FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. 2011 Peter Bourjos = 2010 Brett Gardner = 2009 Nyjer Morgan?

    Comment by Levi — April 26, 2011 @ 5:20 pm

  2. Still nothing is more important in regards to Bourjos, than his position. With him in center and moving career CFs to corner spots has had a noticeable positive affect to Weaver this season. The range the OFs have is as good as i have ever seen. Wells and Hunter might not be worth their price-tag, but they will hit above average, and provide great defense. I might be a homer, but there is a lot to like about this Angels team right now.

    Comment by ppabich — April 26, 2011 @ 5:25 pm

  3. Not really, yet kind of. Bourjos strikes out much more and walks less than Garnder, and he strikes out more and has slightly fewer walks than Nyjer. He has way more power than either of them. Nyjer and Gardner are closer, but Nyjer relies on better contact ability to boost his OBP (at least when he was successful) while Gardner relies on more BB to boost his OBP (at least when he was successful).

    Comment by mymrbig — April 26, 2011 @ 5:26 pm

  4. Just holding the fort till Trout is ready/

    Comment by PJ — April 26, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

  5. “There aren’t actually that many articles about the inadequacies of Bourjos’ offensive abilities, but there are a lot of them.”

    …what?

    Comment by AndyS — April 26, 2011 @ 5:46 pm

  6. I’d much rather have Trout and Bourjos in the outfield than just one of them.

    The Wells deal looks even worse when you realize the log jam he’s created in the outfield. Hunter and Abreu will be around through next year unless they can manage to give one of them away (would have to eat some of their contract).

    Comment by theflash141 — April 26, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

  7. i doubt that. someone else will ride the pine when trout is ready.

    Comment by jaywrong — April 26, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

  8. did you read the first part?

    “If you google “Peter Bourjos” “can’t hit”, you’ll get 3,040 results.”

    It’s hard to skip the first sentence of any article, but you’ve managed to do it, and sound like a nitpicker to boot. Awesome bro.

    Comment by jaywrong — April 26, 2011 @ 5:50 pm

  9. I guess it was more meant in the way of “getting value in ways the MSM doesn’t deem fruitful”. That is, largely through defense while providing marginal offensive “value”. Of course, each player is very different offensively (as you pointed out). Not that Morgan or even Gardner should be used as any predictive measurement on Bourjos, but it’ll be interesting to see if he goes on to put up a 4-5 win year in ’11, how he’ll turn out in ’12.

    Comment by Levi — April 26, 2011 @ 5:50 pm

  10. Not many articles, a lot of inadequacies. (Took me a second read to get it.)

    Comment by Kevin — April 26, 2011 @ 5:52 pm

  11. MIKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE TRRRRRRRRROUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

    Comment by Weznoth — April 26, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

  12. And you still didn’t get it.

    Comment by LL — April 26, 2011 @ 6:08 pm

  13. There aren’t actually 3,040 articles, but there are still many (< 3040) of these articles.

    Comment by Daniel — April 26, 2011 @ 6:11 pm

  14. We get it Dave, you like highlighting players who’s value comes mainly from defense. Bourjos is not a good hitter. He is an all-world defender. I don’t see why you have to argue the former because of the latter.

    Saying he “can’t hit” is not saying “he is not a starting caliber player”.

    I personally don’t have a problem with people saying that a .297 wOBA player “can’t hit.” It’s a subjective/arbitrary term, and I think .297 arguably qualifies. And it has nothing to do with UZR.

    Comment by Jim — April 26, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

  15. Dave nice article I’ve been waiting for something on Bourjos. 2 questions for you: 1) Is Mike Cameron a good comp for Bourjos going forward? 2) Who would you rather have right now, Bourjos or Cameron Maybin?

    Comment by DonCoburleone — April 26, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

  16. either way, it’s a poorly worded sentence

    Comment by exxrox — April 26, 2011 @ 6:47 pm

  17. exxrox, your critique is pretty poor too, so maybe it evens out?

    Comment by jaywrong — April 26, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

  18. what are you talking about?

    Comment by jaywrong — April 26, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

  19. Cameron used to walk quite a bit to go with his strikeouts and decent power.

    Smells more like Rocco Baldelli to me.

    Comment by The Typical Idiot Fan — April 26, 2011 @ 7:00 pm

  20. So THAT’S what totally missing the point of the article sounds like..

    Comment by Ricky — April 26, 2011 @ 7:02 pm

  21. Grammar correction: it should Bourjos’s, not Bourjos’.

    Unless you’re referring to more than one Bourjos, and their collective offensive abilities, that is.

    Comment by Andre — April 26, 2011 @ 7:13 pm

  22. Explain how what I said doesn’t make sense or is unrelated to Dave’s point.

    Comment by Jim — April 26, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

  23. jim, i’m not going to do your work for you. have at it analyzing why you’re comment made me go ‘wtf is this guy smoking.’

    good luck!

    Comment by jaywrong — April 26, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

  24. If you Google Peter Bourjos great defense, you get 116,000 hits. But maybe we’re overestimating his defensive abilities. While in 2010, his UZR/150 was an ungodly 46.3, so far in 2011, he’s only a slightly above average 2.6. In addition, the bulk of his defensive value is due to his arm.

    Now, while there isn’t much difference between gunning down a hitter trying to stretch a single into a double and catching a deep flyball, getting almost all of his defensive value from baserunner kills is typically unsustainable. Scouts rave about his range, however, the defensive metrics in 2011 do not bear this out, and there may be some confirmation bias in that fast players are viewed as having great range.

    In the future, there shouldn’t be many more articles about how well he plays defense. While he can throw, that’s not the same thing.

    Comment by Bob — April 26, 2011 @ 7:35 pm

  25. Both are correct. AFAIK, ” s’s ” is a “super-correct” version (as my English teacher once said) but ” s’ ” is more commonly used.

    Comment by Benjamin — April 26, 2011 @ 7:48 pm

  26. “jim, i’m not going to do your work for you. have at it analyzing why you’re comment made me go ‘wtf is this guy smoking.’

    good luck!”

    Trust me, you don’t want to hear my conclusion.

    Comment by Jim — April 26, 2011 @ 8:01 pm

  27. Probably the stupidest thing written yet. Bourjos’ range is completely unparalleled. Yes he has a good arm, but it’s not other-worldly,, it’s merely among the Top 10. No, it’s his range that IS other-worldly.

    Have you even watched him play or are you too busy looking at what numbers you THINK indicate his defensive range? Even people that absolutely dislike Bourjos and hold a bias against all things Angels admit that Bourjos has greater range than any player in recent memory.

    Comment by Scotty Allen — April 26, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

  28. How likely is it that Trout will join the ranks of Howie Kendrick, Sean Rodriguez, Dallas McPherson, Brandon Wood, and Mathis as Angels prospects who crushed the bal in the minors and didn’t perform anywhere near as well in the ML?

    Comment by delv — April 26, 2011 @ 8:15 pm

  29. Howie is pretty good when healthy. SeanRod is a work in progress, but still a positive ML player in terms of potential and versitility. You have a point with McPherson and Wood, but those are totally different players then Trout. You should research before just name dropping.

    Comment by jaywrong — April 26, 2011 @ 8:30 pm

  30. Bourjos is the best defensive player I have ever seen. He is as good on defense as Rodman was at rebounding. He is dominating.

    No chance in hell Trout takes over CF. There is plenty of room in RF or LF.

    Comment by LionoftheSenate — April 26, 2011 @ 8:34 pm

  31. Dave dug into the kind of hitter Bourjos is, turns out the guy has some pop….more than your typical all glove no hit player. That was the point.

    Comment by LionoftheSenate — April 26, 2011 @ 8:36 pm

  32. Let there be no doubt as to PB’s rannge. He is to range as Deion Sanders was to shut down corner. There is no comp.

    Comment by LionoftheSenate — April 26, 2011 @ 8:39 pm

  33. UZR/150 means nothing with 2-3 weeks of data. I wouldn’t read too much into that — give it a half season to start to stabilize.

    Just watch three or four games with Bourjos in CF, and you’ll see that UZR/150 given a paucity of data is not capturing his defensive value.

    Comment by Turks Teeth — April 26, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

  34. eh? I know how all of those guys are hitting, thanks. The point is not that they’re bad players (which I didn’t claim), but that they have not performed on offense anywhere near the 900-1000 OPS-levels that they did in the offense-inflating minor league park system of the Angels. That was my point. S-Rod’s defense is irrelevant.

    Comment by delv — April 26, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

  35. That’s a bit of an extreme take, bro.

    I have years of copyediting experience, and did a double-take on that sentence too. It parses in multiple ways. You can eventually get the intended meaning, but the fact that several folks got hung up on it says that it’s hard to grok on first approach.

    Comment by Turks Teeth — April 26, 2011 @ 9:18 pm

  36. turks, i’m not trying to drill him, or you. i can say this, i just don’t see the confusion, and i have no copyediting experience. and two people is not several.

    Comment by jaywrong — April 26, 2011 @ 9:59 pm

  37. Jim the point of the article IS that he can hit, what is hard to understand?

    Comment by sean — April 27, 2011 @ 12:51 am

  38. plus three hits tonight, two of which are triples further increasing his ISO

    Comment by sean — April 27, 2011 @ 12:52 am

  39. Which is dumb, because triples are indicative of speed, not power.

    Comment by Anon — April 27, 2011 @ 1:13 am

  40. Make that three.

    Comment by Dave — April 27, 2011 @ 1:23 am

  41. Trout is in a whole different league than those guys…

    Kendrick is a guy who has never walked but had a ridiculous BABIP in the minors because of a steady fastball diet. Those lofty but unrealistic expectations were carried over into his MLB career and he’s had trouble adjusting to off-speed.

    Rodriguez still has a shot to be a decent player but his K rate is ridiculous.

    McPherson and Wood were guys who could crush a fastball but had astronomical K rates throughout minor leagues that just ballooned when they went pro.

    Jeff Mathis has always sucked and always will suck. He never put up an OPS anywhere near .900, minor leagues or otherwise.

    Trout is only 19. He is the #1 prospect in baseball. He has a high walk rate and a good K rate. He is currently playing in a very pitcher-friendly park at AA (0.81 HR) and is hitting .283/.367/.566 with 4 HRs in 15 games.

    There is always a possibility that he may bust, but it seems highly unlikely at this point.

    Comment by theflash141 — April 27, 2011 @ 2:42 am

  42. Anon, tripes are actually indicative of both speed and power.

    Comment by Oprah — April 27, 2011 @ 4:09 am

  43. triples are indicative of speed AND power AND ballpark

    Comment by fredsbank — April 27, 2011 @ 7:52 am

  44. Not one of Bourjos’ doubles has been a stretched out single (Ala Mike Trout in the Futures game). He has a quick bat with a little bit of pop.

    Comment by Adam — April 27, 2011 @ 9:24 am

  45. so do we just not care about small sample size anymore?

    300 at-bats = yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Comment by fjmanuel — April 27, 2011 @ 10:18 am

  46. UZR should be viewed in 3 year samples for maximum benefit. We’re still in April so it means absolutely nothing for this year so far. Scouting is going to be a lot more accurate right now.

    Comment by Jeff — April 27, 2011 @ 10:50 am

  47. 4

    Comment by Telo — April 27, 2011 @ 11:10 am

  48. Different style guides do the possessive-after-sibilant-ending differently. The most common usage: if you pronounce it with a double-s sound, Bourjos’s; if you pronounce it with a single-s sound, Bourjos’. I would do Bourjos’s, but there’s an argument for doing it either way.

    Comment by rickpo — April 27, 2011 @ 11:27 am

  49. In your face snarky Keith Law wanna-be

    Comment by Cloud Computer — April 27, 2011 @ 11:46 am

  50. That was my biggest complaint of the deal. They can absorb the salary, but there’s nowhere for Wells to play once Trout comes up. Is Wells really going to DH?

    I think far too many fans are too willing and eager to bury the Angels. Folks the Angels are a top notch franchise. They have pitching, batting, and defense. They have youth and veterans.

    It is interesting that Bourjos has more pop than the stereotype.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — April 27, 2011 @ 11:50 am

  51. You’ve got to read more than 5 paragrpahs to get to: “Yes, he only has 278 plate appearances in the Majors, but Bourjos showed similar extra base hit ability in the minors as well. “

    Comment by Steve Balboni — April 27, 2011 @ 12:27 pm

  52. Read from a scout that trout projects as a corner outfielder. Bourjos won’t get pushed out if he holds his own

    Comment by Matt — April 28, 2011 @ 1:30 am

  53. Kendrick is crushing the ball this year and was hurt last year by a very low BABIP for his skillset. Also, his low walk/moderate K approach of years past depended on a high AVG and probably suppressed his power.

    Comment by AA — April 28, 2011 @ 4:44 am

  54. A big issue with Wood was that they should have never moved him off SS. He is a plus defender at the position and moving him to 3B decreased his value.

    Comment by AA — April 28, 2011 @ 4:48 am

  55. 1) Baldelli is no comparison defensively.

    2) Bourjos consistently put up solid contact numbers in the minors, which drove his above average OBPs. If he can maintain around a 7% BB rate and a .330-.340 BABIP (both of which were basically average in the minors), it is entirely possible that he puts up a consistent .350-.360 wOBA. That makes him a young Torii Hunter with an even better glove.

    Comment by AA — April 28, 2011 @ 4:55 am

  56. How does Bourjos’ D compare to Guti’s?

    Comment by Bookbook — April 28, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

  57. Wow, nitpicking s’ on an analytical baseball website. please just STFU andre.

    And Telo, you’re an idiot.

    Comment by STFU — April 30, 2011 @ 8:04 pm

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>


Close this window.

3.657 Powered by WordPress