The Role of Jacoby Ellsbury’s Power Going Forward
There’s an interesting comparison to be made between Jacoby Ellsbury and Michael Bourn, which is why I’m beginning this post with a couple paragraphs about Bourn before moving on to the meat. Bourn, you’ll remember, was a free agent just last offseason, and while he didn’t bring star power to the table, it would’ve looked like he did just by WAR alone. The big draw was supposed to be Bourn’s legs. Agent Scott Boras called him “by far the best defensive center fielder in the game.” He could run on the grass, he could run on the dirt, and he was a leadoff hitter who hardly embarrassed himself with the stick. Bourn was to be a fine hitter who really excelled in other areas.
There’s one thing, though, that did and still does get me fascinated. Bourn’s a little guy, and he doesn’t hit for pop. His spray charts convey as much, occasional dinger be damned. You don’t sign Michael Bourn in order for him to drive multiple runners to the plate at a time. But I played around on the ESPN Home Run Tracker, and according to the site, in April 2009, Bourn hit a home run 457 feet. Or, 456 feet, under standard conditions. He’s never come close to reaching that distance otherwise, which is a big reason why that discovery came as such a shock, but the way I took it was that that established a ceiling. Somewhere in there is a hitter capable of hitting a baseball 450 feet, because Bourn had done it before in a game, once. Maybe that’s a stretch, but then it’s a tough homer to fake.
Bourn approached free agency in his age-28 and age-29 seasons. Ellsbury, too, has approached free agency in his age-28 and age-29 seasons. Compare those sets of seasons and the players look remarkably alike.
| Player | Age | PA | ISO | wRC+ | BsR | Def | WAR | WAR/600 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Bourn | 28-29 | 1425 | 0.104 | 104 | 19.8 | 21.6 | 9.9 | 4.2 |
| Jacoby Ellsbury | 28-29 | 959 | 0.118 | 103 | 16.7 | 16.0 | 7.2 | 4.5 |
Identical offensive production, identical baserunning, identical defense. Yielding basically identical value, once you adjust for playing time, which matters since Ellsbury was hurt. Neither player hit for much power over the window. Neither player walked a ton, and both players had higher than average hit rates on balls in play. Both players were extended qualifying offers. Both players have been represented by Boras. Bourn ultimately signed for $48 million and four years. Ellsbury is said to be looking at or for nine figures.
There are certain differences that tip the scales in Ellsbury’s favor. For one, he’s just long had the better reputation, having been a first-round draft pick. Ellsbury has a more classic baseball body than Bourn, and he’s proven that he can get the job done under the Boston spotlight. More tangibly, Ellsbury doesn’t strike out as often as Bourn does, the better contact suggesting a better bat tool. Bourn is seen as a slap hitter; Ellsbury’s just seen as a hitter.
But there’s another thing, maybe the biggest of all things. If I say the words “Mike Trout Season,” you have an idea what I mean. This is how I’m choosing to classify an incredible all-around season, and I’m somewhat arbitrarily setting my cutoff at nine WAR. Basically, a Mike Trout Season is any season in which a position player was worth at least nine wins above replacement. Appropriately, the most recent Mike Trout Season was posted by Mike Trout, in 2013. Before that, we’ve got Mike Trout, in 2012. Before that, we’ve got Jacoby Ellsbury, in 2011. Then you have to go back to Alex Rodriguez in 2007. Then it’s back to Barry Bonds, Scott Rolen, and Adrian Beltre in 2004. Over the course of the last decade, there have been seven Mike Trout Seasons, two from Mike Trout, and one from Jacoby Ellsbury. You’ll notice there have been none from Michael Bourn.
As recently as 2011, Ellsbury was probably the most valuable player in baseball. He was the Mike Trout of that year, and that year was not far back, and Ellsbury is not old. Mike Trout’s performance level is almost inconceivable. Ellsbury just about achieved it. And a big part of that season were his 32 home runs. Over the rest of his regular-season career, he has hit 33 home runs.
What Ellsbury did in 2011 was like a season-long equivalent of Michael Bourn’s one really long homer. It established, for Ellsbury, a performance ceiling, as good as almost anyone else’s on the planet. The way I figure, it’s hard to fake a dinger that goes 450 feet. It’s way harder still to fake being a nine-win player over 158 games and 732 trips to the plate. Ellsbury was everything — he was durable, he hit for average, he hit for power, he ran well, he defended well, he hit at the top of the lineup. There was nothing else for him to do, and there’s no way that version of Ellsbury is completely and utterly dead. At least, that’s what Scott Boras is going to be pushing as an idea too compelling, too juicy to ignore.
It writes itself. Ellsbury was a superstar in 2011. Early in 2012, he injured his shoulder in a freak accident at second base. Those injuries take a while to heal, and Ellsbury might still be getting stronger, a year and a half after the fact. Even below 100%, he helped this year’s Red Sox win a title. Ellsbury hit only nine home runs, but when he woke up on Independence Day, he had one. Over his remaining 55 games, he hit eight, suggesting there could be even more on the way. Suggesting Ellsbury could still get back to something like what he was, when he was amazing.
Ellsbury has hit 32 dingers in a year. He’s hit multiple dingers more than 425 feet, and he’s topped out at an impressive 446. He’s not a slap hitter the way that Bourn is, and it’s easy to see power in his frame, and given his swing. The two years headed into free agency, Ellsbury and Bourn hit for similar amounts of power. But they’re thought of very differently in that regard, and Ellsbury’s ceiling is going to drive up his price presumably to and beyond $100 million. It doesn’t matter if Ellsbury is unlikely to be amazing ever again. What matters is the existence of the possibility, because it just doesn’t work to call Ellsbury’s 2011 a fluke and write it off entirely. It happened, and it was done by this player, on the market. This player has been Mike Trout, and then an accident happened.
The crowd, a year ago, projected Bourn for five years and $70 million. This year, the crowd has Ellsbury at six years and $112 million. Bourn wound up settling for a relative discount, but the Ellsbury numbers seem about right. He has the talent, he has the reputation, and thanks to 2011, he has the established performance ceiling that would rank him with anyone else in the game. Nobody’s going to think that they’re signing Mike Trout. Plenty are going to think that they might be, and those executives won’t be wrong. There’s just no ignoring what a player has done, and there’s definitely no ignoring what Ellsbury did.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
Great article, Jeff, and great perspective on the 2 players. They’re just not viewed all that similarly but, in many respects, they are very similar. The difference is all the homers that Ellsbury hit in 2011. It’ll probably allow him to double or triple Bourn’s haul.
I would also argue that the other thing working against Bourn — or favoring Ellsbury in this comparison — is Carl Crawford’s huge dropoff. In many respects, Bourn and Crawford were/are similar players — again, because of the homers and the fact that they gain much of their value from their legs. Crawford’s 2012, IMO, was viewed as a cautionary tale to those who might have been interested in Bourn.
Can’t wait for Boras to start comparing Ellsbury to Jayson Werth. Wouldn’t be the first time he used one of his old deals as the baseline for comparing his most recent stud free agent.
More likely Carl Crawford. Why he would compare to either is beyond me – neither of those contracts will end up a plus for the teams cutting the checks.
I would also think that the adage of not signing speed after 30 impacted Bourn more then it will Ellsbury, because power doesn’t age like speed does. Certainly that has something to do with it as well.
The adage is just silly. Speed players age better than power players.
I think Ellsbury will be over-compensated for his true value. I’d rather see the Mariners spend that money on Tanaka.
I’m tempted to think that Ellsbury’s 2011 is the equivalent of Mauer’s 2009, but there’s really no way to know right now. I watched almost every Red Sox game in 2011 though, and I can say that his power certainly LOOKED real.
The Mauer comparison is interesting. Mauer got signed given his ceiling, and I’m not sure the Twins are thrilled with the decision, even if he, like Ellsbury, is still a solid hitter without the big power numbers.
It’s surprising to me that in 2011 Ellsbury had 2.5 BsR even though he had a terrible 61% stolen base percentage.
72% not 61%
Ellsbury is very, very strong; the question is whether or not his shoulder will recover. Some injuries (Johhny Damon’s, for example) are permanent – but Ellsbury’s second-half power was a good sign. There are two ways Ellsbury can justify a big long-term deal: he can forgo power and keep running (like Lou Brock), or he can slow down and hit for power. Neither is close to a sure thing, but the combined possibilities add up to considerable (if still speculative) value.
Probably a combo, run now and slug later. Also, the Ms don’t have much behind him and I can see him moving down the order
Doesn’t Josh Hamilton’s contract set the market? Ellsbury doesn’t have the power, but he does have the peak value. And he was better in the year leading into free agency.
Not really.
The risk with Hamilton was that he falls off the wagon and is out of baseball.
The risk with Ellsbury is he keeps getting hurt, and you end up with a 4 win player who is only available 80 games a year.
The ceiling and floor are both higher with Ellsbury.
Ellsbury would be incredible in Yankee stadium if his HR power comes back completely, and as the article mentioned, it did come back in the 2nd half although his other numbers slumped.
Yankees in cheap mode so that won’t happen.
Safeco’s RF porch is not that dissimilar to YS(II or III). Climate is a bit different, of course.
He would be incredible in ANY park if his power came back completely.
I still think the fan projection is more than he should get when you look at all of the factors involved. The Jose Reyes contract should be his ceiling if you think he can stay healthy and are willing to go 6 years on Ellsbury (the Pence contract probably ends up helping Ellsbury on the market). I just dont feel as confident in the power or sustaining the skill set past the age 32 season for Ellsbury, assuming he does remain healthy. $18 million AAV over 6 years should be enough to sign him IMO. Obviously, his healthy numbers suggest that he is worth more than that, but like I said, I’m not too confident in sustainability. Maybe I just hate the idea of buying wins in free agency and the fact that you always have to overpay….
…Maybe its the fact that I’m a Red Sox fan and dont like the idea of committing that long term (thats probably what it is)
there seriously needs to be an Edit function on these posts lol…that should read that I could see a decline around the age 32-33 season, assuming he remained healthy
Ellsbury’s 2011 season was no fluke, but he will never be healthy enough again to repeat it. I don’t think it is shoulder issues only, but wrist also off and on.
Ellsbury is injury prone, period. His accidents are not freak accidents, they are accidents. Players who start 150 games and up year after year don’t get into less accidents; they are simply not so prone to being injured in them. If Ellsbury were taking the shots a middle infielder routinely does he’d make Jed Lowrie look like Cal Ripken. Whoever signs him for six years and big bucks is a team going nowhere.
Yankee Stadium actually makes a lot of sense for him. He should throw himself at their mercy and have a better end result.
“Yielding basically identical value, once you adjust for playing time, which matters since Ellsbury was hurt. ”
See, you’re looking at this as just “Ellsbury was hurt, so his numbers are smaller, and hes a risk to get hurt again moving forward,” which is a completely reasonable approach, the problem is you’re ignoring the other side of this:
Ellsbury was just as good as Bourne, while playing hurt, which means that a healthy Ellsbury is probably a MUCH better player than a healthy Bourne. IE, Ellsbury’s floor is probably Bourne.
No, the other side of this is that Ellsbury is going to be hurt more going forward, not less.
Thats a possibility.
But it’s also possible that he doesn’t, and if he doesn’t, hes a much better player than Bourne.
Here is my comp for Ellsbury … Darin Erstad.
Erstad was coming out of college and was the 1st overall pick. Ellsbury was coming out of college was picked 23rd. Ellsbury took just 2 years to make it to the bigs while Erstad joined the club following the draft. Both guys were incredible all around athletes with similar frames and body types. Good strength (but not power hitters) and great speed. Both were slotted to play CF and expected to be plus defenders. Both played with abandon in the outfield.
Erstad was a solid but unspectacular contributor his first few years. He posted above average offense as his defense progressed. Ellsbury is also easily described as good but not great leading up to his breakout season.
At age 26 Erstad went on to have one of the greatest seasons ever in Angel history. He posted a wOBA of 408, a wRC+ of 140. He mashed 25 HR’s and stole 28 bases. He was good for +29 in TZR. Add it all up and you get a guy who was worth 8.7 WAR.
For Ellsbury it was his age 27 season. He obliterated career bests in virtually every category.
It’s interesting to note that while Erstad’s 355 BA was certainly higher than one might expect, he was routinely a 300 hitter who had hit double digit HR’s every year since he was called up (and hit 19 just 2 years earlier). It was easy to see that while he had a monster year his improved performance could largely be chalked up to simply getting better as he entered his peak (and experiencing some very good luck). I don’t think that it would have been a reach to suggest at the time that Erstad was a guy who you would pencil in for 4-6 WAR during his peak.
Of course, we know that Erstad never did come close to his age 26 season. Injuries, lower BB rates, more K’s, and a complete lack of power conspired against him. Erstad’s career trajectory crashed following his big year. It will be interesting to see what happens to Ellsbury.
Darin Erstad put up that 8+ WAR season, but was never above 3.3 any other year in his career.
Best years:
Erstad: 8.7, 3.3, 2.8, 2.5
Ellsbury: 9.1, 5.8, 4.1, 2.1, and that encompasses the totality of Ellsbury’s full seasons, and the worst season includes a UZR that, at -7, is roughly 20+ runs off from what he’s established as a full time player.
IE, the only way they’re similar is that they both had a big year. Erstad was an average ML’er the rest of his career. Ellsbury has been a borderline allstar the other years.