Bogaerts' Defense Poll: Worthless Defense or Worthless Data?

[smastroyin]

I can't believe the point of this discussion is essentially boiling down to another podium to restart the drew conversation.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
Ideally, you'd break them in at positions of need, not at positions that can be covered by borderline all-stars for nothing but money; or break them in at positions that have well qualified backups.
 
Dustin Pedroia was broken in perfectly with Cora as a safety net; Jacoby Ellsbury was broken in perfectly as a 4th outfielder; Kevin Youkilis was broken in perfectly gaining playing time at 1B and 3B behind Mueller and Millar; Jarrod Saltalamacchia was broken in perfectly as he nudged Varitek into a backup role and retirement.  

 
Your statements are simply untrue, at least in regards to Ellsbury and Salty.
 
Ellsbury was certainly not broken in as a 4th outfielder. He was first called up on June 30, 2007 because Coco got hurt. He played in the next 6 games before being sent down again on July 5. He was recalled for one game of a DH in August, and then was recalled for a final time when rosters expanded on Sept.1, and played 26 games in that month.
 
And then in 2008 he played in 145 games. He was never the 4th outfielder. A 4th OF sits on the bench and spells the other three. That's not what happened with Ellsbury; when he was with the big club, he played. Period.
 
Salty never "nudged" Varitek into a backup role; his first full year with the Sox was 2011 and he played 101 games at catcher while Varitek played 68. When Salty was on the team he was the starter. Period. There was no transition period.
 
The Sox offered Drew 1 year at 14 million via the qualifying offer. That is a reasonable contract for someone of Drew's history and abilities, particularly since the Sox had X waiting in the wings as his successor. Presumably, had he taken it, then your preferred break in plan would have been in place for Bogaerts. Drew turned it down. So the Sox quite reasonably then simply named X the starter and allowed him to get the experience at the position from the beginning of the year. And as it turns out, it certainly appears that Drew made a colossal miscalculation in turning down that offer, because since then he's gotten exactly nothing from the rest of baseball.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'd say he's erroneous regarding Pedroia's situation too.  Cora was the utility infielder.  His role in his 3.5 years on the team was always utility infielder.  He was, quite simply, a more veteran version of Jonathan Herrera.  If Cora was a "safety net" under Pedroia, then Herrera is the same under Bogaerts.  Iif we want to make a proper comparison, then 2014 Stephen Drew is to Xander Bogaerts as 2007 Mark Loretta was to Dustin Pedroia.  He's the guy the rookie is replacing, not the guy you bring back to backup the rookie.

 

[Plympton91]

 
Your statements are simply untrue, at least in regards to Ellsbury and Salty.
 
Ellsbury was certainly not broken in as a 4th outfielder. He was first called up on June 30, 2007 because Coco got hurt. He played in the next 6 games before being sent down again on July 5. He was recalled for one game of a DH in August, and then was recalled for a final time when rosters expanded on Sept.1, and played 26 games in that month.
 
And then in 2008 he played in 145 games. He was never the 4th outfielder. A 4th OF sits on the bench and spells the other three. That's not what happened with Ellsbury; when he was with the big club, he played. Period.
 
Salty never "nudged" Varitek into a backup role; his first full year with the Sox was 2011 and he played 101 games at catcher while Varitek played 68. When Salty was on the team he was the starter. Period. There was no transition period.
 
The Sox offered Drew 1 year at 14 million. That is a reasonable contract for someone of Drew's history and abilities, particularly since the Sox had X waiting in the wings as his successor. Presumably, had he taken it, then your preferred break in plan would have been in place for Bogaerts. Drew turned it down. So the Sox quite reasonably then simply named X the starter and allowed him to get the experience at the position from the beginning of the year. And as it turns out, it certainly appears that Drew made a colossal miscalculation in turning down that offer, because since then he's gotten exactly nothing from the rest of baseball.

 
In 2008, the Red Sox had Manny Ramirez, Coco Crisp, and JD Drew all on the roster as well as Jacoby Ellsbury.  Ellsbury played the most games because the other 3 were constantly hurt, and he earned the playing time.  But, they did not going into the season needing Ellsbury to be the starting CF or risk ending up with a AAAA twice-cut nobody as the best alternative.
 
If Saltalamaccia had not been the best option to catch 101 games, Jason Varitek was on the roster to provide at least solid game management. 
 
If Jackie Bradley fails, or gets a long-term injury, then the only player in the organization capable of playing quality centerfield defense and also currently above A ball is Corey Brown.
 
 

I'd say he's erroneous regarding Pedroia's situation too.  Cora was the utility infielder.  His role in his 3.5 years on the team was always utility infielder.  He was, quite simply, a more veteran version of Jonathan Herrera.  If Cora was a "safety net" under Pedroia, then Herrera is the same under Bogaerts.  Iif we want to make a proper comparison, then 2014 Stephen Drew is to Xander Bogaerts as 2007 Mark Loretta was to Dustin Pedroia.  He's the guy the rookie is replacing, not the guy you bring back to backup the rookie.

 
If you're going to compare Steven Drew to Mark Loretta, who I don't think ever started for another team after 2007, then there's nothing to discuss.
 
I agree that having Herrera around is a decent safety net for Bogaerts a la Cora though.  And, as I said, when push comes to shove, starting Bogaerts was the right decision to me, just not the no-brainer that it's portrayed to be and a decision that might have the consequence of torpedoing the defense of last years' win in the postseason tournament championship. 
 
He's a generational talent with the bat, regardless of what position he ends up playing, and you had to have him in the lineup this year, especially after his post-season performance.  Given the reluctance of John Farrell, or most other major league managers, to have a platoon at SS, that meant the Bogaerts / Herrera thing was the best decision.  But, at this point, Bogaerts has been putrid in the field, well worse than any scouting report I ever read suggested.  That suggests that they were wishcasting his ability to play shortstop in the majors, though the examples in the other thread suggest that perhaps he can learn enough tricks of the trade to be average someday.  So we sit and watch and hope, and maybe start watching football a little sooner than last year.    

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
In 2008, the Red Sox had Manny Ramirez, Coco Crisp, and JD Drew all on the roster as well as Jacoby Ellsbury.  Ellsbury played the most games because the other 3 were constantly hurt, and he earned the playing time.  But, they did not going into the season needing Ellsbury to be the starting CF or risk ending up with a AAAA twice-cut nobody as the best alternative.
 

 
Yes they did. But a guy doesn't play in 145 games just by happenstance. They went into the season planning on having Ellsbury and Coco split time in CF with Ellsbury playing LF for Manny late in games and/or when Manny took his usual mental vacations. If you're saying that the Sox' plan was to give Ellsbury typical 4th outfielder games played time, then I completely disagree. That wasn't the plan and that's not what happened.
 

 
If you're going to compare Steven Drew to Mark Loretta, who I don't think ever started for another team after 2007, then there's nothing to discuss.

 
133 games played in 2007, 101 in 2008, 107 in 2009. Pretty good comparison, actually.
 

 
 
He's a generational talent with the bat, regardless of what position he ends up playing, and you had to have him in the lineup this year, especially after his post-season performance.  Given the reluctance of John Farrell, or most other major league managers, to have a platoon at SS, that meant the Bogaerts / Herrera thing was the best decision.  But, at this point, Bogaerts has been putrid in the field, well worse than any scouting report I ever read suggested.  That suggests that they were wishcasting his ability to play shortstop in the majors, though the examples in the other thread suggest that perhaps he can learn enough tricks of the trade to be average someday.  So we sit and watch and hope, and maybe start watching football a little sooner than last year.  

 
 
They're not wishcasting his ability to play SS in the majors just because he's struggled in the field so far. My goodness. They've had his entire minor league career to evaluate his defense there. They had 345 games at SS to look at him in the minors. If they didn't think he could field the position they would have moved him by now. He might be struggling in the field now, but to assume that they're just making this shit up and hoping he can play the position is crazy. They're making an educated decision. Maybe it won't work out, but not due to a poor process.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
If you're going to compare Steven Drew to Mark Loretta, who I don't think ever started for another team after 2007, then there's nothing to discuss.

 
Well, who has Stephen Drew started for since leaving the Red Sox?
 
Mark Loretta started 111 games for the Astros in 2007, doing so at all four infield positions (mostly at SS, incidentally).  He started 59 games, again at all four infield positions in 2008.  Seems to me that Loretta fulfilled for the Astros in those two years what many advocating for Drew's return seemed to think Drew capable of should Bogaerts and Middlebrooks (or perhaps eventually Checchini) turn out to be solid starters at their positions.
 
Loretta was a one year acquisition whose purpose was essentially to bridge the gap to the hot young prospect working his way up the system.  Drew was signed last year for exactly the same purpose, only there were two potential prospects for whom he was keeping the seat warm.
 
I'd say the comparison is pretty apt.

 

[Plympton91]

 
Yes they did. But a guy doesn't play in 145 games just by happenstance. They went into the season planning on having Ellsbury and Coco split time in CF with Ellsbury playing LF for Manny late in games and/or when Manny took his usual mental vacations. If you're saying that the Sox' plan was to give Ellsbury typical 4th outfielder games played time, then I completely disagree. That wasn't the plan and that's not what happened.
 
 
 
They're not wishcasting his ability to play SS in the majors just because he's struggled in the field so far. My goodness. They've had his entire minor league career to evaluate his defense there. They had 345 games at SS to look at him in the minors. If they didn't think he could field the position they would have moved him by now. He might be struggling in the field now, but to assume that they're just making this shit up and hoping he can play the position is crazy. They're making an educated decision. Maybe it won't work out, but not due to a poor process.

 
Agree that Ellsbury was going to get a lot more at bats and games played than a traditional 4th outfielder, my point was that they had 4 major league quality outfielders and 2 very good defensive CFers on the roster, so that if Ellsbury got hurt or struggled they weren't stuck with Corey Brown playing CF.
 
Also agree that Bogaerts was an educated decision.  But given the value of having an impact bat at SS, the bar for moving him off of shortstop because of defense is really, really bad.  I don't think they'd move him just because he's "struggling" at any level.  They're going to be sure he can't do it.  But, if you're doing that at the major league level, it will cost you games.  Doubly so if the bat doesn't explode on the spot, which as you pointed out is an unrealistic expectation.  So, they must've gone into the season expecting to have a smaller value at shortstop than last season, and been good with that, even as they also downgraded in the short term at CF and at C.   They didn't, however, reduce TV subscription fees or ticket prices for people watching the "bridge year." 
 
I stand corrected on Loretta.  I didn't want him back though, OPS+ of 80 in 2006 and no range.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
Agree that Ellsbury was going to get a lot more at bats and games played than a traditional 4th outfielder, my point was that they had 4 major league quality outfielders and 2 very good defensive CFers on the roster, so that if Ellsbury got hurt or struggled they weren't stuck with Corey Brown playing CF.
 
Also agree that Bogaerts was an educated decision.  But given the value of having an impact bat at SS, the bar for moving him off of shortstop because of defense is really, really bad.  I don't think they'd move him just because he's "struggling" at any level.  They're going to be sure he can't do it.  But, if you're doing that at the major league level, it will cost you games.  Doubly so if the bat doesn't explode on the spot, which as you pointed out is an unrealistic expectation.  So, they must've gone into the season expecting to have a smaller value at shortstop than last season, and been good with that, even as they also downgraded in the short term at CF and at C.   They didn't, however, reduce TV subscription fees or ticket prices for people watching the "bridge year." 
 
I stand corrected on Loretta.  I didn't want him back though, OPS+ of 80 in 2006 and no range.

 
Let me start off by saying that anyone thinking that Bogaerts defense has cost the team 10 runs in 2 months (literally 6% of the team's total runs given up) knows very little about baseball (this in reaction to the poll, not your post specifically).  
 
It's not possible for any team to upgrade every position every year, or even maintain similar production.  I'd like to hear what other options the Sox had at SS after Drew turned down $14M, and the Sox were hardly alone in thinking Drew wasn't worth a multiyear deal.  
 
So, instead, the Sox decided that at least some of the following would happen:
 
- Bogaerts would come close to matching Drew's offense.  
- The 2014 Middlebrooks would be an upgrade over the 2013 combination of Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and random replacement players at 3B.
- Bradley would be a credible on base threat while matching Ellsbury's defense in CF. 
- Catcher would be essentially similar production as the 2013 Salty/Ross platoon.  
- Starting pitching would be improved with Peavy basically taking Dempster's spot in the rotation, and a 2014 Doubront being better than the 2013 version. 
- The bullpen would be at least as good, if not better.  
- Nava would actually make contact once in a while. 
 
I would hardly call this strategy a "bridge year".  Unfortunately, due to injury, bad luck, and general poor performance, most of these plans, aside from the bullpen, haven't panned out yet.  Putting all the blame on Bogaerts is a classic example of missing the forest from the trees. 

 

[Plympton91]

 
Let me start off by saying that anyone thinking that Bogaerts defense has cost the team 10 runs in 2 months (literally 6% of the team's total runs given up) knows very little about baseball (this in reaction to the poll, not your post specifically).  
 
It's not possible for any team to upgrade every position every year, or even maintain similar production.  I'd like to hear what other options the Sox had at SS after Drew turned down $14M, and the Sox were hardly alone in thinking Drew wasn't worth a multiyear deal.  
 
So, instead, the Sox decided that at least some of the following would happen:
 
- Bogaerts would come close to matching Drew's offense.  
- The 2014 Middlebrooks would be an upgrade over the 2013 combination of Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and random replacement players at 3B.
- Bradley would be a credible on base threat while matching Ellsbury's defense in CF. 
- Catcher would be essentially similar production as the 2013 Salty/Ross platoon.  
- Starting pitching would be improved with Peavy basically taking Dempster's spot in the rotation, and a 2014 Doubront being better than the 2013 version. 
- The bullpen would be at least as good, if not better.  
- Nava would actually make contact once in a while. 
 
I would hardly call this strategy a "bridge year".  Unfortunately, due to injury, bad luck, and general poor performance, most of these plans, aside from the bullpen, haven't panned out yet.  Putting all the blame on Bogaerts is a classic example of missing the forest from the trees. 

 
The thread is about Bogaerts which puts the focus on him.  But, again, the decision to go with Middlebrooks and Bogaerts/Herrera rather than Drew on a long-term contract is IMHO the easiest to understand and most defensible of the 3 (Drew, Ellsbury, and Salty) for me and Salty the least defensible.  At least if you give a pass to "baseball people" about their aversion to platooning at SS.
 
I'm just not ignoring the elephant in the room that Bogaerts defense and power production have been significantly worse than expected, and if that continues it will be very negative in the short-run and perhaps even a negative that won't be recouped in the longer-run.  At least in terms of power production, I think that will revert to expectations sooner rather than later, in part as the weather warms up.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I don't think the situation in which the Red Sox found themselves for the month of August last year was a comfortable one for them.  If you remember, Iggy's proficiency made Ciriaco expendable.  But then the opportunity for Peavy came up, and Buchholz's problems made that urgent.  So, the team had to go without a safety net at second base for a month, with a guy with a screwed up thumb at the position.  It was not an accident that their very first priority on the day before the rosters expanded was to grab McDonald.
 
Steven Drew has never played a single out at second base.  Xander Bogaerts has never played a single out at second base.  Middlebrooks has a total of 4 innings there.  The first guy up out of the minors, Holt, also is a left-side infielder.  And, in any event, if your 4 non-first base infielders are Drew, Xander, Middlebrooks, and Pedey, the only way you can even get Holt up if Pedey needs a day off is to send Xander down or put Pedey on the 15 day, or move WMB down, move Xander to third, and make Holt play second.
 
Platooning at SS is tricky at best.  But, my hunch is also that playing last August without a safety net for Pedey may very well have put the Red Sox in a position where they simply were not willing to have no margin between playing Pedey for 162 games or playing someone unfamiliar with the position.

 

[SumnerH]

Well, who has Stephen Drew started for since leaving the Red Sox?
 
Mark Loretta started 111 games for the Astros in 2007, doing so at all four infield positions (mostly at SS, incidentally).

In case anyone's wondering, Mark Loretta was -14.1 UZR/150 for his career at SS.

 

[Reverend]

I can't believe the point of this discussion is essentially boiling down to another podium to restart the drew conversation.

 
But how do you feel about it essentially boiling down to another podium to restart the Ellsbury conversation?

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
But how do you feel about it essentially boiling down to another podium to restart the Ellsbury conversation?

 
Frankly I'm just excited we get to re-hash the Mark Loretta decision. Theo never should have let that guy go. 

 

[JMDurron]

 
Frankly I'm just excited we get to re-hash the Mark Loretta decision. Theo never should have let that guy go. 

Of course, this means discussing the Carlos Pena Playing Time issue, since Loretta has come up...

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

 
But how do you feel about it essentially boiling down to another podium to restart the Ellsbury conversation?

 
I'm giving up on my hope that the thread was all an elaborate ruse to smoke out Kilgore and figure out if he's still pissed about Adrian Gonzalez.  

 

[Plympton91]

Reasonably good play getting a ball in the SS-3b hole and making a one hop throw to Napoli in the bottom 6th tonight.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Reasonably good play getting a ball in the SS-3b hole and making a one hop throw to Napoli in the bottom 6th tonight.

Would you say that it was MLB average?

 

[Plympton91]

Would you say that it was MLB average?

Another good decision to go to the bag himself for the DP in the 7th.

 

[teddywingman]

A nice game all around. Hope he builds on it.

 

[Plympton91]

Fantastic one hand catch and throw tonight, though Ortiz also bailed him out with a nice scoop on the back half of a DP.

 

[nvalvo]

Echoing Plympton, I feel as though the eye test suggests improvement. I haven't watched every inning, but he's looked more consistent to me in recent weeks. 
 
What have other people noticed?

 

[Al Zarilla]

Echoing Plympton, I feel as though the eye test suggests improvement. I haven't watched every inning, but he's looked more consistent to me in recent weeks. 
 
What have other people noticed?

He looks looser out there, like he's saying "screw it, I'm just going to go with the flow". Remember all the errors Brandon Crawford made early in his rookie year? Rookie nerves. Of course, soon X moves over to 3b.

 

[radsoxfan]

Fantastic one hand catch and throw tonight, though Ortiz also bailed him out with a nice scoop on the back half of a DP.

 
Although Don said "dug out by Big Papi", looked to me like Ortiz wasn't set and didn't stretch out for the ball (or maybe that's sadly just as far as Papi can stretch these days….). If he does, the throw wouldn't have been as low.  Ortiz basically caught it at his feet, and even then, I'm not completely sure the ball actually hit the ground.  
 
Regardless, I think subjectively Xander has been looking better.  His is also very good at fielding slow hoppers he has to charge, which will hopefully translate to 3B. Just for curiosity sake (in the category of things that probably mean nothing), UZR/150 has him at +6.1 for his career at SS over 490 innings including last year. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

He looks looser out there, like he's saying "screw it, I'm just going to go with the flow". Remember all the errors Brandon Crawford made early in his rookie year? Rookie nerves. Of course, soon X moves over to 3b.

 
Agree completely. He looks smoother and more confident.
 
I did notice that the great play last night did not involve the one thing he has seemed to struggle with at times, namely lateral range. This will be at slightly less of a premium at third, while there will still be plenty of opportunities to show off his arm and his ability to charge and barehand balls.
 
I also agree that the throw on the DP looked worse than it was because Papi is not very flexible, so anything that's low to his backhand side is going to be a problem compared to most 1B's. Even so, it didn't hit the ground; Papi caught it at his shoetops. Napoli or Carp makes that look like a strike.