Xander Bogaerts Offense : Warmer than Orlando in January

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

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.

This makes sense, although I will argue neither Betts or Holt had Xanders pedigree and both of them have to be excited playing in the majors at any position.

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).

Exactly.

 

[smastroyin]

I'm not sure how to explain the heat maps as a different approach affecting Xander.  One problem is that the "increase in middle middle across the board" amounts to 2 pitches over the course of a month.  That easily falls into "could have been mistakes" territory rather than approach.
 
If we are talking about psychological issues, I think the position switch is much less a burden than the general suckitude of the club and the other hitters.  Part of me thinks they should go ahead and demote Xander and JBJ and even Mookie just so they are surrounded by success again.  Suckitude shouldn't be catching, but if every guy is trying to do too much to make up for the shortcomings of everyone else, perhaps some bad habits form.  This is all kind of pop psychology bullshit, but it's the direction I would go if we think there are mental problems, as opposed to the position change.

 

[Doctor G]

The hitting coach being out also happened at the same time. This team's offensive performance has suffered since Colbrunn had his brain hemorrhage. That seems to be a more likely culprit than a position change

 

[Al Zarilla]

The hitting coach being out also happened at the same time. This team's offensive performance has suffered since Colbrunn had his brain hemorrhage. That seems to be a more likely culprit than a position change

All due respect to Colbrunn, but how often does a hitting coach give advice to major league hitters? Maybe the rookies, but I don't think very often with the Pedroias or the Ortizes of the world. 

 

[EricFeczko]

I'm not sure how to explain the heat maps as a different approach affecting Xander.  One problem is that the "increase in middle middle across the board" amounts to 2 pitches over the course of a month.  That easily falls into "could have been mistakes" territory rather than approach.

More like 3, but I think your point still stands; we're talking about small sample sizes here. It's entirely possible that these are all mistake pitches, which would mean that Xander's effectiveness at the plate is not driven by pitch location. However, the difference in middle-middle is quite large between hard (3 fewer middle-middle pitches per month) and slow pitches (6 more middle-middle pitches per month).
Still, its an explanation that can be better tested than a psychological answer. Most people aren't headcases like Buchholz (who inexplicably forgets how to throw a changeup), or lazy like Doubront. In such cases, the psychological effects are more related to endogenous mental states and not exogenous circumstances.

 

[Cumberland Blues]

All due respect to Colbrunn, but how often does a hitting coach give advice to major league hitters? Maybe the rookies, but I don't think very often with the Pedroias or the Ortizes of the world. 

 
I think this oversimplifies things quite a lot.  We're a long way from the days of pitching & hitting coaches as drinking buddy of the manager.  The amount of prep and gameplanning that goes on is huge - and one has to think the hitting coach is a large part of that.  We're constantly hearing about how hard-working the Red Sox coaching staff is - I don't think their contributions should be so easily dismissed.  The team OPS was .705 when Colbrunn went down - below league average, but far from the epic suck we've seen since (.652).  I don't think Colbrunn's absence explains all that - but I'd need some convincing it's not a significant factor.

 

[EricFeczko]

How do you propose we explain a change in performance before it happens?

I think you mean, "how do we formulate a cause for an observed change in performance, where the cause would be predictive for future performance?"
You propose hypothetical causes that are testable, that's how. We have little valid information on the psychological state of any major league player, so formulating hypotheses where the psychological state is the cause of a change in performance is largely a waste of time, because we can't test the hypothesis. It makes for great narratives though, which is why the sports media capitalize on such stories. When other potential causes are ruled out, the psychological causes become a bit more convincing.

As an aside, the effects of psycho-social stress on reaction time in sensorimotor tasks has an inverted U-curve. A little bit of stress (e.g. frustration at being left out of a game) improves acuity and shortens reaction time, but a lot of stress (e.g. giving a pubic speech) has the opposite effect. I'd be surprised if "not getting to play at SS" is a sufficient stressful stimulus to effect Xander's visuomotor coordination.  

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

I think you mean, "how do we formulate a cause for an observed change in performance, where the cause would be predictive for future performance?"
You propose hypothetical causes that are testable, that's how. We have little valid information on the psychological state of any major league player, so formulating hypotheses where the psychological state is the cause of a change in performance is largely a waste of time, because we can't test the hypothesis. It makes for great narratives though, which is why the sports media capitalize on such stories. When other potential causes are ruled out, the psychological causes become a bit more convincing.

As an aside, the effects of psycho-social stress on reaction time in sensorimotor tasks has an inverted U-curve. A little bit of stress (e.g. frustration at being left out of a game) improves acuity and shortens reaction time, but a lot of stress (e.g. giving a pubic speech) has the opposite effect. I'd be surprised if "not getting to play at SS" is a sufficient stressful stimulus to effect Xander's visuomotor coordination.

No. I meant what I asked. By focusing on the "testable" causes you leave out the human factor, which is why I give little to no recognition to predictive stats or projection systems. What someone has done in the past does not always give you insight into what they will do in the future. That aside, factoring in the psychological state of a player is not a waste of time it's just not tangible. It doesn't mean it's useless.

Your other point is intriguing though. I think it goes beyond "not playing SS" for X. He was told he was the SS of the future and has groomed himself as such for his entire career. Then he gets moved after less than half a season and is now slumping offensively. I think the continuation of the slump is due to him pressing.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

...He was told he was the SS of the future and has groomed himself as such for his entire career. Then he gets moved after less than half a season and is now slumping offensively. I think the continuation of the slump is due to him pressing.

 
Is this true? Wasn't he projected by the scouts to be too big (as a kid) for permanent SS?
 
As for the Drew canard, the simple fact that talking heads keep bringing this up on TV means it's got a very high probability of being bullshit.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
Is this true? Wasn't he projected by the scouts to be too big (as a kid) for permanent SS?

 
When he was handed the reigns this year it's what he was told. The scouting goes back and forth.
 
 

 
As for the Drew canard, the simple fact that talking heads keep bringing this up on TV means it's got a very high probability of being bullshit.

 
I guess that's also like saying it's too obvious to be true if everyone on TV is saying it. It's probably a little fanboyism on my part but Eck seemed to really put significance on the position change, and he's always been a no nonsense no bullshit kind of guy. Take that FWIW.

 

[smastroyin]

More like 3, but I think your point still stands; we're talking about small sample sizes here. It's entirely possible that these are all mistake pitches, which would mean that Xander's effectiveness at the plate is not driven by pitch location. However, the difference in middle-middle is quite large between hard (3 fewer middle-middle pitches per month) and slow pitches (6 more middle-middle pitches per month).
Still, its an explanation that can be better tested than a psychological answer. Most people aren't headcases like Buchholz (who inexplicably forgets how to throw a changeup), or lazy like Doubront. In such cases, the psychological effects are more related to endogenous mental states and not exogenous circumstances.

 
It's not just small sample size.  The presumption you are making is that all of these major league pitchers have the ability to hit any one of those areas at any time.  I agree that looking at trending data here can be useful, but between this and the fact that pitch sequence is not pre-destined, and is instead determined by count, make it hard to make any real conclusions on such a small data set.  A reason Xander might see more off-speed pitches in the zone is that he is more often behind in the count, for instance.  As an indication of this, his K/BB for April and May was 1.96.  For June it was 9.00.  So you end up with a little bit of chicken and egg.  Is he striking out because of approach, or has approach changed because he is finding himself in bad counts, etc.

 

[EricFeczko]

You can't "explain a change" before a change is observed. You have to make a prediction at the time that such a change would occur, and justify that prediction based on some empirical observation, such as what has happened to other players who experienced the same phenomenon.
 

By focusing on the "testable" causes you leave out the human factor ... factoring in the psychological state of a player is not a waste of time it's just not tangible.

 
I'm not sure what you mean by the "human factor" here, especially since I'm pointing out that the human psyche can respond both positively and negatively to stress.
 
In any case, claims have to be testable, otherwise you have no way of verifying a given claim's validity. For example, I could claim that the extra work Xander is putting at fielding third-base is limiting his focus on hitting, which is causing his slump. I could claim that Xander hasn't been getting an appropriate amount of sleep, which is causing his slump. I could claim that Xander has become a crime-fighting superhero at night in June, which is affecting his ability at the plate. In all cases, we don't have the observations to evaluate these statements, making them untestable. All three are fascinating narratives that cannot be evaluated, because we either a) don't have the data, b) aren't allowed to have access the data due to privacy concerns, or c) can't have data for a fantasy.

You are right that the psychological state of a player is not tangible, because the mind is not a tangible object. We infer mental states and processes from observations of behavior and the brain. In this case, we have no observations of the brain. In terms of behavior, our only observations are what occurs on the field, and second-hand (i.e. garbage) reports by people who are not trained in how to measure psycho-social stress. Therefore, making claims regarding the effect of Xander's psychological state on his ability to hit a baseball can only be verified by ruling out other unrelated possibilities.
 

 

[joe dokes]

My admittedly non-scientific approach has this as part plain old slump -- everbody goes through a 2-20/4-40 stretch;  PLUS -- this is the first time he's had to face pitchers who can make adjustments in response to his blistering start; PLUS nobody else is hitting, so just like anyone, he's probably trying to hit a 5-run homer every time up. While we can't rule out the whole SS-3B thing, to the extent its part of the equation its minuscule compared to the other stuff.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
I think this oversimplifies things quite a lot.  We're a long way from the days of pitching & hitting coaches as drinking buddy of the manager.  The amount of prep and gameplanning that goes on is huge - and one has to think the hitting coach is a large part of that.  We're constantly hearing about how hard-working the Red Sox coaching staff is - I don't think their contributions should be so easily dismissed.  The team OPS was .705 when Colbrunn went down - below league average, but far from the epic suck we've seen since (.652).  I don't think Colbrunn's absence explains all that - but I'd need some convincing it's not a significant factor.

Well, as usual, it's somewhere in between what I said and what you said. You can break hitters at any level into some categories:
 
1. Those that won't ask for help or just go, OK, out of courtesy to the coach but won't try to change anything.
 
2 .Those that listen and try to make changes, but for one reason or another, go back to their old swing or habits.
 
3. Those that conscientiously listen and work diligently to make changes, noting what helped, maybe even documenting for future reference. 
 
Whether it's Babe Ruth league age, or younger, up through the majors, players are just people and will vary all over the lot as students. Of course, guys that make their living hitting a baseball should pay more attention than kids.
 
The other team I watch a lot, the Giants, were leading the majors in hitting with RISP, and were near the top in many other hitting categories until about a month ago. Since then, they've fallen back to more typical Giants hitting ways and lost a 9 1/2 game lead to the Dodgers. On the one Giants message board I frequent, the poorer posters call for hitting coach Bam Bam Meulens head (and Bochy's, and Sabean's). All of those guys have been there a long time, but they (Meulens and Bochy) can't seem to do anything about the situation. Coaches can try until they are blue in the face, but they don't seem to be able to make much of a difference, in my opinion.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
It's not just small sample size.  The presumption you are making is that all of these major league pitchers have the ability to hit any one of those areas at any time.  I agree that looking at trending data here can be useful, but between this and the fact that pitch sequence is not pre-destined, and is instead determined by count, make it hard to make any real conclusions on such a small data set.  A reason Xander might see more off-speed pitches in the zone is that he is more often behind in the count, for instance.  As an indication of this, his K/BB for April and May was 1.96.  For June it was 9.00.  So you end up with a little bit of chicken and egg.  Is he striking out because of approach, or has approach changed because he is finding himself in bad counts, etc.

I completely agree, which is why I said this:

 
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.

My point was more that making claims that are tested through data that we have is more useful than making claims about a player's psychological state, for which we have no data.
 

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

You can't "explain a change" before a change is observed. You have to make a prediction at the time that such a change would occur, and justify that prediction based on some empirical observation, such as what has happened to other players who experienced the same phenomenon.
 
 
I'm not sure what you mean by the "human factor" here, especially since I'm pointing out that the human psyche can respond both positively and negatively to stress.

 
Because stress levels can cause a change in behavior. You say he shouldn't be stressed and put it at a small level, I say he should be stressed and put it at a higher level. Neither of us have anything tangible. Too disregard what his level of stress is because of how you feel he should feel is discounting the human element.
 
As far as claims being testable. It may not be concrete but X's dip coincides with Drew being sidelined with an oblique strain and X remaining at 3rd. Maybe it's just coincidence, but it's not unreasonable to see something there.
 
joedokes brings up a great point. We're talking about a 3 week span in which the whole team has sucked. Could just be a typical slump and we're all trying to read too much into it. I looked into his plate discipline numbers and they haven't really changed. He's seeing less fastballs lately but that's going to happen when you're hitting 7th in the order. 
 
I think we are all in agreement that he needs to turn it around no matter what the cause is. 

 

[Doctor G]

Well, as usual, it's somewhere in between what I said and what you said. You can break hitters at any level into some categories:
 
1. Those that won't ask for help or just go, OK, out of courtesy to the coach but won't try to change anything.
 
2 .Those that listen and try to make changes, but for one reason or another, go back to their old swing or habits.
 
3. Those that conscientiously listen and work diligently to make changes, noting what helped, maybe even documenting for future reference. 
 
Whether it's Babe Ruth league age, or younger, up through the majors, players are just people and will vary all over the lot as students. Of course, guys that make their living hitting a baseball should pay more attention than kids.
 
The other team I watch a lot, the Giants, were leading the majors in hitting with RISP, and were near the top in many other hitting categories until about a month ago. Since then, they've fallen back to more typical Giants hitting ways and lost a 9 1/2 game lead to the Dodgers. On the one Giants message board I frequent, the poorer posters call for hitting coach Bam Bam Meulens head (and Bochy's, and Sabean's). All of those guys have been there a long time, but they (Meulens and Bochy) can't seem to do anything about the situation. Coaches can try until they are blue in the face, but they don't seem to be able to make much of a difference, in my opinion.

the possibility also exists that  Bogaerts is dealing with his first major league slump and it is coincident with  his primary hitting coach not being unavailable. he is more than likely getting advice now from too many people. 

 

[EricFeczko]

 
Because stress levels can cause a change in behavior. You say he shouldn't be stressed and put it at a small level, I say he should be stressed and put it at a higher level. Neither of us have anything tangible. Too disregard what his level of stress is because of how you feel he should feel is discounting the human element.

My apologies, because that's not what I'm trying to say at all. What I'm trying to say is that the effect of stress can make a hitter better or worse, depending on the amount of stress, but we have no indication of Xander's present level of psycho-social stress that would be consistent with how psycho-social stress is measured in prior research. Therefore, to assume that he is stressed, or to assume that he isn't is foolhardy.

Now, I think the miscommunication resulted from when I said that I'd be surprised if "not getting to play SS" is a sufficiently stressful stimulus to have such an effect. I could have written that more clearly. What I mean is that I'd be surprised if "not getting to play SS" indicates the effect of a sufficiently stressful stimulus that would impair his batting performance. The fact that he is aware of playing a different position is an abstract thought, which utilizes cognitive mechanisms independent of visual perception and motor coordination. From a neuroscience perspective, I'd be very surprised if such thinking interferes with mechanisms that are modality dependent, such as hitting or fielding. This is corroborated by behavioral research using a sampling approach; when engaged in physical activity, one may make very few abstract thoughts. Unfortunately, studies that examine effects of psycho-social stress on motor coordination typically use measures of stressful incidents that are concrete and not abstract.

It is very possible that the move to third base put more pressure on Xander because his workload in the field increased, which may distract him from focusing on hitting. However, I have absolutely no data to back this up, so such a claim is not very helpful.
 

joedokes brings up a great point. We're talking about a 3 week span in which the whole team has sucked. Could just be a typical slump and we're all trying to read too much into it. I looked into his plate discipline numbers and they haven't really changed. He's seeing less fastballs lately but that's going to happen when you're hitting 7th in the order. 
 
I think we are all in agreement that he needs to turn it around no matter what the cause is. 

 
Oh, I agree completely with this.

 

 

[OttoC]

Major League players have an amazing amount of data, especially video, to consult regarding pitchers (or batters) they will be facing. This is the domain of the hitting and pitching coaches.Do you think this is all available at minor league levels? I doubt that DSL players are taught anything more than the mechanics. There will be more available as a player progresses up the farm system but I don't think they'll have anything like they'll find in the majors. And young players may not be accustomed to using all the video, etc., available to them, which is where good coaches come into play, getting them to incorporate the data into their preparation.

 

[ehaz]

0-4 with 3 strikeouts in game 1. I'm worried.

 

[BosRedSox5]

It's so strange that X was one of the few bright spots of the season to start the year and now he's mired in a massive slump. Basically he was one of our few offensive weapons. When he came up it was something to be excited about. If we were down by a run X was one of the few guys who you wanted to see with the bat in his hands. Now he's 2-37 with 13 strikeouts over his last 10 games? He looks completely lost up there. No confidence, no fire... I don't get what's happened to him. If it's true that getting moved off of short affected him like this, then I really worry about his long term future. He looked pretty fragile today after that error. He's got all the tools to be successful, but he's starting to look like a basket case. Does a trip back down to AAA really help him at all? 

 

[curly2]

I think a trip to AAA would help. He needs something to go right now, but when you're mired in this type of slump, where you're swinging at bad pitches and taking third strikes down the middle, it's hard to snap out of it against major-league pitchers.
 
Let him go to Pawtucket, rake for a couple of weeks and come back up. And it's NOT giving up on him, and with his slump going on so long, it's NOT reactionary.
 
The Yankees sent Mickey Mantle down in his rookie season, and once he came back up he never looked back. If Mickey Mantle can be demoted, so can Bogaerts.
 
I'm still expecting big things from Bogaerts, but right now he's not helping the team. And I don't care how good a head he has on his shoulders, this has to be getting to him.

 

[Al Zarilla]

I think a trip to AAA would help. He needs something to go right now, but when you're mired in this type of slump, where you're swinging at bad pitches and taking third strikes down the middle, it's hard to snap out of it against major-league pitchers.
 
Let him go to Pawtucket, rake for a couple of weeks and come back up. And it's NOT giving up on him, and with his slump going on so long, it's NOT reactionary.
 
The Yankees sent Mickey Mantle down in his rookie season, and once he came back up he never looked back. If Mickey Mantle can be demoted, so can Bogaerts.
 
I'm still expecting big things from Bogaerts, but right now he's not helping the team. And I don't care how good a head he has on his shoulders, this has to be getting to him.

Mantle was also very young, actually 2 years younger, turning 20 just after the world series ended. Bogaerts turns 22 Oct. 1. When they sent Mantle down in 1951, he went .361/.445/.651 in 191 PAs at Kansas City (old American Association). Like you said, he never looked back once he got back with the Ys. Do it!

 

[BosRedSox5]

If a trip to AAA was what cured a slump they'd send everyone with an option left down to Pawtucket when they hit the skids. I'm not sure I see it paying a huge benefit for him. I mean, if you're really struggling to beat your friend at chess, does it help to just play a weaker player until you win a few games and build your confidence up? Maybe it wouldn't hurt, but I don't see it being that big of a help either. If he goes down I think the major reason is to shop/test Middlebrooks on a daily basis. We either see if he's coming around and looks like the 3B of the future or we find a good trade partner for him. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

If a trip to AAA was what cured a slump they'd send everyone with an option left down to Pawtucket when they hit the skids. I'm not sure I see it paying a huge benefit for him. I mean, if you're really struggling to beat your friend at chess, does it help to just play a weaker player until you win a few games and build your confidence up? Maybe it wouldn't hurt, but I don't see it being that big of a help either. If he goes down I think the major reason is to shop/test Middlebrooks on a daily basis. We either see if he's coming around and looks like the 3B of the future or we find a good trade partner for him. 

 
What??!!?
 
Where do you come up with that proclamation? You're saying a trip to the minors for a struggling hitter is stupid because they don't do that for everyone with options? I'm speechless.
 
...Followed by the assessment that if he doesn't start hitting they should trade him,,,
 
Now I'm puking.
 
Since his slump began, Xander has struck out once every 3.4 ab's (25 out of 86) with no power. He needs some help. He needs to recover his swing and his batting eye. Not in BP and perhaps not against Major League pitchers. A stint in Pawtucket could do him some good. It couldn't really hurt at this point.

 

[curly2]

If a trip to AAA was what cured a slump they'd send everyone with an option left down to Pawtucket when they hit the skids. 

 
There's a difference between a slump and being lost at the plate. Bogaerts looks completely lost. I think a trip to Pawtucket would help.

 

[OttoC]

Obviously, Bogaerts needs to turn things around but psychologically where is the best place for him to do so? Does he have a fragile ego so that sending him back to the minors will inhibit his development? Will sending him out there day after day reinfoce the bad habits he seems to be exhibiting at the plate?
 
There are those on this board and in the media who have suggested that the signing of Drew, which caused Bogaerts to be moved to third base, was the cause of his tailing off at the plate. That would suggest an ego problem; yet, there are other who praise heis mental balance. I don't know the answer but if the club decides they care going to contend this year, they aren't going to be able to with so many huge holes on the offensive side of their lineup. Right at this moment, Bradley, Jr., probably is more valuable than Bogaerts because he ranks with the very best defensive outfielders in baseball while Bogaerts is basically only giving routine fielding at third base.

 

[Toe Nash]

If he is sent down for 43 days or more, he would delay his free agency an extra year. Of course, he would realize this and could get pissed off at the Rays-like maneuver. But maybe a little extra leverage to extend him past that? And it would be hard for him to argue that he doesn't deserve to be sent down.
 
I would personally prefer the Sox not operate like the Rays in this regard, but something to think about.

 

[BosRedSox5]

 
...Followed by the assessment that if he doesn't start hitting they should trade him,,,

 
What are you talking about? 
 
-----
 
Also, who knew that I'd made such a controversial analogy. Yes, how could changing the level of competition in two largely psychological battles be in any way similar? 
 
All I'm saying is, I don't know as though a trip to the minors actually helps out X. If his problem is that he's lost his timing, or if it's his pitch recognition, or it's his strike zone judgement of if it's his confidence, or it's his approach... I don't think any of these are really helped by a trip down I-95. It's probably not going to hurt him, but I don't see it as being what the doctor ordered either. If the Sox send him down I'd expect the reason is more Middlebrooks related than X related. 

 

[absintheofmalaise]

 
What are you talking about? 
 
-----
 
Also, who knew that I'd made such a controversial analogy. Yes, how could changing the level of competition in two largely psychological battles be in any way similar? 
 
All I'm saying is, I don't know as though a trip to the minors actually helps out X. If his problem is that he's lost his timing, or if it's his pitch recognition, or it's his strike zone judgement of if it's his confidence, or it's his approach... I don't think any of these are really helped by a trip down I-95. It's probably not going to hurt him, but I don't see it as being what the doctor ordered either. If the Sox send him down I'd expect the reason is more Middlebrooks related than X related. 

Why do you think it's more WMB related?  You say you have no idea what the cause is, but you proclaim that you know a trip to the minors won't help him. How are you reaching this conclusion. 

 

[BosRedSox5]

C'mon now, expressing doubt that a demotion would help Bogaerts is a far way off from "proclaiming that know a trip to the minors won't help him." In Boston he has access to world class coaching, he can see major league pitching every day and attempt to adjust to it, he can see how pitchers command the zone against him and he can break down film using state of the art equipment. Defensively he's got access to Stephen Drew, Dustin Pedroia, Mike Napoli, and a top notch coaching staff who can work with him. It just seems like he has a lot of tools available here in Boston and he'd be downgrading on that front if he were sent to Pawtucket. 

There'd be other potential issues as well. Being demoted might have a psychological effect. After seeing the club stick with JBJ all season it might be hard to swallow a trip to the minors. A lot of us might say that's proof that he's too sensitive, but I don't think he'd be unjustified in feeling a little slighted. 
 
Even if he handles a demotion like a champ and there's no issues mentally, I still don't see the big benefit of sending him to AAA. Even if he does feast on AAA pitching, what does that do for him? He's already had some success in the IL. 

Maybe it helps him to take a little of the pressure off and re-focus in AAA, maybe it doesn't... I'm just not seeing a compelling reason to send him down, hence my statement that if he is sent down it would be more to do with WMB and the spot that's needed to activate him from the DL. Maybe the team will want to hold onto Herrera a bit longer when WMB is ready because they would rather get X regular at bats in Pawtucket than while away on the bench. Maybe they don't see releasing Drew as a viable option. 

 

[Sampo Gida]

I am a big believer in the multiplier effect.   When a team has a few hot hitters even lesser/struggling hitters join the party to some extent and vice .  versa.  Can't prove it but it just seems that way to my eyes.   XB is unfortunate to be a member of a Red Sox team that has struggled as much  offensively as any Red Sox team in recent memory,
 
I don't see the value in sending him down.  If he continues his strugles back in Pawtucket then he will really be messed up.  Best let him figure it out here.  If he is the elite talent everyone thinks he is, he will figure it out, either this year or next year.

 

[Plympton91]

This is rough stretch for Bogaerts to be going through but there's nothing that unusual about it. I would stick with him and just look to give him slightly more frequent days off against particularly bad match ups until he gets going again. They did this already with Pedrioa, they know how to make it work. Demotion would be an overreaction, and unnecessary.

 

[joyofsox]

Farrell said sending him down was not in the team's plans. "This is also somebody that we believe in and we continue to have him in the lineup and provide opportunities."
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_07_05_balmlb_bosmlb_2&mode=preview&vkey=preview_web_home&c_id=bos

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

You only send Bogaerts down if a) there's clearly a better option who can't get playing time at another position and b) Bogaerts continued struggles are costing the team games in the standings and thus a playoff spot.  Otherwise, let him figure it out where he is.  Part of it very well may be that teams now have a book on him and are pitching him differently.  That change can easily lead to him being confused and prone to guessing at the plate.
 
I also see Greg Colbrunn's absence being a factor as well.  Maybe whatever ails Bogaerts is something Colbrunn could diagnose that his replacements haven't been able to see.  The last time Bogaerts batting average was over .300 was June 3.  Colbrunn got sick on June 4.

 

[Drek717]

I think a trip to AAA would help. 

I'd rather see them trade Drew and move Xander back to SS as the change of pace for him.  Do I think the move off SS is the root of the problem?  Of course not.  But I think at this point it would
1. be a vote of confidence from the club at a time when he could really use it
2. take his mind off his struggles at the plate for a bit as he re-focuses on his SS defense and
3. gets us back to developing and evaluating him at SS, because Marrero is pushing the time table for that decision faster than any of us expected entering the season.
 
Then let Holt take over 3B on a regular basis and see just how long he keeps adding to the legend while WMB gets right/tries out the OF.

 

[Scoots McBoots]

We either see if he's coming around and looks like the 3B of the future or we find a good trade partner for him. 

 

...Followed by the assessment that if he doesn't start hitting they should trade him,,,

 

What are you talking about? 

 
 
If you read the original post quickly, it's seems like you're saying that they would find a trading partner for Bogaerts, not Middlebrooks.

 

[knucklecup]

He's batting last today, behind even JBJ.

 

[jimbobim]

He's chasing  breaking balls incessantly in 1-1 counts dropping to 1-2 then usually getting called out on strike 3 looking at something he thinks is low or swinging through another dirt destined breaking pitch.
 
The problem with sending him to the Bucket is how do you start the conversation if your Farrell ?
 
Hey you can't hit right now so we want you to work on things in Pawtucket.  
 
X- O I see because the guy playing short is hitting way better then me . If I remember correctly I was killing it there before I was moved. Also if you want to talk about working on things he's the one who missed ST and the first two months of the year spent 15 days in the minors and was handed the position I worked my ass off for all offseason. 
 
I think people hammering him for his maturity are really short sighted. He's 21. Just because it made sense from a baseball ops perspective to stick Drew at SS and move X doesn't make it any easier for him to digest. Comparing him to Brock Holt jack of all trades and Mookie is also apple and oranges. 
 
He was the third best hitter on the team through april and may. He was a savant in the playoffs. He's had a terrible month where he's looked lost. Put him back at SS and see what happens. Are we losing anything but a better glove ? Ross and Drew are battling for whose the easier automatic out right now to be honest. 

 

[seantoo]

If a trip to AAA was what cured a slump they'd send everyone with an option left down to Pawtucket when they hit the skids. I'm not sure I see it paying a huge benefit for him. I mean, if you're really struggling to beat your friend at chess, does it help to just play a weaker player until you win a few games and build your confidence up? Maybe it wouldn't hurt, but I don't see it being that big of a help either. If he goes down I think the major reason is to shop/test Middlebrooks on a daily basis. We either see if he's coming around and looks like the 3B of the future or we find a good trade partner for him. 

It appears nearly everyone here is over reacting. Nearly all rookies struggle with the exceptions such as Mike Trout, Doc Gooden and Fernando V. proving the rule. Does it suck to watch the offense right now and make us all want to be Monday morning quarterbacks and pop pyschologist,?  Sure I get that but everyone should acknowledge that rookies usually do not do that well their first year, or two in most cases. Just look at the rookie of the year winners and how perfectly ordinary their stats are alot of the years or at least the runner up. 
Growing pains when you commit to a youth movement is a necessary part, even if it sucks to watch, of their development.

 

[Plympton91]

Bogaerts had a 1000 OPS for the first 6 games he played at 3B. Are the people pushing this idiocy prepared to address that clear contradiction of their point?

The other thing is the most important thing for this team is to let Drew build on last night and hitting well in order to maximize the return they can get for him on July 31. Work on any psychogical issues, of which I don't think any exist mind you, with Bogaerts after that.

 

[BosRedSox5]

 
If you read the original post quickly, it's seems like you're saying that they would find a trading partner for Bogaerts, not Middlebrooks.

 
Ooooh, that makes more sense, but I reckon you'd need to be reading it awfully quickly. 

To be clear, you're right. At no time was I advocating the trade of X.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

 If he goes down I think the major reason is to shop/test Middlebrooks on a daily basis. We either see if he's coming around and looks like the 3B of the future or we find a good trade partner for him. 
 

 
I absolutely read that as as referencing Bogaerts.
 
I hereby degurgitate.

 

[curly2]

Growing pains when you commit to a youth movement is a necessary part, even if it sucks to watch, of their development.

 
There are growing pains and then there's 9-for-99 with no signs at all of coming out of it. I just have to think this is hurting him, and that two weeks in the minors to find his stroke again would help him.
 
Send him down. Get him hitting again. Bring him back.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
There are growing pains and then there's 9-for-99 with no signs at all of coming out of it. I just have to think this is hurting him, and that two weeks in the minors to find his stroke again would help him.
 
Send him down. Get him hitting again. Bring him back.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=12161&position=3B/SS#pfxpitchvalues

Check out how he fares against different pitch types. Major league sliders have been devastating. He's not going to get any reps on those against minor league pitching.

 

[Super Nomario]

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=12161&position=3B/SS#pfxpitchvalues

Check out how he fares against different pitch types. Major league sliders have been devastating. He's not going to get any reps on those against minor league pitching.

He only had 60 games in AAA before he was called up last year - maybe the IL just never got the book that he can't handle sliders.

 

[curly2]

But the thing is, he's so screwed up right now he can't hit ANYTHING. None of his outs tonight came on a slider.

 

[Doctor G]

I hope he doesn't pick up a bat between Sunday and  Friday. I'd prefer he just rests and gives his head a break. the extra work in the cage is not making  X any stronger. Right now he looks like he's running on fumes. 

 

[TheoShmeo]

Entering Saturday's game, Bogaerts had nine hits in his past 100 at-bats for a .090 average with 31 strikeouts. On June 3, Bogaerts was hitting .304 after going 2-for-4 with a homer against the Indians. After going 0-for-4 Friday against the Astros, he was hitting .234 and has hit one homer since the June 3 game.
 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20140712&content_id=84371924&notebook_id=84374130&vkey=notebook_bos&c_id=bos
 
Pardon the somewhat dated link.
 
Now that we're at the break, would it make sense to send Bogaerts down to Pawtucket for a short period to let him get himself together out of the limelight?  Tell him it's truly temporary and designed to give him a time out to work on his offense with a little less pressure. 
 
Obvious pros: (1) He's not hitting right now, (2) he looks way out of sorts at the plate in that he's swinging at bad pitches, trying to pull everything and otherwise, and (3) digging out of a slump with the whole world watching is probably quite difficult.
 
Obvious cons: (1) The Sox are probably not in contention so what's the harm in letting Bogie work his way out? (2) they already moved him off his position so why deal another blow to his confidence? and (3) there may be a value in the long run in working his way out of his hitting hell at the major league level.
 
I suspect most people would opt to letting Bogaerts continue in Boston but am curious to learn if that's correct.  

 

[Stitch01]

Probably would vote to keep him here, but could be very wrong, seems like a real tough one to judge from the outside.