PDA

View Full Version : Redszone Community Prospect Vote:#5



dougdirt
11-18-2007, 12:25 PM
Vote for the player who you think is the Reds #5 prospect (the best prospect who is not yet on the list). We will go with this as far as you guys want to take it.

I will post a new list every 2 days with 10-15 options to vote on.

If you feel like making an argument on why a guy should be voted here, feel free to vote and state why you voted for that player.

If there is someone that is not currently listed as an option to vote on, vote for 'other' then just state who you want to vote for in the thread.

If there is anyone you would like to see as an option on the next poll, just say so and if they garner enough support, they will be placed on the next poll. Guys with the lowest amount of votes will usually be removed for the next few guys who were talked about in the previous thread.


Prospect 1 - Jay Bruce
Prospect 2 - Homer Bailey
Prospect 3 - Johnny Cueto
Prospect 4 - Joey Votto

Blue
11-18-2007, 01:11 PM
My vote is for Stubbs. He started to break out the last couple months last season, putting up an OPS of over .900 in July and August. He is the best athlete among the Reds true prospects, and plays an excellent CF defense.

mlbfan30
11-18-2007, 01:23 PM
It's a tough choice between Stubbs and Frazier, but I had to go with Stubbs mainly for defense. Stubbs is going to always be a great defensive CF, and even if he can OPS .775 with a .350 OBP in the majors, that will be valuable enough to be a decent leadoff guy. Fraizier is unlikely to stay at SS, and will be below avg if he does.

mth123
11-18-2007, 01:25 PM
For me this is a tough choice.

Running through the candidates:

Stubbs and Mesoraco have the 1st round pedigree but have been disappointments on the field so far IMO, so they are farther down on my list. Lotzkar has the arm but he's very far away and I can't seriously consider him for the top 10 yet. Dorn and Francisco are possibilities, but, as corner players, I'm not convinced that their bats will carry them in those positions (Dorn is more likely at this point IMO). Watson is a candidate, but I think he needs to be successful as a starter or move to relief in the next year or two and then he could rise up the list quickly. Wood needs a healthy season to re-establish value. Pelland is behind both Roenicke and Watson as a potential reliever. Soto needs more success at a higher level. Valaika really went in the tank at A+.

That leaves me with 4 choices. Rosales probably isn't going to be a star but projects as a multi-spot utility guy and in that role his bat could be a plus and he'll have a lot of value. Roenicke looks like a real comer for the bullpen and I seriously considered him. Maloney probably has the most trade value of the guys remaining but I suspect his trade value is higher than his actual pitching value and he could go all Dumatrait on us if he gets promoted. I hope the Reds cash him in.

In the end, I voted for Todd Frazier. His bat seems special and even if he can't stay in the MI, his time there suggests he'll be a plus defender at a corner spot. He was a high draft choice that the scouts liked and his performance did nothing to suggest that the scouts were wrong. I usually don't like to rank guys who haven't at least had a season at A ball, but Frazier looks like the real deal.

camisadelgolf
11-18-2007, 01:39 PM
I was torn between Stubbs and Frazier, but ultimately, I went with Frazier because I think he's more likely to reach his ceiling, even though I think it's slightly lower than Stubbs'.

dougdirt
11-18-2007, 01:47 PM
I went with Drew Stubbs. Its a more risky pick than Frazier, but I like what he did in the second half with his bat (.880 OPS) and his defense in CF is a difference maker. However, Frazier is going to have to hit a whole lot better given that his future is likely a corner IF or corner OF guy and right now, we don't really know what position he is going to be playing in the future.

mth123
11-18-2007, 02:03 PM
Frazier is going to have to hit a whole lot better given that his future is likely a corner IF or corner OF guy and right now, we don't really know what position he is going to be playing in the future.

If you mean he'll have to hit better than Stubbs, I agree because Stubbs plus defense in the middle of the diamond does make up for a lot, but Frazier went a combined .319/.405/.538/.943 in his first pro experience. That will play at any position. If Stubbs does what he did in the second half over a full season, I'd happily make him my top guy next year assuming the top 4 are all in the majors. I want to see it first.

dougdirt
11-18-2007, 02:06 PM
If you mean he'll have to hit better than Stubbs, I agree because Stubbs plus defense in the middle of the diamond does make up for a lot, but Frazier went a combined .319/.405/.538/.943 in his first pro experience. That will play at any position. If Stubbs does what he did in the second half over a full season, I'd happily make him my top guy next year assuming the top 4 are all in the majors. I want to see it first.

Yeah, it will play at any position, but I also don't see him posting a .943 OPS in the majors either.

As for Stubbs, I will take his most recent 250 plate appearances as a barometer for what he will do next year than his 250 before that.

Will M
11-18-2007, 02:20 PM
I find it hard to get excited about prospects who haven't played above low A.

For my #5 pick I went with Maloney. His numbers looked really good last year plus he is a lefty.

I also considered Pelland & Dorn.

Degenerate39
11-18-2007, 02:46 PM
This is a tough one but I'm going to say Frazier

Kc61
11-18-2007, 05:02 PM
The next four, for me, in some order, are Frazier, Roenicke, Maloney, and Stubbs. For me, Frazier's bat makes him the number 5.

For a seasoned college player, Stubbs' 2007 at the plate still raises a lot of questions. I know he had injury and had a hot streak at the end but .270 with 12 homers at the low-A level does not IMO translate to a number 5 prospect. Look at Francisco, who just turned 20, and hit .268 with 25 homers and 90 RBIs at the same level.

All the Reds prospects after number 4 have some question marks, but a position player has to hit, it's the number 1 tool. Frazier seems like a guy who will hit for power and average and, as a shortstop, can probably move with ease to a number of other positions. And his talent was reflected in his results in his first year as a pro.

So I go with Frazier here and plan to go with Roenicke or Maloney next.

Mario-Rijo
11-18-2007, 05:11 PM
I haven't voted just yet but I gotta toss out a few names who may be being overlooked here, just to see what others think about them.

I say may because 2 of them are pitchers and I'll be the 1st to admit at not having the best grip (some but not best) on projecting them. And the other is a question mark as to whether he is even being considered a prospect any longer, I know for this exercise he is and I feel he still is but I'm interested to hear what others think about him beyond the obvious.

LHP Pedro Viola
RHP Carlos Fisher
CF Chris Dickerson

I may very well use any good analysis given on these guys as major info to determine my next several votes. And if anyone has any scouting reports (types of pitches, projectability, velocity, command, control etc.) on our milb pitchers I would be very grateful for any of that.

My thinking is if Dickerson could improve his contact rate he is well ahead of Frazier (my potential pick) in both exp. and raw talent. Viola is supposed to be nasty, a LHP with good velocity and ??? And I have seen quite a few folks here talk about Fisher as a potential good rotation member. Which would make all 3 perhaps file in ahead of Frazier or anyone else listed.

AdamDunn
11-18-2007, 07:22 PM
Travis Wood. He didn't have a good season last year since he was playing through injuries. He was in the mid 90's his first year until the Reds changed his mechanics. Now he has a low 90s fastball with a good change. If I remember correctly, he's working on a third pitch (curveball). He has too much potential and is in more advanced leagues than most of the people remaining on the list. I think if they move him into the bullpen, he can bring his fastball up to the mid-90s. His plus change and fastball (if he can put more zip on it) could make him a good relief pitcher.

Also, if Stubbs and Frazier are really close, I think we should have another vote and put only those two on it to figure out who everyone really thinks is No. 5. Just a thought.

OnBaseMachine
11-18-2007, 08:04 PM
I went with Frazier.

reds44
11-18-2007, 08:07 PM
A really tough one, but I went with Fraizer as well.

As for Stubbs, I have him closer to 10 then I do 5.

Betterread
11-18-2007, 10:07 PM
I went with Juan Francisco. He has a high power hitting ceiling and can be a good fielding 3b..if he cuts down on the strikeouts. This guy is a beast, and he is young for his age level. He went from the GCl to low A last year and made great adjustments. I am looking forward to seeing him play this year.

dougdirt
11-18-2007, 10:45 PM
Here is my argument for Drew Stubbs over Todd Frazier at #5

Todd Frazier was drafted this year and hit .319/.405/.535, mostly in Billings at age 21.

From the day Frazier started playing Drew Stubbs hit .303/.399/.517 in Dayton at the age of 22.

The major difference is that one guy plays great defense at one of the most important positions on the field where guys don't hit much and then one guy is likely not going to play an important defensive position where he has to hit a whole lot more to carry his weight. That pushes Stubbs over the top for me.

reds44
11-18-2007, 11:14 PM
Here is my argument for Drew Stubbs over Todd Frazier at #5

Todd Frazier was drafted this year and hit .319/.405/.535, mostly in Billings at age 21.

From the day Frazier started playing Drew Stubbs hit .303/.399/.517 in Dayton at the age of 22.

The major difference is that one guy plays great defense at one of the most important positions on the field where guys don't hit much and then one guy is likely not going to play an important defensive position where he has to hit a whole lot more to carry his weight. That pushes Stubbs over the top for me.
You can't discount what Stubbs did for half the season.

Stubbs didn't hit overly well overall and stole bases at an awful rate and a level where he was old for.

I'm not impressed. Right now he is a great defender with a questionable bat. That doesn't put him ahead of a few guys on that list.

RedsManRick
11-18-2007, 11:25 PM
I also agree that we should have a run off vote if nobody is a clear cut choice.

My thoughts:

In general, I don't buy in to the hype. Control for age, add in a scouting report, adjust for the league, and give me the performance record. I want to see a guy do it on the field. There are just too many guys with a great set of skills who just aren't very good baseball players. Being a good player is a lot about a lack of weaknesses and an ability to learn as it is some superb skill.

Fast forward a few years and I think there's a good chance you have Chris Dickerson all over again in Drew Stubbs. I'm happy he can take a walk. However, with his low contact rate, he's going to be increasingly exposed without some real improvement. To me, that says Stubbs is rated a bit too highly and Dickerson is improperly being ignored.

I'm excited about Frazier, but need some more AB in general. A 21 year old killing Rookie ball is great, but not especially amazing. I'm not really impressed with any Reds bat in until he gets to the FSL and keeps hitting -- unless he's a guy who hits the ground running right out of high school. I'm excited, but not sold.

In fact, that's why I have him behind Danny Dorn, who showed he could get on base in the FSL and then put on a power display in Chatt. He's basically Frazier after he does it for another year, particularly given that Frazier will be off SS for sure by the time he hits the majors. I'm probably one of the few, but I'm taking Danny here.

As for the pitchers, even more than hitters, I want to see it in the upper minors. There are guys who can blow guys away -- guys who don't know the zone all that well. Then there are guys with mediocre stuff but they use their defense and get decent K rates from mediocre hitters. I want that guy who's still striking guys out, keeping the ball in the zone and staying healthy in to AA. I'm excited about a number of the relievers coming up, but after Bailey and Cueto, the rest of the starters don't do much for me... yet.

Kc61
11-19-2007, 03:11 AM
I like the idea of a run-off between the top two vote getters each round, unless the winner is very clearcut. That way, if you pick someone with little support, you still get a chance to help determine the outcome.

Maybe a run-off only when the player with the highest total has less than 50 percent of the total vote.

So far in this round the leader has only 37 percent. So this round there would be a run-off between the top two.

camisadelgolf
11-19-2007, 06:25 AM
I like the idea of a run-off between the top two vote getters each round, unless the winner is very clearcut. That way, if you pick someone with little support, you still get a chance to help determine the outcome.

Maybe a run-off only when the player with the highest total has less than 50 percent of the total vote.

So far in this round the leader has only 37 percent. So this round there would be a run-off between the top two.

I think that could result in a lot of run-offs in the coming votes. What if people were told to vote for the three players they saw as the top remaining prospect?

The more I think about it, maybe it's best if things are kept simple. It's not like this is being published in Baseball America--if we rank Stubbs at #6 instead of #8, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Highlifeman21
11-19-2007, 07:27 AM
I think that could result in a lot of run-offs in the coming votes. What if people were told to vote for the three players they saw as the top remaining prospect?

The more I think about it, maybe it's best if things are kept simple. It's not like this is being published in Baseball America--if we rank Stubbs at #6 instead of #8, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

After the top 4, we're in a different "tier" of prospects in our system. By the time we get to 10 or 12, we'll be in a 3rd tier.

5 very well could be interchangeble with 10, and so forth.

I'm surprised to see for a system that's supposedly "well-stocked", we seem to be lacking with legitimate major league projected prospects. I'm sure people will disagree with me, but I just don't think the Reds are that deep with talent in the minors.

Kc61
11-19-2007, 08:17 AM
I think that could result in a lot of run-offs in the coming votes. What if people were told to vote for the three players they saw as the top remaining prospect?

The more I think about it, maybe it's best if things are kept simple. It's not like this is being published in Baseball America--if we rank Stubbs at #6 instead of #8, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Makes sense. Maybe just have a run-off when the voting is particularly close, which shouldn't happen often. Whatever.

Benihana
11-19-2007, 09:30 AM
The next four, for me, in some order, are Frazier, Roenicke, Maloney, and Stubbs. For me, Frazier's bat makes him the number 5.

For a seasoned college player, Stubbs' 2007 at the plate still raises a lot of questions. I know he had injury and had a hot streak at the end but .270 with 12 homers at the low-A level does not IMO translate to a number 5 prospect. Look at Francisco, who just turned 20, and hit .268 with 25 homers and 90 RBIs at the same level.

All the Reds prospects after number 4 have some question marks, but a position player has to hit, it's the number 1 tool. Frazier seems like a guy who will hit for power and average and, as a shortstop, can probably move with ease to a number of other positions. And his talent was reflected in his results in his first year as a pro.

So I go with Frazier here and plan to go with Roenicke or Maloney next.

I like this logic. You absolutely cannot ignore Stubbs' pro career up to the this year's all star break. I'm going with Frazier here, although I really believe Frazier (young and unproven), Stubbs (only had two good months in his pro career), Maloney (stats better than his stuff), Wood (injuries), Francisco (fielding and plate discipline) and Roenicke (relief pitcher) all have big question marks and are all relatively interchangeable at 5-10.

Danny Serafini
11-19-2007, 09:53 AM
Why make the voting any more complicated than it needs to be? Whoever has the most votes has the most votes. There's nothing wrong with that.

Benihana
11-19-2007, 10:01 AM
Thing is, whoever the Reds draft at #7 overall in this June's draft will probably become the new #5 (#1 by year's end, considering 1-4 should all be in the bigs). Especially if its Brian Matusz.

WMR
11-19-2007, 10:42 AM
Thing is, whoever the Reds draft at #7 overall in this June's draft will probably become the new #5 (#1 by year's end, considering 1-4 should all be in the bigs). Especially if its Brian Matusz.

Who is Brian Matusz? Is that who the prognosticators have the Reds selecting? Is he a signability (:rolleyes:) guy?

Benihana
11-19-2007, 10:48 AM
Who is Brian Matusz? Is that who the prognosticators have the Reds selecting? Is he a signability (:rolleyes:) guy?

No, he's a stud college lefty and probably the best pitcher in the draft. He probably won't last til 7, but who knows? There's a whole season of baseball to play before then.

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 11:01 AM
You absolutely cannot ignore Stubbs' pro career up to the this year's all star break. Stubbs (only had two good months in his pro career)

Two points:

1. When evaluating someone moving forward I would much rather see a 'what have you done for me lately' than 'what did you do 14 months ago'. Especially when what he has done lately matches up with what his tools say he is capable of.

2. Drew Stubbs had 3 months this season with an OPS of .850 or higher this year and 2 subpar months. Last year he had 3 months with an OPS over .800 and 1 not so good month. To say he has only had 2 good months in his pro career is being very misleading.

M2
11-19-2007, 11:05 AM
I find the whole business of cherrypicking which parts of a kid's season to care about to be a practice fraught with disaster potential. Drew Stubbs had a forgettable 2006 debut and a forgettable 2007 follow up. That he runs hot and cold on his way to blah doesn't make him any more interesting in my book.

Meanwhile, Frazier hits wherever he plays, making him an easy pick for me at #5. I've got Roenicke higher than Stubbs as well. You can make a pretty good case for Maloney too.

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 11:05 AM
You can't discount what Stubbs did for half the season.

Stubbs didn't hit overly well overall and stole bases at an awful rate and a level where he was old for.

I'm not impressed. Right now he is a great defender with a questionable bat. That doesn't put him ahead of a few guys on that list.

Stubbs had 1 really bad month of the season where he was VERY unlucky (lowest BABIP of the season by month by 90 points). I don't think people are discounting it, I think people are just looking at the changes he made as the season went forward and place more value on what he did in his most recent 250 plate appearances than in the first 200 of the season.

As for the stolen bases.... turf toe. Its irrelevant at this point.

Benihana
11-19-2007, 11:15 AM
This spot (#5) is very interesting to me because it is in effect going to be the Reds #1 prospect going forward. I would assume that the big four will all be with the big club by the end of this season, making this the new top spot.

As far as Stubbs being the Reds top prospect, see M2's comments. Stubbs would have to start 2008 on an absolute tear that would get him quickly promoted to Chattanooga for me to begin considering him as the Reds future #1 prospect. You cannot isolate certain parts of certain seasons, you must look at the entire body of work. And right now for Drew Stubbs, it's pretty blah.

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 11:19 AM
This spot (#5) is very interesting to me because it is in effect going to be the Reds #1 prospect going forward. I would assume that the big four will all be with the big club by the end of this season, making this the new top spot.

As far as Stubbs being the Reds top prospect, see M2's comments. Stubbs would have to start 2008 on an absolute tear that would get him quickly promoted to Chattanooga for me to begin considering him as the Reds future #1 prospect. You cannot isolate certain parts of certain seasons, you must look at the entire body of work. And right now for Drew Stubbs, it's pretty blah.

We have no idea what happens this season and who comes forward as the Reds #1 prospect at the end of the season. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Travis Wood were the #1 prospect by the end of the year. Same way though, it wouldn't surprise me if Drew Stubbs or Todd Frazier were either.

As far as looking at Stubbs entire body of work.... I do. I also weight the scouting report with what he does and when that scouting report matches up with what he did the entire season except for June 2007 it fits perfectly fine.

Kc61
11-19-2007, 11:21 AM
I find the whole business of cherrypicking which parts of a kid's season to care about to be a practice fraught with disaster potential. Drew Stubbs had a forgettable 2006 debut and a forgettable 2007 follow up. That he runs hot and cold on his way to blah doesn't make him any more interesting in my book.

Meanwhile, Frazier hits wherever he plays, making him an easy pick for me at #5. I've got Roenicke higher than Stubbs as well. You can make a pretty good case for Maloney too.

I agree with your post. On the next one, I probably will go with Roenicke. Maloney's gopher balls concern me, although he certainly misses bats and has the frame for a starting pitcher. And I don't think a closer should be denigrated as a prospect by his position, closer is pretty important.

I agree that there seems to be a lot of emphasis on segments of Stubbs' season. He did very well at the end of last year, wonder if the MWL had a lot of younger pitchers, late season call ups, at that point. In any event, anxious to see if Stubbs continues to hit next year at Sarasota or wherever. Hope so.

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 11:26 AM
I find the whole business of cherrypicking which parts of a kid's season to care about to be a practice fraught with disaster potential. Drew Stubbs had a forgettable 2006 debut and a forgettable 2007 follow up. That he runs hot and cold on his way to blah doesn't make him any more interesting in my book.

Meanwhile, Frazier hits wherever he plays, making him an easy pick for me at #5. I've got Roenicke higher than Stubbs as well. You can make a pretty good case for Maloney too.

2006 - Stubbs had 1 month below an .800 OPS.

2007 - Stubbs had 1 bad month in June which resulted in a .496 OPS (in which he was ridiculously unlucky on his BIP) for the month. Outside of that he hit the ball very well, got on base and slugged well.

I don't think thats picking it apart, I think its looking at it as 'hmm, thats strange but when it doesn't match up with anything else he has ever done.... it was very likely a small blip on the radar (think Dunns September in 2006 for how I view June of 2007 for Stubbs)'.

Kc61
11-19-2007, 11:29 AM
2006 - Stubbs had 1 month below an .800 OPS.

2007 - Stubbs had 1 bad month in June which resulted in a .496 OPS (in which he was ridiculously unlucky on his BIP) for the month. Outside of that he hit the ball very well, got on base and slugged well.

I don't think thats picking it apart, I think its looking at it as 'hmm, thats strange but when it doesn't match up with anything else he has ever done.... it was very likely a small blip on the radar (think Dunns September in 2006 for how I view June of 2007 for Stubbs)'.

I don't recall Stubbs doing that well in April or May last season. On May 31 his BA at Dayton was .273 according to a box score I just looked up. It's not like he tore the cover off the ball in all but one month.

In 2006 he only played two and a half months. You say one month was below .800 but that was almost half the season and I don't recall any point that season where he hit particularly well.

I think the guy has potential and should make the top ten, but I don't think the record supports the view that he has hit well so far.

M2
11-19-2007, 11:35 AM
As far as looking at Stubbs entire body of work.... I do. I also weight the scouting report with what he does and when that scouting report matches up with what he did the entire season except for June 2007 it fits perfectly fine.

I don't think we can pretend scouts are uniformly high on Stubbs.

As for redacting a month from his season, how would he look if you took away mid-July to mid-August? Pretty lousy. I don't see any reason to act like pulling out his worst spell is any more illuminating than pulling out his best.

Next year he'll get to see a pitcher's circuit for the first time. I don't think it will prove any sort of Waterloo for Stubbs, my concern about that starts in AA. That's when he'll need to step his game up to avoid becoming the next Alejandro Diaz.

camisadelgolf
11-19-2007, 11:46 AM
Drew Stubbs is already the next Adam Dunn, and he hasn't even reached AA yet. Drew Stubbs will never be what everyone wants him to be. That doesn't mean he isn't a hell of a ballplayer, though. If Stubbs can play stellar defense while OPSing around .750, he will be a very good baseball player. By the way, in 2007, and I might be wrong, I believe center fielders had the second-lowest OPS while shortstops had the worst.

Benihana
11-19-2007, 11:47 AM
That's when he'll need to step his game up to avoid becoming the next Alejandro Diaz.

How about Chad Mottola, John Oliver, or Jackson Melian?

RedsManRick
11-19-2007, 11:59 AM
When it comes to Stubbs, I just want to know how a guy who has contact issues in A ball at age 22 after 3 years in the big 12 is going to improve.

Sure, his foot will heal and he'll probably hit for more power as he fills out. I'm not concerned about that. I'm extremely concerned about his ability to make contact as he moves up in the system. Remember, Dunn hit .304. Stubbs is striking out half again as much as Mike Cameron did. The scouting reports I've seen all talk about his great defense, his speed, patience at the plate, and his likely to develop power. None of that means a hill of beans if you can't regularly put the ball in play. As guys at higher levels start locating their fastballs on the corner, that walk rate will come down. If he can't turn on that stuff because of that long swing of his, it could get ugly.

Stubbs strikes me as a real boom or bust kind of guy. If he can keep that average north of .260, he's got a real bright future. If not, yikes.

M2
11-19-2007, 12:22 PM
How about Chad Mottola, John Oliver, or Jackson Melian?

Sure, Melian's actually not a bad danger comparison. Pat Watkins might actually be the best cautionary sign.

camisadelgolf
11-19-2007, 12:32 PM
The Reds have said all along that Stubbs is going to strike out. Granted, making consistent contact is an important part of the game, but when you do everything else so well, I find it unnecessary to repeatedly bring into a discussion of why he isn't/won't be a quality baseball player.

Also, I think it might be worth nothing that Stubbs hit significantly better when he was in the middle of the lineup and protected by guys like Juan Francisco, Chris Heisey, and Logan Parker. When he was leading off, he was protected by the likes of Justin Turner (who is no slouch but doesn't have near the intimidation factor of, say, Juan Francisco) and Billy Rojo (who is a joke of a hitter).

RedsManRick
11-19-2007, 12:43 PM
Strikeouts in and of themselves don't bother me one bit. Strikeouts as an indicator of a skill (or lackthereof) that I think could torpedo his other skills as he moves up the ladder do bother me. Stubbs isn't some 20 year old raw talent still figuring things out. I guess I just don't see him as terribly likely to continue to succeed striking out 25% of the time. He's already got plate discipline, so how much room is there to grow there? This isn't a guy chasing everything under the sun and putting himself in bad counts ala Sammy Sosa. It's a guy who works the count looking for a pitch to drive and who misses it with some regularity.

For comparison's sake, we'll go back to Dunn.

In A Ball, at age 20, Dunn struck out in 19.4% of his plate appearances.
In A Ball, at age 22, Stubbs struck out in 25.5% of his plate appearances.

In no way am I "predicting" that Stubbs will be a bust. But I think that his contact issues simply cannot be pushed aside. They are a legitimate part of his evaluation and a significant one, because things like base-running and power aren't very relevant if you hit .220.

Next year he'll be a 23 year old entering one of the worst leagues in the minors for hitters. It could be really ugly. Alternately, he could continue his second half '07 surge and, paired with his top notch defense, justify a top prospect label. Perhaps he's like Ryan Howard, who hit .280/.367/.469 with similar K numbers at age 22 in the Sally league. It's not unheard for a guy like that to succeed. I'm just not willing to give him that billing until I feel his performance justifies it. If he's ends up a .775 OPS guy with top notch defense, then he really is just another Chris Dickerson (.303/.410/.408 in A Ball at age 22), who you'll notice isn't even on the list. I'm not sure why a less advanced version of a guy who isn't on anybody's top 10 list is a top 5 guy.

M2
11-19-2007, 01:18 PM
In no way am I "predicting" that Stubbs will be a bust. But I think that his contact issues simply cannot be pushed aside. They are a legitimate part of his evaluation and a significant one, because things like base-running and power aren't very relevant if you hit .220.

Excellent summation. I'd add the strikeouts are problematic too because he's not flashing a lot of power either. He's got too much bust and not enough boom. It's especially disconcerting because he's played in parks and circuits that should enhance his HR totals, but he's only got 18 in 707 ABs.

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 01:57 PM
When it comes to Stubbs, I just want to know how a guy who has contact issues in A ball at age 22 after 3 years in the big 12 is going to improve.

Sure, his foot will heal and he'll probably hit for more power as he fills out. I'm not concerned about that. I'm extremely concerned about his ability to make contact as he moves up in the system. Remember, Dunn hit .304. Stubbs is striking out half again as much as Mike Cameron did. The scouting reports I've seen all talk about his great defense, his speed, patience at the plate, and his likely to develop power. None of that means a hill of beans if you can't regularly put the ball in play. As guys at higher levels start locating their fastballs on the corner, that walk rate will come down. If he can't turn on that stuff because of that long swing of his, it could get ugly.

Stubbs strikes me as a real boom or bust kind of guy. If he can keep that average north of .260, he's got a real bright future. If not, yikes.

In 140 Plate appearances outside of the #1 spot in the line up, his strikeout rate dropped by 6% from when he was in the leadoff spot. When he isn't trying to be a leadoff hitter taking pitches he shouldn't, he is fine in terms of strikeouts.

Benihana
11-19-2007, 02:04 PM
Doug, what you fail to realize is that in each one of these justifications of Stubbs' shortcomings, you are not looking at the WHOLE picture. Every single one of your posts begins with the caveat "when he did this" or "except for this month". You cannot do that for all the reasons everybody has said above. Look at his entire body of work, or don't look at anything.

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 02:14 PM
Doug, what you fail to realize is that in each one of these justifications of Stubbs' shortcomings, you are not looking at the WHOLE picture. Every single one of your posts begins with the caveat "when he did this" or "except for this month". You cannot do that for all the reasons everybody has said above. Look at his entire body of work, or don't look at anything.

That applies when it comes to major leaguers, but not when it comes to prospects in my mind. They are still learning the game for the most part, so when a guy who has struggled at times makes a step forward, it should be noted.

I guess we look at things differently and thats fine. But I can choose to look at what I want to when evaluating a prospect.

Redman15
11-19-2007, 02:14 PM
Also, I think it might be worth nothing that Stubbs hit significantly better when he was in the middle of the lineup and protected by guys like Juan Francisco, Chris Heisey, and Logan Parker. When he was leading off, he was protected by the likes of Justin Turner (who is no slouch but doesn't have near the intimidation factor of, say, Juan Francisco) and Billy Rojo (who is a joke of a hitter).

Stubbs had Turner and Valaika hitting behind him the 1st half of year and struggled. They were the 2 best hitters in Dayton last season. It was pretty much the same in Billings in 2006.

Francisco has great power when he hits the ball (161 K's vs 23 BB).Six of Francisco's 23 walks were intentional.Valaika did not walk much, but teams pitched around Chris to get to Francisco. Juan has tremendous power and when he learns a little bit of plate discipline, he is going to be a great player.

Stubbs late success came from adjustments he made after working many hours with Coach Bragg and cutting down on his strike outs (142 K's). He put the ball in play and utilized his great speed.

IMO,I don't think the teams in low A worry to much about whose hitting in front of who. It's all about development at the lower levels. It's about seeing if the pitchers can get hitters out. In 2007 the Midwest league had 150 intentional walks in 64,467 at bats.

M2
11-19-2007, 02:35 PM
In 140 Plate appearances outside of the #1 spot in the line up, his strikeout rate dropped by 6% from when he was in the leadoff spot. When he isn't trying to be a leadoff hitter taking pitches he shouldn't, he is fine in terms of strikeouts.

IMO, that's a wishful conclusion.

Even if Stubbs does develop into a major leaguer, I doubt he's going to have a hallelujah moment that transforms his game.

He's had a lot of high level coaching and faced a lot of high level competition and he's still raw at the plate. Progress with him is liable to be slow and frustrating.

edabbs44
11-19-2007, 02:39 PM
Stubbs had 1 really bad month of the season where he was VERY unlucky (lowest BABIP of the season by month by 90 points). I don't think people are discounting it, I think people are just looking at the changes he made as the season went forward and place more value on what he did in his most recent 250 plate appearances than in the first 200 of the season.

As for the stolen bases.... turf toe. Its irrelevant at this point.

Stubbs had a .254 BABIP that one month. Granted, that is low, but to be fair shouldn't his BABIPs of .439 (July) and .383 (August) be viewed as abnormally high?

Benihana
11-19-2007, 02:58 PM
I guess we look at things differently and thats fine. But I can choose to look at what I want to when evaluating a prospect.

Of course you can. I'm just saying in order for it to have some credibility, you have to look at the whole picture.

lollipopcurve
11-19-2007, 03:08 PM
Going with Maloney. While every other propsect on this list could never graduate to the majors, I think he's a sure bet to give some team some halfway decent innings somewhere along the way.
Plus, Maloney's a great name in the annals of Cincinnati moundsmen.

I agree with those who have said there are a few guys you could make a case for here.

The guy I like better than most on the board at this point, I suspect, is Lotzkar.

Patrick Bateman
11-19-2007, 03:35 PM
Stubbs had a .254 BABIP that one month. Granted, that is low, but to be fair shouldn't his BABIPs of .439 (July) and .383 (August) be viewed as abnormally high?

I agree with you that both sides need to be counted, but I think with hitters, the BAPIP for the most part will be earned. It's not like pitchers where they have little control over things. If you are getting line drives, have good speed, good power, you should get a pretty nice BAPIP. In this case it's probably just best to ignore it all together.

I think his final stats are fair. He struggled in the first half of the seaosn and turned it on at the end. The key is whether his success can be sustained as he moves up the ladder.

I coted Stubbs. We all know I'm a fan of his, and I seriously considered voting for Frazier. I like that Stubbs is a terrific fielding CF'der. To me that has a lot of value, and the fact that he's rated top notch in this area by basically everyone plays a big factor. It means to be a decent starting CF'der that he won't have to hit a whole lote because his great defense in a prime position can make up for it.

His K's are concerning, but he does draw a fiar number of walks, enough to make up for K's IMO. His power began to show some signs of developing in the second half of the season, so I'm optimistic that he could begin to move pretty fast. If it was just an illusion than he likely wont amount to anything more than a reserve OF'der, but I like his chances. Basically, you combine some nice on base abilties, with a great glove in centre, and to me, there isn't a whole lot more the guy needs to do to succeed.

After Stubbs, I'll definitely be going with Frazier, and as I said, I almost voted for him anyways. After that I have some thinking to do. But for me, Stubbs and Frazier were a cut above the rest of the remaining group.

Kc61
11-19-2007, 04:45 PM
The next round is shaping up as a Stubbs/Maloney battle. I guess nobody thinks a good closer is very important. Go Roenicke.

By the way, Roenicke has an excellent strikeout/innings ratio and an excellent ground out/fly out ratio. In other words, he strikes guys out and gets grounders. Maloney seems to have fly ball tendencies and allowed a bunch of dingers this past season. Stubbs, we've spoken about him.

Mario-Rijo
11-19-2007, 05:29 PM
I think DD's assessment of Stubbs is a pretty fair one. I mean everyone wants to dismiss what Stubbs did in the 2nd half of the season as a peak that a ballplayer will sometimes have through the course of a season. I don't see it that way at all, and I could be wrong but his lack of contact improved significantly when he was A. pushed down in the order where he did not have to continue to be ultra selective at the plate and couple that with B. and it paints a whole different picture.


Exhibit B.


Stubbs can't stop Dragons' loss despite best efforts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stubbs can't stop Dragons' loss despite best efforts

Poor fielding overrides player's contributions as early 5-1 lead over Lansing disappears.

By Marc Katz

Staff Writer

Sunday, August 19, 2007

DAYTON Drew Stubbs did about as much as he could do Saturday night to win a baseball game for Dayton.

That the Dragons didn't is no fault of his.

He had two doubles among his three hits, walked once, scored a run and knocked in another. He also threw out a runner at the plate from center field.

And still the Dragons lost to Lansing, 7-5, as poor fielding around Stubbs' contributed to two unearned runs after the Dragons took a 5-1 lead in the third.

"It's a bittersweet moment," said Stubbs, hitting .553 (21-38) since being ordered by manager Donnie Scott to choke up on the bat nine games ago. "Until the game is over, you feel good about yourself. If you're a team player, you feel down if you lose."

The loss to the Lugnuts now four games ahead of the Dragons and in second place in the Class A Midwest League East in the second half ended a three-game winning streak for Dayton. Stubbs' hot streak continues; he has hit safely in eight of the last nine games.

He also has connected for four doubles, a triple, three homers, 12 runs and eight RBIs. He also has walked three times and struck out only twice, this from a guy who has 128 strikeouts on the season.

"A few games ago, I had everybody choke up," Scott said. "I wanted to get them going. A couple days ago, I took it off, except for Stubbs. He went seven games without striking out."



Although he did tale off a bit right at the very end of the season I have a feeling he simply improved as opposed to just got hot. And for that reason coupled with the skill set he has and at the position he plays makes him more valuable right now and likely in the future than Frazier to not only the Reds but to other teams which makes him a better prospect IMO FWIW.

RedsManRick
11-19-2007, 06:12 PM
In 140 Plate appearances outside of the #1 spot in the line up, his strikeout rate dropped by 6% from when he was in the leadoff spot. When he isn't trying to be a leadoff hitter taking pitches he shouldn't, he is fine in terms of strikeouts.

Definitely promising. Sample size concerns abound. Once he continues those promising trends, then I'll give him his due. I want more than a good half season in which any number of random events could significantly influence performance. If he is putting up .250/.350/.425, playing great defense, and stealing bases in Sarasota come July, then I'll start drinking the cool-aid. But if he's .240/.310/.350, I wouldn't be surprised either -- and that's exactly why I don't put him at #5. He could be great some day, but I need some more proof.

reds44
11-19-2007, 08:01 PM
Stubbs had 1 really bad month of the season where he was VERY unlucky (lowest BABIP of the season by month by 90 points). I don't think people are discounting it, I think people are just looking at the changes he made as the season went forward and place more value on what he did in his most recent 250 plate appearances than in the first 200 of the season.

As for the stolen bases.... turf toe. Its irrelevant at this point.
Is there always an injury behind a Reds prospect preforming poorly?

eichstadtreds
11-19-2007, 08:15 PM
Kyle Lotzkar

I believe at the end of the year this will be a no brainer.

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 09:02 PM
Is there always an injury behind a Reds prospect preforming poorly?

No, just some of them.

lollipopcurve
11-19-2007, 09:09 PM
Kyle Lotzkar

I believe at the end of the year this will be a no brainer.

I have had the same suspicion. Really looking forward to seeing what the kid does.

GoReds33
11-19-2007, 09:45 PM
I put Frazier on the fourth one, so I put him here too. By the way, I voted for him at four by mistake. I didn't see Votto.

Highlifeman21
11-19-2007, 09:57 PM
That applies when it comes to major leaguers, but not when it comes to prospects in my mind. They are still learning the game for the most part, so when a guy who has struggled at times makes a step forward, it should be noted.

I guess we look at things differently and thats fine. But I can choose to look at what I want to when evaluating a prospect.

Homer Bailey's pitching at the major league level, so why does that not apply to him? He got a pass in your book b/c he had some "injured starts".

Did Homer Bailey struggle at the major league level b/c he's not ready b/c he lacks command and control? Or did he struggle at the major league level b/c he was injured?

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 10:01 PM
Homer Bailey's pitching at the major league level, so why does that not apply to him? He got a pass in your book b/c he had some "injured starts".

Did Homer Bailey struggle at the major league level b/c he's not ready b/c he lacks command and control? Or did he struggle at the major league level b/c he was injured?

Homer didn't really struggle when he was healthy. His walk rate was higher than you would like, but he kept people from hitting the ball hard and kept the hits down.

reds44
11-19-2007, 10:08 PM
Homer didn't really struggle when he was healthy. His walk rate was higher than you would like, but he kept people from hitting the ball hard and kept the hits down.
Which means you thought he struggled at the major league level because he was injured.

Homer's MLB line:
4-2, 5.76 ERA, 45.1 IP, 43 H, 28 BB, 28 K, 3 HR

Stubbs' A line:
.270/.361/.421/.785, 497 ABs, 134 H, 29 2B, 5 3B, 12 HR, 43 RBI, 209 TB, 69 BB, 142 Ks, 23 SB, 15 CS (which actually brings down his OBP that much more)

Those are their raw numbers. You can dissect them anyway you want, and make excuses for them as much as you want, but those are their numbers.

Homer was a dissapoitment in the majors, and Stubbs was a dissapointment in A.

The difference:
Age.

Homer is a VERY young major league pitcher, and Stubbs was an old player in A ball.

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 10:15 PM
Which means you thought he struggled at the major league level because he was injured.

Homer's MLB line:
4-2, 5.76 ERA, 45.1 IP, 43 H, 28 BB, 28 K, 3 HR

Stubbs' A line:
.270/.361/.421/.785, 497 ABs, 134 H, 29 2B, 5 3B, 12 HR, 43 RBI, 209 TB, 69 BB, 142 Ks, 23 SB, 15 CS (which actually brings down his OBP that much more)

Those are their raw numbers. You can dissect them anyway you want, and make excuses for them as much as you want, but those are their numbers.

Homer was a dissapoitment in the majors, and Stubbs was a dissapointment in A.

The difference:
Age.

Homer is a VERY young major league pitcher, and Stubbs was an old player in A ball.

But why would I look at what Homer did while injured when I want to project what he does in the future when odds are he wont be pitching injured?

Likewise, when I want to project what Drew Stubbs does in the future, why would I look at his first 200 plate appearances of the year when I could look at his most recent 250 which are probably more likely to be replicated since he is nowhere near a finished product? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my mind to do it that way.

It would be like saying Johnny Cueto isn't as good of a prospect becuase in Sarasota he had a 3.31 ERA in a pitchers league and completely ignoring the fact that he had a 2.82 ERA in AA and AAA in the second half of the season to go along with much better walk rate, strikeout rate and a better hit rate. Guys make adjustments throughout the season.

If I were projecting a 26 year old major leaguer, then yes, a full season is something I would put a lot of stock into as far as projecting a players next season, but not when I am talking about a 22 year old player.

dougdirt
11-19-2007, 10:55 PM
12 different players have been voted on as the Reds #5 prospect. I don't know if it has to do with the way people evaluate prospects or the fact that the Reds have some solid depth or maybe a little bit of both.

M2
11-19-2007, 11:28 PM
doug, the point is taking incomplete snapshots of a player's season doesn't really tell you anything. What part of Cueto's season do I think is most important? The whole season. I think the arc of his career is even more important than that.

Doing what you're doing is the recipe for chasing September mirages. It's the rationale that was used to pimp Luke Hudson and Osvaldo Fernandez as legitimate frontliners for the Reds rotation. Now you can say they were old guys, but it's the same dead end methodology that caused numerous waves of "Look, Ty Howington/Ricardo Aramboles/Dustin Moseley has got it together."

Which set of 200 plate appearances should you use to project Drew Stubbs? None of them. You could drop acid and watch him play through kaleidoscope glasses and it would tell you as much as picking a random sample of his season.

Stubbs has been in the hands of top coaches for years and they've tinkered with everything from where he hits to how he approaches an at-bat to where he holds his bat to how he loads his swing to how he strides to how he follows through. He has proven to be a difficult fix.

That's why I chose Frazier here. I know Stubbs still has higher market value, but Frazier does the thing that gets you to the bigs - he hits. He doesn't have the big, shiny toolbox (and I'm a fan of toolsy players), but he know what to do with a bat ... and a wooden bat to boot (which is a particular problem for Stubbs). You don't have to stand things on their sides or only look at bits and pieces to see what Frazier does well. He hits. It's the hardest thing to do in sports and he does it quite nicely.

Highlifeman21
11-19-2007, 11:41 PM
But why would I look at what Homer did while injured when I want to project what he does in the future when odds are he wont be pitching injured?

Likewise, when I want to project what Drew Stubbs does in the future, why would I look at his first 200 plate appearances of the year when I could look at his most recent 250 which are probably more likely to be replicated since he is nowhere near a finished product? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my mind to do it that way.

It would be like saying Johnny Cueto isn't as good of a prospect becuase in Sarasota he had a 3.31 ERA in a pitchers league and completely ignoring the fact that he had a 2.82 ERA in AA and AAA in the second half of the season to go along with much better walk rate, strikeout rate and a better hit rate. Guys make adjustments throughout the season.

If I were projecting a 26 year old major leaguer, then yes, a full season is something I would put a lot of stock into as far as projecting a players next season, but not when I am talking about a 22 year old player.

What Homer did in 2007, injured or not, comprised his complete body of work. How can you so easily differentiate when he was healthy, and when he was not, when they seemingly overlapped? How can you say that going forward he'll stay healthy, when his lack of pitching and physical maturity suggested a breakdown of discipline and mechanics?

To use only Homer's "healthy starts" to project his future is ignorant due to the fact it's 100% the best case scenario, while we know for a fact that no player will ever produce their 100% best case scenario over the course of their career.

Now do I think Homer will be worse in 2008 than 2007? Not necessarily, but I can't magically close my eyes and hope for him to be a pitcher he's not, and be drastically better in 2008. I have to look at everything he did in 2007 to use as a projection of what he can do going forward in his career, particularly in the near future.

Even if I want to give the kid the benefit of the doubt and use his last 3 "presumed healthy starts" of 2007, then we're looking at a kid that won't make it out of the 6th inning while throwing an average of 92 pitches per start, will have a K:BB of 2:1, will put up a WHIP of 1.24 and somehow manage a sub 4 ERA? Do I think Bailey will put up an ERA of 3.71 in over 200 IP, with a WHIP of 1.24 and approximately 150 K with 75 BB? No, I don't. And you can't honestly say you think he'll project to that in 2008 either. Or maybe you can, just as long as he's "healthy".

And learns how to pitch. And find the strike zone. And not walk people.

AmarilloRed
11-19-2007, 11:51 PM
Didn't the Reds have him on a strict pitch count in September? I remember reading that Homer wanted to pitch deeper in the September games, but the Reds didn't want to risk anything. I would imagine the Reds will let him pitch deeper in games as he gets older. As long as Homer learns better control nextt year, I would imagine that will do a lot as far as extending him in games.

dougdirt
11-20-2007, 01:02 AM
This thread isn't about Homer Bailey. With that said, we disagree on things and I am leaving it at that because we are just going to continue going in circles.

camisadelgolf
11-20-2007, 01:45 AM
When it comes to Stubbs, I think his A-ball numbers are similar to what he'll put up in his first few years in MLB. I expect the Ks and CSs to go down slightly while the SLG goes slightly up, but other than that, his offensive production combined with his defense have me very excited about him.

M2
11-20-2007, 01:59 AM
When it comes to Stubbs, I think his A-ball numbers are similar to what he'll put up in his first few years in MLB. I expect the Ks and CSs to go down slightly while the SLG goes slightly up, but other than that, his offensive production combined with his defense have me very excited about him.

Normally players see their numbers dip when they get to the majors. Ben Broussard had a .925 OPS in the minors and now sports a .786 OPS in majors. It's in line with what you'd expect when the competition gets harder.

Stubbs can't afford ANY number discounts. I went on a fairly futile search this summer to find a good major league comp for Stubbs, a college player who hit like Stubbs in fairly low levels of the minors and then turned out really good. Couldn't find one. Usually, guys who hit like Stubbs has don't make much of a dent in the majors.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but Stubbs is not going to progress to the majors with a string of .775ish OPSes. If he keeps that up, one of the next three levels will gobble him up. So I hope doug's right that he turned some sort of corner. He certainly needs to turn a corner.

camisadelgolf
11-20-2007, 03:15 AM
Normally players see their numbers dip when they get to the majors. Ben Broussard had a .925 OPS in the minors and now sports a .786 OPS in majors. It's in line with what you'd expect when the competition gets harder.

Stubbs can't afford ANY number discounts. I went on a fairly futile search this summer to find a good major league comp for Stubbs, a college player who hit like Stubbs in fairly low levels of the minors and then turned out really good. Couldn't find one. Usually, guys who hit like Stubbs has don't make much of a dent in the majors.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but Stubbs is not going to progress to the majors with a string of .775ish OPSes. If he keeps that up, one of the next three levels will gobble him up. So I hope doug's right that he turned some sort of corner. He certainly needs to turn a corner.

I agree that most often, players' MLB numbers are less than their minor league numbers. However, there are still many players who perform significantly better in the Major Leagues than they do in the minor leagues.

I can't find any good comparisons for Drew Stubbs either, but he's often compared to Mike Cameron, so I'll go with that. It seems like people expect Drew Stubbs to do in his second year as a professional what Mike Cameron did in his fifth year. If you think going by years as a minor leaguer is unfair because of the age difference, I agree. In that case, I think the fair thing to do would be to compare by age. Here is what Mike Cameron and Drew Stubbs have done before turning 23 years old:


Mike Cameron Drew Stubbs
1430 AB 707 AB
351 H 187 H
58 2B 36 2B
32 3B 8 3B
20 HR 18 HR
162 BB (10.2%) 101 BB (12.5%)
369 K (23.2%) 206 K (25.5%)
67 SB 42 SB
42 CS (61.5%) 19 CS (68.9%)
.245 BA .264 BA
.322 OBP .365 OBP
.372 SLG .414 SLG
.694 OPS .779 OPS

It wasn't until Cameron's fifth year that he finally put everything together and had these minor league numbers afterward:


616 AB
182 H
44 2B
16 3B
34 HR
96 BB
152 K
.295 BA
.390 OBP
.584 SLG
.974 OPS

Although it will be only Stubbs' third year, I expect him to break out by the end of 2008. If he doesn't, it's probably time to pave the way for him to be a future fourth outfielder. However, he has shown a lot of progress, and as long as he keeps doing that, he could be a star. In the meantime, just because his numbers may be a little discouraging, I don't think they're nearly bad enough to say they have decreased his prospect status.

M2
11-20-2007, 10:26 AM
Cameron was two levels ahead of Stubbs at the same age.

Benihana
11-20-2007, 10:43 AM
I think it's time to move on to #6. I'm sure there will be no shortage of Drew Stubbs debate there.

dougdirt
11-20-2007, 10:47 AM
Benihana, we were on the same page. I was working on the new one when you posted this. I just left it up for 2 days since there was plenty of good talk going on and plenty of guys being voted on.

camisadelgolf
11-20-2007, 02:24 PM
Cameron was two levels ahead of Stubbs at the same age.

Drew Stubbs performed considerably better at the lower levels. I think it balances out to a degree.

M2
11-20-2007, 02:28 PM
Drew Stubbs performed considerably better at the lower levels. I think it balances out to a degree.

He was two years older and had three years of top coaching at UT, not to mention three years of experience playing against the best in college baseball. How does that balance out? In what universe are the two situations even vaguely equivalent?

camisadelgolf
11-20-2007, 02:34 PM
He was two years older and had three years of top coaching at UT, not to mention three years of experience playing against the best in college baseball. How does that balance out? In what universe are the two situations even vaguely equivalent?

You really don't think there's that much of a difference between the Big 12 and A-ball? Okay, in that case, let's compare Mike Cameron's A- stats and Drew Stubbs' college stats . . .

M2
11-20-2007, 02:44 PM
You really don't think there's that much of a difference between the Big 12 and A-ball? Okay, in that case, let's compare Mike Cameron's A- stats and Drew Stubbs' college stats . . .

When they start using wood bats in college, then you can start making those sorts of comparisons. The talent's comparable, the game, unfortunately, isn't.

Though the main thing is Stubbs had three years of full-time coaching from UT before he hit rookie ball and low A. If he was two years younger posting the numbers he's posting, I'd have a far different take on the guy. He's not and his background is such that we ought to be expecting much better from him.

camisadelgolf
11-20-2007, 02:49 PM
When they start using wood bats in college, then you can start making those sorts of comparisons. The talent's comparable, the game, unfortunately, isn't.

Though the main thing is Stubbs had three years of full-time coaching from UT before he hit rookie ball and low A. If he was two years younger posting the numbers he's posting, I'd have a far different take on the guy. He's not and his background is such that we ought to be expecting much better from him.

Granted, but I believe A-ball coaching and pitching is superior to the Big 12's. As I was saying, and it sounds like we'll just have to disagree, I think there's some sort of equivalent when you compare poor stats from someone young for his league to good stats from someone old for his league.

M2
11-20-2007, 02:57 PM
Granted, but I believe A-ball coaching and pitching is superior to the Big 12's. As I was saying, and it sounds like we'll just have to disagree, I think there's some sort of equivalent when you compare poor stats from someone young for his league to good stats from someone old for his league.

Where's the good stats? Stubbs has had two unimpressive seasons.

If you want a point of comparison, Cameron was putting up the same basic numbers as Stubbs at the same age, but two levels higher. There's your equivalent. If you had put the 22-year-old Mike Cameron in the MWL, he'd have ripped it up.

camisadelgolf
11-20-2007, 04:37 PM
Where's the good stats? Stubbs has had two unimpressive seasons.

If you want a point of comparison, Cameron was putting up the same basic numbers as Stubbs at the same age, but two levels higher. There's your equivalent. If you had put the 22-year-old Mike Cameron in the MWL, he'd have ripped it up.

When you compare Stubbs and Cameron by age, although there's a difference in levels, I don't think you should throw out that Stubbs clearly has better numbers in every facet of the game (except a very slight difference in K ratio). If you had put a 22-year-old Mike Cameron in the MWL, yes, he probably would've performed much better. However, he was in his fourth year of professional baseball at that age, so he had been going against much better pitching than Drew Stubbs was seeing in the Big 12.

Besides, Mike Cameron wasn't being groomed as a leadoff hitter like Stubbs. If Stubbs weren't instructed to take so many pitches and work on swinging with two strikes, who knows how much better his stats would've looked?

I'll buy you an e-beer if Drew Stubbs doesn't break out next year. I think the only thing that can stop him from doing well is injury.

Mario-Rijo
11-20-2007, 04:44 PM
Where's the good stats? Stubbs has had two unimpressive seasons.

If you want a point of comparison, Cameron was putting up the same basic numbers as Stubbs at the same age, but two levels higher. There's your equivalent. If you had put the 22-year-old Mike Cameron in the MWL, he'd have ripped it up.

Just interested because I cannot remember your thoughts on the Ryan Howard comp? I recall that when I studied up on it they were eerily similiar in almost every way.

M2
11-20-2007, 04:56 PM
Just interested because I cannot remember your thoughts on the Ryan Howard comp? I recall that when I studied up on it they were eerily similiar in almost every way.

If by eerily similar you mean Howard was a full standard deviation better both seasons, then, yes, it was eerie how Howard was consistently better than Stubbs his first two seasons. If you wanted to league and park adjust it, Howard would probably grade even better. If you wanted to further adjust for Stubbs having had the benefit of going through the UT baseball factory while Howard spent his college years at Southwest Missouri State, which, no disrespect to the Bears, is not a top tier college baseball program, then Howard's advantage walking into the pros looms even larger.

Mario-Rijo
11-20-2007, 05:23 PM
If by eerily similar you mean Howard was a full standard deviation better both seasons, then, yes, it was eerie how Howard was consistently better than Stubbs his first two seasons. If you wanted to league and park adjust it, Howard would probably grade even better. If you wanted to further adjust for Stubbs having had the benefit of going through the UT baseball factory while Howard spent his college years at Southwest Missouri State, which, no disrespect to the Bears, is not a top tier college baseball program, then Howard's advantage walking into the pros looms even larger.

Am I getting your tone right here because I somehow feel like I offended you by asking that question?

Betterread
11-20-2007, 05:52 PM
Drew Stubbs was not considered a polished collegiate talent that was ML ready at the time of the draft. His talents need development. If you were under the impression he was close to reaching his potential, you were mistaken. That is why there are such differing views on his prospect status.

Make no mistake about it: he has a lot of talent and a lot of potential. If you think he is untalented, then how could he start and win a championship at one of the deepest Baseball schools in the country and how could he be drafted in the draft's top 10. Whether he will be able to develop his talent and reach his potential is the question.

M2
11-20-2007, 05:56 PM
Am I getting your tone right here because I somehow feel like I offended you by asking that question?

No, I just don't think they're all that analagous. The rest you can chalk up to northeast-midwest communication variances.

M2
11-20-2007, 06:03 PM
Drew Stubbs was not considered a polished collegiate talent that was ML ready at the time of the draft. His talents need development. If you were under the impression he was close to reaching his potential, you were mistaken. That is why there are such differing views on his prospect status.

Make no mistake about it: he has a lot of talent and a lot of potential. If you think he is untalented, then how could he start and win a championship at one of the deepest Baseball schools in the country and how could he be drafted in the draft's top 10. Whether he will be able to develop his talent and reach his potential is the question.

No one's questioning whether Stubbs has talent. I never questioned that Pat Watkins had talent either.

The problem with Stubbs' talent is that it was still incredibly raw even after UT. That should have been a warning sign (to many it was). He got a ton of coaching and top flight experience and, even with all that talent, it didn't put him in a place to hit the minors running. I'll reiterate what many have said about Stubbs over the past year-plus. I wouldn't sweat a high school player going these kinds of growing pains, but when I see a college player from an elite program do it I'm going to wonder if he's ever going to have it all come together.

I mean we're talking about him like he's Wily Mo Pena circa 2001.

WMR
11-20-2007, 07:13 PM
No, I just don't think they're all that analagous. The rest you can chalk up to northeast-midwest communication variances.

:lol: :laugh: :lol:

I've never heard Northeasterner's rudeness explained so eloquently.

:lol:

;)

Betterread
11-20-2007, 08:53 PM
:lol: :laugh: :lol:

I've never heard Northeasterner's rudeness explained so eloquently.

:lol:

;)

Not everyone from the northeast is rude. I understand why you draw that conclusion but please don't take M2's manner as a typical new england way of behaving. His writing style would be considered rude and unacceptable in the part of new england where I lam from.

WMR
11-20-2007, 08:57 PM
Not everyone from the northeast is rude. I understand why you draw that conclusion but please don't take M2's manner as a typical new england way of behaving. His writing style would be considered rude and unacceptable in the part of new england where I lam from.

Oh I don't think that. I don't consider M2 rude either, FWIW.

I was just giving him a hard time.

M2
11-20-2007, 09:41 PM
Not everyone from the northeast is rude. I understand why you draw that conclusion but please don't take M2's manner as a typical new england way of behaving. His writing style would be considered rude and unacceptable in the part of new england where I lam from.

You'd of course be considered a paragon of the community.

*BaseClogger*
11-22-2007, 06:17 PM
Maloney because he is the most advanced with the best numbers...