Bogaerts Bat

[twibnotes]

 
If he had kept the old bat angle to go along with the new lower body, he'd be a spitting image of the Pro.
 

Seems like mueller's front foot is also a bit more pigeon-toe'd

Seems odd that X is opening up his stance when the outer half stuff has caused him such problems.

 

[JimBoSox9]

Seems like mueller's front foot is also a bit more pigeon-toe'd

Seems odd that X is opening up his stance when the outer half stuff has caused him such problems.

It's not so much the plate coverage for him; I'd bet the change is about picking up righty breaking ball spin earlier.

 

[twibnotes]

It's not so much the plate coverage for him; I'd bet the change is about picking up righty breaking ball spin earlier.

Opening the stance can definitely help see. Just hope he can keep his shoulder in and by fly off the ball too much

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Seems like mueller's front foot is also a bit more pigeon-toe'd

Seems odd that X is opening up his stance when the outer half stuff has caused him such problems.

 
Open stance means he's stepping toward the plate at the swing, which probably makes it easier to cover the outside half.  Or at least I assume that's part of the theory (along with seeing the ball better in general).  Where he might now be susceptible is on inside pitches, since the result of an open stance can sometimes be something of a dive toward the plate.  An inside pitch could tie him up if he's off-balance at all.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Maybe he should try the Tony Batista open stance...

 

[charlieoscar]

Maybe it's time Bogaerts had a new batting coach. Trade bait?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Maybe it's time Bogaerts had a new batting coach. Trade bait?

 
You're joking I hope.  He's been working with Chili Davis for all of two months.

 

[billy ashley]

I know it has been stated before but remember:
 
Xander Bogaerts is 22 years old. He is one month older than Mookie Betts, half a year younger than Blake Swihart, 2 full years younger than Deven Marrero and a year and half younger than Garin Cecchini. 
 
The guy has been struggling in the majors but he's still insanely talented. I think our expectations sometime get out of whack with him because he did nothing but hit between 18 and 21. Had his rise been not so dramatic, folks would be fine with the start of his 2015.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Hopefully you are not serious. My sarcasm detector is broken. Let's give X more than a month of the regular season before trying to trade him. Next month you'll be advocating that he be DFAed if he does not hit 500.

 

[twibnotes]

 
Open stance means he's stepping toward the plate at the swing, which probably makes it easier to cover the outside half.  Or at least I assume that's part of the theory (along with seeing the ball better in general).  Where he might now be susceptible is on inside pitches, since the result of an open stance can sometimes be something of a dive toward the plate.  An inside pitch could tie him up if he's off-balance at all.

In my experience, open stance allows you to clear out the inside stuff better.

(I topped out as a decent high school / legion player but had some coaches who knew their stuff)

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

So I guess I'm wondering why there is so much concern. No, the results haven't been star-level, but he's got a solid on-base percentage, he's cut his K rate (and we're a few games away from the point where that figure can be considered stable - 100 PAs and he has 88), his BABIP isn't outrageously inflated, and his walk rate is closer to where it was in the minors. Little power at the moment, but, as others have pointed out, that may be a bit slow in developing. In games I've been watching, he will have the occasional disappointing AB, yes, but I've also seen him put on a few decent battles. I think he's still young and finding his way a bit after last year, but I don't think he's the lost cause some have suggested. 

 

[Rasputin]

So I guess I'm wondering why there is so much concern. No, the results haven't been star-level, but he's got a solid on-base percentage, he's cut his K rate (and we're a few games away from the point where that figure can be considered stable - 100 PAs and he has 88), his BABIP isn't outrageously inflated, and his walk rate is closer to where it was in the minors. Little power at the moment, but, as others have pointed out, that may be a bit slow in developing. In games I've been watching, he will have the occasional disappointing AB, yes, but I've also seen him put on a few decent battles. I think he's still young and finding his way a bit after last year, but I don't think he's the lost cause some have suggested. 

 
The concern is because his results are outstripping his performance. He's not hitting line drives the way he should be and if he weren't getting some babip luck, his numbers would be pretty ugly. I don't think it rates as anything more than something to watch.

 

[sean1562]

For all the talk of Xander, Mookie hasnt been terribly impressive at the plate outside of a few games. his stats are significantly worse no? are we worried about both of them or not worried about either?

 

[twibnotes]

For all the talk of Xander, Mookie hasnt been terribly impressive at the plate outside of a few games. his stats are significantly worse no? are we worried about both of them or not worried about either?

Mookie has been victimized by a lot of well hit at-'em balls.


Mookie BABIP: .250

X BABIP: .318

(In spite of the eye saying Mookie has squared up a lot more baseballs)

 

[jasail]

Mookie has been victimized by a lot of well hit at-'em balls.


Mookie BABIP: .250

X BABIP: .318

(In spite of the eye saying Mookie has squared up a lot more baseballs)

 
Not only the above, but there is a dramatic difference in the quality of plate appearance. Mookie has demonstrated an ability to layoff or spill off pitches he can't handle and then drive those that he can. Xander continues to be caught in between, not being able to layoff or spill breaking balls or drive fastballs. You don't have to look further than last night in the 9th. Miller got even with Xander at 1-1 and everyone but Xander seemingly knew the slider was coming. Miller threw him two of them down and in that Xander couldn't lay off and never had a chance to hit. One batter later, Betts put up a nine 9 pitch AB spitting on sliders at his feet and spilling off pitches near the edges before he took a walk. 

 

[billy ashley]

jasail's post points as to why I'm not too concerned:
 
Xander is not right at the moment. It's clear during his plate appearances, he's not comfortable. Yet, he hasn't been a total shit show as a hitter. If he can tread water while not being "on" that's a good sign. Especially for a freak'n 22 year old. 

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
Not only the above, but there is a dramatic difference in the quality of plate appearance. Mookie has demonstrated an ability to layoff or spill off pitches he can't handle and then drive those that he can. Xander continues to be caught in between, not being able to layoff or spill breaking balls or drive fastballs. You don't have to look further than last night in the 9th. Miller got even with Xander at 1-1 and everyone but Xander seemingly knew the slider was coming. Miller threw him two of them down and in that Xander couldn't lay off and never had a chance to hit. One batter later, Betts put up a nine 9 pitch AB spitting on sliders at his feet and spilling off pitches near the edges before he took a walk. 

Between the spilling and the spitting, I got woozy there. Are you really using spill (spilling) as a verb describing hitting?

 

[charlieoscar]

I know it has been stated before but remember:
 
Xander Bogaerts is 22 years old. He is one month older than Mookie Betts, half a year younger than Blake Swihart, 2 full years younger than Deven Marrero and a year and half younger than Garin Cecchini. 
 
The guy has been struggling in the majors but he's still insanely talented. I think our expectations sometime get out of whack with him because he did nothing but hit between 18 and 21. Had his rise been not so dramatic, folks would be fine with the start of his 2015.

 
Insanely talented? Mike Trout is insanely talented and is only one year older (almost exactly) and has managed to collect 2301 PA in the majors to Bogaert's 736.

 

[uncannymanny]

Mike Trout seems like a reasonable comp for any young player.

 

[LuckyBen]

 
Insanely talented? Mike Trout is insanely talented and is only one year older (almost exactly) and has managed to collect 2301 PA in the majors to Bogaert's 736.

So you take the best young player and one of the best in MLB and say why isn't X doing that? He might not live up to the early expectations, but the kid needs a very long leash.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

jasail's post points as to why I'm not too concerned:
 
Xander is not right at the moment. It's clear during his plate appearances, he's not comfortable. Yet, he hasn't been a total shit show as a hitter. If he can tread water while not being "on" that's a good sign. Especially for a freak'n 22 year old. 

 
As long as the struggles don't get inside his head and mess up his approach. Seems like lately every time I see him hit, he takes a strike he should have swung at, and then gets behind and chases. The lack of results doesn't bother me at this point, but I wish he looked a bit less confused up there. I still think he'll become a better hitter in time, but the path from here to there is not looking as clear as one would like.

 

[ScubaSteveAvery]

 
As long as the struggles don't get inside his head and mess up his approach. Seems like lately every time I see him hit, he takes a strike he should have swung at, and then gets behind and chases. The lack of results doesn't bother me at this point, but I wish he looked a bit less confused up there. I still think he'll become a better hitter in time, but the path from here to there is not looking as clear as one would like.

His development could easily take the path of someone like Alex Gordon, who was OK, but didn't move up to his potential for the first 4 years if his career. Now, he's the kind of hitter everyone expected, while developing a sterling defensive reputation. And Gordon was someone who posted a career 1.016 OPS in the minors, PCL inflation notwithstanding.

I've started to stop worrying about instant success like that of Trout or Harper. Im willing to give prospects time to work stuff out. If Bogaerts OPS+ drops from the mid 80s to the mid 70s or lower, I'll start to worry. But he's a young kid figuring out his game at the hardest possible level. Does it suck watching him flail at sliders? Yep. Is it concerning that he's tinkering with his stance? A little. But I'm willing to see how this plays out over the whole year before drawing more conclusions about his game.

 

[Toe Nash]

His development could easily take the path of someone like Alex Gordon, who was OK, but didn't move up to his potential for the first 4 years if his career. Now, he's the kind of hitter everyone expected, while developing a sterling defensive reputation. And Gordon was someone who posted a career 1.016 OPS in the minors, PCL inflation notwithstanding.
 

Worth nothing that he achieved that sterling reputation (and his bat became consistently good) after switching to an easier position.

 

[charlieoscar]

So you take the best young player and one of the best in MLB and say why isn't X doing that? He might not live up to the early expectations, but the kid needs a very long leash.

 
billy ashley said Bogaerts is "insanely talented." I simply pointed out someone who is insanely talented and scarcely a year older. If you won the bat toss, which one would you choose?
 
The following lists are taken from Baseball America's All-Time Top 100 Prospects. I arbitrarily selected a range of years that offered the players time to make the majors and spend some time there and I also bolded those players I would pick as stars. Only two of the batters are lifetime .300 hitters and one in the .280s. Only two pitchers have broken the 100-win mark. If being in the top 10 in the all-time top 100 lists isn't guaranteeing stardom, why would being ranked number one in a team's system mean anything, either?
 
2005
1. Joe Mauer, c, Twins .318/.400/.458, 1323 games played
2. Felix Hernandez, rhp, Mariners 129-92, 3.05 ERA, 308 games played
3. Delmon Young, of, Devil Rays .284/.318/.424, 1081 games played
4. Ian Stewart, 3b, Rockies .229/.315/.415, 511 games played
5. Joel Guzman, ss, Dodgers .232/.306/.321, 24 games played
6. Casey Kotchman, 1b, Angels .260/.326/.385, 939 games played
7. Scott Kazmir, lhp, Devil Rays 93-79, 4.01 ERA, 246 games played
8. Rickie Weeks, 2b, Brewers .248/.346/.423, 1160 games played
9. Andy Marte, 3b, Braves .218/.276/.358, 307 games played
10. Hanley Ramirez, ss, Red Sox .300/.372/.502, 1247 games played
 
2006
1. Delmon Young, of, Devil Rays .284/.318/.424, 1081 games played
2. Justin Upton, ss, Diamondbacks .275/.354/.479, 1059 games played
3. Brandon Wood, ss, Angels .186/.225/.289, 272 games played
4. Jeremy Hermida, of, Marlins .257/.334/.415, 632 games played
5. Stephen Drew, ss, Diamondbacks .255/.321/.424, 1043 games played
6. Francisco Liriano, lhp, Twins 77-73, 4.01 ERA, 228 games played
7. Chad Billingsley, rhp, Dodgers 81-61, 3.65 ERA, 219 games played
8. Justin Verlander, rhp, Tigers 152-89, 3.53 ERA, 298 games played
9. Lastings Milledge, of, Mets .269/.328/.395, 433 games played
10. Matt Cain, rhp, Giants 95-95, 3.39 ERA, 281 games played
 
2007
1. Daisuke Matsuzaka, rhp, Red Sox 56-43, 4.45 ERA, 158 games played
2. Alex Gordon, 3b, Royals .268/.346/.435, 1054 games played
3. Delmon Young, of, Devil Rays .284/.318/.424, 1081 games played
4. Phil Hughes, rhp, Yankees 72-64, 4.33 ERA, 219 games played
5. Homer Bailey, rhp, Reds 58-51, 4.19 ERA, 168 games played
6. Cameron Maybin, of, Tigers .246/.309/.368, 579 games played
7. Evan Longoria, 3b, Devil Rays .271/.352/.492, 984 games played
8. Brandon Wood, ss, Angels .186/.225/.289, 272 games played
9. Justin Upton, of, Diamondbacks .275/.354/.479, 1059 games played
10. Andrew Miller, lhp, Tigers 30-38, 4.78 ERA, 271 games played
 
2008
1. Jay Bruce, of, Reds .250/.323/.466, 991 games played
2. Evan Longoria, 3b, Rays .271/.352/.492, 984 games played
3. Joba Chamberlain, rhp, Yankees 25-19, 3.78 ERA, 336 games played
4. Clay Buchholz, rhp, Red Sox 67-47, 3.97 ERA, 156 games played
5. Colby Rasmus, of, Cardinals .246/.314/.441, 816 games played
6. Cameron Maybin, of, Marlins .246/.309/.368, 579 games played
7. Clayton Kershaw, lhp, Dodgers 99-51, 2.51 ERA, 216 games played
8. Franklin Morales, lhp, Rockies 21-27, 4.65 ERA, 244 games played
9. Homer Bailey, rhp, Reds 58-51, 4.19 ERA, 168 games played
10. David Price, lhp, Rays 89-52, 3.20 ERA, 192 games played

 

[Dahabenzapple2]

a little nit-picking but Evan Longoria and Justin Upton are stars
 
yes - our worst fears are that Xander ends up being one of those in-between guys which your fine post indicates is the most likely long term outcome.
 
 

 

[charlieoscar]

a little nit-picking but Evan Longoria and Justin Upton are stars
 
yes - our worst fears are that Xander ends up being one of those in-between guys which your fine post indicates is the most likely long term outcome.
 
 

 
I'm not going to quibble about Longoria and Upton but the point remains: if you aren't finding the top ten ranked players from the list of 100 packed with stars, what do you expect when you look at the top-ranked players from 30 teams? People see the rankings and get carried away without stopping to think how hit-and-miss they can be.

 

[nvalvo]

 
I'm not going to quibble about Longoria and Upton but the point remains: if you aren't finding the top ten ranked players from the list of 100 packed with stars, what do you expect when you look at the top-ranked players from 30 teams? People see the rankings and get carried away without stopping to think how hit-and-miss they can be.

 
The number of real catastrophic "misses" — your Brandon Wood/Lastings Milledge/Andy Marte type misses — are pretty rare in prospects of that level. Some of these guys have had long and twisting paths to success, and some are never good, but it's pretty valuable to a team to have brought up an Andrew Miller or Chad Billingsley or Delmon Young, even if they don't end up meeting your arbitrary *star* cutoff. 

 

[absintheofmalaise]

iayork has a good piece on the site today about a player's debut age and his peak and decline.

 

[flymrfreakjar]

 
The number of real catastrophic "misses" — your Brandon Wood/Lastings Milledge/Andy Marte type misses — are pretty rare in prospects of that level. Some of these guys have had long and twisting paths to success 

Forgive me if this example was already used but Adrian Gonzalez keeps coming to mind. Number one overall pick, struggled in his first few years in Texas at age 22 and 23 albeit in very limited playing time... I don't remember all the details of his exit besides being blocked by Teixeira, but of course he was traded and became a superstar hitter at 24-25. Maybe we can give it another year with these kids...

 

[foulkehampshire]

His vastly improved defense makes the offensive issues somewhat palatable to wait on. He's hit at every level and I still have faith that he can make the adjustment.

 

[charlieoscar]

Well, I said in one thread very recently (and that is a problem, too many threads talking about the same thing) that I thought both Betts (54 games at AA, 45 at AAA) and Bogaerts (79 games at AA, 60at AAA) had been rushed to the majors.
 
As for "His vastly improved defense," he might be getting up to an average shortstop. He handles pop-ups well but it seems to me that he double-clutches and even triple-clutches on too many throws.

 

[WenZink]

Well, I said in one thread very recently (and that is a problem, too many threads talking about the same thing) that I thought both Betts (54 games at AA, 45 at AAA) and Bogaerts (79 games at AA, 60at AAA) had been rushed to the majors.
 
As for "His vastly improved defense," he might be getting up to an average shortstop. He handles pop-ups well but it seems to me that he double-clutches and even triple-clutches on too many throws.

 
Unless there is some "confidence" problem that is identifiable with a prospect, what's the issue with bringing the players up if they are better than what you have?  Both Betts and Bogaerts have performed far better than "replacement value."  What's the option, sign Stephen Drew to another 1 year deal?    Who plays centerfield?  Should they have offered Johnny Damon a one year deal, before he officially retired?
 
Both Betts and Bogaerts showed no serious flaws in their approaches, so it's fine that they're experiencing their "finishing school" in the majors.  There only problem is we expected both to be all-stars in their first full years, in spite of their ages.  Bogaerts has gotten plenty of coaching help in Boston, and the results are visible.  Betts has a better chance learning not to chase crap pitches vs competent pitchers rather than AAA pretenders.  Good players and good personalities are able to learn under fire.  If they don't improve, then they weren't that good in the first place.

 

[TomRicardo]

 
Unless there is some "confidence" problem that is identifiable with a prospect, what's the issue with bringing the players up if they are better than what you have?  Both Betts and Bogaerts have performed far better than "replacement value."  What's the option, sign Stephen Drew to another 1 year deal?    Who plays centerfield?  Should they have offered Johnny Damon a one year deal, before he officially retired?
 
Both Betts and Bogaerts showed no serious flaws in their approaches, so it's fine that they're experiencing their "finishing school" in the majors.  There only problem is we expected both to be all-stars in their first full years, in spite of their ages.  Bogaerts has gotten plenty of coaching help in Boston, and the results are visible.  Betts has a better chance learning not to chase crap pitches vs competent pitchers rather than AAA pretenders.  Good players and good personalities are able to learn under fire.  If they don't improve, then they weren't that good in the first place.

 
Betts and Bogaerts are not the problems on this team.  Both are playing ~3 win baseball right now.  

 

[WenZink]

 
Betts and Bogaerts are not the problems on this team.  Both are playing ~3 win baseball right now.  

 
you're preaching to the converted.  As I posted, both have performed far better than replacement value.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
Betts and Bogaerts are not the problems on this team.  Both are playing ~3 win baseball right now.  

 
Based entirely on their positive defensive metrics, which as everybody knows are as meaningless as the empty universe in a one month sample. They're both net negatives on offense. JBJ was a better hitter to this point in the season last year than Betts has been this year. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

nm. I researched it.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

 
Based entirely on their positive defensive metrics, which as everybody knows are as meaningless as the empty universe in a one month sample. They're both net negatives on offense. JBJ was a better hitter to this point in the season last year than Betts has been this year. 

 
Mookie is now on pace for 6 fWAR over 162 games, about 40% of that attributable to offensive skills (hitting and baserunning).  Is that good enough for you?
 
Maybe we should slow down before concluding that anybody was promoted too fast or is a "net negative" on offense.

 

[TomRicardo]

 
Based entirely on their positive defensive metrics, which as everybody knows are as meaningless as the empty universe in a one month sample. They're both net negatives on offense. JBJ was a better hitter to this point in the season last year than Betts has been this year. 

 
Bogaerts has 99 OPS+ at SS and Mookie Betts has 106 OPS+.  JBJ had a lower ops than both at this point of the season.  But thanks for adding?
 
Edit - Bogaerts has the 3rd best OPS in the AL for qualified SS (losing to Jose Iglesias)

 

[foulkehampshire]

It's not totally off base to compare X to early season 2014 JBJ; but X is striking out a heck of a lot less than JBJ. Most importantly, JBJ was fine at the beginning of the year; if he had continued to play that way he would have been a huge asset.

JBJ April 14: 244 / 344 / 372 (.323 BABIP, 12% BB, 28% K)
Bogaerts STD: 269 / 333 / 376 (.329 BABIP, 9% BB, 19% K)

 
a .323 BABIP with at 28% K is simply not sustainable unless you have speed or power. JBJ has niether, and regression happened.

 

[TomRicardo]

 
a .323 BABIP with at 28% K is simply not sustainable unless you have speed or power. JBJ has niether, and regression happened.

 
K% has (almost) nothing to do with BABIP.  You have to look at their LD%  Xander has 19% LD which roughly equates to ~.310 BABIP so he is a little better than he should be.
 
To be more accurate:
 
BABIP = .15 * FB% + .24 * GB% + .73 * LD%
 
or to really go for the cake
 
xBABIP =0.391597252 + (LD% x 0.287709436 ) + ((GB% - (GB% * IFH%) ) x -0.151969035 ) + ((FB% - (FB% x HR/FB%) - (FB% x IFFB%)) x -0.187532776) + ((IFFB% * FB%) x -0.834512464) + ((IFH% * GB%) x 0.4997192 )

 

[Todd Benzinger]

I take foulkehampshire's point to be simpler than the formula for xBABIP...
 
The point (I think) being that JBJ looked passable while sporting an unsustainable K rate. But he only looked decent because, in a small sample, he lucked into a good BABIP. SO, while the K rate and BABIP are independent of each other, taken together they explain how JBJ looked decent for 6 weeks but was doomed to regression.
 
However, JBJ apparently is tearing it up in AAA right now. Here's hoping he's made a real adjustment and can bring it with him to the majors.

 

[curly2]

The guy has been struggling in the majors but he's still insanely talented. 

 
I'm not giving up on him, but I don't think this is the case. Mookie Betts is insanely talented. Nomar Garciaparra is insanely talented. 
 
I applaud Xander for his improvement in the field. He's definitely better, but he doesn't have great range. His arm is adequate for a shortstop but nothing special. And his speed is average at best.
 
The big concern, though, is the bat speed. If his bat is as slow as it's looked so far in the majors, it's big trouble. He never seems to clean out an inside pitch. And worse, it seems like he's afraid of getting beat by fastball is cheating by starting his swing really early, leading him to chase some ugly pitches.
 
He still may be a good player, but if so it will be by hard work and not because of insane talent.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The question Of Bogaerts bat becomes a lot more interesting when Rusney gets up to speed. Holt to ss, with the all first-name outfield of Hanley-Mookie-Rusney is a very real option, with Bogaerts given the JBJ treatment (and hopefully to similar results).

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

The question Of Bogaerts bat becomes a lot more interesting when Rusney gets up to speed. Holt to ss, with the all first-name outfield of Hanley-Mookie-Rusney is a very real option, with Bogaerts given the JBJ treatment (and hopefully to similar results).

This isn't a vaguely real option.  Bogaerts isn't coming along as fast as we'd all like him to, but he's still trending up over last year and his defense has improved as well.  X's offense wouldn't even be getting our attention if we weren't seeing so much Craig, Nava, and SomNapoli on a daily basis.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

This isn't a vaguely real option.  Bogaerts isn't coming along as fast as we'd all like him to, but he's still trending up over last year and his defense has improved as well.  X's offense wouldn't even be getting our attention if we weren't seeing so much Craig, Nava, and SomNapoli on a daily basis.

I disagree. Bogaerts results have been adequate for a ss, but a 94 OPS+ isn't anywhere close to what the Sox envisioned. Not only that, he's failing to attack his pitches and is clearly a mess at the plate.

Frankly, Bogaerts needs to get back to doing what worked for him so well in the minors. Which is apparently exactly what JBJ needed, and did, assuming the early results there hold up.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

The question Of Bogaerts bat becomes a lot more interesting when Rusney gets up to speed. Holt to ss, with the all first-name outfield of Hanley-Mookie-Rusney is a very real option, with Bogaerts given the JBJ treatment (and hopefully to similar results).

 
I'm not sure about Holt as the starting SS--I think the Red Sox will keep him in a utility role.  If Marrero were hitting, I think they would place him on the 40-man and promote him to the majors while sending down Bogaerts.  Marrero would greatly improve the infield defense.  SS has turned into a sort of black hole for the Red Sox--Bogaerts isn't hitting and he isn't a particularly gifted defensive player, but I don't see many other options at SS.  The Red Sox need Bogaerts to start hitting or for Marrero to hit enough at AAA to earn the starting job at the major league level.    I wanted the Red Sox to hold on to Marrero in the off-season, because I had doubts about Bogaerts offensively and defensively.  The worst scenario has played out: Bogaerts has earned a demotion and Marrero isn't hitting at AAA.  Not good.
 
I would be tempted to improve the defense and promote Marrero while demoting Bogaerts, but I'm not happy with this solution either.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

Xander is 7th in OBP in MLB under players rated as SS who qualify (PAs).  
He's 10th in OPS.  9th in WAR.  9th in RC27.  
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/position/ss/sort/onBasePct/order/true
 
His defense has been pretty solid and I hear he's 22.  Top 10 SS in MLB.  I'm frustrated with his off-balance swings but let Chili work with him some more.  We have other worries (like pitchers 1-12).  

 

[tonyarmasjr]

Xander is 7th in OBP in MLB under players rated as SS who qualify (PAs).  
He's 10th in OPS.  9th in WAR.  9th in RC27.  
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/position/ss/sort/onBasePct/order/true
 
His defense has been pretty solid and I hear he's 22.  Top 10 SS in MLB.  I'm frustrated with his off-balance swings but let Chili work with him some more.  We have other worries (like pitchers 1-12).  

Seriously.  If you guys aren't ok with an above-league-average 22 year old SS making the league minimum, what are you ok with?  Xander Bogaerts is a VERY long way down the list of this team's or organization's problems.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Seriously.  If you guys aren't ok with an above-league-average 22 year old SS making the league minimum, what are you ok with?  Xander Bogaerts is a VERY long way down the list of this team's or organization's problems.

 
There are two questions here; how Bogaerts compares to our expectations, and how he compares to the alternatives. Obviously our view of how well he's doing will depend on which question we're asking. But the only practical question for Ben and JF is the second one.

 

[JBJ_HOF]

Seriously.  If you guys aren't ok with an above-league-average 22 year old SS making the league minimum, what are you ok with?  Xander Bogaerts is a VERY long way down the list of this team's or organization's problems.

 
 
Just because Bogarts is better than freaking garbage doesn't mean people have to be happy with his bat. He barely hits the ball harder than Didi Gregorius, Jose Iglesias, Alcides Escobar, Ichiro Suzuki, Dee Gordon and Billy Hamilton who rank at the bottom in MLB, is actually worse against down and away breaking stuff than last year, and 40% of his hits have been on the infield or listed a bloopers.