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?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 11, 2015 9:36:23 GMT -5
BTW, know how many position players had 18 WAR from 2011-2014 (four years)? 17. How many had 20? 10. Yet someone how it's far more unlikely that Syndergaard, who has a better major league track record and arguably a better minor league one, does something that 21 pitchers have done over a six year span. Oops, I was basing Bradley on 150 games per season. And there were 27 players who were that good the previous four years. If you don't pro-rate for games, you're omitting Tulowitzki, Donaldson, Machado, Wright, Utley, Braun, Marte, Headley, Heyward, Goldschmidt, and Victorino (!). Re Syndergaard, he's been a 2.5 bWAR / 30 GS pitcher his rookie year. It's probably a decent bet that he'll top 3.0 WAR per 30 GS over his next six seasons, if he stays healthy, so his 50% more seasons of control give him more projected healthy value. But pitchers are a much bigger injury risk than hitters, and elite teams with deep farm systems should not trade 4.5+ WAR players for 3.0+ WAR players with more years of control.
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Sept 11, 2015 9:36:36 GMT -5
Nobody is adamant that he can't be a 4.5 win player. Somebody is adamant that 4.5 wins is his floor.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2015 10:10:17 GMT -5
Yes, if I had to bet my hard earned money, I would put it on JBJ putting up less than 4 WAR next year, because I think that's more likely than the opposite. That is a far cry from being "adamant" that he "can't" get to 4.5 WAR. Whereas someone who says his "floor" is 4.5 is actually saying, literally, he can't be worse than an All-Star. And somehow you find the prior statement more objectionable than the latter.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 11, 2015 13:27:50 GMT -5
Yes, if I had to bet my hard earned money, I would put it on JBJ putting up less than 4 WAR next year, because I think that's more likely than the opposite. That is a far cry from being "adamant" that he "can't" get to 4.5 WAR. Whereas someone who says his "floor" is 4.5 is actually saying, literally, he can't be worse than an All-Star. And somehow you find the prior statement more objectionable than the latter. I think some of the resistance to the idea that Bradley isn't a cinch for a 4 win season is based on skepticism about his offense, but it underestimates how well-suited the JBJ skill-set is to racking up WAR. Look at Betts right now - he's already put up 4 fWAR this season, and that's with only a .331 OBP and 114 wRC+. He's gotten to 4 WAR by spreading his value around between offense, speed, and defense. Among other guys who already have 4 fWAR this season: Brandon Crawford (115 wRC+), Todd Frazier (119), Ian Kinsler (119), and Kevin Kiermaier (99). JBJ's defense is as good as any of them and better than most. Personally, I think he's shown enough this season that a 110 wRC+ next year would be a very conservative estimate. And that very probably gets him to a 4-win season.
|
|
wbcd
Rookie
Posts: 33
|
Post by wbcd on Sept 11, 2015 13:33:45 GMT -5
I think Speier did his survey on calendar months rather than rolling 30-day averages is because calendar months is a simple search on BRef; I think searching on a rolling 30-day basis would take different search tools. The whole purpose of the Speier post was just that it's very hard/unlikely (not impossible) for a non average at worst hitter to go on such a tear. So if JBJ can at worst be an average hitter, he could potentially be a 4+ WAR guy at minimum. Yea, he could be the rare case of a guy who puts this stretch together who isn't at least an average hitter, sure. But it's unlikely, which is far better than where things stood 4 months ago, a year ago, etc. I agree with your characterization but the interesting (ironic?) thing is that Speier did a similar article over a year ago describing how it's very hard/unlikely (even impossible?!?) for an average hitter to hit as poorly as JBJ did in his first 400 PAs: www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/08/11/jackie-bradley-jrs-historic-slump-deepens-does. One thing we can agree upon - JBJ is an outlier. He's also the kind of guy that costs people jobs - not guessing right on his future production can lead to a costly misallocation of resources. But I guess that's why DD (and others) get paid the big bucks. This conversation reminds me of conversations about Iglesias.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 11, 2015 15:35:54 GMT -5
... If you toss out 2014,..... So, please, either give us the argument that ......, or give us the argument that 2014 should matter. Sorry if you've said this fifty times, but why does 2014 not matter? at all? really?
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2015 15:40:20 GMT -5
Yes, if I had to bet my hard earned money, I would put it on JBJ putting up less than 4 WAR next year, because I think that's more likely than the opposite. That is a far cry from being "adamant" that he "can't" get to 4.5 WAR. Whereas someone who says his "floor" is 4.5 is actually saying, literally, he can't be worse than an All-Star. And somehow you find the prior statement more objectionable than the latter. I think some of the resistance to the idea that Bradley isn't a cinch for a 4 win season is based on skepticism about his offense, but it underestimates how well-suited the JBJ skill-set is to racking up WAR. Look at Betts right now - he's already put up 4 fWAR this season, and that's with only a .331 OBP and 114 wRC+. Except, a 114 wRC+ is really, really good for a centerfielder. And Mookie is/was a better player/prospect than JBJ ever was. Nobody would have disputed that for a second a month ago. One month doesn't change that for me, sorry. Saying that 110 is a "very conservative" estimate for JBJ is crazy. ZIPS and Steamer both have him below 100. 110 would be a tremendous year for him and if that's the best he ever gets we should be thrilled.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 11, 2015 16:19:18 GMT -5
I think some of the resistance to the idea that Bradley isn't a cinch for a 4 win season is based on skepticism about his offense, but it underestimates how well-suited the JBJ skill-set is to racking up WAR. Look at Betts right now - he's already put up 4 fWAR this season, and that's with only a .331 OBP and 114 wRC+. Except, a 114 wRC+ is really, really good for a centerfielder. And Mookie is/was a better player/prospect than JBJ ever was. Nobody would have disputed that for a second a month ago. One month doesn't change that for me, sorry. Saying that 110 is a "very conservative" estimate for JBJ is crazy. ZIPS and Steamer both have him below 100. 110 would be a tremendous year for him and if that's the best he ever gets we should be thrilled. ZIPS and Steamer have him at 91 and 98, respectively, for the rest of the season, but that's factoring in his atrocious 2014 without the scouting that says he's just a different hitter now than he was. And 114 is really, really good for a centerfielder - which is exactly why JBJ figures to accrue so much value even with only pretty good offensive output, even if he doesn't reach Mookie's 2014 level of production. Also Mookie is/was a better player/prospect than JBJ ever was because the Red Sox are awesome. Go Red Sox. (But even so, JBJ's defense is still better than Betts'.) To maybe put it another way: in 698 career PAs, JBJ has slashed .220/.294/.356. That ugly line has still been good for 2.4 fWAR in only a little more than a season's worth of playing time. Even just bringing him up to average offensive production would have to get him close to 4 WAR/150 games I'd think.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 11, 2015 20:11:14 GMT -5
... If you toss out 2014,..... So, please, either give us the argument that ......, or give us the argument that 2014 should matter. Sorry if you've said this fifty times, but why does 2014 not matter? at all? really? Do search on my recent posts; look for one with Bill Mueller (IIRC) in it. Johnny Damon, too. The short version is that you get immensely better projections when you remove data that you are confident has no predictive value (duh). When a player goes A B A where B is very different, you can try removing B, and your confidence in doing so is a function of the difference of B from A and of your understanding that B was caused by something that is no longer relevant. In this case, it's completely irrelevant that Bradley was terrible for a year when he had a completely different swing, given that before and after that he's been great.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 11, 2015 20:15:51 GMT -5
Sorry if you've said this fifty times, but why does 2014 not matter? at all? really? Do search on my recent posts; look for one with Bill Mueller (IIRC) in it. Johnny Damon, too. The short version is that you get immensely better projections when you remove data that you are confident has no predictive value (duh). When a player goes A B A where B is very different, you can try removing B, and your confidence in doing so is a function of the difference of B from A and of your understanding that B was caused by something that is no longer relevant. In this case, it's completely irrelevant that Bradley was terrible for a year when he had a completely different swing, given that before and after that he's been great. Wow, you live in a very different world from mine.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 11, 2015 20:23:00 GMT -5
I think some of the resistance to the idea that Bradley isn't a cinch for a 4 win season is based on skepticism about his offense, but it underestimates how well-suited the JBJ skill-set is to racking up WAR. Look at Betts right now - he's already put up 4 fWAR this season, and that's with only a .331 OBP and 114 wRC+. Except, a 114 wRC+ is really, really good for a centerfielder. And Mookie is/was a better player/prospect than JBJ ever was. Nobody would have disputed that for a second a month ago. One month doesn't change that for me, sorry. Saying that 110 is a "very conservative" estimate for JBJ is crazy. ZIPS and Steamer both have him below 100. 110 would be a tremendous year for him and if that's the best he ever gets we should be thrilled. He's already had 27% of a season with a 161 wRC+. To have a "tremendous" 110 non-calendar year, he'd have to have a 91 wRC+ the rest of the way. Aramis Ramirez has a .247 / .294 / .424 slash line and a 91 wRC+. We should all be "thrilled" if Bradley hits like that over his next 455 PA? Really? (BTW, if you're actually blind, I apologize for being so tough on you. Because, all stats aside, I can't imagine how someone watching Jackie Bradley hit the last month can think he's a below average MLB hitter. That sort of suggests an ability to let an existing opinion override all subsequent evidence to the contrary that is frankly, kind of frightening.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 11, 2015 20:24:33 GMT -5
Do search on my recent posts; look for one with Bill Mueller (IIRC) in it. Johnny Damon, too. The short version is that you get immensely better projections when you remove data that you are confident has no predictive value (duh). When a player goes A B A where B is very different, you can try removing B, and your confidence in doing so is a function of the difference of B from A and of your understanding that B was caused by something that is no longer relevant. In this case, it's completely irrelevant that Bradley was terrible for a year when he had a completely different swing, given that before and after that he's been great. Wow, you live in a very different world from mine. Sorry to hear that.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2015 20:45:29 GMT -5
By the way, where did you get that 1475 number? You wouldn't be including his minor league PA from before this year, would you? You know, before he adopted this new swing that has magically turned him from the worst hitter in baseball into Miguel Cabrera? Because, as you know, we have to completely ignore all that irrelevant data.
So, in that case, the only relevant data is this year. Which means he's one of the five best hitters in baseball, and an ungodly centerfielder. So, Mike Trout, basically. Why are you only projecting him for 5 WAR, then? If you look at the relevant data it's clear that his floor is MVP candidate and his mean projection is inner circle Hall of Famer.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Sept 11, 2015 21:11:46 GMT -5
Sorry if you've said this fifty times, but why does 2014 not matter? at all? really? Do search on my recent posts; look for one with Bill Mueller (IIRC) in it. Johnny Damon, too. The short version is that you get immensely better projections when you remove data that you are confident has no predictive value (duh). When a player goes A B A where B is very different, you can try removing B, and your confidence in doing so is a function of the difference of B from A and of your understanding that B was caused by something that is no longer relevant. In this case, it's completely irrelevant that Bradley was terrible for a year when he had a completely different swing, given that before and after that he's been great. I'll translate: if the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, throw it (data) out. Ding ding ding ding ding
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Sept 11, 2015 21:14:37 GMT -5
By the way, where did you get that 1475 number? You wouldn't be including his minor league PA from before this year, would you? You know, before he adopted this new swing that has magically turned him from the worst hitter in baseball into Miguel Cabrera? Because, as you know, we have to completely ignore all that irrelevant data. So, in that case, the only relevant data is this year. Which means he's one of the five best hitters in baseball, and an ungodly centerfielder. So, Mike Trout, basically. Why are you only projecting him for 5 WAR, then? If you look at the relevant data it's clear that his floor is MVP candidate and his mean projection is inner circle Hall of Famer. Useless to try reason and data with the faithful
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Sept 11, 2015 22:22:08 GMT -5
I'm as happy as anybody JBJ has quieted thr naysayers. He's not 1000 ops guy. but if he can be around 800 with that incredibly sublime (and no matter what jmei or anyone says) invaluable defense in center he's a 5 win player and All star bc his offense will give ppl a reason to look at his D
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 11, 2015 22:57:27 GMT -5
And Mookie is/was a better player/prospect than JBJ ever was. Nobody would have disputed that for a second a month ago. One month doesn't change that for me, sorry. Saying that 110 is a "very conservative" estimate for JBJ is crazy. ZIPS and Steamer both have him below 100. 110 would be a tremendous year for him and if that's the best he ever gets we should be thrilled. [/quote]
JBJ was considered a sure-fire top-10 draft pick out of South Carolina until he hurt his wrist his Sr year. He was also around 35 on BA's top-100 list before being rushed to the majors out of AA. Betts never made the top-50 (though he likely would've been around 15 in last year's mid season list had he not been called up). Had JBJ not been rushed up, and played the year in the minors...putting up the stats he has in the minors...he'd easily have been a top-10 or -15 prospect with his defense and OBP near .400. So your premise is not only patently wrong, but the rationale that follows it is likewise completely flawed. I wouldn't put any stock at all in computer projections based largely on 2014 numbers. I think you're way, way off here.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 11, 2015 23:11:19 GMT -5
Do search on my recent posts; look for one with Bill Mueller (IIRC) in it. Johnny Damon, too. The short version is that you get immensely better projections when you remove data that you are confident has no predictive value (duh). When a player goes A B A where B is very different, you can try removing B, and your confidence in doing so is a function of the difference of B from A and of your understanding that B was caused by something that is no longer relevant. In this case, it's completely irrelevant that Bradley was terrible for a year when he had a completely different swing, given that before and after that he's been great. I'll translate: if the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, throw it (data) out. Ding ding ding ding ding Actually, removing outlier data when there is reasonable cause to do so is *advocated as part of any statistical analysis when the reason for doing so is clear and reasonably identified*. It's a cornerstone of the proper use if statistics. It's done in scientific research incredibly frequently. If a cell culture experiment is found to have a contaminant, you don't use that data, because there is an irrelevant, confounding variable present. Go look at JBJ's swing pre-2014, and compare it to now. They're similar. His 2014 stance, timing, and swing path are all clearly different. Or, look at his Sr year. He hit something like .253. Did teams say "oh, this guy can't hit"? No, because he was injured...he still got drafted in the first round. Basically, you saying "throw out the data if they don't fit your hypothesis"...is *exactly* what you're doing right now.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 11, 2015 23:13:37 GMT -5
And Mookie is/was a better player/prospect than JBJ ever was. Nobody would have disputed that for a second a month ago. One month doesn't change that for me, sorry. Saying that 110 is a "very conservative" estimate for JBJ is crazy. ZIPS and Steamer both have him below 100. 110 would be a tremendous year for him and if that's the best he ever gets we should be thrilled. JBJ was considered a sure-fire top-10 draft pick out of South Carolina until he hurt his wrist his Sr year. He was also around 35 on BA's top-100 list before being rushed to the majors out of AA. Betts never made the top-50 (though he likely would've been around 15 in last year's mid season list had he not been called up). Had JBJ not been rushed up, and played the year in the minors...putting up the stats he has in the minors...he'd easily have been a top-10 or -15 prospect with his defense and OBP near .400. So your premise is not only patently wrong, but the rationale that follows it is likewise completely flawed. I wouldn't put any stock at all in computer projections based largely on 2014 numbers. I think you're way, way off here.[/quote] I've got to agree. JBJ was a bigger prospect all along. When you look at the SOX PROSPECTS ranking history you can see the JBJ from 2012 - april 2014 was ranked from 2-4. It wasn't until he graduated from the list the Mookie came on.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Sept 12, 2015 0:47:04 GMT -5
Eric, how can you feel so certain you know what this new approach means for his results when his minor league numbers this year were good contact, solid power, while his major league numbers have been very low contact, very high power? They've both been great results, but I don't know how you can feel so confident about what his new approach means for his future.
Throwing out data that doesn't fit your conclusion because you think you have a reason to is a pretty bad practice. Yeah, in highlight, maybe JBJ is completely changed and he runs a .200 ISO next year - in that case you'll look really smart. That's a possibility that just didn't exist a year ago, that's what he's done for himself this year. But there's also a very real chance that he could regress toward his approach from last year, or that pitchers could find holes in the new approach, or that many other things could happen to make him regress toward his career numbers. Almost every time a guy has a huge "breakout", he looks great scouting wise over that stretch. Some of those guys end up sticking with those numbers, but plenty go back to career norms. That's why projection systems are rightly cautious. It's fine to take the over on Steamer, but pretending there's no chance he's just an average hitter next year (let alone worse) is pretty unjustifiable.
(Also, Mookie Betts had way, way better numbers at every level, especially K/BB rates, at a much younger age. He looks like a worse prospect because of when the lists came out, but he could've easily been a top 5+ prospect around his graduation. I certainly would've had him there. JBJ has never been on that level.)
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 12, 2015 4:47:49 GMT -5
JBJ was considered a sure-fire top-10 draft pick out of South Carolina until he hurt his wrist his Sr year. He was also around 35 on BA's top-100 list before being rushed to the majors out of AA. Betts never made the top-50 (though he likely would've been around 15 in last year's mid season list had he not been called up). Had JBJ not been rushed up, and played the year in the minors...putting up the stats he has in the minors...he'd easily have been a top-10 or -15 prospect with his defense and OBP near .400. So your premise is not only patently wrong, but the rationale that follows it is likewise completely flawed. I wouldn't put any stock at all in computer projections based largely on 2014 numbers. I think you're way, way off here. Oh I see, so he would have been a more highly rated prospect under this hypothetical scenario that you just completely made up out of thin air. Why even mention Betts not making the top 50 when you acknowledge that it's only because of a technicality? Multiple BA guys confirmed that they had him at 12 (I believe) before he got called up. That's not a hypothetical, it's a fact. Mookie is actually , in reality, putting up a 4 WAR season, something you're hoping Jackie Bradley can do, in the major leagues at age 22. When Jackie was 22, he was in high A/double A. If you think JBJ is a 4 WAR player based on a month of hitting, you must think Mookie is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Again, I really don't understand what is getting guys like you so up in arms here. I don't think any of us are saying Jackie sucks. Far from it. But because we think it's a joke to say that the worst he could possibly do is be one of the 40 or so best players in MLB you take that as us dumping on him? Get a grip, seriously.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 12, 2015 7:54:52 GMT -5
I've been trying to follow the conversation. Because I work with statistics all day long, I kind of blink out when I see a lot of math overload on this board.
I think JBJ's minor league track record gives a good guide of what to anticipate with JBJ going forward. I would think that translates to a guy who hits .270 or so with good plate discipline and about 10 - 15 homers per year, and spectacular defense, a very good player.
I don't think you can throw out 2014 simply because it doesn't fit a hypothesis. If that's the case, you can twist the numbers anyway you want, using whatever suits your opinion.
It seems to me that 2014 is probably an outlier, but that JBJ has a higher probability, because of 2014, to lose his mechanics more than another player would, and for a more extended time.
Hitters lose their mechanics every now and then, but JBJ was lost in the woods for an entire year and that even reflected at Pawtucket. Maybe he nevers loses his way again, but there is now a track record of him having done so.
He is hitting with more power now than I would have imagined and I can't ignore that either, but this is in a very small, but intriguing sample size.
So basically given an extreme outlier of what he's doing now and the extreme outlier of what he did in a bigger sample size last year, and what he's done in the biggest sample size to date, his minor league record, I would say that the odds are he's the productive type player that I alluded to earlier. I'm not expecting him to hit .300 with 25 homers, nor do I expect him to hit .200. I expect .270 with a .350 OBP and a .400 SA, which with his defense, makes him an asset, somebody worthy of all-star status.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 12, 2015 8:01:47 GMT -5
I'll translate: if the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, throw it (data) out. Ding ding ding ding ding Actually, removing outlier data when there is reasonable cause to do so is *advocated as part of any statistical analysis when the reason for doing so is clear and reasonably identified*. It's a cornerstone of the proper use if statistics. It's done in scientific research incredibly frequently. If a cell culture experiment is found to have a contaminant, you don't use that data, because there is an irrelevant, confounding variable present. Go look at JBJ's swing pre-2014, and compare it to now. They're similar. His 2014 stance, timing, and swing path are all clearly different. Or, look at his Sr year. He hit something like .253. Did teams say "oh, this guy can't hit"? No, because he was injured...he still got drafted in the first round. Basically, you saying "throw out the data if they don't fit your hypothesis"...is *exactly* what you're doing right now. Your excellent analogy of a cell culture experiment actually makes me more skeptical: that's a carefully controlled experiment, whereas the information we have about the myriad factors that may have been influencing JBJ's performance over the years is much spottier, which makes me puzzled at the extreme, bullying confidence that we know which factors can be completely "thrown out." When he was hurt as a senior, teams took account of the injury, but did not "throw out" his senior year. If they had, he would not have dropped to us. There is a difference between saying "this factor might not be as important as you think" and "anyone who doesn't completely ignore this factor is an idiot."
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Sept 12, 2015 9:16:47 GMT -5
It seems like everyone is talking past each other. Yes, one could and should throw out the 2014 numbers IF ONE COULD BE SURE THEY WERE AN OUTLIER. But that may not be a valid assumption.
For 2014 to be an outlier, then one would have to assume that two things were absolutely true. That JBJ has truely and certainly changed his approach for the better (which I think is more or less concensus), and, most importantly, that the changes JBJ made are sustainable. That is, will JBJ be able to maintain his new approach at the MLB level in the face of inevitable cooling off and while MLB pitchers make adjustments that will exploit other weaknesses in his new approach.
I am quite amazed and hopeful about JBJ, but it is premature to make any meaningful projections because the assumptions needed to make those projections are pretty tenuous. Let's see how JBJ responds to the fall off from his the dizzing August performance and see where he levels off. The only valid point that one can make about JBJ now is that he can be (and has been) a very good major leaguer, but without any precision about that level of goodness or its sustainability.
|
|
|
Post by mookiemonster on Sept 12, 2015 10:28:11 GMT -5
Love JBJ—absolutely love him—but some of these offensive projections strike me as a little crazy. He's been playing out of his mind lately, but likely never will hit like this again with his current offensive profile unless he magically manages to sustain a .367 BABIP, .300 ISO(!) and cuts his too-high strikeout rate of 26.7%. This is far and away the most exciting he's played in a long time and I think just with his glove he's a special player, but I think close to league average would be more than enough (and realistic) for JBJ to be an important piece for years to come.
|
|
|