PDA

View Full Version : (ROY) Billy vs deGrom



Protoss
09-11-2014, 02:30 AM
In this article, Rosenthal weighs in on the ROY debate (Hamilton vs deGrom).

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/baseball-joe/blog/the-case-for-billy-hamilton-as-nl-rookie-of-the-year-091014


Ken Rosenthal - Billy Hamilton's case for NL Rookie of the Year


How can a hitter with a .667 OPS be the National League Rookie of the Year over a pitcher with a 2.62 ERA?

Good question. But if I had a vote (and I don’t), I would lean toward picking Reds center fielder Billy Hamilton over Mets righty Jacob deGrom.

Yes, Hamilton ranks 60th out of 68 in OPS among NL hitters with enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting title. But his defense and base-running more than compensate for his hitting deficiencies, and he has been with the Reds all season, appearing in 139 of 145 games.

At least, it looks like Billy is a clear favorite to win the NL ROY.

Banshee
09-11-2014, 05:00 AM
Not that I'm not a reds homer, but I always come down on the side of any every day player vs. a good first yr. of SP'er. If not, Cingrani should've been in the conversation last yr. Not what a contending team wants to see w/ the OBP so low, and the caught steelings so high, but I believe he's been better than advertised, by a bunch, and clearly my ROY.

Herzeleid
09-11-2014, 07:28 AM
deGrom would probably throw about 18 innings more this year with 3 more starts remaining.

127 IP + 18 IP = 145 IP

I think 145 IP for a pitcher is sufficient to qualify for the Rookie of the Year.

Herzeleid
09-11-2014, 07:30 AM
Not that I'm not a reds homer, but I always come down on the side of any every day player vs. a good first yr. of SP'er. If not, Cingrani should've been in the conversation last yr.

Cingrani ('13): 104.2 IP, 2.92 ERA, 3.78 FIP, 1.3 WAR
deGrom ('14): 127.1 IP (3 more starts remaining), 2.62 ERA, 2.88 FIP, 2.4 WAR

BernieCarbo
09-11-2014, 08:28 AM
It'll be a close call. By the numbers, Hamilton's base running isn't that great, but on the other hand I've seen him beat out hits that would have been outs for anyone else. Still, an OBP of less than .300 will be an attention getter for the voters.

dougdirt
09-11-2014, 09:00 AM
It'll be a close call. By the numbers, Hamilton's base running isn't that great, but on the other hand I've seen him beat out hits that would have been outs for anyone else. Still, an OBP of less than .300 will be an attention getter for the voters.

Hamilton has been the 5th most valuable base runner in baseball this year according to fangraphs base running metric (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=18,d). There's more to base running than stolen base attempts.

BernieCarbo
09-11-2014, 09:10 AM
That's why I said "by the numbers", and since it is the BBWAA doing the voting, their numbers are the same mundane stats from the last 100 years like batting average, RBIs, steals, etc. I doubt many of them peruse Fangraphs. The voters will look only at his caught stealing rate, unfortunately.

Trust me, I'm on your side from the statistical and analytical and I love fangraphs, but the ROY is a baseball writers award.

Protoss
09-11-2014, 11:01 AM
NL ROOKIE LEADERS

Batters
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=nl&qual=y&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=2&team=0&rost=&age=&filter=&players=

Pitchers
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=nl&qual=y&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=2&team=0&rost=&age=&filter=&players=

Protoss
09-11-2014, 11:06 AM
Is Oscar Taveras (-0.8 WAR) a failure? I think he's terrible.

RedlegJake
09-11-2014, 02:00 PM
Billy and DeGrom are the only real contenders, maybe Enciarte on the outside. Between deGrom and BH I think playing everyday will have a big impact. I don't see it as close actually. My guess is Billy runs away with it. Unless he gets caught....

Protoss
09-12-2014, 03:12 AM
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/redsblog/2014/09/11/bar091114/15429369/
C.Trent, too, weighs on the Hamilton vs deGrom debate and is unsure of whom he will select as a ROY (he does have a vote for it).

RedFanT
09-13-2014, 02:56 AM
For whatever it's worth, Billy's WAR going into last night's game (according to baseball reference) was 2.5, deGrom's 2.9. In Billy's favor is his superlative defense, but unfortunately offensively and even as a base runner he's had serious issues (sub-.300 OBP, leads the league in CS). He's actually been about what I thought he'd be (average offensively, low OBP, very good D). His base running has been somewhat of a disappointment. I've only seen deGrom pitch once, but my goodness he looked good. If he had more starts, I think he'd be a lock.

Old NDN
09-13-2014, 12:49 PM
If Billy doesn't start hitting, it's a no contest.

Stray
09-13-2014, 12:55 PM
deGrom's is a great pitcher at home, and Citi Field is one of the best pitcher friendly parks in baseball. On the road he's not as great.

I'm a homer so I say Billy should win.

JayBruceFan
09-14-2014, 12:57 AM
Billy may have it wrapped up now that deGrom has been shut down but who knows at this point.

Herzeleid
09-14-2014, 08:06 AM
Billy may have it wrapped up now that deGrom has been shut down but who knows at this point.
Do you mean David Wright?

RedlegJake
09-14-2014, 10:56 AM
deGrom hasn't been shut down, that was David Wright. Mets say they will monitor/limit DeGrom's innings per outing if necessary but won't shut him down entirely.

NeilHamburger
09-14-2014, 01:33 PM
Easily DeGrom. I thought Billy had it wrapped up at the All Star Break, and was a borderline all star. But, dude's been hot garbage the 2nd half.

jojo
09-15-2014, 09:37 PM
It'll probably be deGrom.

With the exception of 4 nights in a row in June, Billy has been the type of cornerstone offensively, that the mob generally chains to stool pigeons before they bump them overboard.

757690
09-15-2014, 09:59 PM
This may seal it for deGrom

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/94829930/mets-jacob-degrom-opens-game-with-eight-strikeouts-to-tie-mlb-record


Jacob deGrom's improbable rookie season continued on Monday, when he tied Major League baseball's modern-day record by striking out each of the first eight batters he faced.

NeilHamburger
09-16-2014, 02:12 AM
Honestly, this 2nd half has me wondering if Hamilton should be given the CF job next year. It's been brutal. Just brutal. Problem is there are so many holes I don't think Hamilton will even be under any consideration.

BernieCarbo
09-16-2014, 09:35 AM
Problem is there are so many holes I don't think Hamilton will even be under any consideration.

That's the thing- Billy is doing pretty much what I thought he would offensively, which isn't much. I figured .260/.300/.350 before the season, so he isn't a huge disappointment when all is said and done. But as bad as he is, his OPS is better than Bruce, Cozart, and Phillips. I know people are blaming injuries, but Cozart has never been a good hitter and never will, Bruce has always been kind of a hack and the league has caught up with him, and Phillips has continued his steady decline.

edit: I didn't mean to be too harsh on Bruce, but he is the kind of hitter that benefits greatly from having men on base when he comes up to bat. The pitchers change their approach when they have no place to put him, but otherwise they can get him to chase bad pitches. In fact, his OPS with men on this year is .764, which is close to Frazier's. If this guy could ever suppress the urge to bail on those pitches, he could have a breakout year.

Mike Honcho
09-16-2014, 04:59 PM
I don't think deGrom will get by virtue of Hamilton has been up all season. Hamilton should and will win.

mth123
09-17-2014, 06:46 AM
Super two has ruined the ROY award. The best ones don't qualify or don't play enough the first year.

I'd vote deGrom and not think twice. Billy has been a great defender and not really good at anything else (including stealing bases). Makes way too many outs for me. As noted, he had a short burst where he hit well and it's propping up his numbers. Other than his defense, he's just not been good. I agree that the Reds have other fish to fry, so he's back in CF by default. Before the season, I predicted a .550 to .575 OPS. He's been better, largely due to his spurt, but it's still my expectation for 2015.

Hope I'm wrong.

Herzeleid
09-22-2014, 12:16 AM
DeGrom (today's game): 6.0 IP, 3 H, 1 ER, 10 SO

The game is over and I hope the peace will prevail.

jojo
09-22-2014, 06:59 AM
The GG award should probably go to a Met CFer too.

757690
09-22-2014, 07:31 AM
The GG award should probably go to a Met CFer too.

It's super close between between Legares and Hamilton, but Legares should have won last year, so he'll probably win it this year. But Billy will win one some day soon.

RedTeamGo!
09-22-2014, 07:40 AM
Billy passed the third grade. oh what a wonderful day-eeeh-ayyyy

Herzeleid
09-23-2014, 09:06 AM
http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/09/22/cincinnati-reds-billy-hamilton-bunting-juan-pierre

"Cincinnati Reds centerfielder Billy Hamilton is planning on working on his bunting with former outfielder Juan Pierre this offseason, Hamilton told ESPN's Buster Olney.

Hamilton has had 17 bunt hits on 51 attempts in his rookie season, according to FanGraphs, and said that's an aspect of his game he wants to improve. Pierre, who spent 14 years in the major leagues with six teams, had 215 bunt hits over the final 12 years of his career."

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Herzeleid
09-23-2014, 09:45 AM
deGrom's is a great pitcher at home, and Citi Field is one of the best pitcher friendly parks in baseball. On the road he's not as great.

I'm a homer so I say Billy should win.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=nl&qual=140&type=1&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=14,a

dfs
09-23-2014, 09:58 AM
http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/09/22/cincinnati-reds-billy-hamilton-bunting-juan-pierre

"Cincinnati Reds centerfielder Billy Hamilton is planning on working on his bunting with former outfielder Juan Pierre this offseason, Hamilton told ESPN's Buster Olney.

Hamilton has had 17 bunt hits on 51 attempts in his rookie season, according to FanGraphs, and said that's an aspect of his game he wants to improve. Pierre, who spent 14 years in the major leagues with six teams, had 215 bunt hits over the final 12 years of his career."

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

This is a "why the heck hasn't he already hired Norris Hopper to carry his luggage and talk with him about bunting whenever he wants?"

Not that Billy should be bunting all the time, but it should certainly be part of his arsenal and he could be better at it than he is. Any minute improvement he can make now is worth the investment.

Herzeleid
09-23-2014, 10:16 AM
It's super close between between Legares and Hamilton
I don't think so.

-DRS-
Lagares: 29
Hamilton: 10

-UZR/150-
Lagares: 25.6
Hamilton: 20.1

And, hitting, especially the batting average, matters in The Gold Glove Award.

-Batting-
Lagares: .281/.321/.382/.703
Hamilton: .253/.295/.358/.653

Herzeleid
09-23-2014, 10:33 AM
With some time to kill, I did a little comparison of Drew Stubbs and Billy Hamilton. As you know, 2010 is Stubbs' first full season, and 2014 is, of course, Hamilton's first one.



Player Year G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB wOBA wRC+ Off Def WAR
Stubbs 2010 150 583 514 91 131 19 6 22 77 30 6 55 168 .255 .329 .444 .773 105 228 .338 105 13.7 2.7 3.6
Hamilton 2014 150 605 558 72 141 25 8 6 48 56 23 34 115 .253 .295 .358 .653 84 200 .290 80 -7.0 20.3 3.4


Interesting?

Herzeleid
09-23-2014, 10:51 AM
- Def -
Stubbs: 2.7
Hamilton: 20.3

This is a suspicious part. Do you guys feel that much difference in the defense between Stubbs and Hamilton?

Jim
09-23-2014, 11:32 AM
Biggest difference between Hamilton and Stubbs... Stubbs never reached his potential, Hamilton still has a shot.

I'm fine with Hamilton not getting ROY. Maybe it will be another motivator to improve. Maybe it will help keep his costs down rather than another "look what I did, gimme more money" poker chip.

757690
09-23-2014, 12:16 PM
- Def -
Stubbs: 2.7
Hamilton: 20.3

This is a suspicious part. Do you guys feel that much difference in the defense between Stubbs and Hamilton?

Lol. You use defensive stats to argue that Hamilton isn't as good defensively as Legares, but then question them when they show that Hamilton is better defensively than Stubbs.

Herzeleid
09-23-2014, 12:23 PM
So what's your thoughts? Do you feel that much difference between Stubbs and Hamilton? My eyes don't.

RedlegJake
09-23-2014, 05:28 PM
Lagares vs Hamilton? I'd take either one and not worry about not having the other guy. Lagares may be better than Billy. I'm not that sure. I do know Lagares is a better hitter and may always be. Hamilton has that special something, though, that gives me hope he can turn things up another couple notches - for sure he'll become a better baserunner, technique wise. But I think they are close enough you can take either one and not worry that you're missing out on a lot by not having the other guy. I do understand if someone doesn't think Billy will ever hit very well.

Stubbs always seemed to me to underplay his ability in CF. He was a fine defender but always seemed he could have been more - especially on balls hit in front of him. I think Billy really is better defensively.

NeilHamburger
09-23-2014, 06:01 PM
All I know is this. I don't know if I've seen a starting player look much worse offensively than Hamilton has the 2nd half. And I'm not just talking about getting hits. Even hitting the ball hard to someone or foul has been non-existent.

I haven't watched all the games, but I've probably only seen Hamilton actually hit a ball hard about 10 times since the All Star break.

My fear is no one in the organization sees this because they don't want to see it. This year has been such a disaster that they want to give fans hope, and that hope is "how well" Hamilton played in his rookie year, and how we can expect big things in the future. That's just the kind of BS I expect Bob and Walt to sell me this offseason. I guess I'm saying I wouldn't buy a used car from Walt and Bob.

jojo
09-23-2014, 10:06 PM
Lagares vs Hamilton? I'd take either one and not worry about not having the other guy. Lagares may be better than Billy. I'm not that sure. I do know Lagares is a better hitter and may always be. Hamilton has that special something, though, that gives me hope he can turn things up another couple notches - for sure he'll become a better baserunner, technique wise. But I think they are close enough you can take either one and not worry that you're missing out on a lot by not having the other guy. I do understand if someone doesn't think Billy will ever hit very well.

Stubbs always seemed to me to underplay his ability in CF. He was a fine defender but always seemed he could have been more - especially on balls hit in front of him. I think Billy really is better defensively.

I think you mean Hamilton runs really fast.

Protoss
09-24-2014, 03:58 AM
By my observation, Billy definitely lacks the pitch recognition and plate discipline. Is there a way to verify this?

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 04:42 AM
By my observation, Billy definitely lacks the pitch recognition and plate discipline. Is there a way to verify this?
He has a poor eye.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/h_landing.php?player=571740

757690
09-24-2014, 06:37 AM
He has a poor eye.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/h_landing.php?player=571740

Brooks Baseball use of the word "poor" is misleading.

The league average of swinging at pitches outside the zone is 30%. Hamilton is at 28%, which is slightly above average.
The league average of swinging at pitches inside the zone is 63%. Hamilton is at 57%, which is slightly below average. To put that into perspective, Joey Votto swung at 59% of pitches in the zone, the last three years, so according to Brooks Baseball, Joey Votto has a poor eye.

Hamilton does have a slightly above average contact rate overall, 83% to 79%, and is a very patient hitter, he sees a lot of pitches.

So, in conclusion, Hamilton is a very patient hitter who is slightly above average at making contact, and not swing at pitches outside the zone. He is slightly below average at swinging at pitches in the zone. Basically, he's right around league average when it comes to pitch recognition, and above average when it comes to plate discipline.

jojo
09-24-2014, 06:57 AM
Billy is a Judy hitter who doesn't walk and should probably never hit the ball in the air.

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 07:42 AM
Brooks Baseball use of the word "poor" is misleading.

The league average of swinging at pitches outside the zone is 30%. Hamilton is at 28%, which is slightly above average.
The league average of swinging at pitches inside the zone is 63%. Hamilton is at 57%, which is slightly below average. To put that into perspective, Joey Votto swung at 59% of pitches in the zone, the last three years, so according to Brooks Baseball, Joey Votto has a poor eye.

Hamilton does have a slightly above average contact rate overall, 83% to 79%, and is a very patient hitter, he sees a lot of pitches.

So, in conclusion, Hamilton is a very patient hitter who is slightly above average at making contact, and not swing at pitches outside the zone. He is slightly below average at swinging at pitches in the zone. Basically, he's right around league average when it comes to pitch recognition, and above average when it comes to plate discipline.
Why are you always so defensive about Hamilton? I think it's a little weird.

RedlegJake
09-24-2014, 08:29 AM
He isn't defensive. He is pointing out the fact about your facts. Billy's problem is not a poor eye but rather little to no power to drive balls in the gap despite a few homers this year. JoJo has it right - he is a judy hitter who doesn't walk much despite seeing quite a few pitches. He is at his best slicing soft liners that let him run, bunting, and chopping grounders. Virtually all his fly balls wind up outs because he so rarely drives the ball to the wall. I don't think the numbers bear out that Billy is anything other than average at pitch recognition or strike zone recognition.

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 09:31 AM
He isn't defensive.
Billy, a very patient hitter, according to 757690, ranks 86th in P/PA among 147 qualified hitters.

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 09:39 AM
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/h_landing.php?player=458015


Joey Votto

In 2014:
Against All Fastballs (771 seen), he has had a good eye (1.21 d'; 67% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 22% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and a patient approach at the plate (0.17 c) with an above average likelihood to swing and miss (20% whiff/swing).

Against Breaking Pitches (259 seen), he has had a good eye (0.91 d'; 60% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 25% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and a patient approach at the plate (0.21 c) with a below average likelihood to swing and miss (22% whiff/swing).

Against Offspeed Pitches (147 seen), he has had an exceptionally good eye (1.39 d'; 81% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 30% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and a steady approach at the plate (-0.18 c) with a below average likelihood to swing and miss (24% whiff/swing).

I can't help that you don't believe it.

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 09:53 AM
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/h_landing.php?player=408252


Brandon Phillips

In 2014:
Against All Fastballs (1,136 seen), he has had a league average eye (0.92 d'; 73% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 38% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and a very aggressive approach at the plate (-0.15 c) with a league average likelihood to swing and miss (15% whiff/swing).

Against Breaking Pitches (448 seen), he has had a league average eye (0.66 d'; 68% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 42% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and an aggressive approach at the plate (-0.13 c) with a league average likelihood to swing and miss (32% whiff/swing).

Against Offspeed Pitches (177 seen), he has had an exceptionally poor eye (0.45 d'; 67% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 50% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and a steady approach at the plate (-0.22 c) with an above average likelihood to swing and miss (39% whiff/swing).

Jim
09-24-2014, 09:54 AM
The moral of the discussion is... cancel the All-Star Break and Hamilton would be ROY, the Reds would win the division, and I wouldn't have to listen to Chris Berman's "BACKBACKBACKBACKBACKBACKBACK..." crap during the HR Derby. At the very least, whatever the Reds did on their days off during the break should be banned.

RedlegJake
09-24-2014, 10:38 AM
Billy, a very patient hitter, according to 757690, ranks 86th in P/PA among 147 qualified hitters.

which is right in the middle of the pack. Average.

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 10:47 AM
which is right in the middle of the pack. Average.
That's not a very patient hitter, right? Furthermore, 757690 has no comprehension of the concept of plate discipline.

The following paragraph proves it.


The league average of swinging at pitches inside the zone is 63%. Hamilton is at 57%, which is slightly below average. To put that into perspective, Joey Votto swung at 59% of pitches in the zone, the last three years, so according to Brooks Baseball, Joey Votto has a poor eye.

757690
09-24-2014, 12:05 PM
Why are you always so defensive about Hamilton? I think it's a little weird.

Why do you have to make everything so personal?

I presented a more detailed look at Hamilton's stats thst showed more than he just has a "poor" eye. I showed that using Brook Baseball's definitions of "poor" eye doesn't tell the whole story. By showing the league average numbers, I showed that Hamilton only has a "poor"eye in one area, and that is he let's many strikes go by, and just by a small amount. But that is true of all patient hitters. Which is why I then compared him to Votto, who also let's by many strikes.

The line about Votto having a "poor" eye was done in jest, to point out that just looking at one subset of a person's overall stats, can lead to misleading results.

As for Hamilton being a very patient hitter, you got me, the more accurate description would be that he is a patient hitter. I clearly have no idea what I talking about, and am clearly not objective, because I misused the word "very." My humblest apologies.

Some friendly advice, if you want to continue posting on this site, it's best if you stay clear of personal attacks. They'll get you kicked out of here real fast.

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 12:22 PM
As for Hamilton being a very patient hitter, you got me, the more accurate description would be that he is a patient hitter. I clearly have no idea what I talking about, and am clearly not objective, because I misused the word "very." My humblest apologies.
He is not a patient hitter.


Some friendly advice, if you want to continue posting on this site, it's best if you stay clear of personal attacks. They'll get you kicked out of here real fast.
:lol::lol::lol: You are ridiculous.

When exactly did I make a personal attack on you? It is ridiculous that you are giving me an advice.

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 12:34 PM
The higher the Z-Swing%, the better the plate discipline. (X)

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 12:45 PM
Btw, accusing someone of lying is a serious accusation. We may disagree about which stats to use, but that's very different from calling someone a liar. Those types of accusations don't fly on this message board. Just some friendly advice.
Is this your habit or something?

jojo
09-24-2014, 01:29 PM
Brooks Baseball use of the word "poor" is misleading.

The league average of swinging at pitches outside the zone is 30%. Hamilton is at 28%, which is slightly above average.
The league average of swinging at pitches inside the zone is 63%. Hamilton is at 57%, which is slightly below average. To put that into perspective, Joey Votto swung at 59% of pitches in the zone, the last three years, so according to Brooks Baseball, Joey Votto has a poor eye.

Hamilton does have a slightly above average contact rate overall, 83% to 79%, and is a very patient hitter, he sees a lot of pitches.

So, in conclusion, Hamilton is a very patient hitter who is slightly above average at making contact, and not swing at pitches outside the zone. He is slightly below average at swinging at pitches in the zone. Basically, he's right around league average when it comes to pitch recognition, and above average when it comes to plate discipline.

Major league average for all hitters is 3.83 pitches/PA. Major league average for all lead off hitters is 3.87 pitches/PA. Billy sees 3.78 pitches per PA. He's neither very patience nor patient. He's slightly below average from a patience standpint.

SteelSD
09-24-2014, 01:41 PM
I don't think the numbers bear out that Billy is anything other than average at pitch recognition or strike zone recognition.

Actually, there's more to consider. Hamilton's contact rate of 83.0% is artificially inflated by his 61 bunt attempts (52 attempted for base hits w/9 sac bunts). Adjust for that and you have a contact rate under 80%; which is terrible, especially for a hitter of Hamilton's ilk. Additionally, as jojo aptly noted (and you cited), Hamilton's fly ball tendencies are extreme for a speed-reliant hitter. A guy like Dee Gordon (59.3% GB rate) is doing it the right way while Hamilton is simply not swinging at the right pitches (41.7% GB rate) to take advantage of his speed. That, more than anything else, robs Hamilton of potential BABIP gains; compounded by the fact that his K rate (artificially suppressed by his bunting) is completely unacceptable for a punch-and-judy type.

Were Hamilton even as good as average at pitch/strike zone recognition, he wouldn't spend so much time selecting the pitches he currently swings at. He's not actually disciplined nor does he put up the kind of numbers suggesting that he's even decent at figuring out what to swing or not swing at.

757690
09-24-2014, 01:53 PM
Major league average for all hitters is 3.83 pitches/PA. Major league average for all lead off hitters is 3.87 pitches/PA. Billy sees 3.78 pitches per PA. He's neither very patience nor patient. He's slightly below average from a patience standpint.

I merely was going by what Brooks Baseball said about Hamilton:


Against All Fastballs (1,662 seen), he has had a poor eye (0.90 d'; 59% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 25% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and a very patient approach at the plate (0.23 c) with a league average likelihood to swing and miss (14% whiff/swing).

Herzeleid
09-24-2014, 02:01 PM
I merely was going by what Brooks Baseball said about Hamilton:


Against All Fastballs (1,662 seen), he has had a poor eye (0.90 d'; 59% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 25% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and a very patient approach at the plate (0.23 c) with a league average likelihood to swing and miss (14% whiff/swing).


Against Breaking Pitches (443 seen), he has had an exceptionally poor eye (0.27 d'; 50% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 39% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and a steady approach at the plate (0.15 c) with a league average likelihood to swing and miss (30% whiff/swing).

Against Offspeed Pitches (234 seen), he has had a poor eye (0.83 d'; 77% swing rate at pitches in the zone vs. 46% swing rate at pitches out of the zone) and a steady approach at the plate (-0.31 c) with an above average likelihood to swing and miss (39% whiff/swing).

RedlegJake
09-24-2014, 03:39 PM
Actually, there's more to consider. Hamilton's contact rate of 83.0% is artificially inflated by his 61 bunt attempts (52 attempted for base hits w/9 sac bunts). Adjust for that and you have a contact rate under 80%; which is terrible, especially for a hitter of Hamilton's ilk. Additionally, as jojo aptly noted (and you cited), Hamilton's fly ball tendencies are extreme for a speed-reliant hitter. A guy like Dee Gordon (59.3% GB rate) is doing it the right way while Hamilton is simply not swinging at the right pitches (41.7% GB rate) to take advantage of his speed. That, more than anything else, robs Hamilton of potential BABIP gains; compounded by the fact that his K rate (artificially suppressed by his bunting) is completely unacceptable for a punch-and-judy type.

Were Hamilton even as good as average at pitch/strike zone recognition, he wouldn't spend so much time selecting the pitches he currently swings at. He's not actually disciplined nor does he put up the kind of numbers suggesting that he's even decent at figuring out what to swing or not swing at.

This is the crux of the problem, though. The bunting, I think, has to be factored because its overall part of it - and something he needs to improve technique wise, so it can become an even bigger part of his game. I'm not arguing Billy is good at just about anything related to hitting. I actually think his best moments are when he swings late and slashes a soft dying liner into corners. Not really a repeatable skill but he gets beat often enough that it happens anyway. Lucky singles for any other guy ends up a double or triple. What I don't often get is a sense of frustration watching him - he isn't a first pitch hacker, and doesn't swing at stuff really out of the zone very often, both of which bug me with some other Reds. I don't have a problem Billy's pitch or zone recognition - I have a problem with him being a weak hitter when he gets good pitches. Both lack of contact, too many flies when he does. Patience? He can be more patient or less - just hit the ball hard.

Old school 1983
09-24-2014, 04:26 PM
This is the crux of the problem, though. The bunting, I think, has to be factored because its overall part of it - and something he needs to improve technique wise, so it can become an even bigger part of his game. I'm not arguing Billy is good at just about anything related to hitting. I actually think his best moments are when he swings late and slashes a soft dying liner into corners. Not really a repeatable skill but he gets beat often enough that it happens anyway. Lucky singles for any other guy ends up a double or triple. What I don't often get is a sense of frustration watching him - he isn't a first pitch hacker, and doesn't swing at stuff really out of the zone very often, both of which bug me with some other Reds. I don't have a problem Billy's pitch or zone recognition - I have a problem with him being a weak hitter when he gets good pitches. Both lack of contact, too many flies when he does. Patience? He can be more patient or less - just hit the ball hard.

After the hyphen of the last paragraph sums it up best. Just hit the ball hard. Work on that in the offseason.

SteelSD
09-24-2014, 05:52 PM
This is the crux of the problem, though. The bunting, I think, has to be factored because its overall part of it - and something he needs to improve technique wise, so it can become an even bigger part of his game. I'm not arguing Billy is good at just about anything related to hitting. I actually think his best moments are when he swings late and slashes a soft dying liner into corners. Not really a repeatable skill but he gets beat often enough that it happens anyway. Lucky singles for any other guy ends up a double or triple. What I don't often get is a sense of frustration watching him - he isn't a first pitch hacker, and doesn't swing at stuff really out of the zone very often, both of which bug me with some other Reds. I don't have a problem Billy's pitch or zone recognition - I have a problem with him being a weak hitter when he gets good pitches. Both lack of contact, too many flies when he does. Patience? He can be more patient or less - just hit the ball hard.

See, and I think the crux of the problem is that he's basically going to have to completely reinvent himself to be anything resembling an effective hitter. His offensive tendencies are acceptable from someone who can actually drive the ball consistently, but Hamilton can't. He either needs to beat the ball into the ground (see: Ben Revere) or cut down significantly on his strikeout rates (see: Denard Span) or produce smaller (yet still significant) gains in both those areas plus improving his contact rate. The problem is that asking a hitter to completely reinvent himself in such a fashion almost never works.

jojo
09-24-2014, 06:30 PM
Every at bat for Hamilton needs to either be a leisurely walk to first or a balls out race race to first. Anything in between is a victory for the pitcher. The dude is the fastest man in the history of man and his BABIP is .305 thus far this season. That's a pretty big tell. Or in the case of those who have argued strongly for significant hidden value beyond his numbers, it leaves a lot to the imagination.

757690
09-24-2014, 11:41 PM
Every at bat for Hamilton needs to either be a leisurely walk to first or a balls out race race to first. Anything in between is a victory for the pitcher. The dude is the fastest man in the history of man and his BABIP is .305 thus far this season. That's a pretty big tell. Or in the case of those who have argued strongly for significant hidden value beyond his numbers, it leaves a lot to the imagination.

Hamilton had a .338 BABIP the first half, a .256 BABIP the second half.

The second half, Hamilton hit more ground balls than in the first half (44% to 40%), so hitting more ground balls is not the key to Billy getting more hits. He hit fewer line drives in the second half, than the first (17% to 23%). That is the key to Billy getting more hits. He needs to stop worrying about hitting the ball on the ground or in the air, and just hit it hard.

If you adjust his second half BABIP to equal his first half (and expected BABIP) then his slash line would read .312/374/.686. He also currently, with his bad luck in the second half, has a 3.4 WAR according to Fangraphs. Even with all the faults everyone his pointing out, he's still an above average starter, who is a 23 year old rookie. He doesn't need to reinvent himself. He definitely could improve and hopefully he will, but even if he doesn't. he's one of the Reds best assets moving forward.

jojo
09-25-2014, 12:02 AM
Hamilton had a .338 BABIP the first half, a .256 BABIP the second half.

The second half, Hamilton hit more ground balls than in the first half (44% to 40%), so hitting more ground balls is not the key to Billy getting more hits. He hit fewer line drives in the second half, than the first (17% to 23%). That is the key to Billy getting more hits. He needs to stop worrying about hitting the ball on the ground or in the air, and just hit it hard.

If you adjust his second half BABIP to equal his first half (and expected BABIP) then his slash line would read .312/374/.686. He also currently, with his bad luck in the second half, has a 3.4 WAR according to Fangraphs. Even with all the faults everyone his pointing out, he's still an above average starter, who is a 23 year old rookie. He doesn't need to reinvent himself. He definitely could improve and hopefully he will, but even if he doesn't. he's one of the Reds best assets moving forward.

He's not a victim of bad luck and there is considerable doubt concerning whether he'll be a legit starter going forward. He absolutely needs to reinvent himself offensively.

SteelSD
09-25-2014, 12:29 AM
Hamilton had a .338 BABIP the first half, a .256 BABIP the second half.

The second half, Hamilton hit more ground balls than in the first half (44% to 40%), so hitting more ground balls is not the key to Billy getting more hits. He hit fewer line drives in the second half, than the first (17% to 23%). That is the key to Billy getting more hits. He needs to stop worrying about hitting the ball on the ground or in the air, and just hit it hard.

If you adjust his second half BABIP to equal his first half (and expected BABIP) then his slash line would read .312/374/.686. He also currently, with his bad luck in the second half, has a 3.4 WAR according to Fangraphs. Even with all the faults everyone his pointing out, he's still an above average starter, who is a 23 year old rookie. He doesn't need to reinvent himself. He definitely could improve and hopefully he will, but even if he doesn't. he's one of the Reds best assets moving forward.

You're missing the following:

1) A 44% ground ball rate is still terrible for a hitter of Hamilton's ilk (no power, high K rate).
2) Hamilton's first half Line Drive rate actually represents an over-performance; not an expected norm. His first half BABIP was NOT an "expected" result and his 21.0% seasonal Line Drive rate is about exactly MLB average (20.7%). He's hasn't been Line Drive "unlucky" at all this season. His BABIP is just about exactly what we would expect for the season based on his BIP and poor contact rates.
3) Hamilton produced a 35.3% bunt hit rate in the first half of the season (which helped to inflate his BABIP) and a 25.7% rate on attempts in the 2nd half (which helped suppress it). That's not a "luck" category.

Any valuation that is so dramatically over-reliant on defensive WAR simply falls flat. The minor leagues are simply littered with players who can't hit but who can play defense. Sometimes they end up in the show as late-inning defensive replacements and pinch runners. But teams aren't falling over themselves to slap these types into the lineup for 600+ PA because no-hit/all-defense is the single easiest thing to acquire in the history of the game. Should the Reds just slide Chris Heisey into LF and call that slot good given that he's been worth over half of what we think Hamilton may have been worth this season defensively in less than half the time?

If he doesn't improve, Hamilton most certainly isn't one of the Reds' "best assets". He's easily-replaceable chaff.

757690
09-25-2014, 01:47 AM
You're missing the following:

1) A 44% ground ball rate is still terrible for a hitter of Hamilton's ilk (no power, high K rate).
2) Hamilton's first half Line Drive rate actually represents an over-performance; not an expected norm. His first half BABIP was NOT an "expected" result and his 21.0% seasonal Line Drive rate is about exactly MLB average (20.7%). He's hasn't been Line Drive "unlucky" at all this season. His BABIP is just about exactly what we would expect for the season based on his BIP and poor contact rates.
3) Hamilton produced a 35.3% bunt hit rate in the first half of the season (which helped to inflate his BABIP) and a 25.7% rate on attempts in the 2nd half (which helped suppress it). That's not a "luck" category.

Any valuation that is so dramatically over-reliant on defensive WAR simply falls flat. The minor leagues are simply littered with players who can't hit but who can play defense. Sometimes they end up in the show as late-inning defensive replacements and pinch runners. But teams aren't falling over themselves to slap these types into the lineup for 600+ PA because no-hit/all-defense is the single easiest thing to acquire in the history of the game. Should the Reds just slide Chris Heisey into LF and call that slot good given that he's been worth over half of what we think Hamilton may have been worth this season defensively in less than half the time?

If he doesn't improve, Hamilton most certainly isn't one of the Reds' "best assets". He's easily-replaceable chaff.

1) ZIPS projected Hamilton to have a .332 BABIP this season, which is in line with other speedsters, who, even with other week offensive numbers, normally have very high BABIP, due to bunting and beating out grounders.

2) Why aren't bunts subject to luck? I would say that their success relies more on luck, than a normal hit. And this shows that if Hamilton can improve his bunting, which is not re-inventing himself, it's just improving, like many 23 year old rookies do, his BABIP and OPS will improve.

3) You've completely left out his base running production, which was the tenth best in the majors, even with all his caught stealing. So, again, another area where he can improve without reinventing himself.

4) Your final paragraph is simply false. There is no such thing as an over reliance on defensive WAR, because there is no such thing. WAR is a summary number that combines all of a player's production together into one stat. It could care less where that production comes from. There is no defensive WAR and no offensive WAR. There is just WAR. That final number is all that counts. It doesn't matter if a player provides -20 defensive production and +40 offensive production, or +40 defensive production and - 20 offensive production. Either way, he's a 2 WAR player, and that is all that counts, and all that good GM's pay attention to.

Hamilton has shown that his overall production is worth 3.4 WAR, which makes him an overall, above average starter. If he continues to put up the same numbers over the next 10 years, he'll be considered one of the most valuable Reds over that period.

You can argue that he is due to regress, though I haven't seen such an argument about Hamilton yet. But one could be made, and if the facts back it up, it would be a valid one. But one cannot argue that Billy Hamilton wasn't an above average starter for the Reds this year. He does not need to reinvent himself. He just needs to keep doing what he's been doing.

Herzeleid
09-25-2014, 03:21 AM
4) Your final paragraph is simply false. There is no such thing as an over reliance on defensive WAR, because there is no such thing. WAR is a summary number that combines all of a player's production together into one stat. It could care less where that production comes from. There is no defensive WAR and no offensive WAR. There is just WAR. That final number is all that counts. It doesn't matter if a player provides -20 defensive production and +40 offensive production, or +40 defensive production and - 20 offensive production. Either way, he's a 2 WAR player, and that is all that counts, and all that good GM's pay attention to.
You're just being stubborn beyond reason now, and your idea is totally choplogic.

Billy Hamilton (.250/.292/.355), 79 wRC+, -7.9 Off, 20.3 Def, 3.3 WAR
Brett Gardner (.255/.328/.422), 110 wRC+, 10.3 Off, -1.5 Def, 3.2 WAR


Who would you take as your CF?

Herzeleid
09-25-2014, 04:08 AM
Chris Heisey (.221/.266/.380), 78 wRC+, -7.9 Off, 11.5 Def, 1.3 WAR
Dexter Fowler (.273/.371/.397), 122 wRC+, 15.2 Off, -19.5 Def, 1.3 WAR
Ryan Braun (.269/.323/.458), 114 wRC+, 6.2 Off, -12.4 Def, 1.2 WAR

Who do you want as your LF?

Herzeleid
09-25-2014, 05:40 AM
Peter Bourjos (.236..298/.357), 85 wRC+, -2.6 Off, 9.9 Def, 1.7 WAR
Matt Kemp (.284/.343/.498), 138 wRC+, 22.9 Off, -25.2 Def, 1.7 WAR

Who?

Herzeleid
09-25-2014, 05:44 AM
Billy Hamilton (.250/.292/.355), 79 wRC+, -7.9 Off, 20.3 Def, 3.3 WAR
Matt Kemp (.284/.343/.498), 138 wRC+, 22.9 Off, -25.2 Def, 1.7 WAR

Who is your CF?

SteelSD
09-25-2014, 08:08 AM
The second half, Hamilton hit more ground balls than in the first half (44% to 40%), so hitting more ground balls is not the key to Billy getting more hits.


1) ZIPS projected Hamilton to have a .332 BABIP this season, which is in line with other speedsters, who, even with other week offensive numbers, normally have very high BABIP, due to bunting and beating out grounders.

Soo...hitting ground balls isn't the key to raising a "speedster's" BABIP, but "speedster" BABIP is heavily dependent on hitting ground balls. Yep. Got it. Well done.

jojo
09-25-2014, 08:13 AM
As havoc goes, he's wreaked a lot of it offensively on poor pappa pythag from the lead off spot.The guy was magic for four games in June. In a way that kind of sums up the Reds 2014 season, "Four nights in June".

Herzeleid
09-25-2014, 08:52 AM
3) You've completely left out his base running production, which was the tenth best in the majors, even with all his caught stealing.

The fact that even with good base running, his offensive side of the game still has negative value (-7.9) is the crux of the matter.

757690
09-25-2014, 12:15 PM
Soo...hitting ground balls isn't the key to raising a "speedster's" BABIP, but "speedster" BABIP is heavily dependent on hitting ground balls. Yep. Got it. Well done.

They key to any and every hitters BABIP is hitting line drives. Hamilton's BABIP gets an additional small bump from his speed, on his bunt attempts and when he beats out grounders, but that is not the key to getting his BABIP high.

The effect hitting line drives has on Hamilton's BABIP, is far greater than the effect hitting grounders has on it, and this year is perfect example of that. When his GB rate rose, and his LD fell, his BABIP plummeted.

757690
09-25-2014, 12:17 PM
The fact that even with good base running, his offensive side of the game still has negative value (-7.9) is the crux of the matter.

The crux of the matter is that there are and have been plenty of MLB starters, some All-Stars, who had negative offensive value, but overcame that with strong positive defensive value. Hamilton is just one of many examples of this throughout MLB history.

Herzeleid
09-25-2014, 01:00 PM
The crux of the matter is that there are and have been plenty of MLB starters, some All-Stars, who had negative offensive value, but overcame that with strong positive defensive value. Hamilton is just one of many examples of this throughout MLB history.
1. Can you give me some concrete examples?
2. You haven't answered my questions of the previous page yet. Does that mean you concede that you've got it all wrong?

BernieCarbo
09-25-2014, 01:16 PM
The crux of the matter is that there are and have been plenty of MLB starters, some All-Stars, who had negative offensive value, but overcame that with strong positive defensive value. Hamilton is just one of many examples of this throughout MLB history.

Yes, but they aren't batting in the 1 through 5 positions. Even the king of the three run homer, Earl Weaver, let Mark Belanger play, but he buried him in the lineup. Injuries or not, Billy is simply overmatched as a leadoff hitter.

757690
09-25-2014, 02:29 PM
Yes, but they aren't batting in the 1 through 5 positions. Even the king of the three run homer, Earl Weaver, let Mark Belanger play, but he buried him in the lineup. Injuries or not, Billy is simply overmatched as a leadoff hitter.

We agree on that. I'd bat Hamilton 9th, and the pitcher 8th. He's perfect for that, until he gets his OBP up.

BernieCarbo
09-25-2014, 02:47 PM
We agree on that. I'd bat Hamilton 9th, and the pitcher 8th. He's perfect for that, until he gets his OBP up.

His offense is pretty bad, so whether he bats 8th or 9th is pretty much a wash. But the "batting the pitcher 8th thing" is a gimmick. The higher a guy is in the lineup, the more at bats he gets per game. It doesn't pay to give your worst batter more at bats than the second worst. If it was a good idea, everyone would be doing it.

757690
09-25-2014, 02:57 PM
His offense is pretty bad, so whether he bats 8th or 9th is pretty much a wash. But the "batting the pitcher 8th thing" is a gimmick. The higher a guy is in the lineup, the more at bats he gets per game. It doesn't pay to give your worst batter more at bats than the second worst. If it was a good idea, everyone would be doing it.

Batting order simulators say otherwise. The logic is that you pinch hit for a pitcher halfway through the game, so he's only getting 2 or 3 AB's, and a much better hitters is getting the rest of the AB's for that position in the batting order. And it's only if you have a low OBP, low SLG guy in the lineup.

The fact that no one is doing it doesn't meant much. Teams should be using their closer for the highest leverage situation, not just the 9th, but no one does that either.

jojo
09-25-2014, 03:03 PM
They key to any and every hitters BABIP is hitting line drives. Hamilton's BABIP gets an additional small bump from his speed, on his bunt attempts and when he beats out grounders, but that is not the key to getting his BABIP high.

The effect hitting line drives has on Hamilton's BABIP, is far greater than the effect hitting grounders has on it, and this year is perfect example of that. When his GB rate rose, and his LD fell, his BABIP plummeted.

The devil is in the details and once again the devil apparently needs to call you on your language. For instance going to fangraphs and taking all qualified position players in 2014 to create a data set illustrates the problems. Speed, IFH and LD% correlated with BABIP similarly at .33. Meanwhile GB% correlated with BABIP at .30 and FB% had a correlation of -.44.

Concerning your narrative about patterns in his batted ball tendencies related to his BABIP, the relationship you describe is not nearly as consistent as you argue.

Should one of the fastest guys in baseball who also is a Judy hitter be told to leverage his speed by putting the ball on the ground or by putting it in the air?

757690
09-25-2014, 03:19 PM
The devil is in the details and once again the devil apparently needs to call you on your language. For instance going to fangraphs and taking all qualified position players in 2014 to create a data set illustrates the problems. Speed, IFH and LD% correlated with BABIP similarly at .33. Meanwhile GB% correlated with BABIP at .30 and FB% had a correlation of -.44.

Concerning your narrative about patterns in his batted ball tendencies related to his BABIP, the relationship you describe is not nearly as consistent as you argue.

Should one of the fastest guys in baseball who also is a Judy hitter be told to leverage his speed by putting the ball on the ground or by putting it in the air?

I want Hamilton to hit more ground balls and less fly balls. But not if that means hitting less line drives.

We can't treat Hamilton like a strato card. When you ask him to hit more ground balls and less fly balls, his current batting skills seems to lead him to hitting less line drives. If he could hit more ground balls, less fly balls and the same number of line drives, that would be perfect. But we're not living in a perfect world

Btw, here is the correlation chart for LD, GB, FB to hits for batted balls in play:

LD - 74%
GB - 28%
FB - 21%

Hitting line drives, much more important than hitting ground balls, even if you factor in speed.

jojo
09-25-2014, 03:30 PM
When you ask him to hit more ground balls and less fly balls, his current batting skills seems to lead him to hitting less line drives.

You can't actually make that statement.

757690
09-25-2014, 03:34 PM
You can't actually make that statement.

Based on the data available, I can.

jojo
09-25-2014, 03:40 PM
Based on the data available, I can.

No you can't because of the available data.

757690
09-25-2014, 03:42 PM
No you can't because of the available data.

The data is limited, but it definitely shows that when Hamilton's GB's increase, his LD decrease. Facts are facts.

jojo
09-25-2014, 03:56 PM
The data is limited, but it definitely shows that when Hamilton's GB's increase, his LD decrease. Facts are facts.

And as usual you have trouble with the facts.

First and not insignficantly, you're talking about such small samples that you're talking noise.

Second, you're not even accurately describing the raw totals:


When you ask him to hit more ground balls and less fly balls, his current batting skills seems to lead him to hitting less line drives.



LD GB FB BABIP
April 16.4 46.3 37.3 0.293
May 35.8 37.7 26.4 0.328
June 19 44 36.9 0.371
July 27.1 39.3 38.6 0.289
Aug 16.7 43.3 40 0.309
Sept 14 41.9 44.2 0.174


His two highest LD months were not his highest BABIP months and you could've just as easily blamed the variation on his LD rate on his FB%.

And again, you can argue that LDs have a BABIP of Line drives have a BABIP of >.700 etc all you want, but when talking about drivers of BABIP, you know what correlates to BABIP just as well as a player's LD%? Yep, speed and IFH while GB% is only slightly behind. But lets try to get a Judy hitter with 80/80 speed to hit the ball in the air.

757690
09-25-2014, 04:06 PM
And as usual you have trouble with the facts.

First and not insignficantly, you're talking about such small samples that you're talking noise.

Second, you're not even accurately describing the raw totals:





LD GB FB BABIP
April 16.4 46.3 37.3 0.293
May 35.8 37.7 26.4 0.328
June 19 44 36.9 0.371
July 27.1 39.3 38.6 0.289
Aug 16.7 43.3 40 0.309
Sept 14 41.9 44.2 0.174


His two highest LD months were not his highest BABIP months and you could've just as easily blamed the variation on his LD rate on his FB%.

And again, you can argue that LDs have a BABIP of Line drives have a BABIP of >.700 etc all you want, but when talking about drivers of BABIP, you know what correlates to BABIP just as well as a player's LD%? Yep, speed and IFH while GB% is only slightly behind. But lets try to get a Judy hitter with 80/80 speed to hit the ball in the air.

The stats you provided back up my claim 100%.

When Hamilton hits more GB, his line drives decrease in number. That is the case in every month.

Again, 72% of line drives turn into hits. 28% of GB turn into hits. Unless you think that Hamilton's speed results in 72% of his GB being hits, you want him to focus on hitting line drives, not ground balls. You are also ignoring that line drives turn into extra base hits more often, including home runs, while GB are mostly singles.

Line Drives >>>>>>>> Ground Balls. Always.

jojo
09-25-2014, 04:37 PM
The stats you provided back up my claim 100%.

When Hamilton hits more GB, his line drives decrease in number. That is the case in every month.

You could say the exact same thing about his FBs. You're making a specific and sweeping causual linkage that his paultry data set won't allow.


Again, 72% of line drives turn into hits. 28% of GB turn into hits. Unless you think that Hamilton's speed results in 72% of his GB being hits, you want him to focus on hitting line drives, not ground balls. You are also ignoring that line drives turn into extra base hits more often, including home runs, while GB are mostly singles.

You do love tautologies. Billy should only hit LDs. But guess what? Aint gonna happen. The dude has a career LD% of 21.6 as it stands right now. How much higher are you arguing that he can push that?


Line Drives >>>>>>>> Ground Balls. Always.

GB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fly Balls. Always (from a BABIP perspective). And when a guy has 80/80 speed? More than always.

757690
09-25-2014, 07:00 PM
Telling Hamilton to hit more ground balls is like telling Adam Dunn to make more contact, or telling Zack Cozart to pop up less, or Jay Bruce to go the other way more. In a vacuum, it would be great if they could do those things. But sometimes when a player fixes one issue, five more arise. A good general rule is to let hitters be themselves, warts and all,

jojo
09-25-2014, 08:18 PM
Telling Hamilton to hit more ground balls is like telling Adam Dunn to make more contact, or telling Zack Cozart to pop up less, or Jay Bruce to go the other way more.

No it's not. But even it it were, your position is that he needs to hit the ball harder and hit more line drives. You say that then argue he can't hit the ball on the ground.


In a vacuum, it would be great if they could do those things. But sometimes when a player fixes one issue, five more arise. A good general rule is to let hitters be themselves, warts and all,

No it's not. But your position now seems to be that he'll get better with age yet he can't change.

757690
09-25-2014, 08:25 PM
No it's not. But even it it were, your position is that he needs to hit the ball harder and hit more line drives. You say that then argue he can't hit the ball on the ground.



No it's not. But your position now seems to be that he'll get better with age yet he can't change.

My position is that he needs to keep doing what he's doing at the plate, which is trying to hit the ball hard. He is what he is a hitter. Which is true of most hitters once they reach the majors. Where he can improve is bunting skills, and baserunning skills.

There's a big difference between a player changing what he does, and improving on what he already does.

jojo
09-25-2014, 08:33 PM
My position is that he needs to keep doing what he's doing at the plate, which is trying to hit the ball hard. He is what he is a hitter. Which is true of most hitters once they reach the majors. Where he can improve is bunting skills, and baserunning skills.

There's a big difference between a player changing what he does, and improving on what he already does.

Kill worms, run fast doesn't seem like a taxing demand on his skillset.

757690
09-25-2014, 08:44 PM
Kill worms, run fast doesn't seem like a taxing demand on his skillset.

Messing with a players swing once he's reached the majors is always a bad idea.

jojo
09-25-2014, 09:00 PM
Messing with a players swing once he's reached the majors is always a bad idea.

No it's not.

BernieCarbo
09-25-2014, 10:52 PM
Batting order simulators say otherwise. The logic is that you pinch hit for a pitcher halfway through the game, so he's only getting 2 or 3 AB's, and a much better hitters is getting the rest of the AB's for that position in the batting order. And it's only if you have a low OBP, low SLG guy in the lineup.

That ignores the effect of the number 7 guy who has the 4-5-6 batters in front of him being pitched around to get to the pitcher. You always want to give your highest OBP guys the most at bats, because the number of non-outs is unlimited, but the number of outs is limited to 27. It's not anything worth digging your heels in on, but if I was the number 7 guy, I'd be against it.

The biggest issue is that people are even considering the idea that Billy would be better at 8th or 9th, which means he really needs to work on hitting or walking or something. He seems like someone who knows he has a problem, and will be working on it. But if he wants to improve, I wish he would talk to someone like Ricky Henderson or Wade Boggs than Juan Pierre. I'm not a big fan of the bunt, but it's sad that traditionally the perception is that it should be used by speedsters, when in reality it should be used by guys who are good bunters. Even Steve Garvey hit over .800 while bunting. But usually it's guys like Billy and Maury Wills that are encouraged to bunt because they simply can't hit (trivia: With all his speed, Maury Wills never got 20 doubles in a season).

BernieCarbo
09-25-2014, 11:01 PM
Messing with a players swing once he's reached the majors is always a bad idea.

Billy won't be in the majors very long if he doesn't change something. Baseball history is littered with guys who had a few good years and who then couldn't adjust and then faded away. Plenty of guys changed their swings and their approach once they hit the majors.

757690
09-25-2014, 11:12 PM
Billy won't be in the majors very long if he doesn't change something. Baseball history is littered with guys who had a few good years and who then couldn't adjust and then faded away. Plenty of guys changed their swings and their approach once they hit the majors.

Your first sentence isn't true. He's an above average player the way he is right now. He doesn't need to change a thing in order to be one of the most valuable members of the Reds for many years to come. Unless, that is, you can make a convincing argument that he will get worse next year and beyond.

Players have changed their stance, where they hold their hands, where they stand in the batters box, etc., but very few have ever changed their swing and had success. Most of the time, when they do, they get worse.

757690
09-25-2014, 11:17 PM
But usually it's guys like Billy and Maury Wills that are encouraged to bunt because they simply can't hit (trivia: With all his speed, Maury Wills never got 20 doubles in a season).

If Hamilton has half the career Wills had, I'd be thrilled. But you're right to compare Hamilton to Willis. Both were below average hitters, who were above average players due to their defense and base running.

Herzeleid
09-25-2014, 11:24 PM
If Hamilton has half the career Wills had, I'd be thrilled. But you're right to compare Hamilton to Willis. Both were below average hitters, who were above average players due to their defense and base running.
Hi. :)

1. Can you give me some concrete examples?
2. You haven't answered my questions of the previous page yet. Does that mean you concede that you've got it all wrong?

SteelSD
09-26-2014, 12:05 AM
Kill worms, run fast doesn't seem like a taxing demand on his skillset.

Yup. That's what Dee Gordon does. The two players have strikingly similar skill sets...except for one very important thing...

Dee Gordon 2014: .344 BABIP, 21.2% LD Rate, 59.5% GB Rate, 19.3% FB Rate, 8.0% IFFB Rate
Billy Hamilton 2014: .304 BABIP, 21.1% LD Rate, 41.5% GB Rate, 37.3% FB Rate, 13.2% IFFB Rate

Both players strike out a lot for judy types (Gordon-16.6% K/PA, Hamilton- 19.1% K/PA). Neither is a bat control or bat-on-ball specialist. The striking difference between the two is Ground Ball rates. Gordon is doing exactly what he needs to do for his profile; resulting in 0.45 GB/AB versus Hamilton's paltry 0.30 rate. Both have nearly identical IF Hit rates (Gordon- 11%, Hamilton- 11.2%).

Equalized for 600 AB, that means Gordon would likely produce 90 more ground balls than Hamilton over the course of a season. For those paying attention, that's NINETY baseballs that are no longer falling harmlessly from the sky into fielder gloves. Ninety more chances for Hamilton to run his way into something resembling a non-putrid on-base percentage.

At their current IF Hit rates, that would equal about 10 more IF hits for Gordon. Over 600 PA, an additional ten infield hits would increase Hamilton's actual BA by about 17 points and a 21-point BABIP gain (.325 BABIP vs. .304 BABIP).

Should Hamilton improve his bunting to reach 40% efficiency over 50 AB, you're looking at three additional hits there as well; which would raise his BABIP to .332 over 600 AB.

I'm with you, jojo. It's very very clear what a player of Hamilton's ilk would need to do in order to drive up his BABIP and, as we know, it sure isn't "just be himself" and thinking it'll just all work out.

757690
09-26-2014, 12:28 AM
Yup. That's what Dee Gordon does. The two players have strikingly similar skill sets...except for one very important thing...

Dee Gordon 2014: .344 BABIP, 21.2% LD Rate, 59.5% GB Rate, 19.3% FB Rate, 8.0% IFFB Rate
Billy Hamilton 2014: .304 BABIP, 21.1% LD Rate, 41.5% GB Rate, 37.3% FB Rate, 13.2% IFFB Rate

Both players strike out a lot for judy types (Gordon-16.6% K/PA, Hamilton- 19.1% K/PA). Neither is a bat control or bat-on-ball specialist. The striking difference between the two is Ground Ball rates. Gordon is doing exactly what he needs to do for his profile; resulting in 0.45 GB/AB versus Hamilton's paltry 0.30 rate. Both have nearly identical IF Hit rates (Gordon- 11%, Hamilton- 11.2%).

Equalized for 600 AB, that means Gordon would likely produce 90 more ground balls than Hamilton over the course of a season. For those paying attention, that's NINETY baseballs that are no longer falling harmlessly from the sky into fielder gloves. Ninety more chances for Hamilton to run his way into something resembling a non-putrid on-base percentage.

At their current IF Hit rates, that would equal about 10 more IF hits for Gordon. Over 600 PA, an additional ten infield hits would increase Hamilton's actual BA by about 17 points and a 21-point BABIP gain (.325 BABIP vs. .304 BABIP).

Should Hamilton improve his bunting to reach 40% efficiency over 50 AB, you're looking at three additional hits there as well; which would raise his BABIP to .332 over 600 AB.

I'm with you, jojo. It's very very clear what a player of Hamilton's ilk would need to do in order to drive up his BABIP and, as we know, it sure isn't "just be himself" and thinking it'll just all work out.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. You and I agree on this.

Hamilton should hit more ground balls and less fly balls. Just like Dunn should make more contact and strikeout less, just like Bruce should go the other way more, just like Cozart shouldn't pop up as much.

It's one thing to say a batter will improve if he does X. It's another thing to get a batter to do X, without disrupting another aspect of his hitting. One thing sabermetrics has taught us is that hitters rarely change once they get to majors. Some will improve, but very few re-invent themselves and become different hitters. It's best to let them be themselves, and accept them for who they are, warts and all. And Hamilton, warts and all, is an above average player right now. Letting him be himself isn't about letting all work out, it's about letting him continue to be the same above average player he currently is.

SteelSD
09-26-2014, 02:48 AM
Surprise, surprise, surprise. You and I agree on this.

Hamilton should hit more ground balls and less fly balls. Just like Dunn should make more contact and strikeout less, just like Bruce should go the other way more, just like Cozart shouldn't pop up as much.

Read the following closely please to avoid further confusion:


See, and I think the crux of the problem is that he's basically going to have to completely reinvent himself to be anything resembling an effective hitter. His offensive tendencies are acceptable from someone who can actually drive the ball consistently, but Hamilton can't. He either needs to beat the ball into the ground (see: Ben Revere) or cut down significantly on his strikeout rates (see: Denard Span) or produce smaller (yet still significant) gains in both those areas plus improving his contact rate. The problem is that asking a hitter to completely reinvent himself in such a fashion almost never works.

I don't particularly care if Hamilton can reinvent himself. I understand, completely, the difficulty in asking a hitter to do that and always have. But that has no bearing on what Hamilton would need to do in order to produce something resembling just bad offensive numbers. He'd need to do a lot more to hit the point of "contributor" by making adjustments you now claim he can't make so I'm left wondering why you've spent multiple pages arguing about it rather than just agreeing from the go.


And Hamilton, warts and all, is an above average player right now. Letting him be himself isn't about letting all work out, it's about letting him continue to be the same above average player he currently is.

You're taking a decidedly dogmatic view of WAR and don't really seem to care about WAR component run values. All the components used to calculate WAR are not created equal. It's all defense, no offense with Hamilton. That type of player is the very easiest to find; making them the most easily-replaceable and, thus, the least valuable of all baseball commodities. The only thing Hamilton has going for himself is that he projects out as a super pinch runner, but with his issues getting thrown out, even that should be suspect. Honestly, the best thing I can say about the kid is that he's probably the one guy I'd want to have on second base after someone who can actually hit blasts a double.

Bernie is quite right on this and considering that speed is a young player's skill, exactly how long do you think Hamilton has if he proves over time that he can't hit? You need to consider that carefully because by the time anyone can even think to evaluate his degree of defensive goodness, he'll have lost some of the skill set that would have provided the data for the analysis. What does that leave? One or two years before he becomes a pinch running and defensive replacement specialist?

757690
09-26-2014, 04:31 AM
Read the following closely please to avoid further confusion:



I don't particularly care if Hamilton can reinvent himself. I understand, completely, the difficulty in asking a hitter to do that and always have. But that has no bearing on what Hamilton would need to do in order to produce something resembling just bad offensive numbers. He'd need to do a lot more to hit the point of "contributor" by making adjustments you now claim he can't make so I'm left wondering why you've spent multiple pages arguing about it rather than just agreeing from the go.



You're taking a decidedly dogmatic view of WAR and don't really seem to care about WAR component run values. All the components used to calculate WAR are not created equal. It's all defense, no offense with Hamilton. That type of player is the very easiest to find; making them the most easily-replaceable and, thus, the least valuable of all baseball commodities. The only thing Hamilton has going for himself is that he projects out as a super pinch runner, but with his issues getting thrown out, even that should be suspect. Honestly, the best thing I can say about the kid is that he's probably the one guy I'd want to have on second base after someone who can actually hit blasts a double.

Bernie is quite right on this and considering that speed is a young player's skill, exactly how long do you think Hamilton has if he proves over time that he can't hit? You need to consider that carefully because by the time anyone can even think to evaluate his degree of defensive goodness, he'll have lost some of the skill set that would have provided the data for the analysis. What does that leave? One or two years before he becomes a pinch running and defensive replacement specialist?

Kinda proud of myself to get you, of all people, to admit that we shouldn't take a dogmatic view of WAR, lol. However, it is not true that all components used to calculate WAR are not created equal. At least not to the founders of WAR. The whole point of WAR was to come up with a unified number that weighs everything that a players does equally, so that that number is the most accurate refection of that's players productions, as possible. Painstaking measures were taken to make sure that every component was created equal and reflected equally in that final numbers. Now, that may not be the case. Maybe WAR has some faults in the way it calculates a players production, but its intent is to provide the most balanced single number possible.

Another poster asked for a list of players who had poor offensive skills, but still were able to be starters for years based on their defense and speed. I thought this was such an obvious fact, that there were such players, that I didn't respond. Since there are now two posters who don't think this is true, I feel compelled to present a partial list of those players from the last few decades:

Center Fielders:

F. Gutierrez
J. Pierre
M. Grissom
C. Geronimo
G. Pettis
D. Lewis
D. Glanville
M. Devereaux
D. Jackson
O. Moreno
P. Blair
J. Payton
B. Mcrae
M. Kotsey
D. Erstad
D. Martinez
G. Matthews jr.
D. Gladden
L. Johnson
C. Young
C. Curtis

There are more, but these are the ones I could easily find in a quick search.

Here are some from the other positions:

O. Smith
D. Concepcion
O. Gullion
O. Visquel
B. Ausmus
R. Sanchez
L. Bowa
M. Belanger
B. Boone
G. Templeton
M. Trillo
G. Gagne
B. Dent
B. Molina
F. White
M. Bordick
O. Cabrera
I. DeJesus
D. Wilson
C. Counsell
W. Weiss
B. Russell
J. Uribe
P. Reese
J. Ganter
H. Reynolds
S. Alomar jr.
C. Speier
V. Castillo
B. Santiago
T. Pendelton
A. Kennedy
J. Sundberg

Again, there are more, these are the ones I found in a five minute search.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 06:13 AM
Another poster asked for a list of players who had poor offensive skills, but still were able to be starters for years based on their defense and speed. I thought this was such an obvious fact, that there were such players, that I didn't respond. Since there are now two posters who don't think this is true, I feel compelled to present a partial list of those players from the last few decades:

Center Fielders:

F. Gutierrez
J. Pierre
M. Grissom
C. Geronimo
G. Pettis
D. Lewis
D. Glanville
M. Devereaux
D. Jackson
O. Moreno
P. Blair
J. Payton
B. Mcrae
M. Kotsey
D. Erstad
D. Martinez
G. Matthews jr.
D. Gladden
L. Johnson
C. Young
C. Curtis


You should also list the number of years they played, the age they got out of baseball, and their lifetime OPS. And, some of these guys weren't that bad with the bat. During the years Geronimo played full time, he had an OPS between .690 and .795.

Also, few of these guys played more than a few years full time before being replaced because it's pretty easy to replace them with younger players (i.e. cheap players).

Herzeleid
09-26-2014, 07:38 AM
Kinda proud of myself to get you, of all people, to admit that we shouldn't take a dogmatic view of WAR, lol. However, it is not true that all components used to calculate WAR are not created equal. At least not to the founders of WAR. The whole point of WAR was to come up with a unified number that weighs everything that a players does equally, so that that number is the most accurate refection of that's players productions, as possible. Painstaking measures were taken to make sure that every component was created equal and reflected equally in that final numbers. Now, that may not be the case. Maybe WAR has some faults in the way it calculates a players production, but its intent is to provide the most balanced single number possible.

Another poster asked for a list of players who had poor offensive skills, but still were able to be starters for years based on their defense and speed. I thought this was such an obvious fact, that there were such players, that I didn't respond. Since there are now two posters who don't think this is true, I feel compelled to present a partial list of those players from the last few decades:

Center Fielders:

F. Gutierrez
J. Pierre
M. Grissom
C. Geronimo
G. Pettis
D. Lewis
D. Glanville
M. Devereaux
D. Jackson
O. Moreno
P. Blair
J. Payton
B. Mcrae
M. Kotsey
D. Erstad
D. Martinez
G. Matthews jr.
D. Gladden
L. Johnson
C. Young
C. Curtis

There are more, but these are the ones I could easily find in a quick search.

Here are some from the other positions:

O. Smith
D. Concepcion
O. Gullion
O. Visquel
B. Ausmus
R. Sanchez
L. Bowa
M. Belanger
B. Boone
G. Templeton
M. Trillo
G. Gagne
B. Dent
B. Molina
F. White
M. Bordick
O. Cabrera
I. DeJesus
D. Wilson
C. Counsell
W. Weiss
B. Russell
J. Uribe
P. Reese
J. Ganter
H. Reynolds
S. Alomar jr.
C. Speier
V. Castillo
B. Santiago
T. Pendelton
A. Kennedy
J. Sundberg

Again, there are more, these are the ones I found in a five minute search.
Your list is very unimpressive and you still didn't answer my questions.


Billy Hamilton (.250/.292/.355), 79 wRC+, -7.9 Off, 20.3 Def, 3.3 WAR
Brett Gardner (.255/.328/.422), 110 wRC+, 10.3 Off, -1.5 Def, 3.2 WAR

Who would you take as your CF?


Chris Heisey (.221/.266/.380), 78 wRC+, -7.9 Off, 11.5 Def, 1.3 WAR
Dexter Fowler (.273/.371/.397), 122 wRC+, 15.2 Off, -19.5 Def, 1.3 WAR
Ryan Braun (.269/.323/.458), 114 wRC+, 6.2 Off, -12.4 Def, 1.2 WAR

Who do you want as your LF?


Peter Bourjos (.236..298/.357), 85 wRC+, -2.6 Off, 9.9 Def, 1.7 WAR
Matt Kemp (.284/.343/.498), 138 wRC+, 22.9 Off, -25.2 Def, 1.7 WAR

Who?


Billy Hamilton (.250/.292/.355), 79 wRC+, -7.9 Off, 20.3 Def, 3.3 WAR
Matt Kemp (.284/.343/.498), 138 wRC+, 22.9 Off, -25.2 Def, 1.7 WAR

Who is your CF?

jojo
09-26-2014, 07:43 AM
Kinda proud of myself to get you, of all people, to admit that we shouldn't take a dogmatic view of WAR, lol. However, it is not true that all components used to calculate WAR are not created equal. At least not to the founders of WAR. The whole point of WAR was to come up with a unified number that weighs everything that a players does equally, so that that number is the most accurate refection of that's players productions, as possible. Painstaking measures were taken to make sure that every component was created equal and reflected equally in that final numbers. Now, that may not be the case. Maybe WAR has some faults in the way it calculates a players production, but its intent is to provide the most balanced single number possible.

You completely missed or obfuscated Steel's point.

There were about 20 players who posted wOBAs of .289 or lower with at least 400 PAs in 2013. Of those only 6 were given the chance to post at least 400 PAs the next season. Three of them were from guys who had dramatically better offensive seasons in 2014 (really because 2013 was a departure from expected offensive production) including Escobar, Castro and Lagares. The remaining three have sketchy fates awaiting them and represent spots on the roster ripe for picking-Upton, Hechavarria, and Moustakas.

Billy's WAR is almost entirely due to his playing time and defense (he's at 3.3 WAR and roughly 2.25 WAR is what everysingle player would have with his playing time in CF). While he's put up a huge chuck of defense this season, what does his value look like next year if his UZR is halved (a very reasonable thing to expect could happen)?

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 08:25 AM
So, in conclusion, Hamilton is a very patient hitter who is slightly above average at making contact, and not swing at pitches outside the zone. He is slightly below average at swinging at pitches in the zone. Basically, he's right around league average when it comes to pitch recognition, and above average when it comes to plate discipline.

Even though it's hard to define patience, it's even harder to call Billy a patient hitter. Just as a comparison, Billy saw ball 3 only 57 times this year, whereas last year, Votto saw ball 3 251 times. Part of being a patient hitter is developing the ability to work the count and get "your" pitch (Rickey Henderson, Dwight Evans, Wade Boggs come to mind).

I don't know, his "approach" is just odd, but I think it could be improved greatly with the right person working with him. For instance, he really starts pressing with two strikes. Sometimes I'll be watching him and he'll be having a good at bat, passing on borderline pitches, and working the count, but then when he gets two strikes, he seems to panic and the pitcher will give him a low outside pitch he couldn't hit with a lawn rake, and he'll go for it. I know he's a smart guy and I'm sure he looks at the videos afterwards, and maybe he'll fix this. It's got to be mental, because sometimes he looks pretty good.

Also, his count splits are odd, but I haven't done an analysis to see exactly why they bother me. This year, this is his OPS in these conditions.

Ahead in the count: .728
Even count: .800
Behind in the count: .406

What is odd is that he worse when ahead in the count. It could have a lot of reasons (pitchers get him to chase? They know a weakness and bear down on him? I don't know).

Herzeleid
09-26-2014, 08:28 AM
Kinda proud of myself to get you, of all people, to admit that we shouldn't take a dogmatic view of WAR, lol. However, it is not true that all components used to calculate WAR are not created equal. At least not to the founders of WAR. The whole point of WAR was to come up with a unified number that weighs everything that a players does equally, so that that number is the most accurate refection of that's players productions, as possible. Painstaking measures were taken to make sure that every component was created equal and reflected equally in that final numbers. Now, that may not be the case. Maybe WAR has some faults in the way it calculates a players production, but its intent is to provide the most balanced single number possible.
Here is one more question.

Alex Gordon (.267/.351/.432), 121 wRC+, 19.7 Off, 15.0 Def, 6.0 WAR
Giancarlo Stanton (.288/.395/.555), 159 wRC+, 41.4 Off, -5.1 Def, 6.0 WAR

Who will you choose?

757690
09-26-2014, 10:19 AM
Even though it's hard to define patience, it's even harder to call Billy a patient hitter. Just as a comparison, Billy saw ball 3 only 57 times this year, whereas last year, Votto saw ball 3 251 times. Part of being a patient hitter is developing the ability to work the count and get "your" pitch (Rickey Henderson, Dwight Evans, Wade Boggs come to mind).

I don't know, his "approach" is just odd, but I think it could be improved greatly with the right person working with him. For instance, he really starts pressing with two strikes. Sometimes I'll be watching him and he'll be having a good at bat, passing on borderline pitches, and working the count, but then when he gets two strikes, he seems to panic and the pitcher will give him a low outside pitch he couldn't hit with a lawn rake, and he'll go for it. I know he's a smart guy and I'm sure he looks at the videos afterwards, and maybe he'll fix this. It's got to be mental, because sometimes he looks pretty good.

Also, his count splits are odd, but I haven't done an analysis to see exactly why they bother me. This year, this is his OPS in these conditions.

Ahead in the count: .728
Even count: .800
Behind in the count: .406

What is odd is that he worse when ahead in the count. It could have a lot of reasons (pitchers get him to chase? They know a weakness and bear down on him? I don't know).

As I said, I was simply quoting the same source that claimed that Hamilton had a "poor" eye, who also said that he was a very patient hitter against fastballs, and an average patient hitter against breaking balls.

Hamilton also is a leadoff hitter with speed, and they see more fastballs, since pitchers don't want to walk them, and aren't as afraid to challenge them as a middle of the line up hitter. So he's going to see far more strikes, and less balls than an average hitter, which means he will see less pitches then an average hitter, no matter his approach at the plate.

757690
09-26-2014, 10:28 AM
You completely missed or obfuscated Steel's point.

There were about 20 players who posted wOBAs of .289 or lower with at least 400 PAs in 2013. Of those only 6 were given the chance to post at least 400 PAs the next season. Three of them were from guys who had dramatically better offensive seasons in 2014 (really because 2013 was a departure from expected offensive production) including Escobar, Castro and Lagares. The remaining three have sketchy fates awaiting them and represent spots on the roster ripe for picking-Upton, Hechavarria, and Moustakas.

Billy's WAR is almost entirely due to his playing time and defense (he's at 3.3 WAR and roughly 2.25 WAR is what everysingle player would have with his playing time in CF). While he's put up a huge chuck of defense this season, what does his value look like next year if his UZR is halved (a very reasonable thing to expect could happen)?

You're ignoring his base running, which is part of his offense. Ignoring that, is like ignoring Jay Bruce's home runs.

When you factor that in as part of his offense, you get the following starters from 2013:

S. Castro
Ichiro
Cozart
Weiters
N Arrenando
Rollins
A. Simmons
Altuve
Markakis
Konerko

Herzeleid
09-26-2014, 10:35 AM
You're ignoring his base running, which is part of his offense. Ignoring that, is like ignoring Jay Bruce's home runs.
Thank you for the biggest laugh you have given me in ages.

RedTeamGo!
09-26-2014, 10:36 AM
Billy pretty clearly doesn't deserve the RoY award.

757690
09-26-2014, 10:38 AM
You should also list the number of years they played, the age they got out of baseball, and their lifetime OPS. And, some of these guys weren't that bad with the bat. During the years Geronimo played full time, he had an OPS between .690 and .795.

Also, few of these guys played more than a few years full time before being replaced because it's pretty easy to replace them with younger players (i.e. cheap players).

It's an incomplete list, but all those guys put up offensive numbers as bad or worse than Hamilton for more than one year, and still were starters for many years. That is what was being argued, that a player couldn't have as bad a year as Hamilton has had offensively,mand still justify his starting spot.

It's funny, because I bring up fact after fact, stat after stat, list after list to back up my argument, and the Hamilton deniers still won't admit that he's been an overall, above average starter, who just needs to keep doing what he's doing.

The thing is, both the eye test and the stats say that Hamilton has been just fine this year, and projects to be fine for at least a few more years. But some people just won't believe it, no matter what, lol.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 10:41 AM
As I said, I was simply quoting the same source that claimed that Hamilton had a "poor" eye, who also said that he was a very patient hitter against fastballs, and an average patient hitter against breaking balls.

Hamilton also is a leadoff hitter with speed, and they see more fastballs, since pitchers don't want to walk them, and aren't as afraid to challenge them as a middle of the line up hitter. So he's going to see far more strikes, and less balls than an average hitter, which means he will see less pitches then an average hitter, no matter his approach at the plate.

Pitchers aren't afraid to challenge Billy because he is a poor hitter, not because he is fast. Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines were fast, but they still could work a walk. In fact, Raines has a lifetime OBP of .413 (why isn't this guy in the HOF?). Batters actually have a lot of control of the situation, and his approach could have a big effect on what the pitcher throws.

757690
09-26-2014, 10:45 AM
Pitchers aren't afraid to challenge Billy because he is a poor hitter, not because he is fast. Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines were fast, but they still could work a walk. In fact, Raines has a lifetime OBP of .413 (why isn't this guy in the HOF?). Batters actually have a lot of control of the situation, and his approach could have a big effect on what the pitcher throws.

His lack of power also plays a part in it. As I said, pitchers aren't as afraid to challenge him as they would middle of the lineup hitters. Raines and Henderson were rare leadoff hitters who had real power. Most leadoff hitters watch a lot of strikes go by, see less balls, and less pitches overall.

NeilHamburger
09-26-2014, 10:48 AM
It's an incomplete list, but all those guys put up offensive numbers as bad or worse than Hamilton for more than one year, and still were starters for many years. That is what was being argued, that a player couldn't have as bad a year as Hamilton has had offensively,mand still justify his starting spot.

It's funny, because I bring up fact after fact, stat after stat, list after list to back up my argument, and the Hamilton deniers still won't admit that he's been an overall, above average starter, who just needs to keep doing what he's doing.

The thing is, both the eye test and the stats say that Hamilton has been just fine this year, and projects to be fine for at least a few more years. But some people just won't believe it, no matter what, lol.

If Hamilton keeps "doing what he's doing" you can't have him, Cozart and the pitcher in the same lineup without putting tremendous pressure on the other 6 guys to hit. Now, if the Reds go out and get someone who hits like Frank Thomas circa 93-97 for LF then I would be fine having defense first players like Cozart and Hamilton in the lineup. But they aren't getting that because that guy isn't available. They are much more likely to get someone like Marlon Byrd or Josh Willingham (someone of that talent level). With Phillips in a very real decline, good luck with being happy with Hamilton doing what he's doing. WAR is absurd. Give me 8 guys who put up defense boosted WAR like Hamilton and I'll show you one of the worst teams in the league even though WAR would rate them all above replacement.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 10:55 AM
It's an incomplete list, but all those guys put up offensive numbers as bad or worse than Hamilton for more than one year, and still were starters for many years. That is what was being argued, that a player couldn't have as bad a year as Hamilton has had offensively,mand still justify his starting spot.

It's funny, because I bring up fact after fact, stat after stat, list after list to back up my argument, and the Hamilton deniers still won't admit that he's been an overall, above average starter, who just needs to keep doing what he's doing.

The thing is, both the eye test and the stats say that Hamilton has been just fine this year, and projects to be fine for at least a few more years. But some people just won't believe it, no matter what, lol.

I looked at the guys on that list, and precious few started for "many years". Juan Pierre did, Paul Blair did, but that's it. But Blair actually pulled his weight at the bat (decent OPS year after year in lineups that already had big bats) and Pierre at least has a lifetime OBP of .343, which isn't horrible.

757690
09-26-2014, 11:20 AM
I looked at the guys on that list, and precious few started for "many years". Juan Pierre did, Paul Blair did, but that's it. But Blair actually pulled his weight at the bat (decent OPS year after year in lineups that already had big bats) and Pierre at least has a lifetime OBP of .343, which isn't horrible.

I guess if you define "many" as at least 14 seasons, you're right, lol.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 11:28 AM
How many of those players started full time for 14 seasons?

757690
09-26-2014, 11:32 AM
How many of those players started full time for 14 seasons?

Well, Blair and Pierre did. Or maybe it was 13, I counted kinda fast, lol.

Point is, every player I listed was a starter for years, and/or was a productive player for years.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 11:38 AM
His lack of power also plays a part in it. As I said, pitchers aren't as afraid to challenge him as they would middle of the lineup hitters. Raines and Henderson were rare leadoff hitters who had real power. Most leadoff hitters watch a lot of strikes go by, see less balls, and less pitches overall.

Raines didn't have "real power". His was in single digits for half of his career.

The leadoff hitters that see less balls and more strikes go by are poor leadoff hitters.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 11:41 AM
Well, Blair and Pierre did. Or maybe it was 13, I counted kinda fast, lol.

Point is, every player I listed was a starter for years, and/or was a productive player for years.

Those were the two I mentioned. That's about it, and both were good players.

The rest played for a few years, and then were replaced or became journeymen and utility players.

757690
09-26-2014, 11:43 AM
Raines didn't have "real power". His was in single digits for half of his career.

The leadoff hitters that see less balls and more strikes go by are poor leadoff hitters.

Raines had a career Isolated power of 130.

757690
09-26-2014, 11:44 AM
Those were the two I mentioned. That's about it, and both were good players.

The rest played for a few years, and then were replaced or became journeymen and utility players.

Well that's just false.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 11:45 AM
Ok, which ones started for many years?

757690
09-26-2014, 11:56 AM
Ok, which ones started for many years?

Pretty much all of them.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 12:02 PM
Pretty much all of them.

Well, only if starting at least one game per year is your definition of a starter. I am sure Billy would not look at that list and say "I want to be just like them".

757690
09-26-2014, 12:07 PM
Well, only if starting at least one game per year is your definition of a starter. I am sure Billy would not look at that list and say "I want to be just like them".

I have work to do, but will give you details in a few hours.

jojo
09-26-2014, 01:09 PM
You're ignoring his base running, which is part of his offense. Ignoring that, is like ignoring Jay Bruce's home runs.

No. You're ignoring the actual issue and the garbage list you offered is tantamount to not only ignoring the issue but running from it....


When you factor that in as part of his offense, you get the following starters from 2013:

S. Castro
Ichiro
Cozart
Weiters
N Arrenando
Rollins
A. Simmons
Altuve
Markakis
Konerko

The point (and context of the whole BH discussion since spring) has been that a great many in the industry have doubts that Billy is more than a defensive speedster type and this limits his ceiling/value. In other words, there are doubts as to whether or not Billy can hit well enough to be a legit full time player or not. So while he may be the best option the Reds have right now, he would be low hanging fruit concerning the potential for other options going forward. And as mentioned several times, there is a minimum threshold for offensive competency that generally needs to be met if guys are going to continue getting lots of playing time.

Billy has a wOBA of .287 in 2014. So just looking at starters with that wOBA or lower in 2013 and then seeing whether they started the next year, we find a very short list-6 guys were that crappy offensively and managed to keep their job. Four of them have established offensive pedigrees that suggest their offensive true talent is much higher so they'd obviously be given more rope (Castro, Escobar, Lageras, and Upton). Two of them will probably be looking for work bext year (Hechavara and Moutakas and lets face it Upton will be a bench player too).

You responded with a list that makes no sense given the actual discussion. Lets examine it. First Castro was already mentioned. Clearly he isnt a guy that profiles as someone who has majot questions about hiws bat. Actually that can be said about most of your list. It's completely indefensible that you'd include guys like Weiters, Rollins, Markakus etc in such a rebuttal list given the context of this discussion. Clearly we're talking about actual true talent not someone who had a down year. Also, clearly most of those guys were significantly better than a wOBA of .287 even in their down year. Seriously.

What of Ichiro? He clearly didn't even get 400 PAs and only got the playing time that he did because the Yanks had injuries. The Yanks didn't think of him as a starter. Konerko? He didn't even come close to 400 PAs in 2014. What the heck?!?

Cozart? He will be lucky to have a job next year. He's in danger of being Janished.

Simmons? Coming into 2014 he had been a league average bat in 200 games while displaying uber defensive ability at a premium position. Again, not an appropriate person for the list.

Arenando was mentioned? The guy was essentially a league average hitter in 2013 with considerable defensive value and clear expectations for a high offensive celiing. Altuve? Pretty much same story-there aren't significant doubts about what he'll be offensively.

So again, your list represents a major obfuscation of the issue. It's a shenanigans list.

757690
09-26-2014, 01:30 PM
Ok, which ones started for many years?

I counted a starting season as 400 min PA's.

F. Gutierrez - 3 starting seasons - 762 Games
M. Grissom - 13 starting seasons - 2165 Games
C. Geronimo - 6 starting seasons - 1522 Games
G. Pettis - 7 starting seasons - 1183 Games
D. Lewis - 6 starting seasons - 1354 Games
D. Glanville - 6 starting seasons - 1115 Games
M. Devereaux - 6 starting seasons - 1086 Games
D. Jackson - 3 starting seasons - 827 Games
O. Moreno - 8 starting seasons - 1382 Games
J. Payton - 7 starting seasons - 1259 Games
B. McRae - 10 starting seasons - 1354 Games
M. Kotsay - 10 starting seasons - 1914 Games
D. Erstad - 8 starting seasons - 1654 Games
D. Martinez - 10 starting seasons - 1919 Games
G. Matthews jr. - 6 starting seasons - 1281 Games
D. Gladden - 8 starting seasons - 1197 Games
L. Johnson - 7 starting seasons - 1447 Games
C. Young - 5 starting seasons - 1100 Games
C. Curtis - 8 starting seasons - 1204 Games

757690
09-26-2014, 01:32 PM
No. You're ignoring the actual issue and the garbage list you offered is tantamount to not only ignoring the issue but running from it....



The point (and context of the whole BH discussion since spring) has been that a great many in the industry have doubts that Billy is more than a defensive speedster type and this limits his ceiling/value. In other words, there are doubts as to whether or not Billy can hit well enough to be a legit full time player or not. So while he may be the best option the Reds have right now, he would be low hanging fruit concerning the potential for other options going forward. And as mentioned several times, there is a minimum threshold for offensive competency that generally needs to be met if guys are going to continue getting lots of playing time.

Billy has a wOBA of .287 in 2014. So just looking at starters with that wOBA or lower in 2013 and then seeing whether they started the next year, we find a very short list-6 guys were that crappy offensively and managed to keep their job. Four of them have established offensive pedigrees that suggest their offensive true talent is much higher so they'd obviously be given more rope (Castro, Escobar, Lageras, and Upton). Two of them will probably be looking for work bext year (Hechavara and Moutakas and lets face it Upton will be a bench player too).

You responded with a list that makes no sense given the actual discussion. Lets examine it. First Castro was already mentioned. Clearly he isnt a guy that profiles as someone who has majot questions about hiws bat. Actually that can be said about most of your list. It's completely indefensible that you'd include guys like Weiters, Rollins, Markakus etc in such a rebuttal list given the context of this discussion. Clearly we're talking about actual true talent not someone who had a down year. Also, clearly most of those guys were significantly better than a wOBA of .287 even in their down year. Seriously.

What of Ichiro? He clearly didn't even get 400 PAs and only got the playing time that he did because the Yanks had injuries. The Yanks didn't think of him as a starter. Konerko? He didn't even come close to 400 PAs in 2014. What the heck?!?

Cozart? He will be lucky to have a job next year. He's in danger of being Janished.

Simmons? Coming into 2014 he had been a league average bat in 200 games while displaying uber defensive ability at a premium position. Again, not an appropriate person for the list.

Arenando was mentioned? The guy was essentially a league average hitter in 2013 with considerable defensive value and clear expectations for a high offensive celiing. Altuve? Pretty much same story-there aren't significant doubts about what he'll be offensively.

So again, your list represents a major obfuscation of the issue. It's a shenanigans list.

This issue is whether or not Hamilton can hit enough to justify his base running and defense. Everything I have posted shows that it does, no matter how you try to spin it.

Moving on.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 02:15 PM
I counted a starting season as 400 min PA's.



Calling someone a starter who gets 400 PA is a stretch. In fact, it's just making up a number to make your data look better. You could have at least used 502, the minimum to qualify for a batting title.

But yes, unless Billy can do better at the plate, he will soon be relegated to the kind of role that Darren Lewis played and will bounce from team to team and become a late defensive replacement. Happens all the time.

jojo
09-26-2014, 02:43 PM
This issue is whether or not Hamilton can hit enough to justify his base running and defense. Everything I have posted shows that it does, no matter how you try to spin it.

Moving on.

No it doesn't. Youve not shown what you're running from. It's shocking actually how poorly your list resembles anything close to the player type/issue we're debating.

757690
09-26-2014, 04:04 PM
Calling someone a starter who gets 400 PA is a stretch. In fact, it's just making up a number to make your data look better. You could have at least used 502, the minimum to qualify for a batting title.

But yes, unless Billy can do better at the plate, he will soon be relegated to the kind of role that Darren Lewis played and will bounce from team to team and become a late defensive replacement. Happens all the time.

Lol. You just lost all credibility.

The Reds and Reds fans would be thrilled if Hamilton had the careers of any of those players, including Darrin Lewis'. They averaged over 1000 games played over their careers, and all were very productive.

Here is the list using 502 PA's as the definition of a starter. I used 400 to account for platoons, which is common for light hitting OF. But as you can see, the list really doesn't change all that much. It still is a list of productive players who had long careers. And remember, this isn't the ultimate list, this is what I could find in a 5 minute search. There are more.


F. Gutierrez - 2 starting seasons - 762 Games
M. Grissom - 8 starting seasons - 2165 Games
C. Geronimo - 4 starting seasons - 1522 Games
G. Pettis - 4 starting seasons - 1183 Games
D. Lewis - 5 starting seasons - 1354 Games
D. Glanville - 4 starting seasons - 1115 Games
M. Devereaux - 3 starting seasons - 1086 Games
D. Jackson - 1 starting seasons - 827 Games
O. Moreno - 6 starting seasons - 1382 Games
J. Payton - 4 starting seasons - 1259 Games
B. McRae - 8 starting seasons - 1354 Games
M. Kotsay - 8 starting seasons - 1914 Games
D. Erstad - 8 starting seasons - 1654 Games
D. Martinez - 4 starting seasons - 1919 Games
G. Matthews jr. - 4 starting seasons - 1281 Games
D. Gladden - 5 starting seasons - 1197 Games
L. Johnson - 6 starting seasons - 1447 Games
C. Young - 4 starting seasons - 1100 Games
C. Curtis - 6 starting seasons - 1204 Games




Time to move on.

BernieCarbo
09-26-2014, 04:35 PM
The Reds and Reds fans would be thrilled if Hamilton had the careers of any of those players, including Darrin Lewis'. They averaged over 1000 games played over their careers, and all were very productive.


Good lord. I would really like to see a poll of whether Reds fans would be thrilled to get Darren Lewis production out of Billy for his career. And I lost credibility?

757690
09-26-2014, 06:51 PM
Good lord. I would really like to see a poll of whether Reds fans would be thrilled to get Darren Lewis production out of Billy for his career. And I lost credibility?

Darren Lewis was a Gold Glove winning CF, who was a starter for 5 season, 1354 games. We don't know how valuable he was, since he played mostly before advanced defensive stats were created. However, they were around for his last year in 2002, and he posted a +53 UZR in 49 games. Very small sample size, but it does show the he was a very valuable defensive CF.

His bat was almost identical to what Hamilton'a is now, and teams still made him their starting CF for 5 seasons. He didn't have the speed that Hamilton has, so Hamilton likely will be more valuable. But even if not, even if Hamilton is just as valuable as Lewis was, Reds fans should be very happy to have GG CF for the next 5+ years.

SteelSD
09-26-2014, 08:05 PM
Darren Lewis was a Gold a Glove winning CF, who was a starter for 5 season, 1354 games. We don't know how valuable he was, since he played mostly before advanced defensive stats were created. However, they were around for his last year in 2002, and he posted a +53 UZR in 49 games. Very small sample size, but it does show the he was a very valuable defensive CF.

His bat was almost identical to what Hamilton'a is now, and teams still made him their starting CF for 5 seasons. He didn't have the speed that Hamilton has, so Hamilton likely will be more valuable. But even if not, even if Hamilton is just as valuable as Lewis was, Reds fans should be very happy to have GG CF for the next 5+ years.

Darren Lewis? Yeah, he was so valuable that the Giants, after seeing two 500+ PA seasons of him, decided they needed to replace him in 1995 with Deion Sanders. The Reds got one look at Lewis, said "no mas" and released him in December of that year. He bounced to the White Sox and Dodgers before landing in Boston three years after being given up on by four other teams; where he had his swan song of a .352 OBP in 1998 before grinding to a .311 OBP the next season. That was the last we saw of Darren Lewis' bid at consistently starting for anyone. The guy had shots at getting starter-level PA (or near) with at least four teams and all of them quickly gave up on him. Way it goes with players of his ilk.

BTW, your list is junk. Apparently, you've decided to include a bunch of players who actually finished their careers with adjusted OPS+ numbers sitting way above where Hamilton is right now (and most with peak OPS+ numbers in different stratospheres). In fact, only four players on your list of 21 produced OPS+ numbers lower than Hamilton's 83 OPS+. Fifteen of them finished with OPS+ numbers at or above 90. Only one finished their career with an OBP resembling what Hamilton's putting up. That player was Darrin Jackson; who bounced around from team to team until getting his one and only 500+ PA season in 1992 at age 28; only getting that shot due to the astounding 21 HR he hit the season before in only 359 AB. Unfortunately, 1992 wasn't so kind to Jackson as he reverted back to being the incredibly low OBP schlub he always was and took himself out of the running for any future starting job offers with a .283 OBP. If you're looking to populate your "list" with low-OBP guys like this who got their shot (sometimes more than one) and screwed it up, feel free to add Willy Taveras and Corey Patterson. Heck, the Reds are familiar with them too, right? How'd that work out?

In short, you've created an arbitrary list where the average 1st 500+ seasonal OBP was .326, the career average OBP was .323 and you think that group resembles Hamilton how? Even more disturbing is that nearly half the players on your "list" averaged only 2.71 additional seasons where they received 500+ PA immediately following their initial 500+ PA season. Six did not reach 500 PA the next season. Of the 15 players that did, only ONE followed up a sub-.300 OBP with another sub-.300 OBP (Brian McRrae) and kept his starting job and he still had to demonstrate that he could hit a little bit the following seasons to keep that job. There's no one on the list who represents long-term performance resembling Hamilton's 2014 who got long-term consecutive seasons of starter-level PA. No one.


Time to move on.

Then by all means, do.

757690
09-26-2014, 08:38 PM
Darren Lewis? Yeah, he was so valuable that the Giants, after seeing two 500+ PA seasons of him, decided they needed to replace him in 1995 with Deion Sanders. The Reds got one look at Lewis, said "no mas" and released him in December of that year. He bounced to the White Sox and Dodgers before landing in Boston three years after being given up on by four other teams; where he had his swan song of a .352 OBP in 1998 before grinding to a .311 OBP the next season. That was the last we saw of Darren Lewis' bid at consistently starting for anyone. The guy had shots at getting starter-level PA (or near) with at least four teams and all of them quickly gave up on him. Way it goes with players of his ilk.

BTW, your list is junk. Apparently, you've decided to include a bunch of players who actually finished their careers with adjusted OPS+ numbers sitting way above where Hamilton is right now (and most with peak OPS+ numbers in different stratospheres). In fact, only four players on your list of 21 produced OPS+ numbers lower than Hamilton's 83 OPS+. Fifteen of them finished with OPS+ numbers at or above 90. Only one finished their career with an OBP resembling what Hamilton's putting up. That player was Darrin Jackson; who bounced around from team to team until getting his one and only 500+ PA season in 1992 at age 28; only getting that shot due to the astounding 21 HR he hit the season before in only 359 AB. Unfortunately, 1992 wasn't so kind to Jackson as he reverted back to being the incredibly low OBP schlub he always was and took himself out of the running for any future starting job offers with a .283 OBP. If you're looking to populate your "list" with low-OBP guys like this who got their shot (sometimes more than one) and screwed it up, feel free to add Willy Taveras and Corey Patterson. Heck, the Reds are familiar with them too, right? How'd that work out?

In short, you've created an arbitrary list where the average 1st 500+ seasonal OBP was .326, the career average OBP was .323 and you think that group resembles Hamilton how? Even more disturbing is that nearly half the players on your "list" averaged only 2.71 additional seasons where they received 500+ PA immediately following their initial 500+ PA season. Six did not reach 500 PA the next season. Of the 15 players that did, only ONE followed up a sub-.300 OBP with another sub-.300 OBP (Brian McRrae) and kept his starting job and he still had to demonstrate that he could hit a little bit the following seasons to keep that job. There's no one on the list who represents long-term performance resembling Hamilton's 2014 who got long-term consecutive seasons of starter-level PA. No one.



Then by all means, do.

I went strictly by players who had similar offensive production to Hamilton, according to Fangraphs WAR component breakdown. Most of your post focuses on OBP, which gives up limited information on a players overall offensive production. Even OPS+ is incomplete. When you factor in base running and everything else, these players are very similar to Hamilton. The list is very accurate. And it's not even complete. These are just the hitters I could find quickly. You are also ignoring the ones that didn't play CF. Again, your using the data that help you and ignoring the data that doesn't. You ask for data, then when it doesn't say what you wanted it to say, you refuse to accept it.

Btw, if Hamilton only has two more seasons as a starter, then becomes a bench player for the next few years, he still will be a success, and a very valuable, very productive player. You're making it so that if he's not Eric Davis, he's a failure.

And just a history lesson.

Darren Lewis was going to be the Reds starting CF in 1996. But he arrived late to the team's first meeting under new manager Ray Knight, who wanted to prove he was a no nonsense manager, so he immediately told the Reds GM to put Lewis on waivers. He wasn't cut because the Reds didn't like his talent, he was cut because Ray Knight needed to prove he was a tough manager.

jojo
09-26-2014, 08:44 PM
I went strictly by players who had similar offensive production to Hamilton, according to Fangraphs WAR component breakdown. Most of your post focuses on OBP, which gives up limited information on a players overall offensive production. Even OPS+ is incomplete. When you factor in base running and everything else, these players are very similar to Hamilton. The list is very accurate. And it's not even complete. These are just the hitters I could find quickly. You are also ignoring the ones that didn't play CF. Again, your using the data that help you and ignoring the data that doesn't. You ask for data, then when it doesn't say what you wanted it to say, you refuse to accept it.

Btw, if Hamilton only has two more seasons as a starter, then becomes a bench player for the next few years, he still will be a success, and a very valuable, very productive player. You're making it so that if he's not Eric Davis, he's a failure.

And just a history lesson.

Darren Lewis was going to be the Reds starting CF in 1996. But he arrived late to the team's first meeting under new manager Ray Knight, who wanted to prove he was a no nonsense manager, so he immediately told the Reds GM to put Lewis on waivers. He wasn't cut because the Reds didn't like his talent, he was cut because Ray Knight needed to prove he was a tough manager.

Almost without fail, the players on that list were significantly better hitters. The list is a head scratcher in the on text of this discussion.

757690
09-26-2014, 08:48 PM
Almost without fail, the players on that list were significantly better hitters. The list is a head scratcher in the on text of this discussion.

But they weren't better in terms of overall offensive production. Ignoring Hamilton's base running is a big time no no, if one wants an accurate and objective analysis of him compared to other players. :nono:

jojo
09-26-2014, 08:56 PM
But they weren't better in terms of overall offensive production. Ignoring Hamilton's base running is a big time no no, if one wants an accurate and objective analysis of him compared to other players. :nono:

Your list is junk. Let's just start from the top. Explain how Franklin Gutierez and Hamilton are offensive equivalents.

757690
09-26-2014, 09:07 PM
Hamilton is a career -3.9 offensive player according to Fangraphs WAR breakdown, in 165 games.
Gutierrez is a career -29.9 offensive player according to Fangraphs WAR breakdown, in 762 games.

Based on a 150 game season, Hamilton averages -3.55 offensive WAR, Gutierrez averages -5.89 offensive WAR.

jojo
09-26-2014, 09:20 PM
Hamilton is a career -3.9 offensive player according to Fangraphs WAR breakdown, in 165 games.
Gutierrez is a career -29.9 offensive player according to Fangraphs WAR breakdown, in 762 games.

Based on a 150 game season, Hamilton averages -3.55 offensive WAR, Gutierrez averages -5.89 offensive WAR.

You're not very good at this are you?

757690
09-26-2014, 09:26 PM
You're not very good at this are you?

You don't like the data, so you refuse to accept it. This is getting old.

I have no idea why I lasted so long, but I'm done.

jojo
09-26-2014, 09:42 PM
You don't like the data, so you refuse to accept it. This is getting old.

I have no idea why I lasted so long, but I'm done.

You haven't actually shown the data that you think you have.

Neither their minor league careers nor expectations at the major league level were similar. During his first three seasons as a starter, FG was essentially league average offensively. GI issues cut into his playing time-his true talent didn't. If you can't be bothered with details, it's no wonder why you can't construct a fair list of comparables.

757690
09-26-2014, 10:44 PM
You haven't actually shown the data that you think you have.

Neither their minor league careers nor expectations at the major league level were similar. During his first three seasons as a starter, FG was essentially league average offensively. GI issues cut into his playing time-his true talent didn't. If you can't be bothered with details, it's no wonder why you can't construct a fair list of comparables.


http://youtu.be/cmDXRt7ZLYA

jojo
09-26-2014, 10:48 PM
http://youtu.be/cmDXRt7ZLYA

Exactly. You don't like the data so you refuse to accept it. This is beyond old but it's exactly your MO.

757690
09-26-2014, 10:56 PM
Exactly. You don't like the data so you refuse to accept it. This is beyond old but it's exactly your MO.

FG was an 84 and 85 wRC+ guy two out of his first three years as a starter. He was an 50 wRC+ guy the next year. Your data is incorrect.

jojo
09-26-2014, 11:07 PM
FG was an 84 and 85 wRC+ guy two out of his first three years as a starter. He was an 50 wRC+ guy the next year. Your data is incorrect.

FG posted 105, 84, and 104 wRC+ seasons before playing all 2010 with Gi issues that finally sidelined him in 2011. But you keep arguing that's the same thing as a wRC+ of 79 all you want because well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's just like the time you stamped you're foot and declared Leake had learned to lower his HR/FB in 2013 and it would keep declining as he went forward? Maybe it's arguing just to argue? I dunno. But I do know the two players being compared weren't similar from a true talent standpoint offensively.

Herzeleid
09-26-2014, 11:23 PM
This issue is whether or not Hamilton can hit enough to justify his base running and defense. Everything I have posted shows that it does, no matter how you try to spin it.

Moving on.
You still didn't answer my questions. Therefore,

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lse4doyKXDg/T3m3j-D71dI/AAAAAAAAALA/FOSZygcq1fY/s400/Ryu-Bison+Lose.jpg

757690
09-26-2014, 11:28 PM
FG posted 105, 84, and 104 wRC+ seasons before playing all 2010 with Gi issues that finally sidelined him in 2011. But you keep arguing that's the same thing as a wRC+ of 79 all you want because well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's just like the time you stamped you're foot and declared Leake had learned to lower his HR/FB in 2013 and it would keep declining as he went forward? Maybe it's arguing just to argue? I dunno. But I do know the two players being compared weren't similar from a true talent standpoint offensively.


That first 105 wOBA was as a part time player. The year before that, also as a part time player, he had a 66 wOBA. That is why looking at his career numbers is the most accurate evaluation of him or any player. Cherry picking stats that fit your narrative is a big time :nono:

Looking at career numbers, FG and BH were similar offensive players.

Also a big time :nono: lying about what someone previously said.

I said Leake would maintain his HR/FB ratio from 2013, that he had already improved, and that improved production would continue at that improved level. But guess what? I was right. Going into tonight, Leake's HR/FB ratio was .95, actually lower than it was last year, when it was .98. After tonight, it will go up to .96. So I was right even if I did say that Leake's HR/FB would continue to decline as he went forward (which I didn't).

757690
09-26-2014, 11:33 PM
You still didn't answer my questions. Therefore,

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lse4doyKXDg/T3m3j-D71dI/AAAAAAAAALA/FOSZygcq1fY/s400/Ryu-Bison+Lose.jpg

A girlfriend of mine once decided to stop talking to me. I had no idea she stopped talking to me, and kept trying to talk to her, upset when she wouldn't return my calls. I finally learned from a friend that she wasn't talking to me. I asked her through the friend why she didn't tell me she wasn't talking to me. Through our friend she told me, "How could I, if I'm not talking to you."

Herzeleid
09-27-2014, 12:02 AM
A girlfriend of mine once decided to stop talking to me. I had no idea she stopped talking to me, and kept trying to talk to her, upset when she wouldn't return my calls. I finally learned from a friend that she wasn't talking to me. I asked her through the friend why she didn't tell me she wasn't talking to me. Through our friend she told me, "How could I, if I'm not talking to you."
1. You were wrong about Hamilton's patience at the plate.
2. You were wrong about Hamilton's plate discipline.
3. You were wrong about WAR.

Why are you always wrong ?

SteelSD
09-27-2014, 02:51 AM
I went strictly by players who had similar offensive production to Hamilton, according to Fangraphs WAR component breakdown. Most of your post focuses on OBP, which gives up limited information on a players overall offensive production. Even OPS+ is incomplete. When you factor in base running and everything else, these players are very similar to Hamilton. The list is very accurate. And it's not even complete. These are just the hitters I could find quickly. You are also ignoring the ones that didn't play CF. Again, your using the data that help you and ignoring the data that doesn't. You ask for data, then when it doesn't say what you wanted it to say, you refuse to accept it.

Well, now we I know how you set up your list of arbitrary list of "players you could think of off the top of your head", I think we have a pretty good understanding of why we see so many of them with significantly better hitting attributes and completely different offensive games than Hamilton. It's pretty good. You tried to lower the bar as far as you could to make Hamilton look good by comparison and you still couldn't find a way lower it far enough. All anyone needed to do was simply analyze the list to figure that out. That's a heap of awesome.


Btw, if Hamilton only has two more seasons as a starter, then becomes a bench player for the next few years, he still will be a success, and a very valuable, very productive player. You're making it so that if he's not Eric Davis, he's a failure.

"Very valuable, very productive" players don't turn into bench warmers after three seasons. You can't not know that. And you can burn that Eric Davis strawman.


And just a history lesson.

Darren Lewis was going to be the Reds starting CF in 1996. But he arrived late to the team's first meeting under new manager Ray Knight, who wanted to prove he was a no nonsense manager, so he immediately told the Reds GM to put Lewis on waivers. He wasn't cut because the Reds didn't like his talent, he was cut because Ray Knight needed to prove he was a tough manager.

Yeah, sure. Valuable athletes are released all the time in December for being late to mandatory meetings apparently held very late in the offseason (which is when Knight was actually hired). Managers who were flat-out lowballed on contracts then usually have the power to tell the GM to release whomever the manager says; especially really productive players. Those same valuable athletes then generally bounce around a couple other teams before finding a starting slot with someone and perform so well that they're dumped out of that role after a year or two. Because, y'know, they're really valuable and all. I mean, seriously, how in the world did Barry Larkin survive then because, by all reports, they hated each other; a rift not repaired until well after Knight was dumped? Maybe because Larkin was a really valuable player and Lewis...well...wasn't?

Darren Lewis' issue was that he was over/under on his cost versus his performance. The moment he demonstrated that he couldn't really perform offensively over time, he became too expensive and entirely expendable. And that's the story of a guy who made fewer outs than Billy Hamilton does. Think about that.

757690
09-27-2014, 03:00 AM
It's funny, first I was told that the players on the list weren't good enough. When that failed, I was told that the players on the list were too good.

LMAO

Banshee
09-27-2014, 04:12 AM
With BH's second half regression, I now have to backtrack and give to DeGrom. Hate the idea of a pitcher winning an MVP or ROY, but in both cases this season, the P's have it imho: Kershaw and DeGrom have outclassed the comp. by a good margin.

jojo
09-27-2014, 07:42 AM
That first 105 wOBA was as a part time player.

Talk about cherry picking....he started about 100 games that season.


The year before that, also as a part time player, he had a 66 wOBA. That is why looking at his career numbers is the most accurate evaluation of him or any player. Cherry picking stats that fit your narrative is a big time :nono:

No. What we are doing is examining a player's true talent level and discussing comparable players as a way of wondering what might happen in the future. What you're doing is purposefully being obtuse because your list of comparables falls apart otherwise. The year before that (2007)? FG had about 140 PAs. This is why you fail at player evaluation. Again, the point the you completely ignore is the expectation of a player going forward.


Looking at career numbers, FG and BH were similar offensive players.

Actually no. Even with FG's GI issues, they are not.


Also a big time :nono: lying about what someone previously said.

Shenanigans. In fact, you get a 50 game suspension for Shenanigans on PEDs.


I said Leake would maintain his HR/FB ratio from 2013, that he had already improved, and that improved production would continue at that improved level. But guess what? I was right. Going into tonight, Leake's HR/FB ratio was .95, actually lower than it was last year, when it was .98. After tonight, it will go up to .96. So I was right even if I did say that Leake's HR/FB would continue to decline as he went forward (which I didn't).

Again, Shenanigans on PEDs. The discussion in question concerned the argument that Leake is a below average starter based upon his peripherals and FIP relative to an average NL starter. You very clearly and very strongly argued that xFIP should be used to compare him to the league. It was pointed out to you that it would be inappropriate to do so because Leake has never had a normal HR/FB rate and thus normalizing FIP based upon his chronically high HR/FB rate would inappropriately make him look better. As part of your argument that Leake is getting better with more seasoning you argued that since his HR/FB rate went from 16.7 in 2012 to 11.5 in 2013 it's clear sign of improvement, i.e. he has learned to decrease hi HR/FB and it's thus appropriate to normalize FIP for his HR/FB. Well guess what? His career HR/FB is 13.6 and his HR/FB rate for 2014 is 13.1 and it's still not appropriate to normalize his FIP with his HR/FB rate, your argument concerning this metric was bunk and your characterization of our interaction is absolutely shenanigans on steroids.

Why does it matter? Because we're talking about evaluating a player's true skill and using it to discuss comparables to inform this notion of whether Judy hitters who fail to reach a minimum level of offensive competency have illustrious careers as starting position players or if they tend to only start as stop gaps and tend to become part time players quickly.

You're not very good at this estimating true talent business. Jeeps, just a few pages ago you argued that Hamilton was equivalent to S. Castro, Ichiro, Weiters, N Arrenando, Rollins, A. Simmons, Altuve, Markakis and Konerko. You should stick to tautologies.

BernieCarbo
09-27-2014, 09:17 AM
It's funny, first I was told that the players on the list weren't good enough. When that failed, I was told that the players on the list were too good.

LMAO

Well, at first you used the list to explain that Billy will be a valuable starter for years, but the players you listed were neither valuable nor were they starters for years. And ironically, as mediocre as these players were, they all hit better than Billy. I'm starting to wonder if you've ever seen a baseball game.

757690
09-27-2014, 01:53 PM
I'm still LMAO at you guys, reaching for straws, unable to admit that you were wrong, and proven wrong with stats.

Have a great day. The more you post false statements, illogical arguments, cherry picked stats, and personal insults against me, the better mine gets :)

757690
09-27-2014, 02:44 PM
Just some quick fact checks:


Talk about cherry picking....he started about 100 games that season.

FG started 69 games that year. He played in 100. So shenanigans on steroids to infinity and beyond, for trying to pass of "playing in game" as "starting a game." :mooner:


it's still not appropriate to normalize his FIP with his HR/FB rate, your argument concerning this metric was bunk and your characterization of our interaction is absolutely shenanigans on steroids.

Mike Leake's xFIP has been a much better predictor of his ERA than his FIP, especially the last two years. I was right on that. His last two years have been his best in terms of his HR/FB rate. He has shown improvement in that area, and continues to do so. The stats make that very clear, no matter how you try to spin them.

And concerning the players on the list: The players on the list each had at least two seasons in their careers that was as bad offensively as Hamilton's 2014, and all were starters for multiple years. The fact that some of them became better hitters over their careers, actually speaks better about Hamilton's future. All were at one time as bad as Hamilton offensively, and all were starters, and some became better hitters eventually. This list provides plenty of evidence that Hamilton is fine the way he is, and that he might even get better.

jojo
09-27-2014, 03:08 PM
Just some quick fact checks:



FG started 69 games that year. He played in 100. So shenanigans on steroids to infinity and beyond, for trying to pass of "playing in game" as "starting a game." :mooner:



Mike Leake's xFIP has been a much better predictor of his ERA than his FIP, especially the last two years. I was right on that. His last two years have been his best in terms of his HR/FB rate. He has shown improvement in that area, and continues to do so. The stats make that very clear, no matter how you try to spin them.

And concerning the players on the list: The players on the list each had at least two seasons in their careers that was as bad offensively as Hamilton's 2014, and all were starters for multiple years. The fact that some of them became better hitters over their careers, actually speaks better about Hamilton's future. All were at one time as bad as Hamilton offensively, and all were starters, and some became better hitters eventually. This list provides plenty of evidence that Hamilton is fine the way he is, and that he might even get better.

You've suggested that you're begging out several times.....jumped the shark in a massively embarrassing pot bellied, balding fonzi post just moments ago....maybe it's a great time for you to finally beg out now.

But don't keep up the shenanigans immediately after LYAO about people being unwilling to admit they are wrong.

Hamilton entered the majors with substantial questions concerning whether he could hit enough to be more than a role player. His rookie season did nothing but lend credence to those concerns. Given such estimates about his true talent offensively born by his minor league track record and supportd by his first 600+ PAs in the majors, it's an open question whether he'll be a long term starter or a stopgap oing forward. Looking at the careers of players with similar offensive true talents can help clarify this. Comparing him to markavis, wieter, altuve etc doesn't help. All doing that does is serve to illustrate just how unrealistic some may be in this discussion.

Concerning Mike Leake and LMAO moments it's kind of humorous to read you argue it's xFIP and not one of the best defenses in the majors that informs his ERA. Again it's another tell.

But jeeps, why might it be silly to pick anyone who had a bad year and then argue tht because such a player still had a career as a consistent starter? Maybe it's because guys with pedigrees are given more rope than Judys. Wieter is not Billy which is not surprising because he certainly wasn't when he was promoted.

Herzeleid
09-27-2014, 03:12 PM
I'm still LMAO at you guys, reaching for straws, unable to admit that you were wrong, and proven wrong with stats.

Have a great day. The more you post false statements, illogical arguments, cherry picked stats, and personal insults against me, the better mine gets :)
nosce te ipsum (know thyself).


1. You were wrong about Hamilton's patience at the plate.
2. You were wrong about Hamilton's plate discipline.
3. You were wrong about WAR.

Why are you always wrong ?

Do you know why you have been continuously wrong about various things so far? That's because, from the start, your whole purpose for debating about Hamilton was merely to defend him.

757690
09-27-2014, 03:17 PM
Concerning Mike Leake and LMAO moments it's kind of humorous to read you argue it's xFIP and not one of the best defenses in the majors that informs his ERA. Again it's another tell.

FIP and xFIP treat defense the same. So when one is better at predicting a pitcher's ERA, the team's defense has nothing to do with that difference. Double shenanigans on steroids to infinity and beyond and back again.

jojo
09-27-2014, 03:23 PM
FIP and xFIP treat defense the same. So when one is better at predicting a pitcher's ERA, the team's defense has nothing to do with that difference. Double shenanigans on steroids to infinity and beyond and back again.

You're not allowed to jump the shark twice. That's not how it works. At this point it's crystal clear that you're arguing just to argue.

Clacquam
10-20-2014, 10:35 PM
The higher the Z-Swing%, the better the plate discipline

Billy Budd
10-27-2014, 05:28 PM
Messing with a players swing once he's reached the majors is always a bad idea.

Uggh I have read enough. They have been messing with his swing since he has been in the organization. Heck, the cat didn't even become a switch hitter until pro-ball.

Changing a swing in order to become more ground ball oriented is really not all that difficult.

It is really a question of a few things
1.Where you position your hands at the beginning of the swing, then where they go during the launch position, and then where your hands finish at the end of the swing. (essentially you can track your swing path through there. ) In order to level off, your hands should finish lower than your shoulders (on most pitches).

2. He is now constantly being taught to focus on hitting middle to top half of the ball, and I would also guess that they are focusing on top half of the ball opposite field. Now, this is trick, because if you have ever worked on hitting the ball the opposite field (and this is explained in the Science of Hitting) the tendancy for most balls to the opposite field are fly balls. So, to hit line drives and groundballs to the opposite field will take a TREMENDOUS amount of work.

I have faith in Hamilton. I think the kid was probably EXHAUSTED by July, and as he grows older, and learns the game, his game will get better.

757690
10-27-2014, 06:50 PM
Uggh I have read enough. They have been messing with his swing since he has been in the organization. Heck, the cat didn't even become a switch hitter until pro-ball.

Changing a swing in order to become more ground ball oriented is really not all that difficult.

It is really a question of a few things
1.Where you position your hands at the beginning of the swing, then where they go during the launch position, and then where your hands finish at the end of the swing. (essentially you can track your swing path through there. ) In order to level off, your hands should finish lower than your shoulders (on most pitches).

2. He is now constantly being taught to focus on hitting middle to top half of the ball, and I would also guess that they are focusing on top half of the ball opposite field. Now, this is trick, because if you have ever worked on hitting the ball the opposite field (and this is explained in the Science of Hitting) the tendancy for most balls to the opposite field are fly balls. So, to hit line drives and groundballs to the opposite field will take a TREMENDOUS amount of work.

I have faith in Hamilton. I think the kid was probably EXHAUSTED by July, and as he grows older, and learns the game, his game will get better.

That's very insightful stuff, thanks. The funny thing is that pretty much everything you wrote backs up my argument that they shouldn't make Hamilton change his swing at this point.

As I said, it's not smart to change a players swing once he's in the bigs. The minors is the time to adjust and develop a players swing. As you said, it's very difficult and takes a lot of time and work. That's great in the minors when results don't matter, but once a player is in the bigs, he can't afford to got though long dry spells as he figures out his new swing.

I agree with your last point, as he grows older and gains experience, his bat should improve some. There's no need to make major adjustments to his swing. Just let it keep developing.

Billy Budd
10-30-2014, 02:53 PM
That's very insightful stuff, thanks. The funny thing is that pretty much everything you wrote backs up my argument that they shouldn't make Hamilton change his swing at this point.

As I said, it's not smart to change a players swing once he's in the bigs. The minors is the time to adjust and develop a players swing. As you said, it's very difficult and takes a lot of time and work. That's great in the minors when results don't matter, but once a player is in the bigs, he can't afford to got though long dry spells as he figures out his new swing.

I agree with your last point, as he grows older and gains experience, his bat should improve some. There's no need to make major adjustments to his swing. Just let it keep developing.

I was not saying that at all. He NEEDS to re-work and focus on re-vamping his swing. Players work on and change their swings ALL OF THE TIME. Heck, Sandoval changed his swing MID-SEASON. Ripken.... he changed his swing almost seemingly EVERY year. He is 24 years old. To suggest that he should not workl to change his swing, and settle for the stats he did.... that does NOT MAKE SENSE.

757690
10-30-2014, 03:29 PM
I was not saying that at all. He NEEDS to re-work and focus on re-vamping his swing. Players work on and change their swings ALL OF THE TIME. Heck, Sandoval changed his swing MID-SEASON. Ripken.... he changed his swing almost seemingly EVERY year. He is 24 years old. To suggest that he should not workl to change his swing, and settle for the stats he did.... that does NOT MAKE SENSE.

You're conflating working on one's swing with changing it. Every hitter works on their swing and makes adjustments, it's a necessity for staying productive.

But what many are asking Hamilton to do is to change his swing, to alter the fundamentals of his swing, to become a different kind of hitter. It's very rare for a MLB hitter to accomplish this without going through an adjustment phase that hurts the major league team he's playing for.

jojo
10-30-2014, 03:48 PM
You're conflating working on one's swing with changing it. Every hitter works on their swing and makes adjustments, it's a necessity for staying productive.

But what many are asking Hamilton to do is to change his swing, to alter the fundamentals of his swing, to become a different kind of hitter. It's very rare for a MLB hitter to accomplish this without going through an adjustment phase that hurts the major league team he's playing for.

You're really being pendantic and overreaching at the same time.

Big Red Smokey
11-12-2014, 11:18 PM
deGrom won it, btw ;)