A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[oldtimer]

Yeah. And if that's what someone can find "wrong" with him that's fine. I saw Kris Bryant hit a ball to deep CF where the CF misplayed what would have been a routine fly ball for JBJ into a double that scored two runs.

 

I'll take JBJ's ability to run down balls in exchange for a couple of errant throws every day, and three times on Sunday!

 

I find it amazing that some of us now expect JBJ to make a perfect throw every time on throws that most OF's wouldn't even attempt. And when it doesn't work out it's defined as a "weakness".

 

I am a big supporter of JBJ as right up there with the best CF's defensively and I see a lot of hope with his offense as well. What he needs to do is to try a more compact swing. No doubt the coaches are working with him on that aspect. I would be very pleased to see JBJ return as our CF next year.

[moonslav59]

I am a big supporter of JBJ as right up there with the best CF's defensively and I see a lot of hope with his offense as well. What he needs to do is to try a more compact swing. No doubt the coaches are working with him on that aspect. I would be very pleased to see JBJ return as our CF next year.

 

I think Sox management views JBJ very highly (i do too and always have), after all, he was the guy most GMs wanted when calling about trades. That was before he had a nice full season in 2016 ending with a very respectable OPS.

[Nick]

I think Sox management views JBJ very highly (i do too and always have), after all, he was the guy most GMs wanted when calling about trades. That was before he had a nice full season in 2016 ending with a very respectable OPS.

 

JBJ is definitely a keeper...but

 

Xander will become FA AFTER 2019 season (3 yrs of arbitration coming up); Betts will become FA after 2020 season. JBJ will becomie FA after 2020 season but unlike Betts, he will have 4 yeas of arbitration beginning next year. Rick Porcello will also become FA after 2019 season.

 

I'm not sure if the Sox can sign all of them. Both Hanley and Pablo will come off the books after 2019 season.

[Kimmi]

4th out of the 17th that "qualify", so that is not the same as saying 4th out of 30 teams starters. If you lower the innings to 500 in order to get a sample size of 30, then JBJ finishes 10th out of 30 individually.

 

DRS is a stat greatly influenced by innings played, if we had a DRS/150, JBJ would sink in the rankings. For example, he has 11 runs saaved in 1375 innings, while these guys would surely pass him in DRS/150:

Broxton 9/511

Marisnik 9/570

Cain 8/615'

 

This would place JBJ 8th.

 

These rankings don't seem to jive with the eye test. Maybe the way JBJ makes hard plays look easy influences some of the scoring, but UZR/150 is not supposed to work that way.

 

The 2014-2016 numbers place JBJ at 7th in UZR/150 (+11.3). IN DRS, he ranks 8th, but he'd move up one, if he had the same innings and down 2 as welll, so he's be ninth. Those numbers still seem a little low.

 

He was 3rd in UZR/150 from 2014 to 2015, so obviously something changed this year. (He would have ranked 5th in DRS/150.) I didn't see it with my eyes.

 

JBJ did may not have had what we've come to expect as a 'typical' defensive season, but nor was he bad at all.

 

His +11 DRS puts him in the 'Great' category defensively. His 4.5 UZR puts him in the "Above Average" category. He still had a very good year defensively. That's all I was trying to say.

 

Plus, as you and others have pointed out, we cannot really assess what kind of defender he is based off of one year's worth of data, just what kind of year he had defensively.

 

And no, advanced defensive metrics are not influenced by hard plays made to look easy or easy plays made to look hard (Jeter anyone?).

[Kimmi]

Yeah. And if that's what someone can find "wrong" with him that's fine. I saw Kris Bryant hit a ball to deep CF where the CF misplayed what would have been a routine fly ball for JBJ into a double that scored two runs.

 

I'll take JBJ's ability to run down balls in exchange for a couple of errant throws every day, and three times on Sunday!

 

I find it amazing that some of us now expect JBJ to make a perfect throw every time on throws that most OF's wouldn't even attempt. And when it doesn't work out it's defined as a "weakness".

 

Interestingly enough, JBJ rates well on 'Arm' runs at +5.6. Where he was hurt this year was on 'Range' runs, costing the team -1.7 runs.

 

His 'Error' runs were +0.7.

 

I will duck out of the way now.

[Dojji]

Well we knew JBJ was a smart defender rather than a rangy one.

[Eddy Ballgame]

JBJ did may not have had what we've come to expect as a 'typical' defensive season, but nor was he bad at all.

 

His +11 DRS puts him in the 'Great' category defensively. His 4.5 UZR puts him in the "Above Average" category. He still had a very good year defensively. That's all I was trying to say.

 

Plus, as you and others have pointed out, we cannot really assess what kind of defender he is based off of one year's worth of data, just what kind of year he had defensively.

 

And no, advanced defensive metrics are not influenced by hard plays made to look easy or easy plays made to look hard (Jeter anyone?).

 

The defensive metrics never favored Stephen Drew, but players & coaches raved about his defense throughout his entire career. When he was in Boston, I saw a guy who seemed to make all the plays.

[moonslav59]

JBJ is definitely a keeper...but

 

Xander will become FA AFTER 2019 season (3 yrs of arbitration coming up); Betts will become FA after 2020 season. JBJ will becomie FA after 2020 season but unlike Betts, he will have 4 yeas of arbitration beginning next year. Rick Porcello will also become FA after 2019 season.

 

I'm not sure if the Sox can sign all of them. Both Hanley and Pablo will come off the books after 2019 season.

 

I can see us not keeping all these guys, and certainly JBJ could end up as the odd man out.

[moonslav59]

The defensive metrics never favored Stephen Drew, but players & coaches raved about his defense throughout his entire career. When he was in Boston, I saw a guy who seemed to make all the plays.

 

Yes, all the ones he got to.

[Kimmi]

The defensive metrics never favored Stephen Drew, but players & coaches raved about his defense throughout his entire career. When he was in Boston, I saw a guy who seemed to make all the plays.

 

Drew's metrics have been all over the place. I think he was a poor defender to start his career, then became much better with experience, until he got injured. Once fully recovered from the injury, his defense was good again for a couple of years, but then perhaps age took over?

 

His metrics were favorable for the years that he played in Boston. I had no problems with Drew.

[sk7326]

Drew had a fine season here - honestly he was a shortstop version of Bradley. Defended well, and struck out and walked a ton which made him very streaky offensively.

[moonslav59]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but am I the only one thinking it's a little bit funny that so many posters are very happy with Stephen Drew's performance with Boston, but disliked the idea of having a no hit-plus glove Iggy as our SS?

 

Stephen Drew got paid about $20M by the Sox over two seasons to hit...

 

.236/.316/.417/.733 and rank 11th in UZT/150 (+7.3)

 

Counting after he was traded: .219/.297/.388/.685

 

At the same time, Iggy's UZR/150 was ranked 9th at +8.3. His batting from the year of his trade to the end of his contract (2015) was...

 

.302/.348/.377/.715

 

I believe he was being paid $2M a year.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't stop chuckling.

 

The same argument you are using to justify paying Drew $20M is the one us Iggy fans are using to justify keeping and paying Iggy $2M a year.

[Dojji]

Drew was like his brother, very professional and never sought attention for himself. He was a good teammate based on everything I saw and read and was a perfectly acceptable SS all round.

 

Iglesias is also a perfectly acceptable SS but we already had an arguably better one and clearly thought at the time that our hole at 3B was not insurmountable.

 

Spending surplus talent to try to win championships is always, has always been and will always be an acceptable use of assets whether it works or not. If you have a shot at the brass ring, always take it and never regret it!

Edited October 23, 2016 by Dojji

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but am I the only one thinking it's a little bit funny that so many posters are very happy with Stephen Drew's performance with Boston, but disliked the idea of having a no hit-plus glove Iggy as our SS?

 

Stephen Drew got paid about $20M by the Sox over two seasons to hit...

 

.236/.316/.417/.733 and rank 11th in UZT/150 (+7.3)

 

Counting after he was traded: .219/.297/.388/.685

 

At the same time, Iggy's UZR/150 was ranked 9th at +8.3. His batting from the year of his trade to the end of his contract (2015) was...

 

.302/.348/.377/.715

 

I believe he was being paid $2M a year.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't stop chuckling.

 

The same argument you are using to justify paying Drew $20M is the one us Iggy fans are using to justify keeping and paying Iggy $2M a year.

 

This is wrong, moon. As sk7326 said, Drew had a fine season here. He didn't pluralize. Nobody liked Drew in 2014. He stunk in 2014 and that dragged down those numbers you're citing.

[cp176]

Drew was like his brother, very professional and never sought attention for himself. He was a good teammate based on everything I saw and read and was a perfectly acceptable SS all round.

 

Iglesias is also a perfectly acceptable SS but we already had an arguably better one and clearly thought at the time that our hole at 3B was not insurmountable.

 

Spending surplus talent to try to win championships is always, has always been and will always be an acceptable use of assets whether it works or not. If you have a shot at the brass ring, always take it and never regret it!

 

Our hole at 3rd base (uf that is what it should be called) is not insurmountable. Also - iggy still couldn't hit -

[moonslav59]

This is wrong, moon. As sk7326 said, Drew had a fine season here. He didn't pluralize. Nobody liked Drew in 2014. He stunk in 2014 and that dragged down those numbers you're citing.

 

I never said Drew had a bad year in 2013. He was steady on defense. He made just about all the plays hit to him within his range. His .777 OPS in 2013 is very good by any definition for a SS. His .253 BA is pretty close to the worst Iggy has hit since 2013.

 

The reason people did not want Drew in 2014 was not because of their poor valuation of Drew, but more because they wanted Bogey at SS.

 

My point was about how people are fine with having a low hit-good glove Drew at 5 times the coast of the low hit great glove Iggy. The main argument against the trade at the time was almost all about this. The hindsight argument has mostly morphed into durability and attitude.

 

Drew had somewhat of an outlier offensive year in 2013, and his defense had been sketchy over his career- many ups and downs. He was in a massive slump to end the year, but still received high praise from most Sox fans due to his glove. Oh, and by the way, if you want to just look at 2013, Iggy had a .735 OPS and a much better UZR/150 at 1/5th the cost.

 

I'll modify my statement, but it still riungs true: the fact is, people were fine with a no hit-good glove Drew at $10M for 2013, but many of the same people poo-poo'd the same idea with Iggy ay $2M a year. The argument was not about Bogey vs Iggy. It was about Iggy vs Middy, then Drew and then later Holt, PAblo & Co (with Bogey at 3B).

Edited October 23, 2016 by moonslav59

[Dojji]

Drew hit fine the year that mattered.

[Bellhorn04]

I'll modify my statement, but it still riungs true: the fact is, people were fine with a no hit-good glove Drew at $10M for 2013, but many of the same people poo-poo'd the same idea with Iggy ay $2M a year. The argument was not about Bogey vs Iggy. It was about Iggy vs Middy, then Drew and then later Holt, PAblo & Co (with Bogey at 3B).

 

You didn't modify your argument at all, as far as I can see. My point is that people only liked Drew in 2013 because he was hitting. The 777 OPS and the 67 RBI in 124 games. When he stopped hitting in the postseason many were screaming for Farrell to bench him.

[Dojji]

This is all beside the point. When we had Drew, we needed Drew because we didn't have another shortstop until X-Bo was ready. We got Iglesias as a way to hedge our bets on Bogaerts, having just been burned by Will Middlebrooks, that was understandable. Bogaerts turned out to be good to go, or at least to a point where he'd benefit from big league time. Leaving the question, what do you do with Iglesias?

 

If you operate on the assumption that it shouldn't be THAT hard to obtain a decent 3B in the wake of the Middlebrooks fiasco, it would be a waste of the potential of one of those two very, very talented young shortstops to play either of them at third longterm. That means that the best way to use those two young assets is to trade one of them for something you need.

 

I don't know a single fan on this team that wasn't glad we had Iglesias. The difference I see now between one camp and the other, is that one camp is always going to be in favor of trading surplus young talent to build the team in an effort to win championships. And the other is in favor of the older mindset that it's better to find ways to fit the talent you have into a team that works, rather than going to the market and making big plays.

 

Personally I'm mostly with the former group. This is a big market franchise, it doesn't make sense for us to act like we aren't. We had a chance to make a play to improve our chances in the postseason in a year when we had every chance in the postseason. It was the right thing to do to trade Iglesias at the time we traded Iglesias, the only quibble possible is whether you liked the return or not.

 

Even if it didn't work out exactly as hoped, it's always the right move to make that kind of play when you're in that kind of position. THat kind of strong postseason push opportunity is exactly what you hoard talent FOR. If you're a good bet for the postseason, do everything you possibly can to give yourself as good a shot as possible. If you don't make it through because you spent the month of July counting your hoarded prospects, and let a shot at a winnable championship slip through your fingers as a result, you are not doing your best by your ownership or your fanbase. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- more important in this sport than winning championships.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Dojji

[Bellhorn04]

There is nothing -- NOTHING -- more important in this sport than winning championships.

 

That point should be amplified by this year's World Series matchup.

[moonslav59]

You didn't modify your argument at all, as far as I can see. My point is that people only liked Drew in 2013 because he was hitting. The 777 OPS and the 67 RBI in 124 games. When he stopped hitting in the postseason many were screaming for Farrell to bench him.

 

Yes I did, you complained about me counting 2014, so I threw out 2014 for Drew and Iggy.

 

My argument was still the same though less startling with the numbers.

 

Iggy hit very closely to what Drew did in 2013. He fielded better. He got paid $2M to Drew's $10M.

 

[Bellhorn04]

Yes I did, you complained about me counting 2014, so I threw out 2014 for Drew and Iggy.

 

My argument was still the same though less startling with the numbers.

 

Iggy hit very closely to what Drew did in 2013. He fielded better. He got paid $2M to Drew's $10M.

 

 

You said: I'll modify my statement, but it still riungs true: the fact is, people were fine with a no hit-good glove Drew at $10M for 2013, but many of the same people poo-poo'd the same idea with Iggy ay $2M a year.

 

Again, that's wrong. Drew was not a no-hit good glove in 2013-in the regular season. When he was hitting, people liked him. In the playoffs when he was in a hitless streak people wanted him benched.

[moonslav59]

This is all beside the point. When we had Drew, we needed Drew because we didn't have another shortstop until X-Bo was ready. We got Iglesias as a way to hedge our bets on Bogaerts, having just been burned by Will Middlebrooks, that was understandable. Bogaerts turned out to be good to go, or at least to a point where he'd benefit from big league time. Leaving the question, what do you do with Iglesias?

 

Umm, we got Iggy before Bogey.

 

The question with us Iggy supporters was never about Iggy or Bogey, it was always Iggy (SS) AND Bogey (3B). That's what "you do with Iggy".

 

 

If you operate on the assumption that it shouldn't be THAT hard to obtain a decent 3B in the wake of the Middlebrooks fiasco, it would be a waste of the potential of one of those two very, very talented young shortstops to play either of them at third longterm. That means that the best way to use those two young assets is to trade one of them for something you need.

 

1) I don't operate on the assumption that finding 3Bmen are easy or cheap. Pablo and Headley prove that point. To me, it's about Bogey's D at SS. The big plus we get from having a great hitting SS is not as big of a differential than it used to be. SSs hit about as well as 3Bmen these days.

 

Last 3 years:

SS OPS .669>.681>.726

3B OPS .714>.738>.773

 

2) Having Iggy at SS and Bogey at 3B would have saved us from signing Drew in 2014 and Pablo in 2015.

 

 

I don't know a single fan on this team that wasn't glad we had Iglesias. The difference I see now between one camp and the other, is that one camp is always going to be in favor of trading surplus young talent to build the team in an effort to win championships. And the other is in favor of the older mindset that it's better to find ways to fit the talent you have into a team that works, rather than going to the market and making big plays.

 

Wrong. I have suggested huge blockbuster trades involving our young players, so it's not about that.

 

 

Personally I'm mostly with the former group. This is a big market franchise, it doesn't make sense for us to act like we aren't. We had a chance to make a play to improve our chances in the postseason in a year when we had every chance in the postseason. It was the right thing to do to trade Iglesias at the time we traded Iglesias, the only quibble possible is whether you liked the return or not.

 

That's because you can't go along with the idea of moving Bogey to 3B.

 

 

Even if it didn't work out exactly as hoped, it's always the right move to make that kind of play when you're in that kind of position. THat kind of strong postseason push opportunity is exactly what you hoard talent FOR. If you're a good bet for the postseason, do everything you possibly can to give yourself as good a shot as possible. If you don't make it through because you spent the month of July counting your hoarded prospects, and let a shot at a winnable championship slip through your fingers as a result, you are not doing your best by your ownership or your fanbase. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- more important in this sport than winning championships.

 

You are assuming Peavy was a reason we won a championship and Iggy would not have been able to help us win championships had we kept him.

[moonslav59]

You said: I'll modify my statement, but it still riungs true: the fact is, people were fine with a no hit-good glove Drew at $10M for 2013, but many of the same people poo-poo'd the same idea with Iggy ay $2M a year.

 

Again, that's wrong. Drew was not a no-hit good glove in 2013-in the regular season. When he was hitting, people liked him. In the playoffs when he was in a hitless streak people wanted him benched.

 

Iggy was hitting when we traded him, but people still viewed him as "no hit", but I guess with Drew, it was okay to view him as "good hit" despite the fact that he slumpes and then sucked in 2014 while Iggy hit well for us and for the Tigers his next season he played (2015).

[Bellhorn04]

Iggy was hitting when we traded him, but people still viewed him as "no hit", but I guess with Drew, it was okay to view him as "good hit" despite the fact that he slumpes and then sucked in 2014 while Iggy hit well for us and for the Tigers his next season he played (2015).

 

I'm not really sure why you're trying to bring Drew into this.

 

I thought by now we had established that Iggy is a slightly-above average player when he plays.

 

I have said he's a decent value for the Tigers at his current salary.

 

He's just not good enough for his loss in the Peavy trade to be lamented, that's all.

[moonslav59]

I'm not really sure why you're trying to bring Drew into this.

 

I thought by now we had established that Iggy is a slightly-above average player when he plays.

 

I have said he's a decent value for the Tigers at his current salary.

 

He's just not good enough for his loss in the Peavy trade to be lamented, that's all.

 

I'm fine with dropping the subject once and for all.

[Dojji]

If you operate on the assumption that it shouldn't be THAT hard to obtain a decent 3B in the wake of the Middlebrooks fiasco, it would be a waste of the potential of one of those two very, very talented young shortstops to play either of them at third longterm. That means that the best way to use those two young assets is to trade one of them for something you need.

 

1) I don't operate on the assumption that finding 3Bmen are easy or cheap. Pablo and Headley prove that point.

Pablo and Headley aside, It should not have been as hard as it actually was to replace with a decent 3B. The fact that we failed to do it should not reflect on the decision to trade Iglesias, which was made before the Pablo and Headley situations and can only inform the Iglesias trade by that most useless of activies, pure hindsight.

 

To me, it's about Bogey's D at SS. The big plus we get from having a great hitting SS is not as big of a differential than it used to be. SSs hit about as well as 3Bmen these days.

 

Last 3 years:

SS OPS .669>.681>.726

3B OPS .714>.738>.773

 

THe difference between a ,726 OPS and a .773 OPS is pretty freaking huge.

 

2) Having Iggy at SS and Bogey at 3B would have saved us from signing Drew in 2014 and Pablo in 2015.

 

There was no reason to sign Drew in 2014 (and no reason that signing Drew in 2014 was guaranteed to work out as badly as it did). Given Iglesias lost a year in 2014, the year before we signed Pablo, I'm less sold on that one. If X-Bo moved back to SS to cover for him and played well in 2014, we might have been suckered into bringing in the professional FA and letting Iggy play utility man.

 

You are assuming Peavy was a reason we won a championship and Iggy would not have been able to help us win championships had we kept him.

 

No, I'm assuming the team was in position to make a play in the postseason. That's all that is required. If the trade goes well, if the trade goes poorly, that's irrelevant. The trade should be made, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Kimmi]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but am I the only one thinking it's a little bit funny that so many posters are very happy with Stephen Drew's performance with Boston, but disliked the idea of having a no hit-plus glove Iggy as our SS?

 

I had no problem with Iggy as our SS. Saying that I agreed with the trade is not saying that I didn't like Iggy as our SS. It's just that we had a better overall SS available, which made Iggy expendable. If we did not have Bogaerts plus other depth, I would have been very much against the trade, and I would have been very happy keeping Iggy.

[Kimmi]

Drew was like his brother, very professional and never sought attention for himself. He was a good teammate based on everything I saw and read and was a perfectly acceptable SS all round.

 

I am a fan of both JD and Stephen. IMO, neither one of them got the credit they deserved.

[moonslav59]

Let's look forward to 2017.

 

We have a great core to work with.

 

We have $30-40M to spend to the new limit.

 

We have some prospects to deal, if needed, and still have enough left over to keep our future bright enough.

 

Let's hope 2017 brings better.