Stephen Drew will be seeing Dr. DRS now ($10)

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,069

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
I smell a septic tank with $10 million among the hundreds of gallons of rotting sewage.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,591
NY
mabrowndog said:
I smell a septic tank with $10 million among the hundreds of gallons of rotting sewage.
 
That's odd.  I smell the same exact thing.
 
Shocking, really.  Who could've predicted that this signing would be a complete waste?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
glennhoffmania said:
 
That's odd.  I smell the same exact thing.
 
Shocking, really.  Who could've predicted that this signing would be a complete waste?
 
It won't be a waste if he gets healthy and hot by the deadline and we can include him in a package for a half-decent prospect or two. That's where I hope we're going.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,591
NY
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
It won't be a waste if he gets healthy and hot by the deadline and we can include him in a package for a half-decent prospect or two. That's where I hope we're going.
 
I guess I'm just not that optimistic.  People who expected him to show up in Boston after a week in the minors and be product offensively were fooling themselves.  Now, before he even has a chance to start getting comfortable, he gets injured.  I'd say the odds of him getting healthy and becoming productive in the next 6 weeks are fairly remote.  I hope that I'm wrong.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
It won't be a waste if he gets healthy and hot by the deadline and we can include him in a package for a half-decent prospect or two. That's where I hope we're going.
I want him traded to Detroit for Iglesias just so we can revisit the comparisons between the two players. I don't feel we really fleshed that out.
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Ben panicked, if you believe this wasn't a Lucky move. I do not. The P-word for development is PATIENCE not panic. Stephen is of no use to 'the development plan', if the 2,3,4 and 5 spots were holding their own AND the key young gun WMB stepped up and saw and seized the opportunity he's been blowing for 2-years the only problem would be finding a lead-off hitter. JBJ would be the hole in the 9-spot. Oh, and Clay and Felix could stop sucking, too. Workman deserves the 5-spot in rotation. It's Clay, Felix and Ruby+kids. Someone step up and win the remaining spot.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Why was it a "panic" move?  I mean, good grief.  WMB was sucking and *injured*, Bogaerts *at that point* was playing poorly in the field, the Red Sox had a huge need on the left side of the infield (as Brock Holt hadn't become BROCK HOLT yet).  The easiest solution was to pick up a player that didn't cost them anything in prospects.  And a pretty good player too.
 
It hasn't worked out.  But that's not "panicking".  That's recognizing that you have a need, and there's a very easy way to fill the need without upsetting the whole apple cart.
 
Pretty simple actually.
 
And, yes, of course, if everything was working out as planned then they wouldn't have signed Drew.  The most obvious statement of the day right there.  But things were NOT working out.  Like, at all.  Again, easy solution to an obvious, glaring problem.  
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
I viewed the need to be effective starting pitching, not a $10-million SS rental. Even If Drew made a positive splash upon arriving, this roster is not a Stephen Drew away from overcoming its shortcomings. With WMB going on the DL, the team had an immediate need for a plug-and-play solution. Thankfully, Brock Holt is taking advantage of his opportunity and even fills the gapping hole at the top of the order.
The first splash Drew should have been making was in Ft. Myers for some version of extended spring training. Did the Sox actually go to Camp Boras, scout Drew, and come to the conclusion he was relatively close to being ready to play Major League Baseball? Turns out his core wasn't even ready for the rigors of swinging a bat.
Now, if the plan all along was to sign Drew, let him showcase his worth while WMB gets healthy, then trade him at the deadline... I approve!
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Drew was acquired for essentially zero cost.

Yes, zero. They had the money to spend. No prospects were sent along. They are not impacting next year's budget and are not taking on risk of a multi year contract.

Drew cost a spot on the 25-man, some money that was already budgeted and does not change ticket prices a whit, and SS playtime for X. Starting pitching would have cost real, valuable prospects. Signing Drew was not a panic move, it was a best-value move.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
crystalline said:
Drew was acquired for essentially zero cost.

Yes, zero. They had the money to spend. No prospects were sent along. They are not impacting next year's budget and are not taking on risk of a multi year contract.

Drew cost a spot on the 25-man, some money that was already budgeted and does not change ticket prices a whit, and SS playtime for X. Starting pitching would have cost real, valuable prospects. Signing Drew was not a panic move, it was a best-value move.
 
Basically, its not worth having this discussion again.
 
There's a contingent of SOSH that doesn't think winning baseball games should be the primary or possibly even the secondary objective of the Red Sox in 2014.  Because, that's the only way you could in any way be upset with the signing of Steven Drew.  And, if that's their opinion, then we're talking past each other.
 

ishmael

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 3, 2006
640
crystalline said:
Drew was acquired for essentially zero cost.

Yes, zero. They had the money to spend. No prospects were sent along. They are not impacting next year's budget and are not taking on risk of a multi year contract.

Drew cost a spot on the 25-man, some money that was already budgeted and does not change ticket prices a whit, and SS playtime for X. Starting pitching would have cost real, valuable prospects. Signing Drew was not a panic move, it was a best-value move.
This is just silly. Resources (especially dollars) are not fixed across each year and then disappear. And John Henry does have a budget.
 
What if the Sox are willing to go 6 years, $108 million for Lester, but he wants at least $120 million? Drew's salary would be most of that difference.
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
So, it was either sign Stephen Drew or eat the $10-million?

If spending the money on Drew means all options for improving the team remain on the table, fine. It's not my money.

It is all about winnig, we are coming up on a month since this move was made. What has Stephen Drew's quantitative contribution to the team been?
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
ishmael said:
This is just silly. Resources (especially dollars) are not fixed across each year and then disappear. And John Henry does have a budget.
 
What if the Sox are willing to go 6 years, $108 million for Lester, but he wants at least $120 million? Drew's salary would be most of that difference.
 
I'm having trouble following you here... are you suggesting that Drew's 10 million is 10 million less the Sox can now spend on Lester in an extension or signing after the season?
 
MuzzyField said:
So, it was either sign Stephen Drew or eat the $10-million?

If spending the money on Drew means all options for improving the team remain on the table, fine. It's not my money.

It is all about winnig, we are coming up on a month since this move was made. What has Stephen Drew's quantitative contribution to the team been?
 
So you are arguing that the Sox should have looked into the future, seen that he was going to get hurt, and then used that crystal ball knowledge to decide against signing him?  Come on...
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Both sides can play the crystal ball game. If Ben can see Holt and a 7-game winning streak in his crystal ball and still thinks Drew is going to be the Drew the numbers tell him he's going to be, does he still sign him?

If he can also see the Drew he's ended up with for a month, I hope the answer is no.
 

williams_482

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 1, 2011
391
MuzzyField said:
Both sides can play the crystal ball game. If Ben can see Holt and a 7-game winning streak in his crystal ball and still thinks Drew is going to be the Drew the numbers tell him he's going to be, does he still sign him?

If he can also see the Drew he's ended up with for a month, I hope the answer is no.
 
Excuse me if I am missing a joke, but the point is that Cherrington does not have a crystal ball. 
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,275
If Drew is hurt now, why not just put Bogey back at short, at the very least for the time being? This team seems to be going nowhere fast, might as well give him more reps to develop as an SS
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
 
Basically, its not worth having this discussion again.
 
There's a contingent of SOSH that doesn't think winning baseball games should be the primary or possibly even the secondary objective of the Red Sox in 2014.  Because, that's the only way you could in any way be upset with the signing of Steven Drew.  And, if that's their opinion, then we're talking past each other.
Ad hominem strawman. Good job, good effort.
 

ishmael

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 3, 2006
640
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
I'm having trouble following you here... are you suggesting that Drew's 10 million is 10 million less the Sox can now spend on Lester in an extension or signing after the season?
 
The only thing I'm pointing out is that Drew was not "free". Money has an opportunity cost, even for a team like the Red Sox or an owner like JWH. Those of us who opposed Drew from the beginning said it was a poor use of resources. The fact that Drew has been hurt, the team continues falling out of contention, and Xander/Holt/Herrera have all played better just highlights the reasons why.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Ad hominem strawman. Good job, good effort.
Not a straw an at all. If everyone is healthy, Steven Drew replaces Jonathan Herrera on the roster and with Holts newfound versatility, the worst performing regular in the lineup. So, unless you think Drew is worse than Herrera and worse than the worst performing regular, how can you possibly be opposed to the signing, unless winning games this year isn't your first priority?
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Scenario A:
 
Reduces first priority success chances by 1%
Increases second priority success chances by 5%
 
Scenario B:
 
Increases first priority success chances by 2%
Decreases second priority success chances by 10%
 
 
As a human, I am allowed to choose scenario A and still say my first priority is my first priority, without any cognitive dissonance whatsoever.  That's how.  And I say that as the biggest Eliyahu Goldratt fan on the board; please take that as an indication of how far I think your head is shoved up your ass.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
If your "second priority" is "maximize the probability that Xander Bogaerts plays shortstop long-term" then your second priority is misinformed, because, as many posters have shown, the difference between offense at SS and 3rd base really isn't large.  Moreover, your probabilities are fanciful, as there's no evidence that not playing SS for 2/3 of a season at age 21 should have any effect on anyone's ability to play SS at ages 22 and 23.   As a final note, I'll add that it's not clear that having Bogaerts at SS is the long-term best alignment for a "home grown" Red Sox roster, as it's quite possible that Bogaerts at 3B with Betts or Marerro at SS is superior to Bogaerts at SS with Middlebrooks or Cecchini at 3B. 
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
Plympton91 said:
Not a straw an at all. If everyone is healthy, Steven Drew replaces Jonathan Herrera on the roster and with Holts newfound versatility, the worst performing regular in the lineup. So, unless you think Drew is worse than Herrera and worse than the worst performing regular, how can you possibly be opposed to the signing, unless winning games this year isn't your first priority?
Since Herrera became a regular fixture in the line up his slash line is .344/.371/.438. He's far from the worst performing regular. Try again.
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,313
MuzzyField said:
I viewed the need to be effective starting pitching, not a $10-million SS rental. Even If Drew made a positive splash upon arriving, this roster is not a Stephen Drew away from overcoming its shortcomings. With WMB going on the DL, the team had an immediate need for a plug-and-play solution. Thankfully, Brock Holt is taking advantage of his opportunity and even fills the gapping hole at the top of the order.
The first splash Drew should have been making was in Ft. Myers for some version of extended spring training. Did the Sox actually go to Camp Boras, scout Drew, and come to the conclusion he was relatively close to being ready to play Major League Baseball? Turns out his core wasn't even ready for the rigors of swinging a bat.
Now, if the plan all along was to sign Drew, let him showcase his worth while WMB gets healthy, then trade him at the deadline... I approve!
 
And who was the realistic option for them to bring on board?
 
People make it seem like Ben had two options: Player (fill in the blank in what you think their need is) or Drew, and he chose Drew over somebody. The truth is, at the time of the deal, everyone was wondering if X could play SS, WMB was hurt/sucking and Jonathan Herrera was about to be our starting SS or 3B.
 
Obviously is hasn't worked out so far, and the "Drew was a good signing at the time" camp looks silly in hindsight, but at the time I still think it was an OK move.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Since Herrera became a regular fixture in the line up his slash line is .344/.371/.438. He's far from the worst performing regular. Try again.
 
Are you really this obtuse?
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
ishmael said:
The only thing I'm pointing out is that Drew was not "free". Money has an opportunity cost, even for a team like the Red Sox or an owner like JWH. Those of us who opposed Drew from the beginning said it was a poor use of resources. The fact that Drew has been hurt, the team continues falling out of contention, and Xander/Holt/Herrera have all played better just highlights the reasons why.
I'm still not seeing how that makes the Drew signing related to how much they will be offering Lester.
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,313
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Since Herrera became a regular fixture in the line up his slash line is .344/.371/.438. He's far from the worst performing regular. Try again.
 
At what time was this exactly? Because it looks like the only time he was really playing everyday was the past week where he's batting a robust .200
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I'm still not seeing how that makes the Drew signing related to how much they will be offering Lester.
Yeah, if anything, John Henry's recent statements and their actions in negotiations over the past two offseasons suggest they do not do those types of cross subsidies. They offer what they think a player is worth regardless of what the rest of the team is making.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Plympton91 said:
If your "second priority" is "maximize the probability that Xander Bogaerts plays shortstop long-term" then your second priority is misinformed, because, as many posters have shown, the difference between offense at SS and 3rd base really isn't large.  Moreover, your probabilities are fanciful, as there's no evidence that not playing SS for 2/3 of a season at age 21 should have any effect on anyone's ability to play SS at ages 22 and 23.   As a final note, I'll add that it's not clear that having Bogaerts at SS is the long-term best alignment for a "home grown" Red Sox roster, as it's quite possible that Bogaerts at 3B with Betts or Marerro at SS is superior to Bogaerts at SS with Middlebrooks or Cecchini at 3B. 
That's not what you asked, though.
 
 
Plympton91 said:
 
Are you really this obtuse?
 
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
Plympton91 said:
Are you really this obtuse?
Herrera has been playing better as of late. He's not the problem with this roster right now. The emergence of Holt makes Drew unnecessary. Optimally X should be at short with Holt at 3rd, Vic in RF, JBJ in CF, and Nava/Gomes in left.

The notion that Stephen Drew is somehow better than the infield options we have right now is ridiculous. You keep saying "if healthy," like you're 100% certain he's going to be something other than mediocre when he gets back. He's a $10 mil platoon player and defensive replacement. I'm sorry but that's not the piece of the puzzle they've been missing. As of right now he's not even close to baseball shape or "healthy" so you're essentially wish casting. Drew is a notoriously slow starter with an injury history who hasn't played baseball since October. The fact that he's on the DL right now is one of the most unsurprising things to happen this season.
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,313
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Herrera has been playing better as of late. He's not the problem with this roster right now. The emergence of Holt makes Drew unnecessary. Optimally X should be at short with Holt at 3rd, Vic in RF, JBJ in CF, and Nava/Gomes in left.

The notion that Stephen Drew is somehow better than the infield options we have right now is ridiculous. You keep saying "if healthy," like you're 100% certain he's going to be something other than mediocre when he gets back. He's a $10 mil platoon player and defensive replacement. I'm sorry but that's not the piece of the puzzle they've been missing. As of right now he's not even close to baseball shape or "healthy" so you're essentially wish casting. Drew is a notoriously slow starter with an injury history who hasn't played baseball since October. The fact that he's on the DL right now is one of the most unsurprising things to happen this season.
 
He's 4 for his last 20 and has an OPS of .573 in that span. I think you mean "in 2 games last week, he went 3-8"
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
NDame616 said:
At what time was this exactly? Because it looks like the only time he was really playing everyday was the past week where he's batting a robust .200
He's started in 10 out of the past 14 games.

I'm not trying to argue over arbitrary sample sizes. The fact is that yes Herrera is expendable, but Drew doesn't add anything to the equation afterwards.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,178
Washington
Drew only cost some money and there is no way to tell in advance what you might get from any combination of him, Herrera, Holt or whoever over the course of the rest of the season.  To see this much fuss over some additional deep depth is really sort of astonishing to me. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
He's started in 10 out of the past 14 games.

I'm not trying to argue over arbitrary sample sizes. The fact is that yes Herrera is expendable, but Drew doesn't add anything to the equation afterwards.
 
I would still bet on Drew having a greater impact on the rest of the season than Herrera, even with Drew being hurt right now.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
EvilEmpire said:
Drew only cost some money and there is no way to tell in advance what you might get from any combination of him, Herrera, Holt or whoever over the course of the rest of the season.  To see this much fuss over some additional deep depth is really sort of astonishing to me. 
People have an attachment to Bogaerts at SS, probably related to optimism about one or both of Middlebrooks and Cecchini that isn't really fitting with their current production.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Plympton91 said:
People have an attachment to Bogaerts at SS, probably related to optimism about one or both of Middlebrooks and Cecchini that isn't really fitting with their current production.
 
While I may be one of the people who has argued that the difference between Bogaerts at short and Bogaerts at third isn't really that big offensively, I will acknowledge that even small gain is going to add up over his career.  Of course, we are looking at his career in season long chunks so how it impacts the individual seasons is going to be more important than his total WAR or whatever measure you want to use to look back at his career when it's all said and done.
 
I will also point out that if Bogaerts is an average defender at short and an above average defender at third, and I'm not saying he is, just speaking theoretically here, the loss of offensive performance relative to position could very well wash out.  We're not talking about moving Bogaerts to left field here.
 
Anyway, this is the Drew thread.  For 2014 the team has decided that their best use of resources includes Drew at short and Bogaerts at third.  Drew got hurt and so the overall return on the investment there is going to be less than they were hoping for.  We're a long way from being able to say it was wasted money, though.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I would still bet on Drew having a greater impact on the rest of the season than Herrera, even with Drew being hurt right now.
I'd still bet on him being better than Holt as well.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I would still bet on Drew having a greater impact on the rest of the season than Herrera, even with Drew being hurt right now.
In the field, absolutely. At the plate, I'm not so sure.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
In the field, absolutely. At the plate, I'm not so sure.
 
Even if we remove defense, I think Drew contributes more.  I'd guess that Drew is slightly better defensively than Herrera at the very least, but I think most of the comparison here is offensively minded and I'm just as confident there.  Drew has a long history of being a better than average bat for his position.  Herrera does not.
 
Hell, I'm willing to throw 20 bucks at the Jimmy Fund at the end of the year if I'm wrong, but I think Drew's bat will be worth more on the year than Herrera's when the season ends.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
In the field, absolutely. At the plate, I'm not so sure.
 
Stephen Drew's worst offensive year (657 OPS) was better than Herrera's career average (652). Herrera has a cool 582 OPS right now. Are you by any chance a betting man?
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Even if we remove defense, I think Drew contributes more.  I'd guess that Drew is slightly better defensively than Herrera at the very least, but I think most of the comparison here is offensively minded and I'm just as confident there.  Drew has a long history of being a better than average bat for his position.  Herrera does not.
 
Hell, I'm willing to throw 20 bucks at the Jimmy Fund at the end of the year if I'm wrong, but I think Drew's bat will be worth more on the year than Herrera's when the season ends.
  
kieckeredinthehead said:
Stephen Drew's worst offensive year (657 OPS) was better than Herrera's career average (652). Herrera has a cool 582 OPS right now. Are you by any chance a betting man?
Sorry guys.... I'm poor.

I don't have faith in Drew being anything at the plate. Call me a pessimist I guess. He can't hit lefties and his K rate has been increasing for the past few years. For me, he doesn't project well moving forward.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
  
Sorry guys.... I'm poor.

I don't have faith in Drew being anything at the plate. Call me a pessimist I guess. He can't hit lefties and his K rate has been increasing for the past few years. For me, he doesn't project well moving forward.
 
Yeah, but no one is betting on him in 2016.  This is just about 2014, and even if he's in decline, dropping to a point where Herrera is a better bet for the rest of the season is really unlikely.  How much precedence is there for for a guy coming out of his age 30 season, in which he was a top five bat at his position, dropping off a cliff to a point where you'd really be more comfortable betting on a guy with a .582 OPS (and a career .652) being the better bat for the rest of the season the very next year?
 
I mean, you're basically arguing that Drew is likely to have gone from one of the best offensive shortstops in the game to his career being over in the span of 7 months.  What are you basing that on?
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
Saying Drew is a top offensive SS is misleading. Its not like its a position that has a ton of good hitters. He had a wRC+ of 109 which is slightly above average.

I never said he was a better bet than Herrera. I said Drew doesn't add anything to the roster after Herrera is gone.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Saying Drew is a top offensive SS is misleading. Its not like its a position that has a ton of good hitters. He had a wRC+ of 109 which is slightly above average.

I never said he was a better bet than Herrera. I said Drew doesn't add anything to the roster after Herrera is gone.
 
Two things.  First, it's not misleading, it's a fact.  There were only three shortstops with a higher wRC+ or wOBA in 2013.  That makes him a clear top five bat at the position.  It's not misleading, it's what he was in 2013.  I don't get your objection here.
 
Second, what he adds is not keeping Herrera on the roster.  That's a tangible benefit that you can't just dismiss if you are trying to gauge his value to the club in 2014.  As for whether you thought he was a better bet than Herrera, this is your post...
 
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
In the field, absolutely. At the plate, I'm not so sure.
 
At best, that is indifference between the two offensively.  I don't think you can back that up statistically without an unreasonable amount of pessimism.  If you want to acknowledge that you are being pessimistic, that's fine, but I'll swing back around to that being unreasonable.
 
I don't know if Drew is the difference between making the playoffs or not this year, but I do know that replacing Herrera with him is very likely going to be a good thing for this team.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
Depends on what the minimal qualifactions are. On Fangraphs he doesn't even qualify until you put in a min of 500 PAs. Drop it to 400 and there are 6 guys out of 24 who had a higher wRC+. There were 8 players out of 36 with a higher wRC+ if you look at guys with over 300 PAs. Its not impressive.

What I mean by not adding anything to the roster is that they'd be taking out an average switch hitting utility infielder for an above average defensive SS with no positional flexibility and a severe platoon split. I don't see the benefit.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Depends on what the minimal qualifactions are. On Fangraphs he doesn't even qualify until you put in a min of 500 PAs. Drop it to 400 and there are 6 guys out of 24 who had a higher wRC+. There were 8 players out of 36 with a higher wRC+ if you look at guys with over 300 PAs. Its not impressive.

What I mean by not adding anything to the roster is that they'd be taking out an average switch hitting utility infielder for an above average defensive SS with no positional flexibility and a severe platoon split. I don't see the benefit.
 
I was just pointing out that he was 9% better than league average (for all batters, not just short stops) and that among shortstops that made him one of the top bats last year.  You are pointing to a rate stat and are ignoring actual contributed runs by doing this.  It was a quick and dirty way to talk about his value at the plate last year but that doesn't mean that any wRC+ higher than his in smaller sample sizes are an indication of more value.
 
For example, Jose Reyes had 419 PAs at 114 wRC+.  That was worth 9.5 wRAA (a counting stat).  Drew was worth 9.3 in 501 PAs.  They were worth essentially the same amount of runs at the plate despite Reyes' higher wRC+.  You have to draw the line somewhere, and since we were talking about Drew's value, I drew that line at his number of plate appearances last year.  In fact, I drew it lower, going to 450 to make sure that someone who had nearly as many PAs but fell just short wouldn't be excluded unfairly.
 
Looking at wRAA over 300 or more PAs in 2013 puts Drew in 7th among shortstops.  The worst you can argue is that he was a top ten bat among short stops, and 10 would even be a stretch.  That's impressive.  Expecting him to not add value to the club after replacing Herrera is insanely pessimistic.  Having a a platoon split does not mean he can't add value.  It means the team should use him in a specific way to maximize his value.  Considering the flexibility on the roster, especially on the left side of the infield (Bogearts and Holt can both play third, Bogaerts can play short, Middlebrooks can play third if Holt gets hurt or falls off the map, they still have Herrera in the organization), the Red Sox should be able to do exactly that.
 
If you want to continue insisting he's not going to add anything to the roster, feel free, but I don't see any way to support that statistically. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but I absolutely would not bet on it.  It's almost a certainty that Drew will be more valuable to the Red Sox going forward than Herrera will (or would in Drew's place).  They don't need a utility infielder who can play short like most teams do since Bogearts can slide over when needed.  Why carry a terrible bat for that role if they don't have to?
 
I don't anything to add about this after this post, so if you want to respond one more time, have at it, but I'll back out of this back and forth now.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
Honestly Snod you have valid points and I'm not trying to make this into a pissing contest. I think its hard to predict what a 31 year old oft-injured SS is going to do after missing almost half a year, which is why I'm airing on the pessimistic side. We can both look back to past years all we want to try to make an intelligent assumption one way or the other as to what Drew is going to do this year but it ultimately doesn't matter. The circumstances of this year are different and it could be a good or a bad thing. Neither of us know for sure.

I think he hurts the roster flexibility regardless of what X and Holt can do. When Vic comes back where does Holt play? He's been the hottest bat in the lineup and the addition of Drew puts Brock on the bench.

When it comes down to it as far as the Red Sox go I hope Drew is an asset and represents good value going forward. I'm apprehensive due to his lack of positional flexibility, K rate and inability to hit LHP. I fully admit its a negative outlook but I don't think its unreasonable.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Drew did not hit much last year until June. he may be a slow starter.  He does not seem like he will face many LHP'ers this year, and in any event they seemed to survive with him just crushing RHP'ers last year.  Offense against RHP'ers has been an issue this year. Then you have his defense which is an upgrade over XB.   
 
Also, as for him being oft injured, he really only had that broken ankle on the play at the plate hat cost him parts of 2 seasons.  As with any player north of 30, he will have the occasional injury that keeps him out a few days or a couple of weeks.   Last year he was concussed with a HBP and had a hamstring issue where he missed a couple of weeks .  Still had 500 PA
 
Drew is a fulltime SS like last year. Why would we want him at any other position.