Jackie Bradley, Jr. - Help

[MuzzyField]

I agree with the facts you stated and draw a different conclusion. They built a roster that required Jackie Bradley to play CF in Boston regardless of whether he hit .150 or .350. That's the fundamental, foreseeable, fixable flaw in the roster construction. That's what you hold people accountable for. Everything else to do with the outfield is bad luck or random variation in players they had a right to expect decent performance from, with the possible exception of asking why they seemed to be so blindsided by the extent and length of Victorino's injuries. I'd like to know more about that miscalculation as well.

Do you really think JBJ, 9th in the lineup, being given enough slack to have some Pedroia growing pains in is the dagger on the 2014 season? After Victorino, I go to WMB. He needed to perform better than a clueless rookie, he didn't, broke his finger and opened the door for Drew's return. AJP, AKA Asshole, was singed after the Phillies gave Ruiz a third year, the Sox apparently had offered him two. At least that's the Phillies reason for going three. Then there is the X factor, no clue WTF they've done to one of the best players in the WS, hope they figure out a solution.
I'm more concerned about the reluctance to spend ANY money. I wanted the cash savings from Ellsbury to go to Lester. The abundance of prospects can only fill so many holes and acquire so many players. They need to develop AND then keep some talent.
The front office has a plan, unfortunately, they have yet to email it to me. I wish they would.

 

[Rasputin]

If leaving spring training one had ranked the probability of each of the things in that list... JBJ's struggles offensively while taking over the CF position would be highest.  You could make an argument that Sizemore's failure was expected prior to the season - but not after the spring training he had.  But everything else on that list given prior performances was less expected than JBJ's offensive struggle.  So if you asked Cherington when the season started if they were 'depending' on JBJ in order to be successful this season I have a hard time believing he would say it was a cornerstone of team success this year.  Would it have had great impact if he had been merely average?  Sure.  But to say it is the highest impact when his offensive struggles were the most reasonably expected just seems to be a flawed way of seeing the situation.

I'm not sure his performance was the biggest reason, but it sure as hell isn't way down the list and I'm not sure expectations matter that much.

If Bogaerts an Bradley had had very short and very shallow adjustment slumps, we'd be fighting for first place. I think the only bigger reason for the performance issues would be Buchholz' utter ineptitude to start the season. He made a whole bunch of games unwinable all by himself.

 

[alwyn96]

I'm not sure his performance was the biggest reason, but it sure as hell isn't way down the list and I'm not sure expectations matter that much.

If Bogaerts an Bradley had had very short and very shallow adjustment slumps, we'd be fighting for first place. I think the only bigger reason for the performance issues would be Buchholz' utter ineptitude to start the season. He made a whole bunch of games unwinable all by himself.

 
Yeah, I'd say there's plenty of blame to go around. Pretty much the entire offense aside from Napoli/Ortiz, as well as Mujica, Breslow, Buchholz, and Doubront. Sizemore/Pierzynski were disasters. As unfair as Nava's demotion may have been, he's also had a terrible year, even if you combine his MLB and AAA lines. 
 
It's funny, the 2013 Red Sox had the best offense in baseball by a lot. They certainly got several lucky performances, but it seemed like they had a bit of wiggle room to put some lower-offense guys (Bradley) in there and still be pretty damn good. I guess I didn't expect them to be quite this low-offense, or for a lot of the supporting cast to revert to mediocrity (or worse) as well. 

 

[RetractableRoof]

You can say they didn't plan on JBJ contributing offensively, but a) they didn't add any realistic alternatives to him in the OF, and b) they didn't improve the lineup anywhere else to compensate for the expected dropoff in CF production (as well as likely regression in other spots). 

They had Victorino available to replace JBJ at center if JBJ's offense became a problem, and they had a took a flyer on Sizemore.  Coming out of spring training (or two days before the end of it) they had a healthy Victorino AND a miraculously rejuvenated Sizemore.  It is revisionist history to say they had NO depth.  Was it reliable depth?  I won't argue with anyone who thinks it was a poor judgement - but there was depth.  
 
No one builds a roster expecting that a World Series team was going to fall through the floor offensively and not be able to work around the offensive growing pains of a rookie center fielder.  Perhaps it was poor judgement to plan on a person with a history of injuries would be the starting right fielder AND backup center fielder depth.  Had Victorino damaged himself any time in spring training besides the last two days, and had Sizemore not looked like he drank from the fountain of youth in the spring, maybe Cherington would have looked to make a move - but the timing handcuffed him.
 
Edit: As to point b - they won the world series.  They qualified Drew (he declined) - and they moved Xander back to SS and based on how he played in the playoffs he was only going to improve.  They decided to go with JBJ in center.  Middlebrooks had hit 25 home runs over 500 ABs over 2 seasons.  They assumed he would be healthy.  They signed an offensive catcher.  Pedroia was going to be healthy after an off season recovering from his thumb issue.  Where else did you expect to see improvement and by whom?  I get it - you wanted them to upgrade Ortiz, Napoli, Pedroia after winning the world series.  

 

[RetractableRoof]

I'm not sure his performance was the biggest reason, but it sure as hell isn't way down the list and I'm not sure expectations matter that much.

If Bogaerts an Bradley had had very short and very shallow adjustment slumps, we'd be fighting for first place. I think the only bigger reason for the performance issues would be Buchholz' utter ineptitude to start the season. He made a whole bunch of games unwinable all by himself.

And if AJP had hit the way he should have, and Pedria and Ortiz just been in the neighborhood of their normal performance (especially with RISP) nobody would be talking about JBJ.  And if Doubrant, Peavy, and Mujica had pitched a little better... and if..  
 
You don't (and the sox didn't) build a roster expecting JBJ to produce offensively.  You look at his defensive skills and you employ the same philosophy they employed with Pedroia as a rookie, and Iglesias as a rookie - you put him in place and hope the offense shows up while the teammates carry them.  You perform studies to see if it is reasonable to integrate a rookie (or 2 or 3) into a winning team.  With a world series winner that scored a ton of runs you take a reasonable bet that you can do it.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

As bad as the offense has been all around this season, the Red Sox are still 9th overall in OBP, 6th in the AL.
 
And while Bradley's overall offensive season has been poor, he's been one of very few players to contribute in key situations.
 
Bradley w/RISP: .297/.370/.438/.807
 
As epic squanders have been a recurring theme this season, here is a look at some of the bigger culprits w/RISP:
 
Bogaerts: .128/.213/.167/.380
Napoli: .187/.337/.293/.630
Pierzynski: .243/.288/.371/.659
Pedroia: .253/.316/.386/.702
Ross: .167/.231/.208/.439
Drew: .188/.381/.188/.568
 
(As an aside, Sizemore had decent numbers w/RISP, but was .189/.252/.292/.545 with the base empty).
 
If you look at how many one run losses we have (20, I believe) - if these guys were even doing merely "bad" instead of "historically putrid", you can probably cut that 20 in half. In that case, we'd be 53-42 and in first place, instead of 43-52 and in last place.
 
Next to their performance w/RISP, I'd rate Bradley's overall slash line as relatively insignificant to the team's poor first half. 

 

[Rasputin]

And if AJP had hit the way he should have, and Pedria and Ortiz just been in the neighborhood of their normal performance (especially with RISP) nobody would be talking about JBJ.  And if Doubrant, Peavy, and Mujica had pitched a little better... and if..  
 
You don't (and the sox didn't) build a roster expecting JBJ to produce offensively.  You look at his defensive skills and you employ the same philosophy they employed with Pedroia as a rookie, and Iglesias as a rookie - you put him in place and hope the offense shows up while the teammates carry them.  You perform studies to see if it is reasonable to integrate a rookie (or 2 or 3) into a winning team.  With a world series winner that scored a ton of runs you take a reasonable bet that you can do it.

There's no fucking A in Doubront. I don't get why that's a thing. There's a shit ton of people who put an A in there and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Expectation has fuck all to do with it. For two months, Bradley was a black hole of suck eclipsed only by the depths of Bogaerts' suck.

Mujica's contributions are pretty trivial. Peavy hadn't been particularly terrible, he just hasn't been good. Buchholz and Doubront combined for right games where they allowed five runs or more.

Bogaerts has been terrible beyond all mortal ken for the last month and a half (or more,I didn't dig into the game logs) and Jackie Bradley played fifty games with an OPS week below .600.

If I had to rank them, I think Bogaerts is most responsible, Buchholz second most, then Bradley, then Doubront, then the combination of Middlebrooks, his injury, and Drew.

 

[LondonSox]

It seems that terrific defensive players, at core defensive positions, are a great way to give the kids enough rope to sort themselves out.
See Pedroia for an example.
 
JBJ has excellent performance at the highest level of college and in the minors, and while there is always a chance he either doesn't pan out and his bat is AAAA type, the defense has been real at all elvels and isn't going away.
 
This combination is exactly how you give an everyday job to a rookie. Reliable base running and defense allowing you to give him enough rope to adjust. Nearly all rookies need to adjust at the major levels, not all immediately but many, and having a quick hook in this situation can be (though not always) detrimental to development.
 
If you believe in the kid, and his defense allows him to be a non disaster long enough to see if he can adjust you do it.
 
Having a bunch of average ish veterans in the wings ready to pounce is not how to bring through this type of player.
Again see Pedroia for details, a kid who had done well at every level (again including at the highest level of college) and with good to great defense at a premium positon, allowing his talent to come through despite a horrible start.
 
The people who would have signed some crappy CF and bumped JBJ out would I assume have wanted to do the same to Pedroia? If not why not? What's the difference?
 
At some point if you ever want to build from the farm they ahve to be given a real chance.

 

[alwyn96]

There's no fucking A in Doubront. I don't get why that's a thing. There's a shit ton of people who put an A in there and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Expectation has fuck all to do with it. For two months, Bradley was a black hole of suck eclipsed only by the depths of Bogaerts' suck.

Mujica's contributions are pretty trivial. Peavy hadn't been particularly terrible, he just hasn't been good. Buchholz and Doubront combined for right games where they allowed five runs or more.

Bogaerts has been terrible beyond all mortal ken for the last month and a half (or more,I didn't dig into the game logs) and Jackie Bradley played fifty games with an OPS week below .600.

If I had to rank them, I think Bogaerts is most responsible, Buchholz second most, then Bradley, then Doubront, then the combination of Middlebrooks, his injury, and Drew.

 
I think if we're doling out blame to individual players, this order seems pretty good, although for sheer awfulness in every aspect of the game, Sizemore and AJP are in there with Drew (although Middlebrooks/Drew still has some time to emerge as the clear winner). 
 
I don't think one should ignore the collective awfulness of almost all the other position players, even though they may only have contributed a little. This failure has many fathers. 

 

[Super Nomario]

If Bogaerts an Bradley had had very short and very shallow adjustment slumps, we'd be fighting for first place.

This is hyperbolic to me, unless you had unrealistic expectations for the kids to begin with. Xander was hitting .304/.397/.438 at the end of May and the team was still 3 games under .500 with a terrible offense.
 

They had Victorino available to replace JBJ at center if JBJ's offense became a problem, and they had a took a flyer on Sizemore.  Coming out of spring training (or two days before the end of it) they had a healthy Victorino AND a miraculously rejuvenated Sizemore.  It is revisionist history to say they had NO depth.  Was it reliable depth?  I won't argue with anyone who thinks it was a poor judgement - but there was depth.  

It's not revisionist history for me - you can find several posts in the offseason where I talked about how they needed a fourth reliable OF, even if it meant sending Bradley to AAA to start the year.
 

Edit: As to point b - they won the world series.  They qualified Drew (he declined) - and they moved Xander back to SS and based on how he played in the playoffs he was only going to improve.  They decided to go with JBJ in center.  Middlebrooks had hit 25 home runs over 500 ABs over 2 seasons.  They assumed he would be healthy.  They signed an offensive catcher.  Pedroia was going to be healthy after an off season recovering from his thumb issue.  Where else did you expect to see improvement and by whom?  I get it - you wanted them to upgrade Ortiz, Napoli, Pedroia after winning the world series.  

I agree with this, basically, which is why adding another OF bat made sense. C, 1B, CF, and SS all had departing FAs, but it was going to be hard to top the production at those positions no matter what. OF and 3B were really the only opportunities for upgrade, and as you say there were reasons to give Middlebrooks another chance there.
 

JBJ has excellent performance at the highest level of college and in the minors, and while there is always a chance he either doesn't pan out and his bat is AAAA type, the defense has been real at all elvels and isn't going away.
 
Again see Pedroia for details, a kid who had done well at every level (again including at the highest level of college) and with good to great defense at a premium positon, allowing his talent to come through despite a horrible start.
 
The people who would have signed some crappy CF and bumped JBJ out would I assume have wanted to do the same to Pedroia? If not why not? What's the difference?
 
At some point if you ever want to build from the farm they ahve to be given a real chance.

There's a major difference here, and that's that Pedroia had 162 games at AAA - slightly more than a full minor league season. He also showed incredibly advanced strikezone judgment - 72 walks to 44 strikeouts. Middlebrooks (40 AAA games), Bogaerts (60), and Bradley (0 before the 2013 season, 80 before this year) all have spent considerably less time in Pawtucket, with less advanced results. Unsurprisingly, their major league struggles have been longer and deeper than Pedroia's were - Pedroia was hitting .318/.400/.450 at the All-Star break of his rookie year. I agree we should be patient with the rookies, but if we don't rush them to the majors so quickly, we might not need to be as patient with them at the major league level. Unfortunately, the two most recent rookie callups (Betts and Vazquez, 23 and 67 games, respectively) have also been rushed up after less than a half-season in AAA.

 

[JimBoSox9]

If Bogaerts an Bradley had had very short and very shallow adjustment slumps, we'd be fighting for first place. I think the only bigger reason for the performance issues would be Buchholz' utter ineptitude to start the season. 

 
 

I agree with the facts you stated and draw a different conclusion. They built a roster that required Jackie Bradley to play CF in Boston regardless of whether he hit .150 or .350. That's the fundamental, foreseeable, fixable flaw in the roster construction. That's what you hold people accountable for. 

 
Being willing to accept those valleys is what breaking in prospects means.  If it's a flaw to have more faith in a guy's entire ml track record than his first 500-600 PAs in the bigs, then you'll flawlessly miss out on a lot of good players.  If you're relying on shallow learning curves from X and JBJ to be a contender, than you weren't a legit contender in the first place.  
 
There's a lot of cost-controlled value to be had in the last 2500 PAs, but you have to commit to being willing to chew up a large portion of the first 1000 to get there, especially guys who combine pedigree with projectable ml production.  Deviating from that is practically committing to cherry-picking for elite only and fixing the rest through trades and FA.  Do you know when this board will be really fun?  When they do it all over again next year but with starting pitchers.  I view the innings Workman and RDLR have been getting this year as precious getting-ahead-of-the-curve capital.

 

[RetractableRoof]

It's not revisionist history for me - you can find several posts in the offseason where I talked about how they needed a fourth reliable OF, even if it meant sending Bradley to AAA to start the year.
 
I agree with this, basically, which is why adding another OF bat made sense. C, 1B, CF, and SS all had departing FAs, but it was going to be hard to top the production at those positions no matter what. OF and 3B were really the only opportunities for upgrade, and as you say there were reasons to give Middlebrooks another chance there.

Even if your crystal ball was correct - they had a choice of spending ridiculous money for 7 years (or 4-5 given the market on quality OFs) or giving a potential gold glove rookie OFer a chance to prove his bat.  They made the decision to go with the rookie.  They did the studies to find out if it were reasonable to do so on a world series defending team.  You were right, they were wrong - but it wasn't unreasonable for them to make that decision.  If you are going to build via the farm it was a perfect place to try JBJ.
 
Once that was done, where do you upgrade the outfield?  Victorino?  Can't do that - everything is going to be all right...   Nava/Gomes platoon?  Nava has shown himself to be a professional hitter and Gomes is the most self professed valuable person since Millar.  Don't want to upset team chemistry.  Carp?  In my mind he plays some outfield - but I believe the front office views him as long term Ortiz injury insurance.  
 
Doubront, Dubront, Dubront...  I've written it 100 times on the chalkboard...  I'll never make a tpyo again.
 
Mujica has 4 losses and a blown save.  He was brought in to be the part time backup to Koji to make sure we didn't burn him out given the workload and age of Koji.  The reason his performance hasn't been worse is the manager hasn't put him in as many high leverage situations given his performance and just didn't/doesn't trust him.  (I don't blame him harshly, but I do think he was a planned on piece that hasn't delivered the way the blueprint/past performance suggested he would.)
 
Peavy has gone to the Sele School of pitching just well enough to lose.  He has got shit for run support, and there is the chicken/egg thing of it all - but with a team struggling in one run losses if you've got 1 win, you aren't getting it done - even in the 5th slot of the rotation.
 
20 one run losses later the JBJ decision looks bad - but only if you view it outside the performance of the team as a whole.  With 20 one run losses the margin for error is small and magnifies short comings in many areas.  If all the under performing players had picked one opportunistic place to perform as expected or hoped they might only have 5/6 of them.   As others have said 20 one run losses is spectacularly bad.  As this topic relates to JBJ - if you win half of them, they are in first place and people are extremely patient with JBJs performance (as I think it should be in any case).

 

[RetractableRoof]

Being willing to accept those valleys is what breaking in prospects means.  If it's a flaw to have more faith in a guy's entire ml track record than his first 500-600 PAs in the bigs, then you'll flawlessly miss out on a lot of good players.  If you're relying on shallow learning curves from X and JBJ to be a contender, than you weren't a legit contender in the first place.  

I'd like to go back and remove about 3 of my posts and simply quote this.  What I've been trying to say in a much better way.

 

[k-factory]

 
There's a major difference here, and that's that Pedroia had 162 games at AAA - slightly more than a full minor league season. He also showed incredibly advanced strikezone judgment - 72 walks to 44 strikeouts. Middlebrooks (40 AAA games), Bogaerts (60), and Bradley (0 before the 2013 season, 80 before this year) all have spent considerably less time in Pawtucket, with less advanced results. Unsurprisingly, their major league struggles have been longer and deeper than Pedroia's were - Pedroia was hitting .318/.400/.450 at the All-Star break of his rookie year. I agree we should be patient with the rookies, but if we don't rush them to the majors so quickly, we might not need to be as patient with them at the major league level. Unfortunately, the two most recent rookie callups (Betts and Vazquez, 23 and 67 games, respectively) have also been rushed up after less than a half-season in AAA.

 
More seasoning could have helped but there are other variables at play. Matching the offer the yankees gave to a 30 year old CF would be dumb. No other CF's were available as free agents.
Trading away prospects for one would be silly since they had a top prospect waiting in the wings to repeat the cost-controlled cycle they had in Ellsbury.
JBJ seemed ready to face the next set of challenges that MLB pitchers would provide and the defensive upgrade was considered sufficient to balance out the offensive growing pains. 
 
The game is about adjustments. If you can't adjust you won't make it. Its promising to see JBJ go through what looks to be a real adjustment that is paying dividends. We hope Xander can do the same and frankly there is more pressure on him since he is bringing nothing on the defensive side of the spectrum.
 
To me the joy of following this game and this team is watching the evolutionary cycle of individual players and the complex decision making of structuring a sustained successful team. Expecting relentless success is unreasonable and leads to the path of signing or trading for only big name free agents assuming the error bands are narrower. But that can blow up in your face (see Yankees).

 

[Super Nomario]

Being willing to accept those valleys is what breaking in prospects means.  If it's a flaw to have more faith in a guy's entire ml track record than his first 500-600 PAs in the bigs, then you'll flawlessly miss out on a lot of good players.  If you're relying on shallow learning curves from X and JBJ to be a contender, than you weren't a legit contender in the first place.  
 
There's a lot of cost-controlled value to be had in the last 2500 PAs, but you have to commit to being willing to chew up a large portion of the first 1000 to get there, especially guys who combine pedigree with projectable ml production.  Deviating from that is practically committing to cherry-picking for elite only and fixing the rest through trades and FA.  Do you know when this board will be really fun?  When they do it all over again next year but with starting pitchers.  I view the innings Workman and RDLR have been getting this year as precious getting-ahead-of-the-curve capital.

There's more than one way to break in a young player. Ellsbury was the 4th OF, bouncing between all three OF positions, but by the end of the year he actually ended up leading the team's OF in games and AB. Varitek shared the starting C role with Scott Hatteberg. Youkilis bounced between Pawtucket and Boston for two partial seasons before being handed a starting job. Pedro Martinez started his career in the bullpen before shifting to the rotation. Integrating young players is absolutely a key component to sustainable success, but it doesn't mean we have to make them walk a tight rope with no safety net on day one.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

This is hyperbolic to me, unless you had unrealistic expectations for the kids to begin with. Xander was hitting .304/.397/.438 at the end of May and the team was still 3 games under .500 with a terrible offense.
 

Just to pile on a bit, Ras, if Bradley's slump had been short/shallow and he'd produced at the .700-.720 level through the first half, he wouldn't be a solid contributor, he'd be a ROY candidate.   As it is, he's only a couple of wins worse than his predecessor was at this time last year.  He's pretty far down my list of reasons they're likely playing golf in October this year.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Interesting comment from Bill James on his site about young players:
 
 

Have you ever done a study on how much playing time younger players need before they start playing to their potential? It would obviously vary widely, but probably not enough that you can't study it
Asked by: secondbaserules
Answered: 6/14/2014


Bill James: 700 to 900 plate appearances. It's true that it varies and you can't absolutely generalize, but... 200 to 250 games, 700 to 900 plate appearances.

 

[Puffy]

As I recall, the offseason plan was to go into the season with Carp/Nava/Gomes/Sizemore/Victorino in the outfield, with Victorino backing up Sizemore in CF. I think Bradley was going to be destined for AAA until 1) Victorino's injury and 2) the realization that Sizemore wasn't going to be able to play adequate defense in CF. I think Plan A involved Bradley starting the season in AAA. Obviously, this was a poor plan, but I don't think the Red Sox intended to hand him the reins on Day 1.

 

[Plympton91]

This is hyperbolic to me, unless you had unrealistic expectations for the kids to begin with. Xander was hitting .304/.397/.438 at the end of May and the team was still 3 games under .500 with a terrible offense.
 
It's not revisionist history for me - you can find several posts in the offseason where I talked about how they needed a fourth reliable OF, even if it meant sending Bradley to AAA to start the year.
 
I agree with this, basically, which is why adding another OF bat made sense. C, 1B, CF, and SS all had departing FAs, but it was going to be hard to top the production at those positions no matter what. OF and 3B were really the only opportunities for upgrade, and as you say there were reasons to give Middlebrooks another chance there.
 
There's a major difference here, and that's that Pedroia had 162 games at AAA - slightly more than a full minor league season. He also showed incredibly advanced strikezone judgment - 72 walks to 44 strikeouts. Middlebrooks (40 AAA games), Bogaerts (60), and Bradley (0 before the 2013 season, 80 before this year) all have spent considerably less time in Pawtucket, with less advanced results. Unsurprisingly, their major league struggles have been longer and deeper than Pedroia's were - Pedroia was hitting .318/.400/.450 at the All-Star break of his rookie year. I agree we should be patient with the rookies, but if we don't rush them to the majors so quickly, we might not need to be as patient with them at the major league level. Unfortunately, the two most recent rookie callups (Betts and Vazquez, 23 and 67 games, respectively) have also been rushed up after less than a half-season in AAA.

This is an absolutely fantastic analysis. Excellent point about, "If you don't rush them, then maybe they won't struggle as much."

Also, thank you for busting the Pedroia myth. Another point about Pedrioa is that they had Cora backing him up, who Francona trusted to play the position. So, when Pedroia was struggling, Francona could give him strategic days off in order to let him settle down and get some success under his belt.

 

[LondonSox]

As I recall, the offseason plan was to go into the season with Carp/Nava/Gomes/Sizemore/Victorino in the outfield, with Victorino backing up Sizemore in CF. I think Bradley was going to be destined for AAA until 1) Victorino's injury and 2) the realization that Sizemore wasn't going to be able to play adequate defense in CF. I think Plan A involved Bradley starting the season in AAA. Obviously, this was a poor plan, but I don't think the Red Sox intended to hand him the reins on Day 1.

 
If that was the real plan it was stupid. None of those players could ahve sensibly been expected to play CF every day.
Pre the Sizemore signing it seemed clear Bradley was getting the job, then post Sizemore it became a bit less clear, but signing Sizemore to be everyday CF was always at best a long shot, and at worst stupid as hell.

 

[DavidTai]

 
If that was the real plan it was stupid. None of those players could ahve sensibly been expected to play CF every day.
Pre the Sizemore signing it seemed clear Bradley was getting the job, then post Sizemore it became a bit less clear, but signing Sizemore to be everyday CF was always at best a long shot, and at worst stupid as hell.

 
That wasn't the plan, I don't think - I think the off-season plan was that Bradley -was- going to start in CF in the offseason, but they didn't find a CF backup to back up Victorino that was willing to sign for a year other than Sizemore.
 
Then Sizemore had that spring of his, and Bradley struggled so he ended up starting on opening day, with Bradley being sent to the minors. Bradley only made the team because Victorino was hurt.
 
The question coming out of spring training and before opening day, I think, was more 'How long was Bradley going to stay in the minors' before Victorino's injury changed things up.

 

[LondonSox]

 
That wasn't the plan, I don't think - I think the off-season plan was that Bradley -was- going to start in CF in the offseason, but they didn't find a CF backup to back up Victorino that was willing to sign for a year other than Sizemore.
 
Then Sizemore had that spring of his, and Bradley struggled so he ended up starting on opening day, with Bradley being sent to the minors. Bradley only made the team because Victorino was hurt.
 
The question coming out of spring training and before opening day, I think, was more 'How long was Bradley going to stay in the minors' before Victorino's injury changed things up.

 
Right ok that makes more sense, buy the time to see if Sizemore could plan out with the back up plan ready to go.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Also, thank you for busting the Pedroia myth. Another point about Pedrioa is that they had Cora backing him up, who Francona trusted to play the position. So, when Pedroia was struggling, Francona could give him strategic days off in order to let him settle down and get some success under his belt.

 
Pedroia took three days off in April, 2007. Is Cora (75 OPS+) really that different a backup from Grady Sizemore (71 OPS+)?

 

[Plympton91]

Pedroia took three days off in April, 2007. Is Cora (75 OPS+) really that different a backup from Grady Sizemore (71 OPS+)?

How did you get OPS out of, "trusted to play the position." I don't know or really care what the highly flawed so-called advanced defensive metrics say, but Cora was not a defensive liability at 2B whereas it quickly became clear that Grady Sizemore's defensive capabilities were trending toward those of a DH.

 

[RetractableRoof]

How did you get OPS out of, "trusted to play the position." I don't know or really care what the highly flawed so-called advanced defensive metrics say, but Cora was not a defensive liability at 2B whereas it quickly became clear that Grady Sizemore's defensive capabilities were trending toward those of a DH.

And that pissed me off because the computer couldn't replicate a center fielder to our specifications...

 

[Plympton91]

There's more than one way to break in a young player. Ellsbury was the 4th OF, bouncing between all three OF positions, but by the end of the year he actually ended up leading the team's OF in games and AB. Varitek shared the starting C role with Scott Hatteberg. Youkilis bounced between Pawtucket and Boston for two partial seasons before being handed a starting job. Pedro Martinez started his career in the bullpen before shifting to the rotation. Integrating young players is absolutely a key component to sustainable success, but it doesn't mean we have to make them walk a tight rope with no safety net on day one.

We need an animated gif showing a hammer pounding a nail right square on the head. Another excellent post, SN

 

[jscola85]

I'd also note that other guys like Buchholz and Papelbon were worked in methodically as well.  It's just so hard to hand the keys to a position over to a guy with <500 PAs in the majors and not expect some serious bumps along the road.  As we saw with Middlebrooks last year, Bogaerts/Bradley the first half of this year and will likely see with Vazquez the second half of this year, it can get ugly for a while when you give an everyday job to a guy under 25 years old.  It still may be worth it, but you have to lower expectations for that season or have some really good Plan B options on your bench.  The Sox thought they had a really good Plan B for JBJ (ie, Victorino shifting to CF), but they badly miscalculated how hurt he was.

 

[joe dokes]

I'd also note that other guys like Buchholz and Papelbon were worked in methodically as well.  It's just so hard to hand the keys to a position over to a guy with <500 PAs in the majors and not expect some serious bumps along the road.  As we saw with Middlebrooks last year, Bogaerts/Bradley the first half of this year and will likely see with Vazquez the second half of this year, it can get ugly for a while when you give an everyday job to a guy under 25 years old.  It still may be worth it, but you have to lower expectations for that season or have some really good Plan B options on your bench.  The Sox thought they had a really good Plan B for JBJ (ie, Victorino shifting to CF), but they badly miscalculated how hurt he was.

 
 
Or they didn't give a real damn about his offense because A)they expected it to come around by midseason; AND b)they knew they had the best defensive centerfielder that has been seen in these parts in decades.

 

[jscola85]

 
 
Or they didn't give a real damn about his offense because A)they expected it to come around by midseason; AND b)they knew they had the best defensive centerfielder that has been seen in these parts in decades.

 
I'm pretty sure they gave a damn about his offense.  Maybe they felt comfortable with the downside knowing that his glove could keep him afloat even if he didn't hit, but I don't think they'd be willing to keep running him out there forever if all he did was hit .220 and play GG defense.

 

[DavidTai]

I think the problem was that there were a -lot- of moving pieces where OF was concerned, and that they almost -all- universally stank out of the gate made plan B, C, and D (assuming we're talking opening Day plan B, C, and Ds, and not the offseason attempts to find a backup OFer) unworkable.
 
If we're looking at Opening Day (original plan, before Victorino was unable to return), I think it looked like this:
Plan A: LF: Gomes/Nava, CF: Sizemore  RF: Victorino
 
Post-Victorino:
 
Plan B: LF: Gomes/Nava, CF: Sizemore, RF: Bradley (presumably to be sent back down whenever Victorino came back)
 
then it became apparent Sizemore didn't have the range for CF anymore, so:
 
Plan C: LF: Gomes/Sizemore CF: Bradley   RF: Nava/Sizemore
 
Then Plan D when Nava stank and was sent back:
 
LF: Gomes  CF Bradley RF Sizemore

Then Plan E-F-G-H which involved Brock Holt playing all three OF positions and Sizemore cut/replaced by Carp and Nava coming back.
 
It was kinda... chaotic. The downside of Bradley's offense was, I think, offset by that he -offered- at least some OF stability defensively in the middle of a general SUCK of OF defense.

 

[joe dokes]

 
I'm pretty sure they gave a damn about his offense.  Maybe they felt comfortable with the downside knowing that his glove could keep him afloat even if he didn't hit, but I don't think they'd be willing to keep running him out there forever if all he did was hit .220 and play GG defense.

 
Of course......that was the "expected it to come around by midseason" part.  If his Mendoza act had continued, you are probably correct and JBJ would be at AAA.

 

[Rasputin]

This is hyperbolic to me, unless you had unrealistic expectations for the kids to begin with. Xander was hitting .304/.397/.438 at the end of May and the team was still 3 games under .500 with a terrible offense.

 
Yeah, it's hyperbolic, but with the way offense works, we'd have been much better off.

 

[Rasputin]

Being willing to accept those valleys is what breaking in prospects means.  If it's a flaw to have more faith in a guy's entire ml track record than his first 500-600 PAs in the bigs, then you'll flawlessly miss out on a lot of good players.  If you're relying on shallow learning curves from X and JBJ to be a contender, than you weren't a legit contender in the first place.  
 
There's a lot of cost-controlled value to be had in the last 2500 PAs, but you have to commit to being willing to chew up a large portion of the first 1000 to get there, especially guys who combine pedigree with projectable ml production.  Deviating from that is practically committing to cherry-picking for elite only and fixing the rest through trades and FA.  Do you know when this board will be really fun?  When they do it all over again next year but with starting pitchers.  I view the innings Workman and RDLR have been getting this year as precious getting-ahead-of-the-curve capital.

 
I completely agree and it's clear that the Sox valued breaking in Bradley and Bogaerts ahead of winning the World Series this year, and that's a good thing.

 

[Harry Hooper]

The NESN sports wrap-up show this morning features a clip of Bradley in batting practice throwing a ball from home plate into the bleacher seats in CF.
 
 
EDIT: Footage isn't great, which is probably why NESN hasn't posted it. You'll need a large-screen tv to make it out, but JBJ threw the ball into about the second row of the bleachers a bit to the right of the CF camera position.

 

[Orel Miraculous]

The NESN sports wrap-up show this morning features a clip of Bradley in batting practice throwing a ball from home plate into the bleacher seats in CF.

 
Shut up. What? Internet, DO YOUR THING!

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

He was apparently throwing balls from home plate on to Eutaw Street the last time the Sox were in Baltimore, so it's not a new trick.  I only hope that if he's making a habit of showing off like that, he doesn't damage that thunderbolt.

 

[Al Zarilla]

He was apparently throwing balls from home plate on to Eutaw Street the last time the Sox were in Baltimore, so it's not a new trick.  I only hope that if he's making a habit of showing off like that, he doesn't damage that thunderbolt.

Like Jim Piersall did in a throwing contest with Willie Mays once. 
 
On August 16 the Red Sox played an exhibition against the Giants at Fenway Park, before which Piersall and Willie Mays took part in a throwing contest. Piersall hurt his arm and missed several games. He later claimed that his arm never recovered from this accident.
 
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/91fce86d
 
Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Hopefully not. Maybe he uses these super long throws as strengthening thing?

 

[Harry Hooper]

Like Jim Piersall did in a throwing contest with Willie Mays once. 
 
On August 16 the Red Sox played an exhibition against the Giants at Fenway Park, before which Piersall and Willie Mays took part in a throwing contest. Piersall hurt his arm and missed several games. He later claimed that his arm never recovered from this accident.
 
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/91fce86d
 
Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Hopefully not. Maybe he uses these super long throws as strengthening thing?

 
This wasn't long toss. JBJ did a running all-out heave, just the kind of thing that could generate an injury.

 

[someoneanywhere]

He looks all right to me.

 

[Just a bit outside]

Just turned the game on. Another highlight reel catch?[/quote
Bullet throw to first base for a double play.

 

[Marbleheader]

The NESN sports wrap-up show this morning features a clip of Bradley in batting practice throwing a ball from home plate into the bleacher seats in CF.
 
 
EDIT: Footage isn't great, which is probably why NESN hasn't posted it. You'll need a large-screen tv to make it out, but JBJ threw the ball into about the second row of the bleachers a bit to the right of the CF camera position.

http://m.redsox.mlb.com/bos/video/topic/8878860/v34629933

 

[BoredViewer]

I really hope he can develop into a not historically bad offensive player.  It's such a pleasure to watch him patrolling CF.

 

[LondonSox]

Wow that's a throw.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

The throw to double Dyson off first base was excellent... But the throw that nearly nailed him at the plate a couple innings later was remarkable. Under hold rules, if Vazquez were allowed to be a step forward in front of the plate, he'd have gotten him.

Jarod Dyson's definitely going to be aware of whose playing centerfield when he's playing the Red Sox

 

[Bone Chips]

2 more hits today (with one at bat left). Only 18 points below Ortiz in batting average.

Ben and company are going to be very happy they were patient with him this year.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

2 more hits today (with one at bat left). Only 18 points below Ortiz in batting average.

Ben and company are going to be very happy they were patient with him this year.

And he's scored more runs than David, too!

 

[effectivelywild]

And he's scored more runs than David, too!

Not to sidetrack the thread, but would the Angels consider a Trout for Holt straight up trade?  I mean, Trout is defensively superior but he also lags by 16 points in BA.  Maybe a prime "buy low" opportunity? 

 

[Bone Chips]

Not to sidetrack the thread, but would the Angels consider a Trout for Holt straight up trade?  I mean, Trout is defensively superior but he also lags by 16 points in BA.  Maybe a prime "buy low" opportunity? 

Oh, I see what you did there. Cute.

Point is, the bat's coming around, and in this shitstorm of a season we'll take whatever we can get. Over the last 30 days he's our third best player in terms of WAR. Enjoy it.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Good news: 12 hits in his last 10 games.

Bad news: all singles.

Still, color me excited. I love watching this kid play.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The most exciting news, I think, is that his K rate for July is 18%.
 
If he can just put the ball in play at an average-ish rate, he'll be fine.