A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[Eddy Ballgame]

You're not getting it. Again, how many guys in the Majors can do what Holt does? Maybe 3 or 4? How many guys can give you his 2nd base production over a full season? Maybe 30?

 

I "get" the value of a super sub, but if he's not even the first sub off the bench in 5 or 6 of the 7 positions he plays, then that value should diminish somewhat.

 

We were arguing on the assumption that Holt would start at 2B on 10 teams, so you're not "getting it" when you say there are 30 guys who can give you his production. There are 20- for argument's sake.

 

If he wouldn't start on 10 teams, then of course the value changes.

 

 

 

I'll explain it this way. Think "supply and demand." Do you think 25 teams contacted the Sox because of his value as a 2nd baseman? The answer is no. He's been exposed. You've said yourself a thousand times that he breaks down in the 2nd half every year. You don't think other teams are aware of this?

 

No, I never said he'd play 140-150 games only at 2B. I was careful not to even imply that much.

 

To me, he's a Zobrist light, and we all know how valuable Zob is.

 

I know very well how much "other teams know this".

 

My point is, it seems clear to me that Holt playing 140-150 games for another team (at any or mostly one position- it doesn't matter) has more value than playing 90-120 with us.

 

I'm not sure why that's a hard concept to understand, even if you don't agree.

 

There's a reason why so many teams are trying to create their own "Brock Holts" in the minors, but are realizing that it's not easy at all. Most guys want an opportunity to "play everyday." Very few have the ability and the mindset to do what he does with any kind of consistency.

 

Agreed. And, there's a reason many GMs want Holt.

 

Fair enough. Holt's value doesn't reside with his production or "games played." I can't explain it any other way. Let's just disagree and move on.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Eddy Ballgame

[moonslav59]

Fair enough. Holt's value doesn't reside with his production or "games played." I can't explain it any other way. Let's just disagree and move on.

 

We don't disagree. He has enormous value to the team in more ways than just playing. Just having him on the roster allows JF to make other moves not involving him, because he knows he's there if needed, of if something happenes suddenly- like an injury.

 

Really, I don't think I am undervaluing Holt. I understand why many GMs ask about him. He's very valuable.

 

However, a team that is likely to need to use him more often should, in theory, value him even more. In general, a starter has more value than his sub. In a sport like basketball, some subs end up playing more minutes than the starters, because they sub for multiple players. Holt has even ended up leading our team in innings at a particular position some years, like LF last year. He finished 5th in PAs in 2014, although he did not get more innings than others at one particular player. I'd have no problem saying he was the 5th most valuable non-pitcher that year.

 

When we had a DH-only DH, I think Holt's value was greatest, even if he didn't play as often some years. Now that we will be using HanRam and Young at DH, we have more flexibility than before, even if by just a little more. We won't want to move our DH to the field mid-game, so having Holt eases those worries to some extent.

 

I do think our bench has gotten much better, and to some extent, it has pushed Holt down on the depth chart at some of those 7 positions he plays.

 

1B: HanRam/Moreland- Travis would be called up in case of major injury- Holt is #4 at best.

2B: Pedey- I think this is the only clear position where Holt is the first sub, but Hernandez would probaly be pretty close.

3B: Pablo- I think Rutledge is slightly but clearly better vs LHPs and Holt is vs RHPs.

SS: Bogey- I think Hernandez would be called up in case of injury, but Holt is close to Hernandez.

LF: Beni- Young would move to LF full time, if any OF'er got hurt. I suppose they might decide to keep Young at DH vs LHPs and use Holt in LF those games, but I'd prefer Young in LF FT and Travis or Swihart getting called up for 1B/DH platoon duty. We could also just use Moreland FT at 1B and HR full time at DH.

 

I still value Holt a lot, but I think he was the clear number one sub at more positions before this year, and the loss of a DH only DH might mean his value elsewhere is now greater than his value here.

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

Well look at the fatsnfigs. Last year he had a concussion, both years before that he had 2+ WAR. With his level of offense, 2+ WAR is pretty impressive if we're being honest. And this year in half a season with concussion problems and all, he was still good for 1.2 WAR

 

Dude is getting us value. He's doing it by providing average level production wherever we happen to really need an average player. That's a level of value disproportionate to his averageness since he's singlehandedly plugging our worst black hole in any given season with an average guy. He's stop loss insurance against excessive suckitude, in other words, and that has a value all by itself.

 

Replacing a negative-WAR guy with a 2 WAR guy is good for more than 2 WAR to the team, that's just math. He can take anyone other than a catcher or pitcher who's being a detriment to the team, out of the lineup immediately and replace it with a solid roster filler, without having to shed assets in trade. He's done that for us for 3 years now whenever the plan didn't work at various positions.

 

 

And that's before you factor in the roster assets he's saved us. IF a big acquisition flops it a player falls off the cliff, lot of teams have to make trades to plug holes that Brock can just fill with no muss, no fuss and play at an average level. That stability has probably kept a handful of prospects in-system over the last few seasons. There's a good reason that Gm's love guys like him

 

Again, I am not claiming his value is low for us.... just maybe lower than before and maybe higher for another team that would use him more.

 

You are using WAR to measure value, and we all know a big component of WAR is playing time. the more you play- the higher the value.

 

Now, we all knwo about Holt's propensity to decline in production after playing more and more, but his defense and better-than-some on other teams production, even when struggling would give him more value to a team with a much weaker bench than ours or with more question marks at positions Holt is best at playing (2B, 3B and LF).

[moonslav59]

Again, I am not claiming his value is low for us.... just maybe lower than before and maybe higher for another team that would use him more.

 

You are using WAR to measure value, and we all know a big component of WAR is playing time. the more you play- the higher the value.

 

Now, we all knwo about Holt's propensity to decline in production after playing more and more, but his defense and better-than-some on other teams production, even when struggling would give him more value to a team with a much weaker bench than ours or with more question marks at positions Holt is best at playing (2B, 3B and LF).

 

Saying a player might have more value on another team is not diminishing his current value on our team.

 

Thinking of trading someone does not mean I value them less than anyone else.

 

I loved Moncada and Kopech, but I love Sale more.

 

I'm not for handing Holt away, but I could see him being part of a mid-summer trade to upgrade at a position of need by more value than the downgrade from Holt to Hernandez would be.

 

Maybe I value Hernandez more than I should or more than some of you guys. I get that, but it's just my opinion.

[moonslav59]

MLB pipeline's top 30 Sox prospects rankings:

 

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2017?list=bos

 

Dalbec #5!

 

More on prospects...

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/216472810/red-soxs-2017-preseason-top-30-prospects-list/

 

[Nick]

Other teams want Holt because he is cheap. You are not going to get much of value in return.....that's what the market value means.

 

You may think you live in a nice house in a good neighborhood, but if there are no buyers at your asking price, then your house is worth more to you to keep it than sell it.

[Nick]

MLB pipeline's top 30 Sox prospects rankings:

 

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2017?list=bos

 

Dalbec #5!

 

More on prospects...

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/216472810/red-soxs-2017-preseason-top-30-prospects-list/

 

 

Chatam and Ockimey at #7 & #9. This is why to me I'd sign Betts, Sale, Bradley Jr and Porcello in that order. Xander is my 5th guy. If Xander costs more than $25M, I'd pass. Our OF depth is very thin in our organization. Dalbec and Ockimey can take over for Hanley when that time comes.

 

For 2020 season

 

3B Devers

SS Chatam

2B Pedy

1B Travis

DH Dalbec

C Vazquez/Leon

LF Beni

CF Bradley JR

RF Betts

 

SP Price

SP Porcello

SP Sale

SP E Rod

SP Wright

 

If we need to, we can insert Swihart in LF, move Beni to CF, Betts in RF.

 

It's not unreasonable to believe Boras will oversell Bradley Jr......I can live with Sale, Porcello, Betts extensions.

 

If Groome is ready in 2020, then I suppose we can pass on Porcello.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want Xander, Bradley Jr and Porcello along with Betts/Sale (two must gets), but I have a feeling we won't be able to sign them all.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Nick

[harmony]

Homers from Mitch Moreland and Sam Travis against Northeastern:

 

 

Pete AbrahamVerified account

‏@PeteAbe

 

Rusney Castillo jogged out a double play grounder. But, hey, $72.5 million.

 

Boston Globe beat reporter Pete Abraham suggests a Rusney Castillo solution:

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by harmony

[moonslav59]

Other teams want Holt because he is cheap. You are not going to get much of value in return.....that's what the market value means.

 

You may think you live in a nice house in a good neighborhood, but if there are no buyers at your asking price, then your house is worth more to you to keep it than sell it.

 

Yes, his contract is one reason many teams want him- many non contenders.

 

There are also some teams , mostly non contenders, who do not have a sure thing at 2-3 positions of which Holt might play 2 or 3. They'd love to have a low cost guy like Holt knowing that at least one of the 3 big question mark guys might need to be replaced. Holt offers them a one cost guy that is insurance for 3 spots. He could also platoon against RHPs at one position and against LHPs at another position and basically play FT, since his L-R splits are nearly identical.

 

Now, a .705-.710 OPS is not enough to win a FT job on the Sox, except as a catcher, those numbers blow away what several teams had last year at multiple positions. Even some competitive teams had 2-3 non catching positions with sub .700 offense or even much worse.

 

Here's a few examples:

 

KC:

2B .611

SS .642

LF .690

 

SFG:

2B .682

3B .713

CF .715

LF .720

 

WSH:

SS .681

1B .673

LF & CF .705

 

[moonslav59]

Chatam and Ockimey at #7 & #9. This is why to me I'd sign Betts, Sale, Bradley Jr and Porcello in that order. Xander is my 5th guy. If Xander costs more than $25M, I'd pass. Our OF depth is very thin in our organization. Dalbec and Ockimey can take over for Hanley when that time comes.

 

If Shaw doesn't pan out at 1B, we can always move Pablo there after HR moves on. Devers should be ready for ML 3B by then.

 

I'm not sure Chatham offers a solution to replace Bogey, but I get your point and don't disagree.

 

I'm not sure I'd put extending Porcello over Bogey, since Porcello will be near the end of prime when his contract expires. Bogey will not.

[moonslav59]

Don't get me wrong, I want Xander, Bradley Jr and Porcello along with Betts/Sale (two must gets), but I have a feeling we won't be able to sign them all.

 

Agreed.

 

I order extension value this way (assuming Beni is too far away to worry about now):

 

1. Betts

2. Sale

3T. Bogey

3T. JBJ

5. ERod

6. Porcello

 

 

[Nick]

In reality, Pablo and Hanley's contract ends at same time, assuming 1 Hanley does not get hurt next two years and 2 Sox does not pick up option year on Pablo.

 

They are both with us for next 3 years.

[moonslav59]

In reality, Pablo and Hanley's contract ends at same time, assuming 1 Hanley does not get hurt next two years and 2 Sox does not pick up option year on Pablo.

 

They are both with us for next 3 years.

 

HanRam is here two more years and then has a vesting option for 2019.

 

Chances are he will meet the criteria, but it's not a certain 3 years. The club physical could be subjective.

 

Cots:

 

19:$22M vesting option, guaranteed if Ramirez has 1,050 plate appearances in 2017-18 and passes club physical after 2018 season

[Spudboy]

I disagree that it is an overdue change. I will go on record as saying that I disapprove of this change. And yes, it will have a very minor impact on the length of the games.

 

I agree fully. This change is just a placebo in the effort to speed up the pace of the game.

 

Plus I like to see pitchers IBB batters. Some of them f*** up or come close to f***ing up. That ads a little drama and skill to the game. It's minor and possibly inconsequential but it is part of the game.

[Kimmi]

well, i liked the signing when it happened so my love isn't really "sudden".

i really, really, really like the work that he has put in this past year after showing up as a disgrace last spring. i honestly believe he learned his lesson and has fully committed himself to being as best a ballplayer as he can. the past few months he has been training daily with miggy and i am sure some of his stardust has rubbed off onto our lovable 3bman.

personally i am not going to over react on Spring training results...whether he is mashing the ball or on the flipside a disaster. i will hold my initial judgement until May and go from there.

 

I did not particularly like the signing when it happened, but beyond that, I agree with this post.

[Kimmi]

I agree fully. This change is just a placebo in the effort to speed up the pace of the game.

 

Plus I like to see pitchers IBB batters. Some of them f*** up or come close to f***ing up. That ads a little drama and skill to the game. It's minor and possibly inconsequential but it is part of the game.

 

Well this idea is better than the idea of putting a runner on 2nd base in extra innings, but that's not saying anything.

 

I like watching the pitchers pitch IBB also.

 

They really ought to leave the game the way it is.

[moonslav59]

MLB pipeline's top 30 Sox prospects rankings:

 

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2017?list=bos

 

Dalbec #5!

 

More on prospects...

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/216472810/red-soxs-2017-preseason-top-30-prospects-list/

 

5. Dalbec

6. Raudes (10 on soxprospects.com

7. Chatham (8)

8. Lakins (17)

9. Ockimey (9)

10. Longhi (12)

11. Chavis (11)

12. Johnson (6)

13. Shawaryn (13)

14. Cosart (18)

15. Shepherd (20)

16. Cedrola (43)

17. Bautista (21)

18. Anderson (23)

19. Taylor (31)

20. K Martin (15)

 

No Hernandez in top 30 (7th on soxprospects.com)

 

 

 

[Fisk]

5. Dalbec

6. Raudes (10 on soxprospects.com

7. Chatham (8)

8. Lakins (17)

9. Ockimey (9)

10. Longhi (12)

11. Chavis (11)

12. Johnson (6)

13. Shawaryn (13)

14. Cosart (18)

15. Shepherd (20)

16. Cedrola (43)

17. Bautista (21)

18. Anderson (23)

19. Taylor (31)

20. K Martin (15)

 

No Hernandez in top 30 (7th on soxprospects.com)

 

 

 

 

I'm guessing that Hernandez has graduated according to there criteria.

[notin]

I meant it makes no sense that his value as a supersub exceeds his value as a starwouldting 2Bman on 10 clubs.

 

I agree, he could start nearly every game on 10 clubs or more.

 

I do think a lot of Sox fans overvalued Holt.

 

As an infielder, he is very weak up the middle. He's simply not a shortstop, and always seems to be out of position at second base, where he seems clueless on how to take a throw from an outfielder. His 3b defense seems tolerable, and he's actually a surprisingly good defender in the outfield, including in center.

 

He's a good role player to have who makes it easy to carry someone like Young, who is slated for a platoon and would otherwise be a lousy fourth outfielder. But let's not go overboard with him and he isn't someone the Sox need to get into the lineup more often...

[moonslav59]

I'm guessing that Hernandez has graduated according to there criteria.

 

That's what I figured.

[Eddy Ballgame]

I do think a lot of Sox fans overvalued Holt.

 

As an infielder, he is very weak up the middle. He's simply not a shortstop, and always seems to be out of position at second base, where he seems clueless on how to take a throw from an outfielder. His 3b defense seems tolerable, and he's actually a surprisingly good defender in the outfield, including in center.

 

He's a good role player to have who makes it easy to carry someone like Young, who is slated for a platoon and would otherwise be a lousy fourth outfielder. But let's not go overboard with him and he isn't someone the Sox need to get into the lineup more often...

 

You're underestimating the value of a guy who can play 7 positions at any given time. The first time the guy ever played first base in his life was at the major league level. There are maybe 3 or 4 guys in all of baseball who can do what he does throughout a full 162 game schedule. Stat guys will never get it, but his peers do. Trust me on this. He's as respected as anyone in that clubhouse.

 

Let's put it this way. Remember when all of the "stat people" were whining because Farrell was playing Jonny Gomes against righties in the playoffs on their way to a World Series Championship in 2013, despite the " stats" saying that he was wrong? Farrell's response was to the media was, "Good things seem to happen when he's in the line-up." You'll probably never understand because you've obviously never played the game at a high level, but Brock Holt is the type of player that "makes things happen" when he's in the line-up. Again, there's a reason why any team in baseball would love to have him on their roster, and yes, you want to get him in the line-up a few times a week to keep him fresh.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Eddy Ballgame

[moonslav59]

I do think a lot of Sox fans overvalued Holt.

 

As an infielder, he is very weak up the middle. He's simply not a shortstop, and always seems to be out of position at second base, where he seems clueless on how to take a throw from an outfielder. His 3b defense seems tolerable, and he's actually a surprisingly good defender in the outfield, including in center.

 

He's a good role player to have who makes it easy to carry someone like Young, who is slated for a platoon and would otherwise be a lousy fourth outfielder. But let's not go overboard with him and he isn't someone the Sox need to get into the lineup more often...

 

I'm not yet a believer in Holt's OF defense, but he has done pretty well so far out there.

 

In over 1100 innings in the OF, fangraphs has his UZR/150 at -2.4.

 

That's fine for a supersub- 5th OF'er.

 

I agree that Holt's 3B defense is tolerable at 3B, but my guess is Rutledge is a little better.

 

I think Holt has high value as a supersub, but his value to us would be higher, if he was the first back-up at more than 1-2 positions.

[moonslav59]

You're underestimating the value of a guy who can play 7 positions at any given time. The first time the guy ever played first base in his life was at the major league level. There are maybe 3 or 4 guys in all of baseball who can do what he does throughout a full 162 game schedule. Stat guys will never get it, but his peers do. Trust me on this. He's as respected as anyone in that clubhouse.

 

Let's put it this way. Remember when all of the "stat people" were whining because Farrell was playing Jonny Gomes against righties in the playoffs on their way to a World Series Championship in 2013, despite the " stats" saying that he was wrong? Farrell's response was to the media was, "Good things seem to happen when he's in the line-up." You'll probably never understand because you've obviously never played the game at a high level, but Brock Holt is the type of player that "makes things happen" when he's in the line-up. Again, there's a reason why any team in baseball would love to have him on their roster, and yes, you want to get him the line-up a few times a week to keep him fresh.

 

Yeah, let's play Holt a few times a week, because he's so damned respected in the clubhouse. That will make all the benched players that are better than him thrilled.

 

What do I know, I've never player high level baseball, and we all know only real players know anything about baseball.

 

If we have a better player at a particular position, we should play him.

 

[Eddy Ballgame]

I'm not yet a believer in Holt's OF defense, but he has done pretty well so far out there.

 

In over 1100 innings in the OF, fangraphs has his UZR/150 at -2.4.

 

That's fine for a supersub- 5th OF'er.

 

I agree that Holt's 3B defense is tolerable at 3B, but my guess is Rutledge is a little better.

 

I think Holt has high value as a supersub, but his value to us would be higher, if he was the first back-up at more than 1-2 positions.

 

Ummmmm...John Farrell's not going to use his bench based on a statistical analysis that shows Josh Rutledge might have a better chance of catching a ground ball at 3rd base. He's going to try to keep guys fresh, and yes, barring injury, Brock Holt is going to have more at-bats and play more innings in the field than anyone else on the Sox bench this season. Their is no such thing as "first backup" or "2nd backup" at every position.

[moonslav59]

Ummmmm...John Farrell's not going to use his bench based on a statistical analysis that shows Josh Rutledge might have a better chance of catching a ground ball at 3rd base. He's going to try to keep guys fresh, and yes, barring injury, Brock Holt is going to have more at-bats and play more innings in the field than anyone else on the Sox bench this season. Their is no such thing as "first backup" or "2nd backup" at every position.

 

Where did I say JF uses stats to make decisions? He's going to play the best sub when ever he can.

 

If you don't think a manager has a depth chart for each position, you must not have ever player high level baseball.

 

I never claimed or implied any Sox sub would have more ABs than Holt, so I'm not sure where that came from.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Yeah, let's play Holt a few times a week, because he's so damned respected in the clubhouse. That will make all the benched players that are better than him thrilled.

 

What do I know, I've never player high level baseball, and we all know only real players know anything about baseball.

 

If we have a better player at a particular position, we should play him.

 

 

Stick to analyzing the stats, coming up with the same ridiculous trade proposals 400 times and copying and pasting minor league prospect rankings. In all seriousness, there's value in that on this message board. Try to avoid the human element of the game of baseball, though. Waaaayyyy over your head.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Where did I say JF uses stats to make decisions? He's going to play the best sub when ever he can.

 

If you don't think a manager has a depth chart for each position, you must not have ever player high level baseball.

 

Wow. All I can say is wow.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Where did I say JF uses stats to make decisions? He's going to play the best sub when ever he can.

 

If you don't think a manager has a depth chart for each position, you must not have ever player high level baseball.

 

I never claimed or implied any Sox sub would have more ABs than Holt, so I'm not sure where that came from.

 

[/http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2017/02/john_farrell_third_base_job_wide_open_for_pablo_sandoval_and_brock_holt

 

Read that. Take a break from the stats. Notice the Hanley Ramirez/David Ortiz part of the article in there that will give you a little insight as to how the "mental aspect" of the game works. Read more of these types of things. Read some books. Get away from the "stats" once in a while.

[jacksonianmarch]

Holt had unsustainable BABIP's in 14 and 15. Last year, he was right around .300 in that category and the real Brock Holt showed. He is what he is, a super sub who won't embarrass himself. He'd be a replacement level 2b but his versatility makes him really useful

[User Name]

You're underestimating the value of a guy who can play 7 positions at any given time. The first time the guy ever played first base in his life was at the major league level. There are maybe 3 or 4 guys in all of baseball who can do what he does throughout a full 162 game schedule. Stat guys will never get it, but his peers do. Trust me on this. He's as respected as anyone in that clubhouse.

 

Let's put it this way. Remember when all of the "stat people" were whining because Farrell was playing Jonny Gomes against righties in the playoffs on their way to a World Series Championship in 2013, despite the " stats" saying that he was wrong? Farrell's response was to the media was, "Good things seem to happen when he's in the line-up." You'll probably never understand because you've obviously never played the game at a high level, but Brock Holt is the type of player that "makes things happen" when he's in the line-up. Again, there's a reason why any team in baseball would love to have him on their roster, and yes, you want to get him in the line-up a few times a week to keep him fresh.

 

How does this turn into a "stat guys will never get it" argument? That's a stupid leap-of-faith logical fallacy. You can't pigeonhole an entire group of people because someone said Holt is being overvalued.