Should Jackie Bradley Jr be traded?

[Kimmi]

Well, in all fairness, UZR/150 is not supposed to be used in small sample sizes. For OF'ers, even a full season may not be a large enough sample size to make a definitive judgment, so I take the low UZR/150 number for JBJ this year with a grain of salt.

 

I think JBJ is deceptively good. He makes tough plays look easy, so maybe that has affected the ratings of some of his plays.

 

Being deceptively good should not affect the advanced metric ratings. If anything, it would affect the eye test.

[Kimmi]

Should JBJ be traded is too vague a question. Traded for who ? If you can improve the team , trade him. If you can't , don't. It's that simple. You certainly don't dump him simply because he has been slumping. He has shown before that he can produce at the plate. Patience is a virtue.

 

I like this post.

[Bellhorn04]

Jackie B. Goode

[Wade Boggs]

The Red Sox don't have a lot of OF depth. So if you trade Bradley and suffer an injury.. what next

 

Worse case he hits ninth and you get Gold Glove D. He's not their problem. The numbers and stats don't say it , I still am going with the pen as the problem.

[a700hitter]

Being deceptively good should not affect the advanced metric ratings. If anything, it would affect the eye test.

Di the metrics indicate that Bradley is not that good?

[S5Dewey]

Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone

 

Take paradise, put up a parking lot.

[a700hitter]

Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone

 

Take paradise, put up a parking lot.

We have been spoiled having Pedroia hold down second base for 10 years providing All Star quality performance. The guy has been a key contributor to all of the team success since he has been here. No one fields the position better, and the guy can really spark the offense when he is hot.

 

Let's not forget how many people wanted to send Ortiz to the glue factory in 2009 and 2010 when he was banged up. And I also believe that both the FO and the fans badly estimated the blow that the loss of Ortiz cause to our offense.

[Bellhorn04]

Di the metrics indicate that Bradley is not that good?

 

His rating on FanGraphs seems a bit lower than it should be, so moonslav raised the 'deceptive' theory.

[a700hitter]

His rating on FanGraphs seems a bit lower than it should be, so moonslav raised the 'deceptive' theory.

If the metrics don't rate him highly, it is one of those examples of why the eye test is more reliable than metrics when it comes to fielding. He is not deceptively good. Get a bleacher seat and watch this game every night and compare him to the opposition's centerfielders, then you can appreciate how good he is.

[moonslav59]

Being deceptively good should not affect the advanced metric ratings. If anything, it would affect the eye test.

 

UZR/150 is based on humans evaluating a player's chance of getting to a ball and either getting to it or an out of not.

 

Other metrics rank the difficulty of a play. Maybe JBJ makes a play look easy and they rank it as a routine out- not a tough one. That was my point.

 

[moonslav59]

If the metrics don't rate him highly, it is one of those examples of why the eye test is more reliable than metrics when it comes to fielding. He is not deceptively good. Get a bleacher seat and watch this game every night and compare him to the opposition's centerfielders, then you can appreciate how good he is.

 

UZR/150 uses the "eye test" from trained observers that try to be objective, are rotated, and are probably more consistent and unbiased than the average fan.

[moonslav59]

Di the metrics indicate that Bradley is not that good?

 

DRS has JBJ as the best. He's 6 runs saved ahead of the 4th place guy.

[a700hitter]

UZR/150 uses the "eye test" from trained observers that try to be objective, are rotated, and are probably more consistent and unbiased than the average fan.

They are wrong in this instance.

[moonslav59]

They are wrong in this instance.

 

I agree, and nobody is arguing any of these metrics are perfect. The UZR/150 people even point out that a full season of an OF'er's data may not be a significant sample size.

 

The low UZR/150 for JBJ this year is concerning, but my guess is by year end, he will be near the top in every defensive metric.

 

He'a already gone up from +0.1 to +0.7 in just a few days (currently 9th).

 

DRS has 3 guys with +9, and JBj is one. One guy is at 5 and two at 4. The rest are 3 or worse.

 

Inside Edge ranks plays by difficulty. In the most difficult category (1-10%) the rankings are:

 

66.7 JBJ

50% Cain

50% Herrera

37.5% Kiermaier

28.6% Buxton

20% M Margot

 

In the next 4 categories, JBJ is at 100%.

 

He also has the most 0% plays in MLB (22). The reason is ranked 10th on this metric is due to much less innings played than those in front of him (except for Jacoby E).

 

[notin]

Nobody is going to convince me JBJ isn't one of baseballs best fielding CF'ers.

 

He's great!

 

Defense matters to me, especially up the middle.

 

What baffles me is that fangraphs has JBJ ranked 9th in UZR/150 at just +0.7, yet they have his DRS at +10. This ranks him first a full 6 runs ahead of the 4th place player. I know the sample sizes are small, but something seems out of whack here.

 

I will say one thing: JBJ is one heck of a defender, and I also think he's got a good bat that will be shown to us as the season progresses.

 

That's because those metrics look at defense differently.

 

UZR is a cumulative total of plays, although it can go negative for poor play. But as it is cumulative, missed time works against it. UZR does include position and park adjustments. UZR/150 is an extrapolation of UZR out to 150 games. Small sample sizes are useless in this extraction

 

DRS is measured against league average for the position, so JBJ's value can go up based on the poor defense of other centerfielder..

[notin]

UZR/150 uses the "eye test" from trained observers that try to be objective, are rotated, and are probably more consistent and unbiased than the average fan.

 

Not to mention, fans doing the Eye Test tend to have incredibly lopsided sample sizes for players on their own team. Watching 1400 innings of Bradley and comparing it to 70 innings of, say, Kevin Kiermaier doesn't make for a fair and unbiased evaluation

[moonslav59]

That's because those metrics look at defense differently.

 

UZR is a cumulative total of plays, although it can go negative for poor play. But as it is cumulative, missed time works against it. UZR does include position and park adjustments. UZR/150 is an extrapolation of UZR out to 150 games. Small sample sizes are useless in this extraction

 

DRS is measured against league average for the position, so JBJ's value can go up based on the poor defense of other centerfielder..

 

Yes, the small sample size should not be used to judge a player's defense, but it is curious to see JBJ somewhat low so far this year, when my eye test has seen greatness.

[Kimmi]

UZR/150 is based on humans evaluating a player's chance of getting to a ball and either getting to it or an out of not.

 

Other metrics rank the difficulty of a play. Maybe JBJ makes a play look easy and they rank it as a routine out- not a tough one. That was my point.

 

 

The "Range" part of UZR has Jackie at +3.1 runs. His overall UZR, and hence his UZR/150, has been hurt by his "Arm" runs, which are at -2.4.

 

Advanced metrics are not likely to be 'deceived' by a player making a play look easy, even in the rankings of "difficult" plays versus "routine" plays. Those plays are not measured by the eye test, so Jackie making a play look easy would not affect the ranking.

[Kimmi]

Not to mention, fans doing the Eye Test tend to have incredibly lopsided sample sizes for players on their own team. Watching 1400 innings of Bradley and comparing it to 70 innings of, say, Kevin Kiermaier doesn't make for a fair and unbiased evaluation

 

Even if a fan watched the exact same plays in the exact same number of innings, the evaluation is likely to be biased. It's just human nature.

 

A Red Sox fan would 'see' Bradley as the better CFer, and a Rays fan would 'see' Kiermaier as the better one.

[a700hitter]

Even if a fan watched the exact same plays in the exact same number of innings, the evaluation is likely to be biased. It's just human nature.

 

A Red Sox fan would 'see' Bradley as the better CFer, and a Rays fan would 'see' Kiermaier as the better one.

Maybe that biased thing would be true of some fans, but not all.

[notin]

Maybe that biased thing would be true of some fans, but not all.

 

The bias is heavily influenced by sample size. As Sox fans watch infinitely more Bradley than Kiermaier or Pillar - two equally elite defensive centerfielders - they will obviously see Bradley make more great plays than they will see the other two make. It's hard to get around it.

 

Are you implying you're not biased by lopsided samples? If so, what's your ranking of Bradley, Kiermaier and Pillar as defensive centerfielders and why?

[a700hitter]

The bias is heavily influenced by sample size. As Sox fans watch infinitely more Bradley than Kiermaier or Pillar - two equally elite defensive centerfielders - they will obviously see Bradley make more great plays than they will see the other two make. It's hard to get around it.

 

Are you implying you're not biased by lopsided samples? If so, what's your ranking of Bradley, Kiermaier and Pillar as defensive centerfielders and why?

I would need to watch each of them in person, preferably from an outfield seat, for a series or two, preferably against each before I would offer an opinion ranking them in order. I haven't seen Kiermaier in person, but based on what I have seen on TV, I do consider him to be top shelf with Bradley and Pillar. As to who is best or a ranking of the three, I would expect the differences to be minor, and I am not sure the differences between the 3 of the very best would be very meaningful or that anyone's opinion or any data measure would be definitive.

[Spudboy]

The bias is heavily influenced by sample size. As Sox fans watch infinitely more Bradley than Kiermaier or Pillar - two equally elite defensive centerfielders - they will obviously see Bradley make more great plays than they will see the other two make. It's hard to get around it.

 

Are you implying you're not biased by lopsided samples? If so, what's your ranking of Bradley, Kiermaier and Pillar as defensive centerfielders and why?

 

I'll bite.

 

Of course I have seen much more of JBJ.

 

I think Kiermaier is probably equal to Bradley in getting to the ball because he appears to have better speed.

 

Bradley seems to have a better arm but I have not seen Kiermaier throw all that much.

 

I think Pillar has less skill overall but does have speed to run down shots.

 

It's a tough call.

[Spudboy]

I would need to watch each of them in person, preferably from an outfield seat, for a series or two, preferably against each before I would offer an opinion ranking them in order. I haven't seen Kiermaier in person, but based on what I have seen on TV, I do consider him to be top shelf with Bradley and Pillar. As to who is best or a ranking of the three, I would expect the differences to be minor, and I am not sure the differences between the 3 of the very best would be very meaningful or that anyone's opinion or any data measure would be definitive.

 

This makes sense.

 

I wonder how ballpark factors effect rankings. Especially those with turf.

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

Why doesn't 2 plays make up for a .200 batting average? If some other Major League center fielder is batting .280, that would only be 2 more hits a week than a .200 hitter.

 

Of course, when you consider MLB centerfielders this year are only hitting a combined .247/.313/.480, it does make Bradley's .211/.298/.394 and those 1-2 extra play a week a little more palatable...

 

I remember the math from Major League, 2 scratch hits a week turns .250 into .300. I'm too lazy to do the math but would 2 hits not turn .200 into .250?. But I said he may take away 1-2 more hits than the Orioles center fielder. Maybe. And many weeks it's 1 or none. And of course his erratic arm may give back one of these plays every few weeks.

 

But as I said I understand mine is not a popular opinion and I can certainly see your side of the debate.

[notin]

I think you mean Bull Durham, and not Major League. And it was 1 hit pet week, not 2. But that was also based on 500 at bats over 25 weeks for .050 points of batting average

 

Basically most starters get about 25 at bats per week. So each hit is worth .040 on their avetage for that week. So if Bradley is saving 2 hits per week, is that or not worth the same as getting 2 more hits per week?

 

1-2 plays per week is a bigger difference than you seemed to think in your original post. To a hitter, it can be .2018040 batting average points. Don't you think it helps a pitcher similarly?

[mvp 78]

I think you mean Air Bud: Seventh Inning Fetch. When you are on all fours seems to be increase range 100%. Also, catching the ball with your mouth rather than stretching at 1B is equal to 1 WAR over the course of a single WS game.

[S5Dewey]

I remember the math from Major League, 2 scratch hits a week turns .250 into .300. I'm too lazy to do the math but would 2 hits not turn .200 into .250?. But I said he may take away 1-2 more hits than the Orioles center fielder. Maybe. And many weeks it's 1 or none. And of course his erratic arm may give back one of these plays every few weeks.

 

And then we get into the unknowns of the issue, how many runs do those 1-2 "extra" plays he makes in a week save? Just last night we saw a SS mishandle a ball on a DP that cost his team 4 runs - and it wasn't even a charged error.

[dgalehouse]

You cannot trust your " eye test ". You have to go by UZR , which is essentially someone else's " eye test ".

[Spudboy]

You cannot trust your " eye test ". You have to go by UZR , which is essentially someone else's " eye test ".

 

But all those other eyes are objective!!!!!!