One thing to note is that they don't correlate because of some relationship that we need to investigate, but because they are both compound statistics that are calculated from essentially the same components.Bone Chips said:
Jackie Bradley, Jr. - Help
- Thread starter ScubaSteveAvery
- Start date
The Mort Report said:
Part of the problem here is that the environment an offensive player is in affects his value for run creation, and the same goes for a defensive player given interactional effects.
It's pretty clear that defensive metrics are affected by who the player is playing with, affects how many runs prevents a set of skills would correlate to.
Similarly, in keeping with smas's mentioning of the OBP-SLG components of OPS, the run creation value of OBP v. SLG varies with respect to the OBP environment of the lineup the player is in, so it's actually not only inaccurate but potentially misleading to associate an OPS with a number of runs created.
As such, the more translations that we attempt to make to create equivalencies, the greater the amount of distortions we introduce and ultimately, we're producing a way of looking at statistics that do not reflect the value of the players. This is probably why the teams don't use this approach.
Just as an example, that's a huge complication for the contention that JBJ would be worth more to the 2013 squad. JBJ and would far and away have had the lowest OBP on the team in a way that could have fatally fractured their production which was based on the synergistic effects of an OBP rish environment (link).
So in answer to your initial question, I would say "no, no it is not." we may seek creative ways, but the goal is accuracy, and certainly not distortion. Smas is well familiar with these approaches and, imo, is not concerned with the attempt to innovate, but rather with the issue of inaccuracy.
I thought of an analogy. Let's say we want to know the comparative size of two triangles.
We can compare the sizes of the smallest interior angle. From this angle we can make a bunch of assumptions about the otherwise similar aspects of both triangles. We can then use those assumptions to calculate the area. Ok fine. But if we have these assumptions and calculations done, is there any point in back calculating a different variable (say length of the longest side) and comparing those, or should we really just stick with comparing area?
We can compare the sizes of the smallest interior angle. From this angle we can make a bunch of assumptions about the otherwise similar aspects of both triangles. We can then use those assumptions to calculate the area. Ok fine. But if we have these assumptions and calculations done, is there any point in back calculating a different variable (say length of the longest side) and comparing those, or should we really just stick with comparing area?
I like that analogy.
But couldn't we know the area, the angle, and still want to know the length of one of the sides because we're curious as to whether our dressers will fit there when we rearrange the furniture?
But couldn't we know the area, the angle, and still want to know the length of one of the sides because we're curious as to whether our dressers will fit there when we rearrange the furniture?
Al Zarilla said:
He played for the Sox for 7 seasons. Sure, it always seems like their time is up before you know it but he actually did last quite a while... It was cut short abruptly though. He retired at the top of his game because he was afraid to fly. Too bad the Sox couldn't have pulled a B.A. Baracus on him before road trips.
Huh. I wonder if they considered having him play just home games? He also could have driven or taken the train to NY and Baltimore, maybe Detroit. I'm sure in today's culture that would have flown. Pun intended.BosRedSox5 said:
JBJ changed his stance back to the one he had when he first came up last year
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140625-going-back-to-old-stance-paying-dividends-for-jackie-bradley-jr..ece
JMOH EDIT: Guys, please only post a short snippet of the article that you're quoting. Do NOT post the entire piece. Thank you.
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140625-going-back-to-old-stance-paying-dividends-for-jackie-bradley-jr..ece
JMOH EDIT: Guys, please only post a short snippet of the article that you're quoting. Do NOT post the entire piece. Thank you.
soxhop411 said:
Was just coming to post this. Excellent insight from Britton, have to think this could be a turning point for JBJ.
20 AB is a small sample size, but it's good when a player can get some immediate positive feedback on an adjustment they've made. This kind of calls the coaching into question though. If you see a young hitter changing their approach at the plate, the approach that got them to the majors to compensate for something, you should probably be giving them a little more guidance and stressing patience. Your first real big league exposure isn't really the time to monkey with your stance and closing off your stance is something that not many productive hitters do.
Yes, that is very good news. Why did it take so long to go back to what had made him successful in the first place?
As others have said. He only needs to be a 330/400 guy to have significant positive value.
As others have said. He only needs to be a 330/400 guy to have significant positive value.
Hope from the right side even:
Perhaps Vic can share some insights when (if) he returns.
http://live.bostonglobe.com/Event/Red_Sox_2014_season_updates/119660423
Perhaps Vic can share some insights when (if) he returns.
What in the world, a guy who hit .297/.404/.471 in the minors and who batted left handed pretty much his whole life is going to try switch hitting or going righty full time?
Maybe you're right, pitchers tinker with their mechanics all the time. I guess it's not that odd that hitters would try to adjust their approach at the plate, change their stance and experiment with switch hitting... It just seems like he making a lot of reactionary changes to his initial struggles. Even if he never hits righty in a game he's still costing himself extra BP by toying with the idea. It seems like the approach that made him a star in college and helped him fly though the Red Sox system would be something he'd want to stick with. I really hope it works out, I like Bradley, he plays magnificent defense and he's got a great arm... some offensive value would be huge.
Plympton91 said:
Based on what I read when they first changed the stance and what I'm reading now, I think he may have asked for help with a tweak. It may well have been that the right answer would have been to tell him to try and gut it out a little longer, but I dunno. Must be hard to suddenly run up against a lack of success. If he can work it out, he's a helluva piece going forward.
Reverend said:
He couldn't get to the fastball inside. It's that simple.
The discussion about tweaks and coaching and young hitters and whatnot is an unfortunate misreading of what Bradley himself said, and what is/was happening. Major-league pitchers are in the show for a reason. They can put the ball where they want it. The fastball inside never bothered Bradley before because, well, guys who throw 93-95 with late movement who can get in on the hands for strikes are not in the minors. And if you do see one in the minors, you take the pitch and wait for another one -- because the chances of him doing it again, unlike the bigs, aren't good. The adjustment of going back to where he was is simply the result of experience -- of seeing major-league pitching over a long period of time, and re-learning to trust the hands to get to what your eyes and your at-bats are now letting you see. There's no reason for anyone to call into question coaching here (not that you are, Rev; I'm just piggy-backing). If you're going to play young guys they are going to go through this stuff.
Obviously still SSS, and team shaven't had a chance to scout/react to his new stance, but since he implemented the change on this road trip, he is hitting .291/.320/.375 in 25 PAs with only 2 Ks (none in the last 4 games).
This is true. Well, except for the fact that he has been getting to the fastball inside, which makes this false. His problems are low and away and up in the zone, which is why pitchers are pitching away and not inside. Read the first set of posts in this thread; the same trends have been there all season.someoneanywhere said:
EDIT: I'd post updated tables from brooksbaseball.net, but I keep getting an error when I do so.
EricFeczko said:
I think you've missed a key distinction.
The new stance was a reaction to his problems with inside heat in 2013. Those mechanical adjustments, it seems, have opened up new and different holes in his swing, which were promptly identified and exploited by the opposition, to the tune of a .600 OPS. It might make sense to go back to the old mechanics, even at the risk of getting beaten inside. He might just need to challenge opposing pitchers to make that pitch, lay off as many as he can early in the count, and do what he can with it with two strikes. He has a good eye.
As for the switch hitting, I don't see that making sense. He hasn't generally shown the huge platoon split that would lead you to think that would be useful.
Actually, I think I miscommunicated in my previous posts. Sorry, I took so long too reply, and for the snark. One should really look at the data before trusting a newspaper article. From the data, I don't think its a reaction to problems with inside heat in 2013. At best, Bradley is reacting to his perception of inside heat in 2013.nvalvo said:
Here's the location of hard pitches thrown to him in 2013:
View attachment 431
As you can see, the location is pretty even across the board for fastballs in 2013, which makes sense; no one has a scouting book on JBJ yet, so one would expect a uniform distribution of hard stuff. Here's his swing rate:
View attachment 435
From this, it appears that JBJ had a pretty good eye for the strike zone, however, he was swinging at pitches more inside than outside the plate. One explanation is that he had trouble with inside heat, another is that he was fouling off pitches on the inside part of the plate. Here's his whiff rate on those swings:
View attachment 433
From this, it appears that he was making contact on fastballs everywhere. If he had a problem with the fastball in 2013 it was up in the zone, not inside. Of course, the quality of contact is important, right?
View attachment 436View attachment 437View attachment 438
Unfortunately, we don't have perfect data, but the batted ball types look pretty even across the board. If he was having trouble with fastballs, his trouble does not appear to be a function of location.
Here's where things get interesting. Below is the number of breaking/changeup pitches and his whiff rate:
View attachment 432View attachment 434
It's not as bad as 2014, but the patterns are somewhat similar. He was having trouble with offspeed pitches that were low and away. The distribution here is a bit more even. However, the quality of his contact may also be bad:
View attachment 439View attachment 440View attachment 441
To me, he's always had a problem with low and away stuff. He may have closed his stance because he thought he was having trouble with inside fastballs, but that may have made his actual problem even worse. It'll be interesting to see whether the change in his stance will actually solve his problem with offspeed pitches. However, there is an alternative explanation for the streak we recently saw; seattle and Oakland pitchers may have been going inside more than they should, and not throwing offspeed pitches low and away:
View attachment 443View attachment 442
Moving forward, we'll have to see whether Bradley does a better job laying off the outer/lower part of the plate, but his problems this season are similar to his problems in 2013, which suggests either that a closed stance made things worse, or that they are independent of stance.
If the holes in those graphics were the equivalent of swiss cheese, there would be very little cheese. It would also be helpful when JBJ lays off of the down and away pitch out of the strike zone if the guy in blue didn't call it a strike.
I agree about the switch hitting. Changing your position as a switch hitter affects which part of the visual field processes the incoming pitch first. Assuming normal brain organization, a right-handed batter uses the left-brain visual system to process the incoming pitch before the right-brain visual system. JBJ is used to the reverse, and his reaction to the pitch will be significantly slowed if he tries to bat right-handed. It may not matter in the batting cages in batting practice, because the reaction time may only be slowed by about 50-100 milliseconds. However, such a delay may have a profound impact in a real game. If you're interested in why, I'd be happy to PM or take a call to discuss it.nvalvo said:
Actually, JBJ has had a terrible eye against offspeed pitches, and a great one against fastballs. http://www.brooksbaseball.net/h_landing.php?player=598265
EDIT: Added the pm call stuff. Also meant to say "has had a terrible eye" not "has". We are talking about smallish sample sizes here.
I'm going with the hope that Betts coming up will somehow result in JBJ starting to hit better. Seeing the other young kid on the team will make him react like the mother lifting the car off her child, or like the A's hit when they come up tied or behind in the ninth. Peer pressure hopefully is a positive influence somehow. Of course, HOLT didn't do any of this for Bradley, but Mookie is more of a parallel.
JBJ's problems are not surprising. The kid has had 140 games of AAA/AA experience prior to this year, which means he hasn't had a lot of exposure to pitchers with large velocity differentials between fastball and offspeed pitches. As a result he is learning offspeed pitch recognition at the major-league level, and is therefore struggling at the plate. It also explains why he has been hitting lefties better than righties; right-handed pitchers are more likely to use offspeed pitches (e.g. changeups) against left-handed hitters; whereas left-handed pitchers are more likely to use a combination of inside fastballs/breaking balls.Al Zarilla said:
In hindsight, it would've been a good idea for the red sox to trade/sign a short-term centerfielder and give JBJ more experience in the minors. However, no one in November/December of 2013 would've predicted that BROCK HOLT* and Jonny Gomes would be our top outfielders in terms of offensive production this year.
*Of course, to call BROCK HOLT an outfielder is an insult to his awesomeness; BROCK HOLT is an awesomefielder.
Something is going in the right direction for Jackie: Just three Ks in his last 8 games.
Of course, only one walk, too, and a sub-.300 OBP, but it seems like something has changed for the better.
And damn if he isn't a joy to watch in center.
Of course, only one walk, too, and a sub-.300 OBP, but it seems like something has changed for the better.
And damn if he isn't a joy to watch in center.
Al Zarilla said:
I remember finding out as a youngster that Piersall was related to a cousin of mine (via her sister-in-law) and I was supremely jealous. He was a great, great fielder.
And for the younger readers, Jackie Jensen scored on a 67-yard run in the Rose Bowl (back when that was THE bowl) and originally signed with the Yankees, who traded him to the Senators when he didn't beat out Mickey Mantle and the Red Sox got him from them after a couple of years for Mickey McDermott (one of the better hitting pitchers) and OF Tommy Umphlett. While with the Red Sox, Jensen led the AL in stolen bases--22, triples--11 and RBI three times. And he also married Zoe Ann Olsen, who medaled in the 3-meter springboard in the 1948 and 1952 Summer Olympics.
Billy Hamilton and Carlos Gomez, but they have nowhere near the assists JBJ has. I'd take Bradley, defensively. Gomez offensively. :whistling:nattysez said:
He's been flirting with busting out for about two months now. He'll have a three or four game stretch with decent to very good results then go ofer the next four games. I'm still convinced he's going to do it but I am not yet convinced that he has.nattysez said:
But if he has a decent table setter OBP betwixt today and the deadline and if Bogaerts is also alive, it's going to be hard for me not to get into buy mode even if we are too far back. Of course, if they perform, we probably won't be too far back.
Watching his at bats should.Lose Remerswaal said:
He has significantly reduced his swing and misses and looks to be attacking the ball more. His 10 pitch walk was one of the better at bats of the year, he was fouling off a ton of tough pitches and not swinging out of the zone.
It shouldn't be a surprise that it took a 23 year old prospect 300 at bats to start making significant adjustments. People act like he's been in the majors for a while because he started last year with the big club. This is still a young prospect with very limited amount of high minors experience. Let alone the majors.
That being said, his overall defensive ability is unbelievable. He is the total package out there.
It looks increasingly likely that the Sox are going to give JBJ the full year to man CF and decide in the offseason what to do; as a result, what would you guys want to see out of him at the plate in the second half to warrant handing the keys to CF to him in 2015? Obviously, hitting .219 average, 28% K rate, and .276 wOBA would not cut it. The average AL centerfielder is posting a .321 wOBA this year, though the average CF is also not a GG-caliber defender like Bradley, nor are they a rookie like Bradley either. Zips and Steamer both expect .300-.310 wOBA, or around a .240/.320/.360 triple slash. Is that enough to keep you enticed and give him a second chance in CF next year? If not, what's the level of offensive competence he needs to display?
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I really can't see five straight seasons of sub-85 OPS+ hitting as any kind of dream scenario, and I think there's every reason to hope that JBJ's turnaround, even if the current stretch is just a nice prologue and not the main act, will come sooner than that. Gomez is a very different kind of hitter; he has lots of speed but never had any plate discipline at all to speak of. The only thing he has in common with JBJ is the whiff tendency. As for the power, Gomez showed much *less* power than Bradley in the minors--career .117 minor league ISO to Bradley's .174--although to be fair, he was about two years younger at every stage.
Even for someone adding as much as Bradley is on defense, I would never pencil in anyone for a starting spot unless I was confident they'd post a 725 OPS. And if you're near that minimum OPS, it better come with at least a .333 OBP. Anything else is asking for more seasons like this thoroughly pathetic and unenjoyable piece of crap season has been.jscola85 said:
Last year there were 103 players in MLB with an OPS of .725 or higher. So far this year, there are 98 qualified players with that output. That's about three or four per team on average. So, you are suggesting that the Red Sox should have 9 of the top 100 players in MLB as their starters or else the team will suck?
Plympton91 said:
I would like to simply highlight that the MLB league-average OPS is .706. Now, clearly there are bench guys in there dragging that down, but there are only 8 teams with a team OPS over .725 and only 140 players with 150 PAs and an OPS over .725 (ie, ~4-5 per team). Assuming a team can and will field a full 9-man lineup of .725 or better hitters seems like an unrealistic goal.
.240/.320/.360 would be plenty good enough for him to a contributor, certainly a great value, and probably above-average. I have two questions, however:jscola85 said:
1) How confident am I in that projection? If that's the projection, he can't fall short by much without being an offensive zero. If he hits for 15 points less BA (with the same ISO and ISOD), he's at .225/.305/.345 - that's not a lot of wiggle room to fall short. If that's what the FO thinks it's getting from JBJ, we'll need a better backup plan than Grady Sizemore.
2) What else is going on with the lineup? If we add a Stanton-type middle-of-the-order bat, we can probably absorb a below-average bat or two at the bottom of the lineup. But if it's Pedroia / Ortiz at 3/4 again, we likely need 1-9 production to be a really good offense, and it looks like we'll have questions at the corner OF spots, C, and one or both of SS/3B. In a vacuum a .680 OPS is acceptable, but in the context of a lineup that might be featuring an all-glove/no-hit C and two guys who've spent this season hurt and / or unproductive in Middlebrooks and Victorino, that line looks less attractive.
Hook line and sinker.jscola85 said:
He knows all of this. But now we'll get the "Henry won't spend money on this team after this year!" line, because if Henry DID spend the money, we'd have a lineup full of .725+ OPS hitters.
jscola85 said:
We should stick to AL-only numbers for an apples-to-apples comparison, but even there league average is .716. If you further narrow the comparison group to AL centerfielders, the average goes up to .721 -- and that's with Trout skewing the mean. So .725 is still above average.
P91 is basically saying that even if somebody brings elite performance on one side of the lines, they need to be above-average on the other in order to be an acceptable player. That's a great aspirational standard, but I don't think it's realistic (or necessary) to expect to meet it at every position.
We have to revise our instincts to fit this new world order. The current state of offense is closer to 1968 than 2000.
Except that he said this:
That looks like he thinks no player, at any position, with an OPS lower than .725 is worth "penciling in" (even though pencil is erasable), even if the player contributes elite defense.
Plympton91 said:
That looks like he thinks no player, at any position, with an OPS lower than .725 is worth "penciling in" (even though pencil is erasable), even if the player contributes elite defense.
Bradley with a .725 OPS is an all-star or close to it, so we definitely should pencil him in if that's the projection!
Im having trouble reconciling the opinion that the OF FA class sucks with the idea that Bradley needs to be a borderline all-star at pre-arb salary to be penciled in as option A for 2015. Is there a likely 4 win player available?
I think If he's like a .680-.700 guy the rest of the way and it doesn't appear to be super fluky its probably OK to plan on him starting in '15. They can't really count on Victorino as a viable CF plan B next year, but too early to tell what outside help might be available or whether Betts can be a part of alternative options.
Im having trouble reconciling the opinion that the OF FA class sucks with the idea that Bradley needs to be a borderline all-star at pre-arb salary to be penciled in as option A for 2015. Is there a likely 4 win player available?
I think If he's like a .680-.700 guy the rest of the way and it doesn't appear to be super fluky its probably OK to plan on him starting in '15. They can't really count on Victorino as a viable CF plan B next year, but too early to tell what outside help might be available or whether Betts can be a part of alternative options.
If the problem in 2015 is in the corner OF spots, SS, 3B, and catcher, then it seems the solution is to upgrade those spots. Good defensive center fielders with OPS of 0.680 to 0.700 have value.Super Nomario said:
The person who nailed it was the person who pointed out that projections are unbiased estimates and therefore you should expect players should underperform them half the time. So, if you pencil in somebody with a projection of 680 OPS, then you're likely to end up with a black hole in your lineup. Stting the bar for projected performance higher doesn't mean you can't accept someone with a 680 OPS, it means you won't have to endure someone with a 580 OPS.
I do admit in light of the averages quoted in response to my post that it's possible I still have to further recalibrate my expectations to the lower offensive environment (I used to set the bar at a 750 OPS). However, I've always rejected the use of "league average" as the benchmark for the Red Sox. FWIW, it wasn't long ago that they had above average players at every position. I would use as a benchmark the average among teams that made the playoffs, or at least teams that finished above 500, maybe teams in the top half of the league in terms of runs scored.
I do admit in light of the averages quoted in response to my post that it's possible I still have to further recalibrate my expectations to the lower offensive environment (I used to set the bar at a 750 OPS). However, I've always rejected the use of "league average" as the benchmark for the Red Sox. FWIW, it wasn't long ago that they had above average players at every position. I would use as a benchmark the average among teams that made the playoffs, or at least teams that finished above 500, maybe teams in the top half of the league in terms of runs scored.