PDA

View Full Version : Heisey/Stubbs



membengal
04-22-2009, 03:00 PM
Disclaimer at the outset:

This is NOT a thread in any way to bash Drew Stubbs, who I hope against hope catches fire, and soon, if only to be an asset in a deal this summer.

Now, on to the show. They were drafted in the same year, do I have that right? One the first rounder with all the expectations, and the other far later, the guy flying below the radar?

As the years have unfolded, I think we can agree that Heisey has outperformed Stubbs (or at least matched him), and the contrast to the start of their 2009 campaigns could not be more stark.

My question is an organizational one: If Heisey has rocketed past Stubbs as a prospect, and one could make the argument that he has, is there a psychological barrier to an organization, say, the Reds, admitting that and allowing themselves to view the lesser heralded and lower drafted Heisey as being more of a propsect than the more heralded Stubbs?

Is Heisey a better prospect than Stubbs at this point? They have Heisey at a level lower, but, man, in all fairness, perhaps those two ought to be switched.

Have at it, folks.

ETA:

Heisey's stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=heisey001chr

Stubbs' stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=stubbs001and

dougdirt
04-22-2009, 03:04 PM
Here is how I lay this out twice a week over on my website.

Chris Heisey is a better hitter right now than Drew Stubbs is. Drew Stubbs has the potential to be a better hitter than Chris Heisey because of the power potential he has that Chris simply doesn't have. Drew hasn't shown that he can consistently use that light tower power the does possess, but its the thing that Heisey just isn't likely to gain.

Drew is the better defender of the two, but Chris is still a fine centerfielder. Ultimately though, Drews power potential is what makes him the better prospect for now though.

I used to feel that Chris Heisey was a Chris Denorfia type of guy. I am beginning to think I am selling Heisey a little short with that comparison.

membengal
04-22-2009, 03:10 PM
Career stats (through end of 2008) summed up for each:

Heisey (born Dec. 14, 1984):


.291/.365/.433 for a .799 OPS (1345 plate appearances) 25 HR 65 SB (13 caught stealing)

Stubbs (born Oct. 4, 1984):


.269/.367/.415 for a .783 OPS (1375 plate appearances) 25 HR 75 SB (28 caught stealing)

I hear you on Stubbs' power potential, Doug, I guess, but at this point, shouldn't Heisey be viewed as having similar power potential, based on what we have seen and are seeing? Their plate appearances and counting stats are remarkably similar to this point, only now Heisey is going nuclear, and the power appears to be setting in...

thorn
04-22-2009, 03:11 PM
From my understanding, a "Prospect" ranking can't be determined by numbers alone. So I can't really say Heisey is a better "Prospect" than Stubbs because I'm not a scout and I don't watch them play. Having said that, if it's based on numbers, Heisey is clearly a better player and I will say this, if Stubbs had put up the numbers Heisey has, he'd be a #1 prospect and already with the Reds.

dougdirt
04-22-2009, 03:18 PM
I hear you on Stubbs' power potential, Doug, I guess, but at this point, shouldn't Heisey be viewed as having similar power potential, based on what we have seen and are seeing? Their plate appearances and counting stats are remarkably similar to this point, only now Heisey is going nuclear, and the power appears to be setting in...

Power Potential has very little to do with actual power numbers. Stubbs is a solid 60 on the raw power rating in the scouting scale. Heisey is more like a 40-45. Basically, Stubbs has the potential to be a 25 HR guy in the majors... while Heisey is more like a 10-15 HR guy. Potential is the key word of course, but the difference in their potential is quite big.

camisadelgolf
04-22-2009, 03:21 PM
Stubbs' and Heisey's OPS numbers are similar, but anyone who has seen the two will tell you that Stubbs plays better defense. Based on those two things alone, I'd say they're pretty equal, but Stubbs has much more room for development, which makes him a better prospect in my mind.

membengal
04-22-2009, 03:21 PM
Ever see a prospect for whom the power potential in terms of the scouting number is simply off on the low side? For instance, perhaps Heisey has turned into more of a "solid 60" as he has developed than the scouts might have foreseen? Mind you, I am just asking questions out of genuine curiosity. There has to be some point where some players turn out to be "more" (for lack of a better word) than scouts foresaw in terms of skill-set etc?

camisadelgolf
04-22-2009, 03:22 PM
If Heisey ever develops to that point, I think we'll see a big decrease in his range.

mace
04-22-2009, 03:22 PM
Wow, the similarity in stats is striking. When you combine that with the fact that they both play a great center field, they both run extremely well, they're both the same age . . .

If Stubbs were currently putting up Heisey's numbers, I fully suspect that he'd be a very hot topic, and folks would be pushing him for the big leagues. The nature of the beast is that Heisey will have to prove himself longer and stronger to get the same shot. But he appears to be doing that. What's really exciting about Heisey is that, as well as he's playing, the best part of his game is said to be the stuff that doesn't show up in the stats.

One other note on their relative power: The power numbers for their minor-league careers are nearly identical. Granted, Stubbs can hit the ball farther. But is that what matters? Isn't what matters the frequency of the power, as opposed to the length of it? Add to that the fact that Heisey's power seems to be on the rise at the moment.

I'm with membengal in that I'm pulling for Stubbs, and recognize that he's playing in a tougher league. I still like his upside. But I'm pulling for Heisey, too. I like his everything.

dougdirt
04-22-2009, 03:25 PM
Ever see a prospect for whom the power potential in terms of the scouting number is simply off on the low side? For instance, perhaps Heisey has turned into more of a "solid 60" as he has developed than the scouts might have foreseen? Mind you, I am just asking questions out of genuine curiosity. There has to be some point where some players turn out to be "more" (for lack of a better word) than scouts foresaw in terms of skill-set etc?

Sure, that does indeed happen from time to time. That said, I don't really think Heisey has developed that type of power. His swing just doesn't have that 'power' in it. He is a gap to gap hitter who makes a lot of solid contact.

membengal
04-22-2009, 03:26 PM
That's a heckuva nice power stroke he has entered 2009 with. Or does Carolina play as an extreme hitters park?

lollipopcurve
04-22-2009, 03:32 PM
One of the things that has impressed me about Heisey over the last couple of years is how consistent he is. The peaks and valleys are really ironed out. He just does not hit the skids for like a week, like a lot of players do (Stubbs being one of them). His major improvement as he's ascended through the minors has been in his plate discipline. With that growth, as we know, comes other offensive gains, which may be starting to evidence themselves. You cannot ignore the fact that Heisey is out of Messiah College, while Stubbs is out of Texas -- thus the learning curve for Heisey has been more challenging, skewing the statistical totals in his favor, I'd say.

dougdirt
04-22-2009, 03:53 PM
You cannot ignore the fact that Heisey is out of Messiah College, while Stubbs is out of Texas -- thus the learning curve for Heisey has been more challenging, skewing the statistical totals in his favor, I'd say.

I can't buy into that simply given how raw Stubbs was coming out of college. He has made two major changes to his swing since being drafted out of Texas. I can't say the same for Heisey. To me, Heisey has likely had to make fewer adjustments as far as his natural swing than Stubbs. Heisey had a swing coming out of college that was suited for wooden bats. Stubbs didn't really. Sure, Stubbs saw better pitching at Texas, but I don't think that is really something that caused the adjustment period to sway one way or the other.

membengal
04-22-2009, 04:44 PM
Anyone with any guesses as to the psychologic component that an organization might have to go through in a situation where a lesser known prospect is passing a higher drafted prospect? It really is asking at what point do you wonder if your scouts got it wrong...

dougdirt
04-22-2009, 04:47 PM
Anyone with any guesses as to the psychologic component that an organization might have to go through in a situation where a lesser known prospect is passing a higher drafted prospect? It really is asking at what point do you wonder if your scouts got it wrong...

You are asking the wrong question. Players aren't drafted for what they are, they are drafted for what they can be. Your scouts measure a lot of things, but mostly its tools. Your coaches have to be able to take those tools and turn them into skills.

membengal
04-22-2009, 04:53 PM
You are asking the wrong question. Players aren't drafted for what they are, they are drafted for what they can be. Your scouts measure a lot of things, but mostly its tools. Your coaches have to be able to take those tools and turn them into skills.

Nope, I am asking the exact question I want to be. Sometimes, scouts get it wrong, and players are NOT going to be what they were thought they could be. And others are drafted who are undersold, and end up being MUCH more than what they were thought to be.

Scouting is not an exact science, obviously.

So, I am right where I want to be on the question. At what point does an organization realize that the lesser heralded has shot past (or is passing) the more heralded? And is there a psychologic component in "needing to be right" in terms of the more heralded that makes that a longer process than need be...

dougdirt
04-22-2009, 05:21 PM
Nope, I am asking the exact question I want to be. Sometimes, scouts get it wrong, and players are NOT going to be what they were thought they could be. And others are drafted who are undersold, and end up being MUCH more than what they were thought to be.

Scouting is not an exact science, obviously.

So, I am right where I want to be on the question. At what point does an organization realize that the lesser heralded has shot past (or is passing) the more heralded? And is there a psychologic component in "needing to be right" in terms of the more heralded that makes that a longer process than need be...

I still think you phrased it wrong. You are questioning the scouts opinion of ones potential ceiling, then blaming them for being unable to reach that it when they have little to nothing to do with trying to turn the players tools into baseball skills. At the same time some players do turn into something you didn't see. Danny Herrera was a 48th round draft pick for example. Now he is getting Major League hitters out (at times). Maybe a guy like him was undersold by a scout, but maybe he wasn't. Maybe somewhere along the road Herrera added something he didn't have before that changed the game.

As for when an organization realizes something, it just all depends on the situation. The Reds didn't take much time to pass Homer Bailey with Johnny Cueto. Its just all dependent on the specific situation at hand.

membengal
04-22-2009, 05:29 PM
I am not trying to turn this into an indictment of scouts, Doug.

It seems a basic premise, at some point a player who was rated more highly (for legit reasons) might get passed by a player who at one time was seen as the lesser prospect (for legit reasons). But those early guesses may not have been born out for any of a number of reasons (talent, coaching, whatever). It is the nature of the beast. No biggie.

I am more curious about an organizations willingness to be real about when that happens and willingness to acknowledge that it has happened at a point in time that will allow the initially lesser thought of prospect to advance...

camisadelgolf
04-22-2009, 07:28 PM
If Heisey has rocketed past Stubbs as a prospect, and one could make the argument that he has, is there a psychological barrier to an organization, say, the Reds, admitting that and allowing themselves to view the lesser heralded and lower drafted Heisey as being more of a propsect than the more heralded Stubbs?
I think the answer to this is an obvious 'yes'. It's not just a Reds thing, though. The more you invest in something, the more you hope and expect to get out of your investment. In the case of Heisey vs. Stubbs, Stubbs has shown that he clearly has the higher ceiling, which is why the Reds are continuing to give him more opportunity. He has more of a tendency to take a walk, plays better defense, has more speed, and more power potential. The only advantage Heisey has over Stubbs is that Heisey is more polished for his age. Stubbs may never reach that level of polish, but even if he doesn't, he'll probably have about the same value to a team as Heisey.


Is Heisey a better prospect than Stubbs at this point? They have Heisey at a level lower, but, man, in all fairness, perhaps those two ought to be switched.
This has already been covered multiple times by several of us here. I'm not really sure what you were hoping would come from this thread, membengal. You basically started a new thread to ask two 'yes/no' questions that could have been asked in one of the many threads about Drew Stubbs and/or Chris Heisey.

membengal
04-22-2009, 07:33 PM
My bad for dipping my toe in. Won't happen again. I yield to you all.

Scrap Irony
04-23-2009, 12:38 AM
A less heralded prospect passing one that's more heralded? Happens all the time. Will Heisey be an example of that? Perhaps. It really depends on your time frame.

First, he'd have to continue hitting extremely well in AA Carolina, then he'd have to hit well in Louisville.

Stubbs would probably have to struggle as well.

Certainly all are within the realm of possibility as early as this season. If so, Heisey becomes the fair-haired CF prospect, with Stubbs an intriguing fourth OF.

bucksfan2
04-23-2009, 08:34 AM
I am not trying to turn this into an indictment of scouts, Doug.

It seems a basic premise, at some point a player who was rated more highly (for legit reasons) might get passed by a player who at one time was seen as the lesser prospect (for legit reasons). But those early guesses may not have been born out for any of a number of reasons (talent, coaching, whatever). It is the nature of the beast. No biggie.

I am more curious about an organizations willingness to be real about when that happens and willingness to acknowledge that it has happened at a point in time that will allow the initially lesser thought of prospect to advance...

It is defiantly interesting thought. There are many times that a late round draft pick out performs a higher pick and ends of becoming a very good baseball player. Heck the best player in baseball, Albert Pujols was a later round pick, and one of the best pitchers in baseball, Jake Peavy, was a later round pick.

Once all players are signed and placed into the minor league system all things aren't even. Top picks are going to be given more rope because of the investment in them. In this situation Stubbs and Heisey were drafted in the same round for the same positions. Both have played to similar numbers throughout their minor league career. But the issue is that neither has separated themselves from the other and Stubbs is more likely to get the nod because of his raw tools.

I don't believe that an organization will overlook a lower round pick if he starts to display talents that a club didn't forsee. I just don't see any organization keeping its lower round draft picks down because of draft order. If Heisey would separate himself far enough from Stubbs then he will be in the bigs before Stubbs.

TRF
04-23-2009, 12:53 PM
You are asking the wrong question. Players aren't drafted for what they are, they are drafted for what they can be. Your scouts measure a lot of things, but mostly its tools. Your coaches have to be able to take those tools and turn them into skills.

That's a black and white argument, blanketed over every player drafted.

And it's wrong. Some players are drafted for potential, some players are drafted because of what they are, regardless of potential. Juan Duran is all potential and tools because there is no track record, no real development yet. Strassburg (sp?) is the concensus #1 not because of his potential, but because of his skill level right now. It's not like he's going to add MPH to his FB. Guys like him, Prior, and Lincecum help the team that select them almost immediately. Of course they will progress a little, as they learn the hitters etc, but overall they are what they are.

I'd agree that most of the draft is based on potential. We know what a crapshoot it is. But sometimes its that the drafting team gets who they want based on what they are at the moment without thinking how much they MIGHT have to develop the raw tools. Darnell McDonald is a perfect example. McDonald was a man among boys in High School, and has taken a looooong route to the major leagues. If a scouts only job is physical tools, then it's another reason why NFL scouting is so much better than MLB scouting. Do MLB scouts gague intelligence? How do you determine work ethic? adaptibility? How does the organization own up to the fact that a lower round pick is passing the higher round pick?

Basically I am agreeing with membengal on this one.

mth123
04-23-2009, 12:55 PM
My take on this is that 1st rounders have decent trade value for a few years whether or not they have performed. OTOH, its more likely a team will realize value from a late rounder by giving him a shot.

Deal Stubbs for a position that doesn't have other prospects on the way. Keep Heisey and give him whatever shot was in the plan for Stubbs.

dougdirt
04-23-2009, 01:25 PM
That's a black and white argument, blanketed over every player drafted.

And it's wrong. Some players are drafted for potential, some players are drafted because of what they are, regardless of potential. Juan Duran is all potential and tools because there is no track record, no real development yet. Strassburg (sp?) is the concensus #1 not because of his potential, but because of his skill level right now. It's not like he's going to add MPH to his FB. Guys like him, Prior, and Lincecum help the team that select them almost immediately. Of course they will progress a little, as they learn the hitters etc, but overall they are what they are.

I'd agree that most of the draft is based on potential. We know what a crapshoot it is. But sometimes its that the drafting team gets who they want based on what they are at the moment without thinking how much they MIGHT have to develop the raw tools. Darnell McDonald is a perfect example. McDonald was a man among boys in High School, and has taken a looooong route to the major leagues. If a scouts only job is physical tools, then it's another reason why NFL scouting is so much better than MLB scouting. Do MLB scouts gague intelligence? How do you determine work ethic? adaptibility? How does the organization own up to the fact that a lower round pick is passing the higher round pick?

Basically I am agreeing with membengal on this one.
Lincecum doesn't belong in the same sentence as Prior, and really neither does Starsburg until he steps onto the major league field and does it. Prior was dominant in college and had about no question marks on his resume. Lincecum had a huge control wart on his resume coming out of college. Strasburg doesn't have that either, but we don't know for sure he will transition in the same way that Prior did (its likely, but still, we don't know).

As for your Strasburg comment, its wrong. Most scouts think he is a #3 pitcher right now in the majors. Thats not his ceiling and some actually DO think he will add velocity. A scouts job isn't only evaluating the physical tools.... obviously LeBron James has the physical tools to be a great baseball athlete, but that doesn't mean he would get drafted. Having some baseball skill does have to be there, but hardly anyone is drafted and a finished product at age 18-22. And scouts do evaluate things beyond just 'tools', you just don't often hear about them when someone talks about a player because its not as sexy as saying 'He is a 5 tool guy with 30/30 potential'.

Sure, some guys are drafted based upon what they are currently, but those guys are about two a year and wind up with Major League deals or maybe college relievers taken in the first round. Most guys are drafted based upon what they will become though, not what they are because the amount of players able to go directly from the draft to the Major Leagues is so incredibly small that it's hardly worth discussing.

lollipopcurve
04-24-2009, 09:03 AM
How does the organization own up to the fact that a lower round pick is passing the higher round pick?

People should understand that Heisey was a good piece of scouting by the Reds. Any time a 17th rounder becomes a legit prospect, you've plucked a diamond from the rough. Especially when he comes from a small school. Lotta teams would have taken Stubbs as high as the Reds did (remember, too, that that draft class was considered pretty weak at the top). And Heisey was clearly not scouted better by any other club. Trying to frame the Stubbs/Heisey debate as some sign of scouting confusion on the part of the Reds is really unfair.

mth123
04-24-2009, 09:30 AM
People should understand that Heisey was a good piece of scouting by the Reds. Any time a 17th rounder becomes a legit prospect, you've plucked a diamond from the rough. Especially when he comes from a small school. Lotta teams would have taken Stubbs as high as the Reds did (remember, too, that that draft class was considered pretty weak at the top). And Heisey was clearly not scouted better by any other club. Trying to frame the Stubbs/Heisey debate as some sign of scouting confusion on the part of the Reds is really unfair.

Agree completely. Heisey should be viewed as a success, not a Stubbs failure. A lot of teams whiff on the first rounder.

TRF
04-24-2009, 11:12 AM
Lincecum doesn't belong in the same sentence as Prior, and really neither does Starsburg until he steps onto the major league field and does it. Prior was dominant in college and had about no question marks on his resume. Lincecum had a huge control wart on his resume coming out of college. Strasburg doesn't have that either, but we don't know for sure he will transition in the same way that Prior did (its likely, but still, we don't know).

As for your Strasburg comment, its wrong. Most scouts think he is a #3 pitcher right now in the majors. Thats not his ceiling and some actually DO think he will add velocity. A scouts job isn't only evaluating the physical tools.... obviously LeBron James has the physical tools to be a great baseball athlete, but that doesn't mean he would get drafted. Having some baseball skill does have to be there, but hardly anyone is drafted and a finished product at age 18-22. And scouts do evaluate things beyond just 'tools', you just don't often hear about them when someone talks about a player because its not as sexy as saying 'He is a 5 tool guy with 30/30 potential'.

Sure, some guys are drafted based upon what they are currently, but those guys are about two a year and wind up with Major League deals or maybe college relievers taken in the first round. Most guys are drafted based upon what they will become though, not what they are because the amount of players able to go directly from the draft to the Major Leagues is so incredibly small that it's hardly worth discussing.

Way too much data suggests that he's likely at his ceiling (Strassburg) has been reached as far as velocity. the human body just cannot throw harder.

I do get what you are saying about potential, but at some point an org has to realize the player may never reach it. Scouting based on tools alone cannot measure a players ability to adapt and progress. The NFL has done a much better job in this regard than MLB has. I'm trying really hard not to bash on Stubbs anymore, because I beat that horse to death. My biggest problem with him now isn't his fault actually. I think the Reds have completely mismanaged him. He absolutely should have started 2009 at AA. His winter ball stats were awful, he didn't impress in ST, and he's been overmatched thus far at AAA in 2009. He didn't dominate AA, he was destroyed at High A for most of his time there, yet because of his "potential" and likely his draft position, he's been fast tracked ahead of players that are actually outperforming him. Even though Dorn is also struggling at AAA, it's where he needs to be because he's earned it. The Reds need to let Stubbs earn it, and he hasn't. And he's falling behinf Heisey, likely because while Stubbs may be more physically gifted, the Reds aren't allowing him to develop properly. Maybe the scouts got it right with Stubbs, but what's happened after has been less than stellar.

bucksfan2
04-24-2009, 11:50 AM
Way too much data suggests that he's likely at his ceiling (Strassburg) has been reached as far as velocity. the human body just cannot throw harder.

True on the velocity part. You are only given so much in terms of velocity. You may be able to be better conditioned and better strength trained in order to keep velocity late in the game, but you aren't going to gain 3 mph on a 96 mph heater.

But you can learn to throw your pitches better, locate better, develop more movement, etc. All can lead to become a better pitcher.


I do get what you are saying about potential, but at some point an org has to realize the player may never reach it. Scouting based on tools alone cannot measure a players ability to adapt and progress. The NFL has done a much better job in this regard than MLB has. I'm trying really hard not to bash on Stubbs anymore, because I beat that horse to death. My biggest problem with him now isn't his fault actually. I think the Reds have completely mismanaged him. He absolutely should have started 2009 at AA. His winter ball stats were awful, he didn't impress in ST, and he's been overmatched thus far at AAA in 2009. He didn't dominate AA, he was destroyed at High A for most of his time there, yet because of his "potential" and likely his draft position, he's been fast tracked ahead of players that are actually outperforming him. Even though Dorn is also struggling at AAA, it's where he needs to be because he's earned it. The Reds need to let Stubbs earn it, and he hasn't. And he's falling behinf Heisey, likely because while Stubbs may be more physically gifted, the Reds aren't allowing him to develop properly. Maybe the scouts got it right with Stubbs, but what's happened after has been less than stellar.

Its really unfair to compare the NFL draft to the MLB draft. The NFL draft has a much more standardized drafting pool. You have 20-22 year olds you are drafting amongst. In MLB you have HS players that you need to project as well as college jr's and sr's. The HS players and college jr's have an added form of leverage because they can go to college or back for their senior season. I would also say that football is a much easier sport to play.

dougdirt
04-24-2009, 11:55 AM
Way too much data suggests that he's likely at his ceiling (Strassburg) has been reached as far as velocity. the human body just cannot throw harder. Except the data suggests guys can throw harder, because they have. There is also the thought that he can continue to carry his 97-100 MPH velocity further into the game.



I do get what you are saying about potential, but at some point an org has to realize the player may never reach it. Scouting based on tools alone cannot measure a players ability to adapt and progress. The NFL has done a much better job in this regard than MLB has. I'm trying really hard not to bash on Stubbs anymore, because I beat that horse to death. My biggest problem with him now isn't his fault actually. I think the Reds have completely mismanaged him. He absolutely should have started 2009 at AA. His winter ball stats were awful, he didn't impress in ST, and he's been overmatched thus far at AAA in 2009.
Sure, at some point they do.... but its usually when the guy is out there playing like BJ Szymanski did and the signs were very obvious. No offense to BJ, but he couldn't hit, never showed the signs that he could and eventually it was evident that he wouldn't. Again though, you are making an assumption that scouts only look at tools. Thats not true, you just don't often hear about the other stuff because its not as sexy. As for winter stats, spring training and AAA so far, I wouldn't pay much attention to them, the sample size on all of them are small at best.



He didn't dominate AA, he was destroyed at High A for most of his time there, yet because of his "potential" and likely his draft position, he's been fast tracked ahead of players that are actually outperforming him. Even though Dorn is also struggling at AAA, it's where he needs to be because he's earned it. The Reds need to let Stubbs earn it, and he hasn't. And he's falling behinf Heisey, likely because while Stubbs may be more physically gifted, the Reds aren't allowing him to develop properly. Maybe the scouts got it right with Stubbs, but what's happened after has been less than stellar.

Or the Reds saw something that you couldn't by only reading his box score lines and pushed him to AA and AAA where he hit much better than he did in High A where lots of really good players struggle to OPS .800. The thing you seem to overlook when talking about Stubbs is his defensive position and ability to play it. Sure, Dorn has outhit him, but Dorn also doesn't play CF or play very good defense there. He has 32 plate appearances in AAA and has 4 walks and 6 strikeouts with an 18% line drive rate. What does that tell us? Well, it tells me he hasn't been overmatched like you say he has, but it also tells me its entirely too small of a sample to take anything of significance from.

TRF
04-24-2009, 02:56 PM
Sure, at some point they do.... but its usually when the guy is out there playing like BJ Szymanski did and the signs were very obvious. No offense to BJ, but he couldn't hit, never showed the signs that he could and eventually it was evident that he wouldn't. Again though, you are making an assumption that scouts only look at tools. Thats not true, you just don't often hear about the other stuff because its not as sexy. As for winter stats, spring training and AAA so far, I wouldn't pay much attention to them, the sample size on all of them are small at best.

But the small sample at AAA in 2008 is large enough?

I get the idea of challenging hitters, but some results have to be there. He just hasn't had good results when he's been at any level for any length of time past "small sample".

Heisey had 437 AB's at Sarasota where he developed as a hitter. He was promoted at the end of the season to AA where his numbers took a tiny hit against better pitching, but he posted better power numbers than Stubbs, though his OBP was not as good. My hope is Heisey has the same developmental year as last season: 400+ AB's at AA, and 75+ at AAA this year. Stubbs, like Bailey was, is being rushed at his expense.

dougdirt
04-24-2009, 03:03 PM
But the small sample at AAA in 2008 is large enough?

I get the idea of challenging hitters, but some results have to be there. He just hasn't had good results when he's been at any level for any length of time past "small sample".

The sample in AAA in 2008 is about 3 times as large as the one now. But if we are going to make anything out of such a small sample size its going to be the eye test, not the numbers test. At least thats how I see it.


Stubbs, like Bailey was, is being rushed at his expense.
That is certainly your opinion, but for the most part I disagree with it. If a guy has shown he can handle his own somewhere as a hitter, and I would argue Stubbs hasn't done anything to suggest he can't do that at AAA (albeit in that small sample size), then he isn't being rushed. Let me ask you this.... would you rather Stubbs be in AA hitting .290/.370/.450 than in AAA hitting .275/.350/.425? Why or why not? I would rather him be in AAA seeing the more advanced pitchers and getting as much time against those guys as possible.