Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

A look at Nate Schierholtz


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Cerambam

Cerambam

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Twitter:cerambam1736
  • Facebook:michael Anthony

Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:10 PM

I originally titled this post, "A look into Nate Schierholtz" but that sounded gross.

 

Anyway, now that we haven't traded Nate, I thought I'd explore his numbers a little to see if this year is a mirage (I figured it was at very least a career year) or just a player finally putting it together given the opportunity.

 

Nate Schierholtz didn't really get any significant playing time until 2009 with the Giants where he hovered around 300 ABs/year through 2012. His numbers suggest that he actually is this good and I'll explain why. I'm going to start at the left and move across his stats comparing 2013 to the 4 year average from 2009-2012.

 

*The 09-12 row is the average from 2009-2012.

 

 

Year        PA       BA      OBP       SLG      OPS      BB%          K%      BABIP 2009 308 0.267 0.302 0.4 0.702 5.2 18.8 0.311 2010 252 0.242 0.311 0.366 0.677 7.9 15.1 0.278 2011 362 0.278 0.326 0.43 0.756 5.8 16.9 0.315 2012 269 0.257 0.321 0.407 0.728 8.6 17.1 0.292 Avg 09-12 298 0.261 0.315 0.400 0.715 6.87 16.97 0.299 2013 324 0.269 0.328 0.510 0.838 6.8 17 0.286

 

Year        PA       BA      OBP       SLG      OPS      BB%      K%      BABIP              2009       308     .267     .302       .400     .702        5.2        18.8      .311 

2010        252     .242     .311      .366      .677        7.9        15.1      .278

2011        362     .278     .326      .430      .756        5.8        16.9      .315

2012        269     .257     .321      .407      .728        8.6        17.1      .292

09-12       298     .261     .315      .400      .715       6.87      16.97     .299

2013        324     .269     .328      .510      .838         6.8        17.0     .286

 

 

1) First and foremost, the number of PAs in the average compared to 2013 are nearly identical. This makes this study pretty significant and applicable.

 

2) Nate's BA is up 8 points and is essentially in line with his career numbers

 

3) Because his BA is up a little bit, his OBP is up slightly as well. Though neither of these are too statistically outlandish.

 

4) The SLG % is the first and only outlier for Nate Schierholtz. We can expect some regression here, but remember, Nate is in his prime and only just recently was allowed to play this much. 

 

5) Encouragingly, Nate's BB% and K% are nearly identical to his MLB career averages. K% and BB% are often the most telling stats for future performance. So, it is not like all of a sudden he is just getting lucky and walking way more or K-ing way less.

 

6) At this point, I was like well if he has essentially maintained all of his career numbers then he must just be       BABIP-ing out of his mind... but, like.. no. Nate's BABIP is actually 13 points LOWER than his career average. We can actually expect some positive regression in this regard.

 

I was always okay with keeping Schierholtz for next year as an option in right field, but now I am happy with it.



#2 Cerambam

Cerambam

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Twitter:cerambam1736
  • Facebook:michael Anthony

Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:11 PM

Holy Formatting. I will fix that in a second

 

edit: I made the numbers look better, but im going to leave the messed up part its funny how terrible it looks.



#3 fromthemitten

fromthemitten

    sleeps in too late to answer the calendar trivia

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Twitter:fromthemitten
  • Locationin a van down by the river

Posted 01 August 2013 - 04:30 PM

My problem with him is that he doesn't do anything exceptionally well.  His defense is pretty good, but on a winning team you want a guy who can get 35+ home runs and/or steals and/or get on base at a .350+ rate in RF.  You could argue that those are would be fantastic numbers for a middle IF, but .  That being said, he's a good piece to have in the offseason for a SP trade.



#4 wvcubsfan

wvcubsfan

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 397 posts
  • LocationLittle Rock, AR

Posted 01 August 2013 - 05:47 PM

My problem with him is that he doesn't do anything exceptionally well.  His defense is pretty good, but on a winning team you want a guy who can get 35+ home runs and/or steals and/or get on base at a .350+ rate in RF.  You could argue that those are would be fantastic numbers for a middle IF, but .  That being said, he's a good piece to have in the offseason for a SP trade.

I'm wondering if these numbers that are associated with positions shouldn't be adjusted down a little bit as we go into the "post steroid" era or at least the "testing for steroids" era.



#5 Timothy Scarbrough

Timothy Scarbrough

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, AR

Posted 01 August 2013 - 07:57 PM

 

My problem with him is that he doesn't do anything exceptionally well.  His defense is pretty good, but on a winning team you want a guy who can get 35+ home runs and/or steals and/or get on base at a .350+ rate in RF.  You could argue that those are would be fantastic numbers for a middle IF, but .  That being said, he's a good piece to have in the offseason for a SP trade.

I'm wondering if these numbers that are associated with positions shouldn't be adjusted down a little bit as we go into the "post steroid" era or at least the "testing for steroids" era.

 

Here is a list of the offensive weights for every year since 1871. 2013 is on par with 89 and 69 so far. http://www.fangraphs...ts.aspx?type=cn



#6 Brett

Brett

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,638 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 02 August 2013 - 07:23 AM

I enjoyed this greatly.



#7 Cerambam

Cerambam

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Twitter:cerambam1736
  • Facebook:michael Anthony

Posted 02 August 2013 - 03:03 PM

My problem with him is that he doesn't do anything exceptionally well. His defense is pretty good, but on a winning team you want a guy who can get 35+ home runs and/or steals and/or get on base at a .350+ rate in RF. You could argue that those are would be fantastic numbers for a middle IF, but . That being said, he's a good piece to have in the offseason for a SP trade.

I was with you on the first half of your argument, but you lost me at 35+ HRs. Hardly ANYONE does that anymore, so it's unrealistic to hold anyone, especially someone with as cheap of a contract as Nate, to that standard.

Edit: I didn't see the and/or part but ill still take Nate's OPS any day of the week

#8 Mike Taylor (no relation)

Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 03 August 2013 - 12:21 PM

It could be, with ballparks following the trend of moving fences in and clubs acquiring talent that fits their ballpark (i.e. short-porches in RF, acquiring pull-ball lefties with power).



#9 calicubsfan007

calicubsfan007

    The Guy Who Came Back From the Dead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 540 posts
  • LocationWherever I Am, There I Am

Posted 03 August 2013 - 10:55 PM

It could be, with ballparks following the trend of moving fences in and clubs acquiring talent that fits their ballpark (i.e. short-porches in RF, acquiring pull-ball lefties with power).

Uh oh, I sense a trade idea stewing in Mike's head... ;)



#10 Mike Taylor (no relation)

Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 05 August 2013 - 11:33 AM

The Pirates probably still make the most sense as a destination for Schierholtz, but they were only willing to give up the farm for Giancarlo Stanton. We'd need at least two arms and catching depth for Schierholtz. 

 

Yeah, I don't think I'd want anything the Yankees have to offer (possibly David Adams to split time with Valbuena (or Olt) at 2B/3B and Brett Gardner to replace him in the OF, but he only has 1 more year of arbitration left as well) if that's what you were thinking (i.e., the "jet-stream" in RF at new Yankee Stadium). I think any prospect package a team can put together for Schierholtz would be better in the long term. That could free us up to trade DeJesus for some bullpen help...

 

on paper:

[5.50] CF Gardner (L) [decent splits vs. LHP, wouldn't require a platoon]

[0.55] RF Lake

[1.25] 1B Rizzo (L)

[15.5] C McCann (L) [FA] / Castillo [trading Schierholtz + DeJesus + Barney = $12M)

[0.55] 3B Olt

[1.80] LF Valbuena (L) / Sappelt

[5.00] SS Castro

[0.55] 2B Adams

[3.10] BN + BN + BN

-33.8-

[3.45] SP Samardzija

[11.0] SP Jackson

[1.25] SP Wood (L)

[8.75] SP Hughes [FA]

[0.55] SP Rusin (L)

-25.0-

[5.00] LR Villanueva

[0.55] LR Raley (L)

[0.55] RP Lim

[0.55] RP Strop

[0.55] SU Batista

[1.25] SU Russell (L)

[0.55] CL Parker

-9.0-

67.8 + 13 (Soriano) + 4 (Fujikawa) + 2 (Soler) + 6.6 (15 others)

=

$93.4M



#11 Cerambam

Cerambam

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Twitter:cerambam1736
  • Facebook:michael Anthony

Posted 05 August 2013 - 11:48 AM

The Pirates probably still make the most sense as a destination for Schierholtz, but they were only willing to give up the farm for Giancarlo Stanton. We'd need at least two arms and catching depth for Schierholtz. 

 

Yeah, I don't think I'd want anything the Yankees have to offer (possibly David Adams to split time with Valbuena (or Olt) at 2B/3B and Brett Gardner to replace him in the OF, but he only has 1 more year of arbitration left as well) if that's what you were thinking (i.e., the "jet-stream" in RF at new Yankee Stadium). I think any prospect package a team can put together for Schierholtz would be better in the long term. That could free us up to trade DeJesus for some bullpen help...

 

on paper:

[5.50] CF Gardner (L) [decent splits vs. LHP, wouldn't require a platoon]

[0.55] RF Lake

[1.25] 1B Rizzo (L)

[15.5] C McCann (L) [FA] / Castillo [trading Schierholtz + DeJesus + Barney = $12M)

[0.55] 3B Olt

[1.80] LF Valbuena (L) / Sappelt

[5.00] SS Castro

[0.55] 2B Adams

[3.10] BN + BN + BN

-33.8-

[3.45] SP Samardzija

[11.0] SP Jackson

[1.25] SP Wood (L)

[8.75] SP Hughes [FA]

[0.55] SP Rusin (L)

-25.0-

[5.00] LR Villanueva

[0.55] LR Raley (L)

[0.55] RP Lim

[0.55] RP Strop

[0.55] SU Batista

[1.25] SU Russell (L)

[0.55] CL Parker

-9.0-

67.8 + 13 (Soriano) + 4 (Fujikawa) + 2 (Soler) + 6.6 (15 others)

=

$93.4M

Thanks for this, its a nice visual. 

 

I am warming up to the idea of getting McCann. He is obviously very talented, but Im just worried he mightbe in for some regression. Unlike most catchers, McCann peaked very early and next year is his age 30 season - he's on the way out of his prime. But, the cubs have 2 things that make me feel safe about signing McCann: plenty of payroll space the next 2-4 years (hopefully the length he gets) and Wellington Castillo. 

 

Because the Cubs have a pretty decent, young, cost controlled Castillo as a backup, a McCann flop wouldn't be too detrimental. Plus, the cubs have no catching prospects pushing, an obvious need, and a desire to get good (like good, good) within the next 1-2 years. 

 

Man, if Olt, Rizzo and Castro can just take some steps forward next year we could be looking so good. I am fairly confident that Rizzo will continue to be good (he's good right now) and that Castro will play a full season the way he has the last month. It isn't as though our future relies on Olt, but dude.. can you just imagine if we're able to add a power hitting, strong defensive, 25 year old 3rd basemen. 

 

Besides the obvious tangible benefits Olt would add if he performed well, he could also make some of our other prospects expendable (trade). All of a sudden, you can move a couple of Bryant, Baez, Alcantara, watkins, lake, and/or vitters for someone big.



#12 Mike Taylor (no relation)

Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 05 August 2013 - 12:39 PM

I suspect McCann will get what Napoli initially received from the Red Sox: 3 years, $39M. Possibly, he could make a little more, due to his ability to actually still catch. McCann has a better career split vs. LHP compared to Rizzo, so it would definitely be an option to rest Rizzo vs. LHP and rest McCann from being behind the plate and play some 1B later on down the road.

 

Don't forget that we spent a ton of money on the drafts and International free agents this year. We're going to basically be nonexistent in the international draft next year, due to penalties, so I believe there will be "extra" money somewhere in the buget to help sign a few free agents. I.e., Brian McCann, Phil Hughes, and a bench player. Of course, the front office might like Saltalamacchia instead: younger, switch hitter, probably less money to sign... but he's weaker defensively and a strict platoon player w/a 30% k rate.



#13 Cerambam

Cerambam

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Twitter:cerambam1736
  • Facebook:michael Anthony

Posted 05 August 2013 - 01:39 PM

Yeah, I believe there will be money to spend too. We've discussed it at length here but I would be happy with some combination of elsbury, McCann, and hughes.

Your point about letting McCann play first is interesting I didn't even think f that. It could really make that signing much more likely

#14 Mike Taylor (no relation)

Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 05 August 2013 - 09:52 PM

 

 

My problem with him is that he doesn't do anything exceptionally well.  His defense is pretty good, but on a winning team you want a guy who can get 35+ home runs and/or steals and/or get on base at a .350+ rate in RF.  You could argue that those are would be fantastic numbers for a middle IF, but .  That being said, he's a good piece to have in the offseason for a SP trade.

I'm wondering if these numbers that are associated with positions shouldn't be adjusted down a little bit as we go into the "post steroid" era or at least the "testing for steroids" era.

 

Here is a list of the offensive weights for every year since 1871. 2013 is on par with 89 and 69 so far. http://www.fangraphs...ts.aspx?type=cn

 

 

Anyone else notice that 1908 had the 2nd lowest wOBA (.297) years 1900+ and the highest wOBAScale?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).