Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John DiFool2 Posted: July 28, 2007 at 01:26 PM (#2458744)
That's Lancaster, right? Bubba Bell hit like crazy there too. I'm psyched of course with the promotion of Lowrie; I'd love to show up at Fenway next year, with him in the lineup, with a big poster of Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies saying "Jed!".
   2. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 28, 2007 at 01:41 PM (#2458749)
First, Brandon Moss is expected to be used at first base soon, which could mean any number of things.

Called it baby.

Perhaps they think that his bat is for real and want to prepare to give him at shot at winning that job next year. Or maybe they consider him a bench player who could take over the role that Eric Hinske currently handles.

i told you so.

The last interesting development at AAA is the reemergence (probably too strong of a word) of Craig Hansen. Since July 15, he’s put up this line: 5 G, 9.2 IP, 10 H, 1 ER, 0 HR, 2 BB, 13 K. Some have attributed this to him rediscovering the slider that was his calling card in college. It would be nice if he was able to contribute in a setup role in 08.

W00t

Btw, I hear Daniel Bard is getting pwn3d because he can't find the strike zone to save his life, or in nicer terms, "losing his arm slot"
   3. chris p Posted: July 28, 2007 at 02:42 PM (#2458773)
I don’t think they would want to have a sieve at short when those guys are on the mound.

or they really don't want a sieve at short for such an extreme groundballer as masterson is.
   4. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2007 at 03:05 PM (#2458786)
I think we have evidence that the Red Sox don't think that Lowrie is a disaster at short. Beyond that, though, the basic evidence is-

1) Very few observers say he's good at SS. Some people have doubts, others (BA) say he simply can't handle the position.
2) The Red Sox don't need a 2B, and Lowrie's trade value is higher at short. The combination there explains his position, provided he isn't a complete disaster.

My guess is that Lowrie is something like a -10 shortstop- bad, but able to play perfectly well in the minors, and possibly able to convince some other GM that he's good enough. He's probably the most likely Red Sox prospect to be traded.
   5. Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'. Posted: July 28, 2007 at 03:23 PM (#2458798)
I think there is a lot of time spent around the 4 Yawkey lunch table debating who the SS and who the 2B would be in a Lowrie/Pedroia middle infield combo.
   6. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2007 at 03:56 PM (#2458822)
While I remain quite skeptical that either Pedroia or Lowrie is a SS, I do think the two of them are a good pair. They both fall into a category Philly identified in his big draft studies - he found that college infielders (usually 2B/3B) constituted a large share of the middle- and late-round picks that developed into quality major leaguers. The Red Sox seem to have successfully identified two college infielders who lack the tools to stick at SS, but who appear to have enough bat and enough glove to be good ballplayers. (Both were classic stathead picks, in that they had some seriously dominant college numbers, and I think the stathead case here is that guys like Lowrie and Pedroia should be downgraded because they don't have SS tools, but that they are traditionally downgraded far too much when they ahve perfectly ok 2B/3B tools.)

I like the idea of Lowrie at third. I don't think Youkilis is a good third baseman. My guess is that Lowrie may be tested at third if he sticks around past the deadline.
   7. Darren Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:00 PM (#2458825)
MC,

I think your post above sort of goes against a couple of smart things that you've said about prospects in the past. First, you've said that you think that promotions should be viewed as a positive for a player because they reflect the team's view that said player is a good one. I'd view defensive assignments similarly. As outsiders who don't often see Lowrie, the best evidence that we have that Lowrie is a SS is that they continue to play him there despite a couple motivating factors not to.

Second, although you've railed against the assumption that the Red Sox are going to dupe some stupid sucker GMs in trades, you seem to think they'll be able to pull exactly that off WRT Lowrie. If Lowrie's not an acceptable SS, other teams are not going to trade for him as a SS. Even the "dumb" ones.

1) Very few observers say he's good at SS. Some people have doubts, others (BA) say he simply can't handle the position.


The last thing I heard from BA was them talking to some scout and him saying Lowrie was pretty good. I think I've asked this before and forgive me if I'm forgetting the answer, but what have they said that is negative? My sense is that there's been a lot of questioning his ability to stick there, but not much saying he's actually bad.
   8. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:07 PM (#2458829)
In the latest BA handbook, they said he didn't have the range for shortstop. I think that's much stronger evidence than him remaining at shortstop - maybe the trade issue isn't a big deal, but it reamins that the Red Sox have no use for a second base prospect.

Lowrie has been rated by the industry standard prospect report as not good enough for SS, and while the obvious place to move him is 2B, the Red Sox wouldn't do that because they don't care if he's a good 2B. I don't see a lot of reason to assume that Lowrie can play SS well in the majors. I'd love to be wrong, but the evidence out there doesn't point in that direction.
   9. chris p Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:08 PM (#2458830)
mca, my understanding of lowrie's D is that there's more of a question about his arm than his range, so 3b wouldn't make alot of sense.
   10. jordan Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:09 PM (#2458831)
I like the idea of Lowrie at third. I don't think Youkilis is a good third baseman. My guess is that Lowrie may be tested at third if he sticks around past the deadline.

From what I remember, UZR rated Youkilis as an above average at third although the sample was smaller than you would want it to be. Based on that combined with what I've seen from my own eyes and his zone rating, I think Youkilis is no worse than average at third. I always thought that he was a better thirdbaseman than Lowell.
   11. chris p Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:12 PM (#2458833)
I think your post above sort of goes against a couple of smart things that you've said about prospects in the past.

i must have missed that.
   12. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:12 PM (#2458834)
I grant there's a lot of room for error here. He certainly might be good enough. It's even possible that Lowrie is in the process of learning enough positioning/footwork stuff that he will become an acceptable SS in the near future.

I guess the issues are twofold - (1) what's the most likely reading of the overall evidence and (2) what can we say the Red Sox ought to do. To me, the most likely reading is that Lowrie is a well below average MLB shortstop. I certainly think that the occasional drum-beating that the Red Sox are dumb for not calling him up doesn't have any basis. (Unless one has seen him in person and can articulate why they think differently - I'd still be skeptical, but that would be a basis.)

I can take post 5 as CFBPSing, and certainly there's more than enough evidence for hope that Lowrie's a major league SS, but I don't see more than that.
   13. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2458835)
mca, my understanding of lowrie's D is that there's more of a question about his arm than his range, so 3b wouldn't make alot of s
BA said Lowrie has the arm for short, but not the range. Soxprospects says the opposite, but that's unsourced, don't know what to make of it.
i must have missed that.
So's your face!
   14. chris p Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:15 PM (#2458836)
Soxprospects says the opposite, but that's unsourced, don't know what to make of it.

the soxprospects guys also like to quote an anonymous scout that raves about his defense at short ... so there's that.
   15. Darren Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:22 PM (#2458840)
I like the idea of Lowrie at third. I don't think Youkilis is a good third baseman. My guess is that Lowrie may be tested at third if he sticks around past the deadline.


Why haven't they tried him there already, I wonder. (Really, I wonder that, it's not snark.) I've given my guess in the intro, but there's also the chance that he has a lousy arm, which would mean he couldn't stick at SS.

What's the deal with his speed, anyways? He had 6 triples last year and 7 already this year, which suggests he has some wheels. Yet he has very few steals. ???
   16. Darren Posted: July 28, 2007 at 04:49 PM (#2458854)
I don't think BA is the end-all but they're pretty much all we've got besides minor league stats. I would say that their opinion is strong evidence that Lowrie is a bad SS.

What if he is -10, as MCOA guesses? Would that be decent enough that it'd be worth having his bat at SS? His MLE suggests that he'd be an above average, though not great, hitter in the bigs.
   17. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 28, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2458867)
What's the deal with his speed, anyways? He had 6 triples last year and 7 already this year, which suggests he has some wheels. Yet he has very few steals. ???

Maybe he doens't feel like stealing bases, doenst' want to get caught, doesn't feel confident about his read, etc.

Whatever, if he doenst' want to steal, ther eare other ways of being a good baserunner than stealing. Such as NOT stealing.
   18. Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'. Posted: July 28, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2458889)
Anyone down for hitting up the Lowell/Portland DH at Fenway? I will coordinate tix if there's interest.
   19. John DiFool2 Posted: July 28, 2007 at 06:12 PM (#2458927)
If I could find the stats, I'd do a quick and dirty Win Shares-ish analysis of his assists in AA this year. Bill James has said that SS tend to have ~28% of their teams' assists, but neither the Baseball Cube or MILB.com has the stats I would need to do that.
   20. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2007 at 09:56 PM (#2459120)
Sully - count me in. If there's interest, can we get a thread for organization?

Another development in Pawtucket - Buccholz struggled a bit last night, allowing 4 walks and a 2-run homer. According to guys at SoSH who watched on milb-tv, Buccholz was apparently restricted from throwing either his change or curve, and he had to rely primarily on fastball command with his slider as his only secondary pitch. As the Sox have stated (or is it just internal reports from the plugged-in fanboys?), fastball command is the main area where they want Buccholz to improve, so this makes sense. At the same time, it certainly cautions us as to relying too much on statistics for minor league pitchers.

And if they're doing this with Buccholz, how likely is it that they did it with Lester, and his statistics should be questioned? Lester's hugely improved curveball might in part be a consequence of the restrictions put on him in AAA. Dunno, but it's worth noting.
   21. chris p Posted: July 29, 2007 at 03:15 AM (#2459914)
Anyone down for hitting up the Lowell/Portland DH at Fenway? I will coordinate tix if there's interest.

yeah that sounds fun. count me in.
   22. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: July 29, 2007 at 04:00 AM (#2460029)
I might be in too, depending on what day it happens.

...What day does it happen?
   23. Darren Posted: July 29, 2007 at 11:36 PM (#2460959)
Fun stuff at AA: Portland loses 20-13 with Zink going 4 IP, 12 H, 12 ER. Newly promoted Chris Jones goes 2 IP, 6 ER. The underdog brothers, Natale and Bell, go 2-10 combined.
   24. Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'. Posted: July 29, 2007 at 11:46 PM (#2460968)
So I am really bummed about this but I found out that I will not be able to make it on August 11 for the DH. It's going to be a great take though - sorry for tossing it out there and now bailing. I should have checked my calendar beforehand.

Let's organize something else not long thereafter.
   25. Buster Olney the Lonely Posted: July 30, 2007 at 03:20 AM (#2461129)
Went to last night's Greenville game, which the Drive won 8-6. Didn't get to see Bard or Papelbon pitch, but it was a good time nevertheless and I highly recommend checking out that stadium if you get a chance. The highlights--Manny Arambarris hit a two-run shot over the green monster and Josh Reddick had a three-run blast to right-center. Oh and I got to meet Lars Anderson who is a really big kid.
   26. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 30, 2007 at 04:17 PM (#2461479)
Let's organize something else not long thereafter.


If anyone's up for a road trip, I hear the Red Sox have an interesting pitcher and a SS with questionable fielding down in Pawtucket.
   27. Darren Posted: August 01, 2007 at 03:22 AM (#2464692)
Aaron Bates with 2 more HR tonight. He's murdering the ball at home and away in Lancaster. Have to suspect he'll be at AA soon.

Nice to see Schilling dominating at Pawtucket when he could be taking Gabbard's spot in the rotation tomorrow. ???

Also, our hero Breslow has been horrible for a while now. Wonder what his problem is. Frustration?
   28. Darren Posted: August 01, 2007 at 03:23 AM (#2464701)
Masterson puts up 15 more groundouts in his game today--his GO/AO is now 4.58.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.5554 seconds
60 querie(s) executed