The Fat Panda Thread
- Thread starter O Captain! My Captain!
- Start date
It is true there weren't many options, but it used to be that the Sox established a dollar value on a player and refused to go over that amount. It was definitely the reason they gave during the Lester negotiations. I guess the question is, did the Sox value Pablo at 5/95?
A day prior to agreeing with Sandoval, they signed a potential 3B and announced he was likely going to play LF, though.
They figured (apparently incorrectly) that HR would be adequate defensively while helping reverse the pathetic offensive showing from their outfielders last year. Given this year's disappointing hitting, it's easy to forget just what a giant black hole of suck last year's offense was, particularly in the outfield. HR was signed to address that.
I think the long-range plans were for Panda and HR, in some combination, to take over at DH when Papi moved on. The hope was to see what happened in these two years -- was HR adequate or a liability in LF? was Panda's weight limiting him at 3b? -- and assign the DH role accordingly.
I don't think it's a bad plan, it's just that HR has been a virtual disaster in the field and every one of the power bats have underperformed to some extent.
FTR, I do think the offense will come around. I think Naps will be traded or axed, but Papi, Panda and HR will all have good second halves if they're healthy.
edit to add: The scenario we're moving toward in a year or so may be HR at DH and Panda at 1b. This might not be bad at all.
I think the long-range plans were for Panda and HR, in some combination, to take over at DH when Papi moved on. The hope was to see what happened in these two years -- was HR adequate or a liability in LF? was Panda's weight limiting him at 3b? -- and assign the DH role accordingly.
I don't think it's a bad plan, it's just that HR has been a virtual disaster in the field and every one of the power bats have underperformed to some extent.
FTR, I do think the offense will come around. I think Naps will be traded or axed, but Papi, Panda and HR will all have good second halves if they're healthy.
edit to add: The scenario we're moving toward in a year or so may be HR at DH and Panda at 1b. This might not be bad at all.
Pandemonium67 said:
It's likely better than the current scenario we're watching, but it's also still pretty bad. If Pablo isn't able to handle 3B adequately, he loses a ton of value. He isn't a good enough bat to comfortably plug into 1B and be happy you are paying the guy 19M a season.
If the plan was to pay Hanley and Pablo over 40M/season to be the teams 1B/DH starting in 2016, that was a terrible plan.
I think this is a non-issue. Sandoval shouldn’t have done it, it was a mistake, but a minor one and he apologized. It’ll be blown way out of proportion by the media. I think Sandoval was a good signing by the Red Sox. It is worth noting that the best organization in baseball--the Giants--were willing to resign Sandoval for similar years and money.
I'm more concerned about Castillo. The Red Sox invested 72 million in him and is he anything more than a 4th OF? John Farrell doesn't seem to have any confidence in him, he either doesn't play Castillo or he bats him low in the order (if the Red Sox aren't going to play Castillo they should send him back to AAA). His approach at the plate leaves something to be desired. He has tools, but is he a quality major league hitter or are we looking at a sunk cost?
The Red Sox are adamant about not spending 200 million on a stud pitcher like Max Scherzer, but then foolishly blow money on players like Castillo and Masterson, not to mention grossly overpaying on Porcello's contract, taking on Craig's contract (although, he could have a comeback season in 2016), and signing Hanley, a player without a position. Investing 200 million dollars in a 30 year old stud pitcher seems like a better idea.
I'm more concerned about Castillo. The Red Sox invested 72 million in him and is he anything more than a 4th OF? John Farrell doesn't seem to have any confidence in him, he either doesn't play Castillo or he bats him low in the order (if the Red Sox aren't going to play Castillo they should send him back to AAA). His approach at the plate leaves something to be desired. He has tools, but is he a quality major league hitter or are we looking at a sunk cost?
The Red Sox are adamant about not spending 200 million on a stud pitcher like Max Scherzer, but then foolishly blow money on players like Castillo and Masterson, not to mention grossly overpaying on Porcello's contract, taking on Craig's contract (although, he could have a comeback season in 2016), and signing Hanley, a player without a position. Investing 200 million dollars in a 30 year old stud pitcher seems like a better idea.
Pandemonium67 said:
You have to question any plan that post-Papi installs Hanley as the "senior statesman" of the club, alongside Pedroia.
FanSinceBoggs said:
I think we'll see better things out of Panda, although we might have to wait a few months and sit him every fourth game in 2015 against tough LHP starters. He'll have two more World Series rings by the time he's done, and one of them will be with the Red Sox. It will take 4 separate Fat Panda threads to squeeze it out of him, though.
Farrell is platooning Castillo for now because he recognizes that he's a hacker. While he's a fine outfielder with a great arm, and has power to spare, his hit tool needs to be brought along carefully by not overexposing him to high-quality RHP starters. He's not a sunk cost yet, so don't sink him.
I can't defend Porcello's contract, signing both Panda and Hanley (when 3B looks like Ramirez' only viable field position), or taking on Craig's contract, and I wanted Scherzer too. Based on what we've seen in 2015, though, the Red Sox need to be building around the youth and adding stars well down the road. Betts-Bogaerts-Holt-Rodriguez-Swihart-Vazquez looks like a strong core. Now we need Castillo-Johnson-Owens to step up and Miley-Porcello to shape up.
Wait til next year.
There's no reason to think they abandoned or exceeded their valuations in signing Sandoval. All reports at the time were that both the Giants and Padres had offers on the table in the same neighborhood as the Red Sox. I think I remember rumors that one of the offers was higher.Lars The Wanderer said:
So if they were wrong, they weren't alone.
So it appears many people here are ready to ship Sandoval out, but if you look at his numbers he's pretty much right where he was the past 2 seasons.
It looks like Panda had 2 outlier years, 09 and 11, and everyone else has pretty much been the same. Is he overpriced? Yes, I suppose....and I hate chalking it up to "the cost of business" but he isn't Crawford bad or anything. Still on the open market he would probably command $15-16M per year.
It looks like Panda had 2 outlier years, 09 and 11, and everyone else has pretty much been the same. Is he overpriced? Yes, I suppose....and I hate chalking it up to "the cost of business" but he isn't Crawford bad or anything. Still on the open market he would probably command $15-16M per year.
Sandoval's bat is not the problem. He's been a bit worse than advertised thus far in that regard but another hot week or two and he could easily normalize to his typical 110-115 wRC+ range. The problem is his defense has been an abject disaster. It's not just the errors - his range rating looks like an atrocity per UZR and the eye test suggests the same. Don't know if it is weight or decline in athleticism or effort but he's definitely not covering much territory on the hot corner. His UZR/150 is almost unfathomably bad at this point. For a guy who has been a career net positive defensively (+2.3 per season according to Fangraphs), that is a swing I don't think any projection model could have predicted. 28 year olds, even rotund ones, don't fall off a cliff like that out of nowhere. Hopefully this suggests its at least partly some random variance / bad luck.
Is it possible that getting hit on the knee is what messed up his fielding? Because I remember thinking he seemed okay before then.
judyb said:
Maybe. And the weight may compound that. I noticed on a play last night how stiff he looks on defense right now. It was a play where he tried to barehand a grounder. He probably didn't have a play on the runner anyway, but he looked noticeably awkward and un-athletic reaching down for the ball, like some middle-aged dude in a pickup softball game. I agree that in the first month he looked a little springier out there.
It is interesting how the general consensus has changed on Panda's weight since this thread was started 7 weeks ago on April 30th. At that point I suggested that Panda's weight was a problem. The next 20 responses included about 80% of posters stating its just his body type and he is playing well, so who cares. I would say now that consensus has flipped. A baseball player who is playing in the field just can not approach his potential if he is carrying 25+% extra weight. The RS have a fairly large investment in Panda and they are going to have to babysit his in and out-of-season diet and work out regimen, to protect that investment.
Since he abandoned switch hitting, his hitting has come along nicely but I do agree with others that beyond UZR he just doesn't look great in the field.
Since he abandoned switch hitting, his hitting has come along nicely but I do agree with others that beyond UZR he just doesn't look great in the field.
So, if two people jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, we should follow?Red(s)HawksFan said:
One reason the Giants had a high offer to him was that he was a 2X WS hero and a fan favorite that they somehow got through his bad, way over "normal" fat periods to win 3 WS titles. In other words, he had won a ton of slack with the Giants. As for the Red Sox, they took on a guy that goes from 232 to 280 pounds and when he's at or near the max, his fielding is a large minus. I have no idea why San Diego came in that high, but they're undoubtedly breathing a Sea World Killer Whale sized sigh of relief they didn't get him.
From the local CSN Bay Area anchor:
Ahmed Fareed @AhmedFareedCSN 13m13 minutes ago
Pablo Sandoval: .279/.329/.416 - $17.6M
Matt Duffy: .291/.340/.429 - $0.5M
9:25 PM - 23 Jun 2015 · Details
The Giants are very, very high on Matt Duffy at the moment. He's had a nice start to the season. Sometimes the answer comes from a very unexpected source. I don't think the Giants predicted that their backup second baseman would become their very good starting third baseman before the All-Star break.
As for Pablo, I think he'll come around a bit. He's always been streaky. I suspect the Red Sox are going to be a lot more critical of his body and conditioning, though. At this point, I think they have to be. He's never really demonstrated an ability to manage this himself for any meaningful length of time.
Ahmed Fareed @AhmedFareedCSN 13m13 minutes ago
Pablo Sandoval: .279/.329/.416 - $17.6M
Matt Duffy: .291/.340/.429 - $0.5M
9:25 PM - 23 Jun 2015 · Details
The Giants are very, very high on Matt Duffy at the moment. He's had a nice start to the season. Sometimes the answer comes from a very unexpected source. I don't think the Giants predicted that their backup second baseman would become their very good starting third baseman before the All-Star break.
As for Pablo, I think he'll come around a bit. He's always been streaky. I suspect the Red Sox are going to be a lot more critical of his body and conditioning, though. At this point, I think they have to be. He's never really demonstrated an ability to manage this himself for any meaningful length of time.
I think I recall Remy mention that since he was benched for a few days he has been batting 391. Wouldn't that indicate he has come around?
jscola85 said:
I remember Adrian Beltre suffered a similar fate defensively, at least early on. Blamed snakes in the grass. Red Sox put in a new IF after that so I don't suppose thats the problem with Pablo. Guys can carry weight in their 20's but it gets tougher as you hit 30 and beyond. Pablo might be at that point where the weight is something he can't overcome in the field. Might need to spend more time in the gym if he wants to keep the weight on and be effective.
I don't wish badly on anyone's career, but the Giants are to be commended for moving quickly to DFA Casey McGehee, whom they brought in to replace Sandoval for the start of the year. McGehee was doing a poor job hitting, fielding and baserunning, and got hurt, giving Duffy his chance in a sort of micro-Wally Pipp thing. Duffy looks like he'll be superior to McGehee in all phases of the game. It is still early with Duffy and note that he has yet to play a single game in AAA. He came up from AA Richmond last year when the Giants had already had to use about five guys at second base.gaelgirl said:
My two cents on Pablo is that, both here and in San Francisco, his streakiness (even more than his weight) makes him a target for moralizing.
When he's hitting three HR in a game against Verlander and the AL Champs, he's a Ruthian folk hero, but when he has a month with an OPS in the mid 500s, it's because he's a fat slob with no impulse control faving selfies on his phone from the men's room. Every time he goes into a slump, the fans and the press conclude that he will never hit again, that his career is over, and it's all because ofhis weight his attitude his lack of plate discipline his selfishness Instagram. And then he goes on another tear. This was the case in SF, and it's the case in Boston.
The dude tends to compile his offense in spurts, which he then erodes through long slumps. Panda has 63 hits this season, of which a full third have come since June 7. Another third came between April 23rd and May 11. His OPS peaked early at .882, before declining to .658, before climbing back to .745. There will be more ups and downs to come.
Let's just enjoy the fact that he's put up a 1.000ish OPS in those two streaks, and have a little patience through the next slump, because, barring injuries, the year-end numbers will be somewhere between okay and pretty good, depending on the precise ratio of slump to hot streak.
When he's hitting three HR in a game against Verlander and the AL Champs, he's a Ruthian folk hero, but when he has a month with an OPS in the mid 500s, it's because he's a fat slob with no impulse control faving selfies on his phone from the men's room. Every time he goes into a slump, the fans and the press conclude that he will never hit again, that his career is over, and it's all because of
The dude tends to compile his offense in spurts, which he then erodes through long slumps. Panda has 63 hits this season, of which a full third have come since June 7. Another third came between April 23rd and May 11. His OPS peaked early at .882, before declining to .658, before climbing back to .745. There will be more ups and downs to come.
Let's just enjoy the fact that he's put up a 1.000ish OPS in those two streaks, and have a little patience through the next slump, because, barring injuries, the year-end numbers will be somewhere between okay and pretty good, depending on the precise ratio of slump to hot streak.
Al Zarilla said:
Plus that above tweet re: Duffy is totally misleading, since they're also paying McGahee $4.8 million NOT to play 3B for them while Duffy plays there. So they're really out $5.3 million for 3B, not 500K.
The point still holds for the Giants in that they're paying a lot less to get similar production at third, but details kinda matter.
McGehee is back on the team and gets an occasional start and pinch hits. But what you say is true. They'd probably rather be using the McGehee money elsewhere.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Oddly enough, Panda has been playing offensively the way I expected him to. He's currently at a .736OPS, I was always expecting something in the .725-.790 range. Its just his defense that has taken a huge dive, though I suppose that has to do with his surge in weight. Was never a fan of the signing but I hope he can rebound defensively.
TORONTO -- Josh Donaldson is making $4.3 million for the Blue Jays this year while hitting .301 with 18 doubles, 18 homers 48 RBIs and a league-leading 58 runs scored.
The Red Sox would’ve loved to have the ultra-talented third baseman on their team.
The Herald has learned that the Red Sox inquired about Donaldson early in the offseason before they signed free agent Pablo Sandoval, but the Oakland A’s told them Donaldson wasn’t available.
The Sox officially signed Sandoval on Nov. 25, offering him a five-year pact that guarantees the 28-year-old $95 million.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2015/06/red_sox_had_interest_in_josh_donaldson_prior_to_signing
More at the link
The Red Sox would’ve loved to have the ultra-talented third baseman on their team.
The Herald has learned that the Red Sox inquired about Donaldson early in the offseason before they signed free agent Pablo Sandoval, but the Oakland A’s told them Donaldson wasn’t available.
The Sox officially signed Sandoval on Nov. 25, offering him a five-year pact that guarantees the 28-year-old $95 million.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2015/06/red_sox_had_interest_in_josh_donaldson_prior_to_signing
More at the link
soxhop411 said:
Although no actual information on what the A's asked for if the Sox made an offer that was even refused, just that the Sox were interested. The Herald starts the package with Will Middlebrooks, since he and Brett Lawrie are both 3Bmen.
pdub said:
One thing that we don't look at enough with defense is clustering, even though we do it a ton for hitting with hot/cold streaks. Especially when narrowed down to looking at errors, this is a pretty discrete data set and it's not overwhelming to get down to the data point level if needed. From the link abs posted:
6 errors in 9 games is an extreme outlier that's spiking his defensive numbers, and his other 'rough' period was his introduction to playing regularly in AL stadiums. It was about 10 days prior to that when he got drilled in the knee. While the timing overlap isn't perfect, there's a lot of noise there. He's also been a little unlucky in the timing of his errors, it seems like every one has been a killer, and that impacts perception. A dispassionate look at the full run of play to date really doesn't support the notion of a defensive 'huge dive'.
JimBoSox9 said:
So playing in AL stadiums hurt his defensive abilities? The batter is still ~90 feet away and hitting the ball from home plate right? That must be why it's so difficult to judge a prospect's defensive ability. "Well, sure he looks like a great shortstop in the International League, but the AL has a whole different set of infields with different dirt and different grass lengths. There's no telling how he'll adjust!"
While it may seem like Sandoval's errors have come with bad timing and this "impacts perception" saying he's committed 12 errors in 81 games is downright clinical and casts no judgement on the perception of his defensive miscues. It's just the raw data. Counting stats might have limited value, but the number of errors he's made in the number of games he's played in relation to last year seems to indicate he's making a higher number of mistakes than he previously has. Right?
BosRedSox5 said:
Yes, it may shock you to find that infields are different, infielders are picky about the details, and switching home parks and leagues can come along with a learning curve, just the same as for pitchers and outfielders. Crazy, rite?
I dunno, I don't see the word "range" mentioned in the article. Why are we only looking at errors?soxfan121 said:
According to his admittedly-SSS UZR, the portion based on errors is just 1 run below average, while his range is 11 runs below average.
Whether or not that is predictive remains to be seen. But the problem really isn't the errors, though those have been annoying.
Edit: Was asked for clarification. UZR provides a value JUST based on errors (balls that the player fielded) and a value just based on range (which assigns negative credit for balls missed that the "average" player would get to and positive credit for balls fielded that the "average" player wouldn't get to). They describe it this way:
"With UZR, if a fielder makes an out, and the UZR engine estimates that it was a difficult ball to field (and turn into an out) by an average fielder at that position, then the fielder will get more credit than if the UZR engine determined that it was an easy ball to field. Likewise, if a batted ball drops for a hit, a fielder will get more negative credit if UZR determined that it was an easy ball to field (for that fielding position) and less negative credit if it was a difficult ball to field. If a fielder makes an error, UZR automatically assumes that it was a relatively easy ball to field, since that is presumably the definition of an error in the first place, so there is no need to incorporate the speed and location of the batted ball and other factors that can influence how difficult a batted ball is to field. In other words, in UZR, errors are treated as balls that are normally fielded by that fielder and that fielder only (the one who made the error), 95% of the time, or whatever the average error rate is for that position and that type of ball"
As noted, Panda's error rate isn't too far below average, and so UZR's translation into a run value gives him just 1 run below average due to errors. But UZR's batted ball data thinks that he is getting to far fewer balls than the average third baseman, and is dinging him a lot (11 runs) for it. Roughly, this fits with the eye test and it's misleading to not consider range when discussing a player's defense as it's usually far more important.
absintheofmalaise said:
Aside from what ToeNash mentioned about defense, I'm not sure I buy into the offensive arguments either.
Sandoval's wRC+ against RHP (118) is the 2nd lowest of his career (outside of 2010). I wouldn't call that "no drop off." Some of this likely stems from the fact that Sandoval is playing in an AL park and normalized against AL competition, where his triple-slash looks less enticing than it did in AT&T/the NL west.
He's hit for absolutely no power from the left side. He has exactly 1 XBH L on L (50 PA). I give him that it will take time to adjust to L on L, but it is not a slam dunk he gets to even league average numbers.
Every one of my concerns/complaints when the team rolled the dice and signed Sandoval are still there. The team paid $19m for a player leaving the statistical prime of his career who had averaged ~$17m in value over the last 3 years (age 25-27 seasons). He's not particularly disciplined (plate discipline, I am not going to speculate on his "Haynesworth habit" however easy that might be). He's large, which may be unfair, but it seems reasonable to assume a large player will age more poorly than a not large one. He blocks a CI position on a team loaded with CI-types. If anything, these criticisms have been made louder by his struggles this year.
If anything, leaving AT&T Park should have given Pablo a bump offensively. The Giants play in probably the worst hitting environment in baseball.
JimBoSox9 said:
Yeah, kind of. It's not usual for a player's defensive prowess to take a dive between different levels of play where they're playing in different parks is it? When pro-Sandoval people were talking about his defense being the key to why his signing was a good one, no one said "Well, he'll be moving to a new set of parks so his defense won't recover until 2016 at the earliest."
Is there any evidence of a guy falling apart defensively after switching leagues for the first time? The only example I can think of is Edgar Renteria but I thought the consensus was just that his unhappiness at playing in Boston effected his game.
Is this a thing? Should teams be wary of players who have played exclusively in one league during their careers?
What I take from the article is that what was once a switch-hitter who stayed healthy and played solid defense has become a lefty hitter who might be adequate lefty-on-lefty and whose defense falls apart when he gets hurt, which will happen more frequently as he gets heavier and older.absintheofmalaise said:
I'm not sure I see the case for much optimism there.
Lars The Wanderer said:
That's my point.
You can't just use his triple slash and say "he's the same hitter" because the triple-slash doesn't account for league and park. A guy who puts up an identical line in Petco and Yankee Stadium is more valuable in Petco.
soxfan121 said:
What I get from the article is that Panda may not have been himself from his injury May 21 through June 4 (either offensively or defensively), and so maybe we should discount those two weeks when evaluating his performance. So my question is -- if you exclude those two weeks, how does that change his slash lines and error/fielding %?
Among qualified (23) MLB 3B:
He has the worst WAR -0.9 and highest salary $17,000,000. Nice combo.
He has the worst WAR -0.9 and highest salary $17,000,000. Nice combo.
Toe Nash said:
It does not remain to be seen. The sample is not predictive. End of sentence. If it turns out that he continues to have a UZR similar to that over a proper sample, the sample that exists now does not retroactively become predictive.
As for the eye test, our eyes are only so trustworthy and our biases have a heavy impact on how we interpret what we are seeing. He hasn't been good defensively, but there are a number of possible reasons for that, and it's not unreasonable to be optimistic that he's going to settle in and be an average to somewhat above average defender again in the future.
Or when he's in the upper part of his weight swings (broken record). This is worse, because he gets fatter more often than he gets hurt.nattysez said: