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.
Comments
.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
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
he's only really a plus if we have a lot of ground ball pitchers
better not draft bauer….
batter nine you sucky
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
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.
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
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.
"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.
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
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
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.
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.
This Escobar saga has me hooked already.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
















