PDA

View Full Version : Drew Stubbs....



Pages : [1] 2

bowles8
06-04-2008, 01:41 PM
When do you guys possibly foresee him being called up to Chatty????? Can't wait to finally see him....

dougdirt
06-04-2008, 01:54 PM
I don't think it will be too much longer.

TRF
06-04-2008, 03:28 PM
If he's finally come out of his horrific May slump, then I agree with doug. I think July at the earliest, maybe after the ASB.

Homer Bailey
06-04-2008, 03:41 PM
Stubbs is hitting just .245 against Righties in A+ and OPSing .737? Is he really going to be ready for AA in July?

dougdirt
06-04-2008, 03:44 PM
Stubbs is hitting just .245 against Righties in A+ and OPSing .737? Is he really going to be ready for AA in July?

Yeah, he is. Its the Florida State League.

fearofpopvol1
06-04-2008, 03:50 PM
I'd actually like to see him promoted ASAP. But that's just me.

TRF
06-04-2008, 04:46 PM
Stubbs is hitting just .245 against Righties in A+ and OPSing .737? Is he really going to be ready for AA in July?

Depends. Drew Stubbs is a bit of an enigma at the plate. It wasn't just the FSL that caused his slump in May. Pitchers figured him out. At the same time he did post an amazing April, .900+ OPS. Who is the real Stubbs?

My take is he's likely a 4th OF on most teams, and a starting CF on some. But his bat has some serious questions. His defense from all accounts does not. That helps his chances of being in the big leagues a lot. But right now he seems to be on the same path as Chris Dickerson, with a little better patience, but far less power. Defense is probably a wash.

schmidty622
06-04-2008, 04:49 PM
I really don't think Stubbs is ever going to be a factor at the major leauge level.

bucksfan2
06-04-2008, 04:49 PM
Depends. Drew Stubbs is a bit of an enigma at the plate. It wasn't just the FSL that caused his slump in May. Pitchers figured him out. At the same time he did post an amazing April, .900+ OPS. Who is the real Stubbs?

My take is he's likely a 4th OF on most teams, and a starting CF on some. But his bat has some serious questions. His defense from all accounts does not. That helps his chances of being in the big leagues a lot. But right now he seems to be on the same path as Chris Dickerson, with a little better patience, but far less power. Defense is probably a wash.

I will take a CF who hits around .270 gets on base around .385 and plays gold golve defense.

BRM
06-04-2008, 04:50 PM
I will take a CF who hits around .270 gets on base around .385 and plays gold golve defense.

As would nearly everyone here. The question is how likely is Stubbs to be that guy?

TRF
06-04-2008, 04:53 PM
I will take a CF who hits around .270 gets on base around .385 and plays gold golve defense.

Stubbs is as likely to hit .270 as he is .295 or .255. That's the problem his ceiling is fine, but his floor sucks. The question is which one is he closer to? After April ended and coming off 2 good months in Dayton, things looked good. Add his May to the first half of last year and the year before and yikes.

We'll know more I suppose in a month.

M2
06-04-2008, 04:58 PM
I will take a CF who hits around .270 gets on base around .385 and plays gold glove defense.

Unfortunately if that's all you can do in A ball then you don't stand much of a chance of doing it in the majors. To work on a theme started by TRF, that's a terribly low ceiling and his basement is massive.

Yet I would promote to AA for the same reason I argued promoting him to A+ ball in the middle of last year. I want the team to have the option of getting something for Stubbs in trade and I'd take the chance that even moderate performance in AA would enhance his market.

RedsManRick
06-04-2008, 05:08 PM
Unfortunately if that's all you can do in A ball then you don't stand much of a chance of doing it in the majors. To work on a theme started by TRF, that's a terribly low ceiling and his basement is massive.

Yet I would promote to AA for the same reason I argued promoting him to A+ ball in the middle of last year. I want the team to have the option of getting something for Stubbs in trade and I'd take the chance that even moderate performance in AA would enhance his market.

I think that's a bit pessimistic. Players can and do improve, even as they move up the levels. I agree, the problem with Stubbs is that his floor is so low and that compared to most top prospects, he's less likely to reach the majors. But let's not discount the possibility that he maintains an .800 OPS (.370/.430) as he moves up through the levels.

dougdirt
06-04-2008, 05:26 PM
Depends. Drew Stubbs is a bit of an enigma at the plate. It wasn't just the FSL that caused his slump in May. Pitchers figured him out. At the same time he did post an amazing April, .900+ OPS. Who is the real Stubbs?

My take is he's likely a 4th OF on most teams, and a starting CF on some. But his bat has some serious questions. His defense from all accounts does not. That helps his chances of being in the big leagues a lot. But right now he seems to be on the same path as Chris Dickerson, with a little better patience, but far less power. Defense is probably a wash.

His 23% line drive rate and 16.5% walk rate in May really disagrees that the FSL pitchers have figured him out. He had some strikeout issues in May that were rough, but lets not discount the fact that he had a rough month in the BABIP department by ~.070 which would account for about 5 more hits on the month, pushing his OPS to .708 in May, which would make his entire line to .294/.402/.433 for an .835 OPS.

Now lets take all of that out of the equation.... right now Drew Stubbs has improved his numbers from last year at a higher level in the most difficult place to hit in all of the minor leagues. That is impressive. While he may not be what some of you want him to be, I think it is overlooked an awful lot what he is doing in the FSL in terms of his improvement.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-04-2008, 05:38 PM
Stubbs is hitting just .245 against Righties in A+ and OPSing .737? Is he really going to be ready for AA in July?

If he were a lefty doing that, I would be more concerned. Like most decent RH's he killing LH pitching to the tune of .994.

I see no reason that Stubbs shouldn't be promoted now and I have little doubt he'd mirror the numbers he's putting up currently in the pitcher-friendly FSL (.775-.800 OPS).

If he can do that for a half-season in Chattanooga, I see no reason not to give him a shot to win that CF job with the big club in spring training.

M2
06-04-2008, 05:39 PM
I think that's a bit pessimistic. Players can and do improve, even as they move up the levels. I agree, the problem with Stubbs is that his floor is so low and that compared to most top prospects, he's less likely to reach the majors. But let's not discount the possibility that he maintains an .800 OPS (.370/.430) as he moves up through the levels.

It's true that players do improve, but Stubbs would have to improve to be a .790 OPS guy in AA and then improve again to be a .790 OPS guy in AAA and then improve again to be a .790 OPS guy in the majors. For the record, Stubbs has improved over last year to be .790 OPS guy in A+ ball.

Take a look at major league players. There aren't many who didn't have a breakout season by Stubbs' age. Torii Hunter is a notable exception. He was a fairly bad hitter in the minors until he was 24. Generally speaking, if you want a guy to be an .800+ OPS player with any regularity in the majors (and that is absolutely what you need from a CF), then you generally are looking out for players who've hit for .900+ OPSes somewhere on their rise up the ladder.

Yet there's likely going to come a time when Stubbs can't carry those meager stats up to the next level and then his value becomes minimal. Chances are he's either going to make a big jump in his plate skills at some point or fade away. You really don't see players that are able to maintain their game at just good enough.

RedsManRick
06-04-2008, 05:48 PM
M2, I'm the last guy to be optimistic about Stubbs, but you are being pretty strict.

1. He's only in his 2nd full minor league season, so it's a bit early to complain that he hasn't broken out.
2. He's supposedly a gold glove caliber defender. Even a .750 OPS makes him an asset if that's true.
3. If anything, what I've seen suggest that Sarasota is on par with Chattanooga on an absolute scale of difficulty for hitters. That is, a .775 OPS in the A+ converts to a .775 OPS in AA for Reds hitters -- that's as is, actual improvement notwithstanding.

I agree, it's a steep uphill climb for Stubbs. The nature of his hitting problem is contact. Unfortunately, I've not seen any evidence or education suggestion that contact ability is a skill that can be significantly improved -- unlike power (with age) and plate discipline (with instruction and experience). He's also old for an elite prospect, as most great players are in the upper minors, if not majors by age 23. I think his most likely career path looks an awful lot like Chris Dickerson's.

Maintaining, if not improving, one's level of performance as he moves up is not exactly rare. It's not exactly to be expected either.
But there's no need to exaggerated the case that he's likely to fizzle out in the not to distant future.

TRF
06-04-2008, 06:08 PM
His 23% line drive rate and 16.5% walk rate in May really disagrees that the FSL pitchers have figured him out. He had some strikeout issues in May that were rough, but lets not discount the fact that he had a rough month in the BABIP department by ~.070 which would account for about 5 more hits on the month, pushing his OPS to .708 in May, which would make his entire line to .294/.402/.433 for an .835 OPS.

Now lets take all of that out of the equation.... right now Drew Stubbs has improved his numbers from last year at a higher level in the most difficult place to hit in all of the minor leagues. That is impressive. While he may not be what some of you want him to be, I think it is overlooked an awful lot what he is doing in the FSL in terms of his improvement.

You point out hislow BABIP in May and ignore his ridiculously high BABIP in April. Yet his May BABIP was far closer to a normal one than April. Also, it's a sample size issue. We have a profile in A+ ball of two Drew Stubbs: a .900+ OPS beast, and a sub .600 Juan Castro lite.


It's true that players do improve, but Stubbs would have to improve to be a .790 OPS guy in AA and then improve again to be a .790 OPS guy in AAA and then improve again to be a .790 OPS guy in the majors. For the record, Stubbs has improved over last year to be .790 OPS guy in A+ ball.

Take a look at major league players. There aren't many who didn't have a breakout season by Stubbs' age. Torii Hunter is a notable exception. He was a fairly bad hitter in the minors until he was 24. Generally speaking, if you want a guy to be an .800+ OPS player with any regularity in the majors (and that is absolutely what you need from a CF), then you generally are looking out for players who've hit for .900+ OPSes somewhere on their rise up the ladder.

Yet there's likely going to come a time when Stubbs can't carry those meager stats up to the next level and then his value becomes minimal. Chances are he's either going to make a big jump in his plate skills at some point or fade away. You really don't see players that are able to maintain their game at just good enough.

Stubbs will likely NEVER have a sustained .900 OPS at any level in the minors. He just doesn't have the power. I heard a coach say he thought Jay Bruce would hit better at higher levels due to the fact that more advanced pitchers will be around the plate more. I really hope that is the case for Stubbs, but more advanced pitchers also have that extra little wrinkle: an out pitch. Like I said do to the fact that he seems much closer to his floor than his ceiling, I see him as a 4th OF. Which wouldn't be bad for a 6th round pick, but not a 1st rounder. Stubbs has been lapped by several Reds farmhands picked after him in 2006. Dorn and Valaika most notably. Keltavious Jones, picked in the 27th round, and is a year younger than Stubbs is putting up similar numbers at Dayton as Stubbs in 2007. Strikingly similar.

Stubbs is more likely to produce seasons closer to his floor than his ceiling. That makes his selection a bad one, but he'll have his uses. But his K rate coupled with his lack of power makes his high OBP a possible mirage. If pitchers know they can get him to wiff, then that's what they'll do.

TRF
06-04-2008, 06:14 PM
3. If anything, what I've seen suggest that Sarasota is on par with Chattanooga on an absolute scale of difficulty for hitters. That is, a .775 OPS in the A+ converts to a .775 OPS in AA for Reds hitters -- that's as is, actual improvement notwithstanding.

If this is the case, and I'm not saying it isn't, we still don't have enough data on Stubbs in high A to say he is a .770 OPS player. He had a month of greatness followed by a month of awful. June is his time to either rise or fall, in his case fall would be stay in Sarasota. If he doesn't get promoted in the next 30-40 days, I'd say he's in High A for the rest of the season. That puts him on a very slow track to the majors.

crazyredfan40
06-04-2008, 06:41 PM
TRF, just curious why you don't think of his numbers in Dayton as not really telling the whole story as he played injured most of the year last year, and same for Billings...

This year while healthy, he has hit the ball well with a good line drive rate, which leads to my feeling that if he was healthy last year his numbers would of been better...

Just curious what type of numbers you are wanting to see out of Stubbs...

dougdirt
06-04-2008, 07:01 PM
You point out hislow BABIP in May and ignore his ridiculously high BABIP in April. Yet his May BABIP was far closer to a normal one than April.
Except thats not true. BABIP is generally LD% + .120. Factor in his speed and thats probably worth another 15 points.

April BABIP = .310 (LD%) + .120 + .015 = .445 BABIP. Actual BABIP was .470.
May BABIP = .210 (LD%) + .120 + .015 = .345 BABIP. Actual BABIP was .281.

May in fact was more unlucky than April was lucky when you take into account what he actually did with his bat.



Stubbs will likely NEVER have a sustained .900 OPS at any level in the minors. He just doesn't have the power. I heard a coach say he thought Jay Bruce would hit better at higher levels due to the fact that more advanced pitchers will be around the plate more. I really hope that is the case for Stubbs, but more advanced pitchers also have that extra little wrinkle: an out pitch. Like I said do to the fact that he seems much closer to his floor than his ceiling, I see him as a 4th OF. Which wouldn't be bad for a 6th round pick, but not a 1st rounder. Stubbs has been lapped by several Reds farmhands picked after him in 2006. Dorn and Valaika most notably. Keltavious Jones, picked in the 27th round, and is a year younger than Stubbs is putting up similar numbers at Dayton as Stubbs in 2007. Strikingly similar.
Drew Stubbs is going to hit for some power once he leaves the FSL. He won't go Jay Bruce or anything, but his IsoP will be around .150-.175. As for Dorn and Valaika, no, they haven't lapped him. Dorn has to absolutely hit lights out considering he plays below average defense in a corner outfield position. Valaika I could listen to an argument for, but lets assume he gets moved off of SS and that argument doesn't seem so good anymore.



Stubbs is more likely to produce seasons closer to his floor than his ceiling. That makes his selection a bad one, but he'll have his uses. But his K rate coupled with his lack of power makes his high OBP a possible mirage. If pitchers know they can get him to wiff, then that's what they'll do.
His high OBP is a possible mirage? Based on what? The guy has had strong walk rates EVERYWHERE he has ever been. Again though, what does his selection being a bad on in your opinion have anything to do with what he is currently doing?

TRF
06-04-2008, 07:02 PM
TRF, just curious why you don't think of his numbers in Dayton as not really telling the whole story as he played injured most of the year last year, and same for Billings...

This year while healthy, he has hit the ball well with a good line drive rate, which leads to my feeling that if he was healthy last year his numbers would of been better...

Just curious what type of numbers you are wanting to see out of Stubbs...

I expect a top 10 pick top OPS north of .850 at every level. The injury/raw label doesn't wash for me.

crazyredfan40
06-05-2008, 12:35 AM
I expect a top 10 pick top OPS north of .850 at every level. The injury/raw label doesn't wash for me.

Even a gold glove caliber CF....800+ would be great IMO...

BuckeyeRedleg
06-05-2008, 12:47 AM
Even a gold glove caliber CF....800+ would be great IMO...

Exactly. I'd take a Mike Cameron (.784 career OPS) over a Geoff Jenkins (.841 career OPS) any day of the week.

If Drew Stubbs is a Mike Cameron, he's worth every bit of his top 10 selection.

mbgrayson
06-05-2008, 01:40 AM
I have posted this before, but what do you guys make of Stubbs home/road splits:

Road: .324/.438/.500 for an OPS of .938.
Home: .198/.316/.292 for an OPS of .607.

It may help Stubbs to get out of Sarasota....and into a different home park.

dougdirt
06-05-2008, 01:49 AM
I have posted this before, but what do you guys make of Stubbs home/road splits:

Road: .324/.438/.500 for an OPS of .938.
Home: .198/.316/.292 for an OPS of .607.

It may help Stubbs to get out of Sarasota....and into a different home park.

Bad luck at home. Huge line drive rate at home and a terrible average.... those two things don't generally go with each other. One interesting thing though is his groundball rate is much higher at home than on the road.

Homer Bailey
06-05-2008, 03:13 AM
Yeah, he is. Its the Florida State League.

I keep forgetting that when I look at the stats.

Blitz Dorsey
06-05-2008, 10:35 AM
Make him earn it a little more IMO. The only reason they would be promoting him would be his draft status, it wouldn't be based on production. If there was a random 23-year-old OF at Sarasota right now batting .268 with 2 HRs who wasn't a top 10 pick, would anyone be saying to call him up to Chattanooga? Heck no.

Let's have a good draft today and get one step closer to forgetting about the Drew Stubbs disaster.

Blitz Dorsey
06-05-2008, 10:38 AM
I have posted this before, but what do you guys make of Stubbs home/road splits:

Road: .324/.438/.500 for an OPS of .938.
Home: .198/.316/.292 for an OPS of .607.

It may help Stubbs to get out of Sarasota....and into a different home park.

Well, his overall numbers are pretty much exactly the same as they were last year (which is mediocre at best) except with even less power. Honestly, people can try and skew the numbers and spin the numbers however they want, but the fact is that since Drew Stubbs has been a professional baseball player, he hasn't hit a lick. At least not on a consistent basis. I hope he turns it around. I would love for the Reds to have a good RHH OF in a couple years to pair with Bruce (and hopefully Dunn). But I would be beyond shocked if Stubbs will be an everyday starter with the Reds (or any other MLB team).

M2
06-05-2008, 10:48 AM
Exactly. I'd take a Mike Cameron (.784 career OPS) over a Geoff Jenkins (.841 career OPS) any day of the week.

If Drew Stubbs is a Mike Cameron, he's worth every bit of his top 10 selection.

At Stubbs' age, Mike Cameron was busting out with a 1.004 OPS in AA.

Another thing to remember about Cameron is he's played the bulk of his career in three of the best pitching parks in baseball. He has a career .812 road OPS. Had he played his career in Cincinnati you've got to figure the .826 OPS mark he put up in 1999 would have been his norm.

Based on the above, I reject the notion that we've seen anything Cameronesque from Stubbs to date.

What Stubbs needs to do is play better (something Devin Mesoraco has been doing of late). No one digs into you LD% and then ponders whether you're a soft liner specialist if you're putting up the kind of numbers a top prospect should put up. If Stubbs plays better then we take comfort in the notion that the Reds should have a semi-productive CF on their hands in another two years. If he doesn't then he's probably going to hit his ceiling in the high minors.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-05-2008, 11:05 AM
At Stubbs' age, Mike Cameron was busting out with a 1.004 OPS in AA.

Another thing to remember about Cameron is he's played the bulk of his career in three of the best pitching parks in baseball. He has a career .812 road OPS. Had he played his career in Cincinnati you've got to figure the .826 OPS mark he put up in 1999 would have been his norm.

Based on the above, I reject the notion that we've seen anything Cameronesque from Stubbs to date.

What Stubbs needs to do is play better (something Devin Mesoraco has been doing of late). No one digs into you LD% and then ponders whether you're a soft liner specialist if you're putting up the kind of numbers a top prospect should put up. If Stubbs plays better then we take comfort in the notion that the Reds should have a semi-productive CF on their hands in another two years. If he doesn't then he's probably going to hit his ceiling in the high minors.

I wasn't comparing Cameron to Stubbs at a certain point of their minor league levels. I was responding to the notion that a top 10 pick should OPS .850+ to justify the pick.

My point was that I'd rather have a guy OPS .770-.790 that's playing a defensive-oriented position and playing it well, over some corner outfielder hitting .850.

That's not to say Stubbs will hit .770-.790. I hope he does, but his ceiling may be more long the lines of .750-ish.

Nasty_Boy
06-05-2008, 11:09 AM
Stubbs is hitting just .245 against Righties in A+ and OPSing .737? Is he really going to be ready for AA in July?


Brandon Phillips would kill for those numbers against RHP. :D

M2
06-05-2008, 11:13 AM
I wasn't comparing Cameron to Stubbs at a certain point of their minor league levels. I was responding to the notion that a top 10 pick should OPS .850+ to justify the pick.

My point was that I'd rather have a guy OPS .770-.790 that's playing a defensive-oriented position and playing it well, over some corner outfielder hitting .850.

That's not to say Stubbs will hit .770-.790. I hope he does, but his ceiling may be more long the lines of .750-ish.

I agree with the basic premise, but that .770-.790 OPS guy in the majors normally hit a lot better than that in the minors. Also, Cameron would have been in the .825-.850 range fairly often had he not played in primo pitching parks.

Those are two important things to keep in mind when contemplating what Stubbs could be. He needs to be a lot better fairly soon in order to have a chance at that sort of career in the majors and the guy we keep looking to as the example of what Stubbs could be actually hit a lot better than his raw stats would indicate (if you neutralize his stats for 750 runs a season, he gets an .825+ OPS in eight different seasons with an .817 career mark).

BuckeyeRedleg
06-05-2008, 11:33 AM
For some reason, I see Stubbs as the kind of hitter where his numbers will stay the same or grow as he advances. He was .768 in Billings (2006), .785 last year in Dayton, and he's .783 currently in the pitcher-friendly FSL. If I had to make a prediction, I would bet he'll go .780-.800 in Chattanooga. The real question is will he be able to make the transition to AAA and ML pitching. I don't think it's set in stone that if you dominate in A and AA that you will in the majors. By the same token, I don't think true talent is always going to struggle or hover around the league average. Some may get better as they advance and some hit their peak in A or AA.

Jeff Keppinger had a career minor league OPS of .792 and all we've heard about this guy is how he's always hit. In fact, he is an example of a guy raising his OPS at almost every level.

Obviously Keppinger (4th round, PIT) wasn't a top 10 pick, so he was under less a of a microscope and it's human nature that he's going to get more leeway than the top 10 pick. I just think it's interesting how he's considered by many Reds fans to be the team MVP and such a great hitter and the guy has a career .792 minor league OPS and is at .809 so far in the bigs.

M2
06-05-2008, 11:42 AM
For some reason, I see Stubbs as the kind of hitter where his numbers will stay the same or grow as he advances. He was .768 in Billings (2006), .785 last year in Dayton, and he's .783 currently in the pitcher-friendly FSL. If I had to make a prediction, I would bet he'll go .780-.800 in Chattanooga. The real question is will he be able to make the transition to AAA and ML pitching. I don't think it's set in stone that if you dominate in A and AA that you will in the majors. By the same token, I don't think true talent is always going to struggle or hover around the league average. Some may get better as they advance and some hit their peak in A or AA.

Nothing's set in stone, but what you "see" him as being is a rarity. FWIW, I think the possibility of him producing the sort of numbers you projected in AA is reason enough to promote him.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-05-2008, 11:56 AM
Nothing's set in stone, but what you "see" him as being is a rarity. FWIW, I think the possibility of him producing the sort of numbers you projected in AA is reason enough to promote him.

I agree. I see no reason to wait, especially with Szymanski heading to Louisville. The reason I call it "heading to" and not "promoted to" for Szymanski, is because I don't think it was necessarily a promotion for him.

It's time for Stubbs to make a move.

bowles8
06-05-2008, 05:22 PM
I've heard a rumor that Stubbs may get moved up to Chatty this weekend...Anyone else heard this????

crazyredfan40
06-05-2008, 05:39 PM
I've heard a rumor that Stubbs may get moved up to Chatty this weekend...Anyone else heard this????

I hope so...Then we will we will be able to get a very good read on what to expect from Stubbs, since he will have half a year at Chattanooga...

dougdirt
06-05-2008, 05:52 PM
I've heard a rumor that Stubbs may get moved up to Chatty this weekend...Anyone else heard this????

Haven't heard it, but hope its true.

TRF
06-05-2008, 06:14 PM
Haven't heard it, but hope its true.

I don't think his play has warranted it, but I agree. The Reds need to see if Stubbs is a real option at CF or if he's a 4th OF type. I hope he's Mike Cameron, I fear he's Corey Patterson (hitting issues. yes Stubbs can take a walk which CPatt can't do).

crazyredfan40
06-05-2008, 06:29 PM
I don't think his play has warranted it, but I agree. The Reds need to see if Stubbs is a real option at CF or if he's a 4th OF type. I hope he's Mike Cameron, I fear he's Corey Patterson (hitting issues. yes Stubbs can take a walk which CPatt can't do).

So far different from Patterson...He will take a pitch...Will work the count...Could help him as he moves up the ladder it he can ever get his contact issues down just a little...Also Stubbs has a much bigger arm than Patterson...I think my girlfriend can throw harder than him...

His play has warranted it due to the league...Not great, but enough to move him up due to his age, and I feel his understanding of the strikezone and his defense isn't going to behind...His numbers haven't been that bad...He could easily be OPS 800+ as Doug has pointed out...

Also we haven't had the oppurtunity to see him live, and what is to say that he isn't getting robbed on a couple of these linedrives, which make the numbers not all that goes into a promotion...

Just look at Votto as of late...His numbers have dipped a little, but he is hitting the ball as hard as anyone on the team right now...

TRF
06-05-2008, 06:52 PM
So far different from Patterson...He will take a pitch...Will work the count...Could help him as he moves up the ladder it he can ever get his contact issues down just a little...Also Stubbs has a much bigger arm than Patterson...I think my girlfriend can throw harder than him...

His play has warranted it due to the league...Not great, but enough to move him up due to his age, and I feel his understanding of the strikezone and his defense isn't going to behind...His numbers haven't been that bad...He could easily be OPS 800+ as Doug has pointed out...

Also we haven't had the oppurtunity to see him live, and what is to say that he isn't getting robbed on a couple of these linedrives, which make the numbers not all that goes into a promotion...

Just look at Votto as of late...His numbers have dipped a little, but he is hitting the ball as hard as anyone on the team right now...

I mentioned Stubbs can take a walk. was pointing out the contact issues. Both have them big time. And no, he can't easily OPS .800+ because he never has done that.

dougdirt
06-05-2008, 06:53 PM
I mentioned Stubbs can take a walk. was pointing out the contact issues. Both have them big time. And no, he can't easily OPS .800+ because he never has done that.

The point was that if things were normalized to his balls in play numbers, he would easily have an .800 OPS right now in the FSL, which he would.

M2
06-05-2008, 07:17 PM
The point was that if things were normalized to his balls in play numbers, he would easily have an .800 OPS right now in the FSL, which he would.

Not all line drives were created equal. Guys who really sting the ball (e.g. Eric Davis) rarely encounter the sort of problem Stubbs is having at the moment. I haven't seen Stubbs this year so I can't say one way or the other, but the FIRST thing that goes through my mind when I see the sort of numbers you seem to be hanging on (regardless of who those numbers are attached to) is that the player in question might not be making effective contact. Stubbs' HR totals reinforce that notion. He's a strapping guy and he's only got 2 HR.

So that BIP info might be telling us Stubbs doesn't square up the ball on the bat, not that he's unlucky.

dougdirt
06-05-2008, 07:22 PM
Not all line drives were created equal. Guys who really sting the ball (e.g. Eric Davis) rarely encounter the sort of problem Stubbs is having at the moment. I haven't seen Stubbs this year so I can't say one way or the other, but the FIRST thing that goes through my mind when I see the sort of numbers you seem to be hanging on (regardless of who those numbers are attached to) is that the player in question might not be making effective contact. Stubbs' HR totals reinforce that notion. He's a strapping guy and he's only got 2 HR.

So that BIP info might be telling us Stubbs doesn't square up the ball on the bat, not that he's unlucky.

While they aren't all created equally, his line drive rate is awfully high if he isn't squaring it up. Stubbs HR total tells me he is in the FSL. While I don't think the guy is going to be lighting up the HR charts, I think he would probably have 3 times as many HR if he were in Chattanooga where the balls seems to travel just a little bit more. We will find out soon enough though, as I don't think its going to be much longer until Stubbs finds his way to Chattanooga. There are several guys down there I have contact with that see about 90% of the home games who can tell us how he is doing outside of the box score.

Redman15
06-05-2008, 07:46 PM
I've heard a rumor that Stubbs may get moved up to Chatty this weekend...Anyone else heard this????

Reds sign a free agent outfielder and assign him to Chattanooga.

Collaro, a 2007 Southern League All-Star for Birmingham, split time between Birmingham (AA) and Charlotte (AAA) in the White Sox organization this year. In 2008, he hit a collective .238 with six homers and 21 RBIs between the two levels. In 2007, he also split time between Birmingham and Charlotte, where he hits .263 with 33 doubles, 23 homers, and 80 RBIs on the season.

M2
06-05-2008, 08:02 PM
While they aren't all created equally, his line drive rate is awfully high if he isn't squaring it up. Stubbs HR total tells me he is in the FSL. While I don't think the guy is going to be lighting up the HR charts, I think he would probably have 3 times as many HR if he were in Chattanooga where the balls seems to travel just a little bit more. We will find out soon enough though, as I don't think its going to be much longer until Stubbs finds his way to Chattanooga. There are several guys down there I have contact with that see about 90% of the home games who can tell us how he is doing outside of the box score.

Weak flares count as line drives too.

Jay Bruce hit HRs in the FSL. Chris Valaika hit HRs in the FSL. Juan Francisco and Todd Frazier are hitting HRs in the FSL. And let's be honest, 3x the HR total for Stubbs after 57 games would be a fairly pedestrian total for 23-year-old in A ball.

dougdirt
06-05-2008, 08:10 PM
Weak flares count as line drives too.

Jay Bruce hit HRs in the FSL. Chris Valaika hit HRs in the FSL. Juan Francisco and Todd Frazier are hitting HRs in the FSL. And let's be honest, 3x the HR total for Stubbs after 57 games would be a fairly pedestrian total for 23-year-old in A ball.

Weak flares count as line drives too?

M2
06-05-2008, 08:17 PM
Weak flares count as line drives too?

They're not grounders. They're not flyballs. They're not popups or foulouts. If it's a weak flare that gets snagged by an IF, but generally gets there on a line, that's a line drive. These "contact type" systems are woefully inadequate and are based on the exact type of subjective inaccuracy that made classic defensive zone rating systems a complete failure.

camisadelgolf
06-16-2008, 09:14 AM
2008 minor leagues
Drew Stubbs' BB/K ratio: 42/67
Jay Bruce's BB/K ratio: 12/45

TRF
06-16-2008, 10:53 AM
2008 minor leagues
Drew Stubbs' BB/K ratio: 42/67
Jay Bruce's BB/K ratio: 12/45

too bad he has trouble making contact. I'm thrilled he won the ASG MVP, but realistically, he's got a leadoff hitter's skillset: good OBP, speed, but he struggles in the leadoff role. he has little to no power, and he struggles to make contact. He lays off bad pitches, but can't seem to hit good pitches. He's got tremendous holes in his offensive game, but is seemingly very good defensively.

I'd promote him to Chatt just to see if the OBP can be maintained against better pitchers.

membengal
06-16-2008, 12:19 PM
Jacoby Ellsbury at age 22 split his year between A+ and AA:

A+ stats (244 at bats): .299/.379/.418 OPS .797 4 homeruns 7 doubles 5 triples 25 SB with 9 CS

AA stats: (198 at bats): .308/.387/.434 OPS .821 3 homeruns 10 doubles 3 triples 16 SB with 8 CS

For comparison's sake:

Stubbs A+ stats (225 at bats): .258/.378/.396 OPS .774 3 homeruns 14 doubles 4 triples 21 SB with 6 CS

Ellsbury made better contact that year, Stubbs has shown, oddly enough, a better batting eye, in terms of drawing a walk. All that thrown into a blender, and Stubbs is having a season not unlike that of Ellsbury when he was at the same level. The difference? One year of age.

So, serious question: is that one year of age really enough to legitimize the undercurrent of raw hostility and vitriol that has been directed at Stubbs by a bunch of folks on this board?

Again, taking the long view, I see a guy who is progressing as he moves up the ladder. He will need to continue to make improvements if he is going to make an impact at the major league level, but I see no reason why we can't realistically hope that he will. He looks ready for a AA trial to me, and if he washes out there, so be it. But I bet he won't. And I really want his glove one step closer to Cincy. I hope he moves up. Soon.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-16-2008, 01:21 PM
Jacoby Ellsbury at age 22 split his year between A+ and AA:

A+ stats (244 at bats): .299/.379/.418 OPS .797 4 homeruns 7 doubles 5 triples 25 SB with 9 CS

AA stats: (198 at bats): .308/.387/.434 OPS .821 3 homeruns 10 doubles 3 triples 16 SB with 8 CS

For comparison's sake:

Stubbs A+ stats (225 at bats): .258/.378/.396 OPS .774 3 homeruns 14 doubles 4 triples 21 SB with 6 CS

Ellsbury made better contact that year, Stubbs has shown, oddly enough, a better batting eye, in terms of drawing a walk. All that thrown into a blender, and Stubbs is having a season not unlike that of Ellsbury when he was at the same level. The difference? One year of age.

So, serious question: is that one year of age really enough to legitimize the undercurrent of raw hostility and vitriol that has been directed at Stubbs by a bunch of folks on this board?

Again, taking the long view, I see a guy who is progressing as he moves up the ladder. He will need to continue to make improvements if he is going to make an impact at the major league level, but I see no reason why we can't realistically hope that he will. He looks ready for a AA trial to me, and if he washes out there, so be it. But I bet he won't. And I really want his glove one step closer to Cincy. I hope he moves up. Soon.

Good post.

fearofpopvol1
06-16-2008, 01:49 PM
Jacoby Ellsbury at age 22 split his year between A+ and AA:

A+ stats (244 at bats): .299/.379/.418 OPS .797 4 homeruns 7 doubles 5 triples 25 SB with 9 CS

AA stats: (198 at bats): .308/.387/.434 OPS .821 3 homeruns 10 doubles 3 triples 16 SB with 8 CS

For comparison's sake:

Stubbs A+ stats (225 at bats): .258/.378/.396 OPS .774 3 homeruns 14 doubles 4 triples 21 SB with 6 CS

Ellsbury made better contact that year, Stubbs has shown, oddly enough, a better batting eye, in terms of drawing a walk. All that thrown into a blender, and Stubbs is having a season not unlike that of Ellsbury when he was at the same level. The difference? One year of age.

So, serious question: is that one year of age really enough to legitimize the undercurrent of raw hostility and vitriol that has been directed at Stubbs by a bunch of folks on this board?

Again, taking the long view, I see a guy who is progressing as he moves up the ladder. He will need to continue to make improvements if he is going to make an impact at the major league level, but I see no reason why we can't realistically hope that he will. He looks ready for a AA trial to me, and if he washes out there, so be it. But I bet he won't. And I really want his glove one step closer to Cincy. I hope he moves up. Soon.

I think the age thing frustrates people a lot, but I think even more than that is where Stubbs was picked in the draft. Ellsbury was picked way late. Stubbs was a top 10 draft pick (or that is where he was drafted). Was Stubbs really the best pick that early in the draft?

flyer85
06-16-2008, 01:57 PM
2 things on the Stubbs/Ellsbury comparison
1) Stubbs is a year older and it does make a difference
2) Stubbs has a MUCH HIGHER K rate than Ellsbury(Stubbs 1K per ~3.5ABs , Ellsbury 1K per ~8.5ABS). That is the big difference between the two and the K rate shows it. Stubbs has holes than can be exploited and the closer he gets to the majors the better pitchers will be able to exploit it.

Ellsbury doesn't have the hole and was simply refining his skill as hitter. Stubbs has to find a way to close his hole while refining his skill as a hitter.

Can Stubbs do it? Sure but he is in no way on the same path as Ellsbury.

BTW, Ellsbury was the 23rd overall pick in the 2005 draft. The stuff I read about Stubbs said in most years his skill set would have lent to his being a late first round draft pick.

lollipopcurve
06-16-2008, 02:14 PM
BTW, Ellsbury was the 23rd overall pick in the 2005 draft. The stuff I read about Stubbs said in most years his skill set would have lent to his being a late first round draft pick.

The Stubbs draft (2006) was routinely described as weak -- well before the draft took place. 2005 -- the year Ellsbury went -- looks to have been the strongest in quite a while. You can't compare the two players based on their draft position alone. Similarly, pronouncements about Stubbs being a bust because he was "a top 10 pick" fail to account for the talent pool he was in. All first rounds are far from the same.

flyer85
06-16-2008, 03:04 PM
All first rounds are far from the same.which was my point, even though Ellsbury was drafted later, the 2005 draft was loaded while the 2006 was not. The talent level of the two(from a draft standpoint) was probably roughly equivalent even though they were picked 16 spots apart.

lollipopcurve
06-16-2008, 03:15 PM
which was my point, even though Ellsbury was drafted later, the 2005 draft was loaded while the 2006 was not. The talent level of the two(from a draft standpoint) was probably roughly equivalent even though they were picked 16 spots apart.

I'm agreeing with you...

TRF
06-16-2008, 05:13 PM
Jacoby Ellsbury at age 22 split his year between A+ and AA:

A+ stats (244 at bats): .299/.379/.418 OPS .797 4 homeruns 7 doubles 5 triples 25 SB with 9 CS

AA stats: (198 at bats): .308/.387/.434 OPS .821 3 homeruns 10 doubles 3 triples 16 SB with 8 CS

For comparison's sake:

Stubbs A+ stats (225 at bats): .258/.378/.396 OPS .774 3 homeruns 14 doubles 4 triples 21 SB with 6 CS

Ellsbury made better contact that year, Stubbs has shown, oddly enough, a better batting eye, in terms of drawing a walk. All that thrown into a blender, and Stubbs is having a season not unlike that of Ellsbury when he was at the same level. The difference? One year of age.

So, serious question: is that one year of age really enough to legitimize the undercurrent of raw hostility and vitriol that has been directed at Stubbs by a bunch of folks on this board?

Again, taking the long view, I see a guy who is progressing as he moves up the ladder. He will need to continue to make improvements if he is going to make an impact at the major league level, but I see no reason why we can't realistically hope that he will. He looks ready for a AA trial to me, and if he washes out there, so be it. But I bet he won't. And I really want his glove one step closer to Cincy. I hope he moves up. Soon.

Ellsbury at Low A at age 21: .317BA .418OBP .432SLG .850OPS

Drew Stubbs at Low A at age 22: .270BA .364OBP .421SLG .785OPS

The difference between the two is history at Low A, Ellsbury skipped Rookie ball altogether, and sample size at High A. Stubbs OPS for May and June combined is under .700. Can he turn it around? maybe, but I'd promote him to AA quick, hope he catches fire and package him before he turns back into the free swinging, no contact pumpkin he is.

membengal
06-16-2008, 05:24 PM
So you talk about sample size and ignore Stubbs' April? What kind of weird cherry-picking is that? On top of that, I am not all that bummed about a .364 OBP from Stubbs (and I am carefully going to stay away from the long argued turf-toe issue with regard to power) at his Dayton year.

I compared the entirety of Stubbs' High A to Ellsbury's. I am pretty damn sure I could pick out cold stretches for Ellsbury if I wanted to in his months at high A...

Again, I am by no means prepping my August in 2041 for Stubb's Hall of Fame induction speech, but I see no reason not to take a little joy at knowing that Stubbs is NOT necessarily as bad as he has been made out to be by a lot of this board. In fact, he actually has quite a nice little skill set going...

TRF
06-16-2008, 06:33 PM
And you are ignoring that Ellsbury outperformed Stubbs at every level, skipped rookie ball altogether and did it a year younger. Your pointing to a hot month, I'm looking at his professional career where he's failed to hit at Billings, Dayton and now Sarasota. 2 months of hitting .200 with no power means very little to me. His OBP will not stand up to that when better pitchers realize he won't chase bad pitches but can't hit good ones.

membengal
06-16-2008, 06:50 PM
OK, I'll play:

His OBP will stand up as he faces better pitchers and refines his batting eye further.

Here's what's fun: who knows who is right or wrong? Only time will tell. But there is no way that he is a bust at this point, no more so than he is a certain all-star at this point. He remains an unknown. And, frankly, as much an unknown as other guys like him were at the same points of development. Ellsbury. Maybin. Mateo. Whothe-h-ever you want to put in. But what we know for sure is that he has not bombed out at this point, and, in fact, has made strides.

I continue to roll my eyes at the excessive doom-saying with regard to Stubbs. We won't know until we see more. What is the rush to shovel dirt on him? Just to be the first cool kid to say I-was-right-back-in-the-day?

TRF
06-16-2008, 07:19 PM
OK, I'll play:

His OBP will stand up as he faces better pitchers and refines his batting eye further.

Here's what's fun: who knows who is right or wrong? Only time will tell. But there is no way that he is a bust at this point, no more so than he is a certain all-star at this point. He remains an unknown. And, frankly, as much an unknown as other guys like him were at the same points of development. Ellsbury. Maybin. Mateo. Whothe-h-ever you want to put in. But what we know for sure is that he has not bombed out at this point, and, in fact, has made strides.

I continue to roll my eyes at the excessive doom-saying with regard to Stubbs. We won't know until we see more. What is the rush to shovel dirt on him? Just to be the first cool kid to say I-was-right-back-in-the-day?

Gosh, this IS fun! Why the rush to homer what is obviously a disappointing 1st rd. pick? He can't hit good pitches in the low minors. His "refined" batting eye won't help him make any more contact. He's not a good "hitter". period. he might be a decent "batter" in that he can lay off a bad pitch, but he's eerily similar to Dunn in that he has contact issues on pitches within the zone. The difference being Dunn at the same level had a better eye and the benefit of monster power.

Guys like you and doug kill me. It's actually ok to point out that Stubbs was a bad pick, and that though he has SOMEWHAT progressed (IMO even that is in doubt) he hasn't progressed to nearly what his slot says he should have by now. Younger guys taken in later rounds and drafts are passing him by. Frazier, Dorn and Valaika in the Reds system alone.

membengal
06-16-2008, 07:24 PM
What makes him a bad pick? Because he has not advanced on YOUR timetable?

Doug speaks for himself, and I don't appreciate being lumped in with him (nor he with me, I would suspect). He does fine on his own and certainly doesn't need my muddled thinking weighing him down.

My views are my own. And the pounding of guys on this site is excessive as all get out at times, and at way too early a juncture. We have no idea if he was a good or bad pick until we see how his career pans out. It could very well be he was an awful pick. See? I know that too! But we can't know yet if he was.

Where I differ strongly with you and others is on that last point. The returns we have are still early and rather inconclusive. Enough there to provide ammunition to your side, TRF (He's absolute dog****! Mark my words!) and Doug's side (he's going to a really good pro. Watch and see!)

Me? I am simply saying there is enough good that I don't see why the rush to "bust" him and enough bad that I understand the skepticism. My point is that you don't have to look far, at all, to find comps for his numbers from guys who have been good pros. I grant that you don't have to look far, either, for comps from guys who absolutely sucked eggs. But those two things, taken together, simply tell me that he is still a work in progress, an unknown, but one with some promise still. Is that really having a homer view? Wow, if so.

And AA is the right place for him, in my estimation.

And now, back to sweeping generalizations based on gut opinions! This is fun!

TRF
06-16-2008, 08:00 PM
I agree that AA is where he needs to be. If he shines, great If he fails well, that won't be much of a shock. I think he has value as a 4th OF. I just don't think a 4th OF is a good value for a 1st rd. pick. His timetable to the majors, right now looks like late 2009 at the best or 2010. that's a crappy timetable for a guy drafted in the first rd. at age 22.

dougdirt
06-16-2008, 08:29 PM
And a timetable not being met (specifically if we are talkling about one set forth by anyone that isn't the franchise) doesn't make one a bust, nor does it really change his status as a prospect. When he was drafted we all knew he had warts and man, did I hate the pick at the time. My exact words were 'anyone but Stubbs and I am happy'. Well, I was in the boat with about 99% of you guys on that one. However that doesn't mean I won't look at the progress he has made and say its not good enough. Drew has gotten better at each level he has played. He was a very raw toolsy guy. Now he is getting better as he moves up each level. His walk rate is up and his line drive rate has doubled from just last season while keeping his contact rate the exact same. His 'stat' line doesn't look like the improvement is there, but when you look further into it, Drew has certainly improved his overall game.

crazyredfan40
06-16-2008, 10:02 PM
Ellsbury at Low A at age 21: .317BA .418OBP .432SLG .850OPS

Drew Stubbs at Low A at age 22: .270BA .364OBP .421SLG .785OPS

The difference between the two is history at Low A, Ellsbury skipped Rookie ball altogether, and sample size at High A. Stubbs OPS for May and June combined is under .700. Can he turn it around? maybe, but I'd promote him to AA quick, hope he catches fire and package him before he turns back into the free swinging, no contact pumpkin he is.

Can you get it through you that he was hurt last year...He played a whole season with turf toe...

You ever had turf toe? Those numbers are just fine with a player with turf toe...

Do you pay attention to Doug's numbers?

I don't know why we have to rehash this once a week...

You think he is a bust, he didn't play good the last two seasons why he has been hurt...This season his numbers are solid for a hitters league...

THere are holes in his swing, but who is to say that moving up the ladder when guys stay closer to the plate, and the strike zone gets tighter, he will continue to work walks and be able to get balls that will be closer to the zone...

Also it is not all about his glove...Yeah guys that hit and play D are great...The thing is Stubbs would play a better CF than anyone we have at the big league level...If he continues to walk he can make things happen with this speed...

The LD rate is up this year...If he can work on the contact issues just a little, we are looking at a very good player for us in 2 years...

johngalt
06-16-2008, 11:46 PM
What makes him a bad pick? Because he has not advanced on YOUR timetable?

What makes him a bad pick is pretty simple:

Tim Lincecum.

Both college players who entered the draft with plenty of talent and some question marks.

One is already pitching like an ace in the majors.

The other is still experiencing plenty of growing pains in High A ball.

TRF
06-17-2008, 12:04 AM
Can you get it through you that he was hurt last year...He played a whole season with turf toe...

You ever had turf toe? Those numbers are just fine with a player with turf toe...

Do you pay attention to Doug's numbers?

I don't know why we have to rehash this once a week...

You think he is a bust, he didn't play good the last two seasons why he has been hurt...This season his numbers are solid for a hitters league...

THere are holes in his swing, but who is to say that moving up the ladder when guys stay closer to the plate, and the strike zone gets tighter, he will continue to work walks and be able to get balls that will be closer to the zone...

Also it is not all about his glove...Yeah guys that hit and play D are great...The thing is Stubbs would play a better CF than anyone we have at the big league level...If he continues to walk he can make things happen with this speed...

The LD rate is up this year...If he can work on the contact issues just a little, we are looking at a very good player for us in 2 years...

Was he injured in May? Is he injured now?

camisadelgolf
06-17-2008, 10:40 AM
I just want something cleared up: Drew Stubbs plays well-above average defense at a defense-first position, has blazing speed, and his OBP is consistently over .360 (and is currently at .372 in a very-pitcher-friendly league, despite his unlucky BABIP), and he's a bust?

If your answer is 'yes', if it weren't for Lincecum, would he still be a bust?

princeton
06-17-2008, 10:45 AM
What makes him a bad pick is pretty simple:

Tim Lincecum.

exactly

Drew owns one GM's scalp already.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 10:46 AM
If your answer is 'yes', if it weren't for Lincecum, would he still be a bust?He is not a bust(yet) but if you compare him to Valaika, Turner and Frazier it isn't good.

College players drafted that early have an expectation to move quickly. A lot of people on this board have mentioned Alonso being ready by 2010.

Let me ask this, if Alonso is in High A ball halfway through the 2010 season will you be disappointed?

camisadelgolf
06-17-2008, 11:11 AM
He is not a bust(yet) but if you compare him to Valaika, Turner and Frazier it isn't good.

College players drafted that early have an expectation to move quickly. A lot of people on this board have mentioned Alonso being ready by 2010.

Let me ask this, if Alonso is in High A ball halfway through the 2010 season will you be disappointed?

To answer your question on Alonso, it all depends on the circumstances. If he spends 2008 in Billings and/or Dayton, 2009 in Dayton/Sarasota, and 2010 in Sarasota/Chattanooga, I don't think it's necessarily a terrible pace. However, I don't think the speed of advancement through the system is a fair way to judge if a draft pick is a bust or not.

For the record, if you compare just about any minor leaguer, no matter what round he was drafted in, to Valaika, Turner, and Frazier, it still doesn't look good.

The fact that Stubbs was drafted out of college, if anything, lowers my expectations for the player. It tells me that he has a lower ceiling but a higher likelihood of reaching it. Drew Stubbs is playing solidly and is on pace to be an above-average center fielder, which is what I think the Reds expected from him.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 11:20 AM
College players drafted that early have an expectation to move quickly.

True. But the expectation is founded on the notion that all of these players are more or less the same. Stubbs' skill set makes him a bit unusual. He's a defense first, OBP guy with excellent speed and real contact issues. He's moving slowly because they don't want his bat to fall so far behind the level of competition that he has a serious crisis of confidence. So much of the game is between the ears.

This debate is old, but I'm going to add what I've said before several times, because I do think Stubbs continues to receive a fair amount of unjust criticism.

If you value defense up the middle -- something the Reds have been sorely lacking for a long time -- you should value Stubbs as a prospect, albeit a prospect who requires patience. If you don't value Stubbs because he's not Tim Lincecum, you'll never be satisfied, so have fun with that.


Drew owns one GM's scalp already.

Ridiculous. Not only did the drafting of Stubbs, in and of itself, have nothing to do with Castellini wanting Jocketty over Krivsky, it was Chris Buckley who made the pick. All very obvious. Yet here is Stubbs, somehow to blame for it all.....

flyer85
06-17-2008, 11:35 AM
If Stubbs, as a college player, was not expected to move quickly it is a sure sign he should not have been drafted that high.

princeton
06-17-2008, 11:36 AM
Ridiculous. Not only did the drafting of Stubbs, in and of itself, have nothing to do with Castellini wanting Jocketty over Krivsky, it was Chris Buckley who made the pick. All very obvious.

had Lincecum been drafted, Krivsky's still employed. Obviously.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 11:41 AM
Stubbs' skill set makes him a bit unusual. .true, usually high first round picks don't have a lot of people questioning their ability to hit. Position players selected early almost always are superior hitters ... because if you can hit they will find you a spot to play. Instead Stubbs was selected because he was an excellent athlete, known to be a good defensive player with a decent eye at the plate. His only question mark was his ability to hit moving forward, which is a huge question mark.

To this point his rate of advancement and performance have done little to allay the fear that he will not hit enough to be an everyday player at the major league level. He isn't a bust yet but the jury is still out.

RedsManRick
06-17-2008, 11:44 AM
If Stubbs, as a college player, was not expected to move quickly it is a sure sign he should not have been drafted that high.

Exactly. While I appreciate Doug's point that timetables set by fans aren't really valid, I find it impossible to believe that any team would draft a college player in the top 10 and expect him to be on the 4 year plan.

That said, people are a bit liberal with the term "bust". Stubbs isn't done. It's not clear that he's going to fail. Is he behind, yes. Are there still big questions about his game, sure. But he's not a bust. Chris Gruler, that's a bust. Brandon Larson, that's a bust. Drew Stubbs is a prospect. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 11:53 AM
had Lincecum been drafted, Krivsky's still employed. Obviously.

And so Stubbs' hands have Krivsky's blood on them? Don't know about you, but I prefer to discuss players with an air of fairness, without little guilt-by-association slights masked as cogent analysis.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 11:59 AM
Exactly. While I appreciate Doug's point that timetables set by fans aren't really valid, I find it impossible to believe that any team would draft a college player in the top 10 and expect him to be on the 4 year plan.

The 2006 crop was weak -- the observation has been made time after time after time, here and elsewhere. Not all top 10s are equal. Not all college players are equal. The desperate search for absolutes when it comes to the draft continues.......

Stubbs was universally regarded as one of the top 2 college hitters in the 06 crop -- Longoria was the other. After those two went off the board, only Tyler Colvin and Matt Antonelli (both struggling in the upper minors now) were first rounders. College hittrs tend to be the safest 1st round picks -- but that year was very, very thin. In my opinion, the Stubbs pick was a relatively safe one, if not, in hindsight, the best one.

princeton
06-17-2008, 12:14 PM
And so Stubbs' hands have Krivsky's blood on them? Don't know about you, but I prefer to discuss players with an air of fairness, without little guilt-by-association slights masked as cogent analysis.

I can't recall asking for a discussion with you. You seem to have inserted yourself ;)

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 12:15 PM
I can't recall asking for a discussion with you. You seem to have inserted yourself

Need I your permission to post?

princeton
06-17-2008, 12:32 PM
Need I your permission to post?


so you're saying "I want to discuss with you the fact the I don't want to discuss this in the way that you are discussing it"

dude, I'm already married.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 12:36 PM
so you're saying "I want to discuss with you the fact the I don't want to discuss this in the way that you are discussing it"

dude, I'm already married.

So tiresome. I was posting about Stubbs... you made it personal.

TRF
06-17-2008, 12:57 PM
I just want something cleared up: Drew Stubbs plays well-above average defense at a defense-first position, has blazing speed, and his OBP is consistently over .360 (and is currently at .372 in a very-pitcher-friendly league, despite his unlucky BABIP), and he's a bust?

If your answer is 'yes', if it weren't for Lincecum, would he still be a bust?
Incomplete description.

Add in contact issues, an almost complete lack of power, an awful K rate and a SB% that has been good to great this year, but awful last year.

The question about his OBP and contact issues are can he maintain that OBP against better competition? If a pitcher KNOWS he can't hit, why throw him junk outside the zone?

And can we stop saying a minor leaguer has GG defense? I know this wasn't you, you correctly described him as well-above average.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 01:08 PM
The question about his OBP and contact issues are can he maintain that OBP against better competition?

So far, so good. Maybe not so far, so great, but good enough. So why can't we accept that he's making progress? It reminds me of how Hamilton was analyzed here -- first it was early in spring training: "Wait till he starts seeing breaking stuff." Then it was, "Wait till we get late in spring training." Then, "Wait till he gets around the league and they develop a book on him," and "It's only 100/200 ABs (pick a number)." Sure, Stubbs is nowhere near tearing it up like Hamilton was -- but he's holding ground against stiffer competition in a pitcher's league. Many forecast he would be exposed in the FSL, but that hasn't happened. Now come the calls for a "true reckoning" in the Southern League. It'll go on and on.......

TRF
06-17-2008, 01:14 PM
So far, so good. Maybe not so far, so great, but good enough. So why can't we accept that he's making progress? It reminds me of how Hamilton was analyzed here -- first it was early in spring training: "Wait till he starts seeing breaking stuff." Then it was, "Wait till we get late in spring training." Then, "Wait till he gets around the league and they develop a book on him," and "It's only 100/200 ABs (pick a number)." Sure, Stubbs is nowhere near tearing it up like Hamilton was -- but he's holding ground against stiffer competition in a pitcher's league. Many forecast he would be exposed in the FSL, but that hasn't happened. Now come the calls for a "true reckoning" in the Southern League. It'll go on and on.......

How much better might his OBP be if he could hit?

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 01:37 PM
How much better might his OBP be if he could hit?

Stubbs is not going to be a high average guy, if that's what you mean by "hit." But I do think we can expect his power numbers to get better as moves up and plays in more hitter-friendly places -- including GAB.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 02:09 PM
If Stubbs, as a college player, was not expected to move quickly it is a sure sign he should not have been drafted that high.

Not exactly how I look at it. You should take the best player available. The BPA is the one you think will make the biggest impact WHEN they get to the majors, not the one who will make an impact the quickest. Thats how I look at the draft anyways. Now whether that is Stubbs or not is far from being told, but the assumption that a college player must move fast is a bit out there. While thats generally the accepted idea, everyone knew Stubbs would take time because of the raw abilities he had.

TRF
06-17-2008, 02:22 PM
Not exactly how I look at it. You should take the best player available. The BPA is the one you think will make the biggest impact WHEN they get to the majors, not the one who will make an impact the quickest. Thats how I look at the draft anyways. Now whether that is Stubbs or not is far from being told, but the assumption that a college player must move fast is a bit out there. While thats generally the accepted idea, everyone knew Stubbs would take time because of the raw abilities he had.

again with the raw abilities.

that is a weak, weak excuse for his timeframe.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 02:34 PM
again with the raw abilities.

that is a weak, weak excuse for his timeframe.

No its not. Its a fact of what was going on when they drafted him. He was a very toolsy guy with plenty of work to be done, but with a pretty significant upside but would take time to reach (if he ever did). Everyone knew that when he was drafted.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 02:35 PM
raw abilities.properly translated ... suspect ability to hit going forward.

Everything I read about Stubbs was that he was almost major league ready with the glove and had good plate discipline. The only issue was his ability to hit as he moved forward. The guys that can hit move quickly and the ones that can't usually don't figure it out along the way. Because of his athleticism he was high reward but taking a position player that early that had hitting concerns was extreme high risk.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 02:38 PM
properly translated ... suspect ability to hit going forward.

Usually, yeah. That was the case with Stubbs, but the guy has really improved in his two years in the system.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 02:42 PM
Usually, yeah. That was the case with Stubbs, but the guy has really improved in his two years in the system.the numbers don't show it. He is still the high K/High bb//low BA guy that he was when he entered the organization and has since added low slugging, which is very troubling.

princeton
06-17-2008, 02:48 PM
taking a position player that early that had hitting concerns was extreme high risk.


as I pointed out on draft day, the best comp for Stubbs is Dan Wilson-- another high Reds pick with questionable bat, but a reasonable success story. Interestingly, Wilson was pushed faster than Stubbs. By this time in his career, Wilson was a AAA player about to be brought up for a cup of coffee. Stubbs is a click and a half back. I'd challenge him.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 03:02 PM
the numbers don't show it. He is still the high K/High bb//low BA guy that he was when he entered the organization and has since added low slugging, which is very troubling.

The numbers don't show it, but he is indeed a much better hitter. His OPS has stayed roughly the same despite going from a hitters league, to a pitchers league to THE pitchers league in all of minor league baseball. His walk rate has climbed and his strikeout rate has stayed exactly the same. That indicates he is indeed growing at the plate. As for the low slugging, its the FSL. Not everyone is Jay Bruce and kills the FSL. Most guys look like they suck in the FSL then leave and kill the ball.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 03:07 PM
Most guys look like they suck in the FSL then leave and kill the ball.
Frazier(508 slg) and Valaika(585) would both beg to differ. Both have hit very well in the FSL this year and both are a year younger than Stubbs.

Generally the jump from A to AA is considered the toughest in the minors.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 03:11 PM
Frazier(508 slg) and Valaika(585) would both beg to differ. Both have hit very well in the FSL this year and both are a year younger than Stubbs.

Generally the jump from A to AA is considered the toughest in the minors.

Frazier doesn't really play up the middle, so he shouldn't be held to the same standard. Valaika was also repeating the level. Stubbs doesn't have the power of those guys, but my point still remains that lots of guys lose slugging in the FSL then discover it once they leave. That list is a mile long.

princeton
06-17-2008, 03:15 PM
Generally the jump from A to AA is considered the toughest in the minors.

A to AA is usually toughest on pitchers. lately, Sarasota to Chatt has been pretty easy for our hitters-- there are guys that can't hit in Sarasota but do very well in Chattanooga. Billings to Dayton is probably toughest offensively, or Chatt to Louisville.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 03:16 PM
Valaika was also repeating the level. and yet is a year younger and his OPS has dropped 200 points since moving to AA.

Stubbs problem is still huge ... he has a high BB rate in A ball despite little power. The reason is because there are a lot of guys at that level that tend to struggle to throw strikes and since he has a good eye he takes walks. If you get to the majors and don't have much power the BBs are going to dry up because most pitchers have the command to throw strikes when they want and if you don't power they have don't have a reason to stay away.

For Stubbs to have success going forward while having contact issues he must develop at least 20 HR type power ... otherwise the walks are going to fade into the past.

princeton
06-17-2008, 03:20 PM
For Stubbs to have success going forward while having contact issues he must develop at least 20 HR type power ... otherwise the walks are going to fade into the past.

yes, I think that you have the correct take. If he can hit for power, he'll be OK. if not, then he'll disappoint.

power develops last, and he's a big guy who sees a lot of pitches. So, there's always a chance.

The_jbh
06-17-2008, 03:27 PM
again with the raw abilities.

that is a weak, weak excuse for his timeframe.

I couldn't disagree with you any more. When Stubbs was drafted, it was known it would take him some time to move through the system. Some argue that if that was the case he didn't merrit consideration at #10... i certainly disagree.

There are lot of players taken in a draft that have high risk high reward and vice versa. This year we took the guy with low risk good reward. The Royals took Colt Griffin knowing he could be their future ace, he could be a bust. He busted.

For every Colt Griffin there is a Jeff Francis. Francis was rather raw as a starter, taken at 9. He was Canadian College Player and Rockies weren't quite as sure what they were gonna get. Same draft (2002), Joe Saunders was taken knowing he had a limited skill set but was ready for the majors with just a little time in the minors. Both College Players, drafted highly, with different skill sets that both merritted a high pick. Obviously Francis is a success story but i think it highlights the point. I know pitching is different etc... etc... but I thought it was a good example in a similar draft slot.

Stubbs is still very much a solid prospect. He just is taking time. I think that his pitch selection is an indication that he will ultimately hit for better average. It means hes more likely to wait on a pitch he can hit. He's not as effective at it as you'd like right now... but again... hes just in High A. His age only becomes a factor if he turns 25 and isn't in AA or AAA. For now, he's still a talent prospect getting seasoning and a lightly slower pace than lots here would like.

I really wish we could have a conversation about Stubbs without talking about Lincecum. It is rediculous... just because the board wanted us to take him. He was never connected to the Reds. I am WAY more pissed that the Reds took Gruler over Kazmir, especially considering Kazmir had been in contact with the Reds and Adam Dunn on multiple occasions. Kazmir was suprised we didn't take him!

I'll point out that we also passed on Max Scherzer and Ian Kennedy. I will also point point out that the Orioles took William Rowell imediately after the Reds and he isn't even in High A... in fact there are only 3 players drafted after Stubbs in the first round who are in the majors... Lincecum, Scherzer, and Kennedy... in fact Stubbs is producing a lot better than a lot of the players taken around his slot.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 03:35 PM
I think that his pitch selection is an indication that he will ultimately hit for better average. has little to do with it. You need to be looking at his contact percent. As long as you swing and miss a lot it is very hard to be a high average hitter. Guys that swing and miss a lot can still be successful if they have power.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 03:44 PM
has little to do with it. You need to be looking at his contact percent. As long as you swing and miss a lot it is very hard to be a high average hitter. Guys that swing and miss a lot can still be successful if they have power or play great defense at a defensive position.

Fixed that for ya.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 03:49 PM
play great defense at a defensive positionwhich is generally a catcher or a SS. Teams can only afford to do that if the make up for the no-stick somewhere else. The problem is that Reds really don't have a top notch prospect(can both hit and play above average defense) in the pipeline at either SS, C or CF.

The_jbh
06-17-2008, 03:53 PM
has little to do with it. You need to be looking at his contact percent. As long as you swing and miss a lot it is very hard to be a high average hitter. Guys that swing and miss a lot can still be successful if they have power.

I disagree. I don't think Stubbs will ever be a "high percentage" hitter persay, but I think he can be a .270 .360-.380 guy.

We had a big arguement on this board awhile back about how hitting is really capitalizing on pitchers mistakes. When pitchers "make" a pitch, they are going to win 95% of the time. Hitters are successful when they work counts and wait for that mistake pitch. That is why I think that Stubbs pitch selection will yield a adequate batting average, especially considering his other skills.

Kc61
06-17-2008, 04:02 PM
I'll point out that we also passed on Max Scherzer and Ian Kennedy. I will also point point out that the Orioles took William Rowell imediately after the Reds and he isn't even in High A... in fact there are only 3 players drafted after Stubbs in the first round who are in the majors... Lincecum, Scherzer, and Kennedy... in fact Stubbs is producing a lot better than a lot of the players taken around his slot.

I followed you up until here. Rowell is a 19 year old prospect out of high school, is four years younger than Stubbs (almost to the day), and is indeed at High A, the same level as Stubbs.

And nobody is saying that Stubbs should be in the major leagues like some others in his draft class. Nor is anyone saying this is another Gruler situation, which upsets every Reds fan.

There are seven 2006 Reds draftees (Stubbs' class) who are at AA or higher -- Valaika, Watson, Smith, Turner, Roenicke(AAA), Lutz, Dorn. Todd Frazier, drafted a year later, is now at the same High A level as Stubbs. And none of them were drafted in the first round, as Stubbs was.

Doesn't mean he won't be good, he might. Apparently plays great defense and can take a walk. But it can't be said that Stubbs is right on track. His hitting is apparently holding him back, so far.

The_jbh
06-17-2008, 04:32 PM
I followed you up until here. Rowell is a 19 year old prospect out of high school, is four years younger than Stubbs (almost to the day), and is indeed at High A, the same level as Stubbs.

And nobody is saying that Stubbs should be in the major leagues like some others in his draft class. Nor is anyone saying this is another Gruler situation, which upsets every Reds fan.

There are seven 2006 Reds draftees (Stubbs' class) who are at AA or higher -- Valaika, Watson, Smith, Turner, Roenicke(AAA), Lutz, Dorn. Todd Frazier, drafted a year later, is now at the same High A level as Stubbs. And none of them were drafted in the first round, as Stubbs was.

Doesn't mean he won't be good, he might. Apparently plays great defense and can take a walk. But it can't be said that Stubbs is right on track. His hitting is apparently holding him back, so far.

Apparently I'm blind and can't see Rewell in high a. Sorry about that.

I was just drawing the comparison to the Gruler/Kazmir lack of rage over the years about blowing the #3 pick when we could have an ace and the unfair treatment Stubbs, who still very much is a prospect in a position we badly need help on at the ML level (RH bat, CF so Bruce can play RF). I also want to highlight that the Reds were never connected to Lincecum... he was just a popular choice on this board. Kazmir (As was Gruler) was connected to the Reds days leading up to the draft and we passed on him.

I agree hes not right on track but I think he is on a track that still very likely could yield positive results... its just a slow track.

M2
06-17-2008, 04:44 PM
I also want to highlight that the Reds were never connected to Lincecum... he was just a popular choice on this board.

Maybe they ought to hire us. Apparently we're pretty good.

Caveat Emperor
06-17-2008, 05:04 PM
I agree hes not right on track but I think he is on a track that still very likely could yield positive results... its just a slow track.

Its a pretty simple deal for Drew Stubbs: Hit and you advance.

Time is not on his side, in this case. You're right, it may just start clicking for him one day -- there's no real rhyme or reason to any of this -- but history tells us that every day that passes without it clicking makes the odds of it ever happening that much longer.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 05:33 PM
That is why I think that Stubbs pitch selection will yield a adequate batting average, especially considering his other skills.
Shandler and others have done the research and contact % can be tied to a range of batting averages with a very high probability. You may not like it but low contact hitters generally have low batting averages. There are always a few outliers but you sure wouldn't want to count on that.

Rojo
06-17-2008, 06:21 PM
Drew's defense seems inversely related to his bat. Another long slump and he'll be Garry Maddox.

The_jbh
06-18-2008, 03:38 PM
Shandler and others have done the research and contact % can be tied to a range of batting averages with a very high probability. You may not like it but low contact hitters generally have low batting averages. There are always a few outliers but you sure wouldn't want to count on that.

I think its one of those fun percentages that are fun to research and certainly have some value, but contrary to many's belief on this board, there is more to baseball than numbers and calculations.

My point is, Stubbs has a very important tool, he has good pitch selection. I think he can be a .250-.260 hitter with a .360-.380 OBP Well above average defense and great speed. I think he can be 15 HR guy with 20 to 25 in some great years.... essentially an Aaron Rowland type before his great 2007 season.

Players move at different speeds... currently he is showing three things that certainly would provide value to the current club, great defense up the middle, speed, and OBP. He does have a ways to go to produce at the major league level but he is certainly one of our top prospects... and who knows, maybe he'll put his hitting together and hit for avg.

M2
06-18-2008, 08:32 PM
Given Stubbs current level of play I'd say he profiles as the next Chris Dickerson - same basic skill set, same basic performance.

Hondo
06-19-2008, 12:33 AM
Well, alls I know that the Scouting Department has been bad for sooo Long...

Lincecum would have changed the face of this team if he had been taken... The team Taking Stubbs was a big mistake... Considering the holes in the system everywhere else... Like the Moresceco pick because we were Low on Catchers? I hope that guy starts hitting but come on... This is a joke...

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 11:32 AM
Given Stubbs current level of play I'd say he profiles as the next Chris Dickerson - same basic skill set, same basic performance.

Interesting comparison because they do have the same basic skillset and they've matched age/level for the most part.

It appears Stubbs is nudging ahead of Dickerson.....

At age 23/high A Sarasota:

Dickerson .236/.325/.383 .708 OPS 2.34 K/BB

Stubbs .267/.383/.407 .790 OPS 1.58 K/BB

HokieRed
06-19-2008, 11:42 AM
I think the case of Drew Stubbs is very simple. If he can maintain something like the OBP he has put up last year and this year so far, he is going to be a very valuable major league player. His relatively low slugging percentage will go up with time and he's a very good bet to put up around an .800 OPS with gold glove defense and the possibility of stealing 50 bases a year. In the Dickerson comparison, look at the differential in OBP--it's a whole half point; they're not really very comparable at all.

flyer85
06-19-2008, 11:50 AM
I think the case of Drew Stubbs is very simple. If he can maintain something like the OBP he has put up last year and this year so far, he is going to be a very valuable major league player. seems unlikley that a guy that has an OPS between 750 and 800 is going to come close to that in the majors

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 11:57 AM
seems unlikley that a guy that has an OPS between 750 and 800 is going to come close to that in the majors

if the bat continues to develop....he's got raw power

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 12:29 PM
seems unlikley that a guy that has an OPS between 750 and 800 is going to come close to that in the majors

Guys do develop. Stubbs has gone from a hitters league, to a pitchers league to the pitchers league in the minor leagues and he has stayed about the same player, which shows improvement over that time.

M2
06-19-2008, 12:32 PM
I think the case of Drew Stubbs is very simple. If he can maintain something like the OBP he has put up last year and this year so far, he is going to be a very valuable major league player. His relatively low slugging percentage will go up with time and he's a very good bet to put up around an .800 OPS with gold glove defense and the possibility of stealing 50 bases a year. In the Dickerson comparison, look at the differential in OBP--it's a whole half point; they're not really very comparable at all.

Dickerson's got a career .359 OB. Stubbs is at .369. I'd say that's comparable.

Why will Stubbs' SLG go up? He's hit 21 HR in 925 professional ABs and at no point has he been young for his league. He's basically send up flares that power isn't ever going to be a featured part of his game. IMO, projecting a guy to hit better in the majors than he has as a 22- and 23-year-old in A ball is little more than wishful thinking. Sure, it could happen, but I'd think right now if you ignored his name and what organization he played for and just looked at what he's doing, the more responsible projection would be that he's progressing more like he'll .220-.230 hitter in the majors (better breaking pitches are going to drop his BA). Think Ruben Rivera with a little less power and a little more speed. And I'd say that's a fairly rosy outlook. He could just as easily get chewed up by better pitching in the upper minors and never get much more than a cup of coffee in the bigs.

The scenario you've presented is what would happen if Stubbs improved dramatically. The problem is he's no longer at an age where that kind of geometric progression is likely.

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 12:46 PM
Dickerson's got a career .359 OB. Stubbs is at .369. I'd say that's comparable.

Sure, it's comparable. And it may prove to be a very apt comparison. But right now, Stubbs looks like a significantly better player at 23 tha Dickerson was at that age.


Why will Stubbs' SLG go up? He's hit 21 HR in 925 professional ABs and at no point has he been young for his league.

No one is saying it WILL go up. We are saying it has a decent enough chance to go up. You are suggesting it WON'T go up, based on past performance. Power develops late in many cases. Stubbs is heading to more hitter-friendly places. He has raw power and he's going to get physically stronger. If he continues to develop his bat, he'll learn to leverage his power better.


He's basically send up flares that power isn't ever going to be a featured part of his game.

True. But he's a very good defensive centerfielder with very good OPB skills. Power doesn't have to be a featured part of his game. This has been well understood on this board for as long as Stubbs has been in the organization.


Think Ruben Rivera with a little less power and a little more speed. And I'd say that's a fairly rosy outlook. He could just as easily get chewed up by better pitching in the upper minors and never get much more than a cup of coffee in the bigs.

Stubbs will have a better career than Ruben Rivera. Very little doubt in my mind.

princeton
06-19-2008, 12:53 PM
Power doesn't have to be a featured part of his game. This has been well understood on this board for as long as Stubbs has been in the organization

??

I think that you poorly understand this. if he doesn't find some power, then he's not going to draw major league walks-- no reason for pitchers not to give him fat pitches--- and his infrequent singles won't allow him to impact a game.

RedsManRick
06-19-2008, 01:00 PM
??

I think that you poorly understand this. if he doesn't find some power, then he's not going to draw major league walks-- no reason for pitchers not to give him fat pitches--- and his infrequent singles won't allow him to impact a game.

Exactly. It's one thing to be Luis Castillo and at least spray singles around the field, giving pitchers pause. But if you don't hit for power and you have trouble making contact, it could get ugly very quickly.

Just curious, is there anybody around in the game who strikes out 120+ times a year, slugs under .420 and gets on base over .340?

Willits? Kearns? Iwamura? Teahan?

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 01:04 PM
I think that you poorly understand this. if he doesn't find some power, then he's not going to draw major league walks-- no reason for pitchers not to give him fat pitches--- and his infrequent singles won't allow him to impact a game.

No, I do not poorly understand it. Fat pitches will get hammered by anybody and everybody. Guys who never make it out of AA ball could survive in the majors if they got nothing but balls in the middle of the plate. And Stubbs has plenty of raw power. Balls dying on the track in 'sota are out of GAB. He will not be pitched like a singles hitter -- major leaguers will look for holes in his swing or in his pitch recognition abilities and pitch to those, just like they're doing with Bruce now (fastballs up) -- saying they'll groove pitches because they think he has a hard time hitting the ball 350 feet is, well, not getting it.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 01:05 PM
Exactly. It's one thing to be Luis Castillo and at least spray singles around the field, giving pitchers pause. But if you don't hit for power and you have trouble making contact, it could get ugly very quickly.

Just curious, is there anybody around in the game who strikes out 120+ times a year, slugs under .420 and gets on base over .340?

Willits? Kearns? Iwamura? Teahan?

It doesn't happen that often. Still, given the park, I think Stubbs could slug .420.

princeton
06-19-2008, 01:07 PM
No, I do not poorly understand it. Fat pitches will get hammered by anybody and everybody. Guys who never make it out of AA ball could survive in the majors if they got nothing but balls in the middle of the plate. And Stubbs has plenty of raw power. Balls dying on the track in 'sota are out of GAB. He will not be pitched like a singles hitter -- major leaguers will look for holes in his swing or in his pitch recognition abilities and pitch to those, just like they're doing with Bruce now (fastballs up) -- saying they'll groove pitches because they think he has a hard time hitting the ball 350 feet is, well, not getting it.


you're talking in circles. Now you're saying that he will hit for more power.

that'd be good. he needs to hit for enough power to keep pitchers from getting overly aggressive with him. because his SB threat is probably not enough to do it, especially in the Reds ballpark.

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 01:08 PM
Exactly. It's one thing to be Luis Castillo and at least spray singles around the field, giving pitchers pause. But if you don't hit for power and you have trouble making contact, it could get ugly very quickly.

Stubbs will hit for some power if he can keep his contact issues under reasonable control. His OBP skills are a sign that he has a decent chance to do that. He has raw power, and he will be playing in a bandbox.

M2
06-19-2008, 01:19 PM
No one is saying it WILL go up. We are saying it has a decent enough chance to go up. You are suggesting it WON'T go up, based on past performance. Power develops late in many cases. Stubbs is heading to more hitter-friendly places. He has raw power and he's going to get physically stronger. If he continues to develop his bat, he'll learn to leverage his power better.

Dayton and Sarasota are hitter's parks. Dayton's homer friendly. Sarasota is double friendly. Billings is an absolute launching pad. It's not like Stubbs has been playing his home games in Myrtle Beach. Players with actual power have been able to hit for power in the places where Stubbs has played.

The problem with Stubb's "power" is that he never had an abundance of it and the power he had in college was largely a result of using an aluminum bat. He doesn't square the ball up well enough to generate power with a wood bat (the exact same problem Chris Dickerson suffers from). Stubbs already is big and strong. His problem is not that he lacks the physical components of power. His power problems are, primarily, swing related.

For the record, I'm not saying his power WON'T increase, but given where it is, we ought to be cognizant of what a power increase would look like. If he were to be a 15 HR guy, that would be a power increase.

And he'll need to get to that level because, as princeton noted, if he doesn't that's going to cut into his BB totals something fierce as he moves up the ladder. Also, as I mentioned above, the quality of breaking pitches he'll be seeing in higher levels is going to improve dramatically. Stubbs struggles mightily with breaking balls and that could tank both his BA and SLG. I'm not saying it will, but we ought to be aware that better pitchers might be able to take advantage of that sizable deficiency in his offensive game.

Ruben Rivera played 662 games in the majors, collecting 1,818 PAs, 62 HR and 203 RBI along the way. His career OPS was .700. Given the way Drew Stubbs has played to date, no way he has that kind of career in the majors. Rivera had at .838 OPS in the minors and most of that work came by the time he was already Stubbs' age. Stubbs will need to improve a good bit just to be Ruben Rivera.

flyer85
06-19-2008, 01:23 PM
Stubbs already is big and strong. His problem is not that he lacks the physical components of power. His power problems are, primarily, swing related.stuff I read on him around draft time pointed out that his hands and body were "disconnected" during his swing. the conclusion was that his power was limited.

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 01:23 PM
you're talking in circles. Now you're saying that he will hit for more power.

No, I'm not. I'm saying he has plenty of "raw power" -- roughly speaking, doubles/triples power in Sarasota is evidence of that. It is well-documented in "the literature", too, that Stubbs has the power "tool." I am not saying he will be able to put this tool to use in the majors -- I am saying that because he possesses the tool he has a chance to hit for power. And I am saying playing in Cincinnati will help him hit the ball out of the park, too.

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 01:42 PM
Ruben Rivera played 662 games in the majors, collecting 1,818 PAs, 62 HR and 203 RBI along the way. His career OPS was .700. Given the way Drew Stubbs has played to date, no way he has that kind of career in the majors. Rivera had at .838 OPS in the minors and most of that work came by the time he was already Stubbs' age. Stubbs will need to improve a good bit just to be Ruben Rivera.

Ruben Rivera was rushed, really rushed. Stubbs is being handled conservatively, and I'd say so far, so good. It's called player development.


The problem with Stubb's "power" is that he never had an abundance of it and the power he had in college was largely a result of using an aluminum bat. He doesn't square the ball up well enough to generate power with a wood bat (the exact same problem Chris Dickerson suffers from). Stubbs already is big and strong. His problem is not that he lacks the physical components of power. His power problems are, primarily, swing related.

I may agree with this, although I would say that bat speed may also be an issue. He's facing harder throwers in pro ball, and he may be skying pitches he used to drive.


we ought to be cognizant of what a power increase would look like. If he were to be a 15 HR guy, that would be a power increase.

Agreed. We're talking about "in-game" power vs. the power tool. Stubbs has a good chunk of "in-game" power left to find.

M2
06-19-2008, 01:46 PM
stuff I read on him around draft time pointed out that his hands and body were "disconnected" during his swing. the conclusion was that his power was limited.

Exactly, this was a known problem heading into the 2006 draft. There always were profound doubts that he'd develop much in the way of power despite his frame.

HokieRed
06-19-2008, 02:19 PM
I'll reiterate my original point. There's only one statistic in Stubbs' case you need to look at: his OBP. If he maintains it where it is, voila--he's in GABP center field.

TRF
06-19-2008, 02:30 PM
No, I do not poorly understand it. Fat pitches will get hammered by anybody and everybody. Guys who never make it out of AA ball could survive in the majors if they got nothing but balls in the middle of the plate. And Stubbs has plenty of raw power. Balls dying on the track in 'sota are out of GAB. He will not be pitched like a singles hitter -- major leaguers will look for holes in his swing or in his pitch recognition abilities and pitch to those, just like they're doing with Bruce now (fastballs up) -- saying they'll groove pitches because they think he has a hard time hitting the ball 350 feet is, well, not getting it.

He's not hammering anything now.


No, I'm not. I'm saying he has plenty of "raw power" -- roughly speaking, doubles/triples power in Sarasota is evidence of that. It is well-documented in "the literature", too, that Stubbs has the power "tool." I am not saying he will be able to put this tool to use in the majors -- I am saying that because he possesses the tool he has a chance to hit for power. And I am saying playing in Cincinnati will help him hit the ball out of the park, too.

Triples have almost nothing to do with power, and everything to do with speed, park, and defense. Right now Stubbs has plenty of speed. Minor league defense is suspect as a whole, and the FSL plays as a pitchers league. Big parks make for a lot of flyball outs, but doubles down the line can be triples for a burner. He won't hit triples at the GABP.

M2
06-19-2008, 02:35 PM
I'll reiterate my original point. There's only one statistic in Stubbs' case you need to look at: his OBP. If he maintains it where it is, voila--he's in GABP center field.

The problem is given his BA and SLG deficiencies, that OB could be in for a tumble against better pitchers. You very well could be looking at .230 BA, .310 OB player and then, voila, he's a fringe player. He's right now carrying just enough OB in high A. Just enough tends to turn into too little at higher levels.

princeton
06-19-2008, 02:35 PM
I'll reiterate my original point. There's only one statistic in Stubbs' case you need to look at: his OBP. If he maintains it where it is, voila--he's in GABP center field.

I don't disagree. but he doesn't strike me as a guy that's going to carry a decent OBP without a power increase.

HokieRed
06-19-2008, 02:57 PM
Have to begin by saying I'm glad there's this conversation since the game is as dull as usual with no chance of our coming from behind by 3 runs. Anyway, an interesting though obviously very limited comp that suggests how tough Sarasota is on some hitters. Votto: .256/.330/.425/.755. Previous year was .905 in MWL and, at the end of the season, .945 at Potomac--small sample, 84 AB's, but, interestingly, in a High A league generally regarded in my part of the country (Carolina league territory) as a higher A league than FSL. More important, .955 next year at Chattanooga. He was two years younger than Stubbs and I'm not asserting any direct comparison, just pointing up how much the FSL and Sarasota hurt Votto. One thing this may mean is that we really can't assess how much improvement Stubbs has made this year yet: it may be (let's hope) greater than the numbers show. We may not be able to assess it rightly until he gets to Chatt.

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 03:14 PM
We may not be able to assess it rightly until he gets to Chatt.

It's going to take time and faith with Stubbs. The organization has to believe in the tools, and just as importantly, in the person. Back in 06, the year he was drafted, I said it might take 2-3 years for us to know about the bat -- so, another year to go. And that may still be too soon.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 03:14 PM
Have to begin by saying I'm glad there's this conversation since the game is as dull as usual with no chance of our coming from behind by 3 runs. Anyway, an interesting though obviously very limited comp that suggests how tough Sarasota is on some hitters. Votto: .256/.330/.425/.755. Previous year was .905 in MWL and, at the end of the season, .945 at Potomac--small sample, 84 AB's, but, interestingly, in a High A league generally regarded in my part of the country (Carolina league territory) as a higher A league than FSL. More important, .955 next year at Chattanooga. He was two years younger than Stubbs and I'm not asserting any direct comparison, just pointing up how much the FSL and Sarasota hurt Votto. One thing this may mean is that we really can't assess how much improvement Stubbs has made this year yet: it may be (let's hope) greater than the numbers show. We may not be able to assess it rightly until he gets to Chatt.

Votto had to take the first pitch of every at bat that year. Which likely had something to do with it. You are still spot on with your overall point though, the FSL kills guys. The list of guys who killed the ball before and after the FSL is a mile long. The fact that Stubbs has improved his overall stat line and his ratio of line drives, walks, strikeouts and steals is quite impressive.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 03:15 PM
He's not hammering anything now.
Hammering.... maybe not to the point of home runs, but he does have 23 XBH which ranks among the Minor League leaders in the system. He has a very high line drive rate. So while he may not be 'hammering' the ball, he is 'stinging' the ball with some authority which can be noted with his 26% line drive rate.



Triples have almost nothing to do with power, and everything to do with speed, park, and defense. Right now Stubbs has plenty of speed. Minor league defense is suspect as a whole, and the FSL plays as a pitchers league. Big parks make for a lot of flyball outs, but doubles down the line can be triples for a burner. He won't hit triples at the GABP.
Triples don't have anything to do with power? Sure, speed helps, but those are still doubles for guys like Sean Casey or David Ross who can barely beat me in a race. As for not hitting triples in GABP, Brandon Phillips has 5 of them this year (2 at home, 3 on the road) and he isn't nearly as fast as Stubbs.

M2
06-19-2008, 03:27 PM
Hammering.... maybe not to the point of home runs, but he does have 23 XBH which ranks among the Minor League leaders in the system. He has a very high line drive rate. So while he may not be 'hammering' the ball, he is 'stinging' the ball with some authority which can be noted with his 26% line drive rate.

You're missing the forest for the trees. He has a .407 SLG. That's lower than such hot prospects as Chris Heisey, Zack Cozart, Justin Reed, Logan Parker, Eric Eymann, Michael Griffin and Cody Strait.

We're now into a third season of being told how he's hitting the ball with authority even though it never translates into anything. He's 23. He played top level college ball. He's in A ball. I don't want to hear about how he's got secret power that you can see if you squint real hard. The Drew Stubbs who is currently playing baseball does NOT have power. He is a fairly weak hitter who struggles to hit the ball with anything approaching consistent authority. Maybe that will change in the future. I hope it does, but don't try to sell me that he's hitting for power when it's a plain as the nose on your face that he isn't.

M2
06-19-2008, 03:36 PM
The organization has to believe in the tools, and just as importantly, in the person.

No it doesn't. In fact, that's specifically something it does not have to do. What the organization must do is accurately assess the player it's got on its hands. That assessment could be that Stubbs stands a very good chance of making the improvements he needs to advance and be an effective player. Or it could be that Stubbs is too much of a project and it's time to make him someone else's problem.

But at no juncture will a chorus of kumbayas suffice.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 03:45 PM
You're missing the forest for the trees. He has a .407 SLG. That's lower than such hot prospects as Chris Heisey, Zack Cozart, Justin Reed, Logan Parker, Eric Eymann, Michael Griffin and Cody Strait.

We're now into a third season of being told how he's hitting the ball with authority even though it never translates into anything. He's 23. He played top level college ball. He's in A ball. I don't want to hear about how he's got secret power that you can see if you squint real hard. The Drew Stubbs who is currently playing baseball does NOT have power. He is a fairly weak hitter who struggles to hit the ball with anything approaching consistent authority.
None of those guys can play defense like Stubbs at such an important position either. Heck, I like Logan Parker, but the guy is a first baseman, who is 23 and in the MWL. He better be outslugging a centerfielder in the FSL. I don't care what you want or don't want to hear. The dude has a line drive rate this year of 26%. Thats hitting the ball hard, consistently. Line drives don't turn into home runs too often, but they do turn into hits about 75% of the time. Only 1 person in the FSL has a better line drive rate and its Juan Francisco at 27%. No one bested 26% there last year for the full season (granted some of the better guys were likely moved up). He is one of the top 10 line drive hitters in the minor leagues right now. Its not translating to HR power, but lets not try and say he isn't hitting the ball hard. He is.

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 03:48 PM
No it doesn't. In fact, that's specifically something it does not have to do. What the organization must do is accurately assess the player it's got on its hands. That assessment could be that Stubbs stands a very good chance of making the improvements he needs to advance and be an effective player. Or it could be that Stubbs is too much of a project and it's time to make him someone else's problem.

But at no juncture will a chorus of kumbayas suffice.

Relax.

What I mean is that they have to believe he has the capacity to learn, to adapt, to deal with failure and to understand his strengths and weaknesses as a player. These are human traits first and foremost, with an important but not necessary application to baseball, not the traits of a robot with a disconnected swing.

If they believe in those things -- and if they are right -- he's got a chance to make it as a Red. If they don't, he doesn't.

Depersonalize it all you want, perhaps it makes you more comfortable, but your perspective will remain short on subtleties, in my opinion.

Scrap Irony
06-19-2008, 03:49 PM
Nah, that line drive percentage is a mirage. Because they're hit by Stubbs and he's not Lincecum and Lincecum was drafted by the Giants and the entirety of the Redszone cognoscenti wanted him and even an idiot like Castellini/ Jocketty/ Krivsky/ various Reds zone posters could see Stubbs is a poor choice, he must not be able to hit a ball hard.

Or something like that.

M2
06-19-2008, 04:02 PM
None of those guys can play defense like Stubbs at such an important position either.

So what? Seriously. We're talking about power and how Stubbs doesn't have it. I don't give a rat's hindquarters about his defense as far as this subject is concerned and I'll add that every OF had better have a robust offensive game or his defense won't keep him in a job for very long.

Aside from that, Cozart plays quality defense.


Heck, I like Logan Parker, but the guy is a first baseman, who is 23 and in the MWL. He better be outslugging a centerfielder in the FSL.

You're the one who brought up the bogus metric that Stubbs has more EBHs than many guys in the system. I'm just pointing out that your non-logic fairly quickly leads you to the unpleasant realization that complete non-prospects like Parker are flashing more power than the faux lusty bat of Drew Stubbs.


I don't care what you want or don't want to hear. The dude has a line drive rate this year of 26%. Thats hitting the ball hard, consistently.

No, it's not, as his .407 amply demonstrates. We've been over this before, but LD% is all kinds of dopey. The first thing that stat should tell you when you put into perspective with his overall performance is that Stubbs is hitting weak liners, not drilling the ball. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I'd bet you Ozzie Guillen had a good LD% when he played. You want to tell me he had power?


Line drives don't turn into home runs too often, but they do turn into hits about 75% of the time. Only 1 person in the FSL has a better line drive rate and its Juan Francisco at 27%. No one bested 26% there last year for the full season (granted some of the better guys were likely moved up). He is one of the top 10 line drive hitters in the minor leagues right now. Its not translating to HR power, but lets not try and say he isn't hitting the ball hard. He is.

Wow, are you trying to undercut your own argument? Are we talking about the Juan Francisco with 7 more HR than Drew and a 69 point SLG advantage despite the fact that he's almost three years younger than Drew? Because that's about the most clear cut case of the qualitative differences between two players with similar LD% numbers as you could wish for.

You seem to be under the misconception that there's a point to debate here. There isn't. Stubbs has a .407 SLG. In no universe is that emblematic of a guy who's hitting the ball hard on a consistent basis. This is simply a matter of you refusing to admit to the facts in front of you.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 04:22 PM
So what? Seriously. We're talking about power and how Stubbs doesn't have it. I don't give a rat's hindquarters about his defense as far as this subject is concerned and I'll add that every OF had better have a robust offensive game or his defense won't keep him in a job for very long.
Drew Stubbs MLE for the MWL would put his slugging percentage at .473. Its the league, not Drew. Is he ever going to hit 25 HR? Probably not. That doesn't mean he can't or won't hit for some power because he has 3 HR in the FSL at age 23. Ryan Braun hit 7 HR in 230 at bats in the FSL at age 22. He went to AA and hit 15 there in in 4 more at bats. The next year he hit 44 HR between AAA and MLB. How did 7 HR one year in 230 AB's in the FSL translate to 44 a year later in AAA and MLB? Magic, thats right. The FSL makes guys look like they aren't overly good hitters a whole lot. Magically when they leave they become good hitters again. So we can continue pretending that the FSL doesn't diminish power numbers if we want, but I really don't want to play that game because its not too realistic.



Aside from that, Cozart plays quality defense.
True, I glazed over him. He is playing in a much more hitter friendly league. His MLE from Dayton to Sarasota wouldleave his slugging percentage at .364.



You're the one who brought up the bogus metric that Stubbs has more EBHs than many guys in the system. I'm just pointing out that your non-logic fairly quickly leads you to the unpleasant realization that complete non-prospects like Parker are flashing more power than the faux lusty bat of Drew Stubbs.

XBH is a bogus metric? Hmm, when did those stop counting? Here is to hoping everyone turns into Norris Hopper. Stubbs is getting his share of XBH's (up from last year btw) in a league that squanders power. That is my point. Its a valid one whether you want to believe it or not.



No, it's not, as his .407 amply demonstrates. We've been over this before, but LD% is all kinds of dopey. The first thing that stat should tell you when you put into perspective with his overall performance is that Stubbs is hitting weak liners, not drilling the ball.
Please explain to me how you can tell he is hitting weak liners. I would love to hear it.



Wow, are you trying to undercut your own argument? Are we talking about the Juan Francisco with 7 more HR than Drew and a 69 point SLG advantage despite the fact that he's almost three years younger than Drew? Because that's about the most clear cut case of the qualitative differences between two players with similar LD% numbers as you could wish for.
Not at all. The difference between the two players is that Francisco has more HR power and he hits more fly balls. Francisco is a guy who can legitimately hit 35 HR in the major leagues. Drew Stubbs isn't that guy and no one is claiming he is. However trying to say that because they have similar line drive rates means its a weak thing to bring up because Francisco has more power than him isn't logical.



You seem to be under the misconception that there's a point to debate here. There isn't. Stubbs has a .407 SLG. In no universe is that emblematic of a guy who's hitting the ball hard on a consistent basis. This is simply a matter of you refusing to admit to the facts in front of you.
You seem to be under the misconception that 26% line drive rates are weak unless you are hitting home runs and that the Florida State League doesn't have any real depression of power numbers at all despite that facts that show otherwise. You seem to be refusing to admit to the facts in front of you.

TRF
06-19-2008, 04:24 PM
Triples don't have anything to do with power? Sure, speed helps, but those are still doubles for guys like Sean Casey or David Ross who can barely beat me in a race. As for not hitting triples in GABP, Brandon Phillips has 5 of them this year (2 at home, 3 on the road) and he isn't nearly as fast as Stubbs.

no they have almost NOTHING to do with power. Of the top 20 guys in MLB in triples RIGHT NOW 4 are in double digits in HR's. It's speed, park, and the opposing defense. period.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 04:25 PM
no they have almost NOTHING to do with power. Of the top 20 guys in MLB in triples RIGHT NOW 4 are in double digits in HR's. It's speed, park, and the opposing defense. period.

They don't have to do with HR power. But they are still doubles for everyone in the league and doubles are still valuable power to have, especially at a weak hitting position like C, SS or CF.

TRF
06-19-2008, 04:32 PM
They don't have to do with HR power. But they are still doubles for everyone in the league and doubles are still valuable power to have, especially at a weak hitting position like C, SS or CF.

Of those top 20, 15 were no higher than 64th this season in doubles. Carl Crawford has 4 triples and 8 doubles. Explain to me his power. He's a speed guy. Brian Roberts is a speed guy. In fact, Roberts might be MLB's best comp for Stubbs in a best case scenario.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 04:37 PM
Of those top 20, 15 were no higher than 64th this season in doubles. Carl Crawford has 4 triples and 8 doubles. Explain to me his power. He's a speed guy. Brian Roberts is a speed guy. In fact, Roberts might be MLB's best comp for Stubbs in a best case scenario.

Stubbs has 4 triples and 16 doubles.... quite a bit of difference there between Stubbs and Crawford in the doubles spectrum. This year Crawford has seen his power sapped. In the past years though he has gone 30 doubles, 15 3B and 14 HR. Thats not Dunn power, but its certainly not bad power either.

TRF
06-19-2008, 04:56 PM
Stubbs has 4 triples and 16 doubles.... quite a bit of difference there between Stubbs and Crawford in the doubles spectrum. This year Crawford has seen his power sapped. In the past years though he has gone 30 doubles, 15 3B and 14 HR. Thats not Dunn power, but its certainly not bad power either.

It's not anything like power. He turns Casey like singles into doubles with his speed. He turns normal doubles to triples with his speed. 66 career HR's in 6 seasons is not power. Stubbs has a low SLG. period. He has contact issues. period. Over the last 2 months his BA has hovered around .200.

His LD% means squat right now. You pointed out Francisco as a guy on the Sarasota team with a higher LD%, but Francisco has a TON of power. With a modicum of patience at the plate, his OBP will gradually climb because he'll punish mistakes and pitchers will know that. Stubbs doesn't punish the ball. The question is can he learn to do that? Physically i believe he has the body for it. Not Jay Bruce or even Francisco power, but he needs to be a 15-20 HR threat soon, because this ain't the 80's and the Reds don't play on turf anymore.

M2
06-19-2008, 05:15 PM
Ryan Braun hit 7 HR in 230 at bats in the FSL at age 22. He went to AA and hit 15 there in in 4 more at bats. The next year he hit 44 HR between AAA and MLB. How did 7 HR one year in 230 AB's in the FSL translate to 44 a year later in AAA and MLB? Magic, thats right. The FSL makes guys look like they aren't overly good hitters a whole lot.

Prior to that Braun posted a .585 SLG in the Pioneer League and a .645 SLG in the Sally League. He also slugged circles around Stubbs during his college career. Stubbs has posted SLGs of .400 and 421 prior to this season. Not that I expect you to recognize it, but this is yet another awful comparison on your part. I fully agree that sometimes players suffer exception performances in the FSL. The problem with Stubbs is this isn't an exception. It's what he's been doing since he got drafted.


Magically when they leave they become good hitters again.

Stubbs has never been a good hitter (especially against RHPs). Him suddenly turning into one would be magic.


XBH is a bogus metric? Hmm, when did those stop counting? Here is to hoping everyone turns into Norris Hopper. Stubbs is getting his share of XBH's (up from last year btw) in a league that squanders power. That is my point. Its a valid one whether you want to believe it or not.

Your use of XBH was bogus. Stubbs has more PAs than most players in the Reds system. The list of Reds minor leaguers who have 250+ PAs and fewer XBH than Stubbs (282 PA) - Tonys Gutierrez and Dennis Phipps. He actually ranks toward the bottom of the list if you compare him to his PA peers (including all four such players who've been on the Sarasota roster). Counting stats are fine if you're actually talking about something where they're germane. Unfortunately when you're talking about wildly variant PA totals, counting stats don't mean a lot. Of course you were just using XBH as a way of ignoring what his SLG is screaming at you.


Please explain to me how you can tell he is hitting weak liners. I would love to hear it.

Real simple, no SLG. Francisco hits LDs and he's got SLG. Jay Bruce hits LDs and he's got SLG. Todd Frazier hits LDs and he's got SLG. Chris Valaika hits LDs and he's got SLG. Also, all of these have had, or have, SLG in Sarasota. Now maybe he's not hitting weak liners, but if that isn't your first question when you put his LD% into perspective with his overall performance and the performance of other top bats who've been through Sarasota, then you're just willfully not asking tough questions. What he's doing unquestionably is NOT translating into actual power. Analytically speaking, the qualitative value of those LDs ought to be the first place you look to determine why that is.

Plus, this is nothing new with Stubbs. He came into the organization well known for making inefficient contact and he's managed not to turn LDs into SLG at previous stops. Seriously, at some point you ought to spot the trend.


Not at all. The difference between the two players is that Francisco has more HR power and he hits more fly balls. Francisco is a guy who can legitimately hit 35 HR in the major leagues. Drew Stubbs isn't that guy and no one is claiming he is. However trying to say that because they have similar line drive rates means its a weak thing to bring up because Francisco has more power than him isn't logical.

Ah, so Ozzie Guillen did have power.

Or, crazy idea here, the real signifier of players who hit the ball "with authority" are those who hit productive FBs on top of productive LDs, making this whole insertion of LD% into a discussion of whether a guy has power a complete dead end.


You seem to be under the misconception that 26% line drive rates are weak unless you are hitting home runs and that the Florida State League doesn't have any real depression of power numbers at all despite that facts that show otherwise. You seem to be refusing to admit to the facts in front of you.

There's a real simple way to gauge how much power a player has. It's called SLG. You could try ISOp too if you wanted. Stubbs stinks in both areas. I know you specialize in overlooking larger pieces of information in the search for sunnier subsets. I mean, didn't Stubbs turn a corner in the 2nd half of last year, guaranteeing that he'd be well ahead of where he is at this juncture? And Homer Bailey is a great pitcher when he's got a healthy groin, right?

Yet the stats which flat out tell you whether a player IS hitting for consistent power unmistakably demonstrate that Stubbs is not and that, to date, he never has.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 05:16 PM
It's not anything like power. He turns Casey like singles into doubles with his speed. He turns normal doubles to triples with his speed. 66 career HR's in 6 seasons is not power. Stubbs has a low SLG. period. He has contact issues. period. Over the last 2 months his BA has hovered around .200.
Guys don't turn singles into doubles too often.... even the really fast ones. As for his BA over the last two months, its been unlucky. As for his batting average since May rolled around, you are right... but lets look at what he has done at the plate since then:

Line drive rate - 23%
Walk rate - 18%
Strikeout rate - 23%
BABIP - .293

So a guy with a 23% line drive rate is posting a .293 BABIP huh? Yeah, thats likely to be considered bad luck when his suggested BABIP should be at least .350 (BABIP= LD% + .120) and maybe even slightly higher considering his speed likely gives him an extra hit or two on an infield ground ball most guys wouldn't get. So yeah, his BABIP has been unlucky which coincides with an ugly average over that time.... but if Drew Stubbs can keep up a 23% line drive rate, an 18% walk rate and strike out 23% of the time he steps to the plate, he will be a successful player. Not even factoring in slugging percentage/batting average, those ratios over 500 PA would lead to roughly (using the suggested BABIP formula above) to a 90 walk and 115 strikeout season with a .386 OBP if he hit 0 HR. For every HR he hit, his OBP would go up just a little bit. If he continues doing exactly what he has done through May and June he will be fine as things go his way.



His LD% means squat right now. You pointed out Francisco as a guy on the Sarasota team with a higher LD%, but Francisco has a TON of power. With a modicum of patience at the plate, his OBP will gradually climb because he'll punish mistakes and pitchers will know that. Stubbs doesn't punish the ball. The question is can he learn to do that? Physically i believe he has the body for it. Not Jay Bruce or even Francisco power, but he needs to be a 15-20 HR threat soon, because this ain't the 80's and the Reds don't play on turf anymore.
No, his high LD% means that he is hitting the ball hard and that his average will reflect that as things begin to normalize themselves. Continue with a high LD% and you will continue seeing good numbers.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 05:23 PM
Prior to that Braun posted a .585 SLG in the Pioneer League and a .645 SLG in the Sally League. He also slugged circles around Stubbs during his college career. Stubbs has posted SLGs of .400 and 421 prior to this season. Not that I expect you to recognize it, but this is yet another awful comparison on your part. I fully agree that sometimes players suffer exception performances in the FSL. The problem with Stubbs is this isn't an exception. It's what he's been doing since he got drafted.

Ah, so there is no possible way that Stubbs has indeed improved his game overall and gasp, maybe even his power some, but because he never did it before its not likely to happen? Sorry, I don't buy into that. Is Drew Stubbs Ryan Braun? Absolutely not. The fact is though, that is just one example of a guy who seemingly couldn't hit for power in the FSL. He had a .160 isolated power in the FSL, but then exploded for a .286 isolated power number in the Southern League. Stubbs currently has a .140 isolated power number in the FSL.... a mere 20 points from what Ryan Braun had. What if Stubbs gets even half the boost that Braun did by heading to the Southern League? Well then he has a .200 isolated power and is some slugger all of a sudden. You are writing it off that because he hasn't he can't. I am suggesting that Stubbs has indeed improved quite a bit but we aren't seeing it in the stat line because its the FSL.

I am not going to waste my time responding to the rest of your post because everything I need to say I have said above.

TRF
06-19-2008, 05:44 PM
doug, he hasn't produced. period. SLG tells the story. Francisco was the perfect example of how misleading LD% is. nothing about the stat says power. it's completely nebulous. a soft liner to 2B is counted. That isn't power. A screaming liner past the 2B is power, and it translates directly to his SLG. And SLG is a stat that Stubbs has NEVER dominated in. Never. This is year three of you defending the top pick, like you did with Bailey.

Now I'm going to make an observation and a suggestion. The observation is you love the Reds so much you look for light in the darkest of tunnels. Especially in regards to the top picks since you began following the Reds. You have often pointed out that the Reds scouts must be seeing something the rest of us don't. I understand you speak to scouts somewhat regularly, which I find incredibly cool. You fail to take into account that they can and do make mistakes. That's just my opinion.

Now for my suggestion. Don't be such a homer. It's ok to not like a pick AFTER it's been made too. I get that you didn't want Stubbs. It's ok to take a look at his body of work, appreciate what he does well, defense, and critique what he does poorly, hit.

M2 countered your argument completely, and your response was the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. When I started on these boards my stat experience was limited to say the least. I'm no where near the level of M2, Steel, RMR or even you. But I can pull back and see the larger picture. That picture right now says that Stubbs was a bad, bad pick. His performance is making it worse. And worst of all, Lincecum's performance seals the deal.

princeton
06-19-2008, 05:45 PM
Jeff Bagwell hit a lot of HRs in the majors; never much in the minors. Kirby Puckett, same deal.

But Bags and Puckett were very good hitters in the minors, unlike Stubbs. high BA, high slugging even if they weren't hitting HRs. as they got stronger, more of their doubles became HRs much to the surprise of Lou Gorman...

M2
06-19-2008, 05:52 PM
Ah, so there is no possible way that Stubbs has indeed improved his game overall and gasp, maybe even his power some, but because he never did it before its not likely to happen?

It all sounds good until you note that he's not slugging as well as Chris Heisey (career .425 SLG). Stubbs currently ranks 30th among FSL qualifiers in SLG. 30th in the SL would net you you .422, currently held by Ronnie Merrill and Bryan Byrne. Who? Exactly.

You can argue up is down all you want, but the problem you keeping running into is that Stubbs lacks even comparative strength in the SLG department. His teammates and league peers (most of whom play in less friendly hitting parks) are outpacing him.

You also suffer from verb tense problems. I'm saying he IS not slugging and that he HAS not slugged in the past. Whether he will is another question entirely. Though to answer your question, those factors given his age do make it unlikely that he will ever feature much power in his game in the future. You are aware that most players who are 23 with a career .412 SLG don't ever develop significant power, right? That doesn't mean Stubbs can't be an exception to the rule, but I'm not inclined to listen to the speculation of someone who can't even admit that he's got a SLG problem as to whether he can make that jump.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 05:55 PM
doug, he hasn't produced. period. SLG tells the story. Francisco was the perfect example of how misleading LD% is. nothing about the stat says power. it's completely nebulous. a soft liner to 2B is counted. That isn't power. A screaming liner past the 2B is power, and it translates directly to his SLG. And SLG is a stat that Stubbs has NEVER dominated in. Never. This is year three of you defending the top pick, like you did with Bailey.
I think we are having some misunderstanding here. Line drive % isn't indicative of power, its indicative of making solid contact. Drew is making solid contact this year, something he hasn't done in the past. He is also playing in a league that drastically depletes guys power throughout the entire history of the league. My contention isn't that Stubbs is going to ever hit 25 HR, just that his season that is, is much better than it looks at first glance because of how he is going about it. He won't ever dominate a slugging line, the guy is a centerfielder. Centerfielders who dominate the slugging line are first ballot hall of famers named Griffey, Snider and Mays. Drew isn't that guy, never will be and never was said to be. It has nothing to do with defending him becuase he was a top pick, it has everything to do with defending him for being lambasted for things he shouldn't be lambasted for.



Now I'm going to make an observation and a suggestion. The observation is you love the Reds so much you look for light in the darkest of tunnels. Especially in regards to the top picks since you began following the Reds. You have often pointed out that the Reds scouts must be seeing something the rest of us don't. I understand you speak to scouts somewhat regularly, which I find incredibly cool. You fail to take into account that they can and do make mistakes. That's just my opinion.
Even I thought they made a mistake when they took Stubbs, so I think you are labeling me as something I am not. I do look for the bright side of things becuase most often others don't, especially with prospects when guys are young and can change with the snap of the fingers if the right thing clicks. There is a GIANT difference between Drew Stubbs 2006/2007 and Drew Stubbs 2008. A lot of people are not seeing it.



Now for my suggestion. Don't be such a homer. It's ok to not like a pick AFTER it's been made too. I get that you didn't want Stubbs. It's ok to take a look at his body of work, appreciate what he does well, defense, and critique what he does poorly, hit.
Drew hasn't hit poorly this year though and thats the point. A lot of people are overlooking what he has done this year by simply looking at the statline (in the FSL nonetheless) and not at how he has gone about having that statline and how those things could transfer into future productivity at higher levels.



M2 countered your argument completely, and your response was the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. When I started on these boards my stat experience was limited to say the least. I'm no where near the level of M2, Steel, RMR or even you. But I can pull back and see the larger picture. That picture right now says that Stubbs was a bad, bad pick. His performance is making it worse. And worst of all, Lincecum's performance seals the deal.
I didn't take my ball and go home, but the rest of his argument stems on the belief that he doesn't think Stubbs can do this or that because he hasn't and others had so that is why they did. My belief is that Drew Stubbs is different now than he was from previous years at the plate but we aren't seeing it fully because of the league he is in and once he gets out of the league, it will show itself some more.

As for the pick, good/bad/otherwise.... doesn't matter at this point. Its done and it has been done for over 2 years now.

M2
06-19-2008, 05:56 PM
But Bags and Puckett were very good hitters in the minors, unlike Stubbs. high BA, high slugging even if they weren't hitting HRs. as they got stronger, more of their doubles became HRs much to the surprise of Lou Gorman...

Good points. They were also MLB rookies at Stubbs' age. Interestingly, they were what Stubbs was drafted to be (or at least should have been drafted to be).

TRF
06-19-2008, 05:58 PM
Line drive % isn't indicative of power, its indicative of making solid contact.

no, it's indicative of hitting line drives. soft and hard. His SLG is what determines power and solid contact. LD% is mostly an incomplete stat as it tells us really nothing except that the ball was too low to be a fly ball and too high to be a groundball.

M2
06-19-2008, 06:01 PM
no, it's indicative of hitting line drives. soft and hard. His SLG is what determines power and solid contact. LD% is mostly an incomplete stat as it tells us really nothing except that the ball was to low to be a fly ball and too high to be a groundball.

Bingo.

In fact LDs might be the exact wrong thing for a guy like Stubbs, not enough lift to net him power and not putting it on the ground enough to utilize his speed.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 06:02 PM
It all sounds good until you note that he's not slugging as well as Chris Heisey (career .425 SLG). Stubbs currently ranks 30th among FSL qualifiers in SLG. 30th in the SL would net you you .422, currently held by Ronnie Merrill and Bryan Byrne. Who? Exactly.

You can argue up is down all you want, but the problem you keeping running into is that Stubbs lacks even comparative strength in the SLG department. His teammates and league peers (most of whom play in less friendly hitting parks) are outpacing him.

You also suffer from verb tense problems. I'm saying he IS not slugging and that he HAS not slugged in the past. Whether he will is another question entirely. Though to answer your question, those factors given his age do make it unlikely that he will ever feature much power in his game in the future. You are aware that most players who are 23 with a career .412 SLG don't ever develop significant power, right? That doesn't mean Stubbs can't be an exception to the rule, but I'm not inclined to listen to the speculation of someone who can't even admit that he's got a SLG problem as to whether he can make that jump.
All I am saying is that his slugging right now is likely a whole lot stronger in every other league in the minors than it appears in the FSL. I don't think he will ever slug .500, but I don't think .450 is out of the question in his prime either, especially given GABP. Its also interesting to note that once he gets out of Sarasota he has a .900 OPS on the year and a .308/.430/.470 line. He isn't tearing the ball up with that .470 slugging, but the ballpark certainly is doing its share of damage.

TRF
06-19-2008, 06:15 PM
All I am saying is that his slugging right now is likely a whole lot stronger in every other league in the minors than it appears in the FSL. I don't think he will ever slug .500, but I don't think .450 is out of the question in his prime either, especially given GABP. Its also interesting to note that once he gets out of Sarasota he has a .900 OPS on the year and a .308/.430/.470 line. He isn't tearing the ball up with that .470 slugging, but the ballpark certainly is doing its share of damage.

It's not damaging Francisco. three years younger and has a .866 OPS at home.

I think it's because he's SLG .538.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 06:20 PM
It's not damaging Francisco. three years younger and has a .866 OPS at home.

I think it's because he's SLG .538.

Francisco is a different kind of beast. He has power that is going to play anywhere. My bet is if he were in the Cal League as opposed to the FSL, he would be slugging well over .600 right now.

TRF
06-19-2008, 06:31 PM
You could have stopped at "He has power..."

Good LD% + high SLG% = POWER.

Good LD% + low SLG% = something else.

Now sure, you can factor luck into this a little bit. Can someone tell me what the average BABIP is in the major leagues? I think I've read it's around .300. I actually have a point to this, but I am still trying to put it together.

RedsManRick
06-19-2008, 06:35 PM
You could have stopped at "He has power..."

Good LD% + high SLG% = POWER.

Good LD% + low SLG% = something else.

Now sure, you can factor luck into this a little bit. Can someone tell me what the average BABIP is in the major leagues? I think I've read it's around .300. I actually have a point to this, but I am still trying to put it together.

I'm curious what the correlation is between LD% and various contact measures. It seems odd to me that a guy would have trouble making contact, but that he would square the ball up well when he does. I would think that those are borne of the same basic hand-eye skill.

We appear to be conflating the issues of contact ability and power. To Doug's point however, line drives tend to result in a higher SLG% than any other type of batted ball.

TRF
06-19-2008, 06:38 PM
I think the problem is with the stat itself. the definition of a line drive does not include the force or speed of the ball after it is hit, but rather the plane only.

M2
06-19-2008, 06:44 PM
All I am saying is that his slugging right now is likely a whole lot stronger in every other league in the minors than it appears in the FSL. I don't think he will ever slug .500, but I don't think .450 is out of the question in his prime either, especially given GABP. Its also interesting to note that once he gets out of Sarasota he has a .900 OPS on the year and a .308/.430/.470 line. He isn't tearing the ball up with that .470 slugging, but the ballpark certainly is doing its share of damage.

I gave you his comps in the SL, they aren't very compelling.

He certainly is struggling at home this season, the only problem is that's one of the better hitting parks in the league. Meanwhile Francisco is thriving in Sarasota and struggling on the road. Heisey's even-steven. My suggestion in such cases is go with the largest set of numbers and avoid reading too many tea leaves.

As for .450 in the future. Sure, it could happen. So could .350. The larger question is whether the chances of him reaching .450 in the majors (which would probably necessitate .500 in AA or AAA) are good enough to hold onto him if he can fetch you something you like in trade right now.

dougdirt
06-19-2008, 07:02 PM
I gave you his comps in the SL, they aren't very compelling.


Except that there is nothing to make those comps with other than they are the 30th in the SL in slugging. Thats not a very good comparison to me.

M2
06-19-2008, 07:44 PM
Except that there is nothing to make those comps with other than they are the 30th in the SL in slugging. Thats not a very good comparison to me.

30th is as 30th does. It's not very exciting stuff. If you want to argue that Stubbs is suffering some major FSL SLG discount, then there's 29 guys ahead of him (not counting a whole heap of non-qualifiers on top of that). If there's a forklift, Stubbs isn't the only guy who'd be getting a ride. Stubbs is not relatively strong compared to his peers in the league and others in his relative position in other leagues aren't having particularly good seasons either.

cincyinco
06-19-2008, 10:57 PM
I think M2 hit a nail on the head with the term relative to his peers. What us his slg rate relative to league average? We should be viewing his stats compared to league averages this year. Then take into account age relative to league.

I'm in the camp that thinks its way to early to draw a conclusion as to what we have in stubbs, but I think we're glossing over some telling stuff by going round and round about slg and line drive rates.

lollipopcurve
06-20-2008, 11:46 AM
doug, he hasn't produced. period. SLG tells the story.

So now SLG tells us all we need to know about Stubbs? Classic case of fixating on a player's weakness to all but erase him as a prospect, in my opinion.....

Beyond the fact that Stubbs will offer the Reds a superior defensive centerfielder -- routinely ignored -- why don't we acknowledge that his speed is an important asset in his offensive game?

Isn't it about "base acquisition"? Why not look at SLG + SB - CS? With 22 steals and 7 CS, this adds 15 bases to Stubbs' production.

Per my calculations, this puts Stubbs at .475. Relative to his FSL peers' production using the same formula, this puts him at about 9th in the league.

Seems a more complete way of looking at how productive a guy is offensively.

IslandRed
06-20-2008, 12:04 PM
Isn't it about "base acquisition"? Why not look at SLG + SB - CS? With 22 steals and 7 CS, this adds 15 bases to Stubbs' production.

Well, now you're getting into stolen-base break-even theory. Be careful. :p:

membengal
06-20-2008, 12:09 PM
His OPS today is at .797.

lollipopcurve
06-20-2008, 12:15 PM
Well, now you're getting into stolen-base break-even theory. Be careful.

Ah yes -- this is true. Never mind.

camisadelgolf
06-20-2008, 12:34 PM
His OPS today is at .797.

The average OPS for a center fielder in the Major Leagues is usually around .750 or so.

BUST :p:

SteelSD
06-20-2008, 12:47 PM
You could have stopped at "He has power..."

Good LD% + high SLG% = POWER.

Good LD% + low SLG% = something else.

Now sure, you can factor luck into this a little bit. Can someone tell me what the average BABIP is in the major leagues? I think I've read it's around .300. I actually have a point to this, but I am still trying to put it together.

Stubbs produced a Line Drive rate of 13% in 2007 and this season it's 26%. The improvement in LD rate hasn't translated at all to an improvement in IsoP. In fact, it's dropped a few points (.151 to .142). That doesn't reflect anything resembling "raw power" for an A-Ball player who'll be 24 years old in October.

TRF
06-20-2008, 01:15 PM
The average OPS for a center fielder in the Major Leagues is usually around .750 or so.

BUST :p:

Remind me again which league the Sarasota Reds are in? I don't remember them playing the Cubs.

Yes, he has a .797 OPS right now. That's a great number. However it's being driven by a torrid April. May and June have been beyond bad. .612 for may, .683 (albeit climbing) for June.

Maybe Stubbs isn't a bust yet, but he's certainly on the bus to bustville.

OnBaseMachine
06-20-2008, 01:19 PM
Remind me again which league the Sarasota Reds are in? I don't remember them playing the Cubs.

Yes, he has a .797 OPS right now. That's a great number. However it's being driven by a torrid April. May and June have been beyond bad. .612 for may, .683 (albeit climbing) for June.

Maybe Stubbs isn't a bust yet, but he's certainly on the bus to bustville.

Stubbs OPS in June is .875.

TRF
06-20-2008, 01:21 PM
Well, now you're getting into stolen-base break-even theory. Be careful. :p:

His SB% this year has been great while last year he was among the worst in the MWL. This could have been due to his "injury", or he could have progressed. I think we need more than 2.5 months to say he is now the next Rickey Henderson.

And that's part of Stubbs problem from an evaluation standpoint. Things we know:

He's old for his level.
He has contact issues, a high K rate, and little to know power.
He hasn't produced well compared to other Reds draft choices from the same year.
OBP + speed are his best offensive weapons yet he resists the leadoff position which is best suited for his skillset.
He's NOT a guy you want in the middle of the order.He's a younger version of Chris Dickerson minus the power but with a little more OBP. Defensively they are likely a wash. That's 4th or 5th OF territory right there.

TRF
06-20-2008, 01:22 PM
Stubbs OPS in June is .875.

Not according to minorleaguesplits.com, but I don't know how often they update their site.

OnBaseMachine
06-20-2008, 01:24 PM
Not according to minorleaguesplits.com

minorleaguesplits is either wrong or doesn't update very often.

Stubbs is OPSing .875 in June.

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Drew%20Stubbs&pos=OF&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=453211

TRF
06-20-2008, 01:39 PM
minorleaguesplits is either wrong or doesn't update very often.

Stubbs is OPSing .875 in June.

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Drew%20Stubbs&pos=OF&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=453211

They appear to be 11 AB's behind. He's turned it on a bit since the ASG.

In fact that OPS being where it is, is the direct result of his last three games. prior to the ASB it was .683.

I hope the ASG did something for him, even if I feel it's a temporary boost. Nothing in his carrer to date suggests he can sustain an OPS above .750.

Screwball
06-20-2008, 01:50 PM
Nothing in his carrer to date suggests he can sustain an OPS above .750.

Except for this year, when he's OPSing .798 in a pitcher's league.

dougdirt
06-20-2008, 01:53 PM
His SB% this year has been great while last year he was among the worst in the MWL. This could have been due to his "injury", or he could have progressed. I think we need more than 2.5 months to say he is now the next Rickey Henderson.
"injury"? You put that like there is some type of questioning that he was really hurt. The guy had a well documented injury last year and a surgery in the offseason to fix it. There is no "injury", the guy was injured.



OBP + speed are his best offensive weapons yet he resists the leadoff position which is best suited for his skillset.
Not really. The skillset for most leadoff hitters is make tons of contact, strikeout very seldom, get on base a lot and for most people, be fast. Drew does about half of that. You generally ask your leadoff guy to take pitches.... Stubbs has contact issues, he should never take pitches in the zone becuase he might not hit the other ones in the zone. He isn't an ideal leadoff man and his skill set isn't that of a leadoff man.



He's a younger version of Chris Dickerson minus the power but with a little more OBP. Defensively they are likely a wash. That's 4th or 5th OF territory right there.
Not quite. Dickerson, albeit a similar skillset lacks one thing that Stubbs has. Bat speed. Dickerson doesn't have it and its why he will never be a starter in the major leagues. The rest of their games compare pretty well, but its one reason you can't just look at the numbers and make comparisons.

dougdirt
06-20-2008, 01:56 PM
I hope the ASG did something for him, even if I feel it's a temporary boost.

It didn't do anything for him, he just continues to do what he has done all season and the hits are falling for him again. High walk rate + high line drive rate even with a 24% strikeout rate is going to lead to good numbers. He has been doing that all year long and as long as he continues, his numbers are going to keep rising.

SteelSD
06-20-2008, 11:33 PM
Not really. The skillset for most leadoff hitters is make tons of contact, strikeout very seldom, get on base a lot and for most people, be fast. Drew does about half of that. You generally ask your leadoff guy to take pitches.... Stubbs has contact issues, he should never take pitches in the zone becuase he might not hit the other ones in the zone. He isn't an ideal leadoff man and his skill set isn't that of a leadoff man.

Higher K rates make for poor leadoff hitters? Who's been telling you this stuff? I'd really like to know because it's just plain wrong on both sabermetric and intuitive levels.

If there was ever a lineup position where K rates matter the least, it's when we know the hitter is going to come to the plate at least once a game without a runner on base. And considering that the hitters immediately preceeding an NL leadoff hitter are #7, #8, and the Pitcher, it's going to be a lot more than once most of the time.

Without ducks on the pond, any miniscule advantage to BIP Out events versus K's becomes completely moot so it's the perfect place to put a high IsoD/high K rate/Low IsoP hitter if he has enough OBP and enough speed to steal a good number of bases at a high enough rate. And frankly, if we assume Stubbs will steal a good number of bases at a high enough rate to be effective, placing him lower in the order will most likely suppress his value.

As for the idea that Stubbs shouldn't take any strikes, no player does, will, or should swing at every single Strike he sees because there's a heaping helping of Strikes no one can do anything with. Working deep in counts while seeing a lot of pitches is what helps Stubbs produce a high IsoD in the first place- which also happens to be the only primary offensive skill set he has that may allow him to project as something more than a 5th OF/Defensive Replacement type.

Mario-Rijo
06-21-2008, 12:04 AM
Higher K rates make for poor leadoff hitters? Who's been telling you this stuff? I'd really like to know because it's just plain wrong on both sabermetric and intuitive levels.

If there was ever a lineup position where K rates matter the least, it's when we know the hitter is going to come to the plate at least once a game without a runner on base. And considering that the hitters immediately preceeding an NL leadoff hitter are #7, #8, and the Pitcher, it's going to be a lot more than once most of the time.

Without ducks on the pond, any miniscule advantage to BIP Out events versus K's becomes completely moot so it's the perfect place to put a high IsoD/high K rate/Low IsoP hitter if he has enough OBP and enough speed to steal a good number of bases at a high enough rate. And frankly, if we assume Stubbs will steal a good number of bases at a high enough rate to be effective, placing him lower in the order will most likely suppress his value.

As for the idea that Stubbs shouldn't take any strikes, no player does, will, or should swing at every single Strike he sees because there's a heaping helping of Strikes no one can do anything with. Working deep in counts while seeing a lot of pitches is what helps Stubbs produce a high IsoD in the first place- which also happens to be the only primary offensive skill set he has that may allow him to project as something more than a 5th OF/Defensive Replacement type.

Doesn't that last part contradict the 1st part of your argument? Not trying to be a smart-ellic but doesn't the inability to make consistent contact make you a less reliable guy to take alot of pitches and still get on base at a decent clip. Most good leadoff men seem to have the innate ability to foul off pitches with 2 strikes that they can't do anything with. I mean it stands to reason that if you have a problem making contact consistently, you are not going to get on base consistently.

SteelSD
06-21-2008, 12:48 AM
Doesn't that last part contradict the 1st part of your argument? Not trying to be a smart-ellic but doesn't the inability to make consistent contact make you a less reliable guy to take alot of pitches and still get on base at a decent clip. Most good leadoff men seem to have the innate ability to foul off pitches with 2 strikes that they can't do anything with. I mean it stands to reason that if you have a problem making contact consistently, you are not going to get on base consistently.

No, the last part doesn't at all contradict the first part. Both you and doug appear to be working off a "template" for a leadoff hitter that doesn't necessarily make for a good leadoff hitter.

Betterread
06-21-2008, 12:57 AM
No, the last part doesn't at all contradict the first part. Both you and doug appear to be working off a "template" for a leadoff hitter that doesn't necessarily make for a good leadoff hitter.

Stubbs has improved his OBP to a solid 380+. That's a good leadoff hitter statistic. He is displaying solid development this year in that area and in his contact rates. He is striking out less and making more contact.
And Stubbs is a ballplayer, not a "template". That's a poor description of a person and is revealing of the descriptor's sense of humanity and self-respect.

Mario-Rijo
06-21-2008, 01:24 AM
No, the last part doesn't at all contradict the first part. Both you and doug appear to be working off a "template" for a leadoff hitter that doesn't necessarily make for a good leadoff hitter.

So there is no template in your opinion? Or the actual template for a leadoff hitter doesn't have to be a guy who is able to make consistent contact?

What in your opinion then constitutes as a good leadoff hitter? Again don't take this as snarky, I just don't understand where you are coming from on this.

dougdirt
06-21-2008, 01:30 AM
Higher K rates make for poor leadoff hitters? Who's been telling you this stuff? I'd really like to know because it's just plain wrong on both sabermetric and intuitive levels.
Well how about, no manager in baseball is going to put a high strikeout guy in the leadoff spot because thats just not how they work? Regardless of how we think it should be, its not going to happen unless you have Dusty Baker managing your team.... and well, fortunately we do. That said, Drew Stubbs seems to struggle big time from the leadoff spot for whatever reason and when he is outside of it he seems to hit much better. Some guys just have their quirks about their game and Stubbs seems to be the guy who just can't hit in the leadoff spot.

camisadelgolf
06-21-2008, 04:16 AM
Remind me again which league the Sarasota Reds are in? I don't remember them playing the Cubs.

Yes, he has a .797 OPS right now. That's a great number. However it's being driven by a torrid April. May and June have been beyond bad. .612 for may, .683 (albeit climbing) for June.

Maybe Stubbs isn't a bust yet, but he's certainly on the bus to bustville.

The Sarasota Reds are in the FSL. The average age for both hitters and pitchers in the FSL is 23 years old. The average OPS for a center fielder in the FSL is noticeably lower than in MLB. Therefore, relatively, bringing up Stubbs' league makes his performance seem more impressive.

If you take out Stubbs' worst month and Stubbs' best month this year, his OPS is even higher (.849, according to minorleaguesplits.com), so I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with bringing that up.

When Stubbs was drafted, like Lincecum, he was regarded as a special player. Part of what was unique about him was his unusually-low contact rate and not letting that prevent him from being a high-quality player. I agree that making less contact decreases the likelihood of being an effective hitter in the Major Leagues, but Stubbs is a very different set of circumstances, and there may have never been anyone to take the path he has been on (in regards to his age, level, etc.) and to continue that to being an above-average Major League player. If he manages to do that, there may never be anyone like him ever again.

SteelSD
06-21-2008, 10:30 AM
So there is no template in your opinion? Or the actual template for a leadoff hitter doesn't have to be a guy who is able to make consistent contact?

What in your opinion then constitutes as a good leadoff hitter? Again don't take this as snarky, I just don't understand where you are coming from on this.

There's really no template. The most productive hitter on any squad would be the best leadoff hitter on any squad. That being said, if the most productive hitter has a high SLG to go with his high OBP, he's generally going to be placed mid-lineup to take advantage of the SLG skill set's propensity to advance similarly high-OBP (in the best scenario) hitters ahead of him.

Your general lineup is going to look a bit like a bell curve from a SLG perspective. There are exceptions, of course (as there should be), but generally your high-OBP "leadoff" hitter is only there because he lacks a skill set to advance runners (SLG), but possesses a secondary base aquisition skill set (speed). Assuming a high enough OBP to be productive, contact rate is least important in this slot due to the lack of ducks on the pond and this also offers a speed guy a few more opportunities to better actualize that skill set versus a lineup slot that would result in more "base clogging" (for lack of a better term) ahead of him.

SteelSD
06-21-2008, 11:01 AM
Well how about, no manager in baseball is going to put a high strikeout guy in the leadoff spot because thats just not how they work? Regardless of how we think it should be, its not going to happen unless you have Dusty Baker managing your team.... and well, fortunately we do.

No manager in baseball? Really?

Chris Young- Arizona
Alfonso Soriano- Chicago Cubs
Kelly Johnson- Atlanta
Rickie Weeks- Milwaukee
Curtis Granderson- Detroit
Grady Sizemore- Cleveland
Akinori Iwamura- Tampa Bay

I guess those guys didn't spend any time in the leadoff slot last year or this year? What about Nick Swisher, who's spent nearly half his time in the White Sox' leadoff slot a season after striking out 131 times? Even without him added to the group above, that group struck out 144 times per 600 AB in 2007. High K-rate hitters in the leadoff slot happens a lot more than "never".

SMcGavin
06-21-2008, 11:21 AM
And frankly, if we assume Stubbs will steal a good number of bases at a high enough rate to be effective, placing him lower in the order will most likely suppress his value.


I agree with most everything you said except this. I've always liked base-stealers to be lower in the order. I don't like risking outs on the basepaths when your big bats are at the plate. I prefer running with the 7 or 8 hitter up to bat - those are guys unlikely to get a hit that will score you from first base, meaning stealing to get in scoring position is more valuable.

I completely agree with your more general argument about high K / low contact guys in the leadoff spot. Bases empty is the time where strikeouts are the same as any other out, and walks are the same as singles.

Mario-Rijo
06-21-2008, 12:01 PM
There's really no template. The most productive hitter on any squad would be the best leadoff hitter on any squad. That being said, if the most productive hitter has a high SLG to go with his high OBP, he's generally going to be placed mid-lineup to take advantage of the SLG skill set's propensity to advance similarly high-OBP (in the best scenario) hitters ahead of him.

Your general lineup is going to look a bit like a bell curve from a SLG perspective. There are exceptions, of course (as there should be), but generally your high-OBP "leadoff" hitter is only there because he lacks a skill set to advance runners (SLG), but possesses a secondary base aquisition skill set (speed). Assuming a high enough OBP to be productive, contact rate is least important in this slot due to the lack of ducks on the pond and this also offers a speed guy a few more opportunities to better actualize that skill set versus a lineup slot that would result in more "base clogging" (for lack of a better term) ahead of him.

I see what you are getting at, that's certainly an interesting perspective. But my problem with that philosophy would be this. The pitcher's job is to keep runs off the board, that is his focus on the mound be it by his individual doing or with the help of his defense if need be. And if the key component to creating runs is getting on base, ideally in front of those who have a tendency to Slg for a high %. Then the pitchers mindset would be to make those people in that position in a lineup earn their way on base with beating you and your defense. Which is actually what they attempt to do, and more often than not are more likely to allow a hit than a BB.

So it would actually be wise to have higher contact guys ahead of those who are proficient in slugging, right? At least that's what seems logical to me.

SteelSD
06-21-2008, 12:27 PM
I agree with most everything you said except this. I've always liked base-stealers to be lower in the order. I don't like risking outs on the basepaths when your big bats are at the plate. I prefer running with the 7 or 8 hitter up to bat - those are guys unlikely to get a hit that will score you from first base, meaning stealing to get in scoring position is more valuable.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Stolen bases are of only marginal value even if the runner produces a high enough success rate to be effective. I don't like risking Outs any more than you do.

SteelSD
06-21-2008, 12:53 PM
I see what you are getting at, that's certainly an interesting perspective. But my problem with that philosophy would be this. The pitcher's job is to keep runs off the board, that is his focus on the mound be it by his individual doing or with the help of his defense if need be. And if the key component to creating runs is getting on base, ideally in front of those who have a tendency to Slg for a high %. Then the pitchers mindset would be to make those people in that position in a lineup earn their way on base with beating you and your defense. Which is actually what they attempt to do, and more often than not are more likely to allow a hit than a BB.

So it would actually be wise to have higher contact guys ahead of those who are proficient in slugging, right? At least that's what seems logical to me.

High IsoD actually is a skill set. It should be considered to be the "sixth" tool. While high IsoD is often seen coupled with an associated high IsoP component (princeton mentioned this earlier), it's not limited to that nor is a high IsoD limited to high contact rate hitters. See Rickie Weeks. Anderson Machado has it as well. Drew Stubbs' ability to stick at the MLB level is going to depend on him being more like Weeks and less like Machado, of course.

Mario-Rijo
06-21-2008, 07:56 PM
High IsoD actually is a skill set. It should be considered to be the "sixth" tool. While high IsoD is often seen coupled with an associated high IsoP component (princeton mentioned this earlier), it's not limited to that nor is a high IsoD limited to high contact rate hitters. See Rickie Weeks. Anderson Machado has it as well. Drew Stubbs' ability to stick at the MLB level is going to depend on him being more like Weeks and less like Machado, of course.

I guess this is an area where I need to do some studying. I don't have a grasp on IsoP and IsoD so I'll have to get back to you when I have.

Mario-Rijo
06-21-2008, 08:34 PM
I guess this is an area where I need to do some studying. I don't have a grasp on IsoP and IsoD so I'll have to get back to you when I have.

I have read IsoP (Slg% - BA), let me see if I can put this in terms that make more sense for me and see if it still meets the definition.

The average of how many hits you collect in 10 AB's that are not named a single. Would that be considered correct, even though it's not the exact definition?

Example:

Votto's current Slg% is .500 and his BA is .286 so his IsoP is .214.

So does Votto get an XBH 21.4% of the time that he get's a hit? So in essence he get's 4 singles and an XBH of some kind every 5 times he get's a hit?

If someone can confirm one way or the other I would appreciate it.

Mario-Rijo
06-21-2008, 09:49 PM
I'll go ahead and move on to IsoD in the mean time.

IsoD is Isolated Discipline (OBP% - BA)

My assumption if correct on IsoP would be similiar to how I would view this as well I suppose. I'll use Votto as my example again since I still had his stats page up.

Votto's OBP% currently is .352 and BA of .286 come to an IsoD of .066. So to me that means for every 10 times Joey get's on base 93.4% of the time it's via a hit and 6.6% of the time it's some other way be it BB, HBP etc.

Is that correct? And what is say a major league average for players for both IsoP and IsoD? Is it a fluid # or a set #? In other words what's good and what's not good and is that always the same number?

Thanks again for anyone's help on this matter.

RedlegJake
06-21-2008, 11:35 PM
double post

RedlegJake
06-22-2008, 12:05 AM
The ML IsoD average I believe is .069 and the National League IsoP is about .150 so I use those as the baseline.

Player IsoD/IsoP
Junior .108/.034 He still has discipline but his power has disappeared
Votto .066/.147 Right at league average, good enough to improve as a hitter
EE .083/.124 Very good discipline. Problems lie in hitting certain areas of strike zone. Numbers indicate he could certainly get better.
BP .048/.171 Poor plate discipline. Good power.
Dunn .166/.273 Ridiculous IsoD. Ridiculous power. Problem is contact
CP .034/.159 Horrible plate discipline, power when he makes contact, which is rare
Bako .076/.155 Good discipline, decent power. Problem is contact

As you can see what these numbers reflect is a hitters tendency toward plate discip-line and raw power - they don't measure ability to make contact but rather the ability of recognizing what are strikes (IsoD) and their power ability IF they make contact regardless of how often they do. These numbers MUST be taken in context to have much value. For instance to look at just these stats Paul Bako looks like a pretty good hitter. In context with his BA/OBP and Slugging it's easy to see just a bad a hitter he really is. As Steele indicated IsoD & IsoP are independent of contact, IsoD is a skill in itself and IsoP is just raw power isolated. In other words when IsoD and IsoP indicate "good" and OBP and Slugging are "poor" then you have a guy that really can't hit - but - he might get hot for a month or two like Bako did in April. When both sets are bad as in Patterson then you have a guy that can't hit and isn't likely to sustain any streaks of hitting either. I also think they're pretty good at indicating whether a minor league guy is likely to succeed or improve. A really low IsoD is probably going to create problems for him as he moves up to better pitching. Steele is likely to be a lot better explaining any of this than me but this is my take on it.

Mario-Rijo
06-22-2008, 12:33 AM
The ML IsoD average I believe is .069 and the National League IsoP is about .150 so I use those as the baseline.

Player IsoD/IsoP
Junior .108/.034 He still has discipline but his power has disappeared
Votto .066/.147 Right at league average, good enough to improve as a hitter
EE .083/.124 Very good discipline. Problems lie in hitting certain areas of strike zone. Numbers indicate he could certainly get better.
BP .048/.171 Poor plate discipline. Good power.
Dunn .166/.273 Ridiculous IsoD. Ridiculous power. Problem is contact
CP .034/.159 Horrible plate discipline, power when he makes contact, which is rare
Bako .076/.155 Good discipline, decent power. Problem is contact

As you can see what these numbers reflect is a hitters tendency toward plate discip-line and raw power - they don't measure ability to make contact but rather the ability of recognizing what are strikes (IsoD) and their power ability IF they make contact regardless of how often they do. These numbers MUST be taken in context to have much value. For instance to look at just these stats Paul Bako looks like a pretty good hitter. In context with his BA/OBP and Slugging it's easy to see just a bad a hitter he really is. As Steele indicated IsoD & IsoP are independent of contact, IsoD is a skill in itself and IsoP is just raw power isolated. In other words when IsoD and IsoP indicate "good" and OBP and Slugging are "poor" then you have a guy that really can't hit - but - he might get hot for a month or two like Bako did in April. When both sets are bad as in Patterson then you have a guy that can't hit and isn't likely to sustain any streaks of hitting either. I also think they're pretty good at indicating whether a minor league guy is likely to succeed or improve. A really low IsoD is probably going to create problems for him as he moves up to better pitching. Steele is likely to be a lot better explaining any of this than me but this is my take on it.

Thanks for the input. I thought .069 was the # but didn't know if it was a standing number or more of a floating one compared to the league or something I guess.

SteelSD
06-22-2008, 12:34 AM
Mario-Rijo, Isolated Power (IsoP) speaks to frequency of base acquisition per AB after the first. For a hitter who produces an IsoP of .200, it means that the hitter is acquiring two additional bases after the first every ten At Bats.

This season, MLB average IsoP is .148. Last season it was .154. A number of about .150 in today's game is a good standard.

IsoD is the differential between a player's OBP and his Batting Average. It speaks to a player's ability to avoid Outs independent of Base Hits. The higher the number, the better equipped a player may be to get on base without needing a Base Hit to do so.

This season, average MLB IsoD is .070. Last season it was .068. A good standard to use in today's game is .070.

Don't over-think either metric. Higher is better in both cases.

Players possessing decent power will produce IsoP numbers above .200 and players with major power will routinely post .250 to .300 IsoP numbers. True freaks will produce seasonal IsoP numbers above .350 from time to time and only Babe Ruth and steroids are likely to exist above .400 IsoP.

High IsoD players? You'd better be at around .100 IsoD or higher or you need not apply for a "plate discipline" skill set star.

Mario-Rijo
06-22-2008, 01:10 AM
Mario-Rijo, Isolated Power (IsoP) speaks to frequency of base acquisition per AB after the first. For a hitter who produces an IsoP of .200, it means that the hitter is acquiring two additional bases after the first every ten At Bats.

This season, MLB average IsoP is .148. Last season it was .154. A number of about .150 in today's game is a good standard.

IsoD is the differential between a player's OBP and his Batting Average. It speaks to a player's ability to avoid Outs independent of Base Hits. The higher the number, the better equipped a player may be to get on base without needing a Base Hit to do so.

This season, average MLB IsoD is .070. Last season it was .068. A good standard to use in today's game is .070.

Don't over-think either metric. Higher is better in both cases.

Players possessing decent power will produce IsoP numbers above .200 and players with major power will routinely post .250 to .300 IsoP numbers. True freaks will produce seasonal IsoP numbers above .350 from time to time and only Babe Ruth and steroids are likely to exist above .400 IsoP.

High IsoD players? You'd better be at around .100 IsoD or higher or you need not apply for a "plate discipline" skill set star.

Ok so if I'm reading you right the only thing I had wrong was the IsoP. I read on several of these sites that a point system is assigned to hits in order to calculate it. But I couldn't understand what the end # represented, which I bolded in your post. I better understand it now but not sure I can put it into lamens terms if I were trying to explain it to someone who didn't have a clue.

I think I understood IsoD much better even though I explained it somewhat differently, do you agree with my assessment on it? Basically a player with a .100 IsoD get's on base at 10% of his PA's w/o the benefit of a hit. Or 60 BB's + HBP, etc. in 600 Pa's?

RedlegJake
06-22-2008, 01:33 AM
IsoP = total bases % after removing the first base which represents the hit in BA. It isolates the "extra" bases acquired in hitting after first base which is awarded in every type of hit. It measures a player's power when he makes contact regardless of the frequency of said contact.

IsoD is avoiding outs or acquiring bases without swinging if you like. Both imply good strike zone recognition and the discipline to not swing at non strikes.

cincyinco
06-22-2008, 01:53 AM
Well, I was visiting minorleaguesplits to talk about Cozart, and I just thought why not pull up Stubbs.

Don't look now, and take it for what its worth.. but here are some interesting numbers..

Stubbs OPS in June is now at .875. His SLG is down but he's posting his best OBP for the month so far this year at .426. Interestingly, he has only K'd 10 times this month. He K'd 28 times in April and 31 in May.

He's also struggling mightly at home - like Cozart with a .680 OPS at home, compared to .911 away.. not sure if there's anything to make of that due to the sample size, but might be worth noting.

Overall he has a .797 OPS so far on the year.

Its still too early in my mind to make a judgement about Stubbs. I think he's certainly had his moments, both good and bad. But, once again - I think its far too early and foolish to call him a B U S T.

He's got a long ways to go, and may not be the player we had hoped, and may not live up to his "draft slot", and he's never going to be Tim Lincecum.. but I don't think any of that has anything to do with him being a good player.

It will be interesting to keep tracking his progress, lookin forward to it.

Mario-Rijo
06-22-2008, 01:56 AM
IsoP = total bases % after removing the first base which represents the hit in BA. It isolates the "extra" bases acquired in hitting after first base which is awarded in every type of hit. It measures a player's power when he makes contact regardless of the frequency of said contact.

IsoD is avoiding outs or acquiring bases without swinging if you like. Both imply good strike zone recognition and the discipline to not swing at non strikes.

But what does it all mean Bazzel??? :D

fearofpopvol1
06-22-2008, 02:58 AM
I know Stubbs is still a ways off from the majors, but is he really any worse than what Patterson is?

cincyinco
06-22-2008, 04:50 AM
I dont think so.. in fact, I think you have to be one helluva player to be worse than Patterson.

M2
06-22-2008, 12:41 PM
So it would actually be wise to have higher contact guys ahead of those who are proficient in slugging, right? At least that's what seems logical to me.

Don't focus on the outs, focus on the non-outs. Put players with high OBs up in front of players with high SLGs (and hopefully good OBs too) and that's the best formula for scoring runs. Whether it's a high K or high contact OB guy doesn't matter. Seriously, it doesn't matter.

M2
06-22-2008, 12:53 PM
I know Stubbs is still a ways off from the majors, but is he really any worse than what Patterson is?

Just a guess, but I figure Patterson would be the runaway MVP winner of the FSL if he played there. Note how Patterson had his way in his short spell in AAA. Stubbs is a long way from the majors and he's looking at three massive degree of difficulty leaps along the way. It's why a .750-.800 OPS in A+ ball probably isn't enough of a cushion to carry him successfully into the majors.

He needs to play better, think .850+, in order to stay productive when better opposition starts to cut into his numbers. Maybe he's teasing that now, but he's teased it before and it's yet to develop into anything lasting. Against better pitching it's his slumps which stand to get deeper and more prolonged, not his hot streaks. I hope he does develop the consistency he's going to need to be a major leaguer. What that consistency will look like is getting that OPS well north of .800 and keeping it there for the rest of the season.

fearofpopvol1
06-22-2008, 12:56 PM
Just a guess, but I figure Patterson would be the runaway MVP winner of the FSL if he played there. Note how Patterson had his way in his short spell in AAA. Stubbs is a long way from the majors and he's looking at three massive degree of difficulty leaps along the way. It's why a .750-.800 OPS in A+ ball probably isn't enough of a cushion to carry him successfully into the majors.

He needs to play better, think .850+, in order to stay productive when better opposition starts to cut into his numbers. Maybe he's teasing that now, but he's teased it before and it's yet to develop into anything lasting. Against better pitching it's his slumps which stand to get deeper and more prolonged, not his hot streaks. I hope he does develop the consistency he's going to need to be a major leaguer. What that consistency will look like is getting that OPS well north of .800 and keeping it there for the rest of the season.

Good point(s). It does seem like at the very least that Stubbs' has a better eye at the plate since he can take walks whereas Patterson is an out machine. I'm guessing his defense is a little bit better as well. I'd just really like to see the Reds move Stubbs to AA and see what happens there. I think it's time to find out.

Mario-Rijo
06-22-2008, 04:56 PM
Don't focus on the outs, focus on the non-outs. Put players with high OBs up in front of players with high SLGs (and hopefully good OBs too) and that's the best formula for scoring runs. Whether it's a high K or high contact OB guy doesn't matter. Seriously, it doesn't matter.

No I get that completely. What I mean when I argue that point is, in a perfect world you want High OBP + High contact types up at the top. Or to put it in a different way, I want the least flawed of my hitter's from top to bottom but based on what correlates to better run scoring. I say flawed because no matter how good, no one is perfect.

Hondo
06-22-2008, 06:46 PM
The guy is Older than most players he is playing against and his stats are still sub-par...

That is the most telling set of stats...

camisadelgolf
06-22-2008, 07:15 PM
The guy is Older than most players he is playing against and his stats are still sub-par...

That is the most telling set of stats...

Actually, from what I've read, he's at the average age of people in his league. Also, his stats are above average.

TRF
06-22-2008, 07:23 PM
Actually, from what I've read, he's at the average age of people in his league. Also, his stats are above average.

What's the average level of top ten picks in their third professional year? Now top 10 college picks?

dougdirt
06-22-2008, 07:34 PM
What's the average level of top ten picks in their third professional year? Now top 10 college picks?

Which again has little to do with the set of circumstances. Drew wasn't like most college first rounders. He wasn't polished. He was quite raw with lots of athleticism.

fearofpopvol1
06-22-2008, 07:37 PM
What's the average level of top ten picks in their third professional year? Now top 10 college picks?

I don't really see the relevance of the argument so long as Stubbs turns out to be a good player. Players develop at different rates. Sure, the ideal scenario is the develop quickly, but it doesn't always work out that way.

I'll take a good player who takes longer to develop any day of the week.

TRF
06-22-2008, 07:42 PM
Which again has little to do with the set of circumstances. Drew wasn't like most college first rounders. He wasn't polished. He was quite raw with lots of athleticism.

Except that he was a 1rd pick, and got millions.


I don't really see the relevance of the argument so long as Stubbs turns out to be a good player. Players develop at different rates. Sure, the ideal scenario is the develop quickly, but it doesn't always work out that way.

I'll take a good player who takes longer to develop any day of the week.

I don't mind longer from a 5th round HS pick. A 1st rd. college pick has a different set of expectations.

dougdirt
06-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Except that he was a 1rd pick, and got millions.
Which has what to do with the anything? Is he getting better should be the only question that matters at this point.

fearofpopvol1
06-22-2008, 09:24 PM
I don't mind longer from a 5th round HS pick. A 1st rd. college pick has a different set of expectations.

A different set of expectations according to who? You?

cincyinco
06-22-2008, 09:43 PM
Hate to say it, but folks expectations are completely arbitrary. And thats whats lame about the hate on Stubbs. As long as he lives up to the REDS expectations, thats all that matters. Not the fans.

edabbs44
06-22-2008, 10:56 PM
Which has what to do with the anything? Is he getting better should be the only question that matters at this point.

"Is he getting better?" is a loaded question.

M2
06-22-2008, 11:56 PM
Hate to say it, but folks expectations are completely arbitrary. And thats whats lame about the hate on Stubbs. As long as he lives up to the REDS expectations, thats all that matters. Not the fans.

If the Reds didn't pick him to be a fairly fast mover through the system and quality offense/defense CF over the long haul, then I'd say the Reds don't matter because they've set their expectations way too low.

TRF
06-23-2008, 10:37 AM
A different set of expectations according to who? You?

MLB in general. Name 1 GM with a top ten pick that is looking for a "project" player from the college ranks. I'm not talking about a JuCo pitcher, but a guy that went to a big time four year program and is a position player. Those guys have to help sooner. They cannot be on a HS draftee's timetable.

Find me that GM, and I'll show you a GM out of a job. wait, that was WK.

I don't mean to be harsh, as WK won me over in the 2006 off season, but his blunders during the season were pretty big. But NOT getting value in his first pick of his 1st draft is THE biggie. FCB nailed it when he said had he drafted Lincecum he'd still have a job right now.

By any and almost every definable standard, Stubbs was a poor pick. He's done little since to prove otherwise.

lollipopcurve
06-23-2008, 10:43 AM
By any and almost every definable standard, Stubbs was a poor pick.

The only standard that matters is what value he offers the major league club, and it is too soon to make that reckoning.

TRF
06-23-2008, 10:56 AM
What value does he offer right now? He's fetch little in a trade for talent that could help the big league club. His timetable certainly isn't this year or next for that matter. He's likely not going to see any MLB time other than as a sept. callup before 2010. His closest comp is Chris Dickerson, with a little more OBP, and a little less SLG. How much value does Chris Dickerson have for the Reds?

lollipopcurve
06-23-2008, 11:03 AM
What value does he offer right now? He's fetch little in a trade for talent that could help the big league club. His timetable certainly isn't this year or next for that matter. He's likely not going to see any MLB time other than as a sept. callup before 2010. His closest comp is Chris Dickerson, with a little more OBP, and a little less SLG. How much value does Chris Dickerson have for the Reds?

We don't know how much value he offers the club now. We can suspect/opine, but we don't know how much value he'd have in a trade package, which is the only context in which he'd provide any value.

As much as folks want to put a final stamp on the pick, it's not fair to do so until we see if he becomes an effective big league regular, in my opinion.

mbgrayson
06-23-2008, 11:40 AM
Here is the entire 2006 1st round draft:


[edit] First Round Selections
Pick Player Team Position School
1 Luke Hochevar Kansas City Royals RHP Fort Worth Cats (American Association)
2 Greg Reynolds Colorado Rockies RHP Stanford University
3 Evan Longoria Tampa Bay Devil Rays 3B Long Beach State University
4 Brad Lincoln Pittsburgh Pirates RHP University of Houston
5 Brandon Morrow Seattle Mariners RHP UC Berkeley
6 Andrew Miller Detroit Tigers LHP University of North Carolina
7 Clayton Kershaw Los Angeles Dodgers LHP Highland Park High School
8 Drew Stubbs Cincinnati Reds CF University of Texas
9 Bill Rowell Baltimore Orioles 3B Bishop Eustace Preparatory School
10 Tim Lincecum San Francisco Giants RHP University of Washington
11 Max Scherzer Arizona Diamondbacks RHP University of Missouri
12 Kasey Kiker Texas Rangers LHP Russell County High School (AL)
13 Tyler Colvin Chicago Cubs LF Clemson University
14 Travis Snider Toronto Blue Jays RF Henry M. Jackson High School
15 Chris Marrero Washington Nationals 3B Monsignor Edward Pace High School
16 Jeremy Jeffress Milwaukee Brewers RHP Halifax County High School (VA)
17 Matt Antonelli San Diego Padres 3B Wake Forest University
18 Kyle Drabek Philadelphia Phillies RHP The Woodlands High School
19 Brett Sinkbeil Florida Marlins RHP Missouri State University
20 Chris Parmelee Minnesota Twins RF Chino Hills High School
21 Ian Kennedy New York Yankees RHP University of Southern California
22 Colton Willems Washington Nationals RHP John Carroll Catholic High School
23 Maxwell Sapp Houston Astros C Bishop Moore High School
24 Cody Johnson Atlanta Braves 1B A. Crawford Mosley High School
25 Hank Conger Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim C Huntington Beach High School
26 Bryan Morris Los Angeles Dodgers RHP Motlow State Community College
27 Jason Place Boston Red Sox CF Wren High School
28 Daniel Bard Boston Red Sox RHP University of North Carolina
29 Kyle McCulloch Chicago White Sox RHP University of Texas
30 Adam Ottavino St. Louis Cardinals RHP Northeastern University


Without looking up the current levels of all of the 22 picks after Stubbs, how many have made a true impact at the MLB level? Lincecum, certainly. Ian Kennedy, a little. Max Scherzer, a cup of coffee so far.

So really, other than Lincecum, who at this time looks to be the cream of the crop of those available to the Reds? Who are the other 1st rounders in a similar boat to Stubbs?

Look at the Cubs pick at #13, Tyler Colvin. He is hitting .227/.300/.340 for an OPS of .640 at AA, and he is also a college playing CF.

The #9 pick, Billy Rowell, is also in High A, and is hitting .237/.295/.362 for an OPS of .657. He is a 3B drafted out of high school.

On the other hand, there is Travis Snider, the Blue Jays 14th round pick. He was recently promoted to AA and is hitting .284/.367/.481 for an OPS of .847. He was a high school outfielder when drafted, and is currently 20 years old.

I see Stubbs as still having decent potential. He is certainly not the best draft pick ever, at least not yet. But lets keep pulling for the boy....

TRF
06-23-2008, 04:08 PM
Hochevar is in KC's rotation. Longoria is heating up for TB and playing pretty good defense. Brandon Morrow has been a stud this year for Seattle. Andrew Miller is in the Marlins rotation, and has a sub 5.00 ERA, though barely. Kershaw joined the Dodgers rotation about 20 days ago, and has 19K's in 20 ip. He needs to go deeper into games, but he's got remarkable stuff.

After Stubbs, 11 of the remaining 22 picks in the first round are HS picks. Of those 11 HS picks, average age is about 19 1/2. 4 are at Low A, 6 are at High A and one is at AA.

4 years younger and 7 HS picks are at the same level as Stubb or higher.

I'd say that's pretty telling. This isn't even considered a strong draft. None of these HS picks are profiled to be the next Jay Bruce.

dougdirt
06-23-2008, 04:16 PM
Hochevar is in KC's rotation. Longoria is heating up for TB and playing pretty good defense. Brandon Morrow has been a stud this year for Seattle. Andrew Miller is in the Marlins rotation, and has a sub 5.00 ERA, though barely. Kershaw joined the Dodgers rotation about 20 days ago, and has 19K's in 20 ip. He needs to go deeper into games, but he's got remarkable stuff. He said after Stubbs. Those guys all went before Stubbs.



After Stubbs, 11 of the remaining 22 picks in the first round are HS picks. Of those 11 HS picks, average age is about 19 1/2. 4 are at Low A, 6 are at High A and one is at AA.

4 years younger and 7 HS picks are at the same level as Stubb or higher.

I'd say that's pretty telling. This isn't even considered a strong draft. None of these HS picks are profiled to be the next Jay Bruce.
Travis Snider is going to be a lifetime DH, and is the only guy from the HS ranks ahead of Stubbs. Again, none of which matters where they are now....its what kind of player they will be when they get to the Majors. Its not how fast you get there, its how you play when you do.

TRF
06-23-2008, 04:39 PM
He said after Stubbs. Those guys all went before Stubbs.
yeah but he mentioned guys taken before Stubbs and left out a lot of guys contributing and thriving in MLB.

Travis Snider is going to be a lifetime DH, and is the only guy from the HS ranks ahead of Stubbs. Again, none of which matters where they are now....its what kind of player they will be when they get to the Majors. Its not how fast you get there, its how you play when you do.

So if Stubbs makes it ala Ryan Freel, plays his first FULL season at age 28, that's success for a 1st round pick?

dougdirt
06-23-2008, 04:54 PM
yeah but he mentioned guys taken before Stubbs and left out a lot of guys contributing and thriving in MLB.


So if Stubbs makes it ala Ryan Freel, plays his first FULL season at age 28, that's success for a 1st round pick?

No, but Stubbs is 5 seasons from being 28. If Stubbs pulls a Ryan Howard (in the sense that he gets to the bigs at age 25, not turns into a HR hitter) and is a productive player in the majors at the age of 25 then yeah, its a success for a first round pick.

TRF
06-23-2008, 05:15 PM
No, but Stubbs is 5 seasons from being 28. If Stubbs pulls a Ryan Howard (in the sense that he gets to the bigs at age 25, not turns into a HR hitter) and is a productive player in the majors at the age of 25 then yeah, its a success for a first round pick.

I agree.

However, Stubbs career to date has been difficult to predict going forward. He's had injury issue (not chronic issues) that have hampered his development. He had a radical 1st two healthy months in the FSL. His K rate flat stinks for a guy without power, and yes, he's devoid of power. His 4 triples have certainly been the result of his speed much more than they are of his power.

Stubbs could be the player you think he is, though you do seemed to have backed down from the .900+ OPS beast you predicted he might be back in early 2007. He might be a 4th OF too.

I see the glass as half full as there were better players on the board, ok specifically Lincecum. Having Lincecum means Hamilton is likely not traded for Volquez, but it means an OF of Bruce/Hamilton/Dunn.

One player. what a difference one player can make.

dougdirt
06-23-2008, 05:24 PM
I agree.

However, Stubbs career to date has been difficult to predict going forward. He's had injury issue (not chronic issues) that have hampered his development. He had a radical 1st two healthy months in the FSL. His K rate flat stinks for a guy without power, and yes, he's devoid of power. His 4 triples have certainly been the result of his speed much more than they are of his power.

Stubbs could be the player you think he is, though you do seemed to have backed down from the .900+ OPS beast you predicted he might be back in early 2007. He might be a 4th OF too.

I see the glass as half full as there were better players on the board, ok specifically Lincecum. Having Lincecum means Hamilton is likely not traded for Volquez, but it means an OF of Bruce/Hamilton/Dunn.

One player. what a difference one player can make.

I would rather have Volquez than Lincecum every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Sure, we could have this guy or that guy.... but we don't. I just don't get why it is still being harped on over 2 years later. We could have Derek Jeter, but we don't. We could have Albert Pujols, but we don't. We could have a whole lot of guys, but we don't. That goes for every team in the major leagues. Its been quite an old act for a while now. Let Drew Stubbs be who he is going to be, not let Drew Stubbs not be Tim Lincecum.

TRF
06-23-2008, 06:00 PM
I would rather have Volquez than Lincecum every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Sure, we could have this guy or that guy.... but we don't. I just don't get why it is still being harped on over 2 years later. We could have Derek Jeter, but we don't. We could have Albert Pujols, but we don't. We could have a whole lot of guys, but we don't. That goes for every team in the major leagues. Its been quite an old act for a while now. Let Drew Stubbs be who he is going to be, not let Drew Stubbs not be Tim Lincecum.

I'd rather have Lincecum AND Josh Hamilton over Volquez everyday of the week. I know that with both, I have a chance to win on Sunday AND monday, as opposed to just Sunday.

Drew Stubbs can be Drew Stubbs. That's fine. What I'm tired of is defense of a guy that hasn't produced using statistics like LD% that have almost no bearing on actual production. LD% is a silly stat that says nothing about the hitter other than a % of ball hit by said player traveled on a line. Nothing about the power of said batted ball. It's classic grasping at straws. Stubbs had a .332 point DROP in his OPS from April to May going by month. That isn't just luck, that's adjustments made and holes found. He's at .812 for June. Wanna bet he's below .800 by months end?

crazyredfan40
06-23-2008, 06:57 PM
I'd rather have Lincecum AND Josh Hamilton over Volquez everyday of the week. I know that with both, I have a chance to win on Sunday AND monday, as opposed to just Sunday.

Drew Stubbs can be Drew Stubbs. That's fine. What I'm tired of is defense of a guy that hasn't produced using statistics like LD% that have almost no bearing on actual production. LD% is a silly stat that says nothing about the hitter other than a % of ball hit by said player traveled on a line. Nothing about the power of said batted ball. It's classic grasping at straws. Stubbs had a .332 point DROP in his OPS from April to May going by month. That isn't just luck, that's adjustments made and holes found. He's at .812 for June. Wanna bet he's below .800 by months end?


Werent you the one that said he would never sniff a .800+ OPS...He is getting pretty close to that line at .786 on the year...He has had a real good last 10 games...only 6k's in 10 games...Like to see that...4XBH's as well...11RBI's...

I just don't understand why you continue to be so hard on him...Yeah we all know he needs some work, but to say that LD% is a sillily stat...So you think guys that don't hit line drives are guys tearing it up at the major league level...Line drives have the highest probablility to become hits, not soft pop ups or grounders...Thus it is a good idea of finding out not just the balls that are dropping in for hits, like say a batting average, but say how hard a guy is hitting the ball on a consistent basis...

So a guy that is hitting the ball pretty hard in a league that cuts down on power #'s and still getting on base at a high clip and can play great defense, and has great speed, looks like a very good prospect to me...

TRF
06-23-2008, 07:01 PM
Werent you the one that said he would never sniff a .800+ OPS...He is getting pretty close to that line at .786 on the year...He has had a real good last 10 games...only 6k's in 10 games...Like to see that...4XBH's as well...11RBI's...

I just don't understand why you continue to be so hard on him...Yeah we all know he needs some work, but to say that LD% is a sillily stat...So you think guys that don't hit line drives are guys tearing it up at the major league level...Line drives have the highest probablility to become hits, not soft pop ups or grounders...Thus it is a good idea of finding out not just the balls that are dropping in for hits, like say a batting average, but say how hard a guy is hitting the ball on a consistent basis...

So a guy that is hitting the ball pretty hard in a league that cuts down on power #'s and still getting on base at a high clip and can play great defense, and has great speed, looks like a very good prospect to me...

LD% says nothing about power. a soft line drive to 2B is counted. Is that power? really? LD% is so incomplete. all it says is the batted ball was too high to be called a GB, and too low to be a FB.

SLG% tells so much more, and Stubbs has struggled SLG his entire career.

Blitz Dorsey
06-23-2008, 08:13 PM
Everyone please ask yourself this question in regards to Drew Stubbs:

If there was a random 23-year-old OF in A+ ball right now batting .267/.381/.405 with 3 HR in 247 ABs, do you think there would be much discussion about him?

Of course not. The only reason we are still talking about this tired subject is because the Reds reached for Drew Stubbs with the No. 8 pick of the 2006 draft. It's still painful for a lot of us. But if Stubbs was some 20th rounder out of Texas, no one would talk about him based on those numbers (and the equally-mediocre numbers he put up at Dayton last year... .270/.364/.421, 12 HRs in 497 ABs).

dougdirt
06-23-2008, 09:04 PM
Everyone please ask yourself this question in regards to Drew Stubbs:

If there was a random 23-year-old OF in A+ ball right now batting .267/.381/.405 with 3 HR in 247 ABs, do you think there would be much discussion about him?

Of course not. The only reason we are still talking about this tired subject is because the Reds reached for Drew Stubbs with the No. 8 pick of the 2006 draft. It's still painful for a lot of us. But if Stubbs was some 20th rounder out of Texas, no one would talk about him based on those numbers (and the equally-mediocre numbers he put up at Dayton last year... .270/.364/.421, 12 HRs in 497 ABs).

Does he still have all those tools? If so, then yes, we would absolutely be talking about him.

lollipopcurve
06-23-2008, 09:05 PM
Everyone please ask yourself this question in regards to Drew Stubbs:

If there was a random 23-year-old OF in A+ ball right now batting .267/.381/.405 with 3 HR in 247 ABs, do you think there would be much discussion about him?

You're talking about half a player. Look at the whole player.

PuffyPig
06-23-2008, 09:07 PM
Everyone please ask yourself this question in regards to Drew Stubbs:

If there was a random 23-year-old OF in A+ ball right now batting .267/.381/.405 with 3 HR in 247 ABs, do you think there would be much discussion about him?

Of course not. The only reason we are still talking about this tired subject is because the Reds reached for Drew Stubbs with the No. 8 pick of the 2006 draft. It's still painful for a lot of us. But if Stubbs was some 20th rounder out of Texas, no one would talk about him based on those numbers (and the equally-mediocre numbers he put up at Dayton last year... .270/.364/.421, 12 HRs in 497 ABs).

You are probably right, becuase if we had picked him in the 20th round he likely wouldn't have GG winning defense or great speed. He was picked with the 8th pick (and it wasn't a reach) because of those world class tools. Players in the 20th round don't have those tools.

Production is just one way of rating a players chances of progressing. You need to look beyond production and see whether or not it's likley the player will continue to produce as he moves up.

fearofpopvol1
06-23-2008, 09:34 PM
Hochevar is in KC's rotation. Longoria is heating up for TB and playing pretty good defense. Brandon Morrow has been a stud this year for Seattle. Andrew Miller is in the Marlins rotation, and has a sub 5.00 ERA, though barely. Kershaw joined the Dodgers rotation about 20 days ago, and has 19K's in 20 ip. He needs to go deeper into games, but he's got remarkable stuff.

After Stubbs, 11 of the remaining 22 picks in the first round are HS picks. Of those 11 HS picks, average age is about 19 1/2. 4 are at Low A, 6 are at High A and one is at AA.

4 years younger and 7 HS picks are at the same level as Stubb or higher.

I'd say that's pretty telling. This isn't even considered a strong draft. None of these HS picks are profiled to be the next Jay Bruce.

Yeah, there's a common theme here. Notice how every player you named was picked before the Reds! I really doubt that the Reds would've let any of the ones you named slip past if they fell to the Reds. Would you fire Jim Hendry for his pick of Tyler Colvin? Granted, he was the 13th pick, but that was still high and that guy has looked like a bust. You're not being subjective here. You're being extremely close-minded and cherry picking various things to try to support your logic.

mbgrayson
06-24-2008, 01:04 AM
Travis Snider is going to be a lifetime DH, and is the only guy from the HS ranks ahead of Stubbs.

I think he will be more than a DH.

Baseball America 2008 Prospect Handbook rates Snider the Jays #1 prospect. They note that he "is more athletic than he appears, and that he has improved his reads and routes enough to project as an average defender on an outfield corner. He has enough arm for right field, and topped the Midwest League with 16 outfield assists [in 2007]." They also note that even as the youngest player int he AFL last year, he excelled, and they think he will be hitting in the middle of Toronto's lineup by 2010.

dougdirt
06-24-2008, 02:01 AM
I think he will be more than a DH.

Baseball America 2008 Prospect Handbook rates Snider the Jays #1 prospect. They note that he "is more athletic than he appears, and that he has improved his reads and routes enough to project as an average defender on an outfield corner. He has enough arm for right field, and topped the Midwest League with 16 outfield assists [in 2007]." They also note that even as the youngest player int he AFL last year, he excelled, and they think he will be hitting in the middle of Toronto's lineup by 2010.

I would be very surprised if that holds up to be true.