Bradley: Deal with It.

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
smastroyin said:
oWAR at bbref is position adjusted, as well, which is why Ortiz is behind Mookie and Xander.   Because of his time in LF, his oWAR is therefore a bit depressed.  He's second on the team in batting runs, behind Ortiz.  
 
If you go over to Fangraphs, you'll see that he is third on the team in offensive runs, behind Ortiz and Betts (largely because Mookie has really good baserunning numbers)
 
All of this is just fun stuff of course.  He's riding a huge hot streak.  The real question is, if he settles into being the player he was in Pawtucket (285/365/451 over his three years there) or perhaps the guy he was in Pawtucket but with his MLB K-rate (so drop him to 255/335/420-ish), then where would he go?  A lot will ride on what the other guys all do, I suppose, but there is also the idea that that latter guy may have more value in trade than he does to the Red Sox. 
 
I think JBJ's slugging will be higher than the estimates you threw out.  His AAA slugging is depressed by the 2014 time,when he was going through some readjustment.  The one sure thing I take from his last 30 games is that his lower body strength gives him undeniable power.  But what's also amazing about his last 28 games, is that he still has managed to K in 25% of his PA's -- which is hard to do with an OBP of .480.  His BABIP over the last 28 games is .552, which is due, in part, to the fact that 50% of the times a pitcher has gotten him out has been by way of the strike out.  Another component of his BABIP is due to his ability to drive the ball deep to all fields.  Then, of course, there is the luck factor.
 
So we have a very strange sample here, as he goes past the one month in his torrid streak.  If, just for fun, we extrapolate this one month sample to a full season, we'd have a .424 hitter who walked just 60 times with 150 K's!!
 
I'll be very interested in watching how the Toronto pitchers deal with JBJ over the 5 games remaining, considering the importance of the games.  And how JBJ reacts, as well.  How the hell can you throw strikes to this guy right now?
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Drek717 said:
I would prefer this myself:
Betts
Pedroia
Ortiz
Hanley
Bradley
Bogaerts
Sandoval
Castillo
Swihart
 
Other than Betts and Pedroia at the top that's L-R-L all the way through.
 
Here we go again.
 
In my very humble opinion (and I'd be interested if data backs this up), the only impacts of a lineup are:
 
1. Number of plate appearances over a season
2. OBP in front of sluggers
3. Speed in front of sloth - not the other way around
4. Ability to hit to the right side behind speed
5. Fucking with the opposing manager's relief setup with L-R-L
6. Every batter performing like he's supposed to for every game
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
czar said:
 
I like how we've already projected JBJ to a #5 hitter after, like, 100 hot PAs. And I am pretty blasé about lineup construction.
 
I'm with "don't change anything" crowd (perhaps more aptly, IMO, "who cares"). We aren't playing for straight up wins in 2015. We'll worry about the makeup of the 2016 lineup in March.
 
Well, we did start arguing about whether the team should demote him for two weeks to retain control of him for an extra year because of a hot streak in spring training, so this isn't so surprising. He's going to regress. Everyone knows that. How much is a question, but I'd probably bet a substantial amount on him settling around what smas suggested a few posts back: 250/330/420 or so.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,298
Asheville, NC
Over Guapo Grande said:
Didn't Bill Mueller win a batting title hitting out of the 8th hole most of the season ?  
 
ETA: (Yes, 2003) I recall him stating that was where he was most comfortable
Mueller had more PAs as the #2 hitter than the #8 hitter in 2003 (188 as the #2 hitter; 147 in the 8th hole).
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,948
czar said:
 
I like how we've already projected JBJ to a #5 hitter after, like, 100 hot PAs. And I am pretty blasé about lineup construction.
 
I'm with "don't change anything" crowd (perhaps more aptly, IMO, "who cares"). We aren't playing for straight up wins in 2015. We'll worry about the makeup of the 2016 lineup in March.
 
After the first 4, who seem to be where they belong and where they've hit the most this year, the rest of the players are pretty much all wild cards, right?  I don't think Bogaerts is going to be in a traditional power bat spot given his singles oriented approach for most of this year.  You could pretty much toss all those guys down in whatever spot you want depending on how you view their true talent level and how you like to arrange a lineup, which I agree is mostly irrelevant.  I guess I could see the argument for sliding Bogaerts into the #2 spot and putting Pedroia 3rd, then Ortiz and Hanley, but then you have 3 righties in a row.  But with so many unknowns about how these guys will perform over a full season next year, I'm guessing the lineup is going to be pretty fluid.  
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,322
Ann Arbor
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
Well, we did start arguing about whether the team should demote him for two weeks to retain control of him for an extra year because of a hot streak in spring training, so this isn't so surprising. He's going to regress. Everyone knows that. How much is a question, but I'd probably bet a substantial amount on him settling around what smas suggested a few posts back: 250/330/420 or so.
 
Ah yes, when PeteAbe made a lot of money writing "JBJ is the next coming" columns...
 
shaggydog2000 said:
 
After the first 4, who seem to be where they belong and where they've hit the most this year, the rest of the players are pretty much all wild cards, right?  I don't think Bogaerts is going to be in a traditional power bat spot given his singles oriented approach for most of this year.  You could pretty much toss all those guys down in whatever spot you want depending on how you view their true talent level and how you like to arrange a lineup, which I agree is mostly irrelevant.  I guess I could see the argument for sliding Bogaerts into the #2 spot and putting Pedroia 3rd, then Ortiz and Hanley, but then you have 3 righties in a row.  But with so many unknowns about how these guys will perform over a full season next year, I'm guessing the lineup is going to be pretty fluid.  
 
But that's exactly my point. We don't have enough information to worry about next year's lineup construction. JBJ has historically been a decent, but unspectacular hitter in the minors, and a below-average hitter in the majors. Wondering if we should be putting him in the heart of 2016's lineup with a month to go in 2015 seems like an exercise in futility. Let the season play out, there is no benefit to trying to pigeonhole lineup construction for the remainder of this year, let alone next.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,120
Rogers Park
The X Man Cometh said:
 
But guessing at the future... he's still walking a lot and he's still striking out a lot, like he has his whole career. What he's added is power. So it seems safe to say that "final form Jackie Bradley" is a three true outcomes style hitter who walks a lot, strikes out a lot, but stings the balls he does put in play for extra bases. If he settles into this profile.... he could easily be a big bat hitting out of the 5-hole, something which was never anticipated when he was in the minors. With every passing game it looks more like JBJ and Betts (.180 ISO which would be 7th out of 14 qualified LF) can pass as the big bats in the corner outfield we supposedly don't have.
Sounds like Mike Cameron.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
20,010
Somewhere
Would anyone be terribly disappointed if Bradley reverts to hitting something like his STEAMER (rest of season) projection? Right now that has him hitting .260 with .327 OBP and .407 SLG. Basically, a league average hitter. With his defense, that would still be an excellent player.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
czar said:
 
Ah yes, when PeteAbe made a lot of money writing "JBJ is the next coming" columns...
 
 
But that's exactly my point. We don't have enough information to worry about next year's lineup construction. JBJ has historically been a decent, but unspectacular hitter in the minors, and a below-average hitter in the majors. Wondering if we should be putting him in the heart of 2016's lineup with a month to go in 2015 seems like an exercise in futility. Let the season play out, there is no benefit to trying to pigeonhole lineup construction for the remainder of this year, let alone next.
 
I think decent is damning with faint praise and not quite accurate.  He was 2nd in the IL in OPS this year if he qualified (3rd in OBP, 2nd in SLG)  In 2013 he would have been 4th in OPS, 7th in each of OBP and SLG.
 
For some reason I do think people think of McCoy as a bandbox and therefore the low offense of the IL is ignored because of it, but it hasn't played that way in years (somewhat also due to new stadiums in the league being better for hitters).  So, it's not necessarily fair to compare JBJ to say, Joc Pederson playing in ABQ.  For instance, the 2013 IL hit 255/328/384.  The 2014 PCL hit 276/344/427.  That said, 2014 was of course real and happened, which is really what tempers expectation.  
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
smastroyin said:
oWAR at bbref is position adjusted, as well, which is why Ortiz is behind Mookie and Xander.   Because of his time in LF, his oWAR is therefore a bit depressed.  He's second on the team in batting runs, behind Ortiz.  
 
If you go over to Fangraphs, you'll see that he is third on the team in offensive runs, behind Ortiz and Betts (largely because Mookie has really good baserunning numbers)
 
All of this is just fun stuff of course.  He's riding a huge hot streak.  The real question is, if he settles into being the player he was in Pawtucket (285/365/451 over his three years there) or perhaps the guy he was in Pawtucket but with his MLB K-rate (so drop him to 255/335/420-ish), then where would he go?  A lot will ride on what the other guys all do, I suppose, but there is also the idea that that latter guy may have more value in trade than he does to the Red Sox.
 

Of course, it should also be mentioned what was noted a few pages ago in this very thread: JBJ was still using the toe-tap-twist at Pawtucket through July 2015.
 
Before we start talking sell-high, think about that fact a second.
 
JBJ had an .851 OPS (.294/.391/.460) over his five-season run through the minors with that piss-poor swing, so what might be possible with him having fixed his load-transfer mechanics in a way that now he can shorten up his stroke with better leverage, at age 25?
 
It's highly, highly unlikely that he won't fall back down to earth, of course. I know that; you know that; we all know that.
 
But maybe, just maybe...it wouldn't be a sell-high. 
 
After all, Before he became Joey Bats, Bautista hit at an .846 OPS (.285/.376/.470) clip over his 8-year journey through the minors, but had a sub- .500 OPS in MLB through his age 24 season. Of course, he didn't get most of a whole season before getting demoted after his flops. But that's probably because he wasn't a gold-glove caliber defender at a premium position, either.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Devizier said:
Would anyone be terribly disappointed if Bradley reverts to hitting something like his STEAMER (rest of season) projection? Right now that has him hitting .260 with .327 OBP and .407 SLG. Basically, a league average hitter. With his defense, that would still be an excellent player.
 
I'd be content with the BA, delighted with the OBP, but I'd be disappointed that he wouldn't hit for more power than a .407 SLG.  JBJ has talked about his off-season conditioning to add more strength to his lower body, and, again, the power he's shown in the last 30 games is undeniable, even if pitchers learn to keep him more off-balance in the future.  And JBJ is almost 3 years older than Bogaerts and Betts, so his age is closer to the traditional power peak -- at least in the post PEDs era.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I'm not big on trading JBJ, just FTR, especially because I think Margot will end up being part of a deal before they know much more about JBJ's future.  Just making the point that if he's the 740-760 OPS guy, he is trade-able, whereas as an 820+ OPS guy I would give him a long term contract to be CF next week.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,156
KenTremendous said:
Normal SSS caveats apply, but:
 
He is close to doubling his OPS from last
year.
 
Like, he had an OPS last year (.531), and then he has an OPS this year (1.016), and the one this year is almost 2x the one from last year.
Well let's see if he can do it again and double this year's next year before we get all excited.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
smastroyin said:
I'm not big on trading JBJ, just FTR, especially because I think Margot will end up being part of a deal before they know much more about JBJ's future.  Just making the point that if he's the 740-760 OPS guy, he is trade-able, whereas as an 820+ OPS guy I would give him a long term contract to be CF next week.
 
If were the next GM of the Seattle Mariners, I'd dangle King Felix in front of Dombrowski, and bet on JBJ being close to the Mike Cameron comp.  Let JBJ run all over Safeco for the next 5 years and be a 5 WAR player, as Cameron was from the ages of 26-30.  Of course, Hernandez is having a rough season, with an ERA+ just better than league average, but DD does love to trade for Aces.  I'd also ask for more in return for Felix (Vazquez, even with one wing, or Owens), but my goal would be to get the $110 mil owed to Hernandez over the next 4 years.
 
Of course, Felix would have to agree to any trade, being a 10/5 player (time flies!) but, as the new GM I'd assure him that his chances of winning a championship in the next 4 years were very, very slim.
 

pdub

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2007
517
With respect, I don't think Seattle will entertain trading Felix Hernandez. If it does, the package will be immense. I am very hype for JBJ but he is still, in my mind, within the SSS territory. I'd like to see who he really is - as I am sure the scouts would, too. Needs more time before I'm truly convinced.  
 
Why I think Seattle won't trade Felix is because it already has a lot invested in Cano and Cruz. The Mariners' core offense is 30+, highly paid, and needs to win soon. Trading Hernandez just leaves them with a huge gap. I could see them trading Hernandez if they first move Cano, for example. That would seem reasonable and would signal a rebuild. But it makes no sense to move Hernandez before Cano or Cruz.
 
Thoughts?
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
pdub said:
With respect, I don't think Seattle will entertain trading Felix Hernandez. If it does, the package will be immense. I am very hype for JBJ but he is still, in my mind, within the SSS territory. I'd like to see who he really is - as I am sure the scouts would, too. Needs more time before I'm truly convinced.  
 
Why I think Seattle won't trade Felix is because it already has a lot invested in Cano and Cruz. The Mariners' core offense is 30+, highly paid, and needs to win soon. Trading Hernandez just leaves them with a huge gap. I could see them trading Hernandez if they first move Cano, for example. That would seem reasonable and would signal a rebuild. But it makes no sense to move Hernandez before Cano or Cruz.
 
Thoughts?
 
Any ownership is going to be reluctant to give up their marquee player, as well as moving the time-frame for contention.  But, realistically, the Mariners are unlikely to make up ground on either Houston or Texas in the next couple of years.  Especially with almost $65 million tied up in 3 players (Felix/Cano/Cruz).
 
I assume that any top GM candidate addresses those very issues while interviewing for the job.  And I also prefaced the hypothetical that I'm high on JBJ and see the Mike Cameron comp (prime years) works for me.  So, that's a projected 25 WAR over the next 5 cost controlled years, plus it frees up $110 million minus what JBJ earns in his arbitration years.  Not to mention whatever else I could get out of DD. (Owens pitching in a big park?  Vazquez? Not both, but something extra.)
 
King Felix will be 30 next April.  He's just above being a league average pitcher this year, and his velocity is down.  I think he's a good candidate for a rebound in 2016, but how much WAR will you be getting over the next 4 years?
 
I'm actually not wild about the trade from the Sox viewpoint (admittedly I'm biased in favor of JBJ), but it is a reasonable trade if DD really wants an Ace, but the bidding on FA pitchers this winter stretches out to 7 year contracts and John Henry stands by his stated principles.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
WenZink said:
I'm actually not wild about the trade from the Sox viewpoint (admittedly I'm biased in favor of JBJ), but it is a reasonable trade if DD really wants an Ace, but the bidding on FA pitchers this winter stretches out to 7 year contracts and John Henry stands by his stated principles.
 
This is the second thread you've proposed this trade in. I was going to ignore it for the nonsense it is, but since you're spreading it around... there is no world in which JBJ and Vazquez get you Felix Hernandez. Not a single GM, or GM candidate who will be considered for the Mariners job would pull the trigger on that. You're off the deep end if you think one insanely hot month makes JBJ that valuable, or that Vazquez has anything other than marginal trade value at this point.The Sox could be offering JBJ, Vazques AND Owens and they'd get turned down.
 
Edit: Beaten to it by Rip.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
You asked for it, and there you have it, Oregon.
 
In less than one season, JBJ's trade value has gone from a thumbs-down on Furbush to a thumbs-up on King Felix.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,726
Worcester
SumnerH said:
Mueller had more PAs as the #2 hitter than the #8 hitter in 2003 (188 as the #2 hitter; 147 in the 8th hole).
That's what I get for going off of memory.  He actually had more PA as a #7 hitter than as a #8 hitter, too.  But he did perform best out of the 8 slot, so at least I have that going for me...
 
[tablegrid= Mueller 2003 ]Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+ Batting 1st 11 11 56 50 4 12 2 0 1 5 0 0 3 8 0.240 0.296 0.340 0.636 17 1 1 2 0 0 1 0.268 37 74 Batting 2nd 40 40 188 168 25 58 16 1 4 20 0 1 15 20 0.345 0.399 0.524 0.923 88 4 2 0 3 0 3 0.367 97 141 Batting 3rd 1 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.500 0.500 0.500 1.000 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.500 118 137 Batting 5th 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 -100 -100 Batting 6th 12 10 43 36 3 7 2 0 0 4 0 0 6 7 0.194 0.302 0.250 0.552 9 2 0 0 1 1 0 0.233 22 50 Batting 7th 38 37 156 141 21 43 13 1 3 22 1 0 13 22 0.305 0.361 0.475 0.836 67 2 0 1 1 0 3 0.342 79 127 Batting 8th 36 35 147 120 31 48 11 3 10 32 0 3 21 18 0.400 0.500 0.792 1.292 95 1 4 1 1 1 1 0.409 172 276 Batting 9th 4 0 7 6 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0.333 0.429 1.000 1.429 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.333 193 392  [/tablegrid] 
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,165
Florida
Devizier said:
Would anyone be terribly disappointed if Bradley reverts to hitting something like his STEAMER (rest of season) projection? Right now that has him hitting .260 with .327 OBP and .407 SLG. Basically, a league average hitter. With his defense, that would still be an excellent player.
 
That ultimately depends on what else is going on around it. 
 
Disappointed? No, but for me it would bring back speculating the ideal need for a more offensive OF option at one of the corners (who can hit 5th in the lineup). Plus reignite the "one of the 3 is more valuable as a CF elsewhere" debate, and whether it's still worth moving Betts off center of course.  
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
WenZink said:
 
If were the next GM of the Seattle Mariners,
I like to think the missing subject is not "I" but someone you can picture actually making this trade on the Mariners' behalf. Donald Trump? Billy Beane using an assumed identity?
 
In any event, whoever made this trade would be unable to set foot in Seattle for a while. Maybe their respective future values would help this trade pan out decently enough, but probably not, and the blowback to even entertaining it in Seattle would be a sight to behold.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,547
Maine
With this King Felix talk, I'm having flashbacks to suggestions that a package centered around Jacoby Ellsbury could get Felix to Boston because Ellsbury hailed from the Pacific Northwest and he'd provide extra value to the M's as a "hometown" guy.  Felix for JBJ/Vazquez/plus? Sheesh.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
60,219
San Andreas Fault
That 2003 Red Sox team was looooaddddddedddddeddddd, like Ron White said of the parents of one of his ex-wives in one of his standup routines. Still, Mueller, with his yearlong .326/.398/.540, should have hit second instead of Todd Walker. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
This is the second thread you've proposed this trade in. I was going to ignore it for the nonsense it is, but since you're spreading it around... there is no world in which JBJ and Vazquez get you Felix Hernandez. Not a single GM, or GM candidate who will be considered for the Mariners job would pull the trigger on that. You're off the deep end if you think one insanely hot month makes JBJ that valuable, or that Vazquez has anything other than marginal trade value at this point.The Sox could be offering JBJ, Vazques AND Owens and they'd get turned down.
 
Edit: Beaten to it by Rip.
 
Compare JBJ + (Vazquez or other piece(s) ) to the Hamels' trade.  Hamels is a year and a half older, less of a career, but without the sudden drop in velocity.  His salary is a little less than Felix.
 
Having read all posts in the thread why the Sox shouldn't trade Betts+ prospects or Swihart + prospects for Hamels, I'm surprised.  Trading for the butt-end of a long-term deal is not impossible, particularly for a pitcher that has over 2200 innings on his arm.
 
There's also precedent for bringing in an elite CF to Seattle.  In one of Jack Z's first trades he brought over Franklin Gutierrez, who went on to have a 6.6 WAR year in 2009, over half of that was dWAR.  Gutierrez had a 105 OPS+ that year, the year he turned 26. (And yes the fences were brought in in 2013.)
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Sometimes it's best just to log off for a while and take a break.

Maybe go for a walk, read a book, get laid, grab a beer, etc. - basically anything other than keep trying to defend your position. Doesn't mean you need to abandon your stance, but taking a step back and clearing your head can help sometimes.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,609
Not here
WenZink said:
 
Compare JBJ + (Vazquez or other piece(s) ) to the Hamels' trade.  Hamels is a year and a half older, less of a career, but without the sudden drop in velocity.  His salary is a little less than Felix.
 
Having read all posts in the thread why the Sox shouldn't trade Betts+ prospects or Swihart + prospects for Hamels, I'm surprised.  Trading for the butt-end of a long-term deal is not impossible, particularly for a pitcher that has over 2200 innings on his arm.
 
There's also precedent for bringing in an elite CF to Seattle.  In one of Jack Z's first trades he brought over Franklin Gutierrez, who went on to have a 6.6 WAR year in 2009, over half of that was dWAR.  Gutierrez had a 105 OPS+ that year, the year he turned 26. (And yes the fences were brought in in 2013.)
 
The Sox shouldn't trade Betts or Swihart plus prospects for King Felix either.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,961
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Red(s)HawksFan said:
With this King Felix talk, I'm having flashbacks to suggestions that a package centered around Jacoby Ellsbury could get Felix to Boston because Ellsbury hailed from the Pacific Northwest and he'd provide extra value to the M's as a "hometown" guy.  Felix for JBJ/Vazquez/plus? Sheesh.
 
It seems unlikely.  But Felix is 29.  He's being paid $26 a year until his age 33 season in 2019.  He's got a 2020 option for 1 million if he spends more than 130 days on the DL due to his elbow.  He's an ace, he's in his prime, but he's not a pre-arb ace.
 
If JBJ does (unlikely, but who knows) turn out to be a perennial 5WAR type player, and Vazquez comes back as a epic defender with average offense, the trade makes some sense.   Felix is a sure thing - the others are uncertain.   But Felix's value isn't infinite.   I think Seattle would have to think long and hard about JBJ/Vazquez/Owens.  Harder about JBJ/Vazquez/E-Rod.
 
I don't think they're in a position to win soon.   Even if Cruz has another monster season in him, Cano may just be flat-out done.  
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
24,776
The gran facenda
WenZink said:
 
Compare JBJ + (Vazquez or other piece(s) ) to the Hamels' trade.  Hamels is a year and a half older, less of a career, but without the sudden drop in velocity.  His salary is a little less than Felix.
 
Having read all posts in the thread why the Sox shouldn't trade Betts+ prospects or Swihart + prospects for Hamels, I'm surprised.  Trading for the butt-end of a long-term deal is not impossible, particularly for a pitcher that has over 2200 innings on his arm.
 
There's also precedent for bringing in an elite CF to Seattle.  In one of Jack Z's first trades he brought over Franklin Gutierrez, who went on to have a 6.6 WAR year in 2009, over half of that was dWAR.  Gutierrez had a 105 OPS+ that year, the year he turned 26. (And yes the fences were brought in in 2013.)
Please stop for a while. You're using stats that you don't appear to understand to make your argument here. 
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
czar said:
 
I like how we've already projected JBJ to a #5 hitter after, like, 100 hot PAs. And I am pretty blasé about lineup construction.
 
I'm with "don't change anything" crowd (perhaps more aptly, IMO, "who cares"). We aren't playing for straight up wins in 2015. We'll worry about the makeup of the 2016 lineup in March.
Less that I think he's a "#5 hitter" and more that I don't think lineup construction matters much outside of what players personal opinions are (i.e. Ortiz wants to bat #3 specifically, so he gets an AB in the first inning consistently) and going L-R-L as much as possible to prevent specialist relievers from mowing through an entire inning of good matchups.
 
He's not a "#5 hitter" stereotype, but then neither is Sandoval, Bogaerts, Swihart, or Castillo.  The Ortiz/Hanley/Sandoval 3/4/5 already failed this year so some level of shakeup is required,the easiest is to insert Bradley and Bogaerts over Sandoval so that Pablo can't clog the bases in front of two pretty quality base runners.  Hanley is the only real #4 option and that is based on his hot start to 2015 being the real Hanley when healthy.  Since he's the only chance to have real lineup protection for Ortiz other than Bogaerts taking a massive step forward or Bradley really being a late blooming Mike Trout (yeah, sure) it's worth rolling with.
 
But then it's also way too early to play this game, as I'm betting Dombrowski tries to find a way to work another big bat into this lineup.  Just what I'd like to see if they keep the same group for 2016.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
absintheofmalaise said:
Please stop for a while. You're using stats that you don't appear to understand to make your argument here. 
 
I should have mentioned they were from b-ref, and the only mistake I am aware of was that roughly half of his 6.6 WAR was from defense, not "over half.".  I do understand that oWAR + dWAR will exceed WAR.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
absintheofmalaise said:
Please stop for a while. You're using stats that you don't appear to understand to make your argument here. 
I'll try to be constructive here. The Mariners desperately need outfield defense, having given away some 30+ runs compared to an average defensive alignment (BBRef). They lack exciting prospects for the OF in any respect, and even with the fences in, outfield defense is a valuable commodity that they glaringly lack. JBJ would make a fine Mariner.
 
But after shoving aside the Felix suggestion, let me also point out that they are not exactly swimming in pitching depth and would be hard-pressed to trade any starter. Iwakuma is a free agent, Happ crashed out already, Paxton can't stay healthy and Elias and Montgomery are unproven, to put it politely. Hultzen's career is sadly hanging by a thread. Their bullpen is as bad as ours, maybe worse (except for Carson Smith, whom I doubt they would trade based on the last few sentences). So while Bradley would look tempting to them, they are a very poor trade partner for the Sox right now. 
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,679
Rovin Romine said:
 
Cano may just be flat-out done.  
 
Actually he's quietly resuscitated his season: since June 17, he has a .882 OPS in 303 PAs. 
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
WenZink said:
 
I should have mentioned they were from b-ref, and the only mistake I am aware of was that roughly half of his 6.6 WAR was from defense, not "over half.".  I do understand that oWAR + dWAR will exceed WAR.
 
The error bars on those WAR numbers at this point are much larger than the value itself.  When you say "6.6 WAR", what that actually means is "somewhere between -5 and +20 WAR", because the way those numbers are estimated just is not very precise.  Offering that WAR with a decimal place is simply ludicrous.  It is much more accurate to say "pretty good" than to say "6.6 WAR", because the latter is actively misleading, where the former spans the appropriate range.  
 
Please don't be actively misleading. 
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Rovin Romine said:
I think Seattle would have to think long and hard about JBJ/Vazquez/Owens.  Harder about JBJ/Vazquez/E-Rod.
 
I don't think they're in a position to win soon.   Even if Cruz has another monster season in him, Cano may just be flat-out done.  
Sadly, Cano is the main reason not to do either of the trades you propose (the latter of which they should want to do, but whatever). I don't think anyone in the M's organization can stomach the idea of paying Cano $24m and not trying to win now. Arguably the Ed-Rod package is win-now-ish, but the Owens one clearly isn't.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
chrisfont9 said:
Sadly, Cano is the main reason not to do either of the trades you propose (the latter of which they should want to do, but whatever). I don't think anyone in the M's organization can stomach the idea of paying Cano $24m and not trying to win now. Arguably the Ed-Rod package is win-now-ish, but the Owens one clearly isn't.
 
That may be the position of the upper management team that runs the Mariners, but if you're a GM candidate with options, (as opposed to a lesser candidate that just wants one of the 30 jobs) you're probably to pass on the position if they just want to hear you tell them how you're going to "win now."  The Mariners have a low-rated farm system, and Houston looks set for a while and Texas gets Darvish back, so you're hoping to get lucky and get that 2nd wild card spot.
 
Yes, anything can happen, but a strong GM candidate won't want to get stuck that position.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
iayork said:
 
The error bars on those WAR numbers at this point are much larger than the value itself.  When you say "6.6 WAR", what that actually means is "somewhere between -5 and +20 WAR", because the way those numbers are estimated just is not very precise.  Offering that WAR with a decimal place is simply ludicrous.  It is much more accurate to say "pretty good" than to say "6.6 WAR", because the latter is actively misleading, where the former spans the appropriate range.  
 
Please don't be actively misleading. 
 
Wow!  You think the margin of error is that high?  I've never tried to calculate the margin of error, but just used that the margin of error is at least 15%, so that posting 1 place after the decimal point made sense.  I do know that the defensive component is less reliable, since it takes well over a year to get a more reliable sample, so, in the interest of not being actively misleading it's correct to post the defensive component when it's a significantly large part of the whole.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,948
WenZink said:
 
That may be the position of the upper management team that runs the Mariners, but if you're a GM candidate with options, (as opposed to a lesser candidate that just wants one of the 30 jobs) you're probably to pass on the position if they just want to hear you tell them how you're going to "win now."  The Mariners have a low-rated farm system, and Houston looks set for a while and Texas gets Darvish back, so you're hoping to get lucky and get that 2nd wild card spot.
 
Yes, anything can happen, but a strong GM candidate won't want to get stuck that position.
 
But don't the Mariners have a decent amount of money behind them?  #1 pitchers are expensive.  Defensive outfielders are relatively cheap.  I think they can add outfield D more affordably than rebuilding their rotation, and not risk alienating fans in the process. 
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,682
Mid-surburbia
WenZink said:
 
Wow!  You think the margin of error is that high?  I've never tried to calculate the margin of error, but just used that the margin of error is at least 15%, so that posting 1 place after the decimal point made sense.  I do know that the defensive component is less reliable, since it takes well over a year to get a more reliable sample, so, in the interest of not being actively misleading it's correct to post the defensive component when it's a significantly large part of the whole.
 
Yes, you should really listen to him.  That's exactly how imprecise WAR is at the samples you're quoting.  Hopefully that helps you understand why so many eyes are being rolled at arguments that use that number as primary supporting evidence, across many many threads.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,610
I'm impressed that a mod told him to take a break and yet, well, no such luck.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
24,776
The gran facenda
DrewDawg said:
I'm impressed that a mod told him to take a break and yet, well, no such luck.
Some people retire from the board gracefully while others do not....
 
I wanted to make sure you knew that this was not directed at you.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
WenZink said:
His BABIP over the last 28 games is .552, which is due, in part, to the fact that 50% of the times a pitcher has gotten him out has been by way of the strike out.
 
Not to pile on here, but this is flat out nonsense. The frequency with which you strike out doesn't predict how good your contact or BABIP is going to be. It's not like you have to make a certain number of outs and if you strike out more, your balls in play turn into hits. It's quite possible to strike out 25% of the time and also make weak contact and a ton of outs with a low BABIP. See, for instance, Jackie Bradley Jr. in 2014.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,610
I *think* his point is that if he hadn't struck out so much, he'd make more contact, and more outs, and his BABIP would drop. I think.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,689
Alex Speier yet again does great work, demonstrating just how rare Jackie's stretch has been and how it might actually make the case that he's the real deal. 
 
Here's the money quote:
 
 
 
That being the case, it’s striking to see how consistent the career demographics are for this group. Of the 25 players from 2005-14 with a month that yielded a .400 average and 1.200 OPS, all but one (Pat Burrell) was named to an All-Star team. Every one of the players had a career OPS+ of 99 or better, and 23 of the 25 players have amassed a career OPS+ of 110 or better.
 
At this point, to answer questions up thread, it really would be something truly uncommon if Jackie just turned back into a pumpkin.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,682
Mid-surburbia
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
Alex Speier yet again does great work, demonstrating just how rare Jackie's stretch has been and how it might actually make the case that he's the real deal. 
 
Here's the money quote:
 
 
At this point, to answer questions up thread, it really would be something truly uncommon if Jackie just turned back into a pumpkin.
 
It's just amazing how easily duped fans are by a prospect's first 500 PAs or 200 IP in the bigs.  JBJ's upside projection as a league-average or better hitter in that .725-.750 OPS / 100-110 OPS+ range is closer to a correction than it is a revelation, if one was paying attention to the .850 OPS he was putting up while going from A+ to AAA over 2012-2013.
 
(this post is not shitting on you or the article personally, it just all seems a bit 'wowee!' for nothing that much more unusual a another good hitter breaking out)
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
JimBoSox9 said:
 
Yes, you should really listen to him.  That's exactly how imprecise WAR is at the samples you're quoting.  Hopefully that helps you understand why so many eyes are being rolled at arguments that use that number as primary supporting evidence, across many many threads.
 
Or I could listen to others' opinions on the subject.  I feel comfortable with the idea that the margin of error of WAR is closer to 15% than whatever Iayork was claiming.  And I don't think the many that have posted articles on fangraphs, where they used WAR and even put digits after the decimal point were ludicrous or intentionally trying to mislead.  The specific example I cited, Franklin Gutierrez in 2009, was written about extensively by Dave Cameron, on USSMariner and later Fangraphs, I believe, which is why it stood out.  I don't consider Cameron to be a hack, and he's been the first to caution about the margin of error in WAR, and the cases where specific instances might make WAR very unreliable.
 
I understand the limitation and misuse of certain metrics.  In a thread about Hanley's defense, I "rolled my eyes" as folks used 2 month defensive metrics to declare Hanley's defense "historically bad."  Our eyes tell us he really sucked, but DRS after 2 months of data is meaningless.  As i using 3 month WAR figures to conclude that Sandoval is a below replacement player.  Again, our eyes tell us he's having a bad year, but a 3 month WAR figure doesn't tell us much.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
nothumb said:
 
Not to pile on here, but this is flat out nonsense. The frequency with which you strike out doesn't predict how good your contact or BABIP is going to be. It's not like you have to make a certain number of outs and if you strike out more, your balls in play turn into hits. It's quite possible to strike out 25% of the time and also make weak contact and a ton of outs with a low BABIP. See, for instance, Jackie Bradley Jr. in 2014.
 
You can pile on.  My feeling aren't hurt.  With JBJ's 25 game streak over 104 PAs, the fact that he continued to K 25% of the time, further reduced a small sample of the actual balls hit into play, which, in my interpretation. enabled such an extreme BAPIP, especially considering that when he has hit the ball, he's been driving it very well.  My assumption is that if he'd made more contact, with more balls in play, the BAPIP would have been a bit lower.
 

The X Man Cometh

New Member
Dec 13, 2013
390
JimBoSox9 said:
 
It's just amazing how easily duped fans are by a prospect's first 500 PAs or 200 IP in the bigs.  JBJ's upside projection as a league-average or better hitter in that .725-.750 OPS / 100-110 OPS+ range is closer to a correction than it is a revelation, if one was paying attention to the .850 OPS he was putting up while going from A+ to AAA over 2012-2013.
 
(this post is not shitting on you or the article personally, it just all seems a bit 'wowee!' for nothing that much more unusual a another good hitter breaking out)
 
But as several people have pointed out in this and other threads, it's not "another good hitter breaking out". The only players who have had a worse season at the dish over the same number of PA per wRC+ in the last 30 years:
 
Cristian Guzman (21)
Alex Gonzalez (23)
Clint Barmes (27)
Neifi Perez (29)
Jack Wilson (23)
Chris Truby (28)
Pedro Feliz (35)
Peter Bergeron (23)
Omar Infante (33)
Willy Taveras (27)
Cesar Izturis (30)
Mike Caruso (22)
Deivi Cruz (24)
 
No one in recent memory has ever been as bad as he was and become a good MLB hitter. Is that not worthy of a "wow"?
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
shaggydog2000 said:
 
But don't the Mariners have a decent amount of money behind them?  #1 pitchers are expensive.  Defensive outfielders are relatively cheap.  I think they can add outfield D more affordably than rebuilding their rotation, and not risk alienating fans in the process. 
 
The Mariners 2015 payroll is approximately $130 million, with just about half of that going to 3 players.  So the idea would be to get payroll flexibility.
 
Maybe this off-season sees the Mariners willing to expand their payroll, and spend even more and try to go for it, but it's going to make them even more top-heavy.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,689
The X Man Cometh said:
 
But as several people have pointed out in this and other threads, it's not "another good hitter breaking out". The only players who have had a worse season at the dish over the same number of PA per wRC+ in the last 30 years:
 
Cristian Guzman (21)
Alex Gonzalez (23)
Clint Barmes (27)
Neifi Perez (29)
Jack Wilson (23)
Chris Truby (28)
Pedro Feliz (35)
Peter Bergeron (23)
Omar Infante (33)
Willy Taveras (27)
Cesar Izturis (30)
Mike Caruso (22)
Deivi Cruz (24)
 
No one in recent memory has ever been as bad as he was and become a good MLB hitter. Is that not worthy of a "wow"?
 
Exactly. This thread is becoming deja vu all over again, but to reiterate: Jackie's 2014 season is not Dustin Pedroia's April of 2007. It was a truly awful collection of 423 PA that followed a truly awful collection of 100+ PA the previous year. He was putrid. For more than 500 PA.
 
Yes, everyone pointed to his minor league numbers and wondered why he could be that bad. Yes, it was a mystery and, yes, those numbers (plus his defense) explain why the Sox kept giving him opportunity. But to act like this a garden-variety breakout by a well-regarded prospect is more than a little disingenuous.