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 12, 2014 9:07:04 GMT -5
Shouldn't be that hard to conceptualize. Bradley's defense is about as valuable as Ortiz's offense (which has been more above-average than great this year), while Bradley's offense (including above-average baserunning) is slightly more valuable as Ortiz's (nonexistent) defense. I'm not saying that Bradley is a better player than Ortiz, but there's an argument to be made that he's played better than Ortiz has this year.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jul 12, 2014 9:13:44 GMT -5
Exactly, nonexistent defense meaning 0 impact. But Ortiz gets scored -9.1 by Fangraphs for defensive WAR, If you put that at zero Ortiz would have a 5.2 WAR vs Bradley's overall 1.2.
But again, I do understand what you're saying and agree with you, I just don't like how that stat determines overall value as a player.
EDIT: Or at least offensive and defensive WAR should be equally weighted, so if Ortiz offensively is at 5.2 and defensively is at 0 his overall WAR should be 2.6, but it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 12, 2014 9:14:27 GMT -5
Shouldn't be that hard to conceptualize. Bradley's defense is about as valuable as Ortiz's offense (which has been more above-average than great this year), while Bradley's offense (including above-average baserunning) is slightly more valuable as Ortiz's (nonexistent) defense. I'm not saying that Bradley is a better player than Ortiz, but there's an argument to be made that he's played better than Ortiz has this year. Bradley's defense doesn't hit a HR in the 9th or 10th inning when you're about to suffer a brutal loss. Unless you believe all hitting is happenstance and no such thing as clutch hitting. Does Papi get extra credit for all of those intentional walks he's given and times he's pitched around?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 12, 2014 9:26:36 GMT -5
Just as long a we're willing to give Bradley credit for saving games by laying out for balls a lot of guys wouldn't catch, or throwing runners out at the plate who are trying to score. Even if it happens in the middle of a game, that's what opens the door to late game heroics by keeping the score close. Wins accumulate in a lot of different ways.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 12, 2014 9:34:20 GMT -5
Exactly, nonexistent defense meaning 0 impact. But Ortiz gets scored -9.1 by Fangraphs for defensive WAR, If you put that at zero Ortiz would have a 5.2 WAR vs Bradley's overall 1.2. But again, I do understand what you're saying and agree with you, I just don't like how that stat determines overall value as a player. EDIT: Or at least offensive and defensive WAR should be equally weighted, so if Ortiz offensively is at 5.2 and defensively is at 0 his overall WAR should be 2.6, but it isn't. Ortiz gets "penalized" because it's easier to find a good offensive option at DH than it is to find a good offensive option at CF (i.e., a replacement-level bat at DH is better than a replacement-level bat in CF). You're talking about the positional adjustment, which I agree shouldn't be lumped into the defensive value column but deserves its own column (call it "positional value"). But the concept makes sense-- your backup option at DH (say, Brandon Snyder) will hit better than your backup option in CF (say, Corey Brown), so we have to adjust for that somehow. Or, if you want to use more realistic examples, it's not hard to imagine that the difference between Ortiz and Carp is smaller than the difference between Bradley and Sizemore.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jul 12, 2014 9:45:37 GMT -5
Wow, thank you for taking the time to explain that. That actually does make sense when you put it like that.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 13, 2014 6:24:17 GMT -5
Exactly, nonexistent defense meaning 0 impact. But Ortiz gets scored -9.1 by Fangraphs for defensive WAR, If you put that at zero Ortiz would have a 5.2 WAR vs Bradley's overall 1.2. But again, I do understand what you're saying and agree with you, I just don't like how that stat determines overall value as a player. EDIT: Or at least offensive and defensive WAR should be equally weighted, so if Ortiz offensively is at 5.2 and defensively is at 0 his overall WAR should be 2.6, but it isn't. Ortiz gets "penalized" because it's easier to find a good offensive option at DH than it is to find a good offensive option at CF (i.e., a replacement-level bat at DH is better than a replacement-level bat in CF). You're talking about the positional adjustment, which I agree shouldn't be lumped into the defensive value column but deserves its own column (call it "positional value"). But the concept makes sense-- your backup option at DH (say, Brandon Snyder) will hit better than your backup option in CF (say, Corey Brown), so we have to adjust for that somehow. Or, if you want to use more realistic examples, it's not hard to imagine that the difference between Ortiz and Carp is smaller than the difference between Bradley and Sizemore. The thing is, the positional adjustment for DH used by both b-ref and FG assumes that it's the easiest position to play, requiring no skill at all. But there's a wealth of evidence that that simply isn't true; when the average player serves as DH, he hits less well, just as when he pinch hits (though not to the same degree). On the defensive spectrum, when you look at the actual results, DH fits between LF and 1B. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but if you think of staying sharp while being inactive in the dugout as the defensive skill that a DH must possess, it makes more sense. It's actually not easy. I don't see a reason why the positional adjustment for DH shouldn't be based on how actual DHs have actually hit historically rather than derived theoretically. When the position was invented it was thought that it would be populated entirely by guys like Ortiz. The reason why many teams now don't have a regular DH is not because that's a better strategy, it's because there's a shortage of hitters on the dull side of the defensive spectrum and because serving as DH actually requires a skill. The difference between the theoretical positional adjustment used by current calculations and the empirically determined, apparently fair adjustment is is something like 0.8 WAR per 150 games. That gives us the following ranking, averaging bWAR and fWAR: Pedroia 2.8 Napoli 1.9 Holt 1.8 Ortiz 1.7 Bradley 1.4 This rings a lot truer to me than the version where Ortiz is 1.2.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 13, 2014 7:44:38 GMT -5
I agree with you about the DH penalty-- that appears to be real, and should be reflected in the positional adjustments. But, happily enough, it is! To steal a Dave Cameron comment ( link): Plus, using an empirical data to determine the positional adjustment instead is pretty problematic. There's a significant selection bias at play there-- most guys who are really great hitters are also athletic enough to play the field, which means DH slots are usually reserved for aging plodders who are no longer good hitters. Since positional adjustments are supposed to adjust for how difficult each defensive position is, not the average level of offense at each position (this is why both B-R and Fangraphs fits it into the defensive value category), using average offensive performance by position is not the best way to derive positional adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 13, 2014 8:10:49 GMT -5
So if the analysis of Ortiz's WAR is accurate then it seems to follow that the Sox should dump him and just rotate their position players through the DH spot since none of the them would suffer much of the positional penalty as each would spend only a little time there (and yes the sum would be the same as now) Easy to do with Holt, Nava and Betts being so versatile. Anyone think that's a good idea?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 13, 2014 8:27:30 GMT -5
So if the analysis of Ortiz's WAR is accurate then it seems to follow that the Sox should dump him and just rotate their position players through the DH spot since none of the them would suffer much of the positional penalty as each would spend only a little time there (and yes the sum would be the same as now) Easy to do with Holt, Nava and Betts being so versatile. Anyone think that's a good idea? Positional adjustments are levied on a per-plate-appearance basis, so this would make no sense. Again, I'm not saying Bradley is a better player than Ortiz or that Ortiz is a bad player. Don't focus on the Ortiz part of this (I already regret pointing out what I thought was just a weird quirk). Instead, note that even with his terrible offensive start to the season, Bradley projects to be an above-average starter. That's how good his defense has been. If he's even a league-average hitter, he's one of the better center fielders in the league.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 13, 2014 9:24:50 GMT -5
So if the analysis of Ortiz's WAR is accurate then it seems to follow that the Sox should dump him and just rotate their position players through the DH spot since none of the them would suffer much of the positional penalty as each would spend only a little time there (and yes the sum would be the same as now) Easy to do with Holt, Nava and Betts being so versatile. Anyone think that's a good idea? Positional adjustments are levied on a per-plate-appearance basis, so this would make no sense. Again, I'm not saying Bradley is a better player than Ortiz or that Ortiz is a bad player. Don't focus on the Ortiz part of this (I already regret pointing out what I thought was just a weird quirk). Instead, note that even with his terrible offensive start to the season, Bradley projects to be an above-average starter. That's how good his defense has been. If he's even a league-average hitter, he's one of the better center fielders in the league. I agree that Bradley is a valuable player (having been an outfielder whose glove was more advanced than his bat I certainly can relate). My point was more in defense of ericmvan's interpretation that the DH positional adjustment seems to skew too negatively. By rotating the DH you would lose the same amount of value to the team total but spread across many players none would be so obviously impacted. What happens if the pitcher bats as in the NL, is there an equally negative positional adjustment? Just seems to me make little sense, but I'm (obviously) not a statistician even though I do appreciate the value of statistical analysis.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 13, 2014 11:36:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 13, 2014 12:44:10 GMT -5
Love the batting stance change by JBJ. One of my biggest knocks on him has always been his pitch recognition and bat speed. Both just seemed too slow and that's why he was getting killed with inside fastballs and down and in breaking pitches. He opened his stance up and now he gets a cleaner look at the ball coming out of the pitcher's hand, which allows him to speed up the rest of his hitting process. Great job by him and the Sox staff.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 26, 2014 11:45:43 GMT -5
With a few more PAs under his belt it looks like the adjustment might actually be legit. JBJ isn't setting the world on fire but he has hit at a respectable clip the past month. I could see him hitting .250 next year with a .325 OBP.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 26, 2014 11:50:59 GMT -5
With a few more PAs under his belt it looks like the adjustment might actually be legit. JBJ isn't setting the world on fire but he has hit at a respectable clip the past month. I could see him hitting .250 next year with a .325 OBP. March 31-June 18 (reworked stance) 42/208, 12-2B, 3B, HR, 73/22 K/BB, .202/.278/.292/.570 June 19-July 25 (old stance) 27/88, 7-2B, 3B, 16/7 K/BB, .307/.358/.409/.767
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 26, 2014 11:54:26 GMT -5
If he could maintain those numbers he would be a 5 WAR player, alas, that is highly unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 26, 2014 11:59:06 GMT -5
I see no reason that JBJ couldn't be a .280/.350/.410 player going forward. Hopefully, he made the offensive transition to be major league level.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 26, 2014 12:08:44 GMT -5
Maybe in his prime. He still strikes out a lot and has shown very little power.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Jul 26, 2014 12:21:37 GMT -5
Your power concerns are justified, but his K% since the stance change is about 18%. You can work with that, I think - a vast improvement over where it was.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2014 12:27:37 GMT -5
I see no reason that JBJ couldn't be a .280/.350/.410 player going forward. Hopefully, he made the offensive transition to be major league level. I agree with suttree on this one-- even with his post-stance-change 16.8% strikeout rate, I think this is a tad ambitious in terms of a median projection and seems like a more realistic peak projection. It's dangerous to use only the best stretch of his season to project him going forward, even if that stretch does correspond with a pretty clear and significant change in mechanics. I'd guess something closer to .260/.320/.360 in 2015, with the potential for more if he starts tapping into the power he showed in the minors. We'll have a better read on things after the last two month of this season-- if he maintains that low strikeout rate, maybe I'd bump that up to .270/.330/.370. Either way, he's cemented himself as the presumptive starting CF next year.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 26, 2014 13:31:06 GMT -5
I'd guess something closer to .260/.320/.360 in 2015, with the potential for more if he starts tapping into the power he showed in the minors. We'll have a better read on things after the last two month of this season-- if he maintains that low strikeout rate, maybe I'd bump that up to .270/.330/.370. Either way, he's cemented himself as the presumptive starting CF next year. Absolutely on starting CF. The number of OFs with .260/.320/.360 lines (give or take .005) since 2011 (qualified PAs only)? None. Some possible comps: Leonys Martin (2014 - .268/.324/.375) Jon Jay (2013 - .276/.351/.370) Angel Pagan (2011 - .262/.322/.372) I think Martin is a pretty good comp for JBJ. He'll provide 1-2 oWAR and 1-2 dWAR each year. I do think that, given JBJ's pedigree, he's provide more OPS than Martin over time (low-to-mid 700s).
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 26, 2014 13:57:59 GMT -5
My impression from watching him over the last year+ is that he's focusing on making contact these days, learning the pitchers and what they throw, not trying to overswing. Thus the reduction in the K rate and the progressive rise in contact and, of course, his average. That's all while maintaining good patience that still has him around .80 on his isolated discipline. If I'm right about this, then we'll see a gradual increase in extra base hits as his gets his feel for the league. I see a projection somewhere in the middle of jmei's and amfox's, but lean more towards the latter's OBP because of the above. I don't think he's capable of having an on-base pct that's only 60 points or so higher than his average, that's just not who he is. I also think that the slugging at his peak will be more like .425-.435, though that's just a guess. I'll bet he learns to tatoo the LF wall once he gets his sea legs.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 26, 2014 14:18:56 GMT -5
Your power concerns are justified, but his K% since the stance change is about 18%. You can work with that, I think - a vast improvement over where it was. Yeah, but like Jmei said, you don't want to read too much into his best stretch of the season. The sample is still small enough that his true skill level could be significantly different. At this point I'm comfortable saying there has been an improvement.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,700
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Aug 1, 2014 10:30:17 GMT -5
His July OPS was .675. LD rate 28% which is great. He's not being as patient as he has been in the past.
He could hit well for the rest of the year, but if he doesn't, he could become trade bait for a blockbuster. That's if mookie is a clear cut better hitter and at least an average fielder in center, which isn't a sure thing. Too many hypotheticals here, I know.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 9, 2014 0:35:15 GMT -5
NSFW
|
|
|