Can we expect Braun to fall off or to gain?

[sbrylski]

What would you define as "heavier"?

 

Just weighing more. Of their three weight categories, 175 lb carried the least power, while the 215 lb carried the highest and fastest developing. Not shocking, its what you'd expect.

 

Assuming that Braun is "heavy" -- a .010 increase (assuming linear improvement) would equal about .75 HR a year -- or 35 HRs at the age of 24 and about 36 HRs at 25. (for a 450 ABs) -- Assuming my math isn't messed up -- I would certainly contend that this improvement could certainly fall into the "you get what you see", i.e. you dont have 20 HR guys hitting 40 jacks, or 30 HR guys hitting 50. Again -- no one said players do not improve at all, ever.

 

Yeah, it doesn't suggest a significant power increase, but there is some on average. But we are also just talking about the power component. I wonder if a study exists looking at BB rate or K rate.

 

To be clear, I'm not on a mission to prove you wrong or anything. I'm just looking from a statsitical approach to see if they correlate to what the scouts say.

 

Could the increase in ISO come at the expense of BA/OBP, in this study?

 

The author looked only at ISO, but I'd imagine aged 23-25 early round college picks aren't going to suffer worse BA/OBP's as they progress.

[Fatter than Joey]

To be clear, I'm not on a mission to prove you wrong or anything. I'm just looking from a statistical approach to see if they correspond to what the scouts say.

 

I know -- I was just trying to understand your data. I appreciate what you have brought to the discussion

 

The author looked only at ISO, but I'd imagine aged 23-25 early round college picks aren't going to suffer worse BA/OBP's as they progress.

 

Right -- I guess I was trying to get a handle on what we call "improvement" -- If a player improves in power that could come at the expense of OBP, just like a pitcher may walk more batters to give up less HRs...

[rluzinski]

The easy prediction for any batter with his first season with an OPS over 1.000 is to assume some amount of regression to the mean. People might call it a sophmore slump but really, it is expected. If his 2007 stats represent his true skill at age 23, does that mean he'll have a career OPS of 1.100 by age 29? He might prove to be one of the greatest hitters ever but after one season, the easy guess is a fall off. By how much, i don't have any idea.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

What worries me even more than the expected regression offensively is what that means relative to his D. He's basically going to have to improve more than is reasonably plausible defensively in order to not negate nearly all of his offensive production in 2008. That's downright scary. We can only hope that Ryan will work on his D tirelessly almost literally every day of this offseason, because that's what it's going to take.

 

If his D negated appx. 75% of his offense in 2007, what is it going to do over a full season where he most certainly won't be producing at the insane levels of 2007? *shudders*

Except that regression to the mean cuts both ways in this case - when projecting 2008, you have to regress Braun's awful defensive numbers towards the mean of an average fielding 3B for the exact same reasons you would expect a decline from his otherworldly hitting debut.

 

This means that the basic relationship, "D negates approximately 75% of O", should remain intact in sensible projections. Any increase in fielding skill (e.g. from teaching) could potentially improve this ratio, but color me skeptical about how much.

 

[dadofandrew]

Take a gander at BR.com sometime and see how many guys you see who were as good at 23 as they ever were in their career...that's a mighty short list.

 

No problem...

 

AROD

 

There's no use going any further, because your first example proves how incorrect your statement is:

 

23--.357/.586

 

24--.420/.606

25--.399/.622

26--.392/.623

27--.396/.600

 

He was better in both OBP and SLG each of the next four years, and then he left the Kingdome. Most players improve after age 23, and if that's an example of how players do not, I shudder to think of the guys that do.

 

Russ does make a good point about some regression. However, to think he has peaked at 23 is unlikely.

[sbrylski]

DoA, I went through most of his list. I was skeptical too. But using OPS+ as my guide, his list is pretty accurate minus just a few guys.

[dadofandrew]

It may be, but I'm not going through the whole list if the first one is that off. Don't bother putting it on if it's not right.

[TooLiveBrew]

Except that regression to the mean cuts both ways in this case - when projecting 2008, you have to regress Braun's awful defensive numbers towards the mean of an average fielding 3B for the exact same reasons you would expect a decline from his otherworldly hitting debut.

 

Good point, BtTM. Thanks for straightening me out! I don't know about how true or not the "75%" statement will hold; guess only time will tell.

 

DoA - that's a pretty long list. If A-Rod had been listed last, would you have checked out more of it?

[Fatter than Joey]

There's no use going any further, because your first example proves how incorrect your statement is:

 

Al -- I remember when you used to be "Al the Thinking Man" -- what ever happened there? -- Sometimes, man, you are like school on Saturday -- no class.....

 

Now, you asked for a short list, I think I gave you one a pretty good effort. So I think your statement, by your admission, shows you have no interest in what I did. This indicates to me one of two things.

 

1.) You would hate to eat crow.

2.) You think I am a blithering idiot.

 

Now if it is #2 -- that would probably the most accurate thought you had regarding this board in the last 2 years -- however in this case -- I remain correct.

 

So -- why would I include AROD? -- I hope a man so consumed with thought would at least attempt to address it -- maybe I made a simple mistake? -- or maybe I know what I am talking about. AROD actually had his best season, until 2007 (SLG) at the age of 20 (OPS 160), and the improvements he made at 24, and 25 -- he did better at the age of 20. At the age of 23 -- we knew what we were getting with AROD. There was nothing that Arod didn't do at 24-27 that he didn't do at 20.

 

He was better in both OBP and SLG each of the next four years, and then he left the Kingdome.

 

He left the Kingdome in 1999 when the Mariners started playing in Safeco -- he was 23 then. In 2000 the Kingdome was imploded. -- but that's an honest mistake.

 

DoA, I went through most of his list. I was skeptical too. But using OPS+ as my guide, his list is pretty accurate minus just a few guys.

 

Thanks Sam -- I appreciate your continued effort. That was the tip of the iceberg, I was just pulling guys off the top of my head. -- I tried to leave off guys that suffered injuries or real flashes in the pan. I used OPS+ as my main tool -- based on your data and what I have shown -- I think the concept I am presenting is a solid one -- certainly not absolute.

 

It is important to understand that I am not at all contending that players all have their best seasons at 23 -- there is certainly going to be statistical variance from year to year, and players certainly gain experience, etc... but speaking to skill levels (in broad strokes)-- it's pretty much all there at 23, or it isn't.

 

It may be, but I'm not going through the whole list if the first one is that off. Don't bother putting it on if it's not right.

 

That is just not friendly Al. I don't know who Andrew is, but I hope he is OK with you using his name when you make comments like this. I am not sure what level of excellence you have attained that would allow you to dismiss my effort in this manner. I could have made a mistake, or perhaps I could have been given the opportunity to better state my point.

 

AROD is in fact a good example. Now I will concede that a person would have to be thinking outside the box a little bit, and would be required to have a little bit of objectivity, but I would like to hope that we are all up to that task.

[logan82]

How true is it that Brauns' defense pretty much negated any offense, and then some, this year? I am just wondering because that is something I have seen put forward. I would expect a drop in his OBP and BA because of his BABIP, but I don't think it will be really big because he should develope a little better dicipline at the plate. Will his defense improve enough so that a regression will keep him from having a negative overall impact on the team?

[TooLiveBrew]

logan - I think your expectation for better discipline is only natural (& I agree). I also tend toward the assumption that his D will regress a bit (in this case, a GREAT thing) toward the mean. I think the number next year will be close to 75% (negated O), but probably closer to 50%. Sad that we're even having this discussion!

[logan82]

It is sad, but he was one of the worst defensive players in the league this year. I know fielding % is a really poor way to look at defense, but when you have a fielding % 3.7% worse than the next worst guy at 3B and that guy is 4.3% worse than the best guy, you can't just overlook that.

[TooLiveBrew]

To echo you, sadly, he's not just 'one of the worst.' He was the worst (save perhaps Manny Ramirez) fielder in MLB in 2007. For all the 'whoa - what if he'd played a whole year!' quotes about his hitting, well, the same could be applied to his D. Just, you know, not in a positive way.

[logan82]

The real scary part is extrapolating his stats over a whole year and seeing he put up MVP type numbers yet also seeing that the Coulselino platoon was almost as good when you factor in defense. Thinking about a regression in his offense without believing he can make his defense that much better is not a pleasant thought.

 

Edit: That Counselino comparision is probably an exageration.

[TooLiveBrew]

yet also seeing that the Coulselino platoon was almost as good when you factor in defense.

I think I'm going to be sick... [barf]

[Big Reed]

I totally agree with poster "The brewer"'s projections where he posted his anticipated good years, bad years and median years. neither Wade boggs or Tony Gwynn hit over .350 every year. As braun's power numbers increase, his batting average will decrease. I think that's a given. I doubt his batting average will ever dip below .285. I have to believe his career average will be over .300. I have to believe he'll have several career years where he'll be in contention for a triple crown.

 

while many point to his batting stats, I'd like to believe his fielding will also improve. and rather than asking how many of his errors resulted in runs, I'd rather ask how many of his errors resulted in or caused a Brewer loss? I don't really want to hold braun accountable for an error if the brewers are winning 10-2. Wins are a lot more important than stats. As Tony Kornheiser would say, stats are kind of insignificant if you don't score points and your team loses. the packers have the worst running attack statistically in the NFL, but have found a way to be 6-1.

[logan82]

I'd rather ask how many of his errors resulted in or caused a Brewer loss?

 

That would be tough to say. If you are talking about directly leading to a loss that would be tough, but I am a person who believes in the snowball effects of baseball. Such as, how many more batters did that pitcher have to face because of that error? Did that require a reliever to be used for an inning that normally a starter could have covered? Did that reliever then become tired and pitch poorly the next time out and lead to a loss or was that reliever unavailable in a crutial situation in the next game because he had to cover an extra inning the day before?

 

I don't really want to hold braun accountable for an error if the brewers are winning 10-2. Wins are a lot more important than stats.

 

True, but then you have to ask how many of his HR were hit during blowouts.

[trwi7]

For Braun's errors or just bad defense in general the Philadelphia game on Sunday at Miller Park jumps to mind right away. Even an average defensive 3rd baseman makes that play and the Brewers win.

[Fatter than Joey]

Will his defense improve enough so that a regression will keep him from having a negative overall impact on the team?

 

This is the big question -- I just don't see the reward of keeping Braun at 3b as big as the risk. To me keeping Braun at 3b, is like putting TGJ in LF and hoping he

improves his power. Braun could improve and still be the worst 3b in MLB.

 

the packers have the worst running attack statistically in the NFL, but have found a way to be 6-1.

 

Well this is true, however, if you want to look just at wins, the Brewers were worse, for a longer of period of time with Braun than without Braun.