PDA

View Full Version : Stubbs to Chattanooga



Pages : 1 [2]

M2
07-24-2008, 10:26 AM
If it improves his production I could care less how it looks. His bat control is below avg and if that's what it takes to improve it what's the problem with it?

Because a kid his size has no future as a Judy hitter.

princeton
07-24-2008, 10:50 AM
I'd give Pete 6 out of 10, mostly based on his Defense.


7 out of 10 Pete, and I'm not talking defense at all.

HokieRed
07-24-2008, 11:26 AM
Do any of the Dunns or Roses have good breaking stuff they can locate?

Dan
07-24-2008, 11:37 AM
I actually don't think anyone was claiming he'll be an upper-echelon player. In fact, I think very few people think that realistically. The big argument is whether he'll be a bust or not and whether he'll maintain similar stats in the majors that he has accomplished in the minors.

To my eye, as a first round pick he's been a bust. My guess is he'll have a career run similar to Brian Anderson of the White Sox.

AFalcon10
07-24-2008, 11:51 AM
The lookouts site says Stubbs is hitting .440 through 7 games.. I wouldnt rule this kid out that quick.. His incredible defense will always keep him on the Reds radar and if choking up helps him come around he could still be a productive major league player... hasnt lived up to what we hoped though clealry

flyer85
07-24-2008, 12:20 PM
His incredible defenseI never buy the defense until I have seen it. We have heard the great defense tag placed on too many players only to find out they didn't have it. Examples: Rey Olmedo, the next Dave Concepcion, turned out to be an error machine. Paul Janish defense has been hyped as a plus skill, after watching him his only plus tool is his arm, nothing special about his range, and he made quite a few errors.

When I hear people talking about great defense my first reaction is that the guy can't hit.

Hopefully for the Reds Stubbs will break the mold.

puca
07-24-2008, 12:51 PM
Because a kid his size has no future as a Judy hitter.

Willie Wilson might disagree.

SteelSD
07-24-2008, 12:53 PM
So you have just made my point. You claim that managers put low SLG hitters in the leadoff spot, to minimize their deficiencies. That means that SLG is less important in the leadoff slot than the cleanup slot, because having the low SLG guy at the top, minimizes his weakness, because having a low SLG at the top hurts the team less than having him in the cleanup spot.

If what you say is true, that putting a low SLG hitter in the leadoff spot minimizes his weakness (low SLG), then you are admitting that SLG is less important in the leadoff spot than in the middle.

No, that's not it at all. In fact, if a Manager has to choose between two low-SLG players whose OBP numbers are matched, the faster guy is pretty much always going to see the 1-slot because the Manager is going to try to get as many bases as possible out of the faster player in an effort to replicate high Slugging Percentage.

The SLG bell curve we see pretty consistently is damage control made necessary due to the fact that teams don't generally have access to 8 high-SLG hitters, not an indication that SLG is somehow "less important" at any particular slot.


Naturally, if the manager had 5 guys with both high OBP and high SLG, he would put all 5 at the top of the llneup. But as you stated few, if any managers have that situation. They have maybe two high OBP, high SLG hitters, and they put them in the middle of the lineup. If SLG was as important at the top of the lineup as it is in the middle, managers would put those high OBP and high SLG guys at the top of the lineup. But they don't and they shouldn't. Because SLG is more important in the middle of the lineup than at the top.

If base acquisition was somehow "less important" at the top of the lineup, we wouldn't see players consistently placed there due to speed. In fact, some wonky Managers attempt to replicate SLG at the top of the order by asking their 1-slot players to steal and then back them up with two-slot hitters they feel are proficient at moving runners along via "productive outs" (I feel dirty just typing that phrase). The game itself is telling you that your take is off-base. Managers value those bases so much even at the top of the order that they'll risk and waste Outs trying to acquire them in an attempt to replicate natural high-SLG behavior.


And since the leadoff hitter hits behind the 7, 8, and 9 hitters who have much lower OBP and SLG than the rest of the lineup, especially in the NL, he will have less baserunners to drive in than the middle of the lineup guys. That means that his SLG is less important than if he hit in the middle.

That's not what it means. Not at all.

OPS
07-24-2008, 01:02 PM
I've thought hard about this for 30 years and I firmly believe that it takes away a little less than 2.

You lose the 1 Total Base from home plate to 1st Base. You would lose 2 Total Bases if you were already on 2nd when you got caught stealing or picked off, but that's only about 10% of the caught stealings. You also lose an out, which is probably equal to about 2/3rds of a Total Base as a typical game gives a team about 40 plate appearances where they get about 26 Total Bases including the walks (say about 10 hits of which 3 are Doubles and 2 are homeruns plus 4 walks for a total of 26).

So, someone with a 67% ratio is a positive for the team in my opinion as the havoc they create on the basepaths for the pitcher creates a lot more positives for the team than the negatives of being caught stealing and losing momentum.

Bill James thinks it's a bit higher, closer to maybe 75%, but I don't believe that.

There is one flaw that I see with this logic. The one out that is given up by a CS does give up the potential for Total Bases later in the game. You have taken this into account for the batter only. However, some of the bases that are given up would be hits and walks that would also advance other base runners. You use 2/3 of a Total Base given up for each out, but when you assume that approximately 45% of the time someone is on base for the batter, it changes things. I think a 75% success rate for breakeven is a pretty good number.

osuceltic
07-24-2008, 01:15 PM
Drew Stubbs with a bunt single, Denove singled but Stubbs only got to second. Stubbs steals 3rd and the throw goes into the outfield and Stubbs scores.


Drew Stubbs singles in the 9th and drives in a run. He took second on a bobble by the fielder. Lookouts down 1 with 2 outs and Stubbs on 2nd.

Stubbs seemed to use his speed to have a pretty significant impact on the game yesterday. Significant in a statistically insignificant sort of way.

M2
07-24-2008, 01:20 PM
Willie Wilson might disagree.

Wilson was a string bean. Stubbs will go 215-220 when he matures. Wilson was also faster than Stubbs (Wilson was faster than just about everyone), he switch hit (allowing him to slap and run from the LH side of the plate) and, ultimately, he wasn't a very good offensive player.

He really was a function of his era, where teams willingly played lighting-quick guys with tiny sticks (and scored a whole lot less). About the closest guy we've seen to Wilson in the modern game is Scott Podsednik, who, with the exception of one season, has been a consistently poor player from a run creation standpoint.

Beyond that, slapping at the ball isn't Stubbs' game. He takes a big cut even if he doesn't generate any power with it. If you want to completely rebuild him as a slap hitter (something I don't think has a chance of working) then you're talking years of reprogramming, the kind of time which almost assuredly would cause him to bounce to a few organizations beyond the Reds.

So my take is Stubbs simply isn't built for it and that no team really wants a .700 OPS CF even if he could do it "successfully."

RedsManRick
07-24-2008, 01:54 PM
I know you said, Offensively speaking, but you can't remove Dunn's and Rose's defense and then try to compare them. Rose's Defense is one of the reasons his teams won games and Dunn's Defense is one of the reasons his teams lose games

Hence why I said it... We were discussing a very specific point about offensive performance. I wasn't trying to compare overall value.

I'm not sure why people think that the Rose offense will be so much more consistent than the Dunn one. They are making the same amount of outs.

Rose only had about 55 XBH (35 2B, 8 3B, 12 HR) and 145 singles per year during his prime. Dunn averages about 70 XHB (30 2B, 0 3B, 40 HR) and 70 singles. So Dunn will be cleaning off the bases more often.

The vast majority of single don't drive in runs because there aren't usually runners in scoring position. So the advantage Rose gets by hitting all of those singles instead of walking is probably being over estimated. Meanwhile, Dunn is driving himself in as the batter 28 times when Rose isn't.

In any case, I think it would be fascinating to see it simmed and look at the actual distribution of runs scored including variance.

dougdirt
07-24-2008, 02:27 PM
M2, I really don't think Stubbs will grow to the size you think until possibly late in his 30's. He has a solid frame right now, but packing on 15-20 pounds seems like a lot to me.

757690
07-24-2008, 04:45 PM
No, that's not it at all. In fact, if a Manager has to choose between two low-SLG players whose OBP numbers are matched, the faster guy is pretty much always going to see the 1-slot because the Manager is going to try to get as many bases as possible out of the faster player in an effort to replicate high Slugging Percentage.

If base acquisition was somehow "less important" at the top of the lineup, we wouldn't see players consistently placed there due to speed. In fact, some wonky Managers attempt to replicate SLG at the top of the order by asking their 1-slot players to steal and then back them up with two-slot hitters they feel are proficient at moving runners along via "productive outs" (I feel dirty just typing that phrase). The game itself is telling you that your take is off-base. Managers value those bases so much even at the top of the order that they'll risk and waste Outs trying to acquire them in an attempt to replicate natural high-SLG behavior.

You are conflating "base acquisition" with SLG. While they are similar, they are also different. SLG represents the hitters ability to hit for power. Base acquisition represents the players ability to acquire bases, via any means.

Of course, base acquisition is just as important in every slot. But that does not mean that SLG is just as important. While it is important that a player acquire as many bases as possible, how that player acquires those bases is very relevant to the slot in which they bat. It is less important for a leadoff hitter to acquire his bases via the home run, than it is for him to acquire it via his speed. A leadoff hitter who hits a lot of homeruns is better used in the middle of the lineup, since if he is a leadoff hitter, many more of his homeruns will be solo shots than if he is in the middle of the lineup. And the same is true to a much lesser extent for doubles and triples. But if he acquires his bases through speed, stolen bases, extending singles into doubles, then he is best used at the top of the lineup, for the reasons you stated.

To put it another way, base acquisition through speed only helps the batter score runs, while the base acquisition though SLG helps the batter score runs and drive in runs. Those managers who try to replicate natural high-SLG behavior, are only replicating the SLG ability to score runs. My point is that the leadoff hitters ability to drive runs in is less important than the cleanup hitters, and therefore, the leadoff hitters SLG is less important.



The SLG bell curve we see pretty consistently is damage control made necessary due to the fact that teams don't generally have access to 8 high-SLG hitters, not an indication that SLG is somehow "less important" at any particular slot.

It is the "damage control" part that shows that SLG is less important. Because they don't have 8 high SLG hitters, they have decide which is the most important slot to place these high SLG hitters. They decide that it is the middle of the lineup.

If SLG was just as important in the leadoff slot as the middle of the lineup, you would see Ortiz, Manny, Pujols, Chipper, Berkman, Holiday, etc, all leadoff. These guys have very high OBP, worthy of the leadoff slot, and very high SLG. But they don't, because that would force the managers to put low SLG guys in the middle of the lineup. That would be maximizing these guys weakness. Putting them in the leadoff slot minimizes their weakness, which is damage control. That is only true if the SLG in the leadoff spot is less important. If it was just as important, it would not be damage control.



That's not what it means. Not at all.

Then what does it mean? The fact that a leadoff hitter will have less baserunners to drive in than the middle of the lineup guys, to me, means that it is less important for a leadoff hitter to be able to hit for power, which is what SLG represents. If player A hits with 300 base runners during a season, and player B hits with 500 base runners during a season, I think it is logical that it is more important (and more valuable) for player B to have a high SLG, than it is for player A. I want my home run, power hitters to hit with as many runners on base as possible. If I know a hitter is going to have less runners on base during his PA's, then I am less concerned with his SLG, especially if I have a limited number of high SLG hitters.

M2
07-24-2008, 05:36 PM
M2, I really don't think Stubbs will grow to the size you think until possibly late in his 30's. He has a solid frame right now, but packing on 15-20 pounds seems like a lot to me.

I'd expect at least 10 pounds by the time he's 27, just from consistent working out. He's got broad shoulders, that frame is built for expansion. In fact, I imagine one of his main selling points to the Reds prior to the draft is that he's got the kind of body that can add bulk/power as he matures. Oddly, what would be an asset if his swing were able to generate power might be a detriment if the plan changes to turning him into Slappy McGogo.

SteelSD
07-24-2008, 05:47 PM
Of course, base acquisition is just as important in every slot.

Anything that acquires a base is base acquisition, including Slugging Percentage. The fact that we see examples of Managers attempting to replicate high SLG base acquisition by using low-SLG hitters to swipe bags doesn't support your position.

Highlifeman21
07-24-2008, 05:56 PM
I'd expect at least 10 pounds by the time he's 27, just from consistent working out. He's got broad shoulders, that frame is built for expansion. In fact, I imagine one of his main selling points to the Reds prior to the draft is that he's got the kind of body that can add bulk/power as he matures. Oddly, what would be an asset if his swing were able to generate power might be a detriment if the plan changes to turning him into Slappy McGogo.

How do you think Stubbs' value projects if he continues to have low SLG, decent OBP, and continuing contact issues with unsustainable LD rates, and a K rate above 30%, vs. if he increases his SLG while maintaining his OBP, regardless of his contact issues while his LD rate comes back to Earth?

I guess my question (that I asked in a roundabout way, whoops) is how important or valuable is Stubbs' defense if his SLG doesn't increase?

*BaseClogger*
07-24-2008, 05:59 PM
When I hear people talking about great defense my first reaction is that the guy can't hit.

We got us a scout! ;)

lollipopcurve
07-24-2008, 06:01 PM
The fact that we see examples of Managers attempting to replicate high SLG base acquisition by using low-SLG hitters to swipe bags

Then again, managers like middle of the diamond defenders who can suppress base acquisition because they're fast.

RedsManRick
07-24-2008, 06:02 PM
Anything that acquires a base is base acquisition, including Slugging Percentage. The fact that we see examples of Managers attempting to replicate high SLG base acquisition by using low-SLG hitters to swipe bags doesn't support your position.

Steel, I don't see how he's wrong here. Given that there are worse hitters, and given that those players are likely to be at the bottom of the order to minimize their number of at bats, then it goes to reason that the component value of SLG having to do with advancing runners on base is less useful at the 1st spot in the order as there will likely be fewer runners on base.

However, as you've pointed out, base acquisition is still vital. Therefore if you have a player who can acquire bases for himself via base running, but not for other batters, it makes sense to maximize both his value and the value of hitters whose bats do advance runners on base in order to maximize the run production of the system.

Of course, this assumes equal OBP among that low SLG guy and the higher SLG guys.

Mario-Rijo
07-24-2008, 06:07 PM
Because a kid his size has no future as a Judy hitter.

Why do you assume if he improves his contact it will make him a judy hitter?

M2
07-24-2008, 06:28 PM
I guess my question (that I asked in a roundabout way, whoops) is how important or valuable is Stubbs' defense if his SLG doesn't increase?

I don't think Stubbs has much of a future if he can't find a power stroke. He's the kind of guy who needs to pile the secondary average on top of a .265 BA. If he can't drill the ball hard enough to keep pitchers honest then his OB will tank too.

At that point, no one will care if he plays defense.

He needs to be more Eric Davis and less Eddie Milner.

M2
07-24-2008, 06:35 PM
Why do you assume if he improves his contact it will make him a judy hitter?

Power hitters grip it low and rip it out. Drew Stubbs is heading nowhere trying to increase his namby pamby contract ratio.

If he wants to choke up with two strikes in certain game situations, that's fine, but what he needs to do is start punishing fastballs and mistake breaking balls. Kick ass and take names.

camisadelgolf
07-24-2008, 06:44 PM
And what if he doesn't punish more mistake pitches? What if he just ends up being a superb defender with an above-average OPS?

M2
07-24-2008, 07:01 PM
And what if he doesn't punish more mistake pitches? What if he just ends up being a superb defender with an above-average OPS?

If he doesn't start punishing the ball then the use of "above-average OPS" in conjunction with his name will only serve as a comedic device.

This whole argument FOR Stubbs having a bright future as Mr. Judy OPS is bizarre. It's not even as kind as damning the guy with faint praise.

While I'm not impressed with anything he's done to date and I have deep reservations that he'll ever get his swing together, I at least hold out hope that he'll mature into the somewhat muscular player he needs to be to succeed.

757690
07-24-2008, 07:11 PM
Anything that acquires a base is base acquisition, including Slugging Percentage.

Of course that is true, but that does not mean that everything that acquires a base is equal in value and importance.

Let's take pitching for example. The goal of a pitcher is to acquire outs. There are many ways that a pitcher can acquire outs, the main ones being: K, fly out, ground out, and pop out. These outs are not equal in value and importance. The situation the pitcher is in is relevant to the importance of how he acquires outs. With no one on base, they are of equal value. With a runner on first, ground balls are more important, with a man on third and less than two outs, K's are more important. Every situation changes the importance of each type of out. What you are saying is that out acquisition is equally important in every situation. A flyball and a K are out acquisitions, therefore a flyball and a K are of equal importance in every situation. That is illogical.


Similarly, there are many ways to acquire bases: hitting xtra base hits, stealing bases, stretching singles into doubles, going from first to third.... These do not all have the same value or importance, and just like in pitching, the situation is relevant, and in fact sometimes dictates, their importance. When hitting with men on base, extra base hits are more valuable. When leading off an inning, speed is more important. Both of them acquire bases, but it is the way that they acquire bases that is important. Just because SLG and speed are both base acquisitions, does not mean that they are of equal importance.

Kingspoint
07-24-2008, 11:13 PM
So I assume the Dunns pythag record is better than 3-7.

If 5 Dunns are switched out for 5 Pattersons in late close games, that might be the reason.

Or maybe its the Dunns KRISPY rate.

First time I laughed in the last 5 hours. That was great.

Kingspoint
07-24-2008, 11:17 PM
There is one flaw that I see with this logic. The one out that is given up by a CS does give up the potential for Total Bases later in the game. You have taken this into account for the batter only. However, some of the bases that are given up would be hits and walks that would also advance other base runners. You use 2/3 of a Total Base given up for each out, but when you assume that approximately 45% of the time someone is on base for the batter, it changes things. I think a 75% success rate for breakeven is a pretty good number.


Hello, OPS.....Welcome aboard, or are you a former member with a new name?

Kingspoint
07-24-2008, 11:18 PM
Wilson was a string bean.

It was the '70's and '80's. We were all stringbeans.

Kingspoint
07-24-2008, 11:20 PM
Hence why I said it... We were discussing a very specific point about offensive performance. I wasn't trying to compare overall value.

I'm not sure why people think that the Rose offense will be so much more consistent than the Dunn one. They are making the same amount of outs.

Rose only had about 55 XBH (35 2B, 8 3B, 12 HR) and 145 singles per year during his prime. Dunn averages about 70 XHB (30 2B, 0 3B, 40 HR) and 70 singles. So Dunn will be cleaning off the bases more often.

The vast majority of single don't drive in runs because there aren't usually runners in scoring position. So the advantage Rose gets by hitting all of those singles instead of walking is probably being over estimated. Meanwhile, Dunn is driving himself in as the batter 28 times when Rose isn't.

In any case, I think it would be fascinating to see it simmed and look at the actual distribution of runs scored including variance.

It can easily be simmed out. During the Strike season it was simmed out that the REDS beat the Yankees in the World Series if the teams with the best overall records would have been in the playoffs.

OPS
07-25-2008, 12:30 AM
Hello, OPS.....Welcome aboard, or are you a former member with a new name?

Hello! I'm a new member. I've been browsing the boards for a couple of weeks and have really enjoyed the all the informative posts.

Actually, after thinking about if for a little while, I think the success rate needed to breakeven on stolen bases depends on how good the team hits. The better a team hits, the higher success rate you would need to justify risking an out to obtain a base. It really depends on who's coming up to bat.

I'm starting to think that 75% is high also and somewhere around 70% is breakeven for a league average offense.

Mario-Rijo
07-25-2008, 01:24 AM
Power hitters grip it low and rip it out. Drew Stubbs is heading nowhere trying to increase his namby pamby contract ratio.

If he wants to choke up with two strikes in certain game situations, that's fine, but what he needs to do is start punishing fastballs and mistake breaking balls. Kick ass and take names.

I disagree a bit, I think he's going nowhere (nowhere up in production) unless he improves either his power or contact rate. And if he is only going to be strong enough in his prime then it will be a short lived career. OTOH if he improves his contact rate he can be ready very soon and be a productive major leaguer for a much longer time. Improving contact doesn't necc. mean losing power and choking up only would hurt some of his power. Better to lose some power and be able to hit than to have a little more power but not hit well enough for it to make any difference.

*BaseClogger*
07-25-2008, 01:29 AM
Hello! I'm a new member. I've been browsing the boards for a couple of weeks and have really enjoyed the all the informative posts.

Actually, after thinking about if for a little while, I think the success rate needed to breakeven on stolen bases depends on how good the team hits. The better a team hits, the higher success rate you would need to justify risking an out to obtain a base. It really depends on who's coming up to bat.

I'm starting to think that 75% is high also and somewhere around 70% is breakeven for a league average offense.

Obviously, the necessary success rate varies wildly with the situation, but in an "average" situation somewhere around 75% seems right to me...

mth123
07-25-2008, 05:47 AM
Obviously, the necessary success rate varies wildly with the situation, but in an "average" situation somewhere around 75% seems right to me...

I think it needs to be higher in general and especially so when most base stealers are near the top of the order in front of high slugging guys who don't really need the runner to steal to get him into scoring position. Why risk outs when the extra base hit guys are coming up? Many Reds fans have had their perceptions skewed by the 70s. During that decade when 35 HR was likely to lead the league and we were constantly told that a speedy runner on 1B caused pitchers to throw more fastballs and get hitters better pitches. We were even told that the Reds sluggers in 1971 had bad years because Bobby Tolan was hurt and the hitters were getting fewer fastballs (didn't seem to impact Lee May BTW). Its a load of bunk that isn't that true now even if it was somewhat back then. The running game is over-rated and a very minor part of offense in the current era.

Another thing is, the CS% do not factor in times picked-off. Conventional wisdom is that a pick-off is not a negative against the runner but an exceptional play by the defense and does not count against the runner in his success rate. I disagree with the notion. When you look at the data and consistently see guys like Freel getting picked-off in double digits during part time play, a success rate of 75% isn't high enough because it doesn't capture those other outs that his running game creates. IMO, the formula should SB/SB+CS+PO and the success rate in that formula needs to be about 80%. Otherwise stop screwing things up by trying to run. The Reds of the last decade have made more outs on the bases than I care to imagine.

Finally, if a team is filling a spot with a player whose primary offensive skill is stealing bases, then he needs to hit in the 7th or 8th spot. That extra base means a lot more with the low slugging guys coming up than it does the middle of the order and risking the out in that situation is a better percentage play. High steal guys near the top are ok if they have good OBP and good success rates with low pick-off totals. Ichiro is a fine example of a guy who can hit high in the order and use the running game. But force feeding steal guys to the top because they can run is a pet peeve. Usually you get one of the other two types. The low OBP who can run type (think Corey Patterson) or the decent OBP guy who can run fast but makes too many outs on the bases (Ryan Freel is a perfrect example of this type). If those guys are going to play, the 7th spot in the line-up seems like the best place for them. Though Freel would be a decent lead-off option if he was told not to run.

TRF
07-25-2008, 10:17 AM
He's not "Dunn" enough to sustain his OBP: Power. He's not "Casey" enough to sustain his OBP: High BA. Both help OBP, one directly, one indirectly.

So HOW is he going to sustain it? Pitchers had him completely figured out one month into the season at the FSL. I give it 3 weeks in the Southern League.

He doesn't hit for average. He doesn't hit for power, yet he'll have a high OBP? Ok, has that EVER happened for a sustained amount of time?

crazyredfan40
07-25-2008, 10:43 AM
He's not "Dunn" enough to sustain his OBP: Power. He's not "Casey" enough to sustain his OBP: High BA. Both help OBP, one directly, one indirectly.

So HOW is he going to sustain it? Pitchers had him completely figured out one month into the season at the FSL. I give it 3 weeks in the Southern League.

He doesn't hit for average. He doesn't hit for power, yet he'll have a high OBP? Ok, has that EVER happened for a sustained amount of time?

How do you figure they had him figured out...Because he was unlucky with his BABIP...He was still hitting for a high LD%...See how that works I can use stats to say just the opposite of what you want to believe...I guess he only hits good until the pitchers figure him out...

M2
07-25-2008, 11:04 AM
Improving contact doesn't necc. mean losing power and choking up only would hurt some of his power. Better to lose some power and be able to hit than to have a little more power but not hit well enough for it to make any difference.

That's a sneak yourself through A ball plan, not a succeed in the majors plan.

RedEye
07-25-2008, 12:10 PM
Just thought I'd liven up this great debate by posting another perspective, this time from Astros beat writer Richard Justice on his blog, SportsJustice. During a rant about the incompetence of Drayton McLane, he has some pretty nice things to say about Drew...

http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archives/2008/07/thank_you_for_w.html


Thank you for writing me about Ed Wade. Now stop.

All of a sudden, I've got friends in Philadelphia. I hear from sportswriters and TV guys and all kinds of fans. They tell me they feel my pain. They tell me they knew it was going to be like this.

Please stop. I'll give you Oscar Villarreal, Shawn Chacon and Michael Bourn if you'll just leave me alone.

These people shouldn't be gloating about Ed Wade. They should be sending him flowers. If not for Ed Wade, they wouldn't have Brad Lidge. He's 22 for 22. Would the Phillies be in first place without Brad Lidge? I think not.

They should also thank Ed Wade for Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Pat Burrell, Cole Hamels, Gavin Floyd, Kyle Kendrick and Brett Myers. All those players were drafted during Ed Wade's seven years on the job. Are the Phillies in first place without Chase Utley and Cole Hamels? I assure you they are not.

The Astros had problems long before Ed Wade got here. Some of those bad drafts occurred when Gerry Hunsicker was on the job. In fact, he predicted tough times were coming.

It's not all Drayton McLane's problems, either. Although I did see that Drew Stubbs is hitting .440 at Double-A Chattanooga, and I'm reminded he may be McLane's single dumbest move as owner.

He was a four-sport star, a honor student and a young Republican. He's the guy you always wanted to be, Drayton.

McLane ordered his baseball people to back out of a pre-draft deal because Bud Selig got ticked off about the price. That one may haunt the Astros for years. Hope you enjoy watching Drew Stubbs play center field for the Cincinnati Reds, Drayton. Hope you get a real good view from your front-row seat.

That dumb decision is followed closely by saving $1.2 million by not signing three of the top six picks in the 2007 draft. The Astros also blew their 2005 and 2006 first-round picks. Can't blame Drayton for those.

Speaking of the draft, why is Pat Murphy now working for the Tampa Bay Rays? He was the assistant scouting director when the Astros won Baseball America's Organization of the Year award in 2001.

Would someone tell me why he was shown the door? I'm waiting. Go ahead and explain that one to me.

Where is he now? In Tampa Bay? How are the Rays doing? Do they have any good players in the minor leagues? Why is Pat in Tampa Bay? Because Gerry Hunsicker is there?

See how this stuff is all tied together, Drayton? See what happens when you let your ego get in the way? See what happens when you surround yourself with butt-kissers? How's that working out for you? At least you don't have Gerry Hunsicker arguing with you about doing the right thing.

If you had any guts, you'd phone Tampa Bay and plead with them to let you bring Gerry back. But you won't do it. You'd rather finish last than admit that you screwed up.

Go ahead and keep listening to Tal and Ed. At least you got your revenge on the Hendricks Brothers. You showed them, didn't you? What's your record since you showed Andy Pettitte the door? How does last place taste?

I suggested in this morning's column that you take Tal and Ed on a long vacation and leave Pam Gardner in charge. Give her two years and the organization would be respectable again.

No way she would have made that Randy Wolf trade. Randy could win every start down the stretch, and it wouldn't get the Astros back in contention. Nor would it make him worth the $3.5 million he's going to cost.

You're not going to put Pam in charge because someone else might get the credit. You want the credit for being in last place? Fine, it's yours. Congratulations.

OK, never mind.

I also didn't know that Stubbs was a young Republican... the more you learn, eh?

pitcher7
07-25-2008, 12:18 PM
Maybe we can hope that Stubbs has started to figure things out, though I know it is early. He has always had the potential, if he can hit for .270-.280, 10-20 HRs, he would be an extremely productive major league player because of his speed and defensive ability

traderumor
07-25-2008, 12:21 PM
Maybe we can hope that Stubbs has started to figure things out, though I know it is early. He has always had the potential, if he can hit for .270-.280, 10-20 HRs, he would be an extremely productive major league player because of his speed and defensive ability

Stubbs sounds like he has a game similar to Podsednik with a little pop.

OPS
07-25-2008, 12:28 PM
I think it needs to be higher in general and especially so when most base stealers are near the top of the order in front of high slugging guys who don't really need the runner to steal to get him into scoring position. Why risk outs when the extra base hit guys are coming up? Many Reds fans have had their perceptions skewed by the 70s. During that decade when 35 HR was likely to lead the league and we were constantly told that a speedy runner on 1B caused pitchers to throw more fastballs and get hitters better pitches. We were even told that the Reds sluggers in 1971 had bad years because Bobby Tolan was hurt and the hitters were getting fewer fastballs (didn't seem to impact Lee May BTW). Its a load of bunk that isn't that true now even if it was somewhat back then. The running game is over-rated and a very minor part of offense in the current era.

Another thing is, the CS% do not factor in times picked-off. Conventional wisdom is that a pick-off is not a negative against the runner but an exceptional play by the defense and does not count against the runner in his success rate. I disagree with the notion. When you look at the data and consistently see guys like Freel getting picked-off in double digits during part time play, a success rate of 75% isn't high enough because it doesn't capture those other outs that his running game creates. IMO, the formula should SB/SB+CS+PO and the success rate in that formula needs to be about 80%. Otherwise stop screwing things up by trying to run. The Reds of the last decade have made more outs on the bases than I care to imagine.

Finally, if a team is filling a spot with a player whose primary offensive skill is stealing bases, then he needs to hit in the 7th or 8th spot. That extra base means a lot more with the low slugging guys coming up than it does the middle of the order and risking the out in that situation is a better percentage play. High steal guys near the top are ok if they have good OBP and good success rates with low pick-off totals. Ichiro is a fine example of a guy who can hit high in the order and use the running game. But force feeding steal guys to the top because they can run is a pet peeve. Usually you get one of the other two types. The low OBP who can run type (think Corey Patterson) or the decent OBP guy who can run fast but makes too many outs on the bases (Ryan Freel is a perfrect example of this type). If those guys are going to play, the 7th spot in the line-up seems like the best place for them. Though Freel would be a decent lead-off option if he was told not to run.

Very informative post. I was unaware that pick-offs were not counted as CS. I agree that attempting a steal makes more sense for runners down in the order (or the success rate doesn't need to be as high to justify the risk). For runners at the top of the order, 80% success might indeed be needed to justify the risk.

Mario-Rijo
07-25-2008, 12:47 PM
That's a sneak yourself through A ball plan, not a succeed in the majors plan.

Ya either have to hit for power or average to make it in baseball at all. If you can do neither you sure are not going to be getting many free passes to 1st base. So if his power isn't enough to sustain him at the major league level there is but 1 choice left! And w/o just flat hitting the weights hard he won't get any more naturally stronger until he's what about 27-28.

M2
07-25-2008, 01:37 PM
Ya either have to hit for power or average to make it in baseball at all. If you can do neither you sure are not going to be getting many free passes to 1st base. So if his power isn't enough to sustain him at the major league level there is but 1 choice left! And w/o just flat hitting the weights hard he won't get any more naturally stronger until he's what about 27-28.

Don't kid yourself, Stubbs doesn't have a BA ticket to the bigs. He's not going to be a .300 hitter. It's not a tool with which he's equipped.

Just as a a point of information, Adam Dunn was a .304 hitter in the minors with a lower K rate than what Stubbs has to date. That should put into perspective how far outside his native skill set you're asking Stubbs to venture.

If you find it objectionable to wait around for him to grow stronger (it should be mentioned raw strength isn't his problem), then I'd think you'd find it just as objectionable to wait around the same amount of time to see if he can totally remake himself into a slap hitter (going against body type and requiring him to develop a whole new set of swing mechanics, at least if he wants to do it successfully at higher levels).

The problem with choking up is Stubbs is already going to run into a spot where pitchers with better stuff and control come right after him. If he's just trying to take a smaller swing, they'll fear him even less than they would otherwise. What it will lead to is the destruction of his BB ratio.

If you've given up on the notion that he can do a decent amount of damage in the power department, then I'd suggest trading him immediately ... because he's not going to be a player you want in your starting lineup without it. What you're arguing is that if he can't be the guy he needs to be, then let's try to make him into something he isn't. As long as he's in the Reds system, my preference is going to be that the organization pursue the former and scrap the latter.

fearofpopvol1
07-25-2008, 01:43 PM
I wonder if now may be the time to move Stubbs. Obviously, he's off to a great start at AA. His value is probably higher right now than it's been since he's been in the Reds organization.

There's gotta be someone who would want him. I just don't know what he would net.

flyer85
07-25-2008, 03:10 PM
Just as a a point of information, Adam Dunn was a .304 hitter in the minors with a lower K rate than what Stubbs has to date. That should put into perspective how far outside his native skill set you're asking Stubbs to venture.... it isn't that Dunn suddenly forgot how to hit for average. He had holes in his game that minor league pitchers weren't good enough to exploit ... but major league pitchers sure could. (we see the same thing going on with Bruce at the moment). The problem Stubbs has is that his holes are bigger than Dunns yet he is almost completely without the power to make up for it. An extremely bad combination. Jocketty showed an ability to swap his minor league leftovers for major league talent when he was with the Cardinals.

Kingspoint
07-25-2008, 03:14 PM
Just as a a point of information, Adam Dunn was a .304 hitter in the minors with a lower K rate than what Stubbs has to date. That should put into perspective how far outside his native skill set you're asking Stubbs to venture.



One has nothing to do with the other.

Dunn is a guess hitter. It's a lot easier to guess what a minor league pitcher is going to throw and to sit on and wait for the fastball. Dunn's abysmal Batting Average in the Majors shows how much more difficult it is to get a good average in the Majors when your guessing on every pitch. Stubbs won't have the falloff that Dunn's had because Stubbs isn't a guess hitter. So far, it's looking like he'll be a .260-.270 hitter in the Majors with a .350 OBP.

Kingspoint
07-25-2008, 03:18 PM
I wonder if now may be the time to move Stubbs. Obviously, he's off to a great start at AA. His value is probably higher right now than it's been since he's been in the Reds organization.

There's gotta be someone who would want him. I just don't know what he would net.



No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

The REDS' organization is weak in three areas....CF, C, and Starting Pitching.

They won't trade away their best chance at a starter in 2010 for CenterField, when they have no one else to take his place.

They will trade from strength if they're going to trade away a prospect. They're strong at SS, LF, RF, and 2B.

flyer85
07-25-2008, 03:20 PM
One has nothing to do with the other.

Dunn is a guess hitter. It's a lot easier to guess what a minor league pitcher is going to throw and to sit on and wait for the fastball. Dunn's abysmal Batting Average in the Majors shows how much more difficult it is to get a good average in the Majors when your guessing on every pitch. Stubbs won't have the falloff that Dunn's had because Stubbs isn't a guess hitter. So far, it's looking like he'll be a .260-.270 hitter in the Majors with a .350 OBP.BTW, Ted Williams was a guess hitter until two strikes, lots of guys are.

What Dunn drop in BAs shows is that major league pitchers can do three things that most minor league pitchers cannot
1) Command the fastball
2) throw off speed strikes
3) change speeds and location

Dunns BA dropped because major league pitchers are good enough to exploit his holes ... and make no mistake Stubbs has got them as well.

dougdirt
07-25-2008, 03:35 PM
Dunn strikes out a lot because he has a real long swing with holes in it. His swing is so long because he is just a real big dude.

Stubbs swing isn't as long, still has plenty of holes in it though.The biggest difference though is that Stubbs can and does use the entire field to hit. He isn't trying to pull the outside pitch, which could (not saying it will, just could) help him a little more in the majors than it did with Dunn.

fearofpopvol1
07-25-2008, 03:36 PM
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

The REDS' organization is weak in three areas....CF, C, and Starting Pitching.

They won't trade away their best chance at a starter in 2010 for CenterField, when they have no one else to take his place.

They will trade from strength if they're going to trade away a prospect. They're strong at SS, LF, RF, and 2B.

I realize they're weak at those positions, but Stubbs is still a big question mark at this point. Far from a sure thing. If you can trade him and add additional depth, that's not a bad thing. You can always make other trades or go the free agent route to make up for the potential loss in Stubbs.

flyer85
07-25-2008, 03:44 PM
There are two reason that hitters end up with higher K totals ... 1) swing at a lot of bad pitches 2)holes in their zone.

Can you generally tell the difference between the two by looking at their stats? The answer is yes. The guys that swing at a lot of bad pitchers generally have low BB and high K totals. The guys with holes have med to high BB and high K totals.

Dunn has holes, Bruce swings at a lot of bad pitches, Stubbs had holes. You can be an effective major league hitter with a high K total, it's not a bad thing. But to do so you have to have power and that is what Stubbs is lacking to this point.

I am not focused on his BA, I want to see the power(where not talking 40 HRs, just a .450+ SLG%) because that will allow him to be successful in the majors.

I have no problem with a 260/350/450 line for a CF and I'm always willing to trade some SLG for OBP.

M2
07-25-2008, 03:57 PM
... it isn't that Dunn suddenly forgot how to hit for average. He had holes in his game that minor league pitchers weren't good enough to exploit ... but major league pitchers sure could. (we see the same thing going on with Bruce at the moment). The problem Stubbs has is that his holes are bigger than Dunns yet he is almost completely without the power to make up for it. An extremely bad combination.

Exactly.


One has nothing to do with the other.

Sure it does and flyer just underlined it for you.

No way is Stubbs, whose swing suffers from constant turbulence, going to maintain that mediocre BA all the way up to the majors. Better pitchers are going to expose his holes and, if he can't respond with some power, then his BA and BB rate will take a big hit. We've always known what his model for success is -- Mike Cameron -- the problem is that without some power he can't achieve that. Without it he'll be combining lots of Ks with lots of soft outs.

757690
07-25-2008, 03:57 PM
I think it needs to be higher in general and especially so when most base stealers are near the top of the order in front of high slugging guys who don't really need the runner to steal to get him into scoring position. Why risk outs when the extra base hit guys are coming up? Many Reds fans have had their perceptions skewed by the 70s. During that decade when 35 HR was likely to lead the league and we were constantly told that a speedy runner on 1B caused pitchers to throw more fastballs and get hitters better pitches. We were even told that the Reds sluggers in 1971 had bad years because Bobby Tolan was hurt and the hitters were getting fewer fastballs (didn't seem to impact Lee May BTW). Its a load of bunk that isn't that true now even if it was somewhat back then. The running game is over-rated and a very minor part of offense in the current era.

Another thing is, the CS% do not factor in times picked-off. Conventional wisdom is that a pick-off is not a negative against the runner but an exceptional play by the defense and does not count against the runner in his success rate. I disagree with the notion. When you look at the data and consistently see guys like Freel getting picked-off in double digits during part time play, a success rate of 75% isn't high enough because it doesn't capture those other outs that his running game creates. IMO, the formula should SB/SB+CS+PO and the success rate in that formula needs to be about 80%. Otherwise stop screwing things up by trying to run. The Reds of the last decade have made more outs on the bases than I care to imagine.


It only does not count those when the player is picked off as he is going back to his original base, which is logical. If a player is picked off, and makes any move to the next base, or makes no move back to the original base, it is called a caught stealing, which again is logical.

The vast majority of base running errors that you refer to by players like Freel are of the latter kind. The player makes a move to the next base, stops, or just is tricked by the pitcher or fielder, and those are counted as CS. And if a player is simply picked off by a normal pitcher's or sometimes catcher's move, that clearly falls into "an exceptional play by the defense", and should not be a caught stealing. Those are very rare and would have very little effect on the overall numbers. The vast majority of pick-offs involve the runner making a move to the next base and getting caught, and are counted as caught stealing.

Where is the data that shows that Freel gets picked off in double digits during a season? I have watched him play and I don't remember it being that high at all. I do know that he has made that many base running errors, but if scored correctly, they should mostly be caught stealings. I could be wrong. I would love to see the data on that.

medford
07-25-2008, 05:47 PM
while we're speaking of getting picked off/stealing bases, how do you factor in a guys ability to take 3rd on a single, when others might be stuck at 2nd? Or a guys ability to take 2nd/3rd on a wild pitch, when others would freeze on base? Obviously there is no way to measure this ability statistically, but it does exist to some extent which only a scout/personal observation could make. That's gotta be worth something, what I'm not sure, probably less than the value of a stolen base, but something.

mth123
07-25-2008, 07:38 PM
It only does not count those when the player is picked off as he is going back to his original base, which is logical. If a player is picked off, and makes any move to the next base, or makes no move back to the original base, it is called a caught stealing, which again is logical.

The vast majority of base running errors that you refer to by players like Freel are of the latter kind. The player makes a move to the next base, stops, or just is tricked by the pitcher or fielder, and those are counted as CS. And if a player is simply picked off by a normal pitcher's or sometimes catcher's move, that clearly falls into "an exceptional play by the defense", and should not be a caught stealing. Those are very rare and would have very little effect on the overall numbers. The vast majority of pick-offs involve the runner making a move to the next base and getting caught, and are counted as caught stealing.

Where is the data that shows that Freel gets picked off in double digits during a season? I have watched him play and I don't remember it being that high at all. I do know that he has made that many base running errors, but if scored correctly, they should mostly be caught stealings. I could be wrong. I would love to see the data on that.


Here is the data for 2007. Freel was picked-off only 5 times, while missing much of last year with injuries, that were not counted in his CS. It is sorted by the % of times an out was made in base-stealing situations. This is all players with 10 or more steals in 2007. You see where Freel ranks. Freel was picked off 11 times in 2006 BTW.




YEAR NAME SB CS PICKOFF OUTS Attmpts OUTS%
2007 Shawn Green 11 1 0 1 12 8.33%
2007 Michael Bourn 18 1 1 2 20 10.00%
2007 C Granderson 26 1 2 3 29 10.34%
2007 Rickie Weeks 25 2 1 3 28 10.71%
2007 Ian Kinsler 23 2 1 3 26 11.54%
2007 Nate McLouth 22 1 2 3 25 12.00%
2007 Johnny Damon 27 3 1 4 31 12.90%
2007 Emil Brown 12 2 0 2 14 14.29%
2007 Carlos Beltran 23 2 2 4 27 14.81%
2007 Edgar Renteria 11 2 0 2 13 15.38%
2007 Kazuo Matsui 32 4 2 6 38 15.79%
2007 David Eckstein 10 1 1 2 12 16.67%
2007 Randy Winn 15 3 0 3 18 16.67%
2007 Alex Rodriguez 24 4 1 5 29 17.24%
2007 Tadahito Iguchi 14 2 1 3 17 17.65%
2007 Shane Victorino 37 5 3 8 45 17.78%
2007 Jason Bartlett 23 3 2 5 28 17.86%
2007 Dave Roberts 31 5 2 7 38 18.42%
2007 Eric Byrnes 50 7 5 12 62 19.35%
2007 Ichiro Suzuki 37 8 1 9 46 19.57%
2007 Carlos Gomez 12 3 0 3 15 20.00%
2007 Carl Crawford 50 10 3 13 63 20.63%
2007 Jimmy Rollins 41 6 5 11 52 21.15%
2007 Corey Patterson 37 9 1 10 47 21.28%
2007 Shannon Stewart 11 3 0 3 14 21.43%
2007 Alexi Casilla 11 1 2 3 14 21.43%
2007 Rafael Furcal 25 6 1 7 32 21.88%
2007 Ryan Theriot 28 4 4 8 36 22.22%
2007 Adrian Beltre 14 2 2 4 18 22.22%
2007 Miguel Cairo 10 2 1 3 13 23.08%
2007 Brian Roberts 50 7 8 15 65 23.08%
2007 B Phillips 32 8 2 10 42 23.81%
2007 Luis Castillo 19 6 0 6 25 24.00%
2007 Chone Figgins 41 12 1 13 54 24.07%
2007 Coco Crisp 28 6 3 9 37 24.32%
2007 David Wright 34 5 6 11 45 24.44%
2007 Juan Pierre 64 15 6 21 85 24.71%
2007 Jonny Gomes 12 4 0 4 16 25.00%
2007 Kenny Lofton 23 7 1 8 31 25.81%
2007 Corey Hart 23 7 1 8 31 25.81%
2007 Nook Logan 23 5 3 8 31 25.81%
2007 Alex Rios 17 4 2 6 23 26.09%
2007 Hanley Ramirez 51 14 4 18 69 26.09%
2007 Julio Lugo 33 6 6 12 45 26.67%
2007 Michael Young 13 3 2 5 18 27.78%
2007 Mike Cameron 18 5 2 7 25 28.00%
2007 Nick Markakis 18 6 1 7 25 28.00%
2007 G Matthews Jr. 18 4 3 7 25 28.00%
2007 Willy Taveras 33 9 4 13 46 28.26%
2007 Orlando Cabrera 20 4 4 8 28 28.57%
2007 Marcus Giles 10 3 1 4 14 28.57%
2007 David DeJesus 10 4 0 4 14 28.57%
2007 Orlando Hudson 10 2 2 4 14 28.57%
2007 Ray Durham 10 2 2 4 14 28.57%
2007 Delmon Young 10 3 1 4 14 28.57%
2007 Jerry Owens 32 8 5 13 45 28.89%
2007 Gary Sheffield 22 5 4 9 31 29.03%
2007 Jose Reyes 78 21 12 33 111 29.73%
2007 Bobby Abreu 25 8 3 11 36 30.56%
2007 Reggie Willits 27 8 4 12 39 30.77%
2007 Chris Young 27 6 6 12 39 30.77%
2007 Rajai Davis 22 6 4 10 32 31.25%
2007 Matt Holliday 11 4 1 5 16 31.25%
2007 Grady Sizemore 33 10 5 15 48 31.25%
2007 Melky Cabrera 13 5 1 6 19 31.58%
2007 Ryan Braun 15 5 2 7 22 31.82%
2007 Vernon Wells 10 4 1 5 15 33.33%
2007 Josh Barfield 14 5 2 7 21 33.33%
2007 Russell Martin 21 9 2 11 32 34.38%
2007 Alfonso Soriano 19 6 4 10 29 34.48%
2007 Chris Duffy 13 4 3 7 20 35.00%
2007 Norris Hopper 14 6 2 8 22 36.36%
2007 Omar Vizquel 14 6 2 8 22 36.36%
2007 Alex Gordon 14 4 4 8 22 36.36%
2007 Scott Podsednik 12 5 2 7 19 36.84%
2007 Derek Jeter 15 8 1 9 24 37.50%
2007 Carlos Lee 10 5 1 6 16 37.50%
2007 Bobby Crosby 10 2 4 6 16 37.50%
2007 Torii Hunter 18 9 2 11 29 37.93%
2007 Alfredo Amezaga 13 7 1 8 21 38.10%
2007 Felipe Lopez 24 9 6 15 39 38.46%
2007 B.J. Upton 22 8 6 14 36 38.89%
2007 Willie Harris 17 11 0 11 28 39.29%
2007 Mark Teahen 13 5 4 9 22 40.91%
2007 Carlos Guillen 13 8 1 9 22 40.91%
2007 Matt Kemp 10 5 2 7 17 41.18%
2007 Hunter Pence 11 5 3 8 19 42.11%
2007 Nick Punto 16 6 6 12 28 42.86%
2007 Akinori Iwamura 12 8 1 9 21 42.86%
2007 Ryan Freel 15 8 5 13 28 46.43%
2007 Esteban German 11 7 4 11 22 50.00%

757690
07-25-2008, 08:05 PM
Here is the data for 2007. Freel was picked-off only 5 times, while missing much of last year with injuries, that were not counted in his CS. It is sorted by the % of times an out was made in base-stealing situations. This is all players with 10 or more steals in 2007. You see where Freel ranks. Freel was picked off 11 times in 2006 BTW.




YEAR NAME SB CS PICKOFF OUTS Attmpts OUTS%
2007 Shawn Green 11 1 0 1 12 8.33%
2007 Michael Bourn 18 1 1 2 20 10.00%
2007 C Granderson 26 1 2 3 29 10.34%
2007 Rickie Weeks 25 2 1 3 28 10.71%
2007 Ian Kinsler 23 2 1 3 26 11.54%
2007 Nate McLouth 22 1 2 3 25 12.00%
2007 Johnny Damon 27 3 1 4 31 12.90%
2007 Emil Brown 12 2 0 2 14 14.29%
2007 Carlos Beltran 23 2 2 4 27 14.81%
2007 Edgar Renteria 11 2 0 2 13 15.38%
2007 Kazuo Matsui 32 4 2 6 38 15.79%
2007 David Eckstein 10 1 1 2 12 16.67%
2007 Randy Winn 15 3 0 3 18 16.67%
2007 Alex Rodriguez 24 4 1 5 29 17.24%
2007 Tadahito Iguchi 14 2 1 3 17 17.65%
2007 Shane Victorino 37 5 3 8 45 17.78%
2007 Jason Bartlett 23 3 2 5 28 17.86%
2007 Dave Roberts 31 5 2 7 38 18.42%
2007 Eric Byrnes 50 7 5 12 62 19.35%
2007 Ichiro Suzuki 37 8 1 9 46 19.57%
2007 Carlos Gomez 12 3 0 3 15 20.00%
2007 Carl Crawford 50 10 3 13 63 20.63%
2007 Jimmy Rollins 41 6 5 11 52 21.15%
2007 Corey Patterson 37 9 1 10 47 21.28%
2007 Shannon Stewart 11 3 0 3 14 21.43%
2007 Alexi Casilla 11 1 2 3 14 21.43%
2007 Rafael Furcal 25 6 1 7 32 21.88%
2007 Ryan Theriot 28 4 4 8 36 22.22%
2007 Adrian Beltre 14 2 2 4 18 22.22%
2007 Miguel Cairo 10 2 1 3 13 23.08%
2007 Brian Roberts 50 7 8 15 65 23.08%
2007 B Phillips 32 8 2 10 42 23.81%
2007 Luis Castillo 19 6 0 6 25 24.00%
2007 Chone Figgins 41 12 1 13 54 24.07%
2007 Coco Crisp 28 6 3 9 37 24.32%
2007 David Wright 34 5 6 11 45 24.44%
2007 Juan Pierre 64 15 6 21 85 24.71%
2007 Jonny Gomes 12 4 0 4 16 25.00%
2007 Kenny Lofton 23 7 1 8 31 25.81%
2007 Corey Hart 23 7 1 8 31 25.81%
2007 Nook Logan 23 5 3 8 31 25.81%
2007 Alex Rios 17 4 2 6 23 26.09%
2007 Hanley Ramirez 51 14 4 18 69 26.09%
2007 Julio Lugo 33 6 6 12 45 26.67%
2007 Michael Young 13 3 2 5 18 27.78%
2007 Mike Cameron 18 5 2 7 25 28.00%
2007 Nick Markakis 18 6 1 7 25 28.00%
2007 G Matthews Jr. 18 4 3 7 25 28.00%
2007 Willy Taveras 33 9 4 13 46 28.26%
2007 Orlando Cabrera 20 4 4 8 28 28.57%
2007 Marcus Giles 10 3 1 4 14 28.57%
2007 David DeJesus 10 4 0 4 14 28.57%
2007 Orlando Hudson 10 2 2 4 14 28.57%
2007 Ray Durham 10 2 2 4 14 28.57%
2007 Delmon Young 10 3 1 4 14 28.57%
2007 Jerry Owens 32 8 5 13 45 28.89%
2007 Gary Sheffield 22 5 4 9 31 29.03%
2007 Jose Reyes 78 21 12 33 111 29.73%
2007 Bobby Abreu 25 8 3 11 36 30.56%
2007 Reggie Willits 27 8 4 12 39 30.77%
2007 Chris Young 27 6 6 12 39 30.77%
2007 Rajai Davis 22 6 4 10 32 31.25%
2007 Matt Holliday 11 4 1 5 16 31.25%
2007 Grady Sizemore 33 10 5 15 48 31.25%
2007 Melky Cabrera 13 5 1 6 19 31.58%
2007 Ryan Braun 15 5 2 7 22 31.82%
2007 Vernon Wells 10 4 1 5 15 33.33%
2007 Josh Barfield 14 5 2 7 21 33.33%
2007 Russell Martin 21 9 2 11 32 34.38%
2007 Alfonso Soriano 19 6 4 10 29 34.48%
2007 Chris Duffy 13 4 3 7 20 35.00%
2007 Norris Hopper 14 6 2 8 22 36.36%
2007 Omar Vizquel 14 6 2 8 22 36.36%
2007 Alex Gordon 14 4 4 8 22 36.36%
2007 Scott Podsednik 12 5 2 7 19 36.84%
2007 Derek Jeter 15 8 1 9 24 37.50%
2007 Carlos Lee 10 5 1 6 16 37.50%
2007 Bobby Crosby 10 2 4 6 16 37.50%
2007 Torii Hunter 18 9 2 11 29 37.93%
2007 Alfredo Amezaga 13 7 1 8 21 38.10%
2007 Felipe Lopez 24 9 6 15 39 38.46%
2007 B.J. Upton 22 8 6 14 36 38.89%
2007 Willie Harris 17 11 0 11 28 39.29%
2007 Mark Teahen 13 5 4 9 22 40.91%
2007 Carlos Guillen 13 8 1 9 22 40.91%
2007 Matt Kemp 10 5 2 7 17 41.18%
2007 Hunter Pence 11 5 3 8 19 42.11%
2007 Nick Punto 16 6 6 12 28 42.86%
2007 Akinori Iwamura 12 8 1 9 21 42.86%
2007 Ryan Freel 15 8 5 13 28 46.43%
2007 Esteban German 11 7 4 11 22 50.00%



Thanks! Good stuff.

I think the one thing everyone, probably even Freel, can agree on, is that he is a terrible base runner. This provides the proof.

I agree that adding pick offs with caught stealing is a better judge of each players production. This is a great chart to see who really is a productive base runner.

Kingspoint
07-25-2008, 09:48 PM
Here is the data for 2007. Freel was picked-off only 5 times, while missing much of last year with injuries, that were not counted in his CS. It is sorted by the % of times an out was made in base-stealing situations. This is all players with 10 or more steals in 2007. You see where Freel ranks. Freel was picked off 11 times in 2006 BTW.




YEAR NAME SB CS PICKOFF OUTS Attmpts OUTS%
2007 Shawn Green 11 1 0 1 12 8.33%
2007 Michael Bourn 18 1 1 2 20 10.00%
2007 C Granderson 26 1 2 3 29 10.34%
2007 Rickie Weeks 25 2 1 3 28 10.71%
2007 Ian Kinsler 23 2 1 3 26 11.54%
2007 Nate McLouth 22 1 2 3 25 12.00%
2007 Johnny Damon 27 3 1 4 31 12.90%
2007 Emil Brown 12 2 0 2 14 14.29%
2007 Carlos Beltran 23 2 2 4 27 14.81%
2007 Edgar Renteria 11 2 0 2 13 15.38%
2007 Kazuo Matsui 32 4 2 6 38 15.79%
2007 David Eckstein 10 1 1 2 12 16.67%
2007 Randy Winn 15 3 0 3 18 16.67%
2007 Alex Rodriguez 24 4 1 5 29 17.24%
2007 Tadahito Iguchi 14 2 1 3 17 17.65%
2007 Shane Victorino 37 5 3 8 45 17.78%
2007 Jason Bartlett 23 3 2 5 28 17.86%
2007 Dave Roberts 31 5 2 7 38 18.42%
2007 Eric Byrnes 50 7 5 12 62 19.35%
2007 Ichiro Suzuki 37 8 1 9 46 19.57%
2007 Carlos Gomez 12 3 0 3 15 20.00%
2007 Carl Crawford 50 10 3 13 63 20.63%
2007 Jimmy Rollins 41 6 5 11 52 21.15%
2007 Corey Patterson 37 9 1 10 47 21.28%
2007 Shannon Stewart 11 3 0 3 14 21.43%
2007 Alexi Casilla 11 1 2 3 14 21.43%
2007 Rafael Furcal 25 6 1 7 32 21.88%
2007 Ryan Theriot 28 4 4 8 36 22.22%
2007 Adrian Beltre 14 2 2 4 18 22.22%
2007 Miguel Cairo 10 2 1 3 13 23.08%
2007 Brian Roberts 50 7 8 15 65 23.08%
2007 B Phillips 32 8 2 10 42 23.81%
2007 Luis Castillo 19 6 0 6 25 24.00%
2007 Chone Figgins 41 12 1 13 54 24.07%
2007 Coco Crisp 28 6 3 9 37 24.32%
2007 David Wright 34 5 6 11 45 24.44%
2007 Juan Pierre 64 15 6 21 85 24.71%
2007 Jonny Gomes 12 4 0 4 16 25.00%
2007 Kenny Lofton 23 7 1 8 31 25.81%
2007 Corey Hart 23 7 1 8 31 25.81%
2007 Nook Logan 23 5 3 8 31 25.81%
2007 Alex Rios 17 4 2 6 23 26.09%
2007 Hanley Ramirez 51 14 4 18 69 26.09%
2007 Julio Lugo 33 6 6 12 45 26.67%
2007 Michael Young 13 3 2 5 18 27.78%
2007 Mike Cameron 18 5 2 7 25 28.00%
2007 Nick Markakis 18 6 1 7 25 28.00%
2007 G Matthews Jr. 18 4 3 7 25 28.00%
2007 Willy Taveras 33 9 4 13 46 28.26%
2007 Orlando Cabrera 20 4 4 8 28 28.57%
2007 Marcus Giles 10 3 1 4 14 28.57%
2007 David DeJesus 10 4 0 4 14 28.57%
2007 Orlando Hudson 10 2 2 4 14 28.57%
2007 Ray Durham 10 2 2 4 14 28.57%
2007 Delmon Young 10 3 1 4 14 28.57%
2007 Jerry Owens 32 8 5 13 45 28.89%
2007 Gary Sheffield 22 5 4 9 31 29.03%
2007 Jose Reyes 78 21 12 33 111 29.73%
2007 Bobby Abreu 25 8 3 11 36 30.56%
2007 Reggie Willits 27 8 4 12 39 30.77%
2007 Chris Young 27 6 6 12 39 30.77%
2007 Rajai Davis 22 6 4 10 32 31.25%
2007 Matt Holliday 11 4 1 5 16 31.25%
2007 Grady Sizemore 33 10 5 15 48 31.25%
2007 Melky Cabrera 13 5 1 6 19 31.58%
2007 Ryan Braun 15 5 2 7 22 31.82%
2007 Vernon Wells 10 4 1 5 15 33.33%
2007 Josh Barfield 14 5 2 7 21 33.33%
2007 Russell Martin 21 9 2 11 32 34.38%
2007 Alfonso Soriano 19 6 4 10 29 34.48%
2007 Chris Duffy 13 4 3 7 20 35.00%
2007 Norris Hopper 14 6 2 8 22 36.36%
2007 Omar Vizquel 14 6 2 8 22 36.36%
2007 Alex Gordon 14 4 4 8 22 36.36%
2007 Scott Podsednik 12 5 2 7 19 36.84%
2007 Derek Jeter 15 8 1 9 24 37.50%
2007 Carlos Lee 10 5 1 6 16 37.50%
2007 Bobby Crosby 10 2 4 6 16 37.50%
2007 Torii Hunter 18 9 2 11 29 37.93%
2007 Alfredo Amezaga 13 7 1 8 21 38.10%
2007 Felipe Lopez 24 9 6 15 39 38.46%
2007 B.J. Upton 22 8 6 14 36 38.89%
2007 Willie Harris 17 11 0 11 28 39.29%
2007 Mark Teahen 13 5 4 9 22 40.91%
2007 Carlos Guillen 13 8 1 9 22 40.91%
2007 Matt Kemp 10 5 2 7 17 41.18%
2007 Hunter Pence 11 5 3 8 19 42.11%
2007 Nick Punto 16 6 6 12 28 42.86%
2007 Akinori Iwamura 12 8 1 9 21 42.86%
2007 Ryan Freel 15 8 5 13 28 46.43%
2007 Esteban German 11 7 4 11 22 50.00%




Since you were able to pull that, you're also able to pull up Freel's previous three years when he wasn't suffering from multiple concussions.

I'm willing to bet you that each of those years (2006, 2005, & 2004) were not only better %-wise, but would place Freel in the Top-15 in all of Major League Baseball of those players who had at least 40 attempts, which is the amount of attempts we're talking about with Stubbs and Freel.

I'd like to see those rankings. Top-15 in MLB is excellent, especially when you do it every year when you're not suffering from concussions.

Kingspoint
07-25-2008, 09:51 PM
Thanks! Good stuff.

I think the one thing everyone, probably even Freel, can agree on, is that he is a terrible base runner. This provides the proof.

I agree that adding pick offs with caught stealing is a better judge of each players production. This is a great chart to see who really is a productive base runner.


Not. It only shows what he did the one year when he was suffering from concussions. Let's see the data from 2004, 2005, and 2006 compared to players with at least 40 attempts.

757690
07-25-2008, 10:15 PM
Not. It only shows what he did the one year when he was suffering from concussions. Let's see the data from 2004, 2005, and 2006 compared to players with at least 40 attempts.

Maybe he was a great base runner before the concussions. I have no idea how he did. But I do know that from looking at that list, and from looking at him play this year, that I feel safe concluding that since the concussion, Freel is a bad baserunner. Maybe next year, the effects of it will be over.

Kingspoint
07-25-2008, 10:46 PM
....and since the subject is about Stubbs anyway, he doesn't fall into the category of being picked off like Freel in 2007.

mth123
07-26-2008, 07:59 AM
Since you were able to pull that, you're also able to pull up Freel's previous three years when he wasn't suffering from multiple concussions.

I'm willing to bet you that each of those years (2006, 2005, & 2004) were not only better %-wise, but would place Freel in the Top-15 in all of Major League Baseball of those players who had at least 40 attempts, which is the amount of attempts we're talking about with Stubbs and Freel.

I'd like to see those rankings. Top-15 in MLB is excellent, especially when you do it every year when you're not suffering from concussions.

I won't do that much work for you, but in 2006 Freel stole 37 Bases, was Caught Stealing 11 times and picked-off 10 times. 37 Steals, 21 Outs. That made him out 36.2% of the time in those situations. He's not a good base-runner. Flashy is exciting some times and when he's successful it can be fun. But Freel stealing is a bad percentage play when trying to win games unless its a specific situation where the hitters coming up behind him are unlikely to get him around any other way. I'd probably let him run if he were batting in front of Paul Bako or if a dominant ace who was on that night was pitching for the opposition, but generally, I wouldn't let him risk it in front of Dunn, Phillips, EdE, Votto, Bruce or even the declining version of Griffey.

You're right about this being a thread about Stubbs, so let me get back on track. My point in all this is unless Stubbs is in the Henderson, Raines, Ichiro class as a basestealer, it doesn't make him valuable unless he can hit. Even those guys who were absolutely great on the bases (in an era where it mattered more) only enhanced there value by running and derived the core of their value by the ability to get on base and be a threat up there at the plate.

757690
07-26-2008, 04:18 PM
I won't do that much work for you, but in 2006 Freel stole 37 Bases, was Caught Stealing 11 times and picked-off 10 times. 37 Steals, 21 Outs. That made him out 36.2% of the time in those situations. He's not a good base-runner. Flashy is exciting some times and when he's successful it can be fun. But Freel stealing is a bad percentage play when trying to win games unless its a specific situation where the hitters coming up behind him are unlikely to get him around any other way. I'd probably let him run if he were batting in front of Paul Bako or if a dominant ace who was on that night was pitching for the opposition, but generally, I wouldn't let him risk it in front of Dunn, Phillips, EdE, Votto, Bruce or even the declining version of Griffey.

You're right about this being a thread about Stubbs, so let me get back on track. My point in all this is unless Stubbs is in the Henderson, Raines, Ichiro class as a basestealer, it doesn't make him valuable unless he can hit. Even those guys who were absolutely great on the bases (in an era where it mattered more) only enhanced there value by running and derived the core of their value by the ability to get on base and be a threat up there at the plate.

That is true of every hitter. In terms of run production, a stolen base, if the player maintains an 75-80% success rate, is worth about the same an additional .0005 of OBP, depending on many different factors, like the hitters who hit after him. That ain't much.

Stubbs looks to be around a 30-35 SB a season guy, and this year his success rate almost 80%. That means he adds around .0015 of OBP. So he would need an OBP of .365 to have the same production of a player who OBP is .380, and who has zero steals.

mth123
07-26-2008, 04:54 PM
That is true of every hitter. In terms of run production, a stolen base, if the player maintains an 75-80% success rate, is worth about the same an additional .0005 of OBP, depending on many different factors, like the hitters who hit after him. That ain't much.

Stubbs looks to be around a 30-35 SB a season guy, and this year his success rate almost 80%. That means he adds around .0015 of OBP. So he would need an OBP of .365 to have the same production of a player who OBP is .380, and who has zero steals.

Interesting. After 2006 I looked at this with Freel and subtracted his times making outs on the bases (the 21 mentioned earlier) from his times on base. If you took way 21 times on base it lowered his OBP by somewhere between 30 and 40 points IIRC. Using 80% success rate, that would mean your formula would hold true at 37 Steal if Freel made outs 9 times or less. Any outs above that would start him losing value.

I'd like to see where the .0005 comes from. I'm still guessing times picked-off aren't factored in. If you have a link to an article that would be great.

As for Stubbs, don't get me wrong, its better to be able to steal bases than not, but if a player is a dunderhead about it, it hurts the offense. That is TBD with Stubbs, but the steals alone won't make him a worthy offensive player if he can't hit. And the steals and the great defense make him Dewayne Wise. He needs to get on base and as has been stated by many, walks alone won't do it if he can't hit for either a high average or good power or some combination of the two that makes him a threat. We haven't really seen either of those things yet, so I'm skeptical (but hopeful) about him carrying that OBP to higher levels. He is showing some good signs though, and I'm more optimistic now than I was a year ago.

757690
07-26-2008, 06:37 PM
Interesting. After 2006 I looked at this with Freel and subtracted his times making outs on the bases (the 21 mentioned earlier) from his times on base. If you took way 21 times on base it lowered his OBP by somewhere between 30 and 40 points IIRC. Using 80% success rate, that would mean your formula would hold true at 37 Steal if Freel made outs 9 times or less. Any outs above that would start him losing value.

I'd like to see where the .0005 comes from. I'm still guessing times picked-off aren't factored in. If you have a link to an article that would be great.

As for Stubbs, don't get me wrong, its better to be able to steal bases than not, but if a player is a dunderhead about it, it hurts the offense. That is TBD with Stubbs, but the steals alone won't make him a worthy offensive player if he can't hit. And the steals and the great defense make him Dewayne Wise. He needs to get on base and as has been stated by many, walks alone won't do it if he can't hit for either a high average or good power or some combination of the two that makes him a threat. We haven't really seen either of those things yet, so I'm skeptical (but hopeful) about him carrying that OBP to higher levels. He is showing some good signs though, and I'm more optimistic now than I was a year ago.

First, just to be clear, I was agreeing with you about Stubbs, just trying to provide some statistical backup.

Second, there is no link, as it is just something that I fooled around with when I was bored. I am no stat guru, so I am sure the stat gurus on this site will tell me what I did wrong, but this is what I did to get that number.

I basically took Tangotiger's chart on the run expectancy of all situations, and looked at the difference between all the situations with a runner on first and no one on second, and a runner on second and no one at first. That would show the run expectancy difference that stealing second gives you. I didn't include stealing third, as I was too lazy for that. I then did the same with the difference between a runner on first and no one on second, and no one on first. That covers the difference that getting caught stealing gives you.

If you then figure out how many more runs a stolen base gets you minus the runs you lose with a caught stealing, it works out that if you steal 10 bases and get caught twice, you are adding one run to the offense (actually a little less). According to Runs Created, it takes between .004 and .005 additional OBP to score one more run. So giving the runner the benefit (since I didn't figure in stealing third), I rounded up and got 10 stolen bases equals .005 OBP in terms of run production. Or 1 stolen base equals .0005 of OBP. It probably is closer to .0004, but I wanted to be generous so the speed fans can't yell at me for being biased. Anyway, the conclusion I drew from this is that it takes a lot of stolen bases to make up for just a little of OBP, which is exactly what you said. You really have to be in the premium group for your stolen bases to make up for poor OBP.

I probably did something wrong, but that matches my expectation, so I guess it wasn't that wrong. If anyone can clean that up for me, or thinks I did something wrong, let me know. i would love to have someone who knows what they are doing go over it.

mth123
07-26-2008, 07:17 PM
First, just to be clear, I was agreeing with you about Stubbs, just trying to provide some statistical backup.

Second, there is no link, as it is just something that I fooled around with when I was bored. I am no stat guru, so I am sure the stat gurus on this site will tell me what I did wrong, but this is what I did to get that number.

I basically took Tangotiger's chart on the run expectancy of all situations, and looked at the difference between all the situations with a runner on first and no one on second, and a runner on second and no one at first. That would show the run expectancy difference that stealing second gives you. I didn't include stealing third, as I was too lazy for that. I then did the same with the difference between a runner on first and no one on second, and no one on first. That covers the difference that getting caught stealing gives you.

If you then figure out how many more runs a stolen base gets you minus the runs you lose with a caught stealing, it works out that if you steal 10 bases and get caught twice, you are adding one run to the offense (actually a little less). According to Runs Created, it takes between .004 and .005 additional OBP to score one more run. So giving the runner the benefit (since I didn't figure in stealing third), I rounded up and got 10 stolen bases equals .005 OBP in terms of run production. Or 1 stolen base equals .0005 of OBP. It probably is closer to .0004, but I wanted to be generous so the speed fans can't yell at me for being biased. Anyway, the conclusion I drew from this is that it takes a lot of stolen bases to make up for just a little of OBP, which is exactly what you said. You really have to be in the premium group for your stolen bases to make up for poor OBP.

I probably did something wrong, but that matches my expectation, so I guess it wasn't that wrong. If anyone can clean that up for me, or thinks I did something wrong, let me know. i would love to have someone who knows what they are doing go over it.


Good stuff. Not sure if there is a flaw.

SteelSD was working with a revised OPS that factors in SB and outs on the bases. We discussed it a year or so ago when I was first postingabout FReel, his caught stealings and his pick-offs and I like his ideas. Can't find a link, maybe he'll chime in.

JayBruce4HOF
07-26-2008, 10:25 PM
If Stubbs truly is a plus-plus defender in CF, what is the bare minimum of offensive production he'd need to generate to justify being our starting CFer? (whether or not our manager will be smart enough to realize that he's not a leadoff hitter is another issue entirely, unfortunately)

mth123
07-26-2008, 10:49 PM
If Stubbs truly is a plus-plus defender in CF, what is the bare minimum of offensive production he'd need to generate to justify being our starting CFer? (whether or not our manager will be smart enough to realize that he's not a leadoff hitter is another issue entirely, unfortunately)

I'd say .750 OPS. The jury is out on whether he could do that.

PuffyPig
07-26-2008, 10:50 PM
If Stubbs truly is a plus-plus defender in CF, what is the bare minimum of offensive production he'd need to generate to justify being our starting CFer? (whether or not our manager will be smart enough to realize that he's not a leadoff hitter is another issue entirely, unfortunately)

It depends. If he's got a .380 OBA and a .370 SL %, he can play CF and bat leadoff.

Right now, he projects better as a leadoff hitter than anywhere else, because he has a walk induced OBA.

Kingspoint
07-27-2008, 06:55 AM
I won't do that much work for you, but in 2006 Freel stole 37 Bases, was Caught Stealing 11 times and picked-off 10 times. 37 Steals, 21 Outs. That made him out 36.2% of the time in those situations. He's not a good base-runner. Flashy is exciting some times and when he's successful it can be fun. But Freel stealing is a bad percentage play when trying to win games unless its a specific situation where the hitters coming up behind him are unlikely to get him around any other way. I'd probably let him run if he were batting in front of Paul Bako or if a dominant ace who was on that night was pitching for the opposition, but generally, I wouldn't let him risk it in front of Dunn, Phillips, EdE, Votto, Bruce or even the declining version of Griffey.

You're right about this being a thread about Stubbs, so let me get back on track. My point in all this is unless Stubbs is in the Henderson, Raines, Ichiro class as a basestealer, it doesn't make him valuable unless he can hit. Even those guys who were absolutely great on the bases (in an era where it mattered more) only enhanced there value by running and derived the core of their value by the ability to get on base and be a threat up there at the plate.

I've always thought that the 6th position of the batting order should be a player that has some SB ability because if he can get himself to 2nd, then it gives the weaker hitters, the #7 & #8 batter a chance to get him in before the automatic out of the pitcher comes up. With a batter in scoring position and the pitcher up next, it's not likely a #8 hitter gets a pitch anyway where he can drive it into a gap for a double. It's more likely he sees pitches that he'll have to take a single in order to get a hit. You've got your OB% guys up there 1-2, your power guys 3-4-5, and then a speed guy 6, and you put whatever's left 7-8 with the better hitter of the two #7.

Kingspoint
07-27-2008, 07:01 AM
Anyway, for now, Stubbs has to prove he can handle AA pitching before there's even thoughts of him moving up to AAA pitching. And by handling the pitching, meaning showing results over a year's time....the rest of this season and at least the first two months of next season, no matter what he does the rest of this season.

What Dickerson has been doing the last 2 months is show that he has taken the next step (if he can keep it up somewhat for the rest of this year) that he has earned the CenterField job in Cincinnati for next season. The remaining September at-bats in Centerfield should go to Dickerson as soon as Louisville's AAA season is completely over.

mth123
07-27-2008, 08:10 AM
I've always thought that the 6th position of the batting order should be a player that has some SB ability because if he can get himself to 2nd, then it gives the weaker hitters, the #7 & #8 batter a chance to get him in before the automatic out of the pitcher comes up. With a batter in scoring position and the pitcher up next, it's not likely a #8 hitter gets a pitch anyway where he can drive it into a gap for a double. It's more likely he sees pitches that he'll have to take a single in order to get a hit. You've got your OB% guys up there 1-2, your power guys 3-4-5, and then a speed guy 6, and you put whatever's left 7-8 with the better hitter of the two #7.

Agree. Its why, in Cincy, Phillips should hit 6th with EE and Dunn (and maybe Votto) ahead of him. Stubbs looks like one of those "whatever's left" at this point - assuming he can make it at all.

mth123
07-27-2008, 08:14 AM
Anyway, for now, Stubbs has to prove he can handle AA pitching before there's even thoughts of him moving up to AAA pitching. And by handling the pitching, meaning showing results over a year's time....the rest of this season and at least the first two months of next season, no matter what he does the rest of this season.

What Dickerson has been doing the last 2 months is show that he has taken the next step (if he can keep it up somewhat for the rest of this year) that he has earned the CenterField job in Cincinnati for next season. The remaining September at-bats in Centerfield should go to Dickerson as soon as Louisville's AAA season is completely over.

He has earned no such thing. He's earned a chance to make the team and compete for playing time. He's probably earned an audition this year with no more wasted ABs or PT for Corey Patterson, but that is a far cry from "earned the CF job in Cincinnati for next season."

guttle11
07-27-2008, 11:21 AM
He has earned no such thing. He's earned a chance to make the team and compete for playing time. He's probably earned an audition this year with no more wasted ABs or PT for Corey Patterson, but that is a far cry from "earned the CF job in Cincinnati for next season."

Unless they sign a credible CF this offseason, I lean more toward just giving Dickerson the job out of ST. There's no other in-house options, and Bruce needs to get to a corner spot ASAP. At the very least your OF defense improves significantly and a young, cheap Dickerson is easy to replace if a better option shows itself.

mth123
07-27-2008, 11:40 AM
Unless they sign a credible CF this offseason, I lean more toward just giving Dickerson the job out of ST. There's no other in-house options, and Bruce needs to get to a corner spot ASAP. At the very least your OF defense improves significantly and a young, cheap Dickerson is easy to replace if a better option shows itself.

That still isn't earned. That is by default.

camisadelgolf
07-27-2008, 12:27 PM
Unless they sign a credible CF this offseason, I lean more toward just giving Dickerson the job out of ST. There's no other in-house options, and Bruce needs to get to a corner spot ASAP. At the very least your OF defense improves significantly and a young, cheap Dickerson is easy to replace if a better option shows itself.

I'd be somewhat comfortable with a Freel/Dickerson platoon, but that's only on the condition that the Reds keep Dunn around. Without Dunn, the Reds will need to find a more-than-credible CFer if they want to make some noise in the NL Central.

Kingspoint
07-27-2008, 04:12 PM
That still isn't earned. That is by default.

There's still a lot of this season left and I'd first like to see Dickerson continue to hit well through the end of it. September will be his audition.

RED VAN HOT
07-27-2008, 04:27 PM
Concerning Stubbs's offensive requirements, I believe a comparison to Mike Cameron is appropriate. Cameron's ML averages over approx 12 full seasons are .250 BA; .340 OBP; .786 OPS; SB % =.78. Cameron was pushed to the majors early and played very little in AAA. His minor league averages were .260/.344/.780 with 68% SB.

Stubbs's minor league averages are .267/.369/.781 with 73% SB. Cameron enjoyed and advantage in HR's. Otherwise, through this point in their careers, they are comparable offensively, and I conjecture, defensively. I think Stubbs has traded HRs for a higher OBP over the last season (with choking up). He is tall, however, and as he fills out, should hit 12-15 HRs.

Considering that he can contribute defensively immediately, I would tend to push him to the ML level NLT the second half of 2009. My guess is that he will look bad at the plate initially, but will eventually bring his numbers up to the Cameron level. I would gladly take a Cameron career in CF for the next 10 years.

guttle11
07-27-2008, 04:32 PM
That still isn't earned. That is by default.

Who cares?

mth123
07-27-2008, 04:37 PM
Who cares?

I'd rather get a good option and not hand the job to a marginal prospect by default. I'm glad Dickerson is hitting better and maybe its all coming together for him, but I think he'll be lucky to be as successful on offense as Corey Patterson in the big leagues. He's a good defender to stash in the minors for depth and nothing more at this point. He has earned a chance. That is far different from earning the job.

guttle11
07-27-2008, 04:55 PM
I'd rather get a good option and not hand the job to a marginal prospect by default. I'm glad Dickerson is hitting better and maybe its all coming together for him, but I think he'll be lucky to be as successful on offense as Corey Patterson in the big leagues. He's a good defender to stash in the minors for depth and nothing more at this point. He has earned a chance. That is far different from earning the job.

We'd all like a better option to be available, and it just may be the case. But all a guy can do is earn the chance. Jay Bruce hadn't earned the job when he came up. Nor had Volquez or Cueto. It's pretty much impossible to earn a job before you get a chance.

The Reds are likely to be in "Here's your chance" mode for the foreseeable future.

OPS
07-27-2008, 05:13 PM
First, just to be clear, I was agreeing with you about Stubbs, just trying to provide some statistical backup.

Second, there is no link, as it is just something that I fooled around with when I was bored. I am no stat guru, so I am sure the stat gurus on this site will tell me what I did wrong, but this is what I did to get that number.

I basically took Tangotiger's chart on the run expectancy of all situations, and looked at the difference between all the situations with a runner on first and no one on second, and a runner on second and no one at first. That would show the run expectancy difference that stealing second gives you. I didn't include stealing third, as I was too lazy for that. I then did the same with the difference between a runner on first and no one on second, and no one on first. That covers the difference that getting caught stealing gives you.

If you then figure out how many more runs a stolen base gets you minus the runs you lose with a caught stealing, it works out that if you steal 10 bases and get caught twice, you are adding one run to the offense (actually a little less). According to Runs Created, it takes between .004 and .005 additional OBP to score one more run. So giving the runner the benefit (since I didn't figure in stealing third), I rounded up and got 10 stolen bases equals .005 OBP in terms of run production. Or 1 stolen base equals .0005 of OBP. It probably is closer to .0004, but I wanted to be generous so the speed fans can't yell at me for being biased. Anyway, the conclusion I drew from this is that it takes a lot of stolen bases to make up for just a little of OBP, which is exactly what you said. You really have to be in the premium group for your stolen bases to make up for poor OBP.

I probably did something wrong, but that matches my expectation, so I guess it wasn't that wrong. If anyone can clean that up for me, or thinks I did something wrong, let me know. i would love to have someone who knows what they are doing go over it.

I think this is a good idea to look at Tangotiger’s Run Expectancy Tables as a way to find the expected breakeven point for base stealing success rate. I played around with the numbers and I was surprised at how low of a success rate I came up with. Here is a breakdown of my method.

I looked at situations when a runner was on first base and attempting to steal second base only. I did not look at stealing third base or a situation where there were runners on first and second or first and third.

I looked at the results of a successful stolen base and the increase in Run Expectancy (RE) from a successful stolen base. Then I looked at the decrease in RE from an unsuccessful attempt. We can then make a simple equation from the outcome tree with success rate as the variable to solve for.

Situation – 0 outs; runner on first
RE = 0.502
Successful attempt – 0 outs, runner on second
RE = 0.738
Unsuccessful attempt – 1 out, no runners on base
RE=0.109

INC = increase for successful attempt = 0.236
DEC = decrease for caught stealing = 0.393
X = success rate

Breakeven point:
X*INC = (1-X)*DEC
X=DEC / (INC+DEC)
X = 62.5%

This is for MLB average hitters coming up to the plate when the runner is on first and nobody is out. I looked at the situation with one out and two outs also and used the appropriate RE values. Here are the results.

0 Out: X=62.5%
1 Out: X=58.6%
2 Out: X=56.3%

These are very surprising results to me and not nearly as high as I thought they would be. Maybe someone else could look at this method too and make sure that I didn't make a mistake.

UK Reds Fan
07-27-2008, 11:21 PM
With all the speculation and conjecture about CF and what is acceptable...so many jock Ellsbury for the Sox and his OBP is a paltry .325 right now with harldy any power. Sure is easier to handle with Pedroia, Youkalis, Ortiz, Rameriz and Drew down the heart of the order...but still some are setting a higher than average bar for Stubbs, Dickerson, etc...

If these guys are legit athletes of defensive prowess...it should play reasonably well.

SteelSD
07-27-2008, 11:38 PM
Good stuff. Not sure if there is a flaw.

If we take the average 2007 MLB offense, hold the average SB (97) firm and adjust the CS to mimic an 80% success rate (24 CS = 80.2% success rate), we get 791.50 RC. Now, keep in mind that versus the average success rate (74.6%), an 80% success rate would be worth about three Runs (787.79 RC).

To compare, we remove all Stolen Bases and CS from a second data set. Doing that gives us 782.47 RC. Now let's adjust the SB-free data set to add 97 secondary bases acquired via true SLG:

811.40 RC

Basically, while your average MLB team boasting an 80% SB rate may out-perform an average MLB team attempting no steals at all or an average success rate, it's throttled by a team producing a higher IsoP via higher natural SLG while attempting no Stolen Bases at all. To bridge the gap versus the latter team, the 80% SB rate team would need to swipe 108 consecutive bags without being caught.

Or alternately, the 80% SB rate team would need to steal about 315 Bases at that success rate worth about as much as the team producing the 97 bags the natural way with no increase in Hit Rate or OBP. At that level, such a team would be smashing rate records as even the historically-rabbity 1976 Oakland A's (341 Stolen Bases) couldn't pull that kind of success rate.

If folks (not speaking to you, mth) can't figure out why true SLG is just as important in every lineup slot, that's where they should start.


SteelSD was working with a revised OPS that factors in SB and outs on the bases. We discussed it a year or so ago when I was first postingabout FReel, his caught stealings and his pick-offs and I like his ideas. Can't find a link, maybe he'll chime in.

That's "Speed-Adjusted OPS". It's a nice way to compare rabbits with sluggers side-by side, but it doesn't correlate as highly as regular OPS mainly because of the marginal value of secondary bases acquired via steal versus natural SLG.

Kingspoint
07-28-2008, 12:13 AM
If we take the average 2007 MLB offense, hold the average SB (97) firm and adjust the CS to mimic an 80% success rate (24 CS = 80.2% success rate), we get 791.50 RC. Now, keep in mind that versus the average success rate (74.6%), an 80% success rate would be worth about three Runs (787.79 RC).

To compare, we remove all Stolen Bases and CS from a second data set. Doing that gives us 782.47 RC. Now let's adjust the SB-free data set to add 97 secondary bases acquired via true SLG:

811.40 RC

Basically, while your average MLB team boasting an 80% SB rate may out-perform an average MLB team attempting no steals at all or an average success rate, it's throttled by a team producing a higher IsoP via higher natural SLG while attempting no Stolen Bases at all. To bridge the gap versus the latter team, the 80% SB rate team would need to swipe 108 consecutive bags without being caught.

Or alternately, the 80% SB rate team would need to steal about 315 Bases at that success rate worth about as much as the team producing the 97 bags the natural way with no increase in Hit Rate or OBP. At that level, such a team would be smashing rate records as even the historically-rabbity 1976 Oakland A's (341 Stolen Bases) couldn't pull that kind of success rate.

If folks (not speaking to you, mth) can't figure out why true SLG is just as important in every lineup slot, that's where they should start.



That's "Speed-Adjusted OPS". It's a nice way to compare rabbits with sluggers side-by side, but it doesn't correlate as highly as regular OPS mainly because of the marginal value of secondary bases acquired via steal versus natural SLG.

Unless you're the Yankees, you can't afford to have a high-OPS guy in every spot, so you play the ones with the lower-SLG and more speed with higher OPS at 1 and 2, using your best SLG guys at 3, 4, and 5.

SteelSD
07-28-2008, 01:03 AM
Unless you're the Yankees, you can't afford to have a high-OPS guy in every spot, so you play the ones with the lower-SLG and more speed with higher OPS at 1 and 2, using your best SLG guys at 3, 4, and 5.

Nothing you've said in this thread speaks to the value of true SLG versus alternative secondary base acquisition and you haven't addressed a single point of the post to which you're responding.

757690
07-28-2008, 03:22 AM
If we take the average 2007 MLB offense, hold the average SB (97) firm and adjust the CS to mimic an 80% success rate (24 CS = 80.2% success rate), we get 791.50 RC. Now, keep in mind that versus the average success rate (74.6%), an 80% success rate would be worth about three Runs (787.79 RC).

To compare, we remove all Stolen Bases and CS from a second data set. Doing that gives us 782.47 RC. Now let's adjust the SB-free data set to add 97 secondary bases acquired via true SLG:

811.40 RC

Basically, while your average MLB team boasting an 80% SB rate may out-perform an average MLB team attempting no steals at all or an average success rate, it's throttled by a team producing a higher IsoP via higher natural SLG while attempting no Stolen Bases at all. To bridge the gap versus the latter team, the 80% SB rate team would need to swipe 108 consecutive bags without being caught.

Or alternately, the 80% SB rate team would need to steal about 315 Bases at that success rate worth about as much as the team producing the 97 bags the natural way with no increase in Hit Rate or OBP. At that level, such a team would be smashing rate records as even the historically-rabbity 1976 Oakland A's (341 Stolen Bases) couldn't pull that kind of success rate.





That's "Speed-Adjusted OPS". It's a nice way to compare rabbits with sluggers side-by side, but it doesn't correlate as highly as regular OPS mainly because of the marginal value of secondary bases acquired via steal versus natural SLG.

Adding 97 stolen bases at a 80% success rate does not equal adding 97 bases. It is adding 97 bases, and removing 24 bases and adding 27 outs. That is the main reason for the huge difference in the runs created by using the Runs Created Formula. Also steals only add one base for one runner. A double vs. a single adds one base for the batter and at least one base for the runner. Even more so for a triple and home run. Not refuting what you are saying, just giving an explanation. That also seems to be similar to what I was saying about OBP. It takes a ton of SB to make up for just a little OBP, but this is even more true for SLG, as you have shown.


If folks (not speaking to you, mth) can't figure out why true SLG is just as important in every lineup slot, that's where they should start.

I am not sure if this was aimed at me. But the numbers you showed only prove that SLG is more important than SB. It says nothing about the importance of SLG in relation to the leadoff slot (or any slot for that matter.) SLG is less important in the leadoff slot because the leadoff hitter hits less often with runners on base. SLG becomes more valuable and more important the more runners on base there are for the hitter. I think that is a very simple, obvious, logical concept.
SLG can only be equally important for each slot if all slots are equal. I think it is obvious that they are not. I agree that SLG is important in every slot, just more important in the middle of the order and less important at the top.

kpresidente
07-28-2008, 12:41 PM
He's not "Dunn" enough to sustain his OBP: Power. He's not "Casey" enough to sustain his OBP: High BA. Both help OBP, one directly, one indirectly.

So HOW is he going to sustain it? Pitchers had him completely figured out one month into the season at the FSL. I give it 3 weeks in the Southern League.

He doesn't hit for average. He doesn't hit for power, yet he'll have a high OBP? Ok, has that EVER happened for a sustained amount of time?

Sorry to quote an old post in the thread but this caught my eye....


Isn't there something to be said for plate discipline and working a count?

For instance, both Votto and Phillips have similar batting average and HR rate, but Votto's OBP is higher because he simply knows how to work a count and Phillips doesn't. Couldn't the same be true for Stubbs? Maybe he just knows how to draw a walk.

Rickey Henderson, the best leadoff hitter ever, had a measly .279 career BA and averaged only 16 HR/162 (Stubbs's ceiling?), yet managed a .401 career OBP. In 1982, he had a .267 BA and 10 HRs...yet still drew 116 walks (plus, he stole 130 bases that year, so pitchers weren't exactly eager to give him first base, you know?). How's all that possible, if OBP can only be sustained by HRs or BA?

Simple: Plate discipline matters most.

People keep saying major-league pitchers won't walk Stubbs if he doesn't hit for power. How does that not apply to minor-league pitchers as well? What's so hard about the "don't pitch around weak hitters" concept that only a major-leaguer can grasp it?

I say if Stubbs knows how to draw a walk in the minors, he'll know how to draw a walk in the majors.

RedsManRick
07-28-2008, 01:41 PM
Sorry to quote an old post in the thread but this caught my eye....


Isn't there something to be said for plate discipline and working a count?

For instance, both Votto and Phillips have similar batting average and HR rate, but Votto's OBP is higher because he simply knows how to work a count and Phillips doesn't. Couldn't the same be true for Stubbs? Maybe he just knows how to draw a walk.

Rickey Henderson, the best leadoff hitter ever, had a measly .279 career BA and averaged only 16 HR/162 (Stubbs's ceiling?), yet managed a .401 career OBP. In 1982, he had a .267 BA and 10 HRs...yet still drew 116 walks (plus, he stole 130 bases that year, so pitchers weren't exactly eager to give him first base, you know?). How's all that possible, if OBP can only be sustained by HRs or BA?

Simple: Plate discipline matters.

People keep saying major-league pitchers won't walk Stubbs if he doesn't hit for power. How does that not apply to minor-league pitchers as well? What's so hard about the "don't pitch around weak hitters" concept that only a major-leaguer can grasp it?

I say if Stubbs knows how to draw a walk in the minors, he'll know how to draw a walk in the majors.

In 1982, Rickey struck out 94 times. So while he was working a boatload of walks, he wasn't striking out at a prodigious rate. He ended up with 143 hits in 536 AB, a very good .324 BABIP. And yet, Rickey hit just .267 because he did strike out a fair amount and he didn't hit for power. That's fewer balls out of play for hits and fewer balls in play which might become hits.

Stubbs profiles as comparable power, 10-15 HR, but with 2x the strike outs. If you give stubbs 550 AB, 10 HR, 150 SO (his current K rate), and a generous .320 BABIP, you're looking at a .246 BA. If the K rate is higher (quite possible) or the BABIP is lower (also possible), then it goes down from there.

Let's look at the group of guys who strike out a lot and don't hit for power, and see who sustains a high OBP.

From 2003-2007, there were 92 seasons of 130+ SO. Of those 92 seasons, 13 were put up by guys with IsoP of less than .180 (Stubbs is at .148 for his minor leaugue career). So we're already looking at something like 3 guys per year who display Stubbs high SO, low power skill set. But the question is, how many of those guys still manage to get on base? Of those 13 seasons, 4 of them were paired with an OBP above .340., only 1 above .352 -- and I don't think Stubbs is Bobby Abreu. The other 3 were Brad Wilkerson, Mike Cameron, and Jhonny Peralta. All three of those guys, as well as Abreu have had good power seasons -- with the year in question being an aberration.

In short, no player in the last 5 years has been able to sustain a high SO, low SLG, high OBP game. Something has to give. The guys who fit the general mold being described either hit for more power (Wilkerson, Cameron, Granderson) or don't strike out as much (Henderson, Castillo) relative to what Stubbs has done to date. Plate discipline is great, but unless it's paired with either contact or power, it doesn't work.

As Steel has asserted time and again, Stubbs either cuts down on his SO or he hits for more power. Otherwise, it doesn't look good.

TRF
07-28-2008, 01:50 PM
Sure, but he didn't step into GABP the day he left Sarasota so the relevance of that is about 0. No one in this thread is suggesting Stubbs is ready today to step onto the major league field and produce at an acceptable rate.


In 1982, Rickey struck out 94 times. So while he was working a boatload of walks, he wasn't striking out at a prodigious rate. He ended up with 143 hits in 536 AB, a very good .324 BABIP. And yet, Rickey hit just .267 because he did strike out a fair amount and he didn't hit for power. That's fewer balls out of play for hits and fewer balls in play which might become hits.

Stubbs profiles as comparable power, 10-15 HR, but with 2x the strike outs. If you give stubbs 550 AB, 10 HR, 150 SO (his current K rate), and a generous .320 BABIP, you're looking at a .246 BA. If the K rate is higher (quite possible) or the BABIP is lower (also possible), then it goes down from there.

Let's look at the group of guys who strike out a lot and don't hit for power, and see who sustains a high OBP.

From 2003-2007, there were 92 seasons of 130+ SO. Of those 92 seasons, 13 were put up by guys with IsoP of less than .180 (Stubbs is at .148 for his minor leaugue career). So we're already looking at something like 3 guys per year who display Stubbs high SO, low power skill set. But the question is, how many of those guys still manage to get on base? Of those 13 seasons, 4 of them were paired with an OBP above .340., only 1 above .352 -- and I don't think Stubbs is Bobby Abreu. The other 3 were Brad Wilkerson, Mike Cameron, and Jhonny Peralta. All three of those guys, as well as Abreu have had good power seasons -- with the year in question being an aberration.

In short, no player in the last 5 years has been able to sustain a high SO, low SLG, high OBP game. The guys who fit the general mold simply hit for power than Stubbs has so far. So as Steel has asserted time and again, Stubbs either cuts way down on his SO or he hits for more power. Otherwise, he doesn't make it.

I'd have just said Votto and BP have pop that Stubbs does not have. Your answer was better.

And as for Stubbs, after his hot start which I stated he'd have, he's already cooled. Any bets on his OPS after 30 games at AA?

He had 1 hot game, his first one. Since that game his OPS is .752, which doug would say is fantastic for a GG CF. HOWEVER, his OPS has been dropping like a stone, and while his OBP is still great during those games after his first one, .419, his SLG is anemic, .333.

And because pitchers will figure out he can't hurt them with the bat, they'll challenge him more, just like they did in the FSL, where he was completely dominated after the first three weeks.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-28-2008, 01:52 PM
And as for Stubbs, after his hot start which I stated he'd have, he's already cooled. Any bets on his OPS after 30 games at AA?

I'll stick with my prediction.

.800

dougdirt
07-28-2008, 01:58 PM
Stubbs had an OPS over 1.000 in the FSL in July with a SLG of .679.

And yeah, his OPS has been 'dropping like a stone' since the first game. After the first game it was what, 2.500? Its way too early to know anything about his AA time. If he goes 2-4 with a HR tonight it completely alters his numbers. When a single HR can change your numbers to the tune of 85 points in SLG, then don't worry much about the numbers yet.

Cedric
07-28-2008, 02:10 PM
I'd have just said Votto and BP have pop that Stubbs does not have. Your answer was better.

And as for Stubbs, after his hot start which I stated he'd have, he's already cooled. Any bets on his OPS after 30 games at AA?

He had 1 hot game, his first one. Since that game his OPS is .752, which doug would say is fantastic for a GG CF. HOWEVER, his OPS has been dropping like a stone, and while his OBP is still great during those games after his first one, .419, his SLG is anemic, .333.

And because pitchers will figure out he can't hurt them with the bat, they'll challenge him more, just like they did in the FSL, where he was completely dominated after the first three weeks.

How does someone have an OPS, "drop like a stone after one game?" Color me cornfused.

kpresidente
07-28-2008, 02:12 PM
From 2003-2007, there were 92 seasons of 130+ SO. Of those 92 seasons, 13 were put up by guys with IsoP of less than .180 (Stubbs is at .148 for his minor leaugue career). So we're already looking at something like 3 guys per year who display Stubbs high SO, low power skill set. But the question is, how many of those guys still manage to get on base? Of those 13 seasons, 4 of them were paired with an OBP above .340., only 1 above .352 -- and I don't think Stubbs is Bobby Abreu. The other 3 were Brad Wilkerson, Mike Cameron, and Jhonny Peralta. All three of those guys, as well as Abreu have had good power seasons -- with the year in question being an aberration.

No, the question is not whether a high-K/low-SLG will generate a decent OBP, the question is "can a high-K/low-SLG player sustain his high OBP from the minors to the majors?".

High-K/low-SLG players don't generally profile as guys who can draw walks, even in the minors (High Ks is typical of bad plate discipline, but not always). So of course, as a group, they'll have sub-standard OBPs. But Stubbs may not be in that group. He's showing that he can draw walks despite the K/SLG figures, at least in the minors.

kpresidente
07-28-2008, 02:17 PM
I'd have just said Votto and BP have pop that Stubbs does not have.



Yes, but that misses the point, which is that Votto's OBP is significantly higher than Phillips, despite the fact that their "pop" (and BA) is the same.

That being the case, there has to be a third variable other than SLG and BA that determines OBP, which I'm calling plate discipline. Votto has it, Phillips doesn't. Does Stubbs? If not, then what is driving his OBP right now?

RedsManRick
07-28-2008, 03:35 PM
No, the question is not whether a high-K/low-SLG will generate a decent OBP, the question is "can a high-K/low-SLG player sustain his high OBP from the minors to the majors?".

High-K/low-SLG players don't generally profile as guys who can draw walks, even in the minors (High Ks is typical of bad plate discipline, but not always). So of course, as a group, they'll have sub-standard OBPs. But Stubbs may not be in that group. He's showing that he can draw walks despite the K/SLG figures, at least in the minors.

Tomato, tomahto. The point is that the type of success he's had so far has not been sustained by anybody in the majors over the past 5 years. So I suppose the question is, why would we expect Stubbs to sustain that model of success when nobody else seems to have been able to do so?

TRF
07-28-2008, 03:38 PM
How does someone have an OPS, "drop like a stone after one game?" Color me cornfused.

kinda goes to his pattern this year. hot start followed by regression. usually the hot start lasts about a week or so, and it skews his overall numbers. He had 3 months in the FSL, but really he was only good the first 3 weeks of the season, and the first week after the FSL ASB.

Now in AA he's doing much the same, except the better pitchers are adjusting quicker. Yeah he COULD go 2-4 with a HR tonight, but he's more likely to go 1-4 or 0-3 with a BB and 2 K's, because really that's what he's done all year.

ochre
07-28-2008, 03:41 PM
Yes, but that misses the point, which is that Votto's OBP is significantly higher than Phillips, despite the fact that their "pop" (and BA) is the same.

That being the case, there has to be a third variable other than SLG and BA that determines OBP, which I'm calling plate discipline. Votto has it, Phillips doesn't. Does Stubbs? If not, then what is driving his OBP right now?
absent any other evidence, minor-league pitching.

TRF
07-28-2008, 03:43 PM
Stubbs had an OPS over 1.000 in the FSL in July with a SLG of .679.

A week's worth of AB's following 180 AB's of sub .650 OPS.

color me unimpressed.

M2
07-28-2008, 03:46 PM
absent any other evidence, minor-league pitching.

Beat me to it. Stubbs is a trash collector when it comes to walks.

dougdirt
07-28-2008, 03:55 PM
Tomato, tomahto. The point is that the type of success he's had so far has not been sustained by anybody in the majors over the past 5 years. So I suppose the question is, why would we expect Stubbs to sustain that model of success when nobody else seems to have been able to do so?

At the same time though we are trying to cmopare an unfinished product in Stubbs to guys that likely are much more refined in their skills (be them good or bad skills, they aren't still in the developmental stage). So any projections at this point still need to be taken with a grain of salt.

dougdirt
07-28-2008, 04:03 PM
A week's worth of AB's following 180 AB's of sub .650 OPS.

color me unimpressed.

Well its now July 28th and his combined OPS in July between the two levels is .944 (.348/.422/.522 with 10 walks/15 strikeouts in 83 PA). So we are now looking at a guy who is still very inconsistent but has shown he has the ability to put up some strong months and then some clunkers. All that shows me is that we have a guy with a lot of potential, but is still developing his skills. He is a prospect, not a finished product.

757690
07-28-2008, 04:05 PM
In short, no player in the last 5 years has been able to sustain a high SO, low SLG, high OBP game. Something has to give. The guys who fit the general mold being described either hit for more power (Wilkerson, Cameron, Granderson) or don't strike out as much (Henderson, Castillo) relative to what Stubbs has done to date. Plate discipline is great, but unless it's paired with either contact or power, it doesn't work.

As Steel has asserted time and again, Stubbs either cuts down on his SO or he hits for more power. Otherwise, it doesn't look good.

In the last five years, no, but it has been done. But just off the top of my head, Willie Wilson and Vince Coleman. Davey Lopes K'd a bunch before cutting down on them later in his career.

Now I know that some people say that Wilson and Coleman were overrated, but they both had years where they K's a lot, and low SLG and still had a decent OBP.

I also am not comparing Stubbs to these guys, or saying that he can do what they did (or that I would want him to do what they did), but just saying that it is possible to have a high K, low SLG and high OBP in the majors.

dougdirt
07-28-2008, 04:05 PM
kinda goes to his pattern this year. hot start followed by regression. usually the hot start lasts about a week or so, and it skews his overall numbers. He had 3 months in the FSL, but really he was only good the first 3 weeks of the season, and the first week after the FSL ASB.

Now in AA he's doing much the same, except the better pitchers are adjusting quicker. Yeah he COULD go 2-4 with a HR tonight, but he's more likely to go 1-4 or 0-3 with a BB and 2 K's, because really that's what he's done all year.

Really? He strikes out in 50% of his at bats? Hmm, could have fooled me with his 93 strikeouts in 408 PA (22.7%).

RedsManRick
07-28-2008, 04:17 PM
At the same time though we are trying to compare an unfinished product in Stubbs to guys that likely are much more refined in their skills (be them good or bad skills, they aren't still in the developmental stage). So any projections at this point still need to be taken with a grain of salt.

That's fair Doug. My point was not that Stubbs isn't likely to develop. He's certainly got time to refine his skills. The point is that the current mix Stubbs is using to produce his .750+ OPS does work in the major leagues.

It's not that Stubbs won't improve; it's that he must improve in at least one of two specific areas; power and/or contact. The high IsoD won't hold up on its own in the majors.

Whether or not he does improve on those things is what we'll be watching over the next few years.

dougdirt
07-28-2008, 04:24 PM
That's fair Doug. My point was not that Stubbs isn't likely to develop. He's certainly got time to refine his skills. The point is that the current mix Stubbs is using to produce his .750+ OPS does work in the major leagues.

It's not that Stubbs won't improve; it's that he must improve in at least one of two specific areas; power and/or contact. The high IsoD won't hold up on its own in the majors.

Whether or not he does improve on those things is what we'll be watching over the next few years.
I agree, but I am seeing his contact rate get better. Not sure how much better it gets, but I do think he could get it around to a 20% K rate. Still a lot of strikeouts, but I think his power will develop some more too. I still see him as a Mike Cameron type with a little less power.

M2
07-28-2008, 04:38 PM
I agree, but I am seeing his contact rate get better. Not sure how much better it gets, but I do think he could get it around to a 20% K rate. Still a lot of strikeouts, but I think his power will develop some more too. I still see him as a Mike Cameron type with a little less power.

Contact rate alone means nothing. The worst hitters you'll ever see make tons of contact, it just goes nowhere when they make it.

Stubbs needs to make effective contact. Right now he's Mike Cameron with A LOT LESS POWER. At age 23 Cameron was having a break through season (.300/.402/.600) in AA. He kept it going the next season when he blew through AAA and then played 3/4 of the season with the White Sox.

That's the Mike Cameron that's spent 12 seasons in the majors, the kid who took a massive step at Stubbs' age. I completely agree with you about where Stubbs' potential success lies, but there is a gulf between where he is and the Mike Cameron who graduated to the majors (Cameron also made some major adjustments after his disastrous sophomore season). Stubbs has got a lot of improving to do.

dougdirt
07-28-2008, 04:42 PM
Contact rate alone means nothing. The worst hitters you'll ever see make tons of contact, it just goes nowhere when they make it.

Stubbs needs to make effective contact. Right now he's Mike Cameron with A LOT LESS POWER. At age 23 Cameron was having a break through season (.300/.402/.600) in AA. He kept it going the next season when he blew through AAA and then played 3/4 of the season with the White Sox.

That's the Mike Cameron that's spent 12 seasons in the majors, the kid who took a massive step at Stubbs' age. I completely agree with you about where Stubbs' potential success lies, but there is a gulf between where he is and the Mike Cameron who graduated to the majors (Cameron also made some major adjustments after his disastrous sophomore season). Stubbs has got a lot of improving to do.

Contact rate alone isn't much, but when its coupled with line drives, which Stubbs has been hitting (even though I know you dispute the line drive rate in the minors) it should lead to some more power. I plan on watching Stubbs in Chattanooga soon, so we will see how things are looking when that happens. For now though, I see improvement in his game and as long as he continues improving I think he will be fine.

RedsManRick
07-28-2008, 04:43 PM
In the last five years, no, but it has been done. But just off the top of my head, Willie Wilson and Vince Coleman. Davey Lopes K'd a bunch before cutting down on them later in his career.

Now I know that some people say that Wilson and Coleman were overrated, but they both had years where they K's a lot, and low SLG and still had a decent OBP.

I also am not comparing Stubbs to these guys, or saying that he can do what they did (or that I would want him to do what they did), but just saying that it is possible to have a high K, low SLG and high OBP in the majors.

Willie Wilson
OBP: .326 (4 years of .340+)
SO/162: 86

Vince Coleman
OBP: .324 (3 years of .340+)
SO/162: 113

And yet, those two guys didn't come close to striking out as much as Stubbs has. You'd need to subtract about 15 times on base to account for the extra strikeouts and you can imagine what that would do to their OBP.

In a way you've reinforced the point; Stubbs is going to have to cut down on the strikeouts by about 30% (or hit for power) to put up an acceptable major league OBP. Even in finding comps for Stubbs model of production, you have to assume a significant improvement.

Again, that's not to say he won't improve. If he cuts down on his strikeouts without adding power, he could be a Willie Wilson or Vince Coleman (though I'm not sure how well their game translates on grass). At that point, you're looking at something close to replacement level. Cutting down on the SOs might be enough to get him to the majors. If he adds power without cutting down on his strikeouts, he could be a Mike Cameron or Curtis Granderson. The real upside is almost entirely dependent on hitting for power. In either case, he's got a long way to go.

15fan
07-28-2008, 04:53 PM
I still see him as a Mike Cameron type with a little less power.

I'd submit that a more realistic comp for Stubbs (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/S/Drew-Stubbs.shtml) is Eddie Milner (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/M/Eddie-Milner.shtml) with a little more power.

TRF
07-28-2008, 04:58 PM
Really? He strikes out in 50% of his at bats? Hmm, could have fooled me with his 93 strikeouts in 408 PA (22.7%).

oh brother. it's called hyperbole. you might try looking it up. He K'd 50 time in 180 AB's in MAy/June. It ain't half, but it's more than a fourth. That's a lot for a guy with such low SLG.

As for his July OPS, I'm more interested in Aug./Sept. I doubt he gets a AAA promotion this year. If he can sustain his OPS into those months, I'll concede he's a work in progress and not a bust. If he reverts to numbers similar to May/June, no amount of LD% spinning can help him.

M2
07-28-2008, 05:19 PM
Contact rate alone isn't much, but when its coupled with line drives, which Stubbs has been hitting (even though I know you dispute the line drive rate in the minors) it should lead to some more power. I plan on watching Stubbs in Chattanooga soon, so we will see how things are looking when that happens. For now though, I see improvement in his game and as long as he continues improving I think he will be fine.

Which gets us back to not all line drives being created equal. When Eric Davis hit a line drive, chances are it wasn't getting caught. Apparently when Drew Stubbs hits a line, it winds up in someone's glove.

Power's pretty easy. It doesn't hide. Stubbs is a 6'4" specimen who can't drive the ball over the OF wall. He doesn't drive it into the gaps or punch it through the IF that well either.

Anyway, these marginal gains you're talking about are woefully insufficient. What he needs to do is catch up to a guy who had 1.002 OPS at his age. Stubbs would do well to only be four standard deviations behind that. Four standard deviations, at that's if he does well. That's not on track, that's not even close to on track. Drew Stubbs needs a minor league star turn and fast. Without it what you're going to get is a kid whose glacial rate of improvement gets eclipsed by higher quality competition.

The Reds need him to be a hare, not a tortoise.

Nugget
07-28-2008, 05:20 PM
ooh on that basis we could say that the REDS are a winning team this year - its not perfect record but its more than a third.

I really don't get what people's problem with Stubbs is. Sure he isn't headline news but if he produces as he is through each level then he can really be something that the team needs. In two years and outfield of Bruce, Stubbs, Dunn would be great.

M2
07-28-2008, 05:20 PM
I'd submit that a more realistic comp for Stubbs (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/S/Drew-Stubbs.shtml) is Eddie Milner (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/M/Eddie-Milner.shtml) with a little more power.

I was thinking the same thing recently.

redhawk61
07-28-2008, 05:26 PM
ooh on that basis we could say that the REDS are a winning team this year - its not perfect record but its more than a third.

I really don't get what people's problem with Stubbs is. Sure he isn't headline news but if he produces as he is through each level then he can really be something that the team needs. In two years and outfield of Bruce, Stubbs, Dunn would be great.
Don't you mean an OF of Votto, Stubbs, Bruce with Alonso at 1st:thumbup:

TRF
07-28-2008, 05:28 PM
ooh on that basis we could say that the REDS are a winning team this year - its not perfect record but its more than a third.

I really don't get what people's problem with Stubbs is. Sure he isn't headline news but if he produces as he is through each level then he can really be something that the team needs. In two years and outfield of Bruce, Stubbs, Dunn would be great.
He hasn't produced squat. didn't in the Pioneer League, The MWL, or the FSL. Pitchers figured him out and negate his bat. And in doing so, they negate his OBP too.

M2
07-28-2008, 05:29 PM
Sure he isn't headline news but if he produces as he is through each level then he can really be something that the team needs.

Because in the real world, kids more often than not see their A ball numbers go into steep decline by the time they reach the majors. If that happens with Stubbs, then he'll be a soft-hitting out machine in the bigs.

membengal
07-28-2008, 05:32 PM
He hasn't produced squat. didn't in the Pioneer League, The MWL, or the FSL. Pitchers figured him out and negate his bat. And in doing so, they negate his OBP too.

But...they don't. His OBP has been north of .350 at each stop, no?

TRF
07-28-2008, 06:36 PM
But...they don't. His OBP has been north of .350 at each stop, no?

yep his overall OBP at the FSL was over .350. But that's due to a torrid first 3 weeks. After pitchers figured him out in May and June, 180 AB's of sub .340 OBP, and a BA around .210. He didn't SLG either. Some will say that's just a slump, that he's developing. They'll say that when the same thing happened to him in Dayton, he was injured. Pioneer League? injured. Maybe he was. But he's never had any SLG to be slobbered over, and when it dives, his OBP dives because he doesn't get pitched around because he has no power.

Look at it this way, right now in the Southern League, he's got an .888 OPS. That's pretty damn good. But he also has a completely unsustainable .519 BABIP. .519 and he's ONLY slugging .421?

dropping like a stone. I'm saying unless he finds some kind of power stroke, he's looking at a sub .720 OPS for August. maybe lower.

membengal
07-28-2008, 07:11 PM
And...then he got hot again in FSL before the promotion, right?

The end result being an OBP north of .350?

Again, I hear the criticisms loud and clear, I do. I understand why the criticizing. And still, to date, he has kept his OBP at levels that make him, if he can sustain that, valuable. Even with a low slugging percentage.

dougdirt
07-28-2008, 07:30 PM
And...then he got hot again in FSL before the promotion, right?

The end result being an OBP north of .350?

Again, I hear the criticisms loud and clear, I do. I understand why the criticizing. And still, to date, he has kept his OBP at levels that make him, if he can sustain that, valuable. Even with a low slugging percentage.

When he is good it is because they don't know how to pitch him. When he sucks its because he sucks and when he is good again its because its a small sample size/luck.

Nugget
07-28-2008, 08:22 PM
Exactly - that's what I don't get about the criticism of Stubbs - its like they expect him to hit like Dunn in the minors or be putting up lights out numbers. No one projected Stubbs to be the second coming of Junior so I don't think anyone should expect that of him. Its all great to thoerize he needs to do this and that at each level, have an OPS of x and an OBP of y plus SLG z - gives great fantasy numbers and does project well - but if he can have an OBP of 350 and above as a major league gold glove CF then he would be a great find for the REDS.

As for Alonso has not signed has not swung a wooden bat in the professional leagues yet is penciled in as a major league starter. Is this WMP part II.

TRF
07-28-2008, 09:06 PM
When he is good it is because they don't know how to pitch him. When he sucks its because he sucks and when he is good again its because its a small sample size/luck.

180 straight AB's of pure suckitude. May and June of this year. That ain't sample size, and it ain't luck either.

kpresidente
07-28-2008, 09:30 PM
Tomato, tomahto. The point is that the type of success he's had so far has not been sustained by anybody in the majors over the past 5 years. So I suppose the question is, why would we expect Stubbs to sustain that model of success when nobody else seems to have been able to do so?

It's not tomato, tomahto. It's apples and oranges.

Stubbs is already showing he can put up a decent OBP while striking out and not hitting for power, so whether a lot of other players put up that profile or not, that's Stubb's profile, at least to this point.

You can't say, "Stubbs won't be able strike out a lot, have a low SLG and still have a high OBP." He's already doing that. He's already proving you wrong.

If you're going to say that mix of numbers isn't sustainable from the minors to the majors, then show me. Show me that most players with the same profile (high Ks, low SLG, low BA, high OBP) who weren't able to sustain it. The fact that there aren't a lot of similar players is irrelevant.

ochre
07-28-2008, 09:36 PM
Exactly - that's what I don't get about the criticism of Stubbs - its like they expect him to hit like Dunn in the minors or be putting up lights out numbers. No one projected Stubbs to be the second coming of Junior so I don't think anyone should expect that of him. Its all great to thoerize he needs to do this and that at each level, have an OPS of x and an OBP of y plus SLG z - gives great fantasy numbers and does project well - but if he can have an OBP of 350 and above as a major league gold glove CF then he would be a great find for the REDS.

As for Alonso has not signed has not swung a wooden bat in the professional leagues yet is penciled in as a major league starter. Is this WMP part II.
I'd be happy if he could put up Mike Frank, or Chris Denorfia minor league numbers.

kpresidente
07-28-2008, 09:37 PM
He hasn't produced squat. didn't in the Pioneer League, The MWL, or the FSL. Pitchers figured him out and negate his bat. And in doing so, they negate his OBP too.
He's produced a .370 OBP.

kpresidente
07-28-2008, 09:40 PM
I'd be happy if he could put up Mike Frank, or Chris Denorfia minor league numbers.

If either of those guys played GG defense, they'd have had decent major-league careers.

M2
07-28-2008, 09:51 PM
Exactly - that's what I don't get about the criticism of Stubbs - its like they expect him to hit like Dunn in the minors or be putting up lights out numbers.

All I expect from him is to play a game that can progress to the majors and be productive there. What he's doing currently isn't going to do the trick.


No one projected Stubbs to be the second coming of Junior so I don't think anyone should expect that of him.

Then no one should have drafted him with a #8 pick. Seriously, I've never seen a guy's supporters damn him with expectations this low. Maybe he'll hit just enough to get by! And play defense!

Which gets us back to Eddie Milner.


Its all great to thoerize he needs to do this and that at each level, have an OPS of x and an OBP of y plus SLG z - gives great fantasy numbers and does project well - but if he can have an OBP of 350 and above as a major league gold glove CF then he would be a great find for the REDS.

People say they want him to be kind of like Mike Cameron. Well, Mike Cameron had a 1.002 OPS in AA at Stubbs' age. Go ahead and pick any player you'd like Stubbs to be like and see if that player wasn't more advanced and/or putting up superior numbers to Stubbs at the same age. Either you recognize Stubbs is at the bottom of the class you should want him to be in or you don't. As for me, I want better than a guy bringing up the rear of the peer group he needs to join. That does not fill me with optimism.

M2
07-28-2008, 10:08 PM
If either of those guys played GG defense, they'd have had decent major-league careers.

Spoken like someone completely oblivious to the career of Mike Frank.

Nyjer Morgan might be the best OF in baseball. He's got a minor league OB of .367. According to you he should be in the midst of a decent major league career, but instead he's patrolling CF in Nashville. Apparently better pitchers know better than to hand him free passes.

Alejandro Diaz could chase a fly something fierce. He never even got a cup of coffee in the majors.

It's 2008, if all you can do is play defense then keep a packed bag, because you'll be working as a journeyman.

kpresidente
07-28-2008, 10:44 PM
Spoken like someone completely oblivious to the career of Mike Frank.

I was talking more about Denorfia but trying to be flippant, too. Mike Frank was a nobody.


Nyjer Morgan might be the best OF in baseball. He's got a minor league OB of .367. According to you he should be in the midst of a decent major league career, but instead he's patrolling CF in Nashville. Apparently better pitchers know better than to hand him free passes.

Morgan is in the minors because he was posting a .407 OPS this season.


It's 2008, if all you can do is play defense then keep a packed bag, because you'll be working as a journeyman.

So? Coco Crisp has made himself a decent career.

TRF
07-28-2008, 10:55 PM
He's produced a .370 OBP.
so if a guy has a say .418 OBP in his 1st 95 AB's of the season, but then over his next 180 AB's his OBP is hovering around .335, does that mean he's got good OB skills or does it mean his numbers are skewed by a hot month?

In May he SLG .281. That make Juan Castro look like ARod. June wasn't much better. He needs power to keep pitchers honest. He doesn't have any power.

kpresidente
07-28-2008, 11:12 PM
so if a guy has a say .418 OBP in his 1st 95 AB's of the season, but then over his next 180 AB's his OBP is hovering around .335, does that mean he's got good OB skills or does it mean his numbers are skewed by a hot month?

It depends. If the .418 and the .335 average out to .370, and he has a career .370 OBP, I'd say he's a .370 OBP guy, and that both the .418 and the .335 are abberations, especially given that he's up around .460 since he got to Chattanooga.

So he's all over the place. That's why they call them averages.


In May he SLG .281. That make Juan Castro look like ARod. June wasn't much better. He needs power to keep pitchers honest. He doesn't have any power.

Then why isn't that reflected in his OBP thus far? You think the minor league pitchers aren't aware of those numbers? Are they pitching around him thinking he's a slugger? Is that how he's generating the walks?

On the surface, I'd say a guy who walks a lot and strikes out a lot means he's probably working deep into the count, which is what you want, but isn't the most important thing in the long run. The more important thing is his K:BB ratio, which is 2:1, a decent enough figure.

kpresidente
07-28-2008, 11:23 PM
All I expect from him is to play a game that can progress to the majors and be productive there.

Seriously, I've never seen a guy's supporters damn him with expectations this low.

People say they want him to be kind of like Mike Cameron.

You've managed to flip-flop 3 times in one post. All you expect is for him to be productive, then you're upset that people have low expectations, then you're upset when people want him to be Mike Cameron.

crazyredfan40
07-28-2008, 11:33 PM
so if a guy has a say .418 OBP in his 1st 95 AB's of the season, but then over his next 180 AB's his OBP is hovering around .335, does that mean he's got good OB skills or does it mean his numbers are skewed by a hot month?

In May he SLG .281. That make Juan Castro look like ARod. June wasn't much better. He needs power to keep pitchers honest. He doesn't have any power.

We understand you that he had a bad month because the pitchers figured him out and he only had one hot month...I think this has been posted 50 times in this thread...

What I can't seem to figure out is why you continue to not see this kids potential...I understand it is potential and that you guys don't see him developing because the numbers are not increasing...Well BA, SLG, OPS...But numbers like K rate down, LD up...Playing in the FSL hurt power numbers...But he has heavy SB numbers, great defense...He has the body to develop some power...It is always the last thing to come...Yeah he is older for his league, but some develop at a slower pace...So it is not all about numbers, and sometimes you gotta dig a little deeper, and not look at the typical numbers...

And please I know that he didn't post good numbers in Billings and Dayton, but he was injured and that hurt his numbers...Not making excuses for the kid, but I think we can all agree that it is harder to develop and get better and post good stats, when he is hurt...

And another thing to think about, is maybe that he knows that he needs to increase his power game to really have a shot at stickin' in the majors, so he is probably constantly working on his swing, and at times that leads to slumps, because you can never get a comfortable swing down...

757690
07-29-2008, 01:12 AM
so if a guy has a say .418 OBP in his 1st 95 AB's of the season, but then over his next 180 AB's his OBP is hovering around .335, does that mean he's got good OB skills or does it mean his numbers are skewed by a hot month?


It means that he can OBP .363 over 275 AB. That is how stats work. Very few major leaguers actually OBP their average every month. Nealy every players stats are skewed by hot and cold streaks. That is why large sample sizes are important, they cover the streaks, both hot and cold.
All you can say about the player you mentioned is that he is not an .418 OBP guy, nor is he a .335 OBP guy. He is a .363 OBP guy for that period, regardless of many hot or cold streaks he has in the course of achieving that OBP.

There are reasons to be suspect of Stubbs ability to maintain his OBP at every level. The fact that he is streaky is not one.

ochre
07-29-2008, 04:24 AM
Mike Frank was a nobody.




Nobody though he was, he was 23 in his second year in the minors in AA putting up this line:
.325 .374 .567 941
Even had 89 AB for the Reds that same season. Crazy value for a seventh round pick.

M2
07-29-2008, 11:07 AM
You've managed to flip-flop 3 times in one post. All you expect is for him to be productive, then you're upset that people have low expectations, then you're upset when people want him to be Mike Cameron.

No, I'm being too consistent for you is the problem.

I expect him to play a game that can progress to the majors and thrive there (e.g. like Mike Cameron). The supporters of current performance apparently aren't able to spot the vast differences between Stubbs and the age 23 Mike Cameron, and are trying to act like there aren't any glaring issues with Stubbs' substandard progress when there are. Yet those people continue to claim he can be like Cameron even though with every day that passes Stubbs grows less like a young Mike Cameron.

I suffer from a case of knowing what he needs to be to succeed and recognizing that he's not all that close to being it. It prevents me from making baseless Candyland predictions about his future.

Mind you, I want him to succeed, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend things are looking great for him when they're not.


Morgan is in the minors because he was posting a .407 OPS this season.

And why is that? After all, he's got a .367 minor league OB. Surely all he needs to do is replicate that in the majors and cover massive amounts of territory in CF and he'll have a long career.

If I didn't know better I'd start thinking that maybe Morgan's offensive game isn't constructed to post that kind of OB in the majors.

TRF
07-29-2008, 02:03 PM
It means that he can OBP .363 over 275 AB. That is how stats work. Very few major leaguers actually OBP their average every month. Nealy every players stats are skewed by hot and cold streaks. That is why large sample sizes are important, they cover the streaks, both hot and cold.
All you can say about the player you mentioned is that he is not an .418 OBP guy, nor is he a .335 OBP guy. He is a .363 OBP guy for that period, regardless of many hot or cold streaks he has in the course of achieving that OBP.

There are reasons to be suspect of Stubbs ability to maintain his OBP at every level. The fact that he is streaky is not one.

Except you are ignoring his trend. his first 95 AB's he posted that .418. His NEXT 180 AB's it was around .335. 180 AB's tells a larger tale than the whole in this case as it is trend data. RMR gets on me all the time for monthly splits, and he's right to a point. Splits can vary wildly from month to month. But when two months vary as much as April and May did, followed by a June that was nearly identical to May, that's pretty telling.

Now after a hot start (which again, I stated he'd likely have) he's turning back into Drew Stubbs, a guy with no power, and will have dwindling OB skills because he can't keep pitchers honest. I don't doubt for one minute that Stubbs can't lay off bad pitches. I'm certain his ability to BB comes from that.

He just can't hit good pitches, similar to Adam Dunn. What is dissimilar is pitchers have to respect Dunn's power, so he is pitched around. A lot. Stubbs will not have that advantage because he cannot punish the ball.

And there isn't a single stat that says he does.

dougdirt
07-29-2008, 02:11 PM
Drew Stubbs is inconsistent. He has good months. He has bad months. He isn't either of those guys. He is somewhere in the middle.

TRF
07-29-2008, 02:17 PM
Drew Stubbs is inconsistent. He has good months. He has bad months. He isn't either of those guys. He is somewhere in the middle.

doug, elite players are the first guy. We all know Stubbs isn't elite. I'm cool with him not being elite.

He's a helluva lot closer to the second guy than the first. Nobody should be ok with that. His OPS is down to .818 and dropping. He didn't hit at the FSL because it was the FSL. Now he's not hitting in the Southern League. My guess is the excuse will be adjusting to better pitching. At some point it will have to be because he just isn't a good hitter.

At this point his future is 4th OF/defensive replacement. that's ok for a 10th round guy, but not for a top ten pick.

dougdirt
07-29-2008, 02:30 PM
Thats your opinion. His future at this point to me is very undetermined. As for not hitting in the SL, he is hitting just fine. Its early. He is still going to have big swings in his stat line. A 2-3 night with a walk and a double compared to an 0-4 is the difference at this point of a 127 points of OPS.

I don't know, the guy is carrying a .341 average and a .431 OBP and has a lower strikeout rate currently in the SL than he did in the FSL. Yeah, the power isn't there yet, but its so early a HR in a game is going to add ~80 points to his slugging. Its just too early to take anything out of what he is doing in Chattanooga. He has 51 plate appearances. But I just can't see where he 'is not hitting in the SL'.

TRF
07-29-2008, 03:29 PM
Thats your opinion. His future at this point to me is very undetermined. As for not hitting in the SL, he is hitting just fine. Its early. He is still going to have big swings in his stat line. A 2-3 night with a walk and a double compared to an 0-4 is the difference at this point of a 127 points of OPS.

I don't know, the guy is carrying a .341 average and a .431 OBP and has a lower strikeout rate currently in the SL than he did in the FSL. Yeah, the power isn't there yet, but its so early a HR in a game is going to add ~80 points to his slugging. Its just too early to take anything out of what he is doing in Chattanooga. He has 51 plate appearances. But I just can't see where he 'is not hitting in the SL'.

True. And I am probably jaded on him at this point. I'm projecting based on past performance, this year in fact. He hasn't hit in a week. could be a blip, could be regression to his norm. Like a tated in an earlier post. I don't care much about this month. August and September will be far more telling.

757690
07-29-2008, 04:27 PM
Except you are ignoring his trend. his first 95 AB's he posted that .418. His NEXT 180 AB's it was around .335. 180 AB's tells a larger tale than the whole in this case as it is trend data. RMR gets on me all the time for monthly splits, and he's right to a point. Splits can vary wildly from month to month. But when two months vary as much as April and May did, followed by a June that was nearly identical to May, that's pretty telling.

Now after a hot start (which again, I stated he'd likely have) he's turning back into Drew Stubbs, a guy with no power, and will have dwindling OB skills because he can't keep pitchers honest.

I do not know Stubbs splits for his career. If he does this every place he goes, (have one hot month, and then a bunch of crappy ones) then maybe that is a trend, but his career it too young to even draw that conclusion.

And if this is not the case everywhere he goes, that is to say he either doesn't start hot, or is able to have another hot streak after he slumps at the same level, then there is absolutely no way you can conclude that it is a trend.

Again, I don't have the data, but just one variant from the trend you claim to see will make your claim of a trend very suspect.

flyer85
07-29-2008, 04:30 PM
He has good months. He has bad months. everyone does ... you have to wait til the end of the season to make a judgement on the numbers.

dougdirt
07-29-2008, 04:45 PM
everyone does ... you have to wait til the end of the season to make a judgement on the numbers.

Right, that was my point.

RedsManRick
07-29-2008, 06:01 PM
It's not tomato, tomahto. It's apples and oranges.

Stubbs is already showing he can put up a decent OBP while striking out and not hitting for power, so whether a lot of other players put up that profile or not, that's Stubb's profile, at least to this point.

You can't say, "Stubbs won't be able strike out a lot, have a low SLG and still have a high OBP." He's already doing that. He's already proving you wrong.

If you're going to say that mix of numbers isn't sustainable from the minors to the majors, then show me. Show me that most players with the same profile (high Ks, low SLG, low BA, high OBP) who weren't able to sustain it. The fact that there aren't a lot of similar players is irrelevant.

I'm fully aware of what he's done so far against 20 year olds in the low-mid minors. I'm not arguing that. But it doesn't matter what he can do in the minor leagues if it doesn't translate to the majors. Nobody has been able to sustain his production model in the MAJOR leagues.

He's not proving me wrong in the least, as I've never claimed that he couldn't do this in AA ball. I have shown you that nobody in the major leagues today succeeds with that method of production. It's pretty much impossible to prove the absence of a possibility, so I won't waste my time. Ray Olmedo and Anderson Machado are two examples of recent Red minor leaguers who could take a walk but had no power and flamed out -- and neither of those two had the SO problem of Stubbs.

Show me somebody who has succeeded and I'll rest my case. Otherwise, we'll just have to wait and see. If and when Stubbs puts up an OBP north of .340, while striking out in 25% of his PA, and with an ISO under .160 I'll be more than happy to eat crow.

kpresidente
07-29-2008, 06:37 PM
I'm fully aware of what he's done so far against 20 year olds in the low-mid minors. I'm not arguing that. But it doesn't matter what he can do in the minor leagues if it doesn't translate to the majors. Nobody has been able to sustain his production model in the MAJOR leagues.

He's not proving me wrong in the least, as I've never claimed that he couldn't do this in AA ball. I have shown you that nobody in the major leagues today succeeds with that method of production. It's pretty much impossible to prove the absence of a possibility, so I won't waste my time. Ray Olmedo and Anderson Machado are two examples of recent Red minor leaguers who could take a walk but had no power and flamed out -- and neither of those two had the SO problem of Stubbs.

Show me somebody who has succeeded and I'll rest my case. Otherwise, we'll just have to wait and see. If and when Stubbs puts up an OBP north of .340, while striking out in 25% of his PA, and with an ISO under .160 I'll be more than happy to eat crow.

Olmedo and Machado had .330 OBPs in the minors. That's why they flamed out. Stubbs is around .370.

And Stubbs is proving you wrong. You're saying walks can only be generated by power hitters that get pitched around. But Stubbs isn't showing power right now and he's still generating walks. I already showed you one player (Rickey Henderson) who was able to generate walks at the ML level without power, but then you say he didn't strike out as much. Well, that's circumstantial. What do strikeouts have to do with generating walks? Nothing.

TRF
07-29-2008, 06:42 PM
Olmedo and Machado had .330 OBPs in the minors. That's why they flamed out. Stubbs is around .370.

And Stubbs is proving you wrong. You're saying walks can only be generated by power hitters that get pitched around. But Stubbs isn't showing power right now and he's still generating walks. I already showed you one player (Rickey Henderson) who was able to generate walks at the ML level without power, but then you say he didn't strike out as much. Well, that's circumstantial. What do strikeouts have to do with generating walks? Nothing.

Machado had 108 BB's at AA at age 22.

I'd say that's a pretty good comp and BB rate.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-29-2008, 06:48 PM
Rickey Henderson had no power? Say what?

What he did have was an incredibly small strike zone.

And power (297 career HR's).

kpresidente
07-29-2008, 06:51 PM
And why is that? After all, he's got a .367 minor league OB. Surely all he needs to do is replicate that in the majors and cover massive amounts of territory in CF and he'll have a long career.

If I didn't know better I'd start thinking that maybe Morgan's offensive game isn't constructed to post that kind of OB in the majors.

Nyjer Morgan's career is not over. He hit .299 with a .360 OBP his first stint. That was in 102 ABs. Then this year he struggled. Do you think that's because he doesn't have power? You think it took ML pitchers 102 ABs to figure out that 160 lb. centerfielder with a total of 6 minor-league home runs couldn't hit for power? No Way! They knew from day one.

It was just a normal regression that young hitters go through.

kpresidente
07-29-2008, 06:52 PM
Rickey Henderson had no power? Say what?

What he did have was an incredibly small strike zone.

And power (297 career HR's).

That's a function of his longevity.

He averaged 16 HRs/162 games. Stubbs averages 13.

kpresidente
07-29-2008, 06:54 PM
Machado had 108 BB's at AA at age 22.
I'd say that's a pretty good comp and BB rate.

Yes, but Machado was such a bad hitter that the walks weren't enough to compensate. You're talking about a minor league career .230 hitter. If Stubbs was hitting .230 I'd say he has no chance.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-29-2008, 06:58 PM
That's a function of his longevity.

He averaged 16 HRs/162 games.

And that would mean he had power.

He holds the all-time record for lead-off HR's.

He had four seasons when he hit 28, 24, 21, and 21 HR's.

Rickey Henderson had power. Probably the most power of any lead-off hitter ever.

kpresidente
07-29-2008, 07:05 PM
And that would mean he had power.

He holds the all-time record for lead-off HR's.

He had four seasons when he hit 28, 24, 21, and 21 HR's.

Rickey Henderson had power. Probably the most power of any lead-off hitter ever.

See my edit. Stubbs is showing more-or-less similar power and even the hardened skeptics would expect a little more as his body develps. But keep in mind also, if you're associating walks and power, you're saying that power leads to being pitched around (ala Dunn).

But Dunn isn't the all-time stolen base leader. Nobody was pitching around Henderson because of a measly 16 HRs/162. No way they were giving him first base. They came right at him. Let him hit one out every once in a while, it's not worth putting him on the basepaths.

So Henderson's walks were not a function of his HR threat, which you guys are claiming is the only way to get walks in the majors.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-29-2008, 07:10 PM
I was just commenting on you posting that Henderson had no power. I disagree.

And Stubbs with 13/162 HR's in the minors isn't really comparable to Henderson's 16/162 in the majors. Stubbs doesn't project to be the kind of hitter to hit 28, 24, 21, and 21 HR's in a season at the major league level.

RedsManRick
07-29-2008, 07:18 PM
Olmedo and Machado had .330 OBPs in the minors. That's why they flamed out. Stubbs is around .370.

And Stubbs is proving you wrong. You're saying walks can only be generated by power hitters that get pitched around. But Stubbs isn't showing power right now and he's still generating walks. I already showed you one player (Rickey Henderson) who was able to generate walks at the ML level without power, but then you say he didn't strike out as much. Well, that's circumstantial. What do strikeouts have to do with generating walks? Nothing.

Minor leagues != Major leagues. Until you get this, this conversation is moot.

The walks aren't the sole issue here. Henderson put 50 more balls in play per year at the major league level than Stubbs has in the minors. That's a significant difference on the order of 25 points of OBP.

And that assumes Stubbs maintains his walk rate as he advances. The reason it will likely go down is because pitches have no reason to not throw strikes. Henderson put the ball in play against major leaguers much more regularly than Stubbs is able to do against minor leaguers. You can't just ignore that. The ability to not swing at balls is great and will translate at Stubbs advances. But you have to be able to hit strikes to -- and that's something Stubbs has struggled with against guys 2 and 3 years his junior. What's going to happen when he starts facing pitchers who can throwing breaking pitches for strikes?

Henderon's power is roughly comprable to Stubbs, though his career numbers are somewhat deflated thanks to the long tail at the end. During his peak, Henderson was a legit .200 IsoP guy. Of course, Henderson was also in the majors at age 20 and had over 2000 PA in the majors at Stubbs' age. He also played in a era with significantly less power than what we see today. The league average IsoP was ~30 points less than it is today.

kpresidente
07-29-2008, 07:20 PM
I was just commenting on you posting that Henderson had no power. I disagree.

And Stubbs with 13/162 HR's in the minors isn't really comparable to Henderson's 16/162 in the majors. Stubbs doesn't project to be the kind of hitter to hit 28, 24, 21, and 21 HR's in a season at the major league level.
"Having power" is a relative statement. I don't think I said Henderson had no power. I think I was saying he didn't have significant power. If I did say "no power", it was in response to others saying Stubbs has "no power". The two players have more-or-less similar power. Stubbs 13 HRs doesn't directly translate to the same in the majors, but then again, Henderson was more like a 5-10 HR guy until his body fully matured around 26-27 years old. I'd expect the same kind of jump from Stubbs or any other young player, for that matter. Encarnacion hit 15 homers at 22 y.o., and now at 26, is on pace for around 30. It's natural.

dougdirt
07-29-2008, 07:22 PM
And that would mean he had power.

He holds the all-time record for lead-off HR's.

He had four seasons when he hit 28, 24, 21, and 21 HR's.

Rickey Henderson had power. Probably the most power of any lead-off hitter ever.

Alfonso Soriano disagrees with you.

thatcoolguy_22
07-29-2008, 07:28 PM
Alfonso Soriano disagrees with you.

Soriano is not a traditional leadoff hitter or the best leadoff candidate on his own team for that matter (Ryan Theriot). But yeah if Adam Dunn would bat in the 1st spot of the order he would have crazy power for a leadoff hitter so I guess that makes you right... :dunno:

RedsManRick
07-29-2008, 07:32 PM
The notion of a high SLG leadoff hitter is like saying so-and-so had the best ERA ever for a #3 starter.

kpresidente
07-29-2008, 07:33 PM
Minor leagues != Major leagues. Until you get this, this conversation is moot.
I understand that Stubbs' or any players numbers will drop across the board at the ML level. However, you guys are saying his OBP will take a disproportionate dive because he's not a power hitter, and there's simply no reason to assume that.


The walks aren't the sole issue here. Henderson put 50 more balls in play per year at the major league level than Stubbs has in the minors. That's a significant difference on the order of 25 points of OBP.
No, that's already reflected in batting average. Henderson's career batting average was .279. His OBP was driven by walks, not hits.

Before this goes too far, I'm not saying Stubbs is the same caliber batter that Henderson was. Henderson had a career .400 OBP. I'm only using him to show there are ways to get generate OBP other than as a function HRs or batting average, and that Stubbs is generating his walks in the same way.


And that assumes Stubbs maintains his walk rate as he advances. The reason it will likely go down is because pitches have no reason to not throw strikes. Henderson put the ball in play against major leaguers much more regularly than Stubbs is able to do against minor leaguers. You can't just ignore that.
I can ignore that. Putting the ball in play is useless (especially for a leadoff hitter) unless you get a hit. In that case, all we need to look at is batting average. Once we see the batting average, the strikeouts become irrelevant.

dougdirt
07-29-2008, 07:34 PM
Soriano is not a traditional leadoff hitter or the best leadoff candidate on his own team for that matter (Ryan Theriot). But yeah if Adam Dunn would bat in the 1st spot of the order he would have crazy power for a leadoff hitter so I guess that makes you right... :thumbup:

Except its not close to that. His manager bats him leadoff and has for a long time. He is a leadoff hitter. Thats like saying Brandon Phillips isn't really our cleanup hitter. Sure, he is terrible at it, but our manager still bats him there and therefore he is our cleanup hitter.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-29-2008, 07:37 PM
Alfonso Soriano disagrees with you.

Gee whiz, Doug. You got me. Well done. You've managed to find the one lead off hitter with more power than Rickey Henderson.

Notice I did said "Probably the most power of any lead-off hitter ever", but I think you get my point.

dougdirt
07-29-2008, 07:39 PM
Gee whiz, Doug. You got me. Well done. You've managed to find the one lead off hitter with more power than Rickey Henderson.

Notice I did said "Probably the most power of any lead-off hitter ever", but I think you get my point.

I am a jerk.

M2
07-29-2008, 07:41 PM
Nyjer Morgan's career is not over. He hit .299 with a .360 OBP his first stint. That was in 102 ABs. Then this year he struggled. Do you think that's because he doesn't have power? You think it took ML pitchers 102 ABs to figure out that 160 lb. centerfielder with a total of 6 minor-league home runs couldn't hit for power? No Way! They knew from day one.

It was just a normal regression that young hitters go through.

Pitchers can take a while to figure out any hitter, Morgan at least has the slappy, keep the ball on the ground skills that might allow him to scratch out a living in the majors, but you can forget about him duplicating that minor league OB over the long haul. He's going to suffer some permanent regression.

kpresidente
07-29-2008, 07:47 PM
Pitchers can take a while to figure out any hitter, Morgan at least has the slappy, keep the ball on the ground skills that might allow him to scratch out a living in the majors, but you can forget about him duplicating that minor league OB over the long haul. He's going to suffer some permanent regression.
Of course he won't duplicate it. Most players don't. But that has nothing to do with his power. That's just the level of competition being that much stronger. That's the point. On the whole, you wouldn't expect a minor-league power hitter to replicate his minor-league OBP any more than you would a slap hitter or any other kind of hitter.

Redman15
07-29-2008, 09:04 PM
Stubby is leading off for Chattanooga tonight. Let the debate continue. I say he leads off with a Bomb!!!!!

M2
07-29-2008, 09:14 PM
Of course he won't duplicate it. Most players don't. But that has nothing to do with his power. That's just the level of competition being that much stronger. That's the point. On the whole, you wouldn't expect a minor-league power hitter to replicate his minor-league OBP any more than you would a slap hitter or any other kind of hitter.

If he had power, then he'd stand a far better chance of duplicating it. Mike Cameron and Torii Hunter are within 10 points of their minor league OBs (with higher SLGs). Aaron Rowand actually has a slightly higher OB than he did in the minors. None are .300 hitters, but they've got enough power to keep pitchers honest. Welcome to modern baseball.

Redman15
07-29-2008, 09:14 PM
He struck out. I was hoping for a Bomb. :beerme:Maybe next time.

M2
07-29-2008, 09:48 PM
He struck out. I was hoping for a Bomb. :beerme:Maybe next time.

If you're not whiffing, you're not trying.

Kingspoint
07-30-2008, 03:21 AM
If you're not whiffing, you're not trying.

Ain't that the truth.

kpresidente
07-30-2008, 10:13 AM
If he had power, then he'd stand a far better chance of duplicating it.

No, if he had power his minor-league OBP would be higher than .367 and he wouldn't stand any better chance of duplicating said higher OBP than anybody else.

kpresidente
07-30-2008, 10:26 AM
If he had power, then he'd stand a far better chance of duplicating it. Mike Cameron and Torii Hunter are within 10 points of their minor league OBs (with higher SLGs). Aaron Rowand actually has a slightly higher OB than he did in the minors. None are .300 hitters, but they've got enough power to keep pitchers honest. Welcome to modern baseball.

Mike Cameron's batting average only dropped 10 points as well, so his power had nothing to do with him sustaining his OBP. The fact that he sustained his batting average is what drove his OBP.

Torri Hunter actually had a lower batting average in the minors than in the majors. That means since his OBP stayed the same, it technically dropped relative to BA. In other words, major-league pitchers were less likely to walk him than minor-league pitchers. So much for your "power sustains OBP" theory.

As for Aaron Rowand, his OBP rose, and his batting average sustained. Guess you win that one, but one out three is not a trend.

And as far as "modern" baseball goes, you have it backwards. Treating the ability to draw walks as skill set in it's own right, seperate from the others (as I'm doing) is the "modern" concept, while seeing it solely as a function of the pitcher (like you're doing) is the antiquated idea.

TRF
07-30-2008, 02:34 PM
Mike Cameron's batting average only dropped 10 points as well, so his power had nothing to do with him sustaining his OBP. The fact that he sustained his batting average is what drove his OBP.

Torri Hunter actually had a lower batting average in the minors than in the majors. That means since his OBP stayed the same, it technically dropped relative to BA. In other words, major-league pitchers were less likely to walk him than minor-league pitchers. So much for your "power sustains OBP" theory.

As for Aaron Rowand, his OBP rose, and his batting average sustained. Guess you win that one, but one out three is not a trend.

And as far as "modern" baseball goes, you have it backwards. Treating the ability to draw walks as skill set in it's own right, seperate from the others (as I'm doing) is the "modern" concept, while seeing it solely as a function of the pitcher (like you're doing) is the antiquated idea.

Nobody, certainly not M2, is saying Stubbs can't recognize a bad pitch and lay off it.

Most everyone is saying he has trouble with pitches in the zone, and those he does hit he doesn't punish. And that is reflected in his SLG. And if that SLG doesn't rise, pitchers will know he can't hurt them, and his OBP WILL suffer for that.

M2
07-30-2008, 04:26 PM
No, if he had power his minor-league OBP would be higher than .367 and he wouldn't stand any better chance of duplicating said higher OBP than anybody else.

Wow, nifty contradiction. More power would help lift his minor league OB, but it wouldn't help maintain it moving forward. Real simple question, does power aid in obtaining a higher OB or not?

M2
07-30-2008, 04:28 PM
Mike Cameron's batting average only dropped 10 points as well, so his power had nothing to do with him sustaining his OBP. The fact that he sustained his batting average is what drove his OBP.

Torri Hunter actually had a lower batting average in the minors than in the majors. That means since his OBP stayed the same, it technically dropped relative to BA. In other words, major-league pitchers were less likely to walk him than minor-league pitchers. So much for your "power sustains OBP" theory.

As for Aaron Rowand, his OBP rose, and his batting average sustained. Guess you win that one, but one out three is not a trend.

And as far as "modern" baseball goes, you have it backwards. Treating the ability to draw walks as skill set in it's own right, seperate from the others (as I'm doing) is the "modern" concept, while seeing it solely as a function of the pitcher (like you're doing) is the antiquated idea.

Oh, I get the ability to draw walks all right and I recognize what contributes to that skill set (and it's not just standing there and not swinging at balls out of the strike zone). You, however, seem oblivious to it.

dougdirt
07-30-2008, 04:29 PM
Real simple question, does power aid in obtaining a higher OB or not?
No, it doesn't.

flyer85
07-30-2008, 04:37 PM
in the NL, 13 of the top 20 in SLG and also in the top 20 of OBP.

in the NL 10 of the top 20 in BA are in the top 20 of OBP.

Rojo
07-30-2008, 04:47 PM
No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. Of the top 40 in OBP in MLB, only 8 have a slg% lower than .450. Stubbs has a career slg of .411 in the minors and its gone down as he's moved up, despite being old for his levels.

Sure, you can get on base with a weensy bat -- Stubbs could be the next Brett Butler (who had a .452 slugging in the minors, btw) -- but the odds are against it.

dougdirt
07-30-2008, 06:54 PM
Yes it does. Of the top 40 in OBP in MLB, only 8 have a slg% lower than .450. Stubbs has a career slg of .411 in the minors and its gone down as he's moved up, despite being old for his levels.

Sure, you can get on base with a weensy bat -- Stubbs could be the next Brett Butler (who had a .452 slugging in the minors, btw) -- but the odds are against it.

No it doesn't. Dave Kingman says hi. So does Juan Francisco for that matter. Slugging doesn't lead to higher on base percentage. Strikezone judgement does.

OnBaseMachine
07-30-2008, 06:59 PM
Jim Callis answered a Stubbs question in his chat today:

JAS (Saratoga NY): Drew Stubbs was finally moved up to AA. BA thought he still had star potential coming into the year, has he changed your opinion at all? Does he force Bruce to a corner in 2 years?

SportsNation Jim Callis: (2:19 PM ET ) He has star potential, though I think the more likely scenario is that he's a good player despite not hitting for a high average. He's a Gold Glove-caliber outfielder, so he will push Jay Bruce to RF.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/majors/espn-chat/2008/266606.html

RedsManRick
07-30-2008, 07:14 PM
No it doesn't. Dave Kingman says hi. So does Juan Francisco for that matter. Slugging doesn't lead to higher on base percentage. Strikezone judgement does.

Walks aren't just an issue of strikezone judgment. The types of pitches you see are important as well. Adam Dunn doesn't walk so much just because of his strikezone judgment. It's in part because he sees a higher percentage of balls/pitch than almost anybody else in baseball.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=4&season=2008&month=0

In the minors, there are enough pitchers with command issues that you can keep your OBP high by laying off pitches out of the zone. But as Stubbs moves up, he'll face fewer pitchers who have such trouble finding the zone and more pitchers who can miss bats within zone.

To date, Stubbs hasn't shown a great ability to punish strikes. As pitchers who do have control realize he doesn't do that much damage on stuff in the zone, they will be less willing to mess around with him outside of it. He'll still walk a fair bit, no doubt, but he won't likely maintain that .100 IsoD.

To simplify it, there's a negative correlation between power and the amount of strikes a player sees. Unless he hits for more power, Stubbs is going to see more strikes. Now, if I've overstated the contact rate issue, it's possible Stubbs will keep himself afloat with more hits, a la Luis Castillo as he sees a greater percentage of balls in the zone. If not, you have a recipe for a disaster.

Rojo
07-30-2008, 07:27 PM
No it doesn't. Dave Kingman says hi. So does Juan Francisco for that matter. Slugging doesn't lead to higher on base percentage. Strikezone judgement does.

Dave Kingman? Juan Francisco? I guess you need a big net if you want to gather outliers.

There are 7-footers who can't play basketball and runts who can. Does that mean you throw out the correlation between height and NBA success? No.

M2
07-30-2008, 09:52 PM
No, it doesn't.

Wrong answer.

M2
07-30-2008, 09:54 PM
Yes it does. Of the top 40 in OBP in MLB, only 8 have a slg% lower than .450. Stubbs has a career slg of .411 in the minors and its gone down as he's moved up, despite being old for his levels.

Sure, you can get on base with a weensy bat -- Stubbs could be the next Brett Butler (who had a .452 slugging in the minors, btw) -- but the odds are against it.

What? You think making sense is going to do you any good?

RED VAN HOT
07-30-2008, 10:33 PM
As long as we are considering outliers, Eddie Gaedel had an OBP of 1.000 without even registering a slugging percent.

757690
07-30-2008, 10:37 PM
Real simple question, does power aid in obtaining a higher OB or not?

Of course it does. Anything positive a hitter does will help his OBP. But that is not the main question in reference to Stubbs. The main question is, "Is power necessary in order to obtain a high OBP?"

That is much more difficult to answer. I don't think that there is a definitive one that covers every hitter, especially a minor league hitter. I really don't have a lot of faith in anyone's ability to project a minor league hitter based on stats alone. There is a reason why they are in the minors, they are still learning and developing.
I agree with RMR that Stubbs needs to either increase his SLG or reduce his K's or else he will have a hard time maintaining his OBP. But that is about the only type of projection that anyone can make about a minor leaguer. If he does x, or if he does y, then z is more likely. But no one really knows how any player in the minors will develop.

M2
07-30-2008, 11:13 PM
Of course it does. Anything positive a hitter does will help his OBP. But that is not the main question in reference to Stubbs. The main question is, "Is power necessary in order to obtain a high OBP?"

That is much more difficult to answer. I don't think that there is a definitive one that covers every hitter, especially a minor league hitter. I really don't have a lot of faith in anyone's ability to project a minor league hitter based on stats alone. There is a reason why they are in the minors, they are still learning and developing.
I agree with RMR that Stubbs needs to either increase his SLG or reduce his K's or else he will have a hard time maintaining his OBP. But that is about the only type of projection that anyone can make about a minor leaguer. If he does x, or if he does y, then z is more likely. But no one really knows how any player in the minors will develop.

Fair point, in Stubbs' case I'd say, yes, power will be necessary for him. I don't sweat his Ks. When you're built like he is, you owe it to yourself to take a good cut. Plus, the Reds didn't draft him for his banjo skills.

And for the record, I don't think his current stats are fate. However, they clearly show where he needs to improve.

dougdirt
07-31-2008, 01:36 AM
Wrong answer.

I don't think so. Is it more likely to happen because pitchers will pitch around you? Probably. But plenty of guys hit for power with poor on base skills because they swing at a lot of crap. If you are swinging at bad pitches a lot, but punish good ones, its not going to help you get on base. Power isn't going to help you get on base. It requires other skills also. Strikezone judgement being one of them.

TRF
07-31-2008, 01:39 AM
I don't think so. Is it more likely to happen because pitchers will pitch around you? Probably. But plenty of guys hit for power with poor on base skills because they swing at a lot of crap. If you are swinging at bad pitches a lot, but punish good ones, its not going to help you get on base. Power isn't going to help you get on base. It requires other skills also. Strikezone judgement being one of them.

And yet it's already been proved that great OBP is usually accompanied by good to great power.


Yes it does. Of the top 40 in OBP in MLB, only 8 have a slg% lower than .450. Stubbs has a career slg of .411 in the minors and its gone down as he's moved up, despite being old for his levels.

Sure, you can get on base with a weensy bat -- Stubbs could be the next Brett Butler (who had a .452 slugging in the minors, btw) -- but the odds are against it.

That's not a coincidence.

dougdirt
07-31-2008, 01:48 AM
And yet it's already been proved that great OBP is usually accompanied by good to great power.
I am not sure you can say 'proved' and 'usually' when talking about the same thing. And yeah, power and high OBP are generally together because a lot more often than not when you talk about guys with one or the other, you are talking about some of the better players in the game. OBP doesn't mean power and power doesn't mean OBP. They are generally connected to eachother because the players with high ones are generally very good players.

kaldaniels
07-31-2008, 02:01 AM
I am not sure you can say 'proved' and 'usually' when talking about the same thing. And yeah, power and high OBP are generally together because a lot more often than not when you talk about guys with one or the other, you are talking about some of the better players in the game. OBP doesn't mean power and power doesn't mean OBP. They are generally connected to eachother because the players with high ones are generally very good players.

Would it be fair to say they are usually correlated, but that high OBP is not a major direct result of power.

Power certainly helps a a bit, as a routine fly ball by Hairston becomes a home run when Dunn makes the same contact.

dougdirt
07-31-2008, 02:09 AM
Would it be fair to say they are usually correlated, but that high OBP is not a major direct result of power.

Power certainly helps a a bit, as a routine fly ball by Hairston becomes a home run when Dunn makes the same contact.

I don't think they are correlated at all. That would mean there is a direct connection and there really isn't a direct connection between the two.

kaldaniels
07-31-2008, 02:17 AM
I don't think they are correlated at all. That would mean there is a direct connection and there really isn't a direct connection between the two.

Eh, word it how you like, but power has to be some sort of advantage when it comes to OBP. It is not necessary, but it helps.

dougdirt
07-31-2008, 02:36 AM
Power doesn't really cause you to have a better OBP. Not swinging at bad pitches does. If a pitcher throws you bad pitches more because you have power but you still swing at them, its not going to help your OBP. Often you will find guys with power with a strong understanding of the strikezone. Those guys hit for power because they understand what they can hit and do. They don't walk because they hit for power, they walk because they don't chase bad pitches out of the zone.

TRF
07-31-2008, 09:55 AM
Power doesn't really cause you to have a better OBP. Not swinging at bad pitches does. If a pitcher throws you bad pitches more because you have power but you still swing at them, its not going to help your OBP. Often you will find guys with power with a strong understanding of the strikezone. Those guys hit for power because they understand what they can hit and do. They don't walk because they hit for power, they walk because they don't chase bad pitches out of the zone.

Yet Stubbs draws his fair share of Walks without power now because he doesn't swing at bad pitches. He does have poor judgment within the zone, and cannot punish balls he does hit.

You cannot tell me that Dunn draws 100+ BB's a season solely due to the fact that he doesn't chase balls out of the zone that often. He gets a lot of "intentional" unintentional walks. THAT's what power does for OBP.

And that is what Stubbs needs to develop.

Has anyone yet shown a player with Stubbs skillset becoming any kind of offensive force in MLB for a sustained period of time? Cameron might be his ceiling IF he develops power, but Milner might be his dead on comp.

Thanks, but ain't reaching high IMO. Some of us remember Eddie Milner.

dougdirt
07-31-2008, 12:01 PM
I am not sure you can say Stubbs has poor judgement in the zone. What is that based on?

I never said Dunn doesn't get pitched around, but if he didn't understand the strikezone it wouldn't matter. He would swing at everything like some players do. Dunn's ability to understand the strikezone is what leads to all of his walks. If he were Adam Dunn's Power mixed with Corey Patterson's strikezone judgment, he wouldn't draw hardly any walks. Power doesn't lead to walks. Strikezone judgment does. Power makes pitchers pitch to you carefully, but only a players strikezone judgment is going to keep him from swinging at junk.

Hoosier Red
07-31-2008, 12:12 PM
But if you don't have the power to hit pitches in the zone, pitchers have no reason to "pitch carefully" thus more strikes, fewer balls. Thus fewer walks.

Power doesn't necessarily lead to more walks, but power does make it easier because more balls are thrown out of the zone.

dougdirt
07-31-2008, 12:20 PM
Walks don't lead to a higher OBP though. Not exactly. Hits can replace walks. This isn't a Drew Stubbs deal, its a power=OBP deal.

camisadelgolf
07-31-2008, 04:32 PM
Both parties are right on this topic (the OBP/power correlation) --it's just being interpreted differently.

TRF
07-31-2008, 06:58 PM
July he has an OPS of .864. Where is that 'not good'?

Since his 1 good game (his 1st game at AA) what's his OPS at AA?

.662.

that's not good. Look at the overall number for the month if you want, i'm looking at his season as he progresses. He's not getting better. He's had spurts. The first week in July was his spurt, really his only "good" week since May 1. And it was a really good week too. Since then, not good. But Like I said, I think August will be more telling.

kpresidente
07-31-2008, 07:00 PM
Nobody, certainly not M2, is saying Stubbs can't recognize a bad pitch and lay off it.

Most everyone is saying he has trouble with pitches in the zone, and those he does hit he doesn't punish. And that is reflected in his SLG. And if that SLG doesn't rise, pitchers will know he can't hurt them, and his OBP WILL suffer for that.

Pitchers know he can't hurt them NOW. Yet he's still getting walked. That's the point.

TRF
07-31-2008, 07:03 PM
Pitchers know he can't hurt them NOW. Yet he's still getting walked. That's the point.

no, he's walking because he does have the sense not to swing at bad pitches. Pitchers aren't walking him "intentionally", it's just a function of the level he is playing at.

kpresidente
07-31-2008, 07:07 PM
Wow, nifty contradiction. More power would help lift his minor league OB, but it wouldn't help maintain it moving forward. Real simple question, does power aid in obtaining a higher OB or not?

Of course it does. But that's not the issue with Stubbs.

Stubbs isn't showing much power right now, and yet still has a decent OBP.

How is that possible if it's impossible (as you claim) to carry a decent OBP without power?

Unless you're claiming his OBP is a sample size anomaly, which I don't think is the case. But even if it were the case, then why comment about his power at all? If the sample size is too small to judge his OBP, then it's also too small to judge his SLG.

kpresidente
07-31-2008, 07:12 PM
no, he's walking because he does have the sense not to swing at bad pitches. Pitchers aren't walking him "intentionally", it's just a function of the level he is playing at.

Is it? Then why doesn't every single-A player get a ton of walks?

Highlifeman21
07-31-2008, 07:25 PM
Is it? Then why doesn't every single-A player get a ton of walks?

Stubbs seems to have a good sense of the strike zone and doesn't swing at bad pitches.

Stubbs' problem is making contact with the pitches when he takes a hack. He's contact impaired, in that department.

Not all kids at A can lay off the garbage. Thankfully, Stubbs can, and has.

Rojo
07-31-2008, 08:30 PM
Stubbs seems to have a good sense of the strike zone and doesn't swing at bad pitches.

Stubbs' problem is making contact with the pitches when he takes a hack. He's contact impaired, in that department.

Not all kids at A can lay off the garbage. Thankfully, Stubbs can, and has.

I think people are forgetting that the difference between the majors and the minors. Minor-league pitchers throw balls because they can't find the plate. Minor-league hitters often don't walk because they swing at crap because they want singles, doubles, homers and all that rot.

kpresidente
07-31-2008, 08:57 PM
I think people are forgetting that the difference between the majors and the minors. Minor-league pitchers throw balls because they can't find the plate. Minor-league hitters often don't walk because they swing at crap because they want singles, doubles, homers and all that rot.

That's true, in the sense that Stubbs will see pitchers with better control as he moves through the ranks.

But then again, his plate discipline will improve as well (presumably).

So it all equals out.

On the same theme, major-league pitchers have a lot better stuff than minor-league pitchers, yet guys still rake in the majors. The hitters get better, too.

The bottom line here is that Stubbs had a .370 OBP at single-A, and as he progresses, he should be expected to maintain that at the same rate that any other minor-league hitter would be expected to maintain it. Slugger or not.

Rojo
07-31-2008, 09:05 PM
That's true, in the sense that Stubbs will see pitchers with better control as he moves through the ranks.

He'll also see pitchers with better stuff and he's not exactly slamming the farm hands.

kpresidente
07-31-2008, 09:21 PM
He'll also see pitchers with better stuff and he's not exactly slamming the farm hands.

So the pitchers will get better but Stubbs won't? Uh, huh...

Given the fact that Stubbs is a "tools" prospect as opposed to a "production" prospect, it's more likely that his development will outpace the pitchers.

M2
08-01-2008, 12:15 AM
Power doesn't really cause you to have a better OBP. Not swinging at bad pitches does. If a pitcher throws you bad pitches more because you have power but you still swing at them, its not going to help your OBP.

Conversely, if you know not to swing at so many bad pitches (like Stubbs) and your power causes pitchers to nibble against you, then you will draw more walks. Yet if pitchers don't fear what you can do them in the strike zone, then less nibbling and fewer walks for you.

Without power, Stubbs won't be able to take proper advantage of his selectivity. He's got to buy himself those pitches out of the zone. It's a key component of the game he needs to play.

M2
08-01-2008, 12:21 AM
So the pitchers will get better but Stubbs won't? Uh, huh...

The pitchers are better at higher levels, that's just a fact of life ... and Stubbs is going to need to improve significantly to compete against them. Collectively the degree of difficulty rises and not every individual is equipped to meet that challenge.

TRF
08-01-2008, 11:10 AM
The pitchers are better at higher levels, that's just a fact of life ... and Stubbs is going to need to improve significantly to compete against them. Collectively the degree of difficulty rises and not every individual is equipped to meet that challenge.

And he's not improving. All I heard in June was that Stubbs low SLG was due to the FSL. Well he's in the Southern League now and surprise! He once again has a low SLG. And his OPS is dropping like a stone.

dougdirt
08-01-2008, 11:54 AM
And he's not improving. All I heard in June was that Stubbs low SLG was due to the FSL. Well he's in the Southern League now and surprise! He once again has a low SLG. And his OPS is dropping like a stone.

He has been there two weeks. Two.

TRF
08-01-2008, 12:49 PM
He has been there two weeks. Two.

yup. and you said he'd see an immediate bump as he left the FSL.

didn't happen. I also said I'd discount July. August will be way more telling. I hope he OPS's .850. He won't, but I hope he will. I think he'll struggle to OPS .710.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2008, 01:08 PM
And he's not improving. All I heard in June was that Stubbs low SLG was due to the FSL. Well he's in the Southern League now and surprise! He once again has a low SLG. And his OPS is dropping like a stone.


With this small of a sample size (two weeks) one decent game and Stubbs would go over .800 again.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2008, 01:13 PM
Dickerson is no longer listed on the Bats roster meaning he may have been called up.

BRM
08-01-2008, 01:19 PM
Dickerson is no longer listed on the Bats roster meaning he may have been called up.

And Hairston still is. Would Dickerson get called up while Hairston stays in Louisville? That goes against what Walt said yesterday.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2008, 01:23 PM
Dickerson is no longer listed on the Bats roster meaning he may have been called up.

Nice.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2008, 01:24 PM
I'm an idiot. I thought this was the Chris Dickerson thread.

BRM
08-01-2008, 01:25 PM
I'm an idiot. I thought this was the Chris Dickerson thread.

It's okay. We're used to it with you.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2008, 01:27 PM
It's okay. We're used to it with you.

Suck one.

;)

BRM
08-01-2008, 01:32 PM
Suck one.

;)

You're not very nice...

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2008, 01:35 PM
You're not very nice...

It's Dunn's fault that I'm so mean.

medford
08-01-2008, 01:36 PM
well OBM, its the first piece of new information this thread has seen in 20 some pages it seems like. This is starting to turn into European Vacation. Hey kids, look Stubbs sucks, no he doesn't. Stubbs sucks, no he doesn't. Rusty Stubbs sucks, no he doesn't.

Your mention of Dickerson was like Christy Brinkley driving down the road in the Ferrari. Something new, shiny and pretty to look at. Even when you've got Beverly DeAngelo sitting next to ya in the car.

BRM
08-01-2008, 01:36 PM
I was going to blame it on Drew Stubbs but Dunn works.

camisadelgolf
08-07-2008, 03:40 AM
.

puca
08-07-2008, 09:29 AM
.

You don't say.

camisadelgolf
08-07-2008, 09:54 AM
You don't say.

Yeah, I was going to make a post that was going to say, "Instead of comparing Stubbs to Mike Cameron, what if we compared him to a Kenny Lofton with a low batting average and lots of strikeouts?", but I remembered two things:

1. The Mike Cameron comparison is still better.
2. I'm tired of seeing people argue about Drew Stubbs.

M2
08-07-2008, 01:43 PM
what if we compared him to a Kenny Lofton with a low batting average and lots of strikeouts?

You mean to a Kenny Lofton who's nothing like Kenny Lofton?

camisadelgolf
08-07-2008, 02:04 PM
You mean to a Kenny Lofton who's nothing like Kenny Lofton?

Exactly. Hence, my post became '.'.

Kingspoint
08-08-2008, 03:15 AM
Stubbs had 2 Outfield Assists tonight in a 2-0 win....one at home and the other at 2nd Base. Henry also had an Outfield Assist tonight in the game, nailing the same guy at 2nd Base that Stubbs had gotten.

ochre
08-08-2008, 11:15 AM
Stubbs had 2 Outfield Assists tonight in a 2-0 win....one at home and the other at 2nd Base. Henry also had an Outfield Assist tonight in the game, nailing the same guy at 2nd Base that Stubbs had gotten.
Freel's rehabbing in another organization? Weird.

RedlegJake
08-08-2008, 12:01 PM
Freel's rehabbing in another organization? Weird.

:D Now that's funny, I don't care what anybody says...

Redman15
08-08-2008, 01:00 PM
Stubbs had 2 Outfield Assists tonight in a 2-0 win....one at home and the other at 2nd Base. Henry also had an Outfield Assist tonight in the game, nailing the same guy at 2nd Base that Stubbs had gotten.

I think the ball bounced off Henry's head to Stubbs and he threw him out.

Kingspoint
08-09-2008, 02:27 AM
I think the ball bounced off Henry's head to Stubbs and he threw him out.


Seriously? It was from the same play?

Screwball
08-09-2008, 11:46 AM
I think the ball bounced off Henry's head to Stubbs and he threw him out.

That's just silly.

[/Canseco]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:kTpFRbIDoTHGTM:http://www4.stat.ncsu.edu/~reiland/head_home_run.jpg