Did I Do Good In My Draft?

[Fenris-77]

I find it quite humerous how you use last years actual production to estimate a trend for 30 HRs, yet you use you theory of an improved batting stance and theoretical "would haves" to conjure up a .270 or better batting average. All of a sudden someone who doesn't watch baseball is a scouting expert/hitting instructor.

Yeah, because I'm completely incapable of using the internet to do research. It's not tough, you should try it somtime. Here's an idea, instead of rolling out logical fallacies about my personal baseball knowledge, why don't you try interacting with the stats and reasoning I've laid out. Oh, that's right, because you can't. You don't have a single substantive thing to say about Bruce's skillset or production. You don't have a single piece of evidence to even suggest that Bruce is more likely to hit .250 or less this year than he is to improve on that number. You also seem to fail to grasp the basic mechaincs of baseball stat prediction. Oh well, you lose and I'm moving on.

Read up a little the Reds have several prospects that they are trying to find a position for...They resigned Gomes for veteran stability, they're also rumored to be in trade talks for Gary Matthews Jr. How confident as an organization can you be of your young OF's if you're looking to bring on Matthews Jr. The way I see it is when Bruce hits at the .250 pace he's shown against major league pitching he'll lose at bats to other prospects in the system as well as the veterans who are more proven and consistan. I guess maybe the Reds haven't read your insightful predictions for Jay Bruce this year.

OMG, a team that's thin on talent is looking to add some! That must mean that Bruce is no good. It couldn't possibly have more to do with their rather pedestrian platoon in left field (Dickerson and Nix don't scare anyone). Or just the club's general need for young talent. Nor is Bruce at 22 at all likely to improve his skills either (like he showed he was capable of last season). Weak shizz man, and you know it.

All you have at this point is your completely unsubstantiated opinion that Bruce is going to hit less than .250, and thus lose ABs and suck. So long as you're willing to admit that you're running entirely on some sort of gut instinct I'm not going to argue with you. You're naturally entitled to your opinion. That said, it's not a a convincing opinion, nor one that seems well supported and evidenced relative to what's possible when dissecting baseball players and their possible production.

[Wadderboiz]

Alonso is not the only talented young player the Reds have vying for time in the outfield. Juan Francisco, Drew Stubbs, Chris Heisey, and Todd Frazier will all see time in a crowded Reds OF, throw in Gomes and you're looking at a distribution of ABs for all of them. Bruce's age, and the fact he was injured last year will be cause for alarm with the Reds to be cautious with him, thus a few more days rest.

Just wanted to point out Chris B. Young, once a top prospect in the D-Backs system hasn't hit above .250 since coming to the major leagues, after averaging almost .280 in the minors. As far as Lind goes he hit .280 in 2008. While hitting at a .238 clip in '07 he saw a good deal of time in the minor leagues. Lind's average going into last year was an overall .270. That's 30 point higher than Bruces at roughly the same point in their career. Nice try though.

[AquaMan2342]

Funny thread.

After skimming through, I think both sides are right to an extent. Anti-Bruce guy's best point is that Bruce still has a large following of people that assume he is going to be a superstar still and that you could still get a hefty package for him in a 20-team format. Bruce camp is right in the ridiculous Kapler/Bruce comparison. Every prospect is a different story. I like Bruce, not as much as some do, but I do think he'll become a successful player fantasy-wise.

Thanks for the amusing read.

[Fenris-77]

Yes, if you search through the thousands of player seasons you are bound to find some guys who were well regarded but failed to hit better than .250. On the other hand, simply being able to find an example or two doesn't actually say anything about Bruce. Nothing at all in fact. Well, let me re-phrase, it points to the possibility that he might not get any better. That possibility has always been there though. What none of your examples do, nor any of your other rather specious argumentation, is show anyone why that outcome should be likely. On the other hand I've pointed to a bunch of factors that do indeed point to the likelihood of improvement.

I'm still waiting for any kind of actual info from you about why anyone should think your projection for Bruce is actually likely, rather than just possible. It's possible that he gets sucked into a wormhole and transported several millenia into the future, but I'm not going to let that affect my draft ranking for him.

I couldn't care less about the Lind example either. Perhaps you don't understand how this works, but finding one guy who did X doesn't make Jay Bruce any more or less likely to do the same. Is that pointless example 3 or 4 for you now? I've lost count.

As for "a few more days rest", who cares? The projections for him currently sit at 425-475 ABs, which isn't a full season anyway. So they're already talking into account that the Reds aren't going to try and ride him for 600 ABs or anything silly like that. Stubbs is probably going to start in CF, and it's CF where he's going to get or not get his minutes - he's not a threat to Bruce's job in RF. And yes, Gomes will probably see time at both right and left field, but right now Bruce isn't the most likely candidate to lose time to him (that would be Nix).

Nor is Bruce likely to lose any serious time to the rest of that minor league list you tossed off there. Will those guys see some game time? Yes, they may, but you're not convincing anyone when you toss out a guy like Heisey, who didn't make a single appearance for the Reds last year, and alright, but not spectacular in AAA. Todd Frazier wasn't exactly setting the AAA world afire last year either (again, no power but a little speed, yawn), and neither he nor Heisey have anything like Bruce's power. Neither guy is any kind of serious threat to Bruce's place in the rotation right now.

Who's that leave? Dickerson, Nix and Francisco (who may or may not start the season on the big club). Dickerson looks like a decent 4th outfielder and a low key all-round kind of starter from most sectors, and the consensus seems to be he'll be in a platoon (with Nix being the current fav to be the other half). Nix is an alright defender, but a complete hack at the plate. Neither guy has Bruce's potential, nor do they bring the same skills to the table. Fransisco is a more tempting prospect for sure, but he got demolished my major league pitching last year, which seems to point to more time in the minors.

Really, it's only Gomes out that whole mess (besides Bruce) who brings any useful power to the Reds lineup (which they need, since right now Phillips and Votto are pretty much it for power). With Dickerson and Nix (especially Nix) looking very replaceable, I'd say that either guy is more likely to see his minutes trimmed before Bruce will (and Dickerson has injury concerns of his own). Obviously that doesn't hold if Bruce is slow off the mark to start the season, but that's the whole point of this little convo. If I had to rank the prospects in the Reds outfield right now I'd say that Bruce, Stubbs, Gomes, and Dickerson should be the guys getting the most burn.

I will concede that if Bruce does continue to hit >.250 then all bets are off. Stubbs and Nix are already unreliable bats, and the Reds would probably have to make a change there if all three guys start off whiffing. However, that brings us all the way back around to how likely it is that Bruce reproduces his struggles at the plate, and I've already laid out some convincing reasons why that's not likely to be the case. That leaves me where I started - if Bruce is hitting .270 or better, he has a great chance to drop something in the 80R-28HR-90RBI range, which would be pretty great return for a guy that's commonly being drafted in the 115-120 range, and it would make him a guy that I'd put pretty high up my keeper priority list on pretty much any team. I wouldn't over-pay to acquire him, but I can see why people are excited, and I do think he'll hit at least .270.

Good lord that's a long post. Thanks for reading.

[Wadderboiz]

I'm still waiting for any kind of actual info from you about why anyone should think your projection for Bruce is actually likely, rather than just possible. It's possible that he gets sucked into a wormhole and transported several millenia into the future, but I'm not going to let that affect my draft ranking for him...

...I will concede that if Bruce does continue to hit >.250 then all bets are off. Stubbs and Nix are already unreliable bats, and the Reds would probably have to make a change there if all three guys start off whiffing. However, that brings us all the way back around to how likely it is that Bruce reproduces his struggles at the plate, and I've already laid out some convincing reasons why that's not likely to be the case. That leaves me where I started - if Bruce is hitting .270 or better,.

I think what we have here is an instance where you contradict yourself in the same post. You're waiting for information as to why someone should consider my projection...I listed several player who will cut into Bruce's playing time, which was one of my initial points, to which you concede he's projected, by the experts you continue to quote, at 450-475 ABs. After picking apart these players as no chance of them getting playing time over Bruce you concede if Bruce hits .250 he'll lose time to them. Yet at the major league level Bruce has yet to show, based on ACTUAL production, that he can hit any higher.

[Fenris-77]

I think what we have here is an instance where you contradict yourself in the same post. You're waiting for information as to why someone should consider my projection...I listed several player who will cut into Bruce's playing time, which was one of my initial points, to which you concede he's projected, by the experts you continue to quote, at 450-475 ABs. After picking apart these players as no chance of them getting playing time over Bruce you concede if Bruce hits .250 he'll lose time to them. Yet at the major league level Bruce has yet to show, based on ACTUAL production, that he can hit any higher.

No, what I said was that none of them are likely to seriously impact his playing time. It's a matter of Bruce potentially playing himself out of a job rather than getting outplayed by the guys behind him. And I don't think he'll get outplayed. Those prospects will see some time, probably as injury replacments, but none enough to really impact Bruce's projected ABs. That point was actaully pretty clear above too, and I think it's wishful thinking on your part that I've somehow contradicted myself.

I've been over the batting thing a couple of times. Point one, Bruce had a ridiculously unlucky BABIP last year - a BABIP thats he's extremely unlikely to reproduce, and a rise in his BABIP will mean a rise in his productivity (both his average and his counting stats). Point two, after eliminating the toe tap from his stance (post injury) Bruce hit .326 the rest of the way. Even if we only look at those two things, and discount any other skill improvements that Bruce might show (which is actually likely given that he's only 22) he should hit far better this year than last year (with .270 being the median projection for what that should look like). That's a solid argument in favour of his ability to substantially increase his average, and that average increase should be more than enough to protect his job and his ABs.

Since you haven't actually shown us any reasons why you think Bruce won't continue to improve, especialy in light of the evidence to the contrary, your position continues to look dodgy and arbitrary. Obviously it looks even more dodgy once you take into account that pretty much every expert and industry writer out there thinks Bruce will improve to some degree or another. I don't bring that up specifically to bolster my argument here, just to point out that I'm not making a crazy argument in a vacuum - lots of well informed baseball analysts agree (to some extend) with what I'm saying (or, more properly, I agree with them, but whatever). Those experts could be wrong of course, but it takes all the wind out of the "you don't know baseball" angle you're fronting.

Thanks for making me do the research necessary to have this little tete a tete btw. Really, I'm trying to absorb a lot of baseball in a short period of time, and having a key topic to focus on for a while helps me out.

[Wadderboiz]

The basis of my argument for which Bruce will not improve is simply that he hasn't improved in 2008 in 413 ABs Bruce hit .254 in 2009 in 345 ABs he hit .223. The does not look like progress to me. That looks a young player with a lot of hype who swings for the fences. A player who has obviously not entirely won over the confidence of his organization who continues to add roster depth at his position.

Since you've so gratiously blessed us with your player scouting and expert analysis, why don't you go back and answer the original post.

[Fenris-77]

The basis of my argument for which Bruce will not improve is simply that he hasn't improved in 2008 in 413 ABs Bruce hit .254 in 2009 in 345 ABs he hit .223. The does not look like progress to me. That looks a young player with a lot of hype who swings for the fences. A player who has obviously not entirely won over the confidence of his organization who continues to add roster depth at his position.

Since you've so gratiously blessed us with your player scouting and expert analysis, why don't you go back and answer the original post.

To be fair, what I graced you with was a collection of other people's scouting and expert analysis. If you really think it's that silly you can take it up with them. Feel free to bounce around Yahoo, ESPN, Razzball, fangraphs and the better Reds blogs and flog your theory.

Young baseball players get better - that's just how things go. Not all of them naturally, but the good ones. You're correct that Bruce had a down year from a batting average perspective last year. However, you've completely ignored all the evidence that points to a large portion of that being bad luck and also that the two halves of Bruce's season weren't even close to similar, with the latter half showing marked improvement. You can ignore that if you like, but it doesn't make your projections for him look good. I keep waiting for you to actualy engage with the reasoning behind the current range of projections for Bruce, but so far you've been unwilling. Is that because you don't put any stock in BABIP or the idea that a player can successfully change his mechanics and get better?

To answer the original question, no, mostly I wouldn't trade Bruce off that team with the goal of increasing the team average. He's got too much potential for me to want to move him for a schmohawk who hits .300 but doesn't do a whole lot else. Guys like Swisher would be way farther up my list of players to move. Obviously it depends on exactly what kind of offers he gets for Bruce though. If someone's going to offer a top 50 player that hits for power and goes for something north of .290 than of course he needs to consider it. Beyond that, Iæd try to make some small upgrades to the average by trading around some of the midrange players on that roster before I'd trade Bruce. His team is obviously one pointed a the future with guys like Bruce and Heyward, and on a team like that I think it makes the most sense to hold on to your good young prospects and make moves elsewhere.

[Wadderboiz]

Wow...Luck? Jay Bruce's .240 batting average to this point in his career is a product of bad luck? Having a HR robbed or slipping on the wet out field grass trying to catch a routine fly is bad luck. Batting .240 through your first two seasons of baseball is not bad luck its a trend.

Not all younger players get better. By the "good" ones I'm assuming you mean top prospects an argument I believe I've already put to bed...see Sean Burroughs, Andy Marte, etc.

If you're trying to improve your fantasy team in the preseason, especially in the category of batting average, you can't offer up Nick Swisher and expect any kind of return. It sounds as if you're suggesting hold on to Jay Bruce with a death grip, hope he performs, and in turn trade away other pieces of your team to get just a little bit better.

Or as I suggested trade away a high risk player who others in your league value and would net you more in return than Nick Swisher. You have to give to get, rook.

[Fenris-77]

Wow...Luck? Jay Bruce's .240 batting average to this point in his career is a product of bad luck? Having a HR robbed or slipping on the wet out field grass trying to catch a routine fly is bad luck. Batting .240 through your first two seasons of baseball is not bad luck its a trend.

You don't really get BABIP, do you? Never mind Bruce's second half last year. I'm resigned to the fact that you're not going to address anything that doesn't speak to your theory at this point. Sometimes ignorance is a choice.

Not all younger players get better. By the "good" ones I'm assuming you mean top prospects an argument I believe I've already put to bed...see Sean Burroughs, Andy Marte, etc.

No they don't. Except in this case there's some actual evidence that he should, rather than just rah-rah homerism and general youth. Nice try though.

If you're trying to improve your fantasy team in the preseason, especially in the category of batting average, you can't offer up Nick Swisher and expect any kind of return. It sounds as if you're suggesting hold on to Jay Bruce with a death grip, hope he performs, and in turn trade away other pieces of your team to get just a little bit better.

Really? If you can't find a team that's big on average and short on homers then you're not looking hard enough. And Swisher certainly holds enough value that you could trade him for higher average and less power. It's called a lateral trade.

I like the attempt at a strawman with that death grip comment too. If you'd bothered to read my post you'd that I very clearly said that of course Bruce is moveable for a big name bat. Short of that, not so much. Trading him for a high average schmohawk to just to patch up one category is retarded though. (See? I can exaggerate your postion to the point of absurdity too. )

We're talking about batting average here, in case you missed it. A stat that's notoriously hard to predict compared to the counting stats. What Bruce has is obvious ability in the counting stats and a dodgy average. What are you going get back for him besides a decent average and dodgy counting stats? Stick with the more certain numbers there would be my advice. There are a pretty decent number of mid to low round players who hit for .290 -ish, and dumping a couple of hackers for a couple of guys like that would help bring his team average up.

Or as I suggested trade away a high risk player who others in your league value and would net you more in return than Nick Swisher. You have to give to get, rook.

Oooooh, He plays the rookie card. Whatever.

Obviously you'll get a little more back for Bruce than Swisher, but that's because Swisher has no upside. The fact that you can get a little more return on Bruce doesn't mean it's a good idea to move him either. For a lot more value you can think about moving him, sure, but not for a little bit. Bruce's upside eclipses any small gains you're going to get in trade there.