No.

Mike Scioscia's Tragic Illness

By Mike Scioscia's tragic illness | July 10, 2008 at 10:09 PM | In NO | 19 Comments

I wasn't really planning about writing about Matt Kemp twice in a row, but that was before (via mlbtraderumors.com) this article from FanGraph's Dave Cameron popped up, asking: Is Matt Kemp Overrated? I like FanGraphs quite a bit, and they usually do some very interesting work over there, but I've got to question some of his reasoning on this one.

With the trade deadline just a few weeks away and the C.C. Sabathia and Rich Hardenmoves thrusting the spotlight back on the veterans-for-young-players deals, one name comes up time and time again in regards to the Los Angeles Dodgers - Matt Kemp. Loved by some and loathed by others, the divide between those two camps on Kemp’s value is astronomical. So, which polarizing position is closer to the truth? Is Kemp an all-star slugger in the making, or is he simply a guy who coasts by on natural ability and will never live up to his potential?

Is he really "loathed" by people? I'm not even questioning Cameron yet, I just hadn't heard that re: Kemp. I've heard the complaints about his occasional mental mistakes, and the rumors of his poor clubhouse demeanor (although I've always felt that was A) overblown by the media and B) perhaps not even true at all), but "loathed". I think there's people who loathe Juan Pierre, fair or not. Lots of people definitely loathe Andruw Jones right now. I never really thought of Kemp as being in those categories. Either way, Kemp has yet to play a MLB season in which he even gets into 100 games (this year will be the first), so it's pretty early in his career to be making sweeping generalizations.

Most Dodger fans online are firmly in the first camp. Despite not being given regular playing time and having to force his way into the line-up, Kemp hit .342/.373/.521 as a 22-year-old last year, cementing his status as one of the Dodgers best hitters in the ‘07 campaign.

I'd say it's safe to say that here at MSTI, we're in that first camp. You may also remember that not only was that 2007 line impressive, I wrote an entire post on it in fact being historically good for a player of his age. The takehome point on the original Baseball Prospectus article that I referenced there was that just ten right-handed hitters since World War II have hit .320 or better in a season in which they were 22 or younger, and besides for Kemp that list included "four Hall of Famers, three guys who probably would get voted into the Hall of Fame if they retired today, and a guy (Miguel Cabrera) who’s absolutely on a Hall of Fame trajectory." Kemp's batting average was actually second highest on that list behind only Alex Rodriguez, so yes: we back Matt Kemp around here.

However, that .894 OPS was built on a house of cards - a remarkable .417 batting average on balls in play that was in no way repeatable. Even though BABIP for hitters is indeed influenced by skill, and they do have control over whether their balls in play become hits or not, there are still upper and lower bounds on what is actually skill and what is noise. Even the very best BABIP-skill guys post numbers in the .350 to .360 range over significant samples, so it was pretty obvious that Kemp wasn’t going to be able to sustain that performance.

Indeed, his BABIP has fallen to a still-high .380, and thanks to a simultaneous increase in strikeouts, his overall performance has taken a pretty big step back.

I have to admit that I was unaware that his BABIP was so extremely high last year. But then again, I've never really bought into the idea of BABIP as much as some other sabermetric sources have. As Cameron himself says, it's not all luck - it's "indeed influenced by skill". Even in this current season in which Kemp has admittedly not been as good as last year, he's still got a very high BABIP. The fact seems to be that when he hits the ball, he hits it hard and gets on base, to a degree that is higher than average. What happens when he gets his bat on the ball isn't the problem. If there is a problem, it's this:

In fact, Kemp’s contact rate has become a real problem, as he’s now posting a 30.4% K%. Among hitters who have a K% of 30% or higher, he’s the only one who doesn’t walk at least 10% of the time and he has the lowest Isolated Slugging Percentage of the group as well, coming in at .149.

Cameron is completely right, here. Kemp's on pace to strike out 178 times this year, and unless you're Ryan Howard, that's totally unacceptable.

Striking out a lot is okay if you also draw a bunch of walks and hit for power, but Kemp isn’t off-setting the swings and misses with enough positives, and as such, he’s a below average major league hitter right now.

Like I just said, I agree that Kemp is striking out entirely too much, but calling him a below average major league hitter? Really? He's got a 100 OPS+, which by definition makes him exactly an average hitter. And you've got to read into it more than that. He's only 23 years old and focused more on basketball than baseball until he was drafted, so you've got to figure that there's still plenty of room to improve, right? The list of Hall of Famers (not that I'm predicting this for him by any means) who either weren't even in the bigs or struggled mightily at 23 is a long one, I'm sure.

Considering he turns 24 in a few months and doesn’t offer much in the way of defensive value, that’s something of a problem.

Wait, are we saying now that he's... too old to improve? Another way of saying "turns 24 in a few months" (just a week before the end of the season, actually) is "he's 23 right now". That still counts as young. For all the hype over Matt LaPorta last week, he's only a few months younger than Kemp (9/84 for Kemp, 1/85 for LaPorta), and he's spending his age-23 season in AA ball, having yet to taste the majors. Granted, he spent time in college that Kemp did not, but the fact that somehow turning 24 is the end of the road for a player's development is an enormous mistake here. If he was turning 28 in a few months and had made no improvements, then maybe we have something to discuss.

And, "doesn't offer much in the way of defensive value" is a ridiculous statement. I won't argue that Kemp's had his adventures in the outfield. But I would put forth that anyone who's watched more than a few LA games over the last few years would unequivocally state that Kemp has improved immeasurably this year in the field, which points directly back to what I just said - youth and inexperience. He probably won't ever win a Gold Glove, but you cannot tell me that a guy who's made one error while being tied for the MLB lead in assists offers no defensive value. You just can't.

Despite his physique, Kemp’s power remains more of the doubles variety, and his aggressive approach at the plate only works if he makes up for all the bad swings with long drives that fly over the wall. The “he’s young” thing only works for so long, and Kemp is rapidly getting to the point where he needs to produce at the plate, because when he’s a below average hitter, he’s not helping anyone win baseball games.

Again with the age thing. You're right, "the he's young thing" only works for so long. But do you know when it does still work? When he's still young! Like I just said above, he's 23 years old. And again, he's not a below average hitter. As for not helping anyone win baseball games, well, he's 4th on the Dodgers in VORP (and the highest-ranking outfielder), so there's that.

As for saying he has doubles power, I think that's a little unfair. Kemp had only two full minor league seasons, and put up homer tallies of 18 and 27. It's a well-known fact that power is often the last skill to come for a young player at the big league level, and Kemp is already averaging 17 homers per 162 games. That might not be Matt Holliday power, but then again, where was Matt Holliday when he was 23? That's right, down in the AA Texas League hitting only 12 homers. I guess the power was never going to come for him, either?

This isn’t to say the Dodgers should dump him the first chance they get, but if LA does trade Kemp in the next few weeks, beware the narrative that they’re giving up a young star. They’re giving up a guy with potential, but the jury is definitely still out on whether he’s going to fulfill it or not.

Here's the problem. Cameron says that Kemp has potential, which he may or may not fulfill. That much seems obvious. But half the article was about how Kemp can no longer use youth as a crutch. So which is it going to be - that he's still got time to fulfill that potential, or that he's already too old to improve? Look, I don't disagree that Kemp hasn't been as impressive as he was last year, and the strikeout rate is clearly becoming worrisome. However, when I see a guy who's accomplished as much as he has in the majors at such a young age, I have a hard time believing that he won't improve as he gains some much-needed experience. And hey, maybe I'm wrong. But I know I'd really like for him to still be in Dodger blue over the next few years as he figures it out.

- Mike Scioscia's tragic illness

- Mike Scioscia's tragic illness

Discussion

19 Comments on "No."

Posted by Fire Ned Colletti Now, July 10, 2008 11:03 PM

I really don't mean to plug my own stuff, but I covered some of this before here.
-
http://www.firenedcollettinow.com/2008/06/its-two-months-into-season-so-lets-play.html
-
Basically, it's right and wrong. The reason his BABIP is so high is because he hits a really high amount of line drives, he hits a lot of groundballs, and he's really fast. Much like Ichiro, his BABIP is bound to be much higher than the league average.
-
This is all besides the glaring fact that Kemp's LD% is 25.8%. A player's expected BABIP is LD%+0.12, so Kemp's expected BABIP is .378. His actual BABIP? .378. That guy is a fucking moron.
-
He's right in that Kemp hits something like 40% GB, so it limits his power. Sure, he'll crush line drive doubles, but his inability to use his strength to lift the ball is what's killing his HR numbers.
-
Also for such a statistically charged article, he throws out a lot of "general knowledge" type crap. For all his bad routes and bad reads off the bat, Kemp is a well above average centerfielder with a Rate of 109. Just for comparison, Grady Sizemore's Rate is 88. And the media practically services themselves to talk about Grady's defense.
-
Two things are a real concern: 1) his inability to lift the ball consistently and 2) his strikeout rate. The rest is basically full of shit./endrant :o

Posted by Erich, July 11, 2008 12:11 AM

I feel pretty confidant that he's going to develop into an MLB star. He may not be an all-star every year, but he's going to be one some years, and it's been ages since the Dodgers had someone like that playing the outfield, let alone someone this young.

Posted by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness, July 11, 2008 12:16 AM

Good stats there Kensai. I didn't know that Kemp's actual BABIP is exactly what his expected BABIP ought to be!

Posted by kennerbuggy, July 11, 2008 2:53 AM

Great post by FNCN. Simply put, Kemp K's too much for a guy who doesn't hit a lot of HRs. You can live with a high K rate for a guy with about a 4.0 K/HR rate, but Matt seems to be on about a 10-1 pace, which is poor. While Matt has shown improvement reading struck balls in the field, he hasn't shown the desired improvement in reading pitches at the dish. However, he is still young in baseball years and has plenty of time to improve across the board. He will never be a GG in the field or a highly selective guy at the dish, but a slight improvement in contact rate and a big jump in sock are possible, and if those things occur he would be your common power hitter with uncommon speed.

Posted by Fire Ned Colletti Now, July 11, 2008 9:03 AM

Yeah, his K rate is concerning, but at least his BB rate is also increasing. I just think he's still experimenting and learning the zone. This explains why he'll strikeout on pitches that are right down the middle. Seems like he's guessing at times.
-
More than the HR though, his inability to put the ball in play kills his batting average too. Because he hits so many line drives and groundballs, and because he's so fast, he would get a lot more hits if he could just make contact, as evidenced by his career BABIP of .383.
-
His speed is extremely underrated, and I dunno why. I'm pretty sure Kemp is the fastest guy on the team.

Posted by *IAN, July 11, 2008 4:51 PM

Not that it matters much, but I traded Jason Bay for Matt Kemp in my MLB 2K8 fantasy team. Just sayin'.

I think Kemp is a stud. At 23, he's got a lot of time to become a better ballplayer than he already is. Hell, look at Josh Hamilton. If he can do it, a guy with the skill set of Kemp can sure make himself a successful career.

Good post, from a new reader's POV.

Posted by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness, July 11, 2008 5:10 PM

Thanks for reading, Ian. I like your 2k8 trade, way better than when my buddy dealt Kevin Faulk for LaDainain Tomlinson.

Posted by Mike, July 11, 2008 6:19 PM

Plugged on mlbtraderumors! You guys are really blowing up...nice blog.

Posted by PL, July 11, 2008 6:36 PM

Great article, minus this point:

"Cameron is completely right, here. Kemp’s on pace to strike out 178 times this year, and unless you’re Ryan Howard, that’s totally unacceptable."

Its plenty acceptable for anyone who walks a lot too, this list includes Jack Cust, Pat Burrell (although he got his Ks down a bit this year) and Adam Dunn, amongst others. 3 true outcomes sluggers need more acceptance and encouragement amongst analysts, both blogger and "professional", as they absolutely are amongst the games elite.

Strike Outs arent as bad as a lot of people think they are, and the reward for when the 3TO slugger catches a mistake is far greater than 50 bloop singles and being left at second at the end of the inning. Also an 8+ pitch walk is FAR better than a 1 pitch single.

#10

Posted by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness, July 11, 2008 6:44 PM

PL, i think we're on the same page there, but I could have done a better job of expanding on that point. What I meant was "unless you've got the power Ryan Howard does," and the guys you named like Dunn and Cust certainly do. Kemp doesn't (yet, hopefully), nor does he walk as often as they do. Until and unless he does, then I do think the K's are a problem.

#11

Posted by Erich, July 11, 2008 8:00 PM

I'm really afraid they're going to trade Kemp based on Plashke's column today when he talks about young kids not "listening". That's utter horseshit-- again and again this dude and his front office throw the young budding Dodgers under the bus. Dodger Thoughts has a great post on it:

http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/1050756.html

It makes me angry. People learn and develop at different paces, and Kemp's "problems" are still nothing compared to the issues that great listeners like some of the beloved veterans have.

#12

Posted by Alec, July 11, 2008 9:09 PM

You really need to provide evidence before saying things like "the list of people like this is long, I'm sure." Mainstream reporting unwillingness to do this is the reason it is no longer taken seriously in real analysis. Get facts, then make a rebuttal.

#13

Posted by bablue, July 11, 2008 10:10 PM

I agree with this article and hate the way the media treats Kemp. However, Kemp is not yet an average hitter.

Yes, he has a 100 OPS+, but consider how many infield singles he has beaten out. Speed boosts your hitting stats, by getting you more infield hits and allowing you to stretch more singles into doubles and double into triples. While it can be that fast hitters try to hit the ball on the ground more to take advantage of their speed, you can't argue that speed is part of being a hitter. If Kemp had average speed, he would lose most of his infield single and therefore lose 30-40 points of OBP AND SLG.

So, while eventually Kemp could be a superstar hitter, he is definitely not even average yet.

#14

Posted by PL, July 11, 2008 10:16 PM

MSTI, my main point is that if your OPS and OBP are high, K's should never factor into any conversation about how not-great a player is because there is no argument.

Unless you are an absolute no-brainer superstar right off the bat (ie a Russ Martin, Jeter-type), oftentimes its extremely difficult for young players to thrive in the "big city" environments. Kemp has been messed around with plenty by the media, coaches etc. He's a 5 star talent that is going to be a superstar by the time he's 26. Its a shame restless fans, coaches and media arent willing to wait that long.

#15

Posted by Fire Ned Colletti Now, July 12, 2008 12:09 AM

bablue-That's like saying that if Ichiro had average speed, he would be a well below average player. Throwing out hypotheticals like that is a bit...pointless, isn't it?
-
PL-Yes, K's don't matter if your OPS and OBP are high, but Kemp is probably never going to control a strike zone like that. Given his speed and penchant for hitting ground balls, his current success/failure is highly linked to his K rate because of his BABIP.

#16

Posted by bablue, July 12, 2008 3:32 AM

Fire Ned Colleti Now,

No, its not pointless. MSTI said that Kemp was an average hitter, which he's not. Its actually his biggest weakness, he's all projection but doesn't have the approach yet. Once he can learn not to swing at so much crap, get his pitch, and drive the ball more, thats when he'll become a superstar. If we believe in Matt Kemp, then we should believe he'll get much better with the bat because thats where he needs to improve.

#17

Posted by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness, July 12, 2008 3:42 AM

bablue, I still say he IS an average hitter. I know you said that his 100 OPS+ doesn't count because he beats out infield hits, but those are still hits. (And for all the crap that we give Juan Pierre, imagine if we didn't respect his infield hits? He'd be hitting .210.)

He's an average MLB hitter right now. Considering his inexperience, that's pretty impressive.

#18

Posted by misterjonez, July 12, 2008 6:27 AM

Seems like this conversation has uncovered some factors which need to be discussed separately, these being how speed influences a player's offensive output, and how effective a player is at the plate.

Kemp is obviously possessing serious physical tools, and he's got gobs of potential to become an All-Star. But the argument that he's not a great 'hitter' is actually valid, if mis-framed. Take away his speed, and he actually DOESN'T make all that much happen at the plate.

That doesn't diminish his overall offensive effectiveness, but it absoLUTEly alters the way you have to project his growth arc going forward. Depending on all of his offensive factors to improve simultaneously would obviously be erroneous, at least at this point. He's unlikely to become faster as he ages, so we've got to isolate that aspect of his game, and project the rest of his offensive skillset in isolation. Then re-introduce the speed after we've projected his growth *at the plate.*

I'm no real stat-head, and I'm fairly certain there are stats out there which express what I've just described, but I'm unfamiliar with them :(

Bottom-line: Kemp does possess the profile to improve dramatically, but he's also the type of player who gets held up by leaning on his physical tools too much. I've never been a member of the Kemp Klub, but I do think he's got a legit shot at being a perennial All-Star if he keeps learning and improving his approach at the plate. I just think that he's got some real obstacles in his way, the majority of which are self-imposed, perhaps unconsciously.

#19

Posted by Fire Ned Colletti Now, July 12, 2008 10:50 AM

bablue-David Eckstein has a much better approach than Matt Kemp does, but Eckstein is still an inferior hitter. Juan Pierre probably has a better approach as well, but I don't see how he's any good.
-
My point is, I don't see how Kemp's approach detracts from the fact that he is an average hitter. If his approach was better, he would be a well above average hitter. Basically, his current approach prevents him from becoming the player he could be. However, it doesn't prevent him from being almost exactly league average right now. If he gets additional singles, doubles and triples because of his speed, that's part of his game, so it goes to his value at the plate.
-
It's like saying that Juan Pierre would never be a major leaguer without his speed. It's probably true, but he does have speed, so what's the point in bringing it up?