JBJ: Elite Defender With Some Pop

[williams_482]

You could make an argument that a lot of Holt's success is BABIP-driven, but to the extent that he's a useful hitter at all, he's useful against lefties.

While that's true, there's little reason to believe his true talent BABiP is 60 points better against lefties than righties. His line drive rate is modestly better against righties, for instance (24.0% vs 22.6%).

Back on topic of this thread, the discussion about benching or even non-tendering Bradley is utter lunacy. Bradley is currently running a horrific .259 wOBA, but his xwOBA is a very acceptable .328. His hard hit rate (45.8%) and average exit velocity (91.5 mph) are both career highs and clearly above average. He has barreled 12 balls, a very respectable total, but has only 4 home runs to show for them.

Bradley is being shifted more than in previous years (52% of PAs), so maybe you expect him to underperform that xwOBA by a fair amount, but even knocking him down to about .300 makes him a roughly average player with his glove and baserunning.

 

[soxeast]

What is the urgency to replace JBJ's bat, anyway? With him in the lineup 88% of the time, the team is #3 in runs scored and #2 in winning percentage in the AL. It's not as though he has been some sort of anchor that has cost them countless games. Absent a reasonable replacement for his defense, he should stay right where he is.

So the Sox can beat out the Yanks and not get stuck in a 1 game playoff. It's not urgent. And ofc they could let it ride and still would make the playoffs and possibly game 1 at home for a possible wildcard.

But what's the problem if they can try to improve? What if you don't think JBJ is an average player but a sub-par player? There's no harm in trying to improve regarding a player who possibly could be less-than-average.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

And what are the raw records? I doubt these stats mean anything at all. JBJ has started 61 games, the Sox have played 74. So if instead of going 8-5 in those 13 games JBJ didn't start, they had gone 9-4, they're winning percentage would be .692.

True, the W-L doesn’t prove anything, but it leads to an interesting question about how much impact his defense has on games he plays vs. games he sits. And how much his bat does the same.

So I went game-by-game through the Sox season so far, and found that, the Sox have allowed 209 runs while JBJ is playing defense, and 76 when he hasn’t been in the outfield.

The Red Sox have 696-1/3 IP, and JBJ has played 572-1/3 of those defensive innings. Which leaves 124 defensive innings during which he did not play.

Which means the 2018 Red Sox have allowed 3.29 runs per 9 IP, when JBJ is patrolling the outfield. Furthermore, the 2018 Red Sox have allowed 5.10 runs per 9 IP, when JBJ is not playing defense. So that’s a difference of -1.81 runs per 9 innings pitched.

———

But his bat sucks, right? Well, not really, at least according to the reasonable expectations given his advanced batting peripherals. But sure, it does suck according to the actual outcomes.

So the Red Sox have scored 397 runs, and JBJ has been in the lineup for 317 of those runs, which have been scored over 569 offensive innings. Which means they’re scoring 5.01 runs per 9 innings of offense, when JBJ is an active batter in the lineup.

And when JBJ is out of the lineup, the Red Sox have scored 80 runs over 126 offensive innings. Which means they are scoring 5.71 runs per 9 innings of offense, when JBJ is not an active batter in the lineup.

———

So they’re +0.70 runs per 9 innings better on offense when JBJ is not an active batter in the lineup. But the team’s -1.81 runs worse on defense when he’s not playing the outfield.

I think the choice is obvious. The 2018 Red Sox have been a better team when JBJ plays, despite his woeful batting line.

That’s because his bat can be hidden by him hitting 9th, but team defense really suffers when he’s not playing the outfield.

And furthermore, I personally don’t see how the Sox have either the chips or the cap room to trade for an obvious upgrade over JBJ’s expected outcomes given his advanced batting peripherals; I don’t see that there exist anywhere in baseball an obvious upgrade over his defense, especially given qualitative factors like his familiarity working with Mookie in RCF, or in playing the Monster’s caroms in LCF.

 

[soxeast]

True, the W-L doesn’t prove anything, but it leads to an interesting question about how much impact his defense has on games he plays vs. games he sits. And how much his bat does the same.

So I went game-by-game through the Sox season so far, and found that, the Sox have allowed 209 runs while JBJ is playing defense, and 76 when he hasn’t been in the outfield.

The Red Sox have 696-1/3 IP, and JBJ has played 572-1/3 of those defensive innings. Which leaves 124 defensive innings during which he did not play.

Which means the 2018 Red Sox have allowed 3.29 runs per 9 IP, when JBJ is patrolling the outfield. Furthermore, the 2018 Red Sox have allowed 5.10 runs per 9 IP, when JBJ is not playing defense. So that’s a difference of -1.81 runs per 9 innings pitched.

———

But his bat sucks, right? Well, not really, at least according to the reasonable expectations given his advanced batting peripherals. But sure, it does suck according to the actual outcomes.

So the Red Sox have scored 397 runs, and JBJ has been in the lineup for 317 of those runs, which have been scored over 569 offensive innings. Which means they’re scoring 5.01 runs per 9 innings of offense, when JBJ is an active batter in the lineup.

And when JBJ is out of the lineup, the Red Sox have scored 80 runs over 126 offensive innings. Which means they are scoring 5.71 runs per 9 innings of offense, when JBJ is not an active batter in the lineup.

———

So they’re +0.70 runs per 9 innings better on offense when JBJ is not an active batter in the lineup. But the team’s -1.81 runs worse on defense when he’s not playing the outfield.

I think the choice is obvious. The 2018 Red Sox have been a better team when JBJ plays, despite his woeful batting line.

That’s because his bat can be hidden by him hitting 9th, but team defense really suffers when he’s not playing the outfield.

And furthermore, I personally don’t see how the Sox have either the chips or the cap room to trade for an obvious upgrade over JBJ’s expected outcomes given his advanced batting peripherals; I don’t see that there exist anywhere in baseball an obvious upgrade over his defense, especially given qualitative factors like his familiarity working with Mookie in RCF, or in playing the Monster’s caroms in LCF.

I think all the stats stated above have no relevance. For example when the sox win 9-2 or lose 2-1 they are counted equally? Game conditions? Picthing matchups? So JDM's at bats are determined by JBJ in the lineup or not?

 

[DanoooME]

I think all the stats stated above have no relevance. For example when the sox win 9-2 or lose 2-1 they are counted equally? Game conditions? Picthing matchups? So JDM's at bats are determined by JBJ in the lineup or not?

Then how would you measure it?

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I think all the stats stated above have no relevance. For example when the sox win 9-2 or lose 2-1 they are counted equally? Game conditions? Picthing matchups? So JDM's at bats are determined by JBJ in the lineup or not?

That and 124 innings is the equivalent of about 14 games... It's too small to mean anything.

 

[Reverend]

That and 124 innings is the equivalent of about 14 games... It's too small to mean anything.

Yeah, but it's not cherry picking: It's the whole fucking set.

I admire statistical rigor, but you also have to make decisions based on the data that exists. Trying to project based on stable stats for defensive ability, for example, can be a fool's errand anyway because it takes three years to stabilize and by that time the player is literally a different person.

What @Buzzkill Pauley posted wasn't a projection, though: It was the facts of how they have been playing with and without JBJ. That's what we have. If we have reasons to speculate it may not be sustainable, that's fine, but I think it still makes a lot of sense to look at what, like, has been actually happening.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Then how would you measure it?

Maybe he thinks we should use Batting Average Regarding Fans, or Clutchy Lasers Under Expected Least Enjoyable Small Sample.

I think either of those would fit his narrative well.

As for me, I just hope JBJ times his white-hot streak for September-October this year.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Yeah, but it's not cherry picking: It's the whole fucking set.

I admire statistical rigor, but you also have to make decisions based on the data that exists. Trying to project based on stable stats for defensive ability, for example, can be a fool's errand anyway because it takes three years to stabilize and by that time the player is literally a different person.

What @Buzzkill Pauley posted wasn't a projection, though: It was the facts of how they have been playing with and without JBJ. That's what we have. If we have reasons to speculate it may not be sustainable, that's fine, but I think it still makes a lot of sense to look at what, like, has been actually happening.

It's kind of a red herring anyway because the conversation is about replacing JBJ with someone outside the organization, not with what they already have.

 

[Reverend]

It's kind of a red herring anyway because the conversation is about replacing JBJ with someone outside the organization, not with what they already have.

I believe that was also addressed.

I really believe, from watching how the OF plays, that they have internal numbers on how valuable JBJ's fielding is that invalidate the ones we fans use. As such, I thought that was an effective way of re-aggregating the set to see what was going on.

 

[Pitt the Elder]

The available evidence we have this season suggests that JBJ has been good to great on defense, a good baserunner, and *incredibly* unlucky at the plate given his exit velocity, launch angle, and batted ball profile. This may be partly due to the use of shifts against him, but, given what we all know if true about future expected outcomes, shouldn't we expect this bad luck NOT to continue pretty much immediately? If he keeps hitting the ball the way he has, he's as likely to get 3 for 4 tonight with 2b and a HR as he is to go 0 for 4 with 2 line outs.

Btw, despite his miserable batting long, JBJ still has a 0.1 fwar and bear.

 

[flymrfreakjar]

The available evidence we have this season suggests that JBJ has been good to great on defense, a good baserunner, and *incredibly* unlucky at the plate given his exit velocity, launch angle, and batted ball profile. This may be partly due to the use of shifts against him, but, given what we all know if true about future expected outcomes, shouldn't we expect this bad luck NOT to continue pretty much immediately? If he keeps hitting the ball the way he has, he's as likely to get 3 for 4 tonight with 2b and a HR as he is to go 0 for 4 with 2 line outs.

Btw, despite his miserable batting long, JBJ still has a 0.1 fwar and bear.

And right on cue he crushes one directly into the pitcher’s glove in his first AB tonight. Tough luck continues, at least for now.

 

[soxeast]

Then how would you measure it?

WAR.
And how is he rated vs other CFers?

Why wouldn't you rate it like this? Why does how hard he hits the ball mean more than how well he has performed?

 

[dbn]

True, the W-L doesn’t prove anything, but it leads to an interesting question about how much impact his defense has on games he plays vs. games he sits. And how much his bat does the same.

So I went game-by-game through the Sox season so far, and found that, the Sox have allowed 209 runs while JBJ is playing defense, and 76 when he hasn’t been in the outfield.

The Red Sox have 696-1/3 IP, and JBJ has played 572-1/3 of those defensive innings. Which leaves 124 defensive innings during which he did not play.

Which means the 2018 Red Sox have allowed 3.29 runs per 9 IP, when JBJ is patrolling the outfield. Furthermore, the 2018 Red Sox have allowed 5.10 runs per 9 IP, when JBJ is not playing defense. So that’s a difference of -1.81 runs per 9 innings pitched.

———

But his bat sucks, right? Well, not really, at least according to the reasonable expectations given his advanced batting peripherals. But sure, it does suck according to the actual outcomes.

So the Red Sox have scored 397 runs, and JBJ has been in the lineup for 317 of those runs, which have been scored over 569 offensive innings. Which means they’re scoring 5.01 runs per 9 innings of offense, when JBJ is an active batter in the lineup.

And when JBJ is out of the lineup, the Red Sox have scored 80 runs over 126 offensive innings. Which means they are scoring 5.71 runs per 9 innings of offense, when JBJ is not an active batter in the lineup.

———

So they’re +0.70 runs per 9 innings better on offense when JBJ is not an active batter in the lineup. But the team’s -1.81 runs worse on defense when he’s not playing the outfield.

I think the choice is obvious. The 2018 Red Sox have been a better team when JBJ plays, despite his woeful batting line.

That’s because his bat can be hidden by him hitting 9th, but team defense really suffers when he’s not playing the outfield.

And furthermore, I personally don’t see how the Sox have either the chips or the cap room to trade for an obvious upgrade over JBJ’s expected outcomes given his advanced batting peripherals; I don’t see that there exist anywhere in baseball an obvious upgrade over his defense, especially given qualitative factors like his familiarity working with Mookie in RCF, or in playing the Monster’s caroms in LCF.

Why look at the Red Sox runs per game when he is in/out of the lineup when you can just look JBJ's oWAR? Maybe Cora has put in the A-team when he's in the lineup, and B-team when he's out because JBJ is a weak hitter? Who knows? Instead of trying to account for any of that, just look at oWAR. He has a slightly negative boWAR. He's been about replacement level with the bat.

I've been on the record as, and continue to be, a big JBJ fan. I want him to hit better both because it'd be good for the Red Sox but also because I love his glove. He has not hit well.

 

[soxeast]

I believe that was also addressed.

I really believe, from watching how the OF plays, that they have internal numbers on how valuable JBJ's fielding is that invalidate the ones we fans use. As such, I thought that was an effective way of re-aggregating the set to see what was going on.

And yet we all knew last year XB was hurt yet they had some numbers that probably showed different as they kept playing him a lot? We all knew Sale's numbers of 1st half vs 2nd half yet they didn't rest him much so they must have known something. -- They were wrong. Very possible they could be wrong again, right? It's why we discuss these things Just like we're doing now.

You can't go using stats imo which some people want to show here "number of runs scored with JBJ and not" as if he is impacting JDM's at bats. Also when you win 9-2 and JBJ goes 0-5 because Betts, Beni and JDM are crushing it, yet JBJ gets credit for that?

IMo use WAR and compare the CFers. The other stuff imo isn't valid vs what I just mentioned. We can agree to disagree. JBJ has a .1 WAR which 22 other OFers at CF are doing better. Why would you lend much credence to how hard he is hitting it over the other stats?

 

[dbn]

And yet we all knew lats year XB was hurt yet they had some numbers that probably showed different? We all knew Sale's numbers yet they must have known something.

You can't go using stats imo which some people want to show here of runs scored with JBJ and not as if he is impacting JDM's at bats. Also when you win 9-2 and JBJ goes 0-5 because Betts, Beni and JDM are crushing it, yet JBJ gets credit for that?

IMo use WAR and compare the CFers. The other stuff imo isn't valid vs what I just mentioned. We can agree to disagree. JBJ has a .1 WAR which 22 other OFers at CF are doing better. Why would you lend much credence at all to how hard he is hitting it over the other stats?

I agree with you about using WAR.

I think the argument about how hard he is hitting the ball is that, despite his poor hitting through most of the season (as measured but many things, including WAR), and his continued poor results, his good contact provides at least some hope that he might have gotten his swing back and that he just isn't seeing improved results because of poor luck. That idea might not play out, but it's at least something to provide a bit of optimism.

 

[soxeast]

I agree with you about using WAR.

I think the argument about how hard he is hitting the ball is that, despite his poor hitting through most of the season (as measured but many things, including WAR), and his continued poor results, his good contact provides at least some hope that he might have gotten his swing back and that he just isn't seeing improved results because of poor luck. That idea might not play out, but it's at least something to provide a bit of optimism.

I hear ya. He has 4 HR's this year. Anyways, there is no harm in platooning him while in the same breath we can still be optimistic.

 

[DanoooME]

IMo use WAR and compare the CFers. The other stuff imo isn't valid vs what I just mentioned. We can agree to disagree. JBJ has a .1 WAR which 22 other OFers at CF are doing better. Why would you lend much credence to how hard he is hitting it over the other stats?

Except it's been proven over and over again that the defensive component of WAR is unreliable at best, and total dogshit at worst, especially in small in-season samples. Which makes WAR overall practically useless. You can use oWAR to measure his bat. That's fine. But we'll have to argue about the defense, and quite frankly, I think his defense is much better than his offense is bad, making him a useful player even with the poor hitting. And it seems the front office and Cora agree, which is why he keeps getting sent out there. There's no one currently on the roster to improve the position and they don't have any salary flexibility or tradeable assets to fix it from outside either.

 

[soxeast]

Except it's been proven over and over again that the defensive component of WAR is unreliable at best, and total dogshit at worst, especially in small in-season samples. Which makes WAR overall practically useless. You can use oWAR to measure his bat. That's fine. But we'll have to argue about the defense, and quite frankly, I think his defense is much better than his offense is bad, making him a useful player even with the poor hitting. And it seems the front office and Cora agree, which is why he keeps getting sent out there. There's no one currently on the roster to improve the position and they don't have any salary flexibility or tradeable assets to fix it from outside either.

Yet the defensive aspect of the game is the only justification for playing him and rating him as a good CF. If you are just going to dismiss the defense WAR, then how can you ever just playing JBJ?

And while you say you think his defense is "much better" than his offense is bad. I think you're wrong.

And what is the significance of the FO and Cora agreeing with you? We don;t always agree with what they're doing, right?

IMO they Do have the flexibility to trade assets. They can get a "Valencia." Others have said they can get the dude from Texas who isn't that expensive. Other players on the cheap were mentioned as well. It's not like the Sox need "Mike Trout." They don't need to make a huge move.

While you say WAR is useless - so have the predictions we've heard for how long that JBJ is about to break out after we see another 0-3?

Sooner or later if we keep saying it - it will eventually happen - I just don't agree with your take on offense vs defense. Why is it more relevant than me using WAR? Because Cora and the FO said so?

And I'll reiterate again I'm all for platooning him. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Reverend]

.

 

[Reverend]

Yet the defensive aspect of the game is the only justification for playing him and rating him as a good CF. If you are just going to dismiss the defense WAR, then how can you ever just playing JBJ?

Dude.

You need to stop.

They are not playing JBJ because he has a good dWAR. That has the cart so far upside down and up the horse's ass as to not even be able to end this sentence

Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you have asked many ostensibly rhetorical questions in this thread without bothering to understand that they have answers that other posters here understand and are trying to explain to you. Or might except that you don't appear receptive to realizing that you don't know what you don't know.

Knock it off and pay attention.

 

[soxeast]

Dude.

You need to stop.

They are not playing JBJ because he has a good dWAR. That has the cart so far upside down and up the horse's ass as to not even be able to end this sentence

Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you have asked many ostensibly rhetorical questions in this thread without bothering to understand that they have answers that other posters here understand and are trying to explain to you. Or might except that you don't appear receptive to realizing that you don't know what you don't know.

Knock it off and pay attention.

Please don't say "I need to stop."

Where did I say say they aren't playing JBJ because he has a good DWAR? Please tell me where I said that?

You're making things up.

 

[tonyarmasjr]

WAR.
And how is he rated vs other CFers?

Why wouldn't you rate it like this? Why does how hard he hits the ball mean more than how well he has performed?

That's fairly simple, isn't it? WAR is an aggregate counting stat that factors in only past results. It's backwards-looking to tell us what a player did. But it doesn't tell us how he did it, nor does it really hold much predictive value. The underlying peripherals hold more value in trying to figure out how we should expect him to perform in the future. Now, there's no guarantee that those numbers stay the same (the fear that this is his hot streak and we're missing out on it due to bad luck) or that his results will stabilize over time (even a whole season is still not a huge sample size; maybe the shift really has sunk him; maybe he has really bad luck; etc). But just because he hasn't produced more WAR than other CFers doesn't mean that he can't, won't, or shouldn't have.

 

[soxeast]

That's fairly simple, isn't it? WAR is an aggregate counting stat that factors in only past results. It's backwards-looking to tell us what a player did. But it doesn't tell us how he did it, nor does it really hold much predictive value. The underlying peripherals hold more value in trying to figure out how we should expect him to perform in the future. Now, there's no guarantee that those numbers stay the same (the fear that this is his hot streak and we're missing out on it due to bad luck) or that his results will stabilize over time (even a whole season is still not a huge sample size; maybe the shift really has sunk him; maybe he has really bad luck; etc). But just because he hasn't produced more WAR than other CFers doesn't mean that he can't, won't, or shouldn't have.

Tony—I’m not sure we are speaking of the same thing. Here is what a summary of what buzzkill pauley has said – here is the quote

“So they’re +0.70 runs per 9 innings better on offense when JBJ is not an active batter in the lineup. But the team’s -1.81 runs worse on defense when he’s not playing the outfield.”

His reply was speaking of how he was performing in the moment. Imo WAR shows better than the post he made. My comment that you’re quoting had little-to-nothing to do with “predictive value.” I’m disagreeing with those who think that he is fine with this awful hitting because of his defense. I don’t agree with anyone who thinks his defense still makes him "average" while he hits this lousy.

I do think it’s come to a point he should be platooned. Because of the “predictive value” he possibly could snap out of it. But I think if you can make your team better, why not?

Anyways you can see after the buzzpauly post, danoome was asking me how I would measure it. I said with WAR. I would measure his performance based on WAR. Not on what buzzpauley used. Do you agree? Look at those prior posts.Buxzzpauley's post was shwoign that JBJ is effective "right now - in the moment." Predictive value was not part of my initial post nor my reply that you're currently quoting.

As for predictive value I’ll say again because of predictive value I’d give him the opportunity to platoon and hope at some point he snaps out of it. If he is hitting the ball hard into shifts, he’s not going to hit much. Maybe it will be enough that he can eventually get enough hits but that’s why you platoon him. WAR is showing JBJ is currently amongts the worst CFers.

And isn’t it also worrisome when you hear he is hitting the ball hard that he’s not getting hits? What’s going to happen when a sub-par hitter like JBJ reverts back to his norm then? He gets hot for a month because he barrels balls. Now if he is already barreling balls without the corresponding results, sooner or later he’ll probably revert back to not barreling the ball so much, right? So why not platoon?

 

[Cesar Crespo]

That's fairly simple, isn't it? WAR is an aggregate counting stat that factors in only past results. It's backwards-looking to tell us what a player did. But it doesn't tell us how he did it, nor does it really hold much predictive value. The underlying peripherals hold more value in trying to figure out how we should expect him to perform in the future. Now, there's no guarantee that those numbers stay the same (the fear that this is his hot streak and we're missing out on it due to bad luck) or that his results will stabilize over time (even a whole season is still not a huge sample size; maybe the shift really has sunk him; maybe he has really bad luck; etc). But just because he hasn't produced more WAR than other CFers doesn't mean that he can't, won't, or shouldn't have.

That's the thing. People are "looking at what actually happened" and not projecting... while still projecting... and making excuses for BAbip. You can't have it both ways.


edit: Basically some of you are judging the other CFs based on their results to date while judging JBJ on his process to date.

 

[The Needler]

That's the thing. People are "looking at what actually happened" and not projecting... while still projecting... and making excuses for BAbip. You can't have it both ways.


edit: Basically some of you are judging the other CFs based on their results to date while judging JBJ on his process to date.

While others are suggesting JBJ's defense is actually worth nearly 2 runs per game, based on (incredibly) what amounts to raw on/off or +/- data. Despite the fact that the advanced stats we have put him at around 3 DRS on the YEAR. And then those same people are piling on the lurker and calling him clueless for not understanding the purported significance of the ridiculously small sample of runs scored against the Red Sox without JBJ in the lineup - without consideration of who was pitching those innings, who the opponents were, how those runs were scored, etc.

I haven't seen anyone here say he doesn't want JBJ to succeed, and most are optimistic that he will improve. Such optimism is warranted based on his peripherals. But piling on a lurker because he refuses to accept that JBJ either has more defensive value than any player in MLB history or is a magical good luck charm that makes the Red Sox a couple of runs better per game just through his calming influence is not a good look.

 

[Hawk68]

JBJ 3-3, now hitting 0.190.

Sell high.

 

[Reverend]

While others are suggesting JBJ's defense is actually worth nearly 2 runs per game, based on (incredibly) what amounts to raw on/off or +/- data. Despite the fact that the advanced stats we have put him at around 3 DRS on the YEAR. And then those same people are piling on the lurker and calling him clueless for not understanding the purported significance of the ridiculously small sample of runs scored against the Red Sox without JBJ in the lineup - without consideration of who was pitching those innings, who the opponents were, how those runs were scored, etc.

I haven't seen anyone here say he doesn't want JBJ to succeed, and most are optimistic that he will improve. Such optimism is warranted based on his peripherals. But piling on a lurker because he refuses to accept that JBJ either has more defensive value than any player in MLB history or is a magical good luck charm that makes the Red Sox a couple of runs better per game just through his calming influence is not a good look.

There is not a pile on the lurker because of his position.

There are complaints that he doesn't know how to use the statistics he invokes, doesn't know he doesn't understand how they work or what they mean, and won't accept it when other people suggest to him that he doesn't understand them.

There are valid arguments for JBJ. There are valid arguments against. But then there is also nonsense veiled in rhetoric. His elaborated response is more words ending with the same bunch of bullshit rhetorical questions that actually have answers that he just doesn't know--he's not advancing the ball, he's just kicking up more dirt.

It's not that I disagree with him. I am literally saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't know that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The real issue, as in Good Will Hunting, is whether or not we can tell the difference. Posters better than me suggest that they can.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

JBJ 3-3, now hitting 0.190.

Sell high.

I see the humor here.

I hope folks also see that this is not unexpected when someone is hitting the ball as hard as JBJ has been hitting it. Eventually your luck turns

 

[Max Power]

That's fairly simple, isn't it? WAR is an aggregate counting stat that factors in only past results.

Bill James disagrees with this. It's closer to past results than looking at batted ball data and extrapolating from there, but doesn't tie directly to actual runs created or saved in the games that were played.

 

[tonyarmasjr]

Tony—I’m not sure we are speaking of the same thing. Here is what a summary of what buzzkill pauley has said – here is the quote

“So they’re +0.70 runs per 9 innings better on offense when JBJ is not an active batter in the lineup. But the team’s -1.81 runs worse on defense when he’s not playing the outfield.”

His reply was speaking of how he was performing in the moment. Imo WAR shows better than the post he made. My comment that you’re quoting had little-to-nothing to do with “predictive value.” I’m disagreeing with those who think that he is fine with this awful hitting because of his defense. I don’t agree with anyone who thinks his defense still makes him "average" while he hits this lousy.

I do think it’s come to a point he should be platooned. Because of the “predictive value” he possibly could snap out of it. But I think if you can make your team better, why not?

Anyways you can see after the buzzpauly post, danoome was asking me how I would measure it. I said with WAR. I would measure his performance based on WAR. Not on what buzzpauley used. Do you agree? Look at those prior posts.Buxzzpauley's post was shwoign that JBJ is effective "right now - in the moment." Predictive value was not part of my initial post nor my reply that you're currently quoting.

As for predictive value I’ll say again because of predictive value I’d give him the opportunity to platoon and hope at some point he snaps out of it. If he is hitting the ball hard into shifts, he’s not going to hit much. Maybe it will be enough that he can eventually get enough hits but that’s why you platoon him. WAR is showing JBJ is currently amongts the worst CFers.

And isn’t it also worrisome when you hear he is hitting the ball hard that he’s not getting hits? What’s going to happen when a sub-par hitter like JBJ reverts back to his norm then? He gets hot for a month because he barrels balls. Now if he is already barreling balls without the corresponding results, sooner or later he’ll probably revert back to not barreling the ball so much, right? So why not platoon?

Maybe not quite speaking of the same thing, but I don't think we're completely talking past each other. I think Buzz's post was interesting and a different way to look at it. But, as you say, there's so much noise in what he did that it isn't very instructive. And I agree WAR provides a better snapshot of the value he's provided.

However, I was really responding to your advocating for a change (trade/platooning), though I understand the conversations aren't one and the same. You're arguing his positive defensive value doesn't balance his negative offensive value - especially to the level Buzz's post was asserting. Therefore, he should be platooned until he turns things around. By advocating for a platoon, you obviously think his recent performance is at least somewhat predictive of future performance. But, if his peripherals/batted ball data are showing that he doesn't need to turn things around but instead just not be the unluckiest player in baseball, that doesn't make sense. We know he provides positive defensive value, even if not to the level Buzz points to. The question is: how good (or not bad) does his offense need to be for him to be a net positive? And this is where we need to find statistics which provide predictive value. WAR fails here, as it currently shows him as a bad CFer. He has been terrible based on outcomes, which WAR captures. But if he shouldn't have been terrible to this point, which his peripherals say he shouldn't have been, what does he need to snap out of? Bad luck? How does platooning him help him snap out of a funk that may not actually exist? If anything, it minimizes the reward as his batted ball luck normalizes.

Bill James disagrees with this. It's closer to past results than looking at batted ball data and extrapolating from there, but doesn't tie directly to actual runs created or saved in the games that were played.

Can you elaborate? The offensive component of WAR (or wRC) is built from wRAA and therefore wOBA, which uses the outcomes of PAs.

 

[Reverend]

Maybe not quite speaking of the same thing, but I don't think we're completely talking past each other. I think Buzz's post was interesting and a different way to look at it. But, as you say, there's so much noise in what he did that it isn't very instructive. And I agree WAR provides a better snapshot of the value he's provided.

However, I was really responding to your advocating for a change (trade/platooning), though I understand the conversations aren't one and the same. You're arguing his positive defensive value doesn't balance his negative offensive value - especially to the level Buzz's post was asserting. Therefore, he should be platooned until he turns things around. By advocating for a platoon, you obviously think his recent performance is at least somewhat predictive of future performance. But, if his peripherals/batted ball data are showing that he doesn't need to turn things around but instead just not be the unluckiest player in baseball, that doesn't make sense. We know he provides positive defensive value, even if not to the level Buzz points to. The question is: how good (or not bad) does his offense need to be for him to be a net positive? And this is where we need to find statistics which provide predictive value. WAR fails here, as it currently shows him as a bad CFer. He has been terrible based on outcomes, which WAR captures. But if he shouldn't have been terrible to this point, which his peripherals say he shouldn't have been, what does he need to snap out of? Bad luck? How does platooning him help him snap out of a funk that may not actually exist? If anything, it minimizes the reward as his batted ball luck normalizes.

As to the bolded, why the caveat?

I personally have argued that the consumer facing defensive stats underestimate JBJ's defensive contribution and I believe the team is using a different approach. What are you seeing here?

 

[soxeast]

Maybe not quite speaking of the same thing, but I don't think we're completely talking past each other. I think Buzz's post was interesting and a different way to look at it. But, as you say, there's so much noise in what he did that it isn't very instructive. And I agree WAR provides a better snapshot of the value he's provided.

However, I was really responding to your advocating for a change (trade/platooning), though I understand the conversations aren't one and the same. You're arguing his positive defensive value doesn't balance his negative offensive value - especially to the level Buzz's post was asserting. Therefore, he should be platooned until he turns things around. By advocating for a platoon, you obviously think his recent performance is at least somewhat predictive of future performance. But, if his peripherals/batted ball data are showing that he doesn't need to turn things around but instead just not be the unluckiest player in baseball, that doesn't make sense. We know he provides positive defensive value, even if not to the level Buzz points to. The question is: how good (or not bad) does his offense need to be for him to be a net positive? And this is where we need to find statistics which provide predictive value. WAR fails here, as it currently shows him as a bad CFer. He has been terrible based on outcomes, which WAR captures. But if he shouldn't have been terrible to this point, which his peripherals say he shouldn't have been, what does he need to snap out of? Bad luck? How does platooning him help him snap out of a funk that may not actually exist? If anything, it minimizes the reward as his batted ball luck normalizes.


Can you elaborate? The offensive component of WAR (or wRC) is built from wRAA and therefore wOBA, which uses the outcomes of PAs.

I disagree on where you're going with this. But I understand. Anyhow, WAR gives us the best idea (unless you have another?) how he has performed. And it has been subpar. I get the feeling you're trying to defend a position that he's been at least "okay?" Is that what you're trying to do? If so- the only point I'll concede that he's been "okay" is that the Sox team is winning so much. And we can see though through the use of WAR who the guys are that have been contributing the best.

I don't agree with your point of trying to figure out what does his offense need to be to be net positive in terms of replying to my posts. That might be your point but it has little to do with the context of my points to the other posters which you are now replying to me with. My points are specific that right now he isn't net positive. He is 23rd best Cfer. I'm not going to agree with for example a poster who said "because Cora and DD" are playing him etc then that means he's positive. Nor am I going to agree with the +/-. The context of my posts to the others and to you was not about what that future number on offense should be. It's what he is now vs what others tried to show in which they felt right now he is net positive. Hitting hard into outs is not "net positive."

Further, what you call unluckiest-- partially I call hitting into a shift. A poster stated teams have shifted 52% more this year with him. That's not a little. Anyhow, further "predictive value' is not assurance of future performance. .

What I am proposing is he platoons until he comes out of it. As Dennis Eckersley said is that this is a "results business." I buy in for a luck for a week but this has been longer. Mookie Betts going into a slump is a lot different than JBJ in a season long slump. Further I buy into a player that platoons can break out. I think eh can. Then you play him full time and ride him until he gets ugly again. If he has broken out, then the hits will come in a platoon situation too. Many players platoon and are successful, Unfortunately the Sox don't have a good rh bat on the bench- so he plays. If he is as good as you suggest/imply, then you seem to think his hits will come. SO they'll come regardless of a platoon or play every day. I still don't understand what's the harm in a platoon? Why can't he hit in a platoon until he comes out of it with results?

And I'll reiterate two points again. Point 1 is that I don't know the exact number of what his hitting needs to be at to be a net positive- but for anyone that thinks that it's .180 with no power is a net positive, imo they are wrong. Is that what you're trying to say? Because that is the context of my post. I did not respond to what his future number of net positive might be. That's not what I initially replied to. If you want to put forth separate questions of future what it takes to be net positive, that has nothing to do with what I responded to. I'm simply responding to those who think he's doing okay as of right now. Hitting hard into outs while your avaerage is .180 is not positive results. And Point 2 is I think he can break out of it with positive results. That is the extent of my looking into predictive value.But imo it is obvious that right now he has been subpar. And WAR is the best that we have to show what he's been.

Don't "banish" JBJ, but let's not pretend that he is doing at least okay vs the majority of other starting CF'ers in terms of performance/results as of this moment. If you want to change the question as to what would be a net positive number batting number for JBJ - okay. But it's not the question I replied to nor care to reply to at this moment. And what I mean by net positive is to be rated higher that 23rd best cf'er.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Just want to go on the record that I'm pro-soxeast here. Not that I agree with his arguments, I don't, at all (I fully believe he's solely an above-average to top-tier CF getting the shaft from BABIP,)...but this board needs more dissenting opinions, especially when they're voiced respectfully.

 

[Boggs26]

Ok, I'm actually somewhat intrigued by the runs allowed variation with/without JBJ. I know it's not a normal way of looking at defense, but I feel like there might be something there in a roundabout way. While we often look at defense as an individual piece of baseball, the truth is that it's really a team aspect and each player in the field alters how the entire defensive structure is set up. Does JBJ save almost 2 runs a game? Almost certainly not, but I wonder if it's possible to isolate his overall contribution in defense using the method Buzz put together if it was done over a larger sample.

Is there a way to pull gamelogs from somewhere based on whether or not JBJ is in the box score (I might be willing to do the getting work, I just don't know the most efficient way to do it)? It's not possible to fully isolate all the variables, but I'm curious whether a larger sample would still show a decent gap between JBJ/non-JBJ R/A numbers

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Bill James disagrees with this. It's closer to past results than looking at batted ball data and extrapolating from there, but doesn't tie directly to actual runs created or saved in the games that were played.

It also does not correct for particular defensive alignments and strategies that take advantage of his jumps by positioning the other outfielders more advantageously.

JBJ’s dWAR would be significantly higher, for example, if he did not defer chances in RCF to Mookie and in LCF to Benintendi.

But that strategy allows both Mookie and Beni to go balls-to-the-wall into the gaps, because they know JBJ is backing them up. It’s a fairly sophisticated defensive alignment that helps the team by cutting down on slugging pct allowed.

Also, it would be interesting to see how respect for JBJ’s arm cuts down on extra-base-taken baserunning. If you watch other teams’ games, it becomes clear that most teams do not aggressively push the envelope when running the bases against the Benintendi-Bradley-Betts OF.

The hardest thing to measure, IMO, would be any difference in confidence that pitchers have when throwing the ball in front of one of the best defensive outfields in MLB, versus a different alignment.

But those qualitative assessments simply are based on my “eyeballs” rather than numbers. I’m not aware that either BB-ref’s or FG’s dWAR numbers correct for any of this stuff, but at least the first two soft factors actually happen and impact games.

Is there a way to pull gamelogs from somewhere based on whether or not JBJ is in the box score (I might be willing to do the getting work, I just don't know the most efficient way to do it)? It's not possible to fully isolate all the variables, but I'm curious whether a larger sample would still show a decent gap between JBJ/non-JBJ R/A numbers

I did not find any such way that’s available to the public. The only way I found to actually get the numbers is to go game-by-game through the list of plays. Otherwise — because of the various handful of times JBJ has been either lifted for a PH, or subbed in as a defensive replacement — the overall totals won’t match up.

But someone more tech-savvy might have a different and better take. It’s been over ten years since I stopped really digging into baseball data as a matter of hobby. Now, I mostly just prefer to watch the games, and let whatever happens, happen.

 

[Boggs26]

We'll, I started into 2017 one game at a time. Luckily JBJ is usually in the game from the start or not at all so it hasn't been too difficult yet. I got 41 games in when I realized that I should isolate out HR since no defensive configuration would alter those.

That said, 370 innings into the 2017 season the HR adjusted difference between JBJ (235 inn) and non-JBJ (135 inn) is 0.21 r/9 allowed. Sounds pretty minimal, but I decided what that would be over 162 games and it's approx. 34.7 runs, not inconsequential.

I'm still curious, so I'm going to continue plugging through games and I'll update when I get a bit farther.

 

[tonyarmasjr]

Edit: Responding to Reverend

I was specifically responding to soxeast, who rejects Buzzkill's math stating JBJ's defensive value is significantly more than what the consumer facing stats peg it as. So, the caveat is simply because I think we can all at least agree he has positive defensive value. Whether it's 1 run per game or .01 is a matter of degree (though a potentially important one when he has negative offensive value).

I really don't have a good enough handle on defensive statistics to have a strong opinion on whether they over- or undervalue JBJ or any other player. My one takeaway as I look at them, though, is that they are extremely inconsistent - both from player to player as well as year to year. I can't say I understand why, because I just haven't spent the time to understand what seems like pretty obviously flawed methodologies to me. Leaving catchers aside, the stats seem to be able to give a general sense of whether a fielder is good or bad, but not much more. Just as a quick simplistic example, JBJ's UZR/150 since 2013: -8.8, 17.1, 0.2, 8.1, 3.5, 4.1, ranking 65, 7, 35, 17, 30, 23 among CFers (min. 100 innings). There's a lot of variance there, especially if we buy into the old "defense never slumps" adage. It also leaves him as just a bit above average over that time frame, which appears to be an underestimation.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

We'll, I started into 2017 one game at a time. Luckily JBJ is usually in the game from the start or not at all so it hasn't been too difficult yet. I got 41 games in when I realized that I should isolate out HR since no defensive configuration would alter those.

That said, 370 innings into the 2017 season the HR adjusted difference between JBJ (235 inn) and non-JBJ (135 inn) is 0.21 r/9 allowed. Sounds pretty minimal, but I decided what that would be over 162 games and it's approx. 34.7 runs, not inconsequential.

I'm still curious, so I'm going to continue plugging through games and I'll update when I get a bit farther.

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.

 

[williams_482]

For what it's worth, although UZR/DRS seem to be relatively pessimistic on Bradley's range, Statcast's Outs Above Average metric seems to like him quite a bit. Statcast also has better data to play with than DRS or UZR, so I am more inclined to trust their results.

Bradley was 10 outs (~10 runs, give or take) better than average in 2016, 13 outs better in 2017, and is 4 outs better than average this season. That's pretty stable, and matches they eye test pretty well. Note that this isn't giving him any credit for his arm, just his range, so if we look at just the ARM components to UZR (+2.7 runs) and DRS (+0 runs) for this season and average them, Bradley looks like he's been worth about 5-6 runs above average on defense this season. That's about three runs more than UZR or DRS (and thus fWAR or rWAR) are currently crediting him with.

As for JBJ's offense, he currently has a .189 average, a .297 SLG, resulting in a .108 ISO. According to Statcast, he "should" have a .241 average and a .413 SLG, resulting in a .172 ISO. He has hit .197 and slugged the same on 71 grounders (league average is .236/.257), .173/.519 on 52 flies (vs .282/.683), and .576/.758 on 33 liners (vs .681/.907). We know his contact quality has been better than league average, but even if we ignore that and blame the shift for all of his ground ball woes, he's still "missing" 5.7 hits and 8.5 total bases on flies, 3.5 hits and 4.9 total bases on liners. If we credit him with those, his season line rises to .231/.320/.358.

I think I'd be pretty satisfied with that.

 

[Pitt the Elder]

What does JBJ's spray charts look like on liners and flies? Does he have a strong clustering and are opponents sighting on him as a result? Or have his "at-em" shots been random but unlucky?

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

What does JBJ's spray charts look like on liners and flies? Does he have a strong clustering and are opponents sighting on him as a result? Or have his "at-em" shots been random but unlucky?

Fly balls look pretty spread out, line drives are biased to RF.
https://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=12984&position=OF&type=battedball

 

[Cesar Crespo]

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.

Your data is wrong or at least misleading. In 2015, JBJ started 27 games in CF, not 73. Mookie Betts was our starting CF in 2015. I'm not sure how you factor that into the equation but it's something.

Also, in 2014, the team gave up and traded away a bunch of players and sent JBJ back down to AAA. So the team was a lot different post JBJ. In 2015, the same thing can be said re roster movement. There was a lot of roster turnover and JBJ didn't join the team for good until the end of July, though he did play 14 forgettable games before that. 2016 he started the whole year so not much to go on. The only real data set that seems to be comparing apples to apples is 2017, where it is mostly JBJ vs Ben10.

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.

edit: I'm also not surprised all the numbers favor JBJ. I think we all know he's an all time great CF. But I also don't think anyone believes he's worth 100.44 runs better/162 games than Betts, Ellsbury and Ben10 defensively. Or at least I hope not. The Redsox are on pace to give up 577 runs this year. 100 runs is 17% of that figure.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

Your data is wrong or at least misleading. In 2015, JBJ started 27 games in CF, not 73. Mookie Betts was our starting CF in 2015. I'm not sure how you factor that into the equation but it's something.

Also, in 2014, the team gave up and traded away a bunch of players and sent JBJ back down to AAA. So the team was a lot different post JBJ. In 2015, the same thing can be said re roster movement. There was a lot of roster turnover and JBJ didn't join the team for good until the end of July, though he did play 14 forgettable games before that. 2016 he started the whole year so not much to go on. The only real data set that seems to be comparing apples to apples is 2017, where it is mostly JBJ vs Ben10.

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.

edit: I'm also not surprised all the numbers favor JBJ. I think we all know he's a great CF. I don't think anyone believes he's worth 100.44 runs better/162 games than Betts, Ellsbury and Ben10 defensively. The Redsox are on pace to give up 577 runs this year. 100 runs is 17% of that figure.

It's every game he started, not just in CF. The more iterations/splits I do, the longer it will take, as it's relatively labor-intensive. Do you want a 3 way split - him starting in CF, him starting in RF, and him not starting?

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

Your data is wrong or at least misleading. In 2015, JBJ started 27 games in CF, not 73. Mookie Betts was our starting CF in 2015. I'm not sure how you factor that into the equation but it's something.

Also, in 2014, the team gave up and traded away a bunch of players and sent JBJ back down to AAA. So the team was a lot different post JBJ. In 2015, the same thing can be said re roster movement. There was a lot of roster turnover and JBJ didn't join the team for good until the end of July, though he did play 14 forgettable games before that. 2016 he started the whole year so not much to go on. The only real data set that seems to be comparing apples to apples is 2017, where it is mostly JBJ vs Ben10.

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.

edit: I'm also not surprised all the numbers favor JBJ. I think we all know he's an all time great CF. But I also don't think anyone believes he's worth 100.44 runs better/162 games than Betts, Ellsbury and Ben10 defensively. Or at least I hope not. The Redsox are on pace to give up 577 runs this year. 100 runs is 17% of that figure.

2017 & 2016, he only started in CF, not in RF, so I don't have to do further splits for those years.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

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.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

Your data is wrong or at least misleading. In 2015, JBJ started 27 games in CF, not 73. Mookie Betts was our starting CF in 2015. I'm not sure how you factor that into the equation but it's something.

Also, in 2014, the team gave up and traded away a bunch of players and sent JBJ back down to AAA. So the team was a lot different post JBJ. In 2015, the same thing can be said re roster movement. There was a lot of roster turnover and JBJ didn't join the team for good until the end of July, though he did play 14 forgettable games before that. 2016 he started the whole year so not much to go on. The only real data set that seems to be comparing apples to apples is 2017, where it is mostly JBJ vs Ben10.

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.

edit: I'm also not surprised all the numbers favor JBJ. I think we all know he's an all time great CF. But I also don't think anyone believes he's worth 100.44 runs better/162 games than Betts, Ellsbury and Ben10 defensively. Or at least I hope not. The Redsox are on pace to give up 577 runs this year. 100 runs is 17% of that figure.

OK, didn't take that long actually:
2018 - CF 3.30 Corners 4.13 Bench 5.55
2017 - 3.95 / N/A / 4.87
2016 - 4.23 / N/A / 5.43
2015 - 4.27 / 4.34 / 4.92
2014 - 4.14 / 4.88 / 5.05
2013 - 3.83 / 3.00 / 4.18

Pretty consistent results. Amazing. Note: I do not ascribe the entire difference to JBJ's abilities. I mostly find it an amusing quirk.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

2017 & 2016, he only started in CF, not in RF, so I don't have to do further splits for those years.

Yeah, I said 2017 is apples to apples. 2016 is too but it's a 7 game sample size. I'm just not sure what to think of 2014/15 because of all the roster movement.

 

[Idabomb333]

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.

 

[Saints Rest]

It also does not correct for particular defensive alignments and strategies that take advantage of his jumps by positioning the other outfielders more advantageously.

JBJ’s dWAR would be significantly higher, for example, if he did not defer chances in RCF to Mookie and in LCF to Benintendi.

But that strategy allows both Mookie and Beni to go balls-to-the-wall into the gaps, because they know JBJ is backing them up. It’s a fairly sophisticated defensive alignment that helps the team by cutting down on slugging pct allowed.

Also, it would be interesting to see how respect for JBJ’s arm cuts down on extra-base-taken baserunning. If you watch other teams’ games, it becomes clear that most teams do not aggressively push the envelope when running the bases against the Benintendi-Bradley-Betts OF.

The hardest thing to measure, IMO, would be any difference in confidence that pitchers have when throwing the ball in front of one of the best defensive outfields in MLB, versus a different alignment.

But those qualitative assessments simply are based on my “eyeballs” rather than numbers. I’m not aware that either BB-ref’s or FG’s dWAR numbers correct for any of this stuff, but at least the first two soft factors actually happen and impact games.



I did not find any such way that’s available to the public. The only way I found to actually get the numbers is to go game-by-game through the list of plays. Otherwise — because of the various handful of times JBJ has been either lifted for a PH, or subbed in as a defensive replacement — the overall totals won’t match up.

But someone more tech-savvy might have a different and better take. It’s been over ten years since I stopped really digging into baseball data as a matter of hobby. Now, I mostly just prefer to watch the games, and let whatever happens, happen.

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.

When I saw the runs allowed differential btw when JBJ is playing vs when he's out, my thought wasn't about the LCF and RCF gap overlaps, -- though Buzzkill's conclusions certainly fit the model where JBJ's UZR etc are less than superlative -- but rather I considered whether JBJ's coverage of CF in both directions might allow the corner OF's to cover the lines even more, which would also help reduce overall runs allowed, while doing nothing for JBJ's Zone-ratings etc.