Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Full Coverage of 2012 Coke 600

Despite Escobar’s breath-taking D at a premium position, his historically inept bat has made him a sub-replacement level player: he has -0.3 WAR in 2011. It would be nearly impossible for him not to show offensive improvement moving forward: ZiPS projects Escobar to hit .252/.295/.334 during for the rest of the season, with his batting average on balls in play rising to the mid-.280s from its current .240-ish mark.

12 months ago Wardenhatcopy_tiny Warden11 18 comments 2 recs  | 

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

.252/.295/.334

Anyone know what sort of WAR that would generate? I’m guessing it’s still negative, though his defense would push him into a positive WAR overall.

Still, I think Odorizzi’s going to have to be amazing for us to end up winning (or breaking even) on this trade.

batter nine you sucky

by marbotty on Jun 3, 2011 4:36 PM EDT reply actions  

Depends on his fielding

it won’t be so bad… if one thinks a good way to analyze a player is to say “I bet he’ll regress to the mean in what he’s doing badly, but not in what he’s well.”

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Jun 3, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

But, in short

if he finishes the season with a .260 wOBA (I think that is what ZiPS Update is as of my typing — too lazy to look again), he’ll be above replacement level barring a defensive collapse. In this run environment, if he continues has an awesome season with the glove according to UZR, he could potentially be around 2 WAR… if he ends the season with the best UZR by a shortstop in years.

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Jun 3, 2011 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Isn't fielding less susceptible to regression than batting?

"They may make cool judgements after the fact
But the name of the game is be hit and hit back" --Warren Zevon

by Juancho on Jun 3, 2011 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly

But the generic answer is “no.”

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Jun 3, 2011 5:11 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

I would assume the opposite is true

Given that you need multiple years of fielding data to estimate true defensive talent, a partial season’s worth of fielding stats would have higher variance and be less likely to predict future fielding performance, so you would have to expect more regression to the mean.

by PopeSoria on Jun 3, 2011 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

OK, sounds fair

Can’t we count Esky’s minor-league career as part of multiple years of fielding data? The dude did win universal praise for his fielding ability. Agreed, that’s scouts’ and coaches’ opinion, not numbers. That just doesn’t seem like something that’s going to drop off massively, though.

How about this rephrasing: Aren’t fielding statistics more consistent than batting statistics? I mean, sometimes Johnny Bench OPSed 750 and sometimes he OPSed 900, but he was always an ace behind the plate. Ozzie Smith’s hitting went up and down—IIRC, he was actually better late in his career than early in it, but I don’t think his fielding stats bounced around much.

I guess the counterargument is that those guys were exceptional fielders, and your average schloop might not be as consistent. Now, Joe Morgan, that guy was consistent. He peaked a little late. When I was nine years old I wanted to play like Joe Morgan. I even flapped my arm like he did.

"They may make cool judgements after the fact
But the name of the game is be hit and hit back" --Warren Zevon

by Juancho on Jun 3, 2011 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Just guessing here

But part of it could be that even if you are a great fielder, you have to have opportunities to make plays where it shows up statistically. Given that it’s a pretty tiny percentage of balls put in play that are hit so that only the best fielders get there, you could go a while getting just more routine balls without the chance to make a big “plus” play, even though you at no time became a “worse” fielder.

by PopeSoria on Jun 3, 2011 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

"historically inept bat"

I’ve seen Tony Pena, Jr. I’ve seen Jason LaRue. Escobar ain’t no historically inept bat.

WILSON BETEMIT = RATINGS

by JobDDT on Jun 3, 2011 4:41 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

The fact that you even have to think of those guys

Suggests his bat is pretty damn bad.

Edgar knows best.

by kcbottom9th on Jun 3, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

He's +0.2 on Baseball Reference WAR

+0.8 with the glove, -0.6 with the bat. If he could just go his ZIPS projection that would be swell. The guy can pick it.

"They may make cool judgements after the fact
But the name of the game is be hit and hit back" --Warren Zevon

by Juancho on Jun 3, 2011 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Gonna have to have a lot of patience with Escobar.

I’m comfortable letting him start everyday in the bigs the rest of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 seasons. If he hasn’t improved by then…then I’ll be worried.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jun 3, 2011 5:46 PM EDT reply actions  

It's a shame that we waited a bit long on the greinke trade

because frankly we probably could have gotten Brett Lawrie who is absolutely killing it right now for Toronto in AAA. An infield of Hosmer Lawrie and Moose would of have been a dream.

by ichirix on Jun 3, 2011 6:29 PM EDT reply actions  

I like Lawrie, too, and would rather have him

but I don’t think he could have played second, he was pretty bad there, I believe.

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Jun 3, 2011 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

No way!

That amount of robbed runs must be worth more

I am probably the only Royals fan in Hong Kong?

by Yamfun Cheng Kamfun on Jun 3, 2011 8:12 PM EDT reply actions  

Greinke is having a great year

But I’m pretty pleased with our return on the trade. We’ve got all of these guys (Escobar, Cain, Jeffress and Odorizzi) for five to seven years versus two years of Greinke. Jeffress has been a disappointment, but Odorizzi looks like a positive surprise. Escobar and Cain are pretty close to what we expected. Given that we were giving up two years of MLB production and receiving over 24 potential years, the only way we lose is with disastrous performances, and we’re not getting those so far.

by KSinDC on Jun 3, 2011 11:37 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Royalsretro_small
Would Royals Review Make Better Decisions Than Dayton Moore?
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
Mitch On the Bench

Recent FanPosts

Dignan_small
Friday Game 43 Open Thread
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
MORE Mitch on the Bench
Sexy-beast-original_small
OT Friday: The generic boilerplate template desert island gambit
Tumblr_lwfiy4qkgv1r204zxo1_500_small
RR Poetry Contest
Small
Extrapolating the First 43 Games over the Full Season
Small
Is Dave Eiland doing ... anything?
Small
Alcides Escobar's Bat
Download_small
Was Dayton Moore Right on Bruce Chen?
Chalmers2_small
2012 Royals vs 2012 Ex-Royals

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan