JBJ: Elite Defender With Some Pop

[SirPsychoSquints]

I'm curious what happens when you compare other CFs in the game to their backups too, though. I'm guessing you would get all kinds of interesting numbers. If a team has an all glove no bat CF starting every day, they may have a no glove, all bat CF backing him up which would make him look even better. That isn't the case with the Redsox, unless you believe Ben10, Mookie Betts and Jacoby Ellsbury are awful CFs.

Billy Hamilton 2017 - 5.27 runs in 136 games with him vs. 5.85 runs in 26 games without him
Kiermaier 2017 the opposite - 4.48 runs in 96 games with him vs. 4.15 runs in 66 games without him
Marisnick 2017 - 4.17 runs in 83 games in CF, 3.25 runs in 8 games in the corners, 4.62 runs in 71 games without him

I don't have any point. Just looking this stuff up.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Billy Hamilton 2017 - 5.27 runs in 136 games with him vs. 5.85 runs in 26 games without him
Kiermaier 2017 the opposite - 4.48 runs in 96 games with him vs. 4.15 runs in 66 games without him
Marisnick 2017 - 4.17 runs in 83 games in CF, 3.25 runs in 8 games in the corners, 4.62 runs in 71 games without him

I don't have any point. Just looking this stuff up.

I'd guess most are in favor of the starting CF with a few exceptions. The JBJ number looks far less lofty and more realistic when seeing the Hamilton and Marisnick numbers.

 

[Reverend]

The average number of 0.62 runs/game difference is 93 runs saved over 150 games played.

That’s pretty damn ridiculous. But basically right there with the specific data from 2018 that I looked at.

Do the numbers make JBJ a 9.3 dWAR player? No. Like I said, he defers those catches, and by doing so helps the team win. The numbers do show that the team as a whole plays markedly better in terms of run-prevention when he’s playing.

But it’s a team thing. Obviously, players come and go, and when the Sox believe the time is right, JBJ will be gone. I suspect that every pitcher on the roster will be sad to lose him, though, if he’s replaced while still in his prime.

Is it worth breaking down the methodological problems with the "range factor" elements of defensive stats?

I mean, I was an excited and enthusiastic adopter of the new defensive stats when they first came out, but then became disillusioned with them, and now am honestly frustrated with them. I did, however, learn a shit ton about baseball--not the numbers but how the game is actually played in the field today--from working out its problems.

Specifically: The stats aren't just incorrect, they are distortative and misleading.

But it takes some working through how the methodology works to explain, and I dunno if anyone wants to see it or if everyone's just already taken sides.

The recent discussion about playing JBJ vs. platooning or benching him is missing something, I think. For that decision, it's relevant not only how good he is at defense and offense, but how good his substitute is on offense, how that changes the lineup, maybe even how that affects pinch hitting and defensive sub situations, and how good the team's whole defensive alignment is on defense. The +/- approach can't be taken at full face value, but it does address in concept how there's more to his defensive contribution than his defense. There is some discussion above about how he affects the way the corner OFs play, and I think that's right and interesting. There's also the matter of not comparing him to other CFs in general, as WAR does, but instead comparing JBJ in center with Benny in left to Benny in center and JDM in left, plus whoever DHs while JDM is in left, etc. JBJ's baseball skills or salary or trade value shouldn't be judged by anything like this approach, but the decision about whether to platoon him should address whether the team plays better against LHP when he plays or when he sits. It's very difficult for us to answer that question, but I think the +/- discussion is at least somewhat helpful there.

As to the bolded, I think that is well said. But I would refine it to, "there's more to his defensive contribution than the specific plays that get recorded to him."

What I mean by that is that his defense is still in play and has an effect, even if the "play" is not recorded to him. But yeah, as you indicate, this is a fundamental flaw in the defensive value statistics because it does not and, as constructed, cannot capture that value. So whatever it measures--and, for example, FG even discusses this if somewhat obliquely at times, in their own write up of UZR--is insufficient to capture the actual value of players in the field, and in fact is guaranteed to overrate some players and underrate others in systematic but uncorrelated ways that make the numbers, to my understanding anyway, worse than useless.

As for the idea of internal team comparisons, those won't work based on the methodology unless you posit that they play they play the exact same defensive alignments and strategies no matter which players are in.

If that's true, then somebody should be fired.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I'd guess most are in favor of the starting CF with a few exceptions. The JBJ number looks far less lofty and more realistic when seeing the Hamilton and Marisnick numbers.

Now I'm just getting CFers who played fewer than 150 games and more than 100 in 2017 - listed in descending order of games in CF in 2017:
Adam Jones - 5.07 in 147 vs 6.33 in 15
McCutchen - 4.45 in 139 CF vs. 4.54 in 13 RF vs. 5.30 in 10 Bench
Broxton - 4.30 in 125 vs 4.30 in 37
Buxton - 4.74 in 135 vs. 5.48 in 27
Herrera - 4.69 in 131 vs. 5.42 in 31
Span - 4.50 in 117 vs. 5.56 in 45
Margot - 5.16 in 122 vs. 4.65 in 40
Taylor - 3.85 in 109 CF, 4.00 in 2 RF, 4.78 in 51 Bench
Pollock - 4.25 in 102 vs. 3.77 in 60
Fowler - 4.66 in 109 vs. 3.72 in 53
Trout - 4.50 in 108 vs. 4.13 in 54
Almora - 3.93 in 87 CF, 5.00 in 3 Corners, 4.69 in 72 Bench
Gomez - 4.72 in 100 vs. 5.55 in 62

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Now I'm just getting CFers who played fewer than 150 games and more than 100 in 2017 - listed in descending order of games in CF in 2017:
Adam Jones - 5.07 in 147 vs 6.33 in 15
McCutchen - 4.45 in 139 CF vs. 4.54 in 13 RF vs. 5.30 in 10 Bench
Broxton - 4.30 in 125 vs 4.30 in 37
Buxton - 4.74 in 135 vs. 5.48 in 27
Herrera - 4.69 in 131 vs. 5.42 in 31
Span - 4.50 in 117 vs. 5.56 in 45
Margot - 5.16 in 122 vs. 4.65 in 40
Taylor - 3.85 in 109 CF, 4.00 in 2 RF, 4.78 in 51 Bench
Pollock - 4.25 in 102 vs. 3.77 in 60
Fowler - 4.66 in 109 vs. 3.72 in 53
Trout - 4.50 in 108 vs. 4.13 in 54
Almora - 3.93 in 87 CF, 5.00 in 3 Corners, 4.69 in 72 Bench
Gomez - 4.72 in 100 vs. 5.55 in 62

I'm not really sure what these numbers tell us, honestly. It does put the JBJ in vs JBJ out numbers into better context. If I can take anything away, it's that there might be a decent gap in defense between a starting CF and a back up CF. That doesn't necessarily surprise me as I'd expect a bigger gap between SS and less of one between 1b/LF.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I'm not really sure what these numbers tell us, honestly. It does put the JBJ in vs JBJ out numbers into better context. If I can take anything away, it's that there might be a decent gap in defense between a starting CF and a back up CF. That doesn't necessarily surprise me as I'd expect a bigger gap between SS and less of one between 1b/LF.

I think you're right. Just because I bothered to calculate it, for the 17 centerfielders that I showed their 2017 results, the standard deviation of their differences was 0.65 runs per game. Bradley's 0.92 would be 1.42 standard deviations. 2 players, Jones & Span, had higher differences. 5 players had a negative difference.

 

[Boggs26]

I feel like there's information buried in that data somewhere, I just can't quite wrap my head around it.

Based solely on the limited data that's been presented here so far, it seems possible that we are greatly understating the defensive value of elite fielders. Could JBJ actually be worth several wins defensively, with the majority of that being based on other fielders' ability to "cheat" in other directions when he's playing?

 

[Reverend]

I feel like there's information buried in that data somewhere, I just can't quite wrap my head around it.

Based solely on the limited data that's been presented here so far, it seems possible that we are greatly understating the defensive value of elite fielders. Could JBJ actually be worth several wins defensively, with the majority of that being based on other fielders' ability to "cheat" in other directions when he's playing?

I'd scratch the word "majority" because that's not clear from what we know... but to say that he allows them, as @Buzzkill Pauley has explained, to play team defense in a way that provides value to the team far in excess of what UZR/DRS are able to assess, given their methodologies... yes, I believe that's what's going on.

 

[joe dokes]

I feel like there's information buried in that data somewhere, I just can't quite wrap my head around it.

Based solely on the limited data that's been presented here so far, it seems possible that we are greatly understating the defensive value of elite fielders. Could JBJ actually be worth several wins defensively, with the majority of that being based on other fielders' ability to "cheat" in other directions when he's playing?

And could it be something unique to the Sox, because all 3 outfielders are so good. If it's jbj, with jdm in right, and Sam Travis in left, so what? Its like turning two 250 hitters (defensively speaking) into 275 hitters. But with these 3, it's like jbj's presence turning 300 hitters into 375 hitters.

 

[Reverend]

And could it be something unique to the Sox, because all 3 outfielders are so good. If it's jbj, with jdm in right, and Sam Travis in left, so what? Its like turning two 250 hitters (defensively speaking) into 275 hitters. But with these 3, it's like jbj's presence turning 300 hitters into 375 hitters.

This is a great example of why UZR/DRS fails, in fact.

Imagine: The three greatest OFs of all time in the OF. What happens to their UZR/DRS stats?

 

[E5 Yaz]

Imagine: The three greatest OFs of all time in the OF. What happens to their UZR/DRS stats?

Depends on where you put Claudell

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

And could it be something unique to the Sox, because all 3 outfielders are so good. If it's jbj, with jdm in right, and Sam Travis in left, so what? Its like turning two 250 hitters (defensively speaking) into 275 hitters. But with these 3, it's like jbj's presence turning 300 hitters into 375 hitters.

I do believe the Sox would never reap such impressive benefits defensively, if they didn’t have two flanking guys with terrific closing speed, in Betts and Benintendi, on either side of JBJ.

Like I said, it makes a huge difference that both RF and LF are able to just flat-out pursue any baseball into their zone without fear of bodily collision. And knowing that if the ball is missed then JBJ has a cannon (if imprecise) arm, and will be close enough to back up the play, but not so close at hand as to risk injury.

So, if RF and LF could not run fast enough to get where the ball is hit — which always happens, for example, when JDM is playing one of the corners — the defensive system starts to break down. However, the keystone is JBJ’s almost uncanny ability to know exactly where each batted ball will go, and be able to run there without keeping an eye on it. I think it’s that — his impossible first steps and generally superb routes —which allows the Sox to buck the conventional wisdom that “it’s the centerfielder’s job to take charge.”

 

[Reverend]

I do believe the Sox would never reap such impressive benefits defensively, if they didn’t have two flanking guys with terrific closing speed, in Betts and Benintendi, on either side of JBJ.

Like I said, it makes a huge difference that both RF and LF are able to just flat-out pursue any baseball into their zone without fear of bodily collision. And knowing that if the ball is missed then JBJ has a cannon (if imprecise) arm, and will be close enough to back up the play, but not so close at hand as to risk injury.

So, if RF and LF could not run fast enough to get where the ball is hit — which always happens, for example, when JDM is playing one of the corners — the defensive system starts to break down. However, the keystone is JBJ’s almost uncanny ability to know exactly where each batted ball will go, and be able to run there without keeping an eye on it. I think it’s that — his impossible first steps and generally superb routes —which allows the Sox to buck the conventional wisdom that “it’s the centerfielder’s job to take charge.”

Once you notice the overlapping defenders in the OF when JBJ is in, you notice that when he's out, sometimes it doesn't happen.

When you watch on TV, on hits to the OF, pay attention to the "second OF" on each play, and see how it differs depending who's in... and how it's different from a lot of other teams. You can literally see the strategy they are playing once you start looking for it.

I didn't get it at first. Now I think it's the coolest innovation in baseball I can remember in years.

Maybe, as a Red Sox fan, I should prefer it remain underappreciated...?

 

[williams_482]

What we're talking about here is a very simplified "With Or Without You" analysis. It's a useful tool, for sure: Tom Tango uses it to examine Derek Jeter's defense here, for example.

The problem is that, like all defensive metrics (but even more so) you need huge samples from both the player in question and the other players who played with them, then make a bunch of comparisons and tally the results in order to tease out an accurate idea of how this player is affecting things.

So in short, yeah there's absolutely signal buried in there, and you can do some pretty cool things with it, but you need something much more sophisticated than a straight "with Bradley/Without Bradley" comparison to get genuinely useful values.

 

[Reverend]

What we're talking about here is a very simplified "With Or Without You" analysis. It's a useful tool, for sure: Tom Tango uses it to examine Derek Jeter's defense here, for example.

The problem is that, like all defensive metrics (but even more so) you need huge samples from both the player in question and the other players who played with them, then make a bunch of comparisons and tally the results in order to tease out an accurate idea of how this player is affecting things.

So in short, yeah there's absolutely signal buried in there, and you can do some pretty cool things with it, but you need something much more sophisticated than a straight "with Bradley/Without Bradley" comparison to get genuinely useful values.

Agree.

And all of that also applies to UZR/DSR in spades.

 

[Pitt the Elder]

With the advent of statcast, isn't it theoretically possible to quantify second order effects on outfield defense?

I'm going to quickly get out of my depth here, so bear with me.

A first-order effect is a outfielder's ability to make an out, which, in the outfield, is his ability to run to the exact point the ball is hit and catch it. Statcast is pretty good at quantifying this by measuring things like first step, speed, and route efficiency.

A second-order effect is an outfielder's ability to make a play on a ball that he doesn't catch in such a way to mitigate damage, typically by preventing the batter or another runner from advancing to another base. In layman's terms, this is an outfielder's ability to quickly cut off a ball and get it back to the infield. The key metric here is something akin to the mean time to resolution; that is, the amount of time it takes from the moment the batter makes contact to the moment the outfielder has thrown the ball to an infielder. This metric, whatever it may be, seems like it would be a function of the speed of the ball being hit, its landing spot, its distance and angle of trajectory relative to the outfielder in question, and the outfielder's speed/ability to close the gap between the ball and himself. In a way, this can be visualized as a field of influence the outfielders has on a given play that fans out in wedge-shaped area roughly in front of him and towards the ball. The farther the ball lands in front of him and the slower it, the more distance he can travel to make a play. The closer the ball lands relative to him him and the fastest its speed, the less distance he can travel to make a play. In theory, there's a sweet spot that optimizes all these values such that an outfielder can make a second-order play on the first or second hop the ball makes.

To try and put it concisely - is there a way to measure this second-order field of influence an outfielder has? Is there such thing as "coverage efficiency" to complement "route efficiency?"

In practice, you can imagine that the best way to optimize your outfield is to have a CF whose second-order field of influence - his "coverage efficiency" - is so good that he enables the other outfielders to optimize their routes - their "route efficiency" - to make a first-order play on the ball. Having two outfielders attempt a first-order play on the ball is too risky and having them each make a second-order play on the ball is too conservative. Obviously, the Sox are having one guy (Betts, Beni) make a first-order attempt while a second guy (JBJ) provides second-order coverage.

So, how the hell do we measure what JBJ is doing?

 

[Reverend]

With the advent of statcast, isn't it theoretically possible to quantify second order effects on outfield defense?

I'm going to quickly get out of my depth here, so bear with me.

A first-order effect is a outfielder's ability to make an out, which, in the outfield, is his ability to run to the exact point the ball is hit and catch it. Statcast is pretty good at quantifying this by measuring things like first step, speed, and route efficiency.

A second-order effect is an outfielder's ability to make a play on a ball that he doesn't catch in such a way to mitigate damage, typically by preventing the batter or another runner from advancing to another base. In layman's terms, this is an outfielder's ability to quickly cut off a ball and get it back to the infield. The key metric here is something akin to the mean time to resolution; that is, the amount of time it takes from the moment the batter makes contact to the moment the outfielder has thrown the ball to an infielder. This metric, whatever it may be, seems like it would be a function of the speed of the ball being hit, its landing spot, its distance and angle of trajectory relative to the outfielder in question, and the outfielder's speed/ability to close the gap between the ball and himself. In a way, this can be visualized as a field of influence the outfielders has on a given play that fans out in wedge-shaped area roughly in front of him and towards the ball. The farther the ball lands in front of him and the slower it, the more distance he can travel to make a play. The closer the ball lands relative to him him and the fastest its speed, the less distance he can travel to make a play. In theory, there's a sweet spot that optimizes all these values such that an outfielder can make a second-order play on the first or second hop the ball makes.

To try and put it concisely - is there a way to measure this second-order field of influence an outfielder has? Is there such thing as "coverage efficiency" to complement "route efficiency?"

In practice, you can imagine that the best way to optimize your outfield is to have a CF whose second-order field of influence - his "coverage efficiency" - is so good that he enables the other outfielders to optimize their routes - their "route efficiency" - to make a first-order play on the ball. Having two outfielders attempt a first-order play on the ball is too risky and having them each make a second-order play on the ball is too conservative. Obviously, the Sox are having one guy (Betts, Beni) make a first-order attempt while a second guy (JBJ) provides second-order coverage.

So, how the hell do we measure what JBJ is doing?

Once you get to this point, wouldn't the team be more interested in something like, "composite OF fielding" and how to maximize that?

I liked baseball cards too, but I also love the discovery that baseball is, actually, after all, a team sport.

I expect the Red Sox look at the individual contributions entirely in the context of the neighboring players and the situational defensive alignments they employ.

As I understand it, to accurately understand the range factor issues of the players, you have to know the assignments of each player. Without that information, we don't have the baseline to measure performance--this has been an issue in analyzing football for some time now, and it's kinda fascinating to see it in baseball now, which many people didn't think was this complex.

If you are measuring what a player did in his "zone" without knowing the modern defensive assignment, then literally the definition of the "zone" becomes a source of error, which is why so many great outfielders have defensive statistics across their career that look like they were produced by a random number generator: They were.

 

[Reverend]

Like, we have no reason to expect that they'd be playing JBJ as they do if there wasn't another CF to his left and his right.

I would expect that they wouldn't be playing him the same way. But we also know they've been thinking about the ramifactions of the big right field in Fenway going back to Victorino.

For a team that apparently started lagging behind in analytics, this seems pretty savvy to me. But I also sucked at baseball.

 

[teddywingman]

Pretty sure you know that sucking at playing the game does not preclude one the ability to analyze it.

Did I miss any post about it or did Jackie not go 3 for 3 the other day? I didn't see the game and personally don't care if the hits were all "duck farts," as Pedro used to say.

Jackie has earned it.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=bradlja02&t=f&year=2018

Take this, throw it into a spreadsheet, total the runs allowed for games he started, subtract it from the total runs allowed for the team. I didn't count the one game he pinch ran during. Sox allowed 231 runs in 68 games, or 3.40 runs/game. All other games 61/11 = 5.55

2017: 517 over 131 is 3.95. Other games are 151/31 4.87
2016: 656 over 155 is 4.23. Other games are 38/7 5.43
2015: 315 over 73 is 4.32. Other games are 438/89 4.92
2014: 503 over 120 is 4.19. Other games are 212/42 5.05.
2013: 108 over 31 is 3.48. Other games are 548/131 4.18.

Wow. I'm surprised.

Edit:
Differences of 2.15, 0.92, 1.2, 0.61, 0.86, 0.70 runs per game, all in the same direction. Take the total of his career and it's 4.03 runs per game with him in and 4.66 runs per game without him, or a difference of 0.62 runs per game.

The "without" sample is dominated by 2013, the strongest "without" year. Eliminate 2013 and it's 4.06 with him and 5.00 without him for a difference of 0.94 runs per game. Eliminate 2013 AND 2015 and it's 4.02 with him and 5.08 without him for a difference of 1.05 runs per game.

This has me convinced. Great work, and thanks.

 

[Boggs26]

This is old school SoSH and I love it. People throwing numbers around and trying to find hidden info is why I wanted to join this forum so badly back in the early 2000s.

The idea of a "Whole OF Fielding" statistic is quite interesting. Also, someone up thread noted that a lot of this is because of who is in LF and RF. However I'd argue that JBJs seeking ability to cover a huge swath of the OF of even beneficial with below average corners since it would allow them to worry about less space.

If we use Pitt the Elder's terminology, weaker corners would probably prohibit the 2nd order coverage by JBJ that we're seeing with the Bs in the corners, but JBJ would be picking up a bunch more 1st order plays that would still allow the corners to focus their limited range toward the lines. In other words, I don't think JBJ's value is being increased by the guys next to him (rather we're also seeing the benefits of their defensive value - might be interesting to see Betts' and Beni's with/without numbers too).

This is a really fascinating concept to me and I think really highlights the interconnectedness of fielders, especially in the outfield.

 

[joe dokes]

The idea of a "Whole OF Fielding" statistic is quite interesting. Also, someone up thread noted that a lot of this is because of who is in LF and RF. However I'd argue that JBJs seeking ability to cover a huge swath of the OF of even beneficial with below average corners since it would allow them to worry about less space.

This is a really fascinating concept to me and I think really highlights the interconnectedness of fielders, especially in the outfield.

At the most basic level, isn't the number of flyballs turned into outs (as compared to some average or normal) an indication of "whole OF fielding"?

I agree with the bolded. JBJ certainly would make the mythical corner OFs of JDM and Travis "better," and improve the OF as a whole. But in that circumstance, he's covering for them, while the ability to compliment (rather than cover for) already-really good OFs like Betts and Benintendi turns the whole OF into something really extraordinary.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

At the most basic level, isn't the number of flyballs turned into outs (as compared to some average or normal) an indication of "whole OF fielding"?

I agree with the bolded. JBJ certainly would make the mythical corner OFs of JDM and Travis "better," and improve the OF as a whole. But in that circumstance, he's covering for them, while the ability to compliment (rather than cover for) already-really good OFs like Betts and Benintendi turns the whole OF into something really extraordinary.

This is correct.

JBJ’s combination of route sense and strong arm allows the Red Sox to play 2 outfielders as conventional centerfielders at once — they’re just positioned in left and right fields.

Meanwhile, JBJ is freed from much of a “normal” centerfielder’s lateral gap responsibilities, and therefore gets to primarily concentrate on the most technically difficult plays: those that are occurring directly in front of him and those that are over his head directly behind him.

That’s why these two locations of plays make up the vast majority of his web-gems since Mookie took over RF full-time in 2016.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

At the most basic level, isn't the number of flyballs turned into outs (as compared to some average or normal) an indication of "whole OF fielding"?.

I'm surprised I haven't found a good way to see batted ball breakdowns in a gamelog.

 

[joe dokes]

I'm surprised I haven't found a good way to see batted ball breakdowns in a gamelog.

The info might be out there. That stuff is mostly over my head.

 

[joe dokes]

More of Speier on JBJ:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2018/06/26/believe-not-jackie-bradley-doing-exactly-what-red-sox-want/dgJLn0hwxDihTEzk5xcsMJ/story.html

Some of Cora's insight:

In May, there was a stretch when Cora reached a different conclusion on Bradley, where his inability to hit fastballs became so extreme that the Sox kept him out of the lineup six times in an eight-game stretch.

But the same concerns haven’t existed in June. Over his last 13 games, Bradley has struck out just eight times in 50 plate appearances (16 percent strikeout rate, well below league average) while hitting the ball hard. The numbers on a scoreboard don’t show it, but behind the scenes, there are other numbers that have led the Red Sox to conclude that his poor results attest to poor luck rather than poor ability.

There are no guarantees that bad luck will give way to good, just as there’s no certainty that a quarter that comes up heads will yield tails on the next toss. But the Sox are willing to keep flipping the coin, believing that what they see as a string of bad luck eventually will give way to probabilities.

“We trust where he’s at,” said Cora. “If he wasn’t hitting the ball solid and our numbers didn’t show that, then you have to make adjustments.

“Let’s be honest. There was a point where he wasn’t making contact and we made adjustments. You stick with it and see what happens. I’m still waiting.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I'm a full believer in offensive and pitching statistics of course, there is some context that alludes it being perfect, but there is something that just makes elegant, beautiful and simple sense of even the most complicated of those statistics when they're explained.
Defensive statistics have never felt that way to me. And the more that people try to apply a statistical method of qualifying players feels like it gets more and more complex and less and less true... and then the nagging response in my head when someone is explaining them to me is: "Shouldn't simple scouting be able to tell you all of this"?
As in... positioning of players... difficulty of park... conditions... shifts... range... routes... speed... adjustments.... arm strength and accuracy, etc?

 

[chawson]

Can we lock the thread yet?

 

[dbn]

N.B.: this is a back-of-the-envelope analysis.

The Red Sox are currently averaging 5.11 runs scored per game. Divided by 9, that's 0.57 runs per their averaged offensive player. So, even if JBJ was contributing zero runs per game on offense (which he isn't - he's contributing something), if he's saving more than 0.57 runs per game, he's a positive. Right? I don't know. I haven't thought it through but through it out there anyway.

 

[Marceline]

N.B.: this is a back-of-the-envelope analysis.

The Red Sox are currently averaging 5.11 runs scored per game. Divided by 9, that's 0.57 runs per their averaged offensive player. So, even if JBJ was contributing zero runs per game on offense (which he isn't - he's contributing something), if he's saving more than 0.57 runs per game, he's a positive. Right? I don't know. I haven't thought it through but through it out there anyway.

He could be contributing below zero on offense because his contribution would have to be compared to what someone else who would replace him would provide.

So the question is really is the negative offensive value less than the positive defensive value. But his offensive value is definitely not zero or a positive number at this point.

 

[dbn]

He could be contributing below zero on offense because his contribution would have to be compared to what someone else who would replace him would provide.

So the question is really is the negative offensive value less than the positive defensive value. But his offensive value is definitely not zero or a positive number at this point.

Good point. In all of these analyses it's important to remember to compare the difference between the player's contribution to that of the potential replacement.

 

[nvalvo]

Just for posterity:

A 6/7, HR, 2B gets our hero back to the cusp of the Mendoza line (.199 and change) and puts his OPS over .600 for the first time in a couple weeks.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Good point. In all of these analyses it's important to remember to compare the difference between the player's contribution to that of the potential replacement.

That’s true. It is rather important to remember that JBJ’s replacement is Blake Swihart.

 

[Jerry’s Curl]

Poor guy is still batting .199 after last night

 

[Reverend]

Let’s also not forget it’s now now, and what matters is his batting going forward, not what his year total line appears to be.

He could be a very valuable player the rest of the season and still end up with shit batting line for the year.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Is this where you explain the concept of Sunk Costs?

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Is this where you explain the concept of Sunk Costs?

No, you’re looking for the Pablo Sandoval thread.

 

[MikeM]

Is this where you explain the concept of Sunk Costs?

I'm just hoping he turns it around long enough to morph this into the a sell high and while the one last opportunity is still there discussion.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I'm just hoping he turns it around long enough to morph this into the a sell high and while the one last opportunity is still there discussion.

I can't understand wanting to get rid of him.

Is this team not succeeding with JBJ in the middle of things? You get his career average hitting with his fielding ability and you have a Top 5 C.F. in the league.

Not sure how you hope to improve on that.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

.199 is unattractive but at 0.5 fWAR JBJ is right up there with Khris Davis, Dee Gordon and Steven Piscotty, to name a few.

It's very unlikely that we would be able to improve on JBJ without spending a lot of money or prospects, and we don't have either.

 

[joe dokes]

.199 is unattractive but at 0.5 fWAR JBJ is right up there with Khris Davis, Dee Gordon and Steven Piscotty, to name a few.

It's very unlikely that we would be able to improve on JBJ without spending a lot of money or prospects, and we don't have either.

Its very likely that JBJ will improve on JBJ.



We're halfway through the season, so roughly speaking, if he hits 280 the rest of the way, he'll only end up at 240. But its not the 240 that matters any more. Its the 280.

 

[soxeast]

He could be contributing below zero on offense because his contribution would have to be compared to what someone else who would replace him would provide.

So the question is really is the negative offensive value less than the positive defensive value. But his offensive value is definitely not zero or a positive number at this point.

What about if you platooned him more often with Pearce and have MM get more games/ or same # of games than/as JBJ? Thus for many games you keep MM in vs lefties while JBJ is platooned. So someone threw out a number on this thread or the Pearce thread of Pearce replaces 60% MM, 30% JBJ, and 10% normal rest for Beni. So why not flip the MM and JBJ numbers? Or just split them 45/45?

MM right now has the highest WAR#'s vs any AL 1B. JBJ is ranked in the 21-23 range of WAR for CFers. It was great to see a few days JBJ going off. Hopefully he can go on a tear.

Either put Pearce or JDM in OF on days JBJ sits. And either JDM or Pearce DH's.

 

[Byrdbrain]

Why do talk about JBJ going on a tear in the past tense? He hit a HR two days ago and had three hits four days ago. His OPS over the last 2 weeks if more than 1.000. All that after having historic bad luck with batted balls for several weeks.

Pearce will play essentially every day against lefties and one of Moreland, JBJ or Benny will sit. I'm sure they don't have any fixed percentages worked out but will see how things develop.
If JBJ cools off then yes it wouldn't be a surprise to see him sit more but as long as he keeps hitting he'll be out there much more often than not.

 

[soxeast]

Why do talk about JBJ going on a tear in the past tense? He hit a HR two days ago and had three hits four days ago. His OPS over the last 2 weeks if more than 1.000. All that after having historic bad luck with batted balls for several weeks.

Pearce will play essentially every day against lefties and one of Moreland, JBJ or Benny will sit. I'm sure they don't have any fixed percentages worked out but will see how things develop.
If JBJ cools off then yes it wouldn't be a surprise to see him sit more but as long as he keeps hitting he'll be out there much more often than not.

Huh? I said it was great to see JBJ go off. Wasn't it? Is he on a tear right now? He's 8 for his last 16. That's a 4 to 5 game tear. I meant a month tear. If anyone thinks "batted balls" is the definition of "going on a tear" that;s fine with their definition but it isn't mine. I'm looking for that huge run of 25-30 games that he actually gets hits. Not 25-30 at bats, or hard hit balls to the 2b. I'm darn happy what we saw vs Angels. And I'm very hopeful to see a big run with many hits. He can do it.

I agree with you about Pearce in generality. But there is also other weaknesses such as JBJ has had reverse splits. I heard about a week ago JBJ is hitting .118 vs curveballs? Is it just an anomaly? Power pitchers bother certain players etc. I just made my reply to JoeSixpack making it a point that Pearce is also a JBJ replacement as you say. There was a post following ours that said JBJ's replacement is "Swihart." That's not real unless things go super great or terribly wrong, right? As a genarility, Pearce is also for JBJ as you say. Not Swihart. And I threw out the numbers of 60% etc just as a generality in reply to a post made by someone else on this thread or another that the Pearce trade move was 60MM/30JBJ/10 Beni. I think with JBJ vs MM it's play it as it comes with JBJ getting a slight nod for the time being. He can't be hitting .180. Which he no longer is. That's great. Hopefully the hits can continue. Is that wrong to say?

 

[Byrdbrain]

I’m done on this, I’m sure you aren’t but I am.
You said “it was great to see a few days JBJ going off” and I thought the past tense was odd.

 

[joe dokes]

Huh? I said it was great to see JBJ go off. Wasn't it? Is he on a tear right now? He's 8 for his last 16. That's a 4 to 5 game tear. I meant a month tear. If anyone thinks "batted balls" is the definition of "going on a tear" that;s fine with their definition but it isn't mine. I'm looking for that huge run of 25-30 games that he actually gets hits. Not 25-30 at bats, or hard hit balls to the 2b. I'm darn happy what we saw vs Angels. And I'm very hopeful to see a big run with many hits. He can do it.

Hard hit outs are outs, yes. But they are indicative of hitting the ball well. Sometimes they get caught. "Actually gets hits" is somewhat beyond his control. There's a gigantic difference between going 0-16 with 16 line drive outs and 0-16 with 16 strikeouts. Fortunately, the manager understands that.

 

[soxeast]

I’m done on this, I’m sure you aren’t but I am.
You said “it was great to see a few days JBJ going off” and I thought the past tense was odd.

I'm sorry But I still don't see your point. JBJ went off vs Angels. He didn't go off yesterday, And I hope he still goes off for another "25" plus games or whatever. What's the problem? Unless you are trying to tell me/define what I meant to say? I'm telling you what I meant. "Great to see JBJ go off" means he won't continue to "go off?"

 

[soxeast]

Hard hit outs are outs, yes. But they are indicative of hitting the ball well. Sometimes they get caught. "Actually gets hits" is somewhat beyond his control. There's a gigantic difference between going 0-16 with 16 line drive outs and 0-16 with 16 strikeouts. Fortunately, the manager understands that.

Yes but my narrative is hits is "going off." Not hitting the ball hard. The context of my post on this thread is JBJ going off = hits. You are on a roll when you get hits. There is a gigantic difference hitting the ball hard 16 times going 0-16 while only hitting the ball hard 5 times yet going 8-16.

 

[joe dokes]

Yes but my narrative is hits is "going off." Not hitting the ball hard. The context of my post on this thread is JBJ going off = hits. You are on a roll when you get hits. There is a gigantic difference hitting the ball hard 16 times going 0-16 while only hitting the ball hard 5 times yet going 8-16.

My "narrative" is whether santa Claus delivers me cases of Dogfish 90 during JBJ's at bat.
That also makes little sense and is not how most managers see the game.

 

[rhswanzey]

Huh? I said it was great to see JBJ go off. Wasn't it? Is he on a tear right now? He's 8 for his last 16. That's a 4 to 5 game tear. I meant a month tear. If anyone thinks "batted balls" is the definition of "going on a tear" that;s fine with their definition but it isn't mine. I'm looking for that huge run of 25-30 games that he actually gets hits. Not 25-30 at bats, or hard hit balls to the 2b. I'm darn happy what we saw vs Angels. And I'm very hopeful to see a big run with many hits. He can do it.

Radio guys repeatedly said (during the first of his two big games vs the Angels) that he has been making hard contact but it wasn't showing up on the scoreboard yet. Cora also talked about this in his pregame interview before the 2nd game, saying that he's been making quality contact for the past couple weeks.

Personally, I don't care if JBJ "goes off" or not. His defense in center is elite. Also, even if he doesn't climb far above .200 the rest of the way, we've at least answered the question of whether or not this is a broken player. It's not. I'm totally fine with a not-broken, merely okay-hitting guy in the 9 hole when he is clearly one of the top 9 position players on the team, and I'd have him clearly above Nunez and the catchers as well.