SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jackie Bradley Jr. - does the glove outweigh the bat?
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 8, 2014 11:50:57 GMT -5
Why even bring it up if you weren't trying to insinuate something?
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 8, 2014 12:01:30 GMT -5
I think you could argue just the opposite, that JBJ has been given nothing but slack. To struggle as much as he has at the plate and still get regular playing time is rare in baseball. Coincidentally, the first time someone showed up that could take away JBJ's playing time (Mookie) he started to hit. You're joking on that last one right? Let me get this straight, Bradley has been slacking off, but decided to get it on after real competition showed up? Go to Baseball Reference. Look up any number of players. See how they started their careers. Check out Paul Blair, or Dwight Evans. This looks like one of the best centerfielders in the game. He also gets on base at a very good clip and is making the adjustments to get his hitting going. The overblown expectations of a spoiled fandom aside, he looks to have a future all things considered. Yeah the fans are pretty spoiled when they criticize a last place team even the slightest. I never said to take away JBJ's playing time, but the idea he is under too much pressure on a bad team and a bad offense hitting at the bottom of the order with no proven replacement in sight is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jul 8, 2014 12:10:55 GMT -5
He needed to change and he did. I just hope the change holds up and he has finally figured it out. Then we get to watch him play center which is a treat.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 8, 2014 12:21:00 GMT -5
Yeah the fans are pretty spoiled when they criticize a last place team even the slightest. I never said to take away JBJ's playing time, but the idea he is under too much pressure on a bad team and a bad offense hitting at the bottom of the order with no proven replacement in sight is ridiculous. No, you just implied that Bradley has gotten more playing time than he deserved and that the only reason he's hitting better now is that there's now a real threat to his playing time. The first point may be a fair one (although, as discussed above, it ignores his excellent defense); the second is not, and it's the one that folks are pushing back against.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 8, 2014 12:49:01 GMT -5
You're joking on that last one right? Let me get this straight, Bradley has been slacking off, but decided to get it on after real competition showed up? Go to Baseball Reference. Look up any number of players. See how they started their careers. Check out Paul Blair, or Dwight Evans. This looks like one of the best centerfielders in the game. He also gets on base at a very good clip and is making the adjustments to get his hitting going. The overblown expectations of a spoiled fandom aside, he looks to have a future all things considered. Yeah the fans are pretty spoiled when they criticize a last place team even the slightest. I never said to take away JBJ's playing time, but the idea he is under too much pressure on a bad team and a bad offense hitting at the bottom of the order with no proven replacement in sight is ridiculous. The insinuation, as jimed calls it, is just that. It also makes the very point you're blowing off, that there are ridiculous expectations. A few of us gently suggested that a plan that involved optimal playing time for Sizemore and Victorino was off the rails from the get go. Once that fell through, it did nothing but increase the spotlight on all the other warm bodies. What does that lead to but the silliness of Nava being sent down, and unrealistic expectations for Bogaerts, Bradley, Betts, and the others? This is the way teams get turned over. But expecting a winning hand is too much. The young power bats are out of commission, and the older guys are out of the picture. That's the way it goes this year.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 8, 2014 12:50:33 GMT -5
Yeah the fans are pretty spoiled when they criticize a last place team even the slightest. I never said to take away JBJ's playing time, but the idea he is under too much pressure on a bad team and a bad offense hitting at the bottom of the order with no proven replacement in sight is ridiculous. No, you just implied that Bradley has gotten more playing time than he deserved and that the only reason he's hitting better now is that there's now a real threat to his playing time. The first point may be a fair one (although, as discussed above, it ignores his excellent defense); the second is not, and it's the one that folks are pushing back against. I think you guys are reading into my comments too much because you don't have clear arguments against the things I "did" write. The line about Betts was a throwaway comment, that is why I said coincidentally, but everyone wants to make a big deal out of it and read the tea leaves for flaws in my opinions so they create straw men. Of course very little has been said about my point that JBJ has been given plenty of rope to work through his issues. Hehe, I accidentally liked my own post trying to edit it. Anyway, I never said JBJ had bad defense, another straw man. Pretty much everything that has been said is either misconstrued or invented.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 8, 2014 12:56:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 8, 2014 13:23:12 GMT -5
I think people read into it what they want to. JBJ's defense has been stellar, though I would never take half a season or so of data to make a case about defensive value. Nor would I use 50 PAs to make a case that a guy had turned things around. It's just a funny coincidence that Betts shows up and suddenly JBJ makes an adjustment and has a modicum of success.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 8, 2014 13:24:53 GMT -5
I think people read into it what they want to. JBJ's defense has been stellar, though I would never take half a season or so of data to make a case about defensive value. Nor would I use 50 PAs to make a case that a guy had turned things around. It's just a funny coincidence that Betts shows up and suddenly JBJ makes an adjustment and has a modicum of success. I don't need the defensive stats to prove anything about JBJ's defense. I can rely on what I've seen watching every game this year.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 8, 2014 13:27:51 GMT -5
I think people read into it what they want to. JBJ's defense has been stellar, though I would never take half a season or so of data to make a case about defensive value. Nor would I use 50 PAs to make a case that a guy had turned things around. It's just a funny coincidence that Betts shows up and suddenly JBJ makes an adjustment and has a modicum of success. I don't need the defensive stats to prove anything about JBJ's defense. I can rely on what I've seen watching every game this year. I already said he is a great defender, but if you want to quantify that as being worth 2 wins or whatever, that is a joke given the variability of defensive statistics in the amount of time he has played.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 8, 2014 13:29:37 GMT -5
You don't have to quantify it exactly to show that the total package with Bradley has probably been enough to justify the playing time he's gotten. Elite defender + bad present hitter + upside potential + no real alternatives = playing time.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 8, 2014 13:34:27 GMT -5
You don't have to quantify it exactly to show that the total package with Bradley has probably been enough to justify the playing time he's gotten. Elite defender + bad present hitter + upside potential + no real alternatives = playing time. Again, I never said he should lose playing time. Yeash. He has been a fringe regular all year depending on how you want to slice it. Though being a fringe regular is hardly a tough thing to replace. There are so many reasons for the current mess the Red Sox are in that I wouldn't lay it on JBJ's door, though he certainly isn't helping.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 8, 2014 13:37:55 GMT -5
I think people read into it what they want to. JBJ's defense has been stellar, though I would never take half a season or so of data to make a case about defensive value. Nor would I use 50 PAs to make a case that a guy had turned things around. It's just a funny coincidence that Betts shows up and suddenly JBJ makes an adjustment and has a modicum of success. I first noticed him opening up his stance in Seattle, so I'm pretty sure he made the adjustment before Betts was called up; it just didn't pay off for a little while. Or maybe you're right and it's a sample size aberration, but either way, I don't think the adjustment and Bett's call up happened at the same time
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 8, 2014 13:49:56 GMT -5
I think people read into it what they want to. JBJ's defense has been stellar, though I would never take half a season or so of data to make a case about defensive value. Nor would I use 50 PAs to make a case that a guy had turned things around. It's just a funny coincidence that Betts shows up and suddenly JBJ makes an adjustment and has a modicum of success. I first noticed him opening up his stance in Seattle, so I'm pretty sure he made the adjustment before Betts was called up; it just didn't pay off for a little while. Or maybe you're right and it's a sample size aberration, but either way, I don't think the adjustment and Bett's call up happened at the same time I honestly had no idea when he made the adjustment, I just noticed his hitting picked up around the time Betts arrived. I really hope Betts gets some playing time, but they look like they might send him back down soon.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 8, 2014 23:12:57 GMT -5
I first noticed him opening up his stance in Seattle, so I'm pretty sure he made the adjustment before Betts was called up; it just didn't pay off for a little while. Or maybe you're right and it's a sample size aberration, but either way, I don't think the adjustment and Bett's call up happened at the same time I honestly had no idea when he made the adjustment, I just noticed his hitting picked up around the time Betts arrived. I really hope Betts gets some playing time, but they look like they might send him back down soon. He made the adjustment on June 19, in Oakland (start of the road trip), and at the end of the Seattle series I noted somewhere here (game thread, I think) that his numbers were promising and that he had fanned just twice in 25 PA on the road trip so far, which had a statistically significant 2% chance of being random based on his previous .311 K rate. They called up Betts the next day. The funniest coincidences are the ones that happen 9 days apart!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 8, 2014 23:23:05 GMT -5
I think people read into it what they want to. JBJ's defense has been stellar, though I would never take half a season or so of data to make a case about defensive value. Nor would I use 50 PAs to make a case that a guy had turned things around. It's just a funny coincidence that Betts shows up and suddenly JBJ makes an adjustment and has a modicum of success. I don't need the defensive stats to prove anything about JBJ's defense. I can rely on what I've seen watching every game this year. OTOH, when a guy seems to be great, it's nice to see him with +25 UZR/150, +18 DRS, +16 FRAA, and +12 TZ. Call it +19 consensus. He ought to win the first of multiple Gold Gloves.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 8, 2014 23:34:55 GMT -5
According to the article. Bradley has returned to a more open stance that he used in the minors. A stance he got away from when he slumped after being rushed to the majors last year.
One of the things young players hopefully learn on the minors is how to make adjustments and get in and out of slumps. If they don't learn this a poor 35 AB stretch can easilly turn into a disasterous 100 ABs.
Bogarts and Bradley were never given the chance to get into a slump in the minors and had their first slumps in the majors. You have now seen the consequences of this.
Betts was never given a chance to slump either. Let's see how that works out.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,270
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Jul 8, 2014 23:48:40 GMT -5
Betts was hitting under the Mendoza line for more than a month in Greenville last year (although with great walk rate) before making "the adjustment" (specificaly, a less pronved leg kick) and going bonkers
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jul 9, 2014 0:14:42 GMT -5
Personally I'm not ready to give up on Bradley as the solution in center solely based on his range/arm/minor league splits. Does the front office think Reddick and Murphy or Moss even played better bc they were out of a Bodice uniform? Or because they were dumped for relievers and stopgaps over the past 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 7:54:21 GMT -5
My concern with Bradley is that he also happens to play the defensive position where Betts projects best. Playing Betts at an outfield corner seems like a little bit of a waste of his athleticism, but I suppose it wouldn't be the worst possible solution.
You could see situations where they could make it work (e.g., Nava/Bradley/Betts versus RHP, [acquisition]/Betts/Victorino versus LHP), but I don't have a lot of trust in this coaching staff to divvy up the playing time appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jul 9, 2014 8:08:19 GMT -5
My concern with Bradley is that he also happens to play the defensive position where Betts projects best. Second base? [add - yes, I know, but -- in the end, it's a complaint about having too many good players up the middle]
Bogarts and Bradley were never given the chance to get into a slump in the minors and had their first slumps in the majors. You have now seen the consequences of this. Betts was never given a chance to slump either. Let's see how that works out. So send them down to AAA and wait until they slump (if ever). THEN call them back up, lesson learned, and maybe Bradley will know how to make an adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 8:09:15 GMT -5
You knew what I meant, the position he projects to play in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 9, 2014 9:33:53 GMT -5
Betts needs some serious reps in the OF before I want him in CF in Fenway.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 9:49:14 GMT -5
According to the article. Bradley has returned to a more open stance that he used in the minors. A stance he got away from when he slumped after being rushed to the majors last year. One of the things young players hopefully learn on the minors is how to make adjustments and get in and out of slumps. If they don't learn this a poor 35 AB stretch can easilly turn into a disasterous 100 ABs. Bogarts and Bradley were never given the chance to get into a slump in the minors and had their first slumps in the majors. You have now seen the consequences of this. Betts was never given a chance to slump either. Let's see how that works out. Bogaerts also had a rough first month in Portland, and he hit .260 in Greenville- I'm sure he went through some slumps there too. Bradley also went through a slump in Portland a few weeks after being promoted, if I remember correctly. Regardless, they obviously have gone through slumps at some level- every player has. They know they have to make some kind of adjustment, but this is the major leagues, so it's tougher, and takes more time. Guys struggle for full seasons, but it doesn't mean they should've been in AAA from the beginning learning how to make adjustments from a slump. In all likelihood, if they've been called up, they weren't being challenged enough for them to go through a prolonged slump requiring significant adjustments. And I'd point out that both Bradley and Bogaerts have shown positive signs recently. Also, on Bradley's stance adjustment, he was sent down to AAA last year and played 80 games there- did that help this year? No. Because the level of competition wasn't adequate to prepare him for the bigs. At a certain point, guys will only improve if you let them play in the majors, and I'm pretty convinced that when Bogaerts and Bradley were called up permanently (this year), they were at that point. Betts is another argument, and one we can have if/when he makes it necessary- I think he's probably headed back to Pawtucket soon, barring us making the outfield a little less crowded, cause he needs ABs
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 9:59:35 GMT -5
I don't need the defensive stats to prove anything about JBJ's defense. I can rely on what I've seen watching every game this year. OTOH, when a guy seems to be great, it's nice to see him with +25 UZR/150, +18 DRS, +16 FRAA, and +12 TZ. Call it +19 consensus. He ought to win the first of multiple Gold Gloves. Yes, and a perfect example of how defensive stats take awhile to normalize are his stats from last year which "show" him as below average.
|
|
|