Will the real Jason Heyward please stand up?

Carp said:
Forgive me for not putting stock into stats that are deemed only "accurate" based on a 3 yr sample. Yet we want to use a single season sample and factor it into actual value for a player? In what universe does that make sense?

Not to say that defensive stats are completely useless. Give a large enough sample you surely can tell to a certain degree how good/bad a person performed defensively. But there's way you can put an exact value on that defense and there is too much variance and personal bias/subjectivity to call defensive stats accurate. Certainly not over a single season (or 1 month, in this case).
Click to expand...

You put stock in pitching and offensive numbers when they can have a huge luck factor tied to them in BABIP. That's why you take what actually happened on the field. Sometimes bad hitters have good years and vice versa. It doesn't mean we don't take what actually happened that year and see how valuable they were.
 
I like Jason as a player and person and his defense and hustle are first rate, but there's no way a batter can do all that grippiddoo stuff he does and be a great hitter. Since his initial success in the league he has been sliding downward, while Freeman and his simple, fundamentally sound mechanics has continued to improve.

I would fine Greg Walker $200 every time Jason does that re-gripping thing in the batter's box, which is the only thing holding Jason back.
 
There was a stat box shown on the game last night.

Most homers under age 25 in the majors.

Stanton - 125
Heyward - 75
Freeman - 74
Trout - 68

It's insane that many of you are writing him off already.

Kid isn't even 25 yet, is in the same company as those other 3 including 2 injury hampered seasons, and plays elite defense for his position.

I get headaches watching him hit too, but I know in the long run Jason will be fine. The only concern I had was that broken jaw HBP affecting his batter psyche at the plate.

Now if he doesn't bring his offensive numbers back up and still plays elite glove does that warrant a Freeman sized contract? No. I say we have to re-sign him, unless we get outbid by the aging Yanks who need a player they can gamble on.
 
Runnin said:
I like Jason as a player and person and his defense and hustle are first rate, but there's no way a batter can do all that grippiddoo stuff he does and be a great hitter. Since his initial success in the league he has been sliding downward, while Freeman and his simple, fundamentally sound mechanics has continued to improve.

I would fine Greg Walker $200 every time Jason does that re-gripping thing in the batter's box, which is the only thing holding Jason back.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the regripping thing is the cause of his problems. But in general simplifying a swing is usually better because less moving parts lead to less issues. But then again, the most important thing with hitting is comfort. If regripping makes Jason comfortable, odds are that he's a better hitter because of it. But I would try to get him to stop if I could.
 
KeithLockhart said:
There was a stat box shown on the game last night.

Most homers under age 25 in the majors.

Stanton - 125
Heyward - 75
Freeman - 74
Trout - 68

It's insane that many of you are writing him off already.

Kid isn't even 25 yet, is in the same company as those other 3 including 2 injury hampered seasons, and plays elite defense for his position.

I get headaches watching him hit too, but I know in the long run Jason will be fine. The only concern I had was that broken jaw HBP affecting his batter psyche at the plate.

Now if he doesn't bring his offensive numbers back up and still plays elite glove does that warrant a Freeman sized contract? No. I say we have to re-sign him, unless we get outbid by the aging Yanks who need a player they can gamble on.
Click to expand...

No he's a terrible. Why are you lying to us. His baseball is bad and he shoudl feel bad.
 
zitothebrave said:
But the valuation of that .500 varies. If it's 2 singles, that's not the same as 2 doubles. Or 2 singles and a walk. Then you slide to OPS which on the OBP value values hits equally to walks, and on the SLG side double counts hits as every hit registers a base which factors into OBP. You can slide to wOBA which is the best offensive rate stat that we have. But Linear weights are not 100% perfect. The value of a walk is not necessarily the same every single year and a hundredth or thousandth of a point move may not have a gigantic effect but it's screwing up the valuation.

You don't understand defensive stats. I get it. Instead of blurting out that they're invalid, maybe you should just ignore them (which you do already) and not make ignorant statements about them. No stat that applies value is perfect. And no valuation is even remotely close to perfect. If you think that based on what you want to believe that you can accurately prescribe value, then you're a fool because you're certainly not a better judge than advanced metric.
Click to expand...

Zito, I could wave a whole bunch of credentials at you that would strongly suggest that your continued insinuation that you are smarter than the rest of us is foolish, indeed. I won't. I am tired of it, though.

I understand the need and desire to quantify defensive value and make that a component of assessing a player's overall value. I would like it, too. There are enough anomalies in the results of that effort that I think the whole attempt is in question. Heyward's WAR is an anomaly, there's no other conclusion to be drawn. And the stat's job is to cut through statistical anomalies and help people understand something.

I appreciate your continued acknowledgement that WAR isn't perfect, and understand your point that we take advantage of advances in products or technology that remain imperfect. I think where we differ is that you still get some use out of this as-yet imperfect rating system. I don't.
 
zitothebrave said:
Well it's simple, it doesn't matter how many plays a RF makes. Lets say to keep it simple, jason makes 4 plays that no other RF makes, all of them save triples. We know that triples are worth about a run a pop so we know that Heyward saved 4 runs. Of course we know in advanced metrics things aren't that simple. Because even the plays Heyward makes that others make, not everyone makes os he deserves credit for that and he deserves knocks for ones that he doesn't make but others do as well.

Read the fielding bible. just read it. No one I know who didn't read it still says fielding stats are crap. They're not perfect. There's some variance but we're not talking about a full WAR swing in variance. These stats take much much more into account than you give credit for.

And FWIW to your and gilesfan's beliefs. heyward has already at least had 54 balls to make a play on as that's the number of putouts he's had. What advanced stats do is thne take that number and correlate many things. For example some RFs may have worse stats because even if they get more putouts, it's because they're getting mroe opportunities.

Stats are muddy whenever you try to put a valuation on them. But to just ignore stats because of that muddiness we would have nothing to value a player on because literally every stat has valuation issues. If you don't want to use WAR that's fine. But calling it a crap stat is foolish, just because in your mind it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll play.

So Heyward has had 54 balls hit in his zone (subjective, but sounds legit).

In 23 games (fact).

I'd say the huge majority of those are routine, meaning any professional fielder would get to them. (Subjective, but I think we can all agree there are routine plays.)

Another portion are hit such that no fielder could get to them. (Same, but that's subjective, too.)

There are four (in your example) that Heyward gets to that others wouldn't. (That sounds possible to me, maybe a little high, but I'll go along.)

They were going to be triples, but they're outs. (Going with it. Sounds ok.)

A triple is worth a run. Heyward has saved four runs. (Ok)

Heyward the poster says Heyward the outfielder has saved 15 runs (DRS) this season. (Bing! Mismatch.)

How is it possible that a statistic says the player has saved 15 runs when he's only had 54 chances to make a play? He didn't make 35% more plays than everybody else. He's a hell of an outfielder, but he didn't have that much impact. The statistic overweights what impact he can make standing out in right field.

I will take you up on your Fielding Bible suggestion, BTW. I don't need to understand more than I just outlined to know that the stat is wrong, but I would like to understand a bit more about the process of quantifying defense.
 
Runnin said:
I like Jason as a player and person and his defense and hustle are first rate, but there's no way a batter can do all that grippiddoo stuff he does and be a great hitter. Since his initial success in the league he has been sliding downward, while Freeman and his simple, fundamentally sound mechanics has continued to improve.

I would fine Greg Walker $200 every time Jason does that re-gripping thing in the batter's box, which is the only thing holding Jason back.
Click to expand...

He's a tinkerer and a smart player. He's kind of caught in-between something he was trying, I think. He's too busy pre-swing, both with his fidgets and his triggers. The current pre-swing bat angle is just silly.

And he needs to get back to LC field. The point Freddie and Chipper were making about going back to your base swing was right on. Jason is so long he gets into a bad habit of trying to wrap everything, even and especially balls he should drive the other way. Otherwise, as Andy Van Slyke said, he's going to enjoy The Summer of Four to Three.
 
KeithLockhart said:
There was a stat box shown on the game last night.

Most homers under age 25 in the majors.

Stanton - 125
Heyward - 75
Freeman - 74
Trout - 68

It's insane that many of you are writing him off already.

Kid isn't even 25 yet, is in the same company as those other 3 including 2 injury hampered seasons, and plays elite defense for his position.

I get headaches watching him hit too, but I know in the long run Jason will be fine. The only concern I had was that broken jaw HBP affecting his batter psyche at the plate.

Now if he doesn't bring his offensive numbers back up and still plays elite glove does that warrant a Freeman sized contract? No. I say we have to re-sign him, unless we get outbid by the aging Yanks who need a player they can gamble on.
Click to expand...

I hate to break in here, but that's a fairly misleading table. Heyward has a full season of time on Freeman and a season and 3/4 on Trout. I'm not giving up on Heyward, but there are troubling signs here.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
He's a tinkerer and a smart player. He's kind of caught in-between something he was trying, I think. He's too busy pre-swing, both with his fidgets and his triggers. The current pre-swing bat angle is just silly.

And he needs to get back to LC field. The point Freddie and Chipper were making about going back to your base swing was right on. Jason is so long he gets into a bad habit of trying to wrap everything, even and especially balls he should drive the other way. Otherwise, as Andy Van Slyke said, he's going to enjoy The Summer of Four to Three.
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
50PoundHead said:
I hate to break in here, but that's a fairly misleading table. Heyward has a full season of time on Freeman and a season and 3/4 on Trout. I'm not giving up on Heyward, but there are troubling signs here.
Click to expand...

difference in plate appearances relative to Freeman is not that great: 2281 versus 2019. A little less than half a season.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
OK, I'll play.

So Heyward has had 54 balls hit in his zone (subjective, but sounds legit).

In 23 games (fact).

I'd say the huge majority of those are routine, meaning any professional fielder would get to them. (Subjective, but I think we can all agree there are routine plays.)

Another portion are hit such that no fielder could get to them. (Same, but that's subjective, too.)

There are four (in your example) that Heyward gets to that others wouldn't. (That sounds possible to me, maybe a little high, but I'll go along.)

They were going to be triples, but they're outs. (Going with it. Sounds ok.)

A triple is worth a run. Heyward has saved four runs. (Ok)

Heyward the poster says Heyward the outfielder has saved 15 runs (DRS) this season. (Bing! Mismatch.)

How is it possible that a statistic says the player has saved 15 runs when he's only had 54 chances to make a play? He didn't make 35% more plays than everybody else. He's a hell of an outfielder, but he didn't have that much impact. The statistic overweights what impact he can make standing out in right field.

I will take you up on your Fielding Bible suggestion, BTW. I don't need to understand more than I just outlined to know that the stat is wrong, but I would like to understand a bit more about the process of quantifying defense.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it's not that simple without diving in further.

For example, if the bases are loaded an nobody was out, he saved at least 4 runs on the one play. Then you have to look even deeper about the run expectancy differences between a man on third with 0 out and rather than bases empty with one out, etc.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
OK, I'll play.

So Heyward has had 54 balls hit in his zone (subjective, but sounds legit).

In 23 games (fact).

I'd say the huge majority of those are routine, meaning any professional fielder would get to them. (Subjective, but I think we can all agree there are routine plays.)

Another portion are hit such that no fielder could get to them. (Same, but that's subjective, too.)

There are four (in your example) that Heyward gets to that others wouldn't. (That sounds possible to me, maybe a little high, but I'll go along.)

They were going to be triples, but they're outs. (Going with it. Sounds ok.)

A triple is worth a run. Heyward has saved four runs. (Ok)

Heyward the poster says Heyward the outfielder has saved 15 runs (DRS) this season. (Bing! Mismatch.)

How is it possible that a statistic says the player has saved 15 runs when he's only had 54 chances to make a play? He didn't make 35% more plays than everybody else. He's a hell of an outfielder, but he didn't have that much impact. The statistic overweights what impact he can make standing out in right field.

I will take you up on your Fielding Bible suggestion, BTW. I don't need to understand more than I just outlined to know that the stat is wrong, but I would like to understand a bit more about the process of quantifying defense.
Click to expand...

I'll start this off by saying I don't completely buy into DRS myself, but...

There are more plays than just fly balls. Cutting off balls in the gap and turning doubles/triples into singles/doubles also counts. Stopping runners from going 1st to 3rd (or taking any extra base) also counts.

The player also needs to have the chance to make a good play. For example, Trout can't rob a HR if nobody hits a wall scraper to CF. So, if Heyward just so happened to have a disproportionately large number of "hard" chances early in the season, his DRS could be absurdly high. And if he DID make those plays, then he DID save those runs.

I won't even bring up the possibility of classifying plays as "hard" as being subjective.
 
KeithLockhart said:
There was a stat box shown on the game last night.

Most homers under age 25 in the majors.

Stanton - 125
Heyward - 75
Freeman - 74
Trout - 68

It's insane that many of you are writing him off already.

Kid isn't even 25 yet, is in the same company as those other 3 including 2 injury hampered seasons, and plays elite defense for his position.

I get headaches watching him hit too, but I know in the long run Jason will be fine. The only concern I had was that broken jaw HBP affecting his batter psyche at the plate.

Now if he doesn't bring his offensive numbers back up and still plays elite glove does that warrant a Freeman sized contract? No. I say we have to re-sign him, unless we get outbid by the aging Yanks who need a player they can gamble on.
Click to expand...

Yankees have Gardner/Ellsbury in the outfield, although they could just move Beltran to DH and sign Heyward, but they'd be pretty lefty heavy.
 
Why are we punishing Jason for being in the bigs a season early?

Jason was called up a year early because there were no more internal options in addition to being "ready". Of wren hadn't signed Glaus then freeman likely would've had the job.

And Freeman being a 1b is expected to be slugging more than a corner outfielder.
 
sturg33 said:
Yeah but it's not that simple without diving in further.

For example, if the bases are loaded an nobody was out, he saved at least 4 runs on the one play. Then you have to look even deeper about the run expectancy differences between a man on third with 0 out and rather than bases empty with one out, etc.
Click to expand...

So a lead off triple where the pitcher then punches out the side - he's not dinged for that? That's the converse of what you're describing. I wouldn't want to include the actual impact on runs. That would be horribly misleading and result in artificial volatility as to measuring the fielding skill.
 
Enscheff said:
I'll start this off by saying I don't completely buy into DRS myself, but...

There are more plays than just fly balls. Cutting off balls in the gap and turning doubles/triples into singles/doubles also counts. Stopping runners from going 1st to 3rd (or taking any extra base) also counts.

The player also needs to have the chance to make a good play. For example, Trout can't rob a HR if nobody hits a wall scraper to CF. So, if Heyward just so happened to have a disproportionately large number of "hard" chances early in the season, his DRS could be absurdly high. And if he DID make those plays, then he DID save those runs.

I won't even bring up the possibility of classifying plays as "hard" as being subjective.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok....

I know it bugs me that at least one of those systems measures batted balls only and leaves off (at 1B) the very important skill of picking, and that everybody's blindfolded and swinging at a piñata trying to measure catcher value. I like the framing, blocking, throwing, calling matrix, but again, a lot of subjective elements and data.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Why are we punishing Jason for being in the bigs a season early?

Jason was called up a year early because there were no more internal options in addition to being "ready". Of wren hadn't signed Glaus then freeman likely would've had the job.

And Freeman being a 1b is expected to be slugging more than a corner outfielder.
Click to expand...

This brings up something I've been thinking about with Jason's recent struggles and Bryce Harper's underwhelming start to the year.

Are teams doing their young stars a disservice by bringing them up so early? Obviously both Heyward and Harper were able to contribute at a pretty high level as soon as they got to the show, but would they have been even better had they been left in the minors for another year of seasoning? They have both been very good players, but neither has performed like the superstars they were projected to be yet. Or maybe I'm just expecting them to play like three and four year veterans instead of as guys who are in their early 20s.
 
DirkPiggler said:
This brings up something I've been thinking about with Jason's recent struggles and Bryce Harper's underwhelming start to the year.

Are teams doing their young stars a disservice by bringing them up so early? Obviously both Heyward and Harper were able to contribute at a pretty high level as soon as they got to the show, but would they have been even better had they been left in the minors for another year of seasoning? They have both been very good players, but neither has performed like the superstars they were projected to be yet. Or maybe I'm just expecting them to play like three and four year veterans instead of as guys who are in their early 20s.
Click to expand...

Bryce has a slash line of .273/.353/.476...how would you keep that in the minors?

Do people really project 21 year olds to be superstars at that age or future superstars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top