Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dan Marino Starting College For Developmentally Disabled

Offensive analysis: Marco Scutaro

 

Marco Scutaro probably has one of the easiest transitions to Fenway in recent memory for a few reasons

  • Although he was one of the earliest moves of the offseason, his signing was quickly overshadowed by the signings of John Lackey, Mike Cameron, and Adrian Beltre (and the drama that came with each of them)
  • He is expected to have a low-pressure spot in the lineup, being almost universally projected to be batting 9th
  • Red Sox fans of late have come to not expect a whole lot of production out of the shortstop position- in fact the rotating cast of shortstops from 2009 managed only a paltry line of .234/.297/.358, coupling that with defense ranging from pretty good to absolutely frightening. 

So really, Scutaro should be gliding in under the radar, and as long as he can perform around his career levels, the fans at Fenway should be happy to have him around.

That's where it gets interesting however, because last year, he did not perform to his career levels- rather than looking like someone who's been stuck as a utility guy, he played closer to all-star levels at shortstop, coupling solid defense with a very impressive bat for the position. 

No one seem quite sure how to view this- some people say it's an outlier lucky year and should be discarded, meanwhile others claim that it is due to a whole change in his approach at bat, and that similar results should be expected in 2010.  So, as we wait for pitchers and catchers to finally all show up in Florida, let's take a look at what we can expect from the guy everyone is hoping will stick as our only shortstop for the year.

Star-divide

 

First of all, since he appears to have revamped his plate approach for 2009, let's take a look at how his plate discipline numbers compare to his numbers the year before (which are much more in line with how he has performed through his career).

The first thing that jumps out is that while he did swing at a few less pitches out of the zone (12.3% as opposed to 15.4%), the most dramatic change in his discipline is actually swinging at pitches in the zone- he dropped from swinging at 63.4% of pitches in the zone in 2008 to only 55.5% in 2009.  This means that the largest difference here is not that he is seeing better when a pitch is going to be a strike, he has learned to be much more selective about which pitches in the zone are worth swinging it.

An expected result of this, which is evident in his numbers, is that he both walked and struck out more than in the past- don't worry though, while his strikeout numbers only went up a minimal amount (.5% difference, really negligible difference), his walk numbers went up from 9.6% to 13.2%- essentially in 2009 he walked 33 more times in only 88 more PAs than in 2008. 

Clearly, he has re-evaluated his offensive approach and is not just looking for strikes, but looking for pitches he can hit.  Not only does this result in improved batting stats, but brought him up to an impressive 4.06 pitches per plate appearance- not bad out of the number 9 hole.

 

Now to quickly address the luck issue- there are a few generally regarded indicators of batting luck- my favorites are BABIP and HR/FB, so let's look at those quickly.  His 2009 BABIP was, as might be expected, higher than his career numbers, but not by as much as some people would think- in fact it was only the second highest BABIP he has posted in his career, at .304 compared to his career average of .289- higher, but not unsustainably higher.  A good portion of that might in fact be because of his improved approach at the plate.

Now, while his HR/FB rate was above his 2008 numbers, they were actually exactly his career average at 5.5%- not too surprising really- while he did post a career high of home runs in 2009, it's not like he was exactly slugging them all the time (he had 12).  This is clearly not a factor.

So it is possible that luck factored into the slight increase in his BABIP, but really, it does not look like it was a measurably significant amount, and more likely the slight increase was because he was swinging at the strikes he could hit better.

Now that we've looked at those two points, lets delve into one more which I haven't seen anyone address so far- Marco Scutaro does not hit well playing on turf- his career OPS on turf is a full 41 points lower than his career average OPS (and it's not exactly a small sample size at 873 plate appearances).  This held true last year, even with his new approach- at home, he batted only .242/.353/.389, which makes his away splits of .322/.405/.429 all the more impressive.  While we shouldn't expect a line that high playing 81 games at Fenway instead of the Rogers Centre, it's not unreasonable to expect to see his offensive line actually increase coming to Fenway.

 

Here's his 2009 hitting chart from the Rogers Centre:

Capture_medium

As we can see, the actual dimensions of Fenway probably will not affect him much.  There are a few flyouts here that would turn into doubles against the monster and quite possibly a few home runs that would be turned into doubles, but no significant change.  He should be drastically hurt by the deeper right field as he hit nothing out of the park there.  His swing isn't made for Fenway in the same sense of someone like Cameron, but it certainly won't be hurt, and could boost his BA a couple of notches.

 

Some people see Scutaro regressing, and while it's possible that he won't perform completely up to his 2009 standards, most of his success seems extremely repeatable and I wouldn't be shocked to even see him outperform his 2009 self in moving away from the Rogers Centre.

Comment 134 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I think his AVG will be boosted by more than a couple of notches.

Oakland and Toronto are two of the parks that most suppress AVG. There’s actually plenty of reason to expect him to hit >.280 for the Sox.

by alskor on Feb 17, 2010 3:33 PM EST reply actions  

agreed.

I dont believe the wall will help him much, but the reduced foul area of Fenway will boost his average by a few points.

by mmmmm on Feb 18, 2010 12:13 AM EST up reply actions  

craig james forecasted with a obp of .347

but, that forecast was based on whatever craig uses to forecast – previous to our signing him.

i missed that point yesterday.

of course craig may have known something in advance.

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 8:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Nice post

I have to say that one of the most interesting things to me about this year is Scutaro. It is very rare that players of his age change their approach and improve (Dewey Evans comes to mind). Scutaro’s BB rates have jumped all around over the years, and his batted ball profile has a bit too. The plate discipline aspect is interesting, but I still think a case can be made that he has changed and a case can be made that last year was a fluctuation. I am curious because 1 year of data is not conclusive. Either way, we will see!

by Buzzy on Feb 17, 2010 4:29 PM EST reply actions  

A lot of the "jumping around" is b/c he rarely had a full time job and was jerked around a lot.

So he was getting inconsistent playing time and its often small samples that didnt get a chance to normalize. Lots of teams have liked him in the past but he for whatever reasons he rarely got a chance to play full time.

What interests me is his defense. Im sure he will hit for a higher AVG that most people think – they misunderstand his skill set. Im also fairly confident he can solidify some of his perceived gains in patience and approach. I think there’s a chance he’s a plus defender over there. If he is, we have a gigantic steal on our hands.

Best of all – his deal is so cheap that if he isnt what we thought he was we can easily ditch him, move him or use him as a super sub/bench guy.

by alskor on Feb 17, 2010 4:41 PM EST up reply actions  

with regard to BB rates

I don’t think I agree. In 2006 he had 423 PAs and a BB rate of 12%. In 2005, he had an identical # of PAs and a BB rate of 8.5 percent. Maybe that is not so weird, but it seems a tad unusual. But you are right, he never really had a full time gig till recently. I think the same fact makes me wonder how much of last year is the real Scutaro.

by Buzzy on Feb 17, 2010 4:46 PM EST up reply actions  

what confuses me about 2005-2006

is that his BB rates seem to have absolutely no correlation to his O-swing rates- he walked more in 2006 despite swinging at more pitches out of the zone. In any case, 2005, 2007, and 2008 are all pretty similar which makes me figure that’s about what he (has) been performing at. In fact, 2006 looks very odd in general for him.

by wolf9309 on Feb 17, 2010 4:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Look at more than just 2 years, though, and it seems a lot more normal.

2005: 8.5%
2006: 11.8%
2007: 9.2%
2008: 9.6%

2006 is just a little outlier. That sort of data blip is insignificant when it doesn’t come with any improving peripherals or has obvious luck signs (for instance, in 2006 Scutaro actually swung at more pitches, with the majority of the increase coming from pitches outside the zone. There’ was no reason for his BB% to go up).

It’s only when you see interesting changes that EXPLAIN the blips that they should be looked at as real improvements. Scutaro changed his approach, and so until I see otherwise, I see no reason to expect him to return to form and put up a .700 OPS. It’s possible he’ll regress (we saw that was true when Josh Reddick came up for a short stint and decided that a pitch that bounced was just as good as any other), but far less likely than it is for those 1-hit wonders you hear about all the time.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 17, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree

but in part I think one year of data, regardless of seeming explainable, is too little to know. I do hope he has changed for the better ;).

by Buzzy on Feb 17, 2010 5:05 PM EST up reply actions  

A season is a fairly sizable sample size when it comes to plate discipline.

Scutaro saw about 2700 pitches in ‘09. That’s not a small number.

Still, I can understand the concern.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 17, 2010 5:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Here's his 2006 game log

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=scutama01&t=b&year=2006

Notice how he played all over the field, sporadically, and how many times he was coming in as a sub or replaced early, getting <4 ABs a game. There was a quote from Youkilis a couple months back about how draining moving around is and how each position uses different muscles. Not to mention you can’t really prepare for the pitcher you’re facing since you don’t know where you’re playing or when.

Note too, that in 2006, when he was finally settled at one position (SS) from Aug 1st to Oct 1st and playing regularly he hit .303/.406/.451

by alskor on Feb 17, 2010 5:06 PM EST up reply actions  

It's also worth considering that Pinch Hitting is very hard.

So much so that some of the WAR crowd think that a career pinch hitter should have the loss from being effectively a DH entirely wiped away. Basically, that a player pinch hitting vs. a player of equal skill getting 4 ABs a game would wind up with as much as a 2 WAR difference over 600 ABs just by virtue of how difficult it is to come off the bench for 1 at bat.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 17, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Bingo.

Scutaro was a guy that teams always considered as being better than his performance… he just always got shafted come job time… perhaps because smart GMs like Beane saw how undervalued he was and stockpiled the depth with him.

by alskor on Feb 17, 2010 5:18 PM EST up reply actions  

'gotta concur with this

too many otherwise good hitters have really suck numbers as pinch hitters.

by mmmmm on Feb 18, 2010 12:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Indeed, there's no chance he ends up an albatross.

I’m amazed Theo go him for that much, but it sounds like he just wanted to win (turned down more money from Oakland), which is pretty surprising given he’s never made $2 mill in a season until now.

I guess to some people, they hear “5 million” and can’t imagine why a million this way or that way could really make a difference.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 17, 2010 4:49 PM EST up reply actions  

My theory is, he likes the East Coast better than the West Coast

He was seen around town in Oakland, always gracious and modest with the fans (and, I believe, his wife is quite beautiful, to boot, so reported). Yet I believe he did well in Toronto because the time zone, the games, were most often in the East Coast time zone, closer to Venezuela morning/evening. I believe he keeps in close contact with family in Venezuela.

A player feeling right usually plays better over the long season. I believe that is why he signed with Boston instead of the A’s. Winning, sure, but probably prefers the East Coast given offers reasonably close.

I don’t believe he will regress, just because of his approach and attitude to being a MLB player has matured well. As well, he looked up to Omar Vizquel, a fellow countryman, and if Omar told him he was proud of his work, rep’ing Venezuelan SS’s then he gained confidence and will continue to operate on a high plateau.

I wish him luck (except out here in Oakland!!)

Awaiting the start of the 2010 season!

by One won lost won on Feb 17, 2010 11:59 PM EST up reply actions  

The "close to home" thing makes a lot of sense.

In fact, I think I’ve heard that before. Thanks for shedding some more light.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 12:17 AM EST up reply actions  

"No chance"

seriously? There is zero chance that a career backup coming off of an outlier season could be an albatross?

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Feb 18, 2010 10:38 AM EST up reply actions  

I think he means in the sense that his contract isn't huge

An albatross is something like Vernon Wells- Scutaro would be an overpaid utility guy but not a ridiculous contract

by wolf9309 on Feb 18, 2010 10:42 AM EST up reply actions  

Do we believe that Henry will still open up the coffers

for a deadline deal, or are we now completely tied up?

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Feb 18, 2010 10:58 AM EST up reply actions  

This

He won’t make unreasonable deals (IE: Paying all of Manny’s money in 2008 to get ripped off by the Marlins), but if the difficulty in a fair prospect – ML player deadline deal is money, Henry will pay.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Exactly

I’m not saying Scutaro can’t be bad, but he’s not going to really hurt our ability to make moves, especially compared to the great mass of useless money on the Sox’ payroll this year.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions  

That's kind of the problem

Theo has never once been right about a shortstop, not even half-right. Every shortstop he touches turns into a nothing. When you keep throwing money at no production (ala renteria and lugo and the rest of the crew) and combine that with the other stupid moves (lowell’s albatross contract, the perpetual love affair with overpaying Varitek), you quickly find yourself in trouble.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Feb 18, 2010 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

Uh... when have we "found ourselves in trouble?"

Everything is going great… have we ever been constricted financially?

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions  

not past tense

Have we ever had as much invested in toxic contracts before? I don’t think we’re yet in really bad shape, but we have so many stupid deals on the club right now.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Feb 18, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions  

What's a stupid deal on the club right now?

Certainly not Scutaro.

The only one I can see is Mike Lowell.

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 3:01 PM EST up reply actions  

What's a stupid deal on the club right now?

lugio i believe is being paid by us

absolutely scutaro was a good value verses risk.

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 5:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Right. I'll give you Lugo, too

Further illustrates the point – its pretty clear that even with Lugo and Lowell being sunk costs that we werent at all restricted in going after free agents this offseason. We signed the best available player at SP, SS, 3B, and CF.

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 5:39 PM EST up reply actions  

no, it's ok

you can keep lugo.

ballhorn and lugo and sometimes manny were painfull for me to watch.

dumping lugo and losing $18m, was well worth it

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 9:08 PM EST up reply actions  

so what would you suggest?

that Theo stops getting shortstops? We’ll have a 4th outfielder on the field instead!

by wolf9309 on Feb 18, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions  

If theo's never going to be right about shortstops

Why keep throwing 6-12m at it?

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Feb 18, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions  

He was wrong about

Hanley, Sanchez (who was still a functional, average player who primarily was SS in the minors), Renteria, Gonzo, Lugo, even not flipping Lowrie when his value was high. The closest thing to acceptability was 248 Cabrera ABs.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Feb 18, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions  

Actually Gonzo

was everything we expected, so strike that from the list. It just wasn’t anything superfantastic.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Feb 18, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions  

he wasn't wrong about Hanley

he loved Hanley and said he wouldn’t have done that trade, but he wasn’t in charge when that happened.

by wolf9309 on Feb 18, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions  

I refuse to believe

The boss leaves for a month and everyone else in the organization totally changes their mind..

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Feb 18, 2010 11:52 AM EST up reply actions  

This

Theo was the boss. He’d kept Hanley on for three years as the top prospect in the organization and a highly-ranked prospect in the MLB. The fact that he leaves for a few minutes and THAT is when the deal gets done doesn’t seem to indicate that?

I know correlation does not always imply causation, but there’s a reason that fallacy came about: because often enough it does.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 12:01 PM EST up reply actions  

He was right about Nomar, Gonzo (who others have mentioned), and Hanley (again, see explanations)

He was wrong about Renteria, and Lugo. I’d say he’s still right about Lowrie because I don’t think we ever got any real significant trade offers involving just him, and to write him off already would be far too hasty. Obviously Lugo and Renteria were pretty big mistakes, but that’s why he’s not risking much at all in signing Scutaro. He’s not looking for a homerun like he was before, he’s going conservative.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 12:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Im not even willing to say he was "wrong" about Renteria

It just didn’t work out. Renteria provided plenty of value over the life of that contract.

Lugo… We were backed in a corner and he played well enough in the first year to take us to a title. I was optimistic about Lugo when we signed him… there was lots of reasons to think he would be better than he was.

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Makes you realize how much the Hanley trade cost us.

Even if it did arguably win us a championship (who knows what would have happened without Beckett and Lowell in ‘07?), it lead to us signing Lugo and resigning Lowell. That’s $60 million in albatross contracts by my estimation.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 3:29 PM EST up reply actions  

interesting

i have to wonder, in hindsight, if the hanley trade isn’t why he quit and then after, came back. i believe it was over some kind of disagreement that led theo to boogie.

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 5:25 PM EST up reply actions  

It was over his new contract...

They had a (bizarre) policy of not allowing club employees representation. So they essentially had an “arb hearing” for Theo and they argued his negatives while he argued his positives. The policy is long gone. He was also dissatisfied over the way Luchhino and Steinberg ran the Sox hype machine and felt it was preventing him from running the team the way he wanted.

Luchhino, under tremendous pressure for essentially running Theo out of town, pushed the Hanley trade through in desperation to deflect attention from himself – which it did.

You can read about this in the book “Feeding the Monster” fwiw.

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 5:33 PM EST up reply actions  

The part about the hype machine was big.

Theo was tired of rumors and leaks. He’s always said that the more you talk about a deal, the less likely it is to get done. Consider how silently John Lackey got signed this year. As much as I’m not a fan of the deal, that’s a ****ing masterwork by Theo to get it in under the radar.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions  

since nomar turned down $60m we haven't gotten it right

but our biggest mistake has been lack of patience.

lack of patience is a characteristic of a green, not so learned, confident, etc organization. cashman has been with the yankers for 13 years.
 
1) nomar was very good; he started to play money games, we dumped him.
2) cab did very good we didn’t resign
3) renteria sucked, traded him, but then he got real good
4) gonzo, very good, perhaps the best. we didn’t resign
5) lugo sucked big time, bad bad decision, but others may have been in on the decision. jwhII had him on a team or liked him. hell, he owns the club.
6) hanley, 3 times minor league top prospect for the sox. the $64, 000 question was: when does hanley mature enough to get to the biggies?
answer: 5 minutes after his plane landed in florida. hindsight, we should have waited.

despite all of this, we have won 2 ws, lucky?

 the harder they work the luckier they get.

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 5:51 PM EST up reply actions  

As far as 6 is concerned, that wasn't really a problem.

He was making a pretty standard progression through the minors. You ask Theo, and his answer would probably have been pretty spot on.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't consider 2 and 4 mistakes AT ALL

OCab didn’t look like he would be that good and wanted a lot of money. We made the right decision to sign Renteria for a little more instead. He was also a party animal if reports are to be believed and the Sox wanted to get away from that atmosphere… he never hit that well before arriving in Boston, either.

Alex Gonzalez = not very good. Not sure how you can call that a mistake at all. You really would have wanted us to give him that 3 year deal the Reds gave him?? That deal was a disaster and he was only healthy for one year of it. He’s tremendously overrated, too… his defense is good, not great and his bat is atrocious.

What the heck does Cashman have to do with this…? The guy who cut ties with Javier Vazquez after a bad month following Joe Torre running the poor kid into the ground?? THAT was a lack of patience and Im sure Cashman has kicked himself for that move all the time, wondering why he didn’t stick to his original assessment of the player.

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 6:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

A few other things:

(1) Nomar is one of my all-time favorite Sox players. But in 2004 (and beyond), he was damaged goods. Injuries killed his career. If the rumored deal (4/$60 mil) was true, it’s a great thing that he turned it down. He averaged 90 games a year in the 4 seasons after 2004.

(2) OC is an up-and-down player. If he’s so good, why did he play on 4 teams in 5 seasons (2005-2009)? Also, Theo got Lowrie and Ellsbury with the compensation picks for letting OC walk. I’d say the Sox won out in that exchange.

(3) So what if Baseball America named Hanley as the Sox’ top prospect three years in a row. Other top Sox’ prospects: Donnie Sadler, Brian Rose, Dernell Stenson (twice), Steve Lomasney, and Seung Song.

As for “when does hanley mature enough to get to the biggies,” he was a 21-year old Double-A SS his last year in the Sox’ system. That year, he hit .271 AVG/.335 OBP/.385 SLG/.720 OPS. I don’t think you can fault the Sox for not calling him up in 2005. Hanley tore up Single-A, looked good in his first small stint in Double-A, and then struggled in his first full season in Double-A (sound like any other top Sox prospect?). There were also questions about his work ethic.

despite all of this, we have won 2 ws, lucky?

 the harder they work the luckier they get.

Now that’s just silly. The Sox won in ‘04 because they dumped a crippled Nomar, and won in ’07, in large part, because of the Hanley trade. You can’t have it both ways.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Feb 18, 2010 8:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Yup.

I love Nomar still… talk of him retiring really brought it all back, too. That trade badly, badly needed to be made – and worked out fabulously. Dont forget he was an expiring deal. We got a lot for two months of Nomar…

On Hanley – in prospect circles he is often used now as the example of a kid who gets bored in the minors and plays up to the big lights and crowds of the majors… He was all tools and little skills. He was considered a massive underachiever

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 8:43 PM EST up reply actions  

i called it maturity

“He was all tools and little skills. He was considered a massive underachiever”

that’s a maturity issue

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 9:26 PM EST up reply actions  

One which Theo Epstien saw past.

I’m just saying, he’s been well-and-truly vindicated by just a few years of history.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 11:00 PM EST up reply actions  

you are typing too fast

the nomar & bay contract problems seem similar. both players had higher evaluations of themselves than the sox did.

initially, the sox probably offered both a 4/60 contract pending physicals. then the physicals found questions. the sox then renegotiated further based on the physical findings and reoffered.

nomar got mad and started dogging it (like man-child did). theo ran out of patience and rather then trying to renegotiate and work something out, he dumped him.

“but our biggest mistake has been lack of patience” was my point. it worked out like the sox felt it might and theo pulled off one of his greatest moves.

‘#2 i don’t know why oc was a man on the move. maybe oc wore girls underwear in the club houses. he may have shaved his legs, or peed in his pants. he was worth signing if at a good value. i have no idea what he requested maybe it was beyond value – hence, patience. no more negotiating. plus, as you mention, the draft picks. my argument may be weak.

‘#3 is rather written a little unclear, i don’t fully get your point

the blue box? are you high. we won because we dumped nomar? i must be missing your point. you are a much better writer than that mr drugs.

part b of blue box: you are correct, or rather i agree with you 100% that we won “in large part” because of the guys we got for hanley.
but did it absolutely have to be hanley & no-hitter sanchez and a bunch of others? i’m not sure you can call that a good trade.
maybe we could have made a better trade. but i believe they tired and undervalued hanley (patience)

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 10:05 PM EST up reply actions  

cashman exactly my point

“cashman has been with the yankers for 13 years.” he had the learning curve i think theo went through with the shortstops.

plus, i trust theo will become a better horse trader.

cash’s recent horses:
milkman for Javier Vazquez
long shots and prayers for ganderson
4 triple a pitchers, (none of these look very good know) for nady and marta

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 9:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Austin Jackson was OK, and everyone always leaves Arodys Vizcaino out of the Vazquez trade.

The guy was their #3 prospect by Baseball America’s standard, and had a low-90s fastball likely to end up at 95 with a plus curveball.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 11:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Not at that price, No.

He would be – in the absolute worst reasonable case that doesn’t involve death or loss of limbs – a good and slightly overpaid utility/super sub. He can play a number of positions well, has some speed and a decent bat for a UTIL guy even if he reverts completely to his pre-2009 self.

That’s the rub – even if he reverts completely to his pre-2009 self, he’s not overpaid at the contract we have him on. Incredibly little risk in this deal.

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions  

He's batting #9

As long as he plays defense and stays healthy he’ll make everyone here in Boston ecstatic.

by Push on Feb 17, 2010 4:52 PM EST reply actions  

We'll see if he bats #9.

If he keeps up a .380 OBP, he should bat ahead of Cameron and Beltre.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 17, 2010 5:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Eh...

Im ambivalent about that. Id kind of rather have his OBP in front of Ellsbury and the top of the order… and the only difference between 7, 8 and 9 is a few ABs… and Im not sure that even with that higher OBP I care enough to get him those few extra ABs over Cameron…

by alskor on Feb 17, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions  

potentially 162 ab's

i’m not buying into scutaro at the same high level the general monster is.

i hope i’m wrong and probably am.

craig james forecasts scutaro’s obp @ .347 and with 79 runs scored. i’m guessing 79 runs is something forecasted from the assumption he will in the bottom of the order.

we’ll see.

by Mick Lowe on Feb 17, 2010 6:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Even if he was .347

That’d be pretty damn good for a #9 guy. We’ve been dealing with the LugoTek group.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 17, 2010 6:59 PM EST up reply actions  

absolutely

all too good to be true – hence my show-me position.

the offense has the potential to be very pesky and to score runs at just under last years level, which, i think was the best in mlb

i’m really curious how stolen base’s will play out with this type of offense

by Mick Lowe on Feb 17, 2010 7:23 PM EST up reply actions  

The difference between hitting 7th and hitting 9th isnt 162 ABs

could be. if the #7 or the #8 makes the last out in everygame, the #9 comes up short 1 at bat per game times 162 games

but that’s not what i thought the comment said that i replied to. i thought it said something to the effect of what is the difference between lead off and either 7-9 in the order

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 6:00 PM EST up reply actions  

assuming every batting order spot has the same chance of ending the game

thats prolly a good assumption to start on. So every order spot would generate the last out for the team in 18 games (162/9). So the difference between 2 batting order spots would be 18 ABs over 162 games:
1-2 18 ABs
1-3 36 ABs
1-4 54 ABs
1-5 72 ABs
1-6 90 ABs
1-7 108 ABs
1-8 126 ABs
1-9 144 ABs

by German Red Sox Fan on Feb 19, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

fielding

The change from at least 81 games on turf to few games on turf is going to impact his play to some degree. Will this hopefully add to his defensive range?

by remylebeau on Feb 17, 2010 5:22 PM EST reply actions  

I would think so

I would also think that being surrounded by Beltre, Pedroia, and Ellsbury would take a bunch of the pressure off there.

by wolf9309 on Feb 17, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Stats

1997 – Age 21 – 492 PAs – 0.344 OBP – 0.764 OPS
1998 – Age 22 – 556 PAs – 0.379 OBP – 0.844 OPS
1999 – Age 23 – 539 PAs – 0.362 OBP – 0.747 OPS
2000 – Age 24 – 523 PAs – 0.378 OBP – 0.777 OPS
2001 – Age 25 – 575 PAs – 0.382 OBP – 0.815 OPS
2002 – Age 26 – 394 PAs – 0.375 OBP – 0.849 OPS
2003 – Age 27 – 296 PAs – 0.401 OBP – 0.921 OPS

Looks like a guy who just didn’t get a decent shot at starting until now

by BobZupcic on Feb 17, 2010 5:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Devil's Advocate... and a tangent!

I wonder how much improvement is mitigated by the fact that he’ll be 34 years old this season. Also not a positive – his most similar comp on BR.com is Johnny Berardino.

(Now the tangent)

Berardino probably doesn’t ring any bells, but he did get an MVP vote in 1946. And checking that out, I was impressed to find out that the Red Sox had 8 (count ’em, EIGHT) different players get MVP votes that year, including Teddy (who won). Sox placed in three of the top four finishers and five of the top 10.

I totally think that this is a sign for the 2010 Sox.

by AGuinness on Feb 17, 2010 7:30 PM EST reply actions  

Yay for history lesson.

As for being 34, I tend to think age should only be taken into consideration when A) considering a lengthy contract and B) it’s already showing its effect.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 17, 2010 7:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Yup

and he has way less wear and tear than a normal player that age

by alskor on Feb 17, 2010 10:38 PM EST up reply actions  

cool. old stuff

the reason the sox did so good was the yankers had no one play anywhere near as good, so the writers gave the sox a break.

check out how many mvp winners were from the ny cheaters in the 40’s thru 60’s.

joe d. won in 1947 (?) the runner up – s. splinter. ted only hit .406, otherwise he may have won 3 mvp’s rather than dimaggio. check who’s runnerup in two of jd’s 3 mvp’s. ted was blatantly cheated twice, at least.

so when simon & garfunkle ask where have you gone joe dimaggio – tell them he’s shining williams’ shoes

by Mick Lowe on Feb 17, 2010 9:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Teddy and Joe

That was in 1941 when Ted hit .401 and came in second, although the two were first and second in voting in 1947, too (with Joe also winning).

And by the way, that 1946 Red Sox team with eight players getting MVP votes finished FIRST in the league in fielding percentage. FIRST, I tells ya. This just can’t be coincidence.

by AGuinness on Feb 17, 2010 10:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Teddy Ballgame

Didnt Ted get ripped off one of the years he got the Triple Crown?

by Jason A on Feb 18, 2010 4:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Yup

To a Yankee no less.

Completely because the press hated Ted – which is understandable since he was pretty much a real a**hole.

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 5:03 PM EST up reply actions  

in addition

new york was home of the press/media of the day.

i’ve heard many new yorkers say that about the splinter (a**hole), but that is no where near the truth. he didn’t like the guys who dissed him, and the new york media did just that.

 he volunteered twice for military service during war time. how many day’s did dimagio serve? or how about the chump sportswriters from the news and times, post.

if you ever get a chance, go to tropicana field for a game vs the rays. they have a really cool memorial, museum to ted specific. the reason why? teddy retired to tampa and the people really liked him. they paid for it, the rays built it

 check it out – you will see truely how much the media can ruin your reputation.

by Mick Lowe on Feb 18, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions  

i’ve heard many new yorkers say that about the splinter (a**hole), but that is no where near the truth. he didn’t like the guys who dissed him, and the new york media did just that.

His relationship with the Boston media was even worse. Ted Williams was actually disliked around baseball sort of the way Barry Bonds was. There is a mountain of evidence that he was not a very nice guy. There is, as you say, a lot to admire about him despite that… but don’t be confused, Ted Williams was not a nice guy when he was playing.

I know he is now beloved around Boston, but this was not the case when he was playing, somewhat famously. This was not the media ruining his reputation. He disliked the fans.

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 7:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Also, Joe DiMaggio was in the Air Force (still a branch of the Army at the time)

Though he wasn’t a bad ass fighter pilot like Ted was – and Ted did serve twice (Korea).

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 7:03 PM EST up reply actions  

1947 and 1942

Ted got the Triple Crown twice, 47 and 42, and didn’t win the MVP in either year.

Lou Gerhig also didn’t win the MVP in his TC year of 1934 and Chuck Klein earned the same distinction in 1933 (a year when each league had a TC winner).

by AGuinness on Feb 18, 2010 9:05 PM EST up reply actions  

lol

can you imagine Pujols getting a Triple Crown and not winning the MVP?

In regards of Teddy Ballgame being an a..hole. The man didnt like the fact of being cheered when he was doing good and getting booed when he was in a slump. And considering his stats, Im sure there wasnt a lot of slumps. And he wasnt just talking about him being booed but he didnt like it when the fans/sportswriters would get on his teammates too. At least that is my theory on it.

by Jason A on Feb 19, 2010 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

I can understand not wanting to be booed when you typically produce like Williams did.

But some of the other guys on his team probably deserved a good booing. They were probably pretty bad. And the ballplayers are getting paid (though admittedly not nearly as much back in the day) to play a game while the fans are paying to watch them. They have the right to boo those guys who consistently fail to give them their money’s worth.

But there’s really no excuse for booing a guy like David Ortiz. The fact that even a very small minority of Red Sox fans did so still bothers me. Talk about how he needed to be moved down in the lineup or benched or cut entirely, fine, but don’t boo him.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 19, 2010 12:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree

and I think that is what Williams disliked about the Boston fans and the sportswriters. You could go 4-4 and then in your last ab K and get booed. Then the next game get booed while going 0-4 and then hit a HR in your last AB and get a standing ovation. I think Williams didnt like the extremes of the fans and sportwriters. I think Williams thought they all should get respect in the fact they were all going all out all of the time. Plus it always seemed to me that Williams was very loyal to his teammates. I think Nomar had the same problem with the Boston area. It def isnt the easiest place to play, I think it is easier now than it was in Williams era, in regards to the fans reactions to your play. Now it is less personal and more about business than in Williams era.

by Jason A on Feb 19, 2010 12:14 PM EST up reply actions  

There's not a lot of booing at Red Sox games anymore...

(Well, not at the Sox)

Only when Lugo would boot another easy grounder, or Manny dogged it to first in the middle of trade talks. Generally speaking, if you’re good to us, we’ll be good to you. Those few fans who booed Ortiz aside.

Guys like Ortiz can expect our loyalty because they’ve been the guys on this team for years, and they’ve done so in a gracious manner. Guys like Manny (constant “trade me” talks, will he or won’t he show up at camp, etc.) and even now Papelbon (as amicable as he has been lately, the Yankee talk earlier isn’t exactly how you endear yourself) are gonna have to keep performing.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 19, 2010 12:37 PM EST up reply actions  

No matter what he beats the alternatives

Trade Beckett before the deadline
I'm taking suggestions from myself on the 2010 rally song.
Re-sign Victor Martinez, the future DH of the Boston Red Sox

by gizmosandy on Feb 17, 2010 8:24 PM EST reply actions  

Scutaro is a career below average hitter who had a career year last year in his 34 year old season. UZR, even with its wild swings from year to year, put him at a slightly below average fielder at SS. Gonzalez was a pretty terrible hitter, but at least he was solid defensively. Scutaro is just average/below-average all around, don’t get too excited over him.

by Wraithpk on Feb 17, 2010 8:39 PM EST reply actions  

Despite playing in 400 less games, Scutaro has accumulated nearly the same amount of WAR in his career as Alex Gonzalez

Alex Gonzalez is not a good ballplayer and Scutaro is clearly a class above him. In fact, each time we acquired Gonzalez I would wager we would rather have taken Scutaro even at that time.

by alskor on Feb 17, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions  

2 other things-

One Scutaro plays a ton of positions (Gonzalez did not) which makes Scutaro all the more valuable. Second, in some sense we could say the same thing about Jeter-Jeter had a career fielding year last year. Will it repeat? Doubt it (I also doubt at his age he will put up a 0.390 wOBA again).

by Buzzy on Feb 18, 2010 10:52 AM EST up reply actions  

I’m not saying Scutaro isn’t better than Gonzalez, just that he’s not a very good player in general, neither of them are, but Scutaro is at least average offensively.

Jeter’s career average wRC+ is 131 over 15 years of playing, so while I wouldn’t expect another 142 either, he’s shown that it wasn’t a fluke year, he really is a good hitter capable of doing that when he has a good year. Scutaro’s average wRC+ over his career had been 90 before last year, and then he put up a 117. It means one of two things: either he was doing HGH, or the season is a fluke.

by Wraithpk on Feb 18, 2010 5:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Totally agree; HGH helps you to increase your walks.

"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur

by radiohix on Feb 18, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions  

yes but

you are ignoring the main point-you can say the same about Jeter defensively. Jeter has always been a crappy SS except last year (at 35). Unless you think SSs get better at 35, then it’s either a fluke or he did something unusual to improve. It is the same story with Scutaro. I agree with you that I don’t expect a year like last year, but it is possible his approach has changed just like it is possible that Jeter’s “positioning” has been modified. We will see this year.

Jeter was a 3.7 WAR player for the 2 previous years before 09. He is projected to be 3.5 by CHONE in 10 and a 5 by the fans. That averages to 4.25. Scutaro’s projected averages 2.8 (actually CHONE has the difference only as 1/2 a win). Not a big difference. Obviously projections think Jeter’s year in 09 was way more of an outlier than Scutaro’s. HGH?

by Buzzy on Feb 18, 2010 8:55 PM EST up reply actions  

A player is playing blindfolded one year.

The next year, he takes off the blindfold and does much better.

The question in the 3rd year isn’t “Well, was last year a fluke”, it’s “Will he put the blindfold back on?”

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 11:16 PM EST up reply actions  

yes well

the point of the post was to suggest that your reading of Scutaro’s 09 is incorrect and that it was not an outlier year but the product of a change in approach (decreased O-swing, more pitches per plate app, increased BB rate). No one is getting too excited but it will be interesting to see if last year was a fluke or not…

by Buzzy on Feb 17, 2010 9:15 PM EST reply actions  

we’ll see, but I wouldn’t rely on him to be great for you guys. He’s just not a very good player, and I don’t believe a sudden improvement in a player when he’s that old, it just doesn’t happen outside of PED’s.

by Wraithpk on Feb 18, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions  

I think you're mistaking an improvement in surface numbers with an improvement in skills

The skills Sctuaro showed in 09 arent that far off his career norms. On top of that, he got very lucky and that made his surface numbers look much better than any Red Sox fan is actually predicting for 2010 (as you can see on this page).

He also hasn’t played full time very much, as discussed above.

There is also the bump he should get from moving to Fenway from two parks that kill offense and AVG.

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 5:18 PM EST up reply actions  

So...

Take out the luck factor.

-If he reverts to the skills he showed pre-09 he’s still a pretty good player.
-If he solidifies any of those gains he’s an absolute steal.

But again… no one here is “rely[ing] on him to be great.”

by alskor on Feb 18, 2010 5:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly

Say he “regresses” to a 2.8 WAR player which is about the average between CHONE/FAN Ratings on fangraphs.

Gonzalez posted a 0.5 WAR in 09 and projects to about a 0.7 in 2010
Green was a 0.4 WAR player in 09 and projects to a 0.0 player in 2010

The Red Sox have a plethora of SS guys in the minors but they are all at least 2 years away if not more

So you sign a guy that will get you 2+ wins of improvement for 2 years until your prospects are ready

by BobZupcic on Feb 18, 2010 7:04 PM EST up reply actions  

on the plus side he has a healthy wrist

Trade Beckett before the deadline
I'm taking suggestions from myself on the 2010 rally song.
Re-sign Victor Martinez, the future DH of the Boston Red Sox

by gizmosandy on Feb 17, 2010 9:26 PM EST reply actions  

for now

we’ll see how healthy he is in october… after all he IS a Red Sox shotstop

by wolf9309 on Feb 17, 2010 10:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Crashing the party here

Sorry but I remain unconvinced. There are several warning flags I find distressing.

The change in approach talk I hope is true, but equally true appears to be the difference in how Scutaro was approached in 2009. Note how most of his damage was done against fastballs in 09. Hardly egregious by itself but what is there to note is the amount of fastballs he saw went up. In full-time play, the 65.4% fastballs he saw was the second-most in his career after 2006’s 67.3%. Next closest is a couple percentage points down. He also saw the least amount of pitches in the strike zone in his career (51.4%) and furthermore, he was starting off in advantageous counts more often than in the past (57% first-pitch strikes after a string of years around 60%).

So it’s starting to sound like he was walking more because people were throwing less pitches in the zone. And he hit better because he saw more fastballs over the plate. A repeat of this scenario in the AL East sounds unlikely. The onus is on the pitcher to adjust to the batter but the adjustments here don’t strike me as difficult.

Also of concern is the rise in BABIP despite the decrease in line drives (his first time below 20%) and the lack of power output despite an increase in flyballs. His .127 IsoP last year isn’t far off his .119 career mark but his 43.6% flyball rate is well above his career 38.2%. Without the power to back it up, sacrificing line drives for flyballs is no way to enter your mid-30s.

I just don’t see those 2009 numbers as sustainable and remain hopeful someone better and younger will by manning the position come 2010.

by eriatarka on Feb 17, 2010 11:48 PM EST reply actions  

Hm

You make a very legitimate point. Certainly something to keep an eye on as the year goes along.

What I did just find out, and what is VERY interesting, is that Scutaro had a remarkably low BABIP for line drives in years past, ranging from something like .050 to .150 below a typical .750 major league average, and that last year he was 5% over.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Feb 18, 2010 12:15 AM EST up reply actions  

"A repeat of this scenario in the AL East sounds unlikely."

Last I checked, Scutaro was playing with the Blue Jays last season, which I’m pretty sure is in the AL East.

by lone1c on Feb 18, 2010 7:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Not only that...

…but I think I’d rather hit in the AL East and against (Doc-less) Blue Jay pitching than I would hit in the AL East and against Red Sox pitching.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Feb 18, 2010 8:09 AM EST up reply actions  

I didn't deny that

But do you believe AL East pitching staffs are going to let him get away with that a second time?

Pitch selection and command in the strikezone are things only the pitcher controls. Not Scutaro. Scouting reports will pick up on 2009’s trends and staffs will adjust accordingly.

by eriatarka on Feb 18, 2010 9:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Teams can't work around him this year

Even if there’s some small amount of regression, the course correction can’t be that large. If a large part of the change is a result of better pitch selection, then a steady diet of off-speed pitches will only serve to up the opposing pitchers’ work loads, and since he’ll be hitting directly in front of Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Youkilis, pitchers will prefer to get him out rather than provide another baserunner for the top of the Sox order.

by lone1c on Feb 18, 2010 9:33 AM EST up reply actions  

eriatarka's

point is a good one-while you can interpret the data the way wolf does, you can also interpret it in a completely different way. One year of data is too little (even if it is a full year). For example, it may well be that Scutaro was lucky in the first pitch balls that he saw, and this was not a hitting or pitching approach, but random variation. The point is we will see soon enough, but I for one think it would be overly optimistic to assume that he, at his age, is going to reproduce what he did last year. I also think he does not have to-and league average hitter playing league average SS is a 3 WAR player.

by Buzzy on Feb 18, 2010 10:05 AM EST up reply actions  

yes but also notice

that while he WAS best against fastballs, in 2009, he was better against every other type of pitch as well (apart from cutters, which were pretty rare), which speaks to me more of as an approach at the plate difference- he is swinging at the pitches he can hit. I think the increased number of fastballs can likely be attributed to the fact that he is getting deeper into counts so pitchers need to get strikes on him more frequently.

The line drive drop is slightly concerning, although really his 2009 numbers are much more in line with his career numbers than his 2008 numbers. It really was a more dramatic tradeoff of ground balls for fly balls- though this still isn’t a great thing, it’s better than a LD for FB tradeoff

by wolf9309 on Feb 18, 2010 9:36 AM EST up reply actions  

I HOPE YOU M@#$%ER%@#$ERS ARE READY FOR THE BOOT SCOOTIN' BOOGIE!

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Feb 18, 2010 8:11 AM EST reply actions  

Awesome analysis Wolfie

I’ll add this, and to illustrate my point, I’ll use the example of 2 SS playing in the AL East: Bartlett and Scutaro: There’s 2 principals when we analyze the offensive production of a player and the probability of a repeat:
- The regression to the mean
- The process (Not the Dayton Moore process of course)
Scutaro process is as solid as they come:
He had the second lowest O-swing in the league, The 3rd lowest overall swing rate (behind Abreu and Castillo) and tied Castillo for the highest contact rate in the league, So to resume, he has an elite strike zone judgment coupled with an elite contact skills: That’s a very healthy combination which lead me to think that with this solid approach (process) he could replicate those numbers (remember that he suffered a micro fracture in the last 2 months of the season that ‘hurt’ his overall production by posting a .351 and .285 wOBA in Aug and Sep-Oct).
When it comes to the regression to the mean, I think Jason Bartlett is the poster boy, a sky rocking BABIP (.364 compared to his career avg .327) although his contact rate is down (82.4% compared to his career avg 85%). This guy is going to come back to earth!
But Scutaro CAN keep up with the same production and considering that his skill set (good speed, high contact rate and above avg fielding) isn’t the kind that deteriorate rapidly.

"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur

by radiohix on Feb 18, 2010 2:14 PM EST reply actions  

Another thing about Scutaro approach at the plate

His plan is simple: He wants to get a walk (lazy!) look at those 2 awesome graphs from Dave Allen:
Note that 25% and 50% means the odds of the batter swinging

As you can see, when Scutaro has no strikes against him, he basically refuses to swing (and ‘risking’ to put the ball in play and maybe making an out)
With one strike his K zone remains smaller than the avg hitter because he knows that his contact skills will allow him to not strike out swinging if it goes for strike 2 and he has to continue the AB with X-2 count against him. He’s willing to expand it in that case.
Look at his contact graph: Talk about grinding an AB!

Sometimes with 0 strikes against him, he’s willing to make an exception though.

"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur

by radiohix on Feb 19, 2010 3:23 PM EST reply actions  

Nice job, Hix

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Feb 19, 2010 5:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Over the Monster, an SB Nation community that delivers news and analysis while encouraging discussion regarding everything Boston Red Sox. OTM was founded Feb. 22, 2005.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Jddrew_small
OTM Fantasy Baseball-post 2

Recent FanPosts

School-of-adventure_print_small
What might have been continued: 2010-2011 offseason
Small
The Red Sox and the luxury tax
Silence_small
Alfredo Aceves and Red Sox agree at $1.2 million
Danny_and_shuttle_small
Matt Garza Is Fair Compensation For Theo Epstein
School-of-adventure_print_small
What might have been: A revisionist look to the 2009-2010 offseason.
School-of-adventure_print_small
Dustin Moseley
Old-patriots-logo_small
Free Agent SPs Not Named Oswalt, Jackson
Small
Attempt at objectivity - position players
Small
An interesting note on Aviles

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Red_seat_small Ben Buchanan

Twitter_eb_2_small Marc Normandin

Authors

Lowrie__1234972975_0178-1_small lone1c

Jddrew_small gizmosandy

Pedoria1_small Mattsullivan

Baghead-1_small Matthew Kory

Photo__2__small BrendanOToole

Cee_small Cee Angi

Retired Numbers

20136_562469370037_32603605_33253497_5601129_n_small Randy Booth

Master_shake_small Allen Chace

Rollie_fingers_small SoxDevil

Rorscach_small 0157H7

Red_sox_logo_small Logan Lietz

Photo_small wolf9309