Jay Bruce, how good will be be?

[princeton]

Originally Posted by Dan

Doesn't his BB/K ratio worry you a bit?.

the K's are the only concern. But he's so young that I expect improvement in that area.

Reggie Jackson is another pretty good comp. Jackson's K problem improved to the point that they weren't too big of a problem.

even if he doesn't improve in that area, he'd probably be a top player.

[membengal]

CE wrote:

"According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Jay Bruce is always relevant."

Applause and a tip of the briefcase to you, sir.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by princeton

the K's are the only concern. But he's so young that I expect improvement in that area.

Reggie Jackson is another pretty good comp. Jackson's K problem improved to the point that they weren't too big of a problem.

even if he doesn't improve in that area, he'd probably be a top player.

Actually, Ks by themselves don't worry me all that much. Lots of players have high numbers of Ks, but the top players offset them by high numbers of BBs as well. (Dunn, Thome, Howard)

Also note that the players that hit 40+ HRs this year all had decent BB/K ratios:

Player               HR          BB               K
Prince Fielder 	   50  	 	90  	 	121  	 	
Ryan Howard 	 47  	 	107  	 	199  	 	
Adam Dunn        40  	 	101  	 	165  	 	
Álex Rodríguez 	  54  	 	95  	 	120  	 	
Carlos Peña 	   46  	 	103  	 	142

Also Jackson only had < 40% BB/K ratio 3 times in a full season in his career. Bruce is at 37% for his (albeit rather) short career. It's something to watch out for as he progresses.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by Dan

Actually, Ks by themselves don't worry me all that much. Lots of players have high numbers of Ks, but the top players offset them by high numbers of BBs as well. (Dunn, Thome, Howard)

Also note that the players that hit 40+ HRs this year all had decent BB/K ratios:

Player               HR          BB               K
Prince Fielder 	   50  	 	90  	 	121  	 	
Ryan Howard 	 47  	 	107  	 	199  	 	
Adam Dunn        40  	 	101  	 	165  	 	
Álex Rodríguez 	  54  	 	95  	 	120  	 	
Carlos Peña 	   46  	 	103  	 	142

Also Jackson only had < 40% BB/K ratio 3 times in a full season in his career. Bruce is at 37% for his (albeit rather) short career. It's something to watch out for as he progresses.

it's all a numbers argument right now. For all we know, he can only hit cripples, and if he doesn't get one then he strikes out. And that's not going to make him Mr. October.

but he clearly walks enough, clearly hits enough HRs-- and HRs REALLY increase with age. So, unless the Reds don't like something about his approach, then he shouldn't be traded.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by Dan

Doesn't his BB/K ratio worry you a bit? It does me. That's the only weakness in his game, but it's a major one for a developing player, IMO.

for reference...
Bruce's ratio is 37BB/100K
Strawberry's was 60BB/100K for his career

The only comparable current MLB player I can find (in a rather limited search) with a ratio like Bruce's is Geoff Jenkins.

It's the BB rate component that's the concern (I'm with ya' on the K rate), and it's why I've always taken the "Larry Walker" comp with a big grain of salt. Walker's career MiLB IsoD was .097. Bruce, thus far, has produced an IsoD of .063. For reference, the 2007 NL average IsoD was .068. For the AL, it was .067.

For Bruce to hit his ceiling, he has to improve that IsoD. He's young enough to allow him more room for improvement, but it's the single hardest thing for a player to work on. If he can't improve it, then the only way he's going to hit the kind of "ceiling" folks are thinking of is for one of two unlikely things to occur- either Bruce produces a .330 BA every season or he hits so many Home Runs that he benefits from the Juan Gonzalez/Sammy Sosa "pitch-around" effect.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by Dan

Doesn't his BB/K ratio worry you a bit? It does me. That's the only weakness in his game, but it's a major one for a developing player, IMO.

for reference...
Bruce's ratio is 37BB/100K
Strawberry's was 60BB/100K for his career

The only comparable current MLB player I can find (in a rather limited search) with a ratio like Bruce's is Geoff Jenkins.

If that's the case, then Bruce can look forward to signing a 2 year deal to play for the Phillies for $13 Million.

[dougdirt]

I am not too concerned with his walk rate. I don't see him chasing many bad pitches for starters. He has power, and guys are going to tend to be careful with him at times because of it, he isn't going to chase it. Next thing is, he is quite young for his level, so using comparisons, even for a walk rate is tough to do because the amount of players spending the time he spent in AAA at 20 is quite limited.

So long as he draws a walk about every 11 plate appearances, I am fine with it. Thats about what he is doing right now.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

It's the BB rate component that's the concern (I'm with ya' on the K rate), and it's why I've always taken the "Larry Walker" comp with a big grain of salt. Walker's career MiLB IsoD was .097. Bruce, thus far, has produced an IsoD of .063. For reference, the 2007 NL average IsoD was .068. For the AL, it was .067.

But isn't it true that a player can't subsist on walks alone? There has to be a point where walking but not hitting for average becomes a detriment to the team, right?

Let me put it another way. There are 3 types of strikes: swing and miss a ball in the strike zone, swing and miss a ball outside the strike zone, and don't swing at a ball in the strike zone. Of these, only the first kind are "good" strikes, in that the player is being aggressive in the right circumstance.

It's my guess that these players with high BB/K ratios are ones who make the majority of their strikes the swing and miss at a ball in the strike zone variety. This leads to a higher SLG if not necessarily a higher BA.

For Bruce to hit his ceiling, he has to improve that IsoD. He's young enough to allow him more room for improvement, but it's the single hardest thing for a player to work on. If he can't improve it, then the only way he's going to hit the kind of "ceiling" folks are thinking of is for one of two unlikely things to occur- either Bruce produces a .330 BA every season or he hits so many Home Runs that he benefits from the Juan Gonzalez/Sammy Sosa "pitch-around" effect.

Given your caveats, my guess is he will pan out to be like Geoff Jenkins. Solid, but never quite hitting his potential ceiling because his selective aggressiveness isn't there.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I am not too concerned with his walk rate. I don't see him chasing many bad pitches for starters.

...

So long as he draws a walk about every 11 plate appearances, I am fine with it. Thats about what he is doing right now.

If that's the case, not chasing many bad pitches, then his walk rate should improve significantly this year. It's the thing I'm watching. And yes I realize his age is a factor in all this as well.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Dan

But isn't it true that a player can't subsist on walks alone? There has to be a point where walking but not hitting for average becomes a detriment to the team, right?

Let me put it another way. There are 3 types of strikes: swing and miss a ball in the strike zone, swing and miss a ball outside the strike zone, and don't swing at a ball in the strike zone. Of these, only the first kind are "good" strikes, in that the player is being aggressive in the right circumstance.

It's my guess that these players with high BB/K ratios are ones who make the majority of their strikes the swing and miss at a ball in the strike zone variety. This leads to a higher SLG if not necessarily a higher BA.

Given your caveats, my guess is he will pan out to be like Geoff Jenkins. Solid, but never quite hitting his potential ceiling because his selective aggressiveness isn't there.

The Sammy Sosa & Juan Gone logic could apply to Bruce. They ended up walking because while they never were great contact hitters, they stopped chasing so much. As their power grew, pitchers starting throwing out of the zone more. They were willing to watch those pitches and thus walks went up. However, they continued to swing and miss at pitches in the zone, so they kept striking out too.

They ended up hitting for average because of their power. The more balls you put over the fence, the higher your batting average is because those balls in play aren't subject to the chance of becoming an out. Particularly if you start converting FB to HR. That's the difference between Sheffield and Sean Casey, from a power perspective. Both guys can hit balls out of the yard when they really hit it square (line drives). But when Sheff gets some loft on the ball, he's got enough bat speed to still drive it out of the yard with regularity. When Casey gets under it, it more frequently becomes an in play fly ball, which turn in to outs more than any other ball in play.

Sheffield has a career HR/FB of 16.5%. For his career, his average has tracked closely with his power. When his flyballs turn in to homers, his average goes up - his 2003 with the Braves being a perfect example (21.0% HR/FB, .330 BA). Casey has a career HR/FB of 7.8%. In 2004, when Casey got his his HR/FB up to 13.2%, he hit .324. Obviously it's not a perfect cause/effect, but it's a pretty strong relationship.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

The Sammy Sosa & Juan Gone logic could apply to Bruce. They ended up walking because while they never were great contact hitters, they stopped chasing so much. As their power grew, pitchers starting throwing out of the zone more. They were willing to watch those pitches and thus walks went up. However, they continued to swing and miss at pitches in the zone, so they kept striking out too.

They ended up hitting for average because of their power. The more balls you put over the fence, the higher your batting average is because those balls in play aren't subject to the chance of becoming an out. Particularly if you start converting FB to HR. That's the difference between Sheffield and Sean Casey, from a power perspective. Both guys can hit balls out of the yard when they really hit it square (line drives). But when Sheff gets some loft on the ball, he's got enough bat speed to still drive it out of the yard with regularity. When Casey gets under it, it more frequently becomes an in play fly ball, which turn in to outs more than any other ball in play.

Sheffield has a career HR/FB of 16.5%. For his career, his average has tracked closely with his power. When his flyballs turn in to homers, his average goes up - his 2003 with the Braves being a perfect example (21.0% HR/FB, .330 BA). Casey has a career HR/FB of 7.8%. In 2004, when Casey got his his HR/FB up to 13.2%, he hit .324. Obviously it's not a perfect cause/effect, but it's a pretty strong relationship.

OK, I can see that, definitely. Actually wouldn't casey be one of those low IsoD guys? Also, how do you explain a guy like Dunn, or Rob Deer, or Dave Kingman who have low BA with high HRs?

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by Dan

OK, I can see that, definitely. Actually wouldn't casey be one of those low IsoD guys? Also, how do you explain a guy like Dunn, or Rob Deer, or Dave Kingman who have low BA with high HRs?

I think I just threw up in my mouth a lil bit.

You just compared Dunn to Rob Deer and Dave Kingman. In the same sentence, no less.

[OnBaseMachine]

If the few times that I have seen Bruce hit, he looked very patient at the plate to me, i.e. didn't chase any bad pitches or anything. I'm not sure why his walk rate is lower than we'd like it to be, but I'm sure over time it will improve because like I mentioned earlier, he seems patient at the plate. IIRC Baseball America rated him as having the second best plate discipline of all HS hitters in the 2005 draft.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by princeton

have you seen him play CF? or is this very wishful thinking?

honestly, I can't remember the last minor leaguer whose defense was undervalued. Usually they show up and you're thinking, "hey, I was told that he was a great defender but he defends like a DH"

I saw him in Dayton, and I was very impressed. He was a very polished fielder, good jumps, good reads, good routes.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Dan

OK, I can see that, definitely. Actually wouldn't casey be one of those low IsoD guys? Also, how do you explain a guy like Dunn, or Rob Deer, or Dave Kingman who have low BA with high HRs?

Well, Deer and Kingman had problem chasing balls out of the zone as well. But they had really bad contact rates when they swung at good pitches. During his best years, Sosa got his contact rate up as well as increasing his discipline.

With Dunn, there's a few things going on. Certainly his contact rate when he chooses to swing isn't superb. However, the bigger problem is that Dunn is among the worst in baseball at taking strikes. You could say he's too selective for his own good. It's not that he's losing hits by watching the ball on the corner. It's that he's getting himself in to two strikes counts so often that his poor contact rate gets translated in to strikeouts. It hurts a lot more to whiff on a 2-2 pitch than on a 1-1 pitch.

I would argue that this is why Dunn's batting average is so low as well. If you could put the ball in play in every at bat and get a standard distribution of batted ball types, you'd hit roughly .300 every year, depending on your luck with fielders. But if when you swing, you have a tendency to miss instead of put the ball in play, the BABCM (Batting average on Balls in the Catcher's Mitt) is .000, thus dropping your average. And if you tend to wait until you have two strikes to swing, you're not going to get as many swings as other guys.

Now, because Dunn is so utterly productive when he manages to get the ball play, and because he's often walking when he doesn't put the ball in play, he's still very valuable. But his low average is directly attributed to his perhaps too disciplined approach and his poor contact rate when he does swing.

Consider that when Sammy hit .300, either his power was off the charts or his strikeout rate was a good deal lower than we see with Dunn. However, we can look at Dunn's monthly splits to get a good glimpse of this.

	BA	K/PA	ISO	
Apr	.261	.314	.250
May	.252	.339	.321
June	.287	.238	.330
July	.239	.257	.216
Aug	.276	.200	.345
Sept	.274	.200	.258

K/PA has a somewhat strong negative correlation with BA (r = -.56). That is, within this tiny data set, as Dunn struck out more, he hit for a lower average.

ISO has a somewhat strong positive correlation with BA (r = .63). That is, within this tiny data set, as Dunn hit for more power, he also hit for more average.

His worst BA month, July, was one in which he hit for little power and had a medium K/rate (for Dunn). For fun, I created a single variable by taking each of the average K/PA minus the observed (so that positive values are good) and the observed ISO minus the average. This gets you a single number combing the two. If you regress that against batting average, you find that those two things combined have an r-squared of .6229 (r = .79). I did the same thing simply ranking the months on each variable and taking the average rank versus the batting average rank and you get basically the same thing.

So simply put, most of the month to month (or year to year) variation in batting average can be attributed to strikeout rate and power fluctuations when you do make contact. This is why Albert Pujols hits .330 regularly and Bonds hit .340 plus during his roided phase.