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

[marklmw]

The comparison was to Ken Senior.

Very Funny!

[marklmw]

Just a ballpark number as he gets better at stuff - I don't expect him to be a "green light, anytime" guy by any stretch. But opportunistic, has good enough speed - high baseball IQ. It will get better. Doesn't really affect my view that much - steals are awesome to have but not at all essential to good offense.

 

Think David Roberts

[Bellhorn04]

Very Funny!

 

No, I was serious.

[sk7326]

Think David Roberts

 

I did - the Red Sox acquired him in a salary dump ... and did not bring him back. If you want a pinch runner, get yourself a Billy Hamilton. But the 1980s Cardinals ain't comin back ... the actual relationship between steals and runs is pretty low.

 

Steals are nice - but getting to first base is far more important.

[marklmw]

I did - the Red Sox acquired him in a salary dump ... and did not bring him back. If you want a pinch runner, get yourself a Billy Hamilton. But the 1980s Cardinals ain't comin back ... the actual relationship between steals and runs is pretty low.

 

Steals are nice - but getting to first base is far more important.

getting to first base is great but not if you are bogging down the bases.

[marklmw]

The comparison was to Ken Senior.

 

My bad

[User Name]

getting to first base is great but not if you are bogging down the bases.

 

The issue that the player we are discussing is not, by any means, a base clogger.

[marklmw]

The issue that the player we are discussing is not, by any means, a base clogger.

 

This is true ... I hope JBJ is everything you hope that he can be ... that would be awesome for our Red Sox. If they go out and get Abreu and Tanaka I can better deal with the departure of Ellsbury.

[marklmw]

No, I was serious.

 

It is odd that he is being compared to a player so far removed from the game. Ken Sr. was nt slouch either.

[mvp 78]

It is odd that he is being compared to a player so far removed from the game. Ken Sr. was nt slouch either.

 

How is it odd? Have you looked a Ken Sr's stats? If JBJ had that career trajectory, no one would worry about Ells.

[Bellhorn04]

It is odd that he is being compared to a player so far removed from the game. Ken Sr. was nt slouch either.

 

Nice avatar BTW.

[marklmw]

Nice avatar BTW.

 

thanks .... you are not to bad yourself. singing ... I kissed a girl and I liked it.

[seabeachfred]

Anyone notice that Lavarnway has quietly been having a good season? .311/.342/.446/.788 and still not that many games under his belt. It would be phenominal to see him bring his .284/.373/.471/.844 career line in AAA to the majors.

 

I've noticed Palodios, I've noticed very carefully!!!!!! I've always said this guy could play if only given the chance and for that was panned by a couple of my colleagues here, one a diehard Delarosa enthusiast. In limited action he has hit over 300, played pretty good defense and got some key hits. For some reason he seems to have lost favor from the front office but if we lose Salty I wouldn't be upset if they finally give this guy a full chance. I think the results would be very surprising to some. IMHO, we simply cannot put a near automatic out in that position, especially if we lose Ellsbury and have to use the struggling Bradley in the lineup next year. Here's hoping we don't lose Jarrod, though. He has been a much improved player for us this season and he may have finally caught his stride.

[seabeachfred]

Comes down to batting average. I'm just not convinced Bradley's going to reach the level of contact skill people are projecting for him. His contact rates in the minors are not absurdly high.

 

Sure he's young, but he's hit in the .270's range in the minors in both AA and AAA, and he's struck out quite a bit for a kid with only average to somewhat above average power. Throughout his run in the minors Bradley has struck out quite a bit for the type of hitter he is. Despite his good plate approach his strikeout to walk ratio is nearly 1:2. Not bad, but not exactly overwhelmingly good either. When you're a speed guy, making contact is the most important thing you can do to improve your ability to be useful. Bradley's contact tool is not advanced compared to some of his other skills, and that;s not a good area to be trailing in.

 

Again, I'm not saying Bradley's going to suck. If I had to put money down on him, I'd say put him in the Coco Crisp 06-07 level of offensive performance, but without quite Coco's range on the defensive end. Expecting much more from him than that is ambitious, especially in his first 3-4 years in the major leagues.

 

If he is going to be in the Coco Crisp range for the Red Sox, I would want to resign Ells in a flash. Crisp was a terrible hitter for us, for average, for power and in the clutch. I vividly remember that five game series we got waxed by the Yankees in August of 2006. The papers played up the Damon-Crisp encounter and while Damon has ten or ll hits in that series, Crisp was 1 for 19 and a dozen runners left on base. No thanks!!!!!! If Bradley isn't projected to be a solid line drive hitter who can carry the load in CF I think signing Ellsbury would be a very wise idea. I still think that Jackie might have trouble hitting Big League pitching on a consistent basis and is 190 average this year in the Bigs makes me worry about him a little.

[sk7326]

getting to first base is great but not if you are bogging down the bases.

 

Clogging the bases is just fine thank you - if the guy behind you unclogs them, that's an extra run. Waiting for the 3-run homer is a proven, much more durable way to score ... "clogging the bases" sounds a lot like Dusty Baker-ish nonsense. The Red Sox have been opportunistic stealing bases - but they largely lead the league in steals due to Ellsbury. The rest of the team clogs the bases - and they score a TON.

[User Name]

Clogging the bases is just fine thank you - if the guy behind you unclogs them, that's an extra run. Waiting for the 3-run homer is a proven, much more durable way to score ... "clogging the bases" sounds a lot like Dusty Baker-ish nonsense. The Red Sox have been opportunistic stealing bases - but they largely lead the league in steals due to Ellsbury. The rest of the team clogs the bases - and they score a TON.

 

This isn't even a topic of discussion given the player in question though. JBJ is anything but a base clogger. Dude ranks a solid 70 in the 20-80 scale in speed. He just needs to refine his base-stealing a bit more. It comes later for some guys.

[Dojji]

Strikeouts (from a hitters view, pitchers entirely different) aren't really that much worse than other outs, especially if he is getting on base at a decent clip (you are probably better off just using straight percentage of PAs). And if he's not really compromising his extra base hits, then the ways you get to 1st base are fairly unimportant. Indeed, Rickey Henderson - and no, I'm not saying Bradley is going to be one of the top dozen or so players ever - was not a contact maven by any stretch.

 

As outs, strikeouts aren't that significant. They're just an out.

 

As indicators of player skill, they mean that the player didn't make proper contact with the baseball in that at bat. If they happen consistently at a high enough rate, the player has a problem making contact. Pretending that said player does not have problems making contact simply to sustain the narrive that we'll be fine without Ellsbury is an exercise in living in a dream world.

[Dojji]

How is it odd? Have you looked a Ken Sr's stats? If JBJ had that career trajectory, no one would worry about Ells.

 

Yeah, we'd all take those numbers 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. yes please. I just have my reservations about Bradley from the perspective of NEXT YEAR. I think that a player with merely OK contact ability is going to need time to adjust to big league pitching. Might he be able to do enough to provide decent value (~2 WAR) while he's learning on the job? Possibly. But I don't see a superstar level of performance in centerfield next year. I think we'll be doing aright to get the kind of year we got out of Coco his first 2 years here. I wouldn't call that chopped liver, but it's not Ken Griffey Sr. either.

 

This isn't even a topic of discussion given the player in question though. JBJ is anything but a base clogger. Dude ranks a solid 70 in the 20-80 scale in speed. He just needs to refine his base-stealing a bit more. It comes later for some guys.

 

I'd be fine with that, if we weren't basically counting on him to do all that refining in one offseason and one Spring. I think if we expect Bradley to learn on the job, we'd better brace for some growing pains.

 

That said with Victorino on the roster we have a decent ability to cover for Bradley if it becomes an issue, but people who are predicting great things from Bradley are confusing two issues -- Bradley should eventually be fanastic, but what's he gonna be in 2014? In 2015? You're putting a kid without a lot of experience in a pretty key position, even if he doesn't spit the bit, I would expect a learning curve and his numbers so far reflect that..

Edited September 28, 2013 by Dojji

[User Name]

As outs, strikeouts aren't that significant. They're just an out.

 

As indicators of player skill, they mean that the player didn't make proper contact with the baseball in that at bat. If they happen consistently at a high enough rate, the player has a problem making contact. Pretending that said player does not have problems making contact simply to sustain the narrive that we'll be fine without Ellsbury is an exercise in living in a dream world.

 

Except that his point wasn't about JBJ striking out a lot , but rather on-base skills in general. You are combining two points which have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

As for your narrative about JBJ having poor contact skills, you are incorrect. With few precious exceptions, his approach will yield strikeouts since he is a patient hitter, and works the count. His high OBP is well worth the price of admission here, and you gotta take one with the other.

Edited September 28, 2013 by User Name?

[Orange Juiced]

As outs, strikeouts aren't that significant. They're just an out.

 

Except that this isn't quite true. If you put the ball in play, yes, many of those will turn out to be just outs, just like strikeouts. And some will be *worse* than strikeouts - because it could be a double play that you hit into. But many outs will be better than strikeouts. Grounders that advance runners, sacrifices, sac flies, fly outs that get a runner from 2nd to 3rd, etc. On the whole, it's much better to put balls in play than it is to strike out.

 

So it is definitely preferable to have guys make outs by putting the ball into play, because putting the ball into play can still accomplish other productive things in the process.

[Bellhorn04]

Except that this isn't quite true. If you put the ball in play, yes, many of those will turn out to be just outs, just like strikeouts. And some will be *worse* than strikeouts - because it could be a double play that you hit into. But many outs will be better than strikeouts. Grounders that advance runners, sacrifices, sac flies, fly outs that get a runner from 2nd to 3rd, etc. On the whole, it's much better to put balls in play than it is to strike out.

 

So it is definitely preferable to have guys make outs by putting the ball into play, because putting the ball into play can still accomplish other productive things in the process.

 

It's all situational, right? A K with one out and a runner on third is terrible performance. A K with 2 outs and nobody on is no different from a groundout.

[Palodios]

A k will always be better than a double play though. By taking pitches you also give a runner more chances to advance along the basepaths and wears out the opposing pitcher. Have any of the baseball statistic sites done a study on this?

[Dojji]

Except that this isn't quite true. If you put the ball in play, yes, many of those will turn out to be just outs, just like strikeouts. And some will be *worse* than strikeouts - because it could be a double play that you hit into. But many outs will be better than strikeouts. Grounders that advance runners, sacrifices, sac flies, fly outs that get a runner from 2nd to 3rd, etc. On the whole, it's much better to put balls in play than it is to strike out.

 

So it is definitely preferable to have guys make outs by putting the ball into play, because putting the ball into play can still accomplish other productive things in the process.

 

I agree with this 100%. If you're getting the impression that I don't, then I'm not communicating my point very well.

 

My point doesn't really have anything to do with Ye Olde Plate Discipline Debate. If he wants to strike out a ton and gets it done anyway, t hat's his lookout. But if he's going to strike out a lot, as in a high percentage of his PA's turn into strikeouts, that limits the number of remaining plate appearances that he has to get something useful done.

 

The percentage of outs he makes that are strikeouts is irrelevant. The percentage of PLATE APPEARANCES in which he strikes out, impact how much his talent can come to the fore in the remaining plate appearances, in which he will make both non-outs, such as hits and walks, as well as other forms of out.

 

So if you think of strikeouts as a bite taken wholesale out of a player's possible plate appearances, a percentage of at bats that were never going to be useful, the player has to find a way to work around that bite and get enough of his remaining PA's right, to be productive. The more a player strikes out, the harder a player has to work in the remaining PA's to get there from here. A player hampered in his consistency by excessive strikeouts, who doesn't have the huge long ball power of a guy like Reynolds or Dunn, can be really put behind the 8 ball in a hurry at the top levels of the game.

 

What concerns me with Bradley is that that bite is proving to be pretty large throughout his minor league career -- not the biggest ever, but he's historically struck out about once in 5-6 at bats. Once in three plate appearances in his small sample size in the majors this year. It didn't slow him down much in the minors, but that was the minors. That's going to need to go down if he wants to stick at the game's highest possible level.

 

Check out Lorenzo Cain for an example of a guy I actually find to be, not perfectly similar, but a half decent comp. The adjustment to the majors has taken awhile for Cain despite his stellar defensive skills and he went backward to an extent this year, and it's because he doesn't leave himself enough non-strikeout PA's to do anything useful with. if Bradley doesn't get that aspect of his game under control at least a little bit he's going to put up some years similar to Cain's before he figures it out. In some senses a lot of us might take that, especially given that Cain has been fantastic defensively, but lovers of offense may not see a ton of it from centerfield while this kid learns the game.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Dojji

[User Name]

Right, because a 23-year-old like Bradley posting a .374 OBP in AAA (.404 career in MiLB) is comparable to a guy who had to repeat several levels in the minors , and never had the offensive upside or advanced approach that Bradley has. You are grasping at straws here.

 

I don't even get what your point is. The sox have enough OF depth to give the kid a chance to take his lumps at the MLB level. I just don't understand how someone who keeps pining for s***** players to get chances at the MLB level can find so many caveats to guys with legitimate talent and upside like WMB and Bradley getting their shots, especially with the overall depth of the Sox as a team and their farm system. It is completely baffling.

[marklmw]

Right, because a 23-year-old like Bradley posting a .374 OBP in AAA (.404 career in MiLB) is comparable to a guy who had to repeat several levels in the minors , and never had the offensive upside or advanced approach that Bradley has. You are grasping at straws here.

 

I don't even get what your point is. The sox have enough OF depth to give the kid a chance to take his lumps at the MLB level. I just don't understand how someone who keeps pining for s***** players to get chances at the MLB level can find so many caveats to guys with legitimate talent and upside like WMB and Bradley getting their shots, especially with the overall depth of the Sox as a team and their farm system. It is completely baffling.

 

Correct UN ... the Sox do have plenty of depth to give JBJ the opportunity.

[Bellhorn04]

A k will always be better than a double play though. By taking pitches you also give a runner more chances to advance along the basepaths and wears out the opposing pitcher. Have any of the baseball statistic sites done a study on this?

 

Right. For example, last I heard, 'K machine' Napoli was leading the majors in pitches per AB. Some of this stuff may not even be measurable in any satisfactory way.

 

I hope it all can't be measured, actually.

[marklmw]

Right, because a 23-year-old like Bradley posting a .374 OBP in AAA (.404 career in MiLB) is comparable to a guy who had to repeat several levels in the minors , and never had the offensive upside or advanced approach that Bradley has. You are grasping at straws here.

 

I don't even get what your point is. The sox have enough OF depth to give the kid a chance to take his lumps at the MLB level. I just don't understand how someone who keeps pining for s***** players to get chances at the MLB level can find so many caveats to guys with legitimate talent and upside like WMB and Bradley getting their shots, especially with the overall depth of the Sox as a team and their farm system. It is completely baffling.

 

I have to confess UN ... I have been thinking about Ellsbury lately and I have come to the thinking that the Sox should not overpay for his services. 15-16m for 5 seems about right. The more I see of JBJ the more I think he will succeed. He needs to work on things especially his base stealing but that is something he can work on in the off season. Find someone who can teach him the art. Boston would be very smart to go with JBJ and Bogaerts and the fans will enjoy the heck out of watching the young players like in the days of Lynn and Rice. Filling both positions at the league minimum will make most large market teams envious as hell and save Boston about 26M alone. Cano is to be asking for a 305M contract ... good luck with that too.

[User Name]

I have to confess UN ... I have been thinking about Ellsbury lately and I have come to the thinking that the Sox should not overpay for his services. 15-16m for 5 seems about right. The more I see of JBJ the more I think he will succeed. He needs to work on things especially his base stealing but that is something he can work on in the off season. Find someone who can teach him the art. Boston would be very smart to go with JBJ and Bogaerts and the fans will enjoy the heck out of watching the young players like in the days of Lynn and Rice. Filling both positions at the league minimum will make most large market teams envious as hell and save Boston about 26M alone. Cano is to be asking for a 305M contract ... good luck with that too.

 

And even if Ellsbury does re-sign with the Sox, they should still give the kid a chance. An OF of JBJ, JE and Victorino would be death to all things flying and every fan of run prevention's wet dream.

[marklmw]

And even if Ellsbury does re-sign with the Sox, they should still give the kid a chance. An OF of JBJ, JE and Victorino would be death to all things flying and every fan of run prevention's wet dream.

 

If Management cannot come to an agreement with Ellsbury they will pick up a high quality draft pick in return while saving 16M per going with Bradley. If he accepts the QO then as you say we have a great OF for 2014 and still the opportunity to extend re-sign Ellsbury for 2015 and after. I am really high on finding an ace to insert into the rotation which upgrade the club the most for the post season.

[Spitball]

Right. For example, last I heard, 'K machine' Napoli was leading the majors in pitches per AB. Some of this stuff may not even be measurable in any satisfactory way.

 

I hope it all can't be measured, actually.

 

There are lots out there on strikeouts and team offense. It is all pretty interesting and contrary to what I would have believed even three years ago.

 

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2013/7/3/4479932/does-striking-out-matter

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/37209/do-strikeouts-matter-in-postseason-play

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9404316/mlb-players-striking-record-pace