Dojji

OK let's ask the obvious question: Aceves in the rotation and a shaky pen, or Wakefield in the rotation and Aceves ballasting the pen? I really doubt it would take Wake long to get back into playing shape.

But Ellsbury is not. I'm trying to compare the two players in ability, so the most comparable samples matter the most. Do you or do you not understand this? As it is we haven't really gotten into the fact that Lin is two years younger than Ellsbury all the way up the line, which matters more on the offensive side but does have an impact on both sides of his game. But do you at least recognize that comparing players at the same level of development can make some sense over trying to compare a college draftee's whole minor league career with an international free agent's? OK, bear with me for a second. If this was one year, one standout campaign at the AA level and nothing else changed, I'd be inclined to go along with this manner of thinking, but you have a follow on year where the made progress was by and large retained. That year more closely resembles Portland than Salem, and again, these are the two most recent seasons in which he's played ball. Why are we pretending that these two most recent samples only matter as much as a sample from 3 years ago when Lin wasn't even legal drinking age? Because in trying to use a straight up average, that's exactly what we're doing. I can get behind the idea that these stats are flawed, but they're also the best we have at the moment since the advanced stuff isn't calculated for minor leaguers. I also don't believe that "flawed" and "meaningless" are synonyms if you know what I'm saying.

I deserved that.

I'm suggesting throwing it out because AA and AAA are the two seasons Ellsbury and Lin had most in common defensively, being the starting CF of their teams at the same levels. You're suggesting not throwing it out because the Salem campaign artificially lowers Lin's number and makes your argument easier. You have 2 full seasons of numbers that suggest that Lin has improved on where he was when he was in Salem. I refuse to permit you to pretend that that progress was not made.

Think about what YOU'RE saying. Which is more reasonable to suppose, that you're exactly what you are at 18 forever, or that significant development in a kid's second full season and progress in a prospect's game occurring roughly when he hits 21 is reasonable to presume? Considering that he followed up that progress with another solid year in Pawtucket (at age 22 no less) that resembled the age 21 season far more closely than the age 20 campaign, you have the choice of assuming that the outlier is the one year at age 20 in Salem, or the two full subsequent seasons at ages 21 and 22 in which the numbers were consistently far better..

Well, if you want to poke a hornet's nest, I'm not liable if you get stung. Seriously, there's no need to be nasty. It doesn't accomplish anything meaningful and in large doses it can get you banned.

OK that's uncalled for. There's a difference between calling someone out in the hopes they fix the problem, and just plain antagonizing Emmz. Going after her age puts you on the other side of the line, that's a very sensitive subject for women, and I refuse to believe you don't know that. So back off, thanks.

Also because we have 2 large samples more recently at a higher level from a player who more closely resembles the Che-Hsuan Lin we see today, at a level of competition that more closely resembles the majors. Those two years are the two most compelling samples of data we have if we want to judge based solely on the numbers -- and I know you know that. You do not do your argument any favors when you try to make these points just for the sake of making them.

Not sure I'm supposed to regard this as an argument, or a bit of antagonistic freeverse? I tend to favor freeverse.

I may bring crazy theories to the forum, but if I hadn't given up on "getting personal" every time I'm contradicted, I would have been banned awhile ago. Was banned from a couple sites and got warned repeatedly on this one before I cleaned up my act a bit. Besides, spontaneously combusting every time the world doesn't agree with you just makes you a particularly irresistable bit of trollbait. I speak from personal experience.

Just for the record, I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's forced me to refine my thinking a lot, and I've been surprised to dive frantically back into the numbers only to find my gut sense of Lin's performance again and again confirmed by what I see. I've been needing an excuse to really get in there and analyze the way I think about defense and this has obliged. Usually by about the third retreat back to Baseball-Reference and/or Fangraphs i have to bow out, but this kid's been there for me. Everything I see from him and everything I have seen, and the numbers, suggest that this kid could drop the jaws on a lot of skeptics if he could just get the right chance. In my mind that chance involves playing in center, because a few stereotypes play in his favor as a CF that really don't if he's a "corner outfielder." People like to pretend that emotions don't enter into it, but this ownership has proven in the past that they do, repeatedly. He'll have a better chance to stay in the majors if he's a centerfielder than if he's a right fielder and we all know that. The kind of athleticism and defensive ability I've observed from both the numbers and my limited time seeing him in action suggests very strongly that he will be an elite defensive centerfielder -- much better than the usual guy you promote and play in center just because he happens to be fast. The trick is, he's got to hit at least a little. He can't be out there hitting .120. That's gonna be the question with Lin, which is why he's probably going to wind up traded to a team more willing to take a risk on a centerfielder. Hopefully he hits well enough in the minors to bring something useful back when he goes.

You're comparing big league stats and minor league stats. The more years backward you add to minor league numbers the more peaches, pears, bananas and kumquats you add to the original apples and oranges comparison. Is the fact that Lin had a RF/G of only about 1.7 as a teenager in the Gulf Coast League really relevant to what you'd expect of him next year? Since weighting the minor league stuff to weed out the early stuff isn't a level of statistical complexity that's compatible with message board discussion, comparing based on the last 2 years is a pretty bogstandard way to go. BTW Ellsbury in 06 and 07 had about a 2.4 RF/G in centerfield, which compares roughly to his 2.49 big league numbers. One would expect Lin's roughly 2.7 high minors average (between AA and AAA) to translate about the same way. There's only so many different ways a baseball can spray off a bat so that a centerfielder has to make a play on it.

In the last 2 seasons between AAA and AA, Lin's minor league CF range factor is an average of about 2.68. Your average on Lin includes stuff when he was a teenager in the Gulf League. Bear in mind -- this is Lin outdoing a pretty freaking good defender in Ellsbury, who was earning plaudits all the way along his career path for his own glove. I am not screwing around with people, Lin has all-world defensive potential. I dunno if he'll reach it, or even get a chance to with his weak bat, but it's definitely there.

That was one of two reasons. The other reason was that while you might put your strongest arm in right and call that smart, it's even more important to have your rangiest OF in center. Range > Arm IMHO. Lin has better range than Ellsbury.

Amusingly enough, Soxprospects recently amended their projected roster to show Lin on the bench of the big league team. Most likely what they have in mind is a temporary replacement for Crawford who gets sent down when Carl is ready to go. It would be interesting though if Lin broke camp with the team. That space might be needed for Iglesias, and the Sox brass seems impressed with Iggy's spring so far, so YMMV I guess.

The most important number for Mike Cameron at the time was 37, and they ignored that number. Granted, and I was outright wrong about Adrian Beltre, I'll cop to that. They were right to sign Adrian Beltre and I was dead, dead wrong. Fenway played to his strengths and limited his weaknesses enormously, and another hitter's park in Arlington has the same effect. That was a man that needed to get out of Seattle in the worst way. Ehhh. There were plenty of warning flags on Lackey. They just chose to ignore them. That said he still was a net positive that first year so I'm holding out some hope for when the man gets healthy. IMHO part of the problem is that it's really hard to qualify the value of a good defensive catcher. Catching value is where baseball is at its most intangible. SO if you're going to try to run based on quantifiable stats, the best way to hedge your bets is to get a good offensive guy and hope that whatever holes he has are countered by the bat. It's not so much failing to recognize the importance of a defensive catcher as it is throwing up your hands, recognizing that there's no easy way to tell what the most important facet of defensive catcherwork actually is, and just bringing in a guy who can bury whatever deficiencies he has in good offense. The problem is that they're used to that guy being Varitek, and he answers all that intangible stuff in a way that can give a false positive to that kind of theory. VMart, Salty, and eventually Lavarnway, are all going to have more holes for their bats to atone for than Tek did. Maybe they'll learn the same way Varitek did -- he wasn't actually a great defensive catcher on day 1 after all, he was just smart and prepared to learn. One might hope that one of Salty and Lavs will be as prepared.

OK, let me ask you this directly: Have you seen Che-Hsuan Lin in action in a regular game?

let's make the economic argument. The fact that scalpers can get markups of 5-6 times face is pretty good evidence that demand for the Red Sox is very high. If the customer experience is not universally appreciated, then actual demand might even be higher than that. Now, Fenway Park is one of the smallest ballparks left in big league ball. It wasn't exactly huge when it was built and most stadiums these days are built with a higher capacity. That would fly if Boston was a small market. A small market like Tampa would struggle to fill a 30,000 seat stadium and would probably be well advised to build a smaller park than the Trop if they ever do build a new one. For Boston though, the underservice of the market by a stadium like Fenway is just unprecedented in modern baseball. This is a market that could fill a 70,000 seat stadium most nights, if such a thing could be done and sight lines, etc. preserved. It's the only baseball team in a baseball town, and besides the city itself, which could fill the stadium nightly on its own, all of the greater New England area is Red Sox country as well. The fact is, it's just poor asset management not to build a 50,000 seat stadium with better sight lines and a few more mod cons and see if you can compete directly on an even financial footing with the Yankees (who split their much bigger market with the Mets) if you do so. It would result in a better team on the field, and now that Fenway's a protected landmark, it's not like it's going to be torn down if they do. Unfortunately we already know it won't happen. I mean look at the name Henry chose for his umbrella corporation -- Fenway Sports Group is not abandoning its most iconic asset under any circumstances. I would be amused if they did build a new park and move the Sox out to the burbs (say to Foxboro), and then some rich yahoo came along and tries bring the National League back to Boston at the Fens. It's not a thing I think would happen but it would be interesting to see who stayed a Red Sox fan and who would go to Fenway. Also interleague games in that scenario would be fascinating in a domestic-civil-war kind of way.