Adam Jones - For Real or Overrated?

[hoosiers]

We are seeing good incremental improvement from Jones over last year and there should be better production as he gets to his age 28 season.

Threads like this are an annoying reminder to me of different level-sets between where Adam Jones must prove he is for real and the favorite son status of Nick Markakis. I am glad they are both Orioles, but Adam Jones can play on my team anyday.

[Roll Tide]

From what he's shown thus far I would tend to agree. He's never had that star type of year that would put him into the upper echelon, but there is reason to think he will. He's shown steady improvement throughout his career and clearly has a lot of potential which still hasn't been harnessed. 2012 is a big year for him, and he knows it.

The Markakis contract is a tough starting point because Markakis has shown inexplicable regression since he signed it. They signed a current and future star players who hit .306 with 48 doubles and 20 homers while walking a ton at age 24, but what they got was a nice complementary piece. No reason to think Jones would demand anything more than Markakis given that he hasn't (so far) approached Marakikis' 2008 production.

If his demands were reasonable he would have already signed a extension IMO. Do you really believe McPhail & now DD want him inching toward free agency without a new contract with risk of losing him? And contract talks rumors being almost nonexistent.

[Roll Tide]

We are seeing good incremental improvement from Jones over last year and there should be better production as he gets to his age 28 season.

Threads like this are an annoying reminder to me of different level-sets between where Adam Jones must prove he is for real and the favorite son status of Nick Markakis. I am glad they are both Orioles, but Adam Jones can play on my team anyday.

I personally think Nick has been a big floppo since he signed his contract. He's basically regressed every season since signing that contract. I feel like he's taken off the off seasons. The lost of production is just unbelievable to me.

[Frobby]

I think Johnny is doing a poor job of expressing his argument, by relying on such a small sample. Truth is, Jones over his career has been a better hitter with the bases empty (.779 OPS) than with runners on (.744) or in RISP situations (.734). He's hit much better in low leverage situations (.793) than in high leverage situations (.733). So, he has not been a particularly clutch performer in his career, and his .768 OPS in high leverage situations this year is not particularly impressive, either. If the thesis is that to be a "star" you have to put up good numbers in clutch situations, then I'd agree Jones isn't a "star" yet.

At the same time, if Jones is going to put up a .900+ OPS this year, eventually his OPS in high-leverage situations is likely to rise high enough where the "star" label will be appropriate.

[Lucky Jim]

I think Johnny is doing a poor job of expressing his argument, by relying on such a small sample. Truth is, Jones over his career has been a better hitter with the bases empty (.779 OPS) than with runners on (.744) or in RISP situations (.734). He's hit much better in low leverage situations (.793) than in high leverage situations (.733). So, he has not been a particularly clutch performer in his career, and his .768 OPS in high leverage situations this year is not particularly impressive, either. If the thesis is that to be a "star" you have to put up good numbers in clutch situations, then I'd agree Jones isn't a "star" yet.

At the same time, if Jones is going to put up a .900+ OPS this year, eventually his OPS in high-leverage situations is likely to rise high enough where the "star" label will be appropriate.

That seems like a relatively narrow band of performance to me.

[Roll Tide]

I think Johnny is doing a poor job of expressing his argument, by relying on such a small sample. Truth is, Jones over his career has been a better hitter with the bases empty (.779 OPS) than with runners on (.744) or in RISP situations (.734). He's hit much better in low leverage situations (.793) than in high leverage situations (.733). So, he has not been a particularly clutch performer in his career, and his .768 OPS in high leverage situations this year is not particularly impressive, either. If the thesis is that to be a "star" you have to put up good numbers in clutch situations, then I'd agree Jones isn't a "star" yet.

At the same time, if Jones is going to put up a .900+ OPS this year, eventually his OPS in high-leverage situations is likely to rise high enough where the "star" label will be appropriate.

I really didnt look back past 2011 as far as his comps with bases empty/men on base. I think his numbers in 2011 & present are a much better indicator of what he is than looking back in the past. It would be really hard to have a conversation about what Markakis is by looking at his 2008 stats as a gauge. With Nick 2008 is looking more & more like a career year that cost the O's way more money than he's actually worth.

[Lucky Jim]

I really didnt look back past 2011 as far as his comps with bases empty/men on base. I think his numbers in 2011 & present are a much better indicator of what he is than looking back in the past. It would be really hard to have a conversation about what Markakis is by looking at his 2008 stats as a gauge. With Nick 2008 is looking more & more like a career year that cost the O's way more money than he's actually worth.

This is what I mean re: statistics. Johnny, there are limited occasions when looking at a smaller sample is better. This is not one of them.

[El Gordo]

I think Johnny is doing a poor job of expressing his argument, by relying on such a small sample. Truth is, Jones over his career has been a better hitter with the bases empty (.779 OPS) than with runners on (.744) or in RISP situations (.734). He's hit much better in low leverage situations (.793) than in high leverage situations (.733). So, he has not been a particularly clutch performer in his career, and his .768 OPS in high leverage situations this year is not particularly impressive, either. If the thesis is that to be a "star" you have to put up good numbers in clutch situations, then I'd agree Jones isn't a "star" yet.

At the same time, if Jones is going to put up a .900+ OPS this year, eventually his OPS in high-leverage situations is likely to rise high enough where the "star" label will be appropriate.

These numbers fit nicely with Buck's emotional AB theory.

[Scrat1]

I'm more open to extending Jones now than I have been, but I still think you have to shop him and see what sort of return you get. If someone offers a package similar to what the Astros got for Pence, you absolutely have to pull the trigger. Jones is a very solid player, and I love having him, but a deal like that could set us up for the next half decade.

I don't think Jones is going to sign a deal that makes sense from the Orioles perspective.

[Roll Tide]

This is what I mean re: statistics. Johnny, there are limited occasions when looking at a smaller sample is better. This is not one of them.

Looking at 2011 is not a sample size ...His tract record last year and now is more indicative of what he is than the past few years. He has stopped flailing at the outside curve balls. So looking at the recent history also has its advantages.

@

I don't think Jones is going to sign a deal that makes sense from the Orioles perspective.

This is what I've been saying. I'd still like to see what the Padres, Dodgers, and Giants would offer to bring him home to Cali!

[Lucky Jim]

Looking at 2011 is not a sample size ...[ii]His tract record last year and now is [iii]more indicative of what he is than the past few years. He has stopped flailing at the outside curve balls. [iv]So looking at the recent history also has its advantages.

It very much is a sample size. And a small, unstable one. But you didn't even look at 2011 until mid-way through this thread. You relied on 9 ABs (weeks ago) and then 22 ABs.

[ii] It's a track record.

[iii] Why is it more indicative, exactly? Because...

[iv] ...he's gotten better? That makes nearly no sense.

One quick question: if you think there is some causal explanation, why was he so much better in RISP w/ 2 outs last year than other "clutch" situations? Do you have a plausible explanation that can make the noisy stats cohere?

Jones is not, by any account, a supremely clutch performer (if that exists). But I see re: these criticisms, I see little there there.

[Frobby]

Looking at 2011 is not a sample size ...His tract record last year and now is more indicative of what he is than the past few years. He has stopped flailing at the outside curve balls. So looking at the recent history also has its advantages.

Most players have career "clutch" numbers that are very close to their career "unclutch" numbers, but the discrepancy from one year to the next can be very substantial. So, I think that's a bad time to use a small sample, and a bad way to define who is a "star."

Take Cal for example. He was a "star" from the minute he got on the field. Over his career, he hit slightly better in high leverage situations (.798) than in low leverage (.772). But there were plenty of years where it was the other way around.

[Roll Tide]

It very much is a sample size. And a small, unstable one. But you didn't even look at 2011 until mid-way through this thread. You relied on 9 ABs (weeks ago) and then 22 ABs.

[ii] It's a track record.

[iii] Why is it more indicative, exactly? Because...

[iv] ...he's gotten better? That makes nearly no sense.

Jones is not, by any account, a supremely clutch performer (if that exists). But I see re: these criticisms, I see little there there.

One season is a sample size?? .... Come on Jim you cant believe that. He's more of the player he will be now after maturing than he was a few years ago. He used to swing at outside pitches in the dirt....As late as last season. He isnt currently doing it anywhere nearly as much as he did. Pitch recognition...Patience ...Maturity ....I dont know the reason.

A)

One quick question: if you think there is some causal explanation, why was he so much better in RISP w/ 2 outs last year than other "clutch" situations? Do you have a plausible explanation that can make the noisy stats cohere?

No idea .... But here's a stab .... Got a few hits in that situation early and it ballooned with confidence.

[Lucky Jim]

One season is a sample size?? .... Come on Jim you cant believe that.

Do you know what a sample size is?

[Roll Tide]

Do you know what a sample size is?

A small french fries at MickeyD's