Bleacher Bums Forum

In Bourn, you know pretty much what you are going to get.  A somewhat above average center fielder (offense and defense combined).  In Jackson, you might have a zero, or you might have a center fielder much much better than Bourn (offense and devense combined).  But I disagree with BR on his assessment of the odds.  I would say that right now, Jackson would be a better than a fringe regular with no improvement with his swing.  And I would assess the odds at about one in three that he will be better than Bourn, however you rate Bourne.

I don't dispute that if Jackson strikes out at a 32% rate, he will not be particularly good.  The question is what are the odds that, with the improved coaching in the new administration, as opposed to almost no coaching under the old administration, he will be able to get his strike out rate down to about 28%.  If he can, his defense, power and on base skills will make him a better player than Bourne.

What are the odds?  I put them at 1 in 3.  You put them substantially lower.  We'll see how it works out.

If he can, his defense, power and on base skills will make him a better player than Bourne.

His defense isn't going to be bettern than Bourn's. IF he get's his K-rate to 28%, his on base skills will be about equal to Bourn's. His power will obviously surpass Bourn's.

No, his defense isn't going to be better than Bourn's.  Which is why I mentioned (offensive and defense combined) in most of my posts.

I think that Jackson has much more power than Bourn, which will make him a much, much better offensive player than Bourn.

All of the above is predicated on Jackson getting his strikeout rate down to about 28%.  If he does, with his OBA will be higher than Bourn's and his power potiential, I believe, will make him a much better offensive player than Bourn, and will not be that much less of a defensive player.

It may be that Jackson's ceiling is that of a AAAA/fringe regular as some have estimated.  I would be a little surprised if such a player would have been rated as the Cubs fifth best prospect if that was the common belief of the scouts and other baseball people that BA surveys.

All of the above is predicated on Jackson getting his strikeout rate down to about 28%.  If he does, with his OBA will be higher than Bourn's

I agree that Jackson has TONS more power than Bourne. He has enough to make it work as a corner OF.

If you crunch the numbers, a 28% k-rate for Jackson translates to about a .350 OBP, which is right about where Bourn sits.

I don't know what numbers to crunch, nor how to crunch them.

Bourn has an OBA of 339 for his career.  In a terrible year, Jackson had an OBA more than one hundred points higher than his BA, and has done close to that every year as a pro.

I agree that Jackson, if he makes it at all, will have enough power to play corner outfield.  But that doesn't mean we want to waste his power on the corners, where power hitters are easier to come by.  Jackson's greatest value, if he makes it at all, is that he supplies good power at a position where most teams lack good power.  I would rather have better than average power in center than average power in left.

Nice discussion.  Agree with br that Jackson can't be K'ing like he did last year and make it.  And as JR suggested, the magnitude of his K-problem and the fact that he's had a K-problem since he left HS suggests that his K- and contact-challenges probably go beyond some tiny mechanical adjustment. 

But I also agree with Dave that mechanical adjustments can be made, and that BA wouldn't still have him as high as #5 if there weren't some scouts who think he's salvageable as a good enough hitter to start.

There is a huge world in between having no K/contact-problem and having the magnitude of problems that he had last year.  With coaching, there's a chance that he can limit the damage, and if so he can become a good starting player.  The 28% K-rate that Dave and tico mentions is still very high, but it's a lot more livable than what he showed last year.  So lets hope. 

I do always wonder, though, if you can have a win-win-win solution, or if there will be a price.  Win-win-win would reduce the K's, but with no reduction in HR-rate or walk-rate.  Perhaps that might be possible, and addressing the drifting or seeing-the-ball problems will benefit HR's and walks while also reducing the K's.   But a lot of times the price of reducing K's is cutting back on the swing which results in less power, or swinging earlier in the count which results in less walks.  So if adjustments that reduce the K-rate to 28% also reduce the walk and HR-rates by 20% each, a 28%-K Jackson won't be OBP'ing at .350 after all.  But hopefully some adjustments will be win-win-win.  Perhaps the HR rate will rise if he's seeing the ball and driving the ball better, and if he becomes able to yank inside fastballs into the RF bleachers. 

Fun to hope. 

Bourn has established himself as basically a .350 OBP guy. Including poor numbers from early in his career doesn't paint an accurate picture of who he is now, and who he has been for the last 4 years.

I've really appreciated this discussion on Bourn, particularly the arguments that tico has made in favor of Bourn.  I still would be very, very surprised if the Cubs sign him and give up a comp pick.  Still, that certainly makes more sense after this discussion.

That said, Bourn only had one OBP significantly below .350 in his early career (.288), and the last 3 years, his OBP has been .341, .349 and .348.  So his .340 career OBP isn't significantly reduced by his early years.  I don't know whether the fact that Bourn's stolen base %age since his trade to Atlanta (76%)  has been considerably lower than in prior seasons is something to be concerned about or not. 

But if the Cubs should somehow sign Michael Bourn, he would certainly constitute an exciting addition.