just checked his fielding bible plus minus ratings. They've been about average. +10 in 2009, -5 in 2010, +1 in 2011 and -8 in 2012. He's still not old, only 30 next year and has had some good offensive years. 97 runs created in 2008, 76 in 2009, 84 in 2010, 41 in 2011(only 321 ab's) and 30 this year (287 ab's).
He's not nearly the player that his brother was but he's an available major league average fielder and at times much better than major league average hitter. I don't know what his health situation is and that could make it not worthwhile but he seemed fine playing for the A's down the stretch.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 29 October 2012 - 10:35 PM.

[Rasputin]

His monthly splits last year in the minors refute your statement even if his overall numbers were mediocre, for 2 of the 4 months he did very well to great.1 month he missed due to injuries and it took him a month to get it back. ill post the monthly splits when I get my power back. in the very least his splits should remove any doubt that his bat will someday be more than adequate.

"Remove any doubt" is rather strong. "Offer some encouragement" would, I think, be more accurate.

Are we discounting the value this kid brings to a decidedly mediocre pitching staff?

Are we discounting any notion that the pitching staff could be more than mediocre?

[JimBoSox9]

Are we discounting any notion that the pitching staff could be more than mediocre?

The better than mediocre path relies currently on Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, and Dubront to all improve on their most recent stat line. Individually you can make a strong case for each one to take a leap forward, but the overall scenario requires contributions from each if no ace is signed. Going 2 for 4, or even 3 for 4, isn't going to be enough to turn the club around.

Edited by JimBoSox9, 30 October 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Adrian's Dome]

The better than mediocre path relies currently on Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, and Dubront to all improve on their most recent stat line. Individually you can make a strong case for each one to take a leap forward, but the overall scenario requires contributions from each if no ace is signed. Going 4 for 4, or even 3 for 4, isn't going to be enough to turn the club around.

I think it's entirely realistic to expect a bit of a turnaround for Lester and Buchholz and some improvement for Doubront. What I believe is going to be the issue is the durability. Lester's the only pitcher we have that we can easily expect 200IP out of, and given how quickly things can go wrong with pitching, even that's no guarantee.

I don't see any scenario in which Iglesias should be the starting SS behind any of those guys, though. The fact of the matter is that he just cannot hit at an acceptable level in the major leagues right now. Supersub? Sure, we could use him in that capacity, although we already have one of those too in Ciriaco (who is probably the superior option for that role given his positional flexibility and speed.)

Stash Jose in AAA and see what happens. I'm skeptical he's ever going to figure it out enough to stick as an every day option in the show, but if he does, he's going to have to figure it out down there. There's no room for a Mendoza line (and that's the rosy scenario) with no power in your every day lineup, even if it is a rebuilding year. Not to mention, if the Sox end up with the awesomest of all problems and he DOES figure it out around the same time Xander comes into the picture, then you have a nice chip to move for an arm.

[The Boomer]

I think it's entirely realistic to expect a bit of a turnaround for Lester and Buchholz and some improvement for Doubront. What I believe is going to be the issue is the durability. Lester's the only pitcher we have that we can easily expect 200IP out of, and given how quickly things can go wrong with pitching, even that's no guarantee.

I don't see any scenario in which Iglesias should be the starting SS behind any of those guys, though. The fact of the matter is that he just cannot hit at an acceptable level in the major leagues right now. Supersub? Sure, we could use him in that capacity, although we already have one of those too in Ciriaco (who is probably the superior option for that role given his positional flexibility and speed.)

Stash Jose in AAA and see what happens. I'm skeptical he's ever going to figure it out enough to stick as an every day option in the show, but if he does, he's going to have to figure it out down there. There's no room for a Mendoza line (and that's the rosy scenario) with no power in your every day lineup, even if it is a rebuilding year. Not to mention, if the Sox end up with the awesomest of all problems and he DOES figure it out around the same time Xander comes into the picture, then you have a nice chip to move for an arm.

In this post steroid era where offensive statistics are starting to return to the historically diminished normality, pitching and defense seem to be more significant again. The Tigers had the first triple crown winner since Yaz did this 45 years ago plus a Lonborg caliber Ace in Verlander and achieved the same World Series Result as the 1967 Impossible Dreamers did against the Cardinals (except they got swept and never came close to extending the series to 7 games). The Tigers had good pitching but this year the Giants were better for the second time in 3 years. Perhaps they are now the model franchise for how to build a winner. They may soon be supplanted by the even younger Strasburg fortified Nationals.

While we are not looking at the second 20th Century dead ball era (like the Gibson and Tiant dominated 1969 season), pitching and defense balanced by decent offense still seemed to separate winners from losers after the mound was lowered starting in 1970 up until the steroids fueled offensive distortions that dominated the last couple of decades until recently. The Orioles contended annually with light hitting Blade Belanger anchoring their up the middle (Blair in CF) defense. Without steroids, there simply won't be enough offensive talent for any team to field .800 OPS or above hitters at every position in a lineup. Farrell's ability to restore confidence to his still in their prime veteran pitchers might be more in proportion to his middle of the diamond defense with Iglesias and Pedroia backed soon in the outfield by Jackie Bradley (reportedly a better defender than soon to be free agent Ellsbury). With Valentine gone, bringing Youkilis back to provide adequate offense and defense at 1B makes some sense.

An emphasis on giving their own homegrown talent chances is good for the organization in a rebuilding mode even when not every prospect works out. With Bogaerts and Marrero developing in the wings, this approach is arguably better than to keep plugging holes with mediocre and expensive free agent mercenaries. I would make the same argument as to seeing how Kalish performs with Brentz and others coming along. Homegrown championship contennders are so much more satisfying for fans IMO.

[geoduck no quahog]

One thing stats can never show is the impact a great defensive player has over a good defensive player in terms of saving runs or, more critically - saving games (and vice versa). We all saw examples of that in the World Series - both directions. Not to go all McCarver on it - but Crawford's play in the field certainly contributed as much or more than the difference between him hitting .200 in the playoffs or .260. The timing and actual witnessing of defensive plays matters. We can all see and judge a defensive impact better than any statistical rating can do. It's the same as judging a well-hit out versus a poorly hit single - although I imagine the metrics on that are a little better.

I'm aligning myself with everyone in this thread who thinks an all-world quality shortstop provides critical benefit in a well-balanced lineup.

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

Unless they can acquire an elite shortstop (Reyes seems to be the most likely guy available), I don't see the point in acquiring another marginal guy. Assuming a .550-.600 OPS out of Iglesias, I don't think the likelihood is particularly high that someone like Drew is going to outhit him to the point where it's a substantial upgrade once defense is factored in.

IMO, that means that your choices for shortstop for next year are Iglesias, Reyes, Andrus, Asdrubal or Tulowitzki (this assumes that guys like Ian Desmond and Starlin Castro aren't available).

I'd just assume go with Iglesias and look for more offense elsewhere (1B, RF).

[OttoC]

I don't think Ross will ever be mentioned as a candidate for Gold Glove in right field and I shudder to think of him playing as the starting left fielder at Fenway, but if the Red Sox can get him signed to a reasonable deal, then they may be better off keeping him in right rather than trading for a new player.

[Plympton91]

Are we discounting the value this kid brings to a decidedly mediocre pitching staff?

No, that's what UZR and similar statistics do. Are you discounting the fact that his current major league slash line -- .135 / .210 / .203 -- is all he's capable of providing on offense?

Assuming a .550-.600 OPS out of Iglesias,

What rational, objective evidence suggests he can produce that OPS though? What if we assume a 500 OPS? What if we project his major league OPS using his career to date major league OPS of 413?

[dbn]

Here are my thoughts. They are guided by my feeling that trying to win as many games as possible in 2013 should be a high priority, but not as high as to win in 2015 and 2014.

Case A: They can bring in a player from outside the organization to be the 2013 starting SS, that can be acquired at acceptable cost, and they want him to still be the starting SS in 2015. In this scenario, if you can get value in a trade for Iglesias you do and make Ciriaco the backup IF. Otherwise, option Pedro (possible, right?) for org. depth and have Jose be the backup SS/2B/defensive wiz. Hang on to Bogaerts and hope he develops to challenge one of the starting IFs down the line, only trading him in the future if he remains blocked.

Case B: if case A isn't possible, and they are bullish on Jose (note: I'm bearish on Jose) go with Jose as the starter and Pedro the backup IF. If Jose develops an acceptable bat, hoorah. If not, he helps saves some runs for the staff and holds the fort for Xander. This is more of a "roll the dice" scenario, but hey, why not?

Case C: if they have lost all faith in the likelihood that Jose can be an above average starting SS by 2014 or 2015, trade him now. Sign a stopgap to Xander, have Pedro backup SS, 3B and 2B, pray Xander continues to develop and can stick at SS.

If I was the GM -- even though I'm pessimistic about Jose Iglesias -- I'd still go with case B if case A isn't an option. I suspect that this opinion is influenced by emotion, as I'm actually looking forward to a few years of watching our own prospects develop even if it means losing a bit in the short term. It's probable that the recent string of failed bets on free agents has colored this thought.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Here are my thoughts. They are guided by my feeling that trying to win as many games as possible in 2013 should be a high priority, but not as high as to win in 2015 and 2014.

Case A: They can bring in a player from outside the organization to be the 2013 starting SS, that can be acquired at acceptable cost, and they want him to still be the starting SS in 2015. In this scenario, if you can get value in a trade for Iglesias you do and make Ciriaco the backup IF. Otherwise, option Pedro (possible, right?) for org. depth and have Jose be the backup SS/2B/defensive wiz. Hang on to Bogaerts and hope he develops to challenge one of the starting IFs down the line, only trading him in the future if he remains blocked.

Case B: if case A isn't possible, and they are bullish on Jose (note: I'm bearish on Jose) go with Jose as the starter and Pedro the backup IF. If Jose develops an acceptable bat, hoorah. If not, he helps saves some runs for the staff and holds the fort for Xander. This is more of a "roll the dice" scenario, but hey, why not?

Case C: if they have lost all faith in the likelihood that Jose can be an above average starting SS by 2014 or 2015, trade him now. Sign a stopgap to Xander, have Pedro backup SS, 3B and 2B, pray Xander continues to develop and can stick at SS.

If I was the GM -- even though I'm pessimistic about Jose Iglesias -- I'd still go with case B if case A isn't an option. I suspect that this opinion is influenced by emotion, as I'm actually looking forward to a few years of watching our own prospects develop even if it means losing a bit in the short term. It's probable that the recent string of failed bets on free agents has colored this thought.

Ciriaco is out of options, so he can't be sent down in Case A.

I'm in the Case C boat. Sign a stopgap and wait for Boegarts. I don't think Iglesias is the answer, now or in the future, but I'm willing to give him 2013 to start at AAA and force himself into the ML lineup with an improvement at the plate. If he doesn't make it, he doesn't make it and you cut ties next winter.

[OnWisc]

Unless they can acquire an elite shortstop (Reyes seems to be the most likely guy available), I don't see the point in acquiring another marginal guy. Assuming a .550-.600 OPS out of Iglesias, I don't think the likelihood is particularly high that someone like Drew is going to outhit him to the point where it's a substantial upgrade once defense is factored in.

IMO, that means that your choices for shortstop for next year are Iglesias, Reyes, Andrus, Asdrubal or Tulowitzki (this assumes that guys like Ian Desmond and Starlin Castro aren't available).

I'd just assume go with Iglesias and look for more offense elsewhere (1B, RF).

I don't necessarily disagree, but my issue is with your basic assumption about Jose's OPS, which is far from a given, and is probably pretty unlikely.

While it may be silly to do so, I'm not concerning myself all the much with his OPS, and would simply like to see an OBP that doesn't render him essentially an automatic out. He hasn't shown that yet.

I see Drew as someone very likely to put up an OPS exceeding .700, and to do it on a very short-term deal. A's are reportedly still looking to sign him, but with the $1.35mm buyout on the $10mm option, any one-year deal should be less than $9mm.

If Drew's looking for a longer deal at a lower AAV, then I'd stay away anyway, as it would indicate to me that Boras knows something.

[lexrageorge]

Iglesias OBP in the minors last year was 0.315. Therefore, the thesis that he could eventually achieve somewhat the same in the majors is not as farfetched as some here think. Whether he can do that in 2013 is a bit more of a stretch. But if he can get close, then getting that 0.550 to 0.600 OPS isn't that far out of the question.

[Rasputin]

The better than mediocre path relies currently on Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, and Dubront to all improve on their most recent stat line. Individually you can make a strong case for each one to take a leap forward, but the overall scenario requires contributions from each if no ace is signed. Going 2 for 4, or even 3 for 4, isn't going to be enough to turn the club around.

It's language like "turn the club around" that confuses the issue. The club isn't a killer asteroid headed for Earth, it's a baseball team. It doesn't need to turn around, it needs to win games.

For much of the previous season it was a .500 team with an excellent offense and less than excellent pitching. After the Punto trade it was a terrible team with less than excellent pitching and almost no offense whatsoever.

Improving on the 69-93 record is almost pathetically easy. Sign some actual major league hitters.

Improving on the .500ish team, though, is what we want, because we want fun games and a chance to win.

I would suggest that Lester returning to his previous form and Buchholz demonstrating that the last four months of 2012 are more who he is than the first two months is enough--with the assumption made that there will be actual major league hitters on the roster--to put the Sox above .500. That, in itself, would make the team competitive for one of the wild card spots and would, frankly, be good enough for me for 2013.

[Rasputin]

Case C: if they have lost all faith in the likelihood that Jose can be an above average starting SS by 2014 or 2015, trade him now. Sign a stopgap to Xander, have Pedro backup SS, 3B and 2B, pray Xander continues to develop and can stick at SS.

If I was the GM -- even though I'm pessimistic about Jose Iglesias -- I'd still go with case B if case A isn't an option. I suspect that this opinion is influenced by emotion, as I'm actually looking forward to a few years of watching our own prospects develop even if it means losing a bit in the short term. It's probable that the recent string of failed bets on free agents has colored this thought.

Ciriaco is out of options, so he can't be sent down in Case A.

I'm in the Case C boat. Sign a stopgap and wait for Boegarts. I don't think Iglesias is the answer, now or in the future, but I'm willing to give him 2013 to start at AAA and force himself into the ML lineup with an improvement at the plate. If he doesn't make it, he doesn't make it and you cut ties next winter.

I don't think they have given up hope that Iglesias can be good enough. I think they're going to hand him the 2013 job and leave him there until Bogaerts takes it away from him.

What I ask myself is whether Iglesias would make a good utility infielder. I'm sure he can make the adjustments to playing second, but I wonder about third.

I also wonder if, after a couple seasons at short, Bogaerts moves to third, if Iglesias will have made the offensive improvements necessary to be the every day SS.

Also, in re Ciriaco, if Iglesias is the starting shortstop then I'm not sure it makes any sense for Ciriaco to be the utility guy. The single most important thing the utility guy would have to do is pinch hit for Iglesias in close games. Ciriaco isn't going to be much of an improvement there.

It depends, of course, on what the rest of the roster looks like, but unless there is more positional flexibility than most envision, I think we'd want a better pinch hitting utility guy.

[OnWisc]

Anecdotal, but Aviles was interviewed on SiriusXM's MLB channel this morning. Said something along the lines of Iglesias being the best defensive shortstop he had ever laid eyes on in person. Discussed him being able not only to glove the ball to second from wherever he fielded it, but claimed he could throw it to first with his glove. When Cliff Floyd called BS, Aviles insisted he didn't believe it himself until Iglesias showed him.

Obviously Iggy's defense isn't the issue, and gloving the ball across the infield isn't something should ever be called for, but interesting nonetheless.

EDIT: Not as relevant to this particular thread, but didn't get sucked in to any of the Bobby questions. Dismissed the reported cutoff positioning outburst as a non-issue, or at least something that was over almost as soon as it happened.

Edited by OnWisc, 30 October 2012 - 01:20 PM.

[seantoo]

"Remove any doubt" is rather strong. "Offer some encouragement" would, I think, be more accurate. Are we discounting any notion that the pitching staff could be more than mediocre?

Thanks Jake Rae for beating me to the punch, I was going on memory. So a player who is several years younger than the league average who had yet to show he can hit adequately enough to justify his defensive wizardry at the big show, started off poorly in Pawtucket this year, then batted .341/.364/.427/.790 in May, was hurt in June came back and was rusty batting .242, then finished strong with .329/.402/.397/.800 or put another way hit about .335 and about .387 OBP for 2 of his last 3 months in the minors again while being several years younger than his average competition while being noted to be a gold glove calibre player already, and that offer SOME encouragement? Mind you this is in response to SmilingJoe (Not to single him out he has alot of company) comment, "Because he's a guy who can't even hit AAA pitching? How about it offers alot of encouragement is that a fair enough compromise. To many others are on the other side of the ledge and can't see there is reason to believe.


Jose Iglesias 2012 Monthly Splits
AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS April 0.200 22 85 10 17 1 0 0 5 8 16 4 1 0.274 0.212 0.485 May 0.341 20 82 13 28 2 1 1 9 4 5 4 0 0.364 0.427 0.790 June 0.071 3 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.143 July 0.242 24 99 9 24 1 0 0 7 6 16 3 2 0.287 0.253 0.540 August 0.329 19 73 14 24 5 0 0 2 9 8 1 0 0.402 0.397 0.800

[Super Nomario]

Thanks Jake Rae for beating me to the punch, I was going on memory. So a player who is several years younger than the league average who had yet to show he can hit adequately enough to justify his defensive wizardry at the big show, started off poorly in Pawtucket this year, then batted .341/.364/.427/.790 in May, was hurt in June came back and was rusty batting .242, then finished strong with .329/.402/.397/.800 or put another way hit about .335 and about .387 OBP for 2 of his last 3 months in the minors again while being several years younger than his average competition while being noted to be a gold glove calibre player already, and that offer SOME encouragement? Mind you this is in response to SmilingJoe (Not to single him out he has alot of company) comment, "Because he's a guy who can't even hit AAA pitching? How about it offers alot of encouragement is that a fair enough compromise. To many others are on the other side of the ledge and can't see there is reason to believe.

He was also awful in September in Boston. Maybe his numbers were suppressed by shaking off some rust in July, but what I see is a guy whose effectiveness is completely tied to whether singles fall in for him. When his BABIP is .360, like it was in May and August, he's great. When his BABIP is .250 or less, like it was in April or September, he's historically awful. When it's .290, as it was in July (and which is probably the fairest estimate of his potential), he's sub-replacement. He struck out a bit less in his good months and hit for a little more power, but the big difference was in BABIP.

[JakeRae]

He was also awful in September in Boston. Maybe his numbers were suppressed by shaking off some rust in July, but what I see is a guy whose effectiveness is completely tied to whether singles fall in for him. When his BABIP is .360, like it was in May and August, he's great. When his BABIP is .250 or less, like it was in April or September, he's historically awful. When it's .290, as it was in July (and which is probably the fairest estimate of his potential), he's sub-replacement. He struck out a bit less in his good months and hit for a little more power, but the big difference was in BABIP.

He's a better than replacement level hitter, for his position, at the .240/.290/.280 line we could expect from him with a .290 BABIP. This is about what we should expect from him, although I could understand someone arguing for .230/.275/.265 instead. The people claiming Iglesias is likely to hit at or below the Mendoza line are getting caught up in looking at an extreme SSS performance in MLB for a young player getting his first real exposure in MLB. As Red Sox fans, we should all be able to remember Pedroia's first September and April and realize how foolish this is. Obviously, Iglesias is not Pedroia, but he is still a much better hitter than his September performance, in isolation, would indicate.

Another thing to keep in mind, at the extreme margins, is that our run based paradigm does undervalue defense in an extremely marginal manner. Runs saved are more valuable than runs earned as the marginal value of a run increases as the scoring environment decreases. This is an extremely marginal effect, but it does mean that a player like Iglesias is always going to be a tiny bit more valuable than WAR would lead you to believe. (Although, I think rWAR now adjusts for this effect, so this may now only be true of fWAR.)

[OttoC]

...The people claiming Iglesias is likely to hit at or below the Mendoza line are getting caught up in looking at an extreme SSS performance in MLB for a young player getting his first real exposure in MLB. As Red Sox fans, we should all be able to remember Pedroia's first September and April and realize how foolish this is....

I think there is a big difference between Iglesias and Pedroia at the plate.Here are Pedroia's first three seasons in the minors (with age in parens):

2004 (20) -- 185 PA .357/.435/.535/.970 (A/A+)
2005 (21) -- 538 PA .293/.385/.452/.837 (AA/AAA)
2006 (22) -- 493 PA .305/.384/.426/.810 (AAA)

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

He's a better than replacement level hitter, for his position, at the .240/.290/.280 line we could expect from him with a .290 BABIP. This is about what we should expect from him, although I could understand someone arguing for .230/.275/.265 instead. The people claiming Iglesias is likely to hit at or below the Mendoza line are getting caught up in looking at an extreme SSS performance in MLB for a young player getting his first real exposure in MLB. As Red Sox fans, we should all be able to remember Pedroia's first September and April and realize how foolish this is. Obviously, Iglesias is not Pedroia, but he is still a much better hitter than his September performance, in isolation, would indicate.

He had a 13% LD rate at Pawtucket last year but still managed a BABIP of .304. In addition to seeing tougher pitching, he's likely to lose some hits next year because the fielding is substantially better at the ML level, and the small LF at Fenway isn't going to do him any favors in that regard.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think there is a big difference between Iglesias and Pedroia at the plate.Here are Pedroia's first three seasons in the minors (with age in parens):

2004 (20) -- 185 PA .357/.435/.535/.970 (A/A+)
2005 (21) -- 538 PA .293/.385/.452/.837 (AA/AAA)
2006 (22) -- 493 PA .305/.384/.426/.810 (AAA)

Immediately after the quote you're responding to, JR said "Obviously, Iglesias is not Pedroia." But thanks for quantifying the obvious.

The point being made is that a hitter's performance through his first few hundred PA is a very unreliable guide to his performance going forward. In this case, Iglesias' 2012 ML slash line resulted from a .137 BABIP that it's 100% impossible he will fail to top by well over .100 in a full season.

[Cumberland Blues]

...Discussed him being able not only to glove the ball to second from wherever he fielded it, but claimed he could throw it to first with his glove. When Cliff Floyd called BS, Aviles insisted he didn't believe it himself until Iglesias showed him.

This is nuts. I want to see this.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The point being made is that a hitter's performance through his first few hundred PA is a very unreliable guide to his performance going forward.

Didn't Pedroia's performance in the minors become a pretty good predictor as to what he would do in the bigs, though? If Iglesias had Pedroia's minor league performance, what he did last year in Boston wouldn't be as relevant, but he wasn't very good in the minors either. As far as his BABIP goes, surely it won't go any lower, but it's hard to compare him to other big league players when we aren't sure if he is a big league player, isn't it? I would assume that most minor leaguers who don't make hard contact, etc. would have low BABIP's in the bigs, even over sustained periods of time.

[mabrowndog]

BUMP

I was hoping if the Sox were going to bring aboard a placeholder at SS to allow Iglesias some more AAA seasoning, that Drew would be their guy. And I know I'm not alone.

Now I'm hoping Susan's source has never been more wrong in his life.

Susan Slusser
‏@susanslusser
A major-league executive tells me he believes Stephen Drew will sign with #Athletics for one year with an additional player option for '14.

Edited by mabrowndog, 06 December 2012 - 09:33 PM.

[Sprowl]

I'd rather go with Iggy. More seasoning will only show that his bat will progress gradually from abysmal to Mendoza to Ozzie.

I'm ready to put up with some futility at bat just so I can watch brilliance at shortstop. I am prepared to sacrifice 2013 to Art, and to watch Farrell call upon a parade of pinch-hitters.

[MikeM]

BUMP

I was hoping if the Sox were going to bring aboard a placeholder at SS to allow Iglesias some more AAA seasoning, that Drew would be their guy. And I know I'm not alone.

Now I'm hoping Susan's source has never been more wrong in his life.

I'd prefer a placeholder as well, but beyond Drew's default appeal, i'm not seeing much of a missed opportunity there. Too much of an alarming drop off since 2010, and while the Oakland stuff looks somewhat promising on the surface, a quick glace of the game logs behind it isn't doing much to inspire my confidence that an actual turn around was indeed taking place there. I mean as late as Sept 20th his overall #'s were still hovering around pre-trade levels, before an 8 game hitting streak basically fueled that SSS total up to respectability. He then goes on to finish the year 2 for 19, posts more of the same crap level stuff in the playoffs, and essentially leaves things off back at square one imo.

I'd take Drew on a low cost/1 year flyer, but that's really where you have to draw the line there, again imo. Otherwise it just starts getting too Lugo'like for my tastes, where the overwhelming need/desire to both see and find a solution there seems to be the driving force behind the logic, rather then what's actually being presented in front of us.

[Drek717]

If we're talking low cost SS fliers I'd hope they kick the tires on Jhonny Peralta. UZR has been very positive for his defense at SS over the last two seasons (10.7, 11.7) with fat sample sizes (145+ games the last two years, 1250+ innings each year). His offense last year was horrible, but his BABIP was also 35 points lower than his career average. If he bounces back to Bill James' 2013 estimate he'd be a ~750 OPS. Coupled with his statistically solid D and that is a worthwhile stopgap, plus he'd have the upside of bouncing back to his 2011 numbers.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

If we're talking low cost SS fliers I'd hope they kick the tires on Jhonny Peralta. UZR has been very positive for his defense at SS over the last two seasons (10.7, 11.7) with fat sample sizes (145+ games the last two years, 1250+ innings each year). His offense last year was horrible, but his BABIP was also 35 points lower than his career average. If he bounces back to Bill James' 2013 estimate he'd be a ~750 OPS. Coupled with his statistically solid D and that is a worthwhile stopgap, plus he'd have the upside of bouncing back to his 2011 numbers.

The Tigers would have to find a better alternative at SS themselves before they make Peralta available, I would think. There were rumors early in the off-season that they might target Stephen Drew and make Peralta available for trade, but obviously nothing has come of it.

[Drek717]

The Tigers would have to find a better alternative at SS themselves before they make Peralta available, I would think. There were rumors early in the off-season that they might target Stephen Drew and make Peralta available for trade, but obviously nothing has come of it.

Good point, but they've been tied to some big name SS options (Andrus and Cabrera). If they do land one of them you'd think they'd be quick to unload Peralta's $6M.

Maybe not though. The SS market is looking expensive this off-season. Drew getting multiple bidders, rumors on Rotoworld claim both the A's and D'Backs view trading for Peralta as a fallback if they can't land another SS. Escobar was jumped on quickly when the Marlins dangled him.

If the option is guaranteeing a second year (or worse, a player option second year) for someone like Drew or just starting Iglesias it'll be a tough decision to make.

[Rovin Romine]

Any thoughts on Iglesias vis-a-vis his contract? I know he was signed as an international free agent, but I can't figure out how long the club controls him for or how many options he has.