Why Upton Is A Stud, Even Without The Power

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 13, 2008 8:43 PM EDT

BJ Upton's been receiving a lot of crap both across the internet and from commenters on this blog. For some reason people think he's been a disappointment, is lazy, and isn't good enough to play on a playoff team. I beg to differ. He's neck-and-neck with Evan Longoria as the Rays' most productive position player so far in 2008.

Yes, his complete lack of power is a surprise. If you want to consider his homerun total a disappointment, fine. But we need to focus on everything else Upton does well:

He's getting on base. Even with a decrease in batting average (which was predictable based on his crazy batting average on balls in play last year), Upton's Upton's .385 OBP is the same as last year -- he's learned to take a walk. Overall on offense, he has a 116 OPS+. If you like linear weights (and you should), he's been 10 runs better than average overall on offense.
He can play center field. Upton should be held to a totally different standard than the corner outfielders like Crawford, Hinske, Gomes, Gross, etc. Over a full season, you can expect the average outfielder to be ten runs worse in a corner spot than in center. Compared to the average position, center fielders get a five run bonus and corner outfielders get a five run penalty.
He plays center field rather well. For a guy who struggled with his fielding in the infield, becoming a plus in center is a huge boon for the Rays. The advanced fielding metrics put BJ at about five runs better than the average center fielder so far in 2008. I know people pick on him for looking lazy, but good positioning, good jumps, good paths to the ball, and good speed are really what outfield defense is about. The man catches more flyballs than most.

Putting it all together, Upton is nearly twenty runs better than the average player overall (10+2.5+5). That's about two wins (1.75 for those who are math anal).

Ok, so how do other outfielders compare to BJ? I count seven center fielders in all of MLB who are better: Grady Sizemore, Josh Hamilton, Carlos Beltran, Curtis Granderson, Rick Ankiel if you buy his 2008 stats, and that's it. Only three of those play in the AL.

These are the AL center fielders who are definitely worse: Melky Cabrera, Coco/Jacoby, Adam Jones, Carlos Gomez, Nick Swisher, A's flavor of the day, Vernon Wells

These AL center fielders are in the ballpark, but are probably a small step down from Upton: David Dejesus, Torii Hunter, Johnny Damon if he played there, and Ichiro.

BJ Upton, even without any power, is at worst, the tenth best center fielder in the majors, and you could make a case for top seven. That's not somebody you need to look to replace or worry about. Let's start celebrating him, instead. If the power comes back in the second half, that's just icing on the cake.

7 recs | Comment 57 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

BJ's positioning...

One thing you point to is BJ good position and good paths. He made a point this year to play much shallower which is going to allow him to get to many more balls. He has struggled with going straight back on balls and that should improve with time. The fact that he is this good defensively while still making obvious errors speaks volumes for his future…

However, I do think that some people are ignoring BJs decline. I’ll argue for BJ as much as possible but he has shown some decline in offense. IMO, a lot of his BB increase is due to taking a lot of close pitches. 45% of his strikeouts are called. That’s an awful lot, up from 31% last year.

The power coming back really isn’t icing on the cake. After last year, we didn’t expect BJ to be the 11th best CF. He has the skill to be better and I believe he will. I have a problem with people saying BJ is a huge disappointment, but I don’t think anyone should be content with his performance. He can and will do better.

by tallyray on Jul 13, 2008 8:59 PM EDT 0 recs

you could also view Upton's increased selectivity as a positive

Once he figures out the edge of zone, he’ll have both the walks AND the power. Maybe this year’s line is a necessary step on the learning curve. (I have no idea, just a thought.)

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 14, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

That is my thinking, or at least my hope.

And going out on a completely unfounded limb of optimism… maybe if he continues to “disappoint”, he will reconsider signing long-term and take the guaranteed money.

I know, the reality is both he and his agent are not stupid and are unlikely to change their position on one year of perceived disappointment (in the eyes of Topkin and some fans), but I can dream.

Longlorious.
Free Kila Kaaihue!

by RATW on Jul 14, 2008 12:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

Which is valid...

My only issue is that some have gone to overlooking some noticeable flaws in order to justify his performance. The media will always underestimate someone who has an OBP that is .100 greater than his BA. BJ also falls victim to the HR since most media outlets don’t credit someone for having power unless that power leads to homeruns. However, the last of power can’t just be forgotten.

I am confident in BJs abilities and think he’ll average at least 5 HRs a month for the rest of the season. But the dropoff did hurt in the first half and lead to some offensive disappointment. I don’t think it was greater than CC’s or Pena’s lack of production, but it didn’t help.

by tallyray on Jul 14, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

He's taking more called strikeouts, yes

But his overall strikeout rate has dropped, which has to be encouraging considering he said that was one of his main focuses entering the season.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 14, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'm really interested in this.

There are several examples of players being more selective and yet seeing their power drop dramatically – Delmon Young, actually, is one of these (Chris Young on the Diamondbacks is another).

Intuitively, I’d expect more selectivity to be a good thing, and that eventually, these players will combine their selectivity with an ability to get themselves into hitters’ counts and drive the ball more often, leading to more walks and more power.

by Peter Bendix on Jul 14, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

We can only hope that's the case.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 14, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

deserving of a study

Do you or RJ have the programming talent to make it so? I’d be happy to help hashing out the details…

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 14, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

I can assure you I don't.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 14, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

Is the selectivity all the good?

BJ’s strikeouts swinging are down and that’s probably because his contact rate is up 6%. He’s walking a lot more but he is also striking out looking a lot more. I don’t know if he is being selective as much as he’s just taking a lot of pitches. About 9% of BJ’s at bats end with a strikout looking. That’s a bit much.

BJ was a very selective hitter last year. This year he is taking even more pitches. He also isn’t hitting any better in hitter’s counts. Putting yourself in a position to get a better pitch is one thing but I don’t know if that’s what he’s doing. Sometimes it seems he is just getting in position to take a walk.

One interesting thing is that he kills the ball with a full count. For some reason that is the count he really opens up on.

by tallyray on Jul 14, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up 0 recs

Question:

Something I’ve been wondering about for awhile: does a dramatic increase (or decrease) in the amount of called third strikes a better takes signify a change in skill, or luck?

My hypothesis is that a player’s ability to hit the ball is different from his knowing which pitches to try to hit. So, if a player strikes out swinging less often, we may very well say this is an improvement in skill. But if a player strikes out looking more often, we may very well say this is an aberration, a fluke – especially if it’s coupled with other signs of improved plate discipline.

These are unfiltered ramblings, let me know what you think.

by Peter Bendix on Jul 14, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up 0 recs

Multiple factors..

There are a lot of factors at play here. For the decline in swinging strikeouts it could be:

- He has improved. He is making more contact and swinging through less third strikes.
- He is only swinging at pitches he thinks he can hit and laying off ones he cannot. Some are falling for balls, lowering his overall Ks, while some are becoming called third strikes.
- He is shortening his swing and just looking at making contact.

I think it is a combination of the first and the second. Upton has always killed fastballs and maybe he’s just laying off the pitches that aren’t fastballs or in the middle of the plate.

If you believe my second point above then I would say the skill (less swinging Ks) and the fluke (more Ks looking) actually go hand in hand. If he is being very selective with swinging with two strikes then he will lower his overall Ks but increase his K’s looking. Both have happened.

I also wonder if this adds to his great 3-2 hitting. I imagine more fastballs are being thrown 3-2 and thus improving his slugging numbers when he makes contact.

by tallyray on Jul 14, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

Or how about this for a contrary point

If he’s swinging at more hittable pitches, why is his BABIP down? When factoring into this consideration that the only batted balls not counted in BABIP are HR’s which are all hits, and another catagory in which he is down, one could offer the contrary argument that he isn’t improving at all. In summary, swinging at better pitches, but hitting them less well.

I don’t really buy this – I think you’re just seeing performance variability in a young player. Much was made of CC’s 5 years of improving hitting stats – perhaps the real point is that continuous improvement is not to be expected of young players.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Jul 15, 2008 1:52 AM EDT up 0 recs

Could be

Which would be the fourth option I didn’t add.

He has had a pretty significant swing in strikeouts swinging and looking and I just don’t know if that can be tied to variability.

by tallyray on Jul 15, 2008 3:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

B.J. having a big second half would be nice.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 14, 2008 1:19 AM EDT 0 recs

So what's the word on his HR/FB% this year?

Is this a flukey sort of thing, is he a significantly different hitter this year, or is there something else going on? His raw numbers are off his career norms, but that’s not a real large sample to deal with, so I don’t know what conclusions you can draw from that. If it’s just a fluke, he should put up a nice second half.

by acblue on Jul 14, 2008 6:39 AM EDT up 0 recs

I don't think he is a great at playing centerfield

I think he has great natural ability and this allows him to play very good outfield defense. However, he doesn’t yet really know how to truly play the position. He throws to the wrong spot very often. He isn’t the best at communicating and taking charge. And he takes bad routes occassionally. Plus sometimes he doesn’t knwo when to drive and when to hold up. Once he really knows how to play the position he coudl be the best defensive CF in the game. Right now he is just pretty good at the position based on god given ability.

Offensively he should be hitting lead off right now. There is no question about it. If he was hitting lead off everyone would be saying that he is in the middle of a tremendous season. His numbers just do not match what people expect out of the 3 hole.

by matthan on Jul 14, 2008 8:52 AM EDT 0 recs

Can't fault the guy for natural ability...

If his natural ability allows him to play very good outfield defense than BJ Upton is playing very good outfield defense.

by tallyray on Jul 14, 2008 10:01 AM EDT up 0 recs

But his inexperience playing the position does lead to some plays that can cause a fan to punch a wall. Over time he will learn to play the position correctly. I have no doubt about that. For the time being I’m more than happy having BJs natural ability, speed, and arm out in the CF and I’ll take the few bumps along the way due to his inexperience.

by matthan on Jul 14, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

His numbers just do not match what people expect out of the 3 hole.

Perhaps people should ignore batting orders for once.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 14, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

I disagree

The order is important. You also have to factor in a hitters skillset with the skillsets of the hitters that are around him in the order. The batting order is highly relevant.

by matthan on Jul 14, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

Research disagrees with you.

Order is NOT important. The difference between least optimal and most optimal batting lineups is 1-2 wins. And this is far from the least optimal lineup. Order barely batters, if at all.

by Peter Bendix on Jul 14, 2008 12:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

what he said

Plus, surprisingly, the research has shown that the number three spot should not be the place for your best or second best hitters. The go second and fourth. But again, not that big of a deal.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 14, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

No it doesn't

If you are citing the research I think you are citing then it is highly flawed. The assumptions are enourmous. It ignores very important things. It uses historical data produced by a hitter hitting in a certain spot in the order and generally assumes he will do the same in every spot in the order. It assumes a player will perform that exact same when he is hitting between Bonds and Henderson compared to when he is hitting between two no talent schmucks.

by matthan on Jul 14, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

Plus no line up is the same

For example BJ hitting in front of Carl would be less than ideal? Why? Because it would negate some of BJs speed because Carl swings early in the count. All the league wide analysis someone can do will never capture something as specific as that. I have no problem with people using league wide and historical data to suppliment in depth specific analysis. Ignoring specific components and skillsets does not allow you maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses in the most efficient way.

by matthan on Jul 14, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

Protection myth.

Research has shown that “protection” is a myth.

I think it’s silly to think that players perform significantly differently when hitting in different spots in the order. Unless a manager specifically asks them to try to do something different. Their ability to hit isn’t any different.

Also, you are assuming that BJ Upton has a fundamentally different ability to hit homers than he used to. That’s unlikely to be true. Don’t get fooled into small sample size issues.

by Peter Bendix on Jul 14, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

BJ has never been a major home run hitter at the MLB level. Sure he is underperforming this year in that regard, but I think he will rebound. But right now in his development he is a marginal middle of the order power bat. You can make the case he belongs 3rd in the order due to other factors, but power has never been one of those factors.

I think he should be leading off for a few factors

1. He takes a lot of pitches and that is what you want out of a leadoff hitter
2. He has wheels
3. He has a high OBP

Regarding protection I wasn’t really talking about one player helping another. I was talking about ordering of skillsets.

by matthan on Jul 14, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ok...

I have no problem moving BJ to leadoff. However, BJ will slug .450+ and has shown he can hit homeruns at the major league level. BJ Upton hit over 20 HRs at age 22. That is someone that can hit home runs at the major league level.

by tallyray on Jul 14, 2008 4:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

Not having read the article you are referencing...

I dont know how people can say that using stats. The mentality of a pitcher is completely different if Manny Ramirez has David Ortiz hitting behind him, compared to Julio Lugo. A pitcher will be far more fine with him, rather then somewhat aggressive.

by td32 on Jul 14, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

There's been lots and lots and lots of research done on this.

Protection is a myth.

by acblue on Jul 14, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

if you prefer...

you could say that protection exists, but it’s such a small effect and there’s so much noise that you can’t measure it.

which means you should ignore it, in stats speak. like clutch hitting.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 14, 2008 6:29 PM EDT up 0 recs

That would be a better way to put it.

While “lineup protection” may have some very, very small effect on an equally small number of hitters, it is preferable, from the standpoint of maximizing run production, to stack the lineup in descending order of OBP. While the positive effect of this sort of lineup is still quite miniscule, it’s at least quantifiable.

by acblue on Jul 14, 2008 6:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

Here is an example....

Lets say Jason Bay was hitting with men on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs. He also has Barry Bonds hitting behind him. Will he see better pitches? I know this is an example that wouldnt happen often(and I am just using these specific players for effect)...but it certainly IS protection. Bay would see far better pitches.

by td32 on Jul 14, 2008 11:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

Maybe.

The point I’m trying to make is that the benefit of having the hitter with the higher OBP getting more PAs will provide the greater benefit. The situation you described isn’t going to happen all that much, as you yourself admitted.

However, hitting Bonds behind Bay will lead to fewer PAs by Bonds, who (it seems fair to assume) is going to get on base more often than Bay. Getting on base is the best way to score runs. So, whatever advantage Bay might enjoy having Bonds hit behind him is going to be outweighed by the benefit of Bonds getting on base more often. Really, though, none of it matters all that much.

by acblue on Jul 15, 2008 1:10 AM EDT up 0 recs

thought-experimenting protection

If I’m facing Manny Ramirez with David Ortiz on deck, aren’t I more likely to be aggressive than with Julio Lugo up next? With Ortiz coming up, I want to avoid putting Manny on base, because Ortiz has the power to bring him around from first, while Lugo does not. Therefore, I’m willing to give Manny some better pitches to hit, risking extra-bases, in exchange for fewer walks. But I can’t just give Manny anything, because trading a walk for a single isn’t any good. And trading a walk for a homerun is really bad.

Let’s say that over 600 PAs I’m able to walk Manny 20 fewer times than I would if Lugo was up next. What’s a reasonable trade off for that benefit? According to linear weights, 20 walks is worth about 7 runs relative to the average plate appearance. The cost to me of those 20 plate appearances better be MORE than 7 runs, because the value of a walk with David Ortiz on deck is MORE than .35 runs.

So what hitting events will add up to, say, 10 runs? A line of 6 outs (-2 runs), 3 HRs (4.5 runs), 5 doubles (4 runs) and 6 singles (3 runs) just about does the trick.

Let’s say Manny’s got a line of .300/.400/.550 in 600 PAs with 90 walks. Substituting those extra outs, HRs, doubles, and singles for the 20 walks makes his line this: .315/.395/.580.

That’s more different than I thought it would be. Notice that OBP actually goes DOWN with protection.

Anyway, sure, if a pitcher is afraid of your protection to the tune of 20 fewer walks, you improve by .020 points of net OPS (counting OBP as twice as important as SLG).

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 14, 2008 7:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

Well said.

by Peter Bendix on Jul 15, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

BJ hasn't lived up to my expectations this year

If Albert Pujols had BJ’s line he would be receiving crap on the internet too. If Gabe Gross had BJ’s line we would saying he is having the greatest year ever.

It’s all about expectations.

by Sveet on Jul 14, 2008 12:49 PM EDT 0 recs

i've come around to this point a bit

Based on BJ’s expectations, his year could be seen as a bit of a disappointment—but because of his high OBP, I think people are being over-disappointed a touch.

On the other hand, if anyone’s advocating a change in center field due to BJ’s lack of performance, they’re absolutely crazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 14, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

There is an argument that can be made that he should be playing rightfield (provided that we had another cf)

In the long run that depends how quickly he learns CF. A lot of his mistakes would be masked, such as not taking charge in the OF. And his strong arm would be maximized.

by matthan on Jul 14, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

Mostly because he is terrible at everything

or so it goes when he is not hitting at his career rates (albeit short career at that)

Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.

by Sandy Kazmir on Jul 14, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

This started off as a reply to skyking below, but yeah

Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.

by Sandy Kazmir on Jul 14, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

Who said that?

Upton doesn’t know how to play CF yet. That is just plain obvious to anyone watching the game. He is still a very good CFer, but he just doesn’t know how to play it at this point. If this stays the same in the future and the Rays are able to acquire or promote a player that has equal OF skill or even less OF skill, but knows how to play CF properly then they should play the new guy at center and Upton in right. That would be the most efficient way to pair the two. Since we do not have such a player at this point then Upton at CF (which he outperforms most other players) is the best possible scenario.

by matthan on Jul 15, 2008 4:38 PM EDT up 0 recs

Not really...

Upton is a 23 year old learning to play CF. You seem to ignore that fact. I’d rather have a work in progress who is still above average than a finished product who is equally good or worse.

Every defensive metric says Upton is above average even with his mistakes. His range is that good.

by tallyray on Jul 15, 2008 6:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'm not ignoring anything

I’m just pointing out the obvious. There are no sure things so what is the harm in talking about possible but not likely scenarios?

by matthan on Jul 20, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

Would you feel the same way if Upton was just as effective in center field, but was not naturally talented and had already maxed out his skills?

Because there’s really no reason to worry about the real version of Upton if you wouldn’t worry about that hypothetical version of Upton.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 15, 2008 8:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

To be fair, after seeing Upton and his natural ability never fully translate at SS… then 3B… then 2B.. worry and skepticism about Upton’s defense has been a constant for most Rays fans for many years now.

Longlorious.
Free Kila Kaaihue!

by RATW on Jul 16, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up 0 recs

That's somewhat understandable.

From what I understand, though, he didn’t fly in the infield because his weaknesses were magnified at those positions. He’s more physically suited to play the outfield, and he has the athleticism to play CF. Griffey was pretty mediocre his first few years in the majors, and that turned out okay. If it were an issue of Upton not having the skillset to play CF it would be one thing, but I wouldn’t really start to worry for another year or two. Easy for me to say, though, seeing as how the Rays are my “secondary” team.

by acblue on Jul 16, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up 0 recs

He's 23...

It’s not smart to move someone down the defensive spectrum because they haven’t had adequate time to adapt. B.J. Upton has played the CF position for two years and I really doubt someone of his infield ability played OF much growing up. There is absolutely no reason to move Upton unless someone better comes along or he gains 75 pounds and moves like Eric Hinske.

He is an above average centerfielder before having time to improve. That’s damn impressive and speaks well for the future. I guarantee that Gabe Gross, Carl Crawford, or Ruggiano wouldn’t be any better.

by tallyray on Jul 14, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

even with all his room for growth in center field, the stats show him as an above-average fielder in center

why move a plus fielder to a corner spot?

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 14, 2008 3:33 PM EDT 0 recs

Depends who the alternative CF is

Right now we don’t have anything good so BJ should play center. If we got a + CF who really played the position correctly then we could move BJ to right, where he would be the best in teh game. That would improve OF as a whole. But of course we don’t have such an alternative and there is a good chance in the future that BJ learns the position.

by matthan on Jul 15, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up 0 recs

Sophomore Jynx

It seems every player in their 2nd season has high expectations only to falter. BJ is no different. Here’s what I noticed about Upton offensively. BJ is looking for a certain pitch every AB. He’s staying inside the ball very well. The one problem Upton has when he doesn’t get his pitch he’s in a mental funk and takes the pitch. Hence he strikes out excessively.

What’s worse for Upton is he’s waiting too long on the pitch and it’s just undressing him. When BJ gets his arms out in front of him he hits the ball hard and with power. Every time Upton starts waiting on a certain pitch it looks as if he’s almost hitting the ball while it’s behind him, he gets into his funk.

BJ needs to come out aggressive and swing for the fences. He needs to loosen up on the ball and extend his long arms. Most of all BJ needs to hit the ball in the correct hitting zone rather than waiting for the ball to get too far back in the zone.

Any hitting coach should realize this with Upton who’s been in his waiting on the ball slump since early June. Once BJ breaks out the Rays will start hitting as a team. Your best hitter is suppose to hit in the 3 hole, as of now BJ aint that.

Peace!

BTW, Was Hamilton F’n amazing or what? I had goosebumps!

by John 63 on Jul 14, 2008 10:31 PM EDT 0 recs