Xander moves to Short. Middlebrooks takes over third. We add two outfielders. How does Holt get playing time going forward?
What Happens with Holt?
- Thread starter LynnRice75
- Start date
He becomes a Tony Phillips type player. An unofficial starter that doesn't have a position, but ends up in the lineup 5-6 days a week at a different position each time.
Then you try to sell high on him in the offseason and package him in one of the trades you plan on making.
Then you try to sell high on him in the offseason and package him in one of the trades you plan on making.
Super sub. The guy has shown he can play anywhere. There's always someone hurt or getting a day off.
I really like the idea of having a good bat on the bench to PH for Vazquez late in the game. We now have Nava and Brockholt! or whoever is sitting that day for Brockholt! Hopefully Farrell will employ them correctly.
I'm cross-posting what I wrote in the BCPC thread a few minutes ago: I count 5-6 guys for three OF spots. Isn't it plausible that Victorino is dealt to make way for Cespedes in RF, JBJ stays in center with big (hopefully) bats in the corners to carry him and Nava, Holt and Betts shuffle around on the cheap to give rest and provide injury insurance? Does anyone think Craig is headed toward a platoon with a LHH stronger defensive OF. Nava doesn't really fit that bill—the glove part, anyway. Is Holt going to be taking eleventy-billion fly-balls off the Ft. Myers monster?
There is already enough angst about "helping the Yankees" after the Drew trade.geoduck no quahog said:
I imagine Holt backing up Craig for defensive purposes and against RHPs with whom Craig matches up poorly. Holt comes in later with a lead and does his super sub thing elsewhere to boot. I suspect he spends all winter working on his LF defense. I think Holt's deficiencies in CF would be intolerable in very short order and there would be a great clamor for JBJ's return to full-time duty.
Holt's OPS is 170 points higher than Jackie Bradley's, and he seems quite competent in centerfield. The defensive statistics, for those who put stock in them, show him to be superlative in RF and a little above average in CF (but that sample size is immaterially small).
I think there ought to at least be a healthy competition for CF innings the rest of the way and next year in spring training. I know a lot of people are in love with Bradley, but at some point you have to give the innings and at bats to the players who are playing the best.
I think there ought to at least be a healthy competition for CF innings the rest of the way and next year in spring training. I know a lot of people are in love with Bradley, but at some point you have to give the innings and at bats to the players who are playing the best.
So why even mention them?Plympton91 said:
What you are actually saying here is the players who are hitting the best. The player on the redsox who is playing the best in the CF position is JBJ, and the next best isn't even close.Plympton91 said:
Everyone seems to feel Holt is destined for a super-sub. Not sure who hits lead-off when he's out of the lineup.
In my opinion, he has earned the right to be in the lineup every day. I hope they can find someone to sit often enough.
Listening to the Sox brass this afternoon, sounds like they want Middlebrooks and Cespedes and Bradley and Xander in everyday roles. We will see.
(Wonder how Nava finds time, too.)
In my opinion, he has earned the right to be in the lineup every day. I hope they can find someone to sit often enough.
Listening to the Sox brass this afternoon, sounds like they want Middlebrooks and Cespedes and Bradley and Xander in everyday roles. We will see.
(Wonder how Nava finds time, too.)
Lowrielicious said:
Well, yes, last I checked you only get to have a DH for the pitcher, so hitting needs to come into the equation at some point. I'll stop now, as I realize that arguing on SOSH that Bradley shouldn't get to play CF as long he's, I guess, posting an OPS at least in the high 500s, is equivalent to trying to kick puppies and steal candy from babies.
Is it that hard to believe that some people would hate to see Holt struggle trying to play in CF full time as much as you hate to see Bradley struggle to hit?Plympton91 said:
You are happy to quote miniscule defensive numbers for Holt but seem to be ignoring the fact that JBJ puts up elite ones that makes him a significantly better player for CF than Holt.
No-one is arguing that Bradley should play CF no matter what his hitting stats are but putting Holt there full time instead is simply not a solution to improve the position. Not to mention that you then lose all the value of Holt being able to play 6 other positions on the diamond.
Well, see, first you have to understand that if a starting pitcher strikes out about seven players in a game, that means pitching is worth about twice as much as the twenty outs the defense is responsible for making.DrewDawg said:
Aside from the fact you throw away his positional flexibility if you park him in center - how convinced can we be that Holt continues to be a ~.770 OPS player in the majors? Not to say he won't bat better than Bradley over the long haul, but at some point if Holt regresses enough, Bradley is the better center fielder overall, if he is not already.
Next year we could have a potent lineup and an excellent bench.
On the bench: Holt could get 300 at-bats, and Betts 350 as multi-position players. Nava can be a LHH backup corner OF/1B who gets on base, and you could have Lavarnway as a backup C who can actually hit a little bit. (With Vazquez as the main catcher, you need a backup who at least has a chance of being solid offensively.)
That is a fantastic bench with versatility, LH and RH hitters, some speed with Betts and good OBP backing up every position on the field. They would all make the minimum salary and are all already in house, so no trades would be needed. No matter who was injured or resting, you would have a backup who should at least not be a black hole offensively, which is really, really rare. And you could play matchups with your backups at almost every position, since Holt is LH and Betts is RH and they each play all over the place.
The pitching is another story, lots of work to do there.
On the bench: Holt could get 300 at-bats, and Betts 350 as multi-position players. Nava can be a LHH backup corner OF/1B who gets on base, and you could have Lavarnway as a backup C who can actually hit a little bit. (With Vazquez as the main catcher, you need a backup who at least has a chance of being solid offensively.)
That is a fantastic bench with versatility, LH and RH hitters, some speed with Betts and good OBP backing up every position on the field. They would all make the minimum salary and are all already in house, so no trades would be needed. No matter who was injured or resting, you would have a backup who should at least not be a black hole offensively, which is really, really rare. And you could play matchups with your backups at almost every position, since Holt is LH and Betts is RH and they each play all over the place.
The pitching is another story, lots of work to do there.
I think you are entwining the Sox not having an adequate back-up for CF this past off-season, which I agree with you, with criticism of JBJ.Plympton91 said:
He's a rookie so offensively speaking the bar should be set very low, this is a reality of nearly all rookies whether or not you like it. His MiLB track record is encouraging enough that he actually may end up as our lead-off hitter before to long, in fact he's hitting above the league batting average and OBP for the past month. So whatever reservations you have he's shown enough both in the minors and 2 of the past 4 months to believe he will grow offensively and be more than acceptable. I think your expectations of rookies may not be realistic.
Or you know kick babies and steal candy from puppies whichever is easiest.
LynnRice75 said:
Quoted for truth. I guess a healthy Victorino could slip in (but where does that leave Craig?)
Right now the hitter with best lead-off potential is Betts. Where does Mookie play next year (barring injuries)? With the current construct, it's either CF or RF.
Some moves will of course be made prior to opening day. Betts is more of a conundrum than Holt, and none of the prospective position players (Vazquez, Napoli, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Cespedes, Bradley, Craig, Ortiz) fit the mold of a lead-off guy. In fact, that's an amazingly slow team. Victorino, Holt and Betts are somewhere in someone's equation. Perhaps Napoli gets moved...who knows. Something has to break.
twibnotes said:
Which is why I said I didn't know that it was going to happen this year, but when you have a guy like Bradley whose primary offensive skill is the ability to get on base, where the hell else are you goin to put him? He's going to have an OBP better than .350, he has a little speed and not a ton of power. He's made to hit leadoff. He just has to make the transition.
I agree. His July surge was fueled by an unsustainable BABIP (377), so I'm not as optimistic as others that he's coming around, but his glove is so good that you want to give him every chance to prove that he can hit well enough to stick. Having said that, if he doesn't manage at least a 650 OPS the rest of the way, the CF shouldn't simply be handed to JBJ next spring.Stitch01 said:
Rasputin said:
Rasputin said:
You seem awful sure of Bradley's development as a hitter. I don't think we should throw out his minor league numbers and rely entirely on his MLB performance to date, but it seems almost as extreme to throw out his MLB numbers and rely entirely on his minor league track record. He's at 455 MLB PAs; his minor league career was just 989, so about a third of his professional PAs are in the majors at this point.
FWIW, Oliver's 5-year projections had JBJ topping out at a .339 OBP even before this year.
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber
Plan for Holt: Play center field vs. lefties, either SS or 3B against righties. Still likely to be in lineup almost every day #RedSox
Plan for Holt: Play center field vs. lefties, either SS or 3B against righties. Still likely to be in lineup almost every day #RedSox
Super Nomario said:
Well, obviously he could crash and burn, that's always possible, but we've already seen him make adjustments, his defensive abilities are going to make sure he gets a long rope, and I really want him to succeed so clearly it's only a matter of time.
I gotta admit, it is much easier to dismiss an argument you don't find convenient when you only address half of it. C'mon you can do better than this.kieckeredinthehead said:
I'm not sure he'll be ready for that at the beginning of next year, although my best guesstimate would put him in the lead-off spot around this time next year, he's already shown a nice delta between his OBP and his BA (a difference above .050 is very solid and he's around .070 right now, he has a good command of the strike zone already which bodes well for his development as a batter. His BA will climb as he grows and adjust to MLB, as I'm sure plympton91 knows.Rasputin said:
I see alot of people listing both Holt and Betts as super subs. How exactly doe 2 super subs work together in the same line-up? Chances are trades during the off-season will answer this question before it ever has to be answered or Betts may very well begin the year in Pawtucket not because he needs to but because of options and getting him regular at bats is a priority.
What are the needs of Miami? or Colorado to a lesser extent?
He should have never made the team in 2013 and that was a mistake that I and several others noted before the season ever started. Oliver includes that and it skews the data IMHO. He needed more time in the minors. I agree with Rasputin in that he will be a .350 OBP type of hitter, in fact I think he even has more upside at his peak. Baseball cube has his minor league career mark at 297/404/471. He'll start next season at only 24 years old (B-days late April) so there is still time for growth to his game. I suspect at his peak he'll be in the neighborhood of 280/365/415.Super Nomario said:
Right now as the roster is constituted there simply is not many viable candidates to lead off and that includes Bradley (obviously) right now. His make up as a hitter and past track record combined with his age make him the prime candidate on this roster to be the lead-off hitter in the not to distant future. He works the count and has a great delta between average and OBP and he's fast and will steal a few bases for you. His (Captain Obvious alert) batting average needs to climb/develop a few steps first. I'm confident that will happen even if it takes another whole year.
Plympton91 said:
If Betts in on the major league roster, he should be given a chance too - probably better defense than Holt and better offense than JBJ. But I, like others, think that JBJ has to be given the majority of the ABs because the Red Sox have to get as much data to figure out if he's a .550 OPS guy or a .675 OPS guy.
Given his splits leading off an inning, I wonder if Farrell has given thought to have XB lead off when Holt isn't in the lineup?LynnRice75 said:
It's about time to revisit the Holt starting every game and batting leadoff conversation. While Holt continues to have an excellent overall season line, his offensive performance since July 1st has been in line with projections rather than his insanely hot start or overall season line. In that time, he is hitting .274/.323/.387 as compared to his ZiPS RoS projection of .271/.324/.356. (Steamer is a bit more optimistic, projecting him to a .281/.333/.377 line that also is pretty comparable to his performance over the last month-plus. Since the All Star break, Holt has been abysmal offensively, hitting .190/.260/.256. Like his early season hot streak, his slump is BABIP fueled. He has a mere .260 BABIP post-Break. In contrast, the post-July sample is fueled by a .340 BABIP and his season line remains bolstered by a .369 BABIP.
It seems like the fairy dust has worn off and it is time to place Brock Holt in the bench role that his skill set deserves, not the Zobrist super-sub role that he is currently occupying. Playing Holt less means more playing time for Middlebrooks, Bradley, and Betts, all of whom appear to be in greater need of MLB at bats than does Holt and all of whom have greater upside than Holt.
It seems like the fairy dust has worn off and it is time to place Brock Holt in the bench role that his skill set deserves, not the Zobrist super-sub role that he is currently occupying. Playing Holt less means more playing time for Middlebrooks, Bradley, and Betts, all of whom appear to be in greater need of MLB at bats than does Holt and all of whom have greater upside than Holt.
JakeRae said:
Holt is only three months older than Middlebrooks and has mirrored Middlebrooks' OPS at both levels (nearly to the thousandth, and with his MLB success more recent), albeit a lot more OBP-heavy. Of course Middlebrooks has a better potential upside--perhaps if he can show he can creep up his BB% closer to 10%--though he's continued to look like a poor man's Hillenbrand since getting hurt in 2012.
How much does Holt's LD% play into his BABIP? It looks like his aggregate BABIP in the minors, from 2009 to 2012, was over .350, for what it's worth. Perhaps nothing, but he put up .402 in 2010 (218 PA), .340 in 2011 (579 PA), .364 in 2012 (432 PA), and finished the season putting up a likely unsustainable .465 over 106 PA in AAA.
I'm not saying they should give up on Middlebrooks completely, but I'm not sure if playing him instead of Holt is necessarily the right player development choice if you're hoping Middlebrooks can be the next Travis Fryman, when you've got a potential Bill Mueller in your back pocket. Holt is like the steak from the Aesop tale of the dog and its reflection.
Holt is quickly falling back to earth.
.194/.260/.254 since the all star break in 67AB. So it appears to be more than just a slump. Has the league figured him out? Is he struggling because its his first extended playing time since his time in AA in 2011?
.194/.260/.254 since the all star break in 67AB. So it appears to be more than just a slump. Has the league figured him out? Is he struggling because its his first extended playing time since his time in AA in 2011?
Yeah, we got a bombard that refuses to accept 460 a PA by Jackie Bradley as representative but at the same time keeps harping on same of less than 100 as defining who else should be playing. It's insane, not just for the posters here but for Red Sox management, when you look at how little actual performance, over relevant sample sizes, has mattered in determining playing time this year.JimBoSox9 said:
Right.....because baseball players never have a two-week abberation. Good god.vadertime said:
I don't doubt there is a reversion to the mean here but to suggest 67 AB is proof of anything is silly.
As I pointed out 2 posts earlier, the slump is largely BABIP driven. It's not anything to worry about but he also is not as good as he was playing prior to the All Star Break.vadertime said:
seantoo said:
As things are constructed today, the simplest answer is that the 2015 outfield is Craig (LF) / Victorino (CF) / Cespedes (RF) with JBJ as the 4th outfielder and Holt as the utility infielder/outfielder. Betts is either in Pawtucket or on the team as the 3rd super-bench guy. Ross being the 4th.
Holt and Betts would give the Sox a lot of flexibility (and some speed) off the bench and would slot in somewhere after the inevitable major injury to one of the starters. Promoting Betts in this scenario means Nava is gone, and I'm not sure I would choose JBJ over Nava.
This assumes Victorino will be able to cover CF post-surgery.
The only true lead off guy on the current team, other than Holt, projects to be Betts, but there's no place to play him in the obvious scenario.
JBJ is not currently a major league hitter, so projecting him as a lead-off guy is absurd. If you had to choose between JBJ or Betts as the 4th outfielder, what would your decision be?
