Xander Bogaerts Offense : Warmer than Orlando in January

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Kudos up thread for all the arbitration considerations. 
 
I think to get Boras to green light an extension it'd have to set a precedent and be over 100 mill. 
 
Obviously he can't expect a trout level extension but something like 120- 150 over 9 years would give him around 16.5 AAV salary at the high end. Obviously he doesn't even have a full season under his belt but any rudimentary eye test says he's going to be special and that deal would take him to 30 and pay him primarily for being an elite bat with the hope the glove catches up. 
 
Whatever it ends up being the Red Sox will not let this kid go anywhere. He's too good. 
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,706
Rogers Park
Eddie Jurak said:
Won't Bogaerts be a Super Two and get four arbitration years?
 
I think the only way Boras would even consider signing away free agent years is if Bogaerts got an opt out, which would defeat the purpose.
 
I'm not sure about Super Two. That would increase the value of the deal into the mid-90s. 
 
But this idea that people have about Boras players never signing extensions doesn't match reality. Perhaps he does so at a lower rate than other agents, but his clients have regularly signed extensions that included FA years or options for them. Carlos Gonzalez was already mentioned above. Elvis Andrus, Carlos Gomez, Jered Weaver, Ryan Madson, and Carlos Peña are others. Stephen Drew gave Arizona (and then Oakland) a mutual option for an FA year. 
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,794
Suburbs of Washington, DC
smastroyin said:
We should probably wait until we get through a couple more slumps before making these kinds of comparisons, but I can't help it, here is something silly.
 
wOBA in Age 21 seasons (using 6/30 cutoff) among post 1900 Hall of Fame and recent high production Shortstops:
 
Travis Jackson .333 (third full year in the league!)
 
In this edition of "Mildly Interesting Facts You Didn't Know About Hall of Famers":
 
During his second professional season, with the Little Rock Travelers in 1922, Travis Jackson committed 72 errors as a shortstop.
 
 
''I guess I set a world record for errors,'' Jackson said. ''I had a pretty good arm, see, but I didn't have much control. A lot of those were double errors - two on the same play, a boot and then a wild throw. The people in the first-base and right-field bleachers knew me. When the ball was hit to me they scattered. 'Watch out! He's got it again.' ''  Link. 
 
Despite that, John McGraw of the New York Giants bought Jackson's contract when the Southern Association season ended in 1922, and Jackson appeared in a handful of games with the Giants that September. His defensive skills didn't improve overnight: In the 1924 World Series, Jackson made two errors in Game 7, including one error in the bottom of the 12th inning that in part led to the Washington Senators' win. Link.
 
But Jackson overcame his defensive liabilities, eventually leading National League shortstops in field percentage in 1931 and even earning the nickname "Stonewall" for his play at shortstop. 
 
Jackson, who was named after one of the commanders at the Battle of the Alamo, won a World Series with the Giants and was elected to the Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee in 1982. He died of Alzheimer's disease in 1987 in his hometown of Waldo, Arkansas.
 

epraz

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2002
6,201
Super 2s have more than 2 years of service, less than 3, and are within the top 22% of all 2-year players in terms of service time.  Xander had 18 games last year, is that likely to put him in the top 22% of 2-year players at the end of next year?
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
2,415
New Mexico
Papelbon's Poutine said:
 
I believe they are talking about at the end of next year, at which time he will have enough since he's been up since day one this year and doesn't look to be headed down anytime between now and then. 
Right. I'm saying he will never be a Super Two player. Super Two players are players who (almost always) were called up between mid April and mid June.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,540
Q&A with Scott Boras about contract extension for Xander Bogaerts:
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2014/06/scott_boras_talks_about_a_long.html
 
 
SEATTLE -- Xander Bogaerts is 21 years old, has less than a year of major league service time and won't be eligible for arbitration until 2017. But in a way, he's the Boston Red Sox's version of Mike Trout, their once-in-a-decade type of player who has all the tools and the makeup to top it off.
Acknowledging the risk of overhyping a prospect, Bogaerts is the rare player who has handled it just fine.
Maybe it's premature, but the next part of that conversation prompts an important question: Should the Red Sox try to sign Bogaerts to a long-term extension?
Asked about doing just that in the off-season, Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington said it was too early to think about, but "we certainly wouldn't rule it out." Typically when the Red Sox have done these deals (as they have in the past for a young Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, Clay Buchholz and Jon Lester), they've been team-friendly contracts that also guarantee a young player some security.
Bogaerts has yet to complete a full major league season, but he's already proved to be a rare player who the Red Sox will want to keep as long as they can.
Trout, the comparison, would've been eligible for arbitration in 2015, two years ahead of Bogaerts, but the Angels signed him to a six-year, $144.5 million extension this off-season that locked him up during his arbitration years and will keep him under contract until he's 29 years old.
The idea of trying to work out an extension for Bogaerts, represented by agent Scott Boras, whose players don't usually sign long-term extensions before they hit free agency (see Jacoby Ellsbury), has not yet been a topic in Boras' meetings. And while the agent has yet to even think about a long-term extension for Bogaerts, he said the decision will ultimately come down to the player.
Monday, Boras spoke with MassLive.com about his longterm outlook on Bogaerts, comparing his situation to Ellsbury's and noting that it wouldn't make much sense for Bogaerts to sign an extension now:
 
 
 

MassLive: When you think about locking up young players, it has to benefit the team in some way. How do you try to construct those deals so they also benefit the player?
Boras: I’ve done those contracts, not many … and a lot of times the players direct me. I work for them. They direct me for what they want to do. You really have to have a meeting of the minds as far as what information we give the players and so they have an understanding of what their value is. And you understand when you’re doing things early that probably the value is going to be less than what it would be if time took its course and the player became a free agent. So the delta on that is something that would have to be workable for both the team and the player to have a meeting of the minds.
MassLive: Good use of the word delta.
Boras: That’s econometric stuff. I’m a lawyer but I’m a baseball guy.
MassLive: It seems to be a unanimous feeling that Bogaerts is a future All-Star. Is there any benefit for him to sign a contact extension early in his career?
Boras: I think for each individual player, when you say the word benefit, there’s going to be a dollar value given by the team. And there’s going to be a need for the player that is respective to his situation. For most players I would say putting together the combination of their need with what has been offered, it usually does not meet the threshold of commitment, the contract.
So in the process of how that happens, because when you have players that are so valued and their abilities are so great, the only reason the team would have to do something is to save. Otherwise they’ll just wait. The team will wait, the player will wait and they’ll evaluate the player, much like Jacoby Ellsbury. So a lot of it really has to do with the individual player and what their particular need is. The only thing is, and granted most of my players held still after receipt of my information and probably go the free agent route, but some haven’t, and I leave that to each individual. The best job you can do as a player’s advocate as their attorney is to make sure they make an informed decision.
MassLive: Is an extension for Bogaerts something you’ve even thought about at this point?
Boras: I’m usually not the one that raises these subjects (laughter). My job is to make sure the player plays well, he’s durable, he’s conditioned, that we’re doing everything we can. Seventy percent of my time is really about getting players to play well and focusing on what they do and how they think, and the adjustments they make, and the league, and understanding themselves.
A lot of people think agents are about money and contracts. And I’m a baseball player. When you play pro baseball you learn that if you play well, this game always wants you and it always treats well. So the idea – the hardest part, the challenging part and why I love it – is that we’re trying to beat the game every day. We don’t really worry about contracts or evaluations. Those things come. But that’s the hard part.
MassLive: So a contract extension hasn’t been talked about?
Boras: No.
MassLive: Considering how good he’s been at such a young age...
Boras: I gave him statistics the other day about his age and where he’s at in comparison to Derek Jeter when he was (Bogaerts’) age. (Bogaerts) is way ahead.
MassLive: And he loves Jeter.
Boras: Oh yeah. He loves him.
 
 
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,514
X has an .816 OPS as a SS and .523 OPS at a 3B.
 
But at least bringing in Drew...oh...
Left side of the #RedSox infield hitting .199 since Drew call up on June 2, team 8-13. Was .258 prior + team was 27-29. Not to plan so far
 
https://twitter.com/PeteAbe/status/481497179840733184
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,514
geoduck no quahog said:
I don't understand the relevance of that stat. What are you trying to say? Be specific.
Not sure what is unclear. X hit better when he was a SS and the Drew move has made both SS and 3b weaker offensively.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,835
The gran facenda
nattysez said:
Not sure what is unclear. X hit better when he was a SS and the Drew move has made both SS and 3b weaker offensively.
Herrera has also been playing SS during that time frame. And Bogaerts has had a few days off. Those stats need to be broken down and even then, you will still have the dreaded SSS. And Drew has had so few ABs, that if he gets hot that .199 will jump up dramatically. 
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
nattysez said:
Not sure what is unclear. X hit better when he was a SS and the Drew move has made both SS and 3b weaker offensively.
 
And since June 2, he's hit .143 on even days and .188 on odd days, a 45 point improvement!
 
Abraham should know better than to make a sweeping statement (or something that was taken as a sweeping statement). Furthermore, I'd like a factual explanation of how changing defensive positions dramatically impacts a player's ability to hit (as if the idea of "being comfortable at position X" translates into being comfortable at the plate against pitcher Y, and vice versa)
 
The cite is made to imply that since Drew was called up and Xander moved to 3rd, the left side of the infield has sucked offensively - and it's the fault of signing Drew...
 
that is just lazy bullshit and you're not going to fall for it, are you
 

Crazy Puppy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2006
1,888
nattysez said:
Not sure what is unclear. X hit better when he was a SS and the Drew move has made both SS and 3b weaker offensively.
In Bogaerts' first 5 games at 3B this year (June 2-7), he hit .318/.375/.682, for an OPS of 1.057. Maybe he didn't realize until June 8 that he had switched positions?
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
June was an absolute blackhole for Bogaerts offensively.  As bad as Bradley Jr. has been (.550 OPS in June), Bogaerts was much worse.
 
In 102 AB, he had a .135 BA, .176 OBP, .250 SLG for an OPS of .426.  While his strike out rate wasn't up dramatically, his walk rate fell through the floor (only 3 the entire month).  Are pitchers challenging him more?
 
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,688
Row 14
bosockboy said:
I assume the league has found a hole in his swing, or a weakness for a certain pitch.
 
Slump + Sick + Hitting Coach Gone + SOS Drew coming back.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,835
The gran facenda
Bogaerts in June from the pitcher's POV. No matter where the pitcher puts the ball, there is a hole in his swing. The bolded numbers are the strike zone.
 
[tablegrid= XB in June ] 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1   0 - 2 0 - 2 0.167 0 - 5 0 -1 0 -3 0.2 0.25 0.2   0 - 5 0.222 0.167 0.25   0 -3 0 - 2 0 -3 0 - 3 0 - 2 [/tablegrid]
 
Hmm. When I did the chart in Excel it looked like a nice square. 
 

CGSO

New Member
Apr 5, 2012
1,571
I want him to snap out of this so bad. My dad, who is an idiot, said a week ago that he's basically the next Will Middlebrooks. I told him that's he wrong, and Bogaerts is going to turn it around soon. Bogaerts has continued to suck, and my dad berates me after every AB about how much he sucks. It's quite annoying.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,912
Deep inside Muppet Labs
CGSO said:
I want him to snap out of this so bad. My dad, who is an idiot, said a week ago that he's basically the next Will Middlebrooks. I told him that's he wrong, and Bogaerts is going to turn it around soon. Bogaerts has continued to suck, and my dad berates me after every AB about how much he sucks. It's quite annoying.
 
He hit some ropes last night that were run down. Bad luck.
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
985
Upper Valley
CGSO said:
I want him to snap out of this so bad. My dad, who is an idiot, said a week ago that he's basically the next Will Middlebrooks. I told him that's he wrong, and Bogaerts is going to turn it around soon. Bogaerts has continued to suck, and my dad berates me after every AB about how much he sucks. It's quite annoying.
Record every stupid thing he says about Zander, save for later date, replay and profit.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,881
Somerville, MA
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
He hit some ropes last night that were run down. Bad luck.
Agree. I'm hoping this is a lot like when Manny was about to get hot and all of his outs were hard for a couple games before he started unloading.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,696
Isn't it time to start thinking about sending Xander down to Pawtucket to get back on track?
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,384
San Andreas Fault
geoduck no quahog said:
What's the downside of letting him work through this against major league pitchers?

Baseball ain't easy.
Could get all mental now though. After everybody saying he's the next Nomar or Arod, and he's 2 for 44, kid may lose sleep, or who knows over it. Not that he goes looking for the Tobin, but a break at Pawtucket may be the best thing right now. 
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,696
Based on Farrell's comments and what we're seeing in games, it's all in his head right now.  Hopefully he'll have a few good games before the ASB and the time off will do him good.  If he still looks lost after the break and a demotion to AAA is at risk of being counterproductive, then maybe a phantom DL stint is in order.  Call it a hammy or something - give him a few days off, get him some one-on-one work with someone who knows him well, followed by a few games in Pawtucket to tune up.  
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Why would they need to put him on a phantom DL stint? They can just send him down.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,456
NH
For those advocating that the Drew signing had no effect on his performance they should take a closer look at the numbers. X had 4 productive games after 06/02 when Drew was officially with the big club. 06/09 is when Drew went on the DL and Xander stayed at third. Since then X has fallen off the planet. Maybe it shouldn't effect him the way it has but he's still just a 21 year old kid. Watching the utter failure Drew has been while taking over X's position has to be frustrating for him.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
44,233
Here
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
For those advocating that the Drew signing had no effect on his performance they should take a closer look at the numbers. X had 4 productive games after 06/02 when Drew was officially with the big club. 06/09 is when Drew went on the DL and Xander stayed at third. Since then X has fallen off the planet. Maybe it shouldn't effect him the way it has but he's still just a 21 year old kid. Watching the utter failure Drew has been while taking over X's position has to be frustrating for him.
 
This is ridiculous. If he's lost his ability to hit because he's not playing short, then he should start attending sessions on the couch next to Clay and Felix. Maybe the FO can send the three of them to re-take Kindergarten in the off-season. There's plenty of blame to place on Drew for his performance; he doesn't need Xander's as well. Xander also just looks like a better fit at third, so he may want to get used to it. Maybe some EST will do.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,456
NH
Ed Hillel said:
This is ridiculous. If he's lost his ability to hit because he's not playing short, then he should start attending sessions on the couch next to Clay and Felix. Maybe the FO can send the three of them to re-take Kindergarten in the off-season. There's plenty of blame to place on Drew for his performance; he doesn't need Xander's as well. Xander also just looks like a better fit at third, so he may want to get used to it. Maybe some EST will do.
So, he has to be mentally unstable or severely immature for a position switch to effect his performance? That's ridiculous.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Drew never went on the DL.
 
Looked at the numbers, still seems like somewhat of a stretch to me as the proximate cause.  X hit great after the Drew signing was announced and was productive the first week Drew came back.  X was productive as a 3B last year.  Seems much more likely that X hit a slump and/or major leaguers figured out a better approach to pitching to him and he hasn't quite figured out how to adjust as a 21 year old with limited at bats above AA.  He's messed up mentally, possible moving of off SS contributed to that, but I doubt he'd still be running around with a .380 OBP still or anything like that if he was still starting at SS.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
44,233
Here
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
So, he has to be mentally unstable or severely immature for a position switch to effect his performance? That's ridiculous.
 
No, I think he's just slumping, and if there are mental components, I think it probably has more to do with his hitting issues than switching positions. But you're the one stating that a position switch has caused it, so maybe you can tell me exactly what the implications are. I think the answer is probably just "I hate Drew and I love Xander, blame Drew," but maybe you have something else in mind.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,852
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
For those advocating that the Drew signing had no effect on his performance they should take a closer look at the numbers. X had 4 productive games after 06/02 when Drew was officially with the big club. 06/09 is when Drew went on the DL and Xander stayed at third. Since then X has fallen off the planet. Maybe it shouldn't effect him the way it has but he's still just a 21 year old kid. Watching the utter failure Drew has been while taking over X's position has to be frustrating for him.
It is certainly possible, unfortunately, such an explanation is not really testable, so we have to test alternatives instead. One such alternative explanation is that pitchers are making adjustments against Xander based on his recent success (118 wRC+ in march/april, 148 wRC+ in may). I'm looking at the heat maps for pitch location between before and after june, and they look odd. Below are the heatmaps for before and after june:
View attachment 455View attachment 458

To me, it seems that Xander's seen more pitches middle-away, middle-middle, and low outside of the strike zone. He's also seen fewer pitches up in the zone, middle-in, low-in, and low-away.
Here are the hard pitches only:
View attachment 456View attachment 459

Here we see that he's facing more hard stuff away from the center of the zone. In particular, pitchers are throwing him more away and less in. The increase in the number of well-inside pitches may be an effect of trying to back him off the plate. However, there was an increase in middle-middle pitches across the board. Here's the offspeed/breaking ball charts:
 
View attachment 457View attachment 460


Xander is seeing fewer slow pitches low and away, and more slow pitches in the strike zone and low and inside.
I'm not sure what to make of this, Xander appears to be seeing a difference in pitch location between june and the rest of the season, however, the change is towards pitches that should be more hittable...
 
This is complete speculation here, but perhaps Xander caught on to "typical" pitch sequences in the first two months this year, so pitchers are now pitching him backwards, and he hasn't adjusted to this yet. If anybody has an alternative interpretation, I'd love to hear it.
EDIT: Changed "slow pitches, low, inside, and over the heart of the plate" to "slow pitches in the strike zone".
 
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,456
NH
Ed Hillel said:
No, I think he's just slumping, and if there are mental components, I think it probably has more to do with his hitting issues than switching positions. But you're the one stating that a position switch has caused it, so maybe you can tell me exactly what the implications are. I think the answer is probably just "I hate Drew and I love Xander, blame Drew," but maybe you have something else in mind.
It's actually pretty simple. X wants to be a SS. He's worked very hard to establish himself as one. After a handful of games in which he was showing improvement the Sox go and sign Drew to supplant him. To work that hard and show that you're getting better only to be replaced because essentially "you're not good enough" by someone who has a >.400 OPS has to be painful. How can you not start pressing in every aspect if you can be moved so easily?
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,852
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
It's actually pretty simple. X wants to be a SS. He's worked very hard to establish himself as one. After a handful of games in which he was showing improvement the Sox go and sign Drew to supplant him. To work that hard and show that you're getting better only to be replaced because essentially "you're not good enough" by someone who has a >.400 OPS has to be painful. How can you not start pressing in every aspect if you can be moved so easily?
It is certainly possible, but this is an explanation after the fact. The evidence you cite (Xander being moved to third-base) could have been used to explain any change in his performance. For example, if Xander suddenly went on a tear in June, hitting .330/.430/.530. One could argue that moving him to third put a "chip on his shoulder", such that he was driven to compete even harder. 
 
For this possibility to be convincing, you have to rule out other possible explanations first.
 
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Plus after they announced the Drew signing X went on a monster tear.
 
Im pretty skeptical its the driving factor, but as you said its not testable.  Thanks for the earlier analysis.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,456
NH
EricFeczko said:
It is certainly possible, but this is an explanation after the fact. The evidence you cite (Xander being moved to third-base) could have been used to explain any change in his performance. For example, if Xander suddenly went on a tear in June, hitting .330/.430/.530. One could argue that moving him to third put a "chip on his shoulder", such that he was driven to compete even harder. 
 
For this possibility to be convincing, you have to rule out other possible explanations first.
How do you propose we explain a change in performance before it happens?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
44,233
Here
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
It's actually pretty simple. X wants to be a SS. He's worked very hard to establish himself as one. After a handful of games in which he was showing improvement the Sox go and sign Drew to supplant him. To work that hard and show that you're getting better only to be replaced because essentially "you're not good enough" by someone who has a >.400 OPS has to be painful. How can you not start pressing in every aspect if you can be moved so easily?
 
His defense has been quite good at third, so I'm not sure how moving positions has negatively impacted one aspect of the game and not the other, especially since the change came positionally. I think it's much more likely that the hitting issues are distinct, and he's dealing, poorly, with failure for the first time. Moreover, if you are suggesting that he's struggling at the plate because of a position change, rather than being professional like, say, Mookie Betts or Brock Holt, then I think it would suggest some immaturity and emotional issues that Xander has to work through. He's young, so it's understandable and hopefully not a big deal, but it's still a bit of a red flag.  
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The move to third was not really because Xander was "not good enough" at short (though obviously if he had been stunning everybody with his defensive brilliance there, a different decision might have been made). It was because there was a hole on the left side of the infield that needed to be filled, preferably with a proven veteran, and the Sox felt that Drew + Bogaerts at third was a more viable option than any of the available 3B's + Bogaerts at short. It was a short-term strategy that took advantage of Bogaerts' flexibility, more than a demotion. In short, it wasn't really about Bogaerts. He's supposed to be a pretty smart guy, so if he took it to heart beyond the natural immediate disappointment, I can only assume that either it was explained to him pretty badly, or he's just not mature enough to handle adversity or keep things in perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.