Brock Holt: Underrated?

[User Name]

No one's disputing he's a bench player. Right now he's red hot. Craig isn't.

 

That's exactly what the post I quoted is disputing. Read it again.

[Northern Star]

I am sure Holt will outhit Gregorius, but it doesn't mean he'd be the better player or SS over the long term.

 

More revisionist ********. In what universe would someone who hits better not be the better player?

[Northern Star]

That's exactly what the post I quoted is disputing. Read it again.

 

OK, certain people are not disputing he's a bench player. Happy now, Dipre?

[jad]

I agree entirely. He has the highest BA of any Sox player now, and in 106 games, he had the highest BA of any sox player in 2014. But that of course is irrelevant.

[User Name]

Batting average is a terrible way to measure a player's production.

 

Also:

 

Brock Holt first half stats: .327/.371/.463 .834 OPS

Brock Holt second half stats: .219/.278/.271 .548 OPS

 

You know when splits like that happen? When a player gets overexposed.

[User Name]

OK, certain people are not disputing he's a bench player. Happy now, Dipre?

 

I go by my artistic name now.

[seabeachfred]

OK, certain people are not disputing he's a bench player. Happy now, Dipre?

 

Players get typed by scouts and coaches and sometimes it sticks to them like glue and they have a helluva time overcoming that label. People here have fastened that to Holt and I entirely disagree totally and completely. He got tired last season, not over exposed and while so many of our players were s***ing the bed he had a first half that was beyond his ability...so I thought. Tonight you saw why he needs to be in the lineup. INTANGIBLES my friends. Anyone who has coached baseball knows that certain players have that something extra that make them go and make their team better. Holt is one of those players. Those of you who say he is a bench player can stick with that belief if you wish, but I am not buying it. He needs to be in that lineup somewhere every game he can play.

[User Name]

fred, anyone who has coached also knows that the inability to get through an entire season maintaining your production is part of being "overexposed". The reason labels stick to guys is because it's what they've shown over a significant amount of time. Now, that doesn't mean you don't play a guy who's red-hot. That also doesn't mean said guy will maintain that production over a full season. fred, you love to tout your coaching acumen, but sometimes you say things that don't make sense from a coaching perspective. As a coach, you know there are some kids who don't have the stamina to play for prolonged periods.

 

Also, intangibles mean jack s*** if the talent isn't there.

[seabeachfred]

fred, anyone who has coached also knows that the inability to get through an entire season maintaining your production is part of being "overexposed". The reason labels stick to guys is because it's what they've shown over a significant amount of time. Now, that doesn't mean you don't play a guy who's red-hot. That also doesn't mean said guy will maintain that production over a full season. fred, you love to tout your coaching acumen, but sometimes you say things that don't make sense from a coaching perspective. As a coach, you know there are some kids who don't have the stamina to play for prolonged periods.

 

Also, intangibles mean jack s*** if the talent isn't there.

 

But I say the talent IS there User and I'm convinced of it. You do have a point that I totally agree with.....He may not have the stamina to play for prolong periods. I think that had more to do with his fall down last season that being over-exposed. But let's see how this plays out, ok? I'm sold on Holt, you're not. Time will tell, and in the meantime as long as he is hitting the ball and we seem to play better when he is in the lineup, let him play.

[jad]

Agreed. Not sure what 'overexposed' means. If it means 'tired', ok. But if it means something like 'the league figured him out', his hitting this year disproves that. I don't see what advanced statistics or imagined intangibles are required to suggest that you should keep the guy who's hitting better than all your other players on the field.

[cp176]

Agreed. Not sure what 'overexposed' means. If it means 'tired', ok. But if it means something like 'the league figured him out', his hitting this year disproves that. I don't see what advanced statistics or imagined intangibles are required to suggest that you should keep the guy who's hitting better than all your other players on the field.

 

Kind of makes sense I would say. Ride that little horse while he is hot. He plays his role extremely well and we are very fortunate to have him. I also think that some of the so called "everyday" players respond better with a little rest as well. Often times when he sort of fills in, he is giving us more than what we were getting. I don't see him being over shadowed from a talent perspective by many of the players ahead of him. As long as he is happy in his role, this team has a real gem. There should be plenty of game time and plenty of at bats to go around.

[jacksonianmarch]

When that player is leagues below defensively where the other one is at a critically important defensive position?

[User Name]

But I say the talent IS there User and I'm convinced of it. You do have a point that I totally agree with.....He may not have the stamina to play for prolong periods. I think that had more to do with his fall down last season that being over-exposed. But let's see how this plays out, ok? I'm sold on Holt, you're not. Time will tell, and in the meantime as long as he is hitting the ball and we seem to play better when he is in the lineup, let him play.

 

Actually I'm very much sold on Holt. Where we differ is that I think he should be a "super-sub" playing all over the place, and they should manage his playtime to keep him fresh. He can flat-out hit, and play pretty well at pretty much any position.

[User Name]

Agreed. Not sure what 'overexposed' means. If it means 'tired', ok. But if it means something like 'the league figured him out', his hitting this year disproves that. I don't see what advanced statistics or imagined intangibles are required to suggest that you should keep the guy who's hitting better than all your other players on the field.

 

His hitting this year proves nothing. He has less than a Spring Training's worth of AB's. By your logic, it's time to cut bait with Napoli.

[cp176]

When that player is leagues below defensively where the other one is at a critically important defensive position?

 

If that were the case, I think that I would agree with you. With Holt, I do not think that is the case. By critical position in this case i think that you are talking about center and short. I don't think that he is league's below the guys playing those positions. That being said, it would take me a long time to feel any need to take Betts out the lineup. A day off now and then - yes.

[Northern Star]

Actually I'm very much sold on Holt. Where we differ is that I think he should be a "super-sub" playing all over the place, and they should manage his playtime to keep him fresh. He can flat-out hit, and play pretty well at pretty much any position.

 

All I want is for them to ride his red-hot streak over Craig and Nava. When he cools off, fine, but bring up the $70mil man. I don't see Craig as having much of a meaningful future with the team.

[jad]

His hitting this year proves nothing. He has less than a Spring Training's worth of AB's. By your logic, it's time to cut bait with Napoli.

 

Sure it does. It proves he's hitting better than anyone else "right now," which is a lot more than nothing. That doesn't put Napoli on the bench, but it sure makes one wonder what Craig or Victorino are doing on the field.

[jad]

(Well, at least Victorino is back where he has the most experience--on the DL.)

[User Name]

Sure it does. It proves he's hitting better than anyone else "right now," which is a lot more than nothing. That doesn't put Napoli on the bench, but it sure makes one wonder what Craig or Victorino are doing on the field.

 

"Right now" means nothing over the long term. And no one has disagreed that he should be playing until (when, not if) he cools off. Furthermore, Craig isn't the reason Holt is on the bench. Panda is terrible against lefties, and giving him a day off against Chen would have been a good way to get Holt PT while keeping the righty bat of Craig in the lineup.

[mvp 78]

"Right now" means nothing over the long term. And no one has disagreed that he should be playing until (when, not if) he cools off. Furthermore, Craig isn't the reason Holt is on the bench. Panda is terrible against lefties, and giving him a day off against Chen would have been a good way to get Holt PT while keeping the righty bat of Craig in the lineup.

 

That's what I was thinking. He can play 2b, ss, 3b and LF 4 out of every 5 days giving everyone a little rest.

[User Name]

That's what I was thinking. He can play 2b, ss, 3b and LF 4 out of every 5 days giving everyone a little rest.

 

And this team certainly has players that could use a day off at least once a week, starting by Napoli, Pedey and Panda.

[jad]

It's extraordinary how much vitriol we can expend over matters on which we basically agree!

[Behindenemylines]

The last week or so Holt has cooled a little. It is why he is not a regular.

[Spudboy]

The last week or so Holt has cooled a little. It is why he is not a regular.

 

I think he had two hits and a walk last night.

 

Cooled off.