Login

kbwsb · 01-01-2009, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (cherp @ Jan 1 2009, 01:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>As far as what he can do, I'd temper my expectations to factor in that his numbers last year were inflated due to that park/infield.
Cherp, I think the "park effects" thing with Bradley has been inflated. The Texas ballpark barely rates above average as a hitter's park, both last year, and over the last 3 years.
By contrast, Wrigley rates quite a bit higher as a hitter's park, both last year, and over the last 3 years.

Bradley has spent time in significant pitcher's parks (Dodger Stadium and Oakland's hellhole), and in both places put up good numbers.

Throw in the fact that Bradley would be coming over to a slightly weaker league, and I think it's likely that his numbers may actually <i>improve.</i>

Clapp · 01-01-2009, 04:09 PM

Playing at Arlington certainly helped a lot, I'm expecting an OPS around .900 but he can certainly do quite a bit better.

Home in 08: .358, 16 HR, 43 RBI, .466 OBP, .679 SLG, 1.145 OPS in 237 plate appearances

Road in 08: .290, 6 HR, 34 RBI, .410 OBP, .462 SLG, .872 OPS in 273 plate appearances.

**Andy** · 01-01-2009, 04:12 PM

The hatred for Jacque was a product of 2 things.

1. The situation. We were coming off an incredibly disappointing 2004 and then a horrible 2005. Every Cubs fan wanted change and wanted some serious names brought in to make that change. He wasn't good enough. He was supposed to follow in the footsteps of Sammy Sosa. Those were huge shoes that Jeromy Burnitz did not fill well in 2005. There was a glimmering of hope that Jones would at least be better.

2. He didn't kiss the fans ass right out of the gate. Actually he was cold toward them. That was a huge mistake on his part. When asked about Sammy's relationship with the right field bleacher bums, he basically said over and over that his job was to play ball, not worry about the fans. That was a mistake on his part not to try to reach out to them a bit. Had he done that, he would have been fine, but instead he was antagonistic.

Those 2 things (along with his craptastic play) really put him in the doghouse among Cubs fans.

**Andy** · 01-01-2009, 04:18 PM

Dumb stat question... with ball park adjustments, do they in any way figure into it how good the home teams batting and pitching are against the entire league?

I mean, let's say team A hits: .288/.370/.480 at home. They hit .288/.370/.480 on the road. Despite the good hitting, the team has terrible pitching. So opponents also hit the exact same thing.

Does that mean it's a good hitting / poor pitching park by the measure of this statistic? Or do they have a way of figuring this out? I mean, it would seem the only way this statistic holds value is if you can take years and years of the park factor and then take it as an average. If over, say 15 years, it's still over 100 for hitting, then I can see that being a hitters park. Otherwise, I would think it would be too highly affected by the current hitting and pitching of the given home team.

kbwsb · 01-01-2009, 04:32 PM

QUOTE (Andy @ Jan 1 2009, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Dumb stat question... with ball park adjustments, do they in any way figure into it how good the home teams batting and pitching are against the entire league?

I mean, let's say team A hits: .288/.370/.480 at home. They hit .288/.370/.480 on the road. Despite the good hitting, the team has terrible pitching. So opponents also hit the exact same thing.

Does that mean it's a good hitting / poor pitching park by the measure of this statistic? Or do they have a way of figuring this out? I mean, it would seem the only way this statistic holds value is if you can take years and years of the park factor and then take it as an average. If over, say 15 years, it's still over 100 for hitting, then I can see that being a hitters park. Otherwise, I would think it would be too highly affected by the current hitting and pitching of the given home team.
Andy, I'm pretty certain that the process has been refined over the years to account for just what you asked about.
Another thing that plays into the rankings are the fact that the exact same park will play differently from year to year.
Wrigley is the perfect example...one year, the wind blows out a lot, the next year, the wind blows in...big difference. Or perhaps one year, there are a lot of ice-cold April games played in Chicago, the next year, there are fewer scheduled games in April, and the weather is warmer...yes, that would effect things, too.

That's why most folks take at least a 3 year average into account when discussing park effects. But it's a REAL effect...ask anyone who's played in either Petco or Coors Field, to point to two extreme examples.

cherp · 01-01-2009, 05:06 PM

QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jan 1 2009, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Jan 1 2009, 01:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>As far as what he can do, I'd temper my expectations to factor in that his numbers last year were inflated due to that park/infield.
Cherp, I think the "park effects" thing with Bradley has been inflated. The Texas ballpark barely rates above average as a hitter's park, both last year, and over the last 3 years.
By contrast, Wrigley rates quite a bit higher as a hitter's park, both last year, and over the last 3 years.

Bradley has spent time in significant pitcher's parks (Dodger Stadium and Oakland's hellhole), and in both places put up good numbers.

Throw in the fact that Bradley would be coming over to a slightly weaker league, and I think it's likely that his numbers may actually <i>improve.</i>
</div>

KB - you may or may not be right. Time will tell. But look at his 08 H/R splits. And look at his 08 #s at Arlington compared to his numbers in any other season in his career.

If it isn't Arlington, I don't know what it is. He suddenly went from being a good hitter, to being a dominating hitter at home, and stayed a good hitter on the road.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bradlmi01.shtml

A few thoughts...
His avg last year was 40 pts higher than his career avg and his SLG% was almost 100 pts higher.

His 2008 HOME statistics were .358/.466/.679. His career HOME line was .273/.361/.454. His career overall line was .280/.370/.457

Texas lead all of baseball with 901 runs scored. (The Cubs were second with 855 which is amazing considering the DH) Of that, 485 were at home, 416 were on the road. Not sure how significant that is...

Now I agree - hitting in the NL will be easier than the AL, but I don't believe his numbers are likely to be better @ Wrigley. If he is anywhere close to .358/.466/.679, I'll be thrilled. Hell - if he is 75 pts off in each number, he will fit in great.

Clapp · 01-01-2009, 05:15 PM

It is worth noting what he did in 169 plate appearances though with the Padres right before he came to the Rangers.

.313, 11 HR, 30 RBI, .414 OBP, .590 SLG, 1.004 OPS

At Petco: .299, 6 HR, 10 RBI, .379 OBP, .597 SLG, .977 OPS

Small sample size, but he did pretty much exactly what he kept doing in 2008. And remember he was coming off a torn ACL this year, which makes his production even more impressive.

Rappster · 01-01-2009, 05:25 PM

I've often wondered whether or not Bradley's tendency toward injury was directly related to his basic stability issues.

It's not that I think he's faking...still, so many of his injuries seem to occur at the height of some of his most highly-publicized controversies. Could it even be stress playing a role?

kbwsb · 01-01-2009, 06:51 PM

QUOTE (Rappster @ Jan 1 2009, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've often wondered whether or not Bradley's tendency toward injury was directly related to his basic stability issues.

It's not that I think he's faking...still, so many of his injuries seem to occur at the height of some of his most highly-publicized controversies. Could it even be stress playing a role?
That's a good question. It seems weird that a world-class athlete just gets hurt so much. Does anyone know if it's a specific recurring injury, or if it's just a number of small, situational things?

I'm not denying that people are built differently...Cal Ripken's teammates often said that he was practically a different species. But before I signed Bradley, a 31 year-old ballplayer to a 3-year deal, I'd certainly like an explanation as to why he misses so damn many games.

coolpoppa · 01-02-2009, 11:01 AM

Would have been nice to have signed Abreu. Oh well.

Meh.

ColoradoCub · 01-02-2009, 11:45 AM

WTF? I take off a couple of days to celebrate NYE and we've traded DeRosa for 3 marginal relief prospects, traded Marquis, signed Aaron Miles, and are on the verge of signing Bradley? I didn't expect it to be this busy, but the DeRosa trade is a total head scratcher. Oh, and Hi Coach!

DaveB · 01-02-2009, 03:45 PM

Don't know if you guys saw this, but Ace posted it on his blog and I think its encouraging.

QUOTE In coming to this conclusion, the MLB Examiner looked at (examined, if you will) several statistical groupings - and I think they’re pretty darn interesting.

Bradley hits .327 when playing as a DH, and a combined .274 at the three outfield positions (there’s not much leeway here)
Hitting second in the lineup, Bradley only hits .248.
Hitting third in the lineup, Bradley hits .266.
<b>Hitting cleanup, Bradley takes off with a .331 batting average and .443 on base percentage </b>
Bradley hits over .300 when coming up in the second and sixth innings (typically when your middle of the order is hitting).
And using those numbers, it’s clear how the Cubs should use Bradley to maximize success.

His left handed bat fits nicely in the number four spot in the lineup between right handed sluggers Derrek Lee (3rd) and Aramis Ramirez (5th). Placing Ramirez behind Bradley works well because of Bradley’s ability to take walks – taking a walk in the number five slot might lead to being stranded on base. <b>Taking a walk in front of Ramirez however, is a whole different story.</b>

I think Bradley in the four-hole between D-Lee and ARAM could be a really great fit. He also grounded into double-plays 2.3% of the time, compared to D-Lee's 4.1%, meaning there will be less times that an inning is killed before ARAM even gets to come up to bat.

Ace · 01-02-2009, 04:29 PM

QUOTE (DaveB @ Jan 2 2009, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Don't know if you guys saw this, but Ace posted it on his blog and I think its encouraging.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE In coming to this conclusion, the MLB Examiner looked at (examined, if you will) several statistical groupings - and I think they're pretty darn interesting.

Bradley hits .327 when playing as a DH, and a combined .274 at the three outfield positions (there's not much leeway here)
Hitting second in the lineup, Bradley only hits .248.
Hitting third in the lineup, Bradley hits .266.
<b>Hitting cleanup, Bradley takes off with a .331 batting average and .443 on base percentage </b>
Bradley hits over .300 when coming up in the second and sixth innings (typically when your middle of the order is hitting).
And using those numbers, it's clear how the Cubs should use Bradley to maximize success.

His left handed bat fits nicely in the number four spot in the lineup between right handed sluggers Derrek Lee (3rd) and Aramis Ramirez (5th). Placing Ramirez behind Bradley works well because of Bradley's ability to take walks – taking a walk in the number five slot might lead to being stranded on base. <b>Taking a walk in front of Ramirez however, is a whole different story.</b>

I think Bradley in the four-hole between D-Lee and ARAM could be a really great fit. He also grounded into double-plays 2.3% of the time, compared to D-Lee's 4.1%, meaning there will be less times that an inning is killed before ARAM even gets to come up to bat.

</div>

Personally, I wish they would go ARam-Bradley-Lee (if only because I'd rather see ARam getting more at bats than Lee), but your point is well taken.

In my post, I forgot to highlight the most interesting number - how much worse Bradley is when he's playing in the field versus DH'ing. I'm going to assume that's statistically meaningless, though; explained away by the times in his career that he was DH'ing, the teams he was on/ballparks he played in, etc.

Here's hoping, at least.

Scarey · 01-02-2009, 04:29 PM

I'm still convinced that Lee should move to 2 and Bradley batting 3. However, that was with DeRosa in the lineup. I'm not so sure how I feel about it now.

Clapp · 01-02-2009, 05:01 PM

QUOTE (Scarey @ Jan 2 2009, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm still convinced that Lee should move to 2 and Bradley batting 3. However, that was with DeRosa in the lineup. I'm not so sure how I feel about it now.
I think they want 2 left-handed hitters in the first 5 or so. That's why I think Fontenot/Miles will bat 2nd.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me