Jackie Bradley, Jr. - Help

[smastroyin]

Another nice night for JBJ.  Let's hope this is where he has turned the corner for real.
 
Here are his last 28 days versus the season coming into those days:
 
63 PA, 328/381/414, 17.4% K, 7.9% BB (2.2 K/BB)
257 PA, 211/292/298, 29.2% K, 8.9% BB (3.3 K/BB)
 
Some of this is fueled by BABIP, but it also seems like perhaps he is getting a little more aggressive in swinging at pitches he can handle, since both his K and his BB are down.  ISO is still lagging behind his minor league numbers but if he is slowly putting his approach back together I expect that will come.  Let's hope it's for real.  

 

[Super Nomario]

After tonight's 0-4, JBJ's back down to .227/.300/.311. What does the rest of the season need to look like for him to be the 2015 centerfielder?

 

[JimBoSox9]

After tonight's 0-4, JBJ's back down to .227/.300/.311. What does the rest of the season need to look like for him to be the 2015 centerfielder?

Oh, 50 or so games, I'd say.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

After tonight's 0-4, JBJ's back down to .227/.300/.311. What does the rest of the season need to look like for him to be the 2015 centerfielder?

 
I think the question is more what the rest of the season needs to look like for him not to be the 2015 centerfielder, and I suspect that involves him being implicated in a plot to smuggle weapons to Boko Haram or something. They're not going to give up on him on this short a trial.

 

[Plympton91]

The problem is, they're now playing 2 months of garbage time.  Nothing you see over the next two months can be assumed to be real.  If they struggle, it could be because the games don't matter.  If they do well, it could be because the games don't really matter.  Call it the Mark Melancon effect.
 
Bradley made an adjustment and now the pitchers have adjusted back.  Let's see if he can make another adjustment.
 
I said before the season his best comp might be ex-White Sox prospect Brian Anderson.  Hopefully this is one of the times I turn out to be wrong.

 

[sackamano]

The games always matter to the players playing them.

 

[KillerBs]

Why should we care about JBJ, X, Mookie and the rest of them. If they turn out to be any good, they'll end up playing for someone else, based on soundest micro-economic principles. Who could argue with that?

 

[sackamano]

Are you just trolling this site?

 

[SouthernBoSox]

Why should we care about JBJ, X, Mookie and the rest of them. If they turn out to be any good, they'll end up playing for someone else, based on soundest micro-economic principles. Who could argue with that?

Can we please get a ban here? This guy is posting this nonsense all over the place.

 

[Plympton91]

Can we please get a ban here? This guy is posting this nonsense all over the place.

 
Yeah, this site is only open to those who are blindly faithful to the Red Sox ownership.  It's complete nonsense to question anything they've done.  After all, they won the world series in 2013, and just you forgot about how they missed the playoffs in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014, with two of those seasons among the worst teams in baseball, and a third one of the largest collapses in the history of the game.  They know what they're doing, those other four years were just outliers and bad luck.  The real talent showed up in 2013.
 
Oh they won in 2004 and 2007 too?  Do they have the same GM now?  How many of the assistant GMs from 2004 and 2007 are still with the organization?  Did the owner have a policy in 2004 and 2007 not to sign players to contracts that would take them into their mid-30s? 
 
There's absolutely nothing about KillerB's posts that qualify as trolling.  He's spot on with the way a very large portion of the fanbase feels.  If that's not welcome on SoSH, then SoSH has jumped the shark.

 

[sackamano]

Can we get a second ban in this thread?

 

[SouthernBoSox]

 
Yeah, this site is only open to those who are blindly faithful to the Red Sox ownership.  It's complete nonsense to question anything they've done.  After all, they won the world series in 2013, and just you forgot about how they missed the playoffs in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014, with two of those seasons among the worst teams in baseball, and a third one of the largest collapses in the history of the game.  They know what they're doing, those other four years were just outliers and bad luck.  The real talent showed up in 2013.
 
Oh they won in 2004 and 2007 too?  Do they have the same GM now?  How many of the assistant GMs from 2004 and 2007 are still with the organization?  Did the owner have a policy in 2004 and 2007 not to sign players to contracts that would take them into their mid-30s? 
 
There's absolutely nothing about KillerB's posts that qualify as trolling.  He's spot on with the way a very large portion of the fanbase feels.  If that's not welcome on SoSH, then SoSH has jumped the shark.

The Red Sox won 2 World Series with home grown Dustin Pedroia

The Red Sox won 2 World Series with home grown Jacoby Ellsbury

The Red Sox won 2 World Series with home grown Jon Lester

Because we haven't resigned 2 of those guys a poster said that we "shouldn't care" how other new organizationally players should perform. It's trolling on the highest level. It's a joke. And he's saying it in every thread.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

 
Oh they won in 2004 and 2007 too?  Do they have the same GM now?  How many of the assistant GMs from 2004 and 2007 are still with the organization?  Did the owner have a policy in 2004 and 2007 not to sign players to contracts that would take them into their mid-30s? 
 

 
1. Yes.
2. Yes and no.  The current GM was the "Co-GM" for about five weeks 2005-2006.
3. None, unless you count the "Co-GM" title. 
4. No. 
 
Edit - You probably could have googled most of that yourself.  

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Yeah, this site is only open to those who are blindly faithful to the Red Sox ownership.  It's complete nonsense to question anything they've done.  After all, they won the world series in 2013, and just you forgot about how they missed the playoffs in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014, with two of those seasons among the worst teams in baseball, and a third one of the largest collapses in the history of the game.  They know what they're doing, those other four years were just outliers and bad luck.  The real talent showed up in 2013.
 
Oh they won in 2004 and 2007 too?  Do they have the same GM now?  How many of the assistant GMs from 2004 and 2007 are still with the organization?  Did the owner have a policy in 2004 and 2007 not to sign players to contracts that would take them into their mid-30s? 
 
There's absolutely nothing about KillerB's posts that qualify as trolling.  He's spot on with the way a very large portion of the fanbase feels.  If that's not welcome on SoSH, then SoSH has jumped the shark.

So all of the player and coach underperformance and injuries are the FO's fault? You should let them borrow your crystal ball so they can do a better job.

 

[StuckOnYouk]

The problem is, they're now playing 2 months of garbage time.  Nothing you see over the next two months can be assumed to be real.  If they struggle, it could be because the games don't matter.  If they do well, it could be because the games don't really matter.  Call it the Mark Melancon effect.
 
Bradley made an adjustment and now the pitchers have adjusted back.  Let's see if he can make another adjustment.
 
I said before the season his best comp might be ex-White Sox prospect Brian Anderson.  Hopefully this is one of the times I turn out to be wrong.

 
There will be a lot of pitchers Bradley will be facing in the next 2 months who are going to be playing in important games for their team. That's all that matters.

 

[Stitch01]

Yeah, this site is only open to those who are blindly faithful to the Red Sox ownership.  It's complete nonsense to question anything they've done.  After all, they won the world series in 2013, and just you forgot about how they missed the playoffs in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014, with two of those seasons among the worst teams in baseball, and a third one of the largest collapses in the history of the game.  They know what they're doing, those other four years were just outliers and bad luck.  The real talent showed up in 2013.
 
Oh they won in 2004 and 2007 too?  Do they have the same GM now?  How many of the assistant GMs from 2004 and 2007 are still with the organization?  Did the owner have a policy in 2004 and 2007 not to sign players to contracts that would take them into their mid-30s? 
 
There's absolutely nothing about KillerB's posts that qualify as trolling.  He's spot on with the way a very large portion of the fanbase feels.  If that's not welcome on SoSH, then SoSH has jumped the shark.

CrIticizing the front office for being cheap is just wrong. Maybe it's not trolling, but it's factually incorrect. Not liking how they spend their money is fair game, but that's not his argument. Saying we shouldn't care about prospects because they won't play here because Lester only spent 8+ seasons here doesn't make a lot if sense. Papi has been here since '03, Pedroia is signed up forever.

They're terrible arguments.

 

[jasail]

Can we please try to keep all the repetitive, hyperbolic, grousing to one thread; this place is has turned into an absolute headache over the past month. You don't need to relentlessly post the same opinion across threads; I can promise those of you who are doing this, that we already know what you folks think. Less is often more and SOSH is presently an example of that.

 

[Sprowl]

Why should we care about JBJ, X, Mookie and the rest of them. If they turn out to be any good, they'll end up playing for someone else, based on soundest micro-economic principles. Who could argue with that?

Why is that a bad thing? If they end up playing for someone else during their 30s, they will have given us six years of excellent play and several championships during their 20s, and earned a big payday elsewhere, based on soundest micro-economic principles.

***

I think Bradley has adjusted to being thrown hard stuff down and in, but in the process has become more vulnerable to hard stuff up and away. I think his batting stance may be too exaggerated a crouch right now. Adjust and adjust some more.

 

[KillerBs]

Ok, I will plead guilty to repetitve and hyperbolic. On the other hand, shouting down any criticism of the FO, while carrying their water, ad infinitim gets a little tiring too. 
 
My notion is that I think/fear the FO plan is a signficant overall reduction in payroll in the next few years, with the result that my enjoyment of the Red Sox is reduced and their already teeming wallets get fatter. I acknowledge I very well could be wrong, and hope I am.
 
And for the record, the sum total of my specific criticism of the FO since Nov. 2013 is signing Sizemore and not getting a Lester deal done. If that is off limits around here and ban worthy, I'll live.

 

[sackamano]

You have no proof of that.

 

[Apisith]

The issue, for me, is that if we don't sign any high end FAs, we're really dependent on our prospect pipeline. If it ever fails, we'll suck for a while. I feel the FO will eventually cave on these long term contracts and they will have to sign 2 or 3 if we have a lot of young, cost-controlled talent in the team. Why they didn't sign Lester? Who knows. But they'll push the boat out for someone else, maybe even Scherzer if we end up sucking enough to get a protected first round pick.

 

[Stitch01]

Why is that a bad thing? If they end up playing for someone else during their 30s, they will have given us six years of excellent play and several championships during their 20s, and earned a big payday elsewhere, based on soundest micro-economic principles.***I think Bradley has adjusted to being thrown hard stuff down and in, but in the process has become more vulnerable to hard stuff up and away. I think his batting stance may be too exaggerated a crouch right now. Adjust and adjust some more.

Did he switch stances this much coming through the minors? It seems weird to me that he keeps having to tweak his stance to hit fastballs, but what do I know.

 

[KillerBs]

Sprowl you ask fairly, why is it a bad thing if the Sox adopt a policy of not signing our homegrown players to market value deals when they hit FA.
 
Two obvious reasons I see.
 
It erodes the investment the fan has in the success of the kids, as you gird yourself from the outset in the reality that if the kids actuallly turn into the players we hope they are, they will end up playing for someone else.
 
Second, I have serious doubts that the team can have sustained success with a strategy of populating our team with pre-FA kids, 2nd rate FAs on 3 year or lesser deals, and guys prepared to take massive hometown discounts.  (Yes, I know we won the WS last year, which was really great, admittedly.) OTOH building a team heavily stocked with kids from the farm, supplemented by those of them who are the best who we pay at market value in their FA years, and a periodic dip into the FA market to fill the holes, strikes me as an approach which has a much better chance of success. 
 
SBF, if this counts as trolling in your books, my apologies in advance.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
There will be a lot of pitchers Bradley will be facing in the next 2 months who are going to be playing in important games for their team. That's all that matters.

 
Exactly.  JBJ at the plate has been nothing but a disaster this season.  And Bogaerts has been nearly as bad.
 
But both are still rookies -- and amazingly BBRef still has JBJ pegged at around a 3 WAR season even if everything just holds steady.  And then the reality hits, that both are still more likely to improve than plateau or decline.  
 
Whether they do improve or not, only time will tell...and so that time is needed.  I hope they both get it in Boston.
 
Honestly, there's hardly anything this offseason I'd like to see as much as JBJ and Bogaerts go off and train with Pedey in AZ.

 

[LondonSox]

I don't see evidence of the FO not signing premium free agents, they seem hesisitant to sign older players to premium free agent deals.
 
If they make no effort to sign top players in their prime THEN complain. I am yet to see much evidence for that.
 
Signing Sizemore is not proof of anything other than the Sox like cheap upside plays.
 
Not signing Lester may (or may not) be an error. They might sign him anyway. They may have messed up thinking they were going to get a deal and played it wrong early and screwed up. They may have a max number of years plan for 99% of pitchers, or for pitchers over 30.
 
None of the latter posabilities suggest a refusal to sign prime free agents nor remotely suggest an intention to drop payroll meaningfully.

 

[jacklamabe65]

He is Iggie-good in center field, better than anyone I've ever seen in a RS uniform play the position in fifty-plus years. He needs to play, period.

 

[Super Nomario]

Oh, 50 or so games, I'd say.

 
 

 
I think the question is more what the rest of the season needs to look like for him not to be the 2015 centerfielder, and I suspect that involves him being implicated in a plot to smuggle weapons to Boko Haram or something. They're not going to give up on him on this short a trial.

 
So you guys would just pencil him as the starter next year no matter what the rest of his season looks like?

 

[jacklamabe65]

Yes.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
 
 
So you guys would just pencil him as the starter next year no matter what the rest of his season looks like?

His K rate has been trending down and his LD% and OBP (30%! and .342 in July) have been trending up since May.  He'd really have to suck a big one, or someone really special would have to come along for the Sox to think much about swapping him out next year.  WAR is WAR, whether you rack up it with your bat or your glove.

 

[JimBoSox9]

 
 
 
So you guys would just pencil him as the starter next year no matter what the rest of his season looks like?

 
110% yes.  By the end of this year he'll probably have around 700 MLB PA.  When you've got a guy with pedigree and mL performance, the "what do we have?" base line shouldn't be less than 800 PA.  Throw in anecdotally high-quality intangibles and empirically the best damn outfield glove in the league, and I argue that number is 1000.  He could go (hyperbole alert) 0-for-200 down the stretch and I'd still write '2015 April and May' in stone.  Boegarts too. 

 

[joe dokes]

 
 
 
So you guys would just pencil him as the starter next year no matter what the rest of his season looks like?

 
If he goes 0-for-the-rest-of-the-season, then no.
 
But so far this year, putting up significant WAR, he's something of a mirror image to Piazza, in terms of his generational skill in one phase sufficiently overcoming his weakness in another to keep him valuable.

 

[JMDurron]

There's also the marginal impact that Bradley's awesome defense has on the team's ability to take a defensive gamble (Like Adam Dunn!  :c070: ) in LF.  Given the impending search for an impact bat on a team that presumably still includes Ortiz at DH and Napoli at 1B in 2015, that marginal impact could be a major factor in the team's thinking.  

 

[JimBoSox9]

There's also the marginal impact that Bradley's awesome defense has on the team's ability to take a defensive gamble (Like Adam Dunn!  :c070: ) in LF.  Given the impending search for an impact bat on a team that presumably still includes Ortiz at DH and Napoli at 1B in 2015, that marginal impact could be a major factor in the team's thinking.  

 
I wouldn't love this very much.  With a quality RF and even a reasonably mediocre LF, JBJ can practically take away the triangle and let the RF take away the big area past Pesky.  For pitchers who live away from RHB, that's a hugely beneficial configuration.  Don't make JBJ shade over left to cover for an absolute dead weight.

 

[JMDurron]

 
I wouldn't love this very much.  With a quality RF and even a reasonably mediocre LF, JBJ can practically take away the triangle and let the RF take away the big area past Pesky.  For pitchers who live away from RHB, that's a hugely beneficial configuration.  Don't make JBJ shade over left to cover for an absolute dead weight.

 
Obviously, I'd prefer an offensive stud who is at least adequate in LF, but if the choice is between a massive bat or a decently well-rounded player who has less offensive upside, LF seems like the obvious place to go for the former if possible, and Bradley in CF would help to limit the damage from such a roster decision.  I say this just in case it wasn't obvious that I was joking about Dunn.  I would want a Carp-level travesty in LF if it could be avoided, but I'm struggling to see where else such a player could be added to the roster positionally. 

 

[BoSoxLady]

Sprowl you ask fairly, why is it a bad thing if the Sox adopt a policy of not signing our homegrown players to market value deals when they hit FA.

Two obvious reasons I see.

It erodes the investment the fan has in the success of the kids, as you gird yourself from the outset in the reality that if the kids actuallly turn into the players we hope they are, they will end up playing for someone else.

Second, I have serious doubts that the team can have sustained success with a strategy of populating our team with pre-FA kids, 2nd rate FAs on 3 year or lesser deals, and guys prepared to take massive hometown discounts. (Yes, I know we won the WS last year, which was really great, admittedly.) OTOH building a team heavily stocked with kids from the farm, supplemented by those of them who are the best who we pay at market value in their FA years, and a periodic dip into the FA market to fill the holes, strikes me as an approach which has a much better chance of success.

SBF, if this counts as trolling in your books, my apologies in advance.

Everyone is rooting for laundry. Not just Red Sox fans. Most teams have a six-year window in which they can bring a championship to their fans. That's how Oakland and Tampa in particular stay competitive for a while, then have to retool.

You come across as entitled. In case you forgot, the Red Sox went 86 without a championship. Year-after-year, it was "wait 'ti next year" by the 4th of July.

If Lester is traded to an ALE team, you'll have your shot at cheering Lester albeit in another uni.

I trust the FO that has brought us three championships in ten years. Have they made mistakes? Certainly. No FO is perfect. Assuming they're clueless and screwed up the Lester negotiations before we have the facts is short-sighted.

Relax and get a grip.

 

[OnWisc]

Sprowl you ask fairly, why is it a bad thing if the Sox adopt a policy of not signing our homegrown players to market value deals when they hit FA.
 
Two obvious reasons I see.
 
It erodes the investment the fan has in the success of the kids, as you gird yourself from the outset in the reality that if the kids actuallly turn into the players we hope they are, they will end up playing for someone else.
 
Second, I have serious doubts that the team can have sustained success with a strategy of populating our team with pre-FA kids, 2nd rate FAs on 3 year or lesser deals, and guys prepared to take massive hometown discounts.  (Yes, I know we won the WS last year, which was really great, admittedly.) OTOH building a team heavily stocked with kids from the farm, supplemented by those of them who are the best who we pay at market value in their FA years, and a periodic dip into the FA market to fill the holes, strikes me as an approach which has a much better chance of success. 
 
SBF, if this counts as trolling in your books, my apologies in advance.

I don't think that letting Lester walk/dealing him will result in Sox fans girding themselves for the inevitable departure of every successfully homegrown talent. Presumably part of the current strategic direction is to buyout the early FA years on some of the homegrown talent, which they really haven't had the opportunity to do yet with the current crop of prospects/rookies.

I don't disagree with your second point, but I'd like to offer a third strategy which includes both populating the team with pre-FA kids, with 2nd rate FAs on 3 year or lesser deals, the occasional elite player acquired through the strength of the minor league system, and guys being paid below market in their FA years because they elected the security of a long-term deal and were overpaid in their arb/pre-arb years relative to what they would have otherwise received. I think that strategy could have more success than the other two approaches.

Do you lament the Sox not re-upping Papelbon or Ellsbury at what was ultimately their market value? Lester may well have made some fundamental change that will allow him to maintain an elevated K rate and 2 BB/9 well into his 30s. OTOH, his K/BB ratio this year is an extreme outlier, and he's likely to pull down a contract that will essentially pay him as if he's going to put up such numbers each year for the next half decade+.

 

[seantoo]

Oh, 50 or so games, I'd say.

Brilliant! The overwhelming majority of rookies struggle with consistency. He's so good defensively that you have to consider that it offsets part of his offensive output. He has a proven eye in the minors, and he will become a better hitter even if it takes close to 2 years to do so. Barring major tradeS we are not likely to contend next year either. This team appears committed to letting the kids go through their growing pains, then they'll re-assess what worked and what didn't and likely fill in the blanks after. It may suck for some fans who want a WS every year or to be contenders every year but in order to get back on that path again the one we appear to be right now is the more prudent one with a better chance to succeed, than trying to contend and rebuild at the same time. Most here agree that to some degree we struck lighting in a bottle last year.  I for one hope they commit to this youth movement for at least another year. Of course trades that land key players could change the equation quickly. I actually enjoy the endless possibilities and the different directions this can go. 

 

[seantoo]

Sprowl you ask fairly, why is it a bad thing if the Sox adopt a policy of not signing our homegrown players to market value deals when they hit FA.
 
Two obvious reasons I see.
 
It erodes the investment the fan has in the success of the kids, as you gird yourself from the outset in the reality that if the kids actuallly turn into the players we hope they are, they will end up playing for someone else.
 
Second, I have serious doubts that the team can have sustained success with a strategy of populating our team with pre-FA kids, 2nd rate FAs on 3 year or lesser deals, and guys prepared to take massive hometown discounts.  (Yes, I know we won the WS last year, which was really great, admittedly.) OTOH building a team heavily stocked with kids from the farm, supplemented by those of them who are the best who we pay at market value in their FA years, and a periodic dip into the FA market to fill the holes, strikes me as an approach which has a much better chance of success. 
 
SBF, if this counts as trolling in your books, my apologies in advance.

What if they are doing the latter approach you mention, but are waiting a year or two to assess team strengths and weaknesses at that time and THEN supplement that with 1 or 2 costly free agents. They could do it now but wouldn't it be better to give all the pieces a better chances to line up, so you get the best bang for the buck?

 

[Super Nomario]

His K rate has been trending down and his LD% and OBP (30%! and .342 in July) have been trending up since May.  He'd really have to suck a big one, or someone really special would have to come along for the Sox to think much about swapping him out next year.  WAR is WAR, whether you rack up it with your bat or your glove.

I'm dubious (his .400 BABIP for July is clearly unsustainable) of his improvement has to be real for you to be on board with him as the 2015 starter? If he's really a .227/.300/.311 hitter, are you OK with that given his glove?
 

 
110% yes.  By the end of this year he'll probably have around 700 MLB PA.  When you've got a guy with pedigree and mL performance, the "what do we have?" base line shouldn't be less than 800 PA.  Throw in anecdotally high-quality intangibles and empirically the best damn outfield glove in the league, and I argue that number is 1000.  He could go (hyperbole alert) 0-for-200 down the stretch and I'd still write '2015 April and May' in stone.  Boegarts too. 

Does that extend to say, Middlebrooks (obviously never as good a prospect as Bogaerts, but roughly as good a prospect as JBJ at the respective times they were promoted to MLB)?
 
If we say JBJ gets 800 or 1000 PA to establish himself, what does his baseline production need to be at that point for you to feel confident in him going forward? Are you looking at his overall MLB line (likely still pretty bad given his struggles to date) or are you throwing his to-date numbers out if it looks like he's established a new baseline?
 
One of the issues I have with evaluating JBJ is that he really doesn't have an extensive track record above A-ball; he's got just 271 AA PAs and 374 AAA PAs, which means by the end of the year he's likely to have more MLB PAs than AA/AAA combined (he's at 451 now). Any projection system, for instance, is going to weigh his MLB numbers pretty heavily at this point (ZIPS has him at .239/.316/.353 for the rest of the season, Steamer .244/.318/.365).

 

[Plympton91]

I always try to keep reminding myself of what exactly the value of "Fielding" is in MLB.  I think Win Shares does a good job of breaking down the different components of winning a baseball game, even if you can quibble around the edges of the exact weights that James applies.
 
You have 53 percent "Defense" and 47 percent "Offense."
 
But Defense gets further broken down into "PItching" and "Fielding" --- Given that on average about 7 outs per game are strikeouts, that suggests a higher weight on Pitching than Fielding.  So, let's call the breakdown of defense into 33 percent pitching and 20 percent fielding.  Another reason to downweight fielding relative to pitching is because fielding can be broken into "routine" and "not routine," so who is doing the fielding only matters on a subset of batted balls.
 
So, that means that position players encompass 67 percent of the value of a win, but only 20/67 or 30 percent of their value is from their fielding.   Probably you should bump up that figure for C, SS, CF, and 2B, in that order, and bump it up further for elite talents like Bradley, but I find it hard to believe that 50/50 is right weight to place on it regardless.

 

[The Boomer]

Brilliant! The overwhelming majority of rookies struggle with consistency. He's so good defensively that you have to consider that it offsets part of his offensive output. He has a proven eye in the minors, and he will become a better hitter even if it takes close to 2 years to do so. Barring major tradeS we are not likely to contend next year either. This team appears committed to letting the kids go through their growing pains, then they'll re-assess what worked and what didn't and likely fill in the blanks after. It may suck for some fans who want a WS every year or to be contenders every year but in order to get back on that path again the one we appear to be right now is the more prudent one with a better chance to succeed, than trying to contend and rebuild at the same time. Most here agree that to some degree we struck lighting in a bottle last year.  I for one hope they commit to this youth movement for at least another year. Of course trades that land key players could change the equation quickly. I actually enjoy the endless possibilities and the different directions this can go. 

 
The unexpected gift of 2013 is what is making it possible to do a real rebuild that, if it's done right, should be more enduring in terms of getting back to that "every year in contention" mentality.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I'm dubious (his .400 BABIP for July is clearly unsustainable) of his improvement has to be real for you to be on board with him as the 2015 starter? If he's really a .227/.300/.311 hitter, are you OK with that given his glove?
 
Does that extend to say, Middlebrooks (obviously never as good a prospect as Bogaerts, but roughly as good a prospect as JBJ at the respective times they were promoted to MLB)?
 
If we say JBJ gets 800 or 1000 PA to establish himself, what does his baseline production need to be at that point for you to feel confident in him going forward? Are you looking at his overall MLB line (likely still pretty bad given his struggles to date) or are you throwing his to-date numbers out if it looks like he's established a new baseline?
 
One of the issues I have with evaluating JBJ is that he really doesn't have an extensive track record above A-ball; he's got just 271 AA PAs and 374 AAA PAs, which means by the end of the year he's likely to have more MLB PAs than AA/AAA combined (he's at 451 now). Any projection system, for instance, is going to weigh his MLB numbers pretty heavily at this point (ZIPS has him at .239/.316/.353 for the rest of the season, Steamer .244/.318/.365).

 
If JBJ ends at .230/.300/.320 then I think there's no discussion that his glove makes his pitiful bat "worth it" for 2015.
 
Because that makes him a 3 WAR player in his rookie season.  Then you hope that rather than a sophomore slump, you see real improvement over the next few hundred plate appearances.  And if that doesn't materialize, you think about how to move in a different direction for 2016, and maybe relegate him to a defensive replacement while he's still cost-controlled.  
 
But I think that until he's got at least 1000-1200 PA under his belt, the Sox should give him the chance based on his all-world glove.  Because unlike with 2B-SS defense, he's not taking away just singles.  He's taking away doubles and triples and bases advanced.
 
The biggest question I have is to what degree the holes in his swing are mechanical versus approach-related.  Based on the Sox' all-around decline, Colbrunn doesn't seem to be that good a good batting coach, however well he might fit into the theory of what Farrell and the FO are trying to do.

 

[nvalvo]

I always try to keep reminding myself of what exactly the value of "Fielding" is in MLB.  I think Win Shares does a good job of breaking down the different components of winning a baseball game, even if you can quibble around the edges of the exact weights that James applies.
 
You have 53 percent "Defense" and 47 percent "Offense."
 
But Defense gets further broken down into "PItching" and "Fielding" --- Given that on average about 7 outs per game are strikeouts, that suggests a higher weight on Pitching than Fielding.  So, let's call the breakdown of defense into 33 percent pitching and 20 percent fielding.  Another reason to downweight fielding relative to pitching is because fielding can be broken into "routine" and "not routine," so who is doing the fielding only matters on a subset of batted balls.
 
So, that means that position players encompass 67 percent of the value of a win, but only 20/67 or 30 percent of their value is from their fielding.   Probably you should bump up that figure for C, SS, CF, and 2B, in that order, and bump it up further for elite talents like Bradley, but I find it hard to believe that 50/50 is right weight to place on it regardless.

 
Doesn't UZR take pitchers' contributions into account in its formula for assigning credit to defenders? 

 

[JimBoSox9]

 
Does that extend to say, Middlebrooks (obviously never as good a prospect as Bogaerts, but roughly as good a prospect as JBJ at the respective times they were promoted to MLB)?

 
Middlebrooks is a tough case.  I'd say vaguely yes, to a lesser extent.  I take issue with the equivalence between JBJ and WMB.  I'll concede rough agreement with the "at the times they were promoted" caveat, because WMB came on strong, but you're comparing a 5th round pick in '07 (3+ mL seasons) with poor contact skills to a 1st round pick in 2007 (1 1/2 mL seasons) with plus discipline.  If I can throw out 600 PA as the 'patience baseline' for any young player you expect to become a full-time regular, I'd argue WMB should get around that level rather than the extended patience I argued for JBJ.  Really, we're talking about drawing lines that are a lot more squishy than the numbers I'm putting on them.  But really, all prospects deserve some patience.  It's somewhere more than 400 and somewhere less than 1000.  YMMV.
 
WMB actually reminds me of Lowrie more than anything.  Because of how the CBA and rookie deals work, sometimes circumstances and luck conspire to prevent a guy from getting maximum value out of those PAs.  At some point, you can still like a guy, but the clock's running out on his (potential) breakout happening with the team that drafted him.  WMB is at 740 PA in the bigs, but it's been so chunked up and disrupted it makes you feel like his clock is still back at about 300, but once you get into arb, teams need to shit or get off the pot.  Lowrie was at about 900 PA when they traded him and, his playing time was also poorly distributed for cultivating improvement.  
 
We talk a lot about the massive ROI teams get from cost-controlled players, and post-FA aging curves.  Lowrie, and possiblyWMB, may be the opposite of that, where the venn diagram of original team control and his value peak just don't overlap.  It stinks and it sucks, but it's shaping up to happen.  
 
 

If we say JBJ gets 800 or 1000 PA to establish himself, what does his baseline production need to be at that point for you to feel confident in him going forward? Are you looking at his overall MLB line (likely still pretty bad given his struggles to date) or are you throwing his to-date numbers out if it looks like he's established a new baseline?

 
Yes, or, a little of both?  A lot of it depends what they're getting from LF/RF/1B/DH over the next couple years.  With JBJ it's less about 'will his bat be good' and more 'will his bat be not-shitty enough to support his glove', if we're projecting a pessimistic outlook.  Assuming the overall lineup can support it, I'd live with JBJ and Vazquez putting up .310 OBPs in the 8-9 holes.  To be comfortable making him a starter lock?  I dunno, would be nice to see that OPB around .330.  On-base and discipline are his calling cards, I'm putting about zero point zero weight or concern onto SLG for a year or two; I'd sort of be stunned if he moved his OPS up via that lever until he hits 26-27.
I'm much more likely to trust the recent numbers over the early numbers, but you can't just throw out the latter if you're trying to do a hard numbers projection

 

[Super Nomario]

Middlebrooks is a tough case.  I'd say vaguely yes, to a lesser extent.  I take issue with the equivalence between JBJ and WMB.  I'll concede rough agreement with the "at the times they were promoted" caveat, because WMB came on strong, but you're comparing a 5th round pick in '07 (3+ mL seasons) with poor contact skills to a 1st round pick in 2007 (1 1/2 mL seasons) with plus discipline.  If I can throw out 600 PA as the 'patience baseline' for any young player you expect to become a full-time regular, I'd argue WMB should get around that level rather than the extended patience I argued for JBJ.  Really, we're talking about drawing lines that are a lot more squishy than the numbers I'm putting on them.  But really, all prospects deserve some patience.  It's somewhere more than 400 and somewhere less than 1000.  YMMV.

Middlebrooks was a lower draft pick, but the number of minor league seasons is due entirely to Middlebrooks coming from high school while Bradley came from college - we expect a high schooler is going to spend more time in the minors. As for discipline, Bradley walked more, but they both struck out a lot (and both have continued to do so at the major-league level). Obviously very different strengths / weaknesses, but I think the promise they've shown at the same ages is similar.
 

WMB actually reminds me of Lowrie more than anything.  Because of how the CBA and rookie deals work, sometimes circumstances and luck conspire to prevent a guy from getting maximum value out of those PAs.  At some point, you can still like a guy, but the clock's running out on his (potential) breakout happening with the team that drafted him.  WMB is at 740 PA in the bigs, but it's been so chunked up and disrupted it makes you feel like his clock is still back at about 300, but once you get into arb, teams need to shit or get off the pot.  Lowrie was at about 900 PA when they traded him and, his playing time was also poorly distributed for cultivating improvement.  

Hmm, I've thought of the Middlebrooks / Lowrie parallel, too. I think both those guys look great when they're 100% healthy, but in a 162-game season it's rare to be 100% healthy.
 

 We talk a lot about the massive ROI teams get from cost-controlled players, and post-FA aging curves.  Lowrie, and possiblyWMB, may be the opposite of that, where the venn diagram of original team control and his value peak just don't overlap.  It stinks and it sucks, but it's shaping up to happen.  

This is an argument for more patience in promoting these guys, right? Based on normal aging curves we'd expect Christian Vazquez (for instance) to be better at 29 than at 23, so wouldn't it be smarter (unless a player's minor league performance demands promotion to MLB, to error on the side of giving him more AAA time? But all the Sox' recent prospects - Middlebrooks, Bradley, Bogaerts, Betts, Vazquez - have been promoted after less than half a season in Pawtucket.
 

 
Yes, or, a little of both?  A lot of it depends what they're getting from LF/RF/1B/DH over the next couple years.  With JBJ it's less about 'will his bat be good' and more 'will his bat be not-shitty enough to support his glove', if we're projecting a pessimistic outlook.  Assuming the overall lineup can support it, I'd live with JBJ and Vazquez putting up .310 OBPs in the 8-9 holes.  To be comfortable making him a starter lock?  I dunno, would be nice to see that OPB around .330.  On-base and discipline are his calling cards, I'm putting about zero point zero weight or concern onto SLG for a year or two; I'd sort of be stunned if he moved his OPS up via that lever until he hits 26-27.
I'm much more likely to trust the recent numbers over the early numbers, but you can't just throw out the latter if you're trying to do a hard numbers projection

The power matters in terms of OBP in the sense that it makes Bradley's BA extremely BABIP-dependent. It's going to be hard for him to get his OBP up a lot without hitting a few HR, even if he cuts down on his strikeouts.
 
The other factor is Bradley's "true" fielding level. He's on pace for a 3-win season with the glove, which is pretty rare. There are guys like early Andruw Jones who are consistently in the 2.5-3 win range defensively, but there are a lot of guys like Carlos Gomez, Peter Bourjos, and Franklin Gutierrez who put up a 3-win defensive season every now and again but average more in the 1.5-2 win range. Whether JBJ is truly a generational guy or merely a Gold Glove type matters quite a bit when we talk about the error bars for him offensively.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

After 46 games, Bradley bottomed out at .193/.280/.283 on May 26. 
 
At that point he "stabilized" for 29 games, till June 28, going .226/.294/.312.
 
From that point on he's been .296/.351/.366 for the last 22 games, even including his current three-game o-fer. 
 
Obviously, the goalposts are arbitrary, but that looks an awful lot like a player settling in. For those who see "no improvement" over the course of the season, I don't know what player you're watching. 
 
I'm not expecting him to keep moving linearly upwards for the rest of the season, but I'm pretty confident he'll continue to get better and level out at some mid-point between his second and third periods above. If he can do .250/.333/.350 or so, with his glove, I think he's got a long career ahead of him. And I also expect his power to develop a bit as he ages. 

 

[Super Nomario]

From that point on he's been .296/.351/.366 for the last 22 games, even including his current three-game o-fer. 
 
Obviously, the goalposts are arbitrary, but that looks an awful lot like a player settling in. For those who see "no improvement" over the course of the season, I don't know what player you're watching. 

Those are, as you note, arbitrary goalposts, and the problem is it's entirely BABIP-driven. He's BABIPing .404 in that span. His K/BB is still more 3/1 (19/6), and he's still hitting for no power (5 XBH, all 2B). He looks better (and as others have noted, the LD% is up), but the peripheral numbers suggest the improvement is unsustainable.

 

[nvalvo]

Those are, as you note, arbitrary goalposts, and the problem is it's entirely BABIP-driven. He's BABIPing .404 in that span. His K/BB is still more 3/1 (19/6), and he's still hitting for no power (5 XBH, all 2B). He looks better (and as others have noted, the LD% is up), but the peripheral numbers suggest the improvement is unsustainable.

 
Really just BABIP, though. His swinging strike percentage and K percentage are both markedly improved in that span. 

 

[Sprowl]

Those are, as you note, arbitrary goalposts, and the problem is it's entirely BABIP-driven. He's BABIPing .404 in that span. His K/BB is still more 3/1 (19/6), and he's still hitting for no power (5 XBH, all 2B). He looks better (and as others have noted, the LD% is up), but the peripheral numbers suggest the improvement is unsustainable.

I don't see a BABIP-driven recovery as unsustainable for a batter. For pitchers, yes, BABIP is essentially uncontrollable, but for batters the LD% (and probably the batted ball velocity, if we had access to HitFX) can earn a higher BABIP. The scouting report on Bradley from early in the minors was that he had gap power and was a line drive machine, and that is the Bradley we've seen glimpses of in July.

 

[Super Nomario]

I don't see a BABIP-driven recovery as unsustainable for a batter. For pitchers, yes, BABIP is essentially uncontrollable, but for batters the LD% (and probably the batted ball velocity, if we had access to HitFX) can earn a higher BABIP. The scouting report on Bradley from early in the minors was that he had gap power and was a line drive machine, and that is the Bradley we've seen glimpses of in July.

No one has a .404 BABIP as a true talent level. Tony Gwynn's career BABIP was .341; even if you normalize JBJ's July to that lofty level, his slash line is basically the same as what he's done all year.