Jason Heyward and Properly Evaluating Players
ShaunIn the midst of last week’s losing streak and his recent slump, the Jason Heyward criticism amongst Braves fans has ramped up yet again, as it did last season when he didn’t perform to the level of his rookie season. While no one can or should make the claim that Heyward has been a great player since the start of 2011, we should take a step back and take a realistic view of Heyward. He’s not hurting the team as much as some seem to think and it’s too early to write him off as a player who will not fulfill expectations.
There is no reason for doom and gloom and Francoeur/Komminsk comparisons just yet. Heyward is absolutely not a bust, at least not yet. He’s still displaying enough of the tools and skills he showed in the minors and in his first season to indicate he is still pretty likely to fulfill his potential of a solid batting average, a very good on-base percentage and solid power. Plus, he’s already one of the better defensive right fielders and a solid base-runner.
Heyward’s walk rate last season and so far this season is above 11 percent. That’s not quite elite but it’s just outside the top 30, right in the top 30-40 range among major league hitters. While walk rate is far from everything, it’s a very good sign that a 22-year-old is displaying the ability to draw walks at a fairly high rate, even if he’s been less than ideal in other areas. This is the most glaring difference between Heyward and Francoeur. Francoeur never had any sort of plate discipline. He fooled a lot of people because he posted impressive Triple Crown stats which, as I’ll get in to, are not so telling.
So what about Heyward’s failures in other areas besides an ability to draw walks? He hit .277 his rookie season then dropped to .227 in 2011 and is down to .233 in 2012. His on-base percentages went from .393 in 2010 to .319 in 2011 but so far has rebounded to .327 in 2012. His slugging has also bounced around from .456 in 2010 to .389 in 2011 to .413 so far in 2012.
A major reason Heyward gets a bad rap, it seems to me, is because of his low batting averages since hitting .277 his rookie season (not that .277 is all that great a batting average). The problem is that batting average doesn’t tell close to a complete picture of a player. Batting average assumes every hit is the same, whether a single or a homerun, and it does not take in to account all aspects of out avoidance. This is why we need on-base percentage and slugging and other stats related to getting on base/avoiding outs and accruing bases, in order to get a more complete picture of a hitter’s value.
Now Heyward clearly hasn’t been all that impressive a hitter, because even his on-base and slugging have not been great since his rookie season. But he hasn’t been as awful a hitter as those who tend to over-rely on batting average seem to think. We can look at a metric like OPS+, which is OPS adjusted for league and park. This metric adjusts for ballpark, since a hitter’s stats are going to be artificially inflated or deflated by certain parks. Also it takes into account league environment, which is more useful when comparing players across eras, for example, dead-ball era players to post-1920s players. It is to a scale where a 100 OPS+ is average, a 110 OPS+ is 10 percent above average and 90 OPS+ is 10 percent below average.
Heyward’s OPS+ since the beginning of 2011 is 95. That is not great, by any means, but it’s not so bad that, in and of itself, it’s an indication that Heyward is a bust that needs to be sent to the minors for more seasoning. Again, he’s still taking walks at a rather high rate, a decent indication he can recognize pitches, but he’s just having trouble with tough major league pitching. But he’s not having as much trouble as you may think, since his offensive production is only about 5 percent below a major league average hitter. Or maybe you think that’s not so good but, as I’ll get in to, it doesn’t make him an awful player when we take into account all aspects of Heyward’s game.
Another reliable measure of offense is Weighted Runs Created Plus (wRC+). This uses aspects of yet another stat called Weighted On-Base Average (wOBA). wOBA takes into account the run value of each walk and each type of hit, based on data of how many runs a team typically scores if a hitter gets, say, a walk or a single or a double, etc. So, where slugging percentage assumes a double is twice as valuable as a walk, wOBA looks at the actual run value. wRC+ converts wOBA into how many runs a player created and also adjusts for league and parks, just like OPS+. Also, like OPS+, it is on a scale where 100 is average.
Heyward’s wRC+ since the beginning of 2011 is 100. So he’s been exactly a league-average major league hitter, even when we take out his rookie season. Among rightfielders, that’s between Brendan Boesch and David DeJesus. That’s clearly not good but it’s also probably not as bad as you may think and again, in and of itself, it is not an indication that he needs to be playing in the minors.
Moving on from offense, Heyward’s defensive contributions have been stellar. Since his career began, the metrics not only indicate he’s one of the best rightfielders in the game but one of the best defensive players in the majors. The defensive metrics are a little complicated but essentially most of the most reliable ones use zones for each fielding position and how many batted balls within and outside of the fielder’s assigned zone were fielded. Also, for outfielders, some metrics account for runners advancing on hits to an outfielder and how often an outfielder throws out baserunners.
There are also baserunning stats that take into account several aspects of runner advancement. Heyward rates as a very solid baserunner, according to these metrics.
So Heyward has been a major league average offensive player since the beginning of 2011. If we throw 2010 in the mix, he is comfortably above average with a 117 wRC+, somewhere between Jay Bruce and Torii Hunter among rightfielders over the span of his career. While his offense has been up and down and around league average these past couple of seasons, his defense is great and his baserunning is solid.
To characterize Heyward in simplistic terms, he’s a solid major leaguer, capable of holding a job but he’s not a star, at least not yet. Basically, he’s a second-division starter (a big leaguer in the bottom 15 at his position). Why is this not a concern for a player who was once a top prospect in all of baseball?
Well, first of all the Braves aren’t getting replacement or fringe-level value from him. Even if we take out 2010 that simply is not the case. A league-average offensive player that contributes greatly on defense and on the bases, that is collecting the league minimum in salary, works just fine for a major league team.
I know some want to discount his age as a factor in why he isn’t a first-division type player yet, essentially arguing that this is his third season and we should see him start to live up to our expectations by this point in his career. But age is a huge factor. Currently the average age of hitters in the High-A Carolina League, where Heyward was as an 18-19-year-old in 2008 and 2009, is 22.5. Heyward is hanging in there as a respectable big leaguer at the age of your typical High-A player.
But Heyward is not “typical,” right? He should be exceeding expectations, given that he was a top prospect, right? Well, in a perfect world that would be the case. But it doesn’t always happen that way. Very few players, even the most talented in history, settle in as legit first-division major leaguers by age 22.
Using Fangraphs’ version of Wins Above Replacement (WAR), which essentially takes into account in some form or another all the measures that I discussed previously, since 1980, only 15 players have collected more WAR through age 22 than Jason Heyward. Barry Bonds had 8.9 WAR through age 22. Heyward has 8.7 career WAR. Justin Upton follows Heyward on the list, with 8.2 WAR. Heyward doesn’t turn 23 until August, so he’ll have more WAR through age 22 than Barry Bonds. Yes, Bonds came up at 21 while Heyward came up at 20. But that should count for at least a little something as well, that a major league organization thought he was ready to do something at the big league level at age 20.
So why hasn’t Heyward been able to match the performance of a player who is essentially the same age and came up around the same time, Giancarlo Stanton? Stanton has 9.3 WAR. As you can see, it’s pretty close, probably closer than many of you think. Not a huge difference between 9.3 and 8.7. Barry Bonds, Carl Crawford and Tim Raines did not match Stanton’s performance through age 22. Should we be all that concern that Heyward hasn’t matched it? Does anyone want to place a bet that Stanton will have a better career than Bonds or Raines and maybe even Crawford? I certainly wouldn’t take that bet.
So what about Heyward’s recent slump? Over the last 14 days: .179/.256/.308. Over the last 28 days: .195/.300/.402. It seems he’s going in the wrong direction and is this cause for concern? It’s possible that it is. But it’s also just as possible that this is just some sort of random slump. If you’ve been a baseball fan for a while, you realize that these things happen. Remember Dan Uggla last season? Remember Dustin Pedroia his first month or so in the majors? Remember Albert Pujols’s start with the Angels? It’s not necessarily an indication he’s headed in the wrong direction or that he belongs in the minors. Certainly it could be. But a month is simply not enough of a sample to know anything about what he’s likely to do going forward.
As far as sending him to the minors, I strongly suspect that the Braves realize that since Heyward is performing like a big leaguer (albeit not a great one), he’s cheap, he has nothing left to prove in the minors and there frankly aren’t better options, they might as well keep him in the majors and let him develop there. If he’s going to go down to the minors and take reps there, he’s likely just going to just crush weaker pitching and not be challenged. He seems to have no major issue with pitch recognition, given that he lays off enough pitches to post a very good walk rate. His only issue seems to be hitting quality, major league pitches. To improve he likely needs reps against those types of pitches.
As far as trading him, the Braves simply aren’t going to do it. Would Frank Wren really take a chance on trading a player with the tools and skills to develop in to a legitimate star? I’m certainly a believer that no player is untouchable but I imagine it would be hard to find a team willing to give up equal value for a player with Heyward’s tools and skills, who is 22-years-old and who is under contract through 2016. That should be okay with Braves fans, even if we are a little disappointed so far.
June 2nd, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Good blog. You will never appreciate Heyward if you can’t look beyond batting average and don’t value defense enough.
June 2nd, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Thanks, Chris. We shouldn’t diminish how difficult it is to play in the majors by ignoring a player’s age and only looking at whether his triple crown stats indicate that he’s living up to expectations.
Hopefully readers get the sense that this isn’t just about Heyward, it’s much bigger than that. It’s about viewing players in terms of outs and bases, not in terms of randomness that comes in situational performance or in terms of being in the right position to racking up opportunity-based statistics. Outs and bases are essentially the only things players have any sort of control over, and they don’t always have a great deal of control over those things.
June 3rd, 2012 at 9:28 am
Nice write up. He’s an average player right now. He has potential, but so did Jeff Francouer. Prove it on the field and then let’s talk about it. He’s a good defensive player. Guys like Jim Edmonds and Andruw Jones are great defensive players. Jason Heyward is a good defensive player. He is not as good as Francouer defensively. Sorry. Francouer has a much stronger/more accurate arm, and he has better range.
Jason appears to have one of the slowest learning curves for his talent. It’s also a little concerning to watch him continue to struggle while guys like Stanton and Harper are improving consistently and are getting a lot better at the plate than Jason. I just don’t see all the shine you do. Compare him to other players. He’s very average. We criticize other average players. Why not Jason? Did you really get so upset over Ballpark Frank saying we should trade Heyward that you wrote this?
The other thing to remember is that there are a lot of freak athletes in every professional sport, and not all of them reach their potential. I just don’t see how having a cautious view on a players potential and ability makes you a hater of said player. Just watch the games. You don’t need all of these stats to evaluate and have an opinion. Why do stats guys always assume they know so much more than everyone else? It’s like you guys think you’ve been to the other side and have all the answers.
June 3rd, 2012 at 9:38 am
We should all just pump the brakes with Heyward. I think that’s how most skeptics feel. The extreme view is to trade him. There aren’t that many extremists, though. And honestly, having him under control through 2016 will keep him on our team for a while. He fits in well with the Braves model for building a team. Whether or not he makes Chipper Jones money from the Braves remains to be seen.
Sorry, If I came off like a douche in the last one. I think you’re a sharp dude and I appreciate your contribution to the site. Sometimes stuff like that gets lost in the internet debates, and I just wanted to give you some props because you presented a solid argument in a very detailed and organized form. Keep it up!
June 3rd, 2012 at 12:37 pm
“Jason Heyward is a good defensive player. He is not as good as Francouer defensively. Sorry. Francouer has a much stronger/more accurate arm, and he has better range.”
-The evidence just doesn’t support this. Yes, Francoeur has a stronger arm but that’s about the only edge Francoeur has defensively.
“Jason appears to have one of the slowest learning curves for his talent. It’s also a little concerning to watch him continue to struggle while guys like Stanton and Harper are improving consistently and are getting a lot better at the plate than Jason.”
-Harper is one of the most talented players in the history of the game and has some of the best tools of any player in the history of the game. To say Heyward isn’t like Harper isn’t exactly a concern.
I just don’t see Stanton getting all that much better than he is right now (which is just fine for the Marlins because he’s great). He’s not an outstanding hitter, in terms of on-base and average. Most of his value is in his power, which is just fine. But I don’t know that there is much room for improvement from already great.
I can see a player like Heyward improve because he has those hitting and on-base tools and skills with which to build upon.
Also I touched on the fact that Heyward has outperformed guys like Bonds, Raines and Crawford through age 22. So Harper and Stanton performing better than Heyward is nothing to be concerned about just yet. Plenty of great players don’t really show their greatness until around 23, 24 or maybe into their mid-20′s.
Now, obviously we have no idea what Heyward will do as he approaches his mid-20s because none of us has a crystal ball. But there’s not much worthy of concern as to whether Heyward is likely to reach his potential.
“I just don’t see all the shine you do. Compare him to other players. He’s very average. We criticize other average players. Why not Jason? Did you really get so upset over Ballpark Frank saying we should trade Heyward that you wrote this?”
-Yes, he’s been average so far in his career (at age 22). I don’t think it’s as simple as “he’s average so he deserves criticism.” Hopefully that is what came across. We need to look at what’s behind the basics of his performance so far. We need to take into account his tools, his skills, his age in addition to how he’s performed so far.
It’s not just Frank that inspired this post. I actually think Frank’s views were pretty tame compared to the views you get from many fans. It’s just the uproar seemed to start up again last week, as Heyward started to slump and the team was in the midst of a losing streak. So I thought it a good time to let out all of points that I feel should be made regarding Heyward and why we shouldn’t be so concerned just yet.
Also this post was inspired by a conversation with Steve about which metrics should be valued when evaluating and judging players.
“The other thing to remember is that there are a lot of freak athletes in every professional sport, and not all of them reach their potential. I just don’t see how having a cautious view on a players potential and ability makes you a hater of said player.”
-That’s pretty much my point, that it’s too early to be extremely critical and also that he hasn’t been all that bad a player in his career, even if we take out 2010, once we look at his contributions as a whole, which I feel is the way to go about evaluating any player.
“Just watch the games. You don’t need all of these stats to evaluate and have an opinion. Why do stats guys always assume they know so much more than everyone else? It’s like you guys think you’ve been to the other side and have all the answers.”
-Sometimes watching is just not good enough. Our observations sometimes fool us. I remember reading a piece by Jonah Keri about Jack Morris’s Hall of Fame case. He brought up a good example of why we need more than just observation: That people once thought a new, fully-formed sun would rise each day. We need measures of what happened because we can’t observe everything and sometimes our preconceived ideas get in the way of what we think we are observing. Guys like me realize we need something outside of our own observations and notions because we realize we don’t have all the answers and realize our own limitations and ignorance.
Nate, thanks for the feedback and thanks for the kind words @4.
I appreciate debate and, as long as it’s not personal, I’ll never take counter-argument personal. I love it. I think that’s the only way to learn and to get closer to the truth. No one should be defensive or afraid of debate. In my opinion it makes us all better and a little wiser.
June 3rd, 2012 at 1:53 pm
I think one of the main reasons that people are down on Heyward is that his gameplay isn’t exciting. Fans don’t go crazy for walks, or his ability to cover right field. They want homers and five-hit games. Some of his better performances get overlooked because they don’t make headlines or create buzz in the stadium.
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Mike, I think that’s right. Again, not that Heyward has been a very good player but the things he’s doing that are great or moderately good aren’t exciting.
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Game winning RBIs are exciting.
June 4th, 2012 at 1:41 am
“I’ll never take counter-argument personal. I love it. I think that’s the only way to learn and to get closer to the truth.”
Agreed. Why get emotional in an opinionated debate about sports? I’ve learned this lesson with time.
I’m a victim of the hype. I remember telling my brother- Cards fan- that this guy will be better than Pujols, which is not true. I also remember reading about him when he was really young because I grew up fairly close and played the same sport, and I am only 4 years older than Jason. He was a legend.
I remember being pumped when we drafted him. He’s got a good head on his shoulders and has athletic ability that is rarely seen. It’s kind of amazing that he stayed with the sport and didn’t get on the football field. The Braves will never trade him. Don’t worry. When he is 28 he is going to be a monster, potentially bigger than Kemp.
I have to remind myself that he’s the same age as your average college senior. Watch the College WS. No one looks like Jason. Also, what were you doing when you were that age? Exactly.
June 4th, 2012 at 9:37 am
“I just don’t see Stanton getting all that much better than he is right now (which is just fine for the Marlins because he’s great). He’s not an outstanding hitter, in terms of on-base and average. Most of his value is in his power, which is just fine. But I don’t know that there is much room for improvement from already great.
I can see a player like Heyward improve because he has those hitting and on-base tools and skills with which to build upon.”
- The last two years Heyward and Stanton have had a nearly identical walk percentage. In fact, they have identical walk and K totals this season with the only difference being 12 PAs, probably because Stanton is batting higher the in line up. Stanton’s OBP is much higher because he gets more hits. Plus, his BA and OBP have improved every single year. How are Heyward’s on-base tools, based on your metrics, any better than Stanton’s?
June 4th, 2012 at 10:05 am
“Using Fangraphs’ version of Wins Above Replacement (WAR), which essentially takes into account in some form or another all the measures that I discussed previously, since 1980, only 15 players have collected more WAR through age 22 than Jason Heyward. Barry Bonds had 8.9 WAR through age 22. Heyward has 8.7 career WAR. Justin Upton follows Heyward on the list, with 8.2 WAR. Heyward doesn’t turn 23 until August, so he’ll have more WAR through age 22 than Barry Bonds. Yes, Bonds came up at 21 while Heyward came up at 20. But that should count for at least a little something as well, that a major league organization thought he was ready to do something at the big league level at age 20.”
I’m still taking issue with this. Heyward hasn’t performed nearly as well as Raines or Bonds, and probably not even Crawford. You’re ignoring trends and over-relying on WAR, particularly the career number.
Jason Heyward posted a 5.1 WAR in his first season, and has regressed significantly since. 2.2 and 1.5. Neither Bonds or Raines posted a total that low. Bonds and Raines improved every season (as has Stanton). Raines had a down year, but it was still better than Heyward’s 2011 and, if things continue like this, better than his 2012.
Further, Bonds and Raines had significantly higher wRC+ and better OPS+. Not to mention, in general, their traditional stats were better. Another thing to note is that all three of those guys were giving you added value on the base paths. 30+ steals for Bonds, 50+ for Crawford, 70+ for Raines. Heyward doesn’t even have as many steals in his career as Bonds did in one season.
I don’t think the Braves should trade Heyward – way too talented. I still fully expect him to become a very good player. I also don’t think they should send him to the minors – they don’t have a better option. I just think you’re assigning way too much value to Heyward’s offensive contributions since 2011. He’s been bad offensively with some short stretches of great production.
June 4th, 2012 at 10:38 am
eric, it’s not just about the metrics. I think Stanton’s walks are more a result of his power and pitchers not wanting to throw him fat pitches while Heyward seems to be the more disciplined hitter. This is one area where the stats only help you so much.
The point about Bonds, Raines, Crawford, etc. is that it’s too early to write off Heyward. That some of the greatest players struggle in the majors in their early 20s. I wasn’t necessarily touching on trends or saying Heyward was the next Bonds or Raines, as those two are Hall of Famers (or should be).
Also, I don’t deny he hasn’t been good offensively nor do I deny he’s had ups and downs. I would just say that we can’t learn all that much from ups and downs because no player should be judged by his hottest hot streaks or his lowest slumps. The truth comes when we look at a larger sample. That’s not to say Heyward has been good because, over a larger sample, Heyward has been around league-average, which isn’t good for a corner-outfielder.
June 4th, 2012 at 11:56 am
First, I think you’re making a distinction without a difference on Stanton and Heyward’s walks. The whole point is getting on base increases your chance of scoring runs. Why does it matter what the reason is for them getting walks as long as they get the walks? Also, I’m not even sure it’s true that Heyward has better plate discipline. He strikes out just as much as Stanton, and he gets fewer hits.
Second, I get your point about Bonds and Raines – I just don’t think it was a good one. I’m fine with the conclusion that young players struggle and Heyward needs more time. I just think it’s disingenuous to throw out a handful of Hall of Famers, cite their WAR over a three year period, and say, “Look, Heyward’s done as good or better than them at the same age!” Because it’s not true. Heyward had an excellent rookie and has been bad since. That’s nothing like the career trajectory of any of the players you mentioned, and the metric you’re using to compare them is skewed based on compiling a high WAR in one season.
June 4th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
eric, I understand the reason doesn’t matter, as far as doing things that help lead to run creation. I’m saying I suspect Heyward has the tools to improve upon his approach and discipline while I don’t know that Stanton has all that much room to improve.
A lot of Stanton’s offensive game is built upon his power. And it’s hard to improve upon already-off-the-charts power.
Fair point on WAR. If we just look at ages 21-22, taking out his age 20 season, Heyward’s more in the Bob Horner, Rafael Furcal, Andrew McCutchen class. So I think the point that it’s too early to call for a trade or demotion is still valid.
June 4th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
The majority of guys who led the league in walk percentage last year were sluggers. Votto, Cabrera, Pena, Bautista, Berkman, Fielder. Who’s who of power hitters. Why do you think Stanton can’t do that? What makes you think Jason Heyward can?
McCutchen – 3.5, 3.7, 5.7
Furcal – 3.5, .8 (missed most of the season with a dislocated shoulder), 3.3
Horner – 2.5, 2.6, 3.7
Heyward – 5.1, 2.2, 1.5
Those first 3 seasons don’t look similar at all to me. Further, both Horner and McCutchen put up significantly better wOBA and wRC+, and Furcal was a shortstop so his offensive production mattered less. You can’t just ignore the fact that those guys maintained or improved their performance while Heyward has regressed. You’re cherry picking stats/players and passing it off as a “proper evaluation.”
June 4th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I feel Hammy’s comment on Heyward is right on. I also feel it is too soon to do something to get rid of him ala Francoeur. Frenchy has finally, somewhat, gotten it…yes, he’s not the Phenom everyone thought he was when he first joined, but not doing too poorly in KC…about .280. I don’t know about the time or money it would take to give him time to “get it”. But, it’s still quite possible that he learns what this extended “funk” is all about. My concern is his elevated strike outs and lack of line drives or hard hit balls. Most or all of his contact seems to be off the handle or soft bloops. It just seems like he always is trying to hit the ball out of the universe before it’s out of the pitcher’s hand. I just would like to see more consistent line drives…even if they were outs.
June 4th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
eric, I’m not saying Stanton can’t do that. I’m saying Heyward has the tools and skills to improve upon his overall game based somewhat on his walk rate, but also on other things. While Stanton, I think, will only moderately improve, which is just fine for the Marlins. He’s awesome and if he gets moderately more awesome he’ll still be a great player for a long time.
I’m not saying Stanton is going to decline and Heyward isn’t. I’m saying Heyward seems more likely to improve a great deal while Stanton is more likely to improve moderately (given that he doesn’t have much room for improvement because he’s already pretty awesome).
I see Stanton as more like a Ryan Howard type hitter, he has those type of skills. While Heyward seems more like he has the tools and skills to develop into a good all-around hitter though not as much power.
Also, you list Heyward’s WAR for this year which is only two months so far. So his WAR numbers year-by-year, by the end of the season will likely look something like: 5.1, 2.2, then something noticeably above 2.2 for this season.
Remember WAR is not a rate stat. So his WAR isn’t likely to remain at 1.5. He’s on pace for 3.7 WAR in 500 plate appearances and 4.4 in 600 plate appearances.
June 4th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
My mistake on WAR. I thought they projected it and adjusted as the season progressed.
June 4th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
I remember a game in St. Louis this year where Jason covered so much ground in right field it was ridiculous. But it gets overlooked.
June 5th, 2012 at 10:31 am
I think sometimes speed gets equated to range in the OF. It don’t matter how fast you’re going if you don’t take the best route. Jason still needs work in this area. Francouer may not be as fast, but he is still fast, lol, and he is a great defensive player. I don’t care what stats say. Francouer is a better defensive outfielder than Jason.
June 5th, 2012 at 10:47 am
Nate @20, all I can show you is what the statistical evidence suggests, that Heyward is one of the better defensive rightfielders in the game and that Francoeur is not as good. You can take it or leave it. Obviously no one can force you to trust what the evidence suggests over your own preconceptions and beliefs.
June 5th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
@21, so much for debate, I guess. Sorry to bother you. Don’t worry, it won’t happen again.
June 5th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Nate c’mon man. You’re arguing with fiction against fact. It’s okay to admit Jason is a better outfielder in terms of range. Frenchy has a better arm for sure.
June 5th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
“I don’t care what stats say. Francouer is a better defensive outfielder than Jason,” does not really leave room for debate. A debate is bringing in some reason and/or evidence to build one side of the argument and someone else bringing in reason and/or evidence to build the other side of the argument. When someone says, “I don’t care what the evidence says. x is true,” that doesn’t necessarily leave anything open for debate.
June 5th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Look, I’m just telling you my opinion guys. And yes, Walker, I am stubborn as hell.
Jason is faster than Frenchy, no doubt. Frenchy, imo, gets a better jump and read off the ball when it hits the bat. He’s nowhere near the athlete. He is an average hitter for a corner outfielder, at best. A deep fly ball in the gap, Jason has a better shot of getting there. Everything else Frenchy gets to faster, fields cleaner, and unloads quicker with an amazing arm to get potential runners. The ball in the gap, Jason if he gets there. Everything else Frenchy makes a better defensive play most of the time. Can a man not have an opinion? Does he have to change it just because you guys think he is wrong?
I’m sure the stats are accurate on what they judge. Stats don’t accurately judge every single aspect of the sport, though.
The stats don’t lie. But these stats are not the end all be all, imo. You guys say you like to discuss things, but come someone who has a different opinion and you get short and condescending. Sorry to disagree with you wise, old sages of baseball. I think it best for everyone if I just go. Life’s to short for being talked to like a child.
June 5th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
I’ll take any and all information that can give me an answer or get me closer to the answer. If someone has it, let’s see it. I believe based on the information I can see that Heyward is the better defender but I can certainly be swayed by a convincing case built on some reason and/or evidence. That’s all we’re asking.
“I think x because it’s my opinion” is fine, and you’re entitled to your opinion, as they say. But that alone doesn’t do much to convince anyone of anything.
June 5th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
And Shaun, I wrote 25 before I read 24. I can see that a quote taken out of context can be analyzed the way that you chose to analyzed it. However, I was using “I don’t care what (blank) says”, “blank” being stats, as more of an idiomatic expression with almost no meaning. It’s the way I guess I talk. I’m sorry if it closed all possible avenues of debate for you. You’re obviously very concrete in the way you view things. Data, facts, what’s on the paper. That’s it. There can be more. And sometimes the other stuff is more important than what’s on the page or screen. I’m not saying the stats are wrong. I’m saying I don’t think they’re the best tool for making a declaration on anything. I don’t always word things the best way. I wasn’t an English major, and I quit taking it the moment I could. The effect is being judged inaccurately. It’s a fault, but quite frankly, it hasn’t really been a very important fault in my life. I think I’ve officially come to the conclusion that it does make internet message boards a rather pointless endeavor. I’d rather go talk to people in person about things than someone at a computer who is judging my point of view and what I write as if I am an incompetent moron. Thanks.
June 6th, 2012 at 12:37 am
This blog should be called “if it’s not on fangraphs it’s not true”. That way it can be avoided. I hope you spend almost no time on this blog because I imagine that’s what most will do as well.
June 6th, 2012 at 12:47 am
In hindsight, I wish I had actually read the title of this blog post before I got started like they suggested on the show. Your title is a brilliant reflection of how arrogant you are and how far your head is up Bill James’s backside.
June 6th, 2012 at 12:50 am
Quote away master
June 6th, 2012 at 12:52 am
Are you Mark in Memphis too? You guys are classic “I’ve pointed out faults in your speech, boy, so now I am smarter than you, wahahahahaha, at least Bub is honest, flexible, and a brilliant writer. When do we get his blog?
June 6th, 2012 at 1:51 am
In my opinion Doug Glanville was a way better defensive centerfielder than Andruw Jones. I don’t care what UZR, range factor, and defensive WAR say. I saw it with my own eyes.
June 6th, 2012 at 1:57 am
No way, Andruw was better. Grow a pair and put a name to it.
June 6th, 2012 at 1:59 am
I guess the anonymity of a comments section on the interweb isn’t enough
June 6th, 2012 at 2:04 am
You could of at least found someone who didn’t play for the Phillies. Was baseball tonight good this evening?
June 6th, 2012 at 2:09 am
I made a grammatical error in #35, can someone quote. I bet it will make you feel better.
June 6th, 2012 at 2:48 am
WTF is range factor? Is that one of those stats that tells how a guy fields balls he was able to get to? What about stats for balls a guy should have gotten to or sacrificed his body for but he couldn’t for some reason? Do they have a stat for that? Didin’t think so.
June 6th, 2012 at 3:55 am
#32, I like that you bring Andruw into this range discussion. Here’s a guy who was the opposite of a physical specimen, mostly because of the way he took care of his body, yet he also had better range than Heyward. Why? because you can’t teach what he could do better than almost everyone who has ever played the game. Read the ball off the bat. Is there an exact stat that accounts for how well a player reads a ball off the bat.
June 6th, 2012 at 8:25 am
Pretty sure #32 was sarcastic.
June 6th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
If I’m searching for the truth about something, I just need something convincing, one way or the other, that’s all.
June 6th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
#39, no ___ sherlock.
June 6th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Since the beginning of 2010, Heyward leads MLB rightfielders with 33 Defensive Runs Saved (per Fangraphs). Francoeur has 14.
Heyward is third in UZR, 19. Francoeur, 2.7.
Heyward leads in UZR/150, 11. Francoeur, 0.7.
Heyward has 19 Fielding WAR (per Fangraphs). Francoeur, 2.4.
I could be convinced, with some compelling evidence and some reason, that Francoeur is the better defensive player. But all indications are that Heyward is clearly better.
Now essentially these stats are saying Heyward makes plays at a better rate than Francoeur. I realize defensive stats aren’t perfect but they would have to be awfully imperfect, given that they all show Heyward with a pretty significant edge.
I suppose it’s possible that they are so imperfect. But until someone can build a better case for Francoeur over Heyward defensively, I’ll go with the best evidence we have.
June 6th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Disregard everything I said 28 onward until today. Had a long day of work, couldn’t fall asleep, bored, yada, yada, and most of all I was being a real dick about it. I’m sure people will read this. You’re a good writer. It’s compelling stuff. I think sometimes you can be a little preachy and honestly that was what made me want to respond. I don’t have the time to put together a detailed argument comparing 2 different players at anything. Apparently that is what is required to talk to some people on this site. I’m going to pass up the opportunity. Sorry.
A discussion with a sabremetrics guru is not for me. They think they’re right and there is no point in trying to present another side of the story because they will never wiggle from their little perch up there. Someone puts up the required argument presentation you demand with research and you’re so dismissive with him. You mission is to dissect and disagree. When you find your answer please let us know ye who are so wise in the ways of science. Deuces.
June 6th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
I’m also going to read and back off. You deserve that. You’re putting in hard work and I shouldn’t hijack a dialogue you want to create with an agenda. I really do feel bad about that. It was childish of me, so maybe being talked to like a child was understandable after all. Agree to disagree and good luck with the blog. Apologies to Mark, too, if he read that #31. Mark’s a great commenter. Uncalled for. Internet apology complete. Good luck with the blog.
Agree to disagree.