Bogaerts Bat

JimBoSox9 · Apr 23, 2015

mfried said:
All our worries about X's glove might be better directed toward his hitting. He looks late on fast balls. Even his game winner was a bloop to right field. And he has started looking like last year on breaking pitches, lunging, etc. The much heralded improvement in his fielding might be happening but that will never be his strength. Is this a cold weather problem?

Let's be clear - he's on an 0-for-15 slump in the past 4 games and that's why you started this thread. 15. There's a word for that. Prior to those 15 ABs, he was 17-for-38 in nine games to the tune of a .926 OPS. Basically, it's most likely a you problem.

TheoShmeo · Apr 23, 2015

I agree that concerns with Boegarts' hitting are not all balled up in his current slide. Whether it was last year, this past Spring Training or even at the beginning of the current season, when his numbers were better, we haven't seen him drive the ball with authority or consistency.

In short, it's too easy to dismiss this thread as SSS ninny-like worry.

And Farrell's placement of Xander in the 8-hole is likely a combination of smartly trying to take the pressure of him and a recognition that he continues to be a work in progress at the plate. He's very young and many remain very high on him. But his offensive prowess is a legitimate concern in my view.

Red(s)HawksFan · Apr 23, 2015

TheoShmeo said:
And Farrell's placement of Xander in the 8-hole is likely a combination of smartly trying to take the pressure of him and a recognition that he continues to be a work in progress at the plate. He's very young and many remain very high on him. But his offensive prowess is a legitimate concern in my view.

His placement in the order is also heavily due to who is ahead of him in the order. Hard to really read into him hitting 8th in a deep lineup like this one. Even if he wasn't 0 for his last 15, who are you moving down to accommodate a hot Bogaerts bat other than maybe Victorino?

TheoShmeo · Apr 23, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
His placement in the order is also heavily due to who is ahead of him in the order. Hard to really read into him hitting 8th in a deep lineup like this one. Even if he wasn't 0 for his last 15, who are you moving down to accommodate a hot Bogaerts bat other than maybe Victorino?

That's fair. Though if Betts continued for a while at or around the Mendoza line, he'd be a candidate to switch places with Xander. Not that I'm advocating that or arguing against being patient with Mookie.

Still, like Holt forcing the playing time issue, if Boegarts was hitting the way many expected he would, Farrell would be, at the very least, faced with a question.

JimBoSox9 · Apr 23, 2015

TheoShmeo said:
I agree that concerns with Boegarts' hitting are not all balled up in his current slide. Whether it was last year, this past Spring Training or even at the beginning of the current season, when his numbers were better, we haven't seen him drive the ball with authority or consistency.

In short, it's too easy to dismiss this thread as SSS ninny-like worry.

Well, he's had two chances and you've had one, and I have yet to read anything worth not dismissing. Farrell's placement in the 8-hole, with a veteran-stacked lineup (but Mookie!!! Well, what'd it say to him to be dropped from 2 to 8?), in late April?. Please.

Additionally, the phrase you were looking for is "drive the ball consistently with authority", unless you've been awfully unlucky in catching his ABs. I'm all for analysis, but this is fretting.

Clears Cleaver · Apr 23, 2015

he's way out on his front foot, so he's getting jammed on fastballs and lunging at breaking pitches. He was doing same thing last year. Its easy to spot and hard to correct and usually comes because the player doesn't feel he's quick enough into the zone. But it actually makes you slower and makes hitting a pitch hard on the outer half almost impossible

TheoShmeo · Apr 23, 2015

JimBoSox9 said:
Well, he's had two chances and you've had one, and I have yet to read anything worth not dismissing. Farrell's placement in the 8-hole, with a veteran-stacked lineup (but Mookie!!! Well, what'd it say to him to be dropped from 2 to 8?), in late April?. Please.

Additionally, the phrase you were looking for is "drive the ball consistently with authority", unless you've been awfully unlucky in catching his ABs. I'm all for analysis, but this is fretting.

I will manage to make it through the day without your praise, happily enough. And if you will need charts or thorough going sabermetric analysis (not that I am remotely dismissing the same in Cafardo or CHB like fashion) in order to evoke such a response, then my posts on this topic will continue to be dismissed by you.

I'm not above fretting, I admit. Because watching Boegarts since his promotion does cause me to think that he is -- perhaps -- not the offensive talent that his press had him out to be. I'm glad you've seen him drive the ball with authority and it's true that I have not seen every at bat this year. But, yeah, I haven't seen all that many lasers.

That he's only 22 years old and is so universally highly regarded is the very real more optimistic side. His performance from September onward last season -- when he hit .313 -- is another salve. As is his better batting average while at SS than 3B (.266 versus .182).

But as the linked article points out and many others have noted, Boegarts' problems last year were partially based on his troubles with breaking pitches. For those who are more optimistic based on what they have seen thus far in 2015, perhaps an improvement or anticipated improvement in that area is one of the reasons.

http://www.baseballprof.com/2015/01/xander-bogaerts-2015-fantasy-projection/

grimshaw · Apr 23, 2015

I'm still in the leave him alone camp, because I think he'll be above average for his position even if not the all star we all want him to be right now. More Wilmer Flores than A-Rod.

All that said . .
It is obvious if you are watching all his at bats (I don't know who is watching NESN vs gamecasts), that he really is not hitting the ball consistently hard, even during his "hot" streak.
In 225 pitches his LD% is 14. It was 34% in his brief 2013 run, and 20% last year. He's hitting a lot of grounders (48%) that are finding holes. He also has 5 infield hits (had 16 all last year) Nothing over the fence. Nothing off the wall. Very little like Hanley's two rockets he hit to center the past two games where we can blame bad luck.

If you want to say it's a small sample size and April fine, but we saw this in spring training and most of last year as well. I think the reaction is about wanting to see some incremental improvements ie. evidence of a different approach, an adjustment to the swing, or building upon his September.

curly2 · Apr 23, 2015

According to McAdam, it's gotten inside Xander's head already, and that's kind of scary.

Following an 0-for-4 Wednesday, Bogaerts sat in front of his locker, head in hands, seemingly lost, until hitting coach Chili Davis stopped by to offer a pep talk and attempt to cheer Bogaerts up.

http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/sean-mcadam-these-short-boston-red-sox-starts-cant-continue

Bogie can't let himself get beaten down. Chili Davis seems like a good and smart guy, and hopefully he can keep Xander from beating himnself up -- while also improve his pitch recognition and shortening his swing.

TheoShmeo · Apr 23, 2015

This is reminiscient a bit of the move to third affecting him at the plate last season. I wrote "a bit" in that it's clearly not an apples to apples comparison.

But notwithstanding his tender age, I did find it to be a little curious last season that the move to third so impacted him in the batting box and that he didn't shake it off after an initial adjustment period.

Sitting at your locker in need of a pep talk after an 0-4 (or 0-15) is arguably along similar lines.

Hopefully, there's nothing to see here, but having a short memory is a skill that many successful athletes allude to. That's especially the case in baseball, a game of failure for even the best hitters.

Red(s)HawksFan · Apr 23, 2015

TheoShmeo said:
Sitting at your locker in need of a pep talk after an 0-4 (or 0-15) is arguably along similar lines.

Hopefully, there's nothing to see here, but having a short memory is a skill that many successful athletes allude to. That's especially the case in baseball, a game of failure for even the best hitters.

Coping with struggles/failure is something athletes learn at different stages. Given his age and how quickly he rose through the system, it's very likely he's never faced this sort of failure before. If you're a phenom athlete for which everything always seems to come easy, the first true struggles are probably a hard slap in the face. So I find it hard to fault him too much if his struggles get him down a bit more than you'd expect or want to see out of a player. If he's still moping and struggling in June or later, after having the down season last year, then I'd really start to get concerned that he might never figure it out. Until then though, it's still growing pains, IMO.

pokey_reese · Apr 23, 2015

I'm in the "there is something to this" camp, and in addition to the very low LD rate, I would also add that according to this data: http://goo.gl/JgSiJD

...he is not hitting the ball hard at all, ranked 166 out of 178 on batted ball velocity out of players with at least 20 balls in play. He is with guys like Didi Gregorious, Jose Iglesias, Dee Gordon, and Billy Hamilton, Alejandro De Aza; guys known for noodle bats with excellent speed and defensive value. That, and a few washed-up types like Marlon Byrd and Aramis Ramirez.

Definitely a small sample size still, but he is making pretty terrible contact, period. Only incredible luck and an improved walk rate (which is encouraging, no doubt) is preventing this from being almost as bad as his slumps last year.

edit: Unrelated, but notice that Hanley is hitting the ball significantly harder than everyone else.

geoduck no quahog · Apr 23, 2015

I always wonder about the things we don't know about young guys, particularly immigrants - and what the fuck is going on in their personal lives as they make a remarkable transition from being relatively poor and talented but surrounded by friends and family, to hanging out with similar guys in the minors, to being thrust into the majors with more money than they imagined but subject to a loneliness and stress never before experienced.

He needs a puppy...or a different girlfriend.

theapportioner · Apr 23, 2015

I'd think that a rich organization like the Sox, or his agent (Boras) could set him up with a sports psychologist. No shame in that. Tom Brady had one back when he was fighting for a roster spot in Michigan, I believe.

JimBoSox9 · Apr 23, 2015

E5 Yaz · Apr 23, 2015

Grant (LA)

It's obviously still early in his career, but through 700 PAs, Bogaerts hasn't shown much of the power (career .118 ISO) that made him a top prospect. Do you think there's anything mechanically that changed that suggests he won't hit for as much power in the majors as previously projected, or do you think the power will still come around?

Klaw
(1:10 PM)

It's obviously still early in his career.

O Captain! My Captain! · Apr 23, 2015

pokey_reese said:
I'm in the "there is something to this" camp, and in addition to the very low LD rate, I would also add that according to this data: http://goo.gl/JgSiJD

...he is not hitting the ball hard at all, ranked 166 out of 178 on batted ball velocity out of players with at least 20 balls in play. He is with guys like Didi Gregorious, Jose Iglesias, Dee Gordon, and Billy Hamilton, Alejandro De Aza; guys known for noodle bats with excellent speed and defensive value. That, and a few washed-up types like Marlon Byrd and Aramis Ramirez.

Definitely a small sample size still, but he is making pretty terrible contact, period. Only incredible luck and an improved walk rate (which is encouraging, no doubt) is preventing this from being almost as bad as his slumps last year.

edit: Unrelated, but notice that Hanley is hitting the ball significantly harder than everyone else.

Well, a few spots away is noted noodle bat Robinson Cano. Other notable bats with actual value include Yadi Molina, former Sox great Josh Reddick, Neil Walker, and Chase Headley. Sure the numbers match up with observations, but I think this is really telling us what we already know more than anything.

pokey_reese · Apr 23, 2015

E5 Yaz said:
Grant (LA)

It's obviously still early in his career, but through 700 PAs, Bogaerts hasn't shown much of the power (career .118 ISO) that made him a top prospect. Do you think there's anything mechanically that changed that suggests he won't hit for as much power in the majors as previously projected, or do you think the power will still come around?

Klaw
(1:10 PM)

It's obviously still early in his career.

It is certainly early in his career, but I don't know exactly what that comment is meant to imply. That young people can't hit for power?

Looking on Fangraphs, from 2013-2015 there were 26 players who had at least 500 PAs at age 23 or younger. Sorting them by ISO, Bogaerts ranks 21 out of 26, below guys like Andrelton Simmons and Jean Seguera, but ahead of Billy Hamilton and Jose Altuve (link: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=500&type=8&season=2015&month=0&season1=2013&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=14,23&filter=&players=0&sort=11,d ).

Now, power can certainly develop late in some players, but just saying that it's early in his career doesn't change the fact that
a.) he hasn't hit for much power yet, and that
b.) even relative to his peers (in terms of age and experience), he has hit for relatively little power

Again, that isn't directly criticism of his overall ability as a baseball player (his defense has improved, he draws walks, etc.), but the particular question asked was just about power, and it's a legitimate one.

TomRicardo · Apr 23, 2015

pokey_reese said:
I'm in the "there is something to this" camp, and in addition to the very low LD rate, I would also add that according to this data: http://goo.gl/JgSiJD

...he is not hitting the ball hard at all, ranked 166 out of 178 on batted ball velocity out of players with at least 20 balls in play. He is with guys like Didi Gregorious, Jose Iglesias, Dee Gordon, and Billy Hamilton, Alejandro De Aza; guys known for noodle bats with excellent speed and defensive value. That, and a few washed-up types like Marlon Byrd and Aramis Ramirez.

Definitely a small sample size still, but he is making pretty terrible contact, period. Only incredible luck and an improved walk rate (which is encouraging, no doubt) is preventing this from being almost as bad as his slumps last year.

edit: Unrelated, but notice that Hanley is hitting the ball significantly harder than everyone else.

I started looking at the kinds of pitches being thrown to Bogaerts because usually low exit speeds mean you are getting a ton of offspeed junk thrown to you:

Exit speed = (bat speed + pitch speed)* C

C = position of contact and composition of the bat

But looking through the numbers it looks like pitchers are throwing Xander more fastballs than before. They have really stopped throwing him change ups and stepped up throwing sliders. The thing is while Xander was hideous against sliders last year, he is hitting them this year. Xander has been hideous against cutters and change ups this year (which he could hit before) but has made a huge step up hitting sliders. I think the adjustments he made slowed his bat a bit to concentrate on making contact (which he has been very good at). He clearly is making poor contact.

Xander's 17% LD is not terrible (though his .366 BABIP is about 70 pts higher than you would imagine with a guy that LD%)

pokey_reese · Apr 23, 2015

TomRicardo said:
I started looking at the kinds of pitches being thrown to Bogaerts because usually low exit speeds mean you are getting a ton of offspeed junk thrown to you:

Exit speed = (bat speed + pitch speed)* C

C = position of contact and composition of the bat

But looking through the numbers it looks like pitchers are throwing Xander more fastballs than before. They have really stopped throwing him change ups and stepped up throwing sliders. The thing is while Xander was hideous against sliders last year, he is hitting them this year. Xander has been hideous against cutters and change ups this year (which he could hit before) but has made a huge step up hitting sliders. I think the adjustments he made slowed his bat a bit to concentrate on making contact (which he has been very good at). He clearly is making poor contact.

Xander's 17% LD is not terrible (though his .366 BABIP is about 70 pts higher than you would imagine with a guy that LD%)

Interesting stuff, thanks for looking into that.

One other thing that obviously complicates all of this is the issue of differing classification data. Fangraphs has X at a 14.6% LD rate, which I was going off of, and is significantly worse than the 17% you found (or, I'm assuming, calculated from B-Ref stats?). With such small samples, a few balls put in one column or another make a big difference.

E5 Yaz · Apr 23, 2015

pokey_reese said:
It is certainly early in his career, but I don't know exactly what that comment is meant to imply. That young people can't hit for power?

I think it's Keith Law speak for "it's far too early in his career to make judgments" on whether X's current level of hitting will carry forth

pokey_reese · Apr 23, 2015

E5 Yaz said:
I think it's Keith Law speak for "it's far too early in his career to make judgments" on whether X's current level of hitting will carry forth

I get that, but he still dodged a relatively benign and specific question: "Do you think there's anything mechanically that changed that suggests he won't hit for as much power in the majors as previously projected, or do you think the power will still come around?"

If KLaw believes that Bogaerts has changed his approach or had mechanical problems since being in the minors, which has been talked about by many people from this board to Sox hitting coaches last year, then he could have said something like "yes, his swing doesn't look like it did in AA when he was getting his foot down earlier," or he could have said something like, "the swing is fine, but his approach on big league breaking pitches is bad, and recognizing/laying off something that he will have to learn." In that case he could have said either that these are fixable problems and he expects them to be overcome based on his track record, or that his stroke has changed since coming up and produces more GB/LDs, etc..

He was given a choice to give an opinion, and he could have said, "it's early in his career and I still think that he will hit for power in the majors," or, "it's early in his career but I think that we have to revise estimates on how many HRs he will hit," or something else. He didn't even say that this was a sample size issue and that it would normalize over time (and the question wasn't based on 40 ABs this spring, but almost 700 over three seasons)?

I mean, again, it's early in his career and I get that, there is still plenty of time for development. But what Law said was a cop out that didn't add much value, and I think it's fair to say that without being considered critical. It seems to me like this scenario:

Me (to bizzaro KLaw the weatherman): 'Do you think it's going to rain today? Yesterday you said it would, but it's almost noon and it still hasn't. Do you want to revise that estimate?'
KLaw the weatherman: 'It's early.'

How is that useful? You are a weatherman, if you still think it is going to rain, just say to and tell me why. If don't, say that you saw the conditions that often predict rain, but then explain how the situation changed since your initial prediction. Basically, he brought a game thread comment to the main board (even if a weekly chat is basically a game thread), insofar as it contributed nothing of value, he just stated a fact that wasn't in question.

Red(s)HawksFan · Apr 24, 2015

First, it's a chat, which lends itself to quick and not so in depth answers by nature.

Second, it's Keith Law, who always goes snarky when he has the chance.

You're reading way too much into an off the cuff one-liner.

grimshaw · Apr 24, 2015

That's how I read it as well. Dave Cameron and crew at fangraphs do the same thing in chats. If they don't have the latest scouting reports handy, they fall back on SSS, statistical noise, or one-liner snark. It's impossible for those guys to keep up on every player unless they talk to their scouts all the time.

smastroyin · Apr 24, 2015

The problem is that you can fit almost literally any narrative to match the results that you are seeing as you see them.

"He changed his approach and got away from what made him successful"
"He didn't change his approach or adjust to major league pitching."
"He keeps going back and forth instead of sticking with something."
"He stubbornly keeps sticking with this thing that isn't working."

Everyone has an explanation for a slump or especially a difficult transition to the majors.

pokey_reese · Apr 24, 2015

I read a fair few chats, and so I know that snark is common currency, especially from KLaw (though that question didn't count as "baiting" by any measure), don't worry. But when the question was re-posted here, people acted like it was irrelevant to the discussion, as if it had been answered already. My point is that everyone dismissed the viability of the question because the answer implied that it was too soon to analyze the situation at all, which is intellectually lazy.

700 PAs is enough to stabilize a lot of numbers, heck, 500 isn't bad if we want to throw out his rookie season (since the argument is that it's too early to judge anything), in terms of season-to-season predictability. I actually kind of figured I was playing devil's advocate here and that aging curves would show that power rises steadily into a player's late 20s/early 30s, but then I found this, showing the opposite:

This article specifically talks about how we (including clearly, myself) mistakenly assume that the power peak is later than it is. While individual results will obviously vary greatly, Bogaerts should be right around the peak of his power right now. If someone, including KLaw, disagrees with that, that's fine, but don't dismiss the question as too early to ask. It's a reasonable thread, and we have plenty of data to throw around. How much time did we spend on arguing blindly about what prospects Hamels would require?

I know I'm fighting upstream here, and I am really not trying to antagonize anyone, even Law. I just feel like it's too easy to ignore the fact that a decent question is being raised, and that we are at least getting to the point where saying "too soon to tell" is not necessarily true, just a convenient way to side-step the discussion.

Savin Hillbilly · Apr 24, 2015

pokey_reese said:
This article specifically talks about how we (including clearly, myself) mistakenly assume that the power peak is later than it is. While individual results will obviously vary greatly, Bogaerts should be right around the peak of his power right now.

Either you're misreading the graph, or you're forgetting how young Bogaerts is. Assuming he is typical, his power isn't going to peak till he reaches 25, which is three years from now. A lot of improvement can happen between now and then.

Reverend · Apr 24, 2015

TomRicardo said:
I started looking at the kinds of pitches being thrown to Bogaerts because usually low exit speeds mean you are getting a ton of offspeed junk thrown to you:

Exit speed = (bat speed + pitch speed)* C

C = position of contact and composition of the bat

But looking through the numbers it looks like pitchers are throwing Xander more fastballs than before. They have really stopped throwing him change ups and stepped up throwing sliders. The thing is while Xander was hideous against sliders last year, he is hitting them this year. Xander has been hideous against cutters and change ups this year (which he could hit before) but has made a huge step up hitting sliders. I think the adjustments he made slowed his bat a bit to concentrate on making contact (which he has been very good at). He clearly is making poor contact.

Xander's 17% LD is not terrible (though his .366 BABIP is about 70 pts higher than you would imagine with a guy that LD%)

Yeah, hitting the ball hard can be a funny thing. Check this:

https://twitter.com/msimonespn/status/591664359555792896

MikeM · Apr 24, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
Either you're misreading the graph, or you're forgetting how young Bogaerts is. Assuming he is typical, his power isn't going to peak till he reaches 25, which is three years from now. A lot of improvement can happen between now and then.

So the chart difference of .005 indicates a reasonable jump from fairly non-existent to middle of the order pop in 2 years? Seems what that estimated peak should be is the real question being presented.

(Or maybe i'm just reading the graph wrong as well)

TomRicardo · Apr 24, 2015

pokey_reese said:
I read a fair few chats, and so I know that snark is common currency, especially from KLaw (though that question didn't count as "baiting" by any measure), don't worry. But when the question was re-posted here, people acted like it was irrelevant to the discussion, as if it had been answered already. My point is that everyone dismissed the viability of the question because the answer implied that it was too soon to analyze the situation at all, which is intellectually lazy.

700 PAs is enough to stabilize a lot of numbers, heck, 500 isn't bad if we want to throw out his rookie season (since the argument is that it's too early to judge anything), in terms of season-to-season predictability. I actually kind of figured I was playing devil's advocate here and that aging curves would show that power rises steadily into a player's late 20s/early 30s, but then I found this, showing the opposite:

This article specifically talks about how we (including clearly, myself) mistakenly assume that the power peak is later than it is. While individual results will obviously vary greatly, Bogaerts should be right around the peak of his power right now. If someone, including KLaw, disagrees with that, that's fine, but don't dismiss the question as too early to ask. It's a reasonable thread, and we have plenty of data to throw around. How much time did we spend on arguing blindly about what prospects Hamels would require?

I know I'm fighting upstream here, and I am really not trying to antagonize anyone, even Law. I just feel like it's too easy to ignore the fact that a decent question is being raised, and that we are at least getting to the point where saying "too soon to tell" is not necessarily true, just a convenient way to side-step the discussion.

This chart does not pass the sniff test.

What players are they talking about it? Is it all players? Because bad players don't usually get into the major league until they are older. Is there threshold for ABs? Because once again only really good players have 700 PA at the age of 25.

pokey_reese · Apr 24, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
Either you're misreading the graph, or you're forgetting how young Bogaerts is. Assuming he is typical, his power isn't going to peak till he reaches 25, which is three years from now. A lot of improvement can happen between now and then.

That's how many years he is from the peak, but my point is that (assuming he follows the normal curve shown here) he should be closer to his power peak now than he will be at 27-28, when most people think of the offensive peak for a hitter. Even knowing how old he is, one should assume that he is either fairly close to his power peak, or is going to have an abnormal development curve in that regard (totally possible).

I'm just saying that for all who think it is the latter, say why. It isn't like it's at all rare for scouts of a young player to miss on how much one particular tool will show up in-game in the majors. We can all agree that he is young and has plenty of time to change, but for the first 700 PAs, it's still fair to look at mechanics, batted ball profile, ISO, etc. and see a guy who might not be the 20-30 HR bat people projected.

pokey_reese · Apr 24, 2015

TomRicardo said:
This chart does not pass the sniff test.

What players are they talking about it? Is it all players? Because bad players don't usually get into the major league until they are older. Is there threshold for ABs? Because once again only really good players have 700 PA at the age of 25.

Sorry, my fault for not linking in the original post, I meant to. This chart is from a Fangraphs piece here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hitters-age-like-wine-power-like-cheese/

TomRicardo · Apr 24, 2015

pokey_reese said:
Sorry, my fault for not linking in the original post, I meant to. This chart is from a Fangraphs piece here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hitters-age-like-wine-power-like-cheese/

Yea the article leaves the same questions. It just kind of says HEY LOOK AT THIS CHART with very little context. To be honest it was a really poorly written article.

Dahabenzapple2 · Apr 24, 2015

What is interesting and frustrating to me in watching Xander is that when he DOES hit a homer, it seems like he really hits it.

I remember his first HR in 2013 as an absolute bomb and I remember one this spring that was corked.

I realize this is anecdotal in the extreme but it sure seems like he has the power. Harnessing it is the issue.

Savin Hillbilly · Apr 24, 2015

TomRicardo said:
Yea the article leaves the same questions. It just kind of says HEY LOOK AT THIS CHART with very little context. To be honest it was a really poorly written article.

He links to this article which does explain the method a bit better.

Intuitively, I feel like summing PA-weighted individual year-to-year changes is problematic, if only because it fails to account for the fact that the impact of improvement/stasis/decline on opportunity (and therefore, on the curve) is not constant across the age range. But I'm not sure if there's a way around that.

Alcohol&Overcalls · Apr 24, 2015

pokey_reese said:
Sorry, my fault for not linking in the original post, I meant to. This chart is from a Fangraphs piece here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hitters-age-like-wine-power-like-cheese/

Eno is usually better than this, but there are definite selection-bias effects at play. See: Trout, Mike vs. players who make their debut at 27.

threecy · Apr 24, 2015

I think it's safe to say that he's not hitting the ball hard as frequently as potentially hoped.

Can he change that while playing regularly in the majors? Or, could there be a developmental reason to get him out of the spotlight for awhile to work on things? It may sound weird sending down someone hitting .302 with an OPS+ 110, and may not make sense with current depth, but he only had 60 games in AAA and has a MLB career 88 OPS+. It's certainly of benefit to get him to his superstar potential as soon as possible.

Red(s)HawksFan · Apr 24, 2015

threecy said:
I think it's safe to say that he's not hitting the ball hard as frequently as potentially hoped.

Can he change that while playing regularly in the majors? Or, could there be a developmental reason to get him out of the spotlight for awhile to work on things? It may sound weird sending down someone hitting .302 with an OPS+ 110, and may not make sense with current depth, but he only had 60 games in AAA and has a MLB career 88 OPS+. It's certainly of benefit to get him to his superstar potential as soon as possible.

I think the best course of action is to have him continue to work with the best hitting coach in the organization, and that's Chili Davis. As long as he isn't a net negative for the team, I see no reason to farm him out just yet. Besides, who do they bring up in his place? Does Holt become the everyday SS in that scenario? I'm a big fan of Holt and don't have a problem with him handling SS, but I think his most effective role is the one he's in now.

JimBoSox9 · Apr 24, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
He links to this article which does explain the method a bit better.

Intuitively, I feel like summing PA-weighted individual year-to-year changes is problematic, if only because it fails to account for the fact that the impact of improvement/stasis/decline on opportunity (and therefore, on the curve) is not constant across the age range. But I'm not sure if there's a way around that.

The real problem I have with it is the logical implication that ISO in and of itself is the definitive measurement of power/age curve. It's the learning stage. They're adding natural power at the same time they're learning to manage that power in pursuit of control. Below, which is the better power year?

Year A: .250 BA, .150 ISO
Year B: .300 BA, .125 ISO

I'd argue B has a case that may be proven out by a full stat line, but the chart would tell you they've clearly declined as a power hitter from year A. I'd also worry about how high-ISO outliers are affecting the sample; that's the specific skill teams are most likely to rush young guys to the majors for exhibiting. I'd almost expect an unusual amount of aberrantly high ISOs in that age cluster.

TomRicardo · Apr 24, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
He links to this article which does explain the method a bit better.

Intuitively, I feel like summing PA-weighted individual year-to-year changes is problematic, if only because it fails to account for the fact that the impact of improvement/stasis/decline on opportunity (and therefore, on the curve) is not constant across the age range. But I'm not sure if there's a way around that.

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

That is awful methodology. Like truly hideous.

The chart is not really useful in the least. It allows for small sample size with huge variants to have equal weight to a full season for unknown reasons. Also the chart there is about RAA (wait what?) not Iso. The whole thing looks awful.

aron7awol · Apr 25, 2015

I'd really like to see a similar curve for SLG rather than ISO. Even if ISO really does decline early as the chart suggests, I would expect an AVG increase that more than offsets the loss in ISO during the player's 20s, along with the BB% increase that massively increases the player's value.

charlieoscar · Apr 25, 2015

Re: Hitter Aging Curves -- I shouldn't need to point out that the average of 1000 and -1000 is 0 and the average of 1 and -1 is also 0. There can be a lot of wiggle room. The curve is the line of best fit for the data but fo you know the variance of the data? How do sample sizes compare for age groups? My assumption is that "baseball age" is used for the batter's age. What if a player's actual age is approximately six month younger or older than his "baseball age"? Is the distribution for each age group normal? Is it skewed and if so, does the skewness change with aging?

Maybe it will turn out that none of those questions have a bearing on the answer but I would prefer to have a deeper look into things before I started crying, "OMG, Player A doesn't fit his aging curve."

iayork · Apr 25, 2015

charlieoscar said:
Re: Hitter Aging Curves -- I shouldn't need to point out that the average of 1000 and -1000 is 0 and the average of 1 and -1 is also 0. There can be a lot of wiggle room. The curve is the line of best fit for the data but fo you know the variance of the data? How do sample sizes compare for age groups? My assumption is that "baseball age" is used for the batter's age. What if a player's actual age is approximately six month younger or older than his "baseball age"? Is the distribution for each age group normal? Is it skewed and if so, does the skewness change with aging?

Maybe it will turn out that none of those questions have a bearing on the answer but I would prefer to have a deeper look into things before I started crying, "OMG, Player A doesn't fit his aging curve."

We'll have something on aging curves at the soshcentral site in a while, and I posted a chart here last year some time. It's not complete, but it's definitely true the SLG increases (and quite dramatically) during the early 20s. It's also true that the variance is very wide, so that the predictive value for any single individual isn't great.

soxhop411 · May 2, 2015

@brianmacp: Xander Bogaerts came to the plate with a new stance. His front foot was noticeably more open than it has been in the past.

soxhop411 · May 2, 2015

https://twitter.com/brianmacp/status/594569435198988289

Eddie Jurak · May 2, 2015

iayork said:
We'll have something on aging curves at the soshcentral site in a while, and I posted a chart here last year some time. It's not complete, but it's definitely true the SLG increases (and quite dramatically) during the early 20s. It's also true that the variance is very wide, so that the predictive value for any single individual isn't great.

That's incredibly important.

JimBoSox9 · May 2, 2015

soxhop411 said:
https://twitter.com/brianmacp/status/594569435198988289

If he had kept the old bat angle to go along with the new lower body, he'd be a spitting image of the Pro.

Bogaerts Bat

Member

will you be my friend?

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

will you be my friend?

Lil' Bill

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Member

not particularly consistent

Member

will you be my friend?

polka king

Member

Member

Member

rusty cohlebone

Member

polka king

Member

Member

Member

simpering whimperer

Member

loves the secret sauce

for king and country

Member

rusty cohlebone

Member

Member

rusty cohlebone

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter

loves the secret sauce

Member

Cosbologist

Member

will you be my friend?

rusty cohlebone

Member

Member

Member

news aggravator

news aggravator

canderson-lite

will you be my friend?