Royals interested in Bruce?

[gilpdawg]

You can say that UZR or DRS is crap or whatever. What you cannot deny is this. He's made less percentage of plays in his zone than all but 2 qualified right fielders. Before converting it into any kind of run value that's not super encouraging. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=13,d

I also feel like all anybody ever talks about is range. Contrary to popular belief, range isn't all that is measured. Bruce is -4 runs, which is right around 33% of his negative value, based on throwing. His arm is still strong, but he's made quite a few wild throws this season, so I buy that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kaldaniels]

You can say that UZR or DRS is crap or whatever. What you cannot deny is this. He's made less percentage of plays in his zone than all but 2 qualified right fielders. Before converting it into any kind of run value that's not super encouraging. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=13,d

I also feel like all anybody ever talks about is range. Contrary to popular belief, range isn't all that is measured. Bruce is -4 runs, which is right around 33% of his negative value, based on throwing. His arm is still strong, but he's made quite a few wild throws this season, so I buy that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Billy is stealing his balls though! Billy please leave Jay's balls alone!

[gilpdawg]

Billy is stealing his balls though! Billy please leave Jay's balls alone!

Funny how that doesn't hurt Duvall.

And FWIW, MGL says you don't get docked if the play is made by someone else.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kaldaniels]

Funny how that doesn't hurt Duvall.

And FWIW, MGL says you don't get docked if the play is made by someone else.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I was being silly FWIW.

I agree. I think it's been show that it marginally hurts Jay but Billy is not the main reason Jay's metrics are so low.

That is a great point about Duvall.

[Chuckie]

4/23/11


5/25/2011


(I've already spent about 10 minutes on this and won't bother with 2012-2013, without looking it up I imagine it's just more of this)


4/19/14


5/7/15


6/13/15


6/15/15


7/19/15


7/31/2015


9/29/15


3/7/2016 RE: Re: Jay Bruce hopes swing tweak leads to more success in 2016

You've got waaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands, bro.

[Cooper]

Cannon --you're list is a list of guys that played in the PEDS era -- players are aging more like they used to -that's what PEDS do --they give you the fountain of youth. The context has changed. We're back to pre-1993 baseball. You're not adjusting for that.

If you want to pay a guy 18 million for 2.5 WINS -you can....you might get the same value from a good AAAA player. I'm not adverse to paying him -I believe the Reds have more money than they claim, but I think you could spend the money a lot better.

[gilpdawg]

I was being silly FWIW.

I knew that. I like to play along sometimes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tom Servo]

You've got waaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands, bro.

It's pretty easy when a poster doesn't post much, you just click "View Forum Posts". The infamous Ben Grieve comments are the only ones I had to actively seek.


P.S. You're just worried because you can't scrub the 'Kris Negron - Starting SS?' thread from the internet fast enough.

[marcshoe]

You can say that UZR or DRS is crap or whatever. What you cannot deny is this. He's made less percentage of plays in his zone than all but 2 qualified right fielders. Before converting it into any kind of run value that's not super encouraging. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=13,d

I also feel like all anybody ever talks about is range. Contrary to popular belief, range isn't all that is measured. Bruce is -4 runs, which is right around 33% of his negative value, based on throwing. His arm is still strong, but he's made quite a few wild throws this season, so I buy that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The question isn't whether Bruce plays good defense or not; the question is whether defensive WAR accurately reflects how much his defense devalues his offensive worth. I think the formula needs tweaked a bit.

[gilpdawg]

The question isn't whether Bruce plays good defense or not; the question is whether defensive WAR accurately reflects how much his defense devalues his offensive worth. I think the formula needs tweaked a bit.

That's why I linked to the pre-converted to run values numbers and viewed it as a percentage of plays made compared to his peers. That's all WAR is, you know, runs.

And FWIW, I don't believe Bruce is a true talent -12/-14 whatever run defender. But I've watched the games, and I can believe he's been a net negative. Maybe regress that number by 35-40% or so.

And it's not just UZR and DRS that's negative. The Inside Edge numbers aren't flattering either, as well as BP's FRAA. When it's unanimous I see smoke, and usually when there's smoke there's fire.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cannon]

Funny how that doesn't hurt Duvall.

Not sure if it's been discussed but positioning and the fact that Billy's glove hand is on Bruce's side as opposed to Duvall's might make a difference. That said Duvall has also just done a really good job in the field so I don't see why it would hurt him (also, small sample size).

Cannon --you're list is a list of guys that played in the PEDS era -- players are aging more like they used to -that's what PEDS do --they give you the fountain of youth. The context has changed. We're back to pre-1993 baseball. You're not adjusting for that.

If you want to pay a guy 18 million for 2.5 WINS -you can....you might get the same value from a good AAAA player. I'm not adverse to paying him -I believe the Reds have more money than they claim, but I think you could spend the money a lot better.

That whole list is not full of guys in the PED era, and if you think most players today aren't on PEDs well...

In what way could we spend the money better? Who are we spending it on? A legitimate bat with Bruce's kind of production will not sign that 'small' of a contract, and we can't afford the big ones. Why not pay a guy that a lot of the fans really like, who is a good clubhouse guy, and who will be productive at the plate as long as he's healthy? It's not like we have A+ prospects banging at the door to take his spot, Duvall is still a serious question mark, and according to most people here Bruce has no trade value...so...unless we're getting a grade A prospect back there just doesn't seem to be a point in moving him or letting him go. We've already offloaded a ton of salary, and Phillips is coming off the books next. Unless of course the goal is just to field the cheapest team possible.

[Cooper]

Gilpdawg-- if we regressed it --where would you put him at right now ....i'm thinking maybe 1.2 WAR?

[harreljb]

What about the Mets? They had interest before? I'd still be interested in Zach Wheeler.

Or do you think they'd be willing to do Conforto plus a pitching propect? They have 4 SS prospects in their top 10, 2 in the top 100 in baseball...

[Cooper]

Cannon - i can't speak to who is on PEDS and who isn't ....i just know that by looking at the numbers from a historical standpoint --that's what they show. If you want to believe that's not the case then that's fine. Run the list from 2010 to 2015 and i'd venture it looks much different with regard to how players careers arc.

As for who they can spend the money on? Fair point. IDK. But i'd pass on Bruce based on return on investment. Being poorer sucks.

[gilpdawg]

Gilpdawg-- if we regressed it --where would you put him at right now ....i'm thinking maybe 1.2 WAR?

Well, let's see....if you take DRS at -12, and UZR at -14, lets just average those out and say -13, and cut that down to say, -8, he'd be at around 0.5 WAR, but BP, which does (or at least did in the past) regress their defensive values some, has him at dead on 1.2 WARP, so somewhere in that range.

This is a gross misuse of the WAR framework btw, but it's a semi fun exercise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk