Should Jackie Bradley Jr be traded?

[moonslav59]

No doubt he will improve on .399. Last year I think he was at .726.

I don't think you can take those number in vacuum. If the team already has guys who cannot hit the baseball then we are going to need a CF who can hit better than .726. If the team is already hitting we can afford someone like Bradley who is basically inept with a bat in his hands but defensively is a genius. I am sure that management is going to consider the context in which JBJ is performing rather than his numbers in isolation.

 

.726 os more than enough from JBJ no matter how well or bad the team is hitting.

 

A .726 JBJ is a big net plus and would make CF one of our biggest overall strengths.

[oldtimer]

It's how many runners he leaves on base as compared to the average CF'er. Then that number can be compared to how many runs he saves with his defense.

 

(BTW, JBJ is also a plus base-runner, so he gains a few runs that way.)

 

The way I read what you say here is "how many runners he leaves on base compared to the average CF'er. Then that number can be compared to how many run he saves with his defense (Versus the average CF'er). I for one had hoped he would flourish under the new Red Sox batting coach, but haven't seen evidence of that to date. I think the discussion of Bradley,especially long term, is an important one.

[S5Dewey]

I guess, if you're trying to completely ignore someone else's point in order to substitute your own.

 

He made a clear point that fielding percentage is not a good defensive metric. Because, you know, it isn't. ...

 

It's more corroboration than substitution. My ego certainly isn't so big that I have to try to substitute my opinion for the opinion of someone who may be the smartest poster on the board.

[FredLynn]

.726 os more than enough from JBJ no matter how well or bad the team is hitting.

 

A .726 JBJ is a big net plus and would make CF one of our biggest overall strengths.

 

I disagree. Simple as that.

You cannot take his offensive production in a vacuum. If we are last in hitting in the AL, for example, we cannot afford JBJ.

If we are scoring, for example, one run per game, I don't care if JBJ is saving six. We still lose. We would, in that circumstance, need someone who can PRODUCE runs.

[moonslav59]

I disagree. Simple as that.

You cannot take his offensive production in a vacuum. If we are last in hitting in the AL, for example, we cannot afford JBJ.

If we are scoring, for example, one run per game, I don't care if JBJ is saving six. We still lose. We would, in that circumstance, need someone who can PRODUCE runs.

 

If we are last in the league in hitting, JBJ's .726 will not be our worst hitter.

[mvp 78]

JBJ was the 13th ranked CFer for dWAR last year and 18th fWAR. His bat brings down his numbers, but his defensive metrics don't show him to be irreplaceable.

[S5Dewey]

I disagree. Simple as that.

You cannot take his offensive production in a vacuum. If we are last in hitting in the AL, for example, we cannot afford JBJ.

If we are scoring, for example, one run per game, I don't care if JBJ is saving six. We still lose. We would, in that circumstance, need someone who can PRODUCE runs.

 

Yes, but OTOH if we're not hitting don't we want the very best defense we can on the field? IMO laying the blame for the team's only scoring one run/game at JBJ's feet isn't very realistic. It's a team "effort".

[FredLynn]

If we are last in the league in hitting, JBJ's .726 will not be our worst hitter.

 

Nope. But he would certainly be our worst hitting OF. You need to score runs in this league to win. Preventing runs is great, but you also need to score.

[S5Dewey]

JBJ was the 13th ranked CFer for dWAR last year and 18th fWAR. His bat brings down his numbers, but his defensive metrics don't show him to be irreplaceable.

 

"Defensive metrics" be damned, how many runs did the Rays score yesterday because Bradley wasn't in CF? The Sox may have come back and won that game but I don't want to have to rely on a 6 run 8th inning every day to make it happen.

[mvp 78]

"Defensive metrics" be damned, how many runs did the Rays score yesterday because Bradley wasn't in CF? The Sox may have come back and won that game but I don't want to have to rely on a 6 run 8th inning every day to make it happen.

 

How many additional runs? Maybe zero? Maybe more? Who knows?

 

If JBJ is in the offense, how many fewer runs do the Sox score? Maybe zero? Maybe More? Who knows?

[mvp 78]

Nope. But he would certainly be our worst hitting OF. You need to score runs in this league to win. Preventing runs is great, but you also need to score.

 

It's the Claude Julien falacy. Not allowing goals is great, but you have to score them too.

[moonslav59]

The way I read what you say here is "how many runners he leaves on base compared to the average CF'er. Then that number can be compared to how many run he saves with his defense (Versus the average CF'er). I for one had hoped he would flourish under the new Red Sox batting coach, but haven't seen evidence of that to date. I think the discussion of Bradley,especially long term, is an important one.

 

It's not that I'm not worried about JBJ's offense. I am.

 

My position is that he has a long history of having prolonged slumps but has ended up between .725-.855 for 3 straight seasons. Unless, it looks like he's set to do worse than that, I'm not going to suggest he be replaced for at least a couple more months of a sample size to analyze.

 

Plus, it's not just as simple as looking at OPS, although I have used OPS as a measuring stick far too often. How hard is JBJ hitting the ball? What about his BAbip? Is he the worst offensive player on the team (in 2 months)?

 

We had a pretty crappy offense last year and JBJ was our 3rd highest WAR everyday player. He wasn't even close to our weakest link.

 

That might change this year, but it's too early to know that.

[moonslav59]

Nope. But he would certainly be our worst hitting OF. You need to score runs in this league to win. Preventing runs is great, but you also need to score.

 

If our team is not hitting, why does that mean we have to look at only the OF and who is worst there?

 

1B and catching might be worst and LF hasn't been all that great for 2017-2018.

[S5Dewey]

How many additional runs? Maybe zero? Maybe more? Who knows?

 

If JBJ is in the offense, how many fewer runs do the Sox score? Maybe zero? Maybe More? Who knows?

 

By my own view I saw a minimum of two and a maximum of four balls hit yesterday that weren't played by our OF that IMO would have been played by JBJ and they resulted in at least 3 runs being scored. OTOH, Martinez, the fill-in OF, was 0-4. Bradley wouldn't have done any worse at the plate.

[moonslav59]

JBJ was the 13th ranked CFer for dWAR last year and 18th fWAR. His bat brings down his numbers, but his defensive metrics don't show him to be irreplaceable.

 

No, last year's numbers did not show him being all that great, defensively. A longer sample size shows he's better but still not top 5 or 6.

 

JBJ did place 7th in DRS last year at +10, so if that number is correct, he's not as mediocre as the other metrics indicate.

 

He's 11th out of 30 CF'er with 1500+ innings since 2015 in UZR/150 at +5.9.

 

I think he's better than that, but I haven't seen the 10 guys ahead of him everyday.

[FredLynn]

If our team is not hitting, why does that mean we have to look at only the OF and who is worst there?

 

1B and catching might be worst and LF hasn't been all that great for 2017-2018.

 

If we are not hitting we should be looking to upgrade wherever possible. Its hard to find catchers who can hit. Not so with OF....there are more of them. Now who is available is the question, and at what price. Last year we struggled offensively. I do not want to see that again this year. If Bradley can at least hit .726 he might be worth keeping on a struggling team (offensively). It depends on the context.

[mvp 78]

By my own view I saw a minimum of two and a maximum of four balls hit yesterday that weren't played by our OF that IMO would have been played by JBJ and they resulted in at least 3 runs being scored. OTOH, Martinez, the fill-in OF, was 0-4. Bradley wouldn't have done any worse at the plate.

 

By your count because you know exactly where JBJ would have been positioned.

[Emp9]

Most runs given up on the young season. Biggest deficit on the season as well. Hmmm?

[mvp 78]

I think he's better than that, but I haven't seen the 10 guys ahead of him everyday.

 

But other people have seen those guys play. No one is saying that the numbers are robbing JBJ except for posters on here.

[S5Dewey]

By your count because you know exactly where JBJ would have been positioned.

 

Nope. That's why I said between 2-4.

 

I'm not like Moon. I don't see every game, but I probably watch >125/year so I have a pretty good idea of what balls he gets to and what ones he doesn't.

[moonslav59]

If we are not hitting we should be looking to upgrade wherever possible. Its hard to find catchers who can hit. Not so with OF....there are more of them. Now who is available is the question, and at what price. Last year we struggled offensively. I do not want to see that again this year. If Bradley can at least hit .726 he might be worth keeping on a struggling team (offensively). It depends on the context.

 

Last year was a case in point.

 

Our offense struggle a lot. JBJ's .726 OPS was the 9th worst out of our top 9 PA players.

 

You speak of context, but seem to think, if our offense is struggling, that would become the top priority, when the full context involves looking at defense and base running as well.

 

The other aspect is who are we replacing JBj with and how much offensive improvement can we expect?

 

Right now, if we bench JBJ, we'd play Moreland, Swihart or Holt more often. "Context" shows each would be a net loss by playing them instead of JBJ.

 

When Pedey returns and Nunez enters the picture, the context changes and maybe a change might be called for.

Edited April 9, 2018 by moonslav59

[cp176]

JBJ was the 13th ranked CFer for dWAR last year and 18th fWAR. His bat brings down his numbers, but his defensive metrics don't show him to be irreplaceable.

 

And for me there you have it. My eyes tell me folks that JBJ is one helluva centerfielder but the numbers don't lie as I have repeatedly been told. We have some people here who are big time into the analytics and will never allow a moment to pass when they can question any "old school" method of evaluating talent. Many of them seem to think that JBJ is the guy we have to have out there in cf. If you truly believe that then thanks for the validation. All methods of evaluating talent are necessary and possibly equal in importance I guess. It seems to me that the people into quantifying everything are proving that jbj is really not that necessary unless he hits.

[moonslav59]

And for me there you have it. My eyes tell me folks that JBJ is one helluva centerfielder but the numbers don't lie as I have repeatedly been told. We have some people here who are big time into the analytics and will never allow a moment to pass when they can question any "old school" method of evaluating talent. Many of them seem to think that JBJ is the guy we have to have out there in cf. If you truly believe that then thanks for the validation. All methods of evaluating talent are necessary and possibly equal in importance I guess. It seems to me that the people into quantifying everything are proving that jbj is really not that necessary unless he hits.

 

Context may be needed. Maybe there are 13 super great defensive CF'ers in MLB right now, so saying JBJ is #13 does not mean he's not great.

 

Besides, he's 4th best in DRS.

 

To me, JBJ owns Fenway's CF and is damn good away. The numbers show he's a solid plus in UZR/150 and top 5 in DRS. I know there are some great defenders out there, and I'm okay with anyone saying they are better than JBJ, but that doesn't make JBJ bad or even mediocre.

 

One has to choose to say that if you are ranked 13th, you have to be mediocre.

 

If you have 5 studnets take a test and these are the scores:

 

100

100

99

60

40

 

Is the guy who got a 99 really "mediocre?"

[moonslav59]

I defend defensive metrics over observations a lot, but I have never said they are perfect or the be-all-end-all decider of value.

 

I think the fact that JBJ makes some plays look easy, the metrics might be discounting the value of those plays by labelling them as a normalk or slightly difficult play, instead of a very difficult one. I could be wrong, but I think that may be why JBJ's UZR/150 numbers are not as high as I expect. He's not all that fats, either, so I can see how a faster CF'er with equal instincts, quick starts and best routes taken can be better than JBJ.

 

I don't need to think JBJ is the best or even top 5 to know he's an easy big plus in CF on defense.

 

[mvp 78]

Is the guy who got a 99 really "mediocre?"

 

No, it just means the guy is easier to replace and that maybe the old "even if he hits .600 I'd still keep him in the lineup because of his amazing glove" gag is just silly.

[Slasher9]

I like JBJ and don't want him to be traded. Need to get that out of the way. But - Do people really not think that what he brings to us is replaceable? He is a very good center fielder for sure but is he so good that he would not be replaceable? Sale - Price (if healthy)- Kimbrel- Betts - Devers - probably Bogaerts. I am not trying to argue with anyone - I like the guy once again - but what about him am I missing here?

 

i will go on record and say that JBj is irreplaceable.

he can bat .100 and he is my starting CFer.

[moonslav59]

No, it just means the guy is easier to replace and that maybe the old "even if he hits .600 I'd still keep him in the lineup because of his amazing glove" gag is just silly.

 

My point was, you can still be a great fielder and only rank 10-13th. QA kid who scores 99 for a semester but is ranked 3rd out 5 is not mediocre.

 

I agree that JBJ can eventually be replaced and maybe should be, if he can't hit over somewhere around .600 to .650. Once he gets to the .650-.700 range, it's more debatable. If he's over .700, IMO, he's a clear plus that can still be improved upon, but show me who and how before I say yes.

 

Clearly, if he hits .500 this year, we can find a great glove CF'er for cheaper than JBJ's arb (even though that might not be that much after a .500 season).

[moonslav59]

i will go on record and say that JBj is irreplaceable.

he can bat .100 and he is my starting CFer.

 

So, are there no tremendous defensive CF'er in minor league ball that can hit .101 at minimum wage?

[Slasher9]

So, are there no tremendous defensive CF'er in minor league ball that can hit .101 at minimum wage?

 

IMO...no.

[cp176]

i will go on record and say that JBj is irreplaceable.

he can bat .100 and he is my starting CFer.

 

That's because you have yet to be poisoned by the "seek and you shall find" analytical data to suit your needs. It clearly has been proven by the data that he a slightly above average center fielder and we all know that he can't hit. lol