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


Photo

Why am I more psyched about Jackson than Rizzo?


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#16 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:34 PM

I really hope Jackson is more than a .250 type guy. I hope he's more in the range of .280 to .300 on a consistent basis I guess it would surprise a lot of people if that happens. Imagine .285 with 20 homers, 30 steals, and great all around defensive skills... exciting player. Though if Rizzo end up being a .285 guy with 35 homers, 100 rbi, and great defensive skills, that's pretty damn exciting too.


It'd be more exciting if they were both .370+ OBP guys...because that stat actually matters :D

#17 ced landrum

ced landrum

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 07:45 AM

I like Jackson a hair better. He reminds me a bit of Shawn Green. The difference is that Jackson is more patient as a young player.

#18 bdlugz

bdlugz

    I'm New

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 08:53 AM

and he struck out at a 30% clip in the minors last year



This is simply incorrect. He struck out in 26.9% of his at bats, which while still high, was raised significantly by his stint at AAA. Prior to AAA in 2011, his highest K% at any level (of more than 4 games) is 25%, and that includes his stint at A+ in 2010 when he struck out 20.2% of the time, and in AA in 2010 when he struck out 23.5% of the time, much more respectable numbers. Even though he did strike out more in AA last year (24.9%), it is not such a large number to be completely concerned about his ability to hit for average. People are running WILD with his AAA K%, which his career shows is likely an outlier (yes, I realize as levels increase in difficulty it is not uncommon to see an increase in K%, but 5% is unheard of).

It is completely reasonable to assume that Jackson can put up something similar to a .270/.370/.430/.800 line in the majors while playing average CF defense or above average corner outfield defense (possibly well above average). I think you're discounting his potential by looking at 200 ABs from last year.

And that's not to say I like Jackson considerably more than Rizzo, I just wanted to make sure the information was accurate.

#19 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:02 PM


and he struck out at a 30% clip in the minors last year



This is simply incorrect. He struck out in 26.9% of his at bats, which while still high, was raised significantly by his stint at AAA. Prior to AAA in 2011, his highest K% at any level (of more than 4 games) is 25%, and that includes his stint at A+ in 2010 when he struck out 20.2% of the time, and in AA in 2010 when he struck out 23.5% of the time, much more respectable numbers. Even though he did strike out more in AA last year (24.9%), it is not such a large number to be completely concerned about his ability to hit for average. People are running WILD with his AAA K%, which his career shows is likely an outlier (yes, I realize as levels increase in difficulty it is not uncommon to see an increase in K%, but 5% is unheard of).

It is completely reasonable to assume that Jackson can put up something similar to a .270/.370/.430/.800 line in the majors while playing average CF defense or above average corner outfield defense (possibly well above average). I think you're discounting his potential by looking at 200 ABs from last year.

And that's not to say I like Jackson considerably more than Rizzo, I just wanted to make sure the information was accurate.


Wrong. He struck out 32% of the time last year. With almost exactly 30% at AA and 34.5% at AAA. Strikeouts are divided in ABs, not PAs.

#20 NormB

NormB

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Twitter:nbothwell11
  • LocationBurbs

Posted 13 March 2012 - 03:07 PM



and he struck out at a 30% clip in the minors last year



This is simply incorrect. He struck out in 26.9% of his at bats, which while still high, was raised significantly by his stint at AAA. Prior to AAA in 2011, his highest K% at any level (of more than 4 games) is 25%, and that includes his stint at A+ in 2010 when he struck out 20.2% of the time, and in AA in 2010 when he struck out 23.5% of the time, much more respectable numbers. Even though he did strike out more in AA last year (24.9%), it is not such a large number to be completely concerned about his ability to hit for average. People are running WILD with his AAA K%, which his career shows is likely an outlier (yes, I realize as levels increase in difficulty it is not uncommon to see an increase in K%, but 5% is unheard of).

It is completely reasonable to assume that Jackson can put up something similar to a .270/.370/.430/.800 line in the majors while playing average CF defense or above average corner outfield defense (possibly well above average). I think you're discounting his potential by looking at 200 ABs from last year.

And that's not to say I like Jackson considerably more than Rizzo, I just wanted to make sure the information was accurate.


Wrong. He struck out 32% of the time last year. With almost exactly 30% at AA and 34.5% at AAA. Strikeouts are divided in ABs, not PAs.

Fangraphs does K% divided by PA's.

#21 Brett

Brett

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,639 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 13 March 2012 - 05:27 PM




and he struck out at a 30% clip in the minors last year



This is simply incorrect. He struck out in 26.9% of his at bats, which while still high, was raised significantly by his stint at AAA. Prior to AAA in 2011, his highest K% at any level (of more than 4 games) is 25%, and that includes his stint at A+ in 2010 when he struck out 20.2% of the time, and in AA in 2010 when he struck out 23.5% of the time, much more respectable numbers. Even though he did strike out more in AA last year (24.9%), it is not such a large number to be completely concerned about his ability to hit for average. People are running WILD with his AAA K%, which his career shows is likely an outlier (yes, I realize as levels increase in difficulty it is not uncommon to see an increase in K%, but 5% is unheard of).

It is completely reasonable to assume that Jackson can put up something similar to a .270/.370/.430/.800 line in the majors while playing average CF defense or above average corner outfield defense (possibly well above average). I think you're discounting his potential by looking at 200 ABs from last year.

And that's not to say I like Jackson considerably more than Rizzo, I just wanted to make sure the information was accurate.


Wrong. He struck out 32% of the time last year. With almost exactly 30% at AA and 34.5% at AAA. Strikeouts are divided in ABs, not PAs.

Fangraphs does K% divided by PA's.

Yeah, dividing by ABs doesn't really make much sense, given what it's trying to measure.

#22 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 08:22 PM

All three scouts I know (met a few throughout my minor league travels) do not considered PA's. They consider K's as a 'swing-based' outcome and want to judge how often the player makes contact in those situations. Walks are removed from the equation in a positive manner.

#23 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 13 March 2012 - 09:16 PM

The problem with calculating on the basis of ABs is that it artificially inflates the K% for hitters with a high BB%. That's ok in some contexts, but it can make things fairly confusing in others.

I've calculated it both ways, depending on what I was examining at the time.

#24 Brett

Brett

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,639 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 14 March 2012 - 06:56 AM

All three scouts I know (met a few throughout my minor league travels) do not considered PA's. They consider K's as a 'swing-based' outcome and want to judge how often the player makes contact in those situations. Walks are removed from the equation in a positive manner.

That makes sense - like Luke said, I guess it depends on what you're trying to evaluate.

#25 bdlugz

bdlugz

    I'm New

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 11:56 AM

Regardless, by all accounts, PAs are the universally accepted way to discuss K%, no matter what certain scouts are doing. The reason for this is exactly what Luke mentioned - it inflates K% to a unrealistic level for players with a high walk total.

Whenever you hear someone talk about K%, they will be using PAs unless otherwise noted.

#26 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:49 PM

Regardless, by all accounts, PAs are the universally accepted way to discuss K%, no matter what certain scouts are doing. The reason for this is exactly what Luke mentioned - it inflates K% to a unrealistic level for players with a high walk total.

Whenever you hear someone talk about K%, they will be using PAs unless otherwise noted.


This is specifically incorrect. Keith Law uses AB's without notating differently. Now, I understand you say that using AB's artificially inflates rates for high-walk hitters, and I understand that point, but I disagree it gives a false impression or anything of the like. High K percentages STILL indicate a difficulty making contact, no matter which equation you use. The statistic itself should never be used in an isolated instance (in my original post, I listed my projected OBP, etc) and I think it's more than fair to use AB's as a more accurate statement of a players ability to make contact and to grade their 'hit tool'...specifically in at-bats where a non-walk occurred.

#27 wvcubsfan

wvcubsfan

    Bleacher Bum

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

Posted 18 March 2012 - 10:59 AM

It's no wonder why most of us "normal fans" are confused when it comes to advanced metrics a majority of the time.

We are being told that OBP is more important than BA, because the most important thing is how many times you get on base. However, in the same breath now you are telling us that walks don't matter when it comes to how often someone strikes out.

In the strict context of a "hit tool" WTF ever that is. I guess I can see that. I'm guessing you are trying to see how many times the bat misses the ball. On the other hand when I think about high strike out guys I usually think about players that consistantly swing and miss pitches out of the strike zone. To me one would have to consider walks to "project" whether a player would or would not do this.

#28 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 11:32 AM

It's no wonder why most of us "normal fans" are confused when it comes to advanced metrics a majority of the time.

We are being told that OBP is more important than BA, because the most important thing is how many times you get on base. However, in the same breath now you are telling us that walks don't matter when it comes to how often someone strikes out.

In the strict context of a "hit tool" WTF ever that is. I guess I can see that. I'm guessing you are trying to see how many times the bat misses the ball. On the other hand when I think about high strike out guys I usually think about players that consistantly swing and miss pitches out of the strike zone. To me one would have to consider walks to "project" whether a player would or would not do this.


I think you're comparing two different things. Walks obviously do matter...always. What I was referencing was that scouts looks at a player's strikeout rate with walks removed from the equation to see how many at-bats (where ball was swung at or put in play) resulted in contact. This is not an advanced metric as much as a scouting tool.

An example would be the Tyler Colvin vs Brett Jackson comparison. Colvin's minor league strikeout rate (using ABs) was 20.5% and Brett Jackson's is 28.2%. So Jackson strikes out at a much higher rate than Colvin did per AB. However, Jackson takes a walk almost three times more often than Colvin did. Therefore, even with the higher K rate, Jackson is the more valuable hitter.

How does this effect "hit tool"? Jackson obviously has a good eye as his walk rate is definitely above average. But his K rate is alarmingly high. This means that his actual ability to make contact on pitches within the zone is likely lacking, not his pitch selection. Does this make sense?

#29 ced landrum

ced landrum

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 05:40 AM


It's no wonder why most of us "normal fans" are confused when it comes to advanced metrics a majority of the time.

We are being told that OBP is more important than BA, because the most important thing is how many times you get on base. However, in the same breath now you are telling us that walks don't matter when it comes to how often someone strikes out.

In the strict context of a "hit tool" WTF ever that is. I guess I can see that. I'm guessing you are trying to see how many times the bat misses the ball. On the other hand when I think about high strike out guys I usually think about players that consistantly swing and miss pitches out of the strike zone. To me one would have to consider walks to "project" whether a player would or would not do this.


I think you're comparing two different things. Walks obviously do matter...always. What I was referencing was that scouts looks at a player's strikeout rate with walks removed from the equation to see how many at-bats (where ball was swung at or put in play) resulted in contact. This is not an advanced metric as much as a scouting tool.

An example would be the Tyler Colvin vs Brett Jackson comparison. Colvin's minor league strikeout rate (using ABs) was 20.5% and Brett Jackson's is 28.2%. So Jackson strikes out at a much higher rate than Colvin did per AB. However, Jackson takes a walk almost three times more often than Colvin did. Therefore, even with the higher K rate, Jackson is the more valuable hitter.

How does this effect "hit tool"? Jackson obviously has a good eye as his walk rate is definitely above average. But his K rate is alarmingly high. This means that his actual ability to make contact on pitches within the zone is likely lacking, not his pitch selection. Does this make sense?


The problem with just focusing on the strike out rate is, that it discounts the fact that some guys who are more patient may strikeout more. A guy like Jackson will K a bunch because he is extremely patient. His K's are different then say Tyler Colvin. So to me it doesn't make sense to compare it to AB's because again there is different contexts in which a guy could strike out.

#30 SirCub

SirCub

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 908 posts
  • LocationCarrboro, NC

Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:06 AM



It's no wonder why most of us "normal fans" are confused when it comes to advanced metrics a majority of the time.

We are being told that OBP is more important than BA, because the most important thing is how many times you get on base. However, in the same breath now you are telling us that walks don't matter when it comes to how often someone strikes out.

In the strict context of a "hit tool" WTF ever that is. I guess I can see that. I'm guessing you are trying to see how many times the bat misses the ball. On the other hand when I think about high strike out guys I usually think about players that consistantly swing and miss pitches out of the strike zone. To me one would have to consider walks to "project" whether a player would or would not do this.


I think you're comparing two different things. Walks obviously do matter...always. What I was referencing was that scouts looks at a player's strikeout rate with walks removed from the equation to see how many at-bats (where ball was swung at or put in play) resulted in contact. This is not an advanced metric as much as a scouting tool.

An example would be the Tyler Colvin vs Brett Jackson comparison. Colvin's minor league strikeout rate (using ABs) was 20.5% and Brett Jackson's is 28.2%. So Jackson strikes out at a much higher rate than Colvin did per AB. However, Jackson takes a walk almost three times more often than Colvin did. Therefore, even with the higher K rate, Jackson is the more valuable hitter.

How does this effect "hit tool"? Jackson obviously has a good eye as his walk rate is definitely above average. But his K rate is alarmingly high. This means that his actual ability to make contact on pitches within the zone is likely lacking, not his pitch selection. Does this make sense?


The problem with just focusing on the strike out rate is, that it discounts the fact that some guys who are more patient may strikeout more. A guy like Jackson will K a bunch because he is extremely patient. His K's are different then say Tyler Colvin. So to me it doesn't make sense to compare it to AB's because again there is different contexts in which a guy could strike out.

Good point. Maybe if you could isolate swinging K's versus looking (backwards) K's. Because, presumably, a more patient hitter like Jackson would work himself into a lot of deep, two-strike, possibly full counts, and he would tend to take borderline pitches that he thought were (and possibly should have been) balls, but were called strikes. If this number is inflated for a patient hitter like Jackson, then looking at strikeouts as just a lump sum of swinging and looking K's might be misrepresentative.




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).