Around MLB 2016 style

mfree80 said:
I think part of the reason they are compared is that both get a significant portion of their value from Defense. Also, Andruw was frustrating as a hitter, not because he wasn't productive, but because everyone thought he could have been even better. Likewise, watching Heyward hit, you think he must be ready to break out at any moment. He looks like he ought to be really good. Expectations are very high and performance has, so far not lived up to them.
Click to expand...

Which is a human perception problem which I will admit is sometimes hard to get out of the way.

Player A wasn't much in the minors but overcomes it and becomes a good player.

Player B was all-world prospect but merely becomes a good player in the majors.

It's not hard to look at that and consider Player B a disappointment while Player A is a success. Even if they are both quality big league players. At some point you have to judge players on what they are actually doing on the field and not what their expectations were as a teenager or young adult.
 
zbhargrove said:
If Heyward keeps entering his prime like he's doing right now, he's in trouble. And OPS+ is not a good statistic

Age 26... wRC+ 74, that's awful
Click to expand...

Not a good statistic...excellent argument. Then you use wRC+, which paints Heyward in an even better light than OPS+

Yes, if 400 at bats in a season are more of an indication than the prior 3400, then Heyward is in trouble. BTW, Jones put up a 86 wRC+ as a 30 year old and 38 wRC+ as a 31 year old, which makes no sense, but happens.
 
gilesfan said:
Andrus Jones has a career OPS+ of 111. Jason Heyward had a career OPS+ of 110 and is just now entering his prime.
Click to expand...

You're adding Andruw's years when he broke down. Heyward won't ever touch Andruw's prime. Heyward's best year was his rookie year at 134, and he's been 121 or worse every season since.
 
yeezus said:
You're adding Andruw's years when he broke down. Heyward won't ever touch Andruw's prime. Heyward's best year was his rookie year at 134, and he's been 121 or worse every season since.
Click to expand...

Both are disappointments offensively. I think that is the point.
 
yeezus said:
You're adding Andruw's years when he broke down. Heyward won't ever touch Andruw's prime. Heyward's best year was his rookie year at 134, and he's been 121 or worse every season since.
Click to expand...

From 96 to 06 (age 19-29) Andruw put up a 116 wRC+

If you want to cherry pick the best timeframe, it's probably 02-06 where he had a 124 wRC+

From age 30 on he had a 93 wRC+.

His breakdown past age 30 isn't as much of a hit on his overall statistics as many believe bc he still put up a 121 wRC+ in 328 PA in 2010 and 132 wRC+ in 222 PAs in 2011.

And the point isn't that Heyward is as good as Jones. He fits the same profile. Both are/were very good players that Braves fans irrationally knock bc they didn't live up to what they believed they would do.
 
gilesfan said:
And the point isn't that Heyward is as good as Jones. He fits the same profile. Both are/were very good players that Braves fans irrationally knock bc they didn't live up to what they believed they would do.
Click to expand...

To add to this. I have no doubt that if the WAR movement started a generation earlier you would have the same people calling Andruw over valued due to defense if people were suggesting he was a top 5 player in the late 90's through mid 2000's.
 
gilesfan said:
From 96 to 06 (age 19-29) Andruw put up a 116 wRC+

If you want to cherry pick the best timeframe, it's probably 02-06 where he had a 124 wRC+

From age 30 on he had a 93 wRC+.

His breakdown past age 30 isn't as much of a hit on his overall statistics as many believe bc he still put up a 121 wRC+ in 328 PA in 2010 and 132 wRC+ in 222 PAs in 2011.

And the point isn't that Heyward is as good as Jones. He fits the same profile. Both are/were very good players that Braves fans irrationally knock bc they didn't live up to what they believed they would do.
Click to expand...

I don't knock Andruw. He was one of my favorite Braves of all time. Heyward doesn't deserve to be anywhere close in the same mention
 
zbhargrove said:
I don't knock Andruw. He was one of my favorite Braves of all time. Heyward doesn't deserve to be anywhere close in the same mention
Click to expand...

No one has said Heyward and Andruw are similar players (at least not up to this point). Is that difficult?
 
zbhargrove said:
I don't knock Andruw. He was one of my favorite Braves of all time. Heyward doesn't deserve to be anywhere close in the same mention
Click to expand...

Your not getting (intentionally or unintentionally I'm not sure) the context. Heyward is not near as good of a player as Andruw. Didn't even come close to playing for the Braves as long as Andruw did. Yet none of these have to do with the initial point.
 
zbhargrove said:
I just don't view Andruw as a disappointment offensively his first 8-9 years ish
Click to expand...

I don't either. But many did because he wasn't Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle and that's what he was hyped up to be. Hitting 2 homers as a 19 year old in the World Series certainly didn't help him there.
 
I think the trend to value defense and base running (not necessarily SB), has resulted in some players being overvalued for what they are. If Heyward is hitting .280, .350, .500 then he's probably worth his current contract as a RF. But he's never shown that he can consistently do that, especially the power part.

The minors and waiver wire are FULL of players who can play good defense and run the bases but can't hit a lick. And while Heyward at least has a ML bat, he doesn't have, or at least doesn't consistently show, a good ML RF bat. But, he's being paid like he does because the Cubs (and other teams) let his base running and defensive play lead them into a mindset that his contract was a good idea.

Non-pitchers get paid for their bats. Either they are power/production guys or they are run scorers and table setters. The best of the best are both. Defense and "intangibles" are important, but if you don't have the bat, then you have a bad contract.

Heyward's contract is also another cautionary tale of giving the "opt out" to the player. Let's say after his big down year this year he bounces back next year and the Cubs want to trade him. His value is hugely deflated because the acquiring club would have to be worried that he would "opt out" if he continues to be good and be stuck with him if he regresses once again. But, I suspect that he will be a Cub for his contract and never opt out and be an albatross around the necks of the Cubs (fortunately for them they likely can withstand it).
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think the trend to value defense and base running (not necessarily SB), has resulted in some players being overvalued for what they are. If Heyward is hitting .280, .350, .500 then he's probably worth his current contract as a RF. But he's never shown that he can consistently do that, especially the power part.

The minors and waiver wire are FULL of players who can play good defense and run the bases but can't hit a lick. And while Heyward at least has a ML bat, he doesn't have, or at least doesn't consistently show, a good ML RF bat. But, he's being paid like he does because the Cubs (and other teams) let his base running and defensive play lead them into a mindset that his contract was a good idea.

Non-pitchers get paid for their bats. Either they are power/production guys or they are run scorers and table setters. The best of the best are both. Defense and "intangibles" are important, but if you don't have the bat, then you have a bad contract.

Heyward's contract is also another cautionary tale of giving the "opt out" to the player. Let's say after his big down year this year he bounces back next year and the Cubs want to trade him. His value is hugely deflated because the acquiring club would have to be worried that he would "opt out" if he continues to be good and be stuck with him if he regresses once again. But, I suspect that he will be a Cub for his contract and never opt out and be an albatross around the necks of the Cubs (fortunately for them they likely can withstand it).
Click to expand...

In general you are right except of defenders at C, SS, CF. But there are handful of elite defenders that play non premium positions that can be productive with slightly above average offense.
 
mfree80 said:
Is that a compliment to him, or do they reaaallllly need another starter?
Click to expand...

Just think its kind of funny that he's got value to the best team in baseball, but had none for us. Just such weird move... should have let him try and pitch and build value back, then sell.
 
mfree80 said:
Is that a compliment to him, or do they reaaallllly need another starter?
Click to expand...

Cubs dont have alot of SP depth.

So hard to say.

But kinda wish we kept him and let him build up some value then trade him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top