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 jmei on Jul 9, 2014 11:31:02 GMT -5
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. That's a great point-- keeping Xander and Bradley in the minors would probably not have made them better players, because they probably would not have encountered slumps significant enough to force them to make the necessary adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 11:37:49 GMT -5
Yes, especially Xander. He wouldn't be facing pitchers who can kill him with sliders continually.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 11:40:34 GMT -5
Here are Bradley's plate discipline stats before and after he made his adjustment on June 19th:
| Pre-6/19 (343 PAs)
| Post-6/19 (50 PAs)
| O-contact% | 52.8%
| 71.9% | Z-contact% | 80.8% | 92.5% | Contact% | 72.4% | 84.7% | Swing. strike%
| 11.8% | 7.4% | K%
| 30.3%
| 16%
|
It's a tiny sample post-June 19th, but the difference is night and day.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 11:41:46 GMT -5
Those K% are backwards, right?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 11:43:22 GMT -5
Those K% are backwards, right? Yeah, fixed it.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jul 9, 2014 11:46:29 GMT -5
That is the problem with playing kids. You have to put up with the growing pains. It would have helped if the veterans had carried the load just a little bit this year to make it easier.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jul 9, 2014 12:15:31 GMT -5
That is the problem with playing kids. You have to put up with the growing pains. It would have helped if the veterans had carried the load just a little bit this year to make it easier. You know, for all the attention on the kids, this is the key point, I think. The team was supposed to be carried by a solid pitching staff and veterans Pedroia, Ortiz, Napoli, Victorino, with solid contributions from Nava, the catching duo, etc. Bogaerts was going to be good but have his struggles, and that left JBJ and Middlebrooks as wild-cards, with some infield depth behind Middlebrooks to hopefully cushion that blow, and a wildcard in Sizemore buying out some of the JBJ risk. But nearly all the veterans' production collapsed, and Sizemore was cooked. I actually don't think the kids have been the problem this year. Bogaerts struggles have been deeper than I expected, but nothing about JBJ has surprised me. In fact, I feel relatively optimistic that his second half is going to be better than I would've expected. Middlebrooks has been terrible/hurt, but Holt has more than compensated for that.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jul 9, 2014 12:21:57 GMT -5
Also we got Bad Buchholz this season. Oops.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 9, 2014 15:34:53 GMT -5
SSS yada yada yada, but JBJ with a sub-20% strikeout rate is probably a 4-win player, especially if he keeps putting up cartoony defensive numbers. That's probably a little optimistic but not out of the realm of possibility given his minor league numbers.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 9, 2014 15:46:29 GMT -5
SSS yada yada yada, but JBJ with a sub-20% strikeout rate is probably a 4-win player, especially if he keeps putting up cartoony defensive numbers. That's probably a little optimistic but not out of the realm of possibility given his minor league numbers. Those are pretty monumental improvements in his swing, though there's likely some regression in his future. Unfortunately, at age 24, he's just about peaking defensively, with speed generally declining after that age (though probably not super-quickly). Jackie doesn't rely too much on his speed, but he also already has the defensive skills of an older player, so there's less upside on D than a normal 24-yo. He's got to keep improving on offense, which definitely seems plausible. Having a potential platoon partner will help, and maybe he can help that partner with throwing the way that Victorino has mentored him this spring. I still feel that the best alignment in the Fenway OF could (in 2 years perhaps) be Mookie in CF and Bradley in RF.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 16:07:06 GMT -5
SSS yada yada yada, but JBJ with a sub-20% strikeout rate is probably a 4-win player, especially if he keeps putting up cartoony defensive numbers. That's probably a little optimistic but not out of the realm of possibility given his minor league numbers. Those are pretty monumental improvements in his swing, though there's likely some regression in his future. Unfortunately, at age 24, he's just about peaking defensively, with speed generally declining after that age (though probably not super-quickly). Jackie doesn't rely too much on his speed, but he also already has the defensive skills of an older player, so there's less upside on D than a normal 24-yo. He's got to keep improving on offense, which definitely seems plausible. Having a potential platoon partner will help, and maybe he can help that partner with throwing the way that Victorino has mentored him this spring. I still feel that the best alignment in the Fenway OF could (in 2 years perhaps) be Mookie in CF and Bradley in RF. What? Speed declining after age 24? Really? That's really premature, I do not think that's accurate at all. The consensus athletic prime (across pretty much all sports) is between 27-31. I'd be very surprised if we see any noticeable differences in Jackie Bradley's speed between now and 3 years from now. I'm not saying the overall conclusion is wrong- if Betts learns CF quickly, and can be a good one, then by all means, let's go with that. But Jackie's playing gold glove type defense in CF right now and he's been playing the position forever. Why move him off a premium defensive position when he doesn't really have the bat to profile as a corner OF for a guy who was an infielder a month ago?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 9, 2014 16:24:13 GMT -5
AAA has a lot of veteran pitchers who may not have great stuff, but know what they are doing. If there is a way to get you out they will figure it out maybe the second time they see you. It's inevitable that if a player spends enough time in AAA, eventually he will hit a rough patch.
Now the team has to balance this risk with the immediate need of the major league team to win. In the case of Bogarts, I think it was appropriate to rush him and bear the risk that he may have a huge slump in the majors at some point as a result.
Bradley and Betts are different cases. Bradley had about half a season of AA when he was promoted to the majors. The promotion was clearly unnecessary and based on faulty assumptions as many posters pointed out at the time. I think it's a fair conclusion from the article that Bradley's early promotion last year led to an unwise change which caused his struggles in 2014.
Betts didn't even have a full season in AA and promoted to the majors after a small amount of games in AAA and after a position change. His promotion was unnecessary as well as it was unlikely that he was going to have a great effect on the Red Sox fortunes.
To answer ElGuappo's point, I don't think the solution is to send Bogarts and Bradley to AAA, although that may have to be on the table at some point for Bogarts. I do think that the team should err on the side being too patient, especially with their best prospects, especially when the team isn't in contention.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 9, 2014 16:28:08 GMT -5
Unfortunately, at age 24, he's just about peaking defensively, with speed generally declining after that age (though probably not super-quickly). Jackie doesn't rely too much on his speed, but he also already has the defensive skills of an older player, so there's less upside on D than a normal 24-yo. He's got to keep improving on offense, which definitely seems plausible. Having a potential platoon partner will help, and maybe he can help that partner with throwing the way that Victorino has mentored him this spring. I still feel that the best alignment in the Fenway OF could (in 2 years perhaps) be Mookie in CF and Bradley in RF.What? Speed declining after age 24? Really? That's really premature, I do not think that's accurate at all. The consensus athletic prime (across pretty much all sports) is between 27-31. I'd be very surprised if we see any noticeable differences in Jackie Bradley's speed between now and 3 years from now. I'm not saying the overall conclusion is wrong- if Betts learns CF quickly, and can be a good one, then by all means, let's go with that. But Jackie's playing gold glove type defense in CF right now and he's been playing the position forever. Why move him off a premium defensive position when he doesn't really have the bat to profile as a corner OF for a guy who was an infielder a month ago? You're right about peak for most sports, but actual physical attributes tend to decline earlier due to reduced T levels after age ~20 (depends on the person of course), with the balance being more than made up for by increased experience, knowledge, positioning, routes, mechanics, etc. (and depending on the sport). If your mechanics/routes/experience are already top notch, you may not have as much upside on those "old man" skills, while still seeing the loss of the other skills. Of course, Bradley could be non-average (for a pro athlete) or could be better at maintaining his muscle mass without the young man's T levels (we've already heard about how he and V work out their arms.) As for the RF/CF thing, you're right. My scenario only works if a) Betts improves his (right now quite bad) OF defense and b) you assume you're going to have both out there anyway, so it's not about profiling the hitter, but about how you get the best D. Useless discussion at this point and I shouldn't have brought it up.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 16:31:28 GMT -5
Ok you have the science to back you up it sounds like, I'm not going to question that. Overall I see what you're driving at though because Bradley's arm would play very well in RF, while Betts' would probably be better off in CF, even if it is good enough for RF
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 9, 2014 17:08:24 GMT -5
When it comes to speed, most elite runners are in their 30's. I guess you could expect baseball players to breakdown a little faster given the wear and tear, but then again there are plenty of examples of elite base-stealers having some of their best years in their 30's. Lou Brock stole 118 bags at age 35. Ellsbury also had a good year on the basepaths last season. Depending on leg injuries it seems reasonable to expect a player to maintain most of their speed into their early 30's.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 17:24:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 9, 2014 17:29:48 GMT -5
While I am happy to see JBJ doing better at the plate, 90% of what I've seen from him shows below-average pitch recognition and below-average bat speed. His defense is so superior that any offensive production above, maybe, .240 is just icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 9, 2014 18:18:06 GMT -5
I still feel that the best alignment in the Fenway OF could (in 2 years perhaps) be Mookie in CF and Bradley in RF. If JBJ can hit enough, he's gotta be in CF. More balls are hit to CF which offsets his superior arm in RF. The best CF should always be in CF.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 10, 2014 21:23:36 GMT -5
AAA has a lot of veteran pitchers who may not have great stuff, but know what they are doing. If there is a way to get you out they will figure it out maybe the second time they see you. It's inevitable that if a player spends enough time in AAA, eventually he will hit a rough patch.Now the team has to balance this risk with the immediate need of the major league team to win. In the case of Bogarts, I think it was appropriate to rush him and bear the risk that he may have a huge slump in the majors at some point as a result. Bradley and Betts are different cases. Bradley had about half a season of AA when he was promoted to the majors. The promotion was clearly unnecessary and based on faulty assumptions as many posters pointed out at the time. I think it's a fair conclusion from the article that Bradley's early promotion last year led to an unwise change which caused his struggles in 2014. Betts didn't even have a full season in AA and promoted to the majors after a small amount of games in AAA and after a position change. His promotion was unnecessary as well as it was unlikely that he was going to have a great effect on the Red Sox fortunes. To answer ElGuappo's point, I don't think the solution is to send Bogarts and Bradley to AAA, although that may have to be on the table at some point for Bogarts. I do think that the team should err on the side being too patient, especially with their best prospects, especially when the team isn't in contention. I'm with you on much of your post, but disagree on the bolded part. I think it's entirely possible that a player can be a very good Triple-A player and not hit any bad rough patches and yet not be a very good MLB player. That's how you get the phenomenon of the AAAA player. You're right that there are many AAA pitchers that know what they're doing without great stuff, and I'll add that there are also pitchers with great stuff who don't know what to do with it, but isn't the point that they're missing something that keeps them from being MLB pitchers (except for the handful of prospects on their way up and in AAA for "finishing school")? Looking at Bradley, we've now heard that he changed his stance last year when he struggled in Boston in a way that seems to have prevented him from having much success at the plate until recently. But if that's the case, then he hit a perfectly respectable .275/.374/.469 in Triple-A with said swing last year, also while dealing with a few injuries. In other words, with that swing, it's possible he was a perfectly fine Triple-A player, but could not succeed at the plate in the majors because of the difference in pitching. It's admittedly a nitpick, but for very good prospects like Bogaerts and Bradley, it's entirely possible that they had to get to the majors in order to struggle, whether rushed or not. It's exactly what happened with Buchholz, an example I admittedly beat to death who was a different pitcher on his way up the first time, and I have a feeling it's what's going to have to happen to Henry Owens (both players, I just realized, with excellent changeups... hm). For some guys, that level is Triple-A (Brentz, Cecchini). It's perfectly possible that the majors are that level for others. Also, sorry to be annoying, but Bogaerts has an "E" in it. Sorry - I'm sorta OCD about spelling/grammar. Dick move, I know ... I'll go take a lap now.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jul 10, 2014 22:03:29 GMT -5
It's admittedly a nitpick, but for very good prospects like Bogaerts and Bradley, it's entirely possible that they had to get to the majors in order to struggle, whether rushed or not. It's exactly what happened with Buchholz, an example I admittedly beat to death who was a different pitcher on his way up the first time, and I have a feeling it's what's going to have to happen to Henry Owens (both players, I just realized, with excellent changeups... hm). For some guys, that level is Triple-A (Brentz, Cecchini). It's perfectly possible that the majors are that level for others. In a way, all of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, the majors might be their El Guapo. For others, the jump to AA might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a retired relief pitcher.....
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 11, 2014 7:54:55 GMT -5
Also, sorry to be annoying, but Bogaerts has an "E" in it. Sorry - I'm sorta OCD about spelling/grammar. You must hate having Ranaudo in our system, he inspires dyslexia like no other. ("Renaudo", "Ranuado"...)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 11, 2014 8:17:36 GMT -5
It's admittedly a nitpick, but for very good prospects like Bogaerts and Bradley, it's entirely possible that they had to get to the majors in order to struggle, whether rushed or not. It's exactly what happened with Buchholz, an example I admittedly beat to death who was a different pitcher on his way up the first time, and I have a feeling it's what's going to have to happen to Henry Owens (both players, I just realized, with excellent changeups... hm). For some guys, that level is Triple-A (Brentz, Cecchini). It's perfectly possible that the majors are that level for others. As much as you can make a case against rushing a guy, you can make a case against letting them get stale at AAA. Bogaerts and Bradley both clearly have exploitable weaknesses as hitters and what AAA pitchers can exploit those somewhat, they can't do it to the extent that MLB pitchers can (if they could, they'd be in the major leagues). And it's hard to tell a guy he's got to change something about his swing or his approach, or even identify that he has to change something, when he's hitting .280 with power.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 12, 2014 8:30:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jul 12, 2014 8:56:03 GMT -5
I understand why you posted this, and I agree JBJ's value to the team is underrated, but its unfair to compare him to Ortiz by WAR. Ortiz gets scored with a negative number defensively by that stat simply for being a DH. But overall, it is really exciting to see him start making a bigger impact on the success of the team. Great cautionary tale for Bogaerts and anyone who may be getting down on him right now because he's going through a major adjustment period.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 12, 2014 8:57:33 GMT -5
All that does is make me question the validity of those metrics. Not bashing JBJ either.
|
|
|