Matt Kemp

[thewupk]

There are plenty of, to borrow a Bowman-ism, reasons to believe that Kemp will hit next year. In the first half last year his BABIP was .285 which was probably at least 30 points lower than it should have been. So he did have a little bad luck. However, in the second half his BABIP was .315, a completely sustainable number. One below his career norm actually (.340 for his career). So it's not like Kemp's second half .906 OPS was entirely luck based.

I agree that an .850 OPS this year isn't a reach at all. It's perfectly reasonable.

Also, I think the defensive stuff is overblown. If he were in right or center he'd be a huge liability. But we can take that hit in left.

Do hits in left count less than hits in right?

[bravesfanMatt]

Do hits in left count less than hits in right?

Well hits to left generally don't allow runners to advance 1st to 3rd. However, runners don't usually test Heyward's arm either.. I miss that.

[TheBravos]

Bottom line:

1.We got him for nothing (except what he makes), and got rid of HO in the process.

2. Had we "not" acquired him, we would have either signed someone to a contract or traded for someone. Which means a lost draft pick or lost assets.

3. Who are you guys trying to convince exactly? I haven't read one person's comment about him being a good outfielder. Everyone says he is below average. I'm trying to understand who you are trying to convince when everyone agrees?

4. You don't complain about gifts. Kemp is a gift. We acquired a 30 HR, 100 RBI guy for nothing. Look what we gave away for HO? He was a question mark to play D at ANY position and if he would have had Kemp's numbers, they would have been very happy.

5. If we was a good defender added with the hitting ...someone like that would demand over a $200 mil deal OR three top prospects. We are getting WAY more than we payed for.

6. Do you remember our offensive before he arrived? Seriously, protecting Freddie and adding a bat like that was a day and night difference. You can argue he wasn't all of it, but you can't argue about having some of the results.

7. Maybe let him play a full year before dragging him through the mud? He grew up a Braves fan....he "actually" loves the team and is excited to be here. That is rare. He seems happy. Happy players usually play better. I think that's why his numbers were better with us. I think that's why his numbers will remain better.

[thewupk]

Well hits to left generally don't allow runners to advance 1st to 3rd. However, runners don't usually test Heyward's arm either.. I miss that.

Right. Which is why of the two spots you want the stronger arm in right. Still extra base hits in left lead to runs just as they do in right.

[clvclv]

Do hits in left count less than hits in right?

If defense in Right counts more than defense in Left.

[smootness]

Do hits in left count less than hits in right?

Yeah, this is another mistake in valuing defense. Hits and baserunners count to the same degree no matter where the defensive player who allowed them plays. I understand valuing a player's offense enough to stick him in a defensive position where you think he'll make the least damage, which tends to be LF or 1B, but the damage that player allows at that position is still equivalent to damage allowed at any other position.

[bravesfanMatt]

Bottom line:

1.We got him for nothing (except what he makes), and got rid of HO in the process.

2. Had we "not" acquired him, we would have either signed someone to a contract or traded for someone. Which means a lost draft pick or lost assets.

3. Who are you guys trying to convince exactly? I haven't read one person's comment about him being a good outfielder. Everyone says he is below average. I'm trying to understand who you are trying to convince when everyone agrees?

4. You don't complain about gifts. Kemp is a gift. We acquired a 30 HR, 100 RBI guy for nothing. Look what we gave away for HO? He was a question mark to play D at ANY position and if he would have had Kemp's numbers, they would have been very happy.

5. If we was a good defender added with the hitting ...someone like that would demand over a $200 mil deal OR three top prospects. We are getting WAY more than we payed for.

6. Do you remember our offensive before he arrived? Seriously, protecting Freddie and adding a bat like that was a day and night difference. You can argue he wasn't all of it, but you can't argue about having some of the results.

7. Maybe let him play a full year before dragging him through the mud? He grew up a Braves fan....he "actually" loves the team and is excited to be here. That is rare. He seems happy. Happy players usually play better. I think that's why his numbers were better with us. I think that's why his numbers will remain better.

I don't feel, and maybe I am wrong, that anyone was 'dragging' him through the mud. It seems most were illustrating the difference between an elite and poor defender. If Kemp continues to hit well, he more than off sets his defensive deficiency. He still becomes barely over average player, but one that is perfectly acceptable for our team. I personally feel RF needs to be addressed before LF.. But there are some that think 18 million for a 1 to 2 WAR player is a bit extreme. I guess that is for the FO to determine. Now I am more with you on him 'protecting' FF. I think human element is eliminated in statistics and that is hard for some to comprehend. A pitcher is human and a pitcher facing FF knows that if he nibbles to much and walks him, he has another good hitter coming up and now with a runner on base. That DOES factor in what FF gets to hit.. whether that is mistakes or pitch changes..

[thewupk]

If defense in Right counts more than defense in Left.

It doesn't.

[clvclv]

It doesn't.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Isn't that what everyone wants these days???

[smootness]

I don't feel, and maybe I am wrong, that anyone was 'dragging' him through the mud. It seems most were illustrating the difference between an elite and poor defender. If Kemp continues to hit well, he more than off sets his defensive deficiency. He still becomes barely over average player, but one that is perfectly acceptable for our team. I personally feel RF needs to be addressed before LF.. But there are some that think 18 million for a 1 to 2 WAR player is a bit extreme. I guess that is for the FO to determine. Now I am more with you on him 'protecting' FF. I think human element is eliminated in statistics and that is hard for some to comprehend. A pitcher is human and a pitcher facing FF knows that if he nibbles to much and walks him, he has another good hitter coming up and now with a runner on base. That DOES factor in what FF gets to hit.. whether that is mistakes or pitch changes..

I agree that statistics should be used to inform rather than as hard-and-fast rules, but people aren't just saying there is no such thing as 'protection' in a lineup because they don't see it listed in their list of stats. If it were true that the human element affects the way a pitcher pitches someone because of who is behind him, and that in turn affects what a hitter has to hit and hits better as a result, you could account for that using statistics. You simply find a guy's numbers when a good hitter is hitting behind him and the same guy's numbers when there is not a good hitter hitting behind him. They have done that, and there doesn't seem to be much, if any, real 'protection' effect.

Pitchers generally pitch to get a player out. Sure, they will walk the #8 hitter to get to the pitcher, but you could argue that the presence of a good hitter behind someone will make the pitcher focus in on getting that guy out even more. The bottom line is that if there is a protection effect, it certainly hasn't shown up in the data yet.

[rawwr]

I agree that statistics should be used to inform rather than as hard-and-fast rules, but people aren't just saying there is no such thing as 'protection' in a lineup because they don't see it listed in their list of stats. If it were true that the human element affects the way a pitcher pitches someone because of who is behind him, and that in turn affects what a hitter has to hit and hits better as a result, you could account for that using statistics. You simply find a guy's numbers when a good hitter is hitting behind him and the same guy's numbers when there is not a good hitter hitting behind him. They have done that, and there doesn't seem to be much, if any, real 'protection' effect.

Pitchers generally pitch to get a player out. Sure, they will walk the #8 hitter to get to the pitcher, but you could argue that the presence of a good hitter behind someone will make the pitcher focus in on getting that guy out even more. The bottom line is that if there is a protection effect, it certainly hasn't shown up in the data yet.

I think this article does a good job of describing both the human and statistical sides of protection:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/201...reality-exists

Pitchers are definitely aware of the guy on deck, but in practice it just leads to an uptick in the walk rate of the guy being protected.

[thewupk]

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Isn't that what everyone wants these days???

I prefer the truth

[bravesfanMatt]

I prefer the truth

You can't handle the Truth!!

[smootness]

I think this article does a good job of describing both the human and statistical sides of protection:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/201...reality-exists

Pitchers are definitely aware of the guy on deck, but in practice it just leads to an uptick in the walk rate of the guy being protected.

I was actually just looking through the same article. Good stuff, and it makes sense logically.

[striker42]

I think this article does a good job of describing both the human and statistical sides of protection:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/201...reality-exists

Pitchers are definitely aware of the guy on deck, but in practice it just leads to an uptick in the walk rate of the guy being protected.

It would have to be very difficult to pull statistical trends out of that as it's not just about the pitcher. So much of the situation comes into it. How much does who is on deck matter when the bases are loaded with 2 outs? How about when the bases are empty and no one is out? Or if there are men on second and third with two outs? You approach different situations so much differently.

Also, the psychology of the hitter comes into it as well. If you're the only threat on a team struggling to score runs it can mess with your psyche. Or it might not just depending on what kind of person you are.

I think protection in the lineup as a general thing is overblown. However, I can see it having an effect situationally. I can also see it having an impact just depending on the psychology of guys in your lineup. But something like that doesn't really produce statistical trends.

[smootness]

It would have to be very difficult to pull statistical trends out of that as it's not just about the pitcher. So much of the situation comes into it. How much does who is on deck matter when the bases are loaded with 2 outs? How about when the bases are empty and no one is out? Or if there are men on second and third with two outs? You approach different situations so much differently.

Also, the psychology of the hitter comes into it as well. If you're the only threat on a team struggling to score runs it can mess with your psyche. Or it might not just depending on what kind of person you are.

I think protection in the lineup as a general thing is overblown. However, I can see it having an effect situationally. I can also see it having an impact just depending on the psychology of guys in your lineup. But something like that doesn't really produce statistical trends.

I would mostly agree with all of this, but regardless, it's hard to make the case that lineup protection accounts for the kind of improvement we saw in Freeman last year. It was almost certainly just Freeman reaching a new level and probably 'getting hot' on top of it.

[Enscheff]

Bottom line:

1.We got him for nothing (except what he makes), and got rid of HO in the process.

2. Had we "not" acquired him, we would have either signed someone to a contract or traded for someone. Which means a lost draft pick or lost assets.

3. Who are you guys trying to convince exactly? I haven't read one person's comment about him being a good outfielder. Everyone says he is below average. I'm trying to understand who you are trying to convince when everyone agrees?

4. You don't complain about gifts. Kemp is a gift. We acquired a 30 HR, 100 RBI guy for nothing. Look what we gave away for HO? He was a question mark to play D at ANY position and if he would have had Kemp's numbers, they would have been very happy.

5. If we was a good defender added with the hitting ...someone like that would demand over a $200 mil deal OR three top prospects. We are getting WAY more than we payed for.

6. Do you remember our offensive before he arrived? Seriously, protecting Freddie and adding a bat like that was a day and night difference. You can argue he wasn't all of it, but you can't argue about having some of the results.

7. Maybe let him play a full year before dragging him through the mud? He grew up a Braves fan....he "actually" loves the team and is excited to be here. That is rare. He seems happy. Happy players usually play better. I think that's why his numbers were better with us. I think that's why his numbers will remain better.

This is incorrect. The FA market is currently flooded with "slugging" OFers that pay poor defense. The Braves could have opportunistically signed one of them for much less than they have committed to Kemp, and gotten equal or better production out of LF.

Kemp is not good, he is just better than what they had before him...which isn't saying much. He is bad, he is going to continue to be bad, and nobody is going to trade for him. The Braves are stuck with an aging Kemp, period.

Further, getting rid of HO is not a check in Kemp's favor in any way. They could have achieved the same thing by simply releasing HO like the Padres did. Acquiring Kemp was NOT a requirement to cutting HO loose.

[gilesfan]

Today I learned that acquiring Matt Kemp was a gift. Is this like coal being considered a "gift" on Christmas?

[smootness]

This is incorrect. The FA market is currently flooded with "slugging" OFers that pay poor defense. The Braves could have opportunistically signed one of them for much less than they have committed to Kemp, and gotten equal or better production out of LF.

Kemp is not good, he is just better than what they had before him...which isn't saying much. He is bad, he is going to continue to be bad, and nobody is going to trade for him. The Braves are stuck with an aging Kemp, period.

Further, getting rid of HO is not a check in Kemp's favor in any way. They could have achieved the same thing by simply releasing HO like the Padres did. Acquiring Kemp was NOT a requirement to cutting HO loose.

I definitely agree that looking at this year's FA market, it's clear that the market has caught up on mashers who don't do much else. And it looks like we could have had a slugger for less than we probably figured. Is Encarnacion that much worse a defensive LF than Kemp? That would be hard to believe.

[TheBravos]

Today I learned that acquiring Matt Kemp was a gift. Is this like coal being considered a "gift" on Christmas?

So we traded for a guy in which we gave up nothing and he instantly become the HR and RBI leader on our team....and that's coal. W.O.W