Bluebird Banter Top 50 Jays Prospects: #10-15
So, Tom started things off with #46-50. I tackled #41-45. Woodman picked up with 36-40. Tom swung back aroundwith 31-35. I took 26-30. Woodman had 21-25. Tom knocked out 16-20, and now here I am again with the best outside the top 10. We are getting down to the really good looking prospects.
15. Carlos Perez, C: Perez, a backstop who just turned 21 in October, is coming off a down year at Lansing, but there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic. First, the Midwest League is a tough one for hitters, and Perez was not overmatched at .255/.320/.355. Second, prior to 2011, Perez's resume was very impressive, with a particularly impressive showing in the New York-Penn League in short season A ball back in 2010 in which he hit .298/.396/.438 and threw out 36% of attempted basestealers. The Venezuelan Catcher hits from the right side and combines a nice approach with an all-fields line-drive attack. Perez also boasts excellent speed for a catcher. Behind the plate, Carlos draws solid marks for his rapport with pitchers and his footwork and arm. With limited power, Perez doesn't profile as a superstar, but you could see him developing into an everyday catcher who does everything well. Perez is likely to start the season in Dunedin, which is another challenging league for hitters. A big season wouldn't surprise me in the least.
14. Joe Musgrove, RHP: The big starboard-sider came to the Jays via a sandwich pick that the Jays received for departing catcher John Buck. Musgrove is 6'5", 230 lbs, and projects as a strikethrowing workhorse starter. Joe was drafted in 2011 out of Grossmont High School, which is in the San Diego area, and the Jays were able to pry him away from his commitment to San Diego State. Musgrove has a lot of work to do on locating his fastball and on his secondary pitches (primarily a curve at the moment though he throws a change as well), but his fastball has drawn good marks for its velocity and movement as it currently sits in the 90s and can be dialed up to 97. After being drafted, Musgrove did get into 9 games, mostly in the Gulf Coast League, and he looked pretty good (18 Ks, 5 BBs in 24 2/3 innings). It'll be interesting to see what the Jays do with Musgrove this season - I'd guess he spends another year in short-season ball, likely at Bluefield to start things out, or perhaps Vancouver if the Jays are excited about his progress this spring.
13. Adonys Cardona, RHP: Cardona is still just 18 and provides yet another high-ceiling arm for the Jays' system. The youngster was signed out of Venezuela amidst much hoopla (and not a small amount of cash). Cardona's fastball sits in the low 90s but he has hit 95 repeatedly during games. Even more impressively, Cardona has already shown a good feel for locating the fastball where he wants it in the strike zone. Cardona also throws a change and curve that he continues to develop and scouts see both pitches as potentially plus pitches going forward. Cardona made 7 starts in rookie ball this year and the results were impressive- more than a strikeout per inning, just two home runs, and not an unhealthy number of walks. Cardona is likely to spend another year at short-season before moving to full-season ball in 2013.
12. Jacob Anderson, OF: The Jays selected Jacob Anderson with the 35th overall pick last June. It was a bit of an aggressive selection, as many didn't expect the big outfielder to go quite as high, but the Jays move paid off when they were able to sign Anderson away from his commitment to Malibu and Pepperdine University for just slightly above slot money. Anderson got into only 9 games last season for the Gulf Coast League team, but you can't argue with the results - .405/.476/.622, with 2 dingers, 2 doubles, and 2 steals. Just 19, he'll likely be slated for short-season ball this year. Anderson has a number of good qualities as a prospect - he has good power potential, runs well for someone his size, and has a nice balanced approach at the plate. He covers good ground in the outfield and some scouts think he can handle center field, at least for the first few years of his major-league career, but he projects to hit for enough power to cover a corner spot as well. Like Musgrove, Anderson was another reward of the Jays' effective use of the draft compensation system - the pick that the Jays used to acquire him came to the Jays as compensation for the departure of beloved southpaw Scott Downs.
11. Adeiny Hechavarria, SS: The young shortstop will be just 23 this season, but it feels as though he's been with the team for quite some time because fans have been following Hechavarria since he signed a big $10 million deal with the Jays back in April 2010. Hechavarria, a Cuban defector and slick-fielding shortstop, was assigned to advanced A ball at Dunedin where he didn't hit a lick but managed to earn a promotion to AA New Hampshire where he did much better to salvage his first season in the Jays' organization. 2011 was a bit of a repeat year in some ways - Hechavarria struggled mightily at the first level in which he played (AA) but hit surprisingly well in a callup to AAA. A number of caveats are necessary regarding his performance at AAA, however, beginning with the small sample size (just 110 plate appearances), continuing with his completely unsustainable BABIP (.471), and ending with the favourable hitter's environment at Las Vegas and in the Pacific Coast League. I must say, I'm not as bullish on Hechavarria as Tom and Woodman, at least one of whom had Adeiny in their top 10 (I had him at 15), but he does have a surefire ticket to the major leagues in his glove. Hechavarria is one of the best fielding shortstops in the majors, so the only question is whether he will hit enough in the majors to hold down an everyday job. I am a bit concerned about his lack of a consistent hitting resume so far in pro ball, but on the other hand he'd hardly be the first young shortstop whose glove was ahead of his bat in his early 20s. Hechavarria has shown decent power in his minor-league career, which is nice to see, but not at the expense of a career minor-league OBP under .300. This is a big season for him developmentally.
Well, that's it for now. Join us next time as Woodman breaks into the top 10!
146 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very nice write up.
What a turn around for the farm system in just 3-4 years. In the mid 2000s, 11-15 would probably be the Jays top 5.
It is fortunate that despite the weak farm the Jays did develop some very good major leaguers from some slim pickings. Adam Lind, RRCJ, Aaron Hill, etc. It was just enough talent to keep the Jays from turning into the O’s but clearly not enough to make the Jays competitive with the three headed beast from the East.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Feb 23, 2012 7:46 AM EST reply actions
Hechavarria
I’m still guarded on him as well. This is a big year for him.
starting to wonder about the money spent on him
An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than for illumination.
Andrew Lang
Oh no we spent 10 million over 4 years for a guy who could be a star if he learns to hit. Hech will play 15 years in the majors even if he can’t hit just because of his glove.
Kadri Fanboy since 2006
by WizardofNaz on Feb 24, 2012 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
longevity doesn't exactly mean good
I wouldn’t be excited to have John McDonald around for 15 years
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
I never said 15 years with the Jays… but even getting 2 WAR out of Hech in his Jays career makes the signing worth it.
Kadri Fanboy since 2006
by WizardofNaz on Feb 25, 2012 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure about that
I don’t know that you can directly relate IFA signings to FA signings, though I may be wrong
Probably not
IFA are generally young amateurs, so they’re lottery tickets who will not produce for a long time (usually 5+ years), vs. FAs who are more known…so if you need production now, you have to go in FA market, not IFA. Sothere’s a market segmentation thing that could create a structural inefficiency (in the sesne that putting money into the IFA market could/should have a higher payoff than FA market)
I think its a little early for that
Especially when you consider he’ll just turn 23 to start the season. The bar isn’t set too high in terms of where his bat has to be for him to be a productive short stop at the major league level
I’m still hoping Anderson shows enough in Minor league ST to be aggressively assigned to Lansing to start. I still think him and Smith would benefit more from a full season of AB’s rather than more instruction time.
Kadri Fanboy since 2006
it's interesting
A few years ago, the organization philosophy definitely would have put someone like Anderson at Lansing and did exactly that with a number of early-round high school position players. This had mixed results, with some players really benefiting from the full season of at-bats and speeding up their development, and others just not being ready and ultimately having to be sent down when short-season started up. I just think the current organization is a bit more deliberate (they would probably say more patient) and will make their high-school picks prove themselves at short-season before promoting them to Lansing. That said, the organization should always be open to evaluating each player independently and making a player-specific decision about where they should start.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
by hugo on Feb 23, 2012 9:11 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Who did it work with? I'm not being sarcastic, I can't think of any
As far as I can remember, aggressively promoting any HS prospect has not worked out well. Ahrens, Jackson, and Tolisano all have fallen flat. Snider hit well throughout the minors but it’s the general consensus he was rushed to the Majors so the aggressive promotions ultimately were not good for him. McDade is the only HS prospect I can think of that has had some success but even he struggled his first year and had to repeat at Lansing.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
Snider could probably have used another full season in AAA
but he was most definitely ready for full-season ball in his first pro season, seeing as he utterly destroyed baseballs through his first trip in the Minors
First full pro season
The critical thing to remember is he signed almost right after the draft, reported and got in basically a full short season under his belt before moving up to full season A ball.
Whereas most first rounders and supplementals (or big bonus guys) only sign at the deadline, and there’s no time to get them into game action for the most part in their draft year. Marisnick for example – didn;t play in 2009, so was in complex ball in 2010 (he;s have gone to the Apply League if we had an affiliate in 2010), played most of the season and was promoted to Lansing. Hopefully this changes with the July 15 deadline, but also the fact that there’s no rules against annoucning overslot deals.
yeah, Snider is the only one that jumps out that was ready for full-season ball
But would it have killed him to start in the NY-Penn league or in the GCL for his first full season? If anything, it might have put him on the proper minor league track and maybe he wouldn’t have the problems he’s had for the last few seasons.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
NY-Penn and GCL aren't full season leagues
He played a full season of Rokkie ball in the Appy League in his draft year, because he signed quickly. So he had 226 pro appearances, and good results, before moving onto Lansing in 2007. The Jays only rushed him in 2008 really. going A+, AA, AAA, MLB the way did did with Vernon Wells way back
Just to clarify
The GCL is below the Appy League, so sending him there would have been a demotion, and sending him to the NYP after ripping up the Appy League would have been lateral, and pointless for his development
Yeah, I know about those leagues and that they aren't full season
Actually, the Appy league is considered Rookie ball, just slightly more advanced than the GCL. NY-Penn league is actually considered low-A and is more advanced (equivalent to Northwest League where Vancouver plays in).
It wouldn’t have been unreasonable to have sent Snider to the NY-Penn league in ‘07. Of course he handled Lansing just fine so he wasn’t too aggressively promoted, that came later in ‘08. But he’s the only example and it wouldn’t have been out of line just having him play instructional ball and then NY-Penn league in ’07.
I’m thinking more along the lines of Tolisano/Ahrens/Jackson/Eiland who all spent ’07 in the GCL the year they were signed and then were all promoted to Lansing the next year. Those 4 could have benefitted from a less aggressive promotion.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
Yes, I’m well aware that the Appy League is rookie (my first sentence: “He played a full season of Rookie ball in the Appy League in his draft year”).
The NYP is more advanced (generally lower level college guys in their draft year or second years rather than High Schoolers, so more polish), but in the end it’s still short season. YOu want your guys to get reps.
I would argue that after tearing up the Appy League at 18 in a full short season, it would have been unreasonable not to send him to full season in Lansing. There’s conservative, and then there’s sclerotic – you have to find the balance between challenging a guy sufficiently to spur adjustments and development, and overwealhing him. Sure, you could have sent him to instructional ball and then to a short season league tyhe year after, but that’s where you have to consider the payer on an individual level. They clearly thought he was advanced enough to not play in complex ball, clearly they were right. Had he struggled with the Appy League, then some re-evaluation would have been in order. Snider’s development track was very well managed until early/mid-2008 when they jumped the shark and got way too aggressive (they were probably a little quick to promote him to AA, and certainly from AA to AAA and MLB)
In terms of the other 4 you mention, sure – it’s an individual thing. None of those guys tore up complex ball, and you have been well served by going to a rookie league like the Appy League, but we didn’t have an affiliate. But even the NYP would have bene more appropriate than full season A. The problem, as I see it, is the Jays had so rarely drafted strong prep talent, that there was little institutional knowledge on how to properly develop it – and they ended up rushing.
AAA hitting of Adeiny Hechavarria
That hitting streak of Hech predates his promotion to AAA by about 10 days. It’s still a small sample and it’s still worth wondering about his bat, but it’s a point in his favour.
remember listening to an interview with Sal Fasano a long time ago
he said something to the effect that Hech was almost too good at making contact..lot of pitches that should have been swinging strikes or fouls were being put weakly into play..thought if he improved control of the zone he’d be an excellent hitter. He’s one I’m really keeping an eye on this year.’
Adeiny projection
He wreaks of a .230-240 type of major league hitter that can steal 15-20 bases or so and pop 10 home runs if playing everyday. But he’ll be a guy who can save the runs that he does not produce with his bat by being slick with his glove. And may be (a big may be) he lurches forward offensively after 1000-1500 major league AB’s. Kind of like Snider could show us this year (the lurch part, not the slick glove!)
He is another prospect that will be fascinating to follow in 2012. There are so many now which is great.
You've just proven comment advertising works - Rent This Space
Wizard of Oz: remix
I agree that his defensive prowess can certainly offset his lack of production at the plate. After a quick look, I saw that Ozzie Smith had a roughly .237 BA over his first 7 seasons in the MLB, his first being at age 23 (like Hech). Ozzie never hit more than 6 HRs in a season and only hit .300 once, but I’d sure take him or someone pretty close if it means I get to watch him regularly make plays in the field that make me stand up and clap in my living room!
by Aden'sDaddy on Feb 23, 2012 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
Smith put up those numbers in a different era
When offensive output was generally lower – have to account for that in overall value
definitely true
I’m just stating that I’m fine with a less than average bat if the defense is clearly an asset. and referring to Ozzie, there’s no way that a career .262 hitter to go along with a .666 OPS with 28 HRs in 19 yrs gets it done in any era of hitting – let alone to consider someone worthy of the HOF. He just so happened to have the kind of glove that makes you buy tickets. Here’s hoping Adeiny can be that sort of guy.
by Aden'sDaddy on Feb 23, 2012 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
haha, i'll take that and sit down
I’m just a sucker for the slick fielders…probably because I was always the worst hitter on my little league team…
by Aden'sDaddy on Feb 23, 2012 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
true
although Ozzie had a healthy walk rate and also stole a lot of bases at a high rate. Hech doesn’t project to do either of those things. For those two reasons, Ozzie’s overall offensive contributions weren’t quite as bad as you would think in those early seasons. he did have two very poor years but the others he put up wRC+ numbers of 84, 88, 89, 89, and 104, which wasn’t bad at all for a shortstop in those days (nor would it be all that bad today).
It’s also a pretty small margin for success when you have to be one of the greatest fielding shortstops of all time in order for your hitting to play in the majors. Hech is good, but I haven’t heard he is that good.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
all good points. my hope in posting was to state why I remain hopeful for his potential. someone with a glove like his (right, not as good as Ozzie’s, 1:1000000) basically defaults a shot, if only to see marginal progress. Smith took a turn for the better at the plate in his prime years, so I’d love to see this thing out to see if Hech can potentially become a more complete player. But as benk dutifully noted above, winning now is the name of the game, so he may not have that same opportunity.
by Aden'sDaddy on Feb 23, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Man y'all are stacked
These guys would be like #4-8 in at least a 3rd of the systems in baseball.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 12:10 PM EST reply actions
Look at the 30-40 range and notice how many of those would be in the 10-20 range of most teams as well…
Kadri Fanboy since 2006
Haha
I’m not sure I know enough about every other systems to know that for sure.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
What to do with Yunel if/when Hech is ML ready?
I’m sure this has been discussed ad nauseum, just wondering if we’d flip one of them? Does one have the skillz to play 2nd? Maybe 3rd and move Laurie to his natural position at 2nd base? (Ducks)
by craig in calgary on Feb 23, 2012 12:59 PM EST reply actions
Maybe 3rd and move Laurie to his natural position at 2nd base?
Lawrie is never moving back to 2nd base.
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.
There was implied sarcasm.
Should have implied it a little stronger I guess.
by craig in calgary on Feb 23, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
I thought the (ducks) was clear enough
but I dunno. I think it’s a situation that we’ll deal with as it becomes an issue… if Hech steps up his hitting at least a bit and Kelly gets traded/not re-signed after 2012 and Yunel is open to moving I could potentially see Yunel at second.
There's a font for that
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.
by Frag on Feb 23, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He was talking about Hugh Laurie’s natural position playing 2nd to Stephen Fry.
"Captain Picard Day is for the children." : Captain Picard
"Wu-Tang is for the children." : ODB
by neilrqm on Feb 23, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Jeeves was definitely the star of the show
but Wooster always cracks me up.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
I says Trade!
Escobar is a consistently good player on a good contract, but he’s at his peak now, and probably his maximum value. If Hech has a good year, I don’t mind trading Escobar in the offseason and seeing what Hech can do in 2013.
Short of Hech taing a massive (sustainable) step forward
I completely disagree. Finding a SS who can hit is just very difficult today, we haven’t have a good medium term solution there wince Alex Gonzalez in the late 1990s, no way I’m trading Escobar.
by MjwW on Feb 23, 2012 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
And I’m not sure Alex Gonzalez was even a good medium term solution solution. Offensively anyways. I’m not sure what Escobar brings back in a trade that’s more valuable than what he already brings to Toronto – at that contract.
y’all are aware that you get a player/players back in a trade, right?
Now you certainly don’t make the trade if you can’t get a good return, but I think you can probably get the return you want for a guy like Escobar. And, observe that I said “If Hech has a good year”. Ultimately, if you have another good SS asset, you should trade the veteran, add talent in weaker areas.
Escobar is a personal favorite of mine
so I’m sure I’m biased but I doubt we’d get a player to replace Escobar for more than a couple years. Sure hope we don’t trade him, since I’m planning on getting his jersey sometime this season
A concession & an argument
I do feel like SS tend to be undervalued in the marketplace relative to some other positions, so perhaps Escobar wouldn’t command the value on the market equal to his worth to the Jays.
But if one thinks this coming offseason that Hech is basically ready to be Alcides Escobar at the Major League level- that’s a 2 WAR player. If Yunel is a 4.5 WAR player, he only adds 2.5 Wins to the Jays. To other teams, however, Escobar may truly add 4.5 wins over their other options, so you would expect, ceteris paribus other teams to be willing to give up players of greater value than Yunel would be worth to the Jays.
Now, maybe you can get good value for Hechavarria- but generally, well-rounded veterans are easier to get good value for than promising but unproven rookies. Another aspect to consider is that Hechavarria, as a young player, would have more unrealized upside, and Yunel would be on the cusp of what are typically decline years.
I think Escobar is closer to a 5 fWAR player
than a 4.5 fWAR player. His TZ and DRS scores pretty consistently beat out his UZR. As you said, I think it’s pretty difficult to get the kind of return you want on a player with his skillset (above average hitter and very good fielder at key defensive position) and contract.
Look at what the Jays gave up when they traded for him. Granted, he was sold at a low point, but I think it was pretty obvious at the time that he would rebound at least a bit. I think it makes more sense to move him to second and hope he plays as well there as he does at short than it does to try to move him to another team.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Of course not
If someone wanted to completely overpay, fine. I don’t try to predict such things, but okay.
I think things are perfectly lined up for us
KJ is on a one year deal, Hech has another season to polish his bat, 2013 opening day middle IF of Esco at 2nd and Hech at short
I have trouble seeing Hech forcing Toronto’s hand with his bat at some point this season
And there is no way in heck I'd trade Escobar given his contract and production
Unless the return was amazing
How would Escobar do at 2nd?
He loses value with his bat, but I’m sure that he’ll gain some value with his glove.
I’d be so excited to see the defense he and Hech would provide, especially given the GB tendencies of Romero, Alvarez, and possibly Morrow with his new cutter?
He doesn’t lose any value with the bat – he loses some positional value.
It’s very premature to attribut any GB tendancy to Morrow…as a four seam fastball and slider guy, he’s almost certainly continue to be a FB guy, just hopefully a little less extreme
Doesn't that mean the same thing?
He loses value because he’s a good hitter for a SS but 2B has higher standards no?
And yeah, that’s why I said possibly, it’s very unlikely he’ll make such a turnaround but crazier things have happened to this team in the past 3 years.
by T_Mizz on Feb 23, 2012 9:51 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Just a thought
do you think somebody could do a quick write up like these, only on the top 5-10 prospects of other teams in the division?
So oswalt is going to wait for mid season to join a contending team
What? why would anyone wait that long and grab him then i don’t get it
+1 is only good if you actually rec the post
i guess clemens and pedro did it too
bah seems so silly
+1 is only good if you actually rec the post
by Bowling_Guy25 on Feb 23, 2012 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah that will work well
Just like it did for Mats Sundin.
Man who has four balls cannot walk
by Beer Leaguer on Feb 23, 2012 4:04 PM EST via Android app up reply actions 1 recs
Teams are generally optimistic about their rotations around this time of year
He would have more leverage when someone (Boston) is stomping on the panic button or if one of his suitors has injuries in their rotation. He takes time to further heal his back and gets around the same $$$ for pitching much less
At least that’s what I’ve been reading
If there’s one thing we could use in our top prospect list, is another high profile middle infielder.
Sure
But that’s kinda like if you got season’s tickets for a gift, and then wishing you also got a jersey as well. There’s always something more you could want, but you have to appreciate what you have.
One question I have is about bottom-up control
I think AA kinda saw this coming and tried to compensate by adding Bluefield, but is anyone else thinking that maybe the Jays will have no choice but to be aggressive with their minor league players? With another surely strong and deep Jays draft (yes I know this draft isn’t seen as either, but the Jays have the 3rd highest cap don’t they?) who will all be starting in SS ball due to the earlier signing deadline and with all these guys from last year who signed at the deadline and will be starting their careers in SS ball, and the high bonus Latin kids who will presumably be starting their American careers there’s going to be a logjam at the lower levels, no?
by T_Mizz on Feb 23, 2012 6:29 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Looking at it now, you've got
Musgrove, Comer, Norris, Gabryszwski, Robson, Biggs, Dragmire, Cardona, Labourt, Osuna all as relatively new guys to SS ball. DeSclafani, Dyson, and Stilson add some more confusion but they may end up in Lansing to start full season ball if they pitch this year (refering to the too latter guys). This is not counting the likes of Griffin Murphy, Mitchell Taylor, Myles Jaye, Zak Adams, and Deivy Estrada. That’s already 15 pitchers, at least, over 3 rotations. Plus, there’s the possibility that I’ve left out some guys and that other DSL guys make the jump. Plus, there’s the fact that we added 7 guys in the draft last year and we’ll probably do the same this year.
You can do tandem starting
One guy starts and pitches 4 innings, another guy comes in for the 5th and pitches another 4. They may do the same thing in Lansing.
Stilson almost certainly starts in full season ball if healthy. Dyson too I imagine.
Does that have any long term effects on their development?
Because it seems like it will be very common at least this year?
by T_Mizz on Feb 23, 2012 9:48 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Don't forget
The Jays are followers of the Verducci rule, so doing tandem starts would let them limit the number of pitches these starters would throw without having to shut them down early in the season.
They did tandem starting in both Bluefield and GCL last year. Although in GCL they also did some triple tandems (3 innings each).
Kadri Fanboy since 2006
by WizardofNaz on Feb 24, 2012 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
If they called up Hesh this year and put him in the line-up, the happiest person would be Mathis as it would be the first and probably only time in his career that he wasn’t the worst hitter on the team.
For the Record: Hech started hitting over 2 weeks BEFORE he was called up to Vegas (ordinarily a small sample but since it flows right into the Vegas sample it’s a clue if a small one)
From July 27 until the promotion, 16 days and 13 games, he hit .375/.417/..482/.899
Likely it means little, but it’s at least possible he made some sort of mechanical adjustment after the ASB which paid off.
Yeah
I checked the BABIP for that span. Comes out as .477
Not implying that he was just getting lucky, but just saying, he was getting really lucky.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
Not necessarily
Since BABIP for hitters is a skill, and since we’d expect greater variance in smaller samples, over a two week sample we really have no way of knowing if he was lucky, had a run of great hitting or a combination of the both.
by gabrielsyme on Feb 23, 2012 11:06 PM EST up reply actions
Common sense test
A .477 BABIP is not sustainable by even the best hitters…we can argue about how much skill there was, but there’s no doubt that a .477 represents a sigificant amount of good fortune in a SSS.
Have a little more.
Not sustainable is not the same thing as lucky. Even if we assume no underlying “locked-in” basis for improved results, we’d expect the random assortment of a player’s line-drives to cluster, resulting in periods (small samples) where we see elevated BABIPs which would be purely the result of genuine hitting skill.
by gabrielsyme on Feb 23, 2012 11:14 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but the thought that needs to be completed
…resulting in periods (small samples) where we see elevated BABIPs which would be purely the result of genuine hitting skill…a genuine hitting skills that is reflective of an average skill level, not necessarily an exceptional skill – to determine which, you need a larger sample size to clue in on the true talent level and seperate it from luck. See below for exactly what I mean…
Thought that was implicit in context. But as you note, the genuine skill involved is (say) a .320 BABIP, not a .470 BABIP.
there’s no doubt that a .477 represents a sigificant amount of good fortune in a SSS
So, I take it that you retract that statement?
Well, let's see
A .477 BABIP is about 180-190 points higher than the league average….call it 185 points.
Say his true talent was .320, and we observe .477 in a small sample. Of that 185 point difference above average, around 25 points (or 13.5%) is attributable to skill, and the rest – around 160 points (86.5%) – is attributable to luck/fortune/etc
So, is it accruate to say that having a BABIP of .477 in a small sample will represent a significant amount of good fortune for a player like Hech? Absolutely. So, of course, I will not retract the statement, as it is certainly true of Hech, and almost invariably of any player (if you ca find me a player with a true talent BABIP north of around .380, then less than half of the difference is attributable to good fortune as opposed to skill).
Not quite
You are conflating the artefacts of randomness with luck or good fortune. The fact that you get such artefacts is not luck – it is inevitable when you have independent events; and the precise nature of the positive events in this case are not “good luck” either- we are positing that Hechavarria may have had a random period where he struck a number of balls very well (line drives or the like). Moreover, we contextually we have been using the term “lucky” or “good fortune” as excluding the effects of randomness.
You point out below that a .477 BABIP in the assumed sample size cannot be statistically differentiated from random variation; so it stands to reason there is indeed a very reasonable doubt that the .477 BABIP is a product of good fortune. I do wish you would simply admit it when you err.
Let's break this down
1) A player’s true talent BABIP will depend on his overall (true talent)batted ball profile – essentially, the higher the LD%, the higher the BABIP (this is overly simplified, but LD% is the most important driver by far)
2) In small stretches, a player’s batted profile can depart from this true talent batted ball profile – that is, he will have more or less LDs than he usually does.
3) In small stretches, a player will have more or less balls drop in than normal, given the batted ball profile (we know that roughly 70% of LDs go for hits, it might be 60% of 85%)
Now, when I refer to “luck” or “good fortune”, I mean “positive outcomes of random events” – that is the essence of chance (keep in mind random implies little no control – it’s not that I’m conflating anything, it’s that we’re talking past each other). If I flip a coin 4 times, and I get 4 heads, that’s both a random outcome, and if the heads is a result in my favour, good luck/fortune that is non-attributable to me.
Back to baseball – now, players have a degree of control over their batted balls, but there’s also a lot out of their control. If we know the true talent ability of the hitter to hit LDs (or have a reasonable idea of it), and we observe a bunch more line drives than usual, I would not attribute that all to the hitter…maybe he was facing crappy pitching, maybe the pitcher is tipping his pitches. Now, certainly, a good portion of it should be attributed to the hitter, but at the same time, to some degree, it represents a more favourable outcome than the long-run expectation – that is, random flucluation. According to Statcorner, Hech hit 26.7% LD in AAA – if you want to say that’s his true talent, fine, but I doub that’s the case. To some extent, that line drive rate reflects good fortune beyond the control of the hitter (or else the hitter would always be at his true talent level in LD production)
Then we have the degree to which those batted balls drop in. Here I would argue hitters have essentially no control…I’ve can’t recall seeing evidence that players can intentional place balls (beyond “going the other way” with a certain pitches, etc), and they certainly don’t control the defence. So if in a small sample, a hitter has 90% of his LD drop in or 50% of his ground balls find holes, that’s almost purely a random outcome for the hitter.
So, if a hitter who has never put up a LD rate higher than 16.4% puts up a LD% rate of 26.7% and a BABIP of .471, then I’m going to argue that he was fortutitous to have hit that many LDs – while he may have some control over it, it’s certainly not attributable all to him. Further, conditional upon this favourable number of LD, he still got favourable outcomes in terms of how those balls fell in (and which for him essentially reflects random outcomes over which he has essentially no control).
Now, in the present case, which is it? Well, here is where xBABIP can be instructive. If you take his batted ball profile in Las Vegas – 46% GB, 18.4% FB, 26.7% LD, 6.9% popup, that works out to an expected BABIP of roughly .350 to .360. Therefore, even if you assume that Hech’s true talent was a 26.7% LD rate (or that it was less and he was completely responsible for the flucluation that got it to 26.7%), the 185 point outperformance in BABIP compared to league average would only be about 30% due to the increased LD% – the other 70% is due to more batted balls dropping in they then due in the long run. Hence, as I have consistently maintained, a BABIP of .471 (or. 477 in AA) will almost invariably be due to luck in having batted balls falling in above what they do in the long run…to have a BABIP of close to .500, you need something like 40% LD rate. And in a sample larger than a couple games, I don’t think I’ve ever observed that.
I think I’ve very clearly and comprehensively set out the case, and while you may disagree with some of the theoretical points I made about the degree of control hitters have over their batted balls in short samples, even if you assume there’s absolutely nothing random there, the .471 is still far more a result of batted balls dropping in at abnormally high rates (random variation). And just for the record, I have to trouble admitting when I err – it happens frequently, just not in this instance. And I’m not especially fond of the patronziing tone either.
Talking past each other?
Well, first off, no one has been discussing his Vegas numbers- the period under discussion was the roughly two week period prior to his promotion, a significantly smaller sample for which neither of us have BIP data.
The central difficulty, however, is this:
Now, when I refer to "luck" or "good fortune", I mean "positive outcomes of random events"That simply isn’t how I used the term “lucky” earlier in this conversation, where I distinguished between luck and a random distribution of underlying skill-based batted-ball types. Nor is that what people mean when they think of BABIP luck in general. BABIP luck is about balls falling in – the seeing-eye ground ball, the texas leaguer, the screaming line drives hit right at the third baseman. When you ask a guy who has gone 4-4 on the basis of 3 line drives and a 370ft fly ball if he was lucky, he’ll answer no, he hit the ball very well that day; and any observer would agree with him. Such results we rarely, if ever describe as luck.
Now, I am sorry if our disagreement has been occasioned by a misinterpretation for I generally enjoy our little discussions. I rather think we’ve similar characters, since I find you occasionally patronizing as well.
From Wikipedia: “Talking past each other is an idiomatic expression describing a situation in which people in a discussion proceed at cross purposes”. Which is essentially what happened – we meant totally different by luck, and that was half of this disagreement.
As for why I introduced Vegas numbers – becuase there was a similarly high BABIP in a relatively similar small sample and I wanted to use BIP data, and it’s not available in summary form for that two week stretch.
When talking about BABIP “luck”, yes, generally it’s random variation on how balls in ball fall in…let’s call this BABIP-xBABIP spread (#3 on my list above). However, I also believe that the batted ball profile difference from true talent batted ball profile (#2 in my list) will also reflect random factors beyond the hitters control, though they certainly have more control over it than the BABIP-xBABIP spread. But let’s accept your premise for a second, and just consider BABIP-xBABIP spread.
Now, let’s go back to the beginning…Pikachu initially said “Not implying that he was just getting lucky, but just saying, he was getting really lucky”. And you rebutted by saying:
Not necessarily. Since BABIP for hitters is a skill, and since we’d expect greater variance in smaller samples, over a two week sample we really have no way of knowing if he was lucky, had a run of great hitting or a combination of the both.Of course, we can tell, by comparing the rough xBABIP to the actual BABIP, which essentially isolates the effect of batted balls falling in.
I encouraged a “common sense test… A .477 BABIP is not sustainable by even the best hitters…we can argue about how much skill there was, but there’s no doubt that a .477 represents a sigificant amount of good fortune in a SSS”, to which you disagreed. And the data proves me out…I’ll take 5 minutes and compile the BIP data from the last 13 games in NH using PBP summaries, but I doubt it will show anything different from the Vegas numbers. And the Vegas numbers, as I showed above, indicate that indeed a significant amount of the BABIP – indeed well over 50% – was “luck”, by your own definition.
As for the patronizing element, tone was the wrong word (I was half asleep), what I found objectionable was your rebuke that I should admit to being wrong, when the data (and common sense inferences) supported my view. One should always be very careful to tell someone they are wrong, much less imply they ought to repent their view, unless you have a slam dunk case.
Alright
I tallied the numbers. From July 27 – Aug 10 (last game before promotion), Hech played 13 games…he had 60 PA, including 12K, 4 BB, 0 HR, so 44 balls in play. He had 21 hits, so that’s a a. 477 BABIP – in other words, my number tie in.
He hit 24 GB (55%), 8 LD (18%), 11 outfield flies (25%) and 1 popup (2%). Just looking at that, that’s not a batted ball profile that supports a really high BABIP…but we ca dig deeper.
On the 24 GB, he had 9 hits (.375 BABIP). We expect a BABIP of ~.230-.240 on GB. So that’s some balls finding holes.
On the 8 LD, we have 7 hits (.875 BABIP). We expect closer to.750, so there’s an extra hit about expectation, but that’s not very far outside the mean (still positive “luck”)
On the 11 outfield fly balls, he had 5 hits (.455 BABIP). We expect a number below .200.
On the popup, no hit. That’s in line with what we expect, they basically never fall for hits.
So basically, there was a ton of “luck”, whereby balls fell in in New Hampshire during those 13 games
Interesting
My original point was, of course, merely that in the absence of this kind of data we couldn’t know if it was babip luck or a random hot streak. But mystery resolved.
Yes
I don’t want to relitigate, but this is where I think the basic common sense inference applies. We know that BABIP for LD is around .700-750, and for all other balls in play around ~.200. So to get a BABIP of .477 that’s sustainable based on batted balls, you need a LD% approaching 50%.
Now, in all fairness that’s nothing theoretically impossible after having that over 60 PAs. But it is sufficiently implausible that you can look at it and say, there’s a significant amount of luck involved. Now, once in a while you might be wrong – maybe it does happen infrequently. But that goes back to Type I/Type II errors that bluejaysstatsgeek was talking about somewhere else yesterday…you accept a few false positives, and in this case I’m reasonably sure that it it’s quite, quite rare. Now, if the BABIP were .400, then you only need something like a 35%-40% LD% rate in the small smaple, which is more conceivable, and enough that you have to say, there’s likely a good portion of luck here, but we have to dig deeper.
Don't forget that there are other ways to improve babip
the effects of infield and bunt hits can have particularly large effects in small samples. consider the swings in BABIP between 16 and 20 hits over 60 plate appearances (.267 vs. .333)
while three or four successful bunts in 60 plate appearances may not suggest that a player would be likely to repeat those bunts 30 or 40 times over 600 plate appearances, I’d imagine we can (somewhat) safely say that the player isn’t simply getting lucky.
Now, of course, there is a certain degree of “luck” in drawing what should theoretically be a random sample with those three or four successful bunts and, as we all (seem to) agree, that sample isn’t particularly predictive of what we should expect, but there’s a difference between saying the player was lucky and saying that we happened to look at an odd sample.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Right
But the point is, if the chance of drawing that type of odd sample is sufficiently small, thenit doesn’t prevent us from making the inference/hypothesis and assuming it’s true. What you’re discussing is basically Type II error, no?
Right
you can look at that as a Type II error. But my point was basically that the Type II error rate is likely higher than one might expect basing results only on batted ball data
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
A few points
Firstly, I never said nor implied that the observed BABIP was more likely due to one or the other of a random hot streak or luck- just that we didn’t have enough information (at that point) to judge.
Secondly, the sample chosen wasn’t chosen at random; so we have the problem of cherry-picked data. The question becomes less “in a given 60 PA what is the likelihood that a .470 BABIP is due to a random hot streak”; and more like “in a season of 500 PA what are the odds there will be a period of 60 PA due to a random hot streak”. Now, the selection of the period at issue wasn’t entirely arbitrary, so it’s a mixture of the two questions, but you can see that the “random hot streak” hypothesis becomes more likely due to the semi-arbitrary sample at issue.
Finally, I’m not sure I’d necessarily rely so strongly on xBABIP in a small sample since xBABIP relies on averages/generalizations which become less likely to hold in smaller samples: after all, some ground balls are hit harder than others, and in a small sample you could get a spike in those as well as in the category of line drives.
1) You’re missing the point. Given the particulars – .471 BABIP in 13 games/60 PA, my point it is far, far more likely that it’s the result of luck rather than even a random hot streak, to the textent that if you’re just looking at that limited data on it’s face, your hypothesis should be that it luck based, and then only if you see compelling evidence to the contrary. It’s like a pitcher who has a FIP of 2.00 but an ERA of 4.00 in a season. The next season, you would expect those to converge – doesn’t mean it will happen, and its possible it doesn’t, but absent an incredibly compelling reason, the default assumption is that it should.
2) This is irrelevent for the question we are answering. We are looking at the BABIP, and looking at the batted balls during that period, to compare the rates and look for variation from long run expectations. The random hot streak will change the distribution of batted balls, but the whole point is the batter doesn’t exercise much if any control over what happens to his batted ball in terms of it being turned into an out or hit (conditional upon the type of batted ball).
3) Yes, we don’t know that. And that would be ideal. But the enemy of the ideal is not the good, we work with the best info we have, and unless it’s tainted than all it means is more uncertainty than what better data would give us. But when the evidence is strong, that relative ucertainty is far less significant. As for the fact that xBABIP relies on averages generalizations – yes, yes, yes! Precisely! So we can see that the small sample has deviated from these long term averages, which is very essense of random variation. If I flip a coin and it lands heads 4 times, and it;s a fair coon, the inference is, I was lucky – that happens 6.25% of the time!
Resolution?
over a two week sample we really have no way of knowing if he was lucky, had a run of great hitting or a combination of the both.
I admit I had forgotten here about the Minor League play-by-play data. I nonetheless think the inference was clear that I was referring to what we could learn from the statistical summaries under discussion.
My pique was due to the following two statements:
there’s no doubt that a .477 represents a sigificant amount of good fortune in a SSSand a little later:
over 13 games a .477 BABIP cannot be differentiated from random variation – it falls within 2 standard deviationsNow, given what I assumed you meant by “good fortune”, there was no doubt in my mind that the latter statement implicitly conceded my point; but you made no admission, and indeed appeared to lecture me on the meaning of “genuine hitting skill” where we in fact had no disagreement; which, as I’m sure you can appreciate, got my goat, so to speak.
Not sure what you’re saying about “what we could learn from the statistical summaries under discussion” when the only piece of info originally there was .471 BABIP in 13 games…if you want to analze something like that, you need more info to paint the picture. If you’re saying you don’t want to bother painting that picture, and are just happy to say “we don’t know”, fine. I’ll never limit myself to “facts under discussion” when there’s other good info available, but half of an argument is framing data.
As to the first statement – I’ll stand by that one 99%. It’s a tiny little bit oversimplistic, in that to make it 100% accurate it should read “there’s essentially no doubt” to account for the rare counter example that is plausible, but such is true of most things in life. The general, essential point was factually valid, remains factually valid, and the only way it should induce pique is if you don’t like the facts, and there’s nothing I can do there.
On the second – in terms of a strict interpretation of the statistical tool I was using, that was a valid interpretation. However, as I later realized, it was a crude tool, and the wrong one to use when a far better one was available. It was also a little overly broad – I should have been clear that it applied to the current case, but that’s not the main problem. So, I apologize for using the wrong tool to make my point, in that it only muddied the waters.
Also, I think there's a (very, very small) "locked-in" basis for improving results
Because you face the same pitcher two or three times in a row and play in the same park 15 times in a row.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Agreed
Maybe someone could point me to a good summary, but don’t hitters have a slight tendency to be streaky? i.e. they have more pronounced “hot periods” or slumps than we’d predict on the basis of randomness?
by gabrielsyme on Feb 24, 2012 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
Well, they try to control for that
Witness this paper, which concludes that there are more “streaky” players/episodes than one would predict on the basis of randomness.
by gabrielsyme on Feb 24, 2012 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
okay sure
I have little problem believing that some players are streakier than others, that’s fine. one thing I do take issue with, though (that you haven’t said, mind you) is when people imply that streakier hitters are worse than consistent hitters with equal production, for which there is no evidence I know of. I’ve heard that Edwin Encarnacion – ostensibly the epitome of streakiness – is somehow a bad hitter because he’s too streaky to be good
Not only that
But it should be the other way round. If there were such beasts as hugely streaky hitters, they’d be more valuable to the team than equivalent consistent hitters, because you could give them more time off when in a slump and play them every day when they’re on a tear.
Also,
it could actually validate moving them up or down in the order
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
well maybe...
because we don’t really know how to progress through the cycles – it could be time, or it could be playing time (meaning they have to play in slumps too)
right
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1674152
Though of course the reasons that I pointed out are still factors beyond the hitter’s control and are inherently nonpredictive
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Thanks
Sure, this whole thread is discussing non-predictive statistical phenomena.
by gabrielsyme on Feb 24, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
The independence condition isn't strictly correct
Very things are in real life data, but it’s close to indepeentent enough we can assume indepedence for the purposes of analysis
By the way
If his true talent BABIP was .320, and you assume 2.5 balls in play per game (remember, we don;t include K, BB, HR, so I imagine that’s about right for Hech, without bothering to look up the numbers), over 13 games a .477 BABIP cannot be differentiated from random variation – it falls within 2 standard deviations
I should clarify
cannot be statisticallly differentiated…I had it in there initially and somehow deleted it.
true
but it doesn’t necessarily matter whether he was getting lucky or hitting out of his mind for a short period of time, right? Either way, it’s not sustainable and doesn’t tell you much about what to expect for him over a full season – for that you just have to have a bigger sample.
I don’t like using the terminology “lucky” because I don’t think it’s really accurate – I think the better term to use is “nonpredictive.” There’s just no way half of your batted balls can turn into hits for any real length of time, and really, that’s what counts.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Yes
I’m as guilty of it as anyone, because it’s an easy term to use to signify the dominance of the random element, and lack of player control, but it’s very poor at actually summarizing the phenomena being decribed and often leads to more confusion than clarity
Absolutely, both random hot streaks and BABIP luck are unsustainable and not terribly helpful for predicting the future. And often, it’s a mix of both.
My point was just to highlight the fact that what we normally think of as BABIP luck isn’t the only factor at work when we look at SSS; and since we are trying to understand the meaning of statistical outcomes here, it’s an important distinction. And it’s important because, absent randomness, we’d place an overemphasis on SSS results, because luck is highly unlikely to cause some results.
by gabrielsyme on Feb 24, 2012 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
it is definitely possible he made a mechanical adjustment after the ASB
that could be in some way indicative of his future performance, but I think I’d say that any mechanical adjustment that relies on a .475 BABIP to pay dividends isn’t going to be sustainable over the long haul. If you regress that BABIP to a sustainable level his line doesn’t actually look very impressive.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Hechavarria
I don’t know if “slick” with the gove is the best description for Hech’s fielding. Sure he made some highlight reel plays on defence, but he did manage 15 errors last season. And he strikes out three times as many times as he walks. So, if he puts it all together with his physical prowess, maybe he can amount to something.
but many great fielders make a lot of errors, particularly early in their careers
they make plays on balls that other fielders don’t (the pasta diving Jeter effect), which means more chances for fielding errors and more rushed throws to first base, which of course leads to more errors. Ozzie Smith was top 5 in baseball in errors committed at his position four times. So was Dave Concepcion. So was Brooks Robinson. I could go on.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Essentially
You don’t make errors on balls you don’t touch.
Defensively, I’d rather have Alcides Escobar over Derek Jeter. Jeter doesn’t make many errors, but he also doesn’t get to many balls either. Give me a guy who has amazing range and I’ll accept the occasional error that comes from stretching to get that grounder.
Exactly
A grounder single up the middle past “Jeter” (or any low range defender) is always a man on base. However when a guy like Hech can get to those balls even if its only 1/10 times he makes the play that is still 1 more out and 1 less base runner.
Its why the Jays won’t move Gustavo Pierre off short yet despite his like 50 errors last year. Because if he ever learns to throw the ball accurately he’d be a plus defender there. You can’t teach range or arm strength.
Kadri Fanboy since 2006
by WizardofNaz on Feb 24, 2012 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
According to Pierre’s coaches it did…
I’m not saying Pierre is a good defender or anything I’m just saying that was the reasoning of the coaching staff of why so many errors and why they aren’t going to move him off SS yet. For instance they could’ve moved him to CF as he seems to have speed but he’s so young they’d like to give him more of a chance to stick at SS
Kadri Fanboy since 2006
by WizardofNaz on Feb 24, 2012 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
you mean a member of the Blue Jays organization
isn’t going to publicly say “Gustavo Pierre is a defensive butcher”?
I will
Gustavo Pierre is a defensive butcher.
And he’s not a great hitter either. Not I’m bullish on him at all, really even remotely
You're a part if the Blue Jays organization?
by Playoffs!!!!1 on Feb 24, 2012 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
Lol, no
I realized after I posted that was the inference. I ust meant I’m willing to call that spade a spade
I could see Yoda saying
“Not, I’m bullish on him, at all, really, even remotely.”
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
No but they would’ve moved him to a new position and said “his skill set fits better here” Instead they publicly backed him staying there.
Kadri Fanboy since 2006
Good point
Well, at least they see him as having the potential to be a non-butchering SS. By the way, have you actually read anything saying the Jays are intending to keep Pierre at SS this season, or are you extrapolating from their comments on Pierre during last season?
maybe
or maybe they didn’t want to jerk him around the diamond in the middle of the season.
for whatever that move would do for Pierre’s confidence, publicly saying something to the effect of “he sucks so we have to move him” would be far far worse. if they do think he sucks defensively – and we have some pretty good reasons for us to think that they think that – but don’t want to jerk him around, they might as well help his confidence for the time being by publicl backing him
There's a case to be made for it, though
Maybe we could say that all SS field the same number of balls at the edges of their ranges. But I would think that guys with larger ranges 1) are further out of position to make the play at the edge of their range and 2) being, ceteri paribus, more athletic than the smaller-range guys, more likely to be diving or otherwise in a difficult physical position to reliably field the ball (they might also be more likely to be moving laterally at a higher speed). So while more errors might not equal better range, there’s at least two good reasons to think it might.
by gabrielsyme on Feb 24, 2012 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
As hugo pointed out, I think another big one is rushed throws
because it takes more time to get to a ball farther away.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Good point
I was thinking of that as being contained in my first category, but you’re right that it’s a factor in a third potential category as well- better range guys might get to balls at the edge of their range on average a little later than smaller range guys, forcing rushed throws.
by gabrielsyme on Feb 24, 2012 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
I think that is a big factor
particularly since my (anecdotal) experience is that scorers are more reluctant to give a guy a fielding error if he makes a great play just to get to a ball but can’t come up with it, but aren’t reluctant at all to give a player a throwing error for throwing it away even though he made an amazing play just to get to a ball in the first place. and of course those are the plays most likely to necessitate a rushed throw.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman

by 





















