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: 1,775
|
Post by gerry on Sept 12, 2015 11:12:47 GMT -5
We don't have the information yet to assume much of anything, going forward, about the bats of JBJ, Mookie or Rusney. But we do have enough information to posit that, in 2016, these three are likely to create a strong offensive OF based on their past and recent succeses. How strong? Impossible to gauge, except the assembled combination of floor plus upside on their own seem promising enough to counsel patience. We were not patient with Iglesias, Miller, Reddick and others and it cost.
IMO, watchimg these three uber talented center-fielders gel as an OF, and as a driving force for a recently moribund team, offers hope for 2016. Their relative yoiuth (and inexperience), well documemted offensive upside (idoubles, triples, infield hits as well as HR's, SB's, baserunning), combined with already obvious potential to be an historically strong defensive OF screams "leave them alone, hang onto them, add to them with some pitching, enjoy watching them develop."'.
Could they become something we haven't seen since rhe days of Evans, Lynn, Rice? I absolutely haven't seen or enjoyed any OF combination as good and exciting as them until this past month. Will they be as good? Who knows or cares. They are, individually and combined, already valuable, wonderful to watch, and give genuine hope for the future. Who is better than whom, or might be, in terms of bat, D, WAR, speed, arm, etc. is unresolvable, unknowable, and a tangent. Ted or Joe? Because of Betts, Bradley, Brusney and the kids I enjoy watching baseball again and won't miss a minute.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 12, 2015 11:17:28 GMT -5
(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.) Since he returned to the majors in July 29th, despite the excellent .333/.409/.683 triple-slash, Bradley has put up a 26.3% strikeout rate (which would rank 14th-worst among 152 qualified MLB hitters this year), with a 13.4% swinging-strike rate (17th-worst in MLB), a 71.6% contact rate (12th-worst), and a 79.3% contact rate on pitches in the strike zone (7th-worst). He's still swinging and missing a ton, and his success has come off the back of a clearly unsustainable .423 BABIP and a .350 ISO. If you regress his BABIP and ISO to his minor-league-averages, his triple-slash is something like .240/.320/.400, which, in Fenway Park, is something like a 95 wRC+ (and almost exactly his Fangraphs depth charts projection, by the way). Think his new swing lets him hit for a little more power? Bump that up a little, and he's still an averagish hitter. To think that he's the 110 wRC+ hitter that was mentioned above, you have to believe some combination of he's a true-talent .340+ BABIP hitter and he's a true-talent .200+ ISO hitter. Which I guess is possible, but would represent a J.D. Martinez-like breakout that would generally inconsistent with his track record (including both minor league performance and past scouting reports). ADD: I forgot to mention that the most likely route that Bradley becomes a sustainably above-average hitter is to trim his strikeout rate, which I see as possible, if not likely. But it's not one that is supported by this stretch of supernova play.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 12, 2015 11:25:24 GMT -5
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? Yeah, I think it's important to remind everyone what the argument really is here. I think everyone here agrees that he gets a starting spot in the outfield next year and is likely to be an above-average regular. But there is understandable pushback against the claim that his floor is a 4.5 WAR player (which essentially projects him to be a borderline Hall of Fame player).
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Sept 12, 2015 13:09:32 GMT -5
But there is understandable pushback against the claim that his floor is a 4.5 WAR player (which essentially projects him to be a borderline Hall of Fame player). There are far more players who have one or more HOF-quality seasons than have HOF careers. It's not that unusual; Michael Bourn is a nice example.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 12, 2015 13:15:04 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.The bolded part could also be written this way: "It is absolutely certain that JBJ's recent, SSS surge is due exclusively to a change in his swing and there is zero chance that he will revert to his previous habits or that any other factor will cause his offensive performance to drop considerably. Also, we should give zero weight to his gruesome struggles at the ML level over parts of three seasons but considerable weight to his success in the bushes. We will also ignore his .450 BABIP and 31-percent K rate since the start of August." Can you please enlighten us as to what the first A, the B and second A refer to? JBJ struggled mightily in parts of three seasons and then put together a fantastic month-plus that took us all by surprise and was aided by an out-of-this world BABIP. I'm guessing that your first A is his minor league performance? Instead of snark about how other people are blind and it's a shame that not everybody lives in your world, maybe you can explain why we should put as much weight on minor league performance as we put on prolonged struggle at the ML level - if that is in fact your theory. Also, if JBJ has a 4 to 4.5-WAR floor next year, that means he may have to draw from his defense. And since defensive metrics are squishy, particularly in any given one-year sample size, there's no guarantee that he will do that. Juan Lagares of the Mets, for instance, was 3.5 and 3.4 b-Ref dWAR in 2013 and 2014 but is only .1 this year. Heck, Jackie himself is only .2 b-Ref dWAR in a third of a season at the ML level in 2015. It doesn't mean he isn't a spectacular fielder.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 12, 2015 17:15:42 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. Take a moment and get your facts straight. JBJ had the highest ranking on a national site. Betts never broke 50. Instead of trying to prove your incorrect facts to be correct, actually read what's written. If you can produce evidence to the contrary, do so.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 12, 2015 17:24:51 GMT -5
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. Take a moment and get your facts straight. JBJ had the highest ranking on a national site. Betts never broke 50. Instead of trying to prove your incorrect facts to be correct, actually read what's written. If you can produce evidence to the contrary, do so. Your misusing prospect ranking in this example. The purpose of citing prospect ranking is to reference the peak quality prospect each player was. Betts had a unique and rapid ascent that makes citing his peak BA rank disingenuous to the quality prospect he was. There was significant talk of him being one of the top 2 or 3 prospects in baseball when he was promoted.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 12, 2015 17:24:52 GMT -5
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." You make some good points, so let me clarify. For one, I'm not saying anyone who doesn't ignore it is an idiot...I'm saying that there are several posters who are completely swung to the opposite end. And the analogy is JBJ dropping in the draft. Yes, he dropped slightly...but still 1S. Still first-round talent. It's my opinion that the people claiming it's absurd to predict that his floor is a roughly average hitter are doing the equivalent of teams letting JBJ drop out of the first ten rounds. His stock was slightly bruised by a poor showing that had a clear explanation...not totally destroyed. Most of the data, except for one poor year when his mechanics were visibly completely messed up, point to him being a solid hitter, at least league average.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 12, 2015 17:26:58 GMT -5
Take a moment and get your facts straight. JBJ had the highest ranking on a national site. Betts never broke 50. Instead of trying to prove your incorrect facts to be correct, actually read what's written. If you can produce evidence to the contrary, do so. Your misusing prospect ranking in this example. The purpose of citing prospect ranking is to reference the peak quality prospect each player was. Betts had a unique and rapid ascent that makes citing his peak BA rank disingenuous to the quality prospect he was. There was significant talk of him being one of the top 2 or 3 prospects in baseball when he was promoted. And Bradley was promoted straight out of AA. Neither had a "normal" path. It's not disingenous to say that "Mookie was a way better prospect" is an inaccurate statement based on those facts.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 12, 2015 17:31:47 GMT -5
Your misusing prospect ranking in this example. The purpose of citing prospect ranking is to reference the peak quality prospect each player was. Betts had a unique and rapid ascent that makes citing his peak BA rank disingenuous to the quality prospect he was. There was significant talk of him being one of the top 2 or 3 prospects in baseball when he was promoted. And Bradley was promoted straight out of AA. Neither had a "normal" path. It's not disingenous to say that "Mookie was a way better prospect" is an inaccurate statement based on those facts. Mookie WAS a significantly better prospect than Bradley. That is absolutely true and there are dozens of educated posters on this board that can attest to that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 12, 2015 21:37:36 GMT -5
And Bradley was promoted straight out of AA. Neither had a "normal" path. It's not disingenous to say that "Mookie was a way better prospect" is an inaccurate statement based on those facts. Mookie WAS a significantly better prospect than Bradley. That is absolutely true and there are dozens of educated posters on this board that can attest to that. BA had Betts an estimated 12th midseason, right after his callup, but never ranked for that reason. Bradley was 35th before jumping to the majors from AA, clearly prematurely. Use all of the qualifiers you want, "significantly," "way better," whatever. Betts had a late meteoric rise and Bradley had a linear progression that was truncated by an early promotion. We'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm an "educated" poster, and while I'm not disputing that at their peaks Betts was a better prospect, and will probably be a better player, my issue was with the implied cavernous disparity. Talk technicalities? Where would Bradley have ranked after ST before his callup? You're saying Betts' peak ranking was affected by an early callup...so was Bradley's. Regardless, this has devolved into useless banter.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,842
|
Post by wcp3 on Sept 12, 2015 21:45:40 GMT -5
You're the only one bringing up this cavernous disparity.
That's not what significant means.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 12, 2015 22:34:55 GMT -5
I pay almost no attention to lists. I really liked Bradley's patience. He's brought that with him forward at every level. But most of us understood that as an advanced college player he'd have to show the hitting ability as he moved up. He did get called up before he was ready, and it's taken a while to re-establish those hitting credentials. Those discussions went on and on, on this board.
Betts is an entirely different case. He ripped through the system from A- on at a very tender age. Evaluators at the national level were giddy from that moment on. It hasn't stopped yet.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2015 23:26:34 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. Thanks for explaining this for me. It saved me from pointing out the awkward truth that I've had tremendous success throwing out data I thought was irrelevant. That's what makes this kind of comical. [ego] Before 2003 I had the most prolonged, knock-down, dragout argument on SOSH that Bill Mueller's abysmal start to 2002 (when he missd ST with an injury) should be tossed out entirely, yielding a hugely better projection. I was amazingly f***ing right. Before 2004 I had the same PKDDA that Johnny Damon's second half of '02 and first half of '03 should be tossed out because of his divorce (the key being that the remainder matched his KC numbers exactly), and I was completely right. I had the same damn PKDDA the year Ortiz deepened his crouch mid-year and started hitting LHP dramatically better (tossing out the data versus LHP from before the stance change) and I was completely right. I had the same damn PKDDA in '08, at the point where SI said that Ortiz should be released, that both Ortiz' slow start and his ten or so games after the PED allegations broke should be tossed out, and the only reason I wasn't amazingly f***ing right was that I regressed the remainder too much to the mean and underprojected him. I haven't always been right -- I argued that Nomar's road numbers in 2003 should be discounted, and the split disappeared the next year. And I can remember putting too much stock in Troy O'Leary's numbers when he came back from depression. But in general, as a methodology, it's kicked butt.[/ego] 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.) Folks are getting my argument wrong. No, he's not anywhere nearly this good a hitter. But I'm pretty confident that he's an above average MLB hitter (say, 90% sure), which, with his D, is all he needs to get over the 4.0 WAR mark -- which is my revised estimate for his floor. I've implied that several times, after realizing that he was +9 DRS and not +15 or so, but I plead guilty to not saying it explicitly. (Stop saying 4.5!) How much better than average is he? I don't pretend to know. It might well be 105 to 110 wRC+, but that's enough to get him to 4.0 WAR if he plays 150 games with his usual defense. Last year excepted, he has always projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter statistically and always been projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter by scouts. Now that he's doing what he's doing in MLB, I just don't see any reason at all to say that the odds of that being untrue are greater than 10%, and that gives him a 4.0 WAR floor. (And maybe some folks don't equate floor to 10th percentile projection, but is does not mean worst-case scenario). Now, I'm also on the record as saying he can pick up another 1.0 WAR and be an All-Star, but that's a different argument (and I need to derive some updated TAv / EQa to WAR / wRC+ conversions to nail it down).
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 13, 2015 4:43:22 GMT -5
Last year excepted, he has always projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter statistically and always been projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter by scouts. You mean with his old, irrelevant swing right? Why do you keep bringing that up? Please explain to us why you throw out 2014 and yet keep referring back to and cite as evidence his minor league track record from before this season. Because the only reason I see is, as others have pointed out, "it destroys my argument."
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 13, 2015 6:48:28 GMT -5
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." You make some good points, so let me clarify. For one, I'm not saying anyone who doesn't ignore it is an idiot...I'm saying that there are several posters who are completely swung to the opposite end. And the analogy is JBJ dropping in the draft. Yes, he dropped slightly...but still 1S. Still first-round talent. It's my opinion that the people claiming it's absurd to predict that his floor is a roughly average hitter are doing the equivalent of teams letting JBJ drop out of the first ten rounds. His stock was slightly bruised by a poor showing that had a clear explanation...not totally destroyed. Most of the data, except for one poor year when his mechanics were visibly completely messed up, point to him being a solid hitter, at least league average. Dropping from top 5-10 to 40 is hardly a "slight" drop ($2-7M compared to 1.1M), and the entire drop was due to his poor performance senior year, even though teams knew about his injury. The Red Sox picked three other people before they picked him. Nobody threw out his senior year. I didn't mean that *you* were saying or implying that anyone not willing to throw out 2014 is an idiot.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 13, 2015 7:04:29 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. This seems very reasonable. I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with any of this, especially the bolded part. And if as we hope JBJ hits well for the next five years, that would not mean that we could look back in 2021 and say that the bolded part was wrong, any more than a teenager who manages to text and drive twenty or thirty times without getting in an accident can claim that those twenty or thirty successful drives means that he can ignore the possibility that texting and driving will get him in an accident ("I've had great success with texting and driving"). It's hard to get teenagers to believe this, because their brains are not fully formed and they tend to be stubborn and overconfident.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 13, 2015 9:03:45 GMT -5
Last year excepted, he has always projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter statistically and always been projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter by scouts. Now that he's doing what he's doing in MLB, I just don't see any reason at all to say that the odds of that being untrue are greater than 10%, and that gives him a 4.0 WAR floor. (And maybe some folks don't equate floor to 10th percentile projection, but is does not mean worst-case scenario). I've made the argument above-- even with his new swing, he's had significant strikeout (and contact) issues, and guys who strike out 26+% of the time need to hit for elite power to be above-average hitters. He's done that so far, but I'm skeptical of his ability to maintain a .200+ ISO.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2015 9:09:31 GMT -5
Last year excepted, he has always projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter statistically and always been projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter by scouts. Now that he's doing what he's doing in MLB, I just don't see any reason at all to say that the odds of that being untrue are greater than 10%, and that gives him a 4.0 WAR floor. (And maybe some folks don't equate floor to 10th percentile projection, but is does not mean worst-case scenario). I've made the argument above-- even with his new swing, he's had significant strikeout (and contact) issues, and guys who strike out 26+% of the time need to hit for elite power to be above-average hitters. He's done that so far, but I'm skeptical of his ability to maintain a .200+ ISO. Did you miss the mention that he added 15 pounds of muscle to his legs since last season? His walk rate also makes the strikeouts more tolerable. I also love the way he's showing power to the opposite field.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 13, 2015 9:28:58 GMT -5
I'm skeptical of BSOHL stories, especially when they're post-hoc analyses that only get trotted out after the breakout has started. He also only had a .167 ISO in the minors this year (in a much larger sample). The walk rate is nice, but it's not enough without the power to make him an above-average hitter, as I've already discussed upthread. The opposite-field power is intriguing for sure, but we're still in small sample size territory there. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 13, 2015 10:04:13 GMT -5
[ego] Before 2003 I had the most prolonged, knock-down, dragout argument on SOSH that Bill Mueller's abysmal start to 2002 (when he missd ST with an injury) should be tossed out entirely, yielding a hugely better projection. I was amazingly f***ing right. Before 2004 I had the same PKDDA that Johnny Damon's second half of '02 and first half of '03 should be tossed out because of his divorce (the key being that the remainder matched his KC numbers exactly), and I was completely right. I had the same damn PKDDA the year Ortiz deepened his crouch mid-year and started hitting LHP dramatically better (tossing out the data versus LHP from before the stance change) and I was completely right. I had the same damn PKDDA in '08, at the point where SI said that Ortiz should be released, that both Ortiz' slow start and his ten or so games after the PED allegations broke should be tossed out, and the only reason I wasn't amazingly f***ing right was that I regressed the remainder too much to the mean and underprojected him. I haven't always been right -- I argued that Nomar's road numbers in 2003 should be discounted, and the split disappeared the next year. And I can remember putting too much stock in Troy O'Leary's numbers when he came back from depression. But in general, as a methodology, it's kicked butt.[/ego] You're also forgetting Mike Carp ( example 1, example 2). Just want to keep you honest.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2015 11:02:17 GMT -5
[ego] Before 2003 I had the most prolonged, knock-down, dragout argument on SOSH that Bill Mueller's abysmal start to 2002 (when he missd ST with an injury) should be tossed out entirely, yielding a hugely better projection. I was amazingly f***ing right. Before 2004 I had the same PKDDA that Johnny Damon's second half of '02 and first half of '03 should be tossed out because of his divorce (the key being that the remainder matched his KC numbers exactly), and I was completely right. I had the same damn PKDDA the year Ortiz deepened his crouch mid-year and started hitting LHP dramatically better (tossing out the data versus LHP from before the stance change) and I was completely right. I had the same damn PKDDA in '08, at the point where SI said that Ortiz should be released, that both Ortiz' slow start and his ten or so games after the PED allegations broke should be tossed out, and the only reason I wasn't amazingly f***ing right was that I regressed the remainder too much to the mean and underprojected him. I haven't always been right -- I argued that Nomar's road numbers in 2003 should be discounted, and the split disappeared the next year. And I can remember putting too much stock in Troy O'Leary's numbers when he came back from depression. But in general, as a methodology, it's kicked butt.[/ego] You're also forgetting Mike Carp ( example 1, example 2). Just want to keep you honest. [ego]I think I can claim my Carp, Sizemore and Craig claims as victories.[/ego]
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Sept 13, 2015 11:15:31 GMT -5
Perhaps it's time to take a poll on JBJ war for next year. 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6+. Perhaps a slight defensive adjustment on whether he play CF or corner. I am on either 5 or 6.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 13, 2015 12:31:35 GMT -5
A person who goes on a public message board and brags about a few calls he got right just sets himself up for ridicule because that person invariably got just as many wrong - Nap will rake again post-sleep apnea surgery, Panda will prosper in Fenway, Lugo, RS post -Peavy trade. We all get a lot of calls right and a lot wrong. Nobody on here is any different.
On JBJ: In 2011 I worked for a short time with a guy who had played BB at the University of SC and remained an avid fan. I recall one day as USC was going through the post-season how he excitedly started to tell me about the CF. I interrupted him and said, "I know who the CF is. It's Jackie Bradley Jr. The RS just drafted him."
He then told me what a presence this kid lent to a game, how you always looked forward to his next AB or the next FB to CF. I've taken a strong liking to the kid because of his perseverance and hope that we're just starting to see that player.
In fact, I'd probably bet that he will post a 4 WAR next year. But saying it's a lock is just plain nuts. It was also a lock that George Scott wouldn't go from .303/.373/.365/.839, 138 OPS-plus as a Dreamer to .171/.236/.237/.473, 40 OPS-plus in 1968; and that Phil Plantier wouldn't go from emerging monster (1.034 OPS in '91) to minor league bus rides in '92.
Nothing's a lock in BB. That's why we love watching it.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 13, 2015 13:47:06 GMT -5
BA had Betts an estimated 12th midseason, right after his callup, but never ranked for that reason. Bradley was 35th before jumping to the majors from AA, clearly prematurely. Use all of the qualifiers you want, "significantly," "way better," whatever. Betts had a late meteoric rise and Bradley had a linear progression that was truncated by an early promotion. We'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm an "educated" poster, and while I'm not disputing that at their peaks Betts was a better prospect, and will probably be a better player, my issue was with the implied cavernous disparity. Talk technicalities? Where would Bradley have ranked after ST before his callup? You're saying Betts' peak ranking was affected by an early callup...so was Bradley's. Regardless, this has devolved into useless banter. Betts ranking was not "affected" by his call up. He was technically disqualified from such lists because of it. We know for a fact he would have ranked 12, and you don't dispute it. There is no gray area here, despite your best efforts to create some. That is not even close to the same thing that you are saying about Bradley, which is "Had he not been called up he would have continued succeeding in the minors and his prospect status would have risen." Except, he DID spend the vast majority of that year in AAA, and he was really good. A hundred bad PA in the majors didn't make that much of a difference. And going into 2014, his rankings didn't improve at all. He was still a consensus 30-40ish guy. That is a direct refutation of your premise. And all I said was Mookie is and was better. You inferred the "cavernous" disparity on your own. And as Chavo pointed out, the facts back me up.
|
|
|