Well, if Shane is healthy, he's one hell of a right fielder. And, he can hit. I know Mookie is the "sexy" choice right now. Farrell will have his hands full coming up with the best outfield, while IF is easy. Catcher too.MakMan44 said:
The Outfield '15 version
- Thread starter Sandy Leon Trotsky
- Start date
- Status
Right, but if you're pitching to a guy who's sticking around for 5 years, you don't start with the player who's only going to be there 1. I think Pablo mentioning Vic hitting leadoff is much ado about nothing, is all.Al Zarilla said:
I could see where that would be the sentiment at the current time, but that probably doesn't take into account Victorino's health, which is still largely unknown. If spring training rolls around and Vic can't get himself ready to play, I doubt any of the new Sox would consider it a duplicitous move were Ben to suggest that Victorino start the season in extended spring or in the minors. This is all speculative, of course, and Victorino's back could be 100% as this is being written-I don't know more than anyone else aside from my experience as a health care professional dealing with people who have had back surgeries (which may be completely irrelevant if he's recovered and doing baseball activities without pain or restriction). I'm just trying to say that promises or plans made in December based on the hope that certain team members will be ready to play are subject to alteration as the realities become evident.Al Zarilla said:
I'll admit to hoping that the OF on Opening Day is Betts in CF, Hanley in LF and Castillo in RF, but that also matters not a whit to Farrell or BC. We'll see how it plays out.
Isn't there a 20-day limit on a minor league rehab assignment, though? I think he's going to have to spend most of the year either on the 60-day DL or the 25-man--unless/until he's traded.jasvlm said:
FWIW, didn't Gammons (I know, I know...) say something about Vic sending Ben Cherington a video of him doing some kind of martial arts and proving how healthy he was? I can't find the video where I heard him say this, I think it was probably one of his interviews during the Lester saga or the Hanley/Panda negotiations, but he seemed pretty confident about Shane's health.
Devizier said:
I could see him being a backup at 2B, logically.
Hanley is a better bet for SS/3B insurance, since he's already played those positions at the major league level.
Yea, Zobrist is 2B/SS/OF, and mostly gets 100 starts at 2B, while Betts only seems to be 2B/OF. Minus an injury to Pedroia or an OF'er it will be very difficult for Betts to get 150 starts just backing up 3 outfield positions and 2B (where he would likely only see less than 20 starts.
Devizier said:
This isn't a bad way to take advantage of Betts' versatility, or to keep working on his ability to master another position at this young stage of his career (Zobrist was mainly a ss coming up, and only developed into an excellent 2b and OFer with reps and practice). I would hope that the Red Sox realize that their best lineup includes him in it (hopefully as the leadoff hitter), and that whatever way they decide to deploy him defensively is just fine. I doubt Pedroia takes many games off at 2b, but they could get creative in the infield with Betts and slot him in for a few games at ss once in awhile, and expose him to 3b in limited reps as the situation calls. Just keep the guy in the lineup.
Well, there's now a wealth of good options for RHH outfileders.
LF- Hanley is getting 95% of the playing time out there. If Ortiz gets hurt, he's the most obvious DH with an assumed upgrade the defense to offset the loss of offensive production. Depending on who's healthy and still on the team, one of Betts or Nava (not necessarily a defensive upgrade but handedness and familiarity with LF might offset) plays for him in that scenario.
CF- Castillo is likely intended by the FO to play more-or-less full time there. They placed a pretty large bet on him being able to be a productive ML player based on conversion of Cuban league numbers and scouting. Obviuosly Betts can cover for him but they may share a position depending on whether or not Victorino is still on the team or able to play. I can see Betts getting 1-2 starts a week here.
RF- Victroino's job to lose if you ask me. I would suspect that he and Betts will split time there (Victorino 60%+ of starts). In theory, Victorino is worth keeping around as Castillo insurance but they are both a bit of a redundant risk. In that regard, it kind of does reminds me of JBJ/Sizemore but a less extreeme version of that.
The issue of course is that all 4 'starters' are RHH with no obvious platoon advantage. Betts projects to have only slightly less power than Castillo but slightly better speed on the basepaths and a .060 or so advantage in OBP (.320 versus .380 ish). Castillo and Victorino both have plenty to prove and we don't know which/both/either will be productive.
Nava>>>Craig until proven otherwise. I wish I could say that the FO will send him (Craig) down but I have a feeling they won't. I think it's a fanboy (raises hand) scenario. I like the idea of sending him to AAA to let him get his swing back. Every at bat he gets for the Red Sox is waste of an at bat until proven otherwise. But Major league teams seem averse to treating established ML players like that.
I think the FO would happily deal 1-2 of Victorino, Nava or Craig if the right proposal came along. It remains to be seen if that will come to pass. We also don't know if each of those players have yet reached the true nadir of their value...
A fun way to approach this might be to look at it from a 'best case scenario' and a series of 'worst case scenarios'
LF- Hanley is getting 95% of the playing time out there. If Ortiz gets hurt, he's the most obvious DH with an assumed upgrade the defense to offset the loss of offensive production. Depending on who's healthy and still on the team, one of Betts or Nava (not necessarily a defensive upgrade but handedness and familiarity with LF might offset) plays for him in that scenario.
CF- Castillo is likely intended by the FO to play more-or-less full time there. They placed a pretty large bet on him being able to be a productive ML player based on conversion of Cuban league numbers and scouting. Obviuosly Betts can cover for him but they may share a position depending on whether or not Victorino is still on the team or able to play. I can see Betts getting 1-2 starts a week here.
RF- Victroino's job to lose if you ask me. I would suspect that he and Betts will split time there (Victorino 60%+ of starts). In theory, Victorino is worth keeping around as Castillo insurance but they are both a bit of a redundant risk. In that regard, it kind of does reminds me of JBJ/Sizemore but a less extreeme version of that.
The issue of course is that all 4 'starters' are RHH with no obvious platoon advantage. Betts projects to have only slightly less power than Castillo but slightly better speed on the basepaths and a .060 or so advantage in OBP (.320 versus .380 ish). Castillo and Victorino both have plenty to prove and we don't know which/both/either will be productive.
Nava>>>Craig until proven otherwise. I wish I could say that the FO will send him (Craig) down but I have a feeling they won't. I think it's a fanboy (raises hand) scenario. I like the idea of sending him to AAA to let him get his swing back. Every at bat he gets for the Red Sox is waste of an at bat until proven otherwise. But Major league teams seem averse to treating established ML players like that.
I think the FO would happily deal 1-2 of Victorino, Nava or Craig if the right proposal came along. It remains to be seen if that will come to pass. We also don't know if each of those players have yet reached the true nadir of their value...
A fun way to approach this might be to look at it from a 'best case scenario' and a series of 'worst case scenarios'
jasvlm said:
Zobrist has one thing that Betts doesn't have. An average-good arm at SS. Mookie probably has the athleticism to play on the left side of the IF, but if he can't relay the ball to 1B from 3B/SS its a moot point.
Pedroia hasn't exactly been a picture of health in recent years. Season ending injuries in 3 out of the last 5 seasons, played the last 2 years with a bum wrist. I suspect that Betts will be having plenty of time at 2B over the next several seasons.
C4CRVT said:
I'd assume if Victorino is healthy enough to play, he's also healthy enough to revert back to switch hitting.
If Victorino (and his $13M) is healthy, there's no way he doesn't start in RF. If he's not healthy, he may call it a day and be replaced on the roster by Betts.
The question is: Does Betts sit on the bench (
Edit: Fixed the 3-man bench hypo.
More edit: In that scenario, Holt is the obvious man out, since Nava can hit from the left and Craig is the veteran.
You're right I guess. But Victorino has a pretty pronounced career OPS split.geoduck no quahog said:
vs LHP- .843
vs RHP- .729
Hanley has a small traditional RHH split as well (.913/.860)
Betts (Minor league splits.894/869) split looks like a pretty mild traditional RHH split too.
Castillo so far has an extreme reverse split but the sample size is miniscule. I can't find splits for the Cuba league in my 5 minutes of google searching.
The larger point being...there's no obvious situation (yet) to sit Castillo or Victorino in vavor of Betts due to a split advantage.
Nava career split (.585 vs LHP / .813 vs RHP) could be a nice, complimentary member of that squad in the case of either a Papi injury or Castillo not being ready (or very good).
There is a common misconception that Zobrist lacks an official position. That's not really true. If you look at his game logs, since 2009 when he became a full time player, he's entered every season as the starting 2B or RF. 2013 is the only season where he spent significant time at both positions in April, before settling in at 2B in May.Devizier said:
The thing that Zobrist gives the Rays is not a superutility player but a starting player who is also the primary backup at many positions. That means that instead of having to carry a weak hitting utility player on the bench, you can carry a better hitter, an extra platoon player, or a baserunning specialist.
If Mookie is not going to start, there are not enough PA for him if the roster is healthy. A fully healthy outfield plus 2B and DH leaves about 50 games worth of playing time for a backup at all 5 positions. Mookie needs to be playing more that twice a week. If he is not starting, he should be in AAA until there is an injury that frees up sufficient playing time. But, he should be starting because he currently projects as the best or second best outfielder on the team and one of the top 4 position players.
If the goal is maximizing the team on the field, the only real debate, assuming a healthy Victorino, is whether he or Castillo should be starting. Because both of them project as inferior players to Betts and both have less upside, this year, than Betts.
JakeRae said:
I agree Mookie should be playing just about everyday. Probably primarily as a RF initially, possibly with that altered as the season goes on depending on Victorino's health and Castillo's performance.
Having said that, is there any reason to see a reasonable likelihood of Ramirez, Castillo, Victorino, Ortiz and Pedroia all playing 152 games this season? That seems extremely unlikely to me (and borderline impossible with Victorino).
Even if Betts is just the primary backup instead of a starter (again, not my preference), there is a very good chance he will get significant playing time. The one caveat is that of course some of the games missed from those 5 might be in the same game, in which case obviously Betts can only fill one spot. But I'd still keep him on the roster and play him 4 to 5 times a week and give each of those guys a little extra time off until an inevitable injury occurs.
FWIW, in 2014 Bogaerts lead the team in games played with 144. In 2013, Pedroia played 160, and #2 on the team was Mike Napoli with 139. I think a pretty optimistic projection even without major injuries would be an average of 140 games for Ortiz/Pedroia/Castillo/Ramirez and 120 games for Victorino. That leaves 130 games of PT. Again, some of those missed games will overlap (and other guys need playing time too), but I'm not sure projecting a 152 game season for all 5 of those guys is particularly useful when trying to assess how the season is likely to unfold.
The point I am trying to make is that teams do not routinely give healthy players a game off per week. Healthy players get a game or two off per month. The fact that the team is unlikely to be fully healthy all season has little bearing on what will or should happen during those periods when it is. If Betts is not a starter and everyone is healthy, there will only be a couple games a week for him to play in. If someone gets hurt, there will be everyday at bats and, of course, he should be getting those at bats.radsoxfan said:
JakeRae said:
1) There is no rule that healthy players have to play 150-155 games in a season, particularly older ones. This is especially true if there is a good backup option.
2) The overwhelming likelihood is that even without major injuries, if Betts can back-up 5 positions, enough guys will be need an extra day or two off here and there (in addition to scheduled rest days) that it's not worth him being shuttled back and forth to Pawtucket waiting for a DL stint. As a backup, I think Betts can still get more than 2 games a week most of the time.
3) I hope Betts is starting and this conversation is irrelevant
While i do believe that veteran politics would ultimately win out if push came to shove with Healthy Victorino vs Betts in RF, I ultimately can't see us banking on random chance opportunity in regards to Betts' continued development. If he breaks camp with the team it won't be as a 22 year old bench player.
As it stands now, seems likely that one of Victorino or Napoli has to go imo. Napoli beginning to make more sense to me given he might be easier to deal sooner, with the added potential benefit of freeing up some more payroll flexibility. At which point we switch the Hanley transition to first, a healthy Victorino keeps his OF spot (or maybe ends up platooning with Nava if his health/production looks shaky latter on), and the door does not get completely slammed shut on Bradley in the event he manages to figure something out next year.
Lessens the current perception of depth, but making certain Betts has his opportunity to run with it right out the gate is worth it.
As it stands now, seems likely that one of Victorino or Napoli has to go imo. Napoli beginning to make more sense to me given he might be easier to deal sooner, with the added potential benefit of freeing up some more payroll flexibility. At which point we switch the Hanley transition to first, a healthy Victorino keeps his OF spot (or maybe ends up platooning with Nava if his health/production looks shaky latter on), and the door does not get completely slammed shut on Bradley in the event he manages to figure something out next year.
Lessens the current perception of depth, but making certain Betts has his opportunity to run with it right out the gate is worth it.
I'm not really operating under that assumption. You made the point a few sentences later when you mentioned that Zobrist can cover two positions extensively. Positions that Betts has already played for the Red Sox.
That's pretty optimistic. The best available projections (Steamer) have more than a full season's worth of games available from backing up the outfield positions alone, never mind second base or designated hitter. That's pretty sound, given that only two players (Bogaerts and Ortiz) appeared in more than 140 games for the Red Sox this season. Even in a good (healthy) season like last year, only Pedroia played close to a full season's worth of games.
I`d hate to see Napoli go because of the groundball pitchers they have. What if Hanley doesn`t transition easily, specifically picking throws out of the dirt. He would get the most in return. Craig`s defense is average at best. I wouldn`t even have worried about this except for the starting pitching.MikeM said:
Unless Napoli can bring back a clear number 1 pitcher, I don't see how trading him can possibly make this team better in 2015. Since they clearly mean to compete immediately and I don't see any team trading a front line starter or even a guy on the edge of that for one year of Napoli, I would be shocked if they move him to clear the outfield jam. They would be much better off punting on Craig in a salary dump or waiting until spring training for he and Victorino to show they are healthy and are at least possibly effective to make a move.
Trading Napoli to deal with having too many oft injured outfielders feels like a terrible idea to me. I mean, what is Craig's upside? What Mike Napoli is likely to give the team next year? Sure, they control Craig longer, but Napoli can be extended or re-signed if they want to keep him and the chances of Craig being that good are probably pretty low. I just don't see the Red Sox doing this.
Trading Napoli to deal with having too many oft injured outfielders feels like a terrible idea to me. I mean, what is Craig's upside? What Mike Napoli is likely to give the team next year? Sure, they control Craig longer, but Napoli can be extended or re-signed if they want to keep him and the chances of Craig being that good are probably pretty low. I just don't see the Red Sox doing this.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Exactly. The return from Napoli would have to seriously upgrade the 25-man roster for it to make sense.
If Ben could deal Napoli and one of the okay starting pitchers (say, Kelly) for a much better starting pitcher with few years of control left, that would help a lot. But I don't see such a deal coming together.
Savin Hillbilly said:
7/72 isn't superstar money. And don't forget the "7" part of that for somebody with a gap in playing baseball. He has a bright future in Boston, but if the other guys with more MLB success make him the 4th outfielder and he gets 300PAs this year, nobody is going to be crying about the contract.
I think he plays CF and Betts RF, and I think Castillo does great. But because of his play compared to the other guys from ST through April, not because of his signed piece of paper from last summer or direct deposits every two weeks this summer.
koufax37 said:
No, it's not superstar money, but it's an investment you obviously don't have to make to get a AAAA/4th OF type. And as for the "he has a bright future, so he doesn't have to play this year" argument, the man is 27. In terms of his athletic career arc, there's no time to lose. It may take him a year or so to fully adjust to MLB pitching. The closer he is to 30 when that adjustment is complete, the less value the FO has gotten out of the deal.
I'm not saying it's unthinkable that he could wind up in the minors or in a bench role; if he struggles badly, that's probably what happens. I'm just saying it's hard to believe that the FO sees this as anything but a contingency plan.
How do you think this gets defined, who defines it, and then who declares if the definition has been met?Savin Hillbilly said:
I fear he may look a bit below average at the plate and in the field, and then it's a never - ending quandry
A few good games in a row can buy him 2-3 more weeks of below average-ness. Good enough that it doesn't seem that time at AAA would really help, but not better than other OFs. Then what do the Sox do, knowing they have him for six more years? Have him spell Victorino and Betts, and be ready to battle/split with Bradley in 2016?
geoduck no quahog said:
No, I think that ship has sailed. He is a much better RHB naturally, and while inferior-yet-competent LHB skills can outweigh that when the dust settles given platoon advantages, he really hit the ground running, including against RHP breaking balls. I think the switch hitting skill is so specialized and complex, that there is a case to be made that it hurts a player like Vic who never gets as good as a LHB, but most importantly I don't think it is something to go back to after a full season and two off seasons and one post season away from it.
However, to the original point, as much as I love Betts and his future, much like Castillo, I think we are undervaluing Vic, and he plays if healthy until it is proven otherwise. I think there are enough ABs to go around, and whoever between Castillo and Betts emerges as the #4 guy out of camp will live with more limited at bats until someone gets hurt.
Given the length of their futures in Boston, and their limited track record so far, Betts or Castillo being stuck at 350-400 ABs isn't the end of the world, but either will get a chance to demonstrate that they deserve 600 pretty early. It is easier for Betts to take over a slumping or injured Vic's position if that is the case, than to be awarded the leadoff/starting position and deal with the scrutiny when he hits his first MLB slump.
Most word from the Sox FO and (more importantly?) John Farrell point to Mookie Betts starting and leading off for Boston. Castillo, based on FO and Farrell comments, seems like a lock, too. He injured his thumb in the AFL, but seems to have recovered, playing some games in winter ball. Sox staff, however, haven't really talked at all about Victorino. Personally, if Victorino is healthy, I doubt they start the season with Betts in AAA. What's more likely is that they move Victorino during spring training.
touchstone033 said:
Here's my question. If Shane Victorino isn't in the organization, who is going to backup in CF and RF? If the answer is Brock Holt, isn't it putting rather a lot on him to be the guy if any one of the CF, RF, 2B, SS, or 3B goes down?
Castillo and Betts back each other up in CF, with Holt moving to the corner. JBJ serves as organizational depth. That's pretty good CF coverage.
While not the greatest option, Nava could play right as well. I like Vic on the team but if he is healthy, both Vic and Betts need to play full time (Vic will want to play full time).Minneapolis Millers said:
If you're removing only Victorino from the equation in this discussion, the roster still has Nava, JBJ, Holt, Craig, and Brentz who can play either CF or RF in the absence of Castillo or Betts. If it's only for a day or two, presumably one or more of Holt, Nava and Craig are still on the 25-man in some capacity. If it's a lengthier absence, JBJ or Brentz can be called up.
MakMan44 said:
He has to be in AAA getting ABs.
Minneapolis Millers said:
I guess this could work. We're going to be pretty screwed if one of them gets one of those injuries that keep them out for a week without a DL stint, but that's always the case with those injuries.
mBiferi said:
A well-placed media source has informed me that Vic's agent (in a Scott Boras-style move) has generated a lavishly produced compilation video to underscore his client's return to full health. I'm told that the footage depicts Shane engaged in the following activities: skiing with Jim Lonborg; playing pick-up hoops with Aaron Boone; rolling off of hotel beds with Paxton Crawford; washing dishes with Dustin Hermanson; throwing haymakers with Brien Taylor; unfurling tarps with Vince Coleman; trying on cowboy boots with Wade Boggs and, as it's conclusion, commencing pilot lessons at what appears - from the slightly out-of-focus logo seen in the background - to be the "Cory Thurman Aircraft Academy."
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Probably so. But 2013 Shane is not available, unless the FO has mastered time travel. What's a reasonable guess at what 2015 Shane will be? That's the comparison that matters.
Savin Hillbilly said:
It all depends on how healthy he is. Even assuming some decline from aging and basically missing an entire year, I think a healthy Shane is likely to be better than what Betts will do next year. I'm not comfortable guessing how healthy he'll be yet, since we've yet to see him on the field, but it's entirely possible that Shane can be better than Mookie in 2015. Ras seemed to be dismissing the possibility and I thought it was worth pointing out that we are just a year removed from Shane being a 5.6 fWAR and a 5.8 bWAR player. Mookie is projected as a roughly 4 WAR player over a full season.
It was to the eye an insanely good defensive season, but to put any stock in the dWAR metric wdithout acknowledging that it has a standard error at least as large as the number attributed to Victorino's season is to endorse the use of plus/minus systems for evaluating hockey and basketball players or runs scored and RBIs as a good way to evaluate offensive output. It is heavily context dependent, and I'm surprised that so many smart people on this board and elsewhere don't recognize that. Use stats to evaluate offensive contributions; trained eyes and common sense are still superior to any stats they've developed for defense.MakMan44 said:
The Paxton Crawford episode may well have involved a motel room, a bed, and a bottle - but not, I'd guess, in precisely the way it was presented.
All of this is fine, but it doesn't escape the fact that Shane isn't likely to repeat his 2013 defensively. If you're using my quoted post as a jumping off point, fine, but there's a lot of common sense reason to believe my point, beyond just things like dWAR.Plympton91 said:
Yeah, I completely agree with you that Victorino is unlikely to be as good as he was in 2013, and that will be due to age, injury, rust, adjustment by RH pitchers to his RH hitting tendencies, and also pure regression to the mean in his dWAR. Even if he had the exact same defensive skills in 2015 as he had in 2013, his dWAR would be different and almost certainly lower.MakMan44 said:
Rasputin said:
My point was that brushing off his chances of being better than Betts was lazy. A little more than a year ago he was better than even the rosiest projections for Betts. Even if you think a 4 WAR projection for Betts is fair, it's not a huge stretch to think Victorino can be at least that good. If he's healthy, I think he's very likely to be in that 4 WAR range. His health is obviously the key, but the idea of him being better than Betts next year isn't so far afield that it should be casually tossed out of the discussion.
- Status