Bradley: Deal with It.
- Thread starter shaggydog2000
- Start date
An instructive and fun article by Matthew Kory on fangraphs.com on Jackie Bradley Jr. Excellent examination of JBJ's batting movement adjustments -- and with pictures!
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-currently-exploding-jackie-bradley-jr/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-currently-exploding-jackie-bradley-jr/
Night and day! Just by having the double tap/hitch gone, I think his big league potential has significantly increased. My question remains, why did it take this long to get rid of it? I did notice in the slow mo of the fixed swing, he slightly twirls his toe while stepping, so perhaps it was a question of allowing him to have a motion while getting rid of the actual action.
The side-view GIFs of his 2014 and 2015 swings are just incredible. Moving away from that double-toetap with his front foot to a standard leg kick seems to be letting him get his timing down. By the looks of it, he has tinkered a ton over the last 18 months with his swing - hopefully this is one that can stick for the long run.
This was the Youtube video linked in the FG article. Seems like it should be in here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dp8qJAonaE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dp8qJAonaE
Tim Britton @TimBritton 1h1 hour ago
Lovullo indicated Betts and Ramirez would receive regular playing time, with Bradley and Castillo sharing in RF.
Lovullo indicated Betts and Ramirez would receive regular playing time, with Bradley and Castillo sharing in RF.
Especially since Hanley played at least one ball into a hit tonight that extended/contributed to that long inning for Barnes.Eddie Jurak said:
This makes me wonder if Farrell was calling the shots before his leave of absence. If so, does Luvullo have the same philosophy or is he following Farrell's orders? If not, who is making the call from the FO? This is ridiculously stupid regardless of who is pulling the strings.Eddie Jurak said:
Peter Gammons @pgammo 2h2 hours ago
Why don't the Red Sox just play Betts-Bradley-Castillo and not see how many ways a 3 DH lineup kills them?
Why don't the Red Sox just play Betts-Bradley-Castillo and not see how many ways a 3 DH lineup kills them?
Eddie Jurak said:
I have been vocal in my opinion that HRam should play 1B (due to LF ineptness, FA and in house availability of OFers as compared to 1B). However, he needs the benefit of an entire off-season of practice or the risk is that he will fail spectacularly at 1B and never want to play there. So I completely understand playing him in LF for the remainder of the season. If nothing else, it will probably prove that he can't play there except as an emergency back up.
Bradley robbed, Iwakuma is named Al Player this week.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/mlb/seattle-mariners/mariners-insider-blog/article31326434.html
http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/mlb/seattle-mariners/mariners-insider-blog/article31326434.html
In my lifetime said:
Do we really need further proof at this point? The guy can't play there, and there's no obvious anecdotal evidence that he's working hard to get better at it.
They really have a situation in their hands there. They have nowhere to put one of their highest paid players, and they're stuck with him. What can they do with him, seriously? In the name of clubhouse harmony and all that, and given that it's a lost season already, they'll mess with players with lesser contracts and service time and pretend that the elephant in the room is invisible. And every other night, like last night, the elephant in the room will get bigger, and bigger, and bigger. But hey, at least they'll have clubhouse harmony - (or will they? If I'm a pitcher, I'd be pretty annoyed of having HR in LF when everybody know there are better alternatives; but pitchers have been terrible too, so they can't really talk too loudly).
Ultimately, this is the perfect epitome of why this team is in last place, honestly, besides all the under-performance. Continuously, doggedly, and persistently putting weaker teams on the field in the name of God knows whatever bigger picture. Deep depth and protecting assets. Veteran respect. Clubhouse harmony. You don't sit a guy with a big contract. Short sample size. Maybe he'll turn it around. And so on, and so on.
Maybe, just maybe, at some point, it may be worth trying a different approach - you know, playing the guys who happen to be better at a given point in time. In a last place team, you may have a couple of malcontents - but everybody will be fairly clear that the primary factor of getting in the line-up will be performance. Instead they'll keep up this freaking 3-DH charade. Oh well. At least I'm not paying for Fenway tickets, beer and parking, so what do I even care?
It would solve a lot of problems if they were to release him. His salary is dead weight any way you look at it. There's no point in compounding the error by actually playing him.
I understand that, technically, releasing him is not the best way to get rid of him. Trade him for a single A fringe prospect (or PTBNL) and pay 75% of his salary. I use the R word for dramatic effect.
I understand that, technically, releasing him is not the best way to get rid of him. Trade him for a single A fringe prospect (or PTBNL) and pay 75% of his salary. I use the R word for dramatic effect.
soxhop411 said:
Betts has established himself as a big leaguer this year. Ramirez is a veteran star, even if he is a terrible left fielder. That the coach would publicly state that the two established big leaguers are going to start and the two question marks are going to share a spot is unsurprising. And it also doesn't mean they won't sit Hanley now and then for one reason or another (rest, sore this or that) and send the three yung uns out their together. We see this all the time in sports when young players are playing well but haven't established themselves yet, the coach always says he is going to play the Vet, and sometimes that's true, and sometimes it's not. We've heard it from genius coaches and great franchises, and from terrible coaches and complete mess franchises. It usually ends up playing itself out.
Just as a reality-check here, if Hanley plays six games a week in LF (and it will probably be less than that), that's still four games a week for both JBJ and Castillo. Plus plenty of days when they'll be a late-inning pinch-runner and/or defensive replacement.
If the SOSH consensus on Hanley Ramirez is correct, the the consensus should also be that Ben Cherington should be fired. It seems more and more like they paid for the 4-tool SS he was 5 years ago (he was never a great defender) instead of paying for the 2 tool player he was last season. And even the hitting for average and power hasn't been as good as expected, though I still think there's plenty of reason to.think he'll be better at that next year.
The case against Cherington is even stronger if you buy into the 3 DH meme, given that 2 of them were signed in the same offseason less than a year ago. Nothing about Sandovals weight or Ramirez's poor defense should be a surprise at all to anyone.
So, my guess is that the baseball professionals aren't as pessimistic about Ramirez and his eventual ability to play LF as the message board posters and sportswriters. Precisely because this season doesn't matter, Hanley should continue playing left field every day his body allows. The Red Sox are going to trade on of the 3 CF this offseason for pitching. That leaves LF open. Bank on it.
The case against Cherington is even stronger if you buy into the 3 DH meme, given that 2 of them were signed in the same offseason less than a year ago. Nothing about Sandovals weight or Ramirez's poor defense should be a surprise at all to anyone.
So, my guess is that the baseball professionals aren't as pessimistic about Ramirez and his eventual ability to play LF as the message board posters and sportswriters. Precisely because this season doesn't matter, Hanley should continue playing left field every day his body allows. The Red Sox are going to trade on of the 3 CF this offseason for pitching. That leaves LF open. Bank on it.
Agree with every word P91, including "and" and "the."
Until/unless the team has decided to change his position or cut ties with him, Hanley should play as many games as possible in LF.
Until/unless the team has decided to change his position or cut ties with him, Hanley should play as many games as possible in LF.
You're assuming Cherington is calling the shots (and the idea that Lovello has any day is downright naive). I'm of the opinion the Hanley call, and the call on any high priced player they Werner-Henry longed for, is being made.....by Werner-Henry.
Plympton91 said:
Sorry -- not following -- how does trading a CF leave LF open? Aren't you suggesting HR as the LF of the future for the short to mid-term?
Your argument here seem to be that it is unlikely that Cherington et al could be so wrong about Hanley's defense hence we should expect him to be better out there next year. In other words, tho we know they were wrong about his ability to play LF in 2015, it is unreasonable to think they could be that much more wrong about his inability to play the position adequately for 2016.
I hope your right, but my eyes tell me, the guy cant play the OF at a ML level. He might turn into something tolerable out there at home, but it looks like to me he just can not run or judge fly balls well enough to be anything other than very very bad on the road. If he gets run out there again in 2016 on a FT basis, we will find out, but alas under your plan we never get to find out if he could be a decent 1b too.
OK I get it now.The Allented Mr Ripley said:
In this case, in addition to trading one of the 3 CFers they will need to acquire at least a 4th OFer type (de Aza?) and a 1b.
By contrast, if Hanley could play 1b, and de Aza is re-signed, you are pretty much set on the position-side of things as follows
C: Swihart, Hannigan or Vazquez
1b: Ramirez, Shaw
2b: Pedroia, Holt
3b: Sandoval
ss: Bogaerts
lf: Betts
cf: Bradley
rf: Castillo, de Aza
dh: Ortiz
I doubt the Sox will go this way tho, given that they probably feel they need to make a some sort of splash in the off season to sell some tickets.
It's astounding that we're talking that way (release him) but it might feel like the right thing after a couple of months go by. But, they won't, and they'll probably buy him half a dozen first baseman's gloves and hope and pray he can learn that position during ST. But, now there's Shaw who might be a higher WAR guy at 1B. If they hadn't also gotten Sandoval last winter, Hanley might have been almost passable at 3B. What a fine kettle of fish. I wonder how much sleep Cherington is getting these days. Keep sharp objects away from him and all that.Koufax said:
It isn't terribly hard to get a solid rotation of all these players in for the Red Sox. Assuming the Sox want Hanley to play as much as possible and Ortiz as well you could do this to give every player a good amount of games each week. Of course, this is also assuming a game is played every day, which is actually in the cards for the Red Sox as their next off-day is in 10 days. I tried to give each player at least three days in the lineup in a row to give them some 'regular' ABs.
[tablegrid= OF/DH Red Sox Rotation ] Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Games per week ORTIZ DH DH DH DH DH DH 6 RAMIREZ LF LF LF DH LF LF 6 BETTS CF CF CF CF CF CF 6 BRADLEY RF RF LF LF CF RF 6 CASTILLO RF RF RF RF 4 28
This easily could be adjusted to get Castillo and Bradley each 5 games and if the Sox were comfortable benching Ortiz 2 games a week or Hanley 2 games a week, that's even better. And heck this is generic, not even considering L/R matchups or historical numbers vs. pitchers.
Pretty lazy of Lovullo in my mind to say Bradley/Castillo have to split ABs in RF.
[tablegrid= OF/DH Red Sox Rotation ]
This easily could be adjusted to get Castillo and Bradley each 5 games and if the Sox were comfortable benching Ortiz 2 games a week or Hanley 2 games a week, that's even better. And heck this is generic, not even considering L/R matchups or historical numbers vs. pitchers.
Pretty lazy of Lovullo in my mind to say Bradley/Castillo have to split ABs in RF.
Plympton91 said:
It seems to be our only great depth, in a categorial sense. Assuming JBJ is for real this time, and Castillo really has adjusted.
On the other hand, you have to wonder if the Sox wouldn't package a good/cost-controlled player and a bad/expensive player and take another run at the FA market to plug the holes. Castillo's going to make $11m per year - but he may be a fair deal at that money. So that leaves JBJ and Betts, neither of whom I'd give up at this point. (JBJ's first arb year is 2017.)
Thinking it over, I think a CF trade for pitching is going to depend on Clay's rehab.
Not including Ortiz's option, or Clay's option, Cot's says the Sox only have a $112m commitment to next year. Plus we'll shed some personnel - Breslow, DeAza, but the savings won't be much.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1urYwZOFAAvDhgtNZ86IJ8svhQUNEVoa3Y8Nf1TJb9dI/pub?output=html
That spreadsheet is depressing. I don't begrudge some guys their contracts, but it seems like it cements the Sox into having their younger players develop to augment their aging and mediocre vets.
Jeff Van GULLY said:
It all looks good on paper, but where it gets complicated is adding in stuff like L/R matchups, off-days (they generally don't play 7 games a week), and of course player egos. It's one thing to tell Ortiz he's getting Friday night off because you're facing a tough lefty and he needs a blow. It's quite another to tell him he's off on Sunday when they're facing a righty he's historically hit well because "it's necessary to balance out playing time".
And I think it's folly to take Lovullo's statement about the outfield playing time so literally. Maybe the default lineup will be Hanley, Betts and one of Bradley or Castillo, but that doesn't mean they'll never play Bradley and/or Castillo in LF or CF at all. It's not as though Ramirez or Betts have been models of perfect health and even so, they're going to need days off whether they're scheduled as part of a formal regular rotation or just spotted here and there as deemed necessary. There will
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Ortiz should understand that this time of year is when youngsters are supposed to get a little extra playing time. Hell, even Cal Ripken voluntary took a seat, despite his streak, at a younger age than Ortiz is now.
AB in DC said:
Did Ripken have incentives in his deal that escalated his salary for the following year based on plate appearances? Because Ortiz does, and whether it's for the "good of the team" to get the youngsters more playing time or not, he probably isn't all that keen about giving away a million dollars or two so that Travis Shaw or Jackie Bradley Jr can play an extra 4-5 games this season.
Rovin Romine said:
I understand that if any of the three CF's are to be traded, we would want it to be Castillo, since we have the least emotional attachment to him. (vs Betts or JBJ) However, any team that had wanted to guarantee Castillo $11 mil per year could have done that just a year ago, when he signed as a free agent. I understand that the Sox have already paid for his "development" year, but what has Castillo done in the last 12 months to increase his value? I just don't see the Sox moving Rusney and getting back great value for him. I'm guessing that those that were in on the bidding for his services, last summer, are relieved they missed out. He may well be a terrific player, but he's no Abreu, at this point. And he's not a 21 year old toolsy prospect either. He's just depth for the Red Sox, that makes either Betts or Bradley more dispensable.
Hot damn. That Bradley video, which doesn't even have recent stuff like the basket catch in Tiger-town, is fucking amazing.
As a fan watching games, I'll admit that even if you guaranteed me that the Sox would lose three more games per year with Bradley playing over Hanley, I'd still pick Bradley, just to be able to watch him play. I'd maybe spot you five games.
Keep that butcher on the bench.
As a fan watching games, I'll admit that even if you guaranteed me that the Sox would lose three more games per year with Bradley playing over Hanley, I'd still pick Bradley, just to be able to watch him play. I'd maybe spot you five games.
Keep that butcher on the bench.
WenZink said:
Also, are we all 100% certain both Castillo and Bradley are above average major leaguers based off the last few weeks? I'm very encouraged just like most everyone else, but I think there are still decent odds one or the other player doesn't work out. Let's finish figuring out what we have before becoming obsessed with how to best utilize it next year and beyond.
shaggydog2000 said:
Well, we know Hanley cannot play defense well enough to stay in the outfield. We don't know yet whether Rusney or JBJ can hit well enough to stay there either, which means the remaining time is best spent determining how well Rusney and JBJ hit.
Unless that CF is Mookie Betts he isn't going to be a key part of bringing back the kind of front line starter this club needs. Meanwhile, Hanley in LF or not the club has clear need for all three. Four good OFs is the goal heading into a season. With Hanley plus the 3 CF amigos this club looks like they probably have four good OFs. They've spent a ton of time trying to get there, the likely "4th" in the bunch, Bradley, is such a good defender that he can make an impact form any of the three OF positions.Plympton91 said:
Having Bradley and Castillo share RF and pickup games relieving Hanley and Mookie isn't a crime, it is a good preview of what the club should be planning for 2016. They'll get enough ABs to show us what they have, both Bradley and Castillo have, in recent AAA history, had substantial platoon splits. Work with those as the framework for PT distribution, get Rusney in more often in RF with Bradley sliding to spell Hanley and Betts against various RFs, especially when on the road. Use those days off to make Hanley shag flies pre-game. Done.
Solve the pitching with other assets and money. This club hasn't put together a worthwhile OF since 2013 which itself was a brief flash born from Nava and Carp having monster outlier seasons while Gomes had one of the best balanced split seasons of his career. Here's our chance to take OF off the perennial "needs" list.
Just for shits and giggles, I went through Bleacher Report's list of the 40-worst fielders of all time. (I hate the slide show shit, but anyway...some examples)
Edwin Encarnacion
Frank Howard
Lonnie Smith
Dave Kingman
Adam Dunn
Dante Bichette
Jose Canseco
Manny Ramirez
Greg Luzinski
Nice list.
Edwin Encarnacion
Frank Howard
Lonnie Smith
Dave Kingman
Adam Dunn
Dante Bichette
Jose Canseco
Manny Ramirez
Greg Luzinski
Nice list.
I'm talking about a scenario where the club believes (and is proven right) that Hanley will take significant steps forward as a LF. If he isn't a LF then they clearly have zero reason to trade Bradley, Betts, or Castillo short of someone giving them an overpay.nothumb said:
I've been a Hanley at 1B in 2016 evangelist since before he sucked in LF. It will be interesting to see what Dombrowski does as he was at the helm when Miguel Cabrera was moved to 1B in Detroit. I can't see any way there is a taker for Hanley in the trade market, but maybe the lack of worthwhile bats available leads to something surprising.
Yup, this booster turned skeptic is back to being a believer. The AAA numbers heavily suggested something real had changed, and the performance thus far confirms it. Can the Red Sox finally be the beneficiaries of a JD Martinez type transition from also ran to all star? Finally!
He really looks different at the plate. And the oppo homer tonight is hugely exciting--even if it remains fairly rare that he can clear the fence in that direction, if he can get it in the air with enough authority to reach the wall on a regular basis, that complicates life for pitchers that much more.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Ditto. If JBJ can't hit, he's the guy who "everyone" (well, me at least) sees becoming a major leaguer sometime in the future, someplace else. If he can hit, he might be the best player on the Sox, at least not named "Betts". Complicated indeed!
Bradley's 2015 line is now .247/.349/.517, in 106 PA, for an OPS of .866. His OPS stood at .384 on August 5th. In the intervening 47 PA, his OPS has been 1.339. Basically, he took a few games after the Victorino trade to get his bearings, and then got hot.
Like everyone, I'm really excited about this, but I'm trying to figure out how it can be happening. The bear case on Bradley is that his strikeout rate is still 25%, and is in fact a touch higher in his recent tear. He *looks* like he's controlling the strike zone much better than in 2014, and his walk rate reflects that: now up to a Youkilisian 13.6%. But the underlying plate discipline and contact numbers haven't really moved as much as you'd think, although he's swinging a bit less.
Nor is he hitting the ball harder, according to fangraphs, although he's hitting it "soft" less frequently. He's actually hitting *fewer* line drives than he did in 2014. (BABIP is basically unchanged, from .284 to .293.) But he's been hitting fewer groundballs and popups, and way more flyballs. Those flyballs have been turning into XBH at a healthy clip, so so far so good on that score. But trading groundballs and line drives for flyballs should make your BABIP go down, not up, so that might eventually balance out.
The good news is that he's now walking once for every two Ks, instead of every four, and that — by demonstrating he can get the ball out of the park — he'll probably get many more opportunities to walk going forward.
Like everyone, I'm really excited about this, but I'm trying to figure out how it can be happening. The bear case on Bradley is that his strikeout rate is still 25%, and is in fact a touch higher in his recent tear. He *looks* like he's controlling the strike zone much better than in 2014, and his walk rate reflects that: now up to a Youkilisian 13.6%. But the underlying plate discipline and contact numbers haven't really moved as much as you'd think, although he's swinging a bit less.
Nor is he hitting the ball harder, according to fangraphs, although he's hitting it "soft" less frequently. He's actually hitting *fewer* line drives than he did in 2014. (BABIP is basically unchanged, from .284 to .293.) But he's been hitting fewer groundballs and popups, and way more flyballs. Those flyballs have been turning into XBH at a healthy clip, so so far so good on that score. But trading groundballs and line drives for flyballs should make your BABIP go down, not up, so that might eventually balance out.
The good news is that he's now walking once for every two Ks, instead of every four, and that — by demonstrating he can get the ball out of the park — he'll probably get many more opportunities to walk going forward.
nvalvo said:
I'm curious to see what happens on this too, because to me some of JBJ's recent K's look as bad as any he was having in 2014... gets down 0-2 and swings hopelessly over a breaking pitch out of the zone. But then there was the AB against Kluber today that ended in the HR, where he took at least one really good slider (maybe 2 close pitches once he had 2 strikes, can't recall) before getting a fastball and going the other way. I don't know if there's any rhyme or reason to these - you see other guys have totally noncompetitive ABs from time to time even though they have good strike zone command - but I'm curious if there's anything different in his K's vs. his productive ABs. And if that indicates how teams might try to build a book on him from this point forward.
Savin Hillbilly said:
I loved that swing. Many great hitters who didn't have a ton of power really used that wall-ball swing to their advantage. Bill Mueller and Johnny Damon were always good at it even though they rarely hit one out that direction.
If he's an .800 Ops guy, he's better than Betts.mwonow said:
I'm pretty sure that it's literally true that I have never seen a better defensive outfielder. Not Betts. Not Dreamboat. Not Griffey. Not Trout.
It feels like he saves a single every game, turns a double into a single every game, and turns an XBH into an out twice a week.
Weird that you should say this because I came here to say the opposite. What are we defining as "his tear?"nvalvo said:
Hes been at 22.8 in August. (and 17% BB rate!! .391 ISO!!!) Thats actually kind of a disappointing contact rate based on how hes done in Pawtucket, but its still pretty damn acceptable considering his profile.
I dont even know what to make of the power. Last year I'd scarcely believe he could hit an oppo bomb off the pitching machine, tonight he did it off one of the best pitchers in baseball. This is a crazy steak and I'm loving it.