Can Mike Carp be the Sox full time 1B in 2014

[Dojji]

Cecchini does not have a higher upside than WMB. On an analysis where you project both of them maximizing both their offensive and defensive abilities, WMB takes the cake by a lot. What Cecchini has is a much higher floor than WMB, but with a lower ceiling. Middlebrooks rates 65-70 on power in a lot of scouting reports. That is exceptional.

 

I just disagree with you. Sure, Middlebrooks has the power, but which one of the two is most likely to clear the .400 OBP mark at the big league level? Which one brings the speed? Cecchini can generate tons of offense if he tops out, he just won't quite be doing as much of it with one swing as Middlebrooks might.

 

And Cecchini has no shortage of power, he's a consistent gap threat which with his speed is fantastic and allows him to generate absolute havoc offensively, and he's exactly the kind of patience first gap hitter that can create Pedroia/Youkilis type line drive bomb power as his career advances.

 

I think Cecchini's ultimate power ceiling isn't as far behind Middlebrooks, as his patience, OBP, speed and baserunning skills are ahead of Middlebrooks, in terms of ultimate upside. If we have a 5 tool prospect in the minors right now, that prospect is Garin Cecchini. it'll come down to whether he can leverage his hitting approach into line drive home run power as he develops, the way Youkilis did. That's the big question but I'd say there's plenty of reason for optimism.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Dojji

[User Name]

You're misinterpreting what "ceiling" means on a prospect. WMB has better tools and is a better athlete than Cecchini. There's not even an argument about it. The problem is that "tools" doesn't always translate into MLB production.

[Dojji]

I thought you were ignoring me. by all means don't stop.

 

There's an ongoing debate, with proponents on both sides, whether an advanced hitting approach should be considered a 'tool' for those players who naturally have one. it's certainly something that should affect their projectability, and the lack of considering hitting approach is the #1 reason certain advanced players blindside people when they transition successfully into the majors -- Nava is hardly alone here. People tend to forget that Youk did it too.

[User Name]

I only ignore you when you're being a pretentious prick. This is one of those instances. You don't know better than talent evaluators. An approach can be taught over time. Talent can't.

[Orange Juiced]

I only ignore you when you're being a pretentious prick. This is one of those instances. You don't know better than talent evaluators. An approach can be taught over time. Talent can't.

 

Are you suggesting that talent can't improve over time?

[Thunder]

Personally, I believe that talent is something you are born with. You can be born to do something. Even with that said, other people can surpass you by acquiring the right approach to whatever it is. Baseball is a great example. People who weren't born to hit were told to play the best defense they could while receiving the right approach. I think someone who doesn't have that natural talent is better off. They will do anything to get to the top, while the people with talent tend to be overconfident in their ability, choosing to not try to improve their game. You can't teach talent. You either have talent or you don't, but you aren't a dud if you don't have it.

[marklmw]

Personally, I believe that talent is something you are born with. You can be born to do something. Even with that said, other people can surpass you by acquiring the right approach to whatever it is. Baseball is a great example. People who weren't born to hit were told to play the best defense they could while receiving the right approach. I think someone who doesn't have that natural talent is better off. They will do anything to get to the top, while the people with talent tend to be overconfident in their ability, choosing to not try to improve their game. You can't teach talent. You either have talent or you don't, but you aren't a dud if you don't have it.

 

Like most things in life it really depends on the individual. Was Michael Jordon always talented ... probably so .... at the same time did he work harder than any other player on his team in every practice and game ... his teammates claim that he did.

[sk7326]

I thought you were ignoring me. by all means don't stop.

 

There's an ongoing debate, with proponents on both sides, whether an advanced hitting approach should be considered a 'tool' for those players who naturally have one. it's certainly something that should affect their projectability, and the lack of considering hitting approach is the #1 reason certain advanced players blindside people when they transition successfully into the majors -- Nava is hardly alone here. People tend to forget that Youk did it too.

 

Plate discipline is born, not made - I agree and a lot of the statistics back it up. You get the occasional Sammy Sosa who truly transforms over time - but for the most part you are what you are and improvement can only help so much. Now, general approach can be learned a bit - although in a Middlebrooks case it is more like being able to spoil pitches that get him out and making more hard contact. Nava and Youk have the plate discipline part of the thing down. For Middlebrooks - the question is whether he can produce enough on-base to get to his power. What is true is that he is a very good athlete - and it is not a good idea to bet against a terrific athlete figuring this stuff out.

[User Name]

Plate discipline is born, not made - I agree and a lot of the statistics back it up. You get the occasional Sammy Sosa who truly transforms over time - but for the most part you are what you are and improvement can only help so much. Now, general approach can be learned a bit - although in a Middlebrooks case it is more like being able to spoil pitches that get him out and making more hard contact. Nava and Youk have the plate discipline part of the thing down. For Middlebrooks - the question is whether he can produce enough on-base to get to his power. What is true is that he is a very good athlete - and it is not a good idea to bet against a terrific athlete figuring this stuff out.

 

Plate discipline is not born, it's made. It's an approach taught to you by coaches since a very young age. Check out the guys with the least P/PA the last ten years and you'll notice most of them are Latin American guys. That's because they're taught that you don't "walk off the island, you hit off the island". Take a young Latin guy though (Pujols, Pena) put them in the American system from a young age, and well, you don't get a hacker.

 

I'd like to see this statistical evidence you speak of, because i've seen no such thing.

[User Name]

Personally, I believe that talent is something you are born with. You can be born to do something. Even with that said, other people can surpass you by acquiring the right approach to whatever it is. Baseball is a great example. People who weren't born to hit were told to play the best defense they could while receiving the right approach. I think someone who doesn't have that natural talent is better off. They will do anything to get to the top, while the people with talent tend to be overconfident in their ability, choosing to not try to improve their game. You can't teach talent. You either have talent or you don't, but you aren't a dud if you don't have it.

 

You followed the help chart before making this post. Well done.

[User Name]

Are you suggesting that talent can't improve over time?

 

It's the exception, not the norm. And i'd call it "refining" instead of improving. You don't "improve" average power into light-power tower like WMB has. You can, however, improve a mediocre approach to achieve much better results, which guys like Johnny Damon managed over time.

[Dojji]

It's the exception, not the norm. And i'd call it "refining" instead of improving. You don't "improve" average power into light-power tower like WMB has. You can, however, improve a mediocre approach to achieve much better results, which guys like Johnny Damon managed over time.

 

there is a talent associated with being able to see the ball and make adjustments at the plate. And there's varying levels of that talent. Just like any other talent, experience can bring it out more. And there are things players can do to compensate for performing poorly in this area, but that by itself does not mean it is not a tool. Not any more than Youkilis taking his above average at best power, and leveraging it into some monster slugging years, means power is not a tool.

[sk7326]

Plate discipline is not born, it's made. It's an approach taught to you by coaches since a very young age. Check out the guys with the least P/PA the last ten years and you'll notice most of them are Latin American guys. That's because they're taught that you don't "walk off the island, you hit off the island". Take a young Latin guy though (Pujols, Pena) put them in the American system from a young age, and well, you don't get a hacker.

 

I'd like to see this statistical evidence you speak of, because i've seen no such thing.

 

It's not really that sophisticated - Rob Neyer was writing about back in his ESPN days ... very few hitters improve walk rates during their careers. Certainly in scouting circles, plate discipline has been emphasized more in the post-moneyball era because it is not something that is going to just magically appear. I am not sure if it is necessarily driven by development backgrounds, although the anecdotal evidence is interesting. As much as it is tempting to say that the American system breeds this - all you need to do is listen to supposedly smart baseball folks like Dusty Baker or Joe Morgan to know that there is a LOT of defense of low-discipline living.

 

You can get by in the league without plate discipline - and be really good even. But that means you have Nomar or Vlad Guerrero's (or Yasiel Puig) talent, and that's a pretty short list.

[sk7326]

there is a talent associated with being able to see the ball and make adjustments at the plate. And there's varying levels of that talent. Just like any other talent, experience can bring it out more. And there are things players can do to compensate for performing poorly in this area, but that by itself does not mean it is not a tool. Not any more than Youkilis taking his above average at best power, and leveraging it into some monster slugging years, means power is not a tool.

 

Power is a tool, as is plate discipline. The thing that makes it a tool is that you are scouting and projecting it - and that there is a natural physical ceiling for each player. Will Middlebrooks is/was never going to turn into Barry Bonds, no matter how much coaching or instruction he gets. He can improve that part of his life a little bit - be able to spoil the slider away more, but he ain't going to be a walk machine. Youkilis did not show his power in 2005, but his body had some projection and in the minors he had some success getting to it. The power was projectable at least, and once he learned how to crush his pitches, presto. Another example on the 2013 team is Bogaerts. He certainly is not a 30 HR slugger now - but his frame and age and how he swings the bat etc to date ... all of that seems to indicate he is going to grow into that power.

[User Name]

Power is a tool, as is plate discipline. The thing that makes it a tool is that you are scouting and projecting it - and that there is a natural physical ceiling for each player. Will Middlebrooks is/was never going to turn into Barry Bonds, no matter how much coaching or instruction he gets. He can improve that part of his life a little bit - be able to spoil the slider away more, but he ain't going to be a walk machine. Youkilis did not show his power in 2005, but his body had some projection and in the minors he had some success getting to it. The power was projectable at least, and once he learned how to crush his pitches, presto. Another example on the 2013 team is Bogaerts. He certainly is not a 30 HR slugger now - but his frame and age and how he swings the bat etc to date ... all of that seems to indicate he is going to grow into that power.

 

The main difference is the "projectable" part. When scouts speak of it, they talk about "present" power and a projectable power "ceiling". Youkilis is a guy who confounded scouts because his body type lent itself to producing more power and he eventually grew into his projections. But the truth is, that if it isn't there, it just isn't. Look at guys like Daric Barton, who looks like he should have some big power numbers, but they just can't generate enough force to hit for power consistently.

 

The difference between power and plate discipline, although they are both tools , is that one is purely physical. Power, like speed, cannot be taught. If you want an example of a guy whose approach refined to the point where he went from a hacker to one of the league-leaders in OBP, P/PA and walks, look no further than Edwin Encarnacion. There are other examples of guys improving their approach like this.

 

I want you, however, to find me an example of a guy whose power ceiling was projected to be below average and ended up hitting 30+ homers without some "help". For the record, Ellsbury is not an example of this, since he was always projected to put up big power numbers, but his approach never allowed it until 2011, and the multiple injuries have stunted him since.

[sk7326]

The main difference is the "projectable" part. When scouts speak of it, they talk about "present" power and a projectable power "ceiling". Youkilis is a guy who confounded scouts because his body type lent itself to producing more power and he eventually grew into his projections. But the truth is, that if it isn't there, it just isn't. Look at guys like Daric Barton, who looks like he should have some big power numbers, but they just can't generate enough force to hit for power consistently.

 

The difference between power and plate discipline, although they are both tools , is that one is purely physical. Power, like speed, cannot be taught. If you want an example of a guy whose approach refined to the point where he went from a hacker to one of the league-leaders in OBP, P/PA and walks, look no further than Edwin Encarnacion. There are other examples of guys improving their approach like this.

 

I want you, however, to find me an example of a guy whose power ceiling was projected to be below average and ended up hitting 30+ homers without some "help". For the record, Ellsbury is not an example of this, since he was always projected to put up big power numbers, but his approach never allowed it until 2011, and the multiple injuries have stunted him since.

 

Ellsbury's soxprospects scouting report: http://www.soxprospects.com/players/ellsbury-jacoby.htm

 

I think his homerun power did confound folks - but there was a meaningful change in approach (mostly doing the work to be able to get to inside pitches with intent). Really, he was projected more as a Lance Johnson or Lenny Dykstra type than any sort of true power threat.

 

What you mention - and Ryan Sweeney is a great example - I think is the difference between what the scouting sorts call raw power vs power. Sweeney has always had a lot of batting practice power - but has not been able to get it into games.

 

Encarnacion is rare - like Sammy Sosa ... doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also Encarnacion was still starting from a decent place ... after all his career lows in walks was still higher than anything Nomar put up. It is hard to say the growth has not been somewhat within his ability.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2151&position=3B

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=190&position=SS

 

Compare it to - the ultimate example here - Sammy Sosa. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=302&position=OF ... the ability to really change your offensive personality is very, very difficult

 

It is hard to get to something like 30 HRs without some rudimentary raw power. That said, Dustin Pedroia is certainly an example of a player who has confounded scouts with his power and consistency.

[Bellhorn04]

Compare it to - the ultimate example here - Sammy Sosa. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=302&position=OF ... the ability to really change your offensive personality is very, very difficult

 

Is Sosa a credible example of anything but the power of PED's though?

[sk7326]

Is Sosa a credible example of anything but the power of PED's though?

 

That is not an unreasonable argument ... but the walk rates are still a function of waiting for good pitches, a hitting personality. I mean Barry Bonds had remarkable plate discipline from 1990 onward - it was just how he was wired as a hitter. Vlad Guerrero, whose raw power was in the Sosa ballpark for sure - his walk rates were roughly the same his entire career (save for your usual blips). That is much more normal.

[Orange Juiced]

It's the exception, not the norm. And i'd call it "refining" instead of improving. You don't "improve" average power into light-power tower like WMB has. You can, however, improve a mediocre approach to achieve much better results, which guys like Johnny Damon managed over time.

 

I've played sports at the collegiate level, and I've coached at numerous levels (obviously not at the pro level so maybe this is totally apples-to-oranges here). But I've seen all sorts of people improve their talent level. I've seen runners get faster with better technique. I've seen bad shooters become good shooters (and good shooters become great shooters) as they spend hours and hours and hours in the gym. I've seen pitchers take leaps forward as they master new pitches and gain core strength to give them an additional 5-7 mph on their fastball.

 

So maybe we're talking different things when we use the term "talent". Because if you saw some of the people I'm talking about at the beginning of their progression, you'd say they don't have much talent. But if you saw them at the end of the their progression, you'd say they have a lot of talent.

 

But again, maybe we're talking about different things.

[Thunder]

You followed the help chart before making this post. Well done.

 

About time I get some recognition around here.

[User Name]

I've played sports at the collegiate level, and I've coached at numerous levels (obviously not at the pro level so maybe this is totally apples-to-oranges here). But I've seen all sorts of people improve their talent level. I've seen runners get faster with better technique. I've seen bad shooters become good shooters (and good shooters become great shooters) as they spend hours and hours and hours in the gym. I've seen pitchers take leaps forward as they master new pitches and gain core strength to give them an additional 5-7 mph on their fastball.

 

So maybe we're talking different things when we use the term "talent". Because if you saw some of the people I'm talking about at the beginning of their progression, you'd say they don't have much talent. But if you saw them at the end of the their progression, you'd say they have a lot of talent.

 

But again, maybe we're talking about different things.

 

We are talking about different things. You're talking about natural ability progression. I'm talking about the current and projected ability levels of near-finished products. You can't compare a college freshman (unless it's a generational talent type of guy) to a near-ready prospect as far as scouting accuracy goes.

 

I've seen guys throwing 92 when they're 16 being projected to hit triple digits who end up topping out at that same velocity, and guys who throw 88 at 17, and reach the show bringing upper-level heat. What i'm trying to say here is that, when it comes to scouting, talent level for a raw kid and a battle-tested, near-MLB level prospect is nowhere close in terms of accuracy level. This is why the 20-80 scale is usually so accurate.

[User Name]

That is not an unreasonable argument ... but the walk rates are still a function of waiting for good pitches, a hitting personality. I mean Barry Bonds had remarkable plate discipline from 1990 onward - it was just how he was wired as a hitter. Vlad Guerrero, whose raw power was in the Sosa ballpark for sure - his walk rates were roughly the same his entire career (save for your usual blips). That is much more normal.

 

You're a lot more likely to be forced into taking a walk if you're a walking HR waiting to happen. Sosa didn't transform his approach, he was forced to take a walk because pitchers shat their pants when he was at the plate (with notable exceptions) after he started juicing. I don't think he's a good example.

[SCM33]

I only ignore you when you're being a pretentious prick. This is one of those instances. You don't know better than talent evaluators. An approach can be taught over time. Talent can't.

 

 

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. Dojji has missed the mark at a comedic level on every other of his "prospects". Its laughable with some of the s*** hes said over the years about the piles of dogshit that has come through the system. Dojji has always been a rooter of the underdog, he found one in Nava. I would not take any future advice from him regarding prospects, hes wrong 99.9% of the time.

[a700hitter]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. Dojji has missed the mark at a comedic level on every other of his "prospects". Its laughable with some of the s*** hes said over the years about the piles of dogshit that has come through the system. Dojji has always been a rooter of the underdog, he found one in Nava. I would not take any future advice from him regarding prospects, hes wrong 99.9% of the time.

I think LOL! I think Doji is right at a much higher percentage. He does often get a little too enthusiastic when a prospect is still playing T-Ball but he doesn't project these guys as stars. He usually projects them as contributors. His evaluation of Nava was pretty much right on with regard to hitting. He might have underestimated his power just a bit, and I don't think he projected his fielding versatility.

 

I for one thought it much more probable that he would be pumping gas this summer that very ably handling RF and 1B in a pennant drive.

[Orange Juiced]

Nava was doing well the first two months: .285/.390/.460/.850. I think a lot of people expected him to kind of fall off, but since June 1, here's his line:

 

.312/.383/.433/.816

 

So a little less power, but still getting on base at about the same clip, with a higher batting average. In other words, he's been steady all season. Very nice season he's having, no doubt.

[Dojji]

Considering that in the offseason I was calling for a line of .270/.340/.420, and you can verify that, I can safely say that we were all pleasantly surprised by Nava this year.

 

It's hard to say that I'm constantly wrong when a lot of the guys I put forward never get the chance to show one way or the other. The rare times one of my guys gets a shot, they tend to be more hit than miss. I was a big Brandon Moss fan, I backed Josh Reddick over Ryan Kalish, I wanted to see Kottaras to get a shot to back up in Boston, I wanted to see Jed Lowrie continue to get chances, all of those calls were the right ones when they were made. Also very pleasantly surprised by Brandon Workman, although calling him as someone to be effective is far less of a stretch.

 

People have a tendency to overvalue the hyped prospects, these other guys wouldn't be around if the team didn't think they might be able to contribute if called on. if a guy can take a walk and shows enough other skills to be useful at a big league level, you can bet the Boston Red sox have a scenario in which a combination of injuries and struggles means that player will be called up to Boston. I mean heck, I didn't think we'd see as much of Brandon Snyder as we did this year, did anyone else? That alone should tell people something.

 

I have one big whiff named Lars Anderson that I'll take the hit for, learn my lesson, and never back a bigtime prospect the team happens to also be hyping. Think for yourself, don't let the spin doctors do your thinking. Sometimes backing the big prospect is the right move. I'm a confirmed Xander Bogaerts at shortstop fan back when everyone else thought he was our 3B of the future. but never do it just because he's the flavor of the month. Do some analysis with whatever information you have available, and never be afraid to take an unpopular stance if that's what your gut and your information is telling you to do.

 

Kinda hoping Dan Butler or Alex Hassan get their chance either here or somewhere else. They're my next picks to contribute more than the shallow analysts who focus exclusively on baseball's top 100 are prepared to admit them to be capable of. Personally I think that Butler has the talent to start if called on, and Hassan at least has the talent to platoon. We'll see of they get their opportunity to prove that. I have to think Hassan's chances to prove himself are going to be far greater than Butler's if both remain in the system.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Dojji

[sk7326]

You evaluate or guess on prospects - you'll miss ... a lot. It's a bug, not a feature. Butler is interesting - and with replacement level for catcher being "able to walk", it doesn't take much to be able to do this for a living.

[a700hitter]

Considering that in the offseason I was calling for a line of .270/.340/.420, and you can verify that, I can safely say that we were all pleasantly surprised by Nava this year.

 

It's hard to say that I'm constantly wrong when a lot of the guys I put forward never get the chance to show one way or the other. The rare times one of my guys gets a shot, they tend to be more hit than miss. I was a big Brandon Moss fan, I backed Josh Reddick over Ryan Kalish, I wanted to see Kottaras to get a shot to back up in Boston, I wanted to see Jed Lowrie continue to get chances, all of those calls were the right ones when they were made. Also very pleasantly surprised by Brandon Workman, although calling him as someone to be effective is far less of a stretch.

 

People have a tendency to overvalue the hyped prospects, these other guys wouldn't be around if the team didn't think they might be able to contribute if called on. if a guy can take a walk and shows enough other skills to be useful at a big league level, you can bet the Boston Red sox have a scenario in which a combination of injuries and struggles means that player will be called up to Boston. I mean heck, I didn't think we'd see as much of Brandon Snyder as we did this year, did anyone else? That alone should tell people something.

 

I have one big whiff named Lars Anderson that I'll take the hit for, learn my lesson, and never back a big time prospect the team happens to also be hyping. Think for yourself, don't let the spin doctors do your thinking. Sometimes backing the big prospect is the right move. I'm a confirmed Xander Bogaerts at shortstop fan back when everyone else thought he was our 3B of the future. but never do it just because he's the flavor of the month. Do some analysis with whatever information you have available, and never be afraid to take an unpopular stance if that's what your gut and your information is telling you to do.

 

Kinda hoping Dan Butler or Alex Hassan get their chance either here or somewhere else. They're my next picks to contribute more than the shallow analysts who focus exclusively on baseball's top 100 are prepared to admit them to be capable of. Personally I think that Butler has the talent to start if called on, and Hassan at least has the talent to platoon. We'll see of they get their opportunity to prove that. I have to think Hassan's chances to prove himself are going to be far greater than Butler's if both remain in the system.

Sometimes organizations hype prospects with he intent of building their trade value. In the case of Lars, I think the FO believed their own hype. They made a big mistake. They had him hyped pretty good at one point and he could have been a major piece in a trade package. They held him and he crashed to earth along with his trade value. They did not maximize the value of that asset.

[Dojji]

Everyone screws up occasionally. Something fans tend to need to bear in mind more than they do when rating managers and GM's. The mark of a great executive is more about limiting the damage of his mistakes and maximizing the impact of his successes, then it is about maintaining more than an illusion of infallibility.

[a700hitter]

Everyone screws up occasionally. Something fans tend to need to bear in mind more than they do when rating managers and GM's. The mark of a great executive is more about limiting the damage of his mistakes and maximizing the impact of his successes, then it is about maintaining more than an illusion of infallibility.

LOL!! You should know by now that I don't expect them to be infallible. I hope for competence or better.