Mike Aviles And Nick Punto Can Be The Answer At Short For The Red Sox
The Red Sox sent Marco Scutaro to the Rockies in exchange for pitcher Clayton Mortensen on Saturday night. This was a move meant to open up some financial flexibility for Boston, possibly to sign someone like Roy Oswalt to fill one of the rotation's remaining contested spots. Mortensen might be something, but he also might be nothing -- his path isn't all too clear at this point.
All of that -- Mortensen's future, what the Red Sox do with the freed up money -- is something we'll see play out, and likely soon. It's not entirely clear how either of those things will work out just yet, even if we can guess about them.
What is clear is who the Red Sox still have to play shortstop for them, now that both Scutaro and Jed Lowrie have been shipped off to the National League. The Red Sox still have Mike Aviles, acquired from the Royals for Yamaico Navarro at the 2011 trade deadline, and Nick Punto, signed immediately after Lowrie was dealt, available to play shortstop.
Punto is a fine defensive shortstop. Baseball Prospectus's Fielding Runs Above Average lists him as being worth about a win on defense over the last few years, despite not playing full time over those seasons. Baseball-Reference's defensive wins above replacement say the same thing, and UZR goes as far to say as he's been worth two wins over the same stretch. None of those metrics are gospel -- we haven't figured defense out to that degree -- but it's probably a good sign when the numbers agree with the conventional wisdom surrounding Punto's glove work.
What Punto is not is a fine hitter. He's not awful, by any means, assuming he sticks at shortstop. He's hit .254/.340/.335 since 2008 (1,271 plate appearances); worse than the average shortstop, but not by a ton. True Average, an all-encompassing offensive statistic that accounts for park, league difficulty, and basically any other context you can think of, lists Punto at .247 over the last four years. Shortstops were at .253 last year as a unit, meaning Punto isn't that far off from that level, and has a glove to make up for the difference.
This is why, even with the FRAA figures that are less optimistic than, say, UZR, Punto comes out to something like a two-win player over the course of 600 plate appearances (he has 4.6 WARP over his last 1,271 PA). While WARP (or any wins above replacement stat) isn't predictive, the rate at which Punto's produced at over the last four years is that of, for all intents and purposes, an average player. Scutaro has been better than that by about a win per year, assuming the same kind of usage for both players, but Punto isn't in this alone at short.
Aviles doesn't have the glove of Punto, but he can hit. He is a career .288/.318/.419 hitter over 1,325 plate appearances, with all but the last 107 of those coming in a pitcher-friendly environment. His line is also dragged down a bit by playing through an elbow injury that eventually required Tommy John surgery in 2009, but more importantly, facing right-handers has caused some trouble for him, too: he has a career line of .283/.307/.396 against righties, whereas he has performed much better against southpaws (.299/.344/.470, and a multi-year TAv of .302).
Punto has the glove, and a bat best described as tolerable. Aviles can mash lefties, but owns a glove you could equate with the bat of Punto. Neither of these players is in danger of replacing Scutaro's production by themselves, but put together in one platoon or another -- whether by handedness of the opposing pitcher or the tendencies of Boston's own hurlers -- and the Red Sox have themselves something here that can work as a facsimile of Scutaro's expected 2012 contributions.
Punto's glove makes him valuable at short when one of the Red Sox more contact-oriented pitchers is on the mound. Clay Buchholz, Alfredo Aceves, Aaron Cook assuming he makes the team -- pitchers like that aren't going to miss a lot of bats, but will induce grounders and balls in play to get their outs. Punto gives those pitchers a better chance of success than they would have without him, and on the side of the infield that will also likely feature the now below-average glove of Kevin Youkilis. Punto also has no discernible lefty or righty split -- he's a little better against southpaws, but the difference is barely noticeable, so he doesn't need to be lifted for a pinch-hitter in a game with a close lead where defense might be more appreciated than offense.
Aviles' bat and lefty-mashing tendencies make him a useful piece off the bench in the late innings, but also a capable option to man shortstop against the left-handed starters of the league. Against righties, he isn't great, but he's been better against them than Punto over the years, so he can hold his own if the Red Sox need offense more than defense late in a game started by Aviles. He's also the perfect kind of Fenway player, with more doubles and triples power than pure home run pop.
Both of these players represent tactical options for new manager Bobby Valentine. Put together, the Red Sox should be able to squeeze two or three wins out of the shortstop position, less, but not a whole lot less than they have the last few years when Scutaro and Lowrie took turns being productive or injured. Punto and Aviles, who have their own history of health issues, are likely to continue that particular Red Sox shortstop trend as well, but as both are nearly capable of holding this spot on their own, a short-term injury shouldn't be a season-changing issue.
The Red Sox might have downgraded slightly in their shortstop production by trading Scutaro, but Aviles and Punto combine to form something pretty close to what Scutaro would likely have done. If the Red Sox use the money freed up by the deal to add another quality starting pitcher, then the rotation, bullpen, and the organization's pitching depth will have improved, making the 2012 Red Sox a better team than they were before the Scutaro deal.
In the end, the chance to field a better team is what matters. Scutaro was useful and productive in his two years in town, but with the Red Sox clearly attempting to avoid the luxury tax as much as possible over the next two seasons, he and the money owed to him were trade-able. The inexpensive replacements on hand give the Red Sox the opportunity to improve not just a rotation that could use another arm, but the margins as well -- after 2011, we should all know how important squeezing an extra win or two out of the margins is.
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't like to see pictures of the Red Sox players in night games at Camden Yards
It’s too soon. I can’t go back there, figuratively.
The pictures are organized by date!
Also I try to take pictures only from the good moments in that series, in order to forget the rest.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
I was at that 2011 final game
so I agree with your comment!
by The Laser Show on Jan 23, 2012 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
Was there as well.
Easily the worst sports experience in my life. Yet, in a way, I’m happy I can say I was there.
do you have a true average endorsement deal or something?
I wish it was normalized around the average OBP instead of batting average. I have no idea, and don’t really much care what an average batting average is.
I guess my biggest question on topic is- now that our shortstop position is being handled by our two utility players, what do we have for depth? Brad Emaus, who is really only a second baseman? Is Nate Spears finally going to stick? I dunno, just infield depth is very important to me on a team with Youk at third.
Is Middlebrooks ready for the Majors?
Quantum Woodworking: Hand crafted pens, bottle stoppers, bowls and more.
Check out our blog
if he's doing well
he’s only faced AAA competition for 16 games, and did quite badly. If Youk goes down early, I don’t think Middlebrooks is ready yet.
Sure, he's probably not "ready."
But the point is you could do a lot worse once you get past Punto than to have Middelbrooks as the next option.
My first reaction was... no, not Middlebrooks.
Second reaction… yeah, probably true.
Although, I almost wonder whether you end up with Aviles at third, and a Punto/Iglesias tandem at SS.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Sure, let's just give outs away.
"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2012 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
You think Middlebrooks, who hasn't done anything at AAA yet...
… is a better solution than Iglesias, who has at least played at the MLB level already?
In this thread, that was what was being discussed.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Yes I do
because Iglesias has yet to do anything at AA, let alone Pawtucket.
"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2012 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
Youk's injuries tend to be more on the lines of wearing down over time, aren't they?
Accidents happen, of course, but I’d assume injuries later in the year for him if we’re going to worry about a when.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah I'd assume that as well
though he is coming off surgery- certainly minor surgery that by all accounts he’s all better from, but there’s some risk. I dunno, I was just excited to actually have some productive bench players for the first time in a while.
Couple of things
I didn’t realize liking a statistic meant that I get paid to endorse it. If only, yeah?
True Average isn’t based on the average batting average, just like Bill James secondary average wasn’t. It’s just a name. Weighted On Base Average also has the word average in it. It can be on a batting average scale without being batting average.
Also, the league OBP shifts over time. An average TAv is always .260, so different years can be compared to each other. i.e., the adjustment work has already been done for you. True Average also adjusts for park and league difficulty, which is a huge deal for me when you want to look at something other than a straight batting line.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
I wasn't being that serious there
just cuz every article you use it comes with the same explanation of it
Someone inevitably says "What is that?"
when I don’t. Plus, you never know who is new around these parts.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
wOBA is essentially the same as True Average, but normalized to league average OBP
and I also prefer it for that very reason, wolf. I see Punto as more of a backup with Aviles now being the primary shortstop. For all the doubt about Aviles’ glove at SS, he has a far better UZR than Punto and DRS likes him too. Punto can pick it at third though and I would guess that with Bard and Lester on the mound (our two top GB guys) Punto will get to play 3B as much as reasonably possible (with Youk DHing or resting on his way to 120-130 games total).
- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
http://www.rantsports.com/boston-red-sox/
by Mattsullivan on Jan 23, 2012 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, that's my typical favorite go-to
the advantage I see of true average over it is that wOBA (at fangraphs at least) isn’t park adjusted.
What I’ve heard about Aviles’ defense is that after going through Tommy John, he became a much more cautious defender, which hurt him. Still, he looked fine there in the little bit he played last year (very little bit), and it’ll be interesting to see. If he’s mentally recovered defensively, he could be a very effective shortstop.
Park and league adjusted, not just park.
That’s a big deal when comparing AL to NL players, as difficulty levels have a lot to do with performance.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
Here's the problem
How often do good platoon plans (this guy only against left starters this one against righties, or this guy with our ground ball starters this one with the fly ball starters) ever work out? They sound wonderful in theory but how often are they actually used? Is Valentine the sort of guy who is going to employ platoons? I felt Tito wasn’t really a guy who would do that either. If they aren’t platooned and he just goes with a single starter in an effort to keep lineup continuity, then what? Do they look even remotely as good as single entities as they do a platooned entity?
What happens if there is an injury? Youk, Pedroia, Gonzo, Sweeney all of these guys have injury histories, notably Youk’s well… everything and Sweeney’s knee. And those guys all impact our depth at SS.
As I see it, it’s unlikely a platoon is ever really worked out, and we have no depth if one was worked out and then had to be broken to cover for injuries.
I am Sandy's bitch.
Joseph Vincent Paterno 12/21/26 - 1/22/12 RIP Coach
Penn State Forever
Some teams employ them successfully
The Rays are basically masters at this kind of situational lineup building. Francona just seemed very platoon-averse during much of his time here, for both hitters and pitchers. McDonald oddities as well as Dan Wheeler’s situation last year are some recent examples. Valentine has more of history as being less of a plug-and-play manager than Tito, as he’s more willing to tinker with the lineups. All indications have been that he and Cherington are working closely together this off-season, too, so if Cherington’s plan is to platoon these two one way or another, it’s likely Valentine’s plan as well.
As for depth. Totally valid concern, but I think it might be less of one than the pitching depth considering the overall strength of the lineup versus the strength of the pitching. The lineup can afford to take a hit or two in terms of injuries. Too many injuries in the rotation or bullpen is much harder to overcome for this team.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
I guess we'll have to see how it works out with Valentine.
If he does enjoy the occasional platoon I have another to suggest for him. Crawford/McDonald.
I am Sandy's bitch.
Joseph Vincent Paterno 12/21/26 - 1/22/12 RIP Coach
Penn State Forever
142 million dollar platoon player
way to go Theo.
Why did Henry sign off on this again?
"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
I agree pitching is the bigger concern, however...
… at some point, we’re starting to thin our line up too. We had Reddick (less injury risk than Sweeney), and McDonald was supported by Aviles learning to play OF… now, we have Sweeney (hope he stays healthy) and McDonald (as Aviles is likely moving to some regular use at SS).
If we sign Oswalt, I think that’s the more important move… much like the NFL’s “Defense wins Championships,” I am a firm believer that in the MLB it’s all down to pitching. Our offense was ridiculous last year, so a downgrade doesn’t kill us, especially if we add pitching.
Though, I have a little nagging fear that this is just a true salary dump to get us under the luxury cap in 2012.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
+1
I get the sense that Valentine will be a very platoon heavy guy and he might even be pushing for more platoon-capable guys. Casey Stengel is a perfect example of a manager who almost always employed at least one platoon, and often, he used two platoons. I think those 40’s Yankees team did alright, I am not sure though. I have to check.
- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
http://www.rantsports.com/boston-red-sox/
by Mattsullivan on Jan 23, 2012 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
so?
that doesn’t mean that platoons won’t work now. Can’t think of a reason why they wouldn’t, really, as long as there’s enough versatility that we can afford the roster spots
Absolutely, they may
But claiming they will work because the Yankees of the 50s and 60s did it isn’t necessarily valid.
Everything Must Go.
right, definitely true
and you definitely need to have the right guys on your roster to make it work. By all accounts, it does sound like something Valentine is likely to do, so lets hope we have the right guys.
I think this year will be interesting to watch how the team is run. After seeing Tito for so long, I get the impression that Valentine is going to be pretty close to the opposite kind of manager.
Just want to make sure I re-emphasize...
That your lineup depth concern is legit. I’ll be curious to see if anyone else joins the team before opening day, or if it’s just something they know they will have to be on the lookout for in terms of mid-season shopping.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
The impression I get
is that Valentine likes to be creative with lineups and is exactly the sort of guy that is going actually platoon guys rather than the sticking-with-veterans thing. He may prove me wrong, but that’s what I take away from everything I’ve heard from him.
he has gone on the record
(well he’s gone on the record saying everything, he likes to talk), but he’s said that he doesn’t feel like it’s particularly important for players to hit in a particular spot in the order every day.
No wonder Carl wouldn't talk to him...
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
I don't think I've seen anything about Crawford actually saying he wants to be in one particular spot in the lineup
I’ve seen a lot of “pundits” saying he should be
Only done as a matter of neccesity
Francona didn’t platoon because he didn’t need to; he had a solid player, usually a veteran, at every position for the most part. The idea is to have the best player(s) at each position. if you have 3 “acceptable” shortstops, that is just another way of saying you don’t have any good shortstops. It also depends upon the defition and actually how a platoon is used. If Punto is doing the job with the glove and hitting is .245, then play him 6 days a week.
Funny, I just took a peek at the Red Sox website and it lists Aviles/Inglesis at SS.
worth saying
the Sox website is never really accurate with any of those things at all. I expect, barring an unlikely outside acquisition, for it to mainly be Aviles.
I think this may be an indication of confidence in Aviles.
He did play well for us last year, so maybe they think they can catch Aviles peak year here in 2012 (much like Scutaro’s peak year in Toronto before we signed him).
I hope, much like the Bard expirament, that they are right.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
i wonder if theres ever been a study on platoons
i wonder if you can actually maximize two peoples talents and get the most out of them or if the impact of not playing every day has a negative effect
What about switch hitters as a comparison?
I mean, true… they play everyday, but depending on the pitcher, they swap sides of the plate. As a guy that was a switch hitter in high school, I can say that you’re looking at the ball in a different way from each side of the plate… yet, you still see them using it due to the splits.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Hardball times had a great piece
here
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/great-platoons-1914-1948/
on so much a study, but review of some of the better platoons.
As the article at THT mentions, Bill James also writes about it in the HBA.
- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
http://www.rantsports.com/boston-red-sox/
by Mattsullivan on Jan 23, 2012 11:46 PM EST up reply actions
It's really a wild card
Aviles could have an adequate, or even good year with Punto as a backup. Or they could both fail miserably. On the other side of the coin, Scutaro is getting older, and is always injured, so who knows what will happen with him? Rogue is right that we got rid of our depth in this situation, and now it is going to be the Sutton types, rather than the more competent Aviles/Punto sorts we have to rely on.
Unfortunately, this is going to happen for a team in a money crunch. Value will have to be sacrificed in order to obtain greater value somewhere else, in this case in the SP.
At least, I hope to God we get a decent starter…
I think we'll all feel a lot better
If this money is converted into Oswalt, Wandy, Floyd, whoever of that caliber who is available. I’m sure it will, but I’m also antsy until it actually happens.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, this is my biggest concern.
Until we spend the money, I’m a little worried that we’re not spending any of it and that the group in charge thinks we can either contend with what we’ve got (not sure I agree) or that we’re better off staying under the cap this year, and spending more to chase the playoffs in 2013.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Speaking of...
https://twitter.com/#!/DKnobler/status/161500014957445121
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, he pretty much was his entire time with the Sox
he just played through it a ton. He did miss 49 games last year.
He was always injured in that he always had nagging injuries and was constantly banged up
While he rarely went on the DL, he’s getting older. It wouldn’t be a great situation.
Oswalt or Floyd?
They both look like they will be good SPs. Which one will be better for us in the long run?
by EchoDanno on Jan 23, 2012 1:14 PM EST via mobile reply actions
They are both good for different reasons
Oswalt would likely be a one-year commitment, but he also is a free agent. So the Red Sox only need money to sign him. Floyd is a pitcher they could have for two years if they want, but he’ll command a similar salary and prospects.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
Floyd's cap hit is less than Oswalt's
I heard 3.5 mm somewhere.
"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2012 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe that will allow us to get some depth at SS as long as we don’t give up too much in prospects.
by EchoDanno on Jan 23, 2012 1:28 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The answer to that I think
Largely depends on the answer to this question:
Do you believe Oswalt’s injury is behind him?
I am Sandy's bitch.
Joseph Vincent Paterno 12/21/26 - 1/22/12 RIP Coach
Penn State Forever
Oswalt is a one year deal
So I don’t know if it really has an effect long term that I could quantify. But for next year, I would say Roy personally but (again for next year only) it is close. All I know as far as long term is that Roy costs nothing in prospects, no long term money which leaves payroll open to sign a big name SP free agent next year (or, to trade for Floyd at a reduced prospect cost and sign him long term anyway).
by The Name is Dalton on Jan 23, 2012 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
And the benefit of signing Floyd, in part, was the lower AAV.
So… not sure we needed to move $6 million in salary for that. I would think this lends towards paying Oswalt, and not giving up prospects.
However, if we go get both of them, then I’ll cheer this deal all the way to the World Series.
And I still think we didn’t get enough back for Scutaro, who has provided pretty steady value at SS and should offer more value to the Rockies at 2B, I would think.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Reply fail.
Read the Speier piece about the Scutaro deal and you’ll understand more why the deal was done: http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2012/01/23/making-sense-marco-scutaro-trade. It really wasn’t about his $6 million dollar salary.
by aubatron2011 on Jan 23, 2012 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
It sounds like he never really was the starting shortstop
He was just there until they could move him, since the option + a trade saved them more money than not picking it up.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 23, 2012 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
My biggest concern is how tight we've been with money this offseason.
If this move is a true salary dump, and we’re now under the luxury tax cap… any chance we stay under that line, and roll with what we’ve got?
If that’s the plan here, I’m definitely not happy with this move.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
If they do the clock resets and they can go big in 2013
Not saying that’s the plan – but it COULD be one
Sure they CAN be
But so could Herman Cain or Bob Dylan. Doesn’t mean we’re in a good spot either way.
Everything Must Go.

by 


























