2015 To Do List: 3rd Base
- Thread starter BeantownIdaho
- Start date
Thinking outside of the box for a second...
I'd be curious what those with more knowledge than me (namely, everyone) have to say about where Pedroia goes as (if) he ages. I'm familiar with a lot of 2B who end their career at that position. I'm not that familiar with 2B who transition to 3B as they age.
Dave Cameron had this to say about it:
Is there any realistic scenario that has Pedroia taking over 3B? My sensibility dictates that is one of the stupidist moves imaginable...but I'm fairly senseless.
I'd be curious what those with more knowledge than me (namely, everyone) have to say about where Pedroia goes as (if) he ages. I'm familiar with a lot of 2B who end their career at that position. I'm not that familiar with 2B who transition to 3B as they age.
Dave Cameron had this to say about it:
Is there any realistic scenario that has Pedroia taking over 3B? My sensibility dictates that is one of the stupidist moves imaginable...but I'm fairly senseless.
geoduck no quahog said:
I think the real issue with moving him to 3B is that there's no reason to think his offense won't decline along with his defense, and it won't take much further decline in his offense to turn him into a guy whose bat just doesn't play at third.
Pedroia was a superstar 2B, and is now a very good 2B. A bit more decline and he's still a pretty good 2B. But when he stops being a pretty good 2B, he goes right to being a utility player. The Sox just have to hope that doesn't happen for several more years.
geoduck no quahog said:I came across this chart. I have no idea if it's relevant:
This is all based on time spent on DL relative to age/position. I don't know why CF or 3B isn't included.
If you read the article, another graph is included that shows all positions. It doesn't really matter though - as the author even says, the analysis is hopelessly biased due to the missingness not at random problem. Not to mention the graph is crazy - why are some positions modeled as linear while others appear to be quadratic or splines? He's also conditioning on age and then examining age-related trends (I'm not sure I even understand how to interpret that) and in addition not accounting for position switching. That analysis really can't tell you what you want to know.
I would like to see this given a shot before seasons end...Betts has played a lot of 2b and he started out playing some SS.... With a crowded outfield next season it may be worth a shot.Tyrone Biggums said:
I have fallen deeply in love with Mookie Betts, but if I may inject a bit of realism into the thread: Mookie's professional career kicked off with 9 errors in 14 games at SS. He has never played a professional inning there since. The Sox will not even consider putting Betts at SS in the majors, so it's not worth discussing.
For 2015, I think X is the SS and Holt is the 3b until a trade is made or Garin Checchini starts OPSing more than 700 and improves his defense from his current 16 errors-in-84-games quality.
The Rangers would be crazy to trade Beltre. They're in a window of opportunity with Darvish, Odor, Beltre, Fielder and Choo -- unless they intend to be decimated by injuries again in 2015, they'll be buyers, not sellers, this winter.
I suspect the Giants are going to make a QO to Panda, so he is going to cost a pick, and I'm sure every team is nervous about the idea of giving a guy with his weight issues a multi-year deal. Can teams base incentives on games played at a position, or can it only be games played?
For 2015, I think X is the SS and Holt is the 3b until a trade is made or Garin Checchini starts OPSing more than 700 and improves his defense from his current 16 errors-in-84-games quality.
The Rangers would be crazy to trade Beltre. They're in a window of opportunity with Darvish, Odor, Beltre, Fielder and Choo -- unless they intend to be decimated by injuries again in 2015, they'll be buyers, not sellers, this winter.
I suspect the Giants are going to make a QO to Panda, so he is going to cost a pick, and I'm sure every team is nervous about the idea of giving a guy with his weight issues a multi-year deal. Can teams base incentives on games played at a position, or can it only be games played?
We most likely will have a protected pick, so it's not a big deal if he gets a QO. I'm warming up to the idea of Kung Fu Panda. Let's say we give him a 5 year deal (I know, it sounds long), but that will cover his 28,29,30,31,32 aged years. He JUST turned 28 two weeks ago so most of next season he's still 28. Maybe we overpay a little bit to keep it at 4 yrs. I'd love to see him hit outside of that graveyard he plays in.nattysez said:
He has surprising home/away splits. Away from AT&T he 1752 PAs and hits 280/331/450 (tOPS+ of 91) versus 314/366/491 at home. Maybe he's just more comfortable sleeping in his own bed than it being ballpark related or something.Hee Sox Choi said:
That tweet speaks 1,000 words.
Or at least 22.
Why would Cherington even respond to the question?
Or at least 22.
Why would Cherington even respond to the question?
The division isn't much to write home about. LAD, SD have extreme pitchers parks. I can only imagine he'd feel fatigued in the high elevation of Denver.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
For every time I read a Cherington quote insisting Bogaerts is a SS I continue to lose faith in him. Then again he's instructing Farrell to continue writing WMB onto his lineup card so there isn't much more faith left to lose.
I'll throw another name into the mix.....Allen Craig. He was drafted as a SS before being moved to 3B prior to being blocked by Freese at the corner. Of course he's hitting like WMB but nothing Ben does with running guys out at all different positions would surprise me.
I'll throw another name into the mix.....Allen Craig. He was drafted as a SS before being moved to 3B prior to being blocked by Freese at the corner. Of course he's hitting like WMB but nothing Ben does with running guys out at all different positions would surprise me.
So you want Cherington to publicly question X's ability to play SS? What good does that do? I would imagine hearing that and being asked by members of the media about the comments wouldn't help Xander's confidence to much. It probably wouldn't help X's trade value if they are inclined to trade him at all.
As for Middlebrooks, I mean who else do you want them to play at 3B? If he can get hot and show some pop maybe another team will become enamored with him.
As for Middlebrooks, I mean who else do you want them to play at 3B? If he can get hot and show some pop maybe another team will become enamored with him.
Darnell's Son said:
Yeah, this is classic Catch-22 tea-leaf-reading. If Cherington affirms that Bogaerts is the SS he's protesting too much, if he doesn't, then "Cherington has been strangely silent on the club's plans for Bogaerts in 2015."
Bottom line is, X is probably the SS because we don't have another one. But WMB's failure to develop means that we may not have a 3B either, which means that unless we're willing to move Betts to third or start Holt either there or at short, then we may need to look for outside help, which could be either a SS or a 3B.....does this feel like Groundhog Day to anybody?
If X ends up being a really good to great offensive player, what's so terrible about leaving a below-average but still adequate glove at SS? There's still a lot of value there. And I feel like another team has done this fairly recently with some success.
geoduck no quahog said:
Can't they do both? They currently have a bunch of AAAA pitchers and no decent 3B, unless you count Holt, who's probably best suited to a utility role. There's not much point in shoring up one part of the team in order to leave an obvious hole in another.
I don't care how they spend their money, as long as they can put together a good team.
