The Value of Kyle Schwarber

Ten days from the trade deadline, we usually spend most of our time talking about whatever star player is eligible for free agency at years end, and is on a non-contending team looking to upgrade for the future. David Price, Johnny Cueto, and Yoenis Cespedes last year, for instance. This year, though, that guy doesn’t exist; the big pending free agents on rebuilding teams are guys like Rich Hill and Jay Bruce. And because of the dearth of quality players likely to change teams over the next week and a half, the guy who is generating the most conversation leading up to the deadline is… Kyle Schwarber?

Yes, at this point, the hot name that everyone wants to talk about is an injured 23-year-old catcher/outfielder who won’t be healthy enough to play again until next year. Despite the Cubs best efforts to tamp down rumors, leaks out of New York keep suggesting that Schwarber is the guy the Yankees covet, and given the Cubs well-known interest in Andrew Miller, there appears to be mutual interest in players from both sides, with a stand-off emerging over whether the Cubs should surrender Schwarber in a deal for the game’s best left-handed reliever.

The Cubs continue to insist they aren’t going to do it, seeing the move as shortsighted, giving up too much long-term value for a short-term boost. Their Wednesday night acquisition of Mike Montgomery gives them a quality lefty to stick in their bullpen, and relieves some of the pressure to pay the going price for Miller, though, of course, I’m sure they’d still love to have him. But it seems they’d like to acquire him while retaining Schwarber, preferring to have both on next year’s roster as they make perhaps their final run with Jake Arrieta at the front of their rotation.

But if the Yankees hold fast, and say it’s Schwarber-or-nothing, are the Cubs wisely protecting their future, or passing up an opportunity to increase the odds of bringing Cubs fans their first World Series title since 1908? Well, it all depends on what you think Kyle Schwarber is going to turn into.

Most of the discussion surrounding Schwarber’s value has been tied to his defensive value, or lack thereof. A fringy catcher, the Cubs appeared to settle on him as a left fielder, believing he was athletic enough to be a reasonable defender out there, even if he wasn’t ever going to be an asset in the field. Those who were optimistic about his defense out there saw a potentially average glove, and if he was an average defensive left fielder, he’d be a valuable player indeed, given his offensive skills.

But from my perspective, the conversation about Schwarber’s defensive questions have perhaps overshadowed the fact that we shouldn’t be entirely certain that Schwarber is going to be a great hitter.

Schwarber was certainly impressive in his debut last year, running a 131 wRC+ in the regular season, then mashing his way to a 249 wRC+ in the postseason. Putting the two together — since there’s no reason to ignore his postseason performance — Schwarber put up a 143 wRC+ during his rookie year. For reference, Kris Bryant has a 139 wRC+ during his time in the big leagues (postseason included), so yeah, it’s easy to see why Schwarber got the entire city excited about what he could do at the plate.

But when we look under the hood a little bit, I think there are reasons to believe that Schwarber will have a tough time repeating his 2015 success at the plate over a larger sample.

For instance, I think his contact rate presents a legitimate area that will require improvement if Schwarber is going to become the kind of hitter the Cubs are hoping he will be. Last year, Schwarber made contact on just 67% of his swings, and perhaps more importantly, only 75% of his swings on pitches in the strike zone. It’s perfectly normal for a young hitter to chase pitches out of the zone early in their career, then learn the strike zone and make adjustments as they get older, so low out-of-zone contact rates aren’t as concerning, but swinging and missing at pitches in the zone is a more challenging correction.

Dating back to 2008, there have been 620 player-seasons in which an age-25-or-younger hitter has come to the plate at least 250 times. Of those 620 player-seasons, Schwarber’s 2015 in-zone contact rate ranked 614th, so this wasn’t just your run-of-the-mill low-contact rate for a young power hitter. The only players who had posted lower in-zone contact rates during a season? George Springer, Mark Reynolds, Chris Davis, Jon Singleton, and Oswaldo Arcia. Chris Carter was a few tenths of a percentage point ahead of Schwarber, and Justin Upton wasn’t far off either, but if you keep going up the list, you see Mike Olt, Mike Zunino, Joc Pederson, Junior Lake, Wladimir Balentien, and Michael Taylor.

These are the kinds of young hitters that struggled to make contact on pitches in the zone at a similar rate to Schwarber. And if you look at how they developed after putting up those marks, it’s not necessarily a super encouraging group.

Low Contact Hitters
Player Low Z-Contact% Career Z-Contact% Career wRC+
George Springer 70% 76% 126
Mark Reynolds 70% 74% 103
Chris Davis 72% 78% 121
Jon Singleton 72% 72% 79
Oswaldo Arcia 73% 75% 100
Chris Carter 75% 76% 111
Justin Upton 76% 81% 120
Mike Olt 76% 74% 60
Mike Zunino 76% 78% 73
Chris Davis 76% 78% 121
Joc Pederson 76% 79% 113
Junior Lake 77% 80% 81
Wladimir Balentien 77% 78% 69
Michael Taylor 77% 78% 71
Matt Joyce 77% 84% 114
Wilin Rosario 77% 83% 94
Jackie Bradley Jr. 78% 82% 93
Kris Bryant 78% 79% 141
Avisail Garcia 78% 83% 87
Elijah Dukes 78% 83% 110

Those are the 20 hitters who posted a Z-Contact% below 78% in a 25-or-younger season since 2008. As you can see, most of them did improve their in-zone contact rates, with George Springer, Chris Davis, and Justin Upton making the biggest leaps forward, each getting their career Z-Contact% up five or six percentage points over their lowest single-season mark. The overall average was a three percentage-point improvement, we should expect Schwarber to make more contact as he develops.

But also note that, of the 20 hitters on that list, there’s exactly one guy who might be considered a great hitter: Kris Bryant. Davis and Upton have had a couple of great seasons at the plate, but overall, they’ve been more good hitters than great hitters. Starting from a base this low in terms of in-zone contact rate means that Schwarber probably can’t be expected to become more than an average hitter for contact, even with future development, and that puts a lot of pressure on his contacted balls to produce value to make up for all the swings and misses.

Now, it’s easy to just look at Bryant and say “hey, we’ll take a left-handed Bryant, no problem.” And certainly, if Schwarber could do anything close to what Bryant can do at the plate, he’d be a franchise cornerstone, even with the defensive question marks. But there’s one pretty big difference between Schwarber and Bryant: handedness.

Schwarber is a left-handed hitter, which means teams can and will aggressively align their defenses to combat his pull tendencies. As a lefty who pulled 47% of his balls in play as a rookie, Schwarber was an obvious shift candidate, and as such, he saw three defenders on the right side of the bag in 62% of his plate appearances last year. Bryant is also a bit of a pull hitter (though less extreme than Schwarber, at 44% for his career), but as a right-hander, he’s simply more difficult to defend, since teams aren’t as willing to put three players on the left side of the infield; Bryant has only hit with the shift on in 36% of his plate appearances.

As such, Bryant has been able to run a .355 BABIP in his first year and change as a big leaguer; it’s one of the primary reasons he’s been such a good hitter even with an above-average strikeout rate. But that is just an unreachable level for Schwarber; left-handed pull-hitters simply don’t run BABIPs that high in this day and age of defensive positioning.

Go look at the normal range of BABIPs for high-pull lefties over the last three years. Even the guys who hit the ball the hardest — guys like Chris Davis, David Ortiz, and Anthony Rizzo — now run BABIPs in the .280 to .290 range. These are the guys the shift is designed to do the most damage to, and Schwarber is going to be part of the group that is most hurt by modern defensive positioning. Not surprisingly, even though he hit the ball very hard last year, Schwarber ran just a .293 BABIP, and we probably shouldn’t expect much of an increase from that.

But, of course, we’re not saying Schwarber’s 2015 BABIP was an unsustainable fluke, and he was a good hitter while getting shifted last year, so who cares? Well, that’s true to an extent. But there is one part of Schwarber’s 2015 batting line that we probably shouldn’t expect to continue, and it was one of the main reasons he was so productive last year; he had an absurdly high percentage of extra base hits clear the fence.

Postseason included, Schwarber hit 21 home runs last year, but only six doubles and one triple, so 75% of his extra base hits were home runs. That’s why Schwarber had a .273 ISO, just a tick shy of Giancarlo Stanton’s career .274 mark. Except no one, not even Stanton, has ever shown that they can turn that rate of well-struck balls into home runs.

Over the last 10 years, in fact, no player has even managed to put up a HR/XBH rate of even 60%. Among qualified hitters, the highest percentage of extra base hits to go for home runs from 2007-2016 belongs to Adam Dunn, at 59%. Jim Thome comes in at 58%, then you have Russell Branyan and Chris Carter at 57%, Jason Giambi at 56%, and Alex Rodriguez at 55%. The modern super-sluggers, Stanton and Davis, are both at 54%. These are the kings of old player skills, the three-true-outcome stars who swing for the moon on every pitch, and they’re all showing that having 60% of your extra base hits go for home runs is a practical limit.

So, realistically, Schwarber isn’t going to keep getting so many of his extra base hits to go over the fence. If you give him a still-top-of-the-slugger-chain 55% HR/XBH rate, then he would distributed his 2015 extra base hits as 12 doubles, one triple, and 15 home runs, instead of 6/1/21. Just that change would have cost him 12 total bases from last year, knocking his slugging percentage down by 50 points, and that’s with an optimistic view of his power output, putting him in the same class as guys like Stanton and Davis.

Stacking up all these potential concerns, and I think it’s reasonable to be a little skeptical of the idea that Schwarber is definitely going to develop into an elite hitter. Left-handed pull hitters with low contact rates need to be monsters when they hit the ball, and Schwarber’s extra base hit profile simply leaned too heavily to the home run side of things to be sustainable long-term. Take away a few of those homers, and now the skillset is starting to look more like Mike Napoli.

There’s definitely nothing wrong with Mike Napoli. He’s had a very nice career, putting up +27 WAR as a slugging C/1B. And his walk, strikeout, and ISO rates look right in line with reasonable projections for Schwarber’s future. As a right-handed hitter, he’s been able to run a .308 career BABIP, which might be a bit higher than we should expect from Schwarber, but something in that 120 to 125 wRC+ looks about right, based on the things he does well and his areas of weakness.

That’s a good hitter. That’s a guy you want in your line-up. But as a guy who still does have questions about his eventual defensive value, and is coming off knee surgery, Schwarber’s upside looks a bit limited to me. Could he start hitting for a lot more contact and hit 40 bombs a year? Sure, anything is possible; Jose Altuve is a slugger now, after all. But should we expect it? I don’t think so, not based on what we know right now. And if he’s a defensively-challenged, good-not-great hitter, he’s probably worth something like +1 to +3 WAR per season, depending on what the defense turns out to be.

Now, that brings us to the inevitable question of his value compared to that of Andrew Miller. After all, we can’t talk about Schwarber’s shortcomings without mentioning that Miller can only face six or seven batters per game before he has to be removed. Given the fickle nature of relief pitching, it’s not like Miller is a franchise player either, and it’s easy to see why the Cubs might not want to give up five years of a potential above-average everyday player for two and a half years of a reliever. After all, if Schwarber is even just an average player, you’re giving up something like +10 WAR in future production, and the Cubs would be lucky if Miller gave them +5 WAR over the next two-and-a-half years.

But we also need to factor in the discount that has to be put on future value compared to present value. Especially for a team like the Cubs, wins today are worth a lot more than wins in 2021, and given that Schwarber has the kind of skillset that gets overpaid in arbitration, he might not actually be much of a value in four or five years anyway.

How much you want to discount future wins is far more art than science, and will be different for every team. For an organization like the Cubs, with a real chance to win the World Series for the first time in 108 years, I think you have to put a pretty significant discount on future wins. So, just for the fun of it, here’s what Schwarber and Miller’s future value to Chicago might look like if we discount future WAR by 20% each year.

Projected and Discounted WAR
Miller Projected WAR Discounted WAR Schwarber Projected WAR Discounted WAR
2016 1.0 1.0 2016
2017 1.5 1.2 2017 2.5 2.0
2018 1.0 0.6 2018 2.5 1.5
2019 2019 2.0 0.8
2020 2020 1.5 0.3
2021 2021 1.5 0.3
Total 2.8 4.6

With a 20% discount rate — which is entirely subjective, of course, so this more for illustration than a precise valuation — a +10 to +3.5 WAR gap in favor of Schwarber during their relative control years shrinks down to a +4.6 to +2.8 WAR gap. It’s still not enough to overcome the long-term value that Schwarber provides, but it’s at least an argument that it’s not insane for the Cubs to consider a deal involving those two, especially if the Yankees sweetened the pot.

Like, say, adding Aroldis Chapman to the deal. Putting Chapman and Miller in the Cubs bullpen, along with Hector Rondon and Pedro Strop, would give the Cubs the best bullpen in baseball, to go along with all the other things they’re the best at. And at that point, the short-term upgrade would be large enough that I think the Cubs would have to at least consider moving Schwarber.

I know the Cubs love his personality and his work ethic, and perhaps he will turn into the kind of franchise cornerstone that justifies keeping him for the future, even if he could bring back a serious upgrade to the team in the short-term. But given the questions I have about his offensive upside, in addition to the real questions about his defensive value, I think I’d at least be engaging the Yankees on a Schwarber-for-Miller-and-Chapman deal. Schwarber looks like a very nice young hitter, but the Cubs have other guys who also look like nice young hitters.

What they don’t have is a World Championship in the last century. Kyle Schwarber can’t help them with that this year. Andrew Miller and Aroldis Chapman could, and from my perspective, the short-term upgrade might be worth the long-term cost.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

204 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
matt
5 years ago

Kyle Schwarber is very good and has elite offensive upside. He’s bad defensively in the OF but not in a Dye/Kemp/Bruce type of way and with more training will get better. He’s unlikely to ever be a top 20 position player but should be firmly in top 50 for years to come while being very affordable. No way would I trade him for Miller.

fredfotch
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

Why such an aggressive response to a sensible opinion (whether or not you agree with it)?

August Fagerstrommember
5 years ago
Reply to  fredfotch

Sensible opinions are typically backed by at least one piece of evidence

fredfotch
5 years ago

It seems like a pretty poor reaction from the author. If the comment didn’t address anything in the article, he should have just stood by the merits of the article. I wouldn’t expect a reasonable opinion to receive a snotty response from the author just because it’s not “backed up by at least one piece of evidence”.

He simply expressed his opinion that Schwarber has elite offensive upside and therefore he wouldn’t make the trade. Yes, he didn’t provide any “evidence” but it’s not like it was a particularly bold statement. Schwarber was picked 4th overall in 2014, ranked as the #19 overall prospect in 2015, and then went on to have a 131 wRC+ as a 22 year old in the MLB over half a season. Yes some of the numbers may not be sustainable, but that’s pretty impressive and he could even improve on those numbers.

If that’s not a profile of a guy with elite offensive upside then I don’t know what is.

Brent Henry
5 years ago

Baseball Prospectus’ year-by-year WAR projections for Kyle Schwarber until he hits free agency:

2017: 4.3
2018: 4.6
2019: 4.4
2020: 4.4
2021: 4.0

Brent Henry
5 years ago
Reply to  Brent Henry

Dave’s created out of thin air personal projection:

2017: 2.5
2018: 2.5
2019: 2.0
2020: 1.5
2021: 1.5

Dave didnt use a formula, he simply projects Schwarber to be worth 1.5 WAR in his age 27 and age 28 seasons, well, because. Baseball Prospectus uses all available major and minor league statistics, not personal narratives and biases.

374285942768
5 years ago
Reply to  Brent Henry

we should whole-heartedly believe that Schwarber, the 22 year old super prospect, has already peaked and is in his career decline. well, because.

374285942768
5 years ago
Reply to  374285942768

fuck he’s actually 23. nvm it’s over.

Fernando
5 years ago
Reply to  fredfotch

Because it’s not a sensible opinion if the person doesn’t even bother to respond to the content of the article. You can disagree with Dave, but simply ignoring his points is the equivalent of plugging your fingers in your ears and going “La, la, la, I”m not listening, la, la, la”.

Luy
5 years ago
Reply to  fredfotch

Did you mean to say conclusory instead of sensible? Or maybe unsubstantiated?
Communicating something calmly doesn’t make it true, well-argued or sensible.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
5 years ago
Reply to  fredfotch

Where do you see the aggression there, exactly?

etweetz
5 years ago
Reply to  fredfotch

Maybe due to the complete speculation and lack of any data-based conclusions…

Dooduh
5 years ago
Reply to  etweetz

Opinions don’t need to be “backed by evidence.” People need to stop being so uptight. In most cases, these things have no “right answer.”

thestatbook
5 years ago
Reply to  Dooduh

Dooduh,

The question isn’t “what movie is the greatest of all time?” (It’s The Jerk, by the way), it’s, how good will Kyle Schwarber be?

The first question is completely immeasurable. That’s solely a matter of opinion (except for The Jerk, that’s a known fact).

The second is somewhat measurable based on statistical trends, history, body type, swing analysis, etc.

For the question on hand, there’s not a “right answer”, unless you can tell the future, but rather a “more likely answer”. And the one that offers statistical analysis is probably more likely than the one that doesn’t.

Johnston
5 years ago
Reply to  Dooduh

Not all opinions are equal. There’s a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed one, between an expert opinion and an amateur opinion, and between a well-reasoned opinion and one off the top of someone’s head. I get paid very well to give expert testimony and offer expert opinions in my field for very good reasons.

Jason Bmember
5 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

“I get paid very well to give expert testimony and offer expert opinions in my field for very good reasons.”

Perhaps, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. SO YOU WILL LISTEN TO EVERY DAMN WORD I HAVE TO SAY.

Johnston
5 years ago
Reply to  Jason B

No, because you’re still an idiot.

Not all opinions are equal. If you think they are, then you know nothing.

BlueinSF
5 years ago
Reply to  fredfotch

It’s because it was the first comment DC saw after spending a lot of time and effort spelling out good arguments backed up by fact and logical reasoning. So after all that work he posts it and the first guy says, “…but Schwarber is good!,” which was the exact armchair opinion Dave was trying to challenge.

I understand the snarkiness…

Mark Davidson
5 years ago
Reply to  fredfotch

Have we not all spent time with Dave in a chat or listened to him speak on a podcast? These writers are people, too, and therefore have personalaties. Dave Cameron’s happens to be a little snarky but I don’t think there’s any ill will behind it at all; he’s just Dave Cameron. There’s no need to get hurt over his comment, no matter how snarky.

BMac
5 years ago
Reply to  fredfotch

Maybe aggressive response but it was just funny.

jjgreen33
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

I really don’t understand the hostility of this response. Are readers not allowed to have an opinion? Are they not permitted to disagree with you? I appreciate that it’s probably frustrating to get a pithy response to your piece, but he didn’t insult you or your work. He just disagreed.

ashlandateam
5 years ago
Reply to  jjgreen33

He didn’t actually interact or respond to the work itself. It’s so unrelated to what Dave wrote that it could have been copied and pasted from any other conversation about Schwarber. So yeah – given that was the very first comment, I’d say a sarcastic response is pretty well warranted. Heck, if nothing else, those may be the only words of the author that the reader in question will actually see, based on how little his comment interacted with the piece.

Bad Hermit
5 years ago
Reply to  ashlandateam

@ashlandateam You’re right that matt’s comment was generic, but it still was a comment about Schwarber on an article about Schwarber. That is more on-topic than several other comments in this thread (including my own about WS-weighting). Also, matt’s comment was more friendly than a couple critical comments below–no personal attack on Cameron or anything (unlike captain obvious, for example).
I know that most of Cameron’s defenders here are fans of his and this site, which is well-deserved, but one of the points of making objective arguments should be that you can refrain from baser forms of argumentation (sarcasm included).
The internet is an ugly place, so you certainly shouldn’t go around attacking those whom merely meekly disagree with you. It’s like entering a mosh pit then punching someone in the gut because their sleeve brushed up against you. (It shouldn’t matter how many annoying Cubs fans sleeves came before it….)
That being said, I think the best case against defending Cameron is that allowing the trolls to get to him inspires articles like the above. Which, whether you agree with his conclusion or not, is a good thing.

ashlandateam
5 years ago
Reply to  Bad Hermit

You know, you’re probably right about all that.

That said – looking from the perspective of someone who just did a ton of work to present an article for public consumption, it has to be frustrating for that work to be essentially ignored in the very first comment. If I was Dave, I’d be frustrated. And I didn’t think his response was all that hostile, but I also understand we all have a different threshold for that sort of thing. I can just see Dave hitting publish and within a minute, the first response is a guy arguing with points he didn’t even make because the guy couldn’t be bothered to read before he commented. That’s gotta be frustrating.

But still. You’re right.

Dooduh
5 years ago
Reply to  jjgreen33

No, generally you’re not allowed to have a contradictory response here… just so ya know.

johnforthegiants
5 years ago
Reply to  jjgreen33

And I also can’t understand the hostility of the readers to Matt’s response (90 minuses??). Even Dave suggested that the Yankees might have to sweeten the pot by adding Chapman and added that even that wouldn’t guarantee the Cubs accepting (‘I think the Cubs would have to at least consider moving Schwarber’). Is it that off-the-wall to say ‘no way’ to a one-on-one trade which even Dave admits might not be accepted even if Chapman is added? Is Miller so valuable that readers are offended by Matt saying he wouldn’t take him for Schwarber?

Stovokormember
5 years ago

Agree. Guy responds to an article about Schwarber with a comment about Schwarber and gets lambasted by the author and downvoted to oblivion for no reason.

No evidence? It’s an internet comment, not a thesis requiring citations. Meanwhile, the downvoters conveniently ignore that the author just made up his own WAR projections based on nothing.

The commenter was nice, too, no personal attacks or anything.

reggiethomaslive
5 years ago
Reply to  jjgreen33

Let me recap.

1) Dave rebuts the common cubs fan view of Schwarber.

2) A cubs fan repeats the same silly viewpoint while ignoring everything Dave wrote.

3) Dave responds, gee I wish had had saved the effort.

4) You break down in tears over the “hostility” of Dave’s comment, and shake your fist at the universe.

Bad Hermit
5 years ago

@reggiethomaslive I indeed don’t think Dave’s comment was commensurate with the offense (it was probably just a final straw, understandable); however, I responded less to Dave’s comment and more to the defense of Dave’s comment.

I would rather comments such as captain obvious’s fallacious comment below attract more ire than matt’s innocuous comment above.

But I don’t think tears have been involved. Trust me, I personally won’t lose sleep over any of this–just an advocate for productive discourse.

KCDaveInLA
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

Clearly what Kyle Schwarber lacks in a healthy HR/XBH rate he more than makes up with ability to inspire internet snippiness.

For what it’s worth, the Cubs can clearly go for it with their surplus of young hitters. If I were the Yanks, I would spend a little more time looking for a better deal.

Psychic... Powerless...
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

Dave, I thought this article was incredibly fascinating and well thought out. Totally enjoyable. Don’t let internet rudeness get you down.

ashlandateam
5 years ago
Reply to  matt

Wait, so is this just your way of saying ‘I didn’t read the article’? Because you literally didn’t address even a single point put forward in the piece you’re commenting on.

Teej
5 years ago
Reply to  matt

I have a hard time assuming that a guy who was already mobility-challenged at 22, then ripped his knee in half, is going to turn into an even average corner outfielder. We’re talking about Schwarber in this story, of course, but that goes for almost any player. Guys who are being talked about as DHs at this age don’t just go and get way better defensively because they train harder. Rare is the MLB player whose defense gets better as he ages.

TheUncool
5 years ago
Reply to  Teej

Honestly, the other related issue not mentioned is Yankees stadium has a huge LF, so Schwarber’s lackluster D w/ surgically repaired knee in that LF will be exascerbated that much more. IF the Yanks do acquire him, I wonder if they wouldn’t try him in RF (w/ that short porch) instead. Since he’s been a catcher, presumably, his arm has a better shot of making him ok in that RF than in that LF.

I guess they could try him in RF at home and LF on the road w/ plenty of time spent at DH… but can he not play any 1B though? Bird isn’t guaranteed to return at 100% and playing as well as he looked last year afterall…

stanmember
5 years ago
Reply to  TheUncool

There’s really no chance the Yanks will play him in LF. He’s would be a 1B/C/RF. In that order.

TheUncool
5 years ago
Reply to  stan

Yeah… although his knee injury on top of already suspect D as catcher probably keeps him from catching at all going forward. The Yanks already have Gary Sanchez anyway… even though his D at catcher may still be suspect… but you can’t play everyone at 1B and DH afterall…

I would think they’d at least play him plenty as DH and try him out in RF at first until his knee proves 100% and his D improves while giving Bird his own comeback shot at 1B…

Momus
5 years ago
Reply to  Teej

This is something that gets ignored by fans a lot. Because there’s this belief that baseball players all peak at 27 (which is also wrong) they apply that to defense and expect that players will get better as they age. But the truth is that players almost universally just get worse at defense – and that means right away, from their first season on. Yes there are outliers as there always are, but overall if you’re projecting the future defense of a player always expect it to get worse.

Johnston
5 years ago
Reply to  Momus

I was just looking at Ozzie Smith’s defensive records the other day, and he peaked defensively at age 27 and then declined.

stanmember
5 years ago
Reply to  Teej

This situation differs because Schwarber has barely played LF in the majors and minors. However, I agree that there was little chance that he’d ever be even average in LF before he hurt his knee and that expectations should be lowered now.

rosen380
5 years ago
Reply to  Teej

FWIW–I Play-Index’ed players with >1500 PA as a DH from ages 23-27, where that accounted for at least 25% of their PA. You get Jim Rice and Albert Belle and Juan Gonzalez and David Ortiz. But you also get Delmon Young and Adam Lind and Dave Nilsson and Randy Bush

rustydudemember
5 years ago
Reply to  matt

“He’s bad defensively in the OF but not in a Dye/Kemp/Bruce type of way”

Dude, were you watching the playoffs last year? He cost the Cubs a lot wandering around out in the OF. Nelson Cruz looked better than Schwarber the year he cost the Rangers a WS title. You, as a fan of the Cubs, do not want Schwarber playing LF.

Tryptamine
5 years ago
Reply to  rustydude

Surely this 4 game sample size is enough for us to know all about his defense.

rustydudemember
5 years ago
Reply to  Tryptamine

The eye test (or scouting) often confirms what we’re seeing in the #’s. He had 300 innings of subpar defense in the regular season, as shown in defensive statistics.

cornflake5000
5 years ago
Reply to  rustydude

He looked bad in the playoffs, but did look better during the regular season. He made some really good plays as well. I’m not saying he’s good, or even average, but how he looked in the playoffs was not totally indicative of his abilities. He’s not a fat, slow guy. He does possess atheltic ability… if course he’s totally not a major league catcher.

kevinob 1908
5 years ago
Reply to  rustydude

I hate hearing people assess Schwarber’s defense based only on the playoffs. I know he didn’t look good in those last two games against the Mets. But if you watched him at all before that, you would know he wasn’t nearly that bad.

I would imagine most people reading this site know that just watching a few at-bats in the playoffs isn’t nearly a large enough sample to judge a hitter. I have no idea why we do it for a player’s defensive ability.

RonnieDobbs
5 years ago
Reply to  kevinob 1908

Have you ever seen a great outfielder look bad? Nor have I. Being a professional and embarrassing yourself really isn’t that easy to do in LF. I will take the eye test and a limited sample any day to evaluate an OF.

Dustinmember
5 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

I know you’re joking, and yet I still cannot help myself. Kevin Pillar flubbing: https://cdn.streamable.com/video/mp4/l27n_1.mp4

Jason Bmember
5 years ago
Reply to  RonnieDobbs

“Have you ever seen a great outfielder look bad? Nor have I.”

It’s true! All great outfielders have 1.000 fielding percentages in perpetuity. LOOK IT UP.

soddingjunkmailmember
5 years ago
Reply to  matt

“He’s bad defensively in the OF but not in a Dye/Kemp/Bruce type of way and with more training will get better.”

What makes you say this?

He is currently not good, and is 235 pounds and now coming off a knee surgery. That doesn’t scream “likely to improve at defense” to me.

Joshuamember
5 years ago

HIs UZR/150 in the OF last year was only -2. I know small sample size, but it isn’t obvious that he is terrible as of now. Also he never played much OF before last year, so that’s why you think he could have some room for improvement.

v2miccamember
5 years ago
Reply to  matt

In what world does a player’s defense “get better with training” following a major knee injury?