FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. As a Super Two, doesn’t Bruce go to arbitration a year earlier (this year)?
    And he’s only 23 :)

    Comment by Boomer — December 10, 2010 @ 10:04 am

  2. Isn’t Bruce a Super Two? How does that affect this?

    Comment by badenjr — December 10, 2010 @ 10:04 am

  3. Are you sure that Bruce was not eligible for arbitration until after 2011? I had heard it reported that he had JUST made the cutoff as a Super-Two, despite the Reds purposefully delaying his initial call-up until the end of May or very early June of his rookie year.

    I haven’t heard anything on that recently, however, so I’m not sure whether those reports were correct.

    Comment by DevilsAdvocate — December 10, 2010 @ 10:06 am

  4. Yes, Bruce is definitely a super-two. Otherwise, this extension wouldn’t have happened so soon.

    Comment by camisadelgolf — December 10, 2010 @ 10:06 am

  5. I was going off of Cot’s payroll obligations spreadsheet for the Reds (as of last night (which had him going to arbitration after 2011), now it has changed. If Bruce is Super Two, then it makes the deal a reduces the savings for the team a bit, but not enough to significantly change the tenor of the analysis.


    Comment by Matt Klaassen — December 10, 2010 @ 10:08 am

  6. I believe Bruce is a super two and thus eligible for arbitration now, in 2010. That makes the deal even better for the Reds, no?

    Comment by reds fan — December 10, 2010 @ 10:08 am

  7. @boomer: It says in the article that he’ll be 24 before next season starts.

    Comment by Louie — December 10, 2010 @ 10:08 am

  8. I’ll note this in my post.

    Comment by Matt Klaassen — December 10, 2010 @ 10:08 am

  9. I ‘m still confused about the figuring of the “treat it as a 3.2 year contract.” If the first three years of arbitration are valued at 40/60/80, and now accounting for the Super-Two status meaning that the contract buys out 3 years of free agency, doesn’t that mean that the contract should be analyzed as a 4.8-year equivalent ? (3 free agent years +1.8 for the arbitration years.)

    Comment by DevilsAdvocate — December 10, 2010 @ 10:17 am

  10. Strike that, makes makes it an even better deal for the Reds.

    Comment by Matt Klaassen — December 10, 2010 @ 10:24 am

  11. Sorry, in a bit of a rush this morning. Also, I’m just figuring in two free agent years (the guaranteed portion). The original “3.2″ came about when I thought 2011 was a pre-arb year, so that year would have been “free” (i.e., at the league minimum) for the Reds. Ugh. This was clear in my head earlier…

    Comment by Matt Klaassen — December 10, 2010 @ 10:27 am

  12. YOu know, this is actually what I thought when I was drafting this piece. Then for some reason I thought I had gotten it wrong, and changed it. Now I see that what you are saying (what I originally thought) was right. This will teach me to write these things in the middle of the night then revise them while watching a toddler.

    Still thing the general points hold, but his is embarrassing. Thanks for your patient and understanding tone!

    Comment by Matt Klaassen — December 10, 2010 @ 10:33 am

  13. Indeed. I addressed this in my comment above.

    Comment by Matt Klaassen — December 10, 2010 @ 10:56 am

  14. Isn’t Bruce a Super-Two? (jk)

    Comment by Paul — December 10, 2010 @ 11:08 am

  15. I figured you might be rushed, since I hadn’t even seen the NEWS of the contract before I saw your analysis of it! :-) Throw a toddler into the mix and that’s just icing on the cake. Not a problem, just glad to know that I wasn’t nuts.

    Comment by DevilsAdvocate — December 10, 2010 @ 11:30 am

  16. Can someone please explain what the stat MOE-Runs means? Its in the Baseball Perspective article that that’s linked in this article. I know its about a players defensive value but am not sure specifically what it measures.

    Comment by Mike — December 10, 2010 @ 11:33 am

  17. I feel like the offensive projection for Bruce is a little bit low, although I’m not arguing with the methodology of said projection. I just think Bruce is better than .266/.342/.481, especially because he was .281/.353/.493 last year coming off of a wrist injury. There was another FanGraphs piece that illustrated that Bruce was hitting the ball further in the air the further he got away from his injury.

    Obviously, you can’t take a month out of his season, but if you remove Bruce’s dismal July, he had a pretty ridiculous year. If I had to project Bruce -this- year, I’d say .270/.355/.510, which I suppose isn’t a huge difference, but I think he’ll be closer to OPS’ing .900 than .800 if he’s healthy.

    Plus, as someone else pointed out to me, I think we have to assume some progression for Bruce. He’s only 24, and (this is the fan speaking) will likely could peak at .300/.400/.550 or higher with the best RF defense in baseball. I think this is a fantastic deal for the Reds as Jay continues to get better. The only way this ends up “bad” is if he gets hurt or regresses.

    Comment by Jake — December 10, 2010 @ 12:14 pm

  18. Also Bruce is a Super-Two.

    Comment by I Don't Read Other Comments — December 10, 2010 @ 12:54 pm

  19. Understandable points. Note that I’m just using a program to project from the a weighted average of the last three seasons of stats. I do include adjustments for age (so Bruce is still on the ‘upswing” in pretty much everything) and regression to the mean. But we have to include the past seasons and regress to the mean; it’s all about making our esimating “true talent,” which we can’t get a grip on, since a player’s actual performance isn’t identical with it. So I do have Bruce making “progress” in 2011 from what his true talent is estimated at in 2010, it’s just that my projection system doesn’t think he was quite as good (based on the previous two seasons and some regression) as he looked. Maybe he will be, maybe he won’t. I don’t make subjective adjusments to the projections, so who knows.

    Here are some pieces I wrote last year on projections in general and what they can and can’t do that might be more clear than my rambling above:

    Thanks for the comment.

    Comment by Matt Klaassen — December 10, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

  20. I figured something like that was at work in your projection system. Thanks for elaborating!

    Comment by Jake — December 10, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

  21. I heard somewhere Bruce is a Super Two… ;-)
    Question about that: How does the 40/60/80 arb formula adjust for Super Twos (or does it)?

    Comment by seattlecougar — December 10, 2010 @ 4:27 pm

  22. The object of the game is to score MOE runs than your opponent.

    Comment by Not David — December 10, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

  23. This is one of those deals that is win-win. Both the player and the team should be very very happy with this deal.

    Now they just have to lock up Votto…that will likely be far far tougher considering the ridiculously good season he just had.

    Comment by NEPP — December 10, 2010 @ 6:17 pm

  24. There isn’t as much research on Super Two stuff, but from what little I’ve read, it goes 20/40/60/80… in other words, it turns the “1.8″ years rounded off above into the two years I rounded to. So it doesn’t alter the analysis.

    Comment by Matt Klaassen — December 10, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

  25. Joey Votto rocks.

    Jay Bruce is gay.

    Comment by Cornhole — December 11, 2010 @ 6:14 am

  26. Gay people are pretty awesome; it’s true.

    Comment by Reuben — December 11, 2010 @ 11:14 am

  27. Park factors?

    Comment by vivaelpujols — December 12, 2010 @ 3:38 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *

Close this window.

0.181 Powered by WordPress