Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Cubs News & Analysis

    Free Agent Harrison Bader is a Strong Target for Cubs' Outfield Bench Role


    Matthew Trueblood

    Jed Hoyer intends to upgrade the Cubs' bench before spring training begins next month. One of the best ways he could do so would be to sign a former center-field stalwart for the team's chief rivals.

    Image courtesy of © Wendell Cruz-Imagn Images

    Cubs Video

    Now a few years into the peripatetic phase of his career, Harrison Bader had a fine but forgettable 2024 campaign with the New York Mets. In 437 plate appearances, he batted .236/.284/.373, with 12 home runs and 17 stolen bases. That's as underwhelming as it sounds, even if you give him more credit than defensive metrics did last year for his defensive chops in center field.

    The very fact that Bader, 30, can acquit himself in center has to count for something. The Cubs need a strong backup and potential platoon partner for Pete Crow-Armstrong, and Bader still seems able to be that guy. His numbers were disastrous against lefties in 2024, but for his career, he's a .249/.315/.461 hitter against southpaws. He's never really been a platoon guy—the 35% of his plate appearances that came against lefties in 2024 was the highest share of his career—and it's possible that the reason he's still a free agent is a belief and hope that he'll find a full-time job somewhere.

    He won't. Whenever he becomes more amenable to a part-time role, you could see the Cubs pounce, because Bader would be a great fit as the fourth outfielder behind a group that includes two lefty hitters (Crow-Armstrong and Kyle Tucker) and a switch-hitter (Ian Happ) who has generally been much better against righties during his career. Bader also has some upside, yet, and should one of the starters go down for a prolonged period, he could capably handle stepping into a full-time job for a stretch. In such a scenario, the Cubs might prefer to give an extended look to one of Owen Caissie or Kevin Alcántara, but Bader would give them insurance, matchup value, and flexibility, especially in case the need for a replacement comes earlier in the season than they care to promote either of their top outfield prospects.

    Right now, I'm working on a parallel plane, on a piece about the relationship between swing speed, swing acceleration (i.e., how quickly one can get the bat up to that final speed), and swing length, for Baseball Prospectus. In the process, I searched for hitters who showed the ability to generate very high swing speeds with short swings, even a handful of times, in 2024. Bader is one such player. He had five swings with a speed of at least 75 miles per hour and a swing length under 6.5 feet, showing that his bat speed hasn't yet faded in any meaningful way. Happ had the most such swings by a Cub, at seven, and that was in far more playing time than Bader got.

    I also developed a way to estimate the swing acceleration we would expect based on a hitter's swing speed, and Bader was in the top quartile of the league (right next to Seiya Suzuki), with swing acceleration about 25 feet per second per second better than we would have expected based on his swing speed. He needs to make better swing decisions, but one thing I discovered is that good accelerators usually can do that, because their ability to get the bat up to speed faster lets them start a hair later without losing the ability to hit the ball hard. With good coaching, Bader is a candidate to improve substantially at the plate in 2025.

    Investing in the bench makes sense for this team, because they have so much youth in their projected lineup. With Matt Shaw, Miguel Amaya, Michael Busch and Crow-Armstrong set to start most days, the team is embracing some risk that these players' development will prove the wrong kind of non-linear, and a player with a track record and a balanced skill set like Bader's can be especially helpful. It would be just one small move in what still needs to be a series of them, but the team should try to bring in Bader.

    Follow North Side Baseball For Chicago Cubs News & Analysis

    Recent Cubs Articles

    Recent Cubs Videos


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    squally1313

    Posted

    Like, we can do this. Pull up FG, go back to 2014, sort by single season best offensive and defensive performances and then isolate the top one where the other value is neutral.

    On the defensive side, you have 2021 Nicky Lopez, the fifth best defensive season over that stretch who also put up a 104 wRC. 5.5 fWAR.

    On the offensive side, you have 2022 Aaron Judge, second best offensive season over that stretch, defensive value of -0.9. 11.1 fWAR. 

    The relative weight of the contributions are already factored into the overall calculations. 

    • Like 2
    Bertz

    Posted

    I think if you want to say that runs saved =/= runs scored then its incumbent on you to prove that out.  Ditto tossing out park adjustments.

    CubinNY

    Posted (edited)

    23 minutes ago, Bertz said:

    I think if you want to say that runs saved =/= runs scored then its incumbent on you to prove that out.  Ditto tossing out park adjustments.

    The market proves this every day through the contracts they pay. But logic dictates that you cannot win a baseball game (the purpose) if you don't score a run. You cannot prove you've saved a run unless the runner was called out on the play. Therefore, in any case other than that you have to infer a run may have been saved, which is a hypothetical construct and not a real thing. It is only theoretically that one can show a run scored is equal to a run saved, but the math would have to work, and it doesn't because it cannot, because you cannot prove something didn't happen (wich is the basis of our legal system). 

    Edited by CubinNY
    • Haha 2
    CubinNY

    Posted (edited)

    Before anyone wants to get their knickers in a bunch, I am not saying that defense is unimportant.

    It's very important. But there are so many variables that go into it, that it's importance is difficult to quantify. Putting numbers to it doesn't make it better or add value or precision. The metrics are still useful but likely only in the aggregate (comparing one player to another and throughout many seasons). 

    Edited by CubinNY
    squally1313

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

    The market proves this every day through the contracts they pay. But logic dictates that you cannot win a baseball game (the purpose) if you don't score a run. You cannot prove you've saved a run unless the runner was called out on the play. Therefore, in any case other than that you have to infer a run may have been saved, which is a hypothetical construct and not a real thing. It is only theoretically that one can show a run scored is equal to a run saved, but the math would have to work, and it doesn't because it cannot, because you cannot prove something didn't happen (wich is the basis of our legal system). 

    Image of we finally have the understanding, the technology to allow spiders to talk with cats

    CubinNY

    Posted (edited)

    51 minutes ago, Bertz said:

    I think if you want to say that runs saved =/= runs scored then its incumbent on you to prove that out.  Ditto tossing out park adjustments.

    BTW - you are assuming something that is not a fact is a fact. If you think a run saved = a run earned that would need to be proved too. Ditto park adjustments. 

    Edited by CubinNY
    Bertz

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

    BTW - you are assuming something that is not a fact is a fact. If you think a run saved = a run earned that would need to be proved too. Ditto park adjustments. 

    No.  It's the contrarian who the burden of proof falls on.  Especially given your propensity to make horsefeathers up, I'm not going to put effort into proving e.g. the sky isn't purple.

    CubinNY

    Posted (edited)

    2 minutes ago, Bertz said:

    No.  It's the contrarian who the burden of proof falls on.  Especially given your propensity to make horsefeathers up, I'm not going to put effort into proving e.g. the sky isn't purple.

    what have I made up? and you cannot prove the sky isn't anything. 

    Edited by CubinNY
    Bertz

    Posted

    By the way this math has been done ad nauseum.  Here's a Pete Palmer article from 43 years ago that built on three already existing analyses:

    https://sabr.org/journal/article/runs-and-wins/

    Quote

     

    The initial published attempt on this subject was Earnshaw Cook’s Percentage Baseball, in 1964. Examining major-league results from 1950 through 1960 he found winning percentage equal to .484 times runs scored divided by runs allowed. (Example: in 1965 the American League champion Minnesota Twins scored 774 runs and allowed 600; 774 times .484 divided by 600 yields an expected winning percentage of .630. The Twins in fact finished at 102-60, a winning percentage of.624. Had they lost one of the games they won, their percentage would have been .623.) Arnold Soolman, in an unpublished paper which received some media attention, looked at results from 1901 through 1970 and came up with winning percentage equal to .102 times runs scored per game minus .103 times runs allowed per game plus .505. (Using the ’65 Twins, Soolman’s method produces an expected won-lost percentage of.611.) Bill James, in his Baseball Abstract, developed winning percentage equal to runs scored raised to the power x, divided by the sum of runs scored and runs allowed each raised to the power x. Originally, x was equal to two but then better results were obtained when a value of 1.83 was used. James’ original method shows the ’65 Twins at .625, his improved method at .614.)

    My work showed that as a rough rule of thumb, each additional ten runs scored (or ten less runs allowed) produced one extra win, essentially the same as the Soolman study. However, breaking the teams into groups showed that high-scoring teams needed more runs to produce a win. This runs-per-win factor I determined to be equal to ten times the square root of the average number of runs scored per inning by both teams. Thus in normal play, when 4.5 runs per game are scored by each club, the factor comes out equal to ten on the button. (When 4.5 runs are scored by each team scores .5 runs per inning –totally one run, the square root of which is one, times ten.) In any given year, the value is usually in the nine to eleven range. James handled this situation by adjusting his exponent x to be equal to two minus one over the quantity of runs scored plus runs allowed per game minus three. Thus with 4.5 runs per game, x equals two minus one over the quantity nine minus three: two minus one-sixth equals 1.83.

     

     

    • Like 1
    mul21

    Posted

    21 hours ago, CubinNY said:

    BTW - you are assuming something that is not a fact is a fact. If you think a run saved = a run earned that would need to be proved too. Ditto park adjustments. 

    So you're trying to tell me that a guy robbing a home run and thereby "saving" a run isn't the same as a guy hitting a solo homer?  That's some, uh, interesting logic there.

    CubinNY

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, mul21 said:

    So you're trying to tell me that a guy robbing a home run and thereby "saving" a run isn't the same as a guy hitting a solo homer?  That's some, uh, interesting logic there.

    No, you obviously didn't read the discussion. 

    Tryptamine

    Posted

    There are scenarios in which adding a bench guy like Bader makes sense, but given how horrifically awful the bat benches are,  he just doesn't for this team. I'm not sure there's a single current bench player who even sniffs a .700 OPS. 

    CubinNY

    Posted (edited)

    20 hours ago, Bertz said:

    By the way this math has been done ad nauseum.  Here's a Pete Palmer article from 43 years ago that built on three already existing analyses:

    https://sabr.org/journal/article/runs-and-wins/

     

    as a rough rule of thumb,

    But regardless, the "studies" don't differentiate between pitching a defense. Scoring fewer runs is an aggregate of both and not amenable to the precision you ascribe to the most commonly used metric, "defensive runs saved". There is too much noise.

    Edited by CubinNY
    mul21

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

    No, you obviously didn't read the discussion. 

    I read it and you're both wrong and missing the forest for the trees.  Nobody is arguing that teams don't pay more for sexy offensive numbers than they do for great defense and are also conceding that there is absolutely a limit to the amount of value that can be derived from defense.  The argument is that a WAR is a WAR, not whether or not you can achieve the same peak WAR on offense as you can on defense.  A player having the best offensive season in history may be able to put up 10 WAR on offense and the best defensive season in history may be 5 WAR, but those first 5 WAR are equivalent or they wouldn't be statistically valued the same.




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...