Predicting and Opining on the Opening Day CFer; and SPOILER: It's Sizemore

Who does Farrell Start in CF on March 31 and for the immediate future beyond then?


  • Total voters
    357

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,423
Because the guy with the .352 BABIP is likely to repeat that and the guy with the OBPs in the .370s in AA and AAA is likely to be just terrible at getting on base.
Because it might also matter that one of them struck out 21.7% of the time vs. AAA RHPs while the other struck out 15.4% of the time vs. MLB RHPs?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,468
Van Everyman said:
Is DL-ing Victorino to start the season an option? He's only played 8 games this spring according to Abraham:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/03/25/grady-sizemore-play-has-him-front-and-center-for-red-sox/14wncvdfrMInl12NuiKSUJ/story.html
 
They seem to be downplaying it, but the "we'll play him only in minor league games so we can backdate a DL" at least hints at something they are concerned about.
 
Sizemore might shatter into several million pieces all at once. Victorino comes apart one piece at a time.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The Mort Report said:
Something that people have touched on but, unless I missed it, never have straight come out and said, if both are capable and everyone is healthy, the best possible decision is JBJ starting in AAA due to it gives this years team the best OF scenario.  If one of our OFers goes down, JBJ is the replacement.  If we trade say Carp to get JBJ on the Opening Day roster, then who comes up in case of an injury?  An injury will happen, so at some point this year we will see JBJ.  Isn't that better than anyone behind him?  Its also not like we are talking about a 28 year old that is a year away from FA.  He's 23, we still control him for a while.  Spending a year, if it comes to that, in AAA will not destroy his prospect status.  Yes, the pitching is not as good, but 600 PA in AAA is better than 200 in the MLB for his development.  If Sizemore and Vic are healthy, JBJ will not get many at bats.  Lets send him to AAA and call him up when we need him instead of trading from our depth now, then suddenly have to possibly overpay at the deadline
My feeling on this scenario, and it is one that I tried to elucidate in an earlier post, is that in the scenario where the FO decides to trade Carp, the injury risk falls to someone like Brentz.  In that scenario, Brentz is replacing not the injured player but the theoretical Carp. Furthermore, it would certainly be within the realm of possibilites that in such a case, more AB's owuld fall to the remaining four healthy OF -- there's no rule that says that you MUST use your 5th OF 20% of the time.  So really, an injury to one of the first 5 actually drives more AB's to the other 4 before you need to find AB's for the 5th.  In a short DL stint, it's quite possible that that 6th OF (let's say it's Brentz) might only get a handful of AB over the 15 or so games.
 
I don't think the Sox' chances in 2014 are going to hinge on whether the 6th OF is JBJ vs Carp vs Brentz/Hassan/player to be named later.
 
But if Farrell is to be believed that only one of JBJ or Sizemore will be on the Opening Day roster, I just can't see how that person wouldn't be GS barring some unforeseen injury.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,536
Rasputin said:
Because the guy with the .352 BABIP is likely to repeat that and the guy with the OBPs in the .370s in AA and AAA is likely to be just terrible at getting on base.
The guy with a .352 BABIP in 2013 and a career .332 ML BABIP, not to mention a BABIP >.400 through the low minors, a .382 BABIP in AA, and successive AAA season BABIPs of .340, .311, and .333.
 
At the ML level his BABIP against RHP for 2010, 2012,and 2013 are: .337, .329, .364.  Last year was a noticeable uptick that might not be sustainable, but even if he drops down to a .330 BABIP guy he's still a .292 hitter against RHP and with the 2013 BA:OBP delta of .089 that'd make him a .381 OBP guy.  So if JBJ literally translates his mL success to the majors with 100% accuracy he'd still be a worse OBP guy than Nava against RHP.
 
The argument for Bradley over a straight Nava/Gomes platoon in LF is looking for round holes we can hammer square pegs into.  Not only is the Nava/Gomes tandem far better offensively, the defensive upgrade is largely wasted due to 81 games in Fenway's LF.  Bradley is more valuable as a 6th OF than as the guy who forces the club to go away from the highly productive Nava/Gomes platoon or dump Mike Carp for reduced value in order to let Bradley sit on the bench in his place.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don't see any point in using JBJ to disrupt the Nava/Gomes platoon (except perhaps as a pure defensive replacement in the 8th or 9th inning in an away game with a large LF (e.g. The Toilet).
 
My reason to keep JBJ over Carp is to have a more competent backup for both Sizemore AND Victorino.  I would much prefer seeing JBJ taking those starts when GS or SV needs a rest, as opposed to the alternative (presumably Nava in RF).

So in my view, the potential OF alignments would be Nava/Gomes, Sizemore (or JBJ), Victorino (or JBJ).  Maybe, MAYBE, on a rare occasion, against a RHP, you might see Nava at 1B and JBJ in left.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Drek717 said:
The guy with a .352 BABIP in 2013 and a career .332 ML BABIP, not to mention a BABIP >.400 through the low minors, a .382 BABIP in AA, and successive AAA season BABIPs of .340, .311, and .333.
 
At the ML level his BABIP against RHP for 2010, 2012,and 2013 are: .337, .329, .364.  Last year was a noticeable uptick that might not be sustainable, but even if he drops down to a .330 BABIP guy he's still a .292 hitter against RHP and with the 2013 BA:OBP delta of .089 that'd make him a .381 OBP guy.  So if JBJ literally translates his mL success to the majors with 100% accuracy he'd still be a worse OBP guy than Nava against RHP.
 
The argument for Bradley over a straight Nava/Gomes platoon in LF is looking for round holes we can hammer square pegs into.  Not only is the Nava/Gomes tandem far better offensively, the defensive upgrade is largely wasted due to 81 games in Fenway's LF.  Bradley is more valuable as a 6th OF than as the guy who forces the club to go away from the highly productive Nava/Gomes platoon or dump Mike Carp for reduced value in order to let Bradley sit on the bench in his place.
 
No, you put Bradley in center and let Sizemore play left where there would be less wear and tear on him and he can platoon with Gomes. If you want to be able to pick and choose the games where Sizemore and Victorino don't play rather than waiting until they get forced out of the lineup by injuries, you want Bradley on the roster.
 
And if JBJ literally translates his mL success to the majors with 100% accuracy, he'd have a .404 OBP. He's not going to, of course.
 
Two months ago, Jackie Bradley Jr was our starting center fielder and now because we're got Sizemore, everyone is ready to send Bradley down for the sake of keeping Nava and it just doesn't make any sense. Why send down a 24 year old gold glove caliber center fielder who doesn't need to be platooned and is universally recognized as being the CF of the future so you can keep a 30 year old with one full year in the bigs whose defense is nothing special and who has a massive platoon split.
 
If people made the argument that Bradley isn't ready, that would be one thing, but two months ago he was ready.
 
If people made the argument that the Sox are already handing SS to Xander Bogaerts and it's too risky to hand two key up the middle positions to rookies in the same season, they would at least have a point. I'd still think they're wrong, but it's not a wholly unreasonable point.
 
If people wanted to say that while Bradley is ready in a global sense, he's a mess right now and it would be prudent to stick him back in AAA until he gets things straightened out, I might buy it. He's certainly hitting like shit at the moment and I haven't seen enough game action to get a sense of whether it's just variance or if he's actually all messed up right now.
 
But the people whose opinions actually count for something don't seem to agree with me so whatever.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Saints Rest said:
Ras, I agree with you on pretty much every point, but why do you prefer Carp over Nava?
 
We can send Nava down and keep all the talent in the organization. With the injury issues with both Sizemore and Victorino, and the fact that Bradley could have a longer than acceptable adjustment period, I don't want to give up any talent we don't have to.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,397
The wrong side of the bridge....
Rasputin said:
 
If people made the argument that Bradley isn't ready, that would be one thing, but two months ago he was ready.
 
 
But not everybody thought he was ready. If you back through the hot stove threads you'll see that quite a few people thought penciling in JBJ as the starting CF was a problem and we needed to pick up somebody.
 
It's possible he's not ready. He certainly showed some weaknesses last year that pitchers quickly found and exploited. The million-dollar question is whether more time in AAA will help him overcome those weaknesses, or whether he needs to learn on the job, so to speak, against big league pitching.
 
That's really a question for the pros on the Sox staff, and I will trust their judgment. I assume they're on the fence or divided about it, because if they were sure he needed more time, they would have gone for a lower-floor (even if lower-ceiling) alternative than Sizemore, but if they were sure he didn't, they wouldn't have signed Sizemore to a major league contract.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
10,834
Rasputin said:
 
We can send Nava down and keep all the talent in the organization. With the injury issues with both Sizemore and Victorino, and the fact that Bradley could have a longer than acceptable adjustment period, I don't want to give up any talent we don't have to.
Doesn't Nava have to be out righted? I seem to remember that being the case a few pages back, despite his option.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
But not everybody thought he was ready. If you back through the hot stove threads you'll see that quite a few people thought penciling in JBJ as the starting CF was a problem and we needed to pick up somebody.
 
It's possible he's not ready. He certainly showed some weaknesses last year that pitchers quickly found and exploited. The million-dollar question is whether more time in AAA will help him overcome those weaknesses, or whether he needs to learn on the job, so to speak, against big league pitching.
 
That's really a question for the pros on the Sox staff, and I will trust their judgment. I assume they're on the fence or divided about it, because if they were sure he needed more time, they would have gone for a lower-floor (even if lower-ceiling) alternative than Sizemore, but if they were sure he didn't, they wouldn't have signed Sizemore to a major league contract.
 
The organization pretty clearly thought he was ready because, like you say, they didn't bring in anyone but Sizemore. I don't think signing Sizemore to a major league contract is evidence that they aren't sure Bradley is ready. If Sizemore is reasonably healthy, there's a very good chance he's our best outfielder and even if his abilities are dramatically reduced, he's likely to be a hell of a reserve OF with the ability to play three positions and the ability to pinch run and steal. I think every team that has the budget to spend a million on a reserve OF would take that gamble.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,397
The wrong side of the bridge....
SouthernBoSox said:
Doesn't Nava have to be out righted? I seem to remember that being the case a few pages back, despite his option.
 
He has an option left, so he should only need optional assignment waivers (which are revocable), not outright waivers (which aren't). Of course if he's claimed, we'd have to pull him back and keep him in Boston, but there would be no penalty for trying, unless I'm missing something.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
10,834
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
He has an option left, so he should only need optional assignment waivers (which are revocable), not outright waivers (which aren't). Of course if he's claimed, we'd have to pull him back and keep him in Boston, but there would be no penalty for trying, unless I'm missing something.
I just looked it up and you're right. He'd have to go through OAW's. Any chance he'd actually make it through? I can think of a lot of teams that could use Daniel Nava.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Rudy Pemberton said:
Sending Nava down would keep him in the organization, but it's still a loss in that you'd have a much lesser player on the roster. I don't get that.
 
Would you like to justify the statement that Bradley is a much lesser player?
 
SouthernBoSox said:
I just looked it up and you're right. He'd have to go through OAW's. Any chance he'd actually make it through? I can think of a lot of teams that could use Daniel Nava.
 
Well that would be problematical.
 

BCsMightyJoeYoung

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
5,224
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
He has an option left, so he should only need optional assignment waivers (which are revocable), not outright waivers (which aren't). Of course if he's claimed, we'd have to pull him back and keep him in Boston, but there would be no penalty for trying, unless I'm missing something.
 
Of course there's a penalty - you will have one extremely pissed off player - and one that has been a very good organizational soldier to boot. 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
When considering Nava's splits, I think it's important to recognize that of his 536 PAs last year, 397 were against RHP. If we bracket the issue of how the other 139 PAs would be distributed if he weren't taking them, just that 397 PAs would have been 9th highest on the team. That's a lot of production.
 
And in that context, I can't imagine that a guy like that getting paid $0.5m gets through waivers. If he even approximates what he did last season, his mid-season trade value to a contender alone would be more than worth it for the money for some crappy team.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,099
Maine
Question for Ras w/r/t Nava vs Bradley.  If they keep Bradley at the expense of Nava, where does Gomes fit in?  I think you posted up thread that you'd play Bradley in center and Sizemore in left...is that full time for both or are you proposing a platoon of Sizemore and Gomes?
 
I ask because the Nava/Gomes platoon (with a little Carp sprinkled in) aggregated to a damn good player last year.  So to me, it can't simply be a Nava versus Bradley comparison if one of the results of going with Bradley is reduced time vs LHP for Gomes.  The question really amounts to whether the team is better off in April to have Sizemore in center, Gomes/Nava in left, and Bradley an hour's drive down the road in Pawtucket, or Bradley in center, Sizemore in left, Gomes in a reduced role, and Nava possibly on another major league team.  Seems to me that maximizing roster flexibility with scenario A wouldn't leave the team with a demonstrably lesser lineup compared to scenario B.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,536
Rasputin said:
 
No, you put Bradley in center and let Sizemore play left where there would be less wear and tear on him and he can platoon with Gomes. If you want to be able to pick and choose the games where Sizemore and Victorino don't play rather than waiting until they get forced out of the lineup by injuries, you want Bradley on the roster.
What you're missing here is that it doesn't matter who you replace the Nava/Gomes platoon with in LF, you're hurting the club by doing it.  I don't care if it's Sizemore, JBJ, etc..  Unless you think we can get Giancarlo Stanton or Matt Holliday before the season starts we aren't upgrading LF by removing Nava/Gomes from that platoon.
 
Again, you can't score runs with the glove.  LF defense in fact carries less defense for the Red Sox than basically any other club in baseball.
 
Also, Nava's issues in RF are greatly exaggerated.  He played more innings in RF last year than LF and was only slightly below average by DRS.  UZR hates him but UZR is far from an infallible metric and it has far too little sample to be judging Nava accurately.  The Red Sox seem to like his range enough to let him play around in CF a bit this spring.  Do I like the thought of that?  Hell no, but if we're talking about a game or two a week the club can get by with Nava in RF and not be massively exposed as a result.
 
 



And if JBJ literally translates his mL success to the majors with 100% accuracy, he'd have a .404 OBP. He's not going to, of course.
Way to put a ton of weight on that .480 OBP in Salem.  He was a .373 OBP in AA and .374 OBP in AAA last year.  If he translated his most recent meaningful mL sample (2013) to the majors he'd still be worse offensively than Nava after you factor in significantly BABIP regression.
 


Two months ago, Jackie Bradley Jr was our starting center fielder and now because we're got Sizemore, everyone is ready to send Bradley down for the sake of keeping Nava and it just doesn't make any sense. Why send down a 24 year old gold glove caliber center fielder who doesn't need to be platooned and is universally recognized as being the CF of the future so you can keep a 30 year old with one full year in the bigs whose defense is nothing special and who has a massive platoon split.
Everyone is ready to send Bradley down to see what Sizemore offers, it has nothing to do with Nava, who is probably the second best hitter against RHP on the entire club (behind Ortiz).  Also, the platoon split only matters when you don't have a platoon partner.  The Red Sox have one that they love (Gomes), and a plethora of options to keep filling that role on the farm (Brentz, Hassan) not to mention a RF who historically features a pretty well matched platoon split himself.  A LF platoon is a luxury the Sox can afford when it'll likely generate an OPS north of .850 for them.
 


If people made the argument that Bradley isn't ready, that would be one thing, but two months ago he was ready.
No, two months ago everyone HOPED he was ready because we didn't see another clear option.  There was nothing about his 95 ML ABs last year that should have made anyone think he was a dead lock to make it.  He's talented enough and close enough to where they weren't going to block him with a multi-year deal for a veteran and they weren't going to pay someone like Chris  Young ~$7.5M to give them about the same thing Bradley is likely capable of.  But there is a reason the club gave Sizemore a shot and it wasn't because they where looking for competition with Daniel Nava in LF or Shane Victorino in RF.
 


If people made the argument that the Sox are already handing SS to Xander Bogaerts and it's too risky to hand two key up the middle positions to rookies in the same season, they would at least have a point. I'd still think they're wrong, but it's not a wholly unreasonable point.
Bogaerts is on a different level from Bradley, didn't lay an egg in his first shot at the bigs, and plays a position where as long as he's passable defensively he could massively under-produce offensively and still be above league average in total value.  There was no Grady Sizemore to sign to compete with Bogaerts.  There was one for Bradley.
 


If people wanted to say that while Bradley is ready in a global sense, he's a mess right now and it would be prudent to stick him back in AAA until he gets things straightened out, I might buy it. He's certainly hitting like shit at the moment and I haven't seen enough game action to get a sense of whether it's just variance or if he's actually all messed up right now.
Its spring training.  Anyone basing their decisions off of production in spring training needs to stop huffing paint.  Bradley didn't lose the job due to his stat line, he lost the job because Sizemore is a former MVP candidate who looks reborn this spring.  The upside of Sizemore is massive and the downside of sending Bradley down as it pertains to Bradley as a commodity is non-existent.  He was rushed through the minors as it was.  He has about 550 ABs above A ball period.  Giving him some time in AAA will push his arbitration years and free agency deadline further out and will line up that time with his peak years.
 


But the people whose opinions actually count for something don't seem to agree with me so whatever.
Sure, because guys who can put up an .894 OPS against RHP aren't guys you look to take out of the lineup.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Question for Ras w/r/t Nava vs Bradley.  If they keep Bradley at the expense of Nava, where does Gomes fit in?  I think you posted up thread that you'd play Bradley in center and Sizemore in left...is that full time for both or are you proposing a platoon of Sizemore and Gomes?
 
I ask because the Nava/Gomes platoon (with a little Carp sprinkled in) aggregated to a damn good player last year.  So to me, it can't simply be a Nava versus Bradley comparison if one of the results of going with Bradley is reduced time vs LHP for Gomes.  The question really amounts to whether the team is better off in April to have Sizemore in center, Gomes/Nava in left, and Bradley an hour's drive down the road in Pawtucket, or Bradley in center, Sizemore in left, Gomes in a reduced role, and Nava possibly on another major league team.  Seems to me that maximizing roster flexibility with scenario A wouldn't leave the team with a demonstrably lesser lineup compared to scenario B.
 
Sizemore has a pretty big platoon differential, so platoon him in left. Then you stick Gomes in left and slide Sizemore over to Center or Right to give Bradley and Victorino some days off. Call it 54 games from the platoon and he'd only have to give Bradley and Victorino one day off a week to be right in the neighborhood of the number of games he played last year.
 
And, for the record, if we would lose Nava, it's not worth it.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Drek717 said:
What you're missing here is that it doesn't matter who you replace the Nava/Gomes platoon with in LF, you're hurting the club by doing it.  I don't care if it's Sizemore, JBJ, etc..  Unless you think we can get Giancarlo Stanton or Matt Holliday before the season starts we aren't upgrading LF by removing Nava/Gomes from that platoon.
 
So Nava is better than Grady Sizemore now? I just want to make sure you realize that's what you said.
 
Way to put a ton of weight on that .480 OBP in Salem.
 
Wow, it's almost like you deliberately didn't bother to read what I actually wrote. Good times.
 
 Also, the platoon split only matters when you don't have a platoon partner.
 
No, it matters when you're putting a roster together and you need two people to fill one spot. 
 
No, two months ago everyone HOPED he was ready because we didn't see another clear option.  There was nothing about his 95 ML ABs last year that should have made anyone think he was a dead lock to make it.  He's talented enough and close enough to where they weren't going to block him with a multi-year deal for a veteran and they weren't going to pay someone like Chris  Young ~$7.5M to give them about the same thing Bradley is likely capable of.  But there is a reason the club gave Sizemore a shot and it wasn't because they where looking for competition with Daniel Nava in LF or Shane Victorino in RF.
 
It's because when you have the chance to get some semblance of the player Sizemore was from 2005-2008 for less than a million dollars, you do it because it's a very good gamble.
 
Bogaerts is on a different level from Bradley, didn't lay an egg in his first shot at the bigs, and plays a position where as long as he's passable defensively he could massively under-produce offensively and still be above league average in total value.  There was no Grady Sizemore to sign to compete with Bogaerts.  There was one for Bradley.
 
If Bogaerts massively under produces offensively, he'll be less valuable than this Drew fella the guys on TV keep talking about.
 
Sure, because guys who can put up an .894 OPS against RHP aren't guys you look to take out of the lineup.
 
So let me get this straight.
 
You think it is entirely appropriate to mock me for putting too much faith in Bradley's OBP in Salem despite the fact that in my very next sentence I said he wasn't going to do that AND attempt to draw a meaningful conclusion from 69 games (and not even 69 full games mind you) of data in right field, AND you're fine calling Nava a guy who can put up an .894 OPS against RHP when he has done that precisely once in a season where he BABIP was unusually high, he's thirty and thus not reasonably expected to get better, and his two previous partial seasons he put up OPS of .797 and .727.
 
If you want to argue with me, do it honestly. Don't use the same logical fallacy you're accusing me of using, especially when I'm not using it. Don't ignore what I actually said to argue against something I didn't. Don't ignore the utterly obvious facts that are in evidence.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Rudy Pemberton said:
Why would you send Nava down instead of getting rid of Carp? Carp's the guy whose season was driven by an insanely high BABIP and who only has a role on the team if a few guys get hurt, and he's got no long term role here. Flip Carp for a AA corner bat and keep Nava, Sizemore, and JBJ on the active roster (if you feel that strongly that Bradley is ready).
 
I was under the seemingly mistaken impression that Nava could be sent down without exposing him to waivers.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
10,834
Daniel Nava was 7th in all of baseball in OBP versus right handers. He also can play LF, RF, and 1B. He isn't getting sent down. Teams would kill to have an asset like that. Even if you cite BABIP, which I get but look at the guys career he's always had high BABIP, Nava has always gotten on base. Always. Even in his first stint at the majors he got on base. Now Bradley has been shown an OBP skillset in his mL career, but unlike Nava he hasn't flashed it at the major league level. I think he'll get there but it would be ridiculous to see what's he's got at the expense of Nava.
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,225
Charlottesville, Virginia
Rasputin said:
 
 
 
If people made the argument that the Sox are already handing SS to Xander Bogaerts and it's too risky to hand two key up the middle positions to rookies in the same season, they would at least have a point. I'd still think they're wrong, but it's not a wholly unreasonable point.
 
 
 
The 1967 Sox had Reggie Smith and Mike Andrews as rookie regulars with the original Boomer (RIP) in his second year in the big leagues.  Jim Rice and Fred Lynn might have been the best rookie tandem ever in 1975.  Sizemore is a pleasant surprise but IMO he makes journeyman Nava coming off his career year expendable - not Bradley.  Sizemore platooning with Gomes makes more sense because he can't play 162 games and will need lots of rest.  Victorino is in a similar situation.  Furthermore, S, V and B can all rotate between CF and RF to make sure that everyone gets their share of rest.  If Nava has more trade value than Carp, then trade him. Nava is the rough equivalent of Dalton Jones, a nice hitter but limited. Bradley has the upside to be much better than Nava in every year going forward if the Sox manage his transition and confidence properly.  If the Sox make the playoffs again, an outfield of Sizemore, Bradley and Victorino will be outstanding because, to get that far, Bradley will have lived up to or exceeded expectations.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
SouthernBoSox said:
Daniel Nava was 7th in all of baseball in OBP versus right handers. 
 
In a year when, as you know, his OBP was inflated by having a BABIP thirty points higher than his always high BABIPs.
 
Daniel Nava is a nice guy who has one very valuable skill and a great story.
 
All his other skills are at best nothing special. He's thirty so he's not going to be getting any better. He's going to get worse and he's probably going to be out of the game by the time he's thirty-five. Sure, maybe he's an exception to the profile, but how likely is that really?
 
I don't get why he's being treated like he's a phenomenal player.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
The Boomer said:
 
The 1967 Sox had Reggie Smith and Mike Andrews as rookie regulars with the original Boomer (RIP) in his second year in the big leagues.  Jim Rice and Fred Lynn might have been the best rookie tandem ever in 1975.  Sizemore is a pleasant surprise but IMO he makes journeyman Nava coming off his career year expendable - not Bradley.  Sizemore platooning with Gomes makes more sense because he can't play 162 games and will need lots of rest.  Victorino is in a similar situation.  Furthermore, S, V and B can all rotate between CF and RF to make sure that everyone gets their share of rest.  If Nava has more trade value than Carp, then trade him. Nava is the rough equivalent of Dalton Jones, a nice hitter but limited. Bradley has the upside to be much better than Nava in every year going forward if the Sox manage his transition and confidence properly.  If the Sox make the playoffs again, an outfield of Sizemore, Bradley and Victorino will be outstanding because, to get that far, Bradley will have lived up to or exceeded expectations.
 
What size hair shirt do you want?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Rasputin said:
 
So Nava is better than Grady Sizemore now? I just want to make sure you realize that's what you said.
 
 
No, it matters when you're putting a roster together and you need two people to fill one spot. 
 
 
It's because when you have the chance to get some semblance of the player Sizemore was from 2005-2008 for less than a million dollars, you do it because it's a very good gamble.
 
 
If Bogaerts massively under produces offensively, he'll be less valuable than this Drew fella the guys on TV keep talking about.
 
 
So let me get this straight.
 
You think it is entirely appropriate to mock me for putting too much faith in Bradley's OBP in Salem despite the fact that in my very next sentence I said he wasn't going to do that AND attempt to draw a meaningful conclusion from 69 games (and not even 69 full games mind you) of data in right field, AND you're fine calling Nava a guy who can put up an .894 OPS against RHP when he has done that precisely once in a season where he BABIP was unusually high, he's thirty and thus not reasonably expected to get better, and his two previous partial seasons he put up OPS of .797 and .727.
 
If you want to argue with me, do it honestly. Don't use the same logical fallacy you're accusing me of using, especially when I'm not using it. Don't ignore what I actually said to argue against something I didn't. Don't ignore the utterly obvious facts that are in evidence.
 
If Nava's BABip drops to his career average he'll still have an 850 OPS which is 125 points higher than Jackie Bradley's MLE and 175 points higher than Grady Sizemore put up in his last extended playing time in major league baseball.  Grady Sizemore is likely to be out of baseball by the all-star break, and you're worried about what Daniel Nava might do 5 years from now?   Nava is a better player, by far, than either Jackie Bradley or Grady Sizemore in 2014 and probably in 2015 and 2016 too.   Look at it this way, if the Red Sox had signed Jacoby Ellsbury, no one would be doubting that Jackie Bradley was starting the season in Pawtucket.  Yet, because we signed a more injury prone and less talented CF, we should give up assets for less than market value in order to avoid sending Jackie Bradley to AAA?  
 
What we have here is a group of people who've fallen in love with a prospect; thankfully that group doesn't include the front office, who will do the sensible thing and start Daniel Nava in LF against righthanders, Johnny Gomes against lefthanders, and JBJ against the Toledo Mud Hens.  Then when Grady Sizemore goes on the DL two days into the season, JBJ will come up and hopefully be a loose, vague approximation of what Jacoby Ellsbury is going to provide the Yankees with that 310 foot right field wall.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Plympton91 said:
 
If Nava's BABip drops to his career average he'll still have an 850 OPS which is 125 points higher than Jackie Bradley's MLE and 175 points higher than Grady Sizemore put up in his last extended playing time in major league baseball.  Grady Sizemore is likely to be out of baseball by the all-star break, and you're worried about what Daniel Nava might do 5 years from now?   Nava is a better player, by far, than either Jackie Bradley or Grady Sizemore in 2014 and probably in 2015 and 2016 too.   Look at it this way, if the Red Sox had signed Jacoby Ellsbury, no one would be doubting that Jackie Bradley was starting the season in Pawtucket.  Yet, because we signed a more injury prone and less talented CF, we should give up assets for less than market value in order to avoid sending Jackie Bradley to AAA?  
 
Look at it this way. The Sox didn't try all that hard to sign Ellsbury because they knew they had Bradley in their back pocket.
 
That you think Nava is a better player than Sizemore is laughable. You want to say you're going to get more value from him because he's more likely to be healthy, you'd have an argument that might be able to hold some water. You want to say Nava has more talent, you're gonna get laughed at. Sizemore has had four seasons with more home runs than Nava has had in his entire career. Sizemore has 130 more steals than Nava has had in his career. Sizemore has speed, power, and really good defense, three things that Nava doesn't and won't ever have.
 
Nava has one skill, getting on base against RHP. Bradley also does that, while also getting on base against LHP and playing outstanding defense.
 
As for giving up assets, please learn to read.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Rasputin said:
 
Look at it this way. The Sox didn't try all that hard to sign Ellsbury because they knew they had Bradley in their back pocket.
 
That you think Nava is a better player than Sizemore is laughable. You want to say you're going to get more value from him because he's more likely to be healthy, you'd have an argument that might be able to hold some water. You want to say Nava has more talent, you're gonna get laughed at. Sizemore has had four seasons with more home runs than Nava has had in his entire career. Sizemore has 130 more steals than Nava has had in his career. Sizemore has speed, power, and really good defense, three things that Nava doesn't and won't ever have.
 
Nava has one skill, getting on base against RHP. Bradley also does that, while also getting on base against LHP and playing outstanding defense.
 
As for giving up assets, please learn to read.
 
Sizemore hasn't played major league baseball in 2 years.
 
The last time Sizemore played major league baseball, he sucked.
 
The injuries Sizemore had were to his legs, and so any projection of his defensive ability is laughable given that his speed is likely diminished from when he was last a decent major league player 5 years ago, or when he was last an above average major league player 6 years ago.
 
As someone pointed out upthread, Sizemore was exactly this good and this seemingly healthy in Spring Training 2010, and then put up a 580 OPS in 128 at bats before going on the DL and missing the rest of the season.  Sizemore's spring training 2014 production is no more predictive of his 2014 production than Jackie Bradley's spring training in 2013 was of his 2013 production.
 
Hey, I trust the Red Sox baseball decision makers and I love a good comeback story as much as the next guy.  That's why I'm perfectly fine with them deciding to put Sizemore in CF until he either gets hurt again (very likely) or it becomes clear that his injuries have turned a former all-star into a shell of his former self (also very likely).   But given that the probability of one of those two events happening is almost surely higher than 50 percent, you don't sacrifice your starting leftfielder or the only viable major league first baseman in the entire organization other than Mike Napoli in order to find out.
 
If they don't want to commit to Sizemore as the everyday CF, then that means he's either not healthy or not as good as he used to be.  So, DFA him.  The Red Sox don't need him in any other role if his skills have diminshed as well as his durability.  
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Plympton91 said:
 
Sizemore hasn't played major league baseball in 2 years.
 
The last time Sizemore played major league baseball, he sucked.
 
The injuries Sizemore had were to his legs, and so any projection of his defensive ability is laughable given that his speed is likely diminished from when he was last a decent major league player 5 years ago, or when he was last an above average major league player 6 years ago.
 
Yeah, that whole thing about actually watching the games to see if he's got anything, that's completely overrated. Well, actually, it is, but he sure as heck looks like he's got some range. Also, he was on a Hall of Fame trajectory so there's plenty of room for him to lose a bit and still be a damn fine ballplayer.
 
Hey, I trust the Red Sox baseball decision makers and I love a good comeback story as much as the next guy.  That's why I'm perfectly fine with them deciding to put Sizemore in CF until he either gets hurt again (very likely) or it becomes clear that his injuries have turned a former all-star into a shell of his former self (also very likely).   But given that the probability of one of those two events happening is almost surely higher than 50 percent, you don't sacrifice your starting leftfielder or the only viable major league first baseman in the entire organization other than Mike Napoli in order to find out.
 
Did you see the part of my post that you quoted that suggested you learn how to read?
 
I ask because this post is the second time in the span of about a half an hour where you have argued at me that giving up talent for the sake of keeping Sizemore. Before you do it a third time, I would suggest that you read the parts where I say I don't want to give up any talent, because I think you might find them relevant.
 
If they don't want to commit to Sizemore as the everyday CF, then that means he's either not healthy or not as good as he used to be.  So, DFA him.  The Red Sox don't need him in any other role if his skills have diminshed as well as his durability.  
 
 
I'm pretty sure we're gonna need more than three outfielders this year.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Rasputin said:
 
Yeah, that whole thing about actually watching the games to see if he's got anything, that's completely overrated. Well, actually, it is, but he sure as heck looks like he's got some range. Also, he was on a Hall of Fame trajectory so there's plenty of room for him to lose a bit and still be a damn fine ballplayer.
 
 
Did you see the part of my post that you quoted that suggested you learn how to read?
 
I ask because this post is the second time in the span of about a half an hour where you have argued at me that giving up talent for the sake of keeping Sizemore. Before you do it a third time, I would suggest that you read the parts where I say I don't want to give up any talent, because I think you might find them relevant.
 
 
 
I'm pretty sure we're gonna need more than three outfielders this year.
That's hilarious, because 6 people in this thread told you that Nava had to be exposed to waivers before he could be sent down, yet you kept saying that they should send Nava down.

So, now that you know Nava can't be sent down, what's your plan for keeping Sizemore without losing any talent.
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
1,680
New Mexico
Savin Hillbilly said:
It's going way too far to say Nava can't be sent down. I don't know what would happen in this instance, but BP's page on this topic says that players usually clear optional waivers.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=11361

Whether he should be optioned is a different story, of course.
Players usually clear those waivers because teams aren't stupid enough to send players as good as Nava through them in the first place.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
swingin val said:
If Sizemore is cut, Nava, Gomes, Victorino, Bradley, and Carp is more than 3.
 
And sending Bradley down makes that even more than 3.
 
The decision is easy.  Bradley goes to Pawtucket, Sizemore plays until he breaks, stops hitting, or shows that he's not adequate in CF anymore.  The only thing preventing anyone from seeing this is that they have an emotional attachment to Jackie Bradley.  Hey, I was excited about him last spring too, and there was a clear opening for him.  But this year the Red Sox have a more-proven option ready to go in all three outfield positions.  When your organization is geared to winning the world series every year, you don't experiment with prospects unless you need to.  Grady Sizemore has, at least temporarily, made that experiment unnecessary.  I'm confident that Bradley will get his chance to not suck as badly as he did last season, and if he doesn't make the most of it again, he's got another option they can use for 2015 untiil that chance arrives.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
10,834
Plympton91 said:
 
And sending Bradley down makes that even more than 3.
 
The decision is easy.  Bradley goes to Pawtucket, Sizemore plays until he breaks, stops hitting, or shows that he's not adequate in CF anymore.  The only thing preventing anyone from seeing this is that they have an emotional attachment to Jackie Bradley.  Hey, I was excited about him last spring too, and there was a clear opening for him.  But this year the Red Sox have a more-proven option ready to go in all three outfield positions.  When your organization is geared to winning the world series every year, you don't experiment with prospects unless you need to.  Grady Sizemore has, at least temporarily, made that experiment unnecessary.  I'm confident that Bradley will get his chance to not suck as badly as he did last season, and if he doesn't make the most of it again, he's got another option they can use for 2015 untiil that chance arrives.
Bradley has exactly 80 games at AAA. It's not like the guy has been rotting down there for a couple years. As you said, the decision is easy. When Sizemore and Victorino are the guys ahead of you on the depth chart then you're going to get it your shot sooner rather than later.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,468
Plympton91 said:
 
And sending Bradley down makes that even more than 3.
 
The decision is easy.  Bradley goes to Pawtucket, Sizemore plays until he breaks, stops hitting, or shows that he's not adequate in CF anymore.  The only thing preventing anyone from seeing this is that they have an emotional attachment to Jackie Bradley.  Hey, I was excited about him last spring too, and there was a clear opening for him.  But this year the Red Sox have a more-proven option ready to go in all three outfield positions.  When your organization is geared to winning the world series every year, you don't experiment with prospects unless you need to.  Grady Sizemore has, at least temporarily, made that experiment unnecessary.  I'm confident that Bradley will get his chance to not suck as badly as he did last season, and if he doesn't make the most of it again, he's got another option they can use for 2015 untiil that chance arrives.
 
I have a hard time seeing why it's any more complicated than that.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
Drek717 said:
 There was no Grady Sizemore to sign to compete with Bogaerts.  
I'll disagree with this, slightly, to say there was one to sign to compete with Bogaerts, and they offered him $14 million. He turned it down.
 
I know they probably figured.hoped he would turn it down, but they must have had a contingency plan if Drew were to take that deal. And I'll bet if that contingency plan had been put in place, Middlebrooks would be in the Nava role of the debate. 
 
 
Plympton91 said:
 
The decision is easy.  Bradley goes to Pawtucket, Sizemore plays until he breaks, stops hitting, or shows that he's not adequate in CF anymore.  
 
And if he doesn't, it's a great problem to have. It's not like Victorino doesn't have issues of his own with staying the field, and it's not as though Nava and Gomez are stellar defensive players. Their first baseman is also a "health risk" in the grand scheme, though it's not as though he is injury prone. Since Nava can back him up, there's yet more possible need for Bradley. 
 
The big question in July will be who do they trade from all that excess (include Carp in that) in order to get a second closer-quality reliever? I'll guess it isn't Bradley, but it could be anybody else.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,536
 

Rasputin said:
If you want to argue with me, do it honestly. Don't use the same logical fallacy you're accusing me of using, especially when I'm not using it. Don't ignore what I actually said to argue against something I didn't. Don't ignore the utterly obvious facts that are in evidence.
I see no where that I argued against something you didn't say, ignored something you didn't, or accused you of using a logical fallacy.  I'm just accusing you of being both:
1. Someone who is grossly overvaluing the defensive value the team can glean from LF.
and
2. Someone with a serious blind spot when it comes to recognizing just how good Daniel Nava was last year against RHP, i.e. about 2/3rds or a little better of all ML pitchers.
 
When there is a right handed pitcher on the mound for the opposing team Daniel Nava is one of the best hitters in the entire organization and that isn't just because of his ability to take a walk.  Against RHP he's shown damn good contact skills and nice doubles power with a touch of home run pop.  If he hit LHP as well as he hit RHP he'd be Matt Holliday with a few less home runs.  For 500K.
 
And yes, he is better than Grady Sizemore.  Grady Sizemore bouncing back to 100% of his former self is a better player, but that is the single most unlikely outcome of the Sizemore experiment.  Nava has far less risk involved and the gap between Nava and Sizemore against RHP isn't big enough to justify taking on that risk (which is what matters since neither hit LHP as well as Gomes and Farrell isn't giving up Gomes).
 
This is why Nava isn't on the roster bubble.  A platoon isn't an ineffective use of a roster spot when it lets you build a composite equal to All-Star production for $5.5M.  The only requirement then is enough organizational depth to turn to should half the platoon get hurt, which the Sox do already have (Carp and Bradley backstopping Nava, Brentz and Hassan backstopping Gomes).

 
twothousandone said:
I'll disagree with this, slightly, to say there was one to sign to compete with Bogaerts, and they offered him $14 million. He turned it down.
 
I know they probably figured.hoped he would turn it down, but they must have had a contingency plan if Drew were to take that deal. And I'll bet if that contingency plan had been put in place, Middlebrooks would be in the Nava role of the debate. 
1. Middlebrooks would be equivalent to Bradley, not Nava, as Bradley is the young guy who underperformed in limited ML action and has his roster spot in jeopardy due to veteran competition displacing him.  Though in that case it would be tangential displacement.
 
The equivalent to Nava for the Drew/Bogaerts/WMB displacement scenario would be Dustin Pedroia.  A key part of the team's offense (which Nava/Gomes was last year and is poised to be this year).  The only difference is that Pedroia plays a more defensively valuable position well.  But the significance of Nava/Gomes defensive deficiencies are greatly reduced because they play not just LF, but LF in Fenway park of all places.
 
2. Stephen Drew was offered arb by a team who still had the ability to trade WMB and was also pretty sure Drew would decline.  If he'd accepted they would have had all winter to move WMB for good value.  That isn't the scenario now, and it wasn't the scenario when the Red Sox signed Sizemore early this year.
 
I think the biggest misconception here is the notion that players are either MLB READY(r) or they're not.  That isn't binary.  Bradley is ready enough, thanks to his excellent defense, to where the club could live with his offensive growing pains in CF as opposed to forking out stupid money for a long term FA or paying someone like Chris Young $7M to replicate what Bradley is likely capable of right now: damn good defense and probably a .700-.750 OPS.
 
Sizemore was their hedge because he was cheap and he had huge upside.  Now it looks like the hedge is going to pay off in the short term.  That doesn't mean the view of Bradley should be fundamentally altered.  Bradley is likely still capable of damn good defense and a .700-.750 OPS at the ML level this season.  But when the starting RF is a proven elite defender with speed and a .750-.800 OPS bat, the LF tandem is adequate defensively and have huge offensive production in the ~.850 OPS range he isn't displacing either of those two, and neither is Sizemore.
 
So it comes down to who out of Bradley and Sizemore gets to play CF.  Given Sizemore's massive upside, very impressive spring, and inability to be optioned it isn't hard to see why he's in front on this one.  Across the board Sizemore wins the argument for opening day largely because worst case scenario he's on the DL/off the roster in a month with the original plan (Bradley) implemented.
 
All that leaves is Mike Carp.  Which isn't a legitimate discussion because the last thing Jackie Bradley needs is to play in one or two games a week as the 5th OF.  He's 23.  He needs to play every day.
 
Besides, it's not like he probably still won't see a ton of ML time this year.  I mean, he's the #1 in-house option for Grady Sizemore and Shane Victorino.  We're likely arguing semantics here as Bradley will likely be the full time CF or RF by late April.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Plympton91 said:
 
And sending Bradley down makes that even more than 3.
 
The decision is easy.  Bradley goes to Pawtucket, Sizemore plays until he breaks, stops hitting, or shows that he's not adequate in CF anymore.  The only thing preventing anyone from seeing this is that they have an emotional attachment to Jackie Bradley.  Hey, I was excited about him last spring too, and there was a clear opening for him.  But this year the Red Sox have a more-proven option ready to go in all three outfield positions.  When your organization is geared to winning the world series every year, you don't experiment with prospects unless you need to.  Grady Sizemore has, at least temporarily, made that experiment unnecessary.  I'm confident that Bradley will get his chance to not suck as badly as he did last season, and if he doesn't make the most of it again, he's got another option they can use for 2015 untiil that chance arrives.
Here is why I think the decision (to send JBJ to Pawtucket) isn't easy:  in my mind, the best 5th OF for Boston (AFTER Nava/Gomes in LF, GS in CF, and SV in RF) is JBJ, not Mike Carp.  Mike Carp is really your third option in LF, probably your 3rd option at 1B (after Napoli and Nava) and 2nd option at DH.  In my mind, the decision is about JBJ and his ability to play high-quality defense in CF (always needed) and RF (especially valuable in Fenway) vs. Carp's power potential at bat.  Considering the fact that the injury risk on this team lies almost entirely in RF and CF, it seems to me that you need the best option to back up those two critical positions on your roster.  Unlike Napoli's injury risk, which is likely high but binary (either he's good to go or he's gone for good should his hip blow up), the injury risk in RF and CF are a series of daily risks, risks that might only require a game or two fill-in, but risks that will likely be in play every single day right up until the National Anthem.  For that reason, I want JBJ on the roster from Day One.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
Saints Rest said:
Here is why I think the decision (to send JBJ to Pawtucket) isn't easy:  in my mind, the best 5th OF for Boston (AFTER Nava/Gomes in LF, GS in CF, and SV in RF) is JBJ, not Mike Carp.  Mike Carp is really your third option in LF, probably your 3rd option at 1B (after Napoli and Nava) and 2nd option at DH.  In my mind, the decision is about JBJ and his ability to play high-quality defense in CF (always needed) and RF (especially valuable in Fenway) vs. Carp's power potential at bat.  Considering the fact that the injury risk on this team lies almost entirely in RF and CF, it seems to me that you need the best option to back up those two critical positions on your roster.  Unlike Napoli's injury risk, which is likely high but binary (either he's good to go or he's gone for good should his hip blow up), the injury risk in RF and CF are a series of daily risks, risks that might only require a game or two fill-in, but risks that will likely be in play every single day right up until the National Anthem.  For that reason, I want JBJ on the roster from Day One.
 
I think it's complicated too, but I'd rather see Bradley in AAA than as a 5th OF. A 5th OF is going to play, what, 2-3 games a week? I just don't think that's enough for a young guy who may need some time to adjust to the majors. I'd rather see him playing every day to keep working on his timing and honing his craft in CF. Also it's just the easiest way to keep everybody. 
 
Also, let's keep in mind that these are champagne problems. Oh no, how will we ever solve this problem of having too many good players? In 2012 the Red Sox had to put the rapidly cooling bodies of Darnell McDonald, Scott Podsednik, and Ryan Sweeney out there a few times. This is a lot better.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Plympton91 said:
That's hilarious, because 6 people in this thread told you that Nava had to be exposed to waivers before he could be sent down, yet you kept saying that they should send Nava down.
 
It's entirely possible that I missed some posts. The first time I saw that info was yesterday.
 
Plympton91 said:
So, now that you know Nava can't be sent down, what's your plan for keeping Sizemore without losing any talent.
 
I would think that would be obvious.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Drek717 said:
 
 

I see no where that I argued against something you didn't say, ignored something you didn't, or accused you of using a logical fallacy.  I'm just accusing you of being both:
1. Someone who is grossly overvaluing the defensive value the team can glean from LF.
and
2. Someone with a serious blind spot when it comes to recognizing just how good Daniel Nava was last year against RHP, i.e. about 2/3rds or a little better of all ML pitchers.
 
When there is a right handed pitcher on the mound for the opposing team Daniel Nava is one of the best hitters in the entire organization and that isn't just because of his ability to take a walk.  Against RHP he's shown damn good contact skills and nice doubles power with a touch of home run pop.  If he hit LHP as well as he hit RHP he'd be Matt Holliday with a few less home runs.  For 500K.
 
And yes, he is better than Grady Sizemore.  Grady Sizemore bouncing back to 100% of his former self is a better player, but that is the single most unlikely outcome of the Sizemore experiment.  Nava has far less risk involved and the gap between Nava and Sizemore against RHP isn't big enough to justify taking on that risk (which is what matters since neither hit LHP as well as Gomes and Farrell isn't giving up Gomes).
 
This is why Nava isn't on the roster bubble.  A platoon isn't an ineffective use of a roster spot when it lets you build a composite equal to All-Star production for $5.5M.  The only requirement then is enough organizational depth to turn to should half the platoon get hurt, which the Sox do already have (Carp and Bradley backstopping Nava, Brentz and Hassan backstopping Gomes).
 
Since I have never actually put a value on defense in left field, saying I have grossly overvalued it is arguing against something I didn't say. Comparing Nava and Sizemore as platoon players, under the assumption that Sizemore is healthy and not quite the player he was in his heyday, he'll be getting on base at a similar clip to Daniel Nava while hitting for more power, playing better defense, and stealing more bases.
 
You made a remark about me heavily weighting Bradley's .480 OBP in Salem which I took as a crack about a small sample size because, really, what else would it be a crack about? And here's the thing. All of the talk about how awesome Daniel Nava is, is overweighting a small sample size.
 
I don't understand why so many people are resistant to this fact. Daniel Nava has had one year where he was anything more than just a guy with a nice story. One. And when you really look at it, it's about two thirds of a year. The 400ish plate appearances he had against right handed pitching in 2013 were really something to talk about. The two hundred some odd plate appearances he hd against right handed pitching in 212 were much less remarkable. His OPS was almost .800, OBP heavy, and that's a useful guy. That's why I and others were looking at a Nava/Gomes platoon as something that would be fairly productive in 2013. The 150ish plate appearances he had against RHP in 2010 were even less remarkable. He still had a good OBP but no power.
 
He's had one really good season. He had it at 30 and that means he's probably not ever going to be able to reproduce that. I don't say that because I don't like Daniel Nava--I actually like him rather a lot--or because I have some vested interest in seeing him be unsuccessful, but because it's true.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
Rasputin said:
He's had one really good season. He had it at 30 and that means he's probably not ever going to be able to reproduce that.
That's an easy enough statement to agree with. The question, then, is how close will he come to it?

After the 1995 season, a similar question was asked about Troy O'Leary. And after 1996, it seemed the answer was "not very close." but he came pretty close in 1997 and 1999 (I think). Nava doesn't have as much time, and him being older makes it more likely to be a fluke, but the chance of coming close to 2013 isn't zero. And I don't think it's unreasonable to argue his bat in 2014 is "likely" to be better than Bradley. Which would also lead to Bradley at AAA, if the choice were Bradley or Nava (which it isn't).
 

Papi's fan

Banned
Sep 19, 2005
255
Texas
Nava has a family now. There is a carrot being dangled in front of him and I believe he will respond with several good seasons at the plate.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
twothousandone said:
That's an easy enough statement to agree with. The question, then, is how close will he come to it?

After the 1995 season, a similar question was asked about Troy O'Leary. And after 1996, it seemed the answer was "not very close." but he came pretty close in 1997 and 1999 (I think). Nava doesn't have as much time, and him being older makes it more likely to be a fluke, but the chance of coming close to 2013 isn't zero. And I don't think it's unreasonable to argue his bat in 2014 is "likely" to be better than Bradley. Which would also lead to Bradley at AAA, if the choice were Bradley or Nava (which it isn't).
 
Troy O'Leary was 25 in 1995 and the last really good season he had in 199 came at 29. There's a lot of research out there about player peaks and much of it suggests that players reach their peak in their late twenties. There's a rather large difference between someone having a really good season and repeating it during their prime years and someone having a really good season in their prime and reproducing it later. It's not like these are iron clad rules or anything but there's a good indication of where the smart money goes.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,845
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Somewhat lost in the Sizemore discussion is that he's signed for one year. If he puts up excellent numbers, he may displace JBJ this year, but he very well may be elsewhere next year.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,090
Rasputin said:
 
I don't understand why so many people are resistant to this fact. Daniel Nava has had one year where he was anything more than just a guy with a nice story. One. And when you really look at it, it's about two thirds of a year. The 400ish plate appearances he had against right handed pitching in 2013 were really something to talk about. The two hundred some odd plate appearances he hd against right handed pitching in 212 were much less remarkable. His OPS was almost .800, OBP heavy, and that's a useful guy. That's why I and others were looking at a Nava/Gomes platoon as something that would be fairly productive in 2013. The 150ish plate appearances he had against RHP in 2010 were even less remarkable. He still had a good OBP but no power.
 
He's had one really good season. He had it at 30 and that means he's probably not ever going to be able to reproduce that. I don't say that because I don't like Daniel Nava--I actually like him rather a lot--or because I have some vested interest in seeing him be unsuccessful, but because it's true.
That's an accurately superficial read of the front page of Nava's BRef record. Some rather adept Sabr folks on this board and others have dug through the game logs and daily injury reports to conclude that Nava's 2010 and 2012 indicate that he will not fall off much from his 2013 numbers. You should read those.