In which we discuss Josh Wilson

by BaronVonBullshit on Jun 14, 2010 3:00 PM PDT

I haven't seen any sort of analysis or opinions of Josh Wilson yet. I'm not a huge game thread guy so maybe it's been talked about in there, but I was wondering what the general opinion is of him? At this point he's appeared in 11 more games and has 56 more at bats than Jack Wilson and is (offensively) outperforming him in every category. Before Jack left he was hitting .257/.278/.351 which small sample size withstanding is about what I'd expect from him over the course of a year. Josh is playing an acceptable defensive game from my opinion (UZR of 1.3 currently) so I'm wondering... when Jack comes back does he boot Josh back to the bench or is Jack a defensive replacement and occasional starter?

On looking into the future, obviously there are better SS out there, but if Josh can perform at approximately a .300/.350/.400 line for the rest of the year is he a sustainable option for 2011? Do you guys expect him to come plummeting back down to replacement level by years end or has the consistent playing time turned him into a legitimate big league player? Obviously at age 29 he's leaving what's considered to be his "prime" years, but he wouldn't be the first late bloomer in history (Rick Ankiel and Carlos Pena come to mind as successful players who didn't get starting gigs until around age 28).

Obviously I'm on the fence about the future of The Paperboy, so I thought maybe by getting a conversation going here maybe someone call pull me off the fence onto either side of the lawn.

Tweet Comment 49 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Rick Ankiel didn't become a hitter until age 25.

Carlos Pena was a highly touted prospect, with tools.

by Kenneth Arthur on Jun 14, 2010 3:14 PM PDT reply actions

Obviously Wilson doesn't fall into the exact same circumstances as the others

All I was saying is that there have been players in the past who hadn’t found success and consistent playing time until their late 20’s.

Any chance you have an opinion on Josh or are you just here to nit pick?

What's the deal with corn nuts?

by BaronVonBullshit on Jun 14, 2010 3:40 PM PDT reply actions

Use the reply button.

And don’t dismiss others’ criticisms as nit-picking.

by Eyebrows on Jun 14, 2010 3:42 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

I usually hit reply and realized my mistake once I hit post

And I understood the criticism, but in my opinion it is nit picking because it had nothing to do with my questions. If he had connected what he said to why he thought Josh can’t keep this performance up and why he isn’t a viable option for the future I wouldn’t have gotten defensive. As is it looks like an off hand remark that says “hey, you’re bad at picking examples” That’s what I got from it anyway.

What's the deal with corn nuts?

by BaronVonBullshit on Jun 14, 2010 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Read without intuiting other people's motives while you do so

And I don’t mean that snarkily, sorry if it sounded that way – just a tip. If you want to know someone’s motives, ask them.

by pdb on Jun 14, 2010 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Did I not ask his motives when I asked if he had an opinion on Josh?

I guess I got defensive, but basically what I asked him was if he was connecting those observations to Wilson’s career or just telling me I suck at picking examples.

What's the deal with corn nuts?

by BaronVonBullshit on Jun 14, 2010 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions

I think it was the "just here to nit pick" part that set people off a bit

Maybe next time leave that part out and you’ll get much more constructive answers.

by pdb on Jun 14, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions

His comment was not one to get defensive about, since he is bringing up a real point.

Josh Wilson has never been good. Nelson Cruz, for example, had some very impressive skills that he was simply unable to pull together until he got older, so he was “Bad” but with one tweak it was clear he could be amazing, and he was one of the rare players to make the tweak.

Josh Wilson doesn’t really do any of the 5 tools well. He’s just a replacement level player, and there isn’t really anything he could tweak to somehow be amazing. He is, however, a serviceable replacement. and I suppose it is possible that he is slightly better than replacement. I don’t know who I would rather start, since Jack Wilson has never impressed me and these injuries are bound to make him worse. But that’s more because Jack Wilson is doing poorly, and not because Josh Wilson has managed to find something magical now that he’s starting. He is pretty much who he has always been.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Jun 14, 2010 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't know, I think Josh Wilson has actually been good this year

like Jeff pointed out a little while back, he was always OK at everything except hitting for power, and he’s a shortstop, so oh well on that one. This season, though, he’s gotten a bit better across the board – he’s making more contact, being more patient, hitting the ball harder and playing better defense.

It’s not like he’s suddenly jumped off the scale, but he always had the skillset where that kind of incremental improvement across the board would make him a valuable player.

Plus he can pitch in a pinch!

by seattlebruin on Jun 15, 2010 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Hm... I think that's a nit pick.

I don’t really believe he’s completely replacement level. But he’s like… what… maybe a 1 win player when he’s on his game with the potential to be worse? I feel like that is still essentially replacement for the purposes of categorizing him.

Still, yes, I think Josh Wilson is serviceable, just not good. So the question that remains is whether or not Jack Wilson is better or worse, rather than whether or not Josh Wilson is better than people believed.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Jun 15, 2010 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions

I think he's more like a static 1.5-2 win player if we believe that he really has made incremental improvements to all parts of his game

by seattlebruin on Jun 15, 2010 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions

If we believe that, yes.

I’m guessing he’s playing well, but also above his head. I think 1 win max seems like the best bet, with .5 more likely. But hey, I’m all for him being way better. Still, if you picture him a 2 win player, then Jack Wilson would legitimately be worse at this point in his career.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Jun 16, 2010 3:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Not here to nit-pick.

I’m just pointing out that there would be examples of late bloomers in line with what Josh Wilson could be but Pena and Ankiel wouldn’t be them. Rick Ankiel wouldn’t be a late-bloomer for example, because he reached the majors a few years after he became a hitter. And Carlos Pena had an underwhelming but productive career up until age 29.

So my opinion of Josh Wilson is that he will make a very nice utility player backing up Jack Wilson and the rest of the infield occasionally and it’s nice to have him here.

by Kenneth Arthur on Jun 14, 2010 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Josh Wilson has an established record of being replacement level

while Jack Wilson has a record of being an average player. A third of a season isn’t going to change that perception.

by Eyebrows on Jun 14, 2010 3:44 PM PDT via mobile reply actions

Also, Josh Wilson has a career BABIP of .293, whereas he's at .342 this year.

Though he is hitting more line drives this year, I’d say there’s luck in there too.

by Eyebrows on Jun 14, 2010 3:48 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

Well, there is the esteemed Dr. Elliot on the team now

So Wilson could be a quick study in that regard, and with good speed and a line drive rate above 20%, is a .331 (as of 5/19) BABiP really that lucky? Besides which, his minor league BABiP was .312. Also, his track record of being replacement level is 691 mostly sporadic plate appearances in the majors. The low career UZR is kind of whatever, as his whole career, once again, equals roughly one season, and it’s been hammered home that UZR (and most other defensive measurements) is practically useless over a single season’s sample. For instance, Josh made 5 errors in 25 chances with the Nationals in 2007, which of course gave him a ridiculously bad UZR of -3.5 and is a solid chunk of his overall -6.2. It’s likely that he would get slightly better (as he has been this year) with more consistent playing time.

As for comparatively similar players, Ben Zobrist comes to mind. Their minor league, and even the early major league numbers are fairly similar except that Zobrist has a ton more patience than Josh.

I think Josh has it in him to be a roughly average major league shortstop.

by Malcontent1 on Jun 20, 2010 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions

In 2007 Josh Wilson wOBA'd .279 in 310 PAs

In 2008 he was in the minors, but in 2009 he wOBA’d .268 through 211 PAs. In 2010 through 140 PAs, he has a .340 wOBA, a career high.

In 2007 he had a UZR/150 of -21.1 as a shortstop. In 2009, a UZR of -3.4 In 2010, 7.7.

He’s a replacement level player with a decent hitting streak.

by Tube on Jun 14, 2010 3:48 PM PDT reply actions

Thanks! This is more what I was looking for

What's the deal with corn nuts?

by BaronVonBullshit on Jun 14, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Well, to be fair Josh's '07, and '09 UZR's are only based on 112 game sample.

The BABIP seems flukey high in my admittedly novice opinion, but he’s also making contact more often and hitting the ball harder when he does make contact. Don’t know if the increased contact rates are sustainable, but it’s something to keep an eye on.

by faceplant_04 on Jun 14, 2010 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Also up until about a week ago he was taking more walks. Swinging at more pitches in the strike zone too.

by BrettJMiller on Jun 14, 2010 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions

This is actually becoming more complicated for me.

Josh Wilson has never been good, it’s true. I will say that I think his fielding isn’t bad, and that his + UZR number ‘looks’ right, after seeing him in Tacoma and Seattle. That’s important, because if he’s not average or above, even a paraplegic version of Jack Wilson would be more valuable.

But Wilson’s 32, hasn’t played a full year since 2007, and his offense has been trending down for quite a while. I think it’s absolutely remarkable that he put the UZR that he did last year despite a few knocks – but while admirable, I simply don’t think it’s possible for a human whose legs aren’t 100% to replicate it. His UZR was poor this year, but that’s meaningless – he looked a half step slower, and that was before his hamstring injury (which he’s complained isn’t healing quickly).

Stats can’t help answer this question, but at some point, Jack Wilson will cease to be the better option. For all we know, he may not be right now – his age and injury history make his wOBA trend both understandable and worrying. His defense would normally push him over the top no matter what he hits, but the M’s need to get a really good look at Jack in game situations, and that’s difficult as he still isn’t consistently playing full games w/the Rainiers. I hate that this is something of an interesting question, but I think it is.

by marc w on Jun 14, 2010 4:32 PM PDT reply actions

There's also the difference in paychecks.

by TrustBaseball on Jun 14, 2010 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

For me, this is really anti-LL logic, but...

I’d argue we have to stick with Josh Wilson for the foreseeable future.

I really don’t like the defensive aspect—I’ve watched Josh boot a couple routine plays that are just painful—but as Marc notes above, Jack’s defense hasn’t been quality this season, and injury/age is probably the majority of the reason for that decline.

I don’t think Josh can sustain a .300+ average with his sky-high BABIP. But until he shows this to be the case, or Jack shows that he has a decent amount of offensive/defensive gas left in the tank, there’s no way the M’s should pull Josh out of the lineup when he’s one of the few guys getting hits. Sort of.

by HititHere on Jun 14, 2010 4:42 PM PDT reply actions

I think there is an argument to be made that keeping Josh Wilson is at least equivalent to Jack.

But it’s not because Josh is a good player but rather Jack Wilson and his injuries may have made him a bad player.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Jun 14, 2010 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Well yeah, Josh isn't exactly good

If I had the ability to choose a SS from any MLB team’s active roster, Josh Wilson would be pretty close to the bottom of my list. But right now, he’s higher than Jack.

by HititHere on Jun 15, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah. :(

Very unfortunate in that between Milton Bradley and Jack Wilson we may be shelling out $20 million next year for two players who won’t contribute 2 WAR between them.

by eponymous_coward on Jun 15, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions

Eh, Bradley is still hitting the ball with authority, so I wouldn't be too shocked is he suddenly picked it up.

His wOBAr is .323, and he started April in the toilet. Jack Wilson though is =(.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Jun 15, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions

I still don't hold Bradley's contract against these M's

I was – and still am – glad to see Silva go and attribute most of Bradley’s cost to the awful decision Bavasi made to give him 4/48.

Also, what CapSea said above.

Rooting for lovable losers since 1984.

by seattlecougar on Jun 15, 2010 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions

I wrote a post over at Sodo Mojo, but linking isn't cool here I don't think. Check it out if you want though.

by BrettJMiller on Jun 14, 2010 6:14 PM PDT reply actions

Raul Ibanez and Jayson Werth also didn't really develop until their late 20s, and Ibanez wasn't exactly a can't miss prospect.

by BrettJMiller on Jun 14, 2010 6:15 PM PDT reply actions

Josh Wilson reminds me of Rich Amaral.

In other words a perfect bench player that can be plugged in and play decently if needed. He is a good version of Willie Bloomquist. Versatility, slightly above average defense and an ability to hit well in bursts.

Now some of the drawbacks; The more he plays the more his defense is exposed. He has only slightly above average speed. And last and most importantly his hot hitting won’t last. Others have mentioned the BABIP and his K/BB ratio seems likely for regression as well. Remeber he hit very well for the first three weeks he played last year and then came crashing back down to earth.

by Jack Swan on Jun 14, 2010 9:35 PM PDT reply actions

Rich Amaral didn't start hitting until his late 20's, either.

(Using his minor league stats)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=amaral001ric

Clearly he didn’t start hitting worth a damn until 28-9.

There are some other examples of guys who developed with the bat late as middle infielders- Ozzie Smith is an extreme case (in that, no, Josh Wilson isn’t Ozzie Smith):

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/smithoz01.shtml

but you can see this with Mark McLemore, too:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mclemma01.shtml

So it’s possible Josh Wilson might develop late. That being said, I’m not really sure I’d bet on this. “Sometimes this does happen” is not the same as “This will happen” or “This is happening”.

by eponymous_coward on Jun 15, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions

I still think he's even with Jack (slightly better hitting, slighty worse defense)

but younger, cheaper and HEALTHIER. I say you stick with him until he quits hitting.

"Because 100 luftballoons would be far too many"

by Thingray on Jun 15, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions

You really think he's a ~2 WAR player (Jack Wilson pre-Mariner)?

I think Josh Wilson’s not really that good. Playing out the string in 2010, sure, bench player, maybe, but like Mike Carp, you shouldn’t let someone whose CEILING is “maybe he’ll be OK if we’re totally lucky” keep you from upgrading the position if you have a chance.

I tend to think Josh Wilson is ~Princess Willie, myself- as an infield reserve, not a big deal but God help you if he’s starting, because it means you’ve punted one of your 9 positions to an AAA replacement-level player.

by eponymous_coward on Jun 15, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm guessing Thingray isn't talking about Jack Wilson pre-Mariner

In 2010 Jack was accumulating negative WAR, while Josh Wilson is already at .9 WAR.

SSS, but it’s clear current Jack was having some major trouble and until he’s fully healthy, Josh is better.

Really, I think the two of you pretty much agree. Nobody’s saying we shouldn’t upgrade SS if we get the chance.

by HititHere on Jun 15, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Correct.

Jack WAS a better player, but I don’t think he is now. I’m also not suggesting that Josh is the long-term solution, but I don’t see any reason to bench him when Jack comes back from the DL, unless Jack shows us he’s back to his former self. We haven’t seen that from him in Seattle yet. If we can upgrade via trade or signing someone in the off-season? Yes, you upgrade.

I think Jack is a defense-first player whose legs have let him down. He was never much of a hitter, and switching to the AL isn’t doing him any favors. So now he’s lost a step on D, and hits even worse than he used to. Why not give the AB’s to someone who is hot right now, and can at least stay healthy?

That is unless you (meaning management) really think that he (Jack) is the solution at SS for the next few years.

"Because 100 luftballoons would be far too many"

by Thingray on Jun 15, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm not sure Jack is coming back from the DL anytime soon.

Getting tired from 7 innings of play in the minors isn’t a good sign.

That is unless you (meaning management) really think that he (Jack) is the solution at SS for the next few years.

The problem is Jack is signed for 2011. Yeah, sunk costs, but I can see the argument of “let’s check him out and see if we’re totally screwed at SS or not”. Because if our options are a broken Jack Wilson or a healthy Josh Wilson, we’re pretty screwed.

by eponymous_coward on Jun 15, 2010 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions

The goal was basically to have someone servicable as a stopgap until Franklin or Noriega arrived.

If it comes to it, we could theoretically put Triunfel at short and take a hit on defense hoping that the bat will eventually come around. It’s an ugly solution, but so is every other option we have available right now.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Jun 15, 2010 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions

See, I don't think the remainder of 2010 and 2011 with Josh is ugly.

It’s not going to win any beauty contests, but it’s not our biggest worry either. I would have rather gone with someone like this than signed up for a few years of injury prone, not getting any younger SS.

To me Josh would be better than Jack for this year and next, and he would also be better than either rushing a prospect up, or making someone play a position that isn’t normal for them.

"Because 100 luftballoons would be far too many"

by Thingray on Jun 15, 2010 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Josh Wilson probably isn't a big part of the team's future.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Jun 15, 2010 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Of course not.

But he’s fine as a stopgap for now in my opinion. Better than Jack, if only for the fact that we know Jack can’t stay healthy. So as long as we count on Jack, we need Josh (or someone like him).

"Because 100 luftballoons would be far too many"

by Thingray on Jun 15, 2010 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions

He's a 1 WAR player. IF his improvement sticks.

If not, great, you’re playing WFB at a middle infield position every day. How’s that working out for them?

by eponymous_coward on Jun 17, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions

And by them I mean the Royals.

Really, Josh Wilson is MAYBE an adequate bench player ala Jack Hannahan, but maybe not. I think a strategy of “well, play him at short until one of the kids is ready in 2012” is punting a position. We’ve seen how that works at C.

by eponymous_coward on Jun 17, 2010 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions

If his improvement sticks he's significantly better than a one win player

by seattlebruin on Jun 18, 2010 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions

SSS

ZIPS is projecting him to regress, what with the .317 BABIP and all.

I seriously doubt he’s going to turn into a ~2 WAR player at age 29-30.

by eponymous_coward on Jun 18, 2010 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions

That story on Jack should help explain why he was tired.

It was pretty much a horror in regards to travel from Tacoma to Colorado Springs. And the drive from Denver to Colorado Springs is the real life version of the highway to hell. It only takes about 90-100 minutes bit I swear it feels like the longest two hours of your life.

by Jack Swan on Jun 15, 2010 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions

I'll give Jack a break on that one, that was the trip from hell.

"Because 100 luftballoons would be far too many"

by Thingray on Jun 15, 2010 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions

His fangraphs career stats are actually kind of interesting

In his 2006 and 2008 extended stays with the pirates/rockies AAA he put up pretty decent numbers for a minor league hitter, and his contact rates this year are up (correlating in a drop in Ks) from his previous stints in the bigs. He’s also been bounced around a lot and seems to look much better when he’s allowed to take more than a couple hacks at the plate before getting checked to a new location.

Take a look at his 2007 stint with Tampa. His hitting value was replacement over 300 PAs, and almost all of his suck was due to terrible fielding. His defense has looked better this year though, making it looks like he’s rounding in to a major league bencher; just enough contact + glove to hold down a spot. He’s not going to hold up Franklin’s rise or anything, but he’s been a nice surprise so far in a season where a lot of positions have turned in to a pile of crap.

On pitch types, looks like he’s not getting owned as bad by major league fastballs. Maybe he’s changed something that’s helping him get around a bit better? He was absolutely dominated by big league gas in 2007 and 2009. And thus ends my foray in to over-analysis, enjoy.

You can't be a catcher if you can't catch. Rob Johnson will henceforth be listed as a traffic cone on the roster.

by Drew_D on Jun 15, 2010 3:27 PM PDT reply actions

The last year that Jack Wilson did better than Josh Wilson is doing right now is 2004.

Josh is tied for second among shortstops in wOBA with Derek Jeter at .335. In 42 games he is tied for fifth among shortstops in WAR with Reid Brignac with 1 WAR. He probably can not sustain this pace for the rest of the year but until he falters, why would we want to replace him with someone who is not likely to be any better and has been much worse so far this year. If or when Josh Wilson starts to play like a replacement level player then give Jack some starts. Right now, Josh has played like a 2.5 to 3 win player and has earned the starting spot for this year until we have a better option.

by Droid Rage on Jun 20, 2010 3:10 AM PDT reply actions