PDA

View Full Version : Drew Stubbs



camisadelgolf
06-04-2007, 07:27 AM
Personally, I have full confidence in him to put it all together. At this point, he's played 54 games, a third of a full major league season. If he were to play 162 games at the same rate, here is how his stats would be in Dayton:


AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS
.272 162 618 126 168 30 0 18 60 252 84 183 33 24 .366 .408 .773

Of course, the strikeouts are insane, but I think in the end, he will be a little better than Mike Cameron. Anyway, what do all of you think? Will he be a bust or not?

mth123
06-04-2007, 07:55 AM
Personally, I have full confidence in him to put it all together. At this point, he's played 54 games, a third of a full major league season. If he were to play 162 games at the same rate, here is how his stats would be in Dayton:


AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS
.272 162 618 126 168 30 0 18 60 252 84 183 33 24 .366 .408 .773

Of course, the strikeouts are insane, but I think in the end, he will be a little better than Mike Cameron. Anyway, what do all of you think? Will he be a bust or not?

If he comes to the majors and gets caught stealing 24 times for the sake of 33 SB, he should be shot on sight. I'd say a .773 OPS in A- looks like a defensive replacement/pinch runner at the big league level.

camisadelgolf
06-04-2007, 08:09 AM
I agree with you on the stolen bases thing. He had more success last year, so I'm not too concerned about it.

I don't have any evidence to back this up, but for players who have similar abilities, it seems like it takes them longer to develop. However, I might just be making that up.

Benihana
06-04-2007, 11:57 AM
I think he will be a worse version of Mike Cameron, like a lesser version of Steve Finley. In my mind he projects to a 4th OF at the major league level, or a starter in a weaker team's outfield. He will never be in the same league as Bruce or Hamilton.

Aronchis
06-04-2007, 12:01 PM
You are starting with his bat, tell me about his defense, that is where it starts with Drew Stubbs;)

edabbs44
06-04-2007, 12:17 PM
I have a bad feeling about this guy.

dfs
06-04-2007, 01:25 PM
I've seen Stubbs play...4-5 times now and I see Szymanski. Stubbs makes contact, but it's not contact with authority. Stubbs is fast, but then everybody playing centerfield is fast at the A level.

I've never seen him drive the ball.
I've never seen him show any kind of arm.
I don't think I've ever seen him take a walk.
Doesn't mean he can't, I just haven't seen it.

Yes, it's a small sample, but it's what I've seen. There are 3 position players at Dayton I think are going to be better than Stubbs.

(Valaika, Turner and Francisco. I think if Francisco can figure out left handed pitching he has a chance to be a valuable property. Other than those three, I'll be surprised if any of the other position players on the roster get past AA.)

Red Leader
06-04-2007, 01:29 PM
I think Stubbs will be a very good defensive player in the major leagues. I think his bat will come around just enough to make him an average - above average player. Not an annual All-Star by any means, but he will be a useful major league player. Having said all of that, if someone offers me something useful for him in a trade, I make the deal.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2007, 01:30 PM
I agree--people are hunting around in the dark with their hands to find something, ANYTHING for which to praise this guy.

If a guy's going to make it, he's going to need to do better than "speed and defense."

Triples
06-04-2007, 01:33 PM
I voted but I should have asked for a definition of "a bust" first. The answer to the poll, in my mind, would be different depending on what is meant by someone being a bust. If you're talking about a allstar caliber player (which is what it seems many folks expect from first round draft picks) that's one thing but if you talking about a guy who can put up reasonable numbers and just have a good career as a journeyman MLB player that's a different answer.

icehole3
06-04-2007, 01:33 PM
He's playing with turf toe guys come on...geez.

dfs
06-04-2007, 01:46 PM
He's playing with turf toe guys come on...geez.
Well, sure and staying healthy is a skill.

I just haven't seen anything on the field that makes this guy stand out. If you asked me to pick out who the reds big draft pick was after watching these guys on the field, Stubbs wouldn't be very high on my list. That's not what I want out of my top draft pick.

Fwiw, I was VERY impressed with the athleticism of WMP at Dayton. He showed arm and speed and mismanaged routes at Dayton. If I had to choose between the two, WMP was better in center. Stubbs will make fewer mistakes, but he doesn't flash anything like the range or arm the Pena showed. Now, of course Pena never got the chance to correct his mistakes in the minors. I just don't see the same kind of potential in Stubbs.

Look, I hope I'm wrong. I hope the guy turns into and improved version of Eric Davis, but based on what I see on the field, I just don't see that happening.

bucksfan2
06-04-2007, 01:47 PM
Yes he is playing with turf toe and no one outside of the organization has any idea what Stubbs instructions are. This kid will always be looked down upon no matter what he does with his career. If he doesn't make it the bigs hes going to be a bust, if he makes it and is an average player he will be a bust, if he has some up and down season he will be a bust because he was never able to put all his skills to use. I think the only way people will be happy is if he puts up all star numbers year in year out.

edabbs44
06-04-2007, 01:50 PM
Yes he is playing with turf toe and no one outside of the organization has any idea what Stubbs instructions are. This kid will always be looked down upon no matter what he does with his career. If he doesn't make it the bigs hes going to be a bust, if he makes it and is an average player he will be a bust, if he has some up and down season he will be a bust because he was never able to put all his skills to use. I think the only way people will be happy is if he puts up all star numbers year in year out.

No...the guy is playing in Low A and came from a major college program. He was a top 10 pick. Add that up and he should be tearing the league apart.

HBP
06-04-2007, 02:09 PM
I've seen Stubbs play...4-5 times now and I see Szymanski. Stubbs makes contact, but it's not contact with authority. Stubbs is fast, but then everybody playing centerfield is fast at the A level.

I've never seen him drive the ball.
I've never seen him show any kind of arm.
I don't think I've ever seen him take a walk.



Actually that's one of his good stats this season. 28 BB so far. Valaika is hitting .047 points higher yet Stubbs has the better OBP.

15fan
06-04-2007, 02:25 PM
Stubbs is a nice guy to have in the system.

But it's almost a year since the pick & I still can't understand the logic of eschewing pitching (starting or relief) and / or a big bat for the sake of speed & defense.

Good pitching and big bats are the two costliest needs to acquire either as a FA or via trade. That's what you draft.

Speed & defense? That's for lower in the draft.

Caveat Emperor
06-04-2007, 02:34 PM
He's Chris Dickerson with a less famous father.

His numbers are OK if they were major league numbers, but I have serious doubts about his ability to maintain his level of production as he moves through the system and faces better competition.

LoganBuck
06-04-2007, 02:52 PM
We have not seen Stubbs at 100% yet. We probably won't until next season. I am not trying to make excuses for him. His numbers are about where you would expect a player with a bad wheel, that is speed dependant, to be.

reds44
06-04-2007, 03:04 PM
Personally, I have full confidence in him to put it all together. At this point, he's played 54 games, a third of a full major league season. If he were to play 162 games at the same rate, here is how his stats would be in Dayton:


AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS
.272 162 618 126 168 30 0 18 60 252 84 183 33 24 .366 .408 .773

Of course, the strikeouts are insane, but I think in the end, he will be a little better than Mike Cameron. Anyway, what do all of you think? Will he be a bust or not?
Hypothetically, let's say he had those numbers in Cincinnati.

18 homers
30 double
60 RBI
.366 OBP
183 K

Where does a guy like that hit in a lineup?

Btw, I'm not giving up on Stubbs yet. I don't think we should have taken him, but he still has alot of raw power that he can develop, he's fast, and he plays great D.

reds44
06-04-2007, 03:05 PM
He's Chris Dickerson
They seem like VERY similar players, with Stubbs having a higher ceiling if everything went right.

M2
06-04-2007, 03:29 PM
I've got no idea whether he's going to be a bust. However, he needs to make some major strides at the plate in order not to be a bust. As a rule, guys who need to learn how to hit make me nervous.

icehole3
06-04-2007, 05:15 PM
I sure hope Jay Bruce doesnt get hurt, if he does he may get compared to Dwayne Wise or someone like that...rough crowd.

Aronchis
06-04-2007, 05:37 PM
I sure hope Jay Bruce doesnt get hurt, if he does he may get compared to Dwayne Wise or someone like that...rough crowd.

dfs's post is clearly "from my point of view". I have watched Stubbs twice in Dayton and he looks CLEARLY better than WMP as a CF. He looks like he has the ability to be a ++ defender in CF which the Krivsky plan craves. Hamilton doesn't have the upside to be a ++ CF, neither does Hopper. Dickerson, maybe but he has less upside at the plate than Stubbs who could turn into a future leadoff hitter. Comparing him to Hamilton or Bruce is the wrong seed to compare by.

He can take a walk and has to long of swing. Shorten it down and he has leadoff potential. Finley ceiling or a Dickerson ceiling who knows right now. I don't get why people are "confused" by the Stubbs pick. I completely understand where they were coming from. That doesn't make it the right or best choice, but still completely understandable.

I mean it could go either way. The Reds are betting on Finley.

flyer85
06-04-2007, 06:02 PM
at Stubbs age Cameron was playing AA ball and getting some ABs in the majors. Cameron exploded the next season and made it to the majors for good at age 24. Stubbs is a ways behind that curve.

camisadelgolf
06-04-2007, 06:19 PM
Cameron also had a few years of professional baseball under his belt at that point.

dougdirt
06-04-2007, 06:26 PM
He's Chris Dickerson with a less famous father.

His numbers are OK if they were major league numbers, but I have serious doubts about his ability to maintain his level of production as he moves through the system and faces better competition.

Picking nits here, but Dickersons father is just the brother of some famous RB named Dickerson. Eric Dickerson is Chris' uncle.

As for Stubbs, I voted no he wont be a bust. The guy has yet to play healthy in the Reds system. He plays great CF defense and if you can play great CF defense that means you need to OPS around .750 to be a very good player at the major league level. Give Drew Stubbs 2 years and I think he can certainly do that.

edabbs44
06-04-2007, 06:29 PM
Picking nits here, but Dickersons father is just the brother of some famous RB named Dickerson. Eric Dickerson is Chris' uncle.

As for Stubbs, I voted no he wont be a bust. The guy has yet to play healthy in the Reds system. He plays great CF defense and if you can play great CF defense that means you need to OPS around .750 to be a very good player at the major league level. Give Drew Stubbs 2 years and I think he can certainly do that.

I don't think anyone believes he can't do it. It's just that people think he won't do it. I'm in that boat.

jmcclain19
06-04-2007, 06:33 PM
I've got no idea whether he's going to be a bust. However, he needs to make some major strides at the plate in order not to be a bust. As a rule, guys who need to learn how to hit make me nervous.

As a HS'er I mind that much less so than a 4 year college player from one of the top schools in the nation. If you went to Texas, and are playing Big 12 baseball against some of the best collegiate competition out there, with that level of excellent coaching, and you still can't hit - that's bad news.

I think of this question two fold. I think he'll be a bust, when you're a top 10 pick in the draft, there is no way as a team you should be swinging and missing on players that badly because in theory, those picks don't come around too often.

I hope however, for the Reds sake that he snaps out of it. They could certainly use the deep system.

KronoRed
06-04-2007, 06:37 PM
I think his defense will keep in around baseball for a long time, I don't think his bat will ever win him a starting job in the majors though.

M2
06-04-2007, 07:03 PM
As a HS'er I mind that much less so than a 4 year college player from one of the top schools in the nation. If you went to Texas, and are playing Big 12 baseball against some of the best collegiate competition out there, with that level of excellent coaching, and you still can't hit - that's bad news.

Just as an aside, UT is a famously lousy school for turning out hitters. The number of good batsmen who came out of UT is a short list - Bibb Falk, Pinky Higgins and Keith Moreland. That's exactly one guy in the last half century and Moreland wasn't exactly setting the world on fire.

BoydsOfSummer
06-04-2007, 09:30 PM
He's playing with turf toe guys come on...geez.


I have reoccurring bouts of gout in my big toe. If turf-toe hurts anything like that I'm giving the dude a huge break. I can't imagine trying to ball with that kind of pain and immobility.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2007, 10:19 PM
I have reoccurring bouts of gout in my big toe. If turf-toe hurts anything like that I'm giving the dude a huge break. I can't imagine trying to ball with that kind of pain and immobility.

Ah, gout: the royal disease. Should we call you the Earl of Boyd? Count Boyd? Duke of Boyd?

HokieRed
06-04-2007, 11:01 PM
Question: Can Cody Strait play great defense at CF in the major leagues? Because if he can, he needs to be part of the discussion. He's a whole lot closer to being able to put up .750 at that level than Drew Stubbs at this point.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2007, 11:10 PM
If Stubbs had been taken in the second or third round, NOBODY would be talking about him. He's done nothing to warrant this attention except bask in the glow of his first-round status.

dsmith421
06-04-2007, 11:12 PM
If Stubbs had been taken in the second or third round, NOBODY would be talking about him. He's done nothing to warrant this attention except bask in the glow of his first-round status.

And get picked right before Tim Lincecum, who is now pitching very tidily in the rotation of the San Francisco Giants.

How any competent GM could believe that Stubbs was a better short- and long-term prospect than Lincecum I have absolutely no idea.

dfs
06-04-2007, 11:21 PM
dfs's post is clearly "from my point of view".

Absolutely.

dougdirt
06-04-2007, 11:26 PM
And get picked right before Tim Lincecum, who is now pitching very tidily in the rotation of the San Francisco Giants.

How any competent GM could believe that Stubbs was a better short- and long-term prospect than Lincecum I have absolutely no idea.

If you are going to use that logic you better be pretty upset with anyone who picked in the top 9 last year because Lincecum is ahead of everyone from that draft.

I completely get where they were all coming from though. I wouldnt have picked Tim.

edabbs44
06-04-2007, 11:43 PM
If you are going to use that logic you better be pretty upset with anyone who picked in the top 9 last year because Lincecum is ahead of everyone from that draft.

I completely get where they were all coming from though. I wouldnt have picked Tim.

Stubbs is probably performing the worst of the top 10 so far. Rowell is his only competition, and he's at the same level of competition but 4 years younger. Lincoln had surgery, but TJ isn't the death sentence it used to be so he's only on hold.

So basically Lincecum is performing better than the whole top 10, but I don't think the other teams are bemoaning this pick like Cincy should be.

StillFunkyB
06-04-2007, 11:47 PM
Depends on the meaning of bust.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2007, 11:49 PM
Depends on the meaning of bust.

What would you expect from your first pick in a draft? That should be a guide to your definition of "bust."

dougdirt
06-05-2007, 12:03 AM
Stubbs is probably performing the worst of the top 10 so far. Rowell is his only competition, and he's at the same level of competition but 4 years younger. Lincoln had surgery, but TJ isn't the death sentence it used to be so he's only on hold.

So basically Lincecum is performing better than the whole top 10, but I don't think the other teams are bemoaning this pick like Cincy should be.

I dont think we should be bemoaning our pick. We have a 22 year old who is playing hurt in the MWL. If he were 24 years old and still in A ball, then sure, we could gripe about it.

edabbs44
06-05-2007, 12:12 AM
I dont think we should be bemoaning our pick. We have a 22 year old who is playing hurt in the MWL. If he were 24 years old and still in A ball, then sure, we could gripe about it.

If he is truly injured and has been since he was drafted (to the point where it is affecting his play in a negative way), then shouldn't they shut him down for a while? Or will we be hearing that he's been playing hurt for 4 years and that's why he's only in AA?

dougdirt
06-05-2007, 12:27 AM
If he is truly injured and has been since he was drafted (to the point where it is affecting his play in a negative way), then shouldn't they shut him down for a while? Or will we be hearing that he's been playing hurt for 4 years and that's why he's only in AA?

Last year he had a different injury. This year he has had turf toe the entire season. He will probably require surgery after the season.

Kc61
06-05-2007, 12:59 AM
Last year he had a different injury. This year he has had turf toe the entire season. He will probably require surgery after the season.


Sorry about his injuries. Coming into the draft last year, Stubbs' hitting was cause for concern. After a year with the Reds that hasn't changed. Number 8 pick in the draft.

New Fever
06-05-2007, 01:30 AM
Edabbs why would you shut down a player, if the injury wouldn't cause any futher damage, long term? Also I see no way an injured player (Lincoln) can be doing better than another player, who is playing (Stubbs).

dougdirt
06-05-2007, 01:33 AM
Sorry about his injuries. Coming into the draft last year, Stubbs' hitting was cause for concern. After a year with the Reds that hasn't changed. Number 8 pick in the draft.

Sure it has. He is hitting better now, at a higher level, than he did last year at a lower level. If he were hitting worse than he did last year, then you could say 'wow, he has shown no improvement at all', but that isnt the case at all as he has improved in a more difficult league.

SteelSD
06-05-2007, 02:25 AM
Sorry about his injuries. Coming into the draft last year, Stubbs' hitting was cause for concern. After a year with the Reds that hasn't changed. Number 8 pick in the draft.

When you hold the 8 pick in the draft, your offensive wet dream a couple years later is basically these guys:

Nick Swisher (16th overall- 2002)
Travis Buck (36th overall- 2005)

Both in the Show at age 23. Stubbs? Might be ready to be a middling offensive CF at 25 or 26. Of course, neither Buck or Swisher are good defensive Center Fielders, but I'm not convinced that Stubbs can be more than adequate at that position in the majors either. Maybe that's neither here nor there but then nor are the decisions of the 7 teams drafting in front of the Reds in 2006. The naked truth is that if you pass on a Tim Lincecum-level talent in order to grab a Drew Stubbs-level talent, you're tweaked in just about every way.

BTW, here's Redszone's mock draft for last season:

1. Royals-TRF (Tim Lincecum)
2. Rockies-jmcclain19 (Andrew Miller)
3. Devil Rays-2844 (Evan Longoria)
4. Pirates-dougdirt (Luke Hochevar)
5. Mariners-TradeRumor (Brad Lincoln)
6. Tigers-DocScott (Drew Stubbs)
7. Dodgers-lollipopcurve (Max Scherzer)
8. Reds-OnBaseMachine (Brandon Morrow)
9. Orioles-Gallen5862 (Greg Reynolds)
10. Giants-cincinnati chili (Matt Sulentic)
11. Diamondbacks-Topcat (Daniel Bard)
12. Rangers-Reds Fanatic (Joba Chamberlain)
13. Cubs-KronoRed (Bill Rowell)
14. Blue Jays-SteelSD (Clayton Kershaw)
15. Nationals-Caveat Emperor (Kyle Drabek)
16. Brewers-flyer85 (Brooks Brown)
17. Padres-rdiersin (Brett Sinkbeil)
18. Phillies-Stewie (Brett Anderson)
19. Marlins-ramp101 (Hank Conger)
20. Twins-Betterread (Travis Snider)
21. Yankees-Puffy (Ian Kennedy)
22. Nationals-Caveat Emperor (Josh Butler)
23. Astros-SandyD (Kyle McCulloch)
24. Braves-NC Reds (Kyler Burke)
25. Angels-Austin Kearns (David Huff)
26. Dodgers-lollipopcurve (Matt Antonelli)
27. Red Sox-M2 (Colton Willems)
28. Red Sox -M2 (Pedro Beato)
29. White Sox-reds44 (Jeremy Jeffress)
30. Cardinals-MattyMo4Life (Kasey Kiker)

Seems that TRF's crystal ball was working quite well last year. But really, I'd have done the same thing in his place. And I'd have done it every other time with Lincecum on the board through pick whatever.

edabbs44
06-05-2007, 06:50 AM
Edabbs why would you shut down a player, if the injury wouldn't cause any futher damage, long term? Also I see no way an injured player (Lincoln) can be doing better than another player, who is playing (Stubbs).

I didn't say Lincoln was doing better. I said he was "on hold" due to his injury. I don't want to say Stubbs is doing better either, because TJ is pretty much a routine thing now.

HokieRed
06-05-2007, 10:11 PM
Stubbs now at .264. I hope they do better tomorrow.

dougdirt
06-05-2007, 10:56 PM
Stubbs now at .264. I hope they do better tomorrow.

2 things,

1.have a little bit of faith.

2. Draft is Thursday and Friday :thumbup:

BoydsOfSummer
06-06-2007, 01:17 AM
Ah, gout: the royal disease. Should we call you the Earl of Boyd? Count Boyd? Duke of Boyd?

My friends just call me Lord High Exalted King Richard.

edabbs44
06-15-2007, 11:37 PM
Stubbs now at .264. I hope they do better tomorrow.

Update:

Drew is still in Dayton. Current line (going into tonight) is .253/.347/.373.

Pretty disappointing.

jmcclain19
06-16-2007, 03:09 AM
Update:

Drew is still in Dayton. Current line (going into tonight) is .253/.347/.373.

Pretty disappointing.

His OBP still offers some slight glimmer of hope.

However, for a guy who allegedly had monster power, to be slugging 373 is just awful. That's slap hitting Juan Pierre-esq.

I'll be a little lenient because the Midwest tends to bend pretty hard towards the pitcher, but still, come on now. We're talking about a five tool player who seemingly lost three tools in the woodshed somewhere.

Patrick Bateman
06-16-2007, 03:16 AM
We're talking about a five tool player who seemingly lost three tools in the woodshed somewhere.

Well not really. Of the tools he was said to have (speed, fielding, arm, patience, power), the only one not there right now is power. The others have been as advertised. He was never 'supposed' to be a good contact hitter and that has remained.

The power was supposed to be slow to come along, but it's kind of scary that it's not there at all. The raw power is still there, but he does need to start showing it in some fashion.

Benihana
06-16-2007, 12:29 PM
I mean, let's be honest here. Hate to say it, but this guy is looking like a total bust at this point. He's 23 years old, and not hitting in the least at the Low A level. That is absolutely horrendous for a first round pick, let alone a top 10 guy. Until Drew Stubbs can post an OPS over .850 at this level, I'm writing him off. Call me quick to dismiss or whatever, but I'm not reserving a spot in the Reds OF for this guy.

dougdirt
06-16-2007, 01:28 PM
Stubbs is 22 years old, not 23.

He is playing with an injury that is likely going to require surgery after the season. Im giving him a little bit of a pass for the season.

Maybe I have too much faith sometimes. Maybe others don't have enough. Not really sure.

HokieRed
06-17-2007, 12:21 AM
He'll be 23 in October, so he's really closer right now to 23 than 22, though his playing age would generally be understood as 22 because he'll still be officially 22 at season's end. Still, he can only be described as a massive disappointment and one more serious indication of Krivsky's incompetence. He's in his second year of professional baseball after being in a major college program, he's hitting .253 at low A ball, is making no progress at the plate whatsovever, and has been consistently plagued by exactly what scouts said was his weakness--inability to make contact. Krivsky had a very accurate scouting reading of this guy and chose to go ahead and make him the 8th pick overall anyway. Other people get fired for those kinds of decisions.

Patrick Bateman
06-17-2007, 12:32 AM
His inability to make consistent contact has not been the problem this year. He has gotten on base at a decent rate. It's the power. Unless that starts to develop he will continue to struggle.

HokieRed
06-17-2007, 12:49 AM
A guy who strikes out one in every 3.5 times to the plate has trouble making contact.

Patrick Bateman
06-17-2007, 01:50 AM
A guy who strikes out one in every 3.5 times to the plate has trouble making contact.

Ya, but he still walks and manages to get on base. If he didn't walk, the contact would be more of a problem. As is, the K's seem to be more of a result of going deep into counts.

11larkin11
06-17-2007, 03:23 AM
I voted he would be a bust. Its just a gut feeling. And dont say I dont have enough faith, cuz I still have faith in Gary Majewski for Gods sake and believe Eddie G is the savior, not Homer Bailey:D

AmarilloRed
06-17-2007, 09:32 AM
He seems like another Adam Dunn without the power. I voted for bust.

dougdirt
06-17-2007, 12:30 PM
He seems like another Adam Dunn without the power. I voted for bust.

Yeah, except he plays gold glove defense in centerfield and is one of the fastest guys on every field he steps onto.

But yeah, they both strike out a lot.

Highlifeman21
06-17-2007, 07:03 PM
I have a bad feeling about this guy.

Adam Dunn like strikeout numbers, potentially GG caliber D. Freakishly low OPS.

Trade him when you can for something with a stronger pulse.

edabbs44
06-17-2007, 07:58 PM
Yeah, except he plays gold glove defense in centerfield and is one of the fastest guys on every field he steps onto.

But yeah, they both strike out a lot.

Hopefully the guy who said Stubbs is a "GG caliber defender" isn't the same guy who thought that about Alex Gonzalez.

dougdirt
06-17-2007, 08:04 PM
Hopefully the guy who said Stubbs is a "GG caliber defender" isn't the same guy who thought that about Alex Gonzalez.

Have you had the chance to see Stubbs play CF? He glides out there. It never looks like he is running hard, but he gets to EVERYTHING.

corkedbat
06-17-2007, 08:11 PM
I voted No because I think he;ll make the Major league club and play several years plaing a strong CF and batting 7th (leadoff if Narron's still there).

With athe failure rate of most draft choices, I don't know if you can call anyone who makes the Show and sticks around several rears as a starter a "bust." but when you look at how high he went in the first round and who they left on the board to choose him and I don't know that you can call him "Value for Pick" or a rousing success either.

I think what I project probably is (and was) his ceiling. I think you shoot for better early in the first round. I was never a fan of the pick.

reds44
06-17-2007, 09:53 PM
Hopefully the guy who said Stubbs is a "GG caliber defender" isn't the same guy who thought that about Alex Gonzalez.
Alex Gonzalez was a GG caliber SS. He's gotten old.

flyer85
06-17-2007, 09:55 PM
Rey Olmedo was once the next coming of Davey Concepcion, Machado was said to have GG defense.

15fan
06-18-2007, 12:45 PM
Drew's 2007 YTD stats (http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Drew%2520Stubbs&pos=OF&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=453211)

.718 OPS for the year.

7 for his last 40 (.175 BA) with only 1 XBH - a double. 12 Ks, 5 BBs.

Not inspiring the kind of confidence that a struggling, small-market team would like to see from a top 10 draft pick 12 months out of college.

camisadelgolf
07-20-2007, 11:50 PM
I hope about 46% of RedsZone like crow. :) He's reached base in 19 straight games (and in most of those games, he reached base multiple times). He's hot right now, and soon, instead of RedsZoners needlessly doubting him, RedsZoners will be needlessly criticizing him. ;)

Okay, maybe I'm a little bit of an optimist, but I really like what Stubbs could bring to the table.

SteelSD
07-21-2007, 01:43 AM
Okay, maybe I'm a little bit of an optimist, but I really like what Stubbs could bring to the table.

I like what this guy brings to the table. Right now. At the MLB level:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=28705

For those who don't care to click on the link, that's Tim Lincecum; he of the 4.37 ERA, 10.00 K/9 rate and .645 OPSA. As a rookie. In the year after he was drafted.

Now, Drew Stubbs isn't any better or worse because the Reds stupidly decided to select him rather than Lincecum, but that mistake may haunt the Reds for years. And Stubbs has, apparently, been injured. Turf toe is a serious issue. In most cases, it's nearly incapacitating for a guy who relies on a speed game. That being said, I'd think that a guy who's demonstrably affected by turf toe wouldn't be able to attempt 32 Stolen Bases thusfar in 2007 or appear to "glide" in Center Field.

But hey, Stubbs is now up to a .757 OPS as a 22-year old in low-A ball after a hot streak after posting a .768 OPS in Rookie ball in a major hitters league as a 21 year old. At that pace, we may see Stubbs ready for a fourth outfielder slot right around 2011.

Patrick Bateman
07-21-2007, 02:19 AM
Steel, I don't think one person will disagree with you regarding Lincecum.

I'm probably Stubbs' biggest supporter on the board, and I badly wanted Lincecum. He was a slam dunk pick in my mind.

Stubbs has a long way to go, but I like his game and I think he will contribute even if he's not, nor will he ever be Tim Lincecum.

AmarilloRed
07-21-2007, 02:21 AM
I really hope he will be more than a fourth outfielder. We need a good outfield prospect if we are going to seriously consider trading Adam Dunn. Freel and Hopper are not legitimate starting outfielders. Freel is a supersub, and Hopper is a fourth outfielder. I have reconsidered my previous opinion; I think if he is healthy he will help the Reds in the future. I have already voted, but I am sure quite a few of us might change our vote if we could. We might start up a new poll?

dougdirt
07-21-2007, 03:04 AM
I really hope he will be more than a fourth outfielder. We need a good outfield prospect if we are going to seriously consider trading Adam Dunn. Freel and Hopper are not legitimate starting outfielders. Freel is a supersub, and Hopper is a fourth outfielder. I have reconsidered my previous opinion; I think if he is healthy he will help the Reds in the future. I have already voted, but I am sure quite a few of us might change our vote if we could. We might start up a new poll?

Jay Bruce much?

camisadelgolf
07-21-2007, 04:01 AM
In the user agreement, they should insert a clause that says you may not mention Drew Stubbs and Tim Lincecum in the same thread. Lincecum is the second coming of Christ. We get it. This wasn't a Lincecum poll, though. It was a Stubbs poll.

In 1985, the Reds drafted Barry Larkin, but look at what a waste of a draft pick was. I mean, the Reds could have had a guy with over 700 homeruns in Barry Bonds. Wow!

Every draft pick is a crap shoot. Nothing is guaranteed. For all you know, Lincecum's arm could fall off and Stubbs could be a future Hall of Famer. I know it's interesting to talk about 'could've been's, but there's no point when it's so early into their careers. Would I rather have Lincecum on the Reds right now? Absolutely. In five years? I have no idea.

reds44
07-21-2007, 04:20 AM
Jay Bruce much?
:thumbup:

Mario-Rijo
07-21-2007, 12:55 PM
Steel, I don't think one person will disagree with you regarding Lincecum.

I'm probably Stubbs' biggest supporter on the board, and I badly wanted Lincecum. He was a slam dunk pick in my mind.

Stubbs has a long way to go, but I like his game and I think he will contribute even if he's not, nor will he ever be Tim Lincecum.

I would disagree actually, Lincecum's career could take a downward spiral and quick while Stubbs stilll may make it, it's yet too early to tell. I liked Lincecum as well and hoped the Reds would take that risk as opposed to this one (Stubbs). However after re-examining the issue Stubbs has a flaw that could perhaps be corrected while Lincecum's flaw cannot be corrected, thus he was passed over by several teams.

The flaw(s) one of which was his stature (5'11 and 160 lbs.) and the question mark if a guy that small can actually pitch anywhere near acceptable to big league standards for an extended period of time. There are exceptions to this rule (Oswalt 6 ft., Pedro 5'11) but not many who make it for long. If he does then his horn can be tooted, but odds are still he won't make a long career out of it.

Stubbs on the other hand is a guy that likely has bat control issues (which can be corrected in more than 1 different way) not unlike another infamous Texan who shall remain nameless just to a more profound extent. Believe it or not it may just take the right instructor to both detect and fix the problem.

There was the word that his bat speed wasn't up to par from an alledged scout. That may be lord knows I am no scout, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I know a scout or 2 also. But if that was the case how does a guy with poor bat speed pull 49.3 % of everything he contacts? No I don't think it's his bat speed as I too have seen him live and in person and his problem appears to be of the bat control variety.

But the bottom line regardless of how either do is why continue to use Lincecum as a comparison for what might have been, when Lincecum has yet to disprove his risks? Sure he has "made it" and that in the end may make him the better bet in retrospect but if it's only a short stay and Stubbs never makes it then his risk was only slightly less rewarding. And perhaps Stubbs hanging around in the minor's helps boost attendance for a few years as a "draw" and in the end there was virtually no difference whatsoever call it a wash.

FWIW, Todd Frazier may also have similar issues in the short term. He has a couple "tendencies" which might make him inconsistent for awhile, that doesn't make him a bad pick it likely is moreso an indictment on the coaching than anything.

jojo
07-21-2007, 01:33 PM
I like what this guy brings to the table. Right now. At the MLB level:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=28705

For those who don't care to click on the link, that's Tim Lincecum; he of the 4.37 ERA, 10.00 K/9 rate and .645 OPSA. As a rookie. In the year after he was drafted.

Now, Drew Stubbs isn't any better or worse because the Reds stupidly decided to select him rather than Lincecum, but that mistake may haunt the Reds for years. And Stubbs has, apparently, been injured. Turf toe is a serious issue. In most cases, it's nearly incapacitating for a guy who relies on a speed game. That being said, I'd think that a guy who's demonstrably affected by turf toe wouldn't be able to attempt 32 Stolen Bases thusfar in 2007 or appear to "glide" in Center Field.

But hey, Stubbs is now up to a .757 OPS as a 22-year old in low-A ball after a hot streak after posting a .768 OPS in Rookie ball in a major hitters league as a 21 year old. At that pace, we may see Stubbs ready for a fourth outfielder slot right around 2011.



YES

Falls City Beer
07-21-2007, 01:35 PM
I would disagree actually, Lincecum's career could take a downward spiral and quick while Stubbs stilll may make it, it's yet too early to tell. I liked Lincecum as well and hoped the Reds would take that risk as opposed to this one (Stubbs). However after re-examining the issue Stubbs has a flaw that could perhaps be corrected while Lincecum's flaw cannot be corrected, thus he was passed over by several teams.

The flaw(s) one of which was his stature (5'11 and 160 lbs.) and the question mark if a guy that small can actually pitch anywhere near acceptable to big league standards for an extended period of time. There are exceptions to this rule (Oswalt 6 ft., Pedro 5'11) but not many who make it for long. If he does then his horn can be tooted, but odds are still he won't make a long career out of it.

Stubbs on the other hand is a guy that likely has bat control issues (which can be corrected in more than 1 different way) not unlike another infamous Texan who shall remain nameless just to a more profound extent. Believe it or not it may just take the right instructor to both detect and fix the problem.

There was the word that his bat speed wasn't up to par from an alledged scout. That may be lord knows I am no scout, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I know a scout or 2 also. But if that was the case how does a guy with poor bat speed pull 49.3 % of everything he contacts? No I don't think it's his bat speed as I too have seen him live and in person and his problem appears to be of the bat control variety.

But the bottom line regardless of how either do is why continue to use Lincecum as a comparison for what might have been, when Lincecum has yet to disprove his risks? Sure he has "made it" and that in the end may make him the better bet in retrospect but if it's only a short stay and Stubbs never makes it then his risk was only slightly less rewarding. And perhaps Stubbs hanging around in the minor's helps boost attendance for a few years as a "draw" and in the end there was virtually no difference whatsoever call it a wash.

FWIW, Todd Frazier may also have similar issues in the short term. He has a couple "tendencies" which might make him inconsistent for awhile, that doesn't make him a bad pick it likely is moreso an indictment on the coaching than anything.

If Tim Lincecum produces just 3 seasons of .650 OPSA, 33 starts, then he'll be worth exponentially more than what Stubbs would bring to the Reds for 6 years as even a pretty good MLB centerfielder.

A starter who does what Lincecum can do can't be overvalued because he represents the single most important cog of a ballclub.

AmarilloRed
07-21-2007, 03:35 PM
Jay Bruce much?

I always though Jay Bruce would be replacing Ken Griffey Jr. in right field. I suppose he could play left, though.

Mario-Rijo
07-21-2007, 03:43 PM
If Tim Lincecum produces just 3 seasons of .650 OPSA, 33 starts, then he'll be worth exponentially more than what Stubbs would bring to the Reds for 6 years as even a pretty good MLB centerfielder.

A starter who does what Lincecum can do can't be overvalued because he represents the single most important cog of a ballclub.

That may very well be true, although I don't know how. But that is 2 and 1/2 seasons away yet. If he lasts that long with that kind of production (currently a .648 OPSA w/a .269 BABIPA) then you may have a point. My point isn't whether he will or won't produce (that's another debate), it's can he last? Some will say yes but most would say let's wait and see, I am in that group. And if he can't last then the right choice was made IMO, almost regardless of whether or not Stubbs ever develops.

HBP
07-21-2007, 04:14 PM
In the user agreement, they should insert a clause that says you may not mention Drew Stubbs and Tim Lincecum in the same thread. Lincecum is the second coming of Christ. We get it. This wasn't a Lincecum poll, though. It was a Stubbs poll.

In 1985, the Reds drafted Barry Larkin, but look at what a waste of a draft pick was. I mean, the Reds could have had a guy with over 700 homeruns in Barry Bonds. Wow!

Every draft pick is a crap shoot. Nothing is guaranteed. For all you know, Lincecum's arm could fall off and Stubbs could be a future Hall of Famer. I know it's interesting to talk about 'could've been's, but there's no point when it's so early into their careers. Would I rather have Lincecum on the Reds right now? Absolutely. In five years? I have no idea.

Coach Ditka vs. Lincecum, who would win?

SteelSD
07-21-2007, 06:37 PM
And if he <Lincecum> can't last then the right choice was made IMO, almost regardless of whether or not Stubbs ever develops.

If Drew Stubbs doesn't develop, then it'll mean that Tim Lincecum- if his arm falls of today- will have been responsible for infinitely more production at the MLB level. Minor league attendance "boost" be darned. Ditto for height. Stubbs may look great in jeans, but Lincecum looks better right now on a major league baseball field.

And my apologies for throwing Lincecum's name out there. But the last thing I want as a Reds fan is to be having an "if he hits" discussion about 22-year old Drew Stubbs over a year after he was selected with the #8 pick in the entire stinkin' draft. The day he was drafted, there were concerns about his bat. He's done nothing since then to show us that those concerns weren't real then and aren't real now.

flyer85
07-21-2007, 06:45 PM
The day he was drafted, there were concerns about his bat. He's done nothing since then to show us that those concerns weren't real then and aren't real now.... but since he is a Reds prospect I will ignore the evidence and remain optimistic. :evil:

MWM
07-21-2007, 06:50 PM
"if he hits" is a conversation we've had on this board for years. I don't think I've ever seen one of these guys learn to hit. I remember the "if he hits" discussion about Gookie dawkins while many on the board thought he was untouchable in a trade.

RedsManRick
07-21-2007, 07:16 PM
Taking a slightly different approach, can anybody find a reasonable minor league comp for Stubbs who ended up with a successful (or any) major league career?

The common comp for Stubbs at the major league level, Mike Cameron, hit .248/.343/.391 with 100 SO in 468 AB in A+ ball at age 21. At age 22, he got promoted and hit .249/.355/ .429 in AA in 350 AB. He got a cup of coffee and was horrible. At age 23, he hit .300/.402/.600. At age 24 he started in AAA, put up a .911 OPS and was promoted to the majors to stay.

What's interesting to me is that Cameron didn't come out of a top college program. Rather he was drafte in the 18th round out of HS. He couldn't hit a lick in Rookie ball (.568 OPS). The next year he hit decently in the NY Penn League and then had a weak year in Low A (.652 OPS). He repeated A ball the next year at age 20 and stunk up the joint to the tune of .238/.292/.297. He got promoted the next year, which is where the previous paragraph picks up.

To me, I find it extremely interesting that the Sox continued to promote Cameron despite his struggles. What did they see in him? Unlike Stubbs, he wasn't a top pick with great expectations. They didn't see him succeed against quality competition.

So what gives? Is there something we're potentially missing with Stubbs? Is there something Cameron had going for him that Stubbs doesn't? Did the CWS instruction to a young Cameron make a difference over Texas Longhorn instruction to Stubbs? Are there are other guys, like Cameron, who followed the path down which Stubbs seems to be headed?

dougdirt
07-21-2007, 07:26 PM
RMR,
M2 has done some searching and hasn't found anyone like Stubbs (major college, top round pick, struggled then turned it around). Granted he also is unsure if any of those guys were hurt like Stubbs has been for the better part of his entire stay with the Reds, so the comparisons only hold so much water.

Personally, I could care less about what any other prospect is doing in terms of how it relates to what Drew is doing down in Dayton. As long as he is making improvements with his game, then I don't care one ounce about what tiny Tim is doing in SF unless he is pitching against the Reds. He has nothing to do with Drew.

Give Drew some time, see what happens.

SteelSD
07-21-2007, 08:47 PM
... but since he is a Reds prospect I will ignore the evidence and remain optimistic. :evil:

Apparently.

Oh, and Lincecum just throttled the Brewers today to the tune of scattering 4 hits over 8 Innings of 8 K shutout ball today. But the Red don't need any of that because Lincecum is an inch shorter than Mario Soto while Drew Stubbs is nursing a serious foot injury that affects his hitting but not his running.

Sometimes I feel like Rod Serling is speaking to me through Redszone. ;)

jojo
07-21-2007, 08:52 PM
Taking a slightly different approach, can anybody find a reasonable minor league comp for Stubbs who ended up with a successful (or any) major league career?

The common comp for Stubbs at the major league level, Mike Cameron, hit .248/.343/.391 with 100 SO in 468 AB in A+ ball at age 21. At age 22, he got promoted and hit .249/.355/ .429 in AA in 350 AB. He got a cup of coffee and was horrible. At age 23, he hit .300/.402/.600. At age 24 he started in AAA, put up a .911 OPS and was promoted to the majors to stay.

What's interesting to me is that Cameron didn't come out of a top college program. Rather he was drafte in the 18th round out of HS. He couldn't hit a lick in Rookie ball (.568 OPS). The next year he hit decently in the NY Penn League and then had a weak year in Low A (.652 OPS). He repeated A ball the next year at age 20 and stunk up the joint to the tune of .238/.292/.297. He got promoted the next year, which is where the previous paragraph picks up.

To me, I find it extremely interesting that the Sox continued to promote Cameron despite his struggles. What did they see in him? Unlike Stubbs, he wasn't a top pick with great expectations. They didn't see him succeed against quality competition.

So what gives? Is there something we're potentially missing with Stubbs? Is there something Cameron had going for him that Stubbs doesn't? Did the CWS instruction to a young Cameron make a difference over Texas Longhorn instruction to Stubbs? Are there are other guys, like Cameron, who followed the path down which Stubbs seems to be headed?

I think Cameron was considered a five tool guy right out of highschool and was generally groomed because of what was thought to be a very high ceiling (a scout's dream that in fact came true as it turns out). He showed progression though low A ball and basically stunk up the midwest league. A great personality and stellar work ethic couple with the *promise* of those eye popping tools got him promoted again and a spike in his walk rate in high A ball was all it took to cement his rise.

Just for S&G, at age 22, Stubbs is OPSing .719 in A ball (albeit the midwest league is a pitcher's league) while Cameron was OPSing .784 in the Southern (another pitcher's league).

Interestingly both guys struck out at similar rates and both drew walks at similar rates. At age 23, Cameron was again in AA (Southern) doing this: .300/.402/.600. Will that be Stubbs?

Aronchis
07-21-2007, 08:58 PM
Apparently.

Oh, and Lincecum just throttled the Brewers today to the tune of scattering 4 hits over 8 Innings of 8 K shutout ball today. But the Red don't need any of that because Lincecum is an inch shorter than Mario Soto while Drew Stubbs is nursing a serious foot injury that affects his hitting but not his running.

Sometimes I feel like Rod Serling is speaking to me through Redszone. ;)

Then he goes through shoulder surgery in the winter after he felt something "pop" in September. Again, this is what Doug is talking about. The Monday morning QBing gets old.

You feel like Roger Serling? Come on, you not saying anything that hasn't been said before REPEATEDLY. In the words of Tyler Durden, your not special.

jojo
07-21-2007, 08:59 PM
Apparently.

Oh, and Lincecum just throttled the Brewers today to the tune of scattering 4 hits over 8 Innings of 8 K shutout ball today. But the Red don't need any of that because Lincecum is an inch shorter than Mario Soto while Drew Stubbs is nursing a serious foot injury that affects his hitting but not his running.

Sometimes I feel like Rod Serling is speaking to me through Redszone. ;)

Hey....in that draft, my beloved Mariners passed on Andrew Miller and Tim Lincecum to grab up their current future-starter-converted-to-short-relieving-walk-ace, Brandon Morrow.

While zoners' playing the hindsight card on what was an obvisouly bad decision at the time is a little weak, I don't fault Reds fans for trying to see the silver lining.

Mario-Rijo
07-21-2007, 09:40 PM
Apparently.

Oh, and Lincecum just throttled the Brewers today to the tune of scattering 4 hits over 8 Innings of 8 K shutout ball today. But the Red don't need any of that because Lincecum is an inch shorter than Mario Soto while Drew Stubbs is nursing a serious foot injury that affects his hitting but not his running.

Sometimes I feel like Rod Serling is speaking to me through Redszone. ;)

No that might be Jim Bowden, Ryan Wagner's rookie season says hello! There are no gaurantees, Lincecum and Stubbs are no different. Ya just try to minimize the risk, and most teams passed because Lincecum's higher than normal possibility of injury. Why do you have a problem with that?

I cannot fault the Reds for passing on him for that reason, but so many can and that's a shame. Especially considering all the failure this organization has had with injuries decimating the previous young arms.

Yeah right now you are correct Lincecum is the star of that draft, whoopee Wagner was the star of his for a half season also.

camisadelgolf
07-21-2007, 09:52 PM
I believe the discussion about who should've been drafted last year has already happened dozens of times on this message board. I think we can all come to the conclusion that having Lincecum would be better than having Stubbs this year. Many of us would admit that Lincecum would be better to have than Stubbs long-term, too. With that said, what do you say we move on and focus on what's there instead of what could've been there? This is RedsZone, not GiantsZone.

Mario-Rijo
07-21-2007, 10:13 PM
... but since he is a Reds prospect I will ignore the evidence and remain optimistic. :evil:

And this is what fires me up, apparently I am now not allowed to have a positive outlook for our own prospects. I should just jump on the bandwagon that says he is a bum, face it and move on. No one has ever improved in this game so he is a lost cause.

dougdirt
07-21-2007, 10:56 PM
while Drew Stubbs is nursing a serious foot injury that affects his hitting but not his running.


Surely you don't think Drew Stubbs running hasn't been affected. The guy had world class speed at Texas and all of a sudden he gets caught stealing at an alarming rate and you don't think its affecting his speed?

Hindsight, sure the Reds and 8 other teams should have probably taken Lincecum for this year. Whatever. There is no point in bringing it up every other freaking day is there? For crying out loud it has just gotten to the point that its ridiculous. I am staying out of this thread from now on. People need to move on, this is worse than 'the trade' debates.

SteelSD
07-21-2007, 11:13 PM
Then he goes through shoulder surgery in the winter after he felt something "pop" in September. Again, this is what Doug is talking about. The Monday morning QBing gets old.

You feel like Roger Serling? Come on, you not saying anything that hasn't been said before REPEATEDLY. In the words of Tyler Durden, your not special.

Be careful. Tyler Durden is a close personal friend.

And maybe I'm not saying anything "new" because I'm not hearing anything "new". Reds select Drew Stubbs- questionable bat and all- with the 8th pick in the 2006 draft, he does nothing to suggest his bat shouldn't have been questioned, and now we're hearing that he's been far less than advertised because he's injured. I'm not saying that doug is wrong about Stubbs actually being injured, but I do certainly question the severity of that injury as well as the actual effect on his game. At his current pace, he'll attempt at least 50 Steals in 2007 and appears to be gazelle-like in center. But the injury is severe enough to dramatically affect his ability to hit but not his ability to run? Really? I'm supposed to swallow that how?

To me, what's getting old is that we're ready to assume that Tim Lincecum's arm will explode because of his height. Nevermind that Lincecum is an inch shorter than Johan Santana and Daisuke Matsuzaka. But we need to be in constant "wait-and-see" mode with Reds prospects who've done nothing but reinforce their questionable status (Jay Bruce is currently the lone exception).

I think it's a great study in the dynamics of fandom and the hype surrounding prospects who, with few exceptions, aren't as advertised. Homer Bailey? Not as advertised. Nowhere near. Consistent mid to high-90's heat with a solid curve? No way. The kid has to reach back to pull 95 MPH and has no idea where that pitch is going (making it three pitches over which he has no command). At his best, he struggles to be effectively wild. At his worst, it's a feast for opposing hitters. Meanwhile, Jered Weaver has produced a sub 4.00 (3.88, 3.87) over his first 212 Innings. But his arm is supposed to fall off too even though he's 6'7" tall. Short pitcher or tall pitcher. Doesn't matter. We don't like them because, pretty much, they're not Reds prospects.

Jay Bruce performs at a very high level for his age in the lower levels of the minors and he gets kudos. Drew Stubbs performs poorly for his age at those same levels and we get excuses and a wait-and-see approach that ends up being nothing more than stalling while we wait for something...anything...in his game the reminds us of the value the Reds should have received with that pick. Hey, maybe one day he'll hit. Maybe one day Miguel Perez will hit. Maybe one day Rolando Roomes will hit.

And now we wait on Mesoraco. He's a first-round catcher who will have to go against the odds to end up at that position should he end up in the Show. Ok. Fine. I can be a bit more patient with him because it's early, I don't have huge expectations of a catcher's offense, I'm waiting to hear more about his defense and ability to call a game, and because he's shown solid plate discipline thusfar. I'll be patient. He is young after all. That being said from Dan O'Brien to Wayne Krivsky, the Reds have been drafting as if they have all the time in the world to wait. But wait they can't.

Considering the current team construction, the Reds have about a two-year window. They'd have hit a window earlier had they done what a bunch of really smart folks suggested from 2004-to-current with the draft. That's not Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That's just simple analysis. And it includes analysis that was produced at the moment those selections were made. There's nothing "hindsight" about any of it. Instead, it's about how probability sucks when you try to work against it.

dougdirt
07-21-2007, 11:22 PM
Ok, I have to chime in real fast. You want to talk about taking Lincecum being some great idea then you say how probability sucks when you try to work against it? Wow. Taking a pitcher that is 5'10 and listed at 155 is going with good odds? If you want to say taking Bailey was going against the odds over someone like Weaver (who wasn't just passed on because of his talent, but more so his agent and demands), then I am willing to listen to that. But you cant tell me taking a pitcher with the build of Lincecum, regardless of talent, was with the odds.

Also, Pedro and Johan.... Well Johan weighs in at 210, a solid 50 pounds heavier than Tim. Pedro is currently listed at 195. I couldn't say what he was 10 years ago, but again, the odds are highly against short, skinny pitchers with unorthodox deliveries.

Again, I have nothing against Lincecum. I love watching him pitch every chance I get. That said, he is not a Red and I am not going to play 'what if' every chance I get just because I can.

Really. I am done this time.

camisadelgolf
07-22-2007, 12:11 AM
How many prospects are available during each draft who have no flaws? As dougdirt pointed out (and thank you to him for saying what I was thinking in better ways than I could ever try), Lincecum had his own risk factors.

Anyway, what if Lincecum were taken--who should they have picked?

Do you post on fan websites of the other third of MLB teams who decided not to draft Lincecum and tell them how bad of a decision they made?

Patrick Bateman
07-22-2007, 01:02 AM
"if he hits" is a conversation we've had on this board for years. I don't think I've ever seen one of these guys learn to hit. I remember the "if he hits" discussion about Gookie dawkins while many on the board thought he was untouchable in a trade.

One thing that Stubbs does have going for him that the others didn't is plate discipline. His ability to draw walks and get on base even though his bat hasn't done much developing gives him a much more reasonable chance. But your point is well taken. He has a long way to go, and considering his age, the odds of his bat reaching a high level is unlikely. I think Stubbs will eventually turn into a .350/.400/.750 type of player (similar to what people expect Denorfia to be) and being a useful starting CF when his defense and speed is factored in. But I doubt he ever becomes Mike Cameron/Torii Hunter. Maybe he will be a late bloomer like some scouts thought he would be, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. I think a solid career will be pretty likely.

I will say it again though, that not picking Lincecum was a pretty obvious mistake IMO. A mistake that just about every poster here was against. Taking Stubbs over Lincecum was not a good pick, and even if Lincecum gets a major injury I would still consider it a bad choice because you need to take players that have the immense upside and closeness to the majors of Lincecum even if you expect an injury.

I like Stubbs, and I appreciate what I think he will bring to the table even though he wasn't the right choice.

edabbs44
07-22-2007, 01:25 AM
Ok, I have to chime in real fast. You want to talk about taking Lincecum being some great idea then you say how probability sucks when you try to work against it? Wow. Taking a pitcher that is 5'10 and listed at 155 is going with good odds? If you want to say taking Bailey was going against the odds over someone like Weaver (who wasn't just passed on because of his talent, but more so his agent and demands), then I am willing to listen to that. But you cant tell me taking a pitcher with the build of Lincecum, regardless of talent, was with the odds.

Also, Pedro and Johan.... Well Johan weighs in at 210, a solid 50 pounds heavier than Tim. Pedro is currently listed at 195. I couldn't say what he was 10 years ago, but again, the odds are highly against short, skinny pitchers with unorthodox deliveries.

Again, I have nothing against Lincecum. I love watching him pitch every chance I get. That said, he is not a Red and I am not going to play 'what if' every chance I get just because I can.

Really. I am done this time.

Cueto isn't much bigger than Lincecum, by the way. People on this board tend to pick out things like stature and K/BB ratios for prospects of other organizations but fail to see these same stats when it comes to Cincy guys.

SteelSD
07-22-2007, 01:30 AM
Ok, I have to chime in real fast. You want to talk about taking Lincecum being some great idea then you say how probability sucks when you try to work against it? Wow. Taking a pitcher that is 5'10 and listed at 155 is going with good odds? If you want to say taking Bailey was going against the odds over someone like Weaver (who wasn't just passed on because of his talent, but more so his agent and demands), then I am willing to listen to that. But you cant tell me taking a pitcher with the build of Lincecum, regardless of talent, was with the odds.

Taking a pitcher with the projection of Tim Lincecum was absolutely working on the plus side of probability. And the guy is 5'11". It's two inches shorter than Bob Gibson and one inch shorter than Mario Soto. As overused as the term "electric arm" is, Lincecum has one. Weaver is tall but also has an unorthodox delivery. You discounted Weaver because of his delivery. Now you're talking about signability even though the Reds have worked with Weaver's agent (as have all MLB teams) pretty consistently.

Lincecum (aka "Tiny Tim" as you call him in an effort to debase) is too short and slight of frame. You've previously claimed that Weaver is destined to fail because of bad mechanics. But Bailey's gonna be an ace because he's tall (yet, he's sleight of frame) and throws a baseball harder than he actually throws a baseball and we should all wait and see on Drew Stubbs because his toe injury has demonstrably affected his hitting even though it obviously hasn't affected his running.

Sorry, doug, but I'm not buying any of that.

camisadelgolf
07-22-2007, 01:31 AM
Cueto isn't much bigger than Lincecum, by the way. People on this board tend to pick out things like stature and K/BB ratios for prospects of other organizations but fail to see these same stats when it comes to Cincy guys.

http://www.all-creatures.org/recipes/images/i-apples-reddel.jpg
+
http://groups.wfu.edu/ModelUN/images/Cover/Oranges.jpg

SteelSD
07-22-2007, 01:42 AM
Anyway, what if Lincecum were taken--who should they have picked?

Lincecum wasn't taken prior to selection #8. The draft handed the Reds a gift at that slot and they chose to ignore it.


Do you post on fan websites of the other third of MLB teams who decided not to draft Lincecum and tell them how bad of a decision they made?

Being a Reds fan, why would I possibly do that? And as an FYI- if you think I've just pulled Jered Weaver and Tim Lincecum out of a "hindsight" hat, I'd suggest you think again.

SteelSD
07-22-2007, 01:50 AM
Cueto isn't much bigger than Lincecum, by the way.

Shhh...Cueto is actually very tall and well built. If he weren't, he wouldn't be a Reds top prospect.

dougdirt
07-22-2007, 02:14 AM
Taking a pitcher with the projection of Tim Lincecum was absolutely working on the plus side of probability. And the guy is 5'11". It's two inches shorter than Bob Gibson and one inch shorter than Mario Soto. As overused as the term "electric arm" is, Lincecum has one. Weaver is tall but also has an unorthodox delivery. You discounted Weaver because of his delivery. Now you're talking about signability even though the Reds have worked with Weaver's agent (as have all MLB teams) pretty consistently.

Lincecum (aka "Tiny Tim" as you call him in an effort to debase) is too short and slight of frame. You've previously claimed that Weaver is destined to fail because of bad mechanics. But Bailey's gonna be an ace because he's tall (yet, he's sleight of frame) and throws a baseball harder than he actually throws a baseball and we should all wait and see on Drew Stubbs because his toe injury has demonstrably affected his hitting even though it obviously hasn't affected his running.

Sorry, doug, but I'm not buying any of that.

Steel, for some reason you really just push the right buttons that make me respond.

We will simply just have to disagree that taking a short, absolutely skinny pitcher was or was not on the good side of probability.

Lincecum is a very good pitcher. Nowhere have I ever said anything otherwise in terms of his pitching ability.

Weaver does have bad mechanics.

I didn't dub him Tiny Tim. I have seen it quite a few other places. It wasn't something I just made up to debase anything. It was a nickname I saw and well it surely fits the bill. If I stood next to the guy we would look almost exactly the same (23 years old, 5'10, 165 lbs).... well at least from a distance.

I would love for you to show me where I, or anyone for that matter has said Bailey is going to be an ace because he is tall. My best friend is the same height as Homer. He isn't going to be an ace... heck, I can destroy the baseball off of him. I don't think I have said that Bailey throws a baseball harder than he throws. Bailey is 6'4 and 205 pounds.... thats not really in the same place as 5'10 and 160 pounds. Thats an extra 45 pounds spread out over 6 inches.

As for Stubbs toe, if you don't think his toe injury hasn't affected his running game, then you either have a lot of faith in the MWL catchers that throw him out a lot, or you are just trying to go against the possibility that Drew is having some struggles at the plate because of an injury.

Also, edabbs. Your comment about Cueto was noted. Cueto is 5'10 and 198 pounds. Lincecum is 5'10 and 170 pounds. They may be the same height, but in terms of size, they aren't really comparable.

Mario-Rijo
07-22-2007, 03:18 AM
Shhh...Cueto is actually very tall and well built. If he weren't, he wouldn't be a Reds top prospect.

Laugh if you will, but it won't change the fact that we are simply different people and not ignorant as guys like to insinuate. Most people agreed Lincecum was someone they would have chose over Stubbs, even with the size issue.

Fact is some of us are not prepared to give up on Stubbs just yet, what does it hurt? You OTOH apparently have given up on him. So the question is why is that if someone stays positive on a prospect we are scoffed at and made light of? He has 584 PA's in his pro career and already he's a bust, unreal.

Let's see how much of a bust he really is:

Drew Stubbs Vs. Mystery Player (= MP)

Stubbs
A- (Billings) (21 years old, 242 PA's)
.252 BA, .368 OBP%, .400 Slg%

A (Dayton) (22 yrs old, 342 PA's)
.254 BA, .363 OBP%, .389 (Incomplete)

MP
A- (21 yrs old, 199 PA's)
.272 BA, .384 OBP%, .456 Slg%

A (22 yrs old, 549 PA's)
.280 BA, .367 OBP%, .469 Slg%

A+ (23 yrs old, 540 PA's)
.304 BA, .374 OBP%, .514 Slg%

AA (24 yrs old, 420 PA's)
.297 BA, .386 OBP%, .647 Slg%

See the jump in BA and Slg% sometime after 750-800 PA's, that's not a bad place to look for a spike in production right now Stubbs is still at 584 and I might add he has already started to play better. All this with an injury to a lower extremity which if in his plant foot could make a guy not plant as hard thus throwing off his ability to hit for power. Anyone who has swung a bat and had a foot injury can tell you that if they are not putting all the weight they should on the back foot they are more likely to get on top of the ball as opposed to under it moreso than usual.

Here's the link to the foot injury.

http://http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/dragons/2007/04/04/ddn040407dragonsb1.html

Bottom line give the guy a little more time (with some health) before you jump all over some of us for being too optimistic about him. BTW the mystery player is your 2006 NL MVP.

SteelSD
07-22-2007, 11:37 AM
Cueto is 5'10 and 198 pounds. Lincecum is 5'10 and 170 pounds. They may be the same height, but in terms of size, they aren't really comparable.

Cueto is listed at 174 lbs. at baseballamerica.com and at 175 at the baseball cube. Even lookouts.com doesn't list Cueto at 198. They have him at 183 (must have weighed him wet).

SteelSD
07-22-2007, 11:54 AM
Fact is some of us are not prepared to give up on Stubbs just yet, what does it hurt? You OTOH apparently have given up on him.

Ah, that's where you're mistaken. I play in the land of probability, not absolutes. I actually like Stubbs' plate discipline. If there's hope for him, that's where it starts. That being said, I'm not going to have as much patience for his offensive game as I will for a younger version of Drew Stubbs. The value the Reds received with his pick appeared to be well less than optimal when the pick was made and Stubbs hasn't done anything since to make it look any better. However, "given up" is too strong a phrase. Disappointed and pessimistic would be more accurate as I can't remember the last "if he hits" Reds player to actually work out.

corkedbat
07-22-2007, 12:06 PM
In 1985, the Reds drafted Barry Larkin, but look at what a waste of a draft pick was. I mean, the Reds could have had a guy with over 700 homeruns in Barry Bonds. Wow!



So basically, you're saying Stubbs should Roid up? :D

jojo
07-22-2007, 12:11 PM
About the only thing that Lincecum and Cueto have in common concerning their projectability is that I was bigger then both by the time I was 13.

Now it's absolutely true that conservative scouting directors have a bias concerning pitcher body types-pitchers who fit the "tall but not too tall mode" generally have a better downward plane, mechanics, and durability. Pitchers who are too short or too tall to fit the mold basically are only able to buck the trend because of their exceptional stuff.

Lincecum has electric stuff-it's dynamite stuff really. While I like Cueto and his stuff will likely make him a good major leaguer (albeit not a starter), his stuff is not even in the same category as Lincecum.

Now to the draft, Lincecum was clearly the highest reward player in the draft given his stuff was a class above everyone elses and his college history suggested a very short trip through the majors. Why did he fall to #10? There was risk associated with him as there were questions about his command, mechanics (a short guy with a weird delivery), and his college pitch counts.

That said, when the highest reward player in the draft falls into your lap, you take him. When he also fits one of your greatest organisational needs, you take him twice just to make sure. I understand teams taking Hochevar, Miller, or Morrow ahead of Lincecum. But, to me, taking a position player with serious questions concerning his potential to develop offensively does nothing to mitigate risk relative to taking a short pitcher with funked mechanics and an explosive ceiling. The hindsight card really doesn't work with that decision.

camisadelgolf
07-22-2007, 12:35 PM
Just a warning: I totally digress in this post . . .

My personal belief is that the Reds draft for need (just look at this year's draft with all the catchers and "shortstops" taken). The Reds have Arroyo and Harang signed for years. Bailey will be here for at least as long. Between Carlos Fisher, Sean Watson, Johnny Cueto, Phil Dumatrait, Bobby Livingston, Kyle Lotzkar, Elizardo Ramirez, Alex Smit, Daryl Thompson, etc., the Reds are probably figuring at least one or two of them can pan out as fourth or fifth starters (which is reasonable, in my opinion).

With Krivsky's plan, you know Dunn's not going to stick around. Griffey's retirement is knocking at the door. Ryan Freel still hasn't proved he can play every day and could self-destruct at any moment. Meanwhile, in the outfield, the Reds will have Josh Hamilton and Jay Bruce. Can you imagine the outfield the Reds would have with a speedy, Gold Glove-caliber center fielder who is willing to take a walk and has some pop? Then, in the infield, assuming you don't stick with Encarnacion and Phillips for price reasons, you still have Joey Votto, and some combination of Chris Valaika, Todd Frazier, Neftali Soto, Zack Cozart, and/or Juan Francisco. That's kind of why I think they say Krivsky is trying so hard to steal Salty from Atlanta--because catcher is the only position the Reds aren't prepared to fill in the near future (since Mesoraco is probably several years away from being a Major Leaguer).

dougdirt
07-22-2007, 01:06 PM
Cueto is listed at 174 lbs. at baseballamerica.com and at 175 at the baseball cube. Even lookouts.com doesn't list Cueto at 198. They have him at 183 (must have weighed him wet).

Well, I would much rather go by what the Reds say over BA or TBC. I got my information from Milb.com (link here (http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Johnny%20Cueto&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=456501)).
I just got out the Reds media guide and he was listed at 183 in there. When Johnny was promoted to Chattanooga though, his weight changed on milb.com. Same thing with Lincecum. When he was first called up to the Giants he was actually listed on their official website at 155 lbs. Now he is listed at 170. Did they both gain 15 pounds or are they both artificially 15 pounds heavier?

dougdirt
07-22-2007, 01:11 PM
About the only thing that Lincecum and Cueto have in common concerning their projectability is that I was bigger then both by the time I was 13.

Now it's absolutely true that conservative scouting directors have a bias concerning pitcher body types-pitchers who fit the "tall but not too tall mode" generally have a better downward plane, mechanics, and durability. Pitchers who are too short or too tall to fit the mold basically are only able to buck the trend because of their exceptional stuff.

Lincecum has electric stuff-it's dynamite stuff really. While I like Cueto and his stuff will likely make him a good major leaguer (albeit not a starter), his stuff is not even in the same category as Lincecum.

Now to the draft, Lincecum was clearly the highest reward player in the draft given his stuff was a class above everyone elses and his college history suggested a very short trip through the majors. Why did he fall to #10? There was risk associated with him as there were questions about his command, mechanics (a short guy with a weird delivery), and his college pitch counts.

That said, when the highest reward player in the draft falls into your lap, you take him. When he also fits one of your greatest organisational needs, you take him twice just to make sure. I understand teams taking Hochevar, Miller, or Morrow ahead of Lincecum. But, to me, taking a position player with serious questions concerning his potential to develop offensively does nothing to mitigate risk relative to taking a short pitcher with funked mechanics and an explosive ceiling. The hindsight card really doesn't work with that decision.

Jojo, I can go with most of what you said, but lets not forget that Lincecum had some serious control issues coming out of college. His senior year was his best bb/9 year of the 4, and he still walked over 4 batters per 9 innings. I don't know if you were lurking around back for that draft, but I wanted the Reds to draft anyone not named Drew Stubbs. Personally, I wanted Billy Rowell, but as long as they didn't go with Stubbs I was going to be ok with it. Well they went with Stubbs. Stupid decision at the time if you would have asked me. Regardless though, Stubbs is ours. This is a Reds website. Everytime someone brings up Drew Stubbs, someone, or hords of someones jump in to yell about Tim Lincecum.

edabbs44
07-22-2007, 02:06 PM
Jojo, I can go with most of what you said, but lets not forget that Lincecum had some serious control issues coming out of college. His senior year was his best bb/9 year of the 4, and he still walked over 4 batters per 9 innings. I don't know if you were lurking around back for that draft, but I wanted the Reds to draft anyone not named Drew Stubbs. Personally, I wanted Billy Rowell, but as long as they didn't go with Stubbs I was going to be ok with it. Well they went with Stubbs. Stupid decision at the time if you would have asked me. Regardless though, Stubbs is ours. This is a Reds website. Everytime someone brings up Drew Stubbs, someone, or hords of someones jump in to yell about Tim Lincecum.

Interesting that you say that...this is from Olney's blog today:


Tim Lincecum on Saturday: 29 batters faced, and only three of those saw hitters' counts of 2-0 or 3-1.

I think a lack of control isn't as much of a red flag when it comes to youngsters as some believe. Control can come around.

dougdirt
07-22-2007, 02:09 PM
Interesting that you say that...this is from Olney's blog today:



I think a lack of control isn't as much of a red flag when it comes to youngsters as some believe. Control can come around.

Surely, but it was a question mark coming into the draft as he had shown an inability to throw strikes consistantly.

Mario-Rijo
07-22-2007, 06:59 PM
Ah, that's where you're mistaken. I play in the land of probability, not absolutes. I actually like Stubbs' plate discipline. If there's hope for him, that's where it starts. That being said, I'm not going to have as much patience for his offensive game as I will for a younger version of Drew Stubbs. The value the Reds received with his pick appeared to be well less than optimal when the pick was made and Stubbs hasn't done anything since to make it look any better. However, "given up" is too strong a phrase. Disappointed and pessimistic would be more accurate as I can't remember the last "if he hits" Reds player to actually work out.


Point taken, but why have a problem with me for having more patience than you do. Do you believe that I must be ignorant because I cannot see he should be doing better coming out of 4 yrs of college and still after a year hasn't advanced beyond low A ball. I'm not blind to the possibility that he may not ever hit well enough to be a starting major league CF. I just choose to remain optimistic that he will, that's who I am an optimist you are obviously a natural pessimist. So I suggest we quit trying to play mother nature and respect the other's born nature.

Kc61
07-22-2007, 09:40 PM
Guy is starting to hit.

flyer85
07-22-2007, 11:08 PM
Guy is starting to hit.Guy is OPSing 756. At 22 in Low A ball to be on any kind of track to the majors he needs to be at least 100 points higher. He has been a disappointment and at 22 the clock is ticking.

dougdirt
07-22-2007, 11:15 PM
Guy is OPSing 756. At 22 in Low A ball to be on any kind of track to the majors he needs to be at least 100 points higher. He has been a disappointment and at 22 the clock is ticking.

Actually its .770, but thats not the point. Drew has been an anomoly of sorts. This is the 4th month of the season. He has an OPS of .850 in May and an OPS of 1.113 in July. The other months are .697 (April) and .478 (June).

The bright side is, he has had two solid/spectacular months. It shows that he is capable to puting things together. The downside is he has had 2 attrocious months as well.

You can say he has been a disappointment if you want. I never pegged him from draft day to be in the majors any sooner than when he was 24, so as long as he continues to improve then he has not been a disappointment in my mind. There is no 'clock' per say at the age of 22.

SteelSD
07-23-2007, 12:33 AM
Point taken, but why have a problem with me for having more patience than you do. Do you believe that I must be ignorant because I cannot see he should be doing better coming out of 4 yrs of college and still after a year hasn't advanced beyond low A ball. I'm not blind to the possibility that he may not ever hit well enough to be a starting major league CF. I just choose to remain optimistic that he will, that's who I am an optimist you are obviously a natural pessimist. So I suggest we quit trying to play mother nature and respect the other's born nature.

You can infer what you like, but the fact of the matter is that I wouldn't be involved in a discussion with you if I thought you ignorant. And my "nature" isn't to play the pessimist. Heck, I've tried to tell ORG that the Reds actually do have a potential window over the next couple of years if they play their cards right.

"Mother nature", for me, is "show me"; especially when a prospect had concerns about his bat when drafted and continues to have concerns about his bat while behaving in a way (high frequency of SB attempts, "gliding" in the OF) that runs contrary to reasoning that excuses the lack of a bat.

doug says there's no "clock" at age 22. I can assure you that when you're dealing with a college prospect at #8 in the draft, there is a projected clock or that player wouldn't have been drafted. Expectations are high, and they should be high for a college player taken in the top 10 in the draft.

BTW, as much random griping about Strikeouts that we see, it's not likely to stop with Drew Stubbs. The guy has struck out more than all but three MLB hitters and his AB/K rate would also rank third in MLB. Unfortunately, his power output (.133 IsoP) is below average. What the Reds have so far is a guy who might just strike out about 165-170 times a season and maybe more. I'm sure that'll play very well in the land of public opinion. Put that in the OF along with Jay Bruce's projected 150-odd K's and we're likely to see a Marty Brennaman meltdown of epic proportion. It'll be funny.

camisadelgolf
07-23-2007, 05:04 AM
Don't get me wrong--we all know Stubbs will strike out a lot no matter where he plays--but I think part of Stubbs' high strikeout rate is attributed to A.) the wild pitching in A-level baseball and B.) Stubbs being asked to tinker with his swing.

SteelSD
07-23-2007, 12:24 PM
Don't get me wrong--we all know Stubbs will strike out a lot no matter where he plays--but I think part of Stubbs' high strikeout rate is attributed to A.) the wild pitching in A-level baseball and B.) Stubbs being asked to tinker with his swing.

"Wild" pitchers wouldn't push Stubbs' K rate. They'd push his BB rate even higher- especially considering that Stubbs' plate discipline is already a strength. For pitcher wildness to be a signficant contributing factor to Stubb's K rate, we'd see an erosion of his BB rate because that would mean Stubbs would be swinging at more pitches out of the zone. But we don't see that.

Maybe it's just that Stubbs' high K rate is caused by Drew Stubbs?

camisadelgolf
07-23-2007, 01:16 PM
"Wild" pitchers wouldn't push Stubbs' K rate. They'd push his BB rate even higher- especially considering that Stubbs' plate discipline is already a strength. For pitcher wildness to be a signficant contributing factor to Stubb's K rate, we'd see an erosion of his BB rate because that would mean Stubbs would be swinging at more pitches out of the zone. But we don't see that.

Maybe it's just that Stubbs' high K rate is caused by Drew Stubbs?

I see where you're coming from with your first point, but I disagree about his plate discipline being a strength. (Being able to take a walk doesn't mean you have good plate discipline, in my opinion--it just means you have patience. That's a great thing to have in a leadoff hitter.)

What are you trying to do when you say, "Maybe it's just that Stubbs' high K rate is caused by Drew Stubbs?" Are you trying to be difficult? Not only have I pointed out that we all agree that Drew Stubbs will always strike out a lot, but I mentioned that, as at least one coach has been quoted saying, they have made efforts to mess with Stubbs' swing, which might help explain why Stubbs' strikeout rate is so high.

M2
07-23-2007, 01:37 PM
Laugh if you will, but it won't change the fact that we are simply different people and not ignorant as guys like to insinuate. Most people agreed Lincecum was someone they would have chose over Stubbs, even with the size issue.

Fact is some of us are not prepared to give up on Stubbs just yet, what does it hurt? You OTOH apparently have given up on him. So the question is why is that if someone stays positive on a prospect we are scoffed at and made light of? He has 584 PA's in his pro career and already he's a bust, unreal.

Let's see how much of a bust he really is:

Drew Stubbs Vs. Mystery Player (= MP)

Stubbs
A- (Billings) (21 years old, 242 PA's)
.252 BA, .368 OBP%, .400 Slg%

A (Dayton) (22 yrs old, 342 PA's)
.254 BA, .363 OBP%, .389 (Incomplete)

MP
A- (21 yrs old, 199 PA's)
.272 BA, .384 OBP%, .456 Slg%

A (22 yrs old, 549 PA's)
.280 BA, .367 OBP%, .469 Slg%

A+ (23 yrs old, 540 PA's)
.304 BA, .374 OBP%, .514 Slg%

AA (24 yrs old, 420 PA's)
.297 BA, .386 OBP%, .647 Slg%

See the jump in BA and Slg% sometime after 750-800 PA's, that's not a bad place to look for a spike in production right now Stubbs is still at 584 and I might add he has already started to play better. All this with an injury to a lower extremity which if in his plant foot could make a guy not plant as hard thus throwing off his ability to hit for power. Anyone who has swung a bat and had a foot injury can tell you that if they are not putting all the weight they should on the back foot they are more likely to get on top of the ball as opposed to under it moreso than usual.

Here's the link to the foot injury.

http://http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/dragons/2007/04/04/ddn040407dragonsb1.html

Bottom line give the guy a little more time (with some health) before you jump all over some of us for being too optimistic about him. BTW the mystery player is your 2006 NL MVP.

Boy, that comparison did your point no good. So what you're saying is that Howard was a standard deviation or two better than Stubbs at the same levels. BTW, I believe Howard was also doing that in pitchers parks in pitchers leagues while Stubbs has struggled in hitters leagues in two of the best offensive parks around.

All the Howard comparison does is point out how poorly Stubbs has played.

dougdirt
07-23-2007, 01:45 PM
Boy, that comparison did your point no good. So what you're saying is that Howard was a standard deviation or two better than Stubbs at the same levels. BTW, I believe Howard was also doing that in pitchers parks in pitchers leagues while Stubbs has struggled in hitters leagues in two of the best offensive parks around.

All the Howard comparison does is point out how poorly Stubbs has played.

You were half right. Batavia, where Howard played his first year was actually a hitters park. Lakewood suppressed HR incredibly, but the doubles rate was incredible there like you woulud imagine in a park that supprsesses HRs. Hits, walks, doubles and strikeouts though were either normal or above average there though.

Dayton also plays fairly pitcher friendly according to BBTF minor league park factors from 2003-2005.



Team R H 2B HR BB SO
Dayton 1.05 0.98 0.84 1.04 0.87 0.86

M2
07-23-2007, 02:10 PM
You were half right. Batavia, where Howard played his first year was actually a hitters park. Lakewood suppressed HR incredibly, but the doubles rate was incredible there like you woulud imagine in a park that supprsesses HRs. Hits, walks, doubles and strikeouts though were either normal or above average there though.

Dayton also plays fairly pitcher friendly according to BBTF minor league park factors from 2003-2005.



Team R H 2B HR BB SO
Dayton 1.05 0.98 0.84 1.04 0.87 0.86


Didn't Dayton used to rate as one of the lustier hitting parks in the MWL? Admittedly, the teams there got so dreadfully bad after the Encarnacion/Pena class rolled through that I haven't paid as much attention to such things in recent years.

Anyway, the New York-Penn League and Sally League are far more pitcher friendly than the Pioneer League and Midwest League. Batavia, with its low altitude and humidity, would be the most lopsided pitchers park in the history of the Pioneer League. It should also be mentioned that the NYPL and PL are not equivalent leagues. The New York-Penn and Northwest leagues are considered to have superior competition to the Pioneer and Appy leagues.

dougdirt
07-23-2007, 02:18 PM
I didnt really look at the leagues, just the parks. I do know that this season Dayton is playing as a slight hitters park, but I tend to not look at park factors from 1 season as they can be dramatically changed by the group of players that are there.

Likewise though here are the park factors for the MWL vs SAL for just this season


League 1B 2B 3B HR SO BB
MID +0.004 -0.007 -0.001 -0.004 +0.008 -0.007
SAL -0.005 +0.007 +0.001 +0.004 -0.007 +0.007


Of course, a 1 season, or in this case, not even a full season can really be attributed to sample size/players.

Looking at Lakewood this year the HR rate is slightly below average, but from 2003-2005 it was insanely low.

M2
07-23-2007, 02:44 PM
I didnt really look at the leagues, just the parks. I do know that this season Dayton is playing as a slight hitters park, but I tend to not look at park factors from 1 season as they can be dramatically changed by the group of players that are there.

Likewise though here are the park factors for the MWL vs SAL for just this season


League 1B 2B 3B HR SO BB
MID +0.004 -0.007 -0.001 -0.004 +0.008 -0.007
SAL -0.005 +0.007 +0.001 +0.004 -0.007 +0.007


Of course, a 1 season, or in this case, not even a full season can really be attributed to sample size/players.

Looking at Lakewood this year the HR rate is slightly below average, but from 2003-2005 it was insanely low.

It's always important to understand the league contexts. Your relation to sea level, average humidity, average barometric pressure, average number of windy days and park configurations all play a critical role.

For instance, the Pioneer League with its thin air and lunar gravity is a far better hitting circuit than the Appy League. The Northwest League is a better hitting circuit than the NY-P. The MWL has long been considered the hitters circuit in low A in opposing to the heavy air pitching circuit that is the Sally League. The Cali League is a hitters paradise while the FSL heavily favors pitchers (with the Carolina League tilting slightly toward pitching). The Texas League is infamous for hitting while the Southern and Eastern leagues are pitching circuits. PCL - hitters league. IL - pitchers league.

There's no doubt in my mind if you normalized the stats from Howard and Stubbs based on where they played, the already sizable gap between them would grow to over 100+ OPS points.

flyer85
07-23-2007, 03:28 PM
There's no doubt in my mind if you normalized the stats from Howard and Stubbs based on where they played, the already sizable gap between them would grow to over 100+ OPS points.Howard is just a rare example of a early 20 prospect that overcomes some not impressive numbers put up in A ball. The landscape is littered with hundreds that don't for everyone that does.

I've never said Stubbs can't still turn out to be an impact player in the majors, just that the odds he is trying to overcome are long ones.

M2
07-23-2007, 03:36 PM
Howard is just a rare example of a early 20 prospect that overcomes some not impressive numbers put up in A ball. The landscape is littered with hundreds that don't for everyone that does.

I've never said Stubbs can't still turn out to be an impact player in the majors, just that the odds he is trying to overcome are long ones.

I still can't find any good major leaguer roughly equivalent to Stubbs. That's the scary part of the Howard comparison. The silver lining example people keep reaching for was literally two standard deviations better than Stubbs.

dougdirt
07-23-2007, 03:45 PM
I still can't find any good major leaguer roughly equivalent to Stubbs. That's the scary part of the Howard comparison. The silver lining example people keep reaching for was literally two standard deviations better than Stubbs.

Lets not forget though that Drew still probably has 150 more at bats this season.

M2
07-23-2007, 03:47 PM
Lets not forget though that Drew still probably has 150 more at bats this season.

True. Hopefully they'll be lusty, powerful ABs. Conan ABs if you will.

dougdirt
07-23-2007, 03:49 PM
True. Hopefully they'll be lusty, powerful ABs. Conan ABs if you will.

We can always hope he continues his July pace :thumbup:. Doubtful, but I just hope he doesn't go June on us anytime ever again.

Mario-Rijo
07-23-2007, 08:10 PM
The argument that I was trying to make with the Howard comparison is that it took a 21 yr old "phenom" if you will, somewhere in the neighborhood of 750-800 PA's for his #'s to improve. Both his BA and Slg% jumped approximately 20 pts each after that #.

My whole argument is let the kid play and have his time like anyone else. If his #'s haven't improved within the next 300 AB's or so then perhaps it's time to start to worry that he will never "get it". But I just think it's a tad premature regardless of his age. He came in with the issue, so he inevitably was going to struggle. Did everyone think he was magically going to turn it around within a season of getting minor league instruction? Perhaps a little longer is necc. based on Howards #'s. It certainly couldn't hurt, besides he has been showing something lately FWIW.

SteelSD
07-24-2007, 12:48 AM
I see where you're coming from with your first point, but I disagree about his plate discipline being a strength. (Being able to take a walk doesn't mean you have good plate discipline, in my opinion--it just means you have patience. That's a great thing to have in a leadoff hitter.)

Maybe that's the gap, then. I consider patience to be a key component of good plate discipline rather than an alternate skill set. And I'd suggest that if the Reds viewed Stubbs as only a "leadoff hitter", then they certainly didn't maximize the value of that selection. Leadoff hitters are only leadoff hitters because they generally lack a key skill (high IsoP) that would allow them to be more productive. Rickey Henderson in his prime is excepted, of course.


What are you trying to do when you say, "Maybe it's just that Stubbs' high K rate is caused by Drew Stubbs?" Are you trying to be difficult? Not only have I pointed out that we all agree that Drew Stubbs will always strike out a lot, but I mentioned that, as at least one coach has been quoted saying, they have made efforts to mess with Stubbs' swing, which might help explain why Stubbs' strikeout rate is so high.

I'm an Occam's razor kind of guy, and that does lead me to be a bit difficult when faced with alternative explanations for performance issues. While I might concede that some of Stubbs' performance issues may be the result of either injury or swing "tweaking", Stubbs really hasn't done anything much different than his final season in college with either his BB or K rate. His BB rate is down slightly and his K rate is up slightly. His IsoD is up 10 points from his last college season. I do care how much he Walks. I don't care how much he strikes out. But here's the bad...

Drew Stubbs' IsoP is down 101 points. His BABIP is .351. When you see a substandard IsoP- especially for a 22-year old in low-A ball- coupled with a high BABIP, that's a big red flag. Adjust that for better defenses faced as he moves up the ladder and you might just end up with a too-long learning curve and an awful line. And if his current BABIP isn't defense-aided, that means it's most likely speed-aided. And if his BABIP is enchanced by speed then we can pretty much throw out turf toe as being the issue for pretty much anything related to Drew Stubbs' performance.

So maybe my comment about Drew Stubbs performance being caused by Drew Stubbs wasn't me being difficult? Maybe it was more about taking an objective, non-emotional look at a prospect we'd likely all be questioning should he be announced as a trade target if he were with another organization at this point in his career?

mbgrayson
07-24-2007, 02:09 AM
As of today, Stubbs July line is:
.338/.477/.618 for an OPS of 1.094

In fact, if we get rid of June, Stubbs 2007 line would be:
.290/.396/.469 for an OPS of .865

I still think Stubbs will turn out to be a good pick...wishful thinking? Maybe so...but still.

I also think the turf toe injury could be a lot of his problems...and we may not know until next season, assuming he is healthy.