Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Mookie Betts 2017 Outlook


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

.300+ | 25 |  25

should hit 100 runs with ease

tough to predict his RBI totals, but expect significant regression from, what was it last year...113? that seems high for his skillset

OPS in the high 800's probably..

 

Objectively I'd prefer Altuve at #2 behind Trout, but let's be real, owning Mookie is the best. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChicksDigTheOPS said:

.300+ | 25 |  25

should hit 100 runs with ease

tough to predict his RBI totals, but expect significant regression from, what was it last year...113? that seems high for his skillset

OPS in the high 800's probably..

 

Objectively I'd prefer Altuve at #2 behind Trout, but let's be real, owning Mookie is the best. 

 

 

I don't understand why you think his skill set suggests he shouldn't have a ton of RBI... he doesn't walk a ton hits the ball a lot puts the ball in play a lot and has a ton of XBH... his profile literally suggests he SHOULD be good in RBI as opposed to a guy like Trout who doesn't put 37%+ of his PAs in play

Edited by taobball
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, taobball said:

 

I don't understand why you think his skill set suggests he shouldn't have a ton of RBI... he doesn't walk a ton hits the ball a lot puts the ball in play a lot and has a ton of XBH... his profile literally suggests he SHOULD be good in RBI as opposed to a guy like Trout who doesn't put 37%+ of his PAs in play

 

his contact ability is helpful. the lineup should be strong. 

 

maybe it's bias against his size, and his inability to go the other way. I don't see Mookie as a Juan Gonzalez, Manny Ramirez type of run producer. More along the lines of  peak McCutchen

 

last year Pedroia and Ortiz were awesome all year long, Bogaerts was a stud in the 1st half, Hanley crushed it in the 2nd, and JBJ played out of his mind.

 

a lot had to go right for Mookie to hit that 110+ figure.

 

the addition of Benintendi helps, but I'm a lot more comfortable projecting 93 or so rather than 110+

 

up for a little friendly competition: pick an over or under for these figures:

 

Runs: 107

 

Batting Average: .304

 

Home runs: 26

 

RBI: 100

 

Steals: 26

 

OPS: .895

 

I'll go 'over' on average, steals, and runs -- and 'under' on home runs, RBI, and OPS

 

anyone else want to play? Loser has to name their first child Bookie Mets 

Edited by ChicksDigTheOPS
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ChicksDigTheOPS said:

 

his contact ability is helpful. the lineup should be strong. 

 

maybe it's bias against his size, and his inability to go the other way. I don't see Mookie as a Juan Gonzalez, Manny Ramirez type of run producer. More along the lines of  peak McCutchen

 

last year Pedroia and Ortiz were awesome all year long, Bogaerts was a stud in the 1st half, Hanley crushed it in the 2nd, and JBJ played out of his mind.

 

a lot had to go right for Mookie to hit that 110+ figure.

 

the addition of Benintendi helps, but I'm a lot more comfortable projecting 93 or so rather than 110+

 

up for a little friendly competition: pick an over or under for these figures:

 

Runs: 107

 

Batting Average: .304

 

Home runs: 26

 

RBI: 100

 

Steals: 26

 

OPS: .895

 

I'll go 'over' on average, steals, and runs -- and 'under' on home runs, RBI, and OPS

 

anyone else want to play? Loser has to name their first child Bookie Mets 

 

Like way over on RBI... again I think you're massively overrating size and volume of homers over what really generates RBI which is BIP. Arenado gets a ton of RBI because he carries a low walk and k rate. Mookie is the same... he hit 110 last year batting primarily at the lead off spot... if that doesn't suggest his play style stimulates RBI I don't k ow what will... he's my second most likely candidate to go 130 after Arenado if he bats third

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with tao here.  Betts can be projected to reach 100 RBI.  And BIP is just one factor.  An even bigger factor for me is what he does with runners on base.  Last season he went .327/.378/.575/.953 with runners on base.  That jumps up to .355/.406/.638/1.044 with runners in scoring position.  He can afford to regress there and still reach the 100 RBI mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChicksDigTheOPS said:

 

his contact ability is helpful. the lineup should be strong. 

 

maybe it's bias against his size, and his inability to go the other way. I don't see Mookie as a Juan Gonzalez, Manny Ramirez type of run producer. More along the lines of  peak McCutchen

 

last year Pedroia and Ortiz were awesome all year long, Bogaerts was a stud in the 1st half, Hanley crushed it in the 2nd, and JBJ played out of his mind.

 

a lot had to go right for Mookie to hit that 110+ figure.

 

the addition of Benintendi helps, but I'm a lot more comfortable projecting 93 or so rather than 110+

 

up for a little friendly competition: pick an over or under for these figures:

 

Runs: 107

 

Batting Average: .304

 

Home runs: 26

 

RBI: 100

 

Steals: 26

 

OPS: .895

 

I'll go 'over' on average, steals, and runs -- and 'under' on home runs, RBI, and OPS

 

anyone else want to play? Loser has to name their first child Bookie Mets 

 

The first reply I was in class. 

 

Ironically (coincidentally?) I do have Mookie exactly at 26/26 so that makes this exercise a little difficult... so I'll take the over on both but don't feel very confident about it... if he's batting 4th I'll take theunder on HRs. Runs honestly taking nearer to the under... he's batting lower, his BA is great but again his walk rate isn't elite... I think you're looking at size and speed when I think R and RBI is much more generated by BIP and OBP. Take this for example:

 

There's one way to get an RBI without putting the ball in play: a bases loaded walk. This obviously doesn't happen often, I'd wager there's players even with high walk rates that go full seasons without this happening. For the vast majority of RBI's you have to put the ball in play. 

 

Trout K'd 20.1% of the time and BB'd 17.0% of the time, so roughly he put the ball in play on 62.9% of his PAs.

Mookie K'd 11.0% of the time and BB'd 6.7% of the time, so roughly he put the ball in play on 82.3% of his PAs.

 

That's a MASSIVE difference.

 

Now this isn't ideal for REAL baseball, but it is in fantasy, take this article when comparing the MVP cases: 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-actual-difference-between-mike-trout-and-mookie-betts/

 

The point being, because Mookie put the ball in play so much, he had 86 more outs than Trout, but those Outs can produce RBI. Is it always the ideal scenario for baseball, and would I prefer a real baseball player to walk 10.3% less? Absolutely not. But this is fantasy and RBI we're talking about here. 

 

Trout had 172 GBs, 153 FBs, and 92 LDs in 2016 according to Fangraphs, so that's 417 BIP including Homers.

Mookie had 247 GBs, 235 FBs, and 115 LDs in 2016 according to Fangraphs, so that's 597 BIP including Homers.

 

Again, this is a massive difference. That means that taking out bases loaded walks, Mookie Betts had ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY more balls put in to play. That VASTLY increases his RBI opportunity over guys who K more or BB more. THESE are the things that stimulate RBI, not raw power or size. 

 

In order to hit 130 RBI, Trout needs an RBI every 3.2 balls he puts into play. 

In order to hit 130 RBI, Mookie needs an RBI every 4.6 balls he puts into play. 

 

Again, MASSIVE difference. Trout can convert at a higher rate per BIP all he wants, but Mookie has SOOO many more BIP that he has a ton more opportunities because he's putting the ball in play a far greater percentage of the time when there's RISP instead of taking the walks or k'n the amount that Trout does in this situations. 


Mookie Betts in a vacuum if every player were a #3 hitter could be higher than any player outside of Arenado for RBI production... it's about BIP... take Arenado with the above metrics:

 

Arenado K'd 14.8% of the time and BB'd 9.8% of the time, so roughly he put the ball in play on 75.4% of his PAs. The year before it was 78.4%. 

 

Again, ISO and HRs do matter, don't get me wrong, which is why I'd still take Arenado, but Mookie doesn't need to have the RBI per BIP in comparison to Trout, because he has so many more BIPs. 

 

I'm much much much much m ore likely to project Mookie as going even 95/125 than I am to project him at 110/100 or 105/95 or something like that... I think he's very likely to lead the AL in RBI if he bats third and I will project close to 120 RBI because of his rate of putting the ball in play, even though that stat is variable and situation based enough that there is something to worry about, but it's just simple math: the same reason that I drop Mookie's HR total as he moves down the order and gets fewer PAs, basic math: Less PAs = Less HR Opportunities, Less BIPs = Less RBI opprotunities. Mookie may very well have lead the league in BIPs last year (can't think of anyone who would be higher considering his PAs and rate) and may very well do so again. 

 

EDIT: Oh and I'll take the over on BA and don't really care about OPS. 

Edited by taobball
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ChicksDigTheOPS said:

 

his contact ability is helpful. the lineup should be strong. 

 

maybe it's bias against his size, and his inability to go the other way. I don't see Mookie as a Juan Gonzalez, Manny Ramirez type of run producer. More along the lines of  peak McCutchen

 

last year Pedroia and Ortiz were awesome all year long, Bogaerts was a stud in the 1st half, Hanley crushed it in the 2nd, and JBJ played out of his mind.

 

a lot had to go right for Mookie to hit that 110+ figure.

 

the addition of Benintendi helps, but I'm a lot more comfortable projecting 93 or so rather than 110+

 

up for a little friendly competition: pick an over or under for these figures:

 

Runs: 107

 

Batting Average: .304

 

Home runs: 26

 

RBI: 100

 

Steals: 26

 

OPS: .895

 

I'll go 'over' on average, steals, and runs -- and 'under' on home runs, RBI, and OPS

 

anyone else want to play? Loser has to name their first child Bookie Mets 

 

Are you aware that he hit leadoff the majority of last season?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, taobball said:

 

The first reply I was in class. 

 

Ironically (coincidentally?) I do have Mookie exactly at 26/26 so that makes this exercise a little difficult... so I'll take the over on both but don't feel very confident about it... if he's batting 4th I'll take theunder on HRs. Runs honestly taking nearer to the under... he's batting lower, his BA is great but again his walk rate isn't elite... I think you're looking at size and speed when I think R and RBI is much more generated by BIP and OBP. Take this for example:

 

There's one way to get an RBI without putting the ball in play: a bases loaded walk. This obviously doesn't happen often, I'd wager there's players even with high walk rates that go full seasons without this happening. For the vast majority of RBI's you have to put the ball in play. 

 

Trout K'd 20.1% of the time and BB'd 17.0% of the time, so roughly he put the ball in play on 62.9% of his PAs.

Mookie K'd 11.0% of the time and BB'd 6.7% of the time, so roughly he put the ball in play on 82.3% of his PAs.

 

That's a MASSIVE difference.

 

Now this isn't ideal for REAL baseball, but it is in fantasy, take this article when comparing the MVP cases: 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-actual-difference-between-mike-trout-and-mookie-betts/

 

The point being, because Mookie put the ball in play so much, he had 86 more outs than Trout, but those Outs can produce RBI. Is it always the ideal scenario for baseball, and would I prefer a real baseball player to walk 10.3% less? Absolutely not. But this is fantasy and RBI we're talking about here. 

 

Trout had 172 GBs, 153 FBs, and 92 LDs in 2016 according to Fangraphs, so that's 417 BIP including Homers.

Mookie had 247 GBs, 235 FBs, and 115 LDs in 2016 according to Fangraphs, so that's 597 BIP including Homers.

 

Again, this is a massive difference. That means that taking out bases loaded walks, Mookie Betts had ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY more balls put in to play. That VASTLY increases his RBI opportunity over guys who K more or BB more. THESE are the things that stimulate RBI, not raw power or size. 

 

In order to hit 130 RBI, Trout needs an RBI every 3.2 balls he puts into play. 

In order to hit 130 RBI, Mookie needs an RBI every 4.6 balls he puts into play. 

 

Again, MASSIVE difference. Trout can convert at a higher rate per BIP all he wants, but Mookie has SOOO many more BIP that he has a ton more opportunities because he's putting the ball in play a far greater percentage of the time when there's RISP instead of taking the walks or k'n the amount that Trout does in this situations. 


Mookie Betts in a vacuum if every player were a #3 hitter could be higher than any player outside of Arenado for RBI production... it's about BIP... take Arenado with the above metrics:

 

Arenado K'd 14.8% of the time and BB'd 9.8% of the time, so roughly he put the ball in play on 75.4% of his PAs. The year before it was 78.4%. 

 

Again, ISO and HRs do matter, don't get me wrong, which is why I'd still take Arenado, but Mookie doesn't need to have the RBI per BIP in comparison to Trout, because he has so many more BIPs. 

 

I'm much much much much m ore likely to project Mookie as going even 95/125 than I am to project him at 110/100 or 105/95 or something like that... I think he's very likely to lead the AL in RBI if he bats third and I will project close to 120 RBI because of his rate of putting the ball in play, even though that stat is variable and situation based enough that there is something to worry about, but it's just simple math: the same reason that I drop Mookie's HR total as he moves down the order and gets fewer PAs, basic math: Less PAs = Less HR Opportunities, Less BIPs = Less RBI opprotunities. Mookie may very well have lead the league in BIPs last year (can't think of anyone who would be higher considering his PAs and rate) and may very well do so again. 

 

EDIT: Oh and I'll take the over on BA and don't really care about OPS. 

wow, that is some next-level stuff... wasn't even on my radar. You say you were in class, but I think we were in class. Good stuff.

so is there any word from Farrell about what the lineup will be? I'm also curious where they'll slot Benintendi. I wouldn't be opposed to him leading off. 

even though we disagree about Mookie's numbers, I'm hoping you are right, as I own Mookie (and Arenado, who you mentioned) in my one and only fantasy league. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ChicksDigTheOPS said:

wow, that is some next-level stuff... wasn't even on my radar. You say you were in class, but I think we were in class. Good stuff.

so is there any word from Farrell about what the lineup will be? I'm also curious where they'll slot Benintendi. I wouldn't be opposed to him leading off. 

even though we disagree about Mookie's numbers, I'm hoping you are right, as I own Mookie (and Arenado, who you mentioned) in my one and only fantasy league. 

 

 

 

Well I mean RBIs are still obvioulsy highly luck driven but more opportunities to get lucky = more successful luck in most scenarios. I think this concept of him being a high BIP player has already bore fruit as we were discussing earlier... he hit 110+ batting primarily leadoff... that's hard to do. Even in a great lineup. His 74 RBI in 109 Games batting leadoff was nearly as much as Springer's 82 in 162 Games of playing mostly leadoff. Just compare their paces at leadoff:

Mookie: 74 RBI in 109 Games batting leadoff = 110 RBI in 162 Games.

George: 56 RBI in 116 Games batting leadoff = 78 RBI in 162 Games

 

And of course George is another guy with a 10+ and 20+ % ranges, so low BIP. 

 

And then when you look at Mookie's pace in the 3 and 4 Hole (he was an even 12 for 12 at 3rd): 

 

39 RBI in 48 Games Batting 3rd and 4th = 131.6 RBI in 162 Games

Edited by taobball
Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 17, 2017 at 2:37 PM, jfazz23 said:

201?  is he a Roman Centurion or something?

Only Pontius Pilate and Ben Hur had a higher New Testament BABIP last year 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kgizzle said:

Mookie killed it bowling this weekend on ESPN. Was skimming through channels and saw him. Ended being fun to watch.

Don't leave us hanging. What did he bowl? And I'd like some bowling sabermetrics breakdown please. @taobball u got this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael Bluth said:

Don't leave us hanging. What did he bowl? And I'd like some bowling sabermetrics breakdown please. @taobball u got this?

 

I'm pretty sure Betts has one of the highest bowling ball RPMs among baseball players and I have read reports that RPMs and # of Pins are correlated as well as RPMs and Strike%. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, phillyphan21 said:

 

Don't leave us hanging.  What are you basing this on and what are your projections?

 

Its a gut feeling mostly, but here goes.

 

First: HR.  This is the first year he has really broken out. My problem?  They all seemed to come in fluky series of games.  I had him for the season.  He would be cold 10 games hot 10 games, and he got his HR froma  bunch of 2 and 3 HR games.  IN HTH not desirable, but also feel like a tad lucky.  Also, so many seemed to JUST go over the Monster. Makes you think.

 

AVG: Again ,it was more fluky than you would think.  He also seemed to "reach" as he struggled in HR

 

SB: Will go down for being in 4 hole and not 1 hole.  I predict a strong drop off

 

RBI and RUNS: Down cause no Big Papi.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...