Not to derail the thread, Bogaerts at 33 seems pretty low, given he's tied for 2nd in WAR YTD among shortstops, though he seems far less likely to ever sign a team friendly extension thanks to Boras. For example, I have a very hard time believing Neal Huntington would turn down a trade of Bogaerts for Starling Marte. The rationale for dinging him due to lacking that deal doesn't match up either, given they don't apply that to a guy like Nolan Arenado. Arenado is actually probably a good comp for X, as he established a baseline of being a solid all-around player as a 22/23 year old, then broke out this year when his power developed.
Mookie Betts
- Thread starter LahoudOrBillyC
- Start date
jscola85 said:
Bogaerts has one less year of team control than Betts, and has appeared to trade off a lot of power for contact. Dave leans heavily on ZiPS projections, which like Mookie a lot more, too.
Even correcting for positional scarcity, Marte has been a much better hitter that X to date. X is 3-4 years younger, so he has that going for him, but I could easily see the rationale in ranking a guy like Marte higher.
czar said:
I would go further and say that calling Marte a "much better hitter than X to date" is kind of dog-bites-man. Age 24-26 hitters should be better than age 20-22 hitters. But when you project that forward and compare 27-30 to 23-26, that's a different story--and that's the comparison that matters if we're talking about trade value.
Actually, I would say X's age is a limiting factor in his trade value not a benefical one. Xander is under team control through 2019, when he'll be 27. Marte is under a cheap contract (6/31) until 2019, when he'll be 30; the pirates also have two option years for an additional 18 million. Because Xander (if he breaks out) is more likely to be expensive during his prime, this hurts his trade value relative to Marte.Savin Hillbilly said:
EDIT: same thing for Nolan Arendo, he'll be 29 after his deal ends.
Also, Marte is a proven commodity whereas Xander is young and still hasn't proven himself over multiple seasons.
I don't think the order of the list is presented as overly precise. He doesn't really have a methodology other than looking at ZIPS WAR and control and making a list.
Why Kenny Lofton? Lofton averaged 10 homeruns a year over a 17 year career. Betts has 10 already halfway through his first full season.
Andrew said:
Why any player? One of my favorite things about Mookie is that he's sort of unique. I know comps are just a quick and dirty way to give people an idea of what a player is or could be, but I don't think there are going to be any really good ones for Mookie. And that's awesome, IMO.
https://twitter.com/jcmccaffrey/status/621296029397192704
https://twitter.com/jcmccaffrey/status/621296029397192704
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/jcmccaffrey/status/621296029397192704
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/jcmccaffrey/status/621296344301502464
https://twitter.com/jcmccaffrey/status/621296344301502464
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/jcmccaffrey/status/621296344301502464
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/jcmccaffrey/status/621296696736247808
link to tweet
Three part series on Mookie that Is Well worth the read
link to tweet
Three part series on Mookie that Is Well worth the read
Kenny Lofton? Mook has more power. Cutch? Betts has more speed. You know who/what Mookie Betts is? A smaller, better bowling Willie Mays. (And yes, my glasses are a bit rose colored...)
foulkehampshire said:
Why? Mookie has shown more power so far and probably won't walk as much or strike out as much. Biggio was a great great player and if we get 75% of that from Mookie we should be very happy with it, but they aren't really that similar as hitters. There are a number of ways to get to a similar wOBA or wRC+ and the path taken by Mookie so far doesn't really match up with the path Biggio took throughout his career. If you think he's a good comp, perhaps you could expand on that and show why you think that because I'm not really seeing it.
I fell like Mike Trout is the only guy in the league that has earned a comparison to Mays (you can argue Harper as well, but he's only jumped up there this year). Let's not get too silly here.
ehaz said:
Not all that mini. BBref has Mays at just 5'10". He was a little more broad-shouldered and robustly built than Mookie, but not much taller.
To smas' point, of course Betts isn't as good as Willie, and probably won't ever be. But that doesn't mean it might not be legitimate to point to Willie as a good match for Betts' particular skill package, albeit at a higher level than Mookie is likely to reach. (I'm not making a case for that proposition, just pointing out that it could be a valid one.)
And to Snod's point, I think there's rarely a spot-on comp for any young player. All these comps are just ways of homing in on his essence by comparison and negation. "Not this, not this, neither is this Mook...."
I most often hear Trout compared with Mantle, but that might be a lot because they look similar. As an ad comes on for the Sox - Angels Sunday game on ESPN featuring Trout. For Mookie comps, can anybody do a filter on small (<5'10") and + speed, + power, ++ hand speed, - arm, etc.?smastroyin said:
Al Zarilla said:
Hand speed is hard to quantify, but for the rest, I just did a PI search on the following criteria:
5'10" or under
3000+ PA
.170 or better ISO
200+ career SB
K rate under 13%
OPS+ over 110
Only one guy came up:
Willie Mays
(Hey, don't look at me, I'm just reporting the results....)
But Willie's a couple of generations (2 1/2?) older than Mookie, when people were smaller on average. So, Mays was probably a pretty average sized ball player for his time. Of course, we have our Pedroias and Altuves today.Savin Hillbilly said:
Snodgrass'Muff said:
1. Mookie has not shown more power than Biggio. In his prime Biggio's ISO was a tad under .200 and would average around 20 HR's. That's more or less where Mookie is right now halfway through the season.
2. Biggio walked around 10-13% of the time in his best years, and didn't strike out much at all. (Career K% = 14%) Right now Betts' BB% is 7.1, yet that may be because he's being challenged by pitchers more due to his unfamiliarity of the league. His minor league work paints a picture of a player with an elite eye that could certainly improve on his current BB%.
3. The elite athleticism to play multiple positions and the speed is somewhat similar.
I'm not saying its a perfect comp.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Let me say that I understand the spirit of the comparison, but this makes my point right?
Mays was actually:
12,500 PA
.253 ISO
338 SB
OPS+ 156
There are therefore two points. One, Mays was a lot better over a long time than Betts has shown to be over a short one. Betts has room to grow, of course, but the idea that they are comparable right now is not. And of course, Mays was Mays at age 23 (and may have been at age 22, we'll never know because of his draft status)
Second, Willie Mays is one of the top ten ballplayers of all time. Even if you had a guy who duplicated Mays's career to age 24 (without the 1.5 years in the Army) you wouldn't want to bet on that guy being Willie Mays. Mike Trout is awesome but the odds are still against him having a career as good as Mays.
Agreed. The point of the Mays comp is not to suggest that there's a substantial likelihood Mookie will be as good as Mays. There is virtually never a substantial likelihood that any young player will be as good as Mays, because that's about as good as you can get, and almost no one does it. No argument there.smastroyin said:
I think what some of us are trying to get at is this: For every talented young player X, there is in theory some previous successful player Y for whom the statement, "The better X gets, the more like Y he will be" is more true than it is for any other previous successful player. I think what we're trying to do here is solve for Mookie's Y. How close to Y he can actually come is a different question, and it's going to vary depending on who Y is. As everyone agrees, it's extremely unlikely he'll be as good as Mays. It's a good deal less unlikely that he could be as good as Pinson. But he still might be more of a Mays-type player than a Pinson-type player*.
*Just to be clear, I don't actually think this is true, because Mays had much more HR power than Mookie has ever shown any sign of developing, and he had it right from the beginning. I think Mookie is more likely to turn out like Pinson or Biggio.
Do we know of any particular reason Betts wears #50? Has he ever been asked about his jersey number? I'm wondering because I'd rather not buy a shirt and find out he's wearing a number that is more befitting of a regular.
He was assigned it at first, but likes it now.The X Man Cometh said:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/02/there-lot-like-about-red-sox-mookie-betts/XL1hFxm1NkgzR3F8RJp2AM/story.html
I actually think I remember reading an article or hearing a story where he mentioned that it was assigned to him when he was called up and he just kept it because all of his family and friends bought jerseys and he didn't want to make them have to get new ones.The X Man Cometh said:
@Shesta_Sox: Mookie Betts is first with 42 2B, 8 3B, 18 HR in age 22 season or younger since Jack Clark in 1978, first in AL since Ted Williams in 1940.
The Pinson comp is looking better all the time.
Pinson's average per 162 through age 22:
723 PA, 208 hits, 42 doubles, 10 triples, 19 HR, 26 SB, 10 CS, 51 BB, 92 K, 124 OPS+
Mookie's average per 162 through age 22:
712 PA, 189 hits, 46 doubles, 8 triples, 18 HR, 23 SB, 8 CS, 55 BB, 92 K, 120 OPS+
Pinson had a lot more years and PA through 22--he was already a full-time player at 20--so his numbers are a little more solid. But still, they look like very similar players.
Pinson's average per 162 through age 22:
723 PA, 208 hits, 42 doubles, 10 triples, 19 HR, 26 SB, 10 CS, 51 BB, 92 K, 124 OPS+
Mookie's average per 162 through age 22:
712 PA, 189 hits, 46 doubles, 8 triples, 18 HR, 23 SB, 8 CS, 55 BB, 92 K, 120 OPS+
Pinson had a lot more years and PA through 22--he was already a full-time player at 20--so his numbers are a little more solid. But still, they look like very similar players.
We've been talking about the way he turns on the ball and his quick bat all season. Just re-watching his 7th inning home run and you see the beginning of his swing and then his bat is behind him. You, or at least I can't see the rest of the swing. I don't believe this guy. On TV of course. Have to see him at the park as much as possible next year.
Maybe I'm going crazy but his swing reminds me of Alfonso Soriano in terms of ridiculous quick it is. It seemed like Soriano could just drop the bat on the ball and it would soar.
Maybe it's a dumb comp, I don't know. It's late.
Maybe it's a dumb comp, I don't know. It's late.
There is a lot of Gary Sheffield in that 7th inning home run swing. From a baseball perspective, that's a really good thing.
I figured, If Mookie didn't get traded last offseason, he'd end up becoming the face of the franchise.
There's a lot of Milwaukee Gary Sheffield in his game - the sneer, the swagger, and the ridiculous bat speed of course.
There's a lot of Milwaukee Gary Sheffield in his game - the sneer, the swagger, and the ridiculous bat speed of course.
He is a joy to watch and a great person:
“Me and Blake yesterday when we got to eat, we had a pizza left, and he said the night before he had given it to a homeless guy and he hit two home runs so I had a pizza and I gave it to a homeless guy and hit two home runs so maybe pass it onto the next person,” Betts said.
“Me and Blake yesterday when we got to eat, we had a pizza left, and he said the night before he had given it to a homeless guy and he hit two home runs so I had a pizza and I gave it to a homeless guy and hit two home runs so maybe pass it onto the next person,” Betts said.
A great person because he sees superstitious transactional value in helping the needy?BestGameEvah said:
BroodsSexton said:
The question that I have is: if Blake had hit two home runs the day after beating up a homeless guy, what would Mookie do?
Frankly it sounds like Swihart is the good guy here, if anyone. Mookie's just a hanger-on trying to hit a few bombs off the back of the homeless.
Guys, hard to tell what's sarcasm here. But Mookie's comment in his post game interview was very endearing. He admitted he absolutely did it because it had worked for Blake but then followed it up with something to the effect that "Then I hit two home runs tonight. I guess giving pizza to homeless people is a good thing" i.e. it's good karma.
The point is that it's pretty hard to make qualitative judgments about a person's character (i.e. that he is a "great person") because he gave a pizza to a homeless guy as part of a superstitious effort to hit home runs. I'm sure Mookie's the salt of the earth, but let's not get crazy here.
If you turn it around, the idea that he would need this little demonstration of correlation to conclude it's good to help the homeless (or that he only did it because it worked for Swihart!) is kind of messed up.
If you turn it around, the idea that he would need this little demonstration of correlation to conclude it's good to help the homeless (or that he only did it because it worked for Swihart!) is kind of messed up.
So we're supposed to applaud because he's stuffing homeless people with artery-clogging, pancreas-frying, BMI-goosing junk food, no doubt full of Monsanto DNA and marketed by some dirtbag Koch-funded PR outfit? What a douchenozzle.
He's lauding Swihart and he's perpetuating kindness. I know Mookie, and I can state again he's a great person.Van Everyman said:
You're right...he's been raised so well, and knows all about karma. Wise beyond his years.