The annual Jackie Bradley Jr thread (2019 Edition)

[Bellhorn04]

And Buford never had an OPS under .500...

 

Either has JBJ, unless you're counting partial season numbers.

[moonslav59]

And Buford never had an OPS under .500...

 

Except his final year with just 89 PAs.

 

Withe the Sox...

 

.872 in 1998 (28 XBHs in 241 PAs)

 

.661 in 1999 (23 XBHs in 324 PAs)

 

[notin]

Either has JBJ, unless you're counting partial season numbers.

 

Of course I’m counting partial seasons. That’s all Buford ever played...

[notin]

Except his final year with just 89 PAs.

 

Withe the Sox...

 

.872 in 1998 (28 XBHs in 241 PAs)

 

.661 in 1999 (23 XBHs in 324 PAs)

 

 

 

His last season was an OPS of .519, which is about 100 points up on Bradley and NOT under .500...

[Bellhorn04]

Of course I’m counting partial seasons. That’s all Buford ever played...

 

But did you know this?

 

In 1995 after 130 plate appearances he had an OPS of 454.

 

JBJ is currently at 133 plate appearances.

[notin]

But did you know this?

 

In 1995 after 130 plate appearances he had an OPS of 454.

 

JBJ is currently at 133 plate appearances.

 

 

You do realize you’re validating the comparison, right?

[devildavid]

And Buford never had an OPS under .500...

 

So he's not a good comp.

[devildavid]

Poor man’s Darren Lewis?

 

Poor man’s Juan Lagares?

 

Poor man’s Craig Gentry?

 

Your choice...

 

More bad comps.

[Bellhorn04]

You do realize you’re validating the comparison, right?

 

I don't see how the fact they each had a terrible stretch of 130 PA's to start a season makes them a valid comp.

[notin]

I don't see how the fact they each had a terrible stretch of 130 PA's to start a season makes them a valid comp.

 

 

It’s more the frustration about what JBJ has become lately...

[dgalehouse]

JBJ has a career batting average of .234 and a career OPS of 710 . At this stage of his career, it is not likely to get too much better or too much worse than that . It is somewhat below what you would like , but given his defensive prowess , it is acceptable on a team that has other weapons on offense . It would be nice if he was steadier and not so streaky. And I am sure there is a hot streak coming that will bring him closer to his norm . That's the way it is . Take it or leave it . Right now , I'll take it . I don't see a better alternative. Edited May 13, 2019 by dgalehouse

[moonslav59]

JBJ has a career batting average of .234 and a career OPS of 710 . At this stage of his career, it is not likely to get too much better or too much worse than that . It is somewhat below what you would like , but given his defensive prowess , it is acceptable on a team that has other weapons on offense . It would be nice if he was steadier and not so streaky. And I am sure there is a hot streak coming that will bring him closer to his norm . That's the way it is . Take it or leave it . Right now , I'll take it . I don't see a better alternative.

 

Best recent cherry-pick:

 

.751 since 2015.

 

Worst recent cherry-pick of significant length:

 

.699 in the last 365 days, .691 since 2017 or .662 since 2018.

 

Yes,.710 is about what he is.

 

He's shown he can do better. In 2 pretty long streaks, he's done this...

 

.834 in 891 PAs from 2015-2016

 

and

 

.791 in his last 396 PAs just last year- not counting the playoffs.

.823 in his last 259 PAs of 2018- not counting the playoffs.

 

It's those pretty long teases of respectable hitting that makes him an enigma and the focus of so much debate.

 

If he just hit .710 every month, we'd probably not be talking about him.

 

BTW, here are his monthly OPS since the start of 2015 (only if 70+ PAs listed):

 

1.163

.739

.807

1.175

.805

.839 (his best 6 month stretch of his career (last 2 mos. '15+first 4 of '16)

.651

.731

.808

1.009

.596

.770

.517

.600

.599

.653

.801

.827

.826

.406 (April 2019)

 

5 out of 20 months under .650.

11 months above .770

Only 4 between.

 

 

 

[jad]

The longer it goes the better they get.

 

Although I will confess to a bit of hyperbole there. :-)

 

I don't know what 'they' refers to. Nor who the target is. So I'll just say sternly that hyperbole, special pleading, begging the question and all such rhetorical and logical sleights-of-hand are (as we all know) absolutely forbidden on sports boards.

[Bellhorn04]

Ha! Fred Lynn, on his worst day, was not a poor man's JBJ on his best.

 

Interestingly enough, over the course of his career Fred was a minus defensive player. Even in his early years his defensive ratings were not that good.

[notin]

Interestingly enough, over the course of his career Fred was a minus defensive player. Even in his early years his defensive ratings were not that good.

 

 

But bear in mind those ratings are compared to league averages. Lynn played in the days of the fleet-footed leadoff-hitting centerfielder, and what those ratings tell you is he wasn’t as good compared to Mickey Rivers or Rick Manning or Paul Blair or Billy North as Bradley is compared to his contemporaries...

[moonslav59]

But bear in mind those ratings are compared to league averages. Lynn played in the days of the fleet-footed leadoff-hitting centerfielder, and what those ratings tell you is he wasn’t as good compared to Mickey Rivers or Rick Manning or Paul Blair or Billy North as Bradley is compared to his contemporaries...

 

They also did not have zone rating and UZR/150/ DRS.

 

He did win 4 GGs, for what that's worth (very little IMO).

 

He was fearless out there- maybe a bit reckless, but I loved his style of play- all out- all the time.

[S5Dewey]

But bear in mind those ratings are compared to league averages. Lynn played in the days of the fleet-footed leadoff-hitting centerfielder, and what those ratings tell you is he wasn’t as good compared to Mickey Rivers or Rick Manning or Paul Blair or Billy North as Bradley is compared to his contemporaries...

 

No. Let's start with the fact that WAR, the "Gold Standard" for evaluating players, gave Lynn a minus dWAR for his career. Since WAR only compares players to a Replacement Level Player dragging the elite players like Rivers, Manning, etc. into the conversation is meaningless.

[moonslav59]

No. Let's start with the fact that WAR, the "Gold Standard" for evaluating players, gave Lynn a minus dWAR for his career. Since WAR only compares players to a Replacement Level Player dragging the elite players like Rivers, Manning, etc. into the conversation is meaningless.

 

How could they calculate dWAR before they had the total zone system set up?

[S5Dewey]

How could they calculate dWAR before they had the total zone system set up?

 

That's a very fair question that I don't have an answer to, but BR has a 17 season dWAR of -3.1 for Lynn. Apparently they had "trained observers" back as early as 1974 and before they knew there would ever be a need for them.

[moonslav59]

That's a very fair question that I don't have an answer to, but BR has a 17 season dWAR of -3.1 for Lynn. Apparently they had "trained observers" back as early as 1974 and before they knew there would ever be a need for them.

 

Lynn was a plus with the Sox (+2.3). Most of his negatives came post-Sox (-5.4).

 

It was hard to watch much of him after he left.

[S5Dewey]

Lynn was a plus with the Sox (+2.3). Most of his negatives came post-Sox (-5.4).

 

It was hard to watch much of him after he left.

 

That dodges the original point though, that those dWAR values were accumulated between 1974 & 1980, before the total zone system was set up (assuming you knew what you're talking about when you said that).

[S5Dewey]

Lynn was a plus with the Sox (+2.3). Most of his negatives came post-Sox (-5.4).

 

It was hard to watch much of him after he left.

 

And BTW, 2.3 spread over 7 years is a little less than .33 per season, hardly GG material. Bradley has a dWAR of 5.7 over his first seven seasons.

 

If one has faith in WAR then it's a no-brainer that JBJ is definitely a better fielder than Lynn.

[cp176]

Interestingly enough, over the course of his career Fred was a minus defensive player. Even in his early years his defensive ratings were not that good.

 

Isn't it odd how good he looked to me over the course of his time in Boston. What I saw I guess just doesn't fit with the statistical line. Can you believe that? Wow - Just for the record - I like what JBJ does in the field but any comparison with Freddie during his tenure in Boston makes me chuckle but hey I'm one of those silly guys who believes in having complete ballplayers when you can find them.

[cp176]

Isn't it odd how good he looked to me over the course of his time in Boston. What I saw I guess just doesn't fit with the statistical line. Can you believe that? Wow - Just for the record - I like what JBJ does in the field but any comparison with Freddie during his tenure in Boston makes me chuckle but hey I'm one of those silly guys who believes in having complete ballplayers when you can find them.

 

Oh and don't forget when we discuss the merits of using various metrics to prove our points, we have also been schooled in how ridiculous it is to have your best hitter in the 3 hole. When was the last time that JD batted anywhere else? Cora is just too old school for me! (lol - just me being a wise ass.) Oh wait, I forgot, the batting order isn't important at all - lol.

[Bellhorn04]

Isn't it odd how good he looked to me over the course of his time in Boston. What I saw I guess just doesn't fit with the statistical line. Can you believe that? Wow - Just for the record - I like what JBJ does in the field but any comparison with Freddie during his tenure in Boston makes me chuckle but hey I'm one of those silly guys who believes in having complete ballplayers when you can find them.

 

The only point of comparison is with their fielding.

[moonslav59]

That dodges the original point though, that those dWAR values were accumulated between 1974 & 1980, before the total zone system was set up (assuming you knew what you're talking about when you said that).

 

I'm not dodging the point. I was the one who made the point.

 

I'm just saying that if you are going to use the pre- total zone system dWAR as a measuring stick, then Lynn was a plus in Boston- just as we remembered. True, I remember him being plus-plus, but at least I'm not thinking I saw plus-plus and the numbers showed minus. (That was my second point.)

 

I don't have an answer on how they can determine dWAR before the system was in place. oWAR, I can understand, since it is based solely on hitting stats... not observations of where balls were hit and how playable they were.

[moonslav59]

Isn't it odd how good he looked to me over the course of his time in Boston. What I saw I guess just doesn't fit with the statistical line. Can you believe that? Wow - Just for the record - I like what JBJ does in the field but any comparison with Freddie during his tenure in Boston makes me chuckle but hey I'm one of those silly guys who believes in having complete ballplayers when you can find them.

 

His "statistical line" in Boston, when we saw him, was a solid +2.3.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't have an answer on how they can determine dWAR before the system was in place. oWAR, I can understand, since it is based solely on hitting stats... not observations of where balls were hit and how playable they were.

 

Per B-R: 'dWAR prior to 2003 is based on total zone rating developed by Sean Smith of BaseballProjection.com'.

[S5Dewey]

I'm not dodging the point. I was the one who made the point.

 

I'm just saying that if you are going to use the pre- total zone system dWAR as a measuring stick, then Lynn was a plus in Boston- just as we remembered. True, I remember him being plus-plus, but at least I'm not thinking I saw plus-plus and the numbers showed minus. (That was my second point.)

 

I don't have an answer on how they can determine dWAR before the system was in place. oWAR, I can understand, since it is based solely on hitting stats... not observations of where balls were hit and how playable they were.

 

I never have had any problem with oWAR because as you say it's based on stats. Those stats don't create a perfect picture of who that player is/was but they're certainly close and reasonable. However, dWAR is a horse of another color as demonstrated by Lynn's minus WAR values.

 

Like you, I don't know how dWAR was calculated before the total zone system was set up, but it's apparent that BR is passing the pre-zone system off as being as accurate as the post-establishment of the system.

 

I'm not even disputing that Lynn was a great CF'er. I'm just asking people in our age group who we're supposed to believe - dWAR, or our own lyin' eyes?

 

It's appearing more and more to me that dWAR is extremely valuable in determining the defensive worth of a player as long as that player's worth coincides with what we already believe.

[S5Dewey]

Per B-R: 'dWAR prior to 2003 is based on total zone rating developed by Sean Smith of BaseballProjection.com'.

 

So now they're using two different methods to determine dWAR and passing the values off as one being as accurate as the other.