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?
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Sept 22, 2015 11:11:14 GMT -5
My only concern with the OF going into next year is that both JBJ and Castillo seem like guys who could hit .270, which is fine, but they both may have spells of being extremely hot and extremely cold to get there. I'm not sure I want 2/3 guys out there to be that streaky. I don't think they'll both be here in April, personally. But the only way to replace tbat defense, and potential offense, would appear to be at enormous cost and commitment, at a time when areas of need are the rotation and pen, wbich will also require big $$$$ and commitment. Mookie is going nowhere, maybe ever. Dave tried to trade for JBJ when he WASN'T hitting, and was a runner up to the Sox in signing Rusney. Why, when he finally has this amazing group assembled, and facing major issues elsewhere, would he trade one of them. What outfielder would he consider worth bringing in as replacement. ??
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Sept 22, 2015 12:27:27 GMT -5
I don't think they'll both be here in April, personally. But the only way to replace tbat defense, and potential offense, would appear to be at enormous cost and commitment, at a time when areas of need are the rotation and pen, wbich will also require big $$$$ and commitment. Mookie is going nowhere, maybe ever. Dave tried to trade for JBJ when he WASN'T hitting, and was a runner up to the Sox in signing Rusney. Why, when he finally has this amazing group assembled, and facing major issues elsewhere, would he trade one of them. What outfielder would he consider worth bringing in as replacement. ?? I could definitely see him selling Castillo. JBJ in the right deal, but less likely. I think he'll try to add some power in LF. Personally I don't think Castillo will hit much for a COF and whatever team that trusts him in CF may value him more. I think Oakland would be a good fit. Lots of ground to cover and bring defensive worth too, and Castillo literally doesn't hit pop ups which is a big plus in Oakland. San Diego could use him too.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 22, 2015 14:20:02 GMT -5
I never said that he would be a surefire lock as a starter if he were an 80 wRC+ player, just that he'd still be a decent starter. Teams try to upgrade on two win players, but teams are (or should be) comfortable with those guys even if their value comes disproportionately from their defense. You're also skewing the sample by looking at guys with wRC+s of 79 and lower. There are a bunch of guys with wRC+s in the low 80s that meet your criteria-- think Leonys Martin (80), Andrelton Simmons, Michael Bourn (81), Stephen Drew, Alberto Callaspo (82), J.J. Hardy, Ruben Tejada (83). I read your post and the one you quoted, and drew a similar conclusion from both: *There are a bunch of low-end starters who profile similarly to a hypothetical "Jackie Bradley who is just good enough to stick". *Is Bradley "good enough to stick" with a .660 OPS? Sure. So is Leonys Martin or Michael Bourn. Martin is a good and underrated player - over whom no one is salivating. *Framing the debate around "good enough to stick" is not particularly interesting. A top 5 offense edition of the Bosox is going to have to be 10% above league average. This means having a plethora of above average (say 110 wrC+ or better) offensive players. *That Bradley can hack it as a 80 wRC+ guy is better than nothing. The real question is whether he is part of the solution to that top-5 offense, the problem, or somewhere in between. Because that informs how we have to build the rest of the team to get there. I would bet on solution - 95 wRC+ combined with his sublime defense. But people are throwing around these putrid offensive benchmarks without considering how they affect overall team construction. I agree with most of this, but I want to reiterate that a run prevented is essentially the same as a run scored, and the biggest problem with the 2015 Red Sox weren't their run scoring but their run prevention (11th in wRC+, 24th in FIP-, 19th in UZR/150). They don't need to be a top 5 offense to win the division, and I continue to believe that defense is still somewhat undervalued and an easy route towards significant improvement.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 22, 2015 14:31:40 GMT -5
If JBJ does not sustain his slash lines then his SLG% would be the one most likely to decline based on his history however there is reason to believe his BA is for real and his OBP especially. I think you have this backwards. His batting average is now .265 this year despite a well-above-average (and likely unsustainable) .342 BABIP. Bradley's biggest bugaboo continues to be his penchant for strikeouts, and I am very skeptical that he'll be the high batting average/OBP player in the majors that he was in the minors. Meanwhile, while his current Chris Davis impression is unlikely to continue, he's shown enough of a penchant for driving the ball that I think he'll put up an average-to-better (though sub-elite) isolated power in the majors. My current projection for him is something like .240/.320/.400. That's something like a 90-95 wRC+ and an above-average starter in CF.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Sept 22, 2015 15:24:54 GMT -5
If JBJ does not sustain his slash lines then his SLG% would be the one most likely to decline based on his history however there is reason to believe his BA is for real and his OBP especially. I think you have this backwards. His batting average is now .265 this year despite a well-above-average (and likely unsustainable) .342 BABIP. Bradley's biggest bugaboo continues to be his penchant for strikeouts, and I am very skeptical that he'll be the high batting average/OBP player in the majors that he was in the minors. Meanwhile, while his current Chris Davis impression is unlikely to continue, he's shown enough of a penchant for driving the ball that I think he'll put up an average-to-better (though sub-elite) isolated power in the majors. My current projection for him is something like .240/.320/.400. That's something like a 90-95 wRC+ and an above-average starter in CF. I also was thinking about the figures I put out earlier as being acceptable for Jackie.....and because of his BABIP I couldn't in reality make it work. My figures were .270/.330/.375. The number of K's JBJ has almost makes it impossible to hit .270. I also agree his slugging should be closer to your figure.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 22, 2015 15:26:18 GMT -5
I agree with most of this, but I want to reiterate that a run prevented is essentially the same as a run scored, and the biggest problem with the 2015 Red Sox weren't their run scoring but their run prevention (11th in wRC+, 24th in FIP-, 19th in UZR/150). They don't need to be a top 5 offense to win the division, and I continue to believe that defense is still somewhat undervalued and an easy route towards significant improvement. Truly, a run prevented is as good as a run scored. But from a roster construction standpoint, I would think that: 1. Team wRC+ has the most potential to improve without trades (maturation of young players, bounce-back years from Ramirez and Sandoval, more than half a season of Pedroia, DH redundancy with Ramirez present to compensate for possible Ortiz decline) 2. The UZR/150 has the least potential to change one way or the other despite trades (3 center fielders plus Brock Holt plus the fact that no-bat outfielders are cheap makes it easy to have a studly OF in most scenarios, defensive liabilities entrenched in the IF corners makes the infield bad in most scenarios) Thus, if I'm trying to be a competitor in the short term, I'm trading from redundancy (defensive CF/UZR) to address weakness (FIP-) and hoping that the rest of the improvement comes from within (wRC+). Bradley being a 6-hitter and not a 9-hitter makes him part of the solution, if not directly as a player, then indirectly in letting us move someone else, or as a trade piece. I don't think they need a top 5 offense to win the division in a vacuum. But I do think that their best bet to get to the postseason next year, given the constraints (how good the current roster is, age distribution, what the contracts look like, what the farm looks like) is as a bat-first team. Or to put that in a different wording, I think that their most realistic shot at cumulative improvement is being top a fringe top 5 team in wRC+, and getting around average in FIP-, while treading water in UZR/150, for example. Would you disagree with that statement?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 22, 2015 17:28:13 GMT -5
I agree with most of this, but I want to reiterate that a run prevented is essentially the same as a run scored, and the biggest problem with the 2015 Red Sox weren't their run scoring but their run prevention (11th in wRC+, 24th in FIP-, 19th in UZR/150). They don't need to be a top 5 offense to win the division, and I continue to believe that defense is still somewhat undervalued and an easy route towards significant improvement. Truly, a run prevented is as good as a run scored. But from a roster construction standpoint, I would think that: 1. Team wRC+ has the most potential to improve without trades (maturation of young players, bounce-back years from Ramirez and Sandoval, more than half a season of Pedroia, DH redundancy with Ramirez present to compensate for possible Ortiz decline) 2. The UZR/150 has the least potential to change one way or the other despite trades (3 center fielders plus Brock Holt plus the fact that no-bat outfielders are cheap makes it easy to have a studly OF in most scenarios, defensive liabilities entrenched in the IF corners makes the infield bad in most scenarios) Thus, if I'm trying to be a competitor in the short term, I'm trading from redundancy (defensive CF/UZR) to address weakness (FIP-) and hoping that the rest of the improvement comes from within (wRC+). Bradley being a 6-hitter and not a 9-hitter makes him part of the solution, if not directly as a player, then indirectly in letting us move someone else, or as a trade piece. I don't think they need a top 5 offense to win the division in a vacuum. But I do think that their best bet to get to the postseason next year, given the constraints (how good the current roster is, age distribution, what the contracts look like, what the farm looks like) is as a bat-first team. Or to put that in a different wording, I think that their most realistic shot at cumulative improvement is being top a fringe top 5 team in wRC+, and getting around average in FIP-, while treading water in UZR/150, for example. Would you disagree with that statement? I can buy the argument that you trade from surplus/redundancy, but you're thinking of surplus/redundancy slight in a slightly flawed way. If you can get them all on the field at the same time, it doesn't really matter if they're all the same type of player. The Red Sox only have three MLB-ready starting-caliber outfielders in their organization, and it shouldn't really matter that they all get a decent chunk of their value through defense. I don't think there is a meaningful diminishing marginal return from having three plus defensive outfielders (see, e.g., here or the 2014-15 Royals), and plus defense from your outfield corners is still super helpful. There are scenarios in which it may make sense to trade one of Betts/Castillo/Bradley (presumably involving their signing a free agent OF), but I'm skeptical that those scenarios are the most likely way to build a playoff contender next year. If they're an above-average offense and defense (think top 8-12 or so) with an averagish pitching staff, that should be enough to get them into the playoffs and seems very achievable with the current core.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Sept 22, 2015 17:40:55 GMT -5
Where is the assertion coming from that they don't need to be a top-5 offensive team to win the AL East. They're 3rd in the league in RS and in 4th place. I don't think they have ever won the AL East without being top-2 in the AL
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 22, 2015 17:58:32 GMT -5
Where is the assertion coming from that they don't need to be a top-5 offensive team to win the AL East. They're 3rd in the league in RS and in 4th place. I don't think they have ever won the AL East without being top-2 in the AL Part of it is that you have to adjust for park-- Fenway is one of the most hitter-friendly parks in the league. You're right that their recent teams have succeeded through offensive success (even measured with park-adjusted stats), but I don't see any reason that has to be true. The 1998-1999 Red Sox, for instance, were more balanced teams (8th and 10th in wRC+, 14th and 3rd in FIP-).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 22, 2015 21:14:52 GMT -5
Where is the assertion coming from that they don't need to be a top-5 offensive team to win the AL East. They're 3rd in the league in RS and in 4th place. I don't think they have ever won the AL East without being top-2 in the AL www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1990.shtml#teams_standard_batting::3Seventh in the league in runs scored when they won the division in 1990. And yeah, that team had Roger Clemens and got a fantastic season out of Mike Boddicker, so the team is constructed differently than that one was. But the point stands: having the best offense in team history is the reason the team went on that run from 2003 to 2009, but it is certainly not the only way to build a winner. If Bradley is helping to prevent more runs than he is giving up with his offense (and it's possible that he's not giving anything up at all), then yes, he helps the team. When a team gets into overly-rigid styles of team building, where you become focused on getting the one player or neglecting another because of "fit" rather than value, then that team loses out.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Sept 22, 2015 22:19:07 GMT -5
Travis Shaw 139+ JBJ 132+
In essentially the same # of PAs.
They're the same age, and Shaw has nothing like JBJ's execrable 2014 to hold against him.
I think there's an interesting dissertation for someone on the dynamics of player hype; and I don't think it's a coincidence that the media are behind it (which is surprising and sad in this age of the Internet), it's just bizarre. And meanwhile the GM is forcing the movement of the team's best player (who is 22 and has a career 120+) for a 25 year old with a career 73+
It's just insane
|
|
|
Post by semsox on Sept 23, 2015 10:59:31 GMT -5
Travis Shaw 139+ JBJ 132+ In essentially the same # of PAs. They're the same age, and Shaw has nothing like JBJ's execrable 2014 to hold against him. I think there's an interesting dissertation for someone on the dynamics of player hype; and I don't think it's a coincidence that the media are behind it (which is surprising and sad in this age of the Internet), it's just bizarre. And meanwhile the GM is forcing the movement of the team's best player (who is 22 and has a career 120+) for a 25 year old with a career 73+ It's just insane I don't understand what you're arguing here. Comparing Bradley to Shaw is an apples to oranges comparison, and JBJ is a better CF than Mookie, so if they're going to plan on going into next year with Mookie and JBJ both in a starting role, JBJ in CF and Mookie elsewhere makes more sense.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Sept 23, 2015 12:04:22 GMT -5
Mookie is just over 1 for UZR/150 in CF. The defensive value he'd bring in RF even with a lackluster arm would be just as high as what he gives in CF in all likelihood. He doesn't need to play CF.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 23, 2015 14:57:23 GMT -5
Travis Shaw 139+ JBJ 132+ In essentially the same # of PAs. They're the same age, and Shaw has nothing like JBJ's execrable 2014 to hold against him. I think there's an interesting dissertation for someone on the dynamics of player hype; and I don't think it's a coincidence that the media are behind it (which is surprising and sad in this age of the Internet), it's just bizarre. And meanwhile the GM is forcing the movement of the team's best player (who is 22 and has a career 120+) for a 25 year old with a career 73+ It's just insane I don't understand what you're arguing here. Comparing Bradley to Shaw is an apples to oranges comparison It's not for the people who are buying into this "Nobody who hits like this over X plate appearances doesn't become an average hitter!" nonsense. Obviously JBJ is better for lots of reasons, but why is his hot streak any more predictive?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 23, 2015 15:25:49 GMT -5
I don't understand what you're arguing here. Comparing Bradley to Shaw is an apples to oranges comparison It's not for the people who are buying into this "Nobody who hits like this over X plate appearances doesn't become an average hitter!" nonsense. Obviously JBJ is better for lots of reasons, but why is his hot streak any more predictive? Don't think it is ... I think they both have shown enough ability to be somewhat likely to be at least a below average (not terrible) hitter. It just means wildly different things for Shaw or for JBJ to be "at least a below average hitter." After seeing Jackie in person again and watching his hot and cold streaks play out, I'm now in the "he'll be a touch below-average as a hitter" camp, which is not bad. Maybe he'll shorten up his swing a little bit, and he's closed up the worst of his toe-tapping/hip-cocking craziness, so my earlier worry that he'd never turn out to be able to hit has faded considerably. But he's still got a big stride with a lot of forward momentum, so he'll have some trouble adapting to guys who can change speeds and eye angles on him effectively. He'll be a bit of a guess hitter, I think. But he's got a good sense of the strike zone, has some good hands, and he's stronger than he looks. The stride gives him legit in-game power, I think. But, you know, he's already done a lot of work, so maybe he shortens his stride a little bit, trades some power for better contact, and he's better than he looks to me now. He has some power to give away in a trade-off, I think.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Sept 23, 2015 16:51:15 GMT -5
Mookie is just over 1 for UZR/150 in CF. The defensive value he'd bring in RF even with a lackluster arm would be just as high as what he gives in CF in all likelihood. He doesn't need to play CF. and JBJ is a -19.6 UZR/150 in CF
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 23, 2015 16:57:27 GMT -5
Mookie is just over 1 for UZR/150 in CF. The defensive value he'd bring in RF even with a lackluster arm would be just as high as what he gives in CF in all likelihood. He doesn't need to play CF. and JBJ is a -19.6 UZR/150 in CF 13.1 for his career. Since you continually bring up his entire career when talking batting...
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Sept 23, 2015 17:16:45 GMT -5
Mookie is just over 1 for UZR/150 in CF. The defensive value he'd bring in RF even with a lackluster arm would be just as high as what he gives in CF in all likelihood. He doesn't need to play CF. and JBJ is a -19.6 UZR/150 in CF Yeah, let's use a minuscule sample size from this year. Relax, the kid is going to be a star regardless of his position.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 23, 2015 21:03:41 GMT -5
If JBJ does not sustain his slash lines then his SLG% would be the one most likely to decline based on his history however there is reason to believe his BA is for real and his OBP especially. I think you have this backwards. His batting average is now .265 this year despite a well-above-average (and likely unsustainable) .342 BABIP. Bradley's biggest bugaboo continues to be his penchant for strikeouts, and I am very skeptical that he'll be the high batting average/OBP player in the majors that he was in the minors. Meanwhile, while his current Chris Davis impression is unlikely to continue, he's shown enough of a penchant for driving the ball that I think he'll put up an average-to-better (though sub-elite) isolated power in the majors. My current projection for him is something like .240/.320/.400. That's something like a 90-95 wRC+ and an above-average starter in CF. His Babip has been consistently high and he's fast. So he may be able to maintain a higher than normal Babip. The difference between his OBP and AVG has been outstanding too, he knows how to draw a walk. The high K rate is a concern,
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Sept 23, 2015 23:23:21 GMT -5
Bradley really isn't very fast so that isn't buoying his BABIP.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 23, 2015 23:50:58 GMT -5
Bradley really isn't very fast so that isn't buoying his BABIP. Does anybody have any data that shows if a high BAPIP has any coralasion with batters with high pitches per AB???
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Sept 24, 2015 20:09:09 GMT -5
This question makes implications that are the exact opposite of correct. In reality, offensive output is mildly nonlinear, such that for a team with an already excellent offense, offensive skills should be weighted HIGHER than defensive skills relative to a team with an average or worse overall offense. Amusing. Of course, your claim is just gibberish. It's meaningless to describe a single dimension as "non-linear", do you even know what a linear function is? It's like writing, "Height is non-linear" - Huh? And of course, the Pillar question implies a non-linear relationship between say team WOBA and runs scored (well actually between some measure of offense and team win value). So go plot team WOBA vs runs scored - maybe you'll learn something. Sorry, I forgot that your comprehension level is such that everything needs to be spelled out in painstaking detail for you. Let's go through this slowly: 1. An individual player's offensive output is commonly measured in Runs Created by translating his individual stats into the number of runs those stats would produce on an average offensive team in an average environment. 2. For an average team, their total TEAM offensive output is a linear function (i.e. the sum) of the INDIVIDUAL offensive outputs of the players in the batting order, +/- sequencing luck. 3. While this is a good approximation, it becomes less accurate the further a team strays from average. Specifically, a strong offensive team like the Blue Jays will have, on average, more men on base. A single by a Blue Jays player will, on average, create more runs than a single by a player on an average team, because it's more likely there will be someone on base to be advanced or driven in by that single. 4. Therefore, TEAM offensive output is actually a NON-LINEAR function of the INDIVIDUAL offense outputs of its players. 5. The consequence is that the Blue Jays would be better served by replacing Pillar with a player whose value to an average team is the same (as Pillar's would be), but who derives more of that value from offensive production than from fielding. I hope that explains it clearly enough that even you can understand.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 24, 2015 22:37:16 GMT -5
Amusing. Of course, your claim is just gibberish. It's meaningless to describe a single dimension as "non-linear", do you even know what a linear function is? It's like writing, "Height is non-linear" - Huh? And of course, the Pillar question implies a non-linear relationship between say team WOBA and runs scored (well actually between some measure of offense and team win value). So go plot team WOBA vs runs scored - maybe you'll learn something. Sorry, I forgot that your comprehension level is such that everything needs to be spelled out in painstaking detail for you. Let's go through this slowly: 1. An individual player's offensive output is commonly measured in Runs Created by translating his individual stats into the number of runs those stats would produce on an average offensive team in an average environment. 2. For an average team, their total TEAM offensive output is a linear function (i.e. the sum) of the INDIVIDUAL offensive outputs of the players in the batting order, +/- sequencing luck. 3. While this is a good approximation, it becomes less accurate the further a team strays from average. Specifically, a strong offensive team like the Blue Jays will have, on average, more men on base. A single by a Blue Jays player will, on average, create more runs than a single by a player on an average team, because it's more likely there will be someone on base to be advanced or driven in by that single. 4. Therefore, TEAM offensive output is actually a NON-LINEAR function of the INDIVIDUAL offense outputs of its players. 5. The consequence is that the Blue Jays would be better served by replacing Pillar with a player whose value to an average team is the same, but who derives more of that value from offensive production than from fielding. I hope that explains it clearly enough that even you can understand. Evidence that's it's not a good idea to bring a butter knife to a gun fight.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 25, 2015 0:10:45 GMT -5
The hallmark of non-linear dynamical systems is feedback. That's what all those extra runners on base in a very good offensive environment will result in, lots of extra feedback to the scoreboard run counter. No different than a soft voice speaking into a good quality mic that's been inadvertently placed in front of the PA. A little sound will go a very long way very quickly. Even little hits, with lots of runners on in front of you, make you an RBI king!
|
|
|
Post by glassox on Sept 29, 2015 19:26:23 GMT -5
During the streak to me he was just trying to get use to just getting his leg up and back down. Watching the game tonight and it appears to me like he is trying to time the leg kick to much, not just get it up and down to learn a new technique. Of course i have no evidence just what my eyes tell me.
|
|
|