PDA

View Full Version : Fangraphs: Jay Bruce's Oddity



nate
07-17-2010, 07:20 PM
Link (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/jay-bruces-oddity/).

Interesting!


Perhaps the most surprising aspect of his game is on the basepaths. No, heís not much of a basestealer. In 2006 he stole 19 bases in 117 games. Since then, heís stolen 30 in nearly 500 games spanning multiple levels. Thatís not the surprising part. Instead itís Bruceís ability to take the extra base. Baseball-Reference tracks this measure and the definition of what constitutes and extra base is pretty simple: itís any advancement where the lead runner isnít forced by the player behind him. Say Bruce is on first base when a single is hit into right field, if Bruce takes second and third during the run of play, heís credited with an extra base taken.

REDblooded
07-17-2010, 09:01 PM
Interesting article... and yet another example of how valuable he is to the team already purely in regards to doing the "little things" that matter but don't show up on the traditional stat sheet...

Mario-Rijo
07-17-2010, 09:38 PM
Interesting article... and yet another example of how valuable he is to the team already purely in regards to doing the "little things" that matter but don't show up on the traditional stat sheet...

And when he finally gets it all figured out at the plate, watch out! That is why I am still of the opinion of signing him to a LTC ASAP.

_Sir_Charles_
07-17-2010, 10:24 PM
And when he finally gets it all figured out at the plate, watch out! That is why I am still of the opinion of signing him to a LTC ASAP.

Same here. He may be scuffling a bit right now, but there is simply no doubting his abilities. He's gonna be a MONSTER.

RedEye
07-17-2010, 10:26 PM
This article is an example of why I really love statistical analysis--despite the fact that it runs rather contrary to my natural tendencies. In this case, I think we're seeing stats come darn close to capturing a quality of Bruce's game that would have been filed as an "intangible" beforehand.

Ghosts of 1990
07-18-2010, 12:39 AM
And when he finally gets it all figured out at the plate, watch out! That is why I am still of the opinion of signing him to a LTC ASAP.

I wish I knew you'd be right.

I am starting to wonder if he's ever more then average. He is reminding me every day more and more of Austin Kearns.

My eyes just tell me a few things. He's fairly one dimensional at the plate; he's limited in his possibilities at the plate--where as a Votto or Phillips can fight off tough pitches to earn pitches to hit; Bruce seems to be a simple approach for an opposing pitcher. Basically, he is the easiest out in our lineup right now other then the pitcher.

REDblooded
07-18-2010, 01:38 AM
I wish I knew you'd be right.

I am starting to wonder if he's ever more then average. He is reminding me every day more and more of Austin Kearns.

My eyes just tell me a few things. He's fairly one dimensional at the plate; he's limited in his possibilities at the plate--where as a Votto or Phillips can fight off tough pitches to earn pitches to hit; Bruce seems to be a simple approach for an opposing pitcher. Basically, he is the easiest out in our lineup right now other then the pitcher.


He's 23... change your name please.

Redlegs
07-18-2010, 09:40 AM
He's 23... change your name please.

Absolutely. Bruce and Stubbs need to be trotted out there day in and day out. Let them play every day and it'll pay big dividends. This club is being built for the long haul. Remember that.

Blitz Dorsey
07-18-2010, 10:24 AM
Bruce just needs a hot streak. It's coming. And don't forget he had a 3-run jack robbed on Friday with a nice catch from Fowler. I agree that his plate discipline is less-than-desirable right now, but like others have mentioned, he's only 23 and is a hell of a talent. A lot more natural power than someone like Kearns. The ball just jumps off Bruce's bat. He just needs to acquire more plate discipline and he will be fine. Plus, I love that he's an excellent defensive RF.

Ghosts of 1990
07-18-2010, 10:58 AM
He's 23... change your name please.

Some see what I'm saying and some don't. There's nothing i'd love more then to be wrong about Bruce now.

Blitz Dorsey
07-18-2010, 11:08 AM
Some see what I'm saying and some don't. There's nothing i'd love more then to be wrong about Bruce now.

I feel you bro. You have attached your name to Jay Bruce, he's probably your favorite player and you're a little frustrated right now. I'm frustrated with him too, but he'll snap out of it.

westofyou
07-18-2010, 11:09 AM
The Reds have had only 19 players 23 or younger who qualified for the batting title in the last 110 years, Bruce is one of them, calling him one dimensional at this point is a tad bit premature.


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
MODERN (1900-)
AGE <= 23
EXTRA BASE HITS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OBA displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SLG displayed only--not a sorting criteria
AGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE EBH OBA SLG AGE
1 Sam Crawford 1901 3.81 8.94 5.13 25 .378 .524 21
2 Sam Crawford 1902 3.60 8.02 4.42 20 .386 .461 22
3 Frank Robinson 1959 3.20 8.13 4.93 28 .391 .583 23
4 Frank Robinson 1956 2.68 7.43 4.75 26 .379 .558 20
5 Frank Robinson 1957 2.62 7.44 4.82 18 .376 .529 21
6 Vada Pinson 1961 2.36 7.28 4.93 13 .379 .504 22
7 Vada Pinson 1959 2.29 7.22 4.93 28 .371 .509 20
8 Johnny Bench 1970 2.24 7.14 4.89 38 .345 .587 22
9 Johnny Bench 1969 1.80 6.20 4.40 15 .353 .487 21
10 Doc Hoblitzell 1909 1.77 5.78 4.01 12 .364 .418 20
11 Adam Dunn 2002 1.68 6.70 5.02 8 .400 .454 22
12 Grady Hatton 1946 1.60 6.17 4.57 7 .369 .422 23
13 Bobby Tolan 1969 1.44 5.84 4.40 13 .347 .474 23
14 Frank Robinson 1958 1.41 6.32 4.91 17 .350 .504 22
15 Vada Pinson 1960 1.07 5.68 4.60 20 .339 .472 21
16 Vada Pinson 1962 0.97 5.81 4.84 16 .341 .477 23
17 Tony Cuccinello 1931 0.94 5.99 5.05 8 .374 .431 23
18 Johnny Bench 1968 0.57 4.32 3.74 23 .311 .433 20
19 Dan Driessen 1974 0.50 4.93 4.43 5 .347 .400 22
20 Doc Hoblitzell 1911 0.42 5.21 4.79 2 .342 .415 22
21 Doc Hoblitzell 1910 0.26 4.64 4.38 6 .332 .380 21
22 Doc Hoblitzell 1912 0.23 5.26 5.03 8 .352 .405 23
23 Pete Rose 1963 0.16 4.26 4.10 -3 .334 .371 22
24 Les Scarsella 1936 -.01 5.18 5.19 -1 .335 .412 22
25 Tony Cuccinello 1930 -.11 6.28 6.39 -5 .380 .451 22
26 Leo Cardenas 1962 -.24 4.60 4.84 1 .341 .411 23
27 Harry Craft 1938 -.35 4.51 4.86 7 .305 .418 23
28 Johnny Bench 1971 -.38 3.89 4.27 9 .299 .423 23
29 Mike Mowrey 1907 -.53 3.64 4.17 1 .308 .321 23
30 Pete Rose 1964 -.79 3.54 4.32 -18 .319 .326 23
31 Roy McMillan 1952 -1.06 3.60 4.65 1 .306 .350 22
32 Alex Kampouris 1935 -1.52 3.68 5.20 -3 .295 .361 22
33 Harry Steinfeldt 1900 -2.03 3.73 5.76 4 .292 .341 22
34 Roy McMillan 1953 -2.46 2.93 5.40 -25 .290 .302 23

wheels
07-18-2010, 12:17 PM
Of course, we all knew Bruce would be the guy singled out to be a malingerer, or a bust eventually.

His middle name should be DavisDunn.

Me? What's not to like about watching a 23 year old with moon shot power, a cannon for an arm, and an obvious love of the game?
It's going to be a super gas when he gets all of the kinks worked out.

We can the say we knew him when as he cashes in with some other team.

Enjoy him while we can.

BCubb2003
07-18-2010, 12:34 PM
This is when you sign a player to a long-term contract, not when everyone knows he's good, like Votto. It's when not even the player is sure about it and needs the security. Of course, you have to be able to afford the risk. You can't turn around years later and say that you were one piece away but the Bruce and Stubbs contracts had your hands tied.

Ghosts of 1990
07-18-2010, 12:42 PM
Just to pass along something I was sent in a message, someone at the game last night says he believes Bruce is hurt, as he spent a good portion of the game talking to the trainer last evening during the game. That explains why he might be out of the lineup today against a RHP

wheels
07-18-2010, 12:44 PM
This is when you sign a player to a long-term contract, not when everyone knows he's good, like Votto. It's when not even the player is sure about it and needs the security. Of course, you have to be able to afford the risk. You can't turn around years later and say that you were one piece away but the Bruce and Stubbs contracts had your hands tied.

Yeah. It works sometimes (those Indians teams in the nineties), but it can really bite a club in the keister if everything shakes out wrong.

I'd be happy if they locked him up, but I'd be crossing my fingers behind my back as well.

SMcGavin
07-18-2010, 12:58 PM
This is when you sign a player to a long-term contract, not when everyone knows he's good, like Votto. It's when not even the player is sure about it and needs the security. Of course, you have to be able to afford the risk. You can't turn around years later and say that you were one piece away but the Bruce and Stubbs contracts had your hands tied.

You're right. And I think Bruce is worth the gamble. This offseason is the perfect time to lock him up at a reasonable rate.

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2010, 01:36 PM
Some see what I'm saying and some don't. There's nothing i'd love more then to be wrong about Bruce now.

There is a stark difference between Kearns and Bruce, the knowledge that you can be better and the work ethic to see it thru. Austin Kearns did have an injury as well that seemingly had/has stifled his natural talent to some extent however he seems to have decided at some point that he was good enough, no need to continue to improve his skillset(s).

Big Klu
07-18-2010, 01:43 PM
I wish I knew you'd be right.

I am starting to wonder if he's ever more then average. He is reminding me every day more and more of Austin Kearns.


There is a stark difference between Kearns and Bruce, the knowledge that you can be better and the work ethic to see it thru. Austin Kearns did have an injury as well that seemingly had/has stifled his natural talent to some extent however he seems to have decided at some point that he was good enough, no need to continue to improve his skillset(s).

I've thought for the last couple of years that Bruce reminds me of Paul O'Neill (Reds version) at this stage of his career, which isn't a bad thing. Hopefully he can continue to grow and evolve into Paul O'Neill (Yankees version).

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2010, 01:46 PM
This is when you sign a player to a long-term contract, not when everyone knows he's good, like Votto. It's when not even the player is sure about it and needs the security. Of course, you have to be able to afford the risk. You can't turn around years later and say that you were one piece away but the Bruce and Stubbs contracts had your hands tied.

Quite true and it's a tough situation to be in but they have some time on Stubbs yet before they have to even start to consider it. He is likely to never quite get to his ceiling but he can be extremely valuable even if he doesn't, same can be said for Bruce as well I suppose. Sign them to what they are worth should they not improve to their utmost and with their defense, power and baserunning you shouldn't be handcuffed, you should have 2 core players. And you might get a bargain in the process.

westofyou
07-18-2010, 01:52 PM
I've thought for the last couple of years that Bruce reminds me of Paul O'Neill (Reds version) at this stage of his career, which isn't a bad thing. Hopefully he can continue to grow and evolve into Paul O'Neill (Yankees version).

Someone bakes the cake, someone eats the cake, someone pays for the last piece.

The Reds hopefully cover the 1st two with Jay.

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2010, 11:41 PM
I've thought for the last couple of years that Bruce reminds me of Paul O'Neill (Reds version) at this stage of his career, which isn't a bad thing. Hopefully he can continue to grow and evolve into Paul O'Neill (Yankees version).

This has had me scratching my head all day Klu, how so? Just strictly from a talent standpoint I think Paul was the better pure hitter (though he's no Pete Rose) but Jay easily has more raw power which to me makes them quite different. But if you mean something else then maybe so.

Big Klu
07-19-2010, 12:00 AM
This has had me scratching my head all day Klu, how so? Just strictly from a talent standpoint I think Paul was the better pure hitter (though he's no Pete Rose) but Jay easily has more raw power which to me makes them quite different. But if you mean something else then maybe so.

I think that Bruce is very similar to young O'Neill who played with the Reds. Paul really struggled at times against LHP while playing in Cincinnati, though he became a much better overall hitter after he moved to the Bronx. (It was like a light went on for him.) While Bruce may have more "raw power" than O'Neill (something of which I'm not convinced), I'm sure Paul would have displayed more power if he had come up in today's era instead of 20-25 years ago. Defensively, they were both good RF's with very strong arms, and both had the skills to fill in at CF in their first few years. Both of them also had above-average speed, though neither of them were basestealers.

Admittedly I have no statistical evidence to support my view, so if that's what you are looking for I'm afraid you're pumping a dry hole. It's more of a feeling that I have from watching a lot of Reds baseball over the last 30 years than some kind of concrete evidence. I also get the same feeling when I see Chris Heisey--he reminds me of Tracy Jones (without the arrogant attitude).