Hicks for Murphy trade: 14 months later

[S.]

I haven't been watching him play, and I'm not much of a numbers guy so these numbers don't mean squat to me, but I figured some people on here might appreciate some posts I saw on rotoworld (fantasy baseball forum) about Hicks. Thats not to say I agree or disagree with the posts, because I simply don't know, but this information may be interesting to some of you:

 

 

I'm not buying...

His hard hit rate and soft hit rates are horrific -- 24.6% hard,  31.6% soft... you can't get much worse than that... to put that in perspective, in 2016 that would be the 7th worst hard hit rate and worst soft hit rate in the league last year (next highest soft would be 27%). Putrid.

Walk rate and strike out rates look great but he's got a 15% O-Swing, which is probably going up, but the concerning part is he is swinging at all strikes and has terrible contact quality. His Z-Contact is only 81%, again very concerning considering the weak contact profile. He picks the right pitches, swings and misses and makes poor contact quality.

His HR/FB is 30%, insanely high considering how he doesn't hit the ball hard often.

I think he's a complete mirage. Ride the hot streak, but don't expect it to last. If you can find someone willing to give up something of value that's even better, IMO.

 

I'd be careful here - it would be silly to discredit a hitter solely based on their contact stats. It's a factor to consider, but there are plenty of other variables to consider as well.

In any case, as someone who has been watching him play (old-fashioned, I know), I haven't noticed many "cheap" hits - he seems to be squaring up the ball and hitting it somewhere the fielders are not.

To say his current pace is unsustainable goes without saying (he's hitting .357/.471/.671), but I think he's clearly showing significant improvement compared to what he was in the past.

So, I'm not trading a good, reliable, known everyday player for Hicks at this point. But would I trade a mediocre everyday starter for him, or another hot but unknown quantity for him? I'd absolutely consider it.

I don't think his hard / soft hit rates preclude him from being a breakout candidate.

[jimbo92107]

When Aaron Hicks went the Yankees, I was hoping the "Yankees Way" would cure the main problem that seemed to be holding Hicks back, which was mainly self-doubt. The Yankees propagandize their players to be supremely confident, even cocky. They are supposed to comport themselves like champions at all times, stepping up to the plate like they know they're going to hit their chosen pitch 450 feet, and there's nothing their puny opponents can do about it. 

 

If Hick could buy into that uber-alles mentality, he might just blossom into a star. Maybe it's starting to pay off. 

[DaveW]

The guy talking about Z% etc I think is looking a little too hard for some faults in Hicks.

Nobody thinks he is going to keep up a .340 BA and 1.100 OPS, but when you have power (6 HR aren't an accident), have a good eye at the plate (more BB then K) you are going to find success in this league.

I have watched about 20 Hicks at bats live this year (and another 10-15 highlights) he looks very sure of himself at the plate. He looks like the player we always hoped he could have been.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The Yankees as a team sure seem like they are getting their confidence back at the plate.  12th out of 15 in run scoring last year.  25th out of 30 in non-pitcher wRC+.

 

Now, they are first in both measures, and that's with limited contributions from last year's golden boy Sanchez.  Aaron Judge has gone from suspect to star.  Castro, Headley, Gardner, Ellsbury, and Holliday have all had simultaneous veteran bounce-backs.  Romine and Ronald Torreyes have both filled in capably. And then there's Hicks.

 

Chris Carter is their only weak link, and he could be sent packing for Greg Bird any day now.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Hicks will settle back in around 600-650 OPS and be lucky to do it with a BA that cracks .230.  That's who he's been.  That's who he'll always be.  He can't hit.

This will be tough now. You basically described his pre-2017 career marks of .223/.299/.346, .644 OPS

 

If his 2017 playing time continues at the same pace (491 PA), he will need to hit .199/.260/.286 for an OPS of .546 the rest of the season to finish with that line.

 

More likely, if he hit that poorly, his playing time would be cut, of course.  At a 361 PA pace (like last year), he would need to hit .188/.242/.259 for a .500 OPS the rest of the way to finish at his career marks.

 

Needless to say, he's never been THAT bad for THAT long in his career to date.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This will be tough now. You basically described his pre-2017 career marks of .223/.299/.346, .644 OPS

 

If his 2017 playing time continues at the same pace (491 PA), he will need to hit .199/.260/.286 for an OPS of .546 the rest of the season to finish with that line.

 

More likely, if he hit that poorly, his playing time would be cut, of course.  At a 361 PA pace (like last year), he would need to hit .188/.242/.259 for a .500 OPS the rest of the way to finish at his career marks.

 

Needless to say, he's never been THAT bad for THAT long in his career to date.

 

If he spends the rest of the year at 223/299/346 than I'd consider this early part of the season a fluke.    His final line might end inflated by the flukey start, but 1 month of him being a fluke doesn't override 4 months of him reverting back to who he is.

 

Maybe this whole season will be flukey awesome for him.  Maybe he's turned a permanent corner.  I just don't find those likely.

[Loosey]

With his eye he has at the plate I think his long-term results will be a Robbie Grossman with more power and elite defense.  So I would take him on this roster right now.  Imagine the Twins outfield with Buxton, Rosario, Kepler and Hicks.

[TheLeviathan]

 

With his eye he has at the plate I think his long-term results will be a Robbie Grossman with more power and elite defense.  So I would take him on this roster right now.  Imagine the Twins outfield with Buxton, Rosario, Kepler and Hicks.

 

I sometimes wonder how much of it is Hicks' eye and how much of it is that he just doesn't swing and pitchers do him a favor.

 

There are probably some metrics that would verify or eliminate that theory, I just haven't looked them up.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If he spends the rest of the year at 223/299/346 than I'd consider this early part of the season a fluke.    His final line might end inflated by the flukey start, but 1 month of him being a fluke doesn't override 4 months of him reverting back to who he is.

 

Maybe this whole season will be flukey awesome for him.  Maybe he's turned a permanent corner.  I just don't find those likely.

 

If he did that, he could finish around a .762 OPS, which might equate to a 110 wRC+.  (And it would also satisfy the terms of Dave's proposed bet, "better than a .740 OPS" -- maybe your opinions aren't that far apart here?)

 

There's value in being an average overall hitter, even if one is inconsistent.  Especially if one brings some defensive value.

[Loosey]

 

I sometimes wonder how much of it is Hicks' eye and how much of it is that he just doesn't swing and pitchers do him a favor.

 

There are probably some metrics that would verify or eliminate that theory, I just haven't looked them up.

I have no desire to look them up either.  t was just a comparison based on proximity since they both have played outfield for the Twins.

[DaveW]

 

I sometimes wonder how much of it is Hicks' eye and how much of it is that he just doesn't swing and pitchers do him a favor.

 

There are probably some metrics that would verify or eliminate that theory, I just haven't looked them up.

Swings enough to be on pace for near 30 HR!

Also the guy has 3 more walks then strike outs, we can belittle him all we want for not swinging a ton, but hey, it's working. And most importantly: the results are there, and in sports: results are what matter!

[DaveW]

 

If he did that, he could finish around a .762 OPS, which might equate to a 110 wRC+.  (And it would also satisfy the terms of Dave's proposed bet, "better than a .740 OPS" -- maybe your opinions aren't that far apart here?)

 

There's value in being an average overall hitter, even if one is inconsistent.  Especially if one brings some defensive value.

At this point I think Hicks ends up with the following line this year:

.285/.405/.450 and at least a 20/20 guy.

Of course he could end up exceeding that as well. Basically I see the average coming down a bit, walks will stay up, but I have a feeling the strike outs will go up a bit as well thus lowering his BA.

I have an acquaintance who is a scout for the Yankees (the ones who scout the rest of the league), he was convinced at the time of the trade that Hicks was going to find his way, this is a big reason why I loathed the trade at the time (and bet with Glunn on this season)

People laughed when I said Hicks still had all 5 tools. That doesn't look so silly now, does it? I don't see any weak spot in his game thus far in 2017.

 

[DaveW]

 

I have no desire to look them up either.  t was just a comparison based on proximity since they both have played outfield for the Twins.

The biggest difference is that he isn't swinging at pitches outside the strike zone, in fact his eye has gotten better.

Also a lot of the reason why his Z% is somewhat low, is because he finds himself ahead in counts all the time (and thus taking a LOT of pitches)

Again, the eye test is there, I have seen a ton of his at bats, he doesn't look passive at all at the plate, he looks like a guy with a plan. Patient when needed, but he definitely has a plan.

Credit to the Yankees coaching staff and credit to the front office by having some patience with him. Something certainly seems to have clicked for him last year towards the second half, from August 1st til the end of the season he put up a .760 OPS, showed some decent pop (5 HR) and started taking better at bats.

It's not like this season he came out of nowhere, the guy down the stretch clearly was putting it together.

[TheLeviathan]

 

If he did that, he could finish around a .762 OPS, which might equate to a 110 wRC+.  (And it would also satisfy the terms of Dave's proposed bet, "better than a .740 OPS" -- maybe your opinions aren't that far apart here?)

 

There's value in being an average overall hitter, even if one is inconsistent.  Especially if one brings some defensive value.

 

A .600 OPS player for 4 months is not the kind of "inconsistent" I want.

 

Not to mention how one month of brilliance in a sea of .600 OPS doesn't leave me wanting to plan on anything other than the .600 OPS going forward.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I sometimes wonder how much of it is Hicks' eye and how much of it is that he just doesn't swing and pitchers do him a favor.

 

There are probably some metrics that would verify or eliminate that theory, I just haven't looked them up.

 

You mean like Eric Thames or Barry Bonds (and others)? Maybe he's doing what they did/do, and not swinging at pitches he doesn't want to swing at*

 

 

*yes, that is a preposterous comparison, but I'm not talking outcomes, but process.....

 

**note, I said "maybe".

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

A .600 OPS player for 4 months is not the kind of "inconsistent" I want.

FWIW, the hypothetical was actually .646, not .600.

 

Teams generally don't have their choice of what kind of 110 wRC+ centerfielders they want.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You mean like Eric Thames or Barry Bonds (and others)? Maybe he's doing what they did/do, and not swinging at pitches he doesn't want to swing at*

 

 

*yes, that is a preposterous comparison, but I'm not talking outcomes, but process.....

 

I don't know....did you get that sense when he was here?

 

My sense was he was constantly praying to the Baseball Gods he'd never have to take the bat off his shoulder.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

FWIW, the hypothetical was actually .646, not .600.

 

Teams generally don't have their choice of what kind of 110 wRC+ centerfielders they want.

 

Looking only at final results without context seems like not only a silly way to do things, but almost guaranteed to fail.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It's worth noting that shape of Hicks' suckiness has changed over time too.

 

When he first came up in 2013, his big issue was strikeouts.  That continued into 2014, as he also developed an inability to drive the ball his second year.

 

But starting in 2015, he's been pretty solid in the K, BB, and ISO departments.  He won't be a high-BABIP guy going forward, but he's probably not a low-BABIP guy like 2016 either.  I think a league-average bat projection for the next few years is pretty reasonable.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Looking only at final results without context seems like not only a silly way to do things, but almost guaranteed to fail.

I'm not ignoring context.  Just noting that a 100-110 wRC+ centerfielder is a decent value player in MLB.

 

Feel free to ding him for inconsistency, but it's not going to mean he is totally devoid of ability/value.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not ignoring context.  Just noting that a 100-110 wRC+ centerfielder is a decent value player in MLB.

 

Feel free to ding him for inconsistency, but it's not going to mean he is totally devoid of ability/value.

 

Since his prior wRC+ marks are 64, 96, 83 and (hypothetically) four months of the season he spent back in that territory....perhaps calling him a 100-110 wRC+ player is a tad hasty considering it was driven by one month that stands out like a sore thumb.

 

Maybe he continues to have a career full of sore thumbs....but how often do guys like that stick around to continue that?  You're basing your characterization off of a small sample that contrasts heavily with almost 1,000 PAs.  I'm basing mine off the larger sample.  I am more than willing to admit I gave up on him if he turns this month into a sterling career or even a career of sore thumbs, but I'm going to need more than 94 ABs to start radically changing about how I talk about him.

 

He isn't a 110 wRC+ player and I'd argue we're a significant amount of proof away from saying that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Levi, I wasn't saying that Hicks was necessarily a 110 wRC+ player right now.  The 110 figure was based off your own hypothetical of Hicks hitting his pre-2017 career marks the rest of the season.  You seemed to say that you still wouldn't want such a player because of the inconsistency.  I was merely saying I think you are over-valuing the consistency component -- a 110 wRC+ CF would still be plenty valuable, if Hicks can manage it.

 

With Hicks' specific history, maybe that's only a 90-100 projected / "true talent" wRC+, which is not an unreasonable projection after 2015 and again today.  July 2015 stands out less for Hicks now, after April/May 2017.  His first half 2016 was bad, but it was .220 BABIP bad.  I know if anyone could repeat that, it's probably our guy Hicks, but I'm not necessarily going to predict it.  I'll also grudgingly acknowledge a "Yankee mojo" boost that seems to be in effect across their roster this year.

 

Still a lot of baseball left to be played, should be interesting either way.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don't know....did you get that sense when he was here?

 

My sense was he was constantly praying to the Baseball Gods he'd never have to take the bat off his shoulder.

 

It's two years later, I have no idea what his process is now. Players do change.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 You seemed to say that you still wouldn't want such a player because of the inconsistency.  

 

I probably don't want a 110 wRC+ player if he did that in one month before reverting to the 85 wRC+ player for the rest of the season.

 

At the very least, I consider that player the 85 wRC+ player until he shows me it wasn't a fluke.  We are still in fluke territory for quite a while.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I probably don't want a 110 wRC+ player if he did that in one month before reverting to the 85 wRC+ player for the rest of the season.

 

At the very least, I consider that player the 85 wRC+ player until he shows me it wasn't a fluke.  We are still in fluke territory for quite a while.

 

But, you can't always "wait and see" if you have to make decisions about these players.

 

And of course, "want" in this context is relative to other options too.

 

In any case, from a fan perspective, Aaron Hicks has continued to be interesting after leaving the Twins, and should continue to be interesting for the foreseeable future, regardless of performance.

[TheLeviathan]

Except that goes back to my earlier point, I'm not going to buy into a 110 wRC+ player who did that with one fluke month and then the rest of the season returned to being a 85 wRC+ player.  Or, if I am buying, I'm buying at a 85 clip.

 

The next few months make a big difference, if I had to choose right now - I think this is a fluke.  1,000 PAs would indicate it and some of the peripherals aren't encouraging for it to be sustainable either.

 

But time will tell.

[DaveW]

 

I probably don't want a 110 wRC+ player if he did that in one month before reverting to the 85 wRC+ player for the rest of the season.

 

At the very least, I consider that player the 85 wRC+ player until he shows me it wasn't a fluke.  We are still in fluke territory for quite a while.

He was a 110 wRC+ player the last two months of last season as well.
Recent results are what matter Lev.

[Mike Sixel]

btw, I'm still not a believer....but it is an interesting story, and a big reason the NYY are so good this year. And, as I did when he left, I wish him well.

[Mike Sixel]

Dana
1:15 Has Aaron Hicks finally figured it all out?

 

Keith Law
1:15 I want this to be true. It's just too small a sample to say, but boy does it look like he's rewarding my faith in him.

[DaveW]

Dana

1:15 Has Aaron Hicks finally figured it all out?

 

Keith Law

1:15 I want this to be true. It's just too small a sample to say, but boy does it look like he's rewarding my faith in him.

Keith and I, like so often times are before are on the right side of history yet again!