Bradley: Deal with It.

[kieckeredinthehead]

Also need to assess positioning of a left fielder in Fenway (half the games). When was the last time the Red Sox had a speed demon in LF? What other teams have LF speedsters who have played in Fenway? Seems to me a guy with good speed in Boston's LF can position himself to great advantage depending on the hitter and pitcher and count. It just hasn't been don e much...Manny played incredibly shallow, but wasn't 1/4 of the fielder that Betts is.
 
The only argument against speed in Fenway's LF is that balls off the wall defeat it. Is that countered by a fast fielder being able to seal the gap between the infield and the outfield? Plus, a combination of Betts-Bradley L-C creates a lot of redundant coverage for balls hit off the wall (right side) - meaning some hits can be played with more risk - knowing there's going to be substantial backup.
 
And of course 81 games are played in other ball yards. 
 
We absolutely (unfortunately) know what a shitty arm does for you in CF. I don't understand the logic that says a weaker arm is better than a stronger one (all else being equal).
 
I'd like to see how, with modern positioning, a ++LF could take extreme advantage of the quirks in Fenway. I can't recall ever having one there.

I envy your ability to block out the Carl Crawford era

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I envy your ability to block out the Carl Crawford era

It never happened.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Carl was more demon than speed. But I grant you that.
 
I did say a ++LF
 
I have a very short memory, except for things that happened in 1958.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

JBJ leads the majors in average, slugging, and ops since August 9th. Yes, the same guy who was batting .188 through bus first 188 games. Unbelievable turnaround.

In thinking about things in reverse, I wonder how poorly everyone else would hit if they had to use the same toe tap that JBJ was using? In other words - maybe it could be said that managing to hit .188 with such mechanics shows how good JBJ was; and now that he has proper mechanics, he is finally getting results.

Much like the 2004 comeback comes up whenever any team goes up 3-0, JBJ has carved a place in baseball lore. We're never going to be able to talk about a struggling prospect without mentioning JBJ's name as a potential "comp."

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Much like the 2004 comeback comes up whenever any team goes up 3-0, JBJ has carved a place in baseball lore. We're never going to be able to talk about a struggling prospect without mentioning JBJ's name as a potential "comp."

 
Holy shit, that's some serious nonsense. JBJ is hardly the first player who struggled upon initial call up and then have some success next time up after work. In fact, not only is he not so unique that he will "go down in baseball lore", he's pretty much what hundreds of players before him have been. A young guy that needed to adjust to make it from AAA to MLB. Which is to say nothing of the fact that we have no idea how long this lasts. As Bill Parcels used to say, let's not put him Canton just yet. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

 
Holy shit, that's some serious nonsense. JBJ is hardly the first player who struggled upon initial call up and then have some success next time up after work. In fact, not only is he not so unique that he will "go down in baseball lore", he's pretty much what hundreds of players before him have been. A young guy that needed to adjust to make it from AAA to MLB. Which is to say nothing of the fact that we have no idea how long this lasts. As Bill Parcels used to say, let's not put him Canton just yet. 

Very very few young players have struggled as badly and for as long as JBJ did. Of those, the number that went on to be good major league players can be counted on one hand.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Very very few young players have struggled as badly and for as long as JBJ did. Of those, the number that went on to be good major league players can be counted on one hand.

If you think that less than five players have put up one season of suck (which is basically what JBJ did combined over 13/14 in 164 games) and then had good careers, then i'm not really sure what to tell you. The name Carlos Gomez pops into my head, but I'm not really that invested to delve into the history to find players to cite.

Regardless, if a similar situation arises in, let's say San Diego, ten years from now, I don't exactly think local sports writers and announcers will be harkening back to the miraculous story of JBJ as a comparison. The hyperbole is a bit strong on this.

 

[iayork]

If you think that less than five players have put up one season of suck (which is basically what JBJ did combined over 13/14 in 164 games) and then had good careers, then i'm not really sure what to tell you. The name Carlos Gomez pops into my head, but I'm not really that invested to delve into the history to find players to cite. 

 
[tablegrid= Worse seasons than JBJ 2014 ] wRC+ name_first name_last Year Age 6375 34 Cristian Guzman 1999 21 6199 35 Alex Gonzalez 2000 23 2284 38 Alfredo Griffin 1990 33 8294 38 Clint Barmes 2006 27 5174 39 Neifi Perez 2002 29 7068 39 Jack Wilson 2001 24 7108 40 Pedro Feliz 2010 35 6515 41 Chris Truby 2002 29 6667 41 Peter Bergeron 2001 24 8252 44 Willy Taveras 2009 28 5443 46 Mike Caruso 1999 22 5378 46 Deivi Cruz 1997 25 6902 46 Cesar Izturis 2010 30 6765 46 Juan Uribe 2002 23 10796 47 Jackie Bradley 2014 24 [/tablegrid] 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

If you think that less than five players have put up one season of suck (which is basically what JBJ did combined over 13/14 in 164 games) and then had good careers, then i'm not really sure what to tell you. The name Carlos Gomez pops into my head, but I'm not really that invested to delve into the history to find players to cite.

Not all suck is created equal.  
 
Gomez vs Bradley is a good example.  
 
From 2007-2010, Gomez slashed .246/.293/.349, for an OPS+ of 72.  
 
That's awful, but it is also light years better than JBJ over the past couple of years.  In 2013 and 2014, JBJ slashed .196/.268/.280, for an OPS+ of 53.  
 
Here is an article Alex Speier wrote about JBJ last August (and JBJ's season went downhill from then):
 

Bradley entered Sunday with an OPS+ -- meaning OPS as a percentage of the league average -- of 62. That's a horrible mark. How many players in the last 40 years, as rookies, had an OPS+ of 75 or worse (meaning 25 percent worse than league average) as rookies while striking out in at least one out of every five plate appearances?
 
There have been 29 such players. It's a group that includes Bradley -- along with the previously mentioned Kozma, Bourn, McCarty and Anderson -- along with another 24 players. There is one additional instance of a player who emerged from a dreadful rookie performance to become an offensive star: Carlos Gonzalez went from an overmatched rookie with the A's as a 22-year-old (.242/.273/.361, OPS+ of 71) to an All-Star and MVP candidate.
But beyond the success stories of Anderson, Gonzalez and Bourn, only one other player -- outfielder Rich Becker -- went from non-existent production as a rookie (.237/.303/.296, OPS+ of 57) to a solid major league career with an OPS+ of 90 or greater.
If one removes Bradley's fellow 2014 rookies from the group (Jonathan Schoop, James Jones), there are 26 players in the Bradley class of unproductive rookies, with four players who offer optimism for both Bradley and the Sox that the center fielder can become a productive big leaguer. That's certainly better than no such precedents, but it's a low enough probability that the Red Sox likely can't afford to repeat the risk they took this year, when they banked on Bradley's minor league track record in the absence of big league performance.
 

 
And Speier looked at guys who had an OPS+ of no better than 75 as rookies... Bradley was among the very worst of that group.

 

[threecy]

In thinking about things in reverse, I wonder how poorly everyone else would hit if they had to use the same toe tap that JBJ was using? In other words - maybe it could be said that managing to hit .188 with such mechanics shows how good JBJ was; and now that he has proper mechanics, he is finally getting results.

Much like the 2004 comeback comes up whenever any team goes up 3-0, JBJ has carved a place in baseball lore. We're never going to be able to talk about a struggling prospect without mentioning JBJ's name as a potential "comp."

 
Assuming he doesn't fall back into old habits/performance, I think the cases of JBJ and Iglesias show the issue of simply looking at statistical analysis to predict the future.  There is no way to project JBJ's performance without the toe tap.
 
Following their first cups of coffee, some suggested JBJ and Iglesias were elite defenders who would struggle to stay in the big leagues due to have terrible bats.  JBJ is showing a sample of elite offense right now, while Iglesias has hit .300 (albeit with little power or walking ability) in each of his two 100+ game seasons thus far.  Interestingly, it appears Dombrowski specifically values both of these young players.

 

[Drek717]

Very very few young players have struggled as badly and for as long as JBJ did. Of those, the number that went on to be good major league players can be counted on one hand.

Maybe we should wait until Bradley actually has a good major league career in the making before we talk about his place in baseball lore?  He had a nice rebirth in AAA followed by an amazing month of August and a good first week of September.  It looks like the modification to his swing has really helped out and he has gotten back on track in general this season, but he's a long ways from a proven commodity.
 
Lets not forget, a huge part of his production is coming from facing LHP.  His entire mL career saw him feature a pretty significant normal platoon split.  I really doubt dropping the toe tap has suddenly made him into a reverse split super man who drives LHPs out of the park unlike any other LHB in history, so he's due for some sizable correction there.  Thankfully he's been a bit BABIP unlucky against RHP so he's probably going to get some bounce on that end, and there's no reason to think he's going to be stuck at the K% and BB% he currently has at the ML level when his mL numbers are massively superior.
 
All of that will likely normalize out with time and he's probably going to wind up a very valuable mid-700's OPS hitter with good doubles power and maybe a bit more HR pop than we expected, coupled with a passable BA and solid walk rate.  That will be fantastic.  But lets not act like the story of Jackie Bradley's redemption is ready for the printing presses after all of five weeks of exceptionally good play.

 

[garlan5]

Don't take this as trying to be Debbie downer or what not. I'm no stats guru but how does jbj's slash line since august compare to some of Brock Holts line in similar hot time frames. I ask because I read a lot of people slamming Brocks streaky numbers and how quick they are to reference the last quarter of 2014. I'm asking not really to compare but to wonder if people are who are quick to slam holt are thinking that jbj will fall from grace. Obviously I'm rooting for them both to tend up

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Maybe we should wait until Bradley actually has a good major league career in the making before we talk about his place in baseball lore?  He had a nice rebirth in AAA followed by an amazing month of August and a good first week of September.  It looks like the modification to his swing has really helped out and he has gotten back on track in general this season, but he's a long ways from a proven commodity.

Where did I say that JBJ was a proven commodity?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

If you think that less than five players have put up one season of suck (which is basically what JBJ did combined over 13/14 in 164 games) and then had good careers, then i'm not really sure what to tell you. The name Carlos Gomez pops into my head, but I'm not really that invested to delve into the history to find players to cite.

 
No, actually, he's right. 
 
Jackie Bradley started this year with 530 career PA and an OPS+ of 54. It actually got worse after that, until exactly a month ago, but let's just take that as a snapshot: 530 PA, OPS+ 54, through age 24.
 
Only 44 players since 1901 have had >500 PA with an OPS+ < 55 through age 24. It hardly ever happens because if you hit that badly you just don't get that much opportunity unless you're a defensive powerhouse. Nearly all of the guys on the list were middle infielders or catchers, and if you've heard of more than a handful of them, you are a serious baseball scholar. Probably the most famous guy on the list is Danny Ainge. The most famous actual ballplayer, and the only one who could be reasonably be said to have had a successful baseball career, is Mark Belanger. Only two of the 44 had a career OPS+ over 70: Miguel Dilone (82) and Bill Rariden (81). 
 
So if Jackie Bradley, after a start as bad as he had, goes on to be even a fringe-average hitter, he will have done something no one has ever done before.

 

[Idabomb333]

 
I don't know that we need "evidence" for it; it's simple geometry. Take a look at a baseball diamond; think about where the bases are. Note that the least important base is the closest to RF and the most important (other than home) is the furthest. Ergo, a strong arm is most useful for a RF. It's not rocket science.

 
I already acknowledged that RF throws are important. That part isn't rocket science, but as others said, you're oversimplifying. I pointed out the importance of increased chances for throws home from CF, and general extra chances for throws. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for evidence that a better arm can make X amount of difference in a normal amount of chances from RF vs Y amount of difference in more chances in CF.
 

I agree that there's no reason to worry about "wasting" JBJ's arm in center--there's plenty of value in a strong arm there--but using assists to make your point is a problem, because that's a deceiving stat: as an outfielder develops a reputation for a good arm, people run on him less often, reducing assist opportunities. There's a slippery-denominator issue there.

Certainly this isn't exactly what I'm looking for in terms of evidence either way. I think there's some indication there that CFs get plenty of important, useful throw chances. I wasn't looking at JBJ's numbers, where the #s would understate his value exactly as you suggest. I was looking at aggregates for large numbers of players to try to answer the general questions of arm usefulness in CF vs. RF. If you have a way to look up how often a given player in either place prevents an extra base (that poor arms in the same position allow) I would love to see that. In the absence of complete information, I think this was a worthwhile exercise. If there is a lot of value to preventing an extra base from RF, that should also show up in aggregate numbers for assists and DPs, right? Maybe the best players prevent attempts, but at some point there's a sweet spot where an arm doesn't scare everyone off, but it does earn a lot of outs. At least I'd expect that, if throws from RF are important enough to justify reduced CF range.

 

[jon abbey]

  I really doubt dropping the toe tap has suddenly made him into a reverse split super man who drives LHPs out of the park unlike any other LHB in history, so he's due for some sizable correction there.

 
It reminds me a bit of Curtis Granderson, who was an automatic out against LHP for years until taking a day or two off midseason in August 2010 to work with Kevin Long. They changed his swing around and he led all of MLB in HRs against LHP the next few seasons. 

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

 
No, actually, he's right. 
 
Jackie Bradley started this year with 530 career PA and an OPS+ of 54. It actually got worse after that, until exactly a month ago, but let's just take that as a snapshot: 530 PA, OPS+ 54, through age 24.
 
Only 44 players since 1901 have had >500 PA with an OPS+ < 55 through age 24. It hardly ever happens because if you hit that badly you just don't get that much opportunity unless you're a defensive powerhouse. Nearly all of the guys on the list were middle infielders or catchers, and if you've heard of more than a handful of them, you are a serious baseball scholar. Probably the most famous guy on the list is Danny Ainge. The most famous actual ballplayer, and the only one who could be reasonably be said to have had a successful baseball career, is Mark Belanger. Only two of the 44 had a career OPS+ over 70: Miguel Dilone (82) and Bill Rariden (81). 
 
So if Jackie Bradley, after a start as bad as he had, goes on to be even a fringe-average hitter, he will have done something no one has ever done before.

Cool. So if he goes on to be a fringe average hitter, how many times do you think future people will harken back to him, as they would the 2004 team coming back from 0-3? What if you drop the ABs to 400? It's great to parcel out the pedantic checkpoints and all, but I think we're going a little overboard is all my point is.

Plenty of guys have struggled and gone on to solid or even great careers. If you want to parcel it down that far, thats certainly fair game. But it's also like saying 'pitcher X is the only guy to have a 6 ERA+ over his first 143.2 innings and go on to a good career and thus he will be remembered for eternity and children will hear bed times stories of his legend'. Again, I just find it more than a bit hyperbolic.

 

[nothumb]

I think the issue with that list of JBJ comps is that there are other guys who WOULD have been that bad, or in that ballpark, but were sent back down sooner and probably got it together. Or didn't. I'm not saying it's a long list of guys who have taken the same path, but it would be interesting to look at guys with good minor league numbers who put up < 60 wRC+ in, say, 200 ABs, maybe more than once, got sent back, and only made the leap from AAA to MLB after several tries. There are probably a few more of those who turned into decent MLB hitters.

 

[iayork]

I think the issue with that list of JBJ comps is that there are other guys who WOULD have been that bad, or in that ballpark, but were sent back down sooner and probably got it together. Or didn't. I'm not saying it's a long list of guys who have taken the same path, but it would be interesting to look at guys with good minor league numbers who put up < 60 wRC+ in, say, 200 ABs, maybe more than once, got sent back, and only made the leap from AAA to MLB after several tries. There are probably a few more of those who turned into decent MLB hitters.

 
I do think it's a fair question, but it's targeting Sox management, not JBJ.  It seems that there has been something off in the way management has evaluated, or prepared, their rookies in the past  couple years.  Not in the overall evaluation of the players' abilities, but in the very specific judgement of whether they are actually ready for the majors right now.  Xander and JBJ are the two most obvious cases: Before their callups, few questioned their abilities, and today, no one questions Xander's major-league abilities, and I think a lot of people are coming round on JBJ too.  
 
But for both of them, there was a long period when they were completely out of their depth in the majors. And if we look at other Sox rookies recently, some that we expected to do well have struggled (JBJ, Xander, Middlebrooks, Lavarnway); some have struggled, but for obvious and understandable reasons (Castillo, Swihart); some have made the transition about as well as you'd hope (Vazquez); some pitching prospects seemed to have an unexpectedly short leash (de la Rosa, Ranaudo) while others have done pretty well (EdRod, maybe Owens).  
 
Cherington and Farrell have both been quoted as saying that the gap between AAA and the majors is bigger today than at any time previously, but that's not the case if you look across baseball (Are Rookies Having a Harder Time?).  
 
I don't know what, if anything, this means.  But if rookies who are capable of playing well in the majors did not, then it seems at least likely that they were brought up at the wrong time, or prepared in the wrong way. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Cool. So if he goes on to be a fringe average hitter, how many times do you think future people will harken back to him, as they would the 2004 team coming back from 0-3? What if you drop the ABs to 400? It's great to parcel out the pedantic checkpoints and all, but I think we're going a little overboard is all my point is.

Plenty of guys have struggled and gone on to solid or even great careers. If you want to parcel it down that far, thats certainly fair game. But it's also like saying 'pitcher X is the only guy to have a 6 ERA+ over his first 143.2 innings and go on to a good career and thus he will be remembered for eternity and children will hear bed times stories of his legend'. Again, I just find it more than a bit hyperbolic.

 
This is what is known as 1) moving the golaposts (who besides you is bringing up this "will be remembered for all eternity" nonsense? You are rebutting an argument that no one has made) and 2) refusing to acknowledge the key argument against your position (lots of players "suck" in their first exposure to the majors; few suck as badly and as long as JBJ did). 
 
TL/DR version of the JBJ story: There is limited precedent for JBJ turning his career around.  Maybe he will, maybe he won't, very few before him have done it.  That's interesting.   
 
If you want to disagree with that proposition, fine - then make an actual argument against it and address the arguments that others have made. For example, see the post by nothumb.  

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Cool. So if he goes on to be a fringe average hitter, how many times do you think future people will harken back to him, as they would the 2004 team coming back from 0-3? What if you drop the ABs to 400? It's great to parcel out the pedantic checkpoints and all, but I think we're going a little overboard is all my point is.

Plenty of guys have struggled and gone on to solid or even great careers. If you want to parcel it down that far, thats certainly fair game. But it's also like saying 'pitcher X is the only guy to have a 6 ERA+ over his first 143.2 innings and go on to a good career and thus he will be remembered for eternity and children will hear bed times stories of his legend'. Again, I just find it more than a bit hyperbolic.

Look, maybe there was some hyperbole, but I didn't say he was going to the HOF, simply that he's been a statistical anomaly. I couldn't find the thread/post(s) last night (maybe they were on Soxprospects), but I remember enough posts about unlikely it was for him to turn around, it makes his current run even more remarkable. And yes, I think his name will be brought up in statistical discussions of struggling prospects.

But thanks to Iayork and SH for the numbers.

edit: so here's a Fangraphs leaderboard sorted by reverse wRC+ since 1964 minimum 300 PAs. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=300&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=1985&ind=3&team=0&rost=0&age=14,27&filter=&players=0&sort=18,a&page=2_30. Denny Doyle is nearby (wRC+ of 47) and he had one season of 102 wRC+. Kozma had a wRC+ of 49 but I don't think he really started hitting.

There's also Speier's article, which speaks for itself. http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/08/11/jackie-bradley-jrs-historic-slump-deepens-does. Brady Anderson might be the best comp, though he only had 359 PAs and solit them between two teams. But Brady is another outlier player who gets mentioned all of the tome, but for different reasons.

 

[phenweigh]

Quote function not working ... he may not have been know for his speed, but I'd call Yaz a ++LF.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I think the issue with that list of JBJ comps is that there are other guys who WOULD have been that bad, or in that ballpark, but were sent back down sooner and probably got it together. Or didn't. I'm not saying it's a long list of guys who have taken the same path, but it would be interesting to look at guys with good minor league numbers who put up < 60 wRC+ in, say, 200 ABs, maybe more than once, got sent back, and only made the leap from AAA to MLB after several tries. There are probably a few more of those who turned into decent MLB hitters.

 
Agreed.  A lot of the statistical analysis in this thread re: the historical significance of JBJ's 2014 season is putting the cart before the horse.  
 
In 2014, Victorino was injured, and JBJ made the team on the basis of that injury and a hot spring training.   He had a good first week, hit a rough patch, but was OPSing above 700 after the first month.
 
Meanwhile, Nava sucked, Sizemore sucked, Carp sucked.  Victorino, while not injured, sucked.  As of early May, the only two decent OFs in the organization were JBJ and Gomes, although hope was held out for Victorino recovering. By the end of May, Nava was in the minors.  By mid June, Sizemore was released.   By the end of July Carp was traded to TX. 
 
It's not completely unreasonable for the Sox to keep JBJ as a defensive CF, bat him in the 9 spot, and hope it starts clicking for him.   If they had other viable OF players, I'm sure they would have sent JBJ to AAA.   Which is what they did when they brought in their second half team in mid Aug, after the 2014 trades.  Then they called JBJ back up and got him some ABs in Sept. 
 
Basically JBJ was a defensive wizard who was forced by circumstances to play in 2014, no matter how bad his offense got.  It's sort of remarkable that occurred in an outfield, but there you have it.  A 24 year old gets overwhelmed.  He's basically thrown back out on the field for lack of better options.  If JBJ's stats are statistically historical (limited precedent), we have to acknowledge the circumstances which created those stats were pretty unique. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think Savin's point about RF being farthest form 3B is the major reason why the conventional wisdom is to put your strongest arm in RF, but I think this overlooks the fact that CF has farther throws to home than RF.  Straightaway CF is almost always the longest distance to home and can end up being the longest distance to any base.

 
Fair point. I was oversimplifying. After a little looking at park dimensions I'm realizing that even in pure geometry terms, it's a really complicated question and varies pretty sharply from park to park. I tried doing some diagrams to illustrate this, using this pretty awesome park dimensions infographic as a background. In each one, the orange circles are centered on 2B, 3B, and home from left to right:
 
Here's one extreme: Minute Maid. In this park it's clear that the CF needs the best arm; he has the longest throws even to third, and throws to 2B and home are not close.
 

At the other extreme is Dodger Stadium; thanks to the flattened mushroom-cap shape of the outfield fence, throws to 3B are clearly longest from RF, while throws home are only a little longer from CF and throws to second are a draw between all three fields:

 
Or you have a special case like Fenway:
 

 
Here the need for a strong RF arm is most dramatic; throws are longest from RF to 3B (except for the triangle), and possibly also to 2B, while it's a near-draw to home. Arm strength is needed for a LF less here than almost anywhere, though as we know, the Monster tempts hitters to stretch singles into doubles so often that a quick release and accuracy have considerable value.
 
So, yeah, more complicated than I was suggesting. Mea culpa.
 
 

 

[Sprowl]

Also need to assess positioning of a left fielder in Fenway (half the games). When was the last time the Red Sox had a speed demon in LF? What other teams have LF speedsters who have played in Fenway? Seems to me a guy with good speed in Boston's LF can position himself to great advantage depending on the hitter and pitcher and count. It just hasn't been don e much...Manny played incredibly shallow, but wasn't 1/4 of the fielder that Betts is.
...
I'd like to see how, with modern positioning, a ++LF could take extreme advantage of the quirks in Fenway. I can't recall ever having one there.

The last time the Red Sox have had a ++ fielder in left field was Jacoby Ellsbury in 2008, when Coco Crisp was playing centerfield much of the time. Ellsbury played 346 innings in left, and racked up +38 UZR/150. My memory is that he was indeed awesome at covering ground in left, but more so on the road than in Fenway, and especially in wide-open spaces like Tampa Bay, where the bullpen mounds are part of the playing field in foul ground.
 
Betts is a lot like Ellsbury as a fielder: excellent speed and range, subpar arm, middling initial reactions, but good course corrections en route.
 
Bradley's range is too good to waste on a corner outfield position. Any of the three outfielders can play centerfield, but Bradley looks to be a generational defensive talent. Castillo's arm puts him in rightfield, although Betts' range is probably better.
 
L to R: Betts-Bradley-Castillo.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Only a one-year sample, and I don't know what to make of it - but here are the assist numbers across baseball in 2014:
 
LF: 250
CF: 241
RF: 317
 
Looking at the top fielders at each position to see if that gives any clues:
 
LF: Cespedes 16, Cabrerra 13, Brantley 10, Harper 9
CF: JBJ 13, Martin 11, B Hamilton 10, Upton 9, Eaton 9
RF: Bautista 12, Markakis 11, Pence-Hayward-Calhoun-Parra-Schierholz 9
 
Curiously, the only players cited above that make it into the top 10 dWar by position:
 
Bradley, Martin, Eaton, Hamilton
 
Some of it has to do with players moving around the outfield - but not much. 
 
JBJ in top 10 at every position.
 
(Ellsbury 74th with a 0.0 dWar and 3 assists out of 384 total chances)

 

[nothumb]

The last time the Red Sox have had a ++ fielder in left field was Jacoby Ellsbury in 2008, when Coco Crisp was playing centerfield much of the time. Ellsbury played 346 innings in left, and racked up +38 UZR/150. My memory is that he was indeed awesome at covering ground in left, but more so on the road than in Fenway, and especially in wide-open spaces like Tampa Bay, where the bullpen mounds are part of the playing field in foul ground.
 
Betts is a lot like Ellsbury as a fielder: excellent speed and range, subpar arm, middling initial reactions, but good course corrections en route.
 
Bradley's range is too good to waste on a corner outfield position. Any of the three outfielders can play centerfield, but Bradley looks to be a generational defensive talent. Castillo's arm puts him in rightfield, although Betts' range is probably better.
 
L to R: Betts-Bradley-Castillo.

 
I agree with all of this and would add that the eye test suggests Betts must have bit more range than Toolsney, but the range metrics thus far actually have them pretty close. So I think that makes it even easier to put Castillo's arm in RF.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

As you know, I agree with Betts-Bradley-Castillo. It occurs to me that looking at assist totals as an indicator of arm strength/accuracy may be deceptive because the better the arm (by reputation) the lower the odds of someone trying to take an extra base. That's what's amazing about Cespedes' 16 assists in 2014 - he led all outfielders in assists despite everyone knowing they shouldn't test his arm.

 

[iayork]

so here's a Fangraphs leaderboard sorted by reverse wRC+ since 1964 minimum 300 PAs. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=300&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=1985&ind=3&team=0&rost=0&age=14,27&filter=&players=0&sort=18,a&page=2_30. Denny Doyle is nearby (wRC+ of 47) and he had one season of 102 wRC+. Kozma had a wRC+ of 49 but I don't think he really started hitting.

 
These guys with historically low hitting seasons need to have their minor-league numbers included in the context, as well.  It's not as if JBJ entered the majors with no history of offensive success; throughout the minors, he was an .800-.900 OPS batter.  Yes, there are batters who excel in the minors and are futile in the majors, but it's more common for minor-league success to be a pretty good predictor of the majors.  
 
In other words, if you look at the overall JBJ story, it doesn't go from failure to success; it goes success, success, success, failure, success.  By comparison, neither Doyle nor Kozma were ever more than mediocre in the minors. 
 
Is the nearly 1.000 OPS JBJ of this season the real JBJ? I doubt it, but it's probably a lot closer to reality than the .531 OPS of 2014.  

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

 
This is what is known as 1) moving the golaposts (who besides you is bringing up this "will be remembered for all eternity" nonsense? You are rebutting an argument that no one has made)  

Read the quote I cited in post #505. I have done no such thing as moving the goalposts.

 

[Wake's knuckle]

I think there's a very real possibility that, beyond the toe tap, JBJ might have been in his own head. He psyched himself out. But then he got hot and realized he could actually hit. Psychology really does play a role in all of this at some level...

 

[curly2]

This is getting ridiculous. 

 

[DJnVa]

This is getting ridiculous. 

 
 

 

[TSC]

This is getting ridiculous. 

I disagree. This is getting awesome. JBJ has been arguably the best player in baseball since August 1st. He's basically playing like Mike Trout, if Mike Trout had more power and a better OBP.

 

[Drek717]

 
Here the need for a strong RF arm is most dramatic; throws are longest from RF to 3B (except for the triangle), and possibly also to 2B, while it's a near-draw to home. Arm strength is needed for a LF less here than almost anywhere, though as we know, the Monster tempts hitters to stretch singles into doubles so often that a quick release and accuracy have considerable value.
 

Very cool graphics and this last bit, to me at least, makes another compelling argument for Betts in LF.  His arm strength gets unfairly maligned now that he's playing in an OF with Bradley and Castillo.  Ellsbury and Damon would dream of having Betts' arm strength.  But beyond the strength of his arm, Betts does still flash the quick release and, at least when within a shorter throwing distance, accuracy that made him a 2B/SS prospect when originally drafted.  He doesn't generally take as pronounced stride as Bradley or Castillo and while his arm is average he's pretty on-point with his throws when not trying to deliver a ball home or to third.
 
I think it is entirely possible that his athleticism and quick reflexes could lead to some very snappy throws into second on wall balls that catch more than a few lead footed power hitters off guard when presuming they've got a free double when they hit the wall.  Yet another argument in favor of the Betts - Bradley - Castillo alignment.

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

4-4 and now hitting .312 for the season. This is insane and awesome.

 

[chrisfont9]

A practical question: If Jackie bats 1.000 with say a 2.000 slugging the rest of the way, is he the MVP?

 

[TSC]

A practical question: If Jackie bats 1.000 with say a 2.000 slugging the rest of the way, is he the MVP?

 
No. Jesus Christ. No.

 

[DJnVa]

A practical question: If Jackie bats 1.000 with say a 2.000 slugging the rest of the way, is he the MVP?

 
 
Wait, what?

 

[CaptainLaddie]

It's gotten to the point where when I check the box score and am shocked if he didn't go at least 2-4.

 

[ifmanis5]

So why is he still hitting 9th?

 

[Al Zarilla]

When I first heard of Bradley, it was on SOSH, as he was being forecast as the guy that would take over in center someday and allow the Sox to not give Ellsbury the big contract. I really liked Ellsbury and so I resented Bradley a bit back then. Oh what a different feeling now. I'll always appreciate what Ellsbury did for the Red Sox, but I hope the new guy has a long, productive career with Boston.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
No. Jesus Christ. No.

So the part about him batting 1.000 didn't tip you off that this was not an entirely serious question?
 
Seriously, it's hard not to be giddy about his performance lately. Which was the apparently too subtle point of my original question.

 

[E5 Yaz]

So the part about him batting 1.000 didn't tip you off that this was not an entirely serious question?
 
Seriously, it's hard not to be giddy about his performance lately. Which was the apparently too subtle point of my original question.

 
That's not what TSC was responding to. He was responding to fanboy giddiness on the main board.

 

[DJnVa]

So why is he still hitting 9th?

 
Because he's clearly comfortable so why change anything around.

 

[fenwaypaul]

So why is he still hitting 9th?

Because it's working?

I'm really enjoying this streak, but it isn't going to last. We still can't predict how good he'll be in the long term.

 

[chrisfont9]

A practical question: If Jackie bats 1.000 with say a 2.000 slugging the rest of the way, is he the MVP?

 
 

It's gotten to the point where when I check the box score and am shocked if he didn't go at least 2-4.

 
 

4-4 and now hitting .312 for the season. This is insane and awesome.

 
 

 
That's not what TSC was responding to. He was responding to fanboy giddiness on the main board.

Really?

 

[TimScribble]

SSS and all, but I remember many lamenting the Sox drafting JBJ instead of Josh Bell. This is insane.

 

[foulkehampshire]

I'm at the point that I'm no longer going to try to project what JBJ is until we see a full season of at-bats with his retooled swing. 
 
He's the most interesting story on the Sox right now, and has made the last month of baseball extremely exciting.

 

[ifmanis5]

 
Because he's clearly comfortable so why change anything around.

If he's indeed the real deal, move him up to 2nd. Time to remove the training wheels. Not like they're in a pennant chase here. Betts, JBJ, X, works out since it's R-L-R. Let's see what he's got.