Brett Jackson

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, stupid pitch recognition.

[Guest]

Certainly more likely than I'd be to take the over on a K rate of 40% over his next 600 PAs. He's not striking out because he's swinging at bad pitches or watching third strikes. His contact rate is just unbelievably low on strikes. So much so that pitchers are responding by laying in more meatballs, and he's punishing the ones he hits.

 

 

I'll take the over on 40% for his next 600 PAs, though as a previous post noted, he may not get that many.

 

He's striking out because he can't hit anything but meatballs. All the pitch recognition in the world won't save that in the long run.

 

lol

[Warpticon]

I wouldn't take the over on 40% K rate for the next 100 PAs. Hell, I wouldn't take the over on his FIRST 100 PAs with the way he's going now.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I wouldn't take the over on 40% K rate for the next 100 PAs. Hell, I wouldn't take the over on his FIRST 100 PAs with the way he's going now.

 

He had six Ks in his last four games going into today. You can have a lot of fun with arbitrary endpoints, but it's not as if the Ks had stopped in his recent hot streak. He was just getting something out of almost every non-K, which is completely sustainable.

[bukie]

I wouldn't take the over on 40% K rate for the next 100 PAs. Hell, I wouldn't take the over on his FIRST 100 PAs with the way he's going now.

 

He had six Ks in his last four games going into today. You can have a lot of fun with arbitrary endpoints, but it's not as if the Ks had stopped in his recent hot streak. He was just getting something out of almost every non-K, which is completely sustainable.

Here we go again, with the "everything amazingly good is unsustainable, but everything amazingly bad is just business as usual" rhetoric.

[Warpticon]

I wouldn't take the over on 40% K rate for the next 100 PAs. Hell, I wouldn't take the over on his FIRST 100 PAs with the way he's going now.

 

He had six Ks in his last four games going into today. You can have a lot of fun with arbitrary endpoints, but it's not as if the Ks had stopped in his recent hot streak. He was just getting something out of almost every non-K, which is completely sustainable.

 

And in those same last four games, he had 16 plate appearances, making his K rate 37.5%, which is still less than 40%. Also, there are roughly 1.6 universes of difference between the K's stopping altogether and a sustained 40% K rate.

 

By the way, Jackson would have to K 4 out of his next 8 plate appearances to end his first 100 PAs at over a 40% K rate.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Warpticon

[Sammy Sofa]

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs21/f/2007/299/2/2/The_Waffler_by_NicholasArdens.jpg

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I wouldn't take the over on 40% K rate for the next 100 PAs. Hell, I wouldn't take the over on his FIRST 100 PAs with the way he's going now.

 

He had six Ks in his last four games going into today. You can have a lot of fun with arbitrary endpoints, but it's not as if the Ks had stopped in his recent hot streak. He was just getting something out of almost every non-K, which is completely sustainable.

Here we go again, with the "everything amazingly good is unsustainable, but everything amazingly bad is just business as usual" rhetoric.

 

So which ones do you disagree with being unsustainable? Do you think Brett Jackson can continue to turn 18% of his balls in play into extra base hits, for example?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs21/f/2007/299/2/2/The_Waffler_by_NicholasArdens.jpg

 

 

Yu Gi Oh is for pre-teens. I demand a Magic: The Gathering card.

[bukie]

So which ones do you disagree with being unsustainable? Do you think Brett Jackson can continue to turn 18% of his balls in play into extra base hits, for example?

 

Logically, if he keeps not swinging at pitches out of the zone, pitchers are going to be forced to give him more hittable pitches. It's at least as likely that those hittable pitches are more frequently turned into extra base hits as it is he continues missing them 42% of the time.

 

Again, though, you miss the point (on purpose?). Nobody's saying that his amazingly good stats will continue as advertised. What people are saying, though, is there's little chance of his would-be-a-MLB-record strikeout rate holding up long-term if he maintains his swing rate and plate discipline.

[Sammy Sofa]

So which ones do you disagree with being unsustainable? Do you think Brett Jackson can continue to turn 18% of his balls in play into extra base hits, for example?

 

Logically, if he keeps not swinging at pitches out of the zone, pitchers are going to be forced to give him more hittable pitches. It's at least as likely that those hittable pitches are more frequently turned into extra base hits as it is he continues missing them 42% of the time.

 

Again, though, you miss the point (on purpose?). Nobody's saying that his amazingly good stats will continue as advertised. What people are saying, though, is there's little chance of his would-be-a-MLB-record strikeout rate holding up long-term if he maintains his swing rate and plate discipline.

 

Stop with the smashing kick of logic.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So which ones do you disagree with being unsustainable? Do you think Brett Jackson can continue to turn 18% of his balls in play into extra base hits, for example?

 

Logically, if he keeps not swinging at pitches out of the zone, pitchers are going to be forced to give him more hittable pitches. It's at least as likely that those hittable pitches are more frequently turned into extra base hits as it is he continues missing them 42% of the time.

 

Again, though, you miss the point (on purpose?). Nobody's saying that his amazingly good stats will continue as advertised. What people are saying, though, is there's little chance of his would-be-a-MLB-record strikeout rate holding up long-term if he maintains his swing rate and plate discipline.

 

 

Why not? He struck out at 35% in Iowa all year. Would a 5 pecentage point jump be that unthinkable?

[Guest]

Days at Iowa Jackson's K-rate was at or above 35%: April 5. He went 2 for 4 with a BB and 2 K's for a 40% K rate, which dropped to 33% the next day. That's it. Only in his last 5 weeks at Iowa(June 24th to be exact) did he slump hard enough for his K rate to reach 33% for the first time since that second day of the season.

[C.C.]

Hang in there Kyle. Vitters and Jackson aren't going to amount to anything but someone off the bench.

[treebird]

cc is a worse corner man than mickey from the lipton brisk rocky commercial held under a magnifying glass on a sunny day

[Tracer Bullet]

That's a long way to go, but you got there and it was worth it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Days at Iowa Jackson's K-rate was at or above 35%: April 5. He went 2 for 4 with a BB and 2 K's for a 40% K rate, which dropped to 33% the next day. That's it. Only in his last 5 weeks at Iowa(June 24th to be exact) did he slump hard enough for his K rate to reach 33% for the first time since that second day of the season.

 

My bad. I should have said 34% instead of 35%.

 

Otherwise, I don't get your fascination with parsing stats this way. He struck out 34% of the time in 467 PAs. That's the sample. Why would the fact that it took a late run to get there matter, statistically?

[Guest]

Because treating Jackson's AAA K rate like a death knell to his career is pretty disingenuous when you consider that his K rate was in line with the remainder of his career(in over 400 AAA PAs) until he had a a crummy 6-8 week stretch.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because treating Jackson's AAA K rate like a death knell to his career is pretty disingenuous when you consider that his K rate was in line with the remainder of his career(in over 400 AAA PAs) until he had a a crummy 6-8 week stretch.

 

I'm not trying to troll you, I honestly don't get this thinking.

 

Did the 6-8 week stretch not count or something? It happened. "K rate was in line with the rest of his career until he had a really bad two months" is technical equivalent of "K rate was not in line with the rest of his career."

 

And even if we take out those weeks, there were concerns *before* that his K-rate might keep him from hitting in the majors. Even at the old rate.

[Guest]

Hang in there Kyle. Vitters and Jackson aren't going to amount to anything but someone off the bench.

 

I don't know if you noticed his location...

[Guest]

Of course it counts, I've said all along that Jackson might never figure it out enough to be a MLB regular. My objection is in the characterization that Jackson crossed some threshold of no return because he was called up in an extended slump instead of before or after. He has too much going for him to minimize the impact of a high K rate to be so dogmatic about his certain failure.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Of course it counts, I've said all along that Jackson might never figure it out enough to be a MLB regular. My objection is in the characterization that Jackson crossed some threshold of no return because he was called up in an extended slump instead of before or after. He has too much going for him to minimize the impact of a high K rate to be so dogmatic about his certain failure.

 

I think there's a difference between having an opinion and being dogmatic. Of course there's a chance Jackson can figure everything out and be the guy we all want him to be. I just don't think it's likely. And I especially don't think the recent surge of optimism I've detected is warranted, because he's clearly got a combined case of Early Season Clevenger Syndrome (lol everything I touch turns into a double) with a mix of Tyler Colvinism (Hey look, I've got okay power but suddenly an insane HR/FB).

 

What I'm objecting to in a broader sense than just Brett Jackson is the implication that stats have an ebb and flow over large samples, so that if there was a recent surge at the end of the sample, you should assume it would have gone down if the sample had gone on a little longer. He struck out X times in Y plate appearances. Unless you can point to a specific change like breaking his wrist or getting hit in the head or something, I'm not sure why being called up "in the middle of a slump" is relevant.

[Guest]

What I'm objecting to in a broader sense than just Brett Jackson is the implication that stats have an ebb and flow over large samples, so that if there was a recent surge at the end of the sample, you should assume it would have gone down if the sample had gone on a little longer. He struck out X times in Y plate appearances. Unless you can point to a specific change like breaking his wrist or getting hit in the head or something, I'm not sure why being called up "in the middle of a slump" is relevant.

 

Actually, I think the opposite needs that burden of proof. We have over 1600 PAs and about 500 at AAA of Jackson being one guy in terms of K-rate(compare to the "K-Rate stabilizes at 50 PAs" commentary on his MLB performance), and then in the most recent surge, that rate jumps 8-10%. So unless there's a compelling reason as to why he's all of a sudden getting figured out after all this time(especially after all that time in one level), I'm definitely more inclined to think of it as a bump in the road than a flaw he'll have extreme difficulty fixing.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What I'm objecting to in a broader sense than just Brett Jackson is the implication that stats have an ebb and flow over large samples, so that if there was a recent surge at the end of the sample, you should assume it would have gone down if the sample had gone on a little longer. He struck out X times in Y plate appearances. Unless you can point to a specific change like breaking his wrist or getting hit in the head or something, I'm not sure why being called up "in the middle of a slump" is relevant.

 

Actually, I think the opposite needs that burden of proof. We have over 1600 PAs and about 500 at AAA of Jackson being one guy in terms of K-rate(compare to the "K-Rate stabilizes at 50 PAs" commentary on his MLB performance), and then in the most recent surge, that rate jumps 8-10%. So unless there's a compelling reason as to why he's all of a sudden getting figured out after all this time(especially after all that time in one level), I'm definitely more inclined to think of it as a bump in the road than a flaw he'll have extreme difficulty fixing.

 

The compelling reason is that he faced a higher level of competition.

 

He was an established 20-25% K-rate guy at AA and lower. The fact that it jumped significantly in AAA and again in the majors points to me to a flaw that more advanced pitching can regularly exploit. In layman's terms, he's a guy who can only hit hangers and take balls, and he's getting exposed by pitchers who can make non-hanging pitches inside the zone consistently.

[C.C.]

Kyle nails it once again. I do have hope in the kid, but the stats can't be ignored.