Lugo vs. Lowrie
by Toe Nash on Feb 27, 2009 11:17 AM EST
Email
PrintCross-posted from my blog (Giving 110 Percent):
Word from the Red Sox camp is pointing to it being Julio Lugo's shortstop job to lose. The idea is that he can maybe build some trade value if he played well over the first few months, and then Jed Lowrie can take over. Oh, and there's some nonsense about him adding 10 pounds of muscle which we hear in Spring Training about every player trying to make a comeback. Plus there are still people who think he plays better defense than Lowrie.
Starting Lugo at short for even the first week of the season would be a mistake. He hasn't hit since the all-star break in 2006 and he has made way too many errors, even if he gets to more balls than Lowrie. Lowrie is being completely underrated by lots of writers. He was a league-average shortstop in 2008 with a broken wrist that sapped his power, got worse as the season went on, and made him a terrible hitter against right-handers (when his minor-league splits were about even). Playing Lugo while Lowrie sits on the bench for a month or two could easily cost the Red Sox a win or two in a playoff race where they don't have that margin of error.
Last year, one of the two major things (along with leaving a hurt Josh Beckett in too long in Game 2 of the ALCS) that cost the Red Sox the World Series was bringing Clay Buchholz back for 8 more starts after demoting him when he was pitching poorly. In those extra starts, he had an 8.29 ERA and the team went 1-7, which likely made the difference in the division and thus home field advantage against the Rays. This year, starting Lugo over the superior Jed Lowrie might be a similar mistake.
67 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Disagree about Clay
But you’re very much right on Lugo. I’d hate to see him starting. Even Coco, who’s a far better player than Lugo, didn’t start last year. And Ells sucked for the better part of the season.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
Agreed about Buchholz
How much did 8 starts in the regular season affect the team, when they finished 1 game away from the WS? You can fault Tito for leaving Beckett in too long in Game 2. But, mostly, the Sox’ injuries caught up to them.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Feb 27, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
They went 1-7 in those starts and the team lost the division by 2 games. Replace that with a .500 pitcher and they win the division and have home-field advantage against the Rays, and then that is a whole different series given how the Sox play at home.
The problem is that this year both the Yankees and Rays are going to be very good and there are only two playoff spots to go around. Just a game or two could cost them a playoff spot.
What .500 pitcher would you have replaced Buchholz with?
Colon got hurt. Bowden wasn’t ready. Lester was the only Sox starter who didn’t spend time on the DL last year. Even Buchholz was hurt last year.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Feb 27, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
Not to mention...
…the Sox lost two of three games at Fenway in the ALCS. If they win either game 3 or game 4, they win the series.
Sure, but it’s a completely different series psychologically if they have home-field advantage. It would certainly have helped.
It’s also a completely different series psychologically if they don’t blow the first two games at home to force them to play three straight elimination games.
It’s also a completely different series psychologically if Beckett, Drew, and Lowrie aren’t playing hurt.
It’s also a completely different series psychologically if Theo never trades Manny.
It’s also a completely different series psychologically if something else that didn’t happen.
So about half the content on every sports blog is worthless if you don’t talk about how the past might have been different had the teams and players done different things.
Yes. If half the content on every sports blog comes down to reductive and faulty assumptions about psychology, then yes, it’s absolutely worthless.
Your post assumes as fact that the Sox would have made the Series had Buch not gotten those starts and Beckett not been left in too long in game 2. But what if someone else got the starts instead of Buch? How do you know the replacement would have been better? And what if Beckett got pulled earlier in game 2? How do you know the bullpen wouldn’t have blown the game anyway? You don’t know about the psychology of the situation then. Yeah, it could be better if Buch’s replacement is better or if the bullpen holds the lead in game 2, but it could also be worse if they blow it.
You want to deal in counterfactuals, fine. But let’s deal in probabilities, not faulty psychological assumptions. It’s probable that the Sox would have won more games with someone else starting instead of Buch, but that’s not guaranteed, it’s not what cost them the division, and it’s not what cost them the pennant. You could just as easily point to the three games — two at home — they blew down the stretch against Tampa in which they led; win those three — or even two of the three — and they win the division and have home field advantage in the LCS. But the fact is that they blew two of three at home in the LCS and two of three at home against the Rays in September, so it doesn’t seem like home field advantage was much of an advantage.
I happen to agree with you that Lowrie should play and Lugo should be relegated to being a grossly overpaid utility infielder. But that’s based on looking at their numbers and career trajectories. Based on the numbers, they were about even last year, when Lugo missed much of the year to injury and Lowrie played hurt all year. That tells me that Lowrie’s numbers should have been much better, and he’s clearly improving while Lugo’s been in decline for years. But what if Lugo hits .500 this spring with the kind of power he used to have in Tampa and Lowrie can barely get the ball out of the infield? Do you want to park Lugo just because Lowrie is the better long-term bet? How many games would that cost the Sox this year?
You’re overreacting a little.
My points are these regarding last year (I thought they were clear, but I guess not):
-Buchholz was bad in his return. He shouldn’t have come back and they should have found someone who gives them a better chance to win those games, which shouldn’t have been difficult.
-They should have taken Beckett out sooner in game 2. You can’t say for sure that the Sox would have won that game, but the bullpen didn’t allow any runs until the 11th and the Sox came back and lost by one, so you have to think they have a good shot.
Even though I said these two things “cost them the division / World Series” it should be fairly obvious that I know that changing an event in the past doesn’t mean that every other succeeding event will follow the same way it did. Saying that home-field advantage wouldn’t have helped is just as faulty as you seem to think my statement about the psychology of the series is.
Seems like you’re unnecessarily nitpicking a fairly small point of my post.
If Lugo looks much, much better than Lowrie this spring, then sure, he should play until he proves he shouldn’t. I just don’t see any indication that is likely. I trust the Sox to make the right decision eventually, but the talk about Lugo building up trade value seems misguided.
Good points.
But retrospect is 20/20 (Cliche as F**, I know).
Developing Buch was (and still is) more valuable than a few wins in one year. We had a better chance to win those Buch games if we had played someone else, but if Buch had found “it” it would have added a bunch of wins. Tough call at the time for sure.
Masterson was already in the rotation and doing fine; they moved him to the pen to make room for Buchholz. They also acquired Byrd for really cheap in August. Either would have been a better choice.
Your perspective is a bit skewed
Masterson was always slated to be a reliever. He only started due to injuries, and was in the pen by the time Buchholz came off the DL.
Masterson is far better as a reliever. His overall ERA was about 1.30 lower out of the pen. Masterson’s ERA was climbing before he went in the pen. In his last 5 starts, he was 1-3 4.55 ERA 1.42 WHIP (with 16 BB in 29.2 IP). Out of the pen, Masterson was an asset last year. It’s doubtful he would have had as much affect if he stayed in the rotation.
As for Byrd, he was acquired August 12, two days after Buchholz made his last start. So, there’s no question the Sox viewed Byrd as a better option. Byrd took over Buchholz’s slot after he was acquired from Cleveland.
It is foolish to blame Buchholz’s starts for keeping the Sox out of the WS, especially since he wasn’t even on the playoff roster. Overall the Sox’ #5 starters and fill-ins—Buchholz, Masterson, Byrd, Colon, and Bowden—were 15-16. Rather than blaming one player, you should marvel at how well the Sox did last year with all their injuries. Only one starter threw 200+ innings (Lester) and only 2 made 30+ starts (Lester and Wakefield). Dice-K didn’t even average 6 innings a start, which put further pressure on the pen.
The pen solidified after Masterson left the rotation. Here’s how each of the Sox’ main relievers did after the ASB:
MDC – (34.2 IP) 1-0-2 1.82 ERA 0.92 WHIP
Paps – (28.2 IP) 2-1-13 2.20 ERA 0.94 WHIP
Oki – (23.2 IP) 0-1-0 2.28 ERA 0.76 WHIP
Masterson – (34.1 IP) 2-2-0 2.36 ERA 1.17 WHIP
J-Lo – (22.1 IP) 0-0-0 2.82 ERA 1.30 WHIP
The Sox made due with what they had. Buchholz’s struggles didn’t keep the Sox from the WS last year. Injuries were the problem.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Feb 27, 2009 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
I’m aware of all of this. I’m glad they made the playoffs considering their injuries. There was little simply little reason to bring back Buchholz when it was clear he wasn’t a good Major League pitcher from his first stint last year, is all. I think nearly any other option would have been better.
FWIW, I’m not sure that Masterson was “always planned” to be in the bullpen, since he was a starter in the minors and majors, and they have said they’re planning on working him as a starter this Spring. I still have faith he can be a good starter, though you’re correct that he did much better as a reliever — though not a whole lot better than any starter’s conversion to the pen can be expected to help.
I don’t think it’s “foolish” to think that they had a better chance to make the World Series if they had managed to secure home-field advantage in the regular season.
I'm not sure home field really matters in the playoffs
Masterson was used almost exclusively as a reliever early in his minor league career. Overall, he made 36 starts and 17 relief appearances in the minors.
This spring they’ll use him as a starter in the spring to stretch out his arm, but I’d be very surprised to see him start regularly this year. His GB/FB ratio was better out of the pen in the majors last year. Right now, his stuff is much better suited to being a reliever.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Feb 27, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
Bucholz was significantly worse than replacement level last year, so I’m sure we could have found someone who could contribute. We would have gained a few wins with almost any other player, but obviously no one knows how that would effect playoff performance.
Masterson was capped innings-wise, so he was slated for the pen. Also, he was beginning to slide as a starter. Colon, who pitched decently, got hurt. Bowden wasn’t ready. There really wasn’t anyone the Sox could use. Hansack, Pauley, and Zink weren’t that good. When the Sox acquired someone better (Byrd), Buchholz sat.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Feb 27, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
Obviously we don’t know how any of those guys would perform given innings, but there is a really good chance that all of them would have been better than Bucholz. Also, there was probably someone similar to Paul Byrd that was available sooner.
Hansack, Pauley and Zink couldn't be really better than Buch
He had a shitty season, but he’s still a very fine pitcher, so there was a chance he would have a ‘great’ game, like he almost had in Seattle (if I’m not wrong here). He always, and I mean ALWAYS will have more upside than any of those guys, and when there isn’t a much better option, stick with him while you can.
I also agree with Drugs on everything related to the pen, it was really much better with Masterson in it, and he was being hit when he went on to the pen.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 27, 2009 11:51 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed.
I would obviously rather have Buch than any of those other guys. But I was more responding to the hypothetical that if Tito had realized how badly Buch would pitch, there were available pitchers that could have pitched better than Buch. Developing Bucholz is a good thing, but last year it clearly cost us.
Now, I’ll also mention that Buch was pretty unlucky last year. His FIP, which is based solely on the things pitchers directly control (K, BB, HR), Buch was not that bad. He was actually slightly better than Tim Wakefield and Paul Byrd. FIP is not a perfect stat, but it does at least give us some hope for the guy.
Buch was unlucky, no doubt in my mind
His stuff should never be in question, that’s why it piss me off so much when I read people saying Masterson is better than Buchholz. He’s just not, Buch has terrific stuff and had a bad season. Shit happens, not all players are great every year. I wouldn’t be surprised to The Purple One (David ‘Prince’, that is) struggling this year.
Theo had no way to know how bad Buch would be.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 28, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Yup.
And Masterson was lucky. Their FIP’s are quite similar. No doubt that Buch has better stuff. Masterson will be a solid arm, but Buch could be very good. Either way, I think everyone here has a strong opinion one way or the other about these two guys and everyone has expressed it.
Yeah, agreed
Masterson has good stuff as well, but he’s the least likely of the 3 (Buch, Bowden and him) to have the best career. Just saying…
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Mar 1, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
and I’d take vanilla over chocolate. Tough call. (though I’d take Bowden over Masterson; higher ceiling)
As a starter, a reliever, or either?
I suspect Masterson can stick as a reliever, and they can figure out in a year or two which role will be better long-term.
I don't really care who plays SS
While I think Lowrie has more upside, I don’t hate Lugo. If he performs well, fine. If not, Lowrie will play. If both suck, the Sox are in trouble. The only position I’m worried about right now is catcher.
Too often fans worry, magnifying the importance of a single game in an 162-game season. The Sox will do what they have to do to fine tune the team over the course of the season. The FO, Manager, and coaches have a good track record. I’m not going to lose sleep right now.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
SS and CF both have questions
But I agree it’s nothing to get worried. Now our catchers suck. Corpse, Bard, Hansack, whatever… None of these guys are good or have any upside to be (maybe Bard, because he was good in the past).
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 27, 2009 11:53 PM EST up reply actions
I meant Kottaras
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 28, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
Lugo was not bad last year.
He wasn’t great, and he didn’t have a burst of RISP power like Lowrie did mid-season. But he did increase his walk rate and get on base at a .355 clip. Credit where it’s due.
Looking at 2009 projections on Fangraphs, Lowrie’s projected to have a slightly higher AVG and OBP and to slug over .400 (Lugo’s highest projected SLG is .370).
Also, with Lowell’s health concerns, it’s quite possible that Lowrie will spend a few weeks at 3B. There should be playing time for both, and neither should be cut. However, I hope that Lowrie isn’t automatically slotted into the Alex Cora role – provided that he’s hitting, he deserves a more equal platoon with Lugo.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Feb 27, 2009 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
Naw, he really was.
He had a .330 SLG last year. He couldn’t get the ball out of the infield most of the time. The OBP was nice, but was mostly predicated on a few lucky hits. In Julio Lugo’s last 1000+ PA’s, he’s hit 240 / 310 / 330 (roughly). That’s bad. He also made 16 errors last year in 80 games, which is pretty terrible even if he gets to more balls than Lowrie. And since most of them were throwing errors they are more harmful to the team (often costing an extra base). Lowrie made 2 errors at third and zero at short.
As I said in the post, I think projections are underrating Lowrie as they don’t take his injury into account.
So what do you propose to do with Lugo
and his $9 million yearly salary, both of which we have for another two years? Release him and eat the contract? Make him the best paid utility infielder in all of baseball?
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
The Red Sox can afford to bench him or deal him for pennies on the dollar if they need the roster spot. He has value as a baserunner and extra middle infielder, so he should be the backup this season. They just finished paying Renteria $11 million to go away, so they’ve done this kind of thing with bad contracts before. They just need to figure out that Lowrie is the better option.
The money is a sunk cost since the contract is guaranteed. It shouldn’t really be considered when they decide how much he should play.
Keep him.
Give him a chance in the spring. As you said above, he wasn’t the worst player in the league last year, so maybe he can be okay. My issue is that last year he had by far the highest BB% of his career, so it may not be sustainable. His power also fell off a cliff which is not a good sign. People are saying that his extra muscle might indicate that he is finally recovered from that “parasite” that made him lose all that weight a few years ago. Personally I think Lowrie is a better option, but there is no reason to get rid of Lugo.
Which do we need more: speed or power?
Clearly, the only real skill where Lugo outperforms Lowrie is in speed—he can clearly steal more bases than Lowrie can. Lowrie does a much better job of bringing runs in, which arguably will be the bigger need this year, and right now, is clearly the more versatile and useful defender.
So, I guess I’m trying to figure out why in the world the Sox would want to have Lugo as everyday SS and Lowrie as reserve infielder. I’d use Lowrie as the everyday SS, who moves around as needed to 2B or 3B, and then (and only then) let Lugo play.
None have much better, actually
It’s not like Lowrie was bombing pitches out of the park. He was/is better than Lugo, but let’s not get crazy on this.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 27, 2009 11:55 PM EST up reply actions
You're right: I asked the wrong question
The question should be: do we need a guy who will get on base more, or a guy who will do a better job of bringing others runners home?
Lowrie’s not a HR threat, but he was pretty good with XBHs and SFs last year. (Nearly 45% of Lowrie’s hits were doubles or more—for comparison, Pedroia only had 35%; and Lowrie had just one fewer SF than Pedroia in half as many games.) So he’ll drive in more runs, and probably score slightly fewer.
But right now, I think the issue of what the Sox needs from the SS isn’t OBP, it’s scoring runners ahead of them who get on board.
What the Red Sox need is to score runs.
So which scores more runs OBP or SLG? Strictly, OBP is more productive in scoring runs. However, last year Jed Lowrie had the higher wOBA, which wieghts each offensive event in terms of run production. This means, based on accurately weighting their OBP and SLG (and other events), Lowrie was better. Also, all of the available projection systems give Lowrie a significant edge in both OBP and SLG.
So the question is: What do the Sox need more, a good player or a bad one?
OBP should predict better with offensive performance than SLG
OBP should be directly correlated to runs scored; SLG is not as closely tied to RBI, because it doesn’t know anything (or care) about the runners ahead of the batter.
And OPS doesn’t really help as a predictor, either:
Casey: .773, 100 OPS+, 14 R, 17 RBI (200 AB)
Lowrie: .739, 90 OPS+, 34 R, 46 RBI (260 AB)
Lugo: .685, 78 OPS+, 27 R, 22 RBI, 1 HR (261 AB)
Uh
“OBP should be directly correlated to runs scored”
Lugo had .016 more points of OBP than Lowrie, but Lowrie had 7 more runs in one less at bat.
In re SLG, pop matters. I’ll sacrifice a little OBP for a line drive swing any day of the week.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
OBP correlates strongly with runs scored.
This is true over the long-term. In the short season that Lowrie had, he slugged remarkably with RISP. Hitting with RISP, let alone slugging, has never been shown to be a repeatable skill. We shouldn’t expect Lowrie to continue to drive in runs at the prolific pace he kept last year.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
Totally, that pace is unsustainable.
It’s highly unlikely our #8 hitter would drive in 100 over a full year. But I wouldn’t put 80 past him.
And sure, over the long-term, OBP correlates with runs scored (though whether or not you will actually score depends on whether the guys behind you have any pop). My point was that for our SSs last year, it didn’t.
What I don’t get is why everyone seems to think Lugo is some OB-machine. His career-OBP is .335. Over 9 seasons, his OBP has averaged .060 points over his AVG. Last year, it was .090, and it coincided with an inability to hit a line drive. Of those two things (drawing walks at a rate 50% above his career rate and an inability to make solid contact), I’d guess only one is an accurate reflection of his career trends.
I’m all for pretending Lugo is actually a good baseball player in order to get someone to eat his contract, but no way should he be our starting SS.
Lowrie is already a better hitter than Lugo ever has been, and for the next couple seasons he will be at least a comparable shortstop.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Not really what I meant.
I did not mean the OBP leads to more runs scored by the player (though it does). I meant that higher OBP leads to more runs scored by the team. This is what is evaluated in stats like wOBA, where each event (BB, 1b, 2b etc.) is weighted to the amount of runs it creates for the team. In this sense, Lowrie was better last year and is predicted to be better this year.
We really could care less how SLG and OBP correlate to an individual’s RBI and R totals.
Lowrie has less than a year of major league experience.
He could have a horrendous sophomore slump, or simply never show the promise that he displayed in the minors. You never know with young players. Think of the expectations around this time last year for Clay Buchholz – how did he pan out? My point is that Lowrie needs a couple more good years to prove himself.
I do think Lowrie will be better than Lugo, but you can’t blame the Sox for hedging by holding on to Lugo. They have $9 million reasons to give him a chance to perform.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
One thing to note so far . . .
Both of them are getting hits, but so far Lugo’s only gotten singles, while Lowrie’s getting the XBHs (double and triple).
Lugo vs. Lowrie
No way should Lugo start. Lowrie had 109 assists, 0 errors at shortstop. Lugo had 176 assists, 16 errors at shortstop. That’s a remarkable accomplishment for Lowrie, particularly from a rookie in the middle of a pennant race. Lowrie is a headier player than Lugo, who was tossed from a game, resulting in his replacement making a miscue that cost the Sox a win. He also failed to execute sacrifice bunts in critical back-to-back games. Even if Lugo has more range, it’s hard to overlook the difference in errors. The Red Sox pitching staff is so good that a premium should be placed on simply catching the ball. Lowrie doesn’t have to be any more than steady for the Sox to win.
Patrick Baynes
Scoreboard Classics
6741 Williams Road
Rome, New York 13440
1-866-607-0043
(315) 533-1113
e-mail: info@scoreboardclassics.com
Web site: http://www.scoreboardclassics.com
Scoreboard Classics - creators of vintage-style, wooden, hand-operated scoreboards! Are you old school?
by Scoreboard Classics on Mar 2, 2009 1:35 PM EST reply actions
While I disagree that errors are a good defensive measure,
Lowrie was better defensively last year by most measures. Fielding stats usually vary significantly from year to year, so 50 games at SS is probably not enough to make any conclusions about Lowrie’s fielding, but the data certainly suggests that Lowrie is a much better defender at this point; not to mention offensive player as well.
lowrie
i wish the lugo-dontrelle willis trade happened if willis can get comfidence he’d be an amazing edition
Only The Strong Survive
The consensus around here was that there is no place for Dontrelle on this team. His contract is terrible and the chance that he regains any kind productivity is slight. While Lugo can be useful when he sucks (as a benchplayer, super-sub, etc), an ineffective pitcher who cannot be sent to the minors causes more harm than good.
A coincidence?
According to the Herald, Lugo had food poisoning. Didn’t NG say he was going to be in Florida? Hmm …
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
The Dtrain
I could see dontrelle being succesful in boston if he could just stop getting DUIs and hyperextending his knee from dramatic leg kicks. And the lowrie lugo deal is good competition is what drives greatness, Lugo went to the school im playing at right now.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
