All the Way with JBJ - 2016

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Is it completely crazy to want to sell high on JBJ? It seems like they have to trade one of Bradley, Betts, or Benintendi (who jumped up to #6 on Keith Law's latest top 100 list). Given that they'd end out with three center fielders, another team would value one of those guys higher than the Sox. Benintendi is the youngest with the most team control, although he also has the most risk so I could see trading him as well.

I'm biased, but Mookie is my favorite player on the team so I want to keep him. His bowling makes me think he's just one of those people with freakish hand-eye even by pro ballplayer standards.
The trade market isn't frictionless enough for this sort of thing to make sense very often. Bradley's on a 6-8 WAR pace this season. We'd expect him to slow down somewhat with the bat, but we'd also expect him to defend better than he has in his first 40ish games.

What would be a trade that would make sense for a player with that performance with under two years of service time? It's just hard to figure out a trade that isn't at best trading a quarter for three dimes, which makes no sense when your roster is deep and your window is now.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
Is it completely crazy to want to sell high on JBJ? It seems like they have to trade one of Bradley, Betts, or Benintendi (who jumped up to #6 on Keith Law's latest top 100 list). Given that they'd end out with three center fielders, another team would value one of those guys higher than the Sox. Benintendi is the youngest with the most team control, although he also has the most risk so I could see trading him as well.

I'm biased, but Mookie is my favorite player on the team so I want to keep him. His bowling makes me think he's just one of those people with freakish hand-eye even by pro ballplayer standards.
Don't worry, they can move one of those three B's to catcher.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Is it completely crazy to want to sell high on JBJ? It seems like they have to trade one of Bradley, Betts, or Benintendi (who jumped up to #6 on Keith Law's latest top 100 list). Given that they'd end out with three center fielders, another team would value one of those guys higher than the Sox. Benintendi is the youngest with the most team control, although he also has the most risk so I could see trading him as well.
Unless the Angels are willing to take Bradley as the centerpiece of a Trout deal, yes, it's insane to talk about trading him for the sake of trading an OF. Given the state of LF at the moment, I'd rather have Benintendi taking it over for good this August than trading one of Bradley, Betts, or Benintendi because they're all best as CFs. (Honestly that's the sort of reality that saves a team a lot of runs over the course of a year.)
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
I'd rather hope that Benitendi starts hitting in AA ball at some point than see his name pop up yet again in discussion about him playing for the major league team this season.

I love him as a prospect, but I also loved Garin Cecchini as a prospect just a couple years ago. At least Cecchini hit well in AA before totally cratering.

Benitendi is a million miles away from being a good player in the majors, I wish people would remember that before suggesting that we play him in the majors this year.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,766
I'd rather hope that Benitendi starts hitting in AA ball at some point than see his name pop up yet again in discussion about him playing for the major league team this season.

I love him as a prospect, but I also loved Garin Cecchini as a prospect just a couple years ago. At least Cecchini hit well in AA before totally cratering.

Benitendi is a million miles away from being a good player in the majors, I wish people would remember that before suggesting that we play him in the majors this year.
Well, yes and no. There are undoubtedly a lot of things that still need to happen for him to get to Boston and any number of things that could go wrong before then. But I think in this case it's not forum members looking up the box scores and getting imaginitive; it's the scouts (Keith Law and his network, don't know if there are others) who are projecting an accelerated progression through the minors based on his makeup and observed performance, not a stat line from a five game sample.
 
I agree - but I wasn't clear on my point - the current lineup isn't the 'traditional-optimal' - because that doesn't have a guy as good as JBJ appears to be hitting 7-9 - it has them hitting 3 or 4, so the current lineup's 'possible improvement' is quite a bit larger than 5-10 runs.

I plugged the lineup from Sunday (with Swihart replaced with Holt - JBJ 6th) into Baseball Musings lineup calculator (which is admittedly a blunt tool) and there's actually almost 105 runs per year difference between the optimal and worst lineups (about 5.5x to 6.1x r/g - they're currently scoring 5.8x/predicted 5.9). When you've got an offense this good, small tweaks can pay big dividends - these things tend to snowball, and the Red Sox are way outside the fat part of the bell curve. Even at the 'worst order' prediction they're still in the top 3 in the league in runs.

The Red Sox current lineup projection falls about 35 runs below optimal (.21 runs/game). Even just swapping JBJ and Pedroia gets you almost 10 runs. That's a big deal. The biggest problem though is Mookie and his .324 OBP leading off when there are 6 guys in the lineup with an OBP above .350, and 4 guys above .370. His combination of lower OBP/high SLG makes him particularly unsuited for leading off in this lineup.

(And sorry for derailing - the 'lineups don't really matter' thing is a pet peave of mine - I'd like to see JBJ hitting a lot higher)
Just doing the same analysis, but using Fangraphs projected performances for the rest of the season (available on their depth charts page) rather than their actual YTD numbers gives;

I entered Betts/Pedroia/Bogaerts/Ortiz/Ramirez/Shaw/Bradley/Swihart/Vazquez = 5.008 runs/game

Optimal Lineups - The tool gives the 30 best lineups, which are slight variations of each other. These are how often a player appeared in that position in those 30 lineups

1) Ramirez (14), Betts (13), Bogaerts (2), Bradley (1)
2) Ortiz (11), Betts (8), Ramirez (4), Bradley (4), Bogaerts (3)
3) Bogaerts (17), Bradley (12), Shaw (1)
4) Ortiz (19), Bradley (4), Betts (4), Ramirez (3)
5) Ramirez (9), Bradley (8), Bogaerts (8), Betts (5)
6) Swihart (17), Shaw (13)
7) Shaw (16), Swihart (13), Bradley (1)
8) Vazquez (30)
9) Pedroia (30)

These "optimal" lineups generated 5.032 runs/game which is 0.024 more than the "actual" one I used. A gain of about 4 runs over the course of the season, which would be dwarfed by the margin of error around all this analysis.

You basically have a split with 5 of the 7 guys who've hit this year in some order in the top 5, two younger guys who may or may not hit (Shaw/Swihart) at 6 & 7, the catcher at 8 and Pedroia at 9. Shaw has of course been excellent so far, but I think it's tremendously optimistic to expect that he'll keep going at anything close to this level.

Pedroia at 9 was surprising enough to me that I checked the projections (.333 OBA ranking 6th on the team) and .415 SLG ranking 7th). Baseball Musings wants him setting the table for Mookie (or whoever). For me that's one of the only two significant differences from the actual line-up being used.

The other of course is the usage of Bradley. Like Mookie, he can go pretty much anywhere in the top half of the order, but he should probably be there. And bear in mind that this analysis expects him to hit 268/341/443 going forward and has no idea what he's done so far this season.

Using projections rather than current performance, Betts leading off looks fine.

The worst case lineup generated 4.745 runs/game so the difference was, as Hoodie noted, substantial. With a Vaz/Swihart 1-2 punch, it's also pretty unlikely.

My feeling, after looking at this stuff, is that Bradley should be higher, that it's worth starting to figure out how you're going to bring up (eventually) moving down the order to Pedroia (though if I had to name a "star" who'd be ok with dropping down for the good of the team he'd be high on my list), and that Mookie really can do anything. And that the Sox have largely got their lineup in a sensible state and they're not doing anything outrageously stupid here. I think the differences between "optimal" and actual lineups are small enough to make defending the current lineup against "my simplistic model says..." arguments quite easy. I wouldn't be the one defending it, but I wouldn't be bashing my head against the wall attacking someone who did, especially if they're the Red Sox management.

Hopefully a link to the numbers themselves here
 
Last edited:

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
But when you're talking about an IBB (or virtual IBB), the contrast is not between a walk and a hit; it's between a 100% probability of a walk and a 30-to-40 percent probability of a hit.
See Tom Tango's Run Expectancy Tables.

Per the second table down (2010-2015), the chance of scoring ANY runs in the following scenarios:

-- 2 -- zero outs = .614
1 2 -- zero outs = .610

-- -- 3 one out = .660
1 -- 3 one out = .634

-- 2 3 one out = .676
1 2 3 one out = .657

On average, the intentional walk actually decreases the chance of scoring any runs in these three different circumstances. Although the IBB can extend the inning and increase the odds of a "big" inning, there's a mathematically defensible reason why managers continue to utilize it. It's not "bad" because the out isn't made, but it's not "good" because it reduces the chance of a run scoring during the inning.

And like I said, these are averages. When the difference in OPS is over .500, as it was when Hanigan (.490 OPS) "protected" JBJ (1.035) on Saturday, I'd expect Tito's IBBs moved the run expectancy number down much further. With that much OPS difference, even situations where a marginal on-average expectancy change are positive, instead drop into the negative.

My original point wasn't to argue IBBs, though. Rather, that the last 28-game stretch has provided is an interesting comparative context regarding "protection" that's not usually possible: the Sox have had two white-hot young hitters in Bogaerts and JBJ over the same period of time. Bogaerts' plate appearances have consistently been followed by one of the game's all-time greats (who is likewise lethal by OPS); Bradley's have all-too-often been followed by the team's worst hitter on that day (with a significant spread in OPS). But still, the two have generally hit against the same pitchers, on the same days.

It's not usually possible to have so many variables controlled this way.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
See Tom Tango's Run Expectancy Tables.
On average, the intentional walk actually decreases the chance of scoring any runs in these three different circumstances. Although the IBB can extend the inning and increase the odds of a "big" inning, there's a mathematically defensible reason why managers continue to utilize it. It's not "bad" because the out isn't made, but it's not "good" because it reduces the chance of a run scoring during the inning.
Almost every plate appearance decreases the chance of scoring additional runs that inning, because the majority of plate appearances lead to outs. An intentional walk significantly increases the overall run expectancy while only slightly lowering the chance of runs scoring.

The first example you give has the chance of any runs scoring going down by .004, while the total run expectancy going up by .337. The other examples are similar - the increase in run expectancy is atleast 10 times the size of the decrease in chance of any runs being scored. The only time that's a reasonable tradeoff is a tie game in the bottom of the 9th (or later).
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,475
Somewhere
I plugged the lineup from Sunday (with Swihart replaced with Holt - JBJ 6th) into Baseball Musings lineup calculator
The critical assumption in this hypothesis is that players perform identically regardless of their order in the lineup.

It seems like a reasonable assumption to me, but it's essentially untested (and untestable).
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Almost every plate appearance decreases the chance of scoring additional runs that inning, because the majority of plate appearances lead to outs. An intentional walk significantly increases the overall run expectancy while only slightly lowering the chance of runs scoring.

The first example you give has the chance of any runs scoring going down by .004, while the total run expectancy going up by .337. The other examples are similar - the increase in run expectancy is atleast 10 times the size of the decrease in chance of any runs being scored. The only time that's a reasonable tradeoff is a tie game in the bottom of the 9th (or later).
Or, perhaps, when the walked hitter is so good, and the subsequent hitter is so bad, that MLB-average numbers and run expectancies can't be applied with confidence as to the statistic's correlation with the reality of the game being played in the moment.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Almost every plate appearance decreases the chance of scoring additional runs that inning, because the majority of plate appearances lead to outs. An intentional walk significantly increases the overall run expectancy while only slightly lowering the chance of runs scoring.

The first example you give has the chance of any runs scoring going down by .004, while the total run expectancy going up by .337. The other examples are similar - the increase in run expectancy is atleast 10 times the size of the decrease in chance of any runs being scored. The only time that's a reasonable tradeoff is a tie game in the bottom of the 9th (or later).
It's really important to remember that unlike the sac bunt, the IBB is typically deployed bearing in mind the abilities and matchups present.

That said, I do think the aggregate numbers point toward the fact that JBJ walking every at bat would be good for the Red Sox and their offense. Yes, the trailing hitters are much worse, but they won't have a 0% success rate.
 

StupendousMan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,910
Or, perhaps, when the walked hitter is so good, and the subsequent hitter is so bad, that MLB-average numbers and run expectancies can't be applied with confidence as to the statistic's correlation with the reality of the game being played in the moment.
QFT.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Almost every plate appearance decreases the chance of scoring additional runs that inning, because the majority of plate appearances lead to outs. An intentional walk significantly increases the overall run expectancy while only slightly lowering the chance of runs scoring.
And this is why there is really only one time when the IBB is an obviously good play as long as the following hitter is </= the preceding one, and that is with the score tied and less than two outs in the bottom of the ninth. In that scenario, your only concern is to prevent any scoring at all, and the IBB slightly furthers that goal.

The rest of the time, the value of the play depends on the gap in offensive ability between the two hitters--and the gap has to be ginormous for the move to make sense. FG recently introduced a cool tool that calculates run expectancies that are wOBA-specific. Here's the result it produces for each base-out state, first the run expectancy if you pitch to JBJ, then when you IBB him and pitch to Vazquez. I've run it once with current wOBAs and once with ZiPS projections:

Current wOBA (JBJ .434, Vazquez .265)
-2-, 0 out: 1.291, 1.215, benefit: 0.076
-2-, 1 out: 0.901, 0.624, benefit: 0.277
-2-, 2 out: 0.525, 0.219, benefit: 0.306
-23, 0 out: 2.138, 2.162, benefit: -0.024
-23, 1 out: 1.676, 1.277, benefit: 0.399
-23, 2 out: 0.960, 0.426, benefit: 0.534
--3, 0 out: 1.518, 1.488, benefit: 0.030
--3, 1 out: 1.171, 0.885, benefit: 0.286
--3, 2 out: 0.547, 0.268, benefit: 0.279

Projected wOBA (JBJ .339, Vazquez .272)
-2-, 0 out: 1.105, 1.234, benefit: -0.129
-2-, 1 out: 0.666, 0.650, benefit: 0.016
-2-, 2 out: 0.331, 0.242, benefit: 0.089
-23, 0 out: 1.976, 2.170, benefit: -0.194
-23, 1 out: 1.384, 1.304, benefit: 0.080
-23, 2 out: 0.585, 0.459, benefit: 0.126
--3, 0 out: 1.373, 1.515, benefit: -0.142
--3, 1 out: 0.959, 0.910, benefit: 0.049
--3, 2 out: 0.356, 0.268, benefit: 0.088

So the takeaway seems to go like this:

1) the IBB is never a good idea with nobody out.
2) with one out, it's a good idea only in the extreme situation where one of the best hitters in baseball is followed by one of the worst.
3) with two outs, it's a very good idea in the extreme situation, but the benefit shrinks considerably when the preceding hitter is just good rather than elite.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
Pedroia at 9 was surprising enough to me that I checked the projections (.333 OBA ranking 6th on the team) and .415 SLG ranking 7th). Baseball Musings wants him setting the table for Mookie (or whoever). For me that's one of the only two significant differences from the actual line-up being used.
That seems odd. Why Pedroia at 9 rather than one of the other hitters? Something to do with a low ISO?
 

MadStork

New Member
May 20, 2016
78
Coffee is disgusting.

I'm pretty sure I had Bradley in precisely zero fantasy trades. I am pretty down on fantasy trades and I've been pretty much opposed to trading prospects for the past couple years.

If you think I think Bradley can keep up this pace, you didn't read the post up above where I indicate otherwise. Also, learn how to spell and punctuate.

The notion that moving Bradley up to 7th for one day is going to destroy his confidence is stupid. The notion that moving him up two spots is going to destroy his confidence is stupid.

Unless we're talking about a lineup that is horrifically sub optimal, I really don't care that much what the lineup is. With the current guys in the lineup, that pretty much just means batting Vazquez 8th or 9th and batting Holt pretty low. Other than that, I don't care. If we're all wrong and JBJ still has an OPS of .950 or higher come the playoffs, I'm gonna want him hitting higher than 9th.
U just figured out what I said. Let the player gain confidence and yes, come playoff time or September move him up to help or replace a struggling hitter or hitters..
 
That seems odd. Why Pedroia at 9 rather than one of the other hitters? Something to do with a low ISO?
I presume it's a combination of
a) the specific OBP/SLG relationship he has - relatively good OBP, relatively poor SLG
b) the apparent preference of the model to bat the worst hitter at 8 rather than 9 (in line with a lot of saber thinking on the topic)
c) that there are only 2 players in the team who are clearly projected to be worse (wow)

But yeah, hitting him 7th still seems more obvious.

Given that he's actually hitting 2nd, and that lineup barely projects any worse, I doubt it matters much.

And in fact, changing the model parameters from the 1989-2002 model to the 1959-2004 version does shift Pedroia up to 7th.
 

MadStork

New Member
May 20, 2016
78
Let's try again.

If it isn't about being critical of Farrell, why were you critical of him in your last post in this thread about JBJ?

JBJ was not good in 2014. He was not good for some of 2015. He was very good for some of 2015 and he has been nothing short of top 5 player in baseball in 2016. Most people who had JBJ in every trade scenario were really silly for wanting to give up on a young player with plenty of signs of being a .800 OPS player with fantastic defense. Why trade that guy?

Nobody in this thread thinks JBJ will continue the torrid pace, hit streak, or playing like a 25m/year player. Not one person. Most of us think he is an .800-.850 OPS player with fantastic defense, kinda similar to how we felt when you wanted to trade him last year.

I've asked you this once so please answer now that I am asking a second time. How is it all about confidence? How do you measure that? Why are you advocating leaving him in the lower third of the lineup? Please expand on that thought. Why isn't hitting 6th a better spot where he has some lineup protection and will see more pitches a bad thing? Why compare him to Mueller's use 10+ years ago? Mueller was neither a young player nor a delicate flower whose 'confidence' needed coddling. I'm confused because the batting champ in 2003 hit predominately in 3 spots. One of those spots was not in the bottom third and that didn't seem to affect that very easily measured 'confidence" you keep talking about. Do you remember that team in 2003? There was a reason Mueller hit where he did. Fortunately, we are seeing comparable signs of very strong lineups both years.

Please put more thought, more evidence backing your assertions, and more work into your posts so that we are confident you will be a valuable contributor here.[/QUOTE)


What don't u understand?

I said it's about confidence. Nobody knows how mentally fragile some of these players are or might be.
Again, If a young player like Bradley who has struggled and finally has become a contributor at a high level why push the envelope.

You just answered your own ? Mueller hit low in the order due to a very good lineup. Same this year. Don't fix what ain't broke.

Yes, I am critical of Farrell. Two straight last place finishes with a staggering payroll will do that to a fan.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
These "optimal" lineups generated 5.032 runs/game which is 0.024 more than the "actual" one I used. A gain of about 4 runs over the course of the season, which would be dwarfed by the margin of error around all this analysis.
Nice work on this. I think you did it the right way by using expected performance.

And if the team keeps mashing, they'll probably be fine with any non-insane lineup.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
And if the team keeps mashing, they'll probably be fine with any non-insane lineup.
Okay, here's the most insane line-up I could come up with, using the regular starters (vs. RHP):

1.) Vazquez, C
2.) Betts. RF
3.) Swihart, LF
4.) Bogaerts, SS
5.) Pedroia, 2B
6.) Hanley, 1B
7.) Bradley Jr., CF
8.) Shaw, 3B
9.) Ortiz, DH

I put the three lefties together. I gave Papi and JBJ as little protection as possible. I put the two slowest guys (Ortiz/Vazquez) in front of the fastest guy (Betts)

Right now -- that's still a pretty sick line-up.
 

The Big Red Kahuna

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 14, 2003
3,564
Getting to the point for me where I am tuning in more to see JBJ streak than Red Sox wins... I realize this is crazy, but it is what it is.

Most amazing part of his streak is how "easy" it's been... not a lot of late at-bats to sweat out.

Over last 29 games:
First hit occurs in first at-bat: 11
First hit occurs in second at-bat: 8
First hit occurs in third at-bat: 8
First hit occurs in fourth at-bat: 1
First hit occurs in fifth at-bat: 1

Only 4 of JBJ's streak has required an at-bat later than 6th inning to keep it going...
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
Streak? What streak?

Seriously, he hit the stuffing out of a couple of balls tonight with nothing to show for them but long outs.

Hope he starts a new one tomorrow. He's a fun player to watch.
I was just talking with someone on Twitter last night about how watching JBJ this year is so much like watching Nomar's rookie season. So much fun on both sides of the ball.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,303
deep inside Guido territory
Great article by Jerry Crasnick on JBJ. Quotes from his USC coach Ray Tanner are included as well as Bradley's willingness to work his ass off and brush off all struggles. He has a confidence unlike some players(ahem Clay) that no matter what happens he'll find a way to get the job done. I'm so glad he's a Boston Red Sox. Not only is he a great talent he is also a tremendous character guy who has a low profile and is a gentle, old soul.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15748079/jackie-bradley-jr-unlikely-hitting-streak-earns-spot-red-sox-youth-movement
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I thought it was really unfair to move him to lead off. A strat-o-matic move if there ever was one. Too bad he lost the streak being asked to try a new role totally unnecessarily.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
I thought it was really unfair to move him to lead off. A strat-o-matic move if there ever was one. Too bad he lost the streak being asked to try a new role totally unnecessarily.
Did you watch the game or is that a strat-o-matic response to the box score? But for 10 more feet in distance in two of his atbats he would have had a homerun and a wallball off the centrefield fence.

And he was one out away from getting another chance to extend the streak. If Mookie gets on base there and JBJ gets a hit in his last atbat there wouldn't be anyone complaining about the move I'm sure.
 
Last edited:

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
I thought it was really unfair to move him to lead off. A strat-o-matic move if there ever was one. Too bad he lost the streak being asked to try a new role totally unnecessarily.
A streak is just a thing. However, the underlying consistency of hard contact to all fields -- over a full month-plus's worth of games -- shouldn't be lost as what's really remarkable.

This is Jackie "28% Strikeout Rate" Bradley we're talking about, not a more physically gifted contact hitter like Mookie or Xander. He's shaved that number by 10% with his new more-aggressive approach so far this season.

Meanwhile, his XBH% and BB% have remained consistent from where they were last season. Considering where he was at the end of 2014, it's astounding this is the point he's reached.

And even hitting leadoff, he put the bat on the ball four times in four plate appearances, three times with good contact, twice with better contact than anyone not an all-time hitting great, but just with not quite enough luck.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Hitting streaks end. It's what they do. DiMaggio didn't wear a collar for that 57th game because he suddenly forgot how to hit or freaked out at something his manager did. Streaks require luck, and sooner or later the luck runs out. No explanations are ever required.
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,345
Austin
According to Alex Speier, Bradley batted leadoff in 274 of his 303 minor league games. It is absurd to think that unfamiliarity with the leadoff position in any way contributed to losing the streak.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Did you watch the game or is that a strat-o-matic response to the box score? But for 10 more feet in distance in two of his atbats he would have had a homerun and a wallball off the centrefield fence.

And he was one out away from getting another chance to extend the streak. If Mookie gets on base there and JBJ gets a hit in his last atbat there wouldn't be anyone complaining about the move I'm sure.
Decisions are good or bad before you know the results. Some people survive going over Niagara Falls in a barrel, they're still fools.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
Decisions are good or bad before you know the results. Some people survive going over Niagara Falls in a barrel, they're still fools.
Indeed. And the results say the decision was neutral at best. Do you really think he would have had a hit if he hit later in the order? That his approach changed?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,395
According to Alex Speier, Bradley batted leadoff in 274 of his 303 minor league games. It is absurd to think that unfamiliarity with the leadoff position in any way contributed to losing the streak.
Especially when he hit two bombs, one of which was about 410 feet. It just happened to be hit to the deepest part of the park. He crushed the ball that day, but....baseball. It's why hitting streaks of that length are not really common. You have to be really good for a long period of time, AND pretty lucky.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Decisions are good or bad before you know the results. Some people survive going over Niagara Falls in a barrel, they're still fools.
It's funny how results don't matter, yet you waited until there were results to make your opinion known. Odd.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,485
Hitting streaks end. It's what they do. DiMaggio didn't wear a collar for that 57th game because he suddenly forgot how to hit or freaked out at something his manager did. Streaks require luck, and sooner or later the luck runs out. No explanations are ever required.
Streaks are oddities of distribution. They are more likely when players are better, but the sheer number of trials across every batter in every game ever to occur in the major leagues means lots of odd, unlikely stuff happens. Bradley had a streak. It was fun. It ending says nothing about how good he was, is, or will be as a hitter. Hitting baseballs is hard. Eventually the odds catch up with everyone and they go hitless in a game. Over his streak, Dimaggio hit .408. Ted Williams hit .412 over the same time period, and finished the year hitting .406. Dimaggio hit .357 for the year. So does that streak being longer than Williams' 23 game streak the same year mean that Dimaggio was the better hitter? Even over that short time period? I'm going to say no. It just means luck distributes things oddly sometimes. And that can be highly entertaining. I like seeing a player hit for a cycle, it's fun. Or getting an unassisted triple play. Unlikely things are enjoyable for their sheer novelty. But don't delude yourself into thinking that means something is inherently superior about the player.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,854
That would have been interesting timing had the streak continued.

Good luck to the Bradley family.