What is the limit for how many times you can vote for X? I submitted a bunch, but I am not sure if that was 1 vote or 50.
That's All-Star BROCK HOLT!
- Thread starter TimScribble
- Start date
I did that too on MLB.com. Used to be a cutoff, like 30 or so. I'm sure I went over 50 last night and it didn't cut me off either. As long as they keep throwing those new captcha things at you, I think it's another vote. I just went back in and didn't have to log back in with email, etc. It had saved everything. So, I did a bunch more.reggiecleveland said:
So, get out and vote! For X.
http://mlb.mlb.com/home
This is one of those factors in his popularity with Sox fans in particular. He IS everyman. He is a fringe player doing whatever is asked of him and making the most of his opportunity to play in The Show. Guys whine about having to move positions and much ado is written at times about those moves. BROCKHOLT cares not and will pitch before it's all said and done.Al Zarilla said:
mikeford said:
As was mentioned, Varitek was quite a bit worse. Loretta was having a pretty good season at a relatively shallow position (beyond Cano) by the time voting winded down; Varitek was pretty atrocious at the same point, sporting a .653 OPS.
The real abomination regarding Loretta was him being played over Carlos Pena in September, but that's neither here nor there.
mt8thsw9th said:
But doesn't that comparison depend on the assumption that the All-Star selections should only depend on performance during the voting period? Varitek had arguably a better body of work in his career than Loretta at the respective times of selection.
singaporesoxfan said:
Loretta's 3 year OPS+ split (2004-2006): 105 (5 years: 109, career to date: 101)
Varitek's 3 year OPS+ split (2006-2008): 87 (5 years: 102, career to date: 100)
Loretta was an All Star in that first year of that stretch as well; Varitek was playing with a giant fork sticking out of his back in 2006. This isn't just looking at the voting period.
ivanvamp said:
Xander is first in fWAR amongst AL SS and his wRC+ is 3rd best (just slightly below 1st and 2nd) of AL SS with at least 200 PAs.
Mookie is tied for 3rd in fWAR amongst AL CF and his wRC+ is 7th best of AL CF with at least 200 PAs.
Basically it's because SS in the AL is weak and it's an easy case to make that Xander's been top 3 at that position whether by offense or defense. CF on the other hand is a deep position in the AL both defensively and offensively, so Mookie doesn't shine through quite as brightly as Bogaerts. If Mookie didn't piss of the BABIP gods in April he'd probably be a lock; perception persists that Mookie is just another over-hyped Red Sox prospect.
Rasputin said:
Ever since last year when Dave Cameron suggested he wouldn't trade Betts for Strasburg (or Sale IIRC) people have been calling him over-hyped. It's mostly been backlash to Cameron's valuation (which is really rooted in service time) and the notion that he's guaranteed to struggle because look at all the other young prospects struggling in their first taste of the bigs. After Betts failed to set the world on fire to start the year many commenters felt justified that Betts was overhyped. Even at SoSH there were people talking about sending him to Pawtucket throughout May. He's really boosted his line lately, but for a lot of people it's not enough to value him over those 2 pitchers or even Cole Hamels. Some of these people may be quieting down for now, but I bet they'll pop back up if he goes into any kind of extended slump.
I completely agree with you that his performance has been everything anyone could ask for, but last winter the hype train got moving pretty quickly for a guy who was on few people's radar at the start of 2014.
I'm pretty sure Cameron argued they shouldn't trade him for Hamels. I don't recall an argument on Stras or Sale, but I could be corrected on that.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
It was precisely the opposite - Cameron said they should trade him for Strasburg.
The article I was thinking of is here, which was written September 24, 2014.
It appears Dave changed his mind a little bit between then and January 2015 when he wrote that the Sox should trade Betts for Strasburg. I'm looking through that article now and it seems like his rationale is that the Sox would be better in 2015 with the upgrade at pitcher since they already had too many good outfielders to play (if only). Even so, he basically suggests that the two players are even value at the time, which leads to the 287 comments discussion below the article. Perhaps I'm misremembering a bit, but it sure felt like there was a lot of talk about how Mookie was either going to be the best homegrown Sox player since Pedroia/Ellsbury or he was just another over-hyped Red Sox prospect who won't pan out.
It appears Dave changed his mind a little bit between then and January 2015 when he wrote that the Sox should trade Betts for Strasburg. I'm looking through that article now and it seems like his rationale is that the Sox would be better in 2015 with the upgrade at pitcher since they already had too many good outfielders to play (if only). Even so, he basically suggests that the two players are even value at the time, which leads to the 287 comments discussion below the article. Perhaps I'm misremembering a bit, but it sure felt like there was a lot of talk about how Mookie was either going to be the best homegrown Sox player since Pedroia/Ellsbury or he was just another over-hyped Red Sox prospect who won't pan out.
“@jcmccaffrey: With Brock Holt now an All-Star, here’s @JMastrodonato 2-part feature on him from last year:
http://t.co/GA7O9ja2m7
http://t.co/uxQiy1trz1”
http://t.co/GA7O9ja2m7
http://t.co/uxQiy1trz1”
“@alexspeier: What did Red Sox pro scout Nate Field see in Brock Holt that led the Sox to trade for him? http://t.co/ZUMgPvZtfz via @BostonGlobe”
singaporesoxfan said:
I think the assumption in question is a good one. An All-Star selection is about who's an All-Star that year, not who's always been one. There's a Hall of Fame for that.
In a shocking news
“@MLB: AL #FinalVote standings:
1. Mike Moustakas
2. Brian Dozier
3. Yoenis Cespedes
4. Brett Gardner
5. Xander Bogaerts http://t.co/mZFYdj5dtP”
“@MLB: AL #FinalVote standings:
1. Mike Moustakas
2. Brian Dozier
3. Yoenis Cespedes
4. Brett Gardner
5. Xander Bogaerts http://t.co/mZFYdj5dtP”
ivanvamp said:
Yes, but the positional values aren't dynamic; they don't change in response to short-term fluctuations in performance. If a league is having a dry spell at a particular position, then the best player in the league at that position may not be all that great in the big picture, but will still be, ipso facto, the most deserving All-Star in that year. And that's pretty much where we are in the AL at SS at the moment. Xander, at his current (presumably pre-peak) performance level, would have been the fourth- or fifth-best shortstop in the AL in 1999. But this ain't 1999.
soxhop411 said:
Think how little those poor slobs have to live for, and forgive them.
soxhop411 said:
This - is a great link. It's always interesting to read about players that rise to the level of stardom after taking a totally non-traditional route to the bigs.
It's also a reminder that this thread is about Brock Holt!, not a referendum on the WAR of two players who are Not Brock Holt!
Are you sure? Because I thought that part of WAR was based on the performance of the players at that position. In other words, if there's a ton of outstanding CF, then Mookie's relative value will be impacted, compared to if he's the only good one out there. That is, if there are a lot of outstanding CF, that will depress Mookie's WAR, and if he's the only one who's any good, his WAR will go up.DrewDawg said:
I thought that's a factor in the WAR calculation.
If I'm wrong, so be it.
Edit: I think I misunderstood what you're saying. And I think I get it now.
ivanvamp said:
I believe only the defensive component of WAR is calculated relative to performance of others playing the same position. Offensive components are calculated relative to the entire league. After adding those two components together WAR then adds a positional adjustment value, which gives players extra credit for playing tougher positions on the diamond. And I believe offensive and defensive components are adjusted for ballpark and league as well.
I believe Brock Holt's defensive contributions are probably understated by WAR because it just credits him the normal positional adjustment component for wherever he plays that day. In real life the ability to move around to literally anywhere on the diamond is more valuable than the sum of its individual parts because it's rare and offers important roster flexibility. Glad to see that he's being appreciated this way and rewarded with a trip to the ASG.
Position adjustment is made based on large data sets, not year to year fluctuation. BRef bases theirs on offense, there is a run adjustment based on relative offensive values going along the defensive spectrum.
FG meanwhile bases position adjustment on "relative difficulty of being an average fielder at the position." There is an explanation for how they come to this if you dig through a bunch of their work, it is not easy for me to put into a single sentence, but here are the values.
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]But these are LARGE DATA SET numbers, not adjusted within year. [/SIZE]
FG meanwhile bases position adjustment on "relative difficulty of being an average fielder at the position." There is an explanation for how they come to this if you dig through a bunch of their work, it is not easy for me to put into a single sentence, but here are the values.
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]But these are LARGE DATA SET numbers, not adjusted within year. [/SIZE]
BROCKHOLTALLSTAR seems like a wonderful sell high asset. Would be disappointed if Ben isn't making it quietly known that it just might be possible for him to be talked into parting with him in a lost year for the Sox. There be some dim (being really dim) GMs out there that might be ripe for the picking.
Yeah, he's made so many bone-headed moves lately that he's probably busy trying to undo one of the few that hasn't backfired.sketz said:
Really?sketz said:
Look, Holt's a good player. He can reliably play 7 positions on the field. And they're paying him nothing. Fact is this: he's worth more to the Red Sox than other teams. I mean, I'm sure he's worth plenty to other teams, but guys who make 530k at age 27 and have the versatility that Holt has and will be under team control for a while aren't guys who move. And on top of that, the Red Sox might be under .500 now but they're not a bad team. They're a decent team. They're better than this. And they're better with Holt, and frankly, they're probably better with Holt than with whatever they get in return -- a B pitching prospect? A 24 year old AAAA guy? Holt's valuable in his own way that the Red Sox should totally savor.
Laddie's got it right. Holt is a very cheap asset, and based on the past three weeks, this is too soon to be deeming this a "lost year".
What's the rush, anyway? He performed similarly last year, so it's not likely this is an aberration, there's 3 weeks to the trade deadline, and there are plenty of other bodies to move before you'd move his
What's the rush, anyway? He performed similarly last year, so it's not likely this is an aberration, there's 3 weeks to the trade deadline, and there are plenty of other bodies to move before you'd move his
I feel like we've got a lot of day traders here, always trying to "buy low" and "sell high" as if the rest of the world is full of suckers irrationally paying too much or asking too litle for something.
Sorry, you can't beat the market.
Sorry, you can't beat the market.
I agree - he's a good player, cheap and he'll help the team this year and next. But at 27, there may not be much room between where he's at now and his ultimate ceiling and there's a good chance that his value will never be higher than it is right now as a first time allstar. To me, he's a nice player to have, but not necessarily a building block for the team going forward like X, Betts, Swihart, Rodriguez (and hopefully, JBJ). Despite Laddie's comment above, I can't help thinking that he'd be worth more to a lower payroll team that's deeper in the hunt than the Sox.
The Sox are 5 games out now at 41-45 (4th worst record in AL) after going 12-6 for the past 3 weeks. Prior to that stretch, they were 29-39 (2nd worst record in AL) and 9 games out. It's been a great run, but the Sox are still longshots to make it in (I admit that "lost season" was hyperbolic). Why would you not explore what's out there and see if you can get someone to overpay given how competitive the league is right now? I'm not proposing we immediately ship him out for the first B prospect or a AAAA player offered, but if we get a Shark-type offer, I'd do it. If we don't get a good enough offer, we don't trade him - but what's the harm in shaking the trees?
The Sox are 5 games out now at 41-45 (4th worst record in AL) after going 12-6 for the past 3 weeks. Prior to that stretch, they were 29-39 (2nd worst record in AL) and 9 games out. It's been a great run, but the Sox are still longshots to make it in (I admit that "lost season" was hyperbolic). Why would you not explore what's out there and see if you can get someone to overpay given how competitive the league is right now? I'm not proposing we immediately ship him out for the first B prospect or a AAAA player offered, but if we get a Shark-type offer, I'd do it. If we don't get a good enough offer, we don't trade him - but what's the harm in shaking the trees?
sketz said:
What the hell are you talking about? You want to trade pre-arb ~4 WAR versatile player? What do you expect to get for him?
I can't tell what makes fans dumber, losing or winning.
It's quite possible that Holt is sitting at peak value right now, but the name of the game isn't Sell High. It's Build the Best Team Possible and Win Some Fucking Games.
Pandemonium67 said:
No, just stop.
Here is your problem. Even if he is peaking in value, no one is going to give you a package worth 4 WAR player making pre-arb money. They aren't even going to give you equal value of 2.5 WAR guy making that much. They are going to give you prospects or you are going to trade for someone making a lot more with some more value
It is like if you had 10 dollar stock options in Apple and you decide to sell them for lottery tickets for 200 dollar pot or trading them for 10 dollar Microsoft options. People would think you are insane and they would be right.
Right here this is why the board is such poor shape. 5 years ago people would have laughing hysterically at this suggestion.
sketz said:
Couple things:
1. How can you possibly say they are longshots when they have a 3-game set with the Yankees at home starting tonight? The division could be separated by a grand total of 2 games from first to last by the All-Star Break. I'll take those odds, no matter how the record shapes up with the rest of the AL.
2. You admit the league is competitive. I suggest the league includes the hyper-competitive AL East, especially if the Sox take at least 2 from the Yankees this weekend.
Holt is contributing to a very competitive team right now, and that's easily measured by their divisional positioning. Selling him right now (including for all of the reasons above, i.e. pre-arbitration, league minimum salary) would be a tremendous mistake.
TomRicardo said:
I think you're mis-reading P67. I believe his comments about building the best team and that you don't win anything by selling high, means he doesn't want to trade BrockHoltAllStar. I thought he was basically agreeing with you.
sketz said:
It has nothing to do with trying to win the division though.
If the Sox trade away their 2nd most productive position player over the past two seasons by fWAR, in his prime years no less, they need to replace that contribution going forward. How are you going to do that, throw money at the problem?
In principle, there exists a trade worth pulling the trigger on for Holt, like there does for every player. But in practice, you'd be digging a hole to fill later.
Right. If they can find some insane value (ie a #1 starter or a top 10 overall prospect), then, sure, pull the trigger. But Holt's perceived value isn't nearly as high as his actual value.
Indeed I was. Thought that was pretty clear, but I'll spell it out next time.
I don't consider anyone on the Sox untouchable, but I'd put Holt in the group with Mookie, X and Edro as guys it would be very tough to get equal value for. The latter three will be part of the core of the Sox future, and Holt will be very valuable. I think BC's goal is to build a deep, flexible team and Holt will have a big role in that.