The Official JJ Hardy PA update thread

[wildcard]

What is the truth about Hardy's defense?

Fangraphs UZR has him crashing from an 11.2 UZR in 2016 to a -.5 in 2017.

MLB has his  Range Factor increasing from 4.05 in 2016 to 4.23 in 2017.

So what is the truth?  Is he still doing well defensively or is he crashing?

[TINSTAAPP]

3 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

If we don't bring back JJ, the question is how do we replace him. From what I have seen, Manny is a much better 3B than SS. Even if Manny slides over, we have nobody to play 3B. I kind of like the idea to keep him to 598 ABs this year, pay the $2M, then bring him back on a cheap 1 year deal. But it is quite possible that Buck will do JJ a solid and make sure the option vests.

There are plenty of 3B options (Escobar, Frazier, Kang, Plouffe) who will hit the market next year. Now all of those players come with some warts whether it's on offense or defense or off the field issues but it's a virtual certainty that they are going to get better production from those players than what Hardy has been giving the Orioles this year. 

[TINSTAAPP]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

What is the truth about Hardy's defense?

Fangraphs UZR has him crashing from an 11.2 UZR in 2016 to a -.5 in 2017.

MLB has his  Range Factor increasing from 4.05 in 2016 to 4.23 in 2017.

So what is the truth?  Is he still doing well defensively or is he crashing?

Does it really matter? His bat is so bad that he's going to be a replacement-level player no matter how good his glove is. 

[wildcard]

3 minutes ago, TINSTAAPP said:

Does it really matter? His bat is so bad that he's going to be a replacement-level player no matter how good his glove is. 

It could matter big time.  The O's may have to replace Manny and Hardy next year.  The that is a huge task.   If they can have Hardy as a defense only SS at say 4M or less that would help.   If Hardy's defense is crashing then the alternative goes away.

[Frobby]

16 minutes ago, wildcard said:

What is the truth about Hardy's defense?

Fangraphs UZR has him crashing from an 11.2 UZR in 2016 to a -.5 in 2017.

MLB has his  Range Factor increasing from 4.05 in 2016 to 4.23 in 2017.

So what is the truth?  Is he still doing well defensively or is he crashing?

First of all, range factor is an almost worthless statistic.   All it does is track chances per game, and that's heavily influenced by whether pitchers are right or left-handed, are ground ball or fly ball or strikeout oriented, whether the ballpark has a lot of foul territory, and other factors.   

That said, BB-ref gives you dWAR (+0.4, roughly on pace with last year), Rtot/yr (+11, down from last year's +19 but slightly above his career average) and Rdrs/yr (+3, down from +7 last year and +8 career average).    I think where the consensus comes out is still slightly above average, but not as good as last year.    One caveat -- he was in negative territory the first few weeks and has climbed up since then.    

If he continues to hit as poorly as he has so far, he's not sufficiently stellar with the glove to keep him.   See Ceasar Izturis, 2010.   We are more attached to Hardy, but it's the same situation.   

[wildcard]

26 minutes ago, Frobby said:

First of all, range factor is an almost worthless statistic.   All it does is track chances per game, and that's heavily influenced by whether pitchers are right or left-handed, are ground ball or fly ball or strikeout oriented, whether the ballpark has a lot of foul territory, and other factors.   

That said, BB-ref gives you dWAR (+0.4, roughly on pace with last year), Rtot/yr (+11, down from last year's +19 but slightly above his career average) and Rdrs/yr (+3, down from +7 last year and +8 career average).    I think where the consensus comes out is still slightly above average, but not as good as last year.    One caveat -- he was in negative territory the first few weeks and has climbed up since then.    

If he continues to hit as poorly as he has so far, he's not sufficiently stellar with the glove to keep him.   See Ceasar Izturis, 2010.   We are more attached to Hardy, but it's the same situation.   

Thanks.

So if Hardy is still above average defensively he could still have a place on the team.  Lets say the O's add a young SS.  Someone that is not proven but has potential.  Then Hardy is a good complement to that player.    With Davis, Schoop, Jones , Trumbo, Mancini, and maybe Castillo and Smith back plus keeping Hardy in some capacity it would be like keeping the team together.  

Not saying that is what the O's should do, just saying that losing a superb defender like Manny and an  above average defender like Hardy is a big blow.  Keeping Hardy on the team lessens the blow.   Its important to understand whether Hardy is maintaining his defensive skills.   Of course, Hardy's salary would have to drop accordingly.

My eye test was not agreeing with Fangraphs and does agree with what you are saying about Hardy.  I appreciate the input.

[Aristotelian]

2 hours ago, weams said:

I think that is why we got Tejada. 

Tejada is insurance to replace Flaherty. He is the backup to the backup.

[webbrick2010]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Ok, you may be taking too much satisfaction out of your dislike for Hardy and his contract, but this is funny.

I really don't dislike any player, except maybe Ortiz. I have enjoyed and respected Hardy in his good years. It's the contract and only the contract that I dislike

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:

I really don't dislike any player, except maybe Ortiz. I have enjoyed and respected Hardy in his good years. It's the contract and only the contract that I dislike

I liked his previous contract, a lot. This one hasn't worked out too well, though Hardy did earn his salary in 2016.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I liked his previous contract, a lot. This one hasn't worked out too well, though Hardy did earn his salary in 2016.

His first contract made sense.

The second one not at all.

It was obvious at the time they would have been better off tagging him and getting the pick.

At the time I was surprised they repeated the Roberts mistake again that quickly.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

His first contract made sense.

The second one not at all.

It was obvious at the time they would have been better off tagging him and getting the pick.

At the time I was surprised they repeated the Roberts mistake again that quickly.

I disagree that it didn't make sense at all.     It was a close call.    Hardy has declined more quickly than hoped.   He was a 3+ WAR player in 2014 and the whole time he'd been here, so it wasn't that unreasonable to expect he'd produce the 5-6 WAR necessary to justify his contract.     I know that various posters opposed the extension, and it now appears those posters were correct, but I don't think you can say it made no sense at all. 

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I disagree that it didn't make sense at all.     It was a close call.    Hardy has declined more quickly than hoped.   He was a 3+ WAR player in 2014 and the whole time he'd been here, so it wasn't that unreasonable to expect he'd produce the 5-6 WAR necessary to justify his contract.     I know that various posters opposed the extension, and it now appears those posters were correct, but I don't think you can say it made no sense at all. 

The goal shouldn't be hoping that the guys you sign justify their contracts.

You let the over 30 middle infielder walk and you take the pick with a smile.

His OPS+ the three years before the extension: 81,99,90.  You are asking that his glove not slide at all from his age 32-34 seasons.  You are asking a guy with a history of injury issues to stay healthy for his age 32-34 seasons.

It is not as if the O's didn't have a replacement short stop on the roster.

[Frobby]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The goal shouldn't be hoping that the guys you sign justify their contracts.

You let the over 30 middle infielder walk and you take the pick with a smile.

His OPS+ the three years before the extension: 81,99,90.  You are asking that his glove not slide at all from his age 32-34 seasons.  You are asking a guy with a history of injury issues to stay healthy for his age 32-34 seasons.

It is not as if the O's didn't have a replacement short stop on the roster.

I'm not going to relitigate this.  The contract hasn't worked out well.   In my opinion, that wasn't a foregone conclusion.  I hope the rest of the year goes better for Hardy so we can feel better about the deal. 

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I'm not going to relitigate this.  The contract hasn't worked out well.   In my opinion, that wasn't a foregone conclusion.  I hope the rest of the year goes better for Hardy so we can feel better about the deal. 

Maybe he'll get on a hot streak, Buck will ride the hot hand and his option will vest!

[BobDylanBundy]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

You let the over 30 middle infielder walk and you take the pick with a smile.

Bingo. Middle infielders, particularly power-hitting shortstops, do not age well. Hardy has already beaten the odds by making it this far. The physical deterioration we've seen should come as no surprise to anyone. I really do believe there's a good chance he just retires and takes a prominent coaching position with us rather than trying to drag out one more season with a non-contender or as a backup.

This is also one of the main reasons that if, by some miracle, we manage to sign Machado then I hope it is as a 3B. There might be more early value at shortstop, but you're probably getting much greater production for the life of an 8-10 year contract from 3B.